EPA-450/3-77-010
March 1977
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
FOR CONTROL OF
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-77-010
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE
FOR CONTROL OF
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS
by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Chester Towers
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-1375
Task No. 33
Project No. 3155-GG
EPA Project Officer: Gilbert H. Wood
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
March 1977 Env;^
Rc- • .-
2CO '
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quantities - from the
Library Services Office (MD-35) , Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service,
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
PEDCo Environmental, Inc. , Chester Towers, 11499 Chester Road,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task No. 33. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from PEDCo Environmental, Inc. The opinions, findings, and conclusions
expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is not
to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-010
^ivii:c;,.,:~- , ... .,,-,.-^
• '•- !"-Juvi 11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Many individuals and organizations have been helpful in
developing this report; for these contributions the project
management extends its sincere gratitude.
Visits were made to the following industry associa-
tions: National Asphalt Pavement Association, Fred Kloiber,
Director of Environmental Services and Operations; Portland
Cement Association, Cleve Schneeberger, Vice President for
v. Public Affairs; National Lime Association, R. S. Boynton,
V, Executive Director; and Southern Furniture Manufacturing
x Association, Douglas Brackett, Secretary.
^ We would like to thank the following companies for the
tx
I helpful and informative visits that were made to their
\T plants: G. & W. H. Corson Co., Daniel W. Johnson; Black
River Mining Co., Allan Cigallio; Lehigh Portland Cement
Co., Kramer Schatzlein, Bob Burdock, Del Eggert; Lone Star
Industries, Inc., Mike Reid, Roy Blankenship; W. J. Bullock,
Inc., J. P. Barnhart; Lunkenheimer Co., Dale Hall, Bill
Cook; Wyandotte Cement, Inc., Ted Weatherhead; Edward C.
Levy Co., Gene Rogers; Valley Asphalt Corp., W. C. Lykins;
Bernhardt Furniture Co., Colon Prestwood, William M. Deal;
and Broyhill Furniture Co., Howard Bellinger.
Extensive review of and comment on the document was
made by various industries and associations. These were:
American Iron and Steel Institute Fugitive Emission Task
Force, John E. Barker, Chairman; Lehigh Portland Cement Co.,
K. J. Schatzlein, Manager Environmental Protection; Portland
Cement Association, Cleve Schneeberger, Vice President for
111
-------
Public Affairs; Lone Star Industries, Inc., Mike Reid,
Assistant to Technical Director; National Crushed Stone
Association, F. A. Renninger, Senior Vice President; Kentucky
Crushed Stone Association, Inc., John W. Sullivan, Executive
Director; National Lime Association, Robert S. Boynton,
Executive Director; AMAX, Inc., James C. Gilliland, Director
Technical Services; American Foundrymen's Society, William
B. Huelsen, Director Environmental Affairs; Smelter Control
Research Association, Ivor E. Campbell, Technical Director;
ASARCO, S. Norman Kesten, Assistant to the Vice President
Environmental Affairs; Phelps Dodge Corp., H. Z. Stuart,
Assistant to the President; and Cities Service Co., S. L.
Norwood, Manager, Environmental Control. Their contribu-
tions were very helpful in preparing this document.
Several state and local air pollution control agencies
were visited to get input from the ultimate user of the
report. The agencies also reviewed and commented in detail
on the document. We would like to thank the Texas Air
Control Board, Roger Wallis, Henry E. Sievers, Sam Crowther,
and staff; Jefferson County Department of Health, Birmingham,
Alabama, Barry Robison, Henry Burnett; Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, Martin J. Sheahan and staff; Illinois
Institute for Environmental Quality, Samuel G. Borras and
staff; Michigan Division of Air Pollution Control, Lee
Jager, Dan Meyer, and staff; Wayne County Air Pollution
Control Division, Detroit, Michigan, Mort Sterling, William
Achinger, and staff; and Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Jack Wunderle, William Juris.
Assistance was received from the following private
contractors and consultants: Midwest Research Institute,
Dennis Wallis; William D. Balgord, Ph.D.; Monsanto Research
Corporation, Thomas R. Blackwood; and TRC - The Research
Corporation of New England, Henry J. Kolnsberg.
IV
-------
Review of and comment on this document from within the
Environmental Protection Agency was made by: Stan Cuffe and
Jim Crowder, Emission Standards and Engineering Division;
James Southerland, Tom Pace, and Chuck Masser, Monitoring
and Data Analysis Division; Darryl Tyler and Joe Sableski,
Control Programs Development Division; William Vatavuk,
Strategies and Air Standards Division; William Johnson and
William Keith, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement;
Gordon Rapier and Bill Belanger, Region III.
Special recognition for the following EPA personnel for
their contributions in preparing the section on the Iron and
Steel Industry: Gilbert Wood, Andrew Trenholm, Ken Woodard,
and Reid Iversen, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion; and Bernard Bloom, Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement. Also for Phil Youngblood and Dave Barrett,
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division, for their work on the
sections concerning impact on ambient air quality.
Mr. Gilbert Wood served as Project Officer. He was
assisted by Mr. David Dunbar, Control Programs Development
Division. Mr. George A. Jutze, PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
was the project director and John M. Zoller, project manager,
Additional authors of the report were Robert Amick, Kenneth
Axetell, Richard Gerstle, Robert Hearn, Thomas Janszen,
Lawrence Weller, and Charles Zimmer.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Significance of IPFPE 1-4
1.3 Related IPFPE Project Activities 1-5
1.4 Approach to Guideline Development 1-6
2.0 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION
SOURCES 2-1
2.1 Common Dust Sources 2-5
2.1.1 Transfer and Conveying 2-5
2.1.2 Loading and Unloading 2-14
2.1.3 Plant Roads and Haul Roads 2-24
/
2.1.4 Storage Piles 2-32J
2.1.5 Waste Disposal Sites 2-43
2.2 Iron and Steel Production 2-51
2.2.1 Coke Manufacturing 2-51
2.2.2 Iron Production 2-68
-2.2.3 Steel Manufacture 2-84
2.3 Primary Non-ferrous Smelting Industry 2-101
2.3.1 Primary Aluminum Production 2-101
vn
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
2.3.2 Primary Copper Smelters 2-115
2.3.3 Primary Lead Smelters 2-130
2.3.4 Primary Zinc Production 2-150
2.4 Secondary Non-ferrous Industries 2-164
2.4.1 Secondary Aluminum Smelters 2-164
2.4.2 Secondary Lead Smelting 2-174
2.4.3 Secondary Zinc Production 2-186
2.4.4 Secondary Brass/Bronze (Copper
Alloy) Production 2-201
2.5 Foundries 2-212
2.6 Materials Extraction and Beneficiation 2-230
2.7 Country and Terminal Grain Elevators 2-258
2.8 Portland Cement Manufacturing 2-280
2.9 Lime Manufacturing 2-297
2.10 Concrete Batching 2-311
2.11 Asphaltic Concrete Production 2-322
2.12 Lumber and Furniture Industry 2-332
3.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR SOURCES OF IPFPE 3-1
3.1 Considerations for Selection of Control
Techniques 3-1
3.2 IPFPE Control Options 3-7
3.3 Capture of the IPFPE's Prior to Control 3-14
3.4 Removal Equipment Costs and Installation
Schedules 3-36
Vlll
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
/4.Q ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (IPFPE's) 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1 /
4.2 Estimation of Short-term, Localized Impact 4-2/
4.3 Estimation of the Long-term Area-wide Air
Quality Impact 4-9
4.4 Measurement of IPFPE's (State-of-the-Art) 4-10
5.0 INTEGRATION OF IPFPE IMPACTS INTO THE STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 Procedures for Development of a Control
Strategy for IPFPE 5-2
5.3 Factors Influencing the IPFPE State
Implementation Planning Process 5-10
5.4 Summary of Existing Regulations Applicable
to Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emissions 5-13
5.5 Model Regulations 5-22
5.6 Evaluation of Enforcement Procedures 5-33
APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT TERMS A-l
J^PENDIX B LISTING OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS B-l
APPENDIX C EXAMPLE PRELIMINARY DISPERSION ANALYSIS C-l
APPENDIX D EXAMPLE UPWIND/DOWNWIND TEST PLAN CFOR
HYPOTHETICAL CEMENT PLANT) D-l
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No.
Paqe
2-1 Map of Thornthwaite's Precipitation Evaporation 2-34
Index Values for State Climatic Divisions
2~2 Climatic Factor Used in Wind Erosion Equation 2-45
2-3 Process Flow Diagram for Coke Manufacturing 2-53
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emission Points
2-4 Process Flow Diagram for Iron Production Showing 2-71
Potential Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emission Points
2-5 Process Flow Diagram for Steel Production Showing 2-88
Potential Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emission Points
2-6 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Aluminum 2-103
Production Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-7 Average Composite Particle Size Distribution by 2-108
Weight for Potroom Roof Ventilator Emissions
2-8 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Copper Smelting 2-117
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Emission Points
2-9 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Lead Smelting 2-133
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emission Points
2-10 Process Flow Diagram for Primary Zinc Production 2-152
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Emission Points
2-11 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Aluminum 2-166
Production Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
No.
2-12 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Lead Smelting 2-176
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emission Points
2-13 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Zinc 2-188
Production Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-14 Process Flow Diagram for Secondary Brass/Bronze 2-203
(Copper Alloy) Production Showing Potential
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emission
Points
2-15 Process Flow Diagram for Foundries Showing 2-215
Potential Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emission Points
2-16 Process Flow Diagram for Material Extraction and 2-240
Beneficiation Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-17 Process Flow Diagram for Country and Terminal 2-262
Grain Elevators Showing Potential Industrial
Process Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-18 Process Flow Diagram for Portland Cement Manu- 2-282
facturing Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-19 Process Flow Diagram for Lime Manufacturing 2-300
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emission Points
2-20 Process Flow Diagram for Concrete Batching 2-312
Showing Potential Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emission Points
2-21 Process Flow Diagram for Asphaltic Concrete 2-324
Manufacturing Showing Potential Industrial
Process Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
2-22 Process Flow Diagram for Lumber and Furniture 2-334
Production Showing Potential Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points
XI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
No. Page
3-1 General Air Flow Design Parameters for Commonly 3-16
Used Hoods
3-2 Grinding Operation Hood System 3-17
3-3 Example Conveyor Belt Dump Hood 3-18
3-4 Hood Design Considerations 3-20
3-5 Typical Duct Configuration 3-26
3-7 Rectangular Capture Hoods Plate Area Require- 3-29
ments vs. Hood Length and L/W
3-8 Circular Hoods Plate Requirements 3-30
3-9 Labor Cost for Fabricated 10 Ga. Carbon Steel 3-32
Rectangular Capture Hoods
3-10 Labor Cost for Fabricated 10 Ga. Carbon Steel 3-33
Circular Capture Hoods
3-11 Range of Total Installed Costs for Ambient 3-38
Temperature Fabric Filter Systems
3-12 Annual Operating Costs for Fabric Filter Systems 3-40
as a Function of Gas Flow Rate and Usage
3-13 Range of Total Installed Costs for Wet Collector 3-41
Systems
3-14 Annual Operating Costs for Wet Collector Systems 3-43
as a Function of Gas Flow Rate and Usage
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
2-1 Transfer and Conveying Emission Factors 2-7
2-2 Control Technology Applications for Transfer 2-9
and Conveying Sources
2-3 Features of Conveyor Enclosures 2-9
2-4 Emission Factors for Loading and Unloading 2-17
Operations
2-5 Control Technology Applications for Loading 2-18
and Unloading Operations
2-6 Storage Pile Fugitive Emission Factor Formulas 2-35
2-7 Example Correction Factors for Storage Pile 2-37
Emission Formulas
2-8 Control Techniques for Waste Disposal Sites 2-47
2-9 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-54
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Coke
Manufacturing
2-10 Pushing Emission Factors 2-56
2-11 Control Alternatives and Costs for Controlling 2-60
Charging Emissions
2-12 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-72
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Iron
Production
2-13 Control Techniques for Iron Production IPFPE 2-78
Sources
2-14 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-89
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Steel
Production
Xlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
2-15 Control Techniques for Steel Manufacturing IPFPE 2-94
Sources
2-16 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-104
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Primary Aluminum Production
2-17 Raw Materials for the Production of One Mg of 2-106
Aluminum
2-18 Emission Sources and Contaminants 2-107
2-19 Representative Particulate Size Distribution of 2-109
Uncontrolled Effluents from Prebaked and
Horizontal-Stud Soderberg Cells
2-20 Control Techniques for Primary Aluminum 2-110
Production IPFPE Sources
2-21 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-118
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Primary
Copper Smelters
2-22 Chemical Characteristics of Fugitive Particulate 2-123
Emissions from Various Process Steps in Primary
Copper Smelting
2-23 Control Techniques for Primary Copper Smelting 2-125
IPFPE Sources
2-24 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-134
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Primary
Lead Smelters
2-25 Concentrations of Lead, Cadmium, and Zinc in 2-142
Fugitive Particulate Emissions of Various Primary
Lead Smelting Operations
2-26 Control Techniques for Primary Lead Smelting 2-144
IPFPE Sources
2-27 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-153
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Primary
Zinc Production
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No.
Page
2-28 Control Techniques for Primary Zinc Production 2-159
IPFPE Sources
2-29 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-167
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Secondary Aluminum Production
2-30 Effluent Characteristics from Secondary 2-169
Aluminum Production
2-31 Control Techniques for Secondary Aluminum 2-171
Smelters IPFPE Sources
2-32 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-177
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Secondary Lead Smelting
2-33 Control Techniques for Secondary Lead Smelting 2-183
IPFPE Sources
2-34 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-189
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Secondary Zinc Production
2-35 Control Techniques for Secondary Zinc Production 2-197
IPFPE Sources
2-36 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-204
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Secondary Copper, Brass/Bronze Production
2-37 Control Techniques for Secondary Copper, Brass/ 2-209
Bronze Production IPFPE Sources
2-38 Types of Furnaces Used to Charge Metals in a 2-212
Foundry Operation
2-39 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-216
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Foundries
2-40 Emission Characteristics for Various Foundry 2-221
Operations
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
2-41 Control Techniques for Foundry IPFPE Sources 2-223
2-42 Dust-Producing Operations by Mining Industry 2-231
2-43 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-241
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Material
Extraction and Beneficiation
2-44 Summary of Control Efficiencies and Costs for 2-245
Mining Fugitive Particulate Emission Sources
2-45 Guidelines for Differentiation of Country and 2-259
Terminal Elevators
2-46 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-263
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Country
and Terminal Elevators
2-47 Particulate Size Distribution for Elevator Leg 2-269
Cyclone Inlet Test
2-48 Control Techniques for Grain Elevators IPFPE 2-270
Sources
2-49 Typical Country Elevator Control Devices and 2-276
Costs
2-50 Typical Terminal Elevator (Inland) Control 2-277
Devices and Costs
2-51 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-283
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Portland Cement Manufacturing
2-52 Control Techniques for Portland Cement Manufac- 2-290
turing IPFPE Sources
2-53 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-301
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Lime
Production
2-54 Control Techniques for Lime Manufacturing IPFPE 2-306
Sources
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
No. Page
2-55 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-313
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for Concrete
Batching
2-56 Control Techniques for Concrete Batching IPFPE 2-317
Sources
2-57 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-325
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for
Asphaltic Concrete Production
2-58 Control Techniques for Asphaltic Concrete 2-329
Manufacturing IPFPE Sources
2-59 Identification and Quantification of Potential 2-335
Fugitive Particulate Emission Points for the
Lumber and Furniture Industry
2-60 Control Techniques for Lumber and Furniture 2-338
Industry IPFPE Sources
»
3-1 Ventilation Rates for Typical Industrial 3-21
Equipment
3-2 Typical Compliance Time Schedules for Installa- 3-44
tion of Fabric Filters and Wet Collectors
5-1 Microinventory of Particulate Emissions (Example) 5-7
xvi i
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
With the upcoming revision to State Implementation
Plans (SIP), air pollution control agencies at all levels
have expressed concern relative to the proper fashion in
which to approach, evaluate and handle fugitive particulate
emissions from industrial operations. There are many un-
answered issues associated with this problem and further
understanding and guidance is needed. Therefore, this
document has been prepared to provide guidance to affected
agencies in the development of revisions, where necessary,
to particulate matter control strategies. In producing this
report, a data base has been assembled from literature
sources, on-going U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in-
house or contractor project activities, air pollution con-
trol agency records and files, and visits to industrial
facilities emitting and/or controlling fugitive particulate
emissions. Additionally, throughout this document a number
of key words or terms will be repetitiously used. In order
to clarify our intended meaning, as well as to prevent
possible misconceptions, a Glossary of these words or terms
has been prepared (Appendix A).
1.1 BACKGROUND
Widespread failure to attain the national ambient air
quality standards for particulate matter in many urban areas
has resulted in reexamination of the nature of the urban
particulate problem. Basically, the particulate control
strategy developed as part of the original SIP's included an
analysis of the contribution of conventional point and area
1-1
-------
sources without much consideration of other less conven-
tional sources of particulate. One of these sources is
"Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions," often
referred to hereafter in this document as "IPFPE." Basic-
ally, IPFPE result from either one or both of the following
categorical groupings of particulate emission sources -
"fugitive emissions" and "fugitive dust" originating within
industrial facilities.
There are no universally accepted definitions to char-
acterize and differentiate between the two separate "fugi-
tive" categories. Fugitive dust emissions are generally
related to natural or man-associated dusts (particulate
only) that become airborne due to the forces of wind, man's
activity, or both. Fugitive dust emissions may include
windblown particulate matter from unpaved dirt roads, tilled
farm lands, exposed surface areas at construction sites and
the like. Natural dusts that become airborne during dust
storms are also included as fugitive dusts. It has been
found that fugitive dusts from the example sources noted
above, as well as windblown natural particulate emissions
from arid lands (desert) during dust storms, and other
meteorological conditions, may cause ambient concentrations
above national particulate matter standards, particularly in
the West and Southwest.
Fugitive emissions, on the other hand, include those
particulates that are emitted from industry-related opera-
tions and which escape to the atmosphere through windows,
doors, vents, etc.; not through a primary exhaust system,
such as a stack, flue or control system. Fugitive emissions
may result from manufacturing operations, materials hand-
ling, transfer and storage operations, and other industrial
processes where particulates escape to the atmosphere. In
1-2
-------
other cases, fugitive emissions are more directly emitted to
the atmosphere from those industrial processes that operate
out-of-doors, such as coke ovens, rock-crushing operations
at quarries, and sand-blasting operations. Fugitive emis-
sions also result from poor maintenance of process equipment
and from environmentally careless process operations. For
example, fugitive emissions can result from leakage around
coke oven doors when such doors cannot be properly sealed
due to excessive warpage.
In this document, both emission categories will be
considered as dictated by common practice relative to the
specific industrial process being discussed. Therefore, for
the purpose of this investigation, Industrial Process
Fugitive Particulate Emissions (IPFPE) are defined as ...
"Particulate matter which escapes from a defined process
flow stream due to leakage, materials charging/handling,
inadequate operational control, lack of reasonably available
control technology, transfer or storage."
Because IPFPE are not emitted from a definable point,
such as a stack, they cannot be easily measured by conven-
tional techniques. Because of this difficulty, their
emissions and subsequent impact on air quality are extremely
difficult to estimate. This deficiency and the belief
(since shown to be erroneous) that fugitive emissions were
not significant resulted in a lack of attention given to
fugitive emission sources. During the development of the
original SIP's, States quantified emissions from all sources
using the best available information to determine such
emissions. Initial attention was given to control of point
and area sources whose air quality impact could be more
readily quantified. Thus, the emission control regulations
ultimately adopted by the control agency focused primarily
on control of conventional (non-fugitive) emission sources.
1-3
-------
1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF IPFPE
With the implementation of controls on stationary
sources, many agencies have noted the apparent air quality
impact of fugitive emissions. Some analyses have indicated
that they often may have a greater effect on air quality in
the immediate vicinity of a source than do stack emissions.
Stack emissions are released above ground level, generally
with a significant upward velocity that aids dispersion and
dilution before the emissions reach a ground level receptor.
However, most fugitive emissions, by their very nature,
occur at or near ground level and remain there, where the
localized impact on air quality is greatest.
While measurements of process and non-process fugitive
emissions have proven difficult, estimates have been made
indicating that fugitive emissions may comprise a large
portion of the nationwide particulate emissions problem.
For example, EPA has estimated that total fugitive emissions
of particulate from electric arc furnace charging can be
from 5 to 50 times the total stack emissions which occur
during the normal operating period of a furnace fitted with
emission controls. Further, a recent technical paper
reported that maximum ambient 24-hour particulate measure-
ments observed around three fugitive emission sources in the
Pittsburgh area (i.e., a wood products process, a new steel
mill, and an old steel mill) were 655, 447, and 421 yg/m
respectively. Although it is not stated, stack emissions
could be a part of these concentrations. Each of these
concentrations is well above the 24-hour Primary Standard
for Total Suspended Particulate and also above other ob-
served measurements at sampling sites in the area which were
not directly impacted by the fugitive emissions.
1-4
-------
Thus, if the Primary Standards for TSP are to be
attained and maintained nationwide, serious attention must
be paid to the role which IPFPE play in these non-attainment
problem areas.
1.3 RELATED IPFPE PROJECT ACTIVITIES
At the present time, a number of U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency projects are investigating factors which
are germane to either the measurement, sources, control,
control costs, modeling, or evaluation of IPFPE. While this
guideline attempts to utilize all currently-available and
pertinent information from these projects, a summary of
these activities is presented in order that the user of this
document becomes aware of specific technical areas now
receiving serious attention. These subject areas are tabu-
lated as follows:
Subject of Project
Fugitive Emissions Measurement
Techniques
Iron, Steel and Gray Iron
Control Technology Assessment
of Fugitive Emissions
Source Assessment of 50
Industries for Environmental
Risk
Iron and Steel Control
Technology Assessment
Responsible
EPA Component
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory -
RTP, N.C.
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory -
RTP, N.C.
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory -
RTP, N.C.
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement -
Washington, D.C.
Emission Standards and
Engineering Division -
RTP, N.C.
1-5
-------
Subject of Project
Continuing Evaluation and
Development of Pollutant
Control Techniques
Fugitive Emissions, Lead
Industry
Emission Factors and Cost
Analysis, Iron and Steel
Industry (cooperative AISI/
EPA)
NADB Emission Factor Develop-
ment (continuing effort)
Responsible
EPA Component
Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory -
RTP, N.C.
Emission Standards and
Engineering Division -
RTP, N.C.
Emission Standard and
Engineering Division -
RTP, N.C.
National Assessment of the
TSP Problem, 14 Cities Study
Non-Metallic Mineral New
Source Performance Standards
Monitoring and Data
Analysis Division -
RTP, N.C.
Control Programs Develop-
ment Division - RTP, N.C.
Emission Standards and
Engineering Division -
RTP, N.C.
If further information on any of the above activities
is desired, contact may be initiated through U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency Regional Office personnel.
1.4 APPROACH TO GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT
In order to prepare this guideline for control agencies'
use in the development of necessary revisions to particulate
matter control strategies, the following tasks were imple-
mented :
Task ! - Review all available information, published
and unpublished, dealing with pertinent areas of in-
dustrial process fugitive particulate emissions from
industrial process sources. This literature search was
constrained to the subject of fugitive particulate
emissions from industrial process operations, as op-
posed to fugitive dust emissions from sources such as
unpaved roads, agricultural activities, and general
wind-blown dust.
1-6
-------
Task 2 - Contact all U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency managers whose projects dealt with any affili-
ated areas of fugitive emissions in order to identify,
collect, and utilize the latest available information
on fugitive emission control technology, measurement
techniques, cost of controls, and other relevant in-
formation.
Task 3.~ Visit representative state and local air
pollution control agencies currently dealing with
fugitive emissions to determine the effectiveness of
control strategies, control technology, costs associa-
ted with fugitive emission control, and experience in
developing and enforcing pertinent regulations.
fask 4 ~ Contact trade associations and specifically
identified industries to arrange facility visits for
the purpose of identifying and tabulating data on well-
controlled and poorly-controlled operations and collect
information on control technology and costs.
Task 5 - Review available ambient air quality data near
fugitive emission sources for which measurements are
available or can be estimated, to determine the impact
fugitive emissions have on localized air quality.
Acquisition of these data was coordinated with all
phases of the information gathering process. However,
special effort was made to obtain ambient data during
the agency/industrial facility visits.
Task 6 ~ Compile all of the information and data ac-
quired in Tasks 1-5 into a Phase I Report. This docu-
ment, which tabulates and summarizes all information/
data in an organized fashion, served as the "data base"
report and provides resource reference for the Guide-
line.
Task 7 ~ Utilizing the information files and data base
accumulated, produce a Guideline for agencies to use in
the development of SIP revisions dealing with control
of IPFPE.
Using this approach, the Guideline addresses the
following topical areas:
1-7
-------
Specific parameters affecting IPFPE from each
major industrial category. Included are process
point emission estimates (with reliability fac-
tors) plus control technology applications and
costs for specific installations.
A general discussion of IPFPE source control
technology, especially noting design requirements
for ventilation, hooding and specific control
devices. Basic cost information for checking and
estimating purposes is provided along with general
guidance on installation schedules.
Means of determining the IPFPE air quality impact
from individual facilities, including state-of-
the-art modeling and measurement techniques. An
example exercise, based on a hypothetical plant,
has been developed to demonstrate an approach for
estimating air quality impact from fugitive parti-
culates.
Integration of IPFPE impacts into the State Imple-
mentation Plan modification process. Strategy
development, enforcement experience and approaches,
and example regulations are presented.
1-8
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1.0
1. Lebowitz, M.F. Short Term Testing for Fugitive Dust
Effect. Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Boston, Massachusetts
June 1975. APCA Publication No. 75-25.4.
1-9
-------
2.0 INDUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES
Major industries with potential sources of Industrial
Process Fugitive Particulate Emissions (IPFPE) are identi-
fied and included in this section. For each of these
industries, the following information is presented:
0 process description
0 identification of IPFPE sources
0 emission estimates and an example plant
inventory of IPFPE sources
0 IPFPE emission characteristics
0 control technology options for IPFPE sources.
A range of emission estimates is presented where avail-
able. It is not the intent of this document to determine a
single factor for each IPFPE source, but rather to present a
range of values. However, when only one estimate was found
in the literature, that number is shown. For some sources,
emission factors were not available in the literature. In
these cases engineering judgment, based on emission factors
for similar sources and observations during plant visits,
was used to estimate the emission factors. A reliability
rating is indicated for each fugitive emission estimate.
This is an indicator of the supportive data used to develop
the factor. The reliability ratings in this document cor-
respond to the rating system used in "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," Publication Number AP-42.
These ratings are defined in AP-42 as follows:
2-1
-------
A - Excellent
B - Above average
C - Average
D - Below average
E - Poor
All emission rates in this document were determined to have
ratings of C, D, or E. The criteria used to determine these
ratings are presented below:
C - Supportable by multiple test data.
D - Supportable by limited test data and engineering
j udgment.
E - Supportable by best engineering judgement (visual
observation, emission tests for similar sources,
etc.).
The model plant IPFPE inventory is not intended to
represent a "typical" plant, only an example application of
the emission estimates. An average of any range of factors
presented was used in developing the inventory. For any
specific plant, consideration of operating conditions must
be made when selecting the emission rate. Also, factors
with an "E" rating are at best order of magnitude and actual
emission rates at a given facility could differ significantly.
Inventory techniques rather than an example plant inventory
were included for the common dust sources and minerals
extraction sections since the common dust sources are often
found with other processes and the mining industry is so
diverse.
Emission factors for some of the fugitive emission
sources identified in this document are contained in AP-42.
Additional fugitive emission factors will be included in
future editions of AP-42, therefore the latest edition
should always be used. Also, emission factors for stack
emissions are contained in that document.
2-2
-------
In addition, data were included in this report from a
current project by Midwest Research Institute* entitled
"A Study of Fugitive Emissions From Metallurgical Processes."
However, rather than showing the MRI Monthly Reports as
references in this document, the original references were
cited whenever possible.
Many industries have common types of IPFPE and fugitive
dust sources. Section 2.1 covers these common dust sources
in detail. For industries not specifically covered by this
document, refer to similar processes that are discussed
herein and the section on common dust sources.
*
Performed for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Research
«XSgi?™arkf N°rth Carolina, under Contract No.
bo—U2-
2-3
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.0
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. Publication No. AP-42. February 1976.
2-4
-------
2.1 COMMON DUST SOURCES
Some industrial process fugitive emission sources occur
at many plants. Rather than repeating descriptions of these
sources for each industry, they are described in general
terms in this section. The industrial process emission
sources described here include transfer and conveying and
loading and unloading. Only the unusual aspects of these
common sources will be discussed in the sections on fugitive
emissions from specific industries.
Also, there are several potential sources of fugitive
dust within plant boundaries that are not directly associ-
ated with process operations. However, these sources are
considered to be IPFPE because they occur on plant property.
They should be included in an emission inventory or air
quality analysis of the plant since they are often of the
same order of magnitude as the fugitive process emissions.
The fugitive dust sources described here include roads,
storage piles, and waste disposal sites.
2.1.1 Transfer and Conveying
Description - Material transfer and conveying opera-
tions are common to nearly all processing industries.
Equipment includes belt conveyors, screw conveyors, bucket
elevators, vibrating conveyors, and pneumatic conveyors.
The type of conveying equipment varies with the application,
determined primarily by the quantity and characteristics
(size, specific gravity, moisture content, etc.) of the
material being handled, the transfer distance and elevation,
and conditions of the working environment.
Generally, conveyor runs between processes are less
than 300 meters (1000 ft). However, belt conveyors used for
overland transfer, such as for moving coal from a prepara-
tion plant at a captive mine site to a power plant, may be
over 20 kilometers (12 miles) long.
2-5
-------
Loss of material from conveyors is primarily at the
feeding, transfer, and discharge points and occurs due to
spillage or windage. The majority of particulate emissions
are generally from spillage and mechanical agitation of the
material at transfer points. However, emissions from in-
adequately enclosed systems can be quite extensive.
Wetting can provide good control in many instances.
However excessive moisture in the material or air currents
can create discharge problems, especially on belt conveyors.
Wet material being conveyed may cling to the belt and fall
from the return strand. Therefore, many conveyor systems
are enclosed, both for maintenance of product quality and
air pollution control.
Emission Rates - Transfer/conveying is one of the most
variable process operations with respect to fugitive parti-
culate emission rates. Emission rates vary with the type of
conveyor system being used, the material being transferred,
the extent of coverage of the conveying system, and, for
outside systems, local meteorological conditions.
The emission rate data available for transfer and
conveying operations are presented in Table 2-1. Emission
rates for other materials can be roughly estimated by com-
parative engineering judgment with these rates.
2-6
-------
Table 2-1. TRANSFER AND CONVEYING EMISSION FACTORS
Material
transferred
Coal
Coke
Dry phosphate
rock
Sand
Grain
Iron ore
Lead ore
Uncontrolled emission factor
per unit of material transferred
0.02-0.48 kg/Mga'b'C
(0.04-0.96 Ib/ton)
0.012-0.065 kg/Mgc'd
(0.023-0.13 Ib/ton)
0.75 kg/Mge (1.5 Ib/ton)
0.15 kg/Mgb (0.3 Ib/ton)
1.0-2.0 kg/Mgf (2.0-4.0 Ib/ton)
1.0 kg/Mgg (2.0 Ib/ton)
0.82-2.5 kg/Mgh (1.64-5.0 Ib/ton)
Reliability
factor
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
•L
Reference 1.
Reference 2.
Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Reference 5. Includes conveying and loading onto
railroad cars.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Reference 8.
Inventory Techniques - The annual operating parameter
or throughput for the material being handled should be
determined. Application of the appropriate emission factor
and control efficiency to this annual throughput yields the
annual emission rate.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Like most
IPFPE sources, emissions from transfer and conveying have
the same chemical characteristics as the materials being
2-7
-------
processed (conveyed). The size of emissions is generally
less than 100 ym diameter, except for extremely light
materials.
Control Technology - Possible control technology appli-
cations for transfer and conveying IPFPE sources are sum-
marized in Table 2-2 and discussed in greater detail below.
Particulate emissions are either created mechanically,
such as from the movement of belts or at transfer points, or
by the force of the wind on unprotected conveyor sections.
The mechanically generated emissions are more easily con-
trolled than most fugitive emissions from windage.
The mechanically generated dust is a function of mate-
rial particle size and machinery speed. Generally, mechani-
cally generated dust may be controlled by covering or hood-
ing the area emitting the dust, application of a negative
pressure to the hooded area with exhaust and subsequent
collection by control equipment.
Enclosures also protect the conveyor systems and trans-
fer points from windage losses. As delineated in Table
2-2, enclosures can either be complete (e.g., tunnels for
belt conveyors) or partial. Table 2-3 summarizes the
features of complete and partial enclosures.
The major operating problem with belts is the sticking
of material to the belt after leaving the point of transfer.
This problem is generally reduced by a blade or brush which
scrapes the bottom of the underside of the belt. Other
devices such as vibrators and air jets have been tried with
very limited success, due to their expense and large number
g
of operational and maintenance problems. Moistening the
underside of the belt has been shown to reduce emission
levels at a chain feeder by 15 percent.
2-8
-------
Table 2-2. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR
TRANSFER AND CONVEYING SOURCES
Emission points
Control procedure
Conveyor System (belt,
bucket elevator, etc.)
Transfer and transition
points
Enclosure
0 top covered
0 sides and top covered
0 completely enclosed
Wet suppression (water, chemi-
cal, foam) at conveyor feed
points.
Belt scrapers and wipers
Mechanical belt turnovers
Replacement with pneumatic
system or screw conveyor
Enclosure
Hoods, covers, or canopies
with exhaust to removal equip-
ment (fabric filters, and wet-
collectors) .
Wet suppression (water, chemi-
cal foam).
Table 2-3. FEATURES OF CONVEYOR ENCLOSURES-
Features
Easy to vent
Easy to maintain
Accumulated dust
may be easily
removed
Eliminates dust
Reduces noise
Top
covered
X
xxxx
xxxx
XX
X
Sides
protected
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
Completely
enclosed
xxxx
XX
XX
xxxx
xxxx
Key: x Does not work
xx Marginal
xxx Good
xxxx Excellent
2-9
-------
Control by wet suppression methods includes the appli-
cation of water, chemicals, and foam. The point of appli-
cation is most commonly at the conveyor feed and discharge
points, with some applications at conveyor transfer points.
Wet suppression with water only is a relatively inexpensive
technique; however, it has the inherent disadvantage of
being short-lived. Control with chemical (added to water
for improved wetting) or foam is longer lasting but more
expensive than water alone.
In sampling at six different transfer and conveying
locations at a coal mine, dust emissions were found to be 34
percent lower when water was sprayed onto the belts.
When foam was used instead of water, emissions at the six
sampling locations were reduced 73 percent compared to dry
operation.
Foam is effective in dust suppression because small
particles (in the range of 1 to 50 ym diameter) break the
surface of the bubbles in the foam when they come in con-
tact, thereby wetting the particles. Particles larger than
50 ym only move the bubbles away. The small wetted particles
then must be brought together or brought in contact with
larger particles to achieve agglomeration. If foam is
injected into free-falling aggregate at a transfer point,
the mechanical motion provides the required particle to
bubble contact and subsequent particle to particle contact.
For as-mined coal or quarried rock, the normal appli-
cation rate for foam during transfer and conveying is 0.06
^ "3 11 *
m /Mg (2 ft /ton) of material. The cost of this treat-
ment per application point is about $0.02 per Mg ($0.02 per
ton) of material transferred. More than one injection point
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
2-10
-------
may be required for particularly dusty material or if the
foam is also intended to prevent emissions while the material
is in storage.
Highly diluted chemical wetting agents are applied by
water jet ahead of any points in the conveying system where
dusting occurs. The wetting agent breaks down the surface
tension of the water, allowing it to spread further, pene-
trate deeper, and wet the small particles better than un-
treated water. With mechanical agitation of the material,
the small particles agglomerate. For effective control, the
spray should be applied at each point where the particles
might be fractured, allowed to free fall, or subject to
strong air currents.
Cost estimates were made for wet suppression systems
using wetting agents at hypothetical rock crushing plants of
270, 540, and 900 Mg/hr (300, 600, and 1000 tons/hr) operat-
12
ing rates. The capital and operating costs are summarized
below:
Total capital
cost
Total operating
costs per unit
of stone pro-
duced
Cost, dollars
270 Mg/hr
(300 ton/hr)
$44,000
0.017/Mg
(0.015/ton)
540 Mg/hr
(600 ton/hr)
52,000
0.012/Mg
(0. Oil/ton)
900 Mg/hr
(1000 ton/hr)
62,000
0.010/Mg
(0.009/ton)
Replacement of existing belt conveyors and bucket
elevators with pneumatic conveyors or screw conveyors is a
very effective method for eliminating fugitive emissions
from processes involving relatively small sized material
(e.g. powders, pellets, and other granular material).
Fabric filters are most often used to clean the conveying
air from these systems.
2-11
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.1
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report,
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REHD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36, June, 1976.
2. Personal Communication from G. McCutchen, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
to Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
February 1976.
3. Transmittal from the American Iron and Steel Institute
to Mr. Don Goodwin of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Data contained
in table entitled Source Data for Steel Facility
Factors. July 13, 1976.
4. Internal Memo, to George B. Crane from Reid Iversen,
entitled Emission Factors for the Iron and Steel
Industry. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 8,
1976.
5. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations—Appendix, Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1975.
6. Emissions Control in the Feed and Grain Industry,
Volume 1. Engineering and Cost Study. Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Mo. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water
Programs. EPA-450/3-73-003a. December 1973. p. 118.
2-12
-------
7. Gutow, B.S., An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions.
Modern Casting. January 1972.
8. Vandegrift, A.E. and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emis-
sions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary
Particulate Pollution Sources. Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
9. Cross, F.L. Jr. and Forehand, G.D. Air Pollution
Emissions from Bulk Loading Facilities, Volume 6,
Environmental Nomograph Series. Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1975. pp. 3-4.
10. Seibel, Richard J. Dust Control at a Transfer Point
Using Foam and Water Sprays. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C. Technical Progress Report 97. May,
1976. *
11. Cole, Howard J. Foam Suppressants in the Control of
Source and Fugitive Emissions. Deter Company, Inc.,
East Hanover, N.J. February, 1976.
12. Evans, Robert J. Methods and Costs of Dust Control in
Stone Crushing Operations. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Pittsburgh, Pa. Information Circular 8669. 1975.
2-13
-------
2.1.2 Loading and Unloading
Description - Loading and unloading bulk material is
common to many processing industries. It involves transfer
of the material between interim storage facilities and
trucks, ships, barges, or rail cars (hopper cars and box-
cars) . While loading and unloading operations can be either
for external transportation of material to or from a facil-
ity or for internal transportation within a facility (for
example, internal transportation might consist of loading of
a mining haul truck with ore via a front-end loader for
subsequent unloading to a crushing process), this discussion
is restricted to operations for external transportation.
Loading and unloading for internal transportation are more
industry specific, and are therefore addressed separately in
individual industry sections.
Fugitive emissions from these operations emanate pri-
marily from the mechanical agitation of the material as it
strikes the sides and bottom of the transportation vehicle
and by the turbulence created by the air which is displaced
as the material is moved into or out of the transportation
vehicle. Windage losses are generally minor during loading
and unloading; however, heavy winds can cause severe prob-
lems, especially when these operations are inadequately
enclosed.
Delivery of the bulk material to the cargo holds of
ships and interiors of trucks and rail cars is typically
accomplished by belt conveying, gravity discharge from
elevated storage, pneumatic systems, or clam-shell bucket
cranes. On cargo vessels, a rapidly moving horizontal
conveyor called a slinger throws the product at high velo-
cities out to the far reaches of the hold which cannot be
reached directly from the hatch opening. Fugitive emissions
2-14
-------
from loading barges and ships can be quite significant and
very difficult to control, due to the difficulty in effec-
tively containing and exhausting the expansive openings in
the holds of these vessels.
The same facility is often employed for both loading
and unloading of trucks and rail cars. Such a facility
normally consists of a drive-through shed affording some
protection from precipitation and wind, but offering minimal
enclosure for suppression of fugitive emissions. These
drive-through sheds are sometimes equipped with a roll-down
door on one end or shrouds at both ends (to prevent a wind
tunnel effect), although more commonly they are unprotected
at both ends to allow entrance and departure as quickly as
possible. Air is usually blowing through this "tunnel" at
speeds greater than the wind in open areas away from the
enclosure, thereby aggravating the fugitive emission problem
and making it more difficult to contain and capture the
emissions.
The quantity of dust emitted during barge and ship
unloading is relatively small in comparison with railroad
car and truck unloading. Unloading is normally accomplished
by belt conveyors which are fed from hoppers in ship's
holds, by means of retractable bucket type elevators that
are lowered into the holds of barges and ships, or by clam-
shell buckets which are most often open at the top and
poorly sealed at the bottom.
Emission Rates - Emission rates vary with the moisture
content of the material being loaded or unloaded, the type
and configuration of the vehicle (truck, rail car, barge,
and ship), the method of loading/unloading, wind speed, and
efficiency of the control technique employed.
2-15
-------
Emission rate data available from field tests and
engineering judgement for loading and unloading operations
are presented in Table 2-4.
Inventory Techniques - The annual throughput for the
bulk material shipped or received should be determined.
Application of the appropriate emission factor and control
efficiency to this annual throughput yields the estimated
annual emission rate.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Emissions from
bulk material loading and unloading have the same chemical
characteristics as the materials being hauled. However, the
size distributions of the emissions is somewhat independent
of the material, since only the fines become airborne.
Control Technology - Various control technology appli-
cations for loading IPFPE are presented in Table 2-5. These
techniques can be used alone or at times in various combina-
tions. Generally, the simultaneous use of more than one
technique will provide increased levels of control.
Rail car and truck loading - To minimize particulate
emissions from rail car and truck loading, the entire opera-
tion can be enclosed by the use of doors on the loading
shed. This prevents the wind tunnel effect and whatever
dust is emitted remains in the enclosure where it can settle
to the ground. By venting the entire enclosure to a control
device, dust leakage around the doors and any other openings
can be prevented thus ensuring near 100 percent control.
The grain industry utilizes this technique widely.
Exhausting the car or truck body to a dust removal
device reduces emissions if the body is fairly well enclosed.
In open type rail or truck bodies this technique is not too
effective.
Choke-feed eliminates free fall of material into the
car or truck. In this technique the mouth of the feed tube
2-16
-------
Table 2-4. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LOADING
AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS
Material/Operation
Uncontrolled Emission Factor
Reliability
factor
Dry phosphate rock
products/loading
or unloading -
railcar and truck
Taconite pellets/
rail car unloading
in drive-through
shed
Taconite/ship
loading by belt
conveyors
Coal/hopper car
unloading, or
barge loading
Grain/loading or
unloading
rail - drive-
through shed
truck drive-
through shed
barge
0.75 kg/Mga (1.5 Ib/ton)
0.015 kg/Mg" (0.03 Ib/ton)
0.01 kg/Mg° (0.02 Ib/ton)
0.2 kg/Mgc (0.4 Ib/ton)
1.5-4kg/Mga (3-8 Ib/ton)
1-4 kg/Mgd (2-8 Ib/ton)
1.5-4 kg/Mgd (3-3 Ib/ton)
E
E
D
D
D
Reference 2.
Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Reference 1.
2-17
-------
Table 2-5. CONTROL TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FOR LOADING
AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS
Emission Points
Control Procedure
Loading
Railcar, truck
Barge and ship
Drive through enclosure
with doors at both ends.
Exhaust of entire enclos-
ure to dust removal
equipment.
Movable hood over hatch
opening.
Exhaust of car hopper to
dust removal equipment.
Choke-feed or telescopic
chute to confine and
limit free-fall distance
(gravity loading).
Wet suppression (water,
chemicals).
Use of tarpaulins or
covers over the holds.
Canopy and exhaust system
over the loading boom,
with attached tarps
around the hatch.
Exhaust of ship hold to
dust removal equipment.
Choke-feed or telescopic
chute to confine and
limit free-fall distance.
For tanker types, use of
gravity filler spouts
with concentric outer
exhaust duct to control
equipment.
Wet suppression (water,
chemicals).
2-18
-------
Table 2-5 (cont'd). CONTROL APPLICATIONS FOR LOADING
AND UNLOADING OPERATIONS
Emission Points
Control Procedure
Unloading
Railcar, truck
Barge and ship
Drive-through enclosure
with doors at both ends.
Exhaust of enclosure to
dust removal equipment.
Exhaust air from below
grating of receiving
hopper to removal equip-
ment.
Choke feeding to receiv-
ing pit (hopper car and
hopper truck).
Unloading with screw
conveyor (box car).
Wet suppression (water,
chemicals).
Utilize a pneumatic
unloading system.
Enclosure of top of
clamshell bucket with
transparent material and
maintenance of closure
seals and teeth on bottom
of bucket.
Enclosure of shoreside
receiving hopper.
Exhaust of enclosed
shoreside receiving
hopper to dust removal
equipment.
2-19
-------
is immersed in the material being unloaded. This technique
only works for fairly free-flowing dry material. A tele-
scopic chute or spout also essentially eliminates the free-
fall distance of the material being loaded. This type of
system can be used on all types of material. Both the
choke-feed and telescopic chute methods are only partially
effective in eliminating emissions since the surface of the
loaded material is constantly disturbed by new material.
This surface is subject to wind and dust entrainment.
Movable hoods, exhausted to a dust removal system can
be placed over the filling hatch in some types of truck and
railcars during loading. By keeping other openings on the
body closed, any dust generated in loading must be emitted
through the single open hatch. A hood with sufficient air
flow mounted around this opening could capture most of the
dust generated.
Wet suppression techniques when applied to loading
operations can reduce airborne dust to some extent. The
loading process naturally breaks up surface coatings, but
some small dust particles will adhere to larger pieces so as
not to become entrained. Many materials can not be readily
wetted and this technique could not be used for these
materials.
Barge and ship loading - Due to their larger size,
barge and ship loading present unique problems for dust
control. However, a number of control techniques have been
developed and utilized especially at some of the larger
shipping terminals.
The use of tarpaulins or similar covers over hatches on
ships and enclosed barges reduces air borne emissions by
preventing their escape. Air, displaced by the material
2-20
-------
being loaded, causes the hold to become slightly pressurized
during loading, and the hold must be vented at some point if
the hatches are air tight. Thus, a more effective control
system incorporates an exhaust system for the hold. This
exhaust system is converted to a dust control system such as
fabric filter with the collected material being returned to
the hold. Such a system can practically eliminate loading
emissions if carefully maintained and properly operated.
The use of a canopy hood and exhaust system over the loading
boom is less effective than a totally enclosed system, but
can still reduce emissions and is a viable alternative for
open barges. Effective utilization of this technique re-
quires some type of wind break to increase the hood capture
efficiency.
Choke feed and telescopic chutes or spouts as pre-
viously described can also be used for loading, both en-
closed and open ships or barges. Wet suppression techniques
may also help reduce airborne emissions if the product
specifications do not prohibit use of this technique.
Rail car or truck unloading - Many of the unloading
dust control techniques are identical to the loading techni-
ques. When a rail car or truck is tilted and materials are
dumped into an underground chamber through a grating,
exhausting air from this chamber through a control device
will effectively reduce emissions. By causing air to flow
down through the grating, dust emissions are contained. The
face velocity of air through the grating is a critical
design parameter in this technique. Unloading cars with a
screw conveyor causes less distribution of the material and
thereby less dust. Problems of material handling and time
requirements limit the application of this technique.
Pneumatic unloading of very fine materials such as cement,
2-21
-------
chemicals, or flour is an effective and widely used techni-
que that practically eliminates dust emissions. With this
system, careful maintenance of hose fittings and the fabric
filter through which the conveying air exhausts is required.
Barge and ship unloading - Control of barge and ship
unloading requires enclosure of the receiving point on the
shore and possibly exhausting that enclosure to a control
device. A good enclosure with an exhaust system can provide
5*
essentially 100 percent capture. For open ships and
barges which use buckets and conveyors, a partially enclosed
bucket will reduce windblown dust. When observation of the
bucket by the operator is required, a transparent heavy
plastic sheet can be used as a cover. This system is only
partially effective and must usually be supplemented with
other controls such as tighter fitting covers, wind breaks,
or possibly wet suppression.
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
2-22
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.2
1. Emissions Control in the Feed and Grain Industry,
Volume 1. Engineering and Cost Study, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Water
Programs. EPA-450/3-73-003a. December 1973. pp. 118.
2. Emission estimate derived from a composite of six
different loading/unloading operations' emissions as
reported by three Florida phosphate plants. Unpub-
lished paper prepared by Kenneth Axetell, PEDCo-Environ
mental Specialists, Inc., under U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order
No. 9. March 1975.
3. Cross, F.L. Jr. and Forehand, G.D. Air Pollution
Emissions from Bulk Loading Facilities, Volume 6,
Environmental Nomograph Series. Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1975. pp. 3-4.
4. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared 'for
.
?QSAoE?I^0ninental Protection Agency. Contract No.
68-02-1321 Task 40, October 15, 1976. pp. 4-38 and
^t — * O JL •
5. Plant Visit. J.M. Zoller and R.S. Amick, PEDCo-Environ-
mental, Inc., and G.H. Wood, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Visited Wyandotte Cement, Inc. Wyando*-tf
Michigan. October 26, 1976. " '
2-23
-------
2.1.3 Plant Roads and Haul Roads
Description - Roads, both paved and unpaved, are a very
common source of fugitive dust in plant areas. Plant roads
differ from public roads in that they normally carry a large
percentage of truck and equipment traffic and traffic speeds
are much lower. Unpaved plant roads are usually better
maintained than unpaved public roads, with many of the plant
roads being oiled or compacted as a result of the heavy
loads. The roads are well maintained for several reasons:
reduced equipment repairs, improved employee working condi-
tions, and better initial construction. Many plant roads
have relatively low traffic volumes; others, particularly in
the mining industry, are only temporary.
Dust on the surface of paved roads is deposited by such
processes as mud track-out on vehicle tires, atmospheric
fallout, spillage or leakage from trucks, pavement wear and
decompostion, runoff or wind erosion from adjacent land
areas, deposition of biological debris, wear from tires and
brake linings, and wear of anti-skid compounds. This
material is reentrained by contact with tires and by the air
turbulence created by passing vehicles.
On unpaved roads, the road base itself serves as the
main source of dust. As with paved roads, the dust becomes
airborne by contact with vehicles' tires and by air turbu-
lence from passing vehicles. Also, some of the fugitive
dust from unpaved roads is attributed to wind erosion. On
both paved and unpaved roads, traffic movement causes the
continuing mechanical breakdown of large particles on the
road surface, thus providing new material in the suspended
particulate size range.
In some instances, the road shoulders are also a source
of fugitive dust emissions. If the shoulders consist of
loose material or do not receive the same dust control
2-24
-------
measures as the main road surface (e.g., watering, oiling,
or street cleaning), they can produce significant amounts of
fugitive dust.
Emission Rates - All field testing to date for emission
factor development has been on public roads. Some estimates
of emission rates for trucks on unpaved haul roads were made
by modifying the published factor for unpaved roads to
account for difference in tire size and speed and for more
frequent watering of the haul roads. Insufficient data are
available on conditions of paved plant roads compared to
public roads to make any similar modifications for their
emission factors.
Emission factors for both paved roads and unpaved roads
are based on the vehicle-kilometers of travel (VKT) or
vehicle-miles of travel (VMT) on the roads. Reported values1
for paved roads have varied from approximately 0.6 to 12
gm/VKT (1 to 20 gm/VMT) by such diverse sampling methods as
isokinetic hi vol measurements immediately downwind, impac-
tors placed on trailers, microscopic analysis of particulate
matter on urban hi vols, and tracer studies. The median
value from these studies and the current EPA-recommended
emission factor is 3.8 gm/VKT (6.1 gm/VMT).2 This average
emission rate is apparently affected by the amount of loose
surface material on the street and by vehicle speeds.
Because of the limited amount of testing associated with
each of these paved road sampling studies and the lack of
data on the effect of variables such as surface loading and
vehicle speed, the average emission factor is probably
accurate only within a range as wide as all the reported
values, 0.6 to 12 gm/VKT (1 to 20 gm/VMT), for specific
applications. More comprehensive sampling is now being done
in at least three different studies, so the reliability of
2-25
-------
available emission factors should improve within the next
year.
3
EPA's published emission factor for unpaved roads is:
t'V
EF = (0.60) (0.23) (s) (S/48) (l-W/365)
[EF = (0.60) (0. 81) (s) (S/30) (l-W/365)]
where EF = emission factor, kg/VKT (Ib/VMT)
0.6 = average fraction of emitted
particulate in the suspended
particulate size range (less
than 30 ym diameter)
s = silt content, percent, within
the limits of 5 to 15 percent
S = average vehicle speed, km/hr (mph)
W = days with 0.025 cm (0.01 inch) or more of
precipitation or reported snow cover
Based on the comparative widths of tire faces on off-highway
mining trucks, this factor was multiplied by 2.5 to obtain
4
an emission factor for mining haul roads. Normal speeds on
haul roads are 24 to 32 km per hour (15 to 20 mph). >
Emission rates intermediate between those for unpaved
public roads and mining haul roads, but calculated with
assumptions analogous to those shown above for haul roads,
may be appropriate for many unpaved plant roads.
Inventory Techniques - VKT (VMT) within a defined area
such as plant boundaries is usually determined by identifying
all the distinct roadway segments in the area, estimating
the number of vehicles per day using each segment (one way
trips), multiplying the roadway lengths by their respective
traffic volumes, and summing the VKT (VMT) of the individual
segments. To provide a check on this estimate or an alter-
nate estimate, gasoline consumption by vehicles in the plant
area can be multiplied by an average fuel mileage rate for
2-26
-------
the plant's vehicle mix to obtain VKT (VMT). A third method
of estimating VMT is from the vehicle-hours of operation and
average miles of travel per hour.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - The chemical
or mineral composition of road dust is a function of the
predominant types of material deposited on the surface of
paved roads and a function of the type of gravel or surfac-
ing material used on unpaved roads. Typical particle size
ranges for the emissions are:
Size range
< 3 ym
3-30 ym
> 30 vim
Percent by weight of emissions
Paved
roads
40
37
23
Unpaved
roads
31
29
40
generally has a low moisture content, in the range of 0.5 to
4 percent, and that it dries rapidly after precipitation in
warm weather.
Control Technology - Available procedures for reducing
emissions from plant roads and their estimated efficiencies
are summarized below:
Emission points
Paved streets
Unpaved roads
Road shoulders
Control procedures
Street cleaning
Housecleaning pro-
grams to reduce
deposition of
material on streets
Speed reduction
Paving
Chemical stabilization
Watering
Speed reduction
Oiling and double
chip surface
Stabilization
Efficiency
i
No estimate
No estimate
Variable
85%
50%
50%
Variable
85%
80%
2-27
-------
Paved streets and roads in a plant area can be cleaned
on a frequent schedule to reduce the amount of particulate
material on the surface that is available for reentrainment.
Preliminary data from field tests indicate that flushers and
vacuum-type motorized street cleaners are both quite effec-
tive in removing surface material and thereby reducing
emission rates from vehicles using the cleaned streets.
Because raw material accumulates rapidly on the streets, the
overall effectiveness of a street cleaning measure is a
function of the frequency of cleaning and the removal effi-
ciency of the equipment.
For plants with small amounts of paved roads, industrial
vacuum sweepers or contracted sweeping programs (such as
many shopping centers use) would be more appropriate than
the larger vacuum street cleaning equipment used on public
streets. Mechanical broom sweepers have been shown to be
ineffective from an air pollution control standpoint in that
they redistribute material into the active traffic lanes of
the streets and they remove almost none of the fine material
(less than 43 ym) that is subject to reentrainment.
Many street sweepers depend upon the material being
concentrated in the gutter in order to achieve good collec-
tion efficiency and therefore cannot be used on streets
without curbs and gutters. However, the smaller industrial
sweepers are usually designed for use in warehouse and
storage areas that are not curbed. A factor which might
limit the applicability of street flushers in plants is that
unpaved areas adjacent to the streets would be wet by the
water spray and then become subject to mud track-out onto
the streets by equipment and vehicles driving through these
areas.
2-28
-------
The initial cost of industrial sweepers is $10,000 to
$25,000, while the cost of municipal street cleaners is in
the range of $35,000 to $60,000. Annual operating costs for
street cleaning in industrial applications have been re-
ported at $22,000; the median 1975 operating cost for muni-
cxpal street cleaning in 105 cities was $4.40 per km ($7.00
per mi.) of street. '8
Good housekeeping practices include the rapid removal
of spills on roadways. Preventative measures include
covering of truck beds to prevent windage losses, cleaning
of truck tires and undercarriages to reduce mud track-out
onto paved roads, and minimizing the pick-up of mud by
trucks.
The paving of unpaved roadways is the most permanent of
the various types of controls. However, the degree of
effectiveness of this technique is highly dependent on
prevention of excessive surface dust loading. The initial
cost of paving is about $17,400 per km ($28,000/mi).8
Watering of unpaved roads is effective only when
carried out on a regular basis. The schedule depends on
clrmate, type of surface material, vehicle use and type of
vehicles.
Oiling unpaved roads is more effective than watering
and needs to be applied less often. However special pre-
cautions must always be taken so as not to add to surface
water runoff problems. Cost of oiling is estimated at
$1,500 per km ($4,500/mi).8
2-29
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.3
Dunbar, D.R. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Resuspension of Parti-
culate Matter, How Real is the Issue and What is the
Recommended Course of Action. February 26, 1976.
Draft (Unpublished).
Midwest Research Institute. Quantification of Dust
Entrainment from Paved Roadways. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-02-1403, Task Order No.
7. March 31, 1976.
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Supple-
ment No. 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Waste Management and Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. December, 1975.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Evaluation of
Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining, Task 1 Report
Identification of Fugitive Dust Sources Associated with
Mining. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory, Resource
Extraction and Handling Division, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prepared under Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task Order No.
36. April, 1976.
Nevada Particulate Control Study for Air Quality Main-
tenance Areas. Task B Report, Factors Influencing
Emissions from Fugitive Sources. PEDCo-Environmental
Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared under
Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 29. 1976.
Jutze, G. and K. Axetell. Investigation of Fugitive
Dust Volume I - Sources, Emissions, and Control.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared under Contract No. 68-02-0044, Task
Order No. 9. June, 1974.
2-30
-------
7. American Public Works Association. 1975 Survey of
PraCtl™« ™ ..™. cleaning. Chicago, Illinois? 1976
8. Fugitive Emissions Control Technology for Integrated
iron and Steel Plants. Draft. Midwest Research
Sf^Ut<^*f!??fe2 for U'S' Environmental Prot,
Carolina. January 17, 1977. -^angie Park, North
2-31
-------
2.1.4 Storage Piles
Description - Open or partially enclosed storage piles
are often used for bulk materials not affected by precipita-
tion or slight contamination, such as coal, sand, gravel,
clay, and gypsum. The material may be stored for a short
time with a high turnover rate to accommodate surges in
daily or weekly rates of sequential processes, or may pro-
vide a long-term reserve for emergency supply or to meet
cyclical seasonal demands.
Most dust arises from stockpile areas as the material
is dumped from the conveyor or chute onto the pile and as
bulldozers move the pile. During periods with high wind
speeds [greater than about 6 m/sec (13 mph)] or low mois-
ture, wind erosion of a non-weathered surface may also cause
emissions.
Emission Ranges - Fugitive dust emissions from the
storage area occur as a result of several activities.
According to sampling data compiled and evaluated by Midwest
Research Institute, the four major emission-producing
activities and their approximate relative contributions for
crushed rock storage are:
Loading onto piles 12%
Equipment and vehicle 40%
movement in storage area
Wind erosion 33%
Loadout from piles 15%
Although the percentage contributions from these activities
may vary for storage of different materials or for specific
storage area configurations, the same activities are prob-
ably the major dust sources for all types of open storage.
2-32
-------
Emission rates are dependent on the turnover rate for a
pile, methods for adding and removing material, and the pile
configuration. Also, the amount of wind erosion affects
emission rates. Typical values for a wide range of open
storage operations are summarized below:
Activity
rating
Active
Inactive
(wind ero-
sion only)
Normal mixc
cl -..._.
Emission factor3
By area
gm/1000
m2 of
storage/day
1.48
0.39
1.17
Ib/acre of
storage/day
13.2
3.5
10.4
By mass
kg/Mg
placed
in storage
0.21
0.055
0.165
Ib/ton
placed
in storage
0.42
0.11
0.33
Reliability rating of D.
Eight to 12 hours of activity per 24-hour period.
Five active days per week.
A correction factor is used to vary emission rates from
storage piles in different geographic areas: 1/(PE/100)2,
where PE is the annual precipitation-evaporation (PE) index.
A national map showing PE values for all parts of the
country is shown in Figure 2-1. The PE index is an approxi-
mate measure of average surface moisture.
The recent development of correction factors has lead
to refinement of these emission factors. These correction
factors account for such parameters as activity on and
around storage piles, silt content of material stockpiled
and, duration of storage.3 Table 2-6 presents a listing of
emission factor formulas and explanations of correction
factors and their use. Note that these formulas are preliminary
2-33
-------
to
I
U)
£>.
Figure 2-1. Map of. Thornthwaite1 s precipitation-evaporation
4
index values for state climatic divisions.
-------
NJ
I
(jJ
Ul
Table 2-6. STORAGE PILE FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTOR FORMULAS'
T
Operation
Loading onto piles = EF.
Vehicular traffic = EF
(around storage pile)
Loading out = EF.
Wind erosion = EF
Emission factor formulas'
kg/Mg
(0.02)(Ki)(S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
(0.065)(K2)(S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)^
(0.055)(S/1.5) _D
(PE/100)290
Ib/ton
(0.04)(Ki)(S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
(0.13)(K2)(S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
(0.05) (K3) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
(0.11)(S/1.5) _D
(PE/100)^90
Reliability rating of D.
Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index (PE) to be applied only to
bedding piles. -*
where;
ore
- Emission factor per unit weight of material transferred.
EF2 = Emission factor per unit weight of material stored.
EF3 = Emission factor per unit weight of material transferred.
EF4 = Emission factor per unit weight of material stored.
Kl,2,3 = ActivitY factor (see following discussion)
PE = Thornthwaite's precipitation-evaporation index.
S = Silt (<75 \im (200 mesh)) content of the aggregate material (percent)
D = Duration of material in storage (days).
-------
and therefore subject to further refinement and change when
test results become available.
The activity factors (K, 9 .,) developed for the above
j. r f. i j
formulas are all relative to the operations being performed
with a front-end loader. Thus if the device being used to
load onto piles, such as a stacker loader, appears to
generate less fugitive emissions, than would be generated by
a front-end loader, an activity factor K.^ of 0.75 would be
chosen. This (K, = 0.75) indicates that a stacker loader
generates only 75 percent of the emissions that a front-end
loader, would if performing the same function. The same is
also true for K factors for vehicular traffic around storage
piles and loadout of storage piles. For example, if a clam
shell is being used to load out a storage pile and appears
to generate only 50 percent of the fugitive emissions that a
front-end loader would, then a K factor of 0.5 could be
applied.
Examples of correction factors which have been developed
at example iron and steel plants are presented in Table
2-7.3 It must be remembered that these correction factors
are site specific and thus will vary from plant to plant and
industry to industry. These values are presented for illus-
trative purposes only; caution should be used when applying
factors for specific plants without studying the activity
levels and silt contents at that plant.
Inventory Techniques - Either the annual throughput
rate or the acreage of each storage operation should be
determined along with the silt content and activity factors.
The appropriate emission factor should be corrected to
reflect local climatic conditions.
2-36
-------
N>
Table 2-7.
Material
in storage
Coal
Iron ore pellets
Lump iron ore
Coke
Slag
Ore bedding
— — —
Mfsrt S nm Try^ 1 ?» 4- •» 1 -Ij-.
EXAMPLE CORRECTION FACTORS FOR STORAGE PILE EMISSION FORMUTAq3
Silt content (s)
(in percent)
a b
2-6
13
9
1.5
15
Activity factor
KI (loading)
0.75
0.75
0 75
0.85
1.00
1.00
K2 (traffic)
_
0.5
0.09
0.40
1.00
0.5
K_ (loadout)
0.75a - 0.8b
1.0
0.75
1.0 - 0.85
1.0
1.0
Duration of
storage (days)
30
30
30
Surge pile
30
High volatility coal.
-------
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Emissions from
the storage pile would be the same chemically as the mate-
rials in the pile. However,, the size distribution of emis-
sions is somewhat independent of the material, since only
the fines (less than 100 ym) become airborne. Typical
2
particle size ranges for the emissions are:
Size range
<3 ym
3-30 ym
>30 ym
Percent by weight
of emissions
30
23
47
Control Technology - Possible control technology appli-
cations for open storage piles are:
Emission points
Control procedures
Efficiency,
percent
Loading onto piles
Movement of pile
Wind erosion
Enclosure
Chemical wetting
agents or foamP
Adjustable chutes
Enclosure
Chemical wetting agents
Watering
Traveling booms to
distribute material
Enclosure
Wind screens
Chemical wetting agents
or foam
Screening of material
prior to storage, with
fines sent directly to
processing or to a
storage silo
70-99
80-90
75
95-99
90
50
no estimate
95-99
very low
90
no estimate
2-38
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-77-010
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Inunctions on the reverse before completing}
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process
Fugitive Particular Emissions process
7. AUTHOR(S)
George A. Jutze, John M. Zoller, Thomas A. Janszen
Robert S. Amick. Charles E. Zimmer. & RicharH w Gerstle
I. PERFORMING ORG-VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS W. ^erstle
PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Chester Towers, 11499 Chester Rd.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS ~~
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
Issued March 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
3155-GG
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO."
68-02-1375
Task 33
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
EinaL
4. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ~
U.S. EPA Project Officer - Gilbert H. Wood, Emission Standards and Engineering
™
Plans. For 24 selected ind rial caorl ^d!^1810"8 " St"6 I""lemei 'tatl°"
tion of sources; emission estimates examolp nl»T "" presented °" identifica-
control technology options"and a list^f I I inventory; emission characteristics;
Piled for each inlsL,
^
Integration of IPFPE impacts into the State Implementation
Iso covered. Procedures for development of control strategies
resented along with factors which influence the IPFPE
summarizes existing regulations applicable to IPFPE 8,
sources, and an evaluation of enforcement procedures.
~~ ' ' ™"
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
17.
Air Pollution Control
Dust
Industrial Processes
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Dispersion Modeling
State Implementation
Plans
Fugitive Dust, Particle
Size
rpppE
c. COSATI Field/Group
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport/
Available from National
Unlimited.
Unclassified
Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
C LASS (This page)
Unclassified
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
13B
11G
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:! 977 -7^0 -110/309 REGIONNO.4
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method for Indus-
trial Fugitive Emissions. Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. April
1976. Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-089a
D-13
-------
upwind site and from the nearest weather observation station
may provide some indication as to the extent changing
weather conditions are responsible for the day-to-day vari-
ations in the plant impact.
The upwind/downwind sampling program provides an indi-
cation of the total plant impact - conventional point sources
as well as IPFPE sources. In order to determine the impact
of only the IPFPE sources, it is necessary to subtract the
impact of the conventional point sources. An estimate of
the contribution of the conventional point sources under the
meteorological conditions that occurred during a given
sampling interval may be determined by the application of a
dispersion model.
D-12
-------
Tasks
Preparation of project plan
Preparation of monitoring equipment
Preparation of filter media
Initial field set up and checkout
Field monitoring program
Data reduction and analyses
Quality assurance program
Preparation of first draft reports
Preparation of final reports
Total man-hours
Personnel - Man-hours
Project Manager
16
4
20
8
48
Chemist
2
8
4
10
4
28
Sr. Tech.
20
8
80
20
8
10
146
Tech.
20
6
16
160
80
20
4
306
Figure 4. Staffing and manpower allocation,
-------
RESPONSIBILITY
This sampling program will require the efforts of five
people: a project manager, chemist, senior field techni-
cian, and two field technicians. Their responsibilities and
projected level of effort relative to the various tasks
involved for this test series are presented in Figure 4.
ANALYSIS OF RESULTING DATA
The field sampling program will provide a comparison of
upwind and downwind concentrations of ambient suspended par-
ticulates. Depending upon the occurrence of winds from the
west, such data should be available for up to 10 days. The
Texas Air Control Board stipulates in its regulation that to
be statistically significant, the minimum difference between
upwind and downwind concentrations should be as follows:
Minimum difference
Sample duration, for statistical significance,
hours yg/m3
1 400
3 200
5 100
It is expected that the difference between upwind and
downwind concentrations will vary from day to day. Based
upon the Texas regulation, and depending on the occurence of
wind from the west, it is likely that the plant impact may
be determined to be signficant on several days during the
sampling period. The day-to-day variation in the difference
between upwind and downwind concentrations may be related to
plant operations and/or meteorological conditions. Thus, it
is important to make a determination as to whether or not
differences in plant operations are sufficient to cause
significant differences in particulate emission rates.
Further, an analysis of meteorological data collected at the
D-10
-------
field test in the series. Eight specific activities are
defined over a projected 9-hour test period.
METHOD OF ANALYSES AND DATA REPORTING
The suspended particulate loading will be determined
according to the method described in the Code of Federal
Regulations 40, part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1975, pages
12 through 16. The particulate material on the exposed
filter will be equilibrated under the same temperature and
humidity conditions as experienced in weighing the unexposed
filters. The weight of the particulate material collected
on exposed filters will be determined gravimetrically. The
calculated TSP concentration is based on the net weight of
collected particulate and the sample air volume corrected to
standard conditions (760 mm Hg and 25°C). The suspended
particulate data will be reported on a separate data sheet
for each test in the series. This data sheet will include
the following information:
0 Date/time of sampling
0 Test series identification
9 Identification of the specific location of each
sampler
0 TSP concentration expressed in yg/m3.
In addition, the meteorological data for the specific study
period will be reduced and reported in SAROAD format.
Quality control procedures to be followed throughout
this test series are consistent with those defined in
"Quality Control Practices in Processing Air Pollution
Samples," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication
No. APTD-1132, and are on file in the agency office. After
all data have been reduced to SAROAD format, an independent
audit will be performed on 7 percent of all values reported.
D-9
-------
Activity
Set up of downwind monitoring
equipment
Calibration check of downwind
samplers
Set up of upwind monitoring
equipment
Calibration check of upwind
monitoring equipment
Sampling
Removal of samples and
meterological strip chart
Removal of sampling equipment
Preventive maintenance of
equipment
Time (hours)
1
••
••
2
iM
-
3
-
4
5
6
7
^
8
—
•i
9
until
Figure 3. Field test schedule.
D-8
-------
o
I
--J
Tasks
Preparation of monitoring equipment
Preparation of filter media
Initial set-up in field
Field monitoring program
Analyses of filter media
Data reduction
Preparation of first draft report
Review of report
Final report
1
^m
•
•
2
•••
•iH
^•1
3
••
^•i
4
^H
5
6
Working days
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?T
74
25
m^^m
Figure 2. Test program schedule.
-------
1) Two 3-KVA, 5-hp gasoline
2) One 1.5-KVA, 3-hp gasoline
0 Sampling van with covered bed
0 Power extension cords; five 100-ft cords of No. 12
wire with ground and exterior duplex receptacles,
two 50-ft cords of No. 14 wire with ground, and
exterior extension cords
0 Preweighed fiberglass filter media consisting of
100 filters, folders, envelopes, and data sheets
0 Three portable citizen-band radios
Facilities Required
The major facility used for this program is an analy-
tical laboratory equipped with a weighing room with constant
temperature and humidity and an analytical balance. The
weighing room must maintain a constant humidity in the range
of 30 to 50 percent with a maximum deviation of +2 percent
RH and a temperature controlled to +1°C in the range of 20
to 25°C. The analytical balance must be able to reproduce
within +0.5 mg for Class S weights and +3 mg for unexposed
equilibrated filters and +5 mg for exposed equilibrated
filters.
SCHEDULES
The entire test program schedule is presented in Figure
2. Ten specific tasks are defined and programmed over an
anticipated period of performance of 25 days. This schedule
allows ten working days for field monitoring. However, this
period may turn out to be much shorter if the desired meteo-
rological conditions are observed relatively early in the
program. Also, the desired conditions may not be observed
at all and therefore the time period may have to be extended.
Additionally, Figure 3 presents an activity schedule to be
used by the supervisory field technician in conducting each
D-6
-------
Monitoring Instrumentation
The two basic measurements required for the successful
completion of this task are the measurement of wind speed/
direction and the total suspended particulates in the
ambient air.
Meteorological Monitoring - wind speed and direction
will be monitored using a Bendix Aerovane meteorological
system, complete with recorder and tripod.
This equipment is described as follows:
Bendix Aerovane Transmitter Model 120 with six
bladed rotor
Bendix Aerovane Recorder Model 144 with wind speed
**
Aerovane Transmitter Support (14.5 feet high)
Cable, Seven-Conductor (50 feet)
Mast Adaptor for Mounting Transmitter
Total Suspended Particulate Monitoring - Total suspend-
ed particulates will be collected with a high-volume air
sampler, as described in the Code of Federal Regulation 40,
Part 50.11, Appendix B, July 1, 1975, Pages 12 through 16.
Specifically, five samplers are required, which will be
equipped with the following alternative equipment:
Dixon flow recorders
0 Running time meters
0 Quick-change filter cartridges
Monitoring Support Equipment
Support equipment to be used is listed below:
High-volume air sampler calibration kit
0 Three motor generators:
D-5
-------
is required for conventional and fugitive particulate
sources.
INSTRUMENTATION, EQUIPMENT, AND FACILITIES REQUIRED
The upwind/downwind monitor configuration will consist
of a monitoring site at the upwind plant fence line, includ-
ing one high-volume air sampler and a recording meteorologi-
cal system. On the downwind side of the source, near the
property line, four high-volume air samplers will be located
parallel to the fence line at intervals of 61 meters (200
ft). The upwind site will employ a small generator to power
the single sampler and the meterological station; the other
sites will require two larger motor generators for electri-
cal power. One generator is necessary for each two downwind
samplers. The generator is placed between a pair of sam-
plers with 30 meter (100 ft) power lines to each sampler.
Three field technicians will perform the tests, one at each
generator location. Whenever the wind direction is verified
to be generally from the west (270 degrees + about 20 de-
grees) , the technician at the meterological control site
will contact the other technicians via radio and initiate
sampling. Each sampling period should be as long as prac-
ticable, during which the wind direction will be monitored
to determine whether it persists from the desired direc-
tional sector. A decrease in flow rates of more than 10
percent on the downwind samplers indicates that sufficient
sample has been collected, and the test period will be
terminated. The above program will be repeated several
times with the objective of observing optimum conditions of
speed and directional persistence of the wind. Also, it is
hoped that various source operational conditions will be
observed.
D-4
-------
O
I
CO
ioos,o_
I
LOCATION
OF UPWIND
SAMPLER
TUCK HKPING
CKBUfH. SCREEHER
1004.750 -
\
\ OPEN
FLAT
TERRAIN
PAVCO MXO
~l
KEY:
A HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER
D GENERATOR
+ METEOROLOGICAL STATION
LOCATION OF
4 DOWNWIND
SAMPLERS
OPEN
FLAT
TERRAIN
Figure 1. Upwind/downwind sampler locations for cement plant.
-------
ducted to estimate the impact of fugitive particulate emis-
sions from the ABC Portland Cement plant on ambient air
quality at locations adjacent to the plant property.
GENERAL TEST APPROACH
The visual observation of uncontrolled and/or fugitive
particulate emission sources at the ABC Portland Cement
plant indicates that the following sources are probably
responsible for causing the major air quality impact on
adjoining private property:
0 Raw materials storage
0 Clinker storage roof monitors
0 Quarry activities
The approach presented in this example is idealized in that
only minor constraints have been placed on the resources and
time allocated. In actual application, practical considera-
tions may well dictate or permit reductions in both re-
sources (personnel and equipment) and sampling period.
Based on the plant configuration (Figure 1), and the fre-
quency distribution of wind directions in the area, a single
high-volume sampler will be positioned west (upwind) of the
plant fence line and four samplers along the east (downwind)
fence line. Figure 1 depicts the proximate location of
these samplers, as well as the physical plant layout, loca-
tion of paved roads, and local topographic features.
Sampling periods will be selected so as to be repre-
sentative of both routine and maximum operating conditions
if at all possible. ABC plant management has agreed to keep
a record of in-plant operating activity during the periods
selected for sampling. By correlating the measured particu-
late levels with source-related activities, the agency will
be able to determine if and where emissions reduction/control
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE UPWIND/DOWNWIND TEST PLAN
(FOR HYPOTHETICAL CEMENT PLANT)
BACKGROUND
The ABC Corporation operates a Portland Cement plant at
11555 Portland Highway. This facility produces Portland
Cement Clinker with a dry process. The product material is
stored in silos for eventual transfer to other corporate
facilities producing precast components for construction
purposes. Production was started at this facility in June
1975, and since that date the local air pollution control
agency has investigated 14 citizen complaints dealing with
alleged damage/soiling of private property caused by exces-
sive emissions of particulate matter from plant operations,
materials storage, and quarrying. Additionally, the agency
operates an air quality monitoring station approximately 0.8
kilometer due east of this facility. Evaluation of total
suspended particulate (TSP) measurement data from this
location (Site No. 017-11) indicates the following:
(a) Both the annual geometric mean and maximum 24-hour
levels of TSP are projected to exceed their
respective NAAQS levels.
(b) Both microscopic and chemical analyses of the
materials collected on the high-volume sampler
filters indicate the presence of considerable
quantities of particulate matter characteristic-
ally emitted from fugitive particulate sources
associated with Portlant Cement production.
Therefore, a series of measurements obtained by the
upwind/downwind technique, as described in "Technical Manual
for Measurement of Fugitive Emissions: Upwind/Downwind
Sampling Method for Industrial Emissions,"1 will be con-
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE UPWIND/DOWNWIND TEST PLAN
(FOR HYPOTHETICAL CEMENT PLANT)
-------
171
-i72-
173
J-Ti-
ns
_1 7£
177~
JL78
179"
18U
H30 A1 = 2 ./EXP«C6>
480 if (CS-StL.MS..
~
-------
115
117
i"18
119
1ZU
121
CA = /-H
C0
C3
~C1
If
= 2*H
= CA. CA/C2
= C8»CB/C2
IC3-50. 160t80i80
60
AZ=l./EXPlC3»
JF I C 1- 50 . I 9C t l
~
123
121
12L
126
127
_.
90"
110
120
_
2. »."H!
129
13U
131
_
THL V
_AN =A N_» !._
A* "= 0 ".
AS =_0_.
~K~ = b .
A7 _=_0 .
"C5 = A"N«THL
PC = C A- C5
132
_133
131
135
CB-C5
C At C5
" C BV C5
136
137
138
139_
' 1 "10
_111
142"
113
CO =
Ct =
CF~ =
C6_= CC*CC/C2
"~C7 = CD«CD"/C2
C8 = CE*CE/C2
~ra~= cr.cr/c~r
If (C6- 5C . ) 13 P. 150.150
"130 M"ri./Cx>iCGI~
150 Jf IC7-5U .I160»180.J18U_
~i£'d"AS'=l"."/"EXPrC7 r
180 if IC8-5U. I 190.210. 210
111
L?5_
"116
_117_
1 18
119
TscT
151
"I"52~
153
~T&t~
155
~rsr
130 Agrl./EXPICS )
21 o if icj»- sc. rtzq.210.210
"22 0 "A7 ri ./EX P ( C9")
21U U A1+A 5+ A6 + A 7
"SUMrSUK*T"
Jf ( T-0. 01 12 SO .120,120
~25 0 RC =A~1» ( A 2+ A3 +S UK I
" RETURN
C CALCULATE
Sftr-AT"="l"^"l
A2_=_JJ ^
C2 : 2 -«S/«:
Cl - H *H /C 2
RC XI 13 Cq
"RCXI iVoa
RC XI 15 Op
"Rcxi"i§ob~
RCX117DO
"''™
RCX11900
"RCXI 20 bo"
_RC XI 21 OQ
RC XI 22 00
_B.c xi 23_og_
RC XI 21 00
RCXI 25^ 00
~Rcxizeba
RCJ(1 27 CO
"
RC XI 29 00
MULTIPLE EDUY R IF LE CT 10 fti FOR GROUND LEVEL REOTPTOR
"" '
RC XI30 00
_RCX131CD
RC XI32 00
RCXI 33 00
~ RCX~13100
RCXI 35 00
~RC"xr3brOB
_RCX137CD_
"RCXI 3800
_RCX139CO^ _
RC XI ib 00
_RCX111LCp
RC X112 00
_RCX113 00
RCX11400
RCX115 00
" RCX11600
_ RC XI H7 00 _
Rcxi'iaaf
RC xi 19 oo
"RCX15DQO
H RC XI 51 00
" RC XI 52 00 "
RC XI 53 CD
""Rc xi 54"tS—
RC XI 55 Qo
" RCX15&CO""
RC XI 57 O2
HL
RC XI 53 Oa
IbZ
163
AN z AN
At = 0 .
RC XI 61 CD
165
167
168
_1 69
i"7U~
c> = AN.THL
~CC" "=" H -C 5
CE = H + C5
" CU~f~C"Ci"CC7C 2
_C3 = CE«CE/C2
if lCb-50.r'l30, 480,480
RC XI 63 00
RCX16SOO
RCXI 66 00
RCyi67CO_
RC XI 68 Do
C-23
-------
57
58
59
60
61
6Z
63
65
6G
68
69
70
71
72
73
75
76
77
78
80
81
82
Cl = 1 .
if 1 Yl 5. HO Ot 5
5YDrlCOO. «Y
c vp is rnn^UTNO DISTANCE IN METERS.
DUM = YD/SY
TFMP - O.S«DUM«DUM
O- (TEMP -50, )6 t3Ut30
6 n - EXPITEMP»
HCO iFCKST-HlHOlt HO.itH03
HOI JF (HL-5000.)7.H03»H03
C IF SI ABLE CONDITION OH UNLIMITED MIXING HEIGHTt
C USE EUUATION 3.2 IF Z = 0, OR EQ 3.1 FOR NON-ZERO Z.
HO 3 C2 - 2 .»SZ*SZ
IF CZ 130, HOH.H06
HO H C3 - H »H /C Z
IF 1C3-5C.IHQ51 30t30
HO 5 A2= l./"EXP(C3)
c WADE EUUATION 3.2.
RC_=iA2/<3.mi59.U.SY.SZ.Cll
RETURN
HO 6 A2 ~ 0 .
A3 : 0 .
CA = Z-H . .-
CB = Z+H
Ot = CB*CB/C2
RCX055CO
RC XO 56 00
RCX05700
RC XO 59 DO
RC_XO_6Q_CQ_
RC XO 61 CO
RCX06300
RCX06HUO
RCXUBbtB
RCX06CCC
RCX06700
RC XO 68 00
RC XO 69 00
RCX07000
RCX07100
RCX072CO
RC XC 73 00
RC XC 7H 00
RC XO 75 00
RC XO 76 00
RCXd7700
RCX07800
RCX07903
RCX08CCO
RCXDalCO
"85
_8g_
87
88
~8«f
_?°_
91
33
9'l_
95
96
97"
_JF ICSr 5p.lH07_f I08t HO f£ (919) 549-8411 EXT 4564RCX00500
MAILING ADDRESS- DM. EPA, RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 RCX006CO
• ON ASSIGNMENT FROM NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC RCXUD7CU
ADMINISTRATION. DE PA KI Mt NT 0 F COMMERCE . RCX00800."
SUBROUTINE OBTRCX CALCULATES CHI/ Q CONCENTRATION VA UJ ES . DB TR CX RC XO 09 00
CALLS UPON SUBROUTINE DB TS IB TO OBTAIN STANDARD DEVIATIONS. RCX'UIOCC
THE INPUT VARIABLES AWE.... RCX01100
U MIND SPEtD (M/SEC) ' RCX01200 "~
Z RECEPTOR HEIGHT (Ml RCX01300
H EFFECTIVE STACK HEIGHT |M) " RCXO 14 00
HL=L HEIGHT OF LIMITING U D (M ) RCX015DO
X DISTANCE RECEPTOR IS DOWN WIN) OF SOURCE (KM) RCXOlfaCO """
XY X4VIRTUAL DISTANCE USED FOR AREA SOURCE A PP RO X. « KM J RCX0170D
Y DISTSWE BECEPTOR IS CROSSWJND FROM SOURCE (KM) RCX0180Q
KST STABILITY CLASS RCXO 19 00 '
THE OUTPUT VARIABLES ARE. .. . ~ . " RCXO 20 06
AN THE NUMBER OF TIMES T >C SUMMATION TERM B EVALUATED RCX021CC
, AND ADDED IN. ' ' RCXG22D3
RC RELATIVE CONCENT* AT 3D N (SEC/M«»3) RCX02300
THE FOLLOWING EQUATION IS SOLVED ~ 'RCXa240£J
RC r ll/( 2»PI»U»S10MA Y»SJGMA Z )) • C XP 1-0. 5» (Y/S B3MA V 1* .2 » 1 RCXti2<;nn
(EXP 1-0. 5«((Z-Hj/siOMA Zl.»2> « EXP< -0 .5»C tZ+H >/ SI GM A 2) »»2| RCXO 26 CO
PLUS THE SUM Of THE RJLLOWING 4 TERMS K TIMES (N =1 .K ) — RCXD27Qn.
TERM 1- EXPI-U.5»<( *-H-2NL) /S IGMA /)*»2) "" "" RCXO 28 00
TERM 2- EXP(-tl. 5»(( i* H-2ND/SIGHA Z)»»2) RCX0290Q
IERM 3- EXPI-U. 5»l( Z-H*2NL) /S 3D MA ^)«i2) RCX03000 ~ '
TERM 4- EXP(-0.5»(I Z+ H» 2ND /SIGMA Z)»«2) RCX03100
THE ABOVE EQUATION IS SIMILAR TO ES UA f I ON (5.8) P 3 6 IN ' RCX032CQ ~
WORKBOOK OF ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION ESTIMATES WITH THE AD DI TI ON RC XQ 3? m
OF THE EXPONENTIAL INVOLVING Y. " ' " " RC'XDMOO
IWRI IS CONTROL COD t FOR OUTPUT RCX03500
IF THE SOURCE IS ABOVE THE LID. SETRC=0. .IND RETURN. RCXO 3700
Ji- i tt-HL uui tju^.jut ~ - - - - RCXD"3B"OD
302 IF (Z-HD300.300.30 RCX03900
304 if t Z-HU)3Ur306. 306 ' ' " - " RcXO"*TCB
*06 WITEdURI. 3071 RC XQ 4l 03
3U7 FORMAT i 1HO, 'BOTH H AND L ARE ABOVE THE WtXlNG HEIGHT SO A R EL lA BL RC Xd~42"Bo
IE COMPUTATION CAN NOT BE M AD E. •> RCX04303
^Ju HC^J. . , ' RCXOWOO
Hi TuRN . RCXQ4500
If x is LESS THAN 1 MtTtflt SET RC^J. AND RETuT* . THIS AVOIDS RcX&TfeCQ
PROBLEMS OF INCORRECT VALUES NEAR THE SOURCE. Rcxo470o
MO it ix-o J3oii3n.3iu.3iu . RCXQ4800
CALL DBTSIG TO OBTAIN VALUES FOR SY AND SZ . RCX049QD
310 CALL DBTSIG (X .X Y.KST, SY .SZ) RCXO"50"Ou"
SY.= SIGMA Y. THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF CONCENTRATION IN THE RCX05100
Y- DIRECT ION (M) ' RCXO 52 00
SZ = SIGMA Z. THE STANDARD DEVIATION OF CONCENTRATION IN THE RCX0530C
Z-DIRECTION (M) RCX054CO'"
g^- SORT(SY**2 + SYN**2'\
SZ - SqRT(SZ**2 + SZN**2)
C-21
-------
000227
UJC228
UJC229 '
1X10230
UJU231
OU02.J2
. 1X10233
1X10234
OUC235
U00236
UU0237
UUC238
UUC239
00 02 40
000211
1X10212
000213
CXI 02 Ml
UJ0245
1X1021)6
UU0247
000248
UOC249
00 02 50
UUU251
OUD252
000253
DO 02 54
1X0255
000256
OUD257
000258
000259
OU0260
U002E1
000262
OU0263
00 02 64
00 02 65
000266
OOUZ67
OU0268
OOCC69
HJC27U
010271
00 02 72
000273
OUQ274
000275
OUC276
000277
000278
OU0279
00028U
000281 '
UOQ282
00 02 83
" Ofl4
004
004
004
004
CO 4
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
UU4
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
HP = 1
120 ML r MF + 5
IF«J-ML|130tl4Ut 150
130 ML - J
mo NO DM = z
C WRITE OUTPUT TABLE
C WRITE PARTIAL CONCENTRATIONS DEPENDING UPON C Oi TR CL . KN
CO TO (16U.180I.KNTKL
160 GOTO (161.162I.LDUM
161 URITEI IWRI. 6051
605 FORMATCO S HFIN PARTIAL CONCENTRATIONS (G/M»*3lV)
DO 170 ID = It I
170 WRITE! IWRI .610)10. HF II 3D It (PCONI ID ODI ijDz* .ML)
610 FORMATI* • iI2t F6 .0 .2)<. JP 6E 10 .3 1
GOT0130
162 URITEI IWRI. 1631
163 FORI-ATfO S' tlOX t -PART » L CONCENTRATIONS ( 6/ M* *3 )• /)
0017110=1.1
171 WRITE! IURI .172 )ID. IP CON! ID .JO) tj 0= (f iMLI
172 FORMAT C • tI2t 8X tlP6El 0. 3)
180 WRlTEllWRI.615)
blS FORMAT (1HD.12X. 'TOTAL 00 NC EN TR AT ID' N IO/M««3)V)
WRITEI IWRI. 62QMTCONIJD) iJ 0 = tf .H LI
6,20 FORMAT (• • . 10X. IP 6t IE J )
CO TO (190i705>.NOUM
190 MF = ML + 1
GO TO 120
70 5 CO TO 1 5 5. 60 ) • LD UH
55 KDUM=KDUM«1
IFIKDUM.LE.K) GO TO 82 8
C AVERAGE CONCENTKAtl(NS FO R TI ML PERIOD.
702 DO 703 JDUM = It J
TCONIJOUM) = STC6N IJDUMJ At
DO 703 IDUM = 1.1
703 PCON IIOUM, JOUM) = Sp Co Nl S)UM iJ Oj H) ft.
C . WRITE SUMMARY HEADItG.
WRITE (IW|!l.710) K
710 FORMAT (//• AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS FOR MS.' HOiRS.«)
LDU« = 2
C GO BACK AND WRITE AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS.
Co TO 704
60 WRITE! IWRI. 849)
849 FORCATI/' ENTER "SOURCES' OR -RECEPTORS- OR "M EJ EO RO LO GY "
• V « ?• )
ITR=2
READ IIRD .HUOINS
IFINS. EQ.NSOUR.OR. NS^Q. LSOURJ G OT 08 02
IF(NS. EQ.NRECE.OR.NS^Q. LRECE> G OTOai6
IFINS. EO.NMETE.OR.NS.EQ. LMETE> GOT 0319
ST OP
END
HTP21SD3
MTP217CO
MT Pi 18 00
MT P2 13 CO
MT P2 2D 00
MTP22100
MTP22200
MT Pi 23 00
MTP22400
MTP22500
MTP22600
MT Pi 27 00
TRLtl. DOMTP22800
MTP22900
MTP23000
MTP23100
MTP23200
MT Pi 33 00
MT >2 34 00
MTP23500
MTP23600
MTP23700
MT P2 38 00
MT Pi 33 00
MT P2 40 QG
MTP24100
MT P2 42 DO
MTP24300
MYP2 4*1 CO
MT P2 45 00
MTP24600
MTP24700
MT P2 48 CO
MT P2 49 00
MTP250UO
MTP2510C
HTP252U
MTP25300
HTP2WDO
MTP25SOO
MTP256CO
MTP25700
MT P2 58 CO
MTP25900
MTP2EOUO
MTP26100
HTP26200
MTPi6jOo
OR "END" MT Pi: 64 OQ
MT P2 65 CD
MTP266DO
MTP26700
MTP26300
MT P2 69 00
MT P2 70 00
MTP27100
MT P2 72 00
C-20
-------
QUO. 71
UJ01 73
U00175
_000177
000.79
oumei
OOCl 83
oo mas •
ourn.87
OUD189
000190
OUU191
00 111 92
000.93
'UODIPS
OL01q7
OCD1Q9
UC U2 01
OC0203
UUO2C5
00021)7
CL 02 09
00 02 1C
UO C2 11
UUC213
OOU215
CUC216
UCU217
U00219
DC 02 21
lit U2 22
UCIU22J
ULU22S
004
004
004
004
004
004
OQ4
QC4
004
004
U04
004
004
01)14
004
aau
004
004
004
004
004
UQ4
O04
004
C04
C04
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
UQ4
OU4
UC4
004
OU4
004
004
004
QC4
828 TDUM r THETAIKDUM) • 0 .0174539
SI NT = S INI TDUM)
COST = COSITDUM) •
__£. ZERO CONCENTRATION STORAGE LOCATION-;.
DO 70 JOUM = 1,J •
TCONtJDUM) - 0.
DO 70 IDUM = lil' ""
70 PCON (IDUM.JDUM) r 0.
C CALCULATE FOR ALL SOURCES.
DO 110 ID = It I
IFITSI (lU)-T(KDUM) .GT. 0. » GO TO 9J 1 '
WRlTE( IWKI,57S8>
S758 FORMAT (• CALCULATION TERMINATED. STACK GA b TE H? .
GUI 060
901 KEH = 1
HFI«ID)=0. ~
__£ CALCULATE FOR AIL R tC (P TO tff .
DO 110 JD r l,j '-
R = RUII IDI - BHFC.ii.n i
S = SUKID) - SRECJIJC) ~
— C : PETERHINE OQW^WING DISTANCE.
X r S*COST * R»SINT
lFtXlllOillOi75
c DETERMINE CROSSHIUP DISTANCE ~
75 Y : S»STNT - R.COST
GO TO lSC>9S)f KEH "
— C ESTyMATr PLUME RISE USIuG B Hi GG S' .
80 CALL BEH072 (HF. HX t H MW f ,D EL HF ,U E TF iDELHXTHPI 110)
1 tnltID) .VflllD) .KSTIKDUM) .UIKOUM) ,X.D1HD^,T IKDUM)
KEH = 2 l
HFK TO) = HF
XFKID) r DISTF —
1FIX-DTSTF 185 1 85 .90
8 5 H = HX
GU TO 105
90 H - HF —
GO TO 105
95 IFIX-XFIlID) UUU.99. 99
99 H=HFI< ID )
COT01C5
100 CALL EEH072 1 HF. HX . H«W .F ,D ELHF ,D IS TF .UEL HX .H PI (I D)
1 '01 |I[j) .VFIIID) .KST IKDUM) .UIKDUK) .X.OTHD/.T (KDUM)
H — HX
C ESTIMATE RELATIVE C CN CEN I RA TI ON < CHI/0).
1U5 CALL DBTRCX ( U (K DU M) ,2. Jt JD 1 , H. K. (K DUM ) ,X ,X ,Y .K ST (K
PUM r RC » UK ID )
PCONlIDfJDl - DUM •
SPCOH(JD.JO) = SPCONlID. JD) + DU M
TCON(JU) = TCCNIJD ) » DUM
STCON(JD) r MCONIJOI + DUM
110 CONTINUE
IFIKHRLr .GT.l) GOT055
704 NO UK = 1 — ~
MT PI 59 00
MT PI &1 DO
MT PI 63 00
MT PI 65 00
MT PI 67 00
HT PI 69 00
NT PI 71 00 '
LE AMBIENT AIR ThTP17JOG
HT PI 75 00
KT PI 77 00
. MT PI 78 00
MT PI 79 00
— MTP1 BODG
MT PI 81 00
MTP1&50D
— 8LEi_85_QO^
MTP185CO
ftr.Pl 86 DC
M f PI 87 00
>TSI (ID) .VSIIID) MTP1 83 OC
MT PI 91 CO
M" PI 93 00
MT PI 95 00
MT PI 96 00
MT PI 97 CO
Ml PI 98 CO
MTP1990C
MT P2 01 00
• TSI (ID) .VSI (ID) MTPi 02 00
• P ) MTP20JOO
MT P2 04 00
MTP2D500
DUM) .AN.M.SY.SZ. MTP2G60C
MT PZ 08 00
MT P2 09 00
MT Pi 11 OC
MT P2 12 00
MT P<: U CO
MT °2 15 00
C-19
-------
ou m w
oo a is
uuttie
ouQi7
uuu is
uuiai9
UUO. 20
UO Ol 21
UOU122
UUC123
OU G124
UUU125
UUC127
UU 10.23
LU 0129
OU Q. 3C
(JUO.31
UU 0132
UuLO.^3
OU 01 34
UU to. 35
UUU 26
UU a 38
UU LI 33
UOU14U
UU U141
00 IB. 42
UU10.43
UU C144
UUU. 45
UUU146
UU 0147
UU0148
UU Ul 49
OUQ150
• oo a Ji
OUU1S2
UOU.53
UU Q 54
UUU1 5S
OUC15C
UOU157
UUC1S8
UUC1E,9
UU U. 6L
UU Old
UUU162
UU 0163
UU Ul C4
UUIS.65
UOU1 66
UUU. 67
CO Ul 68
Utia 69
061
001
004
OQ4
U04
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
CC4
004
004
004
004
004
004
U04
004
OU4
004
QU4
00 b
OC4
004
00 b
CO 4
UU4
007
007
OC'6
004
004
DC 6
008
OC4
U04
004
004
OC4
004
004
004
004
U04
Ub4
004
004
004
004
004
OU4
004
004
80 U WRIT EllWRI. 8261
•26 FORMAT!* DO YOU WANT PARTIAL CONCENTRATIONS PR Ol Z 0? YES
KNTRL=2
READ (IRD>200)NS
IFINS.EU .NALYES.OK .NS. EQ J.ALYES) K NTRL=I
KH RL fc 2
WRITE! IWRI .8 27)
827 FORMATI' DO YOU WANT HOjRLY CONCENTRATIONS PRINTED? YES
* M
READ IIRD.200)NS
IF INS. EU. NALYES.OK .NS. fa J.ALYESI KH?LY=I
D0701JOUM;!, J
STCONIJDUK)rO.
D070ilOUM=l.I
701 SPCONI IOUM.JOUM) =0 .
LD UM =1
•JRITEI IWRI .830IALP
830 FORMAT I//' '.16A4/)
WRITE! IWRI .357 »
857 FORMAT!' MULTIPLE SOURCE MODEL D bT 51 • VERSION 75128' /)
WRITE! IWRI .831)
831 FORM ATI' *»*iOURCES**»*)
WRITE! IWRI, 832)
832 FORfATI' NO ' ,6X •• U' .7 Xt *H P' .6 X, 'TS« .bX, 'VS' i7 X, -0 • > 6X ••
» 'R ', 8X t«S« .4X. 'SYNAUT jj X. *SZM AUT'_ 1
WfUTEl IWRI, 8331
833 FORMATC ' «5X , «( G/SE C) (M) ID EG K) 1 W SE C) I M)
» (KM) (KML (H) 1 Ml '/ )
C0838NS=1> I
GOTO 1834 .8 36), IV F
834 WRITE! IWRI .835 INS. Ul (NS) .H PI (N SI «T SI (N S) .V FI IN S» tR QI IN S)
• SYNAUT IN!>) ,S?NAUT(NS L
835 FOR""!!' • >I3,F9 .2 .<:F8 J. •! 6X .F » It 2F 9. 3. IX .F B. 1, 4X tF6. 1)
OR NO*/ • MTP104QC
MT PI Oi OC
MT Pi 06 00
MT PI 07 00
MT PI Od CO
MT PI Ob 00
MT PI 10 oo
OR NO'/* 7MTP1UOO
MT PI 12 CO
MT PI 15 00
MT Pi 14 00
MT PI IS CO
MT PI 16 00
MT Pi 17 LC
MT PI 13 00
MT PI 19 DO
MT PI 20 CO
MT Pi 21 00
KTP122CO
MTP12jOO
MT Pi 24 00
MT Pi 25 00
MT PI 26 00
VF'.SXi MTPi270C
HT Pi 29 OB
1M«»3/SEC) HT PI 3D 00
MT Pi 32 00
MTPi330C
.501 INS) , MTP13400
CO TO 83 8 n i ri J*> uu
836 WRITE! IWRI .837 INS. (U INS) .H PI INS) .T SI INS) .V SI INS) ,D 11 NS )• VF II NS ), MTP13700
• RfiTiNSI.5(iI(N<; lj_SVMAUT (N 5) «SJN All 11 N!; J
837 FORM ATI* • >I3. F3 .1 >4 F8 .1 >F 9. 1, 3-' 3. J, IX ,F G. li 4X >F 6. 1)
836 CONTINUE
WRIT El IWRI .8 39)
839 foRMAtl/4 • « • HE C E PT 0 RS «• *•)
WRITE! IWRI .8 401
84 U FORM ATI* NO KK EC SKEC* '7 X, *Z *l
WRITE! IWRI .841)
84i FORMAT (• * «2X, 21 bx •• (KM) •> .sx, •( M) •/ )
D0842NS=1, J
842 WnllE! IwKl<843)NS,KKEC J( NS)>SREC J! NS ),/J INS)
843 FORMATC ' .I3.2F9. i,F8 .1 >
WRITE! IWKI >844 I
844 FORMAT I/' *• *MET EOROLOGY* » «•)
WRITCI IWRI .845)
845 FORMAT!' NO THETA',6X»'U K ST \H. T' )
WRITE! IWRI, 8461
846 FORMAT !' * «6X, '! L€G) ( M/ SE C) ', 7X ,' (M ) (DEC K) V )
D0847HS=1,K
847 WRITE! IWRI ,848 )NS. TH ETA! NS > , Ul tS ), KSTl NS ) • H. INS) >T INS)
848 FORMAT!' ' , 13, 2F 8. 1. IS ,2 f8 .0 )
Mr PI 4o uo
MTP14100
MT PI 43 Do
MT PI 44 00
MT Pi 45 00
MT Pi 46 CO
MT PI 47 00
MT PI 48 00
MTP14900
MT PI 50 00
MT Pi 51 00
MT Pi 52 00
MT PI 5i CO
MT PI 54 CO
MT PI 55 OC
HTP15GOC
MT PI 57 00
MT PI 53 CO
C-18
-------
UOOCiE
UUUC5T
UUOU 53
OOOCb9
uuuoeo
UC OC bl
UUUCE3
000064
OUOC65
U00067
UOOU69
OU U37U
000371
UU0073
UUCQ75
OJ0076
OU0077
UOOC73
L-UD079
(JO 00 80
OUOL81
OLCU82
UOOC83
UUOU 84
UUCQBS
UUOU8E
UUC088
OOOG89
IXIOC9C
uo on 91
LUOU92.
DUCC93
000094
OuOU95
COCC96
OUCD97
OUOU98
uu uc; 99
OUOlLlO
OUU101
CC01U2
WJL103
UU Ux L4
0001U5
UUU106
uticau7
UOULL8
UU (11 O'J
1X313.10
UUUlll
oum.12
004
OU4
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
OU4
OOb
004,.
006
C04
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
UC4
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
OC4
004
004
UC4
004
UU4
004
004
READ II RD ,9999) IV SI INS) «N S=lt I) ~ ~
WRITE! IWRI, 809)
809 FORMAT!' ENTER DIAMETER (M ) OF E AC H STACK') ' "
READ (IRD ,9999) (DKNS >. Ni=l,I )
D0810JDUM=1,I ~
810 VFK JDUM1-0.785398»VSI (JOUM)»D U J3 UM >«DI IJ CO M)
GOT0813 '
811 WRITE! IWKI ,812)
812 FORMAT!' ENTER VOLUME FLOW ( M* »3 /S EC ) FOR EACH STACK')
READ IIRD ,9999) IVFI INS) ,N S= 1,1)
/3144 FCH"AIC tNTLR INITIAL HORIZONTAL DISPERSION COEFFICIENT •
I RE AU II KD >'J999) (SYNAUTC Mi l.NSzl ,1 1
I iinj^TE! IWKI ,31Sb) '
\ 3155 FCKMATC ENTER INITIAL VERTICAL DISPERSION COEFFICIENT •
\ RE AU (IRQ .9999 ) (S2MAUT( NS ), NS~1 ,1 )
B14 FORMAT!' ENTER COOKDINATES ( KM 1 rF FACH <;TAf!k- n> pf RF 0 PAIRS')
READ (IRD ,9999) (KUI (NS) ,S UI IMS) ,N S: 1,1)
816 WRITE! IWKI, 815)MAXH
815 FORMAT!' ENTER NUMBER
-------
U.TCT7 RL1870 04/0 b- It 11 6: 53-t 8. )
00 DC 01'
uu ua 02
OOCQL3
OUCCU4
UUOCUS
OOOCU6
0)001)7
uumus
UUOOC9
UUU010
00 It 11
UUUC 12
UICE13
OUUC14
UUU315
uoaiie
UUUQ17
uuouia
OliOC 19
UUOC2C
DUO; 21
uucce::
000,23
00 CO 24
"00 CD 25
UOOC2G
000027
UO 00 13
LU 00 2irE( IWKI .303 JM AXU
803 FOKNATI" ENTER NUMBER OT SOUHC& TO BE CONSIDEHED. M AX %t 13 I
READ (IRD iSa^S) I
a 99 9 FO KM AT ( )
IF (I .LT. l.OR.I .OT. MAXQ ) GOT08O2
URITE( IWHI .804 )
804 FQRMMC ENTER SOURCE STRENGTH (G/SEC) FOR EACH STACK')
RE AD (IKO i'39a9) (a I( NS 1. N'j ^1 .1 )
W[UTEI IWRI«a05 )
805 FcRl-ArC ENTER PHYSICAL HLIGHT ( M) OF EACH STACK")
RE AD (IRD «99a9) (HPI (NS) .N Sr 1, I)
Uf;lTE( IWHI ,806)
806 FQRrATC ENTER GAS TEMPERATURE ( CE G K) OF EACH STACK')
REAO (IRO fJlJ93) (TS1 (NS) .NS=1, I)
IV f- 1
W}jrE( IWRI .807 )
807 FORKATC is VOLUME FLOW KNOWN FOR EACH STACK? YES OR NO*/' ?•
RE AO IIRD .2UO)NS
IF ( NS. EU .NALYES.OR.NS. £0 .L AL YE Si G OT 08 11
IVF=2
WRITE( IHRI .808 1
808 FORMAT!" ENTER GAS VELOCITY IM /S EC ) FOR EACH STACK*)
MT PO 07 00
4S64MTPOD800
MTP003CO
MT PO 10 00
MT PQ U DO
MT PO 12 00
MT PO lJ 00
MT PC 14 00
MTPD150C
MT PO 16 DC
MT PQ 17 CO
MT PC 18 00
MTPOiaOC
MT PO 20 00
MT PC 21 00
MT PO 22 00
MT PO 23 00
MTHQ 24 DC
MT PO 25 00
MT PO i£00
MTP02700
MT PC 2800
MT PO 29 OQ
MT PO 30 00
MTPO 3100
MT" PC 32 ttT
MTPD 3JOO
MT PO 34 00
MTPC3
MTPO 3£CC
HT PC 37 00
MTPD 3800
MTP03
MT PC 40 00
MTPC 41 00
MTP04
MT PO 43 00
MT PO 44 00
MTP04
MT PO 46 CO
MT PO 47 00
) MTP04aOO
MTPO 49 00
MT PO 50 00
MTPO 51 00
MT PO a DO
MT PO 53 00
C-16
-------
Computer listings are given below for the two programs
of PTMTP that are affected by the modification (MAIN and
DBTRCX). The changes are indicated by underlining where-
ever material was added to the unmodified program (there
were no deletions). A key portion of the modification is in
lines 66 to 73 of MAIN. This is where the initial disper-
sion coefficients (SYNAUT = a , SZNAUT = a ) are added as
source parameters to be considered in the concentration
calculations. The heart of the modification is in lines 55
and 56 of DBTRCX, where the initial dispersion coefficients
(SYN = 0 , SZN = OZQ) are combined with the regular dis-
persion coefficients before the concentration calculations
are made. The other changes are peripheral in nature,
involving formatting, arrays, variable lists, and writing
instructions.
In executing the model, the only change is the inclu-
sion of 0 and 0 with the input data for each source. In
the case of the cement plant analysis, these values were
previously derived by dividing the initial plume dimensions
(Table 1) of each source by the factor 4.3 and rounding to
the nearest tenth of a meter. Zero values for 0 and 0
yo zo
were entered for the "true" point sources, that is, those
having no initial plume dimensions. The computer listings
follow.
C-15
-------
At a distance of 0.5 km from the plant property line,
the IPFPE sources contribute 96 percent of the maximum
impact (Receptor 15). Of this, the raw materials storage
building contributes nearly 51 percent (128 yg/m ). At a
distance of 1.0 km the raw materials storage building con-
tributes 52 percent (67 yg/m ) of the maximum impact (Recep-
tor 25). IPFPE sources in all contribute nearly 95 percent
of the total calculated ground-level concentration at Recep-
tor 25.
Emissions from the kiln stack (24.31 g/sec) exceed that
of all of the IPFPE sources combined, yet this source makes
a relatively small contribution to the total air quality
impact of the plant. The high exit velocity and high tem-
perature of the exhaust gases from the kiln stack cause a
substantial plume rise, which in turn reduces the ground-
level impact. On the other hand, the lack of plume rise and
the low release height of the IPFPE sources result in high
ground-level concentrations from sources with relatively low
emission rates.
The results of the application of the dispersion model
to the hypothetical cement plant clearly show that a control
plan should be directed toward the control of the IPFPE
sources. Specifically, the analysis clearly shows that
maximum improvement of air quality should result from the
control of emissions from the raw materials storage building,
the quarry, coal dumping, the roof monitor for the clinker
storage building, and the haul road.
Addendum; Modification of PTMTP
As discussed earlier, PTMTP was modified for applica-
tion to a hypothetical cement plant. The conceptual basis
for the modification is discussed under Model Application.
The procedure whereby the modification was effected is given
here.
C-14
-------
Table 3. SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TABLE FOR THE HYPOTHETICAL CEMENT PLANT,
CONCENTRATIONS IN yg/m3
n
i
M
LJ
Receptor
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Conventional point sources
Baghouse,
crushing
7
8
6
4
2
1
<^
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
<^
f±
1
1
1
1
1
1
«.j
<^
fl
Kiln
stack
|
<|
^j.
r*
^J
i
*!"
*r
r1
<^>
-------
1005.4 ,-
n
1005.2 -
1005.0 -
1004.8-
1004.6 -
1004.4 -
1004.2 -
1004.0
1
Rll® 46
R12®116
~ IV1© 46 R130191
8f=a=::'8t:S8s3fcj|, R3®421 R14®234
L=J^^^^^\ ^ sis
^^ jp^35S Zgps^jQ" ^"261 R17®139
"""^^^3 ' ?R10<>80 R18® 87
t=j£3 yj { R19® 49
^^11 - R20® 26
I
106.0 106.1 107.0 107.5
R21 ® 36
R22® 78
R23® 109
R24® 119
R25® 128
R26® 106
R27® 70
R28® 45
R29® 27
R30® 14
1
108.0
Figure 3. Ground level concentrations (ug/m ) of total particulate at each
receptor (1-30) from the hypothetical cement plant.
-------
receptor rows were designed so as to straddle the expected
axis of maximum impact. The receptor array was designed to
fan out with increasing distance in a manner consistent with
the variation of the wind direction during the period. The
highest impact of the IPFPE sources (excluding the impact on
plant property) was expected at the fence line. The recep-
tors farther downwind were included in order to estimate the
rate at which the impact decreases with downwind distance.
Results
The results of the modeling are depicted in Figure 3.
The maximum 24-hour ground-level concentration resulting
from the contribution of all sources at the plant is 782
yg/m . This occurs at Receptor 5 (Figure 3), which is at
the plant fenceline along the expected axis of maximum
concentration. The maximum impact decreases rapidly as the
distance from the plant to the receptor increases. Proceed-
ing eastward from Receptor 5, the 24-hour ground-level
concentrations at Receptor 15 (1/2 km) and Receptor 25 (1
3 3
km) are 251 yg/m and 128 yg/m , respectively.
The contribution of each source to the total plant
impact is presented on a receptor-by-receptor basis in Table
3. At Receptor 5, IPFPE sources contribute nearly 100
percent of the impact. Of this, approximately 53 percent is
contributed by the raw materials storage building (Source *)
while the quarry (Source 24) accounts for 17 percent (136
yg/m ). The roof monitor for the clinker storage building
(Source 13) contributes 14 percent (108 yg/m ) of the impact
3
at Receptor 5 and contributes 130 yg/m at Receptor 7. Coal
dumping contributes 7 percent (55 yg/m ) of the impact at
Receptor 5, while the haul road emissions contribute about 2
percent (19 yg/m ) of the impact at Receptor 5 and 39 yg/m
at Receptor 4.
C-ll
-------
1005.4 r-
n
I
1005.2
1005.0
1004.8
1004.6
1004.4
Rll®
R12®
R13®
R14®
R15®
R16®
R17®
R18®
R19®
R20®
R21®
R22®
R23®
R24®
R25®
R26»
R278
R28&
R29®
R30®
1004.2 -
1004.0
J L
J
106.0 106.1
107.0
107.5
108.0
Figure 2. Receptor array for the hypothetical cement plant.
-------
of wind speeds is a reasonable worst-case assumption in that
(1) it is sufficiently low to result in a relatively high
ambient impact for the low-level IPFPE sources, (2) it is
sufficiently high to be consistent with the high direction
persistence described above, and (3) it is sufficiently high
for the expectation of wind-erosion emissions (e.g., from
coal storage, raw materials storage).
Atmospheric stability was assumed as "neutral" (Pasquill
Gifford Class "D") for the 24-hour period. Physically, this
represents a period when the sky is overcast during the
entire time. This type of meteorological situation is much
more likely to have the light, direction-persistent, winds
described above than is the more common situation of vari-
able, partial cloudiness. The latter is typically charac-
terized by large differences in wind direction between the
nocturnal (stable) and the daytime (unstable) periods.
Moreover, during each period there is typically a large
hour-to-hour variation in the wind direction, especially
when the speeds are relatively low. Thus, for the 24-hour-
average impact of low-level sources, neutral stability is a
logical worst-case assumption.
The assumptions of temperature and mixing height are
not critical for assessing the close-in impact of low-level,
non-buoyant sources. Representative values (Table 2) were
chosen to satisfy the input requirements of the model.
The Receptor Array
Thirty receptor locations, the maximum number allowable
in PTMTP, were selected for the calculations of ambient
impact. The receptor array is depicted in Figure 2. Ten
equally spaced receptors were placed along the eastern fence
line of the plant. Parallel rows of 10 each were also
placed 1/2 kilometer and 1 kilometer farther downwind. The
C-9
-------
Table 2. ASSUMED METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Hour
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Wind
direction,
degrees
261
256
268
260
267
255
258
263
268
272
281
276
268
285
273
278
270
279
264
271
260
270
258
268
Wind
velocity,
M/sec
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
3.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.5
5.5
4.5
5.5
5.0
4.5
5.5
5.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.0
Stability
class
4b
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Mixing
height,
M
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
Ambient
temperatures ,
°K
299
299
298
298
297
297
297
299
300
301
301
302
302
302
303
303
302
302
301
300
300
299
299
299
Direction from which the wind is blowing.
Numerical equivalent of Pasquill-Gifford "D".
C-8
-------
dispersed due to aerodynamically induced turbu-
lence so that the plume has an initial dimension
from the surface to a height of 20 meters. The
initial horizontal dimension (50 meters) is the
width of the area itself.
Source 25: these emissions originate from wind
erosion at the tops (9 meters) of the coal piles.
For the same reason as described for the quarry
emissions, the coal pile emissions are assigned an
initial vertical dimension from the surface to a
height of 18 meters. The initial horizontal
dimension (70 meters) is the width of the storage
area itself.
Meteorological Assumptions
The purpose of the modeling analysis was to estimate
the 24-hour average impact of the IPFPE sources under condi-
tions approximating the "worst case." Consistent with this,
a reasonable worst-case set of meteorological data was
synthesized for input into PTMTP. (For application to
actual situations, such a data set should be derived from a
study of meteorological records in the area in question).
The data set consists of 24 hourly (midnight-to-midnight)
values of wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability
(Pasquill-Gifford), and mixing height. The data set is
shown in Table 2.
The worst-case prevailing wind direction was taken as
being along the long axis of the plant, from west to east (a
wind from the west has a direction of 270°). Realistically,
of course, a precise wind direction does not prevail for an
entire day; therefore, the assumed winds were allowed to
vary within a 30° sector (centered about 270°). This is a
realistic worst-case assumption for wind-direction persis-
tence. Clearly, wind-direction persistence contributes to
higher, time-averaged, downwind impact. The wind speed was
assumed to be light-to-moderate, varying in the 2.5 to 5.5
m/sec (5.6 to 12.3 mph) range during the period. This range
C-7
-------
temperature be greater than the temperature of the ambient
air (see Meteorological Assumptions, below).
With reference to Table 1 and Figure 1, the individual
sources are briefly discussed as follows:
0 Sources 1, 7, 9, and 12: self-explanatory.
0 Source 2: the ends of the raw materials storage
building are open. The (windblown) emissions exit
the east end because the wind is assumed to blow
generally from west to east during the modeling
period. The emissions are assigned a release
height of 10 meters and initial plume dimensions
equal to the dimensions of the end of the open
building.
0 Sources 3-6: discussed above.
0 Sources 8 and 10: the dumping occurs at ground
level. The initial plume that is generated by the
dumping is assumed to cover a 10-meter square area
and have a depth of 5 meters.
0 Source 11: the emissions are assumed to exit
through several exhausts in the sides and roof of
the building. The emissions are assigned a re-
lease height of one-half the building height.
From this point the emissions are assumed to be
initially dispersed (normally) about the east end
of the building so that the initial plume dimen-
sions correspond to the dimensions of the building
itself.
0 Source 13: discussed above.
0 Sources 14 through 23: Each is the midpoint of 10
equal segments of the road. The emissions are
assigned a release height of zero, an initial
plume (crosswind) width equal to the width of the
road (20 meters), and an initial depth of 5 meters.
The initial depth is attributable to the turbu-
lence generated by the truck traffic that gives
rise to the emissions.
0 Source 24: These emissions originate above ground
level (10 meters) from the dumping of materials
from conveyors onto storage piles. From this
height, the emissions are assumed to be vertically
C-6
-------
Table 1. ASSUMED SOURCE CHARACTERISTICS
Number,
(See Figure 1
for location)
2
3-6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-23
24
25
Source
(C) = conventional
(F) = IPFPE
Baghouse for truck
dumping, screening,
and crushing (C)
Raw materials
storage (F)
Roof monitors for
raw materials
grinding (F)
Kiln stack (C)
Coal dumping (F)
Baghouse for clinker
cooler (C)
Gypsum dumping (F)
Finish grinding
building (F)
Train and truck
loading (C)
Roof monitor for
clinker storage (F)
Haul road (F)
Active area of
quarry (F)
Open coal storage
(F)
Emission
rate,
(g/sec)
0.15
7.56
0.12
(each)
24.31
0.52
0.80
0.010
0.32
0.020
4.17
0.024
(each)
1.10
0.20
Release
height,
(meters)
6.1
10
18
61
0
24
0
9
38
12
0
10
9
Initial plume
dimensions (meters)
Vertical3
0
20
0
0
5
0
5
18
0
0
5
20
18
Horizontal
0
53
0
0
10
0
10
32
0
0
20
50
70
Vertical
velocity,
(m/sec )
18
b
b
12.0
b
11.0
b
b
3.0
b
b
b
b
Stack
temperature ,
(°K)
304
b
b
477
b
380
b
b
323
b
b
b
b
Stack
diameter,
(meters)
0.75
b
b
5.0
b
1.7
b
b
1.0
b
b
b
b
For non-zero values, the plume extends from 0 (ground-level) to the height indicated.
n
i
Ul
The velocity, temperature and diameter of these sources were input to PTMTP as 0 304 and 1 0
ensures a plume nse of zero and statisfies model input requirements (see text)
, respectively. This
-------
1005.0,
O
I
1004.750
106.5
Figure 1. Assumed layout of the cement plant.
-------
Source Characteristics
The hypothetical cement plant is depicted in Figure 1.
The sources that were considered in the modeling are denoted
by the encircled numbers 1 through 25. The sources (point
or pseudo point) are assumed to be located at the centers of
the circles. The source characteristics are detailed in
Table 1.
As indicated in Table 1, Sources 1, 7, 9, and 12 are
conventional (rather than IPFPE) sources. They are also
"true" point sources (no initial plume dimensions) and have
clearly defined vertical velocities, temperatures, and stack
diameters. These sources were modeled by PTMTP in the
traditional manner. All other sources in Table 1 are IPFPE
sources. Of these, Sources 2, 8, 10, 11, 14 through 23, 24,
and 25 have initial plume dimensions as discussed above.
The remaining IPFPE sources (3 through 6, 13) do not have
such initial dimensions. Sources 3 through 6 are small,
circular, roof monitors, while source 13 is an elongated
roof monitor which is approximated at its midpoint as a
point source without initial dimensions.
The IPFPE's were assumed to be emitted at very low
vertical velocities and at temperatures at or very near the
temperature of the ambient air. Thus, they were assumed to
undergo no plume rise, but rather, to vertically and hori-
zontally disperse along the axis of the wind about a center-
line height given by the assumed release height. To ensure
that the model would treat the IPFPE sources in this manner
and at the same time satisfy the data input requirements, of
PTMTP, artifical values were assigned for the exit velocity,
temperature, and "stack" diameter of these sources (Footnote
b, Table 1). The "stack" temperature was set at 304°K
because this satisfies the input requirement that stack
C-3
-------
in cement plants have a significant three-dimensional extent.
This problem was addressed by modifying PTMTP so that such
sources could be modeled as pseudo point sources, located at
the centers of the actual sources, with prescribed initial
plume dimensions in the vertical and horizontal crosswind
directions. It was possible to define a crosswind direction
because of the assumption of a prevailing wind direction
(west to east) during the 24-hour period (see Meteorological
Assumptions below). The assignment of initial plume dimen-
sions is a means of accounting for the fact that the IPFPE's
are initially dispersed at their origins. These initial
plume dimensions are defined by the dimensions of the source
itself and/or the nature of the physical process generating
the emissions. In this analysis, the initial plumes were
assumed to be distributed normally (Gaussian distribution)
about the pseudo point sources in the vertical and hori-
zontal crosswind directions. This permitted the initial
plumes to be described by assigning initial values to the
vertical and horizontal crosswind dispersion coefficients
(0zQ and 0 respectively). These values were determined by
dividing the initial plume dimensions by the factor 4.3.a
The values of 0 ^ and a were input to PTMTP along with the
yo zo . 3
other physical parameters for each source.
The length and orientation of one IPPPE source—a haul
road—was such that it was necessary to segment the source
along its length and then to treat each segment as a pseudo
point source as described above. For all other elongated
sources, very little error was introduced by approximating
each as a single point source located at the midpoint.
a Ref. No. 2, p. 39.
For details the reader is referred to Addendum; Modification
of PTMTP.
C-2
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF PRELIMINARY DISPERSION ANALYSIS
Introduction
Suggestions for applying preliminary, short-term,
dispersion modeling to sources of industrial process fugi-
tive particulate emissions (IPFPE's) are presented in
Section 4.2. A case example of such modeling is presented
here. This example is presented for the purpose of illus-
tration only. The situation that is modeled, a cement
plant, is hypothetical. The plant layout, the characteris-
tics of the sources, and the emission rates are assumed.
The specific procedure is not recommended as necessarily the
best approach to similar actual problems. The attention of
the reader is therefore directed to the conceptual basis of
the approach, and to the general rationale, rather than to
the numerical details. The reader should also bear in mind
that the modeling analysis is of the simple, preliminary
type as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.2.1. it does not
consider the complicating factors (Section 4.2) that can be
associated with the modeling of IPFPE's.
Model Application
The hypothetical cement plant was modeled using PTMTP,
a generally available dispersion model, which is referred to
in Section 4.2.1. PTMTP is a multiple-point, multiple-
receptor model that calculates concentrations for as many as
24 consecutive hours of meteorological data input. It is
designed for application to point sources only. This limi-
tation presents a problem, since many of the IPFPE sources
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE OF PRELIMINARY DISPERSION ANALYSIS
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX B
Fuaitive Emissions Control Technology for Integrated
Carolina. January 17, 1977.
B-8
-------
Table B-2. SOIL STABILIZING CHEMICALS
AND CONTROL EFFICIENCIES1
Dust Suppression Chemical
(water plus as listed)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Dustrol "A" 1:5000
T-Det 1:4
CaO 1%
CaCl2 2%
Cements 5%
Coherex 1:15
Coherex 1 : 8
Coherex 1 : 4
Dowell Chemical Binder 1%
Dowell Chemical Binder 2%
Dowell Chemical Binder 3%
1% CaCl2, in 1:5000 Dustrol "A"
1% CaO in 1:8 Coherex
1% CaO in 2% Dowell Chemical
Binder
1% CaO in 3% Dowell Chemical
Binder
Dried Whole Blood 5%
Dried Pork Plasma 5%
Dried Pork Plasma 3%
1% CaCl2 in 3% Pork Plasma
Dri-Pro 5%
1% CaO, 1:3000 T-Det in 2%
Dowell Chemical Binder
1% CaO, 1% CaCl2, 1:4000
Dustrol "A" +2% Dowell
Chemical Binder
Control Efficiency (%)
-7.8
76
2.8
33.8
26.8
22.5
15.5
97.2
70.4
97.2
97.2
15.5
31
95.1
81.7
27.1
79
96
52
7
98.6
98.6
B-7
-------
Table B-l (continued).
USES, AND APPLICATION RATES
CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS, THEIR COST,
a
Company/address
phone/contact
Product name/
product type
Cost
Uses/comments
Density, dilution
and application rates
W
I
Dubois Chemical
Dubois Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio
513-762-6000
Mr. Burger
Mona Industries, Inc.
65 E. 23rd St.
Paterson, NJ 07524
201-274-8220
Mr. George Lowry
AMSCO Division
Union Oil Company of
California
14445 Alondra Blvd.
La Miroda, Calif. 90638
714-523-5120
Dr. Ralph H. Bauer
Floculite 600
Monawet Mo-70E
Res AB 1881
Styrene Butadiene
100 Ib - $2.81/lb
1000 Ib - $2.74/lb
500 Ib drums
1-50 drums - $0.455/lb
Bulk - $0.385/lb
Used in waste water treat-
ment from mines. Also
helps keep down dust on
haul roads.
Used in coal industry as
dust suppresant
Soil stabilizer particu-
larly in conjunction with
wood fiber malches. Free
pumping in conventional
hydroseeding equipment.
Not to be applied in soils
with pH less than 6.0.
1-2 lb/1000 gal
0.1 percent in water,
must be reapplied when
water evaporates
8.2 + 0.1 Ib/gallon
a Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table B-l (continued). CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS, THEIR COST,
USES, AND APPLICATION RATES3
Company/address
phone/contact
Johnson-March Co.
3018 Market St.
Philadelphia, PA 19104
215-222-1411
Mr. Sam Jaffe
I
Ul
Grass Growers
P. O. Box 584
Plainfield, NJ 07061
201-755-0923
Mr. Eisner
Product name/
product type
""
Compound-MR (regular)
Compound-SP-301
Compound-MR (super-
concentrate)
Compound-SP-400
Coal Tarp
Tarratack-1
Tarratack-2
Tarratack-3
Cost
55 gallon drums
1-3 drums - $6.00/gal
4-11 drums - $5.00/gal
>11 drums - S3.35/gal
1-4 drums - $1.80/ga
5-9 drums - ?1.75/ga
10-44 drums - $1.70/ga
>45 drums - $1.65/ga
$6.75/gal
1-4 drums - S3.50/gal
5-9 drums - S3.40/gal
10-44 drums - S3.30/gal
"•44 drums - $3.20/gal
;0.75-$1.00/gal
2.25/lb
2.75/lb
3.25/lb
Uses/comments
Usually used with a spray
system or storage piles,
conveying systems.
Used on haul roads, park-
ing lots, stabilizing
cleared areas, aid in
vegetation growth.
Same as Compound-MR
(regular)
Same as Compound SP-301
Designed for use in coal
industry: coating over rail
cars, trucks to prevent
transportation losses etc.
Prevents seed germination.
Mulch binder used for
stabilizing any type of
grass to be grown.
Same as Tarratack-1
Same as Tarratack-1
Mention of company or product names
Density, dilution
and application rates
— '
1:1000 water
applied as needed
1 gal/100 ft + depend-
ing on conditions.
Application lasts 6
months to a year
1:3500 water
Same as Compound
-P-301
Application lasts 1
years
to
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Ib: 250 gal water,
dxed with wood fiber
ulch (40 Ib/acre)
Ib: 150 gal water,
ixed with hay or straw
40 Ib/acre)
ixed with hay or straw
0 Ib/acre
ixed with wood fiber
nly
Protection Agency.
-------
Table B-l (continued).
USES, AND APPLICATION RATES
CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS, THEIR COST,
a
Company/address
phone/contact
w
i
Enzymatic Soil of Tucson
6622 N. Los Arboles Cr.
Tucson, Arizona 85704
602-297-2133
Mr. Bob Mundell
Asphalt Rubberizing Corp.
1111 S. Colorado Blvd.
Denver, Colorado 80222
303-756-3012
Mr. Jewell Benson
Product name/
product type
Enzymatic SS
Peneprime
Low-viscosity, special
hard-base asphalt cut-
back
Cost
55 gallon drums
S7.60/gallon
10,000 gal lots
S0.45/gal
Uses/comments
Hold down dust on haul
roads, tailings, stock
pile. Will retard growth
of weeds or plants. Seal
lakes, stock tanks, stabi-
lize odors around stock
pens.
Control of wind, rain, or
water erosion of soils.
Applied to roads and
streets to allay dust and
stabilize surface to carry
traffic. Does not allow
seed germination. Very
light applications (0.2-0.4
G.S.Y. may accelerate seed
germination due to warming
of black surface. Applica-
tions above 0.4 G.S.Y.
inhibit plant growths
through hardness and tough-
ness of the crust formed.
Plant growths through the
crust may be further inhi-
bited by addition of sev-
eral oil-soluble steril-
ants. Sterilants kill
plant as it emerges. The
material may be applied at
temperatures as low as
75°F by conventional as-
phalt distribution equip-
ment.
Density, dilution
and application rates
8.34 Ib/gal
1:1000
1000 gallon/20 to 30
yd 3
0.85 S.G.
dust abatement - 0.2
gal/yd2
erosion control - 0.5-
1.0 gal/yd2
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table B-l (continued). CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS, THEIR COST,
USES, AND APPLICATION RATES3
Company/address
phone/contact
I
U)
E. F. Houghton & Co.
Valley Forge Tech. Center
Madison & Van Buren Ave.
Norristown, PA 19401
215-739-7100
Mr. Todd Sutcliffe
Monsanto
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63166
314-694-3453
Mr. James A. Cooper
Air Products & Chemicals,
Inc.
5 Executive Rd.
Suedesford Road
Wayne, PA 19087
Union Carbide Corp.
West St. & Madisonville Rd
Cincinnati, Ohio 45227
513-292-0206
Mr. Wm. Mike Brown
Product name/
product type
Surfax 5107
Rezosol 5411-B
Polymer
Gelvatol 20-90
Polyvinyl alcohol
resin
Gelva Emulsion S-55
'olyvinyl acetate
lomopolymer
inol 540
olymer (water soluble)
JCA-70
Cost
55 gallon drums
1-4 drums - S4.44/gal
5-9 drums - $4.41/gal
10-39 drums - S4.38/gal
>39 drums - $4.35/ga]
55 gallon drums
1-4 drums - S0.415/lb
5-9 drums - $0.41/lb
10-39 drums - S0.405/lb
>39 drums - $0.40/lb
50 Ib/bags
500 Ib - S0.905/lb
2,000 Ib - $0.80/lb
10,000 Ib - S0.77/lb
30,000 Ib - $0.74/lb
>30,000 Ib - 19 drums - S0.25/lb
Bulk - S0.205/lb
50 Ib bags
500 Ib
2,000 Ib
10,000 Ib
32,000 Ib
120,000 Ib
$0.80/lb
S0.77/lb
S0.74/lb
S0.725/lb
$0.72/lb
Uses/comments
-*^^—.—• •—^-•••^^
Coal loading, quarries,
cement plants, crushers,
sintering plants.
Storage piles, railcars,
road sides.
Surfactant and protective
colloid in emulsion poly-
merization.
Adhesives
Two grades: 1) soluble in
water (washed away with
rain), 2) relatively in-
soluble in water.
stabilize steep grades,
tailings ponds. Not for
vegetation growth.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the u.S
Density, dilution
and application rates
-
8.5 Ib/gallon
1:1000 or higher
8.75 Ib/gal
1:30
40 gal/1000 ft ,
recommended 2 applica-
tions
30-40 lbs/ft3
10 to 20 percent by
weight
500 lb/55 gallon drum
1% by weight
1 to 7 percent by
weight
Slurried in cold water
or heated to insure
complete mixture in
solution
9.25 Ib/gal
2:1
Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table B-l.
CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS, THEIR COST,
USES, AND APPLICATION RATES3
ta
Company/address
phone/contact
Dow Chemical Co.
2020 Dow Center
Midland, Mich.
517-636-1000
Mr. Harold Filter
Witco Chemical Corp.
Golden Bear Division
Post Office Box 378
Bakersfield, Calif. 93302
805-399-9501
Mr. William Canessa
American Cyanamid
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
201-831-1234
Mr. L. S. Randolph
Product name/
product type
XFS - 4163L
Styrene-Butadiene
Coherex
Cold water emulsion
of Petroleum Resins
Semi-pave
Cold asphalt cutback
with antistrip agent
Aerospray 52 binder
Cost
55 gallon drums
1 drum - $2.65/gal
25 drums - $2.15/gal
Bulk - $1.90/gal
55 gallon drums
1-10 drums - S0.65/gal
>10 drums - $0.63/gal
Bulk - $0.38/gal
55 gallon drums
1-10 drums - S0.68/gal
>10 drums - $0.64/gal
Bulk - $0.39/gal
55 gallon drums
1-4 drums
5-11 drums
12-22 drums
23-53 drums
>53 drums
Bulk
$0.69/lb
S0.66/lb
$0.63/lb
- $0.61/lb
- $0.59/lb
- $0.55/lb
Uses/comments
Mulches such as straw,
wood cellulose fiber, and
fiberglass. Used to pre-
vent wind loss of mulches
during stabilization
periods such as reseeding
periods•
Unpaved haul roads and
stockpiles. Can be used
around human or animal
habitats - very clean - no
heat required. Can be
stored for 12 months or
longer. Must be protected
from freezing - unless
freeze stable type is used.
Can be spread through any
type of equipment used to
spread water.
Penetration of unpaved
areas - low traffic volume
roads - parking lots etc.
Can be handled without
heat if ambient tempera-
ture is 50°F or higher.
Seed membrane protection,
excavation, construction,
slope stabilization
Density, dilution
and application rates
8.5 Ibs/gal.
40 gallons XFS - 4163L:
360 gallons water
400 gallons/acre
8.33 Ib/gal.
1:4 dilution, 1-1.5
gal/yd2 for parking
lots and dirt roads.
1:7 dilution 0.5 to
1 gal/yd2 for thin
layer or loose dirt,
light traffic, service
roads.
1:10 dilution for a.\d
in packing surface
250 gallons/ton ,
0.6 to 0.8 gal/yd
8.8 Ib/gallon
2:1
1 gallon/100 ft
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
APPENDIX B
LISTING OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS
Appendix B contains two separate listings of chemical
suppressants. Table B-l presents limited information on
various chemical suppressants concerning product type,
costs, uses, and application rates. Information was obtained
from contractor in-house files and follow up questionnaires
to several of the chemical producers. Information presented
is as complete as was made available by the producers.
Table B-2 presents a partial lists of selected soil stabili-
zing chemicals and their resultant control efficiencies.
The reference to or mention of manufacturers and their
products in Tables B-l and B-2 does not constitute an
endorsement of such manufacturers or their products by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
B-l
-------
APPENDIX B
LISTING OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS
-------
Process Emission Source - One or more units of proc-
essing equipment which may be operated independently of
other parts of the operations at any given manufacturing
or processing facility and which may emit smoke, parti-
culate matter, gaseous matter or other air contaminent.
Also, where it is common practice to group more than
one unit of like or similar processing equipment to-
gether and to apply a single or combined unit of air
pollution control equipment to the emissions of the
entire group.
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) - On
existing stationary sources, the extent of emission
control technology determined by case-by-case analyses
to be economically and technologically reasonable
requirements for emission control.
Re-Entrainment - The resuspensiori in the atmosphere of
particles from streets, rooftops, etc. by wind, passing
vehicles or other such forces.
Reference Conditions - EPA requires that all measure-
ments of air quality be corrected to a reference
temperature of 25°C and to a reference pressure of 760
millimeters of HG(1,013.2) millibars.
Settleable Particulate - Particulate matter which is
emitted into the atmosphere such that it may deposit
onto horizontal surfaces due to gravitational settling.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) - A document prepared
by each state, as required by the Clean Air Act,
describing existing air quality conditions and setting
forth a program to attain and to maintain National
Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Stationary Source - Any building, structure, facility,
or installation which emits or may emit any air pol-
lutant and which contains any one or combination of the
following: (1) affected facilities, (2) existing
facilities, and (3) facilities of the type for which no
standards have been promulgated.
Suspended Particulate - Particulate matter which will
remain airborne for an appreciable period of time.
Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) - A criteria pol-
lutant for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards
have been established.
A-7
-------
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - A
legal limit on the level of atmospheric contamination
necessary to protect against adverse effects on public
health and welfare. Primary standards are those
related to health effects. Secondary standards are
related to protection against adverse welfare effects.
New Source - Any stationary source, the construction or
modification of which is commenced after proposal of
any applicable regulation.
Nuisance - Whatever is injurious to health, indecent,
or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the
free use of property, so as essentially to interfere
with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
Opacity - The degree to which emissions reduce the
transmission of light and obscure the view of an object
in the background.
Particulate Matter/Particulate - A finely divided solid
or liquid material, other than uncombined water, as
measured by a Federal reference method. Particulate
matter in the ambient air is most often measured by the
high-volume sampling technique and expressed in concen-
tration units of yg/m3. See Total Suspended Particu-
late (TSP).
Particle Size - An expression for the size of liquid or
solid particles expressed as the average or equivalent
diameter.
Particle Size Distribution - The relative percentage of
weight or number of each of the different size frac-
tions of particulate matter.
Point Source - A source of pollutant emission specifi-
cally identified in an emission inventory, as opposed
to area sources, which are dealt with by summing the
emissions of numerous smaller sources. A point source
is often defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
reporting requirement as a source that emits more than
100 tons per year of any one pollutant.
Process - Any action, operation or treatment, and all
methods and forms of manufacturing, fabricating or
handling.
A-6
-------
High Volume Sampler (Hi-Vol) - A device for collecting
fine suspended participate matter by drawing air
through a filtering medium. The Federal Reference
Method for Total Suspended Particulates.
Impactor - A sampling device that employs the principle
of impaction (impingement). The cascade impactor is a
specific instrument that employs several impactions in
series to collect successively smaller sizes of particles,
Instantaneous Sampling (Grab Sampling) - Obtaining a
sample in a very short period of time, such that this
sampling time is insignificant in comparison with the
duration of the operation or the period being sampled.
Intermittent Sampling - Sampling successively for
limited periods of time throughout an operation or for
a pre-determined period of time. The durations of
sampling periods and of the intervals between are not
necessarily regular and are not specific.
Line Source - A source of air pollutants as may be
depicted in a diffusion model by a straight line con-
figuration. Examples are streets, highways, closely-
spaced multiple stacks, airport runways, and aircraft
flight paths.
Membrane Filter - Controlled pore filters commonly
composed of cellulose esters. They can be manufactured
with uniformly controlled pore size. Nylon mesh may be
used for reinforcement. Types commonly used for air
sampling have a pore size of about 0.45 to 0.8 microns.
The pores constitute 80 to 85 percent of the filter
volume. Because of electrostatic forces and the forma-
tion of a precoat of collected particles on the surface,
these filters can collect particles down to about 0.1
microns in diameter.
Mixing Height - Height to which a pollutant can be
expected to mix vertically as determined by the lapse
rate and/or turbulence.
Model/Modeling - A mathematical or physical representa-
tion of an observable situation. In air pollution
control, models afford the ability to predict pollutant
distribution or dispersion from identified sources for
specified weather conditions.
A-5
-------
Emission Standard - A part of a legally enforceable
regulation setting forth an allowable rate of emissions
into the atmosphere or prescribing equipment specifica-
tions for control of air pollution emissions.
Equivalent Method - Any method of sampling and analyzing
for air pollutant which has been demonstrated to the
administrators satisfaction to have a consistent and
quantitatively known relationship to the reference
method under specified conditions.
Existing Facility - With reference to a stationary
source, any apparatus of the type for which a standard
applies and the construction or modification of which
was commenced before the date of proposal of that
standard, or any apparatus which could be altered in
such a way as to be of that type.
Federal Reference Method (FRM) - Any method of sampling
and analyzing for an air pollutant, as established by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in the
appropriate Part of Subchapter C - Air Programs of
Chapter 1 - Environmental Protection Agency of Title 40
Protection of the Environment.
Fugitive Dust - A type of particulate emission made
airborne by forces of wind, man's activity or both,
such as unpaved roads, construction sites, tilled land
or windstorms.
Fugitive Emissions - Particles which are generated by
industrial or other activities and which escape to the
atmosphere not through primary exhaust systems, but
through openings such as windows, vents or doors, ill-
fitting oven closures, or poorly maintained equipment.
Ground Level Concentration - The mass per unit volume
of solid, liquid, or gaseous material in micrograms
per cubic meter of air, measured from 0 to 2 meters
above the ground.
Hazardous Air Pollutant - Under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act, an air pollutant to which no ambient air quality
standard is applicable and which may cause, or contri-
bute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in
serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible
illness.
A-4
-------
Control Agency (Air Pollution) - State or local agencies
with designated authority as official air pollution
control bodies for those areas.
Control Program - Those activities and functions within
a broader program of air resource management that
collectively are directed toward the reduction of
excessive emissions of pollutants; the regulatory
aspects of an air resource management program.
Control Strategy - A combination of measures designated
to achieve the aggregate reduction of emissions neces-
sary for attainment and maintenance of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards.
Control Systems - Operating procedures or devices
specifically designated to achieve the aggregate
reduction of emissions necessary for attainment and
maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Control Systems - Operating procedures or devices
specifically designed and maintained for the purpose of
reducing the amount of air pollutants emitted to the
atmosphere.
Effective Stack Height - The height above the ground at
which the emission plume becomes essentially level.
Emission Control Equipment - Equipment used to control
emissions of air pollutants by either collection of the
pollutants or conversion of them to less objectionable
forms.
Emission Factor - An estimate of the rate of which a
pollutant is released to the atmosphere as a result of
some activity such as combustion or industrial produc-
tion, divided by the level of activity.
Emission Inventory - A compilation of all emissions for
a specified area. The inventory is broken down into
various source categories, which may be further sub-
divided to give a very accurate picture of the sources
of air pollution in the area.
Emission Point/Discharge Point - The point of temporary,
intermittent, or continuous release of foreign matter
to the air, or matter that is common to the air but in
an amount, form, or location such as to give the common
matter special significance.
A-3
-------
Alternative Method - Any method of sampling and analyzing
for an air pollutant which is not a reference or equiva-
lent method but which has been demonstrated to the
administrators satisfaction, in specific cases, to
produce results adequate for his determination of
compliance.
Ambient Air - That portion of the atmosphere, external
to buildings, to which the general public has access.
Area Source - A category of emitters that are indivi-
dually minor but sufficiently numerous and widespread
that their combined emissions are significant, i.e.,
automobiles.
Background Concentration/Background Level - Ambient
concentrations which are caused by natural sources of
pollution. In some cases, background may also include
man-made pollutants advected into the area. Background
is often used to denote those concentrations which are
uncontrollable, either because they are of natural
origin or because they are transported from another
area not subject to the jurisdiction of the air pollu-
tion control agency.
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) - The best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account
the cost of achieving such reduction) the administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated.
Collection Efficiency - The percentage of a specified
substance, gaseous or particulate, retained on passage
through a sampling device or emission control equip-
ment.
Collector - A device for removing and retaining con-
taminants from air or other gases. Usually this term
is applied to cleaning devices in exhaust systems.
Compliance Schedule - A legally enforceable schedule
specifying a date or dates by which a source or category
of sources must comply with specific emission standards
contained in a plan or with any increments of progress
to achieve such compliance.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT TERMS
Following is a tabulation of key terms which will be
utilized throughout this guidance document. By no means is
this listing intended to be all-inclusive of the entire body
of air pollution terminology. Definitions are supplied in
order to clarify our intended meaning as well as to prevent
possible misconceptions.
Administrator - Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency or his authorized representative.
Aerosol - A dispersion of solid or liquid particles of
microscopic size in a gaseous medium, such as smoke,
fog or mist.
Affected Facility - With reference to a stationary
source, any apparatus to which a standard is applicable.
Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) - The basic geo-
graphic area on which air pollution control strategies
are formulated. The AQCR boundries are designated as
much as possible to be consistent with the air shed
concept. That is, the sources in a given area share a
common air mass and the air quality is a result of the
emission contribution of all the sources in that area.
EPA, assisted by the states, has divided the country
into 247 AQCR's. A region may cover only part of one
state or it can include portions of several states
which share a common air pollution problem.
Air Quality Maintenance Plan (AQMP) - A control strategy
designed to ensure that once an air quality standard is
attained, pollutant levels will not increase to levels
that would again exceed the prescribed air quality
standard. Part of the State Implementation Plan.
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT TERMS
-------
9. Fugitive Dust in Kansas and Nebraska. PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-0044, Task Order No. 14. February
1974.
10. Analysis of Suspended Particulate Sampling Sites in
South Dakota AQMA's. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Kansas City, Missouri. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order No. 19. December 1975.
5-38
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.0
1. McCutchen, Gary D., U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Paper presented at the "Symposium on Fugitive
Emissions," Hartford, Connecticut. May 17-19, 1976.
2. National Assessment of Particulate Problem, Volume I,
National Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
GCA-TR-76-25-G(l). July 1976.
3. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Air Quality Data, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, OAQPS No. 1.2-015. 1975.
4. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Air Quality Trends,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, OAQPS No. 1.2-014. 1975.
5. Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and
Analysis Volume II, "Air Quality Monitoring and Data
Analysis." Report No. EPA-450/4-74-012. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. September 1974.
6. Analysis of Probable Particulate Non-Attainment in the
Kansas City AQCR. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order No. 26. February 1976.
7. Guidelines for Technical Services of a State Air
Pollution Control Agency, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
APTD-1347. November 1972.
8. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication Number
EPA-450/3-74-037. June 1974.
5-37
-------
absolutely necessary to obtain an accurate sample. Changes
in methodology must be based on sound engineering judgment
and must be carefully documented. Standard procedures which
should receive particular attention include:
(a) Location of sampling station(s),
(b) Records of meteorological conditions,
(c) Use of recommended sampling equipment,
(d) Careful determination of gas flow rate and sample
time,
(e) Noting of any unusal conditions which may affect
sample,
(f) Proper handling of the collected sample and re-
cording of container and filter numbers.
5.6.4 Specified Performance Standards
Specific regulations listing operating conditions or
control techniques are relatively easy to enforce. Since
this regulatory approach is most effective when applied to
specific sources, communication with industry and trade
associations may be helpful in assessing reasonable control
technologies. There easily may be conditions or control
techniques peculiar to certain areas of the country and
certain types of sources. Similarly, it may be useful to
have industry trade associations comment on regulations
early in their development.
Section 5.5 presents a series of "model" regulations
applicable to IPFPE sources. The reasonable precautions set
forth in the model regulation are intended only as a general
guideline and should not be relied upon for enforcement
purposes. The main thrust of the regulation is the pro-
vision for agency approval of control techniques of each
source and the incorporation of conditions into operating
permits.
5-36
-------
have the details of each reading memorized. In fact, it is
preferable that the observer prepare observation record
forms at or near the time of the events in question to which
he can refer at the time of trial. The original forms are
admissible in evidence and aid in substantiating a violation.
Photographs are also useful in showing meteorological and
topographical conditions around the emission source at the
time of the event. In addition, if there is any steam
present, the pictures can show where it dissipates. The
observer should read a wet emission at the point of dissipa-
tion.
5.6.3 Fence-Line Regulation
In implementing and enforcing a fence-line or upwind-
downwind regulation, every test should be conducted as if it
will ultimately be used as evidence in court. The collec-
tion and analysis of jurisdictional samples should become a
routine matter to the agency personnel involved. However,
it must be remembered that this routine procedure is eso-
teric to the layman and, therefore, is subjected to greater
scrutiny whenever the agency has to rely on these results.
It is imperative that sampling and analysis be done under
standard procedures and that each step be well documented.
In short, the report may ultimately be subjected to the
requirements of the Rules of Evidence.
In attacking the validity of the sampling results, the
adverse party will concentrate on four main items relative
to taking the sample: (a) the sampling procedure, (b) the
recorded data and calculations, (c) the test equipment, and
(d) the qualifications of the test personnel.
The agency must keep in mind the possibility of adverse
inferences that may arise from the use of unorthodox or new
procedures. Therefore, deviations from the standar'd proce-
dure must be kept to a minimum and applied only where
5-35
-------
0 establishing the legal validity of the visible
emission standard
0 presenting the method by which observers are
trained
0 presenting testimony of the observer who made the
readings by which a particular source is found in
violation
The legal validity of existing opacity regulations is
well established in view of the many state and local air
pollution control programs throughout the country which have
adopted opacity regulations and the large number of court
cases which have upheld opacity standards. There is every
reason to believe that the model visible emission regulation
would fare at least as well in the courts since the regula-
tion largely eliminates one of the major objections raised
by critics of the opacity standard. By prohibiting all
visible emissions, the model visible emission regulation
does not require an observer to numerically evaluate the
opacity of an emission and thereby eliminates the subjec-
tivity inherent in such observations.
In enforcement actions, it is imperative to demonstrate
that the observer had the proper foundation and training to
make accurate readings. While this evidence will be less
significant in actions involving the model visible emission
regulation, it is, nonetheless, essential that the observer's
expertise and objectivity be firmly established. One method
of presenting these data is through the testimony of a smoke
school instructor setting out in detail how smoke schools
are conducted and observers trained. Testimony should
emphasize that opacity and visible emission readings are
based on specialized training rather than haphazard guesses.
The testimony of the observer is the major thrust of an
enforcement action. It is not necessary that the observer
5-34
-------
Section 2. (1) The attorney general, any political
subdivision of the state, any instrumentality or
agency of the state or of a political subdivision
thereof, any person, partnership, corporation,
association, organization or other legal entity
may maintain an action in the circuit court having
jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred
or is likely to occur for declaratory and equi-
table relief against the state, any political
subdivision thereof, any instrumentality or agency
of the state or of a political subdivision thereof,
any person, partnership, corporation, association,
organization or other legal entity for the pro-
tection of the air, water and other natural re-
sources and the public trust therein from pollu-
tion, impairment or destruction.
Section 4. (1) The court may grant temporary and
permanent equitable relief, or may impose condi-
tions on the defendant that are required to pro-
^ *??-air' water and other natural resources or
the public trust therein from pollution, impair-
ment or destruction.
5.6 EVALUATION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES
5-6.1 Nuisance Regulations
Nuisance regulations have been found ineffective in
providing a comprehensive control program for fugitive par-
ticulate emissions from industrial processes. This type of
regulation can be useful in cases where the emission source
can be specifically identified and when the source is agree-
able to minimizing emissions. However, nuisance regulations
are difficult to enforce since no general definition of
nuisance exists and each case must be proved separately. If
a nuisance regulation is deemed desirable, however, the
regulation should state what acts constitute a nuisance by,
for example, specifying necessary operating conditions.
5-6.2 Visible Emission Regulations
A major advantage of a visible emission regulation is
its relative ease of enforcement. There are only three
basic elements involved in proving an opacity violation:
5-33
-------
5.5.4 Enforcement Techniques
Violation of the air pollution control regulations may
be penalized under the criminal code or enforced by a civil
suit. Michigan, for example, uses both types of enforcement
techniques. While the criminal code makes it possible for
an Agency to react quickly to a violation, it does not
directly prevent further violations. A civil suit is more
time consuming but allows both temporary and permanent
injunctions against further violations. The civil suit has
been successfully used in Michigan to address the pollution
problem of an industrial complex as a whole. Such actions
are often settled by a consent order.
Below is a partial abstract from the Air Pollution
2
Control Regulation of Wayne County, Michigan.
0 Section 14.1 Penalties: Any person or any person
acting in behalf of said person in an employee,
agency, or contractural relationship violating any
of the provisions of this Regulation shall upon
conviction be subject to a fine or imprisonment or
both as provided by law.
0 Section 14.3 Injunctive Proceedings: Whenever any
person has been found to have repeatedly violated
provisions of Article VI of this Regulation, the
Director may upon written approval of the Board of
Health commence appropriate civil legal action in
a court of competent jurisdiction in the name of
the County to enjoin and restrain further continu-
ance of such violation.
The state of Michigan enacted a civil statute in 1970
to protect the air, water and other natural resources. A
partial abstract of that statute follows:
2
Wayne County Air Pollution Control Regulation, Article XIV.
The Thomas J. Anderson Gordon Rockwell Environmental
Protection Act of 1970. State of Michigan.
5-32
-------
Permit Regulation
(b) Operating Permits.
(1) New Emission Sources and New Air Pollution
Control Equipment:
Prohibition. No person shall cause or allow the
operation of any new emission source or new air pollu-
tion control equipment of a type for which a Construc-
tion Permit is required by paragraph (a) of this Rule
103 without first obtaining an Operating Permit from
the Agency, except for such testing operations as may
be authorized by the Construction Permit. Applications
for Operating Permits shall be made at such times and
contain such information (in addition to the informa-
tion required by paragraph (b) (3) of this Rule 103) as
shall be specified in the Construction Permit.
(2) Existing Emission Sources:
Prohibition. No person shall cause or allow the
operation of any existing emission source or any exist-
ing air pollution control equipment without first
obtaining an Operating Permit from the Agency no later
than the dates shown in the following schedule:
(7) Conditions. The Agency may impose such condi-
tions in an Operating Permit as may be necessary to
accomplish the purposes of the Act, and as are not
inconsistent with the regulations promulgated by the
Board thereunder. Except as herein specified, nothing
in this Chapter shall be deemed to limit the power of
the Agency in this regard. When deemed appropriate as
a condition to the issuance of an Operating Permit, the
Agency may require that the permittee adequately main-
tain the air pollution control equipment covered by the
permit. To assure that such a maintenance program is
planned, the Agency may require that the permittee have
a maintenance program and keep such maintenance records
as are necessary to demonstrate compliance with this
Rule; provided, however, the Agency shall not have the
authority to approve the maintenance programs required
thereunder.
Illinois General Air Pollution Regulation, Rule 103.
5-31
-------
from operating any new or existing emission source without
first obtaining an operating permit.
Performance Standard Regulation
(a) No person shall operate or maintain, or cause to
be operated or maintained, any premise, open area, right-
of-way, storage pile of materials, or any other industrial
process that involves any handling, transporting, or dispo-
sition of any material or substance likely to be scattered
by the wind, without taking reasonable precautions, as
approved by the Agency, to prevent particulate matter from
becoming airborne.
(b) In determining what is reasonable, consideration
shall be given to factors such as the proximity of dust-
emitting operations to human habitations and/or activities
and atmospheric conditions which might affect the movement
of particulate matter.
(c) Some of the reasonable precautions may include,
but are not limited to, the following:
Application of asphalt, oil, water, or suitable chemi-
cals to, or covering of dirt roads, material stock-
piles, and other surfaces which can create dusts.
Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters
or equivalent systems to enclose and vent the handling
of dusty materials. Adequate containment methods
should be employed during sandblasting or other opera-
tions.
Covering, at all times when in motion, open-bodied
trucks transporting materials likely to give rise to
airborne dusts.
Paving of roadways and maintaining them in a clean
condition.
(d) In obtaining Agency approval under subsection (a)
of this section, the Agency may impose any operating condi-
tion it deems necessary to attain and maintain compliance
with the provisions of this section.
5-30
-------
The broad "reasonable precaution" regulation has the
advantage, however, of limiting a variety of common fugitive
dust emissions from industrial processes which cannot be
readily controlled under other types of regulations. Emis-
sions from sources such as plant haul roads, storage piles,
transfer points and waste disposal sites are not amenable to
either visible emission regulations or fence-line measure-
ments. Visible emissions are virtually impossible to elimi-
nate from sources such as these, and fence-line measurements
cannot accurately identify the impact these sources will
have when other emission sources are present.
Regulations specifying control equipment are generally
effective only when directed at particular industries and
emission sources. These regulations are inflexible to
changing control technologies, and industries often hesitate
to install additional control equipment if the existing
control equipment required by the regulation is inadequate.
These disadvantages can be largely avoided, however, by
permitting the Agency to specify control equipment and
operating conditions as a condition to obtaining construc-
tion and operating permits. The periodic renewal of these
permits will allow the Agency to monitor fugitive emission
sources in each industry and update the control techniques
required to meet ambient air standards.
The following model regulation is a combination of
existing regulations and is intended to avoid many of their
disadvantages while retaining the advantages. It is di-
rected primarily at common fugitive dust sources from indus-
trial processes, but may also be applied to the broad range
of fugitive particulate emissions from industrial processes.
Also included is a portion of the Illinois General Air
Pollution Regulation, Rule 103, which prohibits any person
5-29
-------
Definitions
Downwind Level - The concentration of air contaminants
from a source or sources on a property as measured at
or beyond the property boundary.
Net Ground-Level Concentration - The upwind level
subtracted from the downwind level.
Upwind Level - The representative concentration of air
contaminants flowing onto or across a property as
measured at any point.
5.5.3 Specified Performance Standards
Performance standards are specifications as to the ways
certain fugitive emission sources should be constructed or
operated. This concept evolves from the fact that there are
no feasible ways to measure the amount of dust being emitted
by most fugitive dust sources, hence no way to establish
quantitative emission standards for those sources. As a
result, the concept suggests that ways of controlling emis-
sions should be specified rather than allowable amounts of
emissions.
Performance standards suffer from the fact that they
either require a very detailed, not readily available, and
constantly changing knowledge of source-receptor relation-
ships or else they are so vague as to almost mean all things
to all people. Where adopted, however, they are easily and
objectively enforced by visual observation and scanning of
maintenance records.
The "reasonable precaution" regulation suggested by the
EPA and adopted by most states sets forth several control
techniques for general application. This type regulation is
difficult to enforce since reasonable precautions are not
specifically defined. It is particularly difficult to apply
when a company has attempted to control a source but the
controls are inadequate, because it must be proven that the
precautions were not reasonable.
5-28
-------
This analysis will indicate whether or not fugitive
emissions are a significant percentage of the total emis-
sions. This analysis, however, cannot indicate what quan-
tity each fugitive source contributed to the air quality at
the perimeter, but serves only as an indicator that a
fugitive emissions problem exists.
In performing this type of analysis, Texas requires the
following information:
layout or map of source processes,
0 process descriptions (emission estimates and
control efficiencies),
0 location of samplers with respect to the source,
0 concurrent upwind and downwind perimeter hi-vol
samples,
0 associated meteorological data (wind speed and
direction),
0 any operations which may significantly bias a
given sampler.
The following upwind-downwind model regulation and
definitions are patterned after the Texas regulation:
Upwind-Downwind Regulation
No person may cause, suffer, allow, or permit indus-
trial process fugitive particulate emissions from a building
or unenclosed process operation to exceed any of the follow-
ing net ground-level concentrations:
105.21 One hundred (100) micrograms per cubic meter
(yg/m3) of air sampled, averaged over any
five (5) consecutive hours.
105.22 Two hundred (200) micrograms per cubic meter
(yg/m3) of air sampled, averaged over any
three (3) consecutive hours.
105.23 Four hundred (400) micrograms per cubic meter
(yg/m3) of air sampled, averaged over any one
(1) hour period.
5-27
-------
particularly important that careful records be maintained on
the standards and frequency of equipment calibration, and
limits should be placed on sampling methods in order to
obtain creditable results.
An existing ambient air monitoring network can be used
initially to determine two things: (1) the general air
quality of the area and (2) the general location of the
predominant sources of emissions. The general air quality
is determined by taking the annual arithmetic or geometric
mean of all samples taken at each site. The general loca-
tion of predominant sources is determined by observing the
pollution roses of all sampling sites. The largest pollu-
tion gradients of each rose will extend toward the sources
having the most significant effect on each site. Care
should be taken to use only days of persistent wind in
pollution roses in order to be sure that the measured con-
centrations are representative of the contributions from
sources in each direction. It can also be determined
whether or not specific sources contribute to concentrations
measured at a given site by use of a tracer.
A suspected polluter will warrant more detailed sam-
pling of its emissions. Typically, samplers are located on
the perimeter of the plant property at points directly
upwind and downwind of the source. The total contribution
of the source to the local air quality is determined by
taking the difference of concurrent samples at these upwind/
downwind sites. Process emissions can be evaluated at the
source by using methods outlined in AP-42. The impact of
these emissions can then be estimated at the downwind sam-
pler by modeling. This calculated impact is subtracted from
the value previously obtained from the perimeter samplers
resulting in an estimate of the impact of fugitive emissions
from the source at the downwind sampler.
5-26
-------
Visible Emission Regulation
(1) Industrial process fugitive particulate emissions
shall be controlled so that there are no visible emissions
at least 90 percent of the time from any building or un-
enclosed process operation, except
(a) A visible emission of an opacity more than 20%
shall not be permitted.
(b) This rule shall not apply where the presence of
uncombined water vapor is the only reason for
failure of an emission to meet the requirements of
(c) This rule shall not apply where specifically
permitted by the commission in a case where com-
pliance is not feasible and all other requirements
of the commission's rules are being met.
5'5'2 Fence-line Air Quality Measurements
Air quality measurements assess the impact of sources
of fugitive air emissions upon air quality. They can be
measured either with dust-fall jars for settleable particu-
lates, high-volume samplers for suspended particulates, or
paper-tape samplers' for the soiling properties of the
emitted dust. Where high- volume samplers are used, the
source's impact can be directly related to the national
ambient air quality standards.
Air quality measurements are excellent for obtaining
objective and court-enforceable comparisons with a standard,
and, with sufficient amounts of air quality data, can be
directly related to ambient air quality standards. Their
chief drawbacks are that they require a relatively large
commitment of scarce resources and that they do not provide
sufficient information to differentiate the impact of one
operation from another within a source.
For scientific and legal purposes, all samples and
their analyses should be carefully documented. It is
5-25
-------
The most common objections to the use of equivalent
opacity are:
(1) The opacity observed is a subjective measurement
varying with the position of the observer in
relation to the sun and sky, size of particles in
the plume, atmospheric lighting and background of
the plume.
(2) Opacity has not as yet been successfully corre-
lated in detail with other methods of measurement.
(3) Difficult to use in hours of darkness.
(4) Water droplets interfere with the observations.
Existing visible emission type regulations are of two
types. General visible emission regulations usually limit
the opacity of emission to a given percentage. Fugitive
dust regulations, however, often prohibit all visible emis-
sions from crossing the property line. By eliminating the
necessity for evaluating the opacity of an emission, the
fugitive dust regulation is less subjective and more easily
enforced.
The following model opacity regulation is based on the
approach being considered for a New Source Performance
Standard for the crushed and broken stone industry. It
differs from existing fugitive visible emission regulations
in that it prohibits all visible emissions only 90 percent
of the time. The restriction that there be no visible emis-
sion from the capture system for 90 percent of the time is
based on calculations from data obtained by qualified
observers at best-controlled plants. In addition, it is
intended that measurements be made at the source rather than
at the property line.
5-24
-------
particulate matter emitted by such a source. Implied in
such a concept is the assumption that there is a similar
relationship between opacity and ambient concentrations of
particulate matter.
From the standpoint of the responsible air pollution
control agency, some of the advantages of the use of visible
emission control regulations are:
(1) The validity of the equivalent opacity concept has
been well established by the courts.
(2) Observers can be trained in a relatively short
time and it is not necessary that observers have
an extensive technical background.
(3) No expensive equipment is required.
(4) One man can make many observations per day.
(5) Violators can be cited without resorting to time-
consuming source testing.
(6) Questionable emissions can be located and the
actual emissions then determined by source tssts.
(7) Although it is usually not possible to quantify
the reduction in total air pollution by the con-
trol of visible emissions, it is reasonable to
assume that there will be a reduction in the
discharge to atmosphere of dusts.
(8) Control can be achieved for operations not readily
suitable to regular source testing methods such as
dust and other leakage from process equipment, and
bulk loading or unloading of dusty materials such
as grains, coal, ores, etc.
(9) It would be unfair to many processes and opera-
tions if dust concentrations in the effluent gases
were limited such that visible emissions would be
eliminated.
5-23
-------
revoke, modify, or refuse to renew or grant a permit under
the following conditions: (i) the requirements of their
Section II. D. have not been met; (ii) the approved compli-
ance or prevention plan has not been followed as determined
by the Division, or (iii) the permit conditions are not
met." Thus, Colorado bases its assessment of compliance on
whether or not the source is performing those easily observ-
able actions that is has said in writing that it will do.
This type of regulatory approach is very effective in con-
trolling fugitive process emissions near major sources and
where the principal contributors can be identified.
All states have mechanisms whereby sources may obtain
variances from fugitive emission regulations or requirements
for good and sufficient cause.
5.5 MODEL REGULATIONS
The Model Regulations set forth below are based on
existing regulations and regulatory approaches which have
been modified to apply to fugitive particulate emissions
from industrial processes. No fugitive emission regulation,
however, will be adequate to control all types of fugitive
particulate emissions and, consequently, no specific model
regulation is recommended. These regulations are presented
for illustration and guidance purposes only. An agency
should use the regulatory approach most applicable to the
specific situation it is trying to control within its juris-
diction.
5.5.1 Visible Emission from Identifiable Sources
Opacity limitations relate to the optical properties of
emitted particulate matter and assume that there is a mean-
ingful relationship between the light-obscuring properties
of the particulate matter emitted by a fugitive dust or
fugitive emission source and the mass-per-unit time of
5-22
-------
Mississippi establishes 5.25 g/m2/month as the amount
above background that may not be exceeded. Missouri estab-
lishes four different standards (without reference to
background) :
1- TSP 80 yg/m3 6-month geo mean
200 yg/m 2-hour arith mean for not
less than 5 2-hour
sampling periods
2. Soiling 0.4 coh/1000 ft 6-month geo mean
index
1.0 coh/1000 ft 8-hour arith mean
Pennsylvania states that "no person shall cause .
fugitive particulate matter to be emitted ... if such
emissions are ... visible at the point such emissions pass
outside the person's property and the average concentration,
above background, of three samples, of such emissions at any
point outside the person's property, exceeds 150 particles
per cubic centimeter."
In two states, Illinois and Missouri, compliance is
also assessed in terms of particle size. Missouri, for
example, equates visibility of particulate matter (in the
sense of opacity limitations) with finding particles larger
than 40 microns in size present beyond the premises of
origin.
Specific Operating Procedures - The fourth method of
assessing compliance has already been briefly described in
reference to the stipulation of control techniques in oper-
ating and construction permits. The provisions found in
Colorado's regulation are indicative. That state's regula-
tion is based upon permits, control plans, and plan and
progress reports each of which stipulates the dust abatement
and preventive measures that will be applied by the source.
The regulations further state that "The Division may suspend,
5-21
-------
Where
P = percentage increase
R = number of particles of fugitive dust measured
at downwind receptor site
U = number of particles of fugitive dust measured
at upwind or background site
Potential Respiratory Damage - If the fugitive dust is
comprised of 50 percent or more respirable dust, then
the percent increase of dust concentration . . . shall
be modified as follows:
Pr = (1.5-N)
Where
N = fraction of fugitive dust that is respirable
dust
P = allowable percentage increase in dust
concentration above background
P = no value greater than 67%
Ambient Air Concentrations - The ground level ambient
air concentrations exceed 50 micrograms per cubic
meter above background concentrations for a 60-minute
period . . .
If the source is determined to be comprised of two or
more legally separate persons, each shall be held
proportionately responsible on the basis of contri-
butions by each person as determined by microscopic
analysis."
Kansas stipulates that "no person shall cause ... a
ground level particulate concentration at the property line
equal to or exceeding 2.0 milligrams per cubic meter above
background concentrations for any time period aggregating
more than 10 minutes during any hour."
5-20
-------
The Texas Air Control Board has stipulated that the
minimum net difference between the two concentrations must
be at least 100 yg/m in order to demonstrate that a signi-
ficant emission source is present. It also stipulates that
if the difference is 100 to 200 yg/m3 then the sampling
period should be for 5 or more hours. If it is 200 to 400
Vig/m , then the period should be at least 3 hours. If
3
greater than 400 yg/m , then the averaging period should be
at least 1 hour. They consider these ranges to be statis-
tically reliable and legally defensible.
Nuisance and Property Line Concentrations - This tech-
nique is designed to help abate neighborhood-scale nuisance
problems caused by specific fugitive emission sources, not
city-wide ambient air quality ones. It has been found to be
both legally defensible and — because of its quantitative
nature — an effective abatement tool.
Other states have devised ambient sampling type regula-
tions which are equally applicable to sources of fugitive
process emissions and fugitive dust.
Hawaii, for example, stipulates that concentrations may
not be more than 150 yg/m (12-hour average) "above upwind"
2
TSP concentrations or 3.0 g/m (14-day average) above upwind
dust-fall concentrations. Indiana has a complex regulation
which says that a source will be in violation if a source or
combination of sources cause:
"concentrations greater than 67 percent in excess
of ambient upwind concentrations as determined by the
following formula:
P = 1QO (R-U)
U
5-19
-------
using a 5 percent visible emission regulation of this type
to control specific fugitive sources.
Similarly, many states include in their regulations a
general provision that bans any emission that is considered
a nuisance or that endangers human health and welfare.
Alabama's regulation is indicative: "When dust, fumes,
gases, mist, odorous matter, vapors, or any combination
thereof escape from a building or equipment in such a manner
and amount as to cause a nuisance . . ., the Director may
order that the building or equipment in which processing,
handling, and storage are done be tightly closed and venti-
lated in such a way that all air and gases and air or gas-
borne material leaving the building or equipment are treated
by removal or destruction of air contaminants before dis-
charge to the open air." This language is particularly
useful for controlling fugitive emissions from industrial
process, but citizen complaints and the agency's subjective
judgment are needed to determine whether the source is a
nuisance.
Ambient Sampling - Assessment of compliance is some-
times made through ambient sampling. Standards for partic-
ulate concentration or fallout at the property line are of
particular value in controlling fugitive process emissions
from specific industrial and commercial sources. Texas, for
example, has successfully applied an upwind-downwind method
to the control of fugitive sources. In essence this tech-
nique requires simultaneous measurement of ambient air
particulate concentrations (using standard hi-vol tech-
niques) at a minimum of two locations, one upwind and at
least one other downwind of the source in question. Measure-
ments are usually taken for periods ranging from 1 to 5
hours and are subsequently compared to maximum permissible
downwind minus upwind concentrations for the applicable time
period.
5-18
-------
there is a variety of methods for determining how compliance
with this objective is to be assessed.
States commonly employ two or more of the following
strategies in combination:
0 Ambient air sampling for total suspended particu-
late concentrations or dust fall concentrations.
0 Visual observance for opacity of the dust produced
by the source.
0 Agency verification that performance standards are
being complied with.
0 Agency enforcement of "nuisance" regulations,
whether initiated by citizen complaints or agency
surveillance.
The regulation provided in 40 CFR 51 Appendix B does
not directly address methods of assessing compliance other
than in terms of requiring that emissions not exceed 20
percent opacity. Connecticut regulations, as a result,
stipulate that, "No person shall cause or permit the dis-
charge of visible emissions beyond the lot line of the
property on which the emissions originate when: (i) the
emissions remain visible and exist near ground level outside
the property boundaries; or (ii) the emissions remain
visible and impinge on a building or structure so that the
health, safety, or enjoyment of life of the public may be
diminished." Most states have adopted a variant of this
regulation. In general, these standards may be made appli-
cable to both fugitive process emissions and fugitive dust.
Visual Observance - In addition, most states have
adopted general visible emission regulations which prohibit
any visible emissions, without reference to the property
line, which are greater than a stated opacity (generally
20%). These regulations may be construed to encompass
fugitive emissions and at least one state has considered
5-17
-------
for specific types of fugitive dust sources. In great
detail, Colorado regulates unpaved roads and parking areas;
earth and construction material moving and excavating;
demolition, wrecking and moving of structures, and explo-
sives detonation activities; open mining activities; and un-
enclosed operations.
These regulations require existing facilities to submit
and implement specific control plans and progress reports,
and require new facilities to obtain permits for construc-
tion and operation. The permits involve the submission of
a substantial amount of information: a description of the
activity, the abatement and preventive measures that will be
used, a time schedule for the activities, and a description
of the monitoring methods to ensure compliance.
Special abatement and preventive methods outlined by
the regulations are more detailed than those in the EPA-
suggested regulation, but essentially leave the choice of
method to the source, with agency review and approval.
While the Colorado regulation is directed primarily at
fugitive-dust-type sources, many states specify control
techniques to control fugitive emissions from particular
industrial processes. Alabama, for example, has adopted a
regulation which requires both reasonable measures and
specific control techniques for operating and maintaining
coke ovens. As a condition for obtaining operating and
construction permits, Michigan and Illinois often require
particular industries to stipulate "formalized maintenance
programs." These often contain limitations and control
measures for fugitive emissions.
5.4.3 Compliance Methods
All fugitive dust regulations are designed to help
achieve and maintain ambient air quality standards, but
5-16
-------
what is reasonable, consideration will be given to factors
such as the proximity of dust-emitting operations to human
habitations and/or activities and atmospheric conditions
which might affect the movement of particulate matter."
As a general rule, reasonable precaution regulations
are more effective in dealing with diverse sources of fugi-
tive dust than with particulate sources of fugitive process
emissions. This approach affords an agency administrator
the discretion needed to deal with a variety of sources, but
it risks resulting in arbitrary and capricious decisions and
being contested in court. Many states, in adopting the
fugitive dust regulations, have incorporated language
placing particular emphasis upon fugitive dust sources.
Ohio, for example, has adopted a regulation which applies
exclusively to persons who permit "materials to be handled,
transported, or stored; or a building or its appurtenances
or a road to be used, constructed, altered, repaired or
demolished without taking reasonable precautions."
Some states, however, have adopted reasonable precau-
tion type regulations to control fugitive emissions from
industrial process. Vermont, for example, prohibits "any
process operation to operate that is not equipped with a
fugitive particulate matter control system" and empowers the
Air Pollution Control Officer to order a building or equip-
ment closed and ventilated so that all exhaust gases may be
treated before discharge. Similarly, West Virginia requires
a manufacturing process to be equipped with and maintain a
fugitive particulate matter control system to minimize
emissions.
5.4.2 Specific Control Regulations
Colorado provides the best example of a state which
requires the implementation of specific control techniques
5-15
-------
Where a distinction between fugitive process emissions
and fugitive dust is made within a state regulation, it
usually relates to one of the following:
0 definition of fugitive dust,
0 specification of control techniques,
0 and methods of assessing compliance.
In some cases, a definition distinguishes between
"fugitive emissions" from industrial processes and "fugitive
dust" to reflect particular air pollution problems within
the state. Arizona, for example, which has a significant
windblown dust problem, defines "fugitive dust" as including
all "uncontrolled dust." One of West Virginia's principal
concerns is with particulate emissions from manufacturing
processes and, hence, it provides an alternate definition:
"'Fugitive Particulate Matter1 shall mean any and all parti-
culate matter generated by any manufacturing process which,
if not confined, would be emitted directly into the open air
from points other than a stack outlet."
5.4.1 Reasonable Precaution Regulations
Control techniques are usually defined in one of two
ways: either reasonable precautions are required or speci-
fic control techniques are mandated. Reasonable precautions
usually include those precautions suggested in the EPA
regulation. The actual degree of control or extent of
activity that is "reasonable" is, however, usually left to
the discretion of the control agency personnel. Connecticut,
for example, requires that, "Such reasonable precautions
shall be in accordance with good industrial practice as
determined by the Commissioner and shall include, but not be
limited to, ..." the precautions suggested in 40 CFR 51
Appendix B. Others, such as Idaho, try to be somewhat more
precise. Idaho's regulations state that, "In determining
5-14
-------
(4) The adequacy of existing regulations for imple-
menting the control measures required by IPFPE
sources. Included here is the problem of deter-
mining not only the effectiveness of current
regulations but also the additional control which
can be generated by revised or new regulations and
enforcement procedures.
(5) The availability of techniques/models which will
allow the agency, with some degree of confidence
to select the optimized control strategy for
integration into their SIP process.
5.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO IN-
DUSTRIAL PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Most states use a fugitive emission regulation pattered
after the one contained in 40 CFR 51, Appendix B. This
regulation does not distinguish between fugitive particulate
emissions from industrial processes and fugitive dusts that
become airborne due to the wind and man's activity on the
land. Thus in most states the emission sources are combined
into a single category which includes a solid, airborne
particulate matter emitted from any source other than a
stack. The basic state regulation recommends that "reason-
able precautions" be taken to prevent this "fugitive dust"
from becoming airborne and suggests some general techniques
for achieving this goal including:
0 watering or chemical application during construc-
tion activities,
° applying dust suppressant to roadways,
0 installing hoods, ducts, etc. on industrial
processes,
0 covering truck bins,
0 using sound agricultural practices,
0 paving roads and keeping them clean,
0 and prompt removal of dirt from roadways.
5-13
-------
0 In many nonattainment situations, increasing the
stringency of existing regulations for stack or
vented particulate emissions may result in a
significantly greater cost impact than that re-
quired for control of IPFPE sources at the same
facility. For example, increasing the control
efficiency of an existing particulate collector
from 97.5 to 99.5 percent is often not as cost-
effective as reducing as much as 50 percent of the
fugitive particulate emitted by the plant through
the application of control options such as en-
closure of open conveyors, hooding and ducting
into existing controls, or collection and re-
entrainment into the process stream.
0 Due to a general lack of attention, control
techniques for most IPFPE have not been advanced
to that stage of application wherein resultant
control can be anticipated with good confidence.
Thus, the door is open for the development of
innovative control techniques and equipment
design.
In summary, most of the revised SIP's dealing with
control of IPFPE can probably best be developed on the basis
of a source-by-source evaluation which leads to the develop-
ment of an overall regulatory/enforcement program customized
for the emission characteristics specific to each area. In
so doing, the agency may be required to make certain judg-
ments concerning the emission strength and control options
for each source under consideration. These judgments will
center around:
(1) The need to develop the best data possible.
Ambient air quality concentration and specific
source-related measurements of IPFPE will cer-
tainly enhance the quality of the analysis.
(2) The ability to identify the specific IPFPE sources
which have, in fact, a significant impact on air
quality nonattainment.
(3) The applicability of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for IPFPE sources which require
control.
5-12
-------
Costs involved in controlling IPFPE can often be
considerable, at least on a relative scale. For
example, major expenditures are involved in con-
trolled hooding and enclosure of a very dusty
operation (such as ore handling and blending).
While the enclosure, ducting, exit control device,
and air moving system may result in an installa-
tion cost which may not appear unreasonable, the
operating and maintenance costs for moving an
extremely large air volume through the number of
air changes required for indoor worker protection
can be significant. Also, the fact that IPFPE's
are often in the "fine particle" range, i.e., less
than 5 microns, dictates the need for high effi-
ciency collectors which are relatively costly.
In certain cases, especially when the IPFPE is
"fine particulate," the application of a control
technique produces some special secondary problems
resulting from handling, transfer, and disposal of
the collected particulate. Special precautions
must often be employed to prevent wind dispersion,
erosion, and runoff from occurring.
0 PROS °
In many cases, a significant portion of the total
fugitive particulate emissions emanating from an
industrial facility results from "universal sources"
such as plant/haul roads, storage piles, transfer
operations, and disposal sites. Control tech-
nology applications for these sources are reason-
ably well defined and do not result in a severe
economic impact on the plant operator in most
cases.
At times emissions of fugitive particulates can be
reduced through a diligent "housekeeping" and
equipment maintenance program. Employee care-
lessness can also result in increased IPFPE.
Avoidance of unnecessary process upsets, shut-down
and start-up operations, and slipshod performance
of routine plant activities such as handling and
transfer of materials can result in emission
reductions often accomplished at no increase in
operational costs.
5-11
-------
5.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE IPFPE STATE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANNING PROCESS
In attempting to develop a reasonable control approach
for IPFPE sources and integrating it into the existing SIP
structure, a number of factors are involved. These factors
will influence IPFPE control options and plans at least
through the next several years, or until a significant
technical effort is developed which will fill current infor-
mation gaps in the areas of IPFPE measurement, control
device/technique application, impact analysis, and the like.
However, these factors do not mitigate against facing up to
the fact that IPFPE sources do exist and are identifiable,
that they can cause significant impact on TSP air quality in
specific situations, and that even with our current level of
technical knowledge and engineering experience it has been
demonstrated that IPFPE sources can and should be reasonably
controlled. Significant "CONS" and PROS" of our current
situation can be summarized as follows:
0 CONS °
0 At the present time, the great majority of poten-
tial IPFPE sources have not even been quantified
by emission estimation techniques, much less by
actual measurement. Without data regarding their
chemical/physical parameters and process-related
characteristics (exit velocity, temperature,
location, etc.) it is virtually impossible to
determine the most reasonable and effective
control technology application.
0 In many instances, the IPFPE source presents a
unique case. Even in the same industry, factors
such as plant design and age, physical plant
configuration, proximate location to populated
receptor areas, topography and meteorology, acting
together or individually, result in an empirical
situation. It cannot be solved simply by applying
a control plan which was developed and worked for
a source with similar process parameters.
5-10
-------
source basis for those sources within the non-
attainment area which are suspected to be con-
tributing to the short-term violations of the
NAAQS.
If the existing regulations are determined to be
inadequate for the attainment of the NAAQS, the
additional degree of control should be determined
for the sources in question. Once the various
control measures have been evaluated in regard to
their reasonableness, they should be tested by
reapplication of the short-term modeling technique
to test the effectiveness of the control measure
in reducing the short-term localized impact of the
sources under consideration. While the short-term
localized impact will be the "binding constraint"
in most cases as far as IPFPE is concerned, the
area-wide annual average impact should be evaluated
in order to ensure that the measures developed for
minimizing the short-term impact will be satis-
factory in providing adequate control for the
overall area-wide impact from these sources. The
overall control strategy developed for IPFPE
should reflect the degree of control necessary to
attain the NAAQS from both the short-term and
annual average aspects. Thus, the overall effec-
tiveness of the strategy should be tested in the
short-term as well as the "long-term mode to ensure
the development of the best strategy possible.
The development of the control strategy should
consider such factors as control technology
availability and applicability, time required for
implementation, enforceability, and overall
practicability and reasonableness.
The final control strategy should provide for
control of IPFPE as expeditiously as practicable.
An adequate documentation of the analysis should
be developed to ensure completeness. Once the
strategy is finalized, enforceable regulations and
compliance test methods (see section 5.4) must be
developed to implement the strategy. Some example
regulations currently in existence to control
IPFPE are contained in section 5.4. Additionally,
a series of model regulations applicable to IPFPE
are contained in section 5.5.
5-9
-------
approach is presently under investigation. To
repeat, however, it is usually the short-term,
localized impact of IPFPE that determines the
necessary control.
Final Approach:
Perform dispersion modeling for the short-term
localized impact, using the improved modeling
approach to be made available by EPA later in 1977
(as referred to in Section 4.2). Secondarily,
determine the area-wide annual average impact
using the approach described in Section 4.3 or,
when available, the approach referred to above.
Review Existing Regulations to Determine Appli-
cability to IPFPE Control - Reduction of IPFPE
will likely require a new approach to regulatory
control of such emissions. Currently, regulations
for control of fugitive emissions are of three
general types: nonspecific nuisance regulations,
quantitative property-line regulations, and regu-
lations that prescribe specific control measures
in specific circumstances. The majority of regu-
lations are of the first type, defining dust as a
nuisance and often requiring "reasonable precau-
tions" to prevent emissions. While flexible and
capable of being strong enforcement tools, such
regulations may not always be effective for IPFPE
control. The other two types can be more effec-
tive; however, property-line regulations in partic-
ular require enforcement and measurement tech-
niques that are even more difficult than those
required for stack emission sources. Regardless,
a judgment must be made as to whether existing
regulations can effectively control IPFPE and, if
so, what the compliance status is of each identi-
fied source.
Determine the Relative Degree of Control Required
for IPFPE and a Plan for Implementation - Using
the selected approach for baseline IPFPE source/
receptor relationships:
Using the results of the short-term modeling,
determine the degree of control that will occur
from full compliance with adopted regulations.
This evaluation should be done on a source-by-
5-8
-------
Table 5-1. MICROINVENTORY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
(EXAMPLE)
Source
category
Emission level
parameter
Emission
factor
Particulate
emissions,
ton/yr
en
I
Unpaved roads
Normal paved roads
Aggregate storage
Motor vehicles
Railroads
Fuel combustion, area
sources
Waste disposal
Active construction
Asphalt plant
Vented
Fugitive
Gray iron foundry
Vented
Fugitive
Total
139.4 VMT/day
243,884 VMT/day
3.3 acres
243,884 VMT/day
142,350 gal/yr
5.3 Ib/VMT
1.75 gm/VMT
3.4 ton/ac/yr
0.0013 Ib/VMT
0.025 Ib/gal
(From Regional Inventory)
(From Regional Inventory)
88 acre-months
1.0 ton/acre/month
(From Agency Files)
(Example, Section 2.11)
(From Agency Files)
(Example, Section 2.5)
-2-
Enr sion density, ton/mi /yr
Percent fugitive dust
Percent IPFPE
135
156
11
58
2
42
18
92
6
27
110
220
877
279
28
-------
within a 0.8 to 1.6 km (1/2 to 1 mile) radius
surrounding each TSP sampling site may be surveyed
to identify conventional point and area sources of
particulates, plus fugitive dust and IPFPE's. The
methodology for this "microinventory" has been
developed and applied in various studies.9»10
This method will provide a means of identifying
the types of particulate emission sources which
will have an impact upon the individual monitoring
site in question.
An example microinventory tabulation is presented
in Table 5-1.
Select an Approach to Establish the Baseline
Source/Receptor Relationship"
Interim Approach:
If the assessment of the IPFPE problem indicates
a short-term localized impact, the preliminary
dispersion modeling techniques described in
section 4.2.2 should be employed to estimate the
relative 24-hour impact of IPFPE on air quality.
While some may question the relative accuracy and
precision of the fugitive emission factors cur-
rently available and the dispersion modeling
techniques outlined in section 4.2, the results
should be of sufficient quality to (1) allow at
least a relative ranking of sources based on
greatest impact, (2) define the general nature and
characteristics of IPFPE so that a determination
of reasonably available control technology appli-
cation can begin on a source-by-source basis, and
(3) support the need for acquisition of better
emission factors or source test data using the
state-of-the-art techniques described in section
4.4 for those major sources under consideration
for potential control.
In most cases the short-term localized impact of
IPFPE will be the binding constraint; however, in
some cases the long-term or area-wide impact could
be of some significance and it should be evaluated.
This can be accomplished as part of the overall
evaluation of the annual average impact of all
sources within the given area. An interim ap-
proach is discussed in Section 4.3. An improved
5-6
-------
to resurvey the entire inventory area for over-
looked or currently unreported sources* of partic-
ulate emissions.
Determine the Geographical Distribution of Sources
In order to more easily assess the spatial distri-
bution of IPFPE (and fugitive dust) sources and
their possible impact on TSP sampling sites, a map
locating sources and sites should be constructed.
Additionally, if the sources of IPFPE are uni-
formly scattered across the geographical area
chosen for investigation, and concentrations at
TSP sampling sites throughout the area are ob-
served to move up and down together on sequential
sampling days, these sources are probably respon-
sible for the region-wide influence on air quality.
However, the possibility that an extra-regional
source may be causing this situation should always
be considered. Always investigate other possible
influences, such as pollen, atmospheric aerosol
formation, and influx of particulate, and attempt
to quantify their impacts.
However, in many cases the impact of IPFPE can be
readily associated with a single source. Correla-
tion of highest sampling loadings with wind direc-
tion from the source, visual observation, and the
examination of specific samples noted previously
can all assist in confirmation of the source-
receptor situation. If isolated or single sources
appear to be major contributors to nonattainment,
a detailed emission inventory should be developed
for the source in question which would include
fugitive emissions.
It is generally agreed that the high-volume
sampler, as it is usually employed to monitor
regional air quality, is principally influenced by
particulate emissions occurring within a 0.8 to
1.6 km (1/2 to 1 mile) radius. This is especially
the case when IPFPE sources are being considered,
due to their low exit velocity and usual emission
at or near ground level. Therefore, the area
*
This survey effort presents the ideal opportunity to locate
and quantify fugitive dust emissions concurrent with IPFPE.
Fugitive dust sources such as unpaved roads, active con-
struction, agricultural activities, and the like should also
be located and tabulated. Emission factors may be found
not only in AP-42 but other publications6'8 as well.
5-5
-------
U.S. EPA is currently developing uniform siting
criteria. Until these are available, guidance may
be found in a 1972 publication.7
Inspect Samples for First-Order Impacts - At
times, visual inspection or physical/chemica1
techniques can provide evidence of air quality
impact from IPFPE sources. For example, if
crushed rock emissions are suspect, the following
approach could be employed:
(a) Visual inspection could be made of the TSP
filters for grayish coloration, especially on
days when the wind was known to be coming
from the suspect source.
(b) Polarized light microscopy could then be
employed to determine (quantitatively) that
crushed rock particles have been captured on
the filter.
(c) Depending on the chemical composition of the
rock being processed, the sample could be
analyzed for indicators such as calcium,
phosphorous, and the like. Unusually high
levels of these "indicator" elements would
tend to confirm a source-receptor impact.
However, while it is possible to use microscopic
and other analytical techniques in concert to
provide comprehensive particle identification
analysis, the requisite analytical sophistication
and cost constrain their use for widespread
screening-level studies. Their utility is pri-
marily in more precise study of already well-
structured problems.
Identify Suspected/Known Sources of IPFPE and
Update Emission Inventory - Within the constraints
of available manpower, the existing regional/area
particulate emissions inventory must be updated to
include the contribution from IPFPE. Source-
related data supplied in Section 2.0 should be
used if no better information is available. It is
recommended that a special effort should be made
5-4
-------
ical control strategy can be developed. The amount of work
involved in each development phase will vary from area to
area depending on available data, magnitude of the TSP
problem, types and number of IPFPE sources, etc. Listed
below, in sequential order, are a series of procedures or
action phases which may be employed to determine (or at
least strongly suspect) that IPFPE's are a significant
factor in nonattainment and/or maintenance of the NAAQS for
TSP. Once such a positive determination has been made, the
sequence of activities continues until the most appropriate
strategy is formulated.
° Review and Validate Air Quality Data - Validate
and evaluate all available TSP ambient air measure-
ment data, determining its representativeness,
influencing factors, and limitations. Be positive
that it was collected and analyzed using the
Reference Method and that proper quality control
was exercised. Several guidelines have been
prepared to assist with this process.3r4,5 if
possible, examine air quality data statistically6
for indications of major impacting source cate-
gories (e.g., effect of rainfall, weekday versus
weekend readings, wind directions associated with
high concentrations).
° Evaluate TSP Sampling Site for Bias - Generally
this information is known.Regardless, each site
should be assessed in light of the following
criteria:
(a) How well the location represents particulate
air quality of the surrounding area.
(b) Appropriateness of site for use in deter-
mining regional attainment or nonattainment
of air quality standards.
(c) Presence of a local dominating pollution
source, especially a known or suspected
source of IPFPE.
(d) Presence of physical interferences.
5-3
-------
and transportation sources. The two modifying factors are
meteorology and monitoring network configuration and siting.
Industrial process fugitive particulate emissions (IPFPE)
were classified as "nontraditional sources."
As noted in Section 1.0, IPFPE have often been recog-
nized as a source of particulate matter, but only minor
control efforts have generally been pursued to date. In
many operations, especially where dry materials handling is
prominent, particulate matter emissions are generated in
processes both inside and outside of plant facilities, but
still on plant property. This fact was repeatedly noted
throughout Section 2.0. Also, the low height at which they
are typically emitted means that very little dilution occurs
and fairly high ambient levels are created. Consequently,
while IPFPE problems are generally localized and associated
with a point source of particulate emissions, they can
influence air quality over a considerable area if the
source is a major industrial complex or a cluster of indivi-
dual sources in or near an urban area.
Therefore, IPFPE in many cases may be a major contri-
butor to the nonattainment of the NAAQS, and plans should be
developed for their control. Once the need for control is
identified, a control strategy must be developed and evalu-
ated in light of its economic impact, and its feasibility
from an .implementation and enforcement/compliance aspect.
These factors and their respective roles in the SIP process
will be considered in the following sections.
5.2 PROCEDURES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A CONTROL STRATEGY FOR
IPFPE
The need for and development of any control strategy
designed to attain and maintain the NAAQS initially requires
an analysis of current and possible future air quality prob-
lems. If IPFPE can be identified and quantified, a categor-
5-2
-------
5.0 INTEGRATION OF IPFPE IMPACTS INTO THE STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
While considerable progress has been made in reducing
ambient TSP concentrations in many locations, it is now
apparent that the primary national ambient air quality
standard for TSP (NAAQS) will not be attained on a nation-
wide basis under existing State Implemention Plans (SIP).
U.S. EPA's most recent estimate indicates that 52 percent
of the 247 designated Air Quality Control Regions had
measured concentrations in excess of either the annual or
maximum 24-hour NAAQS for TSP in 1976. In light of this,
U.S. EPA officially notified 31 states in July 1976 that
their SIP must be revised to provide for attainment of the
NAAQS. As part of this revision process, the states must
seriously evaluate the impact of all particulate matter
sources including IPFPE and, where defined as a legitimate
attainment problem, provide a revised SIP to include their
control by July 1978.
In a recently completed study titled "National Assess-
ment of the Particulate Problem," five factors were iden-
tified as affecting the attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS for TSP. These were conceptually grouped as follows:
three general categories of sources that contribute to the
TSP loading at any given point, and two factors that act to
modify the ambient levels measured. The three general
categories of particulate matter emissions are those from
traditional sources, nontraditional sources, plus natural
5-1
-------
8. TRW Systems Group; "Air Quality Display Model".
Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Adminis-
tration under Contract No. PH-22-68-60 (NTIS PB 189194),
DREW, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
(November 1969).
9. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Quasi-Stack Sampling Method for Industrial
Fugitive Emissions. Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1976. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-76-089c.
10. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Roof Monitor Sampling Method for Industrial
Fugitive Emissions. Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. May 1976. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-76-089b.
11. Personal Communication: Michael Maillard, P.E., Wayne
County Department of Health, Air Pollution Control
Division, Michigan.
12. Environmental Protection Agency Regulations on National
Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CRF 50.
13. Instructions for operation of the Hi-volume sampler
head (Model 65-000). Andersen Air Samples 200, Inc.
Atlanta, Ga.
14. Respirable Dust Monitor Model RDM-101 for short term
measurements. GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts.
15. Technical Manual for the Measurement of Fugitive
Emissions: Upwind-Downwind Sampling Method for Indus-
trial Fugitive Emissions. Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. March
1976. Publication No. EPA-600/2-76-089a.
4-14
-------
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 4.0
1. Slade, D.H. (ed.). "Meteorology and Atomic Energy,"
National Technical Information Service TID-24190,
Sringfield, Virginia 22151 (1968).
2. Turner, D.B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio. May, 1970.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Reviewing New
Stationary Sources; Guidelines for Air Quality Main-
tenance Planning and Analysis, Volume 10 (in prepara-
tion). OAQPS No. 1.2-029, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. (1977).
4. U.S. EPA; User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air
Pollution (UNAMAP); (Computer Programs on Tape for
Point Source Models, HIWAY, Climatological Dispersion
Model and APRAC-1A) NTIS PB 229771 National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151,
(1974).
5. Zimmerman, J.R., and R.S. Thompson. "User's Guide for
HIWAY: A Highway Air Pollution Model"; Environmental
Monitoring Series EPA-650/4-008, NERC, EPA, Research
Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, (February 1975).
6. Turner, D.B. and W.B. Petersen. "A Gaussian-Plume
Algorithm for Point, Area, and Line Sources;" Paper
presented at the 6th NATO (CCMS International Technical
Meeting on Air Pollution Modeling, Frankfurt, Germany.
September 24-26, 1975. (To be available at UNAMAP in
late 1977).
7. Busse, A.D., and J.R. Zimmerman. "User's Guide for the
Climatological Dispersion Model". Environmental
Monitoring Series EPA-R4-73-024 (NTIS PB 227346AS)
NERC, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711. (December 1973).
4-13
-------
each filter is compared to the total weight (combined weight
of all filters) to determine the percentage of each size
range. Cascade impactors and high-volume samplers can be
used in similar locations.
4.4.5 Beta Gauge
14
This is a device which measures the respirable
fraction (smaller than 2 ym particles) of suspended particu-
late matter. Particles larger than 2 ym are filtered out by
a cyclone collector. The smaller particles which pass
through this collector are impacted on a thin plastic film.
The amount of beta radiation from a carbon-14 source which
penetrates this sample is proportional to the quantity of
collected material. The associated electronics relate this
quantity to the volumetric flow rate and provide a digital
display of the respirable dust concentration.
4-12
-------
A slightly different method is used by the Wayne County
(Michigan) Department of Health to sample ventilators.11 A
pitot tube traverse is made to locate a point having rela-
tively stable flow conditions in the ventilator outlet. A
single isokinetic sample is made at this point to determine
the particulate density in the outlet,. Based on the sizes
of the fan and the exhaust duct, the total volumetric flow
rate is obtained from a family of fan curves. From these
values the emission rate can be calculated.
4.4.3 High-volume Samplers
High-volume samplers, which are used to measure the
concentration of particulate matter in the ambient air,12
can be used in many ways to determine the source strength
and impact of fugitive emissions. The applications of high-
volume samplers include the roof-monitor-source sampling
method and the upwind/downwind ambient sampling technique.15
Several high-volume samplers may be used around storage
piles or waste dumps in order to estimate windblown emis-
sions. Other uses include positioning high-volume samplers
on roof tops to estimate building losses.
4.4.4 Cascade Impactor
This method13 is designed to fractionate suspended
particulate into several particle size ranges. Rather than
draw air through only one filter, as does a normal high-
volume sampler, a cascade impactor draws air through a
series of plates. Each of the plates contains perforations
of known size. The perforations decrease in size with each
successive plate, which in turn increases the velocity of
the air. Beneath each plate is a preweighed filter on which
the particles will impact depending on their size and velo-
city. After sampling, the filters are weighed to determine
the weight of particulate matter collected. The weight of
4-11
-------
4.4 MEASUREMENT OF IPFPE's (State-of-the-Art)
Briefly described in the following section are several
basic tools for measuring both source strengths and ambient
concentrations of fugitive particulate emissions.
4.4.1 Quasi-stack
Quasi-stack^ is a technique which can provide quite
accurate measurements of fugitive particulate emissions from
a wide variety of relatively small individual operations.
This method requires that the source be completely isolated
by an enclosure capable of capturing essentially 100 percent
of the emissions without affecting the emission rates, the
physical and chemical characteristics of the emissions, or
other plant processes. Emissions are vented to the atmos-
phere through an exhaust duct, where they are measured using
standard stack sampling techniques.
4.4.2 Roof Monitor
The roof monitor sampling method is used to quantify
fugitive emissions which escape through monitors and through
other building openings such as windows, doors, and fan-
driven ventilators. This method involves measuring (1) the
area of the monitor or building opening, (2) the velocity of
the flow through these openings with a hot-wire or rotating-
vane anemometer, and (3) the concentration of particulates
emitted from the processes within the building after they
have been mixed and diluted by the internal atmosphere of
the building. A high-volume sampler is most often used to
determine the TSP concentration. The fugitive emission rate
can then be calculated from the measured concentration and
the volume flow rate (area times velocity) through the
monitor/opening.
4-10
-------
To the extent practicable, emissions from nonfugitive
sources should be quantified and characterized for the
specific days of interest. For example, it is entirely
likely that a source whose controls normally operate at a
specified collection efficiency may, on a particular day,
actually be emitting at a rate much higher than normal. If
such were the case, the point source modeling results based
upon the normal emission rate would greatly underestimate
the contribution of nonfugitive sources and thereby exag-
gerate the inferred impact of the fugitive sources.
4.3 ESTIMATION OF THE LONG-TERM, AREA-WIDE AIR QUALITY
IMPACT
No long-term dispersion model is generally available
which adequately considers the complicating factors peculiar
to IPFPE's. The possible development of such a model for
industrial source complexes is being investigated. In the
interim, the absence of an adequate annual model is not
critical, since the short-term localized impact of IPFPE's
is of primary concern from the viewpoint of developing
adequate emission control strategies.
Preliminary estimates of area-wide, annual-average
impact can be obtained by including the IPFPE sources in the
7 8
multisource urban models, e.g., COM and AQDM, which are
being used for other sources of particulate matter in the
area of concern. For such purposes, the details of source
configuration are not so critical as they are for short-
term, localized, air quality modeling. On the distance
scales of area-wide models, many area sources (e.g., haul
roads and roof monitors) can be treated as point sources.
The roadway network of a relatively large plant can be
treated as a uniform area source. A related aspect is that
many emissions can be "lumped" because the physical para-
meters of the individual sources are not so critical as they
are in short-term, localized air quality modeling.
4-9
-------
The upwind sampler(s) should be located so as to be
representative of the same air mass as that being sampled by
the downwind sampler(s). It is important to ensure that no
extraneous sources, such as nearby roadways, are affecting
the sampler(s). Generally, the downwind sampler(s) should
be located in areas where the general public has access but
as near as possible to the IPFPE sources in question.
Because many IPFPE sources are near ground level, their air
quality impact is highest near the source and decreases
rather quickly with downwind distance. However, for some
elevated IPFPE sources, such as roof monitors, the maximum
air quality impact may be at an appreciable distance from
the plant boundary. The selection of locations for samplers
should be made with this in mind.
In order to document the relationship between measured
air quality and suspected IPFPE sources, simultaneous
meteorological measurements should also be made. Meteoro-
logical parameters which should be measured include, at a
minimum, hourly wind speed and wind direction. The avail-
ability of on-site meteorological data is also important in
situations where dispersion modeling is applied to determine
the impact of nonfugitive stack emissions. For this pur-
pose, hourly observations of temperature and cloud cover are
also needed.
Modeling the Nonfugitive Sources - The sources of non-
fugitive emissions do not generally present the complica-
tions associated with fugitive emissions. As such, they are
more amenable to modeling via available computerized models
(i.e., PTMAX, PTMTP, etc.) with the expectation of reliable
results. The modeling should be done for those days identi-
fied as showing the greatest impact from the total plant.
Meteorological data for the selected days should be avail-
able as discussed above.
4-8
-------
maximize the ambient impact, and (2) are reasonably likely
to occur at the plant locations. The first point requires
expertise in relating source impact to meteorological con-
ditions. The second point requires expertise in the clima-
tology of the area in which the given IPFPE source is
located.
4'2'2 --ield Measurements (Upwind/Downwind Sampling^
The impact of the total participate emissions from a
facility can be estimated by judiciously measuring the
ambient particulate concentrations upwind and downwind of
the facility with high volume samplers.15 The contribution
of emissions from nonfugitive sources can be estimated by
dispersion modeling. This contribution can then be sub-
tracted from the estimated impact for the entire plant The
remainder is then inferred to be the impact of the IPFPE's.
This technique is not without sources of considerable
error. Reasonable precautions should be taken in the inter-
pretation of all measured and inferred concentrations. The
approach is nevertheless a reasonable one for estimating the
magnitude of a suspected fugitive emission problem and for
identifying possible corrective actions.
Sampling sites and Data Collection - The short-term,
"worst case" impact of fugitive emissions at points near'a
Plant is generally of chief concern. Accordingly, the
downwind sampler(s) should be located so as to be sensitive
to this impact. The number of samplers to be used to deter-
mine downwind concentrations should reflect the number,
strength, and size of suspected IPFPE sources at the facil-
ity. The field sampling program should be conducted over a
sufficiently long period to assure that conditions reason-
ably approximating the worst case are observed.
4-7
-------
0 Combinations of Source Categories—For problems
involving any two, or all three, source cate-
gories, the estimated impacts for each source
class can be overlayed. This can be done manu-
ally. For more complex problems involving many
calculations,-this is handled by the computerized
model PAL6 (Point, Area, Line). Use of this model
is not confined to problems involving mixtures of
source categories. It lends itself as well to
complex line source or area source problems. The
line source treatment is the same as that of
HIWAY. The area source treatment involves the
integrated-line-source concept discussed under
"Areas sources," above. This model should be
available in UNAMAP by late 1977.
Selection of Meteorological Input Data - In order to
apply the modeling techniques discussed above, meteorologi-
cal input assumptions are necessary. In a very practical
sense, they are necessary for the solution of the Gaussian
equations. Beyond this, however, the meteorological assump-
tions have a great qualitative importance in that they
determine the reasonableness of the resulting estimates of
air quality impact. The selection of meteorological input
data is perhaps the most critical step in applying disper-
sion modeling to estimate maximum, short-term, air quality
impacts. Depending on the physical parameters of a given
source, there is a unique set of meteorological conditions,
often referred to as the "critical" conditions, which result
in the maximum impact of the source. For plants involving
several sources of widely varying physical characteristics,
considerable judgment is involved in selecting the condi-
tions for the maximum impact of the plant taken as a whole.
In the case of IPFPE's, these assumptions must cover 24-hour
periods since this is the averaging period of primary
concern. Assumptions must be made for the following vari-
ables: atmospheric stability, wind speed, wind direction,
and temperature. Conditions must be chosen which: (1)
4-6
-------
Necessary Source Parameters - For the application of
Gaussian plume modeling, the values of several physical
source parameters are essential. The essential source
parameters for each source category are as follows:
Point sources—emission rate, release height,
effluent temperature, and the volume flow rate of
the exhaust stream or the parameters from which it
can be calculated, i.e., the exhaust velocity and
the area of the exhaust opening.
Area sources—emission rate, effective release
height, area covered, shape, orientation.
Line sources—emission rate, effective release
height, length, width, orientation.
Simplified Modeling Techniques - Suggested techniques
for each source category are as follows:
Point sources—Many point-source problems can be
addressed by the application of the equations in
WADE with the aid of a desk-top calculator. Also
appropriate are the techniques described in the
revised Volume 10 of the AQMA Guidelines.3 For
problems involving many calculations, the com-
puterized models PTMAX, PTDIS, and PTMTP are
recommended. These models are included in UNAMAP.4
0 Area sources—These are often approximated as
point sources and modeled by appropriate modifica-
tions to point source techniques. An example of
this is the virtual-point-source approximation
described in WADE. Another example is illustrated
in Appendix C. A second approach is to treat the
area source as a parallel series of line sources.
Both approaches are amenable to desk-top calcula-
tion.
0 Line sources—Many line sources can be addressed
directly by desk-top calculations using the equa-
tions in WADE. It is sometimes reasonable to
approximate a line source as a series of point
sources and to model the latter by appropriately
modified point source techniques. This approach
is illustrated in Appendix C. For complex prob-
lems involving many calculations, the computerized
model HIWAY5 is recommended. HIWAY is included in
UNAMAP.
4-5
-------
necessity. Each problem involves a case-by-case determi-
nation.
4.2.1 Dispersion Modeling
The simplified dispersion modeling techniques suggested
herein are based on the steady-state, Gaussian plume con-
cept. The Gaussian concept is described in the Workbook of
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates (WADE).2 WADE also pre-
sents a number of adaptations of the basic Gaussian model
for applications to a wide variety of problems.
A preliminary estimate for many IPFPE situations can be
obtained by applying the equations in WADE with the aid of a
desk-top calculator. More complex problems, e.g., those
involving the interaction of several sources in a complex
facility, may necessitate the use of available computerized
models which allow the rapid solution of these same equa-
tions. Such models are identified later in this discussion.
Classification of IPFPE Sources - For appropriate
application of Gaussian modeling, sources must be catego-
rized as point sources, area sources, or line sources. Some
IPFPE sources lend themselves to ready classification. For
others, some degree of judgment may be involved. For ex-
ample, a roof vent may be modeled as though it were a point
source (i.e., stack). A transfer point may be treated as
either a point source or an area source depending upon its
physical dimensions. A roof monitor or a haul road falls
logically into the class of line sources but can be modeled
as a series of point sources. A storage pile (coal, ore,
aggregate, etc.) can generally be modeled as an area source.
A materials storage building of the type with open ends can
be handled either as two point sources (i.e., one on either
end of the building) or as an area source. A building with
many points of discharge through windows and doors should be
treated as an area source.
4-4
-------
These problem areas are more critical for iPFPE's than for
traditional stack sources because of the following compli-
eating factors:
critic! ?Un£eS ' ^ generallv ill-defined as to the
Fur^r1 -ParameterS necessary for model-
Further, emission rates are often time-
with
!ifht °f IPFPE's is generally low-
duto di dlffusion Patterns are ofte/chaotic
due to disturbances associated with plant struc-
tures and activities.* struc
reultn r °n larger P^ticles may
result in a non-Gaussian plume which is difficult
addr± ;h'Detaii?d Particle si** data needfd to
address this problem are generally not available.*
No modeling techniques for addressing these complicat-
ing factors are given in this document. A dispersion model
which considers these factors for industrial complexes is
currently being developed and should be available by late
fall 1977. In the interim, the simplified techniques
identified below are recommended for preliminary assessments
of short-term, localized air quality problems in the vicin-
ity of IPFPE sources. Generally, these techniques are
"conservative," that is, the estimated impacts are higher
than would actually be realized.
Because each problem is unique, it is not possible to
categorically recommend which of the two approaches, model-
ing or monitoring, should be used. in some cases, the
simplified modeling techniques discussed in this document
may suffice. In other situations, the presence of complica-
tions may exceed the capabilities of even the most sophisti-
cated models, so that an extensive monitoring program is a
referred elsewhere for more discussion of
4-3
-------
4.2 ESTIMATION OF SHORT-TERM, LOCALIZED IMPACT
The short-term, localized impact of IPFPE sources can
be estimated both by dispersion modeling and by field
measurement (upwind/downwind monitoring). There are advan-
tages and disadvantages to both approaches. Monitoring is
intuitively more attractive because it involves actual,
measured data, while modeling is based on the mathematical
simulation of assumed atmospheric processes. However, for
monitoring to be reliable, the data collection program must
be comprehensive in scope and subject to strict quality
control. This is resource-intensive and, therefore, not
always feasible. Also, the interpretation of monitoring
results is not always straightforward. Neighboring sources
and/or high background concentrations often present compli-
cations. Even when it is possible to isolate the impact of
the plant of concern, it is often difficult to relate this
total impact to the individual contributing sources in the
plant complex. It is even difficult in some cases to
adequately distinguish the impact of IPFPE's from that of
the stack emissions.
Dispersion modeling, on the other hand, is relatively
inexpensive and does not present the difficulties described
above. The major disadvantage is the uncertainty associated
with model estimates. The major sources of error in disper-
sion modeling are as follows:
0 Inadequacies in the simulation of physical phenom-
ena by models
0 Inadequacies in the input data to models
0 Lack of expertise in applying models and in
interpreting the results.
4-2
-------
4.0 ESTIMATING THE AIR QUALITY IMPACT OF INDUSTRIAL
PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (IPFPE's)
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Because they are emitted at or near ground level,
fugitive emissions exert a proportionally higher air quality
impact than do traditional (stack) emissions. Thus there is
a strong reason to suspect that IPFPE sources may contribute
significantly to the nonattainment of air quality standards
for total suspended particulates in many urban areas. The
impact of IPFPE's generally is most critical on a short-term
basis in the immediate vicinity of the source. Therefore, a
control strategy designed to attain annual average air
quality standards at sites in an existing area-wide moni-
toring network may not be sufficiently stringent to assure
attainment of 24-hour standards in the immediate vicinity of
IPFPE sources where such monitoring sites may not exist. It
is therefore essential to address the short-term, localized,
impact, as well as the long-term, area-wide impact, in order
to develop an adequate control strategy for IPFPE's.
Section 4.2 discusses the short-term, localized impact
of IPFPE sources. Two approaches for estimating this impact
are discussed: (1) dispersion modeling and (2) field
measurement. The long-term, area-wide impact is briefly
discussed in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 discusses various
techniques and equipment used in measuring IPFPE source
strengths and resulting ambient concentrations. For pur-
poses of illustration, a modeling exercise on a hypothetical
facility is detailed in Appendix C; an outline for a field
measurement program at the same facility is described in
Appendix D.
4-1
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.4
1. Kinkley, M.L. and R.B. Neveril. Capital and Operating
Costs of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems. Draft
Report. Card, Inc. Niles, Illinois. For U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-2072.
March, 1976.
2. Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. and International
Construction Analysts. Solano Beach, CA. 1976-1977.
3. Revised Technical Guide for Review and Evaluation of
Compliance Schedules for Air Pollution Sources. Pre-
liminary Draft. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Cincinnati, Ohio. For U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-01-3150.
Task Orders 24 and 25. October, 1976.
3-46
-------
award of a contract. After the contract is awarded, the
equipment can be ordered from the supplier, and on-site work
on foundations structures, utilities, buildings, etc. can be
started. Upon delivery of the control device, it can now be
installed and connected to the ductwork. Ductwork and
hooding structures can be installed while awaiting delivery
of the control device. When the construction phase is
completed, the system must be tried out and any minor
changes made to yield optimum operation.
The schedules given are to be used only as guidelines.
A number of factors influence the delivery and construction
phases of these schedules. These factors include: (a)
special designs, which may require new fabrication drawings
and different fabrication procedures; (b) special materials
of construction; (c) limited space, necessitating unusual
control system configuration or relocation of process equip-
ment; (d) extensive modifications of the process; (e) type
of contract—erected, non-erected, turnkey; (f) type of
unit—shop-fabricated modular, or field-erected; (g) sche-
duling of downtime; (h) heavy production periods; and (i)
weather. Actual time increments may vary significantly due
to the size, type, and design specifications of the equip-
ment, ease of retrofit, weather, labor problems, field
changes, and a variety of other factors. For very small
devices, the total elapsed time to achieve milestone 5 may
be as low as 25 weeks for filter system and slightly less
for a small scrubber.
3-45
-------
Table 3-2. TYPICAL COMPLIANCE TIME SCHEDULES FOR
INSTALLATION OF FABRIC FILTERS AND WET COLLECTORS
Milestones
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Date of submittal of final control
plans to appropriate agengy
Date of award of control device
contract
Date of initiation of on-site
construction or installation of
emission control equipment
Date by which on-site construction
or installation of emission control
equipment is completed
Date by which final compliance is
achieved
Elapsed time,a weeks
Fabric filter
b
18-43
27-62
58-122
71-144
74-149
c
10-15
14-23
18-30
22-35
25-40
Wet collector
d
14-33
22-49
64-119
80-145
83-150
e
10-15
14-23
17-33
20-36
22-40
Elapsed time from preliminary investigation. For very small units
time to achieve milestone 5 may be less than 25 weeks.
Capacity less than 200,000 acfm.
Capacity less than 10,000 acfm.
Low-energy, capacity less than 150,000 acfm.
Low-energy, capacity less than 10,000 acfm.
-------
50
40
25
20
^ 15
vo
r^
o:
10
8
o
z
S
LU
CL.
O
5
4
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.9
0.8
0.7]
0-6
0.5
0.4
0.3
NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE
FIXED COSTS
f = fraction of year that
unit is in operation
J I L
J L
2 2-5 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, 103 ACFM
1 I
O.b j
1
5
1
10
I
20
(_
30
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, MJ/SEC.
Figure 3-14. Annual operating costs for wet collector
systems as a function of gas flow rate and usage.
3-43
-------
are shown in Figure 3-14. These costs are based on an
electricity cost of $0.0069/106 joule ($0.025/kWh) and a
water cost of $0.066/m3 ($0.25/103 gallons). Maintenance
and labor are estimated to be 8 percent of the total pur-
chase cost of equipment. The operating costs are plotted
as a function of the fraction of the year the system is in
operation, designated as f. Scrubber water is recirculated
and no provisions were made for waste water or sludge
disposal.
Energy requirements, in joules/yr (kWh/yr), for a wet
collector operating at a pressure drop of 2000 Pa (8 inches
of water) are expressed as 16 x 1010 (f)(V) - metric (21
(f)(V) - english), where f is the fraction of the year that
the device is in operation, and V is the volumetric flow
rate in m /sec (acfm). The expression is based upon a fan
efficiency of 60 percent.
3.4.3 Installation Schedules
A range of time schedules for installation of fabric
filters and wet collectors are given in Table 3-2. Elapsed
time is expressed in number of weeks from the start of
preliminary investigations. These investigations include
defining and justifying the need for control by estimating
or measuring emissions, determining chemical composition,
particle size, gas flow rate, etc., and preparing prelimi-
nary designs of the system. Preliminary investigation also
includes the feasibility studies to determine the best
method for reducing emissions. Depending on the amount of
data previously obtained, the number of similar installa-
tions in existence, and the system size, the time for this
phase of the work could vary from 10 to 43 weeks. After a
system has been approved, detailed engineering drawings and
specifications must be prepared to allow for advertising and
3-42
-------
U>
I
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, 10" ACFM
Figure 3-13. Range of total installed costs for wet
collector systems.
-------
NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE
FIXED COSTS
f = fraction of year that
unit is in operation
0.5
2 2.5 3
5 6 7 8 910
15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, 10 ACFM
I
10
20 30
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE. MVSEC.
Figure 3-12. Annual operating costs for fabric filter
systems as a function of gas flow rate and usage.
3-40
-------
drop of 1200 Pa (5 inches of water) was assumed. The total
equipment cost is multiplied by cost factor ranging from 1.8
to 2.9 to obtain total installed cost shown in Figure 3-11.
The annual operating costs presented in Figure 3-12,
for the fabric filter systems are based upon a power cost of
$0.0069/106 joule ($0.025/kWh), an average bag life of 1.5
years, and an annual maintenance expense of 2 percent of the
equipment purchase cost. The annual costs are highly
dependent upon the number of hours the system will operate
in a year. Therefore, the annual operating costs in Figure
3-12 are plotted as a function of the fraction of the year
the system is in actual use, designated as f.
Energy requirements, in joules/yr (kWh/yr) for a
fabric filter operating at a pressure drop of 1200 Pa (5
inches of water) are expressed as 99.9 x 10 (f)(V) -
metric (13.1 (f)(V) - english), where f is the fraction of
year in operation (actual operating hours per year divided
by 8760 hrs/yr) and V is the volumetrict flow rate in m3/sec
(acfm). The expression is based upon a fan efficiency of 60
percent.
3.4.2 Wet Collectors
Wet collector cost estimates were based on a unit which
operates at a pressure drop of 2000 Pa (8 inches of water)
and a liquid-to-gas ratio of 5.3 x 10~ m /sec per m /sec
3 2
(4 gpm/10 acfm). The installed costs were determined
from the base purchase cost of a wet collector, fan/motor/
2
drive, and pump system. Total installed costs (including
indirects) were obtained by multiplying the total equipment
cost by a factor ranging from 2.3 to 3.2. The results are
shown in Figure 3-13.
Annual operating costs consisting of the cost for
electricity and water consumption, maintenance, and labor,
3-39
-------
CO
I
00
00
A PULSE-JET FABRIC FILTER: A/C = 8
B MECHANICAL SHAKER FABRIC FILTER: A/C = 2
0.5
20 25 30 40 50
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, 10° ACFM
I
J_
_L
J
10
20 24
VOLUMETRIC FLOW RATE, MVSEC
Figure 3-11. Range of total installed costs for ambient temperature fabric filter systems,
-------
conveyors, shakers, air compressors, etc. are not included
here since they are often minor. Fixed costs such as plant
overhead, payroll, insurance, capital recovery, and depre-
ciation are not included since they vary widely from company
to company. These costs could, however, easily add about 20
percent of the total installed cost to the operating cost.
In preparing these generalized costs, the basic cost of
equipment (control device and fan system) was multiplied by
a, factor to estimate the total installed cost. These
factors ranged from 1.8 to 2.9 for a fabric filter and 2.3
to 3.2 for a wet collector. Control equipment, fan and
motor costs comprised 30 to 55 percent of the total installed
cost. Installation and auxiliary equipment such as ducts,
structures, instruments, etc. represent 20 to 40 percent of
the total installed cost. Indirect charges amount to about
20 to 30 percent of the total installed costs depending on
the size of the installation.
Since specific plant sites are not addressed, only very
general cost values are provided as an approximation of
actual costs. Many site-specific variables such as lack of
space, insufficient structures, lack of required utilities,
etc. affect these costs and the values presented here are
only rough approximations and should not be used for budget
purposes. In addition, hood costs, stacks, or the use of
corrosion resistant materials have not been taken into
account.
3.4.1 Fabric Filters
Installed costs for two types fabric filter systems are
given in Figure 3-11. These costs are determined from base
purchase price of the pulse jet and shaker type units, cost
of the filter media, $3.75/m2 ($0.35/ft2 area), and fan/
motor/drive system. A nominal system operating pressure
3-37
-------
3.4 REMOVAL EQUIPMENT COSTS AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULES
In this section, generalized installed and operating
costs, and installation schedules are presented for fugitive
particulate emission removal equipment. Costs are presented
for continuous pulse-jet or mechanical shaker-type fabric
filters. These units generally operate at air-to-cloth
32 2
ratios of 4 and 1 m /sec per m (8 and 2 acfm/ft ) of
cloth, respectively. Wet collectors are employed rather
infrequently to control fugitive emissions and are usually
the low-energy type, operating at pressure drops of 1500 to
2500 Pa (6 to 10 inches of water).
Installed costs given in this section include estimates
of the cost of purchasing and installing the following
items:
control device
ductwork
fan/motor/drive
instrumentation
electrical equipment
piping (for wet collectors)
foundations
structural modifications
sitework
Labor and other material costs are estimated by using cost
factors applied to 1976 base costs for the control devices
1 2
and fan systems. ' In addition to these installed costs,
indirect costs for engineering studies, contractor fees,
shakedown, spares, freight, taxes, and contingencies were
added to provide a total cost.
Operating costs consist of the direct costs of utili-
ties, maintenance, and operating labor. Energy requirements
are based upon the required fan horsepower and the hours of
operation. Fan horsepower is determined by the volumetric
flow rate, fan efficiency, and the system pressure drop (see
Section 3.3.4). Other energy requirements such as pumps,
3-36
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3
1. Industrial Ventilation, a Manual of Recommended Prac-
tice. American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists. Post Office Box 16153, Lansing, Michigan
48903. 1976. 14th Edition.
2. Recommended Industrial Ventilation Guidelines, NIOSH,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Cincinnati, Ohio. January 1976.
3. ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory, 1976 Systems.
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 345 East 47th Street, New
York, New York 10017. 1976.
4. Fugitive Emissions Control Technology for Integrated
Iron and Steel Plants, Draft. Midwest Research Institute,
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Industral Environmental Research Laboratory. Contract
No. 68-02-2120. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
January 17, 1977.
5. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution
Control Systems. CARD, Inc. EPA Contract 68-02-2072.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. March 1976.
6. Dalla Valle, J.M. Exhaust Hoods. Industrial Press,
New York. 1946.
7. Silverman, Leslie. Velocity Characteristics of Narrow
Exhaust Slots. Journal of Industrial Hygiene and
Toxicology, 24, 267. November 1942.
3-35
-------
The actual energy required must take into account the
fan efficiency (generally 60 to 80 percent) and the motor
efficiency (85 to 90 percent). Energy requirements to
convey air through the hood and duct are usually relatively
minor compared to the energy required to force the air
through an emission control device. For example, the total
pressure drop through a hood and vent system including entry
and exit losses, wall friction, bends, etc. is generally on
the order of 250 to 750 Pa (1 to 3 inches of water). The
pressure drop through a fabric filter system is on the order
of 1200 to 2000 Pa (5 to 8 inches of water).
3-34
-------
100,000
DATA VALID FOR DECEMBER, 1976
T
0 = HOOD COME ANGLE
40
50
60
D, HOOD DIAMETER, FT.
J I L
5 10 15
D. HOOD DIAMETER. METERS
70
20
Figure 3-10. Labor cost for fabricated 10 ga. carbon steel
circular capture hoods.
3-33
-------
10,000
5,000
DATA VALID FOR DECEMBER. 1976
o
o
I 1,000
tc.
3
a
tC.
1
SLOPE OF HOOD '
L = LENGTH
W = WIDTH
SKIRT NOT INCLUDED
FILLET WELDTIME FOR SKIRT IS
INCLUDED (AT KOOD PERIMETER)
FOR HATER COOLED HOODS, USE
DOUBLE THE MAN HOURS.
20 30 40 50 60
L, HOOD LENGTH DIMENSION, FT.
I I
Figure 3-9.
i 5 10 15 20
L, HOOD LENGTH DIMENSION, METERS
Labor cost for fabricated 10 ga. carbon steel
rectangular capture hoods.5
3-32
-------
costs may be estimated by multiplying the plate area by the
thickness, the density and the cost of the material. An
allowance of at least 20 percent of the calculated material
should be allowed for waste in fabrication. Estimates of
the labor required to fabricate hoods are presented in
Figures 3-9 and 3-10 for rectangular and circular hoods,
respectively. Delivery and erection at the site are not
included.
Duct work associated with a hood system will cost
between $1060 and $4200 per m /sec ($0.50 and $2.00 per
acfm) installed, depending on type of material.
A fan, motor, and motor starter are also required in
any capture system. Costs for fans vary not only with size
but with pressure drop and design. For example, a fan
constructed of carbon steel, sized for 26 m /sec (55,000 cfm)
and a pressure drop of 500 Pa (2 inches of water) would be
of light construction, require a 20 kW (30 hp) motor, and
cost approximately $320 per m /sec ($0.15 per cfm). The
same fan with a pressure of 3000 Pa (12 inches of water) ,
heavy construction, and a 110 kW (150 hp) motor would cost
approximately $635 per m /sec ($0.30 per cfm). The installed
cost would amount to about one to two times the purchase cost.
3.3.4 Vent System Energy Requirements
The energy required to move a given amount of dust
laden air away from a process is directly related to the
quantity of that air and the resistance to flow that must be
overcome. This relationship is expressed in the equation:
kW = 0.000997 QAp - metric
(Air hP = 6'
where Ap = pressure drop across fan in pascals, Pa (inches
of water) .
3
Q = actual air volume, m /sec (acfm)
3-31
-------
4.000
1,000
"fc
2
100
10
50.000
10,000 >-
r—
3 1,000-
OC
i
1U
o:
I 1 1 1 1
0 * SLOPE Or HOOD; I.e. HOOD CONE ANGLE
H •= HEIGHT OF HOOD
D = DIAMETER OF HOOD AT FACE
CURVES INCLUDE 10% SCRAP
SKIRT NOT INCLUDED
FOR WATER COOLED HOODS:
USE DOUBLE THE PLATE AREA
05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
D, HOOD DIAMETER, FT.
10
D. HOOD DIAMETER. METERS
15
20
Figure 3-8. Circular hoods plate requirements.
3-30
-------
10,000
r 10.000
100
LU
10
1 L
SLOPE OF HOOD - 35e
L • LENGTH
W •= WIDTH
CURVES INCLUDE 10% SCRAP
SKIRT NOT INCLUDED
FOR WATER COOLED HOODS
USE DOUBLE THE PLATE AREA
L. LENGTH DIMENSION. FT.
1 L
10 15
L, LENTGH DIMENSION, METERS
20
Figure 3-7. Rectangular capture hoods plate area
requirements vs. hood length and L/W.
3-29
-------
Maintenance of the processing equipment and of the hood
itself also effects hood design. Hoods are sometimes
dismantled to allow maintenance on the process and then not
reassembled. Hoods are also subject to damage from cranes,
loaders, and vehicles. Since they are not absolutely re-
quired for process operations, they may not be promptly re-
paired.
High temperature processes such as those found in the
metallurgical industry also present hooding design problems.
A tightly fitted hood must be able to withstand temperatures
as high as 1370°C (2500°F). This involves cooling of the
hood or use of a less tightly fitted hood which allows
ambient air to enter the vent system. High temperatures can
also cause distortion and leakage of improperly designed
systems.
3.3.3 Capture System Costs
Good design of the capture devices can minimize air
volumes, reduce system size and minimize the installed and
operating costs. Hood and duct costs are composed of
material costs ($ per unit weight of material), fabrication
costs, and installation costs. These all vary directly with
size and hood configuration.
Installation costs vary with materials of construction,
and system size. Some contaminants are corrosive to certain
types of materials, such as galvanized steel, and the system
may require stainless steel or more commonly an epoxy
coating or plastic for resistance to corrosion. Preliminary
design data must be developed before costs can be deter-
mined, since both installed and operating costs vary greatly
with system size and configuration.
Hood costs can be estimated by using Figures 3-7
through 3-10. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 provide data on the
plate area of a hood and the fabrication cost. Material
3-28
-------
CONV TRANSFER
COLLECTOR
FAN
( 2) Air Volume Do terminal t ions :
Hood Source Calculations
VP
(A) Skirt Board 2.5' BW x 500 CFM/Ft.=1250CFM 1.25
(B) Head Box 2.5' BW x 500 CFM/Ft.=1250CFM 1.25
(C) Head Box 2.0' BW x 500 CFM/Ft ^lOOOCFM
(D) Screen 4'xl2' x 50 CFM/Ft.-2400CFM
5900CFM
3) Duct Sizing
Duct
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
1
CFM
1250
1250
2500
1000
2400
3400
5900
2640
3260
5900
5900
Dia .
8
8
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
7
1
3
8
17
Area
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
. 3491
. 3491
.6600
.2673
.6600
.9218
.576
.6600
.9218
.767
. 576
Ve
1.
FPM
35
35
81
81
3788
37
36
36
37
41
36
88
44
4000
35
33
37
37
39
44
VP
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
80
80
89
87
82
85
87
00
78
70
87
1.25
1.50
Figure 3-6. Example hood and duct system.
3-27
-------
Good
Poor
Bad
BRANCH ENTRY
Branches should enter at gradual expansions and at an angle of 30° or less (preferred)
to 45'if necessary.
Good
Fair
BRANCH ENTRY
Bod
Branches should not enter directly opposite
each other
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS
PRINCIPLES OF DUCT DESIGN
DATE 1-66
Fig. 6-20
Figure 3-5. Typical duct configuration.
Reprinted by permission of "Industrial Ventilation
A Manual of Recommended Practice."!
3-26
-------
Table 3-1 (continued). VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Federal, State or Local Regulations Should be Consulted and Followed Where Higher
Ventilation Rates are Specified
I
to
Operation
Miscellaneous
Packing, machines
granulators, enclosed
dust producing units
Packing, weighing
container filling,
inspection
Ventilation
Type of Hood
Complete enclosure
Booth
Downdraft
Air Flow
100-400 fpm indraft through inspec-
tion or working openings, but not
less than 25 cfm per sq ft of en-
closed plan area
50-150 cfm per sq ft of open face
area
75-150 cfm per sq ft of dust produc-
ing plan area
Usual
Transport
Velocity,
Fpm
3000
3000
3500
Reprinted by permission of'ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory,
1976 Systems."
-------
Table 3-1 (continued). VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Federal, State or Local Regulations Should be Consulted and Followed Where Higher
Ventilation Rates are Specified
Operation
U)
I
NJ
Rock drilling
Dry drilling (rook)
Screens
Vibrating
Flat deck
Shakeouts
Foundry
Spray coating
Tanks, open surface
Tumbling mills
Hollow trunnion type
Tumbling mills, drums,
cages, barrels
Welding
Ventilation
Type of Hood
Special trap
(see references)
Enclosure
Enclosure
Booth-operator inside
Booth-operator outside
Booth-downdraft
Exhaust connection by
manufacturer
Enclosure
Local hood with flange
Downdraft bench
Booth
Air Flow
60 cfm-vertical (downward) work
200 cfm-horizontal work
150-200 fpm indraft through hood
openings but not less than 25-50
cfm per sq ft of screen area
200 fpm through all openings in en-
closure, but not less than 200 cfm
per sq ft of grate area
100-200 fpm at booth cross-section
150-200 fpm at booth cross-section
100-200 fpm downdraft
Use branch diameter same size as
exhaust outlet. For round mills
branch dia should be one-sixth dia
of mill; for square mills branch dia
should be 1 in. plus one-sixth side
dimension of mill
400 fpm through openings but not
less than 75 cfm per sq ft plan area
6 in. from arc 250 cfm
6 9 in. from arc 400 cfm
6-10 in. from arc 600 cfm
10-12 in. from arc 1000 cfm
150-250 cfm per sq ft grille area
100 fpm at booth face
Usual
Transport
Velocity,
Fpm
3500
3500
3500
1500-2000
1500-2000
1500-2000
3500-5000
3500
2000 4000
2000
2000
Reprinted by permission of'ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory,
1976 Systems."
-------
Table 3-1 (continued). VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Federal, State or Local Regulations Should be Consulted and Followed Where Higher
Ventilation Rates are Specified
U)
I
NJ
Operation
Me tali zing
Mixers
Pharmaceuticals
Blenders
Coating pans
Centrifuges
Hammer mills
Oscillators
Shakers
Mixers
Process kettles and tanks
Pouring hoods
Foundry
Ventilation
Type of Hood
Local hood
Booth
Enclosure
Fully enclosed
Hood
Enclosure
Local hood
Hood
Enclosure
Side hood
Air Flow
200 fpm at hood face
125-200 fpm at booth face
100-200 fpm through feed and in-
spection openings
100 to 200 fpm through opening
120 cfm exh 24-in. dia pan
60 cfm supply direct to pan
Differential 60 cfm
250-300 fpm through opening
200 fpm but not less than 50 cfm
Not less than 75 cfm per sq ft of
plan area
100-250 fpm through opening or
manhole
200 to 300 cfm per linear ft of
hood with slot velocities of 1500
fpm. Exhaust take-off every 8 to
10 ft
Usual
Transport
Velocity,
Fpm
3500
3000
3000-3500
3500-3500
3000
1500-2000
2500-3500
1500-2000
3500
Reprinted by permission of'ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory,
1976 Systems."
-------
Table 3-1 (continued) . VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
Federal, State or Local Regulations Should be Consulted and Followed Where Higher
Ventilation Ra,tes are Specified
Operation
U)
NJ
No
Ceramics
Dry pan
Dry press
Cooling Tunnels (foundry
molds)
Crushers and grinders
Furnaces
Stationary melting pots
for nonferrous
Tilting or rocking
melting for nonferrous
Electric Arc for Steel
Furnaces
Forge (hand)
Granite cutting & finishing
Pneumatic hand tools
Surfacing machine
Grinders
Polishers, buffers, etc.
Portable
Type of Hood
Ventilation
Enclosure
Local at die
Local at die
At supply bin
Booth
Enclosure
Enclosure
Enclosure
Canopy
Hood attached to roof ring
Canopy
Local hood
Local hood
Standard wheel hood
Downdraft bench
Booth
Booth
Air Flow
200 fpm through all openings
500 cfra
500 cfm
500 cfm
100 fpm (face)
75-100 cfm per running foot of en-
closure
200 fpm through openings
100-200 fpm at hood opening
3000-6000 cfm
2500 cfm per ton charged
200 fpm at face
500 cfm
500 cfm for tools up to 2.38-in.
diameter
1000 cfm for 2.38-to 2.88-in. dia-
meter
Bench type, 2-400 cfm per sq ft of
exhaust grille but not less than
150 cfm per sq ft of plan working
area.
100 fpm at face
100-200 fpm indraft through open-
ing in booth face
Usual
Transport
Velocity,
Fpm
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
1500-2000
1500-2000
2500-3500
1500
5500-6000
5500-6000
3500
3500
3000
Reprinted by permission of 'ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory,
1976 Systems."
-------
Table 3-1. VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT3
Federal, State or Local Regulations Should be Consulted and Followed Where Higher
Ventilation Rates are Specified
Operation
U)
I
Abrasive blast rooms (sand,
grit, or shot)
Abrasive blast cabinets
Asbestos: Carding
Spool winding
Bagging: Open Bag Top
Barrels-Drums (filling or
removing material by
scoop)
Belt conveyors
Bins(closed top)
Bucket elevators
Brick cutting and -sizing
(abrasive cut-off wheel
used dry)
Type of Hood
Ventilation
Tight enclosure with air in-
lets (usually in roof)
Tight enclosure with access
openings
Enclosure
Local Hoods
Booth or enclosure (provide
spillage hopper)
Local Hood
Booth
Hood at transfer point
Connect to bin top away
from feed point
Tight casing required
Local Hood
Booth with saw at face of
Air Flow
60-100 fpm downdraft (long rooms
of tunnel proportions 100 fpm
crossdraft)
20 air chages per minute but not
less than 500 fpm through all openings
1600 cfm per machine
50 cfm per spool
Paper bags-100 cfm per sq ft open
area
Cloth bags-200 cfm per sq ft open
area
100 cfm sq ft of container cross-
section
150 fpm at face
Belt speeds less than 200 fpm-350
per foot of belt width, but not
less than 150 fpm through open
area. Belt speeds over 200 fpra-500
cfm per foot of belt width but not
less than 200 fpm through open area
150-200 fpm through open area at feed
area at feed points
100 elm per sq ft of elevator casing
cross-section
500 cfm
150 fpm at face
Usual
Transport
Velocity,
Fpm
3500
3500
3500
3000
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
Reprinted by permission of "ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory
1976 Systems." *
-------
Sourcf
FREELf SUSPENDED HOOD
0 - (IOX*+A )V
Refer to Section 4
LARGE HOOD
Large hood, X small-- measure X
perpendicular to hood face, not less
than 2X from hood edge.
Source
Sot/ire -
»r—
1 not ixcttd 6
HOOD ON BENCH OR FLOOR HOOD WITH WIDE FLANGE
Q=0.7S(IOXZ+A)V Q = 0.75(IOXZ+A)V
SUSPENDED HOODS
(Small side-draft hoods}
0 - Required exhaust volume, cfm
X= Distance from hood face to farthest point of contaminant release, feet.
A - Hood face area, sq ft
V- Capture velocity, fpm, of distance X.
Note. Air volume must increase as the square of distance of the source from the hood.
Baffling by flanging or by placing on bench, floor, ect has o beneficial effect.
CANOPY HOOD
0- 1.4 PDV(P=perimeter of tank, feet)
Not recommeded if material is toxic and workers must bend over source. V ranges
from SO to 5OO fpm depending on crossdrofts. Side curtains on two or three sides to
create a semi- booth or booth ore desirable. Suitable for steam vapor or of her innocuous
material.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS
HOOD DESIGN DATA
DATE
1-66
Fig. 4-14
Figure 3-4. Hood design considerations.
Reprinted by permission of "Industrial Ventilation,
A Manual of Recommended Practice."!
3-20
-------
examples of proper and improper application of hoods.
Figure 3-4 presents additional design considerations for
various hood configurations.
Duct systems must compliment the hoods in efficiency of
operation. Fittings and other components of the system
should be adequate to prevent excessive pressure drop.
Pressure drop balance and distribution contribute not only
to system operation, but also to installation and operating
costs. Duct systems must also maintain a velocity high
enough to transport or convey the contaminant being col-
lected. Table 3-1, from the "ASHRAE Handbook and Product
Directory - 1976 Systems,"3 shows transport velocities and
vent flows required for certain processes. Figure 3-5
illustrates good practice for typical duct connections which
minimize pressure drop. Elimination of sharp bends or
sudden changes in cross-section are also desirable. Figure
3-6 illustrates an overall dust control system in which a
screen and conveyor transfer point are vented to a collector.
When the duct system is sized and selected, its pres-
sure drop can be calculated by a number of methods. Two of
these methods are "Equivalent Feet of Duct" method and
"Velocity Pressure Loss" method.3 These calculations can be
made manually, or via available computer programs.
3.3.2 Physical Constraints Effecting Capture System
While basic hood and ducting design are well under-
stood, many site specific factors present practical problems
to their design, installation and use. These problems
center around the need for access to an operation for pro-
duction and maintenance purposes. Thus a total enclosure
type hood might be very desirable, but perhaps impractical
from a operational viewpoint since personnel or material
access is required.
3-19
-------
t
f\
— -^ Enclosing hood
Belt ( 0 }
\ Hopper /
Good
\
v JsV
.dag^ "
Belt ( O j*".
e°i. i>
\ Hopper /
— ^ ^ —
Bod
ENCLOSE
Enclose the operation as much as possible. The more completely enclosed the
source, the less air required for control.
t
w
Slot **
Plating tank
\
^^^\
% ttt£*
A Ml/A
\ A
/\ «<7///7y /(?/»(• / \
Good Bad
DIRECTION OF AIR FL OW
Locate the hood so the contaminant is removed away from the breathing
zone of the worker.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS
PRINCIPLES OF EXHAUST HOODS
DATE i-64 | Fig. 4-10
Figure 3-3. Example conveyor belt dump hood.
Reprinted by permission of "Industrial Ventilation,
A Manual of Recommended Practice."!
3-18
-------
Grinding t
jn—
Good
LOCATION
Locate and shape the hood so the original velocity of the contaminant mil
throw it nto the hood opening.
SO-IOOfpm capturt
vttocify (or cfm/tq. ft. font
turfoet).
SOOOfpaiftot
VffoCl
Plating
tank
Plating
font
n
Good basis Poor basis
CAPTURE VELOCITY OR PROPER VOLUME
Create air flow past the source sufficient to
capture the contaminant (see tables). Many
arbitrary standards include mis; others do
not. Proper standards are usually on:
fpm capture basis at source.
cfm per sq.ft. of source basis.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE OF
GOVERNMENTAL INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS
DATE
PRINCIPLES OF EXHAUST HOODS
'-64 ' Ft* 4'U
Figure 3-2. Grinding operation hood system.
Reprinted by permission of "Industrial Ventilation
A Manual of Recommended Practice.nl
3-17
-------
TYPE OF HOOD
ASPECT RATIO,
AIR VOLUME
SLOT
< 0.2
Q = 3.7 LVX
W
< 0.2
Q = 2.8 LVX
W
PLAIN
OPENING
A = WL fsQ. FT.)
> 0.2
ROUND OPENING
Q = V(10X2 + A)
FLANGED
OPENING
> 0.2
ROUND OPENING
Q = 0.75V(10X2 + A)
BOOTH
VARIOUS
Q = VA=VWH
CANOPY
VARIOUS
Q=1.4 PDV
P=PERIMETER OF WORK
D=HEIGHT ABOVE WORK
Figure 3-1. General air flow design parameters
for commonly used hoods. ' '
Reprint by permission of "Industrial Ventilation,
A Manual of Recommended Practice."!
3-16
-------
ventilation requires large air flow rates. When applying
capture systems one of the most important considerations is
the amount of air required for effective capture of the
dust. The volume of air used relates to the capture system's
open face area, and the larger the volume the higher the
cost. Replacement air for building evacuation systems must
be heated during cold winter months, and this also affects
costs. Usually the determining factor for air quantity is
the velocity required to capture a particular contaminant
under a given condition. Some general design methods for
determining air volumes and velocities required to capture
fine particulates are given in Figure 3-1. As seen in this
figure, the total air flow required is a function of the
hood opening. This opening, in turn, is determined by the
size of the process being vented.
Capture devices or hoods must have adequate flow rates
and face velocities to capture the particulates as well as
impose a minimum pressure drop on the system. One source
states that a hood capture system ventilation rate of 0.6
Nm /sec (1200 scfm) is required in an alloy electric melt
shop per ton of furnace capacity, including oxygen lancing.
Proper design of capture devices is well described in
"Industrial Ventilation." "Industrial Ventilation" states
that, "many designers develop their hoods by mentally
enclosing the operation completely, from there providing
access and working openings as indicated." Local hoods that
do not enclose or confine the contaminent are recommended
only as a last resort because exhaust volumes are large and
control can be so easily upset by cross-drafts in the area.
Each application of a capture device must be designed and
shaped to accommodate the process involved. Figures 3-2
and 3-3, also from "Industrial Ventilation," show some
3-15
-------
3.3 CAPTURE OF THE IPFPE'S PRIOR TO CONTROL
The capture of fugitive emissions from sources both
inside and outside buildings can usually be accomplished by
applying industrial ventilation design practices.
When considering solutions to fugitive dust problems,
several factors must be considered. Among the considera-
tions are building codes, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) requirements, and National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) regulations. Many standards
of design have been developed as a guide in applying systems
for capturing fugitive emissions. The best and most widely
used of these standards is "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual
of Recommended Practice," published by the American Conference
of Governmental Hygienists. "Recommended Industrial Venti-
lation Guidelines," compiled by the National Institute of
2
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) also has many
specific guidelines for capture of fugitive dust, and the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Condi-
tioning Engineers have devoted several chapters of their
"Guide to Data" related to this subject. For unusual dust
sources, however, the ingenuity of the designer must be
utilized to develop a suitable and efficient capture system.
3.3.1 General Design Parameters
Systems of capture near the process (local hoods) are
generally desirable from a cost and occupational exposure
standpoint. However general ventilation of an entire
building is receiving increased attention as a method of
fugitive emission control because of the difficulty of
capturing all of the emissions with local hoods while also
allowing sufficient operating space. However total building
ventilation may be undesirable since the entire building
+ Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 202. October 18, 1972.
3-14
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.2
RFP-J0366051, April 23, 1976
erostoA W'u's S^\conditi0^ that influence wind
erosion. U.S. Dept. Agr. Technical Bulletin No. 1185
3-13
-------
conductive particulate matter. An ESP for particulate
removal at a EOF process, provided sufficient reserve plate
capacity is available, could be utilized to control emissions
from the tapping operation. Wet ESP's and charged droplet
ESP's can also be effective in controlling fugitive emissions
Employment of existing primary point source control
equipment to simultaneously control IPFPE sources is a
viable economic alternative, provided sufficient reserve
capacity is available to efficiently control both exhaust
streams.
3-12
-------
control because their widespread emission source area does
not generally permit sufficient containment.
Fabric filters predominate as IPFPE add-on removal
equipment because of their high collection efficiencies and
their ability to return the collected material essentially
unaltered to most process streams, which can in many cases
be a considerable economic asset. Control efficiencies for
fabric filters in excess of 99.9 percent are common for most
IPFPE sources. Typical operating parameter ranges and
installation schedules for fabric filters are presented with
cost information in Section 3.4.
Centrifugal collectors find limited application because
of their relatively poor collection efficiencies for small
particles. They can sometimes be employed where relatively
large particles predominate (e.g. primary crushing operations),
or as primary large particle collection systems in series
with fabric filters.
Wet collectors are less widely used as IPFPE sources
because of the relatively high energy required to effec-
tively collect the dilute, small particle exhaust streams
characteristic of most sources and the wet contamination of
the collected material, which may eliminate recycling to
the process stream. They can be used for IPFPE exhaust
streams which are high in moisture content (danger of blind-
ing a fabric filter system), or where recycling the captured
material in a dry condition is not required. Typical
operating parameter ranges and installation schedules for
wet collectors are discussed in Section 3.4.
The low conductivity of the particulate matter in many
IPFPE's affectively excludes dry ESP's for control of those
IPFPE sources. Exceptions include use of existing primary
point source ESP's for IPFPE sources with sufficiently
3-11
-------
ground or floor by vacuum systems will prevent them from
becoming airborne. A full-time clean-up crew may be required
in some industries. Also included is the optimization of
the capture efficiency of the hooding systems of primary
control devices for point sources. Examples include:
0 precautions to ensure that a cupola is not over-
loaded, eliminating the possibility of backpres-
sure from the primary control system and "puffing"
fugitive emissions from the charging door opening
0 maintenance of coke oven doors and seals to elimi-
nate leaks during coking
0 prompt repair of electric arc furnace hooding
after damage by overhead charging crane
0 conscientious system for periodic application of
chemical suppressant to inactive storage piles and
tailings areas
0 increase of the vent rate of the canopy hood
system for an electric arc furnace in a gray iron
foundry
0 prompt clean-up of spills from trippers of a
clinker conveying system in a Portland cement
plant.
3.2.3 Add-on Removal Equipment
Employment of add-on removal equipment involves initial
containment and capture of fugitive process emissions, with
subsequent removal by conventional particulate control
devices (including centrifugal collectors, fabric filters,
wet collectors, and electrostatic precipitators). Section
3.3 discusses the capture of IPFPE's prior to control.
IPFPE sources which are amenable to control by add-on
removal equipment are those which can be contained suffi-
ciently to allow efficient capture of the particulate emis-
sions generated. Candidate sources range from conveyor
transfer points to roof monitors over foundry metal melting
areas. Conversely, fugitive dust sources preclude add-on
3-10
-------
With the wide range of characteristics available in
commercial products, a chemical stabilizer can be selected
with maximum efficiency for each fugitive dust or IPFPE
control application. Some of the materials "heal" if the
treated surface is disturbed, but many do not reform. The
2
life of the treated surface under natural weathering also
varies widely with different chemicals. Selection of the
appropriate material may require that several other criteria
be checked for compatibility including effect on vegetative
germination and growth (in the case of tailings areas),
application method, and possible contamination of material
being protected.
3.2.1.2 - Confinement - Confinement by covering or enclosure
basically involves the partial or complete seclusion and/or
shielding of the fugitive dust or IPFPE source. The design
strategy is to effectively prevent the fugitive particulate
matter from becoming air-borne from disturbance by the wind
or disturbance by the mechanics of the operation involved.
These control measures range from small enclosures over
conveyor transfer points for protection from the wind and
turbulence from the moving belt, to building structures for
complete confinement of material storage areas. Other
examples include: conveyor system enclosures; weighted-
tarpaulin covers for inactive material storage piles;
partial windbreaks located in the prevailing upwind direc-
tion from limestone quarry surge pile areas; and partial
open ended shelters with shrouds for railroad car loading
and unloading.
3.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Practices
Control by utilizing proper operation and maintenance
practices primarily involves the elimination of fugitive
emissions from process upsets, leaks, and poor "house-
keeping" . In addition, prompt clean-up of spills on to the
3-9
-------
Application of oil to the roads is also a common prac-
tice; however, the water pollution potential of applying
excessive amounts of oil should be considered, as described
in Section 3.1.3.
If the use of water can be tolerated, it can be sprayed
at crusher and shaker screen locations to keep the material
moist at all stages of processing. The addition of water
may, however, cause blinding of the finer size screens,
thereby reducing their efficiency. There also may be
instances when the use of water cannot be tolerated, such as
when specifications for highway aggregates allow only a
certain moisture content.
The effect of watering on dust emissions from active
material storage piles is quite temporary, due to continuous
turnover of material which exposes new surfaces to wind
erosion. In addition, watering sometimes reduces ability to
handle the material easily. Excessive watering can increase
energy requirements for processes which involve drying the
aggregate, such as asphalt concrete production.
Various chemicals may be added to the water or applied
separately in the form of spray or foam to improve binding
of the desired material. These chemicals utilize different
properties for suppression and are generally categorized by
their composition -- bituminous, polymer, resin, enzymatic,
emulsion, surface-active agent, ligninsulfonate, latex, etc.
It is estimated that over 100 chemical products are pre-
sently marketed or are under development specifically as
dust control agents. Many of these are by-products or
wastes from the production of other materials. A partial
list of these chemicals has been compiled and is presented
in Appendix B.*
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
3-8
-------
3.2 IPFPE CONTROL OPTIONS
Control technology for IPFPE sources includes a variety
of options which can be categorized within the major areas
of: preventative procedures, operation and maintenance
practices; and add-on removal equipment. The following
sections discuss these options and indicate their areas of
application.
3.2.1 Preventative Procedures
Preventative procedures essentially prevent the fugi-
tive emissions from becoming initially airborne. Included
are wet suppression by water and/or chemicals and confine-
ment by covering and enclosure.
3.2.1.1 Wet Suppression - Wet suppression methods can be
effectively employed for control of emissions from paved and
unpaved roads, material storage, tailings, material transfer
points, and crushing and screening operations. Watering
provides a low first cost, but often relatively temporary,
control measure by imparting a direct cohesive force of a
film of moisture in holding surface particles together. In
addition, for unpaved roads, storage piles, and tailings,
watering is effective in forming a thin surface crust that
is more compact and mechanically stable than the material
below and which is less subject to dusting even after drying.
Haul roads at mines and roads at industrial processing
facilities are routinely watered for dust suppression during
all periods when water on the road surface does not create a
safety hazard (generally when temperatures are above freez-
ing) . The water is usually applied by trucks equipped with
a pump and directional nozzles which spray the road surface
and adjacent shoulders and berms. Fixed pipeline spray
systems have also been used on main haul roads that are
relatively permanent at mines and large industrial facilities
3-7
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.1
1. Freestone, F.J. Runoff of Oils from Rural Roads
Treated to Suppress Dust. Edison Water Quality Re-
search Laboratory. Edison, N.J. For U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, Program Element 1B2041. October, 1972. 29 p.
2. Armbrust, D.V. and J.D. Dickerson. Temporary wind
erosion control: cost and effectiveness of 34 commer-
cial materials. J. Soil Water Conserv. 26 (4):
154-157 1971.
3-6
-------
emissions, and noise are important considerations for
selecting IPFPE control systems. In some cases, the secon-
dary impact can be greater than the fugitive emission impact
which is being controlled. For instance, the original prob-
lem may be exceeded by poor procedures for disposal of the
fugitive emissions that were collected in a fabric filter
(when return to the processing system is not feasible) by
dumping the collected materials into an open truck, hauling
them in an open truck to a landfill, and dumping them into a
landfill which does not have adequate protection from
erosion by wind and from surface runoff.
As for stack emissions, wet collectors for IPFPE
sources are not utilized as often as dry collectors because
they reduce the possibility of returning the collected wet
particulate to the controlled operation and because they
create a potential secondary water pollution problem.
Depending upon the characteristics of the emissions being
controlled, wastewaters from wet collection devices may have
a high metal content, undesirable pH, or other undesirable
chemical characteristics, even after primary settling.
Control of pH, coagulation and precipitation and other
secondary or tertiary treatment may ultimately be required
to meet discharge limitations.
Another example of secondary multi-media effects is the
application of excessive amounts of waste crank-case oil
(which commonly contain lead additives from the gasoline) on
unpaved roads for fugitive dust suppression. While this
reduces fugitive dust emissions, it can result in undesir-
able water pollution resulting from surface runoff. Some
oil-containing dust particles are also carried by wind and
vehicular traffic to roadside areas.1'2
3-5
-------
the way of insulation or reheat for condensation protection.
Exceptions such as exhaust streams containing organic mists
or tar droplets may preclude the use of fabric filters
because of the probability of blinding; a low-energy wet
collector or a movable fiber mat could be likely alterna-
tives.
The physical and chemical characteristics and asso-
ciated toxicity of the fugitive particulate emission com-
positely help to determine the type of control system. The
most critical physical characteristics of the particulate
matter as they relate to the type and material of construc-
tion of the control device are abrasiveness, hardness,
hygroscopy, and density, while the most critical chemical
characteristic is corrosiveness. For example, a fabric
filter would be limited in controlling a hygroscopic mate-
rial due to the tendency for blinding, while a corrosive
emission would perhaps dictate the need for stainless steel
or synthetic materials of construction. The particulate
emission's toxicity greatly influences the determination of
the efficiency of the capture and control system required to
yield an ambient air impact, including background, which is
below the prescribed toxicity limits for that material. For
instance, a fabric filter or a very high efficiency scrubber
would take preference over a high efficiency multiclone in
control of fugitive emissions for an asbestos mill, a lead
mill, a lead smelter, and other sources of toxic or carcino-
genic emissions. Capture efficiency of the particulate
pick-up system is frequently determined by occupational
hygiene considerations.
3.1.3 Multi-Media Impacts
The secondary multi-media environmental effects which
the control of fugitive emissions can create via solid waste
disposal, water pollution, generation of additional fugitive
3-4
-------
installing control equipment. For example, control measures
necessary for a storage pile of fine material near a public
road may be different if the same storage pile were well
within the plant boundaries. Determination of the IPFPE's
impact on ambient air quality is discussed in Section 4.
3.1.2 IPFPE Exhaust Stream Characteristics
The major exhaust stream characteristics which collec-
tively help to determine the control technology to be
employed include:
0 particle size distribution
0 temperature of the exhaust stream
0 moisture content of exhaust stream and presence
of corrosive gases
0 physical and chemical characteristics of the
particulate and its associated toxicity
The particle size distribution for many IPFPE's is
predominantly below 5 ym, which in the case of add-on
control system often dictates the need for a fabric filter.
Exceptions are, of course, those sources having emissions
with a relatively large mean particle diameter, such as
primary aggregate crushing operation emissions which can be
sometimes sufficiently controlled by high efficiency multi-
clones.
Most process fugitive emission exhaust streams are at
either in-plant or ambient temperatures. Even the roof
monitor exhausts above a metal melting operation are gener-
ally below 65°C (150°F) after dilution with surrounding in-
plant air. Consequently, provisions for excess temperatures,
such as heat resistant fabric filter material, are generally
not required. Similarly, most IPFPE exhaust streams have
approximately the same moisture content as the ambient or
in-plant air; consequently, little is generally needed in
3-3
-------
Higher capital costs and longer installation schedules
are often required for application of IPFPE systems to
existing plants. For example, improvement in the capture
efficiency of an electric arc furnace hooding system to
reduce the fugitive emissions during charging might require
extensive design modifications imposed by the physical
constraints of an existing overhead charging crane. The
custom hooding and ducting system required for such a
design would cause increased capital equipment costs and
construction labor costs (caused by longer construction
periods), as compared with a new facility in which the
hooding system could be designed as an integral part of the
furnace-charging crane design. Assuming equivalent control
efficiencies, retrofit systems could require from one to
three times the installation time and capital cost of a new
system depending on specific site conditions.
Another consideration regarding the age of a facility
is its remaining life and for many facilities, production
capacity factor. The capacity factor represents the ratio
of actual annual production to potential annual production,
and for most industries, this factor decreases with time
(due to equipment wear and the construction of newer more
efficient facilities). Remaining plant life and capacity
factor are important primarily when cost/benefit considera-
tions are being made. For example, careful analysis must
precede installing extensive fugitive emission control
equipment on an old cement facility which is scheduled for
shut-down in a few years and is currently operating below
capacity.
The location of the facility and the IPFPE source
within the facility can be a further factor in determining
the control techniques to be employed and the priority for
3-2
-------
3.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR SOURCES OF IPFPE
3.1 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF CONTROL TECHNIQUES
Selection of the control technologies for process
fugitive emission sources involves the consideration of a
variety of factors, including those involving the industrial
processing facility, the IPFPE exhaust stream characteris-
tics, and secondary multi-media impacts. Assessment of
these factors on a site-specific basis is required to deter-
mine control effectiveness, resulting multi-media impact,
and cost, and to select the optimum control technique. Most
often the need for maximum emission control dictates the
need for the best available control technology; however,
there are specific situations where consideration can be
given to reasonably available control technology based on a
cost/benefit analysis.
3.1.1 Facility Factors
The ease of control at a facility varies with its age
and basic design. An IPFPE control system for a new plant
can be integrally incorporated into the overall design of
the plant, whereas a retrofit application requires that the
system be adapted to the configurations of the existing
plant. The retrofit system must thus be built within fixed
space limitations and in a manner that does not interfere
with operation of the process. In general, the more con-
gested the plant layout is, the harder it is to retrofit
most IPFPE control systems.
3-1
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.12
1. Simmons, F.A., Charlotte H. Miller. Characterization
of Sawdust and Shavings for Pulp. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service.
Report No. 2212. March 1961.
2. Industrial Environmental Health, The Worker and the
Community. Academic Press. New York and London.
1972.
3. Bulgrin, E. H. Wood. McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science
and Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York. 1974.
4. Observation made from plant tour of Broyhill Furniture
manufacturing plant. September 3, 1976.
2-340
-------
Fugitive emissions from sawdust storage piles can be
controlled by wet suppression. However, when it is possi-
ble, trucking the waste away as soon as possible can sub-
stantially reduce the fugitive emissions generated at these
storage piles. Additional fugitive control can be attained
by directly blowing sawdust into a boiler or to a particle
board facility.
For reasons stated earlier in this chapter, sawing,
planing, and sanding operations are normally controlled in
furniture manufacturing plants. Thus, the need for fugitive
control technology at these operations is unnecessary.
The wood waste storage bin vent is usually partially
controlled by a screen. If this screen is replaced by a
fabric filter sock, the amount of fugitive emissions re-
leased can be significantly reduced. The use of telescopic
tubes during loadout from the storage bin to trucks will
reduce freefall distance and thus the amount of fugitive
emissions generated. This coupled with a canvas covered
truck and use of side curtains will give additional control
4
efficiency. Other means of control would be enclosure of
the loadout area with the possibility of also venting to a
baghouse or cyclone.
2-339
-------
I
U>
U)
00
a.
c
X
o
+
+
ex
§
(/>
rt>
O
n>
o-
3
3
f+
Lrt
Q.
-».
O
CL.
3
O
C
s
a.
U3
3
a.
«-*•
o
-s
Cki
^
0
+
ro
l/l
•f
+
+
+
trt
1
n>
a»
yr
a
o
0
+
+
+
-*-
3
-1
•
3
n>
a.
c
3
r»
c
Negligible emissions
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2.1
Wet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Process change (thin saw blades/wet debarking)
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
Cyclone
-o
Q.
3 <~>
ffc Oi
t-t TD
3~ r*
O C
Q. T
3 *>
C IT)
i 1
•m
c:
— i
m
m
1/1
o
-H
c:
n
z
0
0
0
1—
m
—i
3:
o
LO
t-1
G
M
2!
D
M
a
O
G
M
tr
M
fD
I
O
n
|
I
tr1
H3 M
50 O
K ffi
2
H H
^ O
M
en *}
O O
G 50
50
O
M
-------
tion of fugitive emissions generated during these opera-
tions.
Approximately 91 percent of participates from sawing
operations at lumber yards are greater than 991 ym.1 Few
of these sawdust particles may be expected to be less than
30 ym. Therefore, is is doubtful that much of the particu-
lates remain airborne.
Data collected in a western red cedar furniture factory
equipped with exhaust ventilation on most wood working
equipment showed most suspended particulates in the working
environment to be less than 2 ym in diameter.2
2.12.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for lumber and furniture
production IPFPE sources (except plant roads covered in
Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-60. Specific dust
control systems for the various handling operations are
discussed in the following paragraphs.
Since drum debarkers, bag barkers, and hydraulic
barkers are all wet process, they are in themselves a good
method for reducing fugitive emissions during the debarking
process. If logs can be kept in wet storage prior to de-
barking, fugitive emissions will be miminal during this
process. If wet storage is not possible, enclosure of the
debarking operation or fixed hoods with ventilation to
baghouses or cyclones is an alternative.
Fugitive emissions from sawing can be controlled in
several ways. Thinner saw blades will reduce the amount of
fugitive emissions generated. This also has an economical
benefit since it results in a more efficient use of lumber.3
Fixed hoods or building evacuation to fabric filters will
also help control fugitive emissions.
2-337
-------
furniture plant windows and ventilation system. As a re-
sult, fugitive emissions from individual processes are
essentially negligible. Management's willingness to provide
and maintain good working conditions and Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations are most likely
the two basic reasons for such good control of emissions.
2.12.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for the lumber and furni-
ture industry is presented in Table 2-59. The Table pre-
sents potential fugitive emission quantities from both the
lumbering and furniture manufacturing processes. The plant
inventory is not meant to present a typical plant situation,
but merely a potential set of circumstances.
The emission inventory is based on a log yard which
receives 740,000 Mg or 350,000 m3 (820,000 tons or 150,000,000
bd. ft.) per year and a furniture manufacturer which requires
4100 Mg or 7100 m3 (4,500 tons or 3,000,000 bd. ft.) of
lumber per year. Total fugitive emissions from the sawmill
and furniture plant were 176 Mg (191 tons) and 2 Mg (3 tons)
respectively.
Not included in the inventory are fugitive particulate
emissions from plant haul roads. These sources may be
calculated using procedures outlined in Section 2.1.
Major sources of emissions from the lumber and furni-
ture industry appear to be sawing, wood waste storage, and
wood waste loadout.
2.12.4 Characterization of Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive particulate emissions from sawmills consists
primarily of broken bark particulates and sawdust from
sawing. Dirt and dust that are embedded in the bark also
become airborne when the bark is broken and also during
unloading, dragging, debarking, and storage operations.
Very limited data are available concerning the characteriza-
2-336
-------
Table 2-59. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR THE LUMBER AND FURNITURE INDUSTRY
ro
I
U)
u>
en
Source of IPFPE
Sawmill
1. Log debarking
2 . Sawing
3. Sawdust pile loading,
unloading, and storage
Furniture Manufacturing
4. Wood waste storage bin vent
5. Wood waste storage bin loadout
•-^==^
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.012 kg/Mg of logs debarked3
(0.024 Ib/ton of logs debarked)
0.18 kg/Mg of logs sawed3
(0.35 Ib/ton of logs sawed)
0.5 kg/Mg sawdust handledb
(1.0 Ib/ton sawdust handled)
0.5 kg/Mg wood waste storedb
(1.0 Ib/ton wood waste stored)
1.0 kg/Mg wood waste loaded outb
(2.0 Ib/ton wood waste loaded out)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Logs debarked
740,000
(820,000)
Logs sawed
650,000
(720,000)
Sawdust handled
100,000
(110,000)
Wood waste stored
1,360
(1,500)
Wood waste loaded 01
1,360
(1,500)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
9
(10)
117
(126)
50
(55)
1
(1)
t
1
(2)
amount which becomes airborne.
by
ofTsevere problem?*
°" °bservations on Plant visits-
specific operation and engineering judgement of the
is recognized that in some plants this may be more
-------
SAWMILL
tv)
I
U)
co
LEGEND:
—-••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—^PROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-22. Process flow diagram for lumber and furniture production showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
At this point, all of the assembled pieces are put together
and minor sanding (by hand) may be necessary. Finishing
operations usually involve a series of surface coatings and
drying. After the finished pieces are completed and in-
spected, they are packaged and shipped to the customer.
A process flow diagram for lumber and furniture produc-
tion is shown in Figure 2-22. Each potential process fugi-
tive emission source is identified and explained in Table 2-
59. A dust source which may be found at lumber and furni-
ture plants, but not specifically included in the Figure or
Table is plant roads. Proper evaluation of this emission
category is explained in Section 2.1.
2.12.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-59 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for sawmill and furniture manufacturing IPFPE
sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled emission
rates, the site-specific level of control must be considered
for application to a specific sawmill or furniture manufac-
turing plant.
The fugitive emission factors are based solely on best
engineering judgement and material balance information
obtained during plant visits. Thus, listed emission factors
are at best order of magnitude estimates.
Sources of fugitive emissions at the sawmill are gener-
ally debarking, sawing, and sawdust handling operations.
Log handling and bucking are negligible sources of fugitive
emissions.
Most processes such as planing, sanding, and sawing
within furniture manufacturing plants are normally con-
trolled by hoods and various other vacuum pick-up devices
which are ducted to cyclones and/or fabric filters. Emis-
sions which escape these hoods and pick-up devices are
minimal. Insignificant amounts are emitted through the
2-333
-------
2.12 LUMBER AND FURNITURE INDUSTRY
2.12.1 Process Description
The raw materials for a furniture plant may be either
logs or cut lumber, depending on the volume and type of
final product.
At the sawmill, the cut logs are either stored in a log
pond or stacked on the ground. If logs are too long to
easily handle, they are cut to smaller lengths. This pro-
cess is called bucking. The next process is debarking.
There are five types of machines used for this: drum barkers,
ring barkers, bag barkers, hydraulic barkers, and cutterhead
barkers. The ring and cutterhead barkers are dry processes;
the other three use water. After debarking the logs are cut
to required lengths and then cut lengthwise into standard
sizes. After cutting, the lumber is dried either by air or
in a kiln. After drying, the lumber is transferred to the
furniture plant.
At plants receiving cut lumber, the lumber may be stacked
and air dryed or loaded onto carts and fed into a kiln. The
natural moisture is about 60-70 percent and kiln drying
reduces it to 5-8 percent. This is necessary in order to
prevent warping or shrinking of furniture.
The manufacture of furniture can be divided into five
main areas: rough milling, finish milling, planing, sanding,
assembly, and finishing.
The purpose of rough milling is to cut the lumber to
the approximate length and width and to remove the natural
defects in the wood. Operations involved may include
sawing, planing and molding. Finish molding may include
sawing, shaping, lathe work, mortising, and routing. Sand-
ing is usually done by a machine rather than by hand.
Assembly involves gluing and stapling the pieces together.
2-332
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.11
1. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2,
1976.
2. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REHD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36, June, 1976.
3. Chalekode, P.K., and J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open
Sources, Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
(Presented at Third National Conference on Energy and
the Environment. College Corner, Ohio. October 1,
1975). 9p.
4. Environmental Pollution Control at Hot-Mix Asphalt
Plants. The National Asphalt Pavement Association.
Information Series 27.
5. Process Flow Diagrams and Air Pollution Estimates.
Committee on Air Pollution, American Conference of
Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, Ohio.
1973.
6. Hardison, L.C. and Carrol A. Greathouse. Air Pollution
Control Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas.
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc. Prepared for U.S
Environmental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-
0301. Durham, North Carolina. September 30, 1972.
2-331
-------
m per second (3,000 scfm). Typical volume rates for venti-
lation of these secondary sources are 1.4-1.8 m /sec (3000-
4000 acfm).6
A conscientious maintenance and housekeeping program to
reduce the exposure time for spills and minimize leaks in
conveyor and screening exhaust systems is an important
additional control measure.
2-330
-------
Table 2-58. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE MANUFACTURING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Asphaltic Concrete Manufacturing
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
Preventatlve orocedures
and operating changes
£
Capture
methods
•g
I =
Removal
equipment
Storage of coarse and fine aggregate
2. Unloading coarse and fine aggregate to cold
bins
3. Cold aggregate elevator
4. Dried aggregate elevator
5. Screening hot aggregate
6. Hot aggregate elevator (continuous mix plant)
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
Primary control often 1n series with fabric filter.
2-329
-------
haul roads previously discussed in Section 2.1, are pre-
sented in Table 2-58. This section discusses the major
fugitive emission sources and their related control tech-
nology.
Transfer of fine and coarse aggregate from storage to
the cold bins is generally accomplished with rubber-tired
front-end loaders. Control requirements for this operation
vary with the moisture content of the aggregate. If the
aggregate has been washed in processing for removal of
excess fines and silt, or if the aggregate storage stock-
piles have been wetted for dust suppression, the surface
moisture content of the aggregate is often sufficient to
prohibit dusting. Conversely, aggregate which is relatively
surface dry can make this operation rather dusty. Control
commonly consists of wet suppression (water or chemical) in
the form of a sprinkling system at the cold bin and shield-
ing the cold bin area from the prevailing wind as much as
possible.
The remaining IPFPE sources, elevators for cold, dried,
and hot (for continuous mix plants) aggregate and hot screen-
ing, are often completely enclosed, with aspiration of the
tops of the elevators and hot screen to the control device
for the aggregate dryer (a fabric filter or scrubber, often
with a primary centrifugal collector). An enclosing hood-
type top deck cover for the hot aggregate screen is more
efficient than the flat top deck cover found most frequently
at these plants. Exhaust ventilation for the aggregate
3 2
elevators is generally based on 0.508 m per second per m
area (100 cfm per square foot), while the screening exhaust
3 2
requirements are 0.254 m per second per m area (50 scfm
per square foot). Typical fugitive emission flow require-
ments for a 136 Mg (150 tons) per hour plant are about 1.42
2-328
-------
these are potential uncontrolled emission rates, the site-
specific level of control must be considered for application
to a particular plant. Also included are reliability fac-
tors for each estimate.
The largest potential uncontrolled fugitive emission
point is aggregate storage. For most plants fugitive emis-
sions from aggregate elevators are negligible, with control
of these emissions by enclosure and exhaust to control
equipment.
2.11.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for asphalt concrete pro-
duction shown in Table 2-57 presents potential fugitive
emission quantities from the uncontrolled sources within the
process. The inventory represents a plant which produces
286,000 Mg (315,000 tons) of asphalt concrete per year,
based on a plant with a capacity of 136 Mg (150 tons) per
hour operating 250 days per year and 8 hours per day.
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. Emission factors for this source may
be found in Section 2.1. Total model plant uncontrolled
process fugitive particulate emissions are 68 Mg (75 tons)
per year.
2-11.4 Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive particulate emissions from hot mix asphalt
plants consist basically of dust from aggregate storage,
handling, and transfer. Stone dust may range from 0.1 ym to
more than 300 ym. On the average, 5 percent of cold aggre-
gate feed is <4 urn (minus 200 mesh). Dust which may escape
before reaching primary dust collection generally is 50-70
percent <4 ym (minus 200 mesh).3
2.11.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for the IPFPE sources, with
the exception of those for aggregate storage piles and plant
2-327
-------
Table 2-57 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PRODUCTION
I
CO
t-0
Cf\
Source of IPFPE
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Unloading coarse and fine
aggregate to storage bins
Cold aggregate elevator
Dried aggregate elevator
Screening hot aggregate
Hot aggregate elevator
(continuous mix plant)
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Negligible - 0.05 kg/Mg of aggregate
(0.10 Ib/ton)
Negligible - 0.1 kg/Mg of aggregate ''
(0.2 Ib/ton)
c
Negligible - 0.013 kg/Mg of aggregate5
(0.026 Ib/ton)
c
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
! D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Aggregate
processed
272,100
(300,000)
Aggregate
processed
272,100
(300,000)
-
Aggregate
processed
272,100
(300,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
7
(8)
14e
(15)
c
2G
(2)
c
a For complete development of. this factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. For this example it was assumed that S = 1.5, D = 90,
PE = 100, and 1^, K2, and K3 = 1. Reference 1.
Reference 2.
c Emissions from points 4 and 6 are included in emissions from point 3.
Reference 3.
e Emissions from these points for many plants are negligible, since these operations are generally enclosed and exhausted
to the primary control system for the aggregate dryer (e.g., scrubber or fabric filter).
-------
NJ
I
to
to
en
Table 2-57. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
1. Storage of coarse and fine
aggregate
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5) .
(PE/100) loaded onto pile
Ao.04) (KI) (s/i.5) 1L , \
\ (PE/100)2 «/""'i
\ /
(0.065) (Kj) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2 stored™"51"1*"
((0.13) (K2) (S/1.5) lb, \
(PE/100)2 ""' """)
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5) ,...,„......,„,..,
(PE/100) loaded out*
1(0.05) (K3) (S/1.5) lb/t \
\ (pE/ioo) 2 y
(0.055) (S/1.5 ,D , , .
2 ^ori' ky/My iiidLeiidl
(PE/100) 3U stored^
((0.11) (S/1.5) (D . lba \
(PE/100)2 >90' ""'^"\
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Aggregate loaded
277,100
(300,000)
Aggregate stored
272,100
(300,000)
Aggregate loaded
out
272,100
(300,000)
Aggregate stored
272,100
(300,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
5
(6)
18
(20)
7
(8)
15
(16)
-------
to
I
w
to
COLD
AGGREGATE
BINS
©
COLD
AGGREGATE
BINS
BATCH PLANT
CONTINUOUS PLANT
(5)
X
HOT
SCREENS
HOT BINS
V
WEIGH
HOPPER
L
t
PUG
MILL
1 f
1 LJ
ASPHALT
STORAGE
TRUCK
LOAD-OUT
LEGEND:
—••-POT
•••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
PROCESS FLOW
©
03
O
s
3
w
HOT
SCREENS
I ^
!
HOT BINS
YY
<<
H.
b)
k
of
P
<
;>
W
w
r-* MIXER — * ASPHALT
j— *. M1ALK > STORAGE
[ HOPPER
jj
TRUCK
LOAD-OUT
u u
Figure 2-21. Process flow diagram for asphaltic concrete manufacturing showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
In a batch plant, the classified aggregate drops into
one of four large bins. The operator controls the aggregate
mix size distribution by opening individual bins and allow-
ing the classified aggregate to drop into a weigh hopper
until the desired weight is obtained. After all the mate-
rial is weighed out, the sized aggregates are dropped into a
mixer and mixed dry for about 30 seconds. The asphalt,
which is a solid at ambient temperatures, is pumped from
heated storage tanks, weighed, and then injected into the
mixer. The hot, mixed batch is then dropped into a truck
and hauled to the job site.
In a continuous plant, the classified aggregate drops
into a set of small bins. From these hot bins, the aggre-
gate is transferred through a set of feeder conveyors and
bucket elevator into the mixer. Asphalt is metered into the
inlet end of the mixer, and retention is controlled by an
adjustable dam at the discharge end of the mixer. The mix
flows out of the mixer into a hopper from which the trucks
are loaded.
The production capacities of asphalt plants range from
45 to 320 Mg/hr (50 to 350 TPH); the average capacity being
148 Mg/hr (163 TPH). The asphalt is usually about 5 to 6
percent by weight of the total mix.
A process flow diagram for asphaltic concrete produc-
tion is shown in Figure 2-21. Each potential process fugitive
emission point is identified and explained in Table 2-57. A
dust source common to all asphaltic concrete producing
facilities, but not specifically included in the Figure or
Table is plant roads. Proper evaluation of this emission
category is explained in Section 2.1.
2.11.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-57 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for an asphalt concrete plant IPFPE sources. Since
2-323
-------
2.11 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PRODUCTION
2.11.1 Process Description
The production of hot-mix asphalt paving involves
proportioning of coarse and fine cold aggregates, heating
and drying of aggregates, and uniform mixing and coating
with hot asphalt to produce a specific paving mix. After
the mixing, the hot paving mixture is discharged into trucks
which transport the mix to the paving site.
With regard to the final mixing process, plants are
either of the batch or continuous-mix type. Both types of
plants have the same pattern of material flow up to the
point of measuring the aggregate from the hot bins into the
mixture. Asphalt plants may be stationary or portable;
portable plants are designed to be readily dismantled and
transported on trailers from one job site to another.
Different applications of asphaltic concrete require
different aggregate size distributions. The coarse aggre-
gate usually consists of crushed stone and gravel, but waste
materials such as slag from steel mills or crushed glass can
be used as raw material also. The raw aggregates are crushed
and screened at the quarries, and then brought to the plant
site and stored in open piles.
The aggregate is hauled from the storage piles and
placed in the appropriate hoppers of the cold-feed unit.
The material is metered from the hoppers onto a conveyor
belt and is transported into a direct-fired, gas or oil,
rotary dryer, which operates at 135°-165°C (275°-325°F).
The hot aggregate from the dryer drops into a bucket ele-
vator and is transferred to a set of vibrating screens which
classify the aggregates according to size into as many as
four different grades.
2-322
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.10
1. Hash, R.T. Control of Atmospheric Emissions from
Concrete Batch Plants, In: Proceedings of the Second
Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference,
1972!^? 241-2481 Engineering' University of Tennessee,
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42 Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. February, 1976.
3. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120 Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2,
1976.
4. Engineering Judgement Based on Observations and Emis-
sion Tests on Controlled Similar Sources.
5. Personal Communication to John M. Zoller from T R
Blackwood of Monsanto Research Corporation. Dayton
^ob°fn^ry* 1515 Nicholas Road, Dayton, Ohio. October
18, 1976.
2-321
-------
the operation and because the truck must also have freedom
of movement, this is a difficult operation to hood. The
truck bed is usually divided into several compartments and
the batch is dropped into each compartment. This necessi-
tates moving the truck after each drop in one compartment so
another compartment of the truck can be moved into place. A
canopy type hood just large enough to cover one compartment
at a time provides effective dust pickup and affords ade-
quate visibility. The sides can be made of heavy rubber to
give the hood some flexibility so that it will not be dam-
aged if a truck hits it. The hood is sometimes mounted on
rails to permit it to be withdrawn and allow wet batching
into transit mix trucks. The exhaust volume varies with the
shape of the hood and is usually in the neighborhood of 2.83
to 3.30 m3 per second (6000 to 7000 cfm).
A conscientious housekeeping program which includes
such measures as prompt clean-up of spills, maintenance of
conveyor equipment to prevent leaks and proper handling and
disposal of the material collected by fabric filters, is
necessary to complete the overall effective control of
fugitive emissions at cement batching plants.
2-320
-------
Fugitive emissions from air displaced as dry materials
are discharged from the weigh hopper into the mixer at a
central mix plant can be considerable. Effective control
can be accomplished by a mobile hood placed over the outlet
of the discharge end of the mixer. This hydraulically
operated hood is swung away from the discharge end when the
mixer is dumped. For a hood of this type the indraft face
velocity should be approximately 5-8 m/sec (1000-1500
ft/min) in order to overcome the velocities that are created
when the dry aggregate and cement fall into the mixer.
Fugitive emissions generated when the weighed amount of
sand, aggregate, and cement is dumped from the weigh hoppers
into the receiving hopper of the transit mix truck can be
controlled by several different methods: (1) employment of
a telescopic shroud which encompasses the rear of the mixer
which can be controlled mechanically or by air cylinders.
The flexible shroud is lowered over the rear of the truck
when the truck is in place; (2) stationary type of hood
where the trucks have to back into it. This is a good
design but the fact that the trucks have to back into it may
be a disadvantage; (3) hood made of sheet metal which
totally encloses the transit mix truck receiving hopper when
in place. After the truck is filled, the panels are raised.
The side panels of the hood are actuated by air cylinders.
Most plants that do dry batching also do wet batching,
therefore, the weigh hoppers must be set high enough to
accomodate the transit mix trucks used in wet batching.
Since the receiving hopper of most transit mix trucks is
several feet higher than the top of flat bed trucks used to
haul the material in dry batching, there are considerable
fugitive emissions from the fall of material when a dry
batch is discharged. Because the plant operator must view
2-319
-------
pneumatic delivery system a volume of conveying air required
is about 0.165 to 0.330 m3 per second (350 cfm to 700 cfm)
depending on the loading cycle, etc. Since the air is being
forced into the silo the baghouse will require a blower in
order to relieve the pressure inside the silo, and allow
flow through the fabric filter. A vent rate in the neigh-
borhood of 0.566 to 0.613 m3 per second (1200 to 1300 cfm)
is generally required. The negative pressure created also
prevents cement dust leakage around access doors, and other
openings which would not be the case if the cement silo was
under a positive pressure during filling.
The cement receiving storage system for a bucket ele-
vator is at or below ground level. The hopper is designed
to fit a canvas discharge tube from the hopper of the truck
or railcar, which practically eliminates cement emissions.
The bucket elevator is usually completely enclosed. As with
pneumatic conveying, the cement silo vent emissions caused
by the air displaced in the silo during loading must be
controlled. Control can be accomplished by venting to a
central dust collecting system or a single collector placed
on top of each silo. A fabric type of collector is most
often used to vent the cement silo as well as other dust
collecting points in concrete batching plants. The single
type of filter that is placed on each silo can be operated
without an exhauster when the material is delivered to the
silo by bucket elevators because it is simply used to filter
the air that is forced out.
The emissions generated from the rapid discharge of
sand, aggregate, and cement into the weigh hopper may be
controlled by venting the displaced air to the individual
storage bins and silo or by venting it directly to a central
collecting system.
2-318
-------
Table 2-56. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
CONCRETE BATCHING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Concrete Batching
1. Sand and aggregate storage
2. Transfer of sand and aggregate to elevated bin
3. Cement transfer to elevated storage silos
and silo vents
4. Weigh hopper loading of cement, sand, and
aggregate
5. Mixer loading of cement, sand, and aggregate
(central mix plant)
6. Loading of transit mix (wet batching) truck
7. Loading of flat-bed (dry batch) truck
C
O
VI
^
E
CD
-
.Q
01
*CTi
2
_•
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
i~
C\J
c
o
1
(/I
c
T3
O)
£
Z
C
0)
QJ
0
"o
c
.c
OJ
o
c
o
o
/
/
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
"5
1
.C
L>
O
1 — ,
C
L.
O)
X
c
o
VI
£
Q,
Q.
W
3
Ol
o
u
C
-^
C
c
c
o
xa
X
X
£
1
o-
.2
at
"re
fO
o
o
1-
5
u
a;
s
v>
OJ
3
a
u
o
a.
"O
c
V)
a
1
tj
L.
a.
e
•^
trt
VI*
s
c
o
i.
*o
J
a.
^
c o
13
at
(J
c
fO
c
QJ
C
•^
E
•o
a>
>
£
—
QJ
^
3
-C
5
QJ
b
c
Capture
methods
J
tl
a
u
c
o
^
4-1
ITJ
a.
c
5
i_>
•
I
o
•o
X
LL.
0
0
0
V)
O
3
at
£
X
5
*
V)
J
-a
>
£
0
0
0
*
J
;
a
*
C
c
•5
i
1
c
Removal
equipment
i_
a
^
•£
t
u.
0
0
0
0
0
-a
u
i/i
0
0
o
0
^
g
•^
u.
0
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
a For bucket elevators.
2-317
-------
2.10.4 Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions
In a wet concrete batching plant, practically all the
dust generated is cement dust since most of the sand and
aggregate used is damp. Particle size characteristics of
the dust vary according to the grade of cement. A range of
10 to 20 percent by weight <5 ym is typical for the various
grades of cement. The dust generated from dry concrete
batching plants has characteristics similar to those of the
cement dust discussed for wet concrete batching plants.
2.10.5 Control Technology
Control technology options, with the exception of
unpaved roads and storage of sand and aggregate discussed in
Section 2.1, are presented in Table 2-56. This section dis-
cusses the major fugitive emission sources and their related
control technology.
The amount of fugitive emissions generated during
transfer of sand and aggregate from storage to elevated
storage bins depends primarily on the surface moisture
content of these materials. Water sprays applied at the
feed, transfer, and discharge points of the belt conveyor or
bucket elevator system will ensure that the material is
sufficiently moist to prevent dusting. In addition, most
plants partially or completely enclose the conveyor system
to prevent windage losses. Transfer points may also be
exhausted to fabric filters for control. Section 2.1.1
discusses transfer and conveying sources in detail.
Pneumatic transfer of cement to elevated storage silos
from trucks and rail cars equipped with compressors are
finding increased application over cement transfer by bucket
elevator. Pneumatic transfer eliminates emissions between
the truck or railcar and the cement silo and requires con-
trol only at the cement silo vent by fabric filter. In the
2-316
-------
specifically included in this section is plant roads.
Discussion of this fugitive dust source is presented in
Section 2.1.
2.10.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-55 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for concrete batching plant IPFPE sources. Since
these are potential uncontrolled emission rates, the site-
specific level of control must be considered for application
to a specific plant. Also included are reliability factors
for each estimate.
The largest potential source of uncontrolled fugitive
emissions at concrete batching plants is cement unloading to
elevated storage silos.
2.10.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for concrete batching shown
in Table 2-55 presents potential fugitive emission quanti-
ties from the various uncontrolled sources within the pro-
cess. The inventory represents a wet-batch plant which
produces approximately 30,000 m (40,000 yd3) of concrete
per year. The plant inventory is not meant to display a
typical plant, but merely a model plant with an arbitrarily
chosen production rate.
Raw material constituents were based on the following
proportions:
sand and aggregate: 85% by weight
cement: 10-15% by weight
water: 5% by weight
density of concrete: 2.4 Mg/m3 (4,000 Ib/yd )
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. Emission factors for these sources
are listed in Section 2.1. Total model plant uncontrolled
process fugitive particulate emissions are 5.4 Mg (5.8 tons)
per year.
2-315
-------
Table 2-55 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING
NJ
I
U>
Source of IPFPE
2. Transfer of sand and
aggregate to elevated bins
3. Cement unloading to elevated
storage silos
4. Weigh hopper loading of
cement, sand, and aggregate
5. Mixer loading of cement,
sand and aggregate (central
mix plant)
6. Loading of transit mix
(wet-batching) truck
7. Loading of dry-batch truck
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.02 kg/Mg of sand and aggregate
transferred0
(0.04 Ib/ton of sand and aggregate
transferred)
0.118 kg/Mg of cement unloaded
(0.236 Ib/ton of cement unloaded)
0.01 kg/Mg of cement, sand and
aggregate0
(0.02 Ib/ton of cement, sand and
aggregate)
0.02 kg/Mg of cement, sand and
aggregate0
(0.04 Ib/ton of cement, sand and
aggregate)
0.01 kg/Mg of cement, sand and
aggregate0
(0.02 Ib/ton of cement, sand and
aggregate)
0.02 kg/Mg of sand and aggregate0
(0.04 Ib/ton of sand and aggregate)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Sand and aggregate
transferred
60,000
(66,000)
Cement transferred
to storage silo
7,000
(7,700)
Cement, sand, and
aggregate loaded
67,000
(73,700)
Cement, sand, and
aggregate loaded
67,000
(73,700)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
1.2
(1.3)
0.8
(0.9)
0.7
(0.8)
0.7
(0.8)
AP-42 (Reference 2) reports total plant uncontrolled emission factor of 0.05 kg/Mg (0.1 Ib/ton) of concrete produced.
For complete development of this factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. For their example is was assumed that S = 1.5,
and
1. Reference 3.
90, PE = 100, and
Reference 4.
Reference 5. From testing of mechanical unloading to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by enclosed bucket
elevator to elevated bins with a fabric sock over the bin vent.
-------
Table 2-55. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR CONCRETE BATCHING
I
U>
Source of IPFPE
1. Sand aggregate storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
Ao.04) (Ki) (S/1.5)
I (PE/100)2
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
MO. 13) (K2) (S/1.5)
\ (PE/100)2
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
1(0.05) (K3) (S/1.5)
I (PE/100)2
(0.055) (S/1.5) (D j
(PE/100)2 90
/(O.ll) (S/1.5) ,D ,
1 "> ^qrv
\ (PE/100)2 9°
kg/Mg material .
loaded onto pile
\
lb/ton material
loaded onto pile;
kg/Mq material
storedb
stored 1
kg/Mg material
loaded outb
\
- lb/ton material!
loaded out /
kg/Mg material
stored13
•i
Ib ton material!
stored /
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
D
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Sand and aggregate
loaded
20,000
(22,000)
Sand and aggregate
stored
20,000
(22,000)
Sand and aggreate
loaded out
20,000
(22,000)
Sand and aggregate
stored
20,000
(22,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
negligible
1
(1)
negligible
1
(1)
-------
NJ
t
U)
TRANSIT
MIXER
(WET BATCH)
FLAT-BED TRUCK (DRY BATCH)
LEGEND:
•—•"POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"-PROCESS FLOW
DUMP TRUCK
(CENTRAL MIX)
. PNEUMATIC
(RAILCARJ
~~O
TRUCK
Figure 2-20. Process flow diagram for concrete batching showing potential
industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
2.10 CONCRETE BATCHING
2.10.1 Process Description
Concrete batching plants store, convey, measure, and
discharge the constituents for making concrete to transpor-
tation equipment. Plants are of three basic types: wet
batching, dry batching, and central mix plants. The plants
are similar in the method by which the solid raw materials
(sand, aggregate, and cement) are received, stored, trans-
ferred and blended, but differ with respect to where the
water is added to the mix.
The raw materials are delivered to the plant by rail or
truck. The cement is transferred pneumatically (most common)
or by bucket elevator to elevated storage silos, while the
sand and aggregate are generally stored on the ground and
transferred to elevated bins via belt conveyor or bucket
elevator in preparation for mixing. From the overhead bins,
they go to weigh hoppers which weigh out the proper amount
of each material. The wet batching plant mixes sand, aggre-
gate, cement and water in the proper proportions (from the
weigh hopper), and dumps the mixture into transit mix trucks
which mix the batch en route to the site where the concrete
is to be poured. Dry batching plants mix the sand, aggre-
gate and cement and then dump this dry mix into flat bed
trucks which transport the batch to paving machines at the
job site where water is added and mixing takes place. A
central mix plant uses a central mixer to make the wet
concrete for transfer by open bed dump trucks to the job
site.
A process flow diagram for concrete batching is shown
in Figure 2-20. Each potential fugitive emission point is
identified and quantified by emission factors in Table 2-55.
A dust source common to all concrete batch plants, but not
2-311
-------
8. Shannon, L.J., P.G. Gorman, and M. Reichel. Particu-
late Pollutant System Study, Volume II - Fine Particu-
late Emissions. Midwest Research Institute. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution
Control Office. Contract No. 22-69-104. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina. August 1, 1971.
9. Chalekode, P.K. and T.R. Blackwood. Source Assessment
Document No. 40, Crushed Limestone, Preliminary Draft
Not for Distribution. Monstanto Research Corporation.
Contract No. 68-02-1874. Dayton Ohio. February 1976.
10. Minnick, J.C. Control of Particulate Emissions from
Lime Plants - A Survey. J. Air Pollution Control
Association, 21(4): 195-200, 1971.
11. Plant visit to Black River Mining Co. Mr. Allan Cigal-
lio and Jack Gividen.
12. Krohn, David J. U.S. Lime Division's Dust Abatement
Efforts Whip Pollution Problem. Pit and Quarry. Vol.
66: 87-92. May 1974.
2-310
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.9
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REDH, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36, June 1976.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina February 1976.
3. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations—Appendix Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1975.
4. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
5. Personal Communication to John M. Zoller, PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc. from T.R. Blackwood of Monsanto Research
Corporation. Dayton Laboratory. 1515 Nicholas Road,
Dayton, Ohio. October 18, 1976.
6. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Pro-
cesses. Midwest Research Institute. Contract No. 68-
02-2120. Monthly Progress Report No. 8. Kansas City,
Missouri. March 8, 1976.
7. Particulate Pollutant System Study. Volume III- Hand-
book of Emission Properties. Midwest Research In-
stitute. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Kansas City,
Missouri. May 1, 1971.
2-309
-------
materials. Control of waste disposal area emissions has
been discussed in Section 2.1.
Miscellaneous IPFPE sources such as spillage from over-
loaded trucks, leaky bins, and accumulation of lime on the
ground under conveyor transfer points are intermittent prob-
lems which can be cumulatively significant if not properly
attended. In general, the control of these sources is best
accomplished by the use of careful housekeeping and main-
tenance procedures (consisting of maintaining the equipment
and enclosure to prevent leaks, maintaining fabric filters
conscientiously with quick replacement of broken bags, and
quick clean-up of spills), supported by a conscientious
surveillance and education program.
2-308
-------
many of them enclose and exhaust transfer points as well.
Section 2.1 provides a more detailed discussion of control
technology for transfer and conveying operations.
Emissions which escape from the hoods designed to
capture point source emissions from quicklime and hydrated
lime grinding mills and screens, and their associated air
separators and elevators, can best be controlled by im-
proving the capture efficiency of the hoods. This can be
accomplished by increasing the blower head and vent rate of
the primary control system and by redesigning the hooding.
The removal equipment normally associated with such a system
include fabric filters or wet cyclonic devices, often with
cyclone pre-cleaners.
Lime storage silo ventilation air and pneumatic trans-
port system air are usually controlled by fabric "socks"
(lime silo vent) and fabric filters.
Lime packaging and bulk truck, rail, and ship/barge
loading operations are also frequently controlled by as-
piration through fabric filters. Gravity-feed fill spout
mechanisms with outer concentric aspiration ducts to fabric
filters provide nearly dust-free operation at these loading
sources, and are finding widespread employment at lime
facilities.
Most of the material collected by fabric filters at a
lime plant is returned in a closed loop to its related pro-
cess operation; however, when this collected material cannot
be returned (e.g., kiln flue dust), disposing of it to lime
by-product storage or waste areas by discharge and transport
in open trucks, can be an intermittent yet severe problem.
Wet suppression and enclosure of the unloading operation and
covering of the truck can be used to reduce these emissions.
Pug mills are sometimes used to thoroughly moisten waste
2-307
-------
Table 2-54. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
LIME MANUFACTURING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Lime Manufacturing
1. Limestone/dolomite charging to primary
crusher
2. Primary crushing
3. Transfer points and associated conveying
4. Primary screening
5. Secondary crushing
6. Secondary screening
7. Crushed limestone storage
8. Quicklime screening3
9. Quicklime/hydrated lime crushing and pul-
verizing with leaks from mill and from
feed discharge exhaust systems"
10. Lime product silo vents
11. Truck, rail, ship/barge loading of quick-
lime and hydrated lime
12. Packaging quicklime and hydrate lime
0
tS>
E
Ol
en
O>
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled 1
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
C\J
c
o
u
TJ
0)
0
at
c
o
/
/
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
>sion (water and/or chemical)
CL
O.
3
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
01
•*->
v
(J
i_
o
by enclosure- parti
c
c
c
o
tj
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
43
ro
1
X
L.
0
S.
C
o
1.
2
c
o
L.
at
CD
0
truction program
maintenance and/or cons
01
CL
j=
0
control system
1
c
•o
Ol
O)
1!
O
.c
o
X
X
Capture
methods
u
0)
o
u
c
o
+J
i.
CL
c
3
U
*o
o
o
JZ
X
u_
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•o
1
Ol
I
0
0
c
O
3
(J
Ol
-C
s
en
c
•o
3
•o
o
u
•o
c
o
I
"Q.
u
!L
1
8
L.
-------
Operation
Hammer Mill (crusher)
Screening
Bagging house
Particle size
distribution
30% <
74% <
46% <
95.5%
71% <
96% <
3 ym, 47% < 5 ym, 60% <
20 ym, 86% < 40 ym
3 ym, 72% < 5 ym, 85% <
< 20 ym, 98.8% < 40 ym
5 ym, 87.3% < 10 ym
20 ym, 98.8% < 40 ym
10 ym
10 ym
In addition, emissions from crushed limestone contain
1-2 percent by weight free silica.9
2.9.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for the lime IPFPE sources,
with the exception of unpaved roads, waste areas, and lime-
stone storage which are discussed in Section 2.1, are pre-
sented in Table 2-54. This section discusses the major
fugitive emission sources and their related control tech-
nology.
Processing of the limestone and dolomite from the
quarry, involving crushing, screening, and transfer oper-
ations is controlled by wet suppression and/or hooding and
exhaust to removal equipment. Nearly all plants employ
water sprays as an important adjunct of the control system,
or as the sole control used. Primary crushers are con-
trolled more often by wet suppression than fabric filters.10'11'12
Hooding and exhaust ventilation to fabric filters are more
commonly used for dust control at bins, secondary crushing
inlets and outlets, screens, and material transfer points.
Transfer and conveying of both the finished quicklime
and slaked lime products can be a considerable fugitive
emission problem if these sources are not adequately en-
closed and exhausted. Nearly all plants completely enclose
the conveyor systems, which are most often belt-type, and
2-305
-------
industry, in terms of individual plant production (amount of
limestone processed and subsequent disposition in the form
of aggregate construction material, quicklime, and a variety
of hydrated lime products), the plant inventory is not meant
to display a typical plant, but merely a model plant with
arbitrarily selected individual process operation through-
puts.
By-product lime from quicklime screening (fines) and
the lime hydration air separator are further processed or
stored for local markets (e.g. local farmers for agricul-
tural use). Fugitive emissions collected from fabric fil-
ters and other removal equipment are most often returned to
process streams; those which cannot be returned to process
streams are hauled to lime storage or waste piles.
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads, waste areas, and quarrying opera-
tions. Emission factors for these sources are presented in
Sections 2.1 and 2.6. Total model plant uncontrolled
process fugitive particulate emissions are 129 Mg (141 tons)
per year.
2.9.4 Characteristics ofFugitive Emissions
Fugitive particulate emissions from lime production
consist basically of limestone dust from operation prior to
calcination and lime dust from operation following calcina-
tion. Fugitive particulate emission from limestone storage,
handling, and transfer typically has a mean particulate
diameter of 3-6 ym, 45-70 percent of which are less than 5
6
ym.
Little other information concerning fugitive particu-
late emission characteristics from lime production is avail-
able. The following information pertaining to stack emis-
sions characteristics is presented since they most likely
7 8
closely parallel those of fugitive emissions. '
2-304
-------
Table 2-53 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR LIME PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter
Mg/yr.
(tons/year)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr.
(tons/yr)
to
I
U)
o
OJ
9. Quicklime and hydrated lime
crushing and pulverizing
with leaks from mill and
from feed/discharge exhaust
systems.
10. Lime product silo vents
11. Truck, rail, ship/barge
loading of quicklime and
hydrated lime
12.
Packaging quicklime and
hydrated lime
0.05 kg/Mg of quicklime and hydrated
lime produced"
(0.1 Ib/ton)
0.118 kg/Mg of lime products loaded3
(0.236 Ib/ton
Negligible - 0.005 kg/Mg of lime
products packaged^
(0.01 Ib/ton)
Quicklime and hydrated
lime crushed and
pulverized
50,000
(55,000)
Lime products loaded
50,000
(55,000)
Lime products packaged
10,000
(11,000)
2
(3)
6
(6)
Negligible
Reference 1.
Reference 2 - AP-42. 80% and 60% of which falls out on plant property for points 2 and 5, respectively.
Engineering judgment, assumed approximately same as emission factor for dry phosphate rock as reported in Reference 3.
Emission from primary screening (point 4) included in emission factor for primary crushing (point 2) .
Emissions from secondary screening (point 6) included in emission factor for secondary crushing (point 5) .
?!Yel°Pment of this factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. For this example, it was assumed that S = 1.5,
Qp
90, PE = 100, and
1. Reference 4.
^ Emission from quicklime screening (point 8) included in emission factor for quicklime crushing and pulverising (point 9).
^ -ngineering judgment based on controlled cement milling emissions reported by a cement manufacturing company.
Emissions from lime product silo vents (point 10) included in emission factor for lime loading (point 11).
3 Engineering judgment, assumed same as for loading of hydraulic cement obtained from Reference 5.
Engineering judgment based on observations and emission tests of controlled similar sources.
-------
Table 2-53 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR LIME PRODUCTION
to
I
CO
o
10
Source of IPFPE
7. Crushed limestone storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
8. Quicklime screening
Uncontrolled
fugitive emission factor
(0.02) (Kl) (S/1.5) ,,„,„„ „,..„<,!
(PE/100)2
1(0.04) (Ki)
1
\
(0.065)
-------
Table 2-53. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR LIME PRODUCTION
to
I
Source of IPFPE
1. Limestone/dolomite charging
to primary crusher
2. Primary crushing
3. Transfer points and associated
conveying
4. Primary screening
5. Secondary crushing
6. Secondary screening
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.00015-0.02 kg/Mg of rock charged
(0.00030-0.04 Ib/ton)
0.25 kg/Mg of limestone crushed
(0.5 Ib/ton)
0.4 kg/Mg of quicklime produced
(0.8 Ib/ton)
0.75 kg/Mg of limestone crushed
(1.5 Ib/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Limestone/dolomite
processed
100,000
(110,000)
Limestone/dolomite
processed
100,000
(110,000)
Quicklime produced
50,000
(55,000)
Limestone/dolomite
processed
90,000
(99,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
1
(1)
25
(28)
20
(22)
68
(74)
-------
Horrn CAR
FROH QUARRY
LEGEND:
-••-POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"-PROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-19. Process flow diagram for lime manufacturing showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points
2-300
-------
rator in preparation for final shipment. Dolomitic pressure
hydrated lime involves an additional milling step prior to
shipment.
Shipment of the quicklime and hydrated lime products is
accomplished by packaging in bags, and by bulk handling in
truck, rail, and ship/barge.
A process flow diagram for lime manufacturing is shown
in Figure 2-19. Each potential process fugitive emission
point is identified and explained in Table 2-53. Dust
sources common to all lime producing facilities, but not
specifically included in the Figure or Table, are plant
roads which are discussed in Section 2.1.
2.9.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-53 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for a lime facility IPFPE sources. Since these are
potential uncontrolled emission rates, the site-specific
level of control must be considered for application to a
specific plant. Also included are reliability factors for
each estimate, as defined previously.
The largest potential IPFPE sources are secondary
crushing/screening and the combined transfer and associated
conveying sources (source 3 in Figure 2-19). Uncontrolled
fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads at lime plants
and associated quarries are often larger overall IPFPE
sources.
2.9.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for lime manufacturing as
shown in Table 2-53 presents potential fugitive particulate
emission quantities from the various uncontrolled sources
within the process. The inventory represents a plant which
processes 100,000 Mg (110,000 tons) of limestone ore per
year. Because of the wide variability throughout the
2-299
-------
from the calcining zone. Air blown into the bottom of the
kiln cools the lime before it is discharged. This air is
heated sufficiently by the time it reaches the calcining
zone to be used as secondary combustion air. The lime is
discharged to cars on tracks or to conveyor belts, and
either shipped or further processed by hydrating.
The rotary kiln, which is supported by rollers, is a
long inclined horizontal steel cylinder lined with refrac-
tory brick. Most rotary kilns rotate at a speed of about
one rpm. The limestone flows countercurrent to the heat,
the pebble size limestone entering at one end and the hot
air entering at the other. Rotary kilns are composed of
three fairly distinct zones: the feed or drying zone, the
central or preheating zone, and the calcining zone. Though
kilns are usually well controlled, an imperfect hood fit
around the rotating kiln at the feed end can be a source of
fugitive emissions.
Regardless of kiln type, the temperature in the feed
end of the kiln is kept below 540°C (1000°F) while the
operating temperatures in the preheating and calcining zones
are generally in the 1,090 to 1,320°C (2,000 to 2,400°F)
range, with higher temperatures being found in shorter
kilns.
The calcined lime (quicklime - CaO) is then screened,
milled, and shipped as is and/or futher processed to produce
hydrated lime. Fines from calcination can be briquetted,
fed to a hydrator, or ground or pulverized for market de-
mands .
The hydration process involves adding water to crushed
or ground quicklime in a mixing chamber (hydrator). The
product, called slaked lime, is dried primarily by the heat
of hydration. The slaked lime is conveyed to an air sepa-
2-298
-------
2.9 LIME MANUFACTURING
2.9.1 Process Description
The manufacture of lime involves the calcining of
limestone (CaCO- or CaC03 • MgCO ) to release carbon dioxide
and form quicklime (CaO or CaO • MgO). There are three
types of limestone used to produce lime. The limestone is
classified as "high calcium" or "calcite" if the magnesium
carbonate content is less than five percent, and "dolomitic
limestone" or "dolomite" if the magnesium carbonate content
is 30 to 40 percent. Magnesium limestone contains more
magnesium carbonate than high calcium stone, but less than
dolomite.
Most lime facilities are located at or in close proxi-
mity to a limestone quarry. Transfer of the quarried lime-
stone to the crushing/screening site is most often accom-
plished by huge off-highway trucks. Section 2.6 describes
in detail the processing operations at a limestone quarry.
Limestone and/or dolomite is crushed and size-classi-
fied by screening to obtain the desired feed size for the
calcining kilns. In the United States, limestone is cal-
cined in either vertical or rotary kilns. The limestone
feed material size for vertical kilns is 15-20 cm (6-8
inches); consequently, only primary crushing is required.
However, some vertical kilns do require 8-13 cm (3-5 inch)
material feed size. Horizontal kilns require the smaller
size feed provided by secondary crushing.
All vertical kilns operate similarly and have four
distinct zones from top to bottom: stone storage zone,
preheating zone, calcining zone, and cooling and discharge
zone. The flow of stone in the kiln is countercurrent to
the flow of cooling air and combustion gases. The stone is
charged at the top and preheated by the hot exhaust gases
2-297
-------
8. Information obtained during two cement plant visits
arranged through C. Schneeberger of the Portland Cement
Association, Washington, D.C. September-October 1976.
2-296
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.8
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REED, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No
36, June, 1976.
2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
3. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Re-
search Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
4. Personal communication to John M. Zoller, PEDCo Environ-
mental, Inc., from T.R. Blackwood, Monsanto Research
Corporation, Dayton Laboratory, 1515 Nicholas Road,
Dayton, Ohio. October 18, 1976.
5. Personal Communication from Mr. M. M. Reid, Assistant
to Technical Director, Lone Star Industries, Inc.
Cement and Construction Materials Group to Mr. Don
Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission
Standards and Engineering Division, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. January 12, 1977.
6. Inspection Manual for the Enforcement of New Source
Performance Standards: Portland Cement Plants. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement. Contract No. 68-02-1355, Task No. 4.
Washington, D.C. January 1975.
7. Koehler, Wilhelm and Gerhard Funke. Dust Controls in
the Cement Industry of the German Federal Republic.
Proceedings of the Second International Clean Air
Congress. Academic Press. New York. 1971.
2-295
-------
is being employed at an increasing number of plants. Sec-
tion 2.1 provides further discussion on the general aspects
of loading and associated control systems.
Waste Disposal/Housekeeping - Most of the material
collected by fabric filters at a cement plant is returned in
a closed loop to its related process operation; however,
when this collected material cannot be reused, disposing of
it to waste storage areas by discharge and transport in open
trucks, can be an intermittent yet severe problem. Wet
suppression and enclosure of the unloading operation and
covering of the truck can be used to reduce these emissions.
Control of waste disposal area emissions has been discussed
in Section 2.1.
A consciencious housekeeping program involving the
routine clean-up of spills from conveyor pick-up and trans-
fer points, accumulations of leaks from grinding mills and
similar sources exposed to wind erosion is a very important
part of the cement facility's overall fugitive emissions
control program.
Limited data on the costs of fugitive emission control
systems for a plant with a capacity of about 450,000 Mg
O
(500,000 tons) per year are presented below.
Source/Control System
Cost
Dump hopper for primary crusher/Spray system
Feed end of kiln/Improvement of seals to
prevent fugitive emissions
Clinker ladder and duct work
Cement silo vents/Fabric filters
$25,000
$30,000
$25,000
$50,000
2-294
-------
Emissions which escape from the hoods designed to
capture emissions from raw grinding and cement grinding
mills, and their associated air separators and elevators,
are significant at some plants because of the poor capture
efficiency of the primary control system. These operations
can be improved by increasing the blower head and vent rate
of the primary control system and by redesigning the hood-
ing.
Leaks in the ball mills, for example from worn-out
rubber seals between the nuts and bolts which fasten steel
plates to the inner walls of the mills, can be another
significant emission source. A conscientious maintenance
program is the best means for controlling these types of
emissions. These grinding mills are often located in an
enclosed structure, which helps to prevent the escape of
these emissions.
Cement Loading/Packaging - Cement storage silo vents
(for the discharge of displacement air as cement is fed to
the silos) are either uncontrolled, covered by fabric "socks",
or exhausted to fabric filters which are part of the pneu-
matic conveying systems. The control trend is toward aspira-
tion by fabric filters.
Cement loading for bulk truck, rail, and ship/barge
transport are typically gravity feed systems which are
partially enclosed (for truck and rail loading) or uncon-
fined (for ship/barge loading). Cement packaging is often
located in a building or partial enclosure. Some plants
exhaust the cement dust, which is emitted with the displaced
air during loading and packaging, to fabric filters, while
others have no control system at all. A loading or pack-
aging aspiration system which consists of a filling spout
with an outer concentric aspiration duct to a fabric filter
2-293
-------
may be limited for clinker and gypsum due to the impairment
of material quality and handling properties which may
result.
One plant has experimented with foam to control clinker
handling emissions; however, the resulting increase of
entrained air in the cement product has severely limited
o
employment of this control technique thus far. The abra-
siveness of clinker also may cause maintenance/attrition
problems with pneumatic transfer and exhaust system equip-
ment (ductwork, fans, etc.). Lowering of duct velocities is
a solution, but limited since the collection system effi-
ciency is simultaneously impaired.
Conveying and transfer of the powdery cement product
accomplished by belt conveyor and/or pneumatic conveying is
most often well confined and controlled for both prevention
of product loss and air pollution control. Control tech-
niques are similar to those for clinker conveying as des-
cribed above. Pneumatic transport system air is typically
controlled by fabric filters.
Clinker Storage - Clinker storage is one of the major
potential sources of fugitive emissions at a cement plant.
Most facilities have some type of structure for protecting
the clinker from the weather; however, for the most part
these partial enclosures are not sufficiently confining to
prevent fugitive emissions from windage and loading/un-
loading activities. Some plants employ open ended struc-
tures with partial sidewalls for storage of clinker and
other materials, such structures can become virtual wind
tunnels during strong winds. The most effective control
measure is complete enclosure of the storage area with
ventilation to fabric filters. One plant has a partially
enclosed facility which employs a mobile clinker ladder
exhausted to a fabric filter to practically eliminate emis-
sions from unloading the clinker to storage.
2-292
-------
Table 2-52 (continued). CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Portland Cement Manufacturing
20. Cement silo vents
21. Cement loading
22. Cement packaging
§
E
t_l
u
c
•a
£
c
OJ
1/1
OJ
o
'o
c
.c
cu
,_
o
c
o
C_J
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
. — .
"3
U
E
OJ
U
o
c
u
O)
1
c
o
£
Q.
Q.
V>
3
3
ui
O
(J
e
o>
c
1
c
c
0
X
X
l/>
o>
s_
j
a.
TJ
at
u
CL
£
rO
a.
0
o
o
c
o
V
a>
OJ
CO
E
u
o
a.
o
u
a
c
u
o
•a
c
at
U
c
41
C
i
I
>
£
3-
1
i
c
1
.*
5
X
X
Capture
methods
u
at
„
VI
ai
o
u
c
0
•M
t
a.
w
c
re
3
(j
•a
•o
a>
X
U-
0
0
0 0
•o
OJ
X
u
5
-o
o
ai
43
1
0
0
c
o
o
4_,
c
0
^
i-
a.
TS
(j
c
u
0
at
£
3
Oi
^
LL.
0
0
Removal
equipment
at
**-
t.
JD
0
0
0
o
u
.^
u
o
=*"
•^
LL.
0
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
a Control of feed/discharge ends of grinding mills (typically controlled by fabric filters) considered point source
control. Fugitive emissions are leaks from pick-up points of these systems.
Wet suppression limited due to potential impairment of material quality.
2-291
-------
Table 2-52. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Portland Cement Manufacturing
1. Raw material unloading (rail, barge, truck)
2. Raw material charging to primary crusher
3. Primary crusher
4. Transfer points and associated conveying
5. Vibrating screen
6. Secondary crusher
7. Unloading outfall to storage
8. Raw material storage
9. Transfer to conveyor via clamshell
0. Raw grinding mill and feed/discharge exhaust
systemsa
11 . Raw blending
12. Blended material
13. Coal storage
14. Transfer of coal to grinding mill
5. Leakage from coal grinding mills
6. Unloading-cl inker/gypsum outfall to storage
7. Clinker/ gypsum storage
18. Clinker/gypsum load-out
19. Finish grinding with leaks from mill and from
feed/discharge exhaust systems
c
o
Wl
ifi
'I
OJ
5
o»
en
QJ
z
/
/
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AMD CONTROL METHODS
CM
C
O
+J
CJ
V
(/I
C
TJ
Ot
14-
*J
C
41
•o
l/t
V
o>
o
*o
C
.e
u
OJ
1
C
o
/
/
/
/
•
/
/
/
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
3
.C
U
l_
O
"-^
•o
C
*-»
1
C
o
Lrt
0)
L.
Q.
Q.
3
V)
QJ
0
0
0
0
X
ob
a)
4->
ft*
I
u
t-
o
o
(_)
C
OJ
^
I
«4-
c
o
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
0
X
X
>,
'ai
0
0
at
u
3
•o
aj
|
a.
•o
c
rO
t-
0}
i
£
rtJ
a.
o>
C
?
2.
O
>«-
o
1
4-1
C
o
1_
QJ
«
E
10
U
en
o
u
a.
c
o
4-»
(J
3
W
l/l
g
U
i_
O
-v,
•o
c
•o
a>
g
11
c
a»
c
1
mprovet
0
0
0
1
ncreast
0
0
•o
(U
OJ
1
o
j;
Capture
methods
J
OJ
$
o
u
VI
c
O
M
4-*
k.
IO
0.
VI
c
(D
+J
L.
3
(J
VI
T>
§
•a
O>
X
0
0
0
I/I
?
•o
g
^
O
u
1_
a>
•»->
3
O
£
'i
4->
3
O
a.
V)
en
c
RerDOval
equipment
t.
a;
-tj
u
i_
^a
TJ
0
0
0
+
+
•f
+
+
•f
0»
c
O
1
0
n
u
s
E
u
L.
J3
«
Typical control technique.
In use (but not typical) control technique.
Technically feasible control technique.
2-290
-------
2.8.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for the IPFPE sources are
presented in Table 2-52. This section discusses the fugi-
tive emission sources and their related control technolo-
gies, with the exception of those indicated in Table 2-52
as negligible. A general discussion of control techniques
for common IPFPE sources—material in loading, transfer/con-
veying, storage, transfer by clamshells, and loading—is
presented in Section 2.1; however, characteristics of these
operations peculiar to cement plants are also discussed
here.
Raw Material Crushing/Screening - Control techniques
for raw material crushing and screening operations at cement
plants are essentially the same as those described for
materials extraction and beneficiation in Section 2.6.
These operations are typically enclosed and often located
subsurface which further diminishes the potential for the
escape of fugitive emissions. Water suppression via water
sprays at the feed points of both primary and secondary
crushing and screening operations are common. Hooding at
bins, discharge points, and conveyor transfer points which
exhausts to primary fabric filters are employed at some
plants. Although coal dust can be collected by a fabric
filter, the danger of an explosion must be noted.
Material Handling - Raw material and clinker handling
results in fugitive emissions which are often controlled by
the application of covers over transfer belts, or enclosing
and/or hooding transfer points with exhaust to fabric
filters. Properly designed hoods, used with 0.5-2 m3/sec
(1000-4000 cfm) fans, effectively control emissions.6 Some
plants use telescoping or ladder chutes for stockpiling of
material, which confine the material and its free fall
•j
distance. Wet suppression methods are also practiced, but
2-289
-------
0 1.18 Mg (1.30 tons) of limestone
0 0.03 Mg (0.03 tons) of gypsum
There are essentially no by-products from the Portland
cement industry. Flue dust when captured is often returned
into the system.
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads, kiln dust disposal, and quarrying
operations (drilling, blasting, and truck loading). Emis-
sion factors for these operations may be found in Sections
2.1 and 2.6, respectively. Total model plant uncontrolled
process fugitive particulate emissions are 3,656 Mg (4,022
tons) per year. The largest potential sources of fugitive
emissions are outfall points to storage and screening opera-
tions.
2.8.4 Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions
Fugitive particulate emissions from Portland cement
production consist basically of dust from various opera-
tions, but little information is available regarding the
size range characteristics. The typical oxide composition
ranges of clinker dust and cement dust are as follows.
Compound
Silica
A12°3
Fe2°3
CaO
MgO
S03
Free lime
Minor components
Fugitive emission oxide composition,
percent by weight
Clinker dust
19-24
3-8
1-5
62-69
0-5
0-1
0-2
0-1
Cement dust
18-23
3-8
1-5
61-66
0-5
2-4
0-2
0-1
2-288
-------
The emission factors with an "E" rating are at best
order of magnitude estimates; consequently, actual emission
rates at a given facility could differ significantly from
those in Table 2-51. For example, one of the major poten-
tial fugitive emission sources is the handling of the vari-
ous raw materials and clinker (sources 7-9 and 16-18). The
storage area for these materials can be completely enclosed
ventilated buildings, open ended roof structures, or com-
pletely open areas. Discharge of the materials to these
storage areas can be by means of free fall from conveyors
(extremely dusty for clinker) or by telescopic or ladder
chutes. Thus, it is evident that these widely varying site
specifics create a wide variation in the related emission
rates.
The largest potential sources of uncontrolled fugitive
emissions at cement plants include paved and unpaved roads,
clinker handling and storage, raw material handling and
storage, and cement load-out. Another potentially large
source of fugitive emissions (though not covered here) is
kiln dust disposal. See Section 2.1 for disposal practices.
2.8.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for Portland cement as
shown in Table 2-51 presents potential fugitive emission
quantities from the various uncontrolled sources within the
process. The inventory represents a plant which produces
403,600 Mg (443,968 tons) of Portland cement per year. The
plant inventory is not meant to display a typical plant, but
merely a model plant with specified circumstances.
The assumed feed rate of raw materials to produce 1 Mg
of Portland cement is as follows:
0.21 Mg (0.23 tons) of clay
0.14 Mg (0.15 tons) of sand
0.03 Mg (0.03 tons) of iron ore
2-287
o
-------
Table 2-51 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
I
Ki
oo
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
Estimate based on data presented in Section 2.1.2. Range shown is for taconite and coal railcar unloading.
Note that approximately 80 percent of these emissions will
Note that approximately 60 percent of these emissions will
For source 13 it was assumed that S » 4.0,
Reference 1.
Estimated based on crushed stone emission factors (Reference 2).
fall out on plant property.
Estimate based on data presented in Section 2.1.1.
Estimated based on crushed stone emission factors (Reference 2).
fall out on plant property.
Emissions for point 6 are included in emissions from point 5.
Engineering judgement based on visual observations during plant visits.
Emissions from point 9 are included in emissions from point 7.
For complete development of this emission factor, refer to Section 2.1.4.
D » 90, PE - 100, and KI - 0.75, K2 - 0.5, and K3 - 0.75.
Reference 3.
Emissions from points 12 are included in emissions from point 11.
Based on partially enclosed structure: open on both ends with roof.
Emissions from points 17 and 18 are included in emissions from point 16.
Reference 4. Based on tests of mechanical unloading of cement to hopper and subsequent transport of cement by enclosed
bucket elevator to elevated bins with a fabric sock over the bin vent.
n 88,930 Mg (97,940 tons) - clay
57,879 Mg (63,743 tons) - sand
14,431 Mg (15,893 tons) - iron ore
79,175 Mg (87,197 tons) - coal
0 Raw material charged, crushed, screened, and crushed (2nd)
- 88,930 Mg (96,751 tons) - clay
- 57,879 Mg (62,965 tons) - sand
- 14,431 Mg (15,698 tons) - iron ore
- 490,105 Mg (539,763 tons) - limestone
p Includes 124 Mg (137 tons) of hydrophobe and grinding aid.
-------
Table 2-51 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
00
Ul
Source of IPFPE
—
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Transfer of coal to grinding
mill
Leakage from coal grinding
mills
Unloading-clinker/gypsum
outfall to storage
Clinker/gypsum storage
Clinker/gypsum load-out
Finish grinding with leaks
from mill and from feed/
discharge exhaust systems
Cement silo vents
Cement loading
Cement packaging
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Neg-0.1 kg/Mq transferred9
(0.2 Ibs/ton)
Negligible9
2.5-5.0 kg/Mg
of clinker and gypsum9' '
(5.0-10.0 Ibs/ton)
1
1
0.05 kg/Mg of cement9
(0.1 Ibs/ton)
Negligible9
0.118 kg/Mg
of cement loaded"1
(0.236 Ibs/ton)
Neg-0.005 kg/Mg packed9
(0.01 Ibs/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
E
-
-
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/vear
(tons/year)
coal transferred
79,173
(87,195)
-
clinker/gypsum
405,022
(446,059)
-
-
grinding feed^
403,627
(444,525)
_
cement loaded
375,443
(413,485)
cement packaged
28,164
(30,980)
Uncontrolled
emissions
(tons/yr)
8
(9)
-
1,519
(1,671)
1
1
20
(22)
_
44
(49)
negligible
-------
Table 2-51 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
to
I
to
00
Source of IPFPE
11. Raw blending
12. Blended material storage
13. Coal storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.02 kg/Mg
raw material b
(0.05 Ibs/ton)
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)^
((0.04) (Kl) (S/1.5)
\ (PE/lbO)^
(0.065) (Ky) (S/1.5)
(PE/100) 2
((0.13) (K2) (S/1.5)
V (PE/100)^
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5)
(PE/100) ^
((0.05)
-------
Table 2-51. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
ro
oo
U)
Source of IPFPE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Raw material unloading (rail,
barge, truck) gypsum, iron
ore, clay, limestone, sand,
coal
Raw material charging to
primary crusher
Primary crusher
Transfer points and associated
conveying
Vibrating screen
Secondary crusher
Unloading outfall to storage
Raw material storage
Transfer to conveyor Via
clamshell
Raw grinding mill and feed/
discharge exhaust systems
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Coal: 0.2 kg/Mg material3
(0.4 Ib/ton)
Other: 0.015-0.2 kg/Mg material3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton)
0.00015-0.02 kg/Mg
of rock charged0
(0.0003-0.04 Ibs/ton)
0.25 kg/Mg
of rock crushed
(0.5 Ibs/ton)
0.1-0.2 kg/Mg material handled*5
(0.2-0.4 Ib/ton)
0.74 kg/Mg screened8 'f
(1.5 Ibs/ton)
f
1.5-2.5 kg/Mg
raw material unloaded9
(3.0-5.0 Ib/ton)
h
h
0.05 kg/Mg
raw material milled9
(0.1 Ibs/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
D
C
E
C
-
E
-
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Coal unloaded"
79,175
(87,197)
Materials unloaded
161,240
(177,576)
Raw material0
591,421
(651,345)
Raw material crushed
591,415
(651,338)
591,415
(651,338)
591,267
(651,175)
-
590,824
(650,687)
_
Raw material
589,642
(649,387)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
16
(17)
17
(19)
6
(7)
148
(163)
89
(98)
443
(488)
f
1,182
(1,300)
h
29
(32)
-------
TRUCK BARGE
to
I
ro
CO
to
RAW MATERIAL
UNLOADING
COAL, LIMESTONE, CLAY
GYPSUM, SAND, IRON ORE
LIMESTONE, CLAY
SAND, IRON ORE
DRY PROCESS OVERSIZE
LEGEND:
•—••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"PROCESS FLOW
FUEL FOR HEATING KILN
TO
TRUCK,"
BOX CAR
TRUCK BARGE
Figure 2-18. Process flow diagram for portland cement manufacturing showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
limestone, to produce a slurry with water. This slurry is
blended through quality control procedures and fed to the
rotary kiln, where the water is driven off and the raw
mixture calcined to form Portland cement clinker.
Calcination - The blended material (from either the wet
or dry process) is fed directly to a rotating kiln or to a
preheated system then into a long inclined rotating kiln.
The hot product of the calcination process, cement clinker,
is discharged from the kiln and immediately cooled in the
clinker cooler. After cooling, the clinker is combined with
gypsum (about 5% by weight) and ground in rotary ball mills.
The milled cement is air classified and the oversized mater-
ial returned to the mill. The cement is then stored to
await packaging or bulk shipment by rail, barge or truck.
A process flow diagram for cement production is shown
in Figure 2-18. Each potential process fugitive emission
source is identified and explained in Table 2-51. A dust
source common to all cement producing facilities, but not
specifically included in the Figure or Table is plant roads.
Proper evaluation of this emission category is explained in
Section 2.1. In addition, limestone quarries, which are
often an integral part of the cement facility, but not
specifically included in this section, are discussed sepa-
rately in detail in Section 2.6.
2.8.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-51 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for the cement facility IPFPE sources. Since these
are potential uncontrolled emission rates, the site-specific
level of control must be considered for application to a
specific plant. Also included are reliability factors for
each estimate.
2-281
-------
2.8 PORTLAND CEMENT MANUFACTURING
2.8.1 Process Description
Portland cement is used for making concrete for con-
struction of many kinds of structures such as buildings,
bridges, and highways and in products such as concrete
masonry, concrete pipe and many precast components for
construction. Five types of Portland cement are produced in
the United States to specifications which are governed by
the desired end use, such as general construction, moderate
heat release in massive structures, sulfate resistance, or
high early strength.
Raw materials include limestone, clay or shale, iron-
bearing materials, and siliceous materials. Most of these
are taken from quarries by drilling and blasting procedures,
then transported to crushers and screening plants. The
product of these operations is transported to the storage
facilities for continuation of the manufacturing process,
which transforms these raw materials to a product known as
"Portland cement clinker."
There are two alternative processes which are used to
prepare the material for the manufacture of Portland cement -
wet and dry:
Dry Process - The raw materials are proportioned and
conveyed to a drying/grinding unit where they are dried and
ground either separately or simultaneously. The product of
grinding is air classified before storage, with the oversize
material returned to the grinding circuit. The product is
then blended and stored before subsequent calcination.
Wet Process - The raw materials generally include a
naturally occuring wet marl or clay. Following the quarry-
ing operation, they may be slurried in a wash mill and then
ground to a high fineness with other raw materials, such as
2-280
-------
8. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition with Supplements 1-5. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. February 1976.
9. Shannon, L.J., R.W. Gerstle, P.G. Gorman, D.M. Epp,
T.W. Devitt, and R. Amick. Emissions Control in the
Grain and Feed Industry, Volume I - Engineering and
Cost Study. Midwest Research Institute. Kansas City,
Missouri. EPA Contract No. 68-02-0213. Environmental
Protection Agency Report EPA-450/3-73-003a. December
1973. 583 p.
10. Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement:
Standards of Performance for the Grain Elevator Industry,
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Air and
Waste Management. Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
July 1976.
2-279
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.7
1. The Storage and Handling of Grain. PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. Prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Region V. Contract No. 68-02-1355. Task Order No. 7.
March, 1974.
2. Cowan, D.W. and H.J. Paulus. Relationship of Air
Pollution to Allergic Diseases. Final Report from
University Health Service and School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, under
Research Grant AP00090, Division of Air Pollution, U.S.
Public Health Service. December, 1969.
3. Thimsen, D.J. and P.W. Aften. A Proposed Design for
Grain Elevator Dust Collection. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association. 18:738-742, November,
1968. —
4. Grain Handling and Milling Industry, Background Infor-
mation for Establishment of National Standards of
Performance for New Sources. Environmental Engineer-
ing, Inc. EPA Contract No. CPA 70-142. Task Order No.
4. July 15, 1971. Draft. 60 p.
5. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. TRW Systems Group of
TRW, Inc. National Air Pollution Control Administra-
tion Contract No. CPA 22-69-119. Report No. APTD-0923.
April 1970.
6. Evaluation of Compliance Status of Grain Elevators in
the State of Minnesota. PEDCo Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Contract No. 68-02-1321. Task Order No. 8. 102 p.
7. Peters, J.A., T.R. Blackwood, and R.A. Wachter. Source
Assessment Document No. 34. Handling, Transport and
Storage of Grain. Monsanto Research Corporation.
Dayton, Ohio. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1874. November
1975. 107 p. Draft.
2-278
-------
Table 2-50. TYPICAL TERMINAL ELEVATOR (INLAND) CONTROL DEVICES AND COSTS*
N)
I
N)
Includes cost of truck shed, $10,350.
Includes cost of double track shed, $33,000.
Storage capacity - 1.76 x 10 m3 (5.0 x 106 bu).
Throughput - 5.3 x 105 m3 (15.0 x 106 bu) per year.
Leg capacity - 2 legs, each 1200 n>3 (35,000 bu) per hour.
Source: Reference 1.
Operation
Truck receiving
Railroad car
receiving
Box car
loading0
Hopper car
loading
Grain cleaning
Grain dryer (1)
70 m3/hr
(2,000 bu/hr)
Scales and
garners
Grain handling
and turning
(including
barge loading)
Total
Example Plant Control and Cost Estimate
Selected
device
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Filter
Self cleaning
screen
Filters (2)
Filter
Air flow
m3/sec
(cfm)
5.3
(12,250)
7.1
(15,000)
4.7
(10,000)
4.7
(10,000)
4.7
(10,000)
28
(60,000)
2x4.7
(2x10,000)
21
(45,000)
85.4
(182,250)
Oprn.
hr/yr
1,000
500
200
300
500
2,000
1,000
2,500
Electrical
$/yr
550
320
100
150
320
400
740
5,720
8,300
Maintenance
5/yr
1,230
1,500
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,500
2,000
4,500
13,472
Depreciation
$/yr
3,564
3,000
5,874
2,574
2,470
2,890
4,350
10,750
35,472
Capital
charges
$/yr
1,782
1,500
2,937
1,287
1,235
1,445
2,175
5,375
17,736
Annualized
cost $/yr
7,126
6,320
9,911
5,011
5,025
6,235
9,265
26,345
75,238
Installed
cost S
35,640
30,000
58,740
25,740
24,700
28,900
43,500
107,500
354,720
-------
Table 2-49- TYPICAL COUNTRY ELEVATOR CONTROL DEVICES AND COSTS'
to
I
Operation
Loadout anS
receiving"
Grain dryer,
35 n3/hr
{1,000 bu/hr)
Scale, garner
leg, bin vants
Total
Example Plant Control and Cost Estimate
Selected
device
Filter
Self cleaning
screen
Filter
Air flow
n\3/sec
(cfm)
5.8
(12,250)
14
(30,000)
1.4
(3,OCO)
21.2
(45,250)
Oprn.
hr/yr
1,000
500
2,000
3,500
Electrical
S/yr
550
85
370
1,005
Maintenance
$/yr
1,230
1,000
300
2,530
Depreciation
$/yr
6,145
2,000
1,259
9,404
Capital
charges
$/yr
3,073
1,000
630
4,703
Annualized
cost $/yr
10,998
4,085
2,559
17,642
Installed
cost $
61,450C
20,000
12,590
94,040
1974 dollars.
One filter serves truck receiving, truck loading, and car leading.
c Includes $24,269 for railroad car loading shed. (Assume truck loading is normally covered).
Storage capacity - 17600 m3 (500,000 bu).
Throughput - 35,240 m3 (1,000,000 bu) per year.
Leg capacity - 1 leg, 176 m3 (5,000 bu) per hour.
Source: Reference 1.
-------
Tables 2-49 and 2-50 give control costs in 1974 dollars
for a typical country and terminal elevator, respectively.
2-275
-------
using telescoping spouts, choke loading, or reducing the
flow of grain to reduce the velocity at which it leaves the
spout.
Control of dust emissions in truck loading of grain is
difficult because of variation in the sizes of trucks and
the required movement of the loading spout. Aspiration
inside the enclosure is used in a few cases by installing a
hood at the discharge of the loading spout. The particulate
matter is captured and ventilated to a cyclone or fabric
filter.
Boxcar grain loading control is not common. One method
of control is to cover the door area of the boxcar with a
hood and ventilate the particulate matter to a fabric filter
or cyclone.
Control of hopper car loading of grain is similar to
the methods used for trucks. The loading is often done in a
semienclosed area. A hood can be installed at the discharge
of the loading spout. The dust generated in hopper car
grain loading is ventilated from the hood to a fabric filter
or cyclone. Telescoping spouts or choke-feed are also used.
Ship and barge grain loading can be controlled by
covering the ship hold or barge opening with a tarp and
ventilation from beneath the cover to a cyclone or fabric
filter. This may interfere with loading operations, how-
ever. The grain in loading a barge or ship usually falls a
considerable distance into a hold. This results in the
liberation of a cloud of dust. Another control method is to
reduce the freefall distance of grain as it enters the hold
to decrease the dust emitted. A telescoping loading spout
kept extended to the grain surface will also reduce emis-
sions. The telescoping spout may be equipped with ventila-
tion to capture any dust generated.
2-274
-------
in some metropolitan areas. Other elevators exhaust the
bins internally in the grain elevator to prevent exhaust of
Q
the dust into the atmosphere. Grain screening and cleaning
emissions are controlled by hooding or enclosing the equip-
ment with exhaust to a cyclone or fabric filter. Some
screens with air-tight enclosures require no ventilation to
control devices.
Grain dryers present a difficult problem for air pollu-
tion control. Large volumes of air are exhausted from the
dryers, the exhausts have large cross sectional areas, the
dust has a low specific gravity, and the exhaust stream has
a high moisture content.
Rack or column dryers are commonly employed to dry
grain at elevators. Column dryers have a lower emission
rate than rack dryers since some of the dust is trapped by a
column of grain. The dryers may use screen systems to
control particulate matter. The screens may be continuously
vacuumed to keep the screens clean and prevent air flow
blockage. Another screen cleaning technique is a sliding-
bar self-cleaning system. Emissions from the dryer also may
be collected by a cyclone. Fabric filters are rarely used
because the high moisture content of the exhaust tends to
blind them.
Grain turning is a dusty operation and so many eleva-
tors are now cooling by using aeration of grain bins. In
addition, aeration is about 40 percent less dusty than
turning and greatly reduces the need for transferring grain
for cooling.
As in truck unloading, the truck loading operation is
best controlled if the loading is done in a three-sided and
top enclosed shed with a closeable door. The loading in-
volves the free fall of grain into the truck with consider-
able dust emission. The dust emissions are reduced when
2-273
-------
Another common boxcar unloading technique is mainly
used at terminal elevators. This technique is a mechanical
boxcar dump which tilts the boxcar to dump the grain into a
receiving pit. This rapid unloading method creates a large
cloud of dust which may be difficult to control.
The emissions from these two boxcar unloading methods
may be controlled by undergrate aspiration to a fabric
filter or a cyclone. However, large volumes of air are
necessary for over 95 percent dust capture efficiency.
Barge unloading is primarily done by a retractable
bucket type elevator (marine leg). This is lowered into the
hold of the barge. Some generation of fugitive dust occurs
in the hold as the grain is scooped out and also at the top
of the marine leg where the grain is discharged onto a
conveyor. Control for barge unloading is best carried out
by completely enclosing the leg and aspirating the dust
through a fabric filter or cyclone.
The control of transferring and conveying grain in an
elevator is often carried out by ducting many individual
dust sources to a common dust collector system. This is
commonly done for the dust sources in the headhouse. Thus
aspiration systems serving elevator legs, transfer points,
bin vents, etc., may all be ducted to one collector. In
these control systems it is desirable to enclose all pos-
sible conveyors so that little particulate matter can be
emitted. Trippers are usually hooded and ventilated to
cyclones or fabric filters. Emissions from grain scale
weighing hoppers and their associated surge bins (garners)
also may be vented to a common collector.
Bin vents are common to both country and terminal
elevators. Many elevators vent the dust generated by the
flow of grain into storage bins directly to the atmosphere.
Small fabric filter units have been used as a dust collector
2-272
-------
Effective dust control during truck unloading opera-
tions generally requires the use of undergrate aspiration
and a suitable enclosure or shed over the receiving pit.
The aspirated air is directed to a control device which is
usually a cyclone, but fabric filters are gradually replac-
ing them on new grain elevators.
The type of enclosure for the unloading effects the
quantity of fugitive dust emitted. Some grain elevators use
only a two-sided enclosure with a roof. Many country
terminals use no enclosures at all. The most suitable
structure for fugitive emission control is a three-sided and
a top enclosure or drive-through tunnel where a door is
lowered each time a truck is unloaded. Ultimate control is
obtained when the truck unloading is conducted in a totally
enclosed shed or drive-through tunnel with two quick-closing
doors. With this enclosure type control structure most
windage fugitive emission losses could be prevented during
truck unloading; however, the cost may be prohibitive.
Best railcar unloading emissions control requires
similarly total enclosure sheds or drive-through tunnels
with quick closing doors. However, some country elevators
have no enclosures for railcar unloading.
Control problems are different from dust hopper cars
than from boxcars. Two unloading control methods have been
used for hopper cars. One method uses undergrate aspiration
feeding to a cyclone or fabric filter in a manner similar to
truck unloading. The second method uses a small receiving
hopper to effect choke unloading. Boxcar unloading is
usually carried out by "breaking" a grain door inside the
car. This produces a surge of grain and dust as the grain
falls into the receiving hopper. The grain remaining has to
be scooped out. Each scoop of grain can result in a cloud
of dust.
2-271
-------
Table 2-48. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
GRAIN ELEVATORS IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Grain Elevators
1. Receiving8
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Barge unloading
2. Transferring and conveying (total) which
Includes following'
a. Receiving elevator leg and head
b. Garner and scale vents
c. Distributor, trippers, and spouting
d. Storage bin vents
e. Turning
3. Screening and cleaning
4. Drying
5. Shipping*
Truck loading
Railcar loading
Barge or ship loading
£
1
A
•-
1
1
2
£
C
o
£
3
£?
•—
U
Q.
s
i
UJ
u.
a.
,*
/^
/
/
/
/
/
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
£
§
U
0)
l/l
c
1
<*•>
e
•g
•T-
vt
•r-
o
I
£
£
•M
e
o
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
~
(J
I
£.
(J
L.
O
1
«
Ol
X
c
o
1/1
£
a.
a.
w»
J
1
1/1
o
u
(U
£
i
c
e
o
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
^
no
3
^
to
fc.
01
i
X
fi
o
£
c
o
u
OJ
4->
trt
t
I
Q.
1
*
o>
rQ
Q.
C
"^
QJ
Q.
O
e
1
OJ
CD
0
X
E
*
1
a.
°
*j
u
t.
i/i
c
o
u
0
c
J!
fc
o
(J
c
o
£
L.
(Q
o.
Irt
c
(Q
U
I
•o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
o
0
trt
4.1
•o
3
X
fa
"^
X
!
2
I
0
o
0
«
3
U
>G
>
O)
^
•M
I
C
•5
3
£1
"S
O
3
1
u
Of
+J
X
c
o
c
0.
o
£
1
o
(J
e
UJ
0
0
0
X
X
0
0
Removal
equipment
L.
-------
In Table 2-47 are presented the results of tests of the
inlet of a cyclone which vented the elevator leg. These
cyclone inlet emissions can be considered an approximation
of the particle size distribution of the fugitive particu-
late emissions from an uncontrolled elevator leg vented to
atmosphere.
Table 2-47.
ELEVATOR LEG CYCLONE INLET TEST
PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR
9
US Sieve
mesh
100
170
200
325
-
-
-
"""
Size opening,
(lam)
149
88
74
44
20
10
5
1
Cumulative weight,
percent greater than
32.7
44.7
48.7
68.0
91.0
99.1
99.9
99.9
During corn drying "bees wings" which are the filmy
outer skin of the corn kernel, are emitted as well as normal
grain dust. Essentially all bees wing emissions are over 50
ym in diameter and the mass mean diameter is probably in the
region of 150 ym.
2.7.5 Control Technology
Control Technology options for grain elevator IPFPE
sources are presented in Table 2-48. Specific dust control
systems for the various grain handling operations are dis-
cussed in the following paragraphs. Additional information
regarding loading/unloading and transfer/conveying may be
found in Section 2.1.
2-269
-------
particulate fugitive emission quantities from the various
operations at grain elevators.
Yearly throughputs are chosen for the example terminal
and country elevators as 150,000 and 22,000 m (4,250,000
and 624,000 bushels) respectively. These plant inventories
are not meant to display typical grain elevators but merely
potential sets of conditions expected. Corn, wheat, and
soybeans are the grains to be stored and handled in these
model plants. Wheat is chosen as 40 percent of the bushel
throughput, while corn and soybeans are each chosen as 30
percent of the bushel throughput. Not included in the
inventory are fugitive emissions from plant roads. These
sources may be calculated using procedures in Section 2.1.
The total model grain elevator uncontrolled process
particulate fugitive emissions are estimated to be 484 Mg
(533 tons) per year for the terminal elevator and 122 Mg
(134 tons) per year for the country elevator. The major
sources of fugitive emissions are receiving and shipping,
transfer and conveying, drying, and screening and cleaning.
2.7.4 Characterization of Fugitive Emissions
The fugitive particulate emissions from grain elevators
result primarily from the unclean state in which grain is
received at elevators. It may contain a small amount of
spores of smuts and molds, insect parts, weed seeds, various
pollens and siliceous dust from vegetation and soil in the
vicinity in which it was grown. But most of the dust is
bristles and other particles from the outer coats of grain
kernels produced by the abrasion of the individual kernels
of grain.
Grain dust has a specific gravity normally in the range
0.8 to 1.5 as compared to various other industrial dusts
4
which usually have specific gravities between 2.0 and 2.5.
Grain dust is mostly in the range of 10 to 100 pm in size.
2-268
-------
0 Moisture content of grain (usually in range
10-30 percent).
2. Equipment characteristics in the individual grain
elevator vary in -
0 Degree of enclosure at loading and unloading
area,
0 Type and speed of belt or other conveyors
especially at transfer points,
0 Type of cleaner and dryer used,
0 Amount and type of control equipment used, if
any.
3. Amount of previous handling and transfer of grain
(which gives rise to fragmentation and rubbing off
small particles of chaff from the grain).
Most of these factors have not been studied in suffi-
cient detail to permit a precise evaluation of their impor-
9
tance to IPFPE rates. Some grains are considerably more
dusty than others, but the data are insufficient to quanti-
tatively assess the differences. For example, field run
soybeans, oats, and sorghum are usually very dusty whereas
wheat is a comparatively clean grain. Oats and rye gener-
ally generate more dust in a given grain elevator operation
than do wheat or corn.
With an understanding of these considerations the
potential uncontrolled fugitive emission rates in Table 2-46
may be applied to a specific elevator under consideration.
More data will be available in the near future in an AP-42
supplement.
2.7.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventories for a terminal grain
elevator and for a country grain elevator are shown in Table
2-46. In this Table are also shown the potential yearly
2-267
-------
Table 2-46 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COUNTRY AND TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Reference 4.
Reference 5.
0 Reference 7.
Reference 8.
Emissions for garner and scale included in receiving elevator emissions.
Emissions for storage bin vents and turning included in total.
Reference 6.
1 Reference 9.
Emissions for receiving elevator (country elevator) included in total.
This value is for scale vents only.
Emissions for distributor, trippers, and spouting included in total.
This operation is not normally done in country elevators.
to
t
to
(Ti
-------
Table 2-46 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COUNTRY AND TERMINAL ELEVATORS
to
en
en
Source of IPFPE
2c. Distributor, trippers and
spouting
2d. Storage bin vents
2e. Turning
3. Screening and cleaning
4. Drying
5. Shipping
Truck loading
Railcar loading
Barge loading
1.0 kg/Mg stored
(2.0 Ib/ton)
(7.0-10.0 Ib/ton)
(0.19-8.0 Ib/ton)
0.07-4.0 kg/Mg
(0.14-8.0 Ib/ton)
(0.015-8.0 Ib/ton)
(0.002-8.0 Ib/ton)
igitive emission factor
1
>dh
m
creened & cleanedb'd>1
n \
n)
drieda'b'c'd'e
_ \
n)
n\
** /
loaded15' c'd'h
^n \
^Jiij
loaded" 'c'd'h
in )
JLl i
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
D
D
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Screened & cleaned
4,159
(4,575)
Dried
3,837
(4,232)
Grain shipped
by truck
8,318
(9,161)
Grain shipped
by railcar
8,318
(9,161)
0
(0)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr )
m
20
(22)
8
(9)
17
(19)
17
(18)
0
(0)
-------
Table 2-46 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COUNTRY AND TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Source of IPFPE
5. Shipping
Truck loading
Railcar loading
Barge or ship loading
II. Country Elevators
1. Receiving
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Barge unloading
2. Transferring and conveying (total)
which includes following:
2a. Receiving elevator leg and heac
2b. Garner and scale vents
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.07-1.75 kg/Mg loadeda'b/C>
(0.14-3.5 Ib/ton)
0.007-1.5 kg/Mg loadeda'b'°' r&
(0.015-3.0 Ib/ton)
0.001-1.75 kg/Mg loadeda'b'C' /S
(0.002-3.5 Ib/ton)
0.16-4.0 kg/Mg unloaded 'c/
(0.32-8.0 Ib/ton)
0.02-4.0 kg/Mg unloaded '°'
(0.04-8.0 Ib/ton)
2.5-4.0 kg/Mg unloaded '
(5.0-8.0 Ib/ton)
1.0-2.0 kg/Mg transferred13'3'*1'1
(2.0-4.0 Ib/ton)
j
1.0 kg/Mg transferred '
(2.0 Ib/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
B
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
0
(0)
Grain shipped by
railcar
96,314
(106,208)
Grain shipped by
barge or ship
16,996
(18,742)
Grain received by
truck
16,635
(18,322)
0
(0)
0
(0)
Transferred &
conveyed
16,635
(18,332)
uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
0
(0)
73
(80)
15
(16)
35
(38)
0
(0)
0
(0)
25
(28)
to
I
NJ
-------
Table 2-46. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COUNTRY AND TERMINAL ELEVATORS
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
NJ
I
M
CTi
OJ
I. Terminal Elevators
1. Receiving
Truck unloading
Railcar unloading
Barge unloading
2. Transferring and conveying (total)
2a. Receiving elevator leg and
elevator head
2b. Garner and scale vents
2c. Distributor, trippers, and
spouting
2d. Storage bin vents
2e. Turning
3. Screening and cleaning
4. Drying
0.16-1.75 kg/Mg unloadeda'b'c'd'e
(0.32-3.5 Ib/ton)
0.02-1.5 kg/Mg unloaded3'13'c'd'e
(0.04-3.0 Ib/ton)
0.04-1.75 kg/Mg unloadeda/b'c'd'e
(0.08-3.5 Ib/ton)
0.5-1.25 kg/Mg transferreda'b'd'e
(1.0-2.5 Ib/ton)
0.25 kg/Mg transferred6'f
(0.5 Ib/ton)
0.25 kg/Mg transferred6
(0.5 Ib/ton)
g
g
0.095-4.6 kg/Mg screened & cleaneda'b'd'e D
(0.19-9.2 Ib/ton)
0.095-4.0 kg/Mg dried3'b'c'd'e
(0.19-8.0 Ib/ton)
Grain received
45,324
(49,980)
Grain received
67,986
(74,970)
0
(0)
Transferred
and conveyed
113,310
(124,950)
Screened &
56,655
(62,475)
Dried
33,535
(36,975)
cleaned
43
(48)
52
(57)
0
(0)
99
(109)
133
(147)
69
(76)
-------
to
I
to
TRUCK
[RAILCARJ
r
[RE
RAIL CAR]
RECEIVING
SHOPPER/
GRAIN
DISTRIBUTOR
AND TRIPPERS
LEGEND:
—-••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"PROCESS FLOW
| SCALE!
LOADING • GRAIN
RAILCAR
TRUCK
Figure 2-17. Process flow diagram for country and terminal grain elevators
showing potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
cools the grain about 6°C (10°F). Turning may be necessary
several times a year depending on moisture content, grain
temperature, and the length of time the grain has been
stored without aeration.
A process flow diagram for country and terminal grain
elevators is shown in Figure 2-17. The potential process
fugitive emissions are identified and explained in Table
2-46. Plant roads are a dust source common to all grain
elevators but not specifically included in Table 2-46 or
Figure 2-17. Proper evaluation of dust from plant roads is
explained in Section 2.1.
2-7.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-46 presents a summary of measured uncontrolled
fugitive emission factors for terminal and country grain
elevators. The values were measured during grain handling
operations on a variety of grains such as corn, wheat, and
barley. But measurements are not available for every common
grain. Fugitive emission factors for rye and flaxseed are
particularly lacking. Also included in Table 2-46 are re-
liability factors for the values of each handling and stor-
age operation.
The Table lists wide ranges for measurements of many
fugitive emission factors. The measured values will differ
when:
1. Source and type of grain being handled varies from
day to day in -
0 Quality and grade of grain (today's corn
hybrids are considerably more dusty than
those of a few years ago4 when some of the
emission measurements were made),
Kind and amount of foreign material and grain
dust in the grain initially (usually 5 per-
cent or less),
2-261
-------
grain may contain crop soil, weeds, insects, and large
contaminants such as sticks or stalks. Other dusts may be
produced from the grain itself by abrasion during handling
and storage. Cleaning may consist of scalping (removing
large foreign objects) then air aspiration. After cleaning
the grain may be classified by a series of screens.
Certain grains, especially barley, oats, wheat, corn
and sorghum, must be dried to specified percentage moisture
contents before long-term storage in a terminal elevator.
If not removed, excess moisture can cause the grain to
spoil. Grain is generally dried at the first elevator
receiving it, therefore, most grain is dried at country
elevators. However terminal elevators usually have drying
facilities also. Drying facilities are used predominantly
during the harvest season. The amount of grain dried each
year depends on the wetness of the harvest season.
Fumigants and aeration are used to prevent or eliminate
grain infestation by insects, molds, and fungi. One method
of their extermination is to seal off all bin openings and
use a fumigating gas such as carbon disulfide or chloro-
picrin. The fumigant gas is then vented from the bins
through the bin vents which are ordinarily used to vent air
from the bins as the grain enters them. These bin vents are
small screen-covered openings located at the top of the
storage bins or silos. Elevator legs and weigh scales are
also vented to the atmosphere to relieve air displaced by
the grain being handled.
Slow grain fermentation and heat generation may occur
in bins used for long-term storage. It then becomes neces-
sary to "turn-the-bins" to prevent grain deterioration. In
the turning operation the grain from one bin is transported
by conveyor and elevator leg to another bin. Bin turning
2-260
-------
Table 2-45.
GUIDELINES FOR DIFFERENTIATION OF COUNTRY
AND TERMINAL ELEVATORS1
Operation
Country elevator
Terminal elevator
Receiving
method
Receiving
leg
capacity
Shipping
method
Storage
capacity
Grain received pri-
marily by truck from
farmers within 32 km
(20 miles) of the
elevator
350 m3 (10,000 bushels)
per hour or less
Grain shipped out by
truck, railcar, or
barge
530 to 70,000 m3
(15,000 to 2,000,000
bushels) of grain
Receives grain by
truck, rail or barge
1200 irT (35,000
bushels) per hour
or more
Grain shipped out
by truck, railcar,
barge, or ship
70,000 m3 (2,000,000
bushels) of grain
and greater
From the top portion of the elevator (known as the
"headhouse") a distributor or tripper directs the grain
received into one of several separate bins or silos. Before
or after the bins or silos the grain is transported to a
garner bin and then into a weighing scale bin. The scale is
a key transfer point in the elevator and all grain passes
through it. A country elevator usually has one scale but a
terminal elevator may have as many as four. From the scale
the grain is spouted onto a conveyor for delivery into its
specified storage bin, or allowed to fall through suitable
loading devices for shipment from terminal elevators by
truck, railcar, barge, or ship. Country elevators ship
primarily by truck and rail in nearly equal quantities.
The grain may also be cleaned, dried, turned, and fumi-
gated in an elevator. Cleaning is necessary because the
2-259
-------
2.7 COUNTRY AND TERMINAL GRAIN ELEVATORS
2.7.1 Process Description
There are approximately 10,000 grain elevators in the
United States. Among the grains they store and handle are
corn, wheat, rye, oats, barley, flaxseed, grain sorghum
(milo), and soybeans. Grain elevators may be classified as
country elevators and terminal elevators. Guidelines for
this differentiation are briefly summarized in Table 2-45.
Operational activity at different plants varies widely.
Country elevators operate primarily during the harvest
season and hold grain only until a market can be found to
sell the grain to terminals, exporters, and/or to process-
ors . Terminal elevators are large elevators which operate
the year round. Terminal elevators receive grain both from
farmers directly and from the smaller country elevators.
The grains received by terminal elevators may be stored for
long periods and must maintain their quality during storage.
The elevators which store U.S. Government owned grain may do
relatively little processing of it in the course of a year.
Other elevators used for grain merchandising have much more
activity, and may handle a volume of grain exceeding 15
2
times their storage capacity in one year.
Country and terminal elevators employ similar grain
handling operations. They typically grade for grain quality
and dust content, weigh, and dump grain from trucks, rail
cars, or barges into receiving hoppers. The grains received
are then transported by conveyors (belt, screw, or drag
types) and bucket receiving elevator legs which elevate the
grain to the top of the elevator.
2-258
-------
25. Air Pollution Control at Crushed Stone Operations.
National Crushed Stone Association. Washington, D.C.
February 1976.
26. Markey, Walt Jr. Dust Control at a Limestone Quarry.
Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. Portland, Oregon. June
27 - July 1, 1976.
27. Evans, Robert J. Methods and Costs of Dust Control in
Stone Crushing Operations. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Information Circular 8669. 1975.
28. Vervaert, Alfred E., Richard Jenkins, and Allen Basola.
Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement.
An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduc-
tion for Quarrying and Plant Process Facilities in the
Crushed and Broken Stone Industry, Draft. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
August 1975.
29. Dean, K.C. and R. Havens. Stabilization Mineral
Wastes. Engr. Mining Journal, pp. 99-103 (April,
1971).
30. Cole, Howard W., Jr. The Use of Foam Suppressants in
the Control of Particulate Emissions from Grinding,
Crushing, and Transfer Operations in the Mining and
Rock Crushing Industries. Paper presented at the Fifth
Annual Industrial Air Pollution Control Conference.
Knoxville, Tennessee. April 3-4, 1975.
31. Sultan, H.A. Soil Erosion and Dust Control of Arizona
Highways, Part IV, Final Report. Field Testing Pro-
gram. Arizona Transportation and Traffic Institute.
Prepared for the Arizona Department of Transportation.
November 1975.
32. Development of an Implementation Plan for Suspended
Particulate Matter in the Phoenix Area. TRW Environ-
mental Engineering Division. Redondo Beach, California.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
August 1976.
2-257
-------
17. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
Sources, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, Publication Number EPA-
450/3-74-037, June 1974.
18. Roberts, J.W., A.T. Rossano, P.T. Bosserman, G.C.
Hofer, and H.A. Watters. The Measurement, Cost, and
Control of Traffic Dust and Gravel Road in Seattles'
Suwamish Valley. Paper No. AP-72-5 presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Pacific Northwest International
Section of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Eugene, Oregon, November 1972.
19. Johnson - March Corporation. Chem-Jet Dust Suppresion.
Product Information Brochure CJ@ (1963).
20. Chemical Treatment of Waste Tailings Puts and End to
Dust Storms. Engr. Mining Journal, pp. 104-105 (April,
-L .7 / J_ / •
21. Dean, K.C. and R. Havens. Reclamation of Mineral
Milling Wastes. Presented at the Annual AIME Meeting,
San Francisco, California, February, 1972.
22. Armburust, D.V. and J.D. Dickerson. Temporary Wind
Erosion Control: Cost and Effectivenss of 34 Com-
mercial Materials. J. Soil Water Conserv. 26 (4)•
154-157 (1971). '
23. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining, Task
2 Report, Assessment of the Current Status of the
Environmental Aspects of Fugitive Dust Sources Associated
with Mining. PEDCo Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory, Resource
Extraction and Handling Division. Contract No. 68-02-1321
Task Order No. 36. Cincinnati, Ohio. June 1976.
24. Renninger, P.A. and R.C. Meininger. Environmental
Factors in the Aggregate Industry. Paper presented at
the Environmental Quality Conference for the Extractive
Industries of the American Institute of Mining, Metal-
lurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. Washington,
D.C. June 7-9, 1971.
2-256
-------
8. Chalekode, P.K. and J.A. Peters, Assessment of Open
Sources. Monsanto Research Corporation, Dayton, Ohio.
(Presented at Third National Conference on Energy and
the Environment. College Corner, Ohio. October 1,
1975.). 9 p.
9. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication
Number EPA-450/3-74-037. June 1974.
10. Investigation of Fugitive Dust—Sources, Emissions, and
Control. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication Number EPA-
450/3-74-036. 1974.
11. Supplement No. 5 for Compilation of Air Pollutant Emis-
sions Factors. Second Edition. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. April 1975.
12. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1976.
13. Air Emission Sources from a Lurgi Dry-Ash Gasification
Facility Using Lignite Coal. In: North Dakota Air
Quality Maintenance Area Analysis. Appendix B. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order 19. Denver,
Colorado. March 1976.
14. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations—Appendix, Final
Report, Task No. 10. Monsanto Research Corporation,
Dayton Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
May 1975.
15. Air Pollutant Emissions in the Northwest Colorado Coal
Development Area. Environmental Research and Techno-
logy, Westlake Village, California. 1975.
16. Environmental Impacts, Efficiency, and Cost of Energy
Supply and End Use. Vol. 1. Hittman Associates, In-
corporated, Columbia, Maryland. Prepared for Council
on Environmental Quality, National Science Foundation,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. November 1974.
2-255
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.6
1. Evaluation of Fugitive Dust from Mining, Task 1 Report.
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory/REDHD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No.
36, June 1976.
2. Environmental Protection in Surface Mining of Coal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Publication Number EPA-670/2-74-093. October 1974.
3. Emission Estimates for the Berkeley Pit Operations of
Anaconda Company. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for Montana Air
Quality Bureau, Helena, Montana. September 1975.
4. O1Boyle, Charles J. Report of Inspection of the
Berkeley Pit Mining and Primary Crushing Operations on
July 2, 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Denver, Colorado. August 1975.
5. Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Area Source Emission
Inventory for Duval, Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Polk
Counties, Florida. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Task Order 9. Atlanta, Georgia. June 1975.
6. Environmental Impact Statement for Northwest Colorado
Coal Development. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. Unpublished,
7. Energy Alternatives: A Comparative Analysis. Univer-
sity of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma. Prepare for
Council on Environmental Quality, Energy Research and
Development Administration, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Federal Energy Administration, Federal
Power Commission, U.S. Department of the Interior, and
National Science Foundation. May 1975.
2-254
-------
Reclamation of mined areas is both a source of and a
control technique for fugitive dust, i.e. the short-term
reclamation operations such as regrading and revegetation
which produce fugitive dust are designed to ultimately
result in an area which is stabilized and protected over the
long-term from the erosion mechanisms of wind and runoff.
2-253
-------
Reduction of Wind Speed - Wind can contribute signifi-
cantly to all of the mining fugitive dust sources, both by
erosion of the exposed surfaces of storage areas, tailings
piles, and reclaimed areas and by direct transport of the
dust generated by the other mining operations. Therefore,
reduction of surface wind speed across the source is a
logical means of reducing emissions. This takes such
diverse forms as windbreaks, enclosures or coverings for the
sources, and planting of tall grasses or grains on or
adjacent to exposed surfaces. The vegetative techniques all
need a soil which supports growth -- containing nutrients,
moisture, proper texture, and no phytotoxicants. These
requirements, especially adequate moisture, are often not
readily available in mining areas and are often the reason
that natural protection against wind erosion is insufficient.
The large size of most of the mining fugitive dust
sources precludes the widespread use of enclosures or wind
barriers from practical considerations. A natural wind
barrier is usually created for overburden removal and
shovel/truck loading by the depressed location of these
operations.
Many materials have been tried for physical stabiliza-
tion of fine tailings. The materials most often used are
rock and soil obtained from areas adjacent to the wastes to
be covered. Soil provides an effective cover and a habitat
for encroachment of local vegetation. However, it is not
always available in areas contiguous to the tailings piles
and, even where available, it may be costly to apply.
Crushed or granulated smelter slag, another waste product,
has been used to stabilize tailings. Another physical
method of control which has been employed is covering with
bark or harrowing straw into the top few inches of tailings.
2-252
-------
tailings area west of Salt Lake City have been successfully
stabilized by aerial application of chemicals.*
Recently, several tailings piles have been successfully
planted by use of a combination chemical-vegetative tech-
nique. The chemical stabilizers hold more water near the
surface of the otherwise porous tailings, thus creating a
more favorable environment for growth of vegetation. Chemi-
cals are selected which do not have an inhibitory effect on
the plants.
An effective, long lasting method of dust control from
storage piles is the addition of chemicals to the water
sprays. Rather than acting as chemical soil stabilizers to
increase cohesion between particles, most of these chemicals
work as wetting agents to provide better wetting of fines
and longer retention of the moisture film. Some of these
materials remain effective without rewatering for weeks or
months. The system of application can be a continuous spray
onto the material during processing or a water truck with
hose and spray nozzle. The limiting factor here is the
possibility of contaminating the stored material with the
chemical dust suppressant.
Foam suppressants have recently been applied to dust
control in coal mining with some success. Other potential
uses of foam suppressants include tunneling machines, and
rock quarries.
When using any chemical suppressant care must be taken
so as not to endanger nearby water quality as a result of
runoff from treated areas.
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
2-251
-------
However, in tests on public roads conducted by several
different highway departments, no commercial material has
been found which retains its effectiveness over a moderate
period of time, i.e., two months, under traffic conditions.
Most of the treated surfaces abrade badly to the depth of
penetration of the chemical, which would be more of a factor
with heavy bearing loads experienced by mining haul roads;
others which maintain a stabilized surface with traffic are
water-soluble and lose their effectiveness after rains.
Several surface treatment chemicals are presently under
development or are being tested. Available technology for
this method may increase greatly within the next few years.
Another chemical dust suppressant method involves
working the stabilization chemical into the roadbed to a
depth of 5 to 15 cm (2 to 6 inches), but it has found
limited application thus far for mining haul roads. Actual
paving of haul roads with a bituminous material has also
found limited application and is restricted economically to
haul roads which are permanent. Savings in haul truck tire
wear are reportedly achieved with paved haul roads, in
addition to dust control.
Chemical stabilizers react with dry inactive tailings
piles in the same manner they react with soils to form a
wind-resistant crust or surface layer. Of 65 chemicals for
which test results have been recorded, the resinous, poly-
mer, ligninsulfonate, bituminous base, wax, tar, and pitch
products have proven most successful in stabilizing mineral
29
wastes. Most of the chemicals have demonstrated a long-
term effectiveness in this application. Application can be
accomplished by truck, piping spray systems, or plane--400
hectares (1000 acres) of the inactive Kennecott copper
2-250
-------
waste tailings to prevent air and water pollution. Radi-
cally different methods — chemical, physical, and vegeta-
tive -- have been tested, often successfully, on inactive
tailings piles. Well-operated active tailings ponds/piles
should generally have a moist surface from new deposits and
therefore be only marginally susceptible to wind erosion.
However, if the tailings are allowed to dry before new moist
tailings are added, emissions can be visible as large dust
clouds, for example, some taconite ponds.
Chemical Stabilization - Several types of chemicals
have been found effective in reducing dusting when applied
on mining fugitive emission sources. These chemicals
utilize different properties for dust suppression and are
generally categorized by their composition — bituminous,
polymer, resin, enzymatic, emulsion, surface-active agent,
ligninsulfonate, latex, etc. It is estimated that over 100
chemical products are presently marketed or are under de-
22
velopment specifically as dust control agents. With the
wide range of characteristics available in commercial
products, a chemical stabilizer can be selected with maximum
efficiency for each control application. A partial listing
of chemical dust suppressants is presented in Appendix B.*
Chemical stabilizers have been used to a limited extent
to control dust from mining haul roads, storage piles, and
inactive tailings piles.
Various chemicals may be added to the water or applied
separately to the haul road surface to improve binding and
reduce dusting. Application of a surface chemical treatment
for dust suppression from haul roads is a relatively inex-
pensive control method as compared to paving of haul roads.
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2-249
-------
sized, installed, and maintained, efficiencies approaching
27
95 percent can be expected.
In addition, capital costs for a fabric filter system
without wet suppression for stone crushing and screening
operations of 180 Mg (200 ton), 270 Mg (300 ton), and 545 Mg
(600 ton) per hour were estimated at $58,000, $100,000, and
$148,000 respectively. Costs for the 180 Mg (200 ton) per
hour operation were based on the utilization of one 2 m /sec
(4,000 cfm) fabric filter and one 8 m3/sec (16,000 cfm)
fabric filter to control emissions. The 270 Mg (300 ton)
per hour operation utilized one 4 m /sec (8,000 cfm) fabric
filter and one 19 m /sec (40,000 cfm) fabric filter to
control emissions. The 545 Mg (600 ton) operation utilized
three fabric filters with flow rates of 4 m /sec (9,000
cfm), 15 m3/sec (32,000 cfm), and 14 m3/sec (31,000 cfm).
Annual operating costs for the three plants were estimated
at $12,000, $16,000, and $26,000, respectively. For the use
of only a wet suppression system, capital cost of the
system at each plant is estimated at $40,000, $44,000, and
$52,000, respectively. Annual operating costs are estimated
o o
at $4,200, $5,500, and $8,700, respectively.
Watering alone is seldomly used to suppress dust from
overburden removal, storage, and waste disposal operations
because of the vast area and quantities of material which
must be covered and because of the logistics and related
costs of supplying the required amounts of water to the
remote areas in which these operations are usually located.
Control of overburden removal dust emissions by watering is
also hampered by the continuous exposure of dry material
surfaces associated with this operation. Much research has
been done by mining companies and the Bureau of Mines' Salt
Lake City Metallurgy Research Center on the stabilization of
2-248
-------
moisture. As a corollary to this, water is a scarce re-
source in these areas, and not readily available as a mate-
rial for air pollution control.
Watering in the mining industry is primarily employed
u -, A 23,24,25,26
to control dust emissions from haul roads.
Watering can be used to control dust emissions from over-
burden removal, crushing, storage, and waste disposal, but
its use for these operations is not widespread.
Haul roads at mines are routinely watered for dust
suppression during all periods when water on the road sur-
face does not create a safety hazard (generally when temp-
eratures are above freezing). The water is usually applied
by large tank trucks equipped with a pump and directional
nozzles which spray the road surface and adjacent shoulders
and berms. Fixed pipeline spray systems have also been used
on main haul roads that are relatively permanent. At some
western mines, runoff from haul roads is diverted to set-
tling ponds placed at intervals along the roadway.
If the use of water can be tolerated, it can be sprayed
at crusher and shaker screen locations to keep the material
24
moist at all stages of processing. The addition of water
may, however, cause blinding of the finest size screens,
thereby reducing their capacity.
Control system capital and operating costs were esti-
mated for hypothetical stone crushing plants operating at
270, 540, and 910 Mg per hour (300, 600, and 1,000 tons per
hour). The control systems utilized wet supression, fabric
filters, or a combination of these two systems. Fixed
capital expenditure for these dust abatement systems ranged
from $49,129 to $249,162. Annual operating costs for the
dust abatement systems ranged from $8,294 to $46,606 or 1 to
3.5 cents per Mg (0.9 to 3.2 cents per ton). If properly
2-247
-------
Table 2-44 (continued). SUMMARY OF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES AND
COSTS FOR MINING FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES
N)
Source
Waste disposal/
Tailing piles
Control
Applicate control
method/comments
Watering (sprinklers or trucks)/
Rarely practiced
Chemical stabilization/
Limited practice
Vegetation/Commonly practiced
Combined chemical-vegetative
stabilization/Rarely employed
Slag cover/Limited practice
Estimated
efficiency
50%a
80%d
65%e
90%a
90-99%a
Control cosf
Unit cost per
application, $
no data
40-100 (160-400)g
65-150 (250-600)
50-115 (200-450)h
(hydroseeding)
25-40 (100-160) 1
90-115 (350-450)9
Units
1000m2 (acre)
1000m (acre)
1000m2 (acre)
1000m2 (acre)
1000m2 (acre)
personnel
Reference 18.
Reference 19.
Similar to efficiency determined in a study of chemical stabilization of construction area custs and fills.
Calculated from wind erosion equation.
Range of costs from survey of chemical suppliers. 1976.
Reference 20.
Reference 21.
Reference 22.
Reference 31.
Reference 32.
Reference 27 (capital cost).
Reference 28 (capital cost).
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
protection Agency.
-------
I
to
it*
Table 2-44. SUMMARY OF CONTROL EFFICIENCIES AND
COSTS FOR MINING FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SOURCES
Source
Overburden removal
Drilling/Blasting
Shovels/Truck
ore loading
Haul road truck
transport
Truck dumping
Crushing
Transfer/Conveying
Cleaning
Storage
Control
Applicate control
method/comments
Watering/Rarely practiced
Watering, cyclones, or fabric filters
for drilling/Employment of control
equipment increasing
Mats for blasting/Very rarely employed
Watering/Rarely practiced.
Watering/By far the most widely
practiced of all mining fugitive
dust control methods
Surface treatment with penetration
chemicals/Employment of this
method increasing
Paving/Limited practice
Watering/Rarely practiced
Ventilated enclosure to control
device/Rarely employed
Adding water or dust suppressants to
material to be crushed and venting
to baghouse/Fairly commonly practiced
Enclosed conveyors/Commonly employed
Enclosure and exhausting of transfer
points to fabric filter/Limited
employment
Very little control needed
since basically a wet process
Continuous spray of chemical on
material going to storage piles/
Rarely practiced
Estimated
efficiency
50%a
no data
50%a
50%b
50%b
90-95%
50%a
85-90%3
95%a
90-99%a
85-99%
(depends on
control de-
vices)
90%c
Control cost
Unit cost per
application, $
no data
no data
no data
no data
600-1800f
(1000-3000)
2390-6860:''k
(2220-6370)
no data
no data
100-3601'1"
(90-330)
.05-1.50f
(.10-3.25)
Units
kilometer
(mile)
1,000 m2
(10,000 ft2)
Mg/hr capacity
(ton/hr capacity)
kilogram of chemical
(pound)
-------
soft, earthy, etc.) of the ore with those of the four sub-
ject ores; 2) selection of one or two of the four ores which
is/are most similar; 3) determination of an appropriate
emission factor based on comparative analysis and/or inter-
polation (if two ores are similar) with the emission factors
listed in Table 2-43; and 4) the alteration of the appro-
priate emission factor to reflect local climatic conditions.
2.6.4 Emission Characteristics
Generally emissions from materials extraction and
beneficiation operations would be the same chemically as the
materials being mined. Of special concern are toxic minerals
such as asbestos, beryllium, and silica. The size distribu-
tion of emissions is somewhat independent of the material,
since only the fines (generally <100 pm) become airborne.
Section 2.1 presents limited data on emission characteristics
for unpaved roads.
2.6.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for the mining IPFPE sources
are presented with related estimated efficiencies and costs
in Table 2-44. With few exceptions, all of the fugitive
dust controls identified in the literature and observed
first hand during mining operation visits in this and pre-
vious studies, were applications of one or a combination of
three basic techniques: watering, chemical stabilization,
and reduction of surface wind speed across exposed sources.
Watering - Watering generally requires a low first
cost, but provides the most temporary dust control. De-
pending on the nature of the dust-producing activity, water
may be an effective dust suppressant for only a few hours or
for several days. It should be pointed out that fugitive
dust problems from mining are most prevalent in areas of the
country with arid climates and lack of natural surface
2-244
-------
mining and phosphate rock mining, and results from regrading
of the spoils and wind erosion across the regraded surfaces.
Haul roads are a major dust source at almost all mines, even
though they are normally kept watered. The remaining opera-
tions generate dust through the handling or processing of
the material being mined. Because of this, emission rates
for most of them are highly dependent on the characteristics
on the material as mined, i.e., moisture content, amount of
fines, hardness.
Some of the operations create dust only in a few in-
stances, such as copper, iron ore, or asbestos tailings as
waste disposal sources, or air blowing as a cleaning process
for coal. Waste disposal and cleaning operations generally
are not significant fugitive dust sources at mines.
In order to estimate the fugitive dust emissions that
stay suspended, an attempt has been made to express the
emission factors in terms of the fraction less than 30 ym
diameter wherever possible. Since data were not available
to do this in all cases, some of the reported emission esti-
mates may overstate the impact of those operations on a
regional scale.
2.6.3 Inventory Techniques
Conducting a fugitive emission inventory for mining
activities involves the application of appropriate emission
factors to the pertinent parameters for each activity as
delineated in Table 2-43. Inventorying procedures for
transfer and conveying, loading and unloading, storage, haul
road truck transport, and waste disposal sources are specif-
ically discussed in Section 2.1.
An emission inventory for mining of an ore other than
coal, copper, phosphate rock, and crushed rock can be made
by sequentially: 1) comparing the characteristics (hard,
2-243
-------
Table 2-43 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR MATERIAL EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION
Estimate for open pit copper mining from comparison with emission rate for an active construction area.
Reference 1. pp. 25. Estimate for lignite mining from comparison with emission rates from similar fugitive dust
sources, such as construction and aggregate handling.
C Q
Reference 6. pp. 25. Estimate for western surface coal mining from comparison of published emission factor for
aggregate handling and storage.
Reference 7. Estimate of total fugitive emissions at western surface coal mine, with overburden removal the predominant
contributor.
Reference 3. Estimate based on visual observation at open pit copper mine.
Reference 8. Estimate for granite drilling of 0.0004 Kg/Mg (0.0008 Ib/ton) and 0.08 Kg/MG (0.16 Ib/ton) for granite blasting.
" Reference 8. Estimate for crushed granite plant.
Reference 1. pp. 35.
Reference 9. From sampling of crushed rock loading by front-end loaders.
3 Reference 10. Based on an uncontrolled "dry" rate of 1.04 Kg/VKT (3.7 Ib/VMT) and application of a climate correction of
0.44 (the fraction of days when the surface was not wet or frozen) and a control factor of 0.50 to account for watering of
the roads on dry days.
Reference 1. Based on EPA's published emission factor for unpaved roads , 166 days per year with no rain or snow cover,
and 50% control by watering during dry days.
*y Reference 8. For dumping granite into a primary crusher.
KJ Reference 11. For dumping of crushed rock onto storage piles.
iC* n
^ Reference 1. Estimated by reducing the EPA published emission factor for unloading crushed rock to account for the larger
size of the coal and ore being handled and its higher moisutre content.
Includes both stack and fugitive emissions, 80% of which falls out on plant property.
p Reference 13.
q References 1 and 14. Based on reported industry estimates of 0.075 Kg/MG (0.15 Ib/ton) with 90% control.
Proportioned from a total fugitive emission factor of 0.22 Kg/Mg (0.44 Ib/ton) for western surface coal mines.
Includes both stack emissions and fugitive emission at a granite quarry.
Reference 12. Includes stack and fugitive emissions, 60% of which falls out on plant property.
Reference 13.
V
Estimates for dried tailings based on U.S. Dept. of Agriculture's wind erosion equation (see Section 2.1} and are a function
of regional climatic conditions, assuming no surface crusting.
w
Reference 16. For coal mines in the Southwest based on the average wind erosion rate.
j^
Reference 17.
y
Reference 14. Based on sampling tests on coal storage piles; does not include loading and unloading emissions.
Reference 14.
For further detail refer to Section 2.1.4.
-------
Table 2-43. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR MATERIAL EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION
to
I
10
Source of IPFPE
1. Overburden removal
2. Drilling and blasting
3. Ore loading
4. Haul road truck
transport
5. Truck dumping
6. Primary crushing
7. Transfer and Conveying
8. Secondary crushing/
Screening
9. Waste disposal
10. Storage
11. Land reclamation
Range of uncontrolled fugitive emission factors
0.0004a-0.225b Kg/Mg (0.0008-0.45 Ib/ton)
of ore
0.024c-0.05d Kg/Mg (0.048-0.10 Ib/ton) of
overburden
0.0005e-0.08f Kg/Mg (0-001-0.16 Ib/ton)
negligibleg-0.05 Kg/Mgh (0.10 Ib/ton)
of ore
0. 23^-0.62* Kg per vehicle-kilometer traveled
(0.8-2.2 Ib per vehicle mile traveled)
0.00017X-0.02m Kg/Mg (0.00034-0.04 Ib/ton)
of ore
negligible-0.25 Kg/Mg° <0.5 Ib/ton)
of ore
negligible-0.75g Kg/Mg (1.5 Ib/ton)
of ore
0.022s-0.75t Kg/Mg (0.044-1.5 Ib/ton)
of ore
negligible-3.23v Mg/1000m2/yr
(14.4 ton/acre/yr)
0.0118W-0.2X Kg/Mg (0.0235-0.42 Ib/ton)
0.392X-1.48X Kg/1000m2/day (3.5-13.2 Ib/acre/da;
us* wind erosion equation
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E-C1
depends
E
E
E
E
E
E,Dy
0
Emission factors by
industry Kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Coal
0.025b
(0.45)
0.024C
(0.048)
(0.05)h
(0.10)
on spee
O.Ol"
(0.02)
(o.oi)p
(0.02)
o.ior
(0.20)
0.08U
(0.16)
0.027y
(0.054)
depends on clira^
Copper
0.0004a
(0.0008)
0.0005e
(0.0010)
d and con
0.01n
(0.02)
0.165X
(0.33)
ite and m
Rock
0.0251
(0.05)
trols
0.02m
(0.04)
0.25°
(0.5)
0.75fc
(1.5)
P205 Rock
NX
NA
0.75q
(1.5)
0.165X 0.10Z
(0.33)
l.lb Kc
1000m2/
day
(10.4 ]
acre/c
>il
(0.20)
/
b/
ay)
-------
1-0
O
OVERBURDEN
REMOVAL
DUMPING OF DRAGLINE
BUCKETS OR SHOVELS
OPERATION OF SCRAPERS
AND BULLDOZERS
DRILLING
BLASTING
J
UKE
HAUL ROAD
TRANSPORT
-SCOOPING OF LOADING SHOVEL
-DUMPING SHOVEL
-TRUCK MOVEMENT
TRUCK
DUMPING
PRIMARY
CRUSHING
SECONDARY
CLEABTNC
EATING, COOLING,
-» AND/OR U
CIEMICAL PROCESSES
ORE
LOADING
RAIL
TRUCK
SHIP OR
BARGE
STORAGE
LAND
RECLAMATION
WASTE
DISPOSAL
-TAILINGS
-LOW GRADE ORE
-SLACK COAL
LCOAL SLURRY
LEGEND:
••••••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—H>ROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-16. Process flow diagram for material extraction and beneficiation showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
Area mine reclamation in Midwestern states poses the
fewest reclamation problems. These lands can be returned to
their original topography by spoil segregation, backfilling,,
and grading as deposits are removed. Compaction of the soil
can be controlled with conventional equipment, and this
ground preparation for revegetation is aided by a climate
that provides sufficient annual precipitation.
Reclamation in the West is another matter. Here the
seam thickness of deposits mined is much greater and the
original elevation cannot be restored. If a pattern of con-
tinuous reclamation is used at these mines, the overburden
is deposited by draglines parallel to the strip being mined;
smaller draglines or bulldozers then level these deposits to
reduce slopes. This returns the area to a topography that
will meet proper conditions for land stability, drainage
control, and maintenance of vegetation.
2.6.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Figure 2-16 presents a process flow diagram of material
extraction and benefication. Table 2-43 presents a summary
of uncontrolled emission factors for material extraction and
beneficiation IPFPE sources. Since these are potential
uncontrolled emission rates, the site-specific level of
control must be considered for application to a specific
mine. Also included are reliability factors for each esti-
mate. The estimates should be used only after reviewing the
footnotes in Table 2-43 relevant to their development and
applicability.
Overburden removal is much more of a dust problem at
surface coal mines and phosphate rock mines than at copper
mines and rock quarries because of the greater amounts of
overburden material handled in the former mines. Fugitive
dust from reclamation is also associated primarily with coal
2-239
-------
emissions control during the interim. If the waste contains
no potentially recoverable material and its toxic components
do not create a leaching problem, it can be buried in the
spoils for disposal.
Waste disposal operations are discussed in detail in
Section 2.1.5.
Land Reclamation - All surface mining causes consid-
erable alteration of the land on which it occurs and a
certain amount of the surrounding area as well. Segregation
of the various strata in overburden removal is critical so
that inferior spoil can be buried under clean fill, with
topsoil returned to the surface to ensure successful re-
vegetation. In area strip mining, draglines fill mined
strips with overburden removed from succeeding strips and
topsoil is placed on top to prevent rehandling. In contour
mining, the reclamation follows a pattern of grading and
backfilling the bench between the highwall and the down-
slope. In this type of surface mining, the topsoil can be
stockpiled for a limited time and replaced after the mining
and grading have been completed. In contour mining by the
block cut method, topsoil is removed and placed on graded
areas in a single operation.
In Florida, area mining is practiced where phosphate
rock is mined. Draglines strip overburden and fill the
previous strip with this material in a single operation.
The overburden is approximately 6m (20 ft) deep, with
phosphate deposits of some 5 m (16 ft) lying below. Land
reclamation generally results in an area being filled and
then graded to a level somewhat less than the original
topography. Since the water table is comparatively close to
the surface, this depression usually creates lakes but the
process is completed and the area stabilized in one to two
years.
2-238
-------
Cleaning has been included as a mining operation with
potential for fugitive dust emissions mainly for complete-
ness. At most mines, cleaning techniques are wet and thus
there are no emissions associated with this operation.
Storage - This operation involves any open storage pile
of the mined material that is located at the mine site,
either prior to or after some initial processing. The
storage piles may be short-term with a high turnover to
accommodate irregular daily or weekly throughput rates for
different sequential processes, or may provide a long-term
reserve for emergency supplies or to meet cyclical seasonal
transportation capabilities. Frequently, however, there is
no stockpiling of material at the mine site because of the
extra handling required.
Storage operations are described in detail in Section
2.1.4.
Waste Disposal - In the mining and beneficiation of
minerals and ores, large amounts of waste material are often
generated. Examples of this waste material are low grade
ore, slack coal, extraneous unmarketable rock of relatively
large size, tailings, coal slurry, and mud slime. The waste
generally has the same handling characteristics as the raw
material being mined, though often times they are in slurry
form.
The waste disposal operation is distinguished from
overburden disposal because in many cases the area used for
wastes is not reclaimed. For these cases the wastes may
be segregated and saved for future reprocessing for bypro-
duct recovery, or because they contain higher concentrations
of toxic materials than the overburden. The actual disposition
of the waste will depend upon the potential value of further
processing of the waste versus the cost of adequate fugitive
2-237
-------
As the material is crushed, much more surface area is
created. If the incoming material has a high internal
moisture content (such as lignite coal), the new surfaces
will be moist and nondusting. However, if the material has
a low internal moisture content, the crushing greatly in-
creases the potential for airborne dust generation. The new
surfaces tend to dry out as the material continues through
the process on conveyor belts and through the secondary
crushers and screens. As the rock or coal becomes more
finely ground and drier, the in-process dust releases become
greater.
Transfer and Conveying - Although conveyor systems are
used to transport material from the active mining area to
the processing area or to deliver the process material to
the consumer, conveying is most often found within the pro-
cessing area—moving the crushed material to storage, a
cleaning process, or the train or truck loading station.
This operation also includes the loading of train cars or
trucks and other transfer of the material, except for con-
veyors within the crushing or storage operations which are
considered to be integral to these operations. Because of
the large quantities that must be moved in mining, most of
the transport systems are belt conveyors rather than screw,
vibrating, or continuous-flow conveyors.
A detailed discussion of transfer and conveying opera-
tions is presented in Section 2.1.1.
Cleaning - Cleaning or beneficiation of the ore im-
proves the quality of the mined material by separating
undesired components at the mine site. This operation
greatly reduces the amount of material which must be shipped
to the processing plant and also decreases solids handling
and disposal problems in all subsequent refining steps (or
the combustion process in the case of coal).
2-236
-------
trucks (which have poor close range visibility). Also the
shovel, the deposit, and the power line for the shovel often
block access from all but one direction.
Haul Roads - Haul roads, mostly temporary unpaved roads
between the active mining areas, loading and unloading
areas, waste disposal areas, and equipment service areas,
are common to all surface mines. In a typical mine, these
roads constitute about 10 percent of the total area directly
disturbed by the mining. Because of the size of the trucks
and crawler-mounted equipment that use these roads, they are
normally constructed at least 12 m (40 ft) wide. In mines
opened in recent years, particularly those in the West that
use 90 to 180 Mg (100 to 200 ton) capacity trucks, the roads
may be as wide as 30 m (100 ft).
Truck Dumping - Truck dumping is the simplest operation
at the mine to describe—it involves only the dumping of the
mined material from the truck into a tipple or receiving
hopper for the primary crusher. The same operation may also
occur at the edge of a spoils slope if the truck is dumping
waste material or overburden. While the operation is quite
simple, it has been identified as a significant fugitive
3 4
dust source at many different mines. '
Crushing - The crushing operation is a fugitive dust
source at both underground and surface mines. Primary
crushers are often jaw or gyratory crushers, set to act upon
rocks larger than about six inches and to pass smaller
sizes. Depending on the ultimate size requirements of the
product, the material from the primary crusher may be
screened with the undersize going directly to the screening
plant and the oversize to secondary crushing, or all material
from primary crushing may be routed to the secondary crusher.
The secondary crushers are of the cone, gyratory, or (some-
times) jaw type.
2-235
-------
Normally, the explosive is a mixture of ammonium ni-
trate and fuel oil. Either dynamite or metalized mixtures
such as ammonium nitrate and aluminum can be used when a
more powerful explosive is required. Millisecond delays in
the blasting sequence are programmed to maximize the breaking
effect and to minimize seismic shock.
The frequency of blasting is rarely more than once per
day and may be much less often. For reasons of safety and
to minimize disruption of other mining activities, blasting
is usually conducted between work shifts.
Ore Loading - In most surface mines, the ore or mate-
rial being mined is loaded onto off-highway trucks for
transport from the point where it is removed to a central
transfer location or processing area at the mine site. The
material can also be transported within the mine in a me-
chanical or hydraulic conveyor system, but this method is
rarely used except in phosphate rock mining, where the
deposit is usually pumped as a slurry through a pipeline to
the processing area.
Any of the excavation equipment described in the sec-
tion on overburden removal can be used to excavate the
deposit and load it onto trucks. However, electric powered,
crawler-mounted shovels are most often employed for this
purpose because they can load the trucks more quickly.
Front end loaders are used for smaller plants.
The area where the shovel is working is normally
freshly exposed, so the material has almost the same mois-
ture content as the unexposed deposit. However, the posi-
tion where the trucks are loaded may dry rapidly as a result
of the traffic movement. In order for watering trucks to
gain access to truck loading areas, the water trucks may
have to wait in line with the hauling trucks to avoid the
danger of sporadic driving near the mining equipment or haul
2-234
-------
Contour strip mining is employed in areas with slopes
greater than about 15 degress. The overburden is removed
from the slope to create a flat excavation, or bench, re-
sulting in a vertical highwall on one side and a downslope
pile of spoils on the other side. The exposed deposit is
then mined and the land reclaimed by backfilling the pre-
viously worked area with newly removed overburden.
The third type of strip mining — auger mining — is
usually done in conjunction with contour mining. The de-
posit exposed in the highwall by the contour method is mined
by using large drills or augers to pull the deposit hori-
zontally from the seam.
Drilling and Blasting - Drilling and blasting are done
to fracture hard, consolidated material so it can be removed
more easily and efficiently by the excavating equipment.
Blasting may be needed for certain impenetrable overburden
or for partings between the seams being mined, but more
commonly to loosen the deposit itself. This operation is a
routine part of open pit mining and quarrying; its use in
surface coal mining is dependent on the depth and hardness
of both the overburden and the coal bed; it is almost never
required with phosphate rock mining.
The blastholes are drilled from the surface of the rock
layer or deposit to the depth to which the deposit is to be
broken. Shelves of 9 to 15 m (30 to 50 ft) depth are often
used if a deposit of greater thickness is being mined. A
flat bench is first prepared for the drilling rig, which is
mounted on a tractor or truck. The holes are drilled in a
predetermined pattern by an electrically-powered or com-
pressor-powered rotary drill 10 to 38 cm (4 to 15 inches) in
diameter. Larger holes (containing more explosives) are
drilled for fracturing rock rather than for breaking coal.
2-233
-------
2.6.1 Process Description
Overburden Removal - Overburden removal is an operation
in almost all surface mining and entails removal of all
topsoil, subsoil, and other strata overlying the deposit to
be mined. Significant advances in methods of surface mining
have occurred in recent years with the development of giant
excavating and hauling equipment designed specifically for
these operations.
For types of surface mining such as open pit, copper
mining and stone quarrying, overburden removal may be only a
one-time or occasional operation rather than continuous.
For these types of mines, the deposit to be removed is of
the same magnitude or larger than the overburden volume and
the location of the mining activity is relatively fixed.
Therefore, the overburden is removed permanently and may be
transported off-site for disposal.
In excavating overburden, three kinds of equipment are
used in typical surface mining operations:
0 Draglines
0 Shovels
0 Small mobile tractors, including bulldozers,
scrapers, and front-end loaders.
Most surface mining operations use these equipment items in
varying combinations.
There are three major types of coal strip mining —
area, contour, and auger. Area strip mining is used where
the terrain is relatively flat. Large-scale excavation
equipment, usually draglines, remove the overburden material
and deposit it in spoil banks in a trench left by the pre-
vious strip. Thus, only the initial strip produces waste
overburden that must be disposed or stored for land re-
clamation.
2-232
-------
Table 2-42. DUST-PRODUCING OPERATIONS BY
MINING INDUSTRY3
Operation
Overburden removal
Blasting
Ore loading
Haul road truck transport
Truck or railcar dumping
Crushing and screening
Transfer and conveying
Cleaning
Storage
Waste disposal
Reclamation
Mining industry
Coal
X
+
X
X
+
X
X
o
+
+
X
Copper
+
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
+
X
o
Rock
+
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
o
+
P2O5 rock
X
o
o
o
o
0
X
o
X
+
X
x = usually a major source
+ = a minor or occasional source
o = usually not a dust source
a Reference 1.
2-231
-------
2.6 MATERIALS EXTRACTION AND BENEFICIATION
The processing operations for materials extraction and
beneficiation include those associated with the mining and
subsequent prepartion of ores for commercial use. Opera-
tions which are potential sources of fugitive emissions
include: overburden removal; drilling and blasting; ore
loading; haul road truck transport; truck or railcar dumping;
crushing (including dry grinding) and screening; transfer
and conveying; cleaning; heating and cooling processes;
storage; waste disposal; and land reclamation. Heating and
cooling processes are not discussed in this section. How-
ever a discussion of heating and cooling processes at cement
plants is included in Section 2.8 and is applicable to many
heating and cooling processes.
Because of the wide variety of ores extracted and bene-
ficiated and the corresponding variation in the nature of
the operations involved, this section discusses three major
ore classifications: hard ores (e.g. copper, stone, and
lead); soft ores (e.g. coal and talc); and earthy (e.g.
phosphate and diatomite). Specifically, four industries
which are probably the largest mining sources of fugitive
emissions nationally -- coal (soft), copper and crushed
stone (hard), and phosphate rock (earthy) mining -- are
presented as representatives of these three ore classifica-
tions. Process operations, fugitive emissions, and control
technologies which are known to vary significantly by type
of ore mined, are delineated for the four ores; conversely,
a general description without specific reference to the four
ores is provided in the many areas which are essentially the
same.
Table 2-42 summarizes the operations which are dust
sources within a particular mining industry.
2-230
-------
9. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency with AISI on Steel Facility Emission
Factors, April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
10. Maillard, Michael. Roof Ventilation Emission Study at
a Foundry. Wayne County Department of Health, Air
Pollution Control Division. Detroit. October 1976.
11. Kalika, P.W. Development of Procedures for Measurement
of Fugitive Emissions. The Research Corporation of New
England. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1815. July 1975.
12. Scott, William D. and Charles E. Bates. Measurement of
Iron Foundry Fugitive Emissions. Presented at Symposium
on Fugitive Emissions: Measurement and Control.
Hartford, Connecticut. May 18, 1976.
13. Systems Study for Control of Emissions, Primary Non-
ferrous Smelting Industry. Arthur G. McKee and Com-
pany. Prepared for National Air Pollution Control
Administration, Division of Process Control Engineering.
Contract PH 86-65-85. June 1969.
14. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition.
Danielson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May
x y / j •
15. White, R.L., J.M. Hughes, and N.T. Stephens. Physico-
chemical Properties of Metal Furnace Fume Emissions.
Paper Presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. Portland, Oregon. June
27-July 1, 1976.
16. Pewitt, Lawrence. Personal Communication. Texas Air
Control Board to Robert Amick. PEDCo Environmental,
Inc. October 6, 1976.
2-229
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.5
1. Greenberg, J.M., and R.E. Conover. Report on Systems
Analysis of Emissions and Emission Control in the Iron
Foundry Industry in the U.S.A. A.T. Kearney & Co.,
Inc. Chicago. December 1970.
2. Air Pollution Problems of the Foundry Industry. In-
formative Report No. 1. Committee Tl-7. Ferrous
Foundries. April 1961.
3. Bates, C.D., and L.D. Scneel. Processing Emissions and
Occupational Health in the Ferrous Foundry Industry.
American Industries Hygiene Association Journal.
35:452-462. August 1974.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Waste Management, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. February 1976.
5. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2,
1976.
6. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol. III. Handbook
of Emission Properties. Midwest Research Institute.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Air Pollution Control Office. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104
Durham, North Carolina. May 1971.
7. Gutow, B.S. An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emission.
Modern Casting. January 1972.
8. Air Pollution Aspects of the Iron Foundry Industry.
A.T. Kearney Company. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. PB 204 172. February 1971.
2-228
-------
Medium energy wet collectors are best suited for moist
sand preparation and handling. When dry sand conditions exist
occasionally, cotton or wool fabric filters are used. Often
some type of hood is used to capture emissions in sand
conveyor systems especially at transfer points. As with
many other processes, ductwork and exhaust fans are required
in a complete collection system.
2-227
-------
(6) Adding magnesium vapor through a porous refractory
plug in the bottom of the ladle. This method is
smoke free but is complicated.
A side draft hood is often provided for the pouring
area and side or bottom draft hood at the shakeout. The
mold cooling conveyor between these two points is often
fully hooded with sheet metal. Ducting is commonly provided
from each area to a single control device, usually a wet
scrubber.
Dusts from cleaning and finishing operations are con-
trolled by local exhaust systems connected to dry mechanical
collectors, or possibly cotton or wool fabric filters.
Sometimes exhaust hoods are provided above the work sta-
tions. Other cleaning processes such as abrasive shot
blasting and tumbling are commonly controlled with cotton or
wool fabric filters or medium energy wet collectors. Ap-
plications of dry mechanical collectors are also made for
abrasive cleaning processes. Chipping and grinding opera-
tions are normally provided with local exhaust hoods con-
nected to either high efficiency centrifugal collectors or
fabric filters.
Efforts have been made to control certain coremaking
effluents, but the gases emitted from bake ovens and shell
core machines are a serious problem. Usually these gases
are permitted to exhaust to the atmosphere through a ven-
tilation system. Also most core ovens are vented directly
to the atmosphere through a stack. When operated below
200°C (400°F) and fired with natural gas, most core ovens do
not require air pollution control equipment. However,
excessive emissions from core ovens have been reduced to
tolerable levels by modifying the composition of the core
binders and lowering the baking temperature.
2-226
-------
In recent years, ductile iron innoculation stations
have been equipped with collecting hoods, or have been
installed in enclosed rooms, and the resultant gases have
been drawn off by means of an exhaust fan, into a dust
collection unit. Medium energy wet scrubbers, and fabric
filters have been used for dust collection.1
Process improvements which have recently been developed
to help prevent fugitive emission generation in iron foundries
are as follows:
(1) The development of the "Inmold" process in which
the magnesium alloy is added to a chamber in the
mold cavity and the molten metal flows over the
alloy during the pouring operation, dissolving the
magnesium alloy as it passes through the chamber.
This process is said to be smoke free.
(2) Development by International Nickel Company* of an
alloy that contains about 95 percent nickel and 5
percent magnesium that is dense enough to sink
when added to molten iron. This treatment is said
to be smoke free.
(3) American Cast Iron Pipe Company's* method of
impregnating coke with magnesium metal. This
material reacts very slowly and is said to be
smoke free when it is plunged to the bottom of a
ladle of the iron to be treated.
(4) Immersing the magnesium alloy in the molten iron
in the ladle by holding the alloy in a metal cup
attached to a plunger in a dome-shaped ladle
cover. The dome cover seals the top of the ladle,
thus preventing almost all the fumes from escaping
during treatment. A small amount of fume may
escape during plunging and when the cover is
removed.
(5) Placing the magnesium alloy in the bottom of the
ladle, holding it down with scrap-metal punchings
or molding sand, and pouring the iron over the
alloy and its covering. If properly done, the
magnesium reaction is delayed until the ladle is
full, the reaction is slow, and no fumes escape.
Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2-225
-------
help alleviate fugitive emissions. Cupolas having above
charge takeoffs can maintain a strong in-draft through the
charge door thereby eliminating the escape of fugitive
emissions.
One large volume foundry using tilting type crucible
furnaces installed a hooding system venting to a baghouse to
control emissions during pouring. Since only one furnace
operates at a time and the system operates only during the
Vs
12
pour, only 0.71 m /sec (1,500 cfm) of air is required to
collect the fumes.
Typical control devices used for electric arc furnaces
include a fixed hood together with a fabric filter. The
design air volume required to ventilate an electric arc
furnace with an integral hood is approximately 1.2 m /sec
1 12
(2,500 cfm) per ton of charge. ' Newer furnaces can
utilize canopy hoods plus direct shell evacuation.
Fugitive emissions from open hearth furnaces may be
captured by hooding or enclosing the building, and venting
the emissions to a fabric filter.
Emissions from pot furnaces are usually controlled by a
baghouse. Hood design procedures are similar to electric
induction furnaces.
For newer reverberatory furnace installations, a canopy
hood is usually used for capturing the emissions from charg-
ing. An ESP or a baghouse is used to collect the solids.
Technically feasible methods for controlling fugitive
dusts from all furnace operations include building evacua-
tion or a system of hoods. Building evacuation would also
capture emissions from other sources in a foundry such as
casting shakeout, cooling, cleaning and finishing.
2-224
-------
Table 2-41. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR FOUNDRY IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Foundries
1. Raw material receiving and storage
2. Cupola furnace operation
3. Crucible furnace operation
4. Electric arc furnace operation
5. Open hearth furnace operation
6. Electric induction furnace operation
7. Pot furnace operation
8. Reverberatory furnace operation
9. Ductile iron innoculation
10. Pouring molten metal into molds
11 . Casting shakeout
12. Cooling and cleaning castings
13. Finishing castings
14. Core sand and core binder receiving and storage
5. Core sand and binder mixing
6. Core making
7. Core baking
8. Mold sand and binder receiving and storage
19. Sand preparation
20. Mold making
c
0
"E
oj
a;
j3
5>
C71
a;
3C
t3
V
£
c
o
CJ
c
=3
>,
10
(J
a.
>,
OJ
£
3
c
UJ
a.
a.
/
/
*
CM
C
o
4-J
O
t/>
C
•c
a>
*->
c:
QJ
•D
gy
C7>
0
*0
c
£
a>
*o
c
0
u
/
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
u
"E
OJ
.c
(J
L.
O
"^
•o
c
(O
t.
QJ
•D
X
c
0
w
>>
«3
3
CT
L.
0)
E
i
L
**-
C'
c
t-
C
O
U
i-
0-
o
m
0
s and procedures
rol of operating parameter
c
0
u
s_
CD
0
(J
I/)
1
+J
4-*
l~
£
VI
C
«o
i-
3
U
T3
|
-o
OJ
X
Lu
X
X
-f
X
X
x"
X
X
X
X
X
+
+
+
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
0
+
0
0
+
0
0
0
c
0
Q
D
(J
(O
>
OJ
.c
'*
en
C
•o
5
J2
-o
0>
D
^3
+
+
+
+
+
+
a
X
+
4
+
0
Removal
equipment
i_
0>
u
L.
JD
»O
U-
X
X
+
X
X
X
X
+
4
X
X
+
+
0
0
0
Scrubber
X
X
X
4
0
0
0
V
g
I
X
X
x Typical control technique.
0 In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
Typical for newer installations. For ductile Iron innoculation evacuation is more of i local type evacuation
rather than entire building evacuation.
2-223
-------
Much of the information on characteristics is for the
stack (non-fugitive) emissions. Cupola dust is a very
heterogeneous mixture; silica content is high, particularly
in the 0-10 urn fraction. Of the metal portion, 60 percent
are oxides of silicon and iron. Significant zinc and lead
oxides are also found. Other elements found in the particu-
lates include manganese, chromium, tin, titanium, molyb-
denum, zirconium, nickel, copper, cobalt and silver.
Fumes from electric arc furnaces have been reported to be
extremely fine, from several sources which indicate that 90
o
to 95 percent of the fumes are below 0.5 ym in size. Another
source indicates that 75 percent of the particulates are
less than 5 ym in diameter with a mass median diameter between
2.27 and 2.33 ym.15 The emissions consist almost entirely
of oxides of various metals charged, as well as the furnace
refractories and any fluxing materials which were used.
Iron oxides form the major constituent.
Test results for an open-hearth furnace show that 64.7
t. -, . . 12
percent of the emissions are below 5 ym in size.
2.5.5 Control Technology
Control technology options for IPFPE in foundry opera-
tions with the exception of those discussed in Section 2.1
are presented in Table 2-41. This section discusses the
fugitive emission sources and their related control tech-
niques .
Charging and tapping emissions from the cupola may be
controlled by hooding the charging and tapping areas and
venting the system to fabric filters. Another system that
may be used is enclosing the building with subsequent
evacuation and venting to a fabric filter. Preventative
measures such as properly sizing the primary control system
to maintain continuous draft through the charging door will
2-222
-------
Table 2-40. EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS FOR
VARIOUS FOUNDRY OPERATIONS 1
Foundry operation
Type
Particle size (ym)
Raw material storage
and charge makeup
Melting
Cupola furnace
Electric furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Inoculation
Molding
Pouring
Shakeout
Cleaning
Grinding
Sand storage
Sand handling
Screening, mixing
Sand drying and
reclamation
Core sand storage
Core making
Coke dust
Limestone and
sand dust
Fly ash
Coke breeze
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Metallic oxides
Fly ash
Metal oxides
Sand
Metallic oxides
Sand fines, dust
Dust
Metal dust
Sand fines
Abrasives
Fines
Fines
Fines
Dust
Sand fines
Sand fines, dust
Fine to coarse
30 to 1,000
8 to 20
Fine to coarse
up to 0.7
up to 0.7
up to 0.7
8 to 20
up to 0.7
Coarse
Fine to medium
50% - 2 to 15
50% - 2 to 15
above 7
Fine to medium
50% - 2 to 7
50%
50%
50%
50%
2 to 15
2 to 15
2 to 15
2 to 15
Fine
Fine to medium
2-221
-------
2.5.3 Example Plant Inventory
The example plant inventory for foundries as shown in
Table 2-39 presents potential fugitive particulate emissions
from the various processes within a gray iron foundry. The
inventory represents a plant which produces 13,490 Mg
(14,840 tons) per year of iron castings. The plant inven-
tory is not meant to display a typical plant, but merely a
potential set of circumstances.
It is assumed that a cupola furnace is used to melt the
raw materials. Other assumptions used to build up the plant
inventory are as follows:
0 Melting rate of cupola is 6 Mg (7 tons) per hour.
0 The cupola operates 10 hours per day 212 days per
year.
0 Annual production of iron castings is 13,490 Mg
(14,840 tons).
° Raw material requirements are iron - 14,165 Mg
(15,582 tons), coke - 1,818 Mg (2,000 tons),
limestone - 206 Mg (226 tons).
Total model plant uncontrolled process fugitive particulate
emissions are 147 Mg (162 tons) per year.
2.5.4 Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions
The composition and particle size of dusts from various
foundry operations will vary considerably. For example,
dusts from a casting shakeout are mostly very fine carbo-
naceous material. On the other hand, dust from the grinding
of castings includes coarse freshly fractured particles,
along with elemental iron, iron oxide, and sand particles.
The plume from furnaces melting brass or bronze alloys is
white and of the order of less than 0.5 ym in diameter.
Table 2-40 shows the characteristics and sources of emis-
sions in various foundry operations.
2-220
-------
Table 2-39 (continued) . IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR FOUNDRIES
to
I
NJ
Source of IPFPE
17. Core baking
18. Mold sand and binder
receiving and storage
19. Sand preparation
20. Mold makeup
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.015-2.7 kg/Kg of coresm'p
(0.03-5.4 Ib/tdn of cores)
Sand unloading 0.015 kg/Mg sand"
(0.03 Ib/ton sandj
0.67 k^/Mg iron castings
(1.3 Ib/ton iron castings)
0.02 kg/Mg iron castings"1
(0.04 Ib/ton iron castings)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Cores0
2,698
(2,968)
Sand
2,600
(2,860)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Uncontrol led
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
4
(4)
1
(1)
9
(10)
1
(1)
a Coke unloading emission factor based on the coal unloading emission factor presented in Section 2.1.2.
Reference 4. (Approximately 5% of uncontrolled emissions.)
Engineering judgment, assume 5% of uncontrolled emissions as reported in Reference 4, p. 7.8-1 and 7.9-2.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Reference 8.
Reference 9.
Limited test data from Reference 10,indicate that emissions from electric induction furnace range from 0.15 to 0.3 kg/Mg
(0.3 to 0.6 Ib/ton) iron poured. These emissions include melting, pouring and innoculation.
Engineering judgment, assume 50% of uncontrolled emissions as reported in Reference 4, p. 7.11-2.
Reference 11.
Reference 13.
Reference 12.
Sand unloading emission factor assumed to be of the same magnitude as the taconite pellets unloading emission factor as
presented in Section 2.1.2. Emissions from storage is estimated to be negligible since the sand is normally stored
indoors.
Assume that 20% of the weight of castings equals the weight of cores.
Engineering judgment, assume all uncontrolled emissions as reported in Reference 14, are fugitive.
-------
Table 2-39 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR FOUNDRIES
00
Source of IPFPE
10. Pouring molten metal into
molds
11. Casting shakeout
12. Cooling and cleaning castings
13. Finishing castings
14. Core sand and core binder
receiving and storage
15. Core sand and binder mixing
16. Core making
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.05-2.07 kg/Mg in gray iron
foundry i tk,f
(0.1-4.13 Ib/ton in gray iron foundry)
1.26 kg/Mg for copper ^
(2.52 Ib/ton for copper)
0.47 kg/Mg for lead!
(0.93 Ib/ton for lead)
0.6-6.4 kg/Mg of ironf'm
(1.2-12.8 Ib/ton of iron)
cooling 0.08-0.4 kg/Mg iron
castingsf 'm
(0.16-0.8 Ib/ton iron castings)
0.005 kg/Mg iron castings™
(0.01 Ib/ton iron castings)
Sand unloading 0.015 kg/Mg sand
(0.03 Ib/ton sand)
0.15 kg/Mg of sande
(0.3 Ib/ton of sand)
0.38-4.12 kg/Mg of iron 'm
(0.75-8.24 Ib/ton of iron)
0.18 kg/Mg of cores6
(0.35 Ib/ton of cores)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Sand
2,600
(2,860)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Cores0
2,698
(2,968)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
16
(17)
47
(52)
3
(4)
1
(D
1
(D
30
(33)
1
(D
-------
Table 2-39 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR FOUNDRIES
M
I
Source of IPFPE
2. Cupola furnace operation
(charging, tapping, etc.
3. Crucible furnace operation
(charging, tapping, etc.)
4. Electric arc furnace operation
5. Open hearth furnace operation
6. Electric induction furnace
operation^
7. Pot furnace operation
8. Reverberatory furnace
operation
9. Ductile iron innoculation
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.05-1 kg/Mg iron
(0.1-2 Ib/ton iron)
0.05-0.3 kg/Mg of metal processed
(0.1-0.6 Ib/ton of metal processed)
2.5-5 kg/Mg of metal charged6
(5.0-10 Ib/ton of metal charged)
0.53-1.74 kg/Mg of steelf«9
(1.05-3.48 Ib/ton of steel)
0.05-0.45 kg/Mg of metal charged0'h
(0.1-0.9 Ib/ton of metal charged)
1.0 kg/Mg of metal charged6
(2.0 Ib/ton of metal charged)
0.75 kg/Mg of ironc
(1.5 Ib/ton of iron)
0.2 kg/MgJ
(0.4 Ib/ton)
4.15-4.35 kg/Mg of copperc
(8.3-8.7 Ib/ton of copper)
1.65-2.3 kg/Mg of ironf'g'J
(3.3-4.5 Ib/ton of iron)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
Iron castings
13,490
(14,840)
inventory
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
26
(29)
-------
CTi
Table 2-39. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR FOUNDRIES
Source of IPFPE
1. Raw material receiving and
storage
la Unloading
Ib Storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Coke unloading 0.2
(0.4
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)^
f(0.04) (Ki) (S/1.5)
\ (PE/100)^
(0.065) (K?) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)^!
f(0.13) (K2) (S/1.5)
V (PE/lOOJ-i
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5)
(PE/100)2
/7o.05) (K3) (S/1.5)
\^ (PE/100)^
(0.055) (S/1.5) D
(PE/100)-^ 90
MO. 11) (S/1.5) D
\_ (PE/100)2 5
-------
CHARGING
N^PREHEATING
HAW MATERIAL STORAGE
(SCRAP METAL, METAL
INGOTS. ALLOYING AGENT,
FLUX, COKE, ETC.)
LEGEND:
—-POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"PROCESS FLOW
CORE 1 rf©
SANR^VSTORAGE
X©
- MXJRE
BINDER
Figure 2-15. Process flow diagram for
foundries showing potential industrial process
fugitive particulate emission points.
2-215
-------
Cores are usually made of sand and binders and are
placed into the mold. When two or more core sections are
required to form the internal cavity, the core sections may
be pasted together prior to placing them in the open mold.
Silicate, resin, oil and cereal binders are used to make the
core strong. After the cores are formed, they may be baked
in ovens.
Figure 2-15 shows a process flow diagram for a foundry
operation. Each potential process fugitive emission point
is identified and explained in Table 2-39.
2.5.2 IPFPE Emission Rates
Table 2-39 presents a summary of uncontrolled emission
factors for foundry IPFPE sources. Since these are poten-
tial uncontrolled emission rates, the site-specific level of
control must be considered for application to a specific
plant. Also included are reliability factors for each
estimate.
The emission factors with an "E" rating are at best
order of magnitude estimates; consequently, actual emission
rates of a given facility could differ significantly from
those in Table 2-39. The largest potential sources of
uncontrolled fugitive emissions in foundry operations
include the various types of furnaces, especially the cupola
in gray iron foundries.
Note that in the case of the electric arc and the open
hearth furnace, the total emissions shown in Table 2-39
specifically include charging and tapping emissions. In all
other furnace operations, charging and tapping emissions are
not specifically mentioned but are included in the total
furnace fugitive emission factor.
2-214
-------
The major operations that take place in order to pro-
duce castings are:
0 Core making
0 Mold making
0 Melting of raw material
0 Pouring of the molten metal into molds
0 Shakeout of castings
0 Cooling, cleaning, and finishing
The cupola furnace is charged with coke, metallics and
fluxes through a charging door in the upper section of the
cupola. Combustion is produced by blowing room temperature
or preheated air through the tuyeres at the bottom of the
furnace. Typical gray cast iron will begin to melt at
1238°C (2260°F). The temperature of the charge is raised to
about 1650°C (3000°F) and the molten metal drops to the
bottom of the furnace where it is tapped out to a holding
ladle. The slag formed on the top of the molten metal is
tapped at the front or rear of the furnace depending upon
individual practice. The molten metal is transferred from a
holding ladle to a pouring ladle and is then poured into
prepared molds, which may be set out on the floor or pass by
a pouring station on a conveyor.
After the molten metal has solidified in the mold, the
hot casting is separated from the sand on a heavy duty
vibrating screen or sometimes manually. After separation,
the sand is usually recycled. Castings are air cooled and
then cleaned in abrasive blast machines.
Molds may be made of silica sand mixed with water and
binder. After mixing, the mix is transferred to the molding
area where it is packed either mechanically or by hand into
the flask over the pattern. The pattern is next withdrawn
from the mold leaving the cavity. After placing the proper
cores in a mold, the mold is closed and ready for pouring.
After casting, when the metal has solidified, the mold is
shaken out.
2-213
-------
1,2,3
2.5 FOUNDRIES
2.5.1 Process Description'
Foundries produce castings by melting either ingots or
scrap metal in a furnace, and pouring the metal into molds.
Table 2-38 shows the various types of furnaces used to melt
metal in a foundry operation.
Table 2-38. TYPES OF FURNACES USED TO CHARGE
METALS IN A FOUNDRY OPERATION
Metal
Aluminum
Brass/Bronze
Gray Iron
Steel
Zinc
Copper
Lead
Furnace type
Crucible
X
X
X
X
Electric
induction
X
X
X
X
X
X
Reverberation
X
X
X
Cupola
X
Electric
arc
X
X
Open
hearth
X
Pot
X
Basically all foundries use similar processes, regard-
less of starting material. Since iron and steel foundries
account for about 90 percent of tonnages produced by all
foundries in the United States, a brief description of the
gray iron foundry operation is given here. Except for the
furnace type, the operation is very similar for all foun-
dries. Gray iron foundries produce a heavy metal commonly
called cast iron. Gray iron foundries commonly use cupola
melting furnaces to produce molten metal.
2-212
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4.4
1. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Pro-
file. Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319,
Task Order No. 49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
2. Particulate Pollutant System Study, Volume III -
Handbook of Emission Properties. Midwest Research
Institute. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Kansas City,
Missouri. May 1, 1971.
3. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 1973.
4. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smelting and
Refining Industry. U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service. Raliegh,
North Carolina. November 1969.
5. Observations made during a plant tour of the W.V.
Bullock, Inc. facilities in Birmingham, Alabama.
September 29, 1976.
2-211
-------
over the tapping area, several measures can be taken to help
capture emissions escaping the hood. Increasing hood
exhaust rate may increase capture efficiency. Reconstruc-
tion of the hood to allow for enlargement of capture surface
or installation of side curtains, will increase capture
efficiency and may be done at a lower cost than a completely
new hooding system. The use of curtains to help direct
fugitive emissions into the hooding system has also been
observed to an effective means of fugitive emission con-
trol. If hooding systems are to be installed for fugitive
emission control, space limitations as well as operating
procedures will dictate whether fixed or movable hoods are
desirable. If the use of hoods is not possible, then building
evacuation will effectively control the fugitive emissions.
Charging operations can be a major source of fugitive
emissions. As a result, fixed or movable hoods placed over
the charging area are required to capture the fugitive
emissions. In addition, curtains which help direct fugitive
emissions into the hood will increase capture efficiencies.
A cost of $55,000 for hooding a brass/bronze operation,
excluding removal equipment, has been reported.
Fugitive emissions from ingot casting can also be
controlled by several means. The use of mold release com-
pounds which do not contain oils or volatiles will help
prevent the generation of fugitive emissions. Casting at
lowest possible temperatures will also help alleviate the
problem. Depending on space limitations a fixed or movable
hood over the casting area can control fugitive emissions.
Again, curtains can be an aid in directing emissions into
the hood. Building evacuation is also an alternative in
controlling fugitive emissions.
2-210
-------
Table 2-37. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
SECONDARY COPPER, BRASS/BRONZE PRODUCTION IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Secondary Copper, Brass/Bronze
Production
1. Sweating furnace
la. Charging
Ib. Tapping
2. Drying
2a. Charging
2b. Discharging
3. Insulation burning
4. Electric induction furnace
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
5. Reverberatory furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
6. Rotary furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
7. Crucible furnace
7a. Charging
7b. Tapping
8. Cupola (blast) furnace
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
9. Casting
in
§
iS\
1
2
~CT>
'£.
Ol
£3
£
c
o
u
c
3
£
U
0.
c
°*~
•o
o>
«z
1
t/>
ai
CTI
o
c
01
'o
u
1
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
—
x
"*
£
Q.
§•
Irt
i
£
O
U
c
01
.0
c
c
£
c
o
x
us
Z)
cr
•2
0)
1
Id
i_
«*-
o
£
c
o
u
L.
at
*
O)
i_
TJ
V
u
Q.
"c
W
a>
E
t.
tt
a.
CTV
C
•Jo
1
0
o
o
i.
§
u
u
Ol
0)
CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
e
«Q
i-
£
a.
0
u
to
C
o
u
o
1
ai
tenanc
c
i
-o
Ol
I
t
+
+
+
+
+
*
+
s,
trt
1
c
o
u
^
S
E
Q.
O
01
2
1
0)
Ot
1}
£
C
•f
*
*
+
+
+
+
Capture
methods
o
Ol
^
01
c
o
•M
It)
Q.
c
k.
3
fc
1
^
•o
K
0
0
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
tfl
u
3
•o
Q)
.a
x
(U
.c
5
•a
|
0)
J3
5
£
+
O
4J
1
O
+
+
1
+
+
+
t
+
*
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
•*•
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Removal
equipment
L.
1)
~
1^
•-
1
0
0
+
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
Oi
JD
t.
U
Q.
t/1
UJ
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
2-209
-------
Fugitive emissions from plant haul roads were not
included in the inventory and are expected to be minimal at
secondary facilities. Total model plant uncontrolled pro-
cess fugitive particulate emissions are 354 Mg (389 tons)
per year. Major sources of fugitive emissions include
insulation burning, reverberatory furnace, and rotary
furnace.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Information
concerning the characterization of fugitive particulate
emissions from secondary brass, bronze, and copper was not
found in the literature. The limited data available for
stack emission characteristics are presented below since
they may closely resemble characteristics of the fugitive
emissions. A chemical analysis of dust collected by a brass
4
and bronze smelter baghouse resulted in the following:
Component
Zinc
Lead
Tin
Copper
Chlorine
Sulfur
Particulate composition,
percent by weight
45.0-77.0
1.0-12.0
0.3-2.0
0.05-1.0
0.5-1.5
0.1-0.7
4
Zinc and other fumes are 0.03 to 0.5 \im in diameter.
Control Technology - Control technology options for
secondary copper, brass, and bronze production IPFPE sources
are presented in Table 2-37 and are explained in more detail
below.
Better control of operation parameters and procedures
such as tapping at lowest possible melt temperature will
often help control fugitive emissions from the various
furnace tapping operations. If hoods are already in use
2-208
-------
IPFPE Emission Rates - Very little data concerning
process fugitive particulate emission factors for the sec-
ondary copper, brass, and bronze industry have been found in
the literature. Therefore, emission rates as presented in
Table 2-36 resulted for the most part from engineering
judgements utilizing point source emission factors for the
various operations identified. It was estimated that
fugitive emissions were equal to 5 percent of an operation's
stack emissions. These values, therefore, received a reli-
ability rating of "E" which indicates at best an order of
magnitude estimate. Consequently, actual emission rates at
a given facility could differ significantly from those in
Table 2-36.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for secondary brass, bronze, and copper production as shown
in Table 2-36 presents potential fugitive particulate
emission quantities for the various uncontrolled sources
within the process. The inventory represents a plant which
produces 30,000 Mg (33,000 tons) of metal per year. Because
of the various types of furnaces that can be employed, the
inventory includes only reverberatory, rotary, and cupola
furnaces. Insulation burning and sweating are used as pre-
treatment methods prior to charging to melting furnaces.
The plant inventory is not meant to display a typical plant,
but merely a potential set of operations.
The assumed annual feed rate of scrap, flux, and coke
for the various pretreatment and furnace operations was as
follows:
Insulation burning 38,462 Mg (42,308 tons) scrap
Sweat furnace 19,789 Mg (21/768 tons) scrap
Charge to furnaces 39,842 Mg (43,827 tons) treated scrap
Flux and alloys 500 Mg (550 tons)
Coke 1,572 Mg (1,729 tons)
2-207
-------
Table 2-36 (continued) . IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY COPPER, BRASS/BRONZE PRODUCTION
to
I
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of stack emission factor qiven in
Reference 1.
Emissions included in total for source 1.
Emissions included in total for source 2.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of stack emission factor qiven in
Reference 2.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of stack emission factors qiven in
References 2 and 3.
Emissions included in total for source 4.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of stack emission data given in Reference 4.
Emissions for tapping and charging also included in as part of the emission factor given for total (source 5).
Emissions for tapping and charging also included in as part of the emission factor given for total (source 6).
Emissions for charging and tapping included in total for source 7.
Engineering judgement assuming that fugitive emissions are equal to 5 percent of the stack emission factor and data
given in References 3 and 4.
Emission for charging and tapping included total for source 8.
Engineering judgement assuming fugitive emissions for zinc casting given in Section 2.4.3 to be equal to those for
copper, brass, and bronze.
Not included in emission inventory.
-------
Table 2-36 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY COPPER, BRASS/BRONZE PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
6. Rotary furnace (total)
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
7. Crucible furnace (total)
7a. Charging
7b. Tapping
8. Cupola (blast) furnace
(total)
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
9. Casting
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.75-3.68 kg/Mg charged9
(1.5-7.35 Ib/ton charged)
0.3 kg/Mg charged9'1
(0.59 Ib/ton charged)
0.015-0.045 kg/Mg charged9'1
(0.03-0.09 Ib/ton charged)
0.16-0.32 kg/Mg charged6
(0.32-0.64 Ib/ton charged)
j
i
0.5-1.75 kg/Mg chargedk
(1.0-3.5 Ib/ton charged)
1
1
0.005-0.01 kg/Mg cast™
(0.01-0.02 Ib/ton cast)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Material charged
13,700
(15,070)
Material charged
13,700
(15,070)
Material charged
13,700
(15,070)
n
n
n
Material charged
15,714
(17,286)
Metal cast
30,000
(33,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
30
(33)
41
(4)
0.41
(0.4)
n
n
n
18
(19)
1
1
0.2
(0.2)
I
tv)
o
Ul
-------
to
O
Table 2-36. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY COPPER, BRASS/BRONZE PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
1. Sweating furnace (total)
la. Charging
Ib. Tapping
2. Drying (total)
2a. Charging
2b. Discharging
3. Insulation burning
4. Electric induction furnace
(total)
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
5. Reverberatory furnace (total)
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0 . 38 kg/Mg scrap charged*
(0.76 Ib/ton scrap charged)
b
b
6.85 kg/Mg scrap dried3
(13.7 Ib/ton scrap dried)
c
c
6.9 kg/Mg scrap burnedd
(13.8 Ib/ton scrap burned)
0.025-0.07 kg/Mg scrap charged6
(0.05-0.14 Ib/ton scrap charged)
f
f
1.33-3.92 kg/Mg charged9
(2.65-7.84 Ib/ton charged)
0.6-1.48 kg/Mg charged9'11
(1.2-2.95 Ib/ton charged)
0.01-0.025 kg/Mg charged9'11
(0.02-0.05 Ib/ton charged)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Material charged
19,789
(21,768)
n
n
n
Scrap burned
38,462
(42,308)
n
n
n
Material charged
12,500
(13,750)
Material charged
12,500
(13,750)
Material charged
12,500
(13,750)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
8
(9)
b
b
n
n
n
265
(292)
n
n
n
33
(36)
13h
(14)
0.2h
(0.2)
-------
to
I
to
o
U)
SCRAP
COPPER
'AND
'COPPER'
ALLOYS
FLUXES OF
CHARCOAL,
BORAX SAND,
LIMESTONE,
CAUSTIC SODA
SWEATING
FURNACE
2a)
'
1
\J
DRYING 1
AND ORGANICS) |
•*(
BURNING
11? rNQirr ATTHM
FROM WIRE
-*iLOW MELTING
(lb)TEMPERATURE
ELEMENTS
TIN AND
LEAD
Jr COPPER
AND
COPPER
ALLOYS
LEGEND:
—•"-POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"-PROCESS FLOW
ALLOYING
ELEMENTS
OF LEAD,
TIN, ZINC
MELTING AND
SMELTING FURNACES
ELECTRIC
INDUCTION
FURNACE
REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
ROTARY
FURNACE
CRUCIBLE
FURNACE
COKE
an;
«^>
V
CUPOLA
FURNACE
COPPER,
BRONZE,
AND BRASS
INGOTS
AND
CASTINGS
Figure 2-14. Process flow diagram for secondary brass/bronze (copper alloy)
production showing potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points,
-------
After pretreatment operations (if required) a number of
types of furnaces can be used for smelting, refining, and
alloying of the scrap material. Normally alloying is done
in the furnace rather than during ingot casting. Electric
induction, reverberatory, rotary, crucible, and cupola
furnaces are those furnaces used for smelting and refining.
There is little real difference in the melting, refining,
and alloying actions in these furnaces but methods of charg-
ing and heating differ significantly.
The scrap materials, along with solid or liquid fluxes,
are charged to the furnace. The fluxes can be nonmetallic
materials, pure metals, or alloys. Heat is supplied by
burners fueled with gas or oil. Molten metal is formed and
refined by blowing compressed air into the metal bath to
oxidize the metallic and nonmetallic contaminents. Some
oxides of impurities are removed as slag. Fluxes such as
charcoal, borax, sand, limestone and caustic soda provide
entrainment for the other metallic impurities.
One of the most common methdds of removing metallic
impurities is to introduce compressed air beneath the sur-
face of the molten metal. This violent agitation is almost
sure to produce large quantities of finely dispersed air
pollutants in the exhaust gas stream.
Samples of the furnace melt are taken as the refining
operation progresses. As soon as the analysis indicates
that the correct grade has been achieved, the molten metal
is poured into molds and cast at temperatures from 650°C to
1320°C (1200°F to 2400°F). After casting, the shapes may be
rolled into plates, sheets or strips; extruded into rods,
bars, seamless tubes, or drawn into wire.
A process flow diagram for secondary brass, bronze, and
copper production is shown in Figure 2-14. Each potential
process fugitive emission is identified and explained in
Table 2-36.
2-202
-------
2.4.4 Secondary Brass/Bronze (Copper Alloy) Production
Process Description - The basic raw material of the
secondary brass/bronze and copper alloy ingot industry is
copper and copper-base alloy scrap such as brasses and
bronzes.
Before the scrap metal is blended in a furnace to
produce the desired ingots, removal of nonmetallic con-
taminants or, in some instances, preprocessing the raw
materials to yield more efficient and economical utilization
of the scrap may be desirable. These processes may be
either mechanical, hydrometallurgical, or pyrometallurgical,
the first two of which are not considered in this descrip-
tion since they are not sources of fugitive emissions.
Pretreatment by pyrometallurgical methods may include
any of the following methods: sweating, burning, or drying.
Sweating furnaces may be used to remove low-melting point
metals such as lead, solder, and babbitt metal. This is
done by heating in a furnace which permits the low-melting
components to be melted and separated from the desirable
metals.
Burning is usually performed for removal of insulation
from wire or cable. This is essentially an incineration
process but requires carefully controlled burning.
Drying involves the use of a heated rotary dryer to
vaporize excess cutting fluids from machine shop chips and
borings. This must be done carefully to prevent high tem-
peratures that would warp the steel kiln and begin to cause
oxidation on the large surface area exposed on the metal
chips.
If the scrap metals are relatively clean as received,
pretreatment can be bypassed.
2-201
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4.3
1 Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Pro-
file. Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319,
Task Order No. 49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
2 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Programs, Office of Air Quality
Planning Standards. Publication No. AP-42. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. April 1973.
3 Herring, W.O. Secondary Zinc Industry Emission Control
Problem Definition Study. Part I - Technical Study.
U S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution
Control Office. PB 201 739. Durham, North Carolina.
May 1971.
4. Mack, H. Development of an Approach to Identification
of Emerging Technology and Demonstration Opportunities.
U.S. Environmental Protectin Agency. EPA 650/2-74-048.
Columbus, Ohio. Battelle-Columbus Labs., 1974.
5 Danielson, John A. Air Pollution Engineering Manual,
Second Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air and Water Programs. Publication No. AP-
40. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1973.
2-200
-------
to the condenser. If a good fit is maintained, fugitive
emissions will be prevented.
Fugitive emissions from upset conditions can be con-
trolled in several manners. Upset usually occurs when the
pressure relief hole on the condenser becomes plugged re-
sulting in pressure and heat build up with subsequent
combustion of the zinc metal. If the pressure relief hole
is cleaned regularly (once every 1/2 hr), the hole will not
become plugged, upsets will be avoided, and fugitive emis-
sion eliminated. When upsets do occur, however, movable
hoods can be placed over the pressure relief hole to capture
fugitive emissions. Building evacuation to a baghouse will
also effectively control the fugitive emissions.
Alloying and casting operations can be controlled by
the use of fixed or movable hoods over the areas involved.
Curtains which can help direct emissions into hoods are also
quite useful. Building evacuation to a baghouse will also
effectively control fugitive emissions. During casting
operations, several steps can be taken to prevent the
generation of fugitive emissions. As long as the temper-
ature of the molten zinc is kept below 590°C (1100°F) and
mold release compounds do not contain oils or other vola-
tiles, very little fugitive emissions will be generated.5
2-199
-------
Table 2-35 (continued). CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Secondary Zinc Production
10. Reverberatory melting furnace
lOa. Charging
lOb. Tapping
11. Electric Induction melting furnace
lla. Charging
lib. Tapping
12. Hot metal transfer to retort or alloying
13. Distillation retort and condenser
13a Charging distillation retort
13b. Leakage between retort and condenser
13c. Upset in condenser
13d. Tapping
14. Muffle distillation furnace and condenser
14a. Charging muffle distillation furnace
14b. Leakage between furnace and condenser
14c. Upset in condenser
14d. Tapping
15. Alloying
16. Casting
w*
C
O
tn
1
JS
.?
I
J
/
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
-_
csj
C
0
£
l/t
c
•o
at
14-
£
c
QJ
•c
at
CD
o
_=
$
£
4->
3
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
"a
u
1
k.
o
-o
c
I.
QJ
4-1
ID
c
o
1
5
*
£
3
O
U
C
at
x
.O
1
C
5
£•
1
o-
ID
Oi
•M
I
ID
L.
O
£
4-1
§
i.
QJ
00
*rt
£
1
e
a.
•o
c
i-
at
1
o.
f
ra
i.
QJ
O.
o
O
o
c
o
u
QJ
Jl
0
0
0
E
ID
U
l.
CU
c
o
u
I/I
c
o
u
o
•o
c
TO
QJ
u
c
ID
c
QJ
C
1
QJ
O
t
0
0
1
-
c
0
0
0
Capture
methods
0
at
L.
0
U
c
o
•£
a.
ID
t.
u
(rt
1
QJ
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4/1
u
•o
QJ
X
Of
5
'5
•D
O
at
10
I
0
0
c
o
=
4-
0 +
0 . +
0
+
+
0 | +
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
+
+
+
0 +
0
0
0
+
4
+
+
+
Removal
equipment
«j
£
t.
u-
0
0
0
0
+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+
,.
1
L.
U
1/1
5;
LLJ
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
2-198
-------
lt» O
a> <-+
30
o
—• 3
r*
n> o
O —J
NJ
I
X
3
JD
C
R>
VO
*O \O 7^
cr a* it
' • r+
r*
— 1 O — •
o» =r n
-o ot
•0 T —
3"S. S
U3 3 <~t>
«3 — .
s
rt-
3*
lO
-h
c
i
n
n>
0 O
O 0
o o
+ +
8. Crucible melting furnace
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
o o
0 O
O 0
H- +
o o
s
rf
n
r+
O>
~l
Ol
3
U>
to
-I
r*
O
1
r*
3
o
n>
0 0
o o
0 0
+ +
O 0
»
** *» XI
cr o» o
Of
-HO T
0-3- *<
-o o>
•O T Vt
-••ia f
3 — m
(£13 Ol
IQ r+
T
3
Di
n
n>
o o
o o
o o
+ •*-
0 O
UJ
W CJ ^
cr D. n
-HO rt>
01 3-
•o 01 ^~*
•D T T3
-h(o O
3 -•• r*
«d 3 *—
(O
1
C
o>
r>
fp
o o
o o
o o
H- H-
O O
2. Reverberatory sweat furnace
2a. Charging
2b. Tapping
0 O
0 0
0 O
H- H-
O 0
O
C
u
V
r
(1
fl
u:
c
n
i"
«/>
K-
i
•c
u»
0
O
0
H-
O
3
cx
U1
r*
•3
t/t
S
§
0.
Ol
vj
INJ
3
n
-D
2
ex.
c
n
rt-
1
Negligible emissions
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2 1
Wet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducti
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
o. .
o :
T3
u
(O
o
Ol
<£>
u>
ms?
r* TJ
3- r*
O C
rp
n>
c r»
3 <
r»
-n
(7)
— (
m
2
in
O
2
£
^
>0
>>
<-»
o
-t
71
o
X
rn
a
i/i
O 1-3
O 0>
2 cr
o M
> fl>
»
K to
CSl IjJ
H Ul
2 •
O
V O
50 O
O 2
O r^
H
O
W
O
T3 2
»rj H
^ O
M G
W
W CO
O
a ^
en
-------
Control Technology - Control technology options for
secondary zinc production IPFPE sources are presented in
Table 2-35 and are explained in more detail below.
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
such as proper feed rates, operating machinery only when
required, and following proper maintenance schedules will
help alleviate fugitive emissions from crushing/screening
operations. Fixed hoods which enclose or cover screening
operations with subsequent venting to a baghouse will
effectively control fugitive emissions. Closed building
evacuation to a baghouse will also serve as a means to
control fugitive emissions.
The various sweating and melting furnaces can all be
controlled in basically the same way. If primary control
systems already are installed, the increasing of exhaust
flow rates will oftentimes help reduce the volume of fugi-
tive emissions released. Depending on furnace design, as
well as space limitations and operating practices, fixed or
movable hoods are very effective in the control of fugitive
emissions. These hoods are usually most effective if placed
over charging and particularly tapping areas since these are
the major sources of fugitive emissions. A capture velocity
of 0.5-1.0 meters/second (100-200 ft/min) is usually adequate
for control of the fugitive emissions. If limited space or
operating procedures disallow the use of hoods, building
evacuation to a fabric filter will effectively control
fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions from distillation and condensation
operations can be controlled in the same manner as described
above. In addition, improved maintenance and/or construc-
tion materials will help prevent fugitive emissions which
can escape from the connection between the distillation unit
2-196
-------
Another analysis of particulate emissions from zinc
sweat processing resulted in the following results.4
Component
Sweat furnace particulate emission
Composition, percent by weight
ZnCl2
ZnO
NH4C1
A12°3
PbO
H~0 (in ZnCl0«4H00)
£ tL £
Oxides of Mg, Sn, Ni,
Si, Ca, Na
Carbonaceous material
Moisture (deliquescent)
14.5 - 15.3
46.9 - 50.0
1.1 - 1.4
1.0 - 2.7
0.3 - 0.6
0.2
7.7 - 8.1
2.0
10.0
5.2 - 10.2
In addition to the major components shown above, the
particulates would be expected to contain trace amounts of
4
copper, manganese, and chromium.
Another analysis of particulate data for sweating of
metallic scrap has shown 4 percent zinc chloride, 77 percent
zinc oxide, 4 percent water, 4 percent other metal chlorides
and oxides, and 10 percent carbonaceous materials. Sizes of
particulates range from less than 1 ym to greater than 20
ym, but typically they are less than 2 ym.
Particulate emissions from crushing/screening opera-
tions contain metallic zinc and other metals such as alu-
minum, copper, iron, lead, cadmium, chromium, and tin.
Emissions from melting furnaces consist mostly of smoke from
incomplete combustion of organic scrap, contaminants, and
zinc fumes. Retort emissions consist mostly of zinc oxide
fumes containing aluminum, copper, and other metals.
Particle size range is from 0.05 - 1.0 ym.
2-195
-------
Reverberatory melting furnaces 6,276 Mg (6,904 tons)
metal charged
Crucible melting furnaces 6,276 Mg (6,904 tons)
metal charged
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads, but the amount of roads is expected
to be minimal at secondary zinc facilities. Total model
plant uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions
are 21 Mg (23 tons) per year. Major sources of fugitive
emissions are crushing and screening, and sweat furnaces.
Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions - Information
concerning characteristics of fugitive emissions from
secondary zinc smelting was not found in the literature.
Therefore, the following information concerning stack
emission characteristics is presented since they may ap-
proximate those of fugitive emissions.
Particulate emissions from sweating operations commonly
contain zinc, aluminum, copper, iron, lead, cadmium, man-
ganese, and chromium, in addition to carbonaceous materials
and flux materials. The following are the results of
samples taken from a zinc sweat furnace which were analyzed
for particulate composition.
Constituents
NH4+
Cl~
Zn
Al
Cu
Fe
Pb
Cd
Mn
Cr
Sweat furnace particulate
Composition percent by
Sample 1
0.47
8.93
47.50
1.43
0.04
0.40
0.14
0.02
0.03
0.01
Sample
0.36
8.32
44.50
0.54
0.05
0.21
0.16
0.03
0.01
0.004
emission
weight
2
2-194
-------
IPFPE Emission Rates - Very little data concerning
process fugitive particulate emission factors for the
secondary zinc smelting industry has been found in the
literature. Therefore, emission rates as presented in Table
2-34 resulted for the most part from engineering judgements
utilizing point source emission factors for the various
operations identified. Most engineering judgments assumed
that fugitive emissions equal 5 percent of an operation's
stack emission. These values, therefore, received a re-
liability rating of "E" which indicates at best an order of
magnitude estimate. Consequently, actual emission rates at
a given facility could differ significantly from those in
Table 2-34.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for secondary zinc smelting, as shown in Table 2-27, pre-
sents potential fugitive particulate emission quantities
from the various uncontrolled sources within the process.
The inventory represents a plant which produces 10,950 Mg
(12,045 tons) of zinc per year. Because of the many varied
types of furnaces that can be utilized in secondary zinc
production, the model plant configuration assumed for the
inventory includes four kettle (pot) and rotary sweat
furnaces, and four crucible and reverberatory melting
furnaces. Also included is one crushing and screening
operation. The plant inventory is not meant to display a
typical plant, but merely a potential set of circumstances.
The assumed annual rate of scrap feed into the various
furnaces was as follows:
Kettle (pot) sweat furnaces 7,531 Mg (8,284 tons)
scrap zinc
Rotary sweat furnaces 7,531 Mg (8,284 tons)
scrap zinc
Crushing and screening 2,877 Mg (3,165 tons)
scrap zinc
2-193
-------
Table 2-34 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
14c. Upset in condenser
14d. Tapping
15. Alloying
16. Casting
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
2.5-5.0 kg/Mg zinc produced
(5.0-10.0 Ib/ton zinc produced)
0.01-0.02 kg/Mg zinc tapped '
(0.02-0.04 Ib/ton tapped)
u
0.005-0.01 kg/Mg zinc cast6 .
(0.01-0.02 Ib/ton zinc cast)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
-
Zinc cast
10,950
(12,045)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
w
r
u
0.08
(0.09)
10
ro
Reference ,'1.
Engineering judgment based on emission factors given in references 1 and 2 assuming fugitive emissions to be equal to 5
percent of stack emissions. Ranges, when they appear, were derived from factors for clean and residual scrap.
Emission included in total for Source 2.
Emission included in total for Source 3.
Engineering judgment based on stack emission factor given in Reference 1 assuming fugitive emisrions to be equal to 5 per-
cent of stack emissions.
Emissions included in total for Source 4.
Emissions --included in total for Source 5.
Emissions included in total for Source 6.
Emissions included in emissions for individual furnace operations.
Engineering judgment assuming fugitive emissions from crucible melting furnace to be equal to fugitive emissions from
kettle (pot) melting furnace (Source 9) .
Emissions included in total for Source 8.
Emissions included in total for Source 9.
Emissions included in total for Source 10.
Emissions included in total for Source 11.
Engineering judgment based on emission factor given in Reference 2, assuming fugitive emissions to be equal to 5 percent of
stack emissions.
Personal estimation by J. P. Barnhart.
Emissions included in total for Source 13.
^ Personal communication from J. P. Barnhart of W. J. Bullock, Inc. to Thomas Janszen.
This is not considered part of normal operating conditions.
r Emissions included in total for Source 14.
Engineering judgment assuming upset conditions for Source 13c to be equal to that for Source 14c.
Engineering judgment assuming tapping emissions for Source 13d equal to those for Source 14d.
Alloying often takes place with tnt sweating or melting operations (Reference 1), however, if performed separately, it is
an engineering judgment that fugitive emissions could range from negligible to as high as the emission factor given for
iron innoculation in Section 2.5 of this report.
TJ
Not included in emission inventory.
Upset conditions are not considered part of normal operating conditions and therefore are not included in the emission
inventory.
-------
Table 2-34 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION
N)
M
VO
Source of IPFPE
11. Electric induction melting
(total)
lla. Charging
lib. Tapping
12. Hot metal transfer to retort
or alloying
13. Distillation retort and
condenser (total)
13a. Charging distillation
retort
13b. Leakage between retort
condenser
13c. Upset in condenser
13d. Tapping
14. Muffle distillation furnace
and condenser
14a. Charging muffle dis-
tillation furnace
14b. Leakage between furnace
and condenser
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.0025 kg/Mg zinc produced6
(0.005 Ib/ton zinc produced)
n
n
i
1.18 kg/Mg zinc produced
(2.36 Ib/ton zinc produced)
P
Negligible
2.5-5.0 kg/Mg zinc produced1^
(5.0-10 Ib/ton zinc produced)
0.01-0.02 kg/Mg tappede'P
(0.02-0.04 Ib/ton tapped)
1.18 kg/Mg zinc produced
(2.36 Ib/ton zinc produced)
r
Negligible
Emission
factor
rel labi 1 1 ty
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
V
V
V
Zinc produced
5,475
(6,023)
-
-
P
Zinc produced
5,475
(6,023)
-
Uncon trol led
emiss ion s
Mg/yr
(tons/yr )
V
V
V
i
6
(7)
P
-
w
P
(6)
(7)
r
-
-------
NJ
I
(-•
VO
o
Table 2-34 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Source oT IPFPE
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Electric resistance sweat
furnace (total)
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
Hot metal transfer to melting
furnaces
Crucible melting furnace
(total)
8a. Charging
8b. Tapping
Kettle (pot) melting furnace
(total)
9a. Charging
9b. Tapping
Reverberatory melting furnace
(total)
lOa. Charging
lOb. Tapping
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.25 kg/Mg zinc scrap charged
(0.5 Ib/ton zinc scrap charged)
h
h
i
0.0025 kg/Mg zinc
(0.005 Ib/ton zinc
k
k
0.0025 kg/Mg zinc
(0.005 Ib/ton zinc
1
1
0.0025 Kq/Mg zinc
(0.005 Ib/ton zinc
m
m
produced
produced)
product
produced)
produced
produced)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
V
'V
V
Zinc produced
5,230
(5,753)
V
V
V
Zinc produced
5,230
(5,753)
Uncontro] led
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
V
V
V
i
0.01
(0.01)
k
k
V
V
V
0.01
(0.01)
m
m
-------
Table 2-34. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
1. Crushing/screening of residue
skimmings
2. Reverberatory sweat furnace
(total)
2a. Charging
2b. Tapping
3. Kettle (Pot) sweat furnace
(total)
3a. Charging
3b. Tapping
4. Rotary sweat furnace (total)
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
5. Muffle sweat furnace (total)
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.5-3.8 kg/Mg crushed and screened
(1.0-7.6 Ib/ton crushed and screened)
Neg.-0.63 kg/Mg product
(Neg.-1.3 Ib/ton product)
c
c
0.28 kg/Mg product
(0.56 Ib/ton product
d
d
0.28-0.63 kg/Mg product6
(0.56-1.26 Ib/ton product)
f
f
0.27-0.8 kg/Mg zinc scrap charged6
(0.54-1.6 Ib/ton zinc scrap charged)
g
g
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Residue skimmings
crushed
2,877
(3,165)
V
V
V
Metal produced
6,276
(6,904)
Residue skimmings
6,276
(6,904)
V
V
V
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr )
6
(7)
V
V
V
2
(2)
d
d
3
(3)
f
f
V
V
V
to
I
M
00
-------
to
I
I-1
00
CD
BAGHOUSE DUST
(ZINC OXIDE)
BAU fXmAPl
MATERIAL
CLEAN
SCRAP
/
(
^
>
x-x
(J^
>,
«.
fr
\
— V
\
1 «i
6al
\
REVERBERATORT
SWEAT
FURNACE
CTJITAT
FURNACE
ROTARY
SWEAT
FURNACE
MUFFLE
SWEAT
FURNACE
ELECTRIC
RESISTANCE
SWEAT
£
/r>
(3b)
X
.' ^
(4t>)
X
! »•
(^
ijlj;
/
(ah
V_x
.-<
•' ,
)
J
r
V
W
/
R^
^J
V
\,
V,
*1
^-\
|^U(j|
vi
\
CRUCIBLE
MELTING
FURNACE
KETTLE (POT)
MELTING
FURNACE
REVERBERATORS
MELTING
FURNACE
ELECTRIC
INDUCTION
MELTING
f
t&
• +
6n*
(W)
.*
/
(12
<•
{
\
)
$\
t
-*
L»
p
.TTN
^
1 1
d
DISTILLATION L
' RETORT
hufFLt L
DISTILLATION r
FURNACE 1
1 ^
.
1 /ffi
CASTING
LEGEND:
— *POT[
— -PRO
©
Y G
CONDENSOR
CONDENSOR
5-*
Figure 2-13. Process flow diagram for secondary zinc production
showing potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
directly to furnaces for further processing, (2) fed di-
rectly to a distillation furnace, or (3) it may be sampled
and analyzed, and then alloyed by adding metals to obtain
the specified composition, and then cast as ingots.
In some cases, the scrap received can be fed directly
to melting furnaces or distillation furnaces, thereby
bypassing pretreatment and/or melting furnaces. In the
melting operation, melt from sweat furnaces and/or scrap
zinc is melted and usually fluxed to remove impurities.
Crucible, kettle (pot), reverberatory, or electric induction
furnaces are used in this operation. After the melting
operation, the melt may be fed directly to distillation or
cast into ingots.
Distillation may be done in either of two systems: a
retort furnace or a muffle furnace. Material fed into
either furnace may consist of zinc scrap, or molten or cast
metal obtained from the sweating and/or melting furnaces.
In retort distillation, the charge is fed into retort
on a batch scale. Once the metal is molten, it begins
vaporizing. The vapor passes from the retort through a
refractory pipe to a condenser where it is condensed into
molten zinc. At the end of the distillation process the
condenser is tapped and the zinc poured into ingots.
In the muffle furnace system the bed is charged into
the melting unit. As the zinc melts, the molten metal flows
into the vaporizing unit. From the vaporizing unit, the
vaporized zinc is channeled to the condenser where it is
condensed to liquid metal. Periodically, the molten zinc is
tapped from the condenser and cast into ingots.
A process flow diagram for secondary zinc production is
shown in Figure 2-13. Each potential process fugitive
emission is identified and explained in Table 2-34.
2-187
-------
2.4.3 Secondary Zinc Production
Process Description - Raw materials used in secondary
zinc processing are zinc scrap materials, fluxes, and fuels
for furnaces. Zinc scrap materials include such items as:
plated and unplated zinc castings, zinc fabrication scrap,
contaminated zinc die-cast scrap, skimmings, and dross.
There are three distinct processes used in the secondary
zinc industry: pretreatment, melting, and distillation.
The pretreatment processes in use are based on mech-
anical, pyrometallurgical, and hydrometallurgical methods.
Mechanical pretreatment involves physical reduction of the
scrap and some means of separating the zinc from contam-
inating components. The primary hydrometallurgical pre-
treatment method is sodium carbonate leaching which is used
to process skimmings and residues. Neither of these two
pretreatment methods are considered sources of fugitive
emissions. Sweating is the term applied to the pyrometal-
lurgical pretreatment method used to separate zinc from
higher melting metals and inorganic impurities. Rever-
beratory, kettle (pot), rotary, muffle, and electric fur-
naces are utilized to sweat zinc-bearing scrap.
Sweat processing is accomplished by charging the scrap
into the furnace. The charge may be worked, by agitation or
stirring during melting; and chloride flux may be present
either as residual flux, in charged residual scrap, or as
flux added to the charge. Working and fluxing of the charge
are done to help effect the desired metal separation. A
molten-metal bath is formed from the metallic zinc (with
dissolved alloy metals). Non-metallic residues, along with
some platings, form on the molten-metal bath surface and are
skimmed off. Unmeltable attachments settle to the bottom
and are removed. The molten zinc metal may then be (1) fed
2-186
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4.2
1. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
2. Personal Communication from Gary McCutchen, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
to Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
February 1976.
3. Transmittal from the American Iron and Steel Institute
to Mr. Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Data contained
in table entitled Source Data for Steel Facility
Factors. July 13, 1976.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February,
1976.
5. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Nonferrous Metal Industry, Volume II: Industry Pro-
file. Radian Corporation. Contract No. 68-02-1319,
Task No. 49. Austin, Texas. June 21, 1976.
6. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, Draft Final
Report - PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Con-
tract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 32. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1976.
7. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1343, Task Order No. 8.
Region X, Seattle, Washington. February 1975.
2-185
-------
Table 2-33 (continued).. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
SECONDARY LEAD SMELT.ING IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Secondary Lead Smelting
9. Blast or cupola furnace
9a. Charging
9b. Lead tapping to holding pot
9c. Slag tapping
10. Tapping of holding pot
11. Pot (kettle) furnace
lla. Charging
lib. Tapping
12. Casting
c
o
l/>
g
OJ
"2
CD
i
i
<
s.
c
•r-
S
o-
' '
!
a
3
a
a.
•a
c
rtj
L.
Oi
1
«
Q.
O»
C
4->
T)
OJ
O
o
o
c
u
i_
0)
4i
CO
0
0
0
0
j
E
£
£
a.
c
o
3
u
b
c
o
u
J_
o
•o
c
fQ
U
c
c
0)
c
'I
•o
>
2
f
1
t/>
O
-
Capture
methods
i
+
+
+
+
+
+
o
S
u
>
Oi
X
1
•o
A
o
+
•*•
+
+
+
+
+
ftemoval
equipment
s_
O1
<*_
L.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
1
j_
^
J3
3
U
U
l/l
Ul
x Topical control technique.
o In use {but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
2-184
-------
CX)
OJ
0 X
3* *<
C —
n> a-
c o
«-» 3
trol technique.
not typical) control technique.
00
tr ot ID
• • s
H n n
'O Ot (D
TJ n N
atory furnace
ging
ing
0
+ +
+ +
+ -»-
+ +
-o
tr 01 e
• * fl>
fu
HO ft
•D to 3
•an ua
furnace
ging
ing
0
+ +
+ +
+ +
+- +
CT>
ro
Qi
a
D
€L
iron scrap burning
+
0
+
o
tn
CT Qi H
• • O
D
DC (/)
so n
H-tfJ *D
a ro
03
fit
3
Q*
rt
^1
0>
3
(fl
«i
fD
n
^
**.
cr ot re
. . p>
a
a: 01
3 o n
H-vQ 13
3 (I)
iQ
0>
g.
rt
1-1
D»
D
n
Ht
fD
M
V V.
.W
?"* 3
(D
DC w in
3 O O
e
age
ling and transfer
w
w
M
tr » o
fD
a v*
3 O
D. n
age
ling and transfer
•^ v.
V 'V.
t-1
w t^ Ir1 O 61
n (D H- O H-
o o» 3 ?r t-
3 a to rt) n
w (fl rl- 0>
n o o a<
car and truck unloading
ne
rap
rap
v. -w -v.
ex
c
3
U3
Negligible emissions
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2.1
Wet suppression water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Fi xed hoods , curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
Q.
T3
n
T
3
UD
fD
ns
=r (-*•
0 c
0- ~l
fD
-Q 73
E <
ro cu
3 — •
c-t
C
-H
m
3
t/1
(-0
O
z
o
3>
-D
d
73
m
:>
z
o
C")
0
z
I
3
0
0
i/i
en
M H
O &)
o cr
2 M
o n>
f
bd
I
co
n
w o
S 25
H
2
tn
Cfi
O
G
w
O
a
2
H
O
G
n o
w »
en
-------
As is with emissions from a reverberatory furnace, 23
percent by weight is lead.5
Control Technology - Control technology options for
secondary lead smelting IPFPE sources (except negligible
sources or those covered in Section 2.1) are presented in
Table 2-33 and are explained in more detail below.
Lead and iron scrap burning is essentially an incin-
eration process and thus fugitive emission control is the
same as for an incinerator. Better control of operating
procedures such as feed rates or keeping charge doors closed
as much as possible will help alleviate fugitive emission
generation. If it is feasible to be selective in choosing
only the cleaner scrap, the amount or period of burning time
can be reduced and thus result in fewer fugitive emissions.
If old and worn parts are allowing the escape of fugitive
emissions, the replacement of these parts may help reduce
fugitive emissions. The increase of exhaust rate of the
primary collection system will also aid in the control of
fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions from various furnace operations,
holding pots, and casting operations may all be controlled
in a similar manner. Fixed or movable hoods, or enclosed
building with evacuation to fabric filter, will normally
control fugitive emissions. Whether a fixed or movable hood
is chosen will depend on space limitation as well as other
operating procedures which may dictate the use of one type
of hood or another. Building evacuation will often be
useful when operations cannot accommodate hooding.
During tapping operations, the adherence to specific
tapping rates will also help reduce fugitive emissions.
2-182
-------
(88,000 tons) of lead per year. The plant inventory is not
meant to display a typical plant, but merely a potential set
of circumstances. To calculate the inventory, the assumed
combined annual feed rate of major raw materials for all
operations as shown in Figure 2-12 was as follows:
2,570 Mg (2827 tons) scrap iron
1,713 Mg (1884 tons) limestone
3,141 Mg (3,455 tons) coke
151,437 Mg (166,580 tons) scrap lead
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. These sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are
1,295 Mg (1,425 tons) per year. Major sources of fugitive
emissions are the reverberatory furnace, blast or cupola
furnace, sweating furnace, and scrap burning.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Data con-
cerning the characterization of fugitive particulate emis-
sions from secondary lead smelting are unavailable. Thus,
the following information on stack emissions is presented as
an approximation of characteristics of the fugitive emis-
sions.
Emissions from sweating furnaces range in size from
0.07 to 0.4 ym and have a mean particulate diameter of 0.3
Vim.4 Emissions from a reverberatory furnace have approxi-
mately the same size characteristics and have a lead content
of about 23 percent by weight.
The particle size distribution of emissions from a
4
blast or cupola furnace are as follows:
Size (ym)
0-1
1-2
2-3
3-4
4-16
Approximate percent
by weight
15
45
20
15
10
2-181
-------
Table 2-32 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
to
oo
o
Source of IPFPE
11. Pot (kettle) furnace (total)
lla Charging
lib Tapping
12. Casting
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.02 kg/Mg charged9
*
(0.04 Ib/ton charged)
1
1
0.44 kg/Mg lead cast™
(0.87 Ib/ton lead cast)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
C
C
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
• Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Total charge
12,000
(13,200)
Lead cast
80,000
(88,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
0.24
f
(0.26)
1
1
35
(38)
Estimate based on data presented in Section 2.1.2; emission range derived using emission factors for unloading taconite
pellets and coal/hopper car; emission factor for coke derived only from coal unloading emission factor.
For complete development of this emission factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. The emission factor for source 3a is the same
for source 2a. For source 3a it was assumed that S = 1.5, D = 90, PE = 100, and K, , K-, and K, = 1. Values for source
Reference 1.
2,
j
2a can be found in Section 2.1.4.
Reference 2.
Reference 3.
Engineering judgment, assumed 50 percent of coal handling'emission reported for coal in Reference 4.
Engineering judgment based on emission factor for zinc residual scrap (Reference 1) with 5 percent resulting in fugitive
emissions. * *
Engineering judgment based on lead sweating emission factor given in Reference 5 with 6 percent resulting in fugitive
emissions.
Fugitive emissions for charging and tapping included in emission for total sweating furnace operation (Source 7).
Fugitive emissions for charging and tapping included in emission for total reverberatory furnace operation (Source 8).
Engineering judgment based on emission factor given in Reference 6 with 5 percent resulting in fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions for charging, lead tapping to holding pot, slag tapping, and tapping of holding pot included in emission
factor for total blast furnace operation (Source 9).
Fugitive emissions for charging and tapping included in emissions for total pot furnace operations (Source 11).
Reference 7; fugitive emissions for primary lead casting assumed equal to fugitive emissions for secondary lead casting.
-------
Table 2-32 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
vo
Source o£ IPFPE
7a Charging
7b Tapping
8. Reverberatory turnace (total)
8a Charging
8b Tapping
9. Blast or cupola furnace (total)
9a Charging
9b Lead tapping to holding pot
9c Slag tapping
10. Tapping of holding pot
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
h
h
1.4-7.85 kg/Mg charged9
(2.8-15.7 Ib/ton charged)
i
i
6 kg/Mg charged3
(12 Ib/ton charged)
k
k
k
k
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Total charge
135,000
(148,610)
Total charge
57,100
(62,810)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
h
h
625
(688)
i
i
343
(377)
k
k
k
k
-------
Table 2-32 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
00
Source of IPFPE
Wind erosion
2b Handling and transfer
3. Limestone
3a Stored
3b Handling and transfer
4. Lead scrap
4a Storage
4b Handling and transfer
5 . Iron scrap
5a Storage
5b Handling and transfer
6 . Lead and iron scrap burning
7. Sweating furnace (total)
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
(0.055) (S/l. 5) D kg/Mg material
(PE/lOO)* JG storedb
.• >.
MO. 11) (S/l. 5) D Ib/ton material)
V^ (PE/100)^ 90 stored /
f* f\
0.055-0.07 kg/Mg handled '
(0.11-0.13 Ib/ton handled)
b
0.1 kg/Mg limestone handled*5
(0.2 Ib/ton limestone handled)
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
c
0.5-1.0 kg/Mg scrap burned
(1.0-2.0 Ib/ton scrap burned)
0.8-1.75 kg/Mg charged?!
(1.6-3.5 Ib/ton charged)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Coke stored
3,141
(3,455)
Coke handled
3,141
(3,455)
Lime stored
1,713
(1,884)
Limestone handled
1,713
(1,884)
-
-
-
-
Total scrap burned
151,437
(166,580)
Material charged
137,670
(151,437)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
negligible
0.20
(0.22)
negligible
negligible
-
-
-
-
114
(125)
176
(194)
-------
Table 2-32. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
to
I
Source of IPFPE
1. Railroad car and truck
Coke
Limestone
Lead scrap
Iron scrap
2. Coke
2a Storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
Negligible
Negligible
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5) kq/Ma material
(PE/100J2 loaded onto pile
Ao. 04) (KT) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material^
V (PE/100)Z onto pile )
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5) kq/Ma material
(PE/100M stored"
((0.13) (K2) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material^
\ (PE/100)2 stored /
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5) kcr/Mcr material
(PE/100)2 loaded out"
((0.05) (K3) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material^
V (PE/lOO)'! loaded out /
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Coke unloaded
3,141
(3,455)
Limestone unloaded
1,713
(1,884)
Coke loaded
3,141
(3,455)
Coke stored
3,141
(3,455)
Coke loaded out
3,141
(3,455)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
0.63
(0.69)
0.18
(0.20)
negligible
negligible
negligible
-------
TRUCK
LEAD INGOTS,
ALLOYING
ELEMENTS
POT (KETTLE)
FURNACE
•MOLTED
LEAD
BLAST OR
CUPOLA
FURNACE
iybj
••* fc
HOLDING '
POT j
SWEATING
FURNACE
(ROTARY OR
rERBERATORY;>
TO SHIPPING
LEGEND:
—-POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—"-PROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-12. Process flow diagram for secondary lead smelting showing potential
industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
Pot-type furnaces are used for remelting, alloying, and
refining processes. These furnaces are usually gas-fired.
Their operation consists simply of charging ingots of lead
or alloy material and firing the charge until the desired
product quality is obtained.
A process flow diagram for secondary lead smelting is
shown in Figure 2-12. Each potential process fugitive
emission is identified and explained in Table 2-32. A dust
source common to all secondary lead smelters, but not
specifically included in the figure or table is plant haul
roads. Proper evaluation of this category is explained in
Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-32 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the secondary lead smelt-
ing IPFPE sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled
emission rates, the site-specific level of control must be
considered for application to a specific plant. Also
included are reliability factors for each estimate.
The emission factors for various smelting operations
(other than storage piles and casting) are based on the
AP-421 "stack" emission factors for each entire operation,
where 5 percent was assumed to escape as fugitive particu-
late emissions. Therefore, these values received a reli-
ability rating of "E", which indicates at best an order of
magnitude estimate. Actual IPFPE factors are not available
for the secondary lead industry. Consequently, actual
emission rates at a given facility could differ signifi-
cantly from those in Table 2-32.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for secondary lead smelting as shown in Table 2-32 presents
potential fugitive particulate emission quantities from the
various uncontrolled sources within the process. The in-
ventory represents a facility which produces 80,000 Mg
2-175
-------
2.4.2 Secondary Lead Smelting
Process Description - Two-thirds of the output of the
secondary lead industry is processed in blast furnaces or
cupolas. Some smelting is also done in reverberatory
furnaces and pot furnaces.
The reverberatory furnace reclaims lead from a charge
of lead scrap, battery plates, oxides, drosses, and lead
residues. The furnace consists of an outer shell built in
the shape of a rectangular box lined with refractory brick.
To provide heat for melting, the charge gas or oil-fired
burners are usually placed at one end of the furnace, and
the material to be melted is charged through an opening in
the shell. The charge is placed in the furnace in such a
manner as to keep a small mound of unmelted material on top
of the bath. Continuously, as this mound becomes molten at
the operating temperature (approximately 1250°C (2280°F)),
more material is charged. Lead is tapped off periodically
as the level of the metal rises in the furnace.
The blast furnace is normally charged with the fol-
lowing: rerun slag from previous runs, cast-iron scrap,
limestone, coke, and drosses from pot furnace refining,
oxides and reverberatory slag. Similar to an iron cupola,
the furnace basically consists of a steel cylinder lined
with refractory material. Air, under high pressure, is
introduced at the bottom through tuyeres to permit com-
bustion of the coke, which provides the heat and a reducing
atmosphere. As the charge material melts, limestone and
iron form an oxidation-retardant flux that floats to the
top, and the molten lead flows from the furnace into a
holding pot at a nearly continuous rate. The rest of the
tapped molten material is slag. From the holding pot, the
lead is usually cast into large ingots called "button" or
"sows."
2-174
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.4.1
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition.
Davidson, J.A. (ed.). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, N.C. AP-40. May
X _/ / O »
2. Particle Pollutant System Study. Vol. III. Handbook
of Emissions Properties. Midwest Research Institute.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. Durham, North Carolina
May 1971.
3. Gerstein, S.M., and M.E. Franza. Control Technology
for Secondary Aluminum Smelters. Teller Environmental
Systems, Inc. Presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, Boston. June
-L •/ / O •
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, N.C. AP-42. April 1973.
5. Multimedia Environmental Assessment of the Secondary
Non-ferrous Metal Industry, Vol. II. Final Draft.
Radian Corporation. Austin. June 1976.
2-173
-------
the building with subsequent evacuation and venting it to a
control device; this would also control emissions from other
operations within the building.
For control of emissions from fluxing, the emissions
can be captured by installing a hood above the fluxing
1 2
operation and venting it to a baghouse or a scrubber. '
Hot dross handling and cooling emissions can also be
captured by hooding and venting it to a fabric filter. If
the slag is cooled indoors, building evacuation can also
control the emissions.
2-172
-------
Table 2-31. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
SECONDARY ALUMINUM SMELTERS IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Secondary Aluminum Processing
1. Sweating furnace
2. Crushing and screening scrap metal
3. Chip (rotary) dryer
4. Smelting (reverberatory) furnace
5. Smelting (crucible) furnace
6. Smelting (induction) furnace
7. Fluxing (chlorination)
8. Hot dross handling and cooling
9. Pouring hot metal into molds or crucible
o
OJ
.a
r—
S
id
p
+J
O
IB
u
5.
tf
H!
a.
Q.
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
cJ
o
(J
c
-o
._
o
g
a;
o
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
*~*
§
t_
TJ
1
O
i/i
OJ
£
*
O
u
c
0)
^>
c
I
**>
5
>!
'S
o-
iq
H
+
+
£
"S
u
s
a.
4_>
S
e
£
?
O
3
U
c
1-
o
c
C
O
4J
I-
(Q
QJ
X
LL.
X
+
X
X
X
+
+
t!
•o
•°
0>
^
g
•=
>
4-
+
C
o
•o
X
.=
TS
F—
3
O
3
*
*
0
+
Removal
equipment
01
*•*
tt~
i_
U_
X
X
X
X
X
+
I.
J-
&
X
e
fc.
4)
*
>;
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
* Technically feasible control technique.
2-171
-------
One study found that the major constituent in the fume
from salt-cryolite fluxing in a furnace was sodium chloride
with considerable smaller quantities of compounds of alum-
inum and magnesium. The particles were all under 2 ym.
The fumes were somewhat corrosive when dry, and when wet,
formed a highly corrosive sludge that tended to set up and
harden if allowed to stand for any appreciable time.
Another study made of the fumes from degassing of
aluminum revealed that 100 percent of the fumes were smaller
than 2 ym and 90 to 95 percent smaller than 1 ym. Mean
particle size appeared under a microscope to be about 0.7
ym.
Particle size data from an aluminum sweating furnace
with a capacity of 345 kg/hr (760 Ib/hr) indicate that 95
percent of the particles are less than 39 ym.
Control Technology - Control technology options for the
secondary aluminum production IPFPE sources (except those
covered in Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-31 and
explained in further detail below.
Raw materials in the form of sheet castings, clippings,
and borings are normally received and stored inside the
building, therefore the fugitive dust, if any, is confined.
In the dry milling process, dust generated at the
crusher, shaker screens and at points of transfer can be
controlled by hooding these operations.
Emissions from the rotary dryer are usually vented to a
scrubber system. Fugitive dusts could result from process
leaks, and may be controlled by improved maintenance and/or
increasing the exhaust rate.
Emissions from sweating and smelting furnaces may be
controlled by installing a canopy hood and ducting it to a
fabric filter. Another system that may be used is enclosing
2-170
-------
In drawing the plant inventory, the following assump-
tions were made:
0 2,727 Mg (3,000 tons) of scrap aluminum containing high
temperature elements (such as iron) are processed in the
sweating furnace.
0 1,126 Mg (1,250 tons) of scrap such as sheet, cashings,
borings and turnings are received, and processed in a
rotary dryer.
0 4,546 Mg (5,000 tons) of metal are processed and re-
fined in the reverberatory furnace.
0 455 Mg (500 tons) of chlorine are used for fluxing.
Not included in the inventory are plant haul roads
since this source should be negligible. Total model plant
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are 20
Mg (22 tons) per year.
Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions - Particulates
from secondary aluminum production are less than 2 ym in
size. The particulates may be toxic because of the flu-
orides and chlorides that are emitted. Table 2-30 shows the
effluent characteristics from secondary aluminum production.
Table 2-30.
SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS FROM
2
Source
Fluxing
Chlorinating
Maximum
particle
size, ym
2.0
1.0
Chemical
composition
Highly variable,
may contain Al^O-,
A1C13, NaCl fluor-
ides, oxides of
alkali metals
Toxicity
Toxic due to
fluorides and
chlorides
2-169
-------
Table 2-29 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
oo
Source of IPFPE
7. Fluxing (chlorination)
8. Hot dross handling and
cooling
9. Pouring hot metal into molds
or crucible
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
25 kg/Mg chlorine used3
(50 Ib/ton chlorine used)
0.11 kg/Mg metal processed-'
(0.22 Ib/ton metal processed)
Negligible1*
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Chlorine used1
455
(500)
Metal processed
4,546
(5,000)
_
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
12
(13)
1
(1)
Negligible
Engineering judgement, assume 5% of uncontrolled stack emissions as reported in Reference 4, p. 7.8-1.
Emissions included with total sweating furnace emission factor.
Based on engineering judgement.
Assume uncontrolled fugitive emissions are equal to the emissions from the sweating furnace.
Emissions included with total reverberatory furnace emission factor.
Emissions included with total crucible furnace emission factor.
Assume uncontrolled fugitive emissions are equal to the emissions from the crucible furnace.
Emissions included with total induction furnace emission factor.
Assume that the amount of fluxing agent used is 10% of the weight of the metal processed in the reverberatory furnace
(Reference 1, p. 286).
Assume that the emissions are equal to the emissions from the reverberatory furnace.
Emissions are negligible as reported in Reference 1, p. 285.
-------
Table 2-29. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR SECONDARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
1. Sweating furnace
la. Charging
Ib. Tapping
2. Crushing and screening
scrap metal
3. Chip (rotary) dryer
4. Smelting (reverberatory)
furnace
4a. Charging
4b. Tapping
5. Smelting (crucible) furnace
5a. Charging
5b. Tapping
6. Smelting (induction) furnace
6a. Charging
6b. Tapping
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.36 kg/Mg metal processed3
(0.72 Ib/ton metal processed)
b
b
Negligible0
0.36 kg/Mg metal driedd
(0.72 Ib/ton metal dried)
0.11 kg/Mg metal processed
(0.22 Ib/ton metal processed)
e
e
0.05 kg/Mg metal processed3
(0.09 Ib/ton metal processed)
f
f
0.05 kg/Mg metal processed"
(0.09 Ib/ton metal processed)
h
h
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
B
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Scrap processed
2,727
(3,000)
Metal dried
1,136
(1,250)
Metal processed
4,546
(5,000)
_
_
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
1
(1)
Negligible
5
(6)
1
(1)
_
_
-------
\
ALUMINUM)
® $
^*% SWEATING X
FURNACE *~
SCRAP ALUMINUM
PIGS
ALLOYING COMPOUNDS
© ©
r S™ , CHIP (ROTARY)
SCRAP METAL DRYER
HOT DROSS
HANDLING &
COOLIKG
^i ®?"®_ _
^*, Abplwilftb
^ (REVERBERATOR? OR / _
», CRUCIBLE OR *"
LEGEND:
•—••POTENTIAL IPF
— "-PROCESS FLOW
© ©
) t t
POURING INTO
UXING *• MOLDS OR
CRUCIBLE
PE SOURCE
—> SHIPPING
Figure 2-11. Process flow diagram for secondary aluminum production showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
allowed to cool. After it is cooled, it is either discarded
as waste or remelted in the sweating furnace.
The final step prior to pouring is degassing. The
metal is degassed by bubbling dry nitrogen, chlorine or a
mixture of the two gases through the molten metal bath.
Chlorine forms hydrogen chloride while nitrogen mechanically
sweeps the gas out of the molten metal.
After degassing, the metal is poured either into ingot
molds or sometimes into preheated crucibles for direct
delivery to the customer.
A process flow diagram for secondary aluminum process-
ing is shown in Figure 2-11. Each potential process fugi-
tive emission point is identified and explained in Table
2-29.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-29 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for secondary aluminum smelt-
ing. Since these are potential uncontrolled emission rates,
the site-specific level of control must be considered for
application to a specific plant. Also included are reli-
ability factors for each estimate. Note that the emission
factors with an "E" rating are at best order of magnitude
estimates; consequently, actual emission rates at a given
facility could differ significantly from those in Table
2-29.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for secondary aluminum, as shown in Table 2-29 presents
potential fugitive particulate emission quantities from the
various uncontrolled sources within the process. The in-
ventory represents a plant which processes 4,546 Mg (5,000
tons) of metal per year. The plant inventory is not meant
to display a typical plant, but merely a potential set of
circumstances.
2-165
-------
2.4 SECONDARY NON-FERROUS INDUSTRIES
2.4.1 Secondary Aluminum Smelters
Process Description - The raw materials for secondary
aluminum smelting may be (1) aluminum pigs (to meet standard
alloy specifications), (2) foundry returns (gates, risers,
rejected castings, etc.), and (3) scrap (painted sidings,
turnings, cans, etc.). If the scrap contains large amounts
of paint, oil, grease and other contaminants, it may be
dried in a chip dryer prior to loading into the reverbera-
tory furnace. Scrap, rich in iron content is processed in a
sweating furnace prior to charging into a reverberatory
* 2,3
furnace.
In the United States, the reverberatory furnace is used
for 80 to 90 percent of all secondary aluminum smelting.
All types of scrap aluminum are charged into the furnace,
which operates at a temperature of 677°C to 760°C (1250°F to
1400°F). Fluxing, alloying, degassing and demagging all
take place in the furnace; however, fluxing, degassing and
demagging can also be done in a separate chamber. Because
molten aluminum oxidizes rapidly when exposed to air, it
must always be covered with a molten flux to retard oxida-
tion.
Demagging (removal of magnesium) is accomplished by
introducing elemental chlorine gas into the molten aluminum.
The chlorine reacts and is driven off in the form of mag-
nesium chloride.
While the charge is melting, alloying may be done.
Specified amounts of other metals are added to the melt to
obtain the desired percentage of each metal. If solvent
fluxes are added to the melt, impurities in the form of
oxides float to the top of the melt and are skimmed off and
2-164
-------
7. Scheuneman, J.J., M.D. High, and W.E. Bye. Air Pollu-
tion Aspects of the Iron and Steel Industry. U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Division
of Air Pollution. June 1963.
8. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Inves-
tigation, Interim Report. PEDCo-Environmental Special-
ists, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region X. Contract No. 68-02-1343. Seattle,
Washington. February 1975.
9. Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide and Arsenic Control
Techniques for ASARCO - Tacoma Copper Smelter. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratories. Contract No. 68-02-1321,
Task Order No. 35. Cincinnati, Ohio. July 1976.
Draft.
10. Personal communication with Mr. J.P. Barnhart of W.J.
Bullock, Inc. while on a plant visit to the W.J.
Bullock secondary zinc facilities, Birmingham, Alabama.
September 29, 1976.
11. Personal communication from R.J. Kearney (Kennecott
Copper Smelters) to R.D. Rovany, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. November 22, 1974.
12. Personal communication from Mr. James C. Caraway of
Texas Air Control Board to R. Amick during a meeting
with the Texas Air Control Board. Austin, Texas.
October 6, 1976.
13. Jones, H.R. Pollution Control in the Nonferrous Metals
Industry. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New
Jersey. 1972.
14. Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary
Copper, Lead, and Zinc Industries Vol. I (Draft).
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory. Contract No.
68-02-1321. Cincinnati, Ohio.
2-163
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.4
1. Personal communication from Mr. S. Norman Kesten,
Assistant to the Vice-President, Environmental Affairs,
ASARCO to Mr Donald R. Goodwin, Director, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. January 17, 1977.
2. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
3. Vandegrift, A.E., and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emis-
sions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary
Particulate Pollutant Sources. Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
4. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February,
1976.
5. Transmittal from the American Iron and Steel Institute
to Mr. Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Data contained
in table entitled Source Data for Steel Facility
Factors. July 13, 1976.
6. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors,
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
2-162
-------
tions are a problem in the retort furnace building, the
building can be evacuated to a fabric filter. Fixed or
movable hoods can also be utilized to control fugitive
emissions generated during zinc casting. Often times over-
head space may be required for casting. In order to make
the hoods effective, curtains can be placed around the
casting area to help direct emissions to the hood.10
The cast of the ductwork and baghouse to control fugi-
tive emissions from ten secondary zinc retort furnaces was
approximately $250,000 about 3-4 years ago.10
2-161
-------
placed over the discharge area with subsequent venting to a
fabric filter.
Fugitive emissions from sinter machine discharge and
screens and the coke-sinter mixer can be controlled by
various methods. Often times if proper operating procedures
are following, such as not overloading the systems, fugitive
emissions can be kept to a minimum. If worn seals and parts
are allowing emissions to escape, replacement with the
proper parts will help alleviate fugitive emissions. If the
nature of the operation is such that fugitive emissions
cannot be controlled in this manner, enclosure, or fixed
hoods or closed building with evacuation to a fabric filter
will effectively control the emissions. Fixed hoods are
likely to be more economical than building evacuation.
Various means exist for controlling fugitive emissions
from the retort furnace building and its associated opera-
tions. As was observed at a secondary zinc retort opera-
tion, one of the major sources of emissions from a retort
furnace can occur under upset conditions when the pressure
relief hole on the condenser plugs, resulting in pressure
build-up and eventual combustion of the zinc. If proper
operating procedures are followed to prevent plugging of the
pressure relief hole, upsets can be prevented. Otherwise
movable hoods can be placed over the pressure relief hole
during upsets and the emissions vented to a fabric filter.
Retort furnaces can also be fitted with fixed or movable
hoods to capture fugitive emissions from tapping and espe-
cially residue discharge and cooling. If the crucible into
which the residue is discharged is allowed to remain under a
hood until a crust forms on the surface and fuming ceases,
the fugitive emissions generated during the period can be
captured and vented to a fabric filter. If space limita-
2-160
-------
Table 2-28. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR PRIMARY ZINC
PRODUCTION IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Primary Zinc Production
1. Railroad car or truck unloading
la. Zinc ore concentrate
Ib. Sand
Ic. Coke
2. Zinc ore concentrate
2a. Storage
2b. Handling and transfer
3. Sand
3a. Storage
3b. Handling and transfer
4. Coke
4a. Storage
4b. Handling and transfer
5. Sinter machine windbox discharge
6. Sinter machine discharge and screens
7. Coke-sinter mixer
8. Retort furnace building
8a. Retort furnace tapping
8b. Retort furnace residue discharge and
cooling
8c. Retort furnace upset
9. Zinc casting
c
o
t/l
'I
Of
01
.a
"CTI
aj
-x
ly uncontrolled |
u
o.
1)
i_
3
o
w>
UJ
a.
u_
Q.
^
^
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
CM
c
o
(J
c
1
hnologies
o
c
o
/
^
/
;
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
er and/or chemical )
R3
X
c
o
£
Q.
CL
+
£
(J
C
01
Conf inemenl
+
X
X
3
V
O
o
1,
c
0
at
O)
rs
•o
ai
u
2
a.
fO
Wl
t.
O)
•M
i
ra
fO
a.
c
L-
0)
o
o
"o
t.
c
o
u,
at
CD
X
X
X
and/or construction program
d maintenance
o
1
X
X
£
-M
C
O
U
U
I
Q.
4-
O
at
.c
X
0)
Increas
stance (chute or other device)
at
£
Minimiz
+
Capture
methods
u
C/1
S-
-------
Zinc - 5-25
Lead - 30-35
Cadmium - 2-15
Sulfur - 8-13
Flue gas from retort buildings range from the micron to
submicron size and normally are 50-70 percent zinc and 0-3
13
percent lead by weight.
The following is a listing of some components of flue
dusts from multiple-hearth, suspension, and fluid bed
14
roasters.
Component
Zinc
Lead
Sulfur
Cadmium
Iron
Copper
Manganese
Tin
Mercury
Percent (by weight)
54.0
1.4
7.0
0.41
7.0
0.4
0.21
0.01
0.03
Control Technology - Control technology options f
primary zinc production IPFPE sources (except those covered
in Section 2.1) are present in Table 2-28 and are explained
in further detail below.
Fugitive emissions from the sinter machine windbox
discharge can be effectively controlled in several ways. A
practical method is to minimize the free-fall distance from
the bottom discharge chute of the windbox to the receiving
conveyor belt or receptacle. Wet suppression by means of
water spray will also control fugitive emissions. This can
be accomplished by applying the water spray to materials as
they are discharged from the windbox. Enclosure of the
discharge chute as well as the receiving device is a more
elaborate means of control of fugitive emissions. If fugi-
tive emissions are a severe problem, a fixed hood can be
2-158
-------
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for primary zinc production as shown in Table 2-27 presents
potential fugitive particulate emission quantities from the
various uncontrolled sources within the process. The inven-
tory represents a plant which produces 68,100 Mg (75,000
tons) of zinc per year. The inventory is not meant to
display a typical plant, but merely a potential set of
circumstances.
The assumed feed rate of raw material to produce 1 Mg
of zinc was as follows:
0 2.85 Mg (3.14 tons) of zinc ore concentrate
0 0.02 Mg (0.02 tons) of sand
0 0.08 Mg (0.09 tons) of coke
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. These sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model plant
uncontrolled process particulate emissions are 647 Mg (712
tons) per year. Major sources of fugitive emissions are
zinc ore handling and transfer, zinc casting, retort build-
ing, and sinter machine discharge and screens. Fugitive
emissions from retort furnace upsets were not included in
the inventory since they are not considered part of normal
operations.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Data concern-
ing the characterization of fugitive emissions from primary
zinc production are unavailable. The data which follow are
the characterizations of flue gases from primary zinc pro-
duction and are presented since they may closely parallel
characteristics of the fugitive emissions. Flue gas emis-
sions from sinter machines are less than 10 ym in size and
generally have the following percentages (by weight) of
13
zinc, lead, cadmium, and sulfur.
2-157
-------
Table 2-27 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
**
of .aconite
source 4 can be found in Section 2.1.4. Reference 2.
fUgitlV6 emission factors 9*ven for lead ore concentrate (Reference 3) to be similar to
Reference 4.
Engineering judgment based on 50% of emission factor given for coal in Reference 4.
Reference 5.
. P«-«ctlon (Reference 6,
Reference 7 .
Emissions from coke-sinter mixer included in emission factor for sinter machine discharge and screens (emission source 6) .
Engineering judgment using emission factor from retort building in primary lead smelting (Reference 8) .
Emissions from retort furnace tapping included in emission factor for retort building total (emission source 8).
°" "^ ""^ disch-^^ and ««"»* at a secondary zinc smelter which is
in Referen" '. Not considered part of
aSSUI"ing fu^itive emissions from zinc casting equal to fugitive emission for copper casting given
-------
Table 2-27 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION
K>
I
I-1
tn
en
Source of IPFPE
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Sinter machine windbox
discharge
Sinter machine discharge
and screens
Coke-sinter mixer
Retort furnace building
8a. Retort furnace tapping
8b. Retort furnace residue
discharge and cooling
8c. Retort furnace upset
Zinc casting
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.12-0.55 kg/Mg sinter*3'9
(0.25-1.1 Ib/ton sinter)
0.28-1.22 kg/Mg sinter9 fh
(0.55-2.45 Ib/ton sinter)
i
1.0-2.0 kg/Mg of zinc^
(2.0-4.0 Ibs/ton of zinc)
k
0.25-1.0 kg/Mg of zinc1
(0.5-2.0 Ib/ton of zinc)
2.5-5 kg/Mg zinc"1
(5-10 Ibs/ton zinc)
1.26 kg/Mg zinc"
(2.52 Ib/ton zinc)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Sinter
70,788
(78,867)
Sinter
70,788
(78,867)
Zinc
68,100
(75,000)
Zinc
68,100
(75,000)
Zinc
68,100
(75,000)
Zinc
68,100
(75,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
24
(26)
53
(59)
g
61
(68)
i
43
(47)
86
(95)
-------
Table 2-27 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION
I
M
Ul
Source of IPFPE
Wind erosion
2b. Handling and transfer
3. Sand
3a. Stored
3b. Handling and transfer
4. Coke
4a. Storage
4b. Handling and transfer
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
(0.055) (S/l. 5) D kd/Ma material
(PE/100)^ 90 storedb
((Q. 11) (S/l. 5) D Ib/ton material^
\^ (PE/lOO)-: 9~0 stored )
0.82-2.5 kg/Mg handledc
(1.64-5.0 Ib/ton handled)
b
0.15 kg/Mg handled3
(0.3 Ib/ton handled)
b
0.06-0.1 kg/Mg handled6 'f
(0.12-0.2 Ib/ton handled)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
D
D
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Ore concentrate
loaded out
195,447
(214,992)
Ore concentrate handlec
195,447
(214,992)
Sand
1,613
(1,774)
Sand
1,613
(1,774)
Coke
5,734
(6,307)
Coke
5,734
(6,307)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
10
(11)
324
(356)
0.27
(0.29)
0.24
(0.26)
1
(1)
0.46
(0.50)
-------
Table 2-27. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY ZINC PRODUCTION
I
M
Ul
Source of IPFPE
1. Railroad car or truck
unloading
la. Zinc ore concentrate
Ib. Sand
Ic. Coke
2. Zinc ore concentrate
2a. Storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0 . 2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
(0.02) (Kr) (S/1.5) kg/Mg material .
(PE/100)^ loaded onto pile
Ao.04) (Ki) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material "\
\ (PE/lOO)'* loaded onto piley
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5) kg/Mg material
(PE/100)2 storedb
((0. 13) (K2) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material)
V (PE/100)
-------
BY-
PRODUCT
LEAD,
COPPER,
GOLD,
SILVER,
CADMIUM,
ETC.
CONCENTRATED ;
ZnS
ORE
NCENTRATE
[STORAGE
^ONC
TRUCK
RECYCLED
GROUND SINTER
OR ZINC SOLUTIONS
SULFATE
SLAB ZINC
LEGEND:
—•••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
— "PROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-10. Process flow diagram for primary zinc
production showing potential industrial process
fugitive emission points.
2-152
-------
and hardness of the sinter mass. The palletized clinker
from the sintering process is mixed with coke (used as the
reducing agent) and reduction of the ore to metallic zinc
occurs in a retort furnace. When the retort is charged, its
mouth is fitted with a condenser made of refractory material
and the furnace is heated to about 1300°C (2370°F). The
zinc vapor escapes from the retort and is collected in the
condenser as liquid metal. The process takes about twenty
hours and after completion, the molten zinc is transferred
to the casting area where it is poured into molds.
A process flow diagram for primary zinc production is
shown in Figure 2-10. Each potential process fugitive
particulate emission is identified and explained in Table
2-27. A dust source common to zinc production facilities
but not specifically included in the Figure or Table, is
plant roads. Proper evaluation of this category is explained
in Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-27 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the primary zinc produc-
tion IPFPE sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled
emission rates, the site-specific level of control must be
considered for application to a specific plant. Also in-
cluded are reliability factors for each estimate.
The emission factors for the sources aside from storage
and handling of raw material were derived from similar
operations of other non-ferrous industries (lead and copper)
and therefore have received a reliability rating of "E"
which indicates at best an order of magnitude estimate.
Consequently, actual emission rates at a given facility
could differ significantly from those in Table 2-27.
Roaster operations at primary zinc facilities generally
are not a source of fugitive emissions and for this reason
12
are not discussed or listed in this particular section.
2-151
-------
2.3.4 Primary Zinc Production
Process Description - The ore is usually concentrated
at the mine and transported to the plant for further pro-
cessing. Several different combinations of processes are
used by zinc smelters to prepare the ore concentrates for
extraction of zinc. In every case the process must be
preceded by complete roasting to convert zinc sulfide into
zinc oxide and thereby make it leachable or reducible with
carbon. The most common process in zinc production is
electrolytic recovery. Pyrometallurgical production of zinc
using a vertical retort furnace is practiced at only one
plant in the United States.
The electrolytic recovery of zinc from the roasted ore
involves the following steps:
0 Dissolving (leaching) the roasted ore in dilute
sulfuric acid to form a zinc sulfate solution.
0 Removal of impurities from the solution (purifica-
tion) .
0 Electrolysis of the zinc sulfate by passage of a
current from an insoluble anode to an insoluble
cathode upon which the zinc metal is deposited.
The anodes are usually made of lead and the cathodes are
rolled aluminum sheets. At regular intervals the cathodes
are removed and the deposited zinc stripped from each side.
The stripped sheets are melted in a furnace and finally
transferred to the casting area where they are cast into
slabs.
In the pyrometallurgical process, the roasted ore is
agglomerated by sintering. Feed for the sintering machine
is a mixture consisting of calcine or concentrates, recycled
ground sinter and the required amount of carbonaceous fuel
(usually coal or coke). Silica is added to increase strength
2-150
-------
8 Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and MSI on Steel Facility Emission Factors.
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
9. Speight, G.E. Best Practicable Means in the Iron and
Steel Industry. The Chemical Engineer. March 1973.
10. Personal Communications. Mr. S. Norman Kesten, Assistant
to the Vice-President, Environmental Affairs, ASARCO to
Mr. Donald R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 17,
1977.
11 Environmental Assessment of the Domestic Primary Copper,
Lead, and Zinc Industry, Volume I (Draft). PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory.
Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task Order No. 38. Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 1976.
12. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions (Draft Final
Report). PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Contract
No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 32. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. October 1976.
13. Preferred Standards Path Analysis on Lead Emissions
From Stationary Sources, Volume I. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
September 14, 1974.
14. Personal Communication. James C. Caraway, Texas Air
Control Board, Austin, Texas to PEDCo Environmental,
Cincinnati, Ohio. October 6, 1976.
2-149
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.3
1. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
2. Shannon, L.J. and P.G. Gorman. Particulate Pollutant
System Study, Vol. Ill - Emission Characteristics.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 22-69-104.
1971.
3. Vandegrift, A.E. and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emissions,
Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary Particu-
late Sources. Midwest Research Institute. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
4. Gutow, B.S. An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions.
Modern Casting. January 1972.
5. Personal Communication from Gary McCutchen, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
to Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri.
February 1976.
6. Transmittal from the American Iron and Steel Institute
to Mr. Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Data contained
in table entitled Source Data for Steel Facility Factors.
July 13, 1976.
7. Silver Valley/Bunker Hill Smelter Environmental Investi-
gation, Interim Report. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc. Contract No. 68-02-1343, Task Order No. 8.
Cincinnati, Ohio. February 1975.
2-148
-------
prevent upset and thus fugitive emissions. Enclosure of the
blast furnace with subsequent ventilation to control equip-
ment will effectively control fugitive emissions but space
may be a limiting factor.
Confinement by enclosure will effectively control
fugitive emissions from slag while cooling. However, if the
volume of slag is small enough so as to allow use of a hood,
this may be more desirable if it can be vented to an exist-
ing fabric filter system. It may also be possible to apply
such a system to buildings housing zinc fuming furnaces.
Since a fabric filter is the product collector for zinc
fuming furnace it may therefore be more desirable to employ
a good hooding system rather than enclosure.
Wet suppression will effectively control fugitive
emissions from slag granulation and piling after it has
cooled. If, however, the slag is still hot during this
operation confinement by enclosure is more desirable since
wet suppression may only generate more fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions from dross kettles can be controlled
by use of fixed or movable hoods (depending on space limita-
tion) with subsequent venting to a fabric filter.
2-147
-------
this will prevent the initial generation of fugitive emis-
sions. However, if fugitive emissions are a result of
poorly maintained equipment, faulty seals, worn equipment,
etc. replacement of necessary parts and/or improved main-
tenance schedules will be necessary to eliminate fugitive
emissions. Increased exhaust rate of the primary collection
system may reduce leakage, however this may not be a desir-
able method of control if ambient air is drawn into the
furnace or sinter machine.
Fugitive emissions from sinter machine discharge and
screening as well as sinter crushing can be effectively
controlled in several ways. The simplest way is to control
operating parameters and procedures such as not overloading
the process to the point where excessive fugitive emissions
may be generated. Because of the nature of such operations,
however, it may be necessary to completely enclose the
operations, evacuate the building, or install fixed hoods
which can be vented to fabric filters. In the same manner,
fugitive emissions from the silver retort building may also
be controlled by means of building evacuation to a fabric
filter. Confinement and evacuation of the sinter dump area
may also be integrated into this control system.
Fugitive emission from blast furnace charging and
tapping, lead and slag pouring, and lead casting are most
effectively controlled by the use of movable or fixed hoods,
depending upon space limitations, with subsequent venting to
a fabric filter system. Fugitive emission from the blast
furnace blow condition can normally be controlled through
sinter quality control and proper sinter/coke ratios to
maintain a smoothly running blast furnace operation. Upsets
in the blast furnace can be minimized by use of quality
materials and/or improvement of operating procedures to
2-146
-------
to
I
tn
= ? s
- - 5
? g 3
» r* —
If 5
IM
3 § •
R I
s
J_
5t
,3
o
0
o
~
V*
s
3
0
I
a.
^
*
*
t\»
o*
ye
"
X
s
s
s
X
o
IN*
A
in
(•
*»
o
o
0
rsj
s
s
g furnace vents
v
+
»
*
O
&
i
|
i
10
•o
I
V.
+
+
«
10
1
V
+
*
+
•4-
«
5
|
0
O
o
^
i
0
c
s
(*
i
o
o
o
s
r*
!SsJi 1
1 i
s
o
x x
XX
X
o o
O 0
o o
w
2.1
?s
or conveyor loading and transfer
+
X
»
jy
•o
1
i
*
+
+
w
y
ft
3
5
I
ft
O
O
ix»
|
"
i
x
X
X
o
o
o
-
g
hine discharge and screens
X
x
X
o
o
o
o
s
3
c
1
ua
o
+
,„
1
g
i
i
a>
vt
s
1
o
o
0
+
+
00
5-
3
pelletizing
o
0
o
O.
5
I
I
Negligible emissions
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2.1
wet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
n
*» Of
2
3" O
1 1
m
1?
1 =
S»
if
3 — •
3
^
S
S
i
o
i
I
i
s
s
5
a
HI
0)
tr
r-1
a>
to
I
to
(Ti
o
t-1 o
W 3
> rt
D H-
3
cn d
[H —
H
2!
H
n
o
2
*J JO
n3 O
td tr1
co 1-3
O M
c| n
fd ffi
O 2
W H
CO O
a
w
CO
-------
^
-j -j r>
cr o« o
0)
Ou r+
3 0
a.
3
(7
W
W
o»
?•?• 3
Oi e+ 0
-..,0
0-
3
vv
V-,
01
cn cn
cr Ot
DC CO
o> n-
3 0
CL
3
ft.
1
^
-,^
^
*fc -U (/i
cr u -•
:r Co n
CD n- »
3 O
a.
^
3
-1
vv
W.
CO
co co r-
pr at g-
I CO Vt
& r*- (-*•
3 O 0
a.
f^
3
a.
vv
VN
IS)
ro r\> OD
cr ot — -•
VI
3 O -»t
n
a. -•
r* *»
3 C
n
-i
^
_,
n Q-o cr »
o -i -. -- i
JT- o — 3
a« n
1.
a.
3
^v^^^
3
A
Negligible emissions
1PFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2.1
Vet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
Q.
I?
3" r+
0 C
Q. 1
2 -jo
13 0
3 <
3 — •
r*
cr
-H
rn
CO
o
CO
§
33
m
z
o
o
o
0
r-
2
m
•H
O
CO
50
K
O
JD
cr
(D
f" NJ
M en
cn o
s o
M 2
O
tr1
•tf O
^ a
h3 2
M H
O
cn a
O tt
G cn
50
n *i
w o
cn 50
-------
Control Technology - Control technology options for the
primary lead production IPFPE sources (except those covered
in Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-26 and are explained
in further detail below.
Storage, handling, and transfer of the raw materials
used in primary lead production as well as process transfer
operations can be effectively controlled by either wet
suppression (water and/or chemical) or confinement by en-
closure. Wet suppression is the least desirable method
since the resultant higher moisture content of the raw
materials may necessitate increased energy requirements in
further process steps which require low moisture content
materials. Confinement by enclosure can be accomplished in
several ways. Complete enclosure of a storage area may not
be necessary, rather a three-sided structure (with or with-
out roof) which protects against the predominate wind direc-
tion may adequately control fugitive emissions. Handling
and transfer equipment such as conveyor belts can be covered
or enclosed to prevent fugitive emissions during such opera-
tions. Since blast furnace flue dust is normally collected
in a closed system, fugitive emissions are normally negli-
gible.
Fugitive emissions from mixing and pelletizing can be
controlled if these operations are enclosed to prevent
particulate escape. However, if this is not practicable
because of limited space, building evacuation to a baghouse
can be used to control fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions resulting from leakage of sinter
machine updraft exhaust and reverberatory furnaces may be
effectively controlled by better control of operating para-
meters and procedures. For instance, if proper feed rates
and operational checks are adhered to properly, often times
2-143
-------
Table 2-25. CONCENTRATIONS OF LEAD, CADMIUM, AND ZINC IN
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS OF VARIOUS
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING OPERATIONS
Process
Ore concentrate storage
Return sinter transfer
Sinter sizes and storage
Sinter product dump area
Sinter transfer to blast furnace
Blast furnace roof vents
Blast furnace upset
Lead refinery roof vents
Lead casting roof ducts
Zinc fuming furnace area
Percent by weight
Lead
37
19
58
31
39
47
27
37
38
3
Cadmium
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
4.0
0.3
0.1
-
Zinc
8
2
5
6
6
8
7
19
18
62
Source: Reference 7.
Note: In the near future Midwest Research Institute will
complete a lead control techniques document with
further information on lead concentrations.
2-142
-------
Little information is available concerning fugitive
participate emissions from the sintering operation except
that exit temperatures from leakage and fumes are 120-315°C
(250°-600°F).3 Table 2-25 lists the percent of lead, cad-
mium, and zinc contained in fugitive particulate emissions
from various sintering operations. The following is a
listing of size distributions of flue dust from an updraft
sintering machine effluent. Though these are not fugitive
emissions, the size distributions may closely resemble those
of the fugitive emissions.
Size (vim)
20-40
10-20
5-10
<5
Percent by weight
15-45
9-30
4-19
1-10
Particulate fugitive emissions from the blast furnace
consist basically of lead oxides, 92 percent of which are
less than 4 ym in size. Effluents from the flues consist
of oxides as well as sulfates, sulfide, chloride, fluoride,
and coke dust all of which may well be contained in the
fugitive emissions. Table 2-25 lists the percentage of
lead, cadmium and zinc contained in fugitive particulate
emissions from blast furnace roof vents and from blast
furnace upset conditions.
Information concerning fugitive particulate emission
from lead dross reverberatory is unavailable; however, the
following data on uncontrolled exhaust gas is presented
since it may closely parallel fugitive emission character-
istics. Particulates are largely less than 1 ym with a lead
content of 13-35 percent by weight. Exit temperatures are
760-980°C (1400-1800°F),12
2-141
-------
0 Sinter Machine Feed
1.5 Mg (1.65 tons) of ore concentrate
0.4 Mg (0.44 tons) of flux (limestone)
0.2 Mg (0.22 tons) of coke
0 Blast Furnace Feed
1.7 Mg (1.8 tons) of sinter
0.3 Mg (0.33 tons) of coke
0.1 Mg (0.11 tons) of slag (dross)
0.02 Mg (0.022 tons) of silica
0.02 Mg (0.022 tons) of limestone
0.02 Mg (0.022 tons) of baghouse dust
0.2 Mg (0.22 tons) of iron ore
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. These sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model plant
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are 4532
Mg (4985 tons) per year. Fugitive emissions from upset
conditions are not included in this total since it cannot be
predicted how often upset conditions will occur during a
year's operation. Major sources of fugitive particulate
emissions are sintering operations, lead ore concentrate
handling and transfer, and zinc fuming furnace vents.
Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions - Fugitive parti-
culate emissions from primary lead smelting consist basic-
ally of dust from the various stockpiles as well as metal
oxides from the various smelter process operations. Ninety-
six percent of fugitive coke dust from stockpiling, handling,
and transfer has a mean particulate diameter of less than 47
Vim. Seven percent of silica dust from stockpiling, hand-
ling, and transfer of sand is less than 75 ym and 80 percent
is greater than 5 ym. Limestone dust from stockpiling,
handling, and transfer has a mean particulate diameter of 3-
6 ym of which 45-70 percent is less than 5 ym.
2-140
-------
Table 2-24 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
NJ
I
h-1
CO
Source of IPFPE
23. Reverberatory furnace leakage
24. Silver retort building
25. Lead casting
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.75-2.25 kg/Mg lead3
(1.5-4.5 Ib/ton lead)
0.45-1.35 kg/Mg lead3
(0,9-2.7 Ib/ton lead)
0.22-0.66 kg/Mg lead3
0.43-1.30 Ib/ton lead)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter.
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000
(200,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr )
300
(330)
180
(198)
88
(96)
Engineering judgement based on data presented in Section 2.1.2; emission range derived using emission factors for unloading
of Taconite pellets and coal/hopper car; emission factor for coke derived from coal unloading emission factor only.
Engineering judgement, assumed enclosed handling and storage or direct recycle to system.
For complete development of this emission factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. The emission factor for sources 4a, 5a, 6a,
and 7a are the same as source 3a. For sources 3a, 4a, and 5a it was assumed that S = 1.5, D = 90, PE = 100, and K.,
K,, and K, = 1. Values for sources 6 and 7 can be found in Section 2.1.4. Reference 1.
Engineering judgment, assumed 50 percent of coal handling emissions as reported in Reference 2.
Engineering judgment based on aggregate storage pile emission factors in Reference 2.
Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Engineering judgment; calculated from emission factor (0.055 kg/Mg of iron) given in Reference 5.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Engineering judgment using steel sinter machine leakage emission factor given in Reference 8 and 9.
Emissions for sinter crushing included in emissions from sinter machine discharge and screens.
Emissions for charging, blow condition, and tapping included in total.
Emission factor for upset not considered part of normal operating conditions and is not included in emission factor
for the blast furnace roof monitor.
Emissions for blast furnace upset are not included in model plant inventory.
Emissions for slag pouring included in lead pouring to ladle and transfer emission.
Engineering judgment; estimated to be one half the magnitude of pouring and ladling operations (source number 17).
Granulated slag is wet and therefore most likely not a source of fugitive emissions. Reference 10.
-------
Table 2-24 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
N)
I
!-•
U)
CO
Source of IPFPE
15. Charge car or conveyor loading
and transfer of sinter
16. Blast furnace - monitor (total)
16a. Charging
16b. Blow condition
16c. Upsetn
16d. Tapping
17. Lead pouring to ladle and transfer
18. Slag pouring
19. Slag cooling
20. Slag granulator and slag piling
21. Zinc fuming furnace vents
22. Dross kettle
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.13-0.38 kg/Mg charged3
(0.25-0.75 Ib/ton charged)
0.04-0.12 kg/Mg lead produced3'111
(0.08-0.23 Ib/ton)
m
m
3.5-11.5 kq/Mg lead produced3 'm
(7.0-23.0 Ib/ton)
m
0.47 kg/Mg lead produced
(0.93 Ib/ton lead produced)
P
0.24 kg/Mg lead produced"5
(0.47 Ib/ton lead produced)
Negligibler
1.15-3.45 kg/Mg lead3
(2.3-6.9 Ibs/ton lead)
0.12-0.36 kg/Mg lead3
(0.24-0.72 Ib/ton lead)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Blast furnace charge
477,226
(524,949)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Slag crushed
200,000
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000 -
(220,000)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
122
(131)
16
(17)
m
m
o
m
94
(102)
P
48
(52)
200
(220)
460
(506)
48
(53)
-------
Table 2-24 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
to
1
M
CO
Source of IPFPE
8. Mixing and palletizing
9. Sinter machine
10. S.i er return handling
11. Sinter machine discharge and
screens
12 . Sinter crushing
13. Sinter transfer to dump area
14 . Sinter product dump area
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.57-1.70 kg/Mg lead product^
(1.13-3.39 Ib/ton lead product)
0.12-0.55 kg/Mg sinter*
(0.25-1.1 Ib/ton sinter)
2.25-6.75 kg/Mg sinter j
(4.5-13.5 Ib/ton sinter)
0.28-1.22 kg/Mg sinterk
(0.55-2.45 Ib/ton sinter)
1
0.05-0.15 kg/Mg sinter transfered^
(0.10-0.30 Ib/ton sinter transfered)
0.0025-0.0075 kg/Mg sinter dumped^
(0.005-0.015 Ib/ton sinter dumped)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
D
E
D
D
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Lead produced
200,000
(220,000)
Sinter produced
349,979
(384,977)
Sinter produced
349,979
(384,977)
Sinter produced
349,979
(384,977)
Sinter transfered
349,979
(384,977)
Sinter dumped
349,979
(384,977)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
227
(247)
117
(130)
1,575
(1,732)
262
(289)
1
35
(38)
2
(2)
-------
Table 2-24 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Source of IPFPE
5. Lead ore concentrate
5a. "torage
5b. Handling and transfer
6. Iron ore
6a. Storage
6b. Handling and transfer
7. Coke
7 a . Storage
7b. Handling and transfer
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
c
0.82-2.5 kg/Mg handledf
(1.64-5.0 Ib/ton handled)
c
1.0 kg/Mg iron ore handled9
(2.0 Ib/ton iron ore handled)
C
0.06-0.1 kg/Mg coke handled11'1
(0.13-3.39 Ib/ton coke handled)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
D
E
D
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Concentrate stored
317,782
(349,560)
Concentrate handled
317,782
(349,560)
Ore stored
45,000
(49,500)
Ore handled
45,000
(49,000)
Coke stored
94,494
(103,943)
Coke handled
94,494
(103,943)
Uncontrol led
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
52
(57)
528
(580)
29
(32)
45
(49)
7
(8)
8
(9)
-------
Table 2-24 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
OJ
Ul
Source of IPFPE
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
3b. Handling and transfer
t. Silica sand
4a. Storage
4b. Handling and transfer
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5) kq/Ma material
(PE/100M stored0
s ~.
((0.04) (K2) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material)
V (PE/100)
1(0. Oil) (S/1.5) D Ib/ton material^
V
-------
Table 2-24. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
K)
I
Source of IPFPE
1. Railroad car and truck
unloading
Limestone
Silica sand
Lead ore concentrate
Iron ore
Coke
2. Blast furnace flue dust
2a. Storage
2b. Handling and transfer
3. Limestone
3a. Storage
Loading onto pile
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0.015-0.2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.03-0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
0 . 2 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.4 Ib/ton unloaded)
Negligible13
Negligible13
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5) kg/Mg material
(PE/lflO)
-------
to
I
OJ
MATTE
TO VlMIiv
FURNACE
OR DUM?
LEAD]PIGS
AND! I.N'GOTS
\ND DUST
3 BEDS
OPPER
ANT
SLAG
COOLING
ZINC
FUMING
FURNACE
X19}
SLAG
GRANU-
LATOR
"*-@
LEGEND:
•—••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—-PROCESS FLOW
RAILROAD
CAR
Figure 2-9. Process flow diagram for primary lead smelting showing potential
industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
-------
A process flow diagram for lead production is shown in
Figure 2-9. Each potential process fugitive particulate
emission point is identified and explained in Table 2-24.
Plant haul roads which are a common source at most facili-
ties are not depicted in the Table or Figure. Proper evalua-
tion of this emission category is explained in Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-24 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for primary lead smelting
IPFPE sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled emis-
sion rates, the site-specific level of control must be con-
sidered for application to a specific plant. Also included
are reliability factors for each estimate.
The emission factors for the various smelting opera-
tions (other than storage pile) are based mostly on very
limited test data and therefore receive a reliability rating
of D. Consequently, actual emission rates at a given facil-
ity could differ significantly from those in Table 2-24.
Midwest Research Institute is presently conducting
fugitive emission tests on lead smelters. Data should be
available in several months.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for primary lead smelting as shown in Table 2-24 presents
potential fugitive particulate emission quantities from the
various uncontrolled sources within the process. The inven-
tory represents a plant which produces 200,000 Mg (220,000
tons) of lead per year. The plant inventory is not meant to
display a typical plant, but merely a potential set of
circumstances.
The assumed feed rate of raw materials to produce 1 Mg
of lead was as follows:
2-132
-------
In the dressing kettles, the molten bullion is cooled
to 370 to 480°C (700 to 900°F) at which point copper and
other impurities which are soluble in hotter bullion, but
not at this temperature, rise to the surface and are skimmed
off.
The copper drosses are transferred to a reverberatory
furnace where they are melted with pig iron and silica sand.
After melting is complete, four layers are usually present.
They are from top to bottom: slag, matte, speiss, and molten
lead. The slag is returned to the blast furnace for re-
smelting, the matte and speiss are shipped to copper plants
for recovery of copper and the lead bullion is returned to
the dressing kettle. Arsenic is recovered at only one
copper smelter in the United States.
The lead metal is heated to approximately 540°C (1000°F)
and charged with zinc. The solution is agitated and allowed
to cool. Silver crusts which form may be removed from the
surface by skimming or by use of a vacuum press. These
crusts then go to a retort furnace where the zinc is dis-
tilled off.
The remaining zinc must be removed from the molten
lead. Vacuum dezincing is accomplished in a large kettle so
designed that it is possible to form a vacuum over the metal
surface. The zinc vaporizes in the vacuum chamber and
condenses on the inner dome.
The refined lead is then pumped into casting kettles.
Caustic soda and niter are agitated into the molten metal.
The metal is allowed to stand and cool, which brings any
contained impurities to the surface. Submerged pumps con-
tinually pump lead from the kettle bottom and it is cast
into 100 Ib pigs or 1 ton ingots.
2-131
-------
2.3.3 Primary Lead Smelters
Process Description - Lead is usually found in nature
as a sulfide ore (Galena - PbS) containing small amounts of
copper, iron, zinc and other trace elements. Smelting is
the process by which lead is separated from its ores and
purified, and uses essentially three steps: sintering,
reduction in a blast furnace, and refining.
The basic purpose of sintering is to convert the lead
sulfide concentrate into an oxide or sulfate form, while
simultaneously producing a hard porous clinker material
suitable for the rigid requirements of the blast furnace.
In order to maintain the desired level of sulfur content in
the sinter, sulfide-free fluxes such as silica and lime-
stone, plus large amounts of recycled sinter and smelter
residues are added to the mix. The feed for the sinter
machine is crushed and mixed, sometimes pelletized, and
loaded onto the moving sinter machine pallets. The feed is
then ignited, the lead sulfide converted to lead oxide,
sulfur oxides are liberated, and sinter is formed. As the
pallets turn over at the end of the machine, the sinter
cakes go through a coarse breaker and screen.
Reduction of the lead oxide to metallic lead occurs in
the blast furnace. The charge, consisting of sinter, coke,
flux and slag forming materials are mixed and introduced
into the blast furnace. During the melting process, the
charge may separate into as many as four layers. From
heaviest to lightest, the layers are: lead metal, matte,
speiss and slag. The slag is removed and conveyed hot to a
fuming furnace for recovery of lead and zinc. Some slag may
be granulated and recycled to sintering. The matte, speiss,
and lead bullion are transferred to dressing kettles where
the lead dross (copper matte, speiss, and oxidized lead)
copper oxides or sulfides, and some of the other impurities
such as tin, indium and antimony are removed.
2-130
-------
8. Control Technques for Lead Air Emissions. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Contract No. 68-02-1375,
Draft Final Report. Cincinnati, Ohio. October 1976.
9. Development of Procedures for the Measurements of Fugi-
tive Emissions, Vol. 1, Industrial Fugitive Emission
Sources and Sampling Strategies. The Research Corpora-
tion of New England. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1815.
10. Sulfuric Acid Plant Installation and Operating Costs -
Phelps Dodge Corporation, Douglas, Arizona. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared under Con-
tract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 34. Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 1976. Draft.
11. Personal communication from Mr. K.W. Nelson, Vice-
President, Environmental Affairs, ASARCO Incorporated
to Mr. John M. Pratapos, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Economic Analysis Branch Strategies and Air
Standards Division, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. January 11, 1977.
12. Secondary Hooding for Peirce-Smith Converters. PEDCo
Environmental, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-1321. Cincinnati,
Ohio. December 1976.
13. Personal Communication from Phelps Dodge Corp., New
York, New York to Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
January 21, 1977.
2-129
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTON 2.3.2
1. Kalika, P.W. Development of Procedures for Measurement
of Fugitive Emissions. The Research Corporation of New
England. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1815. July 1975.
2. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
3. Evaluation of the Controllability of Copper Smelters in
the United States, Fugitive Emissions Section, Final
Report Draft. Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. 68-02-1354, Task Order No. 8. November
1974.
4. Personal communication from R.J. Kearney (Kennecott
Copper Smelters) to R.D. Rovang. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. November 22, 1974.
5. Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide and Arsenic Control Techni-
ques for ASARCO - Tacoma Copper Smelter. PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc. Prepared under Contract No.
68-02-1321, Task Order No. 35. Cincinnati, Ohio. July
1976. Draft.
6. Vandegrift, A.E. and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emissions,
Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary Particu-
late Pollution Sources. Midwest Research Institute.
Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
7. Shannon, L.J. and P.G. Gorman. Particulate Pollutant
System Study, Vol. Ill - Emissions Characteristics.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 22-69-104.
1971.
2-128
-------
that only one converter will be in the roll-out position at
any time. The required flow rate is approximately 225
m /sec (540,000 acfm) at 55°C (130°F), resulting in an air
change every 4 to 6 minutes. The approximate cost is re-
ported to be $7.3 million which includes enclosing the
converter building, ducting, baghouse, and fans. This does
not include $1.0 million needed for stack modifications.
Annual power demands will cost approximately $308,000.1:L
Another complete secondary control system for converter
operations with a 38 m /sec (80,000 acfm) flow rate has been
estimated at $1,154,000 to $6,774,000 for 1 to 9 converters
respectively for capital cost. Annual operating costs are
estimated from $292,000 to $1,752,000 for 1 or 9 converters
12
respectively.
The fire refining furnace can be hooded and ducted to
controls. Estimates have been made of about $450,000 for
the necessary hooding and ducting only.
The slag pile dumping emissions are currently uncon-
trolled. To our knowledge, no smelter currently controls
slag pile dumping emissions. An intermediate dumping site
could be partially hooded and the fumes vented through a
fabric filter or scrubbing system. (However at large
facilities this may require extremely large hoods and air
flow rates, making such a system impractical). Then the
cooled slag would be conveyed to the long term slag disposal
site. Such a system could capture 50 to 70 percent of the
slag pile emissions. A very approximate cost estimated
based on a 5.7 m /sec (12,000 acfm) installation would be
about $220,000 considering the retrofit and site preparation
problem.
2-127
-------
during this roll-out period, the stationary hood and vent
system's fume capture efficiency is very low, since the
converter opening is not under the hood.
Secondary hoods which capture the fumes during the
roll-out operating mode would decrease fugitive emissions.
For example, preliminary designs at one plant show that
ventilation hoods, one per converter and each measuring 5 m
(16 feet) in diameter, can be mounted above the roll-out
position of the converter in such a manner to avoid inter-
ference with the crane. The hood would be elevated suffi-
ciently to minimize interference with converter operation
yet low enough, to capture emissions during charging. All of
the hoods would be connected to a common duct leading to a
fabric filter system equipped with an induced draft fan,
filter cleaning device, and dust hoppers. The hoods would
be equipped with dampers geared to open at converter roll-
out. Such a system sized for a total vent gas flow of 38
Mm /sec (80,000 scfm) is estimated to have an installed cost
(1977 basis) of approximately $900,000 based on similar
systems used in the steel industry. The secondary hood
system would have the advantage of obviating the need for
general building ventilation. Also, better control of
operating parameters and procedures, such as control of the
converter blast air flow, can reduce fugitive emissions as
the converter is tilted.
Plans have been made at one plant to isolate the con-
verter section of a building and evacuate the roof monitor
to a fabric filter. The entire building contains three
converters, two anode baking furnaces, and a reverberatory
furnace. Partitions will be built into the roof trusses to
isolate areas of the building. No hooding directly over the
furnace will be added. The operation will be controlled so
2-126
-------
to
I
Ul
-t- 0 X
— * — «
3- c
3 IA
Ol ^ — -
•< r>
? i
O> r+
o-
m rr
o — •
ue.
) control technique.
ntrol technique.
ro
Ol
ta
n>
Q,
TD
3
U3
0*
3
CL
O
O
1
V
+-
+
+
Of
O3
O*
•a
T3
3
tO
Ol
3
0.
zr
a>
3
O.
5
v
1
r*
D*
S
1'
Q>
3
Q.
O
Ol
£
•^
?,3
"5
cr
3
n>
T
r*
o»
5
3
CO
V
0
+
Ql
•Q
TJ
3
lQ
-«i
i
o
0
3
<
~l
tt>
-I
•s.
o
4-
+
+
3
n>
-t
s
*-
a>
10
n>
X
+
3
o
3-
Ol
3
i'
•^
0
5
rf
3
01
-h
C
X
0
-I
o>
3
a.
-h
c
X
§
a>
o.
3
to
at
3
O.
3-
ai
3
a.
i
V.
t
(O
V
c:
3
o
Or
1'
3
CX
3-
a>
3
0.
3
IO
of ore concentrates
•v.
o.
c
I
f*
3
(O
Negligible emissions
IPFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies identified in Section 2.1
Wet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
Q.
3 n
A o>
rr r*
8.T
S:»
¥ <
3 —
r*
S
^H
m
m
i/i
c/»
O
z
Lrt
r>
J»
-o
c:
-JO
m
§
o
z
»
o
r~
3E
y
o
o
(J^
H D)
2 cr
NJ
n i
o M
M
»
O
CO O
td (-3
IT" »
t-3 O
H f
Z,
O t^
M
H O
^ a
•T] 2;
^ H
IS O
G
cn W
O en
G
JO ^
O O
M »
cn
-------
Control Technology - Control technology options for
copper smelting IPFPE sources (except those covered in
Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-23 and are explained
in more detail below.
One method to reduce fugitive emissions from roasters
is to increase the draft of air through the roaster. The
discharge of calcine from the roaster can be enclosed and
vented to control equipment, as can conveyors transporting
the calcine to the reverberatory furnace. If larry cars are
used to transfer the calcine, they can be covered to reduce
fugitive emissions. Roaster charging can be controlled by
hood systems. Fabric filters or ESP's can be used as re-
moval equipment.
Hood systems can be used to control reverberatory slag
and metal tapping operations. Such a system (with baghouse)
at a smelter with three reverberatory furnaces has been
estimated to require a flow rate of 42 Nm /sec (90,000 scfm)
and cost over $1,000,000. ° At another plant, plans to
control the converter slag return charge hole on the re-
verberatory furnace by installing a 14 m /sec (30,000 acfm)
hood system ducted to an existing ESP are estimated to cost
approximately $100,000. Reverberatory leakage can be
reduced by a comprehensive maintenance program. Increasing
the flow rate of the primary system will decrease leaks but
may also reduce the SO2 concentration in the gas stream.
This is a disadvantage if a flue gas desulfurization system
is used.
During converter roll-out for charging and tapping, the
primary hood system can be vented directly to a control
device (baghouse or ESP), bypassing the acid plant. One
plant exhausts approximately 24 m /sec (50,000 acfm) in this
manner for a 90 Mg (100 ton) capacity furnace.5 However,
2-124
-------
Table 2-22. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM VARIOUS PROCESS STEPS IN PRIMARY COPPER SMELTING
to
I
M
KJ
Process Step
Ore Concentrate Storage
and Handling
Limestone Storage and
Handling
Slag Handling
Roaster Loading and
Operation
Reverberatory Furnace
Loading and Operation
Matte Transfer
Converter Loading
and Blowing
Composition (Percent)
Cu
28
0.5
5
5
42
1
Fe
24
40
32
S
32
1.5
25
SiO2
11
38
1
CaO
-60
ttn
16
16
8
Cd
0.5
0.5
4
Pb
18
18
50
As
60
60
37
Other
5
40
20
0.5
0.5
Source: Reference 7.
-------
3,770 Mg (4,147 tons) per year. Major sources of fugitive
emissions are ore concentrate unloading, roaster operations,
and converter operations.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Fugitive
particulate emissions from primary copper smelting consist
basically of oxides and dust. Limestone dust emissions from
stockpiling, handling, and transfer have a mean particulate
diameter of 3-6 ym of which 45-70 percent is less than 5 ym.
Five percent of the fugitive particulate emissions from
roasting are less than 5 ym and have an exit temperature of
about 300-480°C (600-890°F).7 More extensive data con-
cerning size characteristics of fugitive emissions from
roasting are not available, however, presented here are addi-
tional characteristics of uncontrolled roaster exhaust gas
which in all likelihood closely resemble the fugitive
emission characteristics. Fifteen percent of the particu-
late in exhaust gas are less than 10 ym and 85 percent are
greater than 10 ym. Lead content of the particulate is 0.5-
g
12 percent by weight.
Fugitive particulate emissions from reverberatory
furnaces consist mostly of copper oxides of which 50 percent
are less than a 37 ym mean diameter and have an exit tem-
perature of 149-416°C (300-780°F). Little information is
available concerning characteristics of fugitive emissions
from converters except that 44 ym is the mean particulate
diameter.
Table 2-22 presents additional information concerning
chemical composition of fugitive emissions from various
process steps in primary copper smelting.
Copper oxides are the basic fugitive emissions from
pouring and casting, 16 percent of which are less than 10 ym
and 46 percent of which are less than the 74 ym mean diameter.7
2-122
-------
source common to all copper smelters, but not specifically
included in the Figure or Table, is plant roads. Proper
evaluation of this category is explained in Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-21 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the copper production
IPFPE sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled
emission rates, the site-specific level of control must be
considered when applied to a particular plant. Also included
are reliability factors for each estimate.
The emission factors for the various smelting opera-
tions (other than storage piles) are based on material
balance estimates. Therefore, these values received a
reliability rating of "E", which indicates at best an order
of magnitude estimate. Consequently, actual emission rates
at a given facility could differ significantly from those in
Table 2-21.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for primary copper smelting as shown in Table 2-21 presents
potential fugitive particulate emission quantities from the
various uncontrolled sources within the process. The
inventory represents a plant which produces 90,478 Mg
(99,645 tons) of copper per year. The plant inventory is
not meant to display a typical plant, but merely a potential
set of circumstances.
The assumed feed rate of raw materials to produce 1 Mg
of copper was as follows:
0 1.53 Mg (1.68 tons) of fluxes (limestone)
0 3.37 Mg (4.71 tons) of ore concentrate
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. There sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model plant
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are
2-121
-------
Table 2-21 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
NJ
O
Source of IPri'i:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Slag tapping
Converter charging.
Converter leakage
Slag tapping from converter
Blister copper tapping
Blister copper transfer
Charging blister copper to
fire refining furnace
Copper tapping and casting
Slag tapping and handling
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
h
1.6-8.85 kg/Mg copper produced ' 1 ' ]
(3.3-17.7 Ib/ton)
1
j
j
j
0.5-1.4 kg/Mg copper produced1'"1
(1.0-2.8 Ib/ton)
1.26 kg/Mg copper produced '
(2.52 Ib/ton)
k
Emission
factor
rel iabi 1 i ty
rating
E
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/vear)
Copper produced
90,478
(99,645)
Copper produced
90,478
(99,645)
Copper produced
90,478
(99,645)
Uncont rol led
emissions
Mq/yr
(tons/yr)
g
545
(600)
i
i
i
i
86
(95)
114
(126)
j
Reference 1 also includes slag handling.
Emission from limestone unloading and handling included in emission factor for ore unloading and handling.
For complete development of this emission factor, refer to Section 2.1.4. The emission factor for source 4 is the same as
source 2. For these examples it was assumed that S=1.5, D = 90, PE= 100, and K , K , and K =1. Reference 2.
Based on material balance using same percentage as estimated for SO2 emissions from reference 3.
Emissions from roaster leakage and transfer are included in emission factor for roaster charging.
Reference 4.
Lower value of range is for plants with roaster, high value for plants without roaster.
Emissions from reverberatory tapping and leakage are included in emission factor for reverberatory charging.
Reference 5.
-* Emissions i
factor.
C0nverter leakat?e and tapping, and blister copper transfer are included with converter charging emission
^
Emissions from slag to tapping are included in casting building emissions.
Engineering judgment, assumed approximately equal to 25 percent of the reverberatory furnace fugitive emissions.
Reference 13.
-------
Table 2-21 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF
POTENTIAL FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
to
I
Source of IPFPE
3. Limestone flux unloading
and handling
4. Limestone flux storage
5. Roaster charging
6. Roaster leakage
7. Calcine transfer
8. Charging reverberatory
furnace
9. Tapping of reverberatory
10. Reverberatory furnace
leakage
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
b
c
11.5 kg/Mg copper produced '
(23 Ib/ton)
e
e
4.15-4.35 kg/Mg copper produced '"'
(8.3-8.7 Ib/ton)
h
h
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Limestone flux
138,700
(152,570)
Copper produced
90,478
(99,645)
Copper produced
90,478
(99,645)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
b
23
(25)
1,040
(1,146)
e
e
385
(423)
g
g
-------
Table 2-21. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS
N)
I
GO
Source of IPFPE
1. Unloading and handling of
ore concentrate
2. Ore concentrate storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
5 kg/Mg material h
(10 Ib/ton)
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5)
(PE/100) *•
f(0.04) (Ki) (S/1.5)
V (PE/100)..!
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5)
(PE/100) I
((0.13)
-------
CONCEN-
V^ ""^^ TRATES
STORAGE
(25% Cu)
>^ ©
1> t
©v ^ ^
SILICA X ROASTER •* CALCINE £,
FLUXES
IF REQUIRED) FLUE DUST -,
1 COPPER PRECIPITATES--*-
FUEL FLUX -1
LIME- /^ RAILCAR
STONE KA1LUUI
FLUX ^^ v:;;>
AND
SILICA
^ STORAGE J
T ^
i o j
/CO
REVERBERATORY """
FURNACE
(SMELTER) '*'x(
f ! x" «®
AIR FUEL (if)\' \
SLAG
ELECTROLYTICALLY ELECTROLYTIC
REFINED _ ^
- COPPER 099.5, Cu) ™G
,, tH2s°4
LEGEND:
......POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
— "PROCESS FLOW
ANODE Ar
MUD ^" CAS
'IMPURITIES'
©
A
.-. • ,(f5)
^4) ^i^
WERTERY,. /
SLAG . :l_°i PflMVFRTFTJ '*-^^-i
MATTE
35% Cu) /
©Ji 1 t !
SILICA AIR »
FLUX OR OXYGEN S
ENRICHED B!
SLAG AIR fc
0
i <->
OS
w
H
tn
@^£
&
FIRE
REFINING
FURNACE \
P / (ANODE FURNACE) ^
,Js f
TODE AIR 1
TING 1 OTHERS
FLUX NATURAL (E.G., GREE
(IF REQUIRED) GAS LOGS)
Figure 2-8. Process flow diagram for primary copper smelting
showing potential industrial process fugitive emission points,
-------
The third step in smelting is converting, in which the
matte is concentrated to about 98 percent copper. Molten
matte, silica flux, and scrap copper from other parts of the
smelter are charged into the converter. Air is blown into
the mixture removing S02 and creating blister copper, off-
gases, and slag. The slag is returned to the reverberatory
furnace for recovery of copper values. The off-gases con-
tain dust and SC>2 and require cleaning and further treatment
before discharge to the atmosphere.
The blister copper from the converter is further puri-
fied by fire refining. Air is forced into the molten metal
bath, oxidizing impurities and some of the copper. Fluxes
may be added to slag off other undesirable constitutents.
When the copper oxide content reaches about one percent, the
slag is skimmed. After the oxidation is complete, the bath
is deoxidized with green logs or reformed gas. When this
process, has reached the desired stage, the molten copper is
poured into molds to make anodes for electrolytic refining.
At the electrolytic plant the anodes and cathodes (thin
starting sheets of refined copper) are hung at carefully
spaced intervals in lead or plastic-lined concrete cells
containing the electrolyte solution. The electrolyte is
essentially a solution of copper sulfates and sulfuric acid.
Electric current is applied and copper is dissolved from the
anode and enters the solution. At the same time, an equiva-
lent amount of copper is plated out to the cathode. The
impurities fall to the bottom of the tank as anode mud.
These muds are later refined for their metals. The refined
copper cathodes are sold as such or remelted and marketed as
ingots, bars, wirebars, billets, and cakes.
A process flow diagram for primary copper smelting is
shown in Figure 2-8. Each potential process fugitive emis-
sion is identified and explained in Table 2-21. A dust
2-116
-------
2.3.2 Primary Copper Smelters
Process Description - Copper smelting is the process by
which copper is separated from its ores and purified. The
four steps in the process are roasting, smelting, converting
and refining.
The sulfide ore concentrate may be roasted to remove
part of the sulfur, to dry the concentrate, volatilize some
of the impurities and preheat the material for charging in
the reverberatory furnace. However, due to improvements in
ore concentration and handling techniques, most smelters do
not currently roast the ore concentrate. Of those that do,
multiple-hearth furnaces in which a series of hearths are
stacked one above another, or fluidized bed roasters are
used.
There are several disadvantages to the use of roasters.
Charging fine concentrates to roasters increases dust losses.
The sulfur content of high grade concentrate is limited and
all sulfur may be needed for the matte. The use of roasting
is a high capital and operating expense.
After roasting, the calcine is transferred to the
smelting furnace by cars. This furnace is an electric arc
or reverberatory type. In addition to flue dust and copper
precipitates, limestone and silica flux are added to help
separate the copper from gangue materials. At the furnace
temperature used, the copper combines readily with sulfur
and any excess sulfur combines with iron in the charge.
These cuprous and ferrous sulfides form a mixture called
matte which separates by gravity from the slag. The slag
contains the remaining iron in combination with flux mate-
rials. The slag is tapped from the furnace and discarded
and the matte is withdrawn for transfer to converters.
2-115
-------
8. Particulate and Fluoride Emissions Control, Anaconda
Aluminum Company, Columbia Falls, Montana. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement, Under
Contract No. 68-02-1321 (Task 3). February 1974.
9. Gerstle, Richard W. Primary Aluminum Industry. PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. Prepared for: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development. Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task Order No.
26. June 1975.
10. Pewitt, Lawrence. Personal Communication. Texas Air
Control Board. October 6, 1976.
2-114
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.3.1
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. AP-42, Second Edition with Supplements
1-6. February 1976.
2. Air Pollution Control in the Primary Aluminum Industry,
Volumes I & II. Prepared by Singmaster & Breyer, New
York, New York for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-73-004A. July 1973.
5. Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Primary Aluminum Industry, Volume 1: Proposed Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
N.C. Publication No. EPA 450/2-74-020A. October 1974.
4. Air Pollution Control Field Operations Manual, Volume
III. Prepared by Pacific Environmental Services, Inc.,
Los Angeles, California for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Air Programs, Raleigh, N.C.,
Under Control No. CPA 70-122. February 1972.
5. Colpitts, J.W. et al. Particle Sizing on Fugitive
Aluminum Potroom Emissions. Presented at the 69th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, Portland, Oregon. June-July 1976.
6. Marshall, Robert C. A Generalized Enforcement Report
on Aluminum Reduction Plants. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement.
7. Walker, G. et al. Control of Internal and External
Environment in the Primary Aluminum Smelting Industry.
Paper No. A72-24. The Metallurgical Society of AIME,
New York, New York.
2-113
-------
total vent gas flow rate of 12,000 m3/sec (25,500,000 acfm)
and an estimated costs of $20.7 million (1973 basis). This
system would reduce particulate emissions vented from the
8 9
cell rooms by approximately 50 percent. '
Particulate emissions from refining and casting of
aluminum may be reduced through installation and use of a
primary control system, and by modifying the refining
procedures. When chlorine gas or chloride compounds are
used particulate emissions increase. Thus, if other non-
chloride containing gases or salts can be used for refining,
emissions will be reduced. Increasing the exhaust flow of
the primary control system will increase hood capture effi-
ciency and thereby reduce fugitive loses. Scrubbers func-
tion adequately to control such emissions.
2-112
-------
lytic cells are currently hooded and vented to a primary
control system. The vent rate for each cell must be care-
fully controlled to prevent raw material (alumina) carry-
over and potential operating problems. Thus the vent rate
cannot always be increased without specific study. A good
primary hood design with an exhaust rate of 1 to 4 m /sec
(2000-8000 acfm) per cell should achieve 97 to 99 percent
capture efficiency on prebaked and horizontal-stud Soderberg
2 3
cell emissions. ' Vertical-stud Soderberg cells are more
difficult to enclose, and hood capture efficiency is on the
order of 70 to 95 percent of the total cell emissions with
st
2,8
exhaust flows of 0.2 to 0.3 m /sec (400 to 600 acfm) per
cell.
Careful control of cell temperature through regulation
of electrical input will reduce cell upsets and the escape
of emissions from around the hood. Improved hood main-
tenance and rapid replacement of electrodes will also reduce
emissions from the primary hood system.
When cell emissions have been reduced as much as pos-
sible through good operating techniques and primary hood
operation, and a fugitive emission problem is still evident,
a building evacuation system may be required. Cell room
buildings are always vented through roof monitors, and by
ducting the roof monitors to a control device, emissions
that are vented through the roof can be reduced. This
technique is currently in use (though not typical) on a few
vertical-stud Soderberg plants primarily to control fluorides,
The control device consists of ducts, fans, and spray cham-
ber to reduce the particulate and fluoride emissions (foam
scrubbers have been tried on a pilot scale at one location).
A secondary design for one plant with a aluminum production
capacity of 163,400 Mg (180,000 tons) per year involved a
2-111
-------
Table 2-20. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR PRIMARY
ALUMINUM PRODUCTION IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Primary Aluminum Production
1. Materials receving and handling (including
conveying, grinding, screening, mixing, and
paste preparation)
2. Anode baking
3. Electrolytic reduction cell
4. Refining and casting
V)
O
Irt
8
*O>
S
S
o
3
-
I
UJ
-
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CAPTURE AND CONTROL METHODS
-
tv
S
£
e
"S
*»
1
4)
ff
I
S
3
'
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
u
1
W
u,
1
s
1
o
V)
Irt
3
£
*A
O
S
S
1
1
5-
3
a
u
41
8
*
H-
O
S
o
u
J
£
I
U
s
a.
"^
s
i
&
?
s
o
««-
o
e
o
u
5
X
X
E
en
P
a.
o
•*->
u
§
u
u
o
41
I
4-*
C
Improved
X
S
VI
e
1
u
P
•^
0
s
u
VI
3
Increase
X
X
. X
Capture
methods
o
VI
s
g
«J
1
tfl
c
5
1.
U
1
u.
X
X
X
Ift
1
^
Movable h
<
evacu
VI
f
3
"S
i*
0
0
Removal
equipment
u
u
"u
X
•f
X
Scrubber
X
X
X
a.
UJ
X
X
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique
+ Technically feasible control technique.
2-110
-------
Table 2-19.
REPRESENTATIVE PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
OF UNCONTROLLED EFFLUENTS FROM
PREBAKED AND HORIZONTAL-STUD SODERBERG CELLS
Size range, ym
1
1 to 5
5 to 10
10 to 20
20 to 44
44
Particles within size range, wt%
Prebaked
35
25
4
5
5
22
Horizontal- stud
44
26
8
6
4
12
Soderberg
Control Technology - Control technology for IPFPE
sources in the primary aluminum industry (except for those
covered in Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-20.
Anode baking fugitive emissions occur where no primary
control system is utilized on the baking furnace. The most
effective method of eliminating these emissions is to
install a primary control system on the furnace. Furnace
emissions are usually controlled by venting the flue gases
through a scrubber or occassionally an electrostatic pre-
cipitator. Where such a system does not exist or when it
does not provide sufficient draft, fugitive emissions occur.
Installation of a new system or upgrading of an existing
system is the preferred control technique and should provide
greater than 95 percent control.
Electrolytic cell emissions can be reduced by improving
the primary hooding and emission collection system, improving
cell operation by better control of electrical current,
improved hood maintenance, and by venting the cell building
through a low pressure drop control system. All electro-
2-109
-------
lil.O
5.0
0
I I I I
I I
5 1C A) 40 60 KO
Wtight Percent Li-ss Than Stated Size
Figure 2-7. Average composite particle size distribution
by weight for potroom roof ventilator emissions.
2-108
-------
Table 2-18. EMISSION SOURCES AND CONTAMINANTS
NO.
1.
2.
3.
3a.
4.
Source
Material handling
Anode baking
Electrolytic re-
duction cell
Soderberg anodes
Refining
Contaminant
A12°3' A1F3
Coke and pitch dust
A1203, A1F3, Na2CO3,
CaF2, Na5Al3Fi4, carbon
dust, condensed HC, and
tars
A1C1-, Al,0.,, Cryolite
*3 £+ 3
Alumina (A1203), Cryolite (Na3AlFg), Aluminum Fluoride
(A1F3), Fluorspar (CaF2), Sodium Carbonate (Na2CO3).
Of the particulates generated approximately 10-25
2
percent by weight is fluorine content. Particle size
distribution data for the material handling operations are
not available but most of the emissions are expected to
settle within the plant property. One source for size data
for fugitive emissions from the reduction cell is shown in
Figure 2-7. Size data from another source is presented in
Table 2-19. The distribution of emissions is bimodal as a
result of different emission processes which may tend to
generate particulates either concurrently or in an inter-
rupted pattern. Particulate emissions from the anode baking
and metal refining operations are reported to be in the
4 7
submicron range. '
2-107
-------
Table 2-17.
RAW MATERIALS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF
ONE Mg OF ALUMINUM4
Material
Amount
Alumina
Cryolite (Na3AlFg)
Aluminum Fluoride (A1F-)
Fluorspar (CaF-)
Anode
Petroleum Coke
Pitch Binder
Cathode (Carbon)
Total: Approximately
1.9
0.03 - 0.05
0.03 - 0.05
0.003
0.490 Prebake, 0.455 Soderberg
0.123 Prebake, 0.167 Soderberg
0.02
2.6 Mg raw material/Mg Al
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. These sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model plant
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are
2,295 Mg (2,528 tons) per year (prebaked plant). Major
sources of fugitive emissions are anode baking and reduction
cell operations.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Listed in
Table 2-18 are constituents of emissions for the four fugi-
tive particulate sources.
2-106
-------
included in the Figure or Table, is plant roads. Proper
evaluation of this category is explained in Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-16 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the aluminum production
IPFPE sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled
emission rates, the site-specific level of control must be
considered for application to a specific plant. Also in-
cluded are reliability factors for each estimate.
The emission factors for the electrolytic cell and
anode baking operation are based on source test data and
engineering judgement. Therefore, these values received a
reliability rating of "D". The material handling operations
include unloading, conveying, grinding, mixing, and making
green anode or paste. Since the raw materials are stored in
bins, storage is not a fugitive source. The material hand-
ling and refining emission factors are based on engineering
judgement and, therefore, they received a reliability rating
of "E". Consequently, actual emission rates at a given
facility could differ significantly from those in Table
2-16.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for primary aluminum smelting as shown in Table 2-16 pre-
sents potential fugitive particulate emission quantities
from the various uncontrolled sources within the process.
The inventory represents a plant which produces 200,000 Mg
(220,400 tons) of aluminum per year. The plant inventory is
not meant to display a typical plant, but merely a potential
set of circumstances.
Listed in Table 2-17 are approximate feed rates of raw
materials to produce 1 Mg of aluminum.
2-105
-------
Table 2-16. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL FUGITIVE
PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR PRIMARY ALUMINUM PRODUCTION
I
M
O
Source of IPFPE
1. Material handling
2. Anode baking
3. Electrolytic reduction cell
3a. Prebaked
3b. VSS Soderberg
3c. HSS Soderberg
4. Refining
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
5.0 kq/Mq of aluminum produceda'b
(10 Ib/ton)
1.0-5.0 (1.5) kg/Mg of aluminum1*
produced0
(3.0 Ib/ton)
0.75-6.7 kg/Mg of aluminum produced0
(1.5-13.4 Ib/ton)
13.1 kg/Mg of aluminum produced0
(26.2 Ib/ton)
0.75-10.8 kg/Mg of aluminum produced0
(1.5-21.6 Ib/ton)
1.25 kg/Mg of aluminum produced
(2.5 Ib/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
D
D
D
D
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Aluminum produced
200,000
(220,400)
Aluminum produced
200,000
(220,400)
Aluminum produced
200,000
(220,400)
Aluminum produced
200,000
(220,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
1,000
(1,102)
300
(330)
745
(821)
250
(275)
Includes unloading conveying, crushing, screening, mixing, and green anode or paste preparation. Individual emission rates
are not available. Most of these sources are enclosed/vented through a particulate control device.
Reference 1 and 2.
Reference 2 and 3. Includes charging, tapping, and anode replacement.
No data available. Estimate based on the emission factor in Reference 1, assuming 95 percent hood capture efficiency.
-------
©
3a)
CENTER-WORKED
OR
SIDE-WORKED
PREBAKE
ELECTROLYTIC
CELL
ELECTRICITY)
CHLORINE
AND CHLORIDE
SALTS
(N, + Cl,, N, +
£ i *I
CO + C12, N2 +
FREON)
©
ALUMINA
(A1203)
ELECTROLYTES :
CRYOLITE
(Na A1F,)
FLUORSPAR (CaF2)1
AND A1F3
UNLOADING &
STORAGE
'
HORIZONTAL
OR
VERTICAL
SOLDERBERG
ELECTROLYTIC
REDUCTION
CELL
MOLTEN
ALUMINUM A
REFINING AND CASTING
CAST ALUMINUM
TO SHIPPING
LEGEND:
•••••-POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
—--PROCESS FLOW
Figure 2-6. Process flow diagram for primary aluminum
production showing potential industrial process
fugitive particulate emission points.
2-103
-------
The second most commonly used pot is the horizontal-
stud Soderberg. This type of cell uses a continuous carbon
anode in which a mixture of pitch and carbon aggregate is
periodically added at the top of the cell, and the entire
assembly is moved downward as the carbon burns away. The
cell anode is contained by aluminum and steel channels,
through which electrode connections, called studs, are in-
serted in the anode paste (the pitch and carbon aggregate
mixture). As the baking anode is lowered, the lower row of
studs and the bottom channel are removed and the flexible
electrical connectors are moved to a higher row.
The vertical-stud Soderberg is similar to the hori-
zontal-stud pot except that the studs are mounted vertically
in the cell.
When current is applied, over a period of time, the
alumina breaks down and the molten aluminum goes to the
bottom of the pot. Additional alumina is added to the batch
to replace that consumed in the reduction process. Heat is
generated by the resistance to the flow of electrical
current in passage through the cell. The cell is designed
to be operated within a narrow temperature range. The heat
generated is sufficient to maintain the electrolyte in a
molten state as well as to dissolve added alumina. Periodi-
cally, molten aluminum (99.5 percent pure) is siphoned from
the reduction cells into crucibles and transferred to gas-
fired holding furnaces, or cast in large sows for later
remelt. Refining is accomplished by fluxing with gas or
various salts to removed oxides and gas inclusions.
A process flow diagram for primary aluminum smelting is
shown in Figure 2-6. Each potential process fugitive emis-
sion is identified and explained in Table 2-16. A dust
source common to all aluminum smelters, but not specifically
2-102
-------
2.3 PRIMARY NON-FERROUS SMELTING INDUSTRY
2.3.1 Primary Aluminum Production
Process Description - Smelting is the process that
breaks alumina down into its two components, aluminum and
oxygen. The basic smelting process is the Hall-Heroult
Process. In this process, alumina is dissolved in a bath of
molten cryolite (sodium aluminum fluoride) in large electric
furnaces. These pots, as the furnaces are called, are deep
rectangular steel shells lined with carbon and connected in
series to form a "potline."
Although cryolite is the primary ingredient, the elec-
trolyte in industrial use has four constituents. These four
constituents and their range of composition are: cryolite,
80 to 85 percent; calcium fluoride, 5 to 7 percent; aluminum
fluoride, 5 to 7 percent; alumina, 2 to 8 percent. The
melting point of the cryolite is 958°C (1760°F). Alumina is
added regularly to replenish the quantities converted to
aluminum, and other constituents are added as needed to
maintain a predetermined bath composition.
High-amperage, low-voltage direct current is passed
through the cryolite bath, by means of carbon anodes sus-
pended in each pot, to the bottom of the pot which serves as
the cathode.
There are three types of pots currently in use: pre-
baked, horizontal-stud Soderberg (HSS), and vertical-stud
Soderberg (VSS). The major portion of aluminum produced in
the United States is processed in prebaked cells. In this
type of pot, the anode consists of blocks that are formed
from a carbon paste and baked in an oven prior to use in the
cell. These blocks are attached to metal rods and serve as
replaceable anodes. As the reduction proceeds, the carbon
is gradually consumed.
2-101
-------
18. Brough, J.R. and W.A. Carter. Air Pollution Control of
an Electric Furnace Steelmaking Shop. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association. 22:167-171. 1972.
19. Hardison, L.C. and Carroll Greathouse. Air Pollution
Technology and Costs in Nine Selected Areas. Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-0301.
Durham, North Carolina. September. 30, 1972.
20. Flux, J.H. The Control of Fume from Electric Arc
Steelmaking. Iron and Steel International. June 1974.
21. McMullen, R.M. The Steel Industry Viewpoint on Air
Pollution Control Regulations and Standards. Air
Pollution Control Association Specialty Conference on,
Air Quality Standards and Measurement. October 13-15,
1974.
22. Kaercher, V.T. and V.D. Sensenbaugh. Air Pollution
Control for an Electric Furnace Melt Shop. Iron and
Steel Engineer. May 1974.
23. Brough, J.R. and W.A. Carter. Air Pollution Control of
an Electric Furnace Steelmaking Shop. Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association. Vol. 22, No. 3.
March 1972.
24. Background Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry, Vol. 1.
Proposed Standards, EPA-450/2-74-017a. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, October 1974. p. 144.
2-100
-------
9. Goodwin, D. Your Request for Information Concerning
Electric Arc Steel Furnaces, dated November 11, 1974,
Memorandum to G.T. Helms. Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
November 25, 1974.
10. Iversen, Reid. Personal Communication. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Program.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. To PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio.
11. Gutow, B.S. An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emission.
Modern Castings. January 1972.
12. Midwest Research Institute. A study of Fugitive
Emissions from Metallurgical Processes. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Monthly
Progress Report No. 9. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. July 15, 1976.
13. Vandegrift, A.E. and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emis-
sions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary
Particulate Pollution Sources. Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
14. Fugitive Emissions Control Technology for Integrated
Iron and Steel Plants, Draft. Midwest Research Insti-
tute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory.
Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. January 17, 1977.
15. Mattis, Robert P. An Evaluation of Charging and
Tapping Emissions for the Basic Oxygen Process. Pre-
sented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association. Boston, Massachusetts. June
15-20, 1975.
16. Allen, Roger. Iron and Steel Plants Basic Oxygen
Furnaces. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement.
17. Simpson, Wayne and David H. Wheeler. Occupational
Health in Safety Aspects of Air Pollution Control in
Steelmaking. Paper No. 76-40.3. 69th Annual Meeting,
Air Pollution Control Association. Portland, Oregon.
June 26 - July 1, 1976.
2-99
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.3
1. Trenholm, Andrew. Personal Communication. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, North Carolina.
To Thomas Janszen, PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. September 23, 1976.
2. Notes prepared by G. McCutchen. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning
Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
February 1976.
3. Nicola, G. Fugitive Emissions Control in the Steel
Industry. Iron and Steel Engineer. July 1976.
4. Transmittal from American Iron and Steel Institute to
Mr. Don Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Data contained in Table
entitled Source Data for Steel Facility Factors. July
13, 1976.
5. Iversen, Reid. Personal Communication. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Air Program.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. December 3,
1976.
6. Neulicht, Roy. Trip Report - Interlake Inc., Chicago,
Illinois. January 26, 1976. Letter to Mr. John E.
Baker, Armco Steel, Middletown, Ohio (PF 60).
7. Mattis, R.P. An Evaluation of Charging and Tapping
Emission for the Basic Oxygen Process. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. (Presented at 68th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association.
Boston, Massachusetts. June 15-20, 1975. Publication
No. 75-15.1).
8. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Fac-
tors. April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
2-98
-------
emissions as with building evacuation, but requires less
exhaust volume because of the smaller area.
Building evacuation systems are estimated to achieve
nearly 100 percent capture of the emissions from electric
arc furnaces. A baghouse will collect 95 percent of the
emissions. Canopy hoods have been estimated to capture 50
to 90 percent of the fugitive emissions, those from changing
and tapping.24 This estimate is based on judgment from
visual observations and consequently the range is wide. The
efficiency will also vary between specific installations and
from day to day for a given installation due to factors such
as the volume of the emission plume and cross drafts in the
building.
Scarfing emissions can be captured by a hood and ducted
to either a scrubber or ESP.
Ingot casting can be controlled by fixed or movable
hoods depending on space limitation and operating procedures.
Building evacuation is an alternative but requires large
volumes of air. It is estimated that a flow rate of 236
m /sec (500,000 acfm) is required for each pouring aisle.
The purchase and installation cost for a two aisle evacua-
tion system using medium temperature baghouses is estimated
at $1,500,000 and $70,000 annual maintenance cost.13 in
addition, careful control of pouring temperature can help
alleviate the generation of fugitive emissions. However,
pouring temperature is an important metallurgical parameter
and can not always be controlled to reduce emissions. The
choice of mold release materials not containing oils and
other volatiles will also help prevent the generation of
fugitive emissions.
2-97
-------
Each of these systems has advantages and disadvantages.
Direct evacuation of the furnace is effective but will not
control all operations (e.g. charging). Local and roof or
canopy hoods must be located so as to not interfere with
normal operations, but can control charging and tapping
emissions.18,19,20 Building evacuation can capture all
fugitive emissions, but requires large volumes of air.
Several electric furnace shops are exhausting over 472
m /sec (1 million ft /min). One installation handles 755
m /sec (1.6 million ft /min) at a capital cost of over $10
million.20f21 Generally flow rates for building evacuation
range from about 1.4 to 1.9 Nm /sec (3000 to 4000 scfm) per
Mg (ton) capacity.13
A common control system is the use of both direct
furnace evacuation and canopy hoods.20,22,23 jn designing
the system, the canopy hood should be positioned as close
above the source as possible without interferring with crane
operations. Nine to twelve meters (30 to 40 ft) between the
furnace and the canopy is often necessary. Sheet metal
partitions can be installed on three sides of the furnace to
create a chimney effect. Flow rates are approximately 1 to
2 Nm /sec per Mg (1,500 to 4,000 scfm per ton) capacity. In
one plant the installed cost for the baghouse, ducting,
hoods, and monitor closing for a 210 m /sec (440,000 acfm)
system is estimated to be $2.38 million including building
14
modification.
When a system such as direct shell evacuation is not
used to capture emissions during melting and refining,
canopy hoods may not be adequate. In these cases, building
evacuation may be necessary.
Another promising capture technique is to enclose the
furnace and evacuate the enclosure. This contains all
2-96
-------
evacuation is complete enclosure of the furnace and tapping
areas to control charging, tapping, ladle alloy additions,
and slagging. Furnace enclosures with a draft of approxi-
3
/
3
mately 165 m /sec (350,000 acfm) are currently operating
effectively.
Other control techniques for EOF shops include local or
canopy hooding of the individual emission points. Secondary
hoods can be used to control charging and tapping emissions.
The collected emissions can be ducted to the existing or a
new collecting device. Many steel mills are redesigning
their hood and ducting systems instead of purchasing from a
vendor. Extra capacity ductwork, and hooding are the main
alterations. Puffing, emissions from the EOF during oxygen
lancing, will not occur if adequate draft is maintained by
the primary collector. As well, charging can be controlled
by the "jaw" damper, a device which increases draft at the
charging aisle side of the main exhaust hood and thus
promotes better capture.
To control open hearth furnaces, complete or partial,
building evacuation is possible, but like the EOF shop,
would require very large flow rate. Such a system if
installed, however, would control all emission points to
some degree. An alternative would be canopy or local
hooding of the charging doors and tapping area. This would
also control furnace leaks. These hoods could be ducted to
the existing control device or to separate systems.
There are many effective control options for electric
furnace melt shops. These include:
0 Direct evacuation of the furnace,
0 Local hoods above the furnace,
0 Roof or canopy hoods,
0 Building evacuation.
2-95
-------
^0
K
T
•3
IO
o
o
o
o
oo
3
r*
3
ff
»1 reladling '
0
o
-*J
3
o
o
Of
<-»•
3
O
0
o
*
o
0^
O- o cr o> — «
o
QI o* ft 3- T
T3 -Q Of Qi -*•
•o -o ^- -i n
-»._.. Q» U3
3 3 (O -•• O>
i i to n
f» 1/1
oTf? c"
U3 ID -f
O)
n
re
i
I
1
c*
0
~t
rfr
O
<-*•
Cat
O
0 O O
O 0 0
o o o o o
O O O O O
o o o o o
tn
SffS? §
3
01 at n> 3- 3-
T3 TJ fti CM (C
•2-2.ST.2 SI
3 3 to -"• r+
1 1 U3
l/> Wl -*i
rs s
to o> ^
— i Or
(t>
3
0
~*t
|
r*
O
r*
O
r*
O
O O O
o o o
o +
o o o o o
4*
4* ** *. QD
Q. cr o» cu
-•
Of I* 3-
T3 Ot Oi 0
•o K- -i x
— Q.tQ *<
3 (O -*• (O
I (0 3
W>
Ql C
10 3
O
n>
3
o
-»i
3
S
T
?
£
V
O 0 0
o o o
+ 4- + +
O O 0
O 0 O 0
UJ
o X
JO
-J r*
at 3
— 'T3
cv -j-
O.U3
m -••
w n
-§
?^
r* -1
S3
C?
3?
»i
0.
-S
33
* — m
&
V*
f*
O
O
O
0
ro
~n
x
i
V
.-
unloading, transfer and storage
v
c
-I
3
to
Negligible emissions
1PFPE source typically uncontrolled
Control technologies Identified 1n Section 2.1
Wet suppression (water and/or chemical)
Confinement by enclosure
Better control of raw material quality
Better control of operating parameters and procedures
Improved maintenance and/or construction program
Increase exhaust rate of primary control system
Fixed hoods, curtains, partitions, covers, etc.
Movable hoods with flexible ducts
Closed buildings with evacuation
Enclosure of furnace area with evacuation
Fabric filter
Scrubber
ESP
.. -o
5*'
u5
•gsr
-1 r»
^.s
o3
?2
.32-
» I
VI
us
£2
0-3
(V
-O JO
fl
3 — •
r»
i
H
m
tn
CO
O
S
2
T)
S
o
o
o
z
§
3
*
5
CO JB
n3 cr
M M
W fD
t4
NJ
O O
t-3 O
G X
O
H
JO
O
^ O
^ ffi
M 2
H
CO O
O G
G M
50 to
O
M ^
to O
-------
have a vertical velocity of 1.0 to 2.8 meter/second (200 to
500 fpm) at a temperature of ambient to 27°C (80°F) above
ambient. The fugitive particulate emissions have a mean
diameter of 0.3-5 ym (1.3 ym average) of which 59-99 percent
are less than 5 ym. '
Fugitive emissions from scarfing are usually less than
2 ym and have an exit temperature of 23°C (42°F) above
910
ambient. 'x
Control Technology - Control technology options for the
steel production IPFPE sources (except those covered in
Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-15 and are explained
in more detail below.
Hot metal or molten steel reladling can be effectively
controlled by a close fitting movable ladle hood. For
example, reladling for a 350 Mg (320 ton) capacity furnace
is controlled by a 59 m /sec (125,000 acfm) ladle hood and
high energy scrubber. Also, canopy or local hoods to con-
trol the same reladling station would require a 140 m /sec
(300,000 acfm) flow. An installed cost for a 70 m /sec
(150,000 acfm) system including baghouse erection, insula-
tion material, transportation of equipment, site prepara-
tion, and auxiliary equipment such as fans, ductwork,
monitors, and control instrumentation has been estimated at
$525,000.14
For the EOF shop, once the emissions escape into the
building they are difficult to capture. This would require
complete or partial building evacuation to control. While
this may be a preferred alternative from an operational
viewpoint, and because of the relatively complete capture of
emissions, disadvantages are the high flow rate requirements
and cost. Flow rates for such a system would be in excess
3 2
of 470 m /sec (995,000 acfm). An alternative to building
2-93
-------
emissions from steel production are charging and tapping
emissions and related operations.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Fugitive
particulate emissions from steel production consist basic-
ally of iron oxide. Fugitive particulate emissions from a
Basic Oxygen Furnace (EOF) may have exit temperatures of
290-1650°C (560-3000°F) but this temperature quickly de-
creases before any major dispersion of the particulates.
Fugitive emissions from a 40 meter (130 ft) EOF building
monitor may have a vertical velocity of 10 meter/second
(2000 fpm) with an exit temperature of 150°C (300°F). These
fugitive emissions have a mean diameter of 0.5 ym of which
85-99 percent are less than 5 ym. Fugitive hot metal
charging fumes from the EOF process are 35 percent iron
oxide and 30 percent kish (graphite). Fugitive tapping
fumes are 75 percent iron oxide and are less than 10 ym.
Fugitive hot metal reladling fumes are 55 percent iron
oxides less than 3 ym and 42 percent graphite greater than
75 ym. Fugitive emissions from a slagging are usually less
than 100 ym.10'11'12
Fugitive particulate emission from the Open Hearth
Furnace process may have exit temperatures of 240-980°C
(460-1800°F) which also quickly cool before dispersing.
Fugitive emissions from a 24 meter (80 ft) height will have
a vertical velocity of 0.89 meters/second (175 fpm) and a
temperature of 11°C (52°F) above ambient. The fugitive
particulate emissions have a mean diameter of 0.3-5.0 ym of
which 50-99 percent are less than 5 ym. '
Fugitive particulate emissions from an Electric Arc
Furnace process may have exit temperatures of 540-1650°C
(1000-3000°F) but quickly cool before dispersing. Fugitive
emission from a 27 to 42 meter (90 to 137 ft) height will
2-92
-------
Proper evaluation of this emission category is explained in
Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-14 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the steel production IPFPE
sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled emission
rates, the site-specific level of control must be considered
for application to a specific plant. Also included are
reliability factors for each estimate.
Since emission estimates are available for the EOF shop
roof monitor (all fugitive emissions) and some individual
processes within the building, both were included in Table
2-14. However, where only building monitor estimates are
available, attempts were not made to estimate emissions from
the individual emission point within the building.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for steel production as shown in Table 2-14 presents poten-
tial fugitive emission quantities from an integrated facility
having Basic Oxygen, Open Hearth, and Electric Arc pro-
cesses. The plant inventory is not meant to display a
typical plant situation, but merely a potential set of
circumstances. The assumed annual rate of steel production
from the integrated facility was as follows:
0 Basic Oxygen Furnaces - 1,816,000 Mg (2,000,000 tons)
0 Open Hearth Furnaces - 635,600 Mg (700,000 tons)
0 Electric Arc Furnaces - 454,000 Mg (500,000 tons)
Total production - 2,905,600 Mg (3,200,000 tons)
Not included in the inventory are fugitive particulate
emissions from plant haul roads. These sources may be
calculated using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total
model plant uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emis-
sions are 1605 Mg (1771 tons) per year. Major sources of
2-91
-------
Table 2-14 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR STEEL PRODUCTION
to
I
ID
O
Source of IPFPE
6.
7.
8.
9.
Electric arc furnace - roof
monitor (total)
6a. Charging
6b. Leakage
6c. Tapping-steel
6d. Tapping-slag
Ingot casting
Molten steel reladling
Scarfing
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.09-1.5 kg/Mg steel0'6'11'1
(0.18-3.0 Ib/ton steel)
Carbon steel: 1.5 kg/Mg steel
(3.0 Ib/ton)
Alloy steel: 0.75 kg/Mg steel
(1.5 Ib/ton)
j
j
j
j
0.014-0.06 kg/Mg steelk
(0.028-0.12 Ib/ton)
0.014-0.06 kg/Mg steelk
(0.028-0.12 Ib/ton steel)
0.0055 kg/Mg steel1
(0.011 Ib/ton steel)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
C
E
£
C
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Steel produced
(~50% carbon steel)
454,000
(500,000)
Steel produced
2,905,600
(3,200,000)
Steel produced
1,360,000
(1,500,000)
Steel produced
907,000
(1,000,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
511
(563)
108
(118)
50
(56)
5
(5)
Reference 2.
Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Reference 5.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Emissions included with steel tapping emission factor.
Reference 8.
Emissions included with total open hearth building emission factor.
Emissions included with total electric furnace emission factor.
Engineering judgment, assumed to be 50 percent of the hot metal reladling emission factor because of the lower carbon
content of steel.
Reference 24.
-------
I
00
Table 2-14. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR STEEL PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Scrap steel unloading,
transfer and storage
Flux material unloading,
transfer, and storage
Molten pig iron transfer from
torpedos to charge ladles
(hot metal reladling)
Basic oxygen furnace - roof
monitor (total)
4a. Charging
4b. Leakage
4c. Tapping-steel
4d. Tapping-slag
Open hearth furnace - roof
monitor (total)
5a. Charging
5b. Leakage
5c. Tapping-steel
5d. Tapping-slag
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Negligible
Negligible
0.028-0.12 kg/Mg hot metala'b'°
(0.056-0.25 Ib/ton hot metal)
0.08-0.6 kg/Mg steelb'c'd'e
(0.15-1.2 Ib/ton steel) n nna,p
also: E (Ib/ton) = 1.09e°-°083P
where P = BOF capacity tons
0.15-0.20 kg/Mg hot metal pouredb
(0.3-0.4 Ib/ton hot metal)
Negligible13
0.07-0.15 kg/Mg steel tapped
(0.15-0.3 Ib/ton steel tapped)
g
0.05-0.20 kg/Mg steelc
-------
PI
T
RAILCAR
©X
FLU
STOR
BIN
\_
MOLTEN
S IRON IN
DRPEDOS
.*
SCRAP STEEL
I RAILROAD 1 .—
! CAR J(T
(DXJ ~ f"'
SCRAP
STEEL PILE
1
£>
X
AGE
S
y
©V
SCRAP STEEL £
FLUX MATERIALS ^
A© MOLTEN (4a)>'*
! PIG IRON
©
ALLOYING y
MATERIALS \
^ SCRAP STEEL *Jr
FLUX (5S)y
' MATERIALS ^ '•,
MOLTEN (5a) y
PIG IRON \
OXYGEN
PLANT
1
• OXYGEN ^
BASIC
OXYGEN
FURNACE
1
SL,
©
'«.
A.G
OPEN-
HEARTH
FURNACE
(5)
LI<;
\STt
©
r*®
SLAG
^ ,<7\ OXYGEN
ALLOYING^
MATERIALS *,
©
MOLTEN y
PIG IRON '^.
SCRAP STEELi^ — *
FLUX (Oiy
MATERIALS^' ;.
VSfc_>^
ELECTRIC
FURNACE
(6)
I
X(6d)
LIQUID
STEEL
UID
EL
'LIQUID
STEEL *
(D
5 „ CONTINUOUS FURTHER
CASTING PROCESSING
t INGOT
-' CASTING ._ ,., J',,.. !,—
(7) PIT
^ '?
SCARFING
MACHINE
\ '
FURTHER
PROCESSING
LEGEND:
--POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
— ^PROCESS FLOW
SLAG
Figure 2-5. Process flow diagram for steel production showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
2-88
-------
Surface defects are removed in a process called scarf-
ing and may be done either by hand or mechanically. The
mechanical hot scarfer is installed directly in the mill
line and is composed of a number of scarfing torches (oxyace-
tylene). The machine is designed to remove a thin layer
(one-eighth inch or less) of metal from all four sides of
red-hot steel billets, blooms, or slabs as they travel
through the machine. Scarfing is also done manually in some
mills and usually the material to be scarfed is cold. Prior
to rolling, the material must be reheated in a horizontal
furnace.
Slabs may be further processed to plates or coils. The
coils are usually processed in the sheet and tin mills.
Oxides and scale are chemically removed from the surface of
the metal by pickling. The conventional facility for pick--
ling strip is a horizontal continuous line of equipment
consisting of a tank or tanks divided into separate sections
for pickling, washing, etc. with uncoiling and welding
equipment on the entry end and rewind and shearing equipment
on the exit end.
After pickling, the coils in the sheet and tin mills
may receive one of many treatments. These include cold
reduction, batch or continuous annealing, tempering, tin
plating, galvanizing, tin-free coating, chroming, slitting,
leveling, shearing, etc. Blooms and billets are processed
into shapes, structural, tubular, bars, rebars, and wire.
A process flow diagram for steel production is shown in
Figure 2-5. Each potential process fugitive emission point
is identified and explained in Table 2-14. A dust source
common to all steel producing facilities, but not spec-
ifically included in the Figure or Table is plant roads.
2-87
-------
hearth. From the time the pool forms, the charge is heated
from the bottom up by radiation from the pool, by heat from
the arcs and by the resistance offered to the current by the
scrap. Often second and third charges may be added to the
melt. During these charges considerable fugitive emissions
are evolved. Melting continues until the charge is com-
pletely melted. Composition of the steel is then adjusted
by adding alloys, blowing oxygen into the bath and by use of
fluxes to remove impurities. The molten steel is then
tapped into a ladle by tilting the furnace. Cycles or
"heats" vary considerably depending on the type of steel
produced. They range from 1 1/2 to 5 hours to make carbon
steel to 5 to 10 hours to make alloy steels.
The finished steel from whatever type of furnace, is
tapped into ladles and carried by an overhead crane to a
pouring platform where the steel is either teemed (poured)
into a series of molds or carried directly to a continuous
casting unit. Before teeming or casting, the steel may be
vacuum degassed to lower the free gas content of the steel.
When teemed into molds, the molten steel solidifies to form
an ingot. Continuous casting is a process whereby the
molten steel is teemed into a tundish and the flow from the
tundish is controlled as the molten steel discharges into
one or more molds of the continuous caster or strands. The
solidified steel is withdrawn from the bottom of the molds
as a continuous strand and subsequently cut to desired
lengths as the casting continues.
After the ingots are cool, they are stripped from the
mold and transferred to a heating furnace (called a soaking
pit) where the temperature of the ingot is raised and equal-
ized to soften the steel for rolling on the primary rolling
mills. The products of the primary mills, known as the
semifinished products, are called blooms, slabs and billets.
2-86
-------
iron to the furnace and an oxygen lance is lowered into the
furnace and the flow of oxygen is started. Striking the
surface of the liquid bath, the oxygen immediately starts
exothermic reactions by oxidation of carbon, silicon,
manganese, and some of the iron. Fluxes and other additives
can be added to the furnace during the operation through an
opening in the hood.
At the completion of the blow (30-45 minutes), the
lance is withdrawn and a temperature reading is taken and a
sample of steel withdrawn for chemical analysis. When the
temperature and composition are satisfactory, the furnace is
tilted and the molten steel is transferred into the ladle
positioned on a transfer car where alloying additions may be
made.
Hot metal is delivered to the basic oxygen shop in
submarine or torpedo cars from the blast furnace. The metal
is transferred to a charging ladle at the reladling station
where the car and metal are weighed in order to charge the
proper amount of hot metal. A crane transports the molten
iron to the steel making vessel.
Electric - In an electric arc furnace, the heat is
supplied by electrical energy. With the power turned off,
the electrodes and roof are swung out of the way. Solid
scrap and other components of the charge (sometimes including
hot metal) are placed in the furnace by means of the over-
head crane. Alloying materials are added as and when
required.
After charging is complete, the roof is returned and
the electrodes are lowered. The power is turned on and the
current passes from the electrodes, through the charge.
Since the arcs melt the portion of the charge directly
beneath each electrode, the electrodes "bore" through the
solid charge with the melted metal forming a pool on the
2-85
-------
2.2.3 Steel Manufacture
Process Description - Steel is usually made from scrap
steel and/or molten iron (hot metal). Impurities present in
the scrap and pig iron (such as sulfur and phosphorus) are
reduced with fluxes. The content of carbon alloys such as
manganese or silicon are adjusted as necessary. The three
main types of steel producing furnaces are electric arc,
open-hearth and basic oxygen.
Open hearth - In the open hearth process for making
steel, a mixture of scrap steel, fluxes, and hot metal is
melted in a shallow rectangular basin or hearth. The charg-
ing machine places the scrap materials and fluxes in the
furnace. The molten metal is conveyed by means of a refrac-
tory-lined trough from a ladle into the furnace. Burners
are located at the end walls of the furnace and are alter-
nately used. Heat for the furance is supplied by burning
fuel oil, tar-pitch mixtures, coke-oven gas, or natural
gas. Impurities are removed in a slag which forms a layer
on top of the molten metal. If oxygen is used, it is
injected into the furnace through the roof of the furnace to
speed the refining process, save fuel, decrease tap to tap
time and increase steel production rates. A complete cycle
(one heat) usually takes about ten hours for conventional
furnaces but with the use of oxygen lancing or an oxygen en-
riched fuel, the heat time may be reduced to six hours,
depending on the amount of oxygen introduced. The steel is
then tapped into a ladle through a port at the rear of the
furnace.
Basic oxygen - The basic oxygen process requires no
external source of heat. A cylindrical-base, lined furnace
with a dished bottom and truncated - cone shaped top is
charged with scrap steel. A transfer ladle adds molten pig
2-84
-------
9. Caraway, James C. Personal Communication. Texas Air
Control Board, To Robert Amick, PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. October 6, 1976.
10. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement -
An Investigation of Best Systems of Emission Reduction
for Sinter Plants in the Iron and Steel Industry. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. April 1976.
2-83
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.2
1. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
2. Gutow, B.S. An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions.
Modern Casting. January 1972.
3. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Second
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air and Water Management, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Publication No. AP-42.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 1976.
4. Iversen, R.E. Meeting with U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency and AISI on Steel Facility Emission Factors.
April 14 and 15, 1976. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Memorandum. June 7, 1976.
5. Speight, G.E. Best Practicable Means in the Iron and
Steel Industry. The Chemical Engineer. March 1973.
6. Iversen, Reid. Personal Communication. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, To PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. December 13, 1976.
7. McCrillis, Robert C. Personal Communication. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environ-
mental Research Laboratory. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, To PEDCo Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. January 12, 1977.
8. Vandegrift, A.E. and L.J. Shannon. Handbook of Emis-
sions, Effluents, and Control Practices for Stationary
Particulate Pollution Sources. Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. CPA 22-69-104. November 1, 1970.
2-82
-------
(1180 m /sec or 2.5 million cfm system) to control its blast
9
furnace tapping operations.
Wet suppression by means of a water spray is a poten-
tial means of controlling fugitive emissions during handling
and dumping of slag. However, if the slag is relatively hot
during this period, wet suppression will not be desirable
since it may result in the generation of larger volumes of
fugitive emissions. When dumping the slag, if the free-fall
distance is kept to a minimum the generation of fugitive
emissions can be somewhat alleviated. Confinement of the
slag dumping area or installation of wind break walls will
help in preventing the generation of windblown fugitive
emissions. If the dumping area is a relatively small desig-
nated area, it may be possible to construct a fixed hood
which can vent fugitive emissions to a baghouse.
Wet suppression during slag crushing will normally be
effective in controlling fugitive emissions. Alternative
controls include use of a fixed hood over the crusher or use
of a closed building with evacuation to a fabric filter.
2-81
-------
Operating practices in conjunction with control of raw
material quality can be methods used to prevent slips in
blast furnaces and thus the generation of fugitive emis-
sions. Operators of blast furnaces will often vary the
sequence of skip car loads (coke, ore, stone, etc.) in order
to minimize slips. However, since no two blast furnaces are
alike, the sequence must be specific to each furnace. In
the event that slips do occur, there are two technically
feasible control techniques for fugitive emissions. The
bleeder valve can be vented down to ground level•with
exhaust into a water hot well where particulates will settle
out in the well and the gases bubble out. A second method
would be to construct a box over the bleeder valve. Con-
tained in the box structure would be baffles which would
induce the settling of particles. A disadvantage to this
system, however, would be that during periods of high
moisture content caking could occur, resulting in decreased
efficiency of the system. It should be noted that these two
methods are considered feasible but are not known to be
used.
Tapping of iron and slag can both be controlled by the
use of fixed or movable hoods. The choice of a fixed or
movable hood will depend on space limitations as well as
related operations which may make one type more desirable.
At times because of furnace design, a hood must be placed
some distance above a tapping area. Under such conditions
movable curtains will aid in directing fugitive emissions
into the hood. Close covers over iron and slag runners are
another way of effecting fume capture, especially in well
operated shops. Venting to a baghouse will effectively
remove the emissions. A major steel manufacturer recently
spent $6.5 million for hooding, ducting, and fabric filter
2-80
-------
prevent the generation of fugitive emissions. Also if the
free-fall distance from the discharge to the receiving
system is minimized, the amount of fugitive emissions gen-
erated can be greatly reduced. Confining the windbox dis-
charge and receiving systems will keep fugitive emissions
from dispersing. The use of a fixed hood constructed around
the discharge or over the receiving system will effectively
capture fugitive emissions which can then be vented to a
baghouse. Normally these fugitive emissions are negligible.
Sinter machine discharge and screening fugitive emis-
sions may be controlled through confinement by enclosure.
If the system has primary controls, increasing the exhaust
rate may increase collection efficiency. However, this may
require changes such as a new fan and motor. Redesign of
the existing control system or repair and/or replacement of
faulty parts may also help alleviate fugitive emission
problems. A fixed hood constructed over screening opera-
tions will effectively control fugitive emissions, particu-
larly if screening is of the agitation type. Venting to a
baghouse will effectively remove the emission. Fugitive
emissions from the sinter cooler can be controlled by con-
fining the cooler and venting to an air/mechanical collector
or to a fabric filter. Wet suppression may be used for
controlling fugitive emissions from sinter machine discharge,
screening, or cooling. However, since the sinter is very
hot during these operations, much steam and mist are gen-
erated. Wet suppression is sometimes used on the sinter as
it comes from the cooler. However, the application rate
must be controlled since an increased moisture content of
the sinter will necessitate higher heat requirements in the
blast furnace.
2-79
-------
Table 2-13. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR
IRON PRODUCTION IPFPE SOURCES
Industry: Iron Production
1. Ship or railroad car unloading
2. Iron ore storage
3. Iron ore handling and transfer
4. Limestone storage
5. Limestone handling and transfer
6. Coke storage
7. Coke handling and transfer
8. Blast furnace flue dust storage
9. Blast furnace flue dust handling and transfer
0. Sinter machine windbox discharge
11. Sinter machine discharge and screens
12. Sinter cooler
13. Sinter storage
14. Sinter handling and transfer
IS. Blast furnace charging
16. Blast furnace upsets (slips)
17. Blast furnace tapping - iron
18. Blast furnace tapping - slag
9. Slag handling
20. Slag dumping and storage
21. Slag crushing
Negligible emissions
V
J
/
1
|
C
o
v
X
4)
Oi
o
1
0)
"o
L.
*J
C
o
CJ
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
J
/
Preventative procedures
and operating changes
>sion (water and/or chemical)
t
CL.
&
1/1
I
0
X
•f
+
X
. by enclosure
1
X
r
+
+
>>
1
to
T
QJ
4J
!
w-
o
£
C
O
U
L.
Of
1
0
1
1
0.
^
C
ro
in
I/I
5?
E
c
o
U
Increase exhaust rate of primar)
0
• other device)
o
H
Minimize free-fall distance (chl
+
+
+
Capture
methods
s, covers, etc.
o
+
X
X
•f
•f
+
X
VI
Movable hoods with flexible duel
+
4
§
S
U
s
0)
f
4V
'»
tti
w
e
5
'5
^
•o
aj
i/i
^0
o
+
Removal
equipment
1
u
U
^
rts
LL.
+
X
X
+
+
+
X
Scrubber
*
4-1
£
•f
x Typical control technique.
o In use (but not typical) control technique.
+ Technically feasible control technique.
2-78
-------
Fugitive emissions from sintering consist mostly of ore
dusts and metal oxides with a mean particulate diameter of
48-180 ym. Only 1-10 percent are less than 5 ym. Exit
temperature is 38-149°C (100-300°F). At the discharge end
of the sintering process and during cooling, fugitive iron
oxides emitted have a mean particulate diameter of 48-180 ym
of which 80 percent are less than 100 ym size.1'8
Fifteen to ninety percent of the fugitive hot molten
fumes, iron oxides and incandescent particulates expelled
during blast furnace operations have a mean diameter less
than 70 ym. Exit temperatures are 1650-2200°C (3000-4000°F).2'8
Control Technology - Control technology options for all*
IPFPE sources (except sources with negligible emissions or
those covered in Section 2.1) are presented in Table 2-13.
Control of fugitive emissions by wet suppression is practi-
cal when attempting to control emissions from slag handling,
dumping, and crushing. Use of water suppression on other
portions of the process is not advisable because this would
require higher heat requirements in the blast furnace.
Fugitive emissions from handling and transfer of raw
materials can be controlled by enclosure of the operations
as well as better control of the operating parameters and
procedures. For example, conveyor belt systems may be
partially covered to prevent wind blown fugitive emissions
or totally enclosed to prevent all fugitive emissions.
Control of operations such as not overloading transport
systems and reducing free fall distances from grab buckets
and clam shells, will also reduce fugitive emissions.
Fugitive emissions generated during sinter machine
windbox discharge can be effectively controlled by several
methods, wet suppression by means of applying a fine spray
to materials as they are discharged from the windbox will
2-77
-------
The assumed feed rate of raw materials to produce 1
metric ton of iron was as follows:
0 0.36 Mg (0.40 tons) sinter
0 1.2 Mg (1.2 ton) iron ore
0 0.59 Mg (0.65 ton) coke
0 0.25 Mg (0.28 ton) limestone flux
The product and by-products resulting from this quantity of
feed are as follows:
0 1.00 Mg (1.10 tons) iron
0 0.30 Mg (0.33 ton) slag
0 0.05 Mg (0.06 ton) flue dust
The feed rate of raw materials and resulting product and by-
product quantities will differ from plant to plant depending
on the availability of raw material and the desired product.
However, the yearly uncontrolled fugitive emissions listed
in Table 2-12 do represent a potential situation.
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. These sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Total model plant
uncontrolled process fugitive particulate emissions are 4009
Mg (4400 tons) per year. The largest potential source of
fugitive emissions is iron ore handling and storage. Other
major potential sources of fugitive emissions are sintering
operations and blast furnace tapping.
Characteristics of Fugitive Emissions - Fugitive par-
ticulate emissions from iron production consist basically of
coke, limestone, and iron ore dusts as well as iron oxides.
Coke dust emissions from stockpile, handling and transfer
have a mean particulate diameter of 3-10 ym. Limestone dust
from stockpiles, handling, and transfer has a mean particu-
late diameter of 3-6 ym, of which 45-70 percent is less than
2
5 ym.
2-76
-------
Table 2-12 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR IRON PRODUCTION
ro
I
^j
en
Source of IPFPE
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Emission factor range for iron ore unloading (taconite pellets) derived from data resent d '
Uncontrol led
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
2'
and K, = 1.
Reference 1.
For complete development of
for values for variables in
D = 90, PE = 100, and K,, K,
Reference 2.
Engineering judgment, assumed 50% of coal handling emissions as reported in Reference 3.
Emissions idsnti f i&d anrf i nr*7iirforf -in c*n~i4-•»*•»« -> •* -* » j^ • •
produced reported In Reference 3 ^ 2'2'1- Addltlonal emission factor of 0.055 Kg/Mg (0.11 Ib/ton) pig iron
Blast furnace flue dust is normally handled in a closed system and so a negligible source.
Engineering judgment, assumed equal to sand handling emissions as reported in Reference 3.
Reference 4.
Reference 5.
Engineering judgment, assumed equal to coal handling emissions as reported in Reference 3.
Reference 6.
Reference 7. Emissions for source 18 included in emissions from source 17.
Emission for slag tapping included in iron tapping emission factor.
Engineering judgment, assumed equal to coke handling emission range as described in Section 2.1.1.
" ^ """ " " eem?s1?Lsfaei?rse?tiro^La?LSpl«t?ry CrUSherS ^ AP-42 - »°te that
-------
Table 2-12 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR IRON PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
13. Sinter storage
14. Sinter handling and transfer
15. Blast furnace charging
16. Blast furnace upsets (slips)
17. Blast furnace tapping - iron
18. Blast furnace tapping - slag
19. Slag handling
20. Slag storage
21. Slag crushing
,
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
b
0.2 kg/Mg sinter1*
(0.4 Ib/ton sinter)
Negligible
0.0019-0.019 kg/Mg iron producedk
(0.0038-0.038 Ib/ton iron produced)
0.15-0.46 kg/Mg iron produced1^1
(0.3-0.92 Ib/ton iron produced)
Model values:
0.39-0.49 kg/Mg iron produced '
(0.78-0.92 Ib/ton iron produced)
1
0.01-0.05 kg/Mg slag"
(0.02-0.1 Ib/ton slag)
b
1.0 kg/Mg crushed0
(2.0 Ib/ton crushed)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
E
E
E
E
D
-
C
B
A
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Sinter
44,000
(48,000)
Sinter
520,000
(570,000)
-
Iron
994,260
(1,093,686)
Iron
994,260
(1,093,686)
_
-
Slag
298,278
(328,106)
Slag
298,278
(328,106)
Slag
298,278
(328,106)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
7
(8)
104
(114)
-
10
(11)
423
(465)
_
1
9
(10)
49
(54)
298°
(328)
-------
Table 2-12 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR IRON PRODUCTION
Source of IPFPE
3. Iron ore handling and
transfer
4 . Limestone storage
5. Limestone handling and
transfer
6. Coke storage
7. Coke handling and transfer
8. Blast furnace flue dust
storage
9. Blast furnace flue dust
handling and transfer
10. Sinter machine windbox
discharge
11. Sinter machine discharge
and screens
12. Sinter cooler
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
1.0 kg/Mg ore handled0
(2.0 Ib/ton ore handled)
b
0.1 kg/Mg limestone handled*5
(0.2 Ib/ton limestone handled)
b
See Section 2.2.1e
Negligible
0.15 kg/Mg flue dust9
(0.3 Ib/ton flue dust)
Negligible3 'h
0.28-1.22 kg/Mg sintera'h
(0.55-2.45 Ib/ton sinter)
0.16-0.4 kg/Mg sinterh/i
(0.32-0.8 Ib/ton sinter)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
D
D
E
D
D
E
_
E
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Iron ore
1,680,300
(1,848,300)
Limestone
248,565
(273,422)
Limestone
248,565
(273,422)
Coke
586,613
(625,474)
Flue dust
49,713
(54,684)
Sinter
520,000
(570,000)
Sinter
520,000
(570,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
1,680
(1,848)
41
(45)
25
(27)
56
(63)
7
(8)
389
(427)
145
(160)
I
~J
OJ
-------
Table 2-12. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR IRON PRODUCTION
to
I
~j
N)
Source of IPFPE
1. Ship or railroad car
unloading
Iron ore - ship unloading
Iron ore - rail unloading
Limestone - ship unloading
Limestone - rail unloading
2. Iron ore storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
Iron ore 0.01-0.015 kg/Mg unloaded3
(0.02-0.03 Ib/ton unloaded)
Limestone 0.1 kg/Mg unloaded
(0.2 Ib/ton unloaded)
(0.02) (Ki) (S/1.5) kq/Mg material
(PE/lOO); loaded onto pileb
f(0. 04) (Ki) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material \
V (PE/100)2 loaded onto pile)
(0.065) (K2) (S/1.5) kg/Mg material
(PE/100)
-------
LUMP IRON ORE
IRON ORE FINES LIMESTONE
IRON ORE PELLETS
\ SHIP"/
TO FLUE
DUST STORAGE
PRIMARY
CLEANER
*
L
SECONDARY
CLEANER
LEGEND:
—•••POTENTIAL IPFPE
—"PROCESS FLOW
FLUE GAS
(CO)
GAS CLEANING
SYSTEM
Figure 2-4. Process flow diagram for iron production
showing potential industrial process fugitive
particulate emission points.
2-71
-------
slag as it flows from the blast furnace. Slag is often
processed for use as a fill material or aggregate.
A process flow diagram for iron production is shown in
Figure 2-4. Each potential process fugitive emission point
is identified and explained in Table 2-12. A common dust
source found at iron-producing facilities but not specific-
ally included in the Figure or Table is plant roads. Proper
evaluation of this emission category is explained in Section
2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Shown on Table 2-12 are poten-
tial uncontrolled emission factor ranges for the IPFPE
sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled emission
rates, the level of control must be considered if applied to
a specific plant. Also included are reliability factors for
each estimate.
The estimates of ship or rail unloading were obtained
from Section 2.1 of this report. Storage loss emission
estimates were obtained from Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors, AP-42. Handling and transfer emission
rates were determined using the best available data and
engineering judgement. Blast furnace and sintering emis-
sions were the latest emission estimates.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for iron production as shown in Table 2-12 presents poten-
tial fugitive emission quantities from the various uncon-
trolled sources within the process. The inventory repre-
sents a plant which produces 1,290,000 Mg (1,420,000 tons)
pig iron per year. The plant inventory is not meant to
display a typical plant, but merely a potential set of
circumstances.
2-70
-------
skip car hoist or by belt conveyor. ^ .^
limestone are also stored in bins at the furnace and are
charged in the same manner.
The blast furnace reduces the iron ore and iron-bearing
material to produce pig lron. Iron-bearing materials (iron
ore sinter pellet,, mill scale, slag, iron J
top o T llmeSt°ne' d°leraite' •*=•> «e charged into the
top of the furnace and referred to as burden. Heated air ds
blown lnto the furnace near its base or hearth line through
tuyeres. i» some instances fuel oil or powdered coke is
also blown into the bottom. The burden descends down the
furnace and the iron ore and iron bearing materials are
reduced and melted by the countercurrent flow of the hot
reducing gases created by the combustion of coke. Occas
Sionally slips may occur as the burden decends. Sllps are
due to an initial wedging or bridging of the stock in the
furnace, when this occurs, the material underneath con-
tinues to move downward and a void is created. The void
tends to increase in size until the "bridge" collapses
causing a sudden downward movement of the stock above and a
sudden release of emissions.
Hot metal is tapped from the furnace through a hole or
notch and is poured into submarine or torpedo railroad cars
and delivered to the steel making furnaces. slag from the
blast furnace is either tapped from a higher notch than the
hot metal or removed from the furnace through the iron notch
during a cast. The slag is guided in runners or troughs and
discharged into a slag pit adjacent to the blast furnace or
into a slag thimble for transporting to a slag dump or other
area. The slag going to the slag pit adjacent to the blast
furnace can be water-sprayed or air-cooled and then removed
by trucks. Slag granulators are also used for processing
2-69
-------
2.2.2 Iron Production
Process Description - Pig iron is the result of smelt-
ing iron ore, iron-bearing materials and fluxes with a
carbonaceous agent, usually coke, in a blast furnace. About
90 percent of the pig iron produced in the United States is
consumed in making steel; the remainder is used for iron and
steel castings.
Fine particles, whether in natural ores or in concen-
trates, are undesirable as part of the blast furnace feed.
The most desirable size for blast furnace feed is between
0.64 and 2.5 cm (0.25 and 1.0 inch). Of the numerous
methods available for agglomeration, sintering is most often
found at the steel mill.
In the sintering process, a mixture of iron ore fines,
iron-bearing materials or concentrates, coke fines, and
steel plant waste materials (such as blast furnace flue
dust, mill scale, etc.) are mixed and then spread on a
traveling grate. The traveling grate is like an endless
shallow trough with small openings in the bottom. The bed
of material on the grate is ignited on the top by burners
fired with oil, natural gas, or coke oven gas. As the grate
moves slowly toward the discharge end, air is pulled down
through the bed to support combustion. As the coke in the
bed burns, the heat generated agglomerates the small par-
ticles. At the discharge end of the machine, the sinter is
crushed to proper size, then cooled and finally screened.
In some cases, limestone fines are also added to the sinter
feed to produce a self-fluxing sinter. This replaces part
of the limestone normally charged into the blast furnace.
Very little sinter is stored in open piles. Usually,
it is carried directly to bins at the blast furnace where it
is weighed and transferred to the top of the furnace by a
2-68
-------
26. Barnes, T.M., H.W. Lownie, Jr. and J Varcra Jr
Summary Report on Control of Coke Oven Emissions
"'
(November 5,
29. Pengidore D.A. Enclosed Coke Pushing and
System Design Manual. National Steel Corp
for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
September 19737'^^^"""" Uliuej: Contract No,
30. Reference 21. p. 7-7.
2-67
-------
18. McClelland, R.O. Coke Oven Smokeless Pushing System
Design Manual. Koppers Company, Pittsburgh, Penn. and
Fort Motor Co. Prepared for U.S. EPA under Contract
No. 68-02-0630, ROAP 21AFF-010. Publication No.
EPA-650/2-74-076. September 1974.
19. Pengidore, D.A. Enclosed Coke Pushing and Quenching
System Design Manual. National Steel Corporation,
Weirton, West Virginia. Prepared for U.S. EPA under
Contract No. 68-02-0622. Publication No. EPA-650/2-73-028
September 1973.
20. Trenholm, A.R. Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement: Standards of Performance for Coke
Oven Batteries. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1976. Draft.
21. Trenholm, A.R. Standards Support and Environmental
Impact Statement: An Investigation of the Best Systems
of Emission Reduction for the Pushing Operation on By-
Product Coke Ovens. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emission Standards and Engineering Division.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1976.
Draft.
22. Lownie, H.W., Jr., and A.O. Hoffman. Study of Concepts
for Minimizing Emissions from Coke-Oven Door Seals.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash-
ington, D.C. under Contract No. 68-02-1439, ROAP No. 21
AQR-012. July 1975.
23. McClelland, R.O. Coke Oven Smokeless Pushing System
Design Manual. Koppers Company, Inc. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-0630.
September 1974.
24. The Particle Size Distribution of Coke Side Emissions
from By-Product Coke Ovens. Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., Draft. p. 10.
25. Reference 21, p. 4-24.
2-66
-------
8. Background Information for Establishment of National
Standards of Performance for New Sources, Iron and
Steel Industry. Prepared by Environmental Engineering,
Inc., and Herrick Associates. Gainesville, Fla. March
9. Purdy, J.B., and R.B. Men. Sampling of Coke Oven Door
Emissions, Preliminary Report. Prepared by Battelle
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-02-1409, Task
j4. May 1976.
10. Kertcher, L.F., and B. Linskey. Economics of Coke Oven
Charging Controls. JAPCA 24:765-771. August 1974.
11. Jacko, Robert. Coke Oven Emission Measurement During
Pushing. Paper presented at Symposium on Fugitive
Emissions, Hartford, Connecticut. EPA 600/2-76-246
September 1976.
12. Emission Testing and Evaluation of Ford/Koppers Smoke-
less Coke Pushing System. Prepared by Clayton Environ-
mental Consultants, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0630, Volume I
Table 8.0-1 (May 5, 1976).
13. Measurement of Coke Pushing Particulate Emissions at
CF&I Steel Corporation Coke Plant. Prepared by York
Research for CF&I Steel Corporation, Report No. 7-9167
(October 4, 1976).
14. Appendix III to letter from Edward Roe, Great Lakes
Carbon Corp. to Don Goodwin, Environmental Protection
Agency (April 14, 1975).
15. U.S. Steel Corp. Clairton Works. Emission Tests of
Shed on Number 17 Coke Oven Battery. 1975.
16. Study of Coke-Side Coke Oven Emissions. Draft report
prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. for
the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No
68-02-1408, Task No. 14, Volume 1. January 16, ig76.
17. Memo. Gas Cleaning Requirements for Coke Pushing
Emissions - Burns Harbor Coke Side Shed. From C R
Symons, Bethlehem Steel Corp. to P.O. Kostenbader,
Bethlehem Steel Corp., January 17, 1975.
2-65
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.2.1
1. Varga, J. Jr., Screening Study on By-Products Coke-
Oven Plants. Draft report. Battelle Memorial Insti-
tute. Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina under Contract No.
68-02-0611. September 1974.
2. Barnes, T.M., Hoffman, A.O., and Lownie, H.W., Jr.
Evaluation of Process Alternatives to Improve Control
of Air Pollution from Production of Coke. Battelle
Memorial Institute. Columbus, Ohio. Prepared for the
Dept. of HEW, Contract No. PH 22-68-65. January 1970.
3. Varga, Jr. Jr., and H.W. Lownie, Jr. A Systems Analysis
Study of the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry.
Battelle Memorial Institute. Columbus, Ohio. Prepared
for the Dept. of HEW under Contract No. 22-68-65. May
1969.
4. Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants, Draft.
Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. November 2, 1976.
5. A Study of Fugitive Emissions from Metallurgical Pro-
cesses. Midwest Research Institute. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Envir-
onmental Research Laboratory. Contract No. 68-02-2120.
Monthly Progress Report No. 14. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. September 10, 1976.
6. Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Final Report. Resources
Research, Inc. Reston, Va. Prepared for National Air
Pollution Control Administration, Durham, N.C., under
Contract No. CPA-22-69-119. April 1970.
7. Iversen, Reid E. Personal Communication, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. December 8, 1976.
2-64
-------
c. $2,264,000 for a hood with a scrubber on a rail-
C™. d JL f
d. $4,557,000 for a shed and scrubber; and
The higher capital cost of the shed-precipitator system is
partially offset by lower operating costs that result from a
low pressure drop. 30
2-63
-------
The control devices used with the capture systems
discussed above are scrubbers and wet electrostatic precipi-
tators. Both have been demonstrated to achieve better than
98 percent collection of emissions when installed on a shed.
A venturi scrubber has achieved 99 percent cleaning of
emissions from a hood and can be expected to perform the
same on an enclosed car. The Aronetics wet scrubber has
been shown to achieve better than 99 percent collection on
fine ferroalloy fume and is used on one enclosed quench
29
car. *
A factor that affects the performance of any system to
control pushing emissions is the "greenness" of the coke
pushed. Green coke, with high levels of volatile matter,
will result in a greater quantity of uncontrolled emissions,
hence a greater load for the control system. Any assessment
of the performance of a control system should consider this
factor (see Table 2-10 for greenness variations).
One other significant factor is the emissions from the
hot coke car as it travels to the quench station after a
push. When a shed is used, these emissions are captured
until the car exits the shed. For enclosed cars and hoods,
capture varies with design. Those designs where the car is
covered and drafted will control emissions until the car
reaches the quench station. Where no cover is used, the
emissions are controlled after the car moves away from the
oven pushed.
Examples of installed costs for these technologies,
adjusted to November 1975, are as follows. Based on a coke
capacity of 746,500 Mg/yr (821,000 ton/yr), these costs are:
a. $3,250,000 for an enclosed car with a scrubber on
a railcar;
b. $3,632,000 for a hood and stationary scrubber;
2-62
-------
one of three roughly defined categories. These are-
(1) sheds over the coke side of a battery; (2) enclosures or
hoods on the hot coke car; and (3) bench-mounted hoods over
the hot coke car.
Sheds are literally a building over the entire coke
side of a battery. Emissions from the pushing operation are
contained in the shed and slowly evacuated through a control
device. The capture efficiency has been estimated in two
cases as 91 percent and 85 percent.I4/16
Enclosures on the hot coke car vary in design. All
however, embody a close-fitting enclosure that minimizes'any
openings to the atmosphere. Size and location of these
openings and the amount of draft applied to the enclosure
are important parameters that affect capture efficiency
Although no measurements have been made, visual observations
andacate capture performance comparable to a shed 25,26
Enclosed quench cars distinguish themselves by whether they
are single spot or movable during pushing and whether draft
is created by fans or other means.
The third category, bench mounted hoods, exhibit great
variety in design and performance. Generally, they entail
greater areas open to the atmosphere than enclosed cars
typically at the interface between the hood and hot coke
car. Greater gas volumes are required, though not as great
as a shed. Capture efficiency varies widely with design
Efficiency increase with larger hoods, greater gas volumes
and smaller open areas. Capture efficiency for the better
designs (the closest fitting hoods with sufficient gas
volume) may equal the capture performance of sheds or enclosed
hot coke cars, if combined with operating practices to
minimize the greenness of the coke.27'28
2-61
-------
Table 2-11. CONTROL ALTERNATIVES AND COSTS FOR
CONTROLLING CHARGING EMISSIONS3
Method
Charing on the main with
stage or sequential
charging
with jumper pipe
addition of a dual
collecting main
Pipeline charging
Capital cost, $
c
140,000
900,000
negligible
a This represents additional costs above a typical
larry car for an existing battery.
Data obtained from References 10 and 20. This repre-
sents costs for a battery with 60 ovens, 4 m tall.
Without installation of additional gas off-take
holes.
Coking (oven lid, standpipe, and door leaks) - Emis-
sions from leaks during the coking cycle can be reduced by
good maintenance and replacement practices. For oven lids
and luted doors, prompt sealing after they are replaced and
resealing when necessary is one of the best techniques.
Oven door hoods over individual doors and sheds over the
coke side of a battery (which is a technique to capture
pushing emissions) also will effectively capture emissions
from doors on that side of the battery. Gas cleaning
efficiencies in excess of 85 percent for door emissions have
been achieved with wet electrostatic precipitators.
Pushing - To capture pushing emissions there is a
variety of systems that are in use, under construction or
planned throughout the world. More concepts are expected to
be developed. Most of these systems do, however, fall into
2-60
-------
essentially uncontrolled to excellent control. Among these
factors are the (1) strength of aspiration; (2) degree to
which oven openings to the atmosphere are kept closed
throughout a charge; (3) use of aspiration at both ends
of the oven; (4) maintenance of a free space at the top of
the oven for the evolved gases to pass freely to the ascen-
sion pipes; (5) maintenance of a free passage through the
ascension pipe; and (6) control of timing of steps in :
charging operations. The control efficiency for the best
form of this system (stage charging) has been estimated as
99+ percent for any specific charge.20
Pipeline charging is a closed system. Coal is charged
through pipes permanently connected to the ovens. Evolved
gases and entrained coal fines are recovered in a charging
main and recycled to the coal preheater plant. Some poten-
tial for emissions from oven leaks still exists and emis-
sions from the coal preheating plant (discharging through a
stack) should be considered. Though operating problems have
been experienced with the first installations now in opera-
tion, the potential control efficiency is judged to be high.
Table 2-11 presents cost estimates for different
control alternatives for controlling charging emissions.
2-59
-------
these are a variety of polycyclic organic compounds that are
carcinogenic and mutagenic. The amount of organic compounds
in the emissions is greatest for charging and oven leaks.
Considerable analysis of particle sizes has been done
for emissions from the pushing operation. The data show
that for pushing emissions captured by a shed (large parti-
cles settle under a shed and are not captured) 27-80 percent
are <10 ym and 15-26 percent are <2 ym. One set of data on
emissions captured by a hood (large particles are captured)
show 11 percent <10 ym and 4 percent <2 ym.2^
Control Technologyl~3/8-10,18-23 _ charging and pushing
operations and oven leaks are the major fugitive emission
sources in a coke plant. Several methods exist for the
control of emissions from these sources. Control technology
options for coking IPFPE sources (except those covered in
Section 2.1) are presented below.
Coal crushing and handling - Emissions from the coal
preparation operations are controlled by the use of enclosed
conveyor systems, transfer points, and various processing
equipment points. One or several particulate collection
devices, such as cyclones and fabric filters, are usually
used for separating particulates from the exhaust air.
Charging - Methods for the control of charging emis-
sions mostly consist of aspirating the evolved gases into
the battery main where they are ducted to the recovery
plant. Some batteries, where preheated coal is charged, use
a closed pipeline system. Descriptions of these methods
follows.
Charging on the main consists of drawing the evolved
gases into the battery main, and then into the recovery
system by a steam ejector located at the top of the oven
ascension pipe. Many factors influence the performance of
this type of system, which ranges over a continuum from
2-58
-------
The emission factors for the various coking operations
(other than handling) are based on very limited test data.
Therefore, these values received a reliability rating of
"C", which indicates that engineering judgment was used with
the limited test data in estimating emission rates. Conse-
quently, actual emission rates at a given facility will
probably differ significantly (for specific operations) from
those in Table 2-9 and 2-10.
Example Plant Inventory - The example plant inventory
for coke production as shown in Table 2-9 presents potential
fugitive particulate emission quantities from the various
uncontrolled sources within the process. The inventory
represents a plant which produces 1,000,000 Mg (1,102,000
tons) of sized coke per year suitable for blast furnace
operations. The plant inventory is not meant to display a
typical plant, but merely a potential set of circumstances.
The coal feed rate to produce 1 Mg of sized coke was as
follows:
0 1.55 Mg (1.71 tons) of raw coal
0 1.54 Mg (1.70 tons) of coal charged
Not included in the inventory are fugitive emissions
from plant haul roads. There sources may be calculated
using procedures outlined in Section 2.1. Major sources of
fugitive emissions include coal charging, coke pushing, and
oven door leaks.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - Fugitive
particulate emissions from coking operations consist basi-
cally of coal and coke dust and polycyclic organic hydro-
carbons. Coal dust emissions from stockpiling, handling,
and transfer have a mean particulate diameter of 1-10 ym.
In addition to emissions of coal and coke dust, coke
ovens emit hydrocarbons and organic compounds. Included in
2-57
-------
Table 2-10. PUSHING EMISSION FACTORS
kg/Mg coal charged (Ib/ton coal charged)
Degree of
greenness
Green coke
Moderately
green
Cleanly pushed
coke
Sheda
0.32h - 0.51
(0.65 - 1.0)
0.28h
(0.57)
0.17f'g
(0.35)
Travelling hood
l.O1 - 1.8d
(2.1 - 3.5)
1.65d
(2.3)
0.75d
(1.5)
Direct-uncaptured
plume
1.5 - 2.0e
(3 - 4)
1.0C
(2.1)
0.19e - 0.26°
(0.38 - 0.52)
Includes most of travel emissions.
Does not include travel emissions.
Reference 11.
Reference 12.
Reference 13.
Reference 14.
g Reference 15.
Reference 16 and 28.
Reference 17.
-------
Table 2-9 (continued). IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COKE MANUFACTURING
Source of IPFPE
5. Coal charging
6. Coking (door leakage)
7. Pushing
1 8. Quenching
O1
m
9. Coke handling
a *-
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.5-5.0 kg/Mg coal charged6 ' f '9'h
(1.0-10.0 Ib/ton)
0.20-0.45 kg/Mg coal charged6'5'1
(0.40-0. 90 Ib/ton)
See Table 2-10
Clean water: 0.6 kg/Mg coke produced j
(1.2 Ib/ton)
Highly contaminated water:
1.0-3.0 kg/Mg coke produced-'
(2.0-6.0 Ib/ton)
0.012-0.065 kg/Mg coke producedk
(0.023-0.13 Ib/ton)
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
•-
C
C
C
c
E
Coal hopper car unloading emission factor as develop in c0^™ , , ,
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Coal charged
1,542,500
(1,699,800)
Coal charged
1,542, 500
(1,699,800)
Coal charged
1,542,500
(1,699,800)
Coke produced
1 , 000, 000
(1,102,000)
Sized coke produced
1,000,000
(1,102,000)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
( tons/yr )
4,242
(4,674)
501
(552)
600
(660)
38
(42)
For complete development of tnis emission factor refer to Sermon •> i „
D = 90, PE = 100 Ki = 0 75 K - n R ^, „ „ Section 2.1.4
c l ".<->, i\2 u-3' ana K3 = 0.78. Reference 4.
d Coal conveying and transfer emission factor as developed in Section 2.1
Included in coal handling and transfer emission factor.
Reference 6.
Reference 7.
Reference 2.
Reference 8.
Reference 9.
Personal communication with Carl
Washington, D.C., March 11 1977
Cok Conveying and transfer emission factor as developed in Section 2.1.
For this example it was assumed that S = 4.0,
1. Reference 5.
Source Enforcement,
1.
-------
Table 2-9. IDENTIFICATION AND QUANTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSION POINTS FOR COKE MANUFACTURING
NJ
I
Ul
Source of IPPPE
1. Coal unloading
2 . Coal storage
Loading onto pile
Vehicular traffic
Loading out
Wind erosion
3. Coal conveying and transfer
4. Coal pulverizing and
screening
Uncontrolled fugitive emission factor
0.2 kg/Mg coal unloaded3
(0.4 Ib/ton)
<0.02){Kl)(S/1.5) kq/Mq material
(PE/100)2 loaded onto pileb
((0.04) (Ki) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material \
V (PE/100)^ loaded onto pile)
(0.065) (Kj) (S/1.5) kq/Mq material
(PE/100)^ storedb
((0. 13) (K2) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material^
\ (PE/100)^ stored j
(0.025) (K3) (S/1.5) kq/Mq material
(PE/100)2 loaded out"
((0.05) (K3) (S/1.5) Ib/ton material^
V (PE/100)^ loaded out /
(0.055) (S/1.5) D kq/Mq material
(PE/100JZ go stored0
MO. 11) (S/1.5) D Ib/ton material^
V (PE/100)^ 90 stored /
0.02-0.48 kg/Mg coal charged0
(0.04-0.96 Ib/ton)
d
Emission
factor
reliability
rating
E
D
D
D
D
E
Model plant
fugitive emission inventory
Operating parameter,
Mg/yr
(tons/year)
Coal charged
1,542,500
(1,699,800)
Coal loaded
1,550,000 '
(1,708,100)
Coal stored
1,550,000
(1,708,100)
Coal load out
1,550,000
(1,708,100)
Coal stored
1,550,000
(1,708,100)
Coal charged
1,542,500
(1,699,800)
Uncontrolled
emissions
Mg/yr
(tons/yr)
309
(340)
62
(68)
134
(148)
81
(87)
227
(250)
231
(250)
d
-------
OIL
OR >.
WATER
®Yx
*,
AIR ST
•*
WATER — >•
RAILROAD
COAL CAR
**** /'TN «* / — N. ^-^
RAW COAL STORAGE
PILES
(3)^*j 1
PULVERIZER
(3X-
(PREPARED COAL!
STORAGE BINS J
Bxj'Tn
COAL BLENDING
AND MIXING
(3T'J
COAL BUNKER
tO<'
j LARRY CAR \
S?Ax
COKE OVEN
HOT COKE
CAR
, ,
QUENCH
TOWER
I
COKE WHARF
(9)^
COKE SCREFNTNr L
V
1 r
0
LEGEND:
—•••POTENTIAL IPFPE SOURCE
— -PROCESS FLOW
)
rKAW GAS ,,-. TjTjnnTT.-,^c,
> li i -PRODUCTS
RTtT/TOTi'TJV M> ruiTMTr-AT c
^ ivcitiUV^iKZ *" UHJlMlLAi/o
\ SYSTEM
\ 1
COKE OVEN MISCELLANEOUS
FUEL GAS *^FUEL USAGES
0
.^
^^-\ — >-TO BLAST FURNACE
if\ Q 1
»• w
•1 CRUSHING
>r .TO MISCELLANF.OTTR
FUEL USAGE
Figure 2-3. Process flow diagram for coke manufacturing showing
potential industrial process fugitive particulate emission points.
2-53
-------
through flues or standpipes on each oven and collected in a
large duct that extends the length of a battery (the battery
main). These gases are piped through the main to the by-
product recovery section which separates from the gas such
coal chemicals as tar, light aromatic compounds and ammonia.
The coke-oven gases leaving the by-product recovery plant
are used as fuel.
Upon completion of the coking cycle, doors are removed
from each end of the oven and the incandescent coke is
pushed into a hot-coke car by a large ram. The hot-coke, or
quenching, car transports the coke to a quenching tower, a
chimney-like structure, in which the coke is deluged with
water. The damp, quenched coke is then deposited onto a
sloping wharf where it drains and cools to a uniform mois-
ture content and temperature. The coke is then screened
into three sizes called blast-furnace coke, nut coke, and
breeze, which is the undersize. Some plants grind nut coke
to make additional breeze for sintering operations; others
sell it for use in electric smelting of alloys.
A process flow diagram for coke manufacturing is shown
in Figure 2-3. Each potential process fugitive particulate
emission source is identified and explained in Table 2-9.
A dust source category common to all coke manufacturing
plants, but not specifically included in the Figure or
Table, is plant roads. Proper evaluation of this category
is explained in Section 2.1.
IPFPE Emission Rates - Table 2-9 presents a summary of
uncontrolled emission factors for the coke production IPFPE
sources. Since these are potential uncontrolled emission
rates, the site-specific level of control must be considered
for application to a specific plant. Also included are
reliability factors for each estimate.
2-52
-------
2.2 IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTION
2.2.1 Coke Manufacturing
Process Description1/2,3 - Coke is the nonvolatile
residue from the distillation of coal in the absence of air,
The three processes available for coal distillation are the
beehive process, the by-product process, and the form coke
process. Since the by-product process accounts for more
than 98 percent of the coke produced, only this process will
be discussed.
The raw coal is pulverized to sizes from 0.02 to 0.3 cm
(0.006 to 0.125 inches) then transferred to prepared coal
storage bins. Coals with low, medium or high volatilities
are blended and oil or water may be added for bulk density
control. The mixture is then transported to the coal stor-
age bunkers on the coke oven batteries. (The preheated coal
coking process transfers blended coal to the preheater
directly).
A weighed portion or specific volume of coal is dis-
charged from the coal bunker into a larry car, a vehicle
fitted with coal hoppers that rides on top of the battery on
a wide-gauge railroad track. The coal is transferred into
the ovens from the hoppers through opened coal-charging
ports in the top of empty ovens. In a coke-oven battery,
from about 20 to 100 slot ovens are arranged side-by-side in
a row, with common sidewalls. One oven is charged at a time
such that the charges will be staggered throughout the day.
After charging, lids are placed on the ports for the
duration of the 15 to 40 hour coking cycle. The shorter
cycles are for production of blast furnace coke and the
longer cycles for foundry coke. During a cycle the ovens
are maintained at a temperature of approximately 1100°C
(2000°F). Gases evolved during the heating are exhausted
2-51
-------
Hardwood, Colin and Paul Ase. Field Testing of Emis-
sion Control for Asbestos Manufacturing Waste Piles,
Draft. Illinois Institute of Technology, Research
Institute. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Contract No. 68-02-1872.
2-50
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.5
menf No^T °u ^rpPollutant Emission Factors, Supple
n???o f ;• *S; Environ^ental Protection Agency,
o^if °f /ir and Waste Management and OfficI of Air
?ark LrihT"^ Standards- Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. December 1975.
DusTvo^unT? K- Axetell« investigation of Fugitive
2 ™ " Sources' Emissions, and Control,
SPecialists' me., Cincinnati,
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc. Evaluation of
Fugitive Dust Emissions from Mining, Task 1 Report
M?n?na rf J°Vf-FUgitiVe °USt Sources Associa?ed with
S" ?9; " Environmental Protection Agency. indus-
trial Environmental Research Laboratory, Resource
Extraction and Handling Division, Cincinnati Shio
a ''
4. Chepil, w.S. Soil Conditions that Influence Wind
mental
mena pecialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Octobe
6* 2®??' K'TCT' and R' Havens- Reclamation of Mineral
Millmg Wastes. Presented at Annual AIME Meeting San
Francisco, California. February 1972. neerin9/ San
7. Cowherd C. Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. Guenther, Jr., and
?:v* n !6c Devel°Pment of Emission Factors for Fugi-
tive Dust Sources. Midwest Research Institute. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Report-450. June 1974. y
2-49
-------
2 6
the costs are $0.05 to $0.11 per m ($200 to $450 per acre).
The costs of physical covering are highly dependent on the
local availability of a cheap, environmentally acceptable
cover material such as wood bark, smelter slag, or gravel.
Fill dirt costs $0.06 to $0.15 per m ($250 to $600 per
2
acre) for a 4-inch cover. While applying dirt cover, water
should be used during grading operations to minimize fugi-
tive dust emissions.
Additional control techniques will be discussed in
reference 8 to be published in July 1977.
2-48
-------
Table 2-8. CONTROL TECHNIQUES FOR WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
Emission points
Handling
Dumping
Wind Erosion
Grading
Control procedures
Keep material wet
Covered or enclosed
hauling
Minimize free fall of
the material
Spray bar at dump area
Minimal free fall of
material
Semi-enclosed bin
Covering with dirt or
stable material
Chemical stabilization3
Revegetationa
Rapid reclamation of
newly filled areas
Watering
Efficiency
100%
No estimate
No estimate
50%
No estimate
No estimate
100%
80%
25%-100%
No estimate
50%
Reference 2.
of covering these wastes with earth and reclaiming the land
by planting a vegetative cover.
For wastes which are pumped to a disposal site and
subsequently leave a dry, exposed surface, (e.g., tailings),
complete crusting of the surface material can reduce emis-
sions as estimated in the Emission Rates section by 80
percent. Emission reductions can be achieved by either
chemical or vegetative stabilization of the tailings.
There are numerous methods for stabilizing erodible
waste piles—chemical, vegetative, or physical. Costs for
chemicals, which constitute more than half the total cost of
chemical stabilization, range from $0.02 to $0.18 per m2
($90 to $720 per acre).5 Where the surface does not contain
phytotoxic compounds and is amenable to vegetative growth,
2-47
-------
Inventory Techniques - It is not possible to provide a
general technique for estimating total plant emissions from
this source category because of the wide range of waste
material characteristics and disposal procedures.
Characterization of Fugitive Emissions - The emissions
would be the same chemically as the waste material unless it
contained a component that could be selectively eroded
because of its smaller particle size or low density. As
with storage piles, the size distribution of emissions would
be somewhat independent of the size of the waste material,
since only the fraction less than about 100 ym diameter
would become airborne.
Control Technology - Possible controls for reducing
emissions from waste disposal operations and their estimated
efficiencies are presented in Table 2-8 and discussed in the
following text.
Small volume wastes that are especially dusty, such as
fly ash or street sweepings, are best handled as a slurry or
wetted in order to prevent dust losses. Pug mills are
sometimes used in the lime industry to thoroughly moisten
kiln dust before transport to the disposal site. If the
waste material must be kept dry to eliminate corrosion or
chemical reactivity problems, it should be handled with the
same care as process material to minimize fugitive dust
emissions. Fugitive dust from waste disposal operations is
sometimes a problem through oversight or lack of interest.
After spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to remove
particulate air pollutants with highly efficient electro-
static precipitators or baghouses, it is foolish not to take
such precautions as covering the material removed from the
collection equipment while hauling it to a dumpsite. Reason-
able environmental policies would also indicate advisability
2-46
-------
ro
I
Figure 2-2. Climatic factor used in wind erosion equation.2
-------
Under a separate contract to U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, emission estimates for dried copper tailings
have been developed by PEDCo Environmental, Inc. with use of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's wind erosion equation.2
These estimates are a function of regional climatic condi-
tions and assume no surface crusting:
Climatic factor3
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
Emissions for dried
copper tailings*3
Mg/hectare/yr
2.9
5.8
9.0
11.9
14.8
17.9
20.8
23.7
26.9
29.8
35.8
tons/acre/yr
1.3
2.6
4.0
5.3
6.6
8.0
9.3
10.6
12.0
13.3
16.0
See Figure 2-2 for the climatic factors for all
parts of the country.
Reliability rating of E.
For disposal of material such as fly ash, an engineering
estimate of the uncontrolled handling and windage losses may
be 1 to 5 percent.
For most waste dumps, there are emissions when the
material is dumped onto the pile but probably only minimal
additional emissions from wind erosion due to a lack of
small particles on the surface. An emission factor of 10
gm/Mg (0.02 Ib/ton) has been used to estimate dust emissions
from truck dumping of large material.3
2-44
-------
2.1.5 Waste Disposal Sites
Description - Fugitive dust can occur anywhere dusty
waste material is dumped for disposal. This includes over-
burden piles, mining spoils, tailings, fly ash, bottom ash,
catch from air pollution control equipment, process overload
discharges, building demolition wastes, contaminated prod-
uct, etc. Like open storage, emissions come from dumping
and from wind erosion across unprotected surfaces. Since
waste piles are generally not disturbed after dumping, there
are no emissions from an activity comparable to loading out
of the storage pile. However, there may be emissions from
transporting the waste material on-site (if it is dry when
it is produced) or from a reclamation process such as land-
fill covering associated with the waste disposal operation.
If the surface of the waste material does not include a
compound that provides cementation upon weathering or if the
surface is not compacted or if an area of very little
rainfall, wind erosion of fines can occur with winds greater
than about 21 km per hour (13 mph).
Emission Rates - Equipment activity which occurs at the
disposal site, such as construction or covering of land-
filled material, can generally be categorized as heavy
earthwork construction. It may be appropriate to apply the
emission factor for heavy construction from EPA's Compila-
tion of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (Supplement 5) — 2.7
Mg/hectare (1.2 tons per acre) of active construction per
month. This value should be adjusted with the same clima-
2
tic correction factor used for storage piles: (100/PE) .
Note that waste disposal site emissions are likely to vary
with different types of materials. No information is avail-
able, however, to quantify these differences.
2-43
-------
8. Fugitive Emissions Control Technology for Integrated
Iron and Steel Plants. Draft. Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory under Contract No. 68-02-2120. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. January 17, 1977.
9. Personal Communication from Mr. Ron Pair, Midwest
Division, Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. St. Glair Shores,
Michigan to John Zoller, PEDCo Environmental, Cincinnati,
Ohio. October 26, 1976.
10. Process Assumptions and Cost Bases for Flue Gas Desul-
furization System Costs. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. Unpublished data. November
1976.
11. Building Construction Cost Data 1976, 34th Annual
Edition. R.S. Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, Massa-
chusetts. 1976.
12. Unpublished data obtained from manufacturers of chemical
wetting agents. PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio. October 1976.
13. Cole, Howard J. Foam Suppressants in the Control of
Source and Fugitive Emissions. Deter Company, Inc.,
East Hanover, N.J. February 1976.
14. Seibel, Richard J. Dust Control at a Transfer Point
Using Foam and Water Sprays. U.S. Bureau of Mines,
Washington, D.C. Technical Progress Report 97. May
1976.
2-42
-------
4.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.1.4
T^!rd'nC"-,K* Axete11' C.M., Guenther, and G.A.
Jutze. Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive
Si«ou??r°eS' MldrSt Research Institute, KanLs Sty,
J^nJ 1974. Prepared Under Contract No. 68-02-0619.
SpeciaMsts ncr - rCeS ' Co-Envital
Contract No' S n? ?SSlnSati' °hi°' PrePa^d under
contract No. 68-02-1375, Task Order No. 29. 1976.
Open Dust Sources Around Iron and Steel Plants Draft-
Cross, F.L. Jr. and G.D. Forehand, Air Pollution
Emissions from Bulk Loading Facilities, Volume 6
Environmental Nomograph Series. Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc., Westport, Connecticut, 1975. pp. 3-" g
investigation of Fugitive
r volume I—Sources, Emissions, and Control.
OMn SVlr°nmSn^al SPecialists, inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
JuneC1974?°ntraCt N°* 68-°2-°044' T^k Order No. 9.
7. Evans, Robert J. Methods and Costs of Dust Control in
Stone Crushing Operations. U.S. Bureau of Mine's,
Pittsburgh, Pa. Information Circular 8669 1975
2-41
-------
piles with high material flow rates may require closer
control of operations because of the possibility of jamming.
Traveling or adjustable booms can handle high flow rates,
but have greater operating costs.
Wetting agents or foam which are sprayed onto the
material during processing or at transfer points retain
their effectiveness in subsequent storage operations.
Wetting agents retain surface moisture for extended periods,
thereby preventing dusting. Spraying of the material prior
to storage may not be possible in cases where product con-
tamination could result (e.g. Portland cement clinker) or
where the material is water soluble. However, such materials
are generally not placed in open storage anyway. Steam has
also been found to be an effective dust suppressant for some
short-term storage operations. No test data are available,
but by visual appearance, steam-treated trona (soda ash)
piles are as dust-free as those sprayed with wetting agents
or foam.
The capital costs of enclosed storage vary from $107 to
$255 per cubic meter of capacity ($3.04 to $7.22 per ft ),
depending on the handling and storage requirements of the
specific material. ' The chemical and application costs
for wetting agents range from $0.01 to $0.05 per Mg, while
the comparable costs for foam are $0.022 to $0.11 per Mg
($0.020 to 0.10/ton).7/12'13'14* It should be noted that
the application rates used in the cost estimates would be
sufficient to control transfer and conveying emissions as
well as storage emissions.
*
Mention of company or product names is not to be con-
sidered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
2-40
-------
Emission points
Loadout
Control procedures
Water spraying
Gravity feed onto
conveyor
Stacker/reclaimer
Efficiency,
percent
HMM^BM
50
80
25-50
Reference 5.
References 6 and 7.
Reference 8.
Enclosing materials in storage is generally the most
effective means of reducing emissions from this source
category because it allows the emissions to be captured.
However, storage bins or silos may be very expensive.
Storage buildings must be designed to withstand wind and '
snow loads and to meet requirements for interior working
conditions. One alternative to enclosure of all material is
to screen the material prior to storage, sending the over-
size material to open storage and the fines to silos.
Wind screens, or partial enclosure of storage piles,
can reduce wind erosion losses but do not permit capture'of
the remaining storage pile fugitive emissions. Earthen
berms, vegetation, or existing structures can serve as wind
screens.
Telescoping chutes, flexible chute extensions, and
traveling booms are used to minimize the free fall of mate-
rial onto the pile and resulting emissions. Similarly,
emissions due to loadout can be reduced by reclaiming the
material from the bottom of the pile with a mechanical plow
or hopper system. Telescopic chutes with aspiration to
collection devices range in price from $26,000 to $42,000
for a system handling 90 Mg (100 ton) per minute.9* The
use of telescoping chutes and flexible chute extensions for
* Mention of company or product names is not to be considered
as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
2-39
------- |