AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION …...l4 AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE...

AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 l4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA AND

SIZED EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED SOURCES

Originally "C.l" in 4th edition

I References: Assorted 1.8 through 12.xxx

- -

< ) . I 'fi,L&$!$>.&j .

-./- ERilB p - - - - . nn \&,?.. r United States Environmental Protection Planning and Standards May Agency

Air c. 1

Office of Air Quality

Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1 Appendix

Reference 1

NONFOSSIL FUELED BOILERS

Emission Test Report U.S. Sugar Company Bryant, Florida

Project No.: 80-WFB-6

Prepared f o r

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Emission Measurement Branch Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27711

bY

James A. Peters and Charles F. Duncan

Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 25

May 1980

MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION DAYTON LABORATORY 1515 Nicholas Road Dayton, Ohio 45407

TABLE 4 . SUMMARY OF INTEGRATED G A S ANALYSES, U.S. SUGAR-BRYANT MILL, DECEMBER 1 7 - 1 8 , 1 9 7 9

Run C O z , CO, 0 2 , N z r Mw 0 0 number Da te 0 A lb/lb mole

1 12/17/79 1 0 . 8 0.0 9 . 2 80 .0 3 0 . 1 2 12/18/79 11.1 0 .0 9 . 0 79 .9 3 0 . 1 3 12/18/79 - - - - 1 1 . 3 0 . 0 9 . 4 79 .3 3 0 . 2

Average 11.1 0 . 0 9.2 7 9 . 7 30.1

TABLE 5. SUNXARY OF ANDERSEN PARTICLE SIZING RESULTS, U . S . SUGAR-BRYANT MILL, DECEMBER 17-18 , 1 9 7 9

Run No. 1 D i s c a r d e d Run No. 2

Flow r a t e = 0.927 acfm I s o k i n e t i c r a t e = 107.1%

P e r c e n t i n Cumula t ive % S t a g e S i z e r ange s i z e r a n q e < s i z e r a n g e

P r e i m p a c t o r >10 .50 3 .99 94.55 0 >10 .50 1 . 4 6 94 .55 1 6.50 - 10.50 3 . 0 6 1 . 91.52 2 4 .30 - 6 . 5 0 7 .98 83 .54 3 2 . 9 5 - 4 . 3 0 1 1 . 3 0 72 .24 4 1 .88 - 2 .95 12 .40 59 .94 5 0 . 9 4 - 1 . 8 8 1 2 . 9 0 ’ 4 6 . 9 4 6 0.58 - 0.94 19 .15 27 .79 7 0 . 3 9 - 0 .58 16 .49 11.30

F i l t e r 0.0 - 0 .39 1 1 . 3 0 0

Run No. 3 Flow r a t e = 0.908 acfm I s o k i n e t i c r a t e = 105.5%

P e r c e n t i n Cumula t ive % S t a g e S i z e r a n g e s i z e r a n g e < s i z e r a n g e

P r e i m p a c t o r > 1 0 . 6 0 6 .56 91 -43 _- 0 >10 .60 2 . 0 1 91.43 1 6.60 - 10 .60 4.28 R 7 14 - . 2 4 . 4 0 - 6.60 7 .47 79 .67 3 3 .00 - 4 . 4 0 8 . 6 6 71 .01 4 1 . 9 0 - 3 .00 8 .66 62.35

~

5 0 . 9 6 - 1 . 9 0 1 0 . 4 8 51 .87 6 0.59 - 0 . 9 6 20.60 31 .27 7 0 .40 - 0 .59 1 6 . 6 8 14 .59

F i l t e r 0 .0 - 0.40 1 4 . 5 9 0

! 5

Office of Air Ouality Planning and Standards February 1980

EMB Repon 80-WFB-1 .e / United States Environmental Protection

- \ Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1 .. !-

I GE?A t Air

A D D e n d i x c: i R e f e r e n c e z I Nonfossil Fueled Boik

Emission Test Report -

City of Salem Salem, Virginia

NONFOSSIL FUELED BOILERS

Emission Test Report City of Salem Salem, Virginia

5-8 November 1979

Project No.: 80-WF'B-1

Prepared for

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and. Standards

Emission Measurement Branch Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27711

by

James A. Peters and Windle H. McDonald

Contract 68-02-2818, Work Assignment No. 2 3

February 1980

MONSANTO RESEARCH CORPORATION DAYTON LABORATORY 1515 Nicholas Road Dayton, Ohio 45418

1 , 1 1

TABLE 4 . SUMMARY 1) 0 INTEGRATED GAS ANALYSIS RESULTS, C I T Y OF SALEM WASTE DISPOSAL PLANT, NOVEMBER 6-7, 1979

Molecular w e i g h t , NZ r COZ, co, 02, R u n no. D a t e % % % % l b / l b * m o l e

6-1 11-6-79 7.8 0.0 11.0 81.2 7-1 11-7-79 6.2 0.0 13.2 80.6 7-2 11-7-79 7.2 0.0 12.0 80.8

29.69 29.52 29.63

A v e r a g e 7.1 0 .0 12.1 80.8 29.61

TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE S I Z I N G RESULTS, WEST STACK, C I T Y OF SALEM WASTE DISPOSAL PLANT, NOVEMBER 6-7, 1979

Run: 1 Date: 11-6-79 Flow rare, acfm: 1.10 W t % in size range,

Stage size range cum. 9 microns

0 1 2

29.4 - >10.6 10.6 70.6 6.6 - 10.6 5.5 60.0 4.5 - 6.6

3 3.7 54.5 3.05 - 4.5 4 3.3 50.8 1.94 - 3.05 5 6.9 47.5 0.99 - 1.94 6 11.9 40.6 0.62 - 0.99 7 10.7 28.7 0.43 - 0.62

Backup filter 18.0 18.0 0 - 0.43 Run: 2 Date: 11-7-79 Flow rate, acfm: 1.01

Wt % in Size range, Stage size range cum. 9 microns

O !

2 3

1 '

4 5

7.0 3.1 0.7 4.7 5.9 7.5

- >1.1. 1 . 93.0 6.9 '- '11.1 89.9 4.7 - 6.9 89.2 3.19 - 4.7 84.5 2.04 - 3.19 78.6 1.03 - 2.04

6 13.1 71.1 0.65 - 1.03 14.6 58.0 0.43 - 0.65 7

Backup filter 43.4 ' 43.4 0 - 0.43 R u n : 3 Date: 11-7-79 Flow rate, acfm: 0.82

W t % in Size range, Stage size range cum. % microns

0 1 2 3 4

33.7 1.14 - 2.26 5 6 6.6 32.5 0.72 - 1.14 7 10.2 25.9 0.49 - 0.72

Backup filter 15.7 15.7 0 - 0.49

4

.. 0 2

0

w c

m

Y

b

,-I

0

.. e x N

0

0

.. ? m

.Y

Y

E m

l- Y

e

m

m

CI

Y

u.

n

Y

4

>

3

z +I + P Y pl

U

m

Y

0

I I z

I

m

I Y

E 5

YI

5 En

m

s

ol

5 3 Y

OZ

I

uz

I

W

U

Y

Y

Ig Ig

0

0

0

0

* o

w

ow

0

.0

QO

..I

U

0

A?

.. ..

Y

Y

N

CI

m

m

2

0

e

N

10

oe

o

Im

S

H

0

MY

0

0

0

‘9

.. Y

m

t: 2 .. K

l-

YS

52

E: 22

\

YY

+e

mm

0

Y

w

U

U

5

..... \

i A

N<

~

~-

lr

ln

! I

I’ ,,

,’

I I’

m

0

e e

e

e

e,.

Q

ia

rim

m

N

\

Q

0

L

YY

W

F

44

n

o

x

Y

g

!- I- B $ E Y

1

Y

0

t

I I , I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

I I

K

0

Y

K

c n

;

Y

K

Y

U

Y

K

m m

Y

Y

K

U

m Y

0

u

m

N

Y

!- m I m 0 4

Y

!I

OQ

C 0

0 0

0

rl

bn N

0

0

i v)

Y

'I4

v)

B I-

I- t: C Y

Y n

I I I I , 0

VI

u

I4

k Y

I- u

4

8

u

9 5 t: r; 5 3 Y

P

!! VI

Y

Y

Y

Y

0

z I-

c( K

U

ln Y

0

Ei n

SW

YE

24

9g

0

0

0

0

* o

w

ow

no

m r-

9::

10.

A?

.. ..

Y

Y

N

c1 In

v) r

A

u e u

e I .-I

I n

N

n

.. Y

N

I4

111

B 5 Y

Y

U

OQ

OO

O

I.

Y

w

ZI

I

I I

', I' 8 8

9 9

0

Q

8Y

J

a

M P

m I . .

. . . .

AIR POLLUTION . . . . ,EMISSION TEST . / ,. .

. . . . . . . . . . .

..-: ~

' . . i!?, , '

. + , . ' . . i . .~ ..:..: ;,, .A . .

' . ./ .. :. ... . . . . . . . ..!:,.'.. ... . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ., .. , . .: . , . .,... , . . - - . . . . . . ..._ .~ . * z'.' 'PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY,

, - . . . . . . . . . . . . . ;. ;J ... r . / . . . . . . . . . ' (PLANT NAME 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . ,

. . , .

. . . . . . . . . .,. . , . . . . . . . . . , . , * . , '

. . . . . . . .. : - . . :I . . . . . . . I . . . . .

. . , . . . . . , . . . . . .

. .Toledo, Ohio ., . , .

_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . < ' . , . ~ ' (P L ANT ADDR E SS) . .

. . ' . . . . . . .* . . : ,. . . . . . . 2.' ' .'

. . . . . . . . . . 5 :, , .

. . . . . , _ .

. . . . I ., . . . . .

. . , _ . . . . .

I ., . .

. . . . . .. < . . .

. . . .. - . . - , . ( .

( ' . L" . . . ,. . . . . ,. :. . .

. . . . . . , a ,. . . 1' .. . . . . . . . . . . . '

.~ . . . . . . I . I

L" . . . ,. . . . . ,. :. . . . . . . . . , a ,. . . 1' ..

. . . . . . . . . . . ' .~ . . . . .

. I . I

I I I I

I

EMB Test Number 73-CBK-1

Ph i l l i p s Petroleum Company

Carbon Black Division

Toledo, Ohio

R E V I S I o E

September 1974.

. . . ~~~ ~ ~ _ -

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERCENT LESS THAA' STATED MICRON SIZE .._ 'i

+

I '

/ 4

1. .

- c, 1 , && . W A f + + & < i ) I

fl

Appendix c .1 Reference 10

hPP r-t $

1 E PA-450/2-77-0 19

September 1977 b4*. . \

'.. '@8&#&

---k bL -..;.

FINAL GUIDELINE DOCUMENT: CONTROL OF SULFURIC ACID

MIST EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION UNITS

b

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Off ice of Air and Waste Management

Off ice of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

I I

c -

E PA-4 50/2-77-0 19

FINAL GUIDELINE DOCUMENT: CONTROL OF SULFURIC ACID

MIST EMISSIONS FROM EXISTING SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION UNITS

Emission Standards and Engineering Division

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air and Waste Management

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

September 1977

6. Reference 3 , above, p. 30.

7. Reference 2 , above, p. 111-9.

8. Reference 2 , above, p. 111-10.

f

I ! _.___- - -

/' 9. Kurek, R.W. Special Report on EPP, Guidelines f o r S t a t e

\ Emission Standards for Sul fur ic Acid Plant Yist d a t e d

June 1974. E.I . d u Pont de Nemours R Co., Inc. , Industrial

Chemicals 9epartment. Wilmington, Delaware. Prepared fo r

U.S. Environmental Protection Pqency, Office of Air

Qual i ty P l a n n i n g R S t a n d a r d s . Pctober 4 , 1974. Exhibit 15. ;

10. Reference 3 , above, p. 32.

i i i

.. - .-__._c -. .

- . .. .. .. -- -- _ _ - -...~ . -. r 1 1 . B r i n k , ~ - - J . A . , -

\ April 1958. ---. --

J r . Cascade Impactor f o r Adiabatic Yeasure- i

rents. Industrial R Enaineering Chemistry. - 50: 647, __--- \ -----.--

1 2 . Reference 9, above, E x h i b i t 12.

13. Reference 2 , above, pp . 111-14, 15 and 22.

14. Reference 2 , ab0v.e. p . IV-15.

15 . Brink, J.A., J r . and C . N . Dougald. Par t icu la te Removal

from Proccss Exhaust Gases. Proceedinqs of International

Su l f i t e Conference. TAPPI and CPPA, Boston, !lass., October

30 - Novembcr 1 , 1972. nctobcr 30, 1n72. pp . 377-389.

4-1 3

development, design, a proctjcal instrunlent

make !t possible to gnvmient tested device ial purposes. Porticle- surements make possi-

!ii.ition of ucceptrible iorges of oe!moIs,

n of in:;inlled collection onal se!ection urid

!vip,rmt, ond recog- potential problems e developrnent of

Table I. Dimensions of Circade In!. pactor let+

I 0.249 0.747 2 0.1775 0.533 3 0.13Vb 0.419 4 0.0940 0.282

~3 SLOTS

. "

Collection cups are positioned so thot llie distance from the jet decreases us the jet diameter becomes smoller. Annulor slots around cup minimize turbulence

1401) niotoi' an the back side of the box. :\ lhcatcr, consisting of ihrcc 12-inch . scclions of Nichromc rcsistancc wire '

. IO--- I" 2

S'N ITC H E S---' GASES FROM PROCESS LINE

- GLASS CYCLONE-

BLOWER

THERMOSTAT4' GASES TO -e ASPIRATOR ,#

Compact moke-up of impoclor o d i t s uoril iory equipmen1 mube i f svilcble tests throvghocr: Ihe plui!l

446 INDU?IlIICI. A N D FNGINFERINS CHfMISIHY

for

/ 1

. ,i '.' C A 5 C A 0 E IMP A C T O R . .. 1 .

Distr ibution

CUMULATIVE MASS PERCENT L E S S . THAN Dp .; ;i-I Figure 1. Cumulative particle size distribution of sulfuric acid mist generated in ,\. , ,

. . : I the laboratory i s a function of mist loading and retention time . I

v) z 0 IK

' 2 E n 0

[r W I- W I 5 0

W -I

I- a I-[ a

.

2

Figure

(XJMIJLATIVE MASS PERCENT LESS THAN Dp 2. i i m d a l i v a particle size dirtribvtion of sulfuric acid : h t l aerosols

;& ,;;

, I /

. .

\ 5 ,

American Petroleum institute 2101 L Street. Northwest

rI> Washington, D.C. 20037

PARTICULATE EMISSIONS

FROM NON-FIRED SOURCES

IN PETROLEUM REFINERIES:

A REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA ..-

FINAL REPORT

Prepared f o r :

American Petroleum Institute The Particulates Task Force

r

Prepared by:

G. E. Harris and L. A. Rohlack Radian Corporation

P. 0. Box 9948 Austin, TX 70766

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Those i n d i v i d u a l s and companies who s u p p l i e d unpub l i shed d a t a de-

s e r v e a s p e c i a l commendation.

The API P a r t i c u l a t e s Task Force i s t o be commended f o r i t s respon-

s i v e n e s s and a i d i n de t e rmin ing t h e o b j e c t i v e s and approach t o t h e s t u d y .

Those Radian employees who worked on t h i s p r o j e c t and t h e i r

c o n t r i j u t i o n s i n c l u d e :

Capalonga?, d a t a s o u r c e r ev iews ; S . R. Fernandes , program management;

S . L; Henneman, r e p o r r p r o d u c t i o n ; h'. R. Hearn, e n g i n e e r i n g review; J. L.

Meling, d a t a s o u r c e r ev iews ; and t h e l i b r a r y s t a f f , s o u r c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n

a n d r e t r i e v a l .

h'. D. B a l f o u r , rev iew of t e s t methods; M. A .

i

1 . 0 INTRODUCTION

Th i s r e p o r t p r e s e n t s t h e r e s u l t s of a scudy of p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions

from non- f i r ed s o u r c e s i n pe t ro l eum refineries. Tnese s o u r c e s i n c l u d e c a t a -

l y t i c c r a c k i n g p r o c e s s e s , coking. sulfur s p e c i e s c o n t r o l o p e r a t i o n s , c o o l i n g

t o w e r s , a s p h a l t b lowing , s o l i d s h a n d l i n g , and o t h e r m i s c e l l a n e o u s s o u r c e s .

The o b j e c t i v e of t h i s MI - funded s t u d y w a s t o g a t h e r and e v a l u a t e a l l a v a i l a b l e

d a t 2 on r e f i n e r y n o n - f i r e d p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s . I n a d d i t i o n t o mass emiss ion

d a t a , the p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n (PSD) and t h e chemica l composi t ion of t he

p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r were of interest .

1.1 Technical- Approach

The t a s k of d a t a c o l l e c t i o n w a s accompl ished by a l i t e r a t u r e s e a r c h

f o r p u b l i s h e d d a t a and a l i m i t e d su rvey t o f i n d unpub l i shed d a t a . P u b l i s h e d

aa:a were i d e n t i f i e d by a combina t ion of computer based o n - l i n e s e a r c h e s and

2 macual s e a r c h of r e c e n t i s s u e s of a p p r o p r i a t e j o u r n a l s .

3ases s e a r c h e d are l i s t e d i n Table 1-1.

p u b i i s h e d l i t e r a t u r e , Radian sen: a r e q u e s t f o r unpub l i shed d a t a t o t h e EPA,

s e v e r a l s t a t e s , vendors , and s i x major o i l companies. The unpub l i shed d a t a

t h u s obca ined were used t o supplement t h e l i t e r a t u r e d a t a and to prov ide an

a c c u r a t e p i c t u r e of t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a on r e f i n e r y non- f i r ed p a r t i c u l a t e

emissions.

The o n - l i n e d a t a

A f t e r comple t ing t h e c o l l e c t i o n of

Each p i e c e of t e s t d a t a w a s c a r e f u l l y reviewed t o - d e t e r m i n e whether ?.

o r n o t i t w a s s u i t a b l e f o r i n c l u s i o n i n t h e d a t a base . ;Review c r i t e r i a i n -

c luded documenta t ion of methodology, a c c e p t a b i l i t y of test methods, documenta- . - . .

. < . -, ,.+-:+: ?: Xion of p r o c e s s c o n d i t i o n s , and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s of p r o c e s s c o n d i t i o n s .

: , .;. . .- . .. ' Based on t h e s e c r i t e r i a , each s o u r c e w a s rated a s good, f a i r , poor , unknown,

or u n a c c e p t a b l e q u a l i t y . .

i n t h e f i n a l d a t a b a s e .

Table 1 -2 .

Only s o u r c e s of good and f a i r q u a l i t y were i n c l u d e d

G u i d e l i n e s f o r a s s e s s i n g d a t a q u a l i t y a r e given i n

TABLE OF CONTEXTS

Achox ledgemen t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

1 . 0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

1.1 Technical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

1 .2 Summary of R e s u l t s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4

2 . 0 SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2 . 1 Available Data by Source Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2 . 1 . 1 C a t a l y t i c Crack ing P rocesses . . . . . . . . . . 2 - 1

2 . 1 . 1 . 1 F l u i d C a t a l y t i c Cracking Units (FCCU) . . . . . . 2-3

2.1.1.2 Othe r C a t a l y t i c Cracking P r o c e s s e s . . . . . . . 2-19

2 .1 .2 F l u i d Coking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2 .1 .3 Sulfur S p e c i e s C o n t r o l Opera t ions . . . . . . . . 2-19

2 .1 .3 .1 S u l f u r Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-19

2 .1 .3 .2 S u l f u r i c Acid P r o d u c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2 .1 .4 Cool ing Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23

2 .1 .5 Aspha l t Blowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2 . 1 . 6 N i s c e l l a n e o u s S o l i d s Handl ing . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2.2 S t u d y L i m i t a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30

2 . 3 Data Source Refe rences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31

..

I t f I

'5 L~

Figure

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

. 7-7

2-8

2-9

LIST OF FIGURES

PSD f o r FCCU's w i t h In te rna l Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

PSD f o r FCCU's w i t h Internal Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

PSD f o r FCCU's w i t h In te rna l Cyclones . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

PSD f o r FCCU w i t h E x t e r n a l Cyclone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8

PSD f o r FCCU w i t h CO B o i l e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

PSD f o r FCCU w i t h ESP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10

PSD f o r FCCU's w i t h ESP and CO B o i l e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11

PSD f o r FCCU w i t h CO B o i l e r and Sc rubbe r . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12

Conparisor! of FCCU DSD: i n t e r n a l Cyclones v s . ESP

...

and C O B o i l e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13

Xean PSD f o r FCCU's w i t h Var ious C o n t r o l Techno log ie s . . . . . 2-16

PSD f o r F l u i d Cokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-22

PSD f o r S u l f u r i c Acid T i a n t s (Duros, R # l l ) . . . . . . . . . . 2-2&

PSD f o r S u l f u r i c A c i d P l a n t s (Br ink , R#4) . . . . . . . . . . . 2-25

PSD f o r S u l f u r i c Acid P l a n t s (Donovan, RnlO) . . . . . . . . . 2-26

PSD f o r Mechanical D r a f t Cool ing Towers . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-28

PSD f o r N a t u r a l D r a f t Cool ing lowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-29

! r

2-10

2-11

2-12

2-13

2-14

2-15

2-16

..

. . .

~ 'f . . . . ~ . . ._. . . . . . . ,.~i*'. i

Table

1-1

1-2

2-1

2-2

2-3

2 - 4

2-5

2-6

L I S T OF TAELES

a On-Line Data Bases Sea rched . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

C r i t e r i a f o r E v a l u a t i n g Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

Summary of A v a i l a b l e P a r t i c u l a t e Data f o r Re f ine ry Non-Fired Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2

FCCU Mass Emission Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

Elemen ta l Composition of FCCU P a r t i c u l a t e . . . . . . . . . . . 2-16

FCCU P a r t i c u l a t e P o l y c y c l i c Organic M a t t e r Content . . . . . . 2-17

>lass &mission Data f o r o t h e r Cracking P r o c e s s e s . . . . . . . . 2-20

O t h e r Cracking P a r t i c u l a t e P o l y c y c l i c Organic M a t t e r Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21

I

f

.

TABLE 1-1. OK-LIME DATA BASES SEARCIED

Data Base D e s c r i p t i o n

.LPiLIT

@TIC

CHDIICAL ABSTRACTS

CO?IPE”EX

CO?PREXENS I V E DIS S ERTATIOS ISDEX

CONFERENCE PAPERS I N D E X

DOE ENERGY

ENVIROLINE

Worldwide r e f i n i n g l i t e r a t u r e .

Broad a i r p o l l u t i o n d a t a base .

Pape r s on pu re and a p p l i e d chemis t ry .

Worldwide coverage of major j o u r n a l s , p u b l i c a t i o n s , and s o c i e t i e s .

Guide t o d o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n s from American U n i v e r s i t i e s .

Papers from t e c h n i c a l meet ings.

L i t e r a t u r e on a l l a s p e c t s of ene rgy .

Environmental l i t e r a t u r e .

NTIS Government sponsored r e s e a r c h .

POLLUTION Worldwide env i ronmen ta l l i t e r a t u r e .

1-2

.

TABLE 1-2. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING DATA

1.

7 ̂ .

3 .

4.

5.

Good Q u a l i t y - Well documented, s t a n d a r d p rocedures have been used t o a c q u i r e t h e s e d a t a ; t h e s e d a t a have w i t h s t o o d p e e r review ( i . e . , p u b l i c a t i o n i n a r e s p e c t - j o u r n a l ) ; d a t a p r e c i s i o n and accu racy have been s ta t i s t ica l ly e v a l u a t e d .

F a i r Q u a l i t y - The p r o c e d u r e (or i n d i v i d u a l s t e p s wi th in 2 p rocedure ) i s e i t h e r p o o r l y d e f i n e d , n o t w e l l documented, or has b e e n mod i f i ed .

Poor Q u a l i t y - Data need r ep lacemen t ; i n a p p r o p r i a t e or perhaps i n v a l i d p r o c e d u r e s have been used i n d a t a a c q u i s i t i o n ; d a t a does n o t w i t h s t a n d p e e r a n a l y s i s ; t h e accu racy and p r e c i s i a n o f t h e d a t a a r e unknown or u n d e f i n e d .

Unknown Q u a l i t y - Data r e q u i r e c o r r o b o r a t i o n ; samp- l i n g a n d / o r a n a l y t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s a r e new or unknown; a p p l i c a b i l i t y of methods u s e d f o r d a t a a c q u i s i r i o n t o a s p e c i f i c problem is u n c e r t a i n .

KO P r a c t i c a l U t i l i t y - Data cannot b e s u b s t a n t i a t e d ; d a t a a r e known t o be u n r e l i a b l e znd shou ld n o t be used; d a t a l a c k some c r i t i c a l p i e c e of i n f o r m a t i o n ( f o r instance, if mass e m i s s i o n d a t a i s e x p r e s s e d i n l b / h r and no process c a p a c i t y i s given, t h e d a t a can- n o t b e normal ized f o r comparison t o o t h e r u n i t s ) .

.-

A worksheet was completed f o r each d a t a s o u r c e . These workshee t s

provided a qu ick summary of t h e d a t a s o u r c e , r e f i n e r y s o u r c e , emiss ion d a t a ,

and d a t a q u a l i t y r a t i n g . The completed workshee ts a r e i n c l u d e d a s Appendix

A , and t h e e x i s t i n g d a t a b a s e i s summarized i n S e c t i o n 2 .

1.2 Summary of R e s u l t s

A l a r g e volume o f d a t a on p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions from non- f i r ed r e -

f i n e r y s o u r c e s w a s l o c a t e d . The e x i s t i n g d a t a b a s e was deemed t o b e adequa te

f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s :

-- F l u i d C a t a l y t i c Cracking U n i t s (FCCU) w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l

c o n t r o l t echno logy ( c y c l o n e s , CO B o i l e r s , e l e c t r o s t a t i c

p r e c i p i t a t o r s , and s c r u b b e r s )

s u l f u r i c a c i d p l a n t s , and

c o o l i n g towers .

A second group of s o u r c e s w a s found t o be on ly p a r t i a l l y c h a r a c t e r -

i zed , b u t of l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e due t o extremely low p a r t i c u l a r e e m i s s i o n s

and/or u n i t p o p u l a t i o n s . That group i n c l u d e d :

o t h e r c r a c k i n g p r o c e s s e s ,

sulfur r ecove ry o p e r a t i o n s ,

a s p h a l t b l o w i n g / i n c i n e r a t i o n , and

f l u i d coking .

A t h i r d group w a s i d e n t i f i e d a s p o s s i b l y needing f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i -

z a t i o r . These u n i t s have l i t t l e c r no d a t a in t h e e x i s t i n g d a t a b a s e and

eitner have s i g n i f i c a n t c u r r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s o r growth poten : ia l . Inc iuded

1- 4

RADDAN OPPOPmO*

i n t h i s group are de layed cokers and FCCU's w i t h emerging technology ( h e a w

o i l c r a c k i n g , SO2 adso rb ing c a t a l y s t , e t c . ) .

. RADIAN - 2.0 SL?I?URY OF AVAILABLE DATA

A v a i l a b l e pub l i shed and unpub l i shed d a t a on p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions

from r e f i n e r y n o n - f i r e d s o u r c e s have been reviewed f o r t h i s s t u d y .

suminarizes t h e r e s u l t i n g d a t a b a s e by s o u r c e t y p e / c o n t r o l technology ca tego-

ries. The te rm " d a t a element," as used i n t h e t a b l e , deno tes an independent

piece of daca on a p r o c e s s u n i t . I f one l i t e r a t u r e r e f e r e n c e p r e s e n t e d d a t a

on three d i f f e r e n t u n i t s , t h a t w a s c o n s i d e r e d as t h r e e d a t a elements. I f a

source was t e s t e d t h r e e t imes on s u c c e s s i v e d a y s , t h e r e s u l t s were averaged

and cons ide red a s one d a t a e lement . I f , however, t h a t s o u r c e was t e s t e d a t

t h r e e w i d e l y s e p a r a t e d times ( e . g . , s t a r t - o f - r u n , mid-run, end-of-run), each

t e s t w a s c o n s i d e r e d a d a t a e l emen t .

Table 2-1

The d a t a have been s o r t e d by t h e t y p e o f r e f i n e r y p r o c e s s and, where

a p p r o p r i a t e , by t h e type of emis s ion c o n t r o l a p p l i e d . The d a t a have been

f u r t h e r s u b d i v i d e d i n t o mass emis s ion d a t a , p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n (PSD)

da ta , and chemica l composi t ion d a t a .

0.1 t o 10 mic rons . Th i s w a s done because most of t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a f e l l w i th -

i n t h a t r ange . The f o l l o w i n g s u b s e c t i o n s summarize t h e d a t a by t h o s e ca tego-

ries. ?lore d e t a i l e d d a t a can be found i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l workshee ts i n Appendix

The PSD d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e r ange of

. A . Each workshee t h a s a r e f e r e n c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which co r re sponds t o t h e

r e f e r e n c e l i s t a t t h e end of t h i s s e c t i o n .

2 . 1 A v a i l a b l e Data by Source Typ e

,- 2 . 3 . 1 C a t a l y t i c Cracking P r o c e s s e s

Most of t h e d a t a found i n t h e open l i t e r a t u r e were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h . .

Fluid C a t a l y t i c Cracking U n i t s (FCCU). The FCCU d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d by c o n t r o l

type, fo l lowed by a b r i e f summary of d a t a on o t h e r c a t a l y t i c c r a c k i n g p r o c e s s e s .

2-1 i

... . .

I f I z

Y - 3 -

- r I

i l . . I *i ~

4 r: - u C C u

' C 0 4 y:

-. E m \ (u c x H

3 0 N O m O O O C

A $iNm1130

01 r! N c 0 m 0 3 " N

4

'00

10

h 3 V V H v

u u d .i s c a 3

n

~~

4 0 0 0

o o o m

C N - t i

2-2 - ..

2.1.1.1 Flu id C a t a l y t i c Cracking U n i t s (FCCU)

The FCCU i s p o t e n t i a l l y t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t i c u l a t e emitter of

a i l r e f i n e r y p r o c e s s e s , b u t a v a r i e t y of s o p h i s t i c a t e d emis s ion c o n t r o l sys -

tems has g r e a t l y reduced those emis s ions . A l a r g e body of FCCU test d a t a w a s

found i n bo th t h e open l i t e r a t u r e and from unpubl i shed s o u r c e s , b u t because of

the many d i v e r s e emis s ion c o n t r o l s , t h i s s o u r c e ca t egory i s s t i l l only p a r t i a l l y

c h a r a c t e r i z e d .

The FCCU d a t a have been subd iv ided i n t o mass emiss ion d a t a , p a r t i c l e

s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n (PSD) d a t a , and chemica l composi t ion da ta . The a v a i l a b l e

mass emiss ion d a t a have been summarized i n Table 2-2. Each mass emiss ion d a t a

element is given a long w i t h i ts r e f e r e n c e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . The range and mean

of t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a are a l s o p r e s e n t e d .

Tne a v a i l a b l e p a r t i c l e s i z e d i s t r i b u t i o n (PSD) d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d

g r a p h i c a l l y i n F i g u r e s 2-1 through 2-10. F igu res 2-1 through 2-3 p r e s e n t d a t a

f o r FCCU's w i t h i n t e r n a l cyc lones . F i g u r e s 2 - 4 , 2-5, and 2-6 p r e s e n t d a t a f o r

e x t e r n a l cyc lones , CO B o i l e r , and ESP, r e s p e c t i v e l y . F igu re 2-7 p r e s e n t s PSD

da ta f o r u n i t s w i t h bo th an ESP and CO B o i l e r . Figure 2-8 p r e s e n t s d a t a on

FCC u n i t s w i t h w e t s c r u b b e r s . Figure 2-9 p r e s e n t s t he range of PSD d a t a f o r

t he two b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e d c a s e s , u n i t s w i t h i n t e r n a l cyclones and units w i t h

both ESP and CO b o i l e r . F igu re 2-10 p r e s e n t s a " t y p i c a l " ?SD f o r each c o n t r o l

technology.

A few o b s e r v a t i o n s can b e made concern ing t h e FCCU PSD d a t a . The

median p a r t i c l e s i z e ranged from under 1 t o ove r 10 microns, w i t h a mean v a l u e

i n t h e 2 t o 3 micron range. Submicron p a r t i c l e s accounted f o r from 10 t o 50

. percen t of t h e t o t a l p a r t i c u l a t e mass, and t h a t pe rcen tage i n c r e e s e d w i t h i n -

c r e a s i n g c o n t r o l e f f i c i e n c y . Particles of g r e a t e r t han 10 microns were a s i g -

c i f i c a n r component of u n c o n t r o l l e d FCCU emiss ions (15 t o 6 0 % ) , b u t were on ly a

minor p r o p o r t i o n when h i g h l y e f f i c i e n t c o n t r o l s liere used (1 t o 20%) .

2-3

-7

. . . ...

N

N I

r .., c..n -

.n c * - I

2-4

-

f

m m CI a, U U U U

Li b Li a 5 C 0 C 0 v) v) W. v)

5 2

c' CI 01 W W U U U U U $. L 1 a 0 0 0 0 0 v) v: Y; v. Ln

2 i 5 a

0 4 0 0

y: 0 c C i U x ci

r' h

N

!

i

N

d r;

Q W c rm

2 c a C 3

a

Q m c m 4 ?I e 1 P C 3

h e c) N Q E i

r - i: -4 3

v I;

!- 0 L;

c

2 c

v. c

U I

N

0 u M 1 tr

a

i

m d

Y U r, 13 m

5-

m

0

N

I i

i

i

:I ! i .

h m

C 0 h

E

2-11

c m 0) N 4 2

. _ 2-12

s 0 n 4

h m Ol N U E

ro W d M 0

Li 0 w

c v: F i

I C ri I

N ! i

!

I

Data on t h e chemica l composi t ion of p a r t i c u l a t e s from FCCU's were

foun6 f o r s even units. The m a j o r i t y o f t h e d a t a were i n o r g a n i c e l emen ta l

a n d y s i s , and t h e s e d a t a are summarized i n T a b l e 2-3. Some d a t a were a l s o

found conce rn ing p a r t i c u l a t e p o l y c y c l i c o r g a n i c m a t e r i a l (PPOM) which a r e

p r e s e n t e d i n Table 2-4.

A b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f a c t o r s which can p o t e n t i a l l y a f f e c t

p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s from an FCCU i s wor thwhi l e a t t h i s p o i n t . The most

s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i s c e r t a i n l y t h e t y p e of emis s ion c o n t r o l equipment em-

ployed, and a l l of t h e d a t a p r e s e n t e d here are o rgan ized by t y p e of p a r t i c u l a t e

c o n t r o l . P a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions can a l s o be a f f e c t e d by t h e t y p e o f r egene ra -

t i o n , t h e t y p e of c a t a l y s t , and t h e f e e d t o t h e FCCU. Since such d e t a i l e d

p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r most of t h e test d a t a , t h e s e

f a c t o r s canno t b e accounted f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e l y .

c u s s i o n w i l l p o i n t o u t t h e d i r e c t i o n a l e f f e c t s of t h e s e f a c t o r s .

The fo l lowing g e n e r a l d i s -

Conven t iona l o p e r a t i o n of an FCCU r e g e n e r a t o r combusts t h e coke on

c a t a l y s t at t e m p e r a t u r e s r a n g i n g from 1000 t o l l O O ° F and r e s u l t s i n a f l u e

ges w i t h rough ly e q u a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of CO and CO2. The combustion of t h e

f l u e gas is o f t e n completed i n a downstream CO B o i l e r .

r e f i n e r s began t o exper iment w i t h comple t ing the f l u e g a s combustion i n t h e

. r e g e n e r a t o r .

During t h e mid- l970 ' s ,

This w a s i n i t i a l l y accomplished. by r a i s i n g t h e r e g e n e r a t o r I

. . t e m p e r a t u r e t o t h e 1 1 O O t o 1350°F range and was c a l l e d h igh t empera tu re re-

g e n e r a t i o n .

a c c e p t a n c e w a s slow because t h e r e g e n e r a t o r m e t a l l u r g y i n man9 e x i s t i n g u n i t s

could n o t w i t h s t a n d t h e h i g h e r t e m p e r a t u r e s .

c i rcumvented by the development of combust ion promoters which a l lowed com-

p l e t e f l u e g a s combust ion at o r n e a r c o n v e n t i o n a l r e g e n e r a t i o n t empera tu res .

A breakdown o f t h e t y p e of r e g e n e r a t i o n used i n August 1 9 7 8 i s p r e s e n t e d below.

Although more .recent f i g u r e s have n o t been l o c a t e d , i t i s a n t i c i p a t e d tha t cu r -

r e n t o p e r a t i o n s have s h i f t e d t o f a v o r t h e promoted combusti,on t y p e of r egene ra -

t i o n .

This new type of r e g e n e r a t i o n o f f e r e d many b e n e f i t s , b u t i t s

That problem w a s l a r g e l y

a .

2-15

3 U L' I;

~ 1 1 1 3 3 4 ~ 4 4 4 4 ~ 1 i 4 r l 4 4 ~ ~ \ D c m m o o o c c r l o o o o o 4 c o o o o o o o . I ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N m m u

3 v v v v v " V V V v V Y " ' 4 V Y d c o o o d o o o c d d d d d o o o o o N i

1

I

!

I

!

- 4J W 4 U 1 0

LI W i rl 0 p:

8 - u W 4 C U

ii W rl 4 0 m 0 U - Y W i U 1 0

LI W 1 d 0 m 0 U - U CI rl C

CI

LI CI i .+ 0 E C U

-

u C W E 0 P

U E

N U r - i O I X * N t n - r l O Q v t n O m 1 0 o . . . 2

W C CI ii x n. 0

0 N C W E

h

v

2-17

V W Y U W U W V

c C I

V r i

U

RADBAN 0DmPII.IoI

I

% of US FCCU's Using Regenera t ion Technique That Technique August, 1978

Convent iona l Regenera t ion

h igh Temperature Regenera t ion .. . 53% (RK37)

26%

Combustion Promo'ting C a t a l y s t 10%

Combustion Promoters ( s e p a r a t e from t h e c a t a l y s t )

11%

The t y p e of r e g e n e r a t i o n can a g f e c t p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s i n s e v e r a l

ways .

of c a t a l y s t p a r t i c l e s . It i s t h i s f r a c t u r i n g of c a t a l y s t p a r t i c l e s which i s

l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e f o r m a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a t e m a t t e r which is f i n e

enough t o e s c a p e t h e i n t e r n a l cyc lones .

c o n d i t i o n s can a f f e c t boch t h e p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ion rate and s i z e d i s t r i b u -

t i o n . The p a r t i c u l a t e composi t ion i s a l so a f f e c t e d , s i n c e c o n v e n t i o n a l re-

g e n e r a t i o n r e s u l t s i n a coke c o n t e n t on c a t a l y s t of 6 t o ? w e i g h t p e r c e n t ,

w h i l e high t empera tu re and combustion promoted r e g e n e r a t i o n can a c h i e v e cake

l e v e l s below 5 weight percenc.

The r e g e n e r a t i o n t empera tu re has an e f f e c t on the rate o f s i n t e r i n g

Thus, t h e s e v e r i t y of r e g e n e r a t o r

FCCU c a t a l y s t h a s evolved s i g n i f i c a n t l y ove r t h e last 20 years,

golng from n a t u r a l c l a y s t o s y n t h e t i c z e o l i t e s t o p r e s e n c day combusfion

promoted a n d / o r SO2 adso rb ing c a t a l y s t . Each type of c a t a l y s t h a s d i f f e r e n t -

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n terms of f r a c t u r e r e s i s t a n c e due t o mechanica l and the rma l

s t r e s s e s . As p r e v i o u s l y exp la ined . i t i s t h e r a t e and n a t u r e of t h e c a r a l y s t

f r a c t u r i n g t h a t l a r g e l y de t e rmines t h e p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ion r a t e and s i z e

d i s t r i b u t i o n .

t h e p a r t i c u l a t e composi t ion is a l s o a f f e c t e d .

S ince each of t h e s e c a t a l y s t s may have d i f f e r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n s , .-

The f e e d s t o c k t o be c racked can a l s o have a n o t i c e a b l e e f f e c t on

p a r t i c d a t e emis s ions . h h e a v i e r (more r e f r a c t i v e ) f e e d s t o c k is more d i f f i -

c u l t t o c rack and may r e q u i r e h i g h e r c a t a l y s t c i r c u l a t i o n rates.

f e e d s t o c k s tend t o produce more coke, which r e q u i r e s more s e v e r e r e g e n e r a t i o n .

h e a v i e r f e e d s t o c k s Zyp ica l ly c o n t a i n h i g h e r mecals c o n t e n t , much of which i s

d e p o s i f e c on t h e c a t a l y s t as coke.

c i - c u l a t i o n , h i g h e r coke y i e l d , and h i g h e r me ta l s c o n t e n t could c a u s e 2

s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t i n p a r t l c u l a t e emis s ions r a t e s , s i z e s , and compos i t ions .

Heavier

..

The combined e f f e c t s of h i g h e r c a t a l y s t

2-18 - - - - -

2 . 1 . 1 . 2 O the r C a t a l y n i c Cracking P rocesses

P a r t i c u l a t e emis s ion d a t a were a l s o found f o r Thermofor C a t a l y t i c i

Cracking Un i t s (TCCU), Moving Bed C a t a l y t i c Crackers , and Houdriflow C a t a l y t i c

Cracking Un i t s (HCCU). Most of t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a were i n the form of mass

I e a i s s i o n f a c t o r s and a r e s m a r i z e d i n Table 2-5. Some PPOP! d a t a were a l s o

i d e n r i f i e d and a r e p r e s e n t e d i n Table 2-6. 1

i 2 . 1 . 2 F l u i d Coking

A l i m i t e d -amount of d a t a were found on p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from

f l u i d coking. The mass emiss ions d a t a a r e summarized below: :

Xef erence Con t ro l Emission ;actor

Rt30 ( a - 4 2 ) I n t e r n a l Cyclone 523 l b / 1 0 3 9 b l . R-esb Feed

R#34 I n t e r n a l Cyclone 4 3 7

R#34 Scrubber and CO B o i l e r 15 3

Rib5 I n t e r n a l Cy c lone 523

R55 ESP and CO B o i l e r 6.85

I n a d d i t i o n , PSI3 d a t a from rwo s o u r c e s a r e p r e s e n t e d g r a p h i c a l l y i n F igu re

2-11. No composi t ion d a t a were found.

! 1

2 .1 .3 S u l f u r Spec ie s Con t ro l Opera t ions

S u l f u r s p e c i e s , p r i m a r i l y H2S from d e s u l f u r i z i n g u n i t s , a r e t y p i c a l l y

c o n t r o l l e d i n r e f i n e r i e s by e i t h e r s u l f u r recovery o r s u l f u r i c a c i d p l a n t s .

Both o p e r a t i o n s have some p o t e n t i a l f o r producing p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions .

1 , I : I . :

* . 2 . 1 . 3 . 1 S u l f u r Recoverv

Only ver?. l i m i t e d d a t a on p a r t i c u l a t e emissions from s u l f u r recovery

Groenendaal (R$3) r e p o r t e d S6 a e r o s o l s a s 0 . 3 vdume p e r c e n t i n were found.

d i u ~ t a i l g a s , b u t f o m d none a f t e r i n c i n e r a t i o n . X n u c p u j l i s h e d s o u r c e

i I

,.-

2-19 1

RADIAN ODbOlMDl

TABLE 2-5. MASS EXISSION DATA FOR OTHER CRACKING PROCESSES

Emission Factors Range P rocess l b / 1 0 3 B b l (Reference 0) (Mean)

Triernofor C a t a l y t i c Cracking

Uncont ro l led 1 7 (RII30) (A€'-42) 15-18.3 Cyclones 18.3 (R119) (16.8) CO Bo i l e r 15 (R#34)

Moving Bed C a t a l y t i c Cracking 1 7 (R115) (17)

l i o u d r i f l a r C a t a l y t i c Cracking No data -

I -

,

t-

U m 4 C ci

Y m i Y 2 0

m \ c u i a m m n i m m i d m i d m m 0 0 N O N 0 0 3 0 . . . . . . . . .

0 0 0

o i m 1 I I I I I a i

m r . d

"I

x fi

u m fi

~

2-21

0 D

. . . . .

. . I

(C24) r e p o r t e d 0 . 9 1 pounds p e r hour of p a r t i c u l a t e matter i n a s u l f u r s t o r a g e

rank x'ent. Two o t h e r unpub l i shed s o u r c e s (U2, U3) r e p o r t e d 0 . 3 9 and 0 .35

paun6s ? a r t i c u l a t e p e r t o n of s u l f u r produced , r e s p e c t i v e l y . These f i g u r e s

a r e f o r Claus u n i t s r i t h B e a v o n I S t r e t f o r d t a i l g a s t r e a t i n g . There i s no

p a r t i c u l a t e matter emis s ion f a c t o r f o r s u l f u r recovery u n i t s i n AP-42.

2 . 1 . 3 . 2 S u l f u r i c Acid P roduc t ion I

I ! O n l y one d a t a e l emen t conce rn ing mass emiss ions from s u l f u r i c a c i d

31ants cas l o c a t e d . Donovan (R"10) r e p o r t e d p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s of 0 .064

pounds p e r t o n of acid produced , based on t e s t i n g s e v e r a l u n i t s r a n g i n g from

600 t o 2000 t o n s p e r day p r o d u c t i o n . AP-42 (R#30) p r e s e n t s e m i s s i o n f a c t o r s

f o r 962 a c i d p l a n t s w i th ( ESP's as 0.10 1- and f o r 6 i b s r . mis_r_ . e l imina . to~s

a s 0 . 0 2 , 0 .10 , 0.11 l b / t o n f o r t u b d a r , p a n e l , and d u a l pad configurat&ns.,J

r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 s o u r c e s p r e s e n t e d PSD d a t a - w h i c h a r e g r a p h i c a l l y sum-

~ . -

__- - ~.. . - -- -/--

! --i; ~ - - .

c- . . ~ - ~ - ~

-- -.crized i n F igu res 2-12, 2-13, and 2-11;. No d a t a were found p e r t a i n i n g t o I !

;:?e c:?=i=l composiTion of the p a r t i c u l a t e from s u l f u r i c a c i d p l a n t s , b u t

It caz b e s a f e l y assumed t h a t t h e bu lk i s s u l f u r i c a c i d m i s t .

2 . 1 . 4 .

5105t c:

Cool ing Towers

The l i t e r a t u r e c o n t a i n s many p a p e r s on c o o l i n g tower d r i f t , b u t

hose are s l a n t e d toward plume d e p o s i t i o n models and d a t a . Most d i f t

c a l c u l a r i o n s are e x p r e s s e d a s a p e r c e n t of t h e c i r c u l a t i n g wa te r l o s t . The

accep ted i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d f o r d r i f t was 0 .2% loss , h u t advances i n m i s t

e l i m i n a t o r d e s i g n and i n d i r e c t measurement o f d r i f t rates have g r e a t l y re-

duced t h a t f a c t o r . Roffman ( R 8 2 4 j r e p o r t s a range of 0.001 t o 0.02% l o s s f o r

b o t h mechanical and n a t u r a l d r a f t t owers , based on a summary of p r e v i o u s test-

i n g . Fur long (R#12) r e p o r t s on a mechanica l d r a f t c o o l i n g tower t h a t Gas

gua ran teed by t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r t o have d r i f t l o s s e s less t h a n 0.0082 o f c i r c u -

l z t io r . . Holmberg ( R # 1 5 ) r e p o r t e d a 0.002% d r i f t loss f o r a n a t u r a l d r a f t

tower .

2-23

m

i f

2 I N

i

Y C .rl Y E v

[D il C rn

N

m M E i n

PSD d a t a f o r mechanical d r a f t c o o l i n g towers are p r e s e n t e d i n F igure

2-15, S i m i l a r d a t a f o r n a t u r a l d r a f t tcwers are p r e s e n t e d i n F igu re 2 -16 .

i ..

i

;.

KO d a t a were found p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e chemica l composi t ion of d r i f t

f r o n c o o l i n g towers , b u t i t can b e assumed t h a t t h e composi t icn of t h e d r i f t

;-ocl@ he t h e sa%e as t h a t of t h e c i r c u l a t i n g w a t e r . Although a d e d i c a t e d

s e a r c h was n o t performed f o r c i r c u l a t i n g water composi t ion , two sources were

found i n t h e d r i f t - r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e . Sussman (Ri128) r e p o r t e d t h e fo l lowing :

. pli = 4.3 . C h l o r i d e = 031 mg/l

S u l f a t e = 3500 m g / l

C a C 0 3 = 860 mg/ l

I r o n = 250 mgl l

Woffinden (R836) p r e s e n t e d a l i s t of e l emen t s and c l a s s i f i e d them as trace

q u a n t i t i e s o r predominant e l emen t s . The e x a c t s a l t s and t h e i r c o n c e n t r a t i o n s

j r e s e n t i n t h e d r i f t w i l l v a r y widely w i t h chemica l t r e a t m e n t , makeup water

qual i :? . 2nd tower o p e r a t i o n .

Cool ing towers e m i t 2 d i f f e r e n t t y p e of p a r t i c u l a t e t han t h e o t h e r

s o u r c e s covered i n t h i s s t u d y . The b u l k of c o o l i n g tower p a r t i c u l a t e s are

x a t e r d r o p l e t s o f compara t ive ly l a r g e diame:er ( f rom 100 t o 10,000 microns) .

Tne s a l t c o n t e n t of t h e c i r c u l a t i n g water w i l l c o n t r i b u t e some."permanent"

p a r t i c u l a t e mass, b u t t h e r e a r e no d a t a i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e . . t o c h a r a c t e r i z e

t h i s . Tnne r ange of c o o l i n g tower p a r t i c u l a t e impact i s a l s o s m a l l compared

t o o t h e r s o u r c e s , w i t h 80% of t h e p a r t i c u l a t e m a s s d e p o s i t e d w i t h i n 500 feet

( a e f e r e n c e 1\12). Of the smaller p a r t i c u l a t e s which a r e d i s p e r s e d i n t h e

plume, much i s " fog" r a t h e r t han d r i f t . Here, d r i f t i s d e f i n e d as a w a t e r

p a r t i c l e s h e a r e d away from the c i r c u l a t i n g w a t e r and h a v i n g much t h e same

m i n e r a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n . Fog i s a water p a r t i c l e which condenses i n t h e a i r

stream and i s r e l a t i v e l y p u r e w a t e r (Refe rence ii14).

2-27

.- ~

U . N

0

M I: .ri i 0 0 U

u 'i. m i. c

i

Y) 3. W

c M C i 4 0 0 V u w r[l Li a + IC Li

u m z Li 0

P 07 a

a

Lu

u: 4 I N

W $4

M rl Ls

a

RADlAN - 2 . 1 . 5 f s p h a l t Blowing

Very l i t t l e d a t a on p a r t i c u l a t e s from a s p h a l t b lm- in& w e r e l o c a t e d .

.XI EPk r e p o r t (R?32) gave emiss ion f a c t o r s f o r a e r o s o l s of pyrene and a n t h r a -

cene a s 0.00s and 0.0006 pounds p e r ton of a s p h a l t r e s p e c t i v e l y .

2 . 1 . 6 Misce l l aneous S o l i d s Hand l ing

No d a t a were found t o c h a r a c t e r i z e p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ions from o t h e r

s o l i d s h a n d l i n g p r o c e s s e s i n refineries.

2 . 2 Study L i m i t a t i o n s

A s i g n i f i c a n t e f f o r t was made t o g a t h e r a l l a v a i l a b l e p a r t i c u l a t e

e n i s s i o n d h t a p e r t a i n i n g to non- f i r ed s o u r c e s i n pe t ro l eum r e f i n e r i e s . An

e x t e n s i v e o n - l i n e search f o r p u b l i s h e d l a t a w a s supplemented l:y a manual s e a r c h

of recenf i s s u e s of major j o u r n a l s . I n a d d i t i o n , a l i s t of agenc ie s and

companies t h a t would poten: ia l lp have p e r t i n e n t unpubl i shed d a t a w a s con tacced .

m a t group i n c l u d e d t h e U . S . EPA, s t a t e a i r p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l a g e n c i e s i n

h e a v i l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d s t a t e s , vendors of emis s ion con:rol equipment , and s i x

major o i l ~ ~ c o m p a n i e s . the^ r e s u l t of t h e s e searches i s a l a r g e , and f a i r l y

comprehensive, d a t a b a s e . In s p i t e of t h i s , some l i m i t a t i o n s to t h e d a t a

b e s e shou ld b e n o t e d .

The p u b l i s h e d d a t a b a s e s h o u l d be r e l a t i v e l y - c o m u l e t e , e s p e c i a l l y

f o r d a t a s o u r c e s s p e c i f i c t o r e f i n i n g t h a t were p u b l i s h e d in a major j o u r n a l

. w i t h i n t h e l a s t 5 t o 10 y e a r s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some o l d e r p u b l i c a t i o n s ,

soae f o r e i g n d a t a , or some pape r s from minor confe rences may have been missed .

The one s i g n i f i c a n t area where a d d i t i o n a l p u b l i s h e d d a t a may exist i s i n

other i n d u s t r i e s w i t n s i m i l a r s o u r c e s . Such p o s s i b i l i t i e s were i n v e s t i g a t e d

on a l i m i t e d b a s i s when l i t t l e r e f i n e r y - s p e c i f i c d a t a were found. For in-

s f a n c e , d a t a from e l e c t r i c u t i l i t y and o t h e r i n d u s t r i e s were used t o supp le -

m m t t h e c o o l i n g tower d a t a b a s e . Tne s c o p e o f t h i s ?reject? hovever , d i d

not ziloh- a f u l l e x p l o r a t i o n of such " technology t r a n s f e r " p o s s i b i l i t i e s .

!

-

I

i

i

i I i

I 1 8

; ?

i

-:3 .'! . .

RBDIAN - . CDPPOPIIIO*

The search f o r unpublished data was also quite successful, yielding nearly as xuch quantity as published data, and much of it was of higher quality.

2.3

1.

2.

3.

4 .

5.

6.

- / .

6.

9.

10.

1' /m ' 12.

13.

1 4 .

32ta Source References

Arnold, B.W. and I.E. G u y , "Optimum Cat Fines Recovery Benefits FCC Unit," Oil and Gas Journal, 3 ( 2 2 ) , 1979.

Balfour, W.D., FCCU Emissions Studv, confidential Radian report, February 1976.

Blanton, W.A., "FCC SOx Controlled Catalytically in Plants," and Gas Journal, May 24, 1962.

Brink, I.A. and R.W. Karek, "Cascade Impactor for Adiabatic Measurements," Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 50 (647), April, 1966.

Burklin, C.E., Revision of Emission Factors f o r Petroleum Refining, EPA-450/3-77-030, March, 1977.

Byers, R.L., "Evaluation of Effluent Gas Particulate Collection and Sizing Methods," presented at 36th API Division of Refining Mid- year Meeting, Philadelphia, May 14-17, 1973.

Byers, R.L., "Multicyclones for Control of Petroleum Coke Emissions," Chemical Engineering Progress, December, 1981.

Cunic, J.D., "Scrubber Controls Cracker S9( Emissions," 3drocarbon Processing, 47 (91, pg. 31, May, 1976.'

Danielson, D.A., Air Pollution Engineering Manual, AP-40, May 1973.

Donovan, J.R., et al, "Analysis and Control of .Suifuric Acid Plant Emissions" Chemical Engineering Progress, June 1977.

Duros, D.R. and E.D. Kennedy, "Acid Mist Control," Chemical Engineering Progress, September, 1978.

Furlong, D. "The Cooling Tower Business Today,'' Environmental Science and Technology, V 8 , #E August, 1974.

Groenendaal, "Shell Launches Its Claus Off-Gas Desulfurization Process," Petroleum and Petrochemical International, 12 (9) pg. 54, 1972.

-

Hanna, S . X . "Fog and Drift Deposition from Evaporative Cooling Towers," Kuclear Safetr, 1'01. 15, No. 2, March-April, 1974.

2-31

RADRAN - 15. Holmberg, J.D., "Drift Management in the Chalk Point Cooling

Tower," from CoolinS Tower Environment, edited by J . Pel1 and S.R. Hanna, ERDA Symposium Series, pp. 128-146, 1974.

16. Jones, B.G., "Refinery Improves Particulate Control," E l and Gas Journal, 69 (26)', 1971.

17. Kalen, B. and F . A . Zenz, "Filtering Effluent from a Cat Cracker," Chemical Engineering Progress, June, 1973.

18. Little, A.D., Inc., Screening Study to Determine Keed for NSPS for New FCC Regenerators, prepared under U.S. EPA contract No. 68-02-1332, June 1976.

10. Malarkey, E.J., and C. Rudosky, "The Role of Electrostatic Precipitators in Petroleum Refining," Paper No. AM-71-11, presented at the National Petroleum Refiners Associacion meeting, San Francisco, March 21-23, 1971.

20. Manshilin, et al., "Trapping Fine Fractions of Aluminosilicate Catalyst," Chemical Technical Fuels and Oils, 14 (3-4), 1'178.

11. Reisman. E . , e : al., In-Stack Transmissometer ?leasuremtnc of Particc1a:e Opacitv ana Kass Con-enrration, EPh-650/2-7L-l2G,

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

November 1974.

Rochow, J.J., "Measurements and Vegeta:ional Impact cf Chemical Drift from Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers," Environmencal Science and Technoiog?, Vol. 12, No. 13, December, 1978.

Rodriguez, D.G., "The Measurement of Opacity and Dust Loading in Fluid Cacalytic Cracker Flue Gas," Paper No. 36D, presented at the 75th AICHE National Meeting, Detroit, June 3-6, 1073.

Roffman, A . and L.D. Van Vleck," The State of the Art of Neasuring and Predicting Cooling Tower Drift and Its Deposition," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 24 (9) S>epternber, 1974.

Senges, D.C., et al, Closed-Cvcle Cooling Systems for Steam-Electric Power Plants: A State-of-the-Art Manual, EPA 600/7-79-001, PB 299290, January, 1979.

Shannon, L.J., et al., Particulate Pollutant Svstem Studv, Volume 11: Fine Particle Emissions, APTD-0774, August 1977.

Shea, E.?., Source Testing, EPA Test No. 6. Atlantic Richfield Co., Wilmington, CA, EPA contract No. 68-02-0228, April 1972.

i . P'. * RADIAN - i

28. S u s s m n , S . , "Fac t s on Water Use i n Cool ing Towers," Hvdrocarbon P r o c e s s i n g , J u l y , 1975.

-,. 7 0 Taback, H . J . , e t a l . , F i n e P a r t i c l e Emiss ions from S t a t i o n a r v Misce l l aneous Sources i n t h e South Coast A i r Basin, C a l i f o r n i a A i r Resources Board c o n t r a c t KO. A6-191-30, Februa ry 1 9 7 9 .

30. U.S. Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency, ComDilatiOn of A i r P o l l u t i o n Emission F a c t o r s , P u b l i c a t i o n No. AP-42, August , 1 9 7 7 .

31. U . S . Envi ronmenta l P r o t e c t i o n Agency, Background I n f o r m a t i o n on Proposed New Source Performance S tanda rds , APTD-13526, J u n e 1973.

32. U.S. Environmen:al P r o t e c t i o n Agency, S c i e n t i f i c and T e c h n i c a l Assessment ReDort on P a r t i c u l a t e P o l y c v c l i c Organic M a t t e r , €PA 600/6-75-001, March 1975.

33. Weston, Roy F . , Summary of P a r t i c u l a t e T e s t Data and Test R e s u l t s From 2 FCCU Sources , Roy F . Weston, I n c . , Weston Way, West C h e s t e r , Pennsy lvan ia , 19380, P r o j e c t No. 2184-01-01, Ailgust, 1982.

3 A . Wethero ld , R . G . , e t a l . , Assessment of Atmospher ic -Emiss ions from Pe t ro l eum R e f i n i n g , EPA - 600/2-80-075, Radian C o r p o r a t i o n , A p r i l 1980.

35. Wilson, J . G . and D.W. Miller, "The Removal of P a r t i c u l a t e Matter from F l u i d Bed C a t a l v t i c Cracking Uni t S t a c k Gasses," JAPCA, (10). October , 1967.

36. Woff inder , G . J . , "Airborne Moni tor ing of Cool ing Tower E f f l u e n t s , " E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t i t u t e , EA-420, June , 1 9 7 7 .

37 . Kemp, V . E . and 0.k'. Dykema, Inven to ry of Combustion-Related Emiss ions From S t a t i o n a r v Sources , Update h'o. 2 , E?A-600/7-78-100, Aerospace Corpora t ion , Environmental and Energy Conse rva t ion D i v i s i o n , E l Segundo, CA, June 1978.

u 1.

u 2 .

. ' ! c 3 .

u 4.

U 5 .

L. 6 .

L 7 .

u E .

..

Unpublished s o u r c e C 1 (FCCU w i t h COB and ESP).

Unpublished s o u r c e F 2 (SRU w i t h Beavon /S t r e t fo rd ) .

Unpublished s o u r c e // 3 (SRU w i t h B e a v o d S t r e t f o r d ) .

Linpublished s o u r c e B 4 (FCCU w i t h COB).

Unpubl ished s o u r c e // 5 (FCCU w i t h COB and S c r u b b e r ) .

Unpublished s o u r c e # 6 (FCCU).

Unpublished s o u r c e C 7 (FCCU).


2-33

W A D B A N -RIQ

... . " .

.. _ . 'i ..


Unpublished s o u r c e $ 10 (FCCU v i t h E x t e r n a i Cyclone)

Unpublisned s e u r c e !i 11 (FCCLI).

Unpubulished s o u r c e $ 1 2 (FCCU).

Unpublished s e u r c e 1 3 (FCCU).

KJnpcblished s o u r c e $ 14 (FCCU).

Unpublished s e u r c e # 15 (FCCKJ).

Unpublished s o u r c e f 16 (FCCti).

Unpuhlished s o c r c e :/ 1 7 (FCCL').

Unpublished s o u r c e # 16 ( F l u i d Coker ) .

UnpuSlished s o u r c e 4 19 (TCCL: xitt! ESF and COB) .

Unpublished s o u r c e 4 20 (FCCU w i t h S S ? ) .

Unpublished s o u r c e !! 2 1 (FCCU w i t h ESP) .

Unpublished s o u r c e fi 22 (FCCU w i t h ESP).

Unpublished s o u r c e + 2 3 (Xcii w i t h ESP and COS).

Unpsbl i shed s o u r c e Q 2 4 (SRU S t o r a g e V e n t ) .

Unpublished s o u r c e i! 25 (HCCU)

Q

N s i Lp

n

rn

m W

W

<

e

Q

-4

Q 5

rn P

0

ln E VI

-I

m

VI

4 a

m

P z

0 * -i

t

m

D

VI % a , 8 I I

... .

.. .

.

:: 8 0

n

m .. N

rn c

Q

r

0

VI % " rn

r

m

ln n

P

0

0

0

0

0

App

endi

x c.

1

Ref

eren

ce 1

4

m

VI z ..

c

on

DP

-im

mrn

-L

r

r

r

I n

n

m

c(

U

-4

m

-4

U

m

W

I4

m

U s .. 0

0

N

U

P : m D x B .. 0

r 2 U

-4

cI

0 B .. c ;

n

m

r 5 .. 0

c.

N

e

U

n

W

0

m

m

n

c

5 ii

0 2 n

5 m

:

0

m

m c

0

n

8 P

W D

n

2 W

Y

U

-4

n

n

U , t I 4

n

n

<

:: 2 .. :: 2 ..

r VI.

0

0

0

0

mo

ZS

QO

PQ

VIU

N

C.0

I

rnQ

.l.O

Vl

u0

.0

I m

mm

mm

m

mm

ri

~

I++++. +

*I

. I

co

oo

oC

.c

.o

oQ

,

ONOUN0ONrOI

?

0.

0

0

mr

0 c

x "S

0

Y

0

4

8

m

U

m

W

c(

m

U

n

O

W z. U

on

PP

-rm

m

m

0

0. \

N

.:., ll

I

rfr

??

??

?

WW

I-

00

U

WO

.

DI-

CO

O

WC

.0

m

mm

mm

m

mm

.

..

.I

++

+

++

uoooo uooo

(*'eo0

Pcoc

5 :: .. 0

0

N

c

nited States Office of Air Ouality EMB Report 79-POT.4 Planning and Standards April 1979 Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1

A??, C 3, &,e* I ' Environmental Protection Agency

Air Appendix c. 1 GEPA Potash Reference 15

1

I 1 1 3 1 1 3 1

Emission Test Report Kerr McGee Trona, California

I

4 ' 4 4 1 I I I 3 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1:

i

SET 2653-01-0679 FINAL REPORT

. . . .

. . \ .

I. . . . .

. . . .

. . . . . . . ,

. . . . . .

Particulate Emissions .From.A Potassium Chloride Drier Controlled By

Two.Cyclones And A Venturi Scrubber,.And A " . '

Potassium,Sulfate Drier . . Controlled By A' Baghouse ,: . . . .

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . *, . . . . . . . ~ . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . , . .

. . . . . . ,.

. .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . , . . . . .

. .

. . . . . .. , , : . . .

. .

. . . . : . . . . . . .

. .

. .

. . . . . . . . . .

. .

EPA Contract' No; 68-02-2813 '. L . , . . '

. . . . " , Work Assignment No. 31 , ' : . . .

. .

. . . EMB Report No.'. 79-POT-4,; ' , ' . . , '

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . .

. .

.

. .

. . . EMB Report No.'. 79-POT-4,; ' , ' . . , '

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. , .

... Prepared' for: . . . .

- Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Measurement Branch -'

ESED Mail 'Drop #13 :Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711

. .

. . . \ ' . .

. . . . - . . . .

, . . , , . . .

:. . . . . ' May 1'. 1979

. .

. . . . .,

. . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . .

. . . .

, . SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. 2600 Cajon Boulevard . .

. San Bernardino, California 92411 . . . .

. . . . . , .

. . , . .

kott Environmentalkh-y Inc . . .

i

..

I

#2653-01-0679 2-3

TABLE 2.3 PARTICLE s IZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Date: 4-18-79 Pbar ( i n Hg) ................. 28.14

Sampling Locat ion : Cyclone I n l e t , Run No. 1 Sample Time Traverse P o i n t NO. Sampled: 25

. 549 ............. Locat ion: Kerr-McGee P l a n t Stack Temp. ( 0 F)

Mo is tu re (% p 0 ) ............. 11.9

............. 3 Sample Volume ( c f ) . .......... 1.79

Meter Temp ( F) ............... 91 0.85 Flow S e t t i n g , AH ( i n H20) ....

Nozzle Diameter ( Inches) . .... 0.250

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack c o n d i t i o n s ) : 0.72 c fm

P la te No. 1 2

3 4' 5 6 7 8

-- 1171.45 %

1.10 4.60 6.15 3.90

4.90 4.25 0.00

x 97.91 0.09 0.38 0.51 0.32

0.40 0.35 0.00

Cumulat ive x

100.00 2.08 1.98 1.60 1.09

0.76 0.35 0.00

ECD' (Microns)

14.46 and l a r g e r 8.96 5.89 4.35 2.69

1.38 0.86 0.56

Back-up F i l t e r 0.00 0.00 0.00 c0.56

TOTAL 1196.35

'ECD = E f f e c t i v e C u t o f f Diameter o f p roced ing p l a t e .

%e igh t i nc ludes p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t e d on P l a t e No. 0 and in nozz le , cyc lone and head o f sampler upstream o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n p l a t e s .

i c

#2653-01-0679 2-4

TABLE 2.4 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1631 Pbar ( i n Hg) ................. 28.25 Locat ion: Kerr-FkGee P l a n t 0 Sampling Locat ion: Cyclone I n l e t , Run No. 2 Traverse P o i n t No. Sampled: 30

b

. 494 Stack Temp. ( F) ............. Sample Time (Min) ............ 6

Mois tu re (% &O) ............. 18.0 91 1.52

Nozzle Diameter ( Inches) . .... 0.250

Sample Volume ( c f ) ........... 4.59

Meter Temp ( F ) .............. Flow Se t t i ng , AH ( i n H20) ....

c

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack c o n d i t i o n s ) : 1.00 cfm

P l a t e Net W t . No. (mg) 1 3219.22 2 33.10 3 49.65 4 40.45 5 27.25

6 9.95 7 2.80 a 2.70

d ;. Back-up

F i l t e r 1-65

% 95.05 0.97 1.46 1.19 0.80

0.29 0.08 0.07

0.04

Cumulat ive %

100.00 4.94 3.96 2.50 1.30

0.50

0.21 0.12

0.04

E C D ~ (Microns)

7.53 5.02 3.45 2.26

1.13 0.68 0.45

12.05 and l a r g e r

4 0 . 4 5

'ECD = E f f e c t i v e C u t o f f Diameter o f proced ing p l a t e .

'Weight i nc ludes p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t e d on P l a t e No. 0 and i n nozzle, cyc lone and head o f sampler upstream o f t h e c o l l e c t i o n p l a t e s .

6. I.

1, 1

i

* #2653-01-0679 2-5 :1 . I’

1 1 1 ‘3 1 1 q I

: I ~

~3 ! I I 1. 1

‘ I /1

1 1 4

I - I i

1 .

TABLE 2.5 PARTICLE S I Z E DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Date: 4-19-79 Time: 2125 Location: Kerr-McGee Plant Sampling Location: Cyclone I n l e t , Run No. 3 Traverse Point No. Sampled: 30

Pbar ( i n Hg) ................. Stack Temp. ( F) ............. Sample Time ( M i n ) ............ Sample Volume ( c f ) . .......... Moisture (% p 0 ) ............. Meter Temp ( F ) .............. Flow Set t ing , AH ( i n H20) .... Nozzle Diameter ( Inches) . ....

0

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack condi t ions) : 0.97 cfm

P1 a t e No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net Wt. &!L 3539.42

21.80 73.60 71.35 47.90 15.05 2.15 3.60

% 93.72

0.57 1.94 1.88 1.26 0.39 0.05 0.09

Cumulative %

100.00 6.27 5 .70- 3.75 1.86 0.59 0.19 0.14

E C D ~ (Microns)

7.66 5.08 3.51 2.26 1.15 0.68

. 0.46

12.05 and l a r g e r

Back-up Filter 1.70 0.04 0.04 4 0.46

TOTAL 3776.55

. ’ECD = Effective Cutoff Diameter of proceding p la t e .

2Weight includes p a r t i c u l a t e co l lec ted on Plate No. 0 and i n noz i le , cyclone and head of sampler upstream of t h e co l l ec t ion p la tes .

28.25 4 94 6 4.45 18.0 91 1.52 0.250

. #2653-01-0679 2-6 ...


Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1951 Pbar ( i n Hg). .... Location: Kerr-McGee Plant Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet Stack Temp. (OF).

Sample Time (Min) Sample Volume (cf Traverse P o i n t No. Sampled: 9

Moisture (% 820). Meter Temp ( F ) . . Flow Se t t ing , AH Nozzle Diameter (

Sample Flow Rate ( a t stack condi t ions) : 1.01 cfm

Plate Net Wt. & (mg)

1 21.90 2 0.25 3 0.25 4 1.00

5 1.80 6 10.15 7 13.50 a 1 ! 15.70

Back-up Filter 37.10

% 21.54

0.24 0.24 0.98

1.77 9.98

13.28 15.44

36.49

Cumulative %

100.00 78.45 78.20 77.96

76.97 75.20 65.22 51. 9.4.

/ I

36.49

........... 28.35

........... 141 ............ 60 ........... 52.92 ........... 14.4 ........... 101 in H20) .... 2.18 aches). .... 0.250

E C D ~ (Microns)

6.39 4.20 2.90

1.86 0.94 0.56 0.38

10.02 and la rger

40.38

'ECO = Effective Cutoff Diameter of proceding plate .

2Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e co l lec ted on . Plate No. 0 and i n nozzle, cyclone and head of sampler upstream of the co l l ec t ion p la tes .

1 - 3 1 1 1 3 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 3 1

, -

. #2653-01-0679 2-7


( in Hg) ................. 28.25 'bar 0

Date: 4-19-79 Time: 1745 Location: Kerr-McGee Potash Plant

Traverse Point No. Sampled: 4 Sample Volme ( c f ) ........... 41.03

Stack Temp. ( F) ............. 233 Sampling Location: Baghouse Outlet Sample Tine (Min) ............ 50

Moisture (% u20). ............ 9.6 Meter Temp ( F) .............. 106

Nozzle Diameter ( Inches) . .... 0.250 Flow Se t t ing , A H ( i n H20) .... 1 .ao

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack condi t ions) : 0.91 cfm

Plate Net Wt.

OL+Z- 1 2 2.90 3 3.00 4 1.30 5 7.25 6 19.55 7 3.95 a 0.45

Back-up F i l t e r 0.45

% 59.01 3.05 3.16 1.37 7.64 20.62 4.16 0.47

0.47

Cumulative %

100.00 40.98 37.92 34.75 33.38 25.73 5.11 0.94

0.47

ECD' (Microns) 11.14 and l a r g e r

I 1 . . 7.09 4.67 3.23 2.06 1.05 0.63 0.42

< 0.42

TOTAL 94.80

'ECD = Effect ive Cutoff Diameter o f proceding plate .

'Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e co l lec ted on Plate No. 0 and i n nozzle, cyclone and head o f sampler upstream o f the co l l ec t ion plates .

j

3 3

7 3 3 1 1 1 1 a

Office of Air Quality EMB Report 79-POT-5 Planning and Standards April - 1979 I f

k, Environmental Protection *,- - Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1

SEPA Potash

Emission Test Report

Appendix c. 1 Reference 16

Kerr McGee Trona, Carl ifoania

a

3 7

1 1 1 I 3 1 1 1 3 1 1: I 1 3 1 I I I 1

i

Par t icu la te Emissions From A Potassium Chloride Drier Controlled By

Two Cyclones And A Venturi Scrubber, And A Potassium Sul fa te Drier Controlled By A Baghouse

EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813 Work Assignment No. 35 EMB Report No. 79-POT-5

Prepared For:

Environmental Protection Agency Emissions Ileasurement Branch

ESED Mail Drop #13 Research Triangle Park, N . C . 27711

September 4 , 1979

bY SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY, INC.

2600 Cajon Boulevard San Bernardino, Cal i fornia 92411

SET 2674-01-0979

FINAL REPORT

.

1 Scott Environmental TechnoQ7,y IIK.

.I 1 '1 ':I . I 'I I I1 1 'I 1 -l

I ,-

'1 J

I TJ 1 1 I ,1 1

12674-01-0979 2-3

TABLE 2.4

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Date: 7-10-79 'bar ( i n . Hg) : 28.15 Stack Temp. ( O F ) : 487 Time: 1922

Sample Time (Min): 5 Sampling Location: Cyclone I n l e t Sample Volume ( c f ) : 3.57 Traverse Point No. Samgled: 15

Run No. : 1 Moisture (% H 0 ) : 12.0 Meter Temoeragure ( O F 1 : 160 Flow Set t ing , AH ( in . 'H20): 1.24 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.250

Sample Flow Rate ( a t stack condi t ions) - 0.84 cfm

P1 a t e No. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 a

Net Wt.

7895. 72 12.45

17.75 15.80 10.65

7.15 5.80 5.25

0 % 99.03

0.15 0.22 0.19 0.13

0.08 0.07 0.06

Cumulative %

100.0 0.96 0.80 0.58

0.38

0.25 0.16

0.09

E C D ~ ( M i c r o w t e r s )

13.26 and l a rqe r 8.43 5.56 3.84 2.45

1.25 0.75 0.50

Back-up F i l t e r 2.05 0.02 0.02 <O. 50

'ECD - Effective Cutoff Diameter of preceding p l a t e .

*Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e col lected on Pla te No. 0 and i n nozzle and head of sampler upstream of the co l l ec t ion p la tes .

., #2674-0I-0979 2-4


c Date: 7-11-79 P b a r ( i n . Hg): 28.22

Stack Temp. ( O F ) : 466 Time: 1255 Sampling Location: Cyclone I n l e t Sample Time ( M i n ) : 5

Sampl e Volume ( c f ) : 3.88 Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15 Mofsture (% H 0 ) : J1.6 Run No.: 2 Meter Tempera?ure ( F ) : 147

c Flow Se t t ing , A H (in..H20): 1.40 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.250


Plate 'No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Net Wt.

5291.2' 6.35 15.15 10.20 7.25 3.25 1.25 0.00

0

Back-up F i l t e r ' 0.60

%

99.17 0.11 0.28 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.02 '

0.00

0.01

Cumulative %

100.0 0.82 0.70 0.42 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.01

0.01

ECD' (Micrometers ) I I

12.61 and la rger 8.03 5.28 3.65 2.33 1.19 0.71 0.48

<O. 48 t " i

l', I'

'ECD - Effect ive Cutoff Diameter of preceding p l a t e .

'Weight includes p a r t i c u l a t e co l lec ted on P la t e No. 0 and i n nozzle and head of sampler upstream of the c o l l e c t i o n p l a t e s . I

Scott Environmental Techmbqv I&.

#2674-01-0979 2- 5 I 1 1 1 1 1 3 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I i

TABLE 2.6


( i n . Hg): 28.11 ‘bar Stack Temp. ( O F ) : 431 Sample Time ( M i n ) : 5 Sample Volume ( c f ) : 3.92 Moisture ( % H 0 ) : 16.0 Meter Tempera?ure (OF): 153 Flow Se t t ing , A H ( i n . H20): 1.62 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.250

Date: 7-11-79 Time: 1937 Sampling Location: Cyclone In l e t Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15 Run No.: 3

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack condi t ions) - 0.96

Plate Net Wt. No. (mg) 1 8160.4’

2 3.75 3 19.65 4 13.80 5 9.85 6 6.90 7 9.85 8 2.35

Back-up Filter 0.85

%

99.18 0.04 0.23 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.02

0.01

Cumulative a.

100.0 0.81 0.76 0.52 0.36 0 .24 0.15 0.03

0.01

, E C D ~ ( M i crome t e r s )

12.02 and l a rge r 7.66 5.04 3.49 2.23 1.13 0.68 0.45

<0.45

Total 8227.4

’ECD - Effect ive Cutoff Diameter of preceding p la t e .

2Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e col lected on Plate No. 0 and i n nozzle and head of sampler upstream of the co l l ec t ion p la tes .

I Scott Environmental Twhndmv ITY

I . #2674-01-0979 L 2-6

TABLE 2.7 I I PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

!

I ( i n . Hg): 28.17 'bar Stack Temp. (OF) : 454 Sample Time ( M i n ) : 5 Sample Volume ( c f ) : 4.19 Motsture (% H 0 ) : 15.2 Meter Tempera?ure ( O F ) : 134

Date: 7-12-79 Time: 1206 Sampling Location: Cyclone I n l e t Traverse Point No. Sampled: 15 Run No.: 4

f low Se t t ing , A H ( in . -H20) : 1.70 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.250

I[ Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack condi t ions) - 1.03

Plate Net Wt. (mg)

1 6345. g2 2 7.85 3 18.35 4 15.80 5 8.75 6 8.65 7 9.75 a 4.50


Total 6419.7

%

98.85 0.12 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.07

0.00

Cumulative %

100.0 1.14 1.02 0.74 0.49 0.35 0.22 0.07

0.00

E C D ~ (Micrometers)

11.75 and l a rge r 7.50 4.93 3.41 2.18

1.11 0.66 0.44

<O .44

I " I

'ECD - Effect ive Cutoff Diameter of preceding p la te .

2Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e co l lec ted on Plate No. 0 and i n nozzle and head of sampler upstream of the co l l ec t ion p la tes .

#2674-01-0979 2 -8

#2674-01-0979 2-9

TABLE 2.8


( in . Hg): 28.11 'bar Stack Temp. (OF): 139

Date: 7-11-79

Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet Traverse Point No. Sampled: 23 Sample Time ( M i n ) : 60 Run No.: 1 Sample Volume ( c f ) : 28.49

H i g h Pressure Drop Moisture ( % H 0 ) : 16.8

: Time: 1510 t o 1610

Meter Temperagure ( O F ) : 145 Row Se t t ing , AH ( i n . H20): 0.56 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.1875

Sample Flow Rate ( a t s tack condi t ions) - 0.55 cfin

Plate Net Wt. NO. (mg)

1 23.20 2 0.05

3 0.30 4 0.25 5 0.35 6 0.20

7 0.05

a 0.00


%

92.42 0.19 1.19 0.99 1.39 0.79 0.19 0.00

2.78

Cumulative %

100.00

7.57 7.37 6.17 5.17 3.78 2.98 2.78

2.78

E C D ~ (Microns)

13.70 and larger 8.64

5.72 3.96 2.52 1.30 .

0.79

0.53

~ 0 . 5 3

Total 25.10

'ECD - Effect ive C u t o f f Diameter of preceding p la te .

'Weight includes pa r t i cu la t e co l lec ted on Plate No. 0 and i n nozzle and head of sampler upstream of t h e co l l ec t ion p la tes .

ic's)i k o r t Enilironmental Txhndoqv inc

. . 12674-01-0979 2-10

TABLE 2.9 PARTICLE S I ZE DISTRI BUT1 ON ANALYSIS

( i n ; Hg): 28.17 'bar Stack Temp. ( O F ) : 141

Date: 7-12-79 i Time: 1245 t o 1345

Sampling Location: Scrubber Outlet Traverse Point No. Sampled: 23 Sample Time ( M i n ) : 60 Run No. : 2 Sample Volume ( c f ) : n0.88

Low Pressure Drop Moisture (% H 0 ) : 18.4 Meter Tempera?ure ( O F ) : 148 Flow Se t t ing , A H ( i n . H20): 1.10 Nozzle Diameter ( I n . ) : 0.1875


Pla te Net Wt. NO. ( m g )

1 18. 202 2 0.00

3 0.40 4 0.35 5 1.15

-

6 f.90

7 2 i .15 8 24.25

Back-up Fil ter 9.80

% P . 1 4

0.00

0.48 0.42 1.39 8.39

25.72 29.50

11.92

Cumulative %

100.0

77.85 77.85 77.37

76.94 75.54 67.15 41.42

11.92

E C D ~ (Microns)

7.18 4.74

' 3.27 2.09 1.07 0.64 0.43

11.31 and l a rge r

<O. 45

'ECO - Effect ive Cutoff Diameter of preceding p l a t e .

'Weight includes p a r t i c u l a t e co l lec ted on P la te No. 0 and i n nozzle and head o f sampler upstream of the c o l l e c t i o n p l a t e s .

i~@ I Scott Environmental E c h w y Inc.

I I I I

L i

LI

D4

nc-

03

4

zl

r

mo

m

OW

a

a

m z! .n

-4 5 m $ m .n z

-I

).(

u) .n $ r Y P

4

Y 0

z

0 P

4

m

n

n

P

4

m 2 n m

0

m

m

n

.n

n

n

4

Y

0 ? I I I I I , I

A

App

endi

x c.

1 R

efer

ence

17

m

u) z F! P

O?

z

4

mm

0

D

n

m 0

x -4 0

m

< c ?

m

n P

N?

W!-

?

or

0

VI + P m m

0

2 2 a 2

$5

P

+4 r

A

In

+n

m V

I X

Y

PN

;m f?

00

+ 0

U

mo

$2

a 3 W

W

N

VI + D m

Lo + P %

m

w.

N

c s D m r

m

VI + P % 2 +4 r + m

A

VI +n

PC

04

m

Lo

x-

P

N

;m cu

.

O

a.

mo

0

u

mo

5 3 a'i

W

m

7

-n r

z

-I

Ll +

a 5 m r: a O

m

VI

Y m z

n

I

D a P

n

+ m

P

Y

VI 2 Y n

I

n

3

m .. V

I

4

m

VI

4 2 io .. m

Lo

z F! 0

0

0

N

-4

VI -I

XI rn >

z 3 0 c

-I

m

u) + Y

0 - 5 c

VI P

rl m r

m 3 .. 0 c

!!

! -

5

CN

WQ

VI

P

P

P

z N

m

VI

ln

-4

D

m m

VI

2 a A z4

P

m m - r n

ln

DC

In

x-

DN

-4n

;:

uc

N.

NO

+ 0

N

mo

55

z U

P

ln

-I D

0

m

f

ln

-4 P z a ;;I c( r

a

ln

-tn

DC

m-4

m

ln

xn

D

N

$E

:? 55

z QO

+ 0

N

mo

w

u

VI

-4 D

m

u

m

ln

-4 P

m m

n

r

-t

m

n

ln

--In

PC

0-4

m

ln

zcn

DN

a ;:

0.-

.

O

P.

uo

+ 0

N

mo

g5

$ W

N

ln

-I D

m m

N

ln

4 P

m m

\ n

n

r

n

ln

-4n

PC

04

m

Lo

zz

n

DN

o

m

;;I

?? ..

NN

.lo

mo

* 0

N

bP

g5

$ W

s r C m

m

7l n

r

z

4

ln

4

*I

m

D

2. o

m :: 0 z = D

n

D

n

4

m

a

n

VI n

n I2 ln I

7 2 n

ln

4

m

ln

-4 % a - m

ln z I! 0

0

0

N

u

m

-4

n

m

D

X z F! 0 c

4 : n

o z

F! c

ln P

r

m

z % I! 0

N

n

0

W

2.

0

0. \

N

0 ,

WO

m

r

_ I

Appendix c. 1

PAPER NO.- Reference 18

Papers presented before ASAE meetings are considered to be tho property of the SoFioty. In general. tho Socioty reserves tho righl of lirst publication of such papers. in cornpleio form. Howwcr. it has no objection to publication. in condonsed form. with credit to the Society and tho author. Pormission 10 publish a paper in full may be requested from ASAE. P.O. Box410. St. Joseph. M i c h i g a n W . .

11111111111111111 COLLECTING PARTICLES FROM G I N LINT CLEANER A I R EXHAUSTS

by

S . E . H u g h s , M. N . Gi l lum, and U. M. Armijo Research Leader , A g r i c u l t u r a l Engineer , and Eng inee r ing Techn ic i an ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y

~

For p r e s e n t a t i o n a t t h e 1981 Winter Meeting AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERS

Palmer House Chicago, I l l i n o i s

December 15-18, 1981

- SUMMARY: An e v a l u a t i o n was made of t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s as pr imary , a n d a cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r a s a s econdary p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t o r on a l i n t c l e a n e r e s -

h a u s t . The cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s c a p t u r e d an ave rage of 90.8% by we igh t of t h e p a r t i c l e s a s a primary c l e a n e r . The s c r u b b e r removed a n average o f 73.5% bv weinht a s

I I I I I I I I I I

Tho Society is nor Iespondblo lor slaiernonrs or opinions advanced in papers or discussions 01 its rneotings. Papers haw not been subjected to tho rowow procoss by ASAE editorial committoos: thorelore. am not to bo considered as reforecd. 11 1 /I 1 I/ 11 1 1 1 11 1

COLLECTING PARTICLES FROM GIN LINT

CLEANER A I R EXHAUSTS

by

S . E . Hughs, M. N. Gillurn, and B . 1.1 Armijo

I n t r o d u c t i o n

The encroachment of c i t i e s i n t o once r u r a l a r e a s coupled w i t h t h e

i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c concern a b o u t a i r p o l l u t i o n i s p u t t i n g p r e s s u r e on t h e

g i n n i n g i n d u s t r y t o r educe p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s . Gins have used o r a r e

u s i n g sma l l -d i ame te r cyc lones ( M a r r e l l and Moore, 1962) , skimmers

(Kirk ' e t a1, 1976), and u n i f i l t e r c o l l e c t o r s (McCaskill and Wesley, 1976)

on many of t h e i r h i g h - p r e s s u r e e x h a u s t s and u n i f i l t e r c o l l e c t o r s , s c r e e n

cages ( l i a r r e l l and Moore, 1962), and i n l i n e a i r f i l t e r s (Alberson and

Baker, 1964) on t h e i r low-pressure e x h a u s t s t o reduce p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s .

However, v e r y low p e r m i s s i b l e e m i s s i o n l eve l s and i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c p r e s s u r e

is f o r c i n g t h e g i n n i n g i n d u s t r y t o s e a r c h f o r s t i l l b e t t e r methods of

p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n c o n t r o l .

The s t a f f a t t h e Southwes tern Co t ton Ginning Research Labora to ry has

been conduc t ing r e s e a r c h c o n c e n t r a t i n g on f i n d i n g new ways of a p p l y i n g

c u r r e n t technology t o t h e g i n p a r t i c u l a t e emis s ion problem. An e a r l i e r

paper (Gillum et a l , 1980) gave a p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t of t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

o f cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s a s primary and a wet s c r u b b e r a s a secondary p a r t i c u -

l a t e c o l l e c t o r on a l i n t - c l e a n e r e x h a u s t . Gi l lum e t a 1 gave d a t a of

Envi ronmenta l P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) s o u r c e emis s ion t e s t s of c o t t o n g i n s

- - .I .

S. E . Hughs 2

i n Ar izona and C a l i f o r n i a ( see T a b l e 1).

l i n t sys tem exhaus t a l o n e exceeded a l l o w a b l e emis s ions i n t h e m a j o r i t y of

t h e cases , shown i n Table 1. I n a l l c a s e s , t h e sum o f t h e e m i s s i o n s of t h e

two systems exceeded a l l o w a b l e l e v e l s by f a c t o r s anywhere from 1.26 t o

3 .38 .

The s e e d - c o t t o n sys tem or t h e

Gi l lum e t a l , showed p r e l i m i n a r y r e s u l t s t h a t i n d i c a t e d t h a t unabated

l i n t - c l e a n e r exhaus t emis s ions cou ld be reduced by a s much a s 97%, a n d

t h a t c o n t r o l l e d l i n t e x h a u s t e m i s s i o n s cou ld be f u r t h e r reduced by a t l e a s t

50%.

by G i l l u m e t a 1 and t h e f i n a l t e s t resu l t s .

T h i s paper g i v e s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e emis s ion c o n t r o l system t e s t e d

T a b l e 1 . - -Co t ton g i n s o u r c e t e s t r e s u l t s

m VI W

0 0 Seed

Seed c o t t o n c o t t o n L i n t T o t a l process L l a ! T o t a l sys t em sys tem a l l o w a b l e

S t a t e rate”* e m i s s i o n s emis s ions emissions*** e m i s s i o n s c u :: 2

~ ~~~

Bales / k g / h ( l b / h ) - h r k p / h ( l b / h l kg /h ( lb /h ) kg /h ( lb /h ) kg/h ( lb /h)

Arizona - - - - 2318(5100) 3 .4 3 .4(7 .5) 1 . 9 ( 4 . l ) c 1.5 (3 .4) 1 2.7 (6.0) Arizona - - - - 5864(12900) 8 . 6 13.4(29.5) 7 .3 (16 .1 )c 6 . 1 ( 1 3 . 5 ) l 5 . 1 ( 1 1 . 2 ) C a l i f o r n i a - - 8864( 19500) 13 . O 23.7(52.2) 11. g ( 2 6 . 2 ) ~ 11 .8(26 . O ) 1 7 . 0 (15.4) C a l i f o r n i a - - 14045(30900) 20.6 15 .6(34 .3) lO.O(ZZ.O)u+c 5.6(12.4)*u+c 9 .3(20 .4) C a l i f o r n i a - - 15682(34500) 23 .0 18 .0 (39 .6 ) 9.5(20.9)*u+c 8.5(18.8)u+c 9 . 9 ( 2 1 . 8 )

*Not measured, a c a l c u l a t e d e s t i m a t e , c = cyc lones , 1 = l i n t c a g e s , u = u n i f i l t e r . Some of t h e low-pressure e x h a u s t s may have n o t been go ing i n t o t h e u n i f i l t e r .

*;<Using 682 kg(1500 l b ) of seed c o t t o n pe r b a l e o f c o t t o n l i n t . +**From process weight t a b l e f o r a p p r o p r h t e s t a t e , a t time of t e s t .

S . E . Hughs 3

T e s t I n s t a l l a t i o n

F i g u r e 1 shows a schemat i c o f t h e long-cone cyc lone and cyc lone wet-

s c r u b b e r t e s t i n s t a l l a t i o n a t a commercial g i n . A s e t o f smal l -d iameter

(1D3D des ign ) long-cone cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s were i n s t a l l e d on t h e No. 1

l i n t - c l e a n e r a i r exhaus t t o serve a s primary c o l l e c t o r s (see Fig . 2 ) . A

second v a n e a x i a l f a n was i n s t a l l e d p r i o r t o t h e cyc lones t o overcome t h e

a d d i t i o n a l back p r e s s u r e c r e a t e d i n t h e l i n t , - c l e a n e r exhaus t l i n e by t h e

a d d i t i o n of t h e c y c l o n e s .

. I

A cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r was i n s t a l l e d a f t e r t h e long-cone cyc lones t o

s e r v e a s a secondary p a r t i c u l a t c c o l l e c t o r .

s h e e t m e t a l c y l i n d e r 1 .14 m (3.75 f t ) i n d i ame te r and 4.88 m (16 f t ) t a l l .

The e x h a u s t a i r froin t h e primary long-cone c y c l o n e s . w a s induced tangen-

t i a l l y a t t h e bottom o f t h e s c r u b b e r w i t h an ave rage v e l o c i t y of 3 8 4 . 6 m f m i n .

(1262 f t f m i n . ) and flowed o u t t h e t o p o f t h e s c r u b b e r . The ave rage pressure

drop through t h e cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r a t t h e 3 8 4 . 6 mfmin (1262 f t f m i n . )

i n l e t a i r v e l o c i t y was approx ima te ly 10 mm ( 0 . 4 i n . o f w a t e r ) . The a i r

i n l e t s e c t i o n o f t h e cyc lone w e t s c r u b b e r resembled t,he i n l e t s e c t i o n o f

a cyc lone . There were two high-volume w a t e r - s p r a y n o z z l e s l o c a t e d a l o n g

t h e c e n t e r l i n e o f t h e cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r . These n o z z l e s sprayed down-

ward a g a i n s t t h e a i r f l o w through t h e s c r u b b e r .

(13 i n . ) a p a r t w i t h t h e lower nozz le 45.7 cm (18 i n . ) above t h e t o p of t h e

s c r u b b e r a i r i n l e t . The n o z z l e s were r a t e d a t 76 .8 l f m i n . (20.3 g.p.m.)

a t t h e o p e r a t i n g p r e s s u r e of 197 kPa

The s c r u b b e r c o n s i s t e d of a

The n o z z l e s were 33 cm

(28.6 p . s . i . ) . Spray water c o l l e c t e d

I i ' '

I 1

S. E . Hughs 4

a t t h e bottom o f t h e s c r u b b e r and was d r a i n e d by . g r a v i t y t o t h e s e t t l i n g

t ank . From t h e s e t t l i n g t ank , the w a t e r was t h e n r e c i r c u l a t e d by two 2-hp

pumps back through t h e s p r a y n o z z l e s i n t h e cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r .

The t e s t i n s t a l l a t i o n was c o n s t r u c t e d so t h a t d u s t sampling c o u l d be

done a t t h e long-cone cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s , between t h e long-cone c y c l o n e

c o l l e c t o r s and t h e cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r , and a f t e r t h e w e t s c r u b b e r . The

dus t - sampl ing s t a t i o n a t t h e long-cone cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s c o n s i s t e d o f J

"Y-valve" i n s t a l l e d a t t he bot tom o f e a c h cyc lone c o l l e c t o r . P l a s t i c bags

were a t t a c h e d t o t h e o u t l e t s o f t h e v a l v e s . Dust and c o t t o n l i n t removed

from t h e e x h a u s t a i r s t r e a m were c o l l e c t e d i n t h e p l a s t i c bags d u r i n g

sampling p e r i o d s . The bags were removed a t t h e end o f e a c h 4-hour t es t

r u n and weighed t o de t e rmine t h e t o t a l amount o f t r a s h caugh t by t h e

cyclone c o l l e c t o r s . Sampling a t o t h e r p o i n t s was done u s i n g Environmental

P r o t e c t i o n Agency (EPA) Method 5 p r o c e d u r e s . A sampling s t a t i o n f o r a

Method 5 sampling t r a i n was l o c a t e d on t h e a i r d i s c h a r g e d u c t o f t h e long-

cone cyc lone c o l l e c t o r s . Another Method 5 sampling s t a t i o n was l o c a t e d on

t h e a i r d i s c h a r g e of t h e cyc lone w e t s c r u b b e r . The two Method 5 sampling

s t a t i o n s were used s i m u l t a n e o u s l y to de te rmine t h e r a t e o f p a r t i c u l a t e

e m i s s i o n s from t h e long-cone co l lec tors and t h e cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r . Data

from a l l t h r e e sampling p o i n t s gave a complete p i c t u r e o f t h e r a t e o f

e m i s s i o n s and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e d e v i c e s used t o c o n t r o l e m i s s i o n s .

Measurements were t a k e n d u r i n g t h e g i n n i n g s e a s o n and w h i l e p r o c e s s i n g

b o t h machine-picked and ground-harves ted upland c o t t o n .

S . E. Eughs 5

Resu l t s and Di scuss ion

The pr imary long-cone cyc lones and secondary cyc lone wet sc rubbe r

equipped w i t h a r e c i r c u l a t i n g wa te r sys t em and s e t t l i n g tank were ope ra t ed

425 hour s whi le g inn ing about 2500 b a l e s . Tab le s 2 and 3 g i v e t h e p a r t i c -

u l a t e emis s ion tes t resu l t s . Table 2 shows t h a t t h e long-cone cyc lones

c o l l e c t e d an average o f 0 .689 g / s (5.47 l b / h ) o f t r a s h and e m i t t e d a n

average of .069 g / s (0 .549 lb /h ) of t r a s h a t an average g inn ing r a t e o f

6 . 8 b a l e s of l i n t pe r hour . T h i s c o l l e c t i o n r a t e y i e l d s an average

cyc lone c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y of 90.85%.

7 - --

Table 3 shows t h a t of t h e ave rage .069 g / s (0 .549 l b s / h ) o f p a r t i c u -

l a t e s e m i t t e d by t h e cyc lones , t he cyc lone w e t s c rubbe r cap tu red a l l bu t

0.017 g / s (0.135 l b / h ) f o r an average c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y o f 73.53%. L

The average combined cyclone and cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r system e f f i c i e n c y

was 97.58%. T h i s s y s t e m c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y d i d n o t v a r y a p p r e c i a b l y

through the g i n n i n g season on i n p u t m a t e r i a l c h a t v a r i e d from c l e a n f i r s t -

picked t o l a t e - s e a s o n ground-harves ted s e e d c o t t o n . T o t a l f i r s t l i n t -

c l eane r -exhaus t l oad ing r a t e s v a r i e d d u r i n g t h i s time from 0 .446 g / s

(3 .54 l b / h ) t o 1 . 5 8 5 g/s (12 .58 l b / h ) .

F igu re 3 g i v e s t h e cumula t ive pe rcen tages of p a r t i c l e s i z e s determined

by che C o u l t e r c o u n t e r from EPA Method 5 p a r t i c u l a t e samples taken from the

long-cone-cyclone and wet -scrubber e x h a u s t s .

p a r t i c l e s g r e a t e r t han 32 microns exhaus ted from t h e cyc lones and 95% of

There a r e v i r t u a l l y no

S.

E. Hughs

6

u

v)

Ll .A

‘u

aJ r

LI

C 0

m

C 0

0

x

U

E) C

0

U I

u)

C 0

4

al r

u

‘u 0

m

c 3 N u

v)

al Y

C

m

> 0

01

m

4

5 VI 0

111 u

.-4 3

m

m

e: I

N

m

r(

0

n

F-

3 01

am

mm

+m

e-

mw

.o

m

mw

mw

em

dm

mo

mm

o

mm

o~

~m

md

oo

o

mc

oc

om

mm

mm

mm

mm

.

..

..

..

..

..

.

mh

mo

~m

a.

om

mm

co

000d-40000000

..

..

..

..

..

..

.-

S.

E. Hughs

7

u v1

¶ n c X

01

Ir m C ra al r(

U

u

C .A

d

u

Y)

!d

.A

W

CJ .c u

C 0

L. 0 D

D 3

Ir U

Y

)

C

a, > W

W c

c)

-5 v1

0

Ll u

d

3

v1 CI c

m a

d

D 0 w

m i

a

$1 a

';I .

0

0

0

v

R

d

Y

a,

D

3

Y u v1

V c ..I W

0

u

V

m 10 3 0

)r al

n

3

Y)

3

ra c z Y

al D

D 3

h U

v1

6 0

Y

w c 0

.rl u

0

Ir Y

C

al 0

e 0

U

V C

m

u 10

3

m

% al

al c 0 u x

u

3

Ir 'u

S. E. Hughs 8

t h e p a r t i c l e s ' have a d i ame te r o f approx ima te ly 22 microns o r less. These

d a t a a r e i n close agreement w i t h P a r n e l l and Davis (1979). P a r n e l l and

Davis found t h a t long-cone cyc lones d i d n o t emit p a r t i c l e s above 18 microns

i n d i a m e t e r when tes ted under d i f f e r e n t l o a d i n g c o n d i t i o n s u s i n g g r a i n d u s t .

Cot ton t r a s h emis s ions would probably tend t o be made u p of p a r t i c l e s some-

what l a r g e r t h a n g r a i n d u s t which would accoun t f o r t h e p a r t i c l e c u t o f f t o

be somewhat h i g h e r f o r t h e l i n t - c l e a n e r e x h a u s t emis s ions . Even a t

c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s above 99%, a few l a r g e p a r t i c l e s w i l l be e m i t t e d

from a cyc lone e x h a u s t .

The cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r g r e a t l y reduced t h e l a r g e r f r a c t i o n of

p a r t i c l e s e m i t t e d from t h e cyc lone . R e f e r r i n g t o F i g u r e 3, 95% of t h e

p a r t i c l e s e m i t t e d from t h e s c r u b b e r had a d fame te r o f 1 2 . 7 microns or less

compared t o approx ima te ly 2 2 microns f o r t h e c y c l o n e . F i g u r e 4 shows t h e

cumula t ive weight of p a r t i c l e s e m i t t e d from bo th t h e cyc lone and cyc lone

wet s c r u b b e r v e r s u s p a r t i c l e s i z e . F i g u r e 4 shows t h a t t h e cyc lone w e t

s c r u b b e r i s n o t c f f e c t i v e o n p a r t i c l e s 5 microns i n d i a m e t e r o r less, b u t

t h e s c r u b b e r ' s c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y i n c r e a s e s r a p i d l y on p a r t i c l e s whose

d i ame te r exceeds 5 microns . F i g u r e s 3 and 4 show t h a t t h e cyc lone wet

s c r u b b e r c o l l e c t e d v i r t u a l l y e v e r y t h i n g whose diameter exceede 12.7 microns .

A p p l i c a t i o n

The f i r s t t h r c e g i n s shown i n T a b l e 1 used l i n t cages on t h e i r l i n t

sys tem e x h a u s t s . The p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y o f s c r e e n cages f s

unknown b u t i s undoubtedly low. T h i s s t u d y shows t h a t a cyc lone-cyc lone

S. E . Hughs 9

wet -scrubber sys tem added t o a n unabated l i n t sys tem exhaus t h a s a

c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y o f 97%. I t shou ld be a r e a s o n a b l e assumpt ion t h a t

r e p l a c i n g t h e l i n t c a g e s on t h e f i r s t t h r e e g i n s i n Tab le 1 w i t h a cyc lone-

cyc lone wet -scrubber sys tem would r e s u l t i n a t l e a s t an a d d i t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n

i n l i n t sys tem e m i s s i o n s o f 80%.

McCaskill and Wesley (1976) showed t h a t t h e u n i f i l t e r had an ave rage

p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y on c o t t o n g i n emis s ions o f 99.5%.

Gillum e t a 1 (1980) showed t h a t h i g h - e f f i c i e n c y cyc lones had c o l l e c t i o n

e f f i c i e n c i e s t h a t averaged 99.6% on g i n t r a s h . The s i z e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f t h e p a r t i c u l a t e s e m i t t e d by c y c l o n e s and u n i f i l t e r s shou ld be v e r y

s i m i l a r g i v e n t h e i r n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c i e s . I t has been

shown t h a t a cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r h a s a n ave rage c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y o f

73.5% on cyc lone p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s . T h e r e f o r e , a c y c l o n e wet s c r u b b e r

should have a c o l l e c t i o n e f f i c i e n c y of a t l e a s t 70% on u n i f i l t e r p a r t i c u l a t e

emis s ions . The l a s t two g i n s u s i n g u n i f i l t e r s shown i n Tab le 1, should be

a b l e t o r e d u c e t h e i r e m i s s i o n s by 70% w i t h t h e a d d i t i o n of a cyc lone wet

s c r u b b e r on t h e i r u n i f i l t e r e x h a u s t s . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e p a r t i c u -

l a t e s i n s e e d - c o t t o n sys tem and l i n t sys tem e x h a u s t s u s i n g c y c l o n e s a s

c o l l e c t o r s shou ld be i d e n t i c a l , o t h e r t h a n perhaps f o r l o a d i n g r a t e s

T h e r e f o r e , t h e g i n s i n Tab le 1 u s i n g c y c l o n e s on t h e i r s e e d - c o t t o n sys tem

exhaus t should be a b l e t o reduce t h o s e e m i s s i o n s by a n a d d i t i o n a l 70%.

Taken a l l a s sumpt ions t o g e t h e r , 80% r e d u c t i o n of l i n t - c a g e emis s ions ,

70% r e d u c t i o n o f u n i f i l t e r e m i s s i o n s and 70% r e d u c t i o n o f s eed -co t ton

I-

i - ' .

S. E. Hughs 10

sys tem cyc lone emiss ions , t h e f i g u r e s i n Tab le 1 would look l i k e t h e

f i g u r e s i n Tab le 4 . I f t h e assumpt ions a r e c o r r e c t , a l l t h e g i n s shown

would be a b l e t o meet t h e i r t o t a l a l l o w a b l e emis s ion r equ i r emen t s a s shown

i n Tab le 1 . I t may no t be n e c e s s a r y t o i n s t a l l a cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r O K

a cyc lone-cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r system o f a l l g i n e x h a u s t s t o b r i n g them i n

compliance w i t h emis s ion s t a n d a r d s . Many g i n e x h a u s t s such as t h e seed

hand l ing sys tcm and p res s -condense r e x h a u s t s a re l i g h t l y loaded compared

t o seed -co t ton un load ing and number one l i n t c l e a n i n g e x h a u s t s . A d d i t i o n s

o f a cyc lone wet s c r u b b e r o r a cyc lone-cyc lone wet -scrubber sys tem on on ly

t h e s e more h e a v i l y loaded e x h a u s t s may b r i n g D. g i n i n compliance w i t h

emis s ion s t a n d a r d s .

S. E. Hughs l l

Tab le 4.--Assumed g i n sou rce test r e s u l t s

Seed L i n t c o t t o n Lint T o t a l

p rocess sys tem sys tem T o t a l a 1 lowable S t a t e r a t e emis s ions emis s ions m i s s i o n s emissions*

Bales /h kg /h ( l b / h ) kg /h( lb /h) kR/h(lb/h) kg/h ( l b / h )

Arizona 3 .4 .56 (1.23) .31( .68) .87(1.91) 2.7 (6 .0) Arizona 8 . 6 2.19(4.83) l .ZZ(2.70) 3.42(7.53) 5 .1(11.2) C a l i f o r n i a 13.0 3.56(7.86) 2 .36(5.20) 5.92 (13.06) 7 .O (15.4) C a l i f o r n i a 20.6 2.99(6.60) 1 .69(3.72) 4.68(10.32) 9 .3(20 .4) C a l i f o r n i a 23.0 2.84(6.27) 2.56(5.64) 5 .40 ( 11.91) 9 .9 ( 2 1.8)

$CAS shown i n Tab le 1, c u r r e n t s t a n d a r d s may have changed.

Refe rences

1 H a r r e l l , E . A . and V. P . Moore. 1962. T rash c o l l e c t i n g sys tems a t

c o t t o n g i n s . USDA ARS 42-62. 22 p .

2 Kirk, I. W . , A. L . V a n d e r g r i f f , M. N . Gi l lum, and C. G . Leonard. 1976.

An a l t e r n a t e method o f emission c o n t r o l f o r c o t t o n g i n e x h a u s t s . Texas

C o t t o n Ginne r s ' J o u r n a l and Yearbook. March 1976.

3 McCaskill , 0. L. and R. A. Wesley. 1976. U n i f i l t e r c o l l e c t i n g sys tem

f o r c o t t o n - g i n waste m a t e r i a l s . USDA-ARS-S-144.

4 Alberson , D. M. and R . V . Baker. 1964. An i n l i n e a i r f i l t e r f o r

c o l l e c t i n g g i n condenser a i r p o l l u t a n t s . USDA-ARS 42-103.

5 Gillum, M. N . , S . E . Hughs, R. N. Rakoff , and T. E . Wright . 1980.

Primary a n d secondary c l e a n i n g . o f l i n t c l e a n e r exhaus t a i r : a p r o g r e s s

r e p o r t . P re sen ted a t t h e 1980 Summer Meeting ASAE, San Antonio, Texas.

6 P a r n e l l , C . B. , J r . and D . Davis . 1979. P r e d i c t e d e f f e c t s of t h e use

o f new cyc lone d e s i g n s on a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s i n g p a r t i c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s .

Southwest Region Meeting, ASAE, Hot S p r i n g s , Ark.

f. v) W

f.

..-

.. 4

Figure 2 .--Cyclone and wet scrubber installation--long-cone cyclones, right o f center by seed hopper, cyclone wet scrubber, center, and sludge tanks, left side directly in front of car.

SNOtl31W '3ZIS 3131lLVd

W N .d VI

W 4 u .d Y L. m a yi 3 yi L.

>” V W u u .4 z VI W

U .4 u L. m

3

a ‘q 0

u r - to .i : W > .* u m 3

28 e 28 U I

.t al -6 3 io .4 I 4

m

W

m

n

m

W

ln

m z " m

g 5 ln 4 m

6 z N

U1

0

PP

c

z

e

m

ln - n

P

0

0

0

0

0

App

endi

x c.

1

Reference

20

"I m

W

n

m

ln .3

2 0 m m - 0 -. n

n

I

0 z

h

:: N

m

-l

n

D

I

m r

m

m

8 I !

r; ro

!

In

N

Y

m ..

N e.

00

+ 0

0

mr

w

N

c

e

W

2 5 3

n

0

0

m <

r

m

n

n

n

5

"

z m

4

n

P

aw

y

!-I-

0

.

P

C.

0

0.

0.n

X

tn

u

mo

m

o

mo

m0

+

o+

0

0

00

0

0

N

I I I<

I

P

im

IE

I !

m

n

n

r E V

I + W

m

P

x o

m u

Y 0

z x D

A

D

n

n

2 *I +I

In -l

Y

cn

# n

I I I

n

m

m

Y

cn + m

u

-4 In m

a

Y

m

cn .. 0

0

N

N

Q 2 m

P

x z f! 0 e

m

cn

4

Y 0 - c I- u

D

x n

r

m z F! 0 c

0

0. h r \ W

U

m

I

lo

Lo

......

... . . .

-1

. .

. . .

, -. '

.. - , ,

. . .

. . . . .

. . . .

' " , ? . - . .

. . . ....... .. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._i__ . . . G?. il_ .,: .. . . - Emission Testing Report EM6 Test No.: 74-GRN-7 'a

. I

. . . -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~

. . . ..... ." , . _ .... . . . . . . . . : . . . -

. . . . . . . . . . .............. - : . 21.. . . . .>. I

.~

. -

.. .I

. . I

..

... ,~, . . . i. . . ..

.. - . . :..: . . . . . . . . . . ..- , .

. . . . . . . . .... . . , .

B . U N G E C O R P 0 R A T I O N

Destrehan, Louisiana ...... . .

-. .

Project Officer Roger 0. Pfaff

. . . . . > ..

. . . . . . . Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carol i na 2771 1

, .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . ..: . :.

. . . . ' . . : January 1974 : . . . . *. .. . .

. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ~ . .

..

P a r t i c l e S ize Resul ts

Run 1 - C h a r a c t e r i s t i c . . . . .

Diameter, On Weight Cumul a t i ve Weight urn .u Percent Percent, <On Stage

Probe & cyclone 22,450

1 3,14 1,480 71.5 28.5

2 1.63 190

3 1.10 21 0

4 0.57 120

5 . 0.33 70

TOTAL 2,070 I

Run 2 - . Probe & cyclone 44,900

1 3.14 1,260

2 1.63 .90

3 1.10 30

9.2 19.3

10.1 9.2

5.8 3.4 '

3.4 J, I

87.5 12.6

6.3 6.3

2.1 4.2

0.57 40 2.8 1.4

0.33 - 20 1.4

4

5

TOTAL 1,440

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ I . . . . . . . .

. . . ,

. .

R I

l a

dr

n

(0

N \

Q

0

YY

C

II- 4

4

2

no

A

E Y :: M K

Y

VI

!

0

z Y

0

i- Y

0

E

VI

n

9 * m

I a

ac

d

Q

0

N

.. i U

VI

0

Y

Y

Y

I

K

CI

4

n

w

K

u

v)

Y

0

Y

E 0 VI

L

i

..

I

!-P

P??

U

OQ

olO

4

ou

uo

*

+,

**

C

OO

00

W

ON

CO

mm

mm

m

Ne

e

I ..

. I

NO

0

8 coo

le

**

*.

I

cooo I

mm

m

IC

NO

OO

I

?!-

NU

?

UC

PN

O

Qo

lLn

OO

m

mm

mm

*

I I +

*

coo00

PC

NC

O

N--0

0

OO

DO

O

UQ

C.0

0

mm

mm

m

**

I *

*

coooo

PN

NO

O

....

.

CN

N

4 ..

. I

00

0

I

NP

P

le

+

**

. I

cooo I

PO

ON

I

mm

m

IW

??

N?

W

WW

P

OC

NO

m

mm

m

*I*+

00

00

m

wc

w

"??

Q

Ln

WW

D

4C

O

**

**

C

OO

0

OP

OU

mm

mm

-.o

w!.

&

&b

o

NW

W4

m

mm

m

+*

**

C

OO

0

cw

ow

UN

r?

c1

11

mw

W

QN

VI

m

mm

m

*+

**

c 0

.0

0

CW

ON

!-!-?

P

DN

olN

W

VI

NU

*+

4 +

co

oo

N

WC

N

mm

mm

UN

UU

1

11

UO

N

VI*

*-

m

mm

m

**

I

cooo

NN

CN

UP

?!-

*c

oo

l

QV

IO

U

mm

mm

*

*I

+

cooo

UN

CN

e?!-!-

LU

WP

O

.o

l4

P

**

I*

cooo

PN

CN

mm

mm

NU

!-?

o

bc

a

wo

lom

m

mm

m

**

I

cooo

PN

CW

UP

I

olN

I

ON

C I

mm

p I c

**

I

oo

u I

OU

W I

??

I

ON

I

NN

1

mm

Pi

N

++

. 6

00

-

4 Q

UID

I

f?

I -4

I O

C

I

mm

~

I w

*

*.

0 cool I

O

WP

6

!-?

I

ow

I

CC

I

c.

I

CO

N I

-N

O.

I

mm

y I

ff

!

a P

XI

-4

Y

n

r

m

ln

n

-I r

8 4 I I I I m

Y 2 5

*5

4;:

P

m m

Y

m

-4n

XI

ln

ln

xn

DN

!!

N

0.

RO

0

0

m~

$5

i W

7

c

c

U

N

In

-4

VI

-4 P

D

m m

4;: e

c

u

N

ln

4 P

GI

m

\

n

Y

r

P 4 $5

ln

+n

m ln

a-

DN

?T

c

e.

VI

0

0 e

mu

5%

2 W

-, c

c 2 P m c c

m

2 2 4 9

n

$5

m

ln

x-

DN

P

m m

Y

r

XI

!!

!- 0.

00

0

0

mo

l

55

? 3 W

ll 4 I4 ln

d

m

ln % 3 P

Y

m

ln .. 0

0

C

VI

P

ln a 3 :

.. 0 c

-4 m

ln

4

Y

0 3 .. c !2 3 x

n

c

m .. 0 e

ln

m

P

m

U

Y

ll 8 a 4

’? I

I

Pe

e0

0

cV

Iw

..

..

La

Po

0

kL

L

UO

FO

O

me

r

mm

mm

m

mm

m

+.I+

*

++

*.

coooo eo00

UU

NO

O

4°C

.

c

P

n

n

2- -4

m

W

ln

-4 P

m

m

n

r

-4

m

W

-40

m V

I x

-

PN

;

ln &

5

;:

? U.

eo

+ 0

N

me

9 3 W

e

u

In

4 P

m

c

W

m

ln

-4 P

m m

\

n

n

m 5 W

ln $2

m

u P

N

xn

;:

e

N.

QO

* 0

C

m~

55

3 W

c

N

ln

-I P

m e

N

m

In

-4 P

m . n m

n

m

W 5

4n

g5

m

z2

;:

N

0..

4

0

0 c

mu

ss

a 3 U

c c

In

-4 P

m

e

e

m

ln 1 z . n CI r

-4

m

W

UI -4n

m In

x

n

*N

5s

;:

c

0.

0

0

+ 0

D

c

mo

.

ss

3 u

;;I ln

-4

ln

m

W

n

m

ln B .. 0

0 c

VI

0

ln 4 z :

.. 0 c

4

m

UI 4 I

0 B .. c

ln

P

?.

Q

r

m 5 0

N

0

P . N 0 . 3s

. I

OO

P0

.0

OO

QP

O

oouuo

, I *

*

OO

OO

O

0N

C.O

*..

..

mm

mm

m

??ffP

ON

NO

O

mm

mm

m

NN

P0

.O

**

I +

e

coo00

C.td

N-0

NP

NP

O

- 0

00

00

0

00

0

I,

*.

00

00

0

0.

...

mm

m

c

L-

cry

4 ..

le

m

mm

I

N

**

*.

I

cooo I

PC

CW

I

f??

I 0

00

,

cuu

9-

+c

c

I

cooo I

PO

ON

I

mm

m.

I

U

U!-

!-P

P

rff

I ;n

uP

o0

0

00

I

OV

Ir

Oo

v

I0.0

. l

e

mm

mm

m

mm

m.

10

+

*,

*+

*

**

coo00

co

oo

i

PN

NO

O PVCCI

f???

QN

UO

0

D-

W

+*

++

0

00

0

mm

mm

mu

cu

Ne

??

N

WW

W

..

c-oa

mm

mm

*

*+

*

cooo

OP

OU

rP

Ur

O

UP

W

c.lu

VI

mm

mm

*

++

*

cooo

cuou

e-!-?

Dum-

mm

mm

..

NO

NC

*+

+*

cooo

CU

ON

rr?

?

NO

PP

V

IQ

NU

m

mm

m

*+

I

cooo

NU

-N

P?

UU

i?:z

: m

mm

m

4.c

I

cooo

NN

CN

??

??

P

co

c

EO

O~

m

mm

m

**

I

cooo

UN

CN

CUer

PN

UW

P

OO

W

*+

I

cooo

PN

CN

....

m

mm

m

urr

r c

0.c

o

PN

OQ

**

I c

cooo

PN

CN

mm

mm

In

m

m

al 2 c

N

u

YI

I

Yo

. I

**

me

n

r

I

n % : r U

Y N

m 4

D

m

r

m

t 8 , I I m

e

P

-n

n

r 4

m

a

2 D m

\

c(

m

n

m

W

u)

-+

n

DC

m4

m

u)

XY

DN

2

??

f 0.

0.0

0 c

C

me

25

3 u

L- c

U 4

D 2 I- e

U

m

m 2 2 ;;I

4n

%

S

m u)

ZY

DN

Y

r

W

?: P

0.

0

0

+ 0

0

me

%

3 u

e

m

n

n g 2 2 m

D

X

0

m

u) Q z: D

W D

m

W

!+

ln 4

Y

U

n

e.

n 4 n 0

4

m

U + # B n

m

U .. 0

0 e

U

P 3 m

D

x B .. 0 c + U

-I

!+

0 z

m F! e

u)

D

r z B m .. 0

u

% W

n

m

u)

07

DD

40

mm

0

P \

N

0

\ UU

mu

. I

U

u.

n

I- K

W

Y

K

E VI g

L-

!i in

Y

Ul K

0

Y

4

Y

Y

Y

K

I I- v) Y

I-

F a

n

9

N \ a

0

YY

W

I- 4

4

:

no

f.

Y

W

CI

K

W

In

m

. Y

I- 4

Y

-I

2

IO

cl

EE

0

0

ow

n

o

;? f.

.. Y

E 5 52

LY

m ..

Kl-

Y

I

L?

W

44

+

I-

mm

4

0

?

.. $ P

I4

I-

I- t: d

0

? 5 E W

In

i

? N

0

0

m

W

K

W

m

I- In Y

I-

n

I I I I I I I I

m

I- z :: B 2 3 5 I-

8

U

CI

m

Y 0

5 K c

m

5 3 W

Y

Y

W

0

-I

U

e I e 5 C

I Y

.I

W

E 2s

:

Y

dY

el

-

KV

)

4 n

a n

U

'L

Y

I l

L

BO

I

1" . .

.

*P

I *m

\ * N

. d 0

WY

-I-

uu

no

I.

rl w

K

Y

m

* * 0 0

._

2

..

I I , I I 1 I I

m

U I

I- m

K

W

I- U

w

z I U 5 rl 5 !i 3

w

0

Y

K

I- m

W

Y e

Y

(/I -

N

rj

W

S

,-I 0

0

0

I O

Y

MY

0

0

00

I. '9

'9

*

.. ..

Y

Y

N

CI

N

m

I

m

n

Q

7.6 :.; (, A-450/3-79-03&

*c-l by ~~~ ~

i Cr D-WC - Office of Air Quality

Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1

/ >t.olw b . 1 3 .

' a I ."' United Status Environmental Protection Planning and Standards ecember . Agency

Appendix c. 1 Air

& E A Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture - Background Information for Proposed Emission Standards

Reference 26

I -

Ammonium Sulfate Manufacture - Background Information for

Proposed Emission Standards

Emission Standards and Engineering Division

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1

December 1979

.m 0 4 0 n u Y c c c ,

N Y ? do00 0 0 0 0 d 0

9 N

? ? ? ? 9 ? 9 9 3 m r n f - a " 4 n

....

Table C-14. AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Fac i l i ty : B Date: 1014178 Sampling Method: Brinks Cascade Impactor

Range of Effect ive S ize Distribution by Weight

Impactor Diameter N e t W t . Cumulative Fraction Microns (mg ) Percent Percent

Cyclone >8.04 289.2 99.3 100

' Stage 1 2.74-8.04 2 .0 0.7 0.7

Stage 2 1.62-2.74 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Stage 3 1.10-1.62 <0.1 co.1 <0.1

Stage 4 0.58-1.10 c o . 1 co.1 <0.1

Stage 5 0.36-0.58 <0.1 cc.1. CO.1

0.06 co.1

Total 291.4 100

i

C-26

Table C-13. AMMONIUY SULFATE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIOX AhXLYSIS

Faci l i ty: A Date: 9/13/78 Sampling Method: Anderson Cascade Impactor

Effect ive Diameter, Net Ut. Weight Cumulative

Plate ?io. Microns mg . Percent Wt. Percent

1 9.5 45.7 79.6 100

2 6.0 3.7 6.4 20.3

3 4.0 1.8 3.2 13.9

4 2.72 1.0 1.7 10.8

5 1.72 1.5 2.6 9.1

6 0.87 0.8 1.4 6.5

7 0.83 0.8 1.4 5.1

8 0.35 1.3 2.3 3.7

Back-up F i l t er

Total

0.8 1.4 1.4

57.4 100

t-25

T a b l e 3-3. S l J l M A R Y OF UNCONTROLLED AS EKISSION DATA - EF’A EKISSION TESTS ON AS DBPERS*

A

B

C

D

Rotary Dryer 4.38 (1.93) 0.41

Fluidized Bed D q e r 39.0 (17.2) 110

Rotary Dryer 8.87 (3.91) 3.46

Rotary Dryer 98.3 ( 4 3 . 3 ) 77

i I

(0.82)

(221)

(6.92)

(153)

+Detailed rnrcwtrolled e d s i o n data for the individual plants is given ia Appendix C, Tables C-1. C-4, C-6. and C-8.

3-11

Table C-15. AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION &LYSIS

c

F a c i l i t y : C Date: 12 /6 /78 Sampling Method: Anderson Cascade Impactor

E f f e c t i v e Diameter , N e t Wt. Weight Cumulative

P l a t e No. Microns mg . Percen t W t . Percent

1 - '11.8 450.4* 24.0 100.0

2 7.49 200.8 10.7 76.0

3 4.94 818.3 43.6 65.3

4 3.42 253.4 13.5 21.7

5 2.18 42.2 2.3 8.2

L

6 1.11 56.0 3 .0 5.9

7 0.67 11.5 0.6 2.9

8 0.45 11.5 0.6 2.3

~ 0 . 4 5 Back-up F i l t e r 31.3

T o t a l 1875.4

1 .7 1 . 7

*Weight i n c l u d e s p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t e d i n P l a t e :Jo. 0 and i n n o z z l e and head of sampler up s t r eam of t h e c o L e c t i o n p l a t e s .

C-27

J

Table C-16 . AMMONIUM SULFATE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS

Faci l i ty: D I Date: 12/13/78 Sampling Method: Anderson Cascade Impactor

Effect i ve Diameter, Net U t . Weight Cumulative

Plate No. Microns mg . Percent U t . Percent

1 - >14.73 157.3 5.8 100.0

2 9.28 789.5 29.1 94.2

Back-up Fi l ter

Total

6.15 1271.6 46.8 65.1

4.26 413.8 15.2 18.3

2.11 71.2 2.6 3.1

1.40 13.2 0.5 0.5

0.85 0.5 0.0 0.0

0.58 0.0 0.0 0.0

< 0 . 5 8 0.3 0.0 0.0

2717.4

C-28

4.6 REFERENCES

1. Perry, J . H., Chemical Engineering Handbook, McGraw H i l l Publ ishing Company. N.Y., N.Y., 3rd Ed., p. 196.

. . x -

', L. and Marks, P. J. , Source Emissions Test Chemical Co. Houston, .Texas, hmonium ',

Su l fa te Dryer Baghouse, R. F. Weston. Inc., EPA Contract \

i: i ! i

I 1 xd Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., D r a f t Report,

Emission Testing a t an Ammonium Su l fa te Manufacturing Plant, U.S. Environmental Protect ion Agency Report No. 78-NHF-1, Southfield, Michigan, November, 1978, p. 13.

1 ,3x Scott, Envirormental Technology, Inc.. Pa r t i cu la te Emissions Fran An Ammonium Sulfate P lan t Control led by a Cyclonic Scrubber. U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813, Work Assignment No. 27, D r a f t Report, p. 2-4.

No. 68-02-2816, D r a f t Report, p. 24.

I 9 ) ' 4

7.

a.

9.

10.

11.

12.

I $'A Scott, Environmental Technology, Inc., Pa r t i cu la te Emissions F r a An Ammonium Su l fa te Plant Control led by a Venturi Scrubber. U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-02-2813, Work Assignment No. 28. D r a f t Report, p. 2-4.

Special Report, Pol lut ion Engineering, Volume 6. No. 5, p. 34. May, 1974.

6. Cherernisinoff. P. N. and Young, R. A., Wet Scrubbers - A

I Cherernisinoff. P. M. and Youna. R. A.. A i r P o l l u t i o n Control and Design Handbook, Marcel Dikker, Inc., N.Y.. N.Y., 1977, P a r t 2. p. 751.

Data Provided bv the Ducon Comoanv. Mineola. N.Y.. i n a telephone conveka t ion between' H.. Krockta and Craig Sherwood o f U.S. EPA, OAQPS on December 20, 1978.

Data provided by h e r i c a n A i r F i l t e r , Inc., Lou isv i l l e , Kentucky, i n a telephone conversation between W. Klimczak and Craig Sherwood of U.S. EPA, OAQPS on December 11, 1978.

Op. C i t . . Ref. 34, p. 35.

Response o f Occidental Petroleum Corp., Plainview. Texas, t o EPA 114 request.

Mag i l l , P. C., e t a l . , A i r P o l l u t i o n Handbook, McGraw-Hi11 Book CO., N.Y., N.Y., 1956, p. 13-48.

United States M i c e of Air Quality EMB Reporr 80-MET-9 Environmental Protection Planning and Standards May 1980 Agency . . Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1

Emission Test Report Reynolds C0lTIp;any corpus Chaisai. Texas

Appendix c.1 Reference 27

m

I

August 1980

SOURCE EMISSIONS TEST REPORT

Reynolds Metals Company Sherwin P l a n t

Corpus C h r i s t i , Texas

Sources Tes t ed :

S h i p Unloading P r o c e s s

F i n e Ore S t o r a g e Area

D&+&J a. /F?&k David A. R a l s t o n A s s i s t a n t Pro jec t S c i e n t i s t

A i r T e s t i n g

RFW Repor t NO. 0300-81-16 C o n t r a c t No. 68-02-2816 work Assignment No. 14

Prepared by

Roy F. Weston, Inc . Des igne r s - C o n s u l t a n t s

Weston Way West C h e s t e r , Pennsylvania

(215) . 692-3030

.

I

Y

Table 10

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

' (in. Hg.) 29.94 Date: 6-24-80 'bar

Reynol ds Me tal s Company Sampling Location: S h t p Unloading S&.Out]$amPle Time (Min.1 Traverse Point No. Sampled: X-15

Run No. 1

Stack Temp (OF) 76 ion: 95.0

Sample Volume (cf) 59-3 Moisture (% H20) 3'5 Meter Temp (OF) 100 Flow Setting, A H 1.2

Nozzle Diameter (in.) 0.188 (in. H20)

Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions):0.61 cfm

Net Wt. % Cumul at i ve %

Plate No. (mg) - 1 18.9 32.7 100.0

2 0.5 0.8 67.3 3 0.9 1.6 66.5 4 1.8 3.1 64.9

5 4 . 5 7.8 61 .8 6 15.4 26.6 54.0 7. a. 7 15.1 27.4 8 4.8 8.3 12.3

EAD (Microns)

12.5

7.8 5.2 3.6

2.7 1.2 0.71 0.48

Backup F i 1 ter 2.3 b.0 4.0

TOTGL 57.8

Date: 6-25-80

Location: Reynolds Metals Company Sampling Location: NO.

Traverse Point No. Sampled: X-3

G No. 2 Fine Bins Exhaust Stack

Run !lo. 1

30.00 'bar (in. Hg.)

Stack Temp (OF) Ore Sample Time (Min.)9°.0

Sample vo1 ume (cf) 57.5 Moisture (% H20) 2.0

104 Meter Temp (OF)

Flow Setting, (in. H20)

Nozzle Diameter (in.10.185

4 ~ 1 . 3 5

Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions):0.63 Cfm

Plate No.

1

2

3 4 5 6

7 8

Net Wt. (mg) - 2.4

1 .o 1.1 .0.8

1.6 1.5

1.3 1.5

% - 17.8

7.4 8.2 .5.9 11.1

11.9

9.6 11.1

cumul ati ve %

100

82.2 74.8 66.6 60.7

49.6 37.7 28.1

17.0 17.0 2.3 Backup Fi 1 ter

EAD (Microns)

12.2

7.6

3.6 2.4

1.2

0.71 0.47

5.2

13.5 TOTAL

- 3 3 -

Table 12

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION

29.99 Date: 6-25-80 'bar (In. Hg.)

Location: Reynolds Metals Sampling Location: No. 1 & No. 2 Fine Ore Sample Time (Min*) Traverse Point NO. Sampled: X - 3

Run No. 2

Stack Temp (OF)

'ins Exhaust Stack Sample Volume (cf) 113.152

Moisture (% H20) 2.0 Meter Temp (OF) 95 Flow Setting, O H 1 * 3 5

(in. H20) Nozzle Diameter (in.) 0.185

I

Sample Flow Rate (at stack conditions):0.62 cfm

Cumul ati ve EA0 (Microns) %

d %

Plate Net W t . I No. (mg) . . I -

1 2

3 4 5 6

7 8

Backup Fi 1 ter

TOTAL

12.2

1.5

1.3

0.5

1.2

0.8 1.1

1 .o

2 . 4

22.0

55.5 6.8

5.9 2.3

5.5 3.6 5.0

4.5

10.9

100

44.5

37,7 31.8

29.5

24.0

20.4

15.4

10.9

12.2

7.6 5.2

3.6 2.b

1.2 0.71

0.47

I -35-

I

m 0 L Y m lL I

I ! 1

I I I I I I 1

Y u m u c m 2 u u m a a n m - Y L x u w m - v 1 n

m~ C

- Q

Q v ) L O Q

Q U C - .- u

I L L m

- 4 0 .

.(U 0 I .

0 u z C

Y - e

0 z

- -

m c

c N. O m a h a 5 a. y . . . . . 0903 0. 0. 0. 0 0 . . o m o ~ p ~ a Y\ a m N - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c

-- 7 . .- I

. .

32

MANUFACTURING PLANT I ' / I f

1,; I (I. Globe Union, Inc.

Canby, Oregon

Test No. 76-BAT-4

Test Conducted by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emission Measurement Branch

Research Triangle Park, -North Carolina 27711

Report Prepared by

Robert M. Martin Environmental Protection Specialist

Emission Measurement Branch Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

\ i .

.

X d

X

c

Lu 0

13 LL

€

W

z

C

0

P

LL I-

3

cc

Ip. U

e

I- m

0

W N

(r;

W

J

u

C

2

C

I

CI

CI

a

X

0

U

ai

C

I

CI

0

1

I +

I

31

.%

I

ZI

ni

ml

I

-I

M

I

21

3

1

WI

A

I

a1

C

I

-1

X

I

CI

>

I

I C

I

ZJ

I

ZI

U

l

ai

oo

om

~m

om

o

o ... .

-m

~o

d

.in

Oin

I-.

.d0

rtin

inm

mN

m0

0

IN

00

.I

00

W

z

3

I-I

21

U

I

a1

I

31

I

El

3

1

UI

I- 'I

+I

Z

I

Ul

P

I

I C

I

II

UI

V

I

CI

\

I

SI

E

l

UI

a1

ai

Jl

U

l

-1

X

I

WI

I-

I

ai

Z

l

I L

LI

0

1

I l-

l

XI

LJ

I

+I

4-

1

v)

I

ai

0 0

0 0

.-I

. I- m . I- N

I- N

0 .. 0 0

m 0 . w L 0 -I u x- u

m

a

N

l- . N

m . f a N

Q

0 . m m . a in 0

r- 3 . ,-I

0

m

m

f

r- N . m 0

0 . a

m

D . 0

m 0

a . N

I- in

in . .-I

o\

0 . 0

0 . .n m

G . 0

,-I 0

0 . r

)

in a

f . f

I-

*) . f 0

0 . in

d

0

d

f 0

0 . f - m G

. d

m 0 . r

l 0

C

I- 0

0 . 0

,-I 0

0 .

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . C 0

0 . 0 0

0

0 . X

W

I- d

LL M

7

N

86

X

(L

(L

W

0

P

LL z w

z

e.

0

a

CI

w

c

in

3 3

(1.

I

0 c

m 3

W

N

m

W

-I U

C I

4

I

L.l

CI

a

2 0

I-

i

Lu ul

0

a2 4

0

U

-1

v)

a

C

U

0.3 o m .u

4) o m

o

.LD

om

m.

.dO

0.. . .

am

or

(

rlln

ulL

mm

NL

m0

0

IN

co

00

..

id 3

* w, L

Cv

)

w

a

0 0

0

0

rl . Lm

N

Lm ln . I- 0

rl . 0 0

N

4 .

4

I-

0

3 . m

ul

f

*) . N

ul

0 . 0 0

rl . A 0

P-

0 .

a 0

ul .

m I- 0 . rl 0

0

a

LD

0 . a

rl

0

0 .

0' N

m

a

m . r

l

N

0

0

9

10

0 . co

cu 0 .a .

c. Lm . m

f

0,

0

h: 0

c

m

rl

0 . Cn 0

0

4 .

\o

Lm N

01 * 0 . rl 0

0 . P

- O

0

a

r(

0

0 .

I- * (u

. p. t

N

m

N

a

7

f

n

0

m

. I-

O

0

ln

0

0 .

w aa

0

G

+I

Z

I

VI

m m f . m

r

m f

R .

I- a t

m . 0

. 0 LD

. f m f

m 0

rl

X

w

W

0

m

LL E

Lu

z

t- 0

n

CI

UI

+

I

<I

0

1

I C

I

31

ZI

H

I

ni

rn

l

+I

l-ll

ZI

3

1

WI

J

I

CI

-

1

41

5

1

1 +

I

31

ZI

-

1

mi

ai

ai

CI

Z

I

VI

a

i

f- rl

v) rl .

N

0

0 .

rn rl

3 .

m 3 0

m 0 0 .

f- a .

0.. . .

aY

oo

rl

rlm G

mo

I ND

O 0

I +

I

31

f

m I

N co

00

.. In 0

N .

C 0

0

0 0 0

0

rn f

rl .

,- 0

0 .

LL

I

UI

Q

I

\I

W

I

51

0

. C

a

m a

m

rl

n .

r- 0

3 .

VI

n

.1

a1

. rl

.

JI

41

M

I

U

z

4

C

1

c( E

z

r(

3

W

ri

D

a

U

3

V

J

L4 W

U

u

CC

I

WI

I-l

CI

Z

l

rl

C 0

0 . a 0 0

a .

3 0

0

0 .

f 0 0

0 . 0

0

a r

l . . a

. N

I U

I

01

1

+I

3

1

c,n

I-co

~

wu

cc

zI

v)

m~

m

ua c

u u a u c u

rn

nr

nn

mu

~~

~

WI

+

I

41

C

I

rn

I

rl

N

f

m

J

b.

c-(

90

Table 42. Andersen P a r t i c l e S i z e Data - Continued

4

t 2

D P C

>4.13 4.13 2.58 1.74 1.22 .796 .3?3 .240 .161

< . 161

DPC

>4.06 4.06 2.55 1.71 1.21 .822 .383 .235 .152

< . 158

DPC

>4.0O 4.00 2.51 1.68 1.18 .739 .377 .232 .155

< . 155

VI:. o f I*later;al (ma) 1.1 0.1 0.4 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 0.1 0 . 2 0.2 0.5

-

:.it of i . l a te r ia l (mg)

1.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.; 0.2 0.2

:.;t Q? !.:aterial (mg)

0.5.' 0.1 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6

'1 07

WT PCT

35.48 3.23 12.90 6.45 6.45 0 3.23 9.68 6.45 16.13

WT PCT

63.16 5.26 0 0 0 0 0 10.53 10.53 10.53

\IT PCT

37.50 '4.17

CI 0 0 3.333 8.333 8.333

8.333

25.00

CUM WT PCT

100.00 64.52 61.29 48.39 41.54 35.49 35.49 32.26 22.58 16.13

36.85 31.59 31.53 - 71.59 31.51 31.59 3:. 53 21.05 iO.53

43.33 50.93 41.67 33.23 25.0';.

-- .. 1 . . . . ,.. , . . . .

. . . . . . 'l . ..

. .. .. . . i . _ . . ,. , . < - . : . I , .

-

CI

X

W

E

w

m

K

0

UI

I.L

Ci

u .I

2

01

0

I -

CI

I-

=I

w

I-I

=i

ai

m

ZI

a c

v)

W 0

w

N

VI

1

W

I- o 4 a

LL 0

I- w

1

u

-I

1

c

rnl

I: -

1

I-

XI

U

I

W

>I

O

I 4

I-

1

u

13

1

4

ZI

u

-1

n

CI

v)

ni

.. 00

c z

V

n

c 3

I I

*;

tN

o*

ln

b

1m

*o

o*

o+

I

. . . . . . . m I

Q~

OO

Oo

rl

I

ln

I

(0

*)

0c

3~

00

\

lA

1r

-*

00

00

*

. . . . . . . U

I

=I

1

cu 0

0

0 c

0

rl

\t

C

I

€1

or

n-

~m

U

I

' rl

\D

t'rl 0

ai

C

I

rl

oo

oo

.

..

..

-1

1

41

I I-I

31

0c

)d

Ol

nc

uo

0

00

00

00

\

O*

00

0O

f

. . . . . . . R

10

00

00

*

94

CI

.

.

ZI

V

I 0

N.

V)

f d

0

m

a;

om

mf

mO

I\

f

..

.

..

..

I

d

€I

3

1

UI

a

a

c

rn ct rl

z 3

a

z 0

2 3

w

=I 0

-I W

ct

w

N

u)I

H

*I

rn

CII

ZI

w

3

1

-I u

U

+

a a n a 0

I- W

I

u

AI

c

rn

l a

41

zc

-1

w

>I

n

I

u

31

u

HI

CI

ai

a

i

a

1-1

u1 ta

l a

ZI

P

d

a'd 0

d

\D

P-

m ~

Id

N0

00

dO

I-

..

..

..

.

VI

<

ld

00

00

00

\

I

mN

OQ

m

Oa

fd

o

. ..

..

d

o0

00

U

I

GI

0

1

JI

<I

Ei

..

..

..

.

ld

OU

0O

OO

I

AI

0

1

I +

I

31

92

. ..

I

/..

0

0

0

0

rl .

m

0,

Q

Q .

9)

N

NN

N

cu m

m

N

N

*) . m

.N

N

.

.-

..

m

m

. m

rn

\o 0

0

C

0

0 . (

v

\o

0 . r

l 0

5

0 . N

m

m

U

*)

a

IC z

OI

3

rl

X

X

K

E

41

w

z

01

I-

0

I a

.

v)

3

ni

m Z

I

0

UI

LL

CI

W

U

- C

I

C

31

- -

1

m

w

01

I-I

21

U

I

I a

i

r- 0

rl

rl .

Ln \o

Y)

v) .

0 0

0 . 0

0

0 . r

l * 0 . 0

C

G . 0 m

0

0

0 . 0

0

01 N

. 0

*) m

C

I

31

~

C

v1

0

"

(v

0 .

0 0

0 .

a

a

0 .

UI

V

I

41

\

I

a1

a

Ll

. 0

UW

m

u

LO

UV

W

O\

o

ne

0 3

r( .

m

0

G

UI

01

a

i

w

K 3

K 0

C

WI

u

-I

1

4

ffil

E

-0

1

- K

l

41

w

>

I

3

I

u

31

4.

ZI

u

-1

a

41

a

1-1

v1 n

i

21

a

i

CI

I

z 0

xi

W

I

+I

4 I'

€1

..

2 3

0

0

N

0 .

0 0 0

0 .

0 0 0

3 .

0

0

.n 0 .

w

ffi 0.

d a

. rl I

LI

0

1

I

ci

3

1

UI

I-I

41

C

I

In

1

rl

t

v)

1 L

96

0

N

n

n

"

ri u E m

Q

. nn

2

%

no

4

U

C E I

m

2 r(

0

0

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I !! n n

m

n

N

N

-1

U

N

I-

3 n

.

IC

U

Y

0

B I

K

Y

m I

OQ

~

UM

QQ

I-?

??

??:?

I ?

?.

??

??

IC

~N

u-en

I

no

.g-..l0. I

??

?

?-!

I C

C dauu

CI

w

w

YW

YY

I

NQ

N

UQ

Ln

I -

Q

rlL

nC

N

th

o-

0

00

-

I .*

+

*,

**

Q

I

YY

W

WW

Y

I1I)

Nd

Q

OW

d

00

0-

*+

**

Ln

I d

YW

I I I 0.d

nm

nm

IC

NO

eon-

I n

h

CO

W-

IO

OF

I

00

0~

I

.**

+

**

+

Ul

NY

Y

WW

WY

I ?

?

??

??

I

CW

W

NQ

N

IQ

WO

eon-

10

0-

0

00

-

I .+

+

+++e

WIN

YY

W

YY

W

I CP

UQ

QI

I d

N

WW

c-

I

49

?

??

?

11nn.1

01 b

orn

0

10

.0

0

00

0-

I

.+*

+

**

+

NIU

gg

g

gg

z

I -u

4Q

YI.I

Ln

UQ

4

-6

0

QO

O

00

0-

.+

+

e*++

QY

Y

WY

YW

QU

QQ

OO

NC

Q

NIY

C

I s-!

9Y

??

??

1

4Y

Y

i I I

Y I

m

ii U $

z I? h L

N \

0

0 c

n

I? \ d s 0

E K

Y

W

I- C

I

I- - a

I: I4

2

2 w a

e Y

D

n n

N

ii 3

t I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I I I I I I I

b W K

s Y K

W

Y

Y

K

I I I I I I I

I I I

I I

! i YI

<I

>

I

31

I I I I

I

I I I

I I I

I I I I I

I I 1 I I I I I 1 I

I I

I

si

wi Y

O

MI

k

I

YI

P

I

I I I

.

..

Nn

d

Q

2 c

22

Q

0

ww

W

C

IC

S

19 9 E Y

w

a

N

0

ii Y

$ a d

i E ii E :: I-

d

0

5 a

n

n

N

0

0

Y

3 I

I I I I I I ! 5 w

la I

ESB CANADA LIYITED

MISSISSAUGA, CNTARIO

3 3 3 3 3

3

SOURCE TESTING

AT A

LEAD A C I D BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY

.-.~ ~. - E S B Canada L i m i t e d . .. N iss issauga, O n t z r i o

T e s t Conducted By Monsanto Research Corpo ra t i on

Dayton, Ohio

August 16-20, 1976

Repor t .Prepared by Rober t M a r t i n

Envi ronmenta l P r o t e c t i o n S p e c i a l i s t U .S . Env i ronmenta l P r o t e c t i o n Agency

Research T r i a n g l e Park , N . C .

3

J

r ESB Caazda L t d . Mississeugz, O n t s r i o

I , '

, , 3un l a ',. y) , , r DPC

. .L Cun. ?It. z ( n i c p o n s ) ! Y L . of Material ( m g ) Wt. 5 S t 2 Z l I - >5.42 4.04 54.30 100.00

0 5.42 0.1 1.34 k j . 7 0 1 3.35 0 . 3 4.03 4'1. 36 2 2.26 0.1 1.3'1 40.33 3 1.5s 0.5 6.72 3 3 . 9 9

0.98 0.7 9.41 32.27 4 5 0.51 0.9 12.10 22.86 5 0.31 0.5 6.72 10.76 7 0.20 0.1 1.34 4.04

< o . 20 0.2 2.70 2.70

? @ Z Z l e

?

2 I ; ' 7 -.

? 4

DPC ( m i c r o n s )

>5.32 5.32 3.38 2.23 1.57 0.96 0.50 0.31 0.20

< o . 20

5.32 3.32 2.2i - 1.55 0.96 0.50 0.31 0.20

0.1 0 . 2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0 0.1

n U

0.1 0.4 0 . k 0.4 0 0.5 0.1 0

!.J t . $

78.90 0 4.22 2.11 4.22 4.22 2.11 2.11 0 2. il

2. 67 10.70 10.70 10.70 0

13.37 2.67

C u m . W t . Z 100.00 21.10 21.10 - 16.88 14.77 10.55 6.33 4.22 2.11 2.11

n . .i c u n . I Y L . ,o

100. GO 50.31 50.51 :.5.14 37.44 26.74

c0.20 0

T - 2

24

h d e r s e n ? n t i c l e Slze Data ESB Canada L t d .

Mississauga, Ontarlo

n o z z l e 0 1 2

fa 3 4 5

XI 6 7 F

XI

0 1

3 4 5 6

3 2

11 18 ;

b

>4.26 4 . 2 6 2 . 6 7 1 . 7 5

0 . 7 e 1 . 2 5

0 . 4 0 0 . 2 4 0 . 1 6

<O. 16


> 4 . 2 0 4 . 2 0 2 . 6 2 1 . 7 4

0 . 7 7 1 . 2 3

0.39 0 . 2 4 0.16 ~0.16


> 4 . 3 3 4 . 3 3 2 . 7 3 1 . 8 0 1 . 2 6 0 . 7 9 0 . 4 1 0 . 2 5 0 . 1 7

<O. 1 7

2 . 3 4 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.1

Wt. o f Material (mg) 2 . 5 4 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 . 2 0.1 0 0 0

! s / t . of ?.!aterial (qgJ

2 . 1 4 0 . 2 0 0 0 0 . 3 0 0 0 . 1 0

a 5 . 4 0 3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5 0

0 0 0 0 3 . 6 5

3 . 6 5

Wt. % 8 6 . 4 0

0 3 . 4 0 0 0 6 . 8 0 3 . 4 0 0 0 0

::it . % 7 8 . 1 0

7 . 3 0 0 0 0

0 0 3 . 6 5 0

LO. 95

1 0 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 6 0 1 0 . 9 5

7 . 3 0 7 . 3 0

3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5 3 . 6 5

3 . 6 5

Cum. l4 t . % 100; 0 0

1 3 . 6 0 1 3 . 6 0 1 0 . 2 0 1 0 . 2 0 1 0 . 2 0

3 . 4 0 0 0 0

iun. r.it. ;z 1 0 0 . 0 0

2 1 . 9 0 14. 60 l!!. 60 14 .hO I!!. 5 0

3 . 6 5 3 . 6 j 3 . 6 5 0

T-3

7 5

4 IvOVEYUER 1 9 7 6

1

3 3 .,.

F I L T E R

1 3 3

I N P b T V A R I A B L f U N I T S ___ -_ - -_ - -_ - - - - - - - - S C N P L I h i G T I M E M I N PRESSURE CROP I N t I G S T A T I C PRESSURE I& I120 P A R T I C L E O E N S I T Y G / C C 6 A H O V E T R I C PRESSURE I N HG GAS b I C L WT G A S TE1,lPERATURE DEG F GAS V I S C O S I T Y P O I S E G A S C l L h S I T Y G / C C

‘UT OF I ” .ATERIAL OPC Y.G / A C F - -_-------- - - - - - - - - - -_- 20.600 9.84

3.787 1.25 1.81

30.0 1 .66

-4 .15 9.53

29.99 28.0

156.0 0.0001b 0.noloo

47.95

8.82

5.383 0.72 2.57 12 .53

5.137 0 . 4 7 2 .45 11.96

4 .048 0.22 1.93 9.42 . .

3.802 0 :12 1.82 0.85

0.200 0 . 1 0 0 . 4 7

U T-4

20

CUM WT P C h T - - - - - - - - - -_ 1 0 0 . 0 0

52 .05

43.23

30.70

10.74

9.32

0.47

STAGE - - - - - C Y C L O N E

1

2

3

Li

5

F I L T E R

4 NOVEYBER 1976

C P S C A D E I P i P a C T O R P P R T I C L E S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N FOH R U N 1C

INPUT V A R I A 6 L E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S A M P L I N G T I M E PRESSURE D R O P S T A T I C P H E S S U R E P A k T I C L E D E N S I T Y B A R O M E T R I C P R E S S U R E G A S VOL V T G A S T E M P E R A T U R E G A S V I S C O S I T Y G A S D E N S I T Y

M I N CH h G CM H20 G / C C C M H G .

D E G C P O I S E G / C C

30.0 9.27

-10.54 9.53

76.17 28.8 68.9

0.0001G 0.00100

O P C MG / A C M Id7 P C N T C U M V T P C h T WT OF N A T E R I A L ------ ------- ----------- - - -_- - - - - - - - - - --- 20.600 0.28 97.95 100.00

3,737 1.25 0.05 8.82 52.05

5.3a3 0.72 0.07 12.53 43.23

5.137 u.47 0.07 11.96 30.70

4. n q 6 0.22 0.05 9 , + 2 18.74

3.802 d.12 0.05 8.as 9.32

u . 2 0 u 0.00 0.47 0.47

T-5

27

S T A i t - - - - - c Y c L 0 >I E

1

2

3

4

5

F I L T E R

I N P U T V A K I A R L E - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ S A K P L I N G T I Y E PRESSURE OROP S T A T I C PRESSURE P A R T I C L E D E N S I T Y BAHOPETPIC PRESS1 GAS M O L kT G A S G A S VISCOSITY G A S OEFiSITY

T E i'?P E H 0 1 UH E

H I N I N nCi I N H2O G / C C

JRE I N ri6

D E G F P O I S E G / C C

2 t . 0 1.60

-4"lg 9.53

29.49 28.13

1 aa. o 0.00316 O.OG100

15.430 1 0 , o o 09.60 100,00

4 . 1 7 2 1.23 2.92 l5 .4L) 5 0 . ~ 0

3.533 0.71 2.48 i i . 3 a 3&,96

2 . 4 8 7 O , Y & 1.711 a . o i 25.58

1.762 0 . 2 2 1.2u 5.68 1 7 . 5 7

3.c.93 0.11 2.59 1 1 . 8 9 1i.a9

o.n1io O.O@ 0.00 0.dO

T-6

28

4 3

STAGE

1

2 1

B 3 4

4 s

4 FiOVEVlBER 1976

C A S C A D E IMPACTOR PARTICLE S'IZE DISTRIGUTION F O R RUN 2c

II\!PUT V A R I A B L E U N I T S _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - --_-- SAP'PLIP>!G T I n E M I A PRESSURE DROP C? l HG S T A T I C PRESSURE C M t i20 P A R T I C L E D E N S I T Y G / C C B A P D P E T H I C PRESSURE C M VG GAS ,YOL WT GAS T E ~ P E R A T ~ R E DEG C GAS VISCOSITY P O I S E GAS G E h S I T Y G / C C

WT OF P A T E h I A L DPC M G / A C M _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - - - -_ - 1 5 . 4 0 0 0.31

4.172 0 .08

3 . 5 3 3 0.07

2.487 0.05

1.762 0 . 0 3

3.693 0.07

0 . 0 0 0 0.00

1.23

0.71

0.46

0.22

0.11

T- 7

I N P U T D A T A - - - - - - - -_- 2G.C: 4-27

-10.41 9 . 5 3

76.17 28.8 06.7

0.00018 0.00100

'AT PCNT _ - _ - _ _ - 49.60

13.'t4

11.38

8 . 0 1

5.68

11.89

0.00

100.00

50.40

36.96

25.58

17.57

11.89

0.00

4 NOVEMBER 1976

1~4 STATE

F I L T E R I I

CASCbOE IYPACTOR P A 3 T I C L E S I Z E D I S T P I E U T I O M FOR R l i f \ , 3 C c

I N P U T V A R I A B L E - - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - SAMPLING TIPIE PRESSURE DROP S T A T I C PRESSURE P A R T I C L E 3EP;SI T Y RAROMETRIC PRESSUKE - GAS K O L WT GAS TEMPERATURE G 4 S VISCOSITY GAS @ E r ! S I T Y

U N I T S I N P U T O A T A e---- - - - - - - - - - -

M I N I N HI; I N H 2 0 G / C C I N HG

DEG F P O I S E G / C C

30.0 1.68

-3 70 9.53

29.99

160.0 0.00018 ~ . 0 0 1 0 0

28.8

2 3 . 5 0 0 11.20 55.23 100.00

7.775 1.25 3.71 18.27 44. 77

2.106 0.72 1.00 4.95 .26.49

3.104 0 . Y 7 i . 4 e 7.30 21.54

3.342 0.22 1.59 7.85 1Lt.25

2.720 0.12 1.30 6.39 6.39

0.000 0.00 0.00 0 . 0 0 r

T-8

4 NOVEYBER 1976

I[ CYCLCNE

3

Y

F I L T E R

CASCPCE IPIF’ACTCR P A H T I C L E SIZE C I S T R I G U T I O N F O R RUIJ 3 C

SAiLIPLIh!G T I V E PRESSURE OROP S T A T I C PRESSURE

RAROWETRIC PRESSURE GAS M O L MT GAS T F P P ER 1. T UR E GAS V I S C O S I T Y GAS CEI.!SITY

P A R r I C L E GENS I T Y

MIX C R HG CH i i 20 G / C C C f l HG

OEG C P O I S E G / C C

23.500 0.32

7.775 1.25 0.10

2,106 0.72 0.03

3.104 0.47 0.04

3.342 0.22 0.05

2.720 u.12 0 . 0 4

0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0

I N P U T 3 A T A _ - - _ - - _ _ _ _ 3G.0 4.27

,-9.QO 9.53

76.17

71.1 0.00016 0.00100

28.8

LIT F‘CbJT - __ - - - - 55.23

18.27

4.95

7.30

7.85

6.39

0.00

C UH ;i 1 P C :.i T -_- - - - - - - - - 130.00

44. 77

26.49

21.54

14.25

5.39

0 . 0 0

T-9

-30

"39

- 37

-53

I

. -.

1 .. .

BATCH TINNER

Pre-formed t u b e s are fed i n t o t h e batch t i n n e r , a maximum Of

s i x a t a t i m e . These tubes pass th rough a f l u x ba th t o remove

ox ides from t h e t u b i n g be fo re t h e l e a d - t i n c o a t i n g i s a p p l i e d i n

t h e t i n n e r . The batch t i n n e r has a n exhaus t system which co l -

lects any vapors produced i n t h e t i n n e r . Under o p e r a t i n g con-

d i t i o n s u t i l i z i n g the scrubber , it i s repor t ed t h a t t h e gases are

exhausted a t 7 0 acfm. During t h i s test series, a l l vapors were

exhausted through t h e bypass system.

a

-

I

' , .

.: . .

. .

. . , . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . ,

. . I . .

...

, .

. . . . . . . . . .

. .

............. . . . . . . . . . . . . I ' . .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

, . . .

. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . , , . . , ' ,

. . . . , .

. . . . . . . . . . .. , .. ,, . . . . . . . . . . : I. . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

: ,

.. . , . ,

. , . . : . , . . ' . , .r _. . ' '' ' . . 1 .

I

. . ,

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . .

. . ~ . , , I .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . :' . . . . ...,

. . : . .

. ,. , , : , I , . i . . . . , . . . ' , , . ,

. . . . . , .

. . . .

. , . .

. . . , .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

RE!?ORT

... . . . , .

. . , . : ,

. . . . . ' .i . . . . . . . . .

bY .: ..,, -

~~, . . ; . . : .. . . , ...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ', , I . . "'.:' YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION , , . . .

' . : , . ' . >

. . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . .

on . . . .

. , . I

. . . , . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ,

. . EMISSIONS FROM THE . > . . . . , . - . . . -

. . , : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

FLORENCE M I N I N G COMPANY , .,

. . COAL PROCESSING PLANT . . . . . . . . . . . :

. . , , . :. I

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .. :' :,.

a t . . . . , .

*. . , . .. . .

< . ~ . . . . . . .

~ . . . .

. . . . . . . . . I . .:. WARD; PENNSYLVANIA

. , . . . . . . . , . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- :. .~

'( ' . . . . . . . . . . .

. ., .. . . . , .

. . . . . . . ' + . . . . . . ,; . . / . ,

. . ,..:.. ( , . .

, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.: ,. . . . .

. . - . . ..

. . , . ,i . .

. . . . . ,. ,, _ i l

. . . .

.. i

. . . . . . ~. . . . , . . , . . - i

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. , . . .

. . . . . .

. . .

I ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . , . . I -

.:. : . . . . .

... . . . . . . . . . . .

I :. , %

. . . . 3Y ... . . . .

, . . .

. . . . . . , , , ' . . . . ( . L R i c h a r d W. Kling

. . . . , . .

, . Project Engineer . . . .

.*.., . HORK RESEARCH ~SRPSRATION STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT

PAG

E 6 O

F 3G PAG

ES

Y

. . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . .

* . ._ .. .

. . . . . . .

, .

. . i .

!

RE MRT

by

YORK RESEARCH CORMRATION

on

EMISSIONS FROM THE

ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY COAL PROCESSING PLANT

€it

VANSANT, VIRGINIA 24656

BY

Richard W. Kl ing Project Engineer

\ February 14, 1972


.

YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT

#'

. . . I

, . . .

. . . . . , . ..

. .

. . .

. .

. .

I .

. . . . .

. . . .

- .

. ,

.~ .

. .

. . . . .

. . . . ,

. .

EPORT NO, Y-7730-H PAGE 4 OF 64 PAGES

. .

, ,

TABLE I . . ~. I

. . , . . .

. . ' SUMMARY OF RESULTS - TEST #I . .

I n l e t

Date: .. 1/2 5 /7 2

' , . .. Stack Flow Rate - SCFM ' ' 156,000 15 .o

' 17.4 , . . '.; % Water Vapor - Vol. 96 . .

. . . , 1.1 ' . CO2 - Vol. % Dry . . . ' % O2 - Vol. % Dry . .

, .

' . . . % N2 - Vol. % Dry . , . 81.5. . . . SO7 Emission - ppn '; .;37.1

.. ' .. . . - , ' . . . NO:, Emission - ppn

#1 , #2

#3 . . . .

, '

- - . ' .

Hydrocarbons - ppm #1 #2 #3

P a r t i c u l a t e Emission - F i l t e r , Cyclone and Probe

Gr./CF @ Stack Condit ions '1.2719 G r . /SCFD '1.8360 Lb./hr. . 2450.

P a r t i c u l a t e Emission - T o t a l Gr./CF @ S t a c k Condit ions . 1.2763 . .

: 1.8423 . ... . . .. . , . . .

::' . ' 2460. . ' . Gr./SCFD

\ . ' .

~. . . , . . . ';, . L b h . . . ' ' . .

',,; I , '.i ' , . ...

.. I .

,

. - ~. .

. . .

O u t l e t

1/25/72

162,000 13.3 1.1 17.4 81 .5

6.71

73.9 69.6 53.9

44.91 64.53 . 62.78 . .

0.0177 0.0236 32.8

.0229 0.0305 42.3

I YORK RESEARCH CORPOFLATXON STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT

EPORT NO. Y-7730-H PAGE 5 OF 6 4 PAGES

TABLE I1 . . . .

. . . SUMMARY OF RESULTS - TEST #2 . .

. .

Date:

Stack Flow Rate - SCFM ,' : % Water Vapor - Vol . % ::.. . % C02 - Vol. % Dry

% 02 - Vol . % Dry ' . % N2 - Vol. % Dry

so7 Emission - ppm

'I NO7 Emission - ppm #1 #2

' #3

'.

. .

Hvdrocarbons - ppm - . #1 #2 #3

. 1/26/72

157,000 8.4. ,le 6

, 17.3 81.1

41.0 I

:I .. . - - , -

: .

- - . . Part i cu la te Emission - F i l t e r ,

Cyclone and Probe Gr./CF @ Stack Conditions .5518 Gr . /SCFD .7356 Lb./hr. ' ' , 990.

a

.' Part iculate . .Emiss ion - T o t a l , Gr/CF @ Stack Conditions .5627 . .7502

. . . ' 1010. , . ' , . . Gr/SCFD ' .

. . . .

. . . . :.. . Lb./hr . . ,

. . . . . : . . . . . .

. I

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

O u t l e t

1/2 6/72

157,000 13.4 1.6 17.7 80.7

2.68

17.2 , . '

71.7 ' ,

88.3

53.64 65.40 44.14

0.0088 0.0118 15.9

.0.0117 0.0157 21.1

.

YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION STAMFORD. CONNECTICUT

.. .

" PAGE 6 OF 64 PAGES . .

. . .. . . . ,.

.. .. . .. . . ' . ! ' , , . j .

I ...

. .

. . ..

. . .. . . . . . .

. .

. .

. ,

.. . .

. . .

. . , . . .

. i

. .

. . . .

. . .

. , , . , , . , . . . .. . . .>. STAMFORD, CONNECnCUT

, . . . ,. . , , . . . . . .. ' . ; :' . YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION

j . . I . ,

, . .

YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION STAMFORD, CONNECnCLT

I

PAGE 8 OF

64

PAG

ES

0.. '

.. v

P)

s $4 0

dJ m

$4 0

a

ar 0:

+ b a C ,a

+ I n U L a C (I

T li

a + : C L e C

.. I-

a a I-

C E a r

n U

T E

Il I-

.r

r[

L a L

ll 0

.E

0

U

7 0

v)

PAGE 9 O

F 6

4 PA

GES -0

0'

0

0.

. 0

0

0"

, al

OD .

(z

\D

In

m ,

' ', '. h

l ,

' 4

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

.. ..

.. .

..

.

. azTs wie

as

'aa

oa

e au

a ax

ad

.._

< . . ' Appendix

2.f

50 lo. 0

2.0.0

30. r

STATIONARY SOURCE TESTING OF A PHOSPHATE ROCK PLANT

A t

The Beker Indus t r i e s Corporation Conda, Idaho

BY

E m i l e B a l a d i Midwest Research I n s t i t u t e

EPA Pro jec t Report No. 75-PRP-4

FINAL REPORT

EPA Contract No. 68-02-1403 MRI Projec t No. 3927-C(13)

For

Environmental Pro tec t ion Agency Research Tr iangle Park North Carolina 27711

Attn: M r . R. Terry Harrison


EMB REPORT NUMBER 75-PRP-4

AIR POLLUTIO EMISSION TEST

BEKER INDUSTRIES, INC.

Conda, Idaho

STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION E Office of Air and Waste Management

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Eniissioii Measiireiiieiil Braiicli

Research Triangle Park. Norlli Carolilia

\GENCY

S r

11

1 I

I I

"I

'

' I

I

i

CI

c

41

.- ..

*. .

.

..

. ..

..

0

-t I- P

)

2

J c

ul

0.

c

56

1 I I I I I I r I I z b c I i 1 -

I I II I I I I I I ,I 1 *I

1 i I

mm

I.

cm

u

~c

I.c

I.I.

“N

NN

N

Y”””.??

W 4 $ -1

... dddooo

999999

00

00

00

“Y

Y”

””

w

ww

wa

a

344d44

UU

”U

””

a

aa

aa

a

00

00

00

YI

.*

YY

I.

w

wa

wm

w

aa

sn

sn

a

sn

aa

n

aa

aa

aa

*

YY

*I

.I

.

ou

oo

uo

v

1v

)v

)v

)~

~

oo

mo

oo

?-!?Y?Y m

nm

oo

o

NNdNNN

.??

?9

?9

O

OO

OO

O

49

a * Y

22

o

a

-

**

&

“ 0

0

v) n-

E

a H

“e“-

??

??

??

s

ss

ss

s

IZ

WW

0"

04

0

-

.. - c

m

0 i

u

w e 0

00

00

00

00

0

oo

ao

oo

oa

o

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

......... 0

00

00

00

00

I'

.-

.

e

.. : I

50

z w

Y

I

w z

a

*, c r

La

-

I -=

1 w

'3 r .- .Y

0 - D

Q 0

. c 0

.\ c

0

1-

mQ

m-

Y)

-

......... O"--NQIQO

Nc

IN

OO

LO

C~

--

OO

o n-\.

oa

am

.

00030-nDIl

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

0 .........

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

.........

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

~0

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

.........

i 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I .-

52

110

-e

mn

O

N

00

.. I

L

U

c

Ln N

* c

05

O

I

0-

.. - m

c

P

0

* 0

W c

4 a

NIOOmNNN

-(*

-N

00

**

........

-Q

*'IN

-

- oo

mm

~~

~o

o

OO

J'

II

NO

QQ

0

00

1o

-L

nc

m

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

s .........

......... 0

00

00

00

00

53

...

sir i

c

Q

Q

I- C

I

W

m

'?! z . 0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

Y

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

~

......... a,

>,

0-

..

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

......... yl

c I

0

3

54

d

>

R

<

2

3

yl

- VI c .\

WA

X

7W

U

.- =

oa

r Z

~I

DN

o .u n

'n N

N o

n

--

ne

I ,"

0 n

.* 0

0 0

Q

.........

O~

DN

=.

DO

NO

O

N~

~Y

IO

CC

O

......... O

II*

IV

IC

U1

0~

0

-0

-0

d

Om

O1

Dm

OQ

m

0.7

--e

mo

m

N*

IN

ON

Q~

D~

*D

N

......... O

Q'U

IIO

m-

IID

O

Q-

*I

*'

~-

NU

O

oo

oo

o-V

IQ

ul

00

00

00

00

0

0.0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0

......... 0

00

00

00

00

0

OO

OO

OD

OO

O

00

00

00

00

0

ooooouooo

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

.........

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

~0

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

......... 0

00

00

00

00

O-

NI

IO

U~

~C

~

.\\\ \ \\\\

0 - .u II

VI a c

55

4 I9

THE ROYSTER COMPANY

MULBERRY, FLORIDA

b

EPA REPORT FOR

THE ROYSTER COMPANY

PHOSPHATE ROCK FACILITY

MULBERRY, FL.ORIDA

EPA REPORT NO. 75-PRP-2

TASK NO. 1 4

CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1406

Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency O f f i c e of A i r Q u a l i t y P lann ing and S tanda rds

Emission Measurements Branch Research T r i a n g l e Pa rk , North C a r o l i n a 27711

. _

Submit ted by

Engineer ing-Science, I n C . 7903 Westpark Drive

McLean, V i r g i n i a 22101

Janua ry 1976

TABLE 11-12

PARTICUIATE MASS COLLECTED I N THE BRINK PARTICLE SIZING TRAIN (Royster Ghmical)

Run 4 ’ Run 5 StaRe g r / s c f d Grams g r l s c f d

Cyclone 0.04 117 1.241 0.04427 1.335 1 0.00583 0.176 0.00491 0.148 2 0.00727 0.219 0.00982 0.296 3 0.00457 0.138 0.006 12 0.185 4 0.0033 1 0.100 0.00144 0.043 5 0.00092 0.028 0.00111 0.033

F i l t e r 0.00016 0.005 0.00004 0.001

Tota l 0.06323 1.907 0.06771 2.041

- a/ g r / s c f = gra ins p e r standard cubic foot.

TABLE 11-13

CUMULATIVE WEIGHT PERcEN+’ VERSUS PARTICLE S I Z E FOR THE BRINK SAMPLING TRAIN

(Royster Chemical)

Run 4 Run 5

cum. W t % d % Stage Cum. W t L - a /

Cyclone 65.11 7 1 74.33 2.93 2 a5.83 1.73 3 93.06 1.18

98.29 0.63 99.75 0.40

4

100.00 0.30 5

F i l t e r b/

65.38 7 72.63 2.93 87.14 1.73 96.17 1.18 98.30 0.63 99.94 0.40

100.00 0.30

- a / Dp = Effec t ive cu tof f diameter (microns) based on u n i t dens i ty p a r t i c l e s . . . Cum. wt% = Cumulative weight percent includes p a r t i c u l a t e co l l ec t ed on

Dp f o r t h e f i l t e r was assumed t o be 0.3 p (over 99% of p a r t i c u l a t e t h e back-up f i l t e r , a l l s tages , and the cyclone.

2 0.3 p n a r e co l l ec t ed on the f i l t e r according t o manufacturer data) . - b/

11-17

. .

11-18

Y

m

U

a m

l4 c1 . UI (0

PI J

U

0

Y

m

PI m 3-

rl I Y

Y

>

L 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1

sn

ou

0%

0

0

00

0 ..

I1 I1

ce

1 '1

03

a*

G-

.. II

I1 >

'2 e.

-.Y

3W

n

k

W'

-I

u-

- . *. c i u

-I--

--

z

an

- - .. VI

c .\

WA

Z

7w

u

>-

I I

+ il

cz

c

xw

-I

.mu

-

r-lr

k

3Y

W

c

c

3

I

I-z

c

xu

2. -I

I

WW

S

k

UB

LL

a

I

*a u

11-25 on

mc

oc

co

o

ON

I-

PP

CC

JO

.........

o4

).

nm

I-

*~

oo

N*Q(OO.OO

0 el U

I'C 0

F I-

0 0

O

NI-

PO

.C

C0

0

......... O

VQ

~C

QQ

OO

~

u~

m-

00

-4

o~

mu

n

-a

oo

ooooooaao

OY

iI

nU

*~

~)

eO

.

OOeOJOOOO

00

00

00

00

0

......... 0

0

00

10

00

00

0

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

00

00

00

=5

0

......... aaooooJ~o

ooa=oo=oa

\

- In

c .\

W-

JI

>

-?W

%

I1 I1

t-c

11

uo

04

0

-

.. 1

I a

c

iL)

cz

c

IW

4

.W

U

n

r-0

: L

aw

w

uxn

c

=I

3

c

I

cz

c

rw

I

WU

7

-1

1

ww

Jn

-c

-n

mn

+m

N

C~

~P

WP

~~

........

Ol(

r4

N-

00

00

0~

00

0

OO

OO

~C

~Q

QQ

.........

0 0

0 0 - - 1

N N

0 0

0 0 0

0 0

.0

0

oo

oo

c)o

no

e

......... 0

00

0-

0-

00

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

00

00

00

00

0

......... O

OO

OO

OO

OO

m

mo

oo

I--

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

......... 0

00

00

00

00

ln

r

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

10

0

00

00

00

30

0

ooooouooo

0000000J0

.........

00

00

10

00

0

0000J0000

0=

.0

00

~0

00

0

00

00

00

00

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

......... OJOOOOCOQ

11-26

i I 1 II I

I I

I

- ?-

I

I I

I I

I I

I 0

I I

I I

II

i.

I I

c

I'

0.

0.

v)

0.

0

0.

I

- 0

- '9 0

11-28

Ln I U

U

MOBIL CHEMICAL

N i c h o l s , Flo r ida

m m a m m

m

m

a

u

fl

II

EPA REPORT FOR MOBIL CHEMICAL

NICHOLS,' FLORIDA

NO. 75-PRP-3

Task No. 15

C ntract No. 68-02-1406 q . 8.

Submitted to

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Programs and Standards

Emission Measurement Branch

Submitted by

Engineering-Science, InC. 7903 Westpark Drive

McLean, Virginia 22101

. . January 1976

L

TABLE 11-6

PARTICULATE MASS COLLECTED I N THE BRINK PARTICLE S I Z I N G TRAIN

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Stage Grams &cf Grams g / sc f Grams g l s c f

Cyclone 0.06835 1.340 0.05120 1.434 0.02811 0.966

3 0.00452 0.089 0.00387 0.108 0.00242 0.083

1 0.03600 0.710 0.01029 0.288 0.00179 0.061 2 0.01100 0.216 0.01062 0.297 0.00509 0.175

4 0.00300 0.059 0.00166 0.046 0.00197 0.068 5 0.0014 1 0.028 0.00050 0.014 0.00074 0.025

F i l t e r 0.00205 0.040 0.00040 0.011 0.00109 0.037

T o t a l 0.12633 2.4772 0.07854 2.198 0.04121 1.415

TABLE 11-7

CUMULATIVE WEIGIIT PERCENT=/ VERSUS PARTICLE s IZE FOR THE BRINK SAMPLING TRAIN

eun 1 Run 2 Run 3 Stage Cum. W t %a’ Dp ( p m ) d CUR. W t % Dp (um) Cum. W t % Dp (urn1

Cyclone 54.10 7 65.19 7 68.21 7 1 82.60 3.55 78-29 3.35 72.56 3.19

3 94. 89 1.37 96.74 1.37 90.78 1.29 4 97.26 0.72 98.85 0.72 95.56 0.69 5 98.38 0.47 99.49 0.47 97.36 0.44

F i 1 t er- b/ 100.00 0.30 100.00 0.30 100.00 0.30

2 91.31 1.99 91.81 1.99 84.91 1.89

a / D = E f f e c t i v e c u t o f f d iameter (microns) based on u n i t d e n s i t y p a r t i c l e s . - P Cum. wt. % = Cumulative weight pe rcen t i nc ludes p a r t i c u l a t e c o l l e c t e d on t h e back-up f i l t e r , a l l s t a g e s , and t h e cyclone.

2 0.3 pm a r e c o l l e c t e d on t h e f i l t e r acco rd ing t o manufacturer d a t a . ) b / D for t h e f i l t e r was assumed to be 0 . 3 pm. (Over 99% of p a r t i c u l a t e - P

1 2

. ”

fl U

19 n Q

..

ul

13

..

.

.

..

rl

rl I Y

Y

w

4 Fl

i ZI

m .a

1 x lA. .J

0

0

0

L -D

00

OI

0-

.. - t

W

L

S

¶

zc

.LO

.

ZY

ad

~n

~-

ns

m*

O

Y) u oa * n

n

........ . - . ."" - 0

Q i - c

oo

oo

oo

-.

J~

0

00

00

00

00

ooooooooa

......... h

nl

)-

-m

,*

3

00

00

00

00

J

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

000000J00

00

00

00

00

0

Q0

00

00

.a

00

.........

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

oooaooooo

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

l0

00

00

0lD

0

.........

21

I :I

... ..

-.I --

I

v-

N

OO

ON

~D

O~

I .a

. Y) u

0 J. I* In

c,

9-7

J

........ .1

A -

oo

uo

-

a-

1

-. .I c - ,-

L

T c

- s I I I m w

C

-I 3

L

C 3

c I

I- I

- s

w

3U

r) w

-a

00

00

00

00

0

0~

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

13

0

00

00

00

00

......... .........

0~

00

00

00

0

W

z-

25

>a

.

. 27.

h

APP

bL

TED ST

Of1

I

C,Z, &f ‘1 I REPORT NO. 75-PRP-1

Appendix n l

ISSlON TES

48

. . W. R. GRACE CHEMICAL CO.

BARTOW, FLORIDA

‘ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air and Waste Management

lice of Air Quality Planning and Slandnrds Eiiiissioii Measclreliietil Brmcll

3cscnrcli Triangle Park. Norlli Carolilia

.

EPA REPORT FOR

W.R. GRACE CHEMICAL COMPANY BARTOW, FLORIDA

EPA REPORT NO. 75-PW-1

TASK NO. 14

CONTRACT NO. 68-02-1406

Submitted to \

Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Emission Measurements Branch Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

Submitted by

Engineering-Science, InC. 7903 Westpark Drive

McLean, Virginia 22101

January 1976

m a or a i

U.

L, .. 5

C

cz

xw

L

*U

"

2

ww

I

D

-.

ta

=n

:c

qn

r?

c

d a

0 5

a 0

.? - 0

~ooooo---

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

3oooooaoo

.......... 0

oooao3a1a

00

00

00

J0

0

030000030

.u 0

00

00

10

50

L. r

oaoooooo3

<=

Q

......... ,L

C

0~

00

00

30

0

0J0000000

Y

0000u0000

4

00

00

10

05

0

P

00a0u0000

c r

x

oo

oo

oo

cu

.3

PU

.'*

30000003c

QC

9

.........

11-11

./ "

d. u

-

m-

mo

~

* om

-

.U

O

CN

v)

Nd

C Q

cru

........ a

-7.

' N

C.L

l)r

)N

r

an

-

SS. 0

0

n 11

cc

*1

L 'f

a0

0.0

0

-

.. I

n II

*Ll

I-.

-a

v.Y

Z

W

W.

z - m c '*

V

'? -

I I K

x

c

-I .I

Y

T

I-

5 I

I

I

& L*'

I-

U

d I- 2 i c " 1- I

OOJOOOOOO

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

5

44 0

00

00

00

~0

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

,I&

*

00

00

00

00

0

=I

=

a =

a

.........

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

0000J0000

.o 0 0

0 0

J 0 0 0

0

00

00

~0

00

0

00

cc

00

.3

0

00

00

00

00

0

.........

11-12

d

Id a d d a d

m m a 11-13

e55 ' P r o j e c t NO. 76-NMM-1

Appendix c.1 Reference 5

AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST

INTERNATIONAL MINERALS AND CHEMICAL COMPANY

SPRUCE P I N E , N . C .

il

- 'ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air and Waste Managemenl Office of Air Quality P lann iq and Standards

Emission Measurelilc!lll Bralicli Research Triangle Park. Norlli Cnroli~ia

E M I S S I O N STUDY

a t a

FELDSPAR C R U S H I N G AND G R I N D I N G F A C I L I T Y - I n t e r n a t i o n a l Minera l s and Chemicals Corporat ion

Spruce P i n e , North Caro l ina September 27-29 , 1976

I/ I I I 1 1 1 1 1 ! II II I ! ! ! 1

Prepared for the

U . S . Environmental P r o t e c t i o n Agency

Clayton Environmental C o n s u l t a n t s , Inc. 25711 S o u t h f i e l d Road

S o u t h f i e l d , Michigan 48075

P r o j e c t N M M - 1

Task 25

Contrac t N o . 68-02-1408

- 26 - 1 :

I I I I

I il

i

TABLE I V - 1

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION NO. 2 MILL BAGHOUSE NORTH I N L E T

I n t e r n a t i u n a l M i n e r a l s and C h e m i c a l s C o r p o r a t i o n S p r u c e P i n e , N o r t h C a r o l i n a

Sep tember 27-29, 1976

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c D i a m e t e r

o f P a r t i c l e s ( m i c r o n s )

>45 30 - 45 20 - 30 1 0 - 2 0

8.0 - 1 0 6 .3 - 8 . 0 5.0 - 6.3 4.0 - 5.0 3.2 - 4.0 2.5 - 3.2 2.0 - 2.5 1 . 6 - 2.0 1.3- 1 . 6 . 1 .0 - 1.3 0.5 - 1.0

<0.5

TOTAL

11.400 4.175 3.345 7.834 0.147 0.405 0.710 0,666 0.841 1.028 0.902 0.621 0.349 0.401 0.396 0.119

-

33.339

S i z e D i s t r i b u t i o n b y Weight

P e r c e n t

34.2 12 .5 10.0 23.5

0.4 1.2 2.1 2.0 2.5 3.1 2.7 1 .9 1.1 1 . 2 1 .2 0 .4

100.0

C u m u l a t i v e P e r c e n t

100.0 65.8 53.3 43 .3 19 .8 19 .4 18.2 1 6 . 1 1 4 . 1 11.6

8 .5 5.8

- 3.9 2.8 1.6 0.4

C l a y t o n E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c . u"

TABLE IV-2

PARTICLE S I Z E D I S T R I B U T I O N NO. 2 M I L L BAGHOUSE SOUTH I N L E T

I n t e r n a t i o n a l M i n e r a l s and Chemica l s C o r p o r a t i o n

Sep tember 27-29, 1976 . S p r u c e P i n e , N o r t h C a r o l i n a

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c D i ame t e r

o f P a r t i c l e s ( m i c r o n s )

>45 30 - 4 5 20 - 30 1 0 - 20

5.0 - 10 4.0 - 5.0 3.2 - 4 .0 2.5 - 3 . 2 2.0 - 2.5 1.6 - 2.0 1.3 - 1 . 6 1.0 - 1.3 0.5 - 1.0

<O. 5

TOTAL

0.366 0 . 2 7 1 0.233 0 . 1 4 1 0 .094 0.006 0.016 0..030 0,040 0.044 0.036 0.034 0.073 0 .039

1 . 4 2 3

S i z e D i s t r i b u t i o n b y Weight

C u m u l a t i v e P e r c e n t P e r c e n t

25.7 19 .1 16 .4 ,9.9 6.6 0 .4 1.1 2.1 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.4 5.1 2.8

100: 0 ' '

74.3 55.2 38.8 28 .9 22.3 21.9 20.8 18.7 15.9 12.8 10.3

7.9 2.8

I - I 100.0

C l a y t o n E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s u l t a n t s , I n c .

rt 5. m

R

m @a m

F

m m

Ll 1" a R

m

I:

I

H

3

R

m m 3 m R

mu m

Y

m

am

o n

a

+ m

F.

uo B

o\l

-l-

rm

2,

" m a

0

D

rf 0 1

m r-

z 0

..

.

__

_

.. .

. _

_

..

-

..

, c'

Ln

rn

dh

'

0 0 000'

0

0 0 000'

. .

. ..

. w

z L P

P

P 8 c

H

3 a

w. 0 m rt

a

m ..

m

rl

- 1 I . I.

2. r 5

/O

,- 1

,e* I I

App

endi

x c.

1 Reference

53

i

mx

a

n

HD

0-

on

E?

?

L

Y?

0

VI N

n

m

m

W

C

<

I- Q u u E

WD

-i

n

c-

04

-4

ZIT

mo

m

OW

W

W

m

n 8 z 3 -4

m

A z m 2 $ m X

I

m

P

0

Lo E a m

-I

m

u)

m

P

x 0 P

-4 P

ID D

u)

m ? I 0 I I I I

m

H

0

m

n B .. u

N

VI

Q .. .. z

0

4

m 4 n 7 0

u

VI

0

u

0 5 P

* m m

W

--

I

D 0

rn

r?

nn

w

S?

-I

z DO

m

0

N

VI

w 2 2 z u)

m 5 a z

W

m

m

m

P

a

n

8 e G

-I

m

m

W

H

m

m

n

0

W

x

0-

DD

-4

0

rnm

I

-I P

W

*Fl

I

n 2 Y

cn -I m

VI -I K io

CI

m

VI z

I?

cn

0

0

0

OI 2 m

P

x z I? 0 c 2 In -I Y

0 z I? e

VI P

I- m % B 0 ..

U

il

Y

11

I

I-

ln

> 3

.0

7

m

z F! 0

N

ln

m

72

Y

VI

n

x

U

m !3 n 0.0

>D

-I"

mm

C

u)

Y

In

m a

m

'f

t f

r r

'.' .,

i 4

.II

I

"?!-

?

rr

Pl

QW

UN

W

O

NW

f.

WO

.O

.N

VI

N

mm

mm

m~

mm

m

++*IC. I+.

C 0

0 0 0

N

C 0

V

I 0

0.c

o.w

mo

0.0

.

N

W

7

m

m

a +

n

n

ln

n

r

4

m

m

ln

ln

-4

CI

N

ln

m

m

a

n

-4 * E

ln

2

m

m

z F! 0

0

0

m

m

ln

-4 a

m

D

x z F! 0

Id

ln D

X

m

F

rn z !! 0

E

:

a

n

m

ln a

0 a a n

u

0.0

D>

-4a

0

0. \

N

0

UL

I

mm

2-

0

e 0

c c

r r

fi

P

h

h

h

n

h

A

A

A

tl

I

Y

0 z 0 N

9-

.In 9

N

0

h >

Y

0

m

i U

Y

z

K

Y

* 0 U U

Y

Y

K

K

i I- K

0

Y

K

K

KO

Y

OU

)

-IS

2

I-I-0

I-4

*

n

wa

n

Y

i t: E CI

m

. -

.

1 0

0

da

do

0

I I'

11

n n

#3 n

a

fh

n

n

n a

d c

6

a m

Nn

“(0

\ 4

Q

0

YW

w

c

u<

UO

Y h

U

s

K

e C B I4

m

r( 0

i

N

0

0

e

n

2 B Y

VI

5 I-

2 W

0

Y

9.)

2; 2 > N

0

WY

W

I- qu

UO

I. u

x

K

0

Y

t: E CI

W

g i Y

-.1

P

x

U

VI

d

.. 0 z Ei k Y

I-

d

0

0 I

.. r 2 K

+

VI

N

0

0

;r, G c CI K

Y

W

I-

I- s 2 Y P LL

dl*

Nrn

:: ?

22

Y

W

UII-

I. U

8 L m

Y

U

E

W

m

:: ii Y

2

P

5 m

d

.. 0 z

0

$+

r-4 Y

I-

d

0

ii !

5 m

N

ff m 0

0

ii E B E s CI

m

I-

c

Y

P

L

I

I1

dn

*

1W

> 2 N

0

l. U

Y

u)

Y

Y

u) 3

- 0 ? N

k Y

I-

- 0 ? 5 Y

R : 0 0

u) Y

Y

Y n

touu)

00

-e

m

,d

o-

o

oo

or

(

I .**

**

,+

+

PI

YY

.

WY

YY

Y

I 0

-

00

r.

OQ

!

NY

99999

i i

N 0

0N

i.i

~n

nn

r(

uu

rt

ue

mi

~

~~

~Y

YY

YY

! u4

?N

Y?

?

,e

o~

eo

oo

or

l

.++

.++

, +*

w

e

Q0

1.1

0.4

..

..

N

i i7-I Y. E: I- N

U

CI

0

0

i E a

W

H

a 5 l- 2 Y IL

n

I I I I I I Y

!i I- Y

N

H

In

Y 2

I- K

4

n

IOC

IYI

oo

r(ffa

I

r(

0-

l

00

00

-

, .+

+

++

I+

+

PI

Y

Y

YY

YY

Y

I N

N

OO

NC

m

! ?vl

??e-!?

I I'

b

U

S

P;

0

Y

? N

d

0

B N

c2 0

B 5 I-

IO

QU

l

OO

db

Ul

Id

0.I

oo

oo

rl

I .*

+

*+

I*

+

D,

W

Y

YY

YY

W

I rlb

0

0Y

IQ

n

I ?

Y

99

9%

': I

-07

O

ON

NU

l

I I'

United States Environmental Protection Planning and Standards EMR R m n n RO-LWA.3 Agency



Appendix c. 1 Rererence 55

3 3 E M I S S I O N T E S T REPORT O

METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR CLAY, SHALE, AND SLATE AGGREGATE INDUSTRY:

T e x a s I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . C l o d i n e , T e x a s

ESED 8 0 / 1 2

PEDCo E n v i r o n m e n t a l , I n c . 1 1 4 9 9 C h e s t e r R o a d

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 4 5 2 4 6

C o n t r a c t No. 6 8 - 0 2 - 3 5 4 6 W o r k A s s i g n m e n t N o . 1

PN 3530-1

EPA T a s k Manager

F r a n k C l a y

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY E M I S S I O N MEASUREMENT BRANCH

E M I S S I O N STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING D I V I S I O N RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 27711

May 1981

L

W

3

L

V

Ln

n

n ..

W

.r

L

c,

VI

-0

.r

W

N

VI

.- W

V

+J L a

- .- m

.3-7 '

S o u r c e 3o--tL

5 lo

,I- loo

Y

'1 i

95 a~

ua

iaja

a

1 :3 xypuaddv

VI

I

0

3

Q

0

8

d 0

. -

I' e

o I I

e

PU

9

N

0

YW

L

II-

h a

no

I. 0

E u. t: E CI

v)

d

I I I I I

Y

8 2 E2

I- Y

Y

4Y

$&

n

. I

I’ I

N

0

ii 2 W 2

VI

.I .. 4 E: s I-

I-

* 0 0 z

.. 5 E VI

I d

U

I

0

0

I I

n

ii W

W

u) E4

Y

k-

u) E

Y

2 L

:: In W

2

W k

I- u)

Y

Y

K

4

Y

n

n

I

h

U

....

: L

L

aln

Uln

*i

d

0

0

?; $ m

n

W

K

W

m

Li Y

I- H

Y

0

Y

m

P

*

\

0

YY

W

I- 2

2

r. U

m

W

w

.!

,

ww

C

IC

44

P

O

P

I. U

N

0

N

ii P

CI

rl

0

i I4.i

in;&

&;

.. I

I'

N

d

0

s ? 0

0

m

W

b.4 m

B z Y c :: 2 Y

I

. . , . . . . .

-. -1 j .. Apg,C,1, K e f .i li

United States ' . M i c e of Ai i Quali!y Environmental Protection Planning snd S:andards EblE Report ~O-LWA-CI Agency Research Triangle Park NC 2771 1 .

Air - . ,

c.1 atg Reference 57

Appendix r - . ...

3 3

O E M I S S I O N T E S T REPORT

METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING FOR CLAY, SHALE, AND SLATE

AGGREGATE INDUSTRY V u l c a n Ma te r i a l s C o m p a n y

B e s s e m e r , A l a b a m a ESED 8 0 / 1 2

by . .

PEDCo E n v i r o n m e n t a l , I n c . 1 1 4 9 9 C h e s t e r R o a d

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 4 5 2 4 6

C o n t r a c t N o . 6 8 - 0 2 - 3 5 4 6 Work A s s i g n m e n t N o . 1

PN: 3530-1

I

EPA T a s k Manager F rank C l a y

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY E M I S S I O N MEASUREMENT BRANCH

E M I S S I O N STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING D I V I S I O N RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NORTH CAROLINA 2 7 7 1 1

March 1 9 8 2

.. c " e c E Y

-1

u

I- C

4

0

-

3-23

L

W

0 0

u

7

L

W

Y c

.- F

u I

c 0

.- n W

N

VI .r

u

c,

L a

.r

m

m I

m

..

.

-..-.- .I

* I

I

n

n

" - E -

Y

N

YI I

3215 031Vl1ONI Nw

5531 lH913R A9 lN3383d

3-24

m I

m

3-2

5

3-26

yl

E

e

L

v

E - w

N

VI - Y

m

I m

W

LL

.- .. .

2 ,s-

5

-g.s

- I5

- 26

I

4'



EM8 Report 80-LWA-6 February 1982

United States Envwmmental Protection Planning and Standards Agency

Air - I r Reference 50

1

I

E M I S S I O N TEST REPORT

METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND T E S T I N G F O R CLAY, S H A L E , AND S L A T E

AGGREGATE I N D U S T R Y G a l i t e C o r p o r a t i o n

R o c k m a r t , G e o r g i a

E S E D 8 0 / 1 2

by

P E D C o E n v i r o n m e n t a l , I n C . 1 1 4 9 9 C h e s t e r R o a d

C i n c i n n a t i , O h i o 4 5 2 4 6

C o n t r a c t N o . 6 8 - 0 2 - 3 5 4 6 Work A s s i g n m e n t N O . 1

PN: 3530-1

E P A Task Manager F r a n k C l a y

U . S . ENVIRONMENTAL P R O T E C T I O N AGENCY E M I S S I O N MEASUREMENT BRANCH

E M I S S I O N STANDARDS AND E N G I N E E R I N G D I V I S I O N RESEARCH T R I A N G L E P A R K , NORTH C A R O L I N A 27711

A p r i l 1 9 8 2

L

W

0

0

V

L

W

Y c

7

.r

7

V

W r

Q

L 0

+ c 0

.r

tl n

.r L

w

VI

U

W

N

VI

.r

.r

aJ V

u

L a

P

W

7

.r

m

a

L

W

>

d

0

I 7

m

W L

ZJ .m

U

.r

”-

- 3ZIS 031VYIONI W

Hl 5531 lIOI3R

A8 lW33LI3d

3-30

L 0

‘c

L

C’

VI

-0

.r

L

a

m

P

0 z

L

0

'c

U

W

N

v)

.-

.I .

e 0

U 3

L

.r

n

.r

d

VI

U

.r

W

N

VI

.r

W

u

U

L

CL

c

.r

m

m I

m

7

W L 3

(5,

3-3

3

P- I In V

V

0

z

K 3

= L 0

LC

S 0

+J 3

a

.r

n

.r

L

+J

VI

.o W

N

VI

.C

.r

W

U

42

L

CL

7

.r

m

0

I 0

W L 3

0)

LL

7

.r

3-34

..I . .. 3

YI

Y

N

VI I

Y 2

I- = c

a. u

5531 M13R 18 1#3%

3d

3-3

5

Uni

ted

Stat

es

Offi

ce o

f A

ir O

usli

EMB

Rep

ort

80-L

WA-

2 En

viro

nmen

tal R

otm

ion

R

anni

nfta

! M

ay

1981

S

taA

dr

&e

rn

Air

~sse

an: T

riang

le P

erk

NC

277

1 1

Ark

ansa

s Li

ghtw

eigh

i .

I A

gg

reg

ate

Cor

pora

tion

1 W

. M

emp

his

, Ark

ansa

s 1 I I 1 1

TABLE 2-1. PROCESS DATA FOR EMISSION TEST AT ARKANSAS LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE PLANT, WEST MEMPHIS, ARKANSAS: OCTOBER 20-23, 1980;

ESED PROJECT 80/12; M R I PROJECT 4659-L

Production repor t , Monday, October 20 F i r s t Second Third 24- h s h i f t s h i f t s h i f t Total

Coal input, tans 0 11.65 16.90 28.55 Gas input , MCF* 509 205 55 769 Clay input , tons 278.7 298.8 317.0 894.5 Product output, yd3 317.7 340.6 361.4 1019.7

Product densi ty (average composite): 33 l b / f t 3

Production repor t , Tuesday, October 21 F i r s t Second T h i r d 24- h s h i f t s h i f t s h i f t Total

~~~ ~

Coal input , tons 18.81 17.99 17.56 54.36 Gas input , MCF 36 29 45 110 Clay input , tons 317.7 317.2 317.4 952.3 Product output, yd3 362.2 361.6 361.8 1085.6

Product densi ty (average composite): 33 l b / f t 3

* M i l l i o n cubic feet .

(continued)

2-2

II 1

both of which were heated to approximately 121OC (25OOF). The

condensible organic and inorganic fractions represent material

that condensed out or was trapped in the impinger section of the

sample train at a temperature of approximately 20°C (68OF).

The volumetric flow rate averaged 31,283 dscmh (1,104,749

dscfh) at an average temperature of 89OC (1gI0F). The moisture

content averaged 1.9 percent; and oxygen, carbon dioxide, and

carbon monoxide contents averaged 18.8, 1.6, and 0.0 percent,

respectively.

Filterable particulate concentrations averaged 175.6 mg/dscm

(0.076 gr/dscf) with a corresponding mass emission rate of 5.5

kg/h (12.1 lb/hl. The condensible organic and inorganic concen-

trations averaged 1.5 mg/dscm (0.0007 gr/dscf) each with a corre-

sponding mass emission rate of 0.05 kg/h (0.105 lb/h).

3.2.2 Particle Size Distribution

A total of nine samples were collected from the clinker

cooler cyclone'exhaust. The first test was a preliminary run and

is not considered representative; therefore, it is not included

in the overall data averages. The sampling and analytical pro-

cedures as well as the data reduction technique are the same as

those described in Section 3.1.2 and Appendix A of this report.

Figures 3.2-1 and 3.2-2 present the distribution curves for

each set of four samples collected. Individual data points for

each test were plotted manually. The distribution curve was

plotted manually and

the specified number

based on aerodynamic

represents the best-fit average curve for

of test runs. All particle size results are

diameters and unit density (1 g/cc);

3-18


, .

. PFIZER, INC.

VI CTORV ILLE, CALIFORNIA

- -1 .. . __ .-_- -- ~

-

E M I S S I O N S O U R C E T E S T F R O M A B A G H O U S E SERV1NG.A T A L C GRINDING MILL

AT PFIZER, INC.

Vic to rv i l l e , Cal i fornia

Task Order F12 Contract No. 68-02-1 405

July, 1977

Robert J . Bryan, Director o f Field Services Robert L . Norton, Project.Manager

Pacific Environniental Services. INC.

CORPORATE AND ENGINEERING 1930 14th Street Santa Monica, California 90404 Telephone 12131 393-9449

MIDWEST OPERATIONS Suile 228N 2625 Butlerfield Road Oak Brook. Illinois 50521 Telephone 13121 325.5586

8-11

4

W

(D 5

4

ln

0. I w 2 s N

Q

w

Q

N

w

\ D

ln

n

m

m

W z -8 e

Q

u

Q

r0

P-l

0-4-4

Zl

r-

On

P P

m

n 0

P

4 ncY

mo

m

5 W

m

n 3 Y

ln $ m P $ r Y

D

0 z

0 D

4

n ;I m,

m

D

0

ln E ln

-4

m

m

-4

W

m

D x 0 D

-4 D i?

m

m

ln

I 8 I 8 I 8 I I

2 n n 0 0 m,

.. N

E z

6 ln ;

m

I-

m

ln . n * 0

0

0

0

0

I A

ppen

dix

c.1

Ref

eren

ce 6

1

!

a

:: N m

I

ln

M

N 1

u 0.

0

0

0 c

me

U

N

c

w

5 2

n

n

n

3 <

0 r

5

m

z

m

N .e

e.

WQ

+ 0 c

mo

x

c z 0 m

m c

0 n

n

<

lnln

-4

-4

PP

"GI

mm

\

ST

m

cc

c

cr

0

-4

s

m

2a

:: E ..

QW

0 c

mo

x

ln

m

II

Y

m

ln n

0

m

CI ln

-4

m

(n

-4 z a :

4 a W

ln

Y

m .. 0

0

N

XI m

P

x .. 0 c

;;I ln -i

Y

0

c

UI P

x

r

n

m e e

N

U

. ,I

.,

.. !

NW

Vl

ll

cCN

. . -.

-. .

....

....

m

o~

uu

e--

mm

mm

mo

mm

my

o

oo

oo

uo

oo

m

O.

Qc

~U

CO

Q0

*+

+*

I.

*

+*

Q

NO

NN

CQ

NO

O

....

....

W

~N

OO

UPO

mm

mm

m<

mm

mr

D

IP

NO

0

WW

O

**

**

+.

**

,.

c

oo

oo

vIo

oo

u

0C

ON

NO

.Q

CC

O

PP

I-

00

rr

y

....

. C

ue

00

N

ON

N

VI

PO

O

QO

O

+*

,+

*

**

*.

coo00 coo0

UC

CO

O

PN

OW

mm

mm

m

mm

m

..

ln +

P

m

m

a

c

N

u

P

P

U

:: N m ! i

2 2 ..

N

N.

0

0

+ 0

0

me

lnU

+

+

P*

mm

m

m

\

ST

m

Y

Yr-

m

+

sm

TI'"

2 ? 5 N

ID,

0.

o

u

0

C

mo

N

u 5 & 2 n

n

4

lnm

+

-I

PP

om

rn

m

\

-I-

o+

52

s

m

TI'" n 5 :: 2 ..

N

by

o

m

mo

+ 0

0 $5

C 2 8 m l

0

<

n n

lnm

4

-l

PP

om

m

m

\

"I-

m-l

5

2

TI'" :: 2

sm

5 ..

N

VIN

0 c

;? mo

7

Y

m

-I

ln + ln

m

'"

Y

m

ln 2 2 m 0 0

0

N

w

m :

m

P

II s .. 0 c

-l

m

ln -I

Y

c) fl .. e

ln * x n

r

m 6 .. 0

U

m

m

W

Y

m

ln n 8 x 4

on

PP

2;

h &I-

0

P

c

UN

AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION …...l4 AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE...

Documents

Transcript of AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION …...l4 AP42 Section APPENDIX 6.1 PARTICLE...