United States Environmental Protection Agency Region II Office 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y. 10278 EPA- 902 6 a 4 .jO 3 fvl d r.; h 19 6 -• Air Control Measures to Assure Attainment of the TSP and Proposed PM-io NAAQS in the Catano Air Basin ------- CONTROL MEASURES TO ASSURE ATTAINMENT OF THE TSP AND PROPOSED PM10 NAAQS IN THE CATANO AIR BASIN by PEI Associates, Inc. 11499 Chester Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 Contract No. 68-02-3890 Work Assignment No. 3 PN 3655-3 Project Officer Dr. Vinh Cam U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION 26 FEDERAL PLAZA, ROOM 1005 NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10278 March 1985 ------- CONTENTS Figures iv Tables v Executive Summary vii 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Potential Control Measures 2-1 2.1 Major sources of TSP and PM10 emissions 2-1 2.2 Compliance strategies 2-4 2.3 Predicted improvements in air quality 2-18 3. Suggested Control Measures for Application to Sources in the Catano Air Basin 3-1 4. Costs of Proposed Control Measures 4-1 5. Conclusions 5-1 References R-l Appendix A Example of emissions inventory questionnaire A-l ------- FIGURES Number Page 1-1 Trend in Annual TSP Concentrations for the Catano Basin 1-2 1-2 Trend in Second Highest 24-hour TSP Concentration in the Catano Air Basin 1-3 2-1 Relative Contribution of Major Sources to the 1982 TSP and PMip Annual Average Concentrations at the Catano Air Basin Maximum Receptor 2-2 2-2 Estimated TSP 24-Hour Relative Source Contribution at the Maximum Receptor in the Catano Air Basin for 1982 2-6 2-3 The Catano Air Basin 2-8 2-4 Distribution of Predicted TSP Concentrations Near the Amelia Station Using 1982 Data 2-9 IV ------- TABLES Number 2-1 Annual TSP and PM10 Concentrations Predicted by the ISCST Model at the Worst-Case (Maximum) Receptor in 1982 2-3 2-2 Short-Term TSP and PM10 Concentrations Predicted by the ISCST Model at the Worst-Case (Maximum) Receptor in 1982 2-5 2-3 Predicted Annual Concentrations of TSP and PM10 Based on Controls Implemented after 1982 and ISCST Model Results 2-10 2-4 Predicted Second-Highest 24-Hour Concentrations of TSP and PM10 Based on Controls Implemented after 1982 and ISCST Model Results 2-11 2-5 Relative Contribution to Total Fugitive Emissions of the Various Sources Found at an Idealized Uncontrolled Grain Mill Facility 2-12 2-6 Summary of the Control Alternatives, Their Efficiencies, and Their Costs for Fugitive Dust Emissions From Sources at Grain Terminals 2-13 2-7 Relative Contribution of the Identified Sources at Central Soya to the Total Estimated 1982 Particulate Emissions 2-16 2-8 Relative Contribution of the Identified Sources at Molinos De Puerto Rico to the Total Estimated Particulate Emissions 2-16 2-9 Summary of Techniques, Their Efficiencies, and Their Costs for Controlling Fugitive Dust From Paved Surfaces 2-18 2-10 Predicted Annual Concentrations of TSP and PM10 Based on Full Implementation of Controls Proposed in the Compli- ance Plans 2-20 2-11 Predicted 24-Hour Concentrations of TSP and PM10 Based on Full Implementation of Controls Proposed in the Compliance Plans 2-21 ------- TABLES (continued) Number Page 4-1 Estimated Emissions Control Equipment Costs of Reducing Central Soya Facility Emissions 4-2 4-2 Estimated Emissions Control Equipment Costs of Reducing Molinos De Puerto Rico Facility Emissions 4-2 4-3 Roadway Emissions Control Equipment Costs 4-3 VI ------- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Many sources contribute to the TSP in the ambient air in the Catano Air Basin. At the maximum receptor location, however, four specific source categories stand out as major contributors to predicted annual average TSP concentrations. These sources and their estimated contributions to ambient TSP concentrations are as follows: Molinos De Puerto Rico, 54 percent; area- wide sources, 16 percent; roadways, 6 percent; and Central Soya, 3 percent. The estimated contributions of these same sources to predicted annual PM,Q concentrations are 55, 16, 6, and 4 percent, respectively. All other sources combined contribute 6 percent of the TSP and 8 percent of the PM,Q concentra- tions, and background levels make up the remaining portion of the particulate concentrations. The 24-hour average standard is the most difficult to meet. For the maximum predicted 24-hour TSP concentration in 1982, it was estimated that Molinos De Puerto Rico contributed 82 percent of the predicted value at the maximum receptor location. For the second-highest 24-hour TSP concentration, Molinos contributed an estimated 53 percent, and Central Soya 35 percent at the maximum receptor location. As a result of this analysis, Molinos De Puerto Rico, Central Soya, and (to a lesser extent) area roadways were singled out for the control strategy assessment. An actual detailed analysis of the controls in place at the grain-handling facilities was unavailable. Also, only general data were vn ------- available on the roadway conditions; however, because roadways are relatively minor contributors, this was not a great concern. Although the data inadequacy precluded a detailed control strategy plan itemizing every source at each of the grain-handling facilities, development of a more general plan was possible. By applying the suggested controls to the grain-handling facilities and implementing a moderate road-cleaning plan, it is believed that bringing the Catano Air Basin into compliance with exis- ting TSP standards and potential new PM,Q standards would entail $656,000 in capital costs and $194,000 in annual expenses (1984 dollars). vm ------- SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION In 1978, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Environ- mental Quality Board (EQB) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agreed that the Catano Air Basin near San Juan was not attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for total suspended particulate (TSP) matter. Although TSP air quality generally improved between 1979 and 1984, with 1983 values showing ambient concentrations below the NAAQS, the annual average and second-highest 24-hour TSP concentrations at the Amelia station continue to exceed levels prescribed by the NAAQS. This trend is shown in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. In addition to the TSP standard, the EQB must also be concerned about the probable attainment status of the Basin with respect to particulate matter that is less than 10 micrometers (ym) in diameter, i.e., PM,Q. In preparation for the likely adoption of an air quality standard for PM,Q concentrations, all EPA regions have employed a probability model to predict the probable attainment status of various air basins with respect to this standard. Using 3 years of TSP data ending in 1982, the PM,Q levels in the Catano Basin were predicted to exceed the proposed 24-hour standard (84 percent probability) and to meet the annual standard (88 percent probability of attainment). Updating the analysis using 1983 TSP data yielded a 9 and 4 percent probability of exceeding the 24-hour and annual PM standard, 1-1 ------- r-o 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 YEAR 1983 1984 Figure 1-1. Trend in annual TSP concentrations for the Catano Basin. ------- I GJ 280 •o f, 26° 3. n o 240 t—i I— 2 S 220 C_J o X Q CM 200 180 160 140 120 100 NJ 1978 1979 1980 1981 YEAR 1982 1983 1984 Figure i-2. Trend in second highest 24-hour TSP concentrations in the Catano Air Basin. ------- respectively. Because of the first prediction, the EQB is slated to receive two monitors to begin the collection of a PM1Q data base that will be used to establish the actual attainment status of the Catano area. These monitors were reportedly placed in service in March 1985. The area of primary concern is near the existing high-volume sampler located at the Amelia pump house station. In an effort to assist the EPA and EQB in understanding and eventually controlling the sources impacting ambient air quality in the Catano Basin, the EPA asked PEI Associates, Inc., to prepare a series of reports. This report was preceded by the three reports listed below: 0 Examination of Factors and Potential Sources Impacting Three Total Suspended Particulate Monitoring Stations in the Catano Air Basin of Puerto Rico. EPA-902/4-84-002, July 1984. 0 Estimation of the Probable Impact of Sources in the Catano Air Basin on PM10 Standards. EPA-902/6-84-001, November 1984. 0 Estimated Relative Impacts of TSP and PM10 Emissions From Maritime Vessels and Oil-Fired Powerplants in the Catano Area. EPA-902/6- 84-002, November 1984. Inasmuch as the sources surrounding the Amelia monitoring station have been identified and their relative impacts determined in previous reports, the purpose of this evaluation is to outline control measures for the sources that will ensure compliance with the existing TSP and proposed PM,0 NAAQS. The following sections of this report detail these measures. Annual average TSP's are analyzed in terms of geometric means and PM,Q as arithmetic means throughout the text. 1-4 ------- SECTION 2 PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES 2.1 MAJOR SOURCES OF TSP AND PM1Q EMISSIONS For this analysis, a worst-case scenario must be considered to provide a safety factor that will ensure compliance with TSP and PM,Q standards. The air quality analysis presented in Reference 1 made use of the Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC) in both the short-term (ST) and long-term (LT) modes. The short-term model was used in conjunction with 1982 meteorological data and yielded better 1982 predictions than the long-term version. The predicted 1982 ISCST annual geometric mean for the Amelia station was 81 pg/m , exactly equal to observed levels. At the maximum impact location, however, the ISCST predicted an annual geometric mean TSP concentration of 3 136 pg/m . For this reason, the results developed for the maximum receptor are used for control strategy evaluation wherever possible; otherwise, focus is on the Amelia station results. The control measure effects are based on predicted impacts of the 1982 emissions data, which were the highest recorded within the past few years. Figure 2-1 shows the relative contributions of various source categories to ISCST-predicted TSP and PM,Q concentrations recorded at the maximum receptor in 1982. A tabular summary is presented in Table 2-1. The sources include Central Soya, Molinos, nearby roadways, areawide sources, and background. 2-1 ------- AREA WIDE SOURCES 11: ROADWAYS 8%. I ro AREA WIDE SOURCES 14% OTHER SOURCES 9% BACKGROUND 14% CENTRAL SOYA 4% OTHER SOURCES 8% BACKGROUND 8% CENTRAL SOYA 4% a) TSP (Geometric mean) (Total TSP = 136.1 yg/nr5) b) PM,Q (Arithmetic mean) (Total PM1Q = 97.2 ug/m3) Figure 2-1. Relative contribution of major sources to the 1982 TSP and PMio annual average concentrations at the Catano Air Basin maximum receptor. ------- TABLE 2-1. ANNUAL TSP AND PM10 CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED BY THE ISCST MODEL AT THE WORST-CASE (MAXIMUM) RECEPTOR IN 1982 Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and milling Flour mills Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Total TSP concentration, yg/m3 Arithmetic mean 5.1 4.5 0.3 0.3 78.9 6.2 15.4 3.9 51.8 1.6 9.0 23.6 8.8 21.6 147.0 Geometric mean 4.7 4.2 0.3 0.2 73.1 5.7 14.3, 3.6 48.0 1.5 8.3 21.8 8.2 20.0 136.1 PM10 concentration, yg/m3 3.5 3.1 0.2 0.2 53.6 4.2 10.5 2.6 35.2 1.1 6.2 15.3 8.0 10.7 97.3 Adapted from Reference 1. 2-3 ------- Areawide sources consist of smaller low-level sources of dispersed par- ticulate emissions. These emissions include fugitive dust from reentrained dust, materials handling, agricultural, residential, and other sources. The application of emission controls to this group of sources is not impractical, but enforcing control measures is difficult and is expected to produce neg- ligible changes in ambient particulate concentrations. The sources included under "other" also involve dispersed emissions. Included in this group are ships at dock, ships moving in the channels, and powerplants. The power- plants (PREPA) are moderately significant sources from the standpoint of overall average annual TSP emissions; however, they have only a small impact on the Amelia station or on the maximum receptor where periodic TSP excur- sions are a particular concern. A review of the 24-hour average TSP data from a preceding study (shown in Table 2-2) makes selection of sources for control more apparent. The data are also displayed in Figure 2-2. This figure, which gives the first and second highest TSP-concentration days in 1982, illustrates that Central Soya and Molinos are the primary contributors to predicted TSP concentrations and areawide sources and roadways are only minor contributors. Because PMin emissions are directly related to TSP, the same relationship prevails. These results indicate that Central Soya, Molinos, and nearby roadways should be the prime targets for a particulate emission control strategy. 2.2 COMPLIANCE STRATEGIES The ambient data generated at the Amelia station in 1983 suggest that control measures implemented at Molinos in 1983 have brought about an im- provement in the observed TSP concentrations. This is even in light of the 2-4 ------- TABLE 2-2. SHORT-TERM TSP AND PM10 CONCENTRATIONS PREDICTED . BY THE ISCST MODEL AT THE WORST-CASE (MAXIMUM) RECEPTOR IN 1982C Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and milling Flour mills Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Total TSP concentration, yg/m3 Maximum 24-h 0.6 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 411.7 32.1 80.7 20.2 270.5 8.2 7.6 42.3 19.2 20.0 501.4 Second maximum 24-hc 101.0 89.6 6.2 5.2 151.6 11.8 29.8 7.4 99.6 3.0 0.6 9.1 4.6 20.0 286.9 PMio concentration, yg/m3 Maximum 0.4 0.4 ™ 280.0 21.8 54.9 13.7 184.0 5.6 5.3 27.4 13.0 10.7 336.8 Second maximum 68.7 61.0 4.2 3.5 103.1 8.0 20.2 5.1 67.7 2.1 0.4 5.9 3.7 10.7 192.5 Adapted from Reference 1. Day 11, 1982. Day 348, 1982. 2-5 ------- i en ROADWAYS 2% AREA WIDE SOURCES 8% OTHER SOURCES 4% AVERAGE BACKGROUND0 4% AREA WIDE SOURCES 3% OTHER SOURCES 2% AVERAGE BACKGROUND0 7% a) Highest 24-hour concentration0 . b b) Second highest 24-hour concentration Central Soya was estimated to have contributed less than 1 percent on the highest TSP concentration day. The roadways contributed less than 1 percent to the total TSP emissions on the second highest TSP concentration day. In both cases the average background is 20 ug/m3; however, the relative percent shown above differs from "a" to "b" since the overall magnitude of the TSP concentrations for each day was quite different. Figure 2-2. Estimated TSP 24-hour relative source contribution at the maximum receptor in the Catano Air Basin for 1982. ------- fact that 1983 precipitation amounts are one of the lowest on record. These occurrences, i.e., reduced TSP under drier meteorological conditions, indi- cate that a major portion of the TSP problem is indeed caused by emissions from stationary sources rather than fugitive dust sources. The 1984 data, however, show an increase in TSP levels despite the greater amounts of pre- cipitation. The results obtained at the Amelia station, however, only par- tially address particulate air quality in the Catano Basin. This is because dispersion modeling has identified an area near the Amelia monitor that will probably display higher ambient concentrations. The Catano Basin is shown in Figure 2-3. The area around the Amelia monitor (Site 24) is shown in Figure 2-4. The long-term results shown in Figure 2-4 were generated by ISCLT, and show that at receptor max (200,150), the TSP concentrations are about 10 percent higher than at the Amelia station. The suspicion that the grain facilities are responsible for the higher concentrations at receptor max is easily derived by observing the proximity of the sources to the receptor location. The benefit afforded by the particulate control placed on Molinos sourc- es after 1982 was evaluated in the previous work using ISCLT. These results predicted that the Amelia station would display TSP concentrations that were less than the NAAQS. This indeed was the case. The effect on the short-term results is presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. Using the best information available, an 80 percent reduction of Molinos emissions was assumed for se- lected sources. As shown in Table 2-3, the annual TSP concentration is predicted to be less than the 75 yg/m3 standard at the maximum receptor. The PM,n concentrations, however, are still predicted to exceed the 50 yg/m annual arithmetic mean. 2-7 ------- ro oo *K^sle,2 ; •««?;/ f-f •::*•'.• .::-'';.^f ! i /PDBtiie Blanc'*v-','v£ ?\ ; IpHSIP^P (I)1 BOUNDARY OF THE CATANO AIR BASIN HI - VOLUME SAMPLER POINT SOURCE SCALE 1"~0.5 MILES Figure ?:-3: The Catano air basin. ------- 85.6 AGM 1 , 160.24-h ]"n AMELIA STATION 62.2 AGM"} 239. 24-hJ (250,750) 92.6 AGM ] 267.24-h h 200,150) SCALE: 1 in. = 130 m 54.4 AGM 221.24-h CONVEYORS MOLINOS MILLING L U4 A4b 1 A4a j 08, 1C 34 SILOS L SILOS EZ 03 1 02 A7b A4c ^ i i U=-CONVEYORS /CONVEYORS LEGEND AGM = ANNUAL GEOMETRIC MEAN, yg/rn 24-h = 2nd HIGHEST 24-h CONCENTRATION, yg/rn Figure 2-4. Distribution of predicted TSP concentrations near the Amelia station using 1982 data. 2-9 ------- TABLE 2-3. PREDICTED ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF TSP AND PM10 BASED ON CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED AFTER 1982 and ISCST MODEL RESULTS Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and mill ing Flour mills Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Percent control applied 0 0 0 80 80 0 80 80 0 0 0 Total TSP concentration, yg/m3 Arithmetic mean 5.1 4.5 0.3 0.3 18.9 1.2 3.1 3.9 10.4 0.3 9.0 23.6 8.8 21.6 87.0 Geometric mean 4.7 4.2 0.3 0.2 17.5 1.1 2.9 3.6 9.6 0.3 8.3 21.8 8.2 20.0 80.5 PM10 con- centration, pg/m3 3.5 3.1 0.2 0.2 12.7 0.8 2.1 2.6 7.0 0.2 6.2 15.3 8.0 10.7 56.4 Relative to 1982 situation. 2-10 ------- TABLE 2-4. PREDICTED SECOND-HIGHEST 24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS OF TSP AND PM10 BASED ON CONTROLS IMPLEMENTED AFTER 1982 and ISCST MODEL RESULTS Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Docks ide fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and milling Flour mills Grain/product handling Docks ide fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Percent control applied 0 0 0 80 80 0 80 80 0 0 0 Total TSP concentration, yg/m3 101.0 89.6 6.2 5.2 36.3 2.4 6.0 7.4 19.9 0.6 0.6 9.1 4.6 20.0 171.6 PMio concentration, ug/m3 68.7 61.0 4.2 3.5 24.6 1.6 4.0 5.1 13.5 0.4 0.4 5.9 3.7 10.7 114.0 a Relative to 1982 situation. 2-11 ------- Likewise, the second-highest 24-hour TSP value is predicted to still exceed the NAAQS. It is noted in these tables, as in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, that fugitive grain emissions are the major predicted contributors. The results presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 indicate that additional controls are needed to ensure compliance with the particulate standards. Several control measures should be considered. These include more efficient measures at both Molinos and Central Soya and control strategies for mini- mizing roadway-generated TSP and PM1Q. With respect to the latter, controls to both the Central Soya and Molinos operations will help the roadway emis- sions problem because these emissions consist in part of reentrained par- ticles originating from the grain-handling operations. This is not taken into account in the emissions reduction estimates included here; therefore, it adds to the built-in safety factor in the overall estimates. Table 2-5 shows the relative percentage of uncontrolled emissions con- tributed by each area of an idealized facility. Fugitive dust sources and typical and alternative particulate controls are listed in Table 2-6, along with their efficiencies and costs. TABLE 2-5. RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF THE VARIOUS SOURCES FOUND AT AN IDEALIZED UNCONTROLLED GRAIN MILL FACILITY Source Receiving Transferring/conveying Cleaning Drying Shipping Percentage of contribution 18 64 13 4 1 Too 2-12 ------- ™PTDrcTcrn °F ™E CONTROL ALTERNATIVES, THEIR EFFICIENCIES, THEIR COSTS FOR FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES AT GRAIN TERMINALS Fugitive dust source Receiving Truck unloading Railcar unloading Barge unloading Transferring and conveying Cleaning Drying Rack Column Shipping Truck loading Railcar loading Barge loading Control alternatives Hopper vented to cyclone Enclosure /fabric filter End osure^/ cycl one Enclosure /fabric filter Enclosure/cyclone Enclosure/fabric filter Vent to cyclones Vent to fabric filters Vent to cyclones Vent to fabric filters Screens (24 mesh) Vacuum screen system (50 mesh) Limit perforation plate hole diameter to 0.084 in. Adjustable chutes Enclosure/cyclone Enclosure/fabric filter Adjustable chutes Hood/cyclone Enclosure/fabric filter Telescoping spout/choked feed/ cyclone Telescoping spout/choked feed/fabric filter Control efficiency, % 90 99 90 99 90 99 90 99 90 99 63 93 Unavailable 75 90 99 75 90 99 90 99 Control costs, January 1980 $ Capital 28,200a 53,500a 34,200d 71,800a 32,200e 55,000a 260,600f . 265,3009'n 29,400^ 43.4001 ll,000j 51,800 - NA. NAk NAK NA , 62,200° 103,900° NA1 NA1 Annual 6,100a ll,700a 6, 200"? 33,900a 11,200!; 12,300a 68,700^ . 73,5009'h 6,200i 9.6001 2,300j 11,300 - NA NAk NAK NA . 13,000° 22,100° NA1 NA1 (continued) 2-13 ------- TABLE 2-6 (continued) Fugitive dust source Ship loading Control" alternatives Tarpaulin cover"1/ cyclone Tarpaulin cover /fabric filter Choke feed /cyclone Choke feed /fabric, filter Control efficiency, % 90 99 90 99 January 1980 $ Capital 41'200a'h 57,000a>l\ 65,700 86,100 Annual 11,300;)'" 12,400s'1 13,600 19,600 Source: Adapted from Orleman, et al. 1983 (Reference 2). a Terminal capacity = 40,000,000 bushels annual throughput. Capital costs include purchase, auxiliaries, direct and indirect equipment installation costs. Annual costs include capitalization, electrical (at S0.03/kKh), maintenance, property taxes/insurance/administrative costs at 4 percent total capital investment. Shed with one quick-closing door. Shed with one end closed. Based on terminal v;ith capacity of 15,000,000 bushels annual throughput. Costs estimated for two cyclones of 3/16-inch-thick carbon steel each at 10,000 acfm. Capital cost in- cludes purchase price plus direct and indirect installation costs. Annual costs consider direct (at 11 percent turnkey) and indirect (overhead at 1 percent direct operating and capitalization at 17 percent turnkey) costs. Particulate control costs based on facility with 15,000,000-bushel annual throughput capacity and 10 per- cent retrofit penalty. Based on emissions control for scale and surge bins operations only. Facility capacity throughput of 15,000,000 bushels annually. No retrofit penalty. Also includes cost of barge loading controls. Facility capacity throughput of 15,000,000 bushels annual- ly. No retrofit penalty. Based on facility with 15,000,000-bushel annual throughput capacity. No retrofit penalty. Estimated at 20 percent of vacuum system costs. Costs should be similar to truck unloading emissions control. Costs included in above figures for transferring/conveying. Usage except during topping-off periods in the ship hold or for loading of tween-deckers or tankers. Costs included for 6825 ft2 (195 ft x 35 ft typical barge size) tarpaulin at $0.29 per ft?. Steel-rein- forced polyethylene, 4 mils thick. Typical choke-feed system includes "dead box" or bullet-type loading spouts. 2-14 ------- Every facility is unique, of course, and many variables control the contribution of sources at a specific facility. Nevertheless, this may serve as a general guideline. Estimates of relative contributions of the particulate emission sources at the two grain facilities, which were derived from the Puerto Rico Emission Inventory System (EIS) computer printout and in-house calculations, are item- ized in Tables 2-7 and 2-8. These tables show that the two grain facilities have approximately the same total TSP emissions. The emission factor used to calculate uncontrolled TSP emissions is based on the amount of grain handled. A percent reduction estimated for the control equipment in use is then applied to the uncontrolled emissions in order to obtain actual emissions from the facility. Molinos, although it processes 3 times more grain than Central Soya, implemented an improved control strategy in 1983 that resulted in an estimated 80 percent reduction in emissions. Thus, even though it is a larger facility, Molinos emits approximately the same amount of TSP as Central Soya, which is still in the process of implementing an improved control strategy. The geographic locations of these sources were shown in Figure 2-4. The sources in Tables 2-7 and 2-8 do not correspond exactly with those in Table 2-5, as the latter indicates the types of operations that generate emissions and their relative impacts. Taking this lack of correspondence into account, however, one sees that the inventory of Central Soya and Molinos sources matches fairly well with the distribution of emissions at a typical facility. Inadequacy of the data precluded outlining a point-by-point strategy for reducing emissions from the grain milling/handling operations in the Catano Air Basin. The inadequacy stems from the fact that 1) the compliance plans for Molinos and Central Soya are not reflected in the EIS, and 2) adherence 2-15 ------- TABLE 2-7. RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF THE IDENTIFIED SOURCES AT CENTRAL SOYA TO THE TOTAL ESTIMATED 1982 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS Source identification Bulk receiving filters Barge unloading area Bulk elevators Grain/product handling area Dockside fugitive emissions Source Code 7 8 10 A5 A7a Total Particulate contribution, tons/yr TSP 1.0 1.0 113.0 14.4 7.2 136.6 Percent of total 1 1 83 10 5 100 PM10 1.0 0.9 76.8 9.8 4.9 93.4 Percent of total 1 1 82 11 5 100 TABLE 2-8. RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF THE IDENTIFIED SOURCES AT MOLINOS DE PUERTO RICO TO THE TOTAL ESTIMATED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS Source identification Grain elevator area Corn mills Wheat cleaning/grinding area Flour mills Flour mills Grain/product handling area Grain/product handling area Dockside fugitive emissions Dockside fugitive emissions Source Code 02 03 04 08 10 A4a A4b A4c A7b Total Particulate contribution, tons/yr TSP 11.0 25.0 3.0 21.6 14.4 30.6 15.3 15.3 0.2 136.4 Percent of total 8 18 2 16 11 22 11 11 <1 100 PM10 9.2 17.0 2.7 18.4 12.3 20.8 10.4 10.4 0.1 101.3 Percent of total 9 17 3 18 12 21 10 10 0 100 2-16 ------- to the stated compliance plans should have reduced emissions to levels that would be in attainment of the NAAQS at the Amelia station. Compliance plans and dates are in effect for Molinos (baghouse control of material handling operations by December 1984) and Central Soya (pellet system controlled by August 1984; bulk receiving controlled by February 1985; unloading facilities controlled by April 1985), but measured TSP data show higher levels in 1984 than in 1983, and in fact the second-highest 24-hour value occurred at the Amelia station in December 1984, when Molinos was to be in compliance with its plan. Readings at the other stations in the Catano Basin were less than 65 vig/m3 on the same day the Amelia station recorded its second-highest value of 181 yg/m3. This represents a very local phenomenon. To overcome the inadequacies of the existing documentation, a point-by- point description of each source should be generated. A questionnaire is provided in Appendix A for this purpose. Regardless of the accuracy of existing information, conservative esti- mates indicate total emissions from both the Molinos and Central Soya opera- tion can be reduced by more than 90 percent over 1982 levels as a result of the proposed measures contained in the compliance plans. Emphasis should be on the large contributing fugitive sources. Reducing reentrained particulate matter from roadways is possible, but can prove to be a difficult task be- cause few reliable options are available and the available options may in- terfere with normal traffic flows. Moreover, the application of such control measures by purchasing street cleaning equipment and hiring operating person- nel may not assure satisfactory emission reductions. Because only a minimal emission reduction would be necessary in the Catano Air Basin, however, at- tention can be focused on those specific areas prone to high levels of debris accumulation (e.g., areas where carryout from industrial sites occurs from 2-17 ------- the truck tires). Reentrainment may be reduced by washing truck tires before the trucks leave industrial sites and enter city streets and highways. Roads that are chronically dirty could be cleaned on a regular schedule, whereas others could be serviced less frequently. Inspection of vehicles leaving industrial areas (particularly the grain facilities) to be sure all loads are properly covered and loose residual material in or on the vehicle is removed would prevent spillage on the highways or wind dispersion of this material on the highways. Table 2-9 summarizes dust-control measures that may be applied to paved roads, their control efficiencies, and their costs. TABLE 2-9. SUMMARY OF TECHNIQUES, THEIR EFFICIENCIES, AND THEIR COSTS FOR CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST FROM PAVED SURFACESa Control method Sweeping Broom Vacuum Flushing with water Estimated efficiency, % 70 75 80 Capital cost, 1980 dollars 5, 000-15, 000b 27,000 13,000C Annual cost, 1980 dollars 22,000/year 25,000/year 22,000/year a Adapted from Orleman et al., 1983 (Reference 2). The lower value is for a trailer-type sweeper; the upper value is for a self-propelled unit. c Value represents cost of 3000 gal-capacity unit, excluding truck chassis. 2.3 PREDICTED IMPROVEMENTS IN AIR QUALITY If it is assumed that the compliance plans of Molinos and Central Soya are completed and implemented, it is possible to predict the net improvements in particulate concentrations at the maximum receptor. Given emission im- provements at the maximum receptor, benefits will also be observed at the 2-18 ------- Amelia station and other nearby receptors. The estimated ambient concentra- tions expected when all sources at the two grain facilities are controlled are given in Tables 2-10 (annual) and 2-11 (24-hour). Because some sources had controls prior to 1982, an 80 percent reduction is applied in some cases rather than a 90 percent reduction. As shown in Table 2-10, the existing compliance plans are expected to result in particulate concentrations at the maximum receptor that are in compliance with the annual standard for both TSP and PM,Q. Attainment of the annual standards will require strict adherence to the compliance plans, with adequate provisions for ensuring proper operation and maintenance (O&M) of the equipment. Based on the 1984 air quality data, it is suspected that improper O&M or failure to meet compliance schedules has lead to a violation of the NAAQS in 1984. This suspicion is further verified when one examines the 1984 particulate data for the Basin. At the Amelia station, only two 3 values are observed to exceed the 24-hour standard of 150 yg/m . Without these two values, not only would the station be in compliance with the 24- 3 hour standard (the next highest concentration was 144 yg/m ), but the station would also be in compliance with the annual standard (the calculated geomet- o ric mean would have been 74.4 yg/m ). The two high readings occurred on days when no data were available for the other two stations, or when the values at the other two stations were very low. Thus, a local problem is suspected. Baseline modeling indicated that the excursions were due to particulate con- tributions from Molinos and Central Soya. As shown in Table 2-11, the exist- ing compliance plans are expected to significantly reduce the contribution of these two sources to the 24-hour particulate concentrations. The reduction 2-19 ------- TABLE 2-10. PREDICTED BASED ON FULL IMPLEMENTATION ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF TSP AND PM10 OF CONTROLS PROPOSED IN THE COMPLIANCE PLANS Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and milling Flour mills Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Percent control appl ied 90 90 90 80 80 0 90 90 0 0 0 Total TSP concentration, yg/m3 Arithmetic mean 0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 13.6 1.2 3.1 3.9 5.2 0.2 9.0 23.6 8.8 21.6 77.1 Geometric mean 0.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 12.6 1.1 2.9 3.6 4.8 0.2 8.3 21.8 8.2 20.0 71.4 nfcji —. -» PM10 con- centration, yg/m3 0.4 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 9.1 0.8 2.1 2.6 3.5 0.1 6.2 15.3 8.0 10.7 49.7 Relative to 1982 situation. 2-20 ------- TABLE 2-11. PREDICTED 24-HOUR CONCENTRATIONS OF TSP AND PMin BASED ON FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTROLS PROPOSED IN THE COMPLIANCE PLANS Source Central Soya Bulk receiving filters/ elevators Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Molinos de Puerto Rico Grain elevators Corn/wheat cleaning and milling Flour mills Grain/product handling Dockside fugitives Roadways Areawide sources Other sources Background Percent control applied3 90 90 90 80 80 0 90 90 0 0 0 Total TSP concentrations,0 ug/m3 10.1 9.0 0.6 0.5 26.1 2.4 6.0 7.4 10.0 0.3 0.6 9.1 4.6 20.0 70.5 PM10 concentrations,0 yg/m3 6.9 6.1 0.4 0.4 17.7 1.6 4.0 5.1 6.8 0.2 0.4 5.9 3.7 10.7 45.3 3 Relative to 1982 situation. Based on predicted second-highest 24-hour concentrations. 2-21 ------- achieved will result in ambient concentrations well below the 24-hour stan- dard. The predicted 24-hour concentrations shown in Table 2-11 are greater than the predicted annual concentrations shown in Table 2-10 because the 24- hour predictions are based on the day when most of the ambient concentrations will be the result of emissions from grain facilities. After emissions are reduced at the facilities, the second-highest 24-hour concentrations recorded at these receptors will no longer be the result of emissions from the two grain facilities. Also, following the reduction of emissions at the grain facilities, no other sources are predicted to cause an exceedance of the annual or 24-hour NAAQS for TSP at the Amelia Station, the maximum receptor location, or any other location in the Catano Air Basin. Recent inspections by EQB have shown that Central Soya is not meeting its compliance schedule. EQB is also investigating Molinos to determine whether marine tower controls are in place and operating. The importance of proper O&M is therefore demonstrated here, when only one excursion of high ambient concentrations determines whether the Amelia station is greater than or less than levels prescribed by the NAAQS. 2-22 ------- SECTION 3 SUGGESTED CONTROL MEASURES FOR APPLICATION TO SOURCES IN THE CATANO AIR BASIN Based on the analysis given in Section 2, it seems reasonable to focus on Central Soya, Molinos, and to a lesser extent, on the area roadways for TSP and PM,Q emissions reduction. It is possible to comply with short-term TSP and PM,Q regulations with minimal controls to the grain facilities. Some additional control of roadway reentrainment or a slightly higher reduction in grain facility emissions will provide greater air quality benefits. To assure compliance with the annual TSP and PM,R standards, however, may require more extensive but relatively moderate control measures and an awareness of proper operating and maintenance procedures. An estimated reduction of 90 percent in fugitive emissions from the grain facilities would assure a proposed PM,g compliance with no controls applied to roadways. A control level of 80 percent on the grain facilities and 10 percent control of the roadways would achieve the same goal. Either of these options can be recommended. The latter is addressed in the section on costs that follows. 3-1 ------- SECTION 4 COSTS OF PROPOSED CONTROL MEASURES If a 90 percent reduction in the 1982 emissions at Central Soya and Molinos were achieved on grain terminal receiving, 90 percent on transferring and conveying, and 90 percent on shipping, the overall reduction would bring particulate concentrations below the NAAQS. Tradeoffs could be made in other areas to achieve the same result; however, this scenario is assumed for cost estimating purposes. Based on the costs shown in Table 2-6, the total capi- tal and annual costs for an idealized grain facility are estimated to be: Cost (1980 dollars) Source Capital Annual Receiving 39,200 11,200 Transferring/conveying 260,600 68,700 Shipping 26.800* 5,900* 326,600 85,800 Escalated to 1984 dollars, capital costs become $412,100, and annual costs become $108,300. The throughput capacity of the Central Soya facility is estimated to be approximately 5.2 million bushels per year, and the capacity of Molinos is estimated to be 17.2 million bushels per year. The costs in Table 2-6 for grain receiving are based on a 40-million-bushels-per-year facility, and those for transfer/conveying and shipping are based on a 15-million-bushels- per-year facility. A direct proportioning of the receiving costs to the * Estimate represents one-half enclosure/fabric filter option presented in Table 2-6. 4-1 ------- sizes of these two facilities was not done because the economies of scale must be taken into consideration; instead, a more conservative scaling factor is used. The costs for a 90 percent reduction in particulate emissions at Central Soya and Molinos are given in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. TABLE 4-1. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT COSTS OF REDUCING CENTRAL SOYA FACILITY EMISSIONS Sources Receiving Transferring/conveying Shipping Cost (1980 dollars) Capital 10,200 135,500 13,900 $159,600° Annual 3,000 35,700 3,100 $39,100° When escalated to 1984 dollars, capital cost becomes $201,400, and annual costs become $49,300. TABLE 4-2. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT COSTS OF REDUCING MOLINOS DE PUERTO RICO FACILITY EMISSIONS Cost (1980 dollars) Sources Receiving Transf erri ng/convey i ng Shipping Capital 25,300 298,800 30,700 $354,800° Annual 7,200 78,800 6,800 $92,800° a When escalated to 1984 dollars, capital cost becomes $447,800, and annual costs become $117,100. Because some emissions control devices were in place in 1982 and others have since been installed, these costs do not reflect actual incremental costs to the facilities in question. The costs are based on the application of particulate control devices to uncontrolled sources, and therefore the costs to the sources in question will probably be less. 4-2 ------- The cost to obtain an air quality benefit is based on an assumed 10 percent reduction in roadway fugitive emissions. Because the reduction is small, a least-cost option is assumed, which should be more than adequate. Cleanup of the roadways may be performed by a trailer-type sweeper attached to an existing truck. The costs for the purchase and operation of this equipment are presented in Table 4-3. TABLE 4-3. ROADWAY EMISSIONS CONTROL EQUIPMENT COSTS Source Trailer type broom sweeper Cost (1980 dollars) Capital 5,000 Annual 22,000 Escalated to 1984 dollars, capital costs become $6,300, and annual costs become $27,800. 4-3 ------- SECTION 5 CONCLUSIONS The Catano Air Basin is very close to being in compliance with ambient TSP concentrations at existing sampling stations. In fact, the elimination of two values would show compliance with the NAAQS. Computer modeling re- sults, however, have suggested that a compliance problem could exist if a sampling station were installed in a specified location (designated "maximum receptor") adjacent to the Central Soya and Molinos facilities. The Catano Air Basin can be brought into compliance with a proposed PM 3 3 standard of 55 yg/m (annual mean) and 150 yg/m (24-hour limitation not to 10 be exceeded more than twice per year) by the application of conventional particulate control equipment on the major point sources at the Central Soya and Molinos De Puerto Rico grain facilities. Additional assurances can be obtained by implementing a moderate street-cleaning plan focusing on the areas surrounding the grain-handling facilities. In 1984 dollars, the costs of compliance measures could be in the neighborhood of $656,000 (capital) and $194,000 (annual). EQB has conducted recent inspections showing that Central Soya is not meeting its compliance schedule. By the end of August 1985, all plant emis- sion points must be in compliance, including corrections cited in the compli- ance plan and deficiencies detected during the recent EQB investigations. Also, Central Soya must submit biweekly progress reports for verification and review. 5-1 ------- EQB plans to reinspect the Molinos facility to determine whether the marine tower controls are installed and operating. These compliance plans, if properly followed, will reduce ambient concentrations to below levels specified by the NAAQS. The 1984 observations indicate, however, that even after controls are in place, attainment can only be ensured by conscientious adherence to the operating and maintenance requirements of the installed equipment. 5-2 ------- REFERENCES 1. 2. PEI Associates, Inc. Estimation of the Probable Impact of Sources in the Catano Air Basin on PM1Q. EPA-902/6-84-001, November 1984. Orlemann, J. A., et al. Fugitive Dust Control Technology (Pollution Technology Review, ISSN 0090-516X; No. 96). Noyes Data Corporation. 1983. R-l ------- APPENDIX A EXAMPLE OF EMISSIONS INVENTORY QUESTIONNAIRE A-l ------- GRAIN AND FEED INDUSTRY EMISSIONS INVENTORY QUESTIONNAIRE I. Plant Identification naire: 1. Parent Corporation Name: Mailing Address: Street City State Zip 2. Plant or Facility Name:_ Mailing Address: Street City State Zip 3. Person to contact regarding information supplied in question- Name: Title: Telephone Number: 4. What is the normal operating schedule for this plant? (a) Hr/Day (b) Day/Week (c) Days/Year 5. Would you be willing, on a voluntary basis, to permit access by a contractor of EPA to your plant to conduct stack gas source measure- ments? Yes No A-2 ------- INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ON GRAIN HANDLING, PROCESSING INFORMATION, AND WASTE DISPOSAL A. General Answer all questions for which you have knowledge or information. If certain questions are not applicable to your facility or you have no informa- tion, pleas-e indicate Not Available or Not Applicable. B. Specific Answer questions on grain receiving only if soybeans are the only whole grain handled. Do not answer if soybeans are received from an elevator on the premises which operates as a subterminal or terminal facility handling other grains. 1. Grain Receiving Pattern: Indicate the average number of bushels of soybeans received at plant during each calendar month. Base answer on last 5 years of plant operation. 2. Grain Receiving: List various methods by which grain shipments arrive and approximate amounts received by each method annually. Base answer on last 5 years of plant operation. 3. Grain Unloading: List various methods used for grain unloading and approximate amount unloaded by each method annually. Base answer on last 5 years of plant operation. 4. Grain Drying: List amount of grain dried. Base answer on last 5 years of plant operation. 5. Provide as much detailed information as is available on grain dry- ing equipment. 6. Grain Cleaning: List amount of grain cleaned and method of cleaning (e.g., scalping, aeration, grading shaker screens, etc.). Base answer on last 5 years of plant operation. 7. Refuse Disposal: If you practice on-site refuse disposal, list re- fuse types and disposal procedures. 8-15. Process Operations: Indicate the general nature of process opera- tions at this plant by answering Questions 8-15. A-3 ------- PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE A~3 BEFORE COMPLETING THIS SECTION II. Grain Handling, Processing Information, and Waste Disposal 1. Grain Receiving Pattern: Month Soybeans, Bu/Month January February March April May June July August September October November December 2. Grain Receiving: (a) Hopper Bottom Railroad Car (b) Boxcar (c) Truck (d) Barge (e) Other (Describe) A-4 Bu/Year ------- 3. Grain Unloading: (a) Gravity, Unrestricted to Grate (b) Gravity, Choked-Feed to Grate (c) Mechanical Conveyor (d) Pneumatic Conveyor (e) Dumping Platform (Boxcar) (f) Power Shovel (Boxcar) 4. Grain Drying: 5. Grain Drying Equipment: Manufacturer Type, Model Bu/Hr Bu/Year Amount Dried (bu/year) Date Installed Rated Capacity for Soybeans Water Evaporated Lb/Hr Average Operating Rate Bu/Hr Fuel Type Rated Capacity Btu/Hr Sulfur Content of Fuel Annual Fuel Consumption_ A-5 ------- 6. Grain Cleaning: Amount Cleaned Method of Cleaning (bu/year) 7. Refuse Disposal: (a) Kinds and Disposal Method Open Burning Incineration* Other (Ib/year) (Ib/year) (Ib/year) (1) Paper, Cardboard (2) Plastic (3) Wooden Crates, Lumber (4) Collected Grain Dust (5) Other (b) Incinerator Type (1) Single Chamber (2) Double Chamber (c) Auxiliary Fuel Consumed in Incineration (1) Type of Fuel (2) Amount of Fuel Used Gal/Year, Ft3/Year (3) Sulfur Content of Fuel * With gas or oil burner (burning in an enclosure without a burner is classed as "Open Burning"). A-6 ------- 8. (a) What is rated capacity of plant? Bu/Day (b) How many bu/year are processed? (5-year average) 9. What type of extraction process is used at this plant? (a) Expeller or rotary screw pressing (b) Batch type hydraulic pressing (c) Solvent extraction 10. If plant utilizes solvent extraction, what type of solvent is used for extraction? 11. How much solvent is used annually? Gal/Year 12. What type of solvent extractor is used? 13. Are primary solvent recovery condensers vented to a supplementary vent recovery system? If so, indicate type: (a) Refrigerated vent cooler (b) Mineral oil absorber (c) Activated carbon absorber 14. Are meal finishing operations conducted at this plant? Yes No If answer is Yes, what is annual production of soybean meal? Tons/Year 15. Are soyflour or soygrits or soyprotein concentrate (i.e., concen- trate or isolated) produced at this plant? Yes No If answer is Yes, what are annual production rates of flour^ grits and protein? (a) Flour Tons/Year; (b) Soygrits Tons/Year; (c) Protein Tons/Year A-7 ------- INSTRUCTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS ON AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT I. Extent of Control (Page A-9) Indicate extent to which plant is equipped with dust control systems. II. Air Pollution Control Systems (-Page A-ll) Part I - Control Systems and Dust Load A. General Describe current air pollution control systems by providing information requested on pages A-l 1 and A-12. B. Specific 1. Indicate grain handling or processing equipment served by each dust control system (e.g., System I - Truck and rail unloading pits, System II - Meal dryer). Attach additional sheets as needed. 2. Indicate type of control device, manufacturer, and model number on each dust control system. If multiple control devices are utilized (e.g., cyclone and fabric filter) on a single source, indicate this fact. Also, provide as much information as is available on the cost of air pollution con- trol equipment in your plant. 3. Provide any information you may have on dust loads into and out of control systems. Part II - Effluent Properties and Control System Exhaust Configuration 4. Provide any information you may have on the designated chemical and physical properties of the gas stream associated with each control system. 5. Provide as much information as possible regarding points where dust is exhausted to the atmosphere. A-8 ------- PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE A-8 , BEFORE COMPLETING THIS SECTION III. Air Pollution Control Equipment Information A. Extent of Control 1. Indicate if the following specific dust sources are ducted to an air pollution control device. Type of Air Pollution Control Equipment to Which Ducted To Source is Ducted Control Device Fabric Settling Dust Source Yes No Cyclone Filter Chamber Other I. Grain Receiving 1. Grain Unloading a. Truck b. Boxcar c. Hopper Car d. Barge 2. Grain Cleaning 3. Grain Dryer 4. Grain Handling a. Conveyor Trans- fer Points b. Garner and Scale c. Elevator Leg Vents d. Tripper II. Bean Preparation 1. Cracking Mill 2. Hull Grinder 3. Cracked Bean Conditioner 4. Flaking Mill A-9 ------- III. Air Pollution Control Equipment Information (Concluded) Type of Air Pollution Control Equipment to Which Ducted To Source is Ducted Control Device Fabric Settling Dust Source Yes No_ Cyclone Filter Chamber Other III. Meal Finishing 1. Dryer 2. Cooler 3. Hammer Mill 4. Screening 5. Bagging Operation 6. Bulk Loading 7. Other (Describe) IV. Flour and Protein Production 1. Flour Mill 2. Protein Concentrate Dryer A-10 ------- B. Air Pollution Control Systems Part I - Control Systems and Dust Load List each air emission control system concerned with grain handling and soybean processing System Name A. Grain Handling or Processing Equipment Served by This System B. Control Equipment or System a. Primary Control Equipment (1) Type (Cyclone, Fabric Filter, Wet Scrubber) (2) Manufacturer (3) Model No. (4) Capital Cost (5) Year of Purchase (6) Annual Utilities Cost (7) Annual Maintenance Cost (8) Installation Cost b. Secondary Control Equipment (1) Type (As Above) (2) Manufacturer (3) Model No. (4) Capital Cost (5) Year of Purchase (6) Annual Utilities Cost (7) Annual Maintenance Cost (8) Installation Cost ------- B. Air Pollution Control Systems (Concluded) System Name C. Dust Load Data a. Measured (1) Dust Load to Control Equipment Lb/Hr (2) Dust Load from Control Equ i pmen t Lb / Hr b. Estimated (1) Dust Load to Control Equipment Lb / Hr (2) Dust Load From Control •f Equipment Lb/Hr IX) ------- Part II - Effluent Properties and Control System Exhaust Configuration System Name A. Effluent Properties a. Type of Dust Entering Control Equipment b. CFM Discharged to Atmosphere c. Particle Size of Dust (Microns), if Known d. Temperature of Gas Stream J^ e. Humidity of Gas 00 Stream B. Control System Exhaust Configuration a. Exhaust Duct Diameter b. Height of Exhaust Above Grade c. Velocity of Exit Gas ------- IV. Source Test Information 1. Have the emissions from any of the control equipment in your plant been measured by a source test? Yes No If answer is Yes, please attach copy of test results if available. Also indicate methods used to conduct source test. 2. Do you have any data, obtained by actual measurements at plant, on the chemical and physical properties (i.e., particle size, composition, etc.) of dust emitted from specific equipment in your plant (e.g., grain dryer, meal dryer, cracking roll, flaking roll, etc.)? Yes No If answer is Yes, please attach copy of data, and if known, indicate method used to sample dust and method used to measure specific properties. A-14 ------- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET 1. Report No. EPA 902/6-84-003 3. Recipient's Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle Control Measures to Assure Attainment of the TSP and PM1Q NAAQS in the Catano Air Basin 5. Report Date March 1985 6. 7. Author(s) Carvitti, J., and M. Melia 8. Performing Organization Rept. N0i 3655-3 9. Performing Organization Name and Address PEI Associates, Inc-. 11499 Chester Road Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 10. Picject/Task/Work Unit No. W.A. No. 3 11. Contract/Grant No. 68-02-3890 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Air and Waste Management Division 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1005 New York, New York 10278 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final 14. 15. Supplementary Notes EPA Project Officer: Dr. Vinh Cam 16. Abstracts This is the fourth of a series of reports studying particulate air quality near San Juan, Puerto Rico. This report makes use of information presented in the previous three reports to study particulate control strategies that can be used to ensure attainment of the TSP and PM10 standards in the area. The report emphasizes that grain handling facilities are major contributors to TSP levels and somewhat adaptable to control. The benefits and costs of various control options are presented. Benefits achievable through street cleaning programs are also studied. 17. Key.Words and Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors Air pollution Particles 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms San Juan, Puerto Rico Air Quality Dispersion Model ing PM10 Emission Inventory 17e. COSATI Field/Group 18. Availability Statement Unlimited 19. Security Class (This Report) UNCLASSIFIED 20. Security Class (This UNCLASSIFIED 21. No. of Pages 39 22. Price FORM NTis-38 (REV. 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO. THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED USCOMM-DC 8285-P74 ------- |