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

-------