Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048-0142
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-02-26T05:00Z

Date:
November
26,
2003
Subject:
Review
of
Correlations
Between
Process
Variables
and
Emissions
for
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Industry
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
D­
1­
079;
EPA
Work
Assignment
No.
2­
12
RTI
Project
No.
08550.002.012
From:
Kristin
Parrish
Katie
Hanks
To:
Mary
Tom
Kissell,
ESD/
WCPG
(
C439­
03)
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711
I.
Introduction
The
purpose
of
this
memorandum
is
to
review
potential
correlations
between
process
variables
and
uncontrolled
emissions
test
data.
Process
variables
are
characteristics
of
process
units
or
production
processes
that
could
potentially
be
manipulated
(
if
technical
difficulties
could
be
overcome)
to
reduce
emissions.
This
memorandum
analyzes
the
process
variables
used
to
distinguish
process
units
for
purposes
of
emission
factor
development
including:

dryer
firing
method
(
direct­
vs.
indirect­
fired)

fuel
type
used
for
direct­
firing
(
natural
gas
vs.
wood)

wood
type
(
hardwood
vs.
softwood)

resin
type
(
phenol­
formaldehyde
[
PF]
vs.
urea­
formaldehyde
[
UF])

tube
dryer
blending
method
(
blowline
vs.
non­
blowline
blending)

As
explained
in
the
emission
factor
documentation
memo,
the
parameters
above
would
have
the
most
significant
effect
on
hazardous
air
pollutant
(
HAP)
emissions.
1
Further
distinctions
in
process
unit
variables
(
e.
g.,
specific
dryer
temperature,
press
cycle
time,
wood
age,
etc.)
are
impractical
because
in
many
cases,
the
source­
to­
source
variability
is
greater
than
the
variability
associated
with
process
operating
parameters.
Based
on
available
data
for
the
PCWP
industry
and
related
industries,
the
following
general
correlations
are
expected:

Direct­
fired
dryers
generally
have
higher
emissions
because
combustion
emissions
are
combined
with
the
dryer
emissions.
2

Emissions
from
wood
combustion
tend
to
be
higher
than
emissions
from
natural
gas
combustion,
and
thus,
combustion­
related
emissions
also
tend
to
be
higher
from
direct­
fired
dryers
that
fire
wood
as
opposed
to
natural
gas.

HAP
emissions
from
drying
of
wood
are
highly
variable
(
e.
g.,
from
tree
to
tree
and
species
to
species);
THC
emissions
are
also
highly
variable,
however,
THC
emissions
generally
tend
to
be
higher
when
drying
softwood
species
rather
than
hardwood
species
due
to
the
presence
of
non­
HAP
volatile
compounds
in
softwoods
such
as
pinenes.
1,
2

Resins
with
higher
HAP
contents
are
expected
to
contribute
more
HAP
emissions
than
resins
with
lower
HAP
content,
although
other
parameters
such
as
press
temperature
and
cycle
times
could
also
affect
HAP
emission
levels.

Emissions
from
blowline
blend
tube
dryers
are
expected
to
be
higher
than
emissions
from
non­
blowline
blend
tube
dryers
because
the
emissions
from
blending
of
the
resin
and
wood
are
combined
with
the
emissions
from
wood
drying
in
blowline
blend
tube
dryers.

To
analyze
the
potential
effect
of
process
variable
manipulation
on
emissions,
the
formaldehyde,
methanol,
and
total
hydrocarbon
as
carbon
(
THC)
uncontrolled
emissions
test
data
(
e.
g.,
3­
run
average
emission
factors)
were
sorted
within
each
process
unit
group
according
to
the
variables
listed
above.
Formaldehyde,
methanol,
and
THC
were
used
for
this
analysis
because
these
are
the
pollutants
are
emitted
in
greatest
mass
and
from
the
most
process
units
in
the
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
(
PCWP)
industry.
Some
process
units
were
not
included
in
this
analysis
because
no
data
were
available
to
make
the
process
distinctions
listed
above
(
e.
g.,
data
were
only
available
for
softwood
plywood
presses
using
phenol­
formaldehyde
resin,
or
for
one
hardboard
oven
with
direct­
gas
firing).
Attachments
1
through
8
present
graphs
of
the
uncontrolled
formaldehyde,
methanol,
and
THC
emissions
test
data
according
to
process
distinction.
Section
II
of
this
memorandum
describes
the
conclusions
that
can
be
drawn
from
the
graphs,
and
Section
III
describes
the
technical
merits
associated
with
manipulating
the
process
variables.

II.
Analysis
of
Emissions
Data
According
to
Process
Characteristic
A.
Dry
Rotary
Dryers
Attachment
1
presents
uncontrolled
formaldehyde,
methanol,
and
THC
emissions
test
results
from
particleboard
dry
rotary
dryers.
The
test
results
were
graphed
according
to
firing
method,
fuel
type,
and
wood
type.
The
available
data
do
not
show
any
correlation
between
HAP
(
methanol
and
formaldehyde)
or
THC
emissions
and
firing
method
or
wood
type.
The
available
data
also
do
not
show
a
correlation
between
formaldehyde
or
THC
emissions
and
fuel
type.
The
3
graph
of
methanol
emissions
for
fuel
type
would
seem
to
indicate
that
direct­
natural
gas
firing
results
in
greater
emissions
than
direct­
wood
firing;
however,
this
is
likely
an
anomaly
because
there
is
only
one
data
point
for
direct­
gas
firing
and
all
of
the
other
PCWP
dryers
show
lower
methanol
emissions
when
firing
natural
gas
instead
of
wood.
The
wood
dried
in
dry
rotary
dryers
includes
wood
that
has
been
previously
dried,
and
thus,
the
overall
HAP
and
THC
emissions
from
dry
rotary
dryers
are
relatively
low
compared
to
emissions
from
other
dryer
types.
At
such
low
emission
levels,
expected
correlations
are
not
exhibited.

B.
Green
Rotary
Dryers
Attachment
2
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
medium
density
fiberboard
(
MDF)
and
particleboard
green
furnish
rotary
dryers.
The
test
results
were
grouped
according
to
fuel
type
and
wood
type.
All
of
the
green
rotary
dryers
for
which
data
are
available
are
directfired
therefore,
distinctions
in
firing
method
(
e.
g.,
direct­
vs.
indirect­
fired)
could
not
be
analyzed.
The
data
sets
for
gas
vs.
wood
firing
overlap
at
the
lower
end
of
the
scale
(
i.
e.,
low
emissions
are
exhibited
by
both
gas­
fired
and
wood­
fired
dryers);
however,
the
highest
emissions
generally
are
associated
with
wood­
fired
dryers.
The
methanol
and
formaldehyde
data
sets
for
softwood
vs.
mixed
wood
overlap
completely,
and
thus,
no
correlation
between
wood
type
and
HAP
emissions
is
observed.
The
THC
data
sets
for
softwood
vs.
mixed
wood
also
overlap;
however,
the
highest
THC
data
are
associated
with
drying
softwoods.

C.
Rotary
Strand
Dryers
Attachment
3
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
oriented
strandboard
(
OSB)
and
laminated
strand
lumber
(
LSL)
rotary
strand
dryers.
The
test
results
were
graphed
according
to
wood
type.
All
of
the
OSB
and
LSL
rotary
strand
dryers
for
which
data
are
available
are
direct
wood­
fired;
therefore,
distinctions
in
firing
method
(
e.
g.,
direct­
vs.
indirectfired
and
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
vs.
wood)
could
not
be
analyzed.
Drying
hardwood
appears
to
result
in
lower
THC
emissions
but
higher
methanol
emissions
than
drying
softwood
or
mixed
wood
in
OSB
and
LSL
rotary
dryers;
however,
only
one
methanol
data
point
is
available
for
hardwood
drying.
The
available
data
do
not
show
any
correlation
between
formaldehyde
emissions
and
wood
type.

D.
Primary
Tube
Dryers
Attachment
4
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
primary
tube
dryers
at
MDF
and
hardboard
facilities.
The
test
results
were
grouped
according
to
firing
method,
fuel
type,
wood
type,
resin
type,
and
use
of
blowline
or
non­
blowline
blending.
The
available
data
show
no
correlations
between
HAP
or
THC
emissions
and
any
of
the
above
factors,
except
blowline
vs.
non­
blowline
blending
(
which
likely
obscured
any
other
correlations
present).
The
formaldehyde
and
THC
data
set
for
blowline
vs.
non­
blowline
blending
both
overlap
at
the
lower
end
(
i.
e.,
both
blowline
and
non­
blowline
processes
can
exhibit
lower
emissions);
however,
the
higher
formaldehyde
and
THC
emissions
are
associated
with
blowline
blending.
No
correlation
is
4
observed
between
methanol
emissions
and
blowline
vs.
non­
blowline
blending,
which
could
suggest
that
the
methanol
emissions
from
tube
dryers
predominantly
originate
from
the
wood
and
not
the
resin.

E.
Secondary
Tube
Dryers
Attachment
5
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
secondary
tube
dryers
at
MDF
and
hardboard
facilities.
The
test
results
were
grouped
according
to
wood
type
and
resin
type.
All
of
the
secondary
tube
dryers
for
which
data
are
available
are
indirect­
fired;
therefore,
distinctions
in
firing
method
(
e.
g.,
direct­
vs.
indirect­
fired)
and
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
vs.
wood)
could
not
be
analyzed.
The
available
data
do
not
show
any
correlation
between
wood
type
or
resin
type
and
formaldehyde
emissions.
At
first
glance,
drying
hardwood
and
PF
resin
appear
to
result
in
higher
methanol
and
THC
emissions
than
drying
softwood
and
UF
resin
in
secondary
tube
dryers.
However,
this
correlation
is
likely
an
anomaly
because
higher
THC
emissions
would
be
expected
from
the
drying
of
softwood
(
as
was
the
case
for
rotary
strand
dryers).
These
same
trends
in
THC
emissions
and
wood
type
are
not
observed
for
other
types
of
dryers.
Upon
further
examination
of
the
available
data
for
secondary
tube
dryers,
it
was
discovered
that
the
data
points
fall
into
one
of
only
two
separate
groups:
hardboard
plants
drying
hardwood
with
PF
resin
and
MDF
plants
drying
softwood
with
UF
resin.
Therefore,
it
cannot
be
concluded
that
there
is
a
correlation
between
either
resin
or
wood
type
and
HAP
or
THC
emissions
because
there
are
only
four
data
points
for
each
pollutant,
and
confounding
may
obscure
the
true
effects
of
resin
type
and
wood
type.
In
other
words,
it
is
impossible
to
tell
whether
the
emission
levels
are
affected
the
most
by
wood
type,
resin
type,
or
a
combination
of
both
factors.
Because
secondary
tube
dryers
follow
primary
tube
dryers,
the
majority
of
the
HAP
emission
have
already
been
released
prior
to
the
wood
entering
the
secondary
tube
dryer,
resulting
in
relatively
low
emissions
as
compared
to
primary
tube
dryers.
As
with
the
dry
rotary
dryers,
at
such
low
emission
levels,
expected
correlations
are
not
exhibited.

F.
Hardwood
Veneer
Dryers
Attachment
6
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
hardwood
veneer
dryers.
The
test
results
were
graphed
according
to
firing
method.
All
of
the
direct­
fired
hardwood
veneer
dryers
for
which
data
are
available
are
direct
wood­
fired;
therefore,
distinctions
in
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
vs.
wood)
could
not
be
analyzed.
The
graph
of
formaldehyde
emissions
for
firing
method
seems
to
indicate
that
direct­
wood
firing
results
in
greater
emissions
than
indirect
heating;
however
there
is
only
one
data
point
for
direct­
wood
firing.
No
other
process
units
exhibited
a
correlation
between
formaldehyde
emissions
and
firing
method.
The
available
data
do
not
show
a
correlation
between
methanol
or
THC
emissions
and
firing
method.
5
G.
Softwood
Veneer
Dryers
Attachment
7
presents
uncontrolled
emissions
test
results
from
softwood
veneer
dryers.
The
test
results
were
grouped
according
to
firing
method
and
fuel
type.
The
available
data
show
no
correlation
between
HAP
or
THC
emissions
and
firing
method
or
fuel
type.

H.
Hot
Presses
Attachment
8
presents
uncontrolled
formaldehyde,
methanol,
phenol,
and
THC
emissions
test
results
from
hot
presses
at
particleboard,
hardboard,
OSB,
and
MDF
facilities.
The
test
results
were
graphed
according
to
resin
type.
The
resin
types
include
the
two
most
commonly
used
resins,
UF
and
PF,
and
two
other
types
of
resins
(
linseed
oil
binder
and
methylene
diphenyl
diisocyanate
[
MDI]).
A
graph
of
press
phenol
emissions
data
was
included
in
this
analysis
because
phenol
is
an
ingredient
in
a
commonly
used
resin.
The
graphs
of
formaldehyde
and
methanol
emissions
seem
to
indicate
that
UF
resin
results
in
greater
emissions
than
the
other
types
of
resins,
but
the
graphs
of
phenol
and
THC
emissions
show
no
correlation
between
resin
type
and
emissions.
There
are
not
enough
data
points
for
linseed
oil
binder
or
MDI
resin
to
accurately
determine
the
full
effect
of
those
resin
types
on
HAP
or
THC
emissions.

III.
Technical
Merits
of
Potential
Process
Changes
Section
II
presented
emissions
data
for
various
process
unit
characteristics
to
show
whether
any
emission
reduction
could
be
achieved
through
use
of
a
particular
type
of
raw
material
or
process.
In
the
event
that
an
emission
reduction
could
potentially
be
achieved,
this
section
discusses
the
technical
feasibility
of
changing
raw
material
and
process
characteristics
at
existing
facilities
and
of
using
processes
with
certain
characteristics
at
new
facilities.

A.
Firing
Methods
and
Fuels
for
Dryers
Dryers
in
the
PCWP
industry
are
designed
for
a
particular
firing
method
(
e.
g.,
directversus
indirect­
fired),
and
direct­
fired
dryers
are
designed
for
a
particular
fuel
type
(
e.
g.,
natural
gas
or
wood).
Dryers
designed
for
direct­
firing
do
not
have
the
internal
components
or
geometry
necessary
for
indirect­
firing.
Furthermore,
switching
from
direct­
to
indirect­
firing
would
require
shifting
the
fuel
combustion
necessary
to
produce
hot
air
to
a
separate
combustion
unit;
and
therefore,
emissions
associated
with
combustion
would
not
be
eliminated
from
the
facility.
Dryer
burner
and
combustion
unit
designs
are
generally
not
capable
of
handling
different
fuel
types
(
e.
g.,
switching
from
solid
wood
to
liquid
natural
gas),
and
generally
cannot
accommodate
changes
in
fuel
volume
or
shape.
Modifications
to
allow
different
fuel
use
could
reduce
the
capacity
or
efficiency
of
a
burner
or
combustion
unit
such
that
less
complete
combustion
is
achieved
(
resulting
in
additional
organic
HAP
emissions.)
For
these
reasons,
it
would
not
be
feasible
for
existing
sources
to
switch
firing
method
or
fuel
type.
However,
if
there
were
any
emission
reduction
to
be
achieved,
new
facilities
could
choose
to
install
process
units
designed
for
a
particular
firing
method
or
fuel
type
considering
what
fuels
are
available.
Many
PCWP
facilities
6
use
their
wood
waste
as
fuel,
and
therefore,
it
would
not
be
practical
or
economical
for
new
facilities
to
purchase
natural
gas
and
find
an
alternative
disposal
method
for
their
wood
waste.

B.
Wood
Type
Existing
facilities
cannot
readily
switch
wood
types
(
e.
g.,
from
softwoods
to
hardwoods
or
from
one
softwood
species
mix
to
another
softwood
species
mix)
for
several
reasons:
(
1)
equipment
at
each
facility
is
often
designed
for
a
particular
wood
type;
(
2)
product
characteristics
would
change;
and
(
3)
PCWP
facilities
are
located
near
their
wood
source
and
must
base
their
operations
on
the
available
local
wood
supply.
Plywood
products
are
dependent
on
a
particular
wood
type
(
e.
g.,
softwood
plywood
is
made
with
softwoods
and
hardwood
plywood
is
made
with
hardwoods);
therefore
changing
wood
type
is
not
an
available
option
for
existing
or
new
plywood
facilities.
Reconstituted
wood
products
(
e.
g.,
OSB,
particleboard,
MDF,
hardboard,
and
fiberboard)
can
be
made
using
a
mixture
of
wood
types,
depending
on
the
available
source
of
the
wood
and
the
facility
design
and
configuration.
For
plywood
and
OSB,
monitoring
of
the
softwood
and
hardwood
material
is
not
difficult
because
whole
logs
are
used
in
the
manufacturing
process.
However,
wood
chips,
flakes,
particles,
etc.
from
various
sources
(
e.
g.,
nearby
sawmills
or
other
wood
products
producers)
are
used
to
produce
particleboard,
MDF,
hardboard,
and
fiberboard,
and
facilities
making
these
products
may
have
no
way
to
monitor
that
exact
mixture
of
wood
types
used.
Also,
wood
material
used
to
manufacture
these
types
of
PCWP
is
often
considered
"
waste
wood,"
and
thus
the
characteristics
of
this
"
recycled"
material
are
not
always
within
the
control
of
the
PCWP
manufacturer.
For
this
reason,
it
would
not
be
feasible
for
new
(
or
existing)
facilities
producing
reconstituted
wood
products
to
be
required
to
use
a
specific
wood
type.

C.
Resin
Type
Switching
from
one
type
of
resin
to
another
is
not
a
viable
option
for
new
or
existing
PCWP
facilities
because
the
fundamental
properties
of
the
product
would
be
altered.
For
example,
UF
resin
and
PF
resin
are
not
interchangeable.
Urea­
formaldehyde
resins
are
pale
and
are
used
in
PCWP
(
e.
g.,
particleboard,
MDF,
hardwood
plywood)
that
will
later
be
used
in
interior,
decorative
products
where
the
resin
must
not
show
through
the
products
finish
(
e.
g.,
cabinets,
furniture).
Phenol­
formaldehyde
resins
are
dark
brown
and
water­
proof
and
are
used
in
PCWP
designed
for
exterior
applications
(
e.
g.,
OSB
sheathing,
softwood
plywood
roofing,
laminated
veneer
lumber
[
LVL]
rafters).
Some
types
of
products
can
be
made
with
a
limited
amount
of
MDI
resin,
but
cannot
be
made
exclusively
with
MDI
because
MDI
often
sticks
to
the
press
platens
(
e.
g.,
MDI
may
be
used
in
the
panel
core
while
PF
may
be
used
in
the
panel
face).
Furthermore,
within
the
engineered
wood
products
sectors,
the
pressing
equipment
is
configured
for
a
specific
type
of
resin
(
e.
g.,
steam­
injection
or
microwave
pressing,
radio­
frequency
curing).

Over
the
past
decades,
the
PCWP
industry
and
its
resin
suppliers
have
responded
to
pressure
to
reduce
the
HAP
content
of
resins.
It
is
expected
that
this
trend
will
continue
into
the
future
(
e.
g.,
resins
with
lower
HAP
content
may
be
developed).
Resin
reformulation
is
a
slow,
7
trial­
and­
error
process
that
must
be
completed
by
individual
facilities
and
their
resin
suppliers
so
that
product
quality
is
maintained.
No
information
is
available
to
determine
the
degree
of
emission
reduction
that
could
be
achieved
through
further
resin
reformulation.
The
achievable
emission
reduction
would
be
very
facility­
specific,
and
may
not
be
comparable
to
the
emission
reduction
achievable
with
add­
on
control
systems
because
emissions
originating
from
the
wood
would
remain.

D.
Blowline
vs.
Non­
blowline
Blending
Existing
facilities
using
tube
dryers
may
not
be
able
to
switch
from
blowline
blending
to
non­
blowline
blending
due
to
product
quality
issues
and
spatial
concerns
(
i.
e.,
may
not
have
space
to
add
separate
blenders
and
associated
wood
handling
equipment).
However,
the
technical
considerations
are
irrelevant
given
the
fact
that
such
a
switch
would
not
result
in
any
overall
emissions
reduction.
With
blowline
blend
tube
dryers,
the
emissions
from
blending
and
drying
operations
are
combined,
whereas
with
non­
blowline
blend
tube
dryers,
the
emissions
from
blending
and
wood
drying
exhaust
from
separate
operations.
Therefore,
switching
from
blowline
to
non­
blowline
blending
would
not
result
in
an
overall
emissions
reduction,
but
instead
would
merely
shift
a
portion
of
the
emissions
to
another
process
area.
In
addition,
blowline
blending
may
be
preferable
from
an
emissions
control
standpoint
because
the
emissions
from
blending
and
wood
drying
are
concentrated
in
one
emissions
stream.
Therefore,
a
requirement
to
use
nonblowline
blending
does
not
appear
to
be
reasonable
for
new
or
existing
facilities.

IV.
Summary
and
Conclusions
Based
on
a
review
of
the
available
emissions
data,
emissions
from
PCWP
process
units
are
highly
variable,
and
expected
correlations
between
emissions
and
process
changes
were
not
consistently
exhibited.
Unlike
chemical
manufacturing
plants
where
the
raw
materials
are
chemical
compounds
with
known
physical
and
chemical
properties,
PCWP
plants
process
wood
material
that
is
naturally
variable
(
even
within
the
same
species),
and
thus,
emissions
from
drying
of
wood
are
also
variable.
Few
correlations
between
process
variables
and
emissions
data
were
revealed,
and
of
those
correlations
noted,
most
were
either
weak
correlations
(
based
on
only
one
data
point),
counter­
intuitive,
and/
or
masked
by
confounding
factors.
Furthermore,
the
correlations
observed
for
one
type
of
process
unit
generally
were
not
observed
for
other
process
unit
types.
This
suggests
that
the
source­
to­
source
variability
is
greater
than
any
differences
in
emissions
that
could
be
associated
with
different
process
characteristics.
In
addition,
even
if
meaningful
and
consistent
emission
reductions
could
be
achieved
through
changes
in
process
characteristics,
making
these
changes
would
not
be
feasible
in
most
cases.
The
only
process
changes
determined
to
be
technically
feasible
were
designing
new
facilities
for
a
specified
dryer
firing
method
or
fuel
type;
however,
the
emissions
data
show
no
meaningful
correlations
in
dryer
firing
method
or
fuel
type.
Therefore,
none
of
the
process
changes
considered
would
be
appropriate
for
consideration
in
MACT
analyses
because
these
process
changes
either
are
not
technically
feasible
or
would
not
result
in
any
emissions
reduction.
8
V.
References
1.
Memorandum
from
D.
Bullock
and
K.
Hanks,
MRI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
April
27,
2000.
Documentation
of
Emission
Factor
Development
for
the
Plywood
and
composite
Wood
Products
Manufacturing
NESHAP.

2.
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emissions
From
Wood
Products
Manufacturing
Facilities,
Part
I
­
Plywood,
Technical
Bulletin
No.
768,
National
Council
of
the
Paper
Industry
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
1999.
ATTACHMENT
1
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
Particleboard
(
PB)
Dry
Rotary
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
firing
method,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
Methanol
test
data
by
firing
method,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
THC
test
data
by
firing
method,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Methanol
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
THC
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
wood
type,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Methanol
test
data
by
wood
type,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Softw
ood
THC
test
data
by
wood
type,
PB
dry
rotary
dryers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Mixed
w
ood
ATTACHMENT
2
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
MDF
and
Particleboard
Green
Furnish
Rotary
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
green
rotary
dryers
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Methanol
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
green
rotary
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
THC
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
green
rotary
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
wood
type,
green
rotary
dryers
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Softw
ood
Mixed
w
ood
Methanol
test
data
by
wood
type,
green
rotary
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Softw
ood
Mixed
w
ood
THC
test
data
by
wood
type,
green
rotary
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Softwood
Mixed
w
ood
ATTACHMENT
3
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
OSB
and
LSL
Rotary
Strand
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
wood
type,
OSB
and
LSL
rotary
strand
dryers
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Emission
factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Mixed
w
ood
Methanol
test
data
by
wood
type,
OSB
and
LSL
rotary
strand
dryers
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
THC
test
data
by
wood
type,
OSB
and
LSL
rotary
strand
dryers
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Mixed
w
ood
ATTACHMENT
4
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
MDF
and
Hardboard
Primary
Tube
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
firing
method,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
Methanol
test
data
by
firing
method,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
THC
test
data
by
firing
method,
primary
tube
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
fired
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Methanol
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
THC
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
primary
tube
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
wood
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softwood
Methanol
test
data
by
wood
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
THC
test
data
by
wood
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Emssion
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
resin
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
Methanol
test
data
by
resin
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
THC
test
data
by
resin
type,
primary
tube
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
blowline
blend,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Non­
Blow
line
Blow
line
Methanol
test
data
by
blowline
blend,
primary
tube
dryers
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Non­
Blow
line
Blow
line
THC
test
data
by
blowline
blend,
primary
tube
dryers
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Non­
Blow
line
Blow
line
ATTACHMENT
5
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
MDF
and
Hardboard
Secondary
Tube
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
wood
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Methanol
test
data
by
wood
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
THC
test
data
by
wood
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Hardw
ood
Softw
ood
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
resin
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
Methanol
test
data
by
resin
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
THC
test
data
by
resin
type,
secondary
tube
dryers
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
PF
UF
ATTACHMENT
6
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
Hardwood
Veneer
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
firing
method,
hardwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct
w
ood­
fired
Indirect­
heated
Methanol
test
data
by
firing
method,
hardwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct
w
ood­
fired
Indirect­
heated
THC
test
data
by
firing
method,
hardwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct
w
ood­
fired
Indirect­
heated
ATTACHMENT
7
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
Softwood
Veneer
Dryers
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
firing
method,
softwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
f
ired
Indirect­
heated
Methanol
test
data
by
firing
method,
softwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
f
ired
Indirect­
heated
THC
test
data
by
firing
method,
softwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Direct­
fired
Indirect­
heated
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
softwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
Methanol
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
softwood
veneer
dryers
0.0355
0.0356
0.0357
0.0358
0.0359
0.036
0.0361
0.0362
0.0363
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
THC
test
data
by
fuel
type,
direct­
fired
softwood
veneer
dryers
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Emission
Factor,
lb/
ODT
Natural
Gas
Wood
ATTACHMENT
8
Graphs
of
Uncontrolled
Formaldehyde,
Methanol,
Phenol,
and
THC
Emissions
Test
Data
from
Particleboard,
Hardboard,
OSB,
and
MDF
Hot
Presses
Formaldehyde
test
data
by
resin
type,
hot
presses
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
lb/
MSF
3/
4
UF
PF/
MDI
PF
linseed
oil
MDI
Methanol
test
data
by
resin
type,
hot
presses
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
lb/
MSF
3/
4
UF
PF/
MDI
PF
linseed
oil
Phenol
test
data
by
resin
type,
hot
presses
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
lb/
MSF
3/
4
UF
PF/
MDI
PF
linseed
oil
THC
test
data
by
resin
type,
hot
presses
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
lb/
MSF
3/
4
UF
PF/
MDI
PF
linseed
oil
MDI