EPA-453-R-02-015
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore
Processing Plants
Background Information for Proposed Standards
-------
EPA453/R-02-015
December 2002
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants
Background Information for Proposed Standards
y s Environmental Protection Agenqt
Region 5, Library {PL-12J) f
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12tn rww
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS, SHORTENED NAMES, AND UNITS OF MEASURE v
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 STATUTORY BASIS 1-1
1.2 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY 1-2
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE TACONITE IRON ORE PROCESSING INDUSTRY 2-1
2.1 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1.1 Ore Characterization and Geographic Distribution 2-1
2.1.2 Product Markets and Characterization 2-4
2.1.3 Economic Trends 2-5
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-6
2.2.1 Mining of Crude Ore 2-7
2.2.2 Ore Crushing and Handling 2-9
2.2.3 Concentrating (Milling, Magnetic Separation, Hydraulic and Chemical
Flotation, Thickening) 2-10
2.2.4 Agglomerating (Dewatering, Balling) 2-12
2.2.5 Indurating 2-13
2.2.5.1 Straight Grate Indurating Furnace 2-13
2.2.5.2 Grate Kiln Indurating Furnace 2-16
2.2.6 Finished Pellet Handling 2-17
2.3 SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGULATIONS 2-19
2.3.1 Minnesota's Industrial Process Equipment Rule 2-19
2.3.2 Michigan's Emission Standards 2-20
2.3.3 Federal Regulations 2-21
2.4 REFERENCES 2-22
3.0 EMISSION UNITS AND BASELINE HAP EMISSIONS 3-1
3.1 EMISSION UNITS 3-2
3.1.1 Ore Crushing and Handling 3-3
3.1.2 Indurating Furnaces 3-4
3.1.3 Finished Pellet Handling 3-5
3.1.4 Ore Dryers 3-6
3.2 ESTIMATES OF BASELINE PM AND HAP EMISSIONS 3-7
3.2.1 Ore Crushing and Handling Emissions 3-9
3.2.1.1 Baseline OCH Paniculate Matter Emissions 3-9
3.2.1.2 Baseline OCH Metallic HAP Emissions 3-10
3.2.2 Indurating Furnace Emissions 3-13
3.2.2.1 Baseline Indurating Furnace PM Emissions 3-13
3.2.2.2 Baseline Indurating Furnace Metallic HAP Emissions .. 3-14
3.2.2.3 Baseline Indurating Furnace PIC Emissions 3-17
-------
3.2.2.4 Baseline Indurating Furnace Acid Gas Emissions 3-18
3.2.3 Finished Pellet Handling (PH) Emissions 3-19
3.2.3.1 Baseline PH Particulate Matter Emissions 3-19
3.2.3.2 Baseline PH Metallic HAP Emissions 3-20
3.2.4 Ore Dryer Emissions 3-23
3.2.4.1 Baseline Ore Dryer Particulate Matter Emissions 3-23
3.2.4.2 Baseline Ore Dryer Metallic HAP Emissions 3-23
3.3 REFERENCES 3-25
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 4-1
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL DEVICES 4-1
4.1.1 Wet Scrubbers 4-1
4.1.1.1 Venturi Scrubbers 4-2
4.1.1.2 Venturi Rod Scrubbers 4-2
4.1.1.3 Impingement Scrubbers 4-3
4.1.1.4 Packed Bed Scrubbers 4-3
4.1.2 Baghouses 4-3
4.1.3 Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP) 4-4
4.1.4 Multiclones 4-5
4.1.5 Rotoclones 4-5
4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLS 4-6
4.2.1 Control Techniques for Ore Crushing and Handling Emission Units 4-6
4.2.2 Control Techniques for Indurating Furnaces 4-8
4.2.3 Control Techniques for Finished Pellet Handling 4-9
4.2.4 Control Techniques for Ore Dryers 4-10
4.3 REFERENCES 4-11
5.0 DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
(MACT) AND MACT FLOOR 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.1.1 Statutory Requirements 5-1
5.1.2 MACT Floor Approaches 5-2
5.1.3 PM as a Surrogate for Metallic HAP 5-2
5.2 ORE CRUSHING AND HANDLING AND FINISHED PELLET HANDLING-
MACT FLOOR AND MACT LEVEL OF CONTROL FOR PARTICULATE
MATTER 5-3
5.2.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations 5-3
5.2.2 Particulate Matter Test Data 5-4
5.2.3 Determination of the MACT Floor 5-5
5.2.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources 5-8
5.2.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources 5-9
5.3 INDURATING FURNACES 5-10
5.3.1 Indurating Furnaces Processing Magnetite 5-10
11
-------
5.3.1.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations 5-10
5.3.1.2 Particulate Matter Test Data 5-11
5.3.1.3 Determination of the MACT Floor 5-12
5.3.1.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources 5-17
5.3.1.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources 5-21
5.3.2 Indurating Furnaces Processing Hematite 5-22
5.3.2.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations 5-22
5.3.2.2 Particulate Matter Test Data 5-22
5.3.2.3 Determination of the MACT Floor 5-23
5.3.2.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources 5-24
5.3.2.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources 5-26
5.4 ORE DRYERS 5-26
5.4.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations 5-26
5.4.2 Particulate Matter Test Data 5-27
5.4.3 Determination of the MACT Floor 5-27
5.4.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources 5-27
5.4.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources 5-29
5.5 REFERENCES 5-30
6.0 COSTS 6-1
6.1 SUMMARY OF COSTS 6-1
6.2 COSTS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND HANDLING EMISSION UNITS 6-5
6.2.1 Affected OCH Emission Units 6-5
6.2.2 Cost Methodology for OCH Control Equipment 6-8
6.2.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment 6-13
6.3 COSTS FOR INDURATING FURNACES 6-15
6.3.1 Affected Emission Units 6-17
6.3.2 Cost Methodology for Control Equipment 6-17
6.3.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment 6-20
6.4 COSTS FOR FINISHED PELLET HANDLING EMISSION UNITS 6-21
6.4.1 Affected Emission Units 6-22
6.4.2 Cost Methodology for Control Equipment 6-24
6.4.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment 6-27
6.5 ORE DRYERS 6-29
6.6 REFERENCES 6-30
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS 7-1
7.1 REDUCTIONS IN AIR EMISSIONS 7-1
7.1.1 Emission Reduction from OCH Emission Units 7-2
7.1.2 Emission Reductions from Indurating Furnaces 7-6
7.1.3 Emission Reductions from Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units 7-8
7.1.4 Emission Reductions from Ore Dryers 7-10
in
-------
7.2 SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7-10
7.2.1 Wastewater Impacts 7-10
7.2.2 Solid Waste Impacts 7-11
7.3 ENERGY IMPACTS 7-11
APPENDIX A A-l
APPENDIX B B-l
APPENDIX C C-l
APPENDIX D D-l
APPENDIX E E-l
IV
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS, SHORTENED NAMES, AND UNITS OF MEASURE
APCD Air pollution control device
BID Background Information Document
CAA Clean Air Act
COMS Continuous opacity monitoring system
CPMS Continuous parameter monitoring system
CRF Capital Recovery Factor
dcfm Dry cubic feet per minute
dscf Dry standard cubic feet
dscm Dry standard cubic meters
Empire Empire Iron Mining Partnership, Palmer, Michigan
ESP Electrostatic precipitator(s)
EVTAC EVTAC Mining, LLC, Forbes, Minnesota
g Grams
gr Grains
HAP Hazardous air pollutant(s)
Hibbing Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing, Minnesota
Inland Ispat-Inland Steel Mining Company, Virginia, Minnesota
IPER Industrial Process Equipment Rule
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
Minntac U.S. Steel Minnesota Ore Operations, Mountain Iron, Minnesota
-------
MMBTU Million British Thermal Units
MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MRR Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
National National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, Minnesota
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Northshore Northshore Mining Company, Silver Bay, Minnesota
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
O & M Operation and maintenance
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OCH Ore crushing and handling
PEC Purchased Equipment Costs
PH Pellet handling
PIC Products of incomplete combustion
PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
RSD Relative standard deviation
Tilden Tilden Mining Company, LC, Ishpeming, Michigan
VAPCCI Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes
VOC
Volatile organic compound(s)
VI
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of background information used in
the development of maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the taconite iron
ore processing source category. Specifically, this document presents the procedures used to
determine the MACT floor, the MACT level of control, and projected cost impacts and
environmental impacts for the taconite iron ore processing source category. All references cited in
this document are available in EPA's rulemaking docket.
The balance of this chapter provides a summary of the statutory basis for MACT standards
and the selection of the source category. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the industry and
detailed process descriptions, including a discussion of the different types of indurating furnaces used
for the pelletizing process. A summary of current state and federal regulations applicable to taconite
iron ore processing is also included in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes emission units in the taconite
iron ore processing source category and provides estimates of baseline emissions of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) and particulate matter (PM) from the emission units. Emission control
technologies used within the source category and the corresponding emissions reduction
performance are summarized in Chapter 4. The MACT floor analysis and the determination of
MACT levels of control are described in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 presents the projected emission
control costs and the monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs associated with the proposed
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). Finally, Chapter 7 presents
the estimates for the reduction in HAP and PM air emissions and other environmental and energy
impacts associated with the regulatory options in the proposed NESHAP.
1.1 STATUTORY BASIS
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish NESHAP for the listed
source categories and subcategories. Major sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit
greater than 10 tons/yr of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any combination of HAP.
Section 112 of the CAA requires that EPA establish NESHAP for the control of HAP from
1-1
-------
both new and existing major sources. The CAA requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum
degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under
section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor ensures that the standard is set at a level
that directs all major sources to achieve a level of control at least as stringent as that already
achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or
subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control
that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing
sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in the
category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with
fewer than 30 sources).
In developing MACT, the EPA also considers control options more stringent than the floor.
The EPA may establish standards more stringent than the floor after considering the additional costs
and projected health and environmental benefits of achieving further emissions reductions.
1.2 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Section 112(c) of the CAA requires EPA to list all categories of major and area sources of
HAP for which we will develop national emission standards. The EPA published the initial list of
source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). "Taconite Iron Ore Processing" is one of the
source categories on the initial list. The listing was based on EPA's determination that taconite iron
ore processing plants may reasonably be anticipated to emit a variety of HAP listed in section 112(b)
in quantities sufficient to be major sources.
Taconite iron ore processing plants separate and concentrate iron ore from taconite, a low-
grade ore, and produce taconite pellets, which are approximately 60 percent iron. The taconite iron
ore processing source category includes, but is not limited to, ore crushing and handling emission
units, ore dryers, indurating furnaces, and finished pellet handling emission units. Taconite pellets
are currently produced at eight sites in the United States-six in Minnesota and two in Michigan.
1-2
-------
2.0 OVERVIEW OF THE TACONITE IRON ORE PROCESSING INDUSTRY
This chapter presents an overview of the taconite iron ore processing industry in the United
States. Section 2.1 provides a general description of the industry. More detail on the various stages
in processing taconite iron ore is given in Section 2.2. Section 2.3 summarizes the existing state and
federal air emissions standards that affect the taconite iron ore processing industry.
2.1 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
This description of the taconite iron ore processing industry is focused on three areas: ore
characterization and geographic distribution (Section 2.1.1), product markets and characterization
(Section 2.1.2), and economic trends (Section 2.1.3).
2.1.1 Ore Characterization and Geographic Distribution
Taconite is a hard, banded, low-grade iron ore, and is the predominant iron ore remaining in
the United States. Ninety-nine percent of the crude iron ore processed in the United States is
taconite. The taconite ore is processed to increase the iron concentration and shaped into pellets for
use in blast furnaces to make iron and steel.
Iron ore is mined and processed in the United States mainly in the Mesabi Range of northern
Minnesota and the Marquette Range of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The taconite source
category is comprised of eight facilities operating in the United States - six facilities in Minnesota
and two facilities in Michigan.1 Figure 2.1-1 shows the locations of these facilities while Table 2.1-1
provides company names along with site locations of their mining and pelletizing plants.
The Mesabi Range, located approximately 65 miles north of Duluth, Minnesota, consists of
an iron formation that runs approximately 120 miles from Grand Rapids, MN to Babbitt, MN with a
width ranging from 400 to 750 feet. The iron ore material that is mined, concentrated, and pelletized
is magnetite, or magnetic taconite. Due to geologic variability along the Mesabi Range, the taconite
ore can actually be divided into two distinct types, one much harder than the other. This difference
in hardness affects both grinding and crushing circuit designs for the Minnesota facilities. National
Steel Pellet Company and Hibbing Taconite Company (hereafter referred to as National and
2-1
-------
Hibbing) operate in areas where the ore is softer and, consequently, can process the taconite ore with
considerably less crushing and grinding than the companies that mine the harder taconite ore.
Figure 2.1-1: Locations of Taconite Iron Ore Processing Facilities
2-2
-------
Table 2.1-1: U.S. Taconite Iron Ore Plant Locations
State
Minnesota
Michigan
Company
(Informal Name)
National Steel Pellet Company
(National)
Hibbing Taconite Company
(Hibbing)
U.S. Steel Minnesota Ore Operations
(Minntac)
EVTAC Mining, LLC
(EVTAC)
Ispat-Inland Steel Mining Company
(Inland)
Northshore Mining Company
(Northshore)
Tilden Mining Company, LC
(Tilden)
Empire Iron Mining Partnership
(Empire)
Mine Location
(City)
Keewatin
Hibbing
Mountain Iron
Eveleth
Virginia
Babbitt
Ishpeming
Palmer
Pelletizing Plant
Location (City)
Keewatin
Hibbing
Mountain Iron
Forbes
Virginia
Silver Bay
Ishpeming
Palmer
Two taconite plants (Empire and Tilden) are located in the Marquette Range of the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. Empire processes only magnetite ore (Fe3O4), whereas Tilden processes both
magnetite ore (four months per year) and hematite ore (eight months per year). Tilden is the only
taconite mine in the United States processing the non-magnetic hematite ore (Fe2O3).2 According to
personnel at the Michigan plants, both the magnetite and hematite ores mined from the Marquette
Range are more fine-grained than the magnetite ore mined in Minnesota. Furthermore, within the
Marquette Range, the hematite ore is more fine-grained than the magnetite ore. The grain size of the
ore can be a factor in particulate matter (PM) and hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
2-3
-------
2.1.2 Product Markets and Characterization
Because of their requisite strength, consistency in size and chemical composition, and
optimum metallurgical properties, taconite pellets have been used for decades in iron-and-steel-
making blast furnaces.1 In fact, about 98 percent of the demand for taconite pellets comes from the
iron and steel industry. The remaining demand comes mostly from the cement industry but also from
manufacturers of heavy-medium materials, pigments, ballast, agricultural products, and specialty
chemicals. Ninety-seven percent of the processed iron ore shipped to the iron and steel industry is in
the form of agglomerated pellets. Other forms of processed iron ore include sinter and briquettes.
On average, taconite pellets are 3/8-inch to 1/2-inch in diameter and are composed of 63 to 67
percent iron and approximately 5 percent silica. Other taconite pellet constituents may include
phosphorus, manganese, magnesium, lime, sulphur, and alumina.
There are basically two types of taconite pellet products: standard (acid) pellets and fluxed
pellets. Fluxed pellets, which contain a certain amount of fluxstone (limestone and/or dolomite) in
addition to all the constituents of standard pellets, are more valuable to clients in the iron and steel
industry, because these pellets eliminate the need to add more fluxing agents. Fluxed pellets are
sometimes characterized by a basicity ratio, which is a mass ratio of the sum of calcium oxide (CaO)
and magnesium oxide (MgO) divided by the sum of silicon oxide (SiO2) and aluminum oxide (A12O3),
as shown in the following example equation:1
Basicity Ratio = [ (CaO + MgO)/(SiO2 + A12O3)]
Fluxed pellets with a basicity ratio equal to or greater than 1.0 are called fully fluxed pellets.
Energy demand during induration for fully fluxed pellets is higher than that during production of
standard pellets due to the added calcination. To meet this higher energy demand, auxiliary burners
are usually added to the indurating furnace when making fully fluxed pellets. In addition, the
breakdown of the fluxstone during the induration process often leads to increased emissions of
hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride. For these reasons, in comparison to the production of
standard pellets the production of fully fluxed pellets often leads to higher air pollutant emissions.1
2-4
-------
2.1.3 Economic Trends
Iron ore production in North America (United States and Canada) in 1997 was estimated to
be approximately 101.4 million long tons.3 Although this production level represents a four percent
increase from 1996, it remains well below the record 123 million long tons produced in 1981 before
the severe recession in the iron and steel industry.
Iron ore pellet production in North America (United States and Canada) was 79 million long
tons in 1999.4 Table 2.1-2 provides North American iron ore and iron ore pellet production from
1990 to 1999. Table 2.1-3 illustrates taconite pellet production of individual plants in the United
States in 1999.
Table 2.1-2: North American (United States and Canada) Iron Ore and
Iron Ore Pellet Production From 1990 to 1999
Year
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Iron Ore Production
(million long tons)
Not available
Not available
101.4
97.6
99.5
92.9
88.2
87.7
91.6
90.9
Iron Ore Pellet Production
(million long tons)
79.4
86.1
87.1
83.8
84.8
79.8
72.6
73.1
73.4
76.5
2-5
-------
Table 2.1-3: Taconite Pellet Production for Individual Plants in the United States in 19994
Taconite Plant
Minntac
Empire
Ribbing
Tilden
National
EVTAC
Northshore
Inland
United States Total
Annual Capacity
(million long tons)
15.3
8.4
8.0
7.8
5.3
3.5
4.7
2.8
55.8
Actual Output
(million long tons)
13.0
7.1
6.9
6.2
5.3
4.4
3.9
2.8
49.6
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Production of taconite pellets can generally be described by the following steps:
Mining of crude ore;
Ore crushing and handling;
Concentrating (e.g., milling, magnetic separation, and chemical flotation);
Agglomerating (e.g., dewatering, drying, and balling);
Indurating; and
Finished pellet handling.
It is important to note, mining of the crude ore is the only step listed above that is not
included in the definition of the taconite iron ore processing source category. A discussion of the
crude ore mining is included in Section 2.2.1 to provide an overall understanding of taconite iron ore
production. A general process flow diagram for taconite iron ore processing is provided in Figure
2.2-1. A more detailed description of each processing step is provided in Sections 2.2.2 through
2.2.6.
2-6
-------
2.2.1 Mining of Crude Ore1
The mining of taconite, a tough and abrasive low-grade ore common to Minnesota and
Michigan, is especially difficult because of the extreme hardness of the ore. Because of this
hardness, drilling, blasting, crushing, and grinding are required to extract the ore. Miners must
remove millions of tons of rock and surface material before they can drill and blast the taconite.
Mining tasks consist of overburden removal, drilling, blasting, and removal of waste rock and crude
taconite ore from the open pit.
After the ore deposit is uncovered, rotary drills are used to bore holes approximately 16
inches in diameter to a depth of 45 to 55 feet into the taconite ore. Explosives, typically a mixture of
ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, are pumped into the holes, and blasts are fired to free the taconite
ore. Huge electric shovels with up to 3 3-cubic-yard buckets load the crude ore into 240-ton haulage
trucks that transport the crude ore to the primary, or coarse, crushers. Smaller 170-ton haulage
trucks are used for miscellaneous material hauling (tailing, filter cake, pellets).
2-7
-------
I .
g 0
1
o
•*r
oL
i 6
5 f
&
g I
8
a S
o
£
1
A 4
&'
o
I
« ™
•5 =
Q. <«
"i
0)
4-
g
T3
5
ig
3
g>
60
'1
i
£
-------
Most of the taconite plants have their mining operations co-located with their pelletizing operations.
EVTAC and Northshore are the only two companies that have the pelletizing facility apart from the
mining site. EVTAC has its mining operations at Eveleth, while its pelletizing operations are located
approximately 10 miles south at Forbes. Similarly, Northshore operates a taconite mine at Babbitt
and a processing plant at Silver Bay. Both companies have linked the separate mining and pelletizing
operations with rail lines.
2.2.2 Ore Crushing and Handling
Liberation is the first step in processing crude taconite ore and consists mostly of crushing
and grinding. The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close to the grain size of the
iron-bearing mineral to allow for a high degree of mineral liberation. Most of the taconite used
today requires very fine grinding. Prior to grinding, the ore is dry-crushed in up to four stages,
depending on the hardness of ore. Gyratory cone crushers are generally used for all stages of
crushing. Primary crushing reduces the harder crude ore from run-of-mine size to about six-inch-
diameter size, while fine crushing stages further reduce the material to 3/4-inch-diameter size. The
softer ore reduces to this smaller size with primary crushing only. Intermediate vibratory screens
placed on the exit side of a crusher remove undersized material from the feed before it enters the
next crusher. Table 2.2-1 summarizes the number of crushing stages operating at each of the eight
taconite plants.
2-9
-------
Table 2.2-1: Crushing Stages Operated at Taconite Processing Plants3
Plant
Empire
EVTAC
Ribbing
Inland
Minntac
National
Northshore
Tilden
Stages of Crushing
two
four
single
three
three
single
three
single
Number of Primary
Crushers
2
2
2
2
O
2
2
1
Number of Secondary,
Tertiary, and Fine Crushers
1
15
2
7
43
0
16
0
a Includes primary, secondary, tertiary, and fine crushers; does not include rod and ball mills.
2.2.3 Concentrating (Milling, Magnetic Separation, Hydraulic and Chemical Flotation,
Thickening)
The concentration phase of taconite ore processing includes several stages of grinding, magnetic
separation, and chemical flotation. These concentration processes increase the iron content of the
processed ore from approximately 30 percent by weight to approximately 63 to 67 percent by
weight.
After the ore is crushed, it is conveyed to large ore storage bins at the concentrator building.
Then water is typically added to the ore as it is conveyed into rod/ball mills or autogenous mills.
Rod/ball mills are used in several stages to grind the taconite ore further to the consistency of coarse
beach sand. A rod/ball mill is a large horizontal cylinder that rotates on its horizontal axis and is
charged with heavy steel rods or balls, and taconite ore with water slurry. The rods/balls tumble
inside the mill and grind the ore into finer particle sizes. An alternative to rod/ball mill grinding is to
feed the crushed ore directly to wet or dry semiautogenous or autogenous grinding mills, then to
pebble or ball mills. The term autogenous means that grinding media like the steel balls and rods are
not required. Instead, the tumbling action of the ore in the rotating mills is sufficient to reduce it to a
2-10
-------
consistency of beach sand. Pebble mills, which also operate on the autogenous principle, are usually
used after autogenous mills. Pebbles about 2 inches in size, which are screened from the primary
mill, are used as grinding media.
After the autogenous or rod/ball grinding mills, the ground magnetite ore is transported as slurry
to the first stage of magnetic separation. The magnetic separation apparatus is comprised of a
horizontal steel cylinder that contains a magnetic element. As the cylinder rotates, the magnetic
element remains stationary, providing a magnetic field to the bottom half of the cylinder. The
rotating cylinder, sometimes known as a cobber, is partially submerged in the taconite ore slurry
allowing the iron-bearing particles to adhere to the magnetized cylinder surface. As the cylinder
surface rotates past the magnetic field, the iron-bearing ore drops from the cylinder surface and into
a weir located just below the point where the magnetic field ends. Ore material not picked up by the
magnetic separators is rejected as non-magnetic gangue or tailings. Tailings are sometimes reground
to extract as much iron as possible; otherwise, they are discharged to a large tailing basin.
After it is magnetically separated, the iron-bearing slurry flows into a hydraulic concentrator
where excess water is removed through gravity separation. Sediment collected at the bottom of the
hydraulic concentrator is passed on to the flotation plant. In the flotation plant, residual gangue
(silica) is separated from the fine iron-bearing particle slurry. This operation requires the use of two
water chemical additives and aeration to create a "froth." The first chemical additive used is an
alcohol-based frother, which enables the formation of stable air bubbles in the aerated tank. The
second chemical additive used is an alkylamine collector, which helps silica particles attach to the
rising air bubbles. A third chemical additive sometimes used is a mineral oil defoamer, which is used
to destabilize air bubbles because froth is difficult to pump in downstream processes.
A flotation line is comprised of rectangular tanks equipped with aerators. Silica-bearing particles
in the slurry adhere to air bubbles generated by the aerators. The silica and air bubbles form a
grayish-black froth that floats to the surface of each flotation line and flows over a weir. The froth
overflow is then sent on for regrinding in another ball mill to liberate the residual iron. Underflow
from the flotation line contains an iron-rich concentrate that is collected. This iron-rich concentrate
becomes the raw material for producing taconite pellets in the agglomerating operation.
Since only about one-third of the crude taconite becomes a shippable product for iron making, a
2-11
-------
large amount of gangue is generated. Fine tailings and other gangue streams discharged from the
magnetic separation and flotation plant operations are diverted to a tailings thickener (clarifier).
Sediment collected at the bottom of the thickener is removed for disposal in a tailings basin. The
overflow from the thickener is wastewater that is recycled back into the ore processing system.
Plants mining taconite ore from the western Mesabi range, which has a low silica content, do not
require the flotation step of the process.
When processing hematite ore at Tilden Mining, there is no magnetic separation step. Instead,
Tilden has developed a flotation system for the mine's fine-grained hematite ore. The finely ground
mineral particles are conditioned by adding caustic soda and a dispersant in the grinding process. A
cooked corn starch is then introduced for the purpose of selectively flocculating the very fine iron
particles in 55-foot-diameter tanks. Here the flocculated iron particles settle and are recovered in the
underflow while the fine silica tailings are carried away in the overflow. The material is then fed to
the flotation circuit, consisting of three hundred 500-cubic-foot flotation cells, where further
separation occurs. Silica is removed in the froth overflow through a process known as amine
flotation, leaving a high-grade iron ore concentrate.
Next, the concentrate thickening tanks remove excess water from the iron-rich concentrate,
increasing the solid content of the mixture from approximately 40 percent by weight to
approximately 65 percent by weight. The material is then pumped into concentrate slurry storage
tanks. To produce fluxed pellets, a mixture of limestone and dolomite (carbonate of calcium and
magnesium) is added to the slurry storage tanks at a composition and rate tailored to the customer's
specifications.
2.2.4 Agglomerating (Dewatering, Balling)
Filtering using vacuum disk filters for final dewatering operations increases the solids content of
the concentrate from approximately 65 percent by weight to approximately 90 percent by weight.
The Tilden plant, which processes a finer-grained ore, uses rotary dryers after the disc filters for
further drying of the ore. These rotary dryers repeatedly tumble the wet ore concentrate through a
heated air stream to reduce the amount of entrained moisture in the ore.
Next, the ore is mixed with powdered bentonite or dolomite and conveyed to the balling drums,
2-12
-------
which are inclined, rotating cylinders. Bentonite and dolomite are binding agents that improve the
formation of "green balls," or unfired pellets, and the physical qualities of the pellets. The ore
tumbles in the balling drums and agglomerates into 3/8-inch diameter pellets. A roll screen at the
discharge end of the balling drum is used for pellet size control. Inland uses unique balling discs,
rather than balling drums, to make green balls. After leaving the balling drums, the pellets are the
proper size and shape, but they are too soft for handling. The green balls are conveyed to the
indurating furnace on conveyor belts or traveling metal grates. Once the pellets exit the balling
drum, they are relatively dry and, therefore, have the potential to emit particulate HAP.
2.2.5 Indurating1
During the indurating process, the unfired taconite pellets are hardened and oxidized in the
indurating furnace at a fusion temperature between 2,290°F and 2,550°F. The induration of the
green pellets is actually an oxidation process in which the magnetite is converted into hematite.
Indurating is responsible for most of the air pollutant emissions from a taconite plant. Natural gas is
commonly used as the primary fuel for the indurating furnaces, with distillate fuel oil often used as a
back up. Some indurating furnaces are also capable of using coal, petroleum coke, or sawdust as
alternative fuels.
Two types of indurating furnaces are currently used within this source category: straight grate
furnaces and grate kiln furnaces. The indurating furnace process begins at the point where the grate
feed conveyor discharges the unfired pellets onto the furnace traveling grate and ends where the
hardened pellets exit the indurating furnace cooler.
2.2.5.1 Straight Grate Indurating Furnace
In straight grate indurating furnaces, a continuous bed of unfired pellets is carried on a metal
grate through different furnace temperature zones. Each zone will have either a heated upward draft
or downward draft blown through the pellets. A layer of fired pellets is placed on the metal grate
prior to the addition of unfired pellets. This hearth-layer allows for even airflow through the pellet
bed and acts as a buffer between the metal grate and the exothermic heat generated from the
oxidation of taconite pellets in the indurating stage. Before the pellets can be oxidized, all remaining
2-13
-------
moisture is driven off in the first two stages of the furnace, the updraft and downdraft drying zones.
Unfired pellets must be heated gradually; otherwise, moisture in the unfired pellets expands too
quickly and causes the pellets to explode. After they are dried, the pellets enter a preheat zone of the
furnace where the temperature is gradually increased for the indurating stage. The next zone is the
actual firing zone for induration, where the pellets are exposed to the highest temperature. The fired
pellets then enter the post-firing zone, where the oxidation process is completed. Finally, the pellets
are cooled by the intake of ambient air, typically in two stages of cooling.
A unique characteristic of straight grate furnaces is that approximately 30 percent of the fired
pellets are recycled to the feed end of the furnace for use as the hearth layer. The remaining pellets
are transported by conveyor belts to storage areas. A schematic of a straight grate furnace is
provided in Figure 2.2-2.
Waste gases from the straight grate furnace are discharged primarily through two ducts: the
hood exhaust, which handles the cooling and drying gases; and the windbox exhaust, which handles
the preheat, firing, and after-firing gases. For a typical straight grate furnace, the two discharge
ducts are combined into one common header before the flow is divided into several ducts to be
exhausted to the atmosphere after control.
2-14
-------
e
3
tin
OX)
c
1
o
£
DC
'§
•^^
CO
es
«t-H
O
o
'•§
S
^
o
CO
CN
I
OB
2-15
-------
2.2.5.2 Grate Kiln Indurating Furnace
The grate kiln indurating furnace system consists of a traveling grate, a rotary kiln, and an annular
cooler. The grate kiln system represents a newer generation of indurating furnaces and is widely used
by the taconite plants. As with the straight grate furnace system, the grate kiln system is also a
counterflow heat exchanger, with the unfired pellets and indurated pellets moving in a direction
opposite to that of the process gas flow. A six-inch bed of unfired pellets is laid on a continuously
moving, horizontal grate. The traveling grate carries the unfired pellets into a dryer/preheater that
resembles a large rectangular oven. Here the unfired pellets are gradually dried by hot air at a
temperature of TOOT. In the second half of the traveling grate stage of the process, the unfired
pellets pass through the preheater, where they are heated to a temperature of 2,000°F. The traveling
grate then discharges the dry, preheated pellets into the rotary kiln.
Final induration of the pellets occurs as they tumble down the rotating kiln. The rotary kiln
typically operates at a temperature of 2,300 to 2,400°F to ensure that the iron pellets are oxidized
from a magnetite structure into a hematite structure. The hardened pellets are then discharged to a
large annular-shaped cooler, which is an integral part of an elaborate energy recuperation system.
The fired pellets discharged from the kiln first enter the primary cooling zone of the annular cooler,
where ambient air is brought in to cool the pellets in a counter-current flow. After the pellets heat the
ambient air to approximately 2,000°F, it is then used as preheated combustion air in the rotary kiln.
As the cooled pellets enter a final cooling zone, additional ambient air is used to cool the pellets
further. Air exiting the final cooling zone is heated to approximately 1,000°F and is used to maintain
the temperature in the dryer section of the traveling grate. Pellets exiting the final cooling zone are
cooled to an average temperature of 175 to 225°F. Combustion air from the rotary kiln, which is
approximately 2,000°F, is used to maintain the temperature in the preheat section of the traveling
grate.
Pellet cooler vent stacks are atmospheric vents in the cooler section of a grate kiln indurating
furnace. Pellet cooler vent stacks exhaust cooling air that is not returned for heat recuperation.
Straight grate furnaces do not have pellet cooler vent stacks. The pellet cooler vent stack should not
be confused with the cooler discharge stack, which is in the pellet loadout or dumping area. New
grate kiln furnace designs eliminate the cooler vent stack by recirculating the air through the furnace.
2-16
-------
Table 2.2-2 identifies the types and number of indurating furnaces used at the eight taconite
plants. A schematic of the grate kiln indurating furnace is shown in Figure 2.2-3.
Table 2.2-2: Types and Number of Indurating Furnaces Used at Taconite Processing Plants
Plant
Hibbing
Northshore
Inland
Minntac
Empire
EVTAC
Tilden
National
Type of Indurating Furnaces
Straight grate
Straight grate
Straight grate
Grate kiln
Grate kiln
Grate kiln
Grate kiln
Grate kiln
Total
Number of Indurating Furnaces
3
3
1
5
4
2
2
1
21
2.2.6 Finished Pellet Handling
Finished pellet handling is the physical transfer of fired taconite pellets from the indurating furnace
to the finished pellet stockpiles at the plant. Finished pellet handling includes, but is not limited to,
the following emission units: furnace discharge or grate discharge, and finished pellet screening,
transfer, and storage.
2-17
-------
0)
O
;_i
•4— >
2
3
T3
O
CS
•—
03
1
O
C/5
CN
CN
2-18
-------
2.3 SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGULATIONS
This section summarizes existing legislation that affects the taconite iron ore processing industry.
Section 2.3.1 presents pertinent state regulations for Minnesota taconite plants, and Section 2.3.2
presents pertinent state regulations for Michigan taconite plants. Section 2.3.3 summarizes the
applicable Federal regulations.
2.3.1 Minnesota's Industrial Process Equipment Rule
The Minnesota Industrial Process Equipment Rule (IP!
dependent on the air flow as shown in the equation below:
The Minnesota Industrial Process Equipment Rule (IPER) , sets limits which are empirically
Allowed emissions (gr/dscf) = 1.7627 x FR corrected •°3241
where:
^ corrected = corrected aif fl°w rate in cubic feet/minute, and is calculated from FR
actual,
= FRacmal x 528 x P x(l-%moisture)
T + 660 14.7 100
where:
T = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
P = pressure in psi
Most of the ore crushing and handling (OCH) and finished pellet handling (PH) emission units at
taconite plants in Minnesota are subject to the IPER. As indicated above, the Minnesota IPER
establishes PM concentration emission limits as a function of volumetric flow. Therefore, the
emission limit becomes more stringent as volumetric flow increases. Particulate matter emission
limits for OCH and PH emission units under the IPER range from approximately 0.030 gr/dscf to
approximately 0.095 gr/dscf. Due to its proximity to Lake Superior, Northshore is subject to these
more-stringent limits: 0.002 gr/dscf for tertiary crushing and some storage/transfer points, 0.010
gr/dscf for cobbing and some storage/transfer points, and 0.030 gr/dscf for all other emission points.
2-19
-------
Most of the indurating furnaces in Minnesota are also subject to the State's IPER. Particulate
matter emission limits for indurating furnaces under the IPER range from 0.025 to 0.050 gr/dscf.
Again, due to its proximity to Lake Superior, Northshore, which operates straight grate furnaces, is
subject to a more stringent State limit of 0.010 gr/dscf.
2.3.2 Michigan's Emissions Standards
The particulate emission limits-for Michigan plants are also mostly based on air flow rates, with
most of the sources subject to limits of 0.037 to 0.085 gr/dscf of exhaust gas, or 0.065 to 0.15
lb/1,000 Ib. ' The OCH and PH emission units at Tilden and Empire are subject to a State PM
emission limit of 0.052 gr PM/dscf of exhaust gas (0.1 lb/1,000 Ib).
Tilden and Empire, both of which operate grate kiln furnaces, are subject to State PM emission
limits for the indurating furnaces. The State PM emission limits are also determined by air flow
rates. The furnaces at Tilden are subject to a PM emission limit of 0.04 gr/dscf of exhaust gas (0.065
lb/1,000 Ib). Furthermore, emissions for the grate kilns at Tilden are also limited to maximum
emissions for four metallic HAP (arsenic, cadmium, total chromium, and lead) as illustrated in Table
n
2.3-1. At Empire, the two larger furnaces are subject to a PM emission limit of 0.06 gr/dscf of
exhaust gas (0.10 lb/1,000 Ib), and the two smaller kilns are subject to a PM emission limit of 0.09
gr/dscf of exhaust gas (0.15 lb/1,000 Ib).
Both of the ore dryers at Tilden are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.1 pound of PM
per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas, which equates to approximately 0.052 gr/dscf.
*y
Table 2.3-1: Allowed Metal Emissions from Each of the Two Tilden Indurating Furnaces
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Lead
12-Calender-Month-Period Emissions (tons)
0.0058
0.0058
0.0058
0.017
2-20
-------
2.3.3 Federal Regulations
In 1984 the EPA promulgated a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for Metallic Mineral
Processing Plants (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL). The Metallic Mineral Processing NSPS applies
only to units that commenced construction or modification after August 24, 1982. The Metallic
Mineral Processing NSPS applies to the following emission units in metallic mineral processing
plants:
"Each crusher and screen in open-pit mines; each crusher, screen, bucket elevator, conveyor
belt transfer point, thermal dryer, product packaging station, storage bin, enclosed storage
area, truck loading station, truck unloading station, railcar loading station, and railcar
unloading station at the mill or concentrator..."
Therefore, the Metallic Mineral Processing NSPS covers many of the OCH, PH, and ore dryer
emission units at a taconite plant, but it does not cover indurating furnaces.
The Metallic Mineral Processing NSPS limits PM emissions to 0.05 grams/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf)
and opacity at 7 percent for stacks and 10 percent for fugitive emission points. The NSPS requires
that test Method 5 or 17 be used to determine compliance with the PM emission limits and that test
Method 9 be used to determine compliance with the opacity limits. In addition, the NSPS requires
parametric monitoring of air pollution control device (APCD) operation, such as scrubber pressure
drop and scrubbing liquid flow rate.
The taconite industry is a mature, low-growth industry; therefore, new facilities are not being
built and new units are not being installed with significant frequency. Because of this, only a handful
of emission units are subject to the Metallic Mineral Processing NSPS.
2-21
-------
2.4 REFERENCES
1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Taconite Iron Ore Industry in the United States -
A Background Information Report for MACT Determination, for EPA Order No. D-6226-
NAGX, December, 1999.
2. Letter from John G. Meier, Cliffs Mining Services Company, to Al Vervaert, EPA. Request for
Separate Michigan Magnetite and Hematite Standards. May 16,2000.
3. D.N. Skillings. North American Iron Ore Industry to Again Exceed 100 Million Gross Tons in
1998, Highest in 18 Years, Skillings Mining Review, Vol. 87, No. 30, July 1998.
4. D.N. Skillings, US/Canadian Iron Ore Production in 2000. Skillings Mining Review, July 2000.
5. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Facts about the Industrial Process Equipment
Rule, AQ Doc. #4.06, February 1998.
6. Empire Iron Mining Partnership, Palmer, Michigan. Supplement to Permit No. 484-87B,
November 26, 1996.
7. Tilden Magnetite Partnership, Isheming, Michigan. Supplement to Permit No. 511-87C,
November 13,1996.
2-22
-------
3.0 EMISSION UNITS AND BASELINE HAP EMISSIONS
This chapter identifies and describes the points of participate matter (PM) and hazardous
air pollutant (HAP) emissions within the taconite iron ore processing source category. This
chapter also presents the estimated baseline PM and HAP emissions. There are a total of 396
HAP emitting units within the taconite source category. The vast majority of the emission units
(87 percent) are located within the ore crushing and handling (OCH) and finished pellet handling
(PH) affected sources. Although the OCH and PH emission units constitute the majority of the
units, they represent only 21 percent of paniculate matter (PM) emissions and 1.2 percent of the
HAP emissions from the taconite source category. Indurating furnaces, which represent
approximately 12 percent of all emission units, are a large combustion source, and therefore, emit
large quantities of combustion byproducts such as products of incomplete combustion, or PIC
(e.g., formaldehyde), acid gases, and PM. Due to their enormous size, indurating furnaces
contribute almost 80 percent of the PM emissions and almost 99 percent of the HAP emissions
from the source category.
In general, taconite iron ore processing emits three types of HAP: metallic HAP in the
form of PM, acidic gases (hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid), and PIC.1 Table 3.0-1 indicates
which types of HAP are emitted from each affected source in the taconite source category.
Section 3.1 of this chapter describes the population of emission units within the taconite iron ore
processing source category. Section 3.2 of this chapter provides the basis and results of the
estimated baseline PM and HAP emissions.
3-1
-------
Table 3.0-1: Types of HAP Emitted from Each Affected Source in the Taconite Source Category
Affected Source
Ore Crushing and
Handling
Indurating Furnaces
Finished Pellet
Handling
Ore Dryers
PM
X
X
X
X
Metals
X
X
X
X
Acid Gases
X
PIC
X
Due to the geologic nature of the taconite iron ore deposits in the Mesabi Range in
Northeast Minnesota, there is potential for the occurrence of contaminant asbestos in some
taconite iron ore mining areas. It is unclear whether these fibers would be considered a HAP as
defined in Section 112 of the CAA. A work group within EPA is currently studying asbestos that
occurs as a contaminant from mining and mineral processing operations, including taconite iron
ore mining and processing. Decisions on whether to regulate asbestos that might occur as a
contaminant in taconite iron ore mining and processing and other potential industries will be
based on information gathered in the study.
3.1 EMISSION UNITS
A list of all known emission units at all existing taconite iron ore processing operations is
provided in Appendix A, Table 1. This table represents a compilation of information from Title
V permits, test reports, and communications with industry representatives and state regulatory
agencies. Table 3.1-1 summarizes the number of emission units in each affected source at each
plant. There are a total of 396 emission units in the taconite industry. Sixty-seven percent of
these emission units (264 units) are in the OCH affected source, and 21 percent (82 units) are in
the PH affected source. Nearly one third of all emission units are located at the Minntac taconite
plant in Mountain Iron, Minnesota.
3-2
-------
Table 3.1-1: Number of Emission Units in Each Affected Source at Each Taconite Plant
Plant
US Steel Minntac
Northshore
EVTAC
Empire
Hibbing
Tilden
Inland
National
Total
Ore
Crushing and
Handling
88
58
34
19
15
18
16
16
264
Indurating
Furnace
Stacks
(# Furnaces)
5(5)
13 (3)a
3(2)
4(4)
12(3)
4(2)
4(1)
2(1)
47(21)
Finished
Pellet
Handling
17
9
6
16
9
7
9
9
82
Ore
Drying
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
Total Number of
Emission Units
110
80
43
39
36
32
29
27
396
a Northshore has another furnace, furnace 5, which is shut down. Furnace 5 has three stacks.
3.1.1 Ore Crushing and Handling
The number of OCH emission units at each plant, shown in Table 3.1-1, primarily
depends on the number of crushing stages and the volume of taconite ore processed. As
mentioned in Chapter 2, the number of crushing stages depends on the hardness of the iron ore.
Iron ore in the eastern mines is harder, requiring up to six stages of crushing, with each stage
supported by a series of conveyors and storage bins. Iron ore in the western mines is softer and
can be processed with only one stage of crushing. Minntac, which has three crushing stages and
processes the largest quantity of iron ore, has the largest number of OCH emission units.
National, which has only one crushing stage, has the smallest number of OCH emission points.
Table 3.1-2 provides a description of OCH emission unit characteristics. All of the OCH
emission units operate at ambient temperatures. The volumetric flow rate of exhaust from OCH
emission units ranges from 3,500 acfm to 90,000 acfm, with an average volumetric flow rate
3-3
-------
around 25,000 acfm. The ore contains a nominal quantity of moisture; therefore, the moisture
content of the exhaust is also nominal.
Table 3.1-2: OCH Emission Unit Characteristics
Affected Source
Ore Crushing and
Handling
Exhaust Volumetric Flow Rate
(acfm)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
90,000
3,500
25,000
Temperature
(°F)
100
Ambient
Ambient
Moisture
Content of Ore
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
3.1.2 Indurating Furnaces
The number of emission points associated with indurating furnaces depends on the
number of furnaces and the number of stacks on each furnace. For example, each of the 5
furnaces at Minntac has 1 stack, whereas each of the 3 furnaces at Hibbing has 4 stacks. Thus,
Hibbing has 12 indurating furnace emission points and Minntac has only 5 indurating furnace
emission points. The number of furnace emission points and the number of furnaces at each
taconite plant is shown in Table 3.1-1.
Table 3.1-3 provides a description of indurating furnace emission unit characteristics.
When the unfired pellets first enter the furnace, they contain approximately 9 percent moisture.2
Before the pellets can be oxidized, all of the remaining moisture must be driven off. This occurs
in the first stages of the furnace, referred to as the drying zones. Temperatures inside indurating
furnaces gradually increase to over 2,400°F. Furnace exhaust gases are usually cooled through
an extensive heat recovery process down to 130 to 250°F before being released. The volumetric
flow rate of exhaust from indurating furnace stacks far exceeds the volumetric flow rates from
OCH or PH emission units, with a range from 58,000 acfm to 528,000 acfm and an average of
255,000 acfm.
3-4
-------
Table 3.1-3: Indurating Furnace Emission Unit Characteristics
Affected Source
Indurating Furnace3' b
Furnace Exhaust Volumetric
Flow Rate
(acfm)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
528,000
58,000
255,000
Stack
Temperature
(°F)
250
165
130
Moisture
Content of Ore
(percent)
9
0
NA
a The temperature inside the indurating furnace can exceed 2,400 °F but emission gases are
cooled in a heat recovery process prior to release.
The unfired pellets entering the furnace have a moisture content of 9 percent.
NA = Not applicable
3.1.3 Finished Pellet Handling
The number of PH emission units at a plant depends largely on the number of indurating
furnaces (i.e., one PH line for each indurating furnace). The number of PH emission units at
each taconite plant is shown in Table 3.1-1. Table 3.1-4 provides a description of finished pellet
handling emission point characteristics. At the beginning of the finished pellet handling process,
iron ore pellets are still warm, so the process exhaust temperatures are around 150°F. After
additional pellet cooling, process exhaust temperatures drop back to ambient conditions. The
exhaust volumetric flow rate for pellet handling emission units is similar to that for emission
units in ore crushing and handling. Specifically, the air flow ranges from 1,600 acfm to 116,000
acfm, with an average of 25,000 acfm. The ore contains a nominal quantity of moisture;
therefore, the moisture content of the exhaust gas is nominal.
3-5
-------
Table 3.1-4: Finished Pellet Handling Emission Unit Characteristics
Affected Source
Finished Pellet
Handling
Exhaust Volumetric Flow Rate
(acfm)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
116,000
1,600
25,000
Temperature
(°F)
100
Ambient
Ambient
Moisture
Content of Ore
Nominal
Nominal
Nominal
3.1.4 Ore Dryers
Ore drying includes ore dryers located upstream of the balling drums. There are only two
ore dryers in the taconite industry and both are located at Tilden. The taconite concentrate at
Tilden contains a higher percentage of fine particles than the taconite concentrate at other
taconite plants. Therefore, the Tilden taconite concentrate requires additional drying prior to
entering the balling drums. The two existing ore dryers are designed such that one dryer has one
stack and the other dryer has two stacks. Thus, the ore dryers affected source includes a total of
three emission units. Table 3.1-5 provides a description of ore dryer emission point
characteristics. The volumetric flow rate of exhaust from ore dryer emission units is higher than
that of OCH or PH emission units, but less than that of indurating furnaces. When taconite ore
concentrate enters the ore dryer, it typically has a moisture content of 12.2 percent. The ore
dryers reduce the moisture content of the ore to approximately 5 percent.
Table 3.1-5: Ore Drying Emission Unit Characteristics
Affected Source
Ore Drying
Exhaust Volumetric Flow Rate
(acfm)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
104,842
77,023
90,932
Temperature
(°F)
1,800
1,800
1,800
Moisture
Content of Ore
(percent)
12.2
5
NA
NA = Not applicable
3-6
-------
3.2 ESTIMATES OF BASELINE PM AND HAP EMISSIONS
A total of 935 tons of HAP are emitted by the taconite industry each year, with indurating
furnaces constituting 98.8 percent of the baseline HAP emissions. Although only 1.2 percent of
the overall HAP emissions come from OCH, PH, and ore drying, these operations contribute
approximately 30 percent of the metallic HAP emissions. Acid gases and PIC make up over 96
percent of the total HAP emissions from the taconite source category, with metallic HAP
comprising the remainder. The facilities with the highest baseline HAP emissions are Minntac
(341 tons/yr) and National (273 tons/yr).
As stated earlier, PM emissions serve as a surrogate for metallic HAP emissions. A total
of 14,500 tons of PM are emitted by the taconite affected source each year. Nearly one-fourth of
this amount (approximately 3,100 tons) comes from emission units associated with OCH, PH,
and ore dryers. Of the 11,400 tons of PM per year emitted from indurating furnaces, 63 percent
(approximately 9,100 tons) is contributed by only two indurating furnaces-Minntac Line 3 and
National Line 2.
The estimated baseline HAP and PM emissions from taconite iron ore plants are
summarized in Table 3.2-1. As shown in the table, all of the taconite iron ore facilities emit
more than 10 tons of HAP per year and, thus, are major sources of HAP.
3-7
-------
Table 3.2-1: Baseline PM and HAP Emissions from Taconite Iron Ore Plants
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
TOTAL
Process3
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
DRYERS
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
DRYERS
TOTAL
Baseline
PM
Emissions
(tons/year)
607
169
9,097
9,873
518
30
284
833
565
132
172
869
97
59
801
957
94
108
203
405
109
79
54
243
101
54
609
765
39
22
219
259
539
2,129
654
11,441
259
14,483
Baseline HAP Emissions (tons/year)
Metallic HAP
0.0031
0
0.0819
0.0849
0.0052
0.0003
0.0565
0.0619
0.0001
0
0.0085
0.0085
0.0005
0
0.0598
0.0603
0.0000
0.0000
0.1062
0.1062
0
0.0000
0.0167
0.0167
0.0003
0
0.0151
0.0154
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0009
0.0012
0.0093
0.0004
0.3446
0.0009
0.3542
3.2
0.2
9.7
13
2.1
0.0
1.4
3.5
1.5
0.2
2.7
4.3
0.5
0.1
4.4
4.9
0.3
0.0
2.8
3.1
0.5
0.1
1.0
1.6
0.4
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.2
0.0
0.9
1.1
2.2
8.7
0.6
23.9
1.1
34.2
Acid
Gases
0
0
205
205
0
0
23
23
0
0
31
31
0
0
262
262
0
0
19
19
0
0
32
32
0
0
38
38
0
0
47
0
47
0
0
657
0
657
PIC
0
0
122
122
0
0
35
35
0
0
38
38
0
0
6
6
0
0
9
9
0
0
21
21
0
0
4
4
0
0
7
0
7
0
0
243
0
243
Total
HAP
3
0
337
341
2
0
59
62
1
0
72
74
0
0
272
273
0
0
30
31
1
0
54
54
0
0
43
44
0
0
56
1
57
9
1
924
1
935
OCH = Ore Crushing and Handling; PH = Pellet Handling; DRYERS = Ore drying; FURN = Indurating Furnace
3-8
-------
3.2.1 Ore Crushing and Handling Emissions
Emissions from OCH operations are primarily PM emitted as dry ore is physically ground,
crushed, screened, and conveyed through the OCH process to the indurating furnaces.
Emissions of PM and HAP associated with the OCH affected source result from the following
dry operations: all stages of crushing (i.e., primary, secondary, tertiary, and fine crushing),
conveying, transferring, pan feeding, ore storage in bins/silos, and grate feeding. Wet
operations, such as wet milling, magnetic separation, hydraulic separation, chemical flotation,
concentrate thickening in the concentrator area, vacuum disk filtering, and pelletizing with the
balling drums, are excluded because the water effectively suppresses all emissions from these
operations.
A total of 2,129 tons of PM are emitted from OCH emission units per year. Nearly 80
percent of these emissions come from three plants: Minntac, EVTAC, and Northshore. A total
of 9 tons of metallic HAP are emitted from OCH emission units per year. The HAP content of
emitted PM depends on the chemical composition of the iron ore. Seventy-eight percent of the
metallic HAP emissions from OCH are emitted by Minntac, EVTAC, and Northshore.
3.2.1.1 Baseline OCH Particulate Matter Emissions
To estimate baseline PM emissions for the OCH affected source, we assigned a baseline PM
concentration and a volumetric flow rate to each OCH emission unit (see Table 2, Appendix A).
Particulate matter emissions test data were available for 46 OCH emission units. For the 218
OCH emission units without PM test data, the following assumptions were made:
• All of the available PM emissions test data for emission units equipped with a venturi
scrubber, impingement scrubber, or a baghouse were at or below the MACT performance
level of 0.008 gr/dscf. Therefore, we assumed that all OCH emission units equipped
with one of these APCD types would operate at a PM concentration baseline of 0.008
gr/dscf. Emission units with PM emission test data below 0.008 gr/dscf were assumed to
be at 0.008 gr/dscf for the baseline and when determining the PM emissions at the
MACT level (see Chapter 7). This results in an emission reduction of zero for these
3-9
-------
units. If the baseline PM emissions were based on an actual test value below 0.008
gr/dscf for an emission unit, then the result of "achieving" the MACT level would be an
increase in emissions for that unit. It was decided that an emission reduction of zero is a
more accurate representation of the actual emission reduction that can be expected for
these units.
• The baseline PM emissions concentration for units equipped with a multiclone,
rotoclone, or mable-bed scrubber was based on available PM test data or the MACT
level of 0.008 gr/dscf, whichever was greater. If test data were not available for an
emission unit, we assigned that unit a value based on test data from the most similar
tested emission unit. The baseline PM emissions concentration was then based on this
assigned value or the MACT level of 0.008 gr/dscf, whichever was greater.
To estimate baseline PM emissions, the baseline concentration level of each emission unit
was multiplied by the volumetric exhaust flow rate (dcfm) of the emission unit. Most exhaust
flow rates were available from Title V permit data. If the provided flow rates were in units of
acfm, the ideal gas law was used to convert to dcfm. If exhaust flow rates were not available for
an emission unit, the exhaust flow rate for the most similar emission unit was used. Table 2 of
Appendix A shows the exhaust flow rate and the total estimated baseline PM emissions for each
OCH emission unit. Table 3.2-1 shows the total baseline PM emissions for the OCH affected
source for each taconite plant.
3.2.1.2 Baseline OCH Metallic HAP Emissions
Since the intrinsic composition of taconite ore contains a variety of metallic HAP
(manganese, lead, chromium, arsenic, etc.), metallic HAP are part of the PM being emitted from
OCH emission units. The concentration of metallic HAP in the taconite ore varies with mine
location and locations within a mine. The measured metals composition of iron ore at Minntac,
EVTAC, Northshore, National, Hibbing, and Inland is listed in Table 3.2-2. The metals
composition of ores at Empire and Tilden was not available. For the purposes of this analysis,
3-10
-------
values for the metals composition of the ores at Empire and Tilden were based on the average
metals composition at the other six facilities.
The PM emissions from OCH emission units were assumed to have the same proportion of
metallic HAP as determined in the taconite ore. Thus, to determine individual metallic HAP
emissions, the OCH PM emissions total from each plant was multiplied by the percent of the ore
composition each metallic HAP represents at that plant. The estimated baseline metallic HAP
emissions from OCH is shown in Table 3.2-3 for each plant. For example, the antimony
emissions at Minntac were calculated by multiplying the Minntac OCH PM emissions, in tons,
by the percent of antimony in the Minntac ore, as shown in the calculation below.
(607 tons PM) (8.07 tons antimony/1,000,000 tons PM) = 4.90 x 10'3 tons antimony
Based on these calculations, the total baseline metallic HAP emissions from OCH is 8.66 tons.
The metallic HAP emissions from OCH are dominated by manganese, which constitutes 8.45
tons or 98 percent of the total emissions. All other metallic HAP are emitted at levels less than
1301bs/year.
3-11
-------
~
-J— '
00
'53
i
f^
E
a.
&
6
1
i-^
"v3
a
S
0
u
00
c
TJ
E
•a
c
cS
00
_c
VI
3
U
£
O
(N
(N
en
—
3
£
l ,
c
03
a.
03
C
•
W
o:
c
c
^
^
c
^^
po • OO OC ^A f~*s ^_, *O f^
™" fxl ^ ^ ^ ^J" ^ ^~ ^™
^f CM ^^i en r^" ^^ ^~™ ^n
OO ^J . O 0 t~- —
00
vo"AifVior~-r~:l/^f~- — "l^
f^i r^1" t«> ^™^ fsj ^^
*o <^j f^
22-oo^^®§ — 2"(?
V "m V
f- ^r ae>
o^: — o^^^^oo^.
eo — ts" — '• tN ~ — Io "^ r-~" —
c
£, £ -V $ ^ ^ „
- J? * „ c" o "^ X .— ^
^** ^^ P C " r ^ rn « "^^ r
0 o" 3 3 •— £ C C? « -
•11 111 li sill
<
3
"o3
03
"re
re
0
c
E
0)
•£
S
12
-a
c
re
u
'5,
£
i.^
£
*n
C
o
"in
O
n.
E
o
u
'c
1
5
OJ
I
S
o
o
W
I
o
C/3
S3
ffl
T3
C
CO
E
bO
_c
C/2
3
CJ
(D
6
(N
(U
3
H
ooooooopooo
o
ooooooooo
^
o
— — fSr-4
ooooooooo
ooooooooooo
CNOOOO —
O
— CS O
OOOOOO
— 'd-
OO
OO
CN
oooooopooo
-j- I I
O; CN CNI —.
CN ^r —'• —<
0
0
O
CN V — 'CN— '
opooooooooo
S
1 'i 11 i 5 I
£2 S re j= o S 5
mi
B -I 1
1> .0
C
-------
3.2.2 Indurating Furnace Emissions
The indurating furnace affected source includes the emissions from each indurating furnace
stack. Furnaces emit three types of pollutants: PM (serving as a surrogate for metallic HAP)
from the handling and movement of the pellets; products of incomplete combustion (PIC), such
as formaldehyde, from the burning of natural gas to fire the furnace; and acid gases, from the
presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet additives, such as dolomite and limestone.
Over three-quarters of the PM emissions from the taconite source category, or approximately
11,400 tons of PM per year, are emitted from the indurating furnace affected source. Sixty-three
percent of the total PM emissions, or roughly 9,100 tons of PM per year, are contributed by only
two furnaces - Minntac Line 3 and National Line 2. Emissions of HAP from indurating furnaces
constitute 98.8 percent of the baseline HAP emissions from all taconite plants. Acid gases and
PIC make up over 97 percent of the total HAP emissions from indurating furnaces, whereas
metallic HAP make up less than 3 percent of the total HAP emissions from indurating furnaces.
3.2.2.1 Baseline Indurating Furnace PM Emissions
Particulate matter test data are available for all 21 of the indurating furnaces. The baseline
PM emission concentration (gr/dscf) used for each indurating furnace was based on the PM test
data for that furnace or the MACT level, whichever was greater. Therefore, the assumptions
regarding the baseline PM emission concentration made for OCH were not necessary for the
indurating furnaces.
To calculate baseline PM emissions, the baseline PM concentration (gr/dscf) for each
indurating furnace stack was multiplied by the volumetric flow rate (dcfm) of the corresponding
indurating furnace stack. Volumetric flow rates for furnace stacks were obtained from the
available PM emissions test reports. Appendix A, Table 3 shows the air flow rate (dscfm) and
the total estimated baseline PM emissions (tons/yr) for each indurating furnace stack.
Table 3.2-1 shows the total baseline PM emissions (tons/yr) for indurating furnaces by plant.
3-13
-------
3.2.2.2 Baseline Indurating Furnace Metallic HAP Emissions
Indurating furnaces emit PM as taconite pellets are heated, conveyed, and tumbled (in grate
kilns) within the furnace. Since the taconite ore contains intrinsic concentrations of metallic
HAP compounds, the PM emissions also include metallic HAP. In contrast to the metallic HAP
emission estimates for the OCH affected source, which were based on the elemental composition
of the taconite ore, the baseline metallic HAP emission estimates from indurating furnaces are
based on actual EPA Method 29 measurements of metallic HAP emissions. Based on the
available Method 29 data, the MPCA developed metallic HAP emission factors for the
indurating furnaces at each of the plants. These HAP emission factors, in units of ppb per ton of
pellets fired, are presented in Table 3.2-4.
To determine the baseline metallic HAP emissions for each plant, the emission factor for
each plant was multiplied by the average annual tons of pellets fired and divided by 1 x 10 .
Table 3.2-5 shows the corresponding baseline metallic HAP emissions (tons/yr) for each plant.
For example, the antimony emissions at Minntac were calculated as follows:
[(13.30 ppb/ton pellets)(l 5,530,667 tons of pellets produced)] /I x 109 = 0.207 tons/yr
The taconite pellet production was based on the average amount of ore produced at each facility
from 1998 to 2000 (see Table S.2-6).3'4'5
Based on this methodology, the total baseline metallic HAP emissions from indurating
furnaces is estimated as 23.9 tons/yr. Metallic HAP compounds that are emitted in the largest
quantity include: arsenic (6.5 tons/yr), manganese (5.8 tons/yr), lead (4.4 tons/yr), nickel (2.8
tons/yr), and chromium (2.0 tons/yr), which constitute 90 percent of the total metallic HAP
emissions from indurating furnaces.
3-14
-------
I
W
S
00
>_>
1
•o
c
Cs
c
CB
0.
^>
C
T3
P
£
&.
£
M
T3
C
n
OX)
:§
s
_
J-
o
to
12
CN CN CN f-
o o o —
O O O CN
o o o ^
V V V
vo OS vo
O CN O «2
CN CN CN O
§OO —
o o o
o o o 5
V V V °
rt
fN) — O CN
o 8 ° °
°> °. °- o
V °
OO OO vo
Cs OS O
O O — r-
o o o ~-
O 0 0 g
o o o ^
V V V
vo Os vo
G5 O^ C5 ^"^
CN CN CN f-
Soo—;
O O CN
o o' o ^
V V V °
O CN O <*>
CN CN CN t"~
000 —
O O O CN
o o o' §
V v v
CQ CQ CQ CQ
2 S 2 S
X> X) X> X>
•o
f1
fli
S g « 2
N 1 § £
C-3 sc C
*~" j> 1.
fli O ** O
o CQ H a: £
0.
m m
— « ( —
•f CN
oo r—
Os CN
§o
o
o o
«r> 00
Os <-s|
vo CN
§0
o
O 0
m
f^ o
o °
° v
Cs
Os o
2 8
§?
VO Tt
OS OS
O v~i
0 0
o o
OO CN
VO vo
t^ */~^
o o
o' o
T3
TT CN
f*^ vo
O in
O o
o o
o
10 S
yj O
^—
0 ®.
0 °
c c
0 0
X) X>
CJ 0)
J 'S
"5 c
_ c
CO ^ —
V V V
°, ® vo .^'
oos~ — ^•wiosSC:!^'^1
v v v v v v v
r*^ en i/~i _,^1 .^^ .-^ , .^^ ^.
°^M0clr>r')inOs-'
— ~22'^r^^rnos^'^
§ vo § sO
* ^^ p5i |^J ^^ • • OO ^**" "
^ ' ^O — . J_ *— l""- w*) . vi ro
V^V2[^fs](NV^
1 — ' ^~" c-i ^ ' ° co ^X ^- * ^
v !— o "~ ^— - v '— f^^r^
^ ^O O CN
• ®o ^ ^ T^- "^ ' "* ^ "* L • •
^ ' ^^ ~—i ^^ ^f*"i T— -( ~*J ^^ ^ ; f** f^j
v v v v
tnt«t«t«cntn(«cncnMt«
(UCJCJCJCJIDDIUCJCJO
X>X)X)XiXJX>XJX>X)X>X)
0-Q.^CXCXQ-CXC.CLn.C.
u i
^^osS^ -°fl ^
•^T ^* r-^ ~ ?• O w? • —
g 0- 1 1 .2 H £ n g? ^ 2
•glllllllllll
•S<
C > rj
KS ^i
1-i^
T3 a> >
§ e«
00 'O CB
2 «
XI , g
£ S =
= | o
"« "O ~*
O 'S Xj
^ /-< O
(^~ ^ S
O « -S
J §
c -a
.2 £
o
o
o^
CN'
X
o
o
o
-o -73
n.
.2 *
'« CB
-2 [2
s ti
*- o
2 •£
•OS
CB T3
^> §
S^o
.£ 0!
•C o
o "
X-< o
r f £ y
V—' 3 M
S '5b g
fe S '5b
2 S CB
I— "^ vU
o g .|
^ S^S |
§| 2^
« £ ec p
3 CB = ^4-
« £ « °
ra 'S £ «
c
1
8
u
cs
§ J-S-5!
I I III
:-l^l!
C ^ CO £r
OJ "5 "cj 4J 3
"o c i> w
10
-------
0)
O
VI
G
O
DQ
.1
"S
VI
cd
CQ
tu
GO
-o
CO
•«* r- *"":
oo 0 od 2
CN CN — ~
V V V v
SO so so
Os ON ON C 3
OO OO OO OO
V V V ^
^f •"*• ** oo
SO SO so ^
V V V ^
so oo so rr,
oo O on o
u-> r- uo J^
V V V —
i^"\ QQ tf\
-q- __ ,3- so
CN CN CN ^
V V V ~~
i/o
r- so ^£ oo
oo — S f">
oo — P oo
•^ O ° 0
v
oo oo r^ r--
CN CN •* Jo
*/o vi so ^,
V V V f
CN O CN r-i
oo r~ oo ^
UO OO U"> fvj
CN CN CN p^
V V V >/•> 55 ;.;
O ON °^ ^f
«5 ON" °° 5
V V v <=^
u
•O
^
f
QJ
§ « u 2
<3 E c o3
N S ea c
*"^ X
l^£l
•<*•
CN
V
V
CN
V
p
V
00
V
^
V
oo
V
«
V
oo
__
V
K
C
y
51
- 0
ON oo
-3- o
V V
ON —
SO 0
> O
S 2
CN —
^ 1
CN V
°° ^
— v
CN
SO SO
oo o
« —
«N [^
so "~:
o ^
*^ *°
^^
0
'C ~
_O o
JZ ^
o ^
c c
04 o
£ J
I 1
0
VO
V
0
o
o
oo'
ON
V
SO
00
V
0
0
p
CN
SO
CN
O
O
ON
O
0
OO
CN
CN
0
/lrO
V* ° ° ° v" V °" °" °' " °'
\Q i/^
o*^r — ^or-o^o^f^fNoo
°5§oo®§5§5§
r- o __ CN CN
O ' O • ' O • • O • _.
V V V V
c
X! * 5C ^
Illijilili!
ON
oo
CN
V
0
V
p
V
o
V
no
CN
V
0
r-
CN
V
V
r-
ON
\/
__
03
c
"c
*
oo
CN
OS
V
oo
V
CN
OO
V
Os.
oo"
V
oo
oo
V
oo
CN
r-
V
—. ;
v
.
WO
V
00
£
V
"K
C
-------
Table 3.2-6: Taconite Production and Heat Input Values
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Taconite Production (tons/year)
1998a
15,891,680
5,449,920
4,872,000
5,927,040
8,736,000
3,086,720
9,087,680
7.717.920
1999b
14,572,320
4,928,000
4,376,960
5,962,880
7,728,000
3,136,000
7,952,000
6.902.560
2000C
16,128,000
4,704,000
4,704,000
6,199,301
9,218,720
3,215,520
8,492,409
8,040.533
Avg.
15,530,667
5,027,307
4,650,987
6,029,740
8,560,907
3,146,080
8,510,696
7.553,671
Heat Input
iMMBTU/yrld
8,689,563
2,506,414
3,107,882
2,327,239
2,373,854
1,491,336
4,102,156
4,449,112
a Reference 3.
b Reference 4.
c Reference 5.
Heat input was calculated by multiplying energy usage factors (in MMBTU/ton of pellets
produced) by the average production value (in tons/yr). The energy usage factors are from Table 1
of Reference 6 and from Table 2 of Reference 1.
3.2.2.3 Baseline Indurating Furnace PIC Emissions
Products of incomplete combustion (PIC), such as formaldehyde, are released from indurating
furnaces at very low concentrations as a result of burning fuels, such as natural gas. Formaldehyde
has been measured through stack testing at Empire, National, Hibbing, and Northshore at
concentrations that are typically less than 1 ppm. It is suspected that other PIC such as hexane,
benzene, and toluene are also emitted, but generally in concentrations below test method detection
limits. Only National has measured concentrations of benzene and toluene above test method
detection limits. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) developed emission factors for
hexane, benzene, and toluene from stack tests for which the mass recovered was below the detection
limit for the pollutant (indicated with the algebraic symbol "<"). Thus, the emissions for hexane,
benzene, and toluene may be less than, but should not be greater than the indicated value. The
emission factors for four PIC are shown in Table 3.2-4.
The PIC emissions factors are in units of Ibs of pollutant or HAP per million btu of furnace input
energy. Therefore, the baseline PIC emissions are based on indurating furnace heat input rather than
the quantity of pellets fired. The heat input values shown in Table 3.2-6 were calculated by
3-17
-------
multiplying energy usage factors (in MMBtu/ton of pellets produced) by the average production value
(in tons/yr). The baseline PIC emissions from indurating furnaces was calculated by multiplying the
emission factors by the heat input and divided by 2,000. The estimated baseline PIC emissions
(tons/yr) are presented in Table 3.2-5. For example, the formaldehyde emissions at Minntac were
calculated as follows:
[(8,689,563 MMBtu/yr)(0.02173 lb/MMBtu)] / 2,000 = 94.41 tons/year
Based on these calculations the total baseline PIC emissions from indurating furnaces is less than
243.4 tons. The PIC emissions are dominated by formaldehyde, which constitutes 180.7 tons, or 74
percent of the total PIC emissions. Four taconite plants, Minntac, EVTAC, Northshore, and Inland,
emit over 89 percent of the total PIC.
3.2.2.4 Baseline Indurating Furnace Acid Gas Emissions
Acid gases (hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid) are emitted from indurating furnaces at very
low concentrations, typically less than 3 ppm. Acid gases are formed in the indurating furnace due to
the presence of chlorides and fluorides in pellet additives, such as dolomite and limestone.
Hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid have been measured through stack testing at Inland, National,
Northshore, and Hibbing. The MPCA has developed emission factors for these sources based on the
stack concentrations measured for the respective plants. For plants that did not have test data, the
MPCA developed emission factors based on the available emissions data from the tested taconite
plants. Emission factors for stacks equipped with wet APCD were based on stack test data from
Northshore and Hibbing. Emission factors for stacks equipped with dry APCD were based on stack
test data from National. The stack test data from Inland were not used to estimate acid gas emissions
from other sources due to the large quantity of fluxstone, a unique additive in use at that plant. The
emission factors for both hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid are shown in Table 3.2-4.
To determine the baseline acid gas emissions for each taconite plant, the emission factor for each
plant was multiplied by the tons of pellets fired and divided by 2,000. Table 3.2-5 shows the baseline
acid gas emissions for each taconite plant. For example, the hydrochloric acid emissions at Minntac
were calculated as follows:
3-18
-------
[(0.01556 Ib/ton pellets)(l 5,530,667 tons of pellets produced)] / 2,000 = 120.83 tons/year
The taconite pellet production was based on the average amount of ore produced at each facility from
1998 to 2000 (see Table 3.2-6).3'4'5
Based on these calculations the total acid gas emissions from indurating furnaces is less than 657
tons/yr. The emissions of hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid are similar in magnitude at less
than 349 tons/yr and less than 308 tons/yr, respectively. Over 71 percent of the acid gas emissions are
emitted from the furnaces at two taconite plants: Minntac and National.
3.2.3 Finished Pellet Handling (PH) Emissions
Finished PH operations include all operations after the indurating furnace, such as cooler
discharge, finished pellet conveying, screening, and transfer. Pellet handling emissions result from
physical abrasion of the pellets as they pass along the process line from the indurating furnaces to
transfer points.
Finished pellet handling emission units emit a total of 654 tons of PM per year. Approximately
75 percent of the PM emissions are emitted from Minntac, Northshore, Hibbing, and Inland. The
HAP content of the PM emissions depends on the composition of the hardened taconite pellets. It is
estimated that only 1 ton of metallic HAP emissions is emitted from PH emission units per year.
3.2.3.1 Baseline PH Participate Matter Emissions
To estimate baseline PM emissions for the PH affected source we assigned a baseline PM
emission concentration (tons/yr) to each PH emission unit (see Table 2 in Appendix A). Particulate
matter emissions test data were not available for each of the 82 PH emission units. Therefore, the
following assumptions were made:
• Since all of the available PM emissions test data for emission units equipped with a venturi
scrubber, impingement scrubber, or a baghouse were at or below the MACT level of 0.008
gr/dscf, we assumed that all emission units equipped with this type of APCD would have a
PM emissions concentration of 0.008 gr/dscf. Emission units with PM emission test data
below 0.008 gr/dscf were assumed to be at 0.008 gr/dscf for the baseline and when
3-19
-------
determining the PM emissions at the MACT level (see Chapter 7). This results in an emission
reduction of zero for these units. If the baseline PM emissions were based on an actual test
value below 0.008 gr/dscf for an emission unit, then the result of "achieving" the MACT level
would be an increase in emissions for that unit. It was decided that an emission reduction of
zero is a more accurate representation of the actual emission reduction that can be expected
for these units.
• The baseline PM emissions concentration for units equipped with a multiclone, rotoclone, or
mable-bed scrubber was based on the PM test data or the MACT level of 0.008 gr/dscf,
whichever was greater. If test data were not available, the baseline PM emissions
concentration was based on test data from the most similar tested emission unit(s) or the
MACT level of 0.008 gr/dscf, whichever was greater.
To calculate baseline PM emissions, the baseline PM concentration level of each PH emission
unit was multiplied by the volumetric air flow rate (dcfm) of the emission unit. Volumetric flow rates
for most PH emission units were available from Title V permit data. If volumetric flow rates were
provided in units of acfm, the ideal gas law was used to convert to dcfm. If volumetric flow rates
were not available for an emission unit, the volumetric flow rate for the most similar PH emission
unit was used. Table 2 in Appendix A shows the volumetric flow rate and the total estimated baseline
PM emissions for each PH emission unit. Table 3.2-1 shows the total baseline PM emissions
(tons/yr) for PH by plant.
3.2.3.2 Baseline PH Metallic HAP Emissions
Since the intrinsic composition of taconite ore contains metallic HAP (manganese, lead,
chromium, arsenic etc.), metallic HAP is part of the PM being emitted from PH emission units. The
concentration of metals in the ore varies with location. The measured metals composition of the fired
pellets at Minntac, EVTAC, Northshore, National, Hibbing, and Inland is listed in Table 3.2-7. The
composition of the ores at Empire and Tilden was not available. For the purposes of this analysis, the
metals composition of the fired pellets at Empire and Tilden was based on the average of the values at
the other six facilities.
3-20
-------
The PM emissions from PH emission units were assumed to have the same proportion of metallic
HAP as was found in the fired pellets. Thus, to determine the metallic HAP emissions, the total PH
PM emissions from each taconite plant was multiplied by the percent of the fired pellets composition
each metallic HAP represents at that plant. The estimated baseline metallic HAP emissions from PH
are shown in Table 3.2-8 for each taconite plant. For example, the antimony emissions at Minntac
were calculated by multiplying the Minntac PH emissions of PM (tons/yr) by the percent of antimony
in the Minntac ore (see calculation below).
(169 tons) (0.414 ppm/1,000,000) = 6.99 x 10'5 tons/year
Based on these calculations the total baseline metallic HAP emissions from all PH emission units is
0.604 tons/year. The metallic HAP emissions from PH are dominated by manganese, which
constitutes 0.57 tons/year, or 94 percent of the total emissions. All other metallic HAP are emitted at
levels less than 35 Ibs/year.
3-21
-------
00
1
c/f
-4— »
—
13
I
o
O
o
OH
O
u
eu
ffi
_0
Is
"5
o
CN
r-i
tU
2
ca
H
CB
C
O
T3
— oc
ON
D
W
~ d £ 2
-
•o
a
ol
c
'£
_2
c.
ona
u
r
u
H
c
c
<
I
o
"f
\
^
*£
0
u
o
CL
"O
u
c
IS
P
•o
c
CO
E
'o.
LU
O
o.
o
u
U
_U
U
cs
t
o
PL,
ffi
"S
o
on
cs
CQ
00
1
CO ^^
en
(SO
CN
ooo
oooooooo
i i i i i i i i
oooo
— oor-
-^rrj--n-
ooo
oooo
ooooo
oo
'3-
o
N
i
cu
ON
ON
oooooo
1 1 1 1 1 I
d>CL>CJCDCi>cl>
ovoom — m
oooo
— o\
OOO
OOOO
ooooooooooo
oo rn
tN CN Tf'
•— v — •
— — TJ- en
CN
CN
m
ooooooooooo
O O O O
— r— oo
ooooooooo
— O\ — ' CO ON
S
-i i 1 -a" g>
-------
3.2.4 Ore Dryer Emissions
Emissions from ore dryers are primarily PM from the physical handling of the dry ore as it is
tumbled in the rotary dryers. The HAP content of the PM emissions depends on the composition of
the taconite iron ore. Ore dryer emission units emit a total of 259 tons of PM per year. It is
estimated that only 1 ton of metallic HAP emissions is emitted from ore dryer emission units per
year.
3.2.4.1 Baseline Ore Dryer Particulate Matter Emissions
To estimate baseline PM emissions for the ore dryer affected source, we assigned a baseline PM
emission concentration to each of the ore dryer units (see Table 4 in Appendix A). Particulate
matter emissions test data are available for each of the three ore dryer stacks; therefore, assumptions
regarding the baseline PM emission concentration were not necessary. The baseline PM emission
concentration for each ore dryer was based on the PM test data for that ore dryer stack or the MACT
level, whichever was greater.
To calculate baseline PM emissions, the baseline PM concentration level of each ore dryer
emission unit was multiplied by the volumetric flow rate (dcfm) of the emission unit. The
volumetric flow rates were available from the PM emissions test data. Table 4 in Appendix A
shows the volumetric flow rate and the total estimated baseline PM emissions for each ore dryer
emission unit. The total baseline PM emissions for ore dryers, estimated to be 259 tons per year, are
emitted from one taconite plant: Tilden.
3.2.4.2 Baseline Ore Dryer Metallic HAP Emissions
Since the intrinsic composition of taconite ore contains metallic HAP (manganese, lead,
chromium, arsenic, etc.), metallic HAP are part of the PM being emitted from ore dryer emission
units. The concentration of metals in the ore varies with location. The composition of the taconite
ore at Tilden was not available. For the purposes of this analysis, the metals composition of the ore
at Tilden was based on the average of the values at the six facilities with ore composition data. The
average metals composition of the ore is listed in Table 3.2-9.
The PM emissions from ore dryer emission units were assumed to have the same proportion of
metallic HAP as was found in the ore. Thus, to determine the metallic HAP emissions, the value for
the total ore dryer PM emissions from Tilden was multiplied by the average percent composition of
3-23
-------
each metallic HAP in the ore. For example, the manganese emissions at Tilden were calculated by
multiplying the Tilden ore dryer PM emissions (tons/year) by the percent of manganese in the ore
(see calculation below).
(259 tons) (4085.17 ppm/1,000,000) = 1.06 tons/year
Based on these calculations the total baseline metallic HAP emissions from ore dryers is 1.08
tons/year. The metallic HAP emissions from ore dryers are dominated by manganese, which
constitutes 1.06 tons/year, or 98 percent of the total emissions. The estimated baseline metallic HAP
emissions from ore dryers are shown in Table 3.2-9 for Tilden.
Table 3.2-9: Ore Dryer Composition of Ore (ppm by weight)
and Baseline Emissions of Metallic HAP (tons/year)
Metallic HAP
Manganese, Mn
Chromium, Cr
Cobalt, Co
Arsenic, As
Lead, Pb
Antimony, Sb
Selenium, Se
Nickel, Ni
Mercury, Hg
Beryllium, Be
Cadmium, Cd
Average
Composition in Ore
(ppm by weight)
4085.17
28.12
14.95
14.22
9
7.43
6.2
6.06
3.41
2.24
0.58
Total
Tilden Baseline
Metallic HAP
Emissions (tons/year)
1.06
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.08a
The total value differs from the sum of the column values due to rounding.
3-24
-------
3.3 REFERENCES
1. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Taconite Iron Ore Industry in the United States -
A Background Information Report for MACT Determination, for EPA Order No. D-6226-
NAGX, December, 1999.
2. Title V Air Emissions Permit Application, Inland Steel Mining Company. Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc. Virginia, Minnesota. January 13, 1995. Report Number E4-3437.
3. 1999 North American Iron Ore Industry Production Forecast at Lowest Level of Past Five Years.
Skillings Mining Review, 1998.
4. US/Canadian Iron Ore Production in 2000. Skillings Mining Review, July 23, 2000.
5. North American Iron Ore Industry Production Down for 2001. Skillings Mining Review. July
28,2001.
6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Preliminary Estimates of HAP Emissions.
Hongming Jiang for Taconite MACT Industry Group. March 29, 1999.
3-25
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
This chapter presents a description of air pollution control devices (APCDs) typically
used to capture and control hazardous air pollutant (HAP) and particulate matter (PM) emissions
from taconite iron ore processing operations. Section 4.1 identifies and describes each type of
APCD commonly used within the taconite source category. Section 4.2 characterizes the current
distribution of these APCDs among the affected sources within the taconite source category.
4.1 DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL DEVICES
Emission units within the ore crushing and handling (OCH), indurating furnace, finished
pellet handling (PH), and ore dryer affected sources emit PM containing metallic HAP. Control
devices such as wet scrubbers, baghouses, electrostatic precipitators (ESP), multiclones, and
rotoclones are designed to control PM emissions and, thus, metallic HAP emissions. Indurating
furnaces also emit acid gases (e.g., hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid) and products of
incomplete combustion (PIC), such as formaldehyde. Only wet control devices, such as wet
scrubbers and wet ESP, are effective for controlling acid gas and PIC emissions. Each type of
APCD currently used in the taconite source category is described in the following subsection.
4.1.1 Wet Scrubbers
Wet scrubbers use an aqueous stream to remove PM from a gaseous emission stream.
Scrubber efficiency is dependent on particle size. In general, efficiency is highest for particles
between 0.5 and 5.0 um in diameter. The particle size of PM in emissions in the taconite source
category ranges from 2 to 176 um in diameter. It is expected that wet scrubbers on taconite
emission units can achieve approximately 99 percent control efficiency for PM.1 Four types of
wet scrubbers are used in the taconite iron ore industry: venturi, venturi rod, impingement, and
packed bed.
4-1
-------
4.1.1.1 Venturi Scrubbers
In venturi scrubbers, a pressure differential between high-velocity gases and free-flowing
water is used to create droplets that entrap PM, hold the particles in suspension, and deliver them
as a highly concentrated slurry. Venturi scrubbers have gradually converging and then diverging
sections that are connected by a narrow throat. The decreased volume of the throat increases the
velocity of air. Typically, water is introduced upstream of the throat and flows down the
converging sides into the throat, where it is atomized by the gaseous stream. Once the liquid is
atomized, it collects particles from the gas impacting into the liquid. As the mixture decelerates
in the expanding (diverging) section, further impact causes the droplets to agglomerate. After the
particles are trapped by the liquid, a separator, such as a cyclone, demister, or swirl vane,
removes the scrubbing liquid from the cleaned gas stream. The scrubbing liquid, along with
collected particles, flows downward to the slurry discharge, and the cleaned gas exits through the
top gas outlet.
Venturi scrubber collection efficiencies range from 70 to 99 percent for PM.1 Though
capable of incidental control of volatile organic compounds (VOC), venturi scrubbers are
generally limited to the control of PM and gases with a high water solubility.1
4.1.1.2 Venturi Rod Scrubbers
The venturi rod scrubber, though operating on the same principles as the venturi scrubber,
has a bed of parallel metal rods instead of a decreasing diameter and narrow throat. The narrow
spaces between the rods in effect create a series of parallel venturi throats, which increase the gas
velocity. As with the venturi scrubber, the atomized liquid traps the particles and a cyclone,
demister, or swirl vane removes the scrubbing liquid from the cleaned gas stream. The scrubbing
liquid carries the collected particles downward to the slurry discharge, and the cleaned gas exits
through the top gas outlet.
Venturi rod scrubbers can achieve more than 99 percent efficiency for PM.2 Though
capable of incidental control of VOC, venturi rod scrubbers are generally limited to the control of
PM and gases with a high water solubility.
4-2
-------
4.1.1.3 Impingement Scrubbers
Impingement scrubbers consist of a vertical chamber with a series of baffles or plates
mounted horizontally inside a hollow shell. The plates are perforated or slotted to allow for the
passage of gas and water. Water is introduced above the plates and flows down through the
holes while contaminated air flows up through the holes. The water droplets are atomized at the
edges of each orifice. The atomized droplets collect the PM in the gas stream. The PM-laden
liquid flows out the bottom of the chamber.
Impingement scrubbers primarily remove PM from the flue gas but can also remove acid
gases and PIC. Collection efficiencies for impingement scrubbers range from 50 to 90 percent
for PM greater than 1 um in diameter. Collection efficiencies for fine PM (diameter < 1 um) are
much lower. Control device vendors estimate removal efficiencies in the range of 95 to 99
percent for inorganic gases.3
4.1.1.4 Packed Bed Scrubbers
Packed bed scrubbers consist of two to three packed beds, each approximately 3 inches
deep. Each bed requires a pressure drop of about 5 inches of water. The dirty gas enters a
sprayed region below the packed bed. Coarse spray nozzles provide water to the underside of the
bed, which operates in a flooded condition. Bubbles and mist generated in the bed create a
turbulent layer that rises about 6 inches above the bed. Dirty water overflows through a pipe
passing through the packed bed. The air then passes through a zigzag entrainment separator.
Packed bed scrubbers are capable of controlling water-soluble inorganic gases and VOC,
as well as PM. They can achieve 95 to 99 percent reduction in inorganic gases and a 50 to 95
percent reduction in PM.]
4.1.2 Baghouses
In a fabric filter, flue gas is passed through a tightly woven fabric, which removes PM
from the flue gas by sieving and other mechanisms. Although fabric filters may be in the form of
sheets and cartridges, the most common fabric filters are cylindrical bags that are typically
housed together in a group arrangement referred to as a baghouse. As PM accumulates and dust
4-3
-------
cakes form on the filters, the efficiency of the baghouse increases significantly. To prevent the
dust cake from becoming too heavy, baghouses have a shaking, pulse jet, or reverse flow
mechanism to remove the build-up on the bags.
Baghouses differ from scrubbers in that they are not constant-efficiency devices. In other
words, if operated properly, baghouses yield a relatively constant outlet PM concentration
regardless of the inlet PM concentration. Typical outlet PM concentrations for the taconite
source category range from 0.003 to 0.01 gr/dscf. Baghouses do not control acid gas or PIC
emissions.
4.1.3 Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP)
An ESP is a PM control device that uses electrical forces to attract particles entrained
within an exhaust stream onto collection surfaces. The entrained particles are given an electrical
charge as they pass through a corona, a region where gaseous ions flow. Electrodes in the center
of the flow lane are maintained at high voltage to generate an electrical field that forces the
particles to the collector walls. In dry ESP, the collector walls are knocked, or "rapped," by
various mechanical means to dislodge the particles, which slide down into a collection hopper.
The hopper is emptied periodically, as it becomes full. Dust is removed through a dust-handling
system, such as a pneumatic conveyor, and is then disposed of in an appropriate manner. In wet
ESP, the collector walls are either intermittently or continuously washed by a spray of liquid,
usually water. A drainage system that collects the wet effluent replaces the collection hoppers
used by dry ESP. After the wet effluent is collected, it is often managed in an on-site water
treatment system.4
Both dry and wet ESP are capable of achieving efficiencies between 99 and 99.9 percent
removal for PM, including very small particles (diameter < 1 urn).1 Dry ESP do not control acid
gas or PIC emissions. Wet ESP are often used to control acid mists and can provide incidental
control of water-soluble PIC emissions.
4-4
-------
4.1.4 Multiclones
A multiclone is a system of several small cyclones operating in parallel. A cyclone is
essentially a settling chamber in which gravitational acceleration is replaced by centrifugal
acceleration. The incoming gas is forced into circular motion down the conical-shaped chamber
near the inner surface of the tube. At the bottom of the cyclone, the gas turns and spirals up
through the center of the rube and out the top of the cyclone. Particles in the gas stream are
forced toward the cyclone walls by the centrifugal force of the spinning gas but are opposed by
the fluid drag force of the gas traveling through and out of the cyclone. For large particles,
inertial momentum overcomes the fluid drag force so that the particles reach the cyclone wall and
fall down into a collection hopper. Small particles may leave with the exiting gas.
Multiclones typically remove only particles larger than 5 um. Their control efficiencies,
ranging from 50 to 90 percent,1 make them much less efficient than other control options. For
this reason, multiclones are generally referred to as "precleaners" and are often used to reduce
inlet PM loading to downstream APCDs. Multiclones do not control acid gas or PIC emissions.
4.1.5 Rotoclones
Rotoclones clean the air by the combined action of centrifugal force and a thorough
intermixing of water and dust-laden air. The flow of air through a stationary, partially submerged
impeller pulls a turbulent curtain of water with it. Additional water is introduced at the
narrowest portion of the impeller opening through a specially designed slot in the bottom. This
water flow upward through the slot increases interaction between dust and water, thus increasing
collection efficiency. Centrifugal force is exerted by rapid changes in the direction of the air
flow. The centrifugal force causes dust particles to penetrate the water film and become
permanently trapped. Any entrained moisture in the cleaned air is removed by specially designed
eliminators or curved baffles.
Rotoclones, which can technically be categorized as wet scrubbers, are primarily used to
control PM. However, in this application, rotoclones tend to be less efficient than the other types
of wet scrubbers or baghouses. Removal efficiencies for PM range from 80 to 99 percent.
Rotoclones do not control acid gas or PIC emissions.
4-5
-------
4.2 DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLS
This section describes the number and types of APCDs currently in use at each taconite
iron ore processing plant and summarizes the use of each type of device throughout the taconite
source category. The discussion of the distribution of APCDs is organized into four subsections,
each dealing with one of the four affected sources within the taconite source category:
• OCH operations,
• Indurating furnaces,
• PH operations, and
• Ore dryers.
In general, OCH emissions are predominantly controlled with wet scrubbers or
baghouses. Emissions from indurating furnaces are controlled either with wet scrubbers or ESP.
Emissions from the PH affected source are predominantly controlled with wet scrubbers, and
emissions from ore dryers are controlled by cyclones and impingement scrubbers in series.
4.2.1 Control Techniques for Ore Crushing and Handling Emission Units
The OCH affected source consists of 264 emission units from the following process units:
primary crushers, secondary crushers, tertiary crushers, fine crushers, storage bins, ore conveyors,
and ore transfer points. These dry processes emit PM from the physical crushing and handling of
the ore. The ore from each of the taconite mines contains metals that have been identified as
HAP. These HAP are emitted as a part of the total PM.
As shown in Table 4.2-1, wet scrubbers are the predominant APCDs for the OCH
affected source, accounting for 60 percent of the control equipment used. About 19 percent of
the OCH emission units are equipped with baghouses. The remaining 21 percent of OCH
emission units are equipped with a rotoclone, multiclone, or ESP.
Table 4.2-2 shows the OCH control equipment by taconite plant. Almost half of all wet
scrubbers are marble/packed bed type scrubbers and are located at one facility, Minntac. Five
taconite plants, Minntac, National, Hibbing, Empire, and Tilden, control most OCH emission
units with wet scrubbers. EVTAC uses rotoclones and some baghouses to control PM emissions
4-6
-------
from OCH emission units, whereas Northshore uses baghouses and multiclones. Inland uses wet
scrubbers and baghouses to control PM emissions from OCH emission units.
Table 4.2-1: Distribution of Control Equipment Used on OCH Emission Units
Control Equipment
Wet Scrubber
Baghouse
Rotoclone
Multiclone
ESP
Total
Number of Emission Units
160
50
23
29
2
264
Percent of Emission Units
60%
19%
9%
11%
1%
100%
Table 4.2-2: Distribution of OCH Control Equipment by Taconite Plant
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
Wet
Scrubber
85
2
14
15
10
19
15
160
Baghouse
3
10
30
6
1
50
Rotoclone
22
1
23
Multiclone
27
2
29
ESP
2
2
Total
88
34
58
16
15
16
19
18
264
4-7
-------
4.2.2 Control Techniques for Indurating Furnaces
The indurating furnace affected source includes emissions from the furnace only. The
emission points may be identified as hood exhaust or waste gas stack emissions. Although
indurating furnace hood exhausts and waste gas stacks make up only 12 percent of the total
number of emission points, indurating furnace emissions account for almost 99 percent of total
HAP emissions from the taconite source category. The HAP of concern from indurating furnaces
include metallic HAP, acid gases, and PIC. Emissions of metallic HAP, such as antimony,
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobar.. manganese, nickel and selenium, can be
controlled by controlling total PM with a wet scrubber, baghouse, or ESP. Emissions of acid
gases, such as hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid, and PIC, such as formaldehyde, can be
controlled by wet control devices such as wet ESP and wet scrubbers.
As shown in Table 4.2-3, approximately half of the indurating furnace emission points are
equipped with wet scrubbers and the remainder are equipped with ESP. Three indurating furnace
stacks are equipped with multiclones. Specific information concerning the operating parameters
of the current control devices is provided in Table 1 of Appendix B.
Table 4.2-4 lists the indurating furnace control equipment by plant. Four taconite plants,
EVTAC, Hibbing, Inland, and Minntac, use wet scrubbers. Three taconite plants, Empire,
Northshore and Tilden, use ESP. Only two plants, Minntac and National, use other devices as
the primary means of emissions control for an indurating furnace, hi the case of National, a
multiclone is in use. At Minntac, the device is similar to a multiclone but is a simpler, gravity-
settling device.
Table 4.2-3: Distribution of Control Equipment Used on Indurating Furnaces
Control Equipment
Wet Scrubber
ESP
Multiclone
Total
Number of Indurating Furnace
Stacks
23
23
3
49
Percent of Indurating Furnace
Stacks
47%
47%
6%
100%
4-8
-------
Table 4.2-4: Distribution of Indurating Furnace Control Equipment by Taconite Plant
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
Number of
Indurating
Furnaces
5
2
3
1
3
1
4
2
21
Wet
Scrubber
4
3
12
4
23
ESP
13
4
6
23
Multiclone3
1
2
3
Total Number of
Indurating Furnace
Stacksb
5
3
13
2
12
4
4
6
49
The control device at Minntac is not technically a multiclone but is a gravity-settling device
similar to a multiclone.
Total includes primary emission control devices only, not precleaners.
4.2.3 Control Techniques for Finished Pellet Handling
The PH affected source consists of 82 emission points from the following processes;
pellet cooling, screening, conveying, and storage. The HAP of concern in the PH affected
source is primarily metallic HAP. Most metallic HAP can be controlled with common PM
controls, such as wet scrubbers and baghouses.
Table 4.2-5 shows that almost 90 percent of the PH emission units are equipped with wet
scrubbers. Table 4.2.6 shows that 7 of the 8 facilities use wet scrubbers almost exclusively to
control emissions from their PH emission units. Most of the PH emission units at Northshore
are equipped with rotoclones.
4-9
-------
4.2-5: Distribution of Control Equipment Used on PH Emission Units
Control Equipment
Wet Scrubber
Rotoclone
Baghouse
Total
Number of Emission Units
71
9
2
82
Percent of Emission Units
87%
11%
2%
100%
Table 4.2-6: Distribution of PH Control Equipment by Taconite Plant
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
Wet Scrubber
17
6
8
9
8
16
7
71
Rotoclone
8
1
9
Baghouse
1
1
2
Total
17
6
9
9
9
9
16
7
82
4.2.4 Control Techniques for Ore Dryers
There are only two ore dryers in the taconite source category, both located at Tilden. The
HAP of concern in the ore dryer affected source is primarily metallic HAP. Most metallic HAP
can be controlled with common PM control devices, such as wet scrubbers and baghouses.
One ore dryer is equipped with two cyclones and an impingement scrubber in series for
PM control. The exhaust gas stream of the second dryer is split into two streams that discharge
through separate stacks. Each of these exhaust streams is also equipped with two cyclones and
an impingement scrubber in series.
4-10
-------
4.3 REFERENCES
1. Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants, U.S. EPA, EPA/625/6-91/014, June
1991.
2. Hesketh, Howard E., Air Pollution Control: Traditional and Hazardous Pollutants.
Technical Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA. 1996.
3. Wet Scrubber Application Guide. Sly, Inc. 1998.
4. MPCA. Taconite Iron Ore Industry in the United States - A Background Information
Report for MACT Determination, for EPA Order No. D-6226-NAGX, December 1999.
4-11
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
5.0 DETERMINATION OF THE MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY (MACT) FLOOR AND MACT
This chapter and its associated appendix present the methodologies and background data
used to establish the MACT floor and MACT for each of the four affected sources within the
taconite iron ore processing source category. Section 5.2 presents a combined discussion of ore
crushing and handling (OCH) and finished pellet handling (PH); Section 5.3 deals with
indurating furnaces; and Section 5.4 discusses ore dryers.
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The following subsections provide basic information on the statutory requirements for
establishing MACT, the various approaches used to identify the MACT floor, and the
justification for using PM emissions as a surrogate for emissions of metallic HAP compounds.
5.1.1 Statutory Requirements
Section 112 of the CAA requires that EPA establish NESHAP for the control of HAP
from both new and existing major sources of HAP emissions. The CAA requires the NESHAP
to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of
control is commonly referred to as the most achievable control technology (MACT).
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined
under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT floor establishes the standard at a
level that ensures that all major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as that
already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting sources in each source category or
subcategory. For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT standards
for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
5-1
-------
In developing MACT, EPA also considers control options that are more stringent than the
MACT floor. The EPA may establish standards more stringent than the MACT floor based on
the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
5.1.2 MACT Floor Approaches
Historically, the EPA has taken varied approaches to establishing the MACT floor for
different HAP source categories, depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available
data. The three approaches most commonly used involve reliance on the following:
• Existing State and Federal regulations or permit limits,
• Source test data that characterize actual emissions, and
• Use of a technology floor with an accompanying demonstrated achievable
emission level that accounts for process and/or air pollution control device
variability.
Each of these MACT floor approaches was evaluated when developing the MACT floor
for each of the four affected sources in the taconite iron ore processing source category: ore
crushing and handling (OCH), indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling (PH), and ore dryers.
Refer to the corollary discussions under each of the primary subheadings below.
5.1.3 PM as a Surrogate for Metallic HAP
As mentioned in previous chapters, metallic HAP are released from all four affected
sources. When released, each of the metallic HAP compounds, except elemental mercury,
behaves as PM. As a result, strong correlations exist between PM emissions and emissions of
the individual metallic HAP compounds. What's more, control technologies used for the
reduction of PM emissions achieve comparable levels of reduction of metallic HAP emissions,
so standards requiring good control of PM emissions will also achieve a similar level of control
of metallic HAP emissions. Therefore, for the taconite iron ore processing source category the
EPA has established standards for the reduction of total PM as a surrogate pollutant for
individual metallic HAP compounds.
5-2
-------
5.2 ORE CRUSHING AND HANDLING AND FINISHED PELLET HANDLING -
MACT FLOOR AND MACT LEVEL OF CONTROL FOR PARTICULATE
MATTER
Although OCH and PH are defined as separate affected sources, the available test data on
both sources for the MACT floor and MACT analyses were combined. This is consistent with
EPA's usual practice in developing MACT standards in organizing, as appropriate, the available
information for similar HAP-emitting equipment into related groups for the purpose of
determining MACT floors and MACT. As appropriate, separate affected source definitions are
maintained for the purpose of defining applicability of the relevant standards. Emissions from
OCH are primarily PM emitted from the dry ore as it is physically ground, crushed, screened, and
conveyed. Emissions from PH are primarily PM emitted from the finished pellets as they are
screened and conveyed. The HAP content of the emitted PM from both OCH and PH depends
on the intrinsic composition of the iron ore being processed.
This section is organized into five subsections that discuss existing regulations, available
PM emissions test data, our approach in determining the MACT floor, and our approach in
establishing MACT for both existing and new sources.
5.2.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations
The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
(40 CFR part 60, subpart LL) applies only to units that commenced construction or modification
after August 24, 1982. As a result, only some of the OCH and PH emission units in Minnesota,
and none of the OCH and PH emission units in Michigan, are subject to these NSPS. The NSPS
limit PM emissions from each emission unit to 0.022 gr/dscf (0.05 grams/dscm). However, most
of the OCH and PH emission units in Minnesota are subject to the State's Industrial Process
Equipment Rule (IPER). The Minnesota IPER establishes PM concentration emission limits as a
function of volumetric flow. The emission limit becomes more stringent as volumetric flow
increases. Particulate matter emission limits for OCH and PH emission units under the IPER
range from approximately 0.030 gr/dscf to 0.095 gr/dscf. Due to its proximity to Lake Superior,
Northshore is subject to the following more stringent limits: 0.002 gr/dscf for tertiary crushing
5-3
-------
and some storage/transfer points, 0.010 gr/dscf for cobbing and some storage/transfer points, and
0.030 gr/dscf for the rest of the emission points. The two Michigan plants, Empire and Tilden,
are subject to a State PM emission limit of 0.1 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas,
which equates to approximately 0.052 gr/dscf.
5.2.2 Particulate Matter Test Data
We identified 264 emission units within the OCH affected source and 82 emission units
within the PH affected source at the eight taconite plants (346 emission units total). Particulate
matter emissions from both operations are controlled primarily with medium-energy wet
scrubbers (i.e., venturi-rod scrubbers, impingement scrubbers, and marble bed scrubbers).
Baghouses, low-energy wet scrubbers (i.e., rotoclones), multiclones, and electrostatic
precipitators (ESP) are also used.
A total of 99 PM emissions tests were available for the OCH and PH emission units.
Thirty-nine of these PM emissions tests were not used in the analysis for one of the following
reasons (see Table 1 of Appendix C for available test data from these 39 emission tests):
• Fifteen tests were set aside from the analysis because of one of the following
reasons: the test did not consist of at least three runs, the control device
malfunctioned during one or more of the test runs, or the control device tested was
subsequently replaced or modified and is no longer in existence.
• Nine tests were set aside because the results are unusually high and appear to be
unrepresentative. These include tests of 3 venturi scrubbers, 4 baghouses, 1
marble bed scrubber, and 1 impingement scrubber. The measured emissions
values in these nine tests were up to 25 times higher than the average value from
the 60 tests used in the analysis.
• Fifteen tests were set aside because they represented duplicate tests of an emission
unit. For each emission unit with multiple test data, the test that yielded the
highest emission value was used in the analysis as the best measure of long-term
performance for that emission unit.
5-4
-------
The remaining 60 PM emissions tests (see data presented in Table 2 of Appendix C)
were used in the OCH/PH MACT analysis. Each test is composed of three 1-hour test runs, with
the results expressed in PM concentration units of gr/dscf. These 60 PM emissions tests account
for 17 percent of the combined 346 OCH and PH emission units in the source category and
include representative data on all crushing stages, screening operations, conveyor transfer points,
and storage bins, as well as finished pellet screening operations and conveyor transfer points.
These tests also cover the full range of control devices applied to OCH and PH emission units.
Therefore, these 60 tests provide representative data for the source category's OCH and PH
emission units.
5.2.3 Determination of the MACT Floor
As discussed in Section 5.1.2, in determining the MACT floor for a HAP source category
the EPA looks first for useful and appropriate values in existing State and Federal emission
limitations. The actual OCH and PH PM emission rates reported in the 60 emission tests were
compared to the State and Federal emissions limitations to determine whether the limitations
provided a reasonable representation of actual emissions and performance. Actual PM emission
rates are on the order of 0.002 to 0.010 gr/dscf, whereas, the levels generally allowed under the
State and Federal emissions limitations range from 0.022 to 0.095 gr/dscf. Based on this
comparison, it is clear that actual PM emissions are considerably lower than the levels allowed
by State emission limits and the metallic mineral processing NSPS. Furthermore, the State and
Federal PM emission limits do not realistically represent performance achieved in practice by the
best performing sources. Therefore, the MACT floor for OCH and PH was not based on the
levels allowed by the State and Federal emission limitations.
Next, the available emissions data were examined to determine if the MACT floor could
be based on actual emissions. The available, valid PM emissions tests account for 17 percent of
the OCH and PH emission units and include representative data on all emission unit types
(crushers, screens, conveyors, storage bins, etc.) and all control devices. Therefore, it was
concluded that the available information on actual emissions is adequate for the purpose of
determining the requisite MACT floors for new and existing sources. The available test data
5-5
-------
were evaluated by process stage (i.e., primary crushing, secondary crushing, tertiary crushing,
grate feed, and finished pellet handling) to determine whether PM emissions varied depending on
process stage (Figure 5-1). There were no discernable differences in the types of controls or the
level of controlled PM emissions among the various process stages. Consequently, it was
concluded that distinguishing by process stage was unnecessary and it was feasible to establish
one PM emission limit that would apply to all OCH and PH emission units.
The MACT floor was determined on the basis of each plant's flow-weighted mean PM
emissions for all tested OCH and PH units. As an average of the emissions from all emitting
units, each plant's flow-weighted mean PM concentration value takes into account the normal
variability in emissions among different units within the two affected sources and provides a
reasonably accurate representation of the overall level of control that is being achieved at each
affected source. Table 5.2-1 shows the number of PM emissions tests available for each plant and
the calculated flow-weighted mean PM emissions for each plant. The flow-weighted mean PM
emissions value was calculated for each plant using the following equation:
I C , Q ,
= i
Where:
Cw = Flow-weighted mean concentration of particulate matter for all emission units
within the affected source, grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf);
C; = Three-run average particulate matter concentration from emission unit "i", gr/dscf;
Qi = Three-run average volumetric flow rate of stack gas from emission unit "i",
dscf/hr; and
n = The number of emission units in the affected source.
5-6
-------
For Tilden, Inland, and Empire, the flow-weighted mean PM emissions could not be calculated
because there was insufficient PM emissions test data: Empire had no PM emissions test data,
while Tilden and Inland had only two tested units each. Each of the remaining five plants had
PM emissions test data for 6 to 21 units.
The flow-weighted mean PM concentration values for each of the five plants were
0.0047, 0.0050, 0.0059, 0.0114 and 0.0116 gr/dscf. The MACT floor of 0.008 gr/dscf for the
OCH and PH affected sources was determined as the average of the flow-weighted mean PM
concentrations for the five plants. Based on the available PM emissions test data, a level of
0.008 gr/dscf for OCH and PH emission units can be achieved by most baghouses, impingement
scrubbers, marble-bed scrubbers, and venturi scrubbers. However, the rule requires that plants
achieve the 0.008 gr/dscf limit based on the flow-weighted average of all of their OCH and PH
emission units. Therefore, a plant could achieve this using a combination of units with PM
emissions below 0.008 gr/dscf and units with PM emissions above 0.008 gr/dscf.
Table 5.2-1: Flow-Weighted Mean PM Emissions for Tested OCH and PH Units by Plant
Plant
EVTAC
National
Hibbing
Northshore
Minntac
Tilden
Inland
Empire
Number of PM Emissions
Tests
11
9
9
6
21
2
2
0
Average of the Top Five
Flow- Weighted Mean PM
Emissions (gr/dscf)
0.0116
0.0114
0.0059
0.0050
0.0047
NA
NA
NA
0.008
NA - Not available due to insufficient PM emissions test data.
5-7
-------
5.2.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources
The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of impingement
scrubbers capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.005 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the
level of control the EPA anticipates requiring for new sources (see Section 5.2.5). It is estimated
that, for all plants to achieve the MACT floor level of 0.008 gr/dscf, existing APCDs will have to
be replaced at 54 OCH emission units and 11 PH emission units (see Section 6.2). If the PM
emissions levels for OCH and PH are reduced from 0.008 to 0.005 gr/dscf, existing APCDs will
need to be replaced on an additional 44 emission units (38 OCH units and 6 PH emission units)
as shown in Table 3 of Appendix C. It was assumed that units installing APCDs to meet the
level of 0.008 gr/dscf (the MACT standard) would not incur any additional costs to meet the
level of 0.005 gr/dscf. This assumption is based on the fact that the costs for achieving the 0.008
gr/dscf limit are based on replacing existing APCDs with impingement scrubbers capable of
achieving a limit of 0.005 gr/dscf. It was also assumed that all emission units equipped with
venturi scrubbers would meet a 0.005 gr/dscf PM emission level. This assumption is based on
the fact that the PM emissions for 12 out of the 15 tested emissions units currently equipped with
venturi scrubbers are well below 0.005 gr/dscf.
The costs of replacing the existing APCDs for each of the 44 emission units are shown in
Table 3 of Appendix C. These costs were determined using the same control costs and
procedures as described in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 of this document. The additional capital cost
of replacing the existing APCDs on these 44 emission units with new impingement scrubbers
capable of achieving 0.005 gr/dscf is estimated to be $3.5 million, and the total annual cost
(including annualized capital costs) is estimated to be $585,000 per year. This estimate includes
the cost of increased usage of electricity, estimated to be an additional 2,870 mega-watt hours per
year, which is required due to the greater energy requirements of the new scrubbers.
The incremental reduction in total PM emissions achieved by reducing the PM
concentration from 0.008 to 0.005 gr/dscf was determined by calculating the difference between
the PM emissions for the affected units at 0.008 gr/dscf and at 0.005 gr/dscf (see Table 3 of
Appendix C). The resulting PM emission reduction for the 44 emission units is approximately
112 tons/year. In Chapter 7 of this document, it is shown that at a PM emission level of 0.008
5-8
-------
gr/dscf, the total PM emissions from all OCH and PH emission units is 2,263 tons/year.
Therefore, reducing the level to 0.005 gr/dscf results in a 4.9 percent reduction in the total PM
emissions from all OCH and PH emission units:
[(112 tons PM/year)/(2,263 tons PM/year)] x 100 = 4.9 percent reduction in PM
As discussed in Section 5.1.3, PM is used as a surrogate for metallic HAP. Therefore, a
4.9 percent reduction in PM is assumed to equal a 4.9 percent reduction in total metallic HAP.
This correlates to an incremental reduction in metallic HAP emissions of 0.37 tons (see Table
5.2-2).
The incremental cost per additional ton of HAP reduced in going from 0.008 to 0.005
gr/dscf is $2.1 million. This is calculated by dividing the annual cost of $584,577 by the annual
HAP emission reduction of 0.37 tons. The EPA has determined that the high cost, coupled with
the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this beyond-the-floor alternative at this
time. The EPA could not identify any other beyond-the-floor alternatives. Consequently, the
EPA chose the floor level of control of 0.008 gr/dscf as MACT for existing sources.
Table 5.2-2: HAP Metal Emissions Reduction from OCH and PH
at a Level of 0.005 gr/dscf
Affected Source
OCH
PH
Total
HAP Emissions at
MACT (0.008
gr/dscf) in tons/year
7.02
0.52
7.54
Percent Reduction at
0.005 gr/dscf Level
5%
5%
5%
Emission Reduction
at 0.005 gr/dscf Level
in tons/year
0.347
0.026
0.373
5.2.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources
For new OCH and PH affected sources, the EPA selected a PM outlet concentration of
0.005 gr/dscf as new source MACT. The 0.005 gr/dscf level corresponds to the best performing
5-9
-------
source (plant) with the lowest flow-weighted mean PM concentration (Table 5.2-1). Based on
available PM emissions test data, a level of 0.005 gr/dscf for OCH and PH emission units can be
achieved by most baghouses, impingement scrubbers, and venturi scrubbers. However, the rule
requires plants to achieve the 0.005 gr/dscf limit based on the flow-weighted average of all of
their OCH and PH emission units. A plant could meet this requirement using a combination of
units with PM emissions below 0.005 gr/dscf and units with PM emissions above 0.005 gr/dscf.
5.3 INDURATING FURNACES
There are 21 indurating furnaces at the eight operating taconite plants. Fourteen of the
furnaces are grate kiln designs and seven are straight grate designs. Since these two furnace
design types have unique physical and operational differences, EPA is establishing subcategories
within the indurating furnace affected source to accommodate these differences. EPA is also
differentiating the grate kiln furnaces based on the type of ore processed (i.e., hematite versus
magnetite ore).
5.3.1 Indurating Furnaces Processing Magnetite
This section is organized into five subsections that discuss existing regulations, available
PM emissions test data, our approach in determining the MACT floor, and our approach in
establishing MACT for both existing and new sources.
5.3.1.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations
Most of the indurating furnaces in Minnesota are subject to the State's IPER. Particulate
matter emission limits for indurating furnaces under the IPER range from 0.025 to 0.05 gr/dscf.
Due to its proximity to Lake Superior, Northshore, which operates straight grate furnaces, is
subject to a more stringent State limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. The two Michigan plants, Empire and
Tilden, both of which operate grate kiln furnaces, are subject to State PM emission limits also
based on air flow rates. Tilden, which operates two furnaces, has a PM emission limit of 0.065
pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (0.04 gr/dscf). Empire, which operates four grate
kilns, has aPM emission limit of 0.10 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (0.06
5-10
-------
gr/dscf) for its two larger furnaces, and 0.15 pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (0.09
gr/dscf) for its two smaller furnaces.
5.3.1.2 Particulate Matter Test Data
As stated earlier, there are 21 indurating furnaces at the eight operating taconite plants,
but because many furnaces have multiple stacks, these furnaces represent a total of 47 emission
points (see Table 3.1-1). The test data for each furnace consists of a test for each furnace stack,
with multiple tests for furnaces that discharge through more than one stack. Each valid test
consists of three 1-hour test runs, with the results expressed in gr/dscf. For the furnaces with
multiple stacks, the PM emissions value for an individual furnace was calculated as the flow-
weighted mean concentration of PM emissions from all associated stacks.
A total of 61 PM emissions tests are available for indurating furnaces processing
magnetite. Sixteen of the PM emissions tests were determined to be invalid due to the following
reasons (see Table 4 of Appendix C for available test data from these 16 emission tests. Note
that 2 of the emissions tests listed in Table 4 of Appendix C are for indurating furnaces
processing hematite. The hematite tests are discussed in Section 5.3.2.):
• Six tests were set aside from the analysis because the tests did not consist of at
least three test runs for each furnace stack.
• Seven tests were set aside from the analysis because there was no dry catch data
available for the tests.
• The 11/97 test for EVTAC line 1 was set aside from the analysis because the unit
was tested at a minimum production rate (75% of the maximum) and the unit has
been shut down since June of 1999. Based on comments from the plant, the 11/97
test for EVTAC line 1 is not representative of the system and the plant
recommends that, if and when line 1 is restarted, a new PM emissions test should
be conducted to obtain an accurate measurement of its PM emissions.1
• Two tests were set aside from the analysis because either the test was conducted
under atypical process conditions or the control device was subsequently replaced
or modified and is no longer in existence.
5-11
-------
The remaining 45 PM emissions tests, shown in Table 5 of Appendix C, were used for
the MACT floor and MACT analysis. Table 5.3-1 shows the number of valid tests available for
each of the 21 indurating furnaces. Six of the seven straight grate furnaces and twelve of the
fourteen grate kiln furnaces have credible PM test data available for magnetite ore processing.
Valid PM test data for magnetite processing are not available for EVTAC Line 1, Tilden Line 1,
and Northshore Line 6.
5.3.1.3 Determination of the MACT Floor
Existing State PM emission limitations were examined as an option for establishing the
MACT floor. However, a comparison of existing State limitations with the 45 actual PM
emissions tests shows that the State limitations are generally set at a level much higher than the
actual emissions. The average concentration of actual PM emissions measured from all 18
furnaces when processing magnetite ranges from 0.005 to 0.02 gr/dscf, which is about 5 times
lower than the typical State PM emissions limitation. Therefore, it was concluded that the State
PM emission limits and permit conditions do not realistically represent the emission levels
actually achieved in practice by the best performing sources.
Next, available emissions data were examined to determine if the MACT floor could be
based on actual emissions. At least one valid PM emissions test is available for 18 of the 21
furnaces while processing magnetite. Therefore, given the amount and quality of available PM
emissions test data, it was concluded that the available information on actual emissions is more
than adequate for the purpose of determining the requisite MACT floors for new and existing
sources.
As a first step in the MACT floor and MACT analysis for indurating furnaces, the
appropriateness of using a plant-wide average approach was explored. The plant-wide average
approach would be similar to that used for OCH and PH. Specifically, under the plant-wide
average approach the flow-weighted average PM emissions would be calculated for all of the
indurating furnaces at each plant. Then the MACT floor would be calculated based on the mean
of the top 5 plant-wide flow-weighted averages. Although PM emissions test data are available
5-12
-------
Table 5.3-1: Number of Valid PM Emissions Tests for Indurating Furnaces
Processing Magnetite
Furnace Type
Grate Kiln
Straight Grate
Plant
Empire
EVTAC
Minntac
National
Tilden
Hibbing
Inland
Northshore
Furnace Line
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Line 6
Line 7
Line 2
Line 1
Line 2
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 1
Line 6
Line 1 1
Line 12
Total
Number of Valid Tests
3
2
2
3
0
o
2
2
4
2
7
2
0
3
1
3
1
1
0
2
2
45
5-13
-------
for 18 of the 21 furnaces, there are very few furnace data points per plant. Two plants have only
one furnace, and another two plants have PM emissions data for only one of their two furnaces.
Therefore, for half of the facilities, the available test data are insufficient to calculate a plant-
wide value. Therefore, it was determined that the plant-wide average approach was not feasible.
As an alternative approach, the 21 indurating furnaces were treated as separate emission
units. As a first step, EPA looked at all furnaces (straight grate and grate kiln) with multiple PM
emissions tests to account for the variability inherent in the performance tests. There are 12 grate
kiln furnaces and three straight grate furnaces for which there are two or more emissions tests.
To quantify the variability between tests for each of these furnaces, a relative standard deviation
(RSD) was calculated for each furnace (see Table 6 of Appendix C). The RSD was calculated by
dividing the standard deviation of the data by the mean of the data and multiplying the result by
100. The RSD provides a measure of the variability of the PM test data for each furnace relative
to the mean of the PM test data for each furnace. The RSD is expressed as a percentage for each
furnace, and these percentages were then compared between furnaces.
The number of multiple PM emissions tests available for straight grate furnaces is
limited. Specifically, there are multiple PM emissions tests for only three of the seven straight
grate furnaces, and only one of these has more than two PM emissions tests. Therefore, it was
determined that, by itself, the PM emissions data for straight grates is insufficient to capture the
full range of variability between tests. The variability between tests for a given indurating
furnace is due to normal variability in process operation and control device performance, as well
as measurement error. These factors affect all furnaces similarly, and their affect on emissions is
largely independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, given the limited amount of
multiple PM emissions tests for straight grate furnaces and the fact that the above factors affect
all furnaces similarly, RSD values for all furnaces were considered together (grate kilns and
straight grates) when determining the overall variability. When straight grates and grate kilns are
combined, 15 of the 21 furnaces have multiple PM emissions tests. The RSD for the 15 furnaces
with multiple test data ranged from 9 to 111 percent and averaged 37 percent (see Table 6 of
Appendix C). This indicates that on average, the PM emissions tests for each furnace are within
plus or minus 37 percent of the mean of the emissions tests.
5-14
-------
The average RSD of 37 percent was applied to each emission test to include a measure of
variability to each test (see Table 5 of Appendix C). Next, a level of performance was assigned
to each of the 19 furnaces for which actual emissions data exist. For each furnace for which
there are two or more tests, the highest test value was chosen as the representative value of
performance for that furnace. Selecting the highest of the test results provides more assurance
that the inherent operational variability is fully accounted for in the selection of the representative
value. For those furnaces for which only one test exists, that test result is the assigned value of
performance. Table 5.3-2 shows the PM emissions values that were used in the MACT floor and
MACT analysis for each of the 18 indurating furnaces for which PM emissions data for
magnetite processing were available.
Since there are fewer than 30 sources in the straight grate and grate kiln indurating
furnace subcategories, the MACT floors were determined using the five best-performing sources.
Each indurating furnace was ranked within its subcategory according to its flow-weighted mean
concentration of PM emissions after application of the RSD adjustment for variability. The five
furnaces in each subcategory with the lowest adjusted PM concentration were identified as the
best-performing sources (Table 5.3-3). The MACT floor was then determined as the mean PM
concentration value for the five best-performing sources. The adjusted PM concentration values
for the five best-performing grate kiln furnaces were 0.0085, 0.0090, 0.0112, 0.0123, and 0.0123
gr/dscf (Table 5.3-3). The mean of these five values was determined to be 0.011 gr/dscf. Based
on the available PM emissions test data, a level of 0.011 gr/dscf for grate kiln indurating furnaces
can be achieved by most venturi scrubbers and ESP. The adjusted PM concentration values for
the five best-performing straight grate furnaces were 0.0082, 0.0090, 0.0094, 0.0105, and 0.0126
gr/dscf (Table 5.3-3). The mean of these five values was determined to be 0.010 gr/dscf. Based
on the available PM emissions test data, a level of 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grate indurating
furnaces can be achieved by most venturi scrubbers and ESP.
5-15
-------
Table 5.3-2: PM Emissions Values Used in the MACT Floor and MACT Analysis
for Indurating Furnaces Processing Magnetite
Furnace Type
Grate Kiln
Straight Grate
Plant
Empire
EVTAC
Minntac
National
Tilden
Hibbing
Inland
Northshore
Furnace
Line
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 2
Line 3
Line 4
Line 5
Line 6
Line?
Line 2
Line 2
Line 1
Line 2
Line 3
Line 1
Line 1 1
Line 12
PM Emission Control
Device
Dry ESP
Dry ESP
Dry ESP
Dry ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Multiclone
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Multiclone
Dry ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Wet ESP
Wet ESP
Highest Test
Adjusted with
the RSD
(gr/dscf)
0.0133
0.0112
0.0090
0.0085
0.0171
1.0375
0.0123
0.0123
0.0301
0.0269
0.1824
0.0166
0.0082
0.0090
0.0155
0.0094
0.0126
0.0105
5-16
-------
5.3.1.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources
The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers or
dry ESP capable of meeting a concentration limit of 0.006 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the
level of control required for new straight grate furnaces and new grate kiln furnaces (see
section 5.3.1.5). It is estimated that, in order for all plants to achieve the MACT floor level of
0.011 gr/dscf for grate kilns, the existing APCDs on five grate kiln indurating furnaces will need
to be replaced (see Section 6.3). In addition, it is estimated that, in order to achieve the MACT
floor level of 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grates, the existing APCD on one straight grate indurating
furnace will need to be replaced (see Section 6.3). If the PM emissions levels for grate kiln
furnaces and straight grate furnaces were to be reduced further to 0.006 gr/dscf, existing APCDs
would need to be replaced or modified on an additional 4
Table 5.3-3: Top Five Best-Performing Grate Kilns and Straight Grates
Furnace Type
Grate Kiln
Straight Grate
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
Plant
Empire
Empire
Empire
Minntac
Minntac
Furnace
Line
Line 4
Line 3
Line 2
Line 4
Line 5
PM Emission
Control Device
Dry ESP
Dry ESP
Dry ESP
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Average of the Top Five Best Performers
1
2
3
4
5
Hibbing
Hibbing
Inland
Northshore
Northshore
Line 1
Line 2
Line 1
Line 12
Line 1 1
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Wet ESP
Wet ESP
Average of the Top Five Best Performers
Highest Test
Adjusted with the
RSD (gr/dscf)
0.0085
0.0090
0.0112
0.0123
0.0123
0.011
0.0082
0.0090
0.0094
0.0105
0.0126
0.010
5-17
-------
grate kiln furnace stacks and 7 straight grate furnace stacks (see Table 7 of Appendix C). In
making this determination, it was assumed that units installing controls to meet the level of 0.011
for grate kilns and 0.010 for straight grates (the MACT standard) would not incur any additional
costs to meet the level of 0.006 gr/dscf. This assumption is based on the fact that the costs for
achieving the 0.0011 and 0.010 gr/dscf limits are based on replacing existing control equipment
with venturi scrubbers that are capable of achieving a limit of 0.006 gr/dscf.
The costs of replacing or upgrading the existing controls for each of the 11 affected
furnace stacks are shown in Table 7 of Appendix C. The replacement costs for venturi scrubbers
were determined using the same capital costs as described in Sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 of this
document and the annual costs shown in Table 8 of Appendix C. Since some of the affected
furnace stacks are currently controlled by ESP, a retrofit ESP cost was developed from an
industry cost estimate for a new ESP as shown in Table 7 of Appendix C.2 The retrofit costs
were estimated to be 35 percent of the replacement cost. The annual costs for the ESP are shown
in Table 9 of Appendix C. For straight grate furnaces, the additional capital cost of going from a
level of 0.010 gr/dscf to a level of 0.006 gr/dscf was estimated to be $71.2 million, and the total
additional annual cost (including annualized capital costs) was estimated to be $11.4 million.
For grate kiln furnaces, the additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.011 gr/dscf to a level
of 0.006 gr/dscf was estimated to be $28.5 million and the total additional annual cost (including
annualized capital costs) was estimated to be $5.3 million. These costs include the cost of
additional electricity, which is required due to the greater energy requirements of the new
scrubbers and ESP. For grate kiln furnaces the energy increase is expected to be 36,297 mega-
watt hours per year. For straight grate furnaces the energy increase is expected to be 17,139
mega-watt hours per year.
The incremental reduction in PM achieved by reducing the PM concentration level from
0.011 gr/dscf for grate kilns and 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grates to 0.006 gr/dscf was determined
as follows (Table 5.3-4):
• As indicated above, it was assumed that units installing controls to meet the level
of 0.011 for grate kilns and 0.010 for straight grates (the MACT standard) would
5-18
-------
not incur any additional costs to meet the level of 0.006 gr/dscf. Therefore, no
additional emission reductions were credited to these emission units.
• For grate kilns, going from 0.011 gr/dscf to 0.006 gr/dscf represents a 45 percent
PM emission reduction for each affected emission unit. Therefore, the PM
emission reduction for each affected unit was calculated by multiplying the PM
emissions at MACT by 45 percent.
• For straight grates, going from 0.010 gr/dscf to 0.006 gr/dscf represents a 40
percent PM emission reduction for each affected emission unit. Therefore, the
PM emission reduction for each affected unit was calculated by multiplying the
PM emissions at MACT by 40 percent.
The incremental reduction in HAP achieved by reducing the PM concentration level from
0.011 gr/dscf and 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grates to 0.005 gr/dscf was determined as follows
(Table 5.3-5):
• The total HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected plant was multiplied by
the percent of the plant's total volumetric flow that the affected emission units
represent. This provides an estimate of the total HAP emissions at MACT for the
affected emission units.
• The total HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected emission units was then
multiplied by the percent PM emissions reduction (45 percent for grate kilns and
40 percent for straight grates) to yield the HAP emission reduction.
The additional reduction in HAP achieved from grate kilns is estimated to be 12.8
tons/year. Therefore, the incremental cost per additional ton of HAP reduced for grate kiln
furnaces is $414,000/ton [($5.3 million/year)/(12.8 tons/year)] - $414,000/ton]. The additional
reduction in HAP achieved from straight grate furnaces is estimated to be 30 tons/year.
Therefore, the incremental cost per additional ton of HAP reduced for straight grate furnaces is
$379,000/ton [($11.38 million/year)/(30 tons/year)] = $379,000/ton. EPA believes that the high
cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this above-the-floor
alternative for either furnace subcategory. No other above-the-floor alternatives were identified.
5-19
-------
Consequently, the EPA has chosen the MACT floor levels of control of 0.010 gr/dscf for straight
grate furnaces and 0.011 gr/dscf for grate kiln furnaces as MACT for existing indurating
furnaces.
Table 5.3-4: PM Emission Reductions Resulting from a Level of 0.006 gr/dscf for Grate Kiln and
Straight Grate Furnaces Processing Magnetite
Furnace
Type
Grate Kiln
Straight
Grate
Plant
Empire
Minntac
Furnace
Line
Line 1
Line 2
Line 4
Line 5
Total
Hibbing
Inland
Normshore
Line 1A
Line IB
LineS
Line 1
Line 6
Line 1 1
Line 12
Total
PM Emissions at
MACT
(tons/year)
113
134
166
175
588
11
12
61
54
59
58
54
286
Percent PM
Emissions
Reduction
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%
PM Emissions
Reduction at
0.006 gr/dscf
(tons/year)
51
60
75
79
265
4
5
24
22
24
23
22
115
5-20
-------
Table 5.3-5: HAP Emission Reductions Resulting from a Level of 0.006 gr/dscf for Grate Kiln
and Straight Grate Furnaces Processing Magnetite
Furnace Type
Grate Kiln
Straight Grate
Plant
Empire
Minntac
Furnace Lines
Lines 1 and 2
Lines 4 and 5
Total
Hibbing
Inland
Northshore
Lines 1A, IB, 3
Line 1
Lines 6, 11, 12
Total
FLAP Emission Reduction (tons/year)
Acid Gases
0
12.3
12.3
2.8
12.8
12.4
28
Metals
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.1
2
Total
0.3
12.5
12.8
3.3
13.2
13.5
30
5.3.1.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources
For the new source MACT analysis, the PM emissions test results were not adjusted for
variability. EPA believes that a variability adjustment is not necessary because new emission
controls can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and control device
performance, as well as measurement error. The unadjusted PM emissions concentrations for
each straight grate furnace and for each grate kiln furnace were ranked from the lowest to the
highest values.
The furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 0.006 gr/dscf was selected as new
source MACT for new straight grate indurating furnaces processing magnetite. EPA believes
that this furnace, which is controlled by a venturi scrubber, represents the best controlled similar
source among the seven operating straight grate furnaces.
The furnace with the lowest PM outlet concentration of 0.006 gr/dscf was selected as the
new source MACT for new grate kiln indurating furnaces processing magnetite. EPA believes
that this furnace, which is controlled by a dry ESP, represents the best controlled similar source
among the 14 operating grate kiln furnaces.
5-21
-------
5.3.2 Indurating Furnaces Processing Hematite
There are two indurating furnaces in the taconite iron ore source category that process
hematite ore. Both furnaces are grate kiln designs located at the Tilden plant in Michigan. At
this plant hematite is processed approximately 8 months of the year and magnetite is processed
the remainder of the year. Both furnaces processing hematite are similar in design, size (25 feet
in diameter and 160 feet long), operating conditions, production rates, and air pollution control.
Exhaust gases from each furnace are controlled by three ESP, three dry units on one furnace and
one wet and two dry units on the other furnace. All corresponding ESP for each furnace have
similar configurations, including number of chambers and fields, and collection area; and similar
operating conditions, including volumetric air flow, gas inlet temperature, primary and secondary
currents, and primary and secondary voltages.
This section is organized into five subsections that discuss existing regulations, available
PM emissions test data, our approach in determining the MACT floor, and our approach in
establishing MACT for both existing and new sources.
5.3.2.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations
Both furnaces processing hematite are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.065
pounds of PM per 1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (approximately 0.04 gr/dscf).
5.3.2.2 Particulate Matter Test Data
As discussed earlier, many indurating furnaces have multiple stacks, and hence, multiple
emission units. One PM emissions test is available for Tilden Line 1 and three PM emissions
tests are available for Tilden Line 2 while processing hematite. Two of the PM emissions tests
for Tilden Line 2 were determined to be invalid (see Table 4 of Appendix C). The May 16, 2000
test for Tilden Line 2 was determined to be unusually high and appears to be unrepresentative for
this unit. The July 13,2000 test was rejected because each of the three indurating furnace stacks
was not tested independently; during this test stacks A and B were tested together. The
remaining two PM emissions
5-22
-------
tests, one each for Tilden Line 1 and Line 2, were used in the MACT analysis for indurating
furnaces processing hematite (see Table 5 of Appendix C).
5.3.2.3 Determination of the MACT Floor
Existing State PM emission limitations were examined as an option for establishing the
MACT floor. However, a comparison of existing State limitations with data on actual PM
emissions shows that the State limitations are generally set at a level much higher than the actual
emissions. The average concentration of actual emissions measured from the two furnaces when
processing hematite ranges from 0.017 to 0.018 gr/dscf, which is about half the State PM
emissions limitation. Therefore, it was concluded that the State PM emission limit does not
realistically represent the emission levels actually achieved in practice by the two furnaces when
processing hematite.
Next, available emissions data were examined to determine if the MACT floor could be
based on actual emissions. Credible PM test data are available for both of the furnaces while
processing hematite. Therefore, it was concluded that this available information on actual
emissions is adequate for the purpose of determining the requisite MACT floors for new and
existing sources.
A variability analysis for furnaces processing hematite could not be conducted because
multiple valid PM emissions tests are not available for these furnaces. As a result, the RSD
adjustment of 37 percent that was used for furnaces processing magnetite was also used for
furnaces processing hematite. This adjustment accounts for the process, control device, and
measurement variability. As noted previously, these factors affect all furnaces similarly, and
their affect on emissions is largely independent of furnace type and ore type. Therefore, EPA
believes it is appropriate to apply the RSD calculated for furnaces processing magnetite to
furnaces processing hematite. Since there are only two indurating furnaces processing hematite,
and these furnaces are ostensibly identical in design, size, operation and emissions control, EPA
selected the MACT floor based on the higher of the two PM concentration values (0.023 and
0.025 gr/dscf) after application of the RSD adjustment for variability. The resulting MACT floor
for existing grate kiln indurating furnaces processing hematite is 0.025
5-23
-------
gr/dscf. Based on the available PM emissions data, a level of 0.025 gr/dscf for indurating
furnaces processing hematite can be achieved by an ESP.
5.3.2.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources
The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of a dry ESP capable of
consistently meeting a concentration limit of 0.018 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the level of
control required for new grate kiln furnaces processing hematite (see Section 5.3.2.5). In order to
achieve the MACT floor level of 0.025 gr/dscf for indurating furnaces processing hematite,
Tilden will not have to replace or upgrade existing APCDs at any emission units (see Section
6.4). If the PM emissions level for indurating furnaces processing hematite is reduced from
0.025 gr/dscf to 0.018 gr/dscf, existing APCDs will need to be upgraded for Tilden Line 1, Stack
A and Line 2, Stacks B and C.
The costs of upgrading the existing controls for each of the three affected furnace stacks
are shown in Table 7 of Appendix C. The retrofit ESP cost was developed from an industry cost
estimate for a new ESP as shown in Table 7 of Appendix C.2 The retrofit costs were estimated
to be 35 percent of the replacement cost. The annual costs for the ESP are shown in Table 9 of
Appendix C. The additional capital cost of going from a level of 0.025 gr/dscf to a level of 0.018
gr/dscf was estimated to be $25.9 million, and the total annual cost (including annualized capital
costs) was estimated to be $4.9 million. These costs include the cost of additional electricity that
would be needed primarily to meet the greater energy requirements of the upgraded dry ESP.
The energy increase is expected to be 34,898 mega-watt hours per year.
The incremental reduction in PM achieved by reducing the PM concentration level from
0.025 gr/dscf to 0.018 gr/dscf represents a 28 percent PM emission reduction for each affected
emission unit. Therefore, the PM emission reduction for each affected unit was calculated by
multiplying the PM emissions at MACT by 28 percent (Table 5.3-6).
5-24
-------
Table 5.3-6: PM Emission Reductions Resulting from a Level of 0.018 gr/dscf
for Furnaces Processing Hematite
Furnace
Type
Grate
Kiln
Plant
Tilden
Furnace Line
Line 1A
Lines 2B and 2C
Total
PM Emissions at
MACT
(tons/year)
271
251
522
Percent PM
Emissions
Reduction
28%
28%
28%
PM Emissions
Reduction at
0.01 8 gr/dscf
(tons/year)
76
71
147
The incremental reduction in HAP achieved by reducing the PM concentration level from
0.025 gr/dscf to 0.018 gr/dscf was determined as follows:
• The total HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected plant was multiplied by
the percent of the plant's total volumetric flow that the affected units represent.
This provides an estimate of the total HAP emissions at MACT for the affected
emission units.
• The total HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected emission units was then
multiplied by the percent PM emissions reduction (28 percent) to yield the HAP
emission reduction.
The additional reduction in HAP achieved from grate kilns processing hematite is
estimated to be 0.25 tons/year. Therefore, the incremental cost per additional ton of HAP
reduced for grate kiln furnaces processing hematite is $19,599,076/ton [($4.94 million/year)/(0.3
tons/year) = $19,599,076/ton]. The EPA believes that the high cost, coupled with the minimal
reduction in HAP emissions, does not justify this above-the-floor alternative. No other above-
the-floor alternatives were identified. Consequently, the EPA has chosen the MACT floor level
of control of 0.025 gr/dscf for grate kiln furnaces processing hematite as MACT for existing
indurating furnaces.
5-25
-------
5.3.2.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources
For the new source MACT analysis, the PM emissions test results were not adjusted for
variability. The EPA believes that a variability adjustment is not necessary because new
emission controls can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and control
device performance, as well as measurement error.
As noted previously, both furnaces are ostensibly identical in design, operation, and
control, with measured PM emissions based on one performance test per furnace of 0.017 and
0.018 gr/dscf. Given the similarities between the two furnaces and their demonstrated
performance, EPA selected a PM emissions concentration of 0.018 gr/dscf as the new source
MACT for grate kiln indurating furnaces when processing hematite.
5.4 Ore Dryers
The only two ore dryers in the source category are both rotary designs, and both are
located at the Tilden plant in Michigan. One dryer measures 10 feet in diameter and 80 feet in
length and has a rated capacity of 400 tons per hour. It is equipped with two cyclones and an
impingement scrubber in series for PM emissions control. The other dryer is somewhat larger,
measuring 12.5 feet in diameter and 100 feet in length with a rated capacity of 650 tons per hour.
The exhaust gas from the second dryer is split into two streams, with each exhaust stream routed
through two cyclones and an impingement scrubber in series before being discharged through a
separate stack.
This section is organized into five subsections that discuss existing regulations, available
PM emissions test data, our approach in determining the MACT floor, and our approach in
establishing MACT for both existing and new sources.
5.4.1 Existing State and Federal Regulations
Both ore dryers are subject to Michigan's PM emission limit of 0.1 pound of PM per
1,000 pounds of exhaust gas (approximately 0.052 gr/dscf).
5-26
-------
5.4.2 Particulate Matter Test Data
There is one valid PM emission test available for each ore dryer. Both ore dryers were
tested in May 2002 while processing hematite. Tests were conducted at each of the three ore
dryer stacks and included three 1-hour test runs per stack. In the case of the ore dryer with two
stacks, the test results were calculated on a flow-weighted basis. The results, expressed in units
of PM concentration, are 0.017 gr/dscf for the smaller dryer and 0.040 gr/dscf for the larger one.
The EPA has determined that the test conditions under which the smaller ore dryer was
tested are not representative of normal long-term operations. Specifically, the ore dryer had been
idle prior to testing and was brought back on-line, solely for the purpose of testing, only 2 hours
ahead of commencing the performance test, which was 3 hours in duration. The EPA does not
believe that a warm-up period of only a few hours is adequate to produce conditions
representative of the worst-case circumstance reasonably expected to occur under normal long-
term operations. Therefore, EPA has excluded these test data from further consideration in the
MACT assessment.
5.4.3 Determination of the MACT Floor
Existing State PM emission limitations were evaluated as an option for establishing the
MACT floor. A comparison of the State limit of 0.052 gr/dscf with the only credible data on
actual PM emissions of 0.040 gr/dscf indicates that the State limit is a reasonable proxy of actual
performance and, as such, is appropriate for establishing the MACT floor level. Consequently,
EPA has determined the MACT floor for ore dryers to be the level of control indicated by the
existing State limit of 0.052 gr/dscf.
5.4.4 Determination of MACT for Existing Sources
The next increment of control beyond the floor is the installation of venturi scrubbers
capable of meeting a PM concentration limit of 0.025 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the level of
control required for new ore dryers (see Section 5.4.5). If the PM emission levels for grate kiln
furnaces and straight grate furnaces are reduced from 0.052 gr/dscf to 0.025 gr/dscf, existing
APCDs will need to be replaced on both stacks of the larger ore dryer (Tilden Dryer 2).
5-27
-------
The costs of replacing the existing APCDs on these two stacks with venturi scrubbers are
shown in Table 10 of Appendix C. Tables 12 and 13 of Appendix C show the venturi scrubber
capital and annual costs, respectively, that were used in the ore dryer analysis. The additional
capital cost of going from a level of 0.052 gr/dscf to a level of 0.025 gr/dscf was estimated to be
$98,000, and the total increase in annual cost (including annualized capital costs) is estimated to
be $256,000. This figure includes the cost of the projected additional 3,520 mega-watt hours per
year needed to meet the increased energy requirements of the upgraded venturi scrubbers.
The incremental reduction in PM emissions achieved by reducing the PM concentration
level from 0.052 gr/dscf to 0.025 gr/dscf represents a 52 percent PM emission reduction for each
affected emission unit. Therefore, the PM emission reduction for each affected unit, measured in
tons per year, was calculated by multiplying the PM emissions at MACT by 52 percent (Table
5.4-1).
Table 5.4-1: PM Emission Reduction Resulting from a Level of 0.025 gr/dscf
for Ore Dryers
Plant
Tilden
Unit
Dryer #2 - North
Stack
Dryer #2 - South
Stack
Total
PM Emissions at
MACT (tons/year)
78
71
149
Percent
PM Emissions
Reduction
52%
52%
52%
PM Emissions
Reduction at
0.025 gr/dscf
(tons/year)
40.4
37.2
78
The incremental reduction in HAP emissions achieved by reducing the PM concentration
level from 0.052 gr/dscf to 0.025 gr/dscf was determined as follows:
• The HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected plant was multiplied by the
percent of the plant's total volumetric flow that the affected units represent. This
provides an estimate of the total HAP emissions at MACT for the affected
emission units.
5-28
-------
• The total HAP emissions value at MACT for the affected emission units was then
multiplied by the percent PM emissions reduction (52 percent) to yield the HAP
emissions reduction.
The additional reduction in HAP emissions from ore dryers achieved with this above-the-
floor alternative is estimated to be 0.32 tons. Therefore, the incremental cost per ton of HAP
reduced for ore dryers is $790,000/ton [$255,915/year)/(0.32 tons/year) = $790,000/ton]. The
EPA believes that the high cost, coupled with the small reduction in HAP emissions, does not
justify this above-the-floor alternative at this time. No other above-the-floor alternatives could
be identified. Consequently, the EPA chose the MACT floor level of control of 0.052 gr/dscf as
MACT for existing ore dryers.
5.4.5 Determination of MACT for New Sources
For the new source MACT analysis, the PM emissions test results were not adjusted for
variability. The EPA believes that a variability adjustment is not necessary because new
emission controls can be engineered to account for variability in process operation and control
device performance, as well as measurement error.
A PM outlet concentration of 0.025 gr/dscf was selected as new source MACT for ore
dryers. The 0.025 gr/dscf level corresponds to the standard for dryers in the NSPS for calciners
and dryers in mineral industries (40 CFR part 60, subpart UUU). The dryers used to develop the
NSPS limit are very similar to the dryers that are used by the taconite source category.
Specifically, many of the dryers studied in the NSPS were of the rotary design, were controlled
by wet scrubbers, and processed material with a particle size distribution similar to that of
taconite ore. Therefore, due to these similarities, the EPA believes that the level of 0.025 gr/dscf
from the NSPS for calciners and dryers in mineral industries is a reasonable proxy of the
performance that can be achieved by new ore dryers in the taconite industry.
5-29
-------
5.5 REFERENCES
1. Fax from B. Anderson, EVTAC to C. Sarsony, AGTI. April 5,2002. Re: Line 1 pellet
plant waste gas stack test conducted November 21,1997.
2. OAQPS Control Cost Manual (Fourth Edition), EPA 450/3-90-006. January 1990.
5-30
-------
6.0 COSTS
This chapter presents the estimated industry costs resulting from the control of HAP
emissions under the proposed standards. The EPA estimated the emission control, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs necessary to bring each facility into compliance with the
proposed standards. Section 6.1 provides a summary of the overall costs anticipated to be
incurred by the industry. Sections 6,2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 of this chapter present the compliance
costs for ore crushing and handling (OCH), indurating furnaces, finished pellet handling (PH),
and ore dryers, respectively. Each of these sections presents the results of the cost analysis and
describes the procedures that were used to determine the compliance costs.
6.1 SUMMARY OF COSTS
Table 6.1-1 provides a summary of the emission control costs and the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting costs for existing sources in the taconite iron ore processing source
category. The EPA estimates that, for existing sources, the total capital cost of the proposed rule
will be approximately $47.3 million, including emission control capital costs and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) capital costs. Total annualized costs, including MRR costs,
will be approximately $7.0 million per year. Approximately 83 percent of the total annualized
costs are associated with the anticipated emission control upgrades for the indurating furnaces.
The cost estimates, which were derived using procedures in the EPA's Control Technologies for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Handbook, * are based on information gathered from industry
representatives and vendors of industry-specific control equipment. All costs are presented in
first quarter 1999 dollars (rounded to the nearest thousand) and are based on the proposed
emission limits presented in Table 6.1 -2.
6-1
-------
Table 6.1-1: Overall Costs for Existing Sources in Taconite Iron Ore Processing Source Category
Cost
Component
Emission
Control Cost
Monitoring,
Recordkeeping
and Reporting
Cost
Total Cost
Total Capital
Cost ($)
$44,143,000
$3,159,000
$47,302,000
Annualized
Capital Cost
($/yr)
$3,788,000
$271,000
$4,059,000
O&Ma
Cost
($/yr)
$2,836,000
$101,000
$2,937,000
MRRb
Labor Cost
($/yr)
-
$29,000
$29,000
Annualized
Total Cost
($/yr)
$6,624,000
$402,000
$7,026,000
Operation and maintenance
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
Table 6.1-2: Proposed PM Standards for Existing Affected Sources
Affected Source
Ore crushing and handling
Indurating furnaces
Straight grate, processing magnetite
Grate kiln, processing magnetite
Grate kiln, processing hematite
Finished pellet handling
Ore dryers
Proposed PM Limit
(gr PM/dscf)*
0.008
0.010
0.011
0.025
0.008
0.052
* PM is being used as a surrogate for metallic HAP.
The emission control costs are based on the replacement of existing air pollution control
devices (APCDs) that are anticipated not to meet the proposed MACT standards with new
control equipment capable of meeting the standards. All emission units in the four affected
6-2
-------
sources subject to the proposed taconite rule are already equipped with some form of PM
emission control. As discussed in Chapter 4 of this document, a total of 396 emission units
within the taconite industry will be subject to the proposed standards. Sixty-five percent of these
emission units are already equipped with a venturi or impingement wet scrubber, a baghouse, or
an ESP-technologies reasonably expected to achieve compliance with the proposed standards,
based on available test data (see Chapter 5). The remaining 35 percent of emission units are
equipped with multiclones (dry) or low-energy wet scrubbers, such as rotoclones, wet
multiclones, or marble-bed wet scrubbers. For the majority of emission units controlled by
multiclones (dry) or low-energy wet scrubbers, emissions test data show an inability to meet the
proposed MACT standards listed in Table 6.1-2.
The emission control costs presented in Table 6.1-1 are based on the cost of replacing
APCDs incapable of meeting the proposed MACT standards (i.e., multiclones and low-energy
wet scrubbers) with devices capable of achieving the standards (i.e., new wet scrubbers).
Specifically, it was estimated that the following emission units will require replacement of
existing APCDs with a new wet scrubber capable of meeting the proposed MACT standards:
• 54 ore crushing and handling emission units,
• 11 indurating furnace emission units (i.e., furnace stacks) on 4 indurating
furnaces, and
• 11 pellet handling emission units.
It is anticipated that, in addition to installing any new APCDs that are required, the industry will
install parametric monitoring equipment on 208 wet scrubbers, 24 ESPs, and 53 baghouses. The
total capital cost of installing these devices, as well as the labor and operation and maintenance
costs, are also summarized in Table 6.1-1.
Table 6.1-3 shows the EPA-estimated emission control costs and MRR costs for each of
the eight taconite plants. Over 96 percent of the costs are incurred by four of the eight plants:
Minntac (40.5%), National (24.5%), EVTAC (20.8%), and Northshore (10.5%). Inland, Tilden,
and Empire are not projected to incur any emission control costs, although they are projected to
incur MRR costs.
6-3
-------
o
1
PJ
O
U
-o
03
o
U
_o
'In
VI
U
rn
ea
H
sl!ll
03
1o
O
U
00
.£
^
o
&•
as
1
CO
00
e
&
CJ
.*!
1
as
so
c
1
'£
o
2
c/5
1«
O
^
g
c
o
U
c
_o
'55
t«
U
_ -3
£^x -^ ^ p^
""£- .1 S
*-^ Oi O
3; e£ -g
s — ' *3[ i
^— ^^
c
^""S.O
£1 '|.
i o
^
~«1
^td- ® m"
^" r \
^
— "c5 o "o
.— -v ca 3 *55 H
Q -Q c w5 n
^E- < £ U
cxj
^g
G~ ^
' — ' o
•o
W ,
.« ^3
£"§ 'c.
~|<5
^-N "3 .•§
^H g
HC
55 r"i
0 +
^"^
«"^
O ^
fj ^p;
^** V/J^
|5
u t2-
S^
u ^
So
o ^^
^^ s— **
2 G*
V3 ,
0 +
U CO
£ ^
Is ~^
o t£.
_Q
u ^
IE
U
1
VD_
oo"
Tj*
t*
r-i
6ft
[^
r-"
6O
r-i
VD
r*^
r^i
6O
in
m
—
6O
n-
CN*
6O
O
»-
/^i
6ft
>n"
o
vo
6O
00
IS
ir
rt-
CM
i*
in
6O
CM
^
60
CM
vq
r*i
60
O
VO
CM"
6O
oc"
60
S
^T
^«
•^
60
O
6O
O
60
O
O
6O
'EL
£
Tf
CM
0
r-"
60
VO
O
""V
o
60
CM
in
O
c\"
CM
6O
in
O
60
00
CM
6O
m
VO
in
"
60
—
VO
vo"
6O
0V
—
\Q
CO
oc
64"
OC
C1
oc
ei
in
o
n
2
6O
U
"c
H
U
c
.s
"EL
I
U
3
,P
•a
CM
<*">
VO
O
U
X
C3
cs
m
O
fl
C '> E o
oo — o " n "
•S E -o
o 55 g
TZ .S CJ 00 « C
O -En .N C "- .2
co g E C oo
j= S o o c
•3 a! 8SS
*r~. 5 fi 4J fli D
•= O C3 £ J= =
5 E U i- S- Q
-------
6.2 COSTS FOR ORE CRUSHING AND HANDLING EMISSION UNITS
Table 6.2-1 provides a summary of the emission control costs and the MRR costs for the ore
crushing and handling (OCH) affected source. The EPA estimates that, for existing sources, the
capital cost of the proposed rule for OCH emission units will be $6.3 million (includes emission
control capital costs and MRR capital costs) and total annualized costs, including MRR costs, will
be $951,000 per year. The costs for the OCH affected source represent approximately 13 percent
of the total capital costs and 14 percent of the total annualized costs from the entire taconite iron
ore processing source category. All costs are presented in first quarter, 1999 dollars and are based
on the proposed MACT emission limits presented in Table 6.1-2. Ninety-nine percent of the
OCH capital costs and 91 percent of the OCH total annual costs are incurred by three taconite
plants: Minntac, EVTAC, and Northshore. Inland, Tilden, Hibbing, and Empire are not projected
to incur any emission control costs, although they are projected to incur MRR costs.
The methodology EPA used to estimate the costs of the proposed standard for emission units
within the OCH affected source is described in this section. Section 6.2.1 details the emission
units that are expected to incur APCD replacement costs due to implementation of the proposed
standards. Section 6.2.2 provides a detailed description of the methodology used to estimate
control equipment replacement costs for emission units in the OCH affected source. Section 6.2.3
provides a description of the methodology used to estimate MRR costs for emission units in the
OCH affected source.
6.2.1 Affected OCH Emission Units
The EPA anticipates that 54 of the total 264 OCH emission units will incur emission control
costs as a result of the proposed rule (Table 1 of Appendix D). Of these 54 units, 17 are equipped
with marble-bed scrubbers, 27 are equipped with multiclones, and 10 are equipped with
rotoclones. Twenty-seven of the affected emission units are at Northshore, seventeen are at
Minntac, nine are at EVTAC, and one unit is at National. Hibbing, Inland, Empire, and Tilden are
not expected to incur emission control replacement costs for their ore crushing and handling units.
All of the available PM emissions test data for emission units equipped with a venturi scrubber,
6-5
-------
_cO
S
0)
•^•J
o
g
H
1
W
£3
05
O
O
•a
«
o
U
c
o
W
oo
c
ffi
1
00
IS
1
U
a
o
CD
1
P3
c/:
tn
Q
U
00
c
t
o
o.
U
OS
CO
00
_c
'EL
U
*^
•g
o
o
OS
oo
2
'£
o
t/i
O
o
|
o
U
Emission
^s |
~£J
~a§*
'""^ •— c 3:
<^
_ai fe
5- S; "§
s"' 5 _j
-Is
S,.& »8
IT
U
T3
_~ 2J
<
~ 2 .4;
-ng
- "« .1 "5
•^ 2 3 c« -fc
Bg g-| g
< [§ u
s
Gog
(^
•o
U _
.H ^5"
ffl 2 'EL
~!3
<
/— N "c5 S
<_ o "S.
^ ^ U
U°
a f
c^ +
Ci,
*~"^
Q
O JJ>
U ^
*2 ^
C/3 ^>
U ^-<
D ^-,
C/J ^i
'K ^-
otS
, ,
t« ,
0 +
- — •
^ ,
o -&1
C^ v^>
i/) 'IT
•*-* >»
c!^
s
^ ^
o ^,
u
1
b.
„
00
CM
60
O
m
^.
in
6O
-
CM-
—
60
^
— "
^j
CM"
6O
O
CM
60
m
2
CM
60
CM
CM
CM"
o
|
6O
CM
OO
oo"
°i
s
Minntac
R
2
60
1
^
—
6O
-
CM_,
—
6O
O
(.fj
o"
6O
3
o"
CM
60
Tt
60
CM
^T
60
Ov
60
OO
t-
5
60
II National
00
t^
'Tf
60
OO
oC
CM
6O
—
CM
—
60
0
in"
60
oe
CM
6O
VO
vq
CM
6O
m
K
—
6O
Ov
VO
|S
60
1
6O
S
m"
f^
6O
EVTAC
VO
r^
60
OO
00
vq
oe"
6O
—
CM_
—
60
O
—
60
r~
(N
ts"
6O
O
vo"
00
TT
60
00
CM
CM
CT>"
•*t
60
P
S~
o
CM
60
vO
oo__
60
VO
Tt
VO__
oo"
^
6O
O
Northshor
00
'a-
12
60
OO
TJ-
in"
— '
6O
—
CS
— "
6O
1
m
6O
•a-
6O
Tf
t-~
2
60
O
6O
O
6O
O
6O
O
6O
•a
c
"c
00
vo
t--"
CM
60
OO
VO
r-"
CM
6O
—
CM,
— "
6O
O
r-"
&$
o
Ov"
6O
O
CM
CM
60
0
6O
O
6O
O
60
o
60
C
12
H
S
00
o"
60
O
0
o"
6O
—
CM
— "
6O
O
6O
Ov
OO
VO
Ov"
6O
00
o
CM"
6O
O
6O
O
6O
O
6O
o
60
00
c
IS
'••r
00
2
60
Tf
00
r^r
—
6O
—
CM
— "
60
0
6O
CM"
6O
^
s
2"
60
O
60
O
6O
O
6O
O
60
.b
'5.
CM
in
o\
6O
00
CM
CM"
^
60
OO
oo
VO
oC
6O
in
CM"
en
6O
in
o\
o"
6O
O
R.
o
CM
6O
ON
in
oo"
r~-
6O
1
ts
6O
406,296
6O
_
C
J*1
t-^
6O
~
r
c
—
c
'ob
o
c
CO
8.
o
^
oo"73 oo-°
CO »^- T3
.— 0*0^*- QJ
« C M en -O
W C3 .N — *—
si 11"5
Illil
-------
impingement scrubber, or baghouse demonstrate that the existing controls could meet the
proposed MACT standards for the OCH affected source. Therefore, no emission control costs
were assigned to emission units equipped with these APCDs. Particulate matter emissions test
data were not available for the two OCH emission units controlled by an ESP. The control
efficiency of an ESP is expected to be the same or better than that of a venturi scrubber,
impingement scrubber, or baghouse. This assumption is supported by PM emissions test data for
indurating furnaces (see Chapter 5). Therefore, no emission control costs were assigned to
emission units equipped with an ESP.
Particulate matter emissions data are available for 14 of the 78 OCH emission units equipped
with marble-bed wet scrubbers (MBWS). The PM test data for 3 of the 14 tested emissions units
(21.4%) demonstrate that the units would not meet the proposed MACT emission limits for OCH.
Therefore, EPA anticipates that emission control costs for OCH emission units equipped with
MBWS will be incurred by a proportional number, or 17, of the total 78 units [(78
units)*(0.214)=17units].
Particulate matter emissions data are available for only 2 of the 28 OCH emission units
equipped with multiclones. One of these is a primary crushing conveyor at National, which has
been tested at 0.0783 gr PM/dscf, a value well above the proposed standard. Consequently,
control equipment costs were assigned to this unit. The other multiclone-equipped OCH emission
unit that has been tested is a tertiary storage bin at Northshore, which has been tested at 0.0058
gr/dscf. Because this value is below the proposed standard, control equipment costs were not
assigned to this unit. The 26 other OCH emission units at Northshore that are equipped with
multiclones include the primary crusher, four secondary crushers, and 21 storage bins for material
at various stages of crushing. Due to differences in the types of emission units, it was determined
that the PM emissions test results from the tested tertiary storage bin are not comparable to the
other units. Therefore, in the absence of representative test data for these 26 OCH emission units
at Northshore, EPA has chosen to take the conservative approach of assigning control equipment
costs to all of them.
Particulate matter emissions data are available for 7 of the 23 OCH emission units equipped
with rotoclones. The PM emission concentrations for the 16 emission units without test data were
6-7
-------
estimated using data from similar units within the tested units. Based on this data, EPA estimates
that 10 of the 23 emission units equipped with rotoclones will incur emission control costs.
All 264 emission units in the OCH affected source are subject to the monitoring requirements
in the proposed rule. Minntac is the only company that has already installed monitoring
equipment capable of meeting the proposed MACT standards on its 84 wet scrubbers. Therefore,
a total of 180 OCH emission units (264 - 84 = 180) are expected to incur monitoring equipment
capital costs as a result of the proposed MACT standards (see Table 2, Appendix D).
6.2.2 Cost Methodology for OCH Control Equipment
As mentioned in Section 6.2.1, EPA anticipates that 54 OCH emission units will incur
emission control costs as a result of the proposed rule (See Table 1, Appendix D). These costs
will come from replacing existing PM emission control equipment that is incapable of meeting the
proposed MACT standards with new emission control equipment that can meet the standards. To
determine what type of emission control equipment should be installed, EPA contacted two
principle vendors of PM control equipment to the taconite iron ore industry—Sly, Inc. and Ducon
Technologies, Inc. Each vendor was asked to provide costs and operational data for air pollution
control equipment capable of achieving an outlet loading of 0.005 gr PM/dscf with an inlet
loading of 0.05 gr PM/dscf and a median inlet particle size (diameter) around 22 microns. A PM
emissions level somewhat below the proposed MACT emission limit of 0.008 gr PM/dscf was
chosen in order to provide a margin for fluctuations in performance. The vendors were asked to
provide costs for emission controls capable of operating at a volumetric flow rate of 15,000 acfrn,
30,000 acfm, and 70,000 acfrn. Both companies provided equipment costs for venturi scrubbers
and impingement scrubbers of the designated sizes. A summary of the vendor-supplied control
costs is provided in Table 6.2-2.3>4
6-8
-------
Table 6.2-2: Vendor-Supplied Control Equipment Costs for OCH Emission Units (2001 dollars)
Air Flow
Rate
(acfm)
15,000
30,000
70,000
Sly, Inc.
Impinjet
wet scrubber
$ 22,500
$41,700*
$79,300*
Venturi Rod
wet scrubber
$ 18,300
$ 30,700
$ 58,400
Ducon Technologies, Inc.
UW-4
Impingement
wet scrubber
$26,000*
$ 36,000
$ 68,000
WO Venturi
wet scrubber
$ 10,000
$ 16,000
$ 24,000
A33
Venturi Rod
wet scrubber
$ 18,100
$ 25,000
$ 48,000
* Values selected for use in the cost estimates.
In general, the equipment cost of impingement type scrubbers is higher than that of venturi
type scrubbers. However, the venturi type scrubbers have higher operational costs as a result of
operating the fan to maintain a higher pressure drop across the equipment and a higher water-to-
gas ratio for scrubbing water. The EPA selected the highest control equipment costs for all three
sizes (note the values marked with an asterisk in Table 6.2-2). Due to this costing strategy, which
is designed to provide a conservatively high estimate of control equipment costs, all OCH control
equipment costs are anticipated to result from equipping emission units with impingement
scrubbers. However, facilities are free to choose to install the less-expensive venturi type
scrubbers in accordance with their compliance plans.
The total capital investment (i.e., equipment costs plus installation costs) for each of the
selected impingement scrubbers was calculated using the procedures in the EPA's "Control
Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants Handbook". The factors listed in Table 6.2-3 were
applied to account for direct and indirect installation costs based on the purchased equipment cost
(the equipment cost adjusted to include the costs of sales tax and shipping). As noted, these
factors apply to wet scrubbers in general, not just impingement scrubbers.
6-9
-------
Table 6.2-3: Capital Cost Factors for Wet Scrubbers
1
Cost Item
Purchased Equipment Costs (PEC)
Sales tax
Freight
Direct Installation Costs
Removal of old equipment
Foundation and supports
Erection and handling
Electrical
Piping
Insulation
Painting
Indirect Installation Costs
Engineering
Construction
Contractor fee
Start-up
Performance test
Contingency
Total Capital Investment
EPA Installation Factor
1 .08 of equipment cost
0.03 of equipment cost
0.05 of equipment cost
0.66 of PEC
0.1 Oof PEC
0.06 of PEC
0.40 of PEC
0.01 of PEC
0.05 of PEC
0.03 of PEC
0.01 of PEC
0.35 of PEC
0.1 Oof PEC
0.1 Oof PEC
0.1 Oof PEC
0.01 of PEC
0.01 of PEC
0.03 of PEC
2.01 of PEC (1+0.66 + 0.35)
6-10
-------
The baseline year chosen for the cost analysis is 1999. Therefore, the total capital costs,
which were derived from purchased equipment costs in 2001 dollars, were adjusted downward to
1999 dollars. The EPA's Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes (VAPCCI)5 are not
available for years after 1999. Thus, it was assumed that environmental control costs have
increased by 3 percent per year. The resulting capital costs adjusted to 1999 dollars are shown in
Table 6.2-4, column B for all three models.
Table 6.2-4: Capital Costs and Cost-per-unit-flow for Selected Impingement Scrubber Models
Model
Control
Equipment
Used as Basis
of Costs
Model 1:
Ducon UW-4
Impingement
Model 2:
Sly Impinjet
Model 3:
Sly Impinjet
f (A)
Air Flow Rate
(acfrn)
15,000
30,000
70,000
(B)
Adjusted
Capital Cost
(1999 dollars)
$53,105
$85,172
$161,971
(C)
Cost per unit
flow
($/acfin)
[B/A]
$3.54
$2.84
$2.31
(D)
Flow Range
(acfm)
0 to 22,500
22,501 to
50,000
50,001 or
greater
To apply the vendor-supplied cost estimates to all emission points in the OCH affected source,
EPA assumed a direct relationship between the volumetric flow rate of an emission unit and the
capital cost of an impingement scrubber. For each of the three control equipment sizes, the
capital cost was divided by the corresponding volumetric flow rate (acfrn) to yield a cost-per-unit-
flow in dollars per acfm (see Table 6.2-4, column C).
The volumetric flow rate for the exhaust of each emission unit in the OCH affected source was
obtained either from Title V operating permit applications or from available source test reports.
To account for the maximum possible volumetric flow rate from each emission unit, the reported
volumetric flow rate was increased by a factor of 20 percent. This adjusted volumetric flow rate
was used as the design flow rate for the new impingement scrubber. The capital cost of installing
6-11
-------
a new impingement scrubber on each affected emission unit was calculated by multiplying the
adjusted volumetric flow rate by the cost-per-unit-flow for the appropriate scrubber model.
Column D of Table 6.2-4 shows the range of volumetric flow rates to which each cost-per-unit-
flow was applied. The impingement scrubber capital costs were annualized based on an interest
rate of 7 percent and an equipment lifetime of 25 years, yielding a capital recovery factor (CRF) of
0.086. A summary of the total capital investment and annualized capital costs for each affected
emission unit in the OCH affected source is provided in Table 1 of Appendix D.
Using the procedures in the EPA's "Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Handbook," direct and indirect annual O&M costs were calculated for each of the three model
impingement scrubbers. All of the assumptions and values used to determine the annual costs are
provided in Table 3 of Appendix D. Since each of the affected emission units was already
equipped with an emission control device (i.e., a rotoclone, multiclone, or wet scrubber), each
facility with an affected emission unit was already incurring a baseline level of O&M costs.
Therefore, the annual O&M cost impacts are based only on the incremental change in annual
O&M costs resulting from the installation of new impingement scrubbers. Each existing APCD
was assumed to be operating 8,760 hours per year (24 hours per day for 365 days per year) at a
baseline pressure drop of 3.0 inches of water.
Direct annual costs include utility costs, operating labor costs, maintenance costs, and
wastewater treatment costs. It is expected that the proposed rule will result in a small increase in
electricity usage corresponding to the operation of larger fans in the new impingement scrubbers.
Larger fans are required to maintain a higher pressure drop (around 4.5 to 5.5 inches of water)
across an impingement scrubber compared to the pressure drop (around 3.0 inches of water) for
the rotoclones and multiclones currently used. Thus, the additional electricity required to operate
impingement scrubbers is based on the net pressure drop differences of 2.0, 1.5, and 2.5 inches of
water for scrubber models 1,2 and 3, respectively. Additional water consumption and wastewater
treatment will not result in any costs incurred because the scrubbing water is obtained from and
returned to ore tailings basins. No additional operating or supervisory labor costs are expected
above those currently associated with existing APCDs. In addition, no additional maintenance
labor or material costs are anticipated to result from the proposed rule.
6-12
-------
Indirect annual costs include overhead costs, administrative costs, insurance costs, and
property taxes. Overhead costs are calculated as 60 percent of the operating labor and
maintenance costs. Since the operating labor and maintenance costs are zero, the overhead costs
are also zero. The other indirect annual costs were calculated as a percent of the total capital
costs, as indicated in Table 3 of Appendix D.
The total annual O&M costs for each model scrubber were divided by the model's flow rate to
yield a total annual cost-per-unit-flow in dollars per acfm. The adjusted flow rate of each
emission unit of the OCH affected source was multiplied by the total annual cost-per-unit-flow of
the appropriate scrubber model to estimate the annual O&M costs. The results are shown in
column C of Table 6.2-1.
6.2.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment
The proposed standards require continuous monitoring of all applicable control equipment.
For wet scrubbers, the proposed standards require a continuous parameter monitoring system
(CPMS) for the following operating parameters: volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas (acfm),
pressure drop across the device (inches of water), and volumetric flow rate of scrubbing liquid
(gallons per minute). For baghouses, the proposed standards require a bag leak detector system.
For ESPs, the proposed standards require a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). As
stated earlier, 264 OCH emission units are subject to the monitoring requirements in the proposed
rule, and only Minntac has already installed monitoring equipment on 84 wet scrubbers.
Therefore, of the total 264 OCH emission units, 180 are expected to incur monitoring equipment
capital costs.
The EPA prepared estimates of capital and O&M costs associated with the required
monitoring equipment on wet scrubbers, baghouses, and ESPs. The number of affected devices
was multiplied by the unit capital cost of each monitoring device to obtain the total capital costs.
The annualized capital cost is based on an interest rate of 7 percent and an equipment lifetime of
25 years, which yields a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.086. The number of affected control
devices was multiplied by the unit O&M costs of each monitoring device to obtain the total
monitoring equipment O&M costs. The total annualized monitoring costs for OCH are shown in
6-13
-------
Table 6.2-5. This cost does not include the recordkeeping and reporting labor. The total MRR
costs are shown in column H of Table 6.2-1.
Table 6.2-5: Monitoring Equipment Costs for Emission Units in the OCH Affected Source
Type of
Control
Device
Scrubber
Baghouse
ESP
Total
Type of
Monitoring
Equipment
CPMSd
Bag leak
Detector6
COMSf
(A)
Number of
Monitors3
127
51
2
180
(B)
Capital Cost
per Monitor
($)
$7,527
$9,300
$45,231
(C)
0 & M Costs
per Monitor
($/yr)
$0
$515
$3,090
(D)
Total
Capital Cost
(AxB)
$955,955
$474,314
$90,461
$1.520,730
(E)
Total
Annualized
Capital Cost
(D x 0.0863)
$82,030
$40,701
$7,764
$130,495
(F)
Total
O&M
Costs0
(AxC)
$0
$26,265
$6,180
$32,445
(G)
Total
Annual
Cost for
Monitoring
(E + F)
$82,030
$66,966
$13,944
$162,940
The number of monitors excludes the monitors already in place on wet scrubbers at Minntac.
Cost recovery factor (CRF) of annualizing capital costs at 7% over 25 years.
O&M costs based on 1998 estimates from coke ovens, scaled to 1999 using a 3% increase.
Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) which monitors water flow rate and pressure drop. Cost information
provided by Ducon, a control device vendor. Scaled from 2001 dollars to 1999 dollars assuming a 3 % annual increase.
Bag leak detector cost based on Coke Ovens BID. Originally in 1998 dollars, scaled to 1999 dollars using the VAPCCI average
for fabric filters for the first quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999.
Continuous Opacity Monitoring System based on Section 114 response from coke ovens. Originally 1998 dollars, scaled to 1999
dollars using the VAPCCI factor for average ESP.
6-14
-------
6.3 COSTS FOR INDURATING FURNACES
Table 6.3-1 provides a summary of the emission control costs and the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting costs for the indurating furnace affected source. The EPA estimates that, for existing
sources, the capital cost of the proposed rule for indurating furnaces will be $39.4 million (includes
emission control capital costs and MRR capital costs); the total annualized costs, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) costs, will be $5,830,687 per year. The costs from
indurating furnaces represent approximately 83 percent of the total capital costs and 83 percent of the
total annualized costs from the entire industry. All costs are presented in first quarter, 1999 dollars
and are based on the proposed limits presented in Table 6.1-2.
Ninety-nine percent of the indurating furnace capital costs and 96 percent of the indurating
furnace annualized costs are incurred by Minntac, National, and EVTAC. Northshore, Inland,
Tilden, and Empire are not projected to incur any emission control costs, although they are projected
to incur MRR costs. Hibbing is projected to incur minimal indurating-furnace-related emission
control costs compared to Minntac, National, and EVTAC.
The methodology used to estimate the costs of the proposed standard for emission units within
the indurating furnace affected source is described in this section. Section 6.3.1 identifies the
number of emission units that are expected to incur costs due to implementation of the proposed
standards. Section 6.3.2 provides a detailed description of the methodology used to estimate control
costs for emission units in the indurating furnace affected source. Finally, Section 6.3.3 provides a
description of the methodology used to estimate monitoring costs for emission units in the indurating
furnace affected source.
6-15
-------
o
o
o
CC
W
on
O
U
CO
1
-4— >
O
U
c
C/3
w
•£> on -ij>
^
ctlli
-5§a«
u
-a
N -35,0 ^-^
~ g u u ~
<
gltis
— "a 0*0 en o*
IT- £ 3 'K i3 tn
D, o g .2 c o +
•< -2 O £•
gl 1J
^| S-^enlT
CQ ^ o. ^ ^?*
^gcjcj^
— re en
m"
VO
0*
5ft
1 RVTAC
00^
of
6ft
m
ON
6ft
?l
6ft
O
r-
o"
6ft
VO
o"
6ft
Ov
r-"
00
6ft
O
6ft
O
6ft
0
6ft
0
6ft
U
Northshor
ON
£
6ft
ON
rn
6ft
-C
**
c3
03
NP
"S
cn
i_
re
•5
c
•o
-o
J5
S2
cn
CJ
S
-o
00
1
o
t*_
o
"K
o
0
•
•a
•5
cn
CN
fl
^O
en"
&^
-------
6.3.1 Affected Emission Units
It is anticipated that six indurating furnaces will incur emission control costs as a result of the
proposed rule (see Table 4, Appendix D). These six are Minntac Line 3, Minntac Line 6, Minntac
Line 7, EVTAC Line 2, Hibbing Line 3, and National Line 2. Empire, Inland, Northshore, and
Tilden are not expected to incur emission control costs related to their indurating furnaces. Since
some of the affected furnaces have multiple stacks and controls, a total of 11 control devices will
have to be replaced or upgraded to comply with the proposed rule. Included in these 11 control
devices are three multiclones and eight venturi scrubbers. Three of the affected control devices are
at Minntac, two are at EVTAC, four are at Hibbing, and two are at National.
Actual PM emissions test data are available for each indurating furnace used in the taconite
industry (21 indurating furnaces total). Therefore, the actual PM emissions test data were used for
each furnace to determine whether or not the furnace was capable of meeting the proposed MACT
standards.
6.3.2 Cost Methodology for Control Equipment
As mentioned in Section 6.3.1, EPA anticipates that 11 indurating furnace emission control
devices will need to be replaced or upgraded as a result of the proposed rule (see Table 4, Appendix
D). The emission control costs for the seven affected devices on Minntac Line 3, Minntac Line 6,
Minntac Line 7, EVTAC Line 2, and National Line 2 were based on the installation of new venturi
wet scrubbers. Based on written comments received from Hibbing, the costs for the four affected
devices on Hibbing Line 3 were based on upgrading rather than replacing the existing equipment.6
The capital costs of a new venturi scrubber were based on cost estimates provided by Minntac.7
The cost estimates represent equipment costs and both direct and indirect installation costs incurred
by Minntac in 1991 for two new venturi scrubbers, one each for furnace lines 4 and 5. This cost
estimate included the cost of removing the existing control equipment. Minntac's costs were divided
by two to estimate the capital costs of installing one scrubber (Table 6.3-2). Initially, the total capital
investment was adjusted from first quarter 1991 dollars to first quarter 1994 dollars using the average
annual percent increase from 1994 to 1999, as determined using the Vatavuk Air Pollution Control
6-17
-------
Cost Indexes (VAPCCI) for large wet scrubbers. The figure was then scaled from first quarter 1994
dollars to first quarter 1999 dollars using the VAPCCI factor for large wet scrubbers.
Table 6.3-2: Capital Costs for One Venturi Scrubber
Cost Item
A. Equipment Cost (1991 dollars)
B. Direct Installation Cost (1991 dollars)
C. Total Direct Cost (A+B) (1991 dollars)
D. Indirect Installation Cost (1991 dollars)
E. Total Capital Investment (C+D) (1991 dollars)
F. Total Capital Investment (1999 dollars)
Cost
$1,100,400
$3,972,250
$5,072,650
$756,500
$5,829,150
$6,714,378
The capital costs for installing a new venturi scrubber for the seven affected emission units on
Minntac Line 3, Minntac Line 6, Minntac Line 7, EVTAC Line 2, and National Line 2 were
estimated by scaling the Minntac scrubber costs up or down based on the ratio of the exhaust gas
volume of the indurating furnaces. A power of six scaling assumption was used in scaling the costs.
The upgrade costs for Hibbing Line 3 were based on estimates provided by the plant for replacing the
following items: pre-demist panels, de-mist panels, venturi rod deck, spray padding, and spray
nozzles.6 The upgrade also included the addition of upper and lower distribution baffles. The total
annual capital costs for all affected units were annualized based on an interest rate of 7 percent and
an equipment lifetime of 25 years. The total capital costs and annualized capital costs are shown in
columns A and B of Table 6.3-1.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were calculated for each of the new venturi
scrubbers using the procedures in the EPA's "Control Technologies for Hazardous Air Pollutants
Handbook"1. The only exception was for Minntac Line 3; in this case, Minntac provided an estimate
of the total O&M labor costs.8 All of the assumptions and values used to determine the annual costs
are provided in Table 5 of Appendix D. Since each of the affected emission units was already
equipped with an emission control device (i.e., a multiclone or venturi scrubber), each facility was
6-18
-------
already incurring a baseline level of O&M costs. Therefore, the annual O&M cost impacts were
based only on the incremental change in annual O&M costs resulting from the installation of new
venturi scrubbers. Each existing multiclone was assumed to be operating at a baseline pressure drop
of 4 inches of water, and each existing venturi scrubber was assumed to be operating at a baseline
pressure drop of 10 inches of water. The new venturi scrubbers are assumed to have a pressure drop
of 10 inches of water. The operating hours for Minntac Line 3 and for National Line 2 were based
on estimates provided by the plants. All other affected emission units were assumed to operate 8,760
hours per year.
It is expected that, for stacks currently equipped with a multiclone, the proposed rule will result
in an increase in electricity usage-an increase directly related to the operation of larger fans for the
new venturi scrubbers. Larger fans are needed to maintain a higher pressure drop (around 10 inches
of water) across a venturi scrubber compared to the pressure drop typically associated with the
currently used rnulticlones (around 4 inches of water). Since both existing and new venturi
scrubbers have an estimated pressure drop of 10 inches of water, there is no anticipated increase in
energy requirements for emission units already equipped with venturi scrubbers.
It was assumed that no additional water consumption costs or wastewater treatment costs will be
incurred because all the scrubbing water will be taken from and returned to tailings basins.
Additional operating or supervisory labor costs, as well as maintenance labor or material costs, are
anticipated only for those units currently equipped with rnulticlones. Indirect annual costs, which
include administrative costs, insurance costs, and property taxes, were calculated as a percent of the
total capital costs, as shown in Table 5 of Appendix D. All of the affected emission units are
expected to incur indirect annual costs. The estimated annual operation and maintenance costs are
presented in column C of Table 6.3-1.
6-19
-------
6.3.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment
The proposed standards require continuous monitoring of all applicable control equipment. For
wet scrubbers, the proposed standards require a continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) for
the following operating parameters: volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas (acfm), pressure drop across
the device (inches of water), and volumetric flow rate of scrubbing liquid (gallons per minute). For
ESPs, the proposed standards require a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). All 47
indurating furnace emission units (stacks) are subject to the monitoring requirements in the proposed
rule. Minntac has already installed monitoring equipment on its five units. Also, EPA assumes that
the costs of the new venturi scrubbers that are replacing the three multiclones (discussed in Section
6.3.1) include the costs of associated monitoring equipment. Therefore, it is anticipated that a total
of 39 indurating furnace emission units will incur monitoring equipment capital costs.
Next, the EPA prepared estimates of capital and O&M costs associated with the required
monitoring equipment on wet scrubbers and ESPs. The number of controls were multiplied by the
capital cost of each monitoring device to obtain the total capital costs. The annualized capital cost is
based on an interest rate of 7 percent and an equipment lifetime of 25 years. The number of controls
were multiplied by the O&M costs of each monitoring device to obtain the monitoring equipment
O&M costs. The total annual monitoring costs for indurating furnaces are shown in Table 6.3-3 and
are summarized by plant in columns E, F, and G of Table 6.3-2. These costs do not include the
recordkeeping and reporting labor costs. The MRR labor costs are presented in column H of Table
6.2-1.
6-20
-------
Table 6.3-3: Monitoring Costs for Indurating Furnaces
Type of
Control
Device
Scrubber
ESP
Total
Type of
Monitoring
Equipment
CPMSd
COMSe
(A)
Number of
Monitors2
17
22
39
(B)
Capital Cost
per Monitor
(S)
$7,527.20
$45,230.67
(C)
O&M Costs
per Monitor
(S/yr)
$0
$3,090
(D)
Total
Capital Cost
(AxB)
$127,962
$995,075
$1,123,037
(E)
Total
Annualized
Capital Cost
(D x 0.086b)
$10,980
$85,388
$96,368
(F)
Total
O&M
Costs0
(AxC)
$0
$67,980
$67,980
Total
Annual
Cost for
Monitoring
(E + F)
$10,980
$153,368
$164,348
a The number of monitors does not include the monitors already in place at Minntac.
" Cost recovery factor (CRF) of annualizing capital costs at 7% over 25 years.
c O&M costs based on 1998 dollar estimates from coke ovens, scaled to 1999 dollars using a 3% annual increase.
Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS,) which monitors water flow rate and pressure drop. Cost information
provided by Ducon, a control device vendor. Scaled from 2001 dollars to 1999 dollars assuming a 3% annual increase.
e Continuous Opacity Monitoring System (COMS) based on Section 114 response from coke ovens. Originally 1998 dollars,
scaled to 1999 dollars using the VAPCCI factor for average ESP.
6.4 COSTS FOR FINISHED PELLET HANDLING EMISSION UNITS
Table 6.4-1 provides a summary of the emission control costs and the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting costs for the finished pellet handling (PH) affected source. The EPA estimates that, for
existing sources, the capital cost of the proposed rule for PH emission units will be $1.6 million
(includes emission control capital costs and MRR capital costs) and total annualized costs, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting (MRR) costs, will be $241,893 per year. The costs
associated with PH emission units represent approximately 3 percent of the total capital costs and 4
percent of the total annualized costs from the entire industry. All costs are presented in first quarter
1999 dollars and are based on the proposed limits presented in Table 6.1-2. All of the PH emission
unit capital costs and 90 percent of the PH emission unit annual costs are incurred by National,
Northshore, and Hibbing. Minnac, EVTAC, Inland, Tilden, and Empire are not projected to incur
any PH emission control costs associated with the proposed rule, although they are projected to incur
associated MRR costs.
The methodology used to estimate the costs of the proposed standard for emission units within
the PH affected source is described in this section. Section 6.4.1 identifies the PH emission units
that are expected to incur costs due to implementation of the proposed standards. Section 6.4.2
provides a detailed description of the methodology used to estimate control equipment costs for
6-21
-------
emission units in the PH affected source. Finally, Section 6.4.3 provides a description of the
methodology used to estimate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting costs for emission units in
the PH affected source.
6.4.1 Affected Emission Units
It is anticipated that 11 PH emission units will incur emission control costs as a result of the
proposed rule (see Table 1, Appendix D). Included in these 11 emission units are eight rotoclones
and three impingement scrubbers. Eight of the affected units are at Northshore, two are at Hibbing,
and one is at National. Finished pellet handling emission units at Inland, Empire, EVTAC, Minntac,
and Tilden are not expected to incur emission control costs.
Only one PM emissions test is available for a PH emission unit controlled by a venturi scrubber.
The emissions from this unit are at the proposed PH emission limit of 0.008 gr PM/dscf. For
additional data, we looked at the 14 PM emissions tests available for OCH units controlled by a
venturi scrubber. All 14 of these tests showed emission rates at or below the proposed limit. Based
on these 15 data points, we concluded that emission units controlled by a venturi scrubber will be
able to comply with the standard, and therefore, will not incur emission control costs. Eleven PM
emissions tests are available for PH emission units equipped with impingement scrubbers; eight of
these tests demonstrate the capability of meeting the proposed standards. Based on this data and the
fact that all OCH emission units equipped with impingement scrubbers could meet the standards, all
of the impingement scrubbers were considered to be capable of meeting the standards, except for the
three units whose test data indicated otherwise. Particulate matter emissions tests were not available
for the two PH emission units equipped with a baghouse. The control efficiency of a baghouse
would be expected to be the same as or better than that of a venturi scrubber. This assumption is
supported by the PM emissions test data for OCH. Therefore, no emission control costs were
assigned to the two PH emission units equipped with baghouses.
6-22
-------
C
CS
o
O
CSS
W
O
u
a!
•a
c
OS
"o
-4—*
O
U
.2
'55
Vl
1
CC
K
"5
"S
a>
3
cS
CO
CO
O
00
C
r
O
Q.
U
T3
C
CO
oo
c
'o.
CD
U
"E
O
o
00
c;
2
"5
o
5
CO
O
O
~s
u.
c
o
O
c
o
CO
CO
Id
"• — '
CO
•^2' O
E-
E
o~
^*^
uT
^""^
£
— •3 1
0 S g
H <
S
<
S3
f2
1
<%
O
~_
CO
CJ
. —
U
1
c:
0
1
"ca
'S.
U
_
•£
U
CO
5
"CO
0
J
CO
u
M
0
o
o
CO
p
w
3
C/l
i
0
0
CO
o
1
u
^^
D,
0
^-^
-b
^
x^ "v
-£*
sjS-
S
&*^
t£.
G"
+
I
, — .
^>»
t£-
g
1
^r
60
CN
— "
60
CN_
—
0
O
6O
O
o
60
o
6O
O
60
O
60
Minntac
Os
°o.
60
O
r-"
60
S
•—
O
en
v~T
6O
VI
t— ^
I-""
1
60
OC
6O
CN
OO
CN
r--"
60
00
00
60
II National
so
w-T
60
00
«-T
60
C^
— '
O
SO
e»
6O
m
60
O
60
O
&o
o
60
O
60
1 EVTAC
OS
o —
t*^ ^"v
TJ- |^
60 60
CS —
o^ Cr^
^«D MD
r~" r-"
60 60
CN S
— -^
i2 2
tn 10
SO ^?
Os OS
*^ vT
6O 6O
OO OO
SO SO
*• o
60 60
CN
SO o
6O 6O
in
^ o
CN
60 60
OO
1 °
oo
60 60
1 Northshore
Inland
v-T r-~ ^
60 60 60
?1 S S
— — —
O O O
£ S S
•»
-------
Of the nine PH emission units equipped with rotoclones, particulate matter emissions test data
are available for only one. This emission unit has PM emissions of 0.0092 gr PM/dscf, which is
above the proposed MACT level of 0.008 gr PM/dscf. Based on this data and the fact that rotoclones
are low-energy devices, it was assumed that all PH emission units equipped with rotoclones will be
unable to comply with the standard and will incur emission control costs.
All 82 PH emission units are subject to the monitoring requirements in the proposed rule.
However, Minntac already has monitoring equipment installed on its 17 wet scrubbers. Therefore,
65 PH emission units (82 - 17 = 65) are expected to incur monitoring equipment capital costs as a
result of the rule (see Table 2, Appendix D).
6.4.2 Cost Methodology for Control Equipment
As mentioned in Section 6.4.1, EPA anticipates that 11 PH emission units will incur emission
control costs as a result of the proposed rule (see Table 1, Appendix D). These emission control
costs will result from replacing existing PM emission control equipment that is incapable of meeting
the proposed standards with new emission control equipment that can meet the standards. To
determine what type of emission control equipment should be installed, EPA contacted the two
principle vendors of wet scrubbers to the taconite iron ore industry - Sly, Inc. and Ducon
Technologies, Inc. Each vendor was asked to provide costs and operational data for air pollution
control equipment capable of achieving an outlet loading of 0.005 gr PM/dscf with an inlet loading
of 0.05 gr PM/dscf and a median inlet particle size (diameter) around 22 microns. A PM emissions
level somewhat below the proposed MACT emission limit of 0.008 gr PM/dscf was chosen in order
to provide a margin for fluctuations in performance. The vendors were asked to provide costs for
emission control equipment capable of operating at a volumetric flow rate of 15,000 acfm, 30,000
acfm, and 70,000 acfm. Both companies provided equipment costs for three sizes of venturi
scrubbers and three sizes of impingement scrubbers. A summary of the vendor-supplied control
costs is provided in Table 6.4-2.3'4
6-24
-------
Table 6.4-2: Vendor-Supplied Control Equipment Costs for PH Emission Units (2001 dollars)
Air Flow
Rate
(acfm)
15,000
30,000
70,000
Sly, Inc.
Impinjet
wet scrubber
$ 22,500
$41,700*
$79,300*
Venturi Rod
wet scrubber
$ 18,300
$ 30,700
$ 58,400
Ducon Technologies, Inc.
UW-4
Impingement
wet scrubber
$26,000*
$ 36,000
$ 68,000
WO Venturi
wet scrubber
$ 10,000
$ 16,000
$ 24,000
A33
Venturi Rod
wet scrubber
$ 18,100
$ 25,000
$ 48,000
* Values selected for use in the cost estimates.
In general, the equipment cost of impingement type scrubbers is higher than that of venturi type
scrubbers. However, the venturi type scrubbers have higher operational costs as a result of operating
the fan to maintain a higher pressure drop across the equipment and a higher water-to-gas ratio for
scrubbing water. The EPA selected the highest control equipment costs for all three sizes (note the
values marked with an asterisk in Table 6.4-2). Due to this costing strategy, which is designed to
provide a conservatively high estimate of control equipment costs, all PH control equipment costs
are anticipated to result from equipping emission units with impingement scrubbers. However,
facilities are free to choose to install the less-expensive venturi type scrubbers in accordance with
their compliance plans.
The total capital investment (i.e., equipment costs plus installation costs) for each of the selected
impingement scrubbers was calculated using the procedures in the EPA's "Control Technologies for
Hazardous Air Pollutants Handbook". See Table 6.2-3 for a list of the factors that were applied to
account for direct and indirect installation costs.
The baseline year chosen for the cost analysis is 1999. Therefore, the total capital costs, which
were derived from purchased equipment costs provided in 2001 dollars, were adjusted downward to
1999 dollars. The EPA's Vatavuk Air Pollution Control Cost Indexes (VAPCCI)5 are not available
for years after 1999. Thus, it was assumed that environmental control costs have increased by only 3
6-25
-------
percent per year. The resulting capital costs adjusted to 1999 dollars are shown in Table 6.2-4,
column B for all three models.
To apply the vendor-supplied cost estimates to all affected emission points in the PH affected
source, EPA assumed a direct relationship between the volumetric flow rate of an emission unit and
the capital cost of an impingement scrubber. For each of the three control equipment sizes, the
capital cost was divided by the corresponding volumetric flow rate (acfm) to yield a cost-per-unit-
flow in dollars per acfm (see Table 6.2-4, column C).
The volumetric flow rate for the exhaust of each affected emission unit in the PH affected source
was obtained either from Title V operating permit applications or from available source test reports.
To account for the maximum possible volumetric flow rate from each emission point, the reported
volumetric flow rate was increased by a factor of 20 percent. This adjusted volumetric flow rate was
used as the design flow rate for the new impingement scrubber. The capital cost of installing a new
impingement scrubber on each affected emission unit was calculated by multiplying the adjusted
volumetric flow rate by the cost-per-unit-flow for the appropriate scrubber model. Column D of
Table 6.2-4 shows the range of volumetric flow rates to which each cost-per-unit-flow was applied.
The impingement scrubber capital costs were annualized based on an interest rate of 7 percent and an
equipment lifetime of 25 years, yielding a capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.086. A summary of the
total capital investment and annualized capital costs for each affected emission unit in the PH
affected source is provided in Table 1 of Appendix D.
Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were calculated for each of the model
impingement scrubbers using the procedures in the EPA's "Control Technologies for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Handbook". All of the assumptions and values used to determine the annual costs are
provided in Table 3 of Appendix D. Since each of the affected emission units was already equipped
with an emission control device (i.e., a rotoclone, multiclone, or wet scrubber) each facility with an
affected emission unit was already incurring a baseline level of O&M costs. Therefore, the annual
O&M cost impacts were based only on the incremental change in annual O&M costs resulting from
the installation of new impingement scrubbers. Each existing APCD was assumed to be operating
8,760 hours per year (24 hours per day for 365 days per year) at a baseline pressure drop of 3 inches
of water.
6-26
-------
Direct annual costs include utility costs, operating labor costs, maintenance costs, and wastewater
treatment costs. It is expected that the proposed rule will result in a small increase in electricity
usage corresponding to the operation of larger fans in the new impingement scrubbers. Larger fans
are required to maintain a higher pressure drop (around 4.5 to 5.5 inches of water) across an
impingement scrubber compared to the pressure drop (around 3.0 inches of water) for the rotoclones
and multiclones currently used. Thus, the additional electricity required to operate impingement
scrubbers is based on the net pressure drop differences of 2.0, 1.5, and 2.5 inches of water for
scrubber models 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Additional water consumption and wastewater treatment
will not result in any costs incurred because the scrubbing water is obtained from and returned to ore
tailings basins. No additional operating or supervisory labor costs are expected above those currently
associated with existing APCDs. In addition, no additional maintenance labor or material costs are
anticipated to result from the proposed rule.
Indirect annual costs include overhead costs, administrative costs, insurance costs, and property
taxes. Overhead costs are calculated as 60 percent of the operating labor and maintenance costs.
Since the operating labor and maintenance costs are zero, the overhead costs are also zero. The other
indirect annual costs were calculated as a percent of the total capital costs, as indicated in Table 3 of
Appendix D.
The total annual O&M costs for each model scrubber were divided by the model's flow rate to
yield a total annual cost-per-unit-flow in dollars per acfm. The adjusted flow rate of each affected
emission unit of the PH affected source was multiplied by the total annual cost-per-unit-flow of the
appropriate scrubber model to estimate the annual O&M costs. The total annual O&M costs for the
PH affected source are shown in column C of Table 6.4-1.
6.4.3 Cost Methodology for Monitoring Equipment
The proposed standards require continuous monitoring of all applicable control equipment. For
wet scrubbers, the proposed standards require continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS) for
the following operating parameters: volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas (acfm), pressure drop across
the device (inches of water), and volumetric flow rate of scrubbing liquid (gallons per minute). For
baghouses, the proposed standards require a bag leak detector system. All 82 PH emission units are
6-27
-------
subject to the monitoring requirements in the proposed rule. However, Minntac already has
monitoring equipment installed on its 17 wet scrubbers. Therefore, 65 PH emission units (82 units -
17 units = 65 units) are expected to incur monitoring equipment capital costs.
The EPA prepared estimates of capital and O&M costs associated with the required monitoring
equipment on wet scrubbers and baghouses. The number of affected devices was multiplied by the
unit capital cost of each monitoring device to obtain the total capital costs. The annualized capital
cost is based on an interest rate of 7 percent and an equipment lifetime of 25 years, which yields a
capital recovery factor (CRF) of 0.086. The number of affected control devices was multiplied by
the unit O&M costs of each monitoring device to obtain the total monitoring equipment O&M costs.
The total annualized monitoring costs for PH are shown in Table 6.4-3. This cost does not include
the recordkeeping and reporting labor. The total MRR costs are shown in column H of Table 6.4-1.
Table 6.4-3: Monitoring Equipment Costs for Emission Units in the Finished Pellet Handling (PH)
Affected Source
Type of
Control
Device
Scrubber
Baghouse
Total
Type of
Monitoring
Equipment
CPMSd
Bag leak
Detector6
(A)
Number of
Monitors3
63
2
65
(B)
Capital Cost
per Monitor
($)
$7,527.20
$9,300.28
(C)
O&M Costs
per Monitor
($/yr)
$0
$515
(D)
Total
Capital Cost
(AxB)
$474,213
$18,601
$492,814
(E)
Total
Annualized
Capital Cost
(D x 0.086b)
$40,693
$1,596
$42.289
(F)
Total
O&M
Costs0
(AxC)
$0
$1,030
$1,030
(G)
Total
Annual
Cost for
Monitoring
(E + F)
$40,693
$2,626
$43,319
a The number of monitors does not include the monitors already in place at Minntac.
Cost recovery factor (CRF) of annualizing capital costs at 7% over 25 years.
c O&M costs based on 1998 estimates from coke ovens, scaled to 1999 using a 3% increase.
" Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) which monitors water flow rate and pressure drop. Cost information
provided by Ducon, a control device vendor. Scaled from 2001 to 1999 using 3% annual interest.
e Bag leak detector cost based on Coke Ovens BID. Originally in 1998 dollars, scaled to 1999 dollars using the VAPCCI average
for fabric filters for the first quarter of 1998 and the first quarter of 1999.
6-28
-------
6.5 ORE DRYERS
There are only two ore dryers used in the taconite industry, both of which are located at Tilden.
One ore dryer has two stacks and the other has one stack. Each of these three stacks is controlled by
a cyclone and an impingement scrubber connected in series. Paniculate emissions data are available
for each stack. These test data indicate that both ore dryers are capable of meeting the proposed PM
emission limit of 0.052 gr PM/dscf. Based on this data, no emission control costs were assigned to
these ore dryers.
However, the proposed standards require continuous monitoring of all applicable control
equipment. For wet scrubbers, the proposed standards require continuous parameter monitoring
system (CPMS) for the following operating parameters: volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas (acfm),
pressure drop across the device (inches of water), and volumetric flow rate of scrubbing liquid
(gallons per minute). The EPA prepared estimates of capital and O&M costs associated with the
required monitoring equipment on wet scrubbers. The number of emission control devices was
multiplied by the capital cost of each monitoring device to obtain the total capital costs. The
annualized capital is based on an interest rate of 7 percent and an equipment lifetime of 25 years.
Also, the number of emission control devices was multiplied by the O&M costs of each monitoring
device to obtain the total monitoring equipment O&M costs. The total annual monitoring costs for
ore dryers are shown in Table 6.5-1.
Table 6.5-1: Monitoring Costs for Ore Dryers
Type of
Control
Device
Scrubber
Type of
Monitoring
Equipment
CPMSC
(A)
Number of
Monitors
3
(B)
Capital Cost
per Monitor
(S)
$7,527
(C)
O&M Costs
per Monitor
($/yr)
$0
(D)
Total
Capital Cost
(AxB)
$22,582
(E)
Total
Annualized
Capital Cost
(D x 0.086a)
$1,938
(F)
Total
O&M
Costs5
(AxC)
$0
(G)
Total
Annual
Cost for
Monitoring
(E + F)
$1.938
a Cost recovery factor (CRF) of annualizing capital costs at 7% over 25 years.
" O&M costs based on 1998 dollar estimates from coke ovens, scaled to 1999 dollars using a 3% increase.
c Continuous Parameter Monitoring System (CPMS) which monitors water flow rate and pressure drop. Cost information
provided by Ducon, a control device vendor. Scaled from 2001 dollars to 1999 dollars assuming a 3% annual increase.
6-29
-------
6.6 REFERENCES
1. U.S. EPA, Handbook: Control Techniques for Hazardous Air Pollutants. EPA 625/6-91/014.
Washington, D.C., June 1991.
2. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Coke Ovens: Pushing,
Quenching, and Battery Stacks-Background Information Document for Proposed Standards.
3. Letter from T.B. Kurtz, Sly Inc., to Chuck Zukor, Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc, October 12,
2001. Re: Scrubber pricing.
4. Fax from George Massoud, Ducon Technologies, Inc., to Conrad Chin, U.S. EPA, October 12,
2001. Re: Scrubber cost proposal.
5. "Escalation Indexes for Pollution Control Costs," EPA 452/R-95-006. Updates of the VAPCCI
are available at: www.epa.gov/ttncatcl /products.html#cccinfo.
6. Fax from Andrea Hayden, Hibbing Taconite Company, to Conrad Chin, U.S. EPA, May 5, 2002.
Re: Revised cost estimate for rebuilding furnace line #3.
7. Letter from Larry C. Salmela, U.S. Steel Minntac, to Conrad Chin, U.S. EPA, November 23,
1999. Re: Costs for installation of multiple venturi rod deck wet scrubbers on lines 4 and 5 in
mid-1991.
8. E-mail from Larry C. Salmela, U.S. Steel Minntac, to Conrad Chin, U.S. EPA, July 18,2001.
Re: Required cost information from Minntac.
6-30
-------
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS
This chapter presents the air, non-air environmental, and energy impacts resulting from
the control of PM and HAP emissions under the proposed rule. The impacts are based on the
replacement of poorly performing emission control devices at existing plants with new control
devices capable of meeting the emission limits in the proposed rule. There are no environmental
or energy impacts associated with a plant or emission unit that is already in compliance with the
proposed standards. No impacts associated with new sources have been estimated since we do
not anticipate any new or reconstructed affected sources becoming subject to the new source
MACT requirements in the foreseeable future.
To meet the ore crushing and handling (OCH) PM emission limit, it is anticipated that
four plants will install new impingement scrubbers on 54 of the 264 total OCH emission units.
The EPA anticipates that four plants will install new venturi rod wet scrubbers or will upgrade
existing wet scrubbers on at least one of their indurating furnaces. In total, the EPA expects that
existing controls will be replaced with new venturi rod wet scrubbers on 7 of the 49 indurating
furnace stacks. It is estimated that three plants will install new impingement scrubbers on 11 of
the 82 total finished pellet handling (PH) emission units to meet the PH PM emission limit.
Section 7.1 presents the anticipated PM and HAP air emissions reductions corresponding
to the proposed rule for each taconite plant. The secondary air and other environmental impacts
of the proposed regulation are summarized in Section 7.2. The energy impacts associated with
the proposed rule are discussed in Section 7.3.
7.1 REDUCTIONS IN AIR EMISSIONS
Air emissions from the taconite iron ore processing source category include PM and the
following three types of HAP:
• Metallic HAP (primarily manganese, arsenic, lead, nickel, and chromium) are
intrinsic components of the taconite ore and are borne in the PM released to the
atmosphere during all phases of the process-ore crushing, indurating, ore drying,
and pellet handling.
7-1
-------
• Products of incomplete combustion, or PIC, (primarily formaldehyde) result from
the burning of fuel in the indurating furnaces.
• Acid gases (hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid) derive primarily from the
volatilization of chloride and fluoride compounds in the fluxstone material that is
added during the indurating process.
The proposed standards control PM emissions as a surrogate for HAP emissions.
Baseline PM and HAP emissions (i.e., emissions that would occur in absence of the standard)
were calculated for each emission unit in the four affected sources as described in Chapter 3.
The second columns of Tables 7.1-1 and 7.1-2 summarize the baseline PM and HAP emissions
by affected source. A total of approximately 14,500 tons of PM and 935 tons of HAP are emitted
by the taconite iron ore processing industry each year.
It is estimated that the proposed standards will reduce PM emissions by approximately
9,400 tons per year, or 65 percent. It is estimated that the proposed standards will reduce HAP
emissions by 370 tons per year, or 40 percent. As shown in Tables 7.1-1 and 7.1-2, the vast
majority of the PM and HAP reductions result from the indurating furnace affected source. Table
7.1-3 shows the PM and HAP emission reductions by plant and by affected source. Over 95
percent of the PM emissions and HAP emissions reductions result from improved controls at
Minntac and National. No PM or HAP emissions reductions are expected for Inland, Empire,
and Tilden. Table 7.1-3 also shows that incidental control of acid gas emissions accounts for 96
percent of the total HAP emission reductions.
7.1.1 Emission Reductions from OCH Emission Units
The PM emissions at the MACT level of performance were estimated assuming that each
APCD would be operating at an emission rate of 0.008 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the MACT
level of performance. The PM emissions at MACT and the PM emission reductions for each
OCH emission unit are shown in Table 2 of Appendix A. The PM emission reduction percentage
for each plant was used to calculate the expected reduced emissions for each metallic HAP.
7-2
-------
Table 7.1-1: PM Emission Reductions by Affected Source
Affected
Source
Ore Crushing
and Handling
Indurating
Furnaces
Finished
Pellet
Handling
Ore Dryers
Total
(A)
Baseline
PM
Emissions
(tons/year)
2,130
11,441
654
259
14,483
(B)
PM Emissions
after
Compliance
(tons/year)
1,865
2,335
586
259
5,045
(C)
PM
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
264
9,106
67
0
9,438
(D)
Percent PM
Reduction
from Affected
Source
(C/AxlOO)
12.4 %
79.6 %
10.3 %
0%
65.2 %
(E)
Percent of
Overall
PM Reduction
2.8 %
96.5 %
0.7 %
0%
100%
Table 7.1-2: HAP Emission Reductions by Affected Source
Affected
Source
Ore Crushing
and Handling
Indurating
Furnaces
Finished
Pellet
Handling
Ore Dryers
Total
(A)
Baseline
HAP
Emissions
(tons/year)
8.9
924.3
0.6
1
934.8
(B)
HAP
Emissions
after
Compliance
(tons/year)
7.5
555.7
0.5
1
564.7
(C)
HAP
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
1.1
368.6
0.1
0
369.8
(D)
Percent HAP
Reduction
from
Affected
Source
(C/AxlOO)
12.9%
39.9 %
13.3 %
0%
39.6 %
(E)
Percent of
Overall
HAP Reduction
0.3 %
99.68 %
0.02 %
0%
100 %
7-3
-------
Table 7.1-3: HAP and PM Emission Reductions by Plant and Affected Source
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Ribbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
TOTAL
Affected
Source3
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
DRYERS
TOTAL
OCH
PH
FURN
DRYERS
TOTAL
PM Emission
Reductions
(tons/year)
32.5
0
8.336.8
8,369.3
201.8
0
39.3
241.1
0
62.7
0
62.7
30.1
4.6
696.3
730.9
0
0
33.6
33.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
264.3
67.2
9,106
0
9,437.6
HAP Emission Reductions (tons/year)
Metallic
HAP
0.169
0
<8.4
8.569
0.818
0
0.1
0.919
0
0.076
0
0.076
0.156
0.005
3.7
3.861
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.14
0.081
12.5
0
13.7
Acid
Gases
0
0
145.9
145.9
0
0
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
193.9
193.9
0
0
6.3
6.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
356.1
0
356.1
PIC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
HAP
0.2
0
154.4
154.5
0.8
0
10.1
10.9
0
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0
197.6
197.8
0
0
6.5
6.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.1
0.08
368.6
0
369.8
a OCH=Ore crushing and handling; PH=Pellet handling; FURN=Indurating furnace; DRYERS=Ore drying
7-4
-------
As shown in Table 7.1-4 the proposed standard is projected to reduce PM emissions from
OCH emission units by 264.3 tons per year, or 12.4 percent. Over 75 percent of the PM emission
reductions from OCH emission units result from EVTAC. Reductions in PM at Minntac and
National make up the remaining 25 percent. No reductions in PM emissions are expected for
OCH emission units at Northshore, Hibbing, Inland, Empire, and Tilden.
Table 7.1-5 shows the HAP emission reductions from OCH emission units by pollutant
and plant. Emission reductions of HAP from all OCH emission units is estimated to be only 1.14
tons per year. Reductions in the emissions of manganese accounts for nearly all of the OCH
HAP emission reductions.
Table 7.1-4: PM Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions for OCH Emission Units
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
Baseline PM
Emissions
(tons/year)
606.6
518.5
564.8
96.5
93.8
109.1
101.3
38.9
2,129.5
Emissions After
MACT
(tons/year)
574.0
316.7
564.8
66.5
93.8
109.1
101.3
38.9
1,865.1
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
32.5
201.8
0
30.1
0
0
0
0
264.3
Percent
Reduction
5.4 %
38.9 %
0%
31.1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
12.4 %
7-5
-------
Table 7.1-5: Emission Reductions of HAP from OCH Emission Units by Pollutant and Plant
Element
Antimony, Sb
Arsenic, As
Beryllium, Be
Cadmium, Cd
Chromium, Cr
Cobalt, Co
Lead, Pb
Manganese, Mn
Mercury, Hg
Nickel, Ni
Selenium, Se
Total
Plant
Minntac
2.63e-04
4.78e-04
6.90e-05
3.42e-05
7.64e-04
3.25e-04
4.26e-04
1.66e-01
1.65e-04
2.29e-04
3.51e-04
1.69e-01
EVTAC
2.42e-03
3.03e-03
l.Ole-03
< l.Ole-04
4.84e-03
9.68e-03
4.04e-03
7.876-01
< 2.02e-03
2.626-03
< l.Ole-03
8.18e-01
Northshore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
National
2.43e-04
4.42e-04
6.37e-05
3.16e-05
7.06e-04
3.01e-04
3.94e-04
1.53e-01
1.52e-04
2.12e-04
3.25e-04
1.56e-01
Hibbing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Empire
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tilden
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
2.93e-03
3.95e-03
1.14e-03
1.67e-04
6.31e-03
1.03e-02
4.86e-03
l.lle+00
2.34e-03
3.06e-03
1.69e-03
1.14e+00
7.1.2 Emission Reductions from Indurating Furnaces
The PM emissions at the MACT level of performance were estimated assuming that each
APCD would be operating at an emission rate equivalent to the appropriate MACT level:
• 0.011 gr/dscf for grate kiln furnaces processing magnetite,
• 0.010 gr/dscf for straight grate furnaces processing magnetite, and
• 0.025 gr/dscf for grate kiln furnaces processing hematite).
The PM emissions at MACT and the PM emission reductions for each indurating furnace stack
are shown in Table 3 of Appendix A. The PM emission reduction percentage for each plant was
used to calculate the expected reduced emissions for each metallic HAP. The acid gas emission
reduction estimate was based on an engineering test from Northshore. The test indicated that 74
percent to 97 percent reduction in hydrochloric acid and hydrofluoric acid emissions was
achieved with a wet-ESP. Considering the hydroscopic nature of acid gases, a conservative
estimate of 74 percent was used for the analysis.
7-6
-------
As shown in Table 7.1-6 the proposed standard is projected to reduce PM emissions from
indurating furnaces by 9,106 tons per year, or 79.6 percent. Ninety-two percent of the PM
emission reductions from indurating furnaces result from improved controls at Minntac.
Reductions in PM at National, Hibbing, and EVTAC make up the remaining 8 percent. No
reductions in PM emissions are expected for furnaces at Northshore, Empire, Inland, and Tilden.
Table 7.1-6: PM Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions for Indurating Furnaces
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
Baseline PM
Emissions
(tons/year)
9,097.4
283.9
171.8
801.5
202.7
54.4
609.4
259.0
11,440.5
Emissions After
MACT
(tons/year)
760.7
244.6
171.8
105.2
169.0
54.4
609.4
259.0
2,334.5
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
8,336.8
39.3
0
696.3
33.6
0
0
0
9,106.0
Percent
Reduction
91.6%
13.8%
0%
86.9
16.6 %
0%
0%
0%
79.6 %
Table 7.1-7 shows the HAP emission reductions from indurating furnaces by pollutant
and plant. Emission reductions from all indurating furnaces is estimated to be 368.6 tons per
year. Reductions in the emissions of acid gases account for almost 97 percent of the HAP
emission reductions from indurating furnaces.
7-7
-------
Table 7.1-7: Emission Reductions of HAP from Indurating Furnaces by Pollutant and Plant
Pollutant
PIC Total
Hydrogen
Hydrogen
Acid Gas Total
Antimony, Sb
Arsenic, As
Beryllium, Be
Cadmium, Cd
Chromium, Cr
Cobalt, Co
Lead, Pb
Manganese, Mn
Mercury, Hg
Nickel, Ni
Selenium, Se
Metals Total
Grand Total
Plant
Minntac
0.0
145.9
<0.2
2.8
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
2.0
1.5
0.0
0.8
0.2
<8.4
<154.4
EVTAC
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
10.1
Northshore
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
National
0.0
193.9
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
1.8
0.0
0.1
0.3
3.7
<197.6
Hibbing
0.0
6.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
6.5
Inland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Empire
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tilden
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0.0
356.1
0.3
3.9
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
2.2
3.4
0.0
0.9
0.5
<12.5
<368.6
7.1.3 Emission Reductions from Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units
The PM emissions at the MACT level of performance were estimated assuming that each
APCD would be operating at an emission rate of 0.008 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to the MACT
level of performance. The PM emissions at MACT and the PM emission reductions for each PH
emission unit are shown in Table 2 of Appendix A. The PM emission reduction percentage for
each plant was used to calculate the expected reduced emissions for each metallic HAP.
As shown in Table 7.1-8, the proposed standard is projected to reduce PM emissions
from PH emission units by 67.2 tons per year, or 10.3 percent. Ninety-three percent of the PM
emission reductions from PH emission units result from improved controls at Northshore.
Reductions in PM at National make up the remaining 7 percent. No reductions in PM emissions
are expected for PH emission units at Minntac, EVTAC, Hibbing, Inland, Empire, and Tilden.
7-8
-------
Table 7.1-8: PM Baseline Emissions and Emission Reductions for PH Emission Units
Plant
Minntac
EVTAC
Northshore
National
Hibbing
Inland
Empire
Tilden
Total
(A)
Baseline PM
Emissions
(tons/year)
168.8
30.5
132.2
58.8
108.1
79.1
54.1
22.0
653.6
(B)
Emissions After
MACT
(tons/year)
168.8
30.5
69.5
54.2
108.1
79.1
54.1
22.0
586.3
(C)
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
0
0
62.7
4.6
0
0
0
0
67.2a
(D)
Percent
Reduction
(C/AxlOO)
0%
0%
47.4 %
7.8 %
0%
0%
0%
0%
10.3 %
a Total differs from the sum of column values due to rounding.
Table 7.1 -9 shows the HAP emission reductions from PH emission units by pollutant and
plant. Emission reductions from all PH emission units is estimated to be 0.08 tons per year.
Reductions in the emissions of manganese accounts for almost 96 percent of the HAP emission
reductions from PH emission units.
7-9
-------
Table 7.1-9: Emission Reductions of HAP from PH Emission Units by Pollutant and Plant
Metallic HAP
Antimony, Sb
Arsenic, As
Beryllium, Be
Cadmium, Cd
Chromium, Cr
Cobalt, Co
Lead, Pb
Manganese, Mn
Mercury, Hg
Nickel, Ni
Selenium, Se
Total
Plant
Minntac
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
EVTAC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Northshore
3.05e-05
1.35e-04
3.76e-05
1.88e-06
1.82e-03
6.39e-04
2.51e-05
7.336-02
1.25e-07
4.69e-04
1.69e-05
7.64e-02
National
1.89e-06
2.23e-05
3.39e-06
1.28e-07
1.08e-04
3.23e-05
2.65e-06
4.43e-03
9.15e-09
2.58e-05
1.28e-06
4.63e-03
Hibbina
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Inland
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Empire
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tilden
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
3.24e-05
1.58e-04
4.10e-05
2.01e-06
1.93e-03
6.72e-04
2.77e-05
7.77e-02
1.34e-07
4.85e-04
1.82e-05
S.lle-02
7.1.4 Emission Reductions from Ore Dryers
No PM or HAP emissions reductions are expected for the existing ore dryers at Tilden.
Both ore dryers can currently meet the 0.052 gr/dscf MACT standard for ore dryers.
7.2 SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section presents the estimated wastewater and solid waste impacts of implementing
the proposed standards.
7.2.1 Wastewater Impacts
The EPA projects that the implementation of the proposed standards will increase water
usage in the taconite processing industry by 8.4 billion gallons per year (Appendix E, Table 1).
This represents only a 2-percent increase over the industry's baseline use of approximately 370
billion gallons of water (see Appendix E, Table 2). The increased water usage results from the
installation of new wet scrubbers needed for compliance. Much of this water will be discharged
as scrubber blowdown to the tailings basin(s) located at each plant and will then be recycled.
7-10
-------
7.2.2 Solid Waste Impacts
The PM material collected in wet scrubbers, baghouses, or ESP can be recycled or
returned to the ore concentration process. Therefore, the proposed standard is not expected to
generate any appreciable amount of solid waste from the operation of new control devices.
7.3 ENERGY IMPACTS
The proposed standards are expected to increase energy usage by 15,298 megawatt-hours
per year. This increase will result primarily from the higher energy requirements of new control
devices required by the proposed standards (see Appendix E, Table 1).
7-11
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix A
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units
Affected
Source
Unit Type
Emission Unit
Control
Description
SVID
US Steel Minntac
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Miscellaneous
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Miscellaneous
Conveying
Conveying
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Step 1 Coarse
Step 1 metal conveyor (pan feeders)
Step 2 Coarse
Step 2 metal conveyor (pan feeders)
Step 3 Coarse
Step 3 metal conveyor (pan feeders)
Turn bin conveyor transfer
Turn bin conveyor transfer
Turn bin conveyor transfer
Turn bin conveyor transfer
Turn bin conveyor transfer
Surge pile/Reclaim
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Secondary crushing(fine)
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer bin
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Tertiary storage bin
Tertiary storage bin
Tertiary storage bin
Tertiary storage bin
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiarv crushin2(fine)
Baghouse
Venturi scrubber
Baghouse
Venturi scrubber
Baghouse
Venturi scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
13
16
14
17
15
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
62
55
56
57
58
59
64
65
66
67
68
60
63
69
70
71
37
54
61
72
38
39
A-l
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCR
OCH
OCR
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PR
PH
PH
PH
Unit Type
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Conveying
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Grate Feed
Emission Unit
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fme)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Tertiary crushing(fine)
Conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Conveyor transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Storage Bin for ore transfer
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Pellet cooler discharge
Conveyor Transfer Feeder (pellet cooling)
Pellet convevor Transfer
Control
Descriotion
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Marble bed wet scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW^l- imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 impins. scrubber
SVID
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
101
102
105
106
109
A-2
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Unit Type
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Emission Unit
Pellet conveyor Transfer
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Conveyor Transfer Feeder (pellet cooling)
Pellet cooler discharge
Pellet conveyor Transfer
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Pellet cooler discharge
Conveyor Transfer Feeder (pellet cooling)
Pellet conveyor Transfer
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Pellet cooler discharge
Pellet conveyor Transfer
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Pellet cooler discharge
Control
Description
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Rod scrubber (new)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (new)
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Rod scrubber (converted)
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
Rod scrubber (converted)
SVID
108
116
117
120
121
122
125
126
130
129
131
142
143
145
146
149
150
153
EVTAC (Thunderbird Mine)
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Miscellaneous
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Miscellaneous
North primary crusher
3 North secondary crushers
North loadout tunnel
3 South primary crushers
South secondary crusher
South loadout tunnel
Buell HE-350 Baghouse
BuellHE-154Baghouse
Buell HE-224 Baghouse
Wheelabrator #108Baghouse
Wheelabrator #108Baghouse
Wheelabrator #108Baghouse
1
2
3
4
5
6
EVTAC (Fairlane Plant)
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Miscellaneous
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
4° Crushing
Convevine
Unloading pan feeders
Ore unloading pocket A and B side
Ore Surge
3rd stage
3rd stage
3rd stage
3rd stage
3rd stage
Third stage bins conveyor
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
4th stage
Fourth stase trip/bin/convevor
Wheelabrator Baghouse
Wheelabrator Baghouse
Wheelabrator Baghouse
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Tvpe N Rotoclone WS
7
8,9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A-3
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Unit Type
Conveying
Conveying
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Emission Unit
Transfer house (north)
Transfer house (south)
Rod mill
Rod mill
Rod mill
Rod mill
Rod mill
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Kiln cooler discharge
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Kiln cooler discharge
Line 1 Pellet Transfer
Pellet loadout conveyor South
Pellet Loadout Bin 3 Vent
Pellet Loadout Bins Venting
Control
Description
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Am. A F Type N Rotoclone WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon Type UW-4 Imping. WS
Ducon venturi scrubber
Ducon venturi scrubber
Ducon venturi scrubber
SVID
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
44
45
50
111
111
111
Vorthshore (Babbitt) mine
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Primary Crushing
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Primary Crusher
Primary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Secondary Crusher
Baghouse
Multiclone
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Multiclone
Multiclone
Multiclone
Multiclone
Northshore (Sil. Bay)
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Fine Crushing
Miscellaneous
West car Dump
East Car Dump
West Crusher Storage Bins
East Crusher Storage Bins
Fine cone crusher W
Fine cone crusher W
Fine cone crusher W
Fine cone crusher W
Conveyor
Conveyor
Fine cone crusher E
Fine cone crusher E
Fine cone crusher E
Fine cone crusher E
Drv cobbins
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baahouse (PJett
7
8
9
10
14
13
12
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A-4
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
Unit Type
Emission Unit
Control
Description
SVID
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
National
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Conveying/Misc
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Dry cobbing
Dry cobbing
Conveyor
Dry cobbing
Coarse Tails Conveying
Coarse Tails Conveying
Coarse Tails Transfer
Coarse Tails Loadout
West Transfer Bin
East Transfer Bin
Storage Bins (West)
Storage Bins (East)
Pellet Hearth Layer (East)
Furnace discharge
Furnace discharge
East furnaces discharge
East furnaces screening
Pellet conveying
Pellet Screen House
Furnace feed (west)
Furnace discharge
Furnace discharge end
Primary
Drive House No. 1 Primary Conveyor
Primary
Drive House No. 2Primary Conveyor
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Crude ore feed (conveyor transfer)
Grate feed
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Grate discharge
Cooler dump zone
Cooler vibrating feeder
Pellet Cooler. Phase II
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Flex Kleen Baghouse (PJet)
Multiclone
Multiclone
Baghouse
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Am. Air F. type N Rotoclone WS
Wet multiclone
Multiclone
Venturi Rod WS
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
National Hydro Marble bed wet
scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32-43
44-53
97
120
121
122
123
124
125
260
255
265
1
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
A-5
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Unit Type
Emission Unit
Cooler vibrating feeder
Pellet product conveyor
Pellet cooler product belts
Pellet loadout drive house
Pellet screening
Conveyor drop
Control
Description
Am. Air Filter R rotoclone WS
Am. Air Filter R rotoclone WS
Ducon UW-4 scrubber
National Hydro Marble bed wet
scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon A-33 Venturi Rod
SVID
27
28
32
34
37
38
libbing
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Apron feeder from primary crusher
Ore feed conveyor
Apron feeder from primary crusher
Ore feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Mill feed conveyor
Secondary (pebble) crusher
Secondary (pebble) crusher
Hearth layer bin
Hearth layer bin
Hearth layer feed (furnaces land 2)
Hearth layer feed (furnace 3)
Pellet discharge
Pellet discharge
Pellet discharge
Hearth layer screening
Pellet transfer house
Ducon venturi Rod WS
Enviro. venturi Rod WS
Ducon venturi Rod WS
Enviro. venturi Rod WS
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
Ducon Oriclone Venturi
COS venturi WS
COS venturi WS
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
1
3
2
3
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
203
204
205
206
219
220
221
222
223
nland
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Conveying
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Miscellaneous
Primary Crusher
Coarse ore pile conveyor
Secondary crusher & conveyor
Secondary crusher & conveyor
Secondary crusher & conveyor
Outside ore Transfer
Tertiary crusher & conveyor
Tertiary crusher & conveyor
Tertiary crusher & conveyor
Tertiary crusher & conveyor
Fine ore underfeeds
Venturi Scrubber
Envirotech Buell Baghouse
Flex Kleen Baghouse
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Flex Kleen Baghouse
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Flex Kleen Baehouse
1
2
3
4,5
4,5
4,5
9,10
6,7,8
6,7,8
6,7,8
6,7,8
9.10
A-6
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
Unit Type
Emission Unit
Control
Description
SVID
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Empire
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Grate Feed
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Primary Crushing
Secondary Crushing
Tertiary Crushing
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying /Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying /Misc
Conveying /Misc
Conveying / Misc
Conveying/ Misc
Conveying /Misc
Fine ore conveyor
Pellet drop internal hearth layer conveyor
Drop into hearth layer bin
Grate feed
Drop into hearth layer screen
Drop onto conveyor to hearth layer bin
Machine discharge
Drop onto conveyor to pellet splitter bin
Drop into pellet splitter bin
Drop onto pellet splitter bin conveyors
Drop in transfer house
Drop onto pellet pile underfeed conveyor
Drop into pellet loadaout bin
Primary Crusher
Conveyor
Primary Crusher
Secondary crusher
Pebble crushers
Transfer Tower (1B and 2A conveyer)
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Ore feed conveyor
Cooler discharge
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor
Grate stripping
Cooler discharge
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor
Grate stripping
Cooler discharge
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor
Conveyor 31-4 discharge end
Grate stripping
Flex Kleen Baghouse
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Ducon UW-4 imping, scrubber
Mikropul Baghouse
Venturi Rod Scrubber
Venturi Rod Scrubber
Venturi Rod Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
High eff dry cartridge collector
High eff dry cartridge collector
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Impingment Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
9,10
19
19
19
20
20
18
18
21
21
24
22
23
A-7
-------
Appendix A, Table 1: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Emission Units (Cont.)
Affected
Source
PH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Unit Type
Grate Feed
Emission Unit
Pan Conveyor
Grate feed
Cooler discharge
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor
Grate stripping
Conveyor 31-5 discharge end
Conveyor 32-1 discharge end
Control
Description
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
SVID
llden
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Primary Crushing
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Conveying
Grate Feed
Grate Feed
Primary crusher apron feeder
Conveyor
Intermediate crusher
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from conveyor
Transfer from balling area to grate
Grate feed
Grate feed
Cooler discharge
Cooler discharge
Low head feeder
Low head feeder
Cooler and Product conveyors
Transfer for pellet conveyors 3 1 .4 to 3 1 .7
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor 31.1 &3 1 .2
to 32
Pellet loadout transfer conveyor31.5 & 31.7
to 32
Peabody venturi scrubber
Peabody venturi scrubber
Unknown
Baghouse
Unknown
Sly impingement wet scrubber
Sly impingement wet scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
Sly Imping. Scrubber
A-8
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions
Type
SVID
Flow
rate
(dcfrn)
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
Basis for
MACT Emissions
US Steel Minntac
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
13
16
14
17
15
18
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
62
55
56
57
58
59
64
65
66
67
68
60
63
69
70
71
37
54
61
66,108
30,579
66,108
30,022
31 ,275
27,699
22,884
11,188
16,273
32,925
15,256
6,427
14,899
15,674
13,984
22,884
22,884
22,884
22,884
22,884
14,600
20,300
21,765
21,256
21,256
21,663
21 ,256
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
24,867
20,341
14,033
12,200
16,733
16,527
9,333
19,070
11,188
0.0019
0.0014
0.0129
0.0012
0.0047
0.0060
0.0035
0.0041
0.0053
0.0097
0.0111
0.0053
0.0051
0.0050
0.0070
0.0015
0.0019
0.0015
0.0014
0.0129
0.0012
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
0.0047
0.0060
0.0035
0.0041
0.0038
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0053
0.0053
0.0097
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0105
0.0111
0.0051
0.0053
0.0051
0.0050
0.0051
0.0070
0.0040
0.0040
SV16, 17, 18
Test
SV16, 17, 18
Test
SV16, 17, 18
Test
SV24
SV24
SV24
Test
SV24
Test
Test
Test
SV27,28
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV36 Test
Test
Test
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV62,68
SV62, 68
SV 62, 68
Test
SV63.70
Test
Test
Test
SV63,70
Test
SV37, 72
SV37, 72
20
9
20
9
9
8
7
3
5
10
5
2
4
5
4
9
9
9
9
7
4
7
9
8
8
9
8
10
10
10
10
10
6
4
4
5
5
3
6
3
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
SV24
SV24
SV24
MACT
SV24
MACT
MACT
MACT
SV 27,28
SV62, 68
SV62,68
SV62,68
SV 62, 68
SV36
MACT
Test
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV62,68
SV 62, 68
SV 62, 68
SV62,68
SV62,68
SV62,68
SV62,68
Test
SV63.70
MACT
MACT
MACT
SV 63, 70
MACT
SV37,72
SV37.72
20
9
20
9
9
8
7
3
5
10
5
2
4
5
4
7
7
7
7
7
4
6
7
6
6
7
6
8
8
8
8
7
6
4
4
5
5
3
6
3
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-9
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
SVID
72
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
37,900
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
13,000
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
19,070
23,733
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
26,697
16,273
13,033
13,984
26,697
26,697
31,783
23,087
27,155
32,240
18,567
43,224
43,224
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.0032
0.0021
0.0048
0.0087
0.0030
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.0032
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0021
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0048
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0038
0.0087
0.0087
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0023
0.0030
0.0023
0.0023
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Test
SV45,73
SV45.73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45, 73
Test
SV45.73
SV45.73
SV45.73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45,73
Test
SV45.73
SV45, 73
SV45.73
SV45,73
SV45.73
SV45,73
SV45,73
SV45.73
SV45,73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV85
Test
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
Test
SV97
SV97
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
11
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
4
4
8
8
10
7
8
10
6
13
13
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV 45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
MACT
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
MACT
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45 , 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV45, 73
SV85
MACT
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
SV97
MACT
SV97
SV97
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
11
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
4
4
8
8
10
7
8
10
6
13
13
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-10
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
EV1V
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
SVID
97
101
102
105
106
109
108
116
117
120
121
122
125
126
130
129
142
143
145
146
149
150
153
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
32,100
15,256
15,256
24,409
15,256
15,256
15,256
14,239
14,239
28,833
21,866
8,136
14,239
14,239
21,866
28,833
15,256
15,256
115,929
38,667
15,256
47,394
39,000
kC (Thunderb
i
2
3
4
5
6
59,000
27,000
39,190
76,278
25,426
62,713
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.0023
0.0083
irdMin
0.0017
0.0017
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.0023
0.0083
OCH
PH
TOTAL
e)
0.0017
0.0017
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Test
Test
Test
Test
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
10
5
5
7
5
5
5
4
4
9
7
2
4
4
7
9
5
5
35
12
5
14
12
775
607
169
775
18
8
12
23
8
19
Basis for
Baseline Emis
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emission Reduction
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
10
5
5
7
5
5
5
4
4
9
7
2
4
4
7
9
5
5
35
12
5
14
12
743
574
169
743
33
18
8
12
23
8
19
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
EVTAC (Fairlane Plant)
OCH
OCH
7
8,9
22,734
42,818
0.0079
0.0231
0.0079
0.0231
Test
Test
7
13
MACT
MACT
7
13
MACT
MACT
A-ll
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Participate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
SVID
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
33
39
40
41
43
44
45
50
111
111
111
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
17,107
33,000
40,993
40,993
40,993
40,993
27,333
22,280
22,314
19,000
19,550
20,341
21,640
30,920
30,920
22,000
26,056
15,256
23,667
27,300
26,300
41,300
20,775
14,861
21,636
6,509
11,500
1,600
19,000
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.1291
0.0060
0.0030
0.0387
0.0659
0.0060
0.0040
0.0050
0.0046
0.0072
0.0027
0.0056
0.0480
0.0647
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.1291
0.0060
0.0060
0.0060
0.0060
0.0060
0.0030
0.0387
0.0357
0.0659
0.0357
0.0357
0.0060
0.0357
0.0357
0.0040
0.0162
0.0162
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0046
0.0072
0.0027
0.0046
0.0072
0.0027
0.0056
0.0480
0.0647
OCH
PH
Total
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Test
Test
SV11
SV 1 1 test
SV 1 1 test
SV 1 1 test
Test
Test
SV 17,19,22
Test
Test
Test
SV11, 16, 17,
19,22,25,31
SV11, 16, 17,
19, 22, 25, and
31
SV31
SV31
Test
SV31
SV31
Test
Test
Test
SV39
SV40
SV41
Test
Test
Test
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
5
10
9
9
9
9
8
32
31
47
27
28
6
43
43
7
16
9
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
12
6
4
6
2
3
0
6
518
30
549
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
MACT
SV11
SV11
SV11
SV11
MACT
Test
SV17, 19.&22
Test
SV17, 19,&22
SV17, 19,&22
MACT
SV17, 19,&22
SV17, 19,&22
SV31
SV 11, 16, 17, 19,22,
25, and 31
SV 11, 16, 17, 19,22,
25, and 31
SV31
SV31
SV31
SV31
SV31
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis. Red
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
5
10
12
12
12
12
8
7
7
6
6
6
6
9
9
7
8
5
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
12
6
4
6
2
3
0
6
317
30
347
202
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-12
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
SVID
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
Basis for
Baseline Emis
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
Basis for
MACT Emissions
Sorthshore mine (Babbitt)
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
No ID
61,023
0.0016
18
0
18
18
0
0
0
0
MACT
MACT, flow- primary
MACT, flow- primary
Not operating
Not operating
Not operating
Not operating
18
0
18
18
0
0
0
0
MACT
Not operating
MACT, flow- primary
MACT, flow- primary
MACT, flow- primary
MACT, flow- primary
Not operating
Not operating
Not operating
Not operating
Northshore (Sil. Bay)
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
7
8
9
10
14
13
12
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32^3
44-53
97
63,565
63,565
91,534
91,534
15,256
15,256
15,820
15,393
32,545
32,545
15,595
15,256
15,256
15,256
69,687
64,555
69,687
69,687
69,687
9,153
9,153
9,153
3,560
14,800
19,120
29,901
29,732
12.551
0.0043
0.0042
0.0021
0.0048
0.0058
0.0043
0.0043
0.0043
0.0042
0.0021
0.0021
0.0021
0.0021
0.0048
0.0048
0.0048
0.0048
0.0058
0.0058
0.0207
SV12, 11
SV12, 11
Test
Test
Test
SV17
SV17
SV17
SV22
Test
SV22t
SV22
SV 44-53
Test
19
19
27
27
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
21
19
21
21
21
3
3
3
]
4
6
108
89
4
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
19
19
27
27
5
5
5
5
10
10
5
5
5
5
21
19
21
21
21
3
3
3
1
4
6
108
89
4
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-13
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Paniculate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Natio
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
SVID
120
121
122
123
124
125
260
255
265
nal
i
3
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
28,925
28,925
28,925
28,925
14,481
28,925
28,925
17,633
11,387
22,543
13,067
9,647
11,500
11,500
11,500
11,500
11,500
12,400
13,400
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.0092
0.0053
0.0783
0.0019
0.0032
0.0057
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.0092
OCH
PH
Total
.0.0053
0.0783
0.0019
0.0032
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
0.0057
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
SV5
SV5
SV5
SV5
SV5
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
17
17
17
17
5
8
17
17
17
697
565
132
697
5
33
7
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
EVTACSV11, 16, 17,
19,22, 25,31, NSSV
124
EVTACSV11,16, 17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124
EVTACSV11, 16,17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124
EVTACSV11,16, 17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124
TEST
EVTACSV11, 16,17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124; SV 124 flow
EVTACSV11, 16,17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124
EVTACSV11, 16,17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
124
EVTACSV11,16, 17,
19, 22, 25, 31, NSSV
1 24; SV 25 5 flow
Emis. Red.
MACT
Test
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
9
9
9
9
4
4
9
9
9
634
565
70
634
63
5
3
7
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow -SV 124
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow - SV255
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-14
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
Hibbi
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
SVID
13
14
19
20
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
32
34
37
38
ng
l
3
2
3
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
203
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
13,400
13,400
11,700
25,200
12,600
28,000
20,200
51,160
65,690
16,000
9,300
25,333
11,500
12,633
3,100
14,090
31,233
14,137
15,945
12,220
10,800
13,868
13,868
13,868
13,868
13,868
13,868
13,868
4,577
5,594
34,400
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.0020
0.0130
0.0035
0.0025
0.0036
0.0019
0.0013
0.0016
0.0072
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.0020
0.0035
0.0035
0.1683
0.0130
0.0035
0.0025
OCH
PH
Total
0.0036
0.0019
0.0010
0.0013
0.0016
0.0072
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Test
SV22
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
4
4
4
8
4
8
6
15
0
9
0
8
3
4
1
155
97
59
155
4
9
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
10
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Assumed NR
EVTACSV11,16, 17,
19,22, 25,31, NSSV
124
Not operating.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis. Red.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
4
4
4
8
4
8
6
15
0
5
0
8
3
4
1
121
66
54
121
35
4
9
4
5
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
10
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Assumed NR
MACT
Not operating.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-15
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
nlanc
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
SVID
204
205
206
219
220
221
222
223
1
1
2
3
4,5
4,5
4,5
9,10
6,7,8
6,7,8
6,7,8
6,7,8
9,10
9,10
19
19
19
20
20
18
18
21
21
24
22
23
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
19,324
29,533
23,392
94,033
105,000
105,000
30,700
21,500
12,205
20,341
12,205
26,443
26,443
26,443
32,545
30,180
27,460
27,460
27,460
32,545
32,545
9,662
22,782
65,091
20,595
15,256
14,900
16,273
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
0.0029
00024
0.0176
0.0148
0.0008
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
0.0072
0.0029
0.0029
0.0024
0.0024
0.0024
0.0176
0.0148
OCH
PH
TOTAL
0.0008
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
SV203
Test
SV205
Test
SV219
SV219
Test
Test
Test
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
6
9
7
28
32
32
9
6
202
94
108
202
4
6
4
8
8
8
10
9
8
8
8
10
10
3
3
3
7
7
20
20
6
6
5
4
5
188
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis. Red.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 21
MACT, flow- EUID 21
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 24
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 27
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 27
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
6
9
7
28
32
32
9
6
202
94
108
202
0
4
6
4
8
8
8
10
9
8
8
8
10
10
3
3
3
7
7
20
20
6
6
5
4
5
188
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow-EUID 24
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 27
MACT
MACT, flow- EUID 27
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-16
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
Empii
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
OCH
PH
PH
SVID
re
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
13,730
7,119
28,477
25,426
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
15,256
29,494
17,290
29,494
15,256
6,102
15,256
18,307
12,205
15,256
5,085
6,285
6,285
15,256
6,102
18,510
13,888
5.085
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
OCH
PH
Total
Noemis.
Noemis.
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
109
79
188
4
2
9
0
0
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
5
9
5
2
5
5
4
5
2
2
2
5
2
6
4
2
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
Emis. Red.
MACT
MACT
MACT
No Ambient Emis.
No Ambient Emis.
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
109
79
188
0
4
2
9
0
0
8
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
5
9
5
2
5
5
4
5
2
2
2
5
2
6
4
2
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
No emissions
No emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
A-17
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
PH
PH
PH
Tildei
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
OCH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
PH
SVID
I
36
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
18,510
9,153
12,205
19,430
3,947
30,511
30,511
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
OCH
PH
Total
0.0120
0.018
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Base
Emis.
(T/V)
6
3
4
101
54
155
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
0
0
4
4
4
4
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
MACT
MACT
Emis. Red.
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT,flow-13-17.1
MACT
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow 13-17.1
MACT, flow 13-17.1
MACT, flow 13-17.1
MACT, flow 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow 13-17.1
MACT, flow- primary
crusher
MACT, flow primary
crusher
NR
NR
MACT, flow- pellet
loadout
MACT, flow- pellet
loadout
MACT, flow- pellet
loadout
MACT, flow- pellet
loadout
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
6
3
4
101
54
155
0
6
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
0
0
4
4
4
4
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-1 7.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- 13-17.1
MACT, flow- primary
crusher
MACT, flow- primary
crusher
NR
NR
MACT, flow- pellet loadout
MACT, flow- pellet loadout
MACT, flow- pellet loadout
MACT, flow- pellet loadout
A-18
-------
Appendix A, Table 2: Ore Crushing & Handling and Finished Pellet Handling Particulate Matter
Emissions and Emission Reductions (Cont.)
Type
PH
PH
SVID
Flow
rate
(dcfin)
12,205
12,205
Lowest
Test
data
(gr/dscf)
Assigned
Emissions
(gr/dscf)
OCH
PH
Total
Basis for
Assigned
Emissions
Base
Emis.
(T/Y)
4
4
61
39
22
61
Basis for
Baseline Emis.
MACT
MACT
Emis. Red.
Emis.
After
MACT
(T/Y)
4
4
61
39
22
61
0
Basis for
MACT Emissions
MACT
MACT
A-19
-------
o
BJ
I
1
-4«*
01
a.
•o
H
<
1-2 g
.§ J-s-
i
i
-
O
i
i
<
s=
i5
fSl
O ^ UJ
o-
14. < £
S 5! M
.a .5
S S "S
^ cS «5
GQ CQ
m
i
f-.
E^.
.5 o S
"Sl-S1
S p c
05 (2 3
JlE §
c-
S
o
(N
Eb
i
OOCs
II
O T3
a
a
5;
1
OS
-------
c
o
VI
O
-
(50
.S
+~>
2
3
T3
J3
H
<
x
•B
d.
Emission
Reduction
(Ions/year)
I °
!.<: E "a
I2"!
S f- ^ o
§.< £ S
£ 5 w £
•~ -M
m
Baseline
Emissions
(tons/year)
•i, 1 I
t£<
e-
0
a -a
^ «
ll
l-i
5; — '
1
Line/slack
tested
«
a
.2
K
1
S
0
g
00
"S
•5,
1
S;
^
^
^
O
^ Ov O, o
E^- f^» t-i
0 O 0
i i I
f^ OQ "^ ^I-
!J"
1 1_ 1
_*. ^
II iss III ill 111 III ill
-------
O
U,
en
.0
"o
.0
"
U
1
OH
I
"3
1
H
<
_*
c
a
Emission
Reduction
(tons/year)
Basis
for MACT
Emis.
!|il
j'g i5 ^
g
Baseline
Emissions
(tons/year)
1 8 a
»> s g
•S £ y
^£<
c
* |
^ ^
^ r £• ;
ttj fe. u
•«•«-*
-------
O
u,
Oi
.o
<4_>
O
i
is
O
1
•a
<
X
f— • S
g O -2 ?
CS, -
| § |
"§ S at
HI
^ tS <
c-
1 £
S °
£
-^
| 1
OS tC
II
jSS
%
C
(£
"§ T3
|1
•*-i
^
a
1
?
s
5
c
§
•—
!>;
H
O
to
Cj ""^ xi "^- "- -
0 =5 =
-------
0
j3
0
V3
"o
-o
cd
c
o
05
.w
w
b
1
s
3
•J3
C3
00
.S
•g
T3
^
s
Cv
<
X
•o
&
S o ^
.0 -2 g
(^ U >-t
•2 = "5s
B TR =
55 | 2
.5.
sis
(§ *f W
<2
-a -=
% £7 en S
§.< E is
o 5 W c
lg.g|
o ^ pj —
•-
C
.a .s
03 *" S
m
to -^
.§ J S
<§ fi 1,
1 s a
^ 3 ,5
C-
o
5 §?
5b a
u
-^
1 S
S «
ll
Jfc
B
a;
Line/stack
tested
S
1
B
5;
**C ^O
Ox Os
o
i
**"i **~i
"•^i "^^
s
*N
E-
H
o o
00 oo
i
Cs
es
0
~ rs, ~
^ S %
1
2
5
^
i
5;
g
^
i
>
ON
t\ \2
d O
^ 0
*C ^C «o K Is.
^ Qs ^S Qi Qi
«*~1 ^ CTj SC Q\ ^f. \C ^
§§2;^^^^^
fN^j SJ--
a "3 j3
t
(
i
8 3g |
0 »- 0 ^
-Si a -Si
^ z. ^.
i |i
ON Os O\ Os Ox C\ O«
^ s •=; s s s •=;
CN
<
-------
o
O
O
1
en
I
OH
bO
G
'
H
"S
(U
I
§.!?
f&) 3 "TJ.
•a < .SB
c§ ^ W
g O .2 P
^H -r
g.< £ S
at v"
(§ *"" ra
B3
^ C H
§ 'p c
°9 W 3,
"S 8 S,
III
^ £ <
«?
I ^
\ 1
1 ^
if
o -o
k, ^
^
c
Q!
||
""
1
J2
S;
a.
,,.,,=,
i
*^ t>*
5
^
i
Os £
OS i^ Os
o o o
o c; cj
0 « ^ S
*O ^ ^i OQ
-, (N ~, g
Q
S 5
1 a
f£, ^
W-j U-) U-j (O
3s O\ ^, O\
^ ^> ^ Ci
O S
vj Cj
i
E~.
u
-
>H
b
i
^
1
^
"•>
%
^
^O "^ r*^
u~, VO > QO r\ fN
t\ 1"^, tX tX.
^«« . i.
Ill'l
^3
i
5
1
*
^,
C!
Ill 11
S? S 3 z S S
5 > ^ ^
o- 2" -r v ^" Ss
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ *
-,
-------
o
U
.0
•4-*
O
*T3
(U
.O
'
w
-—
CO
2
o
1
CL,
oo
"O
a>
a,
a,
Ill
£3 O >.
•a <• .«
5.< '1 |
liii
u
Cq <3
ca
HI
"s ^ -?*
"S 8 g>
41 i
^ £ <
o
1 s
3 °
1 1
1^
1-
C
Si
!i
t^
s:
Si
^i E— .
o u
i i
Ov ^: CN ^
^ ^ "^ P^'
»
•*,
*^i •o
•— Si
Si Si
0 ^ - ^
S £
^ Si Si Si Si si-£>
si s: si Si Si siS^
si si si si si => £ a:
111 §11 ill ill 111 ill
^^^^^J^^^^^^^^'N^^^'N'N'NlN^^^^^N
^. > S-&0 -*• -^ S'&O
x «i 0 | ^ ej U I
-« -« -« t? •** ~* •** i?
S S S S S S
111 111
iilllliUili liittfiflftf
5^^^5§§§§5§§ 5?S-§^^5-5«5-;-?
2222s~222sisi22
1
*••*•
=
o •&
% £
n
'n
CM
<
-------
CO
.
W
o
"S
W3
cS
PQ
CS
O
CO
OH
I
Q
ON
O^
S
c
Impingeme
Scrubber
3
CO
V3
3
Q
or)
=8;
u
^
Q
u
Q
u
6
o
t>
o
o
VO
o
o
o
2
VO
*ri
l-H
f\]
Wl
•4—"
Impingeme
Scrubber
%
1
Q
t.
Q
u
6
r^
O
(N
w
Q
C§
c
ID
2
e
u
2
H
CN
-O
eg
>
CO
o
B
c
u
•a
o
c.
o
o
'S
u
JJ
5
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix B
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
O
03
.s
-*-J
I
•o
c
co
i
CO
e-
.1
05
(U
a
i
s
•s
03
CQ
(L)
ft
tS v.
'S o
£ s
o .S
l> C
H
o-a
— C O1
•S «o a>
^ 2 ^
to
aj s>
ei
1 ll
pg
O "O
'So
I
*2
c.
MS
0
Q. O
& fe
•o g
£ ?
s "i
a. -^,
Water flow
(gpm)
•S-^-H
5^1
^ 73 «5
— > '— "
fsr
"c
||
_«
.1
g
^i
EMM
tt
Ed
H
~
O
" — '
^
Q
C/3
M
§
U
N-
tf
H
U
1
•n
CO
^
p
s
.c
0
o
00
g
1-1
(N
vO
O
fN
o"
_.
•o
£>
g
g
J^
0
O
GO
0
W
V
O
CN
|
<
fS
•s
J3
C
>
U
o
Z
00
o
t»3
fl
•a-
CN
o.
03
CM
jut.
CC
H
S
a
-
w
J^
^rf
b
a
OJ
a:
Ed
CQ
CQ
P
U
OO
r-
o
oo
p
* 0
SB'S
S 3 o
-a £ E
3 S «
£ & §
VO
O
o
o
"^
g
c
0
o
o
. 5
0 g
o 5
CS W
PS'Q
< u
_
•8
Jo
§
S
"-1
tT)
M
OO
r-
o
ON
OD
H
* o
8. "5
C -3
.9 3 -£-
.2 E 1
ill
VO
O
o
o
"^
g
i
^
c
3
o
o
o
o
^
oo
o
CO
S3
* o
S 73
-2 13 o
-H E §
its
VO
0
§
*~"
1
o
c
^<
c
3
O
o
o
(N
S.
0 S
o" 2
o r\
0
t —
—
o
o
S3
o
.2
3
,{.
O
•~
§
0
o
00
.0 -0
c£ f.
_
-------
O
t/3
•8
CC
S
S
2
5
»/^
(N
(N
ts
g
^^
1 i
T3 -
Hit
•"•
o
§
rn"
v^
o
1
o"
ON
•i
*>
•S
3
c
g
O
o
>«
1
r-
CN
CO
-------
E
3
§
I
DH
00
w
CU
S
c- *O >^-
«-3 8
« 0 -g
£ je £
lie
if
b« w
g*
8-g
J -3
electromagnetic
gravity
o o o
— cs <*i
WWW
335/46
275/49
293/unknown
—
cs o ^
— 0 O
t T •*
— (N «
3SS
ss|
lii
—
SO
^3-
fN n
•*
p^
o
'€
i)
1 ^
§|
13 5b
^
3 O O O O O O
— cs fn -q- m ^D r^
1 1 1 S $ I S
£ fi fS r^ O fS rn
g ^ ^; ^ 5*; ^ 5;
^ o ^ m — TT OJ
C fN »0 'fl- O *3- ^*
3 ^ "S- •* Tj- TT TT
— o-i rn ^* >n so r-
"S "S "33 "S "S "33 "53
W !» t« &7 V5 Crt 0- r^ r* r- m — —
so ^o \o \o o fn m
f) rt r^ r^) o >O >^J
O O O O r- rn m
CN (N (N
-------
O
CJ
i/)
g
S
i
1
SI?
•Si s
« ao.c
11^
•Bbll?
|i|l
j<: JS "«?
aiiu
C/3 ^ p
>, t> -~. £" u a1
1 s1!! a»i
Illjl j
Primary current
(amperes)/
Secondary current
(milliamperes)
£ * u. 3~
Ei-^S
•S«
^
4) c T3 0> ^
0 B C T3 f/5
C S CB O W
1 I 1 11
Q J5 -5.TJ 0
•sl-s-s
6 £ d "33
Z o Z «=
0
ll«ii
J-iBta
at 1 ^
g .2 § «s
o ^5 ^ ~*~f
5 ^8-p
Hi 1
a. --^ =»
t3 o ,g
is > S-
lltiil
<* * & £ u ~
s g-tr
£ c s-
11
U. ^
ss
13 .«
C C
J 3
3
C
CJ
O
SO
en
0>
en
2 5,
rj- _.
v~> w
5 s
o —
?B
§ 0
$1
21
— (N
"5 "S
M W5
O
o
°i
b
11
^
.£5
1
*r>
*o
V
o>
o
o
o
o
X-N ^-V ^-S
ON Ov O*^
— (N r*^
^O \O >O
vo
CA
9
C
"e
o
y
s
?
w
o 1
•^
>n ^
5 U
o —
3S
s «
5: s
^ .2
SI
— (S
« «
M Wl
O
o
*H
u
li
(N
SO
VO*
iri
r^
m
in
v^
>n
o
.£3
.2
§
«^
vO
"v
o
o
<=
0
o
^ o o ^ «o
g 2,0 0 0
— fS PI ^f «•>
o 2 o o o
-
CO
2
O
3
_C
I
o
VO
s H,
^-
«-, 1?
i!
» s.
o w
5 3
^ .2
"P «
0 >
— C4 m ^- >r>
o o o o o
CN tN CN tN r-
(N
ITILDEN WET ESP DATA (GRATE-KILN)
§ if
lo||
Q :il
<*. c
? to-2-?
s I a s
04 > -g -S
o" fe
2 S-f
•*•£ i
§-l'£
00 ^S
I!!H
S o o — o
'£ DC O O -=
°- 2% >£
o
>
!»!.!
£8 = 1 1"
|l§l|
£ ,2,60 :=
£ ^
s I
« Qi C-P
» r~ ^ T3 U ^
1 § §1I
lull
Q XI O. > ^^
«-3 8
u o -s;
£ g S
SStlst
II HP
lie
11
b. ^
g*
1-5
j 3
o
rj
o
o
VO
^°
00 ^ 0 0
— CN <•"> rr
"S "S "55 "5
w « en W3
400 (primary)
for all sets/ no
data for
secondary
§000
^O 4J
vi w en OT
•t
SO 00 00
ai-S
— (N r^
r^
ri
s , ?
i^l^-E
— cs ^- fn
fl
CN
O
o
*Ti
^i
C
3
-------
o
U
O
a
3
UH
DC
.S
-4—*
S
1
OH
00
PH
*J
"S
2
CO
CU
.2?
S
Q
T3
00
1
03
CQ"
.a
T3
z
RATE-KII
O
I
O
0.
on
td
QJ
O
5
Q
H
oo 51
I!
a b
CO O.'S'
*• co t!
s> ^ 3
•£ ;- .C
CO CO '53
VI ^, "
illtf
Itlll
S"S
en
£ t— *^
= s.
O c*- ^ *2
2 ° H w
0) e -a 1> -— v
c § c "o S
1 lltl
0 J= "a.- =•
1^1 1
-d°!^i
£.i §-?
• — *-• ea o 5-
H1!1
w en
£ '^ *
lit
15 b =2 SI -?
| ||| ||
lie
it
E S,
g*
•33 a
c c
3 3
.§
"Ssl
0-.2? o
III
|
400 (primary)
for all sets
o ^
C 1
o —
§000
o o o
C-t 00 C^ OO
r*} oo c*i oo
^3 ^5 S ^3
W CO c« CO
„.
">
cs"
o
oo
oo
•/•>
vO
CN
1
O
Tt
§
CO
„_
1
"o S. a
tap o
g c
•o s o
J
400 (primary)
for all sets
240/1500
(all sets)
O O 0 O
o o o o
CN oo CN OO
? CN ? CN
"tS "aj 'aj ^5
W W5 M (A
^
«
*
O
oo
oo
HI
o
2
1
o
o
o
Tf
O
CN
__
.§
"5 2 «
sf 1
•o S o
.8
400 (primary)
for all sets
o
11
O O O O
o o o o
CN OO
CN
O
OO
00
m
o
o
CN
•§
O O
m o
CN ri
O
O
(N,
d
o
c^
CN
-------
Ol
CD
O
«J
00
*-*^
I
1
.2
t/3
I
d>
2
C
Q
•o
60
O
(U
1
H
1
&
cC
•1
•5
CJ
3
o
CO
o
ce"
So
!
c
a
i)
S
>*
o
ffl
*o ^
S §
33 75
C S
.2 °
D
O
§1
s,£
C 3
§ 1
u|
3 c 1?
w ^d1 "S
fi |*
V- >» ,->,
a ' 3 8
US o -^
•g. "w *2
„
S s ^
i!
%
5
^
S *
C.
.:
^
J
'i
<
o
LONES DATA
U
u
w
-<
§
H
z
o
CN
— '
CN
X
CN
**•
u-,
O
CN
O
o
CN
O
O
_
1
o
CN
*"•
CN
X
(N
**
•n
o
CN
C,
_
"*>
CO
CN
O
—
S
eg
00
•o
oo
m
X
»N
>r>
r-
^
*&
o
o
i
o
—
CO
51
oo
^o
•"•
00
c*>
X
CN
10
VO
ts
*0
o.
_ ^
fl
i
SO
O
—
1
Z
M
^
UJ
H
tt
o
r-"
C/!
U
Z
M
OS
S
z
?
f-
o:
td
ft.
Z
— i
^f
g
OS
H
o
u
>
g
<(
ICLONES DAT
H
J
5
0
H
Z
S
w
a
&
V5
CN
5
O
10
^
10
c
S
§
C
3
i/l
P-
O
sO
590,000
(N (N fN
fS (N (N
00
00
o
fl
•^
n
o
00
m
~
00
o
<3
p
>
|
c
3
ci
r-
—
o
^
240,000 -
350,000
0 — CS
to VO VO
CN CN CN
f)
O
,r
10
fi
o
txi
to
oo
o
VO
£.
?
g
•S
3
-------
o
a>
o
3
U-
&0
.S
05
g
I
'•4-
o
03
CS
OH
.&
K
CD
Q
"S
es
o
H
cxf
X
1
I
SB
a
u
CD
CD
-
u
CO
Q
§
Z
1
uy
OS
g
bl
CO
O
i
<
S
X
Ed
X
CD
Q
Z
1
H
Z
O
_J
^
H
1
5j
1
OS
0.
O
S
2
=
j:
o
IT
1
.2
3
O
X
ra
O
J
g
J
I
O
H
S
1
H
§^^
s
= 1
bo
"S i>
5 S
5
^ CO
IS
u "o
Oi) "S
§ £
g
" "5 C1
to .£ J2
B ^^ «j
>. o. ?
a. 2
T3
•— •&* ^
™ "o 33
"c 13 ^
lie
if
U- CO
U]
*
O
*s
s
0
.s
J
^
2
S
=
X
t"
5
OV
•4
o o
o •<->
o o
§0
^ o
o" o"
w-> 0
oo
o
s
§
ll
o
-
t^
(S
?!
"1
X
o
C3 R-
t~ T5
5
TT
§8
M m
o o
o o
o" o"
in o
o
_u
13
0 &
c (a
1
CN
^
(N
(N
^.
I
« S
I^ -O
f^
•4
S^
m n
O o
O C
o o
ir> o
o
s
^i
c
ll
c^
o
^>
CQ
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix C
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
(0
c
'55
W
E
HI
S
Q.
!E
(0
>_
O
re
•o
c
o
u
0)
(0
c
re
>,
re
£
^m
0.
re
0
2
O)
iZ
D)
c
w
1_
o
l_.
CO
C
0
o
(U
CO
O)
c
CO
k_
J
I—
CO
E
•L
- ~ •"•"•
>
Ot
m
OBO
«•-<
o
ov/
!
!
0
K>
m>
m
Ctb
m>
-------
(A
C
O
(A
E
LJLJ
0.
•o
0)
0)
u.
vo
|B
•o
C
flj
0
!E
(A
IM
U
^
.2
0
1-
i
T-
£
3
_O)
iZ
C
r
<
Q) 73
^"^ fl^
5 LJ_
-+0
D)
3
O
CO
•
-------
V)
c,
o
'55
(0
I
UJ
Q.
O)
C
(0
X
"3
0.
•o
0)
.2
'E
il
o
£
3
il
•
«
m
K>
-
oooooo oooc
oooooooooc
C3C3CJC)OC)OOOC
si -
AS - Hd - OV1A3
SI - OPO
AS - Hd - DV1A3
si-
£ZZ AS - Hd - 9IH
si-
ZZZ AS - Hd - 9IH
si-
61-2 AS-Hd-aiH
si-
902 AS - Hd - 9IH
si-
C02 AS - Hd - 3IH
SI -AS
ON - Hd - PUB|U|
AS
-Hd-OVlNNIIAI
AS-Hd- SN
SA - 8£0
AS-Hd-OdSN
SI - ZCO
AS-Hd - OdSN
si - zeo
AS-Hd - OdSN
SI
- z wun - Hd - in
U
(psp/j6) suoissiuig
-------
05
'S
c
.0
K>
"E
w
OH
«
X
o
o
cS
01
w
0-
0
CD
1
U
Cu
i
« W fe
-
> c
^ w
§11
E!
8 ra
f- D
lant'
it na
I
OOO — OvO
— — r*lOO^-O
\moO
GoOOOOW-)
OOOCNOOOOOOO
''
O — — OOOOOOOO
''
rJp
O
'
OOOOO(N(NO
.
OOO OOOO
OO OOOOOOOO
oocsoooo —
ooooo
OCvOC^^i
oONr-oooo
-------
o
ID
co
GO
1
W
T3
03
ffi
U
O
03
ts
Q
CO
C
_O
"55
tq
S
c-
."2
"o3
o
Z
D
1
H
U
3 E
a: w
™ 5 c
= o &2
c*E-f
III
a: u fe
= 11
jg &, 2
BS
H Q
f*-i
o"
Os
r^
o
o
o
o
•^
o"
§
r^i
O,
OO
f)
o
o
o
o
8
on*
C^J
r-
S
<->
0
ts"
r-
o
o
o
o
o
22
u
- " S S M
2 o 2 2 a
I
u
g o o o ^
S > > > %
o tn <*> tn
I S I 0
a. c, a. o.
SJ
£££
z g g z a
-------
Cfl
•4—»
'S
c
_o
"oo
•o
03
O
O
•—
C3
Q
CO
.O
'co
co
1
PH
72
"3
CN
O
1
U
X
1
OH
« w
~ .2 a
- *<=
-i
I
*•» Si
83 a
f- Q
Label
— cno— .
-
^- — ocs
~ ooor-ooo — ooooooooooooooo'dddooo — d'o> _
ppppppppppppppppopppopppppppppopp
odddo'do'ddddddo'dddodddoddddo'ddddo'd
^ m Ti- (N vo
Tf- >O v> O O
o
^O^OO™-r-(NOOO(Nfl
OO\O
— io^c
oooo
-
— m in in ^- u*^
CS CN — — •— — —
— — ~- — fN — CN — —
Sooxoooooo^oo^-oooc
ppppQ^ppopppppc _ _
odd do' dd°. ddo'dooP^
O 00
— o*noooo
-
O O O> \D O - . _
TfrCsO — TOOO
ONriv^^-o- •- —
O O f» f*^
_ _ O O — —
ON O v^ ~" CO fi
— —. ^ ON
§ _ § % ?! 5 5?
CS i^ —
s: « s cs
i? o C o SJ ^S
in —• oc — oc oo
COCOCO
-------
o
U^
Ol
^—>
'c
•o
CC
ffi
U
O
ca
•*-*
eo
Q
tn
o
"
1
p,
3,
"5
CN
c\
O
"S
4)
go.pl
< w "g
g>|<5
< bu 3
-.28
<§ w 1
c *€
£E2
«*€
Ifil
III
7-sl
Ifil
- s c
§||
£J
Plant's
Unit name
Unit Label
oo
o
o
o
en
en
en
CN
O
s
o
o
o
§
CN
ON
Tl-
O
o
o
oo
en
CN
in
o
o
o
o
0
>n
en
CN
o
oo
—
Tertiary Crusher Line 18)
on
P-
00
i
INNTAC - TC Cru
s
P- O
00 en
o o
o o
o o
o P-
TT in
en oo
o o
OO CN
O 0
0 O
o o
o o
0 O
tn vo
en OC
— en
— O
o p
o o
o o
en oc
O O
p p
o o
o o
en "n
en OO
oo oo
p- —
Turn Bin Conveyors 005 & 006
Conveyor Transfer, Step 3
Q ^-
Z >
INNTAC - TC Co
INNTAC - TC Cor
S S
ft
-------
I
^-™1
*^
C
CO
U
w
o
U
o
0
E
(U
1
>
o
CS
H
U
_><
c
OH
&
BASIS
•*
^
•<
j:
^
ta
i
|
PARAMETER
5 o o
2 ?5 NN
2 o o
-• o ,-- 5tJ
O ~ — 4^
0 00 00 c
III ii
S * t~-
S S
s °- s
0 0 S
"^ in ojo
a 2 s
2 S 5
o "1 o
CM o"
P-) 10
^t •* — -^ vo
>o oo m g ^ oo
S S S o ^ 0
•J^ CO C.
° — § V 1
•« S «3 e S
2 «S o, .£ r?
• -0 NC' -J BH
§• " S & t
0 u «5 'Jj p
b °- ^ « o
S - s S g
s s | *
<8 S fa
o- 'S
W §
U
ON
ON)
O
—
"33
•o
o
CN
tN
O
cs
"o
•o
o
s
oo
CN)
o
ro
"2
1
ll
ra ^
C »
< g
"ro O
S
1 s
ill
ai f2
III
2 Is!
ill
i|i|
a, ^
§3i
1-5
u= 2 v>
iti
< 0
'3- M $£.
|°l
•sis
"35 ^ 'Ps
=i|<§
•< u. o
Test data or
Assigned Test
data
(gr/dscf)[b]
1-5-
5 15 .2,
E ^
J I "5
U. *•* CO
> D
3 J
Emission Unit
«
i
J
D-
O
rsjrnr-oosotN — r-- oo
— - ^- CN" en cs (N en ™ — •
ent^ON— ' — sOsOO ^
ON oc en — • CM >O ON oo ON
— so^so^en^fsi Tf
ON^-sooNifS^*nm CN
ON(NONV)Ot^V)ON ON
— O ON en oo ™~ '•O — en
««<««««~«««£
SO en 0* o en TT vi so
ooen^enr^fs^j- en
enviC^oooenONen so
iN\ovivivi^-v}fn oo
TJ- rs — oenr-ors o
^- oo oo so — v^moo vi
OO^ so, O^ — ^ sp^ OS, O, O\ (N,
sOsOOOOOOOO-xOO O
m — so o r- vi o CM
OOOCNOV^ONO —
cs r, g
o
g
Oenm — en — — ^ ?
\O>ov^trj»nv^v^r^- Z
oooooooo c=
oooooooo *g
oooooooo
(NooOTj-morsen
^•oosoenotNv^m
SO(N'^'C)^P(NSOON
— .oviooosoo.^
^^ O V"i o ON ON V} L
^ CN" ^ o" m" — * NO" g^-
NO^NOocoON-r-
(N CO CO CO
oni/jw&ncncncn&o
llllllll
.1 1 & I
|gsfefe'a|«
^^>>>i=g2
'H.g§§isg->.
g,oouu g> | .«
3 C ,9 S
o 0 £
xxxxxxxx
oooooooo
g
i
so r- ON ON ON ON O-^
en (N — " ^O SO ''O sC
r^ oo ON m en en m
— • -O ON o-} rsj (N fS
— i t~~ ["*• t*-
O vi oo O O O O
^o en oo oo oo oc oo
•* o o o o
oo* (N" « o>
o c: c c: c c
^ o o o o c
£ J % §1 ° %
" " O 0 O O O
a: os a: a: a:
"« Oi
i |
<*— O 1> 4) flJ (
t= C 00 BO 00 W) OX
o §_ -2 S S S »
•o "• tn "S5 "35 tS "5
S g1 "2 -E "2 "S -H
*™ <^ en en en en e*
1 1
2 D
S E I K ffi I E
0 O 0 0 O O O
^ 8 f
^ 1 E
u £
OO
I
u
-------
c
o
u,
a
*o
c
ffi
O
O
efl
O
U
t,
o
o
0)
JS
-4—>
so
CN
6^
0
CN
t— "
o
o
o
CN
ft"
Tf
Ducon IS
Grate Discharge
O
o
fl
ON
O
CN
ON
OO
oo
V)
oo
«r
£
CN
o
o.
§
o
£
B)
en
—
Os'
a
OO
^
CN
OO
CN
©
r*
rn
<^i
O
O
o*
p-
***!
ON"
CN
1
•1
ect
CD
Secondary Crashing
O
o
1
| Northshore
M
• — '
Os
Os'
O
O
O
CN
SO
00
-*•
Os
fN
en
"
O
so
m
so
so
1
so
^
1
CO
CO
West Car Dump
O
o
CN
in
CN
CN
a
00
(N
a
o
00
o
o
oc,
o
SO
o
o
o
CO
o"
o
SO
CN
Baghouse
Coarse Tails Conveyor
§
OO
fl
OO*
oo
«
•o
oo
do
CN
9s
O
oo
CD
oo
o"
p
CN
Os"
00
1
Storage bins (east)
O
o
CN
OS
SO
s
oo
C<
OO
S
a
CN
a
•a-
SO
—
a
u
o
1
1
—
o
s
**
o
CN
se
o
m
O
oo
o"
CN
in
o
o
o
s
r-
P-"
*~*
*"""
WetMC
Primary Crushing
U
o
C/J
—
o
CN
O
*»
oo
in
TT
t«
s
o
CN
oo
r~
1
o
-9-
SO
CTs"
in
00
•n
UW-4S
Conveyor
U
o
SO
CN
in
•n
**
CN
CN
3
o
oo
Os
SO
»n
o
o
o
o
o
o
SO
UW-4S
L
>
u
5
o
SO so
CN CN
>n m
in in
OS OS
*» v>
CN CN
** **
O O
oo oo
Os Os
sjo so
r- t—
o o
o o
o" o
o o
O C3
in in
o o
r~- oo
UW-4S
uw^ts
11
O U
0 0
so
CN
m
s
ff>
CN
CN
«e
o
oo
a^
Os
so
in
in
O
o
o
o
Os
1/5
&
Conveyor
o
o
so
CN
m
»n
a
«
CN
CN
«*
m
o
oo
Os
SO
in
O
o
o
o
o
r-
o
o
UW-4S
1
I
O
1
o
0
in
in
Os'
—
in
so
in
cs
Os
O
OS
CN
SO
oo
o
Os
O
T
S
CJ
o
c/>
SO
so'
m
o
o
OS
oo
Os
£
in
z
oo
oo
o"
CN
o
o
O
|
V*
oo.
m
m
§
Ducon IS
Hearth layer bin
X
u
o
g?
'1
£
m
o
oo
<*
in
»
CN
"*
O
O
oo
CN'
CN
CN
o
o
o
CN
fj.
o
0
o.
™~
o
CN
Ducon IS
Hearth layer bin
§
>n
p
so
00
O
TJ-
SO
SO
m
5
OO
VI
CN
O
O
=
u
o
1
a
—
so
t^
Os
SO
in
00
oo
in
6*
O
ON
V5-
ON
oo"
SO
O
O
o
CN'
§
o
CN
O
Os"
1
ffl
Fine ore underfeeds
§
|e
—
f
CN
§
2
SO
%
SO
o
o
in
SO
O
CD
o
cs
SO
Os"
§
in
Os"
Os
Ducon IS
Hearth layer conveyor
§
Wl
P-
CN
oo
-------
o
ffi
U
O
t/3
o
U
!-H
o
1
u
•
cu
&
.2 33
2 " ^
~E o
o 1 "£
2 -a 8
^ o 5, >"
ft. .1 g g
cu § fc
<:s''5 --
f -3 g
s .1 "§>£•
a- S oo 1
lit
lai
i ^
=3 .|_S-
C CJ ^
•1 6
• — f^
O 8 OT
|U5
•8f S
111
< B. S.
o S S1
nu
(-. w S
"*•
(U
2 *£ ^
S *o ra
O "O
b. ~~*
1 si
c 2 a
> Q
C/5 «
_ §
s.i.
D
Emission Unit
1
1
CU
ON
•^
>n so —
r*-j OO fN
n fN oo
in oo f^
oo ^a- m
^
ON fN —
rj- fN ^~
r*-
CN CN
00 00
NO NO
CN fN
in in
o o
o o
ON ON
en r^
§o
0
0 0
0 O
§ s
o o
^ ^
TT •*
ON ON
6 5?
3 $
on on
Conveyor
Conveyor
X X
u o
0 0
§
•a
p
w
o
so OO
i/»i ^
—
0 O
O\ P-
fN
r»1 o
ON OO
V5- fN
SO ON
fN r-
oo m
V3- fN
6^
SO ON
fN r-
s
c
_o
"3
o
p
o
0
o
fS
NO
ON
fN
S3
1
Q
Cooler dump zone
X
a.
£
2
p-
CN|
OO 00
rN fN
^ Tt"
OO GO
\Q \Q
S ON
CN ON
** «,
£ £
5 S
o o
•^ •*
t? r£
£ °;
" 1
"c
o
o
o
fN
OO
(N
0
O
fN
(N
O
fS
S3
c
o
u
Q
into hearth layer screen
p
Q
a.
1
-
P £
•n fN
— so
OO SO
CN P-
o —
oo ^~
r-j TT
p- P-
00 Tf
CN ON
S S
I i
NO" TT
NO NO
o o
o o
O CJ
— 0
m fN
o CN
fi —
o
o o
o" °.
C/3 W
00 K
Cooler discharge
. Loadout trans. Con.
0-
X X
0. 0.
1
f-
oo
^
o
00
oo
01
o
Vi
00
m
Vi
^
M
!n
I
•—
z
I
(N OO
r*} OS
CM
r~ f>
— s
€^ CN
— •»
m" ON
«/i fN
OO fS
ON f^l
ON ON
f^ Tj-
" m
MISSIONS
MISSIONS
COSTS & 1
COSTS & 1
a. at
o o
u. S
Ed tt
S S
H H
O 0
CQ a
< <
e. <
•j pr
^ ^
e
c
L
-------
"8 s
G
0
u,
DC
cu
C!
— i
JJ
o
cs
"§
>
CS
u
u
"1
u
en
3
en
CS
ctual emissions da
^
.£>
cs
CS
-o
u
3
CS
'S
>
cs
J
g
e§
Q
U
O
o
CO
Ui
S
"e
3
.2
"S,
1
o
epercetage ofnon
^C
§
cs
o
T3
O
en
_3
cs
-22
'?•
H
C
2
«S
00
"N
en
u
j>
O
o
CN
CS
o
j-
o
CS
.e
00
S
^
Ig,
"•fc^
1
^>
•o
"3
"cB
o
0)
!
"co
O
O
^s*
^w
O
JM
CB
"cs
•**
0
CO
•s
o
c
0
"^
CO
1
CS
u
£
t^
O
r~"
O
n>
£
>
o
qq
to
3
'Q1
cs
O
'en
1
"o
_cn
cs
^
•o
O
U
+J
Ut
o
-------
a
u
u,
I
"3
-o
CS
•4—1
03
Q
en
05
"
I
o
z;
o
t
ex
$
o
Z
S "S c
Z £ ob .2 S
¥ * < 1?
g 0 U fe
D tu v-
I >? o If
H < u, 2-
-11?
§ w 56 -S
si |> s "§>
< 0.^
« 1 H c-
C tf ffi °
.3 oo .. -a
05 > o -^
< a
•2 •£ C-
M E 11
§ U 55 -a
BJ |? 53 ~g)
< o.—
c gpijh
5> _>,
"5 c
O O
in o
OO SO
O O
o o
ON CO
Ox \0
\o r-
00 t—
in SO
(N CN
oo r—
0 O
o o
o o
00 Tt
S 2
m —
co r~
CN CN
Cs in
o o
o o
O 0
ON —
r- oo
r- co
— T
00 SO
CN CM
in IO
ON ON
co r-
oo oo
o o
^ ^
O O
^^ y-^v
*« *c
8, 8,
22
e. c-
&O C/2
tu u
£> fc
a a
2 2
'5. '5
p P
aj (I
o o
c c
cH a
CO C3
S S
C. Cu
M 00
ia w
S"8 S"8
g £ S S
CN| O CN O
^i ^|
c o c o
0 U 0 U
o u~>
n
CO
>n
CO CO
0 O
o o
o o
in —
O OS
oo oo
00 Tf
m —
Tt m
00 f-
0 0
o o
o o
— in
O SO
r- o
0 "3-
SO co
T m
S §
1- oo
— CN
00 OO
o o
^ ^
o a
/ — ^ i^^
OT 5!
0 ^
33
i '
% %
uj ta
£%
8 i
"II
[5 B.
c
3
1
"5
E»
W
ra
O ON
C CN
j 2
CO
g
o
o
o
CO
oo
CN
S
^
o
0
o
CO
00
CN
S
o
o
§
o
CN
00
CN
>n
o
o
o
0
o
o
^3"
OO
CN
r^
Cs
CN
-
i^
O
o
z^
^
!/5
>
u
?s
g)
fc-
T3
w n:
Not clear if catch
No dry catch data
co r~
CO OO
CO O
o o
r-- o
SO O
SO O
CO CN
-3- SO
CN CN
O O
r- CN
CO O
o o
o o
r^ o
CN SO
CN CN
CN r-
S 5
o o
o o
o o
0 O
r~ os
CN Tf
CN CN
00 OS
so —
CO 0
O O
§ §
0 O
r- r-
r^ r^
CN CN
0 0
oo oo
S 5
r~ CN
o o
X ^,
O O
IMINNTAC -VS-L3
MINNTAC -VS-L3
No dry catch data
oo
o
o
OS
S
•*
m
'S-
CN
O
O
OS
•q-
C—
m
in
•*
CN
O
o
CO
in
CO
•
T3
—'. cfl
No dry catch data1
Not clear if catch
m r-
CO CO
O Tt
o o
— r~
IO SO
SO so
O SO
SO —
"3" •*
in r^
00 O
C Tf
C O
o o
CO O
r^ o
•* m
SO CN
•a- •*
OO CN
O Os
0 "*
o o
m o
CN O
CO O
CO —
so —
•*r Ti-
00 CN
gOs
rf
O O
oo O
Os O
00 O
co -"3-
m —
TT rr
CN O
OS OO
CO CN
CO f-
o o
^ X
a o
IMINNTAC-VS-L5
MINNTAC -VS-L5
No dry catch data
o
SO
_
O
in
oo
oo
m"
oo
t—
CN
O
•^•
CN
OS
t-^
OO
m
O
o
r~
CN
so"
OO
SO
O
CO
CO
oo
OS
00
00
CN
CO
o
^
u
1 MINNTAC -VS-L6
OT
§
•3
§ =:
Atypical process c
No dry catch data1
O MS
SO Os
O O
O O
O so
8-st-
.. •*
os r~
en cs
co CN
oo r~
— CN
0 0
O O
0 OS
§00
in
so oo
co r—
CO CN
oo r-
O O
O O
O —
o r~
O 00
Os CN
CO O
co co
CN m
O 3
o o
O 00
g ss
CN O
Tt —
CO CO
— OS
O 00
00 OO
CN CN
— CO
— o
^ ^
o o
IMINNTAC -VS-L1
MINNTAC - VS - LI
tn
^e.
u
C3
(W
CO
o
T3
U
"K
u
>.
a
i —
o
o
CN
O
oo
CN"
m
Cs
O
O
o
r-
CO
Os
CN"
in
m
o
o
o
SO
Os
CN"
in
OS
O
S
CN
in
in
Os
CN
O
o
O
sC
i
e_
1/3
tu
t
C/3
Z
§
1 -8
0_ S3
n ti
Unrepresentative
perfonnance
Did not test each s
individually.
CN O
•* O
0 0
o o
m m
TT Os
oo r^
r^ CN
OO Os
CN T
CS CN
CO CN
0 0
o o
CM ^~*
"3- O
CO CN
oo "3-
Cs oo
CN ••a-
m —
in CN
0 0
o o
oo r^
r~ in
CO Tj-
— CO
r~ os
CN -"3-
os r^
SO —
0 0
o o
•q- so
— CN
oo r^
co O
Os O
CN in
§o
o
so CO
in i^
o o
^ y:
o u
2 "§
iz &
(X BJ CN
00 I J
tu , i _
r*> -^ °- ,,
C" en or, tU
Q §) W 3C
il9
P^I
P
U
£ .£
u o
*4> i>
II II ->
U ^ "
r- O J
-------
! 1 1 8
Jl B 1
X < H U.
I ^ fi | P;
3 o g? a
"^ E < ~
||H|
g J < w a
^D tin
8 1? 0 ^
§ lii1^ 5
O- > o &
m ° a O
C H, r/; 'u
3 M^ -S
OS > u — '
< &
§ S w -3
OS g? b fe
~li u so
— ° H Cs
c E 2 't;
« " b 3,
< P.
CA **
a> eo
.t! °
"53
-C
°c
m
CO
o
o
CO CN CO
— VO CO
_ o ~
O 0 O
O 0 O
csi in r^
OO Tt OS
O O 0
0 0 O
o o o
— CN CO
CN CN Cs
O O VO
— co" CN
r-~ r~~ in
— CO OO
— o o
o o o
o o o
oo Tt vo
vo r- —
CN — T
Cs Tt OO
so r- Tt
CN CN CN
oo m —
o o —
0 0 O
o o o
r- so os
OO OO SO
co r- co
so CN in
r — t — in
CN CN Cs)
in vo o
o o —
o o o
o o o
r^ in Tt
O O Os
Tt — CN
r-- CN Tt
vo i^ in
o o o
o o o
O — 00
CN CN CN
in in oo
a a a
05 ^^
^ ? 1
15 ,09 £
~~~^ i—3 ^
ca ^ C
u
CN
O
o'
CN CO
— o
o o
o o
— o
00 —
0 O
o o
0 0
m r-
in oo
so in
CN CN
oo —
O 0
o o
0 0
oo m
CO CN
CO CO
o o
o o
so Cs
T so
CO OO
CN —
— o
o o
o o
O VO
o in
r~ o
CN CO
o o
0 0
O Os
CN CN
in oo
a a
S3 ^
1 ,
D- p.
CLl LL
Q Q
S B
If
tU [t
o
§
0
o
Os CN
O O
0 O
0 0
vo —
VO CN
O O
o o
o o
oo in
o Tt
— SO
vo CN
O O
o o
— SO
CN Tt
SO Os
CN CN
SO CN
O O
0 O
o o
1 i
— r—
Tt OO
C-) CN
OO CN
0 0
o o
o o
CO CN
0 0
Cs r—
T O
O 0
o o
— oo
CN CN
a o
1 1
3j
1
11
.|B
W r •
OO
o
0
o
— in vo
in oo o
o o o
o o o
o o o
r-~ CN in
co vo O
0 O 0
o o o
o o o
CN Cs Tt
Tt — VO
oo co r~
CO O ~-
Tt m oo
Bo o
o o
o o o
— o o
SO so Cs
co in r^
2 S 5
O O 0
o o o
•3- CN O
so co vo
CN Cs CS
t — r~ co
CN in o
o o o
o o o
o o o
O — OS
m oo in
— Cs CN
00 VO CN
Tj- Tj- OO
O O O
O 0 0
CO CN Os
CN CN CN
in in oo
a a a
X
ca — . ^
^0 tn 15
iii
LLj ^~* C
i £ i)
M 'I f
tu
r-
o
o'
VO 'S- !^
O O O
o o o
o in in
CN O CN
o o o
0 O O
o co r-
r- co vo
OO CO —
OO OS OO
OO O OS
000
o o o
SO O O
in o o
so o in
oo cs in
oo o cs
CN CO CN
o o o
o o o
so O O
moo
CN m in
§ 2 g
C1^ fl t**)
mom
o o o
o o o
o o o
CN O O
i — in in
r^ oo oo
00 O CN
§ 5 S
;p o r-
T CN cs
CN — CN
™ T? VO
a a a
IEVTAC -VS-L2 (coal/coke)
EVTAC -VS-L2
EVTAC - VS - 12
CM
OO
o
o
o"
CN
OO
o
o
o
o
so
o
VO
m
CN
o
o
m
r—
in
CO
o
o
o
o
o
so
CN
in
o
in
CN
in
Cs
Os
m
o
g
O
Z,
>
&o
c
15
.n
'•£
o
OS
o
0
o
cs o oo
c^- cs in
000
O 0 O
o o o
co vo co
m vo T)-
O 0 0
o o o
o o o
oo CN r~
O Cs so
r^ cs —
CN in —
Tj~ in so
vo in TJ-
o o o
o o o
o o o
m in o
r^ CN in
•M- CN r^
CN r~ o
•^r m vo
in oo Tt
o o o
000
o o o
§0 O
o in
in CN r-
CN r~ —
•^ in so
m r^ in
o o o
o o o
o o o
o o o
m m o
— in o
CO CO —
-*r «n so
Os Os ^^
O so
£££
0 5 0
Z "u Z
- — ^ 3 s —
^ t cvl
^il
60 OJO
.B .=
'•£
m
o
o
m
o
o
CO
o
o
so
so
O
O
O
O
o
CN
Os
in
CN
o
o
in
VO
CN
VO
CN
0
O
CN
m
CN
so
TT
OS
CN
<£
O
O
Z
CO
>
6C
C
15
^
X
Os
O
o
o
Os
O
o
o
00
SO
O
O
0
VO
5
vo
O
so
CN
2
o
o
o
in
o
in
00
o
o
o
in
m
m
Os
O
CN
VO
g
O
Z
1
V)
-o
c
"c
in
CO
0
— wo
vo r-
CN CO
t- O
o —
O CO
o r-
co in
m r~
o o
CO CO
CN —
r- TJ-
0 T?
in Os
o o
— m
m r^
CN o"
O Tt
CO CN
OO VD
Cs T
O O
o —
O VD
VD OO
m —
CO CN
— Tj-
VD r~
O O
r~ co
ro O
oo vo
in —
OS Tl-
^- oc
in —
CO ««
SO
O O
MINNTAC - Multi/Grav - L3
MINNTAC - Multi/Grav - L3
CO
CN
O
O
co in
CN 00
— o
o o
o o
O CN
Cs VO
§ g
O 0
oo r-
co vo
— vo
Tt CN
so O
O O
O 0
O O
m o
m o
r~ o
S-?
CN VO
— O
o o
0 0
00 O
VO O
Os o
so —
00 O
TJ- -3-
oo vo
§0
o
o o
O^ ^2
VO O
CO
m o
i s
S CN
SO
£g
I MINNTAC -VS-L4
1 MINNTAC - VS - L4
CO
CN
O
C5
— co in Tt
— CN O OO
_ — — o
o o o o
o o o o
— o r- —
oe cs r- so
0 0 0 O
o o o o
o o o o
t^ vo in co
vo o oo co
VO VO — CO
r-- t— CN co
— m so CN
— O 1^ VO
— — O O
o o o o
o o o o
o CN m o
O — TJ- O
o r~ — O
Tt vo Tt in
O m vo —
r^ oo r^ in
o o o o
O 0 O O
o o o o
O VO CN O
o os in o
o so in o
r^ co Os co
CO so so CN
r~ Cs Cs oo
O O O 0
o o o o
o o o o
o o oo o
o — in o
O Tt OO O
CN CN CN CN
— in in co
sS§t
— - oo ^ co
m CN ^ CN
CJ ri <"• o
O CN OS Cs
Tt ° VO
a o a u
MINNTAC - VS - L5
MINNTAC -VS-L5
MINNTAC -VS-L5
MINNTAC - VS - L5
o
CO
o
o
oo —
CN O
CN CO
O O
0 O
r~ o
so CN
— CN
O O
o o
o o
0 CN
O Cs
— CN
m CN
r~ 'm
— CN
o o
o o
O OS
O CO
o in
r~ so
Tt CN
CO CO
in os
o o
o o
O Cs
§co
m
— VO
in CN
CO CO
OO CN
— CN
0 O
o o
O CO
o oo
O vo
wo >n
m —
ii
2 ?5
vo °
^^ ^
0 O
1M1NNTAC-VS-L6
MINNTAC -VS-L6
SO
O
o
o
CN
o
0
CN
vO
CO
CN
OS
O
Cs
SO
oo
CO
CO
0
o
Cs
in
in
CO
CN
CO
o
0
Cs
oo
Cs
6s
o
O
1 MINNTAC -VS-L7
U
-------
O
01
o
* I i i
•»4s s
3= < H tu
•0 t3 .2 (jv
If IIS
^r> ? *x "£ —
3 ° 1? &
< E < -
"3 c
3 £ ob -25 SJ
:g> ft > P ^
^ > <^ rr> ^
5 o M 5
D tt. "~
| |? | *S
H < [L, 2,
-llf
§ W £ -3
X | fc fe
-Ho
c Ei, ;£ «
5S?bS
< 0-
w .*: ^-s
N 1 S f
§ u a -s
s* 1? S3 &
< & —
£ ^
< Q- —
& .*
- 5 a CT
§ fc 55 a
os g? & 2-
< &
*- fll
S «
[— Q
— i>
1£
2
J3
'£
3
s
2
o
00 OO CO VO O O
CN CN P~ ^ — vo
S o o o o o
o o o o o o
ro ro o p- o vo
CN G\ m o oo CN
o o — — o —
O O O 0 O O
o o o o o o
o c
oo ^f -^ oo r^ oo
m «^i vo ^o in r-
m co ro m m
o o o o o o
0 O 0 0 0 0
^^ ^3 C5 ^3 ^f C^
0_ O, O_ O_ O_ 00
fN~ ro" o —
m ro ro ro ro rn
n ?5 o o Sv
i O O m CN >>>>>
O U O O U U
^^^^^JS
z z z z z z
z z z z z z
2 2 2 2 S S
\0
vo
5 5
ro —
— ro
6 6
— CO
— r~
g g
J -J
i i
o- a.
&o oo
tu u.
||
oo oo
Z Z
I/I
O
o
o
UO —
O Cv
o o
o o
r- r~
r^ vo
0 O
O 0
0 0
o o
Ov vo
to O
cf oo"
vD V~i
oo r~
o o
o o
o o
r^ t—
— ro
oo -^f
CN" oo"
vO "/I
c^ r~
o o
O 0
0 0
w> r^
— (N
rn" oo"
vo u->
0\ I—
o o
o o
o o
O 10
"3- —
oo vo
St-"
in
uo vo
^ 5;
ro —
"7 T
— ro
— pi
££
fN CN
J -J
C- C-
&O V
U U
U tj
^ ^
1 1
oo oo
Z Z
S
00
o
•
CN >n
CN r-
1 1
^^ S3 ^^ f V
VI ,00 w tf)
00 "co 60 M
^.^^i-uj^w^u
^H^fc^t^fc
feg ^g feg few
w$S;ztt'zttj;z
^iSo^o^o
Q X b5 Q $ Q 5
Q "* ' ^ ' **
c . c c
u ' u u
•O C ID T3
~ u ~ ~
H 2 r- H
H
-------
CO
c
C
.2
•Is
to
Q
"S
CS
•—
01
-—
ctf
2
I
60
.s
•4—*
oi
•—
I
NO
_
•s
H
^
U
•
g
£ £
'go
S 2
04 03
Std Dev
By Furnace
Between All
Tests
"2 c
£ 60.22 £
> 5 £ 5
_0 ^ W Q
JH ^~
S !? o ^
E- < & 2
•2 •* <-
M S 8 |
g m a -3
(5 5° i- *-
OS > U O
< a —
=0 -^ /—
^ e si
§ w 55 5
»3 OO i_ i.
PS > cj 0.
< a.<-
•g -g c
1-1 = o 5;
§ W £ I
cS fee kc i.
OS > 4> a
< a-
« &
JS ft
2 H
J
CO
>J
•4-*
1
N=
0^
iri
i/-i
m
r^
CN
§
c!
n
O
o
0
— 0
oo -^
^^ C?
c^ c^
0 O
m r~
>n oo
NO m
t~- CO
CN CN
OO — i
0 0
O 0
O O
in — i
o o
o o
0 0
CN —
o o
So
o
S ON
CN CN
in oo
o O
c c
* fc> >,
i- C
Q Q
p u
'o. 'S
S S
W (1
^?
c?-~
CN
ro
t^
CN
f>
O
0
0
NO — i
NO CN
O O
O 0
0 0
m — "
oo in
O **•
— i vo
•n ON
NO CN
o o
o o
O 0
NO CN
0 0
o o
o o
oo CN
O O
o o
o o
G^ CP
^5 oe
CN CN
in oo
o o
c c
^ ^
U 1>
CS CO
o o
??
^5u
^ c^
II
fefe
"!
«s
E ;
'§•'&
^i
5?
r^
S
rf
CN
O
O
o
r- m CN m
m n- NO o
o o o o
O 0 O O
o o o o
CN P~ ON TJ-
•* T — NO
oo ~- ro r-
ro oo O --
•«f CN in oo
in ro r~ —
o o o o
0 O 0 O
O O 0 O
m n t~- — •
o o o o
0 O O O
o o o o
CN P~ in o
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
NO
§ON o O
^ oo o o
(^ 0>
CG C5 CO C3
o o o o
'o?
CO - ^^ -^"
OO co to 13
is co co o
CO ^OC ^00 Q
J-^-*^
* = s §
J 3 j -J
"^ a, &, Q"
' tyj 01 S!
& w w S
w £> S1 ^J
b° Q tS
IL> U „',
2 "S. '£ -s
fill
to
S?
Os
oo'
o
o
o
o
o in in
CN O CN
O O 0
o o o
o ro r~
r- ro NO
oo c^ •— •
oo ON oe
oo O O\
m — • CN
O O S
o o o
— , — . rn
o o o
O O O
ro O ro
O O O
o o o
NO O O
S} S ?=
rf CN CN
^^
0 > >
< w w
r^
£
o
NO
o
o
o
I--
NO
in
t—
CN
O
o
o
0
g
o
o
m
o
o
o
1
i^i
ro
O
u
co
a
>
E-
|
u
_c
O3
i
M
_C
In
.0
S
5?
OO
CN
(N
O
O
o
f> NO m
10 NO rr
O O O
OO tN t~~
O O vo
f~ O\ —
rj "o —"
•^- >o vo
VO IT! Tt
80 o
0 O
o o o
IO OO Tf
O 0 O
O O 0
o" o o
w> r~ >o
o o o
O O 0
o c> o
51*
2 8s*
J. ds g
l§°
0 0
O (U U
o o a
£ > >
E- H H
<*-v /^ y-^
a ° o
z 1 5.
(N fc, CN
g^ g
3 J 3
00 , 01
>co >
Cud , 0£
.s M.S
-0 e ^
•2 -s -2
S|ffi
^u
ro
O
O
r-
VO
^t
>C
O
o
o
fM
O
o
CN
O
o
rt
^
a\
D
W5
>
i
OC
c
'o
.0
s
00
VO
8
o
$
ON
5
<3
8
o
t^
o
0
o
OO
o
0
o
f~
1
«N
r~-
^
o
u
ess
O
£
H
O
u
c
C/D
>
•o
c
CO
C
5?
o
v~>
tN
r^
o
VO
o
0 CO
o r-
fO "O
m r^
o o
rO ro
CN -^
r- ^
Tj- r-
O ^t
>^) os
t- r-
•* c~
o o
oo vo
ON rf
"fr t-
o o
r^ r~
vo p-
o o
OO
st *
ON OO
>o -r1
CM v£>
ro JT4
o ?:
o
c c
^ w
u u
CO CO
o o
TAC - Multi/Grav - Line 3
TAC - Multi/Grav - Line 3
z z
z z
S §
g
vd
tN
O
S
o
o
O fN
ON NO
O O
O 0
0 0
oo r~-
f> NO
— < NO
rf fN
NO O
r- r-
C^ ^5
o o
(N NO
O O
o o
OO NO
o o
o o
o o
r^ 5
21 <^
oo NO -^ CN
O f- —. NO
o o o o
o o o o
oo t^ r^ *r>
o o o o
o o o o
o o" o" o
ON ON r~- oo
o o o o
o o o o
o o o o
o
m J> — o
ON «J 0 CO
OC •* IT) CN)
CJ fA £! o
X 3s o CJ
o o — r~
o
c c c c
^ « ^ !^
D U U U
^ flj B TC
O O O O
in >n m m
eu> tJ ttf D
c e c c
J J 3 3
i i i i
C/3 O3 O3 t/5
> > > >
y o o o
< < < <
H t- H H
S 2 2 2
5?
TJ-
ON
r-~
<*i
c
o
r- o
NO CN
>— i CS
o o
0 0
O 0
O CN
O ON
"— i CN
-------
o
(^
_O2
*CO
C
.0
•4-J
CO
'>
CO
-^^
00
O
CO
00
CO
U
"O
g s
30
*o "2
Pi C/2
Std Dev
By Furnace
Between All
Tests
•2 c
£ si .2 &
\T > S3 "C
£ <: rfl ~£
_o ^ W 5
8 1? 1 ^
H < £ 2
•2 J u 0
< &"-
•a -g c
" S « ^
g w 55 T
£ 2> fc =•
< P.-
*j U
g «
H Q
*-> u
1 ^
P H
s
5
'5
ss
q
06
ON
O
O
d
O e^t ro O r~- O
tN OS Os f) O OO
— 0 O — — O
O O 0 O O O
O O 0 O O 0
ts o m t- f> m
so o m so m r—
•<* o >/"> so m •—
c^ m oo ts oo O
CN Tf >O VO VO ^O
<*•> ro m ro ro m
O\ O\ O ^ — 1>
O 0 O O O O
o o o o o o
ro O\ O ^- oo oo
^ o — « o o
O O O O 0 O
o o o o o o
TJ- o oo -H m o\
^H — O -H — 1 O
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o
2^ ?S o o o o
^ fN >0 ?J O O
^ o o o en fs
S\ fS <^ OO 00 tN
S ?; o o o o
o
c c e e c c
^ fc^ W S4 (^ ^
D «J 0> « ID t>
CO CO CC W KJ Ct
o o o o o o
c-- f- r^ r- t-~ r-
m «J u o a) —
—i ro
6 6
•— ' CO
^ r^
o o
-2 5^
o o
g g
HH
o i>
C C
3 j
1 1
C- b
&n c/5
m u
"5 u
^^
i i
GO C/3
Z 2
S?
Os
O\
r~
o
o
o
o
r~ r^
r- vc
0 0
0 0
o o
o o
o\ ve
>/~l O
co oo'
VO TJ
00 C-
O O
o o
o o
r~ r-
0 0
0 O
0 0
Oi P-
0 0
o o
0 0
IO >O
o\ o\
en «
-H m
o 6
^5 r^
o o
a £
O O
> g
,,
tN r<
o o
c c
3 3
a. a.
V3 !/3
u w
tj 'l
^^
1 1
t/3 00
Z Z
^
•*
CN
O
d
tN tN
fl — <
m vo
— O
o o
tN v~i
tN m
tN r-~
tN •*
ro 10
tN tN
r- ts
tN VO
— o
o o
00 SO
f> SO
— • o
o o
so r-
m in
0 0
07/31/97
07/25-26/00
c c
^ ^
V
ro co
O O
fN tN
U U
.£ £
13 13
INSPC - Multi/Grav - 1
NSPC - Multi/Grav - 1
5?
v~)
d
v~t
i
o
d
-H O O
tN ^- 00
— o o
o o o
O O 0
tN OS O
f> n so >/•>
tN fN tN
= S2
0 O O
o o o
— Tj- OO
— O 0
o o o
O O 0
•* «T SO
—| O O
o o o
o o o
v>
Tf Os
o$S
r\ » i
"S fN f>
fe in ^
O m
o
sec
^ ^ ^
U U O
C3 CO C3
a a o
"^
CO -— fc.
&0 /w" ^fi
*Zz cs nj
^ ^25 ^5
^ CN r^
111
'•?"
' 00 C/5
fe w w
w b b
>>a Q
0 a «
1 U
S3 T3 T3
-------
2 ^
oo o j£
>,»^
£ (J
S w v! <
2 S<3 g H
•cr1 H &
m 03 fe
o z
r i m
u 2
t/2
•4— >
C/5 ^? i '
o s «
U
"3
•4— >
*&
U
o
o
tu
1
fll
sL^
^_>
1
£
0
*
0>
o
03
P-.
ao
e
. S3
-4~>
CJ
t-
1
r^
0)
1
t— *
S
"S
s
& '
9.
<
b
f-
&
§
E-
<
0
•<
p.
^*H »— 4 t • •-* t — ' "-s «s ^ J-* tj ^ w qj v^^
eg
•*•>
C
e -o
„ £ ^
1st ^
5 S §• 3
< 0 5 JJ
"°S 6
cc
J
&0
w
||a ?
S C3 O
>•
X—
^ &
u p;
c ^. s""*
j 4> v?*> b
S o s*-/ C
J b S i
i a I £
s * &
ro T n &$ \O &c
(A V* f& &^
O O O _ O
o m g >o 2J
^ n « 8-1 g
O CS ^o ^o G3 ^ "^-v fl-\
U.
3
3 0
J 1
cc S
S e
•£ 5
to •*
U o
21
rS
*O
3 £
I -S
ffl *rt
S _£
(j^j ffl
o 1
s «
"O ?n
£ S
O»<
^
fcH O2
a t2 co
| 8 &
2 ^ w
°S;,o £ g o ; > a
— i co v> ^ vf ^5
«^ &^ &% 6^
S I I
TO
•2 t "2
co 5 a
o g to
£ 53 g
""> a S
« -S 1
•*• 05 0
| V m ri -^
S S g SJ g a
^, O ^- v> . m
S tN S «N 22 — "
s g ~ s * s
2 oo' 2 V £Q CM"
5^ <^ f/$ ^ &$ <>*>
g 0 g 0 g -^
S 8 ?. § *. S
S ON" 2 *>" ^ oo"
PI 5s *. s P s
z; oo" S -o X3 <^"
S «* S «* S ^
*2 »j co
s a c to
05 O 1) O
c° u S U
U C to —
a % o « 2
a -2 1 '§ c U
u 3 u ^ = 3
:: s o « s -o
c "S « a -s «
w e .fe "« N
i«e IH l
s g 2 ^2 c
a- -~ o ? o e
W Q H £ H <
.£ -s tJ 8 .
5 i !|i
ca O 60 US -t*
S Jl £? cZ t>
I 1 ^ °£
I £ <§ 8 |
CiO as ^^ e~Z ^~*
«> <* Z R £ 53
= 5 w H ° ^
u. ro .£ ^— ' +•* t3
«§ sf & §1
O ^ S < *I rxi
j •— ' o r^ /£ vj
^ e * > 'S >
C ° -0 co t! ^
f-< -Ti _OJ U ID oj
z g "5 « >- a
1 1 8 -8 § &
~ « s -s g «s
>> -7 h ^ 50 03
"° ^ ^ s " «
•o >^ ? R o, o
(L) ^2 UJ ° Jy O
3 TS to .* *- a
g -S S | 1 .2
s. 'i a | ss
S o W I> O- S
S r*~ u y: co
8 §5 S a ^ w .«
r- ^ 0 O K >~ —
§5 SU c£S
"S " o 2 '§ • «
co ~ ±1 3 s 03 J3
•« 5/11 »ta
0 •< CB ". ON ^ g
li LJ ^ BC — & o
co fc T: a . a -°
co 2^ S: in i- T3
*- 9 en ^3 ea ra ^5
§1 I i §-| I
~5g*w-55§^
~°°^2«"&
&I1SII&1
gl|l8li2
iri^i!>i
I^IJJiSsI
2 e2^w'-)tiH<
, — i § i — , , — , » i — i , — ,.
CH l^ O r ^ n •!-« -^ r '
U
-------
o
U
C
O
C-
U
1-
o
o
E
J3
o
O
cS
T3
r--
I
H
U
x
§
t
CO
S
.£
g
tx
83
1
5
u.
u
O
i,
S
«
Qj
1
1
BA
; Kiln Fumaces
J—
p
5
X
P
£
C
1
5
cfl
•* O
« 55 u] 2
^~ ^ ^ CO
«! w
(N "^ ft. £
™ PJ
"^
«
— CO 0" —
~ 55 cu ^
G >/^ ^ ^r
«! w
CQ on
2 J2 c
t/5 ^
^1 w
J " > "5
E ™ C
<
- •£ W >
-O S u
« CO C
"Bfc ^ £?
•~ "S § ">
^o 3 S
£ CO C
8
"^ ^
z> *
~
S
MINNTAC/4
VS
newVS
C! °- S
'S- j>,fc
tij Q u
ill
§• £>*•
ffi Q w
NCJO. 2
"w •* W 1
2 « ?•% Cu
1211
2 « ^v Q
P 55 o u
ft. =>
"ia ^ W5 *
g j^ u £
2 n ?->a.
P 55 Q u
JjJ|
5^
<--.
^
CO,
so
of
6ft
ipment Cost
g-
FT!
S
[j-
f^~l
S
p-T
oo
6ft
^
—
o"
>n
oo"
6ft
oc
0
Cs
so"
P^
•n
T}-"
6ft
1
so
ON"
v>
OV
<->"
.^
r^
v>
r~
*n
00*
o.
(sj*
v>
S
o
£
*3-
W5
r-^
oo"
OO
o
(N
r^i
^T
V)
oo"
vO
O
t-_
o"
r^
fN
«
fSJ
r\
CN"
o
o
so"
so
JN"
6ft
-
ON_
OO
m
m
m"
6ft
$4,365,687 i
C*1
^
f*^
vo"
5,713,691
V*
TT
O
oo"
vo"
n
SO,
r*-
oo
ON
oC
OO,
6ft
cn
so"
O
6ft
OO
o"
ON
r^>
00
o
oo
6ft
OO
so
o,
so
6ft
-a-
o
m
fs"
v>
2,380,031
t^
m"
CN*
Os
CN"
o
<*i
v>
-
^3"
SO*
O
OO.,
tft
li
"e *S
*
—
i
0
ON"
r-
t>
*n"
o
P-"
6ft
OO
r^
OO
oo.
P-"
6ft
SO
so"
p-^
fcft
0
>n
o"
m
-^-
6ft
Csl
o"
—
f-T
6ft
OO
„
so"
0,
r^
6ft
S
ON_
P--
OO
so
6ft
$5,016,756
^
OO
ON*
(N
O
ON"
r-j
(N
fi
ON
oo*
6ft
(N
SO
T"
m
oo"
6ft
o"
OO,
P-*
6ft
-
p»-
»n
6ft
Is *-
^] '& U
3 5I
5 a i
o c
p-
so
P-*
r-
^
(N
P-
oo
P-"
so
Tt^
6ft
^.
SO_
•^-"
in
6ft
C^
so"
P-
OO
o
p-
o"
(N_
feft
m
o
oo"
so
6ft
-------
O
O
o
en
O
U
"3
•85
ss are from the test results conduc
rates were multiplied by a 20*
ea
VI
P
r^
ON
O
S ^
oo"
O i_
i^J en
System Pressure Drop, inches H!
System Operating Hours per ye
o o
'il
tc c.
8 "3
c.
."2 o.
=§2
*t3 U
C >
nines fan-motor efficiency of 65%
Assumed that old wet scrubbers 1
f
o ~
V)
0 -0
o 2
o o"
O p^
(ft
o
vrt ON
^ ^
°s
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWh)
Electricity Cost ($/yr)
|
™ 5
1 |
Assume no net increase in v
There is no utility cost
° %
e~> O
" VI
o g
0 =
o g
=> g
S
Water
Water Consumption (gallons/ye
Water Cost ($/yr)
ri
'vt
_C
"_5
c
since they draw water fro
£
in
v>
00
!£
I
"'
v>
1
S
1
f*1
*^
§
^o
S
i.
OTAL UTILITIES COST ($/•
S-
OPERATING LABOR
e
ON
ON
CO
_J
. CO
1|
•— ^
2 2
e c
Assumed no net increase ii
chine operators, assemblers, and ii
S
NO
° I ^
^O
° ^r &$
"
*>
Q • o
" ^r V5
S
0 "T g
"
<= I s
t/^
o 2 g
w
CO
Operator Labor
Operator Labor Hours (hours/yf
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour
Operator Labor Cost ($/year)
-
1
.i
S
Assumed no net increase in
g
o
o
o
g
g
Supervisory Labor
Supervisory Costs ($/year)
~
-------
C
o
O
O
D
(U
^
<
C/3
O
U
13
3
(U
1
o
00
*C
•*«*
§
CD
es
PH
GO
*
1
OO
H
U
x
I
Cu
O,
..
u
f-
0
•y
f-~
•e _ 1
1 S «
52"
^"
5-
f
c
£
i a
: 2
3
«
1
H
r
~
Unit Parameters
|| C. MAINTENANCE |
U °*
1 ~-
V -J
g ca
1*
S =
f°
C .u
S §•
S a:
1 S1
S •§
O B
ll
C ;_
I 1
S g
0 a," g
<= 2 g
1. Labor
Maintenance Labor Hours (hours/year)
Maintenance Labor Rate ($/hour)
Maintenance Labor Cost ($/year)
1
I t
w S
S, &
3 1
u J5
g .3
g -a
^ 1
3 a
S |
'"o Jj
NP C
o "S
o S
w "ra
1 3
< -g
U
g g g
g g g
00 g
o o o
g g g
g g g
2. Materials
CALCULATED TOTAL
OPERATING LABOR
AND MAINTENANCE COST
($/YR)
TOTAL OPERATING LABOR
AND MAINTENANCE COST
J
0
c
.£
—
i_" C
w '35
" Si
^3 •£
'5
£ ~
§
S
1
o
o
g
o
g
o
o
o
o
o
g
o
o
o
o
o
ID. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
(-
m
r-^
m
m
r*
00
uf
ve
"
VC
rf
S
$105,494
fn
0
S
o
OS
^
t-
•V
«M
W
1 TOTAL DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
($/YR)
|| II. INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
i
c
c
1
•o
re
_g
«
00
c
S
13
f
O
S?
o
VO
O
o
g
o
g
g
A. OVERHEAD COSTS
4
§
S
'5.
u
*c5
2
c
(N
O^
be
o
oo
CN
O
M
VO
•a-
CN
I
0>
r-"
O 0
1 ^
1 TOTAL INDIRECT ANNUAL
COSTS ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS f$/YR)
o
(N
U
-------
2
'S3
-§
_
1J-.
(U
O
U
OH
00
I
ao
I
1
U
Q-
d,
NOIES:
£
"a
^ a
s
Z
"S
« rv
a
c
™
c
"c
w —
a
d
h C
> *.
Cr
: j
-- ^
2 4
j j
Z a
sd o
a *
j j
|«
M ^
^ 5
J .:
([FACILITY
II I. INK/STACK
S3
ti Test Data. Added a 20% ov
sizing factor.
p
u.
SO
f^
-O
CN
so
Os"
SO
i
m"
"""
SO
OO
on"
Os
SO
(S
SO.
r-"
o^
oo" ^o"
^
§ §
<~\ OP
oo g;
<*1
§ §
l^ so
O 0
SO O
r-; oo
oo" ^
is S
1 System Operating Hours per ye;
ESP DESIGN PARAMETERS
Current Collection Plate Area (1
Increased size by 50%
o o
•<*• OO
K S;
o o
o o
•Q- cc
§§
QC \£}
(N ^~
V) OO
00
££
00 <*1
O tN
II
^ ON"
0 0
O CD
TT 00.
O O
I
?3
New Collection Plate Area (fi2
Increase in Collection Plate Are
"o ^ Z
tion 4. 1 0-2 of controls handbo
lines fan-motor efficiency of 6'.
nd fluid specific gravity of 1 .0
'9 industrial energy cost for M
from U.S. Dept of Energy
5 ^ (3 —s
$< ~
O^ *r oo
oC o F-"
o t^
Of (N
ri ^
ro 'O oo
oo "S- (N
—
^\ \o >o
<-l TT «0
sO O d
— o of
°°, ^
oo ^o oo
m Tt f^
•^ O Os
fT o oo"
r- o*
sO O
r^T «*
!^.
A. UTILITIES
1. Electricity
Fan Power Requirement (kWh/;
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWli)
Fan Electricity Cost ($/yr)
s
tion 4 10-4 of controls handbo
ncludes compressed air costs.
« —
si
O
Os*
oo
oo
oc"
OS
1
ff
o
oo
oc
^
i
s
%
00
o
5
oo"
en
Os
Os
p,
o"
f s
•g "
s i-
(Power Requirement for TR set
driven or eleclromagnetic raf
Z
•9 induslrial energy cost for M
from U.S. Dept of Energy
u>
C7S
\D f*>
• ^n"
TJ- so
o —
o' o
rsi
•«T SO
0 p,
C5 oo"
£^
Q
[5
15
(kWh/yr)
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWh)
TR Set and Rapper System El<
($/yr)
Assumed no increase
Z
Z
z
z
z
z
z
z
^
8
12. Water
Water Consumption (gallons/y
V5
•o w
iurned to be zero since capture
rial is recycled back into proct
v>
90 O so
— so
oo, ^;
f^f —
SO
I/)
1^ O SO
f*5 SO
Os
I/I
fl O SO
O so.
OJ, ^
Os ~
V) O so
S0 so
^*. tf
*n
^ °S
r-
? °sS
*- 2
tfi
SO
2"
1
t- *~.
0 I
TOTAL UTILITI ESCi
B. OPERATING LABOR
1. Operator Labor
Operator Labor Hours (hours/;
Operator Labor Rate ($/Jiour)
c
V
c
c
c
5
5
c
V!
s
c
CN
U
-------
O
U
O
o
o
-+->
O
U
13
3
CH
00
W
o
o
«
t.
2
-O
H
U
o
: ve
^ 4
_t
~
C
1 —
C
' <
d "
• <
d "
? i
J a
J _!
i S
j .-
- •
j .
j
<
«
s
g
o
c
T3
P
1
O
O
g
o
o
g
o
o
tft
12. Supervisory Labor
Supervisory Costs ($/year)
6
S
g
o
c
T3
P
i
O
0
g
O
o
g
o
g
13. ESP Coordinator Labor
ESP Coordinator Costs ($/year)
o
o
g
g
o
g
o
g
1!
(J w
OS ~
ITOTAL OPERATING LABO
C. MAINTENANCE
u a>
w w
S S
O O
O O
c c
"8 "8
i 3
O O O
O O O
V* (f) V)
O O O
o o o
0 O O
Vi W V>
o o o
gg g
o o o
«« W V)
1. Labor
Labor Cost ($)
Maintenance Labor Cost ($/year)
2. Materials
6
S
g
o
p
"S
i
o <
6^ ^
e <
2
** Z
o <
99 Z
o <
Z
e <
Z
o <
** Z
** Z
bs
8S
bi ^
TOTAL MAINTENANC
D. WASTEWATER TREAT.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
$289,666
00
c?
in
$562,818
r-
m
Ov
i
in
f—
Tf
in
ift
•t
rj1
t-
TT
tfi
I
r-^
in
COSTS
($/YR)
||
TOTAL DIRECT ANNUAI
1
1 II. INDIRECT ANN. COSTS
1
R
ra
=* 1
Ci. c
° i
o
g
o
g
o
o
o
g
A. OVERHEAD COSTS
i
"
2
c.
§
eo
O
fS
O
00
Ov
CN"
"
$357,675
r—
VI
O
oo
S
oe
O
m
O
^r
*"
r~
oo
o
o\
|B. ADMIN. COSTS
•a
2
ex
S
«
0
o
""
o
o"
o
o.
s
oo"
C--
oo
ON
CS
0
ON
o"
OO
5
V^
oo
o
oo*
r-
oo
VI
1 C. INSURANCE COSTS
W
o
S
C-
s
5
0
o
^~
o
o
o.
c--
r-
oo"
r-
oo
ON
O
ON
o"
OO
V)
V")
oo
o
oo"
oo
VI
ON
D. PROPERTY TAXES
$362,411
S
00
$715,350
S
^
s
o\
fS
e
r~
r^
o
£
S
^H
OB
O
U
ITOTAL INDIRECT ANNUAL
$652,077
i
in"
Z
1
oo"
o
r-
m
$819,952
in
S
o\
oo
oo
c£
o
vf
oc
r-
?
00
1($A'R)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
fN
CN
U
-------
on
O
U
-.
o
u
-4—'
0)
o
^
Q
6
03
U
T3
n.
I
.€
5 P
<
me
ted
ted equ
Calcul
h C1 H s
S. g .
I si
"I s 1 §
u 5i £ <*
c "i-
.2 g
2 " Sr
°" 13
°* H
•S V] »-
« ,_ g S
— c
•5- MJ rT
•C ~
0-
.
rl •— <7
•e^ £ •$.
|||
1 -D
3 O S-
o — w
L_ ^~"
< E ,5,
Q .„
S R « S &
•9 .& S3 ,03 ^
B < ^
S 'S1
s'g
£ S
u
2 "P
5?
o a
U. ^^
c
_ 0
l-l
o y
O 83
.2 —
'§ ^
„
u
>-
I
E
^
0
NO
m
^_
r~
r-
ON
r-
m
ON
OO
oo"
—
69
O
n-"
fe^
\o
^_^
»
vO
VO
ON_
•o-
O
00
o
0
o
oo
ON"
CO
ON"
S2
O
e
0
2
H
00
^
c«">
ro
cs
NO
^J
vo
of
04
O
ON
NO,
oo"
~
&9
VO
O_
69
O
r-"
oo
o
Ol
o
o
oo
vo
vo"
ON
NO
O_
ro
S2
^ CO
{/)
fc« ^
Q o
c^
1
Q
V
6
o
0
o
o
ON
0
O
ON
0
o
o
69
O
o
o
m
vo"
VO
O
o
o
ON
vo"
-
^"
m
—
*
1
Q
1
Q
O
6
ro
^
t^
ON
OO
m
O
ON
1
69
ON
r-'
04
69
VO
oo'
V$
—
oo'
ON
_;
<
O
H
o
II
•a
g
CN
6
u
c_
"3
o
c-
a
T3
U
tu
J
I
u
CA1
I
I
-------
oo
1
D
<
-5
u
Cu
o.
^^
c
1 1 u
"^ S OJ
^ tZ] ^H
^- o ^
jll
's
w
x
Q) ^"
.s §
'w t5 ca
t» D 4>
n 5 £;
r- O c
< •- H
s ^
w
s"
c
u ^~.
S ^2-
(D
1J .^
Si
o g
1 ^.
-ti *^
x e
D- Cu
c
o
u
Element
0
o
o
o
o
o
r--"
Antimony, Sb
o
0
o
s
o
CN
CN
Arsenic, As
0
o
o
o
o
o
s
Beryllium, Be
OOOOCNOOO
O O O O f) O O O
oooooooo
f*^ •— H cl? <*^"> \O f^ CO CO
oooooooo
oooooooo
oo^^o'T — ^oo
o°°2o;°§<^vdvd
^"
35 o^2«^
i I" =• S 1" ! 5 1
11S5||1|
o o S
CN
o
OS
o
^
s
•-H
33
U
o
u.
cS
w
3
"c3
>•
c
. o
U pl
1 1
• M O
> ^*
ca ^
'S "S
C3 cS
q> i-
c S
p ^3
o
§ «
2 •£
H*™* Q^)
Q
ment compositions fc
ics obtained by avera]
u jg
E ra
(0 ^"
^t
CN
U
-------
S
B
.11
II
•& CO
!> U
'co
.s
W
•«
CS
« §
"I
u °
I s
^ co
•< «
rV „
"™ 03
, o
00
oo"
CS
JJ
u
O
•*.-
U
^^
u
V
S
CS
•s
H
oo
t Installation Cost (1C)2
1 Indirec
apital Investment (TCI)
U
C5
H
in Y2001 dollars
o
oo
cs"
«n
jpital Investment (TCI)4
U
"S
"5
in Y1999 dollars
S
O
U
I
1
"5,
CS
U
•a
ai
N
| Annual!
ON
00
O
1
c
_«
C
Tf
o
ON
\O
ON
ON
U
C
3
£
00
c
"s
3
co
cc
CO
ON
O
O
CS
o
*
=
CB
§ §
> o
o
o
u
I Ǥ I I
" y "5 S
^- (U t^ O
•i'li-S
^^8
P *
CO
~ e o
K O t)
e ^ O
CJ «4-l pj
a1^^
^ = 2
.H «= o
~ " o
£ ^5 en ^«>
§•§! s
x e 1 ^
"^ O "
^1
^I8|
'> -° s "2
2 u .2 73
°-ln M '>
-1^1
§u 1 s
- Q t: o
o * o u
"3 u a «>
S S 'Q H
CN
U
-------
03
s-
O
O
o
.£>
en
a
3
g
5
o
00
°C
1
s
CS
1
c
0.
i
t
i
«
*£
d
JS
>.
So ^
^ %
T3 . jj
«J 00 "5
•a e u
> 'S ta
P -52 e
0. X °
G. o o
<^> T3 T3
•o c « •
c CO ,« n
ra £ p IS
» So -
— _ « "o
D C _ u
1 i-i
G * S 2
111^
a c a
•^ **^ >-^
^ S4-J ^>
83 -n
"B ^ ^
•a o 3
•5 J5 >
1^ (— i O
P M C
r*i
a, °-
~ Q
S o^'
^
^3
^
S S o o
3 s- £ s
S 0 "> oo
&^ rn
Capital Cost
Emission Stream Flow Rate (acfrn)
System Pressure Drop, inches H20
System Operating Hours per year
%
CS
CQ
£
0
c
o
^
a.
s
I. DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
A. Utilities
1. Increase in Electricity Consur
1 Line Control
0 ^
-' 00
<~ IB
^ 3
>> w
'S *s
2 -
o §
CJ c
ir-i r"
H— t "^
'S w-
/•> >7
vo C
'•-i 2
0 1-
&-.§
1 1
a "
S >^
U 00
u S
>? Q^
2 c
0 «
S -3
G '£
cS ">
^~ 9
Vi T3
sl
ION
cj ON
^2
S ON
Os vc >n
~« rf O\
ON o ,-T
i/^ • Cj
S°s
^^
^
o
o
£t
(equation 4.11-2 of controls hand
Fan Power Requirement (kWh/yr)
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWh)
Electricity Cost ($/yr)
%
o
3
>.
J2
1
|
£
O
o
o
o"
^
°*2,
cxT
r~
/^s
12. Water
Water Consumption (gallons/year
~
fe
2z
5
£
u
£Z
i
I
o
>,
3
O
C/3
O
^H
J=
— '
o
&^
5
^
+-»
%
U
.2
CS
£
C
X
S
A
c/5
00
c
s
1
5
u
S
'S
2
•a
>-.
CJ
x:
*^
u
£J
c
CA
O
««
*i.
o
96
K
2>
Si
TOTAL UTILITIES COST ($/Y
B. OPERATING LABOR
00
c
'•i oj
.« ON
X ON
U «
S 3"
1 *
ca ^
c/; /-<
« S
•^ .
— ~a>
* 2
W5 'o
11
S-S
o -o
g §
6$
-1
o c
•§ 8
^ =«
M "I
C of
'•S fe
« S
fe 2
& a.
*- 0
2 D
•£ c
"Si
II
CO E
CO
<
VO
^D
0 ^ g
^
^"^
1. Operator Labor
Operator Labor Hours (hours/yeai
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)
Operator Labor Cost ($/year)
4>
JS
'I
co
£
'S
1
cS
I*
o
fi
_CS
1S>
iuperviso
VJ
-*-J
TO
^2
'O
u
S
3
CA
CO
<
o
^f^
12. Supervisory Labor
Supervisory Costs ($/year)
controls.
existing
IX
CO
o
G
CO
w
^C
c\
0
-------
en
cu
"S
z
m
~
del Parameters
MAINTENANCE
e
S :• O
£ S U
X- ^"
C CO t-4
Id -§
> K 0 J3
u ~° 2 u
e is g S
tH C tH £
-^J O QN ^N ^-.
8 D ^ " ~
S -b •£
f2 0 *o
•° o S?
J D §
"3
"3
O
o 55 f- « •»
8 i | s i S S g | S
^ S1
60 MJ
O "^ H
K H M S --^
«^ 1 Se 2 8?1
ofepS^s ^5^
?o< ^8 8 1 » »
^g 1 1 iZ 9 I I 111
IIP ;a hii
WH^ s^wsszggze
S|H S|§l||l^l
J2^ JXWSgOJJJ
^«5 <:§>azBj<<<
HQ^ H&O^&ft-HHH
oz . o ooo
H •< O HK-
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix D
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
V)
"So
a
00
1
2
c
o
03
H
Q"
X
*3
5 o
o o
on on
Q E £
£ £ £
lit
- p p
u= •—
g
S C.
(0
•n »n
as
sJ
"e_ ^
ts
IS
I
on
LJ
b
O&M Costs
($/yr)
Annualized Capital
Costs
($/yr)
"5
llS
o
Adjusted Flow
Rate
(acfin) [al
-i
Ql
ll
Is
u.
Fow Rate
(acfin)
> Q
1
1
c
.0 „
ta
Process
S
ff
M
S
ON
O
ON
ON
oe,
I
.i I
OC
CN
O
0
NO,
CN
S
CN"
CN
o
NO
NO
o
d
o
ON
Tl-
ON"
ON
O
Ofi
H
1
£
in
o
s
CO
^
p.
CN\
0.0369 (b)
o
-
CN
ON"
O
CN
U
I
1
&
in
P-
oo,
in
CO
oo
o
o
p.
CN
0.0369 (b)
5
o
(N
O
O
p
o"
—
*
bo
to
1
JS
oo"
oo
oo
oo"
t-
p-
o
oo
0.0369 (b)
o
o
CN
«
*
fj
1
J2
oo"
oc
oo
oc"
p-
m
r-i
O
fS
oo
0.0369 (b)
o
cs
ON
o
(N
O
o"
«•
o
f
"55
X
O
£
in
0.01 73 (c)
m
S
oo
(N
O
§
CN"
o
CN
S
ce discharge
0.
Northshore
(Sil. Bay)
00
CN
oo"
I
CN
O
ON
O
O
O
oo"
r-
o
d
CN
ON
OO
O
p.
CN
*
ce discharge
Q_
00
NO
oo"
vj
ON"
O
ON
O
O
o
oo"
o
d
CN
ON
oo
CN
O
CN
CN
O
C£
naces discharge
to
a
0_
60
CN
NO
oo"
ON"
CN
O
ON
O
o
o
oo"
m
0.01 73 (c)
in
S
oo
(N
O
§
f>
en
(N
O
laces screening
c
"55
0.
.'-,"
(N r-1
NO NO
oo" oo"
>n "n
in in
(N (N
O O
ON ON
O 0
0 O
oc" ob*
0.0090
0.01 73 (c)
o m
O (N
in Os
•^- co
— cs
o o
0 O
rs" c-f
•sf m
(N (N
U 0
OC 0«
t conveying
Screen House
a. o-
-------
w »Q {--;
o
U 'E oo so !£ — — — — so. ______
, V> V* Vt V>
- - 00 00 00 __ -
O ON ON ON ^ ON ON ON ON O> ON ^ ON
ON^w^v^NnNrjoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo' oo oo oo oo' oo"
^~< —— *••• —— oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
. . . ON" NO" r^ m m~ r-T o" o' O* cT O* O* o' o" o" O* o" o" -^ -
(N (N
ON_ CJ,
oo" —*
(N N£>
SO so so so
OOO
__^-__tov,V)invim
.
-§
Da CQ oa CQ CQ CD CQ co
oooococ/^oooooooo
X X X X X X X
8000000000000000000000000
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
4> ^ 4
11
r
o
-------
I
OT
^_»
CO
O
U
.If
3
TD
C
O
0)
o
ex
a.
NOTES
H?
S 52
Annualized Ca|
Costs
($/yr)
3
Total Cap
Costs
($)
0 « S
<
C
S "
fc
Is
u.
Ii
I*
SS
1
'w3 '?
c« ^
UJ
Process
"c
c
a.
3
JS
oo
Os
in
so
P"*
i
O
en
Os
en
o
en
o
o
in
CN
OO
CN
O
o
oo
fN
en
o
CN
*
1$
Furnace feed I
1
O
sO
OO
a
a
VD
s
p~
a
(
*w5
0
en
fN
m
r^
fN
r-*
oo
en
oo
rr
O-
£
±
p-
CN
—
SO
O
en
Os
so
fN
"ra
0
•c
£
o
(N
~-
S = i
o °? [2
r'l ° O
ou ft! =-
% Z z
so
m
^
fN
fS
O
(N
5
o
fN
Tt
p-
o
O
en
en
0
en
o
o
0
s
CN
CN
CN
W3
1
Hearth layer sc
0.
c
1
X
oo
VO
«
OV
v> ^ *
v~l v~l
t~- t-
o t t
O 0
CN (N
0 ? 2
0 °T (2
°? s 2
J •§ 1
0
(N
o
w
OC
>n
S
s;
5
(N
u
o
o
o
oo
oo
C4
O
o
ig
o
rs
i>
O
0
o
oo
oo
£
£
0
§
cs
u
o
o
o
s
(N
O
^0
fN
0
o
oo
rs
o
o
o
o
s
0
—
i
««
o
oo
a
u
§
o
o
s
o
oo
s
D
o
o
0
«
N
O
o
(N
£
CQ
s
"So
c
Secondaiy crash
O
=v
<«
1^
§
o
o
s
tN
O
OS
R
m
S
C
¥
Secondary crush
8
«
«
0
_
o
<*>
o
oo
8
1>
o
O
0
8
rs
0
o
tN
3
CQ
s
c
¥
Secondary crash
8
s
«
TT
•O
5
Ov
OO
o
o
m
o
o
o
o
&
VO
o
VO
(N
s
CQ
5
c
^
Secondaiy crash
O
S
W5
TT
S£)
?
0V
OO
O
O
«
q>
O
O
o
Sv
vC
O
*c
fN
s
ffl
c
's
Secondaiy crash
O
en
Q
-------
o
U
O
O
3
*O
f-H
G
O
0)
1
Q
x
*3
I
C/5
U
t-
o
z
i2
g
° -S1
gij S—'
O
1
r
O _
_- ,J£ v-
5 M ^i
"S
3
•3
i.
•^ o ^
•« o "~
o
; ,—
- M
S s 3
*
i 1
S
"** 1?
tC
"tj
E "
u
^ ^c
£ "~"
59
•3
1
u
.1 -
a 'i
£
c
e
I
S
<
0-
m r*1 (N O >n W5 V? V^ «— ' "—
\o ^ ^- oo oc ^- i^-
*^ r~^ c^* *n ^ ^— —
^ tt */$ tt V5 «— —
s s
— * ^ ON *n fl CN O fN
^ ^ 0s! ON ON ^O ^
ON o^ f*"i t*^ >n oo oo
» OC OO NO V") CN CN
w t^ v> t& s& cs cs
— r _r
o o o o o
0 O Tt O —
^ ^" a" 2" ^" | S 1
1 ° o
1? -5- c- <=• I -1 1
^ ^ _ ^ p, s 5 S
2 £ 5 g §
o o o P o
o o o o
r~- r*- r*" fi o
NO^ NO OO n
m »n «n o r-
(S CN, Tj; O, — ^
^ «* 5*
g g 1 1 0
V3 W2 C/2
i x E K a:
u u o o o
O C 0 O O
o g P
r} - «
fl ^ft ^
C^ ^O ON
NO" r-" m"
O ON O
Z ** £
— (N rn
^T f^T fvj"
P^ — ^ OC;
V —" <2
§EI
2
1
C
o
.
•s -a CN — ^
~5 ° > > >
S E 00 c/5 00
||2S2gi|
2-— .£ .
bfi Bn
•5 .2 3 3 3 3 ~3
fe
cccnc-a-^'S>>S
OOOOocS-2=0
'K -ES '& '5 •§ °= ° B c -a
tnt/5««Scc:Pp~
'§ 'p '5 '5 -s « <= -5 fc 3
wiufiwa ^-ocSow
-------
V.
*~Z1 f. , O
•2 ^ .fa
n ° "S
f2 ^fc S
f—t ~H~ Q
u
M
C
-a
»• CO
J2 5
Q 5
£ g
O
U
c
o
c/2
0)
Q
00
.S
3f Monitor
ing Furnace
b
|
^r
f~*
"e3
.*-)
H
CN
fli L
'co
3
•o
C
^
1
H
Q
_><
"5
§
&
<
60
C
ffi
•o
c
CO
00
c
'J£
U
£
0
U
fl
o j
% a
cc
ff
cr
-1
o ^
* 1
00
c»
<*- O-i
O (/"
^t W
s
CO
oj
4t ax
CO
CO
CO
Ui
-of
% g
03
00
'S &H
o co
tt W
S3
g
<*- §
0 J
% ai
CO
ffl
§
tw ^
0 ^
% t.
o
oo
£>
'o
ca
TT
h*H
-*»/^' — lOO**' — ^^OcTN
tNrj-oocNr^if^ro
5
>
— . —
oo\ioocoor^o\^£ I
t*r\ ^^ f
Z, "^ "* ?
c
o o — ^ 5^ j;
CN r\
f^ 2 S 0
Si^llsll^
g"c>t=^2:2 £ o
s^r? s^^ffiw H
2 2 w 1
u
g~~
u
-C
•rt- " O
00 «« a
•*j 1>
•— -Q
§ .S
IB »•»
. w O
CO CO •"
is co 5
g ~ i
^ 03 g
-0 ° » 4J
«N -o •= -S 0
-=< .2 . e
,-j .±2 o Js
6 EL -o .5
g co 3 T;
a«S 1 I
S g « '£ s
^ S .£ fe S
. a 1 1 1 -2
0 g -s js § 6.
^ £2 •*-* ^ ^
0 '% = | j?
W ^ j .
T3 c: 0 -o o S
M 2 2 c o _§
Oi _r -d 1^ CB ^* «*^
Ji e "^ o ra t- il
^ •£ 13 43 S — ^
"o 2 g •§ S -o to
.S -5 00 S •% g M
O r^ O3 ^J C
O5 M *^ O B« •«
1*1*281
t; co o ~ s "o o
•^ f^ tvt ^~ «in
(g eo -2 ra -S u
60-^ fe c OB'S 0
•a S .S - -g S «§
i -3 E 1 1 - S
^ 03 S •— C S U
? " -S CO O -e ^v
.S « -S c c x Q
fe 5 S .2 £ = W
2 g « to o § <>)
c o •«• 2 *> fc: *5
1 .= ! i 1 3 -
- 0 « -S |*g g
•g < ^ ^3 g,_| -3
Ig< iJSl 2
S S & » ^ ^ &
< 5 § J? r° •§ S
^ « g < fe Z W
1 ' 55 ' ' ' 1
eo JS is> o 13
-------
t/3
O
U
"3
CD
XJ
WD
O
C0
(50
's
I
I
o
f§
*s
Q
.*
1
I
Notes
Model 1 provided by Ducon. Models 2 and 3 provided by Sly, Inc.
Rates provided by sly were 5, 4.5 and 5.5, respectively. Assume that 3
inches in the baseline, therefore used diference.
^ o
~ g wo
J - fvj
r o
18-
: o """
^ o
Model Parameters
Emission Stream Flow Rate (acfm)
System Pressure Drop, inches H20
S3
CO
CO
•o
CO
"O
CO
en
tj-
0)
u
CO
u
&
"8
tt)
en
P^ — "
o r-
so — <^
exT oo
0 0
SO — _
06" v~>
CO
&
CO —5
_c S
Ui CO
o"
o
Assumes fan-motor efficiency of 65% and fluid specific gravity of 1 .0
1999 industrial energy cost for MN from U.S. Department of Energy.
DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
UTILITIES
« <
0 ^
Increase in Electricity Consumpti
er Base Line Control
^nation 4.11-2 of controls handboo
- > 5
^N O *~*
ro
r~ \o
*. "*
S o
t^ <=
|i
Fan Power Requirement (kWh/yr)
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWh)
S
r-T
oo
00
oo
Electricity Cost ($/yr)
d
i> JA
?5 1
*O o i«
^^ O ^5
C ^*?
||
'53
0
Is
o"
o
o
o
n-~ o
O 6^
^s
TOTAL UTILITIES COST ($/YE
OPERATING LABOR
SO
Assumed that operating labor for new controls will be same as existing.
"Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors", MN, BLS,1999.
SO
SO
0 ^
SO
SO
0 r^
SO
SO
o ^r
Operator Labor
Operator Labor Hours (hours/year
Operator Labor Rate ($/hour)
-'
0
o
o
Operator Labor Cost ($/year)
Assumed that supervisory labor for new controls will be same as existing
controls.
o
o
o
Supervisory Labor
Supervisory Costs ($/year)
^
-------
GO
3.
J
^
4
g
ps
4
1
£
~
7
i
CO
j
1
9
•.
s
0-
"
t
i
. MAINTENANCE |
U
ou
C
w
X
o
CO
CO
O
CO
1>
.0
^.
p
CO
1
C
O
O
£ J2
s s
<2 §
6 8
O
^
8
C
CO
C
u
.s
°3
E
CO
•£
•o
o
£
3
CO
CO
<
O
O
CD
Labor
Maintenance Labor Hours (hours/year)
WH
ON
ON
ON
co" S
0 O
.** &
co 'C
s §.
v •% £
u 00
O r i U
•£> t.
J o «2
S -° T
^ ^1
s « «
S U 1
£ c »J
3 co ~
£M C e
U g
z .s S
*Z co 0
^ 2 i
2 o 5
U e *-
-Ja ^ .s
CO O eg
o. o «~
s — ' 2
ei « !Z
•^ D CB
^^ M ^j;
1 IS
•S ^ -o
0 <, Ol
CO •*•
•§ «8
,2 -g
"^ CJ
co Ji
'C *
« U
3
T3
C
»-^
m
£ o o o
ON ftft V5- 6ft
6ft
W">
^000
£j 6ft 6ft 6ft
6ft
"/I
£ 0 0 0
ON 6ft 6ft 6ft
6ft
Maintenance Labor Rate ($/hour)
Maintenance Labor Cost ($/year)
Materials
TOTAL OPERATING LABOR
AND MAINTENANCE COST ($/YR)
r4
o
^
o
C
(U
CO
_0>
'"^
*~^
if!
U CO
±S «J
S JD
^ 05
Qj k.r.
J.S CUU
CO C
*i
,, s
ly *"
JS
OS
£
O
S
o
Q
j"jj
0
o
6ft
0
O
6ft
e
0
d
6ft
. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
O
•*
\fi
t?
r.
n
i— <
6ft
fNl
00
fS]
^
f»5
6ft
OO
00
^•H
«N
«s
6ft
TOTAL DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
($/YR)
o
NO
o
6ft
o
6ft
o
Sft
. INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
. OVERHEAD COSTS
OVERHEAD COSTS
S <
EK
w
o
o
"S
'S,
S3
O
"co
2
C4^
o
vO
0^
fN
ON
n
tN-
rn"
*9
m
O
t~*-
6ft
fN
g
Vi
. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
CO
CO*
CO
0
O
"3
'S,
CO
0
CO
3
tt-l
o
0?
0
«ft
. INSURANCE COSTS
INSURANCE COSTS
U
CO
CO
O
CJ
73
•^-t
"S,
ra
o
"c3
4*-»
_o
C4-H
O
•s^O
^
•— 1
o
ra
vq,
v»
CN!
>o
oo
6ft
m
1O
6ft
. PROPERTY TAXES
PROPERTY TAXES
a
ON
r--
T
vo
6ft
r-
o
^-i»
ro"
6ft
TT
P<
f-f
6ft
'OTAL INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
($/YR)
r*
m
•HU f*^.
^T tr*
*"! "^
oT cs
—1 6ft
6ft
S a
^ s
2 <^
s <^
s »
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($/CFM)
Q
-------
03
o
u
"53
U
I
p-
ci
X
1
Basis
I Value 1
U
S
9i
99
i.
OS
S.
CQ
S
0
r~
o
o
s~*
i
i_
u
a
u
1
-4-*
CA
u>
U
^
J§
u
.^*
"3
w
u
T3
u
'S
"x
U
>o
(N
VI
to
^
V
.s
J
2
I
o,
"3
a*
W
"8
alculat
U
VC
OC
o
c
t
tt
L.
:_
c
£
>
1
1
K
^
£
K
TOTAL
8
!S
8
;q
o
CJ
^o
°-
t —
**
t
**
so
oo
.
vo
oo
5
OC
°.
O
SO
r<-)
S
S
-
ON
r-
ON
r~
"l
ro
Cv
r-
O\
t--
00
>o
r-
oo
ffi
-
2
2
°
CO
Wl
ss
!S
§
S
^Q
°°"
^i
^,
CN
r~
o
**
VI
oo
r-
CM
oo
_
_| 1
lli
-------
o
l_
o
o
CO
o
•£«§
5 P
§_
*T3 ON
>~i O^
-------
W
O
Z
S3
£t
«s
-o
S|-ie 2 § S £ 3 e -3 3 g £
CO >
<
in
O CO
r"- ° S
in —
-<
W
5;
sa
is .£
c «
3 M
a
t~- o S:
^ ^0 °°
^5" S u^'
P 0 2
o
VC
_ •* 0
0 0 &<}
o
vo
t= s; °
° o v*
o
0 S °
° O if)
o
^o
o S g
o
SO
o S g
o
o § g
o
so
o S g
o
O (S
^- § ^
i§5
in 4^
Fan Power Requirement (kWh/yr)
Electricity Unit Cost ($/kWh)
Electricitv Cost T$/vr)
u
01
^
1
r
t^
SO
f- so
5f0 s.
O\ &4 ">
1^
in "*
t^
SO
r-J" 00
£ o °°.
Ov S V>
_" IS
^ ^
,—,OO
0 V=> »9
,— 00
0 &e se
° g g
o g g
,-, O 0
0 60 ««
£-, O 0
0 *o a»
o g g
o g g
O
«s
g" 0 ^
ro ^ -;
S «
»s «»
£
so
o 5 o
SO
o 5 o
c •* v)
so
0 5 °
0 •* <*>
V*
SO
0 -* g
V*
SO
SO
o ^ g
so
0 * g
"~"
SO
SO
0 ^ g
vO
o ^ g
fe^
S « S
- 2 o
^ v> J5
t-
ca
y T -e
<* 3 C3
22^
0 S^ 6^
js -^ •—
^ u «
113
= 11
533
JOG
fe g 2
*3 W W
2 S- £
u 0 C
0
L.
O
^
a
>
I!H
e
GH
•?
01
E
J
r
cs
ro
"V
ffi
O
&<»
O
f&
0
&
o
fee
o
««
ro
(N
SO
a
t-
C3
W
^
^
K
cn
a
&
K
i
a
u
u
z
<
z
ff
z
•<
^
!-
u
«
"a
in "^ "">
0 1Q ro ro
fO c . OO OO
°. ^ oT oT
"~ *" S &i
in "° "^
ro ™ oo oo
o GS — r — r
~ *° S S
m
0 2J o o
0 os ^ ^
'
tn
0 S <=> <=
0
w
m
<=> S g g
C/5
»n
o x ° °
° CN ^^ &
^~"
m
° S g g
in
("^J
® =K g g
v»
f«^
- s £ P;
m ~ fN JN
°, 2 o o
— ^ (N
-------
O
U
V)
a
3
O
cS
•s
H
»\
Q
_><
•3
NOTES |
ts
Z
O
H
Z
w
e
J
A
X
^
HI
e
-J
U
^^
w
U
<
^y
z
^
pa
60
<
tJ,
VI
o
&
a
VI
U
«
VI
03
at
<
U
«
5o
P9
Ja!
a
50
<:
^f!
OS
C0
f-
V
VO
j:
ro
Z
|| Unit Parameters
£ 'c? ""o* *G- ^ ^ ^
C* p*
t- t~-
2 2
"*" TT°
O 0
& V*
0 O
C/D V)
O O
% %
o o
o o
o o
0 0
O\ 0 O
v? vf wf
(fl &
CALCULATED TOTAL
OPERATING LABOR AND
MAINTENANCE COST (S/YR)
FACILITY PROVIDED OPERATING
LABOR AND MAINTENANCE COST
($/YR)
TOTAL OPERATING LABOR AND
MAINTENANCE COST
||D. WASTEWATER TREATMENT
t—
S3
&
oR
o ,
<»
°. °
0 «»
o
o ^
o
=5 o
<£> C^
^
0
o
^ o
o ^
o
* o
o ^
0
® o
o ^
o
o «e
^ c?
^»- ™^
d *
w
1 WASTE WATER TREATMENT
TOTAL DIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
(S/YR)
|| II. INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
i § § § 1 |
<* &
co Tf -^r \o ^o
_ O O O — i -«
O o O O 0 O
6% 60 60 6» 6«
CO Tl- rf vo «
_ O O O — —
O o 0 O O 0
OO Tf Tj" ^O ^©
_ O 0 O -* —
O o O O O O
^ ^ _r j: ^" ^r
^ (^ f-, o\ ^
O - "^" ^ *• •>
<* § o o S S
s ** «* s? s
s £ g 9 3
o ^* ^~* *~~ ^"** ^^»
^ § ^" <*>" 2 2
2 ^ « g g
^ ^0 VO g g
o ^ ^ ^o "I *^
5 ^ ^ s s
^ £ 5 S S
S, 2f ° ° «" 80
&9 *"* »5 6«
§ | 5 2 ^ |
°" •*" pi" K ^ <&
£T, ^~ /^ v^. fj ^O
A. OVERHEAD COSTS
B. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
C. INSURANCE COSTS
D. PROPERTY TAXES
TOTAL INDIRECT ANNUAL COSTS
($/YR)
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($/YR)
Q
-------
?
o
O,
to
O
*3
i
Q'
x
i
0
&.
OH
<
e
o
OT
U
U<
T3
O
c/l
3
3
1
£
VI
o
ca
C
-o
!D
t)
1
W3
"3
w
J£
1
u
1
line 3 value provided by MINNTAC, 7/18/01. Ot
Minntac
CO
yy a 20% over-sizing factor.
provided by Sarrah Mattila, 08/20/01. For the remaining furnaces 24 hours of operation pei
—
co
le year is assumed.
fan-motor efficiency of 65% and fluid specific gr
!1
cP x
>-.
CO '
•O 0
'w'
1
u
2 >•>
•3 op
S b
ip in baseline (Section 1 14 response for National i
lustrial energy cost for MN from U.S. Dept. of En
*-" c
JJ O\
OH T5
C/3
CU
00
w
1
S
£
J3
§ e
w 'S
I-S
•* co
f .£
*55 ITS
=5 CC
>. "^
•^ £
c o
gcfc
ntly controlled by wet scrubbers or ESPs assumed no net increase in operating labor
ID
O
no net increase in water consumption for units cu
no utility cost for the water, since they draw watei
:iclones assumed 2 hrs per 8 hour shift. For units
Assume :
There is i
1 1
fl> V- 1
"3
2
S
u.
t
19
rently controlled by wet scrubbers or ESPs assumed no net increase in supervisory labor.
^ 1 hH
2 §
Cfl .§
e operators, assemblers, and inspectors", MN, BL
clones assumed 15% of Operating Labor. Forun
C '*2
15 "3
S S
2 S
- HH
JS .«
hour shift. For units currently controlled by wet scrubbers or ESPs assumed no net increase
oo
S3
ex
currently controlled by multiclones assumed 1 hr
For units
.J^
o
CO
o
C
maintena:
_c
al Machinery Repairers", MN, BLS, 1999
100% of Maintenance Labor Cost
"Industri
Assumes
* |
:ed Total Maintenance and Labor for comparison
- Calculat
S
ic value used in the analysis
eat the wastewater, it is sent to the tailings basin.
.53 £3
IS o
H Q
c o
lie operating labor and maintenance.
:al capital costs.
*" O
o £
so O
VO tN
i i
a cr
03 tg
CO C/3
8 8
cO 05
'S. 'o,
CO C8
U 0
"co "«
1 3
O O
^ S5
i 1
-------
Appendix E
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
Appendix E, Table 1: Increased Electricity and Waste Water Usage
Plant
EVTAC
(Fairlane Plant)
Northshore (Sil. Bay)
Northshore (Babbitt)
SVID
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
28
Size of
Rotoclone
33
33
30
30
30
28
28
24
30
EVTAC Total
120
121
122
123
124
125
255
265
None
None
None
None
None
32
*•» ^i
jj
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
Increased
Electricity
Usaae (Kwhr/yr)
66,339
66,484
54,666
54,860
57,080
86,768
86,768
73,117
57,080
603,160
91,328
91,328
91,328
91,328
91,328
91,328
71,350
91,328
171,240
42,810
42,810
42,810
42,810
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
83,908
87,815
87.815
Increased
Electricity
Cost ($/yr)
$3,052
$3,058
$2,515
$2,524
$2,626
$3,991
$3,991
$3,363
$2,626
$27,745
$4,201
$4,201
$4,201
$4,201
$4,201
$4,201
$3,282
$4,201
$7,877
$1,969
$1,969
$1,969
$1,969
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$3,860
$4,039
$4.039
Increased
Waste Water
Usage Ceal/vr)
43,847,779
43,944,279
36,119,713
36,248,380
37,720,480
57,410,008
57,410,008
48,373,847
28,259,680
389,334,174
60,361,400
60,361,400
60,361,400
60,361,400
60,361,400
60,361,400
47,116,280
60,361,400
113,529,600
28,382,400
28,382,400
28,382,400
28,382,400
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
55,629,504
58,219,871
58.219.871
E-l
-------
Appendix E, Table 1: Increased Electricity and Waste Water Usage (Cont.)
Plant
National
Hibbing
Minntac
SVID
46
47
49
50
51
52
53
260
Size of
Rotoclone
48
Northshore Total
27
28
32
3
National Total
222
223
Hibbing Total
31
32
33
34
62
55
56
57
58
59
64
65
66
67
68
85
85
Minntac Total
Nonlndurating Tola
Indurating Total (from Appendix D Table 5
Grand Total
Increased
Electricity
Usaae (Kwhr/yr)
87,815
87,815
87,815
87,815
87,815
87,815
87,815
93,611
2,943,969
0
0
94,785
46,775
141,560
0
0
0
64,217
64,215
64,215
64,215
56,966
61,076
59,649
59,649
60,790
59,649
74,918
74,918
74,918
74,918
69,780
60,886
50,135
1,095,113
4,783,803
10,514,847
15,298^649
Increased
Electricity
Cost ($/yr)
$4,039
$4,039
$4,039
$4,039
$4,039
$4,039
$4,039
$4,306
$135,423
0
0
$4,360
$2,152
$6,512
0
0
0
$2,954
$2,954
$2,954
$2,954
$2,620
$2,809
$2,744
$2,744
$2,796
$2,744
$3,446
$3,446
$3,446
$3,446
$3,210
$2,801
$2,306
50,375
$220,055
$483,683
$703,738
Increased
Waste Water
Usaae (gal/vr)
58,219,871
58,219,871
58,219,871
58,219,871
58,219,871
58,219,871
58,219,871
61,875,128
1,950,113,295
0
0
47,130,725
23,258,431
70,389,155
0
0
0
12,615,288
12,614,400
12,614,400
12,614,400
7,808,314
15,789,024
14,842,944
14,842,944
15,599,808
14,842,944
15,505,200
14,979,600
14,979,600
14,979,600
12,099,312
315,360
0
207,043,138
2,616,879,762
5,809,307,535
8,426,187,297
E-2
-------
Appendix E, Table 2: Approximate Baseline Water Usage for Wet Scrubbers
Affected
Source
OCH
Indurating
Furnaces
PH
Ore Dryers
(A)
Number of
Wet
Scrubbers
160
23
71
3
(B)
Approximate
Wet Scrubber
Water Usage
(gpm)
45
3,000
45
1,000
(C)
Minutes
Per Hour
60
60
60
60
(D)
Assumed
Operation Hours
Per Year
8760
8760
8760
8760
Total
(E)
Approximate
Total Water
Usage (Billion
Gallons)
(AxBxCxD=E)
3.8
362.7
1.7
1.6
369.8
E-3
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
\. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-02-015
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Taconite Iron Ore Processing Plants - Background
Information for Proposed Standards
5. REPORT DATE
December 2002
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Chris Sarsony (Alpha-Gamma Technologies, Inc) and Conrad K.
Chin
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ESP Work Assignment Manager: Conrad K. Chin, C439-02, 919-541-1512
16. ABSTRACT
This background information document (BID) provides information relevant to the proposal of national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for limiting hazardous air pollutants (HAP)
emissions from taconite iron ore processing plants. The standards are being developed according to section
112(d) of Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Taconite Iron Ore Production
Ore Crushing and Handling
Pellet Handling
Indurating Furnaces
Metallic HAP Emissions
Air Pollution control
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12tn Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
------- |