MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
                                       EPORT
   CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR SOURCES OF PM10
               DRAFT REPORT

EPA Contract No.  68-02-3891, Work Assignment 4
          MRI Project No.  8281-L(4)

              September 1985
                   For
    U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
    Control Programs Development Division
 Research  Triangle  Park,  North Carolina  27711
At.t.n-  Mr
                           Woodard
                         KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110-816 753-7600

-------
MRI WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006-Suite 250, 1750 K Street, N.W. • 202 293-3800

-------
                      CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR SOURCES OF  PMi0
                                        By

                                  John S. Kinsey
                                 Steven Schllesser
                               Phillip J. Englehart
                                   DRAFT REPORT

                  EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891, Work Assignment 4
                             MRI Project No. 8281-L(4)

                                  September 1S85
                                        For
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                   Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                       Control Programs Development Division
                   Research Triangle Park, North Carolina  27711

                           Attn:   Mr. Kenneth R. Woodard
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816 753-7600

-------
                                  PREFACE
     This report was  prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency's Control Programs Development Division
as part of Work Assignment 4 of Contract No. 68-02-3891.  Mr. Kenneth Woodard
was the  EPA  project  officer.   The work was performed in MRI's Air Quality
Assessment Section (Dr.  Chatten  Cowherd,  Head).   The report was  prepared
by  Mr. John  Kinsey (Principal  Investigator),  Mr. Steve Schliesser,  and
Mr. Phillip Englehart.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
M. P. Schrag, Directol
Environmental Systems Department
September 1985

-------
                                 CONTENTS
Preface	   iii
Figures	vi
Tables	vii

     1.0  Introduction	1-1
               1.1  Definitions	1-2
               1.2  Reference documents	1-8
               1.3  Organization of handbook	1-8
     2.0  Quantification of Uncontrolled Emissions 	   2-1
               2.1  Ducted source emission factors 	   2-2
               2.2  Process fugitive emission factors	2-3
               2.3  Open source emission factors 	   2-4
     3.0  Control Alternatives for PM10	3-1
               3.1  Control alternatives for ducted sources	3-2
               3.2  Control alternatives for fugitive emissions.  .  .   3-23
     4.0  Estimation of Control Costs and Effectiveness	4-1
               4.1  General cost methodology	4-2
               4.2  Cost elements and sources of data	4-9
       '        4.3  Generalized cost estimate procedures 	   4-11
               4.4  Example cost estimate calculations 	   4-12
     5.0  Methods of Compliance Determination	5-1
               5.1  Source testing methods for PMio	5-1
               5.2  Methods for determining visible emissions. ...   5-8
               5.3  Other methods for determining compliance ....   5-17

Appendices

     A.  Procedures for sampling surface/bulk materials	A-l
     B.  Procedures for laboratory analysis of surface/bulk
           samples	B-l
     C.  Procedures for quantification of traffic characteristics.  .   C-l

-------
                                  FIGURES
Number                                                                Page

 2-1      Mean number of days with 0.01 in.  or more of precipi-
            tation in United States	2-8
 3-1      General types of cyclones	3-6
 3-2      Basic processes in electrostatic precipitation 	   3-8
 3-3      Initial mechanisms of fabric filtration	3-14
 3-4      Diagram of a portable wind screen	3-28
 3-5      Diagrams of typical street cleaners	   3-33
 3-6      General types of capture devices (hoods) 	   3-36
 3-7      Converter air curtain control system 	   3-39
 3-8      Electrostatic foggers	3-41
 4-1      Cost of venturi scrubbers, unlined throat with carbon
            steel construction	4-69
 4-2      Capital and annualized costs of venturi scrubbers with
            carbon steel construction	4-70
 4-3      Capital and annualized costs of venturi scrubbers with
            stainless steel construction 	   4-71
 4-4      Cost of electrostatic precipitators with carbon steel
            construction 	   4-72
 4-5      Capital and annualized costs of electrostatic with
            carbon steel construction	4-73
 4-6      Cost of fabric filters with carbon steel construction. .  .   4-74
 4-7      Capital and annualized costs of fabric filters with
            stainless steel construction 	   4-75
 4-8      Capital and annualized costs of fabric filters with
            carbon steel construction	4-76
 4-9      Capital and annualized costs of fans and 30.5 m (100 ft)
            length of duct	4-77
 4-10     Capital and annualized costs of fan driver for various
            head pressures	4-78
 5-1      PMio particulate sampling train for noncondensible
            participate (Modified EPA Method 5 train)	5-3
 5-2      PMio particulate sampling train for condensible and
            noncondensible particulate (Modified EPA Method 5
            train)	5-4
 5-3      Schematic of the Emission Gas Recycle (EGR) sampling
            train	5-6
 5-4      Recommended sampling points for circular and square or
            rectangular ducts	5-7

-------
                                  TABLES
Number                                                                Page

 1-1      Categories of Process Fugitive Sources 	   1-3
 1-2      Generic Categories of Open Dust Sources	1-6
 1-3      Open Dust Sources Associated with Construction and
            Demolition	1-7
 1-4      List of Standard Reference Documents 	   1-9
 2-1      Range of Source Conditions for Equation 2-4	   2-9
 2-2      Range of Source Conditions for Equation 2-5	2-10
 2-3      Paved Urban Roadway Classification 	   2-12
 2-4      Summary of Silt Loading (sL) Values for Paved Urban
            Roadways	2-12
 2-5      Recommended PM10 Emission Factors for Specific Roadway
            Categories	2-13
 2-6      Ranges of Source Conditions for Equations 2-7 and 2-8. .  .   2-16
 2-7      Typical Silt Content Values of Surface Materials on
            Industrial and Rural Unpaved Roads 	   2-19
 2-8      Typical Silt Content and Loading Values for Paved Roads
            at Industrial Facilities 	   2-20
 2-9      Typical Silt and Moisture Content Values of Materials at
            Various Industries 	   2-21
 2-10     Typical Correction Parameters Determined for Unpaved
            Roads	2-23
 2-11     Typical Correction Parameters Determined for Industrial
            Paved Roads	2-25
 2-12     Typical Correction Parameters Determined for Aggregate
            Handling and Storage Piles 	   2-26
 3-1      Standard Reference Documents for Industrial Gas Cleaning
            Equipment	3-3
 3-2      Major Types of Mechanical Dust Collectors	3-3
 3-3      Major Types of Wet Scrubbers	3-16
 3-4      Typical Scrubber Pressure Drop 	   3-18
 3-5      Typical PM10 Control Efficiencies for Mechanical Dust
            Collectors	3-20
 3-6      Typical PMio Control Efficiencies for Electrostatic
            Precipitators and Fabric Filters 	   3-21
 3-7      Typical PM10 Control Efficiencies for Wet Scrubbers.  . .  .   3-22
 3-8      Additional Reference Documents for Fugitive Emission
            Controls	3-25
 3-9      Process Fugitive Particulate Emission Sources and
            Feasible Control Technology	3-42
 3-10     Feasible Control Measures for Open Dust Sources	3-45
                                    vn

-------
                            TABLES (continued)


Number                                                                Page

 3-11     Summary of Available PM10 Control Efficiency Data for
            Water Sprays and Foam Suppression (Process Sources). .  .   3-47
 3-12     Summary of PM10 Control Efficiency Data for Capture/
            Collection Systems (Process Sources) 	   3-48
 3-13     Summary of Available Control PM10 Efficiency Data for
            Plume Aftertreatment Systems (Process Sources) 	   3-49
 3-14     Open Dust Source Control Technique Identification	   3-52
 3-15     Instantaneous PMxo Control Efficiency for Unpaved Road
            Control Techniques as a Function of Vehicle Passes  . .  .   3-54
 3-16     Field Data on Unpaved Road Watering Control Efficiency .  .   3-55
 3-17     Summary of Available PM1() Control Efficiency Data for
            Water Sprays (Open Dust Sources)	3-56
 3-18     Summary of Available PMjo Control Efficiency Data for
            Foam Suppression Systems (Open Dust Sources) 	   3-57
 3-19     Summary of Available PM10 Control Efficiency Data for
            Plume Aftertreatment Systems (Open Dust Sources) ....   3-59
 4-1      Typical Capital Cost Elements	4-16
 4-2      Typical Values for Indirect Capital Costs	4-16
 4-3      Typical Annualized Cost Elements 	   4-17
 4-4      Control Alternatives for Wet Scrubbers 	   4-18
 4-5      Control Alternatives for Electrostatic Precipitators  . .  .   4-20
 4-6      Control Alternatives for Fabric Filters	4-22
 4-7      Control Alternatives for Wet Suppression of Process
            Fugitives	4-24
 4-8      Control Alternatives for Capture/Collection Systems.  . .  .   4-25
 4-9      Control Alternatives for Plume Aftertreatment Systems. .  .   4-27
 4-10     Control Alternatives for Stabilization of Unpaved
            Travel Surfaces	4-28
 4-11     Control Alternatives for Improvement of Paved Travel
            Surfaces	4-29
 4-12     Control Alternatives for Wet Suppression of Unpaved
            Surfaces	4-30
 4-13     Control Alternatives for Paving	4-31
 4-14     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for Wet
            Scrubbers	4-32
 4-15     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for
            Electrostatic Precipitators	4-33
 4-16     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for
            Fabric Filters 	   4-34
 4-17     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for Wet
            Suppression of Process Fugitive Emissions	4-35
 4-18     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for Capture/
            Collection Systems 	   4-36
 4-19     Capital and O&M Expenditures for Plume Aftertreatment
            Systems	4-37

-------
                            TABLES (continued)
Number                                .                                Page

 4-20     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for Chemical
            Stabilization of Unpaved Travel Surfaces 	   4-38
 4-21     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for
            Improvement of Paved Travel Surfaces 	   4-39
 4-22     Capital Equipment and O&M Expenditure Items for Paving . .   4-40
 4-23     Typical Costs for Wet Suppression of Process Fugitive
            Sources	4-41
 4-24     Typical Costs for Wet Suppression of Open Sources	4-42
 4-25     Selected Cost Estimates for Stabilization of Open Dust
            Sources	4-43
 4-26     Cost Estimates for Improvement of Paved Travel Surfaces. .   4-44
 4-27     Example Calculation Case:   Control Cost Alternatives for
            Wet Scrubber on Ducted Sources 	   4-45
 4-28     Example Calculation Case:   Capital Equipment and O&M
            Expenditure Items for a Wet Scrubber on a Typical
            Ducted Source	4-47
 4-29     Example Calculation Case:   Capital Costs for a Wet
            Scrubber on a Typical Ducted Source	4-48
 4-30     Example Calculation Case:   Annualized Costs and Cost-
            Effectiveness for a Wet Scrubber on a Typical Ducted
            Source	4-51
 4-31     Example Calculation Case:   Control Cost Alternatives for
            Wet Suppression of Process Fugitive Emissions	4-53
 4-32     Example Calculation Case:   Capital Equipment and O&M
            Expenditure Items for Wet Suppression of Process
            Fugitive Emissions 	   4-54
 4-33     Example Calculation Case:   Cost Estimation for Process
            Fugitive Control 	   4-55
 4-34     Example Calculation Case:   Cost and Cost Effectiveness
            Estimate for Typical Open Source Control 	   4-57
 4-35     Alternative Control Program Design for Coherex® Applied
            to Travel Surfaces	4-63
 4-36     Alternative Control Program Design for Petro Tac Applied
            to Unpaved Travel Surfaces 	   4-64
 4-37     Identification and Cost Estimation of Coherex® Control
            Alternatives 	   4-65
 4-38     Identification and Cost Estimation of Petro Tac Control
            Alternatives 	   4-67
 5-1      Summary of EPA Method 9 Requirements (M9)	5-9
 5-2      Summary of Modified EPA Method 9 for Basic Oxygen
            Process Furnaces (MM9) 	   5-10
 5-3      Summary of EPA Method 22 Requirements (M22)	5-11
 5-4      Summary of TVEE Method 1 Requirements (Ml)	5-14
 5-5      Recommended Operating Parameters for Monitoring of ESP
            Performance	5-20
                                     IX

-------
                            TABLES (concluded)


Number

 5-6      Recommended Operating Parameters for Monitoring of Fabric
            Filter Performance 	   5-21
 5-7      Recommended Operating Parameters for Monitoring of Wet
            Scrubber Performance 	   5-23
 5-8      Typical Form for Recording Chemical Dust Suppressant
            Control Parameters 	   5-25
 5-9      Typical Form for Recording Delivery of Chemical Dust
            Suppressants 	   5-26
 5-10     Typical Form for Recording Watering Program Control
            Parameters	5-27
 5-11     Typical Form for Recording Paved Road/Parking Area
            Control Parameters 	   5-29

-------
                                SECTION 1.0

                               INTRODUCTION
     The U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency (EPA) has proposed national
ambient air  quality  standards  (NAAQS) for particulate matter based on par-
ticles of  a  size  equal  to or  smaller than 10 microns (urn)  in aerodynamic
diameter (PM-wO for  the  primary standard,  and total suspended particulate
(TSP) for  the  secondary  standard.   TSP is defined  as  particulate matter
which is of  a  size approximately equal  to or smaller than 30 microns (urn)
in aerodynamic diameter.   Revision of the standards will make it  necessary
that  State Implementation Plans (SIPs) be reviewed  to  determine changes
that may be required to attain and maintain the new standards.   Included in
the SIP review process will be an analysis of the existing control strategy
to determine whether additional control technology will  be required for
existing sources of PMio to attain and maintain the new NAAQS.

     In order to develop appropriate control  strategies for sources of PMio
a step-wise  procedure must be  followed.  This procedure  includes:  (1)  the
determination  of  uncontrolled  PMio  emission  rates; (2) the identification
of available control options; (3) the determination of the emissions reduc-
tion achieved by various control options; and (4) the estimation of control
costs and  cost-effectiveness  for each option.  This document will provide
guidance on each step in the above procedure.  It will  also present various
approaches for determining compliance with applicable PMio emission stan-
dards (when  promulgated),  based on  either a determination of on-site per-
formance (e.g., source tests,  opacity)  or other  procedures  such  as record-
keeping.   First,  appropriate  definitions  and reference documents will  be
presented  as an introduction to the main discussion provided in the follow-
ing sections.

                                    1-1

-------
1.1  DEFINITIONS

     Ducted emission sources are those sources of particulate matter which
vent emissions to the atmosphere through a stack, vent, or pipe designed to
direct or  control  their flow.  Point  sources  are  usually controlled by
means of one or more types of traditional industrial gas cleaning equipment
such as electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, and wet scrubbers.

     Fugitive emissions refer to those pollutants that:  (1) enter the atmo-
sphere without  first passing  through a stack or  duct designed to direct or
control their  flow; or  (2)  leak from ducting systems.   Sources of  fugitive
particulate emissions may be  separated into two  broad  categories:  process
sources and open dust sources.

     Process sources of fugitive emissions are those associated with indus-
trial  operations that  alter the chemical or physical characteristics of a
feed material.   Examples are  emissions from charging and  tapping of metal-
lurgical furnaces  and emissions from crushing  of mineral  aggregates.  Such
emissions  normally  occur  within buildings and,  unless  captured, are dis-
charged to  the atmosphere through  forced or natural  draft ventilation sys-
tems.  However, a process source can also be located in the open atmosphere
(e.g., scrap metal  cutting).  The most significant process sources of fugi-
tive particulate emissions are listed by  industry in Table 1-1.

     Open dust  sources  are  those which entail  generation  of  fugitive emis-
sions  by the forces of wind or machinery  acting  on exposed materials.   Open
dust sources  include  industrial operations associated  with the open trans-
port,  storage,  and transfer of raw, intermediate, and waste aggregate mate-
rials  and  nonindustrial  sources such as  unpaved roads and parking lots,
                                                        eupwJ wm
paved  streets  and highways, heavy construction activities, and agricultural
tilling.   Generic  categories  of open dust sources  are  listed  in  Table 1-2.
                                    1-2

-------
            TABLE 1-1.   CATEGORIES OF PROCESS FUGITIVE SOURCES
         Industry
         Process  source
Iron and Steel  Plants
Ferrous Foundries
Primary Aluminum Production
Primary Copper Smelters
Primary Copper Smelters
 Coal  Crushing/Screening
 Coke  Ovens
 Coke  Oven Pushing
 Sinter Machine Windbox
 Sinter Machine Discharge
 Sinter Cooler
 Blast Furnace Charging
 Blast Furnace Tapping
 Slag  Crushing/Screening
 Molten Iron Transfer
 BOF Charging/Tapping/Leaks
 Open  Hearth Charging/Tapping/Leaks
 EAF Charging/Tapping/Leaks
 Ingot Pouring
 Continuous Casting
 Scarfing

 Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Ductile Iron Inoculation (w/wo tundish
   cover)
 Pouring of Molten Metal
 Casting Shakeout
 Cooling/Cleaning/Finishing of Castings
 Core  Sand and Binder Mixing

 Grinding/Screening/Mixing/
   Paste Production
 Anode Baking
 Electrolytic Reduction Cell
 Refining and Casting

 Roaster Charging
 Roaster Leaks
 Furnace Charging/Tapping/
   Leaks

 Slag  Tapping/Handling
 Converter Charging/Leaks
 Blister Copper Tapping/Transfer
 Copper Tapping/Casting

(continued)
                                    1-3

-------
                          TABLE 1-1.   (continued)
         Industry
         Process  source
Primary Lead Smelters
Primary Zinc Production
Secondary Aluminum Smelters
Secondary Lead Smelters
Secondary Zinc Production
 Raw Material  Mixing/Pelletizing
 Sinter Machine  Leaks
 Sinter Return Handling
 Sinter Machine  Discharge/Screens
 Sinter Crushing
 Blast Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Lead and Slag Pouring
 Slag Cooling
 Slag Granulator
 Zinc Fuming Furnace Vents
 Dross Kettle
 Silver Retort Building
 Lead Casting

 Sinter Machine  Windbox Discharge
 Sinter Machine  Discharge/Screens
 Coke-Sinter Mixer
 Furnace Tapping
 Zinc Casting

 Sweating Furnace
 Smelting Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Fluxing
 Dross Handling  and Cooling

 Scrap Burning
 Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Reverb Furnace  Charging/Tapping
 Blast Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Pot Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Tapping of Holding Pot
 Casting

 Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Hot Metal  Transfer
 Melting Furnace Charging/Tapping
 Distillation  Retort Charging/Tapping
 Distillation  Furnace  Charging/Tapping
 Casting

(continued)
                                    1-4

-------
                          TABLE 1-1.   (concluded)
         Industry
        Process source
Secondary Copper, Brass/
  Bronze Production
Ferroalloy Production
Cement Manufacturing



Lime Manufacturing


Rock Products
Asphalt Concrete Plants


Coal-Fired Power Plants

Grain Storage and Processing


Wood Products Industry
Mining
Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
Dryer Charging/Tapping
Melting Furnace Charging
Casting

Raw Materials Crushing/
  Screening
Furnace Charging
Furnace Tapping
Casting

Limestone/Gypsum Crushing and
  Screening
Coal Grinding

Limestone Crushing/Screening
Lime Screening/Conveying

Blasting
Primary Crushing/Screening
Secondary Crushing/Screening
Tertiary Crushing Screening

Aggregate Crushing/Screening
Pugmi11/Dryer Drum

Coal Pulverizing/Screening

Grain Cleaning
Grain Drying

Log Debarking/Sawing
Veneer Drying
Plywood Cutting
Plywood Sanding

Blasting
Crushing/Screening
                                     1-5

-------
            TABLE 1-2.   GENERIC CATEGORIES OF OPEN DUST SOURCES
     1.    Unpaved Travel  Surfaces
               Roads
               Parking lots and staging areas
               Storage piles
     2.    Paved Travel Surfaces
               Streets and highways
               Parking lots and staging areas
     3.    Exposed Areas (wind erosion)
               Storage piles
               Bare (unvegetated)  ground areas
     4.    Materials Handling
               Batch drop (dumping)
               Continuous drop (conveyor transfer,  stacking)
               Pushing (dozing, grading, scraping)
               Tilling
     The partially enclosed storage and transfer of materials to or from a
process operation do  not  fit  well  into either  of  the two categories of
fugitive particulate  emissions  defined  above.   Examples are partially en-
closed conveyor transfer  stations  and front-end loaders operating within
buildings.    Nonetheless,  partially enclosed materials handling operations
should be classified as open sources.

     The various open  dust sources listed in Table 1-2  can be found either
in an  industrial facility or  in the public  sector.  The mechanisms of dust
formation and thus  the type  of controls which  can  be applied in either
case are essentially  the  same.   However,  both  the  suitability  and  cost-
effectiveness associated with  a specific  control  measure can change sig-
nificantly when applied  in  an industrial  setting as  compared to the same
control used for public sector  sources.  Therefore, the control strategies

                                    1-6

-------
developed by public agencies often differ from those employed by industrial

concerns.


     A number of public sector sources are perceived as single sources when

in actuality they are a series of different dust generating operations con-

fined to the  same  locality.   Examples of this type of source include con-

struction and demolition activities,  both of which  involve dust generation

by various  materials handling operations  as  well  as vehicular traffic.

Table 1-3 lists the specific sources associated with construction and demo-

lition activities  using  the  same general notation indicated in Tables 1-1

and 1-2 above.
               TABLE 1-3.  OPEN DUST SOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH
                             CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
                Construction Sites

                •  Vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces
                •  Storage piles
                •  Mud/dirt carryout onto paved travel surfaces
                •  Exposed areas
                •  Batch drop operations
                •  Pushing (earth moving)
                Demolition Sites

                •  Vehicular traffic on unpaved surfaces
                •  Storage piles
                •  Mud/dirt carryout onto paved travel surfaces
                •  Exposed areas
                •  Batch drop operations
                •  Pushing (dozer operation)
                •  Blasting
     One final public sector source worthy of note is agricultural tilling.
Tilling  involves  those  operations associated with soil preparation, main-

tenance, and  crop harvesting activities.   The emissions from these opera-

tions are  generally  significant but are usually  not  controlled  except  by


                                    1-7

-------
                       .
operational (e.g., tilling)  modifications.   Since add-on controls are not
generally applicable to  agricultural  tilling,  such will not be covered in
detail in this document.

     Finally,  control cost-effectiveness is defined in this document as the
dollars expended per unit  mass of emissions reduced  (i.e.,  $/Mg).   Cost
effectiveness  is a direct  function of the  initial capital  investments as
well as the annualized  costs of labor, operation, and maintenance.    This
will be discussed in detail in Section 4.

1.2  REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

     In order to develop appropriate  control strategies  for  PMio, a  number
of basic reference documents must be available to the person conducting the
analysis.   These documents  are listed in Table 1-4 in the order that they
appear in this handbook.   It is strongly recommended that the user obtain a
copy of each of these reference documents prior to proceeding with any type
of analysis for the control of PMio-  All  of the documents listed are avail-
able either through the National Technical Information Service in Springfield,
Virginia, or from the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards in
Durham, North Carolina.

1.3  ORGANIZATION OF HANDBOOK

     The remainder of this document is organized as follows:

          Section 2 - Quantification of Uncontrolled Emissions
          Section 3 - Control Alternatives for PM1()
          Section 4 - Estimation of Control Costs/Cost Effectiveness
          Section 5 - Methods of Compliance Determination
                                    1-8

-------
             TABLE 1-4.  LIST OF STANDARD REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Compilation of Air Pollutant  Emis-
     sion Factors. ^M Edition (4upp=l=ements=L-=l=§=}, AP-42, Office of Air
     Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, •January;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control Techniques for Particulate
     Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volumes 1 and 2.  EPA-450/3-81-
     005, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, September 1982.

Cowherd, C. , et al.  Identification, Assessment, and Control of Fugitive
     Particulate Emissions.  Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3922,
     Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1985.

Neveril, R.  B.  Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Con-
     trol Systems.  EPA-450/5-80-002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, 1980.
                                     1-9

-------
                                SECTION 2.0

                 QUANTIFICATION OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS
     In developing an uncontrolled emissions inventory,  the large number of
individual sources and  the  diversity of source types make impractical  the
field measurement of emissions at each point of release.   Usually, the only
feasible method of determining pollutant emissions is to estimate the typi-
cal emissions for each of the source types.

     In general,  calculation  of  the estimated emission rate  for  a given
source requires data  on production  rate or  source extent,  the uncontrolled
emission  factor and  control  efficiency.   The mathematical expression for
this calculation is as follows:

          R = Me (1 - c)                                              (2-1)
where:    R = mass emission rate
          M = production rate or source extent
          e = uncontrolled emission factor (i.e., rate of uncontrolled
              emissions per unit of production or source extent)
          c = fractional efficiency of control

The emission  factor  is  an estimate  of  the rate at which a  pollutant  is  re-
leased to the atmosphere  from an uncontrolled source divided by the level
of production or source activity.

     The  document Compilation of Air  Pollutant  Emission  Factors  (AP-42),
published by the EPA since 1972, is a compilation of emission factor values
for the  most significant source categories.1  As more  information about

                                    2-1

-------
sources and control  of emissions has become available, supplements to AP-42
(1-15) have been  published  to include new emission source categories and
update existing source categories.  Because the nation-wide effort to con-
trol industrial sources  of  pollution  initially focused on discharge from
point sources, most of the  factors  compiled in AP-42  apply to point source
particulate emissions.  However, with the increasing recognition of the im-
portance of fugitive  particulate  emissions,  EPA has  undertaken  extensive
field testing to develop emission factors for fugitive sources.

     The following sections briefly discuss  the various  emission factors
available to  estimate the uncontrolled emissions from both point and fugi-
tive sources of
2.1  DUCTED SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS

     As stated above, total particulate emission factors have been published
in AP-42  for  ducted sources representing a multiplicity of industries and
processes.  These  factors  are  derived from data collected  using  standard
source sampling  techniques  such  as  EPA Method  5.   The  emission  factors  are
routinely expressed  in  terms  of kilograms  (kg)  of pollutant emitted per
million (106) grams (Mg) of product.

     Very little  information  is  currently available in  AP-42  relating  to
applicable size-specific emission factors for various processes.  Therefore,
it is  frequently necessary to obtain additional test  data  on  the typical
particle  sizes  associated  with the emissions from a particular process to
obtain the uncontrolled emission rate of PM1().

     To estimate  the  uncontrolled emission rate of PM10 from a particular
source, the total particulate emission factor contained  in AP-42  is used in
Equation  2-2:

          RIO =  k ET P                                                (2-2)
where:    RXQ = emission rate of PM1() (kg/hr)
                                    2-2

-------
          k   = cumulative mass fraction of^particulate emissions equal
                to or less than 10 umA (%)
          Ej  = emission factor for total particulate matter (kg/Mg)
          P   = production rate (or other measure) rate of process opera-
                tion (Mg/hr)

The term  k  in  Equation 2-2  is  determined  from the cumulative particle  size
distribution obtained from  appropriate  source  tests  of the process under
consideration.
     Because of the  above  lack of emissions data,  EPA  has recently com-
pleted  research  to develop  size-specific  emission factors for  selected
point sources.  In  this  effort,  revised AP-42 emission factors which spe-
cifically address PMio are being developed for various industrial processes.
The industries included in this program are:   Portland Cement Manufacturing;
Lime Manufacturing; Asphaltic  Concrete Plants;  External Combustion;  Pulp
and Paper Mills;  Nonferrous  Metallurgical  Operations; Iron and Steel Pro-
duction; Ferroalloy Production; Gray Iron Foundries; and Metallurgical Coke
Production.   Of those industries listed, the size-specific emission factors
for asphaltic  concrete plants  and pulp and paper mills  are the most  highly
refined and  should  be published  in AP-42 sometime  in  the near  future.  The
remainder are  still at  various  stages in the EPA peer review process.

     Whenever  size-specific  emission factors are  available, Equation 2-2
reduces to:

          RIO = E10P                                                  (2-3)
where:    EIQ = the emission factor for PMxo; and  RIO and P are as
                shown in Equation 2-2  above

2.2  PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS

     Applicable emission factors have  also been published in AP-42 for pro-
cess fugitive emissions.   As with ducted source emissions, Equations  2-2 and
2-3 shown above  would likewise apply  to process fugitive sources as well.

                                    2-3

-------
       In  many instances, process fugitives  are  emitted into a building or
  other enclosure and thus  reach  the  atmosphere  indirectly through various
  openings  such as roof  monitors, windows,  doors,  etc.   The sampling tech-
  niques  used to quantify such emissions are, therefore, much more difficult
  to  implement than  is  the  case  of ducted  sources.2   Care  should thus  be exer-
  cised whenever applying the  appropriate  emission  factor  for the various pro-
  cess  fugitive sources  outlined in  AP-42.

       To  assist the analyst in the above determination, one additional ref-
  erence  document might prove useful.   This document is entitled, "Technical
  Guidance  for Control  of  Industrial  Process Fugitive  Particulate Emissions
  (EPA-450/3-77-010)."3   Although this particular reference is somewhat dated,
  it  does  discuss,  in some  detail, the emissions  from various process  fugitive
  sources  of interest.
Y
2.3  OPEN SOURCE EMISSION FACTORS

     In 1972 under  contract  to EPA, Midwest Research Institute (MRI) ini-
tiated field testing  programs  to develop emission factors for four  major
categories of open  dust  sources:   aggregate storage piles,  unpaved roads,
agricultural  tilling,  and heavy construction operations.   Because the emis-
sion factors were  to  be  applicable on a nation-wide basis,  an analysis of
the physical  mechanisms of fugitive dust generation was performed to ascer-
tain the parameters which would cause emissions to vary from one location to
another.   These parameters were  found to be grouped  into three basic cate-
gories:

     1.  Measures of source activity or energy expended (e.g., the vertical
fall distance  during  a material  transfer  operation; vehicle weight and
speed on unpaved roads; etc.).

     2.  Properties of the  material being disturbed  (e.g.,  the  amount of
suspendable  fines  (or silt) and  moisture  content of the material being
dropped).
                                      2-4

-------
     3.   Climatic parameters (e.g., the wind speed to which the material is
exposed).

     Uncontrolled emissions  within a single generic  source  category may
vary over two  (or more) orders of magnitude as a result of  variations  in          f/>
                                                                                 /•. ~ i * t
source conditions  (equipment characteristics, material  properties,
                                                                       ^t?
climatic parameters).  Therefore, an entire generic source category^eafinot
be represented  in  terms  of a single-valued emission factor as is/fjthe case
for ducted sources.   Rather,  a large matrix of  single-valued factors is
necessary to adequately  represent an entire open dust  source  category.   In
order to account  for the variability in emissions, fugitive dust emission
factors were constructed as  mathematical  equations for sources grouped by
dust generation mechanism.   The  emission  factor equation for each  source
category contains  correction  terms  which  explain much of the variance  in
observed emissions  on  the basis  of specific source parameters.  Such fac-
tors are applicable to a wide range of source conditions, limited only by
the extent of experimental verification.

     For example, the use of the silt content as a measure of the dust gen-
eration potential  of a material  extends the applicability of the emission
factor equations  to the  wide variety of aggregate materials of industrial
importance.   The silt content is obtained by dry sieving through a 200 mesh
screen according  to ASTM Method  C-136.  The upper size limit of silt par-
ticles (74 urn in physical diameter) is the smallest particle  size for which
size analysis by dry sieving is practical, and is also a reasonable estima-
tion of  the upper  size  limit for particles which  can become airborne.

     In 1975,  EPA  published  a new section of AP-42 (Section  11.2) dealing
with fugitive  dust sources on a generic basis and incorporating newly de-
veloped emission  factors.  The original source  categories included  unpaved
roads, agricultural  tilling,  and aggregate storage piles.  As a result of
the increased  rate of open dust source test data  accumulation after  1975
and the development  of improved emission "factors, EPA published a major up-
date and expansion of Section 11.2 (Supplement 14) in May 1983.  This in-
cluded improved  emission factor  equations for unpaved roads, agricultural

                                    2-5

-------
tilling, industrial  paved roads,  aggregate storage piles,  and materials
handling (including batch and continuous drop operations).   The agricultural
tilling equation was again updated in Supplement 15 published in January of
1984.
     With each of  the  new fugitive emission factors was provided a set of
correction parameters  for adjusting calculated emission values to  specific
particle size fractions.   The largest factor corresponds to particles equal
to or less than 30 pm in aerodynamic diameter corresponding to the approxi-
mate effective cutpoint  of  the standard high-volume sampler  (i.e.,  total
suspended particulate matter or TSP).   A size factor for particles equal to
or less than 10 urn aerodynamic diameter is also provided,  which is directly
applicable to EPA's proposed revision to the primary NAAQS.

2.3.1  Predictive Emission Factor Equations

     The following sections  describe the current  (or soon  to  be published)
AP-42 emission factor  equations  applicable to the following fugitive dust
source  categories:   unpaved roads, paved  roads,  aggregate handling and
storage piles, and construction operations.  Also discussed are appropriate
correction parameters  to  be  used as input  to  the  equations.   References to
the origin of  the equations and supporting  information are (or  will be)
provided in AP-42.

2.3.1.1  Unpaved Roads—
     The following empirical expression may be used to estimate the quantity
of particulate emissions  from  an unpaved road per unit of  vehicle  travel:1
        E = 1.7k
        E = 5.9k
                                 0.7
                                 0.7
vO.5
\0.5
(kg/VKT)

(Ib/VMT)
(2-4a)

(2-4b)
                                    2-6

-------
where:  E = emission factor (kg/VKT or  Ib/VMT)
                                                       i
        k = particle size multiplier  (dimensionless) = 0..45 for  PMio
        s = silt content of road surface material  (%)
        S = mean vehicle speed  (km/hr or mph)
        W = mean vehicle weight (Mg or  tons)
        w = mean number of wheels  (dimensionless)
        p = number of days with at least 0.254  mm  (0.01  in.) of  precipita-
            tion per year

     The number  of  wet days per year (p)  for the  geographical area of in-
terest should be determined from local  climatic data.  Figure 2-1 gives the
geographical distribution of the mean annual number of wet days  per year in
the United States.

     Equation 2-4 has  an  A quality rating if applied within the ranges of
source conditions  that were tested in developing the equation, as shown in
Table 2-1.   Also, to retain the quality rating  of  Equation 2-4 applied to  a
specific unpaved  road,  it is necessary that reliable correction parameter
values for the specific road in question be determined.   The field and labo-
ratory procedures  for  determining road surface silt  content are given in
Appendices A and  B  and for determining traffic and vehicle characteristics
in Appendix C.

                       ^
and  thus ,_js_jtp^gynRLtiP-1 jje.d_by_ann uaJ^sAu^ce^ext .e.gt^lti^vg.hlcle^ d (stance
    =~    ~      ~  :                    ~                          ~
                 Annual average  values  for  each  of  the  correction parameters
are to be substituted  into  the  equation.
in£ to dryjroad c^jidiiJ:j\ojisj._iMy^e_c_alcLLlated  by
tions  (which  is equivalent to  dropping  the  last term from the equations).
— =—
A sej}aj^jy|jjtsofnpj£^                                                        a V
 *   ~ — "- — — - '    —   --   -,--.,..-.—-     ___   __  _  _^_^.— -rr-— - ___—                       -  -•»   Sfy>^
/BLvalue may  also be  justified for the  worst case  averaging period (usually
24     ========~==™=—===                                  =====
                                     2-7

-------
ro
i
CO
          180
              HP
IS!
                                                                    • so too 2oa 301  400 so*
       210
                                                                                                           141
                                                                           MILES
        Figure  2-1.   Mean number  of days with 0.01  in.  or more of  precipitation  in United  States.1

-------
         TABLE 2-1.   RANGE OF SOURCE CONDITIONS  FOR  EQUATION  2-4a

Road
surface silt
content
(%)


Mean vehicle

Mg
weight
tons


Mean vehicle
speed
km/hr

mph

Mean
No. of
wheels
      4.3-20      2.7-142   3 -  157      21-64    13-40   4 - 13

     a  Values must be in the stated ranges  to  maintain  A  quality
        rating.   Reference 1.

     Similarly,  to calculate emissions  for a 91 day  season of  the year  using
Equation 2-4, replace the term (365-p)/365 with the  term (91-p)/91, and set
p equal to  the  number of wet days in the  91 day period.   Also, use appro-
priate seasonal  values  for  the  nonclimatic  correction parameters  and for
VDT.

2.3.1.2  Paved Roads—
     The quantity of particulate emissions generated by vehicle traffic on
dry,  industrial  paved  roads,  per unit  of  vehicle travel,  may  be estimated
using the following empirical  expression:
                        /  \  /  \  /  \07
        E =,4M*5*.            U        '     (kg/VKT)                 (2-5a)
                    /\ /  \  /  ,  \  AA0.7
        E = 
-------
     The industrial road augmentation factor (I) in the equation  is an em-
pirical factor which  takes  into account higher emissions from  industrial
roads than from urban roads.   I = 7.0 for an industrial roadway which traf-
fic enters from unpaved areas.   1-3.5  for an industrial roadway with un-
paved shoulders which  are  trave4ed by 20% of  the  traffic.   I =  1.0  for
cases in which traffic does not  travel on unpaved  areas.  A value of  I be-
tween 1.0 and 7.0 should be used in the equation which best represents con-
ditions for paved  roads  at a certain industrial facility (see  Appendix C
for details on the determination of I).

     The equation has a quality rating of B if applied to vehicles traveling
entirely on paved  surfaces  (I = 1.0) and if applied  within the  range of
source conditions  that were  tested in developing the equation as shown in
Table 2-2.
          TABLE 2-2.  RANGE OF SOURCE CONDITIONS FOR EQUATION 2-5a

Silt
content
(%)

Surface
kg/ km

loading
Ib/mile

No. of
lanes

Vehicle weight
Mg tons
  5.1 - 92    42.0 - 2,000    149 - 7,100    2-4     2.7-12    3-13

  a  Values must be in the stated ranges to maintain a B quality rating
     with 1=1.  Reference 1.
     If I > 1.0, the rating of the equation drops to D because of the arbi-
trariness in  the  guidelines  for estimating I  (see  Appendix  C).   Also,  to
retain the quality ratings of Equation 2-5 applied to a specific industrial
paved  road,  it  is necessary that reliable correction parameter values for
the specific road in question be determined.  The field and  laboratory pro-
cedures for determining surface material silt content and surface dust load-
ing are given in Appendices A and B.
                                    2-10

-------
     For urban  paved  roads,  a revised emission  factor  equation  has been
developed which should be published in AP-42 in the very near future.4  The
quantity of PM10 generated by vehicle traffic on an urban paved roadway per
vehicle kilometer  traveled  (VKT)  may be estimated using the following em-
pirical expression4:

                   /sL\ °'8
          E = 2.28(j}U                                              (2-6)

where:    E = PMio emission factor (g/VKT)
          S = surface material silt content (%)
          L = total surface dust loading (g/m2)

     For most emissions inventory applications involving urban paved roads,
actual measurements of  silt  loading will probably  not be made.  Therefore,
to facilitate the use of the previously described equation, it is necessary
to characterize  silt  loadings according to  parameters readily available to
persons developing the inventories.  It is convenient to characterize vari-
ations in  silt  loading  with a roadway classification system presented in
Table 2-3.4  This  system  generally corresponds to the classification sys-
tems  used  by  transportation  agencies,  and  thus  the data necessary  for an
emissions  inventory (number  of  road miles  per  road category  and traffic
counts) should  be  easy  to obtain.   In  some  situations,  it  may be  necessary
to combine this silt loading information with sound engineering judgment in
order to approximate  the  loadings for roadway  types not specifically in-
cluded in Table 2-3.

     A data base of 44  samples analyzed according  to consistent procedures
may be used  to  characterize the silt loadings for each roadway category.4
These samples,  obtained during recent  field sampling programs, represent a
broad  range  of urban land  use and roadway conditions.   Geometric  means
for this data  set  are given by sampling  location  and roadway category in
Table 2-4.4
                                    2-11

-------
             TABLE 2-3.   PAVED URBAN ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION'

Roadway category
Freeways/expressways
Major streets/highways
Collector streets
Local streets
Average daily traffic
(ADT)
> 50,000
> 10,000
500 - 10,000
< 500
No.
of
Lanes
^ 4
^ 4
2b
2C

         Reference 4.
         Road width £ 32 ft.
         Road width < 32 ft.
TABLE 2-4.  SUMMARY OF SILT LOADING (sL) VALUES FOR PAVED URBAN ROADWAYS'

Roadway category
Local Collector Major streets/ Freeways/
streets streets highways expressways
City X" (g/m2) n X" (g/m2)
Q Q
Baltimore 1.42 2 0.72
Buffalo 1.41 5 0.29
Granite City (IL) -
Kansas City - - 2.11
St. Louis -
All 1.41 7 0.92
n Xq(g/m2)
4 0.39
2 0.24
0.82
4 0.41
0.16
10 0.36
n Xq(g/m2)
3
4
3
13
3 0.022
26 0.022
n
-
-
-
-
1
1

Reference 4.  X  = geometric mean based on corresponding  n  sample  size.
                                   2-12

-------
     The sampling  locations  shown  in  Table  2-4  can  be  considered represen-
tative of most  large urban areas  in  the  United States,  with  the possible
exception of  those in the Southwest.   Except for the collector roadway
category, the mean  silt  loadings do  not  vary greatly from city  to city,
though the St.  Louis  mean  for major roads  is somewhat lower than those  of
the other  four  cities.  The substantial  variation within the  collector
roadway category is probably attributable to  the effects of land  use around
the specific  sampling locations.   It  should also be  noted  that  an examina-
tion of data collected at three cities in Montana during early  spring indi-
cates that winter road sanding may produce  loadings five to six  times higher
than the means  of  the loadings given in Table 2-4 for the respective road
categories.4
     Finally, TaJ^jjJ?rJL^&sjejits^^
obtai ned by i nse.rting=themmean^s:iJ-t-Jj)adi nqs i n Ta^Te_j^4intoEqu£t^oji 2^6 .
These emission factors can be used directly for many emission inventory pur-
poses.
              TABLE 2-5.  RECOMMENDED PM10 EMISSION FACTORS
                            FOR SPECIFIC ROADWAY CATEGORIES3
                                                     Emission
             Roadway category                   factor (g/VKT)
             Local streets                           5.2
             Collector streets                       3.7
             Major streets/highways                  1.8
             Freeways/expressways                    0.19
             a  Reference 4.
                                    2-13

-------
2.3.1.3  Aggregate Handling and Storage Piles--
     Total dust emissions from aggregate storage piles are contributions of
several distinct activities within the storage cycle:

     1.   Loading of aggregate onto storage piles (batch or continuous drop
          operations).
     2.   Equipment traffic in storage area.
     3.   Wind  erosion  of pile surfaces  and  ground areas around piles.
     4.   Loadout of aggregate  for shipment  or for return to  the process
          stream (batch or continuous drop operations).

     Adding aggregate material to a storage pile or removing it usually in-
volves dropping  the  material  onto a  receiving  surface.   Truck dumping  on
the pile  or  loading  out from the  pile  to  a truck with a  front end  loader
are examples  of batch  drop operations.   Adding material  to  the pile  by a
stacker conveyor is an example of a continuous drop operation.

     The  quantity  of  parti cul ate  generated by a batch drop  operation per
ton of material  transferred may be estimated  using  the following empirical
expression: 1

                           U \ / H
                         / U \ / H \
        E = 0.0009k            P^    (kg/Mg)                       (2-7a)
                     /M/
                     (z)
                      s\ /U\ /H\
        E = 0.0018k   SM5/ \5/    (ib/ton)                          (2-7b)
                     (5)  (I)
where:   E = emission factor (kg/Mg or Ib/ton)
        k = particle size multipler (dimensionless) = 0.36 for PM10
        s = material silt content (%)
        U = mean wind speed (m/s or mph)
        H = drop height (m or ft)
        M = material moisture content (%)
        Y = dumping device capacity (m3 or yd3)
                                    2-14

-------
     The quantity of  participate  emissions generated by a continuous drop
operation per ton of  material  transfi|rre^ may be estimated using the fol-
lowing empirical expression:1         ^
                      s\ / U \  / H \
        E = 0.0009k   5; l?727  lO/    (kg/Mg)                        (2-8a)
                           (5)
                     /s\ /U\  / H\
                     w 157  \W
        E = 0.0018k  VJ/  v% vxu/    (Ib/ton)                          (2-8b)
                        /M/
where:  E = emission factor (kg/Mg or Ib/ton)
        k = particle size multiplier (dimensionless) = 0.37 for PM10
        s = material silt content (%)
        U = mean wind speed measured at 4 m (m/s or mph)
        H = drop height (m or ft)
        M = material moisture content (%)

     Equations 2-7 and 2-8 carry a quality rating of C if applied within the
ranges of source conditions that were tested in developing the equations as
given in  Table  2-6.1   Also,  to retain the quality ratings as applied to a
specific  facility,  it  is  necessary that reliable correction parameters be
determined for  the  specific  sources  of  interest.  The field  and  laboratory
procedures for  aggregate  sampling  are given  in  Appendices A  and  B.   In  the
event that  site-specific  values for correction  parameters  cannot be ob-
tained,  the  appropriate  mean values from Table  2-6 may  be  used, but the
quality ratings of the equations are reduced to D.

     For  emissions  from equipment  traffic  (trucks,  front  end loaders, doz-
ers,  etc.) traveling between  or on  piles,  it  is  recommended  that  the equa-
tion for  vehicle traffic on unpaved surfaces be used (see Section 2.3.1.1).
For vehicle  travel  between storage piles, the silt value(s) for the areas
among the piles (which may differ from the silt values for the stored mate-
rials) should be used.
                                    2-15

-------
                  TABLE 2-6.   RANGES OF SOURCE CONDITIONS FOR
                                EQUATIONS 2-7 and 2-8a
               Silt      Moisture
Equation      content     content        Dumping capacity        Drop height
                (%)         (%)          ~m*         yd-*        m         ft


Batch drop    1.3-7.3  0.25 - 0.70  2.10 - 7.6  2.75 - 10

Continuous
  drop        1.4 - 19   0.64 - 4.8       NA         NA      1.5 - 12  4.8 - 39


a  Values must be in the stated ranges to maintain a C quality rating.
   NA = not applicable.  Reference 1.


     For  emissions  from wind  erosjjn_o£=;jctj^e==£tpj^age_pjjes^>  no PMio

emi ss i on f 'actQMj_a_vaL1able. _ln_APrA2 .  The following emission factor equa-
tion is recommended for TSP (particles smaller than approximately 30
          = L9   o      n  is   (kg/day/hectare)                 (2-9a)


                                     Ob/day/acre)                    (2-9b)
where:   E = emission factor

        s = silt content of aggregate (%)

        p = number of days with ^ 0.25 mm (0.01 in.) of precipitation per
            year

        f = percentage of time that the unobstructed wind speed exceeds
            5.4 m/s (12 mph) at the mean pile height


     The coefficient in Equation 2-9 is based on field sampling of emissions
from a  sand  and gravel  storage pile area during periods when transfer and
maintenance equipment was  not operating.   Equation 2-9 is rated C for ap-
plication  in  the sand  and gravel  industry and D  for other industries.


     Worst case emissions from storage pile areas occur under dry windy con-

ditions.  Worst case emissions from materials handling (batch and continuous
                                    2-16

-------
drop) operations may  be calculated by substituting into Equations 2-7 and
2-8 appropriate values  for aggregate moisture content and for anticipated
wind speeds  during  the  worst case averaging  period  (usually  24  hr).   The
treatment of dry conditions for vehicle traffic (Equation 2-4) and for wind
erosion (Equation 2-9),  centering around parameter p, follows the methodol-
ogy described in Section 2.3.1.1.  Also, a separate set of nonclimatic cor-
rection parameters  and  soyrce jxtent values  corresponding to higher  than
normal storage .-.pile, activity  may be  justified for  the worst case averaging
period....

2.3.2  Heavy Construction Operations

     Heavy construction is a  source of dust emissions that may have substan-
tial temporary impact on local air quality.   Building and road construction
are the prevalent construction categories with the highest emissions poten-
tial.  Emissions during the construction of a building or road are associated
with land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and
the construction of the particular facility itself.  Dust emissions vary sub-
stantially from day to day depending on the level  of activity, the specific
operations,  and the prevailing weather.  A large  portion of  the  emissions
result from  equipment traffic over temporary  roads at the construction site.

     In estimating  the  emissions from  heavy construction  operations,  it  is
necessary to subdivide  the site  activities into operational  steps.   Then
the emissions from  each step  are  calculated using  the emission factor  equa-
tion that  is most  applicable.   Fortunately,  Equation 2-4 is  applicable to
the typically predominant  source  (i.e., equipment  traffic over unpaved sur-
faces  at  the construction site).  It  should  be noted that an  important
jgcqndary^impact of construction_operations  results^ from mud carryout^ and_   d<>
increased dirt  loadings pn paved_ roads adjacent to the construction  site.

     MRI has recently conducted studies of both the  emissions generated  by
construction vehicles and  the secondary impacts due to mud/dirt  carryout.5'6
During the  first study,  an empirical  relationship  was  developed  which pre-
dicts  the  downwind  concentration of  TSP,  IP  (particles  ^  15  umA), and PM10

                                    2-17

-------
as a function of surface properties and vehicular traffic.   The average un-
controlled emission  factor developed in the  study  for TSP was 7.92 kg/
vehicle km (28.1 Ib/VMT) which would approximately equal 1.6 kg/vehicle km
(5.6 Ib/VMT)  for PMi0.5

     In the  second  program,  the  overall increase in emissions  due to mud/
dirt carryout was  estimated  for  paved roads located adjacent to eight ac-
tive construction  sites  in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area.  An analysis was
conducted using surface  samples collected in  the field  in  conjunction with
Equation 2-6 above.6  The  results  of the study indicated an average emis-
sions increase for PM10 to be 12  g/vehicle pass for all eight sites sampled
encompassing residential and commercial construction.6

2.3.3  Determination of Correction Parameters

     Use of the predictive equations presented in Section 2.3.1 improves the
accuracy of emission factor estimation over that obtained with  single-valued
emission factors but requires values for the various correction parameters.
The  generally  higher quality ratings  assigned to  the equations are ap-
plicable only if:   (1)  reliable  values of correction parameters have been
determined for  the  specific  sources of interest; and  (2)  the  correction
parameter values lie within  the ranges  tested in developing the equations.

     Determination of reliable aggregate and surface material  properties re-
quires sampling and analysis of the actual source materials using the tech-
niques referenced in AP-42.  Those techniques are described in  Appendices A
and  B.   In the  event that  the source materials cannot  be sampled  (e.g., in
the case of a proposed new facility), a limited number of default values may
be  obtained  from the tables  presented  in  AP-42.  However,  use of  a  default
value from these  tables reduces  the quality rating of J,he emission factor
estimate by one level.
                                    2-18

-------
     Tables 2-7, 2-8, and 2-9 present ranges and mean correction parameter

values for unpaved  road  surface materials, industrial paved road surface

materials, and industrial aggregate materials,  respectively.1'4  Mean values

of the correction parameters provided in these tables can be used as appro-

priate default values only if:


     1.    It is  impractical or  impossible  to determine specific correction

          parameters.

     2.    Values are available for the industry (and material)  in question.

     3.    There is no reason to believe that the source in question will be

          atypical of existing sources in the specified industry.


It is generally  not permissible to use  other  than  the mean value of the

parameter unless some justification is available.
      TABLE 2-7.  TYPICAL SILT CONTENT VALUES OF SURFACE MATERIALS ON
                    INDUSTRIAL AND RURAL UNPAVED ROADS1

Industry
Road use or
surface material
No. of test
samples
Silt (
Range
'0/\
>;
Mean
 Iron and steel
   production
 Taconite mining and
   processing
 Western surface coal
   mining
 Rural roads
Plant road

Haul road
Service road
Access road
Haul road
Scraper road
Haul road
  (freshly graded)
Gravel
Dirt
13

12
 8
 2
21
10
 5

 2
 1
4.3   13
3.7 -
2.4 -
4.9 -
2.8 -
7.2 -
18 -
12

9.7
7.1
5.3.
18 --
25-
29 —
13

5.8
4.3
5.1
8.4
17
24
12
68
                                    2-19

-------
ro
ro
o
                                            TABLE 2-8.   TYPICAL SILT CONTENT AND LOADING VALUES FOR PAVED ROADS

                                                          AT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES3
Industry
Copper smelting
Iron and steel
production
Asphalt batching
Concrete batching
Sand and gravel
processing
No. of
plant sites
1
6
1
1
1
No. of
samples
3
20
4
3
3
Silt (%,
Range
[15.4-21.7]
1.1-35.7
[2.6-4.6]
[5.2-6.0]
[6.4-7.9]
w/w)
Mean
[19.0]
12.5
[3.6]
[5.5]
[7.1]
No. of h
travel Total loading x 10 3°
lanes Range
2 [12.9-19.5]
[45.8-69.2]
2 0.006-4.77
0.020-16.9
1 [12.1-18.0]
[43.0-64.0]
2 [1.4-1.8]
[5.0-6.4]
1 [2.8-5.5]
[9.9-19.4]
Mean
[15.9]
[55.4]
0.495
1.75
[15.7]
[55.7]
[1.7]
[5.9]
[3.8]
[13.3]
Units
kg/ km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/mi
kg/km
Ib/mi
Silt loading
(g/m2)
Range
[188-400]
< 1.0-2.3
[76-193]
[11-12]
[53-95]
Mean
[292]
7
[138]
[12]
[70]
                Reference 4.   Brackets indicate values based on samples obtained at only one plant site.
                Multiply entries by 1,000 to obtain stated units.

-------
                          TABLE 2-9.   TYPICAL SILT AND MOISTURE CONTENT VALUES OF MATERIALS
                                        AT VARIOUS INDUSTRIES1
ro
ro

Industry

Iron and steel
production







Stone quarrying
and processing
Taconite mining
and processing
Western surface
coal mining

Material N

Pellet ore
Lump ore
Coal
Slag
Flue dust
Coke breeze
Blended ore
Sinter
Limestone
Crushed limestone

Pellets
Tailings
Coal
Overburden
Exposed ground

Silt
o. of test
samples

10
9
7
3
2
1
1
1
1
2

9
2
15
15
3

1
2







1

2

3
3
5
fl
0
Range

.4
.8
2
3
14




.3

.2

.4
.8
.1

- 13
- 19
- 7.7
- 7.3
- 23




- 1.9

- 5.4
NA
- 16
- 15
- 21


\
Mean \

4.
9.
5
5.
18.
5.
15.
0.
0.
1.

3.
11.
6.
7.
15.

9
5

3
0
4
0
7
4
6

4
0
2
5
0
Moisture (%)
No. of test
samples Range
\
8
6
6
3
0
1
1
0
0
2

7
1
7
0
3

0.64 -
1.6 -
2.8 -
0.25 -
NA


NA
NA
0.3 -

0.05 -

2.8 -
NA
0.8 -

3.5
8.1
11
2.2





1.1

2.3

20

6.4
Mean

2.1
5.4
4.8
0.92
NA
6.4
6.6
NA
NA
0.7

0.96
0.35
6.9
NA
3.4

-------
     To provide some further guidance in selecting representative correction
parameters for vehicle characteristics, wind speeds, drop heights, and dump-
ing capacities, Tables 2-10,  2-11,  and 2-12 are typical  values determined
during various field testing programs.7 20  These may also be used to esti-
mate appropriate  inputs  for  similar operations where no  actual  data are
available.
                                    2-22

-------
TABLE 2-10.   TYPICAL CORRECTION PARAMETERS DETERMINED FOR UNPAVED ROADS

Type of
Industry vehicular traffic
Iron and steel Industrial heavy-duty
vehicles
Industrial light-duty
Industrial medium-duty
Average vehicle mix
(light, med. , heavy)
ro
ro Taconite mining and Heavy-duty traffic/
00 processing haul trucks
Heavy-duty traffic/
average vehicle mix
Western surface Vehicle traffic/light-
coal mining and medium duty
processing
Vehicle traffic/haul
trucks
Scrapers/travel mode
Grading
Vehicle traffic/haul
Vehicle
speed
(km/hr)
23-48
24
35-47
11-18
24-32
22
40-69
24-58
16-51
8.1-19
35-39
Vehicle
weight
(Mg)
21-64
3-4
7-27
Light- heavy
61-143
106-107
1.8-2.4
22-125
33-64
12-13
a
Average
No. of
wheels Reference No.
4-8 7
4 8
6-13
9
6 11
6
4.0-4.1 13
4.9-10
4.0-4.1
5.9-6.0
14
Comments







Scraper
Grader

trucks
                              (continued)

-------
                                                    TABLE 2-10.  (concluded)
ro
i
ro

Industry
Generic unpaved roads





Agricultural tilling
Type of
vehicular traffic
Vehicle traffic
Truck traffic/haul
roads
Vehicle traffic
Vehicle trafficd
Vehicle traffic
Agricultural tilling/
tractor speed
Vehicle
speed
(km/hr)
24-64
16-40

16-81
21-64
11-27
5-8f
Vehicle
weight
(Mg)
2-3b
3.9-7.5

2-3c
3-142
Light- heavy6

Average
No. of
wheels
4
6

4
4-13


Reference No. Comments
15
16

17
18
9
19 Disc, land plane,
sweep plow

     Information not contained in report.
     Actual weights not stated; assume a normal traffic mix weight of 2 to 3 tons.
     Test report states normal traffic mix; therefore, the weight range is assumed to  be  2  to  3 tons.
     Tests were conducted during four different studies ranging from 1973 to 1979.
     Actual weights were not assigned to the vehicle weight categories.
     Tractor speed.

-------
                                     TABLE 2-11.   TYPICAL CORRECTION PARAMETERS DETERMINED FOR INDUSTRIAL PAVED ROADS
ro
en
Industry
Iron and steel

Asphalt
batching
Concrete
batching
Copper smelting
Sand and gravel
processing
Paved roads
Type
of road
Haul road
Haul road
Haul road
Haul road
Haul road
Haul road
Haul road
Industrial
road
Type of augmentation
vehicular traffic factor
Average vehicle mix
Li ght/med. /heavy
Light/med. /heavy
Med. duty
Med. duty
Med. duty
Heavy duty
Vehicle traffic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1-7
No. of
lanes
2
2
1
2
2
1
2-4
Average ve-
hicle weight
(Mg)
6-7
5-12
3.6-3.8
8.0
3.1-7.0
39-42
3-12
Reference No.
7
8
20
20
20
20
8

                            This parameter takes into account higher emissions from industrial roads as compared to urban roads.
                            NA = not available.

                            I = 7.0 for trucks coming from unpaved to paved roads and releasing dust from vehicle underbodies.
                            I = 3.5 when 20% of the vehicles are forced to travel temporarily with one set of wheels on an
                                unpaved road berm while passing on narrow roads.
                            I = 1.0 for traffic entirely on paved surfaces.

-------
                              TABLE  2-12.   TYPICAL  CORRECTION  PARAMETERS DETERMINED  FOR  AGGREGATE  HANDLING  AND  STORAGE  PILES*
ro

ro
en

Type of Type of process
Industry operation Batch Continuous
Iron and steel High-silt X
processed
slag/load-
out
Low silt X
processed
slag/load-
out
Ore pile X
stacking/
mobile
conveyor
stacker
Ore pile X
stacking/
mobile
conveyor
stacker
Conveyor X
transfer
station
Storage X
pile/
mobile
stacker
Storage X
pile
stacking/
mobile
stacker
Dumping
Wind Drop device
Type of speed height capacity
material (m/sec) (m) (m3) Reference No. Comments
Slag 0.98-1.9 1.5 7.7b 7
Slag 0.58-1.4 1.5 7.7b
Iron ore 1.0-2.0 1.5-4.5 A//4
pellets

Lump ore 0.81-0.98 1.5-4.5 ft A
(desert mound
and open
hearth)
Sinter Calm 1.1-2.2 ft ft
Iron pellets 0.67-2.7 9-12 fifi 8
Coal 1.3 5 fi-'A
                                                                        (continued)

-------
TABLE 2-12.   (continued)

Industry
Sand and gravel
storage













-











Stone quarrying
and processing




Type of Type of process Type of
operation Batch Continuous material
Active X Sand and
pile ac- gravel
tivities/
stock
piles/
load- in
and
load-out
Inactive Sand and
wind gravel
erosion
periods/
load-in
and load-
out of
stockpile
material
Normal mix X Sand and
of active gravel
and in-
active
periods/
load-in
and load-
out of
material
stockpiles
Crushed X Crushed
stone limestone
storage
piles/high
loader/
dump truck
Dumping
Wind Drop device
speed height capacity
(m/sec) (m) (m3) Reference No. Comments
1.1-11.2 1.5 /V4 18 • Activity 8-12 hr/24 hr
• Wind erosion of pile
surfaces and ground
area between piles
24 hr
• Equipment traffic in
storage area
• Maintenance
1.1-8.27 1.5 /V^ • Equipment traffic in
storage area
• Wind erosion of pile
surfaces and ground
area between piles




1.1-11.2 1.5 /VV3- • Equipment traffic in
storage area
• Wind erosion of pile
surfaces and ground
area between piles
• Assumes 5 active days
per week



5.63-6.26 1.5 2 18





       (continued)

-------
                                                                 TABLE 2-12.   (concluded)
ro
CO

Industry
Western surface
coal mining and
processing





Aggregate stor-
age piles
and material
handling

Type of Type of process
operation Batch Continuous
Dragline X
Dragline X
Dragline X
Dragline X
Front end X
loader/
shovel
truck
Dragline X
Batch X
load-in
Storage X
pile
formation/
stacker
conveyor/
load- in
Type of
material
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Overburden
Coal loading
Overburden
Steel slag,
crushed lime-
stone
Coal, lump
iron ore,
pellets
Wind
speed
(m/sec)
0.18-0.80
1.4-2.6
1.6-2.4
2.6-3.2
0.98-5.01
0.98-7.42
0.58-6.26
0.67-2.7
Drop
height
(m)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2-30
1.5
1.5-12
Dumping
device
capacity
(m3) Reference No.
14 12
57
46
25
11-13 13
25-50
2.10-7.65 7
f-M 8
Comments
Test conducted in
northwest Colorado
Test conducted in
southwest Wyoming
Test conducted in
southeast Montana
Test conducted in
central North Dakota


Example: front-end
loader to truck

         NA = not available.

         Front end loader into 35-ton capacity truck.

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2

 1.   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Compilation of  Air Pollutant
     Emission Factors.  4^ Edition (=Supp=l=ements=l=i=5^, AP-42,  Office of
     Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, 4anua-ry
        	,                                                            i>
-------
 9.   Maser, J. A. and C. L. Norton.  Uncontrolled and Controlled  Emissions
     from Nontraditional Sources  in  a  Coke and Iron Plant:  A Field Study
     Analysis.  Presented at the Air Pollution Control  Association Specialty
     Conference on Air  Pollution  Control  in the Iron and  Steel  Industry,
     Chicago, IL, April  1981.

10.   Pacific  Environmental  Services.  Fugitive Dust Assessment at Rock  and
     Sand Facilities in  the South Coast Air Basin.  Draft Final  Report,
     Southern California Rock Products Association and  Southern California
     Ready-Mix Concrete Association,  Los Angeles, CA,  November 1979.

11.   Cuscino, T. A., Jr.,  et al.   Taconite Mining Fugitive Emission  Study.
     Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Roseville,  MN,  June 1979.

12.   PEDCo Environmental.   Survey  of Fugitive Dust from Coal Mines.  EPA-
     908/1-78-003,   U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Region VIII,
     Denver, CO, February 1978.

13.   Axetell, K., Jr. and  C.  Cowherd,  Jr.   Improved Emission Factors for
     Fugitive Dust  from  Western Surface Coal Mining Sources, Volumes 1  and
     2.  EPA-600/7-84-048, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
     OH, March 1984.

14.   Shearer, D. L., et al.  Coal Mining  Emission Factor  Development and
     Modeling Study.   Amax Coal  Company,  Carter Mining Company,  Sunoco
     Energy  Development Company,   Mobile  Oil Corporation,  and  Atlantic
     Richfield Company,  Denver,  CO, July 1981.

15.   Jutze, G.  and  K. Axetell.  Investigation of Fugitive  Dust, Volume  I -
     Sources, Emissions,  and Control.   EPA-450/3-74-036a, U.S.   Environ-
     mental  Protection  Agency,  Research  Triangle  Park, NC,  June 1974.

16.   Dyck, R. J. and J.  J.  Stukel.   Fugitive Dust Emissions from  Trucks on
     Unpaved  Roads.   Environmental Science and Technology,  10(10):1046-1048,
     October  1976.
                                    2-30

-------
17.   McCaldin, R. 0.  and  K. J.  Heidel,  "Particulate  Emissions  from  Vehicle
     Travel over Unpaved  Roads,"  presented at the 71st Annual  Meeting  of
     the Air Pollution Control Association, Houston, TX, June 1978.

18.   Cowherd, C. , et al.   Development of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust
     Sources.  EPA-450/3-74-037,  U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Re-
     search Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.

19.   Cuscino, T.  A.,  Jr., et al.   The  Role  of Agricultural Practices in
     Fugitive Dust  Emissions.   Final  Report, CARB Contract No. A8-125-31,
     Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, June 1981.

20.   Reider, J.  P.   Size  Specific Particulate Emission Factors for Uncon-
     trolled Industrial and  Rural  Roads.  Final Report,  EPA Contract No.
     68-02-3158,  Technical Directive  No.  12, Midwest Research  Institute,
     Kansas City, MO, September 1983.
                                                    fff- 6Jr  U.S.
                                    2-31

-------
                     3.0  CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR PM10
      From Equation 2-1,  it is clear that more than one option for reduction
 of the uncontrolled emission  rate  can be considered.  To begin with, the
 uncontrolled emission rate is the product of the production  rate or  source
 extent and  the  applicable uncontrolled emission factor.  A  reduction in
 either of these variables produces  a proportional  reduction in uncontrolled
 emissions.

      Although the reduction  of  production  or source  extent  results  in  a
 highly predictable reduction  in the uncontrolled emission rate, such an ap-
 proach usually  requires either a reduction or change  in  the  process  opera-
 tion.   Frequently, reduction  in  the extent of one. source may. necessitate
 the increase in  the  extent of another  (e.g.  shifting of vehicle traffic
 from an unpaved  road  to  a paved road).  The option. of reducing production
 or source extent is very  site specific a'nd- i-s t-hus beyond-th'e -scope of this
jnanua.l _____ Ih.e.ne.f_o.re.,~such  -mea'sures-wi-H not- be-
      A reduction in the  uncontrolled emission factor may  be  achieved by
 process modifications (in the case of a process) or by adjusted work  prac-
 tices (in the case of open sources).  The  key to the possible  reduction  of
 the uncontrolled emission factor  is  the knowledge as to how the emissions
 depend on the source  conditions that might be subject to alteration.   For
 open dust sources, this  information  is embodied in the predictive  emission
 factor equations for fugitive dust sources as presented in Section 2 ^ above,
 Again, modifications to  either  the process or in work practices are  site
 specific and thus will  not be covered here.
                                     3-1

-------
     The following sections  present  various  "add-on" alternatives for the
control of PMio  emissions  from both ducted and fugitive sources.   The in-
dividual methods will be described followed by available control efficiency
data for each technique.

3.1  CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR DUCTED SOURCES

     The control of  ducted source PM10 emissions involves the application
of traditional  industrial  gas  cleaning technology.   This  technology  can  be
classified into  four major categories:   mechanical dust collectors; elec-
trostatic precipitators;  fabric filters; and wet  scrubbers.   Devices in
each category will be briefly  described  in this  section along with typical
size-specific performance data for the collection of PMio-  The EPA Control
Techniques document  listed in  Table  1-4  will be  utilized  as the prime  ref-
erence in the following discussion.1

     In addition to  the EPA Control'Techniques  document  mentioned above,
there are also a number of other standard references which contain specific
information on the design and performance of industrial gas cleaning equip-
ment.  These  references are  listed  in Table 3-1.   The  reader  is encouraged
to consult the documents shown in Table 3-1 for other data pertinent to the
engineering design, theory, and collection efficiency associated with vari-
ous types of point source controls.

3.1.1  Mechanical Dust  Collectors

     Mechanical  collectors  comprise  a  broad class of  particulate control
devices that utilize gravity settling and dry inertial impaction mechanisms.
Because their  performance  capability is  limited  to relatively  large  parti-
cles,  the use  of mechanical  collectors for the control of PM10  is limited.
Thus,  mechanical collectors  are usually  used primarily as precleaners up-
stream  of  more efficient  devices.   Mechanical collectors are reasonably
tolerant of high dust loadings, are  not susceptible to frequent malfunction
if properly  designed and operated,   and  could be adequate control devices
for some limited applications.
                                    3-2

-------
          TABLE 3-1.   STANDARD REFERENCE DOCUMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL
                        GAS CLEANING EQUIPMENT
Strauss, W.  Industrial Gas Cleaning.   2nd Edition, Pergamon Press, Oxford,
     1975.

Theodore, L.,  and A. J. Buonicore.  Industrial Air Pollution Control Equip-
     ment for Participates.  CRC Press, Cleveland, OH, 1976.

Stern, A. C.,  et al.  Cyclone Dust Collectors.  American Petroleum Insti-
     tute, New York, February 1955.

White, H. J.  Industrial Electrostatic Precipitation.   Addison-Wesley Pub-
     lishing Company, Reading, MA, 1963.

Davies, C. N.   Air Filtration.  Academic Press, New York, 1973.

Calvert, S., et al.  Wet Scrubber System Study, Volume I:  Scrubber Hand-
     book.  EPA-R2-72-118a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
     Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.
     There is  great  diversity in the design  and  operation  of  the  various

types of mechanical collectors.  Table 3-2 lists the major types of mechani-

cal dust collectors and the mechanism(s) of particle capture for each type.

The following  is  a brief description of the various mechanical collectors

listed in Table 3-2.
          TABLE 3-2.  MAJOR TYPES OF MECHANICAL DUST COLLECTORS3
                                             Particle capture
               Collector type                  mechanism(s)
       Settling chamber                  Gravity settling
       Elutriator                        Gravity settling
       Momentum separator                Gravity settling, inertial
                                           collection
       Mechanically aided collector      Inertial collection
       Centrifugal collector (cyclone)   Inertial collection
          Reproduced from Table 4.2-1 of Reference 1.
                                    3-3

-------
     Large participate can be removed by gravitational settling in settling
chambers to protect  downstream  equipment from abrasion and excessive mass
loadings.   The two  basic  types  are the  simple  expansion  chamber and the
multiple tray  settling chamber.  The  latter  is  comprised of a  set of  hori-
zontal collection plates  that  reduce the distance a particle must fall to
reach the collecting surface.  Thus, a multiple tray unit can collect some-
what smaller particles which settle more slowly.

     An elutriator  consists  of  a series of  one or more vertical tubes or
towers into which a  dust-laden  gas  stream passes  at an upward  velocity de-
fined by the gas flow rate and the tube cross-sectional area.   Large parti-
cles with  terminal  settling  velocities greater than  the gas velocity are
separated  and  collected  at the  bottom of the chamber.  Smaller  particles
with a  lower  settling velocity  are  carried out  of the  collector.  The par-
ticle size  collected may  be varied by changing the  upward gas velocity.

     A momentum separator uses a combination of gravity and particle  inertia
(momentum) to settle particles onto collection  surfaces.   The particles are
separated by providing a sharp change in the direction of gas flow such that
momentum carries the particles across the gas streamlines and into the hop-
per.  The  simplest  versions  provide a 90- to 180-degree turn  to separate
large particles.   Baffles can also be added to  increase the number of turns
and thereby provide  a modest increase in collection efficiency.

     Like that of momentum collectors, the separation mechanism of mechani-
cally aided separators is inertia.  Acceleration  of the gas stream increases
the effectiveness of inertial  separation such  that these devices can col-
lect smaller  particles than  momentum  devices.   The  improved performance  is
gained, however,  at the  expense of higher energy cost and abrasion by the
action of  large diameter particles at medium to high velocities.

     Finally, the cyclone collector is similar  to the momentum separator in
that  inertia  is  used to  separate the particles from a turning gas stream.
In  a  cyclone,  a  vortex is  created  within the cylindrical section by  either
injecting  the gas stream tangentially or by passing the gas stream through a

                                    3-4

-------
set of spin vanes.  Due to their inertia, the particles migrate across the
vortex gas streamlines and  concentrate near the cyclone walls.  Near the
bottom of the  cyclone, the  gas stream makes a  180-degree  turn,  and the
particles are  discharged  either  downward or tangentially into hoppers be-
low.   The treated gas passes upward and out of the cyclone.

     Cyclones can be classified into four basic categories  according to the
method(s) used to remove  the collected dust and to introduce the gas stream
into the unit.   Figure 3-1 illustrates the four basic types of cyclone col-
lectors.1  Cyclones can be  used  as single collectors or as multiple units
arranged either in parallel, series, or a combination of both.

3.1.2  Electrostatic Precipitators

     Electrostatic precipitators  (ESPs)  are high  efficiency particulate
collection devices applicable  to  a variety of sources and  gas conditions.
Particle collection is accomplished by application of electrical  energy for
particle charging and collection.

     There are two  broad  categories of ESP:  one-stage (or Cottrell-type)
precipitators;  and two-stage units.  In a single-stage ESP, particle charg-
ing (ionization)  and  collection are accomplished in  a  single step, whereas
in two-stage units these  functions  are accomplished  separately.  One-stage
ESPs can be further classified according to electrode geometry (e.g., wire-
in- tube  versus wire-in-plate type) and type of  plate  cleaning mechanism
(dry  versus  irrigated).   The  dry  ESP with wire-in-plate electrodes and
pyramidal hoppers is the predominant type in industrial applications.  Two-
stage ESPs are usually limited to air-conditioning applications and the re-
moval of liquid particles in industrial facilities.

     Regardless of the type of precipitator and its  geometry,  the basic
functions of  an   ESP  are  to:  (1)  impart  a charge to the  particulate;
(2) collect the  charged  particulate  on  a  surface  of opposite polarity;
(3) remove the collected  particulate  from  the collecting surface in  a man-
ner that  minimizes  reentrainment  of the particulate into the gas  stream;

                                    3-5

-------
                        TOP VIEW
                     SIDE VIEW
a.  Tangential inlet, axial dust
    outlet
                                                                       TOP
                                                                      VIEW
b.  Tangential inlet, peripheral dust
    outlet
                 TOP VIEW
                 SIDE VIEW
                                                                   I  I
                                                                        TOP
                                                                        VIEW
                                  SIDE
                                  VIEW
                                                                   ^

                                                                   I
c.   Axial inlet, axial dust outlet     d.
      Axial  inlet, peripheral dust dis-
      charge
                  Figure 3-1.   General  types of cyclones.1
                                     3-6

-------
and (4) discharge  the  collected participate from the  ESP  for subsequent
disposal.   Each function will be discussed briefly.

     To charge the  suspended particles,  a high-voltage DC current passes
through discharge wires  producing  an electrical corona.  A corona can be
defined as the  ionization  of gas molecules by  electron collisions in re-
gions  of high field strength near the discharge wire.2  The strength of the
electric field varies  inversely with the distance from  the discharge wire.
The corona can be  either positive or negative,  but negative corona is used
in most industrial  precipitators since it has  inherently superior electri-
cal characteristics that enhance collection efficiency under most operating
conditions.

     Particle charging and  subsequent  collection take place in the region
between the boundary of the corona glow and the collection electrode,  where
gas particles are  subject to  the generation of  negative ions  (Figure 3-2).
Charging is generally done by field and diffusion mechanisms.   The dominant
charging mechanism varies with particle size.

     In general, field charging is most predominant for particles > ~ 0.5
and diffusion charging for particles < ~ 0.2 (jmA.1  The particle size range
of about 0.2  to  0.5 umA is a transitional region in which both mechanisms
of charging  are  present but  neither is  dominant.   Fractional efficiency
data for precipitators have shown reduced collection  efficiency in  this
transitional   size  range, where  diffusion  and  field  charging overlap.1

     An electric field results from application of high voltage to the dis-
charge electrodes with the strength of this electric field being a critical
factor in determining  ESP  performance.   Space charge effects from charged
particles and gas  ions may  interfere with generation  of the corona and re-
duce the strength  of the electric field.  The  space charge effect is often
seen in the  inlet  fields of an ESP where particulate concentration is the
highest.   From a practical  standpoint,  the strength  or magnitude  of  the
electric field is an indication of the effectiveness of an ESP.
                                    3-7

-------
    FREE
 ELECTRONS
 REGION  OF\
CORONA GLOW\
           \
                   X   N.
  DUST
PARTICLE
                              j ELECTRONS

                              l-e     ELECTRON-^
                                    GAS
                                  MOLECULE
   CORONA GENERATION
                            CHARGING
Figure 3-2.   Basic processes  in electrostatic precipitation.1
                               3-8

-------
     Corona current  flows  through  the collected dust  layer  to  reach the
collection electrode.1  With  dry ESPs,  high resistivity affects ESP effi-
ciency by  limiting  current and voltage.   If the electrodes are clean, the
voltage can be  increased until a sparking condition  is  reached.  The  maxi-
mum voltage is determined principally by the gas composition and ESP dimen-
sions.  When  dust  is deposited on the collection  electrode  however,  the
voltage at which sparking  occurs is  reduced because  of  the increased  elec-
tric field at the dust surface.  As dust resistivities increase, the voltage
at which  sparking  occurs  decreases.   At resistivity values above approxi-
mately 1012 ohm-cm,  the  voltage  must be reduced so  that sparks will not
propagate across the interelectrode  space.   At very low values of current
and voltage,  dust  breakdown can occur.   This  can  result in back corona
whereby positive ions  form and flow back toward the discharge  electrode,
neutralizing  the negative  charge previously applied and thereby limiting
ESP performance.

     To remove  the  collected  particulate from the collection electrodes,
mechanical rappers are used which apply sufficient force to produce a rapid
acceleration  perpendicular  to  the  gas flow so that  the  dust layer  shears
off the plate.  Sproull indicates that rapping is optimum if the dust layer
slides down the  plate vertically after each  rap,  making its way down the
plate in the discrete steps until it finally reaches the hopper.3

     In addition to  reducing  the performance of an  ESP, high resistivity
dust can  adhere more strongly  to collection electrodes  than particles with
intermediate  resistivity.   Therefore, a  much  greater rapping acceleration
must be applied to the electrode to remove the dust.   This can cause severe
reentrainment or damage to a precipitator that is not designed to withstand
such high acceleration.

     With a dust that strongly adheres to the  plate, vibrations can be  in-
duced perpendicularly  to  the  gas flow,  in addition to the necessary shear
action, resulting  in a scattering of the agglomerate  and  subsequent re-
entrainment of  relatively  large  fractions  of the  dust.   In  general,  the
                                    3-9

-------
dust should be  allowed  to fall freely off the plate  (as  sometimes  occurs
with high resistivity dust  when rapping is done  with "power off").  The
other extreme is  with  low resistivity dust (e.g., <  ~  104  ohm-cm), whose
reentrainment can be caused by only a light rap.

     The intensity and frequency of rapping are usually greatest at the in-
let sections,  decreasing as the gas moves through the ESP.  The outlet sec-
tion is  usually rapped only  lightly,  since the reentrained  dust  is  not  re-
collected.  The  visible puffs  that often appear as a  result of rapping  can
be used to optimize the frequency and intensity of rapping  for each section
of the ESP.

     Finally,  pyramidal hoppers are  routinely  used for  collection and dis-
charging  the  particulate.   Discharge from hoppers may  be accomplished  by
means of screw,  drag, or pneumatic conveying systems.    In the pulp and paper
industry, flat bottom, tile-lined precipitators that  utilize drag conveyors
are common  on recovery boilers.   Solids discharge can represent  a signifi-
cant problem  in the  operation  of  an  ESP in that excessive buildup of mate-
rial can  cause  an electrical shortage or misalignment of  ESP internal com-
ponents.

     ESP  performance as  a function of particle size  has  been measured  at
many installations and has been the subject of computer modeling.  Probably
the most versatile model  is  the  EPA-Southern Research Institute (SoRI)
Mathematical Model.4  This model can  be used for  sizing and  troubleshooting
ESPs as well as for predicting penetration (1 - collection  efficiency).   The
reader  is referred to  the SoRI model for additional   assistance  in the de-
sign, performance, and evaluation of  industrial ESPs.

3.1.3  Fabric Filters (Baghouses)

     In  its simplest form, the industrial  fabric  filter (baghouse) consists
of  a woven  or felted fabric through  which dust laden gases  are  forced.   A
combination of  factors  result  in  the collection of particles on  the fabric
fibers.  When woven fabrics are used, a dust cake eventually forms which, in

                                    3-10

-------
turn, provides additional collection sites.  When felted fabrics are  used,
this dust  cake is minimal or  nonexistent.   Instead,  the main  filtering
mechanisms are a  combination of  inertial forces, electrostatic  forces,  im-
pingement, etc.,  as  related  to  individual particle collection  on  single
fiber elements.

     As the particulate  is  collected,  pressure drop  across the filtering
media increases.   Because of  fan limitations, the filter must be cleaned.
This cleaning  is  accomplished  "in-place" since the filter area is  usually
too large and time between cleanings too short to allow for filter replace-
ment or cleaning external to the baghouse.

     Although  fabric  filters can be classified in a  number  of ways, the
most common is by method of fabric cleaning.  The three major  categories
of  fabric  cleaning methods are:  mechanical  shaking;  reverse  air cleaning;
and pulse jet cleaning.  Each is described below.

     In a conventional shaker-type fabric filter, particulate laden gas en-
ters below the tube  sheet and passes  from  inside  the bag to the outside
surface.  Particles are captured in a dust cake that gradually  builds up as
filtration continues.  At  regular  intervals, a portion of this dust  cake
must be  removed  to enhance gas  flow through the filter.  The dust cake is
removed  (manually  on  small systems  and automatically  on larger  systems)  by
mechanical shaking of the filter fabric which is normally accomplished by a
rapid horizontal  motion  induced  by  a shaker  bar attached at the top  of  the
bag.  The  shaking creates a standing wave  in the bag  and causes flexing of
the  fabric.   The  flexing causes the dust  cake to crack, and  portions are
released from  the  fabric surface.  Some of the dust remains on  the bag sur-
face and  in  the interstices  of  the fabric.   Woven  fabrics are generally
used in shaker-type collectors with the gas  flow stopped before cleaning to
eliminate particle reentrainment and allow dust cake release.    Cleaning may
be  done by bag, row,  section, or compartment.

     In  reverse  air  baghouses,  particles can be collected in a dust  cake
either  inside  or  outside of the bag.   Regardless  of  design  differences,

                                    3-11

-------
reverse air cleaning  is  accomplished by reversal of the gas flow through
the filter media.  The  change in direction causes the surface contour of
the filter surface to change  (relax) and promotes dust cake cracking.  The
flow of gas through the fabric assists in removal of the cake.   The reverse
flow may be supplied by cleaned exhaust gases or by a secondary fan supply-
ing ambient air.

     Finally,  on  pulse  jet fabric filters, particle capture  is  achieved
partially on a dust  cake and partially within  the  fabric.   Filtering is
done on exterior  bag  surfaces only.   During cleaning,  a  sudden  blast of
compressed air is  injected  into  the  top of the  bag.  The blast of air cre-
ates a traveling wave in the  fabric, which shatters the cake and throws  it
from the  surface  of  the fabric.   The cleaning  mechanism is classified as
fabric flexing and with some degree of reverse airflow.   Felted fabrics are
normally  used in  pulse  jet-cleaned collectors,  and the cleaning intensity
(energy)  is high.  The  cleaning  normally proceeds by rows, all bags  in the
row being cleaned  simultaneously.   The  compressed gas  pulse,  delivered at
550 to 800 kPa results  in  local  reversal of the gas flow.1  The cleaning
intensity is a function of compressed gas pressure.  Pulse jet units can
operate at substantially higher  air-to-cloth (A/C) ratios than the  types
previously discussed.1   Typical  A/C  ranges  are 1.5 to 3.0 m3/m2-min.1

     The  two factors  of basic importance in fabric  filter  operation are
particle  capture  and  static pressure loss.  Particle capture mechanisms  on
a microscopic level  are not fully understood.   Macroscopic behavior, the
net result of all  microscopic  processes, indicates that fabric filter col-
lection is not highly size dependent as would  be expected in view of the
collection mechanisms.   The  static pressure  loss results from forcing the
gas stream through the fabric and dust cake.

     Pore sizes (open areas) of the woven fabric through which the contami-
nated gas  stream  passes range from 10 to 100 urn, depending on fabric con-
struction and  fiber characteristics.1   Initially,  the particles easily
penetrate this filter.  As filtration continues, some particles are retained
                                    3-12

-------
upon filter elements  (normally  fibers)  because of the combined action of
the classified  collection  mechanisms  shown in Figure 3-3.1  As  the  dust
cake builds up,  additional  "targets"  are available to  collect  particles
and penetration drops to very low levels.

     Within the dust  cake,  inertial  impaction is the dominant collection
mechanism.   The forward  motion  of the particles results  in  impaction  on
fibers or  on already  deposited particles.1  Although increasing gas veloc-
ities favor impaction, they  reduce the effectiveness of Brownian diffusion
for removal of  very  small  particles.   Increasing the  fabric porosity also
reduces diffusional deposition.1  As  a  method of collection, gravity set-
tling of particles  is usually assumed to be negligible, although this  ef-
fect might be considered at low velocities, however.1

     Electrostatic forces can also affect collection.   However, the impact
of electrostatic  forces  in commercial scale equipment is  only recently be-
coming understood.  Advanced  filter  designs now incorporate electrostatic
augmentation to achieve  high  collection efficiencies with reduced pressure
drop across the filter media.5

     Dennis and Klemm have  presented  a computerized model useful  for pre-
dicting performance of  shaker and reverse air fabric  filters.   This  model
is detailed in  References  6,  7,  and 8.   The  reader  is  directed to these vn  «
documents  for additional information on baghouse performance.    ^J^J$^?^^  ^

3.1.4  Wet Scrubbers

     Wet scrubbers comprise  a set of  control  devices with similar particle
collection mechanisms which primarily include inertial  impaction and  Brownian
diffusion.   Accordingly, these  scrubber  systems generally exhibit strong
particle size-dependent performance.   Among scrubber types,  substantial dif-
ferences exist with regard to their effectiveness with the greatest differ-
ences occurring in the particle size range of 0.1 to 2
     Scrubber  liquids  are  used  for  particle  collection  in  several distinct
ways.   The  most common  method  is to generate  droplets, which  are  then
                                    3-13

-------
           DIRECT
           INTERCEPTION
    DIFFUSION^
           INERTIAL
           IMPACTI ON
ELECTROSTATIC
 ATTRACTION

 •— GRAVITATIONAL
       SETTLING
Figure 3-3.  Initial mechanisms of  fabric filtration.1
                       3-14

-------
intimately mixed with the gas stream.   Particles are also collected on water
layers or sheets surrounding of packing material by directing the particle
laden gas stream through  an intricate path around the individual packing
elements.  A third  method is to pass  high velocity gas through a vapor to
generate "jets" of  liquid to collect  particles.  This is the least common
of the three liquid characteristics.

     In this discussion,  major  categories of scrubbers are grouped on the
basis of similar mechanisms.  The major categories of  scrubbers are listed
in Table 3-3 in the order of increasing performance capabilities and energy
requirements.  Each type will be briefly described below.

     Preformed spray scrubbers  require  the least  energy of the various
scrubbers,  and  they consequently allow the highest penetration, especially
of small diameter  particles.   Generally,  preformed spray units use one or
more spray nozzles  in  a countercurrent or cyclonic flow configuration to
remove the incoming particulate by impaction.   Most preformed spray scrub-
bers are highly efficient only for particles  larger than 5 pmA in diameter.1

     In the  typical  packed  bed  scrubber,  liquid is introduced near the top
and trickles down through the packed bed.   The liquid flow spreads over the
packing into a film with a large surface area.  The liquid can be introduced
either concurrent  or crosscurrent  to  the gas flow.  Packing materials in-
clude raschig rings, pall rings, berl  saddles, tellerettes, intalox saddles,
and materials  such  as  crushed rock.1   Packed beds can also be constructed
with metal  grids, rods, or fibrous pads.   These scrubbers are often used for
gas transfer or gas cooling, both of which  are facilitated by the large
liquid surface area provided on the packing.1

     Plugging  of a  packed bed can occur  if  the gas to be treated is too
heavily  laden  with  solid particles.   A general rule for many applications
is to  limit  the use of packed  beds to service  in  which  inlet particulate
concentrations  are  less  than 0.45 g/m3.1   Moving  bed  scrubbers that  have
less plugging  potential  are  packed with low  density plastic  spheres,  which
are free to  move within  the packing  retainers.   Packed  bed  scrubbers are
reported to  have  low  penetration  for particle  sizes  down  to  3 umA and
                                    3-15

-------
                     TABLE 3-3.   MAJOR TYPES OF WET SCRUBBERS'
    Category
Particle capture   Liquid collection
   mechanism           mechanism
                    Types of scrubbers
Preformed spray
Packed bed
  scrubbers
Tray-type
  scrubbers
Mechanically
  aided scrubbers
Gas atomized
  spray
  scrubbers
Inertial
  impaction
Droplets
Inertial
  impaction
Inertial
  impaction
Diffusion
Inertial
  interception
Inertial
  impaction
Diffusion
Sheets, droplets
  (moving bed
  scrubbers)
Droplets, jets,
  and sheets
Droplets and
  sheets
Droplets
Spray towers
Cyclonic spray
  towers
Vane-type cyclonic
  towers
Multiple tube
  cyclones

Standard packed bed
  scrubbers
Fiber bed scrubbers
Moving bed scrubbers
Cross flow scrubbers
Grid packed
  scrubbers

Perforated plate
Impingement plate
  scrubbers
Horizontal impinge-
  ment plate
  (baffle) scrubbers

Wet fans
Disintegrator
  scrubbers

Standard venturi
  scrubbers
Variable throat
  venturi scrubbers:
  flooded disc,
  plumb bob, movable
  blade, radial
  flow, variable rod
Orifice scrubbers
   List not intended to be
   Reference 1.
       all inclusive.   Reproduced from Table 4.5-1 of
                                     3-16

-------
can sometimes remove a significant fraction of participate in the range of
1 to 2 umA.l

     A tray-type scrubber typically  consists  of  a vertical  tower with one
or more perforated plates mounted transversely inside the shell.   In such a
scrubber, the liquid and the gas flows countercurrent to one another with
the gases being  mixed  with  the liquid passing through the openings  in the
plates.  The perforated  plates are often equipped with impingement baffles
or bubble caps  over  the  perforations.   The gas  passing  upward  through a
perforation is  forced to turn 180 degrees into a layer of liquid.  The gas
bubbles  through  the  liquid, and particulate  is  collected in the liquid
sheet.  The impingement baffles are below the liquid level on the perforated
plates and are,  therefore,  continuously washed clean of collected particles.
Penetration through a typical impingement plate is low for particles larger
than 1 umA, but penetration of submicrometer particulate is higher than with
some higher energy scrubbers.1

     Mechanically aided scrubbers utilize  a mechanical  rotor  or fan to
shear  the scrubbing  liquid  into  dispersed droplets.  These scrubbers  use a
specially designed stator and rotor arrangement to produce very fine liquid
droplets that are  effective in the capture of fine  particulate.  The low
penetration of  fine  particulate, however,  is  achieved  at a high energy
cost.1   Because  both wet fan and disintegrator-type scrubbers are subject
to particulate  buildup or erosion at the rotor blades, they  are  often pre-
ceded by precleaning devices for removing coarse  particulate.1  Mechanically
aided  scrubbers  generally do  not perform well with  inlet  particulate  load-
ings in excess of 1 g/m3.1

     Finally, venturi and orifice scrubbers (gas-atomized spray  scrubbers)
are perhaps the  most common particulate removal  devices in that they have
the highest collection efficiency  for small particles as compared to most
other types of scrubbers.  These scrubbers accomplish fine particulate col-
lection  by  generating  small liquid droplets  in  the  turbulent  zone  which
creates  a  high  relative  velocity between the  droplets and the particulate.
Inertia! capture of particulate by the scrubbing  liquid is more efficient in

                                    3-17

-------
these highly turbulent processes,  but a price is paid in energy consumption
to achieve the low penetration.

     Analysis of the particle collection capability of wet scrubbers can be
based on:   (a) the  fundamental particle collection mechanisms; and  (b) the
empirical contact power approach.   The latter method is based on the premise
that penetration  is  proportional  to the power  expended in the scrubber.1
This premise  is  logical because high energy  consumption implies high rela-
tive gas-water velocities, high water  utilization, and fine droplet forma-
tion, all  of which  favor  impaction,  the  dominant collection mechanism.
Limitations of the  contact power  analysis can be attributed to the diffi-
culty of handling nonideal operating conditions  such  as  poor gas-liquid
distribution and  particle  shattering  during high energy scrubbing.   Also,
this type  of  analysis  is not amenable  to  situations  in which  particle col-
lection  mechanisms  other than  inertial impaction are  important.  Typical
pressure drops for  various types  of wet scrubbers are shown in Table 3-4.
                TABLE 3-4.   TYPICAL SCRUBBER PRESSURE DROP3
                                              Pressure drop
                     Scrubber type                (kPa)
Venturi
Centrifugal (cyclonic) spray
Spray tower
Impingement plate
Packed bed
Wet fan
Self- induced spray (orifice)
Irrigated filter (filter bed
scrubber)
1.5 -
0.25 -
0.25 -
0.25 -
0.25 -
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.05 -
18.0
0.8
0.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
0.8
              a  Reproduced from Table 4.5-3 of Reference 1.
                                    3-18

-------
     Penetration analyses  based on  the  fundamental particle collection
mechanisms involve the  identification  of the dominant physical  phenomenon
leading to particle  capture.   The  following is a partial list of the col-
lection mechanisms:
               Collection Medium
             Droplets
             Liquid sheets (layers)
             Liquid sheets
             Bubbles
   Capture Phenomenon
Inertia! impaction
Interception
Brownian diffusion
Inertial impaction
Interception
Brownian diffusion
Electrostatic attraction
Inertial impaction
Interception
Diffusion
Inertial impaction
Interception
Brownian diffusion
Electrostatic attraction
For each control device, penetration relationships are based on anticipated
particle collection mechanisms.   The  accuracy of the  resulting equations
depend on  the  proper  assignment of the mechanisms and on the  accuracy of
the theoretical  expressions.   Penetration expressions  are presented  in the
Scrubber Handbook  (and subsequent  documents)  for selected  types of wet
scrubbers.9'10   The reader  is  referred to this information  for a detailed
discussion of such expressions and their theoretical  development.

3.1.5  Performance Data for Gas Cleaning Equipment
     Limited control efficiency data for PMio are available in the EPA Con-
trol Techniques  document  (Reference  1)  for various types of industrial gas
cleaning equipment.  Typical  control  efficiency values contained  in  Ref-
erence 1 have  been  summarized in Tables 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7 for mechanical
dust collectors,  ESPs/fabric filters,  and  wet scrubbers, respectively.
                                    3-19

-------
CO

ro
                         TABLE 3-5.  TYPICAL PM10 CONTROL EFFICIENCIES FOR MECHANICAL
                                       DUST COLLECTORS3

Type of process
Sinter plant
Coal -fired boiler

Type of
particulate
Quartz
Iron oxide
Fly ash
Fly ash
Type of collector
Settling chamber
Momentum separator
(grit arrestor)
Momentum separator
Collector design/
operating parameters
Height = 3.05 m
Width = 3.05 m
Volume = 950 m3
Gravity settling of
collected dust
Cyclones used for
PMio control
efficiency (%)
0
0
8.6
12
      Not specified^
      Wood-fired  boiler
?  p = 2 g/cm3
   Wood fly ash

   Wood fly ash
                                                 (grit arrestor)
Simple scroll
  collector
Buell-van Tongeren
  scroll  collector
  with cyclone dust
  separation

Large-diameter
  cyclone
Multiclone
  collected dust
  separation

Collector diameter =
  2.1 m
Airflow = 396 mVmin

Unspecified
Unspecified

Unspecified
 4.3
                                                                                               39
23

50
         Data  taken  from pages 4.2-16, 4.2-17, 4.2-19, and 9.2-38 of Reference 1.  All values approximate.

         Size-efficiency curve obtained from original reference,  f

-------
                  TABLE  3-6.   TYPICAL  PM10  CONTROL  EFFICIENCIES  FOR  ELECTROSTATIC  PRECIPITATORS
                                AND  FABRIC  FILTERS8
CJ
I
ro
          Type of process
                          Type  of                             Collector design/ .     PMio control
                        particulate    Type of collector    operating parameters    efficiency (%)
Pulverized coal-fired
boiler
Pulverized coal-fired
boiler
Wet process cement
kiln
Sinter machine windbox6
Copper reverb, furnace
Pulverized coal -fired
boiler
Fly ash
Fly ash
Clinker
(BasicidicT^)
stnter
Metallurgical
fume
Fly ash
Unspecified ESP
Unspecified ESP
Hot- side ESP
Dry ESP
Unspecified ESP
Reverse-air fabric
filter
SCA = 147 m2/m3/sec 99. 6f^ ***
SCA^= 60 mVmVmin 96.3
*=- <^^4>4~^/ 
-------
                       TABLE 3-7.  TYPICAL  PM10 CONTROL  EFFICIENCIES  FOR  WET SCRUBBERS'
ro
ro

Type of process
Pulverized coal-fired
boiler

Borax-fusing
furnace
Potash dryer
Salt dryer
Coke oven
Gray iron cupola
Type of
parti cul ate
Fly ash
Fly ash
Borax
crystals
Potash
KC1
Coke/
volatiles
Dust/fume
Type of collector
Venturi scrubber
/^ s_
* f4*—&rt~}t_,fLri,:
(^C^vari able- throat
venturi scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Multivane scrubber
Wetted fiber
scrubber
Venturi scrubber
Venturi rod
scrubber
Collector design/ .
operating parameters
Ap = 2.5 kPa
Ap = 4.2 kPa
Ap = 11 kPa (design)
Ap = 0.78 kPa
Unspecified
Ap = 15 kPa
Ap = 10-23 kPa
PMio control
efficiency (%)
85.2
97.3
96.5
59.2
87.8
96
98

      a  Data  taken  from  pages  9.2-9,  9.5-28,  9.5-47,  9.8-27,  and  9.8-95 of Reference 1.
         Ap  =  pressure  drop  across  the scrubber.
      c  Furnace  operating at 50-75% of rated  capacity.   Chemical  composition of borax is Na2B407
         Pushing  operation equipped with a  traveling hood system.
10H20.

-------
          The  control  efficiencies  reported  in  the  above  tables  were  taken  either
     from  available size-efficiency curves or from tabulated data.   Approximate
     values  have  been  indicated  wherever  size-efficiency  curves  were  used to  cal-
     culate  the applicable control  efficiency (area under the curve) for a par-
     ticular system.   Also, those curves not representing actual test data were
     deleted from Tables 3-5 through 3-7, as appropriate.  If more detailed in-
     formation is desired  to  conduct a  specific analysis,  the  reader  is  directed
     to  the  original   reference  document  indicated  on the page  in  Reference  I
     noted as  footnote (a)  of each  table.

 j>        In addition  to Reference  1, the documents listed in  Table 3-1  can also
 //)/ be  used as resources  to obtain PMio control efficiency data for gas clean-
7 if
     ing equipment.  Another  resource is  the EPA's  Fine Particle Emissions  Infor-
     mation  System (FPEIS) which is  part of the Environmental Assessment Data
     Systems (EADS) data base.11'12  The FPEIS provides size-specific test data
     and process  operating parameters for a wide variety of sources and control
     equipment.

     3.2  CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR  FUGITIVE  EMISSIONS

          Besides the  reduction  of  source extent and the  incorporation  of process
     modifications, there  are two basic techniques  which  can  be  utilized to con-
     trol  fugitive particulate  emissions:   prevention of the creation  and/or
     release of particulate matter into the atmosphere; and capture and removal
     of  the  particles  after they have become airborne.13

          Selection of suitable  control  methods depends on the mechanism(s) which
     generate  the particulate emissions  and the specific source involved.  The
     methods used to  control  process sources of fugitive particulate emissions
     generally take a much different approach  from those applied to open dust
     sources.   Differences in source configuration,  process  requirements,  and
     emissions stream  characteristics also affect selection  of specific  controls.
                                         3-23

-------
     This section provides  information  on feasible control techniques for
sources of fugitive  particulate  emissions and available performance data.
The basic characteristics of each type of control technique are described,
and the types of emission sources amenable to control by the techniques are
discussed.   Control  techniques applicable to the major  sources of fugitive
particulate defined in Section 1 are identified.

     The section  is  divided into four parts.  The first two parts describe
preventive and capture/removal  control  techniques,  respectively.   The third
part identifies the  types  of  controls applicable to open dust and process
sources.  Finally, the  fourth  part  presents available control performance
data taken from Reference 13.

     In addition  to  Reference  13  mentioned  above,  there are also a number
of other references  which  contain information on the specific application
and design of  fugitive  control systems.   These  references  are  listed in
Table 3-8.   The  user is encouraged to consult  the documents shown  in
Table 3-8 for  other  pertinent  data  and information  on the  various types  of
fugitive source controls.

3.2.1  Preventive Measures

     Preventive measures include  those  measures  which prevent or substan-
tially  reduce  the injection of particulate into the surrounding environ-
ment.   Preventive measures  are independent  of whether  the  particulate  is
emitted directly  into the ambient air, or into the  interior of a building.
The main types of preventive measures include:13

          Passive enclosures (full or partial)

          Wet suppression
                                    3-24

-------
              TABLE 3-8.  ADDITIONAL REFERENCE DOCUMENTS FOR
                            FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROLS
Kashdan, E.  R.,  et al.   Technical Manual:  Hood System Capture of Process
     Fugitive Emissions.   EPA  Contract No.  68-02-3953, Research  Triangle
     Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1985.

American Conference  of Governmental  Industrial  Hygienists.   Industrial
     Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice.  18th Edition.  Lansing,
     MI, 1984.

McDermott,  H. J.   Handbook of Ventilation for Contaminant Control.  Fifth
     Printing, Ann Arbor  Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI, 1983.

Danielson,  J. A.   Air  Pollution  Engineering  Manual.  AP-40.   U.S.  Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, May 1973.

Hemeon, W.  C.  L.   Plant and Process  Ventilation.   The Industrial Press,
     New York, NY, 1963.

Ohio Environmental  Protection  Agency.   Reasonably Available  Control Mea-
     sures  for Fugitive Dust Sources.  Columbus, OH, September 1980.

Mukherjee,  S. K.,  and  M.  M. Singh.   Design  Guidelines for  Improved Water
     Spray Systems -  A Manual.   Contract No. J0308017,  U.S. Bureau of
     Mines, Washington, DC, December 1981.
                                    3-25

-------
          Stabilization of unpaved surfaces

          Paved surface cleaning
*7    *    C.£A?"B|i7\^  S^e^ti fJdtffeA ffc^S
 i                *     J
          Work practices

          Housekeeping

Descriptions of control  techniques  within these five  categories  are  pre-
sented below.

3.2.1.1  Passive Enclosures—
     A common  preventive  technique  for the control  of  fugitive  particulate
emissions is to either fully or partially enclose the source.  Enclosures
preclude or inhibit  particulate matter from becoming  airborne  due  to the
disturbance created by ambient winds or by mechanical entrainment resulting
from the operation of the source itself.   Enclosures also help contain those
emissions which are  generated.   Enclosures can  consist of  either  some type
of permanent structure  or a  temporary arrangement.   The  particular  type  of
enclosure used  is  dependent  on the individual  source  characteristics and
the degree of control required.

     Permanent enclosures are  designed  to either partially  or  completely
enclose the source  by the construction of a building  or other  structure.
Worker safety  and  housekeeping can become problems  in the vicinity of the
fugitive emission  source  controlled by a  passive  (nonevacuated) enclosure.
Types of sources commonly controlled by total enclosures include  aggregate
storage (bins rather than piles) and external conveyor transport.

     Since  temporary enclosures take many  forms,  they  are  difficult to
classify  generically.   Examples  of temporary  enclosures  are  flexible
tarpaulin covers over the hatchways of large ocean-going vessels during  the
loading of grain,  or flexible shrouds around truck loading spouts.
                                    3-26

-------
     A novel variation  to  the source enclosure method for the control of
fugitive particulate  emissions  involves  the  application of porous wind
fences.   Porous wind  fences  have  been shown to significantly reduce emis-
sions from  active storage piles and exposed ground areas.13  The principle
employed by wind screens is to provide a sheltered region behind the fence-
line which  significantly reduces  the mechanical  turbulence  generated by
ambient winds  in  an  area the length of which  is  many times the physical
height of the  fence.   This sheltered region provides for both a reduction
in the wind erosion potential of the exposed surface  in  addition to allow-
ing the gravitational settling of larger particles.   The application of wind
screens along  the  leading  edge  of active storage piles seems to be one of
the few good control  options which are available for this particular source.
A diagram of one  type of portable wind screen  used at a coal-fired power
plant is shown  in Figure 3-4.14

3.2.1.2  Wet Suppression--
     Wet suppression  systems apply either water, a  water solution of a
chemical agent, Or a micron-sized foam to the  surface of the particulate
generating material.13  This measure prevents or suppresses the fine parti-
cles contained  in that  material from leaving the  surface and becoming  air-
borne.   If  fine water sprays are used to control  dust after it has become
suspended,   this is referred  to as plume aftertreatment.  Plume aftertreat-
ment (e.g., charged  fog) is  not a preventive measure  but a capture/removal
method as discussed below.

     The chemical  agents used in wet suppression systems can be either sur-
factants or foaming agents for materials handling and processing operations
(e.g., crushers, conveyors) or various types of dust palliatives applied to
unpaved roads.   In either  case, the chemical agent acts  to agglomerate and
bind the fines  to the aggregate surface, thus eliminating or reducing its
emissions potential.    Each  major  type of wet  suppression method will be
described individually.
                                    3-27

-------
u>
rv>
CO
Gate Hinges, U-bolt attach
to both 1.90" O.O. fence
panel and 6.623" O.D. runners
                 Runners filled with scrap steel so that the
                 pallet (less fence panels and back supports)
                 weighs 6,000 pounds with the e.g. midway
                 between the runner
                                                                                                                      Fence Panel Frames
                                                                                                                      1-7/4" (1.90" O.D.)
                                                                                                                        Supports
                                                                                                                  2-1/2" Nom. (2.875" O.D.)

                                                                                                                     Bracket Required
                                                                                                                       Runners
                                                                                                                       6" Nom. (6.625" O.D.)
                                                                                                  Shear Braces
                                                                                                  2-1/2 Nom (2.875" O.D.)
                                            Figure  3-4.   Diagram of a  portable wind  screen.14

-------
     Wet suppression  systems  using plain water have been  utilized  for many
years on a  variety of sources such as crushing,  screening, and materials
transfer operations,  as well  as  unpaved roads.  For most  mechanical equip-
ment, wet suppression involves  the use of one or more water sprays to wet
the material prior to processing.  This technique is usually only temporar-
ily effective,  requiring  repeated application throughout  the process flow.

     It should  be  noted that, in addition  to possible  freezing problems  in
the winter,  wet suppression with plain water can be used only on those bulk
materials which can  tolerate  a   relatively high surface moisture content.
In the arid West,  wet suppression is not always practical  due to inadequate
water supplies.

     In the  case of  unpaved roads and parking lots, water is generally ap-
plied to the surface by a truck or  some  other type of vehicle utilizing
either a pressurized or a gravity flow system.  Again, watering of unpaved
roads is only  a temporary measure, necessitating  repeated  application at
regular intervals.

     To improve the overall control efficiency of wet dust suppression sys-
tems, wetting  agents  can  be added to the water to reduce the surface ten-
sion.  The  additives  allow particles to more easily  penetrate  the water
droplet and  increase the  number of droplets, thus  increasing the  surface
area and contact potential.

     One of  the more  recently developed methods used to augment wet suppres-
sion techniques is the  use of foam  to control dust  from materials  handling
and processing  operations.   The foam is generated by adding a proprietary
surfactant  compound  to  a  relatively small quantity of water which  is then
vigorously  mixed to  produce a small bubble, high energy  foam in the 100-
to  200-um  size range.13   The foam uses very  little  liquid volume and,
when applied to the  surface of  a bulk material, wets  the  fines more effec-
tively than  does untreated water.  Foam has been  used with good success for
                                    3-29

-------
controlling the emissions from belt transfer points, crushers, and  storage
pile load-in.

3.2.1.3  Stabilization of Unpaved Surfaces--
     Release of particulate  from unpaved surfaces can be  reduced or  pre-
vented by  stabilization  of  those surfaces.   Sources which have  been  con-
trolled in  this manner include unpaved roads and parking  lots, active and
inactive storage piles,  and  open  areas.  Stabilizing mechanisms  which have
successfully employed  include  chemical,  physical, and vegetative controls.
Each of these control types is described below.

     The use of chemical  dust suppressants for the control of fugitive emis-
sions from  unpaved  roads has received much attention in  the  past several
years.  Chemical suppressants can be classified into six generic categories.
These are:   (1) salts (i.e., CaCl2 and MgCl2);  (2) lignin  sulfonate;  (3) wet-
ting  agents;  (4)  latexes;  (5) plastics;  and (6) petroleum derivatives.13

     Chemical  dust  suppressants  are  generally  applied to  the road surface
as a  water solution of the  agent.  The degree of  control  achieved is  a di-
rect function of the application  intensity (volume of solution/area), dilu-
tion ratio, and frequency (number of applications/unit time) of the chemical
applied to  the  surface and  also  depends  on  the type and  number of vehicles
using the  road.   Chemical  agents have also been proven to be effective as
crusting agents for inactive storage piles and for the stabilization  of ex-
posed open areas and agricultural fields.  In both cases,  the chemical acts
as a  binder to  reduce the wind erosion potential  of the  aggregate surface.

     Physical  stabilization  techniques can  also be  used  for the  control  of
fugitive emissions  from  unpaved  surfaces.   Physical stabilization includes
any measure,  such  as compaction  of fill  material at construction and  land
disposal sites, which physically  reduces the emissions potential  of a  source
resulting  from either mechanical  disturbance or wind erosion.
                                    3-30

-------
     The most  notable  form  of physical stabilization of current interest
involves the use of civil engineering  fabrics or "road carpet" for unpaved
roads.13  In practice, the  road carpet fabric is laid on top of a properly
prepared road  base just  below a layer of coarse aggregate (ballast).   The
fabric sets up a physical barrier such that the fines (< 74 urn in diameter)
are prevented from contaminating the ballast layer.   These smaller particles
are now  no  longer  available for resuspension and saltation resulting from
the separation of the fines from the ballast.  The fabric is also effective
in distributing the  concentrated  stress  from heavy-wheeled traffic over a
wider area.

     Vegetative stabilization  involves the  use of  various  plant species
to control  wind erosion  from exposed surfaces.   Vegetative techniques can
be used only when the material to be stabilized is inactive and will  remain
so for  an  extended  period of time.   It  is  often difficult  to establish  a
vegetative  cover over  materials  other than soil because their physical or
chemical characteristics  are not  conducive to  plant growth.  Resistant
strains which  can  tolerate  the composition of the host material  sometimes
must be developed.

3.2.1.4  Paved Surface Cleaning--
     Other  than housekeeping, the  only method available to  reduce the  sur-
face  loading  of fine  particles  on paved roads is  through  some  form of
street  cleaning practice.   Street sweeping  does remove  some debris  from
the pavement thus  preventing it from  becoming  airborne  by  the action of
passing  vehicles; but  it can also generate  significant  amounts  of finer
particulate by the mechanical action used to collect the material.13

     The three major  methods of street cleaning are mechanical cleaning;
vacuum  cleaning; and  flushing.13   Mechanical  street sweepers utilize  large
rotating brooms to  lift  the material  from  the  pavement and discharge it
into  a  hopper  for  later  disposal.   Broom  sweepers are usually effective  in
picking  up  only relatively  large  debris,  with a significant portion of the
                                    3-31

-------
surface material being suspended in the wake of the vehicle (as observed in
the field.

     Vacuum sweepers remove the material from the street surface by drawing
a suction on  a  pickup head which entrains the particles in the moving air
stream.  The debris is then deposited in a hopper, and the air is exhausted
to the atmosphere.  Vacuum units also use gutter brooms to loosen and de-
flect debris  so  that  it can be  picked  up.   They also have an additional
broom which loosens the street dirt and pushes it toward the vacuum nozzles
where it is drawn  into  the  storage compartment.   A  filter  system  traps  the
dust and confines it to the sweeper hopper.

     The regenerative  sweeper  is a vacuum  unit  with  certain significant
differences.  Cleaning  is  accomplished  by a pickup head with  rubber  dust
curtains at the  front.   The sweeper usually has  a  2.7-m (9-ft) cleaning
width.13  A blower  directs a strong blast  of  air across the pickup head,
and the suction  from  the blower  draws the debris  into the  hopper  through a
dust separator.   Thus,  the air circulates continuously through the vacuum
sweeper mechanism with  no  air  and  little  dust  exhausted to  the  atmosphere.
     Street flushers  hydraulically  remove  debris from the  surface to the
gutter and eventually to the storm sewer  system through  the use of high
pressure water  sprays.   Water storage tanks on  flushers  vary  in  capacity
from 3,030 to 13,250  L (800 to 3,500 gal.).13  Flushers have large nozzles,
individually controlled, which can  be  directed either  toward the  gutter  or
in a  forward direction.  Water emerges from  the  nozzles at  pressures of  up
to 690 kPa (100 psig).13  This pressure is usually sufficient to scour most
debris on the  pavement.   Flushers have numerous operational disadvantages
including the  consumption  of  large  quantities of water with the associated
potential for water pollution problems.  A diagram of  both  a typical broom
sweeper and a regenerative air sweeper is  shown  in Figure 3-5.15
                                    3-32

-------
                         ELEVATOR
                                     HOPPER
  PICKUP  BROOM-,
                                        •GUTTER BROOM




                  (a)   Four-wheeled  broom sweeper
HOPPER
                                  AUXILIARY ENGINE
                        PICKUP HEAD       GUTTER BROOM
               (b)   Regenerative  air vacuum  sweeper
        Figure 3-5.   Diagrams of typical  street cleaners.15
                                 3-33

-------
3.2.1.5  Housekeeping-
     Housekeeping generally refers to the removal of exposed dust producing
materials on a  periodic  basis to reduce the potential for dust generation
through the action of wind or machinery.  Examples of housekeeping measures
include:  clean-up of spillage on travel surfaces (paved and unpaved); elim-
ination of mud/dirt carryout onto paved roads at construction and demolition
sites;  and  clean-up  of material spillage at  conveyor transfer points.13

     Any such method can be employed depending on the source, its operation,
and the type of dust-producing material involved.  A detailed evaluation is
necessary on a  case-by-case  basis to determine what housekeeping measures
can be employed.

3.2.2  Capture Removal Methods

     The  second  basic technique for the control  of fugitive particulate
emissions includes those  methods which  capture  or  remove  the particles  af-
ter they  have become  airborne.  Again,  this classification  is  irrespective
of whether  such  emissions are generated inside  or  outside  of  a  building.
The major types of capture/removal processes include:

          Capture and collection systems

          Plume aftertreatment

The various methods in both categories are described below.

3.2.2.1  Capture and Collection Systems--
     Most industrial process fugitive emissions have traditionally been con-
trolled by  capture/collection,  or industrial  ventilation systems.   These
systems have three primary components:   (1) a  hood  or enclosure  to capture
emissions that escape from the process; (2) a dust collector that separates
entrained particulate from the captured gas stream (see Section 3.1 above);
                                    3-34

-------
and (3) a ducting or ventilation system to transport the gas stream from the
hood or enclosure to the air pollution control device.

     A wide variety of  capture methods ranging from total enclosure of the
source, to mobile high  velocity  low volume (HVLV) hoods, to total building
evacuation have been employed.   Capture devices (or hoods) generally can be
classified as one of  three types:   enclosure, capture  hood, or receiving
hood.   Each type is  illustrated in Figure 3-6.16

     Enclosures, partial or complete,  surround the source as much as possi-
ble without interfering with process operations.   Their predominant feature
is that they  prevent  release of particulate  to the atmosphere or working
environment.   The enclosure  is  equipped  with one or more takeoff ducts to
remove particulate  that is generated and  to  maintain  a slight negative
pressure in the  enclosure.   Examples  of  enclosures include enclosed shake-
out operations  in metal foundries,  casings on bucket  elevators  used  for
aggregate material  transfer, and building  evacuation for secondary furnace
control.

     Capture hoods are  located in such a manner that the process is external
to the hood.   Emissions are actually released to the  atmosphere or plant
environment and subsequently captured by the hood.  Capture hoods have also
been referred to as  exterior hoods by some authors.13

     The operating principle of the capture hood is based on capture veloc-
ity.   The  control  system must produce a sufficient  air velocity at  the
source to draw the emitted particles to the hood and "capture" the emissions
stream.  Examples of capture devices are side-draft hoods to capture secon-
dary electric arc furnace  emissions,  push/pull side-draft hoods to control
metal  pouring emissions, and side-draft  hoods  to  control cleaning and  fin-
ishing emissions.
                                    3-35

-------
          Fan
                        (a)  Enclosures - contain
                             contaminants released
                             Inside the hood
                     Contaminants
                     rising  from
                     hot  process

                         (b)   Receiving  hoods  -  catch
                              contaminants  that  rise or
                              are  thrown into  them
                         (c)   Capturing  hoods  -  reach
                              out  to  draw in contami-
                              nants
Figure 3-6.   General  types of capture devices (hoods).16
                           3-36

-------
     In the case  of  receiving hoods, emissions from the process are also
released to the plant environment or atmosphere prior to entering the hood.
However, receiving hoods  are  designed to take advantage of  the inherent
momentum of some emissions streams.   This momentum is generally a result of
thermal buoyancy  but also may be a  result of  inertia generated  by the pro-
cess (e.g., a  grinding  plume).   The system does  not  need  to generate a
capture velocity, but  it  should be designed to exhaust a slightly greater
velocity from  the hood  than the process delivers.  Examples of receiving
hoods  include  canopy hoods  to capture secondary  furnace emissions, close
capture hoods  located  above metal  pouring operations,  and grinding wheel
close capture hoods.

     The selection of a suitable capture device is site-specific and depends
on both the operating and emissions characteristics of the source.   Factors
influencing selection include location of the process with respect to other
plant  operations, degree  of process movement (if  any),  space  needed for
worker  or  equipment  access  to the process,  physical size of the operation
or process, and momentum of the particulate plume due to buoyancy or inertia
applied by the process.

     Particulate matter is removed from the gas stream in capture/collection
systems by one of four generic types of air pollution control devices:   me-
chanical collectors (or cyclones), wet scrubbers, fabric filters, and elec-
trostatic  precipitators (ESPs).   As with the capture device, selection of
the air pollution control  device is site-specific, depending on such factors
as:  degree of control  required to  meet  regulations or  enhance  product re-
covery; availability of excess  capacity from an  existing control device;
feasibility of  designing  a  common device for  multiple sources;  and various
characteristics of the  emissions  stream.  Some of the more important emis-
sions  characteristics are particle size distribution, particle  resistivity,
gas temperature, corrosivity, and chemical  composition.
                                    3-37

-------
     The simplest, and most  often neglected, component of the industrial
ventilation system is the ductwork or transport system.   The transport sys-
tem must be designed to maintain adequate transport velocities in the ducts
and be balanced  with respect to pressure drop.   Two  of the most common
causes of malfunctions of  capture/collection systems are plugging of the
ductwork because of inadequate transport velocities and unbalanced ventila-
tion systems  (from  either  poor design or improper operation) resulting in
inadequate capture  velocities or  exhaust  volumes at  some  processes.13

     A variation of the traditional capture/collection concept involves the
use of air curtains or jets.   Air curtains are usually used in those indus-
trial processes  which  generate a buoyant plume to help isolate it and en-
hance capture by the emissions control system.   One such system  is  a so-
called "push/pull"  arrangement.   In such an arrangement, an air curtain
consisting of a  series of  jets  is  used  to contain and direct the  plume to-
ward some type  of capture  device.  One such system is shown in Figure 3-7
for a copper converter.17

3.2.2.2  Plume Aftertreatment--
     Plume aftertreatment  refers to any system which  injects  fine  water
droplets into a  dust plume to  capture  and agglomerate the suspended  parti-
cles (by impaction and/or electrostatic attraction) to enhance gravitational
settling.  Plume aftertreatment systems can use water sprays with or without
the addition of  a chemical  surfactant as well as with or without the appli-
cation of an electrostatic charge (charged fog).

     Aftertreatment systems using plain v/ater consist of one or more hydrau-
lic (pressure) or pneumatic (two-fluid) nozzles which create a spray of fine
water droplets.   When  sprayed into the dust plume, these droplets capture
and settle the  suspended dust  particles.  This  technique has been used ex-
tensively for the control of respirable dust in underground mining and simi-
lar operations conducted above ground.13
                                    3-38

-------
                                  FROM AIR JET FAN
CO
i
oo
UD
 PRIMARY
  HOOD
LOCATION
                      o
                                                           JET SIDE
                                  AIR
                                CURTAIN
                                  JET
-TO EXHAUST FAN

      BAFFLE WALL-


SEAL
                                                             EXHAUST SIDE
                                                                      CUH
  / t f
^TT
                                                               *
                                                   CONVERTER   /
                                                 (FUME SOURCE)
                                                V         /
                                                                                                 TO EXHAUST FAN


                                                                                                 BAFFLE WALL
                                 Figure  3-7.   Converter air curtain control  system.17

-------
     In the past several years, a novel means has been developed to augment
traditional water  sprays for  plume  aftertreatment  involving the use  of
electrostatics.  Most anthropogenically produced particles normally acquire
a slight electrostatic  charge.13  By  injecting  a fog  of oppositely  charged
water droplets into the plume, a significant enhancement in the capture and
removal process can be achieved.13

     An electrostatic charge is generally applied to a water spray by either
of two  means.   Induction charging applies an electrostatic  charge  to  the
droplets by passing  the spray through a  ring which is isolated  at  a high
voltage.   The  alternative  is  to charge the  water prior to atomization by
direct contact.  Of the two methods, contact charging has proven to be much
more  effective in  achieving a higher  charge-to-mass  ratio.   Under heavy
spray conditions,  induction  charging tends to  apply  a charge  only those
droplets on the  outside of  the spray  cone.   Diagrams  of electrostatic  fog-
gers  using both  induction  and contact charging are shown in Figure 3-8.18

3.2.3  Applicability of Controls to Fugitive Emissions Sources

     Process  fugitive  sources can be  controlled by  either preventive or
capture/removal  measures.   Principal  control measures include  wet  suppres-
sion,  capture/collection systems, and plume aftertreatment.  Table 3-9
identifies the types  of control'applicable  to  process fugitive  emissions
sources.13

     Open  dust sources  are generally  controlled by preventive techniques
rather than capture/removal techniques.  Typical measures used include pas-
sive  enclosures, wet suppression,  stabilization,  and surface cleaning.
Table 3-10 identifies the  types of control measures  applicable to each of
the generic open dust source categories identified in Section I.13
                                    3-40

-------
                                                                 POLARITY
                                                                 LIGHTS
                                                               AIR PURGE
                                                               VALVE
                                                              INDUCTION
                                                              RING
                                                              SPRAY
                                                              NOZZLE

                                                           AIR AND FLUID CAPS
              (a)   Electrostatic fogger  using  induction  charging
                         Air Fan
            Nonconduct'i v«
              Air cone
Water Deflecting
Baffle
Monconductive
Spinning Cup
                                                        Rotating
                                                        Seal
DC Power
Supply
                                                                                   Isolated
                                                                                   Water
                                                                                   Supply
               (b)   Electrostatic fogger  using  contact charging
                      Figure  3-8.   Electrostatic foggers.18
                                          3-41

-------
                             TABLE 3-9.  PROCESS FUGITIVE PARTICIPATE EMISSION SOURCES AND FEASIBLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY3
CJ
 i
-p.
ro

Control measure
Capture/collection
Industry
Iron and Steel Plants














Ferrous Foundries





Primary Aluminum Production




Primary Copper Smelters



Primary Copper Smelters



Wet .
Process source suppression
Coal Crushing/Screening X
Coke Ovens
Coke Oven Pushing
Sinter Machine Windbox X
Sinter Machine Discharge
Sinter Cooler
Blast Furnace Charging
Blast Furnace Tapping
Slag Crushing/Screening X
Molten Iron Transfer
BOF Charging/Tapping/Leaks
Open Hearth Charging/Tapping/Leaks
EAF Charging/Tapping/Leaks
Ingot Pouring
Continuous Casting
Scarfing
Furnace Charging/Tapping
Ductile Iron Inoculation
Pouring of Molten Metal
Casting Shakeout
Cooling/Cleaning/Finishing of Castings
Core Sand and Binder Mixing
Core Baking
Grinding/Screening/Mixing/
Paste Production
Anode Baking
Electrolytic Reduction Cell
Refining and Casting
Roaster Charging
Roaster Leaks
Furnace Charging/Tapping/
Leaks
Stag Tapping/Handling
Converter Charging/Leaks
Blister Copper Tapping/Transfer
Copper Tapping/Casting
Enclosures0


X
X
X
X

X


X
X
X


X
X
X

X


X


X
X
X
X
X

X

X
X
Receiving
hoods
X
X
X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
Capture Plume after-
hoods treatment
X X

X

X



X X


X


X




X




X
X








                                                                     (continued)

-------
                                                             TABLE 3-9.   (continued)
CO
 i
CO
Control measure
Industry
Primary Lead Smelters











Primary Zinc Production




Secondary Aluminum Smelters



Secondary Lead Smelters






Secondary Zinc Production





Process source
Raw Material Mixing/Pelletizing
Sinter Machine Leaks
Sinter Return Handling
Sinter Machine Discharge/Screens
Sinter Crushing
Blast Furnace Charging/Tapping
Lead and Slag Pouring
Slag Cooling
Slag Granulator
Zinc Fuming Furnace Vents
Dross Kettle
Silver Retort Building
Lead Casting
Sinter Machine Windbox Discharge
Sinter Machine Discharge/Screens
Coke-Sinter Mixer
Furnace Tapping
Zinc Casting
Sweating Furnace
Smelting Furnace Charging/Tapping
Fluxing
Dross Handling and Cooling
Scrap Burning
Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
Reverb Furnace Charging/Tapping
Blast Furnace Charging/Tapping
Pot Furnace Charging/Tapping
Tapping of Holding Pot
Casting
Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
Hot Metal Transfer
Melting Furnace Charging/Tapping
Distillation Retort Charging/Tapping
Distillation Furnace Charging/Tapping
Casting

Wet .
suppression Enclosures
X
X
X
X
X

X
X X
X

X

X
X
X
X


X

X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Capture/collection
Receiving Capture Plume after-
hoods hoods treatment
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X


X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
                                                                   (continued)

-------
                                                             TABLE 3-9.   (concluded)
to

Control measure
Capture/col lection
Industry
Secondary Copper, Brass/
Bronze Production


Ferroalloy Production




Cement Manufacturing


Lime Manufacturing

Rock Products

Asphalt Concrete Plants
Coal-Fired Power Plants
Grain Storage and Processing

Wood Products



Mining

Process source
Sweating Furnace Charging/Tapping
Dryer Charging/Tapping
Melting Furnace Charging
Casting
Raw Materials Crushing/
Screening
Furnace Charging
Furnace Tapping
Casting
Limestone/Gypsum Crushing and
Screening
Coal Grinding
Limestone Crushing/Screening
Lime Screening/Conveying
Primary Crushing/Screening
Secondary Crushing/Screening
Tertiary Crushing Screening
Aggregate Crushing/Screening
Coal Pulverizing/Screening
Grain Cleaning
Grain Drying
Log Debarking/Sawing
Veneer Drying
Plywood Cutting
Plywood Sanding
Blasting
Crushing/Screening
Wet .
suppression Enclosures




X




X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X






X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
X
X

X
Receiving
hoods
X
X
X
X


X
X
X












X




Capture
hoods




X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
Plume after-
treatment




X




X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X



X

X
X

X

a From Table 4-2 of Reference 13.
Water or water plus chemical additives.
Includes full and/or partial enclosures with possible evacuation
d M
. .
to a dust

collector.








-------
                                            TABLE 3-10.   FEASIBLE CONTROL MEASURES FOR OPEN OUST SOURCES3
U>
 I

Source category
Unpaved roads
Unpaved parking lots and staging areas
Storage piles
Paved streets and highways
Paved parking lots and staging areas
Exposed areas
Batch drop operations
Continuous drop operations6
Pushing (e.g., dozing, grading,
scraping, etc. )

b Wet
Enclosures suppression
X
X
X X


X X
X X
X X
X
Fugitive emission control measure
Chemical Physical Vegetative
stabilization stabilization stabilization
X X
X X
X X


XXX


X

Surface Capture/
cleaning removal



X
X

X
X


             From Table 4-1 of Reference 13.
             Includes full and partial  enclosures as well  as wind fences.
          c  Includes both capture/collection systems and  plume aftertreatment.
             Includes operations such as front-end loaders,  shovels,  etc.
             Includes operations such as conveyor transfer,  stacking/reclaiming, etc.

-------
3.2.4  Performance Data for Process Fugitive Controls

     Essentially all of  the  control  techniques used to abate the fugitive
emissions associated with  process  sources utilize traditional engineering
approaches.13  Although  performance  data are  sparse,  the  application of
this technology is generally well developed (with the possible exception of
plume aftertreatment).    Such  is  not  usually the case for open source con-
trols, as will be discussed below.

     Available PMio  control  efficiency  data  for water/foam suppression,
capture/collection  systems,  and plume  aftertreatment are  presented in
Tables 3-11,  3-12,  and  3-13,  respectively.13   All data shown in these ta-
bles were taken directly from  Reference  13.   Additional  information  on  how
the various  values  were  obtained can be found in that document.   As shown
by these tables,  very  limited data currently  exist  on PMio  control  effi-
ciency for  control  techniques  applicable to  process  fugitive sources.

     It should also be noted that a major portion of the control  efficiency
data presented in Tables 3-11 to 3-13 have been expressed in terms of respir-
able dust instead of PMio.  Respirable dust is defined as that particulate
which passes  through a  Dorr Oliver 10-mm nylon cyclone attached to a per-
sonal sampler operating  at a flow rate of 1.7 L/min.  The cyclone precol-
lector has  a cutpoint  which is  approximately  10  umA,  although  it is not
usually expressed as such.   Therefore, the control efficiency for respirable
dust should  closely  approximate  that for PMxo for the source/control com-
binations listed.

3.2.5  Performance Data  for Open Dust Controls

     Control  techniques  applied  to open  dust  sources  generally  are less
durable than  traditional control devices  applied  to  ducted  sources.   It is
common practice to  assign  a single control efficiency  value  to a  baghouse,
cyclone,  or  scrubber.  Ducted  source  controls  are generally  attributed  the
capability  to maintain a set control  efficiency  value  for extended  periods
(e.g., 1 or 2 years) given proper maintenance and operation.

                                    3-46

-------
     TABLE 3-11.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE  PM10  CONTROL EFFICIENCY  DATA FOR WATER SPRAYS AND FOAM SUPPRESSION
                    (PROCESS SOURCES)3


Type of
process

Type of
material
Process
design/
operating
parameters

Control system
parameters

PMjo
control
efficiency

Comments
    Crusher
OJ
I
Secondary
  crusher
Gypsum
                 Limestone
Tertiary     Limestone
  crusher
                          Not specified
424 tons/hr,
  3 in.  mate-
  rial size

127 tons/hr,
  5/8 in.
  nominal  ma-
  terial size
3 Nozzles (2 x 1/32
  in. flat), 200
  parts H20/l part
  foaming agent

Water spray - not
  specified
                                              Water spray -  not
                                                specified
                                                                    27%L
                                                       92%
                                                       83%
                                                     Efficiency based on
                                                       concentration only
                                                                               No calibration or wind
                                                                                 data available
       Reproduced from Table 6-1 of Reference 13.   1 ton = 0.91 Mg;  2.54 cm = 1 in.

       Control  efficiency for respirable dust which is approximately the same as PMxo.


-------
           TABLE  3-12.   SUMMARY OF PM10 CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA  FOR  CAPTURE/COLLECTION SYSTEMS (PROCESS SOURCES)'
CO
I
-pi
CO

Capture
Process mechanism/
design/ air pollution
Type of Type of operating control
process material parameters device
Aluminum Molten Not specified Close cap-
reduction aluminum ture hood/
cell-anode NA





Aluminum Molten Not specified Close cap-
reduction aluminum ture/NA
cell tap-
ping
Anode Molten Not specified Close cap-
removal aluminum ture/NA
Banbury NA Not specified Capture
mixer hood/NA

» /J^
0 ' &3sr^$S:^L
II':&
-------
                                                                                 .<> ft-
                                                                             0
          TABLE 3-13.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE CONTROL PM10 EFFICIENCY DATA FOR
                         PLUME AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEMS (PROCESS SOURCES)3



Type of process

Type of
material
Process design/
operating
parameters
Average
. control
Fogger system efficiency
Bag splitting
  hood
Cream-tex:
  32% alumina
  52% SiO,
Not specified
2-Ransburg REA foggers
  located inside hood;
  WFR = 45 cc/min total
  AF = 4.3 mVhr total
45-61%
   Includes only results of field testing.   Reproduced from Table 6-4 of Reference 13.
   The Ransburg foggers are based on the original Hoenig design which uses induction
   charging and commercial spray nozzles.   WFR = water flow rate.  AF = airflow to
   fogger(s).
   Control efficiency for respirable dust which is approximately the same as
   Efficiency ranges include average efficiency for both positively/negatively charged
   fog.
          In contrast to ducted source controls, intermittent control techniques
     which begin  to  decay  in  efficiency  almost  immediately  after  implementation
     are often  used  for  open  dust  sources.  The most  extreme example of  this  is
     the watering  of unpaved  roads where the  efficiency  decays  from  nearly  100%
     to zero in a matter of hours (or minutes).   The control efficiency for broom
     sweeping and  flushing applied in combination on a paved road may decay to
     zero in 1  or 2 days.   Chemical  dust suppressants applied to unpaved roads
     can yield  control  efficiencies  that will decay to zero in several months.
     Consequently, a single-valued control efficiency is usually not adequate to
     describe the  performance of most intermittent control techniques for open
     dust sources.   The  control  efficiency must be  reported along with  a time
     period over which the value applies.  For continuous control systems (e.g.,
     wet suppression for materials transfer), a single control  efficiency is usu-
     ally appropriate.
                                         3-49

-------
     Certain terminology has  been  developed to aid in describing the time
dependence of control  efficiency  for intermittent controls for  open dust
sources.   These terms are:

          Control lifetime is the time period (or amount of source activity)
          required for the  efficiency of an open  dust control measure to
          decay to zero.

          Instantaneous control efficiency  is  the efficiency  of an open
          dust control at a specific point in time.

          Average control efficiency  is  the efficiency  of an open dust
          source control  averaged over a given period of time (or number of
          vehicle passes).

     From the above definitions, it is clear that average control efficiency
is  related  to  instantaneous control  efficiency  by the  following general
equation:
                         C(T) =         c(t) dv                       (3-1)
     where:    C(T) =  Average control efficiency during time period T
                       between applications
               c(t) =  Instantaneous control efficiency at time t
                       after application (t ^ T)
Recent testing of certain unpaved and paved road dust controls suggests that
the instantaneous control  efficiency can be described with reasonable ac-
curacy as a linear function of vehicle passes (v) as representative of time
in the general form:

                              c(v) = 100 - b v                        (3-2)
                                    3-50

-------
 where b is the  decay  rate which is dependent on equipment (e.g.,  vehicle)
 or source  characteristics,  climatic conditions, and  control  application
 parameters as will  be  discussed in detail  below.   By substituting  the linear
 expression for instantaneous control efficiency into Equation 3-1, the av-
 erage control efficiency for V vehicle passes can be expressed as follows:

                               C(V) = 100 - £ V                        (3-3)

      Typical  control  techniques employed on open dust sources are  listed in
 Table 3-14.  The specifications necessary to completely define each  technique
 are also  listed.  While most of the terminology is familiar, the terms re-
 lated to the  use of water and chemical  dust suppressants need to be  defined.
 Application intensity is the volume of solution placed on a dust-producing
 surface per unit area  or per unit mass  of aggregate material  handled (e.g.,
 L/m2, L/Mg).   The dilution ratio is defined as volume of chemical  mixed with
 a given volume of water (e.g.,  1 L chemical:  7 L water).   Application fre-
 quency is the number of applications per unit of time (e.g.,  6 applications/
 year, 2 applications/week).

      Available PM10 control  efficiency  data for chemical road dust suppres-
 sants, unpaved road watering,  water sprays, foam suppression systems, and
 plume aftertreatment are  summarized in Tables 3-15 through 3-19, respec-
 tively.13  Again, all  data  shown in these tables were taken directly from
 Reference 13.  It should  be noted that the  control efficiency, values  re-
jDorted ijn Tab]e_3-15 .are jaxpjressed as a least-squares .fit of the data based
 on the  numberjjf vehicle passes over the. road surface.  This is consistent
 wrth Equation JK3 shown abpve^
                                     3-51

-------
                         TABLE 3-14.   OPEN  DUST  SOURCE CONTROL TECHNIQUE  IDENTIFICATION
   Generic source category
     Control  technique
               Technique specifications
   I.   Vehicular travel  on
        unpaved surfaces
1.    Wet suppression
     (watering)

2.    Chemical  dust
     suppressants
                                      Paving
V  II.  Vehicular travel  on
f3       paved surface
1.    Vacuum sweeping
                                 2.    Flushing


                                 3.    Flushing  and broom  sweep-
                                      ing
1.    Application intensity (L/m2)
2.    Application frequency

1.    Application intensity
2.    Application frequency
3.    Dilution ratio (L chemical:L H20)

1.    Thickness of asphalt or concrete
2.    Base preparation techniques
3.    Planned maintenance technique speci-
     fications to maintain cleanliness (see
     technique specifications under paved
     faces)

1.    Application frequency
2.    Sweeper characteristics like:
     a.    Capacity of blower
     b.    Air velocity generated along road
          surface
     c.    Type of device used to remove parti-
          cles (e.g., bags, water sprays,
          scrubbers, settling chambers, etc.)
     d.    Characteristics of the gutter broom
          (e.g., rpm, type of bristle, number
          of bristles per unit area)

     1.    Application frequency
     2.    Application intensity

     1.    Application frequency
     2.    Application intensity
     3.    Sweeper speed
     4.    Characteristics of main and gutter
          brooms (e.g., rpm, type of bristle,
          number of bristles per unit area)
                                                  (continued)

-------
                                            TABLE  3-14.   (concluded)
   Generic source category
      Control  technique
                                        Technique specifications
   III.   Material  handling
OJ
en
co
 1.    Enclose transfer stations,     1.
      conveyors,  material  stream     2.
      falling onto pile, etc.
                                 2.    Spray material  on  conveyor     1.
                                      with  surfactant treated        2.
                                      water
*3.


*4.
Spray material in open        1.
storage with water            2.

Spray material in storage     1.
with chemical dust            2.
suppressant
                                 5.    Spray plume with               1.
                                      electrically-charged  fog       2.
                                      while material  is  being        3.
                                      dropped

                                 6.    Spray while being  dropped      1.
                                      (e.g.,  railcar,  stacker)       2.

                                 7.    Reduce drop distance           1.
Full or partial enclosure
Vented or nonvented (full)
enclosure
If vented to control device, give
ventilation rate in acfm.

Amount of solution applied (L/Mg)
Amount of surfactant added to water
(dilution ratio)
No. and type of spray nozzles

Application intensity (L/m2)
Application frequency

Application intensity (L/m2)
Dilution ratio (vol. chem.:vol.
water)
Application frequency

Application intensity (L/Mg)
Charge-to-mass ratio (C/g)
No. of foggers, volume of spray,
and volume of plume

Amount of solution applied (L/Mg)
No. and type of spray nozzles

Exposed drop height before and after
control
        These are actually more effective as  wind erosion  controls  rather  than  material  handling controls.

-------
                         TABLE  3-15.   INSTANTANEOUS PM,0 CONTROL EFFICIENCY FOR UNPAVED ROAD  CONTROL  TECHNIQUES
                                        AS A  FUNCTION OF VEHICLE PASSES19





CO
1
en
-p.






Control measure
Petro Tac-Initial
application
Coherex® - initial
application
Coherex® -
reapplication
Watering


Average
No. of Mean
vehicle vehicle parameters Application
Time after passes Weight No. of intensity
application per day (Mg) (tons) wheels (L/m2)
2-116 days 410 27 30 9.2 3.2

7-41 days 94 34 38 6.2 3.8

4-35 days 97 39 43 6.0 4.5

1.0-2.8 hr 1,200 44 49 6.0 0.1


Dilution
ratio Least-squares fit of
(L/L H20) PM,0 control efficiency3 (%)
1:4 102-0.00113 V

1:4 94.9-0.0134 V

1:7 100-0.00430 V

N/A 102-0.179 V

V represents cumulative vehicle passes  after application.  Complete mitigation  is  assumed  immediately after application (i.e.,
c = 100 & V = 0).

Run AJ-6 was not used in developing the equations  for water.

-------
    TABLE 3-16.   FIELD DATA ON UNPAVED ROAD WATERING CONTROL  EFFICIENCY'
f


No. of
Location tests
N. Dakota 4
New Mexico 5
Ohio 3
Missouri 2



Month
October
July/Aug.
November
September

Applic.
intens.
(L/m2)
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.9
Avg. time
between
applic.
(hr)
1.8
2.0
4.5
2.8
Avg.
traf.
rate
(hr !)
40
23
98
72
Avg./
poten.
evap.
(mm/hr)
0.084
0.23
0.042
0.26
Avg.Av
control
eff ^ -^
(X)
59
69
77
88

a Reproduced from
b
Table 5-3 of
B t
Reference

13.
-, • •

t

• •

i _
size has been observed to date for watering.
                                                                   ^ £><
                                     3-55

-------
                         TABLE 3-17.  SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE PM,0 CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR WATER  SPRAYS  (OPEN DUST SOURCES)5
CO
 i
en
cr>



Type of
process
Chain feeder
to belt
transfer



Belt-to-belt
transfer




Grizzly
transfer
to bucket
elevator


Conveyor
transport
and
transfer


Process
design/
Type of operating
material parameters
Coal 3 ft drop;
8 tons coal
per load



Coal Not specified





Run of mill Not Specified
sand




Coal 2 Belts; 0.91
m and 1.07 m
widths;
~ 500 m
length



Control system
parameters
8 Sprays, 2.5 gpm,
above belt only

8 Sprays, 2.5 gpm +
1 spray on under-
side of belt
8 Sprays, 2.5 gpm,
above belt only

8 Sprays, 2.5 gpm +
1 spray on under-
side of belt
Liquid vol. 757 mL

Liquid vol. 1,324 mL

Liquid vol. 1,324 mLc
Liquid vol. 1,324 mLd
3 Spray bars/belt,
underside of tail
pulley, 5-10 cc
H20/sec per bar,
Delevan ''fanjet"
sprays


Control .
efficiency
56%


81%


53%


42%


46%

58%

54%
54%
65-75%








Comments






Control applied at a
point 5 transfers
upstream
Control applied at a
point 5 transfers
upstream






Individual test values
not specified; no
airflow data or QA/
QC data



a Reproduced
** A^V f A
from Table 5-8 of Reference

13. 1 ft = 3.28 m; 1

ton = 0.91 Mg;
.
1 gal. = 3.79 L.
p* ^^^^.^ A «» nu
                         c  Water +  1.5% surfactant.


                         d  Water +  2.5% surfactant.

-------
                              TABLE 3-18.  SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE PM,0 CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR FOAM SUPPRESSION SYSTEMS
                                             (OPEN DUST SOURCES)3
tn

Type of
process
Belt-to-belt
transfer
Belt-to-bin
transfer
Bulk loadout
Screw-to-
belt
transfer
Bucket ele-
vator dis-
charge
Belt-to-belt
transfer
Feeder bar
discharge
Grizzly
transfer
to bucket
elevator
Type of
material
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Sand
Run of mill
sand
Process
design/
operating
parameters
Sand temp.
~ 120°F
Sand temp.
~ 120°F
Sand temp.
~ 120°F
174 tons/hr
Sand temp.
~ 190°F
179 tons/hr
Sand temp.
~ 190°F
193 tons/hr
Sand temp.
~ 190°F
191 tons/hr
Sand temp.
~ 190°F
Not specified
Control system Control ^
parameters efficiency
Not specified 19.7%
Not specified 32.7%
Not specified 65.3%
Moisture = 0.25% 10%
Moisture = 0.18% 8%
Moisture = 0.18% 7%
Moisture = 0.19% 2%
Foam rate = 10.5 ft3/ 92%
ton sand
Liquid rate = 0.38
gal/min
Comments
Efficiency based on
concentration only
Efficiency based on
concentration only
Efficiency based on
concentration only.
Efficiency based on
concentration only
Efficiency based on
concentration only
Efficiency based on
concentration only
Efficiency based on
concentration only

                                                                    Foam rate =8.2 ft3/
                                                                      ton sand

                                                                    Liquid rate = 0.34
                                                                      gal/min

                                                                    Foam rate = 7.5 ft3/
                                                                      ton sand

                                                                    Liquid rate = 0.20
                                                                      gal/min

                                                                       (continued)
74%

-------
                                                                 TABLE 3-18.   (concluded)
OJ

en
00
Process
design/
Type of Type of operating
process material parameters
Grizzly Run of mill Not specified







Chain feeder Coal 3- ft drop,
to belt 8 tons coal
transfer per load
Belt-to-belt Coal Not specified
transfer
Control system Control .
parameters efficiency Comments
Foam rate =
ton sand
Liquid rate
gal/min
Foara rate =
ton sand
Liquid rate
gal/min
Liquid vol.
Liquid vol.
Liquid vol.
50 psi H20,
reagent,
15-20 cfm
applied
50 psi H20,
reagent,
15-20 cfm
applied
4.8 ft3/ 0%
= 0.18
2.6 ft3/ 0%

= 0.13
1,420 mL 91%
1,300 mL 73%
764 mL 68%
2.5% 96% Efficiency based on
4 nozzles concentration only
foam
2.5% 71% Control applied at a
4 nozzles point 5 transfers
foam upstream

                             Reproduced from Table 5-9 of Reference 13.   1 ft3 = 28.32 m3; 1 ton = 0.91 Mg; 1 gal. = 3.79  L;
                             1 Pa = 1.45(10) 4 psi.

                             Control efficiency values are for respirable dust which is approximately the same as

-------
                             TABLE 3-19.   SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE PM,0  CONTROL EFFICIENCY DATA FOR PLUME AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEMS
                                            (OPEN DUST SOURCES)3
en

Type of process
Belt conveyor
Drop box
Type of
material
Copper con-
centrate
Copper con-
centrate
Process design/
operating parameters
Not specified
Not specified
Fogger system
1-Ransburg REA fogger
mounted above belt
discharge;
WFR = 30-60 cc/min
AF = not specified
1-Ransburg REA fogger
in drop box enclosure;
Average
control
efficiency
64-77%
65.4%
                         Boxcar unloading    Silica sand    Not specified
                         Belt conveyor       Crushed ore
Conveyor width = 1.5 m
Belt speed = 152 m/min
Ventilation rate =
  15-61 m/min
  WFR = not specified
  AF = not specified

4-Ransburg REA foggers
  located 90° apart
  around source;
  WFR = 30 cc/min/fogger
  AF = not specified

6-Keystone Dynamics Model
  109s located 1.5 m
  above A/el t (spray con-
  current w/direction of
  belt movement);
  WFR = 300 cc/min/fogger
  AF = supply pressure =
    34.4-kPa
                                                         89%
0%
                            Includes only results of field testing.   Reproduced from Table 5-10 of Reference 11.

                            The Ransburg and Keystone foggers are based on the original  Hoenig design which uses  induction
                            charging and commercial spray nozzles.   WFR = water flow rate; AF = airflow to fogger(s).
                            Control efficiency values for respirable dust which is approximately the same as PM10.
                            ciency ranges include average efficiency for both positively/negatively charged fog.
                                                        Effi-

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3

 1.   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  Control Techniques for Particu-
     late Emissions from Stationary Sources - Volumes  1  and  2.   EPA-450/3-
     81-005, Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Research Triangle
     Park, NC, September 1982.

 2.   White, H. J.   Industrial  Electrostatic Precipitation.   Addison-Wesley
     Publishing Company, Reading, MA,  1963.

 3.   Portius, D.  H.,  et al.  Fine  Particle Charging  Experiments.   EPA-600/
     2-77-173, U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Research  Triangle
     Park, NC, August 1977.

 4.   McDonald, J.  R.   A Mathematical  Model of Electrostatic Precipitation
     (Revision I),  Volume  I, Modeling  and Programming.   EPA-600/7-78-llla,
     U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June
     1978.

 5.   Helfrich, D.  J., and T.  Ariman.    "Electrostatic  Filtration and the
     Apitron - Design  and  Field  Performance"  in  Proceedings:   Symposium on
     New  Concepts  for Fine Particle Control.   EPA-600/7-78-170,  U.S.  Envi-
     ronmental Protection  Agency,  Research Triangle  Park,  NC,  August 1978.

 6.   Dennis,  R. , and  H. A.  Klemm.  Fabric Filter Model  Format  Change,  Vol-
     ume  I, Detailed  Technical Report.   Final  Report,  EPA  Contract No. 68-
     02-2607,  Task No. 8,  GCA Technology Division,  Bedford, MA, January
     1969.

 7.   Dennis,  R.,  et  al.   Filtration  Model for  Coal  Fly Ash with Glass
     Fabrics.   EPA-600/7-77-084,  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle  Park, NC,  August 1977.
                                    3-60

-------
 8.   Dennis, R.,  and H.  A.  Klemm.   "Verification of Projected Filter System
     Design and Operation," in Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of
     Particulate Control Technology,  Volume 2,  Fabric Filters and Current
     Trends  in Control  Equipment.   EPA-600/7-79-044b, U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, February 1979.

 9.   Calvert, S.,  et al.   Wet Scrubber  System  Study,  Volume I,  Scrubber  .
     Handbook.    EPA-R2-72-118a,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1972.

10.   Yung, S-C. ,  et al.   Venturi Scrubber Performance Model.  EPA-600/2-77-
     172, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, August 1977.

11.   Reider, J.  P., and R.  F. Hegarty.  Fine Particle Emissions Information
     System:  Annual  Report  (1979).   EPA-600/7-80-092,  U.S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Washington, DC, May 1980.

12.   Larkin, R.  J.   Environmental  Assessment Data Systems:  Systems Overview
     Manual.   EPA-600/8-80-005,  U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1980.

13.   Cowherd, C.,  et al.   Identification,  Assessment, and Control  of  Fugi-
     tive Particulate Emissions.  Final Report, EPA Contract No.  68-02-3922,
     Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, MO, April 1985.

14.   Radkey, R.  L., and P.  B. MacCready.  A Study of the Use of Porous Wind
     Fences  to Reduce Particulate  Emissions at the Mohave Generating Sta-
     tion.  AV-R-9563, AeroVironment,  Inc., Pasadena, CA, 1980.

15.   Duncan, M. ,  et  al.   Performance Evaluation  of  an Improved  Street
     Sweeper.   Contract No.  68-09-3902,  U.S.  Environmental Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park,  NC, February 1984.
                                    3-61

-------
16.   McDermott, H.  J.   Handbook of Ventilation  for Contaminant Control.
     Fifth Printing,  Ann Arbor Science  Publishers,  Inc.,  Ann Arbor, MI,
     1983.

17.   Kashdan, E.  R., et al.   Technical Manual:  Hood System Capture of Pro-
     cess Fugitive  Particulate  Emissions.   Contract No. 68-02-3953,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park, NC, January
     1985.

18.   McCoy, J., et al.  Evaluation of Charged Water Sprays for Dust Control,
     Contract H0212012, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, January 1983.

19.   Muleski,  G.   E.,  et  al.   Extended Evaluation  of Unpaved  Road  Dust Sup-
     pressants in  the Iron  and Steel Industry.   EPA-600/2-84-027,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency,  Research Triangle Park,  NC,  February
     1984.
                                    3-62

-------
                                SECTION 4.0

            ESTIMATION OF CONTROL COSTS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
     Development and evaluation of PMio emission control strategies require
analyses of  the relative  costs  of alternative  control  measures.   Cost
analyses are used by control agency personnel to develop overall strategies
for a  specific geographical area  or  to evaluate plant-specific control
strategies.   Industry personnel  perform cost analyses to evaluate control
alternatives for a  particular  source  or to develop a plant-wide emissions
control strategy.   Although the details of these analyses may vary with the
objective of the analysis  and  the availability  of cost  data, the  general
format is similar.

     The primary goal of any cost  analysis  is to provide a  consistent  com-
parison of the  real  costs  of alternative control measures.   The objective
of this section is to provide a methodology that will allow such a compari-
son.   It will describe the overall structure of a cost analysis and provide
the procedures  and  resources for  conducting the  analyses.   Sources of  cost
information and mechanisms for cost updating also are provided.

     The approach outlined in this section will  focus on cost effectiveness
as the primary comparison tool.  Cost effectiveness is the ratio of the an-
nual ized cost  of  control  to the amount  of  emissions  reduction achieved.
Mathematically, cost effectiveness is defined by:

                                 c*  _  Ca                             (4-1)
                                 C   ~
                                    4-1

-------
where:    C* = cost effectiveness ($/mass of PM10 emissions reduction)
          C, = annualized cost of the control measure ($/year)
           a
          AR = reduction in annual emissions (PM10 mass/year)

This general methodology was chosen because it is applicable equally to dif-
ferent controls that achieve an  equivalent  emissions reduction on a single
source and to controls that achieve varied reductions over multiple sources.

     The discussion is divided into four subsections.   The first subsection
describes general  cost analysis  methodology including the  various types of
costs that  should  be considered  and presents methods for calculating  those
costs.  The  second subsection  identifies the primary cost  elements associ-
ated with each of the alternative control systems identified in Section 3.0.
The third subsection identifies generalized cost estimate procedures (i.e.,
graphs and  tables)  for  typical control scenarios.  The fourth subsection
presents example cost calculations for estimating control  costs for typical
control  scenarios.

4.1  GENERAL COST METHODOLOGY

     Calculation of  cost  effectiveness can be accomplished in four steps.
First, the  alternative  control/cost  scenarios  are selected.  Second,  the
capital  costs of each scenario are calculated.   Third,  the annualized costs
for each of the alternatives are developed.  Finally, the cost effectiveness
is  calculated  after consideration of  the  level  of emissions reduction.

     The general approach for performing each of the four steps is described
below.  This approach is intended to provide general guidance for cost com-
parison and should not be viewed as a rigid procedure that must be followed
in  detail for  all  analyses.   Some elements of the analysis may be omitted
by  choice or  because of resource or informational constraints.  However,
for comparisons to be  valid,  these cautions should be observed:  (1)  all
control  scenarios  should  be  treated in the same manner;  and (2) cost ele-
ments that  vary radically between cost scenarios  should  not be omitted.
                                    4-2

-------
4.1.1  Select Control/Cost Scenarios

     Prior to the cost analysis, general control measures or strategies will
have been  identified.   These  measures or strategies will fall into one of
the major  classes of  PM10 emission  control techniques that were  identified
in Section 3.0.  The  first step  in  the  cost analysis is  to select a set of
specific control/cost scenarios  from  the general techniques.  The specific
scenarios will include definition of the major cost elements and identifica-
tion of specific implementation alternatives  for each of the cost elements.

     Each  of  the general  control techniques  identified in Section 3.0 has
several major cost elements,  which include capital  equipment and operation/
maintenance (O&M) items.  For example, the major cost elements for chemical
stabilization  of  an unpaved  road include:   (a) acquiring the chemical;
(b) storing the chemical;  (c)  preparing the  road;  (d)  mixing the chemical
with water; and  (e) applying  the chemical  solution.   The next step in any
cost analysis  is definition  of these major cost elements.  Information is
provided in Subsection  4.2 on  the major cost elements associated with  each
of the general techniques defined above.

     For each  major cost element, several  implementation alternatives can
be chosen.  Options within  each cost element  include:   buying or renting
equipment; shipping  chemicals  by railcar,  truck tanker,  or  in  drums  via
truck; alternative  sources of power or other  utilities;  and  use of plant
personnel  or contractors for construction and maintenance.

4.1.2  Develop Capital Costs

     The capital costs  of a.i emissions  control system are those direct and
indirect expenses  incurred  up to the date the control  system is placed in
operation.  These  capital costs  include:   actual  purchase expenses  for
capital  equipment;  labor and  utility  costs associated with  installation of
the control  system; and system  shakedown and start-up costs.  In general,
direct capital  costs  are the costs of  equipment  and auxiliaries and the
labor,  material,  and utilities  needed  to  install  the equipment.  These
costs  include system instrumentation and  interconnection of the system.
                                    4-3

-------
     Capital costs also include any cost for site development necessitated
by the control  system.   For example,  if a fabric filter on a capture/col-
lection system  requires an  access road for removal  of the collected dust,
the access road is included as a capital expense.  The types of direct costs
typically associated with emissions control systems are included in Table 4-1.

     Indirect costs are associated costs  incurred by the facility but not
directly attributable to specific  equipment.   Items  in this category ar'e1:
     I.   Engineering costs — include  administrative,  process,  project, and
general; design  and related functions for  specifications;  bid analysis;
special  studies; cost  analysis;  accounting; reports; purchasing; procure-
ment; travel  expenses; living expenses;  expediting;  inspection; safety;
communications; modeling;  pilot plant studies; royalty payments during con-
struction;  training of plant personnel; field engineering; safety engineer-
ing; and consultant services.

     2.   Construction and field expenses — include costs for temporary field
offices; warehouses; craft sheds; fabrication shops; miscellaneous buildings;
temporary utilities; temporary sanitary facilities; temporary roads; fences;
parking lots;  storage  areas;  field computer services; equipment fuel and
lubricants; mobilization and demobilization; field office supplies; telephone
and telegraph; time-clock system; field supervision; equipment rental; small
tools; equipment repair; scaffolding; and freight.

     3.   Contractor's  fee — includes  costs for field-labor payroll; super-
vision  field  office;  administrative  personnel;  travel expenses;  permits;
licenses; taxes; insurance;  field overhead; legal liabilities;  and  labor
relations.

     4.   Shakedown/start-up — includes  costs associated with system startup
and shakedown.

     5.   Contingency  costs—the  excess account set up to deal with uncer-
tainties in  the  cost estimate including  unforeseen  escalation  in prices,
malfunctions, equipment design alterations, and similar over-runs.
                                    4-4

-------
     The values for  these  items  will  vary with the specific operations to
be controlled and  the  types of control systems used.  Typical ranges  for
indirect costs based on  the total installed cost of the capital  equipment
are shown in Table 4-2.

4.1.3  Determine Annual i zed Costs
     Ihe-mast-comm&R- basis for comparison of alternative control  systems is
by annual ized cost.  The  annual ized cost of an emission control system  in-
cludes operating costs such as labor,  materials,  utilities, and maintenance
as well as the annual ized cost of the capital  equipment.   The annual ization
of capi tal costs is^=c=3ass4ea4=engi-neer4ng=eeonomre^
te-wfei-Gh takes  into  account the  fact that money has  time value.  These  an-
nual ized costs depend on the interest rate paid on borrowed money or poten-
tial  interest lost on diverted company money,  the useful  life of the equip-
ment, and depreciation rates of the equipment.

     The components  of  the annual ized cost of implementing  a particular
control technique are presented in Table 4-3.   The operation and maintenance
costs  reflect increasing  frequency of repair as equipment  ages, along with
increased costs  due to inflation for parts,  energy, and labor.  On the other
hand,  costs  recovered by  tax credits or deductions are considered income.
Mathematically,  the annual ized costs of control equipment can be calculated
from:

                       Ca = (CRF x Cp) + CQ + 0.5 C0                  (4-2)
where:    C,  = annual ized costs of control  equipment ($/year)
           a
          CRF = capital  recovery factor (I/year)
          C   = installed capital costs ($)
          C   = direct operating costs ($/year)
          0.5 = plant overhead factor

The components of this equation are described below.
                                    4-5

-------
     The annualized  cost of capital equipment  is  calculated  by using a
capital recovery factor (CFR).   The capital  recovery factor combines  inter-
est on borrowed funds and depreciation  into  a single factor.   It is  a func-
tion of the interest rate and the overall  life of the capital  equipment and
can be estimated by the following equation:

                            CRF =   i(1 +'1)n                         (4-3)
                                  (1 +  i)n - 1
where:    i = interest rate (annual percent  as a fraction)
          n = economic life of the control system (years)

     The other major  components  of the annualized cost are operation and
maintenance costs (direct operating expenses) and associated plant overhead
costs.  Operation and maintenance costs elements typically  include1:

     1.  Utilities—include water  for  process use and cooling;  steam; and
electricity to operate controls, fans,  motors, pumps, valves,  and lighting.

     2.  Fuel  costs—include  the incremental  cost of the  fuel,  where more
than the normal supply is used.

     3.  Raw materials—include any chemicals needed to operate  the  system.

     4.  Operating  labor—includes supervision  and  the  skilled and  un-
skilled labor needed to operate, monitor,  and control the  system.

     5.  Maintenance and repairs--include  the manpower and  materials  to keep
the equipment  operating  efficiently.   The function of maintenance is both
preventive and corrective, to keep down-time to a minimum.

     6.  Byproduct  costs—in systems producing  a  salable  product,  these
would be a credit for that product; in  systems producing a  product for dis-
posal, these would be the costs of disposal.
                                    4-6

-------
     Another component  of  the  operating cost  is overhead, which  is  a  busi-
ness expense not  charged  directly to a particular part of the process but
is allocated to  it.   Overhead costs include:   administrative, safety, en-
gineering, legal, and medical  services; payroll; employee benefits; recre-
ation; and public relations.   As suggested by Equation 4-3, these charges
are estimated to be  approximately 50% of direct operating costs.
       Alternative Cost Estimation Procedures

     Several methods with varying levels of accuracy are available for esti-
mating the costs of control measures.   A brief description of these methods
is presented.

4.1-4:1  Detailed Engineering Cost Analysis--
     The detailed cost estimate can provide  accuracies of plus or minus 5%
depending on the  level  of engineering involved.  Detailed estimates take
several months  of engineering  effort  to produce process flow sheets,  mass
and energy  balances,  plot plans,  and equipment citing drawings to provide
the basis for subsequent cost analysis.   After the package of specifications
is established, contractors  and  equipment manufacturers can proceed with
their analyses  to provide a quotation for the  specified equipment.  This
level of cost estimation is typically performed after a formal  decision has
been reached on the most cost-effective control alternative.

4.1.4:2  Study Estimates--
     Study  cost estimates can provide accuracies of plus  or minus 30%.
Study estimates can be generally made within  a  few  hours or  days depending
on the availability of resources and unit cost information.   These estimates
are produced from a factored method by establishing direct and indirect in-
       i
stallation  costs that are  dependent on known  capital equipment costs.  The
technique used in Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Con-
trol Systems is a study  estimate1.  Study estimates  are used to help iden-
tify the most cost-effective control alternative(s)  and specification(s) to
begin a  detailed  engineering cost estimate.   Subsection 4.4.1 provides an
example study estimate for illustration.
                                    4-7

-------
4.1.4".3  Generalized Cost Estimate Procedures--
     Generalized cost  estimate procedures provide accuracies  of  plus or
minus  50%,  resulting in order of  magnitude  estimate of the anticipated
costs.   These estimates can be made rapidly by referring to a table, graph,
or known cost level for a similar design and a different capacity or scale.

     The "six-tenth  factor method" is used to  adjust mathematically the
known cost for a particular system design for another similar system with a
different scale.   Scaled  estimates are calculated by use of the following
general equation:

                            C2 = Ci  (^-)n                           (4-4)

where:     C2 = cost of desired control device
          G! = cost of known control device
          r2 = capacity of desired control device
          r1 = capacity of known desired control device
          n  s 0.6 (can vary from 0.5 to 0.7)

This method consists of using the above equation to relate the primary cost
variable with total costs and neglecting the effect of other cost variables.
Use  of  this  method should  be  limited  to  cases where  no  other cost  informa-
tion is available.

     Another generalized  cost  estimate procedure is  the  use of graphs  or
tables that relate cost values to the primary cost variable.  Graphs of this
type also provide  accuracies of plus or minus 50%.

     Section 4.3.1 presents graphs that show the relationship between gas
flow rate  and  estimated costs for the three conventional types of control
equipment for ducted sources.   The graphs in Section 4.3.1 also depict con-
trol costs  for  the respective secondary cost  factor.   The  secondary cost
factors are pressure drop and specific collection area (SCA) for wet scrub-
bers and  electrostatic precipitators  (ESP's),  respectively.   For fabric

                                    4-8

-------
filters, the secondary cost variable is based on the different design types
that are characterized by  cleaning method, air-to-cloth ratio, and bag ma-
terial.   Sections 4.3.2 and  4.3.3  present tables with generalized control
costs for process fugitive sources and open sources, respectively.

4.2  COST ELEMENTS AND SOURCES OF DATA

4.2.1  Cost Elements

     The cost methodology outlined in Section 4.1 requires that the analyst
define and  select alternative control/cost scenarios and  develop  costs for
the major cost elements within these scenarios.   The objective of this sec-
tion is to identify the implementation alternatives and major cost elements
associated with the emission reduction techniques identified in Section 3.0.
For  ducted  sources,  the  control techniques addressed  are wet scrubbers,
electrostatic precipitators,  and fabric  filters.   For process fugitive
sources, the primary  controls  discussed are wet suppression, capture/col-
lection, and  plume  aftertreatment.  For  open  dust sources, the  control
techniques addressed are wet dust suppression,  surface cleaning,  and paving.

     Control alternatives  for  ducted sources  are presented in Tables 4-4,
4-5, and 4-6  for wet scrubbers, ESP's, and fabric  filters,  respectively.
Process fugitive control  alternatives  are presented in Tables 4-7 through
4-9.  Table 4-7  outlines  alternatives  for wet suppression systems and Ta-
ble 4-8 alternatives  for  a typical capture/collection  system.  The options
shown in Table 4-8 are applicable for active enclosures, capture hoods, and
receiving hoods.  Table 4-9  presents implementation alternatives  for  plume
aftertreatment systems.

     Optional approaches for open dust source control  measures^are presented
in  Tables 4-10  through 4-13.   Table 4-10  presents implementation alterna-
tives for water  and chemical dust suppressant systems for stabilizing un-
paved travel  surfaces.   Table 4-11 presents options  for  improving paved
travel  surfaces:   sweeping,  flushing,  and a combination  of flushing and
                                    4-9

-------
broom sweeping.   Tables 4-12 and 4-13 present alternatives for wet suppres-
sion and paving of streets or parking lots, respectively.

     After control scenarios  are  selected, the analyst must then estimate
both the capital cost of the installed system and the operating and mainte-
nance costs.   The indirect capital cost elements common to all systems were
identified in Table 4-2.   The direct capital cost elements and operation
and maintenance  cost elements, which are unique to each type  of PM10  emis-
sion control  system,  are identified in Tables 4-14 through 4-22.

     Ducted source  control cost  elements  for  wet scrubbers,  ESP's,  and
fabric filters  are presented  in Tables 4-14, 4-15, and 4-16,  respectively.
Process fugitive control cost elements for wet suppression, capture/collec-
tion, and plume aftertreatment are presented in Tables 4-17, 4-18, and 4-19,
respectively.   Open dust  source  control  cost elements for stabilizing un-
paved  travel  surfaces  are presented  in  Table  4-20;  for improving paved
travel surfaces, in Table 4-21; and for paving, in Table 4-22.

4.2.2  Sources of Data

     Cost estimate procedures and information for ducted source control mea-
sures are contained in  References 1  through  20.   Venturi  scrubber cost  in-
formation is contained  in  References 1 and 11.  Electrostatic precipitator
cost  information  is contained in References 1 and 10.  Fabric filter cost
information is contained in References 1 and 12.  Wastewater treatment cost
information is  contained in  References 18 and  21.   Cost  information for
process fugitive sources and open dust controls are contained in References
20, 21, 22,  and 23.

     Cost information for updating unit costs are contained in Reference 1,
Chemical Engineering issues,  Producer  Prices and  Price Indexes and Employ-
ment and Earning Reports published by  the  U.S.  Department  of  Labor,  Bureau
of Labor Statistics.
                                    4-10

-------
4.3 /GENiflAtTZED COST ESTIMATE PROCEDURES
     This subsection presents  generalized cost  information  for quick  study
estimates (±50%)  for  the common PM10 control measures.   Development and
evaluation of PM10 control strategies require analyses of the relative cost
effectiveness of  alternative control measures.  Quick determination of the
cost effectiveness of alternative controls is helpful for screening purposes
because the least cost-effective options can be eliminated.   Thus, the most
cost-effective alternatives can then be studied in detail.  Combined use of
the generalized cost procedures in this section with the detailed procedures
presented in  Section  4.2 will  provide  increased  accuracies when needed.
4.3.1   QefteraTTzed Cost Estimation for Point Source Control Alternatives
     This section presents generalized cost data for three point source con-
trol alternatives.   Three cost  curves  representing purchased equipment
costs,  total capital costs, and annualized costs are given for each type of
control.   All costs were estimated from information contained in References 1
and 30 and updated to April 1985 dollars.

4.3.1.2  Wet Scrubber Generalized Cost Estimation—
     Figure 4-1 shows purchased equipment costs for a venturi scrubber with
a combined  throat  and  carbon steel construction for design pressure drops
of 20, 40,  and  60 in.  water column  (w.c.).   Figures  4-2  and 4-3 present
capital and  annualized  cost  for a venturi  scrubber with  carbon  steel  and
stainless steel  construction,  respectively,  for pressure drops of 20, 40,
and 60 in. w.c.

4.3.1.2  ESP Generalized Cost Estimation--
     Figures 4-4 shows  purchased  equipment  costs for  an insulated  ESP  with
carbon steel construction for four cases:   moderate-to-low resistivity dust
for  total  particulate  control efficiencies  of  99.5  and 99.9%; and high
resistivity  dust for total particulate control  efficiencies  of  99.5  and
99.9%.   Figure 4-5  shows  capital  and annualized costs for the four cases.
                                    4-11

-------
4.3.1.3  Fabric Filter Generalized Cost Estimation--
     Figure 4-6 shows purchased equipment costs for three fabric filter de-
signs:   (1) reverse  air cleaning with  air-to-cloth  ratios ranging  from  1.5
to 3.3 ft/min  with  nylon bags;  (2)  shake  cleaning with an air-to-cloth
ratios ranging from 2.0 to 3.3 ft/min with nylon bags; and (3) pulse clean-
ing with an air-to-cloth  ratios  ranging  from 3.3 to 7.0  ft/min with Nomex®
bags.   Figures 4-7 and 4-8  show capital  and annualized  costs for fabric
filters with stainless steel  and carbon steel  construction, respectively,
for the three cases.

     Each of the  control  system  cost curves include the  costs of  auxiliary
equipment normally associated  with  such  a system.   In some instances, one
may wish to  know  what the system would  cost  either with or  without  the
ductwork, fan,  and fan drive.   The capital  and annualized costs of the com-
ponents are shown in Figures 4-9 and 4-10.

4.3.2    Generalized Cost Estimation for Process and Open Source Fugitive
         Control Alternatives

     Table 4-23 presents typical costs for wet suppression of process fugi-
tive sources  and  Table 4-24  similar costs for wet suppression  of open
sources.   Cost  estimates  for  stabilization of  open  sources  and improvement
of paved travel surfaces are presented in Tables 4-25 and 4-26, respectively.

4.4  EXAMPLE COST ESTIMATE CALCULATIONS

     This section presents example calculations for estimating typical con-
trol costs of a point source, a process fugitive source, and an open source.
The example calculations  illustrate  the complete procedure for estimating
capital costs,  operating  and  maintenance costs, annualized  costs,  and cost
effectiveness.
                                    4-12

-------
4.4.1  Typical Ducted Source Control Cost Estimate

     The example calculation is based on applying a venturi scrubber with a
waste treatment  system  to  control  the emissions from a flash dryer in the
diatomite processing industry.   Tables 4-27 and 4-28 are presented as guide-
lines and working forms to be used to identify and specify the cost elements
to be estimated.  Table 4-27 is used  to  specify  the alternatives  necessary
to estimate  the  costs of the venturi  scrubber  to be installed  for this ex-
ample.   Table 4-28  is  used to  identify  the scope  of  cost elements to be
estimated.   Tables 4-29 and 4-30 present the details,  equations, and refer-
ences for estimating capital costs  and annualized  costs,  respectively, for
a typical ducted source.

     The costing technique demonstrated by this example (and used in Refer-
ence 1) is the factored method of establishing direct and  indirect  instal-
lation costs  based  on  known equipment costs.   The resulting cost estimate
using this method can provide accuracies of plus or minus  30%.  A descrip-
tion of  the  calculations used to estimate  capital  and annualized  costs and
cost effectiveness for the sample case follows.

     Capital  costs:   Estimation of  the capital costs for  this  example case
was performed using  the factored method (Reference 1), with the exception
of the wastewater treatment system (Reference/26J>>and co.ntinuous pressure
drop and liquid flow monitoring system (References 27, 28,29J^->Table 4-29
presents the capital costs for each component  in the venturi scrubber system
along with specifications and references.

     The control  devices and auxiliary  equipment  items  are individually
costed from identified graphs and tables contained in Reference 1.  Current
and appropriate cost factors are identified and used to update the December
1977 cost values  (used  in  Reference 1) to  April  1985 cost  values^   Sources
of these cost factors are also included  in Table 4-29.
     Wastewater treatment costs were obtained from Reference 26 and updated
from December 1982  values  to April 1985 values.  Continuous monitor costs
                                    4-13

-------
were obtained  from  vendors  and  updated  from February 1983 values to April
1985 values.

     Total annual ized costs:  Total annual i zed costs are  determined by  con-
sidering  all  the component  charges for:   utilities;  operating labor; total
maintenance; total  overhead; product recovery; and capital charges.   Product
recovery  costs, when applicable, represent  a cost savings.  Annual ized  costs
are determined by the following equation:

     Annual ized  costs =  utility  cost  +  operating labor + total  maintenance
                                                                     .
     cost + overhead  costs + capital  charges -, product  recovery  eos-ts-
     f- »
     Substituting appropriate dollar values:

     Annual ized costs = 487,299 + 31,105 + 27,200 + 44,484 +  365,497  -  0
                      = $955,565/yr
     Cost effectiveness:  Cost  effectiveness,  as discussed previously, is
calculated by use of Equation 4-1:
                               C* =
                                  _  Ca
                                    "AIT
The  estimated  PMio  emission  reduction is  determined by  the  following
equation:

                 AR = 4.285(10)"6 CPM10 x QQS x H x  Ei0                (4-5)
where:    AR    = annual reduction  in  PMio  emissions  (jnali/year);
          CPM10 = inlet concentration  of PMio to control device
                  (gr/dscf);
          Qg<-   = airflow rate to control device (dscf/min);
          H     = hours of operation (h/yr);
          EIO   = PMio control efficiency;
and       4.285 x 10"6 (mi°n) =  conversion factor.
                                    4-14

-------
     Substituting appropriate values:
       AR = (2.8 -SI-)(26,770 ^)(8,000 h/yr)(0.95)(4.285 x 10"6 m1'n"ton)
                 dscf          min                                   h-gr
          = 2,440 ton/yr

     Cost effectiveness for  PMio  is then calculated by substituting appro-
priate values:

       c* = _Ca_
             AR
       C* = ($955,585/yr)/(2,440 ton/yr)
       C* = $392/ton of PMio

4.4.2  Typical Fugitive Control Cost Estimates

     The example  calculation  is based on controlling  PMio  emissions  by wet
suppression at a typical crushing plant.  Tables 4-31 and 4-32 are presented
as guidelines and working forms to be used to identify and specify the cost
elements to  be  estimated  for this example case.  Table 4-33  presents de-
tailed  calculations  and references for typical  capital  costs,  operating
costs, annualized costs, and cost effectiveness values.

     The example calculation is based on controlling emissions by stabilizing
unpaved travel surfaces with a choice of two commercially available dust sup-
pressants.   Table 4-34  presents  the  steps  necessary to estimate costs and
cost effectiveness.   Tables 4-35 through 4-38 contain supplemental informa-
tion for Table 4-34.
                                    4-15

-------
                 TABLE 4-1.  TYPICAL CAPITAL COST ELEMENTS
   Equipment costs

   Equipment installation

   Instrumentation

   Duct work

   Piping

   Electrical

   Site development

   Buildings
         Painting

         Insulation

         Structural  support

         Foundations

         Supporting  administrative  structures

         Control panels

         Access  roads  or  walkways
           TABLE 4-2.  TYPICAL VALUES FOR INDIRECT CAPITAL COSTS1
       Cost item
                 Range  of  values
Engineering



Construction and field
  expenses

Contractor's fee

Shakedown/startup

Contingency
   8Jtp_2jO%__oJ  installed  cost.   High  value
   for  small  projects;  low  value for  large
   projects.
/"/to  70%b>f  iastal led  cost
V	-^
   "l'0""tb  30%>f  total  direct  and  indirect
    costs  depending  upon  accuracy  of  estimate.
    Generally,  20 percent is used  in  a study
    estimate.
                                    4-16

-------
               TABLE 4-3.   TYPICAL ANNUALIZED  COST  ELEMENTS
              	(.nil   d
Direct operating costs

Operating labor
  Operator
  Supervisor

Operating materials

Maintenance
  Labor
  Material

Replacement parts

Utilities
  Electricity
  Fuel oil No.  2
  Natural gas
  Plant water
  Water treatment
  Steam
  Compressed air

Waste disposal
$12.35/man-hour
15% of operator

As required
$13.60/man-hour
Equal to maintenance labor costs

As required
$0.0715/kWh
$0.809/gal.
$3.11/MCT
$0.60/1,000 gal,
$1.55/1,000 gal,
NAa
NA
As required
Indirect operating costs

Overhead


Property tax

Insurance

Administration

Capital recovery cost
80% of operating labor and
  maintenance labor

1% of capital costs

1% of capital costs

2% of capital costs

[i(l+i)n] * [d+i)n-l], 1 = annual
  interest rate, n = effective life;
  example factor for 13% interest and
  10 years equipment life = 0.1843
Credits
Recovered product
As required
   NA = Not available.
                                    4-17

-------
            TABLE 4-4.  -CONTROL  ALTERNATIVES-FOR WET SCRUBBERS



  I.  Basic design  decisions

      A.  What are  the  specifications  of the gas stream to be controlled?

          1.  Maximum gas  flow rate—actual  and dry standard conditions
          2.  Gas temperature  and  moisture content
          3.  Increase  in  gas  flow rate due to evaporative cooling, if
              any
          4.  Particulate  concentration and size distribution

      B.  What performance specifications are needed to achieve emission
          reduction?

          1.  Collection efficiency
          2.  Pressure  drop
          3.  Liquid-to-gas ratio
      C.  What materials  of  construction are required?

S6W.«&<1 A«°*ftT'
          1.  Metal  thickness  due to pressure drop and gas flow rate
          2.  Carbon steel or  stainless  steel
          &?
      D.  What are  the  waste treatment and disposal requirements?
           1.   Once  through  water system/A\t>ta^f
           2.   Chemicals  and equipment for treatment
           3.   Landfill or surface impoundment
       E.  What  are  the  Res^ter-a^nts for retrofit?
           1.   Space  limitations
           2.   Availability of water and surface impoundment
           3.   Minimum  outage period
           4,   Avt.ilab.liii A
  II.   Construction/installation decisions

       A.  Who  will  install  system?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Contractor

       B.  Who  is  responsible for system shakedown/start-up?

          1.   Plant environmental  staff
          2.   Plant personnel
          3.   Contractor
                                     4-18

-------
                          TABLE 4-4.  (concluded)
III.   Operation/maintenance decisions

      A.   What instrumentation is needed for reliable operation?

          1.   Pressure drop meters
          2.   Liquid flow meters
          3.   Temperature indicators
          4.   Recorders and control panel

      B.   Who will perform routine maintenance?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Contractor

      C.   How will collected particulate be disposed?

          1.   Returned to process
          2.   Landfilled
          3.   Surface impoundment
                                    4-19

-------
    TABLE 4-5.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS




 I.   Basic design considerations

     A.   What are the specifications of the gas stream to be controlled?

         1.   Maximum gas flow rate—actual  and dry standard conditions
         2.   Gas temperature and moisture content
         3.   Resistivity
         4.   Particulate concentration and size distribution

     B.   What performance specifications are needed to achieve emission
         reduction?

         1.   Collection efficiency
         2.   Specific collection area
         3.   Sectionalization
         4.   Precollector cyclones

     C.   What materials of construction are required?

         1.   Carbon or stainless steel
         2.   Insulated or uninsulated

     D.   How will collected material be handled?

         1.   Screw conveyor
         2.   Pneumatic transport
         3.   Slurry piping
         4.   Batch process
         5.   Need for fugitives control, if any

     E.   What are the restraints for retrofit?

         1.   Space
         2.   Electricity
         3.   Minimum outage period


II.   Construction/installation decisions

     A.   Who will install system?

         1.   Plant personnel
         2.   Contractor
                                   4-20

-------
                          TABLE 4-5.  (concluded)
      B.   Who is responsible for system shakedown/startup?

          1.   Plant environmental staff
          2.   Plant personnel
          3.   Contractor
III.   Operation/maintenance decisions

      A.   What instrumentation is needed for reliable operation?

          1.   Primary and secondary voltage and current meters
          2.   Indicators for plate and wire rapping
          3.   Temperature indicators
          4.   Recorders and control panel
          5.   Opacity monitor

      B.   Who will perform routine maintenance?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Contractor

      C.   How will collected particulate be disposed?

          1.   Returned to process
          2.   Landfilled
          3.   Surface impoundment
                                    4-21

-------
           TABLE 4-6.  £GNJJO:L^AbT€RNA=T=fVfS FOR FABRIC FILTERS



 I.   Basic design decisions

     A.   What are the  specifications of the gas stream to be controlled?

         1.   Maximum gas flow rate—actual  and dry standard conditions
         2.   Gas temperature and moisture content
         3.   Particulate concentration and size distribution

     B.   What performance specifications are needed to achieve emission
         reduction?

         1.   Collection  efficiency
         2.   Air-to-cloth ratio
         3.   Type of cleaning mechanism
         4.   Bag material   .                \

     C.   What materials  of construction are required?

         1.   Carbon or stainless steel
         2.   Insulated or uninsulated

     D.   How will collected material be handled?

         1.   Screw conveyor
         2.   Pneumatic transport
         3.   Slurry piping
         4.   Batch process
         5.   Need for fugitive control, if any

     E.   What are the restraints for retrofit?

         1.   Space
         2.   Minimum outage period

II.   Construction/installation decisions

     A.   Who will install system?

         1.   Plant personnel
         2.   Contractor

     B.   Who is responsible for system shakedown/startup?

         1.   Plant environmental staff
         2.   Plant personnel
         3.   Contractor
                                   4-22

-------
                        TABLE 4-6.   (concluded)
III.   Operation/maintenance decisions

      A.   What instrumentation is needed for reliable operation?

          1.   Bag pressure drop meters
          2.   Bag cleaning indicators
          3.   Temperature indicators
          4.   Recorders and control panel
          5.   Opacity monitor

      B.   Who will perform routine maintenance?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Contractor

      C.   How will collected particulate be disposed?

          I.   Returned to process
          2.   Landfilled
          3.   Surface impoundment

      D.   How frequently will bag replacement occur?

          1.   As needed
          2.   Every year
          3.   Every other year
                                  4-23

-------
          TABLE 4-7.   C@fcCERQt=Afc¥ERI*flfffVES FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF
                        PROCESS FUGITIVES
  I.   Basic design decisions

      A.   What type wet suppression system will be used?

          1.   Water spray
          2.   Water/surfactant spray
          3.   Micron-si zed foam
          4.   Combination system

      B.   What sources will be controlled?

      C.   What system layout will be used?

          1.   Centralized supply with headers for each source
          2.   Individual systems for some sources


II.    Construction/installation decisions

      A.   Who will install system?

          1.   Contractor
          2.   Plant personnel


III.   Operational decisions

      A.   What is the water source?

          1.   Plant wells
          2.   Local surface waters
          3.   City water system

      B.   Under what weather conditions will the system be needed?

          1.   Above freezing only
          2.   Below freezing

      C.   How will routine maintenance be provided?

          1.   Plant personnel
      "   2.   Maintenance contractor
                                    4-24

-------
      TABLE 4-8.   CONJ=R^t=AbTERNAT=I=V€S FOR CAPTURE/COLLECTION SYSTEMS



  I.   Basic design decisions

      A.   What type hooding system best fits each source?

          1.   Enclosure
          2.   Capture hood
          3.   Receiving hood

      B.   What type of air pollution control device best meets plant
          needs?

          1.   Cyclone
          2.   Wet scrubber
          3.   Fabric filter

      C.   How will collected particulate be handled?

          1.   Screw conveyor
          2.   Pneumatic transport
          3.   Slurry piping
          4.   Batch removal

      D.   What system layout will be used?

          1.   Multiple collection points ducted to centralized air
              pollution control device
          2.   Dedicated air pollution control devices for each source
          3.   Mixed system

      E.   Who will design the system?

          1.   Outside design of total system
          2.   Plant design of system with vendor design of individual
              components

II.    Construction/installation

      A.   Who will install system?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Contractor

      B.   Who is  responsible for system shakedown/start-up?

          1.   Plant environmental staff
          2.   Plant operators
          3.   Contractor personnel
                                    4-25

-------
                          TABLE 4-8.   (concluded)
III.   Operational decisions (dependent on type of system selected)

      A.   What electrical source will be used?

          1.   Public utility
          2.   Plant power system

      B.   What water source will be used?

          1.   Plant well
          2.   Local surface water
          3.   Public water system

      C.   How will routine maintenance be provided?

          1.   Plant personnel
          2.   Outside contractor

      D.   How will collected particulate be disposed?

          1.   Returned to process
          2.   Landfilled
          3.   Surface impoundment
                                    4-26

-------
    TABLE 4-9.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR PLUME AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEMS
  I.   Basic design decisions

      A.   What sources are to be controlled?

      B.   What is the physical size of the source and resulting dust
          plume?

      C.   Is the area sheltered from wind or cross drafts such that
          aftertreatment can be effectively applied?

      D.   How many foggers or nozzles are to be used and where are
          they to be positioned?

      E.   How will water and electric power be supplied to unit(s)?
          1.  Central system
          2.  Separate line(s) from multiple sources


 II.   Construction/installation decisions

      A.   Who will install system?
          1.  Contractor
          2.  Plant personnel


III.   Operational decisions

      A.   What is the water source?
          1.  Plant wells
          2.  Local surface waters
          3.  City water system

      B.   What electrical source will be used?
          1.  Public utility
          2.  Plant power

      C.   Under what weather conditions will the system be needed?
          1.  Above freezing only
          2.  Below freezing

      D.   How will routine maintenance be provided?
          1.  Plant personnel
          2.  Maintenance contractor
                                 4-27

-------
          TABLE 4-10.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR STABILIZATION OF
                         UNPAVED TRAVEL SURFACES
                                                     Dust suppressant type
      Program implementation alternative             Chemicals       Water


I.     Purchase and ship dust suppressant
      A.   Ship in railcar tanker (11,000-22,000           x
          gal/tanker)
      B.   Ship in truck tanker (4,000-6,000 gal/          x
          tanker)
      C.   Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)           x

II.    Store dust suppressant
      A.   Store on plant property
          1.   In new storage tank                         x
          2.   In existing storage tank
              a.   Needs refurbishing                      x
              b.   Needs no refurbishing                   x
          3.   In railcar tanker
              a.   Own railcar                             x
              b.   Pay demurrage            "              x
          4.   In truck tanker
              a.   Own truck                               x
              b.   Pay demurrage                           x
          5.   In drums                                    x
      B.   Store in contractor tanks                       x

III.   Prepare road
      A.   Use plant-owned grader to minimize ruts         x            x
          and low spots
      B.   Rent contractor grader                          x            x
      C.   Perform no road preparation                     x            x

IV.    Mix dust suppressant/water in application
      truck
      A.   Put suppressant in spray truck
          1.   Pump suppressant from storage tank          x
              or drums into application truck
          2.   Pour suppressant from drums into            x
              application truck, generally using
              fork!ift
      B.   Put water in application truck
          1.   Pump from river or lake                     x            x
          2.   Take from city water line                   x            x

V.     Apply suppressant solution via surface
      spraying
      A.   Use plant owned application truck               x            x
      B.   Rent contractor application truck               x            x
                                    4-28

-------
        TABLE 4-11.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PAVED
                       TRAVEL SURFACES
               Program
      implementation alternative
    Control alternatives
                    Flushing
                       and
 Broom-              broom-
sweeping  Flushing  sweeping
  I.   Acquire flusher and driver

      A.   Purchase flusher and use plant
          driver

      B.   Rent flusher and driver

      C.   Use existing unpaved road
          watering truck
              x

              x
X


X
 II.   Acquire broom sweeper and driver

      A.   Purchase broom sweeper and
          use plant driver

      B.   Rent broom sweeper and driver
III.   Fill  flusher tank with water

      A.   Pump water from river or lake

      B.   Take water from city line

 IV.   Maintain purchased flusher

  V.   Maintain purchased broom sweeper
              x

              x

              x
x

x

x

x
                                    4-29

-------
    TABLE 4-12.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF UNPAVED
                   SURFACES
      Program implementation alternatives

  I.   Prepare road

      A.   Use plant owned grader to minimize ruts and low spots

      B.   Rent contractor grader


 II.   Put water into application truck

      A.   Pump from river or lake

      B.   Take from city water


III.   Apply water via surface spraying

      A.   Use plant owned application truck

      B.   Rent contractor application truck
                                    4-30

-------
     TABLE 4-13.   CONTROL ALTERNATIVES FOR PAVING
Program implementation alternative


  I.   Excavate existing surface to make way for
      base and surface courses
      A.   2-in.  depth
      B.   4-in.  depth
      C.   6-in.  depth

 II.   Fine grade and compact subgrade

III.   Lay and compact crushed stone base course

      A.   2-in.  depth
      B.   4-in.  depth
      C.   6-in.  depth

 IV.   Lay and compact hot mix asphalt surface
      course (probably AC120-150)

      A.   2-in.  depth
      B.   4-in.  depth
      C.   6-in.  depth
                       4-31

-------
  TABLE 4-14.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR WET SCRUBBERS
Capital Equipment

  Scrubber
  Separator
  Quencher (precooler)
  Radial tip fan
  Fan motor

  Motor starter
  Fan damper(s)
  Motor
  Duct insulation

  Slurry pump
  Sump pump
  Instrumentation and control panel f
                                  (IT
O&M Expenditures

  Utilities
  Water
  Electricity

  Materials
  Chemicals
  Spare parts      ,    ,   1,^4.   L-
               vi Bfi^bTW t* ^V\ v~t*s*)

  Labor
  Operators
  Maintenance
  Supervision
                          4-32

-------
  TABLE 4-15.  CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
Capital Equipment

  Electrostatic precipitator
  Precollector cyclone
  Fan--backwardly curved blades
  Fan motor
  Motor starter

  Fan damper(s)
  Motor drive
  Duct
  Insulation
  Instrumentation and control panel

  Ash handling/removal
  Hopper heaters
O&M Expenditures

  Utilities
  Electricity

  Materials
  Spare parts    /     /
                      ehsfo$&/ e-oir/reca^evf CreJ/r
  Labor                                '
  Operators
  Maintenance
  Supervision
                          4-33

-------
  TABLE 4-16.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR FABRIC FILTERS
Capital Equipment

  Fabric filter
  Fan—backwardly curved blades
  Fan motor
  Motor starter
  Motor drive

  Fan damper(s)
  Duct
  Insulation
  Ash handling/removal
  Instrumentation and control panel
O&M Expenditures

  Utilities
  Electricity
  Compressed air

  Materials
  Spare parts
  Replacement bags

  Labor
  Operators
  Maintenance
  Supervision
                          4-34

-------
  TABLE 4-17.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF
                 PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Capital Equipment

  - Water spray systems
    •  Supply pumps
    •  Nozzles
    •  Piping (including winterization)
    •  Control system
    •  Filtering units

  - Water/surfactant and foam systems only
    •  Air compressor
    •  Mixing tank
    •  Metering or proportioning unit
    •  Surfactant storage area


O&M Expenditures

  - Utility costs
    •  Water
    •  Electricity

  - Supplies
    •  Surfactant
    •  Screens

  - Labor
    •  Maintenance
    •  Operation
                          4-35

-------
  TABLE 4-18.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR CAPTURE/COLLECTION SYSTEMS3
Capital  Equipment

  - Dust collector
    •   Fabric filter or scrubber
    •   Concrete work
    •   Dust removal system
    •   Control instrumentation
    •   Monitoring instrumentation

  - Hood(s) or enclosure(s)

  - Ventilation system
    •   Fan
    •   Electrical wiring
    •   Ductwork
    •   Concrete support work
    •   Damper system
    •   Expansion joints

  - Dust storage system
O&M Expenditures

  - Utilities
    •   Electricity
    •   Water

  - Supplies
    •   Replacement bags
    •   Fan motors
    •   Chemical additives for scrubber

  - Labor
    •   System operation
    •   Control device maintenance and cleaning
    •   Ductwork maintenance

  - Disposal of collected particulate
a  Specific items included will depend on the control
   scenario selected.
                          4-36

-------
  TABLE 4-19.   CAPITAL AND O&M EXPENDITURES FOR PLUME
                 AFTERTREATMENT SYSTEMS
Capital Equipment

  - Fogging or spray heads (nonelectrostatic)
    •   Atomizers
    •   Supply pumps
       Plumbing (including weatherization)
    •   Water filters
    •   Flow control system

  - Electrostatic foggers or spray nozzles
       Atomizer(s) and high voltage power supply
       Water pumps and plumbing (including
       weatherization)
    •   Water filters
    •   Flow control system
       Power lines and electric utilities
O&M Expenditures

  - Utility costs
    •   Water
       Electricity

  - Supplies
    •   Antifreeze agent(s)
    •   Screens
    •   Replacement electrodes (if applicable)

  - Labor
       Operation
    •   Maintenance
                          4-37

-------
   TABLE 4-20.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                  ITEMS FOR CHEMICAL STABILIZATION
                  OF UNPAVED TRAVEL SURFACES3
Capital Equipment

  - Storage equipment
    •   Tanks
    •   Rail car
    •   Pumps
    •   Piping

  - Application equipment
    •   Trucks
    •   Spray system
    •   Piping (including winterizing)
O&M Expenditures

  - Utility or fuel costs
    •   Water
    •   Electricity
    •   Gasoline or diesel fuel

  - Supplies
    •   Chemicals
    •   Repair parts

  - Labor
    •   Application time
    •   Road conditioning
    •   System maintenance
   Not all items are necessary for all systems.   Spe-
   cific items are dependent on the control scenario
   selected.
                          4-38

-------
  TABLE 4-21.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PAVED
                 TRAVEL SURFACES
Capital Equipment

  - Sweeping
    •  Broom
    •  Vacuum system

  - Flushing
    •  Piping
    •  Flushing truck
    •  Water pumps
O&M Expenditures

  - Utility and fuel costs
    •  Water
    •  Gasoline or diesel fuel

  - Supplies
       Replacement brushes

  - Labor
    •  Sweeping or flushing operation
    •  Truck maintenance

  - Waste disposal
                          4-39

-------
  TABLE 4-22.   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                 ITEMS FOR PAVING
Capital Equipment

  - Operating equipment
    •  Graders
       Paving application equipment
    •  Materials
    •  Paving material (asphalt or concrete)
    •  Base material
O&M Expenditures

  - Supplies
    •   Patching material


  " UbS^rfB-ce- re-ara-ffon              ^V
    •   f-avtng	                   *  ^   J
       Road maintenance
       Equipment maintenance
                          4-40

-------
  TABLE 4-23.   TYPICAL COSTS FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF PROCESS
                 FUGITIVE SOURCES3
Source method
Initial  cost
(April  1985
 dollars)0
Unit operat-
  ing cost
(April 1985
 dollars0)
Rail car unloading station      48,700
  (foam spray)

Rail car unloading station      168,000
  (charged fog)

Conveyor transfer point        23,700
  (foam spray)
Conveyor transfer point        19,800
  (charged fog)
                 NR
                 NR
                 0.02 to
                 0.05/ton
                 material
                 treated

                 NR
   Reference 20.   NR = Not reported.

   January 1980 costs updated to April 1985 cost by Chemical
   Engineering Index.  Factor = 1.315.

   Based on use of 16 large devices at $10,500 each.

   Based on use of three small devices at $6,600 each.
                            4-41

-------
       TABLE 4-24.   TYPICAL COSTS FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF
                      OPEN SOURCES3
                             Initial
                           capital cost       Annual operating
                           (April 1985        cost (April 1985
Source method               dollars)              dollars)
Unpaved road-regular       17,100/truck       32,900/truck
  watering

Storage pile-regular       18,400/system      NR
  watering                                            
-------
     TABLE 4-25.   SELECTED COST ESTIMATES FOR STABILIZATION
                    OF OPEN DUST SOURCES3
  Source/control
      method
  Initial
capital cost
(April 1985
 dollars)0
Annual operating
cost (April 1985
    dollars)0
Unpaved road-
  chemicals (lignin
  or coherex)

Unpaved road-
  asphaltic paving

Exposed areas-
  chemicals

Exposed areas-
  asphalt paving

Storage piles-
  surface crusting
  chemicals

Exposed areas-
  vegegation
7,800-19,700/mile     7,800-19,700/mile
44,700-80,200/mile    6,600-11,900/milec
1,060/acre
15,700/acre
18,400/system
200-790/acre
40-80/acre
NR
0.006-0.01/ft2
NR1
   Reference 20.   NR = Not reported.

   January 1980 costs updated to April 1985 cost by Chemical
   Engineering Index.  Factor = 1.315.

   Based on resurfacing every 5 years and 15% opportunity costs.

   Dependent on type of vegegation planted, condition of soil,
   and climate.
                              4-43

-------
   TABLE 4-26.   COST ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF PAVED TRAVEL
                  SURFACES
                           Initial
                         capital  cost           Annual  operating
  Source/control          (April  1985            cost (April 1985
      method              dollars)3               dollars)3'0
Paved road-sweeping      6,580-19,700/truck     27,600/truck

Paved road-vacuuming     36,800/truck           34,200/truck

Paved road-flushing      18,400/truck           27,600/truck
a  January 1980 costs updated to April  1985 cost by Chemical
   Engineering Index Factor = 1.315.   Reference 20.

   Cost per mile depends on nature of process and the site.
                               4-44

-------
  TABLE 4-27.   EXAMPLE  CALCULATION CASE:  CONTROL COST ALTERNATIVES FOR
                 WET  SCRUBBER ON DUCTED SOURCES
 I.   Basic  design  decisions

     A.   What  are  the  specifications of the gas stream to be controlled?

         1.  . Maximum gas  flow  rate—40,000 acfm; 26,800 dscfm

         2.  Gas temperature and moisture content—250°F; 10% H20
         3.  Increase  in  gas flow rate due to evaporative cooling—none
         4.  Particulate  concentration and size distribution—
            4.0 gr/dscf,  total particulate; estimated PM10 concentra-
            tion  =2.8 gr/dscf

     B.   What  performance specifications are needed to achieve emission
         reduction?

         1.  Efficiency—99.38 percent, total particulate; 95 percent,
            PMio, estimated
         2.  Pressure  drop—14 in. w.c. estimated
         3.  Liquid-to-gas ratio—10 gpm/1,000 acfm

     C.   What  materials of construction are required?

         1.  Metal thickness due to pressure drop—3/16 in.
         2.  Carbon steel  or stainless steel—carbon steel

     D.   What  are  the  wastewater treatment and disposal requirements?

         1.  Chemicals and equipment for treatment—centralized system
         2.  Return to process—no
         3.  Landfill—yes
         4.  Surface impoundment—no

     E.   What  are  the  restraints for retrofit?

         1.  Space limitations—none
         2.  Availability of water and surface impoundment—none
         3.  Minimum outage period—none

II.   Construction/installation decisions

     A.   Who will  install  system?

         1.  Plant personnel —no
         2.  Contractor—yes
         3.  Overtime—no
                                  4-45

-------
                          TABLE  4-27.   (concluded)
      B.   Who is responsible for system shakedown/start-up?

          1.   Plant environmental  staff—no
          2.   Plant personnel — no
          3.   Contractor—yes

III.   Operation/maintenance decisions

      A.   What instrumentation is needed for reliable operation

          1.   Pressure drop meters—yes
          2.   Liquid fow meters—yes
          3.   Temperature indicators—yes
          4.   Recorders and control panel—yes

      B.   How will  routine  maintenance  be performed?

          1.   Plant personnel--yes
          2.   Contractor—no
                                    4-46

-------
     TABLE 4-28.   EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE:   CAPITAL EQUIPMENT AND O&M
                    EXPENDITURE ITEMS FOR A WET SCRUBBER ON A TYPICAL
                    DUCTED SOURCE
Capital Equipment

  Scrubber
  Separator
  Quencher (precooler)
  Radial tip fan
  Fan motor

  Motor starter
  Fan damper(s)
  Motor drive
  Duct insulation

  Scrubber pump
  Sump pump and motor
  Instrumentation and control  panel
  Clarifier

  Vacuum filter
O&M Expenditures

  Utilities
    Water
    Electricity

  Materials
    Chemicals
    Spare parts

  Labor
    Operators
    Supervision
    Maintenance
Venturi
Included with venturi
Not needed
Yes
Dip proof

Included
Included
Included
Not needed
Included
Included
Included
Included
  system
Included
  system
with venturi
with venturi
with venturi
in water treatment

in water treatment
Make up water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                                    4-47

-------
                   TABLE 4-29.  EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE:  CAPITAL  COSTS FOR A WET SCRUBBER
                                 ON A TYPICAL  DUCTED SOURCE
-P»

00

Component
Control device
Venturi scrubber
Automatic variable
Total
Auxiliary equipment
Ductwork
Radial tip fan
BLS Code 1147C
Fan motor
BLS Code 11730/403.99°
Magnetic starter
BLS Code 11750.781.05°
V-belt drive5
BLS Code 1145°
Fan outlet damper
CE Index
Total
Specifications
Includes venturi, separator, pumps,
and controls; carbon steel, 14 in. WP,
3/16 in. thickness, 1.3 adjustment
factor
Update factor: b 336.2 -=- 2,262 = 1.486
Carbon steel 50 fet. , 1/8" in. 2 elbows
38,000 acfm, static pressure = 16.4
Update factor: 358.9 -=- 234.4 = 1.531
150 hp, 600 rpm-motor
Update factor: 334.5 -=- 216.3 =
1.593 x 110.5 = 1.760
With circuit breaker, 150 hp
Update factor: 254.1 -=- 176.3 = 1.441
Standard
Update factor: 337.6 4- 213.7 = 1.580
27,000 dscfm, 16.4 in. static pressure
Update factor: 1.486
Capital
Dec. 1977
28,700
6,350
35,050
3,851
8,800
10,000
1,450
573
825
cost ($)
April 1985
42,650
9,435
52,085
5,722
13,474
17,600
2,089
905
1,226
41,016
Reference3
5-13, 5-14
5-13
4-16, 4-17
4-19, 4-22
4-60, 4-63
4-61
4-62, 4-68,
4-61
4-66
4-65
Wastewater treatment
                             Clarifier, vacuum filter, and controls
                                                                                                   ,^r^^

-------
                                             TABLE 4-29.   (continued)
-p*

10
     Component
Specifications
   Capital cost ($)
Dec.  1977   April 1985
         costs
       Installation—direct
         costs
taxes (3 percent), freight (5 percent);
total (18 percent); multiplier
factor =0.18

Foundations and supports (4 percent),
erection and handling (50 percent),
electrical (8 percent), piping
(1 percent), insulation (2 percent),
and painting (2 percent); total
(67 percent); multiplier factor = 0.67
               454,915
Reference
Continuous monitors
--flow meter
--pressure drop sensor
--chart/vendor
CE Index5
Total
TOTAL EQUIPMENT COSTS

Purchased equipment
Impeller, sensor, display, output
transmitter
With transmitter
Two per recorder
Update factor: 336.2 -=• 327.6 = 1.026

Control device, auxiliary equipment,
wastewater treatment, and continuous
monitors
Instruments and controls (10 percent),
740e
740e
l,420e
2,900 2,976
5,876
678,977

122,216
Quote from
vendor
Quote from
vendor
Quote from
vendor

3-11
3-11
3-11

-------
                                             TABLE 4-29.   (concluded)
en
o
                                                                          Capital cost ($)
Component
Continuous monitors
(continued)
Specifications

Dec. 1977 April 1985

Reference

       Installation indirect
         cost
Total  capital  costs
                          Engineering  and  supervision  (20  percent),
                          construction and field  expenses
                          (20 percent),  construction fee
                          (10 percent),  start-up  (1 percent),
                          performance  test (1  percent),
                          contingencies  (3 percent); total
                          (55 percent);  multiplier factor  =  0.55
  373,437
3-11
1,629,500 (rounded)
        All numbers indicate page numbers in Reference 1,  except where noted otherwise.

        Chemical Engineering Fabricated Equipment Index:   April  1985 Index '  December 1977 index = update
        factor.

        Bureau of Labor Statistics Index; April  1985 Index;  December 1977 index = update factor.

        Value prorated for 40 percent of total  system costs; referenced installed cost converted to capital
        cost; December 1982 costs updated to April  1985 costs by Chemical Engineering Index.

        Vendor quote obtained in February 1983;  updated to April 1985 costs by C.E.  index.

-------
          TABLE 4-30.   EXAMPLE  CALCULATION  CASE:   ANNUALIZED  COSTS  AND  COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR A
                         WET SCRUBBER  ON  A  TYPICAL DUCTED  SOURCE

Component
Capital costs
--Sump pump
— Makeup water cost
--Water treatment
Operating labor costs
— Operating labor
--Supervisory labor
Maintenance cost
--Maintenance labor
--Materials
Specifications
10 hp, 8,000 hr/yr
0.50 gal/1,000 gal., $0.60/1,000 gal.
$2.16/1,000 gal., 400 gpm
2 hr/shift, $12.35/hr
15% of operating labor
1 hr/shift, $13.60/hr
Equal to maintenance labor costs
Annuali zed cost
April 1985 ($)
4,267
58
414,700
487,299
24,700
3,705
31,105
13,600
13,600
27,200
Reference3
3-17
Estimate
3-14
3-12
3-14, 3-12
3-12
Overhead
80% of total O&M costs
                                                                        7
44,484
3-12

-------
                                      TABLE 4-30.   (concluded)
Component
                                Specifications
                                                                        Annual ized cost
                                                                         April  1985 ($)
                                                                                             Reference
Capital  charges
  — Administrative costs
  — Property costs
  — Insurance
  —Capital recovery
Total annual ized costs
                                2% of capital  costs
                                1% of capital  costs
                                1% of capital  costs
                                10 yr,  13% interest,  CFR = 0.1843
                                                                                 32,590
                                                                                 16,295
                                                                                 16,295
                                                                                300,317
                                                                                365,497
                                Utilities,  operating labor,  total  maintenance,  955,585
                                overhead,  and  capital  charges
Total annual ized costs,
  (rounded)

COST EFFECTIVENESS

  Calculated emission reduction =
                                                                              955,600
                                                                                             3-12
                                                                                             3-12
                                                                                             3-12
                                                                                             3-12
                                                                                             3-11
  (2.8 gr/dscf)(26,770 dscf/min)(8,000 h/yr)(0. 95)(4. 285 xlO-6
                                                                      = 2,440 tons/yr
Cost effectiveness = $955,600 yr/2,440 ton/yr = $392/ton of particulate.
 All numbers indicate page numbers  in Reference  1.

-------
 TABLE 4-31.   EXAMPLE  CALCULATION CASE:  CONTROL COST ALTERNATIVES FOR WET
                SUPPRESSION OF  PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
  I.    Basic  design  decisions

       A.  What type  wet  suppression system will be used?

          1.   Water  spray—yes
          2.   Water/surfactant  spray—no
          3.   Micron-sized  foam—no
          4.   Combination systm—no

       B.  What sources will  be  controlled?  One primary, one secondary,
          and one  tertiary  crusher; truck dump to primary crusher, two
          screens, and six  conveyor transfer points

       C.  What system  layout will  be  used?

          1.   Centralized supply with headers for each source—yes
          2.   Individual systems for  some sources
              Note:  process operates 40 hr/week, 48 week/yr, totaling
              1,920  hr/yr;  controls operate 80% of process time, or
              1,536  hr/yr

II.     Construction/installation decisions

       A.  Who will install  system?

          1.   Contractor—yes
          2.   Plant  personnel—no

III.    Operational decisions

       A.  What is  the water source?

          1.   Plant  wells—yes
          2.   Local  surface waters—no
          3.   City water system—no

       B.  Under what weather conditions will the system be needed?

          1.   Above  freezing only-no
          2.   Below  freezing—yes, requires winterization

       C.  How will routine  maintenance be provided?

          1.   Plant  personnel—yes
          2.   Maintenance contractor—no
                                    4-53

-------
    TABLE 4-32.   EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE:   CAPITAL
                   EQUIPMENT AND O&M EXPENDITURE
                   ITEMS FOR WET SUPPRESSION OF
                   PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Capital  Equipment

- Water spray systems
    •   Supply pumps--yes
    •   Nozzles—yes
    •   Piping (including winterization)—yes
    •   Control system—yes
       Filtering units—yes

  - Water/surfactant and foam systems only
    •   Air compressor—yes
    •   Mixing tank—yes
    •   Metering or proportioning unit—yes
    •   Surfactant storage area—yes
O&M Expenditures

  - Utility costs
    •   Water—yes,  $/l,000 gal.
    •   Electricity—yes,  $/kWh

  - Supplies
    •   Surfactant—yes
    •   Screens—no

  - Labor
    •   Maintenance—192 hr/yr
    •   Operation—96 hr/yr
                          4-54

-------
      TABLE 4-33.  EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE:  COST ESTIMATION FOR
                     PROCESS FUGITIVE CONTROL
Type of equipment
                                       Equipment  Installation    Total
                                       cost ($)     cost ($)     cost ($)
CAPITAL COSTS3 'b
Wet suppression system
Water filter and flush
High pressure system for truck dump
Shelter house
Winterizationc
Total
Component
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Utilities
24,520
2,970
4,630
4,280
3,640
40,040


33,830
350
2,290
640
3,710
40,820

_ f) ,ni£/V
58,350
3,320
6,920
4,920
7,350
80,860

Annual i zed
cost ($)
k
Electrical .power - 2,880 kWh/yjr_@
  5.5
-------
                         TABLE 4-33.   (concluded)
COST EFFECTIVENESS

  Operating rate:    300 ton/hr        ~)
  Operating hours:  1,920 hr/yr       /
  Utilization:      80%

  Calculated emissions reductions
    Primary crusher:     (29 ton/yr)(0.80)  =  23
    Secondary crusher:  (173 ton/yr)(0.65) = 112
    Tertiary crusher:    (864 ton/yr)(0.5)  = 432
    Screens:            (190 ton/yr)(0.5)  =  95
  Total = 662 ton/yr

  Cost effectiveness = 552'ton/yr = $46/ton of Particulate
   Reference for capital costs and units of operating materials, utilities,
   and labor:   Evans, R. J.,  Methods and Costs of Dust Control in Stone
   Crushing Operations, PB-240 834, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1C 8669,
   January 1975.

   Costs are updated from July 1974 to January 1984 using the CE Plant Cost
   Index for Fabricated Equipment.

   Estimated as 10% of other capital equipment.

   Estimated average cost of electrical power for industrial users as of
   January 1984 based on Energy Users.

8  MRI estimate.

   Estimated hourly rate for a laborer in the minerals manufacturing indus-
   try in January 1984 based on statistics in the Monthly Labor Review.

9  Costs updated from July 1974 to January 1984 using CE Plant Cost Index
   for Pipes, Valves, and Fittings.
                                    4-56

-------
    TABLE 4-34.   EXAMPLE CALCULATION CASE:   COST AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
                   ESTIMATE FOR TYPICAL OPEN SOURCE CONTROL
     This table lists the steps necessary to calculate the cost effective-
ness for two control alternatives for stabilizing unpaved travel surfaces.
Following the list  of  nine  steps is an  example  problem  illustrating the
calculations.   Table 4-35 through 4-38  are  referenced in the calculations
in Table 4-34.

     Step 1 -  Specify Desired Average Control  Efficiency  (e.g., 50, 75,
or 90%)

     Step 2 -  Specify Basic  Vehicle, Road and Climatological  Parameters
for the Particular Road of Concern

     Required  vehicle characteristics include:

     1.  Average  Daily  Traffic  (ADT)-This  is the number  of vehicles using
the road regardless  of  direction of  travel (e.g., on a two lane road in an
iron and steel plant,  100 vehicles  in one direction,  and 100 in the other
direction during a single day yields 200 ADT);
     2.  Average vehicle weight in short tons;
     3.  Average number of vehicle wheels;  and
     4.  Average vehicle speed in mph.

     Required  road characteristics include:
     1.  Actual  length of roadway to be controlled in  miles;
     2.  Width of road to be controlled;
     3.  Silt  content (in percent)-For an existing road,  these values should
be measured; however,  for a proposed plant,  average values shown in AP^^
can be used;                                                              "2-
     4.  Surface  loading  (for paved roads)  in Ib/mile -  This is the total
loading on  all traveled lanes rather than the average  lane  loading; and
     5.  Bearing  strength of  the road-At this time, just a visual  estimate
of low, moderate,  or high is required.
     Required  Climatological  characteristics  (applicable  only to watering
of unpaved  roads):   Potential  evaporation  in mm/hr—the value depends on
both the location and  the month of  concern.  Control  efficiency data in
this  report for  watering unpaved  roads assume  a location in Detroit,
Michigan, in the  summer.

     Step 3 -  Calculate the  Uncontrolled Annual  Emission Rate as the
Product of the Emission Factor and the Source Extent

     The emission factor  (E)  should  be  calculated using the equations  from
                                    4-57

-------
                         TABLE 4-34.   (continued)
     The annual source extent (SE) is calculated as 365 x ADT x average
one way trip distance.

     Step 4 - Consult the Appropriate Control Program Design Table to
Determine the Time Between Applications and the Application Intensity

     Select the appropriate table

                                                               Table
                                                             containing
Control technique                                            information
Coherex® applied to unpaved roads                            Table 4-35
Petro Tac applied to unpaved roads                           Table 4-26

       Verify that the vehicle and road characteristics listed in Step 2 are
  similar to those listed in the footnotes of the selected table.  If they
  are significantly different, the table cannot be used.

       Step 5 - Calculate the Number of Annual Applications Necessary by
  Dividing 365 by the Days Between Application (from Step 4)

       Step 6 - Calculate the Number of Treated Miles Per Year by Multiplying
  the Actual Miles of Road to be Controlled (from Step 2) by the Number of
  Annual Applications (from Step 5)

       Step 7 - Consult the Appropriate Program Implementation Alternatives
  Table and Select the Desired Program Implementation Plan

                                                               Table
                                                             containing
Control technique                                            information
Coherex® applied to unpaved roads                            Table 4-37
Petro Tac applied to unpaved roads                           Table 4-38

       Step 8 - Calculate Total Annual Cost by Annualizing Capital Costs and
  Adding to Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

       To annualize capital investment, the capital cost is multiplied by a
  capital recovery factor which is calculated as follows:

     CRF =   [1(1 -H)n] / [(1 + i)n -1]

where
     CRF = capital recovery factor
       i = annual interest rate fraction
       n = number of payment years
                                    4-58

-------
                         TABLE 4-34.  (continued)
     Scale total annual cost by ratio of actual road width in feet
divided by 40 ft.

     Step 9 - Calculate Cost Effectiveness by Dividing Total Annual Costs
(from Step 8) by the Annual Uncontrolled Emission Rate (from Step 3) and
by Desired Control Efficiency Fraction (from Step 1)

     Example calculation.   The following is an example cost-effectiveness
calculation for controlling PM-10 using Coherex® on an unpaved road in a
     Step 1 - Specify Desired Average Control Efficiency
     Desired average control efficiency = 90%

     Step 2 - Specify Basic Vehicle, Road, and Climatological Parameters
for the Particular Road of Concern

     Required vehicle characteristics:
     1.  Average daily traffic = 100 vehicles per day;
     2.  Average vehicle weight = 40 ST;
     3.  Average number of vehicle wheels = 6; and
     4.  Average vehicle speed = 20 mph

     Required road characteristics
     1.  Actual length of roadway to be controlled =6.3 miles;
     2.  Width of roadway = 30 ft;
     3.  Silt content = 7.3%
     4.  Bearing strength of road = moderate

     Step 3 - Calculate Uncontrolled Annual Emission Rate as the Product
of the Emission Factor and the Source Extent
        /
E = emission factor
k = O..45r for PM-10 (as per Appendix C)
s = 7.3 percent (given in Step 2)
S = 20 mph (given in Step 2)
W = 40 ST (given in Step 2)
w = 6 (given in Step 2)
p = 140 (as per Figure 11.2-1-1 in Ap-42 Supplement 14 for
      Detroit, Michigan)
                                    4-59

-------
                         TABLE 4-34.   (continued)
           E = 4.98 Ib/VMT
          SE = 365 x ADT x average one-way trip distance
          cc - ics days v inn vehicles v 6.3  miles
          SE - 365 yet? x 10°    day   x
          SE = 115,000 VMT/year
     Emission rate = E x SE
          Emission rate = 4.98 Ib/VMT x 115,000 VMT/year x   l   short ton
          Emission rate = 286 tons of PM10 per year
     Step 4 - Consult the Appropriate Control  Program Design Table To
Determine the Times Between Applications and the Application Intensify
     Use Table 4-35.
     The vehicle and road characteristics listed in Step 2 are
similar to those in the footnotes of Table 2-1.
     From Table 4-35:
          Application intensity = 0.83 gal.  of 20% solution/yd2
                                  (initial application)
                                =1.0 gal. of 12% solution/yd2
                                  (reapplications)
          Application frequency = once every 47 days
     Step 5 - Calculate the Number of Annual Applications Necessary by
Dividing 365 by the Days Between Applications (from Step 4)
     No. of annual applications = ^5 = 7.77 applications
                                   T1/            year
     Step 6 - Calculate the Number of Treated Miles Per Year by Multiplying
the Actual Miles of Road to Be Controlled (from Step 2) by the Number of
Annual Applications (from Step 5)
     No. of treated miles per year = 6.3 miles x 7.77 app1^tlons .
              = 49 treated miles/year
                                    4-60

-------
                         TABLE 4-34.  (continued)
     Step 7 - Consult the Appropriate Program Implementation Alternatives
Table and Select the Desired Program Implementation Plan

     From Table 4-37, the following implementation plan and associated
costs are anticipated:

                                                         Cost
                                            Capital     	Unit cost	
                                            invest-     $/Treated$/Actual
          Selected Alternative             ment, $        mile        mile

  1.   Purchase Coherex® and ship in truck                 4,650
      tanker
  2.   Store in newly purchased storage       30,000
      tank
  3.   Prepare road with plant owned                                   630
      grader
  4.   Pump water from river or lake           5,000
  5.   Apply chemical with plant owned        70,000
      application truck (includes labor
      to pump water and Coherex® and
      apply solution)                       	       	       	
                                            105,000       4,785       630

     Step 8 - Calculate Total Annual Cost by Annualizing Capital Costs
and Adding to Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs

     Calculate annual capital investment (PI) = capital investment x CRF

               CRF = [i(l+i)n]/[(l-H)n-l]

               CRF = capital recovery factor
                 i = 0.15
                 n = 10 years

               CRF = 0.199252

               PI = 105,000 x 0.199252 = $20,900/year

     Calculate annual operation and maintenance costs (MO)

          MO = $4,785/treated mile x 49 treated miles/year +

               $630/actual mile x 6.3


             = $238,000/year
                                    4-61

-------
                         TABLE 4-34.   (concluded)
     Calculate total cost (D) = PI + MO
          D = $20,900/year + $238,000/year
            = $258,900/year
     Scale total cost by actual road width:
          Actual total cost for a 30-ft wide road = $258,900/year x
                                                  = $194,200/year
     Step 9 - Calculate Cost Effectiveness by Dividing Total Annual Costs
(from~STep 8) by the Annual Uncontrolled Emission Rate (from Step 3) and
by the Desired Control Efficiency Fraction (from Step 1)
     Cost effectiveness = •?
                            $194,200/year
                          ZB6ST/year x 0.9
                        = $754/short ton of PM10 reduced
                                    4-62

-------
  TABLE 4-35.  ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PROGRAM DESIGN FOR COHEREX® APPLIED
                 TO TRAVEL SURFACES

Average
percent
control
desired
50


75


90




k
Particle size
TP
IP
PM-10
TP
IP
PM-10
TP
IP
PM-10

Vehicle
passes between
applications
41,800
26,200
23,300
19,600
12,900
11,600
6,200
4,900
4,650


as
100
418
262
233
196
129
116
62
49
47
Days between
applications
a function of
300
139
87
78
65
43
39
21
16
16


ADTC
500
84
52
47
39
26
23
12
10
9

  Calculated time and vehicle passes between application are based on the
  following conditions:

      Suppressant application:
      •   3.7 L of 20% solution/m2  (0.83 gal. of 20%  solution/yd2); initial
         application
      •   4.5 L of 12% solution/m2  (1.0 gal. of 12% solution/yd2); reappli-
         cations
      Vehicular traffic:
      •   Average weight--39 Mg (43  tons)
      •   Average wheels--6
      •   Average speed--29 km/hr  (20 mph)
      Road  structure:  bearing strength—low to moderate

'   TP =  particles of all sizes.
   IP =  particles < 15 umA.
PM-10 =  particles < 10 umA.

'  For reapplications that span time periods greater than 365 days, the
  effects  of the freeze-thaw cycle are not incorporated in  the  reported
  values.
                                    4-63

-------
  TABLE 4-36.   ALTERNATIVE CONTROL PROGRAM DESIGN FOR PETRO TAG APPLIED
                 TO UNPAVED TRAVEL SURFACES3
Average
percent
control
desired
50


75


90




k
Particle size
TP
IP
PM-10
TP
IP
PM-10
TP
IP
PM-10

Vehicle
passes between
applications
107,000
80,600
92,000
44,700
41,900
47,800
7,250
18,600
21,200


as a
100
1,070
806
920
447
419
478
72
186
212
Days between
applications
function of
300
357
269
307
149
140
159
24
62
71


ADTC
500
214
161
184
89
84
96
14
37
42

Calculated time and vehicle passes between application are based on the
following conditions:
    Suppressant application:   3.2 L of 20% solution/m2 (0.7 gal.
    20% solution/yd2);  each application
    Vehicular traffic:
    •   Average weight — 27 Mg (30 tons)
    •   Average wheels--9.2
    •   Average speed — 22 km/h (15 mph)
    Road structure:   bearing strength — low to moderate
                                                                    of
   TP
   IP
PM-10
           particles of all sizes.
           particles < 15 [jmA.
           particles < 10 umA.
    For reappli cations that span time periods greater than 365 days, the
    effects of the freeze-thaw cycle are not incorporated in the reported
    values.
                                   4-64

-------
        TABLE 4-37.   IDENTIFICATION AND COST ESTIMATION OF COHEREX*
                       CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
       Program implementation alternatives
         Cost
  I.   Purchase and ship Coherex®

      A.   Ship in rail car tanker (11,000-22,000
          gal/tanker)
      B.   Ship in truck tanker (4,000-6,000
          gal/tanker)
      C.   Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)

 II.   Store Coherex®

      A.   Store on plant property

          1.   In new storage tank
          2.   In existing storage tank
              a.   Needs refurbishing
              b.   Needs no refurbishing
          3.   In railcar tanker
              a.   Own railcar
              b.   Pay demurrage

          4.   In truck tanker
              a.   Own truck
              b.   Pay demurrage
          5.   In drums
      B.   Store in contractor tanks

III.   Prepare road

      A.   Use plant-owned grader to minimize
          ruts and low spots
      B.   Rent contractor grader
      C.   Perform no road preparation

 IV.   Mix Coherex® and water in application
      truck

      A.   Load Coherex® into spray truck

          1.   Pump Coherex® from storage tank
              or drums into application truck

          2.   Pour Coherex® from drums into
              application truck, using
              forklift
$4,650/treated mile

$4,650/treated mile

$7,040/treated mile
$30,000 capital

$5,400 capital
         -0-

         -0-
$20, $30, $60/treated
  mile

         -0-
$70/treated mile
         -0-
$140/treated mile
$630/actual mile

$l,200/actual mile
         -0-
Tank - 0 (included in
  price of storage tank)
Drums - $1,000 capital
$l,000/treated mile
                                    4-65

-------
                       TABLE 4-37.   (concluded)
     Program implementation alternatives
         Cost
    B.   Load water into application truck
        1.   Pump from river or lake
        2.   Take from city water line

V.   Apply Coherex® solution via surface
    spraying
    A.   Use plant owned application truck
    B.   Rent contractor application truck
$5,000 capital
$40/treated mile
$70,000 capital + $135/
treated mile for tank or
$270/treated mile for
drums
Tank - $500/treated mile
Drums - $l,000/treated
  mile
                                  4-66

-------
       TABLE 4-38.   IDENTIFICATION AND COST ESTIMATION OF PETRO TAC
                      CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
       Program implementation alternatives
                                                     Cost
 II.
Purchase and ship Petro Tac ^
A.   Ship in truck tanker (4,000-6,000 gal/
    tanker)
B.   Ship in drums via truck (55 gal/drum)

Store Petro Tac

A.   Store on plant property
          1.
          2.
          3.
          4.
        In new storage tank
        In existing storage tank
        a.  Needs refurbishing
        b.  Needs no refurbishing
        In rail car tanker
        a.  Own rail car
        b.  Pay demurrage
      B.
        In truck tanker
        a.  Own truck
        b.  Pay demurrage
    5.  In drums
    Store in contractor tanks
III.   Prepare road

      A.   Use plant owned grader to minimize
          ruts and low spots
      B.   Rent contractor grader
      C.   Perform no road preparation

 IV.   Mix Petro Tac and water in application
      truck
      A.   Load Petro Tac into spray truck
          1.
          2.
        Pump Petro Tac from storage tank
        or drums into application truck
      B.
        Pour Petro Tac from drums into
        application truck, generally using
        forklift
    Load water into application truck
    1.  Pump from river or lake
    2.  Take from city water line
                                                  $5,400/treated mile

                                                  $ll,500/treated mile
$30,000 capital

$5,400 capital
        -0-

        -0-
$20, $30, $60/treated
  mile'

        -0-
$70/treated mile
        -0-
$140/treated mile
                                            $630/actual mile

                                            $l,200/actual mile
                                                    -0-
Tank - 0 (included in
  price of storage tank)
Drums - $1,000 capital
$l,000/treated mile
                                                  $5,000 capital
                                                  $40/treated mile
                                    4-67

-------
                       TABLE 4-38.   (concluded)
     Program implementation alternatives
         Cost
V.  Apply Petro Tac solution via surface
    spraying

    A.  Use plant-owned application truck
    B.  Rent contractor application truck
$70,000 capital + $1357
  treated mile for tank
  or $270/treated mile
  for drums
Tank - $500/treated mile
Drums - $l,000/treated
  mile
                                  4-68

-------
O
a

LT)
00
n
O
00
O
           1,200            IIjIIJI1I

               ! NOTE:   FOB FACTORY.  INSTRUMENTS  AND  CONTROLS AND TAXES  NOT INCLUDED.
          1,000

            800


            600



            400
200
100


 80


 60




 40
             20
             10 L
                                                      PRESSURE DROP, kPa (inches  w.c.)
                                                            CURVE 1  15 (60)
                                                            CURVE 2  10 (40)
                                                            CURVE 3   5 (20)
                                     I    I
                                                        J	I
(2?)
                         (8)   (ft)  (8%(1?8>
                                                               (2?8)
(320)  (640) (353)
                                EXHAUST GAS RATE, m3/s  (lo3  ft3/m1n)
                    Figure 4-1.   Cost of venturi scrubbers,  unlined throat
                                    with carbon steel construction.
                                                4-69

-------
C/7
in
CO
ce
Q_
                                                   CAPITAL COST
                                                   ANNUALIZED COST
                                              PRESSURE DROP,  kPa (inches w.c.)
                                                   CURVE  1   15  (60)
                                                   CURVE  2   10  (40)
                                                   CURVE  3    5  (20)
        60   -
        40
I     I
                       (1?)        (42)    (84) (85) (1?8
                                    3QQ  400
                                    (640) (850)
                             EXHAUST GAS RATE, m3/s  (103 ft3/min)
               Figure 4-2.   Capital  and annualized costs of  venturi  scrubbers
                              with  carbon steel construction.
                                               4-70

-------
     20,000
     10,000


     8,000


     6,000



     4,000 •



     3,000



10    2,000
O
o
in
CO
      1,000


       800


       600



       400


       300




       200
       100
I    I    I
I     I
          CAPITAL COST
     ... ANNUALIZED COST

     PRESSURE  DROP, kPa (inches  w.c.)
          CURVE  1  15 (60)
          CURVE  2  10 (40)
          CURVE  3   5 (20)
                                                I	I
                                     J	1
                         (2?,
                             (450)  (616)  (850)
                            EXHAUST GAS RATE, m3/s (103 ft3/min)
             Figure 4-3.  Capital  and annualized costs  of venturi scrubbers
                            with  stainless steel construction.
                                             4-71

-------
O
a
m
CO
a.
ef.
O
CJ
        10,000

         8,000

         6,000


         4,000
         2,000
1,000

 800

 600


 400
           200
           100
                                    l     I   I
         NOTE:   THERMALLY INSULATED.  FOB FACTORY.   INSTRUMENTS
                 AND CONTROLS AND  TAXES NOT INCLUDED.
                                                                             FOR DUST
                                                                             HAVING
                                                                             HIGH
                                                                             RESISTIVITY
FOR OUST
HAVING
.MOOERATE-
TO-LOW-
RESISTIVITY
                            SCA = mV(1.000 m3/m1n)  (ft2/U,000 ft3/m1n])
                              n = COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
                                             I     i   I
                          (2?)
                                                                 (420)   (640)  (850)
                            EXHAUST GAS RATE,  mJ/s (103 ft3/m1n)
                     Figure 4-4.   Cost of electrostatic precipitators with
                                     carbon  steel  construction.
                                                 4-72

-------
o
a
oo
en
OS
a.

-------
      4,000
t/i
ex.
in
oo
OL
Q.

-------
    12,000
o
o
IT)
CD
o:
CL.
10,000

 8,000


 6,000



 4,000

 3,000



 2,000
     1,000

       800

       600



       400

       300



       200
       100
                                                           CAPITAL  COSTS
                                                           ANNUALIZED  COSTS
                                                  TYPE OF CLEANING MECHANISM
                                                     CURVE 1  REVERSE AIR
                                                     CURVE 2  SHAKER
                                                     CURVE 3  PULSE JET

                                                  AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIO m/min (ft/min)
                                                     CURVE 1  0.46 to 1.0 (1.5 to 3.3)
                                                     CURVE 2  0.61 to 1.0 (2.0 to 3.3)
                                                     CURVE 3  2.12 to 1.0 (3.3 to 7.0)

                                                  BAG MATERIAL
                                                     CURVE 1  NYLON
                                                     CURVE 2  NYLON
                                                     CURVE 3  NOMEX
                                                               J
                                EXHAUST GAS RATE,  m3/s  (103 ft3/min)
              Figure 4-7.   Capital  and annualized costs of fabric filters
                              with  stainless  steel construction.
                                              4-75

-------
IT)
CO
ac.
Q.
00
O
     10,000

      8,000


      6,000


      4,000
      2,000
1,000

 800


 600



 400
        200
        100

         80

         60
                                          i   r
                                                                CAPITAL COSTS
                                                                ANNUALIZED COSTS
                                                TYPE OF CLEANING MECHANISM
                                                    CURVE  1  REVERSE AIR
                                                    CURVE  2  SHAKER
                                                    CURVE  3  PULSE JET

                                                AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIO m/min (ft/min)
                                                    CURVE  1  0.46 to 1.0 (1.5 to 3.3)
                                                    CURVE  2  0.61 to 1.0 (2.0 to 3.3)
                                                    CURVE  3  2.12 to 1.0 (3.3 to 7.0)

                                                BAG MATERIAL
                                                    CURVE  1  NYLON
                                                    CURVE  2  NYLON
                                                    CURVE  3  NOMEX
 10          20     30   40   50          100
(21)         (42)    (64) (85)  (110)        (210)


       EXHAUST GAS  RATE, m3/s (103  ft3/min)
                                                                            (88
                                                                        )  (640)
                   Figure  4-8.  Capital and annualized costs  of fabric filters
                                    with carbon steel  construction.
                                                   4-76

-------
IT)
CO
00
O
      1,000


        800


        600



        400
        200
100

 80


 60




 40
        20
         10

         8
                                 1    I   I
                                                             CAPITAL COSTS
                                                     —-ANNUALIZED  COSTS


                                      NOTE:  COST OF'DUCT  INCLUDES ONE  ELBOW.
                                         I    i    I
                       (2?,
                                (12) (8?) (1
(2?8,
5) (850)
                          EXHAUST GAS RATE, m3/s  (103  ft3/min)
                   Figure 4-9.  Capital  and  annualized costs  of  fans and
                                  30.5 m (100 ft) length of duct.
                                              4-77

-------
00
o
a

uo
CO
o>
a:
a.
00
o
                                                    ANNUALIZED  COST BASED ON

                                                    8,700  h/yr  OPERATION
    10
                          EXHAUST GAS  RATE,  m3/s (103 ft3/min)



            Figure 4-10.   Capital and annualized costs of fan  driver

                            for various head pressures.
                                        4-78

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4

 1.   Neveril, R. B.  Capital  and Operating  Costs  of Selected Air Pollution
     Control  Systems.   EPA 450/5-80-002.   U. S.  Environmental  Protection
     Agency, Research Triangle Park, December 1978.

 2.   W.  Vatave-6 and R.  Neveril.  Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Systems.
     Part I:   Parameters  for  Sizing  Systems.   Chem. Eng.,  p.   165-168,
     October 6, 1980.

 3.   W.  Vatavek  and R. Neveril.   Estimating  Costs of  Air  Pollution
     Systems.   Part II:   Factors  for  Estimating Capital  and Operating
     Costs.   Chem.  Eng.. p. 157-162, November 3, 1980.

 4.   W.  Vatavek  and R. Neveril.   Estimating  Costs of  Air  Pollution
     Systems.   Part III:   Estimating  the  Size and Cost  of Pollutant
     Capture Hoods.  Chem.  Eng., p. 111-715, December 1, 1980.

 5.   W.  Vatavek and R.  Neveril.  Estimating the Costs of Air Pollution Sys-
     tems.  Part IV:  Estimating the Size and Cost of Ductwork.  Chem. Eng.,
     p.  71-73, December 29, 1980.

 6.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.  Part V:   Estimating the Size and Cost of Gas Conditioners.
     Chem. Eng.. p. 127-132, January 26, 1981.

 7.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.   Part VI:    Estimating  Costs of  Dust-Removal  and  Water-
     Handling Equipment.  Chem. Eng., p. 223-228, March 23, 1981.

 8.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.   Part VII:   Estimating  Costs  of Fans  and Accessories.
     Chem. Eng., p. 171-177, May 18, 1981.

 9.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril/   Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.  Part VIII:   Estimating Costs of  Exhaust Stacks.   Chem.  Eng.,
     p.  129-130, June 15,  1981.

10.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.  Part IX:   Costs of  Electrostatic Precipitators.   Chem.  Eng.,
     p.  139-140, September 7, 1981.

11.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.   Part  X:   Estimating Size  and Cost of Venturi  Scrubbers.
     Chem. Eng., p. 93-96,  November 30, 1981.

12.   W.  Vatavek and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the  Costs of Air  Pollution
     Systems.  Part XI:   Estimating Size and Cost of Baghouses.  Chem. Eng.,
     p.  153-158, March 22,  1982.
                                   4-79

-------
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
W. Vatavek  and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  the Costs of  Air Pollution
Systems.   Part  XII:   Estimating the  Size  and Cost of  Incinerators.
Chem. Eng. . p. 129-132, July 12, 1982.

W. Vatavek  and  R.  Neveril.    Estimating  th'e Costs of  Air Pollution
Systems.   Part XIII:  Costs of Gas Absorbers.  Chem. Eng., p.  135-136,
October 4, 1982.
W. Vatavek  and  R.  Neveril.
Systems.  Part XIV:  Costs
January 24, 1983.
  Estimating  the Costs of Air  Pollution
of Carbon Adsorbers.  Chem. Eng., p. 131-132,
W. Vatavek and R. Neveril.  Estimating the Costs of Air  Pollution  Sys-
tems.  Part XV:   Costs  of Flares.   Chem.  Eng.,  p.  89-90, February 21,
1983.  pp. 89-90.

W. Vatavek and R. Neveril.  Estimating the Costs of Air  Pollution  Sys-
tems.  Part XVI:   Costs of Refrigeration Systems.  Chem.  Eng.,  p.  95-98,
May 16, 1983.
W. Vatavek  and  R.  Neveril.   Estimating  the Costs
Systems.  Part XVII:  Particle Emissions Control.
April 2, 1984.
                        of Air  Pollution
                        Chem. Eng.. p. 97-99,
W. Vatavek and R. Neveril.  Estimating the Costs of Air Pollution  Sys-
tems.  Part XVIII:   Gaseous  Emissions  Control.   Chem.  Eng.,  p.  95-98,
April 30, 1984.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Control Techniques for Particu-
late Emissions  From  Stationary  Sources—Volume  1.   EPA-450/3-81-005a,
Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Research Triangle  Park,
NC, September 1982.

U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   Development of Air  Pollution
Control  Cost  Functions for the  Integrated  Iron  and Steel Industry.
EPA-450/1-80-001, Research Triangle Park, NC, July 1979.

Cowherd, C. ,  et al.   Identification,  Assessment,  and  Control of Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions.   Draft  Final Report, EPA Contract  No.
68-02-3922, Midwest  Research  Institute,  Kansas City, MO, April  1985.

Cuscino, T. ,  Jr.   Cost Estimates For Selected Fugitive Dust Controls
Applied  to  Unpaved and Paved Roads  In  Iron and  Steel  Plants.   Final
Report.  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Chicago,  IL,
April 1984.
                                   4-80

-------
                                SECTION 5.0

                    METHODS OF COMPLIANCE DETERMINATION
     Once a  specific  PM10  control  strategy has been developed and imple-
mented, it becomes  necessary  for either the control agency or industrial
concern to assure  that  it  is achieving the desired level of control.  As
stated previously, the control efficiency actually attained by a particular
technique depends  on  its proper  implementation.  This section will discuss
methods for determining compliance with various regulatory requirements re-
lating to PM10  control  strategies.   These methods include source testing,
visual observations,  and other  techniques  such  as recordkeeping of key
control parameters.

5.1  SOURCE TESTING METHODS FOR PM10

5.1.1  Ducted Source Testing Methods

     As part of the SIP process, the  promulgation of a revised NAAQS  for
PM10 will  necessitate the development of appropriate size-specific particu-
late emission standards  for ducted  sources.  In order to  determine compli-
ance with these standards  (as well  as  assist  in their development),  an
appropriate methodology must be used to determine the emission rate of PM10.

     At present,  no standard  technique  has  been developed specifically for
the measurement  of PM10  from ducted sources.   However,  interim guidelines
have been prepared to assist  regulatory and industry personnel in conduct-
ing this determination until such time that a standard reference test method
is published by EPA.  These guidelines  are  presented in Appendix C of  Ref-
erence 1 which will be described below.1
                                     5-1

-------
     Since PMio is defined as participate matter equal  to or less than 10 urn
in aerodynamic diameter,  some type of inertial  sizing technique is most ap-
propriate for  use in source testing.  Of the available instruments, either
a multistage cascade impactor or a single-stage cyclone collector would be
suitable for this purpose.   Cyclones offer the advantage of low particle
bounce and thus are  generally preferred over impactors,  with the stipulation
that an empirical calibration be conducted prior to use in the  field.   Sam-
pling trains which incorporate an inertial  sizing device are illustrated in
Figures 5-1 and 5-2  for noncondensible and condensible particulate emissions,
respectively.1

     The use of an inertial sizing technique does have the inherent problem
that  isokinetic  sampling  cannot usually be conducted  in  the  traditional
sense (i.e., EPA Method 5).  This is due to the fact that inertial devices
must be  operated at a constant  flow  rate to maintain their  size fractiona-
tion characteristics (i.e., cut-points).  Thus, adjustment of the flow rate
cannot  generally be conducted to achieve  isokinetic  sampling  conditions
during a multipoint traverse of the duct.

     There are a number of approaches which have been proposed  to solve the
above sampling problem.   These  approaches  include:  the Simulated Method 5
(SIM-5) technique; the emission gas recycle (EGR) system; and a method based
on the  sampling  protocol  developed for  the  IP  characterization program.2 4
Each will be discussed below.

     In  the  SIM-5 technique,  a standard fixed-flow sampler is  used with
anisokinetic  sampling  errors kept within  reasonable limits by setting
velocity criteria on a point-by-point basis.2  Sampling nozzles are changed,
as necessary,  during  testing to match  the  sampling  velocity to the duct
velocity within  ±20% of isokinetic conditions.  Since the flow rate cannot
be changed,  the  duration  of sampling is varied from point  to point to  be
proportional to  the local  velocity.  The sample volume obtained  is propor-
tional  to  the  total  volumetric flow through the  area represented by  each
sampling point.2  The  SIM-5 method involves a  rather complex calculation
procedure and thus would be fairly difficult to implement routinely.

                                     5-2

-------
       HEATED PROBE
IP
SAMPLER

  FILTER
  HOLDER
                                               IMP1NGER TRAIN OPTIONAL:
                                               MAY BE REPLACED BY AN
                                               EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
                                                 IMPINGERS IN ICE BATH
                                                                         CHECK
                                                                         VALVE
MANOMETER
                                  DRY TEST METER   AIR TIGHT PUMP
                                                                       41S1-44SA
          Figure 5-1.   PM10 particulate sampling train  for  noncondensible
                         particulate (Modified EPA Method 5 train).1
                                         5-3

-------
       HEATED PROBE
\
IP
SAMPLER
                                              IMPINGER TRAIN OPTIONAL:
                                              MAY BE REPLACED BY AN
                                              EQUIVALENT CONDENSER
                                 HEATED
                                 AREA    FILTER HOLDER
                                                       THERMOMETER
CHECK
VALVE
                                                IMPINGERS IN ICE BATH
                                                      MAIN     VACUUM LINE
                                                      VALVE
                                               Q
                   MANOMETER    DRY TEST METER  AIR TIGHT PUMP
                                                  41J1-64SB
         Figure 5-2.  PM10 participate sampling train for condensible  and
                       noncondensible particulate (Modified EPA  Method  5
                       train).1
                                        5-4

-------
     The EGR system, currently under evaluation by EPA, involves the incor-
poration of a recirculation loop in the sampling train to augment the sample
flow through an  inertial  sizing device.3  A fixed flow is thus maintained
through the  inertial  classifier while allowing  the  sampling rate to be
varied from point-to-point in the traditional (i.e.,  Method 5) manner.   This
system is  by far the easiest  of  the three methods to  implement.  A diagram
of the current EGR system is shown in Figure 5-3. 3

     Lastly, a method  based  on the protocol originally developed for the
EPA's inhalable particulate  (IP) research program could  also  be used for
conducting PM1() compliance  tests.4'5   In this method, a series of single-
point samples are  collected  using a standard  inertial classifier and ap-
propriately sized  nozzles which  are subsequently combined to synthesize a
complete traverse.  It  is  currently recommended that a four-point grid be
used with  a  sample collected /rom each  grid location  to  make  up a single
test run (Figure 5-4). x  Triplicate runs  are to  be conducted  for each duct
tested to obtain a total of 12 individual samples.  This technique has been
found to be extremely laborous, time-consuming, and difficult to perform on
a routine basis.
     Finally, additional  guidelines  on  the  selection  and  operation of
samplers and  sampling  trains  can be found  in  Reference 1.  The  reader  is
directed to  these  guidelines  for supplementary details on  this  subject.

5.1.2  Fugitive Source Testing Methods

     Although a number of different techniques have been developed over the
years to determine mass emissions from fugitive sources, the only reference
method which  has  been  published by  EPA  is  Method  14  for  Primary Aluminum
Potroom Roof Monitors.6  This method involves the installation of a sampling
manifold containing  large-diameter  nozzles.  A large  volume of effluent is
collected by  the  system from the roof  monitor(s)  and subsequently trans-
ported to ground-level  through  a duct.   A blower connected to the duct is
used to extract and exhaust the sample flow.  Standard source sampling tech-
niques (i.e., Method  ISA or 13B) are then  used to determine appropriate
mass emission rates from the potroom.

                                     5-5

-------
RECYCLE
LINE
         PI TOT TUBE
                           EGR PROBE ASSEMBLY
1 U- 	 1 	
	 =3 ._ ,.„. | I 	 j
U SAMPLING •"" •' — — 	
DEVICE
SAMPLE



,. 	
        INLET
                                                                               •EXHAUST
                               SEA LSO PUMP
                                                            DRY GAS METER
        Figure 5-3.   Schematic  of the  Emission  Gas Recycle  (EGR)
                         sampling train.3
                                        5-6

-------
                 1
                              a/4
                          b/4
                           i
Figure 5-4.  Recommended sampling points for circular  and  square

               or rectangular ducts.1
                                5-7

-------
     Since traditional source  testing  methods are used to determine mass
emissions from potroom roof  monitors,  there  is  no  reason  why one of the
methods discussed  in  Section 5.1.1  above could not also be used to deter-
mine the  emissions of PM10 from this source as well.  However,  as would  be
the case  for any ducted source,  similar limitations to those  discussed
previously regarding the methodology  to be used would also apply to this
particular application.

5.2  METHODS FOR DETERMINING VISIBLE EMISSIONS

5.2.1  Federal Reading Methods

     As a compliance tool, the determination  of  visible emissions (VE) has
a long history of application to stationary sources.  At the federal level,
use of VE as a compliance tool is reflected  in the specification of three
methods:

          Method 9 - Visual  determination  of  the opacity of emissions from
          stationary sources.

          (Modified) Method 9 - For basic oxygen furnace processes.

          Method 22  - Visual  determination   of  fugitive  emissions  from
          material  processing sources.

For compliance purposes, Tables 5-1 to  5-3 summarize  the major  features  of
each visual  observation method.

     Method  9  (M9) is the most familiar of the observation methods.  It  is
widely used  in the evaluation  of  stack  emissions.   Important  advantages  of
M9 include:7
                                     5-8

-------
      TABLE 5-1.   SUMMARY OF EPA METHOD 9 REQUIREMENTS (M9)



Reader Position/Techniques

          Sun must be in 140° sector behind the reader.

          Plume direction should be as near perpendicular to
          reader line of sight as possible.

          Plume should be read at point of greatest opacity, ex-
          cluding condensed water vapor.

          Only one plume thickness should be read.

          Individual opacity observations taken each 15 sec, re-
          corded to the nearest 5% opacity.

Data Reduction

          6-min time-average consisting of 24 consecutive 15-sec
          readings.

Certification

          Based on results of 25 white and 25 black plumes read
          consecutively with the following error margins:

          -  No individual reading with error > 15% opacity.

          -  Average error over set of 25 readings < 7.5% opacity
             (black or white plumes)

          -  Certification  is valid for period of 6 months.

          -  Smoke generator must meet given specifications.
                                5-9

-------
     TABLE 5-2.   SUMMARY OF MODIFIED EPA METHOD 9 FOR BASIC
                   OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES (MM9)
Reader Position/Techniques (Differences from Method 9)

          Plume considered to consist of aggregate of emissions
          from given building opening.

          Observations taken from minimum of three steel pro-
          duction cycles.

Data Reduction

          3-min time-average consisting of 12 consecutive 15-sec
          readings.

Certification (Same as Method 9)
                                 5-10

-------
     TABLE 5-3.   SUMMARY OF EPA METHOD 22 REQUIREMENTS (M22)
Reader Position/Techniques

          For outdoor locations sun must not be directly in ob-
          servers eyes.

          For indoor location proper application requires illumi-
          nation > 100 lux (10-ft candles).   Determination re-
          quires light meter (50-200 lux range).

          Observer position > 15 ft, < 0.25 mi.

          Continuous observation for visible emissions regardless
          of level.   Period of observation > 6 min, not to exceed
          15-20 min without rest break.   Break > 5 min ^ 10 min.

          Method requires two stop watches (unit division at
          least 0.5 sec).

          Stopwatch 1 - used to record duration of observation
          period.

          Stopwatch 2 - used to record duration of visible emis-
          sions.

Data Reduction

          Comparison of duration of visible emissions (stopwatch
          2) to total observation period (stopwatch 1) according
          to applicable regulations.

Certification

          No specific requirements.
                                 5-11

-------
          M9 is detailed and formally promulgated.

          M9 includes opacity observation procedures, data reduction methods,
          and certification requirements.

          M9 is  consistent with New Source  Performance  Standards  (NSPS)
          that limit opacity based on a 6-min average.

          M9 has supporting data on the accuracy of the method which should
          be considered in determining possible violations.

Disadvantages of M9 are:

          M9 is not compatible with time exemption regulations.

          M9 is not suitable for evaluation of some intermittent emissions.

     To determine compliance with Basic Oxygen Process  Furnaces (BOPF) shop
roof monitor standards, certain modifications have been made to M9.8  Table
5-2 summarizes  the  primary method changes.  It  is  important  to note  that
for this  determination VE observers  should  position themselves to read
across the  shortest  dimension of the roof monitor rather than through the
long dimension  from  the end of  the monitor.  The latter position would re-
sult in a high bias in opacity determinations.8

     The third  EPA  reading method, Method  22 (M22),  is specified as appro-
priate for determining fugitive emissions from materials processing sources.9
In this method, sources of concern include emissions that:

     1.  Escape capture by process equipment exhaust hoods;

     2.  Are emitted during materials transfer;
                                     5-12

-------
     3.  Are emitted from buildings housing material; and

     4.  Are emitted directly from process equipment.

     M22  is  one example of  time-aggregating  opacity observations.   This
method uses continuous observation based on the comparison of emission time
(i.e., accumulated  time  with observed opacity £ 5%)  to  total observation
time.

5.2.2  Other Reading Methods

     None of the previously  discussed  federal methods are directed  specif-
ically at the  evaluation of VE from open sources.   However, based in part
on federal procedures, the  State  of Tennessee has developed  a method  (TVEE
Method 1) for  evaluating VE from roads and parking lots.10  The following
discussion focuses on TVEE Method 1 (Ml) comparing it to the federal methods
in the technical  areas:   (1) reader position/techniques; and (2) data re-
duction/evaluation procedures.  Table  5-4  summarizes  the relevant features
of TVEE Ml.

5.2.1.1  Reader Position/Techniques—
     As indicated  in Table  5-4, TVEE Method 1 adopts  the EPA Method 9  (M9)
criterion for  observer  position  relative  to  the sun (140-degree sector
behind the reader).  Ml  specifies an  observer location  of  15 ft from  the
source; that is  the minimum distance called for in EPA Method 22 (M22).11
In most cases,  this distance should allow  an  unobstructed view, and at the
same time meet observer  safety requirements.

     Ml also specifies that  the plume  be  read at ~ 4 ft  directly above the
emitting surface.  This  specification presumably results from field experi-
ments conducted to support the method.   It is probably intended to represent
the point (i.e., location) of maximum opacity as read in M9.  While there is
no quantitative supporting evidence, it seems likely that the height and lo-
cation of maximum opacity relative to a passing vehicle will vary depending
upon ambient factors (wind speed and direction) as well  as vehicle type and
speed.

                                     5-13

-------
      TABLE 5-4.   SUMMARY OF TVEE METHOD 1 REQUIREMENTS (Ml)



Reader Position/Techniques

          Sun in 140° sector behind the reader.

          Observer position ~ 15 ft from source.

          Observer line of sight should be as perpendicular as
          possible to both plume and wind direction.

          Only one plume thickness read.

          Plume read at ~ 4 ft directly above emitting surface.

          Individual opacity readings taken each 15 sec, recorded
          to nearest 5% opacity.

          Readings terminated if vehicle obstructs line of sight.

          Readings terminated if vehicles passing in opposite
          direction creates intermixed plume.

Data Reduction

          Two-min time-averages consisting of eight consecutive
          15-sec readings.

Certification

          Per Tennessee requirements
                                 5-14

-------
     Implied in  the  Ml specification that  the  plume be read ~ 4 ft above
the emitting surface,  is  the  fact that  observations will  be made against a
terrestrial (vegetation) background.  TjiejrejjJJ;_s_oJlj3jie_sj^
ventjona1^mg_ke_generator modifiedto_emi_t^_ho.rj.2.o.at.a]__pJ,uines_..Jno! j carted  ttiat_
under theseconditlons_^b_servers are likely to  underestimate j)pacHy  levels
by even  greater  margins than those typically  associated with M9.12  More
specifically,  the  study found that as  opacity levels increased, opacity
readings showed  an  increasing negative  bias.   For example,  at 15% opacity,
the observers  underestimated opacity  by about 5%, and at 40%  opacity,  ob-
servations averaged  about  11% low.12   Black plumes were underestimated at
all opacity levels.                                                 ^"^'

     Ml specifies that only one plume thickness be read which  is  consistent
with all  the  federal  methods.   It includes qualifying  provisions  that:
(1) readings terminate if vehicles passing in opposite directions create an
intermixed plume; but  (2)  readings continue  if intermixing  occurs as a re-
sult of vehicles moving in the same direction.  Unlike (1), the  latter  con-
dition is considered representative of the surface.  The first specification
is comparable  to the specification/found in M9 for multiple stacks  (e.g.,
                                                            PO
stub stacks on baghouses).   The intent here is probably to minimize  the in-
fluence of increasing plume density which results from "overlaying"  multiple
plumes.

     Finally,  Ml specifies  nominal  15-sec  observations  comparable to those
for M9.  This  is in  contrast to M22 which  uses the  stopwatch  method to re-
cord the duration of visible  emissions.

5.2.2.2  Data  Reduction/Evaluation  Procedures--
     There  are two  basic approaches  that  can  be used to reduce opacity
readings for  comparison with VE  regulations.   One  approach involves  the
time-averaging of  consecutive 15-sec observations  over a specified  time
period to  produce an average opacity  value.   M9 uses  this approach  by cal-
culating a  6-min value (the average based  on  24 consecutive observations).
As noted earlier, the 6-min averaging period is inappropriate  for open  dust
                                     5-15

-------
sources as these typically produce brief, intermittent opacity peaks rather
than a sustained opacity  level.  As a result, a continuous 6-min period of
observation could include  a  substantial  fraction of time with no activity
and thus no source of VE.   In the development of Ml, the State of Tennessee
concluded that a  shorter  averaging period--2 min (i.e., eight consecutive
15-sec readings) was appropriate for roads and parking lots.

     Although not specified  in Ml, VE from open sources could be evaluated
using time-aggregating techniques.  For  example, the discrete 15-sec read-
ings could be employed  in the time-aggregating framework.  In this case,
the individual observations  are  compiled into a histogram from which the
number of  observations  (or  equivalent  percent of  observation  time)  in
excess of  the desired opacity  may then  be  ascertained.   The principal
advantage of  using  the  time-aggregate  technique as a method to reduce VE
readings  is  that the resultant  indicator of opacity  conditions is then
compatible with  regulations  that include a time exemption clause.  Under
time exemption standards,  a  source is  permitted opacity  in excess of the
standard for  a  specified  fraction of the time (e.g.,  3 min/hr).   The con-
cept of  time  exemption was originally  developed to accommodate stationary
source combustion processes.

     Without more detailed supporting information,  it is difficult to deter-
mine which of the two approaches is most appropriate for evaluating VE from
open sources.  With  respect  to time-averaging, statistics of observer bias
in reading plumes from a  smoke generator do  indicate at least a slight  de-
crease in the "accuracy"  of  the mean observed opacity  value as averaging
time decreases.    In  Ml (2-min average),  this  is reflected in the inclusion
of an 8.8%  buffer for observational  error.   This buffer is taken into ac-
count before  issuing a  Notice of Violation.10  For M9, the 6-min average
opacity value is typically associated with a maximum observer bias of +7.5%.

     One  potential  problem with applying time-averaging  to  opacity from
roads and parking lots, is that  the resulting average will be sensitive to
variations in source activity.   For example, interpreting one conclusion
                                     5-16

-------
offered in  support of Method 1,  it  is  likely that under moderate wind con-
ditions a single vehicle pass will produce only two opacity readings i 5%.10
Averaging these with  six  zero  (0) readings yields a 2-min value below any
reasonable  opacity standard.   Yet,  under the same conditions with two or
more vehicle passes,  the average value will suggest elevated opacity levels.
While there  is  no information  available  on the use of time aggregation for
open source opacity,  it appears that this approach would more easily accom-
modate variations in  level  of  source activity.   For this reason alone,  it
may be the  evaluation  approach better suited to  roads  and parking lots.

5.3  OTHER METHODS FOR DETERMINING COMPLIANCE

5.3.1  Parameter Monitoring for Ducted Source Controls

     Federal, State, and  local  air  regulatory agencies are concerned that
the methods  currently  available  are not always adequate to determine that
sources operate and maintain their  control equipment  in a  compliance mode.
Because stack testing provides  only a relatively short-term measure of com-
pliance,  it  is  difficult  to determine if a  source  remains in compliance
after initial compliance  is achieved.   The only method currently accepted
for measuring continuous  compliance is the use of  a  continuous emission
monitor (CEM),  although many constraints limit the use of CEM's including
the high cost and reliability.

     Compliance also may  be determined by parameter monitoring.  Standard
industrial  practice includes parameter monitoring to improve quality con-
trol, safety  in the workplace, and  product yield  and  to provide a means of
accounting  for  raw materials and product use.   In the field of environmental
control,  certain control device parameters have traditionally been measured,
and these parameters  have been used with varying levels of sophistication
to provide  an indication of how well the device is performing.
                                     5-17

-------
     Parameter monitoring provides  a  useful  tool to operators and control
agency personnel  for the following purposes:

     1.    To determine a maintenance schedule;

     2.    To check on operation and maintenance practices;

     3.    To prevent, detect, and diagnose malfunctions;

     4.    To assure that appropriate corrective action has been taken in the
          case of malfunctions;

     5.    To assure  that  the control  device  is  operating properly during
          performance testing; and

     6.    To assess  control  equipment performance and compliance  on  a con-
          tinuing basis.

Parameter monitoring procedures for ESPs, fabric filters, and wet scrubbers
are discussed below.

5.3.1.1.  Electrostatic Precipitators—
     ESP performance is a function of  the  electrical  power required to
charge and  attract  the particles toward the  collection  plates.   ESP per-
formance parameters  are the  primary  and secondary  voltage and current
levels for  each  of  the fields or transformer-rectifier  (T-R)  sets.   The
voltage and  current  going to the T-R set is  known as the primary voltage
and current,  respectively.   The  secondary voltage and current  is  the elec-
tricity going  from  the T-R set to the high voltage electrodes (wires) in-
side the ESP.  The secondary voltage and current levels are more useful  and
specific for indicating performance and diagnosing typical malfunctions than
are the primary  voltage and current levels.   If both secondary meters are
not available, secondary  power levels can be  estimated  by  the following
equation:
                                     5-18

-------
                           SP = PV x PC x EFF                         (5-1)
where:    SP  = secondary power (watts)
          PV  = primary voltage (volts)
          PC  = primary current (amperes)
          EFF = T-R set efficiency (percent) = typically 60 to 70%

     Secondary power can be more accurately and directly calculated if both
secondary meters are  available and calibrated by the following equation:

                              SP = SV x SC                            (5-2)
where:    SV = secondary voltage (kV)
          SC = secondary current (mA)

     After the power  level is  calculated  for each ESP field, one can graph
or tabulate  the  field power  levels to determine their  interrelationship.
The lowest power  level  is experienced by the  inlet  field,  and the power
level  steadily increases  for the subsequent fields in the direction of gas
flow.   A malfunction  is  indicated  if the field power levels do not show a
steady increase from the inlet field to the outlet field.

     Table 5-5 presents recommended  parameters  for  monitoring ESP perfor-
mance.  Secondary  ESP performance  parameters are gas temperature, moisture
content, spark rate, and ash hopper operation.   Comparison of the inlet and
outlet gas temperature  is useful  to indicate potential problems with gas
in-leakage.   ESP performance is sensitive to resistivity,  and recordkeeping
of inlet gas temperature and moisture content can be used to indicate prob-
lems with high resistivity along with spark rate records.   Proper operation
of the  ash  hopper  and ash handling system is important for short-term and
long-term ESP  performance, since  severe  problems in ash removal  can cause
permanent damage  to the  high  voltage  wires  and collection plates.  Ash
hopper heaters and hopper level  indicators should be monitored  to alert
operators of any problems experieced.
                                     5-19

-------
       TABLE  5-5.   RECOMMENDED  OPERATING  PARAMETERS  FOR  MONITORING  OF
                     ESP  PERFORMANCE
                Secondary  voltage  for  each  T-R  set  (kilovolts)
                Secondary  current  for  each  T-R  set  (nrilliampereres)
                Primary  voltage  for  each  T-R  set  (volts)
                Primary  current  for  each  T-R  set  (amperes)
                Inlet  gas  temperature  (°F)
                Outlet gas temperature (°F)
                Gas  moisture  content (% H20)
                Hopper level  indicator
                Hopper heater indicator
 5.3.1.2  Fabric Filters—
      Ba4^me*ep^©fi4*o^i=ngM=s=not=
=wet=s&r-ubber-s==o;p=ESP-is^  Opacity monitoring and internal inspection of the
 tube sheet are the most  critical  indicators  of fabric filter performance.
      Inlet gas temperature, bag pressure drop, gas flow rate, bag cleaning
 parameters,  and ash removal  indicators  are recordable parameters  that can
 indicate performance levels or malfunctions.   Inlet gas temperature  monitor-
 ing will indicate  that the appropriate temperature range is maintained above
 the gas dew point  and below the maximum temperature suitable for the bag
 material.   Bag pressure drop  monitoring  for each compartment can  indicate
 sudden or severe  problems  with bag blinding,  bag cleaning,  or bag  mounting.
 Bag cleaning parameter monitoring  can indicate malfunctions with the bag
 cleaning hardware or  timers.  Ash removal monitoring can indicate malfunc-
 tions with the components  of the ash handling system.   Table 5-6  presents
 recommended parameters for monitoring of fabric filter performance.

                                      5-20

-------
      TABLE 5-6.   RECOMMENDED OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR MONITORING OF
                    FABRIC FILTER PERFORMANCE
          Inlet gas tempe/atuej) (°F)
          Bag pressure drop for each compartment (inches water column)
          Bag cleaning conditions:
            Pulse:   Air pressure (pounds per square inch gauge)
            Shake:   Shaker motor current (amperes)
            Reverse:  Reverse-air fan current (amperes)
          Bag cleaning cycle:
            Pulse:   Duration and frequency
            Shake:   Duration,  frequency and delay periods
            Reverse:  Duration,  frequency and delay periods
          Fabric filter fan current (amperes)
          Fabric filter fan gas temperature (°F)
     Since..bag. pressure drop is also a function of gas flow rate, monitoring
gas flow rate can help diagnose performance problems.   Gas flow rate can be
indicated by measuring fan current and gas temperature.

     Recordkeeping of bag replacement information in conjunction with param-
eter and opacity  monitoring is recommended to assess the adequacy of bag-
house operation and maintenance.   Bag replacement information includes date
and specific  location(s)  of the  bag(s) replaced  and  a description of bag
failure  (e.g.,  bleeding,  cuff-seal   tear,  pinholes,  or  large  holes).
Repetition of the  same bag failures in the same locations warrant further
investigation and inspection.
                                     5-21

-------
5.3.1.3  Wet Scrubbers-
     Parameter monitoring for wet scrubbers is particularly important because
conventional opacity observations of steam plumes are complicated by exhaust
gas moisture content,  weather  conditions,  and the variable distances for
steam detachment.  To  monitor  the potential  degradation in control device
performance, parameter  monitoring  is  being recommended to or required of
wet scrubber owner/operators in  lieu of opacity.  The operating parameters
selected for monitoring are gas  pressure drop across each  scrubber and the
liquid flow rate to each scrubber.  Pressure drop and liquid flow are per-
formance parameters because they indicate  the extent of:   (1)  atomization
of water droplets;  and (2)  the acceleration of particles through the venturi
section to  become  collected  by the slower moving droplets.  Monitoring of
these parameters can  indicate  malfunctions in the scrubber pumping system
(i.e., pumps and piping) and the need to adjust the variable throat opening
(if applicable).  The example calculation in subsection 4.4.1 includes cost
information for this monitoring capability.

     Other  significant  parameters  worthy  of  consideration for monitoring
are included in Table  5-7.   Total  solids concentration monitoring can in-
dicate when spray  nozzles  become plugged and ineffective.   Scrubber water
pH monitoring will  indicate  when the acidity or alkalinity levels need to
be adjusted to  prevent corrosion damage.   When applicable, monitoring the
pressure drop across the separator (or mist eliminator) can indicate pluggage
or other problems  resulting in  reentrainment of  particle-bearing droplets.
Since scrubber  and separator  pressure drop levels are also dependent upon
gas flow rate,  monitoring  gas  flow rate can also help diagnose performance
problems.   Gas  flow rate can be  indicated by measuring fan current (amperes)
and gas temperature.
                                     5-22

-------
        TABLE 5-7.   RECOMMENDED OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR MONITORING
                      OF WET SCRUBBER PERFORMANCE
     Pressure drop across venturi (inches water column)
     Pressure drop across separator (if separate),  inches water column
     Scrubber water feed rate (gallons per minute)
     Scrubber water solids concentration (percent)
     Scrubber water pH level  (pH)
     Scrubber fan current (amperes)
     Scrubber fan gas temperature( °F)


5.3.2  Recordkeeping for Open Source Controls

     As discussed above,  parameter monitoring and associated recordkeeping
are important components in ensuring that a control  program meets the speci-
fied permit  objectives.   Detailed recordkeeping is  particularly important
for open source  controls  as  it provides a basis for determining when re-
application  of a  periodically  applied control  measure is again  needed in
order to maintain  acceptable levels of control.  The following discussion
focuses on the types of information that should be  recorded for open source,
periodically applied control  measures.

     In many  industrial  settings,  chemical  dust suppressants  are used to
control emissions  from  unpaved surfaces.  Control efficiency data for PM10
derived from  actual  source testing have been discussed previously in Sec-
tion 3.0.   For chemical dust suppressants applied to unpaved surfaces, the
key control parameters that should be recorded include:
                                     5-23

-------
     1.   Application procedure.
     2.   Date of application (and subsequent reapplications).
     3.   Dilution ratio (parts of chemical/parts of water).
     4.   Application intensity (L/m2 or gal/yard2).
     5.   Quantity of chemicals purchased and used.

Application procedure includes method  (i.e.,  spray  truck  of known  capacity
or fixed sprinkler system), number of nozzles in operation, nozzle capacity,
and method  for  storage  of chemical (i.e., storage tank or 55-gal.  drums).
In situations where  a  storage tank is  used  for  the chemical,  a  flowmeter
should be installed so that the dilution ratio can be verified.

     Table 5-8 presents a typical form that can be used to record key param-
eters  for a control  program using chemical  dust suppressants.   This  form
assumes that  facility  information concerning number of roadway  segments,
storage piles,  etc., is  already  compiled  in  an emissions  inventory format,
and that control  parameters  can  be recorded  with reference  to  this  format.

     It should be noted that application intensity is the most difficult of
the various  parameters  to determine  directly.  However, given appropriate
records for  the  other  application parameters it  is  possible to estimate
this parameter.   Table  5-9 presents  an ancillary form  suitable  for docu-
menting quantity of chemicals purchased and used.

     Table  5-10  presents  a similar form applicable to  a  watering  control
program.  Special care  must  be taken to document the frequency of  applica-
tion.  Again, complete records should be compiled with respect to individual
roadway segments or storage areas.  In some cases, relatively crude indirect
estimates of  frequency  may be inferred from total mileage  records  for the
spray  truck.  With appropriate equipment, elapsed operating time can easily
be documented  for stationary spray systems.   As  supplementary information,
representative  precipitation  observations  from a standard rain /gause/(0.01
in. increments)  should be collected.   Similarily, ambient temperature read-
ings from a representative location,  should also be recorded.
                                     5-24

-------
                                        TABLE  5-8.   TYPICAL  FORM FOR  RECORDING  CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANT CONTROL PARAMETERS
                                                      (Sources:   Unpaved roads,  road shoulders,  exposed areas,  storage piles)
                      Type of      Dilution          Application                              Equipment     Operator
    Date     Time     chemical        ratio       inteijS-fty  (gal/yd2)      Area(s)  treated        used        initials                      Comments
ro

-------
                      TABLE 5-9.  TYPICAL FORM FOR RECORDING DELIVERY OF CHEMICAL DUST SUPPRESSANTS
                    Chemical     Quantity     Delivery

    Date    Time    delivered    delivered     agent      Facility destination                    Comments
ro
cr>
       Denote whether suppressant will be applied immediately upon receipt or placed in storage.

-------
                                            TABLE 5-10.  TYPICAL FORM FOR RECORDING WATERING PROGRAM CONTROL PARAMETERS
                                                           (Sources:  Unpaved roads, road shoulders, exposed areas,
                                                                      storage piles)
                                                                    Climatic parameters	
                          Application                             Arab.temp.Date/amt.of     Equipment     Operator
    Date     Time      intensity  (gal/yd2)     Area(s) treated        (°F)        last rainfall      used        initials                Comments
CJ1

ro

-------
     Table 5-11 presents a recordkeeping form for paved road control tech-
niques (the types  of  information recorded are similar to that for unpaved
road controls).  Records should  focus on frequency of surface cleaning and
in the case  of flushing, application intensity.  Although  not  included,
equipment maintenance forms  may  also be of value as they may indicate pe-
riods of time in which the equipment was unavailable, and thus not perform-
ing the expected control function.

     Research conducted  to date  indicates  that the control  efficiency for
roadway controls will depend upon  traffic volume as well  as predominant
vehicle characteristics  (i.e., weight  and  speed).   For this reason  it is
recommended that periodic traffic counts and tabulations of vehicle type be
undertaken for  the  various  road  segments being controlled.   Counts may be
accomplished by automatic counters, or as an alternative,  short term (30 min
to 1  hr)  manual  counts  may  also be  taken  (see  Appendix C).  In  similar
fashion,  vehicle speed  and average vehicle weight may also  be ascertained.

5.3.3  Paved Surface Silt Loading

     For paved surfaces, silt loading measurements may provide an appropri-
ate indicator for monitoring the effectiveness of control  programs.  As in-
dicated in Section 2,  variations in silt loading have been shown to account
for a considerable  fraction  of the variance  in  experimentally  determined
paved road emission factors.

     One potentially feasible approach to paved road performance monitoring
is based  on  comparison  of a calculated  emission  factor (or equivalently
emissions assuming constant ADT) using "the baseline" or uncontrolled state,
to a calculated emission factor for the controlled (i.e.,  monitored) state.
In both  cases,  these  estimates are based on  silt  loading measurements  col-
                                                                      ${<$(ub
lected by appropriate personnel.   In order for this approach to work, sound
sampling/analysis  protocols  must be developed.   The following discusses
some of the requirements of a sound5protocol for silt loading measurements.
Possible problems  that  might be encountered  in  interpreting the  calcula-
tions are also discussed.
                                     5-28

-------
                                         TABLE  5-11.   TYPICAL FORM FOR RECORDING PAVED ROAD/PARKING AREA CONTROL PARAMETERS
                                                        (Sources:  Paved  roads, parking areas, miscellaneous storage surfaces)
                                                                        Amt. water
                            Treatment  type                                applied         Equipment       Operator
     Date       Time       (F,  BS,  VS,  FBS)        Area(s)  treated       (if used)          used          initials                    Comments
en
ro
to
        F refers  to flushing; BS  refers  to broom sweeping; VS refers to vacuum sweeping; FBS refers to flushing followed by broom sweeping.

-------
     The first requirement in applying this approach involves specification
of a realistic  baseline  (or uncontrolled) silt loading  value(s)  for the
surface of  interest.   At a minimum, the baseline value should reflect the
influence of temporal  variations  such as occasional cleaning by rainfall,
and increased loadings due to winter sanding.  This specification should
also consider spatial variations.   For example, a single industrial  facility
is likely to exhibit a relatively wide  range  of baseline values,  depending
upon conditions such as:   (1) vehicle mix and speed; (2) presence or absence
of curbs; and  (3) proximity to unpaved  surfaces  or industrial  processes
which serve as sources for surface loading (e.g.,  carryout).

     An equally  important  consideration  in using  silt  loading measurements
as a monitoring  tool,  is the  need to  collect  and  analyze samples  in  a man-
ner consistent with  that outlined in Appendices A and B.  The uncertainty
associated with using loading values developed under different sampling and
analysis (S/A) procedures is not known.   However,  the potential  to systemati-
cally bias  the  calculations certainly exists  if  the S/A procedures  used
greatly differ from those documented in Appendices A and B.

     A related  requirement involves the  need  to estimate the uncertainties
associated with the present S/A sampling technique.   The reproducibility of
the collection method  is not well known particularly for the silt loading
range typical of industrial facilities.
                                     5-30

-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5.0

1.    U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   PM10  SIP Development Guide.
     Preliminary Draft,  Office of  Air Quality  Planning  and Standards,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1984.

2.    Farthing, W. E.,  et al.  "A Protocol for Size-Specific Emission Measure-
     ments," Paper 85-14.3, 78th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
     Association, Detroit, MI, June 1985.

3.    Williamson, A.  D., et al.  "Development of a Source PM10 Sampling Train
     Using Emission Gas  Recycle (EGR),"  Paper 85-14.2,  78th Annual Meeting
     of the  Air Pollution  Control  Association,  Detroit,  MI, June 1985.

4.    Wilson, R.  R., and  W.  B.  Smith.   Procedures Manual for  Inhalable  Par-
     ticulate Sampler Operation.   Final  Report.   EPA Contract  No. 68-02-
     3118, Southern  Research  Institute,  Birmingham,  AL,  November 1979.

5.    Smith,  W. B., et al.  Sampling and Data Handling Methods for Inhalable
     Particulate.  EPA-600/7-82-036,  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency,
     Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1982.

6.    Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources - Primary Aluminum
     Industry (Appendix A, Method 14).  Federal Register,  Volume 41, No. 17,
     January 26, 1976.

7.    Del. Green Associates.  Alternative Methods for Visual Determination of
     the Opacity of  Emissions from Stationary Sources.  Final  Report, EPA
     Contract No. 68-01-5110, Task Order No. 54.

8.    Standards  of Performance for New Stationary  Sources  -  Basic Oxygen
     Process Furnaces.   Federal Register,  Volume 48,  No.  14, January  20,
     1983.
                                     5-31

-------
9.    Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources - Asphalt Roofing.
     Federal Register. Volume 47, No. 152, August 6, 1982.

10.   Walton, J. W. ,  and  E.  C.  Koontz.   "Fugitive  Dust Reading Technique
     from Roads and  Parking  Lots."   Paper 83-39.3, 76th Annual Meeting of
     the Air Pollution Control  Association, Atlanta, GA, June 1983.

11.   Telephone conversation, Mr. John W.  Walton, Tennessee Division  of  Air
     Pollution Control, Nashville,  TN, September 1984.

12.   Rose,  T.  H.   Evaluation of Trained Visible Emission Observers  for
     Fugitive  Opacity  Measurement.   EPA-600/3-84-093, U.S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1984.
                                     5-32

-------
                  APPENDIX A





PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING SURFACE/BULK MATERIALS
                      A-l

-------
                                APPENDIX A

             PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING OF SURFACE/BULK MATERIALS
     The starting point  for  development of the recommended procedures for
collection of  road  dust and aggregate  material  samples  was a review  of
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards.  When practical,
the recommended procedures were structured identically to the ASTM standard.
When this was not possible, an attempt was made to develop the procedure in
a manner consistent with the intent of the majority of pertinent ASTM Stan-
dards.

A.I  UNPAVED ROADS

     The main  objective  in sampling the surface material  from an unpaved
road is to collect a minimum gross sample of 23 kg (50 Ib) for every 4.8 km
(3  miles)  of unpaved road.  The  incremental  samples from unpaved  roads
should be  distributed  over the road segment,  as shown in  Figure A-l.  At
least four incremental  samples should be collected and composited to form
the gross sample.

     The loose  surface  material  is removed from the hard road base with a
whisk broom  and dustpan.   The material should  be  swept  carefully so  that
the fine dust is not injected into the atmosphere.   The hard road base below
the loose  surface  material should not  be abraided so as to  generate  more
fine material than exists on the road in its natural state.

     Figure A-2 presents a data form to be used for the sampling of unpaved
roads.
                                    A-2

-------
3=-


CO
                        K
                                                 L = 4.8km(3 Mi.)
                     o
                     CO
                                -Sample Strip 20cm (8 in.) Wide
                              L= 1.6km (1 Mi.)
                    Figure A-l.   Location  of  incremental  sampling sites on an unpaved road.

-------
  Sample
  No	
SAMPLING  DATA
  Unpaved Roads
Date	
Recorded by.
Type of Material Sampled:.
Site of Sampling:
 SAMPLING METHOD
   1 .  Sampling device:  whisk broom and dust pan
   2.  Sampling depth: loose surface material
   3.  Sample container:  metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
   4.  Gross sample specifications:
      (a)  1 sample of 23kg  (50 Ib.) minimum for every 4.8km (3 mi.)  sampled
      (b) composite of 4 increments: lateral strips of 20cm (Sin.) width extending  over traveled
          portion of roadway half
Indicate deviations from above method:
SAMPLING  DATA
Sample
No.






Time






Location






Surface
Area






Depth






Quantity
of Sample






DIAGRAM
                  Figure A-2.   Sampling data form  for  unpaved roads.

                                          A-4

-------
A. 2  PAVED ROADS

     Ideally, for a  given  paved road, one gross sample per every 8  km  (5
miles) of paved roads should be collected.   For industrial roads, one gross
sample should be  obtained  for each road segment in the plant.   The  gross
sample should consist of at  least  two  separate  increments per travel  lane.
Thus, the gross sample collected from  a four-lane roadway would  consist of
eight sample increments.

     Figure A-3 presents a diagram showing the location of incremental sam-
ples for  a  four-lane road.   Each  incremental sample  should  consist of a
lateral strip 0.3  to 3  m (1 to 10 ft) in width across a travel  lane.  The
exact width  is  dependent  on the amount of  loose  surface  material  on the
paved roadway.  For  visually dirty road, a width of 0.3 m (1 ft) is  suffi-
cient; but  for  a  visually clean road, a width of 3 m (10 ft) is needed to
obtain an adequate sample.

     The above sampling procedure may be considered as the preferred method
of collecting surface dust from paved roadways.   In many instances,  however,
the  collection  of  eight  sample increments may not be feasible due to man-
power, equipment,  and traffic/hazard limitations.   As an alternative method,
samples can  be  obtained  from a single  strip  across all the travel  lanes.
When it  is  necessary to resort to this  sampling  strategy,  care must be
taken to  select sites  that  have dust  loading and traffic characteristics
typical  of  the entire roadway  segment of  interest.   In this situation,
sampling from a strip 3 m to 9 m (10 to 30 ft) in width is suggested.  From
this width,  sufficient  sample can be  collected, and  a  step toward  repre-
sentativeness in sample acquisition will be accomplished.

     Samples are  removed  from the road surface by vacuuming, preceded  by
broom sweeping  if  large aggregate  is  present.   The samples should be taken
from the  traveled  portion  of the  lane with the area measured and recorded
on the appropriate data form.  With a whisk broom and a dust pan, the larger
                                    A-5

-------
                                     -8km (5 Mi.) of similar  road type
Increment
               Figure A-3.   Location  of incremental sampling  sites on a paved  road.

-------
particles are  collected from  the  sampling area and placed  in  a clean,
labeled container  (plastic  jar or  bag).   The remaining  smaller  particles
are then swept from the road with a electric broom-type vacuum sweeper.   The
sweeper must be  equipped  with a preweighed, prelabeled,  disposable vacuum
bag.  Care must  be taken  when installing the bags in the sweeper to avoid
torn bags which  can result in loss of sample.  After the sample has been
collected, the bag should  be removed from  the  sweeper,  checked  for leaks
and stored  in  a prelabeled,  gummed envelope  for transport.   Figure A-4
presents a data form to be used for the sampling of paved roads.

     Values for  the dust loading on only the traveled portion of the road-
way are needed  for inclusion in the appropriate emission factor equation.
Information pertaining  to  dust loading on curb/berm and parking areas is
necessary in  estimating carry-on potential to  determine the appropriate
Industrial Road Augmentation factor.

A. 3  STORAGE PILES

     In sampling the surface  of a pile to  determine  representative proper-
ties for  use  in  the wind erosion equation, a gross sample made up of top,
middle, and bottom  incremental samples should ideally be obtained since the
wind disturbs the  entire  surface  of the pile.   However,  it is impractical
to climb to the top or even middle of most industrial storage piles because
of the large size.

     The most practical approach in sampling from large piles is to minimize
the bias  by sampling as near  to the middle  of the pile as practical and by
selecting sampling locations  in a  random fashion.   Incremental samples
should be obtained along  the entire perimeter  of  the  pile.   The spacing
between the  samples should  be such that  the  entire pile perimeter is
traversed with  approximately  equidistant  incremental  samples.   If small
piles are sampled, incremental samples should  be collected  from the top,
middle, and bottom.
                                    A-7

-------
                                     SAMPLING  DATA
                                     Paved Road Loading
Date
                                                                  Recorded By
Type of Material Sampled:
Site of Sampling:
Type of Pavement:  Asphalt/Concrete
                                          No. of Traffic Lanes
                                          Surface Condition 	
   3.
   4.
SAMPLING  METHOD
   1.  Sampling device: Portable vacuum cleaner (broom sweep first if loading is heavy)
   2.  Sampling depth: Loose surface material
       Sample container:  Metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
       Gross sample specifications:
       (a)  1 sample within 100 m of the air sampling site
       (b)  composite of up to 3 increments:  lateral  strips of 1  m minimum width extending
            from curb to curb
       (c )  total sample weight of at least 4.5 Kg
   Indicate deviations from above method: 	
SAMPLING  DATA
Sample
No.






Vac
Bag






Time






Surface
Area






Quantity
of Sample






Sample
No.






Vac
Bag






Time






Surface
Area






Quantity
of Sample






DIAGRAM
                                              -+H-
                       K-
 7/80
                         Figure  A-4.   Sampling  data for paved  roads.
                                              A-8

-------
     An incremental sample  (e.g.,  one shovelful) is collected by skimming
the surface of the pile in a direction upward along the face.   Every effort
must be made by the person obtaining the sample not to purposely avoid sam-
pling larger pieces of raw material.  Figure A-5 presents a data form to be
used for the sampling of storage piles.

     In obtaining a gross sample for the purpose of characterizing a load-in
or load-out process, incremental samples sould be taken from the portion of
the storage pile surface:   (1) which has been formed by the addition of ag-
gregate material or  (2)  from  which aggregate material is being reclaimed.
                                    A-9

-------
  Sample
  No	
SAMPLING  DATA
    Storage Piles
Date	
Recorded by.
 Type of Material Sampled:.
 Site of Sampling:	
 SAMPLING METHOD
   1.  Sampling device:  pointed shovel
   2.  Sampling depth:  10- 15cm (4-6 inches)
   3.  Sample container:  metal or plastic bucket with sealed poly liner
   4.  Gross sample specifications:
      (a)  1  sample of 23kg (50 Ib.) minimum  for every pile sampled
      (b)  composite of 10 increments
   5.  Minimum portion of stored material (at one site) to be sampled:  25%
Indicate deviations from above method:



SAMPLING DATA
Sample
No.












Time












Location (Refer to map^












Surface
Area












Depth












Quantity
of Sample












              Figure A-5.   Sampling data  form for storage piles.
                                         A-10

-------
             APPENDIX B


PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF
        SURFACE/BULK SAMPLES
                 B-l

-------
                                APPENDIX B

                   PROCEDURES FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF
                           SURFACE/BULK SAMPLES
B.I  SAMPLES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN PAVED ROADS

B.I.I  Sample Preparation

     Once the 23  kg  (50 Ib) gross sample is brought to the laboratory, it
must be prepared  for  silt analysis.  This entails dividing the  sample  to  a
workable size.

     A 23 kg (50  Ib)  gross  sample  can be divided by  using:  (1) mechanical
devices; (2) alternate shovel method; (3) riffle; or (4) coning and quarter-
ing method.   Mechanical  division devices are not discussed in this  section
since they are not found in many laboratories.   The alternate shovel method
is actually only necessary for samples weighing hundreds of pounds.   There-
fore, this appendix discusses only the use of the riffle and the coning and
quartering method.

     ASTM Standards describe  the  selection  of the correct riffle size and
the correct use of the riffle.  Riffle slot widths should be at least three
times the size of the largest aggregate in the material being divided.   The
following quote describes the use of the riffle:1
1    D2013-72.   Standard  Method of Preparing  Coal  Samples  for Analysis.
     Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1977.
                                    B-2

-------
     "Divide the gross sample by using a riffle.   Riffles properly used will
     reduce sample variability but cannot eliminate it.  Riffles are shown
     in Figure B-l,  (a) and (b).   Pass the material  through the riffle  from
     a feed scoop, feed  bucket,  or riffle pan having a lip or opening  the
     full  length of the riffle.  When using any of the above containers to
     feed  the riffle,  spread  the material evenly in the container, raise
     the container, and  hold  it with its front edge resting on top of  the
     feed  chute, then slowly tilt it so that the material flows in a uniform
     stream through the hopper straight down over the center of the riffle
     into  all the slots, thence  into the  riffle pans, one-half of the sam-
     ple being collected in a pan.   Under no circumstances shovel  the sample
     into  the riffle,  or dribble into the riffle from a  small-mouthed con-
     tainer.  Do not allow the material to build up in or above the riffle
     slots.   If it does not flow freely through the slots, shake or vibrate
     the riffle to facilitate even flow."

     The procedure for coning and quartering is best illustrated in Figure
B-2.   The following  is a description of the procedure:   (1) mix the mate-
rial  and shovel  it  into a neat cone; (2) flatten the cone by pressing  the
top without further  mixing;  (3)  divide- the flat circular pile into equal
quarters by cutting or scraping out two diameters at right angles;  (4)  dis-
card two opposite quarters; (5)  thoroughly mix the two remaining quarters,
shovel them into a cone, and repeat the quartering and discarding procedures
until the sample  has  been  reduced to 0.9 to 1.8 kg (2 to 4 Ib).  Samples
likely to be  affected  by moisture or drying must be handled rapidly, pre-
ferably in  an area with a controlled atmosphere, and sealed in a container
to prevent further changes during transportation and storage.   Care must be
taken that  the  material  is  not contaminated by  anything on the floor  or
that a portion is not  lost through cracks or holes.   Preferably,  the coning
and quartering  operation should  be conducted on a floor  covered with clean
paper.  Coning  and quartering is a simple procedure which is applicable to
all powdered materials and to sample sizes ranging from a few grams to  several
hundred pounds.2
     Silverman,  L.,  et al.,  Particle Size Analysis in Industrial Hygiene,
     Academic Press, New York, 1971.
                                    B-3

-------
Feed Chute
     Riffle Sampler
         (a)
    Riffle Bucket and
Separate Feed Chute  Stand

         (b)
         Figure B-l.   Sample  dividers (riffles).
                            B-4

-------
Figure B-2.   Coning and quartering.
                B-5

-------
     The size of the laboratory sample is important—too little sample will
not be  representative  and too much sample will be unwieldy.  Ideally, one
would like to  analyze  the entire gross sample in batches, but this is not
practical.   While all  ASTM Standards  ackhowledge  this  impracticality, they
disagree on the exact size, as indicated by the range of recommended samples,
extending from 0.05 to 27 kg (0.1 to 60 Ib).

     The main  principle  in  sizing the laboratory sample is to have suffi-
cient coarse and  fine  portions to  be  representative  of the  material and  to
allow sufficient  mass  on each sieve  so  that  the  weighing  is  accurate.   A
recommended rule  of  thumb is to have  twice as much  coarse  sample as  fine
sample.   A laboratory sample of 800 to 1,600 g is recommended since that is
the largest quantity  that can be handled by the scales normally available
(1,600-g capacity).   Also, more sample than this can produce screen clogging
for the 8 in.  diameter screens normally available.

B.I.2  Laboratory Analysis of Samples for Silt Content

     The basic  recommended  procedure  for silt analysis is mechanical, dry
sieving.  A step-by-step procedure is given in Table B-l.   The sample should
be oven dried for 24 hr at 230°F before sieving.   The sieving time is vari-
able; sieving  should be  continued  until  the net  sample weight collected  in
the pan  increases by less than 3.0% of the  previous  net sample weight col-
lected  in  the  pan.  A  minor  variation of 3.0% is  allowed  since some sample
grinding due to  inter-particle  abrasion will  occur, and consequently, the
weight will continue  to  increase.   When the change reduces to 3.0%,  it  is
thought that the  natural  silt has been  passed  through the No. 200 sieve
screen and that any additional increase is  due to grinding.

     Both  the  sample  preparation operations  and  the  sieving  results  can
be recorded on Figure B-3.
                                    B-6

-------
                     TABLE B-l.  SILT ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
1.    Select the appropriate 8-in. diameter, 2-in. deep sieve sizes.  Recom-
     mended U.S. Standard Series sizes are:  3/8 in., No. 4, No. 20, No. 40,
     No.  100, No.  140, No. 200, and a pan.  Comparable Tyler Series sizes can
     also be utilized.  The No. 20 and the No.  200 are mandatory.  The others
     can be varied if the recommended sieves are not available or if buildup
     on one particular sieve during sieving indicates that an intermediate
     sieve should be inserted.

2.    Obtain a mechanical sieving device such as a vibratory shaker or a
     Roto-Tap.

3.    Clean the sieves with compressed air and/or a soft brush.   Material
     lodged in the sieve openings or adhering to the sides of the sieve should
     be removed (if possible) without handling the screen roughly.

4.    Obtain a scale (capacity of at least 1,600 g) and record make, capacity,
     smallest division, date of last calibration, and accuracy (if available).

5.    Tare sieves and pan.  Check the zero before every weighing.  Record
     weights.

6.    After nesting the sieves in decreasing order with pan at the bottom, dump
     dried laboratory sample (probably immediately after moisture analysis)
     into the top sieve.  Brush fine material adhering to the sides of the con-
     tainer into the top sieve and cover the top sieve with a special lid nor-
     mally purchased with the pan.

7.    Place nested sieves into the mechanical device and sieve for 20 min.  Re-
     move pan containing minus No. 200 and weigh.  Replace pan beneath the
     sieves and sieve for another 10 min.  Remove pan and weigh.  When the dif-
     ference between two successive pan sample weighings (where the tare of
     the pan has been subtracted) is less than 3.0%, the sieving is complete.

8.    Weigh each sieve and its contents and record the weight.  Check the zero
     before every weighing.

9.    Collect the laboratory sample and place the sample in a separate con-
     tainer if further analysis is expected.
                                    B-7

-------
                                        SILT  ANALYSIS
Date
                    Recorded By
  Sample No:
  Material:
  Split Sample Balance:
  Make	
  Capac i ty	
  Smallest Division
Material Weight (after drying)
Pan + Material:	
Pan:
Dry Sample:
Final Weight:
                                            % Silt =  Net Weight <200 Mesh
                                             /0 Sllt       Total Net Weight     X 10°
                   SIEVING
Time: Start:
Initial (Tare):
10 min:
20 min:
30 rnin:
40 min:
Weight (Pan Only)





                                      SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Screen
3/8 in.
4 mesh
10 mesh
20 mesh
40 mesh
100 mesh
140 mesh
200 mesh
Pan
Tare Weight
(Screen)









Final Weight
(Screen + Sample)









Net Weight (Sample)









%









Comments:
11/81
           Figure B-3.  Form for  recording sample preparation  operations and sieving
                          results.
                                                B-8

-------
B.2  SAMPLES FROM PAVED ROADS

B.2.1  Sample Preparation and Analysis for Total Loading

     The gross  sample  of paved road dust will arrive at the laboratory in
two types of containers:  (1) the broom swept dust will be in plastic bags;
and (2) the vacuum swept dust will be in vacuum bags.

     Both the broom  swept dust and the vacuum swept dust are weighed on a
beam balance.   The broom swept dust is weighed in a tared container.   The
vacuum swept dust is weighed  in the vacuum bag  which was  tared and equili-
brated in the laboratory before going to the field.   The vacuum bag and its
contents should  be equilibrated  again in the laboratory  before weighing.

     The total  surface dust loading on the traveled lanes of the paved road
is then  calculated in  units  of kilograms  of  dust on the traveled lanes per
kilometer of  road.   When only one  strip of  length is  taken across  the
traveled lanes,  the  total dust loading on the traveled  lanes  is calculated
as follows:
                    L =  mb + mv                                      (B-l)
                            £
               L °  7® 4&f <§W^ /©
-------
                   mbl+  mvl+  mb5+  mv5 +
               L = - +                            (B-2)
                  mb2 + mv2 + mb6 + mv6
                  mb3 + mv3 + mb5 + mv7
                  mb4 + V + mb8 + mv8
               L  -
     where     m,   = mass of broom sweepings for increment i  (kg)

               m   = mass of vacuum sweepings for increment i  (kg)

               £•   =  length of  increment  i as measured  along  the  road
                       center line (km)

B.2.2  Sample Preparation and Analyses for Road Dust Silt Content

     After weighing the  sample  to calculate total  surface dust loading on
the traveled  lanes, the  broom swept and vacuum swept dust is composited.
The composited  sample  is usually  small and  requires no sample splitting  in
preparation for sieving.   If splitting is necessary to prepare a laboratory
sample of 800 to  1,600 g, the techniques discussed  in Section B.I.I can  be
used.   The laboratory  sample  is then  sieved  using the techniques  described
in Section B.I. 2.
                                    B-10

-------
           APPENDIX C
PROCEDURES FOR QUANTIFICATION OF
     TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
               C-l

-------
                                APPENDIX C

                     PROCEDURES FOR QUANTIFICATION OF
                          TRAFFIC CHARACTERISTICS
     From Section 2.1 of the body of this report, it is apparent that traf-
fic characteristics must be quantified along with road surface dust in order
to utilize the  emission  factor equations.   The following sections provide
data collection  techniques and  forms  for  the quantification of traffic
characteristics such as  number of vehicles by type (vehicle mix), vehicle
speed,  weight,  number  of wheels, number of  travel  lanes and percent of
traffic riding on the road berms.

C.I  VEHICLE SPEED

     There are  two  ways  to measure vehicle speed in the field:   (1) radar
guns; and  (2)  stop-watch timing between two markers.   The sampling period
should be  15  to 30 min for each site where a gross sample of road surface
material  was collected.

C.2  VEHICLE MIX

     The vehicle  mix  is  performed by a  observer  in the field.   The mix
categorizes vehicles  passing  the observation point by  type,  weight,  and
number of  wheels.  The  total  vehicle count  divided  by the observation
period gives the traffic density for that period.  It is important that the
observer  identify whether haul  or  dump trucks  are  loaded  or unloaded.
Figure C-l provides  the  form  used to  tabulate vehicle  mix  data.  Vehicle
mix  should be  determined at the sites where gross samples of road surface
material  were  collected.   The  sampling period should be 15 to 30 min for
each site chosen.
                                    C-2

-------
Sample
No	
                                   VEHICLE MIX
                                            Date	
                                            Recorded by.
Road Location:.
Road Type:	
Sampling Start Time:.
                   Stop  Time:
Vehicle Type/Wt. Axles/Wheels    123456789   10    Total
 Cars, Vans  &
 Pickups	
2/4
 Dump trucks
 (loaded)

 Dump trucks
 (unloaded)
3/10
3/10
 Haul trucks
 (loaded)
      trucks
  (unloaded)
2/6
2/6
 Tractor-trailers    5/18
 Tractor-trailers    4/14
                      Figure C-l.   Vehicle mix data form.
                                       C-3

-------
     For industrial roads, it is important to meet with plant personnel to
identify the manufacturer  and model  of heavy-duty vehicles  such  as  haul
trucks so that  reliable  weights  can be determined.  For example, Euclid
R-35, R-50,  and R-85 weigh 29, 43,  and 56  tons unloaded, respectively.

     If emission rates are to be determined,  the vehicle mixes do provide  a
total vehicle count over the 15  to 30 min sampling period, but it is  better
to place an  automatic traffic counter at the site for a 24-hr period.  The
automatic traffic  counters allow  a much more representative sampling time
(24-hr) while requiring  a  minimum amount of personnel  hours in the field.

C.3  NUMBER OF LANES TRAVELED BY VEHICLES

     The observer  at each  site should identify  the number of travel  lanes.
This will equal the total  number of  lanes minus the parking  lanes.   At in-
dustrial sites, the  number of  parking  lanes will  often  be  zero and the
travel lanes will  equal  the total  number of lanes.

C.4  QUANTIFICATION OF TRAVEL ON ROAD BERM

     For vehicle traffic  on  paved roads, the existence of vehicle traffic
on unpaved  berms is  important to quantify.  This  situation can  occur when,
for example, two large haul trucks traveling in opposite directions pass on
a two  lane  paved  road.   One or both the trucks are often forced to travel
with one set of wheels on the berm.  If the berm is unpaved, this could re-
sult  in  increased  emissions.   Even if  the berm is  paved,  an increase in
emissions may occur because of loose dust accumulations.   The field observer
should record the  nature of the berm,  i.e.,  paved (clean or dirty) or un-
paved, and  the  percentage  of vehicles  traveling  on the berm.   Figure C-l
could be used  for  this  purpose.    For example,  simply circling  the symbol
used to indicate a vehicle pass could indicate that the vehicle traveled on
the  berm of the road.   Based on the  percentage of traffic on paved  roads
traveling on an  unpaved berm,  the industrial road augmentation factor (I)
can be determined from Figure C-2.
                                    C-4

-------
              20           40          60           80          100
          Percent of Vehicles Traveling on Unpaved Berm (%)
Figure C-2.  Determination of industrial  road  augmentation factor.
                                C-5

-------