## PAPC 333- United States Office of Air Quality EPA-45012-78-003b Environmental Protection Planning and Standards OAQPS NO.12-091 Agency Research Triangle Park NC27711 March 1979 Air 

# GEPA Kraft Pulping 

# Control

# of 

# TRS Emissionsfrom 

# Existing 

# Mills Guideline Series

## EPA-450/2-78-003b OAQPS NO.

## 1.2-091 

# Kraft Pulping 

# Controlof 

# TRS Emissionsfrom 

# Existing Mills

EmissionStandardsand EngineeringDivision

U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY Officeof Air, Noise, and Radiation OfficeofAir Quality Planning and Standards ResearchTriangle Park, NorthCarolina 27711 March 1979OAQPS 

### GUIDELINE SERIES The guidance series of 

### reports 

### isbeing 

### issued by 

### the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) 

### to provide information 

### to state and local airpollution control agencies; for example, toprovide guidance 

### on the acquisition and 

### processing of airquality data and 

### on the planning and analysis requisite 

### for the maintenance of air quality. in this series will be 

### available 

## - as supplies permit 

## - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; 

### or, for 

### a nominal fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 

### Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161. Reports published

Pub1i

### cation 

### No. EPA-450/2-78-003b (OAQPS NO. 

### 1.2-091)

ii

### Background Information and Final Environmental Impact Statement

For Existing Kraft Pulp Mills Type of Actiop: Administrative Prepared by:



## -- -c 5-6 // 

### (Date) ..- n-. .-- -A^.- 

### Emission Staddards and Engineering Division U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

n 

### Approved by: 

# MAR

# 151979 (Date1 

### Assistant Administrator for Air, 

### Noise, and Radiation U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 

### 20460 Final Statement Submitted 

### toEPA's 

### Office of Federal 

### Activities for 

### Review on 

### (Date) This

### document may be 

### reviewed at: Central Docket Section Room 2903B, Waterside Mall 401 M 

### Street Washington, D.C. 

### 20460 

### Additional copies may be 

### obtained at: U.S. 

### Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 National Technical Information Service 5285 

### Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161

iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS 

### Paqe

# . 1

# . Introduction 1.1 Purpose of Document 

# .................... 1.2 TRS Compounds and Their 

### Control 

# .............. 1.3 Standards of Performance for

### New StationarySources 

# .... 1.4 Emission Guidelines 

# .................... Health and Welfare Effects of TRS 

### Compounds 2.1 Introduct’on 

# ....................... 2.2 

### Effects on Human Health 

# .................. 2.2.1 Odor Perception 

# .................. 2.3 

### Effects on Animals 

# .................... 2.4 Effects on Veqetation 

# ................... 2.5 We1

### fare Effects of

### Atmospheric TRS 

# ............ 2.5.1 

### Effect on PropertyValues 

# ............. 2.5.2 

### Effects on Paint 

# ................. 2.5.3 

### Effects on Metals 

# ................. 2.6 Rationale 

# ......................... 2

# .

3

# . Industry Characterization 3.1 Geographic Distribution 

# ................. 3.2 Integration and Concentration 

# ............... 3.3 International Influence 

# .................. 4

# . Process 

### Descripti

### on 4.1 Kraft Pulping 

### Process 

# ...................

. 

### 4.2 Description of Individual Process Facilities 

# ....... 1-1 1-4 1-5 1-6

2-1 

### 2-3 2-6 2-8 

### 2-9 2-9 2-9 

### 2-10 2-11 2-11

3-1 

### 3-1 3-2

4-1 4-4

iv

### Page 5

# . Emissions 5.1 Nature of Emissions 

# .................... 5.2 Uncontrolled TRS Emissions 

# ................ 5.3 Typical TRS Emissions 

# ................... 6

# . Control Techniques for TRS from Kraft Pulp

### Mills 6.1 

### A1ternative Control Techniques 

# .............. 6.1.1 

### Recovery Furnace 

# .................. 6.1.2 Digesters 

### and Multiple Effect Evaporator Systems 

# . . 6.1.3 Lime 

### Kiln 

# ..................... 6.1.4 Brown Stock Washer System 

# ............. 6.1.5 Black Liquor Oxidation System 

# ........... 6.1.6 

### Smelt Dissolving 

### Tank 

# ............... 6.1.7 Condensate Stripper System 

# ............. 6.2 Summary of Retrofit Models 

# ................ 6.3 Installation and Start-up Time 

# .............. 7

# . Emission Monitorinq 

### and Compliance Testinq Techniaues 

### and Costs 7.1 Emission Measurement Techniques 

# .............. 7.1.1 Emission Monitorinq 

# ................ 7.1.2 Compliance Testinq 

# ................. 8

# . Cost Analysis Of 

### A1ternative Emission Control Systems 

### 5-1 5-3 

### 5-8

6-1 6-1 6-9 6-11 6-13 6-15 6-17 6-18 6-19 6-23

7-1 7-1 7-2

8.1 

### Introduction 

# ....................... 8-1 

### 8.2 Methodology 

# ....................... 8-3 8.3 Costs ofAffected Facilities 

# ...............8-6 8.4 

### Incremental Costs for Model Mills 

# .............8-21 

### 8.5 Aggregate Costs for Industry 

# ............... 8-32 8.6 

### Cost Effectiveness 

# .................... 8-35

V

# .

..


### Paqe



### . 9

# . Environmental Impact of 

### TRS Controls 9.1 Air Pollution Impact 

# .................... 9-1 9.1.1 

### Annual Air Emission Reductions 

# ........... 9-1 9.1.2 Annual 

### Air Emission Increase 

# ............ 9-3 

### 9.1.3 Atmospheric Dispersion of TRS Emissions 

# ....... 9-5 9.1.4 Changes in 

### Solid and Liquid Wastes 

# ......... 9.1.5 Enerqy Consumption 

# ................. 10

# . Emission Guidelines for Existing Kraft Pulp Mills 

### 10.1 General Rationale 

# ..................... 10.2 Evaluation of

### Individual Process Facilities 

# ........ 10.2.1 Recovery Furnace System 

# .............. 10.2.2 Digester System 

# ................... 10.2.3 Multiple 

### Effect Evaporator System 

# ......... 10.2.4 

### Lime Kiln 

# ..................... 10.2.5 Brown Stock Washer System 

# .............. 10.2.6 Black Liquor Oxidation System 

# ........... 10.2.7 Condensate Stripper System 

# ............ 10.2.8 Smelt Dissolvinq Tank 

# ............... 10.2.9 

### Excess Emissions 

# ................. 10.3 Summary of 

### the Rationale for Selectina 

### the 

### Best Control System 

# .......................... 10.4 Selection of 

### the Format of 

### the Emission Guidelines 

# .... 10.5 Monitoring Requirements 

# .................. Appendix 

### A


### .Summar.y of 

### Kraft Mills 

### in

### the United States Appendix B


### .Data Summary Appendix C


### . Dispersion Studies 

### Results 9-72 9-12

10-1 10-3 10-3 

### 10-7 10- lo-! 0 

### 10-12 10-13 10-13 

### 10-14 10-14 10-17 10-13 10-20

vi1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT 

### This document has been prepared in 

### accordance with regulations established under Section lll(d)of the Clean Air Act. EPA 

### has established procedures whereby states submit plans 

### tocontrol existing
sources of "designated pol

### 1

### utants'l

# . Designated pol1

### utants are pol1

### utants whiih 

### are not included 

### on a listpublished under Section 108(a) (National Ambient Air Quality Standards) 

### or 112(b)(l)(A) 

### (Hazardous Air Pollutants), but 

### towhich 

### a standard of performance forrew sources applies under Section 111. Under Section lll(d),emission standards are 

### tobe adopted by the states and 

### submitted to EPA 

### for approval. designated pollutants from existing facilitieswhich, if 

### new, would be subject to the standards of performance for new stationary sources. faci1i

### ties are called "designated facili

### ties". Under the regulations,

The standardswill limit the emissions of
Such

In accordance with 

### Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, standards of performance (NSPS) 

### for eight source categories in

### the kraft 

### pulp industry
were promulgated 

### on February 23, 1978. 

### for total reduced sulfur (TRS) and 

### particulates. pollutant. by which the statesmay develop emission standards for 

### designated facilities. The standards include emission limits TRS 

### is 

### a designated This document is therefore being prepared 

### toestablish criteria

1-1

### Subpart B 

### of 40 CFR 

### 60 

### contains the procedures under which states submit these plans to control existing sources of designated pollutants. requires the states to develop plans for the control of designated pollutants within Federal guidelines. As indicated 

### in Subpart 

### B, EPA will publish guide1ines documents fordevelopment of state emission standards simultaneous Subpart B



### with promulgation of any new source standard of performance for 

### a designated pollutant. These guidelines will apply to designated facilitieswhich emit those designated pollutants and will include useful information for states, such as discussior,of the pollutant's effects,description of control techniques and their effectiveness, costs, and potential impacts. Finally,
as guidance for the states,recommended emission limits (emission guidelines) and times for compliance are set forth and control equipment which will achieve these emission limits is identified. After publication of the final guidelinedocument for the pollutant 

### in question, the Stateswill have ninemonths to develop and submitplans for control of 

### thatpollutant from designated facilities. Within fourmonths after the date for submission of plans, theAdministrator will approve or disapproveeach plan (or portions thereof). is disapproved,the Administratorwill promulgate a plan (or portion thereof) within sixmonths after the date forplan submission. provisions of subpart B 

### are basically patterned after Section 110 

### of the Act and 40 

### CFR Part 51 

### (concerning adoption and submittal of state implementation plans under Section 110). 

### If a stateplan (or

### portion thereof)

These and related

As discussed in the preamble to Subpart B, 

### a distinction is drawn

- 

### between designated pollutants which may cause or contribute to endangerment

of pub1 ic health (referred to as "health-related pollutants") and those for

1-2

### which adverse effects 

### on public health have 

### not been demonstrated (referred 

### toas "welfare-related pollutants"). For 

### health-related pollutants, emission standards and 

### compliance times in state plans 

### must ordinarily be 

### atleast
as stringent as the corresponding emission guidelines and compliance times in

### EPA's guideline documents. less stringent requirements for particular facilities

### or classes of 

### facilities As 

### provided in

### Subpart B, 

### states may apply

when economic factors 

### or physical limitations make such application significantly
more reasonable. Suchjustification may include unreasonable control costs resulting 

### from plant age, location, process design, 

### or the physical impossibility of installing the specified control system. 

### time if 

### sufficient justification is 

### proven. unusual time delays caused by unavai1

### abi1i

### ty of 

### 1abor

## ,climatological factors

### , scarcity of strategic materials, and largework backlogs for equipment vendors 

### Statesmay also relax compliance Such justification may include

or construction contractors. For Welfare-related pollutants, states may balance the emission guidelines, times for compliance, and other information provided in

### a guideline document against other factors of 

### public concern in

### establishing emission standards, compliance schedules, and variances provided that appropriate consideration is given 

### tothe information presented in 

### the guideline document and 

### c*t public hearing(s) required 

### by Subpart B 

### and that all other requirements of Subpart B 

### aremet. 

### Where sources of pollutants that cause only adverse effects 

### tocrops are located in 

### non-agricultural areas, for example, 

### or where 

### residents of 

### a comunity depend 

### on .an economically marginal plant 

### for their livelihood, such factors may be 

### taken into account (in addition to those that would justify variances if a health-related pollutant was involved). Thus, states will 

### have substantial fqexibility 

### to consider factors other than technology and costs in establishing plans for 

### the control of welfare-related pollutants if 

### they wish. 1-3

P

### For reasons discussed in

### Chapter 2 of 

### this document, the Administrator 

### has determined 

### thatTRS 

### emissions from kraft pulp mills 

### may cause 

### or contribute 

### toendangerment of 

### the public welfare but 

### thatadverse effects 

### on public health have not been demonstrated. As 

### discussed above, this means 

### thatTRS 

### emissions will be considered a 

### welfare-related pollutant and the states will 

### have greater flexibility in

### establishing plans 

### for the control 

### of TRS 

### thanwould be the case if 

### public health might 

### be affected. This state guidelines document briefly discusses the effects of 

### reduced sulfur compounds 

### on health, and 

### on crops, materials, and 

### animals. process categories having 

### reduced sulfur emissions are discussed. greatest emphasis, however, has been placed on the technical and 

### economic evaluation of 

### control techniques 

### thatareeffective in

### reducing 

### total reduced sulfur emissions, with 

### particular emphasis 

### on retrofitting existing mills. 

### Section 6.2 

### proposes several control systems available to the states. The costs of these control systems is 

### analyzed in

### Chapter 8, 

### while Chapter 9 

### assesses the environmental and 

### energy impact of

### these control systems. Finally,


### as guidance for the states, recommended emission limitations are set forth and control equipment which will achieve these emission 1

### imitations is suggested. 1.2 

### TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR COMPOUNDS 

### AND THEIR CONTROL Eight 

### The

For purposes of 

### new sorces performance standards (NSPS) 

### and the attendant requirements of 

### Section lll(d),"total reduced sulfur'' (TRS) 

### is the designated pollutant 

### tobe controlled. compounds consisting primarily of 

### hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and 

### dimethyl disulfide. Control of TRS 

### emissions 

### atkraft pulp 

### mills is

### well demonstrated by proper operation of 

### the combustion sources 

### or incineraTRS in

### this document refers to 

### a combination of

tion of the exhaust gases.



### 1-4

# -

The limited information currentlyavailable on the health and welfare effects ofTRS generally deals with hydrogen sulfide (HzS). effects are noticeable down to20 ppmv, but this concentration ismuch higher than expected inthe ambient airas a result of even uncontrolled TRS emissions from kraftpulp mills. HzS at concentratiomdownto a few parts per billion is recognized as an odor nuisance. Adverse health

The OSHA occupational exposure maximum for'H25 is29 ppmv, 

### not tobe.exceeded at any time. 1.3 STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NE14 STATIONARY SOURCES Inaccordance with Section 111 ofthe Clean AirAct, standards of performance for eight affected facilities or emission sources inthe kraft pulping industry have been promulgated (Subpart RB of40 CFR Part60). These sources are the recovery furnace (both straight kraftand cross-recovery furnaces)*, digester system, mu1tiple-effect evaporator system, li,me kiln, brown stock washer system, black 1iquor oxidation system, smelt dissolvincl tank, and condensate stripper system. Informationand emission data collected during development ofthe proposed new source performance standards indicate that best demonstrated control technology can limitthe TRS emissi\onstofive parts per millionby volume dry gas basis for all new sources except lime kilns and cross-recovery furnaces, which can be limitedto8 

### ~pm and 25 ppm, respectively. Water treatment ponds, however, are not covered by the proposed

### NSPS because data on actual TRS emissions are not availableand accurate sampling methods for determiningTRS and other odorous emissions from treatment ponds are not sufficiently developed or demonstrated. Therefore, water treatment ponds will not be covered inthis document.

-7 *NOTE: straight kraft recovery furnaces and cross-recovery furnaces, unless otherwise specified. Throughout the document, the term "recovery furnaces'' will imply both

1-5

### 1.4 EMISSION GUIDELINES 1.4.1 

### Recodended TRS 

### Emission Limitations for the States Emission guidelines for control of TRS 

### emissions thatmay be achieved by 

### application of best adequately demonstrated technology to existing facilities
are listed in

### Table 1-1. 

### These emission guidelines are less stringent in


### some cases 

### than the standards proposed for new sources since the application of 

### the best adequately demonstrated technology for new sources could result in

### excessive control costs 

### atexisting sources. However, emission guidelines do 

### require the sawe 

### type of control asjudged to be best adequately demonstrated technology for new sources for the threemajor TRS 

### sources (recovery furnace, digester system, and mu1

### tiple-effect evaporator system). The justification for these emission guidelines arediscussed more completely in

### Chapters 8 and 9. 

### Adoption of 

### these guidelines would result in

### an overall nationwide TRS 

### emission reduction of about 

### 82 percent.

1-6Table 1-1. TRS EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING KRAFT PULP MILLS Emission Guidelines1 Affected Fact1i ty Recovery Furnace 2 01d Design Furnaces3 20 PPm New Design Furnaces4 5 PPm Cross Recovery Furnaces 

### 25 PPm Di gester Systern Mu1tiple-Effect Evaporator System 5 PPm 5 PPm Lime Kiln 20% ppm5 Brown Stock Washer System No Control Black Liquor Oxidation System 

### No Control Condensate Stripper System 5 PPm Smelt DissolvingTank 0.0084 g/kg BLS
'Guidelines given are interms of twelve-hour averages, e.g., from fw'discrete contiguous twelve-hour periods of time, 20ne percent of all twelve-hour TRS averages per quarter year above

midnight to noon. These are not "running" averages, but are instead

Lhe specified level, under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, inthe absence of start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions, are not considered to be excess\emissions. 3Furaaces not constructedwith airpollution control as an

objective (see definitions on pages 6-7 and 10-3). 4Furnaces designed for low TRS emissions and having stated in

their contracts that they were constructedwith air Pollution control as an objective (see definitions on pages 6-7 and 10-3)- 5Tw0 Dercent ofall twelve-hour TRS averages per quarter year above

20 ppm, under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, inthe absence of start-ups, shutdowns and malfunctions, are not considered to be excess emissions. ~

1-7

### 2. HEALTH AND WELFARE EFFECTS OF 

### TOTAL REDUCED SULFUR COMPOUNDS



### 2.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with 

### 40 

### CFR 

### 60.22(b), promulgated 

### on November 17, 

### 1975 (40 

### FR 

### 53340), this chapter presents a summary of the available information 

### on the potential health and 

### welfare effects of 

### total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

### compounds and the rationale for the Administrator's determination that TRS 

### is a welfare-related pollut7nt for purposes of section lll(d)of the Clean 

### Air Act. The Administrator firstconsiders potential health and 

### welfare effects of a designated pollutant in connection with 

### the establishment of 

### standards of performance for new sources of that pollutant

### under section lll(b) 

### of the Act. Administrator 

### must find that the pollutant in

### question 

### "may contribute significantly 

### toairpollution which causes 

### orcontributes 

### to the endangerment of public health 

### orwelfare" [see section 111(b)(l)(a)]. Because 

### this finding is, in effect, a prerequisite 

### tothe same pollutant being identified as a designated pollutant under section lll(d), all designated pollutants will 

### have been found 

### tohave potential adverse effects 

### on public health, public welfare, 

### or both. 

### Before such standards may be established, the

2-1As 

### discussed in section 1.1 of

### this document, Subpart B of

### Part 60 

### distinguishes between designated pollutants thatmay cause 

### or contribute 

### to endangerment of pub1

### ichealth (referred 

### toas "health-related pollutants") and those 

### for which adverse effects 

### on public health have 

### not been demonstrated ("welfare-related pollutants"). of

### the distinction 

### is that stateshave more flexibility in

### establishing plans 

### for the control of 

### welfare-related pollutants than is provided 

### for plans involving 

### health-related pollutants. In general

## ,the significance

In determining whether a designated pollutant 

### is health-related 

### or welfare-related 

### for purposes of section 111(d)

## ,the Administrator 'considers such factors as: pollutant on public health and welfare; (2) potential ambient concentrations of 

### the pollutant; (3) 

### generation of 

### any secondary pollutants forwhich the designated pollutant may be 

### a precursor; (4) 

### any synergisticeffect with 

### other pollutants; and (5)

### potential effects 

### from accumulation in 

### the environment (e.g., 

### soil, water, and food chains). (1) 

### known and suspected effects of 

### the

Itshould be 

### noted that the Administrator's determination of whether
a designated pollutant 

### is health-related 

### orwelfare-related 

### for purposes 

### of section lll(d) does 

### not affect the degree of control 

### represented by 

### EPA's emission guidelines. 

### Subpart B, 

### EPA's emission guidelines [like standards of 

### performance 

### for
new sources 

### under section 111(b)] 

### are based 

### on the degree 

### of control achievable with 

### the best adequately demonstrated control systems (considering costs), rather than 

### on direct protection of public health 

### or welfare. For reasons discussed in

### the preamble 

### to

This

2-2

### is 

### true whether a particular designated pollutant has been found 

### tobe health-related orwelfare-related. that finding 

### is the degree of flexibility 

### thatwill be available to the states in

### establishing plans for control 

### of the pollutant, 

### as indicated above. Thus, the only consequence of

Very littleinformation isavailable on the effects of the total reduced sulfur 

### compounds discharged from kraft pulp mi

### 11

### s 

### on human health

### , animals, vegetation, and materials. Almost all the information that

### was found during 

### this investigation deals with only hydrogen sulfide (H2S). 

### Essentially no information 

### on the health and 

### welfare effects of the other reduced sulfur compounds (methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and 

### dimethyl disulfide) emitted from kraft pulp 

### mills was found. 

### Therefore, this chap erdiscusses the effects of hydrogen sulfide on y. 

### sulf de isthe predominant 

### TRS compound emitted by kraft pulp mills. 2.2 

### However, hydrogen

EFFECTS 

### OF 

### ATMOSPHERIC TRS ON HUMAN 

### HEALTH’ 

### Atsufficiently high 

### concentrations, hydrogen sulfide 

### is very toxic to humans. Itgenerally enters the human body through the respiratory tract, from which it

### is carried by the blood stream to various body organs. Hydrogen sulfide that enters the blood can lead 

### toblocking of oxygen transfer, especially athigh 

### concentrations. sulfide acts as a cell and enzyme poison and can cause irreversible changes in

### nerve tissue. 

### In general, the hydrogen

Some of the effects of 

### hydrogen sulfide and the air concentrations 

### at which they occur are 

### shown in

### Table 2-1. 

### Athigh 

### concentrationsTable 2-1 EFFECTS OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE 

### INHALATION ON HUMANS 

### Hydrogen Sulfide Concentration, pg/m 

### (ppm) 

### Effects 1-45 (7.2 

### x 

# - 3.2 x 

### lo-’) Odor 

### threshold. No 

### reported injury 

### tohealth 

### IO(7.2 

### Threshold of reflex effect 

### on eye sensitivity 

### tolight 

### 150 (0.10) Smell slightlyperceptible 500 

### (0.40) 15,000 (10.0) 30,000 (20.0)


### 30,000-60,000 (20.0-40.0)


### 75D,OOO (110)



### 270,000-480,000 (200-350)
640,000-1,120,000 (460-810) 

### 900,000 (650) 1,160,000-1,370,000 (840-990)
1,500,000+ (11

### OO+) Smell definitely perceptible Minimum 

### concentration causing eye irritation Maximum a1lowable occupational exposure for 

### 8 hours (ACGIH To1erance Limit) 

### Strongly perceptible but 

### not intolerable 

### smell. Minimum concentration causing lung irritation Olfactory fatigue in

### 2-15 minutes; ir r i t a t ion of eyes and respiratory tract after 1 

### hour; death in 

### 8 

### to48 

### hrs No 

### serious damage for 1 

### hour but 

### intense local irritation; eye irritation in 6 

### to 8 

### minutes Dangerous concentration after 30 

### minutes or less Fatal in 30 

### minutes Rapid unconsciousness, respiration arrest, and death, possibly 

### withoutodor sensation Immediate unconsciousness and rapid death

2-43 (over 1,000,000 pg/m ), hydrogen sulfide can cause death quickly by paralysis ofthe respiratory center. quickly to uncontaminated airand respiration is initiatedbefore heart action stops, rapid recovery can be expected. (30,000 to 500,000 pg/m ), hydrogen sulfide causes conjunctivitis, lachrymal secretion

### , respiratorytract irritation

## ,pulmonary edema, damage tothe heart muscle, psychic changes

### ,disturbed equi1i brium, nerve paralysis

## , spasms, unconsciousness, and circulatory collapse. Some common symptoms are metallic taste, fatigue, diarrhea, blurredvision, intense aching of the eyes, insomnia, and vertigo. However, ifthe victim ismoved

At lower concentrations 3

The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) has established a maximum allowable exposure concentration (not to be exceeded atany time) 3 for hydrogen sulfideof 30,000 pg/m Incomparison, OSHA has set a maximum allowable exposure concentration for methyl mercaptans of (20 ppm).
only 15,000 ug/m’ (10 ppm).
Concentrations to be realizednear ofambient hydrogen period in1961 and 3 ofTRS as high as 30,003 pg/m existing kraft pulp mills. sulfide concentration were made during a six-month 962 inthe Lewiston, Idaho, area where the major (20 ppm) ar? not likely For example, measurements

contributor ofgaseous pollutants was a pulp millwhich had only the recovery furnace controlled forTRS emissions. The levels of hydrogen sulfide were pollution episode inNovember were measured. These levels onal exposure concentration 3 generally less than 15 pg/m 

# . During an air 1961

### ,peak 2-hour concentrations of 77 pg/m’ arewell below the maximum allowable occupat estab1i shed by OSHA.

2-5For the purpose ofevaluating the air pol1ution impacts associated with alternative emission limits (see Chapter 

### 9), dispersion studies were performed by EPA on model kraft pulp mills. that the maximum ground-level ambient concentration of hydrogen sulfide resulting from an uncontrolled 1arge sized (907 megagrams/day) kraft pulp millwould be about 10,300 pg/m (one-hour average). though much higher than actually measured atthe existingmillmentioned above, isstill lower than the minimum exposure concentration that causes eye irritation. These studies indicated

3 This level, even

2.2.1 Odor Perception The odor characteristic of kraft mills isprincipally due tothe presence ofa mixture ofhydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide. and are detectable atconcentrations as low as 1 part per billion (ppb). However, the odor perception thresholds ofthese gases vary considerably These sulfides are extremely odorous

among individuals and apparently depend on the age and sex ofthe individuals, the size of the town where they live, and whether they smoke. 1 and 45 pg/m concentration increases. The reported odor threshold of hydrogen sulfide varies between 3 (see Table 2-2). The odor becomes more intense as the Atvery high concentrations (H2S above 320,000 pg/m’), the smell isnot as pungent, probably due toparalysis of the olfactory nerves. there islittlesensation of odor and death can occur rapidly. this dulling ofthe sense of smell constitutes a major danger to persons 3 Therefore, Athydrogen sulfide concentrations over 1,120,000 pg/m 

### ,

-potentiallyexposed to high concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. The

reported odor thresholds formettiyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide are shown inTable 2-3.
2-6Table 2-2 ODOR DETECTIONTHRESHOLD FOR HYDROGEN SULFIDE (PPmv) 

### 3

i yg/m

PPm 9-45 7.1a

.71b 15

6.8‘ 12-30



## 1nm3 (.007-.032) (.005) 

### (.0005) (.017) t.005) (

# . oog-. 022)

0.0021 0.0010 0.0056 Hydrogen sulfide from sodium sulfide. a bHydrogen sulfide gas. ‘Mean value ratioof highest to lowest odor threshold concentration detected by all observers insuccessive tests is3.18.

4.5 2.9 23.7 Table 2-3. ODOR THRESHOLDS 

### OF REDUCED SULGUR COMPOUNDS OTHER THAN HYDROGEN SULFIDE 9 

# 9 Compound Methyl Mercaptan-CH3SH Dimethyl Sulfide-(CH3)2S Di methy1 Di su1fi de-(CH3 2S2

1 I

2-7Atthe ambient ground-level concentrations likely to

### occur near an uncontrolled kraft pulp mill, as determined by EPA dispersion estimates, odors would definitely be perceptible. typical controls (see Chapter 5) would likely have an odor level that is slightlyperceptible. A kraft pulp mill that operates

Most studies dealing with health effects of kraft pulp mill odors are inconclusive. kraft pulp mill are annoyed by the odor, and that short-term effects (vomiting, headaches, shortness of breath, dizziness) occur insome individuals after prolonged exposure. The studies show that populations inthe area ofan uncontrolled

These effects have been reported to be ofa psychosomatic nat~re;~ however, the evidence inthis reaard isnot conclusive.6 Studies indicatethat the sense ofsmell becomes rapidly fatigued inthe presence ofH2S at levels above the odor th~eshold.~ This olfactory fatigue prevents the odor from beina perceived over the lona 

### term. &en 

### perception ofthe odor becomes weaker or disappears, the effects ofthe odor also cease.

### 8

2.3 EFFECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC TRS ON ANIMALS’ Hydrogen sulfide produces about the same healtheffects indomestic animals as inman, atapproximately the same airconcentrations. Air Pollution Control Association Committee on Ambient AirStandards stated that spontaneous injury to animals occurs at 150,000 to450,009 

### ug/m of The
3 hydrogen sulfide, These concentrations are, however, much higher than are expected to result from existing kraft pulp mill operation.

2-82.4 EFFECTS OFATMOSPHERIC TRS ON VEGETATION” There islittleevidence that hydroqen sulfide causes sianificant injury tofield crops atenvironmental airconditions. Experiments have indicated that littleor no injuryoccurred to29 3 species of plants when they were fumigated with less than 60,000 pq/m of hydrogen sulfide for five hours. After five hours at600,000 pq/m3, some species were injured, but not all. and coleus showed appreciable injuryatconcentrations of600,000 pa/m 

# . Atconcentrations between 60,000 and 600,000 pq/m 

## , qladiolus, rose, Boston Fern, apple, cherry, peach 3 

### 3 castor bean, sunflower, and buckwheat showed moderate in-jurv. Tobacco, cucumber, salvia, and tomato were sliahtlymore sensitive. Ingeneral, hydrogen sulfide injuresthe vounaest plant leaves rather Youna, rapidlvelonaatina tissues are than the middle-aged orolder ones. the most severely injured. Typical exterior s.ymptoms arewiltinawithout typical discoloration (which starts atthe tipofthe leaf). The scorchina oft.he younqest leaves of the plant occurs first. 

### 2.5 WELFARE EFFECTS OF ATMOSPHERIC TRS 

### 2.5.1 Effecton PropertyValues11,12 Sociologically, such noxious odors can ruin personal and community pride, i n t e r f e r e w i t h human relations invarious ways, discourage capital improvements, lower socioeconomic status, and damage a community’s reputation. Economically, they can stifle, growth and development ofa community. labor prefer to locate ina desirable area inwhich tolive, work, and play; Both industrv and

and the natural tendency isto avoid communities with obvious odor Droblems. Tourists also shun such areas. revenues, payrolls, and sales can be disastrous toa community. The resultina decline inproperty values, tax

2-9Insummary, the presence ofodors may reduce the value of property within the affected area, dependinq upon the extent towhich the odors are considered objectionable tothe buyer and seller ofthe property. 2.5.2 Effects on Paint13 Hydrogen sulfide inthe atmosphere reacts with paint containina heavy metal salts inthe pigment and the drier to form a precipitatewhich darkens or discolors the surface. Lead, mercury, cobalt, iron, and tinsalts cause a gray or black dfscoloration; cadmium salts cause a yellowish-oranae discoloration. Damage 

### to house paint caused by hydrogen sulfide emissions from a kraft pulp mill has been reported inthe communities of Lewiston, Idaho, and Clarkston, Washington.14 Lead isprobably the most common metal to exhibit discoloration caused by the formation ofblack lead sulfides. The most comnonlv used white piqment inthe past was basic lead carbonate. pigments have now aenerally replaced the use of lead carbonate inthe paint industry. coatings because ofthe added durability they impart to paint films. Titanium dioxide
However, lead pigments continue to be used inthe area of road
Experiments have shown that old lead-base paints are more susceptible These experiments have also to hydrogen sulfide damage than are new ones. shown that darkening isdependent on duration ofexposure and concentration, and can occur after exposure to hydrogen sulfide concentrations as low as 75 pg/m for two hours. by hydrogen sulfide depends on: perature and moisture; (3) hydrogen sulfide concentration; (4) aae and condition ofpaint; and (5) presence ofother contaminants inthe air. 3 These experiments indicate that paint darkenina (1) heavy metal content of paint; (2) tem2-1015 2.5.3 Effects on Metals Copper and silver can tarnish rapidly inthe presence of hydroqen sulfide. time resists attack by hydrogen sulfide. Experiments have indicatedthat hydrogen sulfide-sensitive metals, such as silver and copper, will tarnish when exposed to hydrogen sulfide concentrations above 4 pq/m for 40 hours However, copper that has been exposed to unpolluted airfor some



### 3 at room temperature. to occur. Both moisture and oxygen must be present for tarnishing The sulfide coating formed on copper and silverelectrical contacts can increase resistancewhen the contacts are closed. Insome cases, this can result inthe contacts becomina welded shut. Some alloys of gold, even such a hiah-carat alloyas 69 percent aold, 25 percent silverand 6 percent platinum, will tarnishwhen exposed to hydrogen sulfide. However, aold (14-carat and above) and aold leaf (95 percent gold and above) usuallywill not tarnish appreciably from exposure toatmospheric hydroqen sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide will attack zinc at room temperature. A zinc sulfide At hiqh temperatures, the filmisformed which prevents further corrosion. attack isquite vigorous. and atambient temperatures, hydrogen sulfide isnot corrosive to ferrous metals. Atconcentrations normally found inthe atmosphere

2.6 RATIONALE Based upon the information provided inthe precedinq sections ofChapter 2, is itclear that TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills have no sianificant effecton human health. TRS emissions, however, are hiqhly odorous and studies show that the population inthe area ofan existina kraft pulp mill

2-11isannoyed by the odor. Hydrogen sulfide also has effects

### on paints and metals atconcentrations that can occur inthe vicinityof existina kraft pulp mills. pulp millsdo not contribute tothe endangerment of public health. Thus, TRS emissions wi11 be considered a we1fare-re1ated pol1utant for purposes ofSection 111(d) and Subpart B of Part 60. The Administrator has concluded that TRS emissions from kraft

2-12REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2



### 1.

I 

### Preliminary Air Pollution Survey of Hydrogen Sulfide,A 

### Literature Review. U. S. 

### Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. October 1969. pp 

### 2-4; 29-32. 2. Op City

### Reference 1. Table 1. 3. Adams, D. F., 

### and F. A. 

### Young. Kraft Odor Detection and Objectionability Thresholds. Washington StateUniversity Progress Report on U. S. 

### Public Health Service Grant. 1965. 4. Leonardos, G., 

### etal. Odor Threshold Determinations of 53 Odorant Chemicals. Association. St. 

### Paul

### ,Minnesota. June 

### 1968. 

### Presented at61stAnnual Meeting of the Air 

### Pollution Control

5. 

### Pavanello, R., 

### and D. 

### Rondia. “Odor Nuisance and Public

### Health, Part 2”. 

### Water Waste Treatment. 

### June 1971. 6. I1 1inois InstituteforEnvironmental Quality. PB-233-843. 

### March 1974. Hydrogen Sulfide 

### Health

### Effects and Recommended Air 

### Quali

### ty Standard.

7. 

### Sullivan, R. 

### J. 

### PreliminaryAir 

### Pollution Survey of Odorous Compounds. Department of Health, Education, and 

### Welfare. Raleigh, North Carolina. APTD 

### 69-42. October 1969. pp 

### 8-9. 8. Op Cit, 

### Reference 6. pp 

### 17-22. 9. Op Cit, 

### Reference 1. pp 

### 6-7. 10. Op City

### Reference 1. p 

### 12. 

### 11. Op Cit, 

### Reference 7. pp 

### 1-2. 12. 

### A Study 

### of 

### the Social and Economic Impact of Odors. Copley International Corporation. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0095. February 1973.



### 2-13

# I

z

I 13. Op Ci 

### t, 

### Reference 1. pp 

### 16-19. 14. “A 

### Study of Air 

### Pollution in the Interstate Region 

### of Lewiston, Idaho, and 

### Clarkston, Washington”. 

### Pub1icHealth Service Publication 999-AP-8. 1964. 

### 15. Op 

### Cit, 

### Reference 1. pp 19-20.

2-143. 

### INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION 3.1 

### Geographic Distribution As of December 1975, 

### there were 56 

### firms operating about 120 

### kraft pulping 

### mills 

### in 28 

### states. and mill capacity is found in the South. Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana are the leaders. Alabama has 13

### mills and 10

### percent of U.S. 

### mill capacity. Georgia has 11

### mills and 13 

### percent of U.S. 

### mill capacity. And Louisiana has 

### 11mills and 

### 11 percent of U.S. 

### capacity. industryhas occurred mainly in the South.' modific'ations to existing mills as well as plans for new mills are found 

### in all sections of the country. Most U.S. 

### kraft pulping 

### mills

Over the past 20

### years, growth 

### in the kraft pulping 

### However, recent and planned

2 3.2 

### Integration and Concentration Only about 1/3 

### of the 56 

### firms are producers of pulp, 

### paper, and/or paperboard exclusively. variety of activities. The activities include chemical manufacture, detergent production, magazine publishing, land development, and can production. The others are engaged 

### in awide

The degree of dependency on kraftpulping and related activities varies anong these horizontally integrated firms. International Paper Company derived 55.6 

### percent of their 1974 

### sales from pulp, 

### paper, and paperboard production,Ethyl Corporation derived 

### 11 percent of 1974 

### sales frompulp and paper operations. Whereas

Besides being horizontally integrated, the U.S. 

### kraft pulping 

### industry is highly 

### concentrated. The 6 

### largest firms 

### in terms ofmill Capacity account for 

### 40 percent of U.S. 

### kraft pulp 

### capacity. 10 

### largest account for 56 

### percent of U.S. 

### kraft pulp 

### capacity.The

3-1

### Vertical integration is another characteristic of the U.S. 

### kraft Only 

### 41 U.S. 

### kraft pulping 

### mills are listed in the pulping 

### industry. directory of

### world market pulp producers. grade listed is bleached wood. Themost prevalent kraft hardwood followed closely by bleached softMoreover, appearance 

### in the directory does not mean the mills' pulp 

### cannot be used captively. produced at the designated mills. However, nearly all kraft pulp 

### (about I30 

### percent) produced 

### in the U.S. 

### is notmarketed but is used ~aptively.~ 

### In fact, 109 

### kraft pulping mills also have facilities at When available, pulp 

### formarket is

the same location for producing paper and paperboard. mills cannot always satisfy the kraftpulping 

### requirementsof the paper and paperboard facilities. from other U.S. 

### and Canadian mills are required to 

### fill the kraft pulping voids. 3.3 

### International Inf1 

### uence However, these
Oftentimes, intracompany transfers

The U.S. 

### kraft pulping industry is not devoid of 

### foreign influence. Pulp, paper, and paperboard production in other countries, especially Canada,has a pronounced influence on 

### U.S. kraft pulping firms and trade balances. kraft pulp 

### and the fourth leading exporter (behind Canada, Sweden, and Finland), the U.S. 

### has been a net importer of kraftpulp. 90

### percent of the kraft pulp 

### imported to the U.S. 

### comes from Canada. This is not surprising in view of 

### the earlier statementabout intracompany transfers and the fact that a third of the U.S. 

### kraft pulp 

### producers have kraftpulping 

### facilities 

### in Canada. Although the U.S. 

### is theworld's largest producer of

Over

- 

### The aforementioned industry characterization statements were derived primarily fromAppendix 

### A and Tables 3-1 and 3-2. Appendix A 

### displays 3-2

### Table 3-1. SUMMARY INDUSTRY STATISTICS: FIRMS-MILL 

### NUMBER AND CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION Capacity U.S. Mills Megagram Tons % 

### of U.S. 

## - Firm # 

### U.S. Mills % U.S. 

### Total Per Day Per Day Total Allied Paper, Inc.

(sub. of 

### SCM) 

### A1ton Box Board Co. American Can Co. Appl

### eton Papers

### , Inc. 

### (Div. of

### NCR) Boise Cascade Corp. Bowater

### , Inc. 1 1 445 (490) 

### <1 1 1 590 

### (650) <1 2 2 1,125 (1,240) 1 1 1 163 (180) 

### negligible 5 

### 4 3,438 (3,790) 

### 4 2 2 1,360 (1,500) 1 Brown Co. 1 1 635 (700) 

### <1 Champion-International 3 3 2,430 (2,680) 3 Chesapeake Corp. of

### Va. 1 1 1,043 (1,150) 1 Container Corp. of Amer. 2 2 

### 2,040 (2,250) 2 

### Continental Can Co. 

### 4 3 3,355 (3,700) 

### 4 Crown Zel1erbach 5.5 5 

### 3,824 (4,216) 

### 4 Consolidated Papers, Inc. 1 1 358 (395) neglibible (sub. of 

### Marcor)

Diamond Int'l Corp. 1 1 385 (425) negligible Federal Paper Board Co., Inc. 1 1 1,088 

### (1,200) 

### 1 Fibreboard Corp. 1 1 408 

### (450) negligible Georgia-Pacific Corp. 

### 4 3 5,007 (5,520) 5 

### Gilman Paper Co. 1 1 998 (1,100) 

### 1
Great Northern Nekoosa 3 3 2,276 

### (2,510) 2 

### Green Bay Packaging, Inc. 1 

### 1 590 (6501 

### <1 

### Gulf States Paper Corp. 2 2 

### 794 

### (875) <1 

### Hammermill Paper Co. 2 2 

### 777 (856) <1 Hoerner 

### Maldorf Corp. 2 2 

### 1,950 (2,150) 2 

### P.H. Glatfelter Co. 1 1 454 (500) 

### negligible Corp.

Hudson Paper Co. 

### ITT Rayonier, Inc. 1 861 

### (950) <1 1 1,133 (1,250) 

### 1 Inland Container Corp. 1.5 1 

### 1,100 

### (1,213) 1 3-3

### Table 3-1 (Continued). SUMMARY INDUSTRY STATISTICS: FIRMS-MILL 

### NUMBER 

### AND CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION Capacity U.S. 

### Mills Megaqram Tons % 

### of U.S. 

### Firm # 

### U.S. Mills % U.S. 

### Total Per Day Per Day Total 

## - International Paper Co. Interstate Container Corp. Kemberly-Clark Corp. Lincoln Pulp & 

### Paper Co. (Div. of Premoid) Longview Fibre Co. Louisiana Pacific Corp. MacMi11an 

### B1oedel Ltd. Mead Corp. Mosinee Paper Corp. 

### Olin Kraft, Inc. Owens-Illinois, Inc. Oxford Paper (Div. 

### Ethyl Corp.) Packaging Corp. of 

### Amer. (A 

### Tenneco Co.) Penntech Papers, Inc. Pineville Kraft Corp. Potlatch Corp. Procter & 

### Gamble Co. St. Joe Paper Co. 

### St. Regis Paper Co. Scott Paper Co. 

### Simpson Lee Paper Co. Southland Paper Mills, Inc. Southwest Forest Industries South Carolina Industries (79%

### owned by 

### Stone Container Corp.) 

### (sub. of

### Time, Inc.) Temple-Eastex, Inc. Union Camp Corp. Western Kraft Westvaco Corp. Weyerhauser Co. Totals 56 

### 14 

### 1 1 1 

### 1 1 

### 1 4 1 

### 1 2 

### 1 1 1 1 2 

### 1 1 

### 4 3.5 1.5

2 1 1
1 3 3 

### 4 7 119 

## - 12 1 

### 1 1 1 

### 1 1 

### 3 

### 1 

### 1 2 

### 1 1 1 1 2 1 

### 1 3 3 1 

### 2 1 1


### 1 3 

### 3 3 6

3-4 

### 14,500 500 530 290 

### 1,723 635 840 

### 2,837 160 

### 1,043 1,610 530 703 163 800 

### 1,225 816 

### 1,180 4,880 

### 2,450 690 81

### 6 

### 545 61

### 2
1,180 

### 4,517 1,243 3,858 5,620 95,750 (15,985) 

### 14 (550) <1 

### (585) <1 (320) <1



### (775) <1 negligible <1

1 

### <1

1 5 3 

### <1 <1 <1 <1 (1,300) 1 (

### 4

### , 980

## 1 (1,370) 1 (4,254) 5 

### 5

(6,195) 6 

## - (105,567)

### Table 3-2. SUMMARY INDUSTRY STATISTICS: STATES-MILL

### NUMBER 

### AND CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION

State 

### A1abama 

### Arizona Arkansas California 

### Florida Georgia Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Maine Mary1

### and 

### Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Montana New 

### Hampshire New York 

### North 

### Carolina Ohio 0



### kl

### ahoma Oregon Pennsyl

### vani

### a South Carolina Tennessee Texas Virginia 

### Washington Wisconsin Totals 28 Number of 

### Mills

13

1 6 

### 4 8 

### 11

1 2 

### 11

6 

### 1 2 2 

### 4 1 1 1 5 

### 1 1 

### 7 3 

### 4 2 % of 

### U.S. Total

11

1 5 

### 3 7 9 

### 1 2 9 5 

### 1 

### 2 2 3 1 1 1 

### 4 

### 1 1 6 

### 3 3 2 6 5 

### 4 3 7 6 

### 4 3 

# - - 119 State

### Mill Capacity Megagram 

### Tons % ofU.S. 

### Per Day 

### Per Day Total

9,325 545 4,925 1,732 8

## , 400 

### 12,250 860 

### 835 10,570

3

### , 583 603 7

50 

### 785 4,270 1,090 635 

### 535 5,125 490 

### 1,450 5,357 780 

### 4

## , 983 1,156 4,145 4,127 5,310 1,140 

## - 95

### , 750 (1

### 05,567)

3-5

### kraft mill characteristics. Table 3-1 

### exhibitsmill number and capacity distribution by 

### firm. Table 3-2 

### exhibits mill number and capacity distribution by state.

3-6

## k

REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3 1. Guthrie, John A. An Economic Analysis ofthe Pulp and Paper Industry.

I Pullman, Washington, Washington State University Press, 1972, pp. 1-15. 2. Van Derveer, Paul D. Profiles of the North American Pulp and Paper Industry, Pulp & Paper. June 30, 1975. pp. 32-33; 36-38; 43-44; 48-49. 3. Wood Pulp Statistics 36th Edition. American Paper Institute, Inc., October 1972. pp. 63-83. Pulp & Raw Materials Group, New York,

3-74. PROCESS DESCRIPTION 

### Manufacturing of paper and paper products is a complex process which is carried out 

### in two distinct phases: of the paper. amaterial suitable for use 

### in paper, paperboard, and building 

### materials. the pulping 

### of the wood and the manufacture Pulping is the conversion of fibrous raw material,wood, into

are te

### , The fibrousmaterial ready to be made into paper is

### called pulp. 

### There fourmajor chemical pulping 

### techniques: (1) kraft or sulfate, (2) 

### sulf (3) 

### semichemical, and 

### (4)soda.

.. 

### Of the two phases involved 

### in paper-making, the pulping process is Of 

### the fourmajor pulping techniques, largest'source of 

### air pollution. the the kraft or sulfate process produces over 80 

### percent of the chemical pulp 

### produced annually in the United States. 4.1 KRAFT 

### PULPING PROCESS 1


### Pulpwood can be considered to have two basic components, cellulose and lignin. The fibers of 

### cellulose, which comprise the pulp, 

### are bound together 

### in the wood by 

### the 

### lignin. To render cellulose usable for paper manufacture, any chemical pulping 

### process must first remove the 

### lignin. The kraftprocess for producing pulp 

### from wood is shown in Figure 4-1. 

### In the process, wood chips are cooked (digested)at an elevated temperature and pressure in "white liquor", which is a water solution of sodium sulfide (NaZS) and

4-1

# T Nonconderlsab1es Verli Gases 

# I- Condensate

Weak Black Liquo 1\ Vent Gases Exhaust Gas

ILIQUOR EFFECT I 1OXI DATI ON EVAPORATOR I SYSTEM RECOVEPY FURNACE SYSTEM I I I I 

## ----- STACK i 

### I I Vent Gases I\ (Na$03+Na2S) Vent’ Gases
SMEl

### .T ter---)

# I DI SSOLVIFIG 

# I TANK

## I 

# I Green Liquor 

# Y I TO treatment pondj Exha 

# ‘c

stGases
Fuel 

# I CAUSTICI 

### ZING 

# ‘L~~~~~r 

### -

# i TANK

_. i<dimw Calcium carbonate mud (recycle to digester)

Figure 4-1. KRAFT PULPING PROCESS

4-2

### sodium hydroxide (NaOH). the wood. liquor and washed with water. Thewhite liquor chemically dissolves lignin 

### from The remaining cellulose (pulp) 

### is filtered from the spent cooking Usually, the pulp 

### then proceeds through various intermittent stages of washing and possibly bleaching, after which it is

### pressed and dried into the finished product (paper). The balance of the process is designed to

### recover the cooking chemicals and heat. Spent cooking liquor and the pulp 

### wash water are combined to form aweak black liquor which is concentrated 

### in amultiple-effectevaporator system to about 55 

### percent solids. to 65

### percent solids 

### in a direct-contact evaporator,which evaporateswater The black liquor can then be further concentrated
by 

### bringing the liquor in contactwith the flue gases from a recovery furnace, or in an indirect-contactevaporator. The strong black liquor is then fired in
a recovery furnace. provides heat for generating process steam and converting sodium sulfate (Na2S04) to Na2S. To make up 

### for chemicals lost in the operating cycle, salt cake (sodium sulfate) is usually added to the concentrated black liquor before it is sprayed into the furnace. amolten smelt at the bottom of the furnace. Combustion of the organics dissolved 

### in the black liquor

Inorganic chemicalspresent in the black liquor collect as
The smelt, consisting of sodium carbonate (Fla2C03) and sodium sulfide, is dissolved 

### in water to form green liquor which is transferred to a causticizing tank where quicklime (CaO) is added to convert the sodium carbonate to sodium hydroxide. Formation of the sodium hydroxide completes the regeneration of white liquor, which is returned to the digester system. A 

### calcium carbonatemud precipitates from the causticizing tank and is calcined 

### in a lime 

### kiln to regeneratequicklime.

4-34.2 

### DESCRIPTION OF 

### LNDIVIDUAL PROCESS 

### FACILITIES 4.2.1 

### Digester System Mood 

### chips are cooked with

### Bmfte liquor at

### aEiout 170

### to 175°C;and 

### at 5 

### pressures ranging from 6.9 

### to 9.3x 10 

### pascals (100 

### to 135psiq). Gases formed during

### digestton 

### arevented 

### to "re1ieve" the digester and maintain 

### proper cookinq 

### pressure. and 

### recover turpentine before venting. the heat and may be used in 

### some other 

### process. system: digester system, the contents of 

### the digester are transferred 

### toan atmospheric tank.uusua1lyreferred 

### toas a 

### blow tank. cooking liquor containing the dissolved lignin 

### is drained 

### and the pulp is transferred to the initial stage of washing. from the blow tank 

### are piped 

### to 

### a heat recovery unit. 

### isnot applicable to

### continuous digester systems. done in

### batch digesters, a1though 

### increasing numbers of continuous diqesters 

### are being employed in

### the industry. 4.2.2 

### Brown Stock 

### Washer System At some 

### mtlls the gases are firstcooled to

### condense The condenser cooling water recovers There are two 

### types of digester batch and 

### continuous. At

### the end of the cooking cycle in

### a batch


### Here the major portion of the spent
Steam and other qases that 

### flash This blow of

### the diuester 

### Most kraft pulping ispresently

Pulp from the digester system normally passes through the knotter which
removes chunks ofwood 

### not digested during 

### cooking. The pulp 

### then iswashed countercurrentlywith

### water in several sequential staqes. 

### On leaving each stage, 

### the pulp is 

### dewatered 

### on a 

### vacuum filter, and the water drains into filtratetanks. The washers arenormally boded to

### collect the vapors that 

### steamoff the 

### open washers. 4.2.3 Multfple-Effect Evaporator System

- Spent 

### cooking liquor from the 

### digester system 

### is combined with

### the 6rom 

### stockwasher discharge to form

### weak (dilute] 61

### ack 1iquor. Mu1tip1 

### e-effect

4-4

### evaporators areutilized 

### to concentrate the weak 

### black liquor 

### from an initial 12

### to 18 percent soltds

### toa final 

### level of 

### 40 

### to 55 

### percent solids. five 

### or six

### evaporation units (effects] 

### make up the 

### system. consists of 

### a vapor head and 

### a heatina 

### element. head of 

### a 

### previous effect pass 

### to 

### the heating element of 

### the followinq effect. The 

### effects are operated 

### atsuccessively lower pressures, which causes 

### a decrease in

### the boiling point 

### of the liquor.


### are condensed rapidly enough to maintain a high 

### vacuum. condensers are used: direct contact condensers and 

### surface condensers. Each type of 

### condenser 

### is equipped with

### a steam ejector

### toremove noncondensables. 4.2.4 

### Recovery Furnace System Usually, Each effect 

### Hot vapors 

### from the vapor

Vapors after the final effect Two types of 

### barometric

The purposes 

### of burning concentrated black liquor 

### inthe kraft recovery furnace are: 

### (c)to dispose of unwanted dissolved wood components in

### the liquor. instances, liquor of 60 

### to 65 

### percent solids content will 

### burn in

### a selfsupporting combustion. (a) torecover 

### sodium and sulfur, (6) 

### toproduce steam, and 

### In most



### The recovery furnace theoretically isdivided into three sections: the The black liauor is drying zone, 

### the reducing zone, and the oxidizing zone. 

### introduced tothe furnace through 

### spray guns located inthe drying zone. heat in

### the furnace is sufficient to evaporate the remaininq water from the liquor. 

### The dried solids fall tothe hearth to form the char bed. The

Combustion 

### of the black liquor char begins 

### on the hearth of

### the furnace. 

### Air 

### for combustion is supplied by a 

### forced-draft system to the reducing and 

### oxidizing 

### zone of the furnace. convert sodium sulfate and 

### other sodium-base sulfur 

### compounds to sodium Since 

### a reducinq atmosphere isrequired to

4-5

### sulfide, only a portion of

### the air required for complete combustion is supplied to the char bed through the lower or primary air ports. The heat released by the combustion in the zone is sufficientto liquefy the chemicals 

### in the char and to sustain the endothermic reduction. The liquefied chemical, ormolten smelt, is continuouslydrained from the furnacehearth. Air is admitted through secondaryand tertiary air ports above the primary zone to complete the combustion of the volatile gases from the char 

### in the furnace. There are two main types of recovery furnace systems. The first type employs a direct-contact evaporator to provide the final stage of evaporation for the black liquor. direct contactwith the furnace's exhaust gases. a conventional or direct-contactsystem. A 

### conventional system is shown in This is accomplished by bringing the black liquor in This furnace type is called
Figure 

### 4-2. The second type of recovery furnace system employs an indirectcontact evaporator as the final evaporation stage; this type is called a noncontact direct-fired, or "low odor" system. 

### A noncontact system is shown in Figure 4-3. 

### Themajority of the furnace systems 

### in operation are the conventional type 9

### In addition, so-called cross-recovery is practiced at several mills. This practice is where the waste liquor from neutral sulfite semi-chemical 

### (NSSC) cooking is combined with the black liquor from the kraftmill prior to burning. The inorganic content of the

### NSSC liquor will join the bulk 

### of inorganics and occur 

### in the smelt from the furnace, substituting for the sodium sulfate normally added 

### in the kraft recovery cycle to cover losses of chemicals.

4-6

## e--+ I I



### I--- ln ww 

### I I 

### I 

### e-$% I I 

# - --- 

# 1 V ta I-- m



# I

-1

# 1.

IC

4-7 *I-- X 0 L



### r w > S 0 V v

0 0I I------

..

# --- I .I I



# f

I I 

### I 

# 4
?Je h v) 

# I

1 

### 2 aJ > 0 u aJ pi

m

I d



### 4-8

### 4.2.5 

### Smelt Dissolving Tank The smelt dissolver is a large tank located below the recovery furnace hearth. on the floor of the furnace is dissolved in water to form green liquor in the tank. or liquid 

### shatterjet system to break up 

### the smelt stream before it enters the Molten smelt (sodium carbonate and sodium sulfide) that accumulates

The tank is equipped with an agitator to assist dissolution, and a steam
solution. Contact of themolten smelt with the water causes the evolution of large volumes of steam,which must be vented. The sodium carbonate (Na2C03) 

### in the green liquor is converted to sodium hydroxide (NaOH) 

### in the causticizing tank. 

### (cao)to the liquor. with Na2C03; calcium carbonate precipitates out and is converted back into quicklime 

### in a lime kiln. This is done by 

### adding quicklime The quicklime forms sodium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, which reacts

4.2.6 Lime 

### Kiln The lime kiln is an essential element of the closed-loop system that converts green liquor (solution of sodium carbonate and sodium sulfide) to white liquor. The kiln calcines the limemud (calciumcarbonatewhich precipitates from the causticizer) to produce calcium oxide (quicklime,CaO). The quicklime is wetted (slaked) by 

### thewater 

### in the green liquor solution to form calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2, for the causticizing reaction. The kraftpulp industry typically uses large rotary kilns that are capable of producing 36 to 360megagrams (40

### to 400 tons) of quicklime per day. mud is fed in at the elevated end as a 

### 55 to 60

### percent solid-water slurry. mud is contacted by 

### hot gases produced by 

### the combustion of

### natural gas or fuel oil and proceeding through the 

### kiln 

### in the opposite direction. Large motors turn the entire kiln at low speeds 

### (1-2rpm), causing the lime to proceed downward thrGugh Lime The

4-9

### the kiln 

### toward the high-temperature zone (980

### to 1090OC; 1800 

### to 2000°F) 

### to discharge at the lower end. upper section,which may be equipped with chains or baffles to give the wet mud 

### Setter contact with the gases. agglomerates into small pellets and finally is calcined to calcium oxide in the high-temperature zone near the burner. As 

### themud 

### moves along, it dries in 

### the

As 

### the lime mud moves down farther, it

Fluidized bed calciners are presently being used at four kraft pulp 

### mills, but the production rate of each kiln 

### at this time is under 136 

### megagrams (150

### tons) of lime per day. 4.2.7 

### Black Liquor Oxidation System Black liquor oxidation is the practice of oxidizing the sodium sulfide 

### in either weak or strong black liquor to sodium thiosulfate or possibly higher oxidation states. from the direct contact evaporatorby 

### producing a negligible sodium sulfide concentration 

### in the black liquor. air is most often used. air at two mills. have been used in singular or multiple stages to provide intimate contact between the liquor and air. air at two mills. between the liquor and air. 4.2.8 

### Black liquor oxidation is designed to decrease the emissions



### In thosemills which oxidizeblack liquor, However, molecular oxygen has been used instead of Sparging reactors,packed towers, and bubble tray columns

Sparging reactors,packed towers, and bubble tray columns

When digester and multiple-effectevaporator off-gases are condensed, some TRS 

### gases are partially dissolved 

### in the condensate. To 

### prevent the release of kraft odor from the water treatment ponds, the TRS 

### compoundscan 

### be stripped from the digester and multiple-effectevaporator condensates prior to being discharged to the ponds. are air stripping and steam stripping. (multiple tray) columnswith U 

### large countercurrent flow of air or steam. The two principal ways of stripping Stripping can be performed in multistage

4-10

### REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4 

### 1. Atmospheric Emissions from the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry, tPA-450/1-73-002, September 1973, page 5. 

### Technical Bulletin No. 

### 69, 

### February 1974). (Alsopublished by NCASI as

4-11

F5. 

### EMISSIONS
5.1 NATURE OF 

### EMISSIONS The characteristic kraft mill odor iscaused princioally bv 

### a 

### variable mixture of hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide

### ,and 

### dimethyl disulfide. All of 

### these gases contain sulfur, which isa necessary component of the kraft cooking liquor. Hydrogen sulfide emissions originate from the breakdown of 

### sodium sulfide, which isa 

### component of the kraft cooking liquor. Methyl mercaptan and 

### dimethyl sulfide are formed in reactions with

### the wood component lignin. Dimethyl disulfide is

### formed through the oxidation

### of mercaptan groups derived from the thiolignins. 5.1

# .1 

### Hydrogen Sulfide Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) 

### isa 

### weak acidic aas which Dartiallv ionizes in 

### The ionization proceeds in two staaes with

### the formation aqueous solution. of 

### hydrosulfide and, with 

### increasing pH, 

### sulfide ions H2S HS- + H+ 

### S= + 2H+ (5-1

### 1 increasing nH -+ 

### Black liouor contains a 

### hiah concentration of 

### dissolved sodium sulfide in strongly alkaline solution. would hydrolyze to

### sodium hydrosulfide. Below oH 8, 

### appreciable unionized hydrogen sulfidewould form as the reaction equilibrium in

### equation‘ 5.-1 

### moves from right 

### to left. If the pH 

### were depressed, the sodium sulfide

Itisreported that 

### ata pH 

### of about 8.0, 

### most hydrogen

5-1

### sulfide forms hydrosulfide ions. there is 

### very little

### dissolved hydrogen sulfide in 

### the liquor. Consequently, in

### normal black 1iauor 

### conditions, 1 

### Due 

### to the equilibrium between the hydrosulffde ion and 

### water vapor, hydroaen sulfide gas can be stripped from black liquor at steam vents. could be, 

### therefore, 

### a significant concentration of H2S in

### the evaporator
areas of the kraft mill. 

### There

Hydrogen sulfide 

### is formed in

### the recovery furnace and 

### lime kiln 

### as the sulfur-containing compounds from the black liouor or lime mud 

### are volatilized and 

### reduced. Hydrogen sulfide generally represents the 1

### araest aaseous emission from 

### the kraft process. 

### 5.

### J .2 Methyl Mercaptan Methyl mercaptan (MeSH) 

### is a reduced sulfur compound which isformed during 

### the kraft cook by the reaction of hydrosulfide ion and the methoxy-lignin component of the wood:2 

### Lignin

# - OCH3 

### + HS- +

### MeSH + Lignin 

## - 0- (5-2) 

### Methyl mercaptan will 

### also dissociate 

### in

### an aqueous solution to methyl mercaptide ion. Itis reported 

### thatthis dissociation isessentially complete above 

### a pH 

### of 1~0,~ Methyl mercaptan is, 

### therefore, present in 

### low concentrations as 

### a dissolved gas in

### the black liquor. As 

### the pH 

### decreases, MeSH 

### qas 

### isevolved. Methyl mercaptan 

### isprimarily emitted from the digester relief and blow 

### where it 

### is formed, and from 

### the brown stock 

### washers where the pH of

### the liauor drops below 

### the equilibrium point. concentration in

### the liquor diminishes. 5.1.3 Dimethyl Sulfide 

### Emissions decrease as the residual 4


### Dimethyl Sulfide (MeSMe) isprimarily formed through the reaction of

### methyl 

### 2 mercaptide ion with 

### the methoxy-lignin component of the wood:

5

### -2Lignin

### - OCH3 + MeS--+ Lignin

### - 0-+ MeSMe Dimethyl sulfide may also be formed by the disproportionation of methyl mercaptan. At normal liquor temperature (150-2OO'IF) it ishighlyvolatile. Itdoes not, however, dissociate as hydrogen sulf.ide and methyl mercaptan do. 5.1.4 Dimethyl Disulfide Dimethyl disulfide (MeSSMe) isformed by the oxidationofmethyl mercaptan throuqhout the recovery system, especiallv inoxidationtowers: 4 MeSH + 02 

### 22 MeSSFle 

### + 2 

### H20 (5-4) Dimethyl disulfide has a hiqher boilingpoint than any ofthe other compounds and itsretention inthe liquor istherefore greater. 5.2 UNCONTROLLEDTOTAL REDUCED SULFUR EMISSIONS Uncontrolled total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions are listed inTable 5-1 foreach ofthe TRS sources under consideration. These emission rates are for a 907 megagrams per day (1000 tons perday) kraftpulpmil1. also liststypical gas volume ratesfor each source. 5.2.1 Recovery Furnace System Table 5-1

TRS emissions are generated both inthe furnace and inthe direct-contact evaporator. hundred parts permillion (ppm) and as low as 1 ppm depending on the furnace design and operation. quantityand distribution ofcombustion air, rateof solids (concentratedblack liquor) feed, spray pattern and drpplet size ofthe liquorfed, turbulence in the oxidation zone, smelt bed disturbance, and the combination ofsulfidity and heat content value ofthe liquor fed. The impact ofthese variables on TRS emissions isindependent ofthe absence orpresence ofa direct-contact evaporator. The furnace-generated TRS concentration isas hiah as several
Recovery furnace emissions are affected by the relative

TRS emissions generated inthe direct-contact evaporator depend largely on the concentration ofsodium sulfide inthe black liquor. Acidic gases such

5-3

### as carbon dioxide in 

### the flue gas can change the black liquor 

### equilibrium, resulting in 

### the release of 

### increased quantities of 

### hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. Wcuh'trolled TRS 

### emissions from a conventional recovery furngce system range ftwr 0.75 to 

### 31 

### grants 

### per kilogram (1.5 

### to 62 pounds 

### per ton) of

### air dried pulp and average about 7.5 grams 

### per kilogram (15pounds 

### per ton) of air dried pulp (ADP) 

### .6 This 

### is an averaae of about 550 ppm. 

### 5.2.2 

### Digester System 

### The noncondensable gases from 

### the relief system and 

### the blow tank 

### vent contain TRS 

### concenttationsas high as 30,000 

### ~pm.~ Both streams are sometimes referred to as 

### digester "noncondensables". 

### aremainly methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide 

### and dimethyl disulfide. 

### TRS compounds formed in

### the 

### diqester Uncontrolled TRS 

### emissions 

### from a digester system range between 0.24 and 5.25 g/kq ADP 

### (0.47 and 

### 10.5 lb/ton ADP) 

### and average about 0.75 g/kg ADP 

### (1.5 lb/ton ADP) 

### ata concentration of 

### 9,500 ppm.' 

### Operating variables that affect diqester TRS 

### emissions include 

### the black liquor recycle rate, cook,duration, cooking liquor 

### sulfidity (percentage of sodium sulfide 

### tototal alkali, Na2S and NaOH, in

### white 1 iquor)

## ,and residual a1kali 

### level

# . 5.2.3 

### Mu1tiple-Effect Evaporator System 

### The noncondensable gases from a 

### mu1

### tiple-effect evaporator (MEE) system 

### consist of 

### airdrawn in

### through system leaks and reduced sulfur compounds 

### that 

### were either in

### the dilute 

### black liquor or formed during

### the evaporation process. TRS 

### emissions from the MEE system are as high 

### as44,000 ppm.8 

### Uncontrolled TRS 

### emissions from a 

### MEE system average about 0.5 

### g/ka ADP 

### (1

### .O lb/T ADP) 

### at a concentration of 

### 670C ppm.
- 

### 8 The 

### type of condenser 

### used can influence the concentration of TRS 

### emissions. 

### Certain types of condensers 

### (e.g. 

### direct-contact) allow 

### the noncondensable aases and 

### the condensate tomix, 

### which results in

### a limited 

### quantity of 

### hydroqen

5

### -4Table 5-1. TRS EMISSIONS FROM AN UNCONTROLLED 907 GRAMS PER DAY (1000 TONS PER DAY)KRAFT PULP 

### MILL(^) Typical F1ow Rate Exhaust Gas TRS Emission Ranqe Average(2) TRS Emission Rate Source m3/s(acfm) ppm g/ka ADP (lb/T ADP) ppm q/s(lb/hr) g/kq ADP(lb/T ADP) Recovery Furnace Digester System Mu1 ti pl e-Ef fect Evaporator System Lime Kiln m Brown Stock Washer System Black Liquor Oxidation System Smelt DissolvingTank Condensate Stripper System 212(450,000) 3(6,200) 1(2,200)

37(79,200)
71(1 50,000)
14(30,000)

27(58,100)

2(4,000) 18-1303 0.75-31 (1.5-62) 1525-30,000 0.24-5.3 (0.47-10.5) 92-44,000 0.015-3.2(0.03-6.3)

3-613 0.01-2.1(0.02-4.2)



## - 0.005-0.5 (0.01-0.9)

3-335 0.005-0.37( 0.01-0.73)

5-811 0.007-1 .9(0.013-3.70)



### - 

## - 550 9,500 6,700

170

30

35

60
5000 7.5(15.O) 0.75t1.5) 0.5(1.O)
0.4(0.8) 0.15(0.3)
0.05(0.1)

0.1(0.2) 1.0(2.0)

-- (1)Uncontrolled emission data for condensate strippers were obtained from Reference 13. were obtained from Reference 5. (*)Average values listedare calculated from data listed inP.eference 5. Reference 5 to evaluate the operation ofthe units for which data were reported. Data for all other sources Insufficient information was available insulfide and methyl mercaptan gases dissolved inthe water. This reduces the TRS concentration from the system, but increases the sulfide level inthe condensate. the 

### TRS concentration from the mu1tiple-effect evaporators. levels result in higher

### TRS emissions. 

### TRS levels increase with decreasing pH levels. 5.2.4 Lime Kiln Sulfidityand pH of the weak black liquor also have an effect on Higher sulfidity

TRS emissions can be generated inthe lime kiln proper and inthe downstream scrubber which isnormally installed to control particulateemissions. 

### TRS emissions originating inthe lime kilnare affected by the oxygen content ofthe exhaust, the kiln lengthtodiameter ratio, the limemud sulfide cont.int, cold-end exit gas temperature, and simultaneous burning of sulfur bearing materials contained inthe lime mud (e.g., green liquordregs, the impurities resulting from clarifying the green liquor).9
Ifdigester and evaporator condensates are used as lime kilnscrubber water, reduced sulfur compounds can be stripped into the exist gas stream. Ifthe scrubbing liquor contains sodium sulfide, as itdoes inSome installations, 

### H2S may be released inthe scrubber as a result of the equilibrium shift caused by the absorption of C02 inthe liquor. UncontrolledTRS emissions from a lime kilnaverage about 0.4 g/kg ADP (0.8 lb/T ADP) ata concentration of 170 ppm. 

### TRS emissions from lime kilns range between 3 and 600 ppm (0.02 to4.2 lb/T ADP) depending on combustion characteristics ofthe individual kilns. 5.2.5 Brown Stock Washer System 10



### TRS emissions from the brown stock washers arise primarily from the vaprization ofthe volatile reduced sulfur compounds. 

### TRS compounds emitted are principally dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.

5-6UncontrolledTRS emissions from the brown stock washer system average about 0.14 g/kg ADP (0.27 lb/T ADP) ata concentration of30 ppm. 0.05 g/kg ADP (5-37 ppm) are emitted from the hood vent and about 0.08 g/kg ADP (240-600 ppm) are emittedfrom the filtratetank (under) vent. About
11 Brown stock washer TRS emissions are affected by the wash water source, water temperature, degree ofagitation and turbulence infiltratetank, and blow tank pulp consistency.” TRS emissions will increase significantly if contaminanted condensate from the digester and evaporator systems are used for washing. theTRS during the washing. 5.2.6 Black Liquor Oxidation System

the reduced sulfur compounds from the black liquorby airpassing through the liquor. UncontrolledTRS emissions (principallydimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide) are inthe range of0.005 to0.37 g/kg ADP (about 3 to335 ppm) and average 0.05 g/kg ADP (35 ppm).” Oxidation systems that use only molecular oxygen have the advantage ofemittingvirtually no off-gases because the total gas stream re,acts inthe sparge system. Higher temperatures and agitation result inincreased strippingof

TRS emissions fromthe oxidation system are created by the stripping of

Primary factors affectingTRS emissions from black liquor oxidation systems are the inletsulfide content, the temperature ofthe black liquor, residence time, and the airflow rate per unitvolume. TRS emissions tend to increase for higher liquor temperatures and greater airflow rates because of greater volatility of the gases and stripping action ofthe air, respectively. TRS emissions alsotend toincreasewith increasingsulfide concentrations in the incoming black liquor and with increashg residence time. 5.2.7 Smelt DissolvingTank Because 

### of the presence ofa small percentage of reduced sulfur compounds inthe smelt, some ofthese odorous materials escape the tank with the flashed 5-7steam. as low as non-detectable. UncontrolledTRS emissions are as high as 2.0 g/kg ADP 

### (871 ppm) and 13 The average isabout 0.1 g/kg ADP (60 ppm)

## . Several factors affect the TRS emissions. Among these are the water used inthe smelt tank, turbulence of the dissolvingwater, scrubbing liquor used inthe particulatecontrol device, pH ofscrubbing liquor, and sulfide content of the particulate collected inthe control device.” contaminated condensate inthe smelt tank or the scrubber can result inthe The use of
stripping ofTRS compounds intothe gas stream. Turbulence can increase the stripping action. Incr2ased H2S formation can occur with a increase insulfide content ofthe scrubbing liquidand a decrease inpH of the scrubbing liquor. 5.2.8 Condensate Stripping System Presently there are only five condensate strippers inoperation inthe U.S. kraft pulp industry. Actual TRS emission data are unavailable, butTRS emissions from condensate strippers are expected to be high because the condensate contains high concentrations ofdissolved TRS compounds.14 The stripping efficiency isgreater than 95 percent.14 UncontrolledTRS emissions are estimated to be about 1 g/kg ADP (5000 ppm) from a condensate stripping system. 15
5.3 TYPICAL TRS EMISSIONS Typical controlleci TRS emissions are listed inTable 5.2 for each of the sources under consideration. These values represent average TRS emissions from existing facilities, based on the information listed inAppendix A. Appendix A lists emission rates for five sources (recovery furnaces, lime kilns, digesters, mu1tiple-effect evaporators, and brown stock washers) ateach kraft pulp mill inthe United States. the literature, state pollution contrul agencies, and the kraft pulp mills. Information inAppendix A was obtained from

Emission rates for uncontrolled sources are average uncontrolled values (See section 5.2) for the industry, except where actual levels are known. Controlled 5-8Table 5-2. TRS EMISSIONS FROM THE EXISTING KRAFT PULP INDUSTRY Average Uncontvc ledLevel Percent Capacity Typical CBntrolledLevel Average National Emissions ppm (lb/T ADP) "mrams g/kg ADP g/kg ADP glkgAD Source PPm (lb/T ALP) Controlled(1) PPm (lb/T ADP) Recovery Furnace Digester System Mu1tiple-Effect Evaporator System Lime Kiln Brown Stock & Washer System Black Liquor m
Oxidation System Smelt DissolvingTank Condensate Stripper System 550


### 9500
6800

170

30

35
60
5000 7.5 (15.0)

0.75 (1.5) (1-0) (0-8) (0.3)



### 0.5
0.4
0.15

0.05 (0.1) (0.2) (2.0)

0.1
1

### .o 88.7
58.4
58.6 28.2

2.8
2.1

100 5-70
5
5
5-40

5

0-10



# -
5 0.075-1.05 (0.15-2.1 ) 0.01 (0.02) (0.02)

0.01 0.0125-0.1 (0.025-0.2)

0.01 (0.02)
0.0-0.01 (0.0-0.02) 

## - 0.01 (0.02) 92
4050 2920

130

30

35
60
500 1.25 (2.5) 0.32 (0.64) 0.22 (0.43) 0.31 (0.62) 0.15 (0.3) 0.05 (0.1) (0.2) (0.22) 0.1 0.11 39

### , 000 10,000

6,700 9,700 4,420
1,470 2,940

0.4 (l )Percentage based on millscontrolled by existingstate regulations, plus informationcollected during previous surveys.

### levels listed are the actual levels where these were known; otherwise the applicable state standard is

### listed. Table 5.2 

### also gives 

### an estimate of the percentage of facilitiespresently controlled, and 

### the TRS 

### level towhich they aremost frequently controlled. These estimates on the percent of facilitiescontrolled are based on existing 

### or soon tobe 

### adopted stateregulations. 

### The estimates also include information obtained from various surveys 

### of the industry on controlled facilitieswhich
arenot presently covered by stateregulations. 

### In most cases 

### the typical emissions from existing facilitiesareequal to ornear the uncontrolled levels. emissions 

### from the 

### brown stockwashers, 

### smelt dissolving tanks, lime 

### kilns, and black liquor oxidation system. 

### to some 

### extent by a large percentage of

### the industry. emissions from

### these sources are discussed in

### the following sections. A 

### few mills 

### presently control TRS


### The other TRS 

### sources have 

### been controlled The typical TRS

5.3.1 Recovery Furnace System TRS 

### emissions from direct contact systems depend 

### on the design and operation of

### the recovery furnace and, if

### utilized, 

### an oxidation system. A survey of 32 recovery furnace systems 

### where black liquor oxidation isnot 

### used 

### shows TRS emissions ranging from 

### 35 

### to 1300 ppm, 

### regresentlng 0.75 to 31 g/kg 

### ADP (1.5 

### to 62 lb/T 

### ADP). 

### units that utilizeblack 

### liquor oxidation indicates a broad TRS 

### emission range of

### 0.1 

### to 13.0 

### g/kg 

### ADP (0.2 to25.9 lb/T 

### ADP), with 

### an average value 

### of 3.7 g/kg 

### ADP (170 ppm).16 TRS emissions from non-contact systems areusually confined to 

### a narrow range of 

### about 0.015 to 0.15 g/kg 

### ADP (1 

### to 11 ppm)

# . The average 

### is 7.7 g/kg 

### ADP (15.4 1 b/T 

### ADP). A survey of 17

- 

### Based on 

### Appendix A, it

### is estimated that TRS 

### emissions 

### from about 89 

### percent of the existing furnaces are either controlled by black liquor oxidation 5-1

### 0

### or have been replaced with 

### or converted to a non-contact system. It isalso estimated that the average national emission level is1.25 g/kg ADP (92 PPmv). 5.3.2 Digester and Mu1tiple-Effect Evaporator Systems The digester and mu1tiple-effect evaporators wi11 be considered together because their emissions are normally combined for treatment. Until recently, the noncondensable gases were inmost cases vented tothe atmosphere uncontrolled. However, several mills now incinerate the gases to control 

### odors. Most CmOn1Y, the gases are burned inthe lime kiln. reduce TRS emissions to less than 5 ppm (0.0075 g/kg ADP). thitapproximately 58 percent ofthe millsare incineratingthese gases or are installing systems to incinerate these noncondensables. White liquor (caustic) scrubbers are used ata few mills. These scrubbers are only effective

### in removing hydrogen sulfideand methyl mercaptan. TRS emissions from these scrubbers are estimated tobe aboht 0.5 g/kg ADP (1 lb/T ADP). Based on EPA tests,17 incineration can It isestimated

Based on Appendix A, the average national emission ratefrom digester systems iscalculated to be 0.32 g/kg ADP (0.64 lb/T ADP). The average national emission ratefrom mu1tiple-effect evaporators iscalculated tobe 0.22 g/kg ADP (0.43 lb/T ADP). controlledto5 ppm and 42 percent being uncontrolled. 5.3.3 Lime Kiln These values are based upon 58 percent being

TRS emissions from a lime kilninstallationare dependent on the operation ofthe kiln, the mud washing efficiency, and the type ofwater used inthe scrubber. Only about 28 percent (See Appendix A) ofthe kilnsare actually operated tocontrol TRS emissions. This percentage ismostly based on kilns affected by existing state or local regulations. Based on this percentage of

5-11

### controlled kilns, the calculated average national emission rate for lime kilns 

### is 0.31 g/kg ADP 

### (130 ppm). 

### 5.3.4 Condensate Stripping 

### System All 

### the condensate strippers in

### operation are controlled forTRS 

### emissions. Incineration 

### is 

### the control technique used 

### atfour mills. 

### The TRS 

### emissions from 

### these sources are estimated tobe 5 ppm 

### as

### mentioned in

### section 5.3.2. A 

### caustic 

### scrubber 

### is utilized atthe 

### remaining one mill, but

### no data 

### is available on the TRS 

### emissions. The average national emission rate 

### is estimated 

### tobe 

### 0.11 g/kg ADP 

### (0.22 lb/T 

### ADP). This 

### is based 

### on 5 ppm TRS being 

### achieved at4 

### mills 

### and 50 

### percent control at

### the mill 

### that

### uses a caustic scrubber. 5.3.5 

### Brown Stock Washer Systems, Black 

### Liquor Oxidation Systems, and 

### Sinel

### t DissolvingTanks These 

### three 

### sources aregenerally 

### not controlled 

### for TRS emissions. 

### However, 

### two U.S. 

### mills 

### incineratethe 

### vent gases 

### from the 

### brown 

### stock washer systems. Two 

### other U.S.mills 

### use molecular oxygen in

### their black 

### liquor 

### oxidation system, which 

### results in

### no vent gases and 

### no TRS emissions. mill 

### is controlling TRS 

### emissions from the brown stock washers by a chlorine 

### !&e
scrubber. One other mill 

### is controlling TRS 

### emissions 

### from their brown 

### stock washers and black liquor oxidation system by a chlorine gas injection system.

5-12

# -

REFERENCES FOR 

### CHAPTER 5 1.



### 2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7. 8. 

### 9.

10. 11.

12-. 13. Shih, 

### T. T., Hrutfiord, 

### B. F., Sarkanen, K, 

### V., and Johanson, 

### L. N., 

### Hydrogen Sulfide Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium

### inAqueous Systems 

### As a Function of Temperature and 

### pH, TAPPI, 50(12), 630-4, 1967. McKean, W. R., 

### Hrutfiord, 

### B. F., Sarkanen, K. 

### V., 

### Kinetic Analysis of Odor Formation 

### in

### the Kraft Pulping Process, TAPPI, 48(12), 699-703, 1965. Shih, 

### T.>T., Hrutfiord, B. 

### F., Sarkanen, K. 

### V., Johonson, 

### L. N., Methyl 

### Mercaptan Vapor-Liquid Equilibrium 

### in

### Aqueous Systems 

### As a Function of 

### Temperature and pH, 

### TAPPI, 50(12), 634-8, 1967. Control of

### Atmospheric Emissions in

### the Wood Pulping Ifidustry, Environ

### mental Engineering Inc., and J. E. 

### Sirrine Company, Final Report, EPA Contract No. 

### CPA-22-69-18, March 15, 1970. Atmospheric Emissions from 

### the Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry, EPA-450/1-73-002, September 1973. Bullehin No. 69, February 1974). 

### Reference 5, Table 14. 

### Reference 5,Table 

### 3. 

### Reference 5

## ,Table 7. Buggested Procedures for

### the Conduct of 

### Lime Kiln Studies to

### Define Emissions of Reduced Sulfur Through Control of Kiln 

### and Scrubber Operating Variables, NCASI Special Report No. 70-71 

## ,January 1971. 

### Reference 5. Table 

### A-5. Factors Affecting Emission of Odorous Reduced Sulfur Compounds from Miscellaneous Kraft Process Sources, NCASI Technical 

### Bulletin No. 60, March 1972. 

### Reference 5, 

### Table 21. 

### Reference 5. (Also pub1ished by NCASI as Technical

5-13

### 14. Butryn, 6. L. 

### and Ayers, K. C., 

### Mead Experience in 

### Steam Strippina Kraft Mill Condensate, presented atTAPPI Environmental Conference, May 

### 14-16, 1975. 15. Air 

### Emission - 

### Control Program For Hoerner Waldorf Corporation Mill Expansion Pissoula, Montana, submitted by 

### Hoerner Waldorf Cornoration 

### toMontana State, March 12, 

### 1974. 16. 

### Reference 5,

### Table 15. 17. Malodorous Reduced Sulfur Emissions From Incineration of

### Non-condensable Off-gases, EPA 

### Test Report 73-KPM-1A.

5-146. CONTROL TECHNLQUES 

### FOR TRS FROM KRAFT PULP MILLS
6.1 ALTERNATIVE CONTROL T€CHNIQU€S The various control techniques that have been or can be applied tothe emission sources affected by NSPS are discussed 

### in this section. The affected sources are the recovery furnace, digester system, multiple-effect evaporator system, lime kiln, brown stock washer system, 6lack liquoroxidation system, smelt dissolving tank, and condensate stripper system. The appli cabi1i ty and effectiveness of the control techniques when retrofittedon existing facilities isalso discussed. Table 6-1 summarizes the control techniques and corresponding TRS levels achievable for each source ofTRS. Section 6.2 discusses alternative control systems for entire kraft pulp mills. Retrofit models are presentedwkich permit estimates to be made of required costs for retrofitting existing facilities with the a1ternative control 

### systems. 6.1 ..l Recovery Furnace System TRS emissions from a recovery furnace system can originate inthe recovery furnace itself, or inthe direct contact evaporator ifthis type of evaporator is, used. have direct contact evaporators. About 75 percent of the new recovery furnaces that have been installed inthe last 5 years are, however, of the non-contact design. Most existing recovery. furnace systems

Inthese furnaces, the furnace flue gases

- never directly contact the black liquor and TRS cannot be formed inthe

6-1

### Table 6-1. TECHNIQUES FOR CONTROLLING TRS EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES 

### IN A KRAFT PULP 

### MILL Control Achievable TRS 

### Source Technique Leve1 

### Recovery furnace

Di

### ges

### ter system
Mu1tiple-effect evaporator 

### system Lime ki

### In



### Brm stock washer 

### system Black liquor oxidation system Smelt 

### dissolving tank Condensate s

### trippi

### ng 

### system Process controls + bl

### ack 1 iquor oxidation

Process controls 3. 

### conversion tonon-contact evaporator

Causti

### c scrubbing Inclnerati

### on Caustic scrubbing Incinerati

### on Process controls Process controls 

### + good mud 

### washing Process controls, good mud 

### washing + 

### caustic scrubbing Incinerati

### on Molecular oxygen Incineration 

### Fresh water usage Causti

### c scrubbing Incineration 20 ppm (Old 

### desi 

### n' 5 ppm 

### (New desi 

### n2 furnaces

# 3 furnaces

# 3

furnaces

# 3 furnaces

# 3 25 ppn 

### (Cross recovery 20 ppm (Old 

### desi n

5 ppm 

### (New desi 

### n furnaces)

25 ppm 

### (Cross recovery furnaces) 

### 7,000 ppm3 5 

### Ppm 350 ppm3 

### 5 Ppn 40 

### Ppm 20 

### Ppm



### 5 Ppm


### 0 PPm 

### 5 PPm 0.0084 g/kg BLS


# - 5 PPm lOld



### -design furnaces are defined as furnaces without welded wall ormembrane wall 

### 2New



### -design furnaces are defined as furnaces with 

### welded wall 

### ormembrane wall 3Calculated based upon scrubber removing 

### only hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan

construction oremission-control designed air systems. construction and 

### emission-control designed airsystems. and 

### using reference 5 

### to determine percent of hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan Present In

### vent stream. 6-2

### evaporator. 1967. 

### The non-contact furnace 

### was firstintroduced in



### Several 

### operating and design variables that have Some effect 

### on, or relationship 

### to, the

### generation 

### of TRS 

### emissions, in 

### a recovery furnace have been identi-fied. These include the 

### quantity and manner 

### of introduction 

### of comhustion air, the rate 

### of solids (concentrated black liquor) feed, the degree of 

### turbulence in the oxidation zone, the oxygen cortent of 

### the flue gas, the spray pattern and droplet size of 

### the liquor fed the furnace, and the degree of disturbance of 

### the smelt absence or presence of a direct contact evaporator. evidence 

### that sulfide content of the liquor combusted in

### the furnace The

### effect 

### of these variables is 

### independent of

### the There 

### is no
bears any relationship to the TRS 

### emissions 

### from the recovery furnace. This isnot tobe confused, however, with 

### sulfur compounds generated


### or stripped in a direct contact evaporator. The age of 

### existing furnaces has been reported to be 

### a significant indicator 

### of the furnace's ability

### tocontrol TRS

# emission^.^ typical life 

### of a recovery furnace is 

### considered 

### tohe 25 

### GL,ierally,the controls and 

### instrumentation that assistthe operator in

### maintaining close control 

### of the process. recent manufacturers' impravements., such as new. means of introducing 

### air, flexibility in

### distributing air in

### the furnace and

### means to change air 

### velocity 

### atinjecti-onports.
was made 

### to recovery furnaces in late 1964. 

### (The

age reflects an absence 

### or lack of refinement in


### Also, older furnaces may not incorporate

6 

### Furthermore, a major design change This 

### change consisted 

### of

6-3

### installing a 

### membrane between the wall 

### tubes located in

### front of

### the furnace's wall 

### insulation. This 

### design change made the furnace airtight. 

### The wall 

### insulati.on 

### on furnaces without this

### membrane wall 

### concept tends 

### to deteriorate. This in

### turn affects. the combustion in

### the furnace and reduces significantly the capability of the operator 

### to control TRS 

### emissions. These older recovery furnaces could be modified 

### to incorporate these new design features but 

### the modifications wuld be 

### extremely expensive. made. This 

### allows air 

### to leak into 

### the furnace.
7



### HoMver, changes in

### operating procedures can more easi ly be

Tkre are two control techniques to reduce TRS 

### emissions from the direct contact evaporator: black 1

### iquor oxidation and conversion 

### to a non-contact evaporator. between the combustion gases and black liquor that normally generate hydrogen sulfide. Na2S203 

### inthe black liquor before it

### enters the direct contact evaporator. contact between furnace gases and black liquor iseliminated, and hydrogen sulfide 

### formation 

### is prevented. Black 1

### iquor oxidation inhibits the reactions

This 

### is accomplished by oxidizing the Na2S to

In converting to a non-contact evaporator, the direct

There are several modes. 

### of operation of hlack liquor oxidation The black liquor 

### is sometimes oxidized before being systems.. concentrated inthe

### mu1tiple-effect evaporators (weak black liquor oxidation), sometimes following evaporation [strong black liquor oxidation) and sometimes both, 

### before and after. 

### Air is the normal oxidizing agent, 6ut molecular oxygen 

### is also used Khen available 

### on site. Air 

### sparging reactors are the 

### most comnon 

### units, but



### 6-4

### packed towers and 

### buhhle tray towers are also 

### used. In modifying 

### an 

### existing recovery furnace with 

### a direct contact evaporator 

### to a non-contact design, a black liquor 

### evaporator Cconcentrator) and 

### a second feed Mater economizer 

### is necessary. addition, elimination of 

### the existing direct contact evaporator will 

### result in

### an increased particulate concentration discharge 

### from the furnace system into 

### tfie particulate control device. 

### To maintain particulate emissions at

### the original leve1,it may be necessary 

### to replace the existing collector with 

### a new higher efficiency precipitator 

### or ins,tall an additional secondary collector, In



### This conversion to a non-contact 

### design has been accomplished by at least Twopulp 

### mills. 

### Atone recovery furnace system, erected in 1966, where the conversion was made, TRS emissions decreased from approximately 400 

### ppm toabout 10

### ppm.’ Modifications also included changes 

### tothe operation of 

### the furnace, such as oxygen content and air distribution. Therefore, a portion 

### of the TRS 

### reduction is attrihutable to decreased emissions 

### of TRS 

### from the 

### furnace system. TRS 

### emissions from direct contact systems depend 

### on the design and operation of the recovery furnace and the black liquor oxidation system. hetween oxidation efficiency and TRS emissions, presented in

### Table 6-2. 

### Sincethese samples 

### were taken 

### atstacks 

### on new recovery furnaces, the furnace TRS 

### contribution i.s assumed 

### tobe negligible.” The data An 

### analysis. of 200 

### s,tackgas samples shoved 

### the relation

show 

### a clear relationship between oxidation efficiency and 

### TRS

6-5Table 6-2 Relationship 

### of Oxi\dati,on Effi~ciencyand t$S Emis,si.ons11 Oxi,dati.on 

### Nuroher 

### tL,S Emi\ssions Efficiency, of g 

### ~s/Ks'Pulp"-~ - ' - Lb S/Ton 

### Pulp Percent 

### Sam?1

## es 

# - Max -. Min Mean -. 

# & & - Mean 

### 80-85 85

### -90 8 15 

### 4.1 0.75 

### 2.3 8.1 1.5 4.6 

### 3.0 Q.05 1.6 

### 6.0 0.1 3.2 9a-94 29 

### 3.3 0.25 

### 1.2 6.6 0.5 

### 2.4 94-96 18 2.2 

### 0.05 0.9 4.3 0.1 1.8 

### 96-98 98-99 

### 15 19 1.4 

### 0.05 0.65 

### 2.8 0.1 1.3 

### 1.1 

## o.a 0.35 2.1 0.0 

### 0.7 99-1 

## oa 96 

### 1.6 0.0 

### 0.2 3.2 0.0 

### 0.4

6-6

### emissions. eliminated by 

### conversion to a 

### non-contact type system. Emissions from 

### the direct contact evaporator will be

TRS 

### emission tests conducted during 

### the NSPS 

### development program indicate that TRS 

### emissions from 

### new recovery furnaces can be controlled to at 

### least 5 ppm.12 

### During the NSPS 

### program, three recovery furnaces (two

### direct contact systems and 

### one 

### non-contact system) were tested by EPA. 

### ppm (6 

### tests, each 4-hours) 0.6 

### ppm (-6 

### tests, each 4-nours), and 3.9 

### ppm 

### (5 tests, each 4-hours). 

### greater Cabout 7 

### ppm) than 5 ppm. TRS 

### emissions averaged from 

### the individual furnaces are 1.4 

### Only one 4-hour 

### testshowed emissions

One furnace manufacturer indicates that

### many recovery furnaces built since 1965 are basically the same design as new furnaces built today, and that these should alsobe capable of achieving 5 ppm TRS 

### with good process control and 

### eitherblack liquor oxidation or 

### conversion to a 

### non-contact evaporator. These existinq 

### recovery furnaces

### ,defined as "new des ian" furnaces, were desiqned for low TRS 

### emissions (i.e., incorporates manufacturer's improvements) and 

### will have stated in

### their contracts that these furnaces
were constructed with air 

### pollution control as an objective. Recovery furnaces, mainly those built before 1965, 

### thatwere not 

### constructed with 

### airpollution control as an 

### objective, have a somewhatdifferentdesisn, as mentioned previously, and are not 

### capable of 

### achievinq 5 ppm TRS (4-hour 

### average basis). These furnaces, defined as 

### "old desiqn" furnaces, 14

6-7

### can generally achieve about 15

### to 20 ppm TRS with good 

### process control and 

### black liquor oxidation 

### or 

### conversion to 

### a non-contact evaporator. This TRS 

### level (15

### to 20 ppm) 

### is presently being achieved by 

### existing recovery furnaces (seeAppendixB)

### ,many built

### before 1965, in

### those 16 

### states which have TRS 

### regulations of 

### 17.5 ppm 

### (daily averaqe). Some existing furnaces may have difficulty achieving even this 

### level (20 ppm) if 

### they are operating ata much hiqher firinq 

### rate 

### than oriqinally designed 

### or do not have sufficient combustion control capability. 15



### Cross recovery liquors are somewhat different than straiqht kraft liquor, 

### and, therefore, it

### ispossible that the TRS 

### emissions from 

### a cross recovery furnace are not controllable 

### tothe same degree as are those from 

### the straight kraft furnace. may be higher from cross recovery furnaces.17 The firstrelates to the sulfur content of the liquor which is higher with

### this 

### process than in 

### straight kraft processes. of the black liquor is lower 

### than found 

### in straight kraft

### mills. because the NSSC 

### process gives higher pulp

### yields than the kraft process and, as a consequence, the spent liquor associated with

### the YSSC 

### process contains less organic content. with kraft black liquor.
excess oxygen available in

### cross recovery furnaces 

### tooxidize the relatively large quantities 

### of volatile sulfur compounds given off as 

### a consequence of 

### the heavy sulfur 

### loading and 

### lower furnace operatina temperatures. enough excess oxyqen is 

### supplied to completely oxidize all volatile sulfur 

### compounds, a sticky dust

### problem will develop which can plug 

### up 

### the precipitator and render furnace operation impossible. There are three reasons why TRS 

### emissions

In cross recovery operations, the heat content This 

### is

Therefore, its 

### Rtu value is lower as compared The third 

### reason pertains to the restriction 

### on

If



### 6-8Based on a study18 conducted on one cross-recovery furnace, cross-. recovery furnaccs which experience arwn liquor sulfidities inexcess of 28 percent and liquor mixtures ofmore than 7 percent NSSC on an airdry ton basis can not achieve the same TRS levels as straight kraft recovery furnaces. Emission data reported inthe study indicate that TRS emission levels of 25 ppm, corrected to 8 percent oxygen, can be achieved from we11-controlledcross-recovery furnaces. A recently developed control technique for recovery furnaces isa1kaline adsorptionwith carbon activated oxidation ofthe scrubbing solution. Pilot plant studies indicate that this technique can reduce TRS emissions from 20 to 2500 ppm to between 1 and 10 ppm.” Reduction inparticulateand SO to control TRS emissions on those older existing furnaces or cross recovery furnaces which do not have the combustion control capability for low TRS emissions. loadon older existingfurnaces that are not capable of achievinq the necessary TRS regulations. emissions are also reportedlyachieved. This technique could be used 2

This technique could prevent the need to replace or reduce the

6.1.2 Digester and Mu1tiple-Effect Evaporator Systems The digesters and mu1tiple-effect evaporators will be considered together because non-condensable gases discharged from these two sources are nermally combined for treatment. incinerating the gases. to destroy odors. burned inthe lime kiln. are also used, either as hackup for the kilnwhen itisshutdown, or as the full-time control deyice. At least halfthe mills are Most commonly, the gases are However, a few special gas-fired incinerators

Retrofittingan exi.sting millto handle and incinerate these non-condensable gases isapparently no significant problem. itis, simply a matter of ducting the gases to the kilnor incinerator and i nstal1i ng necessary condensers and gas holding equipment

# . Generally,

- The

6-9

### non-condensable gasesare added to the 

### primary airto the kiln. 

### This 

### retrofitsituation has 

### now been 

### performed atover sixtymills. The 

### blow gases from batch digesters are generated in

### strong 

### hursts that 

### normallyexceed the 

### capacityof

### the lime kiln. 

### reason, special gas handling equipment has been developed tomake 

### the gas flows more uniform?OAdjustable volume gasholders, with movable diaphragms orfloating tops, 

### receive the gas 

### surges, and a small steadystream is 

### 61ed to

### the kiln. 

### gasEs form 

### exploeive

### mixtures 

### inair, possible explosion hazards have 

### been minimized by

### the development of appropriate gasholding For this



### Although the non-condensable

.Systems, flame 

### arrestors and 

### rupture disks in

### the gasholding ducts,



### and flame-out controls at

### the lime kiln. 

### Incineration of 

### these the lime 

### kiln 

### is particularly red toachieve

### effective 

### gases in

### existingprocess 

### equipment attractive 

### since no additional fuel 

### emission control. Scrubbers

### are used ata 

### few 

### ex 11s. Uhite 

### liquor, the 

### usual scrubbingmedium, is

### effective forremoving hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan, but 

### notdimethyl sulfideordimethyl disulfide. Atleast3 mills 

### cl1 

### recover 

### sulfur, (2) 

### condense

### steam, and (3) 

### remove turpentine vapors and 

### mist, therehy reduci.ng the explosion hazards. 21 

### scrub the 

### noncondensable gases before incineration to:

Combustion 

### of noncondensahle 

### gases in a lime 

### kiln

### or gas-fired i.ncineaator provides nearly complete destruction of 

### TRS compounds. During an 

### EPA 

### test (conducted for NSPS) 

### on a separate incinerator burning noncondensahles from a digester 

### system and 

### a multiple 

### effect - 

### such as 

### is requ 

### sting

### m

6-10

### evaporator system, the residual unburned TRS 

### was less than 5 ppm (0.01 g/kg 

### ADP) 

### The TRS 

### test results (4-hour 

### averages) of 

### the four tests conducted ranged betKeen 0.5 and 3.Q 

### ppm, and 

### averaged 1.5 

### ppm (dry

### gas basis). operating 

### at 1000°F (measuredl with 

### a calculated retenti.on time for the 

### gases of at least 0.5 

### seconds. 22



# . During the tests, the incinerator was

Scrubber efficiencies are much lower than properly operated incinerators because only hydrogen sulfide and 

### methyl mercaptan react with the alkalinemedium. gases is highly variable, but

### on the average hydrogen sulfide and 

### methyl mercaptan comprise about 

### half the TRS 

### compounds. emissions are 9,500

### ppm 

### from the digester system and 6700

### ppm 

### from the 

### mu1

### tiple-effect evaporator system.z4 is only effective in controlling hydrogen sulfide and 

### methyl mercaptan, alkaline scrubber efficiencies areroughly only 50 

### percent. TRS 

### emissions from 

### a scrubber are calculated 

### tobe about 0.63 g/kg ADP (0.59 g/kg 

### ADP from 

### digester system and 0.04 

### g/kg ADP 

### from multipleeffect evaporator system1 

### or abut-7500 

### ppm. The composition of noncondensable
23 

### Uncontrolled

Since caustic scrubbing

6.i.3 

### Lime Kiln TRS 

### emissions, principally hydrogen sulfide, can originate from two areas in

### the lime kiln installation, the lime kiln proper and 

### a 

### scrubber that serves as the particulate control device. from the lime kiln installation are controlled 

### by maintaining proper process conditions. in 

### an industry (National Council of the Pulp and 

### Paper Industry for Air and 

### Stream Improvement) study 25include the temperature atthe TRS 

### emissions

The most important parameters that were identified

6-11cold end (point of exhaust discharge) of the kiln, the oxygen content of the gases leaving the kiln, the sulfide content of the lime mud fed tothe kiln, and the pH and sulfide content of the water used ina particulate scrubber. used as the scrubbing medium, tke exhaust gases could strip out the dissolvedTRS and increase the TRS emissions from the lime kiln installation. can reduce the TRS emissions from a lime kiln. If contaminated condensate is

Scrubbing theexhaust gases with a caustic solution 

### 26 The amount of retrofitting necessary toachieve proper process conditions depends on the design of the existing kiln installation. If the existing kilndoes not achieve sufficient oxygen levels, increased fan capacityor changes to the scrubber system may be necessary to increase the air flow through the kiln. Molecular oxygen can also be used to replace a portion of the combustion air to increase oxygen levels. Additional lime mud washing capacity may also be necessary to reduce the sulfide content of the mud and thereby reduce TRS emissions. This may require replacement of existing centrifuges withmore efficient vacuum drum fi1ters, and the addition ofanother mud washing stage. presently using condensate that contains dissolved reduced sulfur compounds for a scrubhing medium would have toeither instal1 a condensate stripper to remove the dissolvedTRS prior to the scruhber or replace the condensate with fresh water. *

Furthermore, a mill

TRS emissions from existing lime kilns range from about 0.01 to 2.0 g/kg ADP (4 to 840 ppml, depending on the degree of control, with

6-12an average of about 0.4 g/kg ADP (168 ppm)

## .27 EPA tests (conducted 

### for NSPS development) on txo lime kilns indicate that lime kilnTRS emissions can be reduced to below 20 ppm (12-hour averaqe) using process controls. Another lime kilr, using caustic scrubbing inaddition to process control iscapable, based on EPA results, of TRS emissions helow 8 ppm (12-hour average). When tested by EPA, all three lime kilnswere burning non-condensable gases from the digester system and mu1tiple-effect evaporator system. It appears that existing lime kilns can be retrofittedto also achieve low TRS emissions. installations have reportedly heen reduced from over 100 ppm to less than 20 

### ppm by modifying the lime mud washing systems and making adjustments inthe process operation.28 TRS emissions from two existing lime kiln

However, the TRS levels towhichexisting kilns can fie retrofitted depends on the load at which the kiln is normallyoperated. sufficientlyover design capacity, itmay be very d i f f i c u l t t oobtain the oxygen levels necessary for low TRS emissions [about 20 ppm). Discussions with the kraft i,ndustry indicate thatTRS emissions from these lime kilns can be reduced, however, to ahout 40 ppm. If the kiln isoperated

6.1.4 Brown Stock Masher System Nearly allexisting kraft millsvent the hr0w.n stock washing system gases directly to the atmosphere without control. least three mills inthe United States and Candda, and one inSweden, utilizethe gases as combustion air ina recovery furnace. However, at

The furnace systems handling these gases are newer furnace systems

6-13which were designed to burn the washer gases. (not designed for burning these gases) has yet been used to incinerate the washer gases. No existing recovery furnace

As discussed insection 6.1.2 the residual TRS after incineration is Since the gas volume from the very low, less than 5 ppm (0.01 g/kg ADP). washer drums islarqe, about 112 m /Mq (150 CFWJTPD), the most likely equipment for combustion isa recovery furnace or power boiler. due to their large volume, would have to supplement the recoverv furnace's combustion airrequirements. Even ifthe washers were enclosed with tiaht 3 29 The oases,

hoods, the gas volume would be too larae to burn ina lime kiln. The actyal gas volume handled at one mil 1 is75 m3/Mg (100 CFMITPD) , 

### The volume thatwould need to be handled atother existingmills can be h or lower depending upon tightness of hooding and degree of condensing gas qher

The vent gases from the filtratetank are considerably smaller in volume, about 4.5 m3/Mg (6 CFM/TPD).30 This stream issufficiently small for combustion ina lime kiln, or blended with the hood vent gas and burned ina recovery furnace. Incineration of the washer gases 

### ina recovery furnace will not affect furnace operation provided the moisture content ofthe qases isnot too c~reat.~' sulfur emissions and produce unsafe operating conditions. (furnace) temperature decreases almost 1inearly with increased content ofvaporized water inthe combustion airbecause of sensible heat losses. With decreased bed temperatures, SO2 emissions increase ata rapid rateand reduced sulfur compounds become increasinqly difficult High moisture content can increase aaseous Red

6-14

### to 

### control.32 

### extremely dangerous conditions such 

### as smelt-water explosions. Water entrained in

### the combustion qases can create
One furnace manufacturer recommends that the 

### washer gases be 

### incinerated only in 

### the secondary 

### or tertiary air

### zones of 

### the furnace. This would keep the moistwasher gases away from the smelt bed. the gases only in

### the secondary 

### or tertiary zones may affect the flexibility of 

### the recovery furnace, Burning


### however, since the operator would 

### not have the 33 

### ability 

### to vary the airflow 

### rate to each zone. High 

### moisture content would 

### result in

### an increase in 

### gas flow and 

### reduce the capacity of 

### the recovery furnace. An alternative to incineration of brown 

### stock washer gases is 

### chemical scrubbing. mentioned, 

### is only 

### effective in

### controlling hydrogen sulfide and 

### methyl White 1

### iquor (caustic) scrubbing, 

### as previously
mercaptan. system are principally dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.34 A


### more effective system isreportedly 

### a chlorination-caustic scrubbinq system. However, the TRS 

### emissions from a brown 

### stock washer

In 

### this system, the chlorine absorbs and 

### oxidizes the dimethyl sulfide and dimethyl disulfide.35 This technique was installed atone mlll in

### February 1976 and 

### tests conducted atthat 

### time demonstrated TRS 

### emissions of 

### less 

### than 5 p~m.~~ 

### Another technique is

### chlori,ne9as injection. This 

### technique is 

### used 

### atone mill 

### and 

### tests conducted demonstrated TRS 

### emissions of 

### less than 5 ppm and 

### a control efficiency of 80 

### percent.

### 37 6.1.5 

### Black Liquor 

### Oxidation System, The vent gases from nearly all existinq black liquor 

### oxidation (BLO) 

### systems are emitted directly 

### tothe atmosphere without

### control.

6-15

### One control technique is incineration. Incineration has 

### proved highly effective in 

### controlling similar streams in

### some mills, for 

### example, the vent gases from pulp

### washing systems, the noncondensable gases from 

### digesters and mu1

### tiple-effect evaporators

### ,and vent qases from condensate strippers. the recovery furnace or power boiler ismost likely, since the BLO 

### gas 

### volume isusually too large 

### tobe handled by 

### an existing kiln. 

### would result in

### no significant fuel penalty. Similar 

### to the pulp

### washing system, incineration in



### This

Because of 

### the high 

### moisture content of 

### the RLO 

### gases, itwould 

### be necessary to use condensers to reduce the moisture content before burning, 

### especially if 

### the 

### moist washer gases are burned in 

### the same furnace. Incineration of 

### these moist qases in

### the furnace would probab1.y
cause increased corrosion problems in

### the forced-draft fan ductwork and 

### the forced-draft fan itself. This would probably necessitate the replacement of this 

### equipment with

### corrosion-resistant equipment. forced-draft fan may be necessary 

### to handle the increased mass flow 

### due to the high

### moisture content of 

### the gases, even after usinq condensers. The recovery furnace operation should not be adversely affected by A 

### larqer
38


### burning 

### the BLO 

### gases, even in 

### combination with 

### the washer gases, provided the moisture content is 

### sufficiently reduced and the qases are burned high in

### the f~rnace.~’ Since the BLO 

### gases are deficient in

### oxygen, one furnace manufacturer suggests burning 

### them in

### the sec0ndar.y 

### or tertiary airzone but 

### states that the gases should still contain sufficient oxygen 

### topreclude adversely affecting the furnace operation.

6-16As 

### mentioned in

### Section 6.1.4, 

### the operational flexibility of 

### the furnace is reduced because a portion (BLO 

### gases and 

### washer gases) of the total 

### combustion secondary and 

### tertiary air 

### zones and 

### when airin

### this zone 

### is needed 

### to air 

### must always be introduced into 

### the cannot be used in

### the 

### primary air zone adjust 

### furnace operation. Emissions will be reduced 

### to low 

### burned. Since these gases contain the evels if 

### oxidation vent qases are same TRS 

### compounds present in

### the digester and 

### mu1tiple-effect evaporator off-qases which EPA 

### tested after incineration, TRS 

### combustion residuals of 

### the BLO 

### vent qas will be less than

A 

### second control technique is 

### the use of 

### molecular oxygen in

### oxidation systems instead of air. Atleast two mills in

### the United States now oxidize black liquor by pumping 

### oxygen directly into the black liquor lines. There
are no vent gases from this closed system. The economic feasibility of such


### a system depends largely on the price and availability of

### oxygen. Another technique ischlorine gas injection. This technique is 

### used 

### at one mill on the vent gases 

### from primary oxidation system. Tests conducted demonstrated TRS 

### emissions of less than 5 ppm and 

### a control efficiency of 

### 40 95 

### percent. 6.1.6 Smelt Dissolving Tank 

### Smelt dissolving tank TRS 

### emissions are governed by process conditions; that is; 

### the presence of 

### reduced sulfur compounds either in

### the smelt 

### or the water. choice of water in

### the smelt dissolving 

### tank 

### or the particulate control device. The principal control option 

### available is the

Clean water, low in

### dissolved sulfides, ispreferable, although

6-17

### low emissions have been reported with nearly all process streams.a4 IfTRS emissions are hiqh and no particulate control device (scrubber) isused, a wet scrubber (e.q., packed tower) can be used to control the TRS emissions. emissions. One mill reportedly reduced TRS emissions over 95 percent This scrubber would also result incontrolling particulate

from a level of about 0.19 g/kg of black liquor solids (BLS) (0.56 lb/T ADP) when a packed scrubber tower was installed.42

. TRS emissions from smelt dissolving tanks are normally low and average about 0.007 g/:.g BLS (0.02 lb/T 

### ADP).43 EPA tests on two smelt dissolving tanks indicate TRS emissions below 0.0084 g/kg BLS (8 ppm). These levels can be achieved on both new and existing smelt tanks. Both these smelt tanks have wet scrubbers for control

### 1ing particulates. Weak wash liquorwas used as the scrubbingmedium inboth scrubbers. 6.1.7 Condensate Stripping System In at least four United States mills, dissolved sulfides and other volati1 e compounds are stripped from the di gester and evaporator condensates prior to discharge to treatment ponds. One mill, which uses steam as the stripping medium, discharges the gases from the stripper column to a lime kiln. Two mills use airas the strippingmedium. One of these incineratesthe stripper gases ina separate incinerator, while the other incinerates the gases inthe recovery furnace. One mil 1

### ,which uses steam, ispresently scrubbing the stripper gases with white liquor, but this technique isnot as effective as incineration.

### 44 As mentioned inSection 6.1.2, incineration has proven to reduce

~ TRS levels fromdigester and multiple-effect evaporator systems to less than 5 ppm. Since the vent gas from condensate strippers contains the



### 6-18

### same TRS 

### compounds present in 

### the digester and 

### multiple-effect evaporator aases, TRS 

### emissions in the condensate stripper gases after incineration can be reduced 

### to5 ppm (0.01 g/kq 

### ADP). 6.2 SUMMARY OF 

### RETROFIT MODELS 

### Section 6.1.1 through Section 6.1.7 have examined the various control techniques that can be applied to each source ofTRS 

### emissions and have quantified the emission levels 

### that can be achieved by applyinq these control5. 

### alternative control techniques will be discussed in Chapters 8 

### and 9, 

### respectively. Simultaneously to the various 

### TRS sources in the entiremill, 

### various a1

### ternative control systems (retrofi

### t models

## 1were devel oped. alternative systems chosen range from controllinq each TRS 

### source to the best achievable level, 

### to controllinq only the major TRS 

### sources with techniques less effective than best available technology. The 

### six retrofitmodels that use alternative control systems are listed in 

### Table 6-2. 

### These six control systems were selected because the differences between systems reflect

### major differences in the types and 

### costs of retrofits that would be carried out atan existinq kraft mill. The economic and environmental impacts of these retrofit models will be analyzed in

### conjunction with 

### the present controls already installed ateach existing kraft pulp

### mill.
are discussed bel

### ow. The economic and environmental impact of applying these

In order to assess the impacts of applying controls

The

The six control systems
Retrofit Model No. 

### 1: All eight TRS 

### sources are controlled 

### to

-

### the level of 

### best available control technology. This s.ystem will

6-19Table 6-2, POSSIBLE CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR EXISTING KRAFT PULP MILLS

Source No, 1 Control Systems/emission level (ppm) No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 Recovery furnace Process control + Digester system Incineration/5 ppm Mu1tiple-effect Incineration/5 ppm BL0/5 ppm

evaporator system
Q, Lime kiln Process controls N + caustic scrub- I 0 bing/8 ppm Incineration/5ppm Brown stock
Black liquor Incineration/5 ppm Smelt dissolving Frpzh wa+ar/P DM): I.

0084 g/kg BLSI Condensate Incineration/5 ppm

washer system oxidation system tank stripper system Process control + Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5ppm

BL0/5 ppm

Process controls t caustic scrubbing/8 ppm No control
No control Fresh water/8 ppm Incineration/5ppm Process control + Process control t Process control + Process control + Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5ppm BL0/5 ppm BL0/20 ppm* BL0/20 ppm* BL0/20 ppm*

Process controls Process controls/ Process controls/ Process controls/ bing/8 pDm No control No control No control No control + caustic scrub 20 PPm 40 PPm 40 PP~

No control No control No control No control Fresh water/8 ppm Fresh water/8 ppm Fresh water/8 PPm Fresh water/8 PPm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5 ppm Incineration/5ppm Incineration/5 ppm

*The 20 ppm levels applies to old design furnaces;new design furnaces can achieve 5 ppm with application of the same control technology (two-stage BLO).

### result in 

### the lowest TRS 

### emissions from a 

### kraft pulp mill and will 

### require installation of a 

### new furnace if 

### the existinq furnace is relatively old 

### and cannot achieve 5 ppm TRS. 

### In most cases, this system will also requi and the improvement 

### or order 

### to achieve a TRS 

### from the smelt dissolv 

### e caustic addition 

### tothe existinq scrubber replacement of 

### the lime mud 

### washing facility in 

### level of 8 

### ppm 

### from the lime kiln. TRS 

### emissions ng 

### tank will 

### be controlled by using fresh 

### water in 

### the 

### tank and the particulate control device. Incineration will 

### be used to control TRS 

### emissions from the digester system, multiple-effect evaporator system, brown stock washer system, black liquor oxidation System and condensate stripping 

### system. multiple-effect evaporators and 

### condensate strippers will be 

### incinerated in 

### the lime kilns. 

### for purposes of 

### impact analysis are assumed 

### tobe burned in 

### a separate incinerator since 

### no existing recovery furnace has been modified to handle these gases. The gases from the digesters,

The gases from the washers and oxidation system

Retrofit Model No. 

### 2: 

### This control system 

### is similar to Retrofit Model No. 

### 1 except that the vent gases from the washer system and the BLO 

### system are not incinerated. This 

### system was chosen as 

### a model because, based 

### on the economic analysis performed for NSPS 

### development, these 

### two smaller TRS 

### emission sources are less cost effective to control than the other sources. Itis 

### assumed that these 

### two sources would 

### be combined 

### for treatment. related to the cost of controlling the other source because one incinerator would be installed to handle both 

### gas streams. modifications made to an existing mill would generally be the same whether both 

### or only one of 

### these sources is controlled. The cost of controlling one source is
Therefore,

6-21Retrofit Model No. 3: This control system issimilar to Retrofit Model No. 2 except that less effective control of the recovery furnace isallowed, resulting ina higher TRS level from this unit. This system was chosen because the higher TRS level (20 ppm) will allow mainly older recovery furnaces (mostly those built before 1965) to remain inoperation. The 5 ppm level as required inRetrofitModels No. 1 and No. 2 would probably require these older furnaces to be replaced. of Models No. 1 and 2, iffurnace replacement isnecessary, will be substantially greater than that of Model No. 3. The cost impact

RetrofitHodel No. 4: This control system issimilar to retrofit .Model 

### No. 3 except that the lime kilnTRS level has been relaxed from



### 8 to

### 20 PDm. level without using caustic scrubbing. This system would permit many kilns toachieve this The TRS emissions from the lime kilnwould be controlled by process controls and require the lime mud washing facility to be improved or replaced. Caustic scrubbing would be a major expense ifthe caustic cannot be used inthe pulping process or a wet scrubber isnotalready used for particulate control. RetrofitModel 

### No. 5: This control system issimilar to RetrofitModel No. 4 except that the lime kiln

### TRS level has been relaxed from 

### 20 to 40 ppm. achieve the level without modifying the lime mud washing installation. TRS emissions from the lime kilnswould be controlled by using process controls on the kiln itself. Modifications to the mud washing system are a major expense (see Chapter 8) incontrolling TRS emissions from an existing kraftpulpmill. This system would permit many kilnsto

6-22

### Retrofit Model 

### No. 6: 

### This system is

### similar 

### to Retrofit Model No. 

### 5 

### except that all recovery furnaces are controlled 

### to5 ppm TRS 

### rather 

### than 20 

### ppm. 

### on the impacts in

### relaxing controls 

### on the lime kiln (Model 

### No. 5) 

### in comparison 

### torelaxing controls on the recovery furnace (Model No. 3). This system was chosen 

### to determine the differences

6.3 INSTALLATION AND START-UP 

### TIME The amount of 

### time necessary 

### to retrofit 

### an existing kraft

### mill depends 

### on what TRS 

### sources are to be controlled and 

### what technologies
are to be used. ments to implement a given control technology can vary widely depending vpon such factors as space limitations, weather conditions, lack of 

### available utilities, delays in

### equipment delivery, and time required to develop engineering data. Itshould also be pointed out that actual time requireTable 6-3 presents estimates of the normal length of time required 

### toretrofit the various sources in

### order to bring 

### them 

### intocompliance. Table 6-3 shows that the time necessary for initial design and approval
can vary from 6 

### months to 3 

### years, depending on the source and the complexity of retrofitting that source. This 

### time period includes:
a. Engineering design of the overall project; b. 

### Project fund 

### approval ; 

### c. Control agency approval ; d. 

### Order placement. Table 6-3 also presents estimates of 

### the amount of time required 

### for installation of 

### the necessary equipment. This time is for 

### the

6-23

### Table 

### 6-3. DESIGN 

### AND INSTALLATION TIMES*



# .Design and approval** Installation*** TRS 

### source (months) 

### (months) 

### Recovery furnace 18-36 12-36 Digester system 6 

### 18 Mu1tiple-effect evaporator system 6 

### 18 

### Lime kiln 6-24 

### 24 

### Brown stock washer system Black liquor oxidation system Smelt 

### dissolving tank Condensate stripping 

### system 6-24 12-15
6 

### 12


### 6 18


### 6 18


### qased on discussions with

### various companies and manufacturers. The 

### actual 

### times

of

### aooroval and 

### installation may 

### over-lar, to some 

### extent.

**This 

### time period includes: engineering design of the overall project; project fund 

### approval ;

### control agency approval ;

### and order pl

### acement. 

### ***From the order date tostart-up (start-up excldded).

6-24

### period from the order date tostart-up (start-up excluded). time varies from about 

### one year for installing black liquor oxidation system tothree years for installing 

### a new recovery furnace. This installation

6-25REFERENCES FOR 

### CHAPTER 6

1. 

### Furnace and 

### Direct Contact Evaporator, NCASI Technical Bulletin 

### No. 44, 

### December 1969. Factors Affecting Reduced Sulfur 

### Emissions from the Kraft Recovery

2. 

### Compounds from 

### a Kraft Recovery Furnace, Thoen, G. 

### N. 

### ,De Haas G. G. 

### Tallent, R. G., 

### and Davis, A. S., 

### TAPPI, 51(8):329-333, August 1968. 3. Op. 

### ci

### t.

### ,Reference 1, page 28. 

### The 

### Effect of Combustion Variables on the Release of Odorous Sulfur

4. Op. 

### ci

### t., Reference 1

### ,page 31. 5. 

### Meeting Report 

## - Babcock & 

### Wilcox Company and EPA, 

### Durham, NC, 

### May 1, 1975. 6. Op. 

### cit., 

### Reference 4. 7. Op. 

### cit., 

### Reference 5. 8. 

### Op. 

### cit., Reference 5. 9. Improved Air 

### Pollution Control for a Kraft Recovery Boiler: Recovery Boiler 

### No. 3, Henning, K., 

### Anderson, W. 

## ,and Ryan, 3. 

## ,EPA 

### Report No. 650/2-74-071-a, August 1974. Modified

10. Industry, NCAS; 

### Technical Bulletin No. 39, December 1968. 11. Survey 

### of 

### Current Black Liquor 

### Oxidatlon Practices in

### the Kraft Op. 

### cit., Reference 10, Table 6. 12. 

### Standards Support and Environmental Impact Document

## ,Vol

### ume 1: 

### Proposed Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp

### Mills, Environmental Protection Agency

### ,September 1976. 13. 

### Letter from J. W. 

### Kisner of Babcock & 

### Wilcox Company toJames Eddinger of EPA, dated May 27, 

### 1975. 14. NAPCTAC 

### meeting in

### Raleigh, North Carolina, 

### on March 3, 1977. Presentation given 

### by Julius Gommi 

### of Combustion Engineering 

### atthe

6-26

E

### 15. Op. 

### cit., Reference 13. 

### 16. Ecology and the Oregon Department of Environmental quality

## . 17. 

### Container Corporation of America, March 9, 1977. 18. Op. 

### cit,, Reference 17, page 2. 

### Ecology and 

### the Oregon Department of 

### Environmental Quali

### ty. 19. Considerations in 

### the Design for TRS 

### and Particulate Recovery from Effluents of Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Teller, A. J., 

### and Amberg, H. R., 

### Preprint, TAPPI Environmental Conference, May 1975. 20. Kraft Industry, NCASI Technical Bulletin 

### No. 34, November 1967. Monthly Reports obtained from the Washington Department of

A 

### Report 

### on the Study of TRS 

### Emissions 

### from a NSSC-Kraft Recovery Boiler,



### Current Practices in

### Thermal Oxidation of Noncondensable Gases in 

### the

21. 

### EPA-450/1-73-002, September 1973. Bulleton 

### No. 69, February 1974.) 22. Off-Gases, EPA 

### Test Report No. 73-KPM-lA, 1973. 23. 

### 24. 

### 25. Emissions of Reduced SulfurThrough Control of Kiln 

### and 

### Scrubber Operating Variables, NCASI Special Report No. 70-71, January 1971. 26. Adams, A. B., 

### TAPPI, September 1974. 27. Op. 

### cit.

### ,Reference 21, Table A-5. 

### Atmospheric Emissions from 

### the Pulp 

### and Paper Manufacturing 

### Industry, (Also 

### published by NCASI as Technical

Malodorous Reduced Sulfur Emissions from Incineration of Noncondensable
Op. 

### ci

### t., Reference 21

## ,Tables 3, 5, and 7. Op. 

### cit., Reference 21, Tables 3, 5, 

### and 7. Suggested Procedures forthe 

### Conduct of 

### Lime Kiln Studies 

### toDefine



### Kraft Odor Control atMead Papers, Ayers, K. C. 

### ,Clutter, L. W., 

### and

- 28. 

### Trip Report 

### on Visit 

### to

### the Champion International Mill in

### Pasadena, Texas, on April 4, 

### 1975.

6-27

### Factors Affecting Emission of Odorous 

### Reduced Sulfur Compounds 29. ----- II_ ----_- ll---ll_-- 

### from Miscellaneous Kraft Process Sources, WAS1 Technical Bulletin No. 60, 

### March 1972. 

### 30. Op. 

### cit., Reference29. 31. Op. 

### cit., Reference 13. ,32. 

### Letter from S. T. 

### Potterton of Babcock & 

### Wilcox Company 

### to James Eddinger of EPA, 

### dated July 23, 1974. 33. Op. 

### cit.

### ,Reference 5. 34. Op. 

### ci

### t.

### ,Reference 29, page 6. 

### 35. 

### Letter from H. M. 

### Patterson of 

### Oregon Department of Environmental Quality toJames Eddinger of EPA, 

### dated April 

### 4, 1975; and letter from L. 

### A. 

### Broeren of 

### Crown Zellerbach Corporation to Doug Ober of

### Oregon Department of Environmental Quali

### ty

### ,dated January 10

### ,1975. 36. of Environmental Quality and James Eddinger 

### of EPA 

### on December 6, 

### 1976. 37. Control District. 38. 

### Letter from Russell Blosser of 

### NCASI toPaul Boys of EPA 

### dated November 17, 1972. 39. Op. 

### cit., Reference 19. 40. Op. 

### cit., keference 37. Telephone conversation 

### between Chuck C1

### inton of Oregon Department
Monthly Reports obtained from 

### the Humboldt County Air 

### Pollution

41. Op. 

### cit.

### ,Reference 3, Table 25. 42. 

### Company and James Eddinger of EPA 

### on July 19, 1973. 43. Op. 

### cit.

### ,Reference 47. Telephone conversation between Richard Labrecque of S. D. 

### Warren

- 

### 44. Private communication between Arthur Plummer of Chesapeake Corpor

### ation and James Eddinger of EP.l 

### on February 13, 1975.

6-28CHAPTER 

### 7. 

### EMISSION PIONIJORING AND 

### COMPLIANCE TESTING 

### TECHNIQUES

### AUD COSTS
This 

### chapter discusses the various monitoring and compliance testing methods that have or could be used in

### the kraft pulp 

### industry, and also discusses the rationale leading 

### to the selection of the reference test method used for the TRS 

### source tests conducted during the 

### SPNSS development program. 7.1 

### EMISSION MEASUREMENT 

### TECHNIQUES 7.1.1 Emission Monitoring Performance specifications for 

### oxygen continuous monitors have a1

### ready been published in 40 

### CFR, 

### Part 60, 

### Appendix By

### Performance Specification Three, but it

### has not been demonstrated that these monitors will perform in 

### the same manner when 

### used ata kraft pulp mill. 

### to believe that they will 

### not be able 

### tomeet these requirements. commercially available instruments are capable of meeting the performance specifications. range of $9,000 

### to $11,000. There is, 

### however, no technical reason A 

### number of

The cost of one of these instruments, installed, 

### is in

### the Equipment 

### is also commercially available for temperature monitoring.
can be accomplished using 

### a thermocouple, electronic cold junction, and 

### a millivolt strip-chart recorder. less 

### than $2,000. 

### This

A 

### system such as this 

### could be purchased for Instrumentation is also available for continuously monitorina the pressure loss of 

### the gas 

### stream through the scrubber and 

### for

### monitoring the scrubbing liquid supply pressure 

### tothe scrubber.

7-1

# -

At

### present, there are several types of 

### instruments that 

### have been used However, some questions to successfully measure TRS 

### on a 

### short-term basis. remain about 

### their reliability for data 

### gathering on 

### a continuous basis. GC 

### technique described in Method 16

### was 

### not designed 

### tobe used as 

### a continuous monitor and its suitability for this purpose has 

### notyet been evaluated. There are other systems which have been used on 

### a long-term basis but

### necessary maintenance and 

### quality control procedures to insure that these monitors are The

operating properly are still being developed, cooperation with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement 

### toevaluate Work ispresently underway in

a 

### number of different types of systems for their suitability as continuous monitors. forTRS 

### monitors. 7.1.2 

### Compliance Testing 7.1.2.1 TRS 

### Compounds 

## - The need for an effective testmethod formeasurement of reduced sulfur emissions from stationary sources resulted from 

### a new source performance standard(NSPS)

### program 

### to establish performance standards for 

### a variety 

### of kraft mill 

### unitprocesses with respect to malodorous emissions. U1timately, this should result in pub1

### ished performance specifications

As 

### with previous NSPS 

### programs, testmethodology 

### was needed 

### togather: data which would demonstrate emission limitations attainable through the use (a)accurate
of best available emission control systems; and (b) 

### enough sampling and 

### analytical data such that a reference method for performance testing could be prescribed. At

### the inception of 

### the NSPS 

### kraft mill program in January 1972, a 

### survey was made 

### toevaluate existing testmethods for potential use. This survey included 

### a review of the literature, contact with

### mill personnel, and 

### review of previous research and 

### evaluation of analytical techniques by 

### the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

### Since the degree to which methods are available for field use in odor measurements isdirectly related 

### to the complexity of the odorant mixture to be measured, itwas fortunate that the nature of 

### emissions 7-2from 

### kraft pulping 

### operations had been well-defined. primarily of 

### sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

### and 

### fourreduced sulfur compounds hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

### ,methyl mercaptan (CH3SH), 

### dimethyl sulfide (DMS) 

### , and 

### dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). 

### These compounds are highly 

### reactive, particularly the H2S-S02 mixture which may form elemental sulfur, and 

### are present in 

### low concentrations in

### well-controlled sources. In addition, the
sources of these emissions (recovery furnaces, lime kilns

### ,smelt dissolving tanks

### ,digesters, mu1tiple-effect evaporators

### ,washer systems

### ,oxidation Emissions consist



### -

systems, and 

### condensate strippers) are characterized by high 

### temperatures and moist, particulate-laden effluent streams. After careful consideration, itwas determined that an additive total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

### standard, reflecting all 

### sulfur compounds present minus SO 

### ,was desired. 

### tions, a field method which could measure reduced sulfur 

### compounds, either indi

### Considering this and the previously mentioned source condi- 2


### vidually or col1

### ectively

### ,was sought. 7.1.2.1.1 Methods surveyed 

## - A 

### review of the literature revealed that analytical methods fell into fourmain categories: colorimetry, direct spectrophotometry, coulometry, and 

### gas chromatography. Although most of 

### the methods surveyed were developed formeasurement of 

### ambient concentrations, this did 

### not preclude their possible application 

### tothe measurement of 

### stack emissions. Colorimetry 

## - A 

### sample 

### is bubbled through a solution which selectively absorbs the component 

### or components desired. is 

### then reacted with 

### specific reagent to form a characteristic color which is 

### measured spectrophotometrically. The absorbed compound



### An example of

### a colorimetric method is the methylene blue method which involves the absorption of 

### TRS 

### compounds in

### an alkaline suspension

7-3of 

### cadmium hydroxide toform a 

### cadmium sulfide precipitate. is 

### then reacted with a strongly acidic solution of 

### N, N, 

### dimethyl-p-phenylenediamine and ferricchloride 

### to give methylene blue, which ismeasured spectrophotometrically. Automated sampling and 

### analytical trains using sequen ial techniques are available for this 

### procedure. sampling applications include variable collection efficiency, range lim 

### tations, and interferences from oxidants. The precipitate

Inherent deficiencies for stack

Another colorimetric method is 

### the use of paper tape samplers impregnated with 

### either lead acetate or cadmium hydroxide. react specifically with H2S 

### and the resultant colored compound can be measured djrectly with 

### a densitometer. TRS 

### compounds unless they were all reduced quantitatively to H2S. 

### In addition, the range is 

### limited and the method suffers from light sensitivity, fading, the necessity for precise humidity control, and 

### variability in

### tape response. These compounds
Tape samplers would not be appropriate for 

### all

Spectrophotometry 

## - The use 

### of infrared and 

### mass spectrophotometry and other sophisticated spectroscopic methods for analysis of individual odorants 

### iswell established. However, these methods were considered expensive, time consuming, and not suitable for routine field applications. One promising method in

### this 

### area was split-beam ultraviolet spectrophotometry, which utilizes the strong absorption of ultraviolet radiation at282 

### nm by 

### SO2. and split 

### into two streams. furnace where 

### sulfur constituents are oxidized to 

### SO2 and 

### then through an optical cell where its absorbance ismeasured. 

### a dummy furnace and then into a reference optical cell. The difference in 

### abosrbance values between the two cells 

### is a measure of

### the non-S02 sulfur In this 

### method, the gas sample is

### mixed with 

### air, filtered, One stream passes through a catalytic oxidation

The second stream passes through



### 7-4

### constituents in the sample stream. in the range of 10 

### to 2500 ppm. 

### The system is capable of S02/TRS 

### concentrations Since well-controlled kraft mill sources fall below the minimum range of 10 ppm, 

### this 

### method was considered 

### not applicable. Coulometry 

## - Coulometric 

### titration isbased 

### on the principle of 

### electrolytically generating a selected titrant in 

### a titration cell. The titrantmay be a free halogen (bromine or iodine) in 

### aqueous solution as an oxidizing agent, or a metal ion (silver), as 

### a reducing agent. current required to generate the titrant, as it

### is consumed, is a linear
measure of the concentration of reactive compounds in

### the gas sample. The electrolytic

Gas Chromatography 

## - This system isbased 

### on the ability of the gas chromatographic col

### umns to separate individual sulfur 

### compounds, which
are then determined individually by various analytical techniques. The most sensitive determination is the flame photometric detector (FPD). 

### involves measurement of light

### emitted from the excited SO2 

### species formed when


### a sulfur compound is burned in

### a hydrogen-rich flame. This technique

7.1.2.1.2 Methods used for data gathering 

### - Analytical Techniques 

## - Based 

### on the survey, the GC/FPD 

### technique was considered to be 

### the most promising and was selected for field evaluation. At

### several of the plants, the coulometric titrator was also tried since this instrument was widely used by the industry 

### atthe time. Sample Collection 

### - Considering the 

### sulfur compound reactivity, high moisture, and presence of particulate matter, EPA 

### developed 

### a special sample handling system. steel sheath with inlet ports perpendicular to the stack wall. Itutilizes 

### a sampling probe enclosed in

### a stainless A 

### deflector

7-5

### shield is fixed 

### on the underside todeflect the heavier particles while the proble is 

### packed with 

### glass wool to

### trap finer particles. Teflon tubing 

### heated to 250°F isused 

### to carry the sample from the probe to a dilution system where the sample 

### is routinely diluted 1:9 with clean dry 

### air. heated sample line prevents condensation and teflon does not react with 

### sulfur compounds. After the sample is 

### diluted in 

### a heated dilution box, itsmoisture content 

### is reduced 

### so that the dew 

### point isbelow 

### ambient temperature, preventing condensation and sample 1

### oss during 

### analysis. The

Calibration of Instruments 

## - For delivery to and calibration of analytical 

### instruments, a special system containing premeation tubes with 

### appropriate concentrations of 

### SO2, H2S, 

### DMS, DMDS, 

### and CH3SH 

### were installed into the sampling and analytical system. These gas permeation tube standards
were developed by 

### EPA 

### personnel specifically for use with GC 

### systems. Field Evaluation 

# - Since 1972, EPA 

### has used 

### the sample delivery system, dilution system, calibration system, and the GC/FPD 

### methods at

### a number of kraft mills. 

### Two separate GC/FPD 

### systems were employed 

### to facilitate the rapid analysis of both high 

### and low molecular weight sulfur compounds. simultaneously resolved DMDS 

### and other high

### molecular weight 

### homologs.
ensure reliabi1 i

### ty 7f 

### the data

### ,the GC/FPD 

### systems were frequently cali

### brated One system resolved H2S, SO2, 

### CH3SH, and DMS, 

### while the other 

### To

with 

### standards of each of the sulfur compounds. Field experience has shown that the GC/FPD 

### method isthe most reliable, sensitive, and 

### precise for determination of TRS. 

### a1

### so been substantiated via verbal 

### communications with 

### industry experts. This 

### has
There, may, however, be some loss of 

### precision in

### using this 

### method on sources having high 

### levels of SO2 in

### compari

### ;on LO 

### the level of TRS. 

### Further developmental work is underway 

### toeliminate this 

### problem and 

### the necessary changes will 

### be made in

### Method 16 

### as soon as the work is completed. 

### 7-6

### Conversely,at six of

### these kraftmills; two different coulometric instrumentshave yielded poor results,possibly due to the low concentrationsencountered and 

### operationai problems. This instrument is unacceptable for compliancetesting. 7.1.2.1.1 Compliancemethod 

## - As 

### the result of 

### field experience of testing 

### TRS compounds at kraftmills,Method 16 

### was prepared fordetermining compliancewith new source performance standards. This method requires
use of 

### a GC/FPD 

### system using the samemeasuring principle as used for the data gathering y-ocess. required dilution system,calibration techniques,and instrumentation that
was considered necessary to insure accuracy,precision, and reliability Design specifications for the

are specified.

7-78. COST ANALYSIS OF 

### ALTERNATIVE 

### EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS 8.1 

### Introduction The purpose of 

### this chapter is 

### todevelop estimates of 

### retrofit costs 

### for alternative emission control systems for 

### reduction of total reduced sulfur 

### (TRS) emissions 

### atexisting kraft pulp

### mills. costs will 

### be developed for 

### a1ternative controls on each affected facility
on 

### three sizes of 

### kraft pulp mills: 500, 

### 1000, and 1500 ton per day mills. Following this,

### aggregate costs will 

### be presented 

### for six a1ternative emission control systems 

### on a 1000TPD 

### kraft pulp mill. analysis for estimating industry-wide costs will be presented. Capital and 

### annualized

Finally, a summary of an
The determination of incremental costs for the various control alternatives over state regulatdons for kraft mill sources 

### is a critical element in 

### this 

### analysis. which vary widely in

### their effectiveness of reducing TRS 

### emissions. variability in

### regulations 

### from state to 

### state has been taken into account in

### the determination of total industry costs. Some 28 

### states with 

### kraft mills have regulations The

Throughout this 

### chapter the terms capital cost and annualized cost areused; therefore, a brief definition 

### is in

### order. includes all the items necessary to design, purchase, and retrofit either 

### a control device or process equipment necessary to achieve the emission reduction. The capital cost includes the purchase of all factory assembled equipment, such as a recovery furnace boiler, black liquor oxidation system components, incinerator, and 

### so forth; ancillary items, such as fans, 

### instrumentation, pumps; equipment installation cost including demolition, site clearance, piping, wiring, 

### and the cost of 

### engineering, construction overhead, and 

### contingencies. Capital costs are reported in

### third quarter The capital cost

8-11976 dollars. 

### The annualized cost 

### of 

### a retrofit project, whether it

### be 

### a control device 

### orreplacement of 

### process equipment, is 

### a measure 

### of what 

### itcosts the company 

### toown and operate 

### that system. The annualized cost includes direct operating costs such as labor, uti1

### ities and 

### maintenance; and 

### capital related charges such as depreciation, interest, administrative overhead

### ,property taxes

### ,and 

### insurance. The actual costs experienced by 

### individual mills 

### may vary considerably and often are difficult 

### tocollect. Nevertheless, attemptsmust be made 

### todetermine reasonable estimates 

### of these costs. The following values were chosen as typical and 

### should 

### provide a reasonable estimate of the annualized costs of 

### the retrofit control requirements. Operating labor is

### charged at 

### a rate of $6 

### per hour with 

### supervision 

### at $8

### per 

### hour. Electricity is

### assumed 

### to cost 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Fuel costs are assessed 

### at $2.00 per million BTU, 

### For purposes of estimating annualized costs, 328.5 

### operating days per year were assumed. Recovery furnaces and 1

### ime kilns that

### would constitute replacements necessary 

### to achieve TRS 

### reduction 

### are not allocated any charges for

### maintenance and 

### repair. The reason for 

### this 

### is that such maintenance costs incurred for rep1-cement would be offset by maintenance charges foregone in

### scrapping the old equipment. 

### For gas collection and 

### piping 

### systems, including incinerators, maintenance costs 

### are assessed at2 

### percent of 

### capitaljnwestment. 

### For black liquor oxidation systems and 

### oxygen plants, 

### a charge 

### of 4 

### percent of 

### capital investment isexpensed.

8-2i Capital charges have been calculated on the basis of 100 percent debt financing and recovery ofcapital by uniform periodic payments (capital recovery factor). Rate of interest for institutional lending is assumed to be 10 percent. The economic lifeassumed for all equipment is15years. percent. Administrative overhead costs involving records keeping, monitoring, etc. are also assessed at a rate of2 percent. 8.2 Methodology Property taxes and insurance are assessed ata rateof2

The affected facilities and control systems were previously discussed inChapter 6. emission reductions, as outlined inTable 6-2, are summarized inTable 8-1 The retrofitcontrol techniques that can achieve the necessary
for each affectedfacilityand control system. These control techniques were based on certain assumptions, which reflectthe content of information available for estimating retrofit costs. These assumptions will be discussed indetail inthe following subsections for each affected facility. The cost information 

### on retrofitcontrols for recovery furnaces nresented inthis chapter applies tocross-recovery furnaces as well as straight kraft recovery systems. However, there isone precaution that should be noted. T!?eapplicationof the control techniques for straight kraft recovery furnaces as discussed here and inChapter 6 will not necessarily result inthe same achievable emission levels for cross-recovery furnaces as reported inthis chapter. For cost estimating purposes, a listof millcharacteristicswas compiled for each kraftpulp mill inthe United States. com?iled includes Kraft production capacity; number, capacity, manufacturer, basis design (director indirect contact) and year of manufacture ofthe recovery furnace; the number and production rate for lime kilns; the number, The information

8-3SOURCE Recovery Furnace Table 8-1. SUMMARY OF RETROFIT CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR ALTERNATIVE CONTROL SYSTEMS ON EXISTIilG KRAFT MILLS CONTROL SYSTEMS 1 2 3 4 5 a) Replace Furnaces Same as a)Replace Furnaces Same as Same as b) Add 2nd Stage Black >loyrs. of age 1 '20 yrs. of age 3 3 b) Add 2nd Stage Black Liquor Oxidation liquor oxidation for (IncludiRg furnaces all other furnaces.

<loyrs. of age). Also A1so improve furnace inprove furnace air airdistribution. distribution Digester System Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Incineration Mu1tiple Effect Evaporators Incineration Lime Kiln 

### Y P a) Increase Lime Mud Same as Same as Washing Capacity 1 1 b) Increase fan cap. c) macaustic to & Monitor Oxygen and temp. (kiln) kiln scrubber a) Increase Lime .a) Increase Fan Mud Washing Cap. & Monitor Capacity Oxygen and b) Increase Fan temp. (Kiln) Cap. & Monitor oxygen p1 temp(ki1n) Brown Stock Washer System Incineration No Control No Control No Control No Control Black Liquor Oxidation MolecularOxygen No Control No Control
Smelt Dissolving Tank Substitute fresh Same as Same as Condensate Stripping Incineration Incineration Incinerati on System

System Vents
water for condensate 1 1 No Control No Control
Same as Same as 1 1 Incineration Incineration 6 Same as 1

Incineratioil Incineratior,

Same as 5

'.No Control No Control

Same as 1 Incineratior-)



# :II type, and TRS controls for mu1tiple effect evaporators and digesters; and the number ofbrown stock washing systems and number ofwashing stages per system. and Lockwoods' directories and updated wherever possible from contacts with pulp and paper companies. Mill capacity and other data were compiled from Posts'

The approach used toestimate retrofit control costs isas follows. The National Council forAirand Stream Improvement (NCASI) was called upon to provide EPA both the contacts within individual paper companies for sources ofcost data and thetechnical parameters, orguidelines,(3) for estimating costs. personnel for estimating costs. The following 8 companies were selected and contacted toprovidemaximum coverage interms ofmills and capacity: These guidelineswere also made availabletoindustry

(a) International Paper (6) Weyerhaeuser (c) Georgia Pacific (d) Westvaco (e) Boise Cascade (f) St. Regis (9) (h) Mead Corporati,on Western Kraft (Willamette Industries)

Actual corporate data covering both costs and mill characteristicswere provided for42 mills by these companies. This coverage constitutes 35 percent ofthe number oftotal mills and about 41 percent oftotal U.S. capacity. furnaces inthe U.S.,were contacted to provide information on ages of existing furnaces, as well as the cost of new furnaces. In-house informationwas used togenerate cost estimates, which were then used as a forum for discussion during visitswith the corporate staff of the eight paper companies. The time for the data gathering phase was the second quarter of 1975. Two boilermanufacturers, who have builtallthe kraft recovery

-

8-5

### The data received from the paper companies were analyzed 

### for regression The next step was 

### todevelop model 500 

### tons per day, 1000 tons per These model plant costs in 

### possibilities withmill 

### characteristics. plant costs for 

### the following

### model mills: day, and 1500 tons per day production capacity. combination with the information on mill 

### characteristics and furnace age were used 

### to estimate costs for the 

### remaining 65 

### percent of the mills in 

### the U.S. 8.3 

### Costs for Affected Facilities 8.3.1 Recovery Furnaces The major problem from the standpoint of TRS 

### emission in

### existing kraft mills 

### is associated with

### the burning of 

### black liquor in

### direct contact recovery furnaces. (1) 

### close monitoring and control of the process variables in

### the recovery furnace and, 

### (2) 

### oxidizing the black liquor 

### toreduce the sulfides content The methods used 

### toreduce these emissions are:

before evaporation of the black liquor in

### the direct contact evaporator. Control of the process variables depends significantly upon the original design and configuration of 

### the recovery furnace. critical factor in

### determining the extent of retrofit costs. Hence, furnace age is 

### a Recovery furpaces

### ,including both direct contact and 

### indirect contact

### , of new design 

### - as defined in 

### ChaDter 6 

### - are capable of 

### achievinq 

### a 5 ppm 

### level of TRS 

### without any additional costs for process controls, as indicated in

### Chapter 6.


### as flexibility in

### airdistribution and the membrane insulation between wall Many of 

### those process controls discussed in 

### Chapter 6, 

### such
tubes, are inherently designed in

### most furnaces constructed since 1965. with 

### a direct contact furnace of the design just mentioned are assumed to incur costs only for a 

### second stage of

### black liquor oxidation as the rqills

8-6

### requirement for achieving a 5 ppm 

### level of TRS 

### from 

### the total recovery furnace affected facility. Mil

### 1swith indirect contact furnaces are assumed to achieve the 5 ppm 

### without 

### any additional costs. indirect contact furnacedesign 

### concept has been commercially available only since 1967. Note that the

Recovery furnaces built prior to 1965 are assumed 

### tobe 

### incapable of 

### achieving a 5 ppm 

### level 

### of TRS 

### despite 

### any attempts 

### toachieve the

### most efficient black liquor oxidation system. is related 

### tothe earlierdesign of

### the furnace itself, which was not conducive toward reduction of TRS 

### to low levels. Therefore, the 

### control strategy for a 5 ppm 

### level would require 

### the replacement of 

### the 

### recovery furnace, which constitutes the 

### retrofit cost. For furnaces built between 1955 and 1965, the 20 ppm 

### level is

### assumed 

### to be 

### achievable, according 

### to NCASI guidelines and discussion in

### Chapter 6. 

### The only costs incurred
arethose associated with adding a second stageof black liquor oxidation. For furnaces built 

### prior 

### to 1955, the retrofit costs assumed include 

### replacement of 

### the furnace plus a complete 2-stage black liquor oxidation 

### for The key element in the 

### assumption

both 

### the 5 ppm 

### and the 20 ppm 

### control with 

### NCASI guide1ines. Another important factor besides need for additional black 1

### iquor 

### burn levels. This 

### assumpt

age that would affect ng 

### capacity. In part 

### on is in

### accord

costs is

### the cular, mills that have not added a recovery furnace since 1965may be overloading fur
### naces with black liquor from a design standpoint. 

### to high 

### TRS 

### emissions. 1965 and appear 

### tohave underrated furnace capability, according 

### to available data on mill characteristics, are assumed 

### to add additional Such a practice leads Mills that have furnaces built between 1955 and

8-7

### black liquor

### burning capacity in

### order 

### toachieve the 20 ppm 

### strategy. Therefore, such mills would have 

### to purchase 

### a new furnace in order to 

### achieve the 20 

### ppm 

### level. Additional guidelines were developed by NCASI 

### toprovide these companies technical parameters for black liquor oxidation as 

### a complement 

### to process controls in

### the recovery furnace toward achieving the 5 ppm 

### and the 20 ppm 

### levels. The guidelines used for estimating coSts of black liquor oxidation requirements are stated as follows. 

### of best technology consists of: stage of oxidation, (6) 

### retention time of

### five hours for both 

### stages combined, 

### (c) stand-by blower capacity, and (d) monitoring of both oxidizing air and 

### liquor flow rates. The NCASI 

### provided these guidelines to each company, which in

### turnwas toassess 

### its requirements relative 

### to their existing oxidation system capabilities. The oxidation system representative (a) two-stage oxidation with 

### atleast 

### one

The 

### costs 

### presented in

### Table 8-2 

### formodel plants 

### were analytically derived from the results received for some 42 

### mills. furnaces in 17

### mills, which management feltmay be required, correlated reasonably well with

### mill size as 

### a parameter. from various companies foroxidation 

### requirements as tothe condition 

### of existing oxidation systems, sulfidity of black liquor, and level of

### experience acquired with

### development of highly efficient oxidation systems did 

### not correlate well with

### mill size. This 

### result occurred despite the specific guidelines set forth by NCASI tothe

### managerial staff of

### the 8 

### Cost data for recovery Conversely, data received

- 

### companies. A 

### probable explanation is that the nature of mi71 

### operations

and mil

### 1 

### lay-out vary widely, which affect costs significantly.

8-8Tab1e 8-2. RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS FOR RECOVERY FURNACES

I CD Mill Size, TPD Capital Costs ($) Annualized Costs ($/Yr. ) Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) ~~ Mill Size. TPD

500 1000 600

### , 000 1,000,000 153,000 242

### , 000 0.93 0.74 Capital Costs ($) Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) A. Furnace Replac 500 13,400,000

2,270 

### , 000 13.82 

### 01 ment 1000 23

### , 300,000 4,000,000 12.18 1500 32

### , 200,000 5,470,000 11.09

1500 1,500 

### , 000 360,000

0.73
(1) Control strategy required to achieve 5 ppm for millswhose furnaces were built priorto 1965. (2) Control strategy required toachieve 20 ppm for furnaces built since 1955. Costs i

nclude secondary 61ack 1i quor oxidation. assumed unable toachieve 20 ppm; require replacement. Pre-1955 furnaces are8.3.2 

### Digesters and 

### Mu1

### tiple Effect Evaporators The control technique for achieving 

### a 5 

### ppn 

### level is incineration of 

### the noncondensible TRS 

### compounds emitted 

### from various vents. 

### of the retrofit project involves the collection 

### of the noncondensibles and 

### piping 

### them 

### to the incineration point, as well as necessary upgrading of 

### The nature

the blow heat recovery system associated with

### the digesters. incineration point 

### is the lime kiln; 

### however, in 

### some situations, 

### a separate incinerator may be used as the back-up 

### for the lime kiln 

### or as the regular control device. Normally, 

### the



### Data gathered 

### from the selected paper companies did 

### not reveal any significant correlation of 

### cost with

### mill size. The probable explanation 

### of this are the number of

### digesters, their spatial arrangement, condition 

### of blow heat recovery system, and 

### type of 

### gas holding 

### system, weak correlation of 

### costs with 

### capacity estimates were made formodel plants 

### torepresent three conditions: requirements only (low retrofit penalty]; 

### (21 batch digesters 

### withextensive piping

### ,refurbished blow heat recovery, and 

### separate incineration; (high 

### retrofit penalty) and (3) 

### continuous digesters. 

### Mu1tip1 

### e effect evaporator vents are 

### assumed tobe combined 

### withthe digester vents for all three cases. The costs for incineration are presented in

### Table 8-3. 

### for electricity and 

### fuel were developed from data 

### by 

### an engineering construction company. 

### (5) noncondensible TRS 

### emissions are based 

### on use of 

### a separate incinerator as 

### a stand-by control device 

### for 33 

### days, 

### or ten percent 

### of the time. Despite the
(1) 

### batch digesters with 

### extensive piping

Utility requirements
Fuel consumption assumed 

### inTable 8-3 

### for destruction 

### of

This

- 

### represents 

### an assumed 

### duration of 

### downtime 

### fc; the lime kiln 

### for maintenance

when the kiln becomes unavailable as 

### a control device for incinerating TRS 

### emissions. 8-10

### Table 8-3. 

### RETROFIT CONTROL 

### COSTS FOR 

### DIGESTERS AND 

### MULTIPLE EFFECT 

### EVAPORATORS

Mill 

### Size, TPD A. 

### Batch Digesters 

### - Low Retrofit Penal 500

Mill 

### Size, TPD Capital Costs ($) 

### Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs 

### per Ton ($/T)



### 500 1000 400,000



### 96,000

0.58

Mill 

### Size 1000 900

### , 000 

### 210,000 0.64

500 1000 1500 B. 

### Batch 

### Digesters 

## - High 

### Retrofit 

### Pena I I

03 

### Capital Costs ($)
d d 

### Annual

### ized 

### Costs ($/Yr. ) 

### Annualized 

### Costs per 

### Ton ($/T) 

### 900,000 207

### , 000 

### 1.26 2,000,000 452

### , 000 

### 1.38 1500 1,600,000 360,000 0.73

1500 3

### , 500,000 773,000 1.57

Capital Costs ($) 

### Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs 

### per Ton ($/T) 300,000 

### 67

### , 000 

### 0.41 

### 400,000 96

### , 000 

### 0.29 500,000 125,000 0.25

I 

### (1) Includes 

### provision 

### for 

### extensive piping 

### only. (2) Includes blow 

### heat recovery system, 

### extensive piping

### ,separate incinerator.8.3.3 

### Brown Stock Washers The control technique for achieving the 5 ppm 

### level of TRS 

### emissions from 

### washer vents is 

### incineration. either in 

### the recovery furnace 

### or a separate incinerator. The incineration may be carried out As 

### pointed 

### out in

### Chapter 6, 

### incineration in

### an existing recovery furnace may restrict the operation of the recovery furnace. The gas flows from 

### the washer system are too great for the lime kiln

### to incinerate. 

### For some mills, 

### a separate incinerator may be the only available control device to treat the washer vent gases.

a 

### tion requirements of 100 scfm/TPD, a parameter which isdocumented 

### In Chapter 6. 

### The basis 

### for estimating hooding 

### and ducting requirements
was information provided from 

### NCASI for actual retrofit situations. The capital costs for a separate incinerator were developed from data by the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute(7) for an incinerator 

### [with heat recovery) appl

### ication 

### on an asphalt saturator plant. Preliminary EPA 

### costs 

### were developed in-house 

### on the basis of 

### ventila-

(6)



### The preliminary EPA 

### costs were dissiminated 

### tothe selected groupof 

### paper companies for comment. The 

### responses 

### from these companies was assimilated into revision of 

### the 

### estimates, which 

### are presented in

### Table 8-4. 

### Itmust be pointed out 

### that some unusual retrofit problems can occur at specific mills, 

### where hooding 

### brown stock washers may be constrained severely by space limitations. the washing building 

### and reconstruction may be required. In such mills, demolition of portions of 

### In 

### other mills,

-

### the washers may have to be replaced with 

### semi-closed drum 

### washers. 

### For

these situations, retrofit costs may be much higher than those estimates presented in

### Table 8-4.
8-12Table 8-4. RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS FOR BROWN STOCK WASHERS

Mill Size, TPD 500 1000 1500 Capital Costs ($) Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) 1,600,000 900

### , 000 5.48 2

### , 500,000 1,670,000 5.08 3,200,000 2,400,000 4.87

Mill Size, TPD Capital Costs ($) Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs Per Ton ($/T) B. Destruction in 500 900

### , 000 192,000 1.17 ecovery Furnace 1000 1,500,000 326

### , 000 0.99 1500 1,900,000 423,000 0.86

### For separate incineration, 

### a fuel penalty 

### of 1.76 

### million BTU 

### per 

### ton pulp 

### was used. The basis for 

### this is22 

### million BTU 

### per hour for 

### a 30,000 

### scfm incinerator uti1 

### izing primary and 

### secondary heat recovery.(8) Responses from the industry indicated that this fuel 

### penalty is

### just slightly above the industry average. Itshould be pointed out that 

### fuel requirements would be sensitive 

### toventilation rates of the washers, the 

### degree of

### heat recovery, and 

### use of 

### catalyst toreduce ignition temperature. The 

### use of 

### catalyst was 

### not assurled fn 

### the above 

### estimate. 8'.3.4 

### Lime Kilns Three levels of control are being considered for this 

### affected facility. The level of 

### 40 

### ppn 

### represents process controls of

### adding
more 

### air and 

### raising the 

### cold-end temperature of

### the kiln by 

### 100" 

### F. Adding 

### a fan and instrumentation are assumed to be the required cost 

### items, available costs for 

### fans and 

### instrumentation. These costs were then In-house EPA 

### estimates of 

### costs were generated on the basis of

reviewed 

### with industry personnel for comparison with

### actual modification costs for lime kilns. The level of 

### 20 ppm 

### represents the combination of good lime mud 

### washing and control of the kiln process variables. 

### Costs were provided by companies on the basis of replacing centrifuges 

### withvacuum 

### drum filters and adding another mud 

### washing stage. cost estimating purposes were approximately 0.5 

### ft

### /ton pulp for filtration and 12

### to 21 

### hours of

### retention in the clarifier stage. NCASI guide1ines") for 2



### The level of 

### 8ppm 

### represents the addition of caustic tothe lime kiln scrubber as 

### a complement to the aforementimed requirements 

### for achieving 8 

### ppn. 

### The costs for caustic addition are assumed 

### to be 

### the
same as those reported in

### the Standards Support and 

### Environmental Impact Statement.(101 

### 8-14

### The capital and annualized costs 

### for the three control levels are presented in

### Table 8-5. should be discussed. costs 

### for process controls was 

### based 

### on use of 142 

### million BTU 

### fuel for 

### a 1000 

### ton per daymill. 

### There are three points concerning Table 8-5 that 

### First, the fuel penalty assumed in

### the annualized

This is

### the enthalpy requirement to 

### raise the 

### cold-end temperature of the kiln 

### 100" F. 

### Second, either process controls


### or combined process controls withmud 

### washing 

### may not achieve the 40 ppm 

### level. and would 

### have 

### to add another lime kiln unit. industry indicate that 

### a kiln 

### addition in

### the range of 160-200 TPD 

### (CaO basiS) 

### seemed typical 

### ,regardless 

### of mill size.
are $3 

### million; and 

### annualized costs, $510,000. In this 

### circumstance, the mill may be short on lime burning 

### capacity Results from surveying the Capital costs for the kiln For this

### mill, the kiln 

### addition plus process controls on the existing kiln would be the requirement 

### to achieve 40 

### ppm. 

### Lastly, the costs in

### Table 8-5 are presented 

### todemonstrate retrofit problems withmud 

### washing. To take account of this, 

### costs were estimated for 

### a low retrofit and 

### a high 

### retrofit case. be 

### rnlated to space limitation, replacement of 

### the entirewashing system, 

### or changing condensate wash water 

### to fresh water by addition of a condensate Results from the industry 

### survey varied widely.

Some of 

### the problems associated with high 

### retrofit costs may

stripper. 8.3.5 

### Black 

### Liquor Oxidation Vents The control techniques for achieving the 5 

### ppm level of TRS 

### emissions 

### from black liquor oxidation 

### system vents are incineration and 

### the use of 

### mol-ecular oxygen for 

### oxidation. The vent gases may be combined with

### the brown stock washer vents and 

### destroyed 

### inthe recovery furnace 

### or separate

8-15Table 8-5. RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS FOR LIME KILNS A. Process Controls(1

### 1 Mill Size, TPD 500 

# . 1000 1500 Capital Costs ($) 75,000 100,000 200,000 Annualized Costs ($/Yr. ) 54,000 107,000 175,000 Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) 0.33 0.33 0.36
B. Mud Washing Capacity

# - Low Retrofit Penalty(2) Mill Size. TPD 500 1000 1500 Capital Costs ($) Annualized Costs ($/Yr. ) Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) 480,000 730

### , 000 91,200 139,000

0.56 0.42 950,000 181,000

0.37

i C. Mud Washing Capacity

## - High Retrofit Penalty(3) 

### 9"
4 m MillSize, TPD 500 1000 1500 Capit~l Costs 

### (8) 960, 000 1,460,000 ~,900,000 Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) 182,000 278,000 362

### , 000 Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) 1.11 0.85 0.73
D. Caustic Addition Nil1 Size, TPD 500 1000 1500 Capital Costs 

### (8) -0- -0- -0- Annual i zed Costs ($/Y r.) 3000 6000 9000 Annualized Costs per Ton ($/T) 0.02 0.02 0.02
(1) Insome situations, millsmay be short on lime burning capacity. Typical capacity requirements might be on the order of 160 to200 TPD CaO, which was fouund tobe independent of mill size, Capital costs would be $3 million; annualized costs of $510,000 per year. (2) Includes only additional filtrationand clarifier capacity. (3) Includes condensate stripper for removal of TRS from water used for mud washing and/or charges for space 1imitation.

### incinerator. However, incineration costs for the BLO 

### vents will be considered separately from 

### the brown 

### stock washers. Costs 

### for incineration in

### recovery furnaces were taken from 

### the costs developed 

### for new sources.

## (''I Very few responses were received from 

### industry, but 

### one company did 

### report similar costs,('*)

### which were found 

### tobe comparable with EPA 

### estimates. developed on the basis of

### a 26,000 scfm incinerator required for 

### a 1000 

### ton per day mill. 

### Costs for separate incinerators 

### were
The source of 

### the basic cost information was information provided by the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute.(13) 

### Costs for 

### a 500 

### ton per day and 1500 

### ton per day were developed by using a scale factor of 0.3. 

### Fuel requirements were calculated 

### to be 19million BTU 

### per hour for 

### the 26,QOO 

### scfm incinerator 

### on the basis of using 

### primary and 

### secondary 

### heat recovery. No 

### casts 

### for separate incineration were reported from industry. 

### Costs formolecular oxygen were developed on the basis of 

### 45 

### tons oxygen per 800 ton pulp 

### produced. (14) pressure oxygen plants were obtained from Airco, Inc. (15) 

### The energy consumption 

### for use of molecular oxygen 

### is assumed to be 20 

### kilowatt-hours per Capital costs for skid-mounted low

### ton of pulp, 

### or 380 kilowatt-hours per ton of 

### oxygen produced, (16) 

### A 

### sumnary of capital and annualized costs forcontrol of black liquor 

### oxidation vents is presented 

### inTable 8-6. 

### recovery furnace should reflect minimal retrofit problems, 

### On the other The costs for incineration 

### ina
hand, separate incineration and molecular oxygen should represent high 

### retrofit costs. 8.3.6 Smelt Dissolving Tank The control strategy 

### for achieving 8 

### ppm is the 

### use of fresh water in


### a scrubber. This 

### scrubber should already be installed in

### most mills because of state regulations for controlling particulates. The 

### use of

### fresh 

### water

8-17

### Table 8-6. RETROFIT CONTROL 

### COSTS FOR BLACK 

### LIQUOROXIDATION VENTS 

### I I Mill Size, TPD 

### Capital Costs ($) 

### Annualized Costs 

### ($/Yr.) 

### Annualized Costs 

### per Ton ($/T) 1000 330,000

96,000

0.29 500 220,000

60,000 0.37 1500 432,000 133,000 0.27

Mill Size, 

### TPD 500 

### Capital Costs ($) 

### 400,000 Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) 233,000 

### Annualized Costs 

### per Ton ($/T) 1.42 1000 1500 560,000 700,000 420,000 605

## , 000 

### 1.28 1.23

Mill Size, TPD 

### Capital Costs 

## (8) Annualized Costs ($/Yr.) Annualized Costs 

### per Ton ($/T) 1000 1,640,000 509,000 1.55 500 1,080,000 309,000 1.88 1500 2,100,000 645,000 1.31

### isthe only additional requirement which may be needed toreduce the effectively. It

### is expected that 

### costs associated with

### use of fresh water \nl 

### TRS

11 

### be small. particulate scrubbers on this 

### affected facility on one mill, 

### this example, no other cuinpany reported any cost for substituting 

### fresh water 

### for process water with high 

### sulfides content. 8.3.7 Condensate Strippers During the survey, one companyprovided cost data for 

### inshalling Other 

### than

Th in

### the furnace
conden

### s densate control technique for achieving the 5 

### ppm level 

### is incineration ime kiln 

### for steam stripping 

### and incineration in

### the recovery for 

### air stripping. 

### te strippers. stripper vents. Only five mills in

### the U.S. 

### presently employ Four of 

### thesemills are presently incinerating conThose mills thatmay decide to install condensate strippers 

### in

### the (171 

### future are assumed to incur costs similar 

### toreported costs 

### for new sources. Those costs which are in 

### 1976 dollars 

### are summarized 

### inTable 8-7. 

### These costs include 

### a fan, duct, seal pot, and 

### flame arrester 

### withthe incineration point 

### being the lime kiln. 

### No retrofit penalty 

### has been assigned because there are very few condensate strippers 

### inexisting mills. 

### controls for new strippers should incur minimal retrofit costs. However, it still 

### is possible that some retrofit penalty could be incurred if prior provisions have not been made 

### totap 

### into the mill's piping 

### system for venting other noncondensibles 

### to an incineration point withinthe

### mill. Future

8-19

### Table 8-7. CONTROL

### COSTS FOR COND'ENSATE

### STRIPPER 1000 

### 500 I Tu 

### Mill Size, TPD O/ 

### 1500 

### Capital 

### Cost ($) Annualized 

### Costs
Annualized 

### Costs 16,200 

### 6',30O

,I 

### 0.04 22,700 7,800

0.02 

### 28,100 

### 8,900

0.02

### 8.4 

### Incremental Costs For Model Mills The purpose of 

### this section is 

### topresent incremental control costs over requirements for 

### stateregulations, 

### on a total mi

### 11 

### basis. into account the interrelationships involved with 

### the many significant To take

factors in estimation of retrofit costs, three model mill situations will be utilized 

### todepict costs. These model situations are described as follows: 

### (1) 

### a post-1965 modern mill (2) (3) 

### The modern mill has a recovery furnace of 

### modern design that can an old (pre-1965) mill with low 

### retrofit penalty
an old (pre-1965) mill 

### with high 

### retrofit penalty

a 

### achieve the 5 ppm 

### level under good 

### operating conditions. The black liquor burning 

### unitmay be either 

### a direct contact furnace or 

### an indirect contact furnace. 1967. will 

### be for secondary black liquor oxidation 

### toassure achievement of the 5 

### ppm 

### level. The latter type 

### of furnace 

### has been installed in mills 

### only since Only the direct contact furnace will 

### incur any control costs, which

As 

### for as the 

### remaining affected facilities, only low retrofit

### costs 

### are assumed tobe incurred. The old mill built before 1965, with 

### low retrofit penalty, is 

### assumed 

### tohave a recovery furnace(s) capable of 

### achieving 

### the 20 

### ppm 

### level. Furnace replacement costs would be incurred only 

### for a 5 ppm 

### system. the remaining affected facilities, low retrofit costs would be associated with 

### addition of 

### controls

# . On



### The old mill built before 1965, with 

### a high retrofit penalty, is assumed 

### tohave a recovery furnace(s) 

### that cannot achieve the 20 ppm 

### level. This may be due 

### toa very old furnace, greater than 20 

### years of 

### age,

2-21or insufficient black liquor burning caPacity. condition isthat a new furnace will be required for all control systems. The remaining affected facilities will incur high retrofitcosts with the addition of control. The result of this

The next lmportant factor influencing incremental costs isthe variability instate regulations. emission control regulations for existing sources. One set of costs will be presented for such states. which call for cortrols on existinq recovery furnaces and incineration of noncondensible gases from miscellaneous sources such as digesters

### ,mu1tiple 6ffect evaporators, and condensate strippers. Another set of incremental costs 

### will be presented for such states. Very 

### few states, perhaps one 

### or two, require controls on exl’stinq lime kilns, and no states require controls on existinq brown stock washers and black liquor oxidation system vents. 

### Some states with pulp mills have no
Many states with pulp mills have regulations

Tables 8-8 and 

### 8-9 present incremental costs for a modern mill under the two regulatory situations as described earlier. Capital and annualized costs are presented

### for the six alternative control systems detailed inTable 8-1. contact recovery furnace designs. liquor oxidation system vents, costs are presented only for destruction in a separate incineration. not be widely applicable due toattendant problems of inflexibility and possible explosions, as pointed out inChapter 6. Costs are presented for the direct contact and indirect For brown stock washers and black

Destruction ofTRS inthe recovery furnace may

Where no regulations exist (Table 8-8) 

### ,incremental annualized control

-costs for the model millwith the direct contact recovery furnace range

from $1.73 per ton for control system 6 to $8.53 per ton for system 1. For

8-22Table 8-8. INCREMENTAL RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS FOR A 1000TPD MODERN MILL (BUILT AFTER 1965) Location: Statewith No Regulations No. 1 Unit CaDital Anpualized Annualized

costs costs costs j$lOOO) ($looO/yr) ($/TI A. Recovery Furnace a) Direct Contact 1,000 242 0.74 b) Indirect Contact 0 0 0 B. Batch Digester and(1) C. Brown Stock Washers(2) System Ventsyz) (Direct Contact Only) E. Lime Kiln (3) Multiple Effect Evaporator 900 210 0.64 2,500 1,670 5.08 D. Elack Liquor x'dation 560 420 1.28
830 252 0.77 F. Condensate Stripper 23 8 0.02 03 TOTAL COSTS r\) a) Direct Contact 5,813 2,802 8.53 w b) Indirect Contact 4,253 2,140 6.51 I No. 2 Capital Annualized Annual i zed costs costs costs ~$1000) ($lOOO/yr) ($IT) Unit

1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0 900 210 0.64

0 0 0 0 0 0
830 252 0.77

23 8 0.02 2,753 712 2.17 1,753 470 1.43 No. 3 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs I810001 I$1ooO/yr) ($/T)

1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0 900 210 0.64

0 0 0 0 0 0
830 252 0.77

23 8 0.02 2,753 712 2.17 1,753 470 1.43 No. 4 No. 5 A. Recovery Furnace a) Direct Contact 1,000 242 0.74 b) Indirect Contact 0 0 0 B. Batch Digester and(11
C. Brown Stock Washers(2) 0 0 0 

# Udation Mu1tiple Effect Evaporator 900 210 0.64 .o 0 0 D. Black Liquor
E. Lime Kiln(') 830 246 0.75 System Vents (Direct Contact Only)
F. Condensate Stripper 23 8 0.02 TOTAL COSTS a) Direct Contact 2,753 706 2.15 b) IndirectContact 1,753 464 1.41 - .- -.. 1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0 900 210 0.64

0 0 0 -0 0 0

100 107 0.33 23 8 0.02 2,023 567 1.73 1,023 325 0.99 1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0 900 210 0.64

0 0 0 0 0 0
100 107 0.33 23 8 0.02 2,023 567 1.73 1,023 325 0.99 (1) Low retrofitpenalty (2) Destruction inseparate incinerator (3) Low retrofitpenaltyTable 8-9. IEICREHENTAL RETROFIT CONTROL COSTS FOR A 1000 TPD MODER MILL (WILT AFTER 1965) State withTypical Regulationsyl

aJ N P Location: No. 1 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs I$lOOO) ($1000/yr) ($/T) A. ,Recovery Furnace a) DirectContact 1,000 242 0.74 b) Indirect Contact 0 0 0

Multiple Effect Evaporator 0 0 0 B. Batch Digesters and C. Brown Stock Washers(*) 2,500 1,670 5.08 D. Black Liquor xidation 560 420 1.28 System Vents

# 'I2) (Direct Contact Only) E. Lime Kiln(3) 830 252 0.77 F. Condensate Stripper 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS a)Direct Contxt 4,890 2,584 7.87 b) IndirectContact 3,330 1,922 5.85 - No. 4 A. Recovery Furnace a) Direct Contact 0 0 0 b) Indirect Contact 0 0 0 Multiple Effect Evaporator 0 0 0 C. Brown Stock Washers(2) 0 0 0 D. Black Liquor x dation '0 0 0 B. Batch Digester and
System Vents

### (121 (Direct Contact Only) E. Lime Kiln(3) 830 246 0.75 F. Condensate Stripper 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS a) Direct Contact 830 246 0.75 b) Indirect Contact 830 246 ' 0.75 No. 2 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs i$lOOO) l$1000/yr)- ($/TI

1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0
'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

830 252 0.77

0 0 0
1,830 494 1.50

830 252 0.77 No. 3 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs ($1000) j$1000/yr) ($/T)

0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

830 252 0.77

0 0 0

830 252 0.77 830 252 0.77 1;o. 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 107 0.33

0 0 0

1 OG 107 0.33 100 107

, 0.33 No. 6
1,000 242 0.74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
100 107 ' 0.33

0 0 0
1,100 349 1.07

100 107 0.33 (1) A typical state isassumed to require 20 ppm forthe recovery furnace and incineration (5 ppm) ofTRS emissions from digesters, multiple (2) Destruction inseparate incinerator. (3) LOW retrofit penalty effectevaporators,and condensate strippers.

### the indirect contact furnace, the model mill incurs incremental annualized control costs ranging from $0.99 

### per ton 

### for system 6 

### to $6.51 

### uer ton 

### for system 1. In 

### states with

### the typical composite 

### of regulations (Table 8-9), 

### incremental annualized control costs range from $1.07 

### per ton 

### for system 6 

### to 

### $7.87 per 

### ton for system 1 

### in 

### a mill with a 

### direct contact furnace. For 

### the mill with the indirect contact furnace, incremental annualized costs for these respective systems range 

### from $0.33 

### per ton 

### to 

### $5.85 per 

### ton. For modern mills, the 

### most significant cost is that 

### associated with incineration of brown 

### stock washer gases. -facilityalone is $5.08 

### per 

### ton for system 1 

### (Table 8-8 and 

### 8-9) of 

### which $3.59 

### oer 

### ton is 

### a fuel penalty. The fuel penalty would not 

### be incurred in some mills where the washer qascs can be incinerated in a 

### recovery furnace. It

### should be noted that

### the rather significant $1.28 per 

### ton cost for controlling black liquor oxidation system vents only occurs for the mill with 

### a direct contact furnace. Tables 8-10 and 

### 8-11 present control costs 

### for an old mill with a 

### low The control of this affected

retrofit penalty. Capital and 

### annualized costs are presented for the six alternative control systems detailed in Table 8-1. The costs for control 

### of brown 

### stock washers and 

### black liquor oxidation system vents is based on 

### separate incineration. assumed 

### tobe required 

### for systems 1,2, and 6. 

### Furthormore, the furnace is assumed 

### tohave ample capacitv tosupport the mill's normal production needs. This assumption eliminates any 

### consideration 

### of additional furnace investment for systems 3, 4, and 5. 

### The replacement of the recovery furnace is

Where 

### no state regulations exist (Table S-lC)), 

### incremental annualized

8-25Table 8-10. INCREMENTAL RETROFIT COVTR9L COSTS FOR A 1090 TPD OLD MILL (BUILT BEFORE 1965) 

### - LOW RETROFIT PENALTY ‘ Location: Statewith No Requlations No. 1 Unit Cap4tal Annual1 zed Annualized costs costs costs ($1099) ($lr)O?/yr) ($/T) A. Recovery FurnaceIl) 23,300 4,000 12.18 8. Batch Digester and Multiple Effect Evaporators 900’ 211) 9.64 C. Brown Stock Washers(2) 2,500 ., ,670 5.08 9. Black LiquorOrijation System Vents 560 420 1.28 E. Lime Kiln 839 252 n.77 F. Condensate Stripper 23 8 0.02 28,113 6,560 19:97 TOTAL COSTS



### -- 01 No. 4 A. Recovery Furnace(’ 1,000 242 

### i. 74

C. Brown Stock Washers(2) 0 0 9 B. Batch Digester and Multiple Effect Evaporators 900 210 9.64

D. Black Liquor xidation System Vents

# 1 2) 9 1) 9 E. Lime Kiln 890 246 ‘1.76 F. Condensate Stripper 23 8 9.02 TOTAL COSTS 2,753 706 2.15 No. 2 , Unit Capital Annualized Annual i zed costs Costs Costs I$i939j ($19r)7/yr) ($/T)

23,300 4,030 12.18 9VJ 219 0.64

9 3 3
0 3 0 839 252 0.77

23 8 0.92 25,953 4,470 13.61
Yo. 5 1,090 242 rJ. 74

900 210 0.64

0 3 0 0 0 0 10’0 197 0.33 23 8 0.92 2,923 567 1.73 No. 3 Unit Annuali zed Caaital Annuali zed costs costs costs I$l997)- ($l09O/yr) ($/T)

1,090 242 0.74 0.64 3 0 0 939 210

9 9 0 830 252 9.77

23 R 0.02 2,753 712 2.17
Vo. 6 23,390 4,093 12.18 903 213 9.64

9 3 0
9 0 0 100 107 0.33 23 8 0.02 24,323 4,325 13.17 Recovery fumicewould be a direct contact furnace only (2) Destruction inseparate incineratorTable 8-11. INCREMENTAL RETqOFIT COIITROL COSTS'FOR A 1000TPD OLD MILL (BUI BEFORE 1965) - LOW RETROFIT PEIIALTY Location: StatewithTypical Regulations 1

Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs ($1000~ l$1000/yrl ($/TI hl 1 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs ($1000) j$1000/yr) ($/TI A. Recovery Furnace 23,300 4,000 12.18 B. Batch Digesters and C. Brown StockWashers(2) 2,500 1,670 5.08 Multiple Effect Evaporators 0 0 0 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs Costs costs i$lOOO) I$1000/yr) ($/TI

D. Black Liquor Oxidation 560 420 1.28 System ~ents(2) E. Lime Kiln F. Condensate Stripper 830 252 0.77 0 0 0 TOTAL COSTS 27,190 6,342 19.31 23,300 4, 000 12.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 252 0.77

0 0 0 24,130 4,252 12.95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 252 0.77

0 0 0 830 252 0.77

A. Recovery Furnace B. Batch Digesters and Mu1tiple Effect Evaporators C. Brown Stock Washers(2)

E. Lime Kiln F. Condensate Stripper No. 4 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs ($1000/yr) ($1000) ($/TI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 830 246 0.75

0 0 0
TOTAL COSTS 830 246 0.75 No. 5 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

Costs costs costs ($1000) :$100c;/yr) ($/TI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 107 0.33

0 0 0
100 107 0.33 No. 6 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs ($1000) ($1000/yr) ($/TI 23,300 4,000 12.18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 107 0.33

0 0 0 23,400 4,107 12.51 (1)A typical stateisassumed to require 20 ppn forthe recovery furnace and incineration (5 ppm) ofTRS emissions from digesters, multiple effect (2) Destruction in separate incinerator. evaporators, and condensate strippers


# Icosts range from$1.73 per ton to$2.17 per ton for systems 3, 4, and 5. The incremental annualized costs for systems 1, 2, and 6 range from $13.17 to$19.97 per ton. The replacement ofthe recovery furnace isresponsible for $12.18 per ton ofthese costs. Ina statewith typical regulations, incremental annualized costs range from $0.33 to$0.77 per ton for systems 3, 4, and 5. 1, 2, and 6, incremental annualized costs range from $12.51 per ton to $19.31 per ton, the most expensive beingsystem 1. replacement isresponsible for $12.18 per ton. For systems Again, recovery furnace

Tables 8-12 and 8-13 present control costs for the oldmodel millwith

a the incidental high retrofit penalty. Capital and annualized costs are

presented forthe sixalternative control systems similar tothe previous models. Costs of control forthewasher gases and theoxidationvents is based on separate incineration. The construction ofnew furnace sizedto support the entire 1000 ton per day mill isassumed inthe cost estimates for: control systems 1, 2, and 6 instateswith typical regulations. ofthe high retrofitcosts forthis model mill involve the controllingof the digestors/evaporators and the lime kiln. with the lime kiln, namely additional requirements for limemud washing and additional lime burningcapacity, have been taken intoaccount forthis model mill. Insummary, Table 8-12 would represent theworst situation

## - - an oldmillwith incidental high retrofitpenalties ina state with no regulations. (1) all control systems instateswith no regulations, and (2) The aspects

The two factors associated

Where no regulationsexist (Table 5-12), incremental annualized costs

- range from $15.46 per ton forsystem 6 to$22.68 per ton for system 1. furnace costs are responsible for $12.18 per ton ofthese costs. New In

8-28A. B. c. 0.
E. F. (11 Recovery Furnace Table 8-12. INCREMtl.(TALRETROFIT COtiTROL COSTS FOR A 1000 TPU OLD IlILL (BUILT CEFORI: 1965) 1 HIGH RETROFIT PEI!ALTY Location: State KithNo Regulations No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Unit Unit Unit Capital Annualized Annualized Capital Annualized Annualized Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs costs costs costs costs costs costs ($1000) I$1000/yrl ($/TI l$loOO). ($1000/yrl ($/T) ($1000) J$lOOO/yr) ($/TI 23,300 4,000 12.18 23,300 4,000 12.18 23,300 4,000 12.18

2,000 452 1.38 2,000 452 1.38 2, 000 452 1.38 Ratch niystcrand Brown Stock Washers

Multiple Effect Evaporator (2) 2,500 1,670 5.08 0 0 0 0 0 0


# . 560 420 1.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3) 4,560 901 2.74 4,560 ' 901 2.74 4,560 901 2.74 Lime Kiln 23 8 0.02 23 8 0.02 23 8 0.02 Condensate Stripper TOTAL COSTS 3z,943 /,451 LZ.b8 L9,883 S,Jbl 16.2 LY,883 5,361 16.32
I No. 5 No. 6 No. 4 

## n,300 .D A. Recovery Furnace 4.000 12.18 23,300 4,000 12.I8 n,300 4,00u IZ.18 2,000 452 1.38 2,000 452 1.38 2,000 452 1.38 _- m N B. Batch Digester and C. Brown Stock Washers 0. Black Liquor x'dation E. Lime Kiln F. Condensate Stripper Mu1 ti

pl

e Effect Evaporator (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 System Vents 921
. (3) 4,560 896 2.73 3,100 617 1.88 3,100 617 1.88 23 8 0.02 23 8 0.02 23 8 0.02 TOTAL COSTS cy,883 5,355 16.30 28,401 5, 071 15.46 28,401 5,071 15.46 (1) Recovery furnace

### - direct contact only. (2) Destruction inseparate incinerator. (3) High retrofitexpenditures forthe following: Furnace with an assumed age exceeding twenty years would have tobe replaced for each control strategy.

additionofa new lime kilnfor each control strategy and addition of condensate stripper for strategy numbers 1 through4.A. ile*.overy Furnace E. Sa ch Digester and C. Br,:in Stock Washers 3 E: ck Liquor xidation 'hlti01e Effect Evaporators (2) :)stem Vents

# 92) i. Li e Kiln (3) F. Co densate Stripper No. 2 I No. 1

IS1 000) IS1 000/yr1 ($/TI 23,300 4,000 12.16
0 0 0 2,500 1,670 5.08

560 420 1.28 4,560 901 2.74 0 0 0 Unit 

# 1 Unit ($/TI ($1000) (b1000/yr) 12.18 23,300 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4,560 901 2.74 0 0 0

-- TOTAL COSTS 30,920 6,991 21.28

-. - co - 0 w No. 4 Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs j$1000) ($1 0@0/yr) ($/T f A. Rerwkry Furnace 0 0 0 P. Gatch Digester and Multiple 0 0 0
0 0 0 -ffect Evaporators (2) C. Br,./n Stock Washers 

## ?3fa D. El,.k Liquor 0 lvstemVents 0 0 0
E. Lii,: Kiln(3) 4,560 896 2.73 F. Cor lensate Stripper 0 0 0 TOTAL IOSTS 4,560 896 2.73 27,860 4,901 14.92

No. 5 - Unit Capital Annualized Annualized

costs costs costs l$lOOO). ($1000/yr) ($/TI 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 3,100 617 1.88 0 0 0 3,100 617 1.88 ' Unit Capital Annualized Annual i zed costs Costs costs ($1000) ($1000/yr) ($/TI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4,560 901 2.74 0 0 0 4,560 901 2.74
No. 6 Unit Capital Annuallzed Annualized

costs costs Costs (S/TI ($1000) ($1000/yrl 23,300 4,000 12.18 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 3,100 617 1.88 0 0 0' 26,403 4,617 14.05 (1) A ypical state isassumed to require 20 ppm for the recovery furnace and incineration (5 ppm) of TRS emissions from digesters, multiple effect e: !p3rators, and condensate strippers. (213 5iruction inseparate inciqerator (2) igh retrofit expcnditures =or the followinc: additionof a new lime kiln for rach control systeiii and addition of ' w!ensate stripner for sYstel,, numbers 1 througb 4. 

# .

### states with 

### typical regulati

### ons

### ,the incremental annualized 

### costs ranqe from $14.06 

### per 

### ton to $21.28 

### per ton for 

### control systems 1, 2, and 6, 

### with system 1 

### being 

### most expensive. For control systems 3, 4, and 

### 5, 

### t'7e incremental annualized costs range from $1.88 per ton 

### to$2.74 per 

### ton. From the previous discussion 

### on old mills, the most significant factor that frequently re-appears in

### the total mill costs has been requirements for 

### new recovery furnace investment. Up 

### tothis point 

### all capital related charges dssociated with 

### purchasing, installing, and ownershiP of 

### the recovery furnace have been presented as control costs. However, the recovery furnace is

### a productive capital asset in

### the sense that it 

### coneributes 

### to the economics of pulp 

### production with 

### recovery of ensrq,y and 

### chemicals. deducted 

### from the control costs. However, it

### is 

### ver.y difficult 

### toestimate this credit 

### on a source by 

### source basis in

### terms of 

### dollars per ton. Consequently, some credit for 

### a productive asset should be

Therefore

### ,no credit

### was deducted. The extent of credit to be deductible is

### very source specific. The amount of credit would depend on the remaining economic 1 fe of 

### existing furnace equipment. In a specificmill 

### the recover,y furna e could be very old. like thirty years of 

### age, and 

### very inefficient. probably be scheduling for the replacement of 

### the old furnace in

### the near future. Here, the replacement cost should be treated as 

### a normal productive asset with 

### no credit given for 

### control costs. recovery furnace may have a significant 

### amount of 

### residual economic life, say 15

### years. force the scrapping and replacement of 

### this recovery furnace. situation, the capital value foreaorle in 

### scrappinq the furnace sClould be Such a mill would



### In another mill 

### ,a Suppose a state should require 

### a 5 ppm 

### level which would In this

8-31

### the approximate control cost. In 

### a similar vein, mills thattend 

### tooverload be required 

### toprovide additional 

### black liquor 

### burn TRS 

### emissions. The incremental capacity sufficient recovery furnaces may ng 

### capac ty 

### toreduce toreduce the emissions 

### toa satisfactory level should be the approximate control cost although 

### a mill 

### would install 

### a complete 

### new recovery 

### unitwhich would 

### exceed the necessary incremental capacity. 8.5 Aggregate Costs 

### For Industry Inthis 

### section the estimated incremental control costs are reported 

### for the existing 

### kraft pulp 

### industry 

### for 

### the 

### six alternative emission control systems outlined in

### Table 8-1. 

### these costs for each individual mill on the basis of 

### the best technical information availab1e for each mi11 

### regarding production rates, furnace capacity and age, type of controls used, 

### status of 

### state regulations, and other technical parameters. Section 8.3, Costs 

### For Affected Facilities, which relates control costs as a function of mill sizewas used tomake the estimates. considered suitable

### toestimate total industry costs because of 

### the wide variabi1i

### ty in

### mi

### 11 characteristics and 

### state regulatory requirements. ever, the 

### two approaches should give consistent results. the model mill approach with 

### the results obtained by the individual mill approach does support this 

### claim. The approach 

### used was to estimate

The model mill 

### approach as outlined in 

### Section 8.4 

### was 

### not


### HowVerification of

Actual cost information received 

### from 42 

### mills during 

### the EPA 

### industry survey 

### was used toderive the Section 8.3 

### costs. Qf 

### capital and annualized were made individually for 77 mills which were not contacted in the industry survey. 

### From these costs, estimates

The costs 

### for these mills were then

5-32

### combined with the actual costs received for the 42 

### surveyed mills to 

### derive industry totals. The summary 

### of industry incremental costs are reported in Table 8-14 

### for each system. Capital and 

### annualized costs are presented 

### for industry totals and on 

### a unit basis. In 

### addition, incremental capital costs are related 

### tomill investment as a measured percentage. The investment for a battery limits mill 

### is $150 million in 1976 

### dollars, which was derived from 

### a study for EPA's 

### Office of Solid

### Waste Management.('*) Similarly, incremental annualized costs are related 

### tothe market pulp 

### price as a measured percentage. quoted contract price for domestic bleached kraft pulp.

### (I9) represents the average of pulps derived from hard 

### and softwoods. The price used was $330, which is the currently This price

The industry-wide incremental annuali

### zed control costs range 

### from $1.99 

### per ton for system 5 to$12.72 

### per ton for 

### system 1. 

### ton figure is predicated 

### on the basis of replacement of 18 

### recovery furnaces and 3 lime 

### kilns. basis of replacement of 63 recovery furnaces and 33 lime kilns. be noted that systems 3 and 4 

### would require replacement of 18

### recovery furnaces and 33 lime kilns. market pulp price are 0.6 percent for system 5 ($1.99 

### per ton) and 3.9 percent 

### for system 1 

### ($12.72 per 

### ton). The 

### $1.99 per
The $12.72 per 

### ton figure is predicated 

### on the Itshould

The corresponding percentages in relation to

Capital requirements for incremental controls range from $10.32 per ton capacity for system 5 

### to $46.20 per ton for system 1. 

### requirements for new mill investment, these estimates amount 

### to 1.8percent In relation 

### to
for system 5 

### and 8.1 

### per cent for system 1.

- 

### The approach used 

### todevelop industry-wide costs represents a composite

8-33

### Table 8-14. Stmary 

### of

### Idustry 

### Xmvwemtrl Contml 

### Coats *r Six

### Alternatives Control 

### Strategies

Total Capital ($1OO'I) 

### Capital

## ,per 

### ton capacity ($/T) 

### Capital, as a percent of 

### new mill(1)

Total Annualized 

### Costs 

### (? ($1000/yr) w P 

### Unit

### An; ialized 

### Costs ($/T)



### Annualized costs, as a percenf2yf market pulp price 40. 

### 1 1,6C12,000


### 46.20

8.1

441,000

12.72



### 3.9 

### No. 2 

### 1,275,000
36.78

6.5

237,000

6.84

2.1 No. 

### 3 495,000

14.27

2.5



### 94,300

2.72



### 9.8 No. 

### 4 495,000

14.27



### 2.5

93,600

2.70

0.8 No. 

### 5 358,090

10.32

1.8

69,000

1.99



### 0.6 No. 6 

### 1,148,000
33.11

5.8



### 200,000

5.76

1.7


### (1)Capital 

### Costs for New 

### Battery Limits 809 TPD 

### Mill is

### $150million, or $570 

### per ton (1976 dollars) Source: 

### Arthur D. 

### Little, Reference 18. 

### (2)Market pulp price 

### is $330 

### per ton, based 

### on fourth quarter 1976 prices for domestic 

### kraft bleached pulp. Source: 

### Paner Trade Journal.

### of 

### many different types 

### of state regulations and 

### the individual character of 119

### mills. Although 

### the model mill approach in Section 8.4 was 

### considered inappropriate toestimate industry costs, there should be some linkage between the industry-wide costs and 

### the model mill costs on 

### a unit basis. costs in Table 8-14 fall about midway between cost requirements for 

### a modern mill in

### a statewith typical regulations (Table 8-9) 

### and for an old mill with low rdtrofit penalty in 

### a statewith 

### no regulations (Table 8-10) for systems 1, 2, and 6. 

### Industry-wide costs in

### Table 8-14 are somewhat higher than the costs reported for 

### an old mill (Table 8-10) for systems 3,

### 4, 

### and 5. A 

### conclusion would be that there is some reasonable agreement in

### the magnitude of the costs developed from the two separate approaches. 8.6 Cost-Effectiveness A 

### comparison of the two approaches revealed thatthe industry-wide

An analysis was made 

### toevaluate the cost-effectiveness of the six alternative emission control systems in 

### terms of their contribution 

### to reducing national TRS 

### emissions. The cost-effectiveness technique is

### a useful tool in 

### selecting 

### an appropriate control system 

### as a recommended guideline. In this 

### selection, those control systems that have significantly high 

### control costs in 

### terms of their pollutant removal are rejected as viable control recomnendations. Itshould be strongly emphasized that 

### the cost-effectiveness approach for recomnending controls isonly applicable for welfare-related Ill-d pollutants, such as TRS. 

### pollutants

### ,an economic impact analysis is 

### a requirement for determining affordabi1i

### ty of

### best control

### s

# . For health-related Ill-d

The industry aggregate annualized control costs presented in Table 8-14 

### and the national emission reduction data 

### reported in

### Table 9-2 

### were

8-35

### used 

### tomake the cost-effectiveness calculations. The results are presented in 

### Table 8-15. The control systems are ranked in ascending order in

### terms of emission reduction and costs, starting with 

### system 5 

### as the least expensive. Two calculations of 

### cost-effectiveness are presented for 

### each control system in 

### columns (E) 

### and (F). The 

### calculation in column (E) 

### simply 

### represents the 

### costs per 

### ton removed by 

### a particular control system. The calculation in column 

### (F) represents the marginal costs per ton removed by a particular control system relative to a system 

### of lower ranking. The marginal cost calculation is 

### a more sensitive indicator in revealing the 

### more 

### expensive control system. For 

### example, in Table 8-15, system 6 

### costs $75,500 per 

### ton marginally. significant than the $1750 for system 3 

### or $11,180 for system 4. This 

### ismuch more With respect to actual cost per 

### ton, system 6 

### costs $3000 

### per ton, which is 

### significantly higher, toa lesser degree, than the approximate $1400 per ton 

### for systems 4 and 3. 

### Based on 

### the data in Table 8-15, it

### would seem reasonable toreject control systems 6, 

### 2, 

### and 1 

### as 

### not being cost-effective. System 5 

### might be considered a minimal strategy, costing $1060 

### per ton. and 3 

### cost somewhat more, about $1400 

### per ton, which would not seem tobe 

### of such Control systems 4

a magnitude topreclude consideration of 

### these control systems as a viable control technology.

8-36

### Control System Table 8-15. 

### COST EFFECTIVENESSDATA FOR 

### ALTERNATIVE CONTROL 

### SYSTEMS

A 

### National 

### Emission Reduc

### ti

### on tons/y

### r

# .

65,000 67

### , 200 67

### , 600 69

### , 000 

### 71,500 77,700 B 

### Marginal Emis

### si

### o

### n Reduct

### ion

tonslyr. 65,000



### 2,200 400 1,400
2

### , 500 

### 6,200 C 

### I

### ndus

### try Annuali

### zed 

### Control

costs $1000/yr

69

### , 000 

### 93

### , 600 94

### , 300 200,000 237,000 441,000 D 

### Marginal Annualized 

### Control



### costs $1000/yr.

69

### , 000 

### 24,600
700 

### 105

### , 700 37,000 204,000 

### E Annualized Costs per 

### ton Removed 

### ($/ton> (C)'(A 

### , 1,060 1,390 1,395
3

### , 000 

### 3,315 5,675 ~F 

### Marginal Annualized 

### Cost per ton

Removed (D)'( B)

### ,$/ton 1,060 11,180

1,750 75,500 14,800 32,900

### References forChapter 8 

### 1. Post's 1973Pulp

### and Paper Directory,Miller Freeman Publications, Inc., San Francisco. 2. 

### Lockwood's Directory of the 

### Paper and Allied 

### Trades, Lockwood Publishing Co., 

### New York, 1974. 3. 

### Correspondence 

### from 

### Mr. Russell 

### Blosser, National Council forAir 

### and Stream Improvement, Inc., to

### Mr. Frank L. 

### Bunyard, EPA, 

### OAQPS, April 

### 22, 

### 1975. 4. See 

### Reference 3. 

### 5. Correspondence 

### from Mr. C. T. 

### Tolar, 

### Rust Engineering Co., Birmingham, Ala., to

### Mr. Paul A. 

### Boys, October 20, 

### 1972. 6. Correspondence from 

### Mr. Russell 

### Blosser, National Council forAir 

### and Stream Improvement, Inc., to

### Mr. Paul A. Boys, 

### November 17, 1972. 7. Air 

### Pollution Control Technology and Costs: Seven Selected Emission Sources

### ,.I_?dustrial 

### Gas Cleaning 

### Institute, EPA-450/3-74-060, National Technical 

### Information Service, Springfield, Va., December, 1974. 8. 

### Report of Fuel 

### Requirements, Capital Cost and Operating Expense for Catalytic and Thermal Afterburners

## ,CE Air 

### Preheater for Industrial Gas C1eaning Institute, EPA-450/3-76-031 

### ,National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., September 1976. 9. See 

### Reference 3. 

### 10. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement

## - Volume I: Proposed Standards of

### Performance forKraft PulpMil

### ls, 

### EPA-450/2-76-014a National Technical Information Service, Springfield

### ,Va. 

### ,September 1976. 11. See 

### reference 

### '0. 

### 12. Correspondence 

### from 

### Mr. Joe Kol

### berg

### ,Boise Cascade, to

### Mr. Frank L. 

### Bunyard, OAQPS, EPA, 

### May 1975. 13. See 

### reference 8. 

### 14. See

### reference 5. 15. Telephone conversation 

### from F. L. 

### Bunyard, OAQPS, EPA, 

### toGeorge Horvat

### ,Airco

### , Inc.

### ,December 30, 1974.

8-38

# I

16.

17. 18.

19. Investment and Operating Cost Data for Low PressureOxygen Plant Applicability to Non-Ferrous Metallurgy, Volcan 

### - Cincinnati

### , EPA Contract No. 68-02-2099, Task 

### No. 2, September 29, 1972. See reference 10. Analysis of Demand and Supply for Secondary Fiber inthe U.S. Paper and Paperboard Industry, Volume 2: Section IX

## - Process Economics, Arthur D

## . LittleReport for Contract #68-0l-02220, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of SolidWaste Management Programs, March, 1975. Paper Trade Journal? January 1

### , 1977.

8-39

# a

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF TRS CONTROLS

niques and contro 

### on the impacts 

### on for 

### a relatively


### a national basis. The environmental impacts discussed are for each of the control techsystems mentioned in Chapter 6. This includes discussions air, water, and solid waste pollution and energy consumption arge kraft pulp mill (907 megagrams of pulp per day) and on

9.1 AIR

### POLLUTION IMPACT 9.1.1 Annual Air Emission Reductions Installation of the various control techniques described in Section 6.1
are estimated 

### to reduce TRS emissions from the existing kraft industry by the amounts indicated in Table 9-1. Emission reductions range from 20.6 percent for digester systems 

### to 96 

### to 97 percent for digester systems and lime kiln systems. All values presented in Table 9-1 are based on information presented in Chapters 

### 5 and 6 and Appendix 

### A of this study. The following procedure was used 

### to arrive 

### atthe numbers listed in Table 9-1. The values listed in Column 

### 2 (Current National Average Emission Rate) were previously mentioned in Chapter 5 and are based 

### on the information listed in Appendix A. various kraft pulp mills and state control agencies. Column 

### 5 presents the percentage of existing facilities presently using the control techniques described in Column 2 as based 

### on the information listed in Appendix A. values in Column 6 were developed by applying the emission level achievable by Information in Appendix A is based 

### upon discussions with

The

9-1TABLE 9-1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTOF CONTROLLINGTHE

VARIOUS TRS SOURCES INA KRAFTMILL

Source

..

- -. . . .

--- . --
. ------ -__- Recovery Furnace Digester Mu1tiple-effect Evaporator Lime Kiln

W N
Brown Stock Washer

Black Liquor Oxidation Smelt Oissolving Tank Condensate Strippers System System Current National 9!!9-_40_4

1.25 1.25 0.32 0.32 0.22 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.31
0.15 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.11 Averaqe Emission (WT AOPL Control

.__

____-I^-I Technique - (2.5) 8LO ( 20 PPI (2.5) BLO ( 5 ppm) (0.64) Scrubber (0.64) Incineration (0.43) Scrubber (0.43) Incineration (0.62) 1) Process Controls (0.62) 2) Process Control 6 High (0.62) 3) Process Controls. High Eff. MudWashing Eff. MudWashing & CausticScrubbfng (0.3) Incineration (0.1) ' Incineration (0.1) MolecularOxygen (0.2) FreshWater (0.22) Incineration (0.22) Scrubber Emission Level Achievable With Control Technique g/Kg ADP (# T/ADP) 0.31 (0.6) 0.08 (0.15) 0.59 (1.17) 0.04 (0.08) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.10 (0.2) 0.05 (0.a) I of Capacity Not Presently Achieving This Level 35.7 86.9 41.8 42.4 41.4 45.9 71.8 90.5 EstimatedAverage National Eiission IfControl Technique isRequired

g/Kg ADP (W T/ADP) 0.25 (0.5) 0.08 (0.15) 0.26 (0.51) 0.03 (0.05) 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.09 (0.18) 0.05 (0.1) 0.021 (0.04) 99.4 0.021 (0.04)
0.01 (0.02) 99.1 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 98.0 0.01 (0.02) 0 (0) 98.0 0 (0) 0.013 (0.025) 

### -- 0.01 (0.02) o.oi (0.02) 20 0.01 (0.02) 0.5 (1.0) 0 0.11 (0.22) I Emission Rr4c ti

on Nationally Achieved 80.0 94.0 20.6 96.9 89.1 95.3 71.0 84.0 92.0
93.3 80.0 100.0 87.5 90.9

0 National Emission Reduction M/year (tons_/y_e_arl 31,200 (34.400) 36,690 (40.450) 2.040 ( 2,250) 9,300 (10,700) 5,940 ( 6,550) 6,400 ( 7.050) 6,900 ( 7,600) 8,900 ( 9,800) 9.300 (10,250) 4,350 ( 4,800) 1.270 ( 1,400) 1,540 ( 1,700) 2.800 ( 3,100) 3,130 ( 3,450) 0 (0)a particulate control device (Column 4) to those existing millswhich are not presently achieving that level, as listed inAppendix A, and calculatinq the national average emission level that would result. Column 7 (Percent Emission Reduction Achieved Nationally) isthe percent difference between Columns 2 and 6. The national emission reduction achieved by a specific control device (Column 8) was calculated by multiplying the difference between Columns 2 and 6 by the annual kraft pulp production rate (31,196,000 megagrams/year). Table 9-1 shows +.hat the greatest reduction ofTRS emissions isachieved by controlling the recovery furnace systemwith the digester system, lime kiln, mu1tipl e-effect evaporator system, brown stock washer system, smelt di ssolving tank, black liquor oxidation system and condensate stripping system following indecreasing impact. Table 9-2 shows the impact of the various control systems mentioned in Section 6.2.- For example, ifSystem No. 1 (best available technology as defined for NSPS) was applied to each source, the TRS emissions from the kraft industry would be reduced by about 70,500 megagrams per year) or 94.2 percent. impact butwould still reduce TRS emissions by about 59,000 megagrams per year (65,630 tons per year) or 78.8 percent. Control of four sources ina kraft mill account for a major portion ofthe impact achieved by each ofthe control systems. These four sources are the recovery furnace, digester system, multiple-effect evaporator system, and the 1ime kiln. 9.1.2 Annual Air Emission Increase per year (77,700 tons System No. 5, ifapplied, would result inthe least

II_-~-. The only control techniques mentioned inChapter 6 that would apparently result in increasing the emission rates ofother pollutants isthe incineration of the vent gases from the brown stock washer systems and the black liquor

9-3TABLE 9-2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF VARIOUS CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR EXISTING KRAFT PULP MILLS

Estimate Average Nati onal TRS EmissionWith % Emission Control Contro 1 System Emission Reduction System g/Kg ADP (#T ADP) Reducti on* megagramslyear (tons/year) No. 1 0.14 (0.28) 94.2 70,500 (77,700) No. 2 0.32 (0.64) No. 3 0.44 (0.87) No. 4 0.45 (0.89) No. 5 0.51 (1.02) No. 6 0.40 (0.79) 86.7 81.9 64,900 (71,500) 61,300 (67,600) 81.5 61,000 (67,200) 78.8 59,000 (65,000) 83.5 62,600 (69,000)



## * Based on a current control level of2.4 g/Kg ADP (4.8 lb/T ADP).

9-4oxidation systems if these gases are burned in 

### a separate incinerator. emission rates of nitrogen oxides (NOx) 

### and sulfur dioxide (SO2) from 

### a mill would increase by the amounts emitted from this separate incinerator. natural gas was fired in the incinerator 

### ata 907 metric tons per day (1000 tons per day) mill, the NO and SO2 emissions resulting are estimated 

### tobe 160 and 220 kilograms per day (350 and 480 pounds per day), respectively. These are in comparison with 

### a TRS reduction of 180 kilograms per day (400 pounds per day). of natural gas, the NO, and SO2 emissions resulting are estimated to be 

### about 380 and 1040 kilograms per day (840 and 2280 pounds per day), respectively. Using a gas-fired 

### or oil-fired incinerator 

### toburn these gases is 

### a realistic alternative since the industry feels 

### thatburning these gases safely in

### a The

If

X

Furthermore, if fuel oil 

### (1%sulfur content) was used instead

recovery furnace 

### has 

### notyet been demonstrated. burned in a-recoveryfurnace 

### or power boiler, 

### no increase in the SO2 

### or NOx emissions from these sources are expected. No increase inother pollutants is expected from burning the noncondensable However, if these gases were

gases from the digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator system 

### or condensate stripper system since these gases will normally be burned in 

### a lime kiln 

### as part of the normal combustion 

### air. SO2 generated should be absorbed by the lime dust (calcium oxide) present in the kiln.’ The scrubbers used 

### on most lime kiln systems also are effective gas removal system. emitted from the kiln system for this reason. Very little SO2 is

9.1.3 Atmospheric Dispersion of TRS Emissions 

### 4 disDersion ;Inal.ysis was made 

### on model kraft pulp mills 

### to evaluate the impact of the various control techniques and retrofit systems 

### on ground-level TRS concentration downwind of 

### a kraft pulp mill. average design and layout as shown in Figure 9-1, and included the eight The models chosen were of

9-5

### FIGURE 9-1. 

### TypfcalPlantLayout (1001

### ton per day 

### kraft pulp

### mill)

W I m 

# .



# i TREATMENT PONO !4 -25 .-loo0

H=50 

### Stacks:
- 24--C 

## ---
a t 

### 1. 

### Recovery Furnace 2. 

### Smelt Dissolving Tank 

### 3. 

### Lime Kiln 4. 

### Digesters 5. 

### Evaporators 6. 

### Brown Stock Washers m



### 7. 

### Oxidation System 8. 

### Condensate Stripper '00

TPIK@-> A = 40'

, F = 60' B

# - 75' C 15' C = 50' H = 10' D=35' J = 12' E = 60' K = 20' 

# Eaffected facilitiesbeing considered. Modeling was performed formills of 500, 1000, and 1500 tons per day of air-dried pulp (ADP) produced, a range within which the majority of kraft pulp mill capacities fall. Maximum ground-level concentrations of TRS were 

### determined for 

### the emission rates corresponding

### toeach control technique and system. 

### The concentrations decreased predictably with decreases in the emission rates. to adjust the meteorological conditions of the study 

### to achieve the worst cases that would be expected to occur atand near a kraft pulp mill. Itwas possible



### Ambient concentrations of TRS due to the a1ternative control techniques and systems 

### were calculated using state-of-the-art modeling techniques. calculations are assumed 

### tobe reliable within about a factorof 

### two. The following assumptions were applied 

### for the analytical approach: 

### These

1. 

### There are 

### no significant seasonal 

### orhourly variations in emission rates forthese mills. 2. The-millsare located in flat

### or gently rolling terrain. 3. The meteorological regime 

### is unfavorable 

### to the dispersion of effluents. This assumption introduces an 

### element of conservatism into the analysis. Calculationswere performed assuming the presence of aerodynamic downwash effects on the emissions. mill such as: stack; and (3) a 

### two-foot stack 

### for the black liquor oxidation tank atop a 50-foot building will result in downwash in 

### most situations. Maximum ground-level concentrations were estimated by assuming 

### worst meteor01ogical conditions. The correlation of those estimates with observed concentrations at any particular kraft pulp mill would depend upon many factors, including the accuracy of the emission data, the mill configuration, the distance 

### from the mill atwhich Unfavorable design characteristics of the model 

### (1) a 220-foot structure adjacent 

### to a 250-foot recovery furnace (2) a 175-foot smelt dissolving tank stack next 

### to a 175-foot building;

9-7samples are obtained, the sampling period and the climatology of the mill location. 

### The estimated maximum ambient TRS concentration 

### (10 second average) ina vicinity of 

### a 907 megagrams (1000 tons) per day pulpmill resulting from the individual affected facilitieswith and 

### without controls are listed in Table 9-3. The maximum concentrations occur at300 meters from the source. Table 9-3 shows that the sources (excluding the condensate strippers) resulting inthe greatest impact on ambient concentrations of TRS are, in decreasing order, the digester systems, multiple-effect evaporator systems, recovery furnace, and the 

### lime kiln. maximum ambient TRS concentration of 20,000 vg/m whereas an uncontrolled brown stock washer system results in a maximum ambient concentration of370 vg/m 

# . Table 9-3 also 

### shows the percent reductions of applying each control technique on uncontrolled levels and the ambient levels atvarious distances under the control led case. 

### An uncontrolled digester system can result in 

### a 3



### 3

Tables similar 

### to Table 9-3 showing the impact of applying controls 

### to the various TRS sources on ambient TRS concentrations in terms 

### of one-hour and 24-hour averages and for 

### 454 and 1350 megagrams (500 and 1500 tons) per day kraft pulp mills are included inAppendix C. 

### all averaging 

### period maximum concentrations are noted 

### atextremely close-in distances (300 meters). This is due to considerable aerodynamic effect influencing the plume rise 

### in each case. distances from the stack inquestion. the 300 meters given may be even higher. the frequency of occurrence for the maximum ambient concentration due to each
source. For the stacks of each mill,

The distances given 

### in the tables are Concentrations closer to the stack 

### than These tables also give an estimate 

### of

The TRS concentrations with low frequencies ofoccurrence are theTABLE 9-3

W I (0 IMPACT OF CONTROLLING Ttli VARIOUS TRS SOURCES ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 907 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentraifon: ugh3 Frequency - % of Concentrations (10 second 

### avera e Uncontrolled Distance fr%n Source (km) \Greater than 1/2 Percent Source Control Techniques Leyel @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reductiona Recovery Furnace BLO (20 ppm) Digester Scrubber BLO (5 ppm) Incineration Mu1tip1 e-Effect Scrubber Incineration Evaporator a,030 320 210 120 50 28 96.0 a,030 a0 50 30 13 28 99.0 20,000 15,290 5580 3550 3 23.5 20,000 Ob 100.0

3,750 310 200 120 3,750 Ob 4 91.7 100.0 

### - Lime Kiln 1) Process Controls aoo 200 70 55 45 40 1 75.0 2) Process Controls + aoo 50 20 15 11 10 1 93.a High Eff. Mud Washing 3) Process Controls + High aoo 25 10 76 5 1 96.9 Eff. Mud Washing + Caustic Scrubbing Srown Stock Incineration 370 25 96 34 93.2

Idasher System Black Liquor Incineration 310 60 20 95 3 25 ao.6 310 OC 100.0 

### - Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen Smelt Dissolving Fresh Water

Tank Condensate Stripping Scrubber Incineration System 560 70 26 16 3 87.5 14,000 7,000 975 525 14,000 Ob
a Reduction from uncontrolled averape level

Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these aases. C wrt aases. 25 50.0 100.0 

### -10-second and 1-hour concentrations from the smelt dissolving tank, the digesters, and the multiple-effect evaporators, along with all three averaging period concentrations 

### from the lime kiln. of the averages duringthe year were above half the maximum value for the respective averaging periods. These maxima, then, appear to be caused by conditions of usually highwind speed which 

### bring about aerodynamic downwash. In each case, less 

### than 5 percent

Table 9-4 shows the estimated maximum ambient 

### TRS concentrations 

### resulting fromthe various control systems. If System

### No. 1 (best available control technology) was applied to each source, the estimated maximum ambient TRS concentration would be 97 micrograms 

### per cubic meter (10-second average). Control Systems 

### No. 2 and No. 6 would reduce the average ambient 

### TRS concentration around a 

### kraftmfll 

### to about 

### 308 pg/m (10-second average). Control Systems No. 

### 3 and No. 

### 5 mild

### result in 

### a maximum 

### TRS ambient concentration of about 487 pg/m3 (10-second average). These concentrations are mainly caused by emissions from three facilities: the recovery furnace, the smelt dissolving tank, and the brown stock washer system. concentration due to emissions 

### from the lime kiln and black liquor oxidation system are negligible in all cases. multiple-effect evaporators and condensate strippers since it 

### is assumed 

### that the gases from thew systems would be burned inthe lime kiln. 

### 3 Application 

### of

Contribution to the maximum 

### TRS ambient

No values are reported for the digesters,

Averaging 

### tines of 

### 10 seconds, 

### one hour, and twenty-four hours 

### were selected for the 

### TRS calculations, representing short and long-term exposures. 

### The 10-second average would be considered a "whiff", and applicable to the study of odorous emissions. level of exposure experienced through casual contact, while the 24-hour average shows the level of exposure of a person 

### living riear the mill. The one-hour average 

### gives an indication 

### of the

9-10TABLE 9-4. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THE CONTROL SYSTEMS ON MAXIMUMAMBIENT TRS LEVELS AROUND AN EXISTING (907 MEGAGRAMS PER DAY) KRAFT PULP MILL

Max mum Combi ned CONTRIBUTION OF EACH SOURCE (ug/m3) 

### Control Averaging Concentration

- SYLtE! Ti me pg/m3 RF SDT LK BLO 8SW 1

5

6 10 sec 1 hr 24 hr 10 sec

1 hr 24 hr 10 sec

1 hr 24 hr 10 sec

1 hr 24 hr 10 sec

1 hr 24 hr 10 sec

1 hr 24 hr 97 30

7 308

95 24 487 150

38 4 87 150

38 48 7 150

38 3Q8

95 24 81 25

6 260

25

6 260

80 20 260

80 20 260

80 20 81 25

6 16 5 1 16

5 1 16

5 1 16

5 1 16

5 1 16

5 1 Neg

# . Neg

## . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg. Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . -- Neg

# . Neg

## . Neg

# . Neg

## . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

# . Neg

## . Neg

# . Neq. Neg* Neg

## . Neg. Neg

## . Neg

# . 21 1 65 17 211

65 17 211

65 17 21 1

65 17 21 1

65 179.1.4 _- Changes

11--- in Solid and Liquid Wastes Increased control of gaseous TCiS compounds will 

### not change the 

### amount of solid waste generated by the kraft pulp industry since none ofthe control techniques result in collecting solids 

### that can 

### not be recycled 

### to the process. Water effluent from 

### a mill may increase, however, due 

### to the various TRS controls. Controls requiring use of fresh water instead ofcontaminated condensate will result in 

### an increase in the mill effluent of the 

### amount of the Condensate. stripper and reusing the stripped water. prevent the TRS dissolved in the condensate from being emitted from the treatment pond during aeration. Increasing the mud washing efficiency 

### to control TRS emissions from the lime kiln can also increase the mill's water effluent. However, this additional effluent from the mud washer can probably be recycled back 

### to the process. 9.1.5 Energy Consumption This increase could be eliminated by using 

### a condensate A condensate stripper would also

The energy (fuel 

### orelectricity) required for each of the control techniques mentioned in Chapter 6 are listed in Table 9-5. resulting from 

### a coal-fired power plant supplying the necessary power (electricity) for these control techniques are also listed in Table 9-5. As indicated in Table 9-5, the additional particulate, SO2 and 

### NO emissions The additional eniissions

X thatwill occur 

### at

### a coal-fired power plant due 

### to producing the electricity 

### thatwill be required 

### to control emissions is small compared 

### to the TRS reduction that will be achieved 

### atthe kraft mill. As indicated by Table 9-5, the only control techniques requiring additional fuel consumption at

### a kraft mill are incineration (in 

### a separate incinerator) of the vent gases from the 

### brown stock washer system and the black liquor oxidation system, and process controls used 

### on the lime kiln. Incineration of the

9-12TABLE 9-5 COMPARISON OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES ON ENERGY IMPACT FOR A 907 MEGAGRAMS PER DAY KRAFT PULP MILL Emissions lblday
Fuel Electrical Total Energy -Fired Power Plant Supplying TRS lo9 Jlday (10 Btulday) Kwhlday lo9 J/day (10 Btulday) Part. NO, SO,, Control Technw The Electrical Energy a Reduction from 5.7 (12.6) 40 (88) 68 (150) 650 (1440) Requirement Requirement Requirement Control Source Technique 

## ,. L

. __ Recovery Furnace 8LOb 0 (0) 14,400 52 (491 Non-contact

evaporator 1150 (1090) 0 1150 (1090) 0 (0) Digester System Scrubbing 0 (0) 2,880 11 (10) 1.1 (2.5) 8 (18) 14 (30) 180 (400) Incineration 0 (0) 2,880 11 (10) 1.1 (2.5) 8 (18) 14 (30) 680 (1500) Mu1tip1e-effect Scrubbing

Evaporator System Incineration Lime Kiln

W
A w

Brown Stock Washer System Black Liquor Oxidation System d Smelt Dissolving

Tank Condensate Stripper

System 150 (142) High Eff. Mud 150 (142) Washing Process Controls, 150 (142)

High Eff. Mud Washing & Caustic Scrubbing Process Controls Process Controls 1

Incineration 234G (22201 Incineration Oxygen 0 (0) Fresh Water 0 (0) Incineration 0 (0) INCLUDED IN DIGESTER SECTION 420 (920) 450 (1000) 1,075' 154 (146) 0.5 (1.0) 3 (7) 5 (12) 270 (600) 1,075' 154 (146) 0.5 (1.0) 3 (7) 5 (12) 340 (750) 1,075' 154 (146) 0.5 (1.0) 3 (7) 5 (12) 350 (775)
5,376 2360 (2240) 2.1 (4.7) 15 (33) 25 (56) 140 (300)

INCLUDED IN WASHER SECTION 45 (100) 20,000 80 (68) 8.0 (17.5) 55 (122) 95 (210) 45 (100) 1.0 (2.1) 7 (15) 11 (25) 80 (175) 2,400 8 (8) 910 (2000)

840 3 (3) 0.3 (0.7) 2 (5) 4 (8) 6 6 Data are based n the new source performance standards for coal-fired power plants (Part. - 0.1 lb/10 Btu; NOx 

### - 0.7 lb/10 Btu; SO2 - 1.2 lb/10 Btu). Requirements are for two-stage oxidation. Electrical requirement isfor operating a condensate stripper toTRS from scrubbingwater, if contaiminated condensate isused. Requirements are for a scrubbing system, if a scrubber is not already used to control particulateemissions 

## 8 anoncondensable gases (digester, multiple-effect evaporator, and condensate stripper)would not require additional fuel if the? are burned in the lime kiln as 

### part of the primary airfeed. Incineration of the vent gases from the brown stock washers and black liquor oxidation system would require an additional fuel consumption of 2340 X lo9joules/day (2,220 million Btu/day). 9 It isestimated that an additional 150 X 10 joules/day (142 million Btu/day) offuel (without consideration of extra heat losses) will be required when process controls (higher cold end temperatures and higher oxygen levels) are used to control TRS compounds from a lime kiln. the normal fuel consumption of a lime kiln. This is approximately five percent of
The additional electrical energy needed foreach of these control techniques 

### is estimated to be between zero and 15,000 kilowatt-hours per day. Control System 

### 1 would reauire about 23,500 kilowatt-hours per day of additional electrical energy. kilowatt-hours per day of additional electrical energy. kilowatt-hour per day would 

### be required foreach system if a condensate stripper and a scrubber for the smelt dissolving tank are needed. Control Systems 

### 2 through 6 would require about 18,125 

### An additional 350

Each contro systemwould result 

### in an additional fuel requirement of 150 9 X 10 which would resu 

### t in an additional fuel requirement of 2482 X 10 joules/day (incineration of 

### BLO and washer gases). electrical requirement in the order of 700 to 1400 kilowatt-hours per ton of product.' between one to three percent of the total mill electrical usage. jouleslday (for lime kiln controls) except for Control System No. 1, 9 

### A pulp and paper mill requires an
Therefore, these control systems will result in an increase of

9-14REFERENCES 

### FOR CHAPTER 9

1. Incineration of Malodorous Gases 

### in Kraft Pulp Mills, Burgess, T. L., Cater, D. N., and McEachern, D. E. Pulp and Paper Magazine ofCanada. Volume 75, 

### Number 5. May 1974. 

### 2. Energy and 

### Air Emissions in

### the Pulp and Paper Indust=. James E. Roberson, 

### J. E. Sirrine Company. Greenville, South Carolina.

9-1510. EMISSION GUIDELINES FOR EXISTING KRAFT PULP MILLS Various alternative control systems can be applied 

### to existing kraft pulp mills 

### as described in Chapter 6. This chapter will select 

### a system which is judged 

### tobe the best for existing plants when costs are taken into account, and will specify emission limitations 

### that reflect the application of such a system. Time requirements to incorporate control techniques for each affected facility are discussed inSection 6.3. the other control systems were not selected as best retrofit technology. 10.1 

### GENERAL RATIONALE Section 10.3 will briefly discuss why

The best retrofit control technologies for the reduction of TRS emissions, 

### taking into account the cost of 

### this control, correspond to alternative control system 

### No. -4, as indicated inTable 6-2. 

### forbrown stock washers, 

### lime kilns, and black liquor oxidation systems are less restrictive than those that have been proposed by 

### EPA for 

### new kraft pulp The recommended control technologies

mills. The recommended control technologies for the recovery furnace, digesters, 

### mu1tiple effect evaporators, smelt dissolving 

### tank, and condensate stripper
are the same for both new and existing sources. considered in determining best retrofit control technology: The following factors were


### 1. The degree of emission reduction achievable through the application of various demonstrated control technologies. 2. The technical feasibility of applying the various demonstrated technologies 

### toexisting sources. existing recovery furnace was evaluated. In particular, more 

### than one basic design 

### of

10-13. The impact of 

### the various control technologies on national energy consumption, water pollution, solidwaste disposal

### ,and ambient airconcentrations of TRS. 

### 4. The cost of adopting 

### the emission guidelines. Control costs were estimated for each alternativecontrol system for each retrofitmodel, taking into account the level of existing controls. Identification of 

### the best demonstrated control technology 

### for 

### new mills
was accomplished 

### during 

### the development of NSPS for 

### the kraft pulp industry. A question that

### must be answered by 

### this study 

### iswhether or not it 

### is technically and economically feasible to apply 

### this technology 

### toexisting sources. Where 

### this 

### is 

### not feasible, 

### best retrofit technology considering cost 

### is identified. Evaluation of the technical problems and costs associatedwith a retrofit project 

### is complicated by 

### the lack of actual data for some sources. 

### For example, only recently has an existing brown stockwasher 

### system and black liquor oxidation system been retrofitted for control of TRS. 

### units have 

### been installedwith control systems. control systems was available for the other process facilities 

### inexistingmills. Retrofit models were developed (seeSection 

### 6.2) to evaluate 

### the environmental and cost impacts of installing 

### TRS controls on existing recovery furnaces, 

### digesters, multiple-effect evaporators, lime kilns, brown stockwashers, black liquor oxidation systems, 

### smelt dissolving tanks, and condensate strippers. 

### retrofit model approach 

### presents the impacts on an entire kraft pulp mill of applying control technologies 

### to individual sources of TRS. 

### The major technical problem, aside from space limitations, foreseen forthe averagemill 

### is the abilityof existing furnaces tomaintain good combustion for TRS control 

### Also, no 

### new black liquor oxidation Retrofit information 

### on

The

10-2while burning the vent gases from the pulp washer and the black liquoroxidation system. Table 10-1 indicatesthe impact on annual TRS emissions from the kraft industry if best retrofit control technology, (i.e. alternativecontrol system No. 4) was used. Adoption of best retrofit control technology would result in emission reductions ranging from 40 percent attypically controlled mills to 95 percent atuncontrolled mills. Total emissions from the industrywould be reduced by about 81 

### percent, resulting in a national TRS reduct 60,900 megagrams per year (67,150 tons per year). Adoption of best retrofit control technology will result in

### a reduction of 95 percent in ambient airconcentrations atuncontrol on of about

maximum ed mills. Emission reductions, and likewise control costs, will be less formills which have already installed some control systems. 10.2 SELECTION OF BEST RETROFIT TECHNOLOGY AND EMISSION GUIDELINE 10.2.1 Recovery Furnace System Emission Guideline

## - "Old Design" furnaces (i.e.

### ,furnaces without membrane wall orwelded wall construction, or emission-control designed airsystems): 20 ppm of TRS as H2S (0.3 g/Kg ADP) on 

### a dry gas basis and as af2-houraverage, corrected to 8 volume percent oxygen.


### - "New Design" furnaces (i.e.

### ,furnaces with both membrane wall orwelded wall construction and emission-control designed airsystems): H2S (0.075 g/Kg ADP) on a dry gas basis and as a 12-hour average, corrected to 8 volume percent oxygen. (A "New Design" furnace will have stated in its contract a TRS performance guarantee or that itwas desianed with airpollution control as an objective.)


### - 5 ppm of TRS as

Cross recovery furnaces (i.e., furnaces with green liquor sulfiditiesin
excess of 28 percent - and liquor mixtures of more than 7 percent NSSC on an airdry ton basis): average, corrected to 8 volume percent oxygen. 25 ppm of TRS as H2S (0.6 a/Kg ADP) on a dry gas basis and as a 12-hour

10-3Table 

### 10-1, BEST RETROFIT-CONTROL

### TECHNOLOGY AND 

### IMPACT 

### FOR INDIVIDUAL SOURCES IN 

### THE EXISTING 

### KRAFT PULP INDUSTRY Resultant TRS reduction 

### at

### an average kraft Resultant national Best-Demonstrated 

### TRS level mill (%of total 

### TRS reduction control technique achievable mill emissions) (tons/yezr) Source Recovery furnace Process controls 

### + 20 ppm*(Old Design) 

### 44.2

13.0 BLO Digester system Incineration 

### 5 

### PPm + Paultipl e-effect Incineration 

### 5 

### PPm I evaporator system 0 P Lime 

### ki

### 1 

### n Process controls 

### 20 ppm** (inc. high eff. mud 

### washing)

.I 

### Brown stock washer 

### No control 

# - system 8.6 11.9

0 36,500 10,700.

7,050 9,800

0 Black liquor 

### No control oxidation system 

# - 0 0 Smelt 

### dissolving 

### tank 

### Fresh water 0

### .OO84 g/kg BLS 

### 3.7 3,100

', Condensate 

### stripping Incineration 

### 5 

### PPm neg Total 

### % reduction = 

### 81.4 system - neg

# . 67,150
*One percent af

### all twelve-hour TRS ayerages above the spectfied 

### level aye 

### not considered 

### tobe excess 

### emlsslons. **Two percent ofall twelve-hour TRS averages above 20 ppm are 

### not considered 

### tobe excess em-issions.Discussion 

## - The emission guidelines represent the levels that can be achieved by using 

### a two-stage black liquor oxidation system together with good furnace operation. kraft recovery furnaces reflect the dependence of TRS emissions 

### on the design of the furnace, which in

### turn depends 

### on the age of the recovery furnace. the design of the furnace affects the TRS level 

### that can be achieved, the reduction of TRS emissions from the direct contact evaporator necessary 

### to reduce emissions 

### to the level of the guidelines requires the use of high efficiency black liquor oxidation systems regardless of the design of the furnace. recovery furnaces constructed since 1965 are generally considered capable 

### of achieving 5 ppm TRS because the furnace design is basically similar 

### tofurnaces presently being installed which can achieve 5 ppm TRS.’ The 

### two specified levels of TRS emissions 

### for straight

While

Most

Approximately 40 percent of the existing recovery furnaces were constructed after 1965. which were constructed before 1965 generally do 

### not have the appropriate design (i.e., membrane 

### orwelded wall construction and flexibility of airdistribution) 

### or instrumentation necessary for achieving 5 ppm. manufacturers,2y3however, these older furnaces are generally capable 

### of 1imiting TRS emissions 

### to 20 ppm if the furnace is properly operated, uses high efficiency black liquor oxidation, and is 

### not operated 

### at

### an excessive production rate. Recovery furnaces

As confirmed by the 

### two furnace

As mentioned in Chapter 6, cross recovery liquors are somewhat different Consequently, TRS emissions from a cross recovery 

### than straight kraft liquors. furnace are 

### not controllable 

### tothe same degree as are those from straight kraft recovery furnaces. The reasons for this include higher sulfur-tosoda ratios and lower BTU value of the liquor fired. nique of using excess combustion air (high oxygen levels) 

### toreduce TRS emissions is of limited utility because itreportedly results in a sticky Furthermore, the tech10-5dust which will foul the precipitator and render furnace operation difficult
or impossible. Tests performed on a non-contact type cross-recovery furnace indicate that TRS emission levels of 25 ppm (12-houraverage) can be achieved from well controlled cross recovery furnaces.4 Appendix B 

### presents TRS emission data for straight kraft recovery furnaces and a cross recovery furnace. Retrofit annualized costs for installing a second stage of black liquor oxidation are about $240,000 for a 907 megagramslday (1,000 tons ADP/day) mill. Retrofit costswould 1,. double if a mill does not presently have a single stage of oxidation. Annualized costs, including capital charges, areestimated tobe about $0.75 per ton ADP, or about 0.25 percent ofthe pulp price toinstall
a second stage ofblack liquor oxidation.
excessive. These costs are not considered

Itappears that approximately 18recovery furnaces may not be able to achieve 20 ppm TRS because the furnaceeither does not have sufficient control for proper combustion or is operated atan excessive production rate and cannot supply sufficientoxygen toachieve good combustion. Studies have demonstrated that minimum TRS emissions arenot achieved 

### unless residual oxygen content of the flue gas is inthe range of 2.5 to4.5 percent. overloading ofthe furnace can exist regardless of the age of the furnace.) 

### these furnaces are required to achieve the emission guideline, a 

### new furnace would have tobe installed (atan annualized cost of about $2.3 million for a 500 tons 

### per day furnace) tocompensate for the cutback on production of an 

### existing furnace.
are atleast 20 years old [this age 

### is near the normal life (25years) of a furnace, considering the compliance schedule undm Section 111(d)) and may be
near rep1acement. (Low oxygen levels due to If

Many ofthe recovery furnaces that would have to be replaced

10-6An alternative toreplacing an old furnace would be to install a scrubber system, as mentioned inSection 6.11, which is capable of achieving less than 20 ppm TRS. Installation and operation of such a system is expected 

### tobe a much less expensive alternative than replacement of the furnace. A scrubber system has been installed atone mill.5

The emission guidelines for recovery furnaces are comparable 

### tothe emission levelswhich existing furnaces in Oregon and Washington are required tomeet
as of July, 1975 (17.5 ppm).6 The 17.5 ppm level represents the level that can be achieved by most existing recovery furnaces, and the 1983 Oregon and Washington level of 5 ppm represents the level achievable withthe newer design furnaces and a1lows time for the replacement ofolder furnaces (non-membranewall construction). The estimated impact of adoption of the emission guideline

### on annual TRS emissions from recovery furnaces is 33,470 megagrams per year, 

### an 85 percent reduction. 'The predicted maximum ambient air TRS concentration due toemissions from an uncontrolled recovery furnace would decrease by 96 

### to 99 percent with the recommended control technology. 10.2.2 Digester System Emission Guideline

## - 5 parts per million 

### of TRS as 

### H2S on 

### a dry gas basis and as a 12-houraverage. Discussion 

## - This TRS level is the same as that included inthe new source performance standards for new digester systems. by incineration of the noncondensable gases. and several other states are required toincinerate the noncondensable gases from digester systems as of July, 1975.7 It is estimated that adoption of this control technology will result ina reduction of 99 percent in the uncontrolled TRS emitted from a digester system. The 5 ppm level is achievable Existing mills inOregon, Washington,

10-7The TRS level achievable by incineration of noncondensable 

### aases from digester systems has been well-demonstrated as reported in Section 6.1.2. gases from the digester system can be handled in the lime kiln as Dart of the combustion airwithout requirinq extensive modification tothe diaester system 

### or lime kiln. is presently being accomplished by atleast 60 mills. inciperation systems were retrofitted to the existing mills. The

Incineration of the gases in lime kilns or in power boilers Nearly all of these

Incineratim is 

### so far the only control option capable ofproviding high efficiency TR3 reduction. would result from control by white liquor scrubbers (seeChapter 6). scrubbers are effective incontrolling H2S and methyl mercaptan which comnrise only approximately 20 percent of the TRS emissions from digester systems. A thousand-fold increase inemissi

### ons to approximately 7000 pDm These

If the emission guide1ines were increased moderately

### ,incineration costs would not vary greatly. lime kiln isessentially fixed regardless of the selected emission level. existing kraft pulp mills incinerate these gases in the lime kiln and normal kiln operation will oxidize the TRS compounds to less than 5 ppm. The cost of collecting and burning the gases in the Most

Retrofit annualized costs are estimated 

### to range from about $65,000 to about $210,000 for a 454 megagram mill 

### ,or about $0.40 to$1.25/T ADP. The low value represents costs forpiping only, while the high value represents costs for pipina, blow heat recovery system, and 

### a seoarate incinerator. These costs are not considered excessive. The estimated impact of adoption of best retrofit contro annual TRS emissions from rlicester systems is sianificant, 11 year or a 97 percent reduction from uncontrolled levels. techno1ocly on 800 meaarwams per

10-810.2.3 Multiple-Effect Evaporator System Emission Guideline

## - 5 

### parts per million of TRS as H2S 

### on a dry gas basis and 

### as a 12-hour average. Discussion 

## - This TRS level is also the same as that inthe new source performance standards for new multiple-effect evaporator systems. that achievement of this level will require a reduction of 98 percent of the TRS emitted from an uncontrolled mu1tiple-effect evaporator system. Incineration is capable of achieving this level. Existing mills inOregon, Washington, and several other States arerequired to incinerate these gases as of July, 1975. Itis estimated

8 The TRS level achievable by incineration has been well-demonstrated as reported inthe Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement document for new kraft pulp mills.
can easily be handled in the lime kiln as part of the combustion airwithout requiring extensive modifications to be. made to the multiple-effect evaporator The non-condensable gases from the multiple-effect evaporators

system 

### or the lime kiln. boilers is presently being accomplished by 

### atleast 59 mills. these incineration systems were retrofitted 

### toexisting mu1tiple-effect evaporator systems. Incineration of these gases in lime kilns or inpower The majority of
Incineration is

### so farthe only control option capable ofproviding high efficiency TRS reduction. (seeSection 6.1.3) would be required 

### to allow the use of white liquor scrubbers. scrubbers have only about a 90 percent TRS collection efficiency when used 

### on the noncondensable gases from a multiple-effect evaporator system. A sixty-fold increase inTRS emissions 

### to approximately 300 ppm These

If the emission guidelines were increased moderately, incineration costs would 

### not vary greatly. The control costs are mainly for collecting and transferring the gases to the control device whether incineration or scrubbing is practiced.

10-9Most existing kraft pulp mills incinerate the gases in the lime kiln along with the digester gases, and normal lime kiln operations oxidize the gases to less than 5 ppm TRS. Retrofit costs for incineration of the noncondensable gases from the multiple-effect evaporators are included in the retrofit costs reported for the digester system (Section 10.2.2). Estimated impact of adoption of best retrofit technology 

### on annual TRS emissions from multiple-effect evaporator systems is significant, 6,120 megagrams (6,750 tons) per year 

### or 

### a 96 percent reduction. 10.2.4 Lime Kiln Emission Guideline

## - 20 ppm of TRS 

### as H2S 

### on a dry gas basis and as 

### a 12-hour average, corrected to 10volume percent oxygen. Discussion 

## - The specified level reflects the dependence of TRS emissions
on the operation of the kiln. level and cold-end temperature, and using water that does 

### not contain dissolved sulfides in the particulate control scrubber. Existing mills will probably need 

### to improve their lime mud washing efficiency (additional filtration and clarifier capacity) 

### toreduce the sulfide level of mud fed 

### tothe kiln. This requires maintaining the proper oxygen

Additional fan capacity may be necessary 

### toobtain the required oxygen 'levels inexisting kilns and thereby provide dppropriate control over the combustion. no apparent reasons why these changes cannot be made 

### to existing kilns. installation of 

### a condensate stripper may be required 

### toremove sulfides from the condensate if it

### is used inthe particulate control scrubber. Appendix B presents TRS emission data, which were obtained during the NSPS 

### program, 

### for several lime kilns 

### thatachieve this level. There are Furthermore,.

10-10Retrofit annualized costs for additional fan capacity 

### (toachieve higher oxygen levels) and instrumentation are about $55,000 for 

### a 458 megagramslday (500 

### ton ADP/day) mi11. capacity are about $90,000. incurred if 

### a condensate stripper is needed 

### to remove the sulfides from the scrubbing water. These annualized costs, including capital charges, are estimated 

### tobe about $0.90 per 

### ton ADP if 

### a condensate stripper is 

### not needed and about $1.50 per 

### ton ADP if one is needed. These costs are 

### not considered excessive. Retrofit annualized costs for additional mud washing An additional $90,000 in retrofit annualized costs would be

The impact of adoption of best demonstrated retrofit control technology 

### on TRS emissions from kraft lime kilns is significant, 

### an 84 percent reduction (9,800 tonslyear) from existing levels. Maximum ambient TRS concentration due 

### toan uncontrolled lime kilnwould be reduced by 83 percent. Lower TRS levels than the emission guideline are achievable as stated in Section 6.1.4 and 

### as reflected in the proposed standard for new lime kilns (8ppm TRS). scrubbing. The lower TRS level is achievable with the addition of caustic
Many existing lime kilns are operating in excess of design capacity, and some of these kilns, even with improved mud washing efficiency, may 

### not be able 

### toachieve TRS levels significantly lower than 40 ppm because of the inability 

### to supply sufficient oxygen for good combustion. between 20 and 33 lime kilns (corresponding 

### to about 20 percent of the existing kilns) would have 

### tobe replaced 

### or added in order 

### to achieve 20 Dpm TRS by aDplyina the best retrofit control technology discussed above (see Chapter 8). costs 

### for 

### a new lime kiln are $3 million, and annualized costs are 

### $510,000. Itappears that

Capital
The lower TRS emission level of 8 ppm is

### not recommended as 

### an emiss 

### on guideline


### so that the number of kiln replacements isminimized. 

### of those mills which cannot achieve 20 ppm from the lime kiln by applying process The higher level 

### a so allows some

10-11controls and improved mud washing 

### to apply caustic scrubbing 

### to achieve the guideline rather than replacing 

### or adding a new lime kiln. pulp mill showed that levels 

### of 40 

### to 50 ppm TRS could be reduced 

### toa level less-

### than 20 ppm by using caustic additi~n.~ is technically achievable 

### atexisting mills and can be imposed if the location of the mill 

### or lime kiln warrants additional controls. The results of trials conducted 

### atone
Nevertheless, the lower TRS level

10.2.5 

### Brown Stock Washer System Emission Guideline 

## - No emission guideline is recommended for existing brokn stock washer systems. Discussion 

## - No TRS control is recommended due 

### to the high costs associated with hooding and collecting the gases and the possible effect the gases may have


### on existing recovery furnace operation. Incineration of the vent gases is the emission control technique 

### that could be used 

### toreduce TRS emissions from 

### brown stock washer systems. Burning these gases in 

### an existing recovery furnace is considered by furnace manufacturers 

### tobe technologically feasible. been demonstrated 

### on an existing furnace, and the TRS level 

### thatcan be achieved from 

### an existing furnace under these conditions has 

### not been demonstrated. control costs 

### for incineration, therefore, have been based 

### on the use of a separate incinerator. possibly with enclosed hoods, and ductwork would be necessary 

### totransfer the gases 

### tothe incinerator. 

### at some mills if the recovery furnace was used.) separate incinerator would require retrofit annualized costs of about $900,000 for 

### a 454 meqaqram mill 

### or about $5.50/T ADP. 10 This control technique, however, has not yet
The

Incineration of the gases would require 

### that the washer be hooded,
(These gases would have 

### tobe ducted over 1500 feet Incineration of gases in

### a
These costs are much more

10-12

# a

severe than retrofit costs for the other TRS sources and are considered 

### tobe excessive in comparison with control of the other sources of TRS and with the 

### amount of TRS reduction achieved (about 

### 1 percent of total mill TRS emissions). 10.2.6 Black Liquor Oxidation System Emission Guideline 

## - No emission guideline is recommended for existing black liquor oxidation systems. Discussion 

## - No TRS control is recommended due 

### tothe expected cost impact 

### on the industry if existing sources were required 

### tomeet TRS levels achievable for new systems. uncontrolled level) than that considered demonstrated for new sources. There is 

### no less stringent control method possible (except for the
Achievable control technology involves incineration of the vent gases or the use ofmolecular oxygen instead of air 

### to eliminate the vent gases. of controlling the low concentration/high volume gases from black liquor 

### oxidation systems is considered more severe and excessive incomparison with controlling the largest sources of TRS at kraft mills (see Section 10.3). The control costs for incineration have been based 

### on the use of 

### a separate incinerator, since the effect of these oxygen-deficient gases 

### on furnace combustion and thus TRS emissions from existing furnaces has 

### not been determined. costs are estimated 

### tobe $230,000 for a 500 TPD kraft mill, 

### or $1.50/T ADP. These costs are considered excessive inview of the 

### amount of TRS reduction 

### that would be achieved by incineration (about 0.4 percent of total mill TRS emissions). 10.2.7 Condensate Stripping System The cost

Retrofit annualized

Emission Guideline 

### - 5 parts per million of TRS as 

### H2S 

### on a dry gas basis and as 

### a 12-hour average.

10-13Discussion 

### - This emission guideline is the same as thatincluded inthe
new source performance standards fornew condensate stripping systems. Only five existing mills have condensate strippers, and only one is not present incinerating the off-gases. Incineration ofthe off-gases 

### is necessary to achieve this TRS level. Retrofit annualized costs based on combining the stripper off-gases 

### w the noncondensable gas from the digesters and evaporators are estimated toY

th be about $6,500

### fora 500-ton-per-day mill or about $0.05/T ADP.
on the industry due t, control of

### this facilityis expected tobe negligible. The cost impact


### Use of a white liquor scrubber, the only other control technique used, would permit TRS emissions which are 100-fold higher than with incineration. These TRS levels from scrubbers could be highly odorous. 10.2.8 Smelt Dissolving Tank Emission Guideline

## - 0.0084 g/kg BLS of TRS as H2S (approximately 8 ppm)

### , on a 12-hour average. Discussion 

## - This emission guideline 

### is also the same as that included in the new source performance standards for

### new smelt dissolving tanks. Achievement of 

### this level would require the 

### use of fresh water, orpossibly weak wash liquor, inthe particulate control device (scrubber) 

### toensure compliance. The control costa forachieving 

### this level are not considered excessive. Adoption of this level 

### is expected to result inan emission reduction of about 2720 megagrams (3000 tons) per year of TRS. 10.2.9 Excess Emissions Excess emissions are defined 

### as emissions exceeding the numerical Continuous emission emission limit included in 

### an emission guideline. monitoring, however, will identify all periods Gf excess emissions, including those which are not the result ofimproper operation and maintenance and
19-14therefore are not tobe considered as violations. Excess emissions due 

### to start-ups shutdowns and malfunctions forexample, are unavoidable or beyond the control of an owner 

### or operator and cannot be attributed toimproper operation and maintenance. result 

### of some inherent variability 

### or fluctuation within a process which influences emissions cannot be attributed toimproper oDeration and maintenance, unless these fluctuations could be controlled by more carefully attending tothose process operating parameters during routine operation which have 1ittleeffect on operati

### on of the process

### , butwhich may have a significant effect 

### on emissions. Similarly, excess emissions 

### as a

To quantify the potential forexcess emissions due toinherent variability in a process, continuous emission monitoring data are used whenever possible 

### to calculate 

### an excess emission allowance. kraft pulp mills, this allowance is defined 

### as follows. calendar quarter is divided intodiscrete contiguous twelve-hour time periods, the excess emission allowance is expressed as the percentaqe of these time periods excess emissions may occur as the result of unavoidable variabi1ity within the kraft pulping process. allowance represents the potential 

### for excess emissions under conditions of proper operation and maintenance, in the absence of start-ups 2nd malfunctions, and is used 

### as a guideline 

### or screening mechanism for interpreting the data generated by the excess emission reporting requirements. The definitions of excess emissions for recovery furnaces and lime kilns are discussed below. For If a

Thus, the excess emissions
shutdowns,

Recovery Furnace Systems 

## - A pulpmanufacturer submitted six months of TRS emission data from one of their new design recovery furnaces and equested that EPA consider the data in defining excess T!?S emissions from recovery furnace facilities. deve oping the data upon which the new source performance standard is The furnace was tested by EPA in

1r)-15based. The submitted data, recorded by a continuous monitor, show that over the 6-month period, the percent of time that the TRS concentration exceeded 5 ppm during each month ranged from 0 to4.9 percent and averaged about 1 percent innormal operation (including load changes). EPA has investigated the furnace operation and the monitoring system at this milland believes that the data are a true indicationof normal 

### , well controlled operation forthis furnace. For cross recovery furnaces similar excess emissions can be predicted. For old drsign recovery furnaces, no such continuous monitoringdata are available. However, considering that the excess emissions a1lowance must represent the potential for excess emissions due to inherent reliability inthe process itselfand that the stringency of the standard for new design furnaces isat least comparable tothat for old design furnaces, it appears reasonable touse the same excess emissions allowance. Therefore, based on that information, an allowance of 1 percent ofthe 12-hour averages has been given for excess TRS emissions above the guideline. Lime Kiln

## - Test data on a 4-hour basis (see Appendix B) were supplied by a mill (Lime Kiln

### P) that had retrofitted the lime kiln system with additional fan capacity and mud washing capacity. These data give an indication ofthe variations inthe emission concentrations over a large number of four-hour periods. when the millwas maintaining good process controls (high cold end temperatures, high oxygen levels, and high mud solids contents) on the kiln, the four-hour average TRS concentrations exceeded 20 ppm for approximately 11 percent ofthe time.” However, during this same periodthe mud filter (belt filter) was inoperative for 0 percent ofthe time. However, process and emission monitoring data obta ned on Lime KilnE (see Appendix B) show excess TRS emissions of2 percent on a 4-hour average basis over The data show that for the period

10-16the 8 ppm level with down t percent. From the comparison of the mud filter on Lime Kilnme on the mud filter (vacuum drum) of only 1

those two sets ofdata, itwas feltthat had P been operating properly, as had that of Lime KilnE, there would have been excess emissions only 2 percent ofthe time, insteadof 11 percent, on a 4-hour average basis. averaging period, Lime Kiln E should have no excess emissions during normal operation.12 KilnP. With a 12-hour
However, the data do not support this conclusion for Lime
Therefore, it isfelt that with a reliable mud filtering system and maintaining good process controls on the kiln, the 12-hour average TRS concentrations will exceed 20 ppm for no more than 2 percent ofthe time. isadvised for excess TRS emissions above the guideline. 10.3 SUMFIARY OF THE RATIONALE FOR SELECTING THE BEST RETROFIT CONTROL SYSTEM Hence, an allowance of a maximum 2 percent ofthe 12-hour averages

The proposedTRS emission limits for new kraft pulp mills are technologically achievable atexisting kraft pulp millswhen the best control techniques discussed above are applied toeach ofthe eight coniponent process operations. are considered excessive for some existing mills, inpart because some techniques involve rep1acement of recovery furnaces or 1ime ki 1ns. alternative control techniques which are effective but less costly are available for some process operations. Therefore, the cost ofapplying the various control techniques had a considerable influence on the selection of the recommended best retrofitcontrol technology (alternative control system No. 4 for an entire kraftmill). However, the costs ofapplying the best control techniques
Further,

Control of the brown stock washer system and black liquor oxidation system (alternative control system No. 1) are not recommended because incineration ofthese vent gases ina separate incineratorwould result 10-17

# a

in excessive operating costs and fuel requirements in comparison tothe TRS reduction achieved by the control technique. Incineration ofthese gases in 

### an existing recovery furnace is 

### not presently considered 

### tobe demonstrated retrofit technology. 

### tohandle these gases has demonstrated the ability 

### toburn these gases and still maintain proper combustion for controlling TRS emissions from 

### No existing recovery furnace 

### not designed

the furnace itself. The emissi

### on guideline recomnended for 20 ppm 

### for "old design" furnaces, 5 ppm for ppm for cross recov6,y furnaces. The older achieving 5 ppm and 

### a large number of exist existing recovery furnaces is "new design" furnaces, and 25 furnaces are 

### not capable of ng furnaces would most likely have 

### tobe replaced if such 

### a level was required. required for each type of furnace tomeet the recommended levels is two-stage black liquor oxidation and process controls. The control technique

Incineration of the noncondensable gases 

### from the digesters, multipleeffect evaporators, 

### or condensate strippers in the lime kiln has been demonstrated 

### atmany existing mills. Therefore, since the control costs are 

### not excessive, the emission guideline recommended is the same as the
new source perfonnance standard (5ppm TRS) for new kraft pulp mills, An emission guideline of 20 ppm TRS is recommended for existing lime kilns. 20 ppm 

### can be achieved with proper kiln operation and sufficient mud washing efficiency. be necessary formost existing kilns. Lower TRS levels are achievable, but several additional lime kilns would have 

### tobe replaced or added in order 

### toachieve 

### a level of 8 ppm TRS. Emission data obtained during the NSPS program show that Larger fans and additional mud washing capacity wi11

The emission guideline recomnended for snl?ltaissolving tanks will probably prevent the use of contaminated condensate in the tank and the

10-18particulate control device, if one is used. already 

### for controlling particulates, one may have 

### tobe installed 

### to reduce TRS emissions from 

### an existing smelt dissolving 

### tank 

### tothe recommended guidel i ne. If 

### a scrubber is

### not used

The best retrofit technologies (alternative control system 

### No. 4) will produce 

### a large reduction in national TRS emissions (67,15r3 tons/year) and in ambient TRS concentrations 

### around existing mills. 10.4 SELECTION 

### OF THE FORMAT OF THE EMISSION GUIDELINES Standards for kraft pulp mills could be expressed in terms of either
mass emissions per unit of production 

### or 

### a concentration 

### of pollutant in the effluent gases. The 

### most common 

### format 

### now used by the industry and state control agencies is pounds of pollutant per 

### ton of air-dried unbleached pulp produced (lb/T ADP). This format offers the advantage of preventing circumvention of the standards by the addition of dilution 

### air
or the use of excessive quantities of air in process operations. principal disadvantage is that 

### a control agency cannot readily 

### or accurately measure the pulp production over the short term. storage capacity of the mill, the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving 

### tank, 1ime kiIn, condensate strippers, black 1iquor oxidation tanks, andThe

Due 

### to

maltiple-effect evaporators can be operating 

### on accumulated inventories when the digesters are off-stream (nbpulp production). Similarly, the above facilities 

### can be operating below capacity even though the pulp production may be 

### atdesign rates. Concentration units are used as the format for the emissi'on guidelines for the digesters, the mu1tip1 e-effect evaporators the lime kiln, and the condensate stripping system. selection of this format are outlined below: the recovery furnace, The reasons forthe



### a. Concentration units can be corrected for excess oxygen in the lime

10-19kiln and recovery furnace exhaust streams, precluding circumvention ofthe standards by dilution. b. The reference test method for TRS produces data inconcentration units. compliance forthe affected facilities. 

### No conversion factors are therefore required indetermining

c. Average concentrations rather than instantaneous concentrations are proposed to allow for fluctuations inemissions which occur even during periods of normal operation. d. Commercially available continuous monitors that may be used to measure emissions from these facilities indicate concentration directly. A direct indication of performance of the control systems would be available, and therefore the operator would be aware of excess emissions that require corrective action. The emission guideline for smelt dissolving tanks isexpressed in grams per kilogram BLS (g/kg BLS). correcting for excess oxygen because the exhaust stream discharged from the smelt dissolving tank ismostly ambient air. Dilution cannot be prevented by

10.5 RECO!+IENDED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Monitoring requirements are necessary toensure proper operation and maintenance of the affected facility and itsassociated control system. The volume concentration ofTRS emissions can be monitored by use 

### of measurement systems (see Chapter 7). trol device parameters that are appropriate indicators of concentratian of TRS emissions from recovery furnace systems and lime kilns, it is recommended that TRS continuous monitors be required for recovery furnaces and lime kilns; however, it isalso recommended that those requirements not become effective until promulgation of performance specifications forTRS monitors. Since there are 

### no process or con

## io-zaTRS concentrations inthe effluent gases from an incinerator that controls TRS emissions (fromthe digesters, multiple-effect evaporators, and/or condensate strippers) can be measured by a continuous monitoring system. An effective alternative method of monitoringTRS emissions from an incinerator iscontinuous measuring and recording ofthe fire box temperature of540°C (1OOOOF) and operation at a residence time of at least one-half second inthe fire box. residence time thatwill not be reduced ifthe incinerator isnot operated above itsdesign capacity. and recorded. the guidelines are incinerated inthe recovery furnace orthe lime kiln, the TRS monitoring system on the furnace orthe lime kilnwillserve tomonitor the sources that are being incinerated. Incinerators are designed for a particular

The fire box temperature can be readily measured Ifnoncondensable gases from facilities that are covered by

Since the guideline for smelt dissolving tanks isexpressed ina format of pollutant mass per unit offeed tothe furnace, the gas flow rate and the feed ratetothe furnace would have tobe measured simultaneously toreduce the TRS concentrations measured by the monitor tounits ofthe The inaccuracies involved incontinuously measuring sufficiently large t dissolving tank recommended guideline. emissions from the that no direct mon is recommended. sme tor t dissolving tank are felttobe ng ofTRS emissions from the sme

10-21References for Chapter 10 

### 1. 

### Letter from J. W. Kesner of Babcock and Wilcox Company 

### toJames Eddinger of EPA, dated May 

### 27, 1975. 

### 2. Presentation 

### given by Julius Gomni of Combustion Engineering 

### atthe 

### NAPCTAC meeting in Raleigh, 

### North Carolina, on March 3, 1977. 3. 

### Op. cit.

### ,Reference 

### 1. 4. 

### A Report on the Study of 

### TRS Emissions from a NSSC 

## - Kraft Recovery Boiler, Container Corporation of America, 

### March 9, 1977. 5. Considerations in

### the Design forTRS and Particulate Recovery 

### from Effluents of Kraft Recovery Furnaces, Teller, 

### A. J., and 

### Amberg, h. 

### r.

### , Preprint

### ,TAPPI Environmental Conference, Hay, 1975. 6. Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans Rules and Regulations, prepared by 

### the MITRE Corporation for

### the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0248, July, 1972. 

### 7. Op. cit., 

### Reference 6. 8. Op. cit.

### ,Reference 6. 9. Telephone conversation 

### between Larry Weeks of Hoerner-Waldorf Corporation and James Eddinger of

### EPA 

### on September 6, 1977. 10. 

### Op. cit.

### ,Reference 

### 1. 11. 

### Letter from Richard 

### C. 

### Wigger of Champion International Corporation to Don R. Goodwin 

### of EPA, dated June 13, 1977. 

### 12. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 11: Promulgated Standards 

### of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills, EPA-450/2c76-014b, December, 1977.

10-22

### APPENDIX A



### SUMMARY OF KRAFT MILLS

IN THE UNITED STATES

A-1i Company 

### --~

A1abamd Allied Paper American Can Champion Container Corp. Gerogia Kraft Gulf States Gulf States Hainnermill I.P. Kimberly-C1ark MacMi11an

Bloedel Scott Union Camp Southwest Forest Arizona Arkansas Georgia-Pacific Great Northern Green Bay I.P. I.P. Weyerhaeuser Location

I_ - --. Jackson Bulter Court1 and Brewton Mahrt Oempo1i s Tuscaloosa Selma Mobi1 e Coosa Pines Plne Hill Mobile Montgomery Snowflake Crossett Ashdown Morri1 ton Camden Pine Bluff Pine Bluff Mill Size Avp

### . Kraft Prod. (Kraft (Cap.) 

# -..:e.

..

500 (408) 930 500 (500) 900 (850) 1000 (400) 500 (5001 1300 (1200) 585 (600) 1000 (975) (900)
';;I 

# (g)

1400 (1400)

870 (930) 600 (600) 1250 400

750 (750) 1220 (1

300) 200 (200) Recovery Furnace control3 TRS , No. of Rating Year Technique Units Manuf. tpd -Instal. - ... . - - 

# . 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 ' CE BkW B6W BkW BkY BkW BkW BkW B6W CE

CE BkW CE BLW CE CE CE BkW BkW BkW CE 566 post-1965 BLO 350 post-1965 1959.1 956 390(each) 1965 BLO 600 1968 BLO 390 1962 BLO 600 1969 Low Odor 900 1965 330 1955 BLO 175 1947 BLO 250 1941 (oxygen) 450 BLO 7

00 1970 BLO BLO 900 post-1965

932 post-1965 BLO 450;300 pre 1965 BLO

700 pre 1965 BLO aoo

250 1960 500 1969 2006500

850 540 665 250 500 2-275 1100 390 165 pre 1965 BLO pre 1965 POst-1 965 post-1965 1965 1966 1946 1966 1959 pre 1965 Leve 1' #/T ADP 0.5 0.5 0.11 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.E 0.5 0.5 15.0 0.6 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0

i iinc- inciaeration B - Batch BLO - Black Liquor Oxidation 3C - Continuous

A-2

# a

nits

1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

2
1
4 1
2 2 1 1

1 Lime Kiln Size TRS >.of Tons (Ca0)Level Per Day #lTADP127 157 each 181 123

120 130 75 125

225 1400 (total) 174

400 117

150 0.8 0.8 0.05 0.8 1 0.8 0.8 o.a 0.2 "0. 4 6 1 8 1 1 8 4

6 1 1 13

1 6 11 4 2 2
3 Type' Tech- (Size) Batch

B C B C C B (495)

B (600

B C (250)

C (925) B (910) C (500) C (500 tpd1

(400 tpd1

1870I

B
E (1276)

8 (4iO)

C

B Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc. Inc.

Inc.

Inc. Level4 #/TADP

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02
0.02 0.02 1.5
0.02 1.5 1.5 0.02 1.5 1.5 No. 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1

1
4 1 2
4 1 1

1 Mu1 tiple-ef fect Evaporator Control TRS Tech- Level' nique-.- T(TADP Inc. ' 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 scrub.

inc. Inc. inc. inc. inc. inc.

Inc. o.oa 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.92 0.32 1.o
0.02 1.o 1.o 1.o 100 1.o Brown Stock !dasher TRS Capacity gasher ~evel' No. - lWTPD Stazes #/TADP

1 3 0.3

2 3 4 1 2 1 3 2 300 3 475 4 1 600 3

3

1 3

Uncontrolled figures given are average uncontrolled figures for the industry unless actual level knwn, controlled levels given are actual flgures when known otherwise state standard isgiven. state standard a 1 or actual level known a level of .1 BIT (70 ppm) isassue!, ,aec;"p:;i;: table showlrg the corr'espondlnq einfss~onrate interms of pp6 and g/Kg AD? 1s presented at the en! Furnaces controlled with BLO but foryhich no

A- 3Mill Size Avg. Kraft 1: Prod. (Kraft) (Cap.) Company Location tpd Laii- Crwn Slmpson Fafrha ven 550 (550) fornia 'Fibreboard Louislana-Pac. Simpson Lee Florida Alton Box Container Corp. -Hudson P & P

I. P. Proctor 1Gamble St. Joe St. Regis St. Regis Georgia Continental Can
Continental Can Brunswick Georgia Kraft Georgia Kraft Gi

lman Great Northern Interstate Itt Rayonier Antioch Samoa AnderSW Jacksonvi1le Fernandine Beach Palatda Panama City Fo1 ey Part St. Joe Jacksonvf1le Pensacola Augusta

Port b!entworth Brunswick Krannert flacon St. Mary Cedar Springs Riceboro Jesup '8907 600 (700) 150 (160) 675 (650) 1500 (1

700) 950- (950) 1400 (1400)

900 1300 (1

300) 1350 (1400)

(920 800 (800) (900)

625 (600 1550 (1550)

1550 (1550)

900 1100 1780 (1

700) 525 (550) 1200 (1

250) (9001 (1000) Recovery Furnace control3 TRS No. of Rating Year Tech- Level Units Hanuf. tpd Instal. nique +i/T MP

1 $hh' 800 1964 BLO 0.5 2 2 2
1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2

2 2 3
2 3 2 1 3 BIW CE BIW CE Rkw B8L' CF CE BLY CF CE CF PRW B1W

CE B1U CF CE
CE BhV tE RhW RhIJ BW TE rF 400 1959 BLO 0.6 350(each)pre 1965 BLO 0.5

150 1962 EL0 6.5 300 1973 Low Odor 750 DOSt-1965 BLU 0.5 1000 1967 Low Odor 0.15 300 1955 PLO(0xvaen) 250(each)195081954

~ . 900(each)post-1965 RLn 4131550 1952L1956

500 ore 1965 2336300 ore 1965 300&383 ore-1965 800(each) 1973 Low ndor 400( each)l95961964 BL0

1200 DOS~-1965

1060 DOSt-1965

350(each)

1100 1970 Low Odor 450 ore 1965 EL0 3001550 pre 1965

300 pre 1965 500 1968 BLO 2-275 ore 1965

500 DOSt-1965

665 ore 1965 Lou Odor 1000 1072 Low Odor 450 1065 1100
. 1970 Lor Odor A658359 pre 1965 RLn 0.5 I 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.15 0.6

15.0 0.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 0.5 15.0 0.6

A-4t

i t 2
b t t E



# I I 0 f.0 E f.0 E L 01 0'1 80'0



# I

0'1 20'0

1.

0'1 0'1
80'0 20'0 20'0 L 2

2
t 0 2

2 0 E E E
E t 2 S'l 3 20'0 .'UL E 8 (005)3' (ooft)8 8 (0001)

8 3 S'L 8 (OOL) 5'1 8 92 9 t L 01 EL 8 tl Ll 6

2 81 21 1 01 61

EL L L 9 1 1 1 D 2'0

8'0 8'0
50'0 21'0 SO'O E 1 2 L 1 E E L 1 1 E E E E

E 2 2 L 1 2Mill Size I' Avg

### . Kraft Prod. (Kraft)

(Cap.1 Compaqy Location tPd 

## - Georgia Owens-Illinois Union Camp Potlatch Idaho

Kentucky Western Kraft Westvaco Boise Cascade Boise Cascade Continental Carl Crown Zellerbach Crown Zellerbach Georgia-Pacific I.P. I.P. Olin Pineville Louisi ana

Western Kraft .Biamnd Int. Matrle Georgia-Pacific I.P. Lincoln Valdosta 950 Savannah 2600 (2550) Lewiston 850 (900)

Hawesvi11e 300 (320) Wick1i ffe '600' (600) (1050) (325) (1400) DeRidder 1030 Eli zabeth 300 Hodge 1400 Bogalvsa '1340' (1350) St. Francisville 500 (500) Port Hudson 530 (6401 Bustrop 1100 Springhill 1000 1650 West Monroe 1125 (1150) Pinevi1le 800 (750) Campti 450 Old Town 350 Woodland

Lincoln '340. (400) Recovery Furnace control3 TRS No. of Rating 'fear Tech- ~e~~l Units Manuf. tpd Insta. nique #/T ADP

- 3 6
4

2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 4 2 1
1 1 2 2 1 CE CE CE Ba(W

B6W CE B6W B6W B6W CE CE B6W B6W CE CE B&W CE B6W B8W CE Baw

Baw

MY Baw BELW Baw CE B&W 3506250 pre-196; BLO 2.1 1350 post-1965 EL0 2.1 pre -1

965 300 1954 BLO 400 1970 Low Odor 6 1508300 pre-1965 BLO 0.5

225 1968 BLO 0.15 300 1974 833 post-1965 BLO 0.5
1000 1968 BLO 0.6 BLO 2.1 300 1955 BLO 2.1 800 1963 BLO 2.1 350 pre-1965 600 1963 EL0 2.1 690 1965 BLO 0.6 1233 post-1965

1000 Dost-1965 300 pre-1965 BLO 2.1 1100 1966 2-700;500 1973:66;62 BLO 0.6 350 pre-1965. 450 1963 BLO 2.1 800 1974 Low Odor 833 pre-1965 BLO 2.1
420 1972 Low Odor C.15 590 1969 Low Odor 0.15 350(each) 1963 EL0 0.5 800 1974 Low Odor 0.15 600 pre-1965 BLO ' 386 1970 Low Odor 0.15

A-6Lime Kilns ).of Tons (CaG) Level Tits Per Oay 4/T ADF Size TRS

I 3 3

1 1
1 1 2 1

1

1 1

1

1 ,. 0.8 525 0.8 400 0.2

0.2 0 80 60 0.05 Io ! 75 I I 471

150

200 200 I

0.2 01 150 0.8 0.05 100 01 1: 1 4 No. (Size) nique iiir t\DP

Digester Control Type Tech- Level

9,B ! 1.5 34 B

# tP%) 1.5 11, 6 (120) inc. 0.02 1 C (600)
1 C

3 B inc. 0.02 1 C inc. 0.02 7 B 1.5 (320) (600)
6 B 1.5 3 C inc. 2 C (250) 1 C 0.02 (300) (1650) 34 B (1250) 1.5 inc. 0.02 1 C inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 2 C (660) 1.5 4 C inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 21c (12901 1 (840) I ,I=. 0.02



### i1 IC !c ' (600) C 

### ' (600) C (400) inc. inc. inc. 0.02 0.02 0.02 Mu1 tiple-effect. Evaporator I

Control TRS 1, Tech- Level No. nique ji/T ADP

3 1.o 6 1.o
4 inc. 0.02

1 1
1 1 2 4

1

2 1

1

1 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 1.o 1.o inc. 0-02 1.o inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 1.n 1.o inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02

0.0 inc. 0.0 inc. 0.0 inc.

.0.0 Brown Stock IJasher TRS Capacity Washer Level D. ADTPD Stages #/T ADP
3 4

1 3 1 2

1 4'

1 2

4 2 2

1 4 0.3 0.3
0.3

0.3 0.3 

### 1 1 

# 1 1 

# 1 ! 1 1 

## 1

1 1 1

1 6.02 0.3

A- 7Mill Size 1: Avg

### . Kraft Prod. (Kraft)

(Cap.) Company Location tPd 

## -Ma?ne Oxford S. 0. Warren Maryland
Michigan Westvaco Mead Scott Minnesota Boise Cascade Pot1 atch M4ssi ssi ppiI.P. I.P. I.P. St. Regis
Hoerner

### -Wa1 dorf Montana

New

Hampshire
N. York Brown
I.P. N.Carolina Champion Federal Hoerner-Waldorf Weyerhaeuser Weyerhaeuser I Rwnford Westbrook Luke Escanaba Muskegon Int'l Falls Cloquet
Moss Point Natchez Vicksburg Monticello Missoula

Berlin-Garham Ticonderoga Canton Ri

ege1 woad Roanoke Rapids New Bern Plymouth 550 (560) 270 (300 719 (6471 600 (600) 240 (225) 320 (350) 400 (330) 715 1000 (1000) 1200 (1200) 1620 (1

650) 1150 (1200)

750 (750) 590 (460) 1360 (1

360) 1100 (1050)

950 (950) 640 (625) 1350 (I500) ...

3 4 Recovery Furnace Control io. of & Rating Year Tech- Level hits Manuf. tpd Instal. nique P/TADP

2 1
1 1 1 2 1
2 3 1 2
2

2 1
2 3 2 1 2 CE 300&200 pre-1965 BLO 0.5 BLW 250 1962 BLO 0.5 CE 1150 post-1965 BLO 0.6

: BbW 800 1969 Low Odor 0.15

8 CE 240 pre-1965 BLO 2.1 CE 150 pre-1965 0.15 BBW 550 1973 BBW 400 1971 Low Odor CE 330 pre-1965 BLO 2.1 CE 900 post-1965 2.1 BBW 6006250 1963B1954 B&W 1000 1965 BLO 2.1 CE 800(each)post-1965 BLO 0.6 523 post-1965

B&W 1000 1970 Low Odor 0.5 500 1965 Low Odor

BBW 467 1965 BLO 2.1 CE 225 pre-1965 B&W 500 1968 Low Odor 0.15
BBW 900(each)1)70&196? 2.1 CE 700 OSt-1965 15.0 2-350

. we-1965

.BIW 709 1972 Low Odor 15.0 CE 500 pre-1965 CE 800 post-1965low Odor 0.15 CE 1500 post-1965Low Odor 0.15 -400 pre-1965

A-8Lime Kiln Size TRS No.of Tons (CaO) Level Units Per Day $/T AD1

1 1

1 1

1

1 3

2
I
2 2 1 1 3 120 90

220 70(F1UOsolids)

100

410
300

300 280 : 00 225 315 0.8 0.8
0.8 0.05 0.05
0.05 0.8
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.2
0.8

G.8 0.05
0.8



# 1 #' 1 4 130. (Size) niqoe #IT ADP Digester Control Type Tech- Level
6 7 10 6 1
5 8

2 2
3. 8

9
1 18 11 11 7 231 I inc; i 0.02 inc.

# j 0.02 inc. ' 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 1.5 1.5 inc. 

### I 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02

inc. 0.02 L.K I inc. 0.02 1.5 1.5 B 1.5 B inc. 0.02 B inc. 1.5 (1000) (800) (1500) 1 1

1 1 1 1

2
4

2

3 3 2 1 5 Multiple-effect

## .

Evaporator ,'.

Control TRS

Tear- Level No. niqoes 4/T ADP inc.

. 0.02 inc. 

### 1 0.02
inc. " 0.02 inc. inc.

iw. iic. inc. inc. inc.

inc. scrub

inc. inc. 0.02 0.02
1.o 1.o 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

1.o
0.02
0.08 1.o 1.o 0.02 3.1 Brown Stock !dasher TRS , Capacity !Jasher Level+ No. ADTPD Stages i!/T ADP 2 4 0.3 1 3

1 3 1 3

2 3

3

5 3 1 2 0.02 3 3 0.3

A- 9Mill Size Avg.' Kraft Prod. (Cap.) i: (Kraft) Company Location tPd Ohio Grfcf Mead
Oklahoma lleyerhaeuser Oregon American Can Boise Cascade Crown Z Georgie-Pacific I.P. Western Kraft lleyerhaauser Appleton P.H. Glatfelter Penna.

Penntech Mass Chi1

Val1 1 on icothe

ant

Halsey St. hslens C1atskmie Toledo Cardi ner A1bany Springfield Roarinq Springs SpringGrove
Johnsonburg 5. Carolina Bowater Catawba I.P. Georgetown 5. Carolina Florence llestvaco Charleston (200) 600 (540)

1300 (1300)

300 (;;I (1150)

690 1075 (1075)

600 500 1150 (1050)

180 (180) 500 (500)

190 (130) (916 j
(545) (550)

940 (940) 1830 (1

750) 660 (675) 2occ (1939) control3 TRS Recovery Furnace: No. of Ratin.: Year Tech- Level Units Yanuf. tpd I.iSta1. nique Q/T ADP - 4

2

1

1 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

2 2 2 4 CE

CE

EhW BhW CE BLW CE BLW CE BLW CE
BhW CE BLW CE

MW B&W B&W CE 66W 366 pre-1965 BLO 175 PW-1965 15.0 2.1

1500 post-1965 Low Odor 0.1:

400 1967 Low Odor 450 1966 BLO 7017 1975 Low Odor 800 1964 BLO 350(each)l-post1965 BLO 2-pre1965 420 1972 Low Odor 420 pre-1965 BLO 600 1969 Low Odor 165 1965 800(each)pre-1965 BLO post-1965 122 1960 83 1950 4006150 pre-1965 BLO 748 1969 Low Odor 160 pre-1965 BLO

600 1964 BLO 450 1957 900(each) 1966 BLO 1963 410 1962 1000 1972 Low Odor 1000 ore-1965 BLO 360 ' 1955 250 1948 250 1945 3.03 0.3 

# e:$:

0.1:
<0.5

0.1: 0.15 15.0 2.1 

### : I 2.1 i

2.1 

## : ! 0.5 ' 

### I 

# ::i5 

# I i

A-10Lime Kilns Size TRS .of Tons (CaO) Level its Per Day #/TUP TRS , Capacity !;asher LevelNo. ADTPD Stages a:/T ADP

Brown Stock Washer

-- - ---- 

# ! 0.8 250 0.8

0.8

0.15 0.2 250 0.05 260 0.05 0.05 0.2 0;l 0.8 I

, 0.05luo01 id)

2 50 0.8

1 0.8 0.8 1 150 0.8 4 665 0.8 a

3

2 3 2 2 11

1
6 7 1 5- a

16

6

5 15 1 C inc. (1000)

(500) (100)

C inc. inc. (3io)

C C inc. (916) B (650) inc. C (115) inc. B inc. 5 380 inc. c 177oj B B (285) C (250) B (170)

B (940)

B (625) B (1800) inc. C (700) 0.02

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
1.5 1.5

1.5

1.5 1.5 1.5 0.02 ?tu1tip1 e-effect Evaporator Control Tks

Tech- Level :qo. nique UP

2

1

1 2 1 3

1

2

1

2

1 4

A-11 4

scrub

inc.

inc. L.K. inc. inc. inc. inc. inc. inc.

inc. 1.o 0.08

0.02

0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
1.o 1.o

1.o

1.o 1.o 1.o 0.02 inc. R.F. 3
scrubber (2-3) (1-4)

inc. Power boiler ' 4 3

3

4

(3.4) 0.3 0.3

0.3

0.02 0.3 002 02 13 1 C7Mill Size Avg

### . Kraft Prod. (Kraft) (Cap.) Company 1 docation tPd


## __ -- -- Tennessee Bowater

Packaging
Texas Champion I.P. @vens-Illinois Southland South1and Temple-Fostex Chesapeake Continental Union Camp Westvaco Boise Cascade Crown Zellerbach Crown Zellerbach Longview St. Regis Weyerhaeuser Virginia

Uashington Calhoun

Counce

Pasadena Texarkana Orange Houston Lufkin Evadale
West Point Hopewell Frank1in Covington
dallola Camas Port Townsend Longview Tacoma Everett 500 (5001

(775) 850 (820) 610
1000 (9001 650 (500) 400 (4001 1250 (1200)

1150 (1150)

896 1430 (1

500) 1048 (900)
(1000)

460 (460) 780 (760) 420 (420) 1600 (1900)

1090 (1040)

360 (375) control3 TRS Recovery Furnace lo. of Rating Year Tech- Level Jnite iianuf. t& Instal. niGue ai/T ADP-

2
i

2 1
2 1 2 3
3 2 3 1
2 2 1 3 2 1 CE 6006320 pre-1965 BLO 2.1 6
CE 420 DOSt-1965 2.1

B6W 550 1971 BLO 0.5

, B6W 750 1969 0.5 550 1955

’ BllJ 550(each) 1965 RLO 2.1 2.1 CF CE 175(each)ore-1965 15.0 R6lJ 534 1966 BLO 2.1 CE 1100 Dost-1965(oxvaen) 500 DOSt-1965 BLO

530 ore-1965 4006200 ore-1965 CE 900 Dost-1965 BLO 0.5 CE 375(each)pre-1965 BLO 0.5 CE 580 post-1965 BLO 0.5 CE 1320 Dost-1965 BLO 0.5 5806350 me-1965

B6W 250 165 B6W 350 CE 660 CE 725 CE 1100 CF.

. 863 467 CE 365 2-700 1960 EL0 0.5 1957 1955 BLO 0.5 post-1965 Low Odor 0.5 Dost-1965 BLO 0.5 ore-1965 oost-1965 Low Odor 0.5 ore-1965 BLO 00S.t-1965 BLO 0.5 post-1965

A-12Lime Kilns Size TRS No. of Tons (CaO) Level Units Per Day b/T A?

1

3

1 1 1 3 2 3 3

2 3

4 2 1 .0.8

0.8

351 0.05 -0.2 261

. 0.8 13) , 0.8 85 ' 0.8 361 0.8 303 0.8 445 0.8 403 0.8 0.8 (total) (total)

0.2

207 I 0.2 I

I 0.2 507 ; 0.2 196 & 801 0.2

140 0.2 ;: 1 4 NO. (Six) pique +/T .~DP

Digester Control Type Tech- Level
6

5

9 5 2 1 6 9 1 8 1 13 2 12 2 10 5 1 9 1 9 1 18 4 4 2 6 8 (5001

8

B 100 each B C (1000)

C (5001

B (4001 8i1200) (200) 8 (600) C (600) B (950) 8 

# :

[;::I
c (800)

B C (150) 8 C inc. 0.02

1.5

inc. 0.02 inc- 0.02 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
0.02 0.02 0.92 0.02 inc. 0.02 inc. 0.02 8 Power
. 0.02 C inc. I 8 (1600) inc. 0.02 C 600 8 -[240] inc. 0.02 C (690) B (550) inc. 0.02 Mu1tip 1ff e-e eqt Evaporator * Control TRS Tech- Level No. pique #IT ADP

1

2:

1 1 2 3 3 2 4

2 3
6 2 1 inc.

inc. inc.

inc. inc. inc. inc. inc. inc. 0.02

1.o

0.02 0.92 1.a 1.o 1.0 1.0
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Brown Stock Washer TRS L,
NO. ADTPD Stseec ::fT ADP Capacity Washer Leve1
1 4 0.3

1

4 3

3 3

A-13Eii11 Size Avg

### . Kraft Prod. (Kraft: (Cap.) ComDanv Location tpd

. 1:

!dashin!- Meyerhaeuser

ton

'i kli

sconsinConsolidated
Great Northern

Hamnermi 11 Mosi nee Longvim 650 (306) NSSC ch. rec

plant Wisc. Rapids 400 (400) ch. rec

plant

(330) ch. rec

plant kukauna 400 (400) Nekoosa 310

tbsinee -174. (175)

New Mills (Plannedor under construction)

Scott Paper

### - Skowhegan. %ire

### - 750 TPD Potlatch Corp. 

### - McGehee, Lrkansas

### - 500 TPD. n 3 Recovery Furnace Control TRS lo. of Racin ; '-'car Tech- Level !nits ?lanuf. tpd IFStal. nique BIT ADP -- 2 ' B6W CE

2 CE

2 CE

1 BLY 1 66w 1201) 1972 Low Odor 350 pre-1965 BLO
400(each)post-l965 BLO

350 165
390 250 pre-1965 pre-1965

1960 1973 BLO Lou Odor 0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5 0.5

## I 

# I 0.2

0.8 O.& C 1.1 scrubber 2.
9 6 1.5
6- c 1.5 6 B (17s) 1.5 hltiple-effect Evaporator Control TRS Tech- Level No. nique &ITADP I inc. 0.02 

### i
1.o

1 1.o

1.o 1.o Brown Stock Masher TRS No. AWPD Stapes */T .E.?, Capacity Washer Level

0.15 7.075 5 0.6 0.3 20 15.0 7.5 550 Line Kiln 0.05 3.025 10 0.1 0.05 20 0.2 0.1 M Recovery Furnac1 0.5 9.25 17.5 2.1 1.05 70

Digester -.. 0.8 3.4 0.01 0.05 1.1 0.55 1.5 9.75 0.08

. 0.04 0.01 0.05 4' Mu1tiple-effect Brown Stock Washer 0.01

Evaporator 1.o 0.5 0.3 0.15 0.05. 1

## iij <5 7000 9500

<5 350 6700

45 0.3


# i 1

1-15

I

### APPENDIX B DATA SUMMARY KRAFT PULP MILLS Recovery Furnaces 

### ,Smelt Dissolving Tanks, Lime KiIns

### , and Incinerators Results are summarized 

### for tests conducted by 

### EPA at6 

### kraft pulpmills. 

### Atthese mills 

### a total of 

### 9 TRS tests; 3 recovery furnaces, 2 smelt dissolving tanks, 3 lime kilns, and one incinerator,were conducted by 

### EPA. Emission 

### data obtained from operators 

### or state agencies are also reported for some of the facilitits.



### TRS EMISSION 

### DATA Incinerator: The 

### incinerator 

### hand1es the noncondensabl e gases 

### from a continilous digester system 

### and a mu1tiple-effect evaporator system. The 

### continuous digester was producing 

### 670 tons 

### of pulp per day. The incinerator

### was operating at 1000°F with a retention time for the gases ofatleast 

### 0.5 seconds. Natural gas 

### is fired 

### in 

### the inci

### nerator.
Recovery Furnaces : A. Conventional type recovery furnace designed for an equivalent pulp production rate of 

### 657 tons per day. 

### TRS emissions are control1ed by using black 

### 1

### iquor oxidation and maintaining proper furnace operation. 

# - The furnace was operating near 

### its design capacity duri

### ng the 

### EPA test period. Continuous monitoring data
were also obtained frorn the operator.

B-1

### B. low-odor type recovery furnace designed for 

### an equivalent pulp production of 300 

### toris per day. furnace 

### was operating 

### at a rate of about 345 

### tons of pulp 

### per day. TRS emissions are controlled by eliminating the direct corltact evaporator and maintaining proper furnace operation. Noncondensabl e gases from the 

### brown stock washer system are burned in 

### thfs furnace. Continuous monitoring data 

### were also obtained from the state agency. During the EPA testing, the

D. Conventional type recovery furnace designed for 

### an equivhlent pulp TKS 

### emissior?s are controjlcd production rate of602 tons per day. by black liquor oxination agd maintaining pmper Furnace opecatqon. Low-odor type recovery furnace operatir:lj at

### an equivalent pulp production rate of about 200 

### tons per day. control

### 1ed by maintain-ing proper furnace operatian. obtained from the state agency. Low-odor type recovery furnace designed 

### for 

### an equivalent 

### pulp production rate of about 863 

### tons per day. controlled by maintaining proper furnace operation. obtained from state agency. 

### H. TRS emissions are Data were



### K. TRS emissions are Data 

### were

Smel

### t Di

### ssolvi

### ng Tanks 

### D. A 

### wet fan type scrubber 

### is employed 

### to control 

### the particulate emissions. 

### The associated recovery furnace operates atan equiValent pulp production rate of570 tons per day. 

### E. A 

### wet fan type scrubber 

### is employed to control 

### the particulate emissions. 

### Fresh water isused as 

### the scrubbing medium. 

### The associated recovery furnace operates atan equivalent pulp production rate of770 

### tons per day. Weak wash liquor 

### is used as 

### the scrubbing medium.

B-2Lime Kilns 

### D. Rotary lime kilnoperating at an equivalent pulp production rate 

### of 570 tons per day. proper ki 1n combustion and proper 1ime mud washing

# . gases from the multiple-effect evaporators are burned inthe kiln. Rotary lime kilnoperating atan equivalent pulp production rate 

### of about 770 tons per day. 

### TRS emissions are controlled by maintaining proper combustion inthe kiln, maintaining proper lime mud washing, and using a caustic solution inthe particulate scrubber. evaporators, condensate stripper, and miscellaneous storage tanks are burned inthe kiln. from the operator. Rotary lime kilnoperating at an equivalent pulp production rate 

### of about 320 tons per day. 

### TRS emissions are controlled by maintaining proper combustion inthe kilnand proper lime mud washing. Noncondensable gases from the digesters

### ,mu1tiple-effect evaporators, 

### and turpentine system are burned inthe kiln. 

### TRS emissions are controlled by maintaining Noncondensable



### E.

Noncondensable gases from the digesters, mu1tiple-effect

Continuous monitoring data were alsoobtained

K.



### 0. Rotary lime kilnnot tested by EPA. Continuous monitoringdata
was obtained from the local agency. 

### TRS emissions are controlled by maintaining precess combustion inthe kiln.

B-3

### TableB-1- 

### TRS 

### and 

### SO2 Emissions from Incineration FACILITY

# - Incinerator Sumarv of

### Results 

### Run Number 1 

### Date 

## - 1972 10/5 

### Test Time 

## - minutes 240 

### Production Rate 

## - TPH Stack 

### Effluent 

# -

Flow rate

# - DSCFM (XlnflC) 2610 

### Flow 

### rate

## - DSi;b/tirn 

### Temnerature

## - OF 

### 805 

### Water 

### vanor 

### - Vol. % 

### 6,3 

### CO2

# - \dol. % dry 

### 2.6 

### 02

# - Vol. % dry 

### 11.8 

### 0 CO

# - Dpm 

### TRS 

### Emissions 

### rmm 

# -

2.8 1

b/hr 

### 1.5 lb/ton of

### nul^ 0.06 

## 2 Emissions 25 Dnm 

### 9.4 1

b/hr 

### lb/ton of nU1D 

### 0.4 

### 2 10/6 240



# -

2223



## .. 805 4.3 2.4 12.0



### 0

0.4 

### 0.2 0.007

306 96.9 

### 3.8 3 10/7 240

c


### 2302

L 

### 805 5.4 2.1 12.7

0



### 1.6 0.6 

### 0.02

1050 358 13.9 4 

### 12/13 240



# -

- 

# - - 

# - 9.0 

### 15.7

0

0.9 

### 0.4 0.02

F 

# - -

6-4

### TableB-2

# - TRS and 

### SO2 Emissions from Recovery Furnace A 

### FACILITY

# - Recovery Furnace A 

### Sumnarv of 

### Results 

### Run Number 

### 1 2 3 4 5 6 

### Date 

## - 1972 6/3 6/4 6/5 6/6 6/7 6/8 

### Test Time

# - minutes 240 240 240 240 240 240 

### Production Rate 

## - TPH 

# - - - 

# - - - Stack Effluent 

### Flow 

### rate

# - DSCFM (XlnWl) 142 L 145 148 

# - - !- 

### Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton 

# - c 

# - - - 

# - Temperature 

# - OF 314 

# - 304 303 

# - - 25.5 

# - 25.3 21.9 

# - 

# - Water vanor 

## - Vol. % C02

# - Vol. % 

### dry 10.4 8.2 10.7 11.8 12.9 

### 11.1 02

# - Vol. % 

### dry 

### 10.7 11.4 11.4 10.1 

### 10.1 9.9 CO

# - ppm 153 93 84 95 102 51 TRS 

### Emi

### ssi

### ons ppm 

### 2.0 1.4 1.4 

### 1.5 0.7 1.6 

### 1

b/hr 1.5 

### 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.2 

### itr/ton of nu111 

# - - - - - - SO7 

### Emi

### ssi

### ons mm 45 116 79 118 50 119 1



### b/hr 85.0 

# - - - 

# - - lb/ton Of nUlD 

# - - - - - -

B-5

### Table8-3

# - TRS and SO2 

### Emissions 

### from Recovery Furnace B 

### FACILITY

# - Recovery Furnace B 

### Sumnarv of

### Results 

### Run Number 

### 1 2 

### 3 4 5 

### Date

# - 1972 

### 7/13 

### Test Time 

## - minutes 240 240 240 240 240 

### Production Rate 

## - TPH 

# - c 

# - - - Stack Effluent 7/14 7/15 7/18 7/19



### Flow rate

# - DSCFM (XlfVVl) 85 84 86 

# - - Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton 

# - 

# - - - Temnerature 

## - OF 

### Water vaDor

# - Vol. X CO2

# - Vol. % dr,y 

### 02-

# - Vol. % 

### dry 

# co

# - Dpl"l 

### TRS Emissi

### ons DDm 

### 1

b/hr 1b/ton of

### nulo* SO7 

### Emissions DDm 1



### b/hr lb/ton of 

### nulo 

### 395 

# - -

.-. 

### 0

1.6

.05



### 0.9 

# - - 400

12.3 

### 8.T 0

0.2 0.7 

### .Ol 415 

# - 12.4 

### 7,. 6 0



### 0.5 0;

### 1 .02 

### 12.7 12.0 

### 7.Y 8.0 0 0

0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 

### .Ol .Ol 6 7/20 

### 240



# -

- - 

# - - 12.4 8.0 0

0.3 0.2 .01 '.



## * Based on 

### 334.5 ATDPlday



### B-6

### Table 8-4- 

### TRS 

### an4 

### SO2 Emissions 

### from Recovery Furnace D 

### FACILITY

# - Recovery Furnace D 

### Sumarv of Results 

### Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 

### Date

# - 1972 11/11 11/12 11/13 11/14 11/15 

### Test Time 

# - minutes 240 240 240 240 240 

# - 

# - - 

# - Production Rate 

## - TPH 

# - Stack Effluent Flow 

### rate

# - DSCFM (Xl 000) 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 73.2 Flow 

### rate

# - DSCF/ton 

### Temoerature 

## - OF 

### Water 

### vaoor

# - Vol. % 35 35 35 35 35 C02

# - Vol. % 

### dr.y 02

# - Vol. % 

### dry CO

# - ppm TRS 

### Emissions Dnm 

### 1



### b/hr 1



### b/ton 

### of DUlD SO7 

### Emissions DDm 1



### b/hr 

### lb/ton of 

### nulr, 3.1 2.8 3.9 

### 7

### .O 2.8 

# :* ':. 

### 55.1 48.9 53.7 12.5 46.0

15.5 * 1.0 22.9 5.0 14.2 162' 10 239 52 149



# - 

# - - - -

B

### -7

### Table B-5 

### ADDITIONAL TRS EMISSION DATA FOR 

### RECOVERY FURNACES* 

### Recovery Furnace A 

### TConcentrati 

### on (ppm, daily average 

### Month Maximum Average basis) July 1971 Aug

# . Sept

# . Oct. Nov. 

### Dec

# . Jan. 1972 Feb

# . March

. 

### April May 

### June July Aug 

### Sept. Oct

# . 6.0 20.0



### 5.0 

### 10.9

- 

### 4.4 9.8 5.5 3.3 

### 2.5 5.3

' 

### 5.5



### 8.2 9.8 9.0 4.9 6.1 3.1 

### 2.4 9.5 2.8 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.3 

### 1

## .o 2.0 2.1 3.8 3.7 3.3 2.9 2.2 Recovery Furpace B S 

### Concentration (ppm, daily average 

### Month Maximum Average basis) April 

### 1972 May 

### June July Aug

# .- Oct. Nov

# . DeC. 

### Jan. 1973 Feb. 

### March 

### Apri1 May 

### June July Aug. 

### Sept. 

### Oct. Nov. 

### Dec. 1.4. 

### 2.3 2.8 

### 4.6 

### 5.0 1.9 

### 0.7 1

## .o 1.5 2.6 

### 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.6



# . 3.1 1.8 2.0 1.6 

### 3.4 0.7 

### 1.2 

### 1.5 

### 1.1 1.5 0.7 

### 0.4 

### 0.7 0.8 

### 1

## .o 0.9 0.8 1

## .o 1.1 1

## .o 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.6 *Tested by operators using 

### barton titrators.
B-8TableB-5 

### (cent..)

Recovery Furnace A 

### TRS Concentration (ppm, daily average

basis)

--.

J Month Maximum Average

I Recovery Furnace H 

### TRS-Concen tra ti on (ppm, dailyaverage Month Maximum Average basis) April 

### 1972 3 

### 2.1 May 

### 4 

### 2.1 June 

### 7 3.5 June 

### 1972 

### 8 3.1 July 

### 4 2.4 Aug L 

### 4 1.9 

## - Sept. 

### 2 1.3 Oct. 

### 6 1.8 ADDITIONAL TRS 

### EMISSION DATA FOR RECOVERY FURNACES Recovery Furnace 

### B 

### VRS Concentration (ppm, daily average

basis) Month Maximum Averwe __- _. Jan. 

### 1974 1.4 0.8 Feb. 

### 1.9 

### 1.3 March 

### 5.0 1.6 Apri

### 1 2.4 1.2 May 

### 1.8 

### 1

## .o June 

### 1.5 

### 1

## .o Recovery Furnace K 

### 'FRS Concentration (ppm, dailyaverage Month Maximum Average 

## ..

basi

### s) Aug. 

### 1973 6.2 

### 1

## .o Sept. 

### 32-0 

### 5.2 Oct. 

### 7.3 2.4 Nov. 

### 17.0 4.1 

### Dec

# . 1.2 0.7 Jan. 

### 1974 1.8 

### 0.6 Feb. 

### 2.4 

### 1

## .o March 

### 9.7 2.3 Apri

### 1 3.0 1.4 May 

### 3.4 1.4

B-9

### Table 6-6 TRS 

### EMISSION DATA FOR A CROSS RECOVERY 

### FURNACE* 

### Days TRS 

### (4-hour) Sulfidity Average TRS 

### Maximum 4-Hour Emissions Greater Month Ranqe (%) 

### Eriissions (ppm) TRS 

### Emissions (ppm) than 25 ppm 

### Oct 76 22 

## - 36 12.5 54.5 2 

### Nov 76 28

## - 33 24.3 

### Dec 76 

### 28 

## - 34 9.5 

### Jan 77 27 

## - 36 7.7 

### Feb 77 27 

## - 35 8.0 51.2 43.2 36.5


### 48.0



## * Tested by operator using 

### barton tatrator.

B-10TableB-7

# - TRS Evissions frorr Smelt Dissolying Tank 

### D FACILITY

# - Smelt Dissolving Tank D Sumnarv of Results Run Number 1 2 3 Date

# - 1973 10131 11/1 11/2 Test Time 

## - minutes 240 240 240 Production Rate

# - TPH 25.1- 25.9 25.6 Stack Effluent Flow rate

## - DSCFM 9000 8880 9400 Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton 21514 20571 22031 Temnerature

# - OF Water vaDor

# - Vol. 

### % 37

. 41 

### 40 C02

# - Vol. 

### % dr.y 02 

# - Vol. 

### % dry CO

# - opm TRS Emissions 

### mm 1

b/hr 

### 1

b/ton of~ylo 

### 8.1 8.8 6.9 0.43 0.44 0.38 0.01

### 7 0.017 .015

B-11Table B-8- TRS Emissions fromSmelt DissolvingTank E FACILITY

# - Smelt Dissolving Tank E Sumnarv of Results Run Number 1 2 3 Date

# - 1973 9/18 9/19 9/20 Test Time

# - minutes 240. 240 240 Production

### Rate

# - TPH 30.1 34.1 31.3 Stack Effluent Flow rate

# - DSCFM 19542 18740 19100 Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton 

### 38954 32974 3661

### 3 Temrature

# - OF Water vmor

# - Vol. 

### % 26 26 23.3 

### Co;! 

# - Vol. % dr.y 

# - Vol. 

### X 

### dSj CO

# - ppm TRS Emi

### ssi ons 2.4 1.9 2.7 0.27 0.20 0.28 0.009 .006 .009 . PDm 

### 1

b/hr 

### 1



### b/ton of pulp

8-12

### Table B-’3 

### -Tf6 Emissions from Lime Kiln

### D FACILITY

# - Lime Kiln D 

### Sumnary of 

### Results ,n 

### Number 1 2 3 

### 4 5 6 

### Date

# - 1973 11/5 11/7 11/7 11/7. 11/8 11/8 

### Test Time 

# - minutes 240 240 

### 240 240 240 240 

### Production Rate

# - TPH 

### Stack Effluent 

### Flow rate

# - DSCFM (Xlnm) Flow 

### rate

# - DSCF/ton 

### Temnerature

# - OF 

### Water vaDor

# - Vol. 

### % 43 35 40 38 41 31 CO2

# - Vol. 

### % 

### dry 

### 02

# - Vol. 

### % 

### dry’ 

## co

# - Dpm

### TRS 

### Emissions 3.5 

### 24.1 2.8 5.7 4.6 17.8 PDm 

### 1b/hr lb/ton of 

### pulp

B-13

### TableB-10- 

### TRS Emissions 

### from Lime Kiln 

### E FACILITY

# - Lime Kiln 

### E 

### Sunarvof 

### Results 

### Run Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 Date

# - 1973 9/24 9/25 9/

### 26 9/26 9/27 9/27 

### Test Time

# - minutes 240 240 240 240 240 240 Production Rate 

## - TPH 

### Stack Effluent 

### Flow 

### rate

# - DSCFM (XlOOC)) 

### Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton TemDerature

# - "F #atervaDor

# - Vol. % 

### C02

# - Vol. % 

### dr.y 9.4 

### 10.2 10.0 9.8 8.2 

### 9.8 

## 9

# - Vol. % d~ 

### 13.2 11

### .o 12.2 

### 12.0 13.1 11.8 

# -

CO

# - ppm TRS Emi

### ssions 

### PPm 1b/hr 1.7 0.8 0.5 

### 0.4 

### 0.3 0.5



### lb/ton of 

### pulp

B-14

### TableB-11-TRS 

### and SO2 

### Emissions from Lime Kiln K FACILITY

# - Lime Kiln K 

### Sumarv 

### of Results 

### Run Number 1 2 3 4 

### 5 6 

### Date

# - 1974 4/5 4/

### 5 4/9 4/9 4/10 4/10 

### Test Time

# - minutes 240 240 * 240 240 240 240 

### Production Rate

# - TPH L .L 

# - I 

# - c 

### Stack Effluent Flow rate

# - DSCFM (X1r)r)r)) 13.8 13.8 14.0 13.4 13.6 14.2

L 

# - ). 

# - - 0 

### Flow rate

# - DSCF/ton 

### TemPerature 

## - OF 142 142 :.- 146 152 155 154 

### Water vaDor

# - Vol. % 21.8 21.8 22.9 26.0 25.8 26.8 C02 

# - Vol. 

### % 

### dr.y 13.0 13.0 14.2 14.2 14.6 14.2 02 

# - Vol. 

### % 

### dry 7.6 7.6 7.1 7.1 6.4 7.2 

## co

# - Dpm 

### 0 

### 0 

## .o 0 0 0 

### TRS Emissions 

### PPm

. 4.6 12.0 

### 4.5 4.8 4.0 5.2 

### 1



### b/hr 0.34 0.88 0.33 0.34 0.29 

### 0.39 lb/ton of pulp 9 

# - 0- 

# - 9 

# -

.. SO7 

### Emissions 

### mm 52 42 25 18 16 37 

### :: 1



### b/hr 7.2 5.8 3.5 2.4 2-2 5.2 

# - c. 

# - 9 

### lb/ton of pulp 

# - .c

B-15Table8-12 

### ADDITIONAL TRS EMISSION 

### DATA FOR 

### LIME KILNS* 

### Lime Kiln E 

### TRS ConcentratTon (ppm, daily average) ’ Month Maxi

### mum Average 

### May 1973 

### June %July .Aug. Sept. 

### Oct. 

### Nov

# . Dec

# . Jan. 1974 .Feb

# . March Apri

### 1 kY 

### 1.4 

### 3.4 2.1 1.?I 

### 10.1

7.1 5.9 8.9 

### 3.4 2.6 *



### 0.7’ 

### 3.1 2.9 0.3 0.7 0.4 

### 0.3 1.5 1

## .o 0.8 1

## .o 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.7 Lime 

### Kiln 

### 0 S Concentration (ppm, 

### daily average) Month Maximum Average Jan. 

### 1973 Feb. March Apri

### 1 May 

### June July Aug

# . Sept. Oct. Nov

# . Dec

# . Jan. 

### 1974 

### Feb. March Apri

### 1 May 14 20 

### 14 32 16 10 99 12 17 6.8 9.3 7.6 9.6 4.7 3.4 4.5 

### 3.8 5.0 

### 34 8.2 12 5.7 22 9;8 

### 30 17.9 

### 33 21.1 

### 30 19.3 40 

### 16.2 

### 25 12.3 Average = 

### 9.7 

### *Tested by operatorsusing 

### barton titrators.

B-16Table 

### B-12 

### (CONTINUED) Lime Kiln P TRS Summary: 4-Hour Averages
4-Hour Averages Monitored % % % % % >5/ 40ppm 

## >lo/ <20 ppm >20 ppm 

### >40ppm Month <5 PPm
February ‘75 45 26 March ‘75 65 25 April ‘75 63 16 May ‘75 53 25 9 20 12 7 7 2 12 9 5 13 8 2

B-17.-

TABLE C-1
TMPACT OF CONTKCiLItiGTHE VARIOUS TRS SOURCES CN AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 907 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: vg/m3 Frequency - (One-hour average) I of Concentrations Qncontrol led Distance from Source (km) Greater than 1/2 Percent Level @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reductiona Source Control Techniques 

### - Recovery Furnace BLO (20 ppm) Digester Scrubber Multiple-Effect Scrubber BLO (5 ppm) Incineration Evaporator Incineration 2465 100 64 38 16 28 95.9 2465 25 16 10 4 28 99.0 6000 4680 1716 1090 3 22.0 6000 

### ob 

## - 100.0 3 1175 96 ' 60 36 4 91.8 1175 ob -__3 

## - 100.0 Lime Kiln 1) Process Controls 256 64 23 18 15 12 1 75.0 2) Process Controls + 256 16 6 4 4 3 1 93.8 Hioh Eff. Mud Washing 3) Process Controls + High 256 Eff. Mud Washing + Caustic Scrubbing Yrown Stock Incineration Black Liquor Incineration

blasher System Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen Sme1t Dissolving

lank Condensate StripDing Scrubber

Systern Incineration Fresh Water 113 96 96 83 2 2 2 1 96.9

8 3 2 19 6 3 1 1 oc 

### - > 172 22 8 6 306 165 4400 2200 4400 ob
______ ______+
a Reduction from uncontrolled averaae level

Gases arc! assumed burned inthe lime kiln. include unburned TRS portion of these gases.The levels from the lime kiln 34 25



### - 3 25



### - 92.9 80.2 100.0 87.2 50.0 100.0 0 U v) W m 

### % W -0 v, m n 0 z z x If c 0 U l-4 m v)

NO vent gases.TABLE C-2
IMPACT OF CONTROLLING THF VARIOUS TRS SOURCES OH 

### AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROMA 907 MEGAGRAMSIDAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: vg/m3 Frequency - (24-hour average) % of Concentrations ancontrolled Distance from Source (km) .Greater than 1/2 Percent Level @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reductiona Source Control Techniques Recovery Furnace BLO (zo'ppm) BLO (5 ppm) Digester Scrubber 643 26 16 9 4 29 96.0 580 450 150 68 48 22.4 643 64 2 1 29 99.0
Incineration 580 Ob -- 100.0
Incineration 115 Ob > -- 100.0 2) Process Controls + 56 42 1 1 1 1 92.9 Multiple-Effect Scrubber 115 10 6 3 55 91.3

Evaporator Lime Kiln 1) Process Controls 56 14 7 4 3 2 1 75.0
Hioh Eff. Mud Washing
Eff. Mud Washina + Caustic Scrubbing 3) Process Controls + High 56 21 1 1 1 1 96.4

Brown Stock Incineration Black Liquor Incineration Smelt Dissolving Fresh ldater Condensate Stripping Scrubber Washer System Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen
Tank System Incineration 30 25 25 2 1 1 26 93.3 52 1 1 1 20 80.0 > 100.0 OC -- 16 2 1 1 46 87.5 840 420 66 34 30 50.0 840 Ob 

# - -- 100.0
a Reduction from uncontrolled averaoe level

Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these gases. No vent gases, C0 I w TMPACT OF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCES ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 454 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: ug/m3 Frequency - Control Techniques Level Q 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum (10 second average) % of Concentrations Uncontrolled Distance from Source (km) IGreater than 1/2 Percent Reducti ona Source Recovery Furnace BLO (20 ppm) 5250 210 135 80 34 33 96.0 BLO (5 ppm) 5250 53 35 20 8 33 99.0 Oi

gester Scrubber 9800 7645 2790 1775 3 22.0 Ob 

### - 100.0 Ob 

### - 100.0 > 9800 Mu1tipl e-Ef fect ’ Scrubber 1950 156 98 58 4 92.0 Incineration 1950 Lime Kiln 1) Process Controls 440 110 40 30 25 21 1 75.0 2) Process Controls + 440 28 10 8 6 5 1 93.6 3) Process Controls + High 440 14 5 4 3 3 1 96.8 Incineration Evaporator

Hiqh Eff. Mud Washinq
Eff. Mud Washin? + Ca11sti c Scru bbi ng Brown Stock Incineration Black. Liquor Incineration Washer System Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen
Tank System Incineration Smelt Dissolving Fresh Water Condensate Stripping Scrubber 370 25 9 6 19 93.2 210 42 14 7 3 3 30 80.0 210 OC > 

### -- 100.0 270 34 13 8 3 87.4 9100 4550 635 340 16 50.0 100.0 9100 Ob 

### --
a Reduction from uncontrolled average level

Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these gases. No vent gases. CTAN€C-4
IMPACT OF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCtS ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROMA 454 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: pg/m3 Frequency - (One-hour average) X of Concentrations Uncontrolled Distance from Source (km) Greater than 1/2 Percent Control Techniques Level (a 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reducti ona Source Recovery Furnace BLO (20 ppm) Digester Scrubber BLO (5 ppm) Incineration Mu1tip1 e-Effect Scrubber Incineration Evaporator Lime Kiln

Brown Stock Black Liquor
Smelt Dissolving Condensate Stripping Washer System Oxi dati on System
Tdnk System 1610 64 41 24 10 33 96.0 1610 16 10 6 3 33 99.0 3000 2340 860 545 3 22.0 3000 Ob 

### - 100.0 >
1) Process Controls 136 2) Process Controls + 136 Hiqh Eff. Mud Washing ' 3) Process Controls + High Eff. Mud Washing + Caustic Scrubbing 1-36

Incineration 113 600 48 30 18 600 Ob

Incineration Molecular Oxygen Fresh IJater Scrubber Incineration 66 66 84 2800 28ao 34 12 9 8 7 93 3 2 2 52 1 1 1

8 3 2 13 4 2 1 1 

## ___, oc -. . - -- 11 4 3 1400 195 105

a Reduction from uncontrolled averaw level

Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels froti the lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these gases. No vent gases. I
C 4 92.0 

### - 100.0

1

19 30 

### - 3 16 

### - 75.0 93.4 96.3

92.9 80.3 100.0 86.9 50.0 100.0TABLE C-5
IMPACT OF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCES ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 454 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: ugh3 Frequency - Source Control Techniques Level @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum (24-hour average) % of Concentrations UncontroI Ied Distance from Source (km) !Greater than 1/2 Percent Reductiona Recovery Furnace
Digester
Mu1ti ple-Ef fect
Lime Kiln

Evaporator

Brown Stock Black Liquor
Smelt Dissolving Condensate Stripping Washer System Oxidation System

' Tank System BLO (20 ppm) BLO (5 ppm) Scrubber Incineration Scrubber Incineration 1) Process Controls 2) Process Controls + High Eff. Mud Washing 3) Process Controls + High Eff. Mud Washing + Caustic Scrubbing Incineration Inci neration Molecular Oxygen Fresh Water Scrubber Incineration 430 430 290 290

60 60 32 32
32

17 17 17 8 420 420 17 11 6 2 43 1 1 Ob 

## * 53 2 Ob __1_3 84 2 2 1 21 1 1 1 226 76 34

1 1 1 31 1 <1 <1

I 1 1 1 28 17 210

Ob h Reduction from uncontrolled average level Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these gases. NO vent gases. a 27 27 48



### - 55



### - 4 4
4

52 19



## - 46 37



### - 96.0 99.1 22.1 100.0 91.7 100.0 75.0 93.8
96.9

94.1 82.4 100.0

50.0 100.0TABLE C-6
IMPACT OF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCES ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 1350 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: ugh3 Frequency

### - (10 second average) % of Concentrations Uncontrolled Distance from Source Ikm) ,Greater than 1/2 Percent Level @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reducti ona Source Control Techniques Recovery Furnace Digester
Mu1tipl e-Effect Evaporator Lime Kiln 0 1 m

Brown Stock Black Liquor
Smelt Dissolving Condensate Stripping Washer System Oxidation System

. Tank System BLO (20 ppm) BLO (5 ppm) Scrubber Incineration Scrubber Incineration 1) Process Controls 1)Process Controls + Hiah Eff. Mud Washing 3) Process Controls + High Eff. Mud Washing + Caustic Scrubbing Incineration Incineration Molecular Oxygen Fresh Water Scrubber Incineration 11,785 11,785 29,000 29, 000 5,750 5,750 1,280 1,280 1,280

555 490 490 840 21,000 21,000 470 305 180 75 120 75 45 20 22,930 8370 5325

1 470 295 175

Ob 320 115 88 73 62

80 29 22 18 16
40 14 11 9 a

37 14 9 98 33 14 7 5

OC 9 105 39 24 10,500 1460 780 ob * f Reduction from uncontrolled averaae level Gases are assumed burned intne lime kiln. The levels from tne lime kiln include unburned TRS portion of these gases. No vent gases. a

C 28 28

3 

## - 4 

### - 1 1 1

34 25



## - 3 25



## - 96.0 99.0 20.9 100.0 91.8 100.0 75.0 93.8
96.9

93.3 80.0 100.0 87.5 50.0 100.0TABL€C-7
IMPACTOF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCESON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 1350MEGAGRAMVOAY KRAFT PULP MILL

0 I U Maximum Ambient Concentration: vg/m3 Frequency - Source Control Techniques Leyel 13 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum (One-hour average) % of Concentrations

Distance from Source (km) Greater than 1/2 Percent Uncontrolled Reduct iona Recovery Furnace BLO (20 ppm) 3,750 150 97 57 24 28 96.0 BLO (5 ppm) 3,750 37 24 14 6 28 99.0 Digester Scrubber 9,000 7,020 2,575 1,640 3 22.0 Incineration 9,000 Ob 

### - 100.0
Incineration 1,775 Ob 100.0 > Mu1tip1e-Effect Scrubber 1,775 154 90 53 4 91.3 Lime Kiln * 1)Process Controls 385 96 34 27 22 19 1 75.0 385 24 9 6 6 5 1 93.8 Evaporator 2) Process Controls + Hiqh Eff. Mud Washing Eff. Mud Washinu + Caustic Scrubbing 3) Process Controls + High 385 12 4 3 3 2 1 96.9

Brown Stock Incineration 175 12 4 3 34 94.8 Black Liquor Incineration 150 30 10 5 2 2 25 80.0
Smelt Dissolving Fresh Water 255 32 12 9 3 87.5 Condensate Stripping Scrubber 6,600 3,300 460 250 25 50.0 blasher System Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen 150 oc 

### - 100.0 Tank System Incineration 6,600 Ob 

### > 

### - 100.0

a Reduction from uncontrolled averaae level

Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lire kiln include unburned TRS portion ofthese gases. No vent gases- C0 I W IMPACT OF CONTROLLING THE VARIOUS TRS SOURCES ON AMBIENT TRS CONCENTRATION FROM A 1350 MEGAGRAMS/DAY KRAFT PULP MILL
Maximum Ambient Concentration: v9/m3 Frequency - (24-hour average) % of Concentrations Uncontrolled Distance from source (km) 'Greater than 1/2 Percent Source Control Techniques Level @ 0.3 km 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 the Maximum Reductiona Recovery Furnac e Digester Scrubber BLO (20 ppm) BLO (5 ppm)
Incineration Mu1tiple-Effect Scrubber Incineration Evaporator 965 40 25 15 5 29 95.9 965 10 6 4 1 29 99.0 870 Ob 

### - 100.0 870 680 230 100 48 21.8 r 175 15 9 5 55 91.4 175 Ob 

### - 100.0 > Lime Kiln 1) Process Controls 80 20 10 6 4 3 1 75.0 2) Process Controls + 80 53 2 1 1 1 93.8 tiiqh Eff. Mud Washing 3) Process Controls+ High 80 Eff. Mud Washing + 32 1 1 1 1 96.3 Caustic Scrubbina 45 3 1 1 26 93.3 Brown Stock Incineration Black Liquor Incineration 40 83 1 1 1 20 80.0
25 3 1 1 46 88.0 Smelt Dissolving Fresh Water Condensate Strippinq Scrubber 1,300 650 87 53 30 50.0 Washer System Oxidation System Molecular Oxygen 40 OC 

### - 100.0 9 lank System Incineration 1,300. Ob 

### - 100.0 > Reduction from uncontrolled averaqe level a Gases are assumed burned inthe lime kiln. The levels from the lime kiln

include unburned TRS portion of these gases. No vent gases. C


# U(PleasereadItJrmictions onthereversebelore

. RkPORT NO. 2.



### .TITLEANDSUBTITLE Kraft Pulping

## - Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Mills

.AUTHOR(S)

.PERFORMINGORGANIZATIONNAMEANDADDRESS Office of AirQualityPlanning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
DAA for AirQualityPlanning and Standards U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Environmental ProtectionAgency 27711

2.SPCv%St2R::J.G AGE::CY i<AMEA%0C;C=RESS Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation 27711 5. SGi'PLEMENTARY NOTES

7. KEYWORDSANDDOCUMENT ANALYSIS DESCRl PTORS ib.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS IC. COSATIField/Group I I completing) 3. RECIPIENT'SACCESSIOWNO.
5. REPORT DATE

March ___- 1979 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONCODE

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATIONREPORTNO.

10. PROGRAMELEMENT NO.

.. '11. CONCRACT/GRANT NO.

13. TYPEOF REPORTANDPERtODCOVERED 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

EPA/200/04

Airpollution Pollution control Kraft pulp mills Total reduced sulfur Particulate matter Emission guidelines

a. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT Unlimited Airpollution control

19.SECURITY CLASS(ThisReporr) 21. NO. OF PAGES Unclassified 210 Unclassified 20.SECURITYCLASS(Thispuge) 22. PRICE