GROUP II
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTHTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY
PLANNING AND STANDARDS
JANUARY 1973
-------
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION ON GROUP II NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
FOR INTERAGENCY REVIEW
SYNOPSIS
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to establish
standards of performance for new sources which require the best system
of emissions control (considering cost) which are judged to be adequately
demonstrated. The Section provides that, for purposes of establishing
such standards, the Administrator may distinguish between types, sizes,
and classes of sources; and that standards can be established for any
pollutant that contributes to the endangerment of health and welfare. On
December 23, 1971, (36 F.R. 24876), EPA promulgated standards for cement
plants, sulfuric acid plants, nitric acid plants, municipal incinerators,
and fossil-fuel fired steam generators in 40 CFR Part 60.
w ~
Enclosed in Tabs A and B are an announcement document and proposed
regulations for publication in the Federal Register to initiate rule-
making action. The regulations include necessary changes to the General
Provisions of 40 CFR Part 60 and standards for the following seven
source categories:
Source Category
asphalt concrete plants
petroleum refineries
storage vessels for
petroleum liquids
secondary lead smelters
brass and bronze
ingot production plants
iron and steel mills
Affected Facility
process equipment
fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst
regenerators
process gas burners
entire facility
furnaces
furnaces
basic oxygen process
furnaces
Pollutant
particulate matter
particulate matter
and CO
sulfur dioxide
hydrocarbons
*
particulate matter
particulate matter
particulate matter
sewage treatment plants
sludge incinerators
particulate matter
-------
BASIS FOR SELECTING SOURCE CATEGORIES-^
The source categories were selected primarily on the basis of pollution
potential, expected growth, and the availability of effective technology.
However, selection was tempered by practical consideration of source
testing and manpower limitations and by the schedule of current industrial
studies.
Iron and steel mills and petroleum refineries are major sources, and
the affected facilities designated in the standards are among the largest
sources of particulates, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide in the
nation. Future standards are planned for other facilities in these
categories. Storage vessels, also associated with refineries, are among
the major stationary sources of hydrocarbons.
Standards for sewage.sludge incinerators are being proposed due to EPA's
involvement in construction grants. In addition, a large number of new
incinerators are anticipated because of restrictions being imposed on
other means of sludge disposal. Furthermore, sewage sludge incinerators
are regarded as major sources of trace metal emissions, such as cadmium
and lead; a general particulate matter standard will, to some degree,
control trace metal emissions.
Asphalt concrete plants associated with road paving are prominent sources
of excessive dust. They are numerous, with some 4800 existing plants and
a growth rate of approximately 240 new plants per year.
Secondary brass and bronze producers and secondary lead smelters were
included to establish emission limits for lead as well as general particu-
late matter. Further review indicated that specific lead standards should
not be promulgated at this time. Nevertheless, reduction in lead emissions
will be assured because the control equipment required to meet the proposed
general particulate matter emission limits is, in most cases, the best
available means of abating lead particulate emissions.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS AND IMPACT
Wherever possible, the Group II standards are stated in terms of pollutant
concentration at the stack rather than mass per unit input, product, or
heat release rate. "This course of action was taken in response to state-
ments made by State and local air pollution control officials that they
could more directly relate concentration limits to their enforcement
programs. This action will not preclude future use of standards stated
in terms other than pollutant concentrations, however, if such standards
are more applicable to a particular source category. It is intended that
'concentration limits be achieved by applying best control technology and
[that dilution of exhaust gases is not acceptable. Specific language has
] been provided in the regulations to preclude such dilution.
-------
Table 1 summarizes the proposed standards-and the economic impact antici-
pated from establishment of these standards. The following summaries
relating to affected facilities are intended for briefing purposes only.
More detailed information may be found in the "Background Document" under
Tab C.
The particulate standard for asphalt concrete plants (0.030 gr/DSCF) is
generally more stringent than existing regulations. EPA data indicated
average emission levels below 0.020 gr/DSCF, but considerations of the
wide range of individual test results, 0.005 to 0.024 gr/DSCF, and possible
variations in raw materials argue in favor of the recommended standard.
Investment and operating costs required of a new installation under the
recommended standards are of the same magnitude as those required under
State implementation plans, so that there will be little or no economic
penalty incurred by a new plant.
The particulate standard for petroleum refinery fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators is slightly more restrictive than currently
achieved, but is justified by demonstrated performance of similar control
devices on other sources and the magnitude of mass emission rates. A new
technology in catalyst regeneration increases gasoline yield by three per-
cent, but emits greater quantities of carbon monoxide than an older type
of technology. The carbon monoxide limitation is therefore not as restric-
tive as can be achieved by the older type of technology in order to accom-
modate development of the new system, but it is more restrictive than
would be required to meet ambient air standards.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from petroleum refinery units burning process
fuel gas, such as process heaters, boilers, or waste gas disposal systems,
are restricted by limiting the concentration of hydrogen sulfide in the
gaseous fuel. The standard will require installation and operation of
amine treatment units (or equivalent processes) which are now often
installed to prevent corrosion of process equipment. Compliance with
the standard is based upon hydrogen sulfide monitoring in the process
gas system. The cost of control is limited to the increased operating
cost required to assure that the treating unit is suitably maintained
to provide satisfactory performance.
Hydrocarbon losses from hydrocarbon storage vessels are minimized by
requiring the use of floating roof tanks or equivalent for storage of-
hydrocarbons with true vapor pressure (TVP) above 1.5 psia and vapor
recovery systems or equivalent for liquids with TVP greater than 11 psia.
The standard is similar to many State and local regulations. The savings
from the product recovered exceeds the annualized cost of the floating
roof when storing gasoline or crude oil in tanks greater than 20,000
'barrels capacity.
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY TABLE OF NSPS COST ESTIMATES
PROPOSED STANDARD
Industry
Asphalt Concrete
Plants
Petroleum
Refineries
Hydrocarbon
Storage
Vessels
Brass and
Bronze
Affected
Facility
Entire
Facility '
FCC Catalyst
Regenerator
Units
Burning .'
Process Gas
Storage /
Tanks
Furnace
Emissions
Performance
Standard
.030 gr/DSCF
0.020 gr/DSCF
(Particulates)
0.050 Volume %*
(Carbon Monoxide)
10 gr H2S/
100 SCF
of Fuel Gas2
Require a
Floating
Roof Tank5
.020 g^/DSCF
BASIS FOR COST ANALYSIS
Typical
Facility
Size
150 TPH
300 TPH
20,000 B/D
65,000 B/D
80,000 BBL
50 TPH
Control
Equipment
fabric Filter or_
Venturi Scrubber
fabric Fil ter or.
Venturi Scrubber
Precipitator
Precipi tator
Floating Roof
Tank
Fabric Filter-
ESTIMATED COST
Investment
Cost ($)
63,000
56,000
92,000
95,000
700,000
1,150,000
27,000
(Incremental
over a fixed
roof)
110,000
Annual
Cost ($/yr)
18,000
21,000
26,000
36 ,000
150,000
225,000
3,800
20,070
4
Impact
$.16/Ton of Product
$.19/Ton of Product
$.12/Ton of Product
$.16/Ton of Product
$.022/BBL/of Fresh Feed
$.010/BBL/of Fresh Feed
/
Gasoline ($ll,000/yr)3
Jet Naptha($l,000/yr)
Crude Oil ($5,200/yr)
$4.01/Ton of Product
-------
TABLE 1 (Cont.)
SUMMARY TABLE OF NSPS COST ESTIMATES
%
PROPOSED STANDARD
Industry
Iron and Steel
Sewage
Treatment
Secondary
Lead
Affected '.
Facility
r
Basic Oxygen.
Furnace
Sludge
Incinerator .'
Furnace
Emissions ,
*
Performance
Standard
.020 gr/DSCF
.030 gr/DSCF
.020 gr/DSCF
BASIS FOR C )S r ANALYSIS
Typical
Faci 1 1 ty
Size
140 T/melt
10 TPD
50 TPD
Reverb.
Furnace
50 TPD
Blast
Furnace
Control
Equipment
Open Hood Scrubbing
Preci pita tor
Closed Hood Scrub.
Ventun Scrubber
(Low Energy)
Fabric Filter or
Ventun Scrubber
Fabric Filter or
lenturi Scrubber
[ lus Afterburner
ESTIMATED COST
Investment
Cost ($)
5,720,000
5,880,000
6,760,000
60,000
188,100
125,200
156,600
123,200
Annual
Cost ($/yr)
1,946,000
1,492,000
2,139,000
11,700
50,600
35,600
50,600
79,700
Impact
$1.17-1.67/Ton of Steel
/
' $.12/person/yr
$1.65/Ton of Product
$2.85/Ton of Product
$4.05/Ton of Product
$6.38/Ton of Product
lr.O boilers have an attractive economic payout and as a result, most new units would be built with CO boilers even without the proposed standards.
2It 1s coranonly accepted and necessary practice to treat the various refinery gas and liquid streams for product quality control. Consequently, there
is a 2-5% increase in investment cost but no discernable difference in operating costs between current industry practice and the requirements for
new source standards. v v
^Figures shown are net costs and include a credit for recovered materials. Figures in parenthesis indicate a savings.
^Estimated Product prices: Asphalt Concrete - S6/Ton
Secondary 'Lead - $320/Ton
Brass & Bronze - $1100 to 1200/Ton
Iron & Steel - $220/Ton (Price of finished steel products for a typical mill product mix.)
^Floating roof tanks are required for Storage of liquids with vapor pressures between 1.5 and 11.0 psia. Storage of liquids with vapor pressures
above 11 0 psia requires use of vapor recovery or equivalent.
-------
6.
The standard for secondary brass and bronze furnace emissions is more
stringent than existing State and local regulations, but tests show
values well within the limit. The annualized control cost is equivalent
to $2.64 per ton of production, or about 0.2 percent of the product price.
It appears that the same investment required to achieve State regulations
for existing iron and steel industry basic oxygen furnaces will suffice
to put new units into compliance.
Sewage treatment plant sludge incinerators may be able to achieve emission
levels below the standard. Almost all units now in operation are equipped
with medium and low efficiency scrubbers. Air flow rates are small, however,
and at the rate of 0.030 gr/DSCF particulate matter emissions are often
less than one pound per hour. Some State and local regulations employ
a process weight standard to control emissions. On a per capita basis,
meeting the proposed new source performance standard is estimated to cost
$.04 more per year than a process weight standard achieving a level of
control equivalent to 0.10 gr/DSCF. Annual cost to meet the process
weight standard is estimated to be four percent of the total annual cost
of the sludge incinerator facility. To comply with the proposed new
source performance standard, the annual cost of control is estimated to
be six percent of the total annual cost of the incinerator facility.
The additional annualized cost for a baghouse to control particulates from
secondary lead smelter and refinery furnaces would be about $1.65 per ton
of product. Assuming no ability to shift costs, this would lower the
typical net income to the industry by approximately seven percent.
Potential adverse environmental impact of these standards has been considered.
It has been concluded that negligible adverse environmental impact can be
expected.
ISSUES
Major issues are summarized as follows:
1. The hydrocarbon storage vessel regulation initiates an unprecedented
approach to new source performance standards, in that it specifies
equ,ipuier],t r,ather than emission requirements. .Nevertheless, there,...
is agreement with State'atid local control officials'and the
petroleum industry that alternative regulations would be extremely
cumbersome to enforce. Furthermore, they would not be consistent
with the several existing State and local regulations that are
being enforced.
2. Particulate emissions from new basic oxygen furnaces in the iron
and steel industry are limited to 0.020 grains/DSCF. A basic
oxygen furnace can be constructed according to two fundamental
-------
designs. The design used in the United States is the open
hood, or combustion system. In this system, large volumes
of dilution air are allowed to mix with furnace effluent
gases to supply oxygen for carbon monoxide combustion. A
second and newer design, used to some degree in Europe and
Japan, is the closed hood system in which no dilution air is
used. To prevent carbon monoxide explosion, wet rather than dry
collection systems are used to remove particulate from the
effluent gas before it is used as a fuel to preheat incoming
gases or collected for chemical processing. Due to the smaller
gas volumes inherent in the closed hood system, total emissions
at the rate of 0.020 grain/DSCF are less than total emissions
from the open hood system at that rate. To compensate for this
difference, a second standard of 0.10 Ib/ton of steel was con-
sidered in order to minimize dilution air volumes used in the
open hood system. After extensive discussion with the American
Iron and Steel Institute, it was agreed that the second standard
would create explosive conditions; for this reason, the second
standard is no longer recommended. A standard written in terms
of pounds of pollutant per ton of steel could be used in place
of the concentration standard and established at such a level
that all basic oxygen furnaces would be of the closed hood design.
This course of action is not recommended after considering
problems associated with mandating use of the closed hood system.
Some of these problems are technological problems of steel making,
the use of manganese which is a strategic raw material, a carbon
monoxide explosion hazard, and the limited capability of the
closed hood system to process low grade scrap.
Consideration was given to the recommendation of an emission
standard for lead, as well as general particulates, for secondary
lead smelters and brass and bronze refineries. Since lead is a
non-criteria pollutant, States would then be required under
Section m(d) to establish emission standards fot> lead for
existing sources. The action is not recommended at this time
for the following reasons:
a. Establishment of a new source standard for lead would, under
Section lll(d), require State lead emission standards. This
would be in conflict with other possible approaches for
controlling stationary lead sources -- e.g., Section 110
(implementation plans) and Section 112 (hazardous pollutants).
It would be premature to proceed with Section 111 standards
for lead until EPA's motor vehicle fuel additive regulations
and policies are finalized.
-------
8
b. The control equipment which is required to meet the
proposed particulate emission limit is, in most cases,
the best available means of abating lead emissions.
PUBLIC REACTION
1. Several asphalt trade associations, including the National
Asphalt Pavement Association, have expressed objections to
stringent standards in letters to members of Congress and our
engineering staff. At their request, we met with the various
trade associations on several occasions. The industry now
agrees that high efficiency scrubbers and bag collectors repre-
sent "best demonstrated technology." Earlier they believed that
variations in the size, shape, and distribution of aggregates
mixed in different geographical locations cause variations in
collector efficiency which will in some cases cause the proposed
emission standard to be exceeded. To verify this hypothesis,
they conducted a test program to obtain data. They concluded
that emissions are not significantly affected by particle size,
shape, or distribution of aggregates. They now allege that
frequent shut-downs and start-ups, characteristic of the asphalt
concrete industry, will have a negative effect on collection
efficiency of control systems. It is EPA's position that
Section 60.8 of 40 CFR Part 60, which specifies that performance
tests be conducted during periods of representative performance
and consist of three repetitions of the applicable test method,
precludes the possibility that performance tests would be unduly
influenced by routine shut-downs and start-ups.
2. The petroleum refining industry is not in agreement with our
proposed particulate standard for catalyst regenerators. They
have suggested a less stringent standard and cite the inability
of their principal type of dust collection equipment -- electro-
static precipitators -- to consistently meet the proposed
standard. While there is only limited data to support the
proposed standard, it is significant that the precipitators
installed to date by refiners are generally smaller and less
effective than precipitators installed in some other industrial
applications. Furthermore, other types of high efficiency
dust collectors -- baghouses and high energy scrubbers -- which
might be more effective have never been installed on catalyst
regenerators. There are no technological reasons why more
effective precipitators or other control devices cannot be
utilized. In view of these circumstances and the fact that
catalyst regenerators exhaust large volumes of waste gases, the
proposed limit appears reasonable. Many State and local regulations
limit large catalyst regenerator emissions to the type of
process weight curve described in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 51.
-------
COORDINATION AND REVIEW
The regulations and supporting information have been discussed with
the National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee, the
Federal Agency Liaison Committee, and with representative trade
associations and knowledgeable individuals. They were also reviewed
with the EPA Working Group and the EPA Steering Committee, with whom
there is general agreement on the present content. Mr. Ruckelshaus
reviewed and approved the regulations and supporting information on
January 6, 1973.
" 'Enclosures':
:}Jdb A' ..Ann'pgricement.- ' "'_",. ^ , . . - . ,. ,
i Tab R: Proposed Changes and, Additions to 40*CFR .Part 60 " -1-'
[, Tab ,C.i Background' Information for Proposed New Source. Performance
I Standards ' ' '' ' " '
-------
TAB A
ANNOUNCEMENT OF LIST OF CATEGORIES
OF STATIONARY SOURCES
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AIR POLLUTION PREVENTION AND CONTROL
Additions to the List of Categories of Stationary Sources
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6) directs the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish and
from time to time revise a list of categories of stationary sources
which he determines may contribute significantly to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the endangerment of public health or
welfare. Within'one hundred and twenty (120) days after the inclu-
sion of a category of stationary sources in such list, the Administrator
is required to propose regulations establishing standards of performance
for new and modified sources within such category. The original list
of five source categories was published on March 31, 1971 (36 F.R. 5931),
and standards of performance were promulgated December 23, 1971
(36 F.R. 24876).
The Administrator, after evaluating available information, has
determined that the following are additional categories of stationary
sources which meet the above requirements: asphalt concrete^plants,
petroleum refineries, storage vessels 'for petroleum liquids, secondary
brass and bronze ingot production plants, iron and steel plants, sewage
treatment plants, and secondary lead smelters. Evaluation of other
stationary source categories is being conducted, and the list will
be revised from time to time as the Administrator deems appropriate.
Accordingly, notice is given that the Administrator, pursuant to
Section lll(b)(l)A of the Act and after consultation with appropriate
advisory committees, experts, and Federal departments and agencies in
-------
accordance with Section 117(f) of the Act, effective on the date of
this publication, amends the list of categories of stationary sources
to read as follows:
LIST OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONARY SOURCES AND CORRESPONDING AFFECTED
FACILITIES
* * *
Source Category
6. Asphalt concrete plants
7. Petroleum refineries
8. Storage vessels for
petroleum liquids
9. Secondary lead smelters
10. Secondary brass and bronze
ingot production plants
11. Iron and steel plants
12. Sewage treatment plants
Affected Facility
Process equipment
Fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerators
Process gas burners
Entire facility
Furnaces
Furnaces
Basic oxygen process furnaces
Sludge incinerators
Date
William D. Ruckelshaus/Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
TAB B
PROPOSED CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO 40 CFR 60
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[40 CFR-Part 60]
STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
Proposed Standards for Seven Source Categories
Pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, the Administrator
proposes herein standards of performance for new and modified sources
within- seven categories .of stationary sources:, asphalt concrete plants,,
* i
,petrolfium refineries-, storage Vessels for petroleum liquids; secondary
""lea'd smelters, secondary brass and-bronze i'ngot yjro'duction plants,'iron
and steel plants, and sewage treatment plants. The Administrator also
proposes amendments to the general provisions of 40 CFR Part 60
published on December 23, 1971 (36 F.R. 24876), and to the Appendix,
"Test Methods," to this part. In a separate publication, on August 25,
1972 (37 F.R. 172D, the Administrator proposed amendments to the
general provisions to prescribe procedures for dealing with emissions
w.hich exceed standards during startups, shutdowns, or malfunctions.
The general provisions apply to all standards of performance for new
and modified sources, both those standards promulgated to date
(36 F.R. 24876) and those to be promulgated in the future.
f
As- prescribed by Section 111, this proposal of standards was
preceded by the Administrator's determination that these seven
categories of sources contribute significantly to air pollution
which causes or contributes to the endangerment of public health or
welfare and by his publication of a list of these categories of
-------
sources in this issue of the Federal Register.
The proposed standards apply to a selected source or sources
within each category and to selected air pollutants. For example,
the standard pertinent to iron and steel plants applies to the
emission of particulate matter from basic oxygen process furnaces.
The bases for the proposed standards include the results of
source tests conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and
local agencies, data derived from available technical literature,
information gathered during visits to pollution control agencies
and plants here and abroad, and comments and suggestions solicited
from experts. In each case, the proposed standard reflects the degree
of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best
system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction) the Administrator has determined has been
adequately demonstrated. Background information which presents the
factors considered in arriving at the proposed standards, including
costs and summaries of test data, is available free of charge from
the Emission Standards and Engineering Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711, Attention:
Mr. Don R. Goodwin. It is emphasized that the costs are considered
reasonable for new and substantially modified sources and that it is
not implied that the same costs apply to the retrofitting of existing
sources. Retrofitting existing sources to achieve the proposed
emission limitations would in some cases cost much more.
-------
Of special interest are the regulations concerning hydrocarbon
emissions from storage vessels for petroleum liquids (Subpart K), and
the allowable level of particulate emissions from asphalt batch plants
(Subpart I).
As explained in Technical Report 9, emissions of hydrocarbons
from storage vessels for petroleum liquids are significant. The emissions
are primarily associated with the release of hydrocarbon vapors during
storage and during tank filling. Rates of emissions are dependent on
a variety of factors "such as the physical properties of the material
being stored, climatic and meteorological conditions, and the size, type,
color and condition of the tank.
To minimize such losses, normal practice involves the use of
floating roof tanks; and vapor recovery systems, pressure storage,
refrigeration or combinations thereof when the vapor pressure of the
stored hydrocarbon is very high. Because of the nature of the emission
losses (high concentrations for short time periods during tank filling;
low concentrations for longer periods during storage), and the configuration
of storage tanks, direct emission measurement is highly impracticable,
especially for general enforcement purposes. An alternate approach to
direct emission measurement is a calculation procedure developed by
the American Petroleum Institute to enable the determination of product
losses, given such factors as average wind velocity, average ambient
temperature change, product physical characteristics, tank size and
mechanical conditions, and volume throughput. This calculation procedure
was considered as a possible basis for the standards of performance.
-------
Such a procedure, however, if used as the basis for standards of
performance, would require plant operators to maintain detailed
records on all the parameters used in the calculation, could severely
limit flexibility in terms of storage tank usage, and_ would greatly
complicate enforcement procedures. As a practical measure, therefore,
the Administrator has determined that equipment specification is the
most acceptable approach to standards of performance for storage vessels.
The regulations do allow for the use of equivalent technology, provided
the same degree of emission control can be demonstrated. The standard,
stated in terms of equipment specifications, will achieve essentially
the same control as the more complex calculation procedure and will
result in a minimum of plant recordkeeping and enforcement problems.
During the development of the proposed performance standard for
asphalt concrete plants, considerable comment was received from industry
indicating that the allowable emission rate cannot be routinely achieved.
Test data, EPA cost analysis for new sources, and other supporting
arguments led to the Administrator's judgment that the allowable
emission levels can be achieved at a reasonable cost. However, because
*
of the known controversy concerning the proposed standard of performance
for asphalt concrete plants, the Administrator urges all interested
parties to submit factual data during the comment period to technically
support the proposed or alternate standards.
The proposed amendments to subpart A, "General Provisions,"
include additional abbreviations; a change to the definition of
"commenced" which excludes entering into a binding agreement; substitu-
tion of an appropriate EPA Regional Office for the Office of General
-------
Enforcement as the addressee for all requests, reports, etc., sent to
the Administrator pursuant to this part; and the addition of a provision
whereby the Administrator may approve the use of alternative test methods
if results show that they are adequate for testing compliance or may
waive the requirement for performance tests if it has been demonstrated
by other means to his satisfaction that a source is being operated in
compliance with the standard.
The purpose of the provision for alternative test methods is
to allow, in certain applications, the use of source test methods such
as those specified by some State agencies which are sufficiently
reliable for certain applications but which may not be, or may not
have been shown to be, equivalent to the reference method. For example,
an alternative method which does not require traversing during sampling
for particulate matter may be approved if such method includes a
suitable correction factor designed to account for the error which
may result from failing to traverse, or if it can be demonstrated in
a specific case that failure to traverse does not affect the accuracy
of the test. Similarly, use of an in-stack filter for part>culate
sampling may be approvable as an alternative method if the method
otherwise employs provisions designed to result in precision similar
, f
to the compliance method, and a suitable correction factor is included
to account for variation between results expected due to filter location.
In cases where determination of compliance using an alternative method
is disputed, use of the reference method or its equivalent shall be
required by the Administrator.
-------
The proposed amendments to the Appendix to this part consist of
the addition of reference test methods for determining carbon monoxide
emissions and hydrogen sulfide concentrations from stationary sources.
. In accordance with Section 117(f) of the Act, publication of
these proposed amendments to 40 CFR was preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees, independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies.
Interested persons may participate in this rule making by
submitting written comments in triplicate to the Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention: Mr. Don R. Goodwin. The
Administrator will welcome comments on all aspects of the proposed
regulations including economic and technological issues, and on the
proposed test methods. All relevant comments received not later than
45 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered.
Receipt of comments will be acknowledged, but the Emission Standards
and Engineering Division will not provide substantive response to
individual comments. The standards, modified if and as the Administrator
deems appropriate after consideration of comments, will be promulgated
no later than 90 days from the date of publication of this notice, as
required by the Act. Comments received will be available for public
inspection at the Office of Public Affairs, 401 M Street, S.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20460.
This notice of proposed rule making is issued under the authority
of Sections 111 and 114 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1857c-6 and 9).
Date
William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
It is proposed to amend Part 60 of Chapter I, Title 40, of the
Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. Section 60.2 is amended by deleting the words "binding agreement
or" from paragraph (i) and by adding paragraphs (p), (q) and (r).
As amended, ง 60.2 reads as follows:
ง 60.2 Definitions.
* * * * * '
(1) "Commenced" means that an owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction or modification or that an
owner or operator has entered into a contractual obligation to
undertake and complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous
program of construction or modification.
* . * * * *
(p) "Reference method" means a method of sampling and analyzing
for an air pollutant, as described in the appendix to this
part.
(q) "Equivalent method" means any method of sampling and
analyzing for an air pollutant which can be demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction to have a consistent and
quantitatively known relationship to the reference method under
specified conditions.
(r) "Alternative method" means a method which does not meet all
the criteria for equivalency but which has been demonstrated
to the Administrator's satisfaction to, in specific cases,
produce results adequate for his determination of compliance.
-------
2. In Section 60.3, new abbreviations are added as follows:
ง 60.3 Abbreviations.
*****
sec - second
ppm - parts per million -
H20 - water
CO - carbon monoxide
mv - millivolt
N2 - nitrogen
C or ฐC - degree centigrade
F or ฐF - degree Fahrenheit
R or ฐR - degree Reaumur
ppb - parts per billion
HC1 - hydrochloric, acid
CdS - cadmium sulfide
mol. wt - molecular weight
d.s.c.f. - dry standard cubic feet
eq - equivalents
meg - milliequivalents
g-eq - gram equivalents
3. Section 60.4 is revised to read as follows:
ง 60.4 Address.
All requests, reports, applications, submittals, and other
communications to the Administrator pursuant to this part shall be
submitted in duplicate and addressed to the appropriate Regional
Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, to the attention of
the Director, Enforcement Division. The Regional Offices are as follows:
Region I, (Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Vermont) John F. Kennedy Federal Building, Boston,
Massachusetts 02203.
Region II, (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands)
Federal Office Building, 26 Federal Plaza (Foley Square), New York,
New York 10007.
-------
Region III, (Delaware, District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, West Virginia) Curtis Building, Sixth and Walnut Streets,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania J9106. - -
Region IV, (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee) Suite 300, 1421 Peachtree
Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
t
Region V, (Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin)
1 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
Region VI, (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas)
1600 Patterson Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
Region VII, (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska) 1735 Baltimore
Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64108.
Region VIII, (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming) 916 Lincoln Towers, 1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203.
*
Region IX, (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam, American Samoa)
100 California Street, San Francisco, California 94111.
Region X, (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska) 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.
-------
4. In section 60.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
ง 60.8 Performance Tests.
*****
(b) Performance tests shal.l be conducted and^data reduced in
accordance with the procedures contained in the applicable
reference test method appended to this part unless the
Administrator (1) approves the use of an equivalent method,
(2) approves the use of an alternative method the results of
which he has determined to be adequate for indicating whether
a specific source is in compliance, or (3) waives the
requirement for performance tests because the owner or
operator of a source has demonstrated by other means to the
Administrator's satisfaction that the affected facility is
being operated in compliance with the standard. Nothing in
this jubparagraph shall be construed to abrogate the
Administrator's authority to require testing under Section 114
of the Act.
*****
f
5. Subparts I, J, K, L, M, N, and 0 are added, as follows:
-------
Subpart I - Standards of Performance for
i
Asphalt Concrete Plants
ง 60.90 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in asphalt concrete olants: .dryers, hot aggregate
elevators, screening (classifying) systems, hot aggregate storage systems,
hot aggregate weighing systems, asphalt concrete mixing systems, mineral
filler loading systems, transfer and storage systems, and the loading,
transfer and storage systems which are associated with emission control
*
systems.
ง 60.91 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
(a) "Asphalt concrete plant" means any facility manufacturing
asphalt concrete by heating and drying aggregate and mixing with
asphalt cements.
(b) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or solid
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by Method 5.
ง 60.92 Standard for particulate matter.
*
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by section 60.8 is initiated, but no later than 180 days
after initial startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this part shall discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmos
phere from any affected facility which:
(1) contain particulate matter in excess of 0.030 gr./dscf
(0.068 g./NM3) ~ -----
-------
(2) exhibit 10 percent opacity, or greater, except that
where the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for failure
to meet the requirements of this subparagraph, such failure shall
not be a violation of this section.
ง 60.93 Emission monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of any asphalt concrete plant subject
to provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate photoelectric or other type smoke detector and recorder
to continuously monitor compliance with ง 60.92 (a)(2) and shall retain
the records for at least two years from the dates on which the data
were recorded.
(b) The instruments installed and used pursuant to this section
shall meet specifications prescribed by the Administrator and shall be
calibrated in accordance with the method prescribed by the manufacturer
of such instrument. The instrument shall be subjected to the
manufacturer's recommended zero adjustment and calibration procedures
at least once per 24-hour operating period unless the manufacturer
specifies or recommends calibration at shorter intervals, in which
case such specifications or recommendations shall be fallowed.
(c) The owner or operator of any affected facility subject to
the provisions of the subpart shall maintain a file of any particulate
matter emission measurements. The record(s) shall be retained for
at least two years following the dates on which the tests were conducted.
ง 60.94 Test methods and procedures. 4
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for
determining compliance with the standard prescribed by ง 60.92.
-------
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being tested is operating at or above the maximum production
rate at which such facility will be operated and under such other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve
valid test results.
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling
and observing undiluted gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is
added prior to a sampling or observation point, the owner or operator
shall determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator.
(d) The reference methods for conducting performance tests are
appended to this part.
(1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
particulate matter and moisture, Method 1 for traversing, Method 2
for determining the volumetric flow rate, and Method 3 for gas analysis.
The sampling time shall be not less than 60 minutes and not more than
150 minutes, and the minimum sampling rate shall be 0.5 dry standard
cubic foot per minute.
-------
Subpart J - Standards of Performance
for Petroleum Refineries
ง60.100 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the"foilowing
affected facilities in petroleum refineries: fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators, process heaters, boilers and waste gas
disposal systems.
ง60.101 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
(a) "Petroleum refinery" means any facility in which crude
petroleum is refined, processed or otherwise undergoes a chemical or
physical change.
(b) "Crude petroleum" means a mixture consisting of hydrocarbons
and/or sulfur, nitrogen and/or oxygen derivatives of hydrocarbons,
which is usually naturally occurring and removed from the earth in the
liquid state.
(c) "Hydrocarbon" means any material containing carbon and
f
hydrogen.
(d) "Process gas" means a gaseous mixture of hydrocarbons produced
by a refinery process unit.
(e) "Fuel gas" means process gas and/or natural gas or any other
gaseous fuel, but does not include stack gases from fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerators.
(f) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or solid
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by Method 5.
-------
(g) "Refinery process unit" means any segment of the petroleum
refinery in which a specific processing operation is conducted.
ง60.102 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) On or after the date on which.the performance test required to
be conducted by ง60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after
initial startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
part shall discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere
i
from the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator which:
(1) contain particulate matter in excess of 0.020 gr./dscf (0.46
g./NM3V ~7_ '__.""
(2) exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater, except for 3 minutes in
any one hour. Where the presence of uncombined water is the only reason
for failure to meet the requirements of this subparagraph, such failure
shall not be a violation of this section.
(b) In those instances where auxiliary liquid or solid fuels are
burned in an incinerator-waste heat boiler, particulate matter in excess
of that allowed by subparagraph (a)(l) of this section may be emitted
to the atmosphere except that the incremental rate of pa/ticulate
emissions shall not exceed 0.10 pound per million Btu (0.18 grain/per
million calories) of heat input attributable to such liquid or solid
fuel.
ง60.103 Standard for carbon monoxide.
On or after the date on which the performance test required to be
conducted by ง60.8 is initiated but noOater than 180 days after initial
startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part
shall discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere
-------
from the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst regenerator which
contain carbon monoxide in excess of 0.050 percent by volume.
ง60.104 Standard for sulfur dioxide.
(a) On or after the date on which the. performance test required
to be conducted by ง60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after
initial startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of
this part shall burn fuel gas in any affected facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart which contains hydrogen sulfide in excess
of 10 grains per 100 standard cubic feet of fuel gas, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this section.""
(b) Rather than meet the requirement of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator may elect to treat all resultant fuel
gas combustion gases in a manner equally effective for purposes of
preventing the release of sulfur dioxide to the atmosphere. Compliance
with this paragraph shall constitute compliance with paragraph (a) of
this section.
ง60.105 Emission monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of any petroleum refinery subject to
f
the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate gas concentration or other monitoring instruments as applicable:
(1) A photoelectric or other type smoke detector and recorder to
continuously monitor compliance with ง60.102 (b).
(2) An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording
compliance with ง60.103, except where compliance is achieved through
the combustion of carbon monoxide and oxygen, concentration and tempera-
-------
ture are monitored in accordance with subparagraph (a)(3) of this
t
section.
(3) Instruments for continuously monitoring and recording firebox
temperature and oxygen content.of the exhaust gas_from any carbon
monoxide combustion device except where the requirements of subparagraph
(a)(2) of this section are met.
(4) An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording
compliance wUh.ง60.104(a) -except where'thfe requirements' of. ง60.104.(b)
are met.
(5) An instrument for continuously monitoring and recording
compliance with ง60.104(b) except where the requirements of ง60.104(a)
are met.
(b) Instruments and sampling systems installed and used pursuant
to this section shall meet specifications prescribed by the
Administrator and each instrument shall be calibrated in accordance
with the method prescribed by the manufacturer of such instrument.
The instruments shall be subjected- to the manufacturers' recommended
zero adjustment and calibration procedures at least once per 24-hour
f
operating period unless the manufacturer specifies or recommends
calibration at shorter intervals, in which case such specifications
or recommendations shall be followed.
(c) Production rate and hours of operation for any fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerator shall be recorded daily.
(d) The owner or operator of any petroleum refinery subject to
the provisions of this part shall maintain a file of all measurements
required by this part and any particulate matter emission measurements.
-------
Appropriate measurements shall be reduced to the units of the applicable
standard daily and summarized monthly. The record of any such measure-
t
ments and summary shall be retained for at least 2 years following
the date of such measurements and summaries.
ง60.106 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for
determining compliance with the standards prescribed by ง60.102, ง60.103,
and ง60.104.
* **
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being t'ested" is operating at or .above the maximum production
rate at which such" facility will be operated and under such other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve
valid test results.
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling
and observing undiluted gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is
added prior to a sampling or observation, the owner or operator shall
determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator.
(d) The reference methods for conducting performance fests are
appended to this part.
(1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
particulate matter and moisture. The sampling time shall be not less
than 60 minutes and not more than 150 minutes, and the minimum sampling
rate shall be 0.5 dry standard cubic foot per minute.
(2) Method 10 shall be used for determining concentration of CO.
The sample shall be extracted at a rate proportional to the gas velocity
-------
at the sampling point. The sampling time shall be not less than 60
minutes and not more than 150 minutes.
(3) Method 6 shall be used for determining concentration of SO,,,
except that hLS concentration of the fuel gas may be-determined instead.
Method 4 shall be used to determine moisture content. The sampling
site shall be the same as for determining volumetric flow rate. The
sampling point in the duct shall be at the centroid of the cross
2
section if the cross-sectional area is less than 50 ft. or at a point
2
no closer to the walls than 3 feet if the cross sectional area is 50 ft.
or more. The sample shall be extracted a_t a rate proportional to the
gas velocity at the sampling point. The sampling time shall be no less
than 20 minutes and no more than 60 minutes, and minimum sampling
3
volume shall be 0.75 ft. corrected to standard conditions. Two samples
shall constitute one repetition and shall be taken at 1-hour intervals.
(4) Method 11 shall be used for determining the concentration
of hydrogen sulfide in fuel gas. The sampling site and point shall be
located at the centroid of the fuel gas line. For refinery fuel gas
lines operating at pressures substantially above atmospheric pressure,
the sample must be reduced to nominally atmospheric pressure* before
attempting to introduce the sample into the train. This may be
done with a flow control valve. If the pressure is high enough to
operate the train without a vacuum pump, the pump may be eliminated
from the train. The sampling rate shall not exceed 3 scfh. Four
samples shall be taken at intervals of at least 30 minutes for a
sampling time of not less than 60 minutes and not more than 150 minutes.
-------
(5) Traversing shall be conducted according to Method 1, and
Method 2 shall be used to determine volumetric flow rate of the total
effluent. Method 3 shall be used for gas analysis whenever tests
using Methods 5, 6 or 10 are conducted.
-------
Subpart K - Standards of Performance
for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids
ง60.110 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable^ to each'storage
vessel for petroleum liquids of more than 65,000 gallons capacity,
which is the affected facility.
ง60.111 Definitions. i
t
As used in thts subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have."
the meaning given them in the Act and in Subpart A of this part.
(a) "Storage vessel" means any tank ."reservoir or container used
for the storage of petroleum liquids, but does not include under-
ground tanks.
(b) "Petroleum liquids" means crude petroleum, gasoline and
petroleum distillates.
(c) "Crude petroleum" means a mixture consisting of hydrocarbons
and/or sulfur, nitrogen and/or oxygen derivatives of hydrocarbons,
which is usually naturally occurring and removed from the earth
1n the liquid state. ^
(d)^ "Gasoline" means a mixture of volatile liquid hydrocarbons
suitable for the operation of an internal combustion engine.
(e) "Petroleum distillate" means finished and intermediate products
which are manufactured in crude petroleum processing and refining
operations, but does not include heating or fuel oils.
-------
(f) "True vapor pressure" means the equilibrium pressure exerted
by a hydrocarbon at any given temperature.
(g) "Hydrocarbon" means a_ny material containing carbon and
hydrogen.
(h) "Floating roof" means a double deck or flexible single
deck pontoon type storage vessel cover, which rests upon and is
supported by the petroleum liquid being .cqntaiaed.
(i) "Vapor recovery system" means a vapor gathering system
capable of collecting hydrocarbon vapors and gases discharged and
a vapor disposal system capable of processing such hydrocarbon vapors
and gases so as to prevent their emission to the atmosphere.
(j) "Conservation vent" means a breather valve or pressure-
vacuum relief valve used as an accessory for a vent opening.
ง60.112 Standard for hydrocarbons.
No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
place, hold, or store in a storage vessel any petroleum liquid which
has a true vapor pressure (under actual storage conditions) at any
time during such storage which is:
(a) 1.5 psia (77.6 mm. Hg.) or less unless the storage vessel is
t
equipped with a conservation vent or its equivalent.
(b) In excess of 1.5 psia (77.6 mm. Hg.) but not greater than 11.0
psia (568.8 mm. Hg.) unless the storage vessel is equipped with a
floating roof or its equivalent. - .
(c) In excess of 11.0 psia. (568.8 mm. Hg.) unless the storage vessel
-------
1s equipped with a vapor recovery system or its equivalent.
ง60.113 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any storage vessel subject to the
provisions of this part shall maintain a file of daily petroleum
liquid transfer, bulk petroleum liquid temperature, and petroleum
liquid true vapor pressure at the bulk liquid temperature.
The type of^petro.leum liquid, quantity,transferred,.bulk temperature,
and true vapor pressure shall be summarized monthly. The record(s)
and summary shall be retained for at least two years following the
date of such records and summaries. This requirement shall not apply
to:
(1) Petroleum liquids which have a true vapor pressure at
actual storage conditions of 0.5 psia (25.9 mm. Hg.) or less or
(2) Petroleum liquids which have a true vapor pressure at actual
storage conditions between 2.0 and 9.0 psia inclusively
(103.8 mm. Hg. to 465.6 mm. Hg.).
f
(b) The true vapor pressure at the bulk liquid temperature shall
be determined in accordance with American Petroleum Institute
Bulletin 2517, Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof Tanks.
ง60.114 Storage vessel maintenance.
No owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
place, hold, or store in a storage vessel any petroleum liquid
which has a true vapor pressure at actual storage conditions
-------
which is in excess of 1.5 psia (77.6 mm. Hg.) unless:
i
(a) It is painted and maintained so as to prevent excessive
temperature and vapor pressure increases,
(b) The seals on any floating roof are mafntairied so as to
minimize emissions, and
(c) All gauging and sampling devices are gas-tight except
when gauging or sampling is taking place.
-------
Subpart L - Standards of Performance for
Secondary Lead Smelters
ง 60.120 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to-the following
affected facilities in secondary lead smelters: blast (cupola) furnaces,
reverberatory furnaces, and pot furnaces of more than 500 pounds charging
capacity.
5-60.121 Definitions-.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the
meaning given them in the Act and in-subpart A of this-part.
(a) "Reverberatory furnace" means any stationary, rotating, rocking,
or tilting type reverberatory furnaces.
(b) "Secondary lead smelter" means any facility producing lead from
a lead-bearing scrap material by smelting to the metallic form.
(c) "Lead" means elemental lead or alloys in which the predominating
component is lead.
(d) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or solid
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by Method^.5.
ง 60.122 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by ง 60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after initial
startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere from a blast
(cupola) or reverberatory furnace which:
-------
(1) contain participate matter in excess of 0.020 gr./dscf
(0.046 g./NM.3)c
(2) exhibit 20 percent opacity or greater.
(b) On and after the date on which" the performance test required to
be conducted by ง60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after initial
startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part
shall discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere
t
from.any pot furnace which exhibit 10 'percent opacity or greater.
(c) Where the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for
failure to meet the requirements of paragraph's (a)(2) or (b) of this
section, such failure shall not be a violation of this section.
ง 60.123 Emission monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of any blast (cupola), reverberatory
or pot furnace subject to the provisions of this subpart shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a photoelectric or other type smoke
detector and recorder to continuously monitor compliance with งง60.122
(a)(2) and 60.122(b). ,
(b) The instruments installed and used pursuant to this section
shall meet specifications prescribed by the Administrator and shall
be calibrated in accordance with the method prescribed by the manufacturer
of such instrument. The instrument shall be subjected to the manufacturer's
recommended zero adjustment and calibration procedures at least once
per 24-hour operating period unless the manufacturer specifies or
recommends calibration at shorter intervals, in which cas~e such specifi-
cations or recommendations shall be followed.
(c) Lead production and feed rates shall be recorded daily by
the owner or operator.
-------
(d) The owner or operator of any furnace subject to the provisions
of this subpart shall maintain a file of all measurements required
by this subpart. Appropriate measurements shall be reduced to the units
of the standard daily and summarized monthly._ The. record of any such
measurements and summary shall be retained for at least 2 years
following the date of such measurements and summaries.
ง60.164 Test methods and procedures.
***** . *
\ *
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for1
determining"compl'iance with the standard prescribed by ง60.162.
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being tested is operating at or above the maximum production
rate at which such facility will be operated and under such other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve valid
test results.
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling
or observing undiluted gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is
added prior to a sampling or observation point, the owner or operator
shall determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator.
(d) The reference methods for conducting performance tests are
appended to this part.
(1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
particulate matter and moisture, Method 1 for traversing, Method 2
for determining the volumetric flow rate, and Method 3 for analysis.
-------
The sampling time shall be not less than 60 minutes and not more
than 150 minutes, and the minimum sampling rate shall be 0.5 dry
standard cubic feet per minute.
-------
Subpart M - Standards of Performance for
Secondary Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants
ง 60.130 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are appH-eaWe-to the following
affected facilities 1n secondary brass or bronze Ingot production
plants: reverberatory and electric furnaces of one ton or
greater production capacity and blast (cupola) furnaces of 500 pounds
per hour or greater production capacity. -
ง 60.131 Definitions. -- --
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
(a) "Brass or bronze" means any metal alloy containing copper as
Its predominant constituent, and lesser amounts of zinc, tin, lead,
or other metals.
(b) "Reverberatory furnace" means any stationary, rotating, rocking,
or tilting type reverberatory furnace.
(c) "Electric furnace" means any furnace which uses electricity
to produce over 50 percent of the heat required 1n the production of
refined brass or bronze.
(d) "Blast furnace" means any furnace used to recover metal from
slag.
(e) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or
solid material, other than uncombined water, as measured by Method 5.
-------
ง 60.132 Standard for Participate matter.
(a) On and after the date on^which'the performance test required to
be conducted by ง 60.8 Is Initiated but no later than 180 days after initial
startup, no ov/ner or operator -subject to the provisions of~this part shall
discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere from a
reverberatory furnace which:
(1) contain particulate matter in excess of 0.020 gr/dscf
(0.046 g/NM3). . ... . . " . '
* *
(2) exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater.
(b) On and after the_date on whi"ch the performance_test required to
be conducted by ง 60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after initial
startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere from a blast
(cupola) or electric furnace which exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater.
(c) Where the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for
failure to meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) or (b) of this
section, such failure shall not be a violation of this section.
ง 60.133 Emission monitoring. >
(a) The owner or operator of any affected facility subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a photoelectric or other type smoke detector and recorder to continuously
monitor compliance with งง 60.132(a)(2) and 60.132(b) and shall
retain the records for at least two years from the dates on which the
data were recorded.
-------
(b) The Instruments Installed and used pursuant to this
section shall meet specifications prescribed by the
Administrator and shall be calibrated in accordance with the method
prescribed by the manufacturer of such instrument^ Jhe instrument shall
be subjected to the manufacturer's recommended zero adjustment and calibration
procedures at "least once per 24-hour operating period unless the manufacturer
j
specifies or recommends calibration at shorter intervals, in which case such
specifications or recommendations shall.be followed.
* * ' _ f *
(c) The owner or operator of any affected facility subject to the
provisions of this part shall maintain a tile of any participate matter
emission measurements. The record(s) shall be retained for at least two
years following the dates on which the tests were conducted.
ง 60.134 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for
determining compliance with the standard prescribed by ง 60.132.
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being tested is operating at or above the maximum production
rate at which such facility will be operated and under such^other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve valid
test results.
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling
and observing undiluted gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is added
prior to a sampling or observation, the owner or operator shall
determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator.
-------
(d) The reference methods for conducting performance tests are
appended to this part. _
(1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
particulate matter and moisture, Method 1 for traversing, Method 2
for determining the volumetric flow rate, and Method 3 for gas
analysis. The sampling time shall be not less than 60 minutes and
not more than 150 minutes, and the minimum sampling rate shall be
0.5 dry standard cubic feet per minute._
-------
Subpart N - Standards of Performance for
Iron and Steel Plants
1 60.140 Applicability and designation of affected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable .to. each basic
oxygen process furnace, which is the affected facility.
I 60.141 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have
the meaning- given them in the Act., and "in sub-part A of this part.
(a) "Basic oxygen process furnace" (BOPF) means any furnace
producing steel by charging-scrap steel,-hot metal and f1ux-4naterials
into a vessel and introducing a high volume of an oxygen-rich gas.
(b) "Heat" means the quantity of steel produced in one batch.
(c) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or solid
material, other than uncombined water, as measured by Method 5.
I 60.142 Standard for particulate matter.
(a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to
be conducted by I 60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after initial
\
startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere from any
affected facility which:
(1) contain particulate matter in excess of 0.020 gr/dscf
(0.046 g/NM3); . * ' L . " '' ~
(2) exhibit 10 percent opacity or greater, except that where
the presence of uncombined water is the only reason for failure to meet the
-------
requirements of this subparagraph, such failure shall not be a violation
of this section.
I 60.143 Emission monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of any affected faclUty subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a photoelectric or other type smoke detector and recorder to
continuously monitor compliance with I 60.142(a)(2) and shall retain
the records for at least two years from the dates on which the data
were recorded.
(b) The instrument installed and usjed pursuant to this section
shall meet specifications prescribed by the Administrator and shall
be calibrated in accordance with the method(s) prescribed by the
manufacturer of such instrument. The instrument shall be subjected
to the manufacturer's recommended zero adjustment and calibration
procedures at least once per 24-hour operating period unless
ซ
the manufacturer specifies or recommends calibration at shorter intervals,
1n which case such specifications or recommendations shall be followed.
(c) The owner or operator of any BOPF subject to the provisions of
i
this part shall maintain a file of any particulate matter^emission
i
measurements. The record(s) shall be retained for at least two years i
from the dates on which the tests were conducted.
1 60.144 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for
determining compliance with the standard prescribed by I 60.142.
-------
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being tested is operating a~f~or~ above the maximum production
rate at which such facility will be operated and under such other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve valid
test results.
i
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling and
observing undiluted gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is added
prior to a sampling or.observation-point, the owner or operator shall
determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator." ~" _ __
(d) The reference methods for conducting performance tests are
appended to this part.
(1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
particulate matter and moisture, Method 1 for traversing, Method 2
for determining the volumetric flow rate, and Method 3 for gas analysis.
The minimum total sampling time shall be 4 heats, and the minimum
sampling rate shall be 0.5 dry standard cubic feet per minute.
Sampling shall start at the beginning of each scrap preheat or
oxygen blow and shall terminate immediately prior to tapping.
-------
Subpart 0 - Standards of Performance for
Sewage Treatment Plants
ง60.150 Applicability and designation ofjtffected facility.
The provisions of this subpart are applicable to each sewage sludge
incinerator, which is the affected facility. -
ง60.151 Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not defined herein shall have the
meaning given them in the Act and in subpart A of this part.
(a) '"Sewage sludge incinerator" means'any combustion device used''
in the process of burning sewage sludge for the primary purpose of solids
sterilization ajid to reduce the volume-of-waste by-removing combustible
matter, but does not include facilities used solely for burning scum or
other floatable materials, recalcining lime, or regenerating activated
carbon.
(b) "Sewage sludge" means the solid waste by-product of municipal
sewage treatment processes, including any solids removed in any unit
operation of such treatment process.
(c) "Sewage treatment plant" means any arrangement of devices and
structures for the treatment of sewage and all appurtenances used
for treatment and disposal of sewage and other waste by-products.
(d) "Sewage" means the spent water of a community consisting of a
combination of liquid- and water-carried wastes from residences, commercial
buildings, industrial plants, and institutions, together with any ground
water, surface water, and storm water that may be present.
-------
(e) "Particulate matter" means any finely divided liquid or solid
material, other than uhcombined water, as measured by Method 5.
ง60.152 Standard for particulate matter.
On or after the date on which the performance test required to be
conducted by ง60.8 is initiated but no later than 180 days after
initial startup, no owner or operator subject to the provisions of this
part shall discharge or cause the discharge of gases into the atmosphere which:
(a) contain particulate matter in-excess of 0.03.0 gr./dscf .
(0.068 g.NM3). '
(b) exhibit-10 percent opacity o> greater, excepjt tha_t jvhere the
presence of uncombined water is the only reason for failure to meet the
requirements for this subparagraph, such failure shall not be a violation
of this section.
ง60.153 Emission monitoring.
(a) The owner or operator of any sewage sludge incinerator subject
to the provisions of this subpart shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a photoelectric or other type smoke detector and recorder to
continuously monitor compliance with ง60.152(b) and shall retain the
A
records for at least two years from the dates on which the data were
recorded.
(b) The instruments installed and used pursuant to this section
shall meet specifications prescribed by the Administrator and shall be
calibrated in accordance with the method prescribed by the manufac-
turer of such instrument. The instrument shall be subjected to the
-------
manufacturer's recommended zero adjustment and calibration procedures
at least once per 24-hour operating period unless the manufacturer
specifies or recommends calibration at shorter intervals, in which
case such specifications or recommendations shall be followed.
(c) Burning rate and hours of operation shertVbe recorded
daily by the owner or operator.
(d) The owner or operator shall maintain a file of all measure-
ments required by this subpart. Appropriate measurements shall be
reduced to the units of the"standard daily and summarized monthly.
The record of- any such measurement and summary shall be retained at
least 2 years following-the dateDf such measurements and "summaries.
ง60.154 Test methods and procedures.
(a) The provisions of this section apply to performance tests for
determining compliance with the standard prescribed by ง60.152.
(b) All performance tests shall be conducted while the affected
facility being tested is operating at or above the maximum sludge
charging rate at which such facility will be operated and burning
sewage sludge representative of normal operation, and under such other
conditions as the Administrator shall specify in order to achieve
valid representative test results.
(c) Compliance with the standard shall be determined by sampling
and observing undilute gases. If air or other gaseous diluent is added
prior to a sampling or observation point, the owner or operator shall
determine the amount of dilution by a means acceptable to the
Administrator.
-------
i (d) The reference methods for conducting performance tests are
appended to this part.
i, *
'! (1) Method 5 shall be used for determining concentration of
I
'particulate matter and moisture, Method 1 for traversing, Method 2
for determining the volumetric flow rate, and Method 3 for gas analysis.
The sampling time shall be not less than 60 minutes and not more than
i
150 minutes, and the minimum sampling rate shall be 0.5 dry standard
cubic feet per'minute, ',. -'.'.'-, '..:
-------
6. The Appendix is amended by adding Method 10 and Method 11 as
follows:
-------
METHOD 10 - DETERMINATION OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES _
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 Principle. An integrated or grab gas sample is extracted
from a sampling point and analyzed for carbon monoxide (CO) content
using a nondispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR) or equivalent.
1.2 Applicability. This method is applicable for the determina-
tion of carbon monoxide emissions from stationary sources only when
Specified by the test procedures for determi'ning compliance with
New Source Performance Standards. The test procedure will indicate
whether a grab or an integrated sample is -to be used-.
2. Range and Sensitivity.
2.1 Range. 0-1000 ppm.
2.2 Sensitivity. Minimum detectable concentration is 20 ppm
for a 0-1000 ppm span.
3. Interferences.
3.1 Any substance having a strong absorption of infrared energy
will interfere to some extent. For example, discrimination ratios
for water (H20) and carbon dioxide (C02) are 3.5% H20 pe$ 7 ppm CO
and 10% C02 per 10 ppm CO, respectively, for devices measuring in
the 1500 to 3000 ppm range. For devices measuring in the 0-100
ppm range, interference ratios can be as high as 3.5% H^O per
25 ppm CO and 10$ C02 per 50 ppm CO. The use of silica gel and
ascarite traps will alleviate the major interference problems.
The measured gas volume must be corrected if .these traps are used.
4. Precision and Accuracy.
-------
4.1 Precision. The precision of most NDIR analyzers is
approximately +_2% of span.
4.2 Accuracy. The accuracy of most NDIR analyzers is approxim-
ately i 5% of span after calibration.
5. Apparatus.
5.1 Grab sample (Figure 10-1).
5.1.1 Probe - Stainless steel or sheathed Pyrex* glass,
.equipped with a filter to remove particulate matter.
5.1.2 'Air-cooled condenser or equivalent - To remove-any
excess moisture. - -- - __
5.2 Integrated sample (Figure 10-2).
5.2.1 Probe - Stainless steel or sheathed Pyrex glass,
equipped with a filter to remove particulate matter.
5.2.2 Air cooled condenser or equivalent - To remove any
excess moisture.
5.2.3 Valve - Needle valve, or equivalent, to adjust
flow rate.
5.2.4 Pump - Leak-free, diaphragm type, or equivalent, to
transport gas. ^
5.2.5 Rate meter - Rotameter, or equivalent, to measure a
flow range from 0 to 0.035 cfm.
5.2.6 Flexible bag - Tedlar, or equivalent, with a
capacity of 2 to 3 cubic feet. Leak test the bag in the laboratory
*Mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute
endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
AIR-COOLED
CONDENSER
r~v
PROBE
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)
~| Figure 10-1. Grab-sampling tram. \
-------
, PROBE'
FILTER
(GLASS WOOL)
RATE
METER
VALVE
AIR-COOLED CONDENSER
VALVE
RIGID ,
AIRTIGHT !
CONTAINER .
Figure 10-2. Integrated gas-sampling tram.
-------
before using by evacuating bag with a pump followed by a dry gas
meter. When evacuation is complete,, there should be no flow
through the meter. "
5.2.7 Pitot tube - Type S, or equivalent,.attached to the
probe so that the sampling rate can be regulated proportional to
the stack gas^ velocity when velocity is varying with time or a
sample traverse is conducted.
5.3 Analysis (Figure 10-3). _ . .
5.3.1 -Carbon monoxide analyzer - Nondispersive infrared
spectrometer, 'or equivalent. This instrument should be demonstrated,
preferably by the manufacturer, to meet or exceed manufacturers
specifications and those described in this method.
5.3.2 Drying tube - To contain approximately 200 g. of
silica gel.
5.3.3 Calibration gas - Refer to paragraph 6.1.
5.3.4 Filter - As recommended by NDIR manufacturer.
5.3.5 COp removal tube - To contain approximately 500 g.
of ascarite.
5.3.6 Ice water bath - For ascarite and silica gฃl tubes.
5.3.7 Valve - Needle valve, or equivalent, to adjust
flow rate.
5.3.8 Rate meter - Rotameter or equivalent to measure gas
flow rate of 0-0.035 cfm through NDIR.
5.3.9 Dry gas meter - Sufficiently accurate to measure the
sample volume within 1%, and equipped with a thermometer to determine
temperature of gas entering the meter.
-------
THERMOMETER
PUMP
NEEDLE
VALVE
SAMPLE
SILICA ASCARITE
GEL
'Figure 10-3. Analytical equipment.
-------
5.3.10 Recorder (optional) - To provide permanent record of
NDIR readings. ~
5.3.11 Orsat analyzer, or equivalent:
5.3.12 Barometer - To measure atmospheric pressure to +_0.1
1n. Hg.
6. Reagents. -
6.1 Calibration gases - Known concentration of CO in nitrogen
(N2) for instrument .span, prepurified grade of Nซ for zero, and two
additional concentrations corresponding approximately to 60% and
3Q% span. The span concentration shall no.t exceed 1.5 times the
applicable source performance standard.
6.2 Silica gel - Indicating type, 6-16 mesh, dried at 350ฐF
for 2 hours.
6.3 Ascarite - Commercially available.
7. Procedure.
7.1 Sampling.
7.1.1 Grab sampling - Set up the equipment as shown in
Figure 10-1 making sure all connections are leak free. Place the
probe in the stack at a sampling point and purge the sampfing line.
Connect the analyzer and draw sample into the analyzer. Allow
five minutes for the system to stabilize and record the analyzer
reading. (See Sections 7.2 and 8.) Determine COg content of
the gas using the Method 3 grab sample procedure (36 F.R. 24886).
7.1.2 Integrated sampling - Evacuate the flexible bag.
Set up the equipment as shown in Figure 10-2 with the bag
disconnected. Place the probe in.the stack and purge the sampling
-------
line. Connect the bag, making sure that all connections are
leak free. Sample at a rate proportional to the stack velocity.
Determine the CCL content of the gas in the" bag using the Method
3 integrated sample procedure (36 F.R. 24886).
7.2 CO Analysis. Assemble the apparatus as shown in Figure
10-3, calibrate the instrument, and perform other required opera-
tions as described in paragraph 8. Purge sample with N2 prior to
introduction of each sample. Direct the sample stream through
the instrument-for the test period, recording the readings.
Check the zero'and span-again after the,test to insure that any
drift or malfunction is detected. Record the sample data on Table
10-1.
8. Calibration. Assemble the apparatus according to Figure 10-3.
Generally an instrument requires a v/arm-up period before stability is
obtained. Follow the manufacturer's instructions for specific
procedure. Allow a minimum time of one hour for v/arm-up. During
this time check the sample conditioning apparatus, i.e. filter,
condenser, drying tube, and C02 removal tube, to insure that each
component is in good operating condition. Zero and calibrate the
Instrument according to the manufacturer's procedures using, respec-
tively, nitrogen and the calibration gases.
-------
Table 10-1. FIELD DATA
LOCATION
TEST
DATE
COMMENTS
OPERATOR .
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE:
.Clock time
Gas volume through
meter (VJ, ft3
Rotameter setting,
ft3/mm
Meter
temperature, ฐF
-------
9. Calculations.
9.1 Concentration of carbon monoxide. Calculate the concentration
of carbon monoxide in the stack using equation 10-1.
CCO - - - -
Crn = -- equation 10-1
u stark 1-F
Z> l*n = volume fraction of C09 in sample, i.e.,
LUp ฃ
percent C02 from Orsat analysis divided by
100.
10. Bibliography.
The Intertech NDIR-CO Analyzer by Frank McElroy. Presented at
the llth Methods Conference in Air Pollution, University of California,
Berkeley, California, ApriJ 1, 1970.
Jacobs, M. B. et al., JAPCA 9_, No. 2, 110-114, August 1959.
MSA LIRA Infrared Gas and Liquid Analyzer Instruction Book,
Mine Safety Appliances Co., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Beckman Instruction 1635B, Models 215A, 315A and 415A Infrared
Analyzers, Beckman Instrument Company, Fullerton, California.
Continuous CO Monitoring System, Model A 5611, Intertech Corp.,
Princeton, New Jersey.
Bendix--UNOR Infrared Gas Analyzers. Ronceverte, West Virginia.
-------
ADDENDA
A. PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS FOR NDIR CARBON MONOXIDE ANALYZERS.
Range (minimum) T 0-1000 ppm
Output (minimum) 0-10 mv.
Minimum detectable sensitivity 20-ppm-
Rise time, 90 percent (maximum) 30 seconds
Fall time, 90 percent (maximum) 30 seconds
Zero drift (maximum) " 10% in 8 hours
Span drift (maximum) 10% in 8 hours
Precision (minimum) +_2% of full scale
Noise (maximum) -+_!% of full -scale
Linearity (maximum deviation) 2% of full scale
Interference rejection ratio CO,, - 1000 to 1, H20 - 500 to 1
B. Definitions of Performance Specifications:
RangeThe minimum and maximum measurement limits.
OutputElectrical signal which is proportional to the measurement;
intended for connection to readout or data processing devices. Usually
expressed as millivolts or milliamps full scale at a given impedance.
Full ScaleThe maximum measuring limit for a given rarjge.
Minimum Detectable SensitivityThe smallest amount of input
concentration that can be detected as the concentrationv.approaches
zero.
AccuracyThe degree of agreement between a measured value and
r
the true value; usually expressed as +_ percent of full scale. '
Time to 90 percent ResponseThe time fnteryal from a step change
in the input concentration at the instrument inlet to a reading of
-------
90 percent of the ultimate recorded concentration.
Rise Time (90 percent)The interval .between initial response time
and time to 90 percent response after a step increase in the inlet
concentration.
Fall Time (90 percent)The interval "between irfitial response
time and time to 90 percent response after a step decrease in the
inlet concentration.
Zero DriftThe change in instrument, output over a stated time
period, usually 24 hours, of unadjusted continuous operation when
the input concentration .is zero; usually expressed as percent full
scale* ~ ~
Span DriftThe change in instrument output over a stated time
period, usually 24 hours, of unadjusted continuous operation when
the input concentration is a stated upscale value; usually expressed
as percent full scale.
PrecisionThe degree of agreement between repeated measurements
of the same concentration, expressed as the average deviation of the
single results from the mean.
NoiseSpontaneous deviations from a mean output not'caused by
input concentration changes.
LinearityThe maximum deviation -between an actual instrument
reading and the reading predicted by a straight line drawn between
upper and lower1 calibration points.
-------
METHOD 11 - DETERMINATION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE EMISSIONS FROM
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. Principle and Applicability.
1.1 Principle. Hydrogen sulfide (HpS) is collected from the source
in a series of midget impingers and reacted v/ith alkaline cadmium
hydroxide [Gd(OH)p] to form cadmium sulfide (CdS). The precipitated
CdS is then dissolved in hydrochloric acid and absorbed in a known
volume of iodine solution. The iodine consumed is a measure of the
HgS content of the gas.
1.2 Applicability.- This method i-s -applicable for the determination
of hydrogen sulfide emissions from stationary sources only when specified
by the test procedures for determining compliance with the New Source
Performance Standards.
2. Apparatus.
2.1 Sampling train.
2.1.1 Sampling line - 1/4 inch Teflon* tubing to connect
sampling train to sampling valve, with provisions for heating to
prevent condensation. A pressure reducing valve prior to the Teflon
sampling line may be required depending on sampling stream pressure.
2.1.2 Impingers - Four midget impingers, each with 30 ml.
capacity, or equivalent. ' '
2.1.3 Ice bath container - To maintain absorbing solution at
a constant temperature.
*Mention of trade names or specific products does not constitute endorse-
ment by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
2.1.4 Silica gel drying tube - To protect pump and dry gas
meter.
2.1.5 Needle valve, or equivalent"- To adjust gas flow rate.
2.1.6 Pump - Leak free, diaphragm type, or-equivalent, to
transport gas. (Not required if sampling stream under positive
pressure).._
2.1.7 Dry gas meter - Sufficiently accurate to measure sample
volume to within 1%.
2.1.8 ' Rate meter - Rotameter, or equivalent, to measure a
flow rate of 0-to 6.1 cfm.
2.1.9 Graduated cylinder - 25 ml.
2.1.10 Barometer - To measure atmospheric pressure within
i 0.1 in. Hg.
2.2 Sample Recovery
2.2.1 Sample container - 500 ml. glass stoppered iodine number
flask.
2.2.2 Pipette - 50 ml. volumetric type.
2.2.3 Beakers - 250 ml.
2.2.4 Wash bottle - Glass.
2.3 Analysis
2.3.1 Flask - 500 ml. glass stoppered iodine number flask.
2.3.2 Burette - One 50 ml.
2.3.3 Flask - 125 ml. conical.
3. Reagents.
3.1 Sampling
3.1.1 Absorbing Solution - Cadmium hydroxide (Cd(OH)2). Mix
4.3 g. cadmium sulfate hydrate (3 CdSO/SHpO) and 0.3 g. of sodium
-------
hydroxide (NaOH) in 1 liter of distilled water (H20). Mix well.
Note: The cadmium hydroxide formed in this mixture will precipitate
as a white suspension. Therefore this solution must be thoroughly
mixed before using to insure an even distribution pf_ the cadmium
hydroxide.
3.2 Sample Recovery,
3.2.1 10% by weight Hydrochloric Acid Solution (HC1) - Mix
230 ml. of concentrated HC1 (specific-gravity 1.19) and 770 ml. of
distilled HgO.-
3.2.2 -Iodine Solution, O.l-N^.Dissolve 24 g. potassium
iodide (KI) in 30 ml. of distilled H20 in a 1 liter graduated cylinder.
Weigh 12.7 g. of resublimed iodine (Ip) into a weighing bottle and
add to the potassium iodide solution. Shake the mixture until the
iodine is completely dissolved. Slowly dilute the solution to one
liter with distilled H20, with swirling. Filter the solution, if
cloudy, and store in a brown glass stoppered bottle.
3.2.3 Standard Iodine Solution, 0.01 N_ - Dilute 100 +0.01 ml.
of the 0.1 N_ iodine solution in a volumetric flask to 1 liter with
distilled water.
Standardize daily as follows: Pipette 25 ml. of the 0.01 N_
Iodine solution into a 125-ml. conical flask. Titrate with
standard 0.01 N_ thiosulfate solution (see paragraph 3.3.2) until the
solution is a light yellow. Add a few drops of the starch solution
and continue titrating until the blue color just disappears. From
the results of this titration calculate the exact normality of the iodine
solution (see paragraph 5.1).
-------
3.2.4 Distilled, deionized water.
3.3 Analysis.
3.3.1 Sodium Thiosulfate Solution, Standard 0.1 N_ - For each
liter of solution, dissolve 24.T5 g. of sodium th-iosulfate .(Ma^S^O '5^0)
in distilled water and add 0.01 g. of anhydrous sodium carbonate
(Na2C03) and 0.4 ml. of chloroform (CHC13) to stabilize. Mix thoroughly
by shaking or by aerating with nitrogen for approximately 15 min., and
store in a glass-stoppered glass bottle.
Standardize frequently as follows: Weigh into a 500-ml. volumetric
flask about 2 g_-of potassium dichromate (KgCrgO;) weighed Jto the
nearest milligram and dilute to the 500-ml. mark with distilled HpO.
Use dichromate which has been crystallized from distilled water and
oven-dried at 360ฐF to 390ฐF. Dissolve approximately 3 g. of potassium
iodide (KI) in 50 ml. of distilled water in a .glass-stoppered, 500-ml.
conical flask, then add 5 ml. of 20 percent hydrochloric acid solution.
Pipette 50 ml. of the dichromate solution into this mixture. Gently
swirl the solution once and allow it to stand in the dark for 5 min.
Dilute the solution with 100 ml. to 200 ml. of distilled water, wash-
ing down the sides of the flask with part of the water. Swirl the
solution slowly and titrate with the thiosulfate solution until the
solution is light yellow. Add 4 ml. of starch solution and continue
with a slow titration with the thiosulfate until t~he bright blue color
has disappeared and only the pale green color of the chromic ion
remains. From this titration caculate the exact normality of the
sodium thiosulfate solution (see paragraph 5.2)."
-------
3.3.2 Sodium Thiosulfate Solution, Standard 0.01 N_ - Dilute
TOO + 0.01 ml. of the standard 0.1 N_ thiosulfate solution in a
volumetric flask to 1 liter with distilled water.
3.3.3 Starch Indicator-Solution r Suspend J 0 g. off soluble
starch in 100 ml. of distilled water and add 15 g. of potassium
hydroxide pellets. Stir until dissolved, dilute with 900 ml. of
distilled water, and let stand 1 hour. Neutralize the alkali with
concentrated hydrochlroci acid* using an indicator paper similar to
Alkacid test ribbon, then add 2-ml. of glacial acetic acid as a
preservative. - ~ _ __
Test for decomposition by titrating 4 ml. of starch solution in
200 ml. of distilled water with the 0.01 N_ iodine solution. If more
than 4 drops of the 0.01 N_ iodine solution are required to obtain the
blue color, make up a fresh starch solution.
4. Procedure.
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Assemble the sampling train as shown in Figure 11-1,
connecting the 4 midget impingers in series. Place 15 ml. of the
*
absorbing solution in each of the first three impingers, leaving the
fourth dry. Place crushed ice around the impingers. Add more ice
during the run to keep the temperature of the gases leaving the last
impinger at 70ฐF or less.
4.1.2' Purge the connecting line between the sampling valve
and the first impinger. Connect the sample line to the train.
Record the initial reading on the dry gas meter as shown in Table 11-1.
-------
SAMPLING
VALVE
1/4 in. TEFLON SAMPLING LINE (HEATED)
MIDGET IMPINGERS
SILICA GEL TUBE
VALVE
DRY GAS METER
RATE METER
PUMP (NOT REQUIRED
IF LINES PRESSURIZED)
Figure 11-1.
sampling train.
-------
4.1.3 Open the flow control valve and adjust the sampling rate
to 0.04 cfm. Read the meter temperature^and record on Table 11-1.
4.1.4 Continue sampling for 10 minutes or until the yellow color
of cadmium sulfide is visible in the third impinger-.-- At the end of this
time, close the flow control valve and read the final meter volume and
temperature. -
4.1.5 Disconnect the impinger train from the sampling line and
cap the open ends. .Remove to the sample-clean-up area.
4.2 Sample'Recovery.
4.2.1 Pipette 50 ml. of 0.01 N-isdine solution into a 250 ml.
beaker. Add 50 ml. of 10% HC1 to the solution. Mix well.
4.2.2 Dissolve the precipitated cadmium sulfide in the impingers
with a portion of the acidified iodine solution. Transfer the dissolved
contents of the impingers directly to an iodine number flask and stopper.
4.2.3 Rinse all four impingers and connecting glassware with
the remainder of the acidified iodine, adding this rinse to the iodine
number flask.
4.2.4 Follow this rinse with two more rinses using distilled
water. Add the distilled water rinses to the iodine number flask.
Stopper the flask and shake well. Allow about 30 minutes for absorp-
tion of the HpS into the iodine, then complete the analysis-titration.
Caution: Keep the iodine number flask stoppered except when adding
sample or titrant.
4.2.5 Prepare a blank in an iodine number flask using 45 ml.
of the absorbing solution, 50 ml. of 0.01 N_ iodine solution, and 50 ml.
of 10% HC1. Stopper the flask, shake well and analyze with the samples.
-------
Table 11-1 FIELD DATA
LOCATION
TEST
DATE
COMMENTS
OPERATOR
BAROMETRIC PRESSURE
Clock time
Gas volume through
meter (Vm), f|3
Rotameter setting,
ft3/mm
Meter
temperature, ฐF
-------
4.3 Analysis.
Note: This analysis titrati on ..should be conducted at the sampling
location in order to prevent loss of iodine from the sample.
4.3.1 Titrate the solution in the flask with 0.01 N. sodium
thiosulfate solution until the solution is light yellow. Add 4 ml. of
the starch indicator solution and continue titrating until the blue
color just disappears.
4.3.2 ^Titrate the blanks in the same manner as the samples.
5. Calculation.
5.1 Normality'of .the standard _iodjne solution.
N V
Nj = y^- equation 11-1
I
where:
N. = normality of iodine, g-eq/liter
V, = volume of iodine used, ml.
Nj = normality of sodium thiosulfate, g-eq/liter
Vj = volume of sodium thiosulfate used, ml.
5.2 Normality of the standard thiosulfate solution/
NT = 1.02 H- equation 11-2
1 VT
where:
W = weight of K2 Cr2 07 used, g.
Vj = volume of Na~ Sp 0- used, ml.
N = normality of standard thiosulfate solution, g-eq/liter.
-------
1.02 = conversion factor
= (3eq. I2/tnole Kฃ Cr2 0?) (1000 ml. /I)
(294-.2g-K2 Cr2 07/mole) -(10 aliquot factor)
5.3 Dry gas volume. Correct the sampTe volume measured by the
dry gas meter to standard conditions (70ฐF and 29. 92 -inches. Hg) by using
equation 11-3.
T P
Vm --= Vm (Stch ( Ban equation 11-3
std V
where: - - - - - -
V = volume of gas sample through the dry gas meter
mstd .
conditions), scf. -
Vm = volume of gas sample through the dry gas meter
conditions), cu. ft.
Tstcj = absolute temperature at standard conditions, 530ฐR.
T = average dry gas meter temperature, ฐR.
Pgar = Barometric pressure at the orifice meter, inches Hg.
F>std = absolute pressure at standard conditions, 29.92 inches Hg.
5.4 Concentration of HoS. Calculate the concentration of HซS in
the gas stream at standard conditions using eq. 11-4.
C - 0.263 [(VjNj - V^ sample -(VjNj - Y^) blanfc] equation 11-4
'2
mstd
where:
C,
= concentration of HซS at standard conditions, gr/dscf.
-------
(34.07 g/mole H2S) (15.43 gr/g.)
0.263 = conversion factor =
(1000 ml/1) (2 H2S eq/mole)
Vj = volume of standard iodine"solution, ml.
Nj = normality of.standard iodine solution, g-eq/liter
Vj = volume of standard sodium thfosulfate solution, ml.
N,._ = normality of standard sodium thiosulfate solution,
g-eq/liter
V = dry gas volume at_standard conditions, scf.
6. References.
American Petroleum Institute, Determijiation ofjtydrqgen Sulfide,
Ammoniacal Cadmium Chloride Method, API Method 772-54.
National Gas Processors Association, NGPA Publication 2265-65,
Tentative Method for Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide and Mercaptan
Sulfur in Natural Gas.
-------
TAB C
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FOR PROPOSED ,
/ ~"
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FOR PROPOSED
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries
Storage Vessels
Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries
Brass or Bronze Ingot Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants
Sewage Treatment Plants
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
January 1973
-------
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR PROPOSED
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
January 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
GENERAL CONSITERATIONS^ .
'Development 'Procedures' ' 3 ,
' LimHs 'in Terms of Concentration 4'
'Compliance Testing"'and" Instrumentation "ฃ>
Test Results With Non-Equivalent Methods i 7
Waiver of Compliance Test 7
Comparisons with State and Local Regulations 8
Economic Impact 9
Provision for Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction 9
NOMENCLATURE
Abbreviations and Definitions 12
Test Methods ' 13
Control Equipment 15
*
TECHNICAL REPORTS
No. 6 - Asphalt Concrete Plants 16
No. 7 - Petroleum Refineries --
Fluid Catalytic Cracking Unit Regenerators 32
No. 8 - Petroleum Refineries --
Gaseous Fuel Burning 49
No. 9 - Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids 61
-------
No. 10 - Secondary Lead Smelters and Refineries 76
No. 11 - Secondary Brass or Bronze Jngot Production 92
Plants
No. 12 - Iron and Steel Plants --- 10!r
Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces - - -
=
No. 13 - Sewage Treatment Plants -- 125
Sludge Incinerators
APPENDIX - Summary of Test Results
-------
INTRODUCTION
This document provides background information on the derivation
of the proposed second group of new source performance-standards and
their economic impact on the construction and operation of asphalt
concrete plants,-petroleum refineries, storage vessels, secondary lead
smelters and refineries, brass or bronze ingot production plants, iron
and steel plants,-and sewage treatment fjlants. The regulation for
the proposed standards, published in the Federal Register under Title
40 CFR Part 60, is being distributed concurrently with the document.
The information presented herein was prepared for the purpose of
facilitating review and comment prior to promulgation of the standards.
Information concerning the source categories is provided in the
Technical Reports, Numbers 6 through 13. In the case of petroleum
refineries, there are reports covering two affected facilities
catalyst regenerators and gaseous fuel burning. Technical Reports Numbers
1 through 5 were published in 1971 with the first group of new source
performance standards.
The performance standards were developed after consultation with
plant owners and operators, appropriate advisory committees, trade
associations, equipment designers, independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. Review meetings were held with the Federal
Agency Liaison Committee and the National Air Pollution Control Techniques
Advisory Committee. The proposed standards reflect consideration of
comments provided by these committees and by other individuals having
knowledge regarding the control of pollution from the subject source
categories.
1
-------
The National Air Pollution Control Techniques Advisory Committee
consists of 16 persons who are knowledgeable concerning air quality,
air pollution sources,"and technology for the control of air pollutants.
The membership includes State and local control officials, industrial
representatives, and engineering" consultan-ts. Members are .appointed
by the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator pursuant to
Section 117(d), (e), and (f) of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970,
Public Law 91-604. In addition, persons with expertise in the
respective source categories participated in the meeting of the
Advisory Committee* -
The Federal .Agency Liaison Committee includes persons.-with _
knowledge of air pollution control practices as they affect Federal
facilities and the Nation's commerce. The committee is made up of
representatives of 19 Federal Agencies.
The promulgation of standards of performance for new stationary
sources under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act does not prevent State
or local jurisdictions from adopting more stringent emission limitations
for these same sources. In heavily polluted areas, more restrictive
standards, including a complete ban on construction, may be necessary
in order to achieve National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Section
116 of the. Act provides specific authorization to States and other
political subdivisions to enact such standards and limitations.
-------
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed second group of standards include emission limits
for particulates (including visible emissions) as welLas sulfur
dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. In addition, revisions
have been incorporated into the General Provisions which were published
with the first group of standards under-Title 40 CFR 60. Methods for
determining compliance with particulate and.SOp limits are the same
as those published in the Appendix-of 40 CFR 60. Methods for measuring
carbon monoxide and hydrogen sujfide are published withjthe proposed
standards.
Development Procedures
The procedure used to develop the standards was similar for
all source categories. In every case, a screening process was followed
to appraise existing technology and to determine the locations of
well-controlled sources. Extensive on-site investigations were conducted
to ascertain which sources appeared to be the best controlled and
f
were amenable to stack testing. Design features, maintenance practices,
and available test data were considered, as well as the character of
stack emissions. .Where particulate emissions were contemplated,
appreciable weight was given to the opacity of stack gases. In most
f
instances the facilities chosen for testing were those that exhibited
little or no visible emissions and were constructed in such a manner
that source testing was feasible, i.e., there was a sufficient length
of straight ductwork downstream of tha.collector to obtain representative
samples.
3
-------
Observations of stack gases ..during the screening process and
during stack tests furnished the basis for visible emission limits
which are proposed. For most of the six particulate standards,
several sites were identified which meet the.proposed-visible.emission
limits. Mass emissions could not be measured from many of these because
the stack configurations precluded accurate testing. Those sources
which met the proposed mass particulate-limits also met the visible
emission limits. "Thus, visible emissions "in excess of the proposed.
^
limits indicate that the mass particulate standards are also being
exceeded. _ ~ ._. _. ,
Condensed water vapor is not considered a visible emission for
purposes of this regulation. Where the presence of uncombined water
o
is the only reason for failure to meet the standards, such emissions
shall not be considered a violation.
Limits in Terms of Concentration
Most of the emission limits included in this group of standards
are being proposed in terms of pollutant concentration. Particulate
limits, for example, are being proposed in terms of grains pef standard
cubic foot of undiluted exhaust gases. This is a deviation from the
first group of-performance standards wherein most of the limits .were
f
promulgated in terms of mass per unit of production, feedstock, or
fuel input. The change to concentration units is a result of discussions
with control officials, representatives of affected industries, and others
knowledgeable in the field. Its purpose is to facilitate compliance
t
4.
-------
testing and enforcement of new source performance standards. Establishing
standards in this form obviates the need to determine production rates,
burning rates, etc., which often cannot be ascertained with the same
i
'degree of accuracy as can the pollutant concentration.. _In some, cases
in future regulations, a pollutant concentration standard may not be
feasible for a particular source category, and other types of standards
,will be used.
! In proposing concentration limits, jt. i.s implicit that compliance
* " -
cannot be achieved.by merely diluting exhaust gases with ambient air.
Emission limits are to-be achieved through_the application of process
changes or remedial -equipment which will limit"the discharge of pollutants
to the atmosphere. The concentration limits proposed in these regulations
will apply to exhaust gas streams as they are discharged from control
equipment. If there is any dilution prior to measurement, suitable
corrections will be made in determining compliance. Provisions have
been incorporated in each standard which preclude dilution as a means
of achieving the standard.
The provisions regarding circumvention by dilution, e.g., 60.94(c)
apply equally to mass limits and visible emission limits. Where dilution
gases are added downstream of air pollution control devices, it will be
required that the-owner or. operator demonstrate that the visible emissions
would not constitute a violation of the standard if they were not diluted.
f ป
Compliance Testing and Instrumentation . - -
As with the first group of new source performance standards, particu-
late limits in the proposed regulation are based on material collected in
-------
the probe and filter of the EPA sampling train. Impingers as described
in the original proposal for Group-I sources-categories (40 CFR 60)
ป-
may be utilized, but the material collected in the impingers is not
considered particulate for purposes of the proposed j^eguTations",
Emissions of hydrocarbons from storage vessels for petroleum
liquids will not~be measured directly. This standard is established
in terms of emission limitations that can be accomplished with readily
available and standardized contrpl eguip'ment, i.e., floating roof tanks,
vapor recovery systems, and conservation vents. The standard specifies
that these devices or any dther_device_equally effective_for hydrocarbon
control can be utilized. The actual emissions from any specific storage
vessel can be determined utilizing suitable empirical relationships
developed by the industry.
While the limits for refinery fuel gases are designed to prevent
the release of sulfur dioxide, it is expected that in essentially all
cases, compliance will be determined by analyzing the hydrogen sulfide
content of the fuel gases before they are burned.
The carbon monoxide measurement technique is based on an instrumental
*-
method of analyses. Monitoring of exhaust gases will be required and
instruments of essentially the same type may be utilized to satisfy this
requirement. Owners and operators of petroleum catalyst regenerators will
be required to monitor either carbon monoxide or two other significant
* ป
parameters, oxygen content and temperature. -If it can be shown by
monitoring that there is sufficient oxygen in_the gas stream to provide
the necessary degree of carbon monoxide"combustion at.the firebox.
I
temperature, carbon monoxide monitoring will not be required.
-------
In addition to instruments for the measurement of carbon monoxide
and the sulfur content of fuel, instruments would be required, where
feasible, to measure emissions directly or indirectly. Instruments
for recording visible emissions would be required for ajfl six source
categories for which particulate limits are proposed.
Test Results with Non-Equivalent Methods
A provision has been added whereby the Administrator may- accept
performance tests conducted with methods which are not entirely equiva-
lent to the reference method. Such te_st re~sults will be_accepted only
if they clearly demonstrate compliance. Where compliance is not clearly
demonstrated, the Administrator may require tests to be performed using
EPA or equivalent methods.
Waiver of Compliance Test
A provision has been added whereby the Administrator may waive
the requirement for compliance testing if the owner or operator pro-
vides other evidence that the facility is being operated in compliance
f
with the standard. Evidence of compliance may be in the form of:
tests of similar installations and measurement of significant design and
operating parameters; observations of visible emissions; evaluation of
fuels, raw materials and products; and other equally pertinent infor-
* f
mation. The Administrator will reserve the authority to. require testing
of facilities at such intervals as he deems appropriate under Section 114
of the Act.
-------
Comparisons with State and Local Regulations
In this background document,-the proposed new source performance
standards frequently are compared to existing State and local regulations,
Process weight regulations are commonly employed by many State and
local jurisdictions to limit particulate emissions from a variety
of industrial_sources. In this type of regulation, allowable
particulate release is based on the size of the source. The limit,
however, varies from State to State. Consequently, a reference
* /
process weight curve is used in this 'document for "comparison purposes.
The reference Curve "was published as part of an EPA regulation on
the preparation of State implementation "plans (40 CFR" 51} :""fts"
1 imitations are as follows:
Process Weight Rate Emission Rate
(Ibs./hr.) (Ibs./hr.)
50 0.03
100 0.55
500 1.53
1,000 2.25
5,000 6.34
10,000 9.73
20,000 14.99
60,000 29.60
80,000 31.19
120,000 ...... 33.28
160,000 34.85
200,000 36.11
400,000 40.35
1,000,000- ; 46772
8
-------
Interpolation of the limits presented in the table for process weight
rates up to 60,000 pounds per hour, shall be accomplished by the use
n go -
of the equation: E = 3.59 P ' . Interpolation and extrapolation for
!process weight rates in excess of 60,000 pounds per hour-shall-be
accomplished by the use of the equation: E = 17.31 P .
Where: E = emissions in pounds per hour
P = process weight rate in tons per hour
Economic Impact
For each of the designated source categories, information is
provided on the expected economic impact of the standard on the
industry. Capital and annual!zed costs (including operating costs)
have been estimated. In addition, the incremental costs of air
pollution control on the typical product have been determined. A
summary of pertinent cost items for typical affected source categories
is provided in Table 1.
Provisions for Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction
Independent of this proposal, the Administrator has published on
August 25, 1972, a proposed amendment to 40 CFR 60, Subpart A - General
Provisions; whereby consideration will be-given to conditions v/hich may
f
cause emissions to exceed new source standards during startup, shutdown,
and malfunction. The many comments on the proposal are being evaluated
and the provisions, including any necessary modifications, are scheduled
for promulgation in early 1973.
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY TABLE OF NSPS COST ESTIMATES
PROPOSED STANDARD
Industry
Asphalt Concrete
Plants
-. (
S
Petrpleum
Refineries
o
'i
Hydrocarbon
Storage
Vessels
Brass and
Bronze
Affected
Faci 1 i ty
Entire
Facility
*
FCC Catalyst
Regenerator
Units
Burning
Process Gas
Storage
Tanks
i
Furnace
Emissions
Performance
Standard
,030 gr/DSCF
0.020 gr/DSCF
(Participates)
i
0.050 Volume %'
(Carbon Monoxide)
10 gr H2S/
100 SCF 2
of Fuel Gas
Require a
Floating 5
Roof Tank
.020 gr/DSCF
BASIS FOR COST ANALYSIS
Typical
Facility
Size
150 TPH
300 TPH
20,000 B/D
65,000 B/D
80,000 BBL
50 TPD
Control
Equipment
Fabric Filter or_
Venturi Scrubber
Fabric f liter or_
Venturi Scrubber
Precipil a tor
Precipitator
Floating Roof
Tank
Fabric Filter
ESTIMATED COST
Investment
Cost ($)
63,000
56 ;000 ,
1 92,000
1 95.0QO
700,000
1,150,000
'
1
27,000 -
(Incremental
overla fixed ,
roof)
110,000
Annual
Cost ($/yr)
18,000
21 ,000
26,000
36,000
150,000
225,000
1 ' 3,800
20,070
A
Impact
$.16/Ton of Product
$.19/Ton of Product
$.12/Ton of Product
$.16/Ton of Product
S.022/BBL of Fresh Feed
$.010/BBL of Fresh Feed
'"'
Gasoline-($ll,000/yr)3
Jet Naptha-$l ,000/yr
Crude Oil-($5,200/yr)
> i
$4.01/ton' of Product
1
-------
SUMMARY TABLE OF NSPS COST ESTIMATES
F
Industry
Iron and Steel
t
Sewage
Treatment
Secondary
Lead
[
'ROPOSED STANDAR
Affected
Facility
Basic Oxygen
Furnace
Sludge
Incinerator
Furnace
Emissions
3
Performance
Standard
.020 gr/DSCO
I
.030 gr/DSCF
.020 gr/DSCF
1 '
BASIS FO!
Typical
Facility
Size
140 T/melt
250 T/melt
10 TPD
1 50 TPD
j Reverb.
i Furnace
I 50 TPD
I Blast
\ Furnace
I COST ANALYSIS
Control
Equipment
Open Hood Scrubbing
Preci pita tor
Closed Hood Scrub.
0. en Hood Scrubbing
P eci pita tor 1
C osed Hood Scrub.
enturi Scrubber
(Low Energy)
Fabric Filter or.
Venturi Scrubber '
Fabric Filter pjr
Venturi Scrubber
plus Afterburner (
Investment
Cost ($)
5,720,000
5,880,000
6,760,000
7,400,000-'
8,000,000
8,400.000
60,000
188,100
125,200
156,600'
123,200
ESTIMATED
Annual
Cost ($/yr)
1,946,000
1,492,000
2,139,000
2,139,000
2,025,000
2,791,000
11,700
50,600
35,600
50,600
79,700
:OST
4
Impact
$1.17-1.67/Ton of Steel
$0.89-1.22/Ton of Steel
$.12/pe'rson/yr
$1.65/Ton of Product
$2.85/Ton of Product
$4.05/Ton of Product
$6.38/Tort of Product
/
1 ' ' * ' ' ' / '
CO boilers have an attractive economic payout and as a result, most new units would be built with CO boilers even without the proposed
Standards. ' | ' ' I ' ~ "^
2It is commonly Accepted and necessary practice to treat the various refinery gas and liquid streams for product quality control. Consequently,
there is a 2-5% increase in investment cost but no discernable difference in operating cbsts between current Industry practice arid, the require-
ments for new source standards.
3Figures shown are net costs and include a credit for recovered mater a s. Figures in parenthesis indicate a savings. I
Estimated Product Prices: Asphalt Concrete - $6/Ton ! j
Brass & Bronze - $1100 to $1200/Ton ' ' '
Iron & Steel - $220/Ton (Price of finished steel products for' a typical mill product mix)
Secondary Lead - $320/Ton '
v i ' ,
1 * ' i '
Floating roof tanks are required-for storage of liquids with vapor pressures between 1 J5 and 11.0 psia. Storage of liquids with vapor pressures
above 11.0 psia requires use of vapor recovery or equivalent.
-------
NOMENCLATURE
The following lists of abbreviations, definitions, test methods,
and control equipment should help clarify the terms used in the
background document text and gra-phs. . _ _
Abbreviations and Definitions
ACF
ACFM
D
M
SCF
DSCF
SCFM
DSCFM
MDSCFM
Vol.
ppm
gr
TPH
Front half
Back half
Actual cubic feet; volume of gas at'stack conditions
ACF per minute '- " - - -
Dry; moisture-free
Jhousand - --..._ _ .. ___
Standard cubic feet of gas at 70ฐF and 29.92 inches Hg
SCF of dry gas
SCF of gas per minute
SCF of dry gas per minute
Thousand DSCFM
Volume
Parts per million (volume)
Grains
+
Tons per hour
Material captured in probe and filter of EPA train
(see test method #2): Also called "dry filterable
particulate".
Material captured in the impinger portion of the EPA
'train. Also called "condensables".
Total EPA train Front half plus back half catch (see test method #1
Avg. Arithmetic average of the individual runs
12
-------
TEST METHODS
Test Method Number
~ **
1. EPA Train with impingers - isokinetic sampling and traversing
of the stack, with analysis of the probe washings, filter
catch, impinger washings, organic extraction, a.nd impinger
water.
2. EPA Method 5 (as described in the December 23, 1971,
Federal Register -.isokinetic sampling and traversing of
the stack; analysis includes only probe washings and filter
catch" (also called "front-halt-catch," "solids", or "dry
filterable particulates".}
3. Same as Number 1 except that sampling was conducted at
a-point of average velocity.
4. Same as Number 2 except that sampling was conducted at a
point of average velocity."
5. Sampling train consists of impingers followed by a filter
(L. A. train).
/
f
6. Alundum thimble packed with glass wool followed by a Gelman
Type "A" filter. Both thimble and filter inside stack
* ' * ป
during test.
\
7. San Francisco Bay Area APCD Regulation 2~Method - Particulate
collected by glass tubes filled with wool located in stack.
Gas velocity predetermined by separate pi tot tube and assumed
o - - - - -
constant throughout test. Samples collected at two to three
of the points of measured velocity during each test.
13
-------
8. State of New Jersey Test - Used EPA equipment including impingers,
but combined probe and impinger acetone washings. Results include
washings and filter catch and are therefore higher than those of
test method Number 2 (filter catch and probe-washings only).
9. Adjusted EPA Train with Impinger Results - Data obtained using
test method Number 1 was adjusted by multiplying it by the
average value of the ratio of test method Number 2 to test
v " ""
' r -
method Number 1 for Facilities A and B.
n
10. California. Test -.Alundum thimblejn stack packed with glass
wool and fcrllowed by impingers. Impinger liquid is filtered
and filtrate is included as particulate. Probe is washed and
material in washings is included as particulate.
11. NDIR test for CO. Will appear in the Federal Register as
Method 10 - Determination of Carbon Monoxide Emissions From
i
Stationary Sources.
12. Cadmium Salt Test for HpS. Will appear in the Federal Register
as Method 11 - Determination of Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions From
Stationary Sources.
14
-------
CONTROL EQUIPMENT
'; Listed below are symbols used in the background document for
various types of control devices. If more than one is-used, the
order of the letters indicates their arrangement. The letters
jrepresent the order of the control devices starting with the one
Ifurthest upstream.
!
s - scrubber -
v - venturi scrubb'er .
b - baghouse " ~
e - electrostatic precipitator
a - afterburner
h - combustion hood
c - cyclone
m - CO boiler
p - plate scrubber
15
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO.-6
-ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for new hot mix asphalt
concrete production plants. The proposed standard would limit emissions
of particulates (including visible emissions) from the following sources:
dryer; hot aggregate elevators; screening (classifying) equipment; hot
aggregate storage equipment; hot aggregate weighing equipment; asphalt
concrete mixing equipment; mineral-filler loading, tr-ansfer-and-storage
equipment; and the loading, transfer and storage equipment which handles
the dust collected by the emission control system.
The standards apply at the point(s) where undiluted gases are discharged
from the air pollution control system or from the affected facility if no
air pollution control system is utilized. If air or other dilution gases
are added prior to the measurement point(s), the owner or operator must
_provide a means of accurately determining the amount of dilution and
correcting the pollutant concentration to the undiluted basis.
The proposed standard would limit 'particul-ate emissions to the atmosphere
as follows:
Particulate Matter
1. No more than 0.030 grains per dry standard cubic foot (undiluted)
(.067 grams per normal cubic meter).
2., Visible emissions shall be less than" 10 percent opacity.
16
-------
Basis for Proposed Particulate Standards
1. Three asphalt plants with fabric filter .control devices which
EPA tested showed average participate emissions of 0.007, 0.008
and 0.018 grain per standard cubic foot. Ind-ivklual samples
(3 per plant) ranged from 0.005 to 0.024 grain per dscf.
2. State and local agency data indicates two plants controlled by
venturi scrubbers and two controlled by fabric filters had average
emissions of 0.017, 0.015", 0.006 and"0,019 grain per dscf.
Tndiyidual'sampTes ranged from 0.005 to 0.023 grain per dscf.
3. Designers and-manufac-turers of~control equipment-will-guarantee
efficiencies that will achieve 0.03 grain per dscf.
4. During the EPA study, it was observed that twelve plants had no~
visible emissions.
EMISSIONS FROM ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
Poorly controlled asphalt concrete plants (see Figure 1) can release
10 to 15 pounds of particulates to the atmosphere per ton of asphalt"
12
concrete product. A 200 ton per hour installation, equipped with
only dry centrifugal dust collectors, would emit 2000 to 3000 pounds
of particulate emissions each hour ot operation. The proposed standards
f ' i
would require owners and operators of new plants to reduce emissions by
about 99.7 percent.
At well controlled asphalt concrete plants (see Figure 2) fabric filters
or medium energy venturi scrubbers, normally preceded by a cyclone or
multiple cyclone, are used to co.llect dust from the dryer. Fugitive
dust from the hot aggregate conveyor, screening, mixing, and other process
17
-------
equipment is normally controlled by enclosing these sources and
ducting the dust-laden gases to the dust"collection system. The
collected dust is normally recycled to the plant, thereby increasing
product yield.
Many state and local regulations limit particulate emissions from asphalt
concrete plants. Some regulations are based on stack gas concentration
and others on process weight -limits- The most stringent state regulation,
0.03 grains per standard cubic foot dry (based on samples collected
with both the filter and impingers),-would permit the typical 200 ton
per hour plant to emit 5".l pounds of particulate per hour. The reference
process weight regulations would restrict emissions from this typical
asphalt plant to 40 pounds per hour, which is approximately 0.23
grains per dry standard cubic foot.
18
-------
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS
Preliminary investigations revealed the location of several reportedly
well controlled plants. Sixty-four were visited, visible emissions
evaluated, and information obtafned on the process -and control
equipment. Fifty-two were determined unsatisfactory because of
either excessive visible emissions and attendant inadequate maintenance
or design or because the equipment was not suitab'le for testing (e.g.,
a pressure type.baghouse without a stack). Eight'of the remaining twelve
plants were eliminated because of-planned shutdowns for the winter season.
Stack tests were-conducted at four~locat1ons. -' ~
During the initial plant surveys, twelve plants with fabric filter
control equipment exhibited no visible stack emissions other than
uncombined water vapor. Nine of these plants were not tested for
reasons listed above.
Results of the four tests (three samples per test) conducted by EPA
i
(Figure 3) reveal emissions from the three plants with fabric filter
controls (Plants A, B, and D) averaged 0.007, 0.008 and 0>018 grain
per dry standard cubic foot (dscf). Individual sample results ranged
from 0.005-to-0.024 grain per dscf, Jhe plant controlled by a venturi
t *
scrubber (Plant H) emitted 0.031 grain per dscf, with individual runs
ranging from 0.029 to 0.034 grain per dscf.
Figure 3 also presents results of state and local agency test data
of two plants controlled by venturi scrubbers (C and G) and two by
fabric filters (E and F)., Measured emission rates from the two scrubber
installations ranged from 0.012 to 0.022 grain per dscf and averaged
19
-------
0.017 and 0.015 gr/dscf. .Emissions from the two baghouse installations
averaged 0.006 and 0.019 gr/dscf with individual tests ranging from
0.005 to 0.023 gr/dscf. Two of these tests were performed in accordance
with EPA test procedures. The others, although performed with the basic
EPA train, incorporated minor modifications. The average emission rate
for all eight tests is 0.015 gr/dscf.
Two of the three fabric filter installations tested by EPA ha.d recently
substituted fuel oil for the natural gas normally fired in the dryer
burner (Plants A_and B). The third wasTVurning natural gas^_ The
replacement of natural gas with fuel oil has been reported to increase
12
particulate mass emissions by 20 to 30 percent. Consequently, the
emissions measured on the plants using oil for fuel would probably
have been smaller if the tests had been conducted before the change
in fuels.
All EPA tests were performed in the fall, near the end of the asphalt
production season when the plant is most likely to be in
poor repair. The winter months are utilized for maintenance. Thus,
the control devices were tested immediately prior to the annual
maintenance cycle. Of the three fabric filter col lectors.tested, two
had been in service one season and one for four seasons without changing
the bags. Obviously the control devices were not operating under optimum
conditions, i.e. the filters were not new.
20
-------
A factor that can affect control equipment performance is the particle
size of dust released"from these systems." Since asphalt concrete plants
are installed throughout the nation, a wide variety of crushed rock
aggregate is processed in dryers. In developing the--standard, it
was necessary to determine the characteristics of these aggregates
and to ascertain that available dust collectors could meet the
proposed emission limits. Particle .size has a significantly
greater effect^ on the performance of" hi gh energy scrubbers than
\
on fabric filters. Particulate emissions from high energy scrubbers
1213141519
tend to increase with decreasing p_articie size. ' ' ' J
Where there are large fractions of fines, scrubbers may require greater
energy input. On the other hand, the performance of fabric filter .
collectors is relatively unaffected by the size distribution of
particulates such that emission levels from baghouses are nearly the
same over a wica variety of aggregate feedstocks. ' ' * '19ป20
The fines content of rock aggregates are reflected in the fraction of
-200 mesh material (less than 74 microns). Investigations indicate
that three to five percent of the -200 mesh material is iypical
15 21
for rock aggregates utilized in asphalt concrete plants. '
To assure'that EPA tests were representative, each plant operator
-------
The proposed standard of 0.030 gr/DSCF is supported by measured
emissions from seven of the eight plants presented in Figure 3.
The standard will require installation and proper maintenance of
equipment representative of the-best techno!ogy-v/n-rch has-been
demonstrated for the industry.
22
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
The production of asphalt concrete has increased at an annual rate
of 10 percent over the last several years. Although growth has been
cyclical, it is expected that this average rate wiW persist-through the
near future. To meet increased demand, it is anticipated that 240 new
plants will be constructed each year. In addition, the industry estimates
that some 50 obsolete plants will be replaced annually. Approximately
250'new plants each year are estimated-to"be subject-to a new source
performance standard.'
For a new asphalt concrete plant rated at-150 tons/hour (average
on-stream time of 50 percent, annual production of 112,500 tons) and
also for a plant rated at 300 tons/hour (average on-stream time of
50 percent, annual production of 225,000 tons), three abatement alterna-
tives have been analyzed. Table 1 summarizes the results of these
analyses. The objective of the analyses was to compare the cost
effects of two standards: the reference process weight standard and
the proposed new source performance standard. Estimating the cost to
achieve the two standards provides a measure not only of the'total cost,
but also the incremental cost of control.
< ,, ป f
Either the fabric filter or the venturi scrubber will enable a new
plant to comply with the proposed standard and the capital costs for
t *
these devices do-not appear to be significantly different for either
size plant (300 ton per hour or 150 ton per Irour). On an annualized
cost basis, it appears that the fabric filter is the least-cost device
23
-------
for both plant sizes._ The key element isjthe fact that the fabric
filter collects the particulate"material in-a useful form while the
material collected by the scrubber must be disposed of at the operator's
expense. Thus, it may be assumed that most new plants would favor a
fabric filter_control system on an economic basis when selecting a control
system to comply with the proposed standard.
x _ i
The installation of a fabric .filter on-the smaller plant necessitates
an increase in capital investment of 24 percent over the base-plant
investment. However, the incremental iTTvesjtment required to equip the
plant with a fabric filter rather than a low energy scrubber (to comply
with reference process weight curve) is 6 percent. Similarly for the
larger plant, the additional capital investment required by the fabric
filter over the base-plant investment is 28 percent while the incremental
investment over equipping the plant with a low energy scrubber is 4
percent.
The incremental investment required by the proposed standard above
that required by state standards is not anticipated to create any serious
additional financing problems for new asphalt concrete plants.
Since the control cost for a new plant meeting the proposed standard
approximates the cost for an existing plant meeting a less stringent
standard, the' new plant should find that the market price is sufficient
to recover much, if not all, of the cost-of complying with the proposed
standard. As a result there should be little or-no reduction in earnings
for the new plant.
24
-------
TABLE 1. CONTROL COSTS FOR TYPICAL ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
:150 TonV Hour
(25,000 ACFM)
Performance
Standard
(0.030qr/dscf)
Fabric
; Filter
63^000
<
18,000
0.16
Ventur*
Scrubber
,56,000
21 ,000
- 0.'19
Reference
Process
Weiqht
Standard
(0.30 gr/dscf)
Low Enerqy
Scrubber
44,000
16,000
0.14
^ - - -
Plant
Size
Emission
Standard
Required
Control
Equipment
Control
Investment ($)
Annual
Cost ($/Yr)
Annual Cost
Per Unit Of
Production ($/Ton)
300 Tons/Hour
' '< (50,000 ACFM)
! Performance
Standard
1 "(0,030 gr/'dscf)
Fabric
Filter
j x \
,92,000' '
26,000
0.12
Venturi
Scrubber
95,000
36,000
i
0.16 I
Reference
Process
Weight
Standard
(0.18 gr/dscf)
Low 'Energy
Scrubber
75,000
/
2>,000
0.12
j
ro
en
MODEL PLANT ASSUMPTIONS: A. 1500 hours onstream annually. \
B. Production averages 50 percent of capac'ity.
C. 10 year straight line depreciation.
D. 50 percent of the retained fines are recycled at a value of $9/ton,
E. Average product price estimated to be $6.00/ton.
-------
FIGURE 1
cn
WEIGH HOPPER
ASPHAlt STOtAGE
TANK
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANT
(Uncontrolled )
-------
FIGURE 2
ro
EMISSIONS
HOT SCREENS
WEIGH HOPPER
MIXER
ASPHALT STORAOk
TANK
FAN
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANT
(Controlled )
-------
FIGURE 3
re.
CK
0.04
o
t^5
Q
bb
cxo
^
O
oo
^c-
LU
UJ
O
V
CC
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. "Asphalt Plant Manual, The Asphalt Institute, Third Edition, March
1967 Manual Series No. 3 (MS-3).
2. "Mix Design Methods For Asphalt Concrete and Other Hot-Mix Types",
the AsphaU Institute, Manual Series No. 2 (MS-2), Third Edition,
October 1969.
i *
3. "The Asphalt Handbook", The Asphalt Institute, April 1965 Edition,
Manual'Series No. 4 (MS-4).
4. "Bituminous Construction Handbook",-Barber-Greene Company, Aurora,
Illinois, USA, Copyright 1943, 195T, 1955, 1963.
5. "Maintenance and Operation Instructions for Cedarapids,Equipment",
IMCO-038-DRIERS, Iowa Manufacturing Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
USA, 1967.
6. "Maintenance and Operation Instructions for Cedarapids Equipment -
Asphalt Mixing Plant Model "HC" Series, IMCO-098, Iowa Manufacturing
Company, Cedar Rapids, Iowa USA, 1967.
7. "Air Pollution Control Practices - Hot - Mix Asphalt Paving Batch
*
Plants" by H. E. Friedrich, Dustex Division, American Precision Industries
Inc. published in the Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
Vol. 19, No. 12, December 1969, pg". 928.
8. "Environmental Pollution Control at Hot Mix Aspbalt Plants",
ป ป
Information Series 27, National Asphalt Pavement. Association,
Riverdale, Maryland.
9. Danielson, J. A. Ed., "Air Pollution Engineering Manual",-National
Center for Air Pollution Control, PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40,
Cincinnati, 1967.
29
-------
10. "Control Techniques for Paniculate Air Pollutants" U. S. Department
of HEW, Publication AP51,- January 1969.;
11. "Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology" Vol. 1, Fabric Filter system
study by Charles E. Billings, PhD. 'and Jofin Wilder ScD of GCA
- Corporation, GCA Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts.
Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Administration,
> i
U. S. Department of HEW December 1970 Contract No. CPA 22-69-38.
.."* * ~ ^* "* " '
/ _
Additional Sources
12. Danielson, J. A. Ed., "Air Pollution Engineering MamfaT1, National
Center for Air Pollution Control, PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40,
Cincinnati, 1967.
13. "Air Pollution Control for Industry-High Efficiency Venturi Scrubbers
for Hot Mix Asphalt Plants" by Sam Jacobson, Vice President-Engineering,
ซ
Poly Con Corporation. Presented on May 27, 1971 at the Air Pollution
Control Seminar, of the Asphaltic Concrete Producers Association,
Oakland, California.
14. "Environmental Pollution Control at Hot Mix Asphalt -flants".
Information Series No. 27, The National Asphalt Pavement Association,
Riverdale, Maryland. - - -
f
15. "Guide for Air Pollution of Hot Mix Asphalt Plants". Information
Series No. -17 published by the National Asphalt Pavement Association.
16. "Control-Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants" U. S. Department
of HEW, Published AP51, January 1969.
17. "Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology" Vol. 1, Fabric Filter System
Study by Charles E. Billings, PhD. and John Wilder ScD of GCA
30
-------
Corporation, GCA Technology Division, Bedford, Massachusetts.
Prepared for the National Air Pollution Control Administration,
U. S. Department of HEW; December 1970 Contract No. CPA 22-69-38.
18. "New Use for Baghouse Filter-Handling HorEffluent"- by Charles
F. Skinner, P. E., Plant Engineering, June 26, 1969.
19. "Air Pollution Control Practices-Hot-Mix Asphalt Paving Batch
i i
Plants" by H. E. Friedrich, Dustex Division, American Precision
* /
Industries, Inc., Vol." 19, No.' 12', December 1969 Journal of the
Air Pollution Control Association.
20. Letter-dated January 28, 1972 from Mr. RobertTreyTlfice"President,
Micropul Division of the Slick Corporation to Mr. Kenneth Durkee,
EPA, Office of Air Programs.
21. Study by American Air Filter Company in 1967 for the Plant Mix
Asphalt Industry of Kentucky, Incorporated.
22. Atmospheric Emissions from the Manufacturer of Portland Cement,
U. S. Department of HEW, 1967, Publication No. 999-AP-17,
Page 23.
31
-------
DRAFT: 6/30/72
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 7-
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for petroleum refineries
which would limit emissions of particulates (including visible emissions)
and carbon monoxide from new or modified catalyst regenerators on fluid
catalytic cracking units. - - - ~ _- - -
The proposed standards would limit particulate and carbon monoxide emissions
to tne atmosphere as follows:" --... - -
Particulate Matter
1. No more than 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot (undiluted) or
0.046 gram per normal cubic meter, dry basis.
2. Visible emissions shall be no greater than 20 percent opacity, except
for 3 minutes in any one hour.
Carbon Monoxide
No more than 0.050 percent by volume, dry basis.
The proposed visible emission standard is compatible with the mass emission
limit; if partiqulate emissions are at or below 0.020 grain per standard
cubic foot, visible emissions will be below 20 percent opacity.
t ป
The proposed carbon monoxide standard can be meet by several control
strategies, one of which is an incinerator - waste heat boiler which
is normally fired with refinery fuel gas. "In the units tested only
32
-------
gas was used to supplement the combustion of carbon monoxide. Fuel
oil can be used as the-auxiliary fuel and greater concentrations of
particulate would be expected. Nevertheless,'-there are no data available
for well controlled units.
The availability of refinery fuel gas and boiler maintenance considerations
minimize the use of fuel oil. For these reasons provisions have been
added to the regulations to allow the particulate matter generated by
firing fuel oil to be subtracted from the total particulate-matter
measured by the compliance test method.
Owners and operators will be required to-meet the visible emission
standard regardless of the auxiliary fuels burned.
Basis for Proposed Particulate and Carbon Monoxide Standards
1. One fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerator showed average
particulate emissions of 0.014 and 0.022 grain per standard cubic
foot during two EPA conducted tests. Individual runs (3 per test)
ranged from 0.011 to 0.023 grain per standard cubic foot.
2. Tests by the refinery on the above cited unit over a seven month
period showed a range of 0.010 to 0.021 grain per standard cubic
foot and average particulate emissions of 0.014 grain per standard
' - , * ป
cubic foot.'
3. Tests by a second refinery on a unit controlled by an electrostatic
ป ป
precipitatof'and CO boiler over a 17-month period 'showed a range of
0.015 to 0.022 grain per standard cubic~foot and average particulate
emissions of 0.017 grain per standard cubic foot.
33
-------
4. Six tests by a local control agency on four units controlled by
electrostatic precipitators and CO boilers showed average participate
emissions of 0.013, 0.017, 0.017, 0.018, and 0.020 grain per stan-
dard cubic foot.
5. Designers and manufacturers of control -equipment-will guarantee
efficiencies that will achieve an outlet concentration of less
than 0.020~grain per standard cubic foot.
6. During EPA inspections and stack tests it was observed that 13 fluid
catalytic cracking unit regenerators-controlled by electrostatic
i
precipitators and CO boilers did not release visible emissions of
* " \
20 percent opacity or greater. _ "7" __ ___ __^
7. During 14 tests on 8 fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerators by
the local agency three units were observed to have opacities of
10 percent while the remainder had visible emissions of less than
20 percent opacity.
8. Two fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerators controlled by electro-
static precipitators and CO boilers, one of which was tested twice,
showed average carbon monoxide emissions of 5, 10, and 25 parts per
million by volume during EPA conducted tests. Two units tested
*
showed no measurable carbon monoxide emissions.
9. An alternative to the use of a CD boiler is operation of the catalyst
regenerator'Under conditions of stoichiometric or internal combustion.
Technology has recently been developed and commercially demonstrated
t *
to permit this type of operation. - Compared to an 'uncontrolled unit
a 99.5 percent reduction of CO is achieved and use of either this
technology or a CO boiler will meet the proposed standard.
34
-------
EMISSIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERIES
An uncontrolled fluid catalytic .cracking unit.can release over 300
3 "~
pounds per hour of catalyst dust . Such installations are equipped only
with internal centrifugal dust collectors which prjmaj:ily serve to
recycle catalyst. The proposed standards would require owners and
operators of new facilities to reduce the level of particulate emissions
about 93 percent below that of an uncontrolled unit. In addition, an
uncontrolled unit^can release over 15 pounds of carbon monoxide per barrel
^4
of petroleum feedstock processed . For a unit processing 40,000 barrels
per day about 20 tons per houn of carbon monoxide would-be released.
The proposed standard would require owners and operators of new
facilities to reduce carbon monoxide emissions 9975 percent below that
of an uncontrolled, un.it.
At many modern petroleum refineries an electrostatic precipitator is
used to control dust from the fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerator. A waste heat boiler fired with auxiliary fuel is used to
control carbon monoxide from the units. (See Figures 1 and 2)
*
The reference process weight regulation is less "stringent than the
proposed standard for units of a practical size (less than 150,000 barrels
Jper^day). The most stringent State or local regulations restrict
emissions to 30 pounds per hour.
New units will range in size from 10,000 to 100,000 barrels per day of
fresh feed, with gas flow rates varying from 20,000 to 350,000
dry s.c.f.m. respectively. The proposed standard would allow 3 to
35
-------
60 pounds per hour of particulates. For a typical unit rated at 50,000
barrels per day of fresh feed at a gas flow rate of 150,000 dry s.c.f.m.,
the proposed standard would allow an emissionjof 25.7 pounds per hour of
particulate matter. The reference process weight regulation would limit
* ~ ~
emissions to 64 pounds per hour based on a-catalyst recircuTation rate
of 50-tons per minute.
State or local regulations are comparable to the proposed.standard for
carbon monoxide,-but are generally frajned in different language. Non-
federal standards'commonly require the combustion of carbon monoxide
for 0.3 second at-a temperature above 1309ฐ-F. The same type of control
equipment (carbon monoxide boilers) is required in most cases to meet the
proposed standards. For certain types of catalyst regenerators the boiler
may not be required as the carbon monoxide is combusted in the regenerator
itself. In either case the proposed standard requires a 99T52percent~_~"
reduction in carbcn monoxide emissions over an uncontrolled unit.
36-
-------
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED STANDARD
Preliminary investigations revealecTthe~~loca~tions of 17 well-control led
cracking units in the United States. These plants were visited and infor-
mation was obtained on the process and control equipment. Visible emissions
at 13 plants were observed to be 20 percent opacity or less. Judgment was
also made as to-the feasibility of stack testing in each case. In this
regard 12 locations were unsatisfactory because control equipment was
judged to be less-than optimum or'the pliys'ical layout of the. equipment made
testing unfeasible. Stack tests were conducted at four locations. One
unit could not be tested as it was undergoing a turnaround.
Particulate Matter
The proposed particulate limit is based on tests by EPA, local agencies,
and plant operators and on control efficiencies and emission levels
which have been achieved at similar stationary sources. The level of
the standard has been demonstrated on only a very few catalyst regenerators.
Much weight has been given to the fact that higher efficiency particulate
collectors could be installed at refineries and that such collectors have
been installed at both smaller and larger particulate source*, e.g., basic
oxygen steel furnaces and secondary lead furnaces.
< . , . -
Of the three catalyst regenerators tested by EPA (Figure 3), al'l controlled
by electrostatic precipitators, one showed particulate_emissions below the
proposed standard. Emissions averaged 0.014- grain per standard cubic foot
with individual runs (3) ranging between 0.011 to 0.016" grain per standard
i
cubic foot. This unit was retested by EPA and showed average.particul ate
i
emissions of 0.022 grain per standard.cubic foot with individual runs (3)
ranging between 0.020,to 0.023 grain per'standard cubic foot. Emission data
37
-------
gathered by the refinery over a seven-month period of operation (Figure 3)
shows average participate emissions of 0.014-grain per standard cubic foot
with individual tests (14) ranging between O.OTD to 0.021 grain per standard
'cubic foot. In addition, emission data gathered by a second refiner over
a 17-month period of operation (Figure 3) shows average particulate emissions
,of 0.017 grain p_er standard cubic foot with individual tests (8) ranging
'between 0.015 to 0.022 grain per standard cubic foot. The refinery test
i *
methods are the same in each case.- Both emp-loy different filter media
* / ** .
than the EPA method but neither include impingers.
EPA tests of two units controlled by e-lectrostatic preci-pitators- (Figure 3)
averaged 0.037 grain per standard cubic foot for each test. Results of a
fourth unit was invalid due to a process malfunction during testing.
Results of six tests on four fluid catalytic cracking unit regenerators
were supplied by a local control agency and are shown in Figure 3. Emissions
from all units were controlled by electrostatic precipitators and carbon
monoxide waste heat boilers. Particulate emissions averaged respectively,
0.013, 0.017, 0.018, 0.018, and 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot. The
method is comparable although not identical to the EPA method^ Two
designers of electrostatic precipitators (ESP) have stated that they will
guarantee particulate emission levels of about 0.010 grain per-standard
* *
cubic foot. Both of these firms have installed several units on catalyst
regenerators. To determine the level of a proposed standard, further
evaluation was made of particulate collector design.
Electrostatic precipitators are the only high efficiency dust collectors
which have been used with catalyst regenerators to date. Many of these ESPs
are rated at 90 to 95 -percent efficiency as compared to the 98 to 99+ percent
range encountered in other industries. In addition, the exit concentrations
38
-------
at refineries are not as low as with some other sources. For instance, an
electrostatic precipitator cited in Report No. 12 was found to achieve a
level of 0.007 grain per-standard cubic foot-when applied to a basic oxygen
(BOF) steel furnace.
The efficiency of the BOF precipitator was considerably, .greater inasmuch
as there was a much greater inlet loading to the ESP than encountered
with catalyst regenerators.
i
There are several parameters that-affect the performance of an electro-
* / ~ .
static precipitator and it is not within the scope of this document to
discuss them all." Other parameters Being ejq.ual, however, collector
efficiency tends to~increase with plate area. It is significant that:
1. The electrostatic precipitator which exhibited the lowest exit
concentration during the EPA tests has considerably greater plate
area (250 square feet per 1,000 acfm of gases) than the other
electrostatic precipitators (175 and 190 square feet per 1000 acfm)
tested by EPA.
2. The previously cited ESP serving a basic oxygen steel furnace has
375 square feet of plate area per 1000 acfm.
3. Precipitators with 250 to over 400 square feet per 1000 acfm of
collection plate area have been installed at steel furnaces, cement
kilns', municipal incinerators, and other sources.
ป
Based on these considerations, it is concluded that exit concentrations of
t
0.020 grain per standard cubic foot can'be achieved with electrostatic
precipitators of the same general design as have been installed by refiners
but with greater plate area. In addition, i-t will probably be necessary
that they be constructed in modules s-CTch that maintenance and repairs can
be conducted while the ..unit remains in service. Catalyst regenerators
39
-------
frequently are kept on stream for two years or longer such that there are
few shutdowns in which to conduct repairs and maintenance.
Visible emissions of less than 20 percent opacfty were observed at all
three of the units tested by EPA. .Ten additional units--were observed by
EPA engineers to have visible emissions which meet the proposed standard.
The proposed standard can be exceeded for three minutes in any one hour.
This is to allow for blowing soot from the tubes of the carbon monoxide
j > .
waste heat boiler,-
\
Carbon Monoxide .
In addition to parti_culate matter carbon monoxide was determined during
the EPA tests. The four units, each controlled by a carbon monoxide
incinerator-waste heat boiler, (Figure 4) showed carbon monoxide emissions
well below the proposed standard. Carbon monoxide emissions from three
_tests on_twq units averaged 5, 10, and 25 parts per million by volume.
At the two remaining units tested, there were no measurable carbon monoxide
emissions.
The proposed carbon monoxide standard will require the use of eitner an
incinerator-waste heat boiler or a regenerator capable of almost complete
J?urning of carbon and CO to carbon dioxide. Burning CO in the regenerator
(in-situ) is a relatively recent innovation. It was developed-together with
f
improvements in catalytic cracking technology which significantly increase the
"yieYcTof "gasoline! ' "In" recognition of the more effective usage of natural
resources, the standard is being proposed at a level which can be achieved
with in-situ combustion even though incinerator-waste heat boilers would
provide greater reductions in carbon monoxide emissions.
40
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
The growth in catalytic-cracking capacity is estimated to be about 685,000
barrels per day (B/D of fresh feed) over the next five year period.
Currently about 80 percent of existing capacity is operated by "major"
petroleum refiners and 20 percent operated by "independent" petroleum
refiners. The trend in refinery construction is to install processing
units of larger capacity than in the past. For the purposes of this
analysis it is assumed that about 80 percent of new capacity will be from
construction~of large (65,000 B/D of fresh feed) units by the "major"
refiners and the remaining-20 percent from-construct!'on of small units
(20,000 B/D of fresh feed) by the "independent" refiners. Over the next
five years then, it is estimated that 9 large units and 6 small units
will be constructed, or about 2 large units and 1 small unit annually.
The costs to meet the proposed standards are proportionately less on
larger sized unit?, The investment costs for a carbon monoxide boiler and
an electrostatic precipitator installed on a 65,000 B/D (fresh feed) unit
and on a 20,000 B/D (fresh feed) unit range from about 25 percent to 36
percent of the basic process equipment investment cost. However, this is
*
not all unproductive investment. The cost savings generated from steam
production in the carbon monoxide boiler more than offset the annual cost
* * , *.
of the electrostatic precipitator ^nd CO boiler. The value of the steam
to the refiner depends on his alternate fuel cost. Sfnce the price of
t
natural gas and'other fuels is likely to keep rising, the value of steam
will become higher in the future. The CO bcriler investment costs and
41
-------
annual savings are shown below.
FCC Size 'Investment Annual
20,000 bbl /da $1.8xl06 1$235 x 103)
65,000 bbl/da $3.0 x 10?
Since the CO boiler has an attractive economic payout most new units would
be built with CO boilers even without the proposed standards. The increase
t '
in process unit investment necessary to install an electrostatic precipitator
on a 65,000 B/D uriitrand a 20,000 B/D unit, with the CO boiler investment
cost included a* bas-ic process equipment eost,- ranges from about 6 percent
to 8 percent. The increase in annual operating cost ranges from about
6.2 percent to 9 percent.
The investment and annual ized costs required to meet the new source
performance standard and the reference process weight regulation are
shown in Table 1. These costs are based on the use of electrostatic
precipitators as the particulate control device. The basic units were
assumed to have two stage internal cyclones.
42
-------
TABLE 1 . CONTROL COSTS FOR FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS
20,000 B/D
Performance Standard
(0.02 gr/SCF) :
i
ESP
700,000
1,50,000 ',
i
.022
i
Reference Process
* Weight Regulation.
Equivalent to
(.09 gr/SCF)
ESP
470,000
i
110,000
.016 ,
\
*
Plant Size
Emission
Standard
Required
Control
Equipment
Control
Investment ($)
Annual Cost
($/yr)
i
Annual Cost
Per
Unit of
Throughput
($/BBL)
65,000 B/D
I
Performance Standard
I ;(. 02 gr/SCF)
ESP
i
1,150,000
i
.- >
' ! 225, .000
! ,
,.010-
1
1 '
1
1
Reference Process
Weight Regulation
Equivalent, to
(.035 gr/SCF)
ESP
1,050 ,,000
205*000
1 ,
1 .009
1
t ,
t t
I
CO
-------
FIGURE 1
WET GAS
RAW GASOLINE
r^
' STM
IGHT CYCLE OIL -
JEW CYCLE OIL r-
BOTTOMS
FEED -r
to
PETROLEUM REFINING
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNIT WITH CONTROL SYSTEM
"
STM
>T<
3
I I i ,
"IS"
AIR
FUEL
frrrrr?
* DUST
AIR
FRACTIONATOR
REACTOR
REGENERATOR
CO RDJLEP.
ELECTROSTATIC STACK
PRECIPITATOR
-------
FIGURE ?
v.
UCENFRAKHi
POWER REC^'Utn f) i .nil
IP
P ' i
fr
fe-,A'-J
jf - Y-/:t'~5; '
!'\ 1 N,-?\ฃ
^" ;";^-ra (x
i -.U- I,,
FCCU REGENERATOR AND CONTROL SYSTEM
(Carbon Monoxide Boiler and j
Electrostatic Precipitator)
-------
.
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS,
cn
On A
.04
0.03
u.1
o
ฃ .
7r
O)
t
oo
z:
o ',
14 ,'
to
12 0.02
LU
ฃ
<:
_i
n
t_)
* i
o: . '
<: <
a.
i
0.01
A nn
2
2 KEY
5. 4 ,.-.4 , TYPE OF TEST | l'
LJ LJ -1. MAXIMUM _5
: ^ , '^ .- V h 4 AVERAGE 1- 1
' ' ', LJ MINIMUM LJ
" . EPA OTHER
1 , 1
, ' i ' i
' , ' !
2z ' ,' ' K- -
L-l , ; 6ป ~ ' /'
' n ' ' ,v ' ' t 5 t / |; i
ป ,- ; {SSiiCiJ / IJ wt
' ! ,"5 /5
' ' * > ** ^M^^^^J < ^^^^^^^^A
f 3 ^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^ . ป
-. 1 U .-.-.- J ** " "* i f i i i j i ti i * *
A ,11' 1 * * * ' * ' * * * * * I T
' ' 1
1 f-'-t 1
h--! i^-^ '. - '_5 L
1 ' rr^^^ป r
1 (
"" . S i i """
'
! : '! ,
l ! '
, * t ,
i
* * i
i i
. _ _, 1
-------
FTRII3F 4
PETROLEUM'REFItlERIES
CARBON MONOXIDE EI'.IJSIONS FROM FLUID CATALYTIC-
CRACAING UNITS
CD
E
O
ca,
o
o
CO
o
50
40
CO
i 30
UJ
LU
Q
X
O
S 20
10
PLANT
CONTROL
EQUIP.
TYPE OF TEST
1 5
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE V
MINIMUM
EPA'
OTHER
A1 A2
B
c
me
D
em
47
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. Murray, C. R., Chatfield, H. E., LarssorT, E. E., and Lawrence,
M. C., A Report of Source Tests on Emissions from-Catalytic Cracking
Unit Regenerators, County of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control
District-.- Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Order No. 2PO-68-02-3322. 1972.. 88 p.
j r -
2. Air Pollution Engineering-Manual; County of Los Angeles Air Pollu-
tion ControT District. U. S. DHEW, PHS. National Center for Air
Pollution Control. -Cincinnati, Ohie-v- PHS Publication No. 999-AP-40.
1967. pp.'647-649.
Additional Sources
3. National Emission Standards Study. A Report to the Congress of the
United States by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
DHEW, PHS. National Air Pollution Control Administration. Appendix -
Volume 1, pp. E-54.
4. Control Techniques for Carbon Monoxide Emissions from Stationary
Sources, U.S. DHEW, PHS. National Air Pollution Contool Administration,
Washington, D.C. Publication No. AP-65. 1970.
48
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. -8-
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
BURNING OF GASEOUS FUELS
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
f _
'Standards of performance are being proposed for petroleum refineries which
i >
'would limit emissions of sulfur dioxide, from process heaters, boilers and
/ _
waste gas disposal., systems which burn process gas generated in the refinery,
, ' -
The proposed standards'do not apply to emergency gas releases or to other
extraordinary situations. Neither does it apply to the burning"of liquid
or solid fuels in the same heaters and boilers.
The proposed standards would limit sulfur dioxide emissions to the atmos-
phere from heaters, boilers and flares as follows:
Sulfur Dioxide
No more than 10 grains of hydrogen sulfide per 100 standard cubic feet of
fuel gas burned unless resultant combustion gases are treated in a manner
equally effective for purposes of preventing the release of sulfur dioxide
to the atmosphere.
",'<-.- - - . - - .
Compliance with the standard is based upon measurement of the hydrogen
sulfide concentration in the fuel gas or the sulfur dioxide concentration
< *
in the exit gases: The proposed standard is equivalent to a sulfur dioxide
content of about 20 grains per 100 standard eubic feet of fuel gas burned.
The regulation would have the effect of requiring hydrogen sulfide removal
from all refinery generated fuel gases used to fire new boilers and heaters.
49
-------
The extracted sulfur compounds canrF~be-bur:ned in flares, heaters, or
any other sources unless devices equally effective as fuel desulfurization
are used e.g., flue gas scrubbing.
Basis for Proposed Sulfur Dioxide Standards
The standard is based upon performance levels achievable by a well
controlled amine scrubbing unit. The performance of these'units has
been established by over 30 years of operation. Although no tests-were
made, the information was confirmed by refiners, design engineering firms,
and equipment suppliers.
50
-------
EMISSIONS FROM PETROLEUM REFINERIES
Refinery processes such as distillation and fluid catalytic cracking
produce substantial quantities of-"process gas^- (See Figure 1) that may
contain more than five percent by volume of hydrogen sulfide. If this
gas is burned untreated in heaters, boilers,-or flares-;-substantial quantities
of SOp will be emitted to the atmosphere. Monoethanolamine (MEA) and
diethanolamine (DEA) scrubbing units (See Figure 2) are widely used to remove
the hydrogen sulfide from both refinery process gases and natural gas.
In addition, new processes which employ other scrubbing media are being
v **
^
applied to refinery process gases.' The proposed standard would require
owners and operators, of new.facilities to redtrce the hydrogen--stilfide
content of refinery derived fuel gases (See Figure 3) to levels which
are consistent with these technologies. For most such gases, the proposed
limit represents a 99+ percent reduction in sulfide levels. For a fuel
gas equivalent to methane, the resultant emission of 16 ppm SCL is roughly
equivalent to the uurning of fuel oil containing 0.04 percent sulfur by
weight.
Approximately 1 million tons of sulfur charged to U. S. refineries could
*
not be accounted for in 1970. It is believed the majority of this sulfur
was burned and emitted to the atmosphere as SO^. If all sources were
'Control! e'd to^the" Jeve.1- of''the standard, "these "emissions would'be reduced
y
by 95 percent. Most of the difference between 99+ and. 95 percent is due
to losses in conversion of the recovered gases into sulfur or sulfuric acid.
At the present time, there is only one local regulation that restricts S0?
emissions from the burning of refinery process gas. Some State and local
icป
agencies have proposed regulations with limits ranging from 10 to 50 grains
51
-------
of hydrogen sulfide per 100 standard cubic feet of fuel gas (19 to 94
grains of S02 per 100 standard cubic feet of^fuel gas burned).
52
-------
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED STANDARD
The proposed sulfur dioxide standard is consistent with the capability
of a well designed and properly operated amine treating unit when scrubbing
typical refinery process gases at the moderate pressures available in the
234
refinery. ' ' Amine treating technology is well demonstrated and has been
widely used to reduce HpS concentrations in gas streams to levels less
than that required to meet the proposed standard.
Three refineries -were visited and information was obtained on the operation
r '
of amine systems".. All systems were'stated to.be operating with exit concen-
trations of less ttran 10 grains of FLS per 100 standard cubic feet.
Methods of analysis were identified. Diethanolamine (DEA) and monoethanol-
amine (MEA) scrubbers are found in almost every U.S. refinery and there
are hundreds operating in natural gas fields throughout the country.
Amine treating is used to reduce the H^S content of natural gas to the
pipeline specification level of 0.25 grain per one hundred standard cubic
foot. It would be difficult to consistently achieve this level in a
refinery where treating pressures (which favor hLS removal) are lower
than in natural gas fields. The refinery gases also contaffi unsaturated
hydrocarbons not usually found in natural gas. These unsaturates tend to
accelerate fouling of the amine solutions and to reduce scrubbing efficiency.
' * "
There is no discernible difference in plant hardware or design operating
parameters for an'amine treating unit designed to treat refinery process
gas to 10, 50 or 100 grains of hLS per 100 standard cubic feet.'3' Exit
levels are apparently associated with operating^practices; a standard
equivalent to 10 grains of FLS per 100 standard cubic feet requires good
operating practice and has therefore, been chosen as the basis for the
standard. 53
-------
The proposed standard is expressed as hydrogen sulfide and can be measured
as either hydrogen sulfide in the fuel gas or total sulfur compounds in
stack gases. Process gas streams.also contain small amounts of other sulfur
compounds which are not removed by the amine scrubbing system. These
materials would be included in the"total sulfur compounds as measured.
54
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
It is a commonly accepted and necessary practice to treat the various
refinery gas and liquid streams for product quality control. Consultation
with several engineering companies that design amine absorption- systems
which are the most commonly used control devices indicate there could be
a 2 to 5 percent-increase in investment cost but no discernable difference
in operating costs between a new plant designed to meet.the^equivalent
of 10 grains of HgS-per 100 standard cufric_-feet and a new one designed to
meet 100 grains of 't^'per 100 standard cubic feet (typical current
* - * " \
practice). Therefore-, there is a small -increase in amine treating cost
to refiners due to the proposed standard. "In addition, increased operator
effort and attention may be required to maintain the design efficiency of
the process during actual operation. Since this factor is quite variable
depending on the individual company's present operating practice and should
be of minor consequence, it has not been quantified. If the refiner
chooses to run an increased volume of gas through an existing amine
absorption system he may incur costs in upgrading the existing system to
meet the proposed standard. Since each system must be examined individually
to determine the cost of upgrading, no attempt has been made to give costs
for this type of modification.
- ,. - . s. - ,
It is the intent 6f the proposed standard that gases exiting the amine
regenerator which are rich in ^S be directed to an appropriate recovery
facility such as a'Claus Sulfur plant. 'A medium size refinery processing
crude oil containing 0.92 weight percent sulfur, the national average in
1968, would have an emission potential of over 100 tons per day of S02 (50
tons per day of sulfur) from the amme~regenerator.
55
-------
The annualized cost was calculated for a range of Glaus plant sizes. A
discontinuity occurs in the cost ys capacity_curve at about 10 long tons
per day (LT/D). The reason for th'e discontinuity is that for plants up
to about 10 LT/D, less costly prefabricated package units can be used. Above
10 LT/D the units are generally field erected and considerably more expensive,
i _
For each size unit the required sulfur sales price to breakeven was cal-
culated. At a sales price of $20 per long ton the breakeven size for
package Claus -units is about 5 LT/D. The-plant investment for a-5 LT/D
^ , "
package Claus unit israbout $90,000 exclusive of possible future investment
* . ' ป
for control of the SOp in the tail gas... TRe" breakeven size Cat_a-S.ulfur
price of $20/LT) for field erected Claus units is about 15 LT/D which
represents an investment of about $350,000.
No data are presented to show the cost that refineries would incur if their
HgS removal system^ were required to meet the 0.25 grains/100 SCF achieved
by plants processing natural gas. There are several reasons why one should
not compare natural gas processing plants with refinery fuel gas systems.
The natural gas plant processes gas at a high pressure, with a stable gas
composition and with low levels of impurities. These conditfons allow
better HpS absorption. Refinery gas is at lower pressure, has a variable
composition arid fras a variety of impurities which reduce the ability of an
ซ'-'., .- , ./.. . , - '
absorption system to reach the low levels of FUS achieved in a natural gas
plant. The refinery* gas pressure could be increased at a high cost, but
other limitations would still prevent the absorption system from achieving
the low levels found in natural gas plants.
Cost data have not been developed for-higher pressure absorption systems,
but the small incremental reduction in F^S would make such a system highly
questionable from a cost/effective point of view.
-------
FIGURE 1
~,7^r.v.U- iir.-Zyi'^t ^J-j>7< -*trt r'N'fllriH *';1
rsocrss OAS' t\
; v >
U SOUff PROCtSS GA
J ro A*iwf rซMrw<
L___v/-/'>,sJ_r\ ,
' ll "v .
SOUK PTOCfSS GAS
| JO AAtlNE ICf ATING
PETROLEUM .REFINERY
PROCESS GAS SYSTEM
-------
FIGURE 2
cป
TO SUtfUH'flECOVIRY
inn
-------
FIGURE 3
cn
vo
PETR6LEUM
REFINERY
Fuel
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Source
1. Arthur L. Kohl and Fred C. Riesenfeld, Gas Purification,"McGraw-Hill
Book Company, Inc. 1960. Reference Chapter 2, Ethanolamines for Hydro-
gen Sulfi'de and Carbon Dioxide Removal.
Additional Sources
A.
2. Communication from UOP, Process Division, Des Plaines, Illinois,
ป X
November 15, T971. " _ ~" ._ _. ,
3. Communication from Ford, Bacon & Davis Texas, Garland, Texas, January
4, 1972.
4. Communication from Graff Engineering Corp., Dallas, Texas, Jamuary 6,
1972.
60
-------
_TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 9-
STORAGL VE'SSELS FOR PETROLEUM LIQUIDS
\SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Y "" --'--- ~
Standards of performance are being proposed for new storage vessels of
more than 65,000 gallons or 245,000 liters capacity used for the storage
of gasoline, crude oil or petroleum distillates. '
/ "~
The proposed-standards would limit hydrocarbon emissions to the atmosphere
from storage vesse-ls containing any 'petroleum product which has a true
vapor pressure (tvp~) at actual storage conditions as follows:
Hydrocarbons
1. 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute or 77.6 millimeters of mercury
or less the storage vessel must be_equipped with a conservation
vent or equivalent.
2. In excess of 1.5 pounds per square inch absolute or 77.6 millimeters
of mercury and not greater than 11.0 pounds per square inch absolute
or 568.8 millimeters of mercury the_storage _vessel mustJDe equipped
with a floating roof or equivalent.
3. In excess of 11.0 pounds per square inch absolute or 568.8 millimeters
* - -
of mercury the'stqrage_ vessel"must be~equipped With a yaporjrecoVe'ry
system or equivalent.
In contrast to other new source performance ^standards, the storage
standards are not being proposed in terms of allowable hydrocarbon
emissions. Nevertheless, the standards do limit emissions to specific
levels and the hydrocarbon release rate can be calculated from empirical
61
-------
relationships developed for such equipment. Any device capable of providing
comparable hydrocarbon control may be utilized in lieu of the specified
device.
The vapor pressure limits of the proposed standards ajre~basecfon hydrocarbon
emissions and on cost. A floating roof tank used to store 1.5 psia liquids
will release significantly less quantities of hydrocarbons than a fixed
roof tank with only a slight increase in annual cost. -
62
-------
3
HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE TANKS
Hydrocarbon emissions from storage-vessels depend on three basic mechanisms.
These are: breathing loss, workfng loss, and--standing storage loss^
Breathing losses and working losses are associated with cone roof tanks
(See Figure 1) and standing storage losses are associated v/ith floating
roof tanks (See Figures 2, 3, and 4).
Breathing loss are hydrocarbon vapors expelled from the vessel because
I
of expansion of existing vapors"due to;increases in temperature or
decreases in"barometric pressure.
Working loss are.hydrocarbon vapors e~xpeljed~from the vesseT'cfs a "result
of emptying or filling operations. Emptying loss results from vapor
expansion due to vaporization after product withdrawal. Filling loss
represents the amount of vapor (approximately equal to the volume of
input liquid) which is vented to the atmosphere through displacement.
4
Breathing loss and emptying loss are usually restricted to fixed roof
tanks vented essentially at atmospheric pressure. Filling losses are
experienced by fixed roof tanks and low pressure storage tanks vented to
f
the atmosphere. Both working losses and breathing losses can be signifi-
cant and therefore are taken into consideration by the proposed standard.
'* - - <.. -
Standing storage' losses represent the hydrocarbon emissions from floating
roof tanks that are.due to the escape of vapors through the seal system
between the floating roof and the tank wall (See Figure 5), the hatches,
glands_, valves, fittings, ana otner openings.
b3
-------
The magnitude of hydrocarbon emissions from storage vessels depends on
numerous factors including the physical properties of the material being
stored, climatic and meteorological condition?, and the size, type, color
and condition of the tank. To quantify emissions fronrexisting storage
tanks, emission factors were calculated based on correlations developed
1 2
by the American-Petroleum Institute. These factors are based on national
average wind velocity, average ambient temperature Change, typical product
physical characteristics, average tankTsfze and mechanical conditions,
I
.volume thruputs, and,other pertinent parameters." J~
* ____.,
Using these factors, and estimated current "control level's"; aHhtTal "estimated
hydrocarbon emissions from present crude oil, gasoline and distillate tanks
are 1.3 million tons. At present 75 percent of these tanks are equipped
with floating roofs. The annual estimated emissions represent about three
percent of the total national hydrocarbon emissions and about seven percent
of the 18.6 million tons per year emitted from all stationary sources.
With present controls, hydrocarbon emissions from new gasoline and crude oil
storage vessels will be about 41,000 tons per year. The proposed standard
would reduce this loss to about 7,700 tons per year. This represents a
reduction of about 80 percent, based on the current emission rate.
_'*_ ^ ~ ___, ^,~~- . *- +
ซ-
State and local regulations that limit hydrocarbon emissions from petroleum
i
storage vessels,are similar to the proposed standard. . Typically,
cone roof tanks are not allowed for the storage of materials having true
vapor pressures in excess of 1.5 psia and floating roof tanks are not allowed
for storage of materials having a true vapor pressure in excess of 11.0 psia.
64
-------
JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD
" - i
From a review of a contract study made foMEP'A , and an analysis of tank
capacity installed in petroleum bulk terminals^ and plants, it was
concluded that tanks larger than 65,000 gallons account-for over 95 percent
of storage tank hydrocarbon emissions. It was also concluded that few tanks
below 65,000 gallons capacity will be constructed to store the specified
products and that the relative cost of control devices' increases- sharply
_ -V
at the lower tank caoacities.
\.
r '
Hydrocarbon emissions from the storage of oet_fue-ls, volatile crudes
and gasolines can be considerable. 1.5 psia-TVP requires a high degree
of control while providing a distinct break point in those products
which can be stored in cone roof tanks. The proposed standard would
allow less volatile distillate fuel oils, kerosenes, heavy catalytic
cracked naphthas, heavy crudes and residual oils to be stored in cone
roof tanks. Conservation vents would not be required on cone roof tanks
storing fuel or residual oils.
The proposed standard requires the use of vapor recovery systems, (See Figure 6) or
their equivalent when materials are stored with a true vapor pressure above
11,0 psia. The materials most likely to-exceed a true vapor pressure of
,, - - - ,
11.0 psia at actual storage conditions would be certain volatile winter
grade northern gasolines and volatile gasoline blending components stored
*
in areas such as the'United States Gulf Coast. Vapor pressures greater than
11.0 psia would probably occur over a very short"period in the fall of the
year when these winter grades were being accumulated in storage for shipment
north at a time when Gulf Coast ambient afr temperature remained high.
65
-------
However, data obtained from Gulf Cost refineries, which represent the
worst conditions likely to be encountered,-sjiow that essentially all
gasolines and most blending components could be~"stored in floating roof
tanks in any part of the country under the proposed standard provided the
operators have cooling water systems that are designed and properly operated to
.insure adequate product cooling prior to storage.
Beyond a true vapor pressure of 11.0 psia losses from' a floating roof
tank increase very rapidly and surface boiTing with high loss "is "likely
^, "*
to occur. Accordingly', .materials with a true vapor pressure greater than
11.0 psia at actual s_torage conditions-under-normal operating-conditions
should be controlled by use of vapor recovery systems, pressure storage,
refrigeration or combinations thereof.
Vapor recovery systems have been used to control hydrocarbon emissions
from large tank farms and bulk terminals on a very limited basis and
were considered as a possible means of controlling emissions from all
liquids with high TVP's. They have, however, not been demonstrated to
be reliable in all areas of the country but have generally been used in
regions of moderate climate where excessive long term vapor loads on the
system due to high summer month temperatures are minimized. In addition,
when the system'encounters a breakdown ~due"'to compressor failure-or is
*
shutdown for maintenance there are no controls on the entire tank farm.
66
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARD
Over the next five years approximately 175 new gasoline and 420 new crude
oil storage tanks will be constructed annually in the United States. The
number of new storage tanks depends on the growth rajte_pjf crude oil refin-
ing capacity and gasoline production and on the actual size of tanks
constructed. The estimated annual growth rate for both crude oil refining
capacity and gasoline production is 4 percent. Using this growth rate
approximately 20,900,000 barrels .of crude oil storage and 12,500,000
< , ~* "*
barrels of gasoline storage will be required annually. The growth in
military jet naphtha, the least-volatile materi.a.1 covered-by the^proposed
* .
standards is uncertain but will probably be small. For this reason
national investment cost projections have not been made.
Tanks storing crude oil, gasoline and petroleum distillates with a TVP
greater than 1.5 psia require a floating roof to meet the proposed standard.
The increased investment cost over a cone roof is 12 to 25 percent depending
on size. However, the savings from the product recovered exceeds the
annualized cost of the floating roof when storing gasoline and when storing
crude oil in tanks greater than 20,000 barrels capacity. For^an 80,000
barrel jet naphtha fuel tank under average conditions, the annual cost is
estimated-at $1000.., or 0:1 cents per ba'rrej. of throughput. ..Costs for two
sizes of tanks are'shown below.
Size Incremental Investment Cost Material Annual
, , above Cone Roof Tank - Stored Cost
20,000 bbl
$20,000
_
gasoline
crude
jet naphtha
($1 ,140) savings
$480
$2,100
67
-------
80,000 bbl
$27,000
-
gasoline
crude
-^ jet naphtha
($11,100) savings
($ 5,200) savings
$ 1,000
Vapor recovery systems are required by the proposed standard. These systems
are considerably more costly than floating roofs for some of the materials
covered by the standard. For some products (winter grade northern gasolines
i >
and gasoline blending stocks) with a true_vapor pressure above 11 psia the
/ ~~ -
incremental recovery^over a floating roof'tank with a capacity of 50,000
r '
barrels is 7 percent. If the increase>in control costs for the vapor recovery
system is divided by the increased product recovered, the cost per barrel is
about 20 times the average control cost per barrel for the floating roof system.
However, with proper cooling at the production unit these materials will be
below 11 psia at actual storage conditions.
Other materials with a true vapor pressure greater than 11 psia at actual
storage conditions must be stored in vessels controlled by vapor recovery
systems or their equivalent regardless of cost to prevent excessive losses
due to surface boiling.
68
-------
Figure 1
ic' Vessel-
cf.
Conservation
(PRESSURE-VMCUU?^)
VENT .
I ?JloZZLE (
1
GAGE '' '
HATCH'
f ,
MANHOLE
1 MANHOLE\
-------
Figure 2
o
loan
Storage Vesse
c
NOZZLE k
' '
>
< ,- <
SEAL SUPPORT PPNTOON , SEAL
OtnL. tiซT-r>n / \
/ ,/m / \ \ -\
/ /'' / V. . V .^n " ;
, ! $/ '^f' r X ' !
i . - ' ' i
[PONTOON! , > - '
'. - - k ! j GUIDE * , :
i DRAIN | ^ "" I
THOSE : , j
f4 MANHOLE
1
ฅ
\_! GROUND
i LEVEL
-------
Figure 3
E
>EC!C
TORAGE VESSEL
TO
.E; \
' Xn-
: ,KATCH SUPPORT DRAIN 'VENT, GUIDE/
:- / V V' A . '/ :',' / ,
. - - . < , -ป jf f,. , , ,r /- ^ t ; *r
! - , ,
5 | COMPARTMENT \ - s
| ISEAL, j PARTITIONS [ ' JSEAL : J
[__ . ___ _ _ ^ u JL-
1
i
? '
MANHOLE
-------
FIGURE 4
a K I p
S
u* S si
ฐ
a ||4?
IB ฎ a
ฉ s s e I
-J
ro
FIXED ROOF
SUPPORTS
VENTS
SLEEVE AND
SEAL
^ G"IDE A.M3 \
/STRUCT'ISAL COLUMNS
-ป---,. -...._
\
-...A
1
MANHOLE
f S S
/ S S
S S S / /
7 S, S S S
-------
FIGURE 5
RAGE VESSEL
CO
TANK SHELL
SECONDARY SEAL OPTIONAL
PRIMARY FABRIC SEAL
METALLIC SEAL
WEATHER
SJIIELD
CEiAL C(
, LIQUID, GAS, OR
! HtSILIEl.'T'V.T.
FLOATING ROOF
TANK SHELL
ii-u n-iHiii
METALLIC TYPE SEAL
TO METALLIC TYPE SEAL
-------
FIGURE 6
STORAGE TANK:
Klfl.GAS
-r^WC?""
_A_
"V
fcg;^^
^^^
((APO8 TANK
COWZl'SOB
v=
k
1 '"B'1 ,
ro rue i GAS
STORAGE
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Source
1. API Bulletin 2517: Evaporation Loss from Floating Roof Tanks (1962).
2. API Bulletin 2518: Evaporation Loss from Fixed Roof Tanks (1962).
3. API Bulletin 2513: Evaporation Loss in the Petroleum Industry
Causes and tontrol (1959).
Additional Sources
4. MSA Research Corporation, Hydrocarbon P'pllutant Systems Study-, Volume
* ' ,
I, Part 1, Contract No. EHSD- 71-12..
5. Petroleum Storage Capacity, National .Petro'leum Council (July 17, 1970)
6. Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Business, Wholesale Trade,
Petroleum Bulk Stations and Terminal.
75
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. l6~
. SECONDARY LEAD ~ ~
SMELTERS" AND REFINERIES
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for new secondary lead smelters
and refineries which would limit emissions of participates (including
visible emissions) from blast (cupola) and reverberatory'furnaces and
would limit visible, emissions-from pot furnaces qf.more than 500 pounds
^ ' -
charging capacity. '' "- -
- ,- 7 *
The proposed standards would limit particulate emissions to the atmosphere
as follows:
Particulate Matter from Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces
1. No more than 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot (undiluted) or 0.046
gram per normal cubic meter, dry basis.
2. Visible emissions shall be less than 20 percent opacity.
Particulate Matter from Pot Furnaces
Visible emissions shall be less than 10 percent opacity.
The proposed visible emissipn standard is compatible with the mass emission
"*>.-
limit for blast and reverberatory furnaces; if particulate emissions are
at or below 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot, visible emissions will
* -
be below 20 percent opacity. Observations of pot furnaces have shown
that visible emissions will be less than 10 percent opacity if commonly
used dust equipment is installed and properly maintained.
"76
-------
Basis for Proposed Parti dilate Standards
1. Three blast furnaces showed average participate emissions of 0.003,
0.009 and 0.015 grain per standard-cubtc foot during EPA conducted
tests. "~
2. Two reverberatory furnaces showed average particulate emissions of
0.004 grain per standard cubic foot during EPA conducted tests.
3. Tests by aflocal agency' on three blast and one reverberatory furnace
showed average particulate emissions of 0.001Sj 0.005^ 0.012 and
0.003 grain'per stnadard cubic foot," " ;
, - - . -
^ *
4. Designers and manufacturers of control' equipment will guarantee
*" -"*,
efficiencies "that will achieve an"outlet"concentration of between
0.015 and 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot.
5. During EPA inspections and stack tests it was observed that 11
secondary lead furnaces controlled by baghouses and high energy
scrubbers did not release visible emissions greater than 15 percent
opacity.
6. During tests on three blast furnaces and one reverberatory furnace
conducted by a local agency^ three furnaces were observed to have
no visible emissions while the fourth furnace had visible emissions
*
between 10 and 30 percent opacity.
7. During EPA inspections it was observed that 8 smelters with pot
" - - . > _ ,
furnaces controlled by baghouses and one controlled by a'high energy
scrubber did not release visible emissions of 10 percent opacity or
t -
greater.
-------
EMISSIONS FROM LEAD FURNACES
A poorly controlled secondary lead fornace can release 30 to 40 pounds
2
of dust and fume per ton of lead produced . Such installations are likely
-to be equipped with centrifugal dust collectors", setttintpchambers or low
3
energy scrubbers. _This results in a loss of valuable product , since
4
average smelter dust contains an estimated 63 percent lead , and the dust
can amount to 2 percent of the lead product. A collection efficiency of
/ -
about 97 percent will be-required to meet the'parti cul ate standard", Abased
* "^ j-~-
on the above poorly'contro-lled emission rate.
At well-controlled secondary lead smelters (See Figure 1) either baghouses or
high energy scrubbers are used to collect dust and fumes from the furnace.
_When fabric filters are used to control blast furnace emissions, they are
normally preceded by an afterburner (See Figure 2) to incinerate oily and
stickly materials tc avoid blinding the fabric. This afterburner has the
added advantage of oxidizing carbon monozide to carbon dioxide. An after-
burner is not needed in the reverberatory furnace (See Figure 3) since there
is sufficient excess air and temperature to incinerate carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbons, ^
Emissions from blast and reverberatory furnaces are normally released to
1
the atmosphere "through stacks with an average height of 150. feet. However,
f. ,
the stack heights range from a few feet above the top of the control device
(about 30 feet above'ground level) to 300 feet.
Baghouses and scrubbers are also used to control pot furnaces (See Figure 4).
During melting and holding operations associated with-pot furnaces, uncontrolled
emissions are quite low because the vapor pressure of lead is low at
"78"
-------
the melting temperature. During dross skimming and refining operations,
emissions are substantially increasedan^adequate ventilation must be
provided to protect the health of the workers. The latter requirements
govern the volume of exhaust gases. Emissions frpmjj'oj; furnaces are
typically released to the atmosphere through short stacks, 15 to 35 feet
in height.
' i > .
State and local, particulate regulations.are less stringent than the
f *
proposed standard for blast and reverberatory furnaces. -The most -
r "* --
stringent standards range from'4" to 8. pounds, of particulate per hour
>which corresponds~to from 0.08 to 0.02 .grain per staridard'cuFic'foot and
represent 20 - 80 ton per day units. Some of these standards are based on
, particulate sampling methods that differ from the EPA techniaue in that they
include material collected in wet impinqers.
For a typical blast (cupola) furnace rated at 50 tons per day at a flow
rate of 15,000 dry standard cubic feet per minute,the proposed standard
would allow the furnace to emit 2.4 pounds per hour "of"particulate
matter. The reference process weight regulation would limit . .
*
emissions to 7.7 pounds per hour based on a charging rate of 6,900 pounds
per hour. ,New furnaces will range.in size from 20 to 80 tons per day
f
of ingot production, with gas flow rates of 10,000 to 40,000 dry standard
cubic feet per minute respectively.
79
-------
JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSED STANDARDS
Preliminary investigations revealed-the locations of 11 well-controlled
plants in the United States. These plants were visite_d jmd information
was obtained on the process and control equipment. Visible emissions at
the plants were ^bserved to be less than 10 percent opacity. Judgment
was also made as to the feasibility of stack testing in each case. In
i > -
this regard six locations were unsatisfactory because control equipment
was inadequate or the'physical layout of the, equipment made testing
'' "'
unfeasible. Stack tests-were conducted.at_fiye locations including
three blast and two-re verb era to ry furnaces.
Particulate Matter from Blast and Reverberatory Furnaces
All furnaces tested showed average particulate emissions below the
proposed standard (See Figure 5). The blast furnaces were controlled by an
afterburner and baghouse, afterburner, baghouse, and venturi scrubber, and a
ventun scrubber. Particulate emissions averaged, respectively, 0.003,
0.009 and 0.015 grain per standard cubic foot. The reverberatory furnaces
were controlled by baghouses with particulate emissions averaging
0.004 grain per standard cubic foot in both cases.
Previous tests'on -three blast furnaces-and a reverberatoryfurnace were
" i
conducted by a local control agency and are also shown in Figure 5. The
blast furnaces were controlled by an afterburner and a baghouse. The
reverberatory furnace was controlled by a baghouse. 'Particulate emissions
averaged, respectively, 0.001, 0.005, 0.012, and 0\003 grain per standard cubic
foot. The test method is considered comparable to the EPA method.
-------
No visible emissions were observed_at three of the furnaces which were
tested. The other two furnaces had.visible emissions of 15 percent
opacity or less. Six additional furnaces were observed by EPA engineers
to have visible emissions which meet the proposed standard, although
moisture-condensation plumes were present in cold weather from those
furnaces controlled by scrubbers.
Particulate Matter-from Pot Furnaces 7
No emission standard pther than,visible emission limits have been
ป .". , *7 * -
proposed for pot furnaces." Observations' of-nine smelters withj>ot_
furnaces controlled by baghouses or a high energy scrubber have shown
visible emissions less than 10 percent opacity. It is estimated that
particulate emissions are less from pot furnaces than from blast and
reverberatory furnaces, but no tests have been conducted.
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
As of December 31, 1971,- there were approximately 45 secondary lead
smelting plants in the United States owned by 23 firms. The four largest
companies account for approximately 72 percent of output. Total produc-
tion has been cyclical but upward trending at a yearly rate of 3.2
percent. Consumption of lead-acid storage batteries, the major market
for secondary lead, has been growing at a rate of 5'.1 percent"annually.
In general, the industry expects these 'trends to continue arid predicts
1 ' . , '
no major problems, in'the forsee'abl'e future.
It is expected th'at~2 new secondary lead'plants and 1 to 2 modifications
will be installed in the United States each year. Table 1 estimates
control costs for two model units, constructed to represent the size
and type expected to be installed. For a new plant consisting of a
blast furnace rated at 50 tons per day with auxiliaries, two abatement
alternatives were analyzed. If an afterburner, U-tube cooler, and fabric
filter were installed, the annualized control costs (including charges
for labor, materials, utilities, depreciation, interest, property taxes,
and an allowance for recovered materials) would amount to about $4.05/ton
of output. In the worst case situation, i.e. if the costs could not be
passed forward-or backward, this level of expense would cause-a reduction
i
in typical net earnings of approximately 15 percent. If the alternative
venturi scrubber sys-tem was installed, annualized costs would amount to
approximately $6.40/ton of output. This would lower typical net earnings
about 25 percent in the worst case situation.
82
-------
For a new secondary lead plant consisting of a reverberatory furnace rated
at the same capacity with equivalent auxiliary equipment, two similar abate-
ment alternatives were considered- _Jn^this case, however, afterburners need
not be added to prevent binding of the baghousej filter material. If a U-
tube boiler and fabric filter were installed, annualized costs for the control
equipment would be about $1.65/ton~of product. Assuming" no ability to shift
costs, this would lower typical net income some 7 percent.
If the alternative control system consisting of a wa,ter- quejich. and venturi
scrubber were insta-lled, the annualized;coJitrol"costs would be approximately
$2.86/ton of output an.d would lower typical net income about 12 percent.
* " - "^ *
Annualized costs ($/_ton) for either a"blast"or~reverberatdryTuFnace rated
at 25 tons per day would be about 4% more than the costs presented above.
The costs shown in Table 1 are total in the sense that they account for
complete control systems added to new, uncontrolled plants. The incremental
control costs to meet the proposed standard beyond those required to meet
the reference process weight standard are minimal. Many state and local
agencies presently have regulations for secondary lead smelters that require
the same types of dust-control equipment necessary under the proposed
*
standards. The industry has also practiced relatively good control in the
past from concern for occupational health hazards.
It is estimated tfiat 'the 1967 level of control for the industry was 90
percent. New secondary lead facilities will be entering a market situation
in which the price of the product or the prices paid for raw material
scrap already reflect to some degree the increased-expenses from air pollutio
pollution control. Since the incremental control costs for a new plant
versus an existing unit are minimal, profitability at least equaling that
83
-------
of the existing industry should be achievable for a new unit.
Secondary producers compete with'their primary counterparts and are
subject to the cyclical nature of the lead industry as a whole. However,
total control costs for the secondaries are small in absolute "terms and
relative to the expected control costs for the primary producers. Control
costs for the pp-imaries are on the order of 2.2$. per pound, or $44 per
ton. Costs for new secondary plants are in the range of $ฃ to $6 per
ton. Assuming full implementation by broth sectors, secondary lead
i
producers should not be placed,,at a competitive disadvantage.
84'
-------
'TABLE 1 CONTROL COSTS FOR TYPICAL SECONDARY LEAD PLANTS
Blast Furnace
50 Tons Jp.er Day
Performance
Standard
(0.02 qr/SCF)
Afterburner
U-Tube Cooler
Fabric Filter
$157,000
$ 51,000-
(
$4.05
|; Afterburner
>, Hater Quench
'Venturi Scrubber
^ $123,000
i
* \
'" $ 80,000
$6.40
*i
Plant
Type
Emission
Standard
Required
Control
Equipment
Control
Investment ($)
Annual i zed
Cost ($/Year)
Annual Cost
Per Unit Of
Product ($/Ton)
Reverberatory Furnace
50 Tons Per Day
/
i , Performance
'. \ ~ Standard
(0.02 gr/SCF) , t
(U -Tube. Cooler
Fabric Filter
$,188,000
' , v '
; ; ,$ 21,000
$1.65'
Uater Quench
Venturl Scrubber
t ' ,
$125,000' /
$ 36,000 /
i i
$2.86
i
i ,
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS:^ A. Production rate 4000 Ibs/hr.
'* B. Annual production 12,500 tons
C. Recoverable dust is recycled at a val'ue of 2.25tf /lb, except-fpr
ป Reverberatory dust recovered from fabVic filter system is valued at
D. Fabric filter systems depreciated straight-rline, 15 year-life.
E. Venturi Scrubber systems depreciated 'straight-line, 10 year-life.
F. Average product price estimated to be $320/ton.
-------
1 FIGURE 1_ ~\
f X '
TO ซ{AST rutNACc CONTIOI SYSIIM
IP VtNIIlMION CONTROL iVSTIM
If AO HOIOING > - , -,
MEIIINC J ^-"'X
REFINING POfi
TO RtVUBATORY FURNACf ' I
CONIBOL STST1"
KAI) SMKI/r
-------
FIGURE 2
, i
I I
OUST RECYCUD IO HlVlRBlOAiOtT fUlNACf
\<
: BLAST FURNACE AND CONTROL SYSTEM
': ซ
(Afterburner and Ba
-------
FIGURE 3
{MISSIONS
DUS1 BlCTClt
IM
I I
-------
FIGURE 4
i
i co|
HOIOINO. UAO MEITINO AND REFINING POIS
DUST MCYCUD 1O *E VERBUAIOCY IUซNACf
POT ANJ) VENTILATION,CONTROL
i'' SYSTEM
t i
-------
\\FIGURE_5 \
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM BLAST AND REVERBERATORY FURNACES
O.O4
tt.
O
O>
z
O
in
in
O.O3
D
~ O.OI
oe
2
PLANT
CONTROL EQUIP.
Fin ^ ACE TYPE
'
'2
:. A B
' ab abv
TYPE OF TEST
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
MINIMUM
EPA
OTHER
C D
v ab
-BLAST
E F
ab ab
*ป
G H I
b b b
REVERBERATORY'
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. Winiamson, J. E., Nenzell, J. F., and Zwiacher, W. E., A Study
of Five Source Tests on Emissions from Secondary lead Smelters,
County of Los Angeles Air Pollution Control District. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Order No. 2PO-68-02-3326. 1972. 45p. ' ' " -
2. Control Techniques for Lead.Emissions' (-draft copy) U.S. "Department
* /
of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Environ-
* . " --- .- * -
mental Health Services, September-,. 1970. ._ - - --.-
ป ~ *~
Additional Sources
3. Brainbridge, C. A., Fume Control and Recovery in Lead Smelting
Furnaces. Chemical and Process Engineering, August, 1960.
4. Bray, J. L., Non-Ferrous Production Metallurgy. 2nd Ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., New York (1953).
91
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO.JI
SECONDARY BRASS. OR BRONZE'INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTb
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for new secondary brass
for bronze I'mjot production plants. The proposed standards would
limit emissions of particulates (including visible emissions) from
reverberatory "furnaces, and yisible'emissions from electric and blast
* ' - / "
(cupola) furnaces.-' The standards would apply to batch furnaces with
. ~ , " >
a capacity of one ton or greater p_er heat .and to continuojis^furnaces
t ~ _
(blast furnaces) capable of producing 500 pounds or more of metal
per hour. They do not apply to the manufacture of brass and bronze
from virgin metals or to brass and bronze foundry operations.
Furthermore, the standards apply to particulate emissions from furnaces
only. Other sources of particulate emissions may exist in plants
affected by the proposed standard, but further study will be required
to delineate such sources and appropriate levels of control.
*
The proposed standards would limit emissions to the atmosphere as
follows:
--ป - - . >.
Particulate Matter from Reverberator.? Furnaces
1. No more than 0.020 grain per standard cubic foot (undiluted)
t ป -
or 0.046 gram per normal cubic meter (g/NM ), dry basis.
2. Visible emissions shall be less than 10 percent opacity.
92
-------
Participate Natter from Electric and Blast Furnaces
Visible emissions shall be less than 10 percent opacity.
fasis for Proposed Particulate Standards ^
1. Three reverberatory furnaces had emissions of Q..Q01, 0..006, and
0.008 grains per dry standard cubic foot during tests conducted
by EPA.
2. Results of EPA tests from an earlier study show reverberatory
j " >
furnace emi-ssions of Q.005-, 0.010,-0,0125, and 0.014 grains
/ ~
i * *
per standard cubic foot, dry basis. -
3. Tests by local agencies on reverbetatory furnaces showed average
particulate "emissions of 0.002, 0.012, and 0.017 grains per dry
standard cubic foot. These test methods are considered comparable
to the EPA method.
4., During EPA inspections and stack tests, it was observed that
five reverberatory furnaces controlled by baghouses had visible
emissions of less than 10 percent opacity.
-5. No mass standard is proposed for electric and blast furnaces
because (1) 95 percent of the production is carried out in
reverberatory furnaces, (2) the emissions from blast'furnaces
are about the same as, from electric furnaces, and far less
"** H ป
than, thpse from reverberatory ftfrnaces, (3) it was observed
that well-controlled blast and electric furnaces could meet
the visibleemission standard, (4) the expenditure of EPA
resources for the testing needed to support a specific mass
standard is not warranted, ahd~(5) the visible emission
standard is an adequate enforcement criterion and can be met
only by well-controlled units.
"93"
-------
EMISSIONS FROM SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE FURNACES
Particulate emissions, from brass-and bronze furnaces vary with the
content of the alloy being produced, and wHh the presence of impurities
in the scrap feed. Most of the particulate emissions_ are metal oxides,
predominantly zinc oxides (45-77 percent)" and lead~dxides "(1-13 percent).
Uncontrolled_reverberatory furnaces can emit as much as"80 pounds of
particulate per ton of ingot produced. Much of these emissions are
* J * >
intentional. The level of emissions, from blast furnaces (cupolas)
/ ~
is approximately equal to that from revefberatofy furnaces, and emissions
124
from electric "furnaces .are typically.,far less. * * The compositions of
_ _ i n _
blast and reverberatory furnace emissions are similar. ' "" Electric
furnace emissions are also expected to have similar composition, since
the process and raw materials are the same.
Fabric filters are extensively used to control emissions from all three
types of furnaces. Electrostatic precipitators have only recently
been adopted as control devices. Although no scrubber has yet been
used to control to the level of the proposed standard, such levels
are within the capability of scrubbing technologyT"^_
*
No state or local agency now has an emission standard specifically
for-the br'ass" and bronze industry.- 'General restrictions applied to
' " ซ ..-,- A . -. ._ j r
.* f
the industry are based on process weight regulations or emission
3
concentrations. These range from 0.05 to 0.3 grains per standard
cubic foot. Some are based on particulate sampling methods that differ
from EPA Method 5 in that they include material collected in a wet
impinger
94
-------
The reference process weight regulation would restrict emissions
from a typical 25 ton brass furnace (24-hour cycle) to 3.6 pounds
per hour. The propos.ed mass standard is-more restrictive than any
existing process weight curve for furnace sizes appropriate to the
brass and bronze industry. It .would limit these emissions"to 1.0
to 1.5 pounds per hour. Figure 1 is a process flow diagram of
reverberatory furnaces producing brass and bronze ingots.
Lead ^
^ ^, *
Lead emissions during production of a 5 percent lead alloy ranged
. ' - , " >.
from 4 to 7 percent of the Jtotal p_articulate. Production__Qf_ aljoys
* ""
with higher lead content would probably increase the lead content
of the emissions. However, since there is no known control technique
specific for lead, the maximum possible limitation can be obtained
with a stringent particulate standard.
95"
-------
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Based on results of preliminary screening,"eight plants were inspected
as candidates for source testing. Visits to these-plants r-evealed five
operated with no visible emissions. Four of the five were selected for
source testing. Three tests were successfully completed. The fourth
was aborted because malfunctions during the testing period rendered
i > .
the tests inva-Hd. - - - ; _' " -
i
'
Particulate Ma.tter from Reverbera.tory Furnaces
All furnaces tesjted by EPA showed-average particulate-emtss4ons-below
the proposed standard. The reverberatory furnaces, all controlled by
fabric filter collectors, averaged 0.001, 0.006 and 0.008 grain per
standard cubic foot, dry basis.
At least three heats were tested at each plant. The tests began when
the first scrap was charged into the furnace and ended when the pouring
of ingots began. The pouring phase of the heats was not tested because
none of the facilities adequately collected the emissions from this
*
phase of the heat. Some of the tests were conducted such that individual
samples were collected during different phases of the heats to determine
fluctuations of emissions during the heat. The EPA data p'oints on the
bar chart, which is included as Figure 2, represent average plant emission
levels determined by averaging the data acquired by.the individual samples.
During collection of four of the 31 samples, testing was aborted'because
of sampling irregularities or process upsets. These samples were not used
in determining furnace emissions.___
- 96
-------
Results of other tests performed^by federal, state, and local agencies
indicate emissions from reverberatory furnaces controlled by fabric filters
to be 0.002, 0.005, 0.010, 0.0125, 0.014 and 0.017 grain per
scf. A description of each of-the furnaces for-wlrich emissions are
reported is jncluded as Table 1. The furnaces tested, which ranged
in production capacity from 7 1/2 to 100 tons, were all controlled
by fabric filters.
j -
, * ' * . ' -
^ ' ' ,-
During EPA tests at plants A and B, there were no visible emissions
" *- , " \
from the fabric filter"." At plant_D~,' visible emissions of 10 percent
opacity were observed during the fabric filter cleaning cycle. Also,
reported data show no visible emissions for facilities E and F.
Particulate Matter from Blast and Electric Furnaces
Results of one blast furnace test revealed emissions to be 0.013
grains per dry standard cubic foot. Recent inspections by EPA reveal
the furnace operates with no visible emissions. Although no electric
furnaces have been source tested, they should have no difficulty meeting
the proposed standards for reverberatory furnaces because of the
similarity of their process cycle.
"97
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARD
The production of brass and bronze ingots has grown at an average
annual rate of 1.2 percent over the last~ten years. Production
reached a peak in 1965 and 1966 and has declined somewhat since
that time. For this reason, it is believed that excess capacity
exists in the industry and few, if any, new plants will be
constructed "In the next few years to meet increased demand.
It is probable, however, that some obsolete furnaces will need
to be replaced." Such replacements are" expected to occur.at a
1 " ^
rate of one or two-furnaces,per year and these new furnaces will
be required to comply with_a new source"peฃformance_standard. _
Although there are a few wet scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators
in use in the industry, the fabric filter has been the most common
control device used in the past. The fabric filter will most likely
be the control device used to meet the proposed new source performance
standards. Costs for different sizes of reverberatory furnaces are
shown below:
20 Tons/Day 50 Tons/Day 75 Tons/Day
Investment $74,000 $110,000 $130,000
Annual Cost $13,000 $20,070 $34,300
Annual Cost/Tan-Product - $6.52 - . $4.01 ' $3,24
It is possible to combine the exhaust from several furnaces into a
common control system, and thus achieve some economy of scale. The
extent that this can be realized will depend on the characteristics
of the individual plant in which the furnace replacement is made.
98
-------
The proposed standard is not likely to cause expenditures above that
already required by existing State or local standards.
yy
-------
/ TABLE I
DESCRIPTIoFOF~fESTED FACILITIES
A. 7.5 ton gas-fired rotary furnace equipped with two closed suction
type manually cleaned baghouses with"a total cTo'th area of 7181
- square feet.
B. 100 ton gas-fired stationary reverberatory furnace equipped with a
> i ' > !
closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of
9,000 square feet.
',
C. 60 ton gas-fired- reverberatory furnace equipped with a closed
suction type-cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth arelT'of 5,940
square feet.
D. 20 ton oil-fired rotary furnace equipped with a closed pressure
type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of 18,661 square
feet.
E. 100 ton gas-fired reverberatory furnace equipped with a closed
suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of 7,360
square feet.
F. 17.5 ton gas-fired rotary furnace equipped with a closed suction
type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of 20,866 square
f
feet. ^- - - . <.. - - .
... ซ- ' . \. , t . "-.'.
G. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity of 55 tons equipped
with two closed suction type baghouses with a total cloth area
of 41,700 square feet.
H. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity^of 27.5 tons equipped
with three closed suction type baghouses with a total cloth area
of 9,536 square feet.
'TOO-
-------
I. One 7.5 ton rotary furnace, one 17.5 rotary furnace, and one
blast furnace which was bejng preheated.- All three furnaces
were ducted to a closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse
with a cloth area of 20,866"square feet.
"101
-------
FIGURE 1
Kin
CAS OK Oft f
FURNACE '
ooMtsnc ft
SCBAF
mix
"(^N.
>.
LA
^
MAG
ty." -Al rCOOVCT
5ปAG J \ ซฃ-
. IW- U
^*N^,i )7../ฃซ
^c%L
j w
eoovoji
ywl
rua (CAS o* onj $
., r^=r
O
AM
/?
J\ i-k fj\ TL
/^l^^
*OTAปr fURNACE
rcoaucr ro tstsi ascto
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE'FURNACES
WITH CONTROL DEVICE
-------
I .,1
TT-M.
4
FIGURE 2
"
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION INDUSTRY
A PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM REVERBERATORY AND BLAST FURNACES
0,0k
0.03
en
t/i
0.02
rD ; i
o :
0.01
: i' 0
' ' PLAN!& A-L
CONTROL EQUIP.' b
B
b
D
ป
b
I
b
H
'b
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. Air Pollution Aspects of Brass and Bronze Smeltina and Refininq
Industry. Cooperative Study Project: Brass and-Bronze Inqot
Institute and National Air Pollution Control Administration.
U. S. DHB'J, PHS. Consumer Protection and Environmental Health
Service. National Air Pollution Control Administration. Raleiqh,
Nortn CaroTina. National Air Pol Vut'i on "Control Administration
i _ . , _.
Publication Ne.'AP-58.-.1969. 63 p". '
2, Air Pollution fngineeruig Manual, Air"Pollution Control District,
County of Los Angeles. U. S. DHEW, PHS. PHS Publication No.
99-AP-40. 1967. 892 p.
Add i t i o na1 So u r c e s
3. A Compilation of Selected Air Pollution Emission Control Peculations
and Ordinances. U. S. DHEW, PHS. National Center for Air Pollution
Control. Washington, D. C. PHS Publication No. 99-AP-43. 146 p.
4. McGraw, M. J., and Duprey, R. L. Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors: 2nd Edition (Preliminary Document) U. S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina EPA Publication
No. AP-42. 1971. 172 p,.
ro4
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 12
I-RON AND STEEL PLANTS'
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for the iron and steel
industry. The proposed standard would limit emissions of particulates,
including visible emissions, from new basic oxygen process furnaces
(BOPF). , - ' " - .-----
.' '-,.''' ' " '
The proposed standards would limit 'participate emissions to the
atmosphere as follows:
Particulate Matter
1. No more than 0.020 grain of particulate per dry standard cubic
foot (undiluted) (0.046 gram/cubic meter).
2. Visible emissions shall be less than 10 percent opacity.
The proposed standard for visible emissions is compatible with the
mass emission limit. The proposed particulate limits can be
achieved with high energy venturi scrubbers or electrostatic
precip,itator,s.,
*
" *'* *
Basis for Proposed Particulate Standards
1. Four tests,,, conducted by EPA on three-different facilities, showed
average particulate emissions of 0.003, 0.005 and 0.012 grain per
dry standard cubic foot for two closed hoocl systems and 0.007 grain
per dry standard cubic foot for one open hood system.
T05
-------
2. Designers and manufacturers of control equipment will guarantee
efficiencies that will achieve an average outlet concentration
from either type of collection device of 0.020 grain per standard
cubic foot.
3. During EPA inspections and stack tests, it was observed that
three BOPFs controlled by electrostatic precipitators and two
closed-hood systems with scrubbers had visible stack emissions
j " >
of less than 10 percent opacity? - --- '-
/
i - "
* '
^ *^
*' "i
EMISSIONS FROM -BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS-FURNACES
In the steel 'industry, there are several processes that are major
particulate emission sources if not properly controlled. These
include basic oxygen process, open hearth, blast, and electric
furnaces; coke ovens and sintering plants (Figure 1).
Open and Closed Hood Systems - The proposed standards would apply
only to basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPF). Other pollutant
sources in this industry will be the subject of standards to be
developed at a later date. The BOPF is a vertical cylindrical
+
container, open at one end. During the steel-making process,
oxygen at high velocity is directed at the surface of the molten
* ^'
nri*, violently agitating the mix and causing a large quantity of ,
particulate matter and carbon monoxide to be emitted through the
1 * ป -
open end of the furnace. There are publications which report that
up to 40 pounds of particulate matter are emitted per ton of steel.
\ v
The emissions are drawn into a hood, an.arrangement much like that
used with kitchen stoves- to drau-off steam and cooking odors. From
.
the hood, the hot dirty air is ducted to cleaning devices, usually
~
-------
electrostatic precipitators or high-pressure venturi scrubbers,
which remove much of the particulate matter before the air is vented
to the outside. " - "--.
There are two different hood systems used to capture the BOPF
emissions. One system uses an "open" or "combustion"-hood, with
1.5 to 2 feet of clearance above the furnace rim. The other
I
system uses a retractible "closed" hood which fits rather closely
around the top of the furnace. The closed hood prevents additional
/ -
air from being drawn^into the exhaust system.' - " __ ' J
t /
r ' -" t
The closed hood was designed"to minimize the-exhaust volume and to
reclaim carbon monoxide. Abroad, this CO is collected for use as a
fuel or as a feed gas for petrochemical processing operations; however,
in the two plants in the United States using closed hoods, the exhaust
gases are currently flared with no heat recovery.
From an air pollution standpoint, there are two fdCtors pertinent to
closed hoods: (1) the high concentrations of combustible CO make
the hot gases potentially too hazardous to clean in the arcing '
electric field of an electrostatic precipitator. With the opejn hood,
oxygen in the air reacts with CO to form non-explosive C02, and (2)
the rate of the-,.volumetric flow, e.g., 'cubic feet of gas per mijiute,
f
4* - ,
through the cleaning system and out the stack is less than 20 percent
of the rate of flow in an open hood system. The first factor limits
the choice of cleaning equipment to a single type, the high-energy
venturi scrubber. The second factor leads to less.stack emissions
per unit time, e.g., pounds per hour, than with an open hood. This
is true because the venturi scrubber achieves about the same degree
"lor
-------
of cleanliness, e.g., 0.02 grains of participate matter per cubic
foot of air, whether it is fed very dirty air or moderately dirty
air. (The very dirty air from-tfie^closed hood comes out just as
clean as the moderately dirty air from the"open hood.) Therefore,
the amount of particulate matter coming out of the-stack per unit
time, e.g., pounds per hour, is dependent upon how many cubic feet of
air come outrof the stack per unit time. As previously mentioned,
the air flow in a closed system is less than one-fifth that of the
* * * >
flow in an opert system, and tire emission of-parti cul ate matter
correspondingly would be less. / -
Both open and, closed hoods "allow -some a-ir-contaminants to-escape
through the roof ventilators to the atmosphere during charging,
turn down, tilting, tapping, and lade! additions. The closed
hood, because it may be withdrawn to the "up" position during
these operations, is less efficient in collecting resultant
emissions. During the oxygen blow, a small portion of the
particulate also escapes to the building ventilation system
regardless of the collection device. Collectively, these uncaptured
emissions are estimated to be only a small percentage of the total
BOPF emissions.
* >
Tn the United States, BOPFs range" from 100 to 325 tort's capacity.
Emission volumes vary from 200,000 to 600,000 dscfm "for open-hood
i t
systems". A. typical 250 ton furnace will have a gas volume of 200,000
to 500,000 dscfm. Assuming a 90 percent yield and a particulate
concentration of 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot, it would produce
470 tons of steel and emit between 34 and 86 pounds of particulate per
hour depending on the quantity of excess air permitted to enter
108 "
-------
the combustion hood.
Existing State and local regulations specifically for BOPF facilities
range from 0.1 to 0.2 pound per"thousand pourids of stack gas. This
is equivalent to 0.045 to 0.090 grain of particulate per standard
cubic foot. Such regulations would permit the furnace in the example
above to emi-t-77 to 386 pounds of particulate per hour. State
limitations submitted pursuant to Section 110 of the Clean Air Act
will require control only .slightly l_ess stringent than ihe "new source
/
standard. -
-------
JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Investigation of 14 steel companies," which operate 26 of the 36
BOPF facilities in the United States, revealed the location of 12
reportedly well-controlled plants. From these, five were chosen
for actual emission testing. These five were selected to provide
emission data on a wide range of furnace size (140 to 325 tons)
~ * * ' *
and on the three-basic emission-control-systems. These three systems
f ~
are; the combustion^ hood with a high energy scrubber, the combustion
hood with an electrostatic precipitator,_aad.the closed hood with a
high energy scrubber (Figures 2 and 3).~
Particulate Matter from BOPF
Three of the five plants tested had particulate emissions which averaged
below the proposed standard. The results of the tests are presented in
Figures 4 and 5.
Plants A and B are equipped with closed hoods and high energy
venturi scrubbers. Test A, is a second test of the same facility
two months after test A~. Plants C and E have combustionlioods and
electrostatic precipitators. Plant D has a combustion hood and
*
> . >.
a venturi scrubber.' (Emissions frdm'p'lant D include some contribution
of particulate which is formed from supplementary fuel oil also
burned in the,hood.to provide a more uniform heat source for generation
of steam in the hood cooling coils.)
\ "
A series of three runs comprised a test of a BOPF~. Each run was
approximately two hours, long enough to include from 4 to 6 heats.
TlO"
-------
Two of the three runs performed on plant D were invalid because rupture
of the filters prevented accurate calculation of particulate concentration.
Of the remaining sixteen runs of the_~five faciTities, thirteen showed emissions
of less than 0.020 grs/d.s.c.f.
The length of the sampling period was designed "to permit-measurement of
all emissions controllable with existing technology. By commencing
immediately after the furnace was charged and ceasing immediately prior
to tapping, emissions, from the preheat, oxygen blow and all reblbws are
/ -
incorporated into the standard. *
r ' s~ < ~ S ~ ~ -
i
* " C *
Results of the test program reveal the proposed" concentration standard
of 0.020 grain per SCF is representative of the lowest particulate
concentration that can be achieved by control devices on BOPF emissions.
They also reveal that the closed hood, which prevents induction of ambient
air into the hood, minimizes the mass emission rate of particulates from
the process.
Existing combustion hood systems are operated with widely varying gas flow
rates. For instance, a 250 ton furnace open-hood system might handle as little
as 150,000 DSCFM or as much as 500,000 DSCFM depending on the^ontrol equip-
ment and operating practices of the particular firm. The lowest gas flows are
I
used with scrub'bers and the greatest with ,precipitators, where there is a greater
/: . 4
explosion hazard. If technology were developed sufficiently, a. provision
would be added to th'e* regulation to limit exhaust gas flow rates in open-
hood systems and thereby further limit mass emissions to the atmosphere.
In view of explosion hazards, such a secondary limitation is not feasible at
this time if dry collectors (electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters)
are to be a viable control option. Nonetheless, economic considerations will
" 1TF
-------
dictate that operators hold exhaust gas rates to the minimum which is
compatible with their systems. -Bo^ capital and operating costs of
control equipment are significant -and are proportional to the gas volume
handled.
The proposed standard will permit industry to utilize either the open
or closed for future installations even though the closed hood provides
better air pollution control. The decision to 'propose this-less stringent
/ ~*
standard was made only after, intensive investigation into the'consequences
""" t ..
of a standard which would mandate the closed-hood system on all new steel
capacity. Several- of these are listed below-. -
The nation's entire new steel capacity would be totally
dependent on manganese, a strategic raw material essential
for national defense but available within the continental
United States in only limited quantities. Manganese improves
the fluidity of slag which reduces splashing and permits
increased production rates in all steel manufactured by the
BOPF process. Those BOPF controlled by closed hoodSy however,
are particularly sensitive to manganese levels because
"excessive splashing will actually halt production. The
ซ"' . *
closed hood has minimum clearance between the hood, furnace,
and removable oxygen lance. Slag which splashes and solidifies
onto the lance or the hood-furnace juncture will halt production.
'112
-------
The nation's capability to recycle scrap steel would diminish.
Contamination in poor-(dirty) grades of scrap causes excessive
splashing which the closed hood cannot tolerate. Furthermore,
low grade scrap contains appreciable grease, paint, and other
contaminants. Some of these are burned with the carbon monoxide
in flares-or boilers, however, a portion of the hydrocarbon
emissions escape from the closed hood to become either an
1 * " > -
air or watervpollution oroblem. - - - '.=
~ ^ * - - - - -
-,'"' '
The closed hood system tested by PA-is of Japanese design and patent.
A single U. S. company has been licensed to market the system.
Although other similar systems are available, none were tested and
all are of foreign design. The implications of a foreign supplier
and subsequent royalties were considered.
Routine maintenance of the closed hood system is far more expensive
than the open hood. Since the closed system is designed to prevent
intrusion of dilution air, even simple repairs become complex and
i
time consuming often requiring arc-cutting and reweldjng of
I
connections that are merely bolted together in the open hood system.
The capital cost is several million dollars greater fo>-installation
of a third furnace controlled by a^closed hood-system in a facility
' i
which already uses open hoods. .Thirty perceTit of_the__existing EOF
shops were designed to accommodate a Jthird furnace at some future
date when steel demand would justify the investment. A new open hood
"1T3
-------
can normally be manifolded to the existing control device. A closed
hood installation, however, woald~Tequi_re^a hood, ducting fans and
new control equipment at a premfurii of 7 to ^"million dollars. Some
steel facilities, which cannot physically accommodate,ihe high vertical
profile required by the retractable closed hood system, would also
require building modifications which could cost up to 30 million dollars,
A standard which will force an existing control'device ttf be improved
to service a new third furnace.will re-suit in a reduction of emissions
** ' , - f
from the older vesse"l> even though they are not subject to the standard.
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT QF PROPOSED STANDARDS
As of December 31, 1971, there "were 36 basic-oxygen steel furnace facilities
owned by 19 different companies in the United States. During 1971, these
facilities produced 64 million of a total-120 mi-llkm tons- of raw steel.
Only three of the major integrated iron and steel firms do not utilize the
L-D type of basic oxygen furnace steel facilities.
. i ป
It has been estimated that approximately -8 million tons of additional
capacity will came'on-stream between 1974 and 1977. This projection is
based on two fa'ctors':" (1) an expected growth rate of 4.5 percent in raw
steel production "Via the BOPF process, "and (2) a recovery from the 1971
production-to-capacity ratio of 86 percent to the historic ratio of 92
percent. It is not known at the present time how many new or "grass-roots"
facilities will be constructed or how many existing 2-vessel facilities
will add a third vessel to provide the additional capacity. Four 3-vessel
facilities now exist and about 13 of the two vessel facilities were designed
to accommodate a third vessel with a combustion hood control device.
\
Three types of control systems can meet the proposed regulations. These
are: (1) combustion hood with scrubber, (2) combustion hood with precipi-
tator, and (3) closed-hood with scrubber.
.._>,,- - . .. -
i*
Costs for controlling particulate emissions from 2-vessel grass roots
facilities are sh6wn in Table 1. These costs include.gas cleaning devices,-
hood, duct-work, cooling towers (for open hood scrubbers only), fans, pumps,
motors, slurry settlers and filtersv(for scrubbers), dust removal and
storage (for precipitators).
'115
-------
Many states formulating air quality implementation plans are developing
particulate standards that lirart emissionsjfrom steel furnaces to 0.03 to
0.05 grains/DSCF. This is fairly close to current industry performance for
all BOPF shops. Meeting the new source performanee -standards would not
increase costs relative to current industry practice for a grass roots
plant installing electrostatic precipitators. Employing an open hood
scrubber to meet the performance standard would 'increase costs at a new
plant about 10 cents per ton-more than for current industry practice in BOPF
"^ '
shops using such control devices.. The difference is due to increased power
consumption. This cost penalty is-negligible compared tcr'a^rice of $220
t r*
per ton of finished steel products for a typical mill product mix.
Plants considering expansion of 2-vessel facilities to 3-vessel may
be required to provide increased cleaning capability into their operations,
either with larger fans and bigger motors (including cooling towers for
those facilities that do not have them) for scrubbers or additional cleaning
sections in precipitation systems. It is expected that an individual shop
i
with 2-200 ton vessels may spend up to $1 million in investment for up-
*
grading the existing control equipment to meet the proposed performance
standard to which the third vessel must comply. It appears this same
ซ
investment "may" be required to achievers'tate regulations as proposed in the
* .
implementation plans, especially where expansion of"facilities is considered.
t *
This standard should not impede conversion of existing open hearth
furnaces to basic oxygen steel production. The $1 million cited above for
--Tier
-------
upgrading controls amount to 5 percent of the total investment required
to add a third vessel to an existing facility. The incremental $1 million
should not deter conversion to the basic oxygen process. The open hearth
furnaces will likely require a comparable control -investment to comply
with a state implementation plan.
This standard should not prove a deterrent to growth in raw steel
production nor--to conversion~qf open hearth"facilities. With _such minimal
1
cost penalties,'1 pro/it margjns should not be affected by the standard.
117
-------
TABLE I. CONTROL COSTS FOR TYPICAL 2-VESSEL GRASS-ROOTS BOPF FACILITIES
140 Tons/Melt,
Performance
Startdard
(0.02 qr/SCF)'
Combustion
Hood
Scrubber
. /
5,700,000
' r
1,950,000
1.52
Combustion
Hood
Precipitator
. 5,900,000
*
1,500,000
- - 1.17
*
Closed
Hood
Scrubber
6,800,000
2,140,000
1.67
s
Plant Size
Emission
Standard
Required
Control
Equipment
Control
Investment ($)
Annual
Cost ($/Yr)
Annual Cost
Per Unit Of
Production ($/Ton)
250 Tons/Melt
1 i
i
; ' ' Performance
' - - Standard
>' s ' (0.02 gr/SLF) , ,
Combustion
-'Hood,
1 Scrubber
.1 ^
1 7, 400"; 000'
! i : ",
' ' 2,750,000
1.20
iv
Combustion
Hood
Precipifator
8,000,000
t
2,000,000 ' '
!
1 .
Ol89
I
Closed
, Hood
'' Scrubber
: /
;
8,400,000
;
2,800,000
1.22
100'
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS: A. Production - 140 Tons/Melt = 1,300,000 Toris/Yr
250 Tons/Melt = 2,300,000 Tons/Yr
B. 18 yr. straight line depreciation
-------
FIGURE 1
IRON ORE
i^lfv
SINTER
COAL
*>
a:
tfl
COKE OVEN"
'LIMESTONE
V
CONTINUOUS CASTING
!V BILLETS
SLAG
BLAST
FURNACE
J&^%L
_0 g_. a 'j 0
->F @ ^ ?
-/?- 18 *- TV
'^;P> '-'A
^?//:' NV/^
HOT METAL
HOLDER
=P^ SOAKING
INGOTS PIT
EIEC7RIC
FURNACE
-------
FIGURE 2
o
STACK
I ' .< iiliป ifr - r-j* - *
1 g^t i -=^tn ^v, -
^
^OWATER ItEATMENI ftANI
' BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE WITH CONTROL SYSTEM
< * ,
(CombuslioM Hood With Scrubber or[ Electrostatic Precipator]
-------
FIGURE 3
OXTOEN lAKCt
tECTCVEO WATMซv WATIR TREATMENT
''
: O\U;I:N i i KS U:K \\ n n
COM HOI, ! -*-
-------
FIGURE 4
O
ts>
O
0.04
t/5
z.
I 0.03
UJ
UJ
y 0.02
or
J0.01
IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY,
PART1CULATE EMISSIONS FROM BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES.
-V*
TYPEOF.TE-SI
MAXIMUM
AVER_AGE
MINIMUM "
EPA
a
; 2- 2
e
B
0
PLANT
\ CONTROL
L_ EQUIP.
A2,,"c:
he
he hv
122
-------
"/tFTGURF 5
IRON AMD STEEL INDUSTRY
PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS FROM BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES
I u.q
i
j.JD.3
i
f3 ซ ~
O '
I d.i
o>
*- '
o '
c
o
la -s
^^i *
* M*
O
-i 0,02
S3,
UJ
_J
, => '
1 Ou
i
0
PLANT
rn2 '
.,.-------
x^'i. . " - - . - ^ ^
~ .^ T ' - / f. j ^__
"- /' -- " ' - J
/
1
1
1
1
^* "~ - ^f
-
' " __
2
.| i ' TYPE OF TEST ,
2 * MAXIMUM ,
- , i , A \/"~ p ซ r> r
r - H AVllKMut |
2 . MINIMUM,
> ซ " ',. . ' , I '" EPA * '
-
Aj A2 B- C D E
CONTROL v v "v he ' hv he
EQUIP.
123
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated Iron-and Steel
Industry by Battelle Memorial Institute, U. S. DHEW, Division
of National Air Pollution Control Administration. Contract
No. PH 22-68-65.
i *
2. Iron and .Steel Indus-try-prepared jby-Environmental Engineering
-. r f -f
Incorporated and Herrick Associates'. U. S. Environmental
Protection-Agency, Air Pollution Control Office, Durham, North
Carolina: "March 1971.
124
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 13-
SEWAGE TREATMENT,PLANTS
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Standards of performance are being proposed for muinTcipjl sewage
treatment plants which would limit emissions of participates (including
visible emissions) from new incinerators "used"to burn sTudge lengrajted 1 n _~
~ * ' ,' ~ >- . -
the treatment pliant.
i
*.
The standards of performance'would apply to all sewage treatment plants
that incinerate sludge from .primary, or secondary treatment-.--^-For-pi ants
processing industrial wastewaters further restrictions might be required
to prevent the release of specific metals, toxic organics or radioactive
substances.
The proposed standards would limit particulate emissions to the atmosphere
as follows:
i
Particulate Matter \
____ - I
1. No more thanJ).Q30_grain per standard cubic foot (undiluted) or 0.068
i
gram per normal cubic meter, dry basis. i
2. Visible emissions.shall be less-than 10 percent opacity.
-,. - " -
4*
The proposed visible emission standard is compatible with the mass emission
limit; if particuUte emissions are at or below 0.030 grain per standard
cubic foot, visible emissions will be less than 10 percent opacity.
\
Basis for Proposed Particulate Standard
1. One fluid bed reactor type sludc,e incinerator sho./ed average particulate
. T25 "
-------
emissions of 0.010 grain per standard cubic foot during EPA conducted test
2. A test by a local control agency on the same incinerator showed
average particulajte emissi.ons-.of 0.009 grain per standard cubic
foot.
3. One multiple hearth type sludge incinerator showed average particulate
emissions of 0.030 grain per standard cubic foot during EPA conducted
tests. _ ,
4. Designers and manufacturers of control equipment will guarantee an
. , >.
outlet concentration of les.s than O..Q30 cjrain per standard cubic foot.
/
5. During,EPA inspections and stack tests, 15 sludge incinerators"did
*'
not release vistb-le.emissions "of JO_percent opacity or greater.
"126
-------
EMISSIONS FROM SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Sludge incinerators "differ from mostTeffher types of incinerators in that
the refuse does not supply enough heat to sustain combustion. Further-
more, there is less emphasis orr retaining ash In the-incinerator and
much of it is discharged in stack gases (see Figure 1). In one type
of incinerator all of the ash is carried out with the gases (see
Figure 2). Particulate emissions to-the atmosphere are almost entirely a
function of the^scrubber efficiency -and are only minimally affected by
i , ,
incinerator conciitjons. All,sludge incinerators in the United States
are equipped wi th'scrubbers _of varying efficiency. Ihese-rawje-from
simple bubble-through type units to a venturi type scrubber with
pressure drops up to 18 inches of water.
Available data indicate that on the average, uncontrolled multiple
hearth incinerator gases contain about 0.9 gra~n of particulate per
4
standard cubic foot of dry gas. Uncontrolled fluid bed reactor gases
4
contain about 8.0 grains of particulate per standard cubic foot. For
\
average municipal sewage sludge, this corresponds to about 23 pounds per
x ,
hour in a multiple hearth and about 205 pounds per hour in a fluid bed unit.
Particulate collection efficiencies of 96.6 to 99.6 percent will be
ป. ** '
required to meet the standard, based "on the above uncontrolled einission
f
rate. Emissions will be on the order of 1.0 pound per hour.
1 * - *
Existing State or local regulations in the United States tend to regulate
sludge incinerator emissions through-incinerator"codes or process weight
127
-------
5
regulations. The most stringent state or local limit - 0.03 grain per
standard cubic foot -_is based;on-ajtest method different from the reference
method in that it includes impfngers. Many-State and local standards are
corrected to a reference base of 12 percent carbon dioxide or 6 percent
oxygen. Corrections to COg or 02 baselines are "notfdirectly related to
the sludge incinerator rate due to the high percentage of auxiliary fuel
required. In some regulations, the COp from fuel burning is subtracted
t t v -
from the total when determining, compliance.-_
1 --
^ i '
For a typical incinerator rated-at 0.5 ton per hour dry solids charging
rate at a gas flow- rate-of 3t,000 dry -standard cubic feet per minute the
proposed standard would allow the incinerator to emit 0.8 pounds per
hour of particulate matter. The reference process weight regulation
would limit emissions to 6.3 pounds per hour based on a charging rate of
wet sludge (80 percent water) of 5,000 pounds per hour. New incinerators
will range in size from 0.5 to 4.0 tons per hour dry solids charging
rate, with gas flow rates of 1000 to 20,000 dry standard cubic feet per
minute.
128
-------
"JUSTIFICATION OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Preliminary investigations revealed the locations of 30 reportedly
well-controlled sewage sludge incinerators in the United States. These
plants were visited and information was obtained on the process and
control equipment. Visible emissions at 15 of the_plants were observed
to be Jess than 10 percent opacity. Judpent was also made as to the
feasibility of stack testing in each case. Stack tests were conducted
at five locations, including three mul-tiple hearth-incinerators and two
fluid bed reactors. , Four incinerators'.tested were controlled by impinge-
\, *
ment type scrubbers,'one was controlled by a venturi scrubber. Pressure
drops across the scrubbers ranged from 2.TTto 18 inchej; of ^/ater._
* " ~
Of those tested (Figure 3), one fluid bed reactor and one multiple hearth'
incinerator showed particulate emissions at or below the proposed standard.
_Particulate emissions averaged, respectively, 0.010 and 0.030 grain per
standard cubic foot. A previous test by a local control agency using the
reference method on the fluid bed reactor (Figure 3) indicated average
emissions of 0.009 grain per standard cubic foot. The"other"multiple
hearth incinerators tested had erroneously low exit particulate concentrations
as a result of dilution by shaft cooling air prior to sampling. Estimated
undiluted exit concentrations (Figure 3) are 0.050 and 0.055 grain per standar
cubic foot.^' Emissions from the second*fluid bed reactor (Eigure 3) averaged
*-.
0.060 grain per standard cubic foot.
The fluid bed reactor on which the standard is based is controlled by a
\ *
venturi scrubber with a pressure drop of 18 inches-of water. Due to the
limited application of this type of control device on sludge incinerators
-------
the standard has been set at a level somewhat higher than that obtained
during the tests of the unit. The remaining installations which were
tested had impingement type scrubbers which operated at considerably less
pressure drop (2.5-6 inches of water). The lower efficiency impingement
scrubbers are adequate to meet opacity and process weight regulations
but do not represent best control technology.
No visible particulate emissions were observed at the 5 incinerators
which were tested, although moisture-condensation plumes were sometimes
present. Ten additional incinerators were observed by EPA engineers to
have visible emissions which meet the proposed standard.
130
-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PROPOSED STANDARDS
Over the next few years, -it is~estimated that 70 new municipal sewage
sludge incinerators will be constructed annually in the United States.
Factors such as availability of .alternative methods-of sludge disposal will
have significant effect on the actual rate of construction.
To estimate the economic impact of the proposed new source performance
standard, a model sewage sludge incinerator (multiple hearth furnace)
serving a population of 100,000 persons v,ras utilized. Investment and annual
",
cost to achieve, the proposed new-source performance standard were estimated.
To provide a basii for cost comparrson,/investment arrd "annual" cost to comply
with a process weight standard for the incinerator were also estimated.
Table 1 gives the results of these analyses. Cost information is based
upon private communication with manufacturers of sludge incinerators and
manufacturers of air pollution control equipment.
Investment cost in air pollution control equipment (low energy impinge-
ment scrubber) to meet the process weight standard were found to be approxi-
mately 4.0 percent of the total installed cost of the sludge incineration
f
facility. To achieve the proposed new source performance standard, the
control cost (for a low energy venturi scrubber) represents approximately
ซ s. - . . ,. - f
4.3 percent of,the total installed cost. The increase in installed cost
from 4.0 to 4.3 percent is due primarily to the addi-tional fans and motors
i ป
required with the venturi scrubber. .
Annual cost to meet the process weight standard were estimated to be
4 percent of the total annual cost of the sludge incinerator facility.
TO comply with the proposed new source performance standard, the annual
-------
cost of control is estimated to be 6 percent of the total annual cost
of the incinerator facility. Increases in power requirements of the
venturi scrubber were-found to-.be a major cause for the increases in
~ i
annual cost of control. On a per capita basis (population of 100,000
persons), meeting the proposed new source-perforflianee-standard is estimated
to cost $.04 more per year than a process weight standard of 0.10 grain per
standard cubic foot.
To finance the required investment, municipalities have several alternatives
(issue bonds, secure^jnoney through pledges of ad valorem tax revenues,
etc.). The proposed new source performance standard is not anticipated
to cause additional difficulties.
132
-------
TABLE 1. CONTROL COSTS FOR A TYPICAL SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATOR
10 Tons/Day
(10,000 CFM)
terformance
Standard
.030 gr/dscf)
Venturi
Scrubber
(Low Energy)
60,000
11,700
0.12
Typical Local
Standard
(0.10 gr/dscf)
Impingement
Scrubber
(Low Energy)
t
55,000
8,400
0.08
Plant Size
Emission
Standard
Required
Control
Equipment
Control
Investment ($)
Annual
Cost($/yr)
Annual
Cost Per
Person ($)
100- Tons/Day
(17,800 CFM)
Performance
Standard
(0.030 gr/dscf)
'Ven'turt
Scrubber
(low Energy)
132,000
34,200
0.03
Typical Local
Standard
(0.10 gr/dsc-
Impingetr.en*
Scrubber
(Low Energy)
120,000
21,100
0.02
del Plant Assumptions: A. 10 Ton/Day - 3,640 hours of operation annually.
100 Ton/Day - 8,736 hours of operation annually.
B. Sinking Fund Depreciation ove>' 12.5 years.
C. Interest at 6 percent.
T33 :,
-------
FIGURE 1
Co
KUDCl CAM
td *SM MOPPtt
MULTIPLE HEARTH FURNACE AND CONTROL SYSTEM *
(SCRUBBER)
-------
FIGURE 2
(.0
AJซ OtOWES
FLUJDIZED BED REACTOR
i
SYSTEM (Scrubber]
-------
~ ~ - ^FIGURE 3
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
PART1CULATE EMISSIONS FROM SLUDGE INCINERATORS
1.0
0.08
ซ/>
o
UJ
UJ
ซtฃ
O
i
<
o,
0.05
0.04
0.02
.0
PLANT
tONTROL
' EQUIP.1
TYPE OF TEST.
1 5 "
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
i MI
EPA, . . - OTHER
, O- I
*H
D
E
^orrectecTIo ac'counfTor "dilution afr'.
T36"
-------
REFERENCES
Principal Sources
1. Test Report on the N.W. Bergin Sewage Authority Sludge Incinerator,
State of New Jersey, May, 19/1. - -
2. State of the Art Review on Sludge Incineration Practice, performed
under Contract #14-12-499 by Resource Engineering Associates. For
the Federal Water Quality Administration,. Cincinnati,'Ohio, April,
1970. , - ' ~ - ..-----
v * - *
< s
' ' " >
3. A Study of S.Iudge-Handling and Disposal performed under Contract
PH 86-66-32 ,by_R. S. BurdT U.S.-Department of the-Intertor;-May,
1968.
Additional Sources
4. EPA Internal Correspondence, August 18, 1972.
5. Implementation Plan, Metropolitan Baltimore Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region. Submitted January 28, -1972. (Addendum April 4, 1972)
as required by Section 110 of the Clean Air Act as amended.
137
-------
APPENDIX
Summaries of Test Data
/
New Source Performance 'Standards
Group II
Asphalt Concrete Plants
Petroleum Refineries: FCC Unit Regenerators
Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants
Iron and Steel Plants: Basic Oxygen Furnaces
Sewage Treatment Plants: Sewage Sludge Incinerators
Secondary Lead Smelters
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS -
Page
INTRODUCTION A-l
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS A-2
PETROLEUM REFINERIES - FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS ' A-14
/ ~ _
'
SECONDARY BRASS AND,BRONZE INGOT.PRODUCTION PLANTS " A-24'
*" , ' ^_ ^ ~~ \
IRON AND STEEL MILLS - BASIC ~OXYGEN~PRO_C.E5S "FURNACES ~" "A^B"
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS - SEl.'AGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS A-44
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES A-52
-------
This appendix presents summaries of source tests cited in the document.
The summaries are concerned principally with tests for particulate matter
and carbon monoxide but also describe_the facilities, characteristics of
exhaust gas streams, and conditions of operation.
For each source category, facilities are identified by the same coding
used in the technicaT reports. For example, Table IX summarizes results of
the December 1971 test of Petroleum Refinery Catalytic Cracking. Facility A.
These results are also" plotted as" Bar A, in/Fi-gure 3 of Technical Report -
j ' "
* - s ""
Number 7. In this case, the bar represents the range of the two valid
* . " .-- ^ ^ *
results. Table X summarizes a second test.AO conducted in Fj3brua_rjฃj972
at the same facility.
Most of the tests summarized herein were conducted using the reference
test methods of 40 CFR 60. Hherever particulate tests v/ere conducted,
additional measurements v/ere made to evaluate materials that condense and
collect in impingers as the gases are cooled to 70ฐF. In the summaries,
the "Probe and Filter Catch" is the particulate which relates to the
standard and the EPA reference method (Method 5 of 40 CFR 60 as published
f *
December 23, 1971). The "Total Catch" includes the Probe and Filter Catch
plus material collected in the impingers using the particulate method as
described in 36 FR 15754, published on August 17, 1971.
ซ
Where particulate''testing was performed using methods other than those
cited above, the method is noted in the Facility -Log and noted in the
v, *"
appropriate table. Code test methods are listed.on page ^3 of the document.
A-l
-------
-HOT MIX-ASPHALT CONCRETE--PLANTS
Test Data
A-2
-------
HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE PLANTS
PARTICULAR TEST RESULTS
A total of four hot mix asphalt concrete plants were tested, one
controlled with a high pressure venturi scrubber and three-with baghouses.
In addition, State and local control agencies provided data from the
testing of 2 plants controlled with venturi scrubbers and from 2 with
baghouses. Additional information was available from an EPA study of
> i ป -
asphalt concrete pla.rx.ts in the Seattle (Wash-in-gton) area. The latter
plants were not.necessarily well 'controlled and were tested to detertmne
"i
average emission factors."" .- '"'--.__.--
* ~ --ป
For each plant, exhaust gases were analyzed after discharge from
the participate collector. These gases included drier exhaust gases
and sweep air used to gather dust at various points in the system such
as elevators, screens and scavenger systems. The front and back half
catches could not be separated (based on data supplied) for Plants F
and G, and therefore are comparable to the catch from the total EPA
train.
Facilities: ' '
A. Oil-fired, 120 tons per hour design capacity, equipped with a cyclone
s. - , ป. - .
and a closed suction-type cyclic-cTeaned.baghouse designed for 99.9+
percent efficiency. Plant was operating at or near capacity for
i.
conditions prevalent during the test periods.
B. Oil-fired, 300 tons per hour design v.capacity, equipped with a closed
suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse designed for 99 9+ percent
A-3
-------
efficiency. Plant was operating at an estimated 80 to 90 percent
capacity for conditions prevalent during the test periods.
C. Oil-fired, 200 tons per "hour desi-gn capacity ^equipped with a cyclone
and a high pressure venturi scrubber operating at 20.4 inches of
water pressure drop and approximately 14 gallons of vTater per 1000
SCFM of exhaust gases. Data was provided by a local control agency.
The plant was operating at approximately 70 percent and 100 percent
'i * *
of design capacity during the test periods. No exhaust gas opacity
readings were available. The.a'ir flow "rates (DSCFM) for this plant,
-,
were unusually high fer. a typicaj -200 TPH plant. The plant was not
observed or tested_by EPA. ~ ~~ _" ~ ''
D. Gas-fired, 240 tons per hour design capacity, gas-fired, equipped
with a multiclone and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse
designed for 99.9+ percent efficiency. Plant was operating at or
near capacity for conditions prevalent during the test periods.
E. Batch process, ISO tons per hour rated capacity, gas-fired, equipped
with a multiclone and a closed suction-type cyclic-cleaned baghouse
f
designed for 99.9+ percent efficiency. Plant production during the
test period unknown. Data was provided by a local control agency.
No exhaust gas opacity" readings we re'.aval Table. ... .
<ซ
F. Gas-fired, 250 to 300 tons per hour design capacity, equipped with a
* f
cyclone and a closed suction-type cycl.ic-cleaned baghciuse designed
for 99.9+ percent efficiency. Plant production data during the
1 \
test periods unknown. The testing was performed and data provided
by a ioc;'l c ~, :ro'1 "".".. _ , j ' __L : \ ^'".c'. ~
available.
A-4
-------
G. Gas-fired, 75 tons per hour design capacity, equipped with two
cyclones and a high pressure venturi scrubber operating at 16
inches water pressure drop-and approximately 11.5 gallons of water
per 1000 SCFM of exhaust gases. Tested using~tode Method 3.
Production rate during the test period was approximately 100 percent
of capacity. Data was provided by a local control agency. No
exhaust gas opacity readings were available.
H. Oil-fired, 240 tons per hour design capacity, oil-fired, e"qurpped
with a cyclone and a, high press-ure ven'turl-operati-ng at 18.5 inches'
\ ' f - *
water pressure drop and approximately 18 gallons of water per 1000
ACFM of exhaust (gas_. PUnt was operating-at-capacity-^or CQ nations
prevalent during the test periods. Exhaust gas opacity readings
were not recorded.
A-5
-------
Table I
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY A
Summary of Results
Run Number % 1
Date 11/15/71
Test Time-minutes 126
Production Rate - TPH 112
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM ^ 16,228
Flow rate - DSCF/ton ' '
product ' '1M.9 -
Tenperature - ฐF 195
Water vapor - Vol./S 18.35
C02 - Vol. % dry 0.9
0? - Vol.?ป dry 19.2
CO - Vol.JJ dry 0
Visible Emissions - <10
7* opacity
Parti cxilatc Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF 0.0057
gr/ACF ^ - 0.0037
Ib/hr " ' 0.79
Ib/ton of product 0.007
l *
Total catch
gr/DSCF 0.0272
gr/ACF 0.0176
Ib/hr 3.73
Ib/ton of product "0.033
A-6
' - - 2 ^_"
11/16/71
63.0"
89
_16,139
181.3
->t":
18.38
U.6
lit. 8
0.1
-10
0.0077
0.0050
1.06
0.011
0.-0191*
0.-0126
L.C:
0.029
3
11/17/71
~~ 63:0
98
'16,520
168.6 "
187
17. U8
U.o
15. H
0.1
<10
0.0068
0.00^5
0.98
0.010
0.0181*
0.0122 -
a.:o
0.027
Average
8^.0
99-7
16,296
^ iซ.9
_192.7
18.07
3.2
16.5
0.1
<
0.0067
O.OOUIi
0.91*
0.009
0.0217
O.OlUl
3.c:
0.030
-------
Table II
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY B
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM
-. "V
Flov rate - DSCF/ton'
product '
Temperature - ฐF
Water vapor - Vol . %
C02 - Vol.? dry
02 - Vol.2 dry
CO - Vol.jS dry
Visible Emissions -
% opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter ca^ch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
* -**
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
r
Total catch
; gr/DSCF
I
' er/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
1 '- - .
11/11/71
Ikk
203
19ปT56
' 97.3% -
275
31.71
5-3
114.1
0.05
<10
0.0079
0.0038
1.3U ' ' "
0.007
0.1006
O.OJ+90
17;0''
. 0.089
2^:
11/13/71
9D
198
21,065
10^. h
23.71
5.8
13.6
0.05
10
0.0100
0.0056
-1.80
0.012
0.0550
0.0308^
9.?''
0.066
3
11/13/71
""90 -
236
/ * *
95
21.78
5.1
1U.6
0.05
<10
o.oorf
0.0038
1.53 * '
0.005
0.0168
0.0099^
3.?3
O.Ollt
Average
108.0
212.3
21,076
99.6
252
25.73
5Jป
31..3
0.05
<10
0.0031
0.00^1*
1.U6
0.008
0.0575
0.0299
i '.:"
0.056
A-7
-------
Table III
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY C
Summary of Results
Run Number 1 2 ~*~ 3 I* Average
Date 11-18-71 11-18-71 11-19-71--. 1X.-19-71
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH- 130 130 175 175 152.5
Stack Effluent
1 t ' >
Flow rate - DSCF11 -- 36,522- --35,39;9_- - 36,lU8< 3*4,883 35,733
Flow rate - DSCF/tdn f ฃ8l \ 272 . , 207 - 179 - " 23U
product . '
jLciiipcx av>iu c r
Water vapor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. % dry
Particulate Er.issions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/tba of* product
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton cf produ:t
90ฐF
2.82
__WM
0.022
0.019
7.09
6.051*
0.02!*
0.021
7.51
o.oc:>.
90ฐF
I*. 70
.
no
ซw .*,ซ.
0.021
0.018
6.68
0.051'
0.021*
0.020
f.28
r r ~ C-
90ฐF 90ฐF
!*.3H 11.51
-___ ____
orsat available
J*- m.-. ji - L_ mm
0.012 f 0.012
0.010 *0.010
3.89 3.82
' . 0.022 - " * t)y022
. 0.013 0.013
0.011 0.011
J+.os ^ 3.89
^ _ r o "i ri ,i ^ >
90ฐ?
l*.0o
_--_
-L^ mm _ii ui
0.017
O.Oll
5.37
- 0.037
0.018
0.016
5.68
o '-
A-8
-------
Table IV
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY D
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent "~
Flow rate - DSCFM
Flov rate - DSCF/ton"
prquuct-v
* 1
Temperature - ฐF
V/ater vapor - Vol. % ~
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. J! dry
Visible Emissions -
% opacity
Part i culate Emssion s
Probe and filler catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
" Ib/hr ' "
Ib/ton of product
Total catch
: gr/DSCF
, gr/ACF
Average
10-29-71
U8
221
21*, 028 -
IQS.'T 'f
238 - '
21.6
3.0
1U.8
0
0
0.0122
0.0071 .
2.1*9
0.010
0.0517
\
0.0302
10-29-71
U8 ~ 1*8
231* 222.5
23,919 < > 23,971*
-" JL02~.2 _ . -105.1*
230 231*
- 23~.2 ~ 22^1^0"
1*.6 3-8
12.7 13.8
0 0
0.0231* 0.0178
0.0136 o.oioU
1*,80 ' 3*.6U
0.020 0.015
-0.1281 0.0899
--0.071*6 - -0.0521*
Ib/ton of product '
0.109
0.076
A-9
-------
Table V
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY E
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCF11
* -x
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
nroduct
Temperature - F -
Water vapor - Vol. %
CO - Vol. f. dry
0 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. % dry
Parti culate Emissions
Probe and filter
Ib/ton of product
Total catch ^- -
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF ,
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
1 ' -
11-U71
65
Average
11-11-71
65 .-U
21,706
2 3. "3
21,651
^
266
.27.1"
0,025
0.0liป2
0.029
0.0160
21,678
266
"25". 2 ~
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
0.0163
0.0093
3.03
0.0215
0.0122
3.99
0.0189
0.0108
, '3.51
0.027
0.0151
5.10
A-10
-------
Run Number
.Date
Test Time-rainutes _
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ESCXi '
Flow rate - DSCF/tpn'-
product .
Temperature - ฐF 28l
Water vapor - \'ol.% 2^
C02 - Vol." dry
02 - Vol.ฃ dry
CO - Vol.5? dry
Particulate Irissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton o$--product
Table VI
ASPHALT CONCRETE-FACILITY^
Summary of Eesults ->
1
9/25/68
120
26,160
No Crsat
No Or sat
Ko Orsat
2
9/2^/68"
120
Average
120
26;160
281
26,160
281
Could not be calcxilated
from test report
Total catch
l ป
gr/DSCF '
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
0.006 - '
0.003
\
1.35
.
O.OOT
o.ooH
-
1.5T
* * * * /
0.0065-
O.OOi*
- - 1.U6
A-n
-------
Table VII
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY G
Summary of Results
Run Number " "- ,.1
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production Pate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - BSCFM
Flow rate -" JJSCP/ton
product
Temperature - ฐF -
Water vapor - Vol.f
C02 - Vol.fJ dry
02 - Vol,5? dry
CO - Vol.? dry
Farticulate Enissions
ProVe e'.nd filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF ..."
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
Tasteo uj local aqc.,cy joi
7/23/70
1.0
17,092
107 ---
2.0
Ho Orsat
No Orsat
No Orsat
0.0133
0.0122
1.991*
0.027
" '
0.01U3
0.013J*
0.029
2.137
2 Average
7/23/70
-1.0---
1.0
0.0162
0.01525
A-12
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production Rate -
Stack Effluent
Table VIII
ASPHALT CONCRETE FACILITY
Summary of Results
1
11A/71
51*
176
2 3
llA/71 " "11/5/71"
Average
193
170
180
Flow
Flow
rate - DSCFM-
rate - -DSCF/ton ,
product
Temperature - ฐF
Water
C02 -
ฐ2 -
CO -
vapor - Vol . 2
Vol. 2 dry
Vol.2 dry
Vol.? dry
28,217"
; - '28,118
26
6io, : > . ill 6
. 112
9
3
16
0
.2
.3
.6
,1
~" " "109
8
3
16
.1
*
.1
.1*
0
,126
15U
"122
12.
3.
15.
- -
--^-"
2
o
s
o
0
- 27,1*87
153
11U
9-93
3.1*
16.3
0
Particulate Emissions
Probe
and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/.ton of, product "
0
0
7
0
.031*1
.0259
.63
.OU3
0
0
8
'. .ป, o
.031*0
.0282
.15
.01+2
0.
0292
O.O229
6.
-0.
' Total batch: f'J' ''*' ' * N ' - ' "
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of product
0
0
12
0
.01*97
.01*09
.02
.068
0
0
26
0
.1087-
.0901
.19
.136
0.
0.
12.
0.
27
0-37
0555
OU35
1*3
073
0.
0.
7.
Q.
o:
0.
16.
0.
0315
0257
35
ola-
0713
05^?
83
092
A-13
-------
PETROLEUM REFINgRfES
/
FLUID. CATALYTIC BRACKING UNITS
Test Data- -
A-14
-------
PETROLEUM REFINERIES
FLUID CATALYTIC CRACKING UNITS
PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS " ' / '
Stack tests \iere carried out at four fluid catalytic cracking (FCC)
units located in different petroleum refineries.- At ea-ch-i-nstallation,
carbon monoxide emissions were controlled by the use of an incinerator
waste heat boiler (carbon monoxide boiler) and particulate matter by
the use of an electrostatic precipitator. At one of the test sites,
/ ~
particulate emissions also- were meas'ured by'refinery personnel.
" f '
* *" >- *~ *
Facilities: " ~" _ ~-' "
A. FCC unit of about 55,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator followed by a carbon monoxide boiler.
Tables IX and X summarize results of tests conducted in December 1971
and February 1972. Unit had been onstream about six months and eight
months respectively following the last major turnaround. Additional
source test data were supplied by the refinery and are listed in
Table XIV. These were determined using Code Method 6.
s
B. FCC unit of about 70,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic precipitator.
% s>
UfVit had been on-stream about'10 months-foilowing the last major
turnaround at the time of the test. Ammonia was injected into the
ป ป
gas stream ahead'of the precipitator as a conditioning agent.
A-15
-------
C. FCC unit of about 65,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with a
carbon monoxide boiler~foVlowed-by an electrostatic precipitator.
Unit had been onstream about 13 months following the last major
turnaround. Ammonia was injected into the effluent ahead of-the
precipitator as a conditioning agent. During the test a malfunction
occurred in tire FCC unit.
D. FCC unit of about 55,000 barrels per day capacity,'equipped With
an electrostatic^precipitator followed'bya carbon-monoxide boiler.
s " s " *"*
Unit had been onstreara, about 8 months following the last major
turnaround. During the test'"an equipment- meri-function-occurred- - -
invalidating the particulate results.
E. FCC unit of about 45,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with an
electrostatic precipitator followed by a carbon monoxide boiler.
Tested by refinery personnel using Code Method 6 (alundum thimble
packed with glass wool followed by a Gelman Type A glass fiber filter)
Emission data gathered over 18 month period of operation.
F. FCC unit of about 65,000 barrels per day capacity, equippejl with a
carbon monoxide boiler followed by an electrostatic precipitator.
""ssced- by-local control agency usirfg Code Method 5.
G. FCC unit of about 30,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with an
* * --
electrostatic precipitator followed by a carbon monoxide boiler.
Tested by local control agency using Code .Method 5.
s
H. FCC unit of 45,000 barrels per day capacity, equipped with an electro-
I. ^ L. C f} i _
local control agency "using Code Method 5.
A-16
-------
Table IX
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes"""
Stack Effluent
^lovr rate-rFCFIf
Temperature-ฐF
Catalytic Cracking Facility .A,
Sumnary of Results
1 2
12/16/71 12/17/71
120 120
185 ,"200
Water vapor-Vol.f
C02 - vol.T dry
02 - Vol.T dry
Carbon ''orcxide Eri^cions
ppm (volune)
Visible Emissions-^ opacity
Particulrvte Frigsions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DFC*
Ib/hr
*<
catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
17^.9
13
h
lU
10
O.OltlO
^55
Nil
10
0.0156
0.0061
23.5
* * " *
0.021'6
- 0.00?6
37 rO
3 .Average
12/17/71
120
171,10-0
Nil
20
0.00)i)i
16.7
0.017U
. 0.0067
25-5
-177,3nO
65^
1''
20.1
* % * *
0.0210
0.003)'
31.2
A-18
-------
Table X
Catalytic'Cracking Facility
Summary of Results ~^-
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes_
Stack Effluent
Flov rate-DSCFI'k
Temperature- F *
, r "^
Water vapor-Vol. /T.
CO - Vol . % dr*y ~
0 - Vol.ft dry
Carbon ifonoxide Emissions
ppm (volume )
Visible Emissions-^ opacity
Particulate Iriissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Total eaten-
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
- Ib/hr
1 2
2/8/72 2/9/72
120 120
* J
183 ,-800 _ _ 183^900
652 , . ,666
. . 2] .5 " % ' -, __2Q-9
"11.2 - 1278
6.U U.lt
10 9
10 10
0.0233 0.0202
0.0088 0.0076
36.7 31-8
~> t
** ?."* * *
0.0331 0.0272"
0.0125 _ 0.0102
52.1 U2.8
3
~"2/10/72
120
i
18^,700
686
22.0
"13.2 "*"
U.O
11
10
0.0225
0.008^2
35-6
-
0.0308
0.0112
1+8.7
Average
18U.100
- 668
21.5
12. k
U.9
10
10
.0220
.0082
3U.7
.0301*
.0113
U7-9
A-19
-------
Table XI
Catalytic Cracking Facility B
Summary of Pesults
Run Number
Date
Test Time-ininutes
1
12/P/71
120
2
12/0/71
-3-
12/10/71
60
Stack Tffluont
"lov rate-DfrV 180,600
i
Temperature-0"1 * 5^'3
Water vapor-Vol.rf l'1. 5
COp - ''cl.^ Arr 13. P
C? - rol.^ rtr"r
Carbon I'onox3
-------
Table XII
Catalytic Cracking Facility C
Summary of Results (2)
Run Numt -
Date
Test Tim-
Stack El.'
Flo ,
Tern1
Wat
Cฐ2~
Carbon M
ppm
Visible J
Particul
ProV
Tot;
i
t
-minutes i '
' i
i
'. i lent .
j.te-DSCFM
. ature- F
il'ipor-Vol.JJ
ol.% dry
Vol.# dry
: ide Emissions
i 'Olume)
'_,sioiis-$ opacity
Emissions
i
_ r.nd filter catch
. /DSCF
_,L /ACF
i u/hr
J 'atch
-r/DSCF
./ACF
> j/hr
1 1 \
i
"'. 'l/H/72 '
; . lUo 1138
1
-A ', B
91,200 93,600
^59 ', 'U89
'- 16. 9l > x Ij6^
-9 ' . ' t9
T ป^' ! i ^
i
16 ' '', 38
' ซ
. ^ i
15 20
'' i
_ t
ป i i
1
0.03&0 ' , . 0.1066
t " 0.0182 0.0^99
' .'.29-7 , 85-5
.
f
. 0.2366 0.2092
/ 0.1136 0.0979
i'8U.8 vl6T. 8
2
1/12/72
22U
A
87,900 97
1^56
20.1 17
9
U
17
15
0.0369 o
0.0167 o
27-8 )i9
0.2159 0
0.0978 o
162.5 1U8
226
B
,300
1)68
.3
9
U
16
20
.0589
.0282 '
.0
1776
.0851
.0
* 3
1/13/72
222 22H
A B
90,900 9^,500
U53 U69
16.8 16.9 ,
9 ;. 9
It , U'
16 U7
10 15
0.0352 i : 0.0^50
0.0169 0.0213
27. u - r 36.5
0.2088 0.1775
0.1006 0.08UO
162.7 1U3.8
Average
'
A
90,000 95
',1*56
17-9 16
9
\ '
/
16
15'
' , " >
0.0367 o
0.0173 0
28.3 57
0.220i| 0
0.10)40 > 0
170.0 153
B
,100
^75
9
9
U
3^t
20
.070^
033T
.0
.1881
.089C
.2
(l) B s - precipitator was ,not functioning properly throughout test.
(2) Mai lion of test cquip-iHcnt invalidating p.irt i culatc results ._
-------
Table XIII
Catalytic Crackine^Facility- D
Summary of Results
160
Run Nuriber
.Date
Test Time-mi nut es___
Stack Effluent
Flow rate-DSCH*
Temperature-0* >.
Water vapor-voi,
COo - Vol.T dry
02 - Vol.T dry
Car con ' 'onexide Zro. r s
ppm (volune)
Visible Emissions-/^ cpacitv 15
12/1V71 12/15/71
3 U Average
12/lP/TT" "IP/16/71
21(0
120
120
196, Hop
' ^ 739
r
'-2M-
- 7.0
12.14
.ons
llil
acitv 15
_ . I8f,fe
/
732 "
""" j ^
.' -23.?,,
7.0
12. li
nil
10
00 . 205,000 105,^00
-
723 -73)' .-
__ . . 20.6 25.0
~" '~ ic. 2 ~ 'i^rf
7-!' 3.8
Fll
15 15
195,ฐ'
- 73?
23.^
0.3
9.0
"il
15
A-22
-------
Facility /.(l)
lou
high
averae
Facility F
low
high
average
Centre] / "jr.cy Pit a
Unit F
Unit 0
Unit }'
Unit I
Unit J
Unit K
Table"XIV
Additional Particulate Enission Data
Stack Fffluent-DSr7'' "
' ^ '
106,000:
161,000
169,500
233,300
171,600
198,300
226,^00
0.015
0.022
0.017
160,000
202,000
181,000
0.010
0.021
o.oih
0.0031
0.0067
O.OOlilt
070W"
Ib/hr
0.017
O.niP
0.017
0.0]?
0.020
0.038
0.0077
0.005P
0.00^2
0.001^5
O.nnftr
j ^
o*. 0061
2)^.7
^6.0
25-0
25.0
^Ji n
35- n
(I) Data covers'sev'en iiionths operation -wit?h t\/o emission' te-sts- p.er. month ,
alundum thimole plus "glass fiber filtfer (Code Method 6).' '
(2) Data covers seventeen months operation with an emission test about
every two months',' alundum thimble plus glass fiber filter (Code Method 6)
(3) Data supplied by control agency covering eighteen emission tests,
Los Angeles County APCD method (Code Method 5) impingers precede
filter.
A-23
-------
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION PLANTS
REVERBERATORY AND ROTARY FURNACES
ป i >
Test Data
A-24
-------
SECONDARY BRASS AND BRONZE REFINING
The data summarized herein cover 13 brass and bronze ingot production
furnaces at 9 different test-sites. -Jests A-|, B, and D were conducted by
EPA and EPA contractors. Installations C, E, F, and I were tested as part
of a 1968 study performed jointly by the Brass and BronzeJngot Institute
and the National Air Pollution Control Administration, an EPA predecessor.
Tests Ap, G, and H were conducted by local control agencies.
i >
Facilities: .^ - - - -
/ "" -
- '' v - , - - "
A. Gas-fired rotary (rotating reverberatory). furnace, 7.5 ton capacity,
equipped with two closed suction type-manually-cleaned baghouses- wi-t'n
<
a total cloth area of 7181 square feet. Tested by EPA and by local
agency, the latter using Code Method 10.
B. Gas-fired reverberatory (stationary reverberatory) furnace, 100 ton
capacity, equipped with a closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse
with a cloth area of 9,000 square feet.
C. Gas-fired reverberatory furnace, 60 ton capacity, equipped with a
closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of
5,940 square feet. Tested using Code Method 4.
D. Oil-fired rotaVy furnace, 20 ton capacity",' equipped with a" closed
" > / - V f* ' ' -, '/, ,-- . * '-.- - > /--''
pressure type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of 18,661 square
feet.
E. Gas-fired reverberatory furnace, 100 ton capacity, equipped with a
i v
closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of "
A-25
-------
F. Gas-fired rotary furnace, 17.5 ton capacity, equipped with a closed
suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse with a cloth area of 20,866 ~
square feet. Tested using Code MethocT4r~
G. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity of 55 tons equipped with
two closed suction type baghouses with a total cloth are'a of 41,700
square feet. Probe and filter catch were not analyzed separately.
H. Two rotary furnaces with a total capacity of 27.5 tops equipped
with three closed -sliction type baghouses uith a"total cloth area,
i
of 9,536 square feet. . -Probe and, fijter catch were not analyzed
* ." ^ *" ป ,
separately. " ~~ "' -'
I. One 7.5 ton rotary furnace, one 17.5 rotary furnace, and one blast
furnace which was being preheated. All three furnaces were ducted
to a closed suction type cyclic cleaned baghouse witn a cloth area
of 20,866 square feet. Tested using Code Method 4.
A-26
-------
Table XV
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY A
Summary of Results
Run Number ~ " '---!
Average
Date
Test Time-minutes
Heat Tiiae-iainutes
Ingots Produced Per Heat - tons
Zinc In Alloy Produced- %
Stack Effluent - " "
i
Flow rate - DSCFM
Tenperature - ฐ?~ '
Water vapor - Vol.*
C02 - Vol.? dry
OT - Vol.? ory
CO - Vol.? dry
Visible Emissions - ? opacity
Parx.iculo.te Frissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/AC?
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of ^product _ _
- '*' .-..'-
Total catch
gr/DSCF , , . .
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/to-, o^ -ro^'o4-
11/10/71
582
938
6.66
ho
- - --
J3,539 " '
81*. 9 "
3.303"
0.6
18.1*
Ilil
<10
0.002
0.001
0.165
0,388*-
0.001+ 3
0^521
1 , ^
11/10-11/71 11/12/71
771 ""
922
7.80
, 37
-
13.U90
-103.5
3.227
1.0
16.8
nil
<10
0.0005
0.0005
0.065
.. 0.127
0.0011 .
0.0010
0.129
o ^
733
912
7.21
, UO
13,676
106.2^
3.139
C.3
17. k
Ilil
<10
0.0003
0.0002
0.010
0.06'$ .
0.0016
' 0.001^
0.185-
695
9214
7.22
39
13,568
98.2
3.223
0.6
17.5
Nil
<10
0.001
o.cooC
0.080
0.191*
0.0022
0.278
^.^
A-27
-------
(1)
Table XVI
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY A
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Zinc In Alloy Produced - % (Annroxircate)
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSF!1
Temperatui-e - ฐF
Partjj?jJLate^JSnj.s_sior.-s> - - -
Total catch * r ,
gr/DSCF --'"--
Ib/hr ' ~
15,^68
125
(1) Tested by local agency using Code Method 10. Probe and filter
catch not analyzed separately.
A-28
-------
Table XVTI
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY B
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test TIES -minutes
Heat Time -minutes
Ingots Produced Per Heat - tons
Zinc In Alloy Produced - ฃ
Stack Effluent ,
Flow rate - DSCFM. ' . ^
Temperature - ฐF _
V'a"cer vapor - Vol.f
C02 - Vol. ^ dry
02 - Vol. f dry
Excess air Q
sampling point - %
Visible Inissiorio - f opacity
Particulatc Emissions
Probe and filter eaten
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
.. . Ib/hr
t ; <
lb/ton of product
' / ป
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
- x [.'
11/1/71
120
lllป0
1*9.09
9
-
27^515:
-118 -
2.66
0.6o
19.50
1112
< 10
0.006
0.005
1.55 '
s .
0.60
0.022
0.019X
-=^.
2 .
11/2-3/71
700.
1183
59-86
5
/ -
30,12^
--107-
1.C6
0.58
19-53
1117
<10
0.005
0.005
' " 1.25
* *m f f
O.lปl
0.007
0.006 '
3 U
11/3-U/71 n/U-5/7i
_ 7i7_. . 780
1326 1372
56.36 53.93
' ' 5 > - ' 5
- -
25,1*06 27,111*
_ao6 __ ._ . 113
1.85 1.75
0.60 0.53
19.60 19.60
1205 1210
<10' <10
0.007X O.OOU
0.006 o.ooU
l.J*t> * ' 0.99
, . . , .
' 0.1*3 l " 6.1*2"
0.008 0.006
0.008 0.005
Average
656
1255
51*. 81
6
27,5lป0
11]
2.03
0.58
19-57
1176
<10
0.006
0.005
1.31
,
'o.te
0.011
O.OC9
1.356 2.1^7ฐ
lb/ton of proauca
A-29
-------
TABLE XVIII
BRASS"AND"BRONZE FACILITIES C, E, and F
Summary of Results
Installation
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutec
Heat Time-minutes
_Metal charged, per -heat -.tons
Zinc In Alloy Produced- %
Stack Effluent
i . (
Flow rate - DSC?:!
Temperature - ฐy- -
*
Water vapor - Vol . }"j
C02 - Vol. r dry
02 - Vol. % dry
Excess air 2
sampling point - %
Visible IraGsicns - % oxjaci^y
Particulate Emissions
Probe find filter catch
gr/DSC*1
gr/ACF
lb/hr ,. .
* ' ' lb/ton charged*
Total catch
C
' - . . 1
10/22-23/68
No Data
1326
72
9
-, 18,052 " '
U.31 -
0.57
19-0
791.0
To Data
0.013
l-9'3 .,.
0.59 '
E
1
7/9-10/68
1,175"
1171*
52.7
. -5 ,
27, Oli 9
160
5.0
0.89
37.9
U8l*.o
0.01^
3.16
" 1.17 "
F
1
7/7-8/68
- 879
16.7
5
33^,999
___ .-2-50
2.6
0.63
18.2
535.0
^ - 0.005
. f 1.61
I'.Ul' '
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
0.01 ^
2.17
O.OlU
3.32
0.006
1.78
of scrap charged were used for these calculations since ingot
production rates'vere unavailable.
I !
(1) Tested using Code Method 4. A~30
-------
Table XIX
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY U
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
.Heat Time-minutes
Ingots Produced Pes- Heat - tons
Zinc In Alloy Produced - %
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCF:!
r
Temperature - ฐF- -'
Water vapor - Vol. %
COp - Vol. /; dry
02 - Vol. % dry
Excess air 2
sampling point - %
Vjsible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate Sris3ions
Probe and filtor catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of'product
Total catch
, , f , ,
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
IL/CC-. oi' -oro-^1.
--,i-
11/30/71
266
53^
18.03
31
j
28,582
'lW' -
1.250
0.300
20.30
2W
<30
0.006
0.005
1.^31
0.71
. N.'- .
0.009
0.008
2.237
- 2 *""
1271/71
UT
828
18.15
25
i
-
'36, 922
---135
1.2UO
0.15
20. 65
2560
<10
0.008
0.007
2.576
2.00
_ 0.012
0.011
3.P26
3
12/3/71
-- 256-
51*0
20.12
- ,.5_
-
33,857"
132
1.729
0.700
20.00
1828
0,010
o.oop
. 2.929
1.31
0.012
0.010
3.^12
Average
323
63U
18.77
20
-
33,120
137
l.fcCc
0.233
20.71
2287
<10
0.003
O.C07
2.312
1.33
> .-,ป' *
0.011
0.010
3i]?c
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Tine-minutes
Table XX
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY G
Summary of Results' '
- -1 -... 2 -
7/15/70 " 8/20/70
60 90
Average
-75
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - ฐ?^
Particulate anis'sjion
Total catch
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
52,900 52,900
-250- - - -250
0.015
6.80
0.01Q
8.62
52,900
" i
250
0.017
7.71
(1) Conducted by local agency. Probe and filter catch not analyzed
separately.
A-32
-------
Table XXI
BRASS AND BRONZE FACILITY H
Summary of Results^ '
Run Number ~1- 2-.. 3 ~ __ U _5 6 Jkvsr&zs
Date 8/17/70 8/17/70 3/11/71 ~3/12/71 3/11/71 3/12/71
Test Time-minutes 60 60 60 60 60 ~ 60 60
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCKd- 8,000 8,000 1*,100 k ,100
Tenperature - ฐF 155 155 v
Particulate Emissions --^ . - - , ^- - -
lotal catch -
'" "J -u"- r j -
gr/DSC? -- - O.'"009- 0.015 0.019-' '0.001 0.016 0.012 O.C12
Ib/hr ' ~~~ 0.62 1.02 0.ง7 O.OU
(1) Conducted by local agency. Probe and filter catcu not analyzed
separately.
A-33
-------
Table XXII-
BRASS AND BRONZE FAUlLlTY I
Suiur.arv of Results
Run
Date
Test
Stac
unr4
Number
Tine - minutes
k 1'f f] uer.t . -v '
Flov rate - DSC!'1!! ; "~
Cer^erature - ฐ'7
Water vapor - vol. ,C
CO - Vol. ;' Iry
0 - Vol. f dry
CO - Vol. f' dry
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF "
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/DSCF - '
Ib/hr
1 2
7/8/68 7/8/68
~CP , _ -60
i - ^
J t *
33,926 ป-__ 33^807
215 " ~" "2J5
^5 3.1
0.6? c.^3
17.0 17. C
Nil Nil
0.012 0.007
3A9 2.0U
0.018 - . >. 0.011
' 5.18*' ' "' " 3-32
3
7/9/68
60 "
36,121
- -175~- - -
3.2
1.1-3
17-5
nil
0.010
3.2K> *
0.021, ,
"' 6'. 39*" ""'
Avera^i
60
3^,618
202
3.6
T.03
17-2
Ii 11
0.010
2.91
0.017
1..96'
A-34
-------
IRON AND STEEL MILLS
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES
Test Data
A-35
-------
BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACES
Six emission tests were .performed. by-.EPA and_ EPA contractors on five
basic oxygen process furnace facilities." The participate control systems
included two electrostatic precipitator systems, one open combustion hood
venturi scrubber system, and two movable closed-hood venturi" "scrubber
systems. Closed-hood. Facility A was tested in November 1971 and again
in February 1972. There were no visible emissions from any of the plants
tested except Facility^ p.
i
\.
Each facility consists'of two or three BOP furnaces. Normally, two
* " ^ *~ *
furnaces are operated at any one time with_ the Tjhfrd undergoing rputine_
rebricking and maintenance. Each test consisted of four or six cycles
of the furnaces. Testing v/as -initiated immediately aftar the furnace
was charged and discontinued just prior to tapping. Only one furnace
was blown with oxygen during eny cycle.
Facilities:
A. Rated capacity each vessel 220 tons of steel per heat, equipped with
a closed hood venturi scrubber system.
B. Rated capacity each vessel 200 tons of steel per heat, equipped with
a .closed 'hood ''venturi scrubber system.- . >.
C. Rated capacity each vessel 140 tons of steel per heat, equipped with
I ป "
a combustion hood'ducted to a common electrostatic prec-i pita tor.
D. Rated capacity each vessel 325 tons 'of steel peMieat, each vessel
enmiDcd 'nth a cc~pn'Sti'->" hcod ductod to a common venturi scrubber
sys-tem. ui i is ourncu ,11 c.iu .,uuu
constant steam ,supply-'"
A-36
-------
E. Rated capacity each vessel 250 tons of steel per heat, equipped
with a combustion hood ducted to a common electrostatic precipitator.
A-37
-------
Table XXIII
EOF FACILITY A,
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Net Output (6 heats-} -
tons of steel
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFi'I ,
^
Flow rate - DSCF/ ' . _
ton ste^l
o
Temperature - ฃ
Water vapor - Vol. %
CO - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. % drjr1'
Visible Emissions -
% opacity
Particolate Emissions
Probe and filter eaten
gr/DSCF
.--, gr/AC^ - . .".
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
To/ton of steel
1
1/26/72
173
1381.0
58,600
-- 73U1' "
123
13.4
0
0.002
0.002
0.0021
0.005
0.004 ,,
0.0048
2 ~-
1/27/72
15U"
1372.5
-
5-5^690
S
'6239. - -
125
13.6
Or 3 at
Or sat
Or^at
0
0.002
'. .p.ooi
0.0015
0.004
0.003 ,
0.0034
3
1/27/72
~ i~56~
1361.2
. ,
.58,600
6716
129
12.6
not run
not run
i.ot run
0
0.005
0 . 004
0.0048
o . 006
0.005
0.0061
Average
161
1371.6
-- 57,600
- "
6765
126
13.2
0
0.003
0.002
0.0028
0.005'
0.004
0.0047
(1) Stack qases analyzed at point downstream of scrubber out upstream of
flare.
' - ' ' A-38
-------
Table XXIV
EOF FACILITY AZ
Summary of Results
Average
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Net Output (6 heats) -
tons of steel
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCF11 *
Flow rate - DSCF/ -- -
ton steel t _
OT-,
Temperature - a
Water vapor - Vol. p
CO- Vol. 55 dry
0 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. ซ dry
(1)
1
11/16/71
162
1331.0
-
58,880
"*" j -
X- f. "
7,166-
119
12.9
13-0
8.0
27-0
d
11/16-17771
lU9
1321.3
/ -
57.BOJ3
* _
- 6,519-
117
12.9
19.2
7-3
22.0
j
JLl/lS/71
168
1298.5
> 1 > -
"59,621-
7^71^ ___
125
9-8
20.8
7-6
19-0
160
1316.9
'. 58,769
7,133
320
11.9
17-7
7.6
22.7
Visible Emissions -
% opacity
Particulate Enissions
Probe and filter catch.
gr/DSCF
-^. -
' J
gr/ACF ' '-
Ib/ton of steel
ซ
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
0
0.002
0.009
0.0020
0.005
o.ooU
\
0.0083
OJD3U
0.011
-------
laoie XXV
BOF FACILITY B
Summary of Results
Run Number 1
Date 10/20/71
Test Time-minutes 222
Net Output "(6 heats) -
tons of steel"" 121^.3
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFlf 37, 151*
Flow rate - ~DSCF/ '' " -
ton steel ".. / ' " ..6,792- '
Temperature - Fป 15^
Water vapor - Vol. % 10.5
C02 - Vol. % dry 10.1*
02 - Vol. % dry 8.7
(?)
CO - Vol. % dry^ ' 27.2
Visible Emission^ - 0
% opacity
Parti culate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF 0.012
gr/ACF - 0.009
" '"% '' ' Ib/ton of steel "0.0116"
Total catch
gr/DSCF '" ' NA^
gr/ACF NA
Ib/ton of steel NA
2 ^
10/21/71
255'
1202.7
-
32,020
/
' 6 ,'788 . .
.161 ~
12.7
9.U
9.7
25.2
0
O.Oli*
0.011
1 >.
*O.OlU'l
0.016
0.012 .
V
0"."0159
3
10/23/71
225
1223.8
i >
. 1*8,787 - -
8,930
128 "~ '
13. U
10.8
7-5
36.7
0
ฃ
0.011
0.009 .
^
O.OlUl'
0.012
0.010
0.0158
Average
231*
1213.6
-39,300
7,503
1U8
12.2
10.2
8.6
29.7
0
0.012
0.010
0.0133
O.OlU
0.011
0.0158
(i) Ihe luipingei catca of Huu 1 *as concarainaLeu witn stopcock grease.
(2) Stack oases analvzed.at point do"rstrฐam,of scrubuer but upstream of
flare. ' ;
A-40
-------
Table XXVI
BOF FACILITY C
Summary of Pesuits"
Run Number
Date
Test Time-ninutes
Net Output (H heats) -~
tons of steel
Stack Effluent
Flov rate-rฃC7M
Flow rate-DSCF/ton -st
Temperature-0? , -
Water vapor-Vol . **
C02 - Vol.^idry
02 - Vol.^ dry
CO - Vol.? dry
Visible Enissions -
% opacity
Particulate TTnissions
1
11/10/71
11*1
569.2
i 219,120 -
wjl-..5lซ,2791 , I
_ 233 . -
lfc.6
6.2
16.6
Less than 1%
0
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCr
' "' gr/ACF^ ,- :
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch .
cr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/ton of ?teel
0.009
'.- 0.006
0.0730
O.Ollt
0.009
0.1070
2 ^~ 3 Average
19/10/71 lVjLl/71
1U8 ~ f6V " 151
601.5 586.0 585.6
t* ' >
^15,^71 - -201,071- - - 211,921
53,o!t2 56,272 5^,531
- - ' 2k.6 "_ 23U. _ __ 238
lit. 8 15.0 1U.8
1.8 5.1 h>]i
19.2 17. ปป 17-7
00 0
f
0.005 0.006 0.007
" 0.-003 > O.OOH 0. 00^
>' ซ
^
0.10370- O.OU71 0.052J
0.008 ' 0.010 O.'Oll
0\005 0.006 0.007
o'.cCsi " 0.0779 " o.c'.:
A-41
-------
Table XXVII
EOF FACILITY D
Summary of Results
Run Number - . 1 - ~~__^- 2 3 Average
Date 12/0-9/71 " " 12/10/71 12/10/71
Test Time-minutes 130 " 126 . _158 - 138
.Net Output (U heats) -
tons of .steel 1376,6 1357-2 1368.1 1367.3
Stack Effluent
Flow rate-DSCFM
Flov rate-DSCF/ton
Temper at ur e - ฐ F
Water vapor-Vol . ฃ
ป
CDs - Vol.^ dry
02 - Vol.f, dry
CO - Vol.?' dry
22^,900
steel 21,239
: -.. I3h '-' , :
16.2 -
1.2
19-3
Less than 1
217,982 '
'- '2-0, 237
, - ,/
-- ~15. -it
1.0
19-9
jj
' "'214 ',100
. - 2^,725 - -
137
- -12^6^ --
1.0
19.9
^10,99
2^,Uo
138
1U.7
1.1
19.7
Visible Emissions - 0-20 0-20 0-20
% opacity
Particulate Frassions
Probe and filter eaten
l-\\ fa]
gr/DSCF 0.035 N/> *'
-------
Date .
-
Test Time -minutes
Net Output (U heats) -
tons of steel
Table XXVIII
EOF FACILITY E
Summary of Results
1/12/72
Stack Effluent
Temperature-0?
rate-nSCF/to,n steel 57,<
198
16.0
U.3
17.6
Less than
Water
Co2 - Vol.? dry
02 - Vol.? dry
CO - Vol.T dry
Visible Emissions -
% opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
o
gr/ACF
Ib/ton of steel
Total catch.
Cr/DSC?
0.029
Ib/ton of steel ^ 0.2UU
121
-1102.9
TOT
36.7
o Average
- - -
T/13-1H7T2
,,c 119
Lx:?
-1087.9. 109T<
U6l,571
^- *
0.020
O.OlU
0.169
Vy,.- 6.0U5"
0.030
_0.352
1 0^.016
^
0.010
0.109
,.0ป02J
o.oifi
0.210
0.052,
O.C1-1
0.023
0 l6l
O.C35
A-43
-------
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
SLUDGE INCINERATORS
/
Test Data " '
A-44
-------
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Stack tests were conducted on five sludge incinerators including
three multiple hearth units and two fluid bed~~reactors. One installation
was tested both by EPA and a State agency. Four of the incinerators were
controlled by impingement-type scrubbers, one was. controlled^by a venturi
scrubber. Pressure drops across the scrubbers ranged from 2.5 to 18
inches of water
Facilities:
A. Fluidized bed reactor'fl00 lb/h'dur'dry solids design capacity operated
" ,- "" * ,
at 100 percent capacity during-test, equipped yith a 20jnch_HaO pressure
* - ""C^"
drop venturi scrubber operated at 18 inches FLO pressure drop. Tested
by EPA and by State agency, letter using Code .Method 8.
B. Multiple hearth (6) Herreshoff incinerator 750 Ib/hour dry solids design
capacity operated at 64 percent capacity during test, equipped with a 6.0 inch
H?0 pressure drop single cross flow perforated plate impinjet scrubber.
C. Multiple hearth,.(6) Herreshoff incinerator 900 Ib/hour dry solids design
capacity operated at 35 percent capacity during test, equipped.,with a 6.0
*
inch HpO pressure drop single cross flow perforated plate impinjet scrubber.
<
, D....nui,dized bed'reactof 500 Ib/hour dry-sp"hds design capacity operated at
* ' * *," **'*'ป V^^t^i
95 percent capacity during test, equipped with a 4.0 inch FLO pressure
drop single cros_s flow perforated plate impinjet scrubber.
E. Multiple hearth Herreshoff incinerator 2500 Ib/hour dry solids design
\ -
capacity operated at ab'out 50 percent capacity during tests, equipped
A-45
-------
Table XXIX
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Furnace Feed Rate-TPH dry solids
Stack Effluent
Flow raLe - DSC^.i '
Flow rate - DSC?/tฎn feed
Temperature - ฐF . -
Uater vapor - Vol." %
C02 - Vol. % dry-
02 - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. % dry
S02 Emissions - ppn
NO- Eri^sior.s - o'cra
HC1 Znissions - ppm
1
1-11-72
108
0.550
2880
31^,000
- "59-
1.93 "
12.8"
14.8
0.0
<0.3
h.2
<3-8
0.02H
0.023
0.583
1.06
0.032
0.031
0.77P
J.-te
2
"1-12-7^
108
0.560
' i
2550 ' "
' 273,000
59
"l .92
" 12.6
U.7
0.0
<0 3
5 7
<2.9
0.005
0.005
0.116
0.207
0.007
0.007
0.160
%. 0,286
3
1-12-72
108
0.560
' - '
2o60
285,000
59
2.23
11.5"'""
6.U
0.0
<0.3
6 U
<10
O.OOh
O.OO^i
0.099
0.177
0.010
0.010
0:227 -
, O.U05
Average
108
0.557
,. 2700
291,000
59
2.03
"~ 12.3
5-3
0.0
<0.3
5 H
<3-6
0.011
0 Oil
0.266
0.1481
0.0163
o 016
0.389
0,701*,
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe ar.d fil~er 3?tca
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
lb/tc>n of *f.eฃd -ป ซ,^^-^ ^. r^^ ,,_,
A-46
-------
Table XXX
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY A,
Summary of Results
(1)
Run Number
Date
Test Tame-minutes
Furnace Teed Rate-TPH dry solids
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCKI
Flow rate - DSCF/ton feed"
Temperature - ฐF '
Water vapor --Vol*'% ">
C02 - Vol. % dry (less aux. f-uel) 4..0
S0ซ Emissions _
I ~
Visible Emissions - (Ringl.)
Particulatc Emissions
Total catch
gr/DSCF (cor. to 12% CO )
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
5-3-71
60
.325
2
5-4-71 _
60
.325
3
5-4r71
60
.325
Aver a
60
.325
3480 _
642,', 560
80
. - ^
3.4
> 4.0
C2) ""'
3600
" 664,600
80
3.4
5.1
(2)
3320
612,900
~ 78 -- '
3.4
4.0
_ฃ?J
3470
640,6001
79
3.4
4.4
(2)
<1
<1
<1
<1
0.020
0.019
0.596
1.84
0.031
0.029
.956
2.94
0.048
0.047
1.365
4.20
.033
.032
.972
2.99
(]) Tested by local agency using Code Method 1,
not analyzed separately.
(2) No SO detected.
Probe and filter catch
A-47
-------
Table XXXI
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY B
-Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes__
Furnace Feed Rate-TPH dry solids 0.237
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCF>!
Flow rate - DSC?/ton feed
Temperature % f)'?. " .
Water vapor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol % dry"
02 - Vol. *. a:;'
CO - Vol. % dry
S02 ZiTiiissicns - ppn
IIOV Zru.->sion3 - ppn
HC1 Emissions - ppri
Visible Emissions - f opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe aid filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
- gr/DSCF
'" g'r/'ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of fe?d
1
10-13-71
120
0.237
3300
1 835,000
' "19*8" -
3.6k
3.8
17-3
0 0
2.29-2.57
-
_
<10
0.021*5
0.0187
0.690
2.91
t -
0.037^ '
-0.0289
1.06
It. 1*7
2
10-1U-71
120
0.236
- ' 2950
750,000
-__- -196
-- h.Q2
1; . 7
1>0
0.0
2.75
-
_
<10
0.0196
0.0155
0.1*95
2.10
0.037^
" Or02S7
0.9^5
i*.oo
.._ 3 -
10-ll*-7l
120
0.21*9
2120
511,000
199
-3.65-
2.7
15-8
0.0
-
1*1*. 2-21*. 3
0.62l*-1.33
0.621
0.0173
0.0132
0 . 315 '
1.26
0.01*57
"0.031)8
0.832
3.31*
Average
-
120
0.2k!
" 2790
699,000
198
--- 3-77
7 V
-/ I
15-7
0.0
2.53
27.6
0.858
<10
0.0205
0.0158
0.500
2.09
0.01(02
' 0:0308
0.9^6
3-9^
V
A-48
-------
Table XXXII
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY C
Summary .of Results"
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Furnace Feed Rate-TPH dry solids
Stack Effluent
Flov rate .- DSCf M ' -
Flow rate - DSCF/t-oh feed J
Temperature - CF
Water vapor - Vol. %
COg - Vol. % dry-
Op - Voi. % dry
CO - Vol. % dry
SOg EMS s ions - ppr.
rJOy Zrnssjor.s -otjn.
HC1 Emissions - ppm
Visible Emissions - fa opacity
Pamculate Zrissior.s
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/DSCT*;. .
gr/ACF
.' . .,- Ib/hr " *- ,
Ib/ton of feed
1
7-15-71
80
0.111
1230
665,000
' '80 .
3.23-
10.0 -
7 7
0.0
15 9-11-9
^402-1^0
3-50-2 62
0.0327
o 00985
0.127
l.lli
0.019*5 . ,.
0.0150
- -0.2-06 * '
1.86
2
7-15-71
80
0 l^i-Q
* /
, 11190
600,000
..- -80
. -3 . 00
10 1
7-3
0.0
14 5-1/+.6
90-3-7^.3
2.33-2.62
0.0620
0.0l77
0.620
li.16
0.0696
0.0535
0.339
5-97
._ 3 -
7-16-71
80
0.1U6
* >
1>400
575,000
77
-2.95-
10.2
7-14
0.0
l!4.6-13o
lit. 5 -I1' 2
50.6-61.8
2.52--2.62
0.0196
0.0152
0.196
1.3f '
o.o26a
0.0201
0 . 3i'2
2.l|i
Average
80
0.135
" 1373
613,000
79
--- 3.06
10.1
7 5
0.0
Ik 2
163
2.72
0.031J4
0.02^2
0.31^
2.21
0.03SU
0.0295
o .'1*69
3.23
\
A-49
-------
Table XXXIII
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY D
"Summary of.Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes.
i
Furnace Feed Rate-TPH dry solids
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFiJ _ ,
Flow rate - DSQF/ton. Jeed
Temperature - ฐF- -
Water vapor - Vol. %
C02 - Vol. % dry
02 - Vol . ฃ dvy
CO - Vol. % dry
S02 Emissions - ppm
K0y Enissions - ppni
HC1 Emissions - ppm
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulars Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total patch,,
gr/DSCF
- ' 'gr'/ACF" ' "' ' '
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
7-21-71
120
0.255
1190 '
' 28b,poo
99 -
- 3-92--
8.8
6.3
0.0
8.29-11.2
15^-168
0.780-260
<10
0.0551
0.0li68
0.562
2.20
ot. 0665
o'.0565
0.678
2.66
2
7-21-71
96
0.237
ป t
' 1170
296,000
--'99
-- ir.09
9-9
7-^
0 0
l''4.8-lU.8
i'1.2-^2.9
k. 16-1. 56
*
'0.0729
0.861
3.63
... 3 .
7-22-71
96
0.202
*
12UO
368,000
95
3.148""-^
9-1
8.2
0.0
A. 2-15.1*
17.8
187-170
161
2.35-2.09
<10
0.05^5
0 . O^oJ
0.579 '
2.87
, . 0.0653
0.05'59
0.69^
3.^3
Average
10U
0.231
1200
315,000
98
-" 3.83
9-3
7.3
0.0
13.8
132
2.26
<10
0.0621
0.0528
o 636
2.77
,0.0726
'o.o6i8
O.'lkk
3.2h
\
A-50
-------
Table XXXIV
SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY E
Summary of "Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time -minutes _
Furance Feed Rate-TPH dry solids
Stack Effluent
Flov rate - DSC?:!
Flov rate - DSCF/ton feel
Tcmpei ature - ฐF- 1 ' "
Water vapor - Vol. %
CC2 - Vol. % dry~
Op - Vol. % dry
CO - Vol. % dry
SQo Ernssior? - 'O'er1
IlOy P-Pll S3 ions 13 "DPI
HC3 I!rii3bicns - ppri
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate Eni?sions
Probe and filler catcn
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF .
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total cai:ch
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr ,. ..
. , , Ib/ton. of feeds - , .
1
8-5-71
96
0.689
98HO
"
-' 1 3*5
- 16.1."
\ 2
lU.o
0.0
2.01
62.8-U6 o
11 9
<10
o 0260
0.0] 96
2.19
3.18
0.0335
0.0252
2.83 ' "
^11 t
2
'8-5 -71~
96
0.855
j
~ , 8510
1^5
~""'i'8.6
. " U.3
lU 9
0 0
2.07
83.5-75.8
6.83
<10
o 0136
0.0099
0.99
1.16
0 0221
0.0159
1.61
. 1-88
... 3
~"8-5-7i
96
0.290
* >
10290
1^5
llป 8
'2.2""
16.9
0.0
2.12
LL. 3-514. 7
10 9
<10
0.013U
0.0101
1.18
1*.07
'
0.0170
0.0128
1.50* -
, 5.- 17 , .
Average
96
0.6li
95H7
1^2
16.6
3.6
15-6
0 0
2.07
61.2
9.88
<10
0.0177
0.0132
1.45
2.80
0 02h2
0.180
1.98
3-72
\
A-51
-------
SECONDARY LEAD" SMELTERS AND' REFINERIES
1 " "
BLAST AND REVERBERATORY TU'RNACES
Test Data
A-52
-------
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES
BLAST AND REVERBERATORY FURNACES
Test results are summarized for/seven blast furnaces and three
reverberatory furnaces. A local agency supplied test data for three
of the blast furnaces and one reverberatory furnace. Jine. of the 10
furnaces were equipped with baghouses, six employed afterburners to burn
combustibles, and two units had scrubbers for control of sulfur dioxide.
> i ' >
Facilities: . , .
I ^
A. Blast furnace rated at- 77 tons ,of-lead per day equipped with an
afterburner and oagh'ouse. _ _. ~~ _. - -
* ~ -ป
B. Two blast furnaces having a combined rating of 80 tons of lead
per day equipped with an afterburner, baghouse, and venturi
scrubber} calcium hydroxide liquor circulated in scrubber.
C. Blast furnace rated at 45 tons of lead per day equipped with
a caustic venturi scrubber, sodium hydroxide liquor circulated
in scrubber.
D. Blast furnace having an estimated production rate of 90
lead per day equipped with afterburner and baghouse. Tested by
local agency un'ng Code" Method 9. - . >- - - .
..i * ( ** * * *'* ' * *
E. Blast furnace having an estimated production of 20 tons of lead
i
per day equipped .with afterburner and baghouse. Tested-by
local agency using Code Method 9.
A-53
-------
F. Blast furnace having an estimated production rate of 52 tons of lead
per day equipped with afterburner and baghouse. Tested by local
agency using Code Method 9, " - - ~~~~ .~
G. Reverberatory furnace rated at 40 tons of lead per day equipped with
baghouse. - -
H. Reverberatory furnace rated at 65 tons of lead per day equipped with
baghouse.
1 j >
/
I. Reverberatory -furnace having an,estimated production of 20 tons erf-
lead per day equipped with a baghouse. Tested by local agency using
Code Method 9. - ~ ~" - - -- ~~-
A-54
-------
TABLE XXXV
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY A
Summary of Results
Run
Date
Test
Lead
Number
-
Time - Minutes
Production - TPH
-1
11/17/71
91
3.7
2 -
11/18/T1-
188
-
2.5
3
11/18/71
. 186
- (bV
3.0V '
Average
155
3-1
Stack Effluent
Visi
Flow rate - DSCFI1
Flow rate - DSCF/tcn
Temperature - F .. -.
Water vapor - Vol. % ,
CO - Vol. % dry *
02 - Vol. % dry ' '_
CO Emissions - Vol. % diy
CO Emissions - lb/"r?-
SO Emissions - pp>ri cry
SO" Emissions - Ib/'Lr
bje Emissions - % oraciz;'
23,200
6,270
- 176-
3-7-
2.2
19/6' ;
" 0.5
- 503
H'43
101
io-r>
22,900
9,160 >
'- "2.3
-2,1
TO.O
" tr.-2' '
' 399
26U
59
10-70
23,120
'' 7,710 -
177
. - 3.-1 - -
1.5-
19-5
O.U
~ Uoi 1J&"" "
20U
U6
5-15
23,070
7,710
178
3-0
- 1.9
19.2
0.36
- 368
30U
69
12
Particulate Emissions
r ป
Lead
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/r.CF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
> *i M i-
Emis-E'icms s v- A
f .
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
0.0028
0 0022
0.55^1
0.1^93
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
' '
. *
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
\
Essentially
0 0027
0 002.L
0 5231
0.2092
0.0^71
0.0368
9.2^39
3.6976
">
0.00035
0.00027
' ' o". 0679
0.0272
v
the same as
0.0023
0 . 0018
OJ;570
0.1523
0.0396
0.031^)
7 8566
2.6189
* ,
' _ ,
0.00033
0.00026
0.061*8
0.0216
0.0026
0.0020
0.511!
0.17 Oil
O.OU3L
0.0339
8.5503
3-1583
' * >! '
0.0003^
0.00027
0.066lr
0.021(1;
probe and /liter.
(b) The" lead holding pot level vzt> al-ceieci .by p uo.:ru pci ^our.'jj. a-^-..0
and a late based on avex'age production figures was assumed.
A-55
-------
TABLE XXXVI
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY B
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test lime - liinutes
-Lead Production - TPE
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - F^
Water vapor - Vol. ,/i
CO - Vol. -% drf
0 - Vol. % dry, ' '
CO Erussions - Vol. "/'-, dry
CO Emissions - ,Ib/hr
S0? Emissions - ppm dry
SQ Et'iissions - Ib/nr
SO Inlet - prm dry
SO Inlet - Ib/hr
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate Snissions
Probe ar.d fil~cr cฐ.tcr
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr ''
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr "'
Ib/lon, lea'd
Lead Emissions
Probe and filter ca-tch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
- i - - . _T
12/15/71"
195
U.2
32,060
7,630
- -12lt
6-. 3l*
'3.2
I'S.B:
r
-------
TABLE XXXVII
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY C
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFI1
Plow rate - DSCF/ton
o - v
Temperature - F
Water vapor .- Vol*. %
CO - Vol . % dry
Q - Vol. % dry '..''"
CO Emissions - VoIU. % dry
CO Emissions - Hb/hr
SO Emissions - pp^a dry
SO EniSoions - Ib/hr
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate Inissions
Probe and filter catch
e,r/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
ib/ton lead
Total cater.
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead Emissions "
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF ' " '
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch
1 ."-
12/8/71
120
1.5
12,100
. 8^.067
. 97
2.-1*
0-5 -
20.3 ' '
0.8
1)20
0.06
0.01
10-15
0.0196
0.0181*
2.035lf
1.3570
0.0275
0.0257
2.81*7)4
1.8983,
' 0.00127
0.00119
0.1320
0.0880
V,
2
12/9/71
112
1.2
13,330 ,
11,108
'. - , "95 .
, . .1-7
0.8
' . 20.2
- 07-3
160
0.0k
0.01
10-20
0.0081*
o.ocSo
0.89J3
0.7750
0.0157
0.011*9
1.6556
1.1*397
0.00061
- " 0.00058
0.061*6
-0.0562
-
.-
3
12/9/71
"""112 "
1.2
- 12 ,,51*0
10,1*50
.93
2.3
0.8
18.8
- -0.2-- -
109
0.08
0.01
5-35
0.0l!*9
0.011:0
1 . 6061
1.281*9
0.^235
0.0221
2.5^00
2.0160
, '
0.00127
0.00120
0.1368
0.1095
-
Average
115
1.3
12,657
9,875
- 95
- -2.13
0.7
19-7
- O.I;
330
0.06
0.01
12
0.01143
0 0235
1.5100
1.1389
0.0222
0.0203
2.3UO
1.781*7
0.00105
0.00099
0.1111
0.081*6
Es sent ".all" tic scizr.* as nrobe and filter.
-------
TABLE XXXVIII
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY D
.Summary of'Results
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFH
Flow rate"- DSCF/ton
Temperature - F
Water vapor - Vol. %
CO - Vol. > dry
0 - Vol. f/dry
CO Scissions-*. - Vol. % dry
CO Emissions - ib/hr
SO Emissions * ppra dry
SO Emissions - lb/hr _
* ~-
Visible Znssions - % opacity
Particulfcc Irassions
oii'i filter cat,ch'a
3-9 (estimated)
20,900
5,359
152
8.7
U.2
lo.8
1.5
' 1,363
1,170
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
lb/ ton lead
Total^catch'^
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
Ib/ton lead
Le ad Emi s s 3 on s
0.0013
0.0010
0.233
O.OoO
0.0075
0.0059
0.3^5
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total catch"*
0.00061
0.000148
0.1093
0.0280
Assumed "the same" as probe an'd filter.
(1) Tested by local .agency using Code Ilethod 9
/
/ "
' A-58
-------
TABLE XXXIX
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY E
Summary of Results
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent
0.8 (estimated)
Flow rate -
Flow rate-_- DSCF/tcn
Temperature - F
Water vapor - Vol. %
SO Emissions - pprn dry
SO Emissioris - Ib/nr .
Visible ^missions '- % "opacity "
Particulate Ilmssior'S " - -
Probe and filtqi catch'
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
Total catch
gr/DSCF
Gr/AC?
Ib /ton
Ib/ton lead
13,000
16,250
175
3.9
-300
. Uo -
/
, 0 ,
0.0059
0.00-7
0.657
0.822
0.0350
0.0281
3-900
^.875
(1) Tested by local agency using Code Method 9.
\
A-59
-------
Table XL
LEAJ SMELTING FACILITY F
- Summary of Results
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate_- ESCFM
Flow rate~- DSCF/ton
Temperature - F
Visible Ernssions^- % opacity . -
Particulate .Eni
Probe and f'ilt'e"r' Cat.c.h
gr/DSCF - '
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
T'oial caucn
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
2.2 (estirnate_d)_
7,500
3,^09
110
, 1Q-30 _
0-iOlU2
0.913
0.081}
5.^00
2.1455
(1) Tested by local agency using Code. Method 9.
A-60
-------
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY G
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - minutes
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCKl
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - F
Water vapor - Vol. %
CO - Vol. % dry ,
05 - Vol. % dry" r ,
CO Emissions -'Vol. "5$ -dry
CO Emissions - Ib/hr
SO Emissions ป ppiri dry
SO Emissions - Ib/hr
Visible Emissions - % opacity
Particulate r-n-siors
Probe and filter caoch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Total ca~ch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton lead
Lead Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton le-ad
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
lb/ior lead
1
1/26/72 ^~~
120
2.1
6^952
166
- 3-1-
1,8
18.6
63o
1580
229
0
O.OOU3
0.0035
0.5387
0.2565
0.0132
0.0107
1.6520
0.7867
0.00090
0.00073 J
0.1130
0.0538 -
0.0010s
0.00081
0.1262
" O.C'O/
_2
-1/24/72
120
"2.1 ~
15,200
7,238
- -2.8
" - 1.8 -'
- 18.7
~66/o
" 1525
230
0
0.0028
0.0023
0.3702
0.1763
0.0086
0.0070
1.11U8
0.5309
\
0.000^9
. 0,-OOOifO
0.06^0
- - 0.0305
NA
-MA
NA
3
1/26/72
120
""" 2.1"
1^,200
6,762
' ' '175
3-1
1.8- " -
18'. 7
Jl^
228
0
0.0035
0.0028
O.H297
0.0200
0.0l6l
2 . 1*321
O.OOOU5
'0.00037
0.0553
. 0.0263
NA
M
r\
Average
120
2.1
lU ,667
6,98U
168
3-0
1.8
18.7
63.7
157*1
229
0
0.0035
0.0029
O.UU62
0.212p
0.0139
0.0113
1.7330
0.8252
0.00061
0'. 00050
0.0775
0.0369
0.00100
0.00031
0.3262
A-61
-------
Table XLII
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY H
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - minutes
Lead Production - TPH
Stack Effluent __
Flow rate - DSCFII
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature - FV
%
Water vapor - Vol.
CO - Vol . . % dry '
00 - Vol . % dry
ฃ- . -
CO Emissions - Vol. % dry
CO Emissions -, Ib/hr
SO Enissionc - ppTi dry
SO Ihissionc - Ib/hi
Visible
Pai t ic alo.be
- opacity
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/.'lO
2.7950
1.161(6
- .
0.000^1
0.00035
. 0.0695
0.0289
NA .
NA
~ T *
Average
150
2.1*
22,007
9,167
12l(
*4 3
- 2.3
18.1
" " <96
2,03^
0.0033
0.0028
0/*-j I, 0
O - " o
0.2562
0.0138
0.0860
2.5695
1 . 071
0.00038
0.00032
0.0717-
0.0298
- 0.00050
0.0001(3
n -\ fjo ^
A-62
-------
LEAD SMELTING FACILITY I
Summary of Results
Lead production - TPH " " 0.85 (estimated)
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - DSCFM 10,^00
Flow rate - DSCF/ton
Temperature. - ฐF 32?
SO Emissions - ppra dry 1,039
SCT Emissions - Ib/hr 110
Visible Emissions^- % opacity - - _0 -
/
Particul ate S.-U ssnocs - . ,
r **
Probe and filter' catch ~ " ' . __ , ,
gr/DSCP - 0.0622 ~"
Ib/hr 0.196
lead 0.231
l cat c':
gr/DSCF 0.0130
Ib/hr 1.159
Ib/ton lead 1.363
(1) Tested by local agency using Code Method 9,
A-63
------- |