EPA-452/R-93-001
PROCEDURES FOR IDENTIFYING
REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES OF PM-10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
September 1992
-------
DISCLAIMER NOTICE
Mention of trade names or commercial products in this
document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
AVAILABILITY OF COPIES
Copies of this document are available through the Library
Services Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or,
for a fee, from the National Technical Information Services,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This guidance document sets forth procedures and identifies
sources of information that will assist state and local air
pollution control agencies in determining RACT for PM-10
emissions from existing stationary sources on a case-by-case
basis. It provides an annotated bibliography of documents to aid
in identifying the activities that cause PM-10 emissions as well
as applicable air pollution control measures and their
effectiveness in reducing emissions for the industries and
processes listed on Table 1-1. The most stringent state total
particulate matter (PM) emission limits are identified for the
stationary sources shown on Table 1-1 and compared to available
emission test data. Finally, guidance is provided on procedures
for estimating total capital investment and total annual cost of
the control measures which are generally used to control PM-10
emissions.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Disclaimer Notice ii
Availability of Copies iii
Abstract iv
List of Tables ix
List of Figures x
List of Abbreviations and Symbols xi
Section 1 - Introduction 1-1
Section 2 - RACT Determination 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Determining Technological Feasibility 2-1
Determining Economic Feasibility 2-6
Identifying RACT 2-8
Case Study 2-8
References 2-21
Section 3 - Process Emissions and Emissions Control
Bibliography 3-1
General Information Sources 3-1
Asphalt and Asphaltic Concrete Plants 3-4
Boilers 3-5
Calciners 3-8
Charcoal Plants 3-8
Chemical Manufacturing Plants 3-9
Coal Preparation and Cleaning Plants 3-10
Concrete Batch Plants 3-11
v
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Pas®
Cotton Seed Milling Plants 3-12
Foundries 3-12
Glass Manufacturing Plants 3-13
Grain Milling Operations 3-14
Gypsum Product Manufacturing and Processing
Plants 3-16
Incinerators 3-16
Iron and Steel Facilities 3-17
Lime Plants 3-20
Marine Grain Terminals 3-22
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants 3-22
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants 3-23
Paint Manufacturing Plants 3-24
Petroleum Refineries 3-25
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants 3-26
Phosphate Rock Processing Plants 3-27
Plywood, Particle Board and Waferboard Plants.... 3-28
Portland Cement Plants 3-28
Primary Aluminum Reduction Facilities 3-29
Pulp Mills 3-30
Secondary Aluminum Reduction Facilities 3-32
Sugar Production Plants 3-32
Surface Mining Operations 3-33
Turbines (oil-fired) 3-34
vi
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Page
Section 4 - Achievable Emission Limits 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Emission Rate Limitations - General Discussion... 4-3
Asphalt and Asphaltic Concrete Plants 4-5
Boilers 4-6
Brick Manufacturing Plants 4-9
Calciners 4-11
Charcoal Plants 4-13
Chemical Manufacturing Plants 4-13
Coal Preparation and Cleaning Plants 4-13
Concrete Batch Plants 4-15
Cotton Seed Milling Plants 4-15
Foundries 4-16
Glass Manufacturing Plants 4-17
Grain Milling Operations 4-17
Gypsum Product Manufacturing and Processing
Plants 4-20
Incinerators 4-21
Iron and Steel Facilities 4-22
Lime Plants 4-35
Lumber Mills 4-36
vxi
-------
CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Ease
Marine Grain Terminals 4-38
Metallic Mineral Processing Plants 4-39
Nonmetallic Mineral Plants 4-39
Paint Manufacturing Plants 4-42
Petroleum Refineries 4-43
Phosphate Fertilizer Plants 4-44
Phosphate Rock Processing Plants 4-44
Plywood, Particleboard and Waterboard Plants 4-47
Portland Cement Plants 4-48
Primary Aluminum Reduction Facilities 4-49
Pulp Mills 4-51
Secondary Aluminum Reduction Facilities 4-53
Sugar Production Plants 4-55
Surface Mining Operations 4-55
Turbines (Oil-Fired) 4-56
References 4-57
Section 5 - Costs of Control 5-1
General Procedures 5-1
Total Capital Investment 5-2
Total Annual Cost 5-7
References 5-17
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Source categories covered in this document 1-2
2-1 Example summary table for RACT determinations.... 2-9
2-2 Case study: Boiler operating parameters 2-11
2-3 Case study: Baghouse capital investment 2-16
2-4 Case study: Baghouse annual costs 2-17
2-5 Summary of RACT determinations for case study.... 2-20
4-1 Summary of strictest total PM emissions limitations
for boilers. 4-7
4-2 Summary of NSPS Subpart CC total PM emissions
limitations for glass melting furnaces 4-18
4-3 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for sinter plant operations (excluding sinter
plant windboxes) 4-28
4-4 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for EOF vessels 4-34
4-5 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for nonferrous ore concentrators 4-40
4-6 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for phosphate rock processing 4-46
4-7 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for portland cement plants 4-50
4-8 Summary of example total PM emissions test data
for kraft pulp mills 4-54
5-1 Capital investment elements and factors for
various control devices 5-7
5-2 Capital investments for fabric filter system —
Example calculation 5-8
5-3 Annual costs for fabric filter system — Example
calculation 5-15
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
4-1 Summary of most stringent state total PM emission
rate equations 4-4
4-2 Examples of total PM emissions test data for coal-
fired utility boilers 4-10
4-3 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
calciners 4-12
4-4 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
glass furnaces 4-19
4-5 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
primary emission control systems at electric
arc furnaces at iron and steel facilities 4-25
4-6 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
sinter plant windboxes at iron and steel
facilities 4-27
4-7 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
coke pushing at iron and steel facilities 4-30
4-8 Examples of total PM emissions test data for
lime plants 4-37
5-1 Elements of total capital investment 5-4
5-2 Elements of total annual cost 5-10
x
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
acfm actual cubic feet per minute
AL Alabama
AK Alaska
AR Arkansas
AOD argon oxygen decarburization
AP-42 EPA publication entitled Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, Volume I
AZ Arizona
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BNA Bureau of National Affairs
BOPF Basic Oxygen Process Furnace
BOF basic oxygen furnace
Btu/hr British thermal unit per hour
CA California
CRC Capital Recovery Cost
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
CO Colorado
CT Connecticut
days/yr days per year
DE Delaware
DC District of Columbia
DC Direct Cost
EAF Electric arc furnaces
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FCCU fluidized catalytic cracking unit
FL Florida
g/day grams per day
g/hr grams per hour
g/kg grams per kilogram
g/m3 grams per cubic meter
g/MJ grams per megajoule
gr/acf grams per actual cubic feet
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic feet
gr lead/
dscf grains of lead per dry standard cubic feet
gr/scf grains per standard cubic feet
GA Georgia
GJ/hr Gigajoule per hour
hr/day hours per day
hr/year hours per year
HI Hawaii
IA Iowa
1C Indirect annual cost
ID Idaho
xi
-------
IL Illinois
IN Indiana
J/hr Joules per hour
kg/hr kilograms per hour
kg/kg kilogram per kilogram
kg/1000m2 kilograms per thousand meters squared
kg/Mg kilograms per megagrams
kPa kilopascals
kWh kilowatt-hour
K degrees Kelvin
KS Kansas
KY Kentucky
LA Louisiana
LAER Lowest achievable emission rate
Ib/barrel pounds per barrel
lb/1000ft2pounds per thousand feet squared
Ib/hr pounds per hour
Ib/lb pound per pound
Ib/MMBtu pounds per million Btu
pounds per ton
cubic meters
cubic meters per minute
cubic meters per hour
Massachusetts
Maryland
Maine
milligrams per standard cubic meter
milligrams per dry standard cubic meter
Michigan
minutes per hour
millimeters of water
megagrams
megagrams per day
megagrams per hour
megagrams per year
Ib/ton
m3
m3/min
m3/hr
MA
MD
ME
mg/scm
mg/dscm
MI
min/hr
mm H2O
Mg
Mg/day
Mg/hr
Mg/yr
mg lead/
kg lead
feed
mg lead/
scm
MN
MMBtU
MMBtu/hr
MO
MS
MT
ng/J
NC
ND
NE
NH
milligrams of lead per kilograms of lead feed
milagrams of lead per standard cubic meter
Minnesota
Million British thermal units
Million British thermal units per hour
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
nanograms per Joule
North Carolina
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
xii
-------
NJ
NM
NSPS
NTIS
NV
NY
OAQPS
OH
OK
PA
PM
PM-10
RACT
RACM
RI
SIPS
SC
SD
ton/day
ton/hr
ton/yr
TN
TX
UK
UT
VE
VT
VA
WA
WI
WV
WY
Symbols
$
$/hr
$/kWh
$/Mg
$/MWh
$/ton
H2O
S02
New Jersey
New Mexico
New Source Performance Standards
National Technical Information Service
Nevada
New York
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (EPA)
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Particulate matter
Particulate matter that is less than or equal to 10 /xm
Reasonably Available Control Technology
Reasonably Available Control Measures
Rhode Island
State Implementation Plans
South Carolina
South Dakota
tons per day
tons per hour
tons per year
Tennessee
Texas
United Kingdom
Utah
visible emissions
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
West. Virginia
Wyoming
percent
micrometers
dollars
dollars per hour
dollars per kilowatt hour
dollars per Megagram
dollars per megawatt hour
dollars per ton
water
sulfur dioxide
Xlll
-------
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing
this document to assist states in identifying reasonably
available control technology (RACT) for existing stationary
sources of particulate matter having a nominal aerometric
diameter of 10 microns or less (PM-10). The EPA has historically
defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological
and economic feasibility.1
Section 172(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act) as amended
November 15, 1990, requires that State implementation plans
(SIPs) for nonattainment areas provide for the implementation of
reasonably available control measures (RACM) including emission
reductions obtained through the adoption of RACT. Section
189(2)(1)(C) of the Act requires that SIP's for moderate PM-10
nonattainment areas assure that RACM (including RACT) for PM-10
shall be implemented no later than four years after the area is
des ignated nonatta inment.
This guidance document sets forth procedures and identifies
sources of information that will assist state and local air
pollution control agencies in determining RACT for PM-10
emissions from existing stationary sources on a case-by-case
basis. It provides an annotated bibliography of documents to aid
in identifying the activities that cause PM-10 emissions as well
as applicable air pollution control measures and their
effectiveness in reducing emissions for the industries and
processes listed on Table 1-1. The most stringent state total
particulate matter (PM) emission limits are identified for the
stationary sources shown on Table 1-1 and compared to available
emission test data. Finally guidance is provided on procedures
for estimating total capital investment and total annual cost of
the control measures which are generally used to control PM-10
emissions.
'See, for example, 44 FR 53762 (September 17, 1979) and footnote
3 of that notice.
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. SOURCE CATEGORIES COVERED IN THIS DOCUMENT
Source category
Specific processes
Asphalt and asphaltic concrete
plants
Boilers
Brick manufacturing plants
Calciners
Charcoal plants
Chemical manufacturing plants
Coal preparation and cleaning
plants
Concrete batch plants
Cotton seed milling plants
Foundries
Glass manufacturing plants
Grain milling operations
Gypsum product manufacturing
and processing plants
Incinerators
Utility - greater than 105
GJ/hr (100 MM Btu/hr)
Industrial/commercial -
greater than 0.5 GJ/hr (0.5
MMBtu/hr) and less than
105 GJ/hr (100 MM
Btu/hr)
Coal-fired
Oil-fired
Wood-fired
Kiln
Reactors
Blenders
Mixers
Aluminum
Iron
Secondary steel (shredders)
Medical waste
Agricultural waste
Municipal waste
1-2
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1. (Continued)
Source category
Specific processes
Iron and steel facilities
Lime plants
Lumber mills
Marine grain terminals
Metallic Minerals Processing
Plants
Nonmetallic mineral processing
plants
Paint manufacturing plants
Petroleum refineries
Phosphate fertilizer plants
Phosphate rock processing
plants
Plywood, particleboard and
waferboard plants (including
veneer dryers)
Portland cement plants
Primary aluminum reduction
facilities
Argon oxygen decarburization
Electric arc furnaces
Sinter plants
Coke batteries
Slag handling
Blast furnaces
Basic oxygen furnaces
Scarfing
Metal reladling
Planing
Shaving
Waste wood combustion
Shipping - loadout
Receiving - unloading
Other grain handling
Ore concentrators
Conveyors
Screens
Quarrying
Rock crushers
Other materials handling
Catalytic cracking units
Boilers
Heaters
Vertical stud Soderberg
Horizontal stud Soderberg
Prebaked
1-3
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1-1. (Continued)
Source category
Specific processes
Pulp mills
Secondary aluminum reduction
facilities
Sugar production plants
Surface mining operations
Turbines (oil-fired)
Kraft
Sulfite
Sugar beets
1-4
-------
This document, is organized as follows:
Section 2 -
Section 3 -
Section 4 -
Section 5 -
RACT Determination: Describes procedures for
establishing an emission limit that would
require the application of RACT.
Process Emissions and Emissions Control
Bibliography: Provides an annotated
bibliography of information sources that
describe the processes listed on Table 1-1
and the magnitude of uncontrolled and
controlled emissions and emission control
measures from these processes.
Achievable Emission Limits: Identifies the
most stringent state PM emission limits for
the processes listed on Table 1-1 and
presents available mass emissions test
data.
Costs of Control: Describes procedures for
estimating total capital investment and total
annual cost of control measures.
A list of abbreviations and symbols used in this document is
provided in the front of this document.
1-5
-------
-------
SECTION 2
DETERMINING REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
The EPA has defined reasonably available control technology
(RACT) as:
The lowest emission limitation that a particular source is
capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility.
RACT is not limited to off-the-shelf control alternatives;
it has a technology-forcing aspect to it, and it may vary among
different facilities in the same source category depending on the
feasibility of implementing particular control strategies at each
location.
There are two key criteria that must be satisfied in the
determination of RACT: (1) technological feasibility and 2)
economic feasibility. This section describes guidelines for
evaluating the technological and economic feasibility of control
options and making a RACT determination. A case study is also
presented.
DETERMINING TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY
The determination of technological feasibility should
concentrate on factors specific to the source in question and
should not be an evaluation of the feasibility of control
measures for the entire source category. The evaluation should
be restricted to the particular processes to be controlled by a
single technology application.
For determining technological feasibility, the following
steps are recommended:
Step 1. Determine the uncontrolled PM-10 and total
particulate matter (PM) emission rates for the
source and the nature of those emissions (solid or
condensible).
2-1
-------
Step 2. Identify a range of available PM-10 emission
reduction and control options including process
changes, facility redesign, and/or add-on air
pollution control devices.
Step 3. Review performance data for the available control
options.
Step 4. Identify the lowest PM-10 and/or total PM emission
limitations achievable with the available control
options and rank the options by performance.
Step 5. Identify the current lowest PM emission limitation
that is placed on the source category by Federal,
State, or local regulation; the regulation
imposing that limit; and the method of determining
compliance.
Each step will be discussed further in the subsections that
follow.
Step 1. — Determine Uncontrolled Emission Rates
The baseline emission rates should be determined for PM-10
and total PM from the source before process or operating changes
are made or equipment is added to reduce emissions. Baseline
emission rates can be determined using source test data,
information from reports on the source category, such as those
cited in Section 3, and/or emission factors derived from EPA's
Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors (Office of Air
Quality, Planning and Standards (OAQPS), 1985). Baseline
emission rates should be calculated for the source operating at
its maximum design capacity.
Step 2. — Identify Available Control Options
In determining the technological feasibility of applying an
emission reduction method to a particular source, consider the
sources' process and operating procedures, raw materials, the
physical plant layout, and any other environmental impacts that
will result from controlling PM-10 emissions (i.e., water
pollution, waste disposal, and energy requirements). Process
changes or changes in raw materials should be investigated for
their feasibility for reducing or eliminating emissions or
simplifying the selection of an add-on control. Modifying
processes or applying control equipment is also influenced by the
physical layout of the particular plant. The space available in
which to implement such changes may limit the choices and will
also affect the costs of control.
2-2
-------
Reducing air emissions may adversely affect other resources
by increasing pollution of bodies of water, creating additional
solid waste disposal problems, or substantially increasing energy
demands. A PM-10 control technology may not be feasible if the
resulting environmental impacts cannot be mitigated. In many
instances, however, PM-10 control technologies have known energy
penalties and adverse effects on other media, but such effects
and the cost of their mitigation are also known and have been
borne by owners of existing sources. Such well-established
adverse effects and their costs are normal and assumed to be
reasonable and should not, in most cases, justify not using the
PM-10 control technology.
In selecting a control device, the size and nature of the
particles to be collected must be considered. If the particles
are sticky or large and abrasive, a fabric filter may not be
suitable. If the emissions contain a significant fraction of
particles less than 1 micron in diameter, a device capable of
collecting fine particles must be chosen.
Alternative approaches to reducing emissions of particulate
matter, including PM-10, are discussed in Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources Volumes I and II
(EPA, 1982a; EPA, 1982b). The design, operation, and maintenance
of general particulate matter control systems, such as mechanical
collectors, electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, and wet
scrubbers, are discussed in Volume I. The collection efficiency
of each system is discussed as a function of particle size.
Information is also presented regarding energy and environmental
considerations, and procedures for estimating costs of
particulate matter control equipment. Volume II discusses the
emission characteristics and control technologies applicable to
specific source categories. Secondary environmental impacts are
also discussed.
Additional sources of information on control technology are
background information documents for new source performance
standards, many of which are identified in section 2 of this
document, and Identification. Assessment, and Control of Fugitive
Particulate Emissions (EPA, 1986). The EPA's Control Technology
Center (919/541-0800) and the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse are
other possible sources of information. Information on the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse can be obtained from the following:
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (MD-13)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Phone: (919) 541-2736
2-3
-------
Step 3. — Review Performance Data
Where available, performance data for emission control
devices applied to the source categories listed in Table 1-1 is
given in section 4. Section 3 provides an annotated bibliography
of information sources that describe the processes listed in
Table 1-1 and the magnitude of uncontrolled and controlled
emissions and emission control measures. As mentioned above,
Volume I of Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions From
Stationary Sources (EPA, 1982a) contains information on
collection efficiency as a function of particle size for control
devices. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (OAQPS,
1985) provides similar kinds of information.
Manufacturer's brochures are also a source of performance
data and, for the numerous proprietary-design control devices,
they may be the only source. General literature references such
as section 20 in the Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry, 1984)
are an additional source of performance data.
Step 4. — Identify the Lowest Emission Limitation Achievable
The available control options should be listed in a table
designed for easy comparison of the attributes of each option.
The lowest PM-10 and total PM emission rates achievable by each
option should be listed in consistent units [such as milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm), kilograms per hour
(kg/hr), kilograms per megagram of product (kg/Mg) or megagrams
per year (Mg/yr).] The control effectiveness or percent
reduction of emissions from the baseline levels determined in
Step 1 should also be listed in the table for each control
option.
The control effectiveness of add-on PM control devices
varies with the size distribution of particles in the exhaust
gases. Particle size distributions for many processes are
included in the individual industry sections or Appendix C.1 of
EPA's Compilation of Air Pollut Emission Factions (OAQPS, 1985).
When the particle size distribution for a particular process is
not available, Appendix C.2 (of OAQPS, 1985) includes guidelines
and a worksheet for calculating the particle size distribution
and size specific emissions from a control device (i.e., an
achievable PM-10 emission rate).
Step 5. — Identify the Current Lowest Emission Limitation
Emission limitations that currently apply to nearly every
source category that emits PM are embodied in Federal and State
air pollution control regulations. Several States have also
delegated authority to local agencies for implementation of air
pollution control programs. Furthermore, there_may be consent
agreements or permit conditions that place specific emission
2-4
-------
standards on individual sources. Section 4 presents a discussion
of the most stringent State standards and, when applicable, the
Federal new source performance standards (NSPS) for selected
source categories (see Table 1-1). Section 4 should be used as a
starting point in determining the lowest emission limitation
currently applicable to sources similar to the one for which RACT
is being determined. The individual State and Federal
regulations should be reviewed to determine their applicability
or appropriateness to the type of source in question and the
method of determining compliance.
Since most PM emission limits pertain to total PM as
measured by a stack sampling method or visible emission
observation method, it will also be necessary to estimate an
equivalent PM-10 emission limit. An equivalent PM-10 emission
limit can be established by determining the fraction of total PM
that is PM-10 and applying the fraction, with a "safety factor"
to allow for the variations in emissions, to the total PM
emission limit. This procedure incorporates key information that
was determined above in Steps 1 through 4, such as uncontrolled
emission rates and achievable emission rates. A suggested
procedure to calculate an equivalent PM-10 limit is outlined
below. An example of the application of the procedure is
included with the case study.
a. Determine the percent control that is required to meet
the total PM allowable emission limit.
b. Select the most inefficient control technology that
could achieve this emission reduction.
c. Determine the total PM emission rate that can be
actually achieved by this control technology.
d. Calculate a "safety factor" to account for the
difference between the total PM emission limit and the
controlled total PM emissions. (Divide the total PM
allowable emission limit by the actual achievable total
PM emissions).
e. Determine the particle size distribution of the
uncontrolled exhaust stream.
f. Determine the PM-10 emission rate that should be
achieved by the control technology identified in Step b
above.
g. Multiply the achievable PM-10 emission rate by the
"safety factor" calculated from Step d. The product is
a PM-10 emission limit that would require the same
level of control.
2-5
-------
DETERMINE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
Economic feasibility considers the cost of reducing
emissions and the difference in costs between the particular
source for which RACT is being determined and other similar
sources that have implemented emission reductions. The EPA
presumes that it is reasonable for similar sources to bear
similar costs for emissions reduction. Economic feasibility
rests very little on assertions of the ability of a particular
source to "afford" to reduce emissions to the level of similar
sources.
The following steps are recommended for evaluating the
economic feasibility of the available control options.
Step 1. — Develop Capital and Annual Costs
The capital costs and annualized costs of an emission
reduction technology should be considered in determining its
economic feasibility. Procedures for estimating total capital
investment and total annual cost of control measures are
described in section 5. These procedures are developed in
greater detail in the OAOPS Control Cost Manual (OAQPS, 1990).
Unless there are reasons not to, these estimating procedures
should be followed to assure that all cost estimates are on the
same basis and, therefore, can be compared.
The following should be considered when developing the
capital and annual costs of a control option:
a. Costs should be determined for technologically
efficient control systems. Only auxiliary systems and
redundancies necessary to consistently achieve the
desired collection efficiency should be included in the
costs.
b. The evaluation should specify the control system
"battery limits," i.e., the specific area or process
segment to be controlled. Inadequate documentation of
battery limits is a common reason for confusion in
comparisons of costs of the same controls applied to
similar sources.
c. Credits and debits associated with the control
equipment should be valued consistently and accurately.
Credits consist primarily of the value of recovered
products. Debits include such items as fuel, labor,
equipment, and interest on borrowed capital.
d. The evaluation should include a- range of costs for each
control option (reflecting the lowest and highest
2-6
-------
likely cost); the assumptions behind each estimate
should be explained.
Step 2. — Compare Cost Impacts
The primary consideration of the economic impact analysis
should be given to comparing the capital and annual costs and the
relative cost effectiveness of implementing (e.g., purchasing,
installing and operating) the available and technologically
feasible control options. The costs of implementing the control
options should also be compared with the costs incurred by
similar sources that have implemented similarly effective
controls measures. The capital and annual costs of each control
option should be added to the table created during the analysis
of technological feasibility to compare option attributes.
The relative cost effectiveness is another parameter that
can be used in comparing control options. Cost effectiveness is
calculated as the annual cost of the proposed control option
divided by the baseline (i.e., uncontrolled) emissions minus the
emission rate of the proposed control, as shown by the following
formula:
Control option annual cost
(Baseline emissions rate - Control option emissions rate)
Costs are calculated in dollars per year; emissions rates
are calculated in megagrams (tons) per year. The result is a
cost-effectiveness number in dollars per megagram (ton) of PM-10
removed. Baseline emissions are essentially uncontrolled
emissions calculated using realistic upper boundary operating
assumptions.
The cost-effectiveness ratio can be used to compare
alternative controls for the same source, and to compare the
costs of controlling sources of varying magnitude. However, EPA
does not favor making any presumption that control options with
cost effectiveness above or below some arbitrary level are
reasonable or unreasonable.
Step 3. — Affordability
The affordability of implementing a control option should
generally not be considered in the economic impact analysis
because affordability is highly subjective and depends upon the
economic viability of a particular source. Consequently, control
options should not be eliminated solely on the basis of economic
parameters that indicate they are not affordable by the source.
If a company contends that it cannot afford RACT and/or may
have to shut-down its operation if RACT controls are imposed, the
economic impact analysis will then consist of weighing the
2-7
-------
benefits (and costs) of the facility remaining open against those
of closing. The following items should be considered in the
analysis:
a. The extent to which the company will have to absorb the
costs of control. (This should be demonstrated with
data such as empirical data on supply and demand
elasticities, as well as per-unit cost impacts,
expected costs to be incurred by competitors, and
available industry production capacity.)
b. The company should present data regarding its fixed and
variable costs in producing the product affected.
c. If projected revenues exceed the sum of expected
variable costs and annual costs of each available
control option, closure would not be sufficient
justification for concluding that control is
economically infeasible.
d. Plant closure costs, including severance pay,
relocation costs, demolition costs, and others.
IDENTIFYING RACT
The information gathered in determining the technological
and economic feasibility of implementing alternative control
options at the source in question can be delineated in a table
similar to the example shown as Table 2-1. As a result of
comparing the cost, energy and environmental impacts of the
control options that achieve the lowest PM-10 emission rates, a
reasonably available control technology will be revealed in most
cases.
CASE STUDY
The following example is provided for illustration only.
The example source is fictitious and has been created to
highlight many of the aspects of RACT determination. The cost
data and other numbers presented in the example are used only to
illustrate the RACT decision making process. Cost data are used
in a relative sense to compare costs among control devices. No
absolute cost guidelines have been established above which costs
are assumed to be too high or below which they are assumed to be
reasonable. Determination of appropriate costs is made on a
case-by-case basis.
The example source in this section is controlling PM-10
emissions from a boiler using pulverized coal. The purpose of
the example is to illustrate points to be considered in
developing RACT decision criteria for the source under review.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-1. EXAMPLE SUMMARY TABLE FOR RACT DETERMINATIONS
Parameter/
technology
Fabric
filter
ESP
Venturi
scrubber
Process
change
Uncontrolled emissions,
kg/Mg"
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Controlled emissions
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Control effectiveness, %
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Current allowable emissions
a. Total PM, kg/Mg
b. Opacity, %
Equivalent PM-10 limit,
kg/Mg
Capital costs, $
Annual costs, $/yr
Cost effectiveness, $/Mg
Energy requirement, kWh/yr
Wastewater impact
Solid waste impact
Other impacts
"Uncontrolled and controlled total PM and PM-10 emission rates and
the current allowable rates should be expressed in the same
units.
2-9
-------
The example is intended to illustrate the process rather than
provide universal guidance on what constitutes RACT for this
particular source category. RACT must be determined on a case-
by-case basis.
Source Description
A control device is required to collect flyash emissions
from a coal-fired boiler (dry bottom) burning pulverized
bituminous coal. Boiler operating parameters are given in Table
2-2.
Case Study — Technological Feasibility
Step 1. Determine Uncontrolled Emission Rates —
Based on boiler operating parameters that are summarized on
Table 2-2, the uncontrolled total PM and PM-10 emission rates
are:
9.153 g 1,416 m3 60 min kg
-3 min hr 1,000 g
lo.-
= 777.6 kg/hr total PM
777.6 kg/hr x 23/100= 178.9 kg/hr PM-10
If information on inlet PM concentrations were not
available, uncontrolled emissions could also be estimated using
emission factors in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(OAQPS, 1985).
Step 2. Identify Available Control Options —
While many sources may be able to change their processes to
reduce or eliminate PM-10 emissions, this is not always possible
with a boiler. Changing the fuel from coal to oil or natural gas
would reduce PM-10 emissions, but this case study assumes that
the location of this boiler makes coal an economical fuel. The
collected flyash is a waste product which must be disposed of in
a properly permitted landfill. Such arrangements have been made.
Data in Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors
(OAQPS, 1985) indicates that emissions from pulverized coal-fired
boilers range down to less than 0.6 /*m (see size distribution
data summarized on Table 2-2). Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volume II (EPA,
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-2. CASE STUDY:
BOILER OPERATING PARAMETERS
Coal feed rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr)
Heat input, GJ/hr (MMBtu/hr)
Flue gas rate, m3/min (acfm)
Flue gas ash loading, g/m3 (gr/acfm)
Flue gas temp, K (°F)
Operating hours/year
Uncontrolled particulate size
distribution, % less than stated
size (|tan) :
5.41 (5.97)
170.7 (162)
1,416 (50,000)
9.153 (4.0)
436 (325)
8,640
"From
15
10
6
2.5
1.25
1.00
0.625
Compilation of Air Pollutant
32
23
17
6
2
2
1
Emission Factors (OAOPS.
1985).
2-11
-------
1982b) indicates that electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), fabric
filters (baghouses), and wet scrubbers are used to control boiler
emissions.
Step 3. Review Performance Data —
Since 23 percent of the emissions from the coal-fired boiler
in this case study are less than 10 jtm, a control device capable
of collecting such fine materials is required. ESPs can be
designed to collect flyash particles between 0.1 and 1 /tm at 99+
percent efficiency (EPA, 1982a). Baghouses also collect fine
particulates at high efficiency. High energy wet scrubbers are
capable of collecting particulates less than 1 /*m in size (EPA,
1982a). Examples of mass emissions test data for coal-fired
boilers equipped with ESPs, scrubbers and baghouses are presented
in Section 4 (Figure 4-2). Other sources of mass emissions data
are listed in Section 3.
Step 4. Identify the Lowest Emission Limitation Achievable —
The percent reduction from baseline emissions (see Step 1
above) for each control option identified in Step 2 is calculated
next. Estimated control efficiencies for total PM for dry bottom
boilers burning bituminous coal as listed on Table 1.1-3 of EPA's
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (OAQPS, 1985) are
as follows: Scrubber - 94 percent, ESP - 99.2 percent, and
baghouse - 99.8 percent. Appendix C.2 of EPA's Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors (OAQPS, 1985) presents typical
collection efficiencies of various particulate control device for
PM-10 emissions. Using the size distribution for uncontrolled
emissions and the size specific control efficiency information
presented in Appendix C.2 (OAQPS, 1985), the estimated collection
efficiencies for PM-10 emissions are as follows: venturi
scrubber - 94.7 percent, ESP - 98.0 percent, and baghouse - 99.4
percent. Therefore, the estimated achievable PM-10 emissions for
each control technology are:
Venturi scrubber
ESP
Baghouse
9.5 kg/hr
3.6 kg/hr
1.1 kg/hr
Step 5. Identify the Current Lowest Emission Limitation —
Section 4 presents a summary of the most stringent state
total PM limits. From information on Table 4-1, the most
stringent total PM emission limit applicable to this size and
type of boiler is determined from the following equation:
A = 0.05 x I
2-12
-------
where:
A = Allowable total PM emission rate in Ib/hr
I = Heat input in MMBtu/hr
Therefore, the allowable limit is 8.1 Ib/hr or 3.7 kg/hr. A
closer review of this state emission limit confirms that this
limitation applies to combustion units with the primary purpose
of steam generation. There is also an applicable Federal NSPS
for this source category. Although NSPS does not apply to the
boiler in this case study (because it is an existing source), the
NSPS limitation is technologically achievable, however, the limit
may not be reasonable to achieve in all situations for existing
sources. The NSPS limitation for a boiler with a heat input of
170.7 GJ/hr is 22 ng/J (0.05 Ib/MMBtu); for the case study
boiler, this equates to an emission limit of 3.76 kg/hr.
An equivalent PM-10 emission limitation is estimated as
follows:
a. Percent control required to meet total PM limit:
777.6 - 3.7
777.6
x 100 = 99.5%
Control technology that achieves 99.5 percent:
baghouse. This is based on available information in
OAQPS, 1985. Other sources of information (such as
data provided by manufacturer's) may indicate that
other control technologies can also achieve the
required level of control.
Total PM emission rate achieved by selected technology:
777.6 x (1-0.998) = 1.6 kg/hr
Calculate "safety factor"; total PM limit divided by
achievable total PM emission rate:
3.7 -5- 1.6 = 2.3
Particle size distribution of uncontrolled exhaust
stream (from Table 2-2):
2-13
-------
f.
% <. 10/tm - 23
% < 6/aa - 17
% < 2.5£tm - 6
Determine achievable PM-10 emission rate;
Uncontrolled < 2.5/*m: 777.6
emission x 0.06 = 46.7
rates by
size, kg/hr
< 6/zm: 777.6
x 0.17 = 132.2
777.6
x 0.23 = 178.9
0-2.5
46.7 2.5-6 /im: 85.5 6-10 j^m: 46.7
0-2.5
99
2.5-6 /nti: 99.5 6-10 j^m: 99.5
Uncontrolled
emission
rates by
size
categories,
kg/hr
Control
efficiencies
of fabric
filters by
size
category
(from OAQPS,
1985,
Appendix
C.2), %
Controlled
emission
rates by
size
category,
kg/hr
Therefore, the achievable PM-10 emission rate:
0.47 + 0.43 + 0.23 = 1.1 kg/hr
g. Multiply achievable PM-10 emission rate by "safety
factor":
1.1 x 2.3 = 2.5 kg/hr
Therefore, 2.5 kg/hr is the equivalent PM-10 emission limit
that requires 99.5 percent control (see step a above).
0-2.5 /m: 46.7
X 0.01 = 0.47
2.5 = 6
85.5 X 0.005 =
0.43
6-10 /an: 46.7
X 0.005 = 0.23
2-14
-------
Case Study — Economic Feasibility
Step 1. Develop Capital and Annual Costs —
The procedures used to develop capital and annual costs are
described in detail in Section 5. Table 2-3 shows the capital
cost calculations for a baghouse, the technologically feasible
control technology that was identified above. Similarly, Table
2-4 shows the calculation of annual costs for the same baghouse.
Step 2. Calculate Cost Effectiveness —
Cost effectiveness is the annual cost of the control option
divided by the quantity of PM-10 collected annually, expressed in
dollars per Mg (ton). The cost effectiveness for the baghouse in
the case study is determined as follows:
1. Quantity of PM-10 removed annually:
(178.9-1.1) X 8,640 X 10'3 = 1,536 Mg/yr
where:
178.9 = Uncontrolled PM-10 emission rate, kg/hr
8,640 = Number of operating hours, hr/yr
10"3 = Converts kilograms to megagrams
2. Calculate cost effectiveness:
The cost effectiveness is calculated by dividing the
annual cost, from Table 2-4 by the megagrams collected
per year. Thus, for the baghouse:
Cost effectiveness, $/Mg = 4°Qif°° = 261
1, 536
Step 3. Review of Economic Impacts/Affordability —
Should there be a claim that the RACT cannot be afforded for
this source, the capital and annual costs and the cost
effectiveness would be important considerations in evaluating the
claim. Each non-affordability claim is unique and each must be
evaluated individually using the guidelines presented under Step
3 — Review of Affordability/Economic Impacts in the Economic
Feasibility subsection.
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-3. CASE STUDY: BAGHOUSE CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Cost Item
Cost, Thousand
Dollars
DIRECT COSTS
Purchased equipment8
Baghouse and auxiliary equipment = A 186.9
Sales taxes = 0.03A 5.6
Freight = 0.05A 9.3
Instrumentation = 0.1 A 18.7
Purchased equipment cost = B 220.5
Installation costsb
Foundation and supports = 0.04B 8.8
Handling and erection = 0.5B 110.3
Electrical = 0.08B 17.6
Piping = 0.01B 2.2
Insulation for duct work = 0.07B 15.4
Painting = 0.02B 4.4
Total direct cost ' 158.7
INDIRECT COSTS
Engineering and supervision = 0.10B 22.1
Construction and field expenses = 0.2OB 44.1
Contractor fees = 0.10B 22.1
Start=up = 0.0IB 2.2
Performance test6 = 0.0IB 2.2
Contingencies'1 = 0. IB 22.1
Total indirect cost 114.8
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT 494.0
"Purchased equipment includes the baghouse plus auxiliaries such
as fan, motor, starter, ductwork, dampers, screw conveyor,
compressor, and stack.
bSite preparation and buildings would be included in the category
if required.
eThe performance test determines that all items of equipment are
operating properly. It does not include the cost of determining
that the control system emissions meet requirements; this is an
operating expense.
dA contingency cost of 10 percent of purchased equipment was used
since this is a retrofit installation.
2-16
-------
TABLE 2-4. CASE STUDY: BAGHOUSE ANNUAL COSTS
Cost Item
Cost,
Thousand
Dollars
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Operating labor
2 hr x 3 shifts x 360 days x $14 =
shift day yr hr
30.2
Operating supervision at 15 percent of operating
labor
Maintenance labor
1 hr x 3 shifts x 360 days x $15.40 =
shift day yr hr
4.5
16.6
Maintenance material at 100 percent of maintenance
labor
Replacement bags3
[3,265 + (15,554 X 1.08)]0.5762 =
16.6
11.6
Utilities
Electricity
0.00025164b x 1/41.6 m3 x 261.6 mm H,O
min
8,640 hr $0.06 _
x ylx kwh
48.3
Compressed air (a pulse jet filter requires 25
m3/ 1,000 m3 of gas filtered at a cost of $5.65 per
1,000 sm3)
25m3
1,146 m3
$5.65
60 min
1,000m3
min 1,000 sm3
v 8,640 hr _
J\. — J—
8.3
Waste disposal at $22 /Mg, disposed of on site,
assuming 100 percent collection efficiency
9.2 g Y 1,416 m3 „ 60 min 8,640 hr
- - - - - .K. -
m-
mm
hr
yr
1 Mg
- ~ -
io6 g
$22
_ _ -
Mg
Total direct annual costs
2-17
284.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE 2-4. (CONTINUED)
Cost Item
Cost,
Thousand
Dollars
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
60 percent (labor and maintenance materials) =
0.6 (30.2 + 4.5 + 16.6 +16.6) =
Insurance
1 percent of capital investment =
0.01 (494.0) =
Property tax
1 percent of total capital investment =
0.01 (494.0) =
Administrative charges
2 percent of total capital investment =
0.02 (494.0) =
Capital recovery0 =
0.1175 (494.0 - 3.3 - 15.6 X 1.08)
Total indirect annual costs
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
40.7
4.9
4.9
9.9
55.7
116.1
400.8
The cost of replacement bags is $15,554. The 1.08 factor is for
freight and sales taxes. For bag replacement labor, 10 minutes
per bag for each of 795 bags was estimated. At a maintenance
labor rate of $24.64 (including 60% overhead) the labor cost is
$3,265 for 133 hours. The replacement cost was calculated using
equation 5.1. The CRF in equation 5.1 was calculated using
equation 5.4 for a two year bag life and 10 percent interest:
CRF =
(l+O.l)2-!
=0.5762
bSee equation 5.2a.
cFor a 20 year equipment life and a 10 percent interest rate, CRF
= 0.1175. The total capital investment (from Table 2-3) is
reduced by the total cost for replacing the bags to avoid double
counting.
2-18
-------
Case Study Identify RA.CT
The results of the technological and economic feasibility
determinations for the case study are summarized on Table 2-5.
2-19
-------
TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF RACT DETERMINATIONS FOR CASE STUDY8
Parameter/technology
Uncontrolled emissions,
kg/hr
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Controlled emissions,
kg/hr
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Control effectiveness, %
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Current allowable
emissions
a. Total PM, kg/hr
b. Opacity, %
Equivalent PM-10 limit,
kg/Mg
Capital costs, $
Annual costs, $/yr
Cost effectiveness, $/Mg
a. Total PM
b. PM-10
Energy requirement,
mWh/yr
Wastewater impact
Solid waste impact
Other impacts
Fabric
filter
777.6
178.9
1.6
1.1
99.8
99.4
3.7
0%b
2.5
. 494,000
400,800
59.80
260.90
805.2
None
On-site
landfill
None
Venturi Process
ESP scrubber change
777.6 777.6 777.6
178.9 178.9 178.9
6.2 46.7 NA
3.6 9.5 NA
99.2 94 NA
98.0 94.7 NA
3.7 3.7
There may be slight differences in numbers due to rounding.
bO percent, with exceptions for start-up, soot blowing, etc.
Section 4 for a more detailed discussion.
See
2-20
-------
REFERENCES
BNA Inc. 199la. Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environmental
Reporter State Air Laws. The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. Washington, DC. October 25, 1991.
BNA Inc. 1991b. Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environmental
Reporter Federal Regulations. The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc. Washington, DC. October 25, 1991.
EPA. 1982a. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources; Volume I. EPA 450/3-81-005a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1982.
EPA. 1982b. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources; Volume II. EPA 450/3-81-005b, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
September 1982.
EPA. 1986. Identification Assessment, and Control of Fugitive
Particulate Emissions. EPA 600/8-86-023, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. August 1986^
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors; Fourth Edition, AP-42, September 1985,
including Supplement A (October 1986), Supplement B
(September 1988) Supplement C (September 1990) and
Supplement D (September 1991).
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1990. OAQPS Control Cost Manual; Fourth
Edition. EPA 450/3-90-006, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1990.
Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. 1984. Perry's Chemical Engineers
Handbook; Sixth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY,
1984.
2-21
-------
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS EMISSIONS AND EMISSIONS CONTROL BIBLIOGRAPHY
This Section presents an annotated bibliography of
information sources that describe the processes in each source
category that generate PM-10 emissions, the magnitude of
uncontrolled and controlled emissions from these sources,
and emission control measures. The list of source categories is
shown in the previous Section on Table 1-1.
The bibliography first shows general information sources
that cover multiple source categories. They are arranged
chronologically. The remaining information sources are arranged
alphabetically by source category.
Most of the reports listed in this Section are available
through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161; (703) 487-4650.
GENERAL INFORMATION SOURCES
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1973. Background Information for
Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot
Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment
Plants; Volume 1 - Main Text. APTD-1352a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
72 pp.
Provides background information on the derivation of the
proposed second group of New Source Performance Standards
and their economic impact on the construction and operation
of the plants listed in the title. This document contains
test results.
3-1
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1973. Background Information for
Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot
Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment
Plants; Volume 2 - Appendix: Summaries of Test Data.
APTD-1352b, PB229660, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 67 pp.
Volume 2 of previously described document.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Background Information for New
Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants,
Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead
Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Production
Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants. EPA
450/2-74-003, (APTD-1352c), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 151 pp.
Jutze, G.A., J.M. Zoller, T.A. Janszen, S. Amick, C.E. Zimraer,
and R.W. Gerstle. 1977. Technical Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
EPA-450-3-77-010, PB272288, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 522 pp.
Provides guidelines for evaluating industrial process
fugitive particulate emission sources relative to revisions
to State Implementation Plans. ~ -1- -—"""^— *-*— ~
control technologies.
Document includes section on
Office of Air Pollution Control, Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency. 1980. Reasonably Available Control Measures for
Fugitive Dust Sources. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Columbus, OH. 596 pp.
Presents guidelines for selection of reasonably available
control measures for fugitive dust sources for major
manufacturing categories. Document includes discussions of
process operations, particle characterization, control
methods, efficiencies, and costs.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources; Volume 1,
EPA-450/3-81-005a, PB83-127498, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 460 pp.
3-2
-------
Presents information developments of control techniques
which have become available since preparation of an earlier
document entitled Control Techniques for Particulate Air
Pollutants (AP-51). Includes sections on control technology
and cost considerations.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Control Techniques for
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources; Volume 2,
EPA-450/3-81-005b, PB83-127480, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 540 pp.
Volume 2 of a previously described document.
Cowherd, C. Jr., and J.S. Kinsey. 1986. Identification,
Assessment, and Control of Fugitive Particulate Emissions.
EPA-600/8-86-023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 180 pp.
Designed to assist national, state, and local control agency
personnel and industry personnel in evaluating fugitive
emission control plans and in developing cost-effective
control strategies. The document includes sections on
control alternatives, estimation of control system
performance for process and open sources, estimating control
costs and cost effectiveness, and development of fugitive
emissions control strategies.
Steigerwald, Joseph. 1990. BACT/LAER Clearinghouse: A
Compilation of Control Technology Determinations; Volume 1,
EPA 450/3-90-015a, PB90-259722; Volume II - Appendix H,
Source Codes 1 to 3, EPA 450/3-90-015b, PB90-259730; Volume
III - Appendix H, Source Codes 4 to 6, EPA - 450/3-90-015C,
PB90-259748; Volume IV - Appendix H, Source Codes 7 to 12,
EPA - 450/3-90-015d, PB90-259755, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Provides State and local air pollution control agencies with
current information on case-by-case control technology
determinations that are made nationwide. The Clearinghouse
is intended as a reference for State and local agencies in
making BACT/LAER decisions.
Di Mauro, Desiree, Colleen Duffy. 1991. RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse: A Compilation of Control Technology
Determinations, First Supplement to 1990 Edition. EPA
450/3-91-015, PB91-231548, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 220 pp.
First Supplement to previously described document.
3-3
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1991. Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors, AP-42, Supplements A, B, C and D. AP-42,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Presents process and control system descriptions and
uncontrolled and controlled emissions data for numerous
source categories.
ASPHALT AND ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PLANTS
Khan, Z.S., and T.W. Hughes. 1977. Source Assessment Asphalt
Hot Mix. EPA-600/2-77-107n, PB-276731, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 173 pp.
Summarizes data on air emissions from the asphalt hot mix
industry. Sections on control technology and process
description are also provided.
Brooks, K.J., E.L. Keitz, and J.W. Watson. 1979. A Review of
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources -
Asphalt Concrete Plants. EPA-450/3-79-014, PB-298-427, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
138 pp.
Reviews the current standards of performance for new
stationary sources; Subpart I - Asphalt Concrete Plans.
Emphasis is given to the state of control technology and
economic cost.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Second Review of New Source
Performance Standards - Asphalt Concrete Plants. EPA
450/3-85-024, PB86-126448, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 135 pp.
Reviews the current New Source Performance Standards for
asphalt concrete plants. Includes section on applicable
control technology.
Kinsey, J.S. 1986. Asphaltic Concrete Industry Particulate
Emissions. Source Category Report. EPA/600/7-86-038,
PB87-119574, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 335 pp.
Describes the development of particulate emission factors
based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
asphaltic concrete industry. Process and control technology
descriptions are also provided.
3-4
-------
BOILERS
McKenna, J-D., J.C. Mycock, and W.O. Lipscomb. 1975. Applying
Fabric Filtration to Coal Fired Industrial Boilers (A Pilot
Scale Investigation). EPA-650/2-74-058a, PB-245186, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
203 pp.
Gives results of a pilot scale investigation to determine
the technoeconomic feasibility of applying a fabric filter
dust collector to coal-fired industrial boilers. Includes
sections on process description, controlled emissions,
control technology, and annualized cost.
Boubel, R.W. 1977. Control of Particulate Emissions from
Wood-Fired Boilers. PB-278-483/3, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Intended primarily as a guide for control agency personnel
and engineers who are not familiar with wood-fired boilers.
Includes sections on control technology and cost of control.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1978. Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units, Particulate Matter - Background Information for
Proposed Emission Standards. EPA-450/2-78-006a, PB-286224,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 174 pp.
Revised standards of performance for the control of
emissions of particulate matter from electric utility power
plants proposed under the authority of Section 111 of the
Clean Air Act. Includes process description and economic
impact assessments.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1978. Wood Residue Fired Steam
Generator Particulate Matter Control Technology Assessment.
EPA-450/2-78-044, PB80-196843, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
This document discusses the control equipment and emission
limits which represent Best Available Control Technology
(BACT).
3-5
-------
Leavitt, C., K. Arledge, C. Shih, R. Orsini, W. Hamersma, R.
Maddalone, R. Beimer, G. Richard, and M. Yamada. 1978.
Environmental Assessment of Coal- and Oil-firing in a
Controlled Industrial Boiler; Volume III - Comprehensive
Assessment and Appendices. EPA-600/7-78-164C, PB291236,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 328 pp.
Gives results of a comparative multimedia assessment of coal
versus oil-firing in a controlled industrial boiler, to
determine relative environmental, energy, economic and
societal impacts.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1979. Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units - Background Information for Promulgated Emission
Standards. EPA-450/3-79-021, PB-298510, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 339 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of particulate
matter, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides emissions from
electric utility steam generating units adopted under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Includes
section on process description.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Fossil Fuel-Fired Industrial
Boilers - Background Information. EPA-450/3-82-006a,b,
PB82-202573, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 869 pp.
Provides background information for the fossil fuel-fired
industrial boiler source category. Includes sections on
uncontrolled emissions, control technologies, and cost
impacts.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Nonfossil Fuel Fired Industrial
Boilers - Background Information. EPA-450/3-82-007,
PB82-203209, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 789 pp.
Provides background information about air emissions and
emission controls, for the nonfossil fuel fired boiler
source category. This document includes uncontrolled
emissions of particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides, also includes control technologies and cost impacts
of applying these control technologies.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Summary of Regulatory Analysis
New Source Performance Standards for Industrial-Commercial-
3-6
-------
Institutional Steam Generating Units of Greater than 100
Million Btu/hr Heat Input. EPA-450/3-86-005, PB86-212099.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 276 pp.
Summarizes the regulatory analysis of New Source Performance
Standards for Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam
Generating Units. Information on costs of controls and
emission control technologies is included.
Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. 1989. Projected Impacts
of Alternative New Source Performance Standards for Small
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Fossil Fuel-Fired
Boilers. EPA-450/3-89-17, PB89-203723, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 139 pp.
Presents projected national environmental cost and energy
impacts of alternative SO2 and particulate matter air
emission standards for new small industrial-commercial-
institutional steam generating units firing coal, oil, and
natural gas. Includes sections on cost and cost
effectiveness.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Model Boiler Cost Analysis for
Controlling Particulate Matter (PM) Emissions from Small
Steam Generating Units. EPA-450/3-89-15, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 64 pp.
This report presents estimates of the cost and cost
effectiveness associated with controlling particulate matter
emissions from small coal-, oil-, and wood-fired
industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Projected Impacts of Alternative
Particulate Matter New Source Performance Standards for
Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Nonfossil Fuel-fired
Steam Generating Units. EPA-450/3-89-18, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 13 pp.
Presents projected national environmental, cost and energy
impacts of alternative particulate matter air emission
standards for new small industrial-commercial-institutional
steam generating units firing wood.
3-7
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Overview of the Regulatory
Baseline, Technical Basis, and Alternative Control Levels
for Particulate Matter (PM) Emission Standards for Small
Generating Units. EPA-450/3-89-11, PB89-203715, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
31 pp.
Provides a summary of the technical data used in developing
proposed New Source Performance Standards for small
industrial-commercial-institutional steam generating units.
Includes sections on emissions, process descriptions, and
control technologies.
CALCINERS
Radian Corporation. 1980. Sodium Carbonate Industry-Background
Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-80-029a,
PBS0-219678, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 358 pp.
Standards of performance to control emissions of particulate
matter from new, modified, and reconstructed calciners,
dryers and bleachers in natural process sodium carbonate
plants as proposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Includes sections on emission control technology and
economic impact analysis.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries-Background Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-85-025a, PB86-196904, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 699 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of emissions from
calciners and dryers in mineral industries proposed under
the authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Contains
section on economic impact assessments.
CHARCOAL PLANTS
Moscowitz, C.M. 1978. Source Assessment: Charcoal
Manufacturing State of the Art. EPA-600/2-78-004Z,
PB-290125, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH.
Document reviews the state of the art of air emissions from
charcoal manufacture. Document includes process
description, controlled emissions and control technology.
3-8
-------
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1975. Engineering and Cost Study of Air
Pollution Control for the Petrochemical Industry; Volume 7 -
Phthalic Anhydride Manufacture from Ortho-xylene.
EPA-450/3-73-006g, PB245277, Research Triangle Park, NC.
This document is one of a series. This volume covers the
manufacture of phthalic anhydride from ortho-xylene.
Includes sections on process description, control technology
and cost analysis.
Gerstle, R.W., and J.R. Richards. 1977. Industrial Process
Profiles for Environmental Use, Chapter 4: Carbon Black
Industry. EPA-600-2-77-023d, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
The catalog of Industrial Process Profiles for Environmental
Use was developed as an aid in defining the environmental
impacts of industrial activity in the United States. The
carbon black industry is a distinctive part of the chemical
industry, which processes hydrocarbon feedstocks into finely
divided carbon black particle for use largely in tires,
pigments, cement and cosmetics. Sections on process
description and atmosphere emissions are included.
Serth, R.W., and T.W. Huges. 1977. Source Assessment: Carbon
Black Manufacture. EPA-600/2-77-107k, PB-273-068/7, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
The report summarizes the assessment of air emissions from
the manufacture of carbon black. The document includes a
section on process description.
Shreve, R.N., and J.A. Brink, Jr. 1977. Chemical Process
Industries. Fourth Edition. McGraw Hill Book Company. 814
pp.
Provides an overview of the chemical process industry.
Includes discussions on various industries, uses and
economics, unit operations and raw materials.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Final Guideline Document:
Control of Fluoride Emissions from Existing Phosphate
Fertilizer Plants. EPA-450/2-77-005, PB265062, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
3-9
-------
Document serves as a text to state agencies in development
of their gaseous fluoride emission regulations from existing
phosphate fertilizer plants. Document includes information
on control technology, emissions, and economic impact.
Radian Corporation. 1980. Sodium Carbonate Industry -
Background Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-80-029a, PB80-219678, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 358 pp.
Standards of performance to control emissions of particulate
matter from new, modified, and reconstructed calciners,
dryers, and bleachers in natural process sodium carbonate
plants as proposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Includes sections on emission control technology and
economic impact analysis.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Source Category
Survey: Detergent Industry. EPA-450/3-80-030, PB80219678,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 1978.
Standards of performance to control emissions of particulate
matter from new, modified, and reconstructed calciners,
dryers, and bleachers in natural process sodium carbonate
plants. This document includes emission control technology,
emissions, and economic impacts.
Kirk-Othmer. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.
1982. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Provides a detailed discussion of chemical process
technology.
COAL PREPARATION AND CLEANING PLANTS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Coal Preparation Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
, 1 - Proposed Standards. EPA-450/2-74-021a, PB237421, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
58 pp.
Presents the proposed standards and the rationale for the
degree of control selected. The document includes analysis
of costs and economic impact.
3-10
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Coal Preparation Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
2 - Test Data Summary. EPA-450/2-74-021b, PB237696, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
39 pp.
Presents the proposed standards and the rationale for the
degree of control selected. Includes sections on sampling
emissions and economic impact of standards.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1976. Coal Preparation Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
3 - Supplemental Information. EPA-450/2-74-021C, PB251618,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 62 pp.
Supplements information presented in two earlier background
documents (EPA-450/2-74-021a and b) and is issued in
connection with final promulgation of regulations for
standards of performance for new and modified coal
preparation plants. Document contains a summary of
undated control costs.
TRW Energy Systems Group. 1980. A Review of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources for Coal Preparation
Plants. EPA-450/3-80-022, PB82-193053, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 90 pp.
Reviews and assesses the need to revise the New Source
Performance Standards for coal preparation plants. Includes
sections on control technology and emissions.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1988. Second Review of New Source
Performance Standards for Coal Preparation Plants.
EPA-450/3-88-001, PB89-194237, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 73 pp.
The New Source Performance Standards for coal preparation
plants were reviewed by the U.S. EPA for a second time.
Includes section on control technology.
CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Development
Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
of Performance, The Concrete Products Industries, Draft,
Washington, DC.
3-11
-------
COTTON SEED MILLING PLANTS
Monsanto Research Corporation. 1975. Source Assessment Document
No. 27, Cotton Gins. EPA-600/2-78-004a, PB-280-024, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
This report describes a study of air pollutants from cotton
gins. Document includes process description, emissions, and
control technologies.
Enviro Control, Inc. 1980. Control Technology Assessment of Raw
Cotton Processing Operations (Final Report).
NIOSH-210-78-0001, PB82-186685, National Institute for
Occupational Safety & Health, Cincinnati, OH. 367 pp.
Cotton dust control technology was assessed by conducting
preliminary and detailed surveys of cotton ginning, cotton
seed processing, yarn manufacturing, knitting, fabric
weaving, and waste processing operations that use raw
cotton.
Enviro Control, Inc. 1981. Use of Oil Additives (Liquid
Oversprays) in Cotton Dust Control Technology (Final
Report). PB82-177528, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH. 68 pp.
Cotton dust control technology was assessed by conducting
preliminary and detailed surveys of cotton ginning, cotton
seed processing, yarn manufacturing, knitting, fabric
weaving, and waste processing operations that use raw
cotton.
FOUNDRIES
National Air Pollution Control Administration. 1970. Economic
Impact of Air Pollution Controls on Gray Iron Foundry
Industry. NAPCA publication-AP-74, NAPCA, Raleigh, NC. 124
pp.
Reviews the economic impact the four most common pollution
devices (wet caps, multiple cyclones, wet scrubbers, fabric
filters) have had on the Gray Iron Foundry Industry.
Fennelly, P., and P. Spawn. 1978. Air Pollution Control
Techniques for Electric Arc Furnaces in the Iron and Steel
Foundry Industry. EPA-450/2-78-024, PB283650, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
3-12
-------
This report provides guidance for evaluating air pollutant
control technologies for EAF in the iron and steel foundry
industry. Document contains sections of control
technologies, emissions, and control technology cost.
Chmielewski, R.D., and S. Calvert. 1981. Flux
Force/Condensation Scrubbing for Collecting Fine Particulate
from Iron Melting Cupolas. EPA-600/7-81-148, PB82-196866,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 135 pp.
Gives results of a six month test, demonstrating the
industrial feasibility of a flux/force condensation
scrubbing system for controlling particulate emissions from
an iron and steel melting cupola. Includes section on
annual operating cost for scrubber system.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1981. Summary of Factors Affecting
Compliance by Ferrous Foundries; Volume I - Text.
EPA-340/1-80-021, Washington, DC.
Jeffrey, J., J. Fitzgerald, and P. Wolf. 1986. Gray Iron
Foundry Industry Particulate Emissions: Source Category
Report. EPA-600/7-86-054, PB87-145702, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 85 pp.
Gives the results of a study to develop particulate emission
factors based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
gray iron foundry industry.
Williams, R.L., and M. Duncan. 1986. Pilot Demonstration of the
Air Curtain System for Fugitive Particle Control.
EPA/600/7-86-041, PB87-132817, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 137 pp.
Gives results of the demonstration of the technical and
economic feasibility of using an air curtain transport
system to control buoyant fugitive particle emissions.
Includes sections on control technology and controlled
emissions.
GLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1979. Glass Manufacturing Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance.
EPA-450/3-79-005a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 278 pp.
3-13
-------
A national emission standard for glass manufacturing plants
as proposed under authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. Document includes information on processes, control
techniques, emissions and economic impacts.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1980. Glass Manufacturing Plants -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards of
Performance. EPA 450/3-79-005b, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 175 pp.
Standards of performance are being promulgated under Section
111 of the Clean Air Act to control particulate matter
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed glass
manufacturing plants. Document covers public comments and
testing data submitted during comment period.
Spinosa, E.D., and R.A. Holman. 1981. Chemical Analysis of
Particle Size Fractions from Glass Melting Furnaces.
EPA-600/2-81-015, PB81-160889, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 42 pp.
Identifies the size fraction distribution of the various
chemical constituents of glass furnace emissions. Includes
a section on control technology.
GRAIN MILLING OPERATIONS
Shannon, L.J., R.W. Gerstle, P.G. Gorman, D.M. Epp, T.W. Devitt,
and R. Amick. 1973. Emissions Control in the Grain and
Feed Industry; Volume I - Engineering and Cost Study.
EPA-450/3-73-003a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 544 pp.
Presents the results of a study of air pollution associated
with the grain and feed industry.
Shannon, L.J., and P.G. Gorman. 1974. Emissions Control in the
Grain and Feed Industry; Volume II - Emission Inventory.
EPA-450/3-73-003b, PB241234, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 98 pp.
The emission information presented in "Volume I -
Engineering and Cost Study" was used to calculate
particulate emissions for each segment of the industry.
This document includes a section on control technology.
3-14
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed
Standards of Performance for Grain Elevator Industry.
EPA-450/2-77-001a, PB80-194152, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 348 pp.
Standards of performance to control particulate matter
emissions from new and modified grain elevators in the U.S.
as proposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Discussions on processes and emissions, control
technologies, emission data, and economic impacts are
included.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1978. Standards Support and Environmental Impact
Statement; Volume 2 - Promulgated Standards of Performance
for Grain Elevator Industry. EPA-450/2-77-001b,
PB80-198435, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 92 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of particulate
matter emissions from new, modified and reconstructed grain
terminal elevators and certain storage elevators at grain
processing plants promulgated under the authority of Section
111 of the Clean Air Act.
Midwest Research Institute. 1981. Source Category Survey:
Animal Feed Dryers. EPA-450/3-81-017, PB82-151531, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
115 pp.
Presents the findings of a study to assess the need for New
Source Performance Standards for animal feed dryers.
Includes section on methods of air pollution control and
their effectiveness.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1984. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Grain Elevators (Final Report).
EPA-450/3-84-001, PB84-175744, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 105 pp.
Reviews the current standards of performance for new
stationary sources: Subpart DD - Grain Elevators. Includes
sections on control technology and economic costs.
3-15
-------
GYPSUM PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING PLANTS
Control Systems Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1973. Screening Study for Background Information and
Significant Emissions for Gypsum Product Manufacturing.
EPA-RZ-73-286, PB-222736/1, Process Research, Inc.,
Cincinnati, OH. 52 pp.
The atmospheric emissions that are produced during the
operation of calcining gypsum and production of gypsum board
products are studied.
INCINERATORS
Helfand, R.M. 1979. A Review of Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources for Incinerators. EPA-450/3-79-009,
PB80-124787, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 64 pp.
Reviews the current Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Subpart E - Incinerators. Includes
information on the status of control technologies,
processes, and emissions data.
Schindler, P. 1987. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Emissions
Database for Municipal Waste Combustors.
EPA/530-SW-87-021b, PB87-206082, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Gary, NC.
This report describes an emission database compiled from
tests conducted in U.S. and abroad. Results of controlled
and uncontrolled testing programs are included.
Sedman, C.B., and T.G. Brna. 1987. Municipal Waste Combustion
Study: Flue Gas Cleaning Technology. EPA/530-SW-87-021d,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC.
Radian Corporation. 1988. Hospital Waste Combustion Study Data
Gathering Phase, Final Report, PB89-148308, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Contains results of a study of air emissions from combustion
of hospital waste. Document includes information on waste
characterization, processes and equipment for combustion,
control techniques, and air pollutants emitted.
3-16
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Municipal Waste Combustors -
Background Information for Proposed Standards, lll(b) Model
Plant Description and Cost Report. EPA-450/3-89-27b,
PB90-154857, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 134 pp.
Twelve model plants are developed to represent the projected
municipal waste combustor industry. Includes sections on
operating and maintenance cost of control equipment,
emission control options and control technology.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Municipal Waste Combustors -
Background Information for Proposed Standards.
Post-Combustion Technology Performance. EPA-450/3-89-27c,
PB90-154865, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 327 pp.
Evaluates the performance of various air pollution control
devices applied to new and existing municipal waste
combustors. Includes section on control technologies.
IRON AND STEEL FACILITIES
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Electric Arc Furnaces in the
Steel Industry - Background Information for Standards of
Performance; Volume 1 - Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/2-74-017a, PB237-840, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 170 pp.
Provides background information and rationale used in the
development of the proposed standard of performance. The
economic and environmental impacts of the standard are
discussed.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Electric Arc Furnaces in the
Steel Industry - Background Information for Standards of
Performance; Volume 2 - Summary of Test Data.
EPA-450/2-74-017b, PB237-841, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 39 pp.
Summarizes test data from electric arc furnaces in the steel
industry.
3-17
-------
Bohn, R., T. Cuscino Jr., and C. Cowherd Jr. 1978. Fugitive
Emissions from Integrated Iron and Steel Plants.
EPA-600/2-78-050, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 276 pp.
Presents results of an engineering investigation of fugitive
emissions in the iron and steel industry. Includes sections
on sources, quantification, and control technology are
presented.
Drabkin, M., and R. Helfand. 1978. A Review of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources for Iron and Steel
Plants/Basic Oxygen Furnaces. EPA-450/3-78-116, PB289877,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 65 pp.
Reviews the current standards of performance for new
stationary sources: Subpart N - Iron and Steel Plants/Basic
Oxygen Furnaces. Includes sections on control technology
and emissions.
VanOsdell, D.W., D. Marsland, B.H. Carpenter, C. Sparacino, and
R. Jablin. 1979. Environmental Assessment of Coke
By-Product Recovery Plants. EPA-600/2-79-016. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
387 pp.
Gives results of a screening study, initiating a multimedia
environmental assessment of coke by-product recovery plants
in the U.S. Provides process descriptions of recovery
processes.
Westbrook, C.W. 1979. Level 1 Assessment of Uncontrolled Sinter
Plant Emissions. EPA 600/2-79-112, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 83 pp.
Gives results of sampling and analysis of uncontrolled
emissions from two sinter plants, to characterize and
quantify the particulate, organic, and inorganic species
present. Process descriptions of the two plants are
provided.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1979. Review of Standards of
Performance for Electric Arc Furnaces in Steel Industry.
EPA-450/3-79-033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 50 pp.
3-18
-------
The purpose of the document is to review the current New
Source Performance Standards for electric arc furnaces in
the steel industry and to assess the need for revision on
the basis of developments that either have occurred or are
expected to occur in the near future. The document provides
descriptions of control technologies and their effectiveness
as well as a discussion of the furnaces and their emissions.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Revised Standards for Basic
Oxygen Process Furnaces - Background Information for
Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-82-005a, PB83166488, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Triangle Park, NC. 361 pp.
Discusses New Source Performance Standard for secondary
emissions from basic oxygen process furnace steelmaking
shops proposed under authority of Section 111 of the Clean
Air Act. This document contains sections on emissions and
control technology.
Spawn, P., and M. Jasinski. 1983. Envirotech/Chemico Pushing
Emissions Control System Analysis. EPA-340/1-83-019, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Summarizes a study of the 21 Envirotech/Chemico one-spot,
mobile pushing emissions control systems currently installed
at coke plants operated by five domestic steel companies.
System descriptions and emissions data are included.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,- U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1983. Electric Arc Furnaces and
Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels in Steel Industry -
Background Information for Proposed Revisions to Standards.
EPA-450/3-82-020a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 398 pp.
Discussions of Standards of Performance for the control of
emissions from electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen
decarburization vessels in the steel industry being proposed
under authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Sections on processes, pollutants, costs, emission capture
and control technologies are included.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Revised Standards for Basic
Oxygen Process Furnaces - Background Information for
Promulgated Standards. EPA-450/3-82-005b, PB86-145083, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
58 pp.
Discusses New Source Performance Standard for secondary
emissions of particulate matter from basic oxygen process
3-19
-------
furnace (BOPF) steel-making shops being promulgated under
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This
document contains sections on emissions and control
technology.
United States Steel Corporation. The Making, Shaping and
Treating of Steel, 10th Edition/Latest Technology.
Association of Iron and Steel Engineers, Pittsburgh, PA.
1985. 1,511 pp.
Provides information relating to the latest technology and
current practices used in making and processing steel.
Fitzgerald, J., J. Jeffery, and P. Wolf. 1986. Metallurgical
Coke Industry Particulate Emissions: Source Category
Report. EPA/600/7-85-050, PB87-140331, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 85 pp.
Presents results of a study to develop particulate emissions
factors based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
metallurgical coke industry. The report•includes sections
on a description of the industry and emission factors.
Jeffery, J., and J. Vay. 1986. Iron and Steel Industry
Particulate Emissions: Source Category Report.
EPA/600/7-86-036, PB87-119889, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 94 pp.
Presents results of a study to develop particulate emission
factors based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
iron and steel industry. Background information on the
industry as well as emission factors are discussed.
LIME PLANTS
Industrial Gas and Cleaning Institute. 1973. Air Pollution
Control Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Industries.
EPA-450/3-73-010, PB-231757/6, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 724 pp.
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute collected and formalized
data on air pollution abatement in the following seven
areas: Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacture, Feed & Grain
Milling, Soap & Detergent Manufacture, Paint and Varnish
Production, The Graphic Arts Industry, Lime Kiln Operation,
and Gray Iron Foundry Cupola Operation. Includes process
descriptions and information on pollutants, costs, and
control technologies.
3-20
-------
Office of Air Quality and Performance Standards, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed
Standards of Performance for Lime Manufacturing Plants.
EPA-450/2-77-007a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 328 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of particulate
matter emissions from affected facilities at new and
modified lime manufacturing plants as proposed under the
authority of Sections 111, 114, and 301(a) of the Clean Air
Act. Document includes process information, control
technologies, costs and economic impacts and test data.
Office of Air Quality and Performance Standards, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume II - Standards of
Performance for Lime Manufacturing Plants.
EPA-450/2-77-007b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 20 pp.
Appendices for previously described document.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1984. Lime Manufacturing Plants -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards of
Performance. EPA-450/3-84-008, PB84-191543, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
45 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of particulate
matter emissions from rotary lime kilns at new, modified, or
reconstructed lime manufacturing plants promulgated under
the authority of Sections 111, 114, and 301(a) of the Clean
Air Act, as amended. This report contains an economic
impact study.
Kinsey, J.S. 1986. Lime and Cement Industry. Particulate
Emissions: Source Category Report; Volume I - Lime
Industry. EPA/600/7-86/031, PB87-103628, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 284 pp.
Presents results of a study to develop particulate emission
factors based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
lime industry. Process and control technology descriptions
are also provided.
3-21
-------
MARINE GRAIN TERMINALS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Standards Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed
Standards of Performance for the Grain Elevator Industry.
EPA-450/2-77-001a, PB80-194152, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 321 pp.
Standards of performance to control particulate matter
emissions from new and modified grain elevators in the U.S.
as proposed under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. This
document includes information on emission control technology
and economic impacts.
GCA Corporation. 1984. Emission Factor Development for Ship and
Barge Loading of Grain, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING PLANTS
Umlauf, G. & L.G. Wayne. 1977. Emission Factors and Emission
Source Information for Primary and Secondary Copper
Smelters. EPA-450/3-77-051, PB280377, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Describes procedures and methodology used in obtaining
relevant information regarding these industries and the
operational characteristics of process equipment used
therein. Includes section on process description.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Environmental
Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper, Lead and Zinc
Industries, EPA-600/2-82-066, PB82-230913, Cincinnati, OH.
The report discusses the design, laboratory scale tests,
construction, and field test of an improved metal-to-metal
seal for coke-oven doors. Includes section on cost study.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Metallic Mineral Processing
Plants — Background Information for Proposed Standards;
Volume 1: Chapters 1-9. EPA-450/3-81/009a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
488 pp.
This document provides background information and
environmental and economic impact assessments of the
regulatory alternatives considered in developing the
proposed standards of performance for the control of
3-22
-------
particulate matter emissions from metallic mineral
processing plants.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1984. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Primary Copper Smelters; Chapters 1-9.
EPA-450/3-83-018a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 579 pp.
Contains background information and environmental and
economic assessments considered in arriving at the
conclusion that no changes should be made to the existing
standard. Discussions on process descriptions, emissions,
and control technologies for process and fugitive emissions
are included.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1984. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Primary Copper Smelters; Appendices.
EPA-450/3-83-018b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 150 pp.
Appendices for previously described document.
NONMETALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANTS
Blackwood, T.R., P.K. Chalekode, and R.A. Wachter. 1978. Source
Assessment: Crushed Stone. EPA-600/2-78-004L, PB-284-029,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 94
pp.
Describes a study of atmospheric emissions from the crushed
stone industry. Includes sections on emissions and control
technology.
Chalekode, P.K., J.A. Peters, T.R. Blackwood & S.R. Archer.
1978. Emissions from the Crushed Granite Industry State of
the Art. EPA-600/2-78-021, PB-281043, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, OH. 68 pp.
Describes a study of atmospheric emissions from the crushed
granite industry.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Air Pollution Control Techniques
for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-450/3-82-014,
PB83-105064, Research Triangle Park, NC.
3-23
-------
Air pollution control technologies for the control of
particulate emissions from non-metallic mineral processing
plants are evaluated. Includes section on annualized
emission control cost.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1983. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Plants - Background Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-83-001a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 469 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of emissions from
non-metallic mineral processing plants as proposed under the
authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Includes
section on economic impact.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Nonmetallic Mineral Processing
Plants - Background Information for Promulgated Standards.
EPA-450/3-83-001b, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 92 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of particulate
matter emissions from nonmetallic mineral processing plants
are being promulgated under the authority of Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act.
PAINT MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute. 1973. Air Pollution Control
Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Industries.
EPA-450/3-73-010, PB-231757/6, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 724 pp.
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute collected and formalized
data on air pollution abatement in the following seven
areas: Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacture, Feed & Grain
Milling, Soap & Detergent Manufacture, Paint & Varnish
Production, The Graphic Arts Industry, Lime Kiln Operation,
& Gray Iron Foundry Cupola Operation. Includes process
descriptions and information on pollutants, costs, and
control technologies.
Dowd, E. 1974. Air Pollution Control Engineering and Cost Study
of the Paint and Varnish Industry. EPA-45013-74-031, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
442 pp.
Cottrell, H., S. Patel, and N. Falla. 1985. Air Pollution
Audits in Industrial Paint Finishing: A Survey of Paint
Related Air Pollution Problems in the UK (United Kingdom)
Together with Recommended Abatement Methods.
3-24
-------
PAINTRA-85/02/XAB, Paint Research Association, Teddington,
England. 154 pp.
Monitoring exercises were conducted to determine air
pollution problems associated with the industrial paint
finishing industry.
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
Burklin, C.E. 1977. Revision of Emission Factors for Petroleum
Refining. EPA-450/3-77-030, PB275685, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 85 pp.
Presents the results of an in-depth study to revise and
update the emission factors and process descriptions
presented in AP-42 for the petroleum refining industry.
Includes section on controlled emission testing.
Barrett, K., and A. Goldfarb. 1979. A Review of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources for Petroleum
Refineries. EPA-450/3-79-008, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 83 pp.
Reviews the current Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Subpart J - Petroleum Refineries.
Includes process information, uncontrolled emission data,
achievable emission limits and control technologies.
Wetherold, R.G., and C.D. Smith. 1980. Assessment of
Atmospheric Emissions from Petroleum Refining; Volume 2 -
Appendix A. EPA-600/2-80-075a-d, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Gives results of a 3-year program to assess the
environmental impact of petroleum refining atmospheric
emissions.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1986. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Petroleum Refinery Fuel Gas.
EPA-450/3-86-011, PB87-136966, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 87 pp.
As required by Section lll(b) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended, a four year review of the New Source Performance
Standards for petroleum refineries was conducted. No
revisions are recommended. Includes section on control
technology.
3-25
-------
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANTS
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute. 1973. Air Pollution Control
Technology and Costs in Seven Selected Industries.
EPA-450/3-73-010, PB-231858/6, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 724 pp.
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute collected and formalized
data on air pollution abatement in the following seven
areas: Phosphate Fertilizer Manufacture, Feed and Grain
Milling, Soap & Detergent Manufacture, Paint & Varnish
Production, The Graphic Arts Industry, Lime Kiln Operation,
and Gray Iron Foundry Cupola Operation. Includes section on
cost of pollution control systems.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Phosphate Fertilizer Industry -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
1 - Proposed Standards. EPA-450/2-74-019a, PB237606, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
148 pp.
Provides background information on the derivation_of the
standards of performance for the phosphate fertilizer
industry. Includes sections on control technology and
economic impact.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Phosphate Fertilizer Industry -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
2 - Summary of Test Data. EPA-450/2-74-019b, PB237607, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
68 pp.
Provides background information on the derivation of the
standards of performance for the phosphate fertilizer
industry. Includes section on emissions.
Nyers, J.M., G.D. Rawlings, E.A. Mullen, C.M. Moscowitz, and R.B.
Reznik. 1979. Source Assessment: Phosphate Fertilizer
Industry. EPA/600/2-79/019C, PB-300681/4, Industrial
Environmental Research Lab, Research Triangle Park, NC. 203
pp.
Describes a study of air emissions, water effluents, and
solid residues resulting from the manufacture of phosphate
fertilizers. Includes sections on emissions and control
technology.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1980. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Phosphate Fertilizer Industry - Revised.
3-26
-------
EPA-450/3-79-038R, PB81-122129, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 81 pp.
Determines that there is currently insufficient process
experience and source test data to recommend New Source
Performance Standards revisions at this time. Includes
section on control technology.
PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING PLANTS
Augenstein, D. M. 1978. Air Pollutant Control Techniques for
Phosphate Rock Processing Industry. EPA-450/3-78-030, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Provides information on the control of particulate emissions
from phosphate rock processing plants, including the typical
and best demonstrated control techniques, the cost and
environmental impacts of several levels of emission control
for phosphate rock dryers, calciners, grinders, and ground
rock handling systems, regulatory options, and enforcement
aspects of potential regulations.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1979. Phosphate Rock Plants -
Background Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-
79-017, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC.
Standards of Performance for phosphate rock plants are being
proposed under the authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. Emission Control Technologies, Environmental
Impacts,and Economic Impacts are presented.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1979. Phosphate Rock Plants -
Background Information; Volume 1 - Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-79-017a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 375 pp.
Standards of Performance for the control of emissions from
phosphate rock plants as proposed under the authority of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Process descriptions,
emission control technologies, economic impacts, and test
data are presented.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1982. Phosphate Rock Plants -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards.
EPA-450/3-79-017b, PB82-200460, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 49 pp.
3-27
-------
Standards of performance for the control of particulate and
visible emissions from phosphate rock plants promulgated
under the authority of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
PLYWOOD, PARTICLE BOARD AND WAFERBOARD PLANTS
Pullman College of Engineering, Washington State University.
1972. Investigation of Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers
(Revised Final Report). APTD-1144, PB-210583, Washington
State University, WA. 141 pp.
The emissions from thirteen plywood dryers drying ten
different species types were studied. Includes section on
emissions.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1983. Control Techniques for Organic
Emissions from Plywood Veneer Dryers. EPA-450/3-83-012,
PB83-228247, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 113 pp.
Summarizes information gathered by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency on the control of emissions from softwood
plywood manufacturing. Includes sections on control
technology and costs of controls. The emissions from
thirteen plywood dryers drying ten different species types
were studied. Includes section on emissions.
PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS
Barrett, K.W. 1978. A Review of Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources for Portland Cement Industry.
EPA-450/3-79-012, PB80-112084, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 83 pp.
Reviews the current Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: Subpart F - Portland Cement Plants.
Includes sections on control technologies and emissions.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985. Portland Cement Plants -
Background Information for Proposed Revisions to Standards.
EPA 450/3-85-003a, PB86-100476, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 125 pp.
Contains a summary of the information gathered during the
review of this New Source Performance Standard.
3-28
-------
Kinsey, J.S. 1987. Lime & Cement Industry Particulate
Emissions: Source Category Report; Volume II - Cement
Industry. EPA 600/7-87/007, PB87-168654, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 410 pp.
Gives results of the development of particulate emission
factors based on cutoff size for inhalable particles for the
cement industry. Includes a process description.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1988. Portland Cement Plants -
Background Information for Promulgated Revisions to
Standards. EPA-450/3-85-003b, PB89-135966, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
64 pp.
Contains revisions to the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements associated with standards of
performance for portland cement plants.
PRIMARY ALUMINUM REDUCTION FACILITIES
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Primary Aluminum Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
1 - Proposed Standards. EPA-450/2-74-020a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
122 pp.
Presents the proposed standards and the rationale for the
degree of control selected.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974. Primary Aluminum Plants -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
2 - Summary of Test Data. EPA-450/2-74-020b, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
48 pp.
Presents the proposed standards and the rationale for the
degree of control selected. This document includes section
on economic impact.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1976. Primary Aluminum Industry -
Background Information for Standards of Performance; Volume
3 - Supplemental Information. EPA 450/2-74-020C, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
50 pp.
3-29
-------
Includes comments in response to the proposed regulation and
EPA responses to these comments, updated economic impact
information, and a discussion of problems encountered with
the analytical method for sampling emissions.
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1978. Background Information for
Proposed Amendments to the New Source Performance Standard
for the Primary Aluminum Industry. EPA-450/2-78-025a,
PB82-242611, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 65 pp.
Supplements information contained in the preamble to
proposed amendments for the New Source Performance Standard
for the primary aluminum industry. Includes sections on
emissions and cost.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1980. Primary Aluminum - Background
Information for Promulgated Amendments. EPA 450/3-79-026,
PB80-192479, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 26 pp.
Summarizes and responds to comments submitted by the public
on the proposed amendments to the standards of performance
for new primary aluminum plants. Includes section on
economic impact.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1986. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Primary Aluminum Reduction Plants. EPA
450/3-86-010, PB87-131637/AS, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 121 pp.
Presents a summary of the current standards, the status of
current applicable control technology, and the ability of
the plants to meet the standards.
PULP MILLS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1973. Atmospheric Emissions from the
Pulp and Paper Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/1-73-002,
PB227181, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 120 pp.
Contains information on the nature and quantities of the
atmospheric emissions from chemical pulping operations,
principally the Kraft process. Includes sections on control
techniques and emissions.
3-30
-------
EKONO, Inc. 1976. Environmental Pollution Control in the Pulp
and Paper Industry - Part I/Air. EPA-625/7-76-001,
PB261708, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH.
Describes types, quantities, and sources of emissions
presenting the latest control device alternatives, and
estimates costs for implementing the air pollution control
systems.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1976. Standard Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills.
EPA-450/2-76-014a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 398 pp.
Standards of performance for the control of emissions of
total reduced sulfur and particulate matter from new and
modified kraft pulp mills as proposed under the authority of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Discussions on processes,
control technologies, emission data, and economic impacts
are included.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1977. Standard Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume II - Promulgated
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills.
EPA-450/2-76-014b, PB278160, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 47 -pp.
Standards of performance for the control of emissions of
total reduced sulfur and particulate matter from new and
modified kraft pulp mills promulgated under the authority of
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. Includes sections on
emissions and economic effects.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1983. Review of New Source Performance
Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills. EPA-450/3-83-017,
PB84-154798, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 82 pp.
Reviews the current New Source Performance Standards for
Kraft Pulp Mills. Includes section on control technology.
3-31
-------
SECONDARY ALUMINUM REDUCTION FACILITIES
Brookman, E. T. 1978. Screening Study on Feasibility of
Standards of Performance for Secondary Aluminum
Manufacturing; Volume 1. EPA-450/3-79-037A, PB80-132954,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 156
pp.
The report contains background information on the secondary
aluminum manufacturing industry. This report contains
sections on production, processes and control techniques.
Brookman, E. T. 1978. Screening Study on Feasibility of
Standards of Performance for Secondary Aluminum
Manufacturing; Volume 2. EPA-450/3-79-037B, PB80-161284,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 214
pp.
Volume 2 of previously described document.
SUGAR PRODUCTION PLANTS
Cuscino, T. A., J. S. Kinsey, R. Hackney, R. Bohn, and R. M.
Roberts. 1981. The Role of Agricultural Practices in
Fugitive Dust Emissions. PB81-219073, ARB/R-81/138, Air
Resources Board, State of California, Sacremento, CA. 264
pp.
The impact of agricultural operations on fugitive dust
emissions were quantified for the San Joaquin Valley, the
Sacramento Valley, and the Imperial Valley. Thirteen tests
were performed to quantify emission factors from discing,
land planning & vehicles traveling on unpaved farm roads.
Also, six tests were performed to quantify emission factors
from sugar beet harvesting.
Baker, R.A., and T. Lahre. 1977. Background Document Bagasse
Combustion in Sugar Mills. EPA-450/3-77-007, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
45 pp.
Provides support for Section 1.8 of AP-2, Compilation of Air
Pollution Emission Factors, Second Edition. It concerns the
major criteria pollutants emitted during the combustion of
baghouse in steam boilers.
3-32
-------
SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS
Axetell, K., and C. Cowherd. 1981. Improved Emission Factors
for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining Sources.
OSM-242, PB90-177940, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (DI), Washington, DC. 36 p.
The purpose of the study was to develop emission factors for
significant surface coal mining operations that would be
applicable to all Western mines and would be based on widely
acceptable, state-of-the-art sampling and data analysis
procedures.
Axetell, K. Jr., and C. Cowherd Jr. 1989. Improved Emission
Factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining
Sources; Volume 1 - Sampling Method/Test Results.
PB90-179474, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (DI), Washington, DC. 209 pp.
The primary purpose of the study was to develop emission
factors for significant surface coal mining operations.
Axetell, K. Jr., and C. Cowherd Jr. 1989. Improved Emission
Factors for Fugitive Dust from Western Surface Coal Mining
Sources; Volume 2 - Emission Factors. PB90-179482, Office
of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (DI),
Washington, DC. 83 pp.
Volume 2 of previously described document.
Beyer, L.E., J.A. Diaper, and R.E. Nickel. 1989. Surface Mining
and the Natural Environment: Technical Manual - Phase II.
PB90-178856, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (DI), Washington, DC. 327 pp.
Examines the process of surface mining: its potential
impact on the natural environment, reclamation, and
pollution control technologies used to minimize these
impacts.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1989. Emission Factors and Control
Technology for Fugitive Dust from Mining Sources/3rd Draft.
PB90-177957, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (DI), Washington, DC. 25 pp.
3-33
-------
TURBINES (OIL-FIRED)
Shin, C.C., J.W. Hamersma, D.G. Ackerman, R.G. Beimer, M.L.
Kraft, and M.M. Yamada. 1979. Emissions Assessment of
Conventional Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume II -
Internal Combustion Sources. EPA-600/7-79-029C, PB296390,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, NC. 239 pp.
Gives results of an assessment of emissions from gas - and
oil-fueled gas turbines and reciprocating engines for
electricity generation and industrial applications.
3-34
-------
SECTION 4
ACHIEVABLE EMISSION LIMITS
INTRODUCTION
This Section discusses the most stringent mass and visible
emission limits that can be routinely achieved for the source
categories that are listed in Section 1. The most stringent
achievable emission limits were determined by reviewing Federal
and state regulations as well as available total particulate
matter (PM) emissions test data. The achievable emission limits
that are presented in this Section should be used as guidelines
in determining RACT limit for particular sources.
Most states have not adopted limits specifically for PM-10.
For this reason, the most stringent emission limits that are
presented in the Section are for total PM. A suggested procedure
to estimate an eguivalent PM-10 emission limit is described in
Section 2 (see page 2-5).
This Section is not intended to serve as a replacement for a
review of applicable Federal and state regulations for a specific
facility. The regulations cited here as the "most stringent"
must be examined to determine their applicability to the
particular facility being evaluated with respect to operating
conditions, location, or other unique circumstances that may
apply.
The format of the total PM emission limitations varies
widely from state to state. The most common formats include:
o Concentration - mg/dscm (gr/dscf), which may also be
corrected to a specific percent oxygen, carbon dioxide,
or excess air.
o Emission rate - kg/hr (lb/hr), which is generally
calculated by an equation or obtained from a table
based on the production rate or, occasionally, air flow
rate.
o Production based rate - kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of product or,
in the case of fuel burning equipment, ng/J (Ib/MMBtu).
For most source categories, it was impossible to choose a single
state with the most stringent total PM emission limitation
because of the variety of regulatory formats. Therefore, a
4-1
-------
discussion is included with each source category regarding the
most stringent total PM emission limitation for each of the
regulatory formats. However, the total PM emissions test data in
this section are presented in mg/dscm (gr/dscf) or ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu) because most of the test data are presented in one of
these two manners.
The format of visible emissions (VE) limitations also varies
widely from state to state. Some states report the allowable
limitation as an average, generally a 6-minute average, while
other limitations are expressed in terms of an aggregate number
of opacity readings that may exceed a specific value.
The state emission limits were determined by reviewing the
state air regulations as printed in the Bureau of National
Affairs (BNA) Environment Reporter (BNA, 1991a) as of October 25,
1991. Federal emission limits were determined by reviewing the
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) as they appear in the BNA
Environment Reporter (BNA, 1991b), also as of October 25, 1991.
In many cases, the most stringent total PM and VE
limitations only apply to new or modified sources or sources that
are located in a certain area of the state, such as a
nonattainment area or certain large metropolitan areas. For the
purposes of determining the most stringent regulation, it was
assumed that the emission source was located in the area of the
state where the most stringent regulations apply.
The definition of new source varies from state to state and
frequently even by source category within a state. Many states
incorporate the Federal NSPSs into the state regulations, either
by reference or by reiterating the emission limitations for the
appropriate source categories. In these cases, the state "NSPS
regulations" are described in the discussion for a given source
category under the Federal NSPS regulations. Also, the time
period for state classification of new sources ranges from the
1950's to the 1980's. In other words, a new source in one state
may be considered an existing source in another state.
Frequently an emission limit that applies to new sources in one
state would apply to all sources in another state.
Although RACT, not NSPS, is required for existing sources,
emission limits for new sources were included in the review
because they are technologically achievable, however, the limits
may not be reasonable to achieve in all situations for existing
sources. As mentioned above, this section should not be seen as
a replacement of a review of the regulations but should be used
as a guideline to determine an achievable limit.
Several states have delegated authority to local agencies
for implementing air pollution control programs. The most
4-2
-------
notable state in this category is California. Local agencies may
also have different emission limitations (more stringent) than
the state agency emission limitations. Local agency emission
limitations were not included in this review. There may also be
air pollution operating permit conditions or consent agreements
that place stricter standards on sources. It was beyond the
scope of this project to review all of these sources of
information to determine the most stringent limitation.
For most of the source categories, the strictest state total
PM and VE limitations were determined by reviewing regulations
for all fifty states. However, there are source categories that
are not located in all fifty states, cotton milling, or iron and
steel facilities, for example. For these types of source
categories, the regulations were reviewed only for the states
that were most likely to have these industries.
The total PM emissions test data for individual source
categories were obtained from a variety of sources and are
referenced with the discussion of the individual source category.
Attempts were made to obtain total PM emissions test data from
previous EPA data gathering projects or EPA published documents.
The mass emission tests presented in this Section were generally
conducted at existing, well-controlled facilities. The total PM
emissions test data for an individual source category are by no
means all inclusive; the test data are presented only to
illustrate examples of emission rates achieved by existing well-
controlled facilities.
The discussions in the remainder of this Section are
arranged alphabetically by source category as shown on the list
on Table 1-1 in Section 1. Each subsection has the following
components: 1) most stringent state total PM limitations, 2)
state VE limitations, 3) Federal NSPS requirements (if
applicable) and 4) total PM emissions test data (if available).
The state or states that have been identified as having the
strictest regulations are shown in brackets. The discussion on
individual source categories is preceded by a brief general
discussion of emission rate limitations.
EMISSION RATE LIMITATIONS - GENERAL DISCUSSION
Many states use an equation related to process weight to
determine the allowable total PM emission rate in kg/hr (Ib/hr).
This equation either applies to all industries within their state
or to industries not otherwise explicitly regulated. The
variable in the equation in almost all cases is the production
rate. Figure 4-1 depicts the general curves that produce the
most stringent total PM emission limitations. As shown on Figure
4-1, no one curve can be used to determine the most stringent
4-3
-------
32 (/u; -
§. 27 (60) -
f 23(50)-
| 18(40)-
c
• ~\A f3.r\\ -
to i ^ wu/
CO
"e
UJ 9 (20)-
JD
g 4.5(10)-
_o
<
(
t ' Curve #2
,'
....^•'- Curve #3
• •* ^ d^a *^* ^^U
* ^** ^^ ^^
f"^ Curve #5
i i — • i i i i
) 200 400 6(
(220) (441) (6<
)0
31)
Production Rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr)
••••• Curve #2:
Curve #1 : E = A(P)B; where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) , A is
2.54 for production rates up to 450 ton/hr and 24.8 for
production rates > 450 ton/hr, P is production rate
(ton/hr), and B is 0.534 for production rates up to 450
ton/hr and 0.16 for production rates > 450 ton/hr [IL].
For production rates < 30 ton/hr: E = 3.59 P°-62; where
E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and P is production
rate (ton/hr). For production rates > 30 ton/hr: E =
17.31 P0-16 [many states].
For production rates > 9,250 Ib/hr: E = I.IO(PW)0-25;
where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and PW is
production rate (Ib/hr) [ID].
For production rates > 30 ton/hr: E = 0.5(55P°-n - 40);
where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and P is
production rate (ton/hr). For production rates < 30
ton/hr: determined from table in state regulations
[MA].
Applies only to certain operations which undergo a
chemical change. Values are from a table in state
regulations [WV].
Curve #3'.
...... Curve -#4:
Curve #5:
Figure 4-1.
Summary of most stringent state total PM emission
rate equations.
4-4
-------
emission rate limitation because of the change in the equation
with production rate. Figure 4-1 is referenced as needed in the
individual source category discussions that follow.
ASPHALT AND ASPHLATIC CONCRETE PLANTS
Total PM emission limitations for asphalt concrete plants
for all fifty states were reviewed. There is also an applicable
NSPS (Subpart I) emission limitation for this source category.
The following is a summary of the most stringent state total
PM emissions limitations:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [NY, IN, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than or equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - The most stringent emission rate
results from the following equation: A = 0.76 (6W)°-42;
where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is the
production rate (ton/hr) [PA].
o Production based rate - 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/tonj of
product [CT].
The most stringent state VE limitation is for certain areas
of Maryland which are allowed no VE.
NSPS Subpart I applies to hot mix asphalt facilities that
commenced construction or modification after June 11, 1973.
Atmospheric total PM discharges can not contain more than 90
mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf) or exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
Examples of total PM emissions test data from well
controlled facilities is summarized below (Fitzpatrick, et al,
1991; OAQPS, 1973; OAQPS, 1974a, OAQPS, 1985a):
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Cyclone/Baghouse
13
13
98.8
(0.043)
10.1
(0.0044)
38.1
(0.0166)
Cyclone/ Scrubber
8
8
94.2
(0.0410)
28.0
(0.0122)
56.9
(0.0248)
4-5
-------
BOILERS
For the purposes of this document, utility boilers are
defined as a unit with a heat input that is greater than 105
GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr), and industrial/commercial boilers as those
units with a heat input that is greater than 0.5 GJ/hr (0.5
MMBtu/hr) and less than or equal to 105 GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr).
Individual states and Federal NSPS regulations may define utility
and industrial/commercial boilers differently.
Total PM regulations for all fifty states were reviewed for
utility and industrial/commercial boilers burning coal, wood, and
residual fuel oil. Many of the state regulations are calculated
using an equation with the boiler's rated heat input as a
variable. In order to determine the strictest state regulation,
a boiler with a heat input of 270 GJ/hr (260 MMBtu/hr) was
selected to represent a utility boiler and a boiler with a heat
input of 105 GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr) was selected to represent an
industrial/commercial boiler.
The strictest total PM emission limitations, by type of
fuel, are summarized on Table 4-1.
The most stringent state VE limitations are as follows:
o No visible emissions, with exceptions for startup, soot
blows, etc. [MD].
o If the emissions can be reasonably controlled, opacity
shall not exceed 20% for more than 2 minutes per hour .
and shall not exceed 40 percent at any time [MA].
o Not greater than or equal to 40 percent at any time and
not greater than or equal to 20 percent for 3 or more
minutes per hour [NY].
NSPS Subparts D, Da, Db, and DC apply to boilers. Subpart D
applies to fossil fuel-fired units that are greater than 264
GJ/hr (250 MMBtu/hr) on which construction or modifications
commenced after August 17, 1971. The total PM emission
limitation is 43 ng/J (0.10 Ib/MMBtu) and opacity can not exceed
20 percent except for one 6-minute period per hour when it can
not exceed more than 27 percent.
Subpart Da applies to electric utility steam generating
units that are greater than 264 GJ/hr (250 MMBtu/hr) that
commenced construction or modification after September 18, 1978.
The total PM emission limitation is 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/MMBtu). VE
shall not exceed 20 percent except for one 6-minute period per
hour which can not exceed 27 percent opacity.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF STRICTEST TOTAL PM
EMISSIONS LIMITATIONS FOR BOILERS
Utility3
Boiler
Industrial/Commercial15
Boiler
Coal
Concentrat ion
Emission rate
Production-
based rate
NSPS
Residual Oil
Concentration
Emission rate
Production-
based rate
69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf)
[MD]
Calculated using
the following
equation for steam
generating units:
A = 0.05 x I;
where I is heat
input in MMBtu/hr
and A is the
allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
22 ng/J
(0.05 Ib/MMBtu)
[ME, MA, NM]
13 ng/J
(0.03 Ib/MMBtu)
46 mg/dscm
(0.020 gr/dscf)
[MD]
Calculated using
the following
equation for steam
generating units:
A = 0.05 x I;
where I is heat
input in MMBtu/hr
and A is the
allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
13 ng/J
(0.03 Ib/MMBtu)
[NM]
114 mg/dscmc
(0.05 gr/dscf)
[AK, ID, MD]
Calculated using the
following equation for
non-steam generating
units:
A = 0.09 x I;
where I is heat input
in MMBtu/hr and A is
the allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
43 ng/J
(0.10 Ib/MMBtu)
[IL, MA, MI, MN, WY]
22 ng/J
(0.05 Ib/MMBtu)
46 mg/dscm
(0.020 gr/dscf) [MD]
Calculated using the
following equation for
non-steam generating
units:
A = 0.09 x I;
where I is heat input
in MMBtu/hr and A is
the allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
34 ng/J
(0.08 Ib/MMBtu)
[ME]
(Continued)
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-1. (CONTINUED)
Utility3
Boiler
Industrial/Commercial15
Boiler
NSPS
Wood
Concentration
Emission rate
Production-
based rate
NSPS
13 ng/J
(0.03 Ib/MMBtu)
69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf)
[MD]
Calculated using
the following
equation for steam
generating units:
A = 0.05 x I;
where I is heat
input in MMBtu/hr
and A is the
allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
26 ng/J
(0.06 Ib/MMBtu)
[ME]
13 ng/J
(0.10 Ib/MMBtu)
43 ng/J
(0.10 Ib/MMBtu)
69 mg/dscm
(0.05 gr/dscf)
[AK, MD]
Calculated using the
following equation for
non-steam generating
units:
A = 0.09 x I;
where I is heat input
in MMBtu/hr and A is
the allowable rate in
Ib/hr [WV]
34 ng/J
(0.08 Ib/MMBtu)
[ME]
43 ng/J
(0.10 Ib/MMBtu)
"Utility boiler is represented by a unit with a rated heat input
of 270 GJ/hr (260 MMBtu/hr).
blndustrial/commercial boiler is represented by a unit with a
rated heat input of 105 GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr).
'Corrected to 8 percent oxygen in Idaho.
4-8
-------
NSPS Subpart Db applies to industrial, commercial, and
institutional steam generating units that are greater than 105
GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr) and commenced construction or modification
after June 19, 1984. For facilities burning coal, the total PM
emission limitation is 22 ng/J (0.05 Ib/MMBtu). Oil-fired and
wood-fired units are limited to 43 ng/J (0.10 Ib/MMBtu). Visible
emission shall not exceed 20 percent except for one 6-minute
period per hour which shall not exceed 27 percent.
Subpart DC applies to small industrial, commercial, and
institutional steam generating units that commenced construction
or modification after June 9, 1989. For coal-fired units that
are greater than or equal to 32 GJ/hr (30 MMBtu/hr) and less than
or equal to 105 GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr), the total PM emission limit
is 22 ng/J (0.05 Ib/MMBtu). The limit for wood-fired boilers in
the same size range is 43 ng/J (0.10 Ib/MMBtu). Opacity for coal
oil, and wood-fired units shall not exceed 20 percent except for
one 6-minute period per hour which shall not exceed 27 percent.
Examples of total PM emissions data for coal-fired utility
boilers are depicted on Figure 4-2. (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991).
Data for wood-fired boilers is summarized below (Fitzpatrick, et
al, 1991. All boilers are greater than 105 GJ/hr (100 MMBtu/hr).
Wood-Fired Boilers
Multiclones/
electro-
scrubber
Cyclone/
wet
scrubber
Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of
facilities
Maximum, ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
Minimum, ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
Average, ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
12.0
(0.028)
12.0
(0.028)
12
(0.028)
42
(0.098)
15.1
(0.035)
30.1
(0.07)
4.3
(0.01)
4.3
(0.01)
4.3
(0.01)
BRICK MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Regulations for all fifty states were reviewed to determine
the strictest total PM and visible emissions limitations for
brick kilns. The most stringent total PM emissions limitations
for brick kilns are:
4-9
-------
0.1
0.08
£ 0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Avg.
8
O
0
o
©
8
©
o
G
Strictest state limitation:
22 ng/J (0.05 Ib/MMBtu)
Y~ Strictest NSPS limitation:
A\ 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/MMBtu)
\
Avg.
43
35
26
17
0
D)
C
ESP
Scrubber Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
Minimum, ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
Average , ng/J
(Ib/MMBtu)
ESP
12
9
97.9
(0.0865)
25.6
(0.0112)
105.3
(0.046)
Scrubber
1
1
84.7
(0.037)
84.7
(0.037)
84.7
(0.037)
Baghouse
2
2
16.0
(0.007)
29.7
(0.013)
22.9
(0.010)
Figure 4-2.
Examples of total PM emissions test data for coal-
fired utility boilers.
4-10
-------
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - The emission limitation varies by
production rate; refer to Figure 4-1.
The most stringent state VE limitation is for certain areas
of Maryland which are allowed no VE.
CALCINERS
Regulations for all fifty states were reviewed to determine
the most stringent total PM and VE limitations for calciners.
The most stringent total PM regulations are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD, FL].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - The most stringent emission rate for a
18 Mg/hr (20 ton/hr) calciner is calculated by the
following equation: A = 0.62 P; where A is the
allowable rate in Ib/hr and P is production rate in
ton/hr [NV]. This regulation has a maximum allowable
emission rate of 4.8 kg/hr (10.50 Ib/hr). This
regulation applies specifically to calciners at
colemanite flotation processing plants. Refer to
Figure 4-1 for the most stringent limitation for other
calciners.
The most stringent state opacity standard is for certain
areas of Maryland which are allowed no visible emissions.
NSPS Subpart NN applies to calciners at phosphate rock
plants. The standards will be discussed in the subsection on
phosphate rock processing plants.
Available total PM emissions test data for calciners is
summarized on Figure 4-3 (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991; OAQPS,
1985b).
4-11
-------
M—
O
CO
TJ
CO
U.U/
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
n
r — Strictest state limitation:
_ \ 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) B
- \
\
\
I j&.
\ TJy
- \ A
\
\ >J . « A • _
« Avg. i v i •
8 A
A •
AV9'I~Q~! M9 '' '
•
10 1
138
115
92
69
46
23
0
£
O
T3
^5
ESP
Scrubber Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
ESP
7
5
77.8
(0.034)
36.6
(0.016)
50.3
(0.022)
Scrubber
9
9
109.8
(0.048)
18.3
(0.008)
75.5
(0.033)
Baghouse
9
8
135.0
(0.059)
2.3
(0.001)
50.3
(0.022)
Figure 4-3,
Examples of total PM emissions test data for
calciners.
4-12
-------
CHARCOAL PLANTS
Regulations in all fifty states for charcoal plants were
reviewed. The strictest total PM emissions standards are:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD] .
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; refer to
Figure 4-1.
The most stringent VE limitation is 0 percent [MD].
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Regulations were reviewed for all fifty states to determine
the strictest total PM and opacity emission limitations for
reactors, blenders, and mixers at chemical manufacturing plants.
The most stringent general total PM emissions limitations are as
follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)[FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - For an operation that results in a
chemical change in the material of origin, the most
stringent mass regulation is a value that varies by
production rate that is determined from Curve 5 on
Figure 4-1 [WV]. For a operation that involves a
physical change in the material of origin, refer to
Figure 4-1.
The most stringent VE limitation is 0 percent opacity [MD].
COAL PREPARATION AND CLEANING PLANTS
Regulations for all fifty states were reviewed to determine
the most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for coal
preparation and cleaning plants. A Federal NSPS also applies to
this source category.
4-13
-------
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
thermal coal dryers are:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Also, several states have a similar limitation of 70
mg/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf) [AZ, KY, and MN]. Another
state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of the
following: 1) an emission concentration of less than
of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an upper cap
of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control efficiency of 99
percent.
o Emission rate - The most stringent emission rate is
calculated using the following equation: A = 0.76(2
W)0-42; where A is the allowable emission rate (Ib/hr)
and W is production rate (ton/hr) [PA].
The most stringent state total PM regulations for pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment (air tables) are:
o Concentration - 40 mg/dscm (0.018 gr/dscf) [AZ, KY,
MN] .
o Emission rate - The most stringent emission rate is
calculated using the following equation: A = 0.76(2
W)0-42; where A is the allowable emission rate (Ib/hr)
and W is production rate (ton/hr) [PA].
The most stringent state opacity limitation is 0 percent
[MD]. Fugitive emissions are also limited to none [PA].
NSPS Subpart Y applies to coal preparation plants which
process more than 181 Mg/day (200 ton/day) and were constructed
or modified after October 24, 1974. The total PM limitation for
thermal dryers shall not exceed 70 mg/dscm (0.031 gr/dscf) and 20
percent opacity or greater. Total PM emissions from pneumatic
coal-cleaning equipment shall not exceed 40 mg/dscm (0.018
gr/dscf) and 10 percent opacity or greater. Coal processing and
conveying equipment, coal storage systems, and coal transfer and
loading systems shall not discharge 20 percent opacity or
greater.
Total PM emissions data from three pneumatic coal-cleaning
facilities equipped with baghouses ranges from 11 to 123 mg/dscm
(0.005 to 0.0536 gr/dscf) with an average of 50 mg/dscm (0.022
gr/dscf. (Fitzpatrick, et al 1991; OAQPS, 1974b). Total PM
emissions data from six facilities with thermal dryers controlled
with multiclones and scrubbers ranged from 29 to 75 mg/dscm
(0.0128 to 0.0327 gr/dscf) with an average concentration of 47
mg/dscm (0.0204 gr/dscf) (OAQPS, 1974b).
4-14
-------
CONCRETE BATCH PLANTS
Total PM and visible emissions limitations for all fifty
states were reviewed to determine the strictest limitations for
concrete batch plants. The most stringent total PM emissions
limitations are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - the most stringent standard depends on
production rate; see Figure 4-1 for a graphical
illustration of the standards.
o Production-based rate - 11.9 g/m3 (0.021 lb/yd3)
concrete.
Visible emissions are limited to 0 percent [MD] .
COTTON SEED MILLING PLANTS
State regulations for Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and
Texas were reviewed to determine the most stringent total PM and
opacity, limitations for cotton seed milling.
State regulations are all expressed as an emission rate
which varies by production rate. The strictest total PM emission
rate limitations can be determined as follows.
o For operations less than 1.4 Mg/hr (3,000 Ib/hr): A =
3.12P5-985; where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and P
is production rate (ton/hr) [AL, TX].
o For operations between 1.4 and 27 Mg/hr (3,000 and
60,000 Ib/hr): A = 3.59P0-62; where A is the allowable
rate (Ib/hr) and P is production rate (ton/hr) [TN].
o For operations between 27 and 36 Mg/hr (60,000 and
80,000 Ib) : A = 17.31P0-16; where A is the allowable rate
(Ib/hr) and P is production rate (ton/hr) [TN]
For operations above 36 Mg/hr (80,000 Ib/hr):
kg/hr (31.2 Ib/hr) [SC].
14.6
4-15
-------
The strictest state VE standard states that opacity shall
not be greater than equal to 20 percent after any manufacturing
process [AR]. Another state stipulates the VE shall not exceed
20 percent for more than an aggregate of 5 minutes per hour and
not more than 20 minutes per 24 hours [TN].
FOUNDRIES
Regulations for all fifty states were reviewed to determine
the most stringent total PM and VE standards for grey iron
foundries, aluminum foundries, and steel shredders.
The most stringent total emission standards for grey iron
foundries are as follows:
o Concentration - 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) [NH].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - For operations greater than 41 Mg/hr
(45 ton/hr), the most stringent emission rate is
calculated by the following equation: A = 1.10 (PW)0-25;
where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and PW is
production rate (Ib/hr) [ID]. For operations less than
41 Mg/hr (45 ton/hr) the most stringent allowable rate
is calculated as follows: E = 2.54 (P)°-534, where E is
allowable rate (Ib/hr) and P is production rate
(ton/hr) [IL].
o Production-based rate - 0.85 kg/Mg (1.7 Ib/ton) of iron
or a 90 percent reduction.
Total PM emission test data is available for nine grey iron
facilities equipped with baghouses. The average results are 14.9
mg/dscm (0.0065 gr/dscf) with a range of 5.5 to 58.8 mg/dscm
(0.0024 to 0.0257 gr/dscf) (Fennelly, 1978; Fitzpatrick, et al,
1991).
The strictest total PM emission limitations for aluminum
foundries and shredders are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
4-16
-------
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Allowable rates varies by production
rate; refer to Figure 4-1.
The most stringent state opacity standard for foundries is 0
percent [MD].
GLASS MANUFACTURING PLANTS
Regulations for all fifty states were reviewed to determine
the most stringent total PM emissions and opacity regulations. A
Federal NSPS also applies to this source category.
The most stringent state total PM emission regulations are
as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) for
production rates greater than 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr)
[NY].
o Emission rate - Allowable emission rates vary by
production rate; refer to Figure 4-1.
o Process-based rate - 0.65 kg/Mg (1.3 Ib/ton) of glass
for gas-fired furnaces or 0.75 kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton) of
glass for oil-fired furnaces [FL]. For glass container
furnaces, the standard is 1.0 g/2.0 Kg (1.0 Ib/ton) of
process material [IN].
MD]
The most stringent state opacity standard is 0 percent [FL,
NSPS Subpart CC applies to glass melting furnaces that are
designed to produce more than 4,550 kg/day (5 ton/day) of glass
that commenced construction or modification after June 15, 1979.
The standards are summarized on Table 4-2.
Figure 4-4 presents available total PM test data for
controlled glass furnaces (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991; OAQPS,
1980).
GRAIN MILLING OPERATIONS
Regulations for 45 states (Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
West Virginia and Wyoming were not included) were reviewed to
determine the strictest standards for grain milling operations.
Marine grain terminals are discussed in a later subsection.
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF NSPS SUBPART CC TOTAL PM EMISSIONS
LIMITATIONS FOR GLASS MELTING FURNACES
IN g/kg (Ib/ton) OF PRODUCT
Furnaces
Gaseous Liquid w/modified
Industry segment
Container Glass
fuel-fired
0.1
(0.2)
fuel-fired
0.13
(0.26)
processes8
0.5
(1.0)
Pressed and blown
glass
a) borosilicate
recipes
b) soda-lime and
lead recipes
c) other than
bor os i 1 icate ,
soda-lime and
lead recipes
Wool fiberglass
Flat glass
0.5
(1.0)
0.1
(0.2)
0.25
(0.5)
0.25
(0.50)
0.225
(0.45)
0.65
(1.30)
0.13
(0.26)
0.325
(0.65)
0.325
(0.65)
0.225
(0.45)
•
1.0
(2.0)
0.5
(1.0)
-
0.5
(1.0)
0.5
(1.0)
"Modified processes are any technique that is designed to
minimize emissions without add-on air pollution controls.
4-18
-------
U.VJU
0.04
0 03
o
CO
•7-1
0)
0.02
0.01
n
v— Strictest state limitation:
\ 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)
- \
\ © A
A,,,, I ,,,.1
Avg. i ™-i
A
g
©
— Avg. 1 1 A —
§
£5 •
115
- 92
-69
-46
-23
0
CO
ESP
Scrubber Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average , mg / ds cm
(gr/dscf)
ESP
16
12
70.9
(0.031)
4.6
(0.002)
25.2
(0.011)
Scrubber
4
3
91.5
(0.040)
22.9
(0.010)
59.5
(0.026)
Baghouse
1
1
9.2
(0.004)
9.2
(0.004)
9.2
(0.004)
Figure 4-4. Examples of total PM emissions test data for glass
furnaces.
4-19
-------
The strictest state total PM emission standards are as
follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; refer to
Figure 4-1. However, Curve 1 of this figure does not
apply.
o Production-based rate - For rice mills: 0.75 kg/Mg
(1.5 Ib/ton) [AR].
o Other - Discharge gases from grain-drying installations
must pass through a 707 jura (24 mesh) screen or
equivalent.
The most stringent state opacity standard is 0 percent [FL,
MD].
Total PM emissions test data from two grain milling
operations equipped with baghouses show concentrations of 10.3
mg/dscm (0.0045 gr/dscf) and 15.3 mg/dscm (0.0067 gr/dscf)
(Fitzpatrick et al, 1991; Shannon, 1974).
GYPSUM PRODUCT MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING PLANTS
State regulations for all states except Alabama, Hawaii,
Maine, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota were reviewed to
determine the strictest state emission limitations for gypsum
operations. NSPS Subpart 000 (nonmetallic mineral processing
plants) applies to this source category; a discussion of Subpart
000 appears under the Nonmetallic Mineral Plants subsection.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations are
as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD, and
NY for production rates greater than 45 Mg/hr (50
ton/hr)]. Another state [NJ] requires the least
restrictive of the following: 1) an emission
concentration of less than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02
gr/dscf) with an upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2)
a control efficiency of 99 percent.
4-20
-------
o Emission rate - Refer to Figure 4-1; the allowable
emission rate varies by production rate.
The most stringent state opacity standard is 0 percent [MD].
Examples of total PM test data for varies gypsum operations
are summarized below (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991):
Operation
Calcining
Rock dryer
Wallboard, sawing
Control device
Baghouse
Baghouse
Cyclone
Cyclone/ baghouse
Baghouse
mg/dscm
1.4
53.8
135
48.5
10.1
8.9
10.5
23.8
(gr/dscf)
(0.0006)
(0.0235)
(0.059)
(0.0212)
(0.0044)
(0.0039)
(0.0046)
(0.0104)
INCINERATORS
State regulations for medical waste, agricultural waste, and
municipal waste incinerators were reviewed for all fifty states.
There is also a NSPS for incinerators.
The most stringent total PM state regulations for medical
waste incinerators are as follows:
o Concentration - 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to
seven percent oxygen for facilities accepting waste
that was generated off-site [NY]. Several other states
have a similarly strict standard, however, the
standards go into effect at varying production rates
[CO, KY, NM].
o Emission rate - For units greater than or equal to 45
kg/hr (100 Ib/hr) and less than 907 kg/hr (2,000 Ib/hr)
the most stringent limitation is 0.05 kg/100 kg charged
(0.10 lb/100 Ib charged) [OH]. For units greater than
907 kg/hr (2,000 Ib/hr), the emission limit is
calculated using the following equation: E = 40.7xlO'5C
where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and C is the dry
charge rate (Ib/hr).
For municipal waste incinerators the most stringent total PM
emission limitation expressed as a concentration is 23 mg/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf) at seven percent oxygen [NY]. The most stringent
emission rate limitation is the same as the rates described above
under medical waste.
4-21
-------
The most stringent total PM concentration limit for
agricultural waste incineration is 23 mg/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) at
seven percent oxygen for private solid waste disposal [NY].
There are other states have emission limitations for incineration
of specific agricultural wastes, such as wood, peanut and cotton
ginning wastes [AL] or manure [MI].
The most stringent state VE limit is zero percent [MD].
NSPS Subparts E and Ea apply to incinerators. Subpart E
applies to incinerators with a capacity of more than 45 Mg/day
(50 ton/day) that commenced construction or modification after
August 17, 1971. The particulate standard for Subpart E is 180
mg/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf) corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide.
Subpart Ea applies to municipal waste combustors with a capacity
of greater than 225 Mg/day (250 ton/day) that commenced
construction or modification after December 20, 1989. The total
PM limitation is 34 mg/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to seven
percent oxygen. VE cannot exceed 10 percent opacity for Subpart
Ea sources.
Examples of total PM test data from medical waste
incinerators include data from one facility with a baghouse and a
concentration of 2.3 mg/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf) and two facilities
with wet scrubbers with concentrations of 46 and 92 mg/dscm
(0.020 and 0.040 gr/dscf) (Radian, 1988). Examples of total PM
data from municipal waste incinerators are summarized below
(Fitzpatrick et al, 1991; Helfand, 1979; OAQPS, 1989):
ESP
Fabric filter
34
92
(0.04)
4.6
(0.002)
31
(0.0137)
73.2
(0.032)
9.2
(0.004)
34
(0.0148)
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscf
(gr/dscf)
IRON AND STEEL FACILITIES
The stack test data presented in this section is from the
Listing of Iron and Steel Stack Test Reports (Fitzpatrick, 1986)
and the Iron and Steel Stack Test Library (JACA, 1991) that is
associated with this listing. The library contains approximately
800 stack test reports or summaries of reports and has been
compiled under various EPA contracts over the past 12 years.
4-22
-------
Argon Oxygen Decarburization and Electric Arc Furnaces
Emission limitations from 35 states for electric arc
furnaces (EAF) and argon oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels
were reviewed. There are also applicable NSPSs (Subparts AA and
AAa) emission limitations for this source category.
The following is a summary of the most stringent state total
PM emissions limitations for EAFs:
o Concentration - 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf) [CO, DE,
NY]
o Emission rate - The strictest limitation depends on the
production rate and is determined by reviewing Figure
4-1 or the following equation: A = 0.76 (40W)°-42; where
A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is the production
rate (ton/hr) [PA].
The most stringent state VE limitations for EAFs are as
follows:
o Fugitive emissions - no fugitive emissions.
o Stack emissions - Two states have similarly stringent
limitations. The limitations of the first state are:
no VE greater than or equal to 20 percent except for an
aggregate of not more than 3 min/hr of VE that are not
greater than or equal to 60 percent opacity [PA]. The
limitations of the second state are: no VE greater
than or equal to 20 percent except for no more than 5
min/hr of VE that are not greater than or equal to 40
percent [CT].
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
AOD vessels are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)[FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - The emission limit depends on the
production rate as is determined by one of the curves
in Figure 4-1 or the following equation: A = 0.76
(40W)°-42; where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is
production rate (ton/hr) [PA].
4-23
-------
The most stringent state opacity standard is zero percent
unl-ess hoods and controls are in place [PA] . Another state
allows five percent (6-minute average)[FL].
NSPS Subpart AA applies to EAFs and associated dust-handling
equipment that commenced construction, modification or
reconstruction after October 21, 1974 but before August 17, 1983.
In these cases, total PM emissions from the control device stack
are limited to 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf) and an opacity of less
than three percent (6-minute average). Visible emissions from
the shop that are due solely to the operation of the EAF vessels
cannot exhibit greater than or equal to six percent opacity (6-
minute average) except that VE less than 20 percent (6-minute
average) may occur during charging periods and VE less than 40
percent (6-minute average) may occur during tapping periods.
Opacity from dust-handling equipment is limited to less than 10
percent (6-minute average) opacity.
NSPS Subpart AAa applies to EAFs and AODs that were
constructed or modified after August 7, 1983. Total PM emissions
from an EAF or AOD vessels cannot exceed 12 mg/dscm (0.0052
gr/dscf). VE from a control device stack cannot equal or exceed
3 percent opacity. VE from a shop from EAF or AOD operations
cannot exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
Figure 4-5 depicts available total PM test data for EAF
control device stacks. There is also one stack test available
for tapping and charging emissions controlled by a baghouse. The
total PM test results are 0.89 mg/dscm (0.00039 gr/dscf).
There are two total PM tests available for AOD vessels. One
test was conducted at the exhaust at a baghouse and the results
are 0.7 mg/dscm (0.0003 gr/dscf). The second test was conducted
at the exhaust of a scrubber and the concentration is 27 mg/dscm
(0.0118 gr/dscf).
Sinter Plants
To determine the most stringent state regulations for sinter
plants, regulations were reviewed for the following states:
Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and West
Virginia.
The most stringent total PM emission regulations for sinter
plant windboxes are:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [AL, CO, MD,
WV].
4-24
-------
o
CO
•o
~v^
O)
U.U \£.
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
v- Strictest state limitation; 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf)
\ Strictest NSPS limitation; 12 mg/dscm (0.0052 gr/dscf)
\ A
\ A
- y
Avg. I — ™ — ^1 B
A
1
~ © A Avg.l — | 1
1
•
|
tX>
23
18
14
9
5
n
E
o
CO
ESP
Scrubber Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, (mg/dscm)
(gr/dscf)
Average, (mg/dscm)
(gr/dscf)
ESP
1
1
4.4
(0.0019)
4.4
(0.0019)
4.4
(0.0019)
Scrubber
4
4
20.6
(0.009)
4.6
(0.002)
11.5
(0.005)
Baghouse
24
19
23.6
(0.0103)
0.05
(0.00002)
5.0
(0.0022)
Figure 4-5. Examples of total PM emissions test data for primary
emission control systems at electric arc furnaces
at iron and steel facilities.
4-25
-------
o Emission rate - The most stringent limit is calculated
by the following equation: A = 0.76 (20W)042; where A is
the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is production rate
(ton/hr)[PA].
The most stringent total PM limitations for other sinter
plant operations are as follows:
o Sinter discharge end - 23 mg/dscm (0.01 gr/dscf)[CO].
o Sinter breaker - As calculated by the following
equation: E = 2.54P0-534; where E is the allowable rate
(Ib/hr) and P is production rate up to 408 Mg/hr (450
ton/hr)[IL].
o Hot and cold screens - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)[IL,
MD] .
o Sinter cooler - 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf)[WV].
The most stringent VE limitations are as -follows:
o Fugitive - no fugitive emissions [PA].
o Stack emissions - No VE greater than 10 percent [MD].
Examples of total PM emissions data for sinter plant
windboxes is summarized on Figure 4-6. Examples of total PM test
data for other sinter plant operations are summarized on Table
4-3.
CokeBatteries
State regulations were reviewed for by-product coke
batteries for the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Indiana,
Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and West Virginia. Coke
pushing and coke underfire or combustion stack operations were
included in the review. There are other emission sources at coke
plants, such as door leaks, battery topside leaks, and quenching,
however, there are generally no mass emission standards for these
emission sources. (Opacity standards are generally specified for
door leaks and battery topside leaks; water quality of the quench
water may be specified for coke quenching.)
The most stringent total PM emission limitations for coke
pushing are summarized as follows:
4-26
-------
o
tn
0.1
0.08
0.06
D)
0.04
0.02
0
-Strictest state limitation:
69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)
©
Avg.l g 1
•Avg.-l
ESP
Scrubber
8
I
230
184
138
92
46
0
E
o
0)
Bag house
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average , mg/ dscm
(gr/dscf)
ESP
26
7
144.2
(0.063)
18.3
(0.008)
50.3
(0.022)
Scrubber
46
14
126.1
(0.0551)
6.2
(0.0027)
68.6
(0.030)
Baghouse
13
6
176.2
(0.077)
3.4
(0.0015)
36.8
(0.0161)
Figure 4-6. Examples of total PM emissions test data for sinter
plant windboxes at iron and steel facilities.
4-27
-------
g
rtj
Q
EH
CO
W
^
co u
o 2
H g
CO g
gw
y
pr"| ^ ^^^
j^^ tA
§^*~
J ^ m *O
F^
° °* w
OJ fr* w
*5 ss
C-t H
fj CO
rs
Fft 0^5
W O
.fa
CO
1
r i
3
i3
*a*
P*
"
0)
fl
w
CD
<3
|
"c
-H
H
g
3
-S
*
(0
a
(0
Q)
rH in
eo en
0 0
o o
o •
• o
o ^
rH
CM CM
<_>>
^*
— »'*
rH O
O •
• O
O ^
H
co o
CM CM
CO CM
• •
c
•H
T3
J5
(0
A
•*«^
£•1
0)
10
c
rO
i)
10
rH
(0
-HMO
to 0) 10
Q) A 3
4JX> 0
eO 3 X!
g M &>
0 rd
& CO CQ
(C
rr o o
CM CM CM
0 0 O
o o o
in t^ vo
in «* ^r
VO CO ^^
rH CM CM
O O O
• O O
O • •
N_-O O
r*^
co in in
^_^
*~* ^* ^"^
CO »* CM
CO O H
o • •
• o o
^*r
H in
vo o r»
f~ rH CM
CM r~ CM
co co o
H
• •
•o
c
0)
0)
tj
R3
43
U 0)
W M «x^^
CO
o vo co
CM Cl rH
CM CM H
CO CM CM
«,
j^
CO
£x*
-------
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)[MD].
o Emission rate - Emission rate varies by production rate
and is determined by one of the following equations:
1) A = 0.76(1W)°-42; where A is the allowable rate
(Ib/hr) and W is amount of coke pushed (ton/hr)[PA] or
2) E = C0-09, where E the is allowable rate (Ib/push) and
C is coal charge rate (ton/oven)[WV].
o Production-based rate - 0.015 kg/Mg (0.03 Ib/ton) of
coke [CO, KY].
The most stringent opacity limit for coke pushing operations
states that fugitive emissions from a coke pushing air cleaning
device shall not exceed 20 percent opacity (any individual
reading) during pushing unless the emissions are of minor
significance as determined by the state agency and 10 percent
during the transport of hot coke in the open atmosphere [PA].
Figure 4-7 illustrates examples of total PM emissions test
data on coke pushing control systems.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations on
coke oven underfire or combustion stacks is 57 mg/dscm (0.025
gr/dscf)[WV]. The most stringent VE limitation for combustion
stacks is zero percent [MD].
Examples of total PM emissions test data from controlled
combustion stacks are summarized below:
ESP
Baghouse
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Slag Handling
14
8
87
(0.038)
9
(0.004)
37
(0.016)
10
1
119
(0.052)
2
(0.001)
41
(0.018)
Slag handling is a fugitive dust emission source. Fugitive
dust regulations were reviewed for 35 states (the states with
iron or steel making furnaces). The most stringent state
limitation stipulates that there shall be no fugitive emissions
4-29
-------
V)
o>
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
r— Strictest state limitation: *
\ 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)
•\ . !
\ 1 '
\o *
Avg. 1 —
O
- Avg. l—g — 1
A
A 1
8
i
-i +
E
^
• A ALIJ-I 1
w Avg. I
&_
&
S I ' W
P «
« Avg.l-g 1
1b4
138
92
46
n
o
123400
System configurations as follows:
i cv,ori wi-t-Vi VSP 4 - Shed with scrubber
2 I Sod with ?and-based scrubber 5 - Hood with land-based baghouse
3 - Mobile car with scrubber 6 - Shed with baghouse
=======
System
configur-
ation
Number of
tests
Number of
facilities
Maximum
mg/dscm
Cgr/dscf)
Minimum
mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average
mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
=====
1
6
3
75.5
(0.033)
0.5
(0.0002)
27.5
(0.0120)
——•—-^- - •" - - —
2
12
6
114.4
(0.050)
11.0
(0.0048)
50.1
(0.0219)
•
3
51
19
167.3
(0.0731)
17.4
(0.0076)
65.4
(0.0286)
^— ^^
=====
4
3
3
61.8
(0.027)
14.4
(0.0063)
33.9
(0.0148)
5
18
13
70.7
(0.0309)
0.5
(0.0002)
16.9
(0.0074)
6
6
4
12.8
(0.0056)
0.7
(0.0003)
6.2
(0.0027)
Figure 4-7.
Examples of total PM emissions test data for coke
pushing at iron and steel facilities.
4-30
-------
[PA]. Many states specify reasonable precautions or measures
shall be taken to reduce fugitive dust.
Blast Furnaces
State regulations for Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, Utah, and West Virginia were reviewed to determine the
most stringent mass and opacity limitations for blast furnace
casthouses. The most stringent total PM emissions limitations
are as follows:
o Concentration - 23 mg/dscm (0.01 gr/dscf) from air
pollution control device stacks [KY, MI].
o Emission rate - As determined by the following equation
for sources up to 408 Mg/hr (450 ton/hr) : E = 2.54P0-534;
where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and P is the
production rate (ton/hr).
o Production-based rate - 0.015 kg/Mg (0.03 Ib/ton) of
hot metal [IN - this emission rate is specific for a
particular emission source].
The most stringent VE limitation for fugitive emissions is
no fugitive emissions [PA]. The most stringent limitation for VE
from the air pollution control device stack is zero percent [MD].
Six examples of total PM emission test data are available
from six facilities using baghouses to control blast furnace
casthouse emissions. The average results are 17 mg/dscm (0.0075
gr/dscf) with a range of 0.7 to 66 mg/dscm (0.0003 to 0.0287
gr/dscf). Another common control system that is employed at
blast furnace casthouses is suppression technology. This type of
control system uses technology to suppress the formation of the
pollutants such as unevacuated hoods or covers and flame or
nitrogen gas blankets. There are no exhaust stacks as there are
with traditional air pollution control devices.
Basic Oxygen Furnaces
Emission limitations for basic oxygen furnaces (EOF) were
reviewed for the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. There is also an applicable
NSPS limitation (Subparts N and Na).
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
EOF vessels are as follows:
4-31
-------
o concentration - 50 mg/dscm (0.0220 gr/dscf) during the
oxygen blow and 23 mg/dscm (0.0100 gr/dscf) during
scrap charging, hot metal transfer, tapping, and
slagging (secondary emissions).
o Emission rate - One state specifies 2.27 kg/hr/furnace
(5 lb/hr/furnace) as an emission rate [IN, specific to
an individual furnace]. For emission rate limitations
that vary by production rate the equation that yields
the strictest emission limitations is: A = 0.76
(40W)°-42; where A is the allowable emission rate (lb/hr)
and W is the production rate (ton/hr).
o Production-based rate - 0.045 kg/Mg (0.09 Ib/ton) steel
for stack emissions and 0.1 kg/Mg (0.2 Ib/ton) _steel
for the roof monitor [IN, specific to an individual
facility].
The most stringent state VE limitation for emissions from
the roof monitor is zero percent [PA]. The most stringent state
limitation for stack VE is zero percent [MD].
NSPS Subparts N and Na apply to BOFs. Subpart N applies to
BOFs that commenced construction or modification after June 11,
1973. This subpart states that atmospheric particulate emissions
shall not exceed 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf). VE from a control
device cannot be greater than or equal to 10 percent except that
an opacity greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may
occur once per steel production cycle. For BOFs constructed or
modified after January 20, 1983, total PM emissions from vessels
that use open hooding as the method of controlling primary
emissions are limited to 50 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf) measured
during the oxygen blow. Emissions from a control device not used
solely for the collection of secondary emissions shall not be
greater than or equal to 10 percent opacity except that an
opacity greater than 10 percent and less than 20 percent may
occur once per steel production cycle. Vessels that use closed
hooding as the method for controlling total PM emissions are
limited to 68 mg/dscm (0.030 gr/dscf) as measured during the
oxygen below. The VE limit for closed hooding vessels is the
same as the limit for open hooding vessels.
Subpart Na applies to secondary emissions from BOFs that
were constructed or modified after January 20, 1983. Particulate
emissions from a BOF shop roof monitor cannot be greater than or
equal to 10 percent opacity during the steel production cycle of
any top-blown vessel or during hot metal transfer or skimming
operations for any bottom-blown BOF except that an opacity
greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may occur once
per steel production cycle. Control devices that are used only
4-32
-------
for the collection of secondary emissions from a top-blown vessel
or from hot metal transfer or skimming for a bottom-blown or top-
blown vessel total PM emissions cannot exceed 23 mg/dscm (0.010
gr/dscf) and exhibit more than five percent opacity.
Table 4-4 presents examples of total PM test data from EOF
vessels.
Scarfing
Regulations for Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas
and West Virginia were reviewed to determine the most stringent
mass and opacity limitations for automatic scarfing operations.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations are
as follows:
o Concentration - 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) during
scarfing [IN, for a specific facility]. 69 mg/dscm
(0.03 gr/dscf) is the most stringent limitation that is
not specific to an individual facility [IL, MD, MI,
WV] .
o Emission rate - Calculated using the following
equation: A = 0.76 (20W)°-42; where A is the allowable
rate (Ib/hr) and W is the production rate (ton/hr)
[PA].
The most stringent opacity limit is 0 percent [MD].
Examples of total PM emissions test data are summarized
below.
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscf
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
ESP
22
13
110
(0.048)
0.7
(0.0003)
17
(0.0074)
Scrubber
5
4
108
(0.047)
11
(0.0046)
69
(0.0301)
4-33
-------
ft
5
Q
Cj
rA
pa
CO
o
H
CO
CO
H
g
EXAMPLE TOTAL PM 1
OR EOF VESSELS
j/dscm (gr/dscf)
fa* g
o
>«
1
g
5
CO
^J<
1
0)
(0
Ml
Q)
^«
g
i
-H
C
-H
S
lo. of
jilities Maximum
nj
o
___ ^j ., O --J <— i
fTJ «^J1 |""| ^J
£ £ o
••-'
«-• ST f
^S^g ^0
£ £ £
;7 —> N"
«> <* ° 0 3
0 0 VO °. -* 3
£. 2- 0
VO C\J VO
H rH
CO f"" CO
in M r-t
Top-blown; full hood:
ESP
Scrubber
Top-blown; partial hood:
Scrubber
Lsn|
O C>3 9 H O
• •
o 2, o
*-* *~*
;~* --~ co
_! cr> °
^OH°1|
O s_, Q
2 crT oT
1-1 o ro ° «* °
o o. o
CO H CO
vo H in
All types; secondary
emissions' control:
ESP
Scrubber
Baghouse
"c"
§
r-l
g
0
4J
-P
O
O
c
g
iH
•Q
QJ
O .
echanism (either t
: full or partial) .
e s
•H Ql
o ^
'o'O
J2 0
C °
s£c
"EOF vessels classified by 03
and by the type of combust i
r-l
A
G
0)
>!
X
o
0)
£3
-P
•H
2
,g
issions (emissions
B
^r
(0
•H
g
C
•H
^-1
""Control devices are control!
unless otherwise indicated.
(Q
a)
10
(0
-P
rH
rd
1
•O
(d
*• *
C £
g, tapping, slaggi
of these operatioi
C a)
"t^ o
«o e
•S ^
<•> o
rjj Q)
w §
S Q)
>-0
'Secondary emissions include
Tests shown above may inclu
4-34
-------
Hot. Metal Reladlinq
Emission limitations for hot metal reladling were reviewed
for the following states: Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
West Virginia. The most stringent total PM emissions limitations
are as follows:
o Concentration - 23 mg/dscm (0.0100 gr/dscf) [CO].
o Emission rate - Calculated using the following
equation: E = 17.3IP0-16 for production rates greater
than 27 Mg/hr (30 ton/hr); where E is the allowable
rate (Ib/hr) and P is the production rate (ton/hr).
The most stringent limitation for VE from the stack is 0
percent opacity [MD].
Examples of total PM emissions test data from hot metal
reladling operations are:
(0
(0
(0
ESP
1
1
6
.0024)
6
.0024)
6
.0024)
Baghouse
(0
(0
(0
10
7
39
.0172)
1
.0003)
12
.0054)
Number of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
LIME PLANTS
State regulations for rotary lime kilns at lime plants were
reviewed for all states except Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine,
Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. There is also an
applicable NSPS emission limitation for this source category.
The crushing, screening and material handling operations that may
be associated with rotary lime kilns are discussing under the
Nonmetallic Mineral Plants subsection.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
lime kilns are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD, NY -
for kilns greater than 45 Mg/hr (50 ton/hr)].
4-35
-------
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - The strictest limitation varies by
production rate; see Figure 4-1.
o Production-based rate - 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) of
feed [NM].
The most stringent state opacity limit is zero percent [MD].
NSPS Subpart HH applies to rotary lime kilns at lime
manufacturing plants that were constructed or modified after May
3, 1977. Total PM shall not exceed 0.30 kg/Mg (0.60 Ib/ton) of
stone feed. Opacity from a dry emission control device cannot
exceed 15 percent.
Figure 4-8 summarizes examples of total PM emissions data
for lime kilns (includes data for several lime kilns at pulp
mills) (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991; OAQPS, 1977; OAQPS, 1976;
OAQPS, 1977; Kinsey, 1986).
LUMBER MILLS
State regulations for all 50 states were reviewed to
determine the most stringent total PM limitations for planning,
shaving and combustion of wood waste at lumber mills.
The most stringent total PM emission limitations for
planning and shaving operations that are exhausted through a
stack are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD, FL].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; see Figure
4-1.
Emission limitations for combustion of wood waste in boilers
are presented in the Boilers portion of this Section. Combustion
of wood in wood waste burners is limited to 459 mg/dscm (0.2
gr/dscf) corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide [AZ, IL].
4-36
-------
H—
O
CO
33
O)
u.u/
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
A
v — Strictest state limitation:
~ \ 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf)
- \
V *
Avg.l A |
A
— B
0 •
161
138
115
92
69
46
23
n
o
CO
T3
^3J
£
ESP
Scrubber Baghouse
Nirmber of tests
Number of facilities
Maximum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Minimum, mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Average , mg/ dscm
(gr/dscf)
ESP
4
4
34.3
(0.015)
8.0
(0.0035)
20.8
(0.0091)
Scrubber
8
6
153.3
(0.067)
28.6
(0.0125)
66.1
(0.0289)
Baghouse
5
5
80.1
(0.035)
9.2
(0.004)
36.6
(0.016)
Figure 4-8. Examples of total PM emissions test data for lime
plants.
4-37
-------
Operational and monitoring requirement on wood waste burners are
imposed in some states [MT, OR, WA, WY]. Several states also
have policies to encourage means, other than incineration, of
wood waste disposal [MT, OR].
MARINE GRAIN TERMINALS
Regulations for 45 states (Alaska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
West Virginia and Wyoming were not included) were reviewed to
determine the most stringent limitations for shipping (load-out),
receiving (unloading) and other grain handling operations. There
is an applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent total PM emissions regulations are
summarized as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) if a control
device has been installed [FL]. Another state [NJ]
requires the least restrictive of the following: 1) an
emission concentration of less than -of equal to 46
mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an upper cap of 14 kg/hr
(30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; see Figure
4-1. Pennsylvania has emission rates that vary by
production rate specifically for grain elevators on
grain screening/cleaning, however, the curves produce
less stringent limits than those depicted on Figure
4-1.
o Other - Particulate matter cannot be larger than that
which would pass through a 707 /nn (24 mesh) screen.
The most stringent opacity standard limits VE to zero
percent except 10 percent when loading to ship via a conveyor and
the hatch is moved [FL].
NSPS Subpart DD applies to grain terminal elevators that
were constructed or modified after August 3, 1978. Specifically
this Subpart applies to barge and ship loading and unloading
stations and other grain handling operations. Fugitive emissions
from barge or ship loading stations cannot exhibit greater than
20 percent opacity. Fugitive emissions from any grain handling
operations cannot exhibit greater than zero percent opacity.
There are also operating requirements specified for ship
unloading stations.
Total PM test data from grain loading from a barge equipped
with a filter showed a concentration of 60 mg/dscm (0.0261
gr/dscf) (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991).
4-38
-------
METALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING PLANTS
State regulations were reviewed for all 46 states (Alaska,
Delaware, North Dakota and South Dakota were not included) to
determine the most stringent mass and opacity limitations for ore
concentrators at nonferrous smelting facilities. There is an
applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent total PM emission regulations are as
follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; refer to
Figure 4-1.
The most stringent opacity limitation is zero percent [MD].
Fugitive emissions are limited to none [PA].
NSPS Subpart LL applies to metallic mineral processing
plants that were installed or modified after August 24, 1982.
Total PM emissions are limited to 50 mg/dscm (0.0218 gr/dscf).
Opacity cannot exceed seven percent unless a wet scrubber is used
as the control device. Process fugitive emissions cannot exceed
10 percent opacity.
Examples of total PM emissions test data are summarized on
Table 4-5 (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991).
NONMETALLIC MINERAL PLANTS
Mass and opacity regulations for all fifty states were
reviewed to determine the most stringent limitations for
conveyors and other material handling operations, screens,
quarrying, and rock crushers at nonmetallic mineral plants.
There is also an applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations
are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, IN, MD] .
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
4-39
-------
rtj
EH
1
EH
CO
55
O
CO 59
WK
f*k
a0.
w p>
^4 EH
S § *-*
•-1 ss ^
Is a
w^ 2
PI _ Q
!§ g u
rn C? *^
2 "^
^ § g
525
X °
pj ^^
g p*
8 O
K r*4
co
*
m
i
^*
w
1
CO
tn
f8
$^
0)
>.
<
e
s
•H
C
•H
ximum
S
10
0)
«W-H
04J
•H
• rH
O-H
S 0
(0
H t
^^ Ifl
w
j_ Q}
55 *"
0)
C
^
vt
T3
.
c
i_
^™
C
4«
C
C
Process operat;
*•§
CO ^
, •
" o
-.
N 0
o°
o
VO"
in
VO rH
co o
o
CM
CO
£
2
—rf
(T3
O
1-1
Copper, truck i
Baghouse
VO H
o\ in _, o
• O O
CM O .-! O
rH • ° •
0 O
VO H
m co o
• o o
s°.°°.
o o
°:i™i
rH^°°.
O O
rH rH
H i-H
C
0
10
10
a)
QJ
a
(0
4J
Q)
,—j
r8
O
•H
a! A
A 0
j3 *O
O (8
^ M
Copper, primar
Baghouse
Fabric filte:
vo"
^* o
N •
o
^^
VO
• H
CM •
O
vo"
'I1 O
• rH
-3- 0
CM •
O
rH
H
13
Not specific
H r^
. rH
H O
O
~
a\
rH 1^-
. H
H O
O
a\
H r>
• rH
tH O
O
H
rH
*•
Q)
X3
10
3
O
^i
a -o
Copper , second
Not specific
CM
o\ in
. 0
H O
rH •
O
CM
a\ in
. o
rH O
H •
O
CM
cn in
• o
rH O
H •
O
H
rH
C
O
•rH
(0
10
0)
rH
a
3
•• IQ
4J
A 0)
l
•H
rH
rH
•rH
£5
•o
c
(8
O>
C
•H
C
Q)
0)
0
to
CO rH
rH CO
<^ ^)
Molybdenum, pe
Venturi scru
VO
rH VO
• CO
<* O
CO •
o
~
H VO
• CO
<* 0
CO •
o
vo"
H VO
• CO
"d" O
CO •
o
rH
rH
JH
0
U 0)
rHXt
0 3
rH
rH 10
Uranium, prima
Centrifugal
•s
Q)
•H
IS
O
4-40
-------
Average
Minimum
6
**
i
*r™
X
(0
to
01
O -P
•H
^-. • H
Q O-H
W S5 0
D «J
*^ *1 J
*M TH
H
EH
0 "*»
O ° -P
"" o 8
in
i
i-4
CO
EH
0)
O
•rH
0)
-o
o
4J
C
O
O
• •
C
o
•H
4->
(0
£•4
0)
a
o
to
to
0)
0
0
cu
CO _ 01
in co ° r>
• CM _! ^
co o ° o
^o -o
co in
in co •<* co
• CM • CO
CO O CO O
in • co •
0 0
— > ^.
in co "^ r-»
s° S^
s
rH H
rH CX]
^1
Q)
J2 C
" 3 -H
10 Vl (0
CO to
•H tO 0)
J3 O
rH O
a) (C ^
O S 0)
4H 0 tfl
— H M 3
g JH 00
3% ^
CO) O (C
^:
co° M°
2. 2.
-i .§
0° ™°.
£ s
to r*-
U\ O — *. tH
• o ^ o
vo . n .
0 0
CM H
CM H
Q) •• k
••to &> o)
to 3 C.Q
CO -H J3
•rH *^ *^ J3
J2 &> (CM
(8 O O
Q) ffl rH CO
o ED
4-41
-------
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control efficiency of 99
percent.
o Emission rate - varies by production rate; refer to
Figure 4-1.
The most stringent state opacity limitation is 0 percent for
stacks [FL, MD] and fugitive sources [PA].
NSPS Subpart 000 applies to nonmetallic mineral processing
plants that were installed or modified after August 31, 1983.
Stack total PM emissions can not contain more than 50 mg/dscm
(0.0218 gr/dscf) of particulate matter or exhibit greater than 7
percent opacity (unless emissions are controlled by a wet
scrubber). Fugitive emissions from affected sources (except
crushers which do not use a capture system, truck dumping, and
sources enclosed by a building) are limited to 10 percent
opacity. Fugitive emissions from crushers which do not use a
capture system can not exceed 15 percent opacity. Sources that
are enclosed by a building can meet the VE requirements of the
individual sources or the building must not exhibit any visible
fugitive emissions.
Examples of total PM emissions test data are summarized
below (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991):
Operation
Control
mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Kaolin, impact
mill
Roller and
bowl mill
Granite,
secondary
crushing
Talc, pebble
grinding
Baghouse
Cyclones
and
baghouse
Wet
suppres-
sion
Baghouse
17
37
66
(0.0073)
(0.0160)
(0.003)
(0.0003)
(0.0285)
PAINT MANUFACTURING PLANTS
State regulations for all 50 states were reviewed to
determine the most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for
paint manufacturing plants. The most stringent mass limitations
are summarized as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
4-42
-------
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
Emission rate - The strictest limitation is calculated
using the following equation: A = 0. 76 (0. 05W)°-42; where
A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is the amount of
pigment handled (ton/hr).
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
State regulations for all states except Idaho, Maine, New
Hampshire, and North Carolina were reviewed to determine the most
stringent total PM and opacity limitations for petroleum
refineries. There is applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent state total PM emissions limitations are
summarized below:
o Concentration - 62.0 mg/dscm (0.0270 gr/dscf) [UT,
specific facility]. Another state [NJ] requires the
least restrictive of the following: 1) an emission
concentration of less than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02
gr/dscf) with an upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2)
a control efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - For catalytic cracking units,
calculated from the following equation A = 0.76
(40W)0-42; where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is
liquid feed rate (ton) [PA].
o Production-based rate - For catalytic cracking units,
1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 lb/1,000 Ib) of coke burnoff with
an additional incremental rate of 43 g/MJ (0.10
Ib/MMBtu) of heat input attributable to fuel if the
gases pass through an incinerator or waste heat boiler
in which auxiliary or supplemental liquid or solid
fossil fuel is burned [AK, KY, MN, NM, NY, WI].
o Other - Recover 99.97 percent of catalyst or total gas-
born particulate [IN].
MD] .
Visible emissions are limited to zero percent opacity [FL,
NSPS Subpart J applies to fluid catalytic unit catalyst
regenerators (FCCU) which were installed or modified after June
11, 1973. Total PM in the exhaust gas cannot exceed 1.0 kg/1000
4-43
-------
kg (1.0 lb/1000 Ib) of coke burn-off in the catalyst regenerator.
Opacity cannot be greater than 30 percent except for one six-
minute period per hour. If gases from the FCCU pass through an
incinerator or waste fuel boiler that burns auxiliary or
supplemental liquid or solid fossil fuel, the incremental rate of
total PM emissions shall not exceed 43 g/MJ (0.10 Ib MMBtu) of
heat input attributable to the liquid or solid fossil fuel.
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANTS
State regulations relative to phosphate fertilizer plants
were reviewed for the following states: Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
There are also several applicable NSPSs for this source category,
however, the emission limitations pertain to fluorides.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations are
as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD].
o Emission rate - Calculated using the following
equation: E = 1.10 (PW)0-25; where E is the allowable
rate (Ib/hr) for operations greater than 4.2 Mg/hr
(9,250 Ib/hr) and PW is production rate (Ib/hr) [ID].
Concentrators at phosphate processing facilities are
limited to 6.8 kg/hr (15 Ib/hr) in Florida.
o Production-based rate - 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) at
phosphate processing facilities [FL].
Visible emissions are limited to zero percent opacity [MD].
PHOSPHATE ROCK PROCESSING PLANTS
State regulations for Florida, Idaho, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming were
reviewed to determine the most stringent mass and opacity
limitations for phosphate rock processing. There is also an
applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent total PM emission limitations are as
follows:
4-44
-------
o Emission rate - Calculated using the following equation
for operations greater than 4.2 Mg/hr (9,250 Ib/hr): E
= I.IO(PW)0-25; where E (Ib/hr) is the allowable rate and
PW is production weight (Ib/hr) [ID]. Concentrators
are limited to 6.8 kg/hr (15 Ib/hr) [FL].
o Production-based rate - 0.1 kg/Mg (0.20 Ib/ton) for
dryers or grinders [FL].
There are several states with similarly strict opacity
limits:
o VE cannot exceed 20 percent opacity for not more than
an aggregate of 3 min/hr [ID].
o VE cannot exceed 20 percent opacity for not more than 5
min/hr or 20 minutes per 24 hr [IN].
o VE cannot equal or exceed 20 percent opacity (6-minute
average) [MT, NE].
NSPS subpart NN applies to phosphate rock plants with a
capacity greater than 3.6 Mg/hr (4 ton/hr) that were installed or
modified after September 21, 1979. Total PM and opacity
limitations are as follows:
Mass limitation
kg/Mg (Ib/ton) of
rock feed
Opacity
limitation, %
Phosphate rock dryer
Phosphate rock
calciner processing
unbeneficiated rock
Phosphate rock
calciner processing
beneficiated rock
Phosphate rock
grinder
Ground phosphate
rock handling and
storage system
0.030 (0.06)
0.12 (0.23)
0.055 (0.11)
0.006 (0.012)
10
10
10
0
Examples of total PM emissions test data are summarized in
Table 4-6. (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991; Kinsey, 1986).
4-45
-------
SB
en
[JMMARY OF EXAMPLE
TEST DATA FOR PHO
PROCESSING
m (gr/dscf)
W n O
i?1! 10
.0 0 ^
VO ""* PH &>
1 ££
*sj* 1 i
(Q M
^
pi
O
EH
1
0)
cr>
rd
JH
Q)
&
£
1
-H
C
•H
S
f
ies Maximum
0 4J
•H
• rH
O-H
a o
nj
h 0)
&
O rH
o
(0 M
10 4->
Q) C
O O
O U
$_{
PU
oo"
» °
o
n o
• o
CO •
o
in"
00 O^
• o
rH 0
CM •
0
in
vo
.«
10 Q)
JH 10
CD 3
•O O
C A
*»H cn
M (0
O CQ
'"^ "^7* r^*
• ^ • *^ • rH
oo ° in ° mo
Hs ^s "*«.
.^^
-*? t-i" t-l
ra° o° gjo
s Na o
* ^^ * ^^ * ^^
*KI^ ^J ^^ ^J ^J
rH rH CM
rH CM in
CO
W
TJ
C
(0
5-1 ••
0) tQ
• • £t -H 0) Q) CD
10 3 5^ J2 C X!
^J J_| 3 jQ •(—( ^<^
0) O 4J 3 OS
>|CO CM rH M
M Q) D (0 O
Q > CQ O W
4-46
-------
PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD, AND WAFERBOARD PLANTS
Mass and opacity limitations were reviewed for plywood,
particleboard and waferboard plants (including veneer dryers) for
all 50 states. The most stringent total PM emissions limitations
are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than or equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; see Figure
4-1.
Production-based rate - As listed below:
Plywood and veneer units using
fuel with moisture content
>20%
Plywood and veneer units using
fuel with moisture content
<20%
3.7 kg/1,000 m2
(0.75 lb/1,000 ft2)
7.3 kg/1,000 m2
(1.50 lb/1,000 ft2)
Plywood and veneer units;
combustion
Plywood and veneer, other
operations
Particleboard manufacturing
truck dumping and storage
Particleboard manufacturing,
other sources (excluding truck
dumping, storage, fuel or
refuse burning equipment)
Hardboard manufacturing, truck
dumping and storage
0.40 kg/1,000 kg
(0.40 lb/l,OOO Ib
-steam)
4.9 kg/1,000 m2
(1.0 lb/1,000 ft2)
Enclose areas or
equivalent alterna-
tive controls
Total all sources:
14.7 kg/1,000 m2
(3.0 lb/1,000 ft2)
Enclose areas or
equivalent alter-
native controls
4-47
-------
Hardboard manufacturing,
other sources (excluding
truck dumping, storage,
fuel or refuse burning
equipment).
Total all sources:
4.9 kg/1,000 m2
(1.0 lb/1,000 ft2)
The most stringent state visible emission limitation is 0
percent [MD].
PORTLAND CEMENT PLANTS
State regulations were reviewed for all states except North
Dakota and Rhode Island to determine the most stringent total PM
and opacity limitations for portland cement plants. There is
also an applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent state total PM emission limitation for
cement kilns are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; refer to
Curve 3 [ID] and Curve 4 [MA] on Figure 4-1.
o Production based rate - 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton) of
feed [AL, FL, IL, MN, NH, NY, WI].
o Other - 99.7 control efficiency and not greater than
230 mg/dscm (0.1 gr/dscf) [IA] or not greater than
0.873 g/kg (0.327 Ib/barrel) [NC].
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
clinker coolers are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; use Figure
4-1, Curves 3 and 4 [ID, MA] or the following equation:
4-48
-------
A = 0.76(50W)°-42; where A is the allowable rate (Ib/hr)
and W is production rate (ton/hr).
The most stringent state total PM emission limitations for
other operations at portland cement plants are:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; refer to
Figure 4-1.
The most stringent opacity limitation is 0 percent [MD].
Fugitive emissions are limited to none [PA].
NSPS Subpart F applies to portland cement plants that were
installed or modified after August 17, 1971. -Total PM emission
in the kiln exhaust gas can not exceed 0.15 kg/Mg (0.30 Ib/ton)
of feed and opacity cannot be greater than 20 percent. Clinker
cooler total PM emissions are limited to 0.050 kg/Mg (0.10
Ib/ton) of feed to the kiln and opacity cannot equal or exceed 10
percent. Other emission sources at portland cement plants cannot
equal or exceed 10 percent opacity.
Examples of total PM emissions data from portland cement
plants are summarized on Table 4-7 (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991;
Kinsey, 1987; Engineering-Science, Inc., 1978).
PRIMARY ALUMINUM REDUCTION FACILITIES
State regulations were reviewed for 27 states to determine
the strictest total PM and opacity limits for prebaked, vertical
stud Soderberg and horizontal stud Soderburg aluminum reduction
cells at primary aluminum reduction facilities. There is an
applicable NSPS for this source category.
The most stringent state total PM emissions regulations are
as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD, NY].
o Emission rate - Varies by production rate; see Curves 1
and 2 on Figure 4-1.
4-49
-------
CO
(0
i-t
EH CO
CO >
w <
CO
o |
H 3
to g
H S
S co -^
PQ FH *^*
a
CW i1"!
CM
^ ~ g
"4 t"» ft t ^^
firl 5^* ^^ •"
g g o e
r"7 J*j yj .,—1
M w X
w o Tr ^
5* ^K. D^
t*< tj ^L*
•v* i ") *^
a s o w
w g M Q)
° ^ ti> «H -H
^ p, g O rH
P • w
4 ° *"
w
PQ
H
o
)
•l~1
-P CO
rt C
cu">
ft CO
O TJ
CO rH
to o
O M
O 4J
o c
tl f"
O4 O
O\ CO C\
5° SS 5°
000
in n •«*
O ^ 'J ^ rH
H . CTl . CO .
o o o
^«s« ^^. ^•••^
oa n co
M rH 5? 0 «* 0
f>j • u* • \O •
000
in rH n
O rH ••*
H
««
5 M CO
•H CO CO
M O jj
42 0
4J S X!
CO CO U (8
g H CO CQ
CO
U
ro" *" g
VD O •* Q CO g
2- o o
>*•* ^**
^ g" VO 0 VO 0
^" ^* * ^* *
° ° S
*-^ ^^
^ n co
VDO Mg cng
^o ^^ ""^
^taX N_i»
rH 0] 0
rH OQ O
rH
0) CO
H rH
O rH
O CO -H
u we
d co
M O CO CO
0 •£. S S
*^ fX| o* O O
C CO <0 -H A
•H H n M 171
rH (0 «J
0 > «
4-50
-------
o Production-based rate - Monthly average of 3.5 kg/Mg
(7.0 Ib/ton) of aluminum produced and annual average of
2.5 kg/Mg (5.0 Ib/ton) of aluminum produced.
The most stringent state VE limitation is 0 percent opacity
[MD] .
NSPS Subpart S applies to primary aluminum reduction plants
that were constructed or installed after October 23, 1974. The
standard includes limits for fluorides and opacity. VE from
potroom groups cannot equal or exceed 10 percent opacity. VE
from an anode bake plant cannot exhibit greater than or equal to
20 percent opacity.
Examples of total PM emission test data from two potlines
are summarized below (Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991):
o ESP control - 3.9 mg/dscm (0.0017 gr/dscf)
o Baghouse control - 0.9 mg/dscm (0.0004 gr/dscf)
PULP MILLS
State regulations were reviewed for 46 states (Nebraska,
South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming were not included) to
determine the most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for
recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks and lime kilns at kraft
pulp mills, and blow pits and recovery systems at sulfite pulp
mills. There is an applicable NSPS for kraft pulp mills.
The most stringent state total PM emissions limitations for
recovery furnaces, smelt tanks and lime kilns at kraft pulp mills
are summarized below:
4-51
-------
Recovery
furnace
Smelt tank
Lime kiln
Concentration,
mg/dscm
(gr/dscf)
Emission rate
Production-
based rate
69 (0.03) [MD] 69 (0.03) [MD] 69 (0.03) [MD]
Curve 2 on
Figure 4-1
1.15 kg/Mg
(2.3 Ib/ton)
equivalent
unbleached
dried pulp
[KY] .
1.4 kg/1.4 Mg
(3 lb/3,000
Ib) of black
liquor solids
feed [FL].
Curve 2 on
Figure 4-1
0.25 kg/Mg
(0.5 Ib/ton)
equivalent
unbleached
dried pulp
[AL, ID, KY,
LA, ME, NH,
NM, OR, TN].
0.1 kg/Mg (0.2
Ib/ton black.
liquor solids
[PA].
Curve 2 on
Figure 4-1
0.25 kg/Mg
(0.5 Ib/ton
equivalent air
dried pulp
[NC].
The most stringent state opacity limitation is 0 percent
[MD]-
NSPS Subpart BB applies to kraft pulp mills that were
installed or modified after September 24, 1976. The NSPS
requirements are summarized as follows:
Total PM
Opacity
Recovery furnace
Smelt dissolving
tank
Lime kiln
100 mg/dscm (0.044
gr/dscf) corrected
to 8% oxygen
0.1 g/kg (0.2
Ib/ton) black liquor
solids (dry weight)
150 mg/dscm (0.067
gr/dscf) corrected
to 10% oxygen if
gaseous fossil fuel
is burned. 130 mg/
dscm (0.13 gr/dscf)
corrected to 10%
oxygen if liquid
fossil fuel is
burned.
Not > 35%
4-52
-------
Examples of total PM emissions test data are summarized on
Table 4-8 (OAQPS, 1976).
The most stringent state total PM emissions limitations for
sulfite pulping are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf [MD].
o Emission rate - 0.9 kg/24 hr (2 lb/24 hr) from
blowpits, washer vents, storage tanks, digester relief
and recovery operations [AK]. Also, refer to Curve 2
on Figure 4-1.
o Production-based rate - For recovery systems, 2 kg/Mg
(4 Ib/ton) of unbleached dried pulp [OR].
The most stringent state opacity limitation is 0 percent
[MD] .
SECONDARY ALUMINUM REDUCTION FACILITIES
Regulations for all 50 states were reviewed to determine the
most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for secondary
aluminum reduction facilities. The most stringent total PM
emissions limitations are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [FL, MD].
Another state [NJ] requires the least restrictive of
the following: 1) an emission concentration of less
than of equal to 46 mg/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) with an
upper cap of 14 kg/hr (30 Ib/hr) or 2) a control
efficiency of 99 percent.
o Emission rate - For melting and refining, as calculated
by the following equation: A = 0.76 (10W)°-42; where A is
the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is the aluminum feed
rate (ton/hr) [PA]. For other operations (sweating),
allowable varies by production rate and is determined
by the following equation: A = 0.76 (SOW)0-42; where A is
the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and W is the production rate
(ton/hr) [PA] or one of the curves on Figure 4-1.
The most stringent state opacity limit is 0 percent [MD].
Total PM emissions test data from a reverberatory furnace
equipped with a scrubber are 37.9 mg/dscm (0.0165 gr/dscf)
(Fitzpatrick, et al, 1991).
4-53
-------
10
M
•5
g
O
to
13
">??
g
0)
(0
Q)
1
•H
c
•H
s
I
-H
to
S
10
0)
•H
•P
O rH
•H
• O
O rt
l"y li_i
f£* H-4
o en
4J
• to
O 0)
n
o
•H
4J Q)
(0 O
QJ'>
W H
10 O
Q) M
0 4J
0 C
^ 0
O< O
M M
^J
Lfj ^^
•
o
n
0
r~ o
•
o
o in
CN 0
rH •
0
^"^
^j*
@\
0)
o
(0
c
It 1
^« OU
S-l CO
a) H
^
o
o
a)
«
O
ss
o
**
in
vo
in
n
eo
o **
OJ
OJ
rH
O
10 M
W 0)
•H XI
•O £»
3
-P •• J-(
rH A! O
a) c co
g rt
co -p
c a)
rH XI
•H XI
,* S
QJ O
g CO
•H
0)
(Q
n]
Natur
4-54
-------
SUGAR PRODUCTION PLANTS
State regulations were reviewed for California, Colorado,
Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming to determine
the most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for sugar
production from sugar beets.
The most stringent total PM emission limitation is
calculated from the following equations:
o E = 0.045(PW)°-60 for production weights below 4.2 Mg/hr
(9,250 lb/hr), or
o E = 1.10 (PW)°-25 for production weights greater than or
equal to 4.2 Mg/hr (9,250 lb/hr); where E is the
allowable rate (lb/hr) and PW is process weight (lb/hr)
[ID].
There are two similarly strict opacity limitations:
o No more than an aggregate of 3 min/hr greater than or
equal to 20 percent opacity [OR].
o Not greater than or equal to 20 percent opacity (6-
minute) average [MT, NE].
SURFACE MINING OPERATIONS
State regulations for Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and
Wyoming where reviewed to determine the most stringent
limitations for surface mining. This source category includes
such operations as scraping, grading and overburden removal. Ore
concentrating is discussed under the Nonferrous Smelters portion
of this Section. Nonmetallic mineral processing is discussed
under the Nonmetallic Mineral Plants portion of this Section.
The emissions from this source category are fugitive dust.
The most stringent fugitive dust limiations are as follows:
o Can not cause or permit handling, transporting or
storing of any material in a manner which allows or may
allow a controllable particulate to become airborne.
Cannot use unpaved areas without reasonable precautions
[NV].
4-55
-------
o Fugitive emissions shall not be visible beyond property
line. An operating program to minimize dust is
required for certain sources [IL].
o Take reasonable precautions or measures to minimize
fugitive emissions [CO, MN, ND, TN, VA, WY].
TURBINES (OIL-FIRED)
State regulations were reviewed for all fifty states to
determine the most stringent total PM and opacity limitations for
oil-fired turbines. The most stringent total emissions
limitations are as follows:
o Concentration - 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) [MD, FL].
o Emission rate - Calculated from the following equation:
E = 1.02Q0-769; where E is the allowable rate (Ib/hr) and
Q is the heat input (MMBtu/hr) [AZ].
o Production-based rate - for units less than 53 GJ/hr
(50 MMBtu/hr), 52 ng/J (0.12 Ib/MMBtu). For units
between 53 and 260 GJ/hr (50 and 250 MMBtu/hr), 34 ng/J
(0.08 Ib/MMBtu) [ME].
The most stringent opacity limitations states than there
shall be no visible air contaminants, other than water, for
longer than 10 consecutive seconds [MA].
Examples of total PM emissions test data for oil-fired
turbines from 12 turbines ranges from 6.7 to 30.5 ng/J (0.02 to
0.07 Ib/MMBtu) with an average of 15.5 ng/J (0.04 Ib/MMBtu)
(Shih, et al, 1979).
4-56
-------
REFERENCES
BNA Inc. 199la. Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environmental
Reporter State Air Laws. The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc. Washington, DC. October 25, 1991.
BNA Inc. 1991b. Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) Environmental
Reporter Federal Regulations. The Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc. Washington, DC. October 25, 1991.
Engineering-Science, Inc. 1978. Evaluation of Kaiser-Permanente
Cement Kiln Cottrell Electrical Precipitator Installation
Engineering-Science, Inc., Arcadia, California, 18 pp.
1978.
Fennelly, P. and P. Spawn. 1978. Air Pollution Control
Techniques for Electric Arc Furnaces in the Iron and Steel
Foundry Industry. EPA-450/2-78-024, PB283650, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 1978.
Fitzpatrick, M.J. 1986. Listing of Iron and Steel Stack Test
Reports; September 30, 1986 update (with handwritten updates
through 1991). EPA Contract 68-02-3962, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, September 1986.
Fitzpatrick, et al. 1991. PM-10 Database Version 2.0 and
Associated Library of Reports. Prepared under contract No.
68-02-4462. Database is located at JACA Corp., Fort
Washington, PA. September, 1991.
Helfand, R.M. 1979. A Review of Standards of Performance of New
Stationary Sources - Incinerators. EPA-450/3-79-009, PB80-
124787, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 64 pp. 1979.
JACA, 1991. Iron and Steel Stack Test Library; a compilation of
approximately 1,000 test reports gathered under various
contracts; located at JACA Corp., Fort Washington, PA.
1991.
Kinsey, J.S. 1986. Lime and Cement Industry Particulate
Emissions: Source Category Report; Volume I - Lime
Industry. EPA-600/7-86-031, PB87-103628, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 284 pp.
1986.
Kinsey, J.S. 1987. Lime & Cement Industry Particulate
Emissions: Source Category Report; Volume II - Cement
Industry. EPA 600/7-87-007, PB87-168654, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 410 pp.
1987.
4-57
-------
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1973. Background Information for
Proposed New Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete
Plants, Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary
Lead Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot
Production Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment
Plants; Volume 2 - Appendix: Summaries of Test Data APTD-
1352b, PB229660, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC. 67 pp. 1973.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974a. Background Information for New
Source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants,
Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels,. Secondary Lead
Smelters and Refineries, Brass or Bronze Ingot Productzon
Plants, Iron and Steel Plants, Sewage Treatment Plants. EPA
450/2-74-003, (APTD-1352c), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 151 pp. 1974.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1974b. Background Information for
Standards of Performance Coal Preparation Plants; Volume 2 -
Test Data Summary. EPA-450/2-74-021b, PB237696, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
39 pp. 1974.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1976. Standard Support and
Environmental Impact Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed
Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mills. EPA-450/2-
76-014a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC. 398 pp. 1976.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards
and Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1977. Standards Support and Environmental Impact
Statement; Volume 1 - Proposed Standards of Performance for
Lime Manufacturing Plants. EPA-450/2-77-007a, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
328 pp. 1977.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1980. Glass Manufacturing Plants -
Background Information for Promulgated Standards of
Performance. EPA 450/3-79-005b, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 175 pp.
1980.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. I985a. Second Review of New Source
Performance Standards for Asphalt Concrete Plants. EPA-
4-58
-------
450/3-85-024, PB86-126448, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 135 pp. 1985.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1985b. Calciners and Dryers in Mineral
Industries - Background Information for Proposed Standards.
EPA-450/3-85-025a, PB86-196904, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 699 pp.
1985.
Radian Corporation. 1988. Hospital Waste Combustion Study Data
Gathering Phase; Final Report. PB89-148308, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
1988.
Shannon, L.J., and P.G. Gorman. 1974. Emissions Control in the
Grain and Feed Industry; Volume II - Emission Inventory.
EPA-450/3-73-003b, PB241234, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 98 pp. 1974.
Shih, C.C., et al. 1979. Emission Assessment of Conventional
Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume II - Internal
Combustion Sources. EPA-600/7-79-029C, PB296390, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1979.
4-59
-------
-------
SECTION 5
COSTS OF CONTROL
This Section describes procedures for estimating (1) total
capital investment and (2) total annual costs of the control
measures which are generally used to control PM-10 emissions.
First it discusses the general sequence for preparing an estimate
of total capital investment and total annual costs. The Section
then defines the elements of total capital investment and of
total annual costs in separate subsections. Each subsection also
discusses estimating procedures and provides an example
calculation. Sources of information needed to perform these
estimating procedures are provided throughout the discussion,
where appropriate.
GENERAL PROCEDURES
There are a number of different types of cost estimating
procedures (Garrett, 1989) differing in the degree of detail
required for preparation and the accuracy of the result. The
procedures described here are for a "study" estimate, sometimes
called a "factored" estimate. The accuracy should be within +30
percent (Garrett, 1989; Peters, 1980). The general sequence of
steps for preparing a study estimate is:
1. Prepare a flowsheet for the control operation showing
all the major control equipment and any auxiliary
equipment required such as collection hoods, ductwork,
fans, stacks, etc.
2. As necessary, calculate heat and material balances
around each equipment item.
3. Size the equipment and determine the required material
of construction. In some cases the equipment vendors
or their representatives will size the equipment and
specify the material of construction.
4. Estimate the cost of each equipment item either by
obtaining vendor quotes or from published information.
5. Sum the cost of the equipment items plus the cost of
instrumentation (if not already included in the
5-1
-------
equipment cost), taxes, and freight to obtain the total
purchased equipment cost.
6. The capital cost (total capital investment) estimate is
then calculated from the total purchased equipment
cost.
7. The total annual cost estimate is calculated based on
information from the flowsheet and the capital cost
estimate.
Flowsheet preparation, heat and material balance
preparation, and equipment sizing procedures are beyond the scope
of this document. For flowsheet preparation and heat and
material balance preparation, consult basic chemical engineering
texts such as Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical
Engineering (Himmelblau, 1982). Equipment sizing procedures can
be found in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (OAQPS, 1990) and the
Chemical Engineers Handbook (Perry, 1984).
The remainder of this Section defines and discusses
procedures that will allow you to arrive at total capital
investment estimates and total annual cost estimates.
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Elements of Total Capital Investment
Total capital investment can be broadly broken into two
categories, non-depreciable investment, which- includes land and
working capital, and depreciable investment, which includes all
of the direct and indirect costs associated with the control
system, including off-site facilities if applicable.
The non-depreciable investments (land and working capital)
are not major factors. Working capital is the cost of raw
materials and inventory, one month's accounts receivable and
payable, and wages. It is rarely a factor for control equipment.
Most control equipment does not occupy sufficient land for land
to be a significant cost factor.
The depreciable investment (all of the direct and indirect
costs) requires further explanation. Total direct costs comprise
purchased equipment costs, direct installation costs, and related
site preparation and building costs not already factored into the
purchased equipment costs. Purchased equipment costs usually
include:
o Primary control device
o Auxiliary equipment (including ductwork)
o Instrumentation
5-2
-------
o Sales taxes
o Freight.
Direct installation costs include:
o Foundation and supports
o Handling and erection
o Electrical
o Piping
o Insulation
o Painting.
Total indirect costs comprise the following indirect
installation costs:
o Engineering
o Construction and field expenses
o Contractor fees
o Start-up
o Performance test
o Contingencies.
These elements of total capital investment are shown in
Figure 5-1 and are taken from the OAQPS Control Cost Manual
(OAQPS, 1990). Note on Figure 5-1 that the sum of the purchased
equipment, total direct and indirect costs, site preparation, and
buildings comprises the battery limits cost. The battery limits
cost is an "estimate for a required investment for a specific job
without regard to required supporting facilities which are
assumed to exist already." (Humphreys, 1987). Examples of
supporting facilities include an electrical substation or a
cooling tower. It is valid to assume no supporting facilities
when determining the cost of adding pollution control technology
to an existing plant. It would also be valid for either new or
existing plants unless such special supporting facilities are
required specifically for the control device.
Estimating Total Capital Investment
"Of the many factors which contribute to poor estimates of
capital investments, the most significant one is usually
traceable to sizeable omissions of equipment, . . . or auxiliary
facilities ..." (Peters, 1991). Hence it is important that the
entire control installation be thought through from the point
where the pollutants are emitted to the point where the cleaned
gas is discharged to the atmosphere to make sure all the required
equipment is included.
There are a number of ways to calculate total capital
investment. However, the procedure most commonly used in
preparing study estimates begins by first obtaining the total
5-3
-------
• Primary Control
Device
• Auxiliary Equipment
(including ductwork)
• Instrumentation*
• Sales Taxes*
• Freights
|
• Foundations and
Supports
• Handling and
Erection
• Electrical
• Piping
« Insulation
• Painting
1
• Engineering
• Construction and
Field Expenses
• Contractor Fees
• Start-up
• Performance Test
• Contingencies
fiitfi
Purchased Direct Preparations Indirect
Equipment Installation Installation
, Cost Cost> Buildings* j Cost*
TO"
FAL TO'
FAL
DIRECT INDIRECT
CC
1ST . CC
)ST
Land»
Working
Capital*
"Battery Limits"
Cost
Off-Site
Facilities8
Total Non-depreciable
Investment
Total Depreciable
Investment
TOTAL CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
« Typically factored from the sum of the primary control device and auxilliary equipment costs.
b Typically factored from the purchased equipment cost.
0 Usually required only at "grass roots" installations.
<» Unlike the other direct and indirect costs, costs for these items usually are not factored from the purchased equipment cost.
Rather, they are sized and costed separately.
• Normally not required with add-on control systems.
Figure 5-1. Elements of total capital investment.
5-4
-------
purchased equipment cost. The remaining elements of the total
capital investment are then calculated as percentages or
"factors" of the total purchased equipment cost. This procedure
is known as the "factored" approach to capital cost estimating.
Purchased Equipment Cost —
The costs of the individual equipment items which make up
the control system can be obtained either from vendors7 or
fabricators' quotations or from published sources such as the
OAQPS Control Cost Manual (OAQPS, 1990), the Chemical Engineers
Handbook (Perry, 1984) or publications such as Chemical
Engineering. Vendor's quotations will be in current dollars, but
published cost data, will of necessity, be out of date. Cost
indexes must be used to adjust these costs to current dollars.
Cost indexes for equipment used in control systems can be found
in Chemical Engineering which is published by McGraw-Hill
Publications. These indexes are updated monthly. The current
cost of the equipment item is obtained by multiplying the
original cost of the equipment by the ratio of the cost index for
the time the original cost was obtained to the current cost:
current cost =
(original cost) x
current index
index at time original cost was obtained
If possible, cost data more than five years old should not
be adjusted. If available, newer data should be used. The costs
so obtained, and in most cases the vendors' quotations, will not
include sales taxes, or the cost of transporting the equipment
from the factory to the site where it is to be used. The cost of
instrumentation must also be added if it is not already included
in the cost of the control device. Without specific data, the
cost of freight and taxes is estimated at 8 percent of the
equipment cost (OAQPS, 1990). Instrumentation is usually a small
part of the cost of the majority of control system installations.
If no specific information is available, it can be estimated as
10 percent of the equipment cost (OAQPS, 1990). The total
purchased equipment cost is then obtained by summing the
equipment cost, taxes, freight, and instrumentation.
A contingency may also be included in calculating the total
capital investment. A contingency "... is an estimate of the
accuracy considering the development ... of the project"
(Humphreys, 1987).
5-5
-------
Total Capital Investment —
The components of the total capital investment are given in
Table 5-1 for various control devices. The cost of each
component of capital investment is obtained by multiplying the
total purchased equipment cost by the factor for that component.
The individual components are then summed to obtain the total
capital investment.
The factors given in Table 5-1 (OAQPS, 1990; ORD, 1991) are
for new construction, that is systems that are installed as the
plant they are controlling is under construction. When the
control system is sized for and installed on an existing process
(i.e., retrofitted) the factors do not apply. Each retrofit
installation is unique. Cost elements that can change in a
retrofit installation are:
o Handling and erection - special care and time may be
required if space for the installation is limited and
the fit is tight.
o Piping, insulation, painting, and electrical may also
increase. Retrofit installations may require longer
than average pipe, duct and wire runs.
o Engineering and supervision - more than average may be
required.
o Site preparation - this cost could go down, since most
of the work would have been done when the plant was
built.
For these reasons the contingency (i.e., uncertainty) factor
should be increased when estimating retrofit installations. In
the absence of specific information, 10 percent of the purchased
equipment cost is suggested.
For illustration purposes, Table 5-2 is an example of the
calculation of the total capital investment for a fabric filter
using the factors given in Table 5-1. The fabric filter is
designed to control fly ash emissions in a 1,416 m3/min (50,000
acfm) flue gas stream at 436 K (325°F) from a new coal-fired
boiler. The table is taken from the OAQPS Control Cost Manual
(OAQPS, 1990).
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Elements of Total Annual Cost
The total annual cost is generally broken down into direct
and indirect costs. Direct costs are those which are
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-1. CAPITAL INVESTMENT ELEMENTS AND FACTORS"*1"
FOR VARIOUS CONTROL DEVICES
Cost Factors
Cost elements
ESP
Venturi
scrubbers
Fabric
filters
DIRECT COSTS
Purchased Equipment Costc
Other Direct Costsd
Foundation and supports
Erection and handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Total Direct Cost
INDIRECT COSTS
Engineering and supervision
Construction and field
expenses
Contractor fees
1.00
0.04
0.50
0.08
0.01
0.02
0.02
1.67
0.20
0.20
1.00
0.06
0.40
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.01
1.56
0.10
0.10
1.00
0.04
0.50
0.08
0.01
0.07
0.02
1.72
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
Start-up
Performance test"
Model study
Contingencies'
Total Indirect Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.57
2.24
0.01
0.01
—
0.03
0.35
1.91
0.01
0.01
_
0.03
0.45
2.17
"Taken from Handbook. Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
new source construction (ORD, 1991).
They must be applied to the
bAs fractions of total purchased equipment cost.
total purchased equipment cost.
Total of purchased costs of major equipment and auxiliary equipment and
others, which include instrumentation and controls at 10%, taxes and freight
at 8% of the equipment purchase cost. Note that instrumentation may be
included in the cost of the control device and would therefore not need to be
calculated separately.
dsite preparation and buildings would be included in this category if
required.
'The performance test determines that all items of equipment operate properly.
It does not include the cost of determining that the control system emissions
meet requirements; this is an operating cost.
•contingency costs are estimated to equal 3% of the purchased equipment cost
(OAQPS, 1990). The contingency cost should be increased when estimating a
retrofit installation. In the absence of specific information 10% of
the purchased equipment cost is suggested.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2. CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR FABRIC FILTER
SYSTEM — EXAMPLE CALCULATION
Cost item
Cost
DIRECT COSTS
Purchased equipment costs
Fabric filter (with insulation) $ 80,231
Bags and cages 18,092
Auxiliary equipment1' 62,700
Sum = A
Sales taxes, 0.03A
Freight, 0.05A
Instrumentation, 0. 1A
Purchased equipment cost= B
Installation costs
Foundation and supports, 0.04B
Handling and erection, 0.50B
Electrical, 0.08B
Piping, 0.01B
Insulation for ductwork, 0.07B
Painting, 0.02B
Installation cost
Site preparation
Facilities and buildings
Total Direct Cost
$161,023
4,831
8,051
16,102
$190,007
7,600
95,004
15,201
1,900
13,300
3,800
Not required
Not required
136,805
326,812
INDIRECT COSTS
Engineering, 0.10B 19,001
Construction and field expenses, 0.20B 38,001
Contractor fees, 0.10B 19,001
Start-up, 0.01B 1,900
Performance test, 0.01B 1,900
Contingencies, 0.03B 5,700
Total Indirect Cost
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT,
85,503
$412,315
"For the installation illustrated by this example, the auxiliary
equipment is:
Ductwork
Fan
Motor
Starter
Dampers
Compressor
Screw conveyor
Stack
Total
$14,000
14,000
7,000
3,500
7,200
6,000
4,000
7,000
$62,700
5-8
-------
proportional, or in some cases roughly so, to the plant operating
rate. These costs include operating labor and supervision,
maintenance labor and materials, parts that must be replaced on a
routine basis (e.g., bags in a fabric filter), raw materials (if
any), utilities, and any waste disposal costs. Indirect costs
are plant overhead charges, taxes, insurance, administrative
charges, and capital recovery. These costs are fixed and tend to
be incurred whether or not the control system is operating.
If the control system recovers material or energy which can
be used, recycled or sold, the value of the material or energy
must be included as a recovery credit which will reduce the total
annual costs. Figure 5-2 taken from the OAQPS Control Cost
Manual (OAQPS, 1990) shows the elements of total annual cost.
Estimating Total Annual Cost
Direct Costs —
The procedures for estimating direct annual costs are
discussed below.
Operating Labor — Operating labor is dependent on the
complexity of the control system, the degree of automation, and
to a lessor extent on the size of the system, and is usually
estimated based on the estimator's experience, considering the
foregoing factors. Typical labor requirements can be found in
the example problems in the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (OAQPS,
1990). Operating labor is usually stated on an hours-per-shift
basis. The number of hours (or number of eight hour shifts) the
equipment will operate annually is usually determined when the
equipment is sized. Wage rates for operating labor are industry
dependent. Employment and Earnings, a monthly publication of the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Statistics, provides wage
rates for most industries.
The cost of supervision must be added to the labor cost.
Unless specific information is available, supervision is usually
estimated as 15 percent of the cost of operating labor (OAQPS,
1990).
Maintenance — Maintenance labor can be estimated and
calculated in the same manner as operating labor. The
maintenance labor rate is usually higher than the operating labor
rate because greater skills are required. A 10 percent labor
premium is typical (OAQPS, 1990). The number of maintenance
hours will depend on the complexity of the control system, the
composition of the emission stream (which will influence its
corrosivity) and on the severity of the service environment.
Maintenance materials are then usually estimated as equal to
maintenance labor.
5-9
-------
• Operating Labor and
Supervision
• Maintenance Labor
and Materials
• Replacement Parts
Raw Materials
Utilities
- Electricity
- Fuel
- Steam
- Water
- Compressed Air
Waste Treatment/
Disposal
Overhead
Property Taxes
Insurance
Administrative
Charges
Capital Recovery
• Materials
• Energy
Semivariable
I
Variable
DIRECT
COSTS
INDIRECT
COSTS
RECOVERY
CREDITS
TOTAL ANNUAL
COST
Figure 5-2. Elements of total annual cost,
5-10
-------
An alternative way to estimate maintenance costs, if no data
on actual hourly requirements is available, is as a fixed
percentage of the total capital investment (Humphreys, 1987).
The percentage varies from 3 to 5 percent for a simple system
controlling a relatively non-corrosive emission stream to 12
percent for a complex system operating in a corrosive
environment. Maintenance costs are usually distributed 50
percent to labor, 50 percent to materials.
Replacement Parts — The cost of replacement parts, such as
filter bags, that require replacement on a routine basis and are
a significant expense is not included in the maintenance cost but
is included in the direct costs as a separate item. The annual
cost of replacement parts includes both the cost of the part and
the cost of the labor to install it. In the OAQPS Control Cost
Manual methodology (OAQPS, 1990) replacement parts are treated
like any other investment in that they are considered an
expenditure that must be amortized over the life of the part.
The annual cost of the replacement part is then:
C = (R + L)CRF
(5.1)
where:
C = annual cost of the replacement parts, $/year
R = initial cost of the part, including taxes and freight,$
L = part replacement labor, $
CRF = capital recovery factor whose value is a function of
the annual interest rate and the useful life of the
part. (See discussion of the capital recovery factor
and equation 5.4 below.)
When the annual cost of replacement parts is calculated
using equation 5.1 and included in the annual cost, double
counting must be avoided. This is done by reducing the total
capital investment (P in equation 5.3 below) by the sum of the
cost of the parts, including taxes and freight and labor for
installing them, when the annual capital recovery charge is
calculated to avoid double counting.
Raw Materials — Raw materials are generally not required.
A possible exception would be an alkaline material added to the
circulating water in a venturi scrubber to neutralize acidic
gasses such as sulfur dioxide or hydrogen chloride in the
emission stream. The quantity of raw material required is
directly proportional to the quantity of material treated and is
calculated by a material balance. The cost of chemicals can
be obtained from the Chemical Marketing Reporter, published by
the Schnell Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY, or from
chemical manufacturers or suppliers.
5-11
-------
Utilities — Electricity, fuel, steam, cooling water, and
compressed air are included in this category. Consumption of
these items is determined from energy and material balances
calculated around the control device. These calculations are
made during the design of the control system.
Because nearly every system requires an electric fan to move
the process emission gas through the control device, a general
expression for fan power requirements is provided (OAQPS, 1990):
K = 0.00025164QAP (5.2a)
where:
K = power required by the fan, kilowatts
Q = system flow rate, actual cubic meters per minute
AP= system pressure drop, in millimeters of water.
In English units the equation is:
K = 0.000181QAP (5.2b)
where:
K — power required by the fan, kilowatts
Q = system flow rate, actual cubic feet per minute
Ap= system pressure drop, inches of water.
The equation assumes a combined fan/motor efficiency of 65
percent.
The cost of electricity and natural gas vary by region and
are best obtained from the local supplier. The cost of utilities
generated in-plant such as compressed air and steam should, if
possible, be obtained from the plant.
Utilities are a direct cost. The utility usage rate (i.e.,
kilowatts for a fan) must be multiplied by the annual operating
hours to obtain the annual consumption. The annual consumption
is then multiplied by the cost per unit to obtain the annual
cost.
Waste Disposal — There can be a significant charge
associated with the emitted material captured by a control system
that can neither be sold or recycled. Some streams, such as the
thin suspension from a venturi scrubber, may have to be processed,
to remove the solids before being discharged. Additional
treatment such as pH adjustment may be required. If a liquid
stream is discharged to a treatment works, there would be a
charge. There would also be a charge for landfilling or possibly
incinerating a solid stream.
5-12
-------
Waste disposal charges can vary widely. Landfilling costs
for non-hazardous solid waste can vary from $10 to over a $100
per ton depending on the area of the country (Siddens, 1990).
Disposal costs for hazardous solid wastes are much higher. Waste
water treatment costs range from $0.25 to $0.50/m3 ($1.00 to
$2.00/1,000 gallons) or more, depending on the degree of
treatment required (OAQPS, 1990), plus the costs for disposing of
any solids generated by the treatment.
Indirect Costs —
The procedures for estimating indirect annual costs are
summarized below.
Overhead — There are generally two categories of overhead:
payroll and plant. Payroll overhead is comprised of expenses
incurred as a result of operating, maintenance and supervisory
labor and includes such items as Social Security fund payments,
pension fund costs, workmen's compensation payments, and
vacations.
Plant overhead accounts for the cost of plant protection
services, plant lighting, parking lots, interplant communica-
tions, and shipping and receiving facilities. For study
estimates these two types of overhead are combined. Peters and
Timmerhaus (Peters, 1980) recommend a charge of 50 to
70 percent of the total cost for operating, maintenance and
supervisory labor and maintenance materials. Sixty percent is
recommended by the OAQPS Control Cost Manual (OAQPS, 1990).
Property Taxes, Insurance and Administrative Charges —
These three costs are proportional to the plant investment and
are calculated at 1, 1 and 2 percent of the total capital
investment, respectively. These values are standard in all OAQPS
cost analyses (OAQPS, 1990).
Capital Recovery — The capital recovery charge allows the
owner/operator of the control equipment to recover the capital
cost of the system plus interest over the useful life of the
system as a series of uniform annual payments (Grant, 1982). The
annual capital recovery cost is calculated as
CRC = CRF x P
(5.3)
where:
CRC = the capital recovery cost
CRF = the capital recovery factor
P = the total capital investment,
The capital recovery factor is:
5-13
-------
CRF =
(5.4)
where:
n
the interest rate; it is usually set at 10 percent in
keeping with the current Office of Management and
Budget recommendations for use in regulatory analysis.
the economic life of the control system, typically 10
to 20 years for a system but may be much shorter for
replacement parts.
Recovery Credit —
When there are recovery credits (e.g. raw material or
product recovered by a fabric filter), they are included as a
separate subheading following Total Indirect Annual Costs.
Total Annual Cost —
The total annual cost then is the sum of the direct costs
(raw materials, utilities, labor, maintenance, and waste
treatment/disposal) and the indirect costs (overhead, property
taxes, insurance, administrative charges, and capital recovery)
less any credits for material or energy recovery that will be
achieved by the control system.
For illustration purposes, Table 5-3, taken from the OAQPS
Control Cost Manual (OAQPS, 1990) shows the calculation of Total
Annual Cost for a fabric filter system presented in Table 5-2,
above. In this example, waste disposal is a major component of
the annual cost, and there are no recovery credits.
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-3. ANNUAL COSTS FOR FABRIC FILTER
SYSTEM — EXAMPLE CALCULATION
DIRECT ANNUAL COST
Operating Labor
Operator
2 hi x 3 shifts x 360 days $12 =
shift day yr hr
Supervisor
15% of operator labor = .15 x 25,920
Maintenance
Labor
$ 25,920
3,888
3 hi 360 days „ $13.20
— 1$. .X. -
day yr hr
Material
100% of maintenance labor
14,256
14,256
Replacement parts, bagsa
[(13,220 x 1.08) + 2,809] x 0.5762 =
Raw materials
9,845
Not required
Utilities
Electricity (fan only)
0.00025164 x 1'43:6 m3 x 261.6 mm H,O x 8'640 hr x $0-06 =
mxn 2 yr kWh
Compressed air (a pulse jet filter requires 2 sm3/1000m3 of gas
filtered, at a cost of $5.65 per 1000 sm3}
2 sm3 x 1416 m3 x $5.65 x 60 min x 8640 hi
1000 m3 min lOOOsm3 hr yr
Waste disposal (at $22/Mg, disposed of on-site, assuming 100%
collection efficiency)
48,323
8,295
9-2 g 1416 m3 60 min 8640 hi IMg $22 :
m-
min
hr
yr io«gr Mg
148.573
Total Direct Annual Costs
$ 273,355
5-15
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-3. (Continued)
INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
Overhead
60% (labor and maintenance materials) =
0.6(25,920 + 3,888 + 14,256 + 14,256) =
Property tax
1% of Total Capital Investment = 0.01($412,000) =
Insurance
1% of Total Capital Investment = 0.01($412,000) =
Administrative charges
2% of Total Capital Investment = 0.02($412,000) =
Capital recoveryb
0.1175 (412,315 - 2,809 - 13,220 x 1.08) =
Total Indirect Annual Costs
RECOVERY CREDITS
$ 34,992
4,120
4,120
8,240
46,439
97,911
Not applicable
TOTAL ANNUAL COST (ROUNDED)
$371,000
*The cost of the replacement bags is $13,220. The 1.08 factor is for freight
and sales taxes. For bag replacement labor, 10 minutes per bag for each of
795 bags was assumed. At a maintenance labor rate of $21.12 (including 60%
overhead), the labor cost is $2,809 for 133 hours. The replacement cost was]
calculated using equation 5.1. The CRF, in equation 5.1 is calculated using
equation 5.4 for a 2 year life and 10% interest:
CRF = 0.1 (1+0.I)2
(1+0.I)2 -1
0.5762
bFor a 20 year equipment life and a 10% interest rate, CRF = 0.1175.
The total capital investment (from Table 5-2) is reduced by
the total cost of replacing the bags to avoid double counting.
5-16
-------
REFERENCES
Garrett, D.E. 1989. Chemical Engineering Economics. Van Nostraad
Reinhold, New York. 1989.
Grant, E.L., W.G. Ireson and R.S. Leavenworth.
Engineering Economy; Seventh Edition.
York. 1982.
1982. Principles of
John Wiley & Sons, New
Himmelblau, D.M. 1982. Basic Principles and Calculations in Chemical
Engineering; Fourth Edition. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. 1982.
Humphreys, K.K. and P. Wellman. 1987. Basic Cost Engineering; Second
Edition. Morrell Dekker, Inc., New York. 1987.
OAQPS, 1990. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. OAQPS Control Cost
Manual; Fourth Edition. EPA 450/3-90-006, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1990.
ORD (Office of Research and Development), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1991. Handbook, Control Technologies for
Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA 625/3-86-014, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. September 1991.
Perry, R.H. and D.W. Green. 1984. Perry's Chemical Engineers
Handbook; Sixth Edition. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
1984.
Peters, M.S. and K.D. Timmerhaus. 1991'. Plant Design and
Economics for Chemical Engineers; Fourth Edition, McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York, NY. 1991.
Siddens, S.
Areas."
1990. "Tipping Fees in the Ten Largest Metropolitan
Solid Waste and Power. June 1990.
5-17
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleas'-, read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA 452/R-93-001
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Procedures for Identifying Reasonably Available
Control Technology for Stationary Sources of PM-10
5. REPORT DATE
Seotember 1992
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
Fitzpatrick, M. 0.; R. Ellefson, et.al
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
JACA Corp.
550 Pinetown Road
Fort Washington, PA 19034
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-W9-0080
2, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
68A
S. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
6. ABSTRACT
This guidance document sets forth procedures and identifies sources of information that
will assist State and local air pollution control agencies in determining Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT) for PM-10 (paniculate matter having a nominal aerome
diameter of 10 microns or less) emission from existing stationary sources on a case-bycas
basis. It provides an annotated bibliography of documents to aid in identifying the
activities that cause PM-10 emissions as well as applicable air pollution control measure
and their effectiveness in reducing emissions. The most stringent state total particulat
matter (PM) emission limits are identified for several categories of PM-10 sources and
compared to available emission test data. Finally, guidance is provided on procedures
for estimating total capital investment and total annual cost of the control.measures whi
are generally used to control PM-10 emissions.
h
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Particulate matter, PM-10, emission limits,
control technology, cost of control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECUHI
eportj
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
22. PRICE
EPA F«m 2220-1 (R«v. 4-77} PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
|