&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-002A
March 1980
Air
Non-Metallic Mineral
Processing Plants -
Background
Information
for Proposed
Emission Standards
Draft
EIS
-------
-------
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
Background Information
for Proposed Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
March 1980
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report techni-
cal data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available -
in limited quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711;
or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
Background Information
and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
for
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants
Type of Action:
Administrative
Prepared by:
Don R. Goodwin
Director, Emission Standards and Engineering
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Approved by:
Division
David G. Hawkins
Assistant Administrator for Air,
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Draft Statement Submitted to EPAls
Office of Federal Activities for Review on
Noise and Radiation
This document may be reviewed at:
Central Docket
Room 2903B, Waterside Mall
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Additional copies may be obtained at:
Environmental Protection Agency Library (MD-35)
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, Virginia 22161
i i i
\Date)
~
( Da te )
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LI ST OF TABLES
. . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . " " " " " " "
" " " " "
Page
. vii
" " " "
" " " " " " " " " "
" " " "
" " " " " " "
. .. i x
CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY
" " " "
" " " "
" " " " " " " "
" " " "
" " " "
. 1-1'
1.1 PROPOSED STANDARDS. . . . .
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
..........
" " " "
. .. 1-1
. " " "
" " " " " " " " " " "
" " " " " " 1-2
1.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT
" " " " " "
" " " " " " "
" " " "
" " " "
.. 1-5
.. 1-6
1.4 INFLATION IMPACT. . . .
CHAPTER 2. INTRODUCTION. . . .
" " " " " "
" " " " " "
" " " " "
" "~,, " " "
" " " "
" " " " " "
. . . 2-1
'2.2 SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES.
" " " " " "
. . . . 2-1
.. 2-6
2.1 AUTHORITY -FOR THE STANDARDS
" " " " "
.........
2.3 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. . . . . 2-8
2.4 CONSIDERATION OF COSTS. . . . . . . . . .
2.5 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. .
.......
. .. 2- 11
" " " "
. . . . . . 2-12
. .. 2-14
2.6 IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES. . . . .
" " " " "
" " " " "
2.7 REVISION pF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE. . .
CHAPTER 3. THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY. .
.......
. .. 2-15
" " " " " "
. . .. 3- 1
3.1 GENERAL
" " " " " " " " " "
.......
" " " "
" " " " "" 3- 1
3.2 NON-METALLIC MINERALS PREPARATION PROCESSES AND THEIR EMISSIONS 3-12
3.3 REFERENCES. . . . . . . . .'. . .
" " " " " " "
" " " "
. . . 3- 53
. . 4-1
CHAPTER 4. EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES. . .
......
" " " " "
4.1 CONTROL OF PLANT PROCESS OPERATIONS. .
" " " " "
,
" " " "
. . . 4- 1
. 4-29
4.2 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL METHODS
" " " "
4.3 PERFORMANCE OF PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL T[CHNIQUES . . .. 4-32
4.4 REFERENCES. . . . . . . .
...............
. .. 4-46
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
CHAPTER 5. MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.1 APPLICABILITY TO NON-METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING PLANTS. . . 5-1
CHAPTER 6. EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . 6-1
.. 7-1
CHAPTER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. . . . .
.
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
7.1 AIR POLLUTION IMPACT. . .
7.2 WATER POLLUTION IMPACT
..........
. . . . .
. .. 7-1
. .. 7-18
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
7.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACT
7.4 ENERGY IMPACT
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. .. 7-18
.. 7-19
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .,.
7.5 NOISE IMPACT
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. 7-23
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
.. 7-25
. 8-1
7.6 REFERENCES. . . . .
CHAPTER 8. ECONOMIC IMPACT
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
8.0 SUMMARY
. . . . . . . .
. . . . .
...........
. . . 8-1
8.1 UNITED STATES NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY STRUCTURE. . . . 8-4
8.2 COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS. . . . . 8-55
8.3 OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS.
8.4 ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . 8-89
. . 8-93
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
8.5 POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INFLATIONARY IMPACTS. .
. . . .
. 8-122
APPENDIX A. EVOLUTION OF THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
. . . . .
. . . .
. . A-1
APPENDIX B. INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS.
. . . . .. B- 1
APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
APPENDIX D. EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
. . . .
.. D-1
D.1 EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. D-1
D.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
D.3 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS. . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
.. D-2
. D-2
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .,.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SUPPLEMENT A. ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PORTABLE PLANTS. . . . . .
A.O INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY. . .
A.l INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
. . . . . .
-.........
A.2 COST ANALYSIS. . . .
A.3 ECONOMIC IMPACTS
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
........
Page
1
1
3
8
30
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 3-1 FLOWSHEET OF A TYPICAL CRUSHING PLANT. . . . . . . . . .. 3-14
Figure 3-2 GENERAL SCHEMATIC FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING.. 3-18
Figure 3-3 DOUBLE-TOGGLE JAW CRUSHER. .
Figure 3-4 SINGLE-TOGGLE JAW CRUSHER. .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .. 3-26
. 3- 26
. . . .
..........
Figure 3-5 THE PIVOTED SPINDLE GYRATORY
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 3-29
Figure 3-6 CONE CRUSHER. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . .. 3-29
. .. 3- 31
Figure 3-7 DOUBLE-ROLL CRUSHER.
Figure 3-8 SINGLE ROLL CRUSHER.
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. 3- 31
Figure 3-9 HAMMERMILL . .
Figure 3-10 IMPACT CRUSHER
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .. 3- 33
. . .. 3- 33
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3-12 VIBRATING SCREEN. .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . . 3- 37
. 3-37
Figure 3-11 VIBRATING GRIZZLY.
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
Figure 3-14 BUCKET ELEVATOR TYPES. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. .. 3- 40
. 3-42
Figure 3-13 CONVEYOR BELT TRANSFER POINT
. . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
Figure 3-15 ROLLER MILL.
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 3-47
Figure 3-16 BALL MILL.
..............
......
. . .. 3- 49
Figure 3-17 FLUID-ENERGY MILL
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .. 3-49
Figure 4-1 WET DUST SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .. 4- 7
Figure 4-2 DUST SUPPRESSION APPLICATION AT CRUSHER DISCHARGE. . . . . 4-9
Figure 4-3 HOOD CONFIGURATION USED TO CONTROL A CONE CRUSHER. . . .. 4-14
Figure 4-4 HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR VIBRATING SCREEN. . . . . . . . . . 4-15
Figure 4-5 HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR CONVEYOR TRANSFER, LESS THAN
0.91 METER (3-FOOT) FALL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-17
Figure 4-6 HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR A CHUTE TO BELT OR CONVEYOR TRANSFER,
GREATER THAN 0.01 METERS (3-FOOT) FALL. . . . . . . . . . 4-18
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 4-7
Figure 4-8
EXHAUST CONFIGURATION AT BIN OR HOPPER.
BAG FILLING VENT SYSTEM. .
.......
Page
. . 4-19
..............
. 4-20
Figure 4-9
TYPICAL BAGHOUSE OPERATION.
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . 4-23
Figure 4-10 BAGHOUSE CLEANING METHODS. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 4-25
Figure 4-11 MECHANICAL, CENTRIFUGAL SCRUBBER. . .
Figure 4-12 TYPICAL COMBINATION DUST CONTROL SYSTEMS.
. . . . . . .
. . . . 4-28
. 4-30
. . . . . .
Figure 4-13 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM NON-METALLIC MINERALS
PROCESSING OPERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. 4-35
Figure 4-14 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM BEST
CONTROLLED FUGITIVE PRIMARY CRUSHING SOURCES (PORTABLE-
FACILITY T) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO
EPA METHOD 9) ...................... 4-47
Figure 4-15 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM BEST
CONTROLLED FUGITIVE SECONDARY CRUSHING SOURCE (PORTABLE-
FACILITY R) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO
EPA METHOD 9) ...................... 4-48
Figure 4-16 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM BEST
CONTROLLED FUGITIVE PRIMARY CRUSHING SOURCE (STATIONARY-
FACILITY S) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO
EPA METHOD 9) ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-49
Figure 4-17 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENT FROM BEST CON-
TROLLED FUGITIVE SECONDARY CRUSHER (SMALL, STATIONARY-
FACILITY S) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO
EPA METHOD 9) ...................... 4-50
Figure 4-18 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM BEST
CONTROLLED FUGITIVE SECONDARY CRUSHING SOURCE (LARGE,
SECONDARY-FACILITY $) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9) ............... 4-51
PLANT LAYOUTS SHOWING THE NUMBER AND LOCATIONS OF THE
SOURCES (STACKS) SPECIFIED FOR EACH PLANT SIZE. . . . . . 7-9
Fig ure 7 - 1
Fi gure 8-1
Fi gure 8-2
COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ALTERNATE CONTROL SYSTEMS. . . . . 8-79
INSTALLED COSTS OF FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS. . . . . . . . . 8-81
viii
-------
Table 1-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 3-5
Table 3-6
Table 3-7
Tab le 3-8
Table 3-9
Table 4-1
Table 4-2
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 7-1
Table 7-2
Table 7-3
Table 7-4
LIST OF TABLES
Page
MATRIX OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVE STANnARnS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .1-4
INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS. . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . 3- 3
MAJOR USES OF THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS. . . . . . . . . . .3-6
POSSIBLE SOURCES OF EMISSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-16
EMISSION SOURCES AT NON-METALLIC MINERAL FACILITIES. . . . .3-17
PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR STONE CRUSHING PROCESS. . .3-19
RELATIVE CRUSHING MECHANISMS UTILIZED BY VARIOUS CRUSHERS. .3-24
APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF JAW CRUSHERS. . . .
APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF GYRATORY CRUSHERS.
. . . .
. . . 3- 2 7
. . .3-27
. . . . .
PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CONE CRUSHERS. . . . . . . . . . . . .3-30
PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES FOR THE EXTRACTION AND
PROCESSING OF NON-METALLIC MINERALS. . . . . . . . . .
. . .4-2
BAGHOUSE UNITS TESTED BY EPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-34
AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIOS FOR FABRIC FILTERS USED FOR EXHAUST
EMISSION CONTROL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-38
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE
SOURCES AT NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS. . . . . . . . . . .4-42
MODEL PLANTS FOR ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-2
LIST OF PROCESS EQUIPMENT INCLUDING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS
AND AIR VOLUME REQUIREMENTS USED IN DETERMINING MODEL
PLANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4
PLANT SIZES FOR THE VARIOUS NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRIES
(METRIC UNITS) ...................... .6-6
ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS UNDER GENERAL STATE PROCESS WEIGHT
REGULATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .7-2
GROWTH RATES AND MINERAL PRODUCTION LEVELS FOR THE VARIOUS
NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3
SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
STACK AND EMISSIONS DATA
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . .7-5
. . . . . .7-11
. . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
-------
Table 8-10 U.S. FLUORSPAR INDUSTRY.
Table 8-11 U.S. SALT INDUSTRY. .
Table 7-5
Table 7-6
Table 7-7
Table 7-8
Table 7-9
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 8-3
Table 8-4
Table 8-5
Table 8-6
Table 8-7
Table 8-8
Table 8-9
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Page
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AND ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL PARTICU-
. LATE CONCENTRATION DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROCESS
SOURCES IN THE MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS HAVING
BOTH CRUSHING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS. . . . . . . . . .. 7-15
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AND ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL PARTICU-
LATE CONCENTRATION DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROCESS
SOURCES IN THE MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS HAVING
ONLY CRUSHING OPERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-16
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
HAVING CRUSHING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS. . . . . . . . .. 7-21
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
HAVING CRUSHING OPERATIONS ONLY. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-21
ENERGY IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL NON-METALLIC INDUSTRIES UNDER
PROPOSED NSPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7-24
SAND AND GRAVEL: SALIENT STATISTICS. .
U.S. CRUSHED STONE INDUSTRY
. . . .
. . . .
. 8-9
. . . .
. . . .. 8- 12
. . . 8-16
. . . . . .
U.S. GYPSUM INDUSTRY. .
U.S. DIATOMITE INDUSTRY
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
..........
. . . . 8-18
. . . . 8-20
. . . .
U.S. PERLITE INDUSTRY
U.S. PUMICE INDUSTRY
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. 8-22
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
U.S. VERMICULITE INDUSTRY. . . .
U.S. MICA INDUSTRY. .
. . . . 8-24
. .. 8-26
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
U.S. BARITE INDUSTRY
. . . .
. . .. 8-29
. . . 8-31
. . . . .
......
.........
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . .. 8-33
. . 8- 35
Table 8-12 U.S. BORON INDUSTRY.
Table 8-13 U.S. POTASH INDUSTRY
. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . 8- 37
. . . . . .
.
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 8-39
Table 8-14 U.S. SODIUM CARBONATE INDUSTRY
Table 8-15 U.S. SODIUM SULFATE INDUSTRY
. . . . 8-40
. . . . . .
.....
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 8-16 U.S. CLAY INDUSTRY. . . . . .
Table 8-17 U.S. FELDSPAR INDUSTRY.
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
Page
. . . 8-44
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 8-47
. . . . . 8-48
Table 8-18 U.S. KYANITE INDUSTRY. . . .
Table 8-19a U.S. TALC INDUSTRY. . .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . .
...........
. . 8-51
Table 8-19b TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN DEVELOPING CO~TROL
SYSTEM COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Table 8-20 ANNUALIZED COST PARAMETERS. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 8-57
I
. . . .
. 8-60
Table 8-21 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 9.1 Mg/Hour . . . 8-62
Table 8-22 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 23 Mg/Hour . . . 8-63
Table 8-23 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 68 Mg/Hour . . . 8-64
Table 8-24 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 135 Mg/Hour . . . 8-65
Table 8-25 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 270 Mg/Hour . . . 8-66
Table 8-26 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 540 Mg/Hour . . . 8-67
Table 8-27 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 9.1 Mg/Hour . . . 8-68
Table 8-28 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 23 Mg/Hour . . . 8-69
Table 8-29 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL Plant 2: 68 Mg/Hour . . . 8-70
Table 8-30 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL Plant 2: 135 Mg/Hour . . . 8-71
Table 8-31 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 270 Mg/Hour . . . 8-72
Table 8-32 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 540 Mg/Hour . . . 8-73
Table 8-33 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PORTABLE MODEL PLANT: 180 Mg/Hour . 8-74
Table 8-34 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR EXPANDED MODEL PLANTS
. . . . .
. . 8-80
Table 8-35 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR 32 Mg/Hour EXPANDED MODEL PLANT. . 8-81
Table 8-36 MONITORING COSTS FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS MODEL PLANTS. . 8-90
Table 8-37 RANK ORDER OF INDUSTRIES WITH HIGHEST CONTROL COST IMPACT. . 8-106
Table 8-38 PLANT INVESTMENT COSTS. . .
...............
. 8-109
xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table 8-39 EXPANSION INVESTMENT COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
Page
. 8- 11 0
Table 8-40 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSES CRUSHED STONE PLANT
136 Mg/hr (150 tph) (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) ....... 8-113
Table 8-41 SUMMARY OF DCF RESULTS
Table 8-42 SUMMARY OF DCF RESULTS
. . . . .
............
. 8-118
............
. . . .
. . 8- 1 20
Table 8-43 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TYPICAL NEW PLANTS REQUIRED TO MEET
PROJECTED PRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-124
Table 8-44 ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND OPERATING CONTROL COSTS FOR NEW
PLANT CONSTRUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 8- 125
Table 8-45 ANNUALIZED CONTROL COST PER TON OF INDUSTRY OUTPUT IN
5TH YEAR AND CONTROL COST AS PERCENT OF SELLING PRICE. . . 8-126
xii
-------
1. SUMMARY
1.1
REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES
Requlatory alternatives to limit emissions of particulate matter from
new, modified, and reconstructed non-metallic mineral processing plants and
the environmental and economic impacts of these alternatives are presented
in this document. This source was listed August 21,1979 (44 FR 49222) in
accordance with section 111(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act as contributing
signficantly to air pollution, which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health or welfare. Appendix B contains a cross-reference between
this document and the Agency's guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements.
Regulatory alternatives have been developed for processing of the following
minerals:
Crushed and broken stone
Limestone, Dolomite, Granite,
Traprock, Sandstone, Quartz,
Quartzite, Marl, Marble, Slate,
She 11
Barite
Fluorspar
Sand and gravel
Talc and Pyrophyllite
Fel dspar
Clay
Kaolin, Fireclay, Bentonite,
Fuller's Earth, Ball Clay
Rock salt
Diatomite
Perlite
Venniculite
Gypsum
Sodium compounds
Chloride, Carbonate, Sulfate
Mica
Pumice
Kyanite
Andalusite, Sillimanite,
Topaz, Dumortierite
Gilsonite
Boron
Borax, Kernite, Colemanite
1-1
-------
The regulatory alternatives would limit emissions of particulate matter
from the following process equipment at a plant:
crushers, grinding mills
(including air separators, classifiers, and conveyors), screens, bucket ele-
vators, conveyor belt transfer points, bagging operations, storage bins, and
enclosed truck and railcar loading stations.
For all of the industries co-
vered except the kaolin industry, the affected facility has been defined as
the entire processing plant.
For the kaolin industry, each piece of process
equipment listed above has been defined as an affected facility.
Unit oper-
ations not included are drilling, blasting, loading at the mine, hauling,
drying, stockpiling, conveying (other than at transfer points) and windblown
dust from stockpiles, roads, and plant yards.
Three regulatory alternatives were considered:
(1) to set no standards;
(2) to set standards based on capture or collection systems only; and (3) to
set standards based on capture or collection systems but allow for the use
of noncapture or collection systems such as wet dust suppression systems.
A matrix summarizing the environmental and economic impacts associated with
the three regulatory alternativ~s is included in Table 1.1.
Alternatives
2 and 3 would limit both fugitive and stack emissions at the affected facilities.
-Fugitive emissions, which are emissions not collected by a capture system,
would be limited to visible emissions for no more than 10 percent of the
time over a minimum of l-hour observation period for all process operations
except enclosed loading stations under alternative 2.
Fugitive emissions
from enclosed loading stations would be limited to visible emissions for
no more than 15 percent of the time over a minimum l-hour ,observation
perio~.
Under alternative 3, fugitive emissions at all pro~ess operations
"except crushing would be subject to the limitations described above. At
crushers, fugitive emissions would be limited to 15 percent opacity.
Under
1-2
-------
TABLE 1.1 MATRIX OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF REGUlATORY ALTERNATIVES
Noise
Administrative Air Water Solid Energy and Economic Inflation
action impact impact waste impact radiation impact impact
impact impact
Regulatory Alternative 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Regulatory Alternative 2 +4 0 -1 -2 0 -3 0
Regulatory Alternative 3 +4 0 -1 -1 0 -2 0
~
,
w
KEY: + Beneficial impact
- Adverse impact
o No impact
1 Negligible impact
2 Small impact
3 Moderate impact
4 Large impact
-------
both alternatives, stack emissions, which are emissions collected by a capture
system, would be limited to a concentration of particulate matter of 0.05 gram
per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.02 grain per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf)) and 1 percent opacity.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The beneficial and adverse environmental impacts associated with regulatory
alternatives 2 and 3 are presented in this section.
in detail in Chapter 7, Environmental Impact.
These impacts are discussed
About 550 new non-metallic mineral processing plants will be needed
to process the projected increased production between 1980 and 1985. By
1985, regulatory alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the total amount of particulate
matter emissions to the atmosphere by 41,000 megagrams per year (45,000 tons
per year). This reduction is 90 percent greater than that achievable with
a typical State process weight regulation. This will result in a large positive
environmental impact.
The utilization of dry collection techniques (particulate capture combined
with a dry emission control device) for control generates no water effluent
discharge.
In cases where wet suppression techniques could be used most
of the water adheres to the material being processed, resulting in no significant
water discharge. Consequently, the regulatory alternatives for the non-
metallic minerals industry would have no water pollution impact.
There would be an insignificant negative solid waste dispos~l impact
resulting from the use of dry emission control techniques. Approximately
1.4 megagrams (1.6 tons) of solid waste are collected for every 250 mega9rams
(278 tons) of material processed. - In many cases, this material may be recycled
back into the process, sold, or used for a variety of purposes. Where no
market exists for the collected fines, they are typically disposed of in
1-4
-------
the mine or in an isolated location in the quarry. Where wet dust suppression
can be used, no solid waste disposal problem exists over that resulting from
normal operation.
The estimated incremental energy requirements of both regulatory alternatives
result from comparing the use of fabric filters (baghouses) to control particulate
matter emissions to the use of no control system. The estimates indicate
a greater impact than would actually occur because it is expected that 1ess-
energy consuming wet dust suppression systems would be used in many cases.
In addition, many new plants would use baghouses or a combination of baghouses
and water sprays to meet existing State regulations.
The energy required to control all new non-metallic mineral processing
plants constructed by 1985 to the levels of regulatory alternatives 2 and 3
would be about 0.21 million megawatt-hours (0.34 million kilowatt-hours) per
year.
This would be about a 15 percent increase over the amount of energy
which would otherwise be required to meet projecte~ capacity additions witho~t
controls.
This increase would have a minor impact on national energy demand.
When compared to the noise emanating from crushing and grinding process
equipment, any additional noise from properly designed exhaust fans for the
control system would be insignificant.
C6nsequently, no significant noise
impact is anticipated due to the implementation of either regulatory a1ter-'
native 2 or 3 for non-metallic mineral plants.
There are no known radiation
impacts associated with the regulatory alternatives.
1.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The economic impacts associated with regulatory alternatives 2 and 3
are presented in this section.
Chapter 8, Economic Impact.
These impacts are discussed in detail in
1-5
-------
The costs and economic impacts associated with regulatory alternatives
2 and 3 are considered reasonable. The estimated impacts are based on a
comparison of fabric filter (baghouse) use to no control.
less expensive
wet dust suppression systems may be used in some cases.
Also, many new plants
would use baghouses or a combinatjon of baghouses and water sprays to meet
existing State regulations. Thus, the actual economic impact of these regulatory
alternatives would probably be considerably less than the estimates summarized
below.
The costs associated with these regulatory alternatives would not prevent
construction of new non-metallic processing plants which would be built in
the absence of any new regulations.
However, the incremental costs associated
with the best system of emission reduction may preclude the construction of
new pumice plants and common clay plants with capacities of 9.1 Mg/hr (10 ton/hr)
or less; fixed sand and gravel plants and crushed stone plants with capacities
of 22.7 Mg/hr (25 ton/hr) or less; and portable sand and gravel plants and
crushed stone plants w~th capacities of 136.4 Mg/hr (150 ton/hr) or less.
The total additional capital cost for all new plants would be about
$107 million for the first five years the proposed standards would be in
effect. These costs would vary for each industry, ranging from about $93,000
for several minerals to $82.5 million for crushed stone. The total annualized
costs in the fifth year would increase by about $28 million for crushed stone.
The average annualized control cost per ton of output in 1985 would range
from $0.005 for sand and gravel to $0.137 for kyanite.
For all minerals,
the annualized control cost is less than two percent of the annual revenue
for that industry.
1-6
-------
1.4 INFLATION IMPACT
The costs associated with the regulatory alternatives for new and modified
facilities at non-metallic mineral processing plants have been judged not
to be of such magnitude to require an analysis of the inflationary impact.
These criteria have been outlined in an Agency publication and include:
1.
National annualized cost of compliance.
2. Total added production cost in rel~tion to sales ~rice.
3. Administrator request (for example, when there appears to be major
impacts on geographical regions or local governments).
Should any of the guideline values listed under criterion 1 or 2 be
exceeded or the Administrator requests it, a full inflationary impact assessment
~
is required.
1-7
-------
2.
INTRODUCTION
Standards of performance are proposed following a detailed investigation
of air pollution control methods available to the affected industry and the
'impact of their costs on the industry.
This document summarizes the informa-
tion obtained from such a study.
Its purpose is to explain in detail the
background and basis of the proposed standards and to facilitate analysis of
the proposed standards by interested persons, including those who may not be
familiar with the many technical aspects of the industry.
To obtain addition-
a1 copies of this document or the Federal Register notice of proposed standards,
write to EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711.
Specify "Non-Meta11ic Mineral Processing Plants, Background Information:
Proposed Standards," Document number EPA-450/3-80-002A when ordering.
2.1
AUTHORITY FOR THE STANDARDS
Standards of performance for new stationary sources are established under
section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411), as amended, hereafter
referred to as the Act.
Section 111 directs the Administrator to establish
standards of performance for any category of new stationary source of air
pollution which ". . . causes or contributes significantly to, air pollution
which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or we1fare.11
The Act requires that standards of performance for stationary sources
reflect, ". . . the degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best technological system of continuous emission reduction
. . . the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. II
In
addition, for stationary sources whose emissions result from fossil fuel
4
combustion, the standard must also include a percentage reduction in emissions.
The Act also provides that the cost of achieving the necessary emission
2-1
-------
reduction, the nonair quality health and environmental impacts and the energy
requirements all be taken into account in establishing standards of perfor-
mance.
The standards apply only to stationary sources, the construction or
modification of which commences after regulations are proposed by publication
in the Federal Register.
The 1977 amendments to the Act altered or added numerous provisions
which apply to the process of establishing standards of performance.
1.
EPA is required to list the categories of major stationary sources
which have not already been listed and regulated under standards of perfor-
mance.
Regulations must be promulgated for these new categories on the
. following schedule:
25 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1980.
75 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1981.
100 percent of the listed categories by August 7, 1982.
A governor of a State may apply to the Administrator to add a category
which is not on fue list or to revise a standard of performance.
2.
EPA is required to review the standards of performance every four
years, and if appropriate, revise them.
3.
EPA is authorized to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice,
or operational standards when an emission standard is not feasible.
4.
The term "standards of performance" is redefined and a new term
"Technological system of continuous emission reduction" is defined.
The
new definitions clarify that the control system must be continuous and may
include a low-polluting or non-polluting process or operation.
5.
The time between the proposal and promulgation of a standard under
Section 111 of the Act is extended to six months.
2-2
-------
Standards of performance, by themselves, do not guarantee protection
of health or welfare because they are not designed to achieve any specific
air quality levels.
Rather, they are designed to reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through application of the best adequately
demonstrated technological system of continuous emission reduction,
taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction,
any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requir~ments.
Congress had several reasons for including these requirements.
First, standards with a degree of uniformity are needed to avoid situations
where some States may attract industries by relaxing standards relative
long term growth.
Second, stringent standards enhance the potential for
Third, stringent standards may help achieve long-term
to other States.
cost savings by avoiding the need for more expensive retrofitting when
pollution ceilings may be reduced in the future. Fourth, certain types
of standards for coal burning sources can adversely affect the coal
market by driving up the price of low-sulfur coal or effectively
excluding certain coals from the reserve base because their untreated
pollution potentials are high.
Congress does not intend that new source
performance standards contribute to these problems.
Fifth, the standard-
setting process should create incentives for improved technology.
Promulgation of standards of performance does not prevent State or
local agencies ~rom adopting more stringent emission limitations for the
same sources.
States are free under section 116 of the Act to establish
even more stringent emission limits than those established under section
111 or those necessary to attain or maintain the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) under section 110.
Thus, new sources may in
2-3
-------
some cases be subject to limitations more stringent than standards of
performance under section 111, and prospective owners and operators of
new sources should be aware of this possibility in planning for such
fac11ities.
A similar situation may arise when a major emitting facility is to
be constructed in a geographic area which falls under the prevention of
significant deterioration of air quality provisions of Part C of the
Act.
These provisions require, among other things, that major emitting
facilities to be constructed in such areas are to be subject to best
available control technology.
The term IIbest available control tech-
no10gyll (BACT), as defined in the Act, means II. . . an emission limitation
based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to
regulation under this Act emitted from or which results from any major
emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case
basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts
and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through
application of production processes and available methods, systems, and
techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel
combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant.
In no event
shall application of 'best available control technology' result in
emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the emi~sions allowed by
any applicable standard established pursuant to section 111 or 112 of
th is Ac t. II
Although standards of performance are normally structured in terms
of numerical emission limits where feasible, alternative approaches are
sometimes necessary.
In some cases physical measurement of emissions
2-4
-------
from a new source may be impractical or exorbitantly expensive.
Section
lll(h) provides that the Administrator may promulgate a design or
equipment standard in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce a standard of performance.
For example, emissions of
hydrocarbons from storage vessels for petroleum liquids are greatest
during tank filling.
The nature of the emissions, high concentrations
for short periods during filling, and low concentrations for longer
periods during storage, and the configuration of storage tanks make
direct emission measurement impractical.
Therefore, a more practical
approach to standards of performance for storage vessels has been
equipment specification.
In addition, section lll(j) authorizes the Administrator to grant
waivers of compliance to permit a source to use innovative continuous
emission control technology.
In order to grant the waiver, the Administrator
must find:
(1) a substantial likelihood that the technology will produce
greater emission reductions than the standards require, or an equivalent
reduction at lower economic, energy or environmental cost; (2) the proposed
system has not been adequately demonstrated; (3) the technology will not
cause or contribute to an unreasonable risk to the public health,
welfare or safety; (4) the governor of the State where the source is
located consents; and that. (5) the waiver will ~ot prevent the
attainment or maintenance of any ambient standard.
A waiver may have conditions
attached to assure the source will not prevent attainment of any NAAQS.
Any such condition will have the force of a performance standard.
Finally, waivers have definite end dates and may be terminated earlier
if the conditions are not met or if the system fails to perform as
2-5
-------
expected.
In such a case, the sour~e may be given up to three years to
meet the standards, with a mandatory progress schedule.
2.2 SELECTION OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES
Section 111 of the Act directs the Administrator to list categories
of stationary sources which have not been listed before.
The Administrator,
"
. . shall include a category of sources in such list if in his judgement
it causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. II
Proposal and promulgation of standards of performance are to follow
while adhering to the schedule referred to earlier.
Since passage of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, considerable
attention has been given to the development of a system for assigning
priorities to various source categories.
The approach specifies areas
of interest by considering the broad strategy of the Agency for implementing
the Clean Air Act.
Often, these lIareas" are actually pollutants which
are emitted by stationary sources.
Source categories which emit these
pollutants were then evaluated and ranked by a process involving such
factors as (1) the level of emission control (if any) already required
by State regulations; (2) estimated levels of control that might be
required from standards of performance for the source category;
(3) projections of growth and replacement of existing facilities for the
source category; and (4) the estimated incremental amount of air pollution
that could be prevented, in a preselected future year, by standards of
performance for the source category.
Sources for which new source
2-6
-------
performance standards were promulgated or were under development during
1977 or earlier, were selected on these criteria.
The Act amendments of August, 1977, establish specific criteria to
be used in determining priorties for all source categories not yet
listed by EPA.
These are
1) the quantity of air pollutant emissions which each such category
will emit, or will be designed to emit;
2) the extent to which each such pollutant may reasonably be
anticipated to endanger public health or welfare; and
3) the mObility and competitive nature of each such category of
sources and the consequent need for nationally applicable new source
standards of performance.
In some cases, it may not be feasible to immediately develop a
standard for a source category with a high priority.
This might happen
when a program of research is needed to develop control techniques or:
because techniques for sampling and measuring emissions may require
refinement.
In the developing of standards, differences in the time
required to complete the necessary investigation for different source
categories must also be considered.
For example, substantially more
time may be necessary if numerous pollutants must be investigated from a
single source category.
Further, even late in the,development process
the schedule for completion of a standard may change.
For example,
inability to obtain emission data from well-controlled sources in time
to pursue the development process in a systematic fashion may force a
change in scheduling.
Nevertheless, priority ranking is, and will
2-7
-------
continue to be, used to establish the order in which projects are
initiated and resources assigned.
After the source category has been chosen, determining the types of
facilities within the source category to which the standard will apply
must be decided.
A source category may have several facilities that
cause air pollution and emissions from some of these facilities may be
insignificant or very expensive to control.
Economic studies of the
source category and of applicable control technology may show that air
pollution control is better served by applying standards to the more
severe pollution sources.
For this reason, and because there be no
adequately demonstrated system for controlling emissions from certain
facilities, standards often do not apply to all facilities at a source.
For the same reasons, the standards may not apply to all air pollutants
emitted.
Thus, although a source category may be selected to be covered
by a standard of performance, not all pollutants or facilities within
that source category may be covered by the standards.
2.3 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Standards of performance must (1) realistically reflect best demon-
strated control practice; (2) adequately consider the cost, and the
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements
of such control; (3) be applicable to existing sources that are
modified or reconstructed as well as new installations; and (4) meet
these conditions for all variations of operating conditions being
considered anywhere in the country.
The objective of a program for development of standards is to
2-8
-------
identify the best technological system of continuous emission reduction
which has been adequately demonstrated.
The legislative history of
section 111 and various court decisions make clear that the Administrator's
judgement of what is adequately demonstrated is not limited to systems
that are in actual routine use.
The search may include a technical
assessment of control systems which have been adequately demonstrated
but for which there is limited operational experience.
In most cases,
determination of the ". . . degree of emission reduction achievable. .
is based on results of tests of emissions from well controlled existing
II
sources.
At times, this has required the investigation and measurement
of emissions from control systems found in other industrialized countries
that have developed more effective systems of control than those available
in the United States.
Since the best demonstrated systems of emission reduction may not
be in widespread use, the data base upon which standards are developed may
be somewhat limited.
Test data on existing well-controlled sources are
obvious starting points in developing emission limits for new sources.
However, since the control of existing sources generally represent
retrofit technology or was originally designed to meet an existing State
or local regulation, new sources may be able to meet more stringent
emission standards.
Accordingly, other information must be considered
before a judgement can be made as to the level at which the emission
standard should be set.
A process for the development of a standard has evolved which takes
into account the following considerations.
2-9
-------
'l.
2.
Emissions from existing well-controlled sources as measured.
Data on emissions from such sources are assessed with considera-
tion of such factors as:
(a) how representative the tested source is in
regard to feedstock, operation, size, age, etc.; (b) age and maintenance
of control equipment tested; (c) design uncertainties of control
equipment being considered; and (d) the degree of uncertainty that new
sources will be able to achieve similar levels of control.
3.
Information from pilot and prototype installations, guarantees
by vendors of control equipment, unconstructed but contracted projects,
foreign technology, and published literature are also considered during
the standard development process.
This is especially important for
sources where "emerging" technology appears to be a sfgnificant alternative.
4.
Where possible, standards are developed which permit the use of
more than one control technique or licensed process.
5.
Where possible, standards are developed to encourage or permit
the use of process modifications or new processes as a method of control
rather than "add-on" systems of air pollution control.
6.
In appropriate cases, standards are developed to permit the use
of systems capable of controlling more than one pollutant.
As an example,
a scrubber can remove both gaseous and particulate emissions, but an
electrostatic precipitator is specifi~ to particulate matter.
7.
Where appropriate, standards for visible emissions are developed
in conjunction with concentration/mass emission standards.
The opaci ty
standard is established at a level that will require proper operation
and maintenance of the emission control system installed to meet the
concentration/mass standard on a day-to-day basis.
2-10
In some cases,
-------
however, it is not possible to develop concentration/mass standards,
such as with fugitive sources of emissions.
In these cases, only
opacity standards may be developed to limit emissions.
2.4 CONSIDERATION OF COSTS
Section 317 of the Act requires, among other things, an economic
impact assessment with respect to any standard of performance established
under section 111 of the Act.
The assessment is requi.red to contain an
analysis of:
(1) the costs of compliance with the regulation and standard
including the extent to which the cost of compliance varies depending on
the effective date of the standard or regulation and the development of
less expensive or more efficient methods of compliance;
(2) the potential inflationary/recessionary effects of the standard
or regulation;
(3) the effects on competition of the standard or regulation with
respect to small business;
(4) the effects of the standard or regulation on consumer cost;
and,
(5) the effects of the standard or regulation on energy use.
Section 317 requires that the economic impact assessment be as
extensive as practible, taking into account the time and resources
available to EPA.
The economic impact of a proposed standard upon an industry is
.
usually addressed both in absolute terms and by comparison with the
control costs that would be incurred as a result of compliance with
2-11
-------
typical existing State control regulations.
An incremental approach is
taken since both new and existing plants would be required to comply with
State regulations in the absence of a Federal standard of performance.
This approach requires a detailed analysis of the impact upon the
industry resulting from the cost differential that exists between a
standard of performance and the typical State standard.
The costs for control of air pollutants are not the only costs
considered.
Total environmental costs for control of water pollutants
as well as air pollutants are analyzed wherever possible.
A thorough study of the profitability and price-setting mechanisms
of the industry is essential to the analysis so that an accurate estimate
of potential adverse economic impacts can be made.
It is also essential
to know the capital requirements placed on plants in the absence of
Federal standards of performance so that the additional capital requirements
necessitated by these standards can be placed in the proper perspective.
Finally, it is necessary to recognize any constraints on capital availability
within an industry, as this factor also influences the ability of new
plants to generate the capital required for installation of additional
control equipment needed to meet the standards of performance.
2.5 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Section l02(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
of 1969 requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental
impact statements on proposals for legislation and ~ther major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The objective of NEPA is to build into the decision-making process of
2-12
-------
Federal agencies a careful consideration of all environmental aspects of
proposed actions.
In a number of legal challenges to standards of performances for
various industries, the Federal Courts of Appeals have held that
environmental impact statements need not be prepared by the Agency for
proposed actions under section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Essenti ally,
the Federal Courts of Appeals have determined that ". . . the best
system of emission reduction, . . . require(s) the Administrator to take
into account counter-productive environmental effects of a proposed
standard, as well as economic costs to the industry. . . II
On this
basis, therefore, the Courts ". . . established a narrow exemption from
NEPA for EPA determination under section 111."
In addition to these judicial determinations, the Energy Supply and
Environmental Coordination Act (ESECA) of 1974 (PL-93-319) specifically
exempted proposed actions under the Clean Air Act from NEPA requirements.
According .to section 7(c)(1), "No action taken under the Clean Air Act
shall be deemed a major Federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment within the meaning of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969."
The Agency has concluded, however, that the preparation of environmental.
impact statements could have beneficial effects on certain regulatory
actions.
Consequently, while not legally required to do so by section
102(2)(C) of NEPA, environmental impact statements are prepared for
various regulatory actions, inlcuding standards of performance developed
under section 111 of the Act.
This voluntary preparation of environmental
impact statements, however, in no way legally subjects the Agency to
2-13
-------
NEPA requirements.
To implement this policy, a separate section is included in this
document which is devoted sole.ly to an analysis of the potential environmental
impacts associated with the proposed standards.
Both adverse and bene-
ficial impacts in such areas as air and water pollution, increased solid
waste disposal, and increased energy consumption are identified and
discussed.
2.6
IMPACT ON EXISTING SOURCES
Section 111 of the Act defines a new source as II. . . any stationary
source, the construction or modification of which is commenced
II
after the proposed standards are published.
An existing source becomes
a new source if the source is modified or is reconstructed.
Both modification
and reconstruction are defined in amendments to the general provisions
of Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 60 which were promulgated in the Federal
Register on December 16, 1975 (40 FR 58416).
Any physical or operational
change to an existing facility which results in an increase in the
emission rate of any pollutant for which a standard applies is considered
a modification.
Reconstruction, on the other hand, means the replacement
of components of an existing facility to the extent that the fixed
capital cost exceeds 50 percent of the cost of constructing a comparable
entirely new source and that it be technically and economically feasible
to meet the applicable standards.
In such cases, reconstruction is
equivalent to a new construction.
Promulgation of a standard of performance requires States to establish
standards of performance for existing sources in the same industry under
section lll(d) of the Act if the standard for new sources limits emissions
2-14
-------
of a designated pollutant (i.e., a pollutant for which ~ir quality criteria
have not been issued under section 108 or which has not been listed as a
hazardous pollutant under section 112).
If a State does not act, EPA must
establish such standards.
General provisions outlining procedures for
control of existing sources under section lll(d) were promulgated on
November 17, 1975, as Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 60 (40 FR 53340).
2.7 REVISION OF STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
Congress was aware that the level of air pollution control achievable
by any industry may improve with technological advances.
Accordingly,
section 111 of the Act provides that the Administrator II. . . shall, at
least every four years, review and, if appropriate, revise. . .11 the
standards.
Revisions are made to assure that the standards continue to
reflect the best systems that become available in the future.
Such
revisions will not be retroactive but will apply to stationary sources
constructed or modified after the proposal of the revised standards.
2-15
-------
3.
THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY
3.1
GENERAL
There are many non-metallic minerals which are individually produced
in a wide range of quantities.
For example, the annual domestic demand for
sand. gravel and stone is quoted in millions of tons, whereas the production
of industrial diamonds and gem stones is measured in carats.
Previous EPA
studies have investigated some of these non-metallic minerals, namely, coal,
phosphate rock and asbestos.
The 18 non-metallic minerals selected for in-
vestigation in this study are:
Crushed and Broken Stone
Sand and Gravel
Clay
Rock Salt
Gypsum
Sodium compounds
Pumice
Gilsonite
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Di atomite
Perlite
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyani te
Talc
These 18 categories are based upon Bureau of Mines classifications and are
the highest mined production segments of the non-metallic minerals industry
which have crushing and grinding operations, excluding coal, phosphate
rock. and asbestos.
Total domestic production of these non-metallic minerals for 1975 was
about 1605 million megagrams (1769 million short tons).
The estimated domes-
tic production level of these minerals in 1980 has been projected to be 1829
million megagrams (2017 milliQn short tons).
Value of the minerals ranges
3-1
-------
from 1.1 dollars/megagram (1.0 dOllars/ton) for low grade clay, to 276 dollars/
megagram (250 dollars/ton) for high grade talc.
Geographically, the non-metallic
minerals industry is highly dispersed, with all States reporting production of
at least one of these 18 non-metallic minerals.
The industry is also extremely
diverse in terms of production capacities per facility (from 5 to several thousand
tons per hour) and end product uses.
3.1.1
Industry Characteristics
Table 3.1 presents industry characteristics for each mineral under con-
sideration.
Crushed stone and sand and gravel are by far the largest segments,
accounting for 1523 million megagrams (1680 million tons) of the 1605 million
megagrams (1769 million tons) produced by the 18 industries.
There are about
5500 processing plants in the sand and gravel industry and about 4800 quarries
worked in the crushed stone industry.
Each of the other industries has less
than 100 processing plants, except for the clay industry which has about 120
plants.
Sand and gravel plants are located in every state.
Crushed stone plants
are located in every state except Delaware.
Clay plants are located in every
state except Vermont, Rhode Island, and Alaska.
Processing plants for the'
other industries are usually distributed among a few states where those
minerals deposits are located.
One of the minerals is principally mined and
processed in only one state:
boron only in Californi~.
Projected growth rates are also presented in Table 3.1.
The growth rates
are projected to increase at compounded annual rates of up to 6 percent
through the year 1985.
3-2
-------
Mtneral
tNlhld and
brokln Itone
Sand and grlnl
C1ay
Rock Sa1t
G1plum (crude)
Sodt"" *
compounds
Pum1 CI
611lont te
T.le
Boron
Bart te
Fluo/'8par
TABLE 3-1
INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICSl-3
1975 1975 Annua 1
Production Price growth rate Major producing states Number of acttve
1000 meCJagrams (1000 tons) (Do11ars/Mq) (~) In order of production operations
807,000 (890,000)
716,015 (709,432)
44,405 (49,047)
14,92/1 (13,540)
8,844 (9,751)
4,529 (4.895)
3,530 (3.892)
90 (100)
875 (965)
1 ,063 (1.1 72)
1,167 (1,287)
126 (140)
---- - w -----.- .-..---" --
- ----- ---------
2.63
1.97
1.10-221.00
29.78
~.05
46.54-45.75t
3.17
5.50-276.00
110
17.71
88- 106
-.---__---_0
(contlnued)
3-3
4.0
1.0
3.3
2.0
2.0
2.5
3.5
2.0
4.0
5.0
2.2
3.0
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Texas
Florida
Ohio
Alaska
Ca 11 fornia
Michigan
illinois
Texas
Ohio
Georgi a
Texas
Ohio
North Carolina
Texas
New York
Lou1siana
Cal1 fornla
Michigan
Iowa
Texas
California
Texas
Oregon
California
Arizona
New Mexico
Utah
Vermont
Texas
Cal1forn1a
California
Nevada
Mi ssouri
1111nois
4800 (quarries)
5500 (plants)
120
21
69 (mines)
37
235
52
6
31
~------------_.-
15
--.- - 0- - ------------- --
-------
---_. --------------.-
TABLE 3.1 (continued)
MI nera 1
. ----~-- __4_----------- -----------------
--- -- - -- - ---
.------___.__4
--~ --- ....-
Feld5par
D18tornite
Perlite
Vennlcul! t!'
Mica
~yan' te
----------------
-------
.
Natural soda ash.
'Sodlum suI (ate price.
.
Estlmales (or 1974.
1975
Product ion
1000 IJ1egagrams (1000 tons)
1975
Pn ce
( Dollars/Mg)
Annual
growth rate Major producing states
(%) in order of production
Number of actlve
opera t Ions
607 (670)
519 (573)
640 (706)
299 (330)
172 (135)
..
85 (94)
19.30 4.0 North Carolina 15
88.25 5.5 Cahfornia 16
Kansas
Nevada
15.72 4.0 New Mexico 13
46.06 4.0 Montana 2
South Carolina
42.64 4.0 North Carolina 17
New Mexico
6.0 Virginia 3
Georgla
3-4
-------
3.1.2 End Uses
End uses for the non-metallic minerals are many and diverse.
The min-
era1s may be used either directly in their natural state or processed into
a variety of manufactured products.
Generally, they can be classified as
either minerals for the construction industry; minerals for the chemical and
fertilizer industries; or clay, ceramic, refractory and miscellaneous min-
era1s.
Minerals generally used for construction are crushed and broken stone,
sand and gravel, gypsum, gi1sonite, perlite, pumice, vermiculite, and mica.
Minerals generally used in the chemical and fertilizer industries are barite,
fluorspar, boron, rock salt, and sodium compounds.
Clay, feldspar, kyanite,
talc and diatomite can be generally classified as clay, ceramic, refractory,
and miscellaneous minerals.
Table 3.2 lists the major uses of each individual
mineral.
3.1.3 Rock Types and Distribution
Major rock types processed by the crushed and broken stone industry in-
c1ude limestone and dolomite (which accounted for 73.2 percent of the total
tonnage in 1973 and has the widest and most important end use range); granite
(11.4 percent), trap rock (7.9 percent) and sandstone, quartz and quart~ite
(2.9 percent).
Rock types including ca1cereous marl, marble, shell, slate
I
and miscellaneous others accounted for only 4.6 percent.
Classifications used
by the industry vary considerably and in many cases do not reflect actual
.geo1ogica1 definitions.
Limestone and dolomite are sedimentary rocks formed from accumulations of
animal remains or chemical precipitation of carbonates in water.
In a pure
state, limestone consists of crystalline or granular calcium carbonate
(calcite), while dolomite consists of calcium-magnesium carbonate (dolomite).
3-5
-------
--
TABLE 3.2 MAJOR USES OF THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS
Mineral
Major uses
Crushed and broken
Sand and gravel
Clay
Rock salt
Gyps urn
Sodium compounds
Pumice
Gilsoni te
Talc
stone
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Diatomite
Perl ite
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyanite
Construction, lime manufacturing
Construction
Bricks, cement, refractory, paper
Highway use, chlorine
Wallboard, plaster, cement, agriculture
Glass, chemicals, paper
Road construction, concrete
Asphalt paving
Ceramics, paint, toilet preparations
Glass, soaps, fertilizer
Drilling mud, chemicals
Hydrofluoric acid, iron and steel, glass
Glass, ceramics
Filtration, filters
Insulation, filter aid, plaster aggregate
Concrete
Paint, joint cement, roofing
Refractories, ceramics
3-6
-------
Both are often found together in the same rock deposit.
Depending on the pro-
portions of each, the rock may be classified as limestone, dolomitic limestone,
calcareous dolomite or dolomite.
Deposits are common and are distributed
, throughout most parts of the country, although primarily located in the Central,
Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic regions which combined accounted for ove~
93 percent of the total production in 1973.
Commercially, granite consists of any light-colored, coarse-grained
igneous rock.
It is composed chiefly of quartz, feldspar and, usually mica.;
Deposits are located in the South Atlantic, northeastern, North Central and
western regions of the country. The South Atlantic region accounted for more
- than 77 percent of the total tonnage of granite produced in 1973.
Trap rock includes any dark colored, fine-grained igneous rock composed
of the ferro-magnesian minerals and basic feldspars with little or no quartz.
Common varieties include basalts, diabases and gabbros.
Deposits are mostly
found in the New England, Middle Atlantic and Pacific regions, which combined
accounted for 76 percent of all trap rock produced in 1973.
Sandstones and quartzitic rocks are scattered throughout the country.
Sandstones are sedimentary rocks composed predominantly of cemented quartz
grains.
The cementing material may be calcium carbonate, iron oxide or clay.
Quartzites are metamorphosed siliceous sandstones.
All regions accounted for
some production of sandstone and quartz, with the Pacific and West South
, ,
Central and Middle Atlantic States combining for 60 percent of the total.
Sand and gravel are products of the weathering of rocks and thus consist
predominantly of silica.
Often, varying amounts of other minerals such as iron
oxides, mica, and feldspar are present.
, throughout the country.
Deposits are common and are distributed
3-7
-------
Clays are a group of fine-grained non-metallic minerals which are mostly
hydrous aluminum silicates that contain various amounts of organic and inorganic
impurities.
Clays are classified into six groups by the Bureau of Mines:
'kaolin. ball clay, fire clay, bentonite, fuller's earth, and miscellaneous
(conmon) clay.
Kaolin is a clay in which the predominant clay mineral is kaolinite.
Large
quant~ties of high quality kaolin are found in Georgia.
Ball clay consists
principally of kaolinite, but has a higher silica-to-alumina ratio than is found
in most kaolin, as well as larger quantities of mineral impurities and much
organic material.
Ball clays are mined in Kentucky, Tennessee, and New Jersey.
The terms "fire clay" and "stoneware clay" are based on refractoriness or
on intended usage (fire clay indicating potential use for refractories, and
stoneware clay indicating uses for such items as crocks, jugs, and jars).
Fire
clays are basically kaolinitic but include other clay minerals and impurities.
Included under the general tenm fire clay are the diaspore, burley, and burley-
flint clays.
Fire clay deposits are widespread in the United States, with the-
greatest reserves being found in the Middle Atlantic region.
Bentonites are composed essentially of minerals of the montmorillonite
group.
The swelling type has a high sodium iron concentration, whereas the
nonswelling types are usually high in calcium.
in Wyoming and Montana.
Bentonite is presently produced
Fuller's earths are essentially montmorillonite or attapulgite.
A small
area in Georgia and Florida contains the known reserve of attapulgite-type
fuller's earth.
The tenm "miscellaneous (common) 'clay" is' a statistical designation used
by the Bureau of Mines to refer to clays and shales not included under the other
3-8
-------
five clay types.
Miscellaneous clay may contain some kaolinite and mont-
morillonite, but illite usually predominates, particularly in the s~ales.
Miscellaneous clay is widespread throughout the United States.
Rock salt consists of sodium chloride and is the chief source of. all
forms of sodium.
Rock salt is mined on a large scale in Michigan, Texas,
New York, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah, New Mexico, and Kansas.
Gypsum is a hydrous calcium sulfate normally formed as a chemical pre-
cipitate from marine waters of high salinity.
Domestic reserves of gypsum
Areas deficient in gypsum
are geographically distributed in 23 states.
reserves are Minnesota, Wisconsin, the Pacific Northwest, the New England States, .
the deep South to the east of Louisiana, and northern California.
Sodium is a chemically reactive metallic element used chiefly in the form
of its many compounds.
Although too reactive to be found in the uncombined form
in nature, the compounds of sodium are plentiful.
Sodium chloride (salt) is
the chief source of all forms of sodium.
Increasing quantities of sodium car-
bonate (soda ash) and sodium sulfate (salt cake) are produced from natural de-
posits of these compounds, but salt is still the main source of both.
Natural
sodium carbonate occurs in Wyoming anq saline lake brines in California.
Natural sodium sulfate is produced from deposits in California, Texas, and
Wyoming.
Pumice is a rock of igneous origin, ranging from acidic to basic in com-
position, with a cellular structure formed by explosive or effusive volcanism.
The commercial designation includes the more precise petrographic descriptions
for pumice, pumicite (volcanic ash), volcanic cinders, and scoria.
Deposits
are mostly found in the Western States.
3-9
-------
The mineral gilsonite is a variety of native asphalt which has many appli-
cations.
Gilsonite occurs in large boulders, several inches across.
It is
a black, lustrous mineral found in the Uintah basin in Utah and Colorado.
The mineral talc is a soft hydrous magnesium silicate, 3 MgO.4SiOz'HzO.
, The talc of highest purity is derived from magnesium-rich metamorphic
carbonate rocks; less pure talc from metamorphosed ultra basic igneous rocks.
Soapstone is a term used for a massive form of rock containing the mineral.
Pyrophyllite (Alz03.4SiOz.HzO) is a hydrous aluminum silicate similar to talc
in'properties.
It is principally found in North Carolina.
Talc-group min-
erals are principally produced in New York, Texas, Vermont, California, and
Montana.
Boron is a versatile and useful element used mainly in the form of its
many compounds, of which borax and boric acid are the best known.
Many min-
erals contain boron, but only a few are commercially valuable as sources of
boron.
The principal boron minerals are borax, kernite, and colemanite.
Half of the commercial world reserves are in southern California as bedded
deposits of borax (sodium borate) and colemanite (calcium borate), or as solu-
tions of boron minerals in Searles Lake brines.
Barite is almost pure barium sulfate (BaS04) and is the principal com-
mercial mineral source of barium and barium compounds. The reserves are
principally in Missouri and the southern Appalachian States, the remainder
is in Arkansas, Nevada, and California.
Fluorine is derived from the mineral fluorite (CaFz), commonly known as
fluorspar.
Fluorspar is principally found in deposits located in Kentucky
and Illinois.
3-10
-------
Feldspar is a general term used to designate a group of closely related
minerals, especially abundant in igneous rocks and consisting essentially of
aluminum silicates in combination with varying proportions of potassium, sodium,
and calcium.
The principal feldspar species are orthclase or microcline
(both KzOoAlz0306SiOz), albite (NazOoAlz03.6SiOz) and anorthite (CaO.Alz03°
2SiOz).
North Carolina is the foremost domestic producer, followed in order
of output by California, Connecticut, and Georgia.
Diatomite is a material of sedimentary origin consisting mainly of an
accumulation of skeletons or frustules formed as a protective covering by
diatoms, single-celled microscopic plants. The skeletons are essentially
amorphous hydrated or opaline silica but occasionally are partly composed of
alumina.
The terms "diatomaceous earth" and "kieselguhr" are sometimes used
interchangeably and are synonymous with diatomite.
Diatomite is found only in
the Western States with a substantial part of the total reserve found in the
Lompoc, California area.
Perlite is chemically a metastable amorphous aluminum silicate with minor
impurities and inclusions of various other metal oxides and minerals.
Perlite
is mostly found in the Western States.
Vermiculite is a micaceous mineral with a ferromagnesium-aluminum silicate
composition and the property of exfoliating to a low-density material when
heated.
Presently, vermiculite is mined from deposits located in Montana and
South Carolina.
Mica is a group name for a number of complex hydrous potassium aluminum
silicate minerals differing in chemical composition and physical properties but
characterized by excellent basal cleavage that facilitates splitting into thin,
tough, flexible, elastic sheets.
These minerals can be classified into four
3-11
-------
principal types named after the most common mineral in each group - muscovite
(potassium mica), phlogopite (magnesium mica), biotite (iron mica). and lepi-
dolite (lithium mica).
The major producing regions in the United States are
the Southeast and West.
Kyan1te and the related minerals - andalusite, sillimanite, dumortierite,
and topaz - are natural aluminum silicates which can be converted to mullite,
a stable refractory raw material.
Reserves of kyanite and the related min-
erals are mostly found in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Idaho, and
Georgia.
3.2 NON-METALLIC MINERALS PREPARATION PROCESSES AND THEIR EMISSIONS
3.2.1
Gener~l Process Description
Non-metallic mineral processing involves extracting from the ground;
loading, unloading, and dumping, conveying, crushing, screening, milling, and
classifying.
Some minerals processing also includes washing, drying, calcin-
ing, or flotation operations.
The operations performed depend on the rock
type and the desired product.
The mining techniques used for the extraction of non-metallic minerals
vary with the particular mineral, the nature of the deposit, and the location
of the deposit.
Mining is carried out both underground and in open pits.
Some minerals require blasting while others can be removed by bulldozer or
dredging operations alone.
The non-metallic minerals are normally delivered to the processing plant
by truck, and dumped into a hoppered feeder, usually' a vibrating grizzly type,
or on to screens, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.
These screens separate or
scalp the larger boulders from the finer rocks that qo not require primary
crushing, thus minimizing the load to the primary crusher.
Jawor gyratory
3-12
-------
r{f:~ TRUCK Ul'~
~""Dn
:~ /R,PRII'"RY ~
I \8J:RUS~
~
RECLAI~
, . . TU~I~IEL
r-~-'--
W
I
--'
W
~-- SCREEN :::'--V-~
/' ~~~~aERn;; ~
A" '" CRUSHERS \ \ \ \
- n -'.' . STORAGE PIlES
'. .~
Figure 3.1
F10wsheet of a Typical Crushing Plant
-------
crushers are usually used for initial reduction, although impact crushers are
gaining favor for crushing low-abrasion rock, such as limestones, and talc, and
where high reduction ratios are desired.
The crusher product, normally 7.5
to 30 centimeters (3 to 12 inches) in size, and the grizzly throughs (undersize
material) are discharged onto a belt conveyor and normally transported to either
secondary screens and crusher, or to a surge pile or ~i10 for temporary storage.
The secondary screens generally separate the process flow into either two or
three fractions (oversize, undersize, and throughs) prior to the secondary crusher.
The oversize is discharged to the secondary crusher for further reduction.
The
undersize, which require no further reduction at this stage, normally by-pass the
secondary crusher.
A third fraction, the throughs, is separated when processing
some minerals.
Throughs conta in unwanted fi nes that are usually removed from the
process flow and stockpiled as crusher-run material.
For secondary crushing,
gyratory or cone crushers are most commonly used, although impact crushers are
used at some installations.
The product from the secondary crushing stage, usually 2.5 centimeters (one
inch) or less in size, is normally transported to a secondary screen for further
sizing.
Sized material from this screen is either discharged directly to a
tertiary crushing stdge or conveyed to a fine-ore bin which supplies the milling
stage.
Cone crushers or hammermil1s are normally used for tertiary crushing.
Rod
rn ills, ba 11 mill s, and hanmermi 11 s
are normally used in the milling stage.
The
product from the tertiary crusher or the mill is usually conveyed to a type of
classifier such as d dry vibrating screen system, an air separator, or a wet rake
or spiral system (if wet grinding was employed) which a1 so dewaters the material.
The oversize is returned to the tertiary crusher or mill for further size
reduction.
At this point, some mineral end products of the desired grade are
3-14
-------
conveyed directly to finished product bins, or are stockpiled in open areas by
conveyors or trucks.
Other mi nera 1 s such as ta 1 c or barite may requi re ai r
classification to obtain the required mesh size, and treatment by flotation to
obtain the necessary chemical purity and color.
Most non-metallic minerals require additional processing depending on the rock
type and consumer requirements.
In certain cases, especially in the crushed stone
and sand and gravel industry, stone washing may be required to meet particular end
product specifications or demands such as for concrete aggregate.
Some minerals,
especially certain lightweight aggregates, are washed and dried, sintered, or
treated prior to primary crushing.
Others are dried following secondary crushing
or mill i ng.
Sand and gravel, crushed and broken stone, and most lightweight
aggregates normally are not milled and are screened and shipped to the consumer
after secondary or tertiary crushing.
Table 3.3 lists the various unit process
operations for each industry under consideration.
Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show
simplified diagrams of the typical process steps required for the non-metallic
minerals investigated in this report.
3.2.2 Process Unit Operations and Their Emissions
[ssentially all /Inning and mineral processing operations are potential sources
of parliculate ~nissions.
Emi ss ions may be categori zed as either fugit i ve
emissions or fugitlve dust.
Operations included within each category are listed in
Table 3.4.
Fugitive emission sources include those sources for which emissions are
amenable to capture and subsequent control.
Fugitive dust sources are not amenable
to control using conventional control systems and generally involve the
reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement.
Information available on emissions from uncontrolled non-metallic minerals
processing operations is limited.
Estimates developed by EPA for uncontrolled
3-15
-------
Table 3.3
Possible Sources of Emissions
Type of Plant
Crushers
Screens
Transfer
Points
Grinders
Loading
Operation
Bagging
Operation
Dryers or
Calciners
Dri 11 i ng
Operation
Crushed & Broken Stone X X X X X
Sand & Gravel X X X X
Cl ay X X X X X v X
1\
Gypsum X X X X X X
Pumice X X X X X X
Feldspar X X X X X X
Boron X X X X X X X X
w Talc X X X X v X X X
1\
I
-'
~ Barite X X X X X
Di atomite X X X X X X
Lightweight Aggregate X X X X X X X
Rock Salt X X X
Fl uorspar. X X X X X
. Gilsonite X X X
Sodium Compounds X X X
Mica X X X
Kyani te X X X X
-------
COARSE
ORE
BIN.
GRIZZLY
OR
SCREEN
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
Q9
,. "SECONDARY
CRUSHER
3-17
SIZE
LASS I FI ER
Fiqure 3.2 General Schematic for Non-Metallic Minerals Processing
fif
FINE
ORE
BIN.
-
-------
Table 3.4 EMISSION SOURCES AT NON-METALLIC MINERAL FACILTIES
Fugitive Emissions Fugit i ve Dust Sources
Dr; 111 ng Blasting
Crushing Hauling
Screening Haul Roads
Grinding Stock pi 1 es
Conveyor Transfer Points P1 ant yard
Loading Conveying
crushed stone plant process operations are presented in Table 3.5.
Based on
these estimates, fugitive emission sources 410ne (excluding drilling and fines
milling) emit about 5.5 kilograms of dust per megagram of material processed
(11 pounds per ton).
The following emission sources are discussed in detail:
crushing,screening
and conveying operations, grinders, fine product loading and bagging operations.
This document will only briefly discuss mining operations.
3.2.2.1
Factors that Affect Emissions from Mining and Process Operations
In general, the factors that affect emissions from most mineral processing
operations include:
the type of ore processed, the type of equipment and
operating practices employed, the moisture content of the ore, the amount of ore
processed, and a variety of geographical and seasonal factors.
These factors,
discussed in more detail below, apply to both fugitive emission and fugitive dust
sources associated with mining and processing plant operation.
The type of ore (rock) processed is important.
Soft rocks produce a higher
percentage of fine-grained material than do hard rocks because of their greater
3-18
-------
Table 3.5
Process Operation
Particulate Emission Factors for
Stone Crushing Process4
Uncontrolled Emission Factor*
kg/Mg 1b/ton
Primary crushing 0.25 0.5
Secondary crushing and screening 0.75 1 .5
Tertiary crushing and screening (if used) 3.0 6.0
Recrushing and screening 2.5** 5.0
Fines mill 3.0 6.0
Screening, conveying and handl ing 1.0 2.0
* Based on feed to the primary crusher.
** Assume 20 percent undergoes recrushing.
0.5 kg/my (1.0 lb/ton).
Thus, the emission factor becomes
3-19
-------
friabllity and lower reslstdnce to fracture.5
Thus, it is concluded that the
processing of soft rocks results in a greater potential for uncontrolled emissions
than the processing of hard rock.
Major rock types arranged in order of increasing
hardness dre:
talc, clay, gypsum, barite, limestone and dolomite, perlite,
feldspar, and quartz.
Thus, talc could be expected to exhibit the highest
uncontrolled emissions and quartz the least.
The type of equipment and operating practices employed also affect uncon-
trolled emissions.
In general, emissions from process equipment such as crushers,
screens, grinders, and conveyors depend on the size distribution of the material
and the velocity that is mechanically imparted to the material.
For crushers: the
particular type of crushing mechanism employed (compression or ,impact) affects
em is s ion s .
The effect of equipment type on uncontrolled emissions from all sources
. will be more fully discussed in subsequent sections of this report(see Sections
3.2.2.3.1 to 3.2.2.3.5).
The inherent moisture content or wetness of the rock processed can have a
substantial effect on uncontrolled ~nissions.
This is especially evident during
mining, initial material handling and initial plant process operation such as
primary crushing.
Surface wetness causes fine particles to agglomorate or adhere
to the faces of larger stones with a resultant dust suppression effect.
However,
as new fine particles are created by crushing and attrition, and as the moisture
content is reduced by evaporation, this suppressive effect diminishes and may even
disappear.
Oepending on the gepgraphic and climatic conditions, the moisture
content of the mined rock ranges from nearly zero to several percent.
With regard to geographical and seasonal factors, the primary variables
affecting uncontrolled particulate emissions are wind parameters and moisture
content of the material.
Wind parameters will vary with geographical location
3-20
-------
and season and it can certainly be expected that the level of emissions from
sources which are not enclosed (principally fugitive dust sources) will be
greater during periods of high winds than periods of low winds.
The moisture
content of the material will also vary with geographical location and season.
can, therefore, be expected that the level of uncontrolled emissions from both
It
fugitive emission sources and fugitive dust sources will be greater in arid
regions of the country than in temperate ones and greater during the summer
months due to a higher evaporation rate.
3.2.2.2 Mining Operations
Sources of particulate emissions from mining operations include drilling,
blasting, secondary breakage and the loading and hauling of the mineral to the
processing plant.
Not all non-metallic mineral deposits require drilling and
blasting to fragment portions of the deposits into pieces of material of con-
venient size for further processing.
Some mineral deposits can be removed
without blasting by the use of power equipment such as front-end loaders, drag
lines, and dredges.
Particulate emissions from drilling operations are primarily caused by the
removal of cuttings and dust from the bottom of the hole by air flushing.
Compressed air is released down the hollow drill center, forcing cuttings and
dust up and out the annular space formed between the hole wall and drill.
Blasting is used to displace solid rock from its quarry deposit and to frag-
ment it into sizes which require a minimum of secondary breakage and which can
be readily handled by loading and hauling equipment.
The frequency of blasting
ranges from several shots per, day to one per week depending on the plant capacity
and the size of individual shots.
The effectiveness of a shot depends on the
characteristics of the explosive and the rock.
Emissions from blasting are
3-21
-------
evident from visual observations and are largely unavoidable.
The emissions
generated are affected by the blasting practices employed and are reduced during
wet. low wind conditions.
If secondary breakage is required, drop-ball cranes are usually employed.
Normally. a pear-shaped or spherical drop-ball, weighing several tons, is
suspended by a crane and dropped on the oversize rock as many times as needed to
break it.
Emissions are slight.
The excavation and loading of broken rock is normally performed by shovels
"and front-end loaders.
Whether the broken rock is dumped into a haulage vehicle
for transport or directly into the 'primary crusher, considerable fugitive dust
emissions may result.
The most significant factor affecting these emissions is
the wetness of the rock.
At most quarries, large capacity "off-the-road" haulage vehicles are used to
transport broken rock from the quarry to the primary crusher over unpaved haul
roads.
This vehicle traffic on unpaved roads is responsible for a large por-
tion of the fugitive dust generated by quarrying operations.
Factors affecting
fugitive dust emissions from hauling operations include the composition of the
road surface, the wetness of the road, and the volume and speed of the vehicle
traffic.
3.2.2.3
Processing Plant Facilities and Their Emissions
Principal processing plant facilities include crushers, grinders, screens,
and material handling and transfer equipment.
As indi'cated by Table 3.4, all
these units are potential sources of particulate emissions.
I
Emissions are
generally emitted from process equipment at feed an~ discharge points and from
material handling equipment at transfer points.
3-22
-------
3.2.2.3.1
Crushing Operations
Crushing is the process by which coarse material is reduced by mechanical
energy and attrition to a desired size for mechanical separation (screening).
The mechanical stress applied to rock fragments during crushing may be accom-
plished by either compression or impact. These two 'methods of crushing differ
in the duration of time needed to apply the breaking force.
In impacting,
the breaking force is applied very rapidly, while in compression, the rock
particle is slowly squeezed and forced to fracture.
both compression and impaction to varying deg!ees.
All types of crushers are
Table 3.6 ranks crushers
according to the predominant crushing mechanism used (from top to bottom,
compression to impaction).
In all cases, there is some reduction by the rubbing
of stone on stone or on metal surfaces (attrition).
TABLE 3.6.
RELATIVE CRUSHING MECHANISM UTILIZED
BY VARIOUS CRUSHERS6
Compression
Double roll crusher
Jaw crusher
Gyratory crusher
Single roll crusher
Rod mill (low speed)
Ball mill
Rod mill (high speed)
Hammermill (low speed)
Impact breaker
Impaction
Hammermill (high speed)
The size of the product from compression type crushers is controlled by
the space between the crushing surfaces compressing the rock particle. This
type of crusher produces a relatively closely graded product with a small
3-23
-------
proportion of fines.
Crushers that reduce by impact, on the other hand, pro-
duce a wide range of sizes and a high proportion of fines.
Since the size reduction achievable by one machine is limited, reduction in
stages is frequently required.
As noted previously, the various stages include
primary. secondary, and perhaps tertiary crushing.
Basically, the crushers used
in the non-metallic minerals industry are:
jaw, gyratory, roll and impact
crushers.
Jaw Crushers
Jaw crushers consist of a vertical fixed jaw and a moving inclined jaw which
is operated by a single toggle or a pair of toggles.
Rock is crushed by
compression as a result of the opening and closing action of the moveable jaw
against the fixed jaw.
~
Their principal application in the industry is for
primary crushing.
The most commonly used jaw crusher is the Balke or double-toggle type.
As illustrated in Figure 3.3, an eccentric shaft drives a Pitman arm that
raises and lowers a pair of toggle plates to open and close the moving jaw
which is suspended from a fixed shaft.
In a single-toggle jaw crusher, the
moving jaw is itself suspended from an eccentric shaft and the lower part of
the jaw supported by a rolling toggle plate (Figure 3.4).
Rotation of the
eccentric shaft produces a circular motion at the upper end of the jaw and
an elliptical motion at the lower end.
Other types, such as the DOdge and
overhead eccentric are used on a limited scale.
The size of a jaw crusher is defined by its feed opening dimensions and
may range from about 15 x 30 centimeters to 213 x 168 centimeters (6 x 12
inches to 84 x 66 inches).
The size reduction obtainable may range from
3:1 to 10:1 depending on the nature of the rock.
Capacities are quite variable
3-24
-------
F I XED JAW
MOV EABL E JI\W
~
ECC ENTR IC
DISCHARGE
TOGGLES
Figure 3.3 Uouble-toggle Jaw Crusher
FIXED
JAW
MOVEABLE JAW
DISCHARGE
TOGGLE
Figure 3.4 Single-toggle Jaw Crusher
3-25
PITMAN ARM
-------
depending on the unit and its discharge setting.
Table 3.7 presents approximate
capacities for a number of jaw crusher sizes at both minimum and maximum dis-
charge settings.
",Gyratory Crushers
Simply, a gyratory crusher may be considered to be a jaw crusher with
circular jaws between which the material flows and is crushed.
As indicated in
Table 3.8, however, a gyratory crusher has a much greater capacity than a jaw
crusher with an equivalent feed opening.
There are basically three types of gyratory crushers, the pivoted spindle,
fixed spindle and cone.
The fixed and pivoted spindle gyratories are used for
primary and secondary crushing, and cone crushers for secondary and tertiary
crushi ng.
The larger gyratories are sized according to feed opening and the
smaller units by cone diameters.
The pivoted spindle gyratory (Figure 3.5) has the crushing head mounted on
a shaft that is suspended from above and free to pivot. The bottom of the shaft
is seated in an eccentric sleeve which revolves, thus causing the crusher head
to gyrate in a circular path within a stationary concave circular chamber.
The
crushing action is similar to that of a jaw crusher in that the crusher element
reciprocates to and from a fixed crushing plate.
Because some part of the
crusher head is working at all times, the discharge from the gyratory is con-
tinuous rather than intermittent as in a jaw crusher.
The crusher setting is
determined by the wide-side opening at the discharge end and is adjusted by
raising or lowering the crusher head.
Unlike the pivoted spindle gyratory, the fixed spindle gyratory has its
crushing head mounted on an eccentric sleeve fitted over a fixed shaft.
This
produces a uniform crushing stroke from the top to the bottom of the crushing
chamber.
3-26
-------
Table 3.7 APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF JAW CRUSHERS(7}
(Discharge opening - closed)
Size
[cm.(in.}]
Smallest
discharge
openl ny
[cm.(in.}]
Ca pac ity*
[Mg/hr (tons/hr)]
Largest
discharge
opening
[ em. ( in. ) ]
Capacity
[Mg/hr (tons/hr)]
91 x 61
107 x 152
122 x 107
152 x 122
213 x 168
(36 x 24)
(42 x 60)
(48 x 42)
(60 x 4B)
(84 x 56)
68 (75 )
118 (130)
159 (175)
218 (240)
363 (400)
>6 (3)
10.2 (4)
12.7 (5)
12.7 (5)
20 . 3 (8)
15.2 (6)
20.3 (8)
20 . 3 ( 8 )
22.9 (9)
30 . 5 (12)
145 (160)
181 (200)
250 (275)
408 (450)
544 (600)
*Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/m3 (100 lb/cu ft.)
Table 3.8 APPROXIMAT[ CAPACITIES OF GYRATORY CRUSHERS (8)
(Discharge opening - open)
Si ze Small est Capacity* Largest Capacity
[ em. (i n . )] discharge [Mg/hr. (tons/hr)] discharge [Mg/hr. (tons/hr)]
openlng opening
[ em. ( in. ) ] [em. ( in.)]
76 (30) 10.2 (4) 181 (200) 16.5 (6.5) 408 (450)
91 ( 36) 11.4 (4.5) 336 (370) 17.8 (7) 544 (600)
107 (42) 12.7 (5) 381 (420) 19.1 (7.5) 635 (700)
122 (48) 14.0 (5.5) 680 (750) 22.9 (9) 1088 (1,200)
137 (54) 16.5 (6.5) 816 (900) 24. 1 (9. 5) 1451 (1,600)
152 (60) 17.8 (7) 1088 (1,200) 25.4 (10) 1814 (2,000)
183 (72) 22.9 (9) 1814 (2,000) 30. 5 (12) 2721 (3,000)
*Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/m3 (100 1b/eu ft.)
3-27
-------
ECCENTRIC
DRIVE
/
FI XED
THROAT'
CRUSHING SURFACE
Figure 3.5 The Pivoted Spindle Gyratory
For fine crushing, the gyratory is equipped with flatter heads and con-
verted to a cone crusher (Figure'3.6).
Commonly, in the lower section a
parallel zone exists. This results in a larger discharge to feed area ratio
which makes it extremely suitable for fine crushing at high capacity. Also,
unlike regular gyratories, the cone crusher sizes at the closed side setting
and not the open side (wide-side) setting.
This assures that the material
discharge will have been crushed at least once at the closed side setting.
Cone crushers yield a cubical product and a high percentage of fines due to
interparticle crushing (attrition).
They are the most commonly used crusher
in the industry for secondary and tertiary reduction.
Table 3.9 presents
performance data for typical cone crushers.
3-28
-------
FEED
CRUSHING
SURFACES
ECCENTRIC
Figure 3.6 Cone Crusher
TABLE 3.9 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CONE CRUSHERS9
Size 0 f
crusher
(m (ft) 1.0 (3/8)
Capacity (Mg/hr (tons/hr))
discharge setting (cm (in))
0.6 (2)
0.9 (3)
1.2 (4)
1.7 (5.5)
2.1 (7)
18 ( 20 )
32 (35)
54 ( 60 )
1.3 (1/2) 1.9
23 (25) 23 (25)
36 (40) 64 ( 70 )
73 (80) 109 (120)
181 (200)
229 (330)
2.5 (1) 3.8 (1.5)
136 150
250 275 308 (340)
408 450 544 (600)
Roll Crushers
These machines are utilized primarily at intermediate or final reduction
stages and are often used at portable plants. There are essentially two types,
the single-roll and the double-roll. As illustrated in Figure 3.7, the doub1e-
roll crusher consists of two heavy parallel rolls which are turned toward each
3-29
-------
other at the same speed.
Roll speeds range from 50 to 300 rpm.
Usua 11y, one
roll is fixed and the other set by springs.
Typically, roll diameters range
from 61 to 198 centimeters (24 to 78 inches) and have narrow face widths,
about half the roll diameter.
Rock particles are caught between the rolls and
crushed almost totally by compression.
Reduction ratios are limited and range
from 3 or 4 to 1. These units produce few fines and no oversize. They are
used especially for reducing hard stone to a final product ranging from 1/4
inch to 20 mesh.
FEED
\
DISCHARGE
ADJUSTABLE
ROLLS
Figure 3.7 Double-roll Crusher
The working elements of a single-roll crusher include a toothed or
knobbed roll and a curved crushing plate which may be corrugated or smooth.
The crushing plate is generally hinged at the top and its setting is held by
a spring at the bottom. A toothed-roll crusher is depicted in Figure 3.8.
The feed caught between the roll and crushing plate ;s broken by a combination
of compression, impact and shear.
These units may accept feed sizes up to
3-30
-------
51 centimeters (20 inches) and have capacities up to 454 megagrams per hour
(500 tons/hr).
In contrast with the double-roll, the single-roll crusher is
,principally used for reducing soft materials such as limestones.
FEED
ROLL
CRUSHING
PLATE
illG=
DISCHARGE
Figure 3.8 Single roll Crusher
Impact Crushers
Impact crushers, including hammermills and impactors, use the force of
fast rotating massive impellers or hammers to strike and shatter free falling
rock particles.
These units have extremely high reduction ratios and produce
a cubical product spread over a wide range of particle sizes with a large pro-
portion of fines, thus making their application in industry segments such as
cement manufacturing and agstone production extremely cost effective by reducing
the need for subsequent grinding machines.
A harnmennill consists of a high speed horizontal rotor with several rotor
discs to which sets of swing hammers are attached (Figure 3.9).
As rock
particles are fed into the crushing chamber, they are impacted and shattered by
,
3-31
-------
the hammers which attain tangential speeds as high as 76 meters (250 feet) per
second. The shattered rock then collides with a steel breaker plate and is
fragmented even further. A cylindrical grating or screen positioned at the
discharge opening restrains oversize material until it is reduced to a size
small enough to pass between the grate bars.
Rotor speeds range from 250 to
1800 rpm and capacities to over 907 megagrams per hour (1,000 tons/hr).
Prod-
uct size is controlled by the rotor speed, the spacing between the grate bars,
and by hammer length.
FEED
BREAKER
PLATE
SWING
HAMMERS
GRATE BARS
DISCHARGE
Figure 3.9 Hammermill
An impact breaker (Figure 3.10) is similar to a hammermill except that it
has no grate or screen to act as a restraining member. ' Feed is broken by
impact alone. Adjustable breaker bars are used instead of plates to reflect
material back into the path of the impellers.
Primary-reduction units are
3-32
-------
available which can reduce quarry run material at over 907 megagrams per hour
(1,000 tons/hr) capacity to about 2.5 centimeters (1 inch).
These units are
not appropriate for hard abrasive materials, but are ideal for soft rocks like
limestone.
BREAKER
PLATE
BREAKER
BARS
FEED
ROTOR
DISCHARGE
figure 3.10
Impact Crusher
Sources of Emissions
The generation of particulate emissions is inherent in the crushing pro-
cess.
Emissions are most apparent at crusher feed and discharge points.
Emis-
sions are influenced predominantly by the type of rock processed, the moisture
content of the rock, and the type of crusher used.
The most important element influencing emissions from crushing equipment,
as previously mentioned, is the type of rock and the moisture content of the
mineral being crushed.
The crushing mechanism employed has a substantial
.affect on the size reduction that a machine can achieve; the particle size
3-33
-------
distribution .of the product, especially the proportion of fines produced; and
the amount of mechanically induced energy which is imparted to fines.
Crushing units utilizing impact rather than compression produce a larger
proportion of fines as noted above.
In addition to generating more fines,
impact crushers also impact higher velocity to them as a result of the fan-like
action produced by the fast rotating hammers.
Because of this and the high
proportion of fines produced, impact crushers generate larger quantities of
uncontrolled particulate emissions per ton of material processed than any other
crusher type.
The level of uncontrolled emissions from jaw, gyratory, cone and roll
crushers closely parallels the reduction stage to which they are applied.
indicated in Table 3-5, emissions increase progressively from primary to
As
secondary to tertiary crushing.
Factors other than the type of crushing
mechanism (compression, impact) also affect emissions.
In all likelihood,
primary jaw crushers produce greater emissions than comparable gyratory because
of the bellows effect of the jaw and because gyratory crushers are usually
choke fed to minimize the open spaces from which dust may be emitted.
For
subsequent reduction stages, cone crushers produce more fines as a result of
attrition and consequently generate more dust.
3.2.2.3.2
Screening Operations
Screening is the process by which a mixture of stones'is separa~ed accord-
1ng to size.
In screening, material is dropped into a mesh surface with open-
1ngs of desired size and separated into two fractions, undersize which passes
through the screen opening and oversize which is retained on the screen surface.
When material is passed over and through multiple screening surfaces, it is
3-34
-------
separated into fractions of known particle size distribution.
Screening sur-
faces may be constructed of metal bars, perforated or slotted metal plates, or
woven wire cloth.
The capacity of a screen is primarily determined by the open area of the
screening surface and the physical characteristics of the feed.
It is usually
expressed in tons of material per hour per square foot of screen area.
Although
screening may be performed wet or dry, dry screening is the more common.
Screening equipment commonly used in the non-metallic minerals industry
includes grizzlies, shaking screens, vibrating screens, and revolving screens.
Grizzlies
Grizzlies consist of a set of uniformly spaced bars, rods or rails. The
bars may be horizontal or inclined and are usually wider in cross section at
particles between bars.
This prevents the clogging or wedging of stone
The spacing between the bars ranges from 5 to 20
the top than the bottom.
centimeters (2 to 8 inches).
Bars are usually constructed of manganese steel
or other highly abrasion-resistant material.
Grizzlies are primarily used to remove fines prior to primary crushing,
thus reducing the load on the primary crusher.
Grizzlies may be stationary
cantilevered (fixed at one end with the discharge end free to vibrate) or
mechanically vibrated.
Vibrating grizzlies are simple bar grizzlies mounted
on eccentrics (Figure 3-11).
The entire assembly is moved forward and backward
at about 100 strokes a minute, resulting in better flow through and across the
gri zzly surface.
Shaking Screens
The shaking screen consists of a rectangular frame with perforated plate or
wire cloth screening surfaces, usually suspended by rods or cables and inclined
3..35
-------
at an angle of 14 degrees.
The screens are mechanically ?haken parallel to the
plane of material flow at speeds ranging from 60 to 800 strokes per minute and
at amplitudes ranging from 2 to 23 centimeters (3/4 to 9 inches}.lO Generally,
they are used for screening coarse material, 1.3 centimeters (1/2-inch) or
larger.
Figure 3.11
Vibrating Grizzly
Vibrating Sc~~ens
Where large capacity ~d high efficiency are desired, the vibrating screen
has practically replaced all other screen types.
It is by far the most commonly
used screen type in the non-metallic minerals industry. A vibrating screen
(Figure 3.12) essentially consists of an inclined flat or slightly convex
screening surface which is rapidly vibrated in a plane normal or nearly normal
to the screen surface.
The screening motion is of small amplitude but high
frequency, normally in excess of 3,000 cycles per minute. The vibrations may
3-36
-------
be generated either mechanically by means of an eccentric shaft, unbalanced fly
wheel, cam and tappet assembly, or electrically by means of an electromagnet.
.
. .
. .
. . .
. .
Figure 3.12
Vibrating Screen
Mechanically-vibrated units are operated at about 1,200 to 1,800 rpm and
at amplitudes of about 0.3 to 1.3 centimeters (1/8 to 1/2 inch).
Electrically
vibrated screens are available in standard sizes from 30 to 180 centimeters
(12 inches to 6 feet) wide and 0.76 to 6.1 meters (2-1/2 to 20 feet) long.
A complete screening unit may have one, two or three decks.
Revolving Screens
This screen type consists of an inclined cylindrical frame around which
is wrapped a screening surface of wire cloth or perforated plate.
Feed material
is delivered at the upper end and, as the screen is rotated, undersized material
passes through the screen openings while the oversized is discharged at the
lower end.
Revolving screens are available up to 1.2 meters (4 feet) in diam-
eter and usually run at 15 to 20 rpm.ll
3-37
-------
Source of Emissions
Dust is emitted from screening operations as a result of the agitation of
dry material.
The level of uncontrolled emissions depends on the quantity of
fine particles contained in the material, the moisture content of the material
and the type of screening equipment.
Generally, the screening of fines produces
higher emissions than the screening of coarse materials. Also, screens agi-
tated at large amplitudes and high frequency emit more dust than those operated
at small amplitudes and low frequencies.
3.2.2.3.3 ~onveying Operation
Materials handling devices are used to convey materials from one point to
another.
The most common include feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators,
screw conveyors, and pneumatic systems.
Feeders
Feeders are relatively short, heavy-duty conveyance devices used to re-
ceive material and deliver it to process units, especially crushers, at a uni-
form regulated rate.
The various types used are the apron, belt, reciprocating
plate, vibrating, and wobb1er feeders.
Apron feeders are composed of overlapping metal pans or aprons which are
hinged or linked by chains to form an endless conveyor supported by rollers
and spaced between a head and tail assembly.
These feeders are constructed to
withstand high impact and abrasion and are available in various widths (18 to
27 inches) and lengths.
Belt feeders are essentially short, heavy duty belt conveyors equipped
with closely spaced support rollers.
Adjustable gates are used to regulate
feed rates.
Belt feeders are available in 46 to 122 centimeter (18 to 48 inch)
3-38
-------
.
widths and 0.9 to 3.7 mete~ (3 to 12 foot) lengths and are operated at speeds
of 12.2 to 30.5 meters (40 to 100 feet) per minute.
Reciprocating plate feeders consist of a heavy-duty horizontal plate which
is driven in a reciprocating motion causing material to move forward at a uni-
form rate.
The feed rate is controlled by adjusting the frequency and length
of the stroke.
Vibrating feeders operate at a relatively high frequency and low amplitude.
Their feed rate is controlled by the slope of the feeder bed and the ampl itude
of the vibrations.
cities a~d drives.
These feeders are available in a variety of sizes, capa-
When combined with a grizzly, both scalping and feeding
functions are performed.
Wobb1er feeders also perform the dual task of scalping and feeding.
units consist of a series of closely spaced elliptical bars which are
These
mechanically rotated, causing oversize material to tumble forward to the dis-
charge and undersize material to pass through the spaces.
controlled by the bar spacing and the speed of rotation.
The feed rate is
Belt Conveyors
Belt conveyors are the most widely used means of transporting, elevating
and handling materials in the non-metallic minerals industry. As illustrated
in Figure 3.13, belt conveyors consist of an endless belt which is carried on
a series of idlers usually arranged so that the belt forms a trough.
The belt
is stretched between a drive or head pulley and a tail pulley.
Although belts
may be constructed of other material, reinforced rubber is the most commonly
used.
Belt widths may range from 36 to 152 centimeters (14 to 60 inches) ~ith
76 to 91 centimeter (30 to 36 inch) belts the most common.
Normal operating
speeds may range from 60 to 120 meters per minute (200 to 400 feet/minute).
3~39
-------
Depending on the belt speed, belt width and rock density, load capacities may
be in excess of 1360 megagrams (1,500 tons) per hour.
HEAD
0(
IDLER\ PULL::L~~0U u 0
! 0(
OOOOUU~7~(
o C0
o .
u-
=
TAIL
PULLEY
Figure 3.13 Conveyor Belt Transfer Point
Elevators
Bucket elevators are utilized where substantial elevation is required
within a limited space. They consist of a head and foot assembly which sup-
ports and drives an endless single or double strand chain or belt to which
buckets are attached.
Figure 3.14 depicts the three types most commonly used:
the high-speed centrifugal-discharge, the slow speed positive or perfect-
discharge, and the continuous-bucket elevator.
The centrifugal-discharge elevator has a single strand of chain or belt
to which the spaced buckets are attached. As the buck~ts round the tail pulley,
which is housed within a suitable curved boot, the b~ckets scoop up their load
and elevate it to the point of discharge. The buckets! are so spaced so that
at discharge, the material is thrown out by the centrifugal action of the
bucket rounding the head pulley. The positive-discharge type also utilizes
spaced buckets but differs from the centrifugal type in that it has a
3-40
-------
Fi gure 3. 14.
1}~ (0)
:1 i~r~
J?)\ (b)
. rr:,
'I'~ (c)
I f":
LEGEND
(a) centrifugal discharge
~b) positive discharge
(c) continuous discharge
Bucket Elevator Types
i-41
-------
double-strand chain and a different discharge mechanism.
An additional sprocket,
set below the head pulley, effectively bends the strands back under the pulley
causing the bucket to be totally inverted resulting in a positive discharge.
The continuous-bucket elevator utilizes closely spaced buckets attached
to single or double strand belt or chain.
Material is loaded directly into
the buckets during ascent and is discharged gently as a result of using the
back of the precluding bucket as a discharge chute.
Screw Conveyors
Screw conveyors are comprised of a steel shaft with a spiral or helical
fin which, when rotated, pushes material along a trough.
Since these con-
veyors are usually used with wet classification, no significant emission prob-
lem is experienced.
Pneumatic Conveyors
Pneumatic conveyors are comprised of tubes or ducts through which material
is conveyed.
Pneumatic conveyors are divided into two classes termed by their
operating principles:
pressure systems and vacuum (suction) systems.
Pressure systems are further classified into low pressure and high pressure
types, and vacuum systems into low-, medium-, and high-vacuum types.
Pressure
and vacuum systems occasionally are used in combination for special requirements.
Pressure systems operate at pressure obtainable from a fan (low-pressure
systems) or a compressed air system (high-pressure systems).
Normally, the
airstream functions in a 20 to 31 centimeter (8 inch to 12 inch) diameter pipe-
line.
Into this line, material is fed from a hopper or other device at con-
trolled rates.
The airstream immediately suspends this material and conveys
it to a cyclone-type or filte~-tYp'e collector for deposit.
capes via the cyclone vent or through the filter.
Conveying air es-
3-42
-------
Vacuum systems offer the advantage of clean, efficient pickup from rail-
cars, trucks or bins for unloading or in-plant conveying operations.
Cyclone
receivers or combination receiver-filters are used at the terminal of the sys-
tem to separate the material being conveyed from the air.
Below the receiver,
either a rotary feeder or gatelock (trap door feeder) is employed as a dis-
charge air lock.
Positive displacement blowers are used as exhausters to
provide the necessary conveying air at the operating vacuum.
Generally, the
vacuum system is most applicable where the feed-in point must be flexible,
such as unloading railroad cars, barges, ships, or reclaiming material from
open warehouse storage, or where it is desirable to pick up material from a
multiplicity of stations.
Sourc~ of J.!TIi 55 ions
Particulates may be emitted from any of the material handling and transfer
operati ons.
As with screening, the level of uncontrolled emissions depends on
the material being handled, the size of the material handled, the degree of
agitation of the material and the moisture content of the material.
Perhaps
the largest emissions occur at conveyor belt transfer points.
Depending
on the conveyor belt speed and the free fall distance between transfer points,
substantial emissions may be generated
3.2.2.3.4 Grinding Operation
Grinding is a further step in the reduction of material to particle sizes
smaller than those attainable by crushers.
Because the material to be treated
has already been reduced to small sizes, and the force to be applied to each
particle is comparatively small, the machines used in grinding are of a dif-
ferent type, and may operate on a different principle, from those used in more
coarse crushing.
3-43
-------
As with crushers, the most important element influencing emissions from
grinding mills is the reduction mechanism employed, compression or impact.
Grinding mills generally utilize impact rather than compression.
Reduction
by impact will produce a larger proportion of fines.
Particulate emissions
are generated from grinding mills at the grinder's inlet and outlet.
Gravity
type grinding mills accept feed from a conveyor and discharge product into a
screen or classifier or onto a conveyor.
These transfer points are the source
of particulate emissions.
The outlet has the highest emissions potential
because of the finer material.
Air-swept mills include an air conveying sys-
tern and an air separator, a classifier, or both.
The air separator and
and classifier are generally cyclone collectors.
In some systems, the air
just conveys the material to a separator for deposit into a storage bin with
the conveying air escaping via the cyclone vent.
In other grinding systems,
the air is continuously recirculated.
Maintaining this circulating air sys-
tern under suction keeps the mill dustless in operation, and any surplus air
drawn into the system due to the suction created by the fan is released through
a vent.
In both cases the vent gases will contain a certain amount of par-
ticu1ate matter.
The levels of uncontrolled emissions from grinding mills (fine mills) are
indicated in Table 3-5.
Many types of grinding mills are manufactured for use by various industries.
The principal types of mills used are:
(1) hammer, (2) roller, (3) rod,
(4) pebble and ball, and (5) fluid energy.
'd1scussed ~eparately below.
Each of thes~ types of. mills is,
3-44
-------
Hammermi11s
A hammermi11 consists of a high speed horizontal rotor with several rotor
discs to which sets of swing hammers are attached.
As rock particles are fed
into the grinding chamber, they are impacted and shattered by the hammers which
attain peripheral speeds greater than 4,572 meters per minute (250 feet per
second).
The shattered rock then collides with a steel breaker plate and is
fragmented even further.
A cylindrical grating or screen positioned at the'
discharge opening restrains oversize material until it is reduced to a size
small enough to pass between the grate bars.
Product size is controlled by
the rotor speed, the spacing between the grate bars, and by hammer length.
These mills are used for nonabrasive materials and can accomplish a size re-
duction of up to 12:1.
Roller Mill
The roller mill, also known as a Raymond Roller Mill, with its integral
whizzer separator can produce ground material ranging from 20 mesh to 325 mesh
or finer.
The material is ground by rollers that travel along the inside of
a horizontal stationary ring.
The rollers swing outward by centrifugal force,
and trap the material between them and the ring.
The material is swept out of
the mill by a stream of air to a whizzer separator, located directly on top of
the mill, where the oversize is separated and dropped back for further grinding
while the desired fines pass up through the whizzer blades into the duct 1ead-
ing to the air separator (cyclone).
Figure 3.15.
A typical roller mill is shown in
Rod Mill
The rod mill is generally considered as a granular grinding unit, prin-
cipally for handling a maximum feed size of 2 to 4 centimeters (1 to 2 inches),
.3-45
-------
A Product ouflet
I
I
- - - Revolving
/' .
~. whlzzers
I
I
-Whlzzer
drive
~ ." Grinding ring
- - - Grinding roller
- Feeder
Mill
drive \
~
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Figure 3.15. Roller Mill
i
3+46
-------
and grinding to a maximum of 65 mesh.
It is normally used in a closed circuit
with a sizing device, such as classifiers or screens, and for wet or dry grind-
ing.
It will grind with the minimum of the finer sizes, such as 100 or 200
mesh, and will handle relatively high moisture materi~l without packing.
The mill in its general form consists of a horizontal, slow-speed, rotating,
cylindrical drum.
The grinding media consists of a charge of steel rods,
slightly shorter than the mill's inside length and from 5 to 13 centimeters
(2 inches to 5 inches) in diameter.
The rods roll freely inside the drum during
its rotation to give the grinding action desired.
Pebble and Ball Mills
The simplest form of a ball mill is cylindrical, horizontal, slow-speed
rotating drum containing a mass of balls as grinding media.
When other types
of grinding media such as a flint or various ceramic pebbles are used, it is
known as a pebble mill.
The ball mill uses steel, flint, porcelain, or cast
iron balls.
A typical ball mill is shown in Figure 3.16.
The diameter of balls or pebbles as the initial charge in a mill is
determined by the size of the feed material and the desired fineness of the
product.
Usually the larger diameter ranges are used for preliminary grinding
.
and the smaller for final grinding.
Ball mills reduce the size of the feed
mostly by impact.
These grinders normally have a speed of 10 to 40 revolutions
per minute.
If the shell rotates too fast, centrifugal force keeps the balls
against the shell and minimal grinding occurs.
Fluid Energy Mills
When the desired material size is in the range of 1 to 20 microns, an
ultrafine grinder such as the fluid energy mill is required.
A typical fluid
energy mill is shown in Figure 3.17.
In this type of mill, the particles are
3-47
-------
~
~
REVOLVING
SIIUL
DRIVE GEAR
I J
I 1
FEED ---.. (
Figure 3.16. Ball Mill
REDUCTION
CIIJ\MBLR ----
SIZED
PARTICLES
HEJ\VIrR
PJ\RTICLE~ FEED
NOZZLES
Figure 3.17. Fluid-enerQV Mill
3-48
--.. PRODUCT
OUTLET
-------
suspended and conveyed by a high velocity gas stream in a circular or elliptical
path.
Size reduction is caused by impaction and rubbing against mill walls,
and by interparticle attrition.
Classification of the particles takes place
at the upper bend of the loop shown in Figure 3.17.
Internal classification
occurs because the smaller particles are carried through the outlet by the gas
stream while the larger particles are thrown against the outer wall by centrif-
ugal force.
the grinder.
Product size can be varied by changing the gas velocity through
Fluid energy mills can normally reduce up to 0.91 megagrams/hr (1 t/hr)
of solids from 0.149 mm (100 mesh) to particles averaging 1.2 to 10 microns
in diameter.
Typical gas requirements are 0.45 and 1.8 kg (1 to 4 pounds) of
steam or 2.7 to 4.1 kg (6 to 9 pounds) of air admitted at about 6.8 atm
(100 psig) per 0.45 kg (1 pound) of product. The grinding chambers are about
2.5 to 20 cm (1 to 8 inches) in diameter and the equipment is 1.2 to 2.4 meters
(4 to 8 feet) high.
~arati~~ and Classifying
Mechanical air separators of the centrifugal type cover a distinct field
and find wide acceptance for the classification of dry materials in a relatively
fine state of subdivision.
In commercial practice the separator may be said
to begin where the impact of vibrating screens leave off,12 extending from
about 40 to 60 mesh down.
Briefly stated, the selective action of the centrifugal separator is the
result of an ascending air current generated within the machine by means of a
fan, such current tending to lift the finer particles against the combined
\
effect of centrifugal force and gravity.
In operation the feed opening allows
the material to drop on the lower or distributing plate where it is spread and
3-49
-------
thrown off by centrifugal force, the larger and heavier particles being pro-
jected against an inner casing, while the smaller and lighter particles are
, ,
picked up by the ascending air current created by the fan.
These fines are
carried over into an outer cone and deposited.
Concurrently, the rejected
coarse material drops into the inner cone, passes out through a spout and is
recycled back to the grinding mill.
The air, after dropping the major portion of its burden, is either re-
circulated back to the grinding mill or vented.
In the case of the recir-
culated air, a small amount of extraneous air is entrained in the feed and
frequently builds up pressure in the separator, in which case the excess air
may be vented off.
Both vent gases are a source of particulate matter.
3.2.2.3.5 Bagging and Bulk Loading Operations
In the non-metallic minerals industry the valve type paper bag, either
sewn or pasted together, is widely used for shipping fine materials.
The valve
bag is "factory closed," that is, the top and bottom are closed either by sewing
or by pasting, and a single small opening is left on one corner.
Materials are
discharged into the bag through the valve.
The valve closes automatically due
to the internal pressure of the contents of the bag as soon as it is filled.
The valve type bag is filled by means of a packing machine designed
specifically for this purpose.
The material enters the bag through a nozzle
inserted in the valve opening, and the valve closes automatically when the
filling is completed.
Bagging operations are a source of particulate emissions.
Dust is emitted
during the final stages of filling when dust laden air is forced out of the bag.
The fugitive emissions due to bagging operation are generally localized in the
area of the bagging machine.
3-50
-------
. Fine product materials that are not bagged for.shipment are either bulk
loaded in tank trucks or enclosed railroad cars.
The usual method of loading
is gravity feeding through plastic or fabric sleeves.
Bulk loading of fine
material is a source of particulate because, as in the bagging operation, dust
laden air is forced out of the truck or railroad car during the loading
operation.
3.2.3 Emissions Under Existing Regulations
Existing State regulations applicable to the non-metallic minerals industry
take many forms, depending on whether emissions are process or fugitive in
nature.
Regulations limiting particulate emissions from process sources are
based on general process weight, concentration and/or visible emission regulations.
For a 45 megagrams per hour (50 t/hr) plant, typical process weight regulations
would limit allowable emissions from each process step (i.e., crushing, grinding,
drying) to 25.6 kg/hr (56.4 lb/hr).13 This is about 95 percent reduction in un-
controlled emissions.
For a typical 454 megagrams per hour (500 t/hr) crushing
plant, most stringent and least stringent process weight regulations would limit
allowable emissions to 18.2 and 120 kg/hr (40.0 and 264.0 lb/hr), respectively.
The most stringent regulations, such as Pennsylvania's, limit emission from a
collection device to 0.09 g/dscm (0.04 gr.dscf) and in some cases to as low as
0.046 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf). 14
Fugitive dust regulations are for the most part subjective and vague.
Most suggest that reasonable precautions be taken for control, but provide no
means of determining compliance.
Some states prohibit fugitive dust or emis-
sions from any source from crossing property boundaries either by disallowing
any visible emissions or limiting them with an ambient concentration standard.
3...51
-------
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Minerals Yearbook (1972), Volume r, Bureau of Mines.
Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and New Source Performance Standards for the Mineral Mining and Pro-
cessing Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, October 1975.
Commodity Data Summaries Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
3.
4.
Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Second Edition, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No. AP-42, April 1973,
p. 8.20- 1 .
5.
Characterization of Particulate Emissions from the Stone-Processing
Industry, Research Triangle Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0607,
May 1975, p. 57.
6.
Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing Guide. 63rd Edition, Pit and
Quarry Publications, Incorporated, Chicago, 1970, p. B-17.
7.
8.
Reference 6.
Reference 6.
9.
Perry, Robert H. (editor), Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, p. 8-21.
Reference 9, p. 956.
Reference 6, p. B-144.
Reference 6, p. B-73.
Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans-Rules and Regulations,
prepared by the MITRE Corporation for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-02~0248, July 1972.
Title 25. Rules and Regulations, Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources, pages 123.2-123.3.
3-52
-------
4.
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The diversity of the particulate emission sources involved in mining
and processing non-metallic minerals requires use of a variety of
control methods and techniques.
Dust suppression techniques, designed to
prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne, are applicable to both
fugitive process and fugitive dust sources.
Where particulate emissions can
be contained and captured, particulate collection systems are used.
sources and applicable control options are listed in Table 4.1.
Emission
This chapter discusses the control technology applicable to the follow-
ing process operations at non-metallic minerals plants:
crushers, grinders,
screens, conveyor transfer points, storage bins, and fine products loading
and bagging.
4.1
CONTROL OF PLANT PROCESS OPERATIONS
A representative non-metallic mineral processing plant, consisting of
crushers; grinders; screens; conveyor transfer points; and storage, loading
and bagging facilities, contains a multiplicity of dust-producing points.
Therefore, effective emission control can present a number of problems.
Methods
utilized to reduce emissions include wet dust suppression, dry collection,
and a combination of the two.
Wet dust suppression consists of introducing
moisture into the material flow, causing fine particulate matter to be
confined and remain with the material flow rather than becoming airborne.
Dry collection involves hooding and enclosing dust-producing points and
exhausting emissions to a collection device.
Combination systems utilize
4-1
-------
Table 4.1. PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES FOR
THE EXTRACTION AND PROCESSING OF NON-METALLIC MINERALS
Operation or Sourcea
Or111 1ng
Blasting
Loading (at mine)
Hauling
Crushing
Screening
Conveying (transfer points)
Stockpll ing
Grinding
Storage Bins
Conveying (other than
transfer points)
Windblown dust from
stockpiles
Windblown dust from roads
and plant yard
a}
b}
a}
b}
c)
d)
e)
a)
b) .
a)
b)
c)
d)
a)
b)
'a)
b)
~~
a
b
c
d
e
f
4-2
Control Options
Liquid injection (water or
water plus a wetting agent)
Capturing and venting emissions to
a control device
Adopt good blasting practices
Water wetting
Water wetting of haulage roads
Treatment of haulage roads with
surface agents
Soil stabilization
Paving
Traffic control
Wet dust suppression systems
Capturing and venting
emissions to a control device
Same as crushing
Same as crushing
Stone ladders
Stacker conveyors
Water sprays at conveyor
discharge
Pugmill
Same as crushing
Capturing and Venting
to a control device
Covering
Wet dust suppression
Water wetting
Surfac~ active agents
Covering (i.e., silos, bins)
Windbreaks
Water wetting
Oiling
Surface active agents
Soil stabilization
Paving
Sweeping
-------
Table 4.1 (Continued)
a
Operation or Source
Control Options
loading (product into RR a) Wetting
carst trucks, shi ps) b) Capturing and venting
to control device
Bagging a) Capturing and venting
to control device
Magnetic Separation a) Capturing and Venting
to control device
a Does not include processes involving combustion
4-3
-------
both methods at different stages throughout the processing plant.
In
addition to these control techniques, the use of enclosed structures to
house process equipment may also be effective in preventing emissions to
the atmosphere.
4.1.1
Wet Dust Suppression
In a wet dust suppression system, dust emissions are controlled by
applying moisture in the form of water or water plus a wetting agent sprayed
at critical dust producing points in the process flow.
This causes dust
,particles to adhere to larger mineral pieces or to form agglomerates too
heavy to become or remain airborne.
Thus, the objective of wet dust
suppression is not to fog an emission source with a fine mist to capture and
remove particulates emitted, but rather to prevent their emission by keeping
the material moist at all process stages.
The wet dust suppression method has been used on a wide variety of stone
including limestone, traprock, granite, shale, dolomite, and sand and gravel.
It can be generally considered to have a universal application to stone
handled through a normal crushing and screening operation.
In some
a
cases, however, watersprays cannot be used since the moisture may interfere
with further processing such as crushing, screening or grinding where
blinding problems may occur.
In addition, the capacity of the dryers
used in some of the processing steps limits the amount of water that can be -
sprayed onto. the raw materials.
. i
Once the materials have passed through the
drying operations, water cannot be added and other means of dust control must
be u t i1 i zed.
When plain or untreated water is used, because of its unusually high
surface tension (72.75 dynes/cm2 at 20oC), the addition of 5 to 8 percent
4-4
-------
moisture (by weight), or greater, may be required to adequately suppress
dust.l In many installations this may not be acceptable because excess
moisture may cause screening surfaces to blind, thus reducing both their
capacity and effectiveness, or result in the coating of mineral surfaces
yielding a marginal or non-specification product.
To counteract these
deficiencies, small quantitites of specially formulated wetting agents or
surfactants are blended with the water to reduce its surface tension and
consequently improve its wetting efficiency so that dust particles may
be suppressed with a minimum of added moisture.
Although these agents
may vary in composition, their molecules are characteristically composed
of two groups, a hydrophobic group (usually a long chain hydrocarbon) and
a hydrophilic group (usually a sulfate, sulfonate, hydroxide or ethylene
oxide). When introduced into water, these agents effect an appreciable
reduction in its surface tension (to as low as 27 dynes/cm2).2 The
dilution of such an agent in minute quantities in water (1 part wetting
agent to 1,000 parts water) is reported to make dust control practical
throughout an entire crushing plant.
In a crushed stone plant, this may'
amount to as little as 1/2 to 1 percent total moisture per ton of stone
processed.3
In adding moisture to the process material, several application
points are normally required.
Since the time required for the proper
distribution of the added moisture on the mineral is critical to
achieving effective dust control, treatment normally begins as soon as
possible after the material to be processed is introduced into the plant.
As such, the initial application point is commonly made at the primary
4-5
-------
crusher truck dump.
In addition to introducing moisture prior to
processing, this application contributes to reducing intermittent
dust emissions generated during dumping operations.
Spray bars located
either on the periphery of the dump hopper or above it are used.
Applications are also made at the discharge of the primary crusher and at
all secondary and tertiary crushers where new dry surfaces and dust
are generated by the fracturing of stone.
In addition, treatment may
also be required at feeders located under surge or reclaim piles if this
temporary storage results in sufficient evaporation.
Further wetting
of the material at screens, conveyor transfer points, conveyor and
screen
discharges to bins, and conveyor discharges to storage piles may
or may not be necessary because, if properly conditioned at application
points, the wetted material exhibits a carryover dust control effect
that may suppress the dust through a number of material handling
operations.
The amount of moisture required at each application point
is dependent on a number of factors including the wetting agent used,
its dilution ratio in water, the type and size of process equipment
and the characteristics of the material processed (type, size distribution,
feed rate and moisture content).
A typical wet dust suppressi9n system, such as the Chern-Jet Systema
manufactured by the Johnson-March Corporation and illustrated in
Figure 4.1, contains a number of basic components and features including:
(l) a dust control agent (compound M-R); (2) proportioning equipm~nt;
a The use of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
4-6
-------
~,
/r:"'~ '7"P~C' :~~.::
"",,~
~~~; ~
L'~'~""';:--' \
- c '. -
~
~
I
'-J
1\
I '
INCOMING 'HATER LINE
I
I
~C~~POLJ~;O
PROPORTIOtJER
M R DRUM
Figure 4.1.
4
Wet dust suppression system.
-------
(3) a distribution system; and (4) control actuators.
A proportioner and
pump are necessary to proportion the wetting agent and water at the
desired ratio and to provide moisture in sufficient quantity and at
adequate pressure to meet the demands of the overall system.
Distribution is accomplished by spray headers fitted with pressure
spray nozzles.
One or more headers are used to apply the dust suppressant
mixture at each treatment point at the rate and spray configuration
required to effect dust control. A variety of nozzle types may be used
including hollow-cone, solid cone or fan nozzles, depending on the spray
pattern desired.
To prevent nozzle plugging, screen filters are used.
Figure 4.2 shows a typical arrangement for the control of dust emissions at
~
a crusher discharge.
Spray actuation and control is important to prevent waste and
undesirable muddy conditions, especially when the material flow is
intermittent.
Spray headers at each application point are normally
equipped with an on-off controller which is interlocked with a sensing
mechanism so that sprays will be operative only when there is material
actually flowing.
In addition, systems are sometimes designed to operate
under all weather conditions.
To provide protection from freezing,
exposed pipes are usually traced with heating wire and insulated.
When
the system is not in use, it should be drained to insure that no water
remains in the lines. During periods of prolonged cold weather when
temperatures remain below OOC, wetted raw materials will freeze into
large blocks and adhere to cold surfaces such as hopper walls.
labor may be required to prevent such build-ups.
Additional
4-8
-------
SUPPRESSAIH
1
CRUSHER
COiJTRCJl
VALVE
rWIH3[R
SHIELD
~
tiEL T CorWEYOR
Figure 4.2. Dust suppression application
at crusher discharge.
4-9
-------
At a rock crushing plant with a well designed wet dust suppression
system, the Johnson-March Corporation claims that better than 90 percent
control efficiency is attainable for the emissions including all process
operations from the primary crusher to stockpile and reclaim.5 Since
these emissions are unconstrained and not amenable to testing, no actual
particulate emission measurements have been made to verify or dispute
this contention.
4.1.2 Dry Collection Systems
Particulate emissions generated at plant process operations (crushers,
screens, grinders, conveyor transfer points, fine product loading
operations and bagging operations) may be controlled by capturing and
exhausting potential emissions to a collection device.
Depending on the
physical layout of the plant, emission sources may be either manifolded
to a single centrally located collector or ducted to a number of
individual control units.
Collection systems consist of an exhaust
system utilizing hoods and enclosures to capture and confine emissions,
ducting and fans to convey the captured emissions to a collection device,
and the collection device for particulate removal prior to eXhausting
the air stream to the atmosphere.
4.1.2.1
Exhaust Systems and Ducting
If a collection system is to effectively pre~ent particulate emissions
from being discharged to the atmosphere at the locations where emissions
are generated, local exhaust systems including hooding and ducting must
be properly designed and balanced.
(Balancing refers to adjusting the
static pressure balance, which exists at the junction of two branches, to
,obtain the desired volume in each branch.)
Process equipment should be
4-10
I
-------
enclosed as completely as practicable, allowing for access for operation,
routine maintenance and inspection requirements.
For crushing facilities,
recommended hood capture velocities range from 61 to 150 meters (200 to
500 feet) per minute.6,1 In general, a minimum indraft velocity of 61
meters (200 feet) per minute should be maintained through all open hood
areas.
Proper design of hoods and enclosures will minimize exhaust volumes
required and, consequently, power consumption.
In addition, proper
hooding will minimize the effects of cross drafts (wind) and the effects
of induced air (i.e., air placed in motion as a result of machine movement
or falling material).
A well designed enclosure can be defined as a
housing which minimizes open areas between the operation and the hood
and contains all dust dispersion action.
Good duct design dictates that adequate conveying velocities be
maintained so that the transported dust particles will not settle in the
ducts along the way to the collection device.
Based on information for
crushed stone, conveying velocities recommended for mineral particles
range from 1,100 to 1,400 meters/min. (3,500 to 4,500 fpm).8,9
Adequate design and construction specifications are available and
have been utilized to produce efficient, long-lasting systems.
Various
guidelines establishing minimum ventilation rates required for the control
of crushing plant operations, and upon which th~ ventilation rates most
commonly utilized in the industry are based, are briefly discussed below.
4-11
-------
4.1.2.1.1
Crushers and Grinders
Hooding and air volume requirements fo~ t~e control of crush~r and
grinder emissions are quite variable depending upon the size and shape
of the emission source, the hood's position relative to the points of
emission, and the velocity, nature, and quantity of the released particles.
The only established criterion is that a minimum indraft velocity of 61
meters per minute (200 fpm) be maintained thro~gh all open hood areas.
To
achieve this, capture velocities in excess of 150 meters per minute (500
fpm) may be necessary to overcome induced air motion, resulting from the
material feed and discharge velocities and the mechanically induced
velocity (fan action) of a particular equipment type.10 To achieve
effective emission control, ventilation should be applied at both the
upper portion, or feed end, of the equipment and at the discharge point.
An exception to this would be at primary jaw or gyratory crushers because
of the necessity to have ready access to get at and dislodge large rocks
which may get stuck in the crusher feed opening.
Where access to a device
,
is required for maintenance, removable hood sections may be utilized.
In general, the upper portion of the crusher or grinder should
be enclosed as completely as possible, and exhausted according to the
criteria established for ,transfer points (see Section 4.1.2.1.3).
The discharge to the transfer belt should also be enclosed as completely
as possible.
The ex~ust rate varies considerably depending on crusher
4-12
-------
type. For impact crushers or grinders, exhaust volumes may range from
110 to 230 m3/min. (4,000 to 8,000 cfm).ll For compression type crushers,
an exhaust rate of 46 m3/min per meter (50~ ~fm ~er f~ot) of dischf,rr;
opening should be sufficient.12 The width of the discharge opening ~~ll
approximate the width of the receiving conveyor.
For either impact
crushers or compression type crushers, pick-up should be applied down-
stream of the crusher for a distance of at least 3.5 times the width of
the receiving conveyor.13 A typical hood configuration used to control
particulate emissions from a cone crusher is depicted in Figure 4.3
Grinding or milling circuits which employ air conveying systems
operate at slightly negative pressure to prevent the escape of air
containing the ground rock.
Because the system is not airtight, some
air is drawn into the system and must be vented.
This vent stream can
be controlled by discharging it through a control device.
4.1.2.1.2 Screens
A number of exhaust points are usually required to achieve
effective control at screening operations.
A full coverage hood, as
depicted in Figure 4.4, is generally used to control emissions generated
at actual screening surfaces.
Required exhaust volumes vary with the
surface area of the screen and the amount of open area around the
periphery of the enclosure.
A well-designed enclosure should have a
space of no more than 5 to 10 centimeters (2 to 4 inches) around the
, periphery of the screen. A minimum exhaust rat~ of 15 m3/min. per square
meter (50 cfm per square foot) of screen area is commonly used with no
increase for multiple decks.14 Additional ventilation air may be
4-13
-------
EXY~'JST .
i
/
/'
~
Cf)~nR()L
I)EIII C E
CO'IE ~
CRUSHER
((
II
/r"\
I'ISPECTIO':
~ ~O')q
I
: ;
~ ,\FA'I
!.~
,
R::!...T
?,
- ~-'
, I
I '
I
FEED
-----
I
, I
I I
--------
I I
I
~
COLLECTI()~~
HOODS \
~
I
--'
~
Figure 4.3'.
Hood configuration used to control a cone crusher.
-------
FeEl)
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
COMPLETE
ENCLOSURE
SCREEN
~
.THROUGHS
Figure 4.4
Hood configuration for
vibrating screen.
4-15
-------
required at the discharge chute to belt or bin transfer points.
If
ventilation is needed, these points are treated as regular transfer
points and exhausted accordingly.
(See Section 4.1.2.1.3).
4.1.2.1.3 Conveyor Transfer Points
At belt to belt conveyor transfer points, hoods should be
designed to enclose both the head pulley of the upper belt and the tail
pulley of the lower belt as completely as possible. With careful
design. the open area should be reduced to about 0.15 square meters per
meter (D.S square feet per foot) of belt width.15 Factors affecting the
air volume to be exhausted include the conveyor belt speed and the
free-fall distance to which the material is subjected. Recommended
exhaust rates are 33 m3 per min. per meter (350 cfm per foot) of belt
width for belt speeds less than 61 meters/min. (20D fpm) and 150
meters 3/min (500 cfm) for belt speeds exceeding 61 meters/min {200
fpm).16 For a belt to belt transfer with less than a 0.91 meter
(three foot) fall, the enclosure illustrated in Figure 4.5 is commonly
used.
For belt to belt transfers with a free-fall distance greater than
0.91 meters (three feet) and for chute-to-belt transfers, an arrangement
similar to that depicted in Figure 4.6 is commonly used.
The exhaust
connection should be made as far downstream as possible to maximize dust
fallout and thus minimize needless dust entrainment.
For very dusty
4-16
-------
-.- ,--
Z4" """ I
...1.-.. . - -
" ,
,I ,
" ,
----RUBBER -------82" CLEARANCE FOR LOAD
~---- .- SII/RT - 01\1 BELT
~~~!::P'
ocr;4IL OF BELr OPENING
CONVIYON T"ANS'IA LISS THAN
,. 'ALL 'ON OItiATU 'ALL
""OVIDI ADDITIONAL IICHAUST AT
LOWI" II(LT SII DETAIL AT RIGHT
Figure 4.5
Hood configuration for conveyor transfer,
less than 0.91 meter (3-foot) fall.
material, additional exhaust air may be required at the tail pulley of
the receiving belt. Recommended air volumes are 20 m3/min (700 cfm)
for belts 0.91 meters (three feet) wide and less, and 28 m3/min (1,000
cfm) for belts wider than 0.91 meters (three feet).17
Belt or chute-to-bin transfer points differ from the usual transfer
operation in that there is no open area downstream of the transfer point.
Thus, emissions are emitted only at the loading point.
As i 11 ustrated
4-17
-------
FROM CHUTE
OR BELT
\
\'1'
~ TO CONTROL
I DEVICE
I\DDITIONAL ~
EXHAUST
CONVEYOR BELT
Figure 4.6 Hood configuration for a chute to belt
or conveyor transfer, greater than 0.91
meters (3-foot) fall.
:1-18
-------
in Figure 4.7, the exhaust connection is normally located at some
point remote from the loading point and exhausted at a minimum rate
of 61 m3/min per square meter (200 cfm p~r square foot) of open area.18
LOADING
./ POI NT
k: .
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
t
.
BELT
\
J
.- ..
BIN
OR
HOPPER
Figure 4.7.
Exhaust configuration at bin or hopper.
4.1.2.1.4 Product Loading and Bagging
Particulate emissions from truck and railcar loading of coarse
material can be minimized by reducing the open height that the material
must fall from the silo or bin to the shipping vehicle.
Shrouds, telescoping
feed tubes, and windbreaks can further reduce the fugitive emissions
from this intermittent source.
Particulate emissions from loading of fine
material into either trucks or railroad car can be controlled by an exhaust
system vented to a fabric filter system.
The system is similar to the
4-19
-------
system described above for controlling bin or hopper transfer points
(see Figure 4.7).
The material is fed through one of the vehicle's
openings and the exhaust connection is normally at another opening.
The
system should be designed with a minimum amount of open area around the
periphery of the feed chute and the exhaust duct.
Bagging operations are controlled by local exhaust systems and
vented to a fabric filter system for product recovery.
Hood face
velocities on the order of 150 meters (500 feet) per minute should be
used.
An automatic bag filling operation and vent system is shown in
Figure 4.8.
500 fpm
lilt-uched to bin
-p.
source
- Scale support
Ba<]
Figure 4-8.
Bag filling vent system. 19
4-20
-------
4.1.2.2 Collection Devices
The most efficient dust collection device used in the non-metallic
mineral industry is the fabric filter or baghouse.
For most crushing
plant applications, mechanical shaker type collectors which require
periodic shutdown for cleaning (after four or five ~~urs 0' o~eration)
are used.
These units are normally equipped with cotton sateen bags and
operated at an air-to-cloth ratio of 2 or 3 to 1.
A cleaning cycle
usually requires no more than two to three minutes of bag shaking and is
normally actuated automatically when the exhaust fan is turned off.
For applications where it may be impractical to turn off the
collector, fabric filters with continuous cleaning are employed.
Although
compartmented mechanical shaker types may be used, jet pulse units are
predominately used by the industry.
These units usually use wool or
synthetic felted bags for a filtering media and may be operated at a
filtering ratio of as high as 6 or 10 to 1.
Regardless of the baghouse
type used, jet pulse or shaker, greater than 99 percent efficiency can
be attained even on submicron particle sizes.20 Two baghouses tested
by EPA for both inlet and outlet emission levels had collection
efficiencies of 99.8 percent.21,22
Other collection devices used in the industry include cyclones and low
energy scrubbers.
Although these collectors may demonstrate efficiencies
of 95 to 99 percent for coarse particles (40 microns and larger),
fueir efficiencies are poor, less than 85 percent, for medium and fine
particles (20 microns and smaller).23 Although high energy scrubbers
and electrostatic precipitators could conceivably achieve results
similar to that of a fabric filter, these methods are not commonly used
to contro,l dust emissions in the industry.
4-21
-------
Control options for the portable plant segments of the crushed stone, and
sand and gravel industries will be discussed in Supplement A.
4.1.2.2.1
Fabri c Fi Hers
Fabfic filters are high efficiency collection devices used quite exten-
sively throughout the non-metallic minerals processing industry.
The greatest
variations in the design of baghouses arise from the methods of cleaning the
fabric filter and the choice of fabric and size of unit.
The actual extraction of dust is accomplished as shown in Figure 4-9.
The airstream enters the baghouse and is pulled up into fabric sleeves that
are clustered throughout the apparatus. External draw on the apparatus forces
,
the air to be pulled to the outside of these fabric sleeves which is a "clean
area. II The dust remains trapped in the weave of the sleeve fonning a cake
while the cleansed air is exhausted to the atmosphere. The dust is eventually
removed from the bag by one of several bag cleaning methods and is either re-
turned to the process or disposed of.
The reverse operation can just as easily be utilized; that is, dirty air
travels from the outside to the inside of the bag exiting through the top of
the bag, thus leaving the dirt accumulation on the outside of the sleeves.
This accumulation of dust forms a filter cake on the bags which must be
removed if there is to be sufficient flow through the system.
Care must be
taken that the dust is removed and disposed of in such a manner that it does
not become reentrained and also that a residual filter cake remains to act as
a filtering mechanism in its own right.
Major methods of cleaning are shaking (rapping) and reversing airflow
by air jets or pulses.
Shaking consists of manually or automatically shaking
the bag hangers or rapping the side of the baghouse to shake the dust free
into a receiving hopper below.
4-22
-------
HANGERS
CLEAN
SIDE
AIR
BAG
CLEAN
AIR
COLLECTED
DfST
Figure 4.9
Typical baghouse operation.
4-23
-------
A less simple method is to use reverse airflow down the tubes at such a
rate that there is no net movement of air through the bag. This causes the
bag to collapse which results in the filter cake breaking-up and falling off
the bag.
A final method is reverse air pulsing whe~e a perforated ring travels up
and down each bag or sleeve.
Air jets in the ring force the bag to collapse,
then reopen,breaking the filter cake apart. These two methods are shown in
Figure 4-10.
The frequency of cleani~~ can be continuous in which a section of bag-
house is removed from operation and cleaned before going on to another section.
Alternatively, intermittent cleaning consisting of timed cycles of cleaning
"and operation is used.
Sensors can be installed that start the cleaning
cycle when some specified pressure drop across the system occurs because of
the buildup of the filter cake.
Materials available for bag construction are numerous.
They are cotton,
Teflon, glass, Orlon, Nylon, Dacron, wool, Dynel, and others.
Temperature and
other operating parameters must be taken into account in the selection of
fabric material, though most industry processes are at ambient conditions.
The most popular materials in terms of wear and performance are the synthetic
fabrics or cotton sateen.
Several other parameters are considered in the design of baghouses such
as frequency of cleaning, cloth resistances to corrosion and ore moisture.
The last major parameter considered is the air-to-cloth ratio or filter
ratio defined as the ratio of gas filtered in cubic feet per minute to the
area of the filtering media in square feet or ft3/~in which reduces to feet
, ft
(or meters) per minute. Too high a ratio results in possible blinding or
4-24
-------
TUBE
COLLECTING
OUST
REVERSE
AIR ON
ONLY
i0\- - / ~~\-- ) \
.. ",' .'... '.
WALLS'" ~~I~~PSE TOGF.TH£~
PREVENT DUST FROM FALLJ..G "-
SLUG OF AIR OPEMS' tUB£,.~
ALLOWS OUST TO !fALL FREELY
Figure 4.10 Baghouse cleaning methods. 2~
4-25
-------
clogging of the bags and a resultant decrease in collection efficiency and
increase in bag material wear.
4.1.2.2.2 Wet Capture Devices
The principle of collection in wet capture devices involves contacting
dust particles with liquid droplets in some way and then having the wetted
and unwetted particles impinge upon a collecting surface where they can be
flushed away with water.
The method of contacting the dust has many varia-
tions depending on the equipment manufacturer.
The major types of wet co1-
lectors are cyclone, mechanical, mechanical-centrifugal, and Venturi scrubbers.
These devices are more efficient than inertial separators.
Wet capture
devices can also handle high temperature gases or mist-containing gases.
Costs and efficiencies also vary with equipment selection and operating cond-
itions.
Efficiencies are higher at lower particle size ranges than with dry
cyclones.
4.1.2.2.2.1
Cyclone Scrubbers
As with dry cyclones, wet cyclones impart a centrifugal force to the
incoming gas stream causing it to increase in velocity.
The principal
difference here is that atomized liquids are introduced to contact and carry
away dust particles.
The dust impinges upon the collector walls with clean
air remaining in the central area of the device.
Efficiencies in this type
of equipment average in the vicinity of 98.2 percent.
4.1.2.2.2.2
Mechanical Scrubbers
These devices have a water spray created by a rotating disc or drum
contacting the dust particles.
Extreme turbulence is created which insures
4-26
-------
this required contact.
Efficiencies are about the same as cyclone wet scrub~
bers.
Mechanical centrifugal capture devices with water sprays are similar to
. their dry counterparts with the exception that:a walter' spray-~s 10c~-,~e!1 at
~
the gas inlet so that the particulate matter i~ moistened before it reaches
the blades. The water droplets containing particulate are impinged on the
blades while the clean air is exhausted as is depicted in Figure 4-11.
In
this case, the spray not only keeps the blades wet so that dust will impinge
upon them, but it also serves as a medium to carry away particles.
Some types of scrubbers use high pressure-sprays, consuming more energy
and water, but have higher efficiencies than other wet capture devices.
Venturi scrubbers rely on an impaction mechanism and extreme turbulence
for dust collection.
Gas velocities in the throat of the Venturi tube are
4,572 to 6,096 meters (15,000 to 20,000 feet) per minute.
It is at this point
that low pressure water sprays are placed.
The extreme turbulence causes
excellent contact of water and particulate.
The wetted particles travel
through the Venturi tube to a cyclone spray collector.
Efficiencies are very
high, averaging 99.9 percent.25 These high efficiencies are also evidenced
in the low particle size ranges collected ( <1 ~m).
This design is, indeed,
best suited to applications involving removal of 0.5 to 5 micron sizes.
The construction is similar to a Venturi meter with 250 converging and
70 diverging sections.
This results in a 4:1 area reduction between the
inlet and throat.
4.1. 3
Combination Systems
Wet dust suppression and dry collection techniques are often used in
combination to control particulate emissions from crushing plant facilities.
4..27
-------
CLEAN
EXHAUST
+---- -
4-------
+--- -- ---- -
4-- ---- ---
Figure 4.11
Mechanical, centrifugal scrubber.
4-28
DIRt
LADEN
AIR
-------
As illustrated in Figure 4.12, wet dust suppression techniques are generally
used to prevent emissions at the primary crushing stage and at subsequent
screens, transfer points and crusher inlets.
Dry collection is generally
used to control emissions at the discharge of th) secrmdTry,an","Jterti.v-
crushers where new dry surfaces and fine particulates are formed.
In addition
to controlling emissions, dry collection results in the removal of a large
portion of the fine particulates generated with the resultant effect of
making subsequent dust suppression applications more effective with a minimum
of added moisture.
Depending on the product specifications, dry collection
may also be necessary at the finishing screens.
Dust control for the portable crushing plant segments of the crushed
stone, and sand and gravel industries are discussed in Supplement A.
4.2
FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL METHODS.
4.2.1 Dust Suppression
The effectiveness of wet suppression is dependent on the amount of
moisture ad~ed to the process flow.
There are a number of factors which
may affect the performance ot a wet dust suppression system.
These include
the wetting agent used, the method of application, characteristics of the
material, and the type and size of the process equipment serviced.
The
number, type and configuration of spray nozzles at an application point,
as well as the speed at which a material stream moves past an appli-
cation point, may affect both the efficiency and uniformity of wetting.
In addition, meteorological factors, such as wind, ambient temperature
and humidity, which affect the evaporation rate of added moisture, may
4-29
-------
TRUCK DUMP
AND FEEDER
BAG
COLLECTOR
-. SI/PPRCSS I'). ,
~ COLLrCT 10 I
SEr.ONOARY
CHUStiER
~
!ii
.L~,~i-1"~1
[~~~~
/~~
/ .-~..,
,. ...
/' \,
L::: \
STOPAGE
PILE
fllN AND TIIIJCK
LOADING STATION
Figure 4.12 Typical combination dust control systems.
4:..30
-------
also adversely affect the overall performance of a dust suppression
system.
Where the material processed contains a high percentage of
fines. such as the product from a hammermill. dust suppression may be
tota lly inadequate because of the enormous surface f\reas ,to bec-+'reated. '\1\
" \ ) 0 \j
" ' /
Dust suppression may offer a viable control alternative to dry collec.
tion at process facilities if sufficient moisture is added to the material.
Generally, wet dust suppression is only possible with crushing operations
(crushers, conveyor transfer points, and screens) because a coarser material
is handled and plugging problems will not likely occur.
In additi on.
wet suppression may not be possible in freezing weather or arid reg10n~.
Also. some industries (e.g., talc, rock salt) prefer not to handle material
with high moisture (even in crushing operations).
4.2.2 Dry Collection
For dry collection systems, factors affecting both capture efficiency
and collection efficiency are important.
Wind blowing through hood
openings can significantly reduce the effectiveness of a local exhaust
system.
This can be appreciated when one considers that an indraft
velocity of 61 meters/min (200 fpm) is equivalent to less than 3.7 km/hr
( 2 . 3 mph).
Consequently, the process equipment should be completely
enclosed or the hood openings minimized.
Installations located in areas of high precipitation have chosen to
house process equipment in buildings or structures to increase their
operating hours.
An added effect of this is to reduce the impact that high
4-31
-------
winds may have on a local exhaust system which is not properly enclosed.
for crushed and broken stone plants and sand and gravel plants, much of
Except
the processing in the industries investigated in this study occurs in
buildings which enclose the equipment.
An exhaust system must be properly maintained and balanced if it is
to remain effective.
Good practice dictates that systems be periodically
inspected and capture and conveying velocities checked against design
specifications to assure that the system is indeed functioning properly.
The primary causes for systems becoming unbalanced are the presence of
leaks resulting from wear due to abrasion or corrosion, and the settling
of dust in poorly designed duct runs which effectively reduces the cross
seGtional area of the duct and increases pressure drop.
4.2.3 Combined Suppression and Collection Systems
The factors affecting the performance of combination systems are the
same as those encountered where dust suppression or dry collection systems
are used alone.
4.3. PERFORMANCE OF PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
4.3.1 Dry Collection Techniques
4.3.1.1
Particulate Emission Data
Particulate emission measurements were conducted by EPA on 16 baghouse
collectors used to control emissions generated at crushing, screening, and
conveying (transfer points) operations at five crushed stone installations,
one kaolin plant, one fuller's earth installation and on one baghouse collec-
tor used to control emissions generated at grinding, classifying, and fine
4-32
-------
product loading operations at a feldspar installation.
Table 4.2 briefly
summarizes the process operations controlled by each baghouse tested, along
with specifications for each baghouse.
The results of these measurements are
summarized in Figure 4.13.
Complete test data ~ummaries, ~or,hoth m~~~
particulate measurements and visible emission oDservatiuns, anti a descrfption
of each process facility tested are contained in Appendix C.
Of the eight plants tested, three processed limestone rock (A, 8, and C),
two processed traprock (0 and E), one processed feldspar (G), one processed
kaolin (L), and one processed fuller's earth (M).
Four of the five crushed
stone plants were commercial crushed stone operations producing a variety of
end products including dense-graded road base stone, asphalt aggregates,
concrete aggregates and non-specific construction aggregates.
In addition,
plant 8 produced about 60 ton/hr of agstone.
Facilities Al through A4 consist
of process operations producing raw material for the manufacture of portland
cement.
Facilities Al and 81 are both impact crushers used for the primary
crushing of run-of-quarry limestone rock.
Facility A3 is somewhat unique in
that it consists of a single conveyor transfer point at the tail of an over-
land conveyor.
As indicated in Table 4.2, the remaining facilities tested
consisted of multiple secondary and tertiary crushing and screening operations,
adjunct conveyor transfer points, and grinding operations.
These include one
primary jaw crusher, three secondary cone crushers, two hammer mills, eight
tertiary cone crushers, nineteen screens, thirteen product bins, and over
seventeen conveyor transfer points, one pebble mill, two roller mills, one
fluid energy mill, one impact mill, one bucket elevator, and a fine product
loading system.
4-33
-------
. TABLE 4.2 BAGHOUSE UNITS TESTED BY EPA
Fac-
i 1 i ty
~
I
(.r.)
~
C1
C2
01
02
E1
E2
Ml
M2
Gl
11
L2
Rock tyoe
processed
Al
A2
A3
A4
Limestone
Limestone
Limes tone
Limestone
earth
earth
Saghouse specifications
Type
Jet puise
Jet Dulse
Jet pUlse
Jet Dulse
5hak:er
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Jet pulse
Jet Pulse
Reverse air
Reverse air
Reverse air
Unknown
Unknown
Fil teri ng
ratio
5.3 to 1
7 to 1
7 to 1
5 . 2 to 1
3. 1 to 1
2 . 1 to 1
2 . 3 to 1
2 . 0 to 1
2.8 to 1
2.8 to 1
5.2 to 1
7.5 to 1
6.0 to 1
5.2 to 1
3 .0 to 1
Unknown
Unknown
scms
12.5
7.5
i.l
5.G
2.7
8.6
3.5
3.1
15.0
12.3
7.0
10.0
0.9
1.6
1.9
6.6
3.3
Capacity
scfm
(26,472)
( 15 ,811 )
(2,346)
(10,532)
(5,784)
(18,197)
(7,473)
(6,543)
(31,863)
(25,960)
(14,748)
(21,122)
(1,800)
(3,300)
(3,960)
(14,040)
(6,960)
Process operations controll~d
Primary iiiiract crusher
Primary screen
Conveyor transfer point
Seco~dary cone crusher, screen
Primary imoact crusher
SCcl~ing screen, secondary cone crusher, two ~inishing
screens, ha~er mill, five storage bins, six conveyor
transfer points
Primary jaw crusher, scalping screen, ha~er mill
Two finishing screens, two conveyor transfer points
One scalping and two sizing screens, secondary cone
crusner, two tertiary cone crushers, several conveyor
trans fer poi nts
Finishing screen, several conveyor transfer points
Two sizing screens, four tertiary cone crushers;
several conveyor transfer points
Five finishing screens, eight storage bins
Raymond and fluid energy mills, conveyor transfer
points, vibrating screens
Pebble mill, bucket elevator, two conveyor transfer
points, fine product loading
Raymond impact mill
Roller mill
Bl
Limes tone
Limestone
62
Limes tone
Limestone
Traprock
Traprock
iraprock
Traprock
Full erl s
Fuller's
Feldspar
Kaolin
Kaolin
-------
....
o
o
l+-
V
.,...
VI .&J
;;: :J
ov
-
~"F
- '"
:I!:~
UJC
'"
~~
<
oJ >.
~~
U~
-
I- ~
!XCII
<0
0..
III
C
.,...
'"
~
'"
Facility
Rock Type
0.02 -
0.015
0.005
0.01
--- -.-- ]
KEY
~
I~AVERAGE
..'
t I EPA TEST METHOD
o OTHER TEST METHOD I
~
II
II
I,
"Ui
II
~
i~ ~
,;1~
c:J
~
~
II
II
I I
~
II
II
II ~i I I
II II R II
I ~ II
I II
I I e~ t-~ ~ ~ I:
II II tl--li I
II tj I' ..w.
~ I I "
D
C1 C2
L L
o
L
L
Fi gure 4.13
L
L
~
fi
~
~~
I I
01 02
T T
~
p:t I I
II II
A~
II trr
II II
(J II
I'
IcJ
~
~
I I
E1 E2
T T
~
II
.1 'I
I'
.'
I'
II
*
,I
II
II
If
II
II
~
~
~
I I I
G 1 L1 L2
F K Ie
~
'I
II
"
~
J I
, I
'I
I,
~
0.046
.. q
0.034
\..
CII
....
~
u
.,...
.&J
:J
U
~
'"
0.023 -g
'"
....
III
>.
\..
"0
\..
CII
c..
III
~
L
'"
~
II 0.011
"
II
II
~
" II
~ .~
I
M1
FE
Particulate emissions from non-metallic minerals
processing operations.
4-35
o
N2
FE
-------
A mininlum of three te~t runs, using EPA Method 5 or 17, were conducted
at each process operation tested.
(For this industry, both EPA Method 5
and 17 are acceptable particulate sampling methods, see Appendix D.)
Sampling
was performed only during periods of normal operation and was stopped and
restarted to allow for intermittent process shutdowns and upsets (feed to
the process).
Where the process weight rate was undeterminable at a specific
process operation, as in most instances, the p~ocess weight through the
primary crushing stage was monitored to assure that the plant was operating
at or near normal capacity.
Moisture determinations on the material processed
were also performed at each plant tested (except for plants A, G, Land M)
to permit an assessment of whether control was effected primarily by the dust
collection system or by excessive moisture inherent in the material processed.
The tests were considered valid if the material moisture was less than two
percent.
The baghouses tested included jet pulse, reverse air, and mechanical
shaker type units.
The shaker type and reverse air type fabric filters
used cotton sateen bags and were operated at about 2:1 to 3:1 air-to-
~
cloth ratios.
The jet pulse units tested were fitted with wool or
synthetic fiber felted bags.
5:1 to 7.5:1.
Air-to-cloth ratios ranged from about
A study26 perfonned by the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
(IGCI) under contract to EPA reported air-to-cloth ratios necessary to
achieve 0.05 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf) for the various industry segments
4-36
-------
based upon the experience of their member companies.
Table 4.3 presents
this information.
These ratios are based upon the following premises:
1.
Air from a dry crushing or grinding operation at or near ambient
temperature.
An inlet particulate content of 10 grains per standard cubic foot
2.
for a volume of air equivalent to that required for a face velocity
of 200 ft/min at crusher openings.
3.
A particle size average of 20 microns and a range from 0.5
to 100 mi crons .
4.
No insulation or heating required.
The IGCI report states that the segments considered the most troublesome
are those with the lowest air-to-cloth ratio.
The lower ratios employed
for some segments are premised upon such particulate properties as a high
abrasiveness or a tendency to "blind" the filtering medium.
The study
further states that no differentiation in the air-to-cloth ratio is required
for the source of emission be it crushing or grinding operation.
An
exception would be a micromill source emitting an average particle size
smaller than that cited (i.e. 20 microns).
For such a source, a lower
air-to-cloth ratio would be needed than that indicated in Table 4.3.
The industry segment with the lowest air-to-cloth ratio listed in
Table 4.3 is feldspar.
EPA conducted tests for particulate emissions at
a feldspar plant on a baghouse controlling emissions from a pebble mill
system.
The results of these tests indicate particulate emissions below
0.023 g/dscm (0.01 gr/dscf).
ratio of 3.03.
The baghouse had a design air-to-cloth
4-37
-------
Table 4.3. AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIOS FOR FABRIC
FILTERS USED FOR EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROL
Industrial segment
Air-to-cloth2ratioa
acfm/ft
Sand and gravel
Clay
Gypsum
Lightweight aggregate
Perlite
Venniculite
7.
6.
6.
7.5
Pumice
Feldspar
Borate
Talc and
Soapstone
4.5
4.
5.
5.
Barite
Diatomite
Rock Salt
5.
6.
4.5
Fluorspar
Mica
Kyani te
Sodium Compounds
6.
6.
4.5
6.
b
N.R.
7.
Gi 1 sonite
Crushed and broken stone
a Ratio is based on operating surface required to obtain a particulate
concentration of 0.02 grain per standard cubic foot in the outlet
stream from the filter. In all cases, the filter is a pulse-jet
type operating at 6 in. W.G. differential pressure. The filtering
medium is felted polypropylene or polyester.
b No recommendation for this segment.
4-38
-------
In addition, the IGCI report listed test results (using EPA sampling
Method 5) for two fluid energy mills processing clay (fuller's earth).
In
both cases, the particulate emissions were controlled by a fabric filter
and were be10w 0.023 g/dscm (0.01 gr/dscf). The average part1c1e si~e of
the inlet stream was reportedly below 10 microns in both cases.
EPA con-
ducted tests for particulate emissions from a roller mill and a fluid energy
mill, both used to grind fuller's earth clay.
In both cases particulate
emissions were controlled by baghouses.
Emissions from the baghouse contro1-
ling the roller mill were less than 0.005 g/dscm (0.002 gr/dscf) and those
from the fluid energy mill baghouse were less than 0.015 g/dscm (0.006 gr/dscf).
Tests were also conducted at two talc plants and a gypsum plant on
b~ghouses controlling particulate emissions from various process sources.
Emissions from these baghouses were greater than 0.05 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf).
The higher emission levels are suspected to have been caused by the presence
of torn bags since there were excessive visible emissions either continuously
or frequently.
Tests conducted at a kaolin plant on an impact mill and a
roller mill resulted in measured emission rates of 0.037 and 0.016 g/dscm
(0.016 and 0.007 gr/dscf) respectively, for the two process operations.
As previously indicated, test results are presented on only three of
the 18 industries being covered.
These are crushed stone (limestone and tra-
pock), feldspar, and clay (fuller's earth, kao1i~).
The crushed stone data
are on crushing operations and associated process equipment.
The data for
feldspar, kaolin, and fuller's earth clay are for grinding systems.
All
the facilities tested are controlled by fabric filter collectors.
Since
the performance of fabric filter collectors is relatively unaffected by the
size distribution of particulate, the emission levels from properly designed
baghouses should be nearly the same over the wide variety of non-metallic
4-39
-------
minerals being covered. 27,28 Furthermore, the IGCI report stated that
there is no difference in performance of a baghouse whether it is installed
on a crushing or grinding operation for a particular industry.
The differences
in design (a1r-to-cloth-ratio) of a baghouse for the various industries
are premised upon such particulate properties as high abrasiveness or a
tendency to II b 1 i nd the fil teri ng med i um. II The I GC I report a 1 so s ta tes
that the worst situation would be a source emitting an average particle
size smaller than 20 microns.
The clay grinding mills (fluid energy mill,
see Section 3.2.2.3.4) tested are the type of grinders generally used when
an ultrafine product is required.
Therefore, the data presented on the clay
grinding mills, which have an average particle size of 6 microns or less,
would represent the levels achievable under worst conditions.
As discussed earlier, the average emission concentration for the differ-
ent process facilities using properly operated baghouses at the various non-
metallic industries shown in Figure 4-13 was 0.011 g/dscm (0.005 gr/dscf).
The average outlet concentration at any of these facilities never reached
0.046 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf).
In conclusion, it is felt that the data pre-
sented here are representative of the levels that can be achieved by a properly
designed baghouse in each of the 18 industries.
4.3.1.2
Visible Emissions Data
Visible emission observations were also made during the emission tests
described above.
The exhaust from each of the fabric filters tested 'was
observed in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
Visible emis-
sions observed from the fabric filters at Plant A, C, D, E, G
, and M were essentially zero.
The highest 6-minute average recorded at' Plant
B was 1 percent opacity.
Plant L, a kaolin,plant, exhibited continuous
4-40
-------
visible emissions of less than 5 percent opacity.
This was considered to be
steam, since only the first of three tests (which was conducted in the morning)
had visible emissions.
As the temperature of the ambient air rose, the visible
emissions dissipated.
I
Observations for visible emissions were also made at hoods and ~nclosures
to record the presence and opacity of emissions escaping capture.
The results
of these measurements are summarized in Table 4.4.
Complete data summaries are
contained in Appendix C.
In most instances, essentially no visible emissions
were observed at adequately hooded or enclosed process facilities.
. .Of the 13 crushers for which visible emission measurements are reported,
10 were cone crushers handling either limestone, traprock, feldspar, or talc.
The other three crushers were an impact crusher handling limestone and jaw
crushers handling feldspar and talc.
Except for one jaw crusher and one cone
crusher, no visible emissions were observed from crushers for at least 97 per-
cent of the time.
The one cone crusher (facility B) had visible emissions
for 10 percent of the time, but this crusher was identical to two other cone
crushers tested at the same facility which had no visible emissions for 100
percent of the time. The jaw crusher (facility J) had visible emissions for
28 percent of the time but the percentage would h~ve been lower if a cover
plate had not been removed during part of the observation period.
In addition, the tests performed at facility B, which include the cone
crusher exhibiting visible emissions for 10 percent of the time were carried
out while the facility was experiencing dry climatic conditions and problems
with their water suppression system's pump.
As with facility J, a cover plate
at the primary crusher had been removed.
Lastly, EPA personnel at the test
felt that, .in general, the captune system was not designed as well as other
4-41
-------
TABLE 4.4. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE SOURCES
AT NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
Date of Accumulated Accumulated Percent of tune
Plant/Rock type processed Process "'ac1 ~ i ty observat1on time emission time with visible
test (m1nutes) (mlnutes) emiss10ns
A Crushed 11 mes tone 7/9/75 Baghouse discnarge to conveyor 240 0 0
Primary l~Dact crusher d1scharge 240 4 1
Conveyor transfer p01nt 166 3 2
B Crushed l1mestone 7/1/75 Sca1plriS screen 287 4: 15
Surge bi n 287 3 1
Secondary cone crusher No.1 231 23 10
Secondary cone crusher No.2 231 0 0
Secondary cone crusher No.3 231 0 0
~ Hammer mi 11 287 0 0
I
~
N 3-deck fin1shing screen (L) 107 4 4
3-deck fin1shing screen (R) 107 0 0
6/30/75 Two 3-deck flnish1ng screens 120 86 72
D Crushed stone 7/8/75 NO.1 tertiary gyrasphere 170 0 0
cone crusher
No.2 tertiary gyrasphere 170 0 D
cone crusher
Secondary standard cone crusher 170 0 0
Scalping screen 210 0 0
Secondary (2-deck) sizing screen 210 0 9
Secondary t3-deck) s i zi ng screen 210 0 0
F Traprock 8/26/76 Two terti ary crushers 65 0 0
Four processing screens 180 0 0
Conveyor transfer points 179 0 'l'i
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4.4 (continued)
Date of Accumulated Accwnulated Percent of time
Plan t/ Rock type processed test Process facl1 ity observatlon tlme emission time with visible
(mlnutes) (minutes) emi ss ions
G Feldscar 9/27/76 Conveyor transfer point NO.1 80 0 0
Conveyor transfer pOlnt ho. 2 87 0 0
Primary crusher 60 1 2
Secondary crusher 60 0 0
Conveyor transfer pOlnt No.4 84 0 0
Ba 11 mill (feed end) 60 0 0
Ball mill (dlscharge end) 60 0 0
Indoor transfer point No.1 60 0 0
Indoor transfer coint No.2 60 0 0
Indoor bucket elevator 60 0 0
~
I Truck loading 13 0 0
~
w Rail car loading 32 5 15
H Gypsum 10/27/76 Harrme r mi 11 298 2 1
Mica 9/30/76 Bagging operatlon 60 0 0
J Talc 10/21/76 Vertical mill 90 0 0
Primary crusher 90 20 22
Secondary crusher 150 4 3
Bagger 150 13 9
Pebble mi 11 90 6 7
N Kaolin 12/7 /78 Rail car 1 oadi ng
T es t 1 144 17 12
Test 2 99 2 2
Test 3 154 9 6
.~~
-------
systems used in the industry.
The combination of these factors account for the
high readings of visible emissions at the cone crusher and screening operations.
Visible emissions were observed at six grinding mills.
A 11 the mi 11 s
except the pebble mill exhibited no visible emissions 99 percent of the time.
(The vertical mill is a closed system and, therefore, woula not have a fugitive
discharge of dust except through leaks in the system.)
Visible emissions were
observed from the other ball mills for 0 percent of the time and for the pebble
mill for 7 percent of the time.
Three visible emissions tests were conducted
at the railcar bulk loading operation of a kaolin plant.
For two tests during
which rectangular hatch rail cars were loaded visible emissions were observed
for 2 and 6 percent of the time.
Visible emissions were observed for 15 percent
of the time during loading of a "rake-back" rail car.
The primary source of
emissions was the topping of each compartment and the subsequent repositioning
of the feed hose in the next compartment.
Opacity measurements are also reported for eight screens, seven conveyor
transfer points, one bucket elevator, one product bin, and two baggers.
Except
for two screens at facility B, visible emissions were observed from these process
facilities for periods ranging from 0 percent to 9 percent of the time.
The
remaining screen had visible emissions for 15 and 72 percent of the time.
Both the screens were located at facility B.
The reasons for the high readings
were given in the discussion of the problems at facility B, above.
I
The main dust
source at one of the screens was mainly at the motor powering the screens.
4.3.2 Wet Dust Suppression Techniques
Due to the unconfined nature of ' emissions from facilities controlled by
wet suppression technique, the quantitative measurement of mass particulate
e~issions is not possible.
Thus, no mass emission data are available which
4-44
-------
permit a quantitative comparison of the control capabilities of wet dust
suppression versus dry collection techniques.
Visible emission observations
were conducted at six crushed stone, and sand and gravel facilities (facilities
F, P, Q, R, S, T) using wet dust suppression techniques to control Qarticulate
emissions generated at plant process facilities.
Emissions generated by 13
crushers, 14 screens, 7 transfer points, 1 impact mill and 1 storage bin
were visually measured by EPA Methods 9 and 22.
Facilities Rand Tare
portable crushing facilities.
Facilities P, Q, R, and T process crushed
limestone, while facility F processes crushed traprock, and facility S
produces crushed granite.
The results of the tests for non-crushing sources (e.g., screens, trans-
fer points, and storage bins) are summarized in Table 4.5.
These results
indicate that visible emissions occur less than 10 percent of the time.
The results of the tests for crushing sources from the best controlled sta-
tionary (facility S) and portable (facility R) plants are summarized in
Figures 4.14 to 4.18.
The data are reported in 6-minute averaging of
Method 9 data.
For each testing set (approximately 1 hour), the results
of the two observers simultaneously measuring visible emissions, are indi-
cated by a solid and a dashed line.
In spite of the fact that facility R
is designated the best controlled portable crushing plant, the secondary
crusher exceeded 15 percent opacity several times, according to one
of the observers.
This is attributed to the fact that during the test,
there was no spray bar located near the crusher outlet.
It is felt
that had the spray bar for the crusher been relocated closer to the crusher
4-45
-------
TABLE 4.5.
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE NONCRUSHING
SOURCES CONTROLLED BY WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 22)
Accumulated Accumulated Percent of
Plant Rock type Date of Process observation emission time with
processed test facil ity time time visible
(minutes) (minutes)a emissions
P Crushed Limestone (S)b 10/02/79 Secondary screen 60 0 0
Transfer point 60 < 1 1
Q Crushed Limestone (S) 10/10/79 Three process screens 270 2 < 1
R Crushed Limestone (P)C 10/15/79 Three process screens 210 11 5
Two transfer points 120 1 < 1
+::> S Crushed Granite (S) 10/23/79 Two process screens 240 10 4
I Two transfer points
+::> 240 < 1 0
C7'\
T Crushed Limestone (P) 10/29/79 Process screen 120 0 0
Transfer point 120 3 2
Storage bin 120 0 0
aData from observer with highest readings.
b(S) = Stationary plant.
c(P) = Portable plant.
-------
~
I
~
-....J
18
16
14
~ 12
.
Co)
...
.
Q. 10
>-
....
(.)
cr
Q.
o
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPACITY
o
12
Figure 4.14.
SET I
24
60
36
48
TIME. minutes
\
\ ,
\ ,
. ,
x
L
o
1
12
OBSERVER I
X
I ,
I
I \
\ ,
\ I
\ I
X
\
\
\ ~
\ "
I 'x
X ,
-', I ~OBSERVER
X
z
SET 2
1
24
L
36
I
48
,
60
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive primary
crushing sources (portable-Facility T) by means of wet suppression (according
to EPA Method 9).
-------
10 percent OPAC ITV
-
~
....
(J- 8
-cr
~
..j::o 0
I 6
..j::o SET 2
ex> SET I
4
2
0
I I I I I I
o 0 12 24 36 48 60
TIME, minutes
18
x~ OBSERVER 2
'\
, \
, \
\
15 percent OPACITY
x- - X- -x ~ OBSERVER 2
,
\
16
"X
, ,
, \
X
I \
1 \
,
\
X
,-- OBSERVER I
, ,
x
14
r OBSERVER f
Figure 4.15.
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive secondary
crushing source (portable-Facility R) by means of wet suppression (according
to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
15 p.~c.nt OPACITY
14
- 12
c
.
u
'-
: 10
10 percent OPACITY
.
>-
t-
U
C
Q.
o
6
~
I
~
lO
x
~ ,
..
x.. ~ OBSERVER 2
/ ..,
I 'x X
I , "
I ,/...
'x" ...
OBSERVER I
x'
, ,
.. ,
, ,
x
,
o
I
12
SET 2
I I
24 36
I
48
I
60
TIME, minut..
Figure 4.16.
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive primary
crushing source (stationary-Facility S) by means of wet suppression (accQrding
to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
14
- 12
c
.
u
~
. 10
Q.
...
>
~
u 8
ct
Q.
0
.$::> 6
I
(J'I
a
4\
/
)(
2
o
o
SET 1
36
48
60
24
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPACITY
/ OB'ERVER 2
OBSERVER 2
" '\ X,
, \ "
X \ I 'x
\ /J"
X 'x X
.. I'"
OBSERVER I .. I ........
.. I A
\ I
X
SET 2
I
o
I
12
I
24
I
36
I
48
I
60
TI ME I minutes
Figure 4.17.
Summary of visible emission measurement from best controlled fugitive secondary
crusher (small, stationary-Facility S) by means of wet suppression (according
to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPAC ITY
I'
\
I \ ~ OBSERVER 2
1\/
1 \
~\ )(--
. I ,
\ I ,
',' \ \ I
X
I \
- 12
c
.
u
..
. 10
~
)-
....
(.) 8
cr
Q.
0
.::- 6
I
<.11 x--
~
I
4 I
,
I
2 '
X
I
I SET
,
o
OBSERVER
,
-x" ~ OBSERvER 2
\
,
x
OBSERVER I
SET 2
o
I
o
I
12
,
24
I
36
I
48
I
60
TIME, minutes
Figure 4-18.
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive secondary
crushing source (large, secondary-Facility S) by means of wet suppression
(according to EPA Method 9).
-------
than its present position some 5 feet from the crusher, emissions would have
dropped below 15 percent opacity for all observer readings.
In general, the positioning and number of spray bars at all plants
except facilities F and S was judged to be inadequate.
In spite of the fact
that all the facilities were reasonably controlled, it is felt that all the
facilities tested could achieve the low level of emissions seen at facilities
F and S with more careful placement of the bars, and in some cases, additional
spray bars.
During the periods of observation at facility F, no visible emissions
were observed at two crushers, four screens, and one conveyor transfer
point.
The two crushers were observed simultaneously for a period of 65
minutes.
The four screens were observed simultaneously for 3 hours.
The
conveyor transfer point was observed for 3 hours.
Visible emission observations were also conducted at a feldspar crushing
installation which had a wet dust suppression system to control particulate
emissions generated (see facility G, Appendix C) by crushers, screens, and
conveyor transfer points.
During the observations the suppression system was
used only intermittently, presumably because the ore had sufficient surface
moisture from rains the previous day.
During the periods of observation,
essentially no visible emissions were observed.
Surface moisture contents of
the ore were 1.6 to 1.8 percent at the primary crusher discharge; 1.4 to 1.5
percent at the secondary crusher feed; and 1.0 percent at the secondary crusher
discharge conveyor.
4-52
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
1.
"Rock Products Reference File - Dust Suppression, II Rock Products,
May 1972, p. 156.
2.
Weant, G.E., "Characterization of Particulate Emissions from the Stone-
Processing Industry." prepared by Research Triangle Institute for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Contact No. 68-02-0607-10
May 1975, p. 64.
3.
Johnson-March Corporation, Product Literature on Chern-Jet Dust
Suppression System, 1071.
4.
5.
Courtesy of Johnson-March Corporation.
Reference 4.
6.
Hankin, M.. "ls Dust the Stone Industry's Next Major Prob1em." Rock
Products. April 1967. p. 84.
7.
"Air Pollution Control at Crushed Stone Operations." National Crushed
Stone Association. February 1976, page V-4.
8.
9.
Reference 6, p. 114.
Reference 7, page V-5.
10. Anderson. D. M.. "Dust Control Design by the Air Induction Technique,"
Industrial Medicine and Surgery, February 1964, p. 3.
11. Telephone conversation between Mr. Alfred Vervaert, EPA, and Mr. Joe
McCorkel, Aggregates Equipment Incorporated, January 28, 1975.
12. Reference 11.
13. Reference 11.
14. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "Industria1
Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice", 11th Edition, 1970,
p. 5-33.
15. Reference 6, p. 2
16. Reference 14, p. 5-32.
17. Reference 14, p. 5-33.
18. Reference 14, p. 5-31.
19. Reference 14, p. 5-28.
4-53
-------
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
"Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants, II U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication No. AP-51, January 1969, pp. 46-47.
"Source Testing Report - Kentucky Stone Company, Russellville, Kentucky,"
prepared by Engineering - Science, Incorporated, EPA Report No. 75-STN-3.
"Emission Study at a Feldspar Crushing and Grinding Farility," prepared
by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Incorporated, EPA Report
Number 76-NMM-l.
Reference 20.
"Air Pollution Engineering Manual," Second Edition, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication AP-40. p. 128, May 1973.
Reference 25, p. 104.
Emission Characteristics of the Non-metallic Minerals Industry, Industrial
Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1473, Task No. 25, July
1977 .
Reference 20.
Billings. C. E., and J. Wilder, Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology
In: Fabric Filter System Study (Volume I). GCA Corporation, GCA/
Technology Oivision. Bedford, Massachusetts, Contract No. CPA 22-69-
38. December 1970.
4-54
-------
5.
MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
For the non-metallic minerals processing industry, the affected facility
is defined as the entire stationary or portable processing plant including
crushers, grinding mills, screens, bucket elevators, conveyor transfer points,
bagging operations, storage bins and fine product truck and railcar loading
stations.
Excluded are drilling, blasting, loading at the mine, hauling,
stockpiling, conveying (other than at transfer points), windblown dust from
stockpiles, roads and plant yards, calciners, and dryers.
In accordance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, standards of
performance shall be established for new emission sources, or "affected
facilities," within a stationary source category.
The standards, upon
promulgation, apply to affected facilities for which a construction or mod-
ification commenced after proposal of the standards.
5. 1
APPLICABILITY TO NON-METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING PLANTS
5.1.1
Modification
As indicated in Chapters 3 and 4, a non-metallic minerals processing
plant is composed of any combination of crushers, grinders, and mate-
rial transfer systems and a variety of control equipment.
For an existing
facility to become an affected facility, the sum total of the emissions from
all included process operations must increase.
A total increase in emissions
from one or more individual process operations may be compensated for by
an equal or greater total decrease in emissions from the remaining process
operat ions.
5-1
-------
The following physical or operational changes are not considered modi-
f1cations to existing non-metallic minerals processing facilities, irrespec-
t1ve of any change in the emission rate:
a.
Changes determined to be routine maintenance, repair or replace-
ment.
For non-metallic minerals processing plants, this includes
the replacement or refurbishing of equipment elements subject to
high abrasion and impact such as crushing surfaces, screening
surfaces and conveyor belts; and replacement of equipment with
no increase in capacity.
Under the reconstruction provisions applicable to all standards
of performance, an existing facility would become subject to the
standards if its components are replaced to such an extent that
the fixed cost of the new components exceeds 50 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be required to construct a compa-
rable entirely new facility.
b.
An increase in the production rate if that increase can be accomp-
lished without a capital expenditure exceeding the existing
facility.s IRS annual asset guideline repair allowance of
6.5 percent per year.
c.
An increase in the hours of operation.
Use of an alternative raw material if the 'existing facility was
d.
designed to accommodate such material.
Since process equipment
(crushers, screens, conveyors, etc.) is designed to accommodate
a variety of rock types, any change in raw material feed would
probably not be considered a modification. '
5-2
-------
e.
The addition or use of any air pollution control system except
when a system is removed or replaced with a system considered to
be less effective.
f.
The relocation or change in ownership of an existing facility.
Under this exemption, the relocation of a portable plant would
not be considered a modification.
The impact of the modification provision on existing non-metallic
minerals processing facilities should be very slight.
Except as noted above,
no condition is foreseen which would deem an existing non-metallic minerals
processing facility modified.
5.1.2
Recons tructi on
The reconstruction provision is applicable only where an existing facility
is so extremely rebuilt that it is virtually identical to an entirely newly
constructed facility.
This would most likely require the construction of an
"
entir,e new process stream (i.e., a new plant).
For this reason, the impact
of the reconstruction provision would be negligible for the non-metallic
minerals industry.
5.1.3 Expansion of Existing Facilities
When expansions at existing plants take place the newly added equipment
(if part of one of the included process operations) would be considered in
the total emissions produced by the plant.
Crushing operations at non-metallic
minerals plants usually operate below 100 percent capacity and are usually
capable of handling increased throughput without additional equipment.
Such
an increase in production as stated in Section 5.1.1, would not be considered
a modification.
However, in order to expand the grinding capacity of the
plant, a complete new grinding line would probably be added and would
5-3
-------
constitute modification.
Emissions from this grinding line would be included
in the total emissions summation.
In order for the plant not to become subject
to the standards via modification, it would have to demonstrate that there
would be no emission increase as a result of the expansion.
5-4
-------
6.
EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
The alternative control systems that are considered the best combination
of the control techniques previously discussed are presented in this chapter.
The analysis of environmental effects in Chapter 7 and of economic impacts in
Chapter 8 will examine the impacts associated with the alternative emission
control systems.
As discussed in Chapter 4, both dry collection and wet suppression systems
are considered as viable control alternatives.
Unfortunately, the emissions
from a wet suppression system are not amenable to measurement and therefore
cannot be quantified.
In addition, wet suppression systems cannot be used
in all cases throughout the industry and therefore cannot be considered a can-
didate for best technology.
Thus, major emphasis of developing the environ-
mental and economic impacts for the non-metallic mineral industry will be placed
on dry collection systems and wet suppression systems will be discussed only
briefly.
Since the dry collection systems are more costly and require more
energy (for fans), the impacts on the industry will be overstated as compared
to an analysis based on industry use of both dry and wet collection systems.
The model plants which will be analyzed for estimating cost impact and
environmental impact are shown in Table 6.1.
Two basic models of non-metallic
mineral plants were developed.
operations only, and includes:
The first model plant consists of crushing
primary, secondary, and tertiary crushers,
three or four screening operations, five to 10 transfer points, and the storage
bin loading operation.
The second model plant includes both a crushing
6-1
-------
Table 6.1 Model Plants for Estimating Environmental
and Economic Impact
Gas Volume
Mode 1 t03Baghouses Model
Plant [m /s cfm Plant
9.1 10 1 136 150) 1 11. 8 (25,000
9.1 (10) 2 136 (150) 2
22.7(25) 1 5. 4 (11, 500) 272 (300) 1 18.9 (40,000)
3.8 8,000)
22.7(25) 2 5.4 (11,500) 272 (300) 2 18.9 (40,000)
2.2 (4,700) 3.8 ( 8,000)
10.4 22,600)
68.0(75) 2 8. 4 (17,800) 544 (600) 1 4.2 ( 9,000)
15. 1 (32,000)
14.6 (31,000
68.0(75) 2 8.4 (17,800) 544 (600) 2 4.2 ( 9,000)
3.2 ( 6,700) 15. 1 (32,000)
14.6 (31,000)
21.2 (45,200)
Notes: 'Model 1 - crusher (primary, secondary, and tertiary),
screens (3 or 4), transfer points (5 to 10),
and storage bin loading operation.
'Model 2 -
crusher (primary, secondary, and tertiary),
grinder, screens (3 or 4), transfer points
(5 to 10), storage bin loading operation,
and bagging machine.
'In all cases, baghouses are used as the control device(s).
6-2
-------
operation and a grinding operation--the latter consisting of a grinding mill,
classifier or screen, two additional transfer points and a bagging machine.
Both model plants use baghouses as the control device{s).
The model plants for analysis consist of 9, 23, 68, 136, 272, and 544
megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (10, 25, 75, 150, 300 and 600 tons per hour)
stationary plants.
The portable crushing plant segments of the crushed stone,
and sand and gravel industries are discussed in Supplement A.
The process equipment and associated energy requirements and air volumes
used in defining the model plants are contained in Table 6.2.
The parameters
listed are used as the basis for the energy usage calculations presented in
Section 7 and the cost and economic impact analysis in Section 8.
Parameters
for the 272 and 544 Mg/hr (300 and 600 ton/hr) model plants were derived from
flow diagrams presented in the industrial literature.
Energy requirements and
gas volumes for the smaller model plants were calculated from equipment spec-
ifications and flow correlations.
The two model plants and six plant sizes are not applicable to each non-
metallic mineral industry.
The model plant used for each industry, the
typical range of plant sizes found in the industry, the typical plant size
and the plant sizes which will be used in detenmining the economic and environ-
mental impacts for each industry are listed in Table 6.3.
All the industries
employ crushing and grinding operations (Model Plant 2) except crushed and
broken stone, sand and gravel, perlite, vermiculite and rock salt.
Generally,
the size of non-metallic minerals plants is less than 136 Mg/hr (150 TPH)
except for plants in the crushed stone, and sand and gravel
industries.
6-3
-------
Table 6.2 List of Process Equipment Including Energy Requirements and
Air Volume Requirements Used in Determining Hodel Plants
25 TPH 75 TPH
10 TPH
0'1
I
~
1 Energy I
Requi rement Gas Vol.
Item Size HP CFM Size HP CFM Size HP CFM
Primary 10"x 21" 35 375 10"x 30" 60 525 15"x 38" 75 1000
Crusher Jaw Jaw
Primary 3 x 4 2 600 3 x 8 5 1200 6 x 10 15 3000
Screen
Secondary 2' cone 25 2000 1 3 x 59 30 1325 13 x 59 70 1325
Crusher gyratory gyratory
Secondary 3 x 4 5 600 3 x 8 5 1200 6 x 10 15 3000
Screen
Terti ary 24"x 30" 40 1250 24"x 30" 40 1250 10"x 39"
Crusher Roll Roll Hall111ermi 11 200 1350
Tertiary 3 x 4 5 600 3 x 8 5 1200 6 x 10 15 3000
Screen
Feeder 5 7.5 7.5
Storage Bin (2) 1000 (2) 1000 (2) 1000
Conveyors 18" (3) 20 18" (3) 20 24" (1) 7
18" (2) 13
Transfer 18" (5) 3750 18" (5) 3750 24" p~ 1000
Points 18" 4 3000
Grinder 6 x 8 150 4000 8 x 7 300 4700 10 x 12 800 6700
System Ball M113 Ba 11 Mi 11 Ba 11 Mi 11
- - - - - -
Total - 137 10175 172.5 11450 417.5 17675
Crushing
Plant
Only
(Modell)
Total - 287 14175 472.5 16 150 1217 . 5 24375
Crushing and
Grinding
(Model 2)
-------
~ tern
Pr1i"'.ar'(
Crusner
P r"11'13 ry I
Screen 'I
Seccrida ry ,I
Crusher
Secondary
Screen
Tertiary
Crusher
Tertiarj
Screen
Feeder ,
Storage Sin;
Conveyors
Transfer
POlnts
C'I
I
U1
Gr"1 nder
System
Total -
Crushlng
Plant
Only
(Modell)
Total - I
Crushlng and
Gr"1 nd i ng
(Model 2)
Size
27"c .12"
Jaw
5 x 12
4' cone
6 x 12
13"x 59"
Gyra tory
6 x 12
3'
30" \ 1)
24" (2'
I
,!
"
I
i
I
I
24" : 3)
30" (2)
150 TPH
liP
150
20
150
20
125
20
, .J
12
19.5
1600
524
2124
3G0 TPH 600 TPH
CFM SiZe HP m Size }It' CFM
2500 35' x 46" 2.)0 3500 50"x 60" r 301) 4660
!
Jaw Jaw
3600 6 x 12 20 3600 6 x 12 20 3600
3250 4 ~ cone 1 '7' 3660 5 ~ cone 200 6170
,J
5 ~ cone 200 6171)
3600 6 x 16 20 4800 6 \ 16 20 4300
1325 .1' cone ' 150 3260 5 Is cone 200 6170
4' cone 150 3260 5 ~ cone 200 6170
3600 7 x 20 30 700~ 7 x 20 30 7000
7 x 20 30 7000
10 20
1500 1- \ 2500 f -, 2500
',":>} \ ~ J
36" (2) 29 36" i3: 1 i 3
3')" (3) 48 30" (.1) 59
24" (3) 13
3000 36" (3) ~500 36" (3) 9000
2500 30" (4) 5000 30" (7) 8750
24" (7) , 7000
11300 10 x 12 (4j 3200 22600 10 x 12 (8) 6400 45200
Ball Mlll ' Ball Mill'
I
,
25399 ! 845 48080 1392 71990
36699
4045
i
117190
10 '( 12 (2)
Bal: Mlll
70680
7792
References.
- Estimatlng Dust Control Costs for Crushed Stone Plants, Bureau of ~lnes Report, Reck Products, AJri~. 1975.
- Mlnerai Processing Flowsheets, Denver Equipment Company, Second Ed1tion.
- Cedaraplds Reference Book, Iowa Manufacturing Comoany, Ninth Poc~et Edition.
- Backqround Information for the Non-Metalllc Minerals Industrv, PEDCo Environmental Soeclallsts, EPA
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321 Task No. 44, August 31, 1976.
- Chemical Engineers Handbook, 3rd Edltlon, Perry" Robert H. (editor), McGraw Hlll.
- Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing GUlde, 63rd Editlon, Pit and Quarry Publlcatlons, Incorporated, 1970.
- "Industrial Ventilation, A Kanual of Reconmended Practice, 11th Edition, American Conference of Govern-
mental Industrial ~gienists. 1970.
- Smith Engineering works, Product Literature on Telsmith Equipment for Mlnes ... Quarries and Gravel Pits,
Bulletln 266 B.
-------
TABLE 6.3.
PLANT SIZES FOR THE VARIOUS NON-METALLIC
MINERALS INDUSTRIES (METRIC UNITS)
Plant
Model RanfJe Typical Size* Model Plant Sizes**
.- .._.J!,_d~_SY:L -... ._- - - Us~-- - . - h!'1!lL!I!". - - . - Mg/hr P~.!t;.!'en.t__t.!?._the Indus t..!"y....!:'..9.L!!.!:
Crur,hcd " llrokrn caon~ 1 272 23,68,136,272,54~
Snnd r. Gravel I 14-2177 272 23,68,136,272,544
Clay 2 4-116 21 9,23,68,136
Rock 5<11t 1 -7')3 68 23,68,136,272,544
(ivpsum ;> 23 9,23,68
Sodfum Compounds 2 -204 23 23,68,136,272
Pumice 2 5-30 9 9,23,68
Gilson f to 2 9 9,23,68
Tile 2 5-18 9 9,23
Boron 2 31-385 272 23,68,136,272,544
Blrite 2 9-45 9 9,23,68
Fluorspllr 2 -23 9 9,23
Feldspar 7 5-23 9 9,23
D18 tomHe 7 11-60 2:1 9,23,68
Pl!r 1 He 1 15- 54 ?1 9,23,68
Vennf cu 1 f lc 1 68- 272 68 68,75,150,272
Mfca 2 9 9,23
K,yan He 2 9 9,23,68
-_._--_.~ .. -
. .-- . - --- --- ~--------- -. - ---
. The~f' vi'llupc; wfll he used to estimatf' the air impact on mass emissions for each industry.
.. ThE'sP va 1 ues will hp uSf>d to ec; t inlatp. the economi c 1 mpact on each indus try.
Note'
In 1111 Cil~Cc;. hdfJhouses ('Ire used as the control device(s).
6-6
-------
TABLE 6.3.
PLANT SIZES FOR THE VARIOUS NON-METALLIC
MINERALS INDUSTRIES (ENGLISH UNITS)
Plant * **
1110 de 1 Range Typical Slze Model Plant Sizes
_.~us~- used (TPH) .----1!.!!IJ Pertinent to the Industry lTPH)
Crushed & Broken Stone 1 300 25,75,150,300,600
Sand & Gravel 1 15-2400 300 25,75,150,300,600
Clay 7 4-150 7<; 10,25,75,150
Rock Sail 1 -830 75 25,75,150,300,600
Gypsum 2 25 10,25,75
Sodium Compounds 2 -225 25 25,75,150,300
PumIce 7 5-33 10 10,25,75
Gll son1 te 2 10 10,25,75
Tille 2 6-20 10 10,25
Boron 2 34-425 300 25,75,150,300,600
Barile 2 10-50 10 10,25,75
Fluorspar 2 -25 10 10,25
Feldspar 2 5-25 10 10,25
D1 a tom1 te 2 9-66 2', 10,25,75
Perlite 1 16-60 ?', 10,25,75
Verm1 cull te 1 75- 300 75 75,150,300
Mica 2 10 10,25
Kyan1te 2 10 10,25,75
--.----- ."-- -----.-----------.---
. Thp,e values will be used to pstimate the air impact on mass emissions for each industry.
"'* Th('o;c villues will be u<;ed to estlT11
-------
7.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
An assessment of the incremental impact to the environment associated
with the application of the emission reduction systems described in Chapter 4
is presented below.
Beneficial and adverse impacts on air, water, solid
waste, energy and noise which may be directly or indirectly attributed
to the operation of these emission control systems are assessed.
7. 1
AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
To determine the true impact of standards of performance on air
pollution, one must determine the reduction in air pollution they effect
beyond that which would otherwise be achieved by state and local regulations.
As noted in Section 3.2.3, present regulations which limit the emission of
particulate from non-metallic minerals processing facilities take many
forms and vary greatly in stringency and enforcement.
For the purpose
of this analysis, it is assumed that all non-metallic minerals plants
are subject to a general process weight regulation designed to limit
particulate emissions from any source.
Table 7.1 summarizes the high,
low, and typical emission rates allowed under these State process weight
regulations.
An assessment of the national air pollution impact and the
results of dispersion analyses conducted for 12 model plants are presented
below.
7.1.1
National Air Pollution Impact
The production of the various non-metallic minerals is projected to
increase at compounded annual growth rates of up to six percent through the
year 1985.
Table 7.2 presents for each non-metallic mineral, the growth
7-1
-------
Table 7.1 Allowable Emissions Under General
State Process Weight Regulations
Process Weight Rate Allowable Emissions, 1 kg/hr (lb/hr)
103 kg/hr (tons/hr.) High Low Typical
0.5 (0.5) 1.3 (2.8) 0.7 (1.6) 1.2 (2.6)
2.3 (2.5) 3.5 (7.7) 2.9 _(6.3) 3.4 (7.6)
4.5 (5.0) 6.9 (15.2) 2.7 (6.0) 5.5 (12.0)
9.1 (10.0) 13.7 (30.0) 4.0 (8.7) 8.7 (19.2)
18.1 (20.0) 27.1 (59.7) 5.7 (12.5) 13.9 (30.5)
27.2 (30.0) 30.5 (67.2) 7.1 (15.6) 18.2 (40.0)
54.4 (60.0) 31. 1 ( 68 . 2) 1 5. 1 ( 33 . 3) 21.0 (46.3)
90.7 ( 1 00 . 0) 43.2 (95.2) 13.4 (29.5) 23.2 (51.2)
453.6 (500.0) 11 9. 9 ( 264 . 0) 18.2 (40.0) 31.3 (69.0)
7-2
-------
TABLE 7.2 GROWTH RATES AND MINERAL PRODUCTION LEVELS FOR THE
VARIOUS NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRIES
Estimated 1980 Annua12 Estimated 1985
production level projected production level
Mineral
103 1 ,000 growth 103 1,000
megagrams tons rate (%) megagrams tons
Crushed and broken 981,839 (1,082,292) 4.0 1,194,557 (1,316,774)
stone
Sand and gravel 752,538 (829,531) 1.0 790,926 (871 ,847)
Clay 52,834 (58,240) 3.5 62,750 (69,171)
Rock salt 16,482 ( 18,168) 2.0 18 , 1 86 (20,046)
Gypsum 9,764 (10,763) 2.0 10,783 (11 ,886)
Sodium compounds 5,124 (5,648) 2.5 5,800 (6,394)
Pumice 4,193 (4,622) 3.5 4,980 (5,490)
Gil sonite 99 (109) 2.0 111 (122)
Talc 1 ,065 (1,174) 4.0 1,296 (1,428)
Boron 1,357 (1,496) 5.0 1 ,731 (1 ,909)
Barite 1 , 30 1 (1 ,434) 2.2 1 ,451 (1 ,600)
Fluorspar 146 (161) 3.0 171 ( 1 88 )
Feldspar 739 (815) 4.0 900 (992)
Di atomite 678 (747) 5.5 888 (979 )
Perlite 779 (859) 4.0 948 (1,045)
Vermiculite 364 (401) 4.0 443 (488)
Mica 148 ( 163) 4.0 181 (200)
Kyanite 114 ( 1 26) 6.0 153 (168)
Total 1,829,564 (2,016,749) 2,096,255 (2,310,726)
7-3
-------
rate, the estimated 1980 production level based on the 1975 reported produc-
tion level, and the 1985 estimated production level.
Based on the latest
reported (1975) production levels, annual production for all 18 non-metallic
minerals was 1605 x 106 megagrams (1769 x 106 tons) in 1975 and will increase
to 1829 x lOG megagrams (2016 x 106 tons) in 1980, and 2096 x 106 megagrams
(2311 x lOG tons) in 1985.
If one assumes that all existing plants are now
operating at 80 percent of capacity, then new plants and expansions to existing
plants will be required to produce an additional 333 x 106 megagrams (368 x
106 tons) in production capacity projected for the 5-year period from 1980
through 1985.
An assessment of the air pollution impact associated with these
capacity additions for each industry segment is presented in Table 7.3.
Process steps included in this evaluation are crushing, grinding, sizing, and
handling.
Handling includes conveying, bagging, storage bin loading and fine
product loading.
in the analysis.
Combustion sources (e.g., dryer or kilns) are not included
The largest tonnage reduction is in the crushed and broken
stone industry followed by the clay industry and the sand and gravel industry.
Reductions in the other industry segments are much smaller.
The following procedure was used to arrive at the numbers listed in
Table 7.3.
The values for allowable 1985 emissions under existing State
standards were developed by applying a typical process weight regulation
(see Table 7.1) to a typical plant size (see Table 6.3) for each industry.
Using the additional ore processing capacity installed between 1980 and
1985 the 1985 emissions due to the new facilities were then calculated.
(A
plant having both crushing and grinding operations is assumed to be covered by
7-4
-------
TABLE 7.3 SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
[megagram/year (ton/year)]
Allowable 1985 emissions under Reducti on impact
Industry segment Existing Standards of Megagram/ (ton/
0.05 g/dscm
state regulations (0.02 gr/dscf) year year)
Crushed and broken 21,272 (23,448) 2,923 (3,222) 18,385 (20,266)
stone
Sand and gravel 3,838 (4,231) 527 (581) 3,311 (3,650)
Clay 13,978 (15,409) 549 (605) 13,430 (14,804)
Rock salt 545 (601 ) 35 (39) 510 (562)
Gypsum 1,440 (l ,587) 53 (58) 1,387 (l,529)
Sodium compounds 945 (1,042) 32 (35) 974 (1 ,007)
Pumice 1,512 ( 1 ,666) 93 ( 102 ) 1 ,419 (1 ,564)
Gilsonite 23 (25) 23 (25) 0 (0)
Talc 444 (489) 28 (31) 415 (458)
Boron 74 (82) 74 (82) 0 (0)
Barite 288 (317) 18 (20) 269 (297)
Fluorspar 48 (53) 9 (10) 39 (43)
Feldspar 309 (341) 9 (10) 300 (331)
Diatomite 301 ( 332) 11 ( 12) 290 ( 320 )
Perlite 119 (131) (7) (8) 112 (1 24)
Vermicul He 25 (28) 3 (3) 23 (25)
Mica 63 (69) 9 (10) 52 (59)
Kyanite 76 (84) 9 (10) 67 (74)
Total 45,337 (49,976) 4,412 (4,863) 40,926 ( 45 , 11 3 )
7-5
-------
a process weight regulation which is twice that presented in Table 7.1).
The additional ore processing capacity was determined for each industry
by multiplying the additional industry capacity (1985 capacity minus 1980
capacity) by the ore to product ratio for each industry.
For industries
such as crushed stone, sand and gravel, clay and talc, the ore to product
ratio is 1.0.
Most industry values range between 1.0 and 2.0 with a few
[boron (5.8), vermiculite (4.0), fluorspar (3.0), mica (4.2)] ranging
above 3.
The values for allowable 1985 emissions under a potential
NSPS were calculated using the same procedure except that a gas volume
was assigned for the specified plant si~e and the value 0.05 g/dscm
(0.02 gr/dscf) was used to calculate the emission level in terms of a
process weight rate.
The reduction impact is the difference between
the allowable 1985 emissions due to the State regulations and the potential
NSPS for new capacity additions.
Assuming that all states enforced standards equivalent to the typical
process weight regulations, capacity additions over the 5-year period
1980-1985 would result in the emission of an additional 45,337 megagrams
(49,976 tons) of particulate in the year 1985.
If standards of performance
are promulgated at the level of 0.05 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf), then only an
additional 4,412 megagrams (4,863 tons) of particulate emissions would
result.
Consequently, the national impact in air pollution reduction
, ,
effected by standards of performance if promulgated at the level of 0.05 g/dscm
lO.02 gr/dscf) would be on the order of 40,926 megagrams (45,113 tons) of
particulate in the year 1985.
It should be noted that because of the lack
7-6
-------
of uniformity of existing state regulations and the discretionary manner
in which these regulations are enforced, the level of control at existing
plants is very likely below that established by the assumptions that all
existing plants are subject to the typical process weight regulation and
that these regulations are universally enforced.
In addition, the air
pollution impact assessed above does not account for that portion of
existing plants which would be replaced with new plants, therefore becoming
subject to standards of performance due to obsolescence.
true impact would probably exceed that presented above.
As a result, the
7.1.2 Dispersion Analysis
Dispersion calculations were performed on six model plants with typical
production capacities of 9, 23, 68, 136, 272, and 544 megagrams per hour
(10, 25, 75, 150, 300, and 600 TPH).
For each model, calculations were performed
for two levels of emission control which included that achievable using best
control technology and that required to meet typical State regulations.
A
dry collection system is assumed to be used to meet both levels of control
because:
(a) emissions when wet suppression is used are discharged in an
unconstrained manner (not discharged through a ~tack); and (b) because emission
rates achievable by wet suppression were not determined in this study and are
not otherwise available.
Results of the analysis, including characteristics
of the models used and assumptions made, are presented below.
7.1.2.1
Model Plant Characteristics - The model plants selected are identical
to those used in the following chapter in assessing the economic impact.
As
in Chapter 8, the 9,23,68 and 136 Mg/hr (10, 25, 75, and 150 TPH) plants are
assumed to use two fabric filters for control and the 272 and 544 Mg/hr
7-7
-------
(300 and 600 TPH) plants are assumed to use three and four fabric filters,
respectively.
(One less fabric filter is used in each model plant if a
grinding operation is not employed).
It is also assumed that proper
hooding and indraft velocities are used so that all emissions from the
process equipment are captured.
Figure 7.1 shows the physical configuration
of the discharge points for each model.
For the 9, 23, 68, and 136
Mg/hr (10, 25, 75, and 150 TPH) plants, the No.1 stack is from a fabric
filter controlling emissions from the crushing operation and its associated
screening and handling operations, and the No.2 stack is from a second
fabric filter controlling the grinding operation and its associated
screening and handling operations.
The 272 Mg/hr (300 TPH) plant is
controlled by three fabric filters; one for the primary crusher, the
second for the remaining crushing operations; (i.e., secondary and
tertiary crushing and screening and associated material handling operations),
and the third for the grinding system.
The 544 Mg/hr (600 TPH) plant is
controlled by four fabric filters; one for the primary crusher, the
I
second for the secondary crusher and screens, the third for the tertiary
crushers and finishing screens, and the fourth for the grinding system.
The dispersion calculations were performed assuming two levels of emission
control: 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf) and the process weight regulation for Ohio
which was chosen as typical of State regulations.
The emission source
characteristics for the model plants are presented in Table 7.4.
A control
efficiency of about 95 percent would be required to meet the typical process
weight requlation and better than 99 percent to reflect that achievable
using best control.
7-8
-------
SOURCE LOCATIONS
?
N
I
@
.
I
.
2
(a) 10, 25 and 75 TPH PLANTS
~
N
I
(i)
.
I
.
2
( b) 150 TPH PLANTS
I
o
1
50
I
100 METERS
Figure 7.1
Plant layouts showing the number and locations of the sources (stacks)
specified for each plant size. The filled circles show the locations
of the individual ~tacks. The @ symbols show the origins of the
receptor grids used in the model calculations.
7-q
-------
SOURCE LOCATIONS
~
N
I
@
.
I
.
2
.
3
(c) 300 TPH PLANTS
.,
t o
N 3
I @
. o .
I 2 4
W) 600 TPH PLANTS
I
o
1
50
I
100 METERS
Figure 7.1 (continued)
7-10
-------
Table 7.4
STACK AND EMISSIONS DATA
(Metric Units)
Stack Stack
Plant Stack Stack Stack Exit Exit
Size Number Diameter Hei ht Velocity Temperature
a .lM.9LhIL~__- - m) (m (m/sec) (OK
Case
9 1 0.58 9. 1 18.0 ambient 0.24
2 0.33 12.2 23.0 ambient 0.09
2 9 1 0.58 9. 1 18.0 ambient 2.42
2 0.33 12.2 23.0 ambient 2.42
3 23 1 0.61 9. 1 18.0 ambient 0.27
2 0.37 12.2 23.0 ambient 0.11
4 23 1 0.61 9. 1 18.0 ambient 4.46
2 0.37 12.2 23.0 ambient 4.46
5 68 1 0.76 9. 1 18.0 ambient 0.41
2 0.43 12.2 23.0 ambient 0.15
6 68 1 0.76 9. 1 18.0 ambient 6.10
2 0.43 12.2 23.0 ambient 6.10
7 136 1 0.79 9. 1 23.0 ambient 0.58
2 0.55 12.2 23.0 ambient 0.26
8 136 1 0.79 9. 1 23.0 ambient 6.74
2 0.55 12.2 23.0 ambient 6.74
9 272 1 0.58 6. 1 15.0 ambient 0.18
2 1. 07 9. 1 23.0 ambient 0.92
3 0.76 12.2 23.0 ambient 0.52
10 272 1 0.58 6. 1 15.0 ambient 1.52
2 1. 07 9. 1 23.0 ambient 6.06
3 0.76 12.2 23.0 ambient 6.10
11 544 1 0.61 6. 1 15.0 ambient 0.21
2 0.91 9. 1 23.0 ambient 0.74
3 0.91 9.1 23.0 ambient 0.71
4 1. 10 12.2 23.0 ambient 1.04
12 544 1 0.61 6. 1 15.0 ambient loll
2 0.91 9. 1 23.0 ambient 3.84
3 0.91 9. 1 23.0 ambient 3.96
4 1. 10 12.2 23.0 ambient 6.72
--.--..-- - --------~----
a Odd numbered cases are based on an emission level of 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf).
Even numbered cases are based on allowable emissions if typical State process
weiqht requ1~tions are used.
7-11
-------
Table 7.4
STACK AND EMISSIONS DATA
(English Units)
S ta c k S ta c k Parti cu1 ate
Plant Stack Stack Stack Exit Exit ElTJission
Size Number Diameter Height Velocity Tempel"ature Rate
Casea (tph) (ft) (ft) ( ft/mi n) (oF) (lb/hr)-
1 10 1 1.9 30 356 ambient 1.9
2 1.0 40 455 ambient 0.7
2 10 1 1.9 30 356 ambient 19.2
2 1.0 40 455 ambient 19.2
3 25 1 2.0 30 356 ambient 2.1
2 1.2 40 455 ambient 0.9
4 25 1 2.0 30 356 ambient 35.4
2 1.2 40 455 ambient 35.4
5 75 1 2.5 30 356 ambient 3.3
2 1.4 40 455 ambient 1.2
6 75 1 2.5 30 356 ambient 48.4
2 1.4 40 455 ambi ent 48.4
7 150 1 2.6 30 455 ambient 4.6
2 1.8 40 455 ambient 2. 1
8 150 1 2.6 30 455 ambient 53.5
2 1.8 40 455 ambient 53.5
9 300 1 1.9 20 300 ambient 1.4
2 3.5 30 455 ambient 7.3
3 2.5 40 455 ambient 4.1
10 300 1 1.9 20 300 ambient 12.1
2 3.5 30 455 ambient 48.1
3 2.5 40 455 ambient 48.4
11 600 1 2.0 20 300 ambient 1.7
2 3.0 30 455 ambient 5.9
3 3.0 30 455 ambient 5.6
4 3.6 40 455 ambient 8.3
12 600 1 2.0 20 300 ambient 8.8
2 3.0 30 455 ambient 30.5
3 3.0 30 455 ambient 31.4
4 3.6 40 455 ambient 53.3
a Odd numbered cases are based on an emission level of 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf).
Even numbered cases are based on allowable emissions if typical State process
weight requ1ations are used.
, 7-12
-------
7.1.2.2 The Dispersion Model and Meteorological Considerations - The
dispersion model used to analyze the air pollution impact of the plants
described above is the modified Single-Source (CRSTER) Model developed by
the Meteorology and Assessment Division, EPA. The dispersion analysis was
performed by H. E. Cramer Company, Incorporated. 3
A preliminary analysis showed that maximum short-term ground-level
concentrations produced by emissions from stacks of the type listed in
Table 7.4 are most likely to occur during periods of light-to-moderate wind
speeds and persistant wind directions in combination with neutral stability.
These meteorological conditions are quite common in the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania area.
Also, non-metallic minerals processing plants are located
in the vicinity of Pittsburgh.
Consequently, it was decided that the surface
and upper-air meteorological data for the Greater Pittsburgh Airport were
representative and should be used to develop the meteorological inputs
required for the dispersion-model calculations.
Because the plants are
assumed to be located outside the Pittsburgh urban area, a rural location was
assumed in the model calculations.
The prevailing wind directions in the
Pittsburgh area during periods of neutral D stability are from the west.
In order to maximize the superposition of plumes from individual sources
under worst-case meteorolog1ical conditions, all plant configurations were
given an east-west orientatiQn (see Figure 7.1).
The results of the preliminary analysis also showed that the maximum
short-term ground-level concentrations produced by emissions from the
sources listed in Table 7.4 can be expected to occur at downwind distances
7-13
-------
ranging from less than 300 meters (330 yards) to about 900 meters (985 yards).
The property boundaries of the six plants are assumed to be a minimum distance
of 300 meters from any stack.
For the purposes of this study, only ground-
level particulate concentrations that occur at and beyond the plant property-
boundaries were used in assessing the air quality impact of plant emissions.
From a consideration of the results of the preliminary analysis and
the fact that only off-property ground-level particulate concentrations
are of concern, two receptor grids were constructed for calculations.
The
~symbols in Figure 7.1 show the origins of these receptor grids.
The
receptor grid used in .the model calculations for the 9, 23, 68, and 136 Mg/hr
(10, 25, 75, and 150 TPH) plants comprised seven concentric receptor rings with
radii of 0.335, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.5 kilometers (366,437,547,656,
875, 1094, and 1640 yards). The receptor grid used in the model ca1cu-
lations for the 272 and 544 Mg/hr (300 and 600 TPH) plants comprised six
concentric receptor rings with radii of 0.38, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.5 kilo-
meters (415,657,656,875,1094 and 1640 yards).
All receptor grid points were
assumed to be at the same elevation as plant grade.
Thus the only terrain
effects included in the model calculations are those implicitly contained in
the meteorological data from the Greater Pittsburgh Airport.
7.1.2.3 Results and Discussion of Dispersion Calculations - Maximum 24-hour
average and annual-average concentrations are presented in Tables 7.5 & 7.6.
All 24-hour and annual maximums were located at either 0.3 or 0.4 kilometer
(328 or 437 yard) from the plant.
Generally, for each case, less than 10
7-14
-------
Table 7.5
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AND ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATION DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROCESS
SOURCES IN THE MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
HAVING BOTH CRUSHING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS
24-Hour Average Annual Average
Di stance to Maximum Distance to Maximum
Plant Size Maximum Concent~ation Maximum Concent!3ation
[Mg/hr (tons/hour)] a (Km) (Km)
Case (lJ g/m ) (lJ g/m )
9 (10) 1 0.3 14 0.2 2
2 0.3 200 0.3 16
23 (25) 3 0.3 15 0.3 2
4 0.3 354 0.3 28
68 (75) 5 0.3 20 0.3 2
6 0.3 430 0.3 34
1 36 (1 50) 7 0.4 24 0.3 2
8 0.3 383 0.3 31
272 (300) 9 0.4 40 0.4 4 .
10 0.4 279 0.4 27
544 (600) 11 0.4 64 0.4 5
12 0.4 363 0.4 28
------~~---- ---
a Odd number cases are based on an emission level of 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf).
Even number cases are based on allowable emissions under typical State process
weight regulations (as shown in Table 7.1)
7-15
-------
Table 7.6
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AND ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL PARTICULATE
CONCENTRATION DUE TO EMISSIONS FROM THE PROCESS
SOURCES IN THE MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
HAVING ONLY CRUSHING OPERATIONS
24-Hour Average Annual Average
Distance to Maximum Distance to Maximum
Plant Size a Maximum Concent~ation Maximum Concent~ation
[Mg/hr (tons/hour)] Case (Km) (pg/m ) (Km) (Ilq!m )
9 (10) 1 0.3 10 0.2 1
2 0.3 107 0.3 8
23 (25) 3 0.3 11 0.3 1
4 0.3 191 0.3 14
68 (7 5) 5 0.3 15 0.3 1
6 0.3 223 0.3 17
1 36 (1 50) 7 0.4 16 0.3 1
8 0.3 187 0.3 15
272 (300) 9 0.4 29 0.4 3
10 0.4 208 0.4 16
544 (600) 11 0.4 48 0.4 4
12 0.4 259 0.4 20
a Odd numher cases are based on an emission level of 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf).
Even number cases are based on allowable emissions under typical State process
weight regulations (as shown in Table 7.1)
7-16
-------
percent of the days per year had 24-hour average concentrations exceeding
70 percent of the maximum concentration shown in the Table.
The national primary ambient air quality standards for particulate
matter, as published in the Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 84, April 30,
1971, are:
a.
75 micrograms per cubic meter--annual geometric mean;
b.
260-micrograms per cubic meter--maximum 24-hour concentration not
to be exceeded more than once a year.
Assuming a pristine atmosphere, the data presented in Table 7.5 indicate that
for all cases, excluding emissions from sources other than the stack, a
plant meeting an emission limitation of 0.05 g/m3 (0.02 gr/dscf) would meet
the ambient air quality standards.
In comparison, any plant with a pro-
duction rate above 9 Mg/hr (10 TPH) which just meets the typical process
weight regulation, even though it may require a 95 percent reduction from
uncontrolled levels would exceed the ambient air quality standards for
the 24-hour average.
The dispersion results presented are only for plant process facilities
under consideration.
Process operations common to most plants which are not
covered by the proposed standard include drilling, blasting, loading at the
mine, hauling, stockpiling, conveying (other than transfer points), and
windblown dust from stockpiles, roads, and plant yards.
These operations
7-17
-------
are not included because they are not amenable to control using the emission
control techniques upon which the proposed standards are based.
They are,
however, significant sources of particulate matter emissions.
Methods for
controlling emissions from these operations are discussed in the document
entitled "Air Pollutant Control Techniques for the Crushed and Broken
Stone Industry" available from the EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-2777.
7.2 WATER POLLUTION IMPACT
The almost exclusive utilization of dry collection techniques (particu-
late capture combined with a dry emission control device) for control generates
no water effluent discharge.
In cases where wet dust suppression techniques
could be used, the water arl~eres to t~e material processed until it evaporates.
Wet suppression systems, therefore, would not result in a water discharge.4
Consequently, emission standards for the non-metallic minerals industry will
have no water pollution impact.
7.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACT
Disposition of quarry, plant and dust collector waste materials depends
somewhat upon State and local government and corporate policies.
When
fabric filter systems are used, about 1.4 megagrams (1.6 tons) of solid waste
*
are collected for every 250 megagrams (278 tons) processed.
In many
cases this material can be recycled back into the process, sold, or used
for a variety of purposes.
Where no market exists for the collected fines, they are typically
disposed of in the mine or in an isolated location in the quarry.
A 544 Mg/hr
(600 TPH) crushing plant using dry collection for control would generate about
*Estimate based on the difference between controlled and uncontrolled
emission factors.
7-18
-------
27.6 megagrams (30 tons) of waste over an eight hour period.
This is about
0.5 percent of the plant throughput.
Generally, the collected fines are
discharqed to a single haul truck at the end of the day and transported
to the quarry for disposal.
This dumping and transporting c~n be a
source of fugitive dust if these operations are not protected from the
wind or controlled by wet suppression.
No subsequent air pollution
problems should develop provided the waste pile is protected from wind
erosion.
Consequently, it is EPAls judgment that the application of dry
controls in the non-metallic minerals industry will not have a sig-
nificant solid waste disposal impact.
Where wet dust suppression can be
used, no solid waste disposal problem exists over that resulting from
normal operation.
7.4
ENERGY IMPACT
The implementation of standards of performance for the non-metallic
minerals industry will necessarily result in an increase in energy
usage.
Generally, the energy impact of alternative control systems and
standards is assessed by determining the additional energy consumption
(type and amount) above that which would be necessitated by existing
State regulations.
For the non-metallic minerals industry, however,
because of the non-uniformity of current State regulations and the
degree of interpretation necessary for enforcement, such an approach
would likely substantially understate the true impact on the industry.
An alternative approach is to assess the energy impact against an
7-19
-------
estimate of the current status (type and extent) of existing control
across the industry.
Because of the size of this industry, however, any
such estimates for the non-metallic minerals industry would be subject
to considerable uncertainty.
Consequently, the energy impact analysis
presented below, like the economic impact analysis presented in Chapter 8,
is gauged against an assumed baseline existing control of "no control. II
In this way, the resultant energy impact will have a liberal bias which,
if determined to be reasonable, will assure that the true impact is not
adverse.
The energy requirements both with and without air pollution controls
for six typical plant sizes are shown in Tables 7.7 and 7.8.
The model
plants selected are identical to those used for the cost and dispersion
analyses.
The energy requirements reported are for plants with both
crushing and grinding operations (Table 7.7) and for plants having
crushing operations only (Table 7.8).
A 9 Mg/hr (10 TPH) plant with both crushing and grinding operations
and with no controls would require motors with horsepower rating totaling
about 214 Kw (287 hp) to operate.
Complete fabric. filter control would
require an additional 30 Kw (40 hp), or an increase in plant power
consumption of about 14 percent.
For the 23 to 544 Mg/hr (25 to 600
TPH) plants, the application of a dry collection system would increase
power consumption by about 5 to 10 percent.
7-20
-------
Table 7.7 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC
MINERALS PLANTS HAVING CRUSHING AND GRINDING OPERATIONS
[KILOWATTS (HORSEPOWER)]
Plant Size Fabric Filter Percent Energy Increase
IMg/hr (TPH)] Uncontrolled Controlled (%)
9 ( 10) 214 (287) 244 (327) 13.9
23 (25) 353 (473) 387 (519) 9.7
68 (75) 908 (1218) 966 (1296) 6.4
136 (150) 1584 (2124) 1666 (2234) 5.2
272 (300) 3016 (4045) 3170 (4252) 5. 1
544 (600) 5810 (7792) 6098 (8177) 4.9
Table 7.8 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC
MINERALS PLANTS HAVING CRUSHING OPERATIONS ONLY
[KILOWATTS (HORSEPOWER)]
Plant Size Fabri c Fi lter Percent Energy Increase
IMg/hr (TPH)] Uncontrolled Controlled (%)
9 (10) 102 (137) 123 (165) 20.4
23 (25) 129 (173) 153 (205) 18.5
68 (75) 312 (418) 356 (478) 14.4
136 ( 1 50) 391 (524) 450 (604) 15.4
272 (300) 630 (845) 737 (989) 17.0
544 (600) 1038 (1392) 1232 (1652) 18.7
7-21
-------
For the 9 to 544 Mg/hr (10 to 600 ton/hr) plants with only
crushing operations, the application of a dry collection system would
increase power consumption between 14 and 20 percent.
It is interesting
to note that a 544 Mg/hr (600 ton/hr) crushing plant using a combina-
tion of both wet and dry controls sufficient to meet most existing State regu-
lations would likely require an additional 75 kW (100 hp) or about a 7
percent increase in power consumption.
Complete fabric filter control
for this same plant would require a 7 percent increase in power
consumption when compared to a plant achieving the typical State
regulations.
The estimated additional energy requirement to meet the added
demand for non-metallic minerals projected for the year 1985 would be
about 0.805 million megawatt-hours in the absence of any air pollution
controls.
In contrast, if fabric filter controls were installed on all
capacity additions (including those obtained from new plants and expansions
to existing plants), the estimated additional energy demand would
increase to about 0.928 million megawatt-hours.
Consequently, the net
increase in energy consumption for the year 1985 which would result from
the installation of emission control would be about 0.123 million megawatt-
hours or 15 percent over that which would otherwise be required to meet
the projected capacity additions without controls.
When compared to
forecasts for national demand of electrical energy alone in 1985 (4.1
billion megawatt-hours), this resultant increase in energy consumption
7-22
-------
is equivalent to approximately 3 x 10-3 percent of that projected to be .consumed
nationally.6
In addition, the energy impact on each of the 18 affected non-metallic
industries has been calculated in Table 7.9.
The impacts of energy usage of
controlled versus uncontrolled new facilities was calculated to be 0.123
million megawatts for the year 1985.
The resultant increase in particulate
emissions generated by power plants in the production of the additional
0.123 million megawatts of required power for the control equipment was
calculated to be 51 Mg/year (56 ton/year) in 1985 using the allowable
emission rate standard of 0.03 lb/106 Btu input.
It is concluded, therefore,
that this increase of particulate emissions from power plants would be more
than offset by the potential savings in particulate emissions generated by the
non-metallic industry under an NSPS (41,000 Mg/year or 45,000 ton/year
particulate).
7.5 NOISE IMPACT
When compared to the noise emanating from crushing and grinding process
equipment, any additional noise from properly designed exhaust fans for the
control system will be insignificant.
Consequently, no significant noise
impact is anticipated due to the implementation of standards of performance
for non-metallic minerals plants.
7-23
-------
TABLE 7.9 ENERGY IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL NON-METALLIC INDUSTRIES UNDER PROPOSED NSPS
Increased iY01 ca; plan~ . :'iur.'ber of
:apacity 1980-1985 size add1t10~=~ t~~ical Energy required Energy required Impact on
: ~.:1us try Jidrlts r-~:~; red per typi ca I per typi ca 1 eacn i "dJS try
la' Mg/yr (lG' ton/yr) "9/hr (ton/hr) controlled plant Jncontrolled plant (k:,;
;kW) (kll)
CrUShed stone 21 r:i18 (234,481) 272 (300)- 391 737 630 41 ,837
Sand and gravel 38.388 (42.316) 272 (300).* 71 737 630 7,597
Clay 9.916 (10.931) 23 (25) 52 387 353 1.758
qock sa 1t 1.704 (1.878) 56 (75) ** 13 356 312 572
Gypsum 1.019 (1.123) 23 (25) 387 353 170
Sod 111'1 cexnDounds 575 (745) 23 (25) 387 353 102
Punl1 ce 787 (868) 9 (10) 10 244 214 300
G11 som te 12 (13) 9 (10) 0 244 214 0
Talc 231 (255) 9 (10) 244 214 90
...... Boron 374 (412) 272 (300) 0 3.170 3.016 0
I
N
~ Barite 150 (165) 9 (10) 244 214 J)
Fluorspar 25 (28) 9 (10) 244 214 J)
Fe 1 dspar 161 (177) 9 (10) 244 214 30
Verrl cul i te 210 (231) 68 (58)- 356 312 44
Mlca 169 (186) 9 (10) 3 244 214 90
Kyanite 79 (87) 9 (10) 244 214 30
Diatomite 33 (36) 23 (25) 387 353 34
Perl i te 39 (43) 23 (25)- 153 128 25
Total 266.691 (294.275) 558 52.749
*
Based on plant operating schedule of 8,400 hours/year.
-
Based on plant operatlng schedule of 2.000 hours/year.
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
1.
"Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations,"
APTD-1334, EPA Contract No. 68-02-0248, July 1972, pp. 29-31.
2.
Commodity Data Summaries Annual, 1977, U. S. Bureau of Mines.
"Dispersion - Model Analysis of the Air Quality Impact of Particulate
Emissions From Non-Metallic Minerals Processing Plants, II prepared
by H. E. Cramer Company, Incorporated, for the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, December 1976.
3.
4.
"Draft Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidel ines and
Standards of Performance - Mineral Mining and Processing Industry -
Volume I (Minerals for the Construction Industry), prepared by Versar,
Incorporated, for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract
No. 68-01-2633, January 1975, p. V-3.
5.
"Source Testing Report - Essex Bituminous Concrete Corporation,
Dracut, Massachusetts," prepared by Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, EPA
Report No. 75 STN-2, December 27, 1974.
6.
Dupree, Walter G., and West, James A., "United States Energy
through the Year 2000," U. S. Department of the Interior,
December, 1972, p. 19.
7-25
-------
8.
ECONOMIC IMPACT
8.0
SUMMARY
The effect of NSPS control costs on the 18 non-metallic minerals industries
was evaluate9 by first screening each industry for potentially significant
impacts.
A potentially significantly impacted industry was considered to be
any industry which had a plant whose per unit production cost could be increased
by 2'/~ or more because of NSPS control costs.
This screening analysis consisted
of measuring the effect of annualized control cost for the smallest size model
plant in each industry (therefore the highest per unit control cost and worst
case situation) on the average selling price of the mineral.
On the basis of
this screening six minerals were selected for further evaluation:
8 Pumice
8 Sand and gravel
8 Crushed stone
8 Common clay
8 Gypsum
8 Perl ite
These six minerals were evaluated by developing a discounted cash flow
(DCF) analysis for each model new plant size in each industry and also for
expansion plant sizes in the common clay and gypsum industries.
DCF is an
investmcnt decision analysis which shows the economic feasibility of a
planned capital investment project over the life of the project.
The DCF analysis was conducted by using primarily "worst case" assump-
tions.
Assumptions used include:
8-1
-------
.
the total of NSPS control costs were incremental
costs; i.e., that there are no SIP control costs
that a plant would have to incur in the absence
of NSPS control.
.
the production volume is constant through the life
of the project except for the crushed stone
plant where it is assumed that they operate at
50% of capacity for the first year.
.
NSPS control cost pass through is limited by
competition of existing plants in the same
industry which do not have to meet the NSPS
standard.
.
the new plant operates as a separate business
entity and cannot expect to finance the control
from another business activity or parent firm.
For new plants Table 8.40 shows that the 9 and 23 Mg/hr (10 and 25 tph)
plants in sand and gravel, and crushed stone, and the 9 Mg/hr (10 tph) plants
in common clay and pumice are likely to be significantly impacted by the NSPS.
The DCF model was not able to determine a clear positive or negative invest-
ment decision for the 9 Mg/hr (10 tph) gypsum, 23 Mg/hr (25 tph) clay and
68 Mg/hr (75 tph) pumice, sand and gravel and crushed stone plant sizes.
However, in view of the conservative assumptions used, they were judged to
be economically feasible.
All of the other plant sizes in the six industries
are likely to be economically feasible after the promulgation of NSPS.
Table 8.41 shows that the DCF analysis produced an economically feasible
result for all expansion size plants except for the 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tph) common
8-2
-------
clay plant where the investment decision result was unclear.
However, in
view of the conservative assumptions used, it was judged to be economically
feasible.
For the 12 industries for which a DCF was not performed new plant
construction would be feasible for all plant sizes because the greatest
potential NSPS control cost absorption is equal to or less than 2% of the
product price.
Furthermore, for the other minerals where the potential control
cost absorption was greater than 2% the DCF analysis produced an economically
*
feasible result.
New regulations shall be considered a major action if "additional annual-
ized cost of compliance, including capital charges (interest and depreciation),
will total $100 million (i) within anyone of the first 5 years of implementa-
tion, or (ii) if applicable, within any calendar year up to the date by which
the law requires attainment of the relevant pollution standard," or lithe total
additional cost of production of any major industry product or service will
exceed 5% of the selling price of the product."
Total industry annualized
control costs in the fifth year after promulgation of NSPS and control costs
as a percent of selling price are lower than the guidelines set for these
measures of $100 million and 5%, respectively.
Consequently, the proposed
standards for the non-metallic minerals processing industry would be
considered a routine action and not a major one.
~ -------. --. - -- - -- --- ---
*
The portable crushing plant segments of the crushed stone, and sand and
gravel industries are discussed in Supplement A.
8-3
-------
0.1
UNITED STATES NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
8.1.0.1
Introduction
The non-metallic minerals are numerous and range from such bulk
commodities as sand and gravel and stone, the annual domestic demand
for which is quoted in billions of short tons, down to industrial diamonds
and gem stones, which are measured in carats.
The last three decades of
this century will be a period of rapid growth for the non-metallic mineral
industries.
The requirements for new buildings, road construction, rehabili-
tation of blighted cities, food production, chemical manufacture, ceramics,
metal working, and the host of other established uses of non-metals can be
expected to increase in volume.
Of equal long-term significance are the
opportunities to supplement and replace metals as they become scarce and
expensive.
Development of performance specifications will expand the use
of composites of metals, non-metals, and non-mineral materials in new and
improved end products.
Research leading to significant improvements in the
properties of the abundantly available non-metals also will enhance their
util ity.
The domestic non-metallic mineral industries, with a few exceptions,
should be able to provide adequate supplies from domestic sources at reasonable
costs to the year 2000.
For the exceptions, supplies can be obtained from
foreign sources or alternatives such as substitutes.
However, the maintenance
of a high degree of domestic self-sufficiency will require solution of many
technical and economic problems.
For some commodities, such as kyanite,
synthesis from domestic raw materials offers a feasjble solution to supply
problems.
Increased recovery of by-products, improvement of technology
8-4
-------
enabling use of lower grade reserves, and improvements in production and
transportation facilities and costs are other means of enhancing the domestic
supply position.
Serving, as non-metallics do, extremely heterogeneous markets, there
is less tendency toward vertical and horizontal integration than in some of
the metallic and fuel categories.
However, there are advantages of scale and
organization to be gained in some of the larger industries so there has been
some consolidation among producers serving the construction and fertilizer
fields.
Continuation of this trend may be expected where efficiency benefits
can be achieved.
-~Warren E. Morrison and Robert E. Johnson, Jr., from Mineral Facts and
Problems: 1970 Edition.
The industry structures which follow for the 18 non-metallic minerals
being considered here have been prepared to provide background information to
assist in the development of atmospheric emission limits under Federal New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for industry processes.
In order to maintain as high a degree of consistency as possible for
.
non-metallic minerals considered here across the years 1972-1976, statistical
and analytical data presented is derived or cited from U.S. Bureau of Mines
documents in most every instance and supplement~d with significant data from
other sources when necessary.
Each of the individual industry structures is based on the general
outline that follows:
8-5
-------
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
1.
General
Mineral(s) description coverage of the analysis
Plants-define
2.
. number and employment
. size
. geographic distribution
3.
Companies
. number
. concentration
4.
Industry Statistics
. Production
. Consumption
. Prices
. Imports
. Exports
. Stocks
. Employees
All items of information noted in the outline are not available for some
individual industries.
The 18 non-metallic minerals being considered here have been grouped
into three classifications by end-use.
In order of group production volume,
they are as follows:
8.1.1 - Non-Metallic Minerals for Construction and Industrial Uses
8.1.1.1
8.1.1.2
8.1.1.3
8.1.1.4
8.1.1.5
8.1.1.6
8. 1. 1. 7
8.1.1.8
8.1.1.9
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
Gyps urn
Diatomite
Perl He
Pumice
Vermi cul He
Mica
Gil sonite
8-6
-------
0.1.2 - Non-Metallic Minerals for the Chemical and Fertilizer Industries
8.1.2.1
8.1.2.2
8.1.2.3
8.1.2.4
8.1.2.5
Barite
Fluorspar
Salt
Boron
Sodium Compounds
8.1.3 - Non-Metallic Minerals for Clay, Ceramic and Refractory Industries
8. 1.3. 1
8.1.3.2
8. 1. 3.3
8.1.3.4
Clays
Feldspar
Kyani te
Talc
Each section includes a summary table illustrating salient industry
statistics estimates for 1976 obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Mines Commodity
Data Summaries Annual for 1977.
In some cases 1975 and 1976 data is not yet
available and more complete data from former years has been used.
8.1. 1
NON-METALLIC MINERALS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND INDUSTRIAL USES
8.1.1.1
Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel has been, and will continue to be, the principal con-
struction material in the United States.
It exceeds the use of crushed stone
in construction by about 222 million Mg or 245 million short tons (1974).
Sand and gravel has the lowest average unit value of all mineral commodities,
and it is one of the fastest growing mineral producing industries in the
United States.
0.1.1.1.2 U.S. Plants
In 1976, there were an estimated 7,000 sand and gravel operations.
The individual sand and gravel operations range in size from those producing
over 3.6 nli11ion Mg (4 million tons) annually to those reporting production
8-7
-------
less than 4335 Mg (5,000 tons).
In 1974, 23 percent of total production was
from 89 operations producing .9 million Mg (1 million tons) or more, but 58
percent was produced by 6,604 operations in the range from 45,350 to 453,500 Mg
(50,000 to 500,000 tons) per year.
The sand and gravel industry is highly mechanized and employs an esti-
mated 50,000 men.
About 90 percent are production workers and the balance
are clerical, maintenance, and other staff personnel.
Output of sand and gravel has grown at a faster rate than employment
for the past two decades, reflecting an increase in productivity.
Averqge
output has almost doubled from 4.08 Mg (4.5 tons) per man-hour in 1949 to
nearly 8.2 Mg (9 tons) per man-hour in 1973.
This increase in productivity
has to date been adequate to compensate for the increasing hourly cost of
labor and higher costs for equipment, land acquisition, rehabilitation and
other factors related to production.
Because of its low unit value it is necessary to produce sand and gravel
near the point of use; therefore, geographically the sand and gravel industry
is concentrated in the large, rapidly expanding urban areas and, on a transi-
tory basis, in areas where highways, dams, and other large-scale public and
private works are under construction.
The largest operations tend to be
I
concentrated in States with the largest total production, yet production of
sand and gravel is so widespread many firms and plants are involved.
In 1974, of 89 sand and gravel operations with an annual production of
.9 million Mg (one million tons) or more, 18 were located in California.
8.1.1.1.3 U.S. Companies
Sand and gravel operations were owned by 4,700 companies in 1976.
Producers may be large or small, p~blic or private, turning out one product
8-8
-------
or a range of products, sell bank-run material or subject their material
to processing. . The average company produces 220 Mg/hr (250 TPH).
8.1.1.1.4
U.S. Production, Consumption and Prices
Production of common varieties of sand and gravel is tied very closely
to activity in the consuming industries, principally construction of all
general types.
Production of special qualities of sand is associated
chiefly with the needs of the glass industry and foundries.
Sand and
gravel production, consumption and other industry statistics are presented
in Table 8-1.
Table B-1 SAND AND GRAVEL: SALIENT STATISTICS
Sallent- Statistlcs--United States !lli. 1973 1974 1975 1976el
Product too 829.292 892,152 820.514 716,015 698,390
(914,324). (983,629) (904,646) (789,432) (770,000)
Imports 690 725 357 339 226
(761) (800) (394) (374) (250)
Exports 1,651 1.581 2,046 2,919 3,265
(1,821) (1.744) (2,256) (3,219) (3.600)
Apparent consumpt 10n 828.330 891.295 818,825 713.434 695,331
(913.264) (982,685) (902.784) (786,587) (766.650)
Price S/Mq (dol1ars per ton) 1. 52 1.52 1.73 1.97 2.18
(1.38) (1.38) (1.57) (1.79) (1.98)
Stock.. year end Not avaf1ab1e
Emp 1 oymen t MIne ~ 43.000 49,000 39,000 36.000 34.000
SoUrce COOII1odtty Data Sumoade. Annua1. 1977, U.S. Bureau of Hfne.)
The highway and general building construction industries are the greatest
consumers of sand and gravel.
As such, construction activity virtually deter-
mines the demand and supply of sand and gravel for any given period.
During
1976, approximately 97 percent of the total U.S. sand and gravel output was
used in the construction industries.
Construction will continue to dominate the end-use picture for sand and
gravel.
Industrial sand and gravel, although important, will constitute only
a small percentage of the total volume of domestic sand and gravel requirements.
Labor, energy (electricity, fuel oil, and gasoline), and water are the
major requirements for the production of marketable sand and gravel products.
Actual operating costs for production are vari~ble.
Production costs vary widely
R-9
-------
depending upon geographic location and composition of deposits.
The portable
plant segment of the sand and gravel industry is discussed in Supplement A.
8.1.1.2
Crushed Stone
8.1.1.2.1
General
---
Crushed stone is a term used to describe a rock which has been reduced
in size after mining to meet various consumer requirements.
The rock
may meet anyone of many minerological definitions, including limestone,
granite, trap rock, and others.
The stone industry is the largest non-
fuel, non-metallic mineral industry in the United States from the stand-
point of total value of production and is second only to sand and gravel
in volume produced.
8.1.1.2.2
U.s. Plants
There are currently 5,400 crushed stone quarries in the United States
as reported by the Bureau of Mines.
Of these, approximately 2,300 are
considered by the Bureau of the Census (SIC's 1422, 1423, and 1429)
to be commercial operations primarily concerned with the production of
crushed stone.
The remaining 3,100 consist of quarries operated by
federal, state, and local governments, quarries that are part of integrated
(cement, lime, etc.) operations, quarries operated on a temporary basis by
establishments not concerned primarily with the production of stone (e.g.,
highway contractors, SIC 1611), and small quarries operated without paid
employees but proprietor-operated.
Some of these latter categories enter
and re-enter the market.
The 5,400 quarries are served by approximately
4,000 plants.
Included in the Bureau of Mines data, but not in the Census data, are
portable crushing plants.
These plants, which number 1,700. constitute a
good portion of those plants referred to above which are attached to either
8-10
-------
the federal government or highway contractors, and which may enter or re-enter
the market on an irregular basis.
They also service small quarries in rural
areas for a short period each year, sufficient to crush and stockpile a
community's immediate needs.
The portable plant segment of the crushed
stone industry is discussed in Supplement A.
8.1.1.2.3
u.S. Companies
The crushed stone industry is comprised of a large number of small,
locally owned firms which account for a minor proportion of national pro-
duction, and a small number of larger firms which are regionally or nationally
diversified, and account for a large percentage of the national production.
Patterns of firm ownership are similar to those in other sectors of
the construction-oriented basic materials industries.
At one extreme
there are the small local operations, often operated as proprietorships,
where the plant manager and the owner are one and the same person.
At the
other extreme are the plants owned by major firms for whom the crushed
stone business is but one part of a number of fields of enterprise.
Plant managers for these firms rarely have an equity interest in the firm
for which they work, being regular employees whose 'tenure at a particular
quarry may be temporary in nature.
In 1976 crushed stone was produced by 2,000 companies at 5,400
quarries in 49 states for dense graded roadbase stone, concrete aggregate,
roadstone, cement, bituminous aggregate, and other uses.
Leading states
were Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas, Missouri, and Ohio, which accounted
for 30% of the total production.
Output decreased 1% to 806 million Mg (888
million tons) valued at $2.02 billion.
Of the total, 74% was limestone,
10% was granite, and 9% was traprock.
8-11
-------
8.1.1.2.4 U.S. Production, Consumption, Prices
f
Salient industry statistics are presented in Table 8-2.
rable B-2 'J 5. (RU5HEO 510"E l"OU51RY (.n thouund
Mg and thousand short tons In parentheses)
I'JlZ- .!1ll ~ .!2.L? ~£I
I'rOlh.cllon D3~ 96Z 946 819 DOl
(92U) (I,U6U) (1,043) (9U3) (890)
Impurts lor cUlI'iumpllon 4 4 4 4 4
(4) (4) (4) (4) (4)
b~orts l 3 3 3 3
(Z) (3) (4) (4) (4)
Apparent. cnn';lImpllun 836 96Z 946 019 801
(nZ) (1,061) (1,043) (903) (890)
AVf'ray" pr t CI"
Crushed sloMr SI.OO SI.91 SZ .19 SZ.~I SZ .61
(SI IZ) (SI 00) (SZ .00) (SZ.3~) (SZ.39)
Stock,. year.lnd Not AVI11able
End Uses
Employment Quarry 64,000 64,000 64,000 55,000 54,000
, mill !/
Source: Comnod I ty Data Su"",ar Ie. Annual, 1971, U.S. Sureau of Mines,
The end uses for crushed stone are many and varied but construction
and construction-related applications account for at least 80% of total
shipments.
Crushed stone is either used directly in its natural state or
is shipped for further processing into miscellaneous manufactured products.
In its natural state, stone is an important ingredient for highway
and street construction where it can form the base of the road, be included
in the concrete or bituminous pavement as an aggregate or be used as an
anti-skid material for surface treatment.
As an aggregate in other types
of concrete, stone is sold to ready-mix and precast concrete manufacturers
I
as a basic ingredient for structural concrete.
Future Growth
The long-term historic rate of growth (19b3-l972) for crushed stone
has been at an annual rate of 3.3%.
This rate of growth will probably
modify somewhat over the remainder of the decade, partly because the rate
~-12
-------
of construction expenditures will reduce from 2.1% over the same period
to no more than 2.0% from 1972 to 1980, but also because the industry
has reached a stage of mature stability with respect to product substi-
tutions.
The rate of construction growth will be slower due to a combi-
nation of inflationary, energy and recessionary factors impacting business
and individuals, as well as the fact that base year 1972 was a strong one
for construction activity.
We thus anticipate that crushed stone consump-
tion will grow at about 3% per year compounded to 1980 from 1974 on a tonnage
basis.
limestone and granite will both increase their current proportion of
total crushed stone consumption and grow at slightly faster rates than the
average.
little or no growth is anticipated in the consumption of traprock
or sandstone, while miscellaneous stone types will continue to decrease in
total tonnage.
Possibilities of Substitution
limited substitution of alternative products can and does occur depending
on the geographic location of an operation.
Sand and gravel, blast furnace
slag, and lightweight aggregates can be used interchangeably with crushed
,stone and many specifications accept or even encourage substitutions.
An
important criterion considered in making such a decision are the relative
distances of available materials sources from the user.
Thus, sand and
gravel pits may prove to be favored as concrete aggregates if the geology
and extraction location shows them to be more economic than stone quarries.
Blast furnace slag, readily available where steel mills are located, can
often be an economic source of aggregate and can also offer distinct
performance advantages when used as an antiskid highway surfacing material.
lightweight aggregates, such as expanded shale or clay, perlite, or vermicu-
lite can result in considerable reductions in concrete density, and thus
8-13
-------
building load, when substituted for crushed stone, but the economic
availability of these aggregates is limited.
Marketing and Distribution
Distribution of crushed stone is direct from the quarry to the end
user with no intermediary involved.
Inventories are held almost entirely
at the quarry location, as double handling would be prohibitively expensive,
and customers maintain only sufficient inventory to insure uniform produc-
tion rates over a predetermined length of time.
Crushed stone production
and shipments is a very seasonal business in many northern regions.
Producers there will typically operate their plants for nine months a year
and stockpile sufficient stone to cover a greatly reduced rate of shipments
in the winter months.
Price Elasticity and Pricing Dynamics
On an industry basis, the demand for crushed stone is price inelastic.
As the product is a necessary component of a number of building materials
(concrete, asphalt) and products (roads, airport runways, etc.), its demand
is based primarily on the demands for these products irrespective of its.
price.
The fact that there generally does not exist significant competiti~n
from substitute products, and the price of stone as a percentage of the
total price of the materials and products of which it is a component is
low (15% of the FOB price of aspha1t--1ess than 1% of the price of a high-
way for which the asphalt i~ being supplied, for example), variations in
the price of crushed stone will not affect basic demand.
On a p1ant-by-p1ant basis, however, price competition is severe. The
crushed stone business is highly capital-intensive, and producers need to
8-14
-------
maintain production volume to provide for the amortization of their
capital investments.
Thus, while the industry may be tending to an oligopoly
in the local areas where business is transacted, the oligopoly is extremely
competitive in a business sense with regards to price.
8.1.1.3 Gypsum
8.1.1.3.1
General
Anhydrite and selenite usually occur together, but calcined gypsum is a
manufactured product never found in nature.
Calcined gypsum is produced by
heating selenite at about 3500F for over an hour.
When water is added to
calcined gypsum, plaster of paris is formed, which quickly sets and hardens
to selenite again.
All of these products, including the articles molded from
the plaster, are called gypsum.
8.1.1.3.2 U.S. Plants
In 1973, there were 76 plants calcining gypsum in the u.s. with individual
yearly production falling between 9,070 - 453,500 Mg (10,000 - 500,000 tons) per
year.
In the United States, production of crude gypsum is centered around
three general areas, the Great Lakes area, Texas-Oklahoma, and California.
Leading States were Michigan, California, Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma.
five States accounted for 60 percent of the total output.
These
8-15
-------
0.1.1.3.3
U.S. Companies
The domestic gypsum industry is a large, well-integrated industry, in
which a few large companies are prominent.
These companies mine and sell
crude gypsum for use in cement or agriculture.
gypsum, calcine it, and market gypsum products.
They mine and import crude
Leading mining companies were
U.S. Gypsum Co. (13 mines), National Gypsum Company (8 mines), Georgia-Pacific
Corporation (7 mines), the Flintkote Company (3 mines), and H. M. Holloway, Inc.
(1 mine).
These five companies accounted for 73 percent of tQe total output
of crude gypsum.
Thirty-four smaller companies operated 37 mines.
0.1.1.3.4 U.S. Production, Consumption, Prices
Salient industry statistics are presented in Table 8-3.
GYPSUM INDUSTRY (thousand Mg and thousand short tons in pare~theses)
--- u ... -_u._-_._--- -- . --l-.
tl
I
I 1976 Y
, 10,430 '
(11,500)
- _M' 9,432 -
(10,400)
I 6,049
(6,670)
68
(75)
, 16.384
(18,095)
$5.29
($4.80)
$23.47
($21. 28)
1,360
(1.500)
5.100
Table 8-3 ~.s.
- -- _.-.
Production: Crude
[,11 c1 ned
Imports; Crude, including anhydrite
Exports; Crude, crushed or calcined
Consumption; Crude, apparent
Value: Average crude (f.o.b.
mine) $/Mg (per ton)
Avera~e calcine (t.o.b.
plant) $/Mg (per ton)
Stocks; Producer, crude, yearend ~
Employment. Mine and calcining plant
1972
11 ,181
(12,328)
10,888
(12,005)
7,000
(7,718)
46
(51)
18,135
(19,995)
$4.33
($3.93)
$18.00
($16.32)
3,909
(4,310)
4,200
1973
12,297
(13.558)
11,420
(12,592)
6,948
(7,661)
57
(63)
19,188
(21,156)
$4.61
( $4. 18)
$17.98
($16.31 )
3,628
(4,000)
4,500
.ill!
10,883
(11 ,999)
9,970
(10,993)
6.733
(7,424 )
119
(132 )
17 ,496
, (19,291)
$4.86
($4.41 )
$20.63
($18.71 )
2,721
(3,000)
4,800
Source: Commodity Data Summaries Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of Mlnes.
8-16
1975
8,844
(9,751)
8,327
(9,181)
4,941
(5,448)
68
(75)
13,717
(15,124 )
$5.05
($4.58)
$22.40
($20.31)
1,814 ..
(2,000)
5,000
-------
End Uses - Crude gypsum is marketed for use in cement, agriculture,
or fill ers .
In portland cement, gypsum is universally used to retard
the setting of the concrete.
In agriculture, gypsum is used to nelltra1ize
alkaline soils and to provide sulfur.
Calcined gypsum is marketed as plaster or prefabricated products.
Building plaster is generally reground, and retarder and binders are added.
Retarder is usually a glue-type material made from meatpacking-p1ant
by-products.
The U.S. is the leading world producer and consumer of gypsum with 18
percent of production and 28 percent of consumption.
net importer of gypsum.
The United States is a
Gypsum is a low-cost, high tonnage commodity that must compete with many
other building materials.
Large mines and integrated plants have helped
producers remain competitive.
8.1.1.4 Diatomite
8.1.1. 4. 1
General
Diatomite in its natural state is a soft rocklike material consisting
mainly of an accumulation of siliceous frustules (shells) or skeletons of
diatoms that are microscopic single-celled plants of freshwater and saltwater
origin.
Chemically, diatomite is essentially amorphous hydrated or opaline
silica with varying amounts of contaminants such as silica sand, clay minerals,
metal salts, and organic matter.
8.1.1.4.2 U.S. Companies/Plants
The United States is the world1s larg~st producer and consumer of
diatomite.
In 1976, 9 companies actively mined and prepared diatomite from
16 operations in 5 states--California, Kansas, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
8-17
-------
The major firms have other mineral and manufacturing interests such as the
production of asbestos products, roofing, floor tile, acoustic insulation,
refractories, lead and zinc, plastics, thermal insulation, chemicals, and
industrial fillers.
Employment in the diatomite mining and processing sectors of the industry
is estimated to be about 900 employees.
8.1.1.4.3
u.s. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Salient industry statistics for the diatomite industry are presented in
Table 8-4:
Table 8-4. u.s. DIATOMITE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
Production: Mine 1972 1973 1974 1975
1976 ~
Imports. general 522 552 602 519 563
(576) (609) (664) (573) (621)
Exports OJ)* OJ) (4) (4) (5)
3 3 4
Apparent con~umption 134 161 168 133 140
(148) (178) (186) (147) (155)
Pricp $/Mg (dvcrage per short 390 392 437 390 427
ton) (430) (433) (482) (430) (471)
Stocks. yearend ~ $71 .90 $65.36 $84. 16 $88.25 $97.83
(65.19) ($59.26) ($76.31) ($80.01) ($88.70)
Employment: Mine dnd plant ~ 34 32 32 32 32
(38) (36) (36) (36) (36)
800 850 875 900 900
*Less than 100 mg
Source: Commodity Data SummarIes Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of MInes.
The United States is the largest producer and exporter of diatomite.
Exports have risen very gradually from 116,096 Mg (128,000 short tons) in
1964 to 168,702 Mg (186,000 tons) in 1974.
8-18
-------
The principal diatomite-producing countries are also the major exporters
of diatomite products.
Diatomite is used in nearly every country primarily
for filtration purposes.
Domestic use for diatomite as a filter medium comprised 53 percent of
the 433,546 Mg (478,000 tons) consumed in 1974.
The quantity of processed diatomite used as a filler or extender in the
preparation of various industrial chemicals and paints in the United States
in 1974 was 99,770 Mg (110,000 tons), 23 percent of total consumption.
Transportation has always been an important cost factor in the price
of diatomite to the ultimate consumer because the product is a high-bulk
commodity, and thus has a high freight rate per ton.
The cost of moving
diatomite (bulk shipments) from western producing points to midwestern and
east coast markets, for example, has ranged from $27 to $38/Mg ($25 to $35
per ton).
However, because of essential industry applications for diatomite,
transportation costs have not seriously affected supply and demand in the past.
8.1.1.5 Perlite
8.1.1.5.1
General
Perlite, a glassy volcanic rock, has the unusual characteristic of
expanding to about 20 times its original volume when heated to an appropriate
temperature within its softening range.
The resultant expanded product finds
a variety of industrial and constructional appli~ations owing to the material's
low density with attendant properties of low thermal conductivity and high
sound absorption.
3-19
-------
8.1.1.5.2
U.S. Companies/Plants
Domestic production of crude perlite (quantity sold and used) in 1976
was a record 598,620 Mg (660,000 tons) from 11 'operations in 6 Western States.
Deposits in New Mexico supplied 88 percent of the total crude perlite mined
in 1974.
Expanded perlite was produced at 76 plants in 30 States.
The
principal States in descending order of expanded perlite output in 1974 were
Illinois, Mississippi, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, New Jersey,
Texas, California, and Indiana.
Employment in perlite mining and milling was estimated to be 121 employees
in 1976.
In addition, there were many hundred more employees in the expanding,
product development, basic research, and marketing activities of the industry.
8.1.1.5.3
U.S. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Salient industry statistics for the domestic perlite industry are
presented in Table 8-5.
I Table 8-5. u.s. PERLITE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
~~-~-~ StatistlcS-:Ynit(>c!.~te~:- 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 fij
Produc:tion: Mine 588 688 613 640 598
(649) (759) (676) (706) (660)
Imports Non e 0 f Record
Exports Not A valla b 1 e
Consumption. reported 494 493 503 464 491
(545) (544) (555) (512) (542)
Price (sold to expdnders): $/Mg $12.50 $12.83 $14.21 $15.72 $17.35
(Per ton). f.o.b. mine ($11.34) ($11.64) ($12.89) ($14.26) ($15.73)
Stocks. year-end Not A.vailable
Employment: Mine and m111 100 100 110 110 121
Sourr" COl11llOdlty Data Surrmarles Annual, 1977, U.S. Sure4u of M'nes.
Industrial uses for perlite (expanded) are many and varied.
The more
important applications include the following:
abrasives, acoustical plaster
and tile, charcoal barbecue base, cleanser base, concrete construction aggregates,
8-20
-------
filter aid, fertilizer extender, foundry ladle covering and sand additive,
inert carrier, insulation board filler, loosefill insulation, molding filler
medium, packaging medium, paint texturizer, pipe insulator, plaster aggregate
and texturizer, propagating cuttings for plants, refractory products, soil
conditioner, tile mortar aggregate and lightweight insulating concrete for
roof-decks, and wallboard core filler.
Exfoliated vermiculite is the most directly competitive material with
perlite aggregates in plaster and other insulation applications in the construc-
tion field.
Lightweight aggregates such as pumice, expanded clay, shale, and
slag, volcanic cinders, or foamed concrete are used where considerations of
lower cost or greater structural strength more than balance the advantage of
low density achieved by using perlite.
13.1.1.6
Pumice
13.1.1.6.1
Genera 1
Although domestic use prior to World War II was largely as an abrasive,
the importance of pumiceous materials as low-cost construction aggregate
increased rapidly and has since dominated the U.S. pumice consumption pattern.
8.1.1.6.2 U.S. Plants
Domestic production of pumiceous materials in 1976 was 4.03 million tons
from 235 operations in 12 States (including Hawaii) and American Samoa.
The
principal producing States are Arizona, California, and Oregon, and their
combined output accounted for 68 percent of the national total of pumiceous
materials in 1974.
Other States with significant output were Hawaii, Nevada,
and New Mexico.
8-21
-------
Although employment in the pumiceous materials industry varies
considerably from year to year. owing primarily to closing and opening
of volcanic cinder pits when local contracts for road construction material
terminate and start up. it was estimated that about 600 workers were in
mining and processing in 1976.
8. 1 . 1 . 6. 3
U.S. Companies
In 1976 there were 77 pumice producing companies.
Producers range from
private individuals to companies to governmental agencies at local. State and
Federal levels.
There is also a wide range from small. intermittent. to large
tonnage operations.
Most of the producers have mining and processing of
pumiceous materials as their sole or major interest; however. some. such as
railroad companies and road construction contractors. produce the material only
as a subsidiary part of their principal business.
8.1.1.6.4
U.S. Production. Consumption and Price
Industry statistics for the domestic supplier industry is presented in
Table 8-6.
Table 8-6. u.s. PUMICE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
,1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 lEI
Production: Mine 3,458 3,570 3,570 3,530 3,655
(3,813) (3,937) (3,937) (3,892) (4,030)
Imports for consumption 543 281 265 131 73
(599) (310) (293) (145) (81)
Exports (]j)* 2 2 0/) OJ)
(3) (3)
Apparent consumption 4,002 3,849 3,833 3,660 3,727
(4,413) (4,244) (4,227) (4,036) (4,110)
Price: $/Mg (per ton), $1. 88 $2.49 $2.55 $3.17 $3.32
f.o.b. wine or mill (avg.) ($1.71) ($2.26) ($2.32) ($2.88) ($3.01)
Stocks, year-end Not A v ail a b 1 e
Employment: Mine and mill 525 545 560 580 600
*l""eSs- tha-n 1000 Mg.
SourLe: Commodity Data Summaries Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of M1nes.
8-22
-------
The largest domestic use of pumiceous materials is in the construction
industry, which accounted for 92.5 percent or 3 million Mg (3.9 million tons)
of demand in 1974.
Construction uses principally include road surfacing,
maintenance, and ice control, concrete admixtures and aggregate, and railroad
ballast.
Demand for other uses totaled 263,030 Mg (290,000 tons) in 1974;
the quantity of pumice used only for various abrasive purposes was estimated
to be 22,675 Mg (25,000 tons).
Transportation is an important cost factor in the economics of the domestic
pumice industry.
Abrasive grades ($34.00/Mg - $31.00/ton) can be shipped even
from foreign sources and be competitive; but pumice of low market value ($1.13/Mg
\
$40/ton) such as that used for construction purposes. is usually limited to a
few hundred miles by rail or truck transportation.
Pumice for construction uses
becomes less competitive with alternate choice materials in rough proportion to
the distance that pumice resources are available from the place of consumption.
0.1.1.7 Vermiculite
8.1.1.7.1
General
Vermiculite, a mica-like mineral with the unique property of exfoliating
to a low-density, bulky material when heated, is widely used in the construction
industry.
Vermiculite concrete is used for roof decks and floor fill where
lightweight. thermal insulation. and acoustical properties are of particular
importance.
8.1.1.7.2 U.S. Companies/Plants
In 1975, the only domestic producers of crude vermiculite were the
Construction Products Division, W. R. Grace & Company, which operates a large
mine near Libby, Montana. and a group of smaller mines near Enoree, South
Carolina, and Patterson Vermiculite Company, Enoree, South Carolina.
8-23
-------
Exfoliated vermiculite was produced at 53 plants in 31 States in 1974.
Five States supplied 46 percent of the total:
California, Florida, New
Jersey, South Carolina, and Texas.
w. R. Grace & Company, the leading
producer of crude vermiculite, operated 28 exfoliating plants.
Patterson
Vermiculite Company used all its production of crude vermiculite at its
Enoree, South Carolina exfoliating plant.
Twenty-two other firms operated
25 exfoliating plants.
W. R. Grace & Company had a financial interest in
several of these firms, but most of them were independent processors.
Total
production of crude and exfoliated vermiculite in 1974 was 309,287 and
249,425 Mg (341,000 and 275,000 short tons), respectively.
Most exfoliating plants are small, and over half produce less than
4535 Mg (5,000 tons) each of expanded vermiculite annually.
About 250 workers
were employed at vermiculite mines and mills in 1973.
Several hundred
additional employees operated vermiculite exfoliating plants.
8.1.1.7.3
u.S. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Industry statistics for vermiculite are presented in the following table.
Table 8-7 u.s. VERMICULITE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
. thousand short tons in parentheses)
Salient Statlstics--United States: 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Production: Mine 305 331 I 309 299 272
\ (337) (365) (341) (330) (300)
Imports: Crude 23 27 38 29 27
(26) (30) (42) (33) (30)
Exports: NA NA NA 38 40
(42) (45)
Consumption: Exfoliated 224 265 249 213 204
(247) (293) (275) (235) (225)
Prices: Average $/Mg (per ton), \
Lo.b. mine $26.48 $28.60 $32.73 $46.06 $46.32
($24.01) ($25.93) ($29.68) ($41.76) ($42.00)
Prod~cer stocks, year end Not A v ail a b 1 e
Employment: Mine and mill .225 250 250 250 250
Source: Commodity Data Summarles Annual. 1977, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
8-24
-------
Railroad freight rates are high, and shipping costs for crude vermiculite
sometimes exceed the mine value.
The rail-freight rate for shipping vermiculite
from Montana to the Atlantic and Gulf coasts is comparable with the transportation
cost from South Africa.
This makes it economic for some South African crude
to enter the country.
Some of this vermiculite is transshipped by rail or
barge to inland points.
8.1.1.8 Mica
8.1.1.8.1
General
Mica is a group name for a number of complex, hydrous potassium silicate
minerals with differing chemical composition and physical properties.
Crystals
of mica have characteristic excellent basal cleavage and split easily into
tough, flexible sheets.
Principal minerals of this group are muscovite
(potassium mica), phlogopite (magnesium mica), biotite (magnesium iron mica)
and lepidolite (lithium mica).
Muscovite and phlogopite are the most important
commercial micas.
8.1.1.8.2 u.S. Companies/Plants
In 1974, block and film mica was produced by 13 companies in 7 States.
New Jersey with four consuming plants, New York with three, North Carolina
with two, and Pennsylvania with one produced 75 percent of the domestically
fabricated block and film.
Other States with block and film fabricators are
Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia.
Splittings were fabricated into various built-up mica products by 11 com-
panies with 12 plants in eight States.
Plants in New Hampshire, New York,
and Ohio consumed 80 percent of the splittings.
Other States with plants
consuming mica splittings were Michigan, Massachusetts~ North Carolina and
Virginia.
8-25
-------
North Carolina was the largest scrap and flake producing State with 56
percent of total production in 1974.
The remaining output of scrap and flake
mica came from Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, New Mexico, South
Carolina, and South Dakota.
Ground mica was produced by 16 companies with 18 plants in the following
10 States:
Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Texas.
8.1.1.0.3
u.S. Production, Consumption and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.S. mica industry are presented in the
fOllowing table.
Table 0-8.
U S. HICA INDUSTRY (in thousand H9 and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
.!.ill. l.lli 1974 .!.21.2 llli.
Product Ion Hlne 134 138 124 122 119
. (14R) (153) (137) (135) (132)
'mporl' for consumption 2 2 5 5
(3) (3) (6) (6)
[.pnrts rlj 4 4 4 4 4
(5) (5) (5) (5) (5)
Con'Jumpt ton 117 124 106 102 104
(130) (137) (117) (113) (115)
Pr tee per Hq (av~. per ton)
Scrop A flake $30.01 $30.01 $37.89 $42.64 $44.12
(27.21) ($27.21) ($34 36) ($38.66) ($40.00)
t;,.nund (currpnt YPlIr) ~ry $44-110 ($40-100/ton) Wet: $242-397 ($220-360/ton)
Stocks Consumer. yearend y 25 20 30 47 45
(28) (23) (34) (52) (50)
Employment. Hlne y 68 68 58 54 54
(75) (75) (65) (60) (60)
Source. Commodity Data Summaries Annual. 1977, U.S. 9uruu of MInes.
Demand for ground mica is linked primarily to the building industry; how-
ever, 1973 was a record high year for both ground and scrap and flake mica.
The
production of ground and scrap and flake mica was significantly lower for 1974 and
1975 because of problems in the building industries.
8-26
-------
In 1974. ground mica for use in gypsum wallboard cement required
37.187 Mg (41.000 short tons). followed by paint with 30.838 Mg (34.000
short tons). roofing materials with 9.070 Mg (10.000 short tons). and the
rubber industry with 6.349 Mg (7.000 short tons).
Many substitutes are available for ground mica when it is used as a
fi 11 er .
Ground synthetic fluorophlogopite has been successfully used to
replace natural ground mica for uses that require the thermal properties of
the mica.
8.1.1.9 Gilsonite
8.1.1.9.1
General
According to Mr. E. G. Williams. an Asphalt .Institute Engineer stationed
in Louisville, Kentucky. at present there is no production of natural rock
asphalt in the United States.
Production ceased about 1965 due to the
exorbitant cost of the natural product compared to asphalt produced by
petroleum cracking processes.
There are no known plans to resume production
of natural rock asphalt.
The American Gilsonite Company in Utah is the only domestic producer
of metamorphosized asphalt called gilsonite.
Production is less than 90.700
Mg (100,000 tons) per year used primarily for specialty products.
Less than
9,070 Mg (10.000 tons) per year is consumed east of the Mississippi River.
E.G. Williams
Asphalt Institute Engineer
4050 Westport Road
LQuisville, Kentucky 40207
(502) 895-6966
8-27
-------
8.1.2 NON-METALLIC MINERALS FOR THE CHEMICAL AND FERTILIZER INDUSTRIES
8.1.2.1
Barite
8.1.2.1.1
General
Barite (BaS04) is the only source of barium and barium compounds.
The term
"primary barite," as used in this report, refers to the first marketable product
and includes crude barite, flotation concentrate, and other beneficiated material
such as washer, jig, or magnetic separation concentrate.
Most primary barite
requires fine grinding before it is used for drilling muds.
or may not be done at the mine site.
This grinding may
8.1.2.1.2 U.s. Plants/Companies
Domestic production of barium in 1976 was from 31 mines in 9 States.
Nevada supplied 69 percent of the tonnage.
Missouri produced 16 percent.
Alaska, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, and Tennessee were
other producing States.
Companies which specialize in the drilling mud business also have foreign
mines and import part of their barite supplies.
They have grinding plants
strategically located throughout the world to serve drilling mud markets.
They provide a variety of drilling mud minerals, chemicals, and services
to the oil and gas industry.
\
Ground and crushed barite ~as produced in 1974 mainly in Louisiana and
Texas from domestic and imported material and in Arkansas, Missouri, and
Nevada from domestic barite.
Processing mills were also located in
California, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, and Utah.
Domestic mining, milling, and grinding of barite to a marketable product
required about 1200 employees in 1976.
9-45 Mg (10-50 tons) per hour.
Most barite plants process from
8..28
-------
8. 1. 2. 1. 3
U.S. Production, Consumption and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.S. barite industry are presented in the
following table.
r.ble B - 9 U ~ BARITr INDUSTRY (,n thousand Mg and
thousand -hart tons In parentheses)
Produl l' on Mlne!J
~ l2Z.3. !1Zi ]g75 1976 V
821 1,101 1,103 1.167 1,024
(906) (1,104) (1,106) (1,287) (1,129)
Import.. tor ronc;umpUon
(crlllie '..rite)
565
(62~)
649
(716)
661
(729)
575
(634 )
6BO
(750)
I:.xpnrt'i (qround ,lnd crushed)
47
(52)
61
(6B)
55
(61)
51
( 57)
42
(47)
Rrpurtcd cnn..umpt I on
(ground and crushpd)
1,339 1,443 1,507 1,63B 1,659
(1.477) (1,592) (1,662) (l,B07) (1,B30)
SIB 12 $16 67 $16.77 $17 71 $23.21
($16.43) ($15.12) ($15.21) ($1606) ($21.05)
Pr Ice $/M'J (per ton)
tab lO'ne (OV9 )
Prnc1Ul.for sto('kc;. yearend
Hot Available
Employment Mine and mill ~
1,025
1,100
1.200
1,200
1.200
Source Comnodity Oata Summaries Annual, 1977, U.S. 9ureau of ~lnes.
The United States is a net barite importer.
Imports of barium in 1974
amounted to 40% of the total supply.
Barium imports have remained near this
percentage for the twenty-year trend.
The major use for barium is in the form of barite as a weighting material
in well-drilling muds, accounting for 87 percent of the 1974 U.S. consumption.
Barite is also a raw material of chemical manufacturing.
The major
barium chemicals are the carbonate, chloride, oxide, hydroxide, nitrate,
peroxide, and sulfate.
The barium compounds represent 6 percent of total
barium consumption.
A number of materials have been substituted for barite as a weighting
medium in drilling muds in the past but never with a real competitive edge.
8-29
-------
8.1.2.2 Fluorspar (Fluorine)-
8.1.2.2.1
Genera 1
Fluorine, derived from the mineral fluorite, commonly known as fluorspar, is
one of the most versatile and useful of the elements.
Steadily increasing
quantities are required in steel production, where the mineral fluorite is useful
as a slag thinner; in aluminum production, where cryolite, another fluorine
mineral, is necessary to dissolve alumina for the electrolytic cells; and in
ceramics, where fluorite is a flux and opacifier.
Strong as the fluorine
demand has been in the foregoing uses, it has been even stronger for an
important group of fluorocarbon chemicals which are formulated into refrigerants,
plastics, solvents, aerosols, lubricants, coolants, surfactants, rocket fuels,
medicinals, aluminum fluoride, and many other industrial products.
8.1.2.2.2 u.s. Plants/Companies
At the start of 1973, there were 23 mines and 7 froth flotation plants
in operation; during the year 8 mines and 4 flotation plants closed down.
Cumulatively over 126,980 Mg (140,000 tons) of flotation milling capacity was
lost; but during the past 2 years the output from these plants has only averaged
about 81,630 Mg (90,000 tons) annually, mainly because the mines could not supply
the mill s .
In 1975, 10 companies operated 15 mines in the United States.
Although some domestic fluorspar is sold with little or no processing
after mining, most crude ore requires beneficiation or yields a finished product.
Manpower required by the u.s. fluorspar industry is not large.
An
estimated 350 lIlen are employed in mines and 250 in mills.
3. 1.2.2.3 ~~S. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Salient statistics for the u.s. fluorspar industry are presented in
the following table.
(Data in 1000 Mg; 1000 short tons in parentheses.)
8-30
-------
Table 8- 10. ~.S FLUORSPAR INOUSTRY (In thoullnd IIg and thousand
short tons In parentheses)
!~2. 12?~ 1974 1975 197r,.!1
Prot/uc tt on. Flnlsh@d (all grad@s)l) 227 225 182 126 163
(251) (275) (182) (140) (180)
F1uoropor equlvol@nt from phosphate rock ~8 76 87 72 72
(65) (84) (g7) (80) (80)
IlIIpOrts lor conslll1ptton.
Acid-spar 644 640 764 633 535
(111) (706) 6843) (699) (590)
Het-spor 427 458 447 318 281
(471) (506) (493) (351) (310)
Exports. Ceromlc and acid grades 2 1 5
(3) (2) (6) (I) (1)
5ale. of GOy't stockpll@ excesses -- --
Apparpn t conslII1p tt on 1349 1368 1296 1179 1060
(1488) (1509) (1429) (1300) (1169)
RIPorted cons...ptlon. Acid-spar 663 614 762 619 498
(731) (677) (841) (681) (550)
Hpt,spAr 56J 612 670 509 589
Prlce}1 (621) (6/5) (684) (~62) (650)
Acid-spar, \/H9 (p@r ton) \93 \93 \99 \ 106 SI16
(\85) (\85) (S99) (\91) (S106)
Het-spor, \/H9 (per ton) \75 PI S77 \88 \95
(S~8) (S65) (S70) (\80) (\87)
Year-@nd Itocks. HIno 13 8 12 9 10
(1~) (9) (14) (11) (12)
Cons...er H2 297 390 290 263
",neel (378) (378) (431) (320) (290)
£IIIp 1 oymen t : 600 600 350 300 300
HillY 270 280 100 193 200
lShipments Source Conmodlty Oata Sunmorles Annual, 1977, U.S. 9ur@," 01 ~'nes.
Consumption of fluorine is chiefly in the chemical, steel, and aluminum
industries.
An estimated 622,202 Mg (686,000 tons) was consumed by U.S.
industries in 1974.
Mnay marginal U.S. mines have been forced to close
owing to low-cost imports of fluorspar. contributing to greater dependence
on foreign supply.
A gradual upward trend in the price of foreign fluorine
imports may result from increasing world demand and stimulate development
of more reserves.
Both domestic and foreign producers have instituted
programs for increasing output by reopening and r~furbishing existing mines
and exploring for new deposits.
U.S. dependence on foreign supplies for most of its fluorine demand
has existed since 1952 and is increasing.
Lower foreign production cost
rather than inadequate domestic deposits of fluorine minerals is the chief
reason for the U.S. increasing dependence on foreign sources of supply.
8-31
-------
8.1.2.3 Sal~_(NaClt
8.1.2.3.1
General
---
Salt is an essential nutrient in the human diet and a major basic raw
material for production of various chemicals and products.
In 1974, about
one-third of the world's salt was produced in Europe; another third in North
America; and one-fifth in Asia.
Vast salt reserves throughout the U.S. are
concentrated in 16 states and estimated at 61 trillion tons.
8.1.2.3.2 U.S. Plants
In the United States there are 97 plants processing salt from 106 mines
( 1974) .
Most of these plants are concentrated in eight states which accounted
for 96% of the total production of 1973.
Louisiana and Texas are the major
producer/processor states with 29.1 and 24.4 percent respectively of total 1974
U.S. production.
U.S. employment in salt processing operations for 1976 was
estimated to be 5,040.
8.1.2.3.3
Companies
There are 52 salt processing companies in the United States.
In 1974,
twelve companies each produced more than 1 million tons of salt accounting for
88% of total U.S. production.
Eighteen companies individually producing
between 90,700 - 907,000 Mg (100,000 and 1 million tons) added 11% to the
total with the remaining 1% produced by 22 companies with a yearly output of
less than 90,700 Mg (100,000 tons) each.
Most large salt companies are vertically integrated starting with salt
produced as brine. for example, being consumed on the site for making chlorine
and caustic soda or soda ash.
8-32
-------
8.1.2.3.4
~.S. Production, Consumption and Process
Salient statistics for the U.S. salt industry are presented in the
following table.
Table 8-11.
U.S SALT INDUSTRY (tn thousand Mg and
thousand short tons In parentheses)
llli !lli 1974 1975 !.ill.
So I d or used by producers y 40.834 39.826 42,208 37.214 38.127
(45,022) (43,910) (46,536) (41.030) (42,037)
Imports for consumption 3.140 2.908 3.045 2.916 3.741
(3,463) (3,207) (3.358) (3,215) (4.125)
Expor t s 788 552 472 1,208 946
(869) (609) (521) (1.332) (1,044)
Apparcn l consumpt ton 43.187 42,182 44.781 38,922 40.922
(47.616) (46.508) (49.373) (42.913) (45,118)
Prices Rock salt, medium
course In 100 1 b $21 39 $21. 39 $21 39 $29.78 $Z9 78
bags, quote~ do l1ars ($19.40) 1($19.40) ($19 40) (27 .O~) (27 00)
$/M9 (per ton)
Ayerage soles price
'.0 b min., dry $11.71 $12 97 $14.12 $15.91 $18.29
(Including bulk & ($10.62) ($11.76) ($12 81) ($14.43) ($16.59)
pressed but exclud-
1 ng br.l ne), $/Mg
(per ton)
Stocks, yearend HA HA 4.700 2,400 2,400
Employment "Ine and Plant 5.070 4,950 5,280 4.920 5,040
Suurce: Commodity Data Summartes Annual. 1977, U.S. 9ur..u of :-I.nes.
Percentage breakdowns for 1976 production end-uses roughly are: caustic
soda and chlorine - 60%; synthetic soda ash - 11%; miscellaneous chemicals -
3%; highway deicing - 18%; salt for human consumption - 3%; and all other uses - 18%.
Because of its relatively low production cost ~nd high bulk density, the
cost of shipping salt is usually a large part of its cost as used.
Such
comnodities are poorly suited to international trade.
The 6.8% U.S. 1974 salt
import was mainly from bordering Canada and Mexico.
8.1.2.4
Boron
8.1.2.4.1
Genera 1
. ~~-----
Boron is a versatile and useful element used mainly in the form of its
many compounds, of wh i ch borax and bori c aci dare mos t well known.
The
8-33
-------
largest single use of boron is in glassmaking where boron compounds add
strength to the glass, especially above the temperatures of which ordinary
glass softens.
While boron is not an extremely rare element, few commercially attractive
deposits of boron minerals are known.
It is estimated that about half of the
commercially attractive world boron resources, estimated at about 72 million
tons of boron, are in southern California.
8.1.2.4.2 u.s. Plants/Companies
Three companies produced borax in the United States during 1975, all
operating in southern California.
U.s. Borax & Chemical Corp., by far the most
important producer, mined borax (or tineal) and kernite at a large open pit
mine at Boron.
U.s. Borax also owns and operates refineries and products plants
at Boron in Kern County, at Wilmington in Los Angeles County, California, and at
Burlington, Iowa.
Overall, nearly 2,000 persons are employed within the U.s. boron extraction
industry.
There is no secondary recovery and .reuse of boron compounds, since
almost all of this goes into dissipative uses.
s. 1. 2 . 4 . 3
U.s. Production, Consumption and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.s. boron industry are presented in
Table 8.12.
Two-fi fths or more of the boron compounds consumed were used in the manu-
facture of various kinds of glasses within the United States.
Boron materials
account for 5 to 10 percent of many special glasses by weight and 50 to 75
percent by value.
About 15 percent of all boron consumed went into insulating
8~34
-------
fiberglass, 10 percent into textile fiberglass, and 15 to 20 percent into all
other glasses.
The energy shortage has created a further demand for insulating
fiberglass.
Tab 1 e 8. 1 2
u.s. BORON INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Production (boron minerals and 1.016 n .111 1,074 1,063 1,088
compounds) (1,121) (1,225) (1,185) (1,172) (1.200)
Imports (boron minerals and 18 16 19 25 27
compounrJs (20) (18) (21) (28) (30)
Exports (boric acid and 172 190 230 223 235
refined borates) (190) (210) (254) (246) (260)
Apparent consumption NA NA 103 88 95
(contained boron) (114) (98) (105)
Price: $/Mg (per ton)(granu-
1ated pentahydrate $82 $88 $88 $110 $115
borax in bulk, f.o.b. ($75) ($80) ($80) ($100) ($105)
mine)
Stocks. yearend Not A v ail a b 1 e
Employment 11 1,800 1,800 1.800 1.800 1.900
Source: CommodIty Data Summaries Annual. 1977. U.S. Bureau of MInes.
Between year-end 1973 and November 1974, the price of anhydrous borax
(bulk) rose from 121/Mg ($110 per short ton) to $223/Mg ($203) for U.S. Borax,
and the price of boric acid increased from $147 to 219/Mg ($134 to $199).
These
increases reflect steep rises in energy cost, inflation, and strong demand.
The sharper rise in costs of anhydrous products, compared with costs of products
with water, can be explained by the more intense use of energy in fusion than in
distillation and chemical processing.
R. 1.2.5
~odi~_n_~- Compounds
8.1.2.5.1
General
------- -~-
The compounds of sodium are of primary importCJnce to the whole chemical
manufacturing industry.
Although not always present in the f~nished product,
8-35
-------
sodium plays some part in the preparation of nearly every product requiring
chemical processing.
Soda ash is the term used in the industry for sodium carbonate.
Solvay soda or ammonia soda are terms used interchangeably for sodium
carbonate produced from salt by the Solvay process.
Salt cake is the term used for sodium sulfate.
Glauber salt is a common
hydrated form of sodium sulfate.
8.1.2.5.2 u.S. Plants
In 1975 there were nine soda ash plants, 4 synthetic and 5 natural, in the
United States, located in New York, Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Wyoming and California.
Sodium sulfate was produced at 28 plants in 15 states.
There were only four Solvay plants left in the United States in 1975
after the permanent closing of two major producers in Louisiana.
High cost
of fuel and other raw materials, combined with strict antipollution laws, have
made it difficult for Solvay soda ash to compete with natural soda ash.
Most of the world's supply of natural soda ash comes from a small area in
southwest Wyoming called the Freen River Basin.
A secondary source of natural
U.S. soda ash is in Searles Lake, California.
Natural sodium sulfate is extracted from brines'of California, Texas, and
Utah.
About three-fourths of the by-product sodium sulfate plants are located
east of the Mississippi River.
About 2,800 people are employed in the natural soda ash industry and
an additional 130 in producing natural sodium sulfate.
8-36
-------
8.1.2.5.3
u.s. Companies
There were eight soda ash companies in 1975; 4 synthetic and 4 natural;
and three natural sodium sulfate companies.
By-product sodium sulfate was
produced by 18 companies in 15 states.
u.s. soda ash companies are:
Kerr-McGee Chern. 'Corp., Stauffer Chemical
Corp., Allied Chemical Corp., and FMC Corp.
U.S. sodium sulfate companies are:
Stauffer Chemical Co., Kerr-McGee
Chern. Corp., U.S. Borax & Chern. Corp., Ozark-Mahoning Co., and Great Salt
Lake Minerals and Chem. Corp.
8.1.2.5.4
U.S. Production, Consumption and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.S. sodium carbonate industry are presented in
the following table.
Table 8.13. u.s. SODIUM CARBONATE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
1972 1973 . 1974 1975 1976 Y
Production: Natural 2,918 3,375 3,681
(3,218) (3,722) (4,059) 3,925 4,699
(4,328) (5,181)
Manufactured (solvay) 3,904 3,458 3,180 2,541 2,193
(4,305) (3,813) (3,507) (2,802) (2,418)
Imports for consumption 14 31 2
(16) (35) (3)
Exports (mostly refined) 435 385 511 500 527
(480) (425) (564) (552) (582)
Apparent consumption (Nat. and 6,388 6,463 6,382 5,968 6,365
synthetic) (7,043) (7,126) (7,037) (6,581) (7,018)
Prices: Soda ash, light. bulk, - $39.15 $39.15 $59-$70 $62-$70 $62-578
car1ots, works, quoted, ($3'i.50) ($35.50) ($54-$64) ($57-$64) ($57-571)
$/Mg (ton)
Average sales prIce $24.56 $27.97 $37.35 $46.54 $55.37
(natural source), f.o.b.
mine or plant $/Mg (ton) ($22.27) ($25.36) ($33.87) ($42.20) ($50.20)
Producer stocks at yearend, 83 95 71 165 72
natural (92) (105)
(79) (182) (80)
Employment: Mine and plant 1,070 1,330 2,651 2,765
2,905
Source: CommodIty Data Summaries Annual
, 1977, U.S. Bureau of MInes.
8-37
-------
Salient statistics for the U.S. sodium sulfate industry are presented in
the following table.
Table 8.14
U.S. SODIUM SULFATE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
Production: Natural
1972
635
(701 )
567
(626)
By-product
Imports for consumption
271
(299)
Exports
26
(2!J)
Apparent con~umpt1on (natural
and by-product)
1.449
(1.598)
Price: Quoted (salt cake -
100 % Na2S04' in
carlots bulk at works.
$/Mg (per ton)
$30
($28)
Average sales price
(natural source), f.o.b.
mine or plant. $/Mg
(per ton)
1973
609
(672)
694
(766)
290
(320)
40
(45)
1.553
(1.713)
$30
($28)
1974
620
(684)
602
(664)
340
(375)
46
(51)
1.516
(1,672)
$34
($31)
1975
604
(667)
507
(560)
258
(285)
69
(77)
1,301
(l,435)
$66
($60)
1976
594
(656)
548
(605)
314
(347)
44
(49)
1,414
(1,559)
$71
($65)
$17.93 $19.03 $26.46 $45.75 ($54.85
($16.26) ($17.26) ($23.99) ($41.48) ($49.73)
Producer stocks at year-
end. natural
80
(89)
105
Employment: Wells & Plant
80
(89)
132
29
(32)
126
Source: COI1II1Odtty Data Sunrnartes Annu.., 1977, U.S. Sure.u of MInes.
30
(34)
130
34
(38)
135
The manufacture of glass absorbs from 39 to 49 percent of the soda ash
production and about 7 percent of the sodium sulfate output.
The pulp and
paper industry consumes about 70 percent of the sodium sulfate output and about
9 percent of the soda ash supply.
The production of detergents also requires
both compounds:
about 20 percent of the sodium sulfate supply and 4 to 6 percent
In addition, 23 to 25 percent of the soda ash supply
of the soda ash production.
is used in producing other chemicals, and about 3 percent is used in water treat-
ment.
Miscellaneous uses absorb the remaining soda ash output and 3 percent of
the sodium sulfate production.
8-38
-------
Reserves of natural sodium sulfate in the United States are limited,
and present requirements are met by imported material.
If there is no
interruption in flow of sodium sulfate from Canada, however, there is little
likelihood of a real shortage of salt cake.
8.1.3 NON-METALLIC MINERALS FOR CERAMIC, REFRACTORY AND MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIES
8.1.3.1
Clays
8.1.3.1.1.
General
Clays are a group of important fine-grained non-metallic minerals which
are mostly hydrous aluminum silicates containing various amounts of organic
and inorganic impurities.
8.1.3.1.2 U.S. Plants/Companies
Most clays are mined by open pit methods, but in a few instances underground
methods are used.
About 2 percent of the U.S. total clay output is from
underground mines.
Kaolin has many industrial applications, and many grades are specifically
designed for use in paper, paints, rubber, plastics and ceramics.
Most of the large kaolin producers have principal operations in Georgia.
In 1975 three large diversified firms accounted fQr about 36% of the total
domestic output, and four refractories manufacturers mined 10 percent of the
U.S. total for their own use.
A total of 35 smaller companies accounted for
the balance.
Altogether 52 firms operated 120 mines in 14 States.
Ball clay is used primarily in production of whiteware because of its
extreme 1y refractory nature.
The ball clay indu~try is small, with 11 pro-
ducers operating 52 mines in 8 States in 1975.
Tw~ of these were large
diversified firms with widespread foreign and domestic mineral interests.
8-39
-------
Fire clay producers were mostly refractories manufacturers that used the
clays in firebrick and other refractories.
A large part of the fire clay was
mined and used by producers of structural clay products.
In 1975 there were 7 firms producing bentonite from 498 mines in 13
States.
Four were large diversified firms with international mineral operations;
two of the firms had interests in other types of clay in the United States.
Seven of the 17 fuller's earth producers and 11 of the mines were located
in the attapulgite fuller's earth areas of Florida and Georgia.
Production,
mostly small scale, was reported from seven other States in 1975.
Most
producers were small independent firms, but four were large diversified cor-
porations with international mineral interests.
Firms producing miscellaneous clay in 1975 were manufacturers of structural
clay products. clay pipe, lightweight aggregates, and cement.
Essentially all were
integrated to the extent of owning and operating the deposits of clay used in
making their products.
A few of the miscellaneous clay producers were diver-
sified firms having interest in metals and other non-clay products.
Some of the
miscellaneous clay producers had numerous plants.
This is necessary if they
are to be major firms, because the economic shipping radius for the individual
plants is usually about 200 miles.
Most clay industry plants produce 3-136 Mg (4-150 tons) per hour of product.
Employment in the clay industries totaled 16,000 in 1975.
Approxi-
mately one-fourth of the workers were involved in mining and exploration,
and the balance were engaged in processing the clays for various end uses.
Although employment was widespread, certain areas had disproportionately
large percentages of the clay workers.
An estimated 80 percent of the
8-40
-------
kao 1; n employment was; n Georg; a, and over 90 percent of the full er I s earth
workers were ;n Flor;da and Georg;a.
Ohio, Missouri, and Pennsylvania
accounted for over 50 percent of the fire clay employment.
8.1.3.1.3 U.S. Production, Consumption, and Price
Salient statistics for the U.S. clay industry are presented in the
following table.
(Data in 1000 Mg; 1,000 short tons in parentheses.)
Table 8.15
U.S. CLAY INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
1972
Mine production:
Kaolin
4,823
(5,318)
612
(675)
3,247
(3,581)
2,509
(2,767,)
Ball clay
Fire clay V
Bentonite
Fu 11 er' s earth
896
(988)
41,837
(46,127)
53,926
(59,456)
60
(67)
Common clay
Total
Imports for consumptIon
Exports
1,675
(1,847)
1973
5,435
(5,933)
695
(767)
3,689
(4,068)
2,787
(3,073)
1,032
(1,138)
44,725
(49,312)
58,366
(64,351)
48
(53)
1,901
(2,097)
1974
5,798
(6,393)
741
(817)
3,755
(4,141 )
3,002
(3,310)
1,111
(1,225)
40,733
(44,910)
55,141
(60,796)
39
(43)
2,223
(2,451 )
1975
4,837
(5,334)
640
(706)
2,959
(3,263)
2,928
(3,229)
1,078
(1,189)
32,040
(35,326)
44,485
(49,047)
34
(38)
2,099
(2,315)
1976
5,188
(5,720)
782
(863)
3,111
(3,431)
3,417
(3,768)
1,181
(1.303 )
34,401
(37,929)
48,083
(53,014)
36
(40)
2,240
(2,470)
Apparent consumptIon
52,312 56,512 52,957 42,420 43,879
(57,676) (62,307) (58,388) (46,770) (50,584)
Pricp'
$1.10 to $221/Mg ($1.00 to $200 per short ton), depending on type
and qua 11 ty.
Stocks, yearend
Employment: Mine ~
M111 ~
4,000
14,000
Not A va; 1 a b 1 e
4,000 3,800 3,500
14,000 13,500 13,000
Source: Commodity Data Summaries Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of MInes.
8-41
3,300
12,500
-------
Production of miscellaneous clays is tied primarily to the construction
industry, while output of the higher quality clays is not dependent on demand
by a single major industry segment.
Miscellaneous clay production is wide-
spread, with all States contributing to the national total in most years.
Fire clay output is also widespread, with over half of the States reporting
production.
About half the fire clay output is used for construction products.
Output of the other clays is more restricted geographically because of the
lack of resources in many States.
The major world uses for clays are in manufacture of heavy clay con-
struction products, cement, and lightweight ~ggregates.
The more advanced
industrial areas, particularly the United States, Western Europe, Canada,
and Japan, require substantial quantities of the higher quality clays for use
in such products as paper, high-grade ceramics, iron ore pellets, absorbents,
and drilling fluids.
Although there are other materials such as talc, silica, and calcium
carbonate that can be substituted for high-quality clays in many end uses,
the comparatively low cost of clays usually gives them a decided competitive
advantage.
Alternative materials, therefore, pose no great threats to the
specialty clay industries; on the contrary, the competition is more likely
to result in increased clay use at the expense of the alternate materials.
For common, or miscellan~ous clay, many alternate construction products
and raw materials compete very effectively with brick, tile, and lightweight
aggregates.
A few of the major ones are wall panels made of concrete, stone,
glass, metals, and plastics; lightweight aggregates made of pumice, expanded
vermiculite, and sintered fly ash; floor and wall tile made of plastics,
vinyl asbestos, cork, and concrete; and sewer pipe made of concrete, asbestos,
and plastics.
~-42
-------
8.1.3.2
Feldspar
8.1.3.2.1
General
Feldspar, usually of the potash or soda type or in mixtures of the two,
finds its principal end uses in the manufacture of glass and ceramics; in
both of which applications it acts as a flux.
In glassmaking, feldspar
also provides a source of alumina, the presence of which enhances the
workability of the product, inhibits any tendency toward its devitrification,
and increases its chemical stability.
8.1.3.2.2 U.S. Companies/Plants
Crude feldspar is produced in the United States as a primary product
by large diversified firms, by major firms that are primarily feldspar
producers, and by a large number of individuals or groups that mine small
quantities for sale to firms that operate feldspar-grinding plants.
Most of the feldspar used in glass making is ground no finer than 20
mesh while that used in ceramics and filler applications is usually pul-
verized to at least minus 200 mesh.
Nine domestic companies, operating fifteen plants in nine States, ground
feldspar for market in 1974.
Listed in descending order of output tonnages,
North Carolina had six grinding mills, while Connecticut, Georgia, and South
Carolina had one each.
8.1.3.2.3 U.S. Production, Consumption and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.S. feldspar industry are presented in the
following table.
8-43
-------
Table 8.16 u.s. FELDSPAR INDUSTRY (in thousand M9 and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Production 676 718 692 607 637
(746) (792) (763) (670) (725)
Imports for consumption
4 9 16 9 6
Exports (5) (10) (18) (10) (7)
617 697 696 598 634
Apparent consumption (681) I (769) (768) (660) (700)
Price, average, Mg (per ton) $15.61 $17.86 $16.47 $19.30 $19.85
($14.16) ($16.20) ($14.94) ($17.50) ($18.00)
225 237 216 216 233
Stocks, producer, yearend (249) (262) (239) (239) (257)
Employment: Mine and prepara- 450 450 450
t10n plant 450 450
Source. COI1111Odity Data Surrrnarle\ Annual. 1917, U.S. 2ur..u of Min.\.
Feldspar is a relatively unimportant item in U.S. foreign trade, altho~gh
in some areas, particularly in the northeastern States, a significant proportion
of the feldspathic-materials demand is satisfied by an alternative mineral
product, nepheline syenite, imported from Canada.
Feldspar is a relatively low-priced, bulk commodity that usually can
be produced from some source near the consumer more advantageously than it
can be shipped from a distance.
8.1.3.3
Kyanite
8.1.3.3.1
General
Kyanite, andalusite, and sillimanite are a closely related trio of
aluminum silicate minerals that break down upon heating to form a mixture
of mullite, 3A1203.2Si02' and vitreous silica, 5i02' The properties of
mullite serve to advantage as a component in refractory shapes and furnace
linings for a wide range of industrial applications.
8-44
-------
8.1.3.3.2
U.S. Companies/Plants
All but a small part of the domestic kyanite output in recent years has
consisted of the contributions of only two firms.
Kyanite Mining Corp.
operates two mines in Virginia, the Willis Mountain mine at Di11wyn in
Buckingham County and the Baker Mountain mine in adjacent Prince Edward
County.
Commercia1ores, Inc., a subsidiary of Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
worked the Henry Knob mine in York County, South Carolina, from 1948 through
1969, and C-E Minerals, Inc., another division of Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
has operated the Graves Mountain mine in Lincoln County, Georgia, since 1963.
8.1.3.3.3
U.S. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Salient statistics for the U.S. kyanite industry are presented in the
following table.
Table 8.17
U.s. KYANITE INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
1972 1973 1974 1975
Production: Mine Company confidential data
Synthetic mul1ite 42.1 52.8 37.6 21.9
(46.4) (58.2) (41.5) (24.1)
Imports for consumption 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
Exports ~ 27.2 40.1 40.1 40.1
(30.0) (45.0) (45.0) (45.0)
ApPdrent consumption Not A v ail a b 1 e
1976
27.2
(30.0)
0.1
40.1
(45.0)
Price: Domestic concentrate, 35- to 325- mesh, in bags, f.o.b. Georgia $69-$130/Mg
($63 to $118 per short ton); imported kyanite, no current quotation;
syntheti~ mu11ite, $177-$496/Mg ($160 to $450 per short ton), depending
upon type and grade.
Stocks (producer)
Employment: Kyanite mine
and plant
Not A v ail a b 1 e
I
165
175
175
175
175
Sourre. COITJ11Odlty Data Su"""rtes Annual 1977 U 5 S f Ut
' ... ure ~u 0 ., nes.
8-45
-------
In accordance with the policy of the firms involved, no statistics on
U.S. production of kyanite have been released since 1948-49 when the then-
current figure was in the neighborhood of 12,244 Mg (13,500 tons) per year.
Published estimates from various sources since then have placed the U.S. out-
put at about 40,814 Mg (45,000 tons) in 1963 and 85,258 Mg (94,000 tons) in
1973.
Both figures, although useful as indicators of magnitudes, are believed
to be mOderately in error on the conservative side.
Statistical consumption data is not available.
Refractory uses have been
dominant since the early 1920.s.
Many non-refractory uses for the kyanite-
group minerals and synthesized aluminum silicates have been developed, and
other possible uses appear to have potential for future large-scale applications.
In the iron and steel industries, mu11ite has found important use in
critical areas of blast furnace stoves and stacks, reheat furnaces, steel
degassing chambers and soaking pits, and many types of auxi11ary pouring and
handling equipment.
8.1.3.4 Talc
8.1.3.4.1
General
The mineral talc is a soft, hydrous magnesium silicate.
Commercial
ta1cs range from something approaching pure mineral composition to mineral
products that have properties in common with pure talc but which may contain
very little of the actual minerals.
8.1.3.4.2 Company/Plant Statistics
Talc or soapstone was produced domestically in 1974 from 46 mines in
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New York,
North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.
8-46
-------
Pyrophyllite was produced from five mines in North Carolina and one mine in
Pennsylvania.
There were 30 producers of talc minerals in the u.s. in 1974.
plant size range is from 5-18 mg (6 to 20 tons) per hour.
The
The largest producers of talc minerals in the United States (all
either exclusively engaged in that enterprise or else horizontally inte-
grated subsidiaries of diversified organizations) jointly provided 75
percent of the total 1974 domestic output, and the remainder consisted of
the combined contributions of about 25 smaller firms.
The principal domestic producers of crude talc, soapstone, and
pyrophyllite approached vertical integration to some degree in that they
operated grinding mills, processing their output either in plants adjacent
to the mines or in separate installations more conveniently located with
respect to major markets.
Part of the mineral from California and Montana
was milled in Oregon, and a substantial quantity of Montana talc was processed
in Belgium.
Employment in talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite mines and preparation
I
plants in 1974 was estimated to be equivalent to the services of about 950
full-time workers.
8.1.3.4.3 u.s. Production, Consumption, and Prices
Salient statistics for the u.s. talc industry are presented in
Table 8-18.
The largest use of talc-group minerals is for the manufacture of ceramics.
In this application, addition of talc or pyrophyllite to the usual clay-silica-
feldspar body mixtures facilitates the firing of the ware and improves the
quality.
Second in rank for end use is paint production.
Third in order
8-47
-------
Table 8.18 u.s. TALC INDUSTRY (in thousand Mg and
thousand short tons in parentheses)
D72 \1973 1974 1975 1976
Production: Mine 1,004 1,131 1,150 875 1,028
(1 ,107) (1,247) (1,268) (965) (1 ,134)
Sold by producers 983 1,073 965 844 907
(1,084) (1,184) 0,064) (931) (1,000)
Imports for consumption 26 20 27 20 20
(29) (23) (30) (23) (23)
Exports 155 163 165 143 175
(171) (180) ( 183) (158) (194)
Apparent consumption !I 854 931 826 721 751
(942) (1,027) (911 ) (796) (829)
Price: $5.50-$276.00/Mg ($5 to $250 per ton) (crude or ground) depending upon
grade and preparation
Stocks, producer, yearend 151 142 188 231 208
(167) (157) i (208) (255) (230)
Employment: Mine and mill 950 950 950 950 950
Source: Commodity Data SummarIes Annual, 1977, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
among outlets for domestic talc minerals is use for coating and/or loading of
high-quality papers.
In this application, high-purity talc helps in obtaining
a product with the desired weight and opacity, good ink retention, and superior
surface texture.
Specific end-use percentages of total consumption are:
Ceramics - 17%,
paint - 12%, toilet/cosmetic - 3%, insecticides - 4%, paper - 7%, refractories -
3% roofing - 4% rubber - 2%, and all other minor uses - 46%.
The bulk of the talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite of commerce is made up
of relatively low-unit-value material unable to bear the charges of long-
distance transportation, but exceptional grades such as high-purity talc of
pharmaceutical, cosmetic, or even papermaking quality are significant items
8-48
-------
of international trade.
The quantities of talc, soapstone, and pyrophyllite
imported and exported by the United States, however, are relatively too small
to exert a decisive influence on the overall pattern of the industry, even
though the total values involved are substantial.
8-49
-------
8.1.4 Bibliography
The industry structure presented here has been compiled from information
obtained from the United States Bureau of Mines in Washington, D.C.
The
P~reau of Mines is considered to be the definitive source for U.S. mineral
industry data.
The text is comprised of quoted, paraphrased and edited
material from preprints of the 1975 edition of Mineral Facts and Problems.
Individual physical scientists in the Division of Non-Metallic Minerals at
the Bureau whose reports make up the lion's share of this document are:
10.
11.
12.
1.
Sand and gravel:
Walter Pajalich, mining engineer, Division of
Non-Metallic Minerals (DNM)
2.
3.
Avery H. Reed, Supervisory Physical Scientist, DNM
Gypsum:
Pumice, Perlite, Arthur C. Meisinger, Industry Economist, DNM
4.
5.
Vermiculite:
Richard H. Singleton, Physical Scientist, DNM
Mica:
Stanley K. Haines, Physical Scientist, DNM
6.
Frank B. Fulkerson, Industry Economist, DNM
Barite:
7.
Fluorspar:
Hiram B. Wood, Ecologist. DNM
8.
9.
Salt:
Charles L. Klingman. Physical Scientist, DNM
K.P. Wang. Supervisory Physical Scientist, DNM
Boron:
Clays:
Sarkis G. Ampian, Physical Scientist, DNM
Tal c. Fe 1 ds par:
J. Robert Wells, Physical Scientist. DNM
Kyani te:
Michael J. Potter. Physical Scientist, DNM
Space limitations do not permit listing individual authors' bibliographies
here.
The 1975 Mineral Facts and Problems preprints contain these listings
and are available from the Bureau of Mines.
8-50
-------
Data presented from these reports have been supplemented with the 1955, 1960,
1965. 1970. 1971, 1972. and 1973 Mi nera 1 s Yearbooks ( VoL I):
1974 & 1975
Minerals Yearbook Preprints; 1976 and 1977 Commodity Data Summaries; 1970
edition of Mineral Facts and Problems; 1975 Mineral Facts and Problems
Preprints; Mineral Industry Annual Advance Summaries; and personal communi-
cations with most of the individual authors as well as data clerks and
statisticians at the Bureau of Mines.
Certain statistical items are quoted
from "Engineering/Mining Journal", "Pit and Quarry", "Rock Products",
"Chemical Market Reporter" and are referenced in the text.
It is neither the
intent nor desire of the editor of this document to claim authorship for all
or any part of the text of the individual industry structures included herein.
8-51
-------
8.2
COST ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
8.2.1
Introduction
--------
For costing purposes, two model non-metallic plants have been
developed, representative of typical new stationary plants in each of
the 18 industries studied in this document.
In-addition, costs have
been developed for a model portable plant, typifying a crushed stone
or sand and gravel installation.
These costs are found in Supplement A.
The first model plant consists of crushing operations only, and
includes: primary and secondary crushers, screens (3), transfer points
(4) and the loading operation.
The second model plant includes both a
crushing operation and a grinding operation, the latter consisting of a
grinder, another screen, two additional transfer points, and a bagging
machine.
Costs are presented in this section for controlling particulate
emissions from these model new plants to achieve the alternative emis-
sion level considered in this document.
Particulate control costs have also been developed for expansions
at existing non-metallic minerals plants.
The model plant selected here
consists only of a grinding operation, since crushing operations are
usually built with excess capacity, thus obviating the need for additional
equipment.
(Refer to Section 8.2.3 for more detailed information.)
(Costs have also been developed for monitoring particulate
\
emissions at the model plants.
However, since the anticipated new
source performance standard (NSPS) is not expected to require such
monitoring, these costs are treated separately in Section 8.3.)
8-52
-------
All control costs have been based on technical parameters associated
with the control system used, such as the plant capacity.
These param-
eters are listed in Table 8.19.
These model plant costs cannot be assumed to reflect costs of any
given installation.
Estimating control costs for an actual installation
requires performing detailed engineering studies.
Nonetheless, for
purposes of this analysis, model plant costs are considered to be
sufficiently accurate.
The model plant costs have been based primarily on data available
from an EPA contractor (Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute), who had in
turn obtained control system costs from vendors of air pollution control
equipment.2 These costs have been supplemented by a compendium of costs
for selected air pollution control systems.3 The monitoring costs have
been obtained from an equipment vendor.8
Two cost parameters have been developed: installed capital and total
annualized.
The installed capital costs for each emission control system
include the purchased costs of the major and auxiliary equipment, costs
for site preparation and equipment installation, and design engineering costs.
No attempt has been made to include costs for research and development,
possible lost production during equipment installation, or losses during
startup.
All capital costs in this section reflect fourth quarter 1976
prices for equipment, installation materials, and installation labor.
8-53
-------
Table 8.19
TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN DEVELOPING
CONTROL SYSTEM COSTSa
Parameter
Value
210C (70°F)
1. Tempera ture
2. Volumetric flowrate
(See Tables 8.22 to 8.33, 8.38, & 8.39)
2 percent (by volume)
3. Moisture content
3. Particulate loadings:
Inlet
Outlet
4. Plant capacitiesb
12.8 g/Nm3 (5.6 grains/scf)
0.050 g/Nm3 (0.02 grains/scf)
9.1,23,68,135,180,270, and 540 Mg/hr
(10, 25, 75, 150, 200, 300, and 600 tons/hr)
5. Operating factors:
Crushing operations
Grinding operations
2,000 hours/year
8,400 hours/year
aReference 1.
brhese capacities represent the sizes typical of generalized model plants.
However, for a particular industry, only some of these sizes are applicable.
8-54
-------
The total annualized costs consist of direct operating costs and
annualized capital charges.
Direct operating costs include fixed and
variable annual costs, such as:
. labor and materials needed to operate control equipment;
. Maintenance labor and materials;
. . Utilities, such as electric power;
. Replacement parts;
. Dust disposal (where applicable).
The dust disposal costs apply only to dry collection systems
(i.e., fabric filters) used to control crushing operations when no
grinding operations are employed. A unit cost of $4.40/Mg ($4/ton) is
used to cover the costs of trucking the collected particulate to a
disposal point on-site (e.g., the mine).4
In those plants that have both crushing and grinding operations,
the dust collected by the crusher baghouses is conveyed to the grinder,
while the particulate captured by the grinder fabric filter is recycled
as finished product.
In this case, it has been assumed that the dust
recovery credit offsets the cost of recycling.
That is, neither a
dust credit nor a cost is included in the direct operating cost.
The annualized capital charges account for depreciation, interest,
administrative overhead, property taxes, and insurance. The depreciation
and interest have. been computed by use of a capital recovery factor, the
value of which depends on the depreciable life of the control system and
the interest rate.
(An annual interest rate of 10 percent and a 20 year
depreciable life h~ve been assumed herein.) Administrative overhead,
8-55
-------
taxes, and insurance have been fixed at an additional 4 percent of the
installed capital cost per year.
section are listed in Table 8.20.
The annual cost factors in this
Finally, the total annualized cost is obtained simply by adding the
direct operating cost to the annualized capital charges.
8.2.2 New Facilities
As discussed in section 8.2.1, two new model plants have been
developed for costing purposes:
a stationary installation with crushing
operations only (Model Plant 1) and another stationary with both crushing
and grinding operations (Model Plant 2).
The model plant developed for
costing the portable plant segments of the crushed stone, and sand and
gravel industries is discussed in Supplement A.
For both models, the
alternative emission level to be achieved is 0.050 g/dscm (0.02 grains/
ds c f) .
The control option to be used to achieve this emission level is
fabric filtration.
At an uncontrolled emission rate of 12.8 g/dscm
(5.6 grains/dscf) (see Table 8.19), this control option is 99.6 percent
efficient in removing particulate at the model plants.
The size and number of fabric filter systems required to achieve the
emission limit vary according to the mineral plant capacity.
For example,
only two moderately-sized baghouses are required to control the crushing
and grinding operations at the 9.1 Mg/hour (10 tons/hour) model plant,
while four much larger fabric filters are needed at the 540 Mg/hour (600
tons/hour) model.
Each of these fabric filter systems consists of a pulse-jet baghouse
with polypropylene bags, fan and fan motor, dust hopper, screw conveyor~
ductwork, and stack.
8-56
-------
Table 8-20.
ANNUALIZED COST PARAMETERSa
Parameter
1.
Operating Labor
2.
Maintenance Labor
3.
Maintenance Materials
4. Util iti es:
Electric Power
5. Replacement Parts:
Polypropylene Bags
6. Dust disposal
7. Depreciation and Interest
8.
Taxes, Insurance, and Adminis-
trative Charges
--._-~ -.---
aReferences 2, 3, 4, and EPA estimates.
8-57
Value
$lO/man-hour
50 percent of operating labor (fabric
filters)
40 man-hours/year (opacity monitors)
2 percent of maintenance labor (fabric
filters)
1 percent of total installed cost
(opacity monitors)
$0.03/kw-hr
$7.0o/m2 ($0.65/ft2)
$4.40/Mg ($4.00/ton)
11.75 percent of total
(fabric fi lters)
16.28 percent of total
(opacity monitors)
4.0 percent of total installed cost
installed cost
installed cost
-------
Tables 8-21 through 8-26 list installed capital, direct operating,
annualized capital, and total annualized costs for each of the fabric
filter systems installed ~n the new Model Plants 1.
The six plant sizes
for which costs have been developed cover the range in capacities applicable
to the various mineral industries.
In Tables 8-21 through 8-24, the first column lists the technical or
cost parameter in question.
The data pertaining to the fabric filter
are listed in the second column.
However, in each of Tables 8-25 and
8-26, more than one fabric filter are needed to control the crushing
operation.
The data for these fabric filters appear in columns 2, 3, etc.,
while the right-hand column lists the totals for the model plant.
Similarly, Tables 8-27 through 8-32 contain cost data, for Model Plant 2.
The costs are itemized according to the fabric filters controlling the
crusher and grinder operations, respectively.
Again, the right-hand
Note that the installed
column lists data for the total model plant.
capital costs and annualized capital charges for the crusher baghouse(s)
are the same as in the corresponding tables for Model Plant 1.
However,
because no dust disposal costs are included with Model Plant 2, the direct
operating costs--and the total annualized costs--are lower.
Tn these tables, the total annualized cost has been expressed in two
ways:
thousand dollars/year and dollars/megagram of product.
The latter
expression is the quotient of the total annualized cost and the annual
production rate, based, in turn, on the operating factor.
As Table
8-19 indicates, crushing operations (i.e., Model Plant 1) are assigned
an operating factor of 2,000 hours/year, while with grinding operations,
8-58
-------
Table 8-21
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 9.1 Mg/Hour
(10 tonS/hour) Capacitya
Parameter Value
Gas flowrate, m3/min. (ACFr'1) 289
(10,200)
Installed capital cost, M$b 60
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 4.7
Annualized capital charges, ~I$/yr 9.5
co Total annualized cost, M$/yr 14.2
I $/Mg productC 0.78
U'1
1.0
Cost-effectiveness,.$/Mg
particulate removedc 32. 1
aReferences 1 to 4.
bThe 1 etter IIt.111 denotes
CQuotients are based on
thousands; IIfvlW denotes mill ions, etc.
2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Table 8-22
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1:
(25 tons/hour) Capacitya
23 Mg/Hour
Parameter Value
Gas f10wrate, m3/min (ACFr~) 325
(11,500)
Installed capital cost, MSb 67
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 5.3
OJ Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 10.5
I
0"\
0 Total annualized cost, $/yr 15,8
$/Mg productC 0.34
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg
particulate removedc 31.7
aReferences 1 to 4.
bThe letter 1I~111 denotes thousands; IIHW denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
cQuotients based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Table 8-23
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR rlEW r.10DEL PLA~T 1:
(75 tons/hour) Capacity
68 r.1g/Hour
Parameter Value
Gas f1owrate, m3/min (ACH1) 504
(17,800)
Installed capital cost, MSb 95
Direct operating cost, MS/yr 8.4
OJ Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 15.0
I
'"
-' Total annualized cost, M$/yr 23.4
$/Mg productC O. 17
Cost-effectiveness, ${Mg 30.3
particulate removed
a
References 1 to 4.
b
The letter "M" denotes
cQuotients are based on
thousands; "MW denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Table 8-24.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1:
(150 tons/hour) Capacitya
135 ~1g/Hour
Parameter
Value
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
708
(25,000)
122
Insta 11 ed capita 1 cost, nsb
Direct operating cost, t1$/yr
11.9
19.2
co
I
'"
N
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr
Total annualized cost, M$/yr
$/i.lg productC
31.1
0.12
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg
particulate removedc
28.7
aReferences 1 to 4.
bThe letter IIW denotes
cQuotients are based on
thousands; IIt'1MII denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Tab1 e 8-25.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 1: 270 Mg/Hour
(300 tons/hour) Capacitya
CD
I
0"
W
Value
Parameter Fabric Filter 1 Fabric Filter 2 Total
Gas flowrate, m3;min (ACH1) 1,130 226 1,360
(40,000) (8,000) (48,000)
Installed capital cost, M$b 161 50 211
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 18.6 3.7 22.3
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 25.3 7.9 33.2
-
Total annualized cost, M$/yr 43.9 11.6 55.5
$/Mg productC 0.081 0.021 0.10
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg
particulate removedc 25.3 33.5 26.7
a
References 1 to 4.
bThe letter "M" denotes
cQuotients are based on
thousands; JlMM" denotes mi 11 ions. etc.
2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Table 8-26. FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW ~~DEL PLANT 1: 540 Mg/Hour
(600 tons/hour) Capacitya
Value
Parameter Fabric Filter 1 Fabric Fi lter 2 Fabric Fi lter 3 Total
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACH1) 225 906 877 2,040
(9,000) (32,000) (31,000) (72,000)
Installed capital cost, i1Sb 54 142 140 336
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 4. 1 15. 1 14.6 33.9
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 8.5 22.4 22.1 53.0
Total annualized cost, M$/yrc 12.6 37.5 36.7 86.9
$/Mg product 0.012 0.035 0.034 0.080
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg
particulate removedc - 32.3 27.0 27.3 27.8
- - -
o
I
0'\
+'=>
a
References 1 to 4.
b
The letter "M" denotes
cQuotients are based on
thousands; "~1W denotes millions, etc.
2,000 hours/year operating factor.
-------
Table 8-27.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2:
(10 tons/hour) Capacitya
9.1 Mg/Hour
Value
):)
I
~
(J"I
Parameter Fabric Fi lter 1 Fabric Filter 2 Totalb
Operation controlled Crushing Grinding --
Gas f1 owrate, m3 /mi n. ACFi.! 289 113 --
(10,200) (4,000) --
Installed capital cost, MSc 60 33 93
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 2.7 3.8 6.5
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 9.5 5.2 14.7
Total annualized cost, M$/yr d 12.2 9.0 21.2
$/Mg Product 0.67 0.12 0.28
Cost-effectiveness, $/Mg particulate 27.6 12.4 18.2
removedd -
aReferences 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
cThe 1 etter IIW denotes thousands; IIMW denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
dQuotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients
based on 8,400 hours/year.
-------
00
I
0\
0"1
Table 8-28.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 23 Mg/Hour
(25 tons/hour) Capacitya
Val ue
Parameter Fabric Filter 1 Fabric Filter 2 Totalb
Operation controlled Crushing Grinding --
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM) 325 133 --
( 11 ,500) (4,700) --
Installed capital cost, MSc 67 36 103
Direct operating cost, ~$/yr 3. 1 4. 1 7.2
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 10.5 5.7 16.2
Total annualized cost, $/y~ 13.6 9.8 2304
$/Mg product 0.30 0.05 0.12
Cost-effectiveness, S/Mg
particulate removedQ 27.4 11. 5 . 17.3
aReferences 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
cThe 1 etter IIWI denotes thousands; IIMWI denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
dQuotients for crushing based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients based on
8,400 hours/year.
-------
Table 8-29.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 68 Mg/Hour
(75 tons/hour) Capacitya
0::
I
a
'-!
Value
Parameter Fabric Fi lter 1 Fabric Filter 2 Totalb
Operation controlled Crushing Grinding --
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACn~) 504 190 --
Installed capital cost, MSc (17,800) (6,700) 139
95 44
Direct operating cost,M$/yr 5.0 5. 1 10.1
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 15.0 6.9 21.9
Total annualized cost, MS/yr 20.0 12.0 32.0
$/Mg productd O. 15 0.021 0.056
Cost-effectiveness, $~Mg 25.9 9.83 16. 1
particulate removed
aReferences 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
cThe 1 etter 1I~111 denotes thousands; "r~W1 denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
dQuotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients
based on 8,400 hours/year.
-------
Table 8-30.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 135 Mg/hour
(150 tons/hour) Capacitya
cc
I
~
ro
~alue
Parameter Fabric Filter 1 Fabric Filter 2 Tota1b
Operation controlled Crushing Grinding --
Gas f1owrate, m3/min (ACF~1) 708 320 --
(25,000) (11 ,300) --
Installed capital cost, MSc 122 65 187
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 7. 1 7.8 14.9
I
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 19.2 10.3 29.5
- -
Total annualized cost, M$/yr 26.3 18. 1 44.4
$/r.1g productd 0.097 0.016 0.039
Cost-effeativeness, $/Mg particulate 24.3 8.80 14. 1
removed I
a
References 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
c
The 1 etter "M" denotes thousands; "MM" denotes m; 11 ions, etc.
dQuotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients
based on 8,400 hours/year.
-------
Table 8-31.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR NEW MODEL PLANT 2: 270 Mg/Hour
(300 tons/hour) Capacitya
Value
Parameter
Operation controlled Crushing Crushing Grinding
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACF~1) 1,130 226 640
(40,000) (8,000) (22,600)
00 Installed capital cost, M$c 161 50 113 324
I
0'1
\.0
Direct operating cost,M$/yr 10.9 2.2 17.4 30.5
Annualized capital charges, t~$/yr 25.3 7.9 17.8 51.0
Total annualized cost,M$/yr 36.2 10. 1 35.2 81.5
$/t~g productd 0.067 0.019 0.016 0.036
Cost-effe8tiveness, $/Mg particu1at 20.9 29.2 8.56 13.2
removed
aReferences 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
c
The letter 11M" denotes thousands; IIr~M" denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
~Quotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients
8,400 hours/year.
based on
-------
Table 8-32.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR r~EW MODEL PLANT 2:
(600 tons/hour) Capacitya
540 Mg/Hour
Va ue
Fabric Fabric Fabric Fabric b
Parameter Filter 1 Fi lter 2 Filter 3 Fi lter 4 Total
Operation controlled Crushing Crushing Crushing Grinding --
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACH1) 255 906 877 1 ,280 --
(9,000) (32,000) (31,000) (45,200) --
Installed capital cost, MSc 54 142 140 171 507
Direct operating cost, M$/yr 2.4 9.0 8.7 31.1 51.2
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 8.5 22.4 22.1 26.9 79.9
- - - - -
Total annualized cost, M$/yr 10.9 31.4 30.8 58.0 131.1
$/Mg productd 0.010 0.029 0.029 0.013 0.029
Cost-effectiveness, $8Mg 27.9 22.7 23.0 7.05 11.6
particulate removed
(X)
I
-.....J
a
aReferences 1 to 3.
bNumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
cThe 1 etter 1I~111 denotes thousands; IIMW denotes mi 11 ions, etc.
dQuotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients
8,400 hours/year.
based on
-------
8,400 hours/year has been used.
For Model Plant 2, where both crushing
and grinding operations are employed, 8,400 hours/year is used as the
operating factor, solely for the purpose of computing the unit annualized
cos ts.
Each cost-effectiveness ratio appearing in the tables is simply the
quotient of the total annualized cost and the amount of particulate
collected annually by the fabric filter system.
To compute the parti-
culate collected, the 2,000 and 8,400 hours/year operating factors are
applied, respectively, to the individual crushing and grinding operations.
However, for combined crushing and grinding operations, the following
expression has been used to calculate cost-effectiveness:
TACC + TACG
Cost-effectiveness =
($/Mg particulate 7.65 x 10-7 (2000QC + 8400QG)
removed)
Where:
TACC' TACG = total annualized costs for crushing and
grinding baghouses, respectively (M$/year)
QC' QG
= total volumetric flowrates for crushing
and grinding baghouses, respectively (m3/min)
The numerator is the sum of the annualized costs for the crushing
and grinding operations, while the denominator represents the total
amount of particulate removed by the fabric filters controlling these
operations.
(Cost-effectiveness is further discussed in Section 8.2.4.)
As the tables indicate, the installed costs in the crushing (only)
model plant range from $60,000 to $336,000, as the plant capacity goes
from 9. 1 Mg/hour to 540 Mg/hour.
However, given the sixty-fold increase
8-71
-------
in the plant capacity, the installed costs increase relatively little.
This is so because the fabric filter installed costs are a function of
the volumetric f10wrate, not the plant capacity.
Moreover, the volumetric
f10wrate, while dependent on the capacity, does not increase proportionately
with the plant size.
Based on a 2000 hour operating year, the total annualized cost increases
from $14,000 to $87,000 per year, corresponding to $0.78 to $0.08/Mg
product, as the plant capacity goes from 9.1 to 540 Mg/hour.
Ordinarily,
one would also expect a more substantial increase in the total annualized
cost over such a large range in plant capacities.
However, as Tables
8-21 through 8-26 show, the annualized capital charges comprise the bulk
of the total annualized costs.
And since the annualized capital charges
are directly proportional to the installed costs, the total annualized
cost very nearly follows the change in the capital cost.
There are several reasons why the direct operating costs are so low.
First, because the gas streams controlled are non-corrosive and 10w-
temperature, the fabric filter maintenance is relatively small, amounting
to less than one percent of the installed cost annually.
Then, because
there is a relatively small pressure drop through the baghouse system,
the power cost is relatively low.
Costs for replacement parts (i.e.,
bags) are proportional to the gas flowrate, but at the same time amount
to a small fraction of the direct operating costs.
A similar pattern appears with the costs for Model Plant 2, which
contains both crushing and grinding operations.
The costs here are about
the same order of magnitude as are those for Model Plant 1.
The main
difference is the additional baghouse required to control the grinder
8-72
-------
and its auxiliaries.
Here the installed costs range from $93,000 to
$507,000, while the annualized costs go from $21,000 to $131,000 per
year ($0.28 to $0.03/Mg product, respectively).
The costs described above are for achieving the alternative emission
level.
It is also necessary to compare these costs to the costs required
to meet a typical state emission regulation (SIP) in the model plants.
In this analysis, however, it is assumed that the SIP can be met without
controls.
The SIP or baseline costs are, therefore, zero.
Thus, the costs
shown in Tables 8-21 to 8-32 are solely attributable to the alternative
emission limit.
8.2.3 ~~~if~~d/Reconstructed Facilities
As Chapter 5 points out, there appears to be no condition which
would deem an existing plant modified.
Concerning reconstruction,
if replacement of components subject to high abrasion and impact,
such as crushing and screening surfaces and conveyor belts,
are exempted and considered routine for this category of sources,
there also appears to be no action which could be construed as recnn-
struction.
Nonetheless, expansions of existing plants do occur.
When they do,
only a portion of the plant would be covered under the alternative
emission limit.
These expansions would more than likely involve the
grinding operation, since crushing operations are usually capable of
handling increased throughput without additional equipment.
However, to
expand the plant grinding capacity, a new complete grinding line would
be added.
8-73
-------
In this document, sizes for three stationary model plants have been
developed to cover these expansions: 4.5,9.1, and 32 Mg/hour (5,10,
and 35 tons/hour).
The first two sizes apply to all industries employing
grinders (i.e., Model Plant 2). The third size applies only to the boron
industry.
The option costed for controlling these expanded model plants is
fabric filtration. The gas flowrates used in the costing are listed in
Tables 8-33 and 8-34.
The other technical parameters appear in Table 8-19.
Because these fabric filters would be installed at existing, as
opposed to new plants, the installed capital costs are somewhat higher,
reflecting the higher installation costs required.
The difference
between the existing and new plant installation costs, or retrofit penalty,
is quite variable, depending on individual plant configuration, on-site
utility capacity, and other seemingly random variables.
Nonetheless,
after polling its members, the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute has
developed an approximate multiplier, or retrofit factor, to be used in
estimating the existing plant installation costs.5 This retrofit factor
is 2.0.
Using this factor, the cQntrol system existing plant installation
cost would be twice that of the new plant installation cost.
Table 8-33 lists the costs of fabric filter systems installed in
the expanded 4.5 and 9.1 Mg/hour model plants.
model plant costs are listed in Table 8-34.
The 32 Mg/hour capacity
The installed costs in Table 8-33 are $43,000 and $48,000 for the
4.5 and 9.1 Mg/hour plants, respectively.
The installed cost difference
is relatively small:
10 percent.
However, this is betause the gas flow-
rates upon which the costs are based differ by only 23 percent, even
8-74
-------
Table 8-33.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR EXPANDED MODEL PLANTSa,b
Parameter our
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM) 92.0 (3,250) 113 (4,000 )
Installed t~uital cost, M$c 43 48
Direct operating cost, MVyr 3.4 3.8
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr 6.8 7.5
Total annualized cost,d M~/yr 10.2 11.3
$/Mg producte 0.27 0.15
aReferences 1, 2, 3, and 5.
bExpanded plants consist of grinding operations only.
cThe letter "M" denotes thousands; "MM" denotes mill ions, etc.
dSince SIP control cost is zero, total and incremental annualized
eQuotients are based on an 8,400 hours/year operating factor.
8-75
costs are equal.
-------
Table 8-34.
FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR 32 Mo/Hour
EXPANDED MODEL PLANTa,D
Parameter
Value
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
184 (6,500)
Installed capital cost, M$c
65
Direct operating cost, M$/yr.
5.0
Annualized capital charges, M$/yr.
Total annualized costd
10.2
M$/year
$/Mg producte
15.2
0.057
aReferences 1, 2, 3, and 5.
bThis capacity applies to the boron industry only
cThe letter "M" denotes thousands; "MM" denotes millions, etc.
dSince SIP control cost is zero, total and incremental annualized
eQuotients are based on an 8,400 hours/year operating factor.
costs are equal.
8-76
-------
though one plant size is twice the other.
The total annualized costs
differ much less: $10,200/year for the 4.5 Mg/hour size, and $11 ,300/year
for the 9.1 Mg/hour case.
(Because these baghouses control grinders,
neither of these costs includes a cost for dust disposal.)
Since grinding operations need not be controlled to achieve a state
regulation, the SIP costs are zero.
The annualized costs shown in Table
8-33 are, therefore, both total and incremental.
These incremental costs
are $0.27 and $0.15/Mg product, in turn, for the 4.5 and 9.1 Mg/hour
capacity plants.
Both numbers have been based on an 8400 hours/year
operating factor.
The 44 percent decrease in cost indicates a positive
economy of scale with plant capacity.
Finally, the fabric filter costs for the 32 Mg/hour expanded model
plant are listed in Table 8-34.
the installed cost is $65,000.
Sized for a gas flow rate of 184 m3/min,
The corresponding incremental annualized
cost is $15,200 per year, or $0.06/Mg product, based on the same 8400
hours/year operating factor.
8.2.4 Cost-Effectiveness of the Alternative Emission Limit
For each of the control options casted to achieve the alternative
emission limit, it is informative to compare the total annualized cost
with the amount of particulate removed.
A convenient yardstick for
expressing this comparison is the cost-effectiveness ratio, which is
the quotient of the annualized cost and the quantity of particulate
removed annually.
Expressed in dollars per megagram of particulate,
these ratios appear in Tables 8-21 through 8-32, for the stationary new
8-77
-------
n~del plant sizes costed herein.
(Because an NSPS impacts most heavily
on new, rather than existing plants, the cost-effectiveness analysis will
be limited to them.)
It is clear from these tables that the ratios vary according to the
plant capacity, design, and the model plant configuration (i.e., Model
Plant 1 or 2).
For Model Plant 1 (crushing only), the cost-effectiveness
ranges from $32.1 to $27.8/Mg, as the capacity goes from 9.1 to 540 Mg/
hour.
The corresponding ratios for Model Plant 2 (crushing and grinding)
are $18.2 and $11.6/Mg particulate removed.
The ratios are plotted in Figure 8-1 against the model plant
capacity.
Note, first of all, that with Model Plant 2, the cost-
effectiveness decreases from $18.2 to $14.1/Mg (23 percent) between
the 9.1 and 135 Mg/hour plant capacities.
At larger sizes, however,
this rate of decrease is much less pronounced.
In fact, the cost-
effectiveness ratio decreases only 18 percent between 135 and 540 Mg/hour.
Nonetheless, the fact that the ratio decreases consistently with plant
size indicates that the control costs for Model Plant 2 benefit from a
positive economy of scale.
The curve for Model Plant 1 does not exhibit this consistency,
however.
Note that the cost-effectiveness decreases gradually from a
maximum of $32.1/Mg to a minimum of $26.5/Mg.
This minimum occurs at a
plant capacity of about 340 Mg/hour.
But for larger plant sizes, the
curve swings upward, reaching a value of $27.8/Mg at the 540 Mg/hour
capacity.
This behavior indicates a negative economy,of scale with
respect to plant size.
8-78
-------
~
QJ
:>
~
QJ
So.
CII
....
'"
-
::>
u
....
So.
'"
C-
O>
~
......
....
~
oil
oil
QJ
CP c:
I QJ
....... :>
-
\D ....
u
CD
It-
It-
QJ
,
....
oil
o
U
35
30
25
Model Plant 1
- - ----- --
- ------.-- - ---
20
- - . -- --- --
- ~- - --
15
--- ------ --
Hodel Plant 2
10
o
-
200
300
-4OQ
100
Moder PTant tapacityu(Hg Ihour)
- - --.------ - -
--- ----
- -- -''''------- -- _.-
- ----. -------
500
600
-- - - - -- ---
------ - ..---
Fi gure 8-1.
Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Control Systems.
-------
The following explanation can be offered for this anomaly.
First
of all, the fabric filter costs represented by Figure 8-1 are functions
of the gas volumetric flowrate, not the plant capacity.
Secondly, the
cost-effectiveness ratio is also a function of the volumetric flowrate,
as well as the annual operating hours.
Now, when a model plant consists
of more than one fabric filter system, the mean cost-effectiveness ratio
for the model plant is strongly affected by the volumetric flowrates
of the individual fabric filter systems.
(The equation in Section 8.2.2
bears this out.)
For instance, if one fabric filter flowrate is much
smaller or larger than the others, the mean cost-effectiveness will be
weighted toward that flowrate.
Such a situation is illustrated by the data in Tables 8-25 and 8-26,
for the 270 and 540 Mg/hour model plants, respectively.
In Table 8-25,
data for two fabric filters are presented, one of which is sized for five
times the flowrate as the other.
Accordingly, the mean cost-effectiveness
($26.7/Mg) is heavily weighted toward the larger fabric filter.
But with
the 540 Mg/hour model plant (Table 8-26), there are three fabric filters,
sized at 255, 877, and 906 m3/min. Since two of these fabric filters are
approximately equal in size, the mean cost-effectiveness for the model plant
($27.8/Mg) is weighted toward them.
Note, moreover, that this ratio is
higher than that for the 270 Mg/hour plant.
the dip in the curve in Figure 8-1.
This, in turn, accounts for
8.2.5 Control Cost Comparison
Before the accuracy and representativeness of model plant control
costs can be ascertained, they must be compared with costs obtained from
8-80
-------
106
Figure 8-2.
Installed Costs of Fabric
F 11 ter 5y sterns
Reference 3
/
-
~ 105
o
u
ex> a:
I
ex> r-
-J r-
10
+>
VI
c:
....
104
10
102
10J
104
Vo1~metric F10wrate (m3/min)
-------
other data sources.
In doing this, one can either compare the installed
capital costs, the annualized costs, or both.
However, since the capital
costs influence the annualized costs (via the annualized capital charges),
and because there is much more variability among the several terms in the
annualized cost (utilities, for instance), it is preferable to limit the
comparison to the installed costs.
Even for a control system sized for a specific emission point, the
installed cost may vary considerably from site-to-site.
Such things as
the cost of installation labor (electricians, pipefitters, etc.), the
requirement for special installation materials (e.g., extra insulation for
systems installed in colder climates), and the presence or absence of
excess utility capacity considerably influence the total installed cost.
Keeping this in mind, however, capital cost comparisons can be made,
among a range of control system sizes.
This comparison may be made
graphically; that is, installed costs adjusted to the same reference date
(December 1976, in this case) can be plotted against some technical parameter
relevant to the control system.
In this section, installed costs are
compared among various sizes of fabric filter systems, using gas volumetric
flowrate as the comparison parameter.
The model plant costs are compared with cost data obtained from
industry sources6,7 and with costs developed in-house from a compendium
of air pollution control costs (the GARD Manual).3 ~hese costs have been
plotted against volumetric flowrate on full logarithmic paper (Figure 8-2).
For all flowrates in the domain of 42 to 1,400 actual m3/min, the costs
developed from the GARD Manual are higher than the model plant costs.
The
discrepancy ranges from 17 to 32 percent, the higher difference corresponding
8-82
-------
to 42 m]/min.
The cost curve for reference 6 intersec~s the model plant
curve at 115 m]/min.
(This is approximately the size of the grinding
operation baghouse in the 9.1 Mg/hour model plant.)
Below this flowrate
the reference 6 costs are lower; above it, they are higher, but by no more
than 53 percent.
The last fabric filter cost curve (reference 7) lies
consistently below the model plant curve for all flowrates between 28 and
1,050 m]/min.
However, the differences between the costs--7 to 18 percent--are
not significant.
All in all, the model plant fabric filter costs compare reasonably well
with the data supplied by references 3, 6, and 7.
8-83
-------
8.3 OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS
As discussed in Section 8.2, it is unlikely that non-metallic minerals
plants covered under the anticipated NSPS would be required to monitor the
opacity of their particulate emissions.
Nonetheless, for the benefit of
those plants considering an opacity monitoring program, costs are presented
for these devices in this section.
Continuous monitoring of opacity usually involves the use of a trans-
missometer installed in a fabric filter stack.
This instrument relates
the transmittance of a light beam across the stack to the opacity of
the exhaust.
These devices are fully automatic and usually require only
periodic maintenance.
(However, manual stack testing may be required for
calibration of the instrument.)
Table 8-35 lists costs for a typical opacity monitoring system
obtained from an instrument vendor.8 The system shown consists of a
visible emission monitor, controls, data readout-converter, strip chart
recorder, and other auxiliaries.
Of the $20,000 installed cost, half
is the equipment purchase cost, the other $10,000 is for installation.
It has been assumed that no scaffolding would have to be erected on the
stack being monitored.
However, if scaffolding is required, the installation
cost could increase appreciably.
The scaffolding cost would, as expected,
vary from site to site.
For instance, the cost of scaffolding a 50-foot
"stub" stack (the kind normally used with nonmetallic minerals plant
fabric filters) would be $20,000 to $30,000.
8-84
-------
Table 8-35.
MONITORING COSTS FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS MODEL PLANTSasb
Pa rameter Value
-----~
Operating factors hours/year 2000 8400
Installed capital cost, M$ 20 20
Direct operating cost, M$/year 0.7 1.0
Annualized capital charges, M$/year 4.1 4.1
Total annualized cost, $/year 4.8 5.1
_._-
aReference 8.
bThese costs are for opacity monitoring
costs are included.
cThe 1 etter "M" denotes thousands; IIMM"
of one stack.
No scaffolding
denotes millions, etc.
8-85
-------
The direct operating costs have been computed at the 2000 and 8400
hours/year operating factors.
Here, the only cost sensitive to a change
in the operating factor is the electric power cost.
At the lower operating
factor (corresponding to the crushing model plant) the power cost is $100/year
against $420/year at 8400 hours/year of operation.
The rest of the direct
operating cost is for maintenance of the monitoring system, which amounts to
3 percent of the installed cost.
The annualized capital changes have been computed assuming a ten-year
life and a ten percent annual interest rate, plus four percent of the
installed cost for taxes, insurance, and administrative charges.
Depending
on the operating factor, the total annualized cost is either $4,800 or
$5,100 per year.
For the smaller model plants, these amounts are appreciab1e--one-third
of the fabric filter total annualized costs at the 9.1 Mg/hour Model Plant 1.
However, with the larger plants, more than one baghouse would need to be
monitored.
Thus, their monitoring costs could be .two or more times the
costs in Table 8-35.
In other words, there is little or no economy of
scale in the costs for monitoring multiple stacks:
This is so because
each stack requires separate opacity instrumentation, scaffolding, and other
equipment.
The only savings would result from some parts of the installation
cost, such as engineering.
But these latter costs, when taken together,
generally comprise only a small fraction of the installed cost.
8-86
-------
References for Sections 8.2 and 8.3
1.
Written communications between William M. Vatavuk (Economic Analysis
Branch, Strategies and Air Standards Division) and James A. Eddinger,
(Industrial Studies Branch, Emission Standards and Engineering Division).
Dates: August 18, 1976; June 15, June 30, July 8, 1977; and February 9,
March 17, and April 20, 1978.
2.
Nonmetallic Minerals Industries Control Equipment Costs. Prepared by:
Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute (Stamford, Connecticut). Prepared
for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Standards
Division, Economic Analysis Branch (Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina). Contract No. 68-02-1473, Tas~ No. 19. February 1977.
Kinkley, M.L. and R.B. Neveril. Capital and Operating Costs of
Selected Air Pollution Control Systems. Prepared by: GARD, Inc.
(Niles, Illinois). Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Strategies and Air Standards Division, Economic Analysis Branch (Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina). Contract No. 68-02-2072. May 1976.
3.
4.
McGlamery, G.G., et al. Detailed Cost Estimates for Advanced Effluent
Desulfurization Processes. Prepared by: Tennessee Valley Authority,
Muscle Shoals, Alabama, under Interagency Agreement EPA IAG-134(D)
Part A. Prepared for: Office of Research and Development, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. January 1975.
Written communication between William M. Vatavuk (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Standards Division, Economic
Analysis Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) and Sidney
Orem (Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Stamford, Connecticut).
Date: June 15, 1977.
5.
6.
Written communications between F.J. Rogers (Gypsum Association, Evanston,
Illinois) and William M. Vatavuk (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Strategies and Air Standards Division, Economic Analysis Branch, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina). Dates: April 29, May 11, and July 27,1977.
Written communication between William M. Vatavuk (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Standards Division, Economic
Analysis Branch, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina) and Curtis
Hamilton (Englehard Minerals and Chemicals, Attapulgas, Georgia).
Date: January 18, 1978.
7.
8.
Written communication between William M. Vatavuk (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Stan9ards Division, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina) and Ronald Zweben (Lear Siegler, Inc.,
Raleigh, North Carolina). Date: April 26, 1978.
8-87
-------
8.4
ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT
8.4.1
Introduction
The non-metallic mineral industries crush, size, and in some cases
grind material extracted from the ground.
The resultant output is generally
used as an intermediate product in such activities as highway or building
construction.
Although the 18 non-metallic mineral industries considered in this
economic impact assessment have similar production and marketing character-
istics, there are distinct differences among them.
Although these minerals
must be extracted from the ground, the particular method used for extrac-
tion depends on the hardness of the mineral and the geological deposit in
which it is found.
For example, stone must generally be extracted by blasting
with dynamite, while sand can be extracted with only power shovels.
The
harder minerals are first broken with drop balls and transported by truck
to the crushing plant immediatelx following extraction.
As described in Section 3.2, most minerals then go through a number
of crushing steps in order to produce the requisite size material for the
purposes of the customer.
This stage includes primary and secondary crushing
and, in some cases, tertiary crushing.
In each crushing stage the material
is further reduced to a smaller size classification.
These crushing stages
are important in producing material meeting the quality specifications of
the application.
For some minerals; e.g., clay, dryers are interposed between
the various crushing stages to extract the moisture found in the material.
Other minerals such as stone and pumice do not require dryers, while still
other materials, such as sand, can be extracted and processed in a wet form.
8-88
-------
For many minerals the final crushing stage produces an output which
can be sold for various purposes; e.g., stone, and sand and gravel used
as a highway or concrete aggregate.
Other materials must be further
reduced in size in a grinding mill before they are acceptable in product
applications; e.g., clay which is to be expanded and gypsum used as a
retarder in cement production.
In short, non-metallic minerals are basically processed in the same
manner, but there are production distinctions which the following economic
impact analysis will address.
As Section 8.1 shows, non-metallic minerals have wide price differ-
entials.
Even within a particular mineral, there are signifcant variations
in price depending on product application.
The prices of non-metallic miner-
a1s range from $2/ton for sand gravel to $250/ton for high grade talc.
Most non-metallic minerals have regional markets.
In general, the lower
the value of the mineral, the shorter is the distance that the material
travels to a customer.
For example, stone, and sand and gr~vel, lower price
minerals, generally are not transported over 30 miles from the plant.
At this distance the f.o.b. plant price of the material is approximately
doubled by transportation costs.
Therefore, transportation costs limit
the geographic area of competition for many non-metallic minerals and
competition between and among minerals is localized.
Ownership characteristics differ between the non-metallic minerals
industries.
Stone quarrying and crushing is done primarily by privately
held companies which may have other business ventures requiring stone;
e.g., highway construction or concrete manufacturing.
Gypsum, on the other
hand, is generally produced by diversified, publicly held companies in the
8-89
-------
building and construction materials industry who have integrated backwards to
the mine.
Publicly held companies, diversified into many other activities,
though, are in general the largest producers in the industries.
In the analysis which follows, each new non-metallic mineral plant
will be assessed as if it stands alone; i.e., the plant is not associated
with any other business activity nor is it associated with any larger
parent company.
This assumption has the effect of insulating the control
cost impact to the plant in question which must then support the control
cost without any assistance from other business activities or firms.
The impact which will be assessed is the effect of the incremental
cost of NSPS control on both:
.
"Grassroots" new plants
.
Expansions of existing plants.
The effect to be determined is the feasibility of these two investments,
and therefore, the potential for new and expanded plant construction with
the superimposed NSPS costs on each investment.
Incremental NSPS control costs are costs over and above those
control costs required to meet state implementation plan (SIP) standards.
Since each state has particulate emission control standards, any new plant
or reconstructed/modified plant would have to meet SIP standards in the
absence of the NSPS.
Incremental costs are the difference between the costs
associated with NSPS control and SIP control.
In this analysis SIP costs
are assumed to be non-existent, and therefore incremental costs are the
total of NSPS costs.
Though SIP costs are not zero in the real world, this
assumption is used in order to provide a conservative analysis for evalua-
ting economic impacts.
8-90
-------
This section is organized in three parts.
Section 8.4.2 will develop
the methodological procedure utilized to estimate the economic impact.
Section
8.4.3 will present the findings of this analysis and Section 8.5 will show
the total industry costs of the promulgation of NSPS.
8.4.2 Methodology
This section will describe the methodology used to measure the eco-
~
nomic impact on the non-metallic mineral industries.
The economic impact is evaluated by developing model plants based on
historical characteristics in the non-metallic mineral industries.
As will
be seen, these characteristics include production capabilities, asset
size and other financial characteristics.
The models do not represent any
particular plant as any individual plant will differ in one or more of
these characteristics.
The models are meant to provide an indication of
the degree of impact on all plants in a particular industry by incorporating
in the model the major characteristics prevailing in each segment of the
non-metallic mineral industry.
Two control cost models have been constructed for the 16 non-metallic
mineral industries, as seen in Section 6.
.
Modell - those industries which generally only crush the
mineral
.
Model 2 - those industries which generally both crush and
grind the mineral
In addition, the portable crushing plant model segments of the crushed stone,
and sand and gravel industries are discussed in Supplement A.
Each industry has been further disaggregated by typical model plant
sizes to account for size variations within each industry.
Typical plant
8-91
-------
sizes for each mineral are shown in Section 6.
Although industry repre-
sentatives and equipment suppliers do not expect 9 Mg/hr (10 tons/hr), 23
Mg/hr (25 tons/hr) and 68 Mg/hr (75 tons/hr) plants in the crushed stone,
and sand and gravel industries to be constructed in the future, they were,
nevertheless, analyzed because they have historically represented the
majority of plants in the industries.
Only minerals represented by model 2 are assumed to be in need of
expansion investment in the near future.
Expansion will consist of
4.5 Mg/hr (approximately 5 tph) and 9.1 Mg/hr (10 tph) grinding mills.
Expansion of existing plants represented by model 1 is not considered
because it is expected that they will need to invest in capital expansion
to meet increased demand only on a sporadic basis.
Reconstruction/modifica-
tion of existing plants is also not considered; first, because routine
replacement of worn out equipment will not subject them to the NSPS; and
second, because such replacement is expected to occur at a very slow pace
since the production life of most processing equipment is on the order of
20 to 30 years.
The first step in the analysis consisted of screening each of the
18 minerals by ranking the potential product price effects of the incremen-
tal control cost.
Those minerals with the potentially highest product
price impact were then considered for further evaluation.
The next step in the analysis established the scenario under which
the plant would operate.
This scenario consisted of fo~r elements:
.
the total of NSPS control costs were incremental
costs; i.e., that there are no SIP control costs
that a plant would have to incur in the absence of
NSPS control.
8-92
-------
.
the production volume is constant throughout the
life of the project except for the crushed stone
plant where it is assumed that they operate at
50% of capacity for the first year.
.
NSPS control cost pass through is limited by competition of
existing plants in the same industry which do not have to meet
the NSPS.
.
the new plant operates as a separate business entity and cannot
expect to finance the control from another business activity or
parent firm.
Because of technical constraints in establishing a new quarrying
operation in the crushed stone industry, which constraints are not as
severe in the other industries, the crushed stone crushing plant is assumed
to operate at 50% of capacity during the first year.
The plant is assumed not to be dependent on any other business
venture.
Therefore for new plants the NSPS control cost is not allocated
or spread over any operation except production of the affected facility
which is the new plant.
Financing of the equipment can only be made from
the expected revenues of the new plant and from no other business venture.
For expanded plants a portion of the annualized control cost was assumed to
be absorbed by the existing plant which is being expanded.
Substitutability between many of the non-metallic minerals in many
product applications prevails in the market.
Because of the variations in
control cost per ton between the minerals, the potential price increase of
any mineral should be expected to equal the cost pass through portion of
the nearest available mineral substitute with the lowest control cost per
8-93
-------
ton.
If a new plant of one mineral was being constructed in the same
geographical competitive area as a new plant of another mineral and both
were perfect substitutes for each other, then the cost pass through would
likely be the control cost of the less affected mineral.
A more conserva-
tive analysis is where a new plant of a mineral is constructed in the
same geographically competitive area as existing plants of the same mineral.
The existing plants would not experience any NSPS standard and therefore,
cost, and the new plant would have to compete with this existing plant.
The new plant would not be a major supplier of the mineral in the area and
would not be able to control the price.
Therefore, this new plant would
have to completely absorb the control cost.
But as demand grew for the
mineral, additional new plants would be required and/or, in the case of gypsum
and clay, older plants would have to expand to meet the increased demand.
This condition would bring an increasingly larger segment of the mineral
supply market under NSPS control.
Therefore, it is likely that new plants
will be able to pass through the control cost gradually over the years.
This
is reflected in our assumption that 25 percent of the control cost is passed
through every 4 years (alternatively every 4 years 25 percent less of
the cost is absorbed).
This is the premise which is used in the succeeding
discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis.
Each plant size of each of the potentially significantly affected
minerals was then analyzed by using a discounted cash flow analysis (DCF).
DCF is an investment decision technique which provides information on
the economic feasibility of a potential capital investment.
It measures
the discounted cash inflows over the life of the investment and compares
them to the discounted cash outflows.
If the sum of the discounted cash
8-94
-------
inflows is equal to or greater than the sum of the discounted cash outflows,
the investment is feasible from the firm's point of view.
I
If the sum of
the discounted cash inflows is less than the sum of the discounted cash
outflows, the investment is not feasible from the firm's point of view.
In order to take into consideration the time value of money, all cash
flows must be discounted to the present by use of an appropriate discount
factor.
This is necessary to bring all cash flows to a comparable present
day basis for comparison.
Four data elements are required to complete the analysis:
.
Expected life of the investment
.
Cash flows to be discounted
.
Weighted average cost of capital
.
Total plant investment.
The expected life of the investment was taken to be 20 years although
the expected life of the major pieces of equipment can range from 20 to 30
yea rs .
The cash flows are discounted and summed over a 20 year period.
Any potential capital investment will generate cash flows in the
form of new earnings, and depreciation.
,
These flows are discounted by the
weighted average cost of capital discount factors, summed, and compared to
capital outlays to determine the economic feasibility of the potential in-
vestment.
In the analysis to be presented in the fpllowing section the
incremental NSPS control costs are superimposed o~ this model to determine
their effect on cash flow and the decision to invest in a new "grassroots"
or expanded plant for each size plant in each of the affected non-metallic
mineral industries identified for further analysis.
8-95
-------
The cash flows which are considered are:
1.
2.
Net earnings before interest and after tax.
Depreciation of the plant including control equipment.
3.
4.
Depletion.
Working capital recovery.
5.
Plant and control equipment investment.
For each year cash inflows 1 through 4 are added (working capital
recovery occurs only at the end of the life of the investment, the 20th
year) .
This resultant annual sum is discounted and the annual discounted
sums are totalled over the 20 year period.
This new sum is compared to
the discounted sum of the total investment including NSPS control invest-
mente
If the sum of the discounted cash inflows 1 through 4 is larger than
the discounted sum of cash outflow 5, the investment is economically
feasible even after the requirement of NSPS controls.
That an investment is found to be economically feasible does not
necessarily mean that the investment will be made by any individual firm.
Other forces or market concerns important to the company such as the desire
to diversify into other industries, or desire to expand through acquisitions
may preclude the new plant investment from being made.
The discount factors which are used to discount these flows are
determined by solving 1/(1 + i)n where i is the weighted average cost of
capital and n is the year from the beginning of the project.
In this case
n is from 1 to 20.
For each year of the 20 year investment span a different
discount factor is generated.
Each year's discounted cash flow shows the
present value of that cash flow.
The cost of capital is the weighted
8-96
-------
average financing expense of an investment that is financed partly through
debt and partly through equity.
Total plant investment was determined by the equipment needed for
quarrying. crushing. and, if appropriate, drying and grinding the mineral,
and added to the required NSPS control equipment capital cost developed in
Section 8.2 and working capital requirements.
8.4.2.1
Critical Elements
The following list provides the major critical elements of the
analysis for the significantly impacted industries:
.
Control cost absorption is 25 percent less every 4 years.
Maintenance expenditures over the life of the equipment
.
.
equal salvage value of the equipment.
The profit rate for new plants is the same as existing
plants.
.
All stationary plant equipment has a 20 year life with
the exception of rolling stock which has a 7 year life.
.
8,400 hours of operation per year is assumed for plants
with grinding capacity.
.
Cost of debt capital is 3 percent above the prime rate of
7 percent in 1976.
.
The total investment is financed 30 percent by debt and
70 percent by equity capital.
.
Weighted average cost of capital is 11.8 percent.
The debt financing maturity is 10 years for stationary
.
plants and control ir.vestment and 7 years for rolling
stock.
.
Rolling stock is 77.7 percent of quarry investment.
8-97
-------
Maintenance expenditures are a cash outflow over the life of the
equipment while the salvage value of the equipment is a cash inflow at
the time of sale.
No estimates of maintenance expenditures were found
during this analysis.
Salvage value of equipment generally runs from 25
to 30 percent of the original cost.
Since maintenance expenditures are
a negative cash flow and salvage value a positive cash flow and since
salvage value at the time of sale should be related to the amount of
maintenance put into the equipment it is assumed that they are equal
and counterbalance each other.
The profit rate on the new plant is assumed to be equal to an
existing plant although profit rates between a new and existing plant
will differ due to unique tax consequences and differences in technolo-
gical efficiencies.
It is felt that these two effects counterbalance
each other sufficiently for the purpose of this analysis.
The plant has a useful life of 20 years.
Equipment life varies among
the pieces of equipment used in the non-metallic mineral industry, but, on
average, the plant has a 20 year life.
In the analysis some account has
been given to this aspect by separating IIrolling stockll (mineral transport
vehicles) from stationary stock equipment and ascribing a 7 year life to
the rolling stock.
In those industries with grinding capacity, 8,400 hours of operation
is used to generate sales volume and revenue based on information supplied
by industry.
Industry representatives have stated that generally an investment
can be financed at 2 to 3% above the prime rate.
was utilized to reflect a conservative analysis.
A 3% above prime rate
8-98
-------
A weighted average cost of capital for the mining industry as a whole
of 11.8% and debt/equity financing of 30/70% is given by Dr. Gerald
Pogue (Section 8.4.2.2).
To the extent that particular non-metallic mineral
industries within the mining category experience a cost of capital of more
or less than 11.8%, the discounted cash flows will be different.
8.4.2.2
Data Sources
The following list provides the data sources for various aspects
of the analysis:
. Average Sell i ng Price - Bureau of Mines
. Profit Rates - Robert Morris Associates
- Industry Representatives
- Annual Reports
. Work i n9 Capita 1 - Robert Morris Associates
. Plant Investment - Barber-Green Co.
- Kennedy Von Saun Co.
- C. E. Raymond - Combustion Engineering
Inc.
.
Cost of Debt Capital
- Federal Reserve Bank
.
Cost of Capital,
Debt to Equity Ratio
- Industry Representatives
- "Estimation of the Cost of Capital for
Major U.S. Industries with Application
to Pollution Control Investments", Dr.
.
NSPS Control Costs,
Sizes and Operating
Gerald A. Pogue, 1975.
- Chapter 8.2
Hou rs
8-99
-------
.
Depreciation Schedules - Equipment Suppliers
Investment Tax Credit, - Internal Revenue Code
.
Depletion Allowance
.
Expected Life of
Equipment
- "Background Information
for the Non-Metallic Minerals
Industry," Vol. I, PEDCO Environ-
mental Specialists.
8.4.3 Screening Analysis
The first step in the analysis was to assess the effect on the 18
non-metallic mineral industries of NSPS control costs based on the ratio of
control cost per ton to price per ton.
This ratio represents annualized cost
per ton as percent of average price. Table 8-36 presents the results of
this analysis.
Table 8-36 shows 23 entries because clay has been disaggregated into
6 distinct categories.
For both those industries that fall under the Model
1 classification (crushing only) and Model 2 classification (crushing and
grinding) the impact is shown by dividing the annualized operating and
capital costs for control of the smallest size plant specified in Table
6.3 by the annual revenue of the mineral.
Because control costs per ton of mineral output are larger for the
smallest plant compared to the largest plant, this procedure inflates the
impact.
Since large plants dominate the production in most industries,
average industry impact based on this ratio would be substantially lower.
Average industry impact is shown in section 8.5.
Table 8-36 is not meant to
show industry impact but to be used as "worst case" screening method to
ascertain industries requiring further study.
8-100
-------
Industry
Pumice
Sand and Grave 1
Crushed Stone
Common Clay
Gypsum
Perl He
Table 8-36
RANK ORDER OF INDUSTRIES
WITH HIGHEST CONTROL COST IMPACT
Rank
-r
2
3
4
5
6
Control Cost/T~
Price/Ton{l
28.0%
15.8
13.4
11.7
5.0
4. 1
Candidates
for further
eva luat ion
Fire Clay
Bentonite
Ball Clay
Salt
Barite
Feldspar
Fuller I s Earth
Mica
Kao 1 in
Talc
Kyanite
Vermiculite
Fl uors pa r
Diatomite
Sodium Compounds
Boron
Gi lsonite
-------
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
14
17
18
18
18
18
22
23
25
2.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
.6
.6
.6
.4
.3
.3
.3
.3
.2
. 1
-(2)
(1) Based on smallest model size in industry.
(2) No price available - only 1 company producing approxi~ately
100,000 tpy.
8-101
-------
Any industry where the per ton control cost was larger than 2% of the average
price was considered to be potentially significantly impacted and worthy of
further evaluation.
Two percent was taken to be the cut-off point because
this rate, even in the worst case situations, is considerably lower than
the 5% industry average rate which is the EPA guideline for assessing major
economic impact.
The minerals considered tQ be potentially significantly
impacted are pumice, sand and gravel, crushed stone, common clay, gypsum,
and perl ite.
Perlite, gypsum and pumice have three stationary model plant sizes:
9, 23 and 68 Mg/hr (10, 25 and 75 tph).
and 136 Mg/hr (10, 25, 75 and 150 tph).
Common clay has four; 9, 23, 68
Both sand and gravel, and crushed
stone have six stationary model plant sizes, 9, 23, 68, 136, 272 and 544
Mg/hr (10, 25, 75, 150, 300 and 600 tph).
The portable plant segments of the
crushed stone, and sand and gravel industries are discussed in Supplement A.
Each of the six remaining potentially significantly affected miner-
als were then compared on the basis of relative prices, and the effect of
control costs on relative prices of the minerals, taking into account the
product substitutability among them.
This analysis showed that the "worst
case" situation was a new plant of any mineral competing with an existing
plant of the same mineral.
For each mineral, a baseline relative price was
computed.
This relative price was the ratio of the price of each mineral
to the price of each of the other minerals prior to NSPS control costs.
This baseline relative price ratio was then compared to the "worst case"
situation after the imposition of control costs, assuming all control costs
were passed through.
The "worst case" situation was the smallest size
plant of any mineral compared to the largest size plant of the remaining
8-102
-------
minerals since control costs per ton of output are larger for smaller
plants.
A decline in this ratio, price of other minerals after control
divided by the price of this mineral after control, indicates that other
minerals are becoming less expensive relative to this mineral and that
demand should significantly shift away from this mineral if the cross-
elasticity of demand is high.l Cross-elasticity of demand is dependent on
the minerals having acceptable substitutability potential.
The substitutability
potential was evaluated by comparing the mineral of interest to the two
minerals having the largest changes in relative prices.
In each case sub-
stitutability potential was rated only low to moderate because of the
product quality differences between the minerals and. the geographical
separation of deposits of different minerals.
For this reason the more
conservative scenario, a new plant of any mineral competing with an existing
plant of the same mineral, was employed in the analysis.
8.4.4 Plant Investment
Grassroots Plants
Investment costs were gathered for quarrying, crushing, and where
appropriate, drying and grinding equipment from equipment suppliers.
Tables 8-37 and 8-38 show the total investment costs for each size plant
studied in each industry.
For all plant sizes smaller than 136 Mg/hr (150
tph), quarrying and crushing plant costs were derived by use of the engineer-
ing 0.6 power capacity rule.
For the quarrying operation, rolling stock was
lCross-elasticity of demand is the percentage change in the quantity of
one product divided by the percentage change in price of another
product.
8-103
-------
Table 8-37
PLANT INVESTMENT COSTS1'
(in thousands of dollars)
Size
Mg/hr (tph)
9 23 68 136 272 544
Industry (10) (25) (75) (ISO) (300) (600)
Pumi Cf! $269.9 $ 410.4 $ 740.3 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sand & Gravel 236.9 374.4 693.2 $1,034.6 $2,03b.l $3,986.7
Crushed Stone 251. 1 399.6 742.9 1,139.0 2, 188.6 4,291.4
Common Clay 817.4 1,282.3 2,160.4 3, 118. 1 N.A. N.A.
Gypsum 664.9 1,058.3 1,850.2 N.A. N.A. N.A.
Perl He b~5.3 82 2 . 2 1 ,654. 1 N.A. N.A. N.A.
---------
lIncludes NSPS control capital costs and working capital.
N.A'Not Applicable because plants of this size are not likely to be
constructed in the absence of a NSPS.
8-104
-------
Table 8-38
EXPANSION INVtSTMENT COSTsl
(in thousands of dollars)
Industry
4.5
(5 )
Common Clay
$288.1
Gypsum
292.9
---~----
lIncludes NSPS control costs and working capital.
8-105
Size
Mg/hr (tph)
9
(10)
$421. 1
430.7
-------
separated from stationary stock by factoring total quarry investment cost
1
by 0.777.
All plant investment costs were deflated to fourth quarter,
1976 prices in order to make investment consistent with the derivation of
sales revenue which is based on fourth quarter, 1976 average selling
prices.
The investment deflator was calculated from the Chemical Engineer-
ing equipment cost index.
Once total plant investment was calculated and separated into sta-
tionary plant equipment and rolling stock, NSPS control cost investment
and working capital were added to stationary stock investment.
The debt
portion of the stationary stock investment was derived by using a 0.3 factor
specified by the Dr. Gerald Pogue study; i.e., 30% of investment financed
by the bank and 70% from the investor's own funds, equity.
Bank financing
for stationary stock debt was taken by 10%, 10 years, giving a capital
recovery factor (CRF) of 0.16275.
These industries are usually able to
receive financing at 2 to 3% above the prime rate.
In 1976 the prime
rate was approximately 7%.
The debt portion of rolling stock investment
was also established by using a 0.3 factor.
The rolling stock was assumed
to be financed at 10% over the useful life of the stock, 7 years.
The CRF
is 0.20541.
Subsequent purchase of new rolling stock to replace original
rolling stock was assumed to occur at the same price.
For both stationary
and rolling stock, the annual principal and interest payment were calculated.
lOerived from "The Crushed Stone Industry: Industry Characterization
and Alternative Emission Control Systems", Arthur O. Little, Inc.
where rolling stock equals 77.7% of total quarry plant costs.
8-106
-------
Expansion Plants
Investment costs for expansions consisted of 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tph) and 9 Mg/hr
(10 tph) grinding mill costs for the clay and gypsum industries only.
These
investment costs are shown in Table 8-38.
Debt financing was 30% of total
investment at 10% over 10 years.
8.4.5 Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
Table 8-39 which shows an analysis for construction of a new 136 Mg/hr
(150 tph) crushed stone plant is an example of the data sheets which were
developed for each of the plant sizes for each of the six potentially
significantly impacted industries.
The steps in the DCF analysis will be
described below using this example and referring to row entries in Table 8-39.
.
Row 1, revenue, was generated by multiplying hours of operation
by tons per hour of output and by the average F.O.B. plant sell-
ing price of the output.
This revenue estimate was assumed con-
stant for each year of the life of the investment.
For stationary
crushed stone plants, the plant was taken to operate at 50% of
capacity the first year as related by industry representatives.
Control equipment was assumed to be operating at 100 percent,
and therefore control operating costs are 100 percent.
.
Row 3, interest including control, was determined by calcula-
ting the principal and interest repayment schedule for the
plant investment without control investment.
.
Row 4, earnings before interest and tax, was derived by multi-
plying revenue by the before tax profit rate of row 2 and
adding back the interest of row 3.
8-107
-------
TABLE 8-39 DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW ANALYSES CRUSHED STONE PLANT
136 Mg/hr (150 tph) (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)
"11 "11 un 1- 1981 1- IIIJ ISM ,- ,- 1981 1- It"
l.nl'.~ ~/n.~ 17~.!t 11~!t 11D5.!t ,1ft.!t 11M!t "~.!t J'D!t!t J'~.!t 1f1J!t!t '~.!t 1990 1"1 ,- '"J I'" 1- I-
I 10- "rri 51'85.5
2 ,...ftt nU ..,.... ta.l '.n '.111 '.as '.ft '.as ,as 11:f ,1:r Il:r II:r ,as '.ft J185. 5 8715.5 $785.5 $?OS.5 J185.5 $7SS. ~
I r...rest ..cl""" eMlr.' ft. 7 21.4 24.' n 2 11.1 IS.I '.J 4.5 J.4 r:r f:r I:r J.r '.n ,... '.00
4 h"t 89S .'ere '.teN'S t I.J 4 5 J 4
... t.. 11.4 .., 11.4 IS 1 112 7t I 15.' 81 2 77.1 73' 89.8 18 66 ,
5 .....Hre4 C08tro1 cost 21.8 n.5 27.1 ZI.' K.I U 2 25.8 25 4 ZC, 24 4 II,' 11.' 11.' IS I 11 1 72 I 11 898 88 66 ,
. eo. tra 1 Cost Absot"t1e4 811 811 811 811 ZO 19 7 19.4 19 1 12 5 12,2 a 0 a 11/ 116' II' 11.' 11' II 9 11'
1 toatro1 laterest 1.1 I 4 I 1 2.8 2 5 2 1 17 I I .8 .1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 "t elrah..,s before i.terest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
..d after ca.lro1 11.1 66 8 .. I II 1 64 7 II 7 51.9 II 4 66 62 19 8 68 66 9
, fed"r.' tu. Ihbilt:t,. 65 J 711 72 I 71 89 8 18 66,9
(.150 conlderla, '"terest) 8 7 4 7 5 7 6 , I 9 I '.2 'I 11 0 III 16 5 17 17
7 4 7.5 7.6 , 1 9 1 9 2 9 I \7 17 \7 17 17
10 In't'ut8eat UI cred1t .8 11 0 11 I 9' 0 0 17 \7
11 Feelenl t.n lhbttftJ 0 17 15 a 0 0 0 0
.fter eredl t 0 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 0 6 6 17 11
IZ "hi.a. tll. 0 1 I 1 I 1 2 \.7 17 17 1 7 2 3 2 I 2 3 1 3 \7 a 2 17 17 17 \7
\) 2 1 8 1 8 \.8 2.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 1 3 2 I J J I J 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
SUIte t.. 1 6 3 2 ) 2 3.1
Ie let e....t.gs befa,.e 111t"rest, J 2 I 2 J 2 I 2 J 2 J 2 J.2
ex> .fter credit. C08trol I UI J7 I 63 8 61 J 58 6 60 8 57 8 54 59 S 61 I 51 1 57 7 '5 5 .. 4
I 15 Depl"'echtioll 0' 42 8 666 61 6 48 6 .7.' 45 6 CO 5
...... 5t.tlo..,., stock 64. I 641 64 I "1 641 64 1 641 6<1 6' 1 14 I 0 0
0 0 a 0 0
a 16 Deprect.t10n 0' 45 6
ex> ro1''', stock 45.6 456 45 6 45.6 45 6 45~ 45 6 45 6 45,6 45 6 4S 6 45.6 45 1 45.6
17 Deprechttoa 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Q
18 ~p1ettDD SI Z 18 18.2 18.' 11 7 21' zza Z2 2 2S S 15 6 11 8 )1 8 31 8
31. 8 Jl 8 II 8 11 8 JI 8 JI 8 11.8
19 Ifor'hg uptu1 recowery
ZO tlSlI tane. 161. Z03 7 201 4 198 9 204.4 201,6 197' 201 6 208 5 204 6 U5 1 122 9 ZI I
.8945 80 .7156 84 5725 .512 458 111 8 120 2 144 121
21 "seo.at factor ,4097 3665 3278 2931 2622 141 Ire 8 1Z3 150 I
n Dtscoa.te41 a:Y 1nf1Q11 144 163 1U.1 121.1 117. 103 I t06 8J' 76 4 2346 lOtR .1877 1619 1501 1141 IZOI
67,1 19 7 n.2 28 5 .1014
ZJ c.s. o.tf1.. 1111.0 126 25 2 27 21 7 18 9 16.8 14 8 11.1
Z4 Disco..tH us, JZ8
o.tfh", 1111.0 131 80
leu1 OiscouDtH CH1118f'k1f 1~
'eu1 Dlsco..tH GIis.aI Qgtf1Q11 Ua2.0 8-110
-------
.
Row 5 shows the NSPS annualized control costs for each year.
Since depreciation for control equipment was taken to be
straight line over 10 years, the years from 1987 onward show
only annual operating costs.
Row 6, control cost absorbed, reflects the scenario mentioned
.
in Section 8.4.2, methodology.
For the first 4 years all
control cost is assumed to be absorbed because the plant is
competing with existing established plants which have no NSPS
costs.
Therefore, the new plant must absorb the entire cost.
In the years 1981 to 1985 the plants must absorb 75% of the
cost and can pass through 25% because other new plants are
being established.
New plants must, then, meet NSPS costs.
For each succeeding 4 year period, the plant absorbs 25%
less of the original cost.1 Since in the year 1987 total
operating costs are less than control cost absorbed in 1986, all
operating costs are assumed to be passed through in the years
from 1987 to 1996.
.
Row 7, control interest, was derived by calculating the prin-
cipal and interest repayment schedule for the NSPS control
investment.
1The increased revenue from cost pass through is not shown since we
are only interested in the effect of cost absorption on net earnings.
8-109
-------
.
Row 8, net earnings before interest and after control, shows
the effect of NSPS absorbed control costs on the earnings
potential of the plant.
Absorbed control costs are subtracted
from Row 4 and control interest of Row 7 is added back.
Adding
back of interest is required in the model because
-tho ~; ~ I"'nlln+-
""'1'- ""IJ\.oVUII\..
.
factors taken into consideration the repayment of the loan.
Row 9, federal tax liability, is derived by multiplying net
.
earnings after control by the appropriate marginal tax rates.
Row 10, investment tax credit, considers the effect of the 10%
inves~ment tax credit on the tax liability of the plant.
(The investment tax credit can be carried forward 7 years or
until 10% of the investment is credited, whichever comes first.
The tax credit cannot be greater than tax liability and for tax
liabilities over $25,000 the credit is calculated as $25,000
plus 50%. of the 1iaQi1ity over $25,000. For example, in year
1977 tax liability is $800, therefore, the credit is $800 since
the credit cannot be greater than tax liability. In year 1978
the same reasoning applies. If tax liability had been $30,000,
then the credit would have been $25,000 + (0.5) $5,000 or $27,500.
.
Row 11, federal tax liability after credit, is tax liability
minus the investment tax credit.
.
Row 12, minimum tax, shows the 15% minimum tax on tax prefer-
ence items.
In this analysis the only tax preference item is
the depletion allowance.
.
Row 13, state tax, is assumed to be 5% of net earnings.
The
.
5% rate is the most common rate of the majority of states.
Row 14, net earnings before interest after credit, control and
tax, shows the effect of NSPS control costs and the investment
tax credit on after tax earnings.
It is derived by subtracting
8-110
-------
. federal tax liability after credit, the minimum tax and state
tax, from Row 8.
As can be seen, this figure varies over the
years as control cost absorbed is lowered and as the original
tax credit is exhausted and credit for new rolling stock is
~_I......- ....-,.1 "V,",~II"'~n'" '3",,,",
l.OI\t::11 allY Cl\llaU~ ,,~u "",.1\,1
"'t' ;n+",,,,,,,t'+ n::l\lmon+~ ::1\"0 \"orl"r~rI
U~ 111""~I\"o...;l"" t"UJIU_""""'" ......- --------
Net
earnings before interest after credit, control and tax is the
first category of our cash flow.
All succeeding categories
also affect cash flow.
Row 15 is added to Row 14 and represents depreciation of
stationary stock, depreciated straight lin~ over 10 years.
Row 16, depreciation of rolling stock, is added to the above.
This depreciation, which is taken over 7 years, comes into
play in later years as new rolling stock is purchased in
years 1984 and 1991.
Row 17, depreciation of control equipment, is taken over 10
years and added to the other depreciable equipment.
Row 18, depletion, is added to the cash flow since all of
these industries are in the mining classification and deple-
tion allowance increases cash flow.
(Depletion can be taken in one of two ways: cost depletion or
percentage depletion. Cost depletion is dependent on the cost
basis of the land, amount of mineral mined and estimated amount
of mineral reserves. Percentage depletion is based on a
specified percentage of sales revenue, the percentage differs
by industry, to a maximum of 50% of taxable income before
depletion is counted. Cost depletion cannot be calculated here
because it is site specific; i.e., dependent on the cost of the
property and reserves on the property. In any case, most
companies generally use percentage depletion. In the example
depletion is shown as $2,000 in 1977. The percentage depletion
allowance for stone is 5%. For 1977 this amounts to $17,600,
but the plant can only use $2,000 because of the 50% taxable
income limit.) -
8-11 ]
-------
.
Row 19, working capital recovery, shows that at the end of the
project working capital is recovered.
Working capital is taken
to be 4% of revenue.
.
Row 20, cash inflow, shows for each year the expected total of
the above cash flow categories, and is the amount which must be
discounted to the present by the discount factors shown in row
21.
Row 22 is the result; i.e., Row 20 multiplied by Row 21.
.
Row 23, cash outflow, shows the investment expenditures necessary
to establish the operation.
Investment of $1.1 million is made
initially and subsequent rolling stock investment is made in
years 1984 and 1991.
These cash outflows are discounted by the
appropriate discount factors of Row 21.
Row 24 is the result.
The weighted average cost of capital of 11.8% generates the discount
factor for each year of the 20 year period.
These factors show the present
value of a dollar of future cash flow for each future year.
After the
annual cash flows are discounted, they are summed to derive the present
value of the cash inflows over the life of the project.
This cash inflow
is then compared to the cash outflow, which is the present value of the
total investment.
In this example the present value of net cash inflows
. is greater than the present value of cash outflows, so that an investment
in a 136 Mg/hr (150 tph) crushed stone plant with NSPS controls attached is
profitable at a weighted average cost of capital of 11.8%.
8.4.6 Findings
Table 8-40 presents the results of this analysis for each size plant
of the potentially significantly affected industries.
For the 9 and 23
Mg/hr (10 and 25 tph) sand and gravel, and crushed stone plants the DCF
8-112
-------
Tab 1 e 8-40
SUMMARY OF DCF RESULTS
Grassroots Plants
Investment Decision
Size - MWahr (tons per hour) 544
9 23 136 272-
Industry (10) (25) (75) (150) (300) (600)
Pumi ce NF F F N.A. N.A. N.A.
Sand &. Gravel NFl NFl Al F F F
Crushed Stone NFl NFl Al F F F
Common Clay NF A F F N.A. N.A.
GYP~ulII A F F N.A ~I. A. N.A.
Perlile F F F N.A. N.A. N.A.
1.
Equipment suppliers and industry representatives do not expect
plants of this size to be constructed even in the absence of
NSPS.
Key:
F -
NF -
A -
N.A. -
economically feasible to construct
not economically feasible to construct
ambiguous
Not Applicable because plants of this size are not
likely to be constructed in the absence of NSPS.
8-113
-------
analysis indicates that the investment is not economically feasible. The
same result holds for the 9 Mg/hr (10 tph) common clay plant.
For the 68 Mg/hr (75 tph) sand and gravel, and crushed stone plants, the
23 Mg/hr (25 tph) common clay plant and the 9 Mg/hr (10 tph) gypsum plant, the
DCF analysis showed negative discounted cash flows ranging from less than 2%
of total investment for common clay to approximately 16% for gypsum.
An
internal rate of return (IRR) was calculated for each of these four model
plants.
The internal rate of return is that rate which makes the discounted
,cash outflow.
The IRR varied from approximately 8.5% for gypsum to slightly
less than 10% for common clay.
Since the net discounted cash flows were only
slightly negative; i.e., the IRR was fairly close to 11.8% cost of capital,
small changes in the parameters of the worst case analysis would produce
. positive net discounted cash flows.
For this reason the 68 Mg/hr t75 tph)
sand and gravel, and crushed stone plants, the 23 Mg/hr (25 tph) common clay
plant and the 9 Mg/hr (10 tph) gypsum plant are determined to be economically
feasible to construct, if the conservative assumptions used throughout this
report are relaxed.
Table 8-41 shows the results of the DCF analysis on expansions of 4.5
and 9 Mg/hr (5 and 10 tph) grinding capacity in the common clay and gypsum
industries.
In the analysis the expansion was assumed to take place in the
smallest size existing plant; i.e., 9 Mg/hr (10 tph), in order to provide a
"worst case" situation.
The control costs were assumed to be spread over both
new and existing output based on the ratio of new to existing output.
As is
shown in Table 8-41, all expansion size plants except the 4.5 Mg/hr (5 tph)
common clay plant were determined to be economically feasible to construct.
8-114
-------
Table 8-41
SUMMARY OF DCF RESULTS
Expansions
Investment Dec;son
INDUSTRY
4.5
(5)
Size
Mgjhr (tph)
9
(10)
Common Clay
Gypsum
Key:
F - economically feasible to construct
A - ambiguous
R-115
A
F
F
F
-------
It should be kept in mind that because an investment is found to be
economically feasible from a DCF analysis it does not necessarily mean
that the investment will, in fact, be made by a company.
NSPS control costs will not significantly affect those non-
metallic mineral industries for which a DCF analysis was not performed.
As seen in Table 8-36 the greatest potential NSPS control cost absorp-
tion is less than or equal to 2% of product price, since'these non-metallic
minerals all have a higher product price than those non-metallic minerals
for which a DCF analysis was performed.
The process economics are similar
for both industries for which a DCF analysis was performed and for which a
DCF analysis was not performed.
Since the DCF analysis was favorable for
industries whose potential control cost absorption was equal to or greater
than 4% of product price, the DCF analysis will be favorable for industries
where this ratio was equal to or less than 2%.
For this reason a DCF
analysis performed on each of those 17 non-metallic minerals excluded from
further consideration in Table 8-36 would show an economically feasible
investment decision for all size new plants.
Crushing and grinding facilities are also a portion of production
operations whose final output is not a specific type of non-metallic
mineral, such as at lime and power plants; i.e, crushing and grinding are
intermediate processes in these industries.
These intermediate processing facilities are usually constructed
by firms in the above mentioned industries because the need for the
non-metallic mineral is large enough to support such a facility.
Such
8-116
-------
intermediate facilities can produce the requisite size mineral at a
lower cost to the firm than can be attained from buying the mineral from an
independent producer.
Consequently, .some cost increase could be sustained by
intermediate processing facilities and still permit them to be competitive
with firms that purchase the requisite size material from independent
producers.
Furthermore, the intermediate processor is able to spread
the incremental cost over a final product whose selling price is larger
than that of the non-metallic mineral input, and, thus can more readily
pass on these costs.
Finally, because of their affiliation with larger
companies, these facilities would tend to have a lower cost of capital.
Therefore, the investment decision resulting froln the DCF analysis for
various plant sizes in the non-metallic mineral industries per se would
likely hold for intermediate processing facilities (that are part of
other facilities).
8.5 POTENTIAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND INFLATIONARY IMPACTS
8.5.1
Industry Cost Totals
Table 8-42 presents the upper limit to the number of typical new
plants which will be constructed in each industry in each of 5 years
based on projected industry growth and the typical plant size in each
industry.
The projections of new plants required is based on growth from
1975 production statistics and assumes that 1975 production equals capacity.
To the extent that actual production was lower than capacity production,
the number of estimated typical size plants required each year will be
lower.
Therefore required total industry annualized control costs will be
lower.
8-117
-------
Table 8-43 indicates the cumulative annualized industry capital and
operating costs in 1976 dollars to meet the NSPS standard.
The totals are
derived by multiplying the estimated number of typical plants to be con-
structed in each year by the annualized control costs for these size plants.
As can be seen, the crushed stone industry would have the largest annualized
costs by the fifth year, $19.2 million.
Table 8-44 shows the average annualized cost per ton of output in the
fifth year after control.
These figures are based on the estimated cumu-
lative annualized costs in the fifth year, Table 8-43, divided by the estimated
total industry production in the fifth year.
Kyanite shows the largest
industry cost per ton of $0.137 per ton.
Table 8-44 also shows that control
cost per ton as a percent of price per ton is highest for pumice, 1.7%.
New regulations shall be considered a major action if "additional
annualized cost of compliance, including capital charges (interest and
depreciation), will total $100 million (i) within anyone of the first
5 years of implementation, or (ii) if applicable, within any calendar
year up to the date by which the law requires attainment of the relevant
pollution standard," or "total additional cost of production of any major
industry product or service will exceed 5 percent of the selling price of
the product. II
Total industry annualized control cost in the fifth year
after promulgation of NSPS and c9ntrol cost as a percent of selling price
are lower than the guidelines set for these measures o~ $100 million
for annualized capital and operating expense and 5 percent, respectively.
8-118
-------
TABLE 8-42 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF TYPICAL NEW PLANTS REQUIRED TO
MEET PROJECTED PRODUCTION*
Typical Growth
Industry size rate 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
(Mg/hr) (%)
Pumice 9 3.5 2 2 2 2 2
Sand and Gravel '1.72 1.0 14 14 14 14 15
Crushed Stone 272 4.0 72 75 78 81 85
Common Clay 23 3.5 10 10 10 11 11
Gyps U'n 23 2.0 1 1 1 1 1
Perlite 23 4.0 1 1 1
Rock Salt 68 2.0 2 2 3 3 3
Sodium Compounds 23 2.5 1 1 1
Talc 9 4.0 1 1 1
Barite 9 2.2 1
Boron 272 5.0
Fluorspar 9 3.0 1
Feldspar 9 4.0 1
Diatomite 23 5.5 1
Vermiculite 68 4.0 1
Mica 9 4.0 1
Kyani te 9 6.0 1
Gil soni te \ 9
-~. ._------
---- _.- - --- --
*
Whenever the projected production for a given year was not
enough to justify the building of a new typical size plant, no
new plants were assumed to be built.
8-119
-------
TABLE 8-43 ANNUALIZED CAPITAL AND OPERATING CONTROL
COSTS FOR NEW PLANT CONSTRUCTION
Annualized cost
Industry (in thousands of dollars)
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
Pumice 42.4 84.8 127.2 169.6 212.0
Sand and gravel 777 1 ,554 2,331 3,108 3,940.5
Crushed stone 3,996 8 , 1 58 . 5 12,487.5 16,983 21,700.5
Common clay 234 468 702 959.4 1,216.8
Gypsum 23.4 46.8 70.2 93.6 117
Perl ite 16 32 32 48
Rock sal t 46.8 93.6 163.8 234 304.2
Sodium compounds 23.4 46.8 70.2 70.2
Talc 21.2 424 42.4 63.6
Barite 21.2 21.2 21.2
Boron
Fluorspar 21.2
Feldspar 21.2 21.2 21.2
Diatomite 23.4 . 23.4 23.4
Vermi cul ite 23.4
Mica 21.2
Kyani te 21.2
Gilsonite
Total 27,825.6
8-120
-------
TABLE 8-44 ANNUALIZED CONTROL COST PER TQN OF INDUSTRY
OUTPUT IN 5TH YEAR AND CONTROL COST AS PER-
CENT OF SELLING PRICE
Control cost Annualized cost/ton
Industry per ton
($) f price/ton
Pumice 0.043 1. 7 %
Sand and gravel 0.005 0.2
Crushed stone 0.018 0.8
Common clay 0.019 0.9
Gypsum 0.01 0.2
Perl ite 0.051 0.3
Rock sa It 0.017 O. 1
Sodium compounds 0.012 0.03
Talc 0.049 0.1
Ba rite 0.014 O. 1
Boron
Fluorspar 0.123 0.1
Feldspar 0.023 o. 1
Diatomite 0.026 0.03
Vermiculite 0.052 0.1
Mica 0.116 0.3
Kyani te 0.137 0.2
Gilsoni te
---
*
Based on 1976 average F.O.B. mine selling price
and 1978 production figures. \
8-121
-------
APPENDIX A
EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
A-l
-------
TABLE A- 1.
EVOLUTION OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION DOCUMENT
Date Company, consultant or aglncy Location Nature of action
04/30/73 Arizona Portland Cement Rill1to, Arh. Presurve~ two sources. '
Ideal Cement Tijeras, N. Mex. Inspect aul road fugitive dust control
Albuquerque Gravel Products Albuquerque, N. Mex. technique.
09/13/73 Harry T. Campbell and Sons Texas, Md. Measure visible emissions from the
Texas Plants asphalt batch plant.
10/13/73 Nello L. TIer Company Raleigh, N.C. Inspect stone ,processing and quarrying
operations.
01/16/74 Paul Lime Plant, Inc. Douglas, Arh. Presurvey two quarries and stone pro-
Arizona Portland Cement Co. Rillito, Ariz. cessing plants for particulate testing.
02/13/74 Ideal Cement Co. Tijeras, N. Mex. Inspect crushed stone plants
Albuquerque Gravel Products, Inc. Albuquerque, N. Mex.
H.G. Fenton Material Co. San Oiego, Calif.
OS/28/74
to
05/31/74
Dracut, Mass.
Essex 8ituminous Concrete Corp.
Essex 8ituminous Concrete Corp.
Blue Rock Industries
Lynn Sand and Stone Co.
Massachusetts Broken Stone Co.
Peabody, Mass.
Westbrook, Maine
Swampscott, Mass.
Weston, Mass.
05/14/74 Kentucky Stone Co.
to
05/15/74 Caldwell Stone Co.
Russellville, Ky.
06/03/74 Arizona Portland Cement Company
Danv111e, Ky.
R1111to, Ariz.
06/02/74 Arizona Portland Cement Company
R1111to, Arh.
08/06/74 General Crushed Stone Co.
to pennsy Supply Inc.
08/08/74 J. M. Brenner Stone Co.
09/16/74 Essex Bituminous Concrete Co.
Quakertown, Pa.
Harri sburg, Pa.
Lancas ter, Pa.
Dracut, Mass.
10/28/74
Kentucky Stone Co.
Russellville, Ky.
11/19/74
J. M. Brenner Co.
Lancaster, Pa.
12/27/74 Essex Bituminous Concrete Co.
Dracut, Mass.
} presurveys of five crushed stone plants
for testing
t Presurveys of two crushed stone plants
~ for testing.
Conduct emission tests for particulate
emission
Test report for particulate emission
testing.
Presurveys for particulate emission tests.
Trip report of emission tests on stone
crushing operations.
Tests conducted for process and fugitive
emissions.
Source test of two baghouse operations
at crushed stone plant.
Source testing report of stone crushing
operation.
(continued)
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l
(continued)
Dati Company, consultant or agency Location
12/20174 F,.rrantr Rnd Son~ Bernard~ville, N.J.
06/30175 Kentucky Stone Co. Russellville, Ky.
07/0B175 Arizona Portland Cement Ri 11 ito, Ariz.
11/13175 Massachusetts Broken Stone Co. Weston, Mass.
04/13/76 Blue Ridge Stone Corp. Martinsville, Va.
05/06176 Potash Company of AmerIca Carlsbad, N. Mex.
OS/27176 Dravcn Corp. Newtown, Ohio
05/12/76 GREFLo, Inc.
Socorro. N. Mex.
05/11/76 U.S. Borax
Boron, Ca 1 if .
OS/27176
Oravco Corp.
Newtown, Ohio
06/10/76 rlintkote Co.
Las Vegas, Nev.
06/24/76 Englehard Minerals and
Chemicals Co.
Attapulgus, Ga.
06/23/16 Georgia Kaolin Co.
Dry Branch, Ga.
07/0R/76 Standard Slag Co.
Warren, Ohio
, 07/09/76
01ark-Mahoning Co.
Rosiclare, 111.
07/07/76 International 5Rlt Co.
Retsof, N.Y.
07/06/76 Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.
Johnson, Vt.
08/26/76 Massachusetts Broken Stone
Weston, Mass.
09127176
International Minerals and
Chemicals Corp.
Spruce Pine, N.C.
Source sampling at feldspar milling
operation for particulates.
(continued)
A-3
Nature of action
Emission test report of stone
cruShlnq operatlun.
Source tests on primary, secondary
crushers, three deck screens, and
crusher feed hopper.
Trip report of visible emissions obser-
vations at stone crushing facility.
Report on observation of visible emis-
sion at stone processing operation.
Plant visit to study process operation
at crushed stone plant.
Plant visIt to study processing of
potash ore.
Plant visit to study processing of
sand and gravel and the resultant
particulate emissions.
Plant visit to study processing of
perlite ore and the resultant par-
ticulate emissions.
Plant vIsit to study processing of
borate ore and resultant particulate
emissIons.
Plant visIt made by PEDCo Environmental
SpecialIsts, Inc.
Plant visit made by PEDCo and EPA to
study gypsum processing operations.
Plant visit to observe fuller's earth
processing and resultant particulate
emissions.
Plant VISIt to observe kaolin proces-
sing operations and resultant particu-
late emissions.
Plant visIt to observe slag processing
and resultant particulate emissions.
Plant visit to observe fluorspar pro-
cessin9 and resultant particulate
emissions.
Plant visIt to observe rock salt pro-
cessing and resultant particulate
emissions.
Plant visit to observe talc pro-
cessing and resultant particulate
emissions.
Visible emissions tests conducted at
stone processing operations.
-------
TABLE A-I (continued)
N~ture of ~ction
Date
Company, consultant or ~gency
-------:: -
10/25/76 Fllntkote Co.
10/21/16 Eastern Magnesia Talc Co.
11/10/16
05/fJ9/77 Pfeizer Inc.
05/10/17 John~-Manvil'e Corp.
06/20/77 Pfe1zer, Inc.
06/20/77 Pfp1zpr, Inc.
07/11/78 National Air PollutIon -
Control TeChniques and
Advi~ory Committee
(NAPer /lC)
08/16/18 National Asphalt Pavement
Anociation
08/29/78 Kaolin Industry
09/14/78 National Slag Association
10/03/78 National Limpstone Institute
12/05/78 Georgia Kaolin Company
12/06170 Thiele Kaolin Company
12/20/78 Edward C. Levy Co.
01/09/79 Colorado Sand and r.ravel
Associ ation
01/10/79 North State Pyrophyllite Compa~
01/22/79 Gypsum As~ociation
02/21/19
to
02/23/79
Colorado ~and and Gravel
Association
~ -~ -----
-. ----.. ----
--- ---
Location
StatIonary source testing of gypsum
mIllIng operation.
-'-
Olue Diamond, Nev.
Johnson, Vt.
Victorville, Calif.
Lompoc, Ca Iff .
Victorville, Calif.
Victorville, Calif.
Haleiqh, N.C.
Durham, N.C.
Durham, N.C.
Durham, N. C.
Washington, D.C.
Dry Branch, Ga.
Sandersville, Ga.
Detroit, Mi.
Durham, N. C.
Greensboro, N.C.
Durham, N.C.
(Jenver, Co 1 .
~tationary source testing at several
milling operations at talc processing
plant.
')ource samlJle analysis for physical
characterlstics of particulate samples
from severa1 plants.
presurvey talc grInding operations for
possible source testing.
presurvey diatomite processing oper-
ations for possible source testing.
Source test on pebble mill at talc pro-
cessing plant.
Source emISSIon test report performed
by Paclf,c Environmental ServIces, Inc.
MeetIng with non-metallic industry
spokesmen to discuss proposed NSPS.
Meeting with National Asphalt Pavement
Association to discuss proposed NSPS.
Meeting between EPA and the Kaolin
Industry to discuss the proposed NSPS
as it pertains to the Kaolin Industry.
Meeting between EPA and the associa-
tion to discuss the proposed NSPS as
it pertains to the slag industry.
Meeting between Institute and EPA to
discuss proposed NSPS as it pertains to
the limestone industry.
Source test report on Raymond Impact
Mill and Roller Mill.
Fugitive emission testing at product
lo~ding facility at kaolin plant.
Plant visit by GCA/Technology Division
to observe slag procps~ing and
resultant particulate emission.
Source testing performed by Cl~yton
Associates same date.
Meeting with EPA to discuss proposed
NSPS.
Meeting with GCA/Technology Division
to discuss problems plant would have
with proposed NSPS.
Meeting between the Association and
EPA to discuss the proposed NSPS as
it pertains to the gypsum industry.
GCA/Tpchnology DivIsion visited sev-
eral sand and gravel processing plants
and met with the Association to
discuss the proposed NSPS as well as
to observe process and emission
control techniques used at the sand and
gravel pI ants.
- --------------
(cont inued)
-------. -------------
A-4
-------
TABLE A-l
(continued)
Date
-- - -- ------ - -~~--~-~--- --- -- - --- -~-_._~-------
------- - ---------- ------- - -----
03/06/79 Refractories Institute
Company, consultant, or aqency
LocatIon
--------------- -- ---------
Ourham, N.C
Opa 1, Pa.
Durham, N. C
PhiladelphIa, Pa
N Branford. Conn.
Colorado SprIngs, Colo.
Eagle, Colo
Morrlson, Colo
Oenver. Colo
Golden. Colo
Chico, Tex
Bridgeport. Tex.
Helena, Ala.
Newman, Ga.
Augus ta, Ga
Colunt)1a. S C.
Rocky Mount, N.C
Manakln. VA
Strafford, Va.
Frederlck. Md
James town, N C.
Stonevllle. N C
Helena, Ala
Colorado SprIngs. Colo.
Oenver. Colo
Stafford, Va
Frederl ck, Md.
Durham. N C
Ourham. N C
Durham. N C
------
04/03/79 P-Stone, Incorporated
04/19/79
Iowa Manufacturing ro
08/15-79 Johnson-March Company
08/24/79
to
08/31/79
09/06/79
to
09/17/79
10/0217')
to
10/30/79
1O/1~/79
11/20/79
0111~/fI(l
Tillcon- Tomas'o, Inr
Cas tIe Conr'rete [0
Schmldt-Tlago (,onHruct'on (,0
Cooley Gravel Co
Brannan Sand and Gravel Co
Mobile Pre-Mix Co
G1 fford-lit 11 ~ [0
Lone Star Industries
Vulcan Materials Co
Vulcan Material~ (,0
Martin-Marietta Co
Martin-Marietta ro
Nello L. Teer Co
Luck Quarries
Vulcan Materlal~ Co
Flintkote Stone Product~ Co
Martin-Marietta ro
Vulcan Material~ Co
Vulcan MaterIals
Castle Concrete (,0
Brennan Sand & Gravel Co
Vulcan Materials Co.
F Ii ntkote Stone Products (,0
Southern Call fornla Rork
Products Association
r.enn) 1.1 Kao 11 n I nduq ry
Nattonal Cru~hed 'tone
A-"or lation.National >and ~
l,r,lv,,1 A~sor.iatfon
Nature of actIon
Meeting between Institute and EPA to
dlSCUSS the proposed NSPS as it pertains
to the Refractories Industry.
Plant visIt by GCA/Technology Division to
lnvestigate portable plant using baghouse
to control dust emItted by process.
Meeting between company and EPA to
discuss the proposed NSPS as It pertains
to the crushed stone Industry.
MeetIng wIth GCA/Technology Division to
gather Information on wet dust suppression
control systems.
Presurvey ten stone crushIng and sand
and gravel plants by GCA/Technology
Dlvlslon for visIble emission testing.
(Plants controlled by wet suppression.)
Presurvey ten stone crushlng and sand
and gravel plants by GCA/Technology
Dlvlslon for VISlblD emlssion testing.
(Plants controlled by wet suppression.)
Vlslble ennssion testlng at several
crushers, screens. transfer pOInts, etc.
controlled by wet suppression at five
crushed stone and sand and gravel
plants.
Meetlng between association and EPA to
dlSCUSS anVlent monitorlng data performed
by the assoCIatIon
Meetlng between lndustry representatIves
and EPA to dIscuss the proposed NSPS as It
pertaIns to the Kaolin Industry.
Meetlng between a~~oclations and EPA to
dIscuss recent visIble emIssIon tests
performep by EPA and ambIent monitoring
data performed by the assocIation,.
- - --- ------ ---- -- --------- ------ ---
-- . ----- ----~---------_._---------- --~--
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
INDEX TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
This appendix consists of a reference system, cross-indexed with the
October 21,1974 FEDERAL REGISTER (39 FR 37419) containing the Agency guide-
lines concerning the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. This
index can be used to identify sections of the document which contain data
and information germane to any portion of the FEDERAL REGISTER guidelines.
B-1
-------
APPENDIX B
Cross-Indexed Reference System to Highlight Environmental Impact Portions
of the Document
Agency Guidelines for Preparing Regulatory
Action Environmental Impact Statements
(39 FR 37419)
Location Within the Background Information Document
(1)
Background and summary of regulatory
alternatives
The regulatory alternatives from which standards
will be chosen for proposal are summarized in
Chapter 1, section 1.1, pages 1-1 through 1-4.
Statutory basis for proposing standards
The statutory basis for proposing standards is
summarized in Chapter 2, section 2.1, pages 2-1
through 2-6.
cc
t
N
Relationship to other regulatory agency
actions
The various relationships between the regulatory
agency actions are discussed in Chapters 3, 7, and 3.
A discussion of the industries affected by the regulatory
alternatives is presented in Chapter 3, section 3.1,
pages 3-1 through 3-12. Further details covering
the "business/economic" nature of the industries is
presented in Chapter 8, secion 8.1, pages 8-1 through
8-51.
Industry affected by the regulatory
alternatives
Specific processes affected by the
regulatory alternatives
The specific processes and facilities affected by
the regulatory alternatives are summmarized in Chapter
1, section 1.1, pages 1-1 through 1-4. A detailed
technical discussion of the sources and processes
affected by the regulatory alternatives is presented in
Chapter 3, section 3.2, pages 3-12 through 3-51.
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
A test program was undertaken by EPA to evaluate the best particulate
control techniques available for controlling particulate emissions from
non-metallic mineral plant process operations including crushers, screens
and material handling operations, especially conveyor transfer points.
In
addition, a control technique for grinding operations was also evaluated.
This appendix describes the process operations tested (their operating con-
ditions, characteristics of exhaust gas streams and, where applicable, de-
viations from prescribed test procedures) and summarizes the results of the
particulate emission tests and visible emission observations.
Sixteen baghouse collectors controlling process operations at five
crushed stone installations (three limestone and two traprock), one kaolin,
and one fuller's earth plant were tested using EPA Reference Method 5 except
as noted in the facility descriptions for determination of particulate matter
from stationary sources.
Baghouse collectors utilized to control particulate
emissions from grinding operations at a feldspar, gypsum, and two talc plants
were also tested, but EPA Reference Method 17 was used for determina~ion of
particulate matter.
Results of the front-half catches (probe and filter)
from the particulate emission measurements conducted are shown in Figure C-l
and the complete results are summarized in the Tables herein.
Visible emission observations were made at the exhaust of each of the
above control devices in accordance with procedures recommended in EPA
C-l
-------
Reference Method 9 for visual determination of the opacity of emissions from
stationary sources.
At the hoods and collection points for the process facilities, the visible
emission opacity observations were made in accordance with procedures recommen-
ded in EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 and the data are presented in terms of
percent of time equal to or qreater than a given opacity or in percent of total
time of visible emissions as in Table 102.
Visible emission observations were
also made at four crushed stone, two sand and gravel plants and a feldspar
crushing plant where particulate emissions are controlled by dust suppression
techniques.
The results of these tests are given in Table 102 (Method 22 data)
and Figures 2 through 6 (Method 9 data).
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
Al.
Primary crushing stage incorporating a pan feeder, vibrating grizzly,
impact breaker, T-bar belt feeder and a primary belt conveyor.
The impactor
is rated at 1,000 TPH and used to reduce run-of-quarry limestone (cement rock)
to 2 1/2-inch minus.
Particulate emissions generated at various points are
confined, captured and vented to a jet pulse type baghouse for collection.
Tests were conducted only during periods when the process was operating
normally.
Particulate measurements were performed using EPA Method 5.
Visible
emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust and at capture points
in accordance with EPA Method 9.
A2.
Prima~y scalping scr~en used for scalping the primary crusher
product of facility Al.
The plus 2 1/2-inch oversize is chuted to a belt
conveyor and returned to the primary for recrushing.
The screen throughs
are also discharged to a conveyor and transported to a storage facility.
Particulate emissions generated from the top of the screen, which is
totally enclosed, and from both chute-to-belt transfer points are aspirated
to a jet pulse baqhouse for collection.
Tests, usin~ EPA Method 5, were
C-2
-------
conducted simultaneously with those at facility Al.
three tests runs reported herein was overisokinetic.
Sampling during all
Visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust using EPA Method 9.
A3.
Conveyor transfer point at the tail of an overland conveyor, also
located at installation Al.
The 30-inch belt conveyor has a 900 TPH
capacity at a belt speed of 700 FPM.
The transfer point is enclosed and
emissions vented to a small baghouse unit for collection.
Three particulate
samples were collected using EPA Method 5.
Visible emission observations
were made at the baghouse outlet and at the transfer point using EPA
Method 9.
A4.
The secondary crushing and screening stage at installation Al.
consisting of a vibrating screen and a cone crusher.
Minus 2 1/2-inch
material is fed to the screen at about 165 TPH where it is separated in two
fractions, plus 3/4-inch and 3/4-inch minus.
The oversize fraction is
discharged to the cone crusher and reduced to 3/4-inch.
The crusher product
and screen throughs are then conveyed to a milling circuit.
Dust control
is effected by capturing and venting emissions from the screen and crusher
to a jet pulse baghouse for collection.
Both particulate measurements and
visible emission observations were made at the collector outlet using EPA
Methods 5 and 9, respectively.
Bl.
Primary impact crusher used for the initial reduction of run-of-
quarry limestone rock to three inches.
The normal production rate through
this primary crushing stage is 350 TPH.
Particulate emissions are collected
from the impact crusher at its discharge hopper and from the discharge hopper
to primary conveyor belt transfer point and then controlled by a fabric filter
C-3
-------
collector.
The fabric filter is mechanically shaken twice daily for
EPA Method 5 was used for particulate measurements and EPA
cleaning.
Method 9 was used for visible emission readings at the collector exhaust and at
the impact crusher.
82.
Secondary and tertiary crushing and screening facilities at the
same installation as 81.
These consist of a scalping screen, a 4-foot
cone crusher, two 3-foot cone crushers, a hammermill used to produce
agstone and two final sizing screens.
The plant has a 300 TPH design
capacity, crushing to 1 1/2-inch minus, including 60 TPH of agstone.
control throughout this plant is affected by enclosing or hooding dust
Dust
producing points and venting captured emissions to a fabric filter for
collection.
The collector is mechanically shaken twice daily for cleaning.
Pickup points include the top of the scalping screen, both the feed and
discharge of all three cone crushers, the discharge of the hammermill, the
top of both finishing screens, five product bins and six conveyor transfer
points.
Three particulate measurements were made in accordance with EPA
Method 5.
In addition, visible emission observations were made at the
baghouse exhaust and at the process facilities controlled using EPA
Method 9.
83.
The same facility as 82, except that particulate emission
measurements were made using an in-stack filter.
Testing was conducted
simultaneously with that described in 82.
Cl.
Limestone crushing plant consisting o~ a primary jaw crusher,
scalping screen and hammermill.
The rated capacity of the plant is 125
TPH.
End products produced range from 1 1/2-inch minus dense-graded road
base stone to minus 1/8-inch screenings.
Particulate emissions are
controlled by a mechanical
shaker type baghouse.
Collection points include
the primary crusher discharge, the scalping screen throughs to stacking
C-4
-------
conveyor transfer point, and both the hammermill feed and discharge.
Tests were conducted using EPA Methods 5 and 9.
C2.
Two 3-deck vibrating screens used for final sizing at the same
installation as Cl.
Both screens are totally enclosed and particulate
emissions collected from the top of both screens, at the feed to both
screens, and at both the head and tail of a shuttle conveyor between the
screens are vented to a mechanical shaker type baghouse.
Again, tests were
conducted in accordance with EPA Methods 5 and 9.
01.
Secondary and tertiary crushing and screening facilities used
for processing traprock at 250 TPH.
The process facilities include a
scalping screen, a 4-foot secondary cone crusher, two sizing screens and two
4-foot tertiary cone crushers.
All process fa~ilities are enclosed and
particulate emissions are vented to one of two baghouses for collection.
The baghouses are exhausted through a common stack.
Particulate measurements
were conducted using EPA Method 5.
Visible emission observations using
EPA Method 9 were also made at the collector exhaust and at the process
facilities controlled.
02.
Finishing screen at the same installation as facility 01.
The
screen is totally enclosed and emissions collected from the top of the
screen enclosure, all screen discharge points, and several conveyor transfer
points are vented to a fabric filter.
Tests conducted were
identical
to those at 01 and were performed simultaneously.
E1.
Tertiary crushing and screening facilities at a 375 TPH traprock
installation.
Process facilities include two sizing screens, four 4 1/4-foot
C-5
-------
cone crushers and several conveyor transfer points.
Both screens are
enclosed and emissions are collected by the enclosures and at the throughs
discharge.
The tertiary cone crushers are hooded and vented at both feed
and discharge points.
Captured emissions are collected by a jet pulse type
baghouse.
operation.
Tests using EPA Method 5 were conducted during periods of normal
Although desirable, the pressure drop across the baghouse could
not be monitored because the pressure gauge was inoperative.
Visible emission
observations were also made of the bag house exhaust using EPA Method 9.
E2.
Five screens used for final sizing and eight storage bins at the
same installation as El.
All screens and bins are totally enclosed and
emissions vented to a jet pulse type bag house for collection.
Tests
conducted were identical to and performed simultaneously with those at
facility El.
Fl.
Tertiary crushing and screening facilities used to reduce run-of-
quarry trap rock.
Particulate emissions are controlled by spraying
water at critical dust producing points in the process flow.
percent moisture is added to the material to suppress dust.
Two to three
Visible emission
observations were made in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
Gl.
Grinding system incorporating a belt feeder, ball mill, bucket
elevator, separator and a belt conveyor.
The ba'1 mill is used to reduce
feldspar to minus 200 mesh.
Particulate emissions generated at various
points are confined, captured and vented to a reverse air type baghouse
for collection.
Particulate measurements were performed using EPA Method 17.
Visible emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust and all
capture points in accordance with EPA Method 9.
C-6
-------
G2.
Crushing facilities (primary and secondary) used to reduce feldspar
to minus 1.5 inches.
Dust control is affected by the suppression techniques.
Surface moisture contents were 1.6 to 1.8 percent at the primary crusher
discharge, 1.4 to 1.5 percent at the secondary crusher feed, and 1.0 percent
at the secondary crusher discharge conveyor.
Visible emission observations
were made at all process facilities in accordance with EPA Method 9
procedures.
Hl.
Raymond roller mill used to grind gypsum.
The ground product from
the mill is air-conveyed to a cyclone collector for product recovery.
The
air is returned to the mill.
Excess air is vented to a baghouse.
Visible
emission observations were made to determine leaks from the system in
accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
H2.
Same facility as H1.
Particulate measurements and visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust in accordance with EPA
Methods 5 and 9.
I.
Bagging operation used to package ground mica.
Particulate
emissions are controlled by a baghouse.
Visible emission observations
were made at the capture point in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
Jl.
Crushing (primary and secondary), grinding (pebble mill and vertical
mill) and bagging operations at a talc processing plant.
Particulate emis-
sons are controlled by a baghouse.
Visible emission observations were
made at the capture points in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
J2.
Same facility as J1.
Particulate measurements and visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust tn accordance with EPA
Methods 5 and 9.
C-7
-------
K.
Pebble mill used to grind talc.
Captured emissions are vented to a
pulse type baghouse for collection.
Particulate measurements and visible
emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust in accordance with
EPA Methods 5 and 9.
Ll.
Raymond Impact Mill used to grind kaolin.
Captured emissions are
exhausted to a baghouse for collection.
EPA Methods 5 and 9 were used for
particulate measurement and visible emission observation at the baghouse stack,
respectively.
L2.
Roller Mill used at same plant as Ll.
Further grinding of kaolin
is accomplished.
Collection of captured emissions takes place in a baghouse
which was tested for the same parameters as Ll, again by EPA Methods 5 and 9.
Ml.
Roller mill used to grind fuller's earth clay.
Captured
emissions are exhausted to a baghouse for collection.
Particulate measure-
ments and visible emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust
in accordance with EPA Methods 17 and 9.
M2.
Fluid energy mill used to grind fuller's earth clay at same
plant as Ml.
Captured emissions are exhausted to a baghouse for collection.
EPA Methods 17 and 9 were used for particulate measurement and visible
emission observation at the baghouse stack, respectively.
N.
Kaolin rail car loading operation.
Three complete rail car
loadings were evaluated for fugitive emissions in accordance with EPA
Method 22 test procedures.
A baghouse (collection system) is used to
collect dust that is captured in the loading area.
P.
Facility P produces crushed stone used primarily for road construc-
tion purposes.
The processing operation is located in the bottom of an oper.
quarry.
The quarried materials are carried by trJck to the upper rim of the
C-8
-------
pit where they are dumped into hoppers which feed the processing equipment.
The finished product is transported back out of the quarry by belt conveyor.
Visible emission measurements were conducted at the primary (jaw),
secondary (impact), and tertiary (cone) crushers, two process screens, and one
conveyor transfer point by means of EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22.
A 11 pro-
cess sources of emissions are directly or indirectly controlled by means of a
wet suppression system.
Q.
This facility produces two grades of rock for road-base and decora-
tive stone. respectively.
The ore is obtained from an open mining operation
at the top of a mountain, and the process equipment is permanently installed
in a descending arrangement from the mine site to the bottom of the mountain.
The processed rock is accumulated in bins at the lower level for subsequent
truck loading.
Visible emission measurements using the same techniques as Facility
P were conducted at the primary (jaw), and secondary (cone) crushers, three
process screens, and one conveyor transfer point all controlled by means of a
wet suppression system.
R.
A fully portable crushing plant processes bank-run material for road
construction and as concrete component.
Ore is removed from a gravel bank and
trucked to the bank top for dumping into the initial screens before the primary
crushers.
Wet suppression techniques are used to control fugitive dust emana-
ting from the processing of the material.
EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 were used to measure visible emissions
from primary (jaw), and secondary (cone) crushers, three process screens, and
two conveyor transfer points.
s.
The facility produces two grades of crushed limestone.
The plant is
C-9
-------
relatively new with all process equipment located at ground level.
One jaw
crusher, two cone crushers, two process screens and two conveyor transfer
points are all directly or indirectly controlled by means of wet suppression
systems.
EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 were employed to measure visible
emissions emanating from the above named process sources.
T.
A large semi-portable rock crushing facility processing large-size
grades of crushed limestone was tested for visible emissions by means of EPA
Reference Methods 9 and 22.
The sources tested were the primary and secondary (cone) crushers,
one process screen, one conveyor transfer point, and one storage bin.
All
sources tested are controlled by the same techniques as Facilities P, Q, R,
and S.
(-10
-------
0.046
0.02
~
II
,I
II
II
II
II
*
(I
II
II
II
II
II
~
-------- --l
KEY
~
I~AVERAGE
,I
.' EPA TEST METHOD
o OTHER TEST METIIOD I
I
-- --- ------
~
fI II
II II
A~
II rrr
II I I
(J II
II
'eJ
0.034
O.OJ!>
.....
o
o
...
L-
eu
+-'
~
~
u
(/., .CJ
z:::>
au
~
~~
~. '"
7~ "'0
tlJ c:
'"
1...0"'"
1-. \II
"""
--I ;>,
::;, L-
U "'0
1-. L-
a:
u
-a
"-
to
a . 023 -g
to
+-'
\II
0.01 -
~
II
II
11
~
11
I,
II
I,
~
~
~
II
II
II
~
II ~
II II
II '1
II 'I A II
~ I I
II II
1 I ~~ t-~ VV II
II II~ /1
II \j Iit-W.
"
I I
~~
Cl C2
L L
fi
~
~~
>,
L-
-a
L-
eu
c.
~
II
I,
I,
~Jli
II
~
\II
~
"-
1:7>
'"
L-
t7>
~
: ~ 0.011
I,
II
~
" II
~ ,l
O.OO!>
~
'tJ
fi
~
~
~~I ~
(J
I ;.1t
C)
tJ
o
a
I I I
G 1 Ll L2
F K K
I I
Dl D2
T T
I
Ml
FE
~ I
1 E2
T T
Facility
Rock Type
142
FE
L
L
L
L
Particulate emissions fron non-metallic minerals
processing operations.
Figure C-1.
C-11
-------
r,d) 1 (' 1
I (d: [I I I'( A 1
~)III'illl;l) Y of
:"",I:! t '.
TesL Tililc-lllll1l1Lcs
Prt>cluction Y-,'Ite - TPII (1)
%
6/10174 6111174
400 320
995 1027
"
,J
r / p r d q (~
1~lln ;:1 11 11 I Jl.: r'
[1.1 t c
6/12174
240
1010
320
1011
S L ,J d [rr 1111' JI L
r1 OIl rdl(~ - /\CI11
26430 26653 27142 26472
22351 22140 22502 22331
81.0 88.0 88.0 85.7
2.5 3.0 3.3 2.9
Flo\/ rd lp - l)SUH
TC'lllpcr.-1f. 11\'''', - or
I'lilt, c r '/ d II 0 r - Vol. 7:
Visible ElI1issiol1'; Jt
Colleclor' I)i'.r.!ldr'~e --
Perccnt OpllC i Ly
See Tables 2 and 3
Part.icllldl(~ Illli',~ion<;
------_......_~----- --- ---
Prn!1:' ,lticllil!(lr Cltch
-.-.-.-.----...... -"'--- ---'--.- - . - - ----
tJ r IOSCr:
ur /I\(T
1b/hr
0.00471 0.00504 0.00727 0.00567
0.00398 0.00419 0.00602 0.00473
0.90 0.96 1.40 1.07
0.00091 0.00102 0.00139 0.00111
11J/t.on
.!.~.t0~~(:~
/1)(C",(2)
ur .).
lIJ/I1r
0.00597 0.00839 0.00718
0.00495 0.00695 0.00595
1. 13 1.62 1.38
0.00121 0.00160 0.00140
~jr/ /\cr
lb/loTl
(1) Based on throughput through primary crusher.
(2) Ba~k-ha1f sample for run number 1 was lost.
C-12
-------
TABLE 2
FACILITY Al
of Visible Emissions(l)
Summary
Date:
6/4/74 - 6/5/74
Type of Plant:
Crushed Stone - Primary Crusher
Type of Discharge:
Stack
Location of Discharge:
Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: G~ound-level
75 ft.
tI~ight of Point of Discharge:
14 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.E.
Description of Background:
Grey bui 1 di ng
Description of Sky:
Clear
Wi nd Di recti on:
East
Win d Vel 0 city:
o - 5 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 6/4/74 - 78 minutes
6/5/74 - 210 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(l)
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 6 8:50 9:26 0 0
7 through 9 11 :23 11 : 41 0 0
10 through 13 12: 12 12: 36 0 0
14 through 48 8: 11 11 : 41 0 0
\
Readings were 0 percent ora~ity during all periods of observation.
(1 )Two observers made simultaneous readings.
C-13
-------
TABLE 3
r AC I Ll r y A I
SUMMARY I)F VIS [riLE E'1I5S II)~S ( 1 )
I)ate'
718/7~ - 7/9/75
TVF)~ of Plant:
Crushed stone (cement rock)
Tvue 0' Oischarqe:
Fugitive
Location 0' Dlscharqe:
Primary Impact crusher discharge
Helq~t 0' Point of nlschargp:
6 feet
Distilnce from Ohsprv~r to l'Jischarge POlnt: 15 feet
~~scriotion of Sky:
N.A.
Grey wall
( indoors)
Heiqht of Obsprviltion POInt:
Ground level
~e5crlotlon of nackgrounrl'
01rect1on of Obsprver from Discharge Point:
SE
Io/i nti Oi rec t I on:
N.A.
Wlnr:! Velocitv: No wind (indoors)
Color of Plume:
White
Oetacherl Plum'?:
7/8/75 - 2 hours
7/9/75 - 2 hours
No
Ouratlon of Observation:
Summary of Data:
Ooaclty,
P~rcen t
Total Time Equal to or
Greatpr Than r,lv~n Ooacity
~in. Sec,
nOaCI tv,
P~rc'?nt
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than GIven Ooacitv
"1in. Sec.
5
11
15
21)
25
31)
35
41)
45
51)
3
o
o
o
o
30
30
15
15
o
'is
iiI)
liS
7'1
75
"!f)
"!'i
9'1
q'i
1'1'1
Sketch Showinq How Onacitv Varierl With Time:
Not Available
~ 20
C1I -
U
L
~ 15
.
t: 10
u -
0:(
:5 5-
0-
+
TP1E. hours
71817~
7/9/75 -
(1) Two ohsp.rvers marlp simultaneous rea'Hngs. the greater of their readings
i5 reported.
C-14
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH(l)
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - of
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
X Opacity
Particulate Emissions (2)
----
Probe and filter catch
-----
gr/DSC,F
gr/ ACF
lb/hr
lb/ton
Total catch (3)
---.._-- -
9 r / OS C F
gr/ACF
1 b/hr
TABLE 4
FAC! LITY A2
Summary of Results
1
6/1 0/74
400
965
15797
13368
90.0
1.4
0.00176
0.00149
0.20
0.00021
2
6/11/74
320
1023
15771
13246
90.0
2.1
SEE TABLE: 5
0.00188
0.00158
0.21
0.00024
0.00235
0.00197
0.27
1b/ton
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
(2) All three test runs were over-isokinetic.
(3) Back-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
I
i
C-15
0.00030
3
6/12/74
240
1056
15866
13196
94.0
2.5
0.00222
0.00184
0.25
0.00024
0.00314
0.00261
0.36
0.00034
Average
320
1015
15811
13270
91.3
2.0
0.00195
0.00164
0.22
0.00023
0.00275
0.00224
0.32
0.00032
-------
TABLE 5
FACILITY A2
Summary of Visible Emissions(l)
Date: 6/10/74 - 6/11/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Prima~y Screen
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
60 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
10 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wi nd Di recti on:
Southwest
Wind Velocity: 0 - 2 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
Color of Plume: None
Duration of Observation:
6/10/74 - 192 minutes
6/11/74 - 36 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(l)
Time
Opaci ty
Sum Average
Set Number .Start End
1 through 11 10:35 11 :41
12 through 32 12:30 2:36
33 through 38 9:40 10: 16
o
o
o
o
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
(l)Two observers made simultaneous r~adings.
C-16
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Process Weight Rate - TPH
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - of
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Fugitive (% Opacity)
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
---
gr/DSC,F
gr/ACF
lb/hr
1 b/ton
Total catch (1)
gr/DSCF
9 r / AC F
lb/hr
1 b/ ton
TABLE 6
FACILITY A3
Summary of Results
1
6/10/74
360
910
2303
1900
98.0
2.4
0.00095
0.00078
0.02
0.00002
2
6111/74
288
915
2313
1902
101.0
2.4
SEE TABLES 7
0.00162
0.001 34
0.03
0.00003
0.00190
0.001 56
0.03
0.00003
(1) Back-half sa~rle for run number 1 was lost.
,
C-17
3
6112/74
288
873
2422
2003
97.0
2.3
0.00207
0.00171
0.04
0.00004
0.00259
0.00214
0.04
0.00005
Average
312
899
2346
1935
98.7
2.4
0.00155
0.00128
0.03
0.00003
0.00224
0.00185
0.035
0.00004
-------
TABLE 7
FACILITY A3
Sunvnary of Visible Emissions(l)
Date:
6/11/74
Type of Plant:
Crushed Stone - Conveyor Transfer Point
Type of Discharge:
Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
60 ft.
Location of Discharge:
Baghouse
Height of Observat~on Point:
Ground-level
Height of Pofnt of Discharge:
8 ft.
nirpctinn nf Observer from Discharge Point:
North
Description of Background:
Grey apparatus
Description of Sky:
Clear
Wind Direction:
Color of Plume:
Westerly
Wind Velocity:
o - 10 mi/hr.
None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation:
240 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(l)
----- Time OnacU.L
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 30 10:40 1 :40 0 0
31 through 40 1 :45 2:45 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
(l)Two observers made simultaneous readings.
C-18
-------
TABLE 8'
FACILITY A4
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 6/6/74 617 /74 6/8174
Test Time - Minutes 320 320 320 320
Production Rate - TPH 170 162 152 163
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM 10579 9971 11045 10532
Flow rate - DSCFM 9277 8711 9656 9214
Temperature - of 81.0 77.0 80.0 79.3
Water vapor - Vol. % 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2
Visible Emissions at - --- - -
Collector Discharge - SEE TAI:ILES. 9 & 10
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
9 r/ DSC,F 0.00036 0.00075 0.00074 0.00062
gr/ACF 0.00031 0.00065 0.00065 0.00054
lb/hr 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.05
1 b/ ton 0.00017 0.00034 0.00041 0.00031
Total catch
-- ---- --
gr/ DSCF 0.00047 0.00104 0.00678
9 r / AC F 0.00041 0.00095 0.00068
lb/hr 0.04 0.08 0.06
1 b/ ton 0.00022 0.00050 0.00034
C-19
-------
TAOLE 9
FACILITY A4
Summary of Visible Emissions(l)
Date:
6/6/74
Type of Plant:
Crushed Stone - Secondary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge:
Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
1 00 ft.
Location of Discharge:
Baghouse
Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
Height of Point of Discharge:
15 ft.
nirprtinn nf Observer from Discharge Point:
North
Description of Background:
Sky
Description of Sky:
Clear
Wind Direction:
Variable
Wi nd Ve 1 ocity :
o to 10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume:
None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation:
240 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(l)
- Time
Set Number
-Start
End
Opacity
Sum Average
------------.
1 through 30
31 through 40
10:40
1 :45
1 :40
2:45
o
o
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
(l)Two observers made simultaneous readings.
C-20
-------
TABLE 10
F Ac I LI T Y A 4
SUMMARY I)F V I S I !1LE Pl1 SS I I')~S (1 )
I)ate:
7/9/7';} - 7/10/75
Tv"'? of Plant:
Crushed stone (celrent rock)
Tvop. of Olsc~arQe:
Fugitive
Location of Dlscharqe:
Conveyor (transfer point)
Hel~~t of Point of Oischarge;
8 feet
Distance from Ohs'?rv/?r to ~ischarge Point: 50 feet
~eserlDtlon of Backgrounrt:
Sky
Heioht of O~~p,rvation Point:
6 feet
~~5crIDtlon of Sky:
Partly cloudy
Oirp.ction of Obs~rver from Discharge Point: SE
Wlnrt I); rection:
South
!~inrt Velocitv:
3 - 5 mph
Color of Plllme:
White
Dp.tachp.rl Plum~:
/10
I)uratlon of Observation:
7/9/75 - 106 minutes
7/10/75 - 60 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ol)/I(!tv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Glvp,n Onllcity
Min. Sec.
Onacitv,
Pp,rcp.nt
Total T;mp. Equal to or
Greater T~an G;ven Ooacitv
"'i n . See.
5
11
15
;>1')
25
11')
35
4'1
"5
51)
3
o
o
o
o
45
30
o
tj5
1\'1
li5
71')
75
III')
IItj
'II')
1')5
11')1')
Sketch Showinq How OPdCI tv Varip.rl 1.li th T;me:
...
~ I';}
.....
"-
\11
Cl
<.J
""
0-
C>
u
-----_J
o 1
7/9/75
2
T P~E, hours
7/10/75
(1) Two o!J<;r>rvp.fS malic SImultaneous rea'l1nq<;. the greater of their readings
I!. reported.
C-21
-------
TABLE il
FACILITY 81
Summary of Results
,
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 10/29/74 10/30/14 10/30/14
Test Time - Minutes 180 120 120 140
Production Rate - TPH(l) 324 359 375 353
Stack Effl uent
F10w rate - ACFM 5154 6121 6078 5784
Flow rate - DSCFM 4998 5896 5753 5549
Temperature - of 70 16 83 76.3
Water vapor - Vol. % 1.80 1.87 2.06 1.91
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - See Table 12
S Opad ty
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DS~F 0.009 0.001 0.010 0.007
\
gr/ACF 0.012 0.004 0.011 0.009
1b/hr 0.402 0.072 0.500 0.325
lb/ton 0.0012 0.0002 0.0013 0.0007
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.009 0.001 0.010 0.007
gr/ACF 0.011 0.003 0.011 0.008
1b/hr 0.496 0.180 0.553 0.408
lb/tor. 0.0015 0.0005 0 . 0015 0.0012
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
C-22
-------
TAliLE 12
FACILITY 81
SU~JrJ cf V~~~~~C E~'!!jc,s(l)
Inhro"'''o''' '\
,--...... . -. . I
Date: 10/29/74 - 10/30/74
Type 0' Plant: Crushed Stone - Primary Cru;,her
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location 0' Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Ovserver to Discharge Point:
15 ft.
Height 0' Point of Discharge: 25 ft.
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Description of Background:
Grey quarry wa 11
Descrfption of Sky: Clear to cloudy
Wf nd Of rec tlon: Northwes terly Wind Velocity: Not available
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 10/29/74 - 180 minutes
,
10/30/74 - 234 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY SlJ1MARY OF AVERAGE OPACI TY
T1me Opacity Time Opac; ty
Set rjulnUer Start End Sum Average Set Nurrber S ta rt End Sum Average
10/2o.J/74 34 9:23 9:29 0 0
1 10:30 10: 36 10 0.4 35 9:29 9:35 5 0.2
2 10: 36 1U:42 20 0.8 36 9:35 9:41 10 0.4
3 10:42 10:48 25 1.0 37 9:41 9:47 0 0
4 10:48 10:54 1~ 0.6 38 9:47 9:53 0 0
5 10:54 11 :uO 15 0.6 39 9:53 9:59 5 0.2
b 11 :00 11:0b 5 0.2 40 9:59 10:05 0 0
7 11 :06 11 : 12 lU 0.4 41 10:05 10: 11 0 0
8 11 : 12 11: 18 2~ 1.0 42 10: 11 10: 17 0 0
9 11 : 18 11: 24 20 0.8 43 10: 17 10:23 0 0
10 11 :24 11: 30 15 0.6 44 10:28 10:34 0 0
11 11:30 11: 3b 25 1.0 45 10:34 10:40 10 0.4
12 11: 3b 11 :42 30 1.2 46 10:40 10:46 5 u.2
13 11: 42 11:48 15 0.6 47 10:58 11 :04 0 0
14 1: b 1:21 0 0 48 11 :04 11: 10 5 0.2
15 1:21 1 :27 15 0.6 49 11: 10 11 : 16 10 0.4
Ib 1:U 1 :33 5 0.2 50 11:24 11 :30 0 0
17 1: 33 1 :39 5 0.2 51 11 :30 11:36 0 0
18 1:39 I: 45 0 0 52 1 :02 1 :08 0 0
19 1 :4~ 1: 51 0 0 53 1 :08 1: 14 0 0
20 1 : ~ 1 1: 57 0 0 54 1: 14 1 :20 0 0
II 1: ~7 2:03 5 0.2 55 1 :20 1: 26 10 0.4
22 2:03 2:09 5 0.2 56 1 :26 1: 32 0 0
23 2:09 2: 15 0 0 57 1 :32 1:38 5 0.2
24 2: 1~ 2:21 0 0 58 1 :38 1 :44 0 0
l~ 2:21 2:l7 0 0 59 1 :44 1:50 0 0
2(, 2:27 2:33 5 0.2 60 1 :50 1:56 0 0
27 2:33 2:39 5 0.2 61 1 :56 2:02 5 0.2
2ti 2:31) 2:4~ 0 0 62 2:02 2:08 0 0
29 2:4~ 2:!11 0 0 63 2:08 2: 14 5 0.2
30 2:~1 2:57 10 0.4 64 - 2: 14 2:20 5 0.2
10/3U/74 65 2:20 2:26 0 0
66 2:26 2:32 0 0
31 9:05 9: 11 0 0 67 2:39 2:45 0 0
Jt ~: II '1. ;; V V 0;) ~.., <: A ~
"'."'..1 '...11 ~ ....~
33 9: 17 9:23 0 0 69 2:51 2:57 0 0
C-23
-------
TABLE 13
FACILITY B2
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 10/31/74 10/31/74 11/11/74
Test Time - ~'i nutes 108 108 108 108
Production Rate - TPH 270 270 270 270
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 19684 18921 16487 18197
Flow rate - DSCFM 18296 17638 15681 17205
Temperature - of 92.0 96.0 79.0 87.0
Water vapor - VoL % 1.95 1.92 2.01 1.96
'. Visible [missions at
Collector Discharge - SEE TABLES 14 - 23
% Opacity
Particulate _~~sions-
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSC,F 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.0037
gr/I\CF 0.003 0.005 0.003 0.0037
lb/hr 0.427 0.753 0.457 0.546
1 bl ton 0.0016 0.0028 , 0.0017 O.OO~O
Jot~-.S~~ch
gr/DSCF 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.0063
gr/llCF 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.0060
lb/hr 0.916 0.978 0.955 0.946
lb/ton 0.0034 0.0036 0.0035 0.0035
C-24
-------
TABLE 14
FACILITY B2
Summary of V1s1Dle lmlsS10ns
(Ubserver 1)
Date: 10/31/74 - 11/1/74
Type 0' Plant: Crushed Stone - Secondary and Tertiary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack
.Location 0' Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 5 ft.
30 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: B ft.
Description of Background: Sky
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Sky: Clear to partly cloudy
Wind Direction:
Southeasterly
Wi nd Velocity:
Not available
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation:
10/31/14 -
240 minutes
11/1/14 -
106 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
T1me ODacity
Date Set Number Start End Sum Average
10/31/14 1 9:27 9:33 5 0.2
2 9:33 9:39 10 0.4
3 9:39 9:45 5 0.2
4 9:45 9:51 0 0
5 9:51 9:57 5 0.2
6 9:57 10:03 5 0.2
7 10:03 10:09 10 0.4
8 10:09 10: 15 5 0.2
9 10: 15 10: 21 20 0.8
10 10:21 10:27 0 0
11 10:27 10:33 0 0
12 10:~3 10:39 0 0
13 '10:39 10:45 5 0.2
14 10:45 10:51 5 0.2
15 1 Q: 51 10:57 10 0.4
16 10:57 11 :03 0 0
17 11 :03 11 :09 5 0.2
18 11 :09 11: 15 0 0
19 11 : 15 11 :21 0 0
20 11 :21 11 :27 10 0.4
21 through
40 1 :09 3:09 0 0
11 /1 /14 41 through
56 8:11 9:47 0 0
Readings ranged from 0 to 5 percent opacity.
\ -
C-25
-------
T a') 1 (> 15
FACILITY B2
SlJMt1l\RY OF VISWLE E'lISSI,)~IS
Oa tc: 6/30/75
Ty~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Oisr.~~rgc: Fugitive
locati on of I>i scharge: SecondOary Cone Crusher (#1)
Hei~~t of Point of Discharge: 25 ft.
Distance from 0bs~rver to ryischarge Point:45 ft.
~escri otion of r\ackgrounrl: Sky & Equipment Hei~ht of 0l)s~rvation Point: 2 fto
F)~scrintion of Sl(y: Clear
Winrl Direction: East
Oir~ctio~ of Ob5~rver from nisc~arge Point:North
Winrl Velocity: 5-10 mph
Color of Plume: White
Detacherl Plum~: No
"uration of 0bservation: 231 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greatpr Than Given Opacity
-'-{i n . See 0
Ooacitv,
P~rc~nt
Total Timp. Equal to or
hreater Than Given Ooacitv
~ino Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
31)
35
4')
45
51)
23
o
o
45
55
Fj')
65
7')
75
~')
~5
!)')
CJS
1l)fJ
C-26
-------
Tol)l0. 16
fl\CILITY B2
surml\l{Y OF V I S r rILL PH 5S I')~IS
rJa te :
6/30/75
Tyryp' of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of nisc~~r9~: Fugitive
location of IJischarg1=?: SeconOdary Cone Crusher (#2)
lIe1~'1t of Point of Oischarg~: 25 ft.
~cscriotion of nackgrounrl: Sky & Equipment
Distance from Ohs1=?rver to ~ischarge Point:45 ft.
Hei~ht of %servation Point: 2 ft.
~~scr1ntion of S~y: Clear
OJ r~cti 011 of nbs~rver from Oi sc~arge Poi nt: North
Win~ Oircction: East
Win~ Velocity: 5-10 mph
Co lor 0 f Plump.: Wh i te
Detacherl P1um~: No
Ouration of Observation: 231 minutes
Summary of Dato:
DDac ity,
Percen t
Total Time Equal to or
Greatpr Than Given Onacitv
----r.;rn ° Sec.
Onacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
~reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Se~
5
11
lS
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
Sf)
o
o
15
o
55
I)')
(j5
7,)
75
WI
85
g')
fJ!j
1 f)f)
C-27
-------
Tabl"17
FJ\CILITY B2
StJMr.v\RY OF VISIRlE PlISSI,)~IS
Oate: 6/30/75
Tyrye of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Oisc~arge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary Cone Crusher (#3)
IIei !lit of Poi nt of Oi scharge: 25 ft.
Distance from Obs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 45 ft.
~escr1otion of BackgrounrJ: Sky & Equipment IIei9ht of I)!:>sp.rvation Point: 2 ft.
~~scrintion of Sky: Clear
Oir~ction of nbs~rver from nisc~arge Point: North
Win~ Oirection: East
Color of 'Plume: White
WinrJ Velocity: 5-10 mph
Detacherl Plum~: No
Ouration of Observation: 231 minutes
Summary of Data:
QDac i t.v ,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Min. Sec.
ODacity,
Pl;!rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacity
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
Sf)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
W)
85
')')
%
1f)f)
IC-28
-------
Tal)1(\ 18
FJ\CILITY B2
surmJ\RY QF VISIflLl ErlISSI,)~IS
~ate: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
Tv~e of P1ant: Crus~ed stone (limestone)
Tyoe of Oisct,arge: Fugitive
location of Oischar0~:Surge Bin
tle1'1,t of Point of Oi<;charg~:
~e5criotion of Back9rounrl:Sky & Equipment
f)~scril)tion of Sl(v: Clear
Distance from m)s~rver to ~ischarge Point:150 ft.
Hei0ht of %sp.rvation Point: 15 ft.
Dir~ctio" of nbsprver from Oisct,arge Point:SE
141nrf fJircction: South
~~in(1 Vcloci tv: 5 mph
Color of Plume: White
Detachp.~ Plum~: No
Our-1tion of Obc;ervation: 6/30/74 - 234 minutes
1/1/75 - 53 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Pt;?rccn t
Totell Tim~ (qual to or
Gr~~1..~('r Th~~iven_i!I!~~it.Y.
Min. Sec.
nnacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
~rcater Than Given Ooacitv
---~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
Sf)
2
1
o
15
30
55
Ij,)
65
7')
75
~I)
85
~')
I)')
11)1)
C-29
-------
Tabl0. 19
FACILITY B2
SlJt1t1ARY OF V I 5 I f1L E [111 55 I ,)~IS
Oate: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
Tyrye of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Oisc~~rge: Fugitive
location of Oischarg~: Scalp.ing screen
1121q~t of Point of Oischarge: 50 ft.
Distance from Ohs~rver to Discharge Point:150 ft.
~escr1otion of Background: Sky & Equipment
~~5crintion of Sky: Clear
Hei~ht of Q':>servation Point: 15 ft.
Dirp.ctio~ of nbs~rver from nisc~arge Point: SE
Win~ Oirection: South
Wind Velocitv: 5 MPH
Color of Plume: White
Detacherl Plum~: no
Ouration of Observation: 6/30/75 - 234 minutes
7/1/75 53 minutes
Summary of Data:
ODi\C ity.
P~rccnt
Total Time Equal to or
Greatpr Than Given Opacity
---r1in. Sec.
Opacity,
P~rc~nt
Total Time Equal to or
~reater Than Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3f)
35
4'1
45
Sf)
44
9
3
o
45
45
o
30
55
I)')
65
7')
75
W)
85
9')
t}1j
1') f)
C-30
-------
Tal) 1 (\ 20
FI\CI LITY 82
StJt1f1l\RY OF VISIf~LE E'1ISSl')~IS
nate: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
Tyry~ of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Tyoe of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of ()ischarw~: Hammermill
Jhi~11t of Point or rJischarge:
Distance from Ohs~rver to Discharge Point:150 ft.
Descriotion of £3ackgrounrl: Sky & Equipment Jlei~ht of OlJservation Point: 15 ft.
~~scrintion of S~v: Clear
Dir~ction of nb5~rvcr from nisc~arge Point:SE
Winrl Velocitv: 5 mph
!~inri rJircction: South
Co lor of Plume: Whi te
rJetachp.ri Pl um~: No
Ouration of Observation: 6/30/75 - 234 minutes
7/1/75 - 53 minutes
Summary of Data:
ODc1ci tV.
P~rcp.nt
----- . ~-
Total Time [qllal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
---1H n . --Se-c-:--
Ooacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
f,rcater Than Given Ooacitv
~-in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3'>
35
41)
45
Sf)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
WI
R,
~')
fJ5
1 f)1)
C-31
-------
Ta!:>l" 21
FJ\CILITY B2
SIJrH1I\HY 01" V I S rnu: [111 SS I (I~I~
Oa te: 7/l /75
Tyry~ of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Tyoe of Oisc~ar~e: Fugitive
location of Oischar~~: (3-Deck) Finishing Screen (left)
lIei~'1t of Point of Oischarg~: 40 I
~escriDtion of fiackground: Hazy Sky
Distance from Qhs~rver to ~ischarge Point:75 ft.
Hei~ht of OlJs~rvation Point: Ground level
~~scrintion of S~y: Clear
Dir~ctio~ of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point:West
Color of Plume: White
Wind Velocity: 5-15 mph
Detacherl Plum~: No
Win~ Oircction: Southeast
Ouratfon of Observation: 107 minutes
Summary of Data:
ODac i t.v .
P~rccnt
Total Time Equal to or
Great~r Than Given Onacity
~1in. Sec.
ODacitv.
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
f1reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
5f)
4
30
55
Ij,)
65
7')
75.
WI
85
9')
f},
V),)
C-32
-------
TlI') 1 I"! 22
FI\C I L.I TV B2
SIJfU-1ARY or v I <; I fill [111 S) 1')\15
Oa t e: 7/ 1 !7 5
TYry~ of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Tyoe of [)isc~Clqle: Fugitive
loc~tion of [)ischllrg~: (3-Deck) Finishing screen (right)
~escriotion of Backgrounrl: Hazy sky
')~scrintion of Sky: Clear
Distance from nbs~rvcr to ~ischarge Point: 75 ft.
Hei~ht of f)l)s~rvation Point: Ground level
Heig~t of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
Dir~ctiol1 of Ob5~rver from nisc~arge Point: West
~in~ Direction: Southeast
Winrl Velocity: 5-15 mph
Co lor of Pl ume: White
Detachp.rl Pl um~: No
nuration of %servi)tion: 107 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooac fty,
P'?rccn t
------
Total Timp. Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
t1i n. Sec.
Opacity,
P'?rcent
Total Time Eq~a1 to or
Greater Than Given ODacity
----~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Sf)
o
15
55
~')
69
7')
75
~f)
R5
'9'1
f}5
1')0
C-33
-------
Tabl!"! 23
FACILITY B2
SW1t,V\RY OF VISI!1LE PlISSII)~IS
Date: 6/30/75
Tv~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Tvpe of niscl1i\r~e: Fugitive
location of Oischarne: Two (3-Deck) finishing screens
1121 ')'1t of Poi nt of Oi sc'1arg~: 50 ft.
~e5criotion of nackgrounrl: Hazy sky
Distance from Ohs~rvcr to ~ischarge Point: 75 ft
Hei9ht of Q~s~rvation Point: Ground level
~~5crintion of S~v: Clear
nir~ction of nbs~rver from niscl1arge Point:West
Color of Plume: White
'~inrl Velocitv: 10-15 mph
Oetacherl P1um~:No
!4"!nrf Di rection: Southeast
Ouration of Observation: 120 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
P~rcent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
11i n. See.
Opaci tv .
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given ODacitv
'"1i n . See.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
5')
86
28
5
o
o
15
15
30
15
o
55
F)')
65
71)
75
W)
85
91)
qlj
1')')
C-34
-------
TABLE 24
FACILITY 83
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Uate 10/31/74 11/1/74 11/1/14
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH 270 270 270 270
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 18674 18405 16238 17772
Flow rate - DSCFM 17335 17186 15466 16662
Temperature - of 92 90 79 87
Water Vapor - Vol. % 2.13 1.73 1.87 1.91
Visible Emissions at .
Collector Discharge -
S Opaci ty
Particulate Emissions
--
Probe and filter catch /
gr/DSCF 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003
gr/ACF 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003
lb/hr 0.355 0.614 0.411 0.460
lb/ton 0.0013 0.0023 0.0015 0.0017
Total catch(\)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1b/hr
1b/ton
(l)No analysis of bark-half on in-stack filter tests.
C-35
'"
-------
TABLE 25
fACILITY Cl
Summary of Results
,"
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 11/19/74 11/21/74 11/22/74
Test Time - Minutes 120 240 240 200
Production Rate - TPH(l)
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM 7340 7560 1520 1473
Flow rate - DSCFM 1260 1120 1800 1593
Temperature - of 66.0 38.0 44.0 49.3
~ater vapor - Vol. % 1.0 0.4 0.1 0.5
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - <;ee table 26
S Opad ty
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DS~F 0.003 0.0001 0.003 0.0022
gr/ACF' - 0.003 0.0007 0.003 0.0022
1b/hr 0.18 0.05 0.11 0.10
1b/ton 0.001 0.0004 0.001 0.0008
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.0037
gr/ACF 0.007 0.001 0.003 0.0037
1b/hr 0.43 0.09 0.21 0.24
1b/ton 0.003 0.0008 0.002 0.0019
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
(,-36
-------
TI\nLE 26
FACILITY Cl
of Visible Emissions(l)
Summary
Ud le :
11/21174
Typ«'! of P1.ml:
Cru:.hcd Stone - Primary and Secondary Crushing and Screeni ng
Type of IHstllar'.J'~:
~ lack
Uistance from Observer to Jischarge Point:
100 ft.
Luca li 011 of l1i 5 ell.. rye:
Baghouse
Height of Observation Point:
50 ft.
Height uf Point of ~ischarge:
40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.W.
Description of Uackground:
Da rk Woods
Ucseription of Sky: Overcast
Wind Uirection:
Color of Plume:
Easterly
Whi te
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 to 3D mi/hr.
No
Uuration of Observation:
240 minutes
SUMMARY 0F AVERAGE OPACITy{2}
Time
Set Number
Start
End
Opacity
Sum Average
1 througrt 40
12:10
4: 10
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the observation period.
Sketch Showi n9 /low Opacity Vari ed With TilOO:
....
c:
CI.I
u
~
CI.I
a..
-
~
.,...
I)
...,
a..
o
o
o
I
1
I
2
I
3
Time, hours
.
4
(1) (wo observers made simultaneous readings.
Reference 5.
C-37
"
-------
TABLE 27
FACILITY C2
Summary of Results
..
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 11/19/74 11/21/74 11/22/14
Test Time - Minutes 120 240 240 200
Production Rate - TPH(l) 132 119 127 126
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM 6220 6870 6540 6543
Flow rate - DSCFM 6260 6880 6700 6613
Temperature - of 62.0 50.0 51.0 54.3
Water vapor - Vol. % 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.27
VIsible Emissions at See Table-28
Collector Discharge -
% Opaci ty
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DS~F 0.006 0.00003 0.0004 0.00214
\ 0.006 0.00003 0.004 0.00214
gr/ACF
lb/hr 0.31 0.002 0.02 0.111
lb/ton 0.002 0.00002 0.0002 0.00074
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.008 0.0006 0.0009 0.0032
gr/ACF 0.009 0.0007 0.001 0.0057
lb/hr 0.46 0.04 0.05 .0.18
lb/ton 0.003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0012
(1) Throughput through prima~ crusher.
C-38
-------
TABLE 28
FACILITY C2
Sl.:~a~"':/
~f V~~iblc E",i3si~~~
Date:
11/21/74
Type of P1 ant:
Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
Type of Oischarge:
Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
200 ft.-
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Observation Point:
50 ft.
Height of Point of uischarge:
40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.W.
oescription of Background: Dark woods
Oescription of Sky:
Overcast
Color of Plume:
Eas ter1y
White
Wi nd Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 to 30 mi/hr.
Wi nd Oi recti on:
Uuration of Observation:
240 minutes
Set Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Start
End
Opaci ty
Sum
Average
1 through 40
12:10
4: 10
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the observation period.
~~etch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
+-J
C
IV
U
s..
IV
Q.
.
~
.,...
u
'"
8"
o
o
I
1
I I I .
2 3 4
Time, hours
C-39
-------
TABLE 29
FACILITY Dl
Summary of Results
..
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 9/17/74 9/18/74 9/19/74
Test Time - Minutes 240 240 240 240
Production Rate - TPH(l) 225 230 220 225
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 31830 31810 31950 31863
Flow rate - DSCFM 31370 30650 31230 31083
Temperature - of 66.0 11.0 68.0 68.3
Water vapor - Vol. % 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.5
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - SEE TABLES 30-36
% Opaci ty
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSq 0.0095 0.0081 0.0080 0.0085
gr/ACF - 0.0094 0.0078 0.0078 0.0083
1b/hr 2.55 2.13 2.13 2.27
1b/ton 0.0113 0.0093 0.0097 0.0101
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.0100 0.0085 0.0086 0.0090
gr/ACF 0.0096 0.0082 0.0084 0.0088
1b/hr 2.69 2.23 2.30 2.41
lb/ton 9.0120 0.0097 0.0105 0.107
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
C-40
-------
TABLE 30
FACILITY UI
Summary of Visible Emissions,l)
LJate:
9/17/74
Type 0' Phnt:
Crushed Stone - Secondary and Tertlary Crushing & Screening
Type of LJlscharge: Stack
Location of Uischarge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
300 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
55 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: S.E.
Description of Background: Trees
Description of Sky: Partly Cloudy
Wind Oirection: Northerly
.
Wind Velocity:
5 - 10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: None
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation:
240 minutes
SUMI1ARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(2)
Tlme Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 40 9: 10 1 :00 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the period of observation.
Sketch Snowing How Opacity Varied With Time:
.....
r::
IV
u
I-
8.
.
?J
u
'"
0.
~
o
o
I
1
I
2
I
3-
I
4
Time, hours
. -
C-41
-------
T a~) 1 ~ 31
FI\CJLIrY Dl
SlJt1t-1l\RY OF V I 5 I f1LE [111 55 I 1)~15
Oate:
7/8/75
TV~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tvpe of Oisc~~rge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Tertiary gyrasphere cone crusher (S)
lIe1~'t of Point of Discharge:
Distance from nhs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 30 ft.
Hei9ht of f)':>s~rvation Point: ground level
lJescriotion of Background: Machinery
~~scr1ntion of Sky: Overcast
Oir~ctio~ of nb5~rver from nisc~arge Point: West
~in~ Direction: Southwest
Color of Plume: White
Winrl Velocity: 0-10 mph
Oetacherl Plume: No
Ourat ion of Obscrvati on: 170 mi nutes
Summary of Data:
ODacity,
P~rcent
---
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
-r1rn:-- Sec.
ODacitv,
P~rccnt
Total Tifue Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
----~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
5f)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
WI
f\IJ
9')
r)lj
If)f)
C-42
-------
Tabl(' 32
FACILITY 01
SUf1f1l\RY IJF VISH~LE F.'lISSI,)~IS
rJate: 7/8/75
Ty~~ of Pldnt: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Oischarg~: Tertiary gyrashere cone crusher (N)
1I':?1q1t of Point of OJ<;cllarge:
Distance from Ohs~rver to fJischarge Point: 30 ft.
rycscriotion of Backgrounrl: Machinery
Hei~ht of QlJsp.rvation Point: ground level
~~scrintion of S~v: Overcast
Dir~ctiol1 of Ob5f-!rVer from nisc~arge Point: West
Winrl Oircction: Southwest
Color of Plume: White
Winrl Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Oetacherl Plum~: No
Ouration of Observation: 170 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Pt.!rccnt
--.--
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
Min. Sec.
nnacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
2D
25
3')
35
41)
45
5f)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
8")
85
9')
C)1j
1')')
C-43
-------
Tabl" 33
FACILITY 01
stJtmARY QF VISI!1LE [llISSII)~IS
fJate: 7/8/75
Tyrye of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Oisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Oischarg~: Seco~dary standard cone crusher
tlr:!1!/'lt of Point of I)isc!ldrge:
Distance from Ohs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 30 ft.
~escriotion of Dackgrounrl: Machinery
~~scrlntion of S~y: Overcast
Hei~ht of 0~sp.rvation Point: Ground level
Dir~ctio~ of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point:West
Color of Plume: White
Winrl Velocity: 0-10 mph
I)etacherl Pl um~: No
Win~ I)irection: Southwest
Ouratlon of Observation: 170 minutes
Summary of Data:
ODilCi ty.
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onaeity
--r1i n. Sec.
noaei tv ,
P~reent
Total Time Equal to or
f1reater Than Given Onaeitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
31)
35
4')
45
51)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
W}
85
9')
%
1')1")
C-44
-------
Ta'}l~ 34
FJ\CILI rv 01
SIJMW\HV OF VISI!1LE ErlISSI')~I~
Oate:
7/9/75
Tyrye of Plant: Cru~hed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Oisc~~rgc: Fugitive
location of Oischar~J~: Scalp.ing screen
Ib1!)1t of Point of Oischarge:
Distance from Ohs~fver to ~ischafge Point: 30 ft.
lIei9ht of ()lJservation Point: 15 ft.
~escr1otion of Backgfound: Equipment
~~scrintion of Sky: Overcast
!1if~ctiol1 of nbs~rver from Oiscl,arge Point: North
Co lor of Pl ume : White
Wind Ve10citv: 0-10 mph
Oetacherl Plum~: No
Win~ Oirection: Southwest
Ouration of Observation: 210 minutes
Summary of Data:
Dnac ity,
P~rccnt
Total Time Equal to or
GreatPf Than Giv~n Opacity
--l{i n. Sec.
Onacitv.
Pl;!rc~nt
Total Tifue Equal to or
r,reater Than Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
t1'J
45
50
o
o
55
f)')
05
7')
75
W1
85
9')
C)1j
1')')
C-45
-------
Tab 1 (\ 35
FACIL!TV 01
SW1WIRV or VISH~LE E'lISSI,)~IS
Oate: 7/9175
Tv~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tvne of niscI1ilr~c: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Second"ary (2-Deck) sizing screens
Heiq~t of Point of Discharge:
Distance from Ohs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 30 ft.
Hei~ht of O':>s~rvation Point: 15 ft.
~escriotion of BackgroLlnrl: Equipment
~~scrintion of Skv: Overcast
Oir~etion of Obs~rver from nise~arge Point: North
Color of Plume: White
Winrl Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Detaeherl P1um~: No
Win~ Direction: Southwest
Ouration of Observation:
210 minutes
Summary of Data:
OD~C ity.
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
--Hm:- See.
noaci tv.
P~reent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
"1i n . See.
5
11
15
20
25
31)
35
4')
45
51)
o
o
55
~')
65
7')
75.
WI
85
9')
qs
1')')
C-46
-------
Til') 1 r. 36
FJ\CILITY Dl
SIJr1t1l\RY OF VISIRLE E'lISSIf)~IS
Oate: 7/9/75
TYf)~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Oisc~ilrqe: Fugitive
location of Oischarqe: Second"ary (3-Deck) sizing screens
U!:?1q1t of Point of Oischarge:
Distance frolll ()bs~rver to l)ischarge Point: 30 ft
'>escriotion of Bilckground: Equipment
~~scrintion of S~y: Overcast
lIei9ht of f)lJs~rvation Point: 15 ft.
Oir~ction of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point: North
Color of Plume: White
Wind Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Detacherl P1um~: No
Win~ Direction: Southwest
Our.:ttion of f)b<;ervation: 210 minutes
Summary of Data:
OOr\city,
P'!rccnt
- __0
Total Time [quill to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
~1in. Sec. -
nnac; tv,
Percent
Total Time Eq~al to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
2D
25
3f)
35
4')
4~
Sf)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
WI
8'>
g')
rJlj
l')f)
C-47
-------
TABLE 37
FACILITY D2
Summary of Results
,
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 9/17/74 9/18/74 9/19/74
Test Time - Minutes 240 240 240 240
Production Rate - TPH{l) 225 230 220 225
Stack Eftl uent
Flow rate - ACfH 26790 26260 24830 25960
Flow rate - DSCFM 26200 25230 24170 25200
Temperature - of 69.0 74.0 72.0 71.7
Water vapor - Vol. % 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.4
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - See Table 38
% Opaci ty
Particulate Emissions
Pr~be and filter catch
gr/DS~F 0.0027 0.0038 0.0023 0.0029
gr/ACF_- - 0.0027 0.0036 0.0022 0.0028
lb/hr 0.61 0.82 0.47 0.63
lb/ton 0.0027 0.0036 0.0021 0.0028
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.0041 0.0045 0.0031 0.0039
gr/ACF 0.0040 0.0043 0.0030 0.0038
lb/hr 0.91 0.98 0.64 0.84
lb/ton 0.0040 0.0043 0.0029 0.0037
(1) Throughput through prima~ crusher.
C-48
-------
TABLE 38
FACI Ll TY D2
Summary of Visible Emissions(l)
I..ate: 9118174
Type of Plant:
Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
Type of u1scharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Oistance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 40 ft.
300 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
55 ft.
D1rection of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Uescrlption of Background: Trees
Description of Sky:
Clear
Wind Direction:
l'4ortherly
W1nd Veloc1ty: 5 to 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
Color of Plume: None
Duration of Observation:
240 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(2)
Time
Set Number
Start
End
Opacity
Sum Average
1 through 40
8:30
12:30
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during period of observation.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied with Time:
...
c:
cu
u
~
8-
-
?J
u
'"
g
o
o
I
1
I
2
I
3
I
4
Time. hours
C-49
-------
TABLE 39
FACILITY El
Summary of Results
"
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 11118/74 11118/74 11119/74
Test Time - Minutes 120 120 120 120
Production Rate - TPH(l) 384 342 460 395
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM 15272 13997 14975 14748
Flow rate - DSCFM 16297 14796 15642 15578
Temperature - of 33.1 40,4 41.0 38.2
Water vapor - Vol. % 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.3
'. Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - SEE TABLE 40
% Opaci ty
Particulate Emissions
Pro~c and filter catch
gr/DSC,F ! 0 .0134 0.0116 0.0147 0.0132
gr/ACF 0.0143 0.0122 0.0154 0.0140
1 b/hr 1.87 1.47 1.97 1.77
lb/ton 0.0049 0.0043 0.0043 0.0045
Total catch
gr/DSCF - 'q.0170 0.0137 ' 0.0164 0.0157
gr/ACF 0.0181 0.0145 .0.0171 0.0166
1b/hr ~ 2.37 1.74 ' 2.20. ' 2.10
lb/ton 0.0067 0.0051 0.0048 0.0055
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
C-50
-------
TABLE 40
FACILITY El
,..~ 1/; ~ " I. 1" r-~ ~ _.: ....~ - (l )
"'. ..~ tJ.\,; '-II"~~'V".;)
S u~a-:-y
Uate:
11/lU/74 - 11/19/74
Type of Plant:
Crushed Stone - Tertiary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Uischarge: Baghouse
~istancc from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
60 ft.
Haight of Point of Uischarge:
1/2 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
lJ~scri pti on of Background: Grey ~Ja 11
Uescription of Sky: Overcast
Wind Uirection: Westerly
Color of Plume: None
Wind Velocity:
2 - 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
Ouration of Observation:
11/18/74 - 120 minutes
11/19/74 - 60 minutes
Set Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Start
End
Sum
Opacity
Average
11/18/74
1 through 10
11 through 20
9:00
10:15
10:00
11:15
o
o
o
o
11/1~/74
21 through 30
10:07
11: 07
o
o
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
Sketch Snowing How Opacity Varied With Time:
C-51
-------
TABLE 41
FACI lITY E2
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 11/18/74 11/18/74 11/19/74
Test Time - Minutes .120 120 120 120
Production Rate - TPH(l) 384 342 460 395
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM 22169 19772 21426 21122
Flow rate - DSCFM 23001 19930 21779 21570
Temperature - OF I 44.5 59.2 55.0 52.9
Water vapor - Vol. S 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.9
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge - SEE TABLE 42
% Opacity
Particulate [missions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSC,F 0.0132 0.0096 0.0153 0.0127
gr/ACF 0.0137 0.0097 0.0155 0 . 0130
lb/hr 2.60 1.65 2.85 2.37
lb/ton 0.0068 0.0048 0.0062 0.0059
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.0205 O. 1378 0.0170 0.0171
gr/ACF 0.0213 0.0139 0.0173 0.0175
lb/hr 4.05 2.35 . 3.18 3.19
lb/ton 0.0105 0.0069 0.0069 0.0081
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
C-52
-------
TABLE 42
FACI LITY E2
Summary of Visible Emissions(l)
~ia te :
liiioi7~ - iiii;ii4
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens and Bins
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Uischarge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
120 ft
Height of Point of Uischarge:
1/2 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Sou th'
~scription of ~ackground:
Hill side
.'~{I
Description of Sky:
Clear
Wi nd Di recti on:
Wes ter1y
Wind Velocity: 2 - 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
Color of Plume: Hone
uuration of Observation:
11/18/74 - 120 minutes
11/19/74 - 60 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITy(2)
Time Opacity
Set I~umber Start End Sum AveraCJe
11/18174
1 through 10 12:50 1:50 0 0
11 through 20 1: 50 2:00 0 0
11/19/74
21 through 30 9:05 10:05 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
I C-53
-------
TafJl" 43
FI\C I l.I TV F
SW1t.v\RY OF VISWLE ErlISSII)~IS
OiJ te: 8/26/76
Ty~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyne of Oisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Two tertiary crushers (#4 and #5)
He1~1t of Point of Discharge: #4-20 ft.
#5-10 ft.
~escriotion of Background: Gray equipment
Structures
')'?scri otion of Sky: Partly cloudy
!~inrf Oirection: Variable
Distance from nbs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 100 ft.
Hei~ht of f)':Js~rvation Point: ground level
Dir~ctio~ of nbs~rver from nisc~arge Point: West
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Ouration of Observation:65 minutes
Wind Velocitv: 0-5 mph
Detacheri Plum~:
Summary of Data:
ODacity,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
~1in. Sec.
Opacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
"1in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3f)'
35
4')
45
Sf)
o
o
55
Fj')
65
7')
75
W).
85
?')
f)'j
1') f)
C-54
-------
Tabl~ 44
FACILITY F
SUMr~RY OF V 15 WL E PH 55 I ,)~15
Oa te: 8/26176
Ty~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Four .processing screens
He1!)'lt of Point of Discharge: 50 ft.
~cscriotion of Backgrounrl:gray walls
Distance from Qbsp.rver to ~ischarge Point: 100 ft.
Hei~ht of QlJsp.rvation Point: ground level
~~scrintion of Sky: Partly cloudy
Dir~ctio~ of Obsp.rver from nisc~arge Point: NE
Winrl Velocitv~ 0-5 mph
Winrl Oirection: Variable
Color of 'Plume: No visible plume
Oetacher:l Plum~:
Ouration of nbservation: 180 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooad ty,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
Min. Sec.
nDaci tv ,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
"1i n . Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
Sf)
o
o
55
Ij')
65
7')
75
8')
85
!J')
t'J1j
1f)fJ
C-55
-------
Tal)l" 45
FACILITY F
surmARY OF VISWLE PlISSI,)~IS
Oate: 8/27/76
Tv~~ of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tvoe of Oisc~arge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Conveyor transfer points
tI!:!i!J'lt of Point of Oischarge: 75 ft. Distance from ()bs~rver to r>ischarge Point: 150 ft.
~c5criotion of Aackgrounrl: Gray equipment
structures
')/?scriIJtion of Sl(y: Overcast
Winrl Oirection: Variable, S-SE
Hei ~h t of I)l]servati on Point: 50 ft.
Direction of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point: SE
Color of 'Plume: No visible plume
nur-1tion of f)bservation:179 minutes
Winrl Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Detacherl Plum~:
Summary of Data:
Qoac 1 ty,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
t1i n . Sec.
()oaci tv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
~reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
31)
35
4')
45
51)
o
o
55
~')
65
7'>
75
8'>
85
,9')
IJ5
1')')
C-56
-------
FI\CILITY Gl
SW1t1l\RY OF V I S I!1LE £111 55 I I)'IS
fJa te: 9/27/76
.TYI)f;! of,Plant: Feldspar
Type of nisc~ar~e:
Fugiti ve
location of [)i~charw': Prim~ry Crusher
1I~1 '111 tor Po i n tor Oi 5dlclr~I~: 10-30 ft.
Di s Lunce from ()bs~rvcr to I)i schargc Poi nt: 100 f.t
IIci~lht of ()~sr:!rvation Point: Ground level
I)cscriDtiol1 of lIilckurollnrl: Quarry wall &
equipment structures
')f?5cri Dtion of Sk.v: Partly cloudy
Wind Oir~ction: Northeast
Oir~ctio~ of Ohsprver from nisc~arge Point:s
Color of Plume:
Winrl Velocity: 0-10 mph
~etacherl Plum~: No
Ouration of ()bservati on: 60 minutes
Summary of Data:
OOl\city,
P~rccnt
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Th~n Givpn Onacity
-,1In. Sec.
Ooacitv,
P~rc~nt
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
30
35
41)
45
Sf)
o
45
55
1)1)
65
7'1
75
WI
85
9')
f)1j
If)0
C-57
-------
Tal,1l' 47
rl\CIl.ITY G1
SIHH1AHY ~F VISI~LE [llISSIf)\IS
r)a tc: 9/27/76
Tvry~ of P1~nt: Feldspar
Tvne of nisc~ar~c: Fugitive
loc~tion of Discharg~: Conveyor transfer point (#1)
lI~i'lllt of Point of l)i~,cllaruC!: 10 ft.
DisLuncc from 0hs~rver to ~ischargc Point:50 ft.
I')c5crlotion of lIackuround: Quarry wall
lIei0ht of Q':>servation Point: ground level
~~scrintion of Sky: Overcast
Dir~ctio~ of nbsprvcr from nisc~arge Point: SE
Win~ Oirection: Northeast
Wind Ve1ocitv: 0-5 mph
Color of Plume: No plume
Detached Plu~~: No
l)ur;Jtion of 0bc;crvation:
80 mi nu tes
Summary of Data:
OO.lcity,
P~rccn t
Total TiIl1'~ rqua1 to or
r;r~1(~~er Th~~~~i~~..9~~-~jJY
11n. Sec.
nnacitv,
P~rc~n t
Total Ti~e Equal to or
Greater T~an Given Ooacitv
---~'1T n . Sec.
----
5 0 0
11
15
20
25
30 /
35
IV)
45
Sf)
55
tjf)
115
7'J
75
WI
B5
~f)
f)!j
1'1")
C-58
-------
Tal) 10 48
FI\CIU fY G,
SIJt1r1l\HY IJF VISI!1LE (ll1SSI,)\/S
r)atc: 9/27/76
TYlJe of Plc1l1t: Feldspar
Tyoe of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Discharg~: Conveyor transfer point (#2)
tle1~~t of Point of Discharg~: 40 ft.
Distance from f)hs~rver to f)ischarge Point: 50 ft.
f)escriotion of Bdckgrounrl: Quarry wall
lIei ~!h t of f)lJs~rva ti on Point: ground 1 eve1
')~5crintion of Sl(y: Partly cloudy-Overcast nir~ctioYl of nb5~rver from r1iscl-Jarge Point: SE
'~i n,1 0; red ion:
North-northwest
Winrl Velocity: 0-10 mph
Detacherl P1um~: N/A
Color of Plume:
No plume
Our~tion of Observation: 87 minutes
Summary of Data:
OOilC i ty.
'pc.!rcc~_~-
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Gr('(~t(>r Than f,iven OnCicity
l1in. Sec.
Onacitv.
P~rcl3n t
Total Timp. Equal to or
~reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
---
5
11
15
20
25
3'>
35
IJ'>
4!;
Sf)
o
o
55
I)')
oS
7')
75
8'1
B5
g')
CJ'j
1 f)f")
C-59
-------
Ta',l" 49
r/\CIl.lTY Gl
StHHV\I~Y OF V I S I RU:. [111 55 I ')\15
nl1tc: 9/27/76
Tyt}~ of Plllnt: Feldspar
Type of 0 is cllll rsl<' : Fugiti ve
location of nischar~I(1: Secondary crusher
"9i~,llt of Point of Ui~cf.Jaru~: 10-20 ft.
Distllncc from nbs~rver to Discharge Point: 75 ft
I')escri oti on of Background: Equi pment
structure
~~~crintion of S~y: Partly cloudy -cloudy
Win~ Direction: Northwest
IIci9ht of Ol.Jsl?rvc1tion Point: 75 ft
Oir~ctio~ of Ob~(1rvl?r from nisc~arge Point:SSE
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Wino Velocity: 0-7 mph
Oetachp.rl Plu~~: N/A
Duration of Observation: 1 hour
SUrnmilry of Data:
Onac ity.
P~rccn t
Total Tim~ Equal to or
GrC'(ltrr ThCln r;iven Ooacity
--Hrii--:------~~c .
Onacitv,
P~rcen t
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater T~an Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3'>
35
4'>
45
50
o
o
55
'1')
65
7,}
75
WI
B5
~"I
fJ!j
11)1)
C-60
-------
Tal> 1" 50
FI\CY LI TV 61
SlJr1r1l\RV OF VISlnLE E'lISSI')'IS
I)ate: 9/27/76
Tyry~ of Pl~nt: Feldspar
Tyoe of nisc~l\rge: Fugitive
location of Dischar~I~: Conveyor transfer Point (#4)
tlgi~'1t of Point of Oi sC~i1rg~: 10 ft.
ryc5crintion of Rackgrounrl: cliff or wall
Distance from nhs~rver to ryischarge Point: 84 ft.
lIei~lht of f)lJs~rvation Point: 75 ft.
~~scrintion of S~y: cloudy
Wind Oirection: North
Dir~ctio~ of ObsArver from nisc~arge Point: SE
Winrl Velocity: 0-7 mph
Color of Plump.: No visible plume
Ouration of 0b~ervation: 84 minutes
Oetachp.rl Plu~~: N/A
Summary of Data:
DDac ity,
!,t.!rceni:-
Total Tjm~ [qual to or
Grea_ter Thein G~yp.n Onaci tx.
~1in. Sec.
Onaci tv,
P'=!rc~nt
Total Timp. Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
Sf)
o
o
55
~')
oS
7')
75
Wl
R,
~')
fJlj
l'}f')
C-61
-------
Toole 51
FACILITY G2
Summary of Results
Run Number 2 3 I\verage
Date 9/28/76 9/28/76 9/29/76
Test Time-minutes 120 120 120 120
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effl uent
rlow rate - ACFr~ 5070 4830 4470 4790
Flow rd tc - DSCFM 4210 3940 3720 3960
Temperature - of 105 115 103 108
Wdter vapor - Vol.%
Visible [missions at
Collector Discharge - See Tables 52 - 61
Percent Opac ity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCr 0.005 , 0.005 0.004 0.005
gr/I\CF 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
lb/hr 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.16
lb/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.005
gr/ ACF 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
lb/hr 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.16
lb/ton
C-62
-------
TABLC 52
FACILPV 62
Summa ry of Vi sib I e Emi s s ions
Date: 9/28/76
Type of Pi dn t:
Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Outlet Stack
Location of Dischilrge: No.2 Mill Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Approx. 40'
Height of Observation Point:
Approx. 100'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: E
Height of PQint of Discharge: 100'
Description of l3ackground: trees on hillside
. Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: 2-1/4 hours
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opucity
Set Number Sta r~Encr-Sum--Average-Set~(umbe r
1 09:48 09:54 N N 21
2 09:54 10:00 N N 22
3 10:00 10:06 N N 23
4 10:06 10: 12 N N 24
5 10: 12 10: 18 N N 25
6 10: 18 10:24 N N 26
7 10:24 10:30 N N 27
8 10:30 10:36 N N 28
'9 10:36 10:42 N N 29
10 10:42 10:48 N N 30
11 10:48 10:54 N N 31
12 10:54 1.1 : 00 N N 32
13 11:00 11:06 N N 33
14 11 :06 11 : 12 N N 34
15 11 : 12 11 : 18 N N 35
16 11 :18 11 :24 N N 36
17 11 :24 11: 30 N N 37
18 11 :30 11 : 36 N N 38
19 11: 36 11 :42 N N 39
20 . . . 11 : 42 11 :48 N N 40
Time
Start
End
Opacity
Sum Average
11:48
11: 54
12:00
11: 54
12:00
12:06
N
N
N
N
N
N
Sketch ~liowinu HO\'1 Opacity Varied With Time:
- p -_. -- ------~--_u_-. - - ---._------_._._~-
. I - . - .-- - - --- - .
-- ----1
~
t:
Q)
U
s...
Q)
Co
~ C-63
~
....
U
rU
-------
TABLr 53,
FAClLI1'f G2
Sumillary of Visiolc £/II155ion5
06te~ 91Z9176
TypE! of Fi dn t: Fe1 dspar
Type of Discharge: Outlet Stack
Location of Discharge: No.2 Mill
Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
approx. 50'
Height of Observation Point:
same level as discharge
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Height of Point of Discharge: 100'
Description of Background: hillside with trees
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Wind Direction: NE
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Wind Velocity: 0-5 m;/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 2 hrs.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity T1me Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 08:35 08:40 N N 21 10:35 10:37 N N
2 08:41 08:46 N N 22
3 08:47 08:52 N N 23
4 08:53 08:58 N N 24
5 08:59 09:04 N N 25
6 09:05 09 : 1 0 N N 26
7 09:11 09 :16 N N 27
8 09: 17 09:22 N N 28
'9 09:23 09:28 N N 29
10 09:29 09:34 N N 30
11 09:35 09:40 N N 31
12 09:41 09:46 N N 32
13 09:47 09:52 N N 33
14 09:53 09:58 N N 34
15 09:59 10:04 N N 35
16 10:05 10: 10 N N 36
17 10: 11 10: 16 N N 37
18 10: 17 10:22 N N 38
19 10:23 10:28 N N 39
2C " . . 10:29 10:34 N N 40
Sketch Snowing How Opacity Varied With Time:
---- ----.-"-.--..---...-- ~-.._--~----- -
--.--, - .--- -----------,
+J
c:
Q)
u
'-
Q)
0.
..
b
.,..
U
."
C-64
-------
TABU- 54
FACILlH G2
SUl1Il11dry of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/28/76
Type of Fi dn L:
Feldspar
. Type of Discharge: Outl et Stack
,Location of Discharge: No.2 Mill Baqhouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 100'
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Approx. 40' SE
Height of Observation Point: Approx. 100'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Descri pti on of [3ackground: grassy hi 11 side
Description of Sky: partly cloudy
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: approx. 2-1/4 hrs.
Wind Velocity: 0-15 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SU~iMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Tillie Opacity hme Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 14:48 14:54 N N 21 16:48 16:54 N N
2 14:54 15:00 N N 22 16:54 17:00 N N
3 15:00 15:06 N N 23
4 15:06 15: 12 N N 24
5 15: 12 15: 18 N N 25
6 15: 18 15:24 N N 26
7 15:24 15:30 N N 27
8 15:30 15:36 N N 28
9 15:36 15:42 N N 29
10 15:42 15:48 N N 30
11 15:48 15: 54 N N 31
12 15:54 16:00 N N 32
13 16:00 16:06 N N 33
14 16:06 16: 12 N N 34
15 16: 12 16: 18 N N 35
16 16: 18 16:24 N N 36
17 16:24 16:30 N N 37
18 16:30 16:36 N N 38
19 16:36 16:42 N N 39
20 . . . 16:42 L6:43 N N 40
Sketch Slio\'ling HO\'1 Opaci ty Varied With Time:
- .-- . _._--~,----, ~-. --"'------ --. ,
. - ... - .- -- - - - --l
~
c:
OJ
u
$..
OJ
0.
~
>.
.....
C-65
.,..
U
rtI
-------
Ta~10 55
FI\CILITY G2
SurH1I\RY OF VISI~LE ['lISSI')\IS
1)8te: 9/28/76
Tvrye of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Oisc~~r~e: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Ball mill (feed end)
He1~'t of Point of Discharge: 20 ft.
~escrfotion of Background: Building &
Equipment
Distance from nbsArver to ~ischarge Point: 35 ft.
lIei~ht of n'JsArvation Point:
~~5criDtion of S~y: N/A
Oir~ctio~ of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point: N/A
!4inrl Oirection:
N/A
Wino Velocity: N/A
Color of 'Plume: No visible plume
Our~tion of Observation: 1 hour
Detacherl Plume: N/A
Summary of Data:
ODi\CitYt
P~rccn t
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
--Hin. Sec.
Opaci tv t
PArcent
Total Timp. Equal to or
~reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
41)
45
Sf)
o
o
55
~')
65
7')
75
Wl
B5
9')
fJ!j
If)f)
C-66
-------
Tal) 1,., 56
FI\CILITY G2
SIH1(1I\RY IJF VrSIflLE ['l1SSI')'/5
Oate: 9/28176
TV~~ of Plant: Feldspar
Tvoe of Oiscllilr~e: Fugitive
location of Di~charge: Ball ~i1l (discharge end)
He1~~t of Point of Discharge: 20 ft.
~escriotion of Backgrounrl: Building and
equipment
Distance from 0bs~rvcr to ~ischarge Point: 35 ft.
lIei~ht of ()J)s8rvation Point:
~~scrintion of S~v: N/A
Win~ Direction: N/A
Dir~ction of Obsprver from nisc~arge Point:N/A
~4inrl Vclocitv: N/A
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Ouration of ()bscrvation: 1 hour
Detachr.rl Pl ume: N/A
Summary of Data:
ODacit.Y .
P~rccnt
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greatr.r Thlln Givp,n OnClcili
--nln. -Sec. -
Onacitv.
P~rcen t
Total Timp. Equal to or
r,reater Than Given Onacitv
-..fi n . Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
51)
o
o
55
~')
65
7'1
71
WI
fi,
9'1
C)1j
1f}f}
C-67
-------
Ta!) 1 ~ 57
FI\CILITY G2
SW1r-1ARY OF VISlf1LE [flISSI,)~IS
r)ate: 9/28/76
Tvryp' of Plant: Feldspar
Tvpe of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Indoor transfer point (#1)
U!?1!J\lt of Point of Oischarg~:
Distance from ObsArver to ~ischarge Point:
~escriotion of Backgrounrl: Building wall
Hei~ht of l)'Js~rvation Point:
~~scr1otion of Sky: N/A
Wind Oirection: N/A
nir~ction of Obsprver from nisc~arge Point: N/A
Color of 'P1ume: No visible plume
Ouration of Observation: 1 hour
Wino Velocity: N/A
Detacherl Plum~:N/A
Summary of Data:
ODltC f ty,
Percent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
l1in. Sec.
Opacitv,
Percen t
Total Timp. Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
"1i n . See.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
50
o
o
55
I)')
65
7"1
75
W)
85.
9"1
f}5
1 f)')
C-68
-------
Tal) 1 ~ 58
FACILITY G2
SIJt1r1l\RY fJF VISlflLE [rlISSI')~IS
Oate: 9/28176
TY~e of P1~nt: Feldspar
Type of nisc~~r~~: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Indoo; transfer point (#2)
lIe1!')1t of Point or Oischarg~:
Distance from nbs~rver to ~ischarge Point:
~escrlotion of Background: Building wall
~~scriotion of S~y: N/A
lIei~ht of f)lJs~rvation Point:
Dir~ctio" of nb5~rvcr from nisc~arge Point:N/A
Win~ Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Wind Velocitv: N/A
netach~rl Plum~: N/A
Ouration of Observation: 1 hour
Summary of Data:
Oo~city.
P~rcent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
~1..t(->r TJ!i!~;iv~~I)C\city-
11in. Sec.
Ooaci tv.
P~rc~nt
Total Timp. Equal to or
hreater Than Given Onacitv
"1i n . Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
5f)
o
o
55
, ~'1
fi5
7'1
75
W1
85
9'1
C)1j
1')')
C-69
-------
Tal) 1 ~ 59
FACILITY G2
SW1r1ARY OF VISlf1LE ErlISSIf)~IS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyrye of Plant: Feldspar
Type of nisc~arge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Indoor Bucket Elevator
Uei~!1t of Point of Oischarge:
~escriotion of Backgrotlnrl: Building walls
Distance from Obs~rver to ~ischarge Point:
I!ei~ht of f)~s~rvation Point:
~~scriotion of Sky: N/A
Wind Oirection: N/A
Oir~ctio" of Ob5~rver from nisc~arge Point: N/A
Wind Velocity: N/A
Color of 'Plume: No visible plume
Ouration of Observation: 1 hour
Oetacherl Plum~: N/A
Summary of Data:
ODacit.Y ,
Percent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
Min. Sec.
Onacitv,
P~rcent
Total Timp. Equal to or
r,reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3f)
35
4')
45
5f)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
WJ
85
9'1
r)lj
If)f')
C-70
-------
Tal) 1" 60
FACILITY 62
SIJr1r1ARY ~F VIS IBlE [flISS I'PIS
I)ate: 9/28/76
TYfJ~ of Pllll1t: Feldspar
Type of Oisc~~rge: Fugitive
location of Oischarg~: Truck"loading
H!:!1!)1t of Point of Oischarg~: 15 ft.
~escriotion of Background: Building wall
ry~scrintion of S~v: N/A
Distance from nbs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 30 ft.
Hei~lht of r:Jl.>sp.rvation Point: ground level
Dirp.ctioll of nbs~rver from nisc~ar~le Point~ E
Color of Plume:
N/A
Winn Velocity: N/A
Oetacherl Plu~~: N/A
Win~ Oirection: N/A
nuriJtion of 0bserv(\tion: 13 minutes
Summary of Data:
OOi\ciLy,
Pt!reent-
Total Tim~ Fqual to or
Gred_tC'r Thi1n r,ive~l O!~i'ci ty
-----r1i n. See.
Onaci tv,
P~rc~nt
Total Time Equal to or
~reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
31)
35
41)
45
Sf)
o
o
55
~')
oS
7')
75
WI
, 85
9'1
()I)
l'y)
C-71
-------
Taf) 1 ~ 61
FI\CILITY G2
SIJt1111\RY OF VISIHLE PlISSI,)\IS
Oate: 9/28116
Tv~p. of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Oisc~ar~e: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Railroad car loading
He1g~t of Point of Oischarg2: 15 ft.
~escriotion of Backgrounrl: Building wall
Distance from nbs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 25 ft.
Hei~ht of ()'Jsf!rvation Point: ground level
ry~ser1ntion of Skv: Cloudy
Oir~ction of nbs~rver from nisc~arge Point: E
Wind Oirection: N/A
Color of Plume: N/A
Wino Velocity: N/A
Detacherl Plum~: N/A
Ouration of Observation: 32 minutes
Summary of Data:
QDac ity,
P~reent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
Min. Sec.
Onacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
r,reater Than Given Onacitv
~i n . See.
5
1')
15
20
25
31)
35
4')
45
Sf)
5
o
15
o
55
ii,)
65
7')
75
Wl
85
9')
C)5
V) f)
C-72
-------
T<\I)l" 62
FI\CIl.l ry Hl
SIJr1t1l\RY OF V 151 HL E £111 SS J I)~IS
i)iJtc: 10/27 - 28176
Ty')/;! 0 f Pl ant: Gyps'urn
Tyoe of nisc~ar~e: Fugitive (leaks)
location of ()hcharg~: Hamrnermill
1I!!1f]'lt of Point or Ois(.~arg!:?: Leaks
Distance from nhs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 25 ft.
Hci~lht of f)\:)s~rvation Point: ground level
I'}cscrl oti on of H,ld.
-------
l(jiJl(~ 63
r f,C [L! I Y H2
\11I:IIIIi"Jt'Y 0:-
: ~ { I .} I: 1 1. ~~
1~lln Ulllillwr
C,I t
-------
TABLf~ 64
FACILlH H2
SLUlUlltiry of Visilde Emissions
Date: 10/27/76
Type of Fitlnl: Gypsum board manufacturer
Type of Oistharge; Stack
.
location of Discharge: Above plant roof
Height of Point of Discharue: 61 above roof
Descril1tion of l3ackground: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: 00 (N)
~olor of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 87 Min
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
-l-illle ---O-pucity
SetNullll)ct;--~i-~-rt End Sum Average
Time
OpacffY-
Sum Average
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Height of Observation Point: roof level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
2250 (S.W.)
Wind Velocity: - 10 mph
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Number
Start
End
1 1 31 2 .; 00 1316:45 125 6.25
2 1357:00 1402:45 155 6.46
3 1403:00 1408:45 135 5.62
4 1409:00 1414:45 150 6.25
5 1415:00 1420:45 140 5.83
6 1421:00 1426:45 125 5.21
7 1427:00 1432:45 135 5.62
8 1433:00 1438:45 130 5.42
9 1439:00 1444:45 125 5.21
10 1445:00 1450:45 115 4.79
11 1451:00 1456:45 95 3~96
12 1457:00 1502:45 70 2.92
13 1503:00 1508:45 80 3.33
14 1509:00 1514:45 85 3.54
15 1515:00 1519:05 60 3.53
16
17
18
19
20 . . .
Sketch Snowing How Opacity Varied With Time:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-. - - -..- --_...-. --- ----- - -- - ---------~ -- -
-+-,
t:
Q)
U
s...
Q)
0.
.. C-75
>.
4J
'r-
U
~
- .-' _. ---
---l
-------
TABU 64 (can't)
FACILPV H2
SUl\1l\1ilry of Visihle Emissions
Date: 10/27/76
Type of Fidnt: Gypsum board manufacturer
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Above plant roof
Height of Point of Discharge: 61 above roof
Description of nackground: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: 450 (N.E.)
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 92 min.
Set Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity
Start End Sum Average
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:25 ft.
Height of Observation Point: roof level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
2250 (S.W.)
Wind Velocity: - 10-15 mph
Detached Plume: No
Set Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity
End Sum Ave rage
Start
1 0830:QO 0835:45 45 1.87
2 0836:00 0841:45 65 2.71
3 0842:00 0847:45 70 2.92
4 0848:00 0849:00 5 1.00
5 0957:00 1002:45 125 5.21
6 1003:00 1008:45 60 2.50
7 1009:00 1014:45 80 3.33
8 1015:00 1020\45 85 3.54
'9 1021:00 1026:45 75 3.12
10 1027:00 1032:45 70 2.92
11 1033:00 1038:45 85 3.54
12 1039:00 1044:45 95 3.96
13 1045:00 1050:45 90 3.75
14 1051:00 1056:45 90 3.75
15 1057:00 1102 :45 70 2.92
16 1103:00 1108:45 55 2.29
17 1109 :00 111 0: 45 25 3.12
18
19
2{) ., . .
Sketch S~owing How Opacity Varied With Time:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
-- -~ ,---..------------- ~_.._--_._-.... -
- ,.,-.- --- -...... -'1
~
c:
(1)
U
L-
(1)
0.
.. C-76
b
....
U
IU
-------
Da t.e: 10/28/76
TABU 64 (con't)
FACILPY H2
SUll1mdry of Visihle Emissions
T'y~~ uf FidnL: Gypsum board manufacturer
Type of Discharge: Stack
location of Discharge: Above plant roof
lIeight of Poiltt of Discharge:6' above roof
Description of Background: Sky
Descri pti on of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: 1800 (S)
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 87 min
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Height of Observation Point: roof level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
2250 (S.W.)
Wind Velocity: - 10 mph
Detached Pl ume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
-~-----nriie 0pJcTLy
Set rfulliGer--~turt-End----S-uiiI7fve rllgese tNliiube r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 .'
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
---"i me or>acny-
-S.tart--End Sum -Average
0830:00
0930:00
0936:00
0942:00
0948:00
0945:00
1000:00
1006:00
1012:00
1018:00
1024:00
1030:00
1036:00
1042:00
1048:00
0835:45 40
0935: 45 95
0941:45 85
0947:45 65
0953:45 70
0959:45 60
1005:45 90
1011:45 40
1017:45 30
1023:45 25
1029:45 40
1035:45 60
1041 :45 25
1047:45 70
1050:45 10
1. 67
3.96
3.54
2.71
2.92
2.50
3.75
2.50
1.25
1.04
1. 67
2.50
1.04
2.92
0.83
Sketch Sho\'ling HOi'1 Opacity Varied With Time:
- -_.-- -- -- - - ---
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
- - . --- - -----.
- . ---
--- ---1
~
c:
ClJ
U
L-
ClJ
a. C-77
ft
i:;'
.,...
u
'"
-------
Tl\I)l~ 65
FI\CILITY I
Sur1r1l\RY QF V r 5 mL E PH 55 r ')'/5
f>ata: 9/30/76
Ty~~ of Plant: Mica
Type of nisc~argc: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Bagging Operation
Uei~'t of Point of Oischarg~: 3 ft.
~escriotion of nackgrounrl: Indoors
Distance from nbs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 7 ft.
IIei9ht of f)'Js~rvation Point: ground level
~~scrintion of 5~y: N/A
nir~ction of nb5~rver from nisc~arge Point: N/A
Wino Velocity: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of 'Plume: N/A.
Detacherl Plum~: N/A
Ouration of f)bservation: 1 hour
Summary of Data:
OOi\city,
P~rcent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Givp.n Onacity
---r~in. Sec.
Ooacitv,
P~rcent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
1')
15
20
25
3')
35
4'.>
45
Sf)
o
o
55
I)')
65
7')
75
8f)
85
g')
CJS
1f)f)
C-78
-------
T a~) 1 f'! 66
FJ\CILI fV Jl
51Jr1l1l\RV OF V I 5 IfILE ['11 55 I ')\15
r)ate: 10/20 - 21176
.
Ty')".? of Plutlt: Talc
Tyor. of Oisc;'l,wqe: Fugitive (leaks)
locillion 01 [)ir.char~Jr~: Vertical mill
Ih.!1~lllt of Point of l)i~cllar!J9:
In room
Distance from nhs~rver to ~ischarge Point: 10 ft.
lIei~lht of I)l:>s~rvation Point: Floor
~escriotion of Rackgrounrl: ceiling
~~scrintion of S~y: N/A
nir~ctio" of nb5~rvcr from nisc~arge Point: W
~in~ OircLtion: N/A
Color of Plume: White
!~inrl Velocity:
N/A
Oetacherl Plu~~: N/A
Ouratioll of l'J(,c;crvation: 90 minutes
Summa ry () r na tit :
OOile i ty.
P'~rc(~nt
Totdl Tim~ Equal to or
r;r(>(~~('I' Thim (; i yen Onilci!1.
~~III. See.
Onaeitv.
P~rc~n t
Tot~l Tim~ Equal to or
Greilter T~an Givcn Ooacitv
----~ln. Sec.
----- ---
----
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
IJ')
IJ!)
Sf)
o
o
55
Ii')
65
7'1
75
W)
R5
,)')
fJlj
1')'1
C-79
-------
Ta~)ll'? 67
F I\C I LI TV J 1
5lJr1f1ARY IJF V I S If\LE E'lI S5 I 1)'/5
lJate: 10/20/76
Tvryp' of Plant: Talc
Type of Oischar9c: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Primary crusher
Ue1 !J1t of Poi n t of Oi scharge: In room
~escriotion of Oackgrounrl: wall
~~scr;ntion of Sky: N/A
Di stance from fJbsArver to I)i scharge Poi nt: 5 ft
Hei~ht of f)~s~rvation Point: Floor
Oir~ction of Obs~rver from nisc~arge Point:w
Wind I);rection: N/A
Color of 'Plume: White
Winrl Velocity: N/A
Oetacherl Plume: N/A
Ouration of Observation: 90 minutes
Summary of Data:
Doac i ty,
Pt:.?rcent
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacity
t1in. Sec. -
Onacitv,
P~rcen t
Total Timp. Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
~in. Sec.
5
11
15
20
25
3')
35
4')
45
Sf)
20
8
1
o
15
o
15
o
55
1)1)
65
71)
75
W)
85
91)
CJ5.
1')1)
C-80
-------
Tal) 1 r> 68
FJ\CILITY J1
5IJt1r1l\RY ~)F V I 5 I!ll E [111 55 I ')\/5
fJate: 10/20 - 21/76
Tyry~ of Plilnt: Talt
Type of nisc~~r~p: Fugitive
locittion of Dhcharge: Secondary crusher
1I!'!1!I'lt of Point of rJiscl-Jarg~: In room
I'}cscrlotion of Background: wall
Distance froll] f)bs~rver to I')ischarge Point: 5 ft.
Ilei~lht of f)'Js~rvation Point: floor
~~scrintion of S~y: N/A
nir~ctio~ of nb5prv~r from nisc~arge Point: S
!~inrf lJirection:
N/A
Wind Ve1ocitv: N/A
Color of Plume: White
Oetacherl P1uM~: N/A
f)uration of f)bservation: 150 minutes
Summary of Dclt~:
Oni\city,
P~rcen t
Totd1 Tim~ Equal to or
Greate!' Th,m Given Onacity
--Hin--:-----Sec. -
Onaci tv.
P~rc~nt
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
----~ln. Sec.
--- - --
---
5
11
15
20
?5
3'1
35
II')
t15
50
3
o
o
45
15
o
55
I)')
65
7'1
75
~'l
~s
9'1
fJ'j
1f)'l
C-81
-------
TlI!) 1 '"! 69
FJ\CILI rv Jl
SIJr1r1J\RV OF V I S mL E [11I SS I,)\IS
Oate: 10/19 - 21/76
Tv~e of Plant: Ta1c
Type of Oisc~ar~e: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Bagge~
Heia~t of Point of Discharge: In room
ryescr1otion of Backgrounrl: wall
~~scriotion of S~v: N/A
Win~ Direction: N/A
Color of 'Plump.:
White
Ouration of Observation: 150 minutes
Summary of Data:
Distance from nbsArver to ryischarge Point: 10 ft.
lIei~ht of l)':Js~rvation Point: floor
Dir~ctiorr of Oosprver from niscl1arge Point: W
Winrl Velocity: N/A
Dctacherl Plume: N/A
Total Tim~ Equal to or
Greater Th~n Given Onacity
---;n n . Sec. -
OcacHy,
. Pt.!rcent
5
1')
15
20
25
31)
35
41')
45
Sf)
12
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
. 1
Onacitv,
P~rcent
45
15
o
15
o
o
30
30
15
15
55
i)')
65
7')
75
8")
B5
~')
1')1)
1')1')
C-82
Total Time Eq~al to or
r,reater Than Given Onacitv
~in. Sec.
o
o
o
o
o
45
45
15
15
e
-------
Ta'Jlr\ 70
rl\CTLl rv Jl
S!Jr11.v\RV OF V I S I HLE [111 SS I ')\/5
l')i.I tp.:
10/19/76
Tyr)~ of 1'1i\I1t:Talc'
Tyo(! of Oiscllilr~Jf': Fugitive
location of Di<;charqr\: Pebbl~ Mill No.2
Ib1qllt of PoinL or f)i~cllar~~: In room
Distilnce from ()hsl"!rvcr to r:>ischarge Point: 10 ft.
')escrin\.iol1 of Background: wall
lIei~lht of ()I)s~rvation Point: floor
')~~crintion of S~v: N/A
Dir'?ctiol1 of nb5~rvcr frorn nisc!,arge Point: W
~in~ l')irecLion: N/A
Wind Vclocitv: N/A
Color or 1'1IJlIlf!: White
I')('>L(\chf~rI Plllm~: N/A
I')ur~tion of Observalion: 90 minutes
Summary of Oata:
On.,c:i Ly,
P"r'Cf'1l I.
Totdl Tim~ Fquill Lo or
r.rC'clLc'r Thdn r;iv~11 Of)(leity
--- - HI II. ---------- ---- - --- See -:----
Ooaeitv,
P~rc(ln t
Total Ti~~ Equal to or
GrPiltcr T~an Given OOdeitv
--"1i ii .-- --- - ------~ Sec~---
..- ----. .--
--..---... -
5 5 0
11 0 45
15 0 0
20
2:'
31)
31.
.)
IJf)
IJ:,
Sf)
55
, ~')
(,5
7')
75
W1
.8'1
9'1
f)1j
1/1')
C-83
-------
I,d) 1 (' 71
ru:! I I I Y J2
~>l/i'lil:'IIY II; ~', : .) I: I t.~)
I~ 1111 ~:llIi1l)1 T 2 3 . /\,/prd ue
lJ;il,~ 10/20/76 10/20/76 10/21/76
Test TII:iP-lllllllllt":; 120 120 120 120
P rodtJc I. i 011 ldLe - TPII
Stuck [[i lu!'1I1.
Flu\! rdl.e - I\Cn'1 21,1,00 21,300 21,300 21,200
r1 0\'1 rl~ L e - DSCrr'1 20,200 20,200 19,500 20,000
1 CliIP!'I',) Lilt" - °1- 80 83 82 82
I'ldler '/dP(1:" - Vol.~: 0.3 0.3 1.0 0.5
Vhihlc 1:/1; I ':;~. i (Ill'; /Loll
C-84
-------
TABU" 72
FACILPY J2
SUlIllilury of VisilJle [missions
Date: 10/21/76
Type of ridlll.: Tu1c
.Type of Di schlll"ge: Stack
location of f)ischi1r~e: !3aghouse Outlet
Hei ght of Poi nt of Ui schargc: 30 I
Oescri pli on 0 f BJekground: Hi 11 s and trees
Description of Sky: Overcast - rain
Wind Direction: 600 NE
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: Approx. 2 hrs.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
--flmc-- -----lJpaclTy
Set NUri!ber-S-Lilrt~-d--Sulil flverilge
-~_. -- -- ---- ------
1 08:00 08:06 10 0.4
2 08:06 08: 12 0 0
3 08: 12 08: 18 0 0
4 08: 18 08:24 5 0.2
5 08:24 08:30 0 {)
6 08:30 08:36 5 0.2
7 08:36 08:42 5 0.2
8 08:42 08:48 0 0
9 08:4f! 08:54 0 0
10 08:54 09:00 0 0
11 09:00 09:06 5 0.2
12 09:06 09: 12 10 0.4
13 09: 12 09: 18 15 0.6
14 09: 18 09:24 5 0.2
15 09:24 09:30 5 0.2
16 09:30 09:36 5 0.2
17 09:36 09:42 5 0.2
18 09:42 09:48 0 0
19 09:48 09:54 5 0.2
20 09:54 10:00 5 0.2
.
Sketch S!io\'/in!j 110\'1 Opaei ty Vuried With Time:
- - ~. - --
~
c::
III
LJ
~
III
0.
~
>.,
~
"r-
lJ
-------
lAULr /2 (con't)
FACIU"fY J2
SUlIlmary of VisilJle ElIlissions
Date:
10/20/76
Ty~e of Pidni: Talc
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 100'
Height of Observation Point:approx. 36'
location of Discharge: Baghouse Outlet
Height of Point of Discharge: 30'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
1600 SE
Description of Background: Hills and trees
Description of Sky: Overcast - Rain
Wind Direction:
2900 NW
Wind Velocity: 4-7 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 2:05 min.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity
End Sum Average
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average Set Number
1 12:54 13:00 0 0 21
2 13:00 13:06 0 0 22
3 13:06 13: 12 0 0 23
4 13: 12 13: 18 5 0.2 24
5 13: 18 13:24 5 0.2 25
6 13:24 13:30 10 0.4 26
7 13:30 13:36 5 0.2 27
8 13:36 13:42 5 0.2 28
9 13:42 13:48 15 0.6 29
10 13:48 13:54 15 0.6 30
11 13:54 14:00 5 0.2 31
12 14:00 14:06 0 0 32
13 14:06 14: 12 5 0.2 33
14 14: 12 14: 18 0 0 34
15 14: 18 14:24 5 0.2 35
16 14:24 14:30 0 0 36
17 14:30 14:36 5 0.2 37
18 14:36 14:42 5 0.2 38
19 14:42 14:48 0 0 39
2{) " . . 14:48 14:54 0 0 40
Start
14:54
14: 59
o
o
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
----- - - - ---~---~------ . - ----- -. -
-.- - .- ...- .'- ---- --- -- - '--l
~
c:::
QJ
U
~
QJ
0.
..
~
C-86
.,...
u
~
-------
TAI3Lr 72 (con't)
FACILI I Y J2
SUlIllllclry of Visilde Emissions
Dat.e:
10/20/76
Type uf f:idllL: Tillc
Type of ()i5char~e: Stack
location of (Ji~clli1r!Jr.: Baghouse Outlet
Height of Point of Discharge: 30'
Descr; pL; on of Background: Hi 11 s and trees
Description of Sky:
Overcast
Wind Direction: 2900 NW
Color of P1umc: White
Duration of ObscrvJtion: 2:22 min.
sur'1~1AI~Y OF A VUU\G[ OPI\CITY
----------- -- -~rTiile-----1)pd-c lty
Sc t-r~uiiiGcr-----~-tilr-L--ti1(r --S.uII1--- - I\vcrage
---- ----- --
1 08:35 08:41 0 0
2 08:41 08:47 5 0.2
3 08:47 08:53 5 0.2
4 08:53 08:59 5 0.2
5 08:49 09:05 5 0.2
6 09:05 09: 11 5 0.2
7 09:11 09: 17 10 0.4
8 09: 17 09:23 5 0.2
9 09:23 09:29 5 0.2
10 09:29 09:35 5 0.2
11 09:35 09:41 0 0
12 09:41 09:47 10 0.4
13 09:47 09:53 0 0
14 09:53 09:59 0 0
15 09:59 10:05 5 \ 0.,2
16 10:05 10: 11 5 0.2
17 10: 11 10: 17 10 0.4
lB 10: 17 10:23 5 0.2
19 10:23 10:29 0 0
20 10:29 10:35 10 0.4
Di stance from Observer
approx. 100'
Height of Observation
approx. 36'
Direction of Observer
1600 SE
to Discharge Point:
Po i n t:
from Di scharge Po i nt:
Wind Velocity: 4-7 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
Se t Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPPCITY
Ti me Opaci ty
End Sum AYet~ge
Start
Sketch Sflo\'ling IICM Opaci ty Varied With Time:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
- - .- ---- .- .- --
...,
~
ill
U
~
ill
0.
~
~
.....
U
rU
C-87
10:35
10 :41
10:47
10:53
- .- - --- .
10:41
10:47
10:53
10:58
5
5
10
5
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.25
-l
-------
I u i> 1 (~ 73
U,C It I I Y K
S III II II ,'I) Y ():' : ~ I .. > I: I t. s
I: \In i:llill!JCI"
2
3
I~.\tr>rd ~Je
11..: L.:::
T(~(, L Ii 1,\('-111111111.(";
6121/77
120
6/21/77
120
6/22/77
120
120
ProducL ion \','IL(' - TPH
St.]d Ul'llll'lll
rl (HI ril Lc - I\Cn'1
rl 0\'1 I'd Ll~ - D:~CI'H
4,567 4,113 4,579 4,420
3,637 3,196 3,646 3,493
135.3 152.3 136.8 141.5
1.69 1.36 1.63 1. 56
See Table 74
Tf'llIli(Cr..)LII~-'~ - or
\.1 cI t (! r 'I d i' () I' - Vol. ~~
Vi') I h 1(1 t:1I1 I '; ~> i lHl <; II t
Col1(~r:l.or' lJi',(l1dr'~J(\ ..
P~rc('nl. Ol'dl. I Ly
fi,l r tic 111 ,I t (\ I: 1111 S'; ; 0 n <;
.................-.--- -~-~-- -- ---~-- --~ -
I' r 0 h C' ,111 cI I' ilL C I' Ctl L c 11
~~----~-----
gr/[1/111'
lb/LlHI
C-88
-------
TABU 74
FACILI IY K
SUllllllilry of Visilde Emissions
Date: 6t20 - 6/21/71
Type of FidrlL: Talc
Type of Di~clldr9c: Stack
lociltion of Discharge: Pebble mill
Distancc from Observer to Discharge Point: 125 ft.
Height of Observation Point:25 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: W
D,~scri pti on of Udckground: Equi pment and Mountai n
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: North Wi nd Velocity: 5 rnph
Color of Plume: White Detached Pl ume: N/A
Duration of Observation:
SUr~r~I\RY OF AVERJ\GE OPACITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
--- -------- -----'n mc OpdCity Time Opacity
SeTNu,iiGc-r-- --5 ta rt End Sum J\verage Set Number S ta r t End Sum Average
-------
1 1314 1320 80 3.33 21 802 808 10 0.42
2 1320 1326 10 0.42 22 808 814 5 0.21
3 1326 1332 5 0.21 23 814 820 5 0.21
4 1332 1338 10 0.42 24 820 826 30 1. 25
- 5 1338 1344 10 0.42 25 826 832 0 0.0
6 1344 1350 0 0.0 26 832 838 0 0.0
7 1350 1356 5 0.21 27 838 844 40 1. 67
n 1356 1402 0 0.0 28 844 850 75 3.13
9 1402 1408 5 0.21 29 850 856 50 2.08
10 1408 1414 5 0.21 30 856 902 65 2.32 .
11 1417 1423 5 0.21 31 903 909 35 1. 46
12 1423 1429 5 0.21 32 909 915 20 0.83
13 1429 1435 5 0.21 33 915 921 55 2.29
14 1435 1441 10 0.42 34 921 927 25 1. 04
15 1441 1447 5 0.21 35 927 933 55 2.29
16 1'11\7 H53 0 0.0 36 933 939 5S 2.29
1 7 11\53 1459 0 0.0 37 939 945 30 1. 24
18 1459 1505 5 0.21 38 945 951 55 2.29
19 1505 1511 0 0.0 39 951 957 70 2.92
20 1511 1517 10 0.42 40 957 1003 40 1. 67
SKetch Showing "ow Opacity Varied With Time:
-. -------_.- ----- -- - ---------- -- -
--._----
- --l
~
c:
OJ
u
~
<1J
a.
~
>. C-89
~
u
m
-------
TAI3L1 74 (can't)
FACIUIYK
SUlllilltlry of Visilde llilission~
Date: 6/20 - 6/21/71
Type 0 f F i d n c: Tal c
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:125 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 25 ft.
location of Discharge: Pebble Mill
Height of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: W
Description of B~ckground: Equipment and Mountain
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: North Wind Velocity: 5 mph
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
11 me -oPilClty Time Opacity
Set Nuniber--Start End Sum Average Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 1004 1009 30 1. 25 21 1407 1413 125 5.21
2 1208 1214 105 4.38 22
3 1214 1220 110 4.58 23
4 1220 1226 85 3.54 24
5 1226 1232 90 3.75 25
6 1232 1238 125 5.21 26
7 1238 1244 85 3.54 27
8 1244 1250 105 4.38 28
9 1250 1256 95 3.96 29
10 1256 1302 25 1. 32 30
11 1302 1308 65 2.95 31
12 1313 1319 95 3.96 32
13 1319 1325 105 4.38 33
14 1325 1331 40 1.67 34
15 1331 1337 30 1.30 35
16 1337 1343 60 2.61 36
17 1343 1349 55 2.29 37
18 1349 1355 35 1. 94 38
19 1355 1401 5 0.36 39
20 ... . 1401 1407 75 3.13 40
Sketch Sno\'ling How Opacity Varied With Time:
- _.- - - ---.-.----------
- -- --- -- --- ..-
- hn___- ---- --- - -- _n-1
....,
c:
QJ
U
~
QJ
0.
~
>.
....,
C-90
.,...
U
tU
-------
TABLE 75
FACILITY L1
Summary of Results
Run Number
1*
Date
12/6/78
60
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effl uent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
1 7180
14040
Temperature - of
Water vapor - Vol. %
136
7.4
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
4.53
3.70
lb/hr
lb/ton
545
Total catch (1)
----
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1 b/hr
lb/ton
* Test conducted concurrently with Run 2, Table 76.
(1) No analysis of back-half on ir-stack filter tests.
C-91
-------
TABLE 76
FACILITY L 1
Summary of Results
Run Nl.',mber 1 2* 3 Average
Date 12/6178 12/6/78 12/6/68
Test Time - Mi nutes 96 96 96 96
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 17690 17960 18060 17903
Flow rate- DSCFM 14790 14650 15080 14840
Temperature - of 131. 141. 141. 138
Water vapor - Vol. % 7.0 7.8 5.4 6.7
Visible Emissions at see
Collector Discharge - Table
% Opacity 77
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF 0.020 0.012 0.016 . 0.016
gr/ACF 0.017 0.010 0.013 0.013
lb/hr 2.49 1.54 2.01 2.01
lb/ton
Total catch{l)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
1 b/ton
*Test conducted concurrently with Run 1, Table 75.
(I) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
C-92
-------
TABLE 77
FACILITY Ll
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date:
12/6/78
Type of Plant:
Clay Processing
Location of Discharge:
Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 80 ft.
7 ft.
Type of Discharge:
Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: 80 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
Description of Background: Green Pine Forest
Description of Sky:
Blue
Wind Direction:
Northwest
Wind Velocity:
5 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation:
90 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
----
Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average
1 1400 1406 0 0
2 1406 1412 0 0
3 1412 1418 0 0
4 1418 1424 0 0
5 1424 1430 0 0
6 1430 1436 0 0
7 1436 1442 0 0
8 1442 1448 0 0
9 1448 1454 0 0
10 1454 1500 0 0
11 1500 1506 0 0
12 1506 1512 0 0
13 1512 1518 0 0
14 1518 1524 0 0
15 1524 1530 0 0
C-93
-------
TABLE 78
FACILITY L2
Summary of Results
Run Nl:mber
1
12/6/78
Date
Test Time - Minutes
56
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
8550
6960
Temperature - of
134
7.9
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
see
Table
82
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1. 76
1.43
1 b/hr
1 b/ton
105.
Total catch(l)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
lb/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
C-94
-------
TABLE 79
FACILITY L2
Summary of Results
Run Nl~mber 1 2 3 Average
Date 12/5/78 12/5/78 12/6/78
Test Time - Minutes 120 120 120 120
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 9780 9830 10340 9983
Flow rate- DSCFM 8120 8150 8560 8277
Temperature - of 129 123 136 129
Water vapor - Vol. % 8.4 9.4 6.7 8.2
Visible Emissions at see see see
Collector Discharge - Table Table Table
% Opacity 80 81 82
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF 0.010 0.005 0.007 0.007
gr/ACF 0.008 0.004 0.006 0.006
lb/hr 0.73 0.38 0.48 0.53
1 b/ ton
Total catch(1)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1 b/hr
lb/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
C-95
-------
TABLE 80
FACILITY L2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 12/5/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
25 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 100 Ft. Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: Southeast
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction:
East
Wind Velocity:
5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation:
approx. 120 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 0953:00 0959:15 120 5 21 1202:30 1203:00 10 5
2 0959:15 1005:45 120 5
3 1005:45 1011 :45 120 5
4 1011:45 1018:15 120 5
5 1018:15 1024:15 120 5
6 1024:15' 1030:45 120 5
7 1030: 15 1037:00 100 4.2
8 1037:00 1039:00
1044:00 1048:00 80 3.3
9 1048:00 1054:15 120 5
10 1054:15 1100: 15 120 5
11 11 00: 1 5 11 06 : 15 120 5
12 11 06 : 1 5 1112:15 120 5
13 1112:15 1118: 30 120 5
14 1118: 30 1124: 30 120 5
15 1124: 30 11 31 : 00 120 5
16 1131 :00 1137: 00 120 5
17 1137:00 1143: 15 120 5
18 1143: 15 1149:30 120 5
19 1149: 30 1156:30 115 4.8
20 1156: 30 1202:30 110 4.6
C-96
-------
TABLE 81
FACILITY L2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 12/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
25 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
100 ft.Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
east
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction:
East
Wind Velocity:
5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation:
128 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set Time Opac ity
Number Sfart End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 1357 1403 0 0 21 1557 1603 0 0
2 1403 1409 0 0 22 1603 1605 0 0
3 1409 1415 0 0
4 1415 1421 0 0
5 1421 1477 0 0
6 1427 1433 0 0
7 1433 1439 0 0
8 1439 1445 0 0
9 1445 1451 0 0
10 1451 1457 0 0
11 1457 1503 0 0
12 1503 1509 0 0
13 1509 1515 0 0
14 1515 1521 0 0
15 1521 1527 0 0
16 1527 1533 0 0
17 1533 1539 0 0
18 1539 1545 0 0
19 1545 1551 0 0
20 1551 1557 0 0
C-97
-------
TABLE 82
FACILITY L2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date:
12/5/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
25 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
100 ft.Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
east
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction: East
Wind Velocity:
5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White
Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation:
approx. 120 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opac i ty Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 1050 1056 0 0
2 1056 1102 0 0
3 1102 1108 0 0
4 1108 1114 0 0
5 1114 1120 0 0
6 1120 1126 0 0
7 1126 1132 0 0
8 1132 1138 0 0
9 1138 1144 0 0
10 1144 1150 0 0
11 1152 1158 0 0
12 1158 1204 0 0
13 1204 1210 0 0
14 1210 1216 0 0
15 1216 1222 0 0
16 1222 1228 0 0
17 1228 1234 0 0
18 1234 1240 0 , 0
19 1240 1246 0 0
20 1246 1251 0 0
C-98
-------
TABLE 83
FACILITY M1
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 6/14/78 6/15/78 6/15/78
Test Time - Minutes 120 120 120 120
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 1840 1490 1560 1630
Flow rate- DSCFM 1620 1300 1360 1427
Temperature - of 124 121 124 123
Water vapor - Vol. % 2.8 4.1 4.2 3.7
Visible Emissions at see see see
Collector Discharge - Table Table Table
% Opacity 84 85 86
Particulate Emissions
Probr and Filter catch
gr/DSCF 0 . 001 O. 001 0.007 0.003
gr/ACF 0 . 001 0 . 001 0.006 0.003
lb/hr 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.04
1 b/ton
Tota 1 catch (1)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1 b/hr
lb/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests~
C-99
-------
TABLE 84
FACILITY Ml
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/14/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
90 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Height of Observation Point: 35 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Direction:
NNE
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation:
151 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 1538 1544 0 0 21 1738 1744 0 0
2 1544 1550 0 0 22 1744 1750 0 0
3 1550 1556 0 0 23 1750 1756 0 0
4 1556 1602 0 0 24 1756 1802 0 0
5 1602 1608 0 0 25 1802 1808 0 0
6 1608 1614 0 0 26 1808 1809 0 0
7 1614 1620 0 0 27
8 1620 1626 0 0 28
9 1626 1632 0 0 29
10 1632 1638 0 0 30
11 1638 1644 0 0 31
12 1644 1650 0 0 32
13 1650 1656 0 0 33
14 1656 1702 0 0 34
15 17,02 1708 0 0 35
16 1708 1714 0 0 36
17 1714 1720 0 0 37
18 1720 1726 0 0 38
19 1726 1732 0 0 39
20 1732 1738 0 0 40
C-l00
-------
TABLE 85
FACILITY M1
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 35 ft.
90 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Sky
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Sky: cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 mi/hr.
Duration of Observation:
134 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set TilTle Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 913 919 0 0 21 1113 1119 0 0
2 919 925 0 0 22 1119 1125 0 0
3 925 931 0 0 23 1125 1127 0 0
4 931 937 0 0 24
5 937 943 0 0 25
6 943 949 0 0 26
7 949 955 0 0 27
8 955 1001 0 0 28
9 1001 1007 0 0 29
10 1007 1013 0 0 30
11 1013 1019 0 0 31
12 1019 1025 0 0 32
13 1025 1031 0 0 33
14 1031 1037 0 0 34
15 1037 1043 0 0 35
16 1043 1049 0 0 36
17 1049 1055 0 0 37
18 1055 1101 0 0 38
19 1101 1107 0 0 39
20 1107 1113 0 0 40
C-101
-------
TABLE 86
FACILITY Ml
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 35 ft.
90 ft.
Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: East
Descripti9n of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 mi/hr.
Duration of Observation:
183 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opaci ty Set Time Opacity
Numher Start End Sum ' Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 1332 1338 0 0 21 1606 1608
2 1338 1344 0 0 1625 1629 0 0
3 1344 1350 0 0 22 1629 1634 0 0
4 1350 1356 0 0 24
5 1356 1402 0 0 25
6 1402 1408 0 0 26
7 1442 1448 0 0 27
8 1448 1454 0 0 28
9 1454 1500 0 0 29
10 1500 1506 0 0 30
11 1506 1512 0 0 31
12 1512 1518 0 0 32
13 1518 1524 0 0 33
14 1524 1530 0 0 34
15 1530 1536 0 0 35
16 1536 1542 0 0 36
17 1542 1548 0 0 37
18 1548 1554 0 0 38
19 1554 1660 0 0 39
20 1600 1606 0 0 40
C-l02
-------
TABLE 87
FACILITY M2
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 3 Average
Date 6/14/78 6/15/78 6/15/78
Test Time - Minutes 120 120 120 120
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 2580 2460 2450 2497
Flow rate- DSCFM 2100 2090 2100 2097
Temperature - of 183 151 150 161
Water vapor - Vol. % 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.5
Visible Emissions at see see see
Collector Discharge - Table Table Table
% Opacity 88 89 90
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF 0.002 0.002 0 . 001 0.002
gr/ACF 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.002
1 b/hr 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03
1 b/ton
Tota 1 catch (1)
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1 b/hr
lb/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
C-103
-------
TABLE 88
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/14/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
90 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Sky
Description of Sky: P~rtly cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation:
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
30 minutes
10 mi/hr.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time
Number Start End
1 1528 1534
2 1534 1540
3 1540 1546
4 1546 1552
5 1552 1558
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Opacity
Sum Average
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
o 0
Set
Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Time
Start
End
Opacity
Sum Average
C-l04
-------
TABLE 89
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/1 S/7U
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
90 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Sky
Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Sky: cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 mi/hr.
Duration of Observation:
128 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 850 856 0 0 21 1050 1056 0 0
2 "" 856 902 0 0 22 1056 1058 0 0
3 902 908 0 0 23
4 908 914 0 0 24
5 914 920 0 0 25
6 920 926 0 0 26
7 926 932 0 0 27
8 932 938 0 0 28
9 938 944 0 0 29
10 944 950 0 0 30
11 950 956 0 0 31
12 956 1002 0 0 32
13 1002 1008 0 0 33
14 1008 1014 0 0 34
15 1014 1020 0 0 35
16 1020 1026 0 0 36
17 1026 1032 0 0 37
18 1032 1038 01 0 38
19 1038 1044 0 0 39
20 1044 1050 0 0 40
C-105
-------
TABLE 90
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
90 ft.
Type of Discharge: Stack
Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: East
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Color of Plume:
Wind Velocity:
Detached Plume:
10 mi/hr.
Wind Direction: NNE
Duration of Observation:
139 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time Opacity Set Time Opacity
Number Start End Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
1 1359 1405 0 0 21 1559 1605 0 0
2 1405 1411 0 0 22 1605 1611 0 0
3 1411 1417 0 0 23 1611 1617 0 0
4 1417 1423 0 0 24 1617 1618 0 0
5 1423 1429 0 0 25
6 1429 1435 0 0 26
7 1435 1441 0 0 27
8 1441 1447 0 0 28
9 1447 1453 0 0 29
10 1453 1459 0 0 30
11 1459 1505 0 0 31
12 1505 1511 0 0 32
13 1511 1517 0 0 33
14 1517 1523 0 0 34
15 1523 1529 0 0 35
1.6 1529 1535 0 0 36
17 1535 1541 0 0 37
18 1541 1547 0 0 38
19 1547 1553 0 0 39
20 1553 1559 0 0 40
C-l06
-------
TABLE 91
FACILITY N
Su~ary of Results of Fugitive Emission Tests performed
on three separate rail car loadings
Accumulated Accumulated
Observation observation emission % Emission
area period time (AET/AOP x 100)
(min:sec) (min:sec)
Test #1
A 144:32 22:42 15.7
B 144:32 17:30 12.1
C 144:32 0:00 0
Test #2
A 99:45 18:50 18.9
B 99:45 2:06 2. 1
C 99:45 0.00 0
Test #3
A 1 54: 20 63:42 41.3
B 154:20 0:20 0.2
C 154:20 9: 21 6. 1
1.
Designation of observation position~
A. Loading hose
B. West end of shed
C. East end of shed
- . . -
C-107
-------
TABLE 92
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY P
Percent of ti me
with visible emissions
Time
period
Observed ti me
(minutes)
Observer
2
Test point 5, Final screens, 10/3/79
1035-1055 20 0 <1
1105-1125 20 <1 0
1130-1150 20 <1 0
Test point 7, Transfer point, 10/3/79
1324-1424 60
C- 108
-------
TABLE 93
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGESa
FACILITY P
TP-1 TP-4 TP-6
Primary Impact Cone
Run Crusher Crusher Crusher
Observer Observer Observer
3 4 3 4 3 4
1 9 13 15 10 4 11
2 7 11 11 7 5 18
3 14 15 11 7 9 22
4 14 17 11 10 11 25
5 13 11 11 10 9 23
6 11 11 10 8 10 17
7 12b 11 10 13 9 16
8 7c 10 11 13 7 15
9 - 13 13 10 10 15
10 9 10 11 9 8 16
11 11 15 8 15
12 10 18 13 21
13 13 10 7 13
14 8 8 8 13
15 10 10 8 15
16 10 11 1 4
17 8 5 0 2
18 0 1
19 0 1
20 1 4
aVa1ues reported in percent opacity.
b4-nrinute average
c5-minute average
C-109
-------
TABLE 94
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY Q
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Time Observed time
period (minutes) Observer
1 2
Test point 2, Initial screens, 10/10/79 - 10/11/79
101O-1040a 30 34 65
0820-0856 30 4 7
Test point 3, Transfer point, 10/10/79
0851-0921a 30 27 31
0931-1001a 30 64 67
Test point 5, Secondary screens, 10/8/79
0848-0918 30 0 0
0940-1010 30 0 0
1015-1045 30 0 0
1057 -1127 30 <1 0
Test point 7, Final screens, 10/8/79
1250-1320 30 0 0
1330-1400 30 0 0
1407-1437 30 0 0
1451-1521 30 0 0
a"Red Rock" material.
omitted.
Not processed under representative conditions. Data
C- 11 0
-------
TABLE 95
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGESa
FACILITY Q
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
TP-1 TP-6
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Observer
Observer
3 4
11 11
11 14
6 8
12 18
12 17
3 5
2 9
1 . 4
2 8
1 6
1 6
1 7
2 8
3 12
3 10
3 6
2 6
2 5
1 2
1 3
3 4
15 12
18 17
18 19
17 19
10 12
15 18
19 19
20 21
23 23
24 23
28 24
26 26
28b 28b
25 23
28 28
29 26
27c .26c
27 29
29 34
26 38
25c 39c
aVa1ues reported in percent opacity.
b4-minute average.
c5-minute average.
C-111
-------
TABLE 96
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY R
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Time
period
Observed time
(minutes)
Observer
1
2
Test point 1, Initial
0720-0750
0800-0830
0840-0910
0920-0941 I
0722-0732 \
screens 10/12/79, 10/15/79
30
30
30
30
Test point 3, Transfer point, 10/16/79
0731-0801 30
Test point 4, Secondary screens,
0907-0937 30
0945-1015 30
1035-1105 30
1310-1340 30
10/16/79
5
1
42a
5
Test point 6, Final
1020-1050
1055- 1125
11 30- 1200
1303-1333
screens,
10/15/79
30
30
30
30
Test point 7A, Transfer point, 10/15/79
1610-1640 30
1646-1716 30
Test point 7B, Transfer point, 10/16/79
1415-1445 30
1455-1525 30
2
1 <1
2 1
2 4
6
12
15
1
4a
10
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
4
o
4
aOata omitted - wind interference.
C- 112 '
-------
TABLE 97
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGESa
FACILITY R
TP-2 TP-5
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Run
Observer Observer
3 4 3 4
1 14 13 8 12
2 16 14 9 14
3 16 14 9 17
4 16 9 12 15,
5 12 13 13 15
6 9 15 11 15
7 13 14 13 16
8 9 14 12 14
9 13 15 13 16
10 12 13 12 14
11 17 16 12 17
12 9 13 10 17
13 14 11 9 17
14 13 12 7 10
15 15 13 8 15
16 8 9 12 10
17 6 6 13 11
18 7 9 11 11
19 10 11 11 11
20 9 12 12 11
aData reported in percent opacity.
C- 113
-------
TABLE 98
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY S
Time
period
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Observed time
(minutes)
Observer
1
2
Test point 2, Initial Screens, 10/24/79
1516-1546 30 0 0
1558-1628 30 0 0
11 00-1130 30 0 0
1302-1332 30 0 0
Test point 4, Secondary screens, 10/22/79, 10/23/79
11 08- 11 38 30 1 10
1143-1158 15 1 13
0745-0805 15 1 5
0810-1840 30 1 6
0845-0915 ' 30 1 7
Test point 6, Transfer point,
1257-1327
1335-1350
1338-1353
1355-1425
1433-1503
Test point 7, Transfer point,
0750-0820
0826-0856
0915-0945
0955-1025
10/23/79,
30
15
, 15
30
30
10/25/79
30
30
30
30
10/24/79
o
o
o
o
o
o
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C- 114
-------
TABLE 99
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGESa
FACILITY S
TP-3 TP-5
TP-1 4-1/2 in. 5-1/2 in.
Primary crusher Cone crusher Cone crusher
Run
Observer Observer Observer
3 4 3 4 3 4
1 2 1 3 3 0 0
2 1 2 4 4 0 2
3 1 1 4 5 3 5
4 1 0 2 3 5 5
5 1 1 4 3 4 4
6 1 3 6 4 10 9
7 1 2 6 4 11 9
8 <1 1 3 2 14 10
9 0 2 2 2 11 10
10 1 1 5 3 13 10
11 1 1 4 3 11 11
12 0 0 5 5 11 10
13 0 0 3 2 12 15
14 0 1 5 4 8 9
15 2 2 5 3 10 12
16 1 0 4 2 12 12
17 3 2 3 0 9 10
18 3 3 3 2 6 9
19 2 1 3 1 7 11
20 0 1 1 2 5 9
aData reported in percent opacity.
C-115
-------
TABLE 100
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY T
Time
period
Observed time
(minutes)
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Observer
2
Test point 2, Transfer point,
1353-1427
1428-1458
1533-1603
1125- 1155
Test point 3, Initial
1300-1330
1336-1406
1412-1542
1450-1520
10/26/79, 10/29/79
30
30
30
30
screens, 10/29/79, 10/30/79
30
30
30
30
10/29/79, 10/30/79
30
30
30
30
Test point 5, Storage bin,
0755-0825
1023-1053
0908-0938
0947-1017
o
4
3
2
1
2
1
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
C-116
-------
TABLE 101
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGESa
FACILITY T
TP-1 TP-4
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Run Observer Observer
3 4 3 4
1 4 8 18 15
2 6 7 21 14
3 9 8 22 14
4 3 3 23 15
5 5 5 19 13
6 10 8 17 11
7 4 3 20 13
8 9 5 15 8
9 8 7 15 8
10 7 7 15 9
11 8 8 16 6
12 8 8 6 7
13 8 6 10 11
14 13 8 17 16
15 10 6 19 16
16 13 8 18 15
17 10 5 15 15
18 9 4 16 13
19 10 6 18 16
20 6 5 13 14
aData reported in percent opacity.
C-117
-------
Table 102 and Figures 2 through 6 represent visible emission data given in
this Appendix, on a basis of percent of total time of recorded visible emissions
(e.g., in a Method 22 format) and on a basis of how opacity varied with time
(e.g., in a Method 9 format). These observations were executed for fugitive
emissions. The use of Method 22, as it applies to the proposed standard for
non-metallic mineral processing plants would be applicable to all fugitive non-
crushing sources of dust.
This test would also be employed to check the effec-
tiveness of a capture system, if used, at any process facility.
Method 9
would be used for measurement of all crusher-related sources of dust.
A des-
cription of each of the process facilities listed in Table 102 is given at the
beginning of this Appendix.
Data for 64 observation periods of visible emissions readings covering
54 process facilities at 14 non-metallic processing plants is given in Table
102.
All facilities observed were fugitive emission discharges from uncontro1-
led, hooded or wet suppression controlled facilities.
C-118
-------
TABLE 102. SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE SOURCES AT
NON-METALLIC MINERALS PLANTS
Date of Accumu 1 a ted Accumulated Percent of time
Plant/Rock type processed Process facll ity observation time emi ss i on time with visible
test (mi nutes) lminutes) emiss ions
A Crushed 1 i mes tone 7/9/75 Baghouse discharge to conveyor 240 0 0
Primary lmoact crusher discharge 240 4 1
Conveyor transfer ooint 166 3 2
B Crushed limestone 7/1/75 Scalpinc; screen 287 45 15
Surge bl n 287 3 1
Secondary cone crusher No.1 231 23 10
Seconda ry cone crusher No.2 231 0 0
Seconda ry cone crusher No.3 231 0 0
nl
I I Harrme r mi 11 287 0 0
~I 3-deck finishing screen lL) 107 4 4
~, 3-deck fin1shing screen (R)
I 107 0 0
6/30/75 Two 3-deck finishing screens 120 86 72
o Crushed stone 7/8/75 No.1 tertiary gyrasphere 170 0 0
cone crusher
No.2 tertlary gyrasphere 170 0 0
cone crusher
Secondary standard cone crusher 170 0 0
Scalping screen 210 0 0
Secondary (2-deck) sizing screen 210 0 0
Secondary l3-deck) sizing screen 210 0 0
F Traprock 8/26/76 Two tertlary crushers 65 0 0
Four processing screens 180 0 0
Conveyor transfer points 179 D 0
(conti nued)
-------
TABLE 102 (continued)
Date of Accumu 1 a ted AcclBllulated Percent of time
Plant/Rock type processed test Process facility observation time emi ss i on time with visible
(minutes) (mi nutes) emi ss ions
G Feldspar 9/27/76 Conveyor transfer point No.1 80 0 0
Conveyor transfer point No.2 87 0 0
Primary crusher 60 1 2
Secondary crusher 60 0 0
Conveyor transfer point No.4 84 0 0
Ba 11 mill (feed end) 60 0 0
Ball mill (discharge end) 60 0 0
Indoor transfer point No.1 60 0 0
Indoor transfer Doint No.2 60 0 0
("") Indoor bucket elevator 60 0 0
I
....... Truck loading 13 0 0
N!
01 Rail car loading 32 5 15
H Gypsum 10/27/76 Hanmer mill 298 2 1
Mica 9/30/76 Bagging operation 60 0 0
J Talc 10/21/76 Vertical mill 90 0 0
Primary crusher 90 20 22
Secondary crusher 150 4 3
Bagger 150 13 9
Pebb 1 e mi 11 90 6 7
N Kaolin 12/7 /78 Rail car loading
T es t 1 144 17 12
Test 2 99 2 2
Test 3 154 9 6
(continued)
-------
TABLE 102 {continued}
Acc l6IIU 1 ated Accumulated Percent of
Plant Rock type Date of Process observation emission time with
processed test fad 1 ity time time visible
(minutes) (minutes)a emissions
P Crushed Limestone (S)b 10/02/79 Secondary screen 60 0 0
Transfer point 60 < 1 1
Q Crushed Limestone (S) 10/10/79 Three process screens 270 2 < 1
R Crushed Limestone (P)C 10/15/79 Three process screens 210 11 5
Two transfer points 120 1 < 1
S Crushed Granite (S) 10/23/79 Two process screens 240 10 4
Two transfer points 240 < 1 0
n: T Crushed Li mes tone (P) 10/29/79 Process screen 120 0 0
I '
--' Transfer point 120 3 2
N
--'
Storage bin 120 0 0
aData from observer with highest readings.
b(S) = Stationary plant.
c(P) = Portable ~lant.
-------
18
16
14
- .2
c:
.
u
..
.
a. 10
n
I
--.I
N
N
~
>
~
(,)
cr
n.
o
Figure C-2.
.S perce" t OPACI TV
10 percent OPACITY
8
6
2
SET I
o
o
24
60
l
o
'2
36
TIME J minute,
\
\ ,
\ ,
. ,
x
a
12
X It
, , , \
\ ,
\ ,
\ ,
X
\
\
\ '"
\ "
, 'x
X ,
-'. I '--OBSERVER
X
2
SET 2
a
24
1
36
I
48
,
60
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive primary crushing
sources (portable-Facility T) by means of wet suppression (according to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
14 I
x
,
,
,
12 I
- X
c
.,
u
..
. 10
Q.
-
>-
....
n 0 8
I c(
-J Q.
N 0
w
6
4
2
0
Figul'e C-3.
x~ OBSERVER Z
'\
I \
/ \
\
,x
, \
, \
x
, \
, \
15 percent OPACITY
,/
X
,
\
X
,- OBSERVER I
o
10 percent OPAC ITY
SET I
TINE. minute.
X--X--X~OBSERVER Z
\
,
"
I \
\ I \
\ I \
\, \
, I
1 I
I{
r OBSERVER I
SET 2
I
o
I
48
I
60
I
12
I
24
I
36
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive secondary crushing
source (portable-Facility R) by means of wet suppression (according to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
14
- 12
c
.
u
..
. 10
~
.
>-
....
0 8
cr
Q.
0
C1
I 6
-'
N
~
4
Figure C-4.
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPACITY
2
x, ~ OBSERVER 2
/ "
X I'X X
~, I",
, I ,/"
x' '.,. IIiI .~' )II
"x'/ ~OBSERVER
o
SET 1
TIME. minutes
I
o
SET 2
I I
24 36
I
60
I
12
I
48
Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled fugitive primary crushing
source (stationary-Facility S) by means of wet suppression (according to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
14
- 12
~
.
u
..
. 10
Q.
-
>-
....
u 8
c(
n 0.
I 0
-'
N 6
(J'I
4
/
)(
2
o
1
o
Figure C-5.
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPACITY
/OBSERVER I
/ OBSERVER 2
oeSERVER 2
" \ X,
, \ "
x " 'x
I ,
\ , ,
x J'X x
, I'"
OBSERVER I ..' "....
.. I II.
, ,
x
SET 1
SET 2
I
12
I
24
I
24
I
48
I
60
I
o
I
12
I
36
I
48
I
36
.
60
T I ME I minutes
Summary of visible emission measurement from best controlled fugitive secondary crusher
(small, stationary-Facility S) by means of wet suppression (according to EPA Method 9).
-------
18
16
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPAC ITV
[\
\
1 '\ ~ OBSERVER Z
I \/
I \
A\ ,x--
, I \ \
.' \
X
I ,
14
OBSERVER I
~
~
u 8
-------
APPENDIX D
EMISSION MEASUREMENT AND CONTINUOUS MONITORING
D.1
EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
For particulate matter and visible emissions measurements from stacks,
EPA relies primarily upon Methods 5 and 9, which have been established as
reference methods.
In addition, a new reference method, Method 22, is being
proposed to determine compliance with the fugitive emissions standard. The
proposed method requires that observations of visible emissions be made for a
minimum of 1 hour.
It determines the amount of time that any visible
emissions occur during the observation period, but not the opacity of the
emissions.
The proposed method specifies that uncombined water vapor is not
considered visible emissions for determining compliance with the standard.
An observer performs the visible observations over a minimum observation
period of 1 hour, noting the total number of minutes in the total observation
period that visible emissions were observed.
Dividing the amount of time that
visible emissions were observed by the total observation time yields the
percentage of time of visible emissions. The emission data from the non-
metallic industry may be obtained using these reference methods as prescribed
in the Federal Register.
In addition, as the particulate concentrations are
expected to be independent of temperature for this industry, Method 17 (in-
stack filtration) is an acceptable particulate sampling method.
0-1
-------
The one serious problem encountered during the testing of stacks in the
non-metallic minerals industry was the low concentration levels of particulate.
Some emissions tests resulted in particulate catches of less than 10 mg
corresponding to 0.0005 gr/dscf.
An EPA laboratory study showed that because
of positive biases from the Ic1ean-up" blank, results from tests where low
concentration levels are encountered are biased toward the high side.
This
bias was no more than a factor of two for particulate catches down to 8 mg.
Data from an EPA report, "Additiona1 Studies on Obtaining Replicate
Particulate Samples From Stationary Sources, II by William J. Mitchell, indicate
that particulate catches of about 50 mg are adequate to insure an error of no
more than 10 percent.
Lower levels were not studied.
Based on theoretical
calculations, particulate weights as small as 12 mg were estimated to be
sufficient to insure an error no greater than 10 percent.
0.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
The effluent streams from the non-metallic industry sources are at
essentially ambient conditions.
The visible emissions monitoring instruments
found adequate for power plants would also be applicable for this industry.
These systems are covered by EPA performance standards contained in Appendix B
of 40 CFR Part 60.
Equipment and installation costs are estimated to be $18,000 to $20,000
and annual operating costs, including data recording and reduction, are
estimated at $8,000 to $9,000.
0.3 PERFORMANCE TEST METHODS
Either Method 5 or 17 for particulate matter is recommended as the per-
formance test method.
Due to low concentrations sometimes encountered, a
minimum sample volume must be established to insure adequate amounts of
0-2
-------
particulate matter are collected to minimize recovery errors.
This particulate
catch amount is preferably 50 mg, but should be at least 25 mg.
It is also
recommended that sampling trains with higher sampling rates, which are
allowed by Method 5 and are commercially available, be used to reduce sampling
time and costs.
Sampling costs for a test consisting of three particulate runs, the
number normally specified by performance test regulations, is estimated to
be about $5,000 to $7,000.
This estimate is based on sampling site modifi-
cations and testing being conducted by contractors.
If in-plant personnel
are used to conduct the test, the costs will be somewhat less.
Since the outlet gas streams from control devices used in this industry
are generally well contained, no special sampling problems are anticipated.
0-3
-------
SUPPLEMENT A
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PORTABLE PLANTS.
A.O Introduction and Summary
After the preparation of Section 8, Economic Impact, of the background
information document, comments were received from the crushed stone and
sand and gravel industries concerning the impact analysis conducted for
portable plants. Specifically, they commented that the costs of controlling
portable processing plants with baghouses are substantially higher than
those for fixed processing plants. The reasons given for the higher costs
are the regular movement of the plants and the changes made in the operating
configuration of the plants. Since these issues were not addressed in the
original analysis, this analysis was prepared.
Because portable plants are used primarily in the crushed stone and
sand and gravel industries, the impacts on these plants were evaluated by
developing a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis for each model new plant
size in these industries. OCF is an investment decision analysis which
shows the economic feasibility of a planned capital investment project over
the life of the project.
The OCF analysis was conducted by using conservative assumptions.
Assumptions used include:
. the total of NSPS control costs were incremental costs; i.e.,
that there are no SIP control costs that the plant would have to
incur in the absence of NSPS control.
the plants operate at 1250 hours per year through the life of the
project.
NSPS control cost pass through is limited by competition of
existing plants in the same industry which do not have to meet
the NSPS.
the new plant operates as a separate business entity and cannot
expect to finance the control from another business activity or
parent firm.
.
.
.
1
-------
For new plants, the DCF analysis indicated that the 68 and 135 Mg/hr
(75 and 150 ton/hr) portable plants in both industries are likely to be
precluced by an NSPS. The DCF model was unable to determine a clear positive
or negative investment decision for the 270 MQ/hr (300 ton/hr) portable
plants in both industries. However, in view of the conservative assumptions
used, they were judged to be economically feasible. All of the other plant
sizes in the two industries are likely to be economically feasible after the
promulgation of the NSPS.
2
-------
A.l
INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION
A.l.l General Profile
Portable mineral processing plants (portable plants) are used primarily
by sand and gravel processors and crushed stone processors. The United
States Geological Survey estimates that there were 3,285 portable plants in
the sand and gravel industry and 1,232 portable plants in the crushed stone
industry in 1978.1 Portable plants account for 53 percent of total existing
plants in the sand and gravel industry and 42 percent of total existing
plants in the crushed stone industry.
Based on industry data, pQrtable plants account for 40 to 50 percent of
total annual mine output for the sand and gravel industry2,3 and 30 to 40
percent of total annual mine output for the crushed stone industry.4,5 In
1978, this amounted to 340-425 million megagrams (375-469 million tons) of
sand and gravel and 260-347 million megagrams (287-382 million tons) of
crushed stone.
The clay, gypsum, and pumice industries also use portable plants. How-
ever, these plants are used for specialized small output crushing operations
which amount to an insignificant portion of total mine output for these
industries.6,7,8
The major manufacturers of portable plant equipment are Iowa Manufac-
turing, Telsmith Division of Barber-Green, Portee, Universal Engineering,
and Allis-Chalmers. These companies manufacture a variety of interchangeable
portable crushers, screens, conveyor belt units, and combination systems
which can be combined into an integrated portable plant that meets the
requirements of the individual mineral processor.
The output capacity of manufactured portable plant equipment ranges
from 45 megagrams per hour (50 tons per hour) to 998 megagrams per hour
(1,100 tons per hour). A large majority of new and existing portable plants
are in the 227 megagrams per hour (250 tons per hour) to 635 megagram per
hour (700 tons per hour) output capacity range.
1
-------
Portable plants are owned and operated by a variety of mineral processing
firms. These firms range from the small, independent mineral processor with
one portable plant to large construction materials companies (e.g. Moline
Consumers Company, Flintkote) which may own and operate 12 or more portable
plants.
Construction companies also purchase portable plant equipment for large
and/or remote site construction projects. The portable plant equipment is
used to supply material for a specific construction project and is usually
sold or scrapped after completion of the project.9,10,11
The contract processor owns portable plant equipment and contracts min-
eral processing services to a community or another firm. These services may
be contracted for during periods of high product demand when a mineral
processor's output capacity is limited or when a community or firm requires
a supply of construction material. A contract processor may cover a geogra-
phical area which encompasses several states.12,13
A.l.2 Geographic Distribution
Portable plants are used throughout the nation. However, over 70
percent of existing portable plants are located west of the Mississippi
River.14 The popularity of portable plants in the western and mid-western
states is due mostly to the demand for crushed stone and sand and gravel in
sparsely populated areas. Such areas can not be economically served
by fixed plants due to high transportation cost for crushed stone and sand
and gravel.
The crushed stone and sand and gravel industries can be divided into
three basic national regions based on portable plant/fixed plant usage
(see Figure 1). These regions are:
Region I - In this region, which encompasses the states in the
Northeast and Southeast and most of California, over
80 percent of mine output for the sand and gravel and
crushed stone industries is from fixed plants. The
region has a relatively high population density and well
established product markets for construction materials.
Portable plants are used at large construction projects
(i.e. dams, highways) and to supplement mine output at
fixed operations, particularly during periods of high
4
-------
(J'1
lIT
Figure 1 - Regional Distribution of Portable and Fixed Plants for the Crushed
Stone and Sand and Gravel Industries.
-------
Regi on II
product demand.
- In this region, which encompasses most of the Midwest
section of the country, portable plants account for 20
to 40 percent of mine output for the crushed stone indus-
try and 30 to 50 rercent of mine output for the sand and
gravel industry. The region has many large metropolitan
areas with well established product markets for construction
materials. However, some of the areas are sparsely popu-
lated and portable plants are used to meet the fluctuating
product demand in these areas. Product transportation costs
for sand and gravel and crushed stone, which range from
$0.08 to $0.15 per megagram kilometer ($0.12 to $0.22 per
ton mile) nationally, make the establishment of a fixed
plant economically unattractive in parts of this region and
most of Region III.
Region III - In this region, which encompasses the Western states and
northern California, portable plants account for over 50
percent of mine output for the sand and gravel and crushed
stone industries. In New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado,
and Nebraska, over 80 percent of mine output for both indus-
tries is from portable plants. The region is sparsely popu-
lated and product demand for construction materials is usually
not high enough to warrant the establishment of a fixed plant.
plant/stationary plant usage distribution, as described above, is
to change in the near future. 14
The portable
not expected
A.l.3 Industry Trends
The projected growth rate for the sand and gravel industry through 1985
is 1.0 percent per year, while the growth in crushed stone over the same period
is 4.0 percent per year. 15 These growth projections are for the entire industry;
separate projections for the portable plant segments of each industry are
unava i1 ab 1 e.
Based on mineral processing equipment sales, more portable plant
equipment is sold per year than fixed plant equipment. However, the total
6
-------
output capacity of the portable plant equipment is less than the total
output capacity of the fixed plant equipment.10,14 This equipment sales
trend. which is expected to continue for the near futur.e. indicates that the
average new portable plant would have a lower output capacity than the
average new fixed plant.
A.l.4 Methods of Operation
The mobility of portable crushed stone plants allows portable plant
operators to move their plants according to either of two major methods:
among various quarry sites. or both among. as well as within. quarries.
With regard to the former, the operator may choose to move a single plant
to a number of quarries over the year; however. once set at a site, several
haul trucks are used to transport blasted rock to the primary crusher.
However, other operators may elect to move not only to different quarries
but also within an individual quarry as well. Movement within quarries
allows the plant to follow blasting activities as they take place at various
locations around larger quarries. In effect, the movement of portable
plants within individual quarries reduces the need for haul trucks to trans-
port newly blasted rock to the primary crusher. While the decision to move
about or remain stationary within a quarry may depend upon the physical
condition of the quarry and/or the individual preferences of operators, the
economic analysis has recognized both methods of operation.
7
-------
A.2 COST ANALYSIS
A.2.1 Model Portable Plants
Model portable plants have been developed which describe the types
of equipment and size ranges for portable plants in the sand and gravel
and crushed stone processing industries. The equipment selected for
these model portable plants are:
I. Portable sand and gravel plant
1. Primary crusher
2. Secondary crusher and associated screen
3. Final screen
4. Conveyor belts
II. Portable crushed stone plant
1. Primary crusher
2. Secondary crusher and associated screen
3. Tertiary crusher and associated screen
4. Final screen
5. Conveyor belts
Five output capacities were chosen for both the sand and gravel and
crushed stone model portable plants. The five output capacities used are
68, 135, 270, 540, and 817 megagrams per hour (75, 150, 300, 600, and
900 tons per hour). Specific sizes of portable crushing and screening
equipment have been combined to meet the output capacities of the model
portable plants. Tables 1 through 5 list the equipment requirements for
the model portable plants along with energy usage and air volume requirements.
The equipment size ranges listed in Tables 1 through 5 represent minimum
and maximum product outputs for each piece of processing equipment.
Processing equipment for a portable plant can be arranged in a
variety of operating configurations at the mine site. Two basic operating
configurations are used for the model portable plants. One configuration
is a straight line setup in which the portable plant equipment lies in a
basic straight line. The second configuration is an "L" shaped setup.
In this configuration the final screen is situated at a right angle from
the secondary screen at the portable sand and gravel plant, and the
tertiary crusher/screen unit and final screen are situated at a right
angle from the secondary screen at the portable crushed stone plant.
n
()
-------
TABLE 1
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
68 megagrams per hour
(75 tons per hour)
Sizea Energb Air
Usage Vo1umec
1. Primary crusher 54 - 227 56.0 43
(60 - 250) (75) (1500)
2. Secondary crusher 68 - 104 74.6 43
(75 - 115) ( 1 00) (1500)
3. Seconda ry sc reen 45 - 181 14.9 127
(50 - 200) (20) (4500)
4. Tertiary crusher 109 - 136 111 .9 43
(120 - 150 ) (150) (1500)
5. Tertiary screen 45 - 181 14.9 99
(50 - 200) (20) (3500)
6. Final screen 45 - 181 14.9 127
(50 - 200) (20) (4500)
aGiven in mega grams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis
bGiven in kilowatts with horsepower in parenthesis
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
parenthesis
References:
Portable processing equipment brochures from Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Telsmith Division of Barber-Green, and Allis Chalmers.
9
-------
TABLE 2
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
135 mega grams per hour
(150 tons per hour)
Energ~ Air
Sizea Usage Volumec
1. Primary crusher 91 - 363 74.6 99
(l00 - 400) ( 1 00) (3500)
2. Secondary crusher 181 - 272 93.3 99
(200 - 300) (125) (3500)
3. Secondary screen 45 - 181 14.9 142
(50 - 200) (20) (5000)
4. Tertiary crusher 136 - 227 167.9 57
(l50 - 250) (225) (2000)
5. Tertiary screen 45 - 181 14.9 113
(50 - 200) (20) (4000)
6. Final screen 45 - 181 14.9 142
(50 - 200) (20) {5000}
aGiven in mega grams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis
bGiven in kilowatts with horsepower in parenthesis
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
pa renthes is
References:
Portable processing equ~pment brochures from Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Telsmith Division of Barber-Green, and Allis Chalmers.
10
-------
TABLE 3
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
270 mega grams per hour
(300 tons per hour)
Sizea Energb Air
Usage Vo1umec
1. Primary crusher 136 - 363 93.3 113
(150 - 400) (125) (4000)
2. Secondary crusher 227 - 454 111.9 113
(250 - 500) ( 1 50) (4000)
3. Secondary screen 181 - 363 22.4 198
(200 - 400) (30) (7000)
4. Tertiary crusher 272 - 363 186.5 142
(300 - 400) (250) (5000)
5. Tertiary screen 181 - 363 22.4 198
(200 - 400) (30) (7000)
6. Final screen 181 - 363 14.9 198
(200 - 400) (20) (7000)
aGiven in mega grams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis
bGiven in kilowatts with horsepower in parenthesis
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
parenthesis
References:
Portable processing equipment brochures from Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Telsmith Division of Barber-Green, and Allis Chalmers.
11
-------
TABLE 4
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
540 mega grams per hour
(600 tons per hour)
Energ~ Air
Sizea Usage Volumec
1. Primary crusher 408 - 635 186.5 142
(450 - 700) (250) (5000)
2. Secondary crusher 408 - 635 223.8 142
(450 - 700) (300) (5000)
3. Secondary screen 363 - 680 29.8 227
(400 - 750) (40) (8000)
4. Tertiary crusher 408 - 635 261.1 170
(450 - 700) (350) (6000)
,
5. Tertiary screen 363 - 680 29.8 227
(400 - 750) (40) (8000)
6. Fi na 1 screen 363 - 680 29.8 227
(400 - 750) (40) (8000)
aGiven in mega grams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis
bGiven in kilowatts with horsepower in parenthesis
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
parenthesis
References:
Portable processing equipment brochures from Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Telsmith Division of Barber-Green, and Allis Chalmers.
12
-------
TABLE 5
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
817 megagrams per hour
(900 tons per hour)
Energ6 Air
S;zea Usage Vo1umec
1. Primary crusher 726 - 907 298.4 170
(800 - 1000) (400) (6000)
2. Secondary crusher 635 - 907 298.4 170
(700 - 1000) (400) (6000)
3. Secondary screen 816 - 998 37.3 283
(900 - 1100) (50) ( 1 0 ,000)
4. Tertiary crusher 816 - 998 298.4 170
(900 - 1100) (400) (6000)
5. Tertiary screen 816 - 998 37.3 283
(900 - 11 00) (50) (10,000)
6. Fi na 1 screen 816 - 998 37.3 283
(900 - 1100) (50) ( 1 0,000)
aGiven in mega grams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis
bGiven in kilowatts with horsepower in parenthesis
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
parenthesis
References:
Portable processing equipment brochures from Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Te1smith Division of Barber-Green, and Allis Chalmers.
13
-------
The average output capacity for new and existing portable sand and-
gravel plants in the eastern U.S. is between 227 and 270 megagrams per hour
(250 and 300 tons per hour). The installed capital cost for these plants
would be between approximately $0.45 million and $1 million.9,lO,16, 17,18
The average output capacity for new and existing portable sand and gravel
plants in the western U.S. is between 540 and 635 megagrams per hour (600
I
and 700 tons per hour). The installed capital cost for these plants would
be at least $1 million.9,lO,16,17,18
The average output capacity for new and existing portable crushed
stone plants is between 227 and 270 megagrams per hour (250 and 300 tons
per hour). The installed capital cost for these plants is between $0.6
million and $1.3 million.9,lO,16,17,18
The cost per ton of material processed by a portable plant is higher
than the cost per ton of material processed by a similar output capacity
fixed plant. This higher cost is primarily due to higher maintenance
costs and a lower annual operating schedule for portable plants. Portable
plants are designed for mobile transport and lack some of the structural
strength of fixed plants. Thus, portable plants have shorter operating
lives than fixed plants and require more man-hours to maintain. On the
average, portable plants operate fewer hours per year (1250 to 1600
hours)16,17,18,19 than fixed plants (2000hours). This difference is due
primarily to the downtime associated with the movement of portable plants.
Due to this, total annual costs for a portable plant must be recovered on
a lower total product output compared to similar output capacity fixed
plants.
A.2.2 Movement
There are two basic types of portable plant movements. One type
involves transporting the entire portable plant from one quarry to another.
On the average, this type of move occurs four times per year.16,17.18
19,20 Thesecond type of portable plant move is an in-quarry operation in
which the primary crusher is moved near the mined material along the
highwall. In this mode, the mineral processor establishes a core operating
configuration in the quarry and transports the product from the primary
l~
-------
crusher to the core operating configuration by a conveyor belt. This
eliminates the need for haul trucks for the transporting of mined material
from the highwall to the portable plant. In-quarry moves of the primary
crusher may occur up to 24 times per year. This type of move is characteris-
tic of the small, independent processor. The larger firms in the sand and
gravel and crushed stone industries usually employ haul trucks to transport
mined material from the highwall to the portable plant, instead of moving
the primary crusher to the mined material.21,22 Table 6 lists average
movement parameters and associated costs for a typical portable plant.
These parameters and costs were obtained from mineral processors who use
portable plants. Also listed in this table are estimated movement para-
meters and associated costs for the baghouse systems considered in this
analysis. The baghouse movement costs are based on rental charges for
equipment necessary for an offsite move. A mineral processor may decide
to purchase a crane for moving the baghouse systems and/or haul trucks to
minimize the amount of in-quarry moves necessary. The cost of a crane is
$80,000 and the cost of a 20 mega gram (22 ton) capacity haul truck is
$50,000.
A.2.3 Control Options
Two control options
options are:
Option I - In this option, one baghouse would be used to control
the entire portable plant for the 68, 135, and 270 megagrams per
hour (75, 150, and 300 tons per hour) model plants. For the 540
and 817 megagrams per hour (600 and 900 tons per hour) model
plants, the primary crusher would be ducted to one baghouse and
all other pieces of equipment would be ducted to a second
baghouse.
Option II - In this option, the following pieces of equipment or
groupings of equipment would have their own baghouse for all
output sizes of model plants:
are used for the model portable plants.
The
15
-------
TABLE 6
DATA ON A PORTABLE PlANT SITE CHANGE
Portable Plant
A.
B.
C.
D.
Plant size
Average operating schedule
Product
Data on a mine site change
270 mega grams per hour (300 tons per hour)
1 ,250 hours per year
Sand & gravel or crushed stone
1. Time required to complete move
2. Equipmeyt setup time
Cost
3. Equipmeyt dismantling time
Cost
4. Transportation costb
Driver costa
Estimated total cost of a site change
1-3 weeks
200-400 man hours
$ 2,400- 4,800
200-400 man hours
2,400- 4,800
3,000- 9,000
2,400- 7,200
$10,200-25,800
E.
Control System
A. Controlasystem setup time
Cost
B. Controlasystem dismantling time
Cost
C. Small crane rental:
48-72 man hours
$
576-
576-
864
864
48-72 man hours
1. Setup t~me
-' Cost
.:1) 2. Di smantt ing time
Cost d
D. Transportation cost
Driver costa
E. Estimated total cost of moving a
24-36 hours
24-36 hours
2,400- 3,600
2,400- 3,600
1,600- 4,800
960- 2,880
"$ 8,512-16,608
control system
aBased on an average wage rate of $12.00/hour.
b
Based on a truck rental cost of $600/truck/week. Five trucks required.
cBased on a small crane rental cost of $100/hour.
dSased on a truck and flat bed trailer rental cost of $800/truck and trailer unit/week.
units required.
Two tractor trailer
-------
1. Primary crusher
2. Secondary crusher and associated screen
3. Tertiary crusher and associated screen
4. Final screen
For both options, emissions from conveyor belt transfer points are hooded
and ducted to the baghouse systems.
Costs are presented for the two baghouse control options used for
controlling particulate emissions from the five output capacities of the
two model portable plants. The control costs have been based on technical
parameters associated with the control system used. These parameters are
listed in Table 7.
These costs cannot be assumed to reflect control costs for any given
installation. Estimating control costs for an actual installation requires
performing detailed engineering studies. Nonetheless for purposes of this
analysis, control costs are considered to be sufficiently accurate.
The control costs have been obtained from a variety of sources. These
sources include vendors of air pollution control equipment, industrial
contractors, metal work contractors, and published reports on air pollution
control system costs.23,24,25,26,27,28
Two cost parameters have been developed: installed capital and total
annualized cost. The installed capital costs for each emission control
system include the purchased cost of the major and auxiliary equipment,
costs for site preparation and equipment installation, and design engineering
costs. The capital costs in this section reflect third quarter 1979
prices for equipment, installation materials, and installation labor and
are based on pulse-jet baghouses with a pressure differential of 1.5 kPa
(6 in. W.G.) and an air to cloth ratio of seven to one. The filter bags
for the baghouses are polypropylene.
The total annualized costs consist of direct operating costs and
annualized capital charges. Direct operating costs include fixed and
variable annual costs, such as:
. Labor and materials required for operation of the control equipment
. Maintenance labor and materials
,7
-------
TABLE 7
TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN
DEVELOPING CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS
Parampter
1. Temperature
2. Volumetric f10wrate
Value
Ambient
3. Moisture content
See tables 1 through 5, 9, and 10.
2 percent (by volume)
4. Particulate loadings:
A. Inlet
B. Outlet
12.8 g/Nm3 (5.6 grains/scf)
0.050 g/Nm3 (0.02 grains/scf)
5. Plant capacities
68, 135, 270, 540, and 817 mega grams per hour
(75, 150, 300, 600, and 900 tons per hour)
6. Operating schedule
1,250 hours per year
18
-------
. Dust disposal
. Replacement parts
Dust disposal costs apply to the baghouse control systems A unit c~st of
$4.40 per megagram ($4.00 per ton) of particulate collected is used to
cover the costs of trucking the collected particulate to an on-site
disposal point.
The annualized capital charges account for depreciation, interest,
administrative overhead, property taxes, and insurance. The depreciation
and interest have been computed by use of a capital recovery factor. The
capital recovery factor depends on the depreciable life of the control
system and the interest rate. For the portable plant analysis, a seven
year depreciable life for the control system and a 10 percent interest
rate are used. This gives a capital recovery factor of 20.54 percent.
Administrative overhead, taxes, and insurance have been fixed at an
additional four percent of the installed capital cost per year. Table 8
lists the annualized capital cost factors used.
A.2.4. New Portable Plants
Two model portable plants have been developed for costing purposes.
One is a portable sand and gravel plant and the other is a portable
crushed stone plant. The control option used to achieve the emission
level of 0.05 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.02 grains per dry
standard cubic foot) is a baghouse system. For an uncontrolled emission
rate of 12.8 grams per dry standard cubic meter (5.6 grains per dry
standard cubic foot) this control option is 99.6 percent efficient in
removing particulate at the model portable plants. The size and number
of bag houses required to achieve the emission limit vary according to the
output capacity of the portable plant. The air flowrates for the baghouse
systems are listed in Tables 9 and 10.
Tables 11 through 15 list installed capital, direct operating,
annualized capital, and total annualized costs for each of the baghouse
systems installed in the two model portable plants. The five portable
plant output capacities for which costs have been developed represent the
output capacities applicable to portable plants in the sand and gravel
l~
-------
TABLE 8
ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS'
1. Operating labor
$12.00/hour
2. Annual maintenance
5 percent of the total installed cap-
ital cost for each control system
3.
Utilities:
Electric power
$0.04/kWh
4.
Replacement parts:a
Polypropylene bags
$8.00/m2 ($0.75/ft2)
5.
Capital recovery factor
14.60 percent of total cost for
each control system
6. Taxes, insurance, and
administration charges
4 percent of total installed capital
cost for each control system
7.
Estimated life of baghouse
control system
7 years
aThree quarters of total filter bag area is replaced every year
20
-------
TABLE 9
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR MODEL PORTABLE PlANTSa,b
68 Mg/hr
(75 tph)
Output
135 Mg/hr
(150 tph)
270 Mg/hr
(300 tph)
Option I
1. Sand and Gravel Operation -
A. Gas f1owrate: Meters3/minute
(ACFM) c -
B. Pr~ssure differential
340
(12,OOO)d
6" W.G.
481
(17,000)
6" W.G.
623
(22,000)
6" W.G.
2. Crushed Stone Operation -
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3fminute
(ACFM)
B. Pressure differential
481
(17,000)
6" W.G.
651
(23,000)
6" W.G.
963
(34,000)
6" W.G.
N
-'
aTemperature -- ambient
bAverage moisture content -- 2%
cACFM -- Actual Cubic Feet Per Minute
d
W.G. -- Water Gauge
-------
TABLE 9 (can't)
8AGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR MODEL PORTABLE PLANTSa,b
Output
540 Mqjhr
(600 tph)
817 Mgjhr
(900 tph)
Option I
1. Sand and Gravel Operations.
Baghouse for primary crusher
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3jminute
(ACFM) c
B. Pressure differential
142
(5,000)d
6" W.G.
170
(6,000)
6" W. G.
N
N
Baghouse for secondary crusher, secondary
screener and final screener
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3jminute
(ACFM)
B. Pressure differential
595
(21,000)
6" W.G.
736
(26,000)
6" W.G.
2. Crushed Stone Operation
Baghouse for primary crusher
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3/minute
(ACFM)
B. Pressure differential
142
(5,000)
6" W.G.
170
(6,000)
6" W.G.
Baghouse for secondary crusher, sceondary
screener, tertiary crusher, tertiary
screener and final screener
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3/minute
(ACFM)
B. Pressure differential
991
(35,000)
6" W.G.
1,189
(42,000)
6" W.G.
aTemperature -- ambient
bAverage moisture content -- 2%
cACFM -- Actual Cubic Feet Per Minute
dW.G. -- Water Gauge
-------
TABLE 10
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR K>DEL PORTABLE PLANTSa ~b
Output
68 Ng/hr 135 Mg/hr 270 Mg/hr 540 Mg/hr 817 Mg/hr
(75 tph) (150 tph) (300 tph) (600 tph) (900 tph)
Option II
Baghouse for primary crusher
A. Gas flowrate: Meters~{minute 57 85 113 142 170
(ACFM) (2,000)d (3,000) (4,000) (5,000) (6,000)
B. Pressure differential 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G.
Baghouse for secondary crusher and screener
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3{minute 142 227 283 368 453
(ACFM) (5,000) (8,000) (10,000) (13,000) (16,000)
B. Pressure differential 6" W. G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W. G. 6" W.G.
N
W
Baghouse for tertiary crusher and screener
A. Gas f1owrate: Meters3/minute 142 170 340 396 - 453
(ACFM) (5,000) (6,000) (12,000) (14,000) (16,000)
B. Pressure differential 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W. G. 6" W.G.
Baghouse for final screener
A. Gas flowrate: Meters3{minute 142 170 227 227 283
(ACFM) (5,000) (6,000) (8,000) (8,000) ( 1 0 ,000)
B. Pressure differential 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G. 6" W.G.
aTemperature -- ambient
~ositure content -- 2%
CActual Cubic Feet Per Minute
d
W.G. -- Water Gauge
-------
1. Gas f10wrate -
A. Meters3/minute
B . (AC FM) a
2. Installed capital costs
3. Annualized costs -
N
-:::>
A. Annualized capital charges
B. Direct operating cost
C. Total
4. Cost effectiveness -
A. $/megagram of particulate removed
B. ($/ton of particulate removed)
a - Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
TABLE 11
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS FOR A
68 MEGAGRAMS (75 TONS) PER HOUR
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT
Option I
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
340
(12,000)
481
(17,000)
$87,590
$131 ,890
$21 ,495
12,405
$33,900
$32,365
18,333
$50,698
$104
($95)
$110
($100)
Sand and Gravel
340
(12,000)
$99,735
$24,475
13,620
$38,095
$117
($106)
Option II
Crushed Stone
481
(17,000)
$138,290
$33,940
19,973
$53,913
$115
($104)
-------
1. Gas f10wrate -
A. Meters3/minute
B. (ACFM) a
2. Installed capital costs
3. Annualized costs -
r"
U"I
A. Annualized capital charges
B. Direct operating cost
C . T ota 1
4. Cost effectiveness -
A. $/megagram of particulate removed
B. ($/ton of particulate removed)
a - Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
TAaLE 12
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS FOR A
135 MEGAGRAMS (150 TONS) PER HOUR
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT
Option I
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
481
(17,000)
651
(23,000)
$ 101 ,1 50
$146,970
$24,826
15,259
$40,085
$36,070
21,475
$57,545
$87
($79)
$92
(84)
Sand and Gravel
481
(17,000)
$114,595
$28,125
16,604
$44,729
$97
($88)
Option II
Crushed Stone
651
(23,000)
$156,440
$38,395
22,422
$60,817
$98
($89)
-------
1. Gas flowrate -
A. Meters3/minute
B. (ACFM)a
2. Installed capital costs
N
0'1
3. Annualized costs -
A. Annualized capital charges
B. Direct operating cost
C. Total
4. Cost effectiveness -
A. $/megagram of particulate removed
B. ($/ton of particulate removed)
a - Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
TABLE 13
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS FOR A
270 MEGAGRAMS (300 TONS) PER HOUR
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT
Option I
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
623
(22,000)
963
(34,000)
$138,175
$203,600
$33,915
20,337
$54,252
$49,964
29,650
$79,614
$91
($83)
$86
($78)
Sand and Gravel
623
(22,000)
$139,710
$34,290
20,470
$54,760
$92
($83)
Option II
Crushed Stone
963
(34,000)
$200,245
$49,140
29,315
$78,455
$85
($77)
-------
TAstE 14
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS FOR A
540 MEGAGRAMS (600 TONS) PER HOUR
MODEL PORTABLE PLANT
Option I
Option II
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
Sand and Gravel
Crushed Stone
1. Gas fl owra te -
A. Meters3/minute 626 1 ,133 736 1 ,133
B. (ACFM) a (26,000) (40,000) (26,000) (40,000)
2. Installed capital costs $167,450 $237,670 $156,190 $234,640
3. Annualized costs -
N
'-J
A. Annualized capital charges $41 ,095 $58,330 $38,335 $57,580
B. Direct operating cost 24,186 34,878 23,060 34,575
C. Total $65,281 $93,208 $61,395 $92,155
4. Cost effectiveness
A. $/megagram of particulate removed $92 $86 $87 $85
B. ($/ton of particulate removed) ($84) ($78) ($79) ($77)
a - Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
-------
TABLE 15
BAGHOUSE CONTROL SYSTEM COSTS FOR A
817 ME~~GRAMS (900 TONS) PER HOUR
r~DEL PORTABLE PLANT
Option I Option II
Sand and Gravel Crushed Stone Sand and Gravel Crushed Stone
1. Gas flowrate -
A. Meters3/minute 906 1 ,359 906 1,359
B. (ACFM) a (32,000) (48,000) (32,000) (48,000)
2. Installed capital costs $186,525 $262,345 $181 ,420 $258,985
N 3. Annualized costs -
ex>
A. Annualized capital charges $45,780 $ 64,380 $44,525 $ 63,555
B. Direct operating cost 27,541 40,404 27,030 40,068
C. Total $73,321 $104,784 $71,555 $103,623
4. Cost effectiveness -
A. $/megagram of particulate removed $84 $80 $82 $80
B. ($/ton of particulate removed) ($77) ($73) ($75) ($72)
a - Actual Cubic Feet per Minute
-------
and crushed stone industries. The cost-effectiveness ratios appearing in
Tables 11 through 15 are simply the total annualized costs divided by the
estimated amount of particulate collected per year.
?o
~~
-------
A.3
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
A.3.1 Introduction and Summary
In order to further analyze the potential economic impacts of NSPS
controls upon the portable plant segments of the crushed stone and sand
and gravel industries, a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model was developed.
This model has been used to estimate the financial status or profitability
of portable plant operations, both before and after the addition of NSPS
cont ro 1 s.
The model has recognized several major variations in the methods of
operation chosen by various firms within the industry. For this reason
separate analyses have been completed under different assumptions regarding:
.
Portable plant capacity
Average hours of operation per year
Level of portable plant mobility, i.e., mobility among quarries
alone, or both mobility among and within various quarry sites.
"
.
In the discussion which follows, those plants which typically move
within the quarry (in order to minimize the distance between the primary
crusher and newly blasted rock) are said to "follow the highwall", while
those which remain stationary within each quarry are denoted as "no highwall".
Sand and gravel plants were not examined under the "follow the highwall"
option since this mode of operation is not used by such plants.
The results of the DCF analysis are summarized in Table 16. For
those cases where the potential new investment is labled F (feasible), the
economic feasibility of the investment will be unaffected by NSPS controls.
Where NF (not feasible) is noted, the investment may not be made if the plant
is to operate under the parameters specified. Where A (ambiguous) is noted,
the DCF analysis has yielded "borderline" potential impacts for reasons
discussed below. All assumptions made and steps taken in arriving at these
conclusions are detailed in the sections which follow.
A.3.2 Methodology
The findings noted above have been derived through the application of
a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model, constructed to reflect the financial
situation of a given portable crushed stone or sand and gravel plant which
30
-------
may be purchased and operated in the future. The basic distinctions between
fixed and portable operations have been considered in the development of
this model. These distinctions include variations in equipment life, annual
hours of operation. investn~nt requirements, markets served, and the costs
associated with the NSPS controls.
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF DCF RESULTS FOR PORTABLE PLANTS
68
Operat i ng
Hou rs
(hours/year)
1250
1600
Uncon-
trolled
NF
NF
Crushed Stone
With NSPS Controls
No Follow
Highwall Highwall
NF NF
NF NF
Sand and Gravel
With NSPS Controls
Uncon- No
trolled Highwall
NF NF
NF NF
Plant
Capacity
!:1..9./h ~-~
75
135
150
1250 NF NF NF NF NF
1600 A NF NF A NF
1250 A NF NF A NF
1600 F A NF F A
1250 F F F F F
1600 F F F F F
270
300
540
600
Key:
F - economically feasible
NF - not economically feasible
A - ambiguous (investment not necessarily precluded)
1\11 plants for which the DCF analysis has been applied have been assumed
to function within a scenario defined by the following conditions:
.
The pl ant will operate as a separate busi ness ent ity or "profit
center",
31
-------
The pass through of control costs to the consumers of the products
of new portable plants is, to some extent, limited by competition
of existing portable plants which will not be affected by the NSPS
to the same degree,
Individual plants may choose to operate either 1250 hours/year or
1600 hours/year,
Individual plants may choose to remain stationary within each
quarry (i.e., not follow the highwall) or move about within the
quarry (i.e., follow the highwall),
The planning horizon for potential investors in portable plants
is 10 years.
The assumption that the new portable plant will operate as a separate
business entity implies that the plant will not at any time be dependent
upon, or supported by revenues generated by other business activities of the
investing firm. It is implied therefore, that debt incurred through the
initial investment, and all other expenses associated with the plant's
operation will be paid only through those revenues generated by the new plant
itself. This assumption may reflect a conservative point-of-view for vertically
integrated or multi-plant firms; however, the assumption is plausible for
horizontally integrated firms having a single processing plant.
The condition that the pass through of control costs to the consumers
of portable plant products, will be limited by competition from existing
portable plants (which will not be affected by NSPS), reflects the reality
that portable plants typically compete with other portable plants, since
the ability of a plant to locate near the site of an impending job, is the
key to loweri ng customer transport costs and thus securi ng orders for crushed
stone and sand and gravel. For stationary plants it has been projected that,
due to the replacement of old plants by new (NSPS) plants, 25 percent of the
cost of pollution control will be passed through every four years (see
Section 8.4.2). Recognizing that the competition among portable plants is
potentially greater, and thus the cost pass through ability lower, it has
been assumed that portable plant operators will require twice as much time
(i.e., eight years) to pass through 25 percent of pollution control costs.
In the DCF analysis this level is reached by way of pass through increments
of 6.25 percent every two years. This assumption is conservative in that for
those sections of the country where competition is less intense, product
prices may be increased sooner to reflect additional costs.
.
.
.
.
32
-------
The DCF analysis detailed in Section A.3.3 has been constructed in such
a way that the operational reculiarities of individual portable plant opera-
tors are considered. For example, it has been noted that the preferences of
individual operators vary, especially with regard to the hours of operation
per year and the movement of plants within individual quarries. Therefore,
in an attempt to differentiate impacts for each of these modes of operation,
each modpl plant has been individually examined a~suming 1250 and 1600
operating hours per year, as \'/ell as preference for moving within individual
quarrie~ (i.e., following the highwall) or remaining stationary within each
quarry (i. e., no hi ghwa 11). It shoul d be noted that the preference for
within quarry mobility will entail higher pollution control costs due to the
need to dismantle and set up control equipment more often.
The investment planning horizon of 10 years has been selected based upon
the 10 year normal useful life of portable plants. The 10 year life has been
supported by representatives of the industry.30
The cash flows considered by the DCF model are:
.
Earnings after tax,
Depreciation of plant and rolling stock,
Depreciation of pollution control equipment,
Working capital recovery,
The salvage value of plant and rolling stock, and
Payback of debt.
.
.
.
.
.
earnings after tax have been determined after consideration of all oper-
ating costs. depreciation expenses, interest expenses, overhead, and pollution
control costs. In the determination of earnings after tax the availability
of depletion allowances and investment tax credits, have been recognized.
Regardinu depreciation, plant and rolling stock have been depreciated (straight-
line) over their respective useful lives. Pollution control equipment has
been depreciated over five years to a zero salvage value. It has also been
assumed that working capital requirements are funded out of equity and that
all plant and rolling stock is sold at salvage value after 10 years. Each of
these items is discussed in greater detail in the following section.
33
-------
A.3.2.1 Critical Elements. In the estimation of the potential impacts
of NSrS controls. numerous data elements have been assembled and evaluated to
allow their incorporation into the DCF model. In the descriptions listed
below each of the critical elements is identified and discussed in terms of
its use in the model. Sources of data pertinent to each critical element are
listed in Section A.3.2.2.
With regard to operating hours per year. individual firms contacted30
indicated a variety of preferences. however most tended toward two levels.
1250 and 1600 hours per year. Although the actual hours per year is heavily
dependent upon the weather, these two figures have been identified as target
levels. The number of operating hours per year is perhaps the most critical
data element since it is the prime determinant of net revenues generated by
each plant in this high fixed cost. low profit margin industry. In the DCF
model all production is assumed to be sold and thus there is no net change in
the inventories of the model plant.
Concerning product prices. distinctions between crushed stone and sand
and gravel have been made. The values employed in the DCF model are $3.25/ton
for crushed stone and $2.86/ton for sand and gravel. The price of crushed stone
was noted by two industry representatives and the price of sand and gravel
was derived from the crushed stone price, based upon Bureau of Mines31.32
data indicating that for recent years the price of sand and gravel has
approached 88 percent of that for crushed stone.
Based upon the $3.25/ton price of crushed stone. operating costs (exclu-
ding depletion. depreciation. interest and overhead) have been identified
based on discussion with industry representatives. as $2.10/ton. Operating
costs for sand and gravel plants have been estimated by applying the ratio of
operating cost/price for crushed stone ($2.10/$3.25). to the price of sand
and gravel. to estimate sand and gravel operating costs of $1.85/ton.
The validity of the $2.10 and $1.85/ton operating cost levels for
crushed stone and sand and gravel portable plants. respectively. has been
supported through the determination of the pre-control Internal Rates of
Return (IRR) for those plants faced by these costs. Such rates have been
calculated and are summarized in Table 17.
~~
-------
INTERNAL
TABLE 17
RATES OF RETURN FOR PORTABLE
AND SAND AND GRAVEL PLANTS
(Pre-Pollution Control)
CRUSHED STONE
Operating Hours Crushed Sand and
(hours/year) Stone Gravel
1250 <10.0% <9.9%
1600 10.0% 9.9%
1250 10.1% 10.2%
1600 14.0% 14.3%
1250 14.2% 14.5%
1600 18.2% 18.4%
1250 20.9% 21.4%
1600 25.6% >21.4%
The IRR percentages in Table 17 appear to be reasonable in light of
current returns on other forms of long-term investment. Had the pre-control
rates been higher than those actually calculated, the understatement of
operating costs could be a suspected cause. On the other hand, if the
pre-control rates were estimated to be lower than those of Table 17, the
overstatement of operating costs/ton might have been suspected.
Depreciation of plant equipment has been taken as straight-line over
its 10 year life. Depreciation of rolling stock has been taken as straight-
line over a seven year life in order to take full advantage of the investment
tax credit. Depreciation of pollution control equipment has been taken as
straight-line over five years to a zero salvage value. Investment tax credit
is also available, and is taken on pollution control equipment using a 5-year
rapid amortization writeoff.
Debt terms for plant, rolling stock, and pollution control equipment
have been assumed to be five years at a 15 percent interest rate. Industry
contacts have noted that the availability of debt financing at terms better
than those noted, would be uncommon. It should be noted that the results of
the DCF model are not sensitive to variation of the interest rate.
The financing of portable equipment in terms of debt/equity has been
observed to range from 0 percent to 100 percent, dependent upon the prefer-
ences and abilities of individual firms. For purpose of the DCF model a
Plant Capacity
(Mg/hr) (tph)
68
75
135
150
270
300
540
600
35
-------
ratio of 50/50 is employed. The use of this ratio has been judged realistic
by industry representatives. It should be noted that the results of the
DCF model are not sensitive to variation in the debt/equity ratio over the
o to 100 percent range.
With regard to overhead expenses of portable plant operations. industry
sources have indicated that for a 270 Mg/hr (300 tph) portable plant such
costs would be about $.25/ton for each ton of crushed stone produced. For
the 540 Mg/hr (600 tph) plants this figure has been reduced to $.22/ton due.
for the most part. to economies of scale. These figures have been employed
for both crushed stone and sand and gravel plants.
Pollution control costs for purposes of the DCF analysis. have been
grouped into four basic classes:
Excess moving costs.
Annual Cost of operation and maintenance.
Depreciation. and
Interest on borrowed capital used to purchase and install pollution
'control equipment.
The inclusion of excess moving costs account for those added costs incurred
due to the' need to dismantle. move and set up the pollution control system
each time the portable plant is moved. regardless of whether the move is
within the quarry or to another quarry. The costs associated with these
activities are summarized in Table 6. while t~eir inclusion into the DCF
model is described in Section A.3.3. Regarding the number of moves made by
the typical portable plant. industry sources have indicated that the typical
portable plant moves to a different quarry, on average, four times each
year.30 For those plants which prefer to follow the highwall, an average
of 24 such within-quarry moves might be made. Sand and gravel plants, on
the other hand. do not often move within the gravel pit. since very little
blasting is done.
The annual cost category represents the annual total of pollution control
costs incurred by each model plant. The costs summarized under this heading
include annual maintenance and operating costs. utilities. filter replacement,
dust disposal costs. property taxes. insurance. and administrative expenses.
Depreciation of pollution control equipment is taken over a 5 year useful
life, with a zero salvage value. For those plants which choose to follow the
.
.
.
.
36
-------
highwall, the cost of a small crane (needed to facilitate dismantling and
reconnecting of pollution control equipment) has been added to the plant
costs. and is thus depreciated over ten years. (Plant investment costs are
summarized in Section A.3.2.3.)
Interest on the pollution control equipment for each plant has been
determined by calculating the annual interest-principal repayment schedule
according to the debt terms described above.
[)e~etion expenses have been determined for each model plant, under the
assumption that the quarry site is leased rather than mmed by the portable
plant operator. Under these circumstances the operator is entitled to a
depletion allowance according to a depletion base defined as:
Depletion base = price/ton - royalty/ton.
Industry representatives have noted that royalties paid
operators are typically 5 percent of the sale price per
model the annual depletion allowance is calculated as:
by portable plant
ton. In the DCF
Depletion = depletion base x annual output x % depletion.
The Internal Revenue Code allows percentage depletion for both
and sand and gravel minerals of five percent. Two limitations
percent depletion are:
crushed stone
to the use of
.
The maximum depletion claimed in any year cannot exceed one-half of
that year's earnings before tax, and
Depletion is subject to minimum tax as a tax preference item.
.
These limitations have been included, where appropriate, in the year-by-
year calculations of the DCF model. The assumption that the owner must pay
royalties represents a conservative point of view, since this slightly
reduces the available depletion base.
Regarding the federal tax rate, the marginal tax rate can vary up to a
maximum of 46 percent of earni ngs before tax and after depl eti on. In the DCF
model it is assumed that taxable income of the firm, resulting from other
activities, is sufficiently greater than $100,000 annually, and thus the tax
rate employed is 46 percent. State taxes are assumed to be 5 percent of
earnings before tax since this is the most common state tax rate.
37
-------
~orking capital or capital required to finance accounts receivable and
inventories have been considered in the DCF models. Industry contacts30
have noted that both accounts receivable and inventories each require
capital financing on the level of 15 percent of sales, giving total working
capital requirements of 30 percent of sales. In the DCF models it has been
assumed that working capital is financed from equity and that all working
capital is recovered after the tenth year.
Salvage values of plant and rolling stock have been considered in the
DCF model as cash inflows resulting from their sale in the tenth year. The
sal~age values have been determined through industry contacts as well as
inspection of the used equipment markets as defined by industry trade jour-
nals.33 The salvage value factors used in the DCF model are 36 percent for
plant and equipment and 16 percent for rolling stock.
The model assumes that firms will take maximum advantage of the invest-
ment tax credit. It is recognized that the credit cannot exceed 10 percent
of the investment and may not be carried forward more than seven years.
A.3.2.2 Sources of Data. Sources of data used in the DCF analysis are
noted in Table 18.
A.3.2.3. Plant Investment. Estimates of the costs of new portable
crushed stone and sand and gravel plants were assembled after discussion with
both the manufacturers of portable plants34 and firms who use portable
equipment in their quarrying activities. On the basis of these discussions
the investment levels noted in Table 19 were developed and used in the DCF
model. In those instances where a small crane is purchased, in order to
maintain within-quarry mobility, the cost of such a crane is assumed to be
$80,000.
Plant and equipment investment for the 270 Mgjhr (300 tph) sand and
gravel plant was determined by noting the difference in equipment require-
ments (and thus costs) between the 270 Mgjhr (300 tph) crushed stone model
plant and the sand and gravel model plant of the same capacity. Plant and
equipment investments for the 68, 135 and 540 Mgjhr (75, 150 and 600 tph)
plants were estimated through the .6 power capacity rule.
38
-------
TABLE 18
SOURCES OF DATA
c
0
'r-
~
U
Q) :J >,
"'0 ~ C
'r- VI ~ to VI
:J Q) VI c.. Q)
t!) ~ c E >
to 0 O 'r-
~ >< 'r- U U ~
C to U to
to I- 0 >, 0) ~
co VI > C C
~ VI to 'r- Q)
VI Q) Q) ct: Q) ~ VI
Q) > ~ :r: :J Q)
C ~ VI VI ~ ~
'r- Q) to 'r- "'O U c..
~ VI ::E: ~ C N to Q)
Q) ~ to . '+- a:::
'+- a::: . 0 ct: :J
0 (/) ::E: >, c >,
.-- . to C to ~
:J to => ~ 3 0 ~ ~
to ~ ~ ~ .r- VI
Q) Q) 0'1 Q) 0'1 ~ to :J
~ "'0 r--. .Q 'r- U 3 "'0
Oata Element :J Q) 0'1 0 :r: Q) 0 c
co l.L. ...... a::: (/) ....... .......
Operat i ng Hours/Year X
Product Prices X X
Orerating Costs X
Oepreciation X X
Deht Terms X X
Deht/[quity X
Overhead X
Pollution Cont ro 1 Costs X
Moves/Year X X
Derletion X X
Tax Rates X X
Investment Tax Credi t X X
Work i ng Capital X X
Salva~e Values X X X
Plant Investment X X
Source
30
-------
TABLE 19
REQUIRED INVESTMENT FOR NEW PORTABLE CRUSHED STONE
AND SAND AND GRAVEL PLANTS
($l,OOO's 1979)
Pl ant Capacity Crushed Stone Sand and Gravel
Mg/hr) (t ph) Plant and Rolling Tot a 1 Plant and Roll i ng Total
Equipment Stock Invest- Equipment Stock Invest-
ment ment
68 75 305 217 522 213 218 431
135 150 462 330 792 323 330 653
270 300 700 500 1200 490 500 990
540 600 1061 758 1819 743 758 1501
1\.3.3 piscounted Cash Flow (DCr) Analysis. Table 20 presents an
example of the data sheets which were developed for each model plant under
the previously discussed scenarios regarding operating hours and plant
movements. The example presented in Table 20 is that for the 270 r~g/hr
(300 tph) crushed stone plant which operates at 1,600 hours per year and
prefers to maintain its mobility within the quarry (i.e., follow the highwall).
In this case the total investment required (excluding pollution control) is
$1,748,000 represented by:
P 1 a nt
Small Crane
Ro 11 i ng Stock
Working Capital
Total Investment
Cost
$700,000
80,000
500,000
468,000
Source of Funds
50% debt, 50% equity
-do-
-do-
100% equity
$1,748,000
lI,O
-------
TABlE 20
EXAMPLE Dr scC'ur(;'"ED CASH FLOW ANALYSIS (SOOO)
I YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I
I 1, 560 1,560 1,560 1, 560 1,560 1,560 1,560 1,560 I
1. REVEf4UE 1,560 1,560 I
' 2. OperatIng Costs: Plant & RollIng Stock ~,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,016 1,076 1,076 1,076
3. DeprecIatIon: Plant 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 I
! 4. DeprecIatIon' RollIng Stock 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 I
5. Interest. Plant & Rollln9 Stock 96 82 65 46 24 - I
I
I 5. Overhead 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 I
7. Total Cost. Plant ProductIon (2+"'+6) 1,341 1,327 1,310 1,291 1, 269 1,245 1,245 1,245 1,245 1,245
8. Excess MovIng Cost: PollutIon Control 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61
9. Annual Cost: PollutIon Control 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
I 10. DeprecIatIon. PollutIon Control 4() 40 40 40 40
,11. Interest: PollutIon Control 30 26 21 15 8
, 12. Total Cost. PollutIon Control (8+..-+11) 169 165 160 154 147 99 99 99 99 99
! 13. Pass Through: (12x~ pass through) 0 0 10 10 18 12 19 19 25 25
14. TOTAL COST. [(7+12)-13)J 1,510 1,492 1, 460 1,435 1,398 1,332 1, 325 1,325 1,319 1,319
15. EARNINGS BEFORE INCOME TAX' (1-14) 50 68 100 125 162 228 235 235 241 241
16. DepletIon 25 34 50 63 73 73 73 73 73 73
17. EarnIngs Before Tax and After DepletIon (15-16) 25 34 50 62 89 155 162 162 168 168 10
18. Federal Tax LIabilIty 12 16 23 29 41 72 75 75 77 77 z: DCF = S828, 000
19. Investment Tax CredIt 12 16 23 29 39 29 0 1
! 20. Federal Tax: (18-19) 0 0 0 0 2 43 75 75 77 77 Compared To
i 21. AdJustment. MInImum Tax 10 10 10 10 10 43
.(.::0 I 22. MInImum Tax Base (16-21) 15 24 40 53 63 3D EQUITY = Sl,108,000
~ i 23. MInImum Tax 2 4 6 8 9 5
24. Total Federal Tax: (20+23) 2 4 6 8 11 48 75 75 77 77
25. State Tax 3 3 5 6 8 11 12 12 12 12
26. TOTAL TAX: (24+25) 5 7 11 14 19 59 87 87 89 89
27. EARNINGS AFTER TAX' (15-26) 45 61 89 111 143 169 148 148 152 152
128. DeprecIatIon: Plant 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49
29. DeprecIatIon: RollIng Stock 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
30. Depreciation. PollutIon Control 40 40 40 40 40
i 31. Total DeprecIatIon: (28+29+30) 149 149 149 149 149 109 109 49 49 49
32. Working CapItal Recovery 468 Key:
/33. Salvage Value 368 0 = calculated value
34. PrIncipal Repayment Plant & RollIng Stock 95 109 125 144 166 - = calculation not
35. PrIncIpal Repayment: Pollution Control 30 35 40 46 53 applIcable
136. Total PrIncIpal Repayment: (34+35.) 125 144 165 190 219
37. NET CASH INFLOW: (27+31+32+33-36) 69 66 73 70 73 278 257 197 201 1, 03 7
I 38. DIscount Factor .870 .756 .658 .572 .497 .432 .376 .327 .284 .247
39. DISCOUNTED CASH FLOW' 37x38 60 50 48 40 36 120 97 64 57 256
-------
Since the plant, crane and rolling stock are financed 50/50 'debt/equity,
and working capital from equity alone, the total investment from equity
is $1,108,000.
The steps summarized below detail how the discounted cash flows for the
ten year life of this plant were determined. The derivation of individual
values are explained in Section A.3.2.1.
.
Row I, Revenue, was determined by multiplying operating hours per
year (1,600) by the capacity per hour (300 tph) and the price per
ton for crushed stone ($3.25).
Row 2, Operating Costs: Plant and Rolling Stock, has been esti-
mated by multiplying operating hours per year (1,600) by the
capacity per hour (300 tph) and the operating costs per ton
($2.10). In addition $8,000/ year was included as the operating
costs for the small crane.
Row 3, Depreciation: Plant, was derived by subtracting from the
total investment in plant ($700,000 + $80,000), the estimated
salvage value at 36 percent ($281,000) and calculating the annual
depreciation charge for each of the 10 years.
Row 4, Depreciation: Rolling Stock, was determined by subtracting
from the investment ($500,000) its salvage value of 16 percent
($80,000) and calculating the annual depreciation charge for each
of seven years. For years 8, 9 and 10, the model assumes the fully
depreciated rolling stock requires increased maintenance and so
operating costs have been increased by $60,000 (i.e. the value of
annual depreciation) for those years (Row 2).
Row 5, Interest: Plant and Rolling Stock for each year has been
determined by calculating the annual interest-principal repayment
schedule based on the terms of a five year loan of $640,000 at 15
percent.
Row 6, Overhead, has been determined by multiplying the operating
hours per year (1,600) by the capacity per hour (300 tph) and the
estimated overhead costs per ton ($.25).
Row 8, Excess Moving Costs: Pollution Control have been estimated
based upon the data summarized in Table 6 regarding the cost of
.
.
.
.
.
.
42
-------
.
moving the control system. Based upon an estimated 24 moves/year
within the quarry, 4 moves/year among quarries, labor costs for
control system dismantling and set up of $1,440/move and average
transportation costs of $5,120 for moves to different quarries, the
annual excess moving costs have been determined to be $61,000.
Row 9, Annual Cost: Pollution Control was obtained by summing the
following annual direct cost components (Table 13); annual 0 &M costs,
utilities, filter replacement, dust disposal, and taxes, insurance
and administration.
Row 10, Depreciation: Pollution Control, was determined by assuming
the total installed capital costs ($203,600) of Table 13 will be
depreciated to zero salvage value over five years.
Row 11, Interest: Pollution Control, was determined through the
interest-principal repayment schedule for a loan of ($203,600) for
five years at 15 percent.
Row 13, Pass-through, was determined based on the assumptions
regarding the gradual pass-through of pollution control costs to
the consumers of crushed stone and sand and gravel (see Section
1\.3.2). More specifically, the DCF model assumes that the follow-
ing percentages of the total costs of pollution control will be
passed to consumers in the form of higher prices:
Years 1 and 2 = 0 percent
Years 3 and 4 = 6.25 percent
Years 5 and 6 = 12.50 percent
Years 7 and 8 = 18.75 percent
Years 9 and 10 = 25.00 percent
While in reality the pass through of control costs will increase
the yearly revenues, the arithmetic of Table 20 is based upon
the deduction of the pass through amounts from total costs.
Row 16, Depletion, has been estimated for each year by multiplying
the oepletion base ($3.08), the calculation of which is described
in Section A.3.2.1, by the capacity per hour, operating hours per
year, and the five percent depletion allowance. Following this
procedure has yielded a maximum annual depletion of $73,000.
However, Federal tax laws prohibit the claiming of depletion allow-
.
.
.
.
43
-------
.
ances in excess of one-half of earnings before tax. In the case
presented in Table 20 the plant cannot claim full depletion
until the fifth year of operation.
Row 18, Federal Tax Liability, has been calculated on the basis of
a marginal tax rate of 46 percent.
Row 19, Investn~nt Tax Credit, has been calculated on the assump-
tion that the firm will attempt to apply the full credit available,
which in this case is $148,000 (i.e., 10 percent of the total
investment of $1,483,600 including pollution control). Current tax
laws dictate that credit may be taken on the first $25,000 of
earnings before tax and after depletion, plus a percentage of
earnings above this amount. Presently the tax laws allow credit
for 60 percent of earnings above the $25,000 level in 1979, and 70
and 80 percent for 1980 and 1981, respectively. For 1982 and all
following years the percentage is 90 percent.
Row 21, Adjustment: Minimum Tax. Since the previously discussed
derletion allowance is a "tax preference item" the tax law calls
for the payment of a minimum tax if the amount of the firm's
Federal tax (row 20) is less than the depletion claimed (row 16).
For those years which this is so, an adjustment of the year's
depletion must be made in order to define a "minimum tax base" (row
22). This adjustment is taken as the years Federal tax (row 20)
\
unless that tax is less than $10,000 in which case the adjustment
is $10,000 according to the Internal Revenue Code.
Row 22, Minimum Tax Base, was determined by subtracting the adjust-
ment (row 21) from the year's depletion (row 16).
Row 23, Minimum Tax, was determined by applying the minimum tax
rate of 15 percent, to each year's minimum tax base (row 22).
Row 24, Total Federal Tax, was derived through the addition of each
year's minimum tax (row 23) and Federal tQx (ro\ll 20).
Row 25, State Tax, was determined through the application of the
most common state tax rate (5 percent) to each year's earnings
before income tax (row 15).
Row 26, Total Tax, shows the amount of Federal and ~tate taxes
rayable for a particular year.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
-------
.
Row 27, Earnings After Tax, forms the first item in the cash flow
calculations (Rows 27 through 37).
Rows 28, 29, and 30, entail the "adding back" of various deprecia-
tion amounts into the annual cash flows of the portable plant.
Row 32, Workin9 Capital Recovery, was added to the final year's
cash flow to reflect the recovery of equity capital previously
sunk in accounts receivable and inventories.
Row 33, Salvage Value, was added to the tenth year's cash flow to
reflect cash generated from the sale of the ten year old portable
plant. The calculation of this salvage value was noted previously
in Section A.3.2.1.
Row 34, Principal Repayment: Plant and Rolling Stock, was deducted
from each of the first five year's cash flows since one-half of the
investment in plant and rolling stock has been financed through
debt over five years at 15 percent.
Row 35, Principal Repayment: Pollution Control, was also deducted
from the cash flows of years one through five since the investment
in pollution control equipment has been financed completely through
debt over five years at 15 percent.
Row 38, Discount Factor. In order to account for the fact that
cash flows to be received during the near future are "more valuable"
to the firm than those to be generated in the later years, all cash
flows have been discounted to their present value. The discount
factors have been determined on the basis of a cost of equity of 15
percent. The cost of equity has been used since the DCF analysis
detailed above has accounted for the repayment of all loans (i.e.,
debt) used to support the portable plant's operation.
Row 39, Discounted Cash Flow. When the cash flows of each year are
discounted to their present value and summarized a value of $828,000
is derived. It is this value which is compared to the original
investment from equity ($1,108,000) to allow the further calcula-
tion of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR) as described below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A.3.4 Conclusions
A.3.4.1 Internal Rates of Return. In an effort to gain greater insight
into the specific economid impacts upon those plants examined, the Internal
<15
-------
I~ate of Return (IRR) for each plant was determined. Such a rate is defined,
in each instance, as that rate of return which equates the present value of
future cash flows with the value of the initial required investment from
equity. Therefore, according to this definition, the feasibility of indivi-
dual investments is judged by whether or not the IRR is greater than the
cost of equity (and thus economically attractive) or less than the cost of
equity (and thus not attractive). Based on discussions with industry repre-
sentat i ves, the cost of equity \lIas assigned a value of 15 percent per year.
~.3.4.2 Feasibility Definitions. Once each IRR was identified it
became necessary to establish boundaries or "cut-off" points so that eco-
nomically feasible and non-feasible investments might be more clearly dis-
tinguished. While in the strictest sense, such a cut-off point should be
the cost of equity, a middle range of "ambiguous" results has been selected.
The neerl for such a range is based upon the reality that the economic envi-
ronment of all rortable plants is not, and \'Iill not be identical. Recognizing
this reality, the values for a number of parameters chosen in the above DCF
analysis have reflected
-------
whose post-cant rol IRR is greater than 15 percent are ident ifi ed as "econo-
mically feasible", while those below 12 percent are said to be "not economi-
cally feasible". For a specific plant whose internal rate of return, as
calculated by the method employed here, falls within the 12 to 15 percent
range (termed "ambiguous"), an investment decision \'till have to be made
after careful reevaluation of prevailing process, market and economic condi-
tions.
A.3.4.3 Adaptation of Portable Plants to NSPS Control. In general, the
implications of the results of the DCF analysis summarized by Table 16 are
that the profitability of those new plants who desire to operate at relatively
low hours per year and/or maintain within quarry mobility will be adversely
affected. With specific regard to crushed stone, it appears that the new 270
Mg/hr (300tph) portable plants may be forced to operate at a greater number
of hours each year and limit the number of withi n qua rry moves made.
However. it should be noted that for those new plants which can operate at
levels ahove 1,250 hours per year and also pass a greater portion of
control costs to consumers of crushed stone, profitability will be main-
tained. Since sand and gravel plants ordinarily do not move within gravel
pits, the new 270 Mg/hr (300 tph) portable plants which will maintain
profitability will be those which either operate at a higher level of hours
each year, or can increase the price of their products enough to cover the
increased costs of pollution control.
fJ,7
-------
REFERENCES
Letter and attachments from Brown, Howard, Iowa Manufacturing Company,
to Viconovic, George, GCA/Tecrynology Division. June 18, 1979. Data
on portable and stationary plants in the crushed stone and sand and
gravel industries.
1.
2. Telecon.
3. Telecon.
4.
Telecon.
5.
Telecon.
6.
Telecon.
7. Telecon.
8.
Telecon.
9.
Telecon.
1 O. Tel econ .
11. Telecon.
Hart, Michael, Colorado Sand and Gravel Association with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 13, 1979.
Portable plants in the sand and gravel industry.
Davidson, Edward, National Sand and Gravel Association with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 13, 1979.
Portable plants in the sand and gravel industry.
Hoover, Earl, United States Bureau of Mines with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 8, 1979. Portable
plants in the crushed stone industry.
Renninger, Frederick, National Crushed Stone Association
with Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 13,
1979. Portable plants in the crushed stone industry.
Pressler, J., United States Bureau of Mines with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 8, 1979. Portable
plants in the gypsum industry.
Messinger, Arthur, United States Bureau of Mines with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 8, 1979.
Portable plants in the pumice industry.
Ampian, S., United States Bureau of Mines with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 11, 1979. Portable
plants in the clays industry.
Brown, Howard, Iowa Manufacturing Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 11, 1979. Portable
plant industry data.
Brown, Howard, Iowa Manufacturing Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 15, 1979. Industry
da ta.
Hart, Michael, Colorado Sand and Gravel Association with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 18, 1979.
Industry data.
4R
-------
12. Telecon.
13.
Telecon.
14. Telecon.
15.
Olson, Del, Gifford-Hill Company with Viconovic, George,
GCA/Technology Division. June 28, 1979. Industry data.
Cole, Richard, Flintkote Company with Harnett, William,
GCA/ Technology Division. November 8, 1979. Portable
plant operating and movement data.
Brown, Howard, Iowa Manufacturing Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. June 21, 1979. Portable
and stationary plant sales data.
u.s. Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodity Summaries 1979.
D.C., U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979. 190 p.
Washington,
16. Telecon.
17. Telecon.
18. Telecon.
19. Telecon.
20. Telecon.
21. Telecon.
22. Telecon.
Cole, Richard, Flintkote Company with Viconovic, George,
GCA/Technology Division. June 13, 1979 and June 14,
1979. Portable plant cost and movement data.
Olson, Del, Giffor-Hill company with Viconovic, George,
GCA/Technology Division, June 15, 1979. Portable plant
cost and movement data.
Hart, Michael, Colorado Sand and Gravel Association with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. June 17,
1979. Portable plant movement data.
Lahu, Peter, Speer Construction with Viconovic, George,
GCA/Technology Division. July 17, 1979. Portable plant
operating and movement data.
Ellis, Oscar, Moline Consumers Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. July 18, 1979. Portable
plant operating and movement dat~.
Hart, Michael, Colorado Sand and Gravel Association with
Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. July 19,
1979. Portable plant operating and movement data.
Ellis, Oscar, Moline Consumers Company with Harnett,
William, GCA/Technology Division. November 8, 1979.
Portable plant operating and movement data.
Letter and attachments from Schroeder, Philip N., M.C. Schroeder
Company to Viconovic, George, GCA/Technology Division. July 27, 1979.
Baghouse cost data.
23.
24.
Letter and attachments from Meyer, Robert J., Joy Industrial
Equipment Company-Western Precipitation Division to Viconovic, George,
GCA/Technology Division. July 27, 1979. Baghouse cost data.
49
-------
33.
34.
25.
Telecon.
Schroeder, Philip N., M.C. Schroeder Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. August 6, 1979. Ductwork
cost data.
26.
Hamlin, Robert, Hamlin Sheet Metal Company with Viconovic,
George, GCA/Technology Division. August 8, 1979. Ductwork
cost data.
Telecon.
27.
PEDCo. Environmental Inc. Cost Analysis Manual for Standards
Support Document. Cincinnati, PEDCo. Environmental Inc., April 1979.
82 p.
28.
Perry, Robert H. and Cecil H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook.
New York, McGraw-Hi 11 !3ook Company, 1973.
29.
Memo from Brown, Howard, Iowa Manufacturing Company, to Goodwin,
Don, EPA/OAQPS. March 1,1979. Data on portable plants and
stationary plants in the crushed stone and sand and gravel industries.
Included among industry contacts are;
30.
.
It
.
.
Douglas E. Anderson, B.L. Anderson, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Larry Hinton, Azrelli Construction, Inc., Kankakee, Illinois
Floyd Lillig, Iowa Manufacturing Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
William J. Paxson, Chief Engineer, Iowa Manufacturing Co.,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Albert Richardson, Gordon Quarries, Inc., Forrest City, Missouri
Howard L. Slife, V.P., Cedar Rapids Aggregate Equipment Sales,
Iowa Manufacturing Co., Cedar Rapids, Iowa
Robert Treager, Farmers Stone and Treager Quarries, Inc., Chilig-
lafi, Missouri
.
.
.
31.
u.S. Bureau of Mines Mineral Commodity Profiles Stone. MCP-17.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. July 1978. p.16
u.S.
32.
u.S. !3ureau of Mines. Mineral Commoidity Profiles. Sand and Gravel.
MCP-23. u.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, D.C.
September 1978. p.12
Highway and Heavy Construction.
September 1979. p. 150-158.
Iowa Manufacturing Company.
Cedar Rapids. Iowa
50
-------
I HI ['ORl NO
EPA-450/3-80-002A
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(1'1, (/.1', r,.(/tlluwllc//()Il.~ Oil the rel'efse befofe (,olllplc~IIlX)
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
12
-
--. ,----- ---.--,-- - ~.
5 REPORT DATE
March 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
---"----..------ -- - -- -
4 TlrLE ANUSlJBTlTLL
Non-Metallic Mineral Processing Plants: Volume I,
Background Information for Proposed Standards
i-AUT'HOR(S) .-, ---._-- _n -------. d' d. ---
- - - -- -------------
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
I- ---- -- ._-- . - -- '. -- - -- _d-"', -------
9 PC HFORMINfJ OIH,/\NIZA rlON NAME AND ADDR!:SS
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle'Park, North Carolina 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
-
68-02-3057
~- .------ -- --------,.', -- .--- .-_.- ------
1:7 SPUNSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Envirionmental Protection Agency
Research Trian~Jle Park, North Carol ina 27711
10 SUPPLEMFNTAfiY NOTES Vol ume I discusses the proposed standards and the resulting
environmental and economic effects. Volume II, to be published when the stardards
are promulqated, will discuss any differences between the two standards.
16. ABSTRACT
Standards of performance for the control of emissions from non-metallic mineral
processing plants are being proposed under the authority of section 111 of the Clean
Air Act. These standards would apply to new, modified, or reconstructed facilities
at any non-metallic mineral processing plant including crushers, grinding mills,
screens, bucket elevators, conveyor belt transfer points, bagging operations, storage
bins, and enclosed truck and railcar loading stations. This document contains back-
ground information and environmental and economic impact assessments, as proposed
under 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart LL.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
, 7
..
.i
-.
--
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
-- - --- ------- -
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS L
-- ---., --'- - - -- - ---- _.- , -t--'
.-.-
COSA TI I Icld/Group
[)ESCI~ I PTO RS
Air pollution
Pollution control
Standards of performance
Non-metallic mineral processing
Particulate emissions
Air Pollution Control
plants
PI I)I'~ rniliUT I(lN Sl II rLMEN1
Unl im; ted
19 SECURITY CLASS (ThIS Repurl)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (This pu/(e)
Unclassified
21 N04g9 PAGES
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220.1 (9.73)
------- |