### 11.6 Portland Cement Manufacturing

11.6.1 Process Description 1-7



### Portland cement is a fine powder, gray or white in color, that consists of a mixture of hydraulic cement materials comprising primarily calcium silicates, aluminates and aluminoferrites. More than 30 raw materials are known to be used in the manufacture of portland cement, and these materials can be divided into four distinct categories: calcareous, siliceous, argillaceous, and ferrifrous. These materials are chemically combined through pyroprocessing and subjected to subsequent mechanical processing operations to form gray and white portland cement. Gray portland cement is used for structural applications and is the more common type of cement produced. White portland cement has lower iron and manganese contents than gray portland cement and is used primarily for decorative purposes. Portland cement manufacturing plants are part of hydraulic cement manufacturing, which also includes natural, masonry, and pozzolanic cement. The six-digit Source Classification Code (SCC) for portland cement plants with wet process kilns is 3-05-006, and the six-digit SCC for plants with dry process kilns is 3-05-007.

Portland cement accounts for 95 percent of the hydraulic cement production in the United States. The balance of domestic cement production is primarily masonry cement. Both of these materials are produced in portland cement manufacturing plants. A diagram of the process, which encompasses production of both portland and masonry cement, is shown in Figure 11.6-1. As shown in the figure, the process can be divided into the following primary components: raw materials acquisition and handling, kiln feed preparation, pyroprocessing, and finished cement grinding. Each of these process components is described briefly below. The primary focus of this discussion is on pyroprocessing operations, which constitute the core of a portland cement plant.

The initial production step in portland cement manufacturing is raw materials acquisition. Calcium, the element of highest concentration in portland cement, is obtained from a variety of calcareous raw materials, including limestone, chalk, marl, sea shells, aragonite, and an impure limestone known as "natural cement rock". Typically, these raw materials are obtained from open-face quarries, but underground mines or dredging operations are also used. Raw materials vary from facility to facility. Some quarries produce relatively pure limestone that requires the use of additional raw materials to provide the correct chemical blend in the raw mix. In other quarries, all or part of the noncalcarious constituents are found naturally in the limestone. Occasionally, pockets of pyrite, which can significantly increase emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), are found in deposits of limestone, clays, and shales used as raw materials for portland cement. Because a large fraction (approximately one third) of the mass of this primary material is lost as carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) in the kiln, portland cement plants are located close to a calcareous raw material source whenever possible. Other elements included in the raw mix are silicon, aluminum, and iron. These materials are obtained from ores and minerals such as sand, shale, clay, and iron ore. Again, these materials are most commonly from open-pit quarries or mines, but they may be dredged or excavated from underwater deposits.

Either gypsum or natural anhydrite, both of which are forms of calcium sulfate, is introduced to the process during the finish grinding operations described below. These materials, also excavated from quarries or mines, are generally purchased from an external source, rather than obtained directly from a captive operation by the cement plant. The portland cement manufacturing industry is relying increasingly on replacing virgin materials with waste materials or byproducts from other manufacturing

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-1Figure 11.6-1. Process flow diagram for portland cement manufacturing.(SCC = Source Classification Code.)



### 11.6-2 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### operations, to the extent that such replacement can be implemented without adversely affecting plant operations, product quality or the environment. Materials that have been used include fly ash, mill scale, and metal smelting slags.

The second step in portland cement manufacture is preparing the raw mix, or kiln feed, for the pyroprocessing operation. Raw material preparation includes a variety of blending and sizing operations that are designed to provide a feed with appropriate chemical and physical properties. The raw material processing operations differ somewhat for wet and dry processes, as described below.

Cement raw materials are received with an initial moisture content varying from 1 to more than 50 percent. If the facility uses dry process kilns, this moisture is usually reduced to less than 1 percent before or during grinding. Drying alone can be accomplished in impact dryers, drum dryers, paddle-equipped rapid dryers, air separators, or autogenous mills. However, drying can also be accomplished during grinding in ball-and-tube mills or roller mills. While thermal energy for drying can be supplied by exhaust gases from separate, direct-fired coal, oil, or gas burners, the most efficient and widely used source of heat for drying is the hot exit gases from the pyroprocessing system.

Materials transport associated with dry raw milling systems can be accomplished by a variety of mechanisms, including screw conveyors, belt conveyors, drag conveyors, bucket elevators, air slide conveyors, and pneumatic conveying systems. The dry raw mix is pneumatically blended and stored in specially constructed silos until it is fed to the pyroprocessing system.

In the wet process, water is added to the raw mill during the grinding of the raw materials in ball or tube mills, thereby producing a pumpable slurry, or slip, of approximately 65 percent solids. The slurry is agitated, blended, and stored in various kinds and sizes of cylindrical tanks or slurry basins until it is fed to the pyroprocessing system.

The heart of the portland cement manufacturing process is the pyroprocessing system. This system transforms the raw mix into clinkers, which are gray, glass-hard, spherically shaped nodules that range from 0.32 to 5.1 centimeters (cm) (0.125 to 2.0 inches [in.]) in diameter. The chemical reactions and physical processes that constitute the transformation are quite complex, but they can be viewed conceptually as the following sequential events:

1. Evaporation of free water;

2. Evolution of combined water in the argillaceous components;

3. Calcination of the calcium carbonate (CaCO 3 

### ) to calcium oxide (CaO);

4. Reaction of CaO with silica to form dicalcium silicate;

5. Reaction of CaO with the aluminum and iron-bearing constituents to form the liquid phase;

6. Formation of the clinker nodules;

7. Evaporation of volatile constituents (e. g., sodium, potassium, chlorides, and sulfates);
and

8. Reaction of excess CaO with dicalcium silicate to form tricalcium silicate.

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-3

### This sequence of events may be conveniently divided into four stages, as a function of location and temperature of the materials in the rotary kiln.

1. Evaporation of uncombined water from raw materials, as material temperature increases to 100°C (212°F);

2. Dehydration, as the material temperature increases from 100°C to approximately 430°C (800°F) to form oxides of silicon, aluminum, and iron;

3. Calcination, during which carbon dioxide (CO 2 

### ) is evolved, between 900°C (1650°F) and 982°C (1800°F), to form CaO; and

4. Reaction, of the oxides in the burning zone of the rotary kiln, to form cement clinker at temperatures of approximately 1510°C (2750°F).

Rotary kilns are long, cylindrical, slightly inclined furnaces that are lined with refractory to protect the steel shell and retain heat within the kiln. The raw material mix enters the kiln at the elevated end, and the combustion fuels generally are introduced into the lower end of the kiln in a countercurrent manner. The materials are continuously and slowly moved to the lower end by rotation of the kiln. As they move down the kiln, the raw materials are changed to cementitious or hydraulic minerals as a result of the increasing temperature within the kiln. The most commonly used kiln fuels are coal, natural gas, and occasionally oil. The use of supplemental fuels such as waste solvents, scrap rubber, and petroleum coke has expanded in recent years.

Five different processes are used in the portland cement industry to accomplish the pyroprocessing step: the wet process, the dry process (long dry process), the semidry process, the dry process with a preheater, and the dry process with a preheater/precalciner. Each of these processes accomplishes the physical/chemical steps defined above. However, the processes vary with respect to equipment design, method of operation, and fuel consumption. Generally, fuel consumption decreases in the order of the processes listed. The paragraphs below briefly describe the process, starting with the wet process and then noting differences in the other processes.

In the wet process and long dry process, all of the pyroprocessing activity occurs in the rotary kiln. Depending on the process type, kilns have length-to-diameter ratios in the range of 15:1 to 40:1. While some wet process kilns may be as long as 210 m (700 ft), many wet process kilns and all dry process kilns are shorter. Wet process and long dry process pyroprocessing systems consist solely of the simple rotary kiln. Usually, a system of chains is provided at the feed end of the kiln in the drying or preheat zones to improve heat transfer from the hot gases to the solid materials. As the kiln rotates, the chains are raised and exposed to the hot gases. Further kiln rotation causes the hot chains to fall into the cooler materials at the bottom of the kiln, thereby transferring the heat to the load.

Dry process pyroprocessing systems have been improved in thermal efficiency and productive capacity through the addition of one or more cyclone-type preheater vessels in the gas stream exiting the rotary kiln. This system is called the preheater process. The vessels are arranged vertically, in series, and are supported by a structure known as the preheater tower. Hot exhaust gases from the rotary kiln pass countercurrently through the downward-moving raw materials in the preheater vessels. Compared to the simple rotary kiln, the heat transfer rate is significantly increased, the degree of heat utilization is greater, and the process time is markedly reduced by the intimate contact of the solid particles with the hot gases. The improved heat transfer allows the length of the rotary kiln to be reduced. The hot gases from the preheater tower are often used as a source of heat for drying raw materials in the raw mill. Because the catch from the mechanical collectors, fabric filters, and/or

11.6-4 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### electrostatic precipitators (ESP) that follow the raw mill is returned to the process, these devices are considered to be production machines as well as pollution control devices.

Additional thermal efficiencies and productivity gains have been achieved by diverting some fuel to a calciner vessel at the base of the preheater tower. This system is called the preheater/precalciner process. While a substantial amount of fuel is used in the precalciner, at least 40 percent of the thermal energy is required in the rotary kiln. The amount of fuel that is introduced to the calciner is determined by the availability and source of the oxygen for combustion in the calciner. Calciner systems sometimes use lower-quality fuels (e. g., less-volatile matter) as a means of improving process economics.

Preheater and precalciner kiln systems often have an alkali bypass system between the feed end of the rotary kiln and the preheater tower to remove the undesirable volatile constituents. Otherwise, the volatile constituents condense in the preheater tower and subsequently recirculate to the kiln. Buildup of these condensed materials can restrict process and gas flows. The alkali content of portland cement is often limited by product specifications because excessive alkali metals (i. e., sodium and potassium) can cause deleterious reactions in concrete. In a bypass system, a portion of the kiln exit gas stream is withdrawn and quickly cooled by air or water to condense the volatile constituents to fine particles. The solid particles, containing the undesirable volatile constituents, are removed from the gas stream and thus the process by fabric filters and ESPs.

The semidry process is a variation of the dry process. In the semidry process, the water is added to the dry raw mix in a pelletizer to form moist nodules or pellets. The pellets then are conveyed on a moving grate preheater before being fed to the rotary kiln. The pellets are dried and partially calcined by hot kiln exhaust gases passing through the moving grate.

Regardless of the type of pyroprocess used, the last component of the pyroprocessing system is the clinker cooler. This process step recoups up to 30 percent of the heat input to the kiln system, locks in desirable product qualities by freezing mineralogy, and makes it possible to handle the cooled clinker with conventional conveying equipment. The more common types of clinker coolers are (1) reciprocating grate, (2) planetary, and (3) rotary. In these coolers, the clinker is cooled from about 1100°C to 93°C (2000°F to 200°F) by ambient air that passes through the clinker and into the rotary kiln for use as combustion air. However, in the reciprocating grate cooler, lower clinker discharge temperatures are achieved by passing an additional quantity of air through the clinker. Because this additional air cannot be utilized in the kiln for efficient combustion, it is vented to the atmosphere, used for drying coal or raw materials, or used as a combustion air source for the precalciner.

The final step in portland cement manufacturing involves a sequence of blending and grinding operations that transforms clinker to finished portland cement. Up to 5 percent gypsum or natural anhydrite is added to the clinker during grinding to control the cement setting time, and other specialty chemicals are added as needed to impart specific product properties. This finish milling isaccomplished almost exclusively in ball or tube mills. Typically, finishing is conducted in a closedcircuit system, with product sizing by air separation.

11.6.2 Emissions And Controls 1,3-7



### Particulate matter (PM and PM-10), nitrogen oxides (NO
x 

### ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 

### ), carbon monoxide (CO), and CO 2 

### are the primary emissions in the manufacture of portland cement. Small quantities of volatile organic compounds (VOC), ammonia (NH 3 

### ), chlorine, and hydrogen chloride (HCl), also may be emitted. Emissions may also include residual materials from the fuel and raw materials or products of incomplete combustion that are considered to be hazardous. Because some

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-5

### facilities burn waste fuels, particularly spent solvents in the kiln, these systems also may emit small quantities of additional hazardous organic pollutants. Also, raw material feeds and fuels typically contain trace amounts of heavy metals that may be emitted as a particulate or vapor.

Sources of PM at cement plants include (1) quarrying and crushing, (2) raw material storage, (3) grinding and blending (in the dry process only), (4) clinker production, (5) finish grinding, and (6) packaging and loading. The largest emission source of PM within cement plants is the pyroprocessing system that includes the kiln and clinker cooler exhaust stacks. Often, dust from the kiln is collected and recycled into the kiln, thereby producing clinker from the dust. However, if the alkali content of the raw materials is too high, some or all of the dust is discarded or leached before being returned to the kiln. In many instances, the maximum allowable cement alkali content of 0.6 percent (calculated as sodium oxide) restricts the amount of dust that can be recycled. Bypass systems sometimes have a separate exhaust stack. Additional sources of PM are raw material storage piles, conveyors, storage silos, and unloading facilities. Emissions from portland cement plants constructed or modified after August 17, 1971 are regulated to limit PM emissions from portland cement kilns to 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 lb/ton) of feed (dry basis), and to limit PM emissions from clinker coolers to 0.050 kg/Mg (0.10 lb/ton) of feed (dry basis).

Oxides of nitrogen are generated during fuel combustion by oxidation of chemically-bound nitrogen in the fuel and by thermal fixation of nitrogen in the combustion air. As flame temperature increases, the amount of thermally generated NO
x 

### increases. The amount of NO
x 

### generated from fuel increases with the quantity of nitrogen in the fuel. In the cement manufacturing process, NO
x 

### is generated in both the burning zone of the kiln and the burning zone of a precalcining vessel. Fuel use affects the quantity and type of NO
x 

### generated. For example, in the kiln, natural gas combustion with a high flame temperature and low fuel nitrogen generates a larger quantity of NO
x 

### than does oil or coal, which have higher fuel nitrogen but which burn with lower flame temperatures. The opposite may be true in a precalciner. Types of fuels used vary across the industry. Historically, some combination of coal, oil, and natural gas was used, but over the last 15 years, most plants have switched to coal, which generates less NO
x 

### than does oil or gas. However, in recent years a number of plants have switched to systems that burn a combination of coal and waste fuel. The effect of
waste fuel use on NO
x 

### emissions is not clearly established.

Sulfur dioxide may be generated both from the sulfur compounds in the raw materials and from sulfur in the fuel. The sulfur content of both raw materials and fuels varies from plant to plant and with geographic location. However, the alkaline nature of the cement provides for direct absorption of SO 2 

### into the product, thereby mitigating the quantity of SO 2 

### emissions in the exhaust stream. Depending on the process and the source of the sulfur, SO 2 

### absorption ranges from about 70 percent to more than 95 percent.

The CO 2 

### emissions from portland cement manufacturing are generated by two mechanisms. As with most high-temperature, energy-intensive industrial processes, combusting fuels to generate process energy releases substantial quantities of CO 2 

### . Substantial quantities of CO 2 

### also are generated through calcining of limestone or other calcareous material. This calcining process thermally decomposes CaCO 3 

### to CaO and CO 2 

### . Typically, portland cement contains the equivalent of about 63.5 percent CaO. Consequently, about 1.135 units of CaCO 3 

### are required to produce 1 unit of cement, and the amount of CO 2 

### released in the calcining process is about 500 kilograms (kg) per Mg of portland cement produced (1,000 pounds [lb] per ton of cement). Total CO 2 

### emissions from the pyroprocess depend on energy consumption and generally fall in the range of 0.85 to 1.35 Mg of CO 2 

### per Mg of clinker.

11.6-6 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### In addition to CO 2 

### emissions, fuel combustion at portland cement plants can emit a wide range of pollutants in smaller quantities. If the combustion reactions do not reach completion, CO and volatile organic pollutants, typically measured as total organic compounds (TOC), VOC, or organic condensable particulate, can be emitted. Incomplete combustion also can lead to emissions of specific hazardous organic air pollutants, although these pollutants are generally emitted at substantially lower
levels than CO or TOC.

Emissions of metal compounds from portland cement kilns can be grouped into three general classes: volatile metals, including mercury (Hg) and thallium (Tl); semivolatile metals, including antimony (Sb), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), zinc (Zn), potassium (K), and sodium (Na); and refractory or nonvolatile metals, including barium (Ba), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As), nickel (Ni), vanadium (V), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), and silver (Ag). Although the partitioning of these metal groups is affected by kiln operating conditions, the refractory metals tend to concentrate in the clinker, while the volatile and semivolatile metals tend to be discharged through the primary exhaust stack and the bypass stack, respectively.

Fugitive dust sources in the industry include quarrying and mining operations, vehicle traffic during mineral extraction and at the manufacturing site, raw materials storage piles, and clinker storage piles. The measures used to control emissions from these fugitive dust sources are comparable to those used throughout the mineral products industries. Vehicle traffic controls include paving and road wetting. Controls that are applied to other open dust sources include water sprays with and without surfactants, chemical dust suppressants, wind screens, and process modifications to reduce drop heights or enclose storage operations. Additional information on these control measures can be found in Chapter 13 of AP-42, "Miscellaneous Sources".

Process fugitive emission sources include materials handling and transfer, raw milling operations in dry process facilities, and finish milling operations. Typically, emissions from these processes are captured by a ventilation system and collected in fabric filters. Some facilities use an air pollution control system comprising one or more mechanical collectors with a fabric filter in series. Because the dust from these units is returned to the process, they are considered to be process units as well as air pollution control devices. The industry uses shaker, reverse air, and pulse jet filters as well as some cartridge units, but most newer facilities use pulse jet filters. For process fugitive operations, the different systems are reported to achieve typical outlet PM loadings of 45 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m 3 

### ) (0.02 grains per actual cubic foot [gr/acf]).

In the pyroprocessing units, PM emissions are controlled by fabric filters (reverse air, pulse jet, or pulse plenum) and electrostatic precipitators (ESP). Typical control measures for the kiln exhaust
are reverse air fabric filters with an air-to-cloth ratio of 0.41:1 m 3 

### /min/m 2 

### (1.5:1 acfm/ft 2 

### ) and ESP with a net surface collection area of 1,140 to 1,620 m 2 

### /1,000 m 3 

### (350 to 500 ft 2 

### /1,000 ft 3 

### ). These systems are reported to achieve outlet PM loadings of 45 mg/m 3 

### (0.02 gr/acf). Clinker cooler systems are controlled most frequently with pulse jet or pulse plenum fabric filters. A few gravel bed filters also have been used to control clinker cooler emissions. Typical outlet PM loadings are identical to those reported for kilns.

Cement kiln systems have highly alkaline internal environments that can absorb up to 95 percent of potential SO 2 

### emissions. However, in systems that have sulfide sulfur (pyrites) in the kiln feed, the sulfur absorption rate may be as low as 70 percent without unique design considerations or changes in raw materials. The cement kiln system itself has been determined to provide substantial
SO 2 

### control. Fabric filters on cement kilns are also reported to absorb SO 2 

### . Generally, substantial control is not achieved. An absorbing reagent (e. g., CaO) must be present in the filter cake for SO 2 

### capture to occur. Without the presence of water, which is undesirable in the operation of a fabric

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-7

### filter, CaCO 3 

### is not an absorbing reagent. It has been observed that as much as 50 percent of the SO 2 

### can be removed from the pyroprocessing system exhaust gases when this gas stream is used in a raw mill for heat recovery and drying. In this case, moisture and calcium carbonate are simultaneously present for sufficient time to accomplish the chemical reaction with SO 2 

### .

Tables 11.6-1 and 11.6-2 present emission factors for PM emissions from portland cement manufacturing kilns and clinker coolers. Tables 11.6-3 and 11.6-4 present emission factors for PM emissions from raw material and product processing and handling. Particle size distributions for emissions from wet process and dry process kilns are presented in Table 11.6-5, and Table 11.6-6 presents the particle size distributions for emissions from clinker coolers. Emission factors for SO 2 

### , NO
x 

### , CO, CO 2 

### , and TOC emissions from portland cement kilns are summarized in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8. Table 11.6-9 summarizes emission factors for other pollutant emissions from portland cement
kilns.

Because of differences in the sulfur content of the raw material and fuel and in process operations, a mass balance for sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the SO 2 

### emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8. In addition, CO 2 

### emission factors estimated using a mass balance on carbon may be more representative for a specific facility than the CO 2 

### emission factors presented in Tables 11.6-7 and 11.6-8.

11.6-8 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95Table 11.6-1 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURINGKILNS AND CLINKER COOLERSaProcessFilterablebCondensablecPMEMISSIONFACTORRATINGPM-10EMISSIONFACTORRATINGInorganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGOrganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGWet process kiln(SCC 3-05-007-06)65dD 16eDND NDWet process kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.38fC 0.33gD0.076hD NDWet process kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.23jE ND0.10jE NDWet process kiln with cooling tower,multiclone, and ESP(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.10kE ND0.14kE NDDry process kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-06)0.50mD ND0.19mD NDDry process kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-06)0.10nD 0.084pD0.45nD NDPreheater kiln(SCC 3-05-006-22)130qD NDND NDPreheater kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.13rD NDND NDPreheater kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.13sC ND0.017tD NDPreheater/precalciner kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.024uD NDND NDPreheater/precalciner process kilnwith fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.10vD NDND NDPreheater/precalciner process kilnwith PM controls(SCC 3-05-006-23)NDND0.078wDND



### 1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-9Table 11.6-1 (cont.).ProcessFilterablebCondensablecPMEMISSIONFACTORRATINGPM-10EMISSIONFACTORRATINGInorganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGOrganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGClinker cooler with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.048xD ND0.0038xD NDClinker cooker with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.068yD ND0.0084zD NDClinker cooler with gravel bed filter(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.11aaD0.084bbD0.0045ccDNDaFactors represent uncontrolled emissions unless, otherwise noted. Factors are kg/Mg of clinker produced, unless noted. SCC = SourceClassification Code. ND = no data. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.bFilterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.cCondensable PM is that collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.dReferences 20,26.eReferences 3,20,26.fReferences 8-9,18,20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.gReferences 3,8-9,18,20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.hReferences 8-9,20,64.jReference 14.kReference 21.mReferences 19,21.nReference 23.pReferences 3,23.qReference 17.rReference 31.sReferences 17,47-50,61.tReference 51.uReference 37.vReferences 30,33,51,56-59,63wReferences 30,33,37,51,59.xReference 8.yReferences 9,12,27,30,33.zReferences 9,12,30.aaReferences 22,29,31bbReferences 3,22,29,31ccReferences 22,29



### 11.6-10 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95Table 11.6-2 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURINGKILNS AND CLINKER COOLERSaProcessFilterablebCondensablecPMEMISSIONFACTORRATINGPM-10EMISSIONFACTORRATINGInorganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGOrganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGWet process kiln(SCC 3-05-007-06)130dD 31eDND NDWet process kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.77fC 0.65gD0.15hD NDWet process kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.46jE ND0.20jE NDWet process kiln with cooling tower,multiclone, and ESP(SCC 3-05-007-06)0.20kE ND0.29kE NDDry process kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-06)1.0mD ND0.38mD NDDry process kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-06)0.20nD 0.17pD0.89nD NDPreheater kiln(SCC 3-05-006-22)250qD NDND NDPreheater kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.26rD NDND NDPreheater kiln with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.25sC ND0.033tD NDPreheater/precalciner kiln with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.048uD NDND NDPreheater/precalciner process kilnwith fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.21vD NDND NDPreheater/precalciner process kilnwith PM controls(SCC 3-05-006-23)NDND0.16wDND



### 1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-11Table 11.6-2 (cont.).ProcessFilterablebCondensablecPMEMISSIONFACTORRATINGPM-10EMISSIONFACTORRATINGInorganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGOrganicEMISSIONFACTORRATINGClinker cooler with ESP(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.096xD ND0.0075xD NDClinker cooker with fabric filter(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.13yD ND0.017zD NDClinker cooler with gravel bed filter(SCC 3-05-006-14)0.21aaD0.16bbD0.0090ccDNDaFactors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Factors are lb/ton of clinker produced unless noted. SCC = SourceClassification Code. ND = no data. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.bFilterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling train.cCondensable PM is that collected in the impinger portion of a PM sampling train.dReferences 20,26.eReferences 3,20,26.fReferences 8-9,18,20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.gReferences 3,8-9,18,20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.hReferences 8-9,20,64.jReference 14.kReference 21.mReferences 19,21.nReference 23.pReferences 3,23.qReference 17.rReference 31.sReferences 17,47-50,61.tReference 51.uReference 37.vReferences 30,33,51,56-59,63wReferences 30,33,37,51,59.xReference 8.yReferences 9,12,27,30,33.zReferences 9,12,30.aaReferences 22,29,31bbReferences 3,22,29,31ccReferences 22,29



### 11.6-12 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### Table 11.6-3 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING a



### Process Filterable b



### PM EMISSION FACTOR RATING PM-10 EMISSION FACTOR RATING

Raw mill with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-13) 0.0062 c 

### D ND

Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-24) 0.0016 d 

### E ND

Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-25) 0.010 e 

### E ND

Raw mill air separator with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-26) 0.016 e 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17) 0.0042 f 

### D ND

Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27) 0.0012 d 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28) 0.0047 e 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29) 0.014 g 

### D ND

Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-09) h 

### 0.00050 E ND

Primary limestone screening with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-11) h 

### 0.00011 E ND

Limestone transfer with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-12) h 

### 1.5 x 10 -5 

### E ND

Secondary limestone screening and crushing with

fabric filter (SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -11) h 

### 0.00016 E ND

a 

### Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted. Factors are kg/Mg of material

process, unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. 4b 

### Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling

train.

c 

### References 15,56-57. d 

### Reference 57.

e 

### Reference 15. f 

### References 10,12,15,56-57.
g 

### References 10,15. h 

### Reference 16. Alternatively, emission factors from Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing", can

be used for similar processes and equipment.

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-13

### Table 11.6-4 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
MANUFACTURING RAW MATERIAL AND PRODUCT PROCESSING AND HANDLING a



### Process Filterable b



### PM EMISSION FACTOR RATING PM-10 EMISSION FACTOR RATING

Raw mill with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-13) 0.012 c 

### D ND

Raw mill feed belt with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-24) 0.0031 d 

### E ND

Raw mill weigh hopper with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-25) 0.019 e 

### E ND

Raw mill air separator with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-26) 0.032 e 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-17, 3-05-007-17) 0.0080 f 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill feed belt with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-27, 3-05-007-27) 0.0024 d 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill weigh hopper with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-28, 3-05-007-28) 0.0094 e 

### E ND

Finish grinding mill air separator with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-29, 3-05-007-29) 0.028 g 

### D ND

Primary limestone crushing with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-09) h 

### 0.0010 E ND

Primary limestone screening with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-11) h 

### 0.00022 E ND

Limestone transfer with fabric filter

(SCC 3-05-006-12) h 

### 2.9 x 10 -5 

### E ND

Secondary limestone screening and crushing with

fabric filter (SCC 3-05-006-10 + -11, 3-05-007-10 + -11) h 

### 0.00031 E ND

a 

### Factors represent uncontrolled emissions, unless otherwise noted. Factors are lb/ton of material

processed, unless noted. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data. b 

### Filterable PM is that collected on or before the filter of an EPA Method 5 (or equivalent) sampling

train.

c 

### References 15,56-57. d 

### Reference 57.

e 

### Reference 15. f 

### References 10,12,15,56-57.
g 

### References 10,15. h 

### Reference 16. Alternatively, emission factors from the Section 11.19.2, "Crushed Stone Processing",

can be used for similar processes and equipment.

11.6-14 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### Table 11.6-5. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNS a



### Particle Size, μm Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size

Uncontrolled Controlled

Wet process (SCC 3-05-007-06) Dry process (SCC 3-05-006-06) Wet process
With ESP (SCC 3-05-007-06) Dry process
With FF (SCC 3-05-006-06)

2.5 7 18 64 45

5.0 20 ND 83 77

10.0 24 42 85 84

15.0 35 44 91 89

20.0 57 ND 98 100

a 

### Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.

Table 11.6-6. SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CLINKER COOLERS a



### Particle Size, μm Cumulative Mass Percent Equal To Or Less Than Stated Size

Uncontrolled (SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14) With Gravel Bed Filter (SCC 3-05-006-14, 3-05-007-14)

2.5 0.54 40

5.0 1.5 64

10.0 8.6 76

15.0 21 84

20.0 34 89

a 

### Reference 3. SCC = Source Classification Code.

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-15Table 11.6-7 (Metric Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURINGaProcessSO2bEMISSIONFACTORRATINGNOxEMISSIONFACTORRATINGCOEMISSIONFACTORRATINGCO2cEMISSIONFACTORRATINGTOCEMISSIONFACTORRATINGWet process kiln(SCC 3-05-007-06)4.1dC3.7eD0.060fD1,100gD0.014fDLong dry process kiln(SCC 3-05-006-06)4.9hD3.0jD0.11kE900mD0.014nEPreheater process kiln(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.27pD2.4qD0.49rD900sC0.090tDPreheater/precalciner kiln(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.54uD2.1vD1.8wD900xE0.059yDPreheater/precalciner kiln withspray tower(SCC 3-05-006-23)0.50zENDNDNDNDaFactors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Factors are kg/Mg of clinker produced, unless noted. SCC = SourceClassification Code. ND = no data.bMass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the SO2emission factors presented inthis table.cMass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the CO2emission factors presented inthis table.dReferences 20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.eReferences 26,34-36,43,64.fReference 64.gReferences 25-26,32,34-36,44,60,64.hReferences 11,19,39,40.jReferences 11,38-40,65.kReferences 39,65.mReferences 11,21,23,65.nReferences 40,65. TOC as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.pReferences 47-50.qReferences 48-50.rReference 49.sReferences 24,31,47-50,61.



### 11.6-16 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95Table 11.6-7 (cont.).tReference 49; total organic compounds as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.uReferences 28,30,33,37,53,56-59.vReferences 28,30,33,37,45,56-59.wReferences 28,30,37,56-58,63.xReferences 24,31,47-50,61. Based on test data for preheater kilns; should be considered an upper limit.yReferences 30,33,56,63; total organic compounds as measured using Method 25A or equivalent.zReference 54.



### 1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-17Table 11.6-8 (English Units). EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURINGaProcessSO2bEMISSIONFACTORRATINGNOxEMISSIONFACTORRATINGCOEMISSIONFACTORRATINGCO2cEMISSIONFACTORRATINGTOCEMISSIONFACTORRATINGWet process kiln(SCC 3-05-007-06)8.2dC7.4eD0.12fD2,100gD0.028fDLong dry process kiln(SCC 3-05-006-06)10hD6.0jD0.21kE1,800mD0.028nEPreheater process kiln(SCC 3-05-006-22)0.55pD4.8qD0.98rD1,800sC0.18tDPreheater/precalciner kiln(SCC 3-05-006-23)1.1uD4.2vD3.7wD1,800xE0.12yDPreheater/precalciner kilnwith spray tower(SCC 3-05-006-23)1.0zENDNDNDNDaFactors represent uncontrolled emissions unless otherwise noted. Factors are lb/ton of clinker produced, unless noted.SCC = Source Classification Code. ND = no data.bMass balance on sulfur may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the SO2emission factors presentedin this table.cMass balance on carbon may yield a more representative emission factor for a specific facility than the CO2emission factors presentedin this table.dReferences 20,25-26,32,34-36,41-44,60,64.eReferences 26,34-36,43,64.fReference 64.gReferences 25-26,32,34-36,44,60,64.hReferences 11,19,39-40.jReferences 11,38-40,65.kReferences 39,65.mReferences 11,21,23,65.nReferences 40,65. TOC as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.pReferences 47-50.qReferences 48-50.rReference 49.sReferences 24,31,47-50,61.tReference 49; total organic compounds as measured by Method 25A or equivalent.



### 11.6-18 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95Table 11.6-8 (cont.).uReferences 28,30,33,37,53,56-59.vReferences 28,30,33,37,45, and 56 to 59.wReferences 28,30,37,56-58,63.xReferences 24,31,47-50,61. Based on test data for preheater kilns; should be considered an upper limit.yReferences 30,33,56,63; total organic compounds as measured using Method 25A or equivalent.zReference 54.



### 1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-19

### Table 11.6-9 (Metric And English Units). SUMMARY OF NONCRITERIA POLLUTANT
EMISSION FACTORS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT KILNS a



### (SCC 3-05-006-06, 3-05-007-06, 3-05-006-22, 3-05-006-23)

Pollutant

Name Type Of
Control Average Emission Factor EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING kg/Mg lb/ton References

Inorganic Pollutants

Silver (Ag) FF 3.1x10 -7 6.1x10 -7 D 63

Aluminum (Al) ESP 0.0065 0.013 E 65

Arsenic (As) ESP 6.5x10 -6 1.3x10 -5 E 65

Arsenic (As) FF 6.0x10 -6 1.2x10 -5 D 63

Barium (Ba) ESP 0.00018 0.00035 D 64

Barium (Ba) FF 0.00023 0.00046 D 63
Beryllium (Be) FF 3.3x10 -7 6.6x10 -7 D 63

Calcium (Ca) ESP 0.12 0.24 E 65

Cadmium (Cd) ESP 4.2x10 -6 8.3x10 -6 D 64

Cadmium (Cd) FF 1.1x10 -6 2.2x10 -6 D 63

Chloride (Cl) ESP 0.34 0.68 E 25,42-44

Chloride (Cl) FF 0.0011 0.0021 D 63

Chromium (Cr) ESP 3.9x10 -6 7.7x10 -6 E 64

Chromium (Cr) FF 7.0x10 -5 0.00014 D 63
Copper (Cu) FF 0.0026 0.0053 E 62

Fluoride (F) ESP 0.00045 0.00090 E 43

Iron (Fe) ESP 0.0085 0.017 E 65
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) ESP 0.025 0.049 E 41,65
Hydrogen chloride (HCl) FF 0.073 0.14 D 59,63
Mercury (Hg) ESP 0.00011 0.00022 D 64
Mercury (Hg) FF 1.2x10 -5 2.4x10 -5 D 11,63

Potassium (K) ESP 0.0090 0.018 D 25,42-43
Manganese (Mn) ESP 0.00043 0.00086 E 65

Ammonia (NH 3 ) FF 0.0051 0.010 E 59

Ammonium (NH 4 ) ESP 0.054 0.11 D 25,42-44

Nitrate (NO 3 ) ESP 0.0023 0.0046 E 43

Sodium (Na) ESP 0.020 0.038 D 25,42-44

Lead (Pb) ESP 0.00036 0.00071 D 64

Lead (Pb) FF 3.8x10 -5 7.5x10 -5 D 63

Sulfur trioxide (SO 3 ) ESP 0.042 0.086 E 25

Sulfur trioxide (SO 3 ) FF 0.0073 0.014 D 24,30,50

Sulfate (SO 4 ) ESP 0.10 0.20 D 25,42-44

Sulfate (SO 4 ) FF 0.0036 0.0072 D 30,33,52



### 11.6-20 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### Table 11.6-9 (cont.).

Pollutant

Name Type Of
Control Average Emission Factor EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING References kg/Mg lb/ton

Selenium (Se) ESP 7.5x10 -5 0.00015 E 65

Selenium (Se) FF 0.00010 0.00020 E 62

Thallium (Th) FF 2.7x10 -6 5.4x10 -6 D 63

Titanium (Ti) ESP 0.00019 0.00037 E 65

Zinc (Zn) ESP 0.00027 0.00054 D 64

Zinc (Zn) FF 0.00017 0.00034 D 63

Organic Pollutants

CASRN b Name

35822-46-9 1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD FF 1.1x10 -10 2.2x10 -10 E 62

C3 benzenes ESP 1.3x10 -6 2.6x10 -6 E 65

C4 benzenes ESP 3.0x10 -6 6.0x10 -6 E 65

C6 benzenes ESP 4.6x10 -7 9.2x10 -7 E 65
208-96-8 acenaphthylene FF 5.9x10 -5 0.00012 E 62

67-64-1 acetone ESP 0.00019 0.00037 D 64
100-52-7 benzaldehyde ESP 1.2x10 -5 2.4x10 -5 E 65

71-43-2 benzene ESP 0.0016 0.0031 D 64

71-43-2 benzene FF 0.0080 0.016 E 62

benzo(a)anthracene FF 2.1x10 -8 4.3x10 -8 E 62
50-32-8 benzo(a)pyrene FF 6.5x10 -8 1.3x10 -7 E 62

205-99-2 benzo(b)fluoranthene FF 2.8x10 -7 5.6x10 -7 E 62
191-24-2 benzo(g,h,i)perylene FF 3.9x10 -8 7.8x10 -8 E 62

207-08-9 benzo(k)fluoranthene FF 7.7x10 -8 1.5x10 -7 E 62

65-85-0 benzoic acid ESP 0.0018 0.0035 D 64
95-52-4 biphenyl ESP 3.1x10 -6 6.1x10 -6 E 65
117-81-7 bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ESP 4.8x10 -5 9.5x10 -5 D 64

74-83-9 bromomethane ESP 2.2x10 -5 4.3x10 -5 E 64

75-15-0 carbon disulfide ESP 5.5x10 -5 0.00011 D 64

108-90-7 chlorobenzene ESP 8.0x10 -6 1.6x10 -5 D 64

74-87-3 chloromethane ESP 0.00019 0.00038 E 64
218-01-9 chrysene FF 8.1x10 -8 1.6x10 -7 E 62
84-74-2 di-n-butylphthalate ESP 2.1x10 -5 4.1x10 -5 D 64

53-70-3 dibenz(a,h)anthracene FF 3.1x10 -7 6.3x10 -7 E 62
101-41-4 ethylbenzene ESP 9.5x10 -6 1.9x10 -5 D 64

206-44-0 fluoranthene FF 4.4x10 -6 8.8x10 -6 E 62

86-73-7 fluorene FF 9.4x10 -6 1.9x10 -5 E 62

50-00-0 formaldehyde FF 0.00023 0.00046 E 62



### 1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-21

### Table 11.6-9 (cont.).

Pollutant Type Of
Control Average Emission Factor EMISSION
FACTOR
RATING References CASRN b Name kg/Mg lb/ton

freon 113 ESP 2.5x10 -5 5.0x10 -5 E 65
193-39-5 indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene FF 4.3x10 -8 8.7x10 -8 E 62
78-93-3 methyl ethyl ketone ESP 1.5x10 -5 3.0x10 -5 E 64-65
75-09-2 methylene chloride ESP 0.00025 0.00049 E 65
methylnaphthalene ESP 2.1x10 -6 4.2x10 -6 E 65
91-20-3 naphthalene FF 0.00085 0.0017 E 62
91-20-3 naphthalene ESP 0.00011 0.00022 D 64
85-01-8 phenanthrene FF 0.00020 0.00039 E 62
108-95-2 phenol ESP 5.5x10 -5 0.00011 D 64
129-00-0 pyrene FF 2.2x10 -6 4.4x10 -6 E 62
100-42-5 styrene ESP 7.5x10 -7 1.5x10 -6 E 65

108-88-3 toluene ESP 0.00010 0.00019 D 64
total HpCDD FF 2.0x10 -10 3.9x10 -10 E 62

3268-87-9 total OCDD FF 1.0x10 -9 2.0x10 -9 E 62

total PCDD FF 1.4x10 -9 2.7x10 -9 E 62

132-64-9 total PCDF FF 1.4x10 -10 2.9x10 -10 E 62

132-64-9 total TCDF FF 1.4x10 -10 2.9x10 -10 E 62

1330-20-7 xylenes ESP 6.5x10 -5 0.00013 D 64

a 

### Factors are kg/Mg and lb/ton of clinker produced. SCC = Source Classification Code.

ESP = electrostatic precipitator. FF = fabric filter. b 

### Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number (organic compounds only).

References For Section 11.6

1. W. L. Greer, et al ., "Portland Cement", Air Pollution Engineering Manual , A. J. Buonicore and W. T. Davis (eds.), Von Nostrand Reinhold, NY, 1992.

2. U. S. And Canadian Portland Cement Industry Plant Information Summary , December 31, 1990, Portland Cement Association, Washington, DC, August 1991.

3. J. S. Kinsey, Lime And Cement Industry - Source Category Report, Volume II , EPA-600/7-87- 007, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH, February 1987.

4. Written communication from Robert W. Crolius, Portland Cement Association, Washington, DC, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. March 11, 1992.

5. Written communication from Walter Greer, Ash Grove Cement Company, Overland Park, KS, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 30, 1993.

11.6-22 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### 6. Written communication from John Wheeler, Capitol Cement, San Antonio, TX, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 21, 1993.

7. Written communication from F. L. Streitman, ESSROC Materials, Incorporated, Nazareth, PA, to Ron Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 29, 1993.

8. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Maule Industries, Inc ., ETB Test No. 71-MM-01, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
March 1972.

9. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Clinker Cooler At Ideal Cement Company

, ETB Test No. 71-MM-03, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

10. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company, ETB Test No. 71-MM-04, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

11. Emissions From Dry Process Cement Kiln At Dragon Cement Company , ETB Test No. 71-MM-05, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

12. Emissions From Wet Process Clinker Cooler And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company, ETB Test No. 71-MM-06, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

13. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Giant Portland Cement , ETB Test No. 71-MM-07, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

14. Emissions From Wet Process Cement Kiln At Oregon Portland Cement , ETB Test No. 71-MM-15, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1972.

15. Emissions From Dry Process Raw Mill And Finish Mill Systems At Ideal Cement Company

, ETB Test No. 71-MM-02, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1972.

16. Part I, Air Pollution Emission Test: Arizona Portland Cement , EPA Project Report No. 74-STN-1, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

17. Characterization Of Inhalable Particulate Matter Emissions From A Dry Process Cement Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, February
1983.

18. Characterization Of Inhalable Particulate Matter Emissions From A Wet Process Cement Plant, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3158, Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, August
1983.

19. Particulate Emission Testing At Lone Star Industries’ Nazareth Plant , Lone Star Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, January 1978.

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-23

### 20. Particulate Emissions Testing At Lone Star Industries’ Greencastle Plant , Lone Star Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, July 1977.

21. Gas Process Survey At Lone Star Cement, Inc.’s Roanoke No. 5 Kiln System , Lone Star Cement, Inc., Cloverdale, VA, October 1979.

22. Test Report: Stack Analysis For Particulate Emissions: Clinker Coolers/Gravel Bed Filter, Mease Engineering Associates, Port Matilda, PA, January 1993.

23. Source Emissions Survey Of Oklahoma Cement Company’s Kiln Number 3 Stack , Mullins Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, March 1980.

24. Source Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc.: Kilns 1, 2, and 3 , Mullins Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, June 1980.

25. Source Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc. , Mullins Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, November 1981.

26. Stack Emission Survey And Precipitator Efficiency Testing At Bonner Springs Plant , Lone Star Industries, Inc., Houston, TX, November 1981.

27. NSPS Particulate Emission Compliance Test: No. 8 Kiln , Interpoll, Inc., Blaine, MN, March
1983.

28. Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, May 1983.

29. Source Emissions Survey Of Lehigh Portland Cement Company , Mullins Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, August 1983.

30. Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, May 1984.

31. Particulate Compliance Test: Lehigh Portland Cement Company , CH2M Hill, Montgomery, AL, October 1984.

32. Compliance Test Results: Particulate & Sulfur Oxide Emissions At Lehigh Portland Cement Company , KVB, Inc., Irvine, CA, December 1984.

33. Annual Compliance Test: Mojave Plant , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, May 1985.

34. Stack Tests for Particulate, SO 2 

### , NO
x 

### And Visible Emissions At Lone Star Florida Holding, Inc., South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, August 1985.

35. Compliance Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc ., South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July 1981.

36. Preliminary Stack Test At Lone Star Florida/Pennsuco, Inc. , South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, July 1981.

11.6-24 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95

### 37. Quarterly Testing For Lone Star Cement At Davensport, California , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, September 1985.

38. Written Communication from David S. Cahn, CalMat Co., El Monte, CA, to Frank Noonan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1987.

39. Technical Report On The Demonstration Of The Feasibility Of NO
x 

### Emissions Reduction At Riverside Cement Company, Crestmore Plant (Parts I-V) , Riverside Cement Company, Riverside, CA, and Quantitative Applications, Stone Mountain, GA, January 1986.

40. Emission Study Of The Cement Kiln No. 20 Baghouse Collector At The Alpena Plant, Great Lakes Division, Lafarge Corporation , Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., Novi, MI,
March 1989.

41. Baseline And Solvent Fuels Stack Emissions Test At Alpha Portland Cement Company In Cementon, New York , Energy & Resource Recovery Corp., Albany, NY, January 1982.

42. Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana , Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

43. Stationary Source Sampling Report Of Lone Star Industries, New Orleans, Louisiana , Entropy Environmentalists, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

44. Source Emissions Survey Of Kiln No. 1 At Lone Star Industries, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, Mullins Environmental Testing Company, Inc., Addison, TX, March 1984.

45. Written Communication from Richard Cooke, Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., Durkee, OR, to Frank Noonan, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 13,
1987.

46. Source Emissions Survey Of Texas Cement Company Of Buda, Texas , Mullins Environmental Testing Co., Inc., Addison, TX, September 1986.

47. Determination of Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From The Kiln And Alkali Baghouse Stacks At Southwestern Portland Cement Company , Pollution Control Science, Inc., Miamisburg, OH, June 1986.

48. Written Communication from Douglas MacIver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company, Victorville, CA, to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, October 23, 1989.

49. Source Emissions Survey Of Southwestern Portland Cement Company, KOSMOS Cement
Division , MetCo Environmental, Dallas, TX, June 1989.

50. Written Communication from John Mummert, Southwestern Portland Cement Company, Amarillo, TX, to Bill Stewart, Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX, April 14, 1983.

51. Written Communication from Stephen Sheridan, Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., Portland, OR, to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, January 15, 1980.

1/95 Mineral Products Industry 11.6-25

### 52. Written Communication from David Cahn, CalMat Co., Los Angeles, CA, to John Croom, Quantitative Applications, Inc., Stone Mountain, GA, December 18, 1989.

53. Source Emissions Compliance Test Report On The Kiln Stack At Marquette Cement Manufacturing Company, Cape Girardeau, Missouri , Performance Testing & Consultants, Inc., Kansas City, MO, February 1982.

54. Assessment Of Sulfur Levels At Lone Star Industries In Cape Girardeau, Missouri , KVB, Elmsford, NY, January 1984.

55. Written Communication from Douglas MacIver, Southwestern Portland Cement Company, Nephi, UT, to Brent Bradford, Utah Air Conservation Committee, Salt Lake City, UT, July 13,
1984.

56. Performance Guarantee Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, February 1985.

57. Compliance Testing At Southwestern Portland Cement , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, April 1985.

58. Emission Tests On Quarry Plant No. 2 Kiln At Southwestern Portland Cement, Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, March 1987.

59. Emission Tests On The No. 2 Kiln Baghouse At Southwestern Portland Cement , Pape & Steiner Environmental Services, Bakersfield, CA, April 1987.

60. Compliance Stack Test Of Cooler No. 3 At Lone Star Florida, Inc. , South Florida Environmental Services, Inc., Belle Glade, FL, July 1980.

61. Stack Emissions Survey Of Lone Star Industries, Inc., Portland Cement Plant At Maryneal,
Texas , Ecology Audits, Inc., Dallas, TX, September 1979.

62. Emissions Testing Report Conducted At Kaiser Cement, Coupertino, California, For Kaiser Cement, Walnut Creek, California, TMA Thermo Analytical, Inc. , Richmond, CA, April 30,
1990.

63. Certification Of Compliance Stack Emission Test Program At Lone Star Industries, Inc., Cape Girardeau, Missouri, April & June 1992 , Air Pollution Characterization and Control, Ltd., Tolland, CT, January 1993.

64. Source Emissions Survey Of Essrock Materials, Inc., Eastern Division Cement Group, Kilns Number 1 And 2 Stack, Frederick, Maryland, Volume I (Draft) , Metco Environmental, Addison, TX, November 1991.

65. M. Branscome, et al.

, Evaluation Of Waste Combustion In A Dry-process Cement Kiln At Lone Star Industries, Oglesby, Illinois , Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC,
December 1984.

11.6-26 EMISSION FACTORS 1/95