BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FOR THE NON-METALLIC
MINERALS INDUSTRY
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
-------
PEDCo - ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -45246
513 177 1-433O
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
FOR THE NON-METALLIC
MINERALS INDUSTRY
Prepared by
PEDCo-Environmental Specalists, Inc.
Suite 13, Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-02-1321
Task No. 44
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 31, 1976
BRANCH OFFICES
Suite 110, Crown Center Suite 107 B Professional Village
Kansas City, Mo 64108 Chapel Hill, N C 27514
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Approval does not signify that the contents neces-
sarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor
does mention of trade names of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Mr. James Eddinger was the Project Officer for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency on this study. He was
assisted by Mr. Gilbert Wood, also of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Messrs. John Zoller and Fred Hall, were
the principal authors of this report; Richard Gerstle served
as project manager for PEDCo.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
1.0 THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY 1-1
2.0 MINERALS PROCESSING, EQUIPMENT, AND EMISSIONS 2-1
2.1 Process Description 2-1
2.2 Mining Operations and Crushing Plant 2-40
Process Facilities
2.3 Equipment Life 2-69
2.4 Mining and Crushing Plant Emissions 2-73
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 3-1
3.1 Control of Mining and Quarrying Operations 3-1
3.2 Control of Plant Process Operations 3-9
3.3 Control of Fugitive Dust Sources 3-30
3.4 Factors Affecting the Performance of 3-36
Control Systems
4.0 STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 4-1
REGULATIONS
5.0 ESTIMATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD 5-1
EMISSION REDUCTIONS
5.1 New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) 5-1
Analysis Method
5.2 Input Variables for NSPS Emission Impact 5-5
Determination
5.3 NSPS Emission Reductions 5-12
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued).
6.0 MODIFICATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION
6.1 General
6.2 Applicability of 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15
to the Non-metallic Mineral Industry
Page
6-1
6-1
6-6
A-l
APPENDIX A INDUSTRY CAPACITY GROWTH RATES, PC
APPENDIX B MODEL PLANT PROCESS WEIGHT DETERMINATION B-l
APPENDIX C CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATE REQUIREMENTS C-l
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX F
CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS UNDER D-l
STATE REGULATIONS
INDUSTRY CAPACITY MODIFICATIONS
LIST OF CONTACTS
E-l
F-l
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
2-1 General Non-Metallic Minerals Processing 2-4
2-2 Index of Equipment Symbols Used in Process 2-5
Diagrams
2-3 Barite Processing 2-8
2-4 Borate Processing 2-10
2-5 Bentonite and Fuller's Earth Processing 2-13
2-6 Kaolin Processing 2-14
2-7 Ball Clay Processing 2-16
2-8 Common Clay Processing 2-17
2-9 Shale Processing 2-20
2-10 Diatomite Processing 2-22
2-11 Feldspar Processing 2-24
2-12 Gypsum Processing 2-26
2-13 Perlite Processing 2-29
2-14 Slag Processing 2-31
2-15 Vermiculite Processing 2-33
2-16 Pumice Processing 2-34
2-17 Sand and Gravel Processing 2-37
2-18 Talc Processing 2-39
2-19 Double-Toggle Jaw Crusher 2-46
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued).
No. Page
2-20 Single Toggle Jaw Crusher 2-46
2-21 The Pivoted Spindle Gyratory 2-49
2-22 Cone Crusher 2-49
2-23 Double-Roll Crusher 2-52
2-24 Single-Roll Crusher 2-52
2-25 Hanunermill 2-55
2-26 Impactor 2-55
2-27 Ball Mill 2-57
2-28 Fluid-Energy Mill 2-57
2-29 Vibrating Grizzly 2-61
2-30 Vibrating Screen ' 2-61
2-31 Conveyor Belt Transfer Point 2-66
2-32 Bucket Elevator Types 2-66
2-33 Schematic of a Spiral Washer 2-70
2-34 Particle Size Distribution Curves 2-82
3-1 Wet Dust Suppression System 3-14
3-2 Dust Suppression Application at Crusher 3-16
Discharge
3-3 Hood Configuration for Conveyor Transfer, 3-19
Less than 0.91 Meter Fall
3-4 Hood Configuration for a Chute to Belt or - 3-20
Conveyor Transfer, Greater than 0.91 Meters
Fall
3-5 Exhaust Configuration at Bin or Hopper 3-21
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (continued).
No. Page
3-6 Hood Configuration for Vibrating Screen 3-22
3-7 Hood Configuration Used to Control a Cone 3-25
Crusher
3-8 Bag Filling Vent System 3-27
3-9 Combination Dust Control Systems 3-29
6-1 Method of Determining Whether Changes to 6-2
Existing Facility Constitute a Modification
or Reconstruction Under 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15
Vlll
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1-1 Industry Production, Capacity and Growth 1-2
Projections
1-2 Production of Clay by Type 1-4
1-3 Production of Slag by Type 1-4
2-1 Relative Crushing Mechanism Utilized by Various 2-44
Crushers and Grinders
2-2 Approximate Capacities of Jaw Crushers 2-48
2-3 Approximate Capacities of Gyratory Crushers 2-28
2-4 Performance Data for Cone Crushers 2-51
2-5 Estimated Life of Equipment 2-71
2-6 Emission Sources from Mineral Processing 2-74
Operations
2-7 Mineral Processing Emission Factors, kg/Metric 2-75
Ton
2-8 Particulate Emission Factors for Stone Crushing 2-76
Processes
3-1 Particulate Emission Sources and Control 3-2
Options
4-1 Industrial Process Particulate Emissions 4-2
Regulations by State
4-2 Maximum Allowable Emissions from Industrial 4-4
Processes for Existing Sources in Los Angeles,
District of Columbia, and Maryland, and all
Sources in Vermont
4-3 Maximum Allowable Emissions from Industrial 4-5
Processes for New Sources in Los Angeles
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLF.S (continued) .
No. Page
4-4 Maximum Allowable Emission Rate from Industrial 4-6
Processes in New Jersey
4-5 Maximum Allowable Emissions from Pumice, Mica, 4-7
and Perlite Processes in New Mexico
4-6 Maximum Allowable Emissions from Industrial 4-8
Processes in West Virginia
5-1 Typical Non-Metallic Mineral Processing 5-7
Facilities
5-2 Calculation of NSPS Impact 1975-1985, English 5-13
Units
5-3 NSPS Impact on Emissions, 1975-1985, Metric 5-14
Units
6-1 Annual Asset Guideline Repair Allowance 6-5
Percentages for Specified Facilities per
IRS Publication 534 1975 Edition
-------
1.0 THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY
This study presents background information pertinent to
the development of atmospheric emission limits under Federal
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for processes
handling the following minerals:
Barite
Borate
Clay
Diatomite
Feldspar
Gypsum
Lightweight aggregates (including: expanded perlite,
slag, and vermiculite)
Pumice
Sand and gravel
Talc and soapstone
This background information only applies to particulate
emissions from the mining, sizing, crushing, and handling
operations. Handling includes conveying, bagging and load-
ing. The process steps involving heating will not be
addressed in this report, although it is recognized that
these may be significant sources of particulate and at times
gaseous emissions.
1.1 INDUSTRY BACKGROUND
Industry characteristics for each mineral are presented
in Table 1-1. The data for production, capacity, value, and
1-1
-------
Table 1-1. INDUSTRY PRODUCTION, CAPACITY AND
GROWTH PROJECTIONS
"Ifin.il
tar Ho'1
Eorate
Clay
Olatomlte
Feldspar
Gypsum
Perme"
Slag
VemtculHe
Pjmlce,
f.-iid tc. and
volcanic
cinder
Sand and
gravel
Tjlc, so.ip-
stonp. and
pjrophylllto
W5'1
v,l luc,
i, Illlun S
17.4
153
401
41 9
12
45 4
7.0
79 3l
14
10 8
1.300
11 l"
)9Mb
l>nj'1\icliofl,
umn HT
(Hum tons)
1 .003°
(1,106)
1,075
(1.185)
55.417
(61,087)
602
(661)
694k
(765)
10.900
(12,000)
503
(555)
35,145
(38.742)
309
(341)
3.572e
(3.937)
888,000
(979.000)
1,150
(1,268)
19/4b
UI(M< l*y.
HIM) Mf
(liK/l ton',)
1.21!,'J
(1.339)
l,17]h
(1.291)
.
907
(1,000)
8621
(950)
13,600
(15.000)
630
(694)
45.644
(50,314)
386
(425)
'
1,116,000
(1,230.000)
1,161
(1.280)
(".ip.icltv
utilization
r
0 83
0.92
081
0 66
0.81
0 80
0.8"
0.77U
0.80
08°
0 80
0.99
n70J
pi O'lin 1 Ion,
KX'O Mr
(10IID Ion-,)
90R
(1.0'jC)
998
(1,100)
46,?00
(50.900)
514
(567)
621 "
(685)
8.890
(9,800)
448
(494)
.
308
(340)
3,735
(4.117)
781,000
(861,000)
998
(1.100)
1975
ci(.» lly,
1(100 IT
(H)i,() tons)
1,159
(1.2/8)
1,174
(1.294)
69,300
(76,400)
907
(1.000)
862
(950)
13,600
(15,000)
630
(M4)
45,644
(50,314)
386
(425)
4.668
(5,146)
1,140.000
(1,260. 000)
1.161
(1.280)
1Ci'Sb
in w!ti< limi,
ICO IT
(HOT lorr.)
777"
(R57)
1 ,R68h
(2,059)
61, 500 J
Uo.noo)
907
(1,000)
8551
(942)
13,600
(15.000)
7261
(800)
522
(575)
5.5301
(6.100)
1,260.000
(1.390,(X)0)
1,540
(1.7CO)
19P5
r )
'New Mexico 427 (471)
Hawaii 349 (385)
0 033c
Idaho 98 (103)
Alasl-a 10,ffle (117,752]
California 95,427
(105,191)
Pichioan 54/55 [60.027]
Illinois 38, 741 (42.705!
'Texas 38,524 (42,466) '
0 033c
Ohio 37.515 (41.353)
Vermont 228q f?51)
lexas 210 (232)
California 162 (179)
i north Caiollna 87 (96)
Ceoroia 34 (33)
Year
75
75
74
75
75
75
75
74
75
74
74
73
f" • retrlc tens
Mm-1 ,il Indirtry Sui vcy Pro! tmlmity Annu.il Repot t for the appi opi Ijte mineral (References 1 through 1?) except as noted.
1 Pi c-1 nits don the Minciil f,n.U and Problens, 1975 CdUfon, (Kcfnenccs 13 through 18) except OS noted.
Per.jfos cnm.ound qrcmth Lite
Ton pt |i,n 'un woic .iivi.lid by 0 56 per Refeteive 19.
'"Vn i ints froTi 197-J R'ln.iu ot Mines ftuerols Yrartook.
r-io' ctlon ^ state confident ul Assumrd to be rqually disti (buted.
3 -Icfcronre 19
"Tir' of boron content" from Reference 13, w^ie divided by 0 17 to obtain An estimate of borate minerals.
Rc*f i rni.0 21.
^cfcirncc 22
Rrfrrcnuo 23.
' Rofni ni c 24
'Jnl*% of ciiiJe pf*rlfte '.old or used.
In htf similar to vi*n»1rul ftc capacity utilization.
0 Ivor,).
t -.,
f 'II knonn i.i|nuty utilization
.ivatl.ihle for 19/s jn/j vilur obl.ilnrd from Rrfcrome 25.
is lion 1973 Bui ojii of nines Hlncr.ils Ve.ubook, RcfciciKO 29,
H c 10
io 31
,will»l>lp for 1971 1<>71 valur oblalnotl fixim Rrferrnco 11
tri|ki( I ty ul tt 1/Atfon f.xrtnr lot the him ,ml ilrol Irvtu^tty.
1-2
-------
leading producing states were obtained from the U.S. Bureau
of Mines. In addition, capacity utilizations and industry
growth rates are shown on the table. These data are dis-
cussed in the following sections.
Because of the many different types of clays and slags,
it was difficult to combine all types under the general
mineral heading. The different types of each mineral and
the different processing steps are explained in more detail
in Chapter 2.0. The production by type for clay and slag
are given in Tables 1-2 and 1-3 respectively.
1.1.1 Capacity Utilization
The capacity utilization factor, K, is the ratio of the
production of a given mineral industry to that industry's
capacity in the same year. It must be understood that
"capacity" as applied to these minerals is a vague term.
There is no standard method used by the Bureau of Mines for
determining the capacity of an industry. Instead, the
capacity is determined from the best available data.
In calculating the K values shown in Table 1-1, 1974
data were used because only sand and gravel capacity figures
were available for 1975. Except as explained below, the
1974 production and capacity data were obtained from pre-
prints of the 1975 Edition of Mineral Facts and Problems, or
from telephone conversations with U.S. Bureau of Mines
personnel.
1-3
-------
Table 1-2. PRODUCTION OF CLAY BY TYPE
Clay type
Kaolin
Ball clay
Fire clay
Bentonite
Fuller's earth
Common clay and shale
Total
1974 production
1000 metric tons-3
5,800
741
3,757
3,003
1,111
41,005
55,417
1000 tonsj
6,393
817
4,141
3,310
1,225
45,201
61,087
Table 1-3. PRODUCTION OF SLAG BY TYPE
Slag type
Iron blast-furnace
Air-cooled screened
Air-cooled unscreened
Granulated
Expanded
Steel
Total
1000 metric tons11
23,185
607
1,888
1,427
8,039
35,146
1000 tons11
25,557
669
2,081
1,573
8,862
38,742
1-4
-------
Capacity data were not available for clay, possibly
because of the many different types of clay. For perlite
and pumice, the data are confidential and can not be re-
leased by the Bureau of Mines. Statistics on slag are kept
mainly by the National Slag Association; a representative
there stated that the capacity for slag can not be defined.
Several assumptions were made in estimating K for these
minerals. It was assumed that a capacity utilization for
9 f\
slag is approximately equivalent to that for steel. Data
for 1975 from the Bureau of Mines were used to calculate K
27 28
for steel. ' The K for perlite was assumed approximately
equal to vermiculite, another lightweight aggregate, as
their end uses are similar. To estimate K for pumice, an
average was taken of K's for all other minerals that could
be calculated directly without estimation. For clay a value
21
of 0.8 was obtained from the Survey of Current Business.
In the sand and gravel industry, where both capacity
and production were known for 1974 and 1975, the K cal-
culated for 1974 was used as the more representative value
since production in 1975 was unusually low. Since sand and
gravel capacity was reported for 1975, that value was used
in the projections. The K values calculated using 1974 data
were compared with K values calculated with data from
1-5
-------
earlier years, and the 1974 data were found to be repre-
sentative.
1.1.2 Industry Capacity Growth Rate
For most cases, 1985 production projections were avail-
able along with 1974 capacity and production figures.
Growth rates for capacity were estimated several ways
depending upon whether production increased or decreased
between 1974 and 1975, the general production trend of the
particular mineral, and the availability of data for that
mineral. Production projections were used, rather than
capacity projections, as they were more readily available.
Production of most minerals covered by this report
declined from 1974 to 1975, while the long-range trend was
upward. With some exceptions, 1974 reported capacity of
each industry was assumed to be the same in 1975. This was
because a decline in production for 1975 probably did not
cause a significant decrease in capacity. The ratio of 1974
production to 1974 capacity was used to calculate the normal
fractional utilization rate of existing capacity, K. This
value and the projected 1985 production were used to esti-
mate 1985 capacity. The compound growth rate of industry
capacity, P , was then calculated between the 1975 and 1985
O
capacities.
Barite ore is notably different in that it has pro-
jected a decrease in production to 1985. The 1975 capacity
1-6
-------
for this industry was calculated by assuming that the
production drop from 1974 to 1975 would cause decreased
capacity due to the long-term downward trend. The 1985
projected capacity and the 1975 capacity were then used to
calculate a decreasing P .
The other exceptions were perlite, pumice, clay, and
slag. Pumice production increased from 1974 to 1975, fol-
lowing projected trends. An estimated capacity utilization
factor, K, was used to approximate 1975 and 1985 capacities
from production estimates in both years. The growth rate
was then calculated using the 1975 and 1985 capacities.
Capacity data were also unavailable for perlite and
clay. Production of these minerals declined from 1974 to
1975. Estimated capacity utilization constants were then
used to compute 1974 and 1985 capacity data and, as before,
capacities for 1974 were assumed equal to those for 1975.
Capacity growth rates were then calculated.
Slag was projected by using the growth rate for the
steel industry since slag production closely parallels steel
2 fi
production. The capacity utilization constant, K, for
steel was used to calculate 1974 capacity for slag produc-
tion. A decrease in steel output for 1975 probably caused
slag output but not capacity, to decline, so 1974 capacity
was assumed to equal 1975 capacity. The compounded his-
1-7
-------
torical growth rate for steel was then used to project 1975
27
capacity to 1985.
For the sand and gravel industry, production was
projected to 1985 and the K value used to determine capacity
in that year. Using that value and the known capacity for
1975, the growth rate was calculated.
Calculations for the industry capacity growth rates,
P , are presented in Appendix A and summarized in Table 1-1.
c
1-8
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 1.0
1. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Barite in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
2. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Boron in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
3. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Clays in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
4. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Diatomite in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
5. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Feldspar and Related Min-
erals in 1975." U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1975.
6. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Gypsum in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
7. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Pumice and Volcanic Cinder
in 1975." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, D.C., 1975.
8. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Sand and Gravel in 1975."
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C., 1975.
9. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Talc, Soapstone, and Pyro-
phyllite in 1975." U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1975.
10. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Vermiculite in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
1-9
-------
11. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Slag Iron and Steel in
1974." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, D.C., 1975.
12. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Vermiculite in 1975." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Wash-
ington, D.C., 1975.
13. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Boron." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
14. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Diatomite." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
15. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Gypsum." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
16. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Sand and Gravel." U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
17. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Talc, Soapstone, and Pyrophyllite." U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C.,
1976.
18. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Vermiculite." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
19. Personal communication: Mr. Stan Haines, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, April 27, 1976.
20. Commodity Data Summaries, 1976. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
21. Survey of Current Business. U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration,
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Volume 54, No. 7, July
1974.
22. Predicasts, 1975 Annual Cumulative Edition, Predicasts,
Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 1976.
1-10
-------
23. Personal communication: Mr. Mike Potter, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, April 28, 1976, unpublished.
24. Personal communication: correspondence from A. C.
Meisinger, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
25. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Talc, Soapstone, and Pyro-
phylite in 1974." U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C., 1975.
26. Personal communication: General Howard Eggleston,
National Slag Association, Alexandria, Virginia, and
Darrel Powell, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, May 14,
1976.
27. Personal communication: Mr. Horace T. Reno, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, May 14, 1976.
28. Mineral Industry Surveys, "Iron and Steel in 1975."
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C., 1975.
29. Minerals Yearbook Vol. 1, 1973 Edition. Washington,
D.C., U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1975. 1383 p.
30. Personal communication: Mr. Avery Reed, Bureau of
Mines, Washington D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., June 2, 1976.
31. Personal communication: Mr. Richard Singleton, Bureau
of Mines, Washington, D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., June 3, 1976.
1-11
-------
2.0 MINERALS PROCESSING, EQUIPMENT, AND EMISSIONS
2.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Non-metallic mineral processing involves extraction,
dumping, conveying, primary screening and crushing, sec-
ondary screening and crushing, milling, and classifying.
Some minerals processing also includes washing, drying, or
calcining operations. The operations performed are de-
pendent on the rock type and the desired product.
The mining techniques used for the extraction of non-
metallic minerals vary with the type of mineral, the nature
of the deposit, and the location of the deposit. Both
underground and above ground mining are used. Some minerals
require blasting while others can be removed by bulldozer or
dredging operations. The predominant mining methods used
for each mineral are briefly discussed in the following
sections.
The non-metallic minerals are normally delivered to the
processing plant by truck and dumped into a coarse ore bin
which typically feeds the minerals as required to screens or
a vibrating grizzly type feeder. These scalp or separate
the larger boulders that must be crushed from the finer
rocks that do not require primary crushing, thus minimizing
2-1
-------
the load of the primary crusher. Jaw or gyratory crushers
are usually used for initial reduction, although impact
crushers are gaining favor for crushing low abrasion rock
types (like talc) and where high reduction ratios are de-
sired. The crusher product (normally 7.6 to 30 cm. [3 to 12
inches] in size) and the grizzly throughs are discharged
onto a belt conveyor and normally transported either to
secondary screens and crusher or to a surge pile or silo for
temporary storage.
The secondary screens generally separate the process
flow into either two or three fractions (oversize, under-
size, and throughs) prior to the secondary crusher. The
oversize is discharged to the secondary crusher for further
reduction. The undersize, which requires no further reduc-
tion at this stage, normally by-passes the secondary crush-
er, and thus, reduces its crushing load. A third fraction,
the throughs, is separated when processing some minerals.
Throughs contain unwanted fines and screenings and are
usually removed from the process flow and stockpiled as
crusher-run material. For secondary crushing, gyratory or
cone crushers are most commonly used, although impact
crushers are used at some installations.
The product from the secondary crushing stage, usually
2.5 cm. (one inch) or less in size, is normally transported
2-2
-------
to a fine ore bin which supplies the tertiary crushing or
milling stage. Cone crushers or rod mills, ball mills, and
hammermills, are normally used. The product from the mill
is usually conveyed to some type of classifier such as a dry
vibrating screen system or a wet rake or spiral system. The
oversize is returned to the mill for further size reduction.
At this point, some mineral end products of the desired
grade are chuted directly to finished product bins or are
stockpiled in open areas by conveyors or trucks. Other
minerals such as talc or barite may require air classifica-
tion to get the required mesh size, and treatment by flota-
tion to get the necessary chemical purity and color.
Most non-metallic minerals require other processing
depending on the rock type and consumer requirements. Some
minerals, especially certain lightweight aggregates, are
washed and dryed, sintered, or treated prior to primary
crushing. Others may be dried following secondary crushing
or milling. Sand and gravel and most lightweight aggregates
normally do not need milling and are screened and shipped to
the consumer after secondary crushing. Figure 2-1 shows a
simplified diagram of the typical process steps required for
the non-metallic minerals studied in this report. Figure
2-2 is an index of the equipment symbols used in the process
diagrams.
2-3
-------
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
SIZE
tLASSIFIER
STOCKPILE,
OR BIN^ //
STOCKPILE
OR BIN
14
Figure 2-1. General non-metallic minerals processing
2-4
-------
JAW CRUSHER GYRATORY CRUSHER CONE CRUSHER
ROD MILL BALL MILL ROLL MILL
HAMMERMILL ROTARY DRYER
ROTARY KILN
Figure 2-2. Index of equipment symbols
used in process diagrams.
2-5
-------
Particulates are the major atmospheric pollutant of
concern in the non-metallic mineral industry. Drilling,
blasting, loading, and hauling are all potential sources of
particulate emissions during mining. The main points of
emissions from processing operations are the screens, crush-
ers and grinders, transfer points, and bagging operations.
Fugitive emissions from conveyors, storage piles, and load-
ing/ unloading operations may also be significant. Dryers,
calciners, and sinter plants are also potential significant
sources of emissions at plants which include these pro-
cesses. However, the scope of this study does not include
emissions from these combustion sources.
2.1.1 Barite
Barite which can be competitively mined occurs in
veins, in bedded cavity fillings, and mainly in residual de-
posits. These deposits are generally mined by open pit
methods and transported to the mill by trucks. Some barite
deposits require blasting but most can be recovered with
power shovels.
Barite is typically separated from gangue before
crushing by forcing the ore through rotary breakers with
high pressure water sprays. This is followed by a log
washer and jig to remove the remaining gangue. After
washing and dewatering the barite is wet ground with a ball
2-6
-------
mill, screened and sized. Some ore may require dry crushing
with jaw and cone crushers prior to grinding and classi-
fying. After classification, it is concentrated by flota-
tion, dried, and bagged for consumer use. Figure 2-3 shows
a schematic for barite processing.
The useful forms of barite are crude lumps, aggregates,
and powders. Generally, 98 percent of the product should
pass through 0.074 mm (200 mesh) and 90-95 percent should
pass through 0.044 mm (325 mesh) screen. Eighty percent is
2
used as an ingredient in drilling mud. Other uses are the
manufacture of barium chemicals and glass, and as a pigment,
filler, and extender. Tailings pond wastes from barite
processing are also used for road and dam construction.
2.1.2 Borates
Borax (Na2B.O -10 H20) and colemanite (Ca2B ().,,• 5 H-O)
ores, the principal boron containing minerals, are found as
sediments in Pliocene lake beds. These deposits contain
boron in the oxide form along with major amounts of other
salts of sodium, potassium and magnesium. Open pit methods
are used to mine dry deposits of these minerals and the ore
is transported to the mill by trucks. Blasting is necessary
to mine the ore. Borates are also recovered from the brine
of Searles Lake, California by either the evaporation or the
carbonation process. Each of these wet methods recover
2-7
-------
HATER
SPRAY~~1
CRUDE
ORE
CLASSIFIER
HASTE-
*» WASTE
CONSUMER
BAGGING
MACHINE
Figure 2-3. Barite processing,
2-8
-------
borax by crystallization and have little particulate emis-
sion potential. The crystallized product is then dried and
perhaps ground to produce the desired product.
Borax ores mined at one U.S. plant are crushed to -20
cm (-8 inches) in a hammermill located at the pit and con-
2
veyed to a stockpile. The ore is then run through a second-
ary impact crusher (hammermill), screened to -2.5 cm (-1
inch), and stored until used at a refinery. During refining,
the crushed ore is purified by dissolving the ore followed
by crystallization. The resultant crystals are then dried
and ground to produce marketable borax decahydrate and borax
pentahydrate. At another plant which mines colemanite, the
ore is rough screened at the mine and trucked to the process-
2
ing plant. At the plant, the ore is screened to remove
-0.25 mm (-60 mesh) fines, crushed to -2.5 cm (-1 inch) and
screened again. The sized mineral is then calcined, cleaned,
and bagged or loaded for shipment. This method yields a
product of about 0.044 mm (325 mesh). Figure 2-4 shows
typical processing steps for borates.
Borate products are used in glass, ceramics, soaps,
metal alloys, and agricultural chemicals. Wastes from
mineral processing are dumped in a tailings pond.
2.1.3 Clay
Various minerals are classified as clays. Clays can be
generally defined as a natural earthy, fine grained material
2-9
-------
FEEDER
CRUSHED
ORE
BIN
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
STORAGE
SILOS
Figure 2-4. Borate processing.
2-10
-------
composed mostly of hydrous silicates. Many of these min-
erals contain significant quantities of iron, alkalies, and
2
alkaline earths. Some of the more useful clays are:
0 ball clay
0 bentonite
fire clay
0 fuller's earth
0 kaolin
0 shale
common clay
o
o
They are found in deposits resulting from hydrothermal
alteration, weathering and sedimentation. Most clays are
mined by open pit or strip methods. However, a few mines
are underground. Trucks haul the mined clay to a clay mill.
2.1.3.1 Bentonite and Fuller's Earth - Bentonite and ful-
ler's earth are mined and processed similarly. Strip mining
methods are generally employed with the minerals being
removed by endloaders or dragline. However, some mines may
require blasting to remove overburden. Only one bentonite
mine in the U.S. uses underground mining.
Processing involves the removal of water or other
volatile matter followed by grinding. Generally, raw clay
is first passed through either a clay slicer, a roll crusher,
or a hammermill to break up the large chunks. After screen-
ing, the clay is then dried in a rotary dryer to remove
excess moisture. Some plants have rods in the rotary dryers
to do most of the grinding but most plants grind the dried
2-11
-------
clay with roll mills or hammermills before additional screen-
ing. Bentonite and fuller's earth are mostly ground to 90
percent finer than 0.074 mm (200 mesh). Granular grades of
these clays are also produced to a smaller extent. Benton-
ite and fuller's earth can be transported in bulk, bagged,
or packed in drums for use by consumers. Figure 2-5 shows a
simplified flow diagram for processing bentonite and fuller's
earth.
2.1.3.2 Kaolin - Kaolin is processed by wet and dry meth-
ods. Dry clay is mined in open pits using equipment such as
shovels and pan scrapers. Blasting is not required. The
dry clay is trucked to the processing plant where it can be
crushed, dried in rotary dryers, milled by hammermill and
screened. Air floating is often the final step to remove
most of the grit. The dry process yields a lower quality
product than the wet process and the product is generally
used to produce refractory products. Kaolin processing is
shown in Figure 2-6.
For the wet process, kaolin is mined by draglines or
pan scrapers in an open pit. The mined kaolin is hauled to
the mill by trucks or is slurried at the mine and pumped to
the plant. At the plant, the kaolin is wet classified, and
shipped as a slurry or it is sometimes leached or bleached,
then dewatered and dried in drum, apron, or spray type
2-12
-------
TO STORAGE or
SILOS
FOR BULK LOADING
OR BAGGING
Figure 2-5. Bentonite and fuller's earth processing.
2-13
-------
I
M
*»
1
PRODUCT
AIR
FLOAT
/
1
STORAGE
1
GRIT
TO TAILINGS
PILE
BAGGINGl
BULK
'LOADING
Figure 2-6. Kaolin processing.
-------
dryers. Kaolin that is dried can be used as it exists or it
can be pulverized (normally with a hammermill) to obtain a
fine powder. The product is typically shipped in bulk
loads.
2.1.3.3 Ball Clay - Ball clay is strip mined without blast-
ing and trucked to the processing plant. The clay is pro-
cessed by drying with a rotary dryer and milling with a
hammermill. A few plants air-float part of their product.
Most ball clay is bagged but some is shipped as a slurry.
Figure 2-7 shows ball clay processing.
2.1.3.4 Fire Clay - Fire clay is mined both underground and
by open-pit methods. A large amount of the higher quality
clays are found very deep where the overlying rocks cannot
be profitably stripped. Blasting is sometimes necessary.
Fire clay is normally used close to the mine where it is dry
crushed, screened, formed into bricks, and fired. Since
many of the fire clays lack plasticity, kaolin or a more
plastic fire clay is added to aid in forming and bonding the
brick. Some of the harder fire clays may require primary
and secondary crushing and milling before forming into
bricks. The processing of fire clay is similar to that of
common clay shown in Figure 2-8.
2.1.3.5 Common Clay and Shale - Common clay and shale are
typically mined by open-pit methods. However, some shale
2-15
-------
Figure 2-7. Ball clay processing,
2-16
-------
WEATHERING STOCKPILE
ROTARY \NX
DRYER GRIZZLY\ X
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
STORAGE SILOS
CLASSIFIER
OR
SCREENS
Figure 2-8. Common clay processing,
2-17
-------
deposits are mined underground. Blasting is sometimes
required to loosen hard deposits. Mining pits are normally
close to processing plants because of the weight of the
material and the low profit margin.
Crude clay may contain 35-40 percent water and it is
dried in a drum dryer before primary crushing in jaw,
gyratory, or cone crushers. Because crushing or grinding
releases water trapped in the larger clay particles, a
drying step follows each crushing or grinding operation.
After primary and secondary crushing and screening, the clay
is pulverized in a roll mill, hammermill, or attrition mill
and again dried. From the dryer, the pulverized clay is
sized by a rake or bowl type classifier and stored until' it
is used. Waste products are disposed of in tailings ponds.
Figure 2-8 shows typical clay processing steps.
Shale is processed similarly to common clay. However,
it does not have the high water content of many clays, so it
does not require drying. Shale that is used as a light-
weight aggregate is dried in large sheds or open stockpiles,
then pyroprocessed in either rotary kilns or sintering
machines. This step gives the shale the necessary struc-
tural properties to be used as a lightweight aggregate.
Shale is crushed to the desired sizes using a jaw crusher
followed by a gyratory or cone crusher. After crushing, the
2-18
-------
product is screened into different grades with sizes ranging
down from -1.9 cm (-3/4 inch). Shale processing is shown in
Figure 2-9.
Common clays and shale are used for many applications
such as construction materials, fillers, and coatings.
2.1.4 Diatomite
Diatomite is also known as diatomaceous earth or
kieselguhr. It is found in deposits mainly as beds in sili-
ceous marine or freshwater sediments. In the United States,
recovery is done exclusively by quarrying or open pit min-
ing. Diatomite is comparatively soft so blasting is not
normally required and it can be removed with bulldozers.
Crude diatomite can contain over 40 percent moisture and can
2
sometimes be pumped to the processing facility.
Diatomite is useful because of its unique shape and
structure. Therefore, diatomite is milled with greater care
than most minerals. Primary crushing to aggregate size is
normally done by hammermill. The mineral is then pneu-
matically conveyed and sized using hot gases to dry the ore.
Abrasive action between particles during conveying breaks-up
the larger sizes. The ore is separated into different sizes
as they are carried through a series of fans, cyclones,
2
separators and a baghouse. Some diatomite is air classi-
fied and used directly as "natural" milled products while
2-19
-------
SINTERING MACHINE
SHALE TO BE
USED AS A LIGHTWEIGHT
AGGREGATE IS
SENT TO ->
PYROPROCESSING
STO.RAGE
PILE
RECLAIM
TUNNEL
GRIZZLYV^ PRIMARY
\Xi ^snrpiKHpp
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
S10CKPILE
STOCKPILE #3
n
Figure 2-9. Shale processing.
2-20
-------
the rest may be calcined in large rotary kilns with or
without flux (usually soda ash) followed by more milling and
classifying. Calcining fuses the diatomite powder so that
further adjustment of particle size can be done, and also
removes the combined water that is part of the diatomite
structure. A diatomite process flow diagram is shown in
Figure 2-10.
Diatomite is used as various sizes of powders. Ap-
plications include filter mediums and aids, insulation,
absorbents, insecticide carrier, and abrasives.
2.1.5 Feldspar
Feldspar is found mostly in pegmatite formations as
large crystals or in ore intermingled with quartz. Both
forms are relatively free of iron-bearing impurities. Most
feldspar ores are open pit mined and trucked to the
mineral processing plant. Blasting is necessary to remove
the ore, and at some mines additional breakup of the ore is
done by drop-balling.
The mined minerals must be reduced to 0.841 or 0.55 mm
(20 or 30 mesh) when the feldspar is concentrated by flota-
2
tion. This reduction is done by conventional primary and
secondary crushing and screening followed by milling with a
ball or rod mill. The feldspar is then separated from
slime, micaceous minerals, iron-bearing minerals, and quartz
2-21
-------
GASES.(AIR)
BLOWER
COARSE MATERIAL TO BINS
WASTE
PACKAGING
Figure 2-10. Diatomite processing.
2-22
-------
by flotation. After dewatering, the feldspar concentrate is
dried in rotary dryers followed by extra grinding and mag-
netic separation at some plants and then sent to storage.
3
Two U.S. facilities use only dry processing for Feldspar.
The operations are similar to those for wet processing
except that flotation is not used and air classification
separates the material. Feldspar processing is shown in
Figure 2-11. Rail and truck transportation is used to get
the product to the consumer. Process wastes are disposed of
in settling ponds and the dewatered waste is sent to tail-
ings piles. Most feldspar is ground to 0.841 to 0.074 mm
(20 to 200 mesh) for consumption. Feldspar is mainly used
in glass and ceramics manufacturing but approximately 5
percent is used as a filler or an abrasive.
2.1.6 Gypsum
Gypsum (CaSO.-2 H-O) is found in deposits frequently in
association with the anhydrous form of calcium sulfate
(CaSO.). It is typically imbedded with shale or limestone.
Both open pit mines and room-and-pillar underground mines
are used to recover this mineral. Drilling and blasting is
necessary to recover gypsum. Quality control is an impor-
tant factor in mining, since for economic reasons little or
no beneficiation is performed during processing. Trucks and
rail cars are used to haul the mineral to the mill.
2-23
-------
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
AIR
CLASSIFI-
CATION
o
o
o
o
o
FLOTATION MACHINE
-•-WASTE
Figure 2-11. Feldspar processing.
2-24
-------
Primary crushing of gypsum is often done at the mine.
Gyratory crushers are used primarily but jaw or impact
crushers are common. Secondary screening to avoid over-
crushing and to recover Portland cement rock is followed by
size reduction to -4.76 mm (-4 mesh) using cone-type crush-
ers or hammermills. Drying the mineral to remove free
moisture is sometimes done in the primary or secondary
crushing stages and is almost always done before the final
size reduction step. Rotary dryers are used most often and
rock temperatures are kept below 49°C (120°F) to avoid
2
dissociation of the combined water. Drying is needed
because when wet, -4.76 mm (-4 mesh) material from the
secondary crusher is not free-flowing and is more difficult
to handle. Fine grinding is accomplished with air swept
roller mill's. After milling, some gypsum is washed or wet
screened when a white color is needed, but most of the
mineral is sent directly to vertical kilns or kettles to be
calcined (some processes calcine the gypsum before milling).
Calcining removes most of the water of hydration to obtain
plaster of paris (CaSO.'l/2 H~0) which accounts for over 90
2
percent of all calcium sulfate end products. Gypsum pro-
cessing is schematically shown in Figure 2-12.
Calcined gypsum is used in the manufacture of a variety
of plasters for construction or industrial applications.
2-25
-------
MET
SCREEN
OR
HASHER
SRizzm
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
ROTARY DRYER
CONVEYOR
STORAGE BIN
SCREEN
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
FINE ORE
BIN
c^zr,
ROTARY DRYER
*• GYPSUM PRODUCT
Figure 2-12. Gypsum processing
2-26
-------
2
About 30 percent of gypsum is not calcined. This product
is used as a portland cement retarder, as a mineral filler,
and for other industrial applications. The remainder (70
percent) of the gypsum is calcined and used in plasters and
wallboard and block for construction use.
2.1.7 Lightweight Aggregates
Lightweight aggregates include several minerals or rock
materials that are used as fillers in concrete, as plaster
aggregate, as insulating fill, and for other structural,
filler or insulating purposes. Some occur naturally (pum-
ice) while others are manufactured from natural minerals
(shale, vermiculite, or perlite), or are by-products from
other manufacturing processes (granulated slag). Expanded
shale was discussed in Section 2.1.3.5 and pumice will be
discussed in Section 2.1.8, while the processing steps for
perlite, vermiculite, and slag are described in this sec-
tion. Naturally occurring aggregates are typically mined by
open pit methods and trucked to the processing plant. Slag
is a by-product from iron and steel manufacturing.
2.1.7.1 Perlite - Perlite as received from the mine is
reduced by a jaw crusher to -1.6 cm (-5/8 in.) size. If
necessary, drying is done to reduce the water content from
two to five percent to less than one percent. The dried
perlite is screened and further crushed by a ball or rod
2-27
-------
mill to the specified size for expansion furnaces typically
located away from the mill and close to the perlite consumer.
Care must be taken during the crushing steps to minimize
excessively fine particles which have limited use and are
generally considered waste. Air classification separates
the -0.149 mm (-100 mesh) material (considered waste) from
the useful sizes (-4.76 to +0.149 mm [-4 to +100 mesh] for
2
concrete aggregate). The perlite product is stored until
trucked to perlite expansion furnaces while the waste
(approximately 25 percent of the mill feed) is discarded by
landfill. Perlite processing is shown in Figure 2-13.
2.1.7.2 Slag - Air-cooled, granulated, and expanded blast
furnace slags are used as construction aggregates. Each
differs in the way it is treated after the slag is removed
from the blast furnace. To produce air-cooled slag, molten
slag is poured into a pit and allowed to cool. Granulated
slag results when hot slag is water quenched to quickly cool
the slag before crystallization takes place. Expanded slag
has a lightweight cellular structure that is produced by
treating molten blast furnace slag with water, steam, and/or
compressed air. When cool enough to handle, both air-cooled
and expanded slag are typically removed from their pit by
power equipment and then crushed and recrushed by jaw crush-
ers to produce a useable product. Screens are used to
2-28
-------
CREENS
OR
CLASSIFIER
SCREENS I
OR I
[CLASSIFIER
STORAGE
I BIN
STORAGE
BIN)
EXPANDING
PLANT
Figure 2-13. Perlite processing,
2-29
-------
classify the crushed slag. Granulated slag is not normally
processed by crushing and screening, but is used in the
sizes produced by quenching. Slag processing is shown in
Figure 2-14.
Granulated and expanded slags are processed hot result-
ing in an odor because of H2S emissions. As with other
mineral processing facilities, crushing and screening gen-
erate particulate emissions. When the hot slag is water
quenched, a visible steam plume is generated.
2.1.7.3 Vermiculite - Vermiculite mining and processing
techniques depend on the properties of the vermiculite
deposits. One major vermiculite operation in the U.S. does
not use any crushing since the mineral is found in a dis-
seminated form. However, blasting is sometimes needed at
the open-pit mine to loosen the ore. This Montana location
separates the +1.6 cm (+5/8 inch) waste rock by screening
before sending the remaining ore to blending beds. Another
mine in South Carolina wet processes the mined ore to remove
clay slimes and break up the lumps from the mine prior to
milling. This plant must then grind the rock to the required
sizes (less than 6.73 mm [3 mesh]). All operations require
that the vermiculite be concentrated using jig or spiral
units. The concentrate can then be wet screened into dif-
ferent size classifications and dried in a dryer, or dried
2-30
-------
GRANULATED **
SLAG
PRODUCT
WATER, STEAM, OR
COMPRESSED AIR
EXPANDED
.SLAG
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
STOCKPILE #2
Figure 2-1.4. Slag processing.
2-31
-------
and then screened. The unexpended vermiculite is then
stored until it is shipped to expansion furnaces at various
locations across the U.S. This practice minimizes trans-
portation expenses. Vermiculite processing is shown in
Figure 2-15.
2.1.8 Pumice
Pumice can be classified as a lightweight aggregate but
it is also used as an abrasive. It is a product of volcanic
eruptions and is found in lava deposits in a highly cel-
lular, glass state. The mineral is mined by the open pit
method and is sometimes air dried before hauling it to a
crushing and screening plant.
The pumice as received at the mill is processed by
primary crushing and secondary screening and crushing.
Sometimes only one crushing step is needed. If the material
is to be used as road surfacing, the pumice can be removed
at this point. However, pumice used as an abrasive must be
ground further with a rod or ball mill. After grinding, the
pumice is air classified and bagged according to size. A
schematic of pumice processing is shown in Figure 2-16.
Most pumice is used in road construction and main-
tenance, as railroad ballast, and as a concrete admixture or
aggregate. Less than ten percent is used as an abrasive.
It is used in block form, in lumps, and as a powder.
2-32
-------
CRUDE
ORE
FLUID BED OR
ROTARY DRYER
L
r
AMP CM
0 0
TRATION
TO EXPANDING PLANT
NEAR CONSUMER
STORAGE
BIN
rmr DI AM
STORAGE
BIN
T -4 '
STORAGE
BIN
Figure 2-15. Vermiculite processing.
2-33
-------
CRUDE
ORE
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
BAGGED
COARSE
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
BAGGING
BAGGED
MEDIUM
COARSE
Figure 2-16. Pumice processing
2-34
-------
2.1.9 Sand and Gravel
Sand and gravel are found in many locations both above
and below water. Sand is defined as rock or mineral par-
ticles retained on a 0.074 mm (200 mesh) sieve opening but
2
passing through a 4.76 mm opening (4 mesh) sieve. Gravel
is defined as those particles larger than 4.76 mm (4 mesh)
2
up to a 8.9 cm (3.5 inch) maximum size. Locations of sand
and gravel deposits must be close to where they are used
because of the low-cost and high-volume nature of the sand
and gravel industry. The nature of the deposit (wet or dry)
dictates the above-ground mining method that is used. Power
shovels, draglines, dredges, and bulldozers have been used.
Blasting is not required. Processing equipment is located
near the mine so conveyors and trucks are used to get the
sand and gravel to the process plant.
Many sand and gravel plants use both dry and wet pro-
cessing. Dry processing is used when the sand and gravel
are used as road base, bituminous aggregate (blacktop), or
other purposes that require a sized pit run material. The
dry process is essentially identical to the wet process
discussed below except that the washing steps are not needed
to produce a useable product.
The wet process is used to produce the washed and
screened sand and gravel necessary for use as a concrete •
2-35
-------
aggregate. The pit run sand and gravel are normally washed
in a log washer or rotary scrubber and screened with vibra-
tory screens. This step removes unwanted soil. The larger
gravel (7.6 cm [+3 in.]) is crushed in a jaw crusher.
Secondary screening and crushing with gyratory or roll
crushers are used to reduce the gravel to -2.5 cm and -1.9
2
cm (-1 in. and -3/4 inch). If the sand does not have
sufficient fines, some gravel may be further reduced to
about 6.4 mm to 9.5 mm (1/4 inch to 3/8 inch) size by ball
2
or rod mills to supplement the sand. The sand portion of
the mineral is usually washed and classified in spiral
classifiers or hydraulic settling tank spiral classifier
combinations. If necessary, soft particles such as shale
and light particles can be separated by a sink float tech-
nique or a jig. Waste products go to landfills or have
other low priority uses. Sand and gravel processing is
shown schematically in Figure 2-17.
The sized sand and gravel is blended as required for
use in building construction and concrete and bituminous
paving. The size range goes from 3.2 mm to 38 mm (1/8 inch
to 1.5 inches). Small amounts of sand are used in the
specialized glass industry. Sand is also used for foundry
molds, abrasives, and as a filter medium.
.2.1.10 Talc and Soapstone
Talc and soapstone are found in deposits as foliated,
2-36
-------
HYDRAULICVVWVV
SAND CLASSIFIER
Figure 2-17. Sand and gravel processing.
2-37
-------
granular, or fibrous masses. The minerals are mined by both
open-pit and underground methods. The quality of the mining
step is important in that talc or soapstone is often sold on
the basis of a white color and the absence of abrasives.
The extent of drilling and blasting is dependent upon the
type of talc ore being mined. The crude ore is transported
to the mill by truck or rail.
The crude ore is crushed by a jaw crusher followed by a
gyratory crusher. If necessary, the talc or soapstone from
the gyratory crusher is dried by a rotary dryer prior to
being milled by a ball mill or roller mill. Ceramic balls
are normally used in ball mills to preserve the natural
color of the minerals. Air classification is used to sepa-
rate the different particle sizes. Newer plants use ad-
ditional wet processing, such as froth flotation, to better
purify the minerals, or use sophisticated grinding tech-
niques to meet market demands (some products require sizes
less than one micron). Figure 2-18 is a schematic diagram
for talc processing.
Useful sizes range from less than one micron to 98
percent less than 0.074 mm (200 mesh). Some crude crushed
talc (-0.074 mm to +0.420 mm[-200 mesh to +35 mesh]) may be
used as a roofing filler or surfacing material. These
minerals are used in the manufacture of ceramics, paint,
asphalt roof coatings and insecticides.
2-38
-------
FEEDER
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
We I
TALC
ROTARY
DRYER
THIS PROCESS ADDED
AT NEWER FACILITIES
CONCENTRATION
. TABLES
AIR SEPARATO
TO
STORAGE
0
0
o
o
o
FLOTATION
MACHINE
HASTE-
VERTICAL
MILL
THICKENER
FILTER
ROTARY
DRYER
VERTICAL
MILL
CONVEYOR
PRODUCT GRADES
Figure 2-18. Talc processing,
2-39
-------
2.2 MINING OPERATIONS AND CRUSHING PLANT PROCESS FACILITIES
Mining operations are drilling, blasting, secondary
breakage, loading, and hauling of the broken minerals to the
processing plant. Principal processing plant facilities
include crushers, screens, and material handling and trans-
fer equipment.
2.2.1 Mining
Most minerals require drilling and blasting to loosen
portions of the deposit so that it can be removed. Some
mineral deposits are capable of being removed by power
equipment such as front-end loaders, drag lines, and dredges,
Drilling, blasting, and loading are the major emission-
causing operations.
Drilling consists of boring holes into the bedded
minerals to provide blastholes which are subsequently
charged with explosives and detonated. Tractor or truck
mounted pneumatic rotary or percussion drills are commonly
used. In rotary drilling, the drill rotates a drill rod to
which a bit, usually a roller cone type, is attached. The
borehole is produced by the abrasive cutting action of the
rotating bit. Percussion drills use compressed air to drive
a piston which transmits a series of impacts or hammer blows
either through the drill rod or, as in "down-the-hole"
drilling, directly to the bit. The borehole is formed by
2-40
-------
the chipping and pulverizing action of the chisel-like bit
impacting against the mineral surface. Normally, rotary
drills are used in softer mineral deposits and percussion
drills used for harder deposits. The number, depth, spacing
and diameter of blastholes depend on the characterisitics of
the explosive used, the type of burden or mineral to be
fragmented, and characteristics of the deposit such as the
location of dips, joints, and seams.
Blasting is used to displace minerals from their de-
posits and to fragment them into sizes which require a
minimum of secondary breakage and which can be readily
handled by loading and hauling equipment. Once engineered,
blasting practices simply consist of loading blastholes with
a predetermined amount of explosives and stemming, and then
detonating them. Explosives most commonly used in the
industry include dynamites and blasting agents. Dynamites
are highly explosive and come in a variety of types and
grades, many of which contain nitroglycerine. Blasting
agents are insensitive chemical mixtures of fuels and oxi-
dizers. Mixtures of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO)
are the most common types and consist of coated or uncoated
fertilizer grade ammonium nitrate pellets, prills or gran-
ules mixed with four to six percent fuel oil.
2-41
-------
The frequency of blasting may range from several shots
per day to one per week depending on the plant capacity and
the size of individual shots. The effectiveness of a shot
is dependent on the characteristics of the explosive and the
mineral.
If secondary breakage is required, drop-ball cranes are
usually employed. Normally, a pear-shaped or spherical
drop-ball, weighing several tons, is suspended by a crane
and dropped on the oversize mineral as many times as needed
to break it. Jaw crushers are sometimes at the mine site
for primary crushing.
The excavation and loading of broken minerals is nor-
mally performed by shovels and front-end loaders. At most
mines, large 18 to 68 metric ton (20 to 75 ton) capacity
"off-the-road" haulage vehicles are used to transport min-
erals from the mine to the primary crusher over unpaved haul
roads. This vehicle traffic on unpaved roads is responsible
for a large portion of the fugitive dust generated by mining
operations.
2.2.2 Crushers and Grinders
Crushers are used for coarse reduction of large quan-
tities of minerals from run-of-mine sizes down to approxi-
mately 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) in size. This reduction may re-
quire one or more crushing steps. Grinders normally accept
2-42
-------
feed from a crusher and are typically used to reduce this
feed from about 6.4 mm (1/4 inch) down to 0.841 to 0.074 mm
(20 to 200 mesh). Ultrafine grinders such as fluid energy
mills can reduce minerals down to 1 to 50 microns. Some
minerals such as kaolin or vermiculite may not require
crushing and can be reduced to the desired size by grinding
only.
During crushing and grinding, sufficient mechanical
stress is applied to a rock particle to strain it beyond its
breaking point. The mechanical stress may be applied by
either compression or impact. These differ in the duration
of time needed to apply the breaking force. In impacting,
the breaking force is applied almost instantaneously, while
in compression, the rock particle is slowly squeezed and
forced to fracture. All crushers and grinders use both
compression and impaction to various degrees. Table 2-1
ranks crushers and grinders according to the predominant
mechanism used (from top to bottom, compression to impac-
tion) . Crushers generally use compression to a greater
extent then grinders. In all cases, there is some reduction
by attrition, the rubbing of stone on stone or metal sur-
faces.
2-43
-------
Table 2-1. RELATIVE CRUSHING MECHANISM UTILIZED BY VARIOUS
CRUSHERS AND GRINDERS
Compression
Impact
Double roll crusher
Jaw crusher
Gyratory crusher
Single roll crusher
Rod mill (low speed)
Ball mill
Rod mill (high speed)
Hammermill (low speed)
Impact breaker
Hammermill (high speed)
The size of the product from compression type crushers
is controlled by the crusher setting at the bottom of the
crushing chamber, that is the space between the crushing
surfaces compressing the stone particle. This results in a
relatively closely graded product with a small proportion of
fines. Crushers and grinders that reduce by impact, on the
other hand, produce a wide range of sizes and a high propor-
tion of fines.
Since the size reduction achievable by one machine is
limited, reduction in stages is required. As noted pre-
viously, the various stages include primary, secondary and
2-44
-------
tertiary crushing or grinding. Basically, four types of
crushers are used in the industry: jaw, gyratory, and roll
crushers. Typical grinders in common use are impact grind-
ers, tumbling mills (ball and rod mills), and fluid energy
mills.
2.2.2.1 Jaw Crushers - Jaw crushers consist of a vertical
fixed jaw and a moving inclined jaw which is operated by a
single or pair of toggles. Rock is crushed by compression
as a result of the opening and closing action of the movable
jaw against the fixed jaw. Their principal application in
the industry is for primary crushing.
The most commonly used jaw crusher is the Blake or
double-toggle type. As illustrated in Figure 2-19, an
eccentric shaft drives a Pitman arm that raises and lowers a
pair of toggle plates to open and close the moving jaw which
is suspended from a fixed shaft. In a single-toggle jaw
crusher, the moving jaw is itself suspended from an ec-
centric shaft and the lower part of the jaw supported by a
rolling toggle plate (Figure 2-20). Rotation of the ec-
centric shaft produces a circular motion at the upper end of
the jaw and an elliptical motion at the lower end. Other
types, such as the Dodge and overhead eccentric are used on
a limited scale.
2-45
-------
MOVEABLE JAW
FIXED JAW
ECCENTRIC
PITMAN ARM
DISCHARGE
Figure 2-19. Double-toggle jaw crusher.
MOVEABLE JAW
FEED
FIXED
JAW
DISCHARGE
TOGGLE
Figure 2-20. Single toggle jaw crusher.
2-46
-------
The size of a jaw crusher is defined by its feed open-
ing dimensions and may range from about 15 x 30 cm (6 x 12
inches) to 2.1 x 1.7 meters (84 x 66 inches). The size re-
duction obtainable may range from 3:1 to 10:1 depending on
the nature of the rock. Capacities are quite variable
depending on the unit and its-discharge setting. Table 2-2
presents approximate capacities for a number of jaw crusher
sizes at both minimum and maximum discharge setting.
2.2.2.2 Gyratory Crushers - Simply, a gyratory crusher may
be considered to be a jaw crusher with circular jaws between
which the material flows and is crushed. As indicated in
Table 2-3, however, a gyratory crusher has a much greater
capacity than a jaw crusher with an equivalent feed opening.
There are basically three types of gyratory crushers,
the pivoted spindle, fixed spindle, and cone. The fixed and
pivoted spindle gyratories are used for primary and second-
ary crushing, and cone crushers for secondary and tertiary
crushing. The larger gyratories are sized according to feed
opening and the smaller units by cone diameter.
The pivoted spindle gyratory (Figure 2-21) has the
crushing head mounted on a shaft that is suspended from
above and free to pivot. The bottom of the shaft is seated
in an eccentric sleeve which revolves, thus causing the
crusher head to gyrate in a circular path within a sta-
2-47
-------
Table 2-2. APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF JAW CRUSHERS"
(discharge opening - closed)
Size
meters
(in.)
0.91x0
(36 x
l.lxl.
(42 x
1.2x1.
(48 x
1.5x1.
(60 x
2.1x1.
(84 x
.61
24)
5
60)
1
42)
2
48)
7
66)
Smallest
discharge
opening
cm
7.6
10
13
13
20
(in.)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(8)
Capacity*
MT/hr
68
118
159
218
363
(ton/hr)
(75)
(130)
(175)
(240)
(400)
Largest
discharge
opening
cm
15
20
20
23
30
(in.)
(6)
(8)
(8)
(9)
(12)
Capacity
MT/hr
145
181
249
408
544
(ton/hr)
(160)
(200)
(275)
(450)
(600)
* •}
Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/mj (100 Ib/cu ft).
Table 2-3. APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF GYRATORY CRUSHERS5
(dishcharge opening - open)
Size
meters
(in.)
0.76
(30)
0.91
(36)
1.1
(42)
1.2
(48)
1.4
(54)
1.5
(60)
1.8
(7?)
Smal lest
discharge
opening
cm (in.)
10
11
13
14
.16
18
23
(4)
(4 1/2)
(5)
(5 1/2)
(6 1/4)
(7)
(9)
Capacity*
MT/hr (ton/hr)
180
340
380
680
820
1,100
1,COO
(200)
(370)
(420)
(750)
(900)
(1,200)
(2,000)
Largest
discharge
opening
cm (in. )
17
18
19
23
24
25
30
(6 1/2)
(7)
(7 1/2)
(9)
(9 1/2)
(10)
(12)
Capacity
MT/hr (ton/hr)
410
540
640
1,100
1,500
1,800
2,700
(450)
(600)
(700)
(1,200)
(1,600)
(2,000)
(3,000)
* Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/m3 (100 Ib/cu ft).
2-48
-------
FEED
FIXED
THROAT'
CRUSHING SURFACE
ECCENTRIC
DRIVE
DISCHARGE
Figure 2-21. The pivoted spindle gyratory.
FEED
CRUSHING
SURFACES
DRIVE
DISCHARGE
ECCENTRIC
Figure 2-22. Cone crusher.
2-49
-------
tionary concave circular chamber. The crushing action is
similar to that of a jaw crusher in that the crusher element
reciprocates to and from a fixed crushing plate. Because
some part of the crusher head is working at all times, the
discharge from the gyratory is continuous rather than inter-
mittent as in a jaw crusher. The crusher setting is de-
termined by the wide-side opening at the discharge end and
is adjusted by raising or lowering the crusher head.
Unlike the pivoted spindle gyratory, the fixed spindle
gyratory has its crushing head mounted on an eccentric
sleeve fitted over a fixed shaft. This produces a uniform
crushing stroke from the top to the bottom of the crushing
chamber.
For fine crushing, the gyratory is equipped with flat-
ter heads and converted to a cone crusher (Figure 2-22).
Commonly, in the lower section a parallel zone exists. This
results in a larger discharge to feed area ratio which makes
it extremely suitable for fine crushing at high capacity.
Also, unlike regular gyratories, the cone crusher sizes at
the closed side setting and not the open side setting. This
assures that the material discharge will have been crushed
at least once at the close side setting. Cone crushers
yield a cubical product and a high percentage of fines due
to interparticle crushing (attrition). They are the most
2-50
-------
commonly used crusher in the industry for secondary and
tertiary reduction. Table 2-4 presents performance data for
typical cone crushers.
Table 2-4. PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CONE CRUSHERS6
Size of
crusher
meters (ft.)
0.61 (2)
0.91 (3)
1.2 (4)
1.7 (5.5)
2.1 (7)
Capacity, metric tons/hr (tons/hr)
discharge setting,
0.95 cm
18
32
54
(3/8 in)
(20)
(35)
(60)
1.3 cm
23
36
73
(1/2 in)
(25)
(40)
(80)
1.9 cm
32
64
110
180
300
(3/4 in)
(35)
(70)
U20)
(200)
(330)
2.5 cm
140
250
410
(1 in)
(150)
(275)
(450)
3.8 cm
310
540
(1 1/2 in)
(340)
(600)
2.2.2.3 Roll Crushers - These machines are utilized pri-
marily at intermediate or final reduction stages and are
often used at portable plants. There are essentially two
types, the single-roll and the double-roll. As illustrated
in Figure 2-23, the double-roll crusher consists of two
heavy parallel rolls which are turned toward each other at
the same speed. Roll speeds range from 50 to 300 rpm.
Usually, one roll is fixed and the other set by springs.
Typically, roll diameters range from 0.61 to 2.0 meters
(24 to 78 inches) and have narrow face widths, about half
the roll diameter. Rock particles are caught between the
2-51
-------
FEED
DISCHARGE
ADJUSTABLE
ROLLS
Figure 2-23. Double-roll crusher.
FEED
TOOTH
ROLL-
CRUSHING
PLATE
Figure 2-24. Single-roll crusher.'
2-52
-------
rolls and crushed almost totally by compression. Reduction
ratios are limited and range from 3 or 4 to 1. These units
produce few fines and no oversize. They are used especially
for reducing hard stone to a final product ranging from 6.4
mm to 0.84 mm (1/4 inch to 20 mesh).
The working elements of a single-roll crusher include a
toothed or knobbed roll and a curved crushing plate which
may be corrugated or smooth. The crushing plate is gener-
ally hinged at the top and its setting is held by a spring
at the bottom. A toothed-roll crusher is depicted in Figure
2-24. The feed, caught between the roll and crushing plate
is broken by a combination of compression, impact and shear.
These units may accept feed sizes up to 51 cm (20 inches)
and have capacities up to 450 metric tons/hr (500 ton/hr).
In contrast with the double-roll, the single-roll crusher is
principally used for reducing soft materials such as limestones,
2.2.2.4 Impact Grinders - Impact grinders, including
hammermills and impactors, use the force of fast rotating
massive impellers or hammers to strike and shatter free
falling rock particles. These units have extremely high
reduction ratios and produce a cubical product spread over a
wide range of particle sizes with a large proportion of
fines, thus making their application in industry segments
such as cement manufacturing and agstone production ex-
tremely cost effective by reducing the need for subsequent
grinding machines.
2-53
-------
A hammermill consists of a high speed horizontal rotor
with several rotor discs to which sets of swing hammers are
attached (Figure 2-25). As rock particles are fed into the
reduction chamber, they are impacted and shattered by the
hammers which attain peripheral speeds as high as 76 meters/
sec (250 feet per second). The shattered rock then collides
with a steel breaker plate and is fragmented even further.
A cylindrical grating or screen positioned at the discharge
opening restrains oversize material until it is reduced to a
size small enough to pass between the grate bars. Rotor
speeds range from 250 to 1800 rpm and capacities to over
910 metric tons/hr (1,000 ton/hr). Product size is con-
trolled by the rotor speed, the spacing between the grate
bars, and by hammer length.
An impactor (Figure 2-26) is similar to a hammermill
except that it has no grate or screen to act as a restrain-
ing member. Feed is broken by impact alone. Adjustable
breaker bars are used instead of plates to reflect material
back into the path of the impellers. Primary-reduction
units are available which can reduce quarry-run material at
over 910 metric tons/hr (1,000 ton/hr) capacity to about
2.5 cm (one inch). These units are not appropriate for hard
abrasive materials, but are ideal for soft rocks like lime-
stone.
2-54
-------
FEED
\
BREAKER
PLATE
SWING
HAMMERS
GRATE BARS
Figure 2-25. Hanunermill.
BREAKER
PLATE
BREAKER
BARS
FEED
7
HAMMER
ROTOR
DISCHARGE
Figure 2-26. Impactor.
2-55
-------
2.2.2.5 Tumbling Mills - Ball mills and rod mills are
classified as tumbling mills. These consist of a revolving
drum approximately half filled with balls or rods that are
2.5 to 13 cm (one to five inches) in diameter as the grind-
ing medium. Ball mills reduce the size of the feed mostly
by impact while in rod mills, much of the reduction is done
by rolling compression and attrition as the rods slide
downward and roll over one another. Rod mills typically
produce 4.5 to 180 metric tons/hr (5 to 200 ton/hr) of 1.68
mm (10 mesh) product while ball mills normally produce 0.91
to 45 metric tons/hr (1 to 50 ton/hr) of a powder of which
25
70 to 90 percent passes through a 0.074 mm (200 mesh) screen.
Figure 2-27 shows a ball mill grinder.
The operating parameters of ball and rod mills vary
with feed and product size, type of mineral crushed, and
mill capacity. These grinders normally have a speed of 10
2 fi
to 40 revolutions per minute. If the shell rotates too
fast, centrifugal force keeps the balls or rods against the
shell and minimal grinding will occur. The energy require-
ments for grinding hard material are about 4.1 kWh/metric
ton (5 hp-hr/ton) for a rod mill and about 16 kWh/metric ton
(20 hp-hr/ton) for a ball mill. As the desired product
size becomes smaller, the' capacity of a given grinder de-
25
creases while the energy requirement increases.
2-56
-------
FEED-
REVOLVING
SHELL
— DRIVE GEAR
PRODUCT
OUTLET
Figure 2-27. Ball mill,
REDUCTION
CHAMBER
SIZED
^-PARTICLES
FEED
AIR OR STEAM INLET
NOZZLES
Figure 2-28. Fluid-energy mill. ' 7
2-57
-------
2.2.2.6 Fluid Energy Mills - When the material being ground
must contain particles averaging 1 to 20 microns, an ultra-
fine grinder such as•the fluid energy mill is required. A
typical fluid energy mill is shown in Figure 2-28. In this
type of mill, the particles are suspended and conveyed by a
high velocity gas stream in a circular or elliptical path.
Size reduction is caused by impaction and rubbing against
mill walls and interparticle attrition. Classification of
the particles takes place at the upper bend of the loop
shown in Figure 2-28. Internal classification occurs be-
cause the smaller particles are carried through the outlet
by the gas stream while the larger particles are thrown
against the outer wall by centrifugal force. Produce size
can be varied by charging the gas velocity through the
• j 25
grinder.
Fluid energy mills can normally reduce up to 0.91 met-
ric tons/hr (1 ton/hr) of solids from 0.149 mm (100 mesh) to
particles averaging 1/2 to 10 microns in diameter. Typical
gas requirements are 0.45 to 1.8 kg (1 to 4 pounds) of steam
or 2.7 to 4.1 kg (6 to 9 pounds) of air admitted at about
6.8 atm (100 psig) per 0.45 kg (pound) of product. These
grinders have grinding chambers of about 2.5 to 20 cm (1 to
8 inches) in diameter and the equipment is 1.2 to 2.4
25
meters (4 to 8 feet) high.
2-58
-------
2.2.3 Screening
Screening is the process by which a mixture of stones
is separated according to size and classified into various
gradations. In screening, material is dropped into a
screening surface with openings of desired size and sep-
arated into two fractions, undersizes which pass through the
screen opening and oversizes which are retained on the
screen surface. When material is passed over and through
multiple screening surfaces, it is separated into fractions
of known particle size distribution. Screening surfaces may
be constructed of metal bars, perforated or slotted metal
plates, or woven wire cloth. The mesh size of woven screens
may range from 10 cm (four inches) to 0.037 mm (400 mesh)
but are seldom used in the mineral industry under 0.841 mm
(20 mesh).
The effectiveness or efficiency of a screening opera-
tion is a measure of its success in separating two or more
material fractions. Screening effectiveness may range from
60 to 75 percent. The capacity of a screen is primarily
determined by the open area of the screening surface and the
physical characteristics of the feed. It is usually ex-
pressed in metric tons per hour per square meter (tons per
hour per square foot). Although screening may be performed
wet or dry, dry screening is the most common.
Effectiveness is a measure of the amount of the desired
size that actually goes through the screen.
2-59
-------
Screening equipment commonly used in this industry
include grizzlies, shaking screens, vibrating screens and
revolving screens.
2.2.3.1 Grizzlies - Grizzlies consist of a set of uniformly
spaced bars, rods, or rails. The bars may be horizontal or
inclined and are usually wider in cross section at the top
than the bottom. This prevents the clogging or wedging of
stone particles between bars. The spacing between the bars
ranges from 5.0 to 20 cm (2 to 8 inches). Bars are usually
constructed of manganese steel or other highly abrasion
resistant material.
Grizzlies are primarily used to remove fines prior to
primary crushing, thus reducing the load on the primary
crusher. Grizzlies may be stationary cantilevered (fixed at
one end with the discharge end free to vibrate) or mechan-
ically vibrated. Vibrating grizzlies are simple bar griz-
zlies mounted on eccentrics (Figure 2-29). The entire
assembly is moved forward and backward at about 100 strokes
a minute, resulting in better flow through and across the
grizzly surface.
2.2.3.2 Shaking Screens - The shaking screen consists of a
rectangular frame with perforated plate or wire cloth
screening surfaces, usually suspended by rods or cables and
inclined at an angle of 14 degrees. The screens are mechan-
ically shaken parallel to the plane of material flow at
2-60
-------
Figure 2-29. Vibrating grizzly.'
Figure 2-30. Vibrating screen.'
2-61
-------
speeds ranging from 60 to 800,strokes per minute and at
4
amplitudes ranging from 1.9 to 23 cm (3/4 to 9 inches).
Generally, they are used for screening coarse material, 1.3
cm (1/2-inch) or larger.
2.2.3.3 Vibrating Screens - Where large capacity and high
efficiency are desired, the vibrating screen has practically
replaced all other screen types. It is by far the most
commonly used screen type in the mineral industry. A
vibrating screen (Figure 2-30) essentially consists of an
inclined flat or slightly convex screening surface which is
rapidly vibrated in a plane normal or nearly normal to the
screen surface. The screening motion is of small amplitude
but high frequency, normally in excess of 3,000 cycles per
minute. The vibrations may be generated either mechanically
by means of an eccentric shaft, unbalanced fly wheel, cam
and tappet assembly, or electrically by means of an electro-
magnet.
Mechanically-vibrated units are operated at about 1,200
to 1,800 rpm and at amplitudes of about 0.32 to 1.3 cm (1/8 to
1/2 inch). Electrically vibrated screens are available in
standard sizes from 0.30 to 1.8 meters (12 inches to 6 feet)
wide and 0.76 to 6.1 meters (2 1/2 to 20 feet) long. A
complete screening unit may have one, two or three decks.
2.2.3.4 Revolving Screens - This screen type consists of an
inclined cylindrical frame around which is wrapped a screen-
2-62
-------
ing surface of wire cloth or perforated plate. Feed material
is delivered at the upper end and, as the screen is rotated,
undersized material passes through the screen openings while
the oversized is discharged at the lower end. Revolving
screens are available up to 1.2 meters (4 feet) in diameter
and usually run at 15 to 20 rpm.
2.2.4 Material Handling
Material handling devices are used to transport ma-
terials from one point to another and to load the product
for consumer distribution. Materials transport equipment
includes feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators, screw
conveyors, and pneumatic systems. Bagging, barreling, and
bulk loadout (i.e., via railroad cars, trucks, and ships)
are methods of distributing the product.
2.2.4.1 Feeders - Feeders are relatively short, heavy-duty
conveying devices used to receive material and deliver it to
process units, especially crushers, at a uniform regulated
rate. The various types used are the apron, belt, recip-
rocating plate, vibrating, and wobbler feeders.
Apron feeders are composed of overlapping metal pans or
aprons which are hinged or linked by chains to form an
endless conveyor supported by rollers and spaced between a
head and tail assembly. These units are constructed to
withstand high impact and abrasion and are available in
various widths (0.46 to 1.8 meters [18 to 72 inches]) and
lengths.
2-63
-------
Belt feeders are essentially short, heavy duty belt
conveyors equipped with closely spaced support rollers.
Adjustable gates are used to regulate feed rates. Belt
feeders are available in 0.46 to 1.2 meters (18 to 48 inch)
widths and 0.91 to 3.7 meters (3 to 12 foot) lengths and are
operated at speeds of 12 to 30 meters (40 to 100 feet)
per minute.
Reciprocating plate feeders consist of a heavy-duty
horizontal plate which is driven in a reciprocating motion
causing material to move forward at a uniform rate. The
feed rate is controlled by adjusting the frequency and
length of the stroke.
Vibrating feeders operate at a relatively high fre-
quency and low amplitude. Their feed rate is controlled by
the slope of the feeder bed and the amplitude of the
vibrations. These feeders are available in a variety of
sizes, capacities and drives. When combined with a grizzly,
both scalping and feeding functions are performed.
Wobbler feeders also perform the dual task of scalping
and feeding. These units consist of a series of closely
spaced elliptical bars which are mechanically rotated,
causing oversize material to tumble forward to the discharge
end and undersize material to pass through the spaces. The
feed rate is controlled by the bar spacing and the speed of
rotation.
2-64
-------
2.2.4.2 Belt Conveyors - Belt conveyors are the most widely
used means of transporting, elevating and handling materials
in the minerals industry. As illustrated in Figure 2-31,
belt conveyors consist of an endless belt which is carried
on a series of idlers usually arranged so that the belt
forms a trough. The belt stretched between a drive or head
pulley and a tail pulley. Although belts may be constructed
of other material, reinforced rubber is the most commonly
used. Belt widths may range from 0.36 to 1.5 meters (14 to
60 inches), with 0.76 to 0.91 meter (30 to 36 inch) belts
the most common. Normal operating speeds may range from 61
to 120 meters/minute (200 to 400 feet/minute). Depending on
the belt speed, belt width and rock density, load capacities
may be in excess of 1,360 metric tons (1,500 tons) per hour.
2.2.4.3 Elevators - Bucket elevators are utilized where
substantial elevation is required within a limited space.
They consist of a head and foot assembly which supports and
drives an endless single or double strand chain or belt to
which buckets are attached. Figure 2-32 depicts the three
types most commonly used: the high-speed centrifugal-
discharge, the slow speed positive or perfect-discharge, and
the continuous-bucket elevator.
The centrifugal-discharge elevator has a single strand
of chain or belt to which the spaced buckets are attached.
2-65
-------
HEAD
PULLEY
IDLER
TAIL
PULLEY
Figure 2-31. Conveyor belt transfer point.
(b)
(e)
LEGEND
(a) centrifugal discharge
^b) positive discharge
(c) continuous discharge
Figure 2-32. Bucket elevator types.
2-66
-------
As the buckets round the tail.pulley, which is housed within
a suitable curved boot, the buckets scoop up their load and
elevate it to the point of discharge. The buckets are so
spaced so that at discharge, the material is thrown out by
the centrifugal action of the bucket rounding the head
pulley. The positive-discharge type also utilizes spaced
buckets but differs from the centrifugal type in that it has
a double-strand chain and a different discharge mechanism.
An additional sprocket, set below the head pulley, effec-
tively bends the strands back under the pulley causing the
bucket to be totally inverted resulting in a positive dis-
charge.
The continuous-bucket elevator utilizes closely spaced
buckets attached to single or double strand belt or chain. '
Material is loaded directly into the buckets during accent
and is discharged gently as a result of using the back of
the precluding bucket as a discharge chute.
2.2.4.4 Screw Conveyors - Screw conveyors are comprised of
a steel shaft with a spiral or helical fin which, when
rotated, pushes material along a trough. Since these con-
veyors are usually used with wet classification, no sig-
nificant emission problem is experienced.
2.2.4.5 Pneumatic Conveying Systems - Pneumatic conveying
systems used in the non-metallic minerals industry (e.g.,
bentonite and diatomite) are usually the conventional type
2-67
-------
which depend on air velocity for transporting materials.
These may be vacuum systems (the particles are pulled through
the shaft) or pressure systems (the particles are pushed
through the shaft). Air is used as the conveying medium and
can be supplied by centrifugal or positive-displacement
blowers. Centrifugal blowers work at about 0.34 atm (5 psig)
and can be used in vacuum or pressure systems. Positive
displacement blowers work at pressures up to 1.7 atm (25
psig) and are used in pressure systems only.
2.2.5 Washing
Many minerals may require washing to remove fines or
unwanted materials in order to meet specifications. Al-
though a variety of equipment may be employed, jig or spiral
separators are most often used. Jigs can be classified as
washing screens. The mineral to be cleaned is typically
supported on screens as water is pulse sprayed onto the
mineral. The pulsing force on the raw mineral separates the
unwanted fines and impurities from the rock. This unwanted
portion floats away with the water and the desired mineral
portion is left behind. Minerals are often classified by
this technique because rock is stratified (like size forms
separate layers) and each layer can be removed separately.
Spiral washers are commonly used to clean and classify
minerals. It generally consists of a rotating screw operat-
ing in an incline trough. The feed material is dumped into
2-68
-------
the continuously water fed deepest section of the trough as
the spiral turns. The fines and light impurities are
carried off with the water as the heavier portion sinks and
is carried to the top of the incline and exits as clean ore.
This is shown in Figure 2-33.
2.3 EQUIPMENT LIFE
The data used in this section were obtained from the
literature and by personal communications with Pit and
8 9
Quarry and equipment vendors. Table 2-5 lists the typical
expected life of various types of equipment used in the non-
metallic minerals processing industry. Routine maintenance
and repair are of course required during the equipment's
life.
The overall plant life was estimated to be 20 years.
This was based primarily on the average life of the screens
and crushers, since these are the major sources of particu-
late emissions.
2.3.1 Drills
The number of drills operated at a mine will depend
very largely on the size of the operation. Although there
is no data available to substantiate it, industry sources
suggest that a 180 metric ton per hour (200 ton per hour)
plant or less might require only one unit while a 540 metric
ton per hour (600 ton per hour) operation might operate as
2-69
-------
WATER AND
MINERAL FEED
WASHED ORE
OVERFLOW WITH FINES
AND LIGHT IMPURITIES
Figure 2-33. Schematic of a spiral washer.
2-70
-------
Table 2-5. ESTIMATED LIFE OF EQUIPMENT
Equipment
Primary crushers
Secondary crushers
Tertiary crushers
Grinding mills
Screens
Washers
Grizzlies
Conveyors (belt)
Dryers
Classifiers (screw)
Flotation machines
Calciners
Jigs
Thickeners
Air separators
Concentrating tables
Drills
Overall plant
Equipment life, years
Allis-
Chalmers3
15-60
15-60
15-60
20-60
10-20
15-30
10-20
20-30
20-30
15-30
20-30
20-30
30-50
15-30
30-50
Pit &
Quarry"
20
25
30
30
30
20
30
35
35
20
30
30
25
35
20
30
10
Crushed
stone
industry0
15-22
12-18
12
18-25
6-9
Denver
Equipment^
20-25
20-30
20-30
5-10
5-10
5
15-20
15-20
20-30
10-15
20-30
10-20
Typical
value
20
20
25
25
15
20
20
25
25
20
30
25
20
30
20
30
10
20
NO
I
-J
a
b
Reference 9.
Reference 8.
Reference 7.
Reference 24.
-------
many as three. The lifetime of a drill is approximately 6
to 10 years.
2.3.2 Screens
While screening media and bearings are vulnerable to
wear and are replaced every three to four years, the screen
structure enjoys a longer average life of about 12 to 15
years for stationary plants. Portable equipment has a
shorter life span -- about 7 years — being lighter and
subject to greater abuse. The screens are repairable.
2.3.3 Conveyors
As with screens, normal use leads to the replacement of
conveyor beltings and idlers at a rate of about every four
or five years, but the replacement rate for the structure
itself is far less frequent and may exceed 20 years. Con-
sequently, most of the conveyor systems entering the market
today are due to the construction of new plants, plant
expansions, or operating changes from a truck-haul within
the quarry to a conveyor delivery system. Higher plant
operating rates do not normally demand additional conveyor
units (belts can be widened or the capacities are already
adequate). However, units are sometimes purchased to allow
the operator greater operating flexibility or to increase
the number of stockpiles.
2.3.4 Crushers and Grinders
The typical primary crusher has an average life of
2-72
-------
slightly under 20 years and secondary or tertiary crushing
or grinding units have average lives of about 15 to 25
years. Normal maintenance of wearing surfaces, of course,
leads to the replacement of jaws, etc., at more frequent
intervals. Balls and rods must be replaced in ball or rod
mills and the shells may need periodic relining.
2.4 MINING AND CRUSHING PLANT EMISSIONS
2.4.1 General
All processing operations of non-metallic minerals are
potential sources of particulate emissions. The emission of
particulates is inherent to all surface mining and pulver-
izing processes. Emission sources may be categorized as
either fugitive or process sources. Operations included
within each category are listed in Table 2-6. Process
sources include those sources whose emissions are amenable
to capture and subsequent control. Fugitive sources are not
amenable to control using conventional control systems and
generally involve the reintrainment of settled dust by wind
or machine movement.
2-73
-------
Table 2-6. EMISSION SOURCES FROM MINERAL
PROCESSING OPERATIONS
Process sources
Drilling
Crushing and grinding
Screening
Conveying (transfer points)
Bagging
Loading at mill
Fugitive sources
Blasting
Loading and hauling at
mine
Haul roads
Stockpiles
Plant yard conveying
Information available on the level of emissions from
uncontrolled mineral operations is extremely limited.
Estimates for uncontrolled plant process operations are
presented in Table 2-7. These factors, where available,
were obtained from EPA's emission factor publication. Due
to the lack of specific information on emissions from the
processing of many of these minerals, emission factors were
assumed to be similar to those for general stone crushing
processes based on the type of processes used as shown in
Table 2-8.
2.4.2 Factors Affecting Emissions from Mining and Crushing
Plant Operations
In general, factors affecting emissions which are
common to most crushing operations include: the moisture
2-74
-------
Table 2-7. MINERAL PROCESSING EMISSION FACTORS, KG/METRIC TON (LB/TON)
Mineral
Barite
Borates
Clay
Diatoraite
Feldspar
Gypsum
Lightweight
aggregates
Perlite
Slag
Vertriicu-
lite
Pumice
Sand and gravel
Talc
Crushing and grinding
Primarv
Equipment
type
3 aw
hanmermill
3 aw
hammermill
3 aw
gyratory
3 aw
3 aw
hairjnemu.il
3 aw
3 aw
3 aw
Emission
factor
0.25b (0.5)b
0.75b (l.S)W
0.75^X1.5)^
0.25b (0.5)b
0.25b (0.5)b
0.25° (0.5)b
0.25b (0.5)b
0.259 (0.5)g
0.25b (0.5)b
0.25° (0.5)b
Secondarv
Equipment
type
hammermill
gyratory
gyratory
cone
3 aw
gyratory
gyratory
gyratory
Emission
factor
0.75b (1.5)b
0.75b (1.5)b
0.75b (1.5)b
0.75b (1.5)b
0.75b (1.5)b
0.75b (1.5)b
Tertiarv
Equipment
type
ball mill
hammermill
hamrrermill
ball mill
roller mill
ball mill
ball mill
ball mill
Er.ission
factor
neg.c
3.0b (6. of
3.0b (6.0?
3.0b (6. Of
h b
3.0 (6. Or
3 0°'h
b,h
(6.0)°'"
3.0b (6. 0?
Screening
conveying
handling
1.0b (2.0)b
1.0b <2.0)b
1.0b (2.0)b
1.0b (2.0)b
1.0b (2.0)b
l.Cb ,2.0)b
\_ W
1.0b (2.0)b
1.0b (2.0)b
1.0b (2.0)b
Other
Total = 0.1 -
202(0. 2-40JC
Storage = 17f C
Grinding =38r C
Conveyor -
only = 0.35
(0.7)f
f
Total =O.C5
Includes loadng and bagging operations.
Based on eTi-ssio-. factors for stone quarrying and processing from AP-42 (Reference 10).
Emissions are considered negligible because of wet milling.
Assumed secondary crushing emission factor.
e Reference 11. Values based on Reference 10 were used for this report.
Ta
-------
Table 2-8. PARTICULATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
STONE CRUSHING PROCESSES3
Process operation
Primary crushing
Secondary crushing and
screening
Tertiary crushing, grinding
and screening
Screening, conveying and
handling
Total
Uncontrolled emission factor
kg/MT
0.25
0.75
3.0
1.0
5.0
(Ib/ton)
(0.5)
(1.5)
(6.0)
(2.0)
(10.0)
Reference 10.
Based on raw material entering primary crusher.
2-76
-------
content of the ore, the type of ore processed, the amount of
ore processed, the type of equipment and operating practices
employed, and a variety of geographical and seasonal fac-
tors. These factors, discussed in more detail below, apply
to both fugitive and process sources whether they are asso-
ciated with quarrying or plant operations. In most cases,
these factors combine to contribute to an operator's total
emission problem.
The inherent moisture content or wetness of the ore
processed has a substantial effect on total uncontrolled
emissions. This is especially evident during mining,
material handling, and initial plant process operations such
as primary crushing. Surface wetness causes fine particles
to agglomerate or adhere to the faces of larger sizes with a
resultant dust suppression effect. However, as new fine
particles are created by crushing and attrition, and as the
moisture content is reduced by evaporation, this suppressive
effect diminishes and may even disappear.
The type of ore processed is also important. Soft ores
produce a higher percentage of screenings than do hard
minerals because of their greater friability and lower
resistance to fracture. Thus, it is generally accepted that
the processing of soft rocks results in a greater potential
for emissions than the processing of hard rock. The chem-
ical nature of the particulate emissions are also dependant
2-77
-------
on the type of ore processed: For example, particulates
from some talc and sand and gravel processing are known to
contain asbestos and free silica respectively.
The type of equipment and operating practices employed
also affect uncontrolled emissions. Equipment selection is
based on a variety of parameters including quarry charac-
teristics, mineral type processed, and desired end products.
In general, emissions from process equipment, including
crushers, screens, conveyors, etc., are a function of the
amount of material processed, its size distribution, and the
amount of mechanically induced velocity imparted to it. For
crushers, the crushing mechanism employed (compression or
impact) will also affect emissions. The affect of equipment
on uncontrolled emissions from all sources will be more
fully discussed in subsequent sections of this report.
The most significant geographical factor affecting
uncontrolled particulate emissions is climate. Predominant
climatic conditions such as wind velocity, wind direction,
precipitation and relative humidity can seriously affect
emissions, especially fugitive emissions. It can certainly
be expected that the level of emissions will be greater in
arid regions of the country than in temperate ones. Other
geographical elements which affect fugitive emissions in-
clude the topography and the extent and type of vegetation
around a facility.
2-78
-------
Seasonal changes also affect emissions. Obviously, due
to the lower moisture content of the ore and high evapora-
tion rate during the summer months, uncontrolled emissions
during this period can be expected to be higher than at
other times of the year. In addition, many operators shut
down during the winter months, thus affecting their total
annual emissions.
2.4.2.1 Mining - Sources of particulate emissions from
mining operations include drilling, blasting, secondary
breaking, loading, and hauling the minerals to the pro-
cessing plant. Particulate emissions from drilling opera-
tions are primarily caused by the removal of cuttings and
dust from the bottom of the hole by air flushing. Com-
pressed air is released down the hollow drill center, forc-
ing cuttings and dust up and out the annular space formed
between the hole wall and drill. Factors affecting the
level of uncontrolled emissions include the type of ore
drilled, its moisture content, the type of drill used, and
the hole diameter and penetration rate.
Emissions from blasting are obvious and inherently
unavoidable. Factors affecting emissions include the size
of the shot, blasting practices employed, mineral type, and
meteorological conditions, especially wind. Emissions from
secondary breaking (i.e. drop-balling) are slight and rela-
tively insignificant.
2-79
-------
Considerable fugitive dust emissions may result from
loading haulage vehicles and hauling operations over unpaved
roads. The most significant factor affecting emissions
during loading is the wetness of the ore. Although no data
exists on actual hauling operations, an emission factor of
1.0 kg per vehicle km (3.7 pounds per vehicle mile) has been
reported for conventional vehicle traffic on unpaved country
12
roads. It can be assumed that mineral hauling emissions
are higher, because of the greater size of the rubber-tired
units over conventional vehicles and the finer nature of the
road bed. Factors affecting fugitive dust emissions from
hauling operations include the composition of the road
surface, the wetness of the road, and the volume and speed
of the vehicle traffic.
2.4.2.2 Crushing and Grinding - The generation of particu-
late emissions is inherent in the crushing process. Emis-
sions are most apparent at crusher or grinder feed and
discharge points. Emissions may be influenced by a variety
of factors including the moisture content of the rock, the
type of rock processed, and the type of crusher used. All
but the latter have been previously discussed.
The most important element influencing emissions from
crushing and grinding equipment is the reduction mechanism
employed, compression or impact. The mechanism employed has
a substantial effect on the size reduction that a machine
2-80
-------
can achieve; the particle size distribution of the product,
especially the proportion of fines produced and the amount
of mechanically induced energy which is imparted to these
fines.
Grinding units utilizing impact rather than compression
produce a larger proportion of fines. This is illustrated
in Figure 2-34 which shows the particle size distributions
produced by the reduction of limestone with a hammermill and
a jaw crusher. The distribution curve for the hammermill is
characteristic of grinders in general and demonstrates the
high proportion of fines contained in the product. The
distribution curve for the jaw crusher illustrates the
particle size distribution produced by compression type
crushers including jaw, gyratory, cone and roll crushers.
These crushers are designed to reduce material to a size
regulated by the crusher setting, the gap between the
crushing faces at the point of discharge. The peak of the
curve demonstrates how the crusher produced a large pro-
i
portion of particles corresponding to the crusher setting.
A decrease in setting will, of course, result in depressing
the curve and shifting the distribution into the smaller
size range.
In addition to generating more fines, hammermills also
impart more velocity to them as a result of the fan-like
action produced by the fast rotating hammers. Because of
2-81
-------
200-
c
o
^ 160.
o
c
3
u_
c 120-
o
80-
S_
+J
01
c
o
c
3
C
O
•
3
Q
40
0
50
40-
30-
20-
10-
0
0
Hammermill Product
(Feed: limestone)
1/4 1/2 3/4 1 11/41 1/2 1 3/4 2
Mesh size, inches
Jaw Crusher Product
(Feed: lump limestone)
Size, inches
Figure 2-34. Particle size distribution curves. Based on
Reference 13.
2-82
-------
this and the high proportion of fines produced, hammermills
generate more uncontrolled particulate emissions per ton of
stone processed than any other crusher or grinder type.
The level of uncontrolled emissions from jaw, gyratory,
cone and roll crushers closely parallels the reduction stage
to which they are applied. As indicated in Table 2-8, the
•
greater the reduction, the higher the emissions. In all
likelihood, primary jaw crushers produce more dust than
comparable gyratories because of the bellows effect of the
jaw, and because gyratory crushers are usually choke fed
thus minimizing the open spaces from which dust may be
emitted. For subsequent reduction stages, cone crushers
produce more fines as a result of attrition and consequently
generate more dust.
Particulate emissions are generated from rod and ball
mills at the grinders inlet and outlet. Gravity feed and
discharge type ball and rod mills accept feed from a con-
veyor and discharge product into a screen or onto a con-
veyor. These transfer points are the source of particulate
emissions. The outlet has the highest emissions potential
because of the finer material. Air-swept ball mills have
relatively small amounts of particulate emissions. These
grinders operate with a classifier and are generally well
controlled to minimize loss of product.
2-83
-------
2.4.2.3 Screening - Dust is emitted from screening opera-
tions as a result of the agitation of dry stone. The level
of uncontrolled emissions is dependent on the particle size
of the material screened, the amount of mechanically induced
energy transmitted, and other factors already discussed.
Generally, the screening of fines (less than 3.2 mm
[1/8 inch]) produces higher emissions than the screening of
coarse sizes. Also, screens agitated at large amplitudes
and high frequency emit more dust than those operated at
small amplitudes and low frequencies.
2.4.2.4 Conveying - Particulates may be emitted from any
and all material handling and transfer operations. As with
screening, the level of uncontrolled emissions is dependent
on the size of the material handled and how much it is
agitated. Perhaps the worst case occurs at conveyor belt
transfer points where material is discharged from the con-
veyor at the head pulley or received at the tail pulley.
Depending on the conveyor belt speed and the free fall
distance between transfer points, considerable emissions may
occur.
2-84
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2.0
1. Mineral processing flowsheets, 2nd Edition. Denver,
Colorado, Denver Equipment Company, 1962. 315 p.
2. Industrial Minerals and Rocks, 4th Edition. Baltimore,
Maryland, Port City Press, 1975. 1360 p.
3. Clay, Ceramic, Refractory and Miscellaneous Minerals.
Mineral Mining and Processing Industry - Volume III.
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guide-
lines and Standards of Performance. Office of Water
and Hazardous Materials, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C., October 1975, 228 pp.
4. Vervaert, A.E., R. Jenkins, and A. Basala. An Investi-
gation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for
Quarrying and Plant Process Facilities in the Crushed
and Broken Stone Industry. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
August 1975. p. 3: 9-14.
5. Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing Guide, 63rd
Edition, Chicago, Illinois, Pit and Quarry Publica-
tions, Inc., 1970. 650 p.
6. Perry, R.H. (Editor). Chemical Engineers' Handbook,
3rd Edition, New York, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1950. p.
1127.
7. The Crushed Stone Industry: Industry Characterization,
and Alternative Emission Control Systems, prepared by
Authur D. Little, Inc. for the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-76-1349, Task Order
No. 4. p. 52-54.
8. Personal Communication: Correspondence from J. G.
Kostka, Pit and Quarry Publications, Inc. Chicago,
Illinois to S. Oldiges, PEDCo-Environmental, Special-
ists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. May 19, 1976.
2-85
-------
9. Personal Communication: Correspondence from W. D.
Meagher, Allis-Chalmers, Crushing and Screening Equip-
ment Division, Appleton, Wisconsin to S. Oldiges,
PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio. June 1, 1976.
10. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. AP-42. February, 1976. p. 8: 1-1 to
20-2.
11. Davis, W.E. National Inventory of Sources and Emis-
sions. Barium, Boron, Copper, Selenium, and Zinc.
Section 2. Boron. May, 1972.
12. Investigation of Fugitive Dust, Volume I - Sources,
Emissions, and Control. Prepared by PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0044, Task 9, June
1974. p. 3-6.
13. Ratcliffe, A. Crushing and Grinding. Chemical Engi-
neering. McGraw Hill. July 10, 1972. p. 67
14. Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970 Edition. U.S. Bureau
of Mines, Bulletin 650, 1970. 1291 p.
15. Mineral Processing Flowsheets, 1st Edition. Denver,
Colorado, Denver Equipment Company.
16. Cummins A.B., and I.A. Given. SME Mining Engineering
Handbook, Vol. 2. Baltimore, Maryland, Port City
Press, 1973. 1306 p.
17. Kirk and Othmer. Enclyclopedia of Chemical Technology,
Vols. 1-22. New York, New York, John Wiley and Sons,
1969.
18. Trace Pollutant Emissions from the processing of Non-
Metallic Ores. Prepared by PEDCo-Environmental Spe-
cialists, Incorporated, for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task Order
No. 4, August 1974. 262 p.
19. E/MJ International Directory of Mining and Mineral
Processing Operation. New York, New York, Engineering
and Mining Journal, 1975. 488 p.
2-86
-------
20. Personal Communication: Correspondence from R. Mil-
anese, Perlite Institute, New York, New York, to S.
Oldiges, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., Cin-
cinnati, Ohio. May 1976.
21. Personal Communication: Correspondence from T. R.
Berger, Lightweight Aggregate Producers Association,
Allentown, Pennsylvania, to S. Oldiges, PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. May 3,
1976.
22. Personal Communication: Correspondence from H. K.
Eggleston, National Slag Association, Alexandria,
Virginia to D. Powell, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists,
Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. May 19, 1976.
23. Personal Communication: Correspondence from J. Broad
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon
to S. Oldiges, PEDCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, May 19, 1976.
24. Personal Communication: Correspondence from T. A.
Gray, Denver Equipment Division of Joy Manufacturing
Company, Denver, Colorado to S. Oldiges, PEDCo-Environ-
mental Specialists, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, June 28,
1976.
25. McCabe, W.L. and J. C. Smith. Unit Operations of
Chemical Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, New York, 1967. pp. 820-846.
26. Design of Tumbling Mills. Perry's Chemical Engineer's
Handbook. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York, 1969. pp. 8-21 to 8-23.
27. Air Conveying. Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. 1969.
pp. 7-19 through 7-22.
2-87
-------
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The diversity of the particulate emission sources
inherent in quarrying and non-metallic processing operations
has resulted in the utilization of a variety of control
methods and techniques. Dust suppression techniques,
designed to prevent particulate matter from becoming air-
borne, may be used and are applicable to both process and
fugitive dust sources. Where particulate emissions can be
contained and captured, collection systems are used.
Emission sources and applicable control options are listed
in Table 3-1.
3.1 CONTROL OF MINING AND QUARRYING OPERATIONS
3.1.1 Control of Drilling Operations
Drilling is used at times to facilitate blasting of the
ore. Generally, there are two methods available for con-
trolling particulate emissions from drilling operations,
water injection and aspiration to a control device.
Water injection is a wet drilling technique in which
water or water plus a wetting agent or surfactant is in-
jected into the compressed air stream which is used for
flushing the drill cuttings from the hole. The injection of
the fluid into the airstream produces a mist which dampens
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES AND CONTROL OPTIONS
Operation or Source
Contro] Options
Drilling
Blasting
Loading (at mine)
Hauling
Crushing and Grinding
Screening
Conveying (transfer points)
Stockpiling
Storage Bins
Conveying
Windblown dust from
stockpiles
Windblown dust from roads
and plant yard
Loading (product into Hit
cats, trucks, ships)
Uagging
Magnetic Separation
a) Liquid in3ection (water or
water plus a wotting agent)
b) Capturing and venting emissions
to a control device
Practice good blasting
practices
Water wetting
a) Water wetting
b) Treatment with surface
agents
c) Soil stabilization
d) Paving
e) Traffic control
a) VJet dust suppression systems
b) Capturing and venting
emissions to a control
device
Same as crushing
Same as crushing
a) Stone ladders
b) Stacker conveyors
c) Water sprays at conveyor
discharge
d) Pugmill
Capturing and vpntxng
to a control device
a) Covering
b) Wet dust suppression
a) Water wetting
b) Surface active agents
c) Covering
d) Windbreaks
a) Water wetting
b) Oiling
c) Surface active agents
d) Soil stabilization
e) Paving
f) Sweeping
n) Wottiny
b) (\iptm i IK) ,incl vrntJiiy
to control device
c) Capturing and vonting
to contiol device
d) Capturing and venting
to control device
Does not include processes involving combustion.
3-2
-------
the ore particles and causes them to agglomerate. As the
particles are blown from the hole, they drop at the drill
collar as damp pellets rather than becoming airborne.
The addition of a wetting agent increases the wetting
ability of untreated water by reducing its surface tension.
This reduces the amount of water required for effective
control and consequently minimizes the drawbacks of de-
creased penetration rate, increased wear, restricted chip
circulation, increased back pressure at the bottom of the
hole, and potential collaring (drill sticking in the hole).
The amount of solution required, is dependent upon the size
of the hole, the drilling rate for a 8.8 cm (3 1/2 inch)
diameter hole is about 26 liters (7 gallons) per hour. The
effective application of water injection to a drilling
operation should result in essentially no visible emissions.
Dry collection systems may also be used to control
emissions from the drilling process. A shroud or hood
encircles the drill rod at the hole collar. Emissions are
captured under vacuum and vented via a flexible duct to a
control device for collection. Various devices may be used
with varying efficiencies. Most commonly used are cyclones
or fabric filters preceded by a settling chamber. Collec-
tion efficiencies for cyclone collectors are, however,
usually not high. Although suitable for coarse to medium
3-3
-------
sized particles, these collectors are generally unsuitable
for fine particulates. Fabric filter collectors, on the
other hand, exhibit collection efficiencies in excess of 99
percent. Air volumes required for effective control range
from 14 to 42 m /min (500 to 1,500 cfm) depending on the
type of ore drilled, hole size, and penetration rate.
3.1.2 Control of Blasting Operations
There are currently no effective methods for control-
ling particulate emissions from blasting. Good blasting
practices may, however, minimize the effects of blasting,
noise, vibration, air shock and dust emissions. The use of
multi-delay detonation devices which detonate the explosive
charges in millisecond time intervals may reduce these
effects and result in lower emissions. Also, the scheduling
of blasting operations so that they only occur under favor-
able meterological conditions of low wind and low inversion
potential may substantially reduce the subsequent impact of
emissions from blasting.
3.1.3 Control of Loading Operations
The loading of dry raw materials by either loaders or
shovels generates fugitive dust emissions. Fairly effective
control may be attained by wetting dry materials prior to
loading. Water trucks equipped with hoses or movable
watering systems may be used.
3-4
-------
3.1.4 Control of Hauling Operations
The hauling of raw materials from the mine or quarry to
the processing plant by large rubber-tired haulage vehicles
over unpaved haul roads is responsible for a large portion
of the fugitive dust generated by quarrying and mining
operations. Haul roads are temporary in nature to accom-
modate advancing quarry faces and are thus, usually un-
improved. Emissions from hauling operations are propor-
tional to the condition of the road surface and the volume
and speed of vehicle traffic. Consequently, control mea-
sures include methods to improve road surfaces or suppress
dust and operational changes to minimize the effect of
vehicle traffic.
Various road treatment methods may be used to control
fugitive emissions from haulage roads. These include
watering, surface treatment with chemical dust suppressants,
soil stabilization and paving. The most commonly used
method is watering. Water is applied to the road in a
controlled manner by water trucks equipped with either
gravity spray bars or pressure sprays for distribution. The
amount of water required, frequency of application and
effectiveness are dependent on a variety of conditions
including weather elements, road bed condition and the
willingness of the operator to allocate resources, as re-
quired, to do an effective job. In many cases, watering has
3-5
-------
become an autonomous, cosmetic operation with little regard
to its actual effectiveness. The addition of a wetting
agent increases the wetting ability of untreated water by
reducing its surface tension.
On warm and windy days watering may be totally in-
effective because of rapid evaporation. Obviously, after a
rainfall watering may not even be necessary. Excessive
watering may result in muddy and slippery road surfaces
which create hazardous conditions for haulage vehicles.
Road dust can also be controlled by periodic appli-
cation of wet or dry surface treatment chemicals for dust
suppression. The most commonly applied form of surface
treatment is oiling. Waste oils such as crankcase drainings
2
are spread over roadways at a rate of about 0.23 liters/m
2
(0.05 gallons per square yard) of roadway. The frequency
of application may range from once per week to only several
times per season, depending on weather conditions. A draw-
back to oiling is the potential adverse environmental impact
of oil leaching into streams. Oiling is usually supplement-
ed by watering. Again, this treatment must be used judicious-
ly since improper application can cause slippery, dangerous
road conditions.
Other treatments include the application of hygroscopic
chemicals (substances which absorb moisture from the air)
such as organic sulfonates and calcium chloride (CaCl-).
3-6
-------
When spread directly over unpaved road surfaces, these
chemicals dissolve in the moisture they absorb and form a
clear liquid which is resistant to evaporation. Conse-
quently, these chemicals are most effective in areas of
relative high humidity. Because they are water soluble,
however, their use in areas of frequent rainfall may require
repeated application. In addition, these agents may con-
tribute to the increased corrosion of expensive haulage
vehicles.
An alternative to surface treatment is the use of soil
stabilizers. These agents usually consist of a water
dilutable emulsion of either synthetic or petroleum resins
which act as an adhesive or binder. Substantial success has
3 4
been reported by quarry operators in California and Arizona
using one such agent called Coherex, a non-volatile emul-
sion of about 60 percent natural petroleum resins and 40
percent wetting solution. Initial treatment for new roads
depends on the characteristics of the road bed and the
penetration depth required. For most roads, a one part
Coherex to four parts of water dilution (1:4) applied at an
application rate of about 9.0 to 23 liters/m (2 to 5 gallons
per square yard) is effective. Once the road has been
stabilized by repeated application and compaction by vehicle
traffic over a period of a few weeks, the dilution may be
a The use of trade names or commercial products does not con-
stitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
3-7
-------
increased to 1:7 to 1:20 for.daily maintenance. In most
cases, only one pass per day is sufficient to effectively
control dust. In addition to the environmental benefits,
operators report considerable savings and operating benefits
over traditional watering methods including reduced labor
costs, lower maintenance costs on haulage vehicles and safer
road conditions.
Paving is probably the most effective means of reducing
particulate emissions. It may, however, be impractical due
to high initial cost and subsequent maintenance and repair
costs. Initial paving costs may exceed $12,400 per kilometer
($20,000 per mile, in 1973) for a 7.6 cm (3-inch) bituminous
surface. Also, due to heavy vehicle traffic, roads may be
damaged resulting in relatively high maintenance and repair
costs. No studies have been reported to determine the
relative cost-effectiveness of any of these control options.
Operational measures which would result in reduced
emissions include the reduction of traffic volume and
traffic speed control. Replacing smaller haulage vehicles
with larger capacity units would minimize the number of
trips required and thus effectively reduce total emissions
per ton of rock hauled. The institution of a stringent
traffic speed control program would also result in reduced
dust emissions and at no additional cost. According to a
study on emissions from conventional vehicle traffic on
3-8
-------
unpaved roads, a reduction in the average vehicle speed from
48 km/hr (30 raph), for which an emission level of 1.0 kg per
vehicle km (3.7 pounds per vehicle mile) was established,
to 40, 32 and 24 km/hr (25, 20 and 15 mph) produced emission
reductions of 25, 33 and 40 percent respectively. Although
the situations may not be completely analogous, it can be
concluded that an enforced speed limit of 8 to 16 km/hr (5
to 10 mph) would substantially reduce fugitive dust emissions
from quarry vehicle traffic and provide additional benefits
including increased safety conditions and longer vehicle
life.
The utilization of wind breaks, consisting of rapidly
growing hedges or temporary wooden walls, should also be
considered to reduce emissions.
3.2 CONTROL OF PLANT PROCESS OPERATIONS
A typical non-metallic mineral processing plant, con-
sisting of crushers, grinders, screens, conveyor transfer
points, and storage facilities, contains a multiplicity of
dust producing points. As such, effective emission control
can present a rather complex and difficult problem. Emis-
sion control methods utilized to reduce emissions include
wet dust suppression, dry collection, and a combination of
the two. Wet dust suppression consists of introducing
moisture into the material flow, causing fine particulate
matter to be confined and remain with the material flow
3-9
-------
rather than become airborne. Dry collection involves hood-
ing and enclosing dust producing points and exhausting
emissions to a collection device. Combination systems
utilize both methods at different stages throughout the
processing plant. In addition to these control techniques,
the use of enclosed structures to house process equipment
may also be quite effective in preventing atmospheric emis-
sions. When a building is used to enclose a process, it
generally must be vented through a control device.
3.2.1 Wet Dust Suppression
In a wet dust suppression system, dust emissions are
controlled by applying moisture in the form of water or
water plus a wetting agent sprayed at critical dust pro-
ducing points in the process flow. This causes dust par-
ticles to adhere to larger mineral pieces or to form ag-
glomerates too heavy to become or remain airborne. Thus,
the objective of wet dust suppression is not to fog an
emission source with a fine mist to capture and remove
particulates emitted, but rather to prevent their emission
by keeping the material moist at all process stages.
Water sprays cannot be used in all cases since it may
interfere with further processing such as screening or
grinding where aglomeration cannot be tolerated. In addition,
the capacity of the dryers used in some of the processing
steps may limit the amount of water that can be sprayed onto
3-10
-------
the raw materials. Once the materials have passed through
the drying operations, water cannot be added and other means
of dust control must be utilized.
When plain or untreated water is used, because of its
2
unusually high surface tension (72.75 dynes/cm at 20°C),
the addition of 5 to 8 percent moisture (by weight), or
greater, may be required to adequately suppress dust. In
many installations this may not be acceptable because excess
moisture may cause screening surfaces to blind, thus re-
ducing both their capacity and effectiveness, or result in
the coating of mineral surfaces yielding a marginal or non-
specification product. To counteract these deficiencies,
small quantities of specially formulated wetting agents or
surfactants are blended with the water to reduce its surface
tension and consequently improve its wetting efficiency so
that dust particles may be suppressed with a minimum of
added moisture. Although these agents may vary in com-
position, their molecules are characteristically composed of
two groups, a hydrophobic group (usually a long chain
hydrocarbon) and a hydrophylic group (usually a sulfate,
sulfonate, hydroxide or ethylene oxide). When introduced
into water, these agents effect an appreciable reduction in
2 8
its surface tension (to as low as 27 dynes/cm ). The
dilution of such an agent in minute quantities in water (1
part wetting agent to 1,000 parts water) is reported to make
dust control practical throughout an entire crushing plant.
3-11
-------
In a crushed stone plant, as little as 1/2 to 1 percent
total moisture was added per ton of stone processed.
In applying the added moisture to the process flow,
several application points are normally required. Since the
time required for the proper distribution of the added
moisture on the mineral is critical to achieving effective
dust control, treatment normally begins as soon as possible
after the material to be processed is introduced into the
plant. As such, the initial application point is commonly
made at the primary crusher truck dump. In addition to
introducing moisture prior to processing, this application
contributes to reducing intermittent dust emissions gener-
ated during dumping operations. Spray bars located either
on the periphery of the dump hopper or above it are used.
Applications are also made at the discharge of the primary
crusher and at all secondary and tertiary crushers where new
dry surfaces and dust are generated by the fracturing of
stone in the crusher. In addition, treatment may also be
required at feeders located under surge or reclaim piles if
this temporary storage results in sufficient evaporation.
Further applications at screens, conveyor transfer points,
conveyor and screen discharges to bins, and conveyor dis-
charges to storage piles may or may not be necessary because,
if properly conditioned at application points, the wetted
3-12
-------
material exhibits a carryover dust control effect such that
it may be handled through a number of material handling
operations without dusting. The amount of moisture required
at each application point is dependent on a number of factors
including the wetting agent used, its dilution ratio in
water, the type and size of process equipment used, and the
characteristics of the material processed (type, size distri-
bution, feed rate and moisture content).
A typical wet dust suppression system, such as the
Chem-Jet System3 manufactured by the Johnson-March Corpo-
ration and illustiated in Figure 3-1, contains a number of
basic components £>nd features including: (1) a dust control
agent (compound M-R); (2) proportioning equipment; (3) a
distribution system; and (4) control actuators. A pro-
portioner and pump are necessary to proportion the wetting
agent and water at the desired ratio and to provide the
moisture in sufficient quantity and at adequate pressure to
meet the demands of the overall system.
Distribution is accomplished by spray headers fitted
with pressure spray nozzles. One or more headers are used
to apply the dust suppressant mixture at each treatment
point at the rate and spray configuration required to effect
dust control. A variety of nozzle types may be used in-
a The use of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the
Environmental Protection Agency.
3-13
-------
TRUCK DUMP
00
I
INCOMING WATER LINE
COMPOUND M R DRUM
PROPORTIONER
Figure 3-1. Wet dust suppression system.
10
-------
eluding hollow-cone, solid cone or fan nozzles, depending on
the spray pattern desired. To prevent nozzle plugging,
screen filters are used. Figure 3-2 shows a typical ar-
rangement for the control of dust emissions at a crusher
discharge.
Spray actuation and control is important to prevent
waste and undesirable muddy conditions, especially when the
material flow is intermittent. Spray headers at each
application point are normally equipped with an on-off
controller which is interlocked with a sensing mechanism so
that sprays will be operative only when there is material
actually flowing. In addition, systems are commonly de-
signed to operate under all weather conditions. To provide
protection from fieezing, exposed pipes are usually traced
with heating wire and insulated. When the system is not in
use, it should be drained to insure that no water remains
in the lines. During periods of prolonged cold weather
when temperatures remain below 0°C, wetted raw materials will
freeze into large blocks and adhere to cold surfaces such
as hopper walls. Additional labor may be required to prevent
such build-ups.
The Johnson-March Corporation claims that better than
90 percent control efficiency is attainable from primary
crusher to stockpile and reclaim at a rock crushing plant
with a well designed wet dust suppression system.-'--'- Since
3-15
-------
SUPPRESSANT
SPRAY HEADER
\
FILTER
CONTROL
VALVE
IDLERS
Figure 3-2. Dust suppression application
at crusher discharge.
3-16
-------
these emissions are unconstrained and not amenable to testing,
no actual particulate emission measurements have been made
to verify or dispuce this contention.
3.2.2 Dry Collection Systems
Particulate emissions generated at plant process
facilities (crushers, screens, conveyor transfer points and
bins) may be controlled by capturing and exhausting emis-
sions to a collection device. Depending on the physical
layout of the plant, emission sources may be manifolded to a
single centrally located collector or to a number of stra-
tegically placed units. Collection systems consist of an
exhaust system utilizing hoods and enclosures to confine and
capture emissions, and ducting and fans to convey the
captured emissions to a collection device for particulate
removal prior to exhausting the airstream to the atmosphere.
3.2.2.1 Exhaust Systems - If a collection system is to
effectively prevent particulate emissions from being dis-
charged to the atmosphere, local exhaust systems including
hooding and ducting must be properly designed and balanced.
Process equipment should be enclosed as completely as prac-
ticable, allowing for access for routine maintenance and
inspection requirements. For crushing facilties, recom-
mended hood face cr capture velocities, range from 61 to 150
12
meters (200 to 500 feet) per minute. In general, a mini-
mum indraft velocity of 61 meters (200 feet) per minute
3-17
-------
should be maintained through all open hood areas. Proper
design of hoods and enclosures will minimize exhaust volumes
required and, consequently, power consumption. In addition,
proper hooding will minimize the effects of cross drafts
(wind) and the effects of induced air (i.e., air placed in
motion as a result of machine movement or falling material).
Good duct design dictates that adequate conveying velocities
be maintained so that the dust particles transported will
not fall out and settle in the ducts along the way to the
collection device. Based on information for crushed stone,
conveying velocities recommended for mineral particles range
from 1,100 to 1,400 meters/min (3,500 to 4,500 fpm).13
Completely adequate construction specifications are avail-
able and have been utilized to produce efficient, long-
lasting systems. Various guidelines establishing minimum
ventilation rates required for the control of crushing plant
facilities, and upon which the ventilation rates most com-
monly utilized in the industry are based, are briefly dis-
cussed below.
Conveyor Transfer Points
At belt to belt conveyor transfer points, hoods should
be designed to enclose both the head pulley of the upper
belt and the tail pulley of the lower belt as completely as
possible. With careful design, the open area should be
reduced to about 0.15 square meters per meter (0.5 square
3-18
-------
14
feet per foot) of belt width. Factors affecting the air
volume to be exhausted include the conveyor belt speed and
the free-fall distance to which the material is subjected.
Recommended exhaust rates are 33 m per min per meter (350 cfm
per foot) of belt width for belt speeds less than 61 meters/
min (200 fpm) and 150 meters /min (500 cfm) for belt speeds
exceeding 61 meters/min (200 fpm). For a belt to belt
transfer with less than a 0.91 meter (three foot) fall, the
enclosure illustrated in Figure 3-3 is commonly used.
TO CONTROL DEVICE
AND EXHAUST FAN
Figure 3.3 Hood configuration for conveyor
transfer, less than 0.91 meter (3-foot) fall.
3-19
-------
For belt to belt transfers with a free-fall distance
greater than 0.91 meters (three feet) and for chute to belt
transfers, an arrangement similar to that depicted in Figure
3-4 is commonly used. The exhaust connection should be made
as far downstream as possible to maximize dust fallout and
thus minimize needless dust entrainment. For very dusty
material, additional exhaust air may be required at the tail
pulley of the receiving belt. Recommended air volumes are
20 m /min (700 cfm) for belts 0.91 meters (three feet) wide
and less, and 28 m /min (1,000 cfm) for belts wider than
0.91 meters (three feet).16
FROM CHU
OR BELT
ADDITIONAL ^
EXHAUST -^s
c
TE
^ n
>M^-\
\ \ y4
r\
v \
— > TO CONTROL
DEVICE
\
1 ^- — RUBBER
^ SKIRT
) CONVEYOR BELT
Figure 3-4.
Hood configuration for a chute to belt
or conveyor transfer, greater than 0.91
meters (3-foot) fall.1"
3-20
-------
Belt or chute to bin transfer points differ from the
usual transfer operation in that there is no open area
downstream of the transfer point. Thus, emissions are
emitted only at the loading point. As illustrated in Figure
3-5, the exhaust connection is normally located at some
point remote from the loading point and exhausted at a
minimum rate of 61 m /min per square meter (200 cfm per
square foot) of open area.
BELT
LOADING
POINT
BIN
OR
HOPPER
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
t
Figure 3-5. Exhaust configuration at bin or hopper.
Screens
A number of esxhaust points are usually required to
achieve effective control at screening operations. A full
coverage hood, as depicted in Figure 3-6, is generally used
to control emissions generated at actual screening surfaces.
Exhaust volumes required vary with the surface area of the
3-21
-------
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
FEED
COMPLETE
ENCLOSURE
SCREEN
THROUGHS
Figure 3-6. Hood configuration for
vibrating screen.
3-22
-------
screen and the amount of open,area around the periphery of
the enclosure. A well-designed enclosure should have a
space of no more than 5 to 10 centimeters (2 to 4 inches)
around the periphery of the screen. A minimum exhaust rate
of 15 m /min per square meter (50 cfm per square foot)
of screen area is commonly used with no increase for multi-
18
pie decks. Additional ventilation air may be required at
the discharge chute to belt or bin transfer points. If
needed, these points are treated as regular transfer points
and exhausted accordingly.
Crushers and Grinders
Hooding and air volume requirements for the control of
crusher and grinde>r emissions are quite variable and for the
most part based on judgment and experience. The only estab-
lished criterion is that a minimum indraft velocity of 61
meters per min (200 fpm) be maintained through all open hood
areas. To achieve- this, face velocities in excess of 150
meters per minute (500 fpm) may be necessary to overcome
induced air motion, resulting from the material feed and
discharge velocitj.es and the mechanically induced velocity
19
(fan action) of a particular equipment type. To achieve
effective emission control, ventilation should be applied at
both the upper portion or feed end of the device and at the
discharge point. Where access to a device is required for
maintenance, removable hood sections may be utilized.
3-23
-------
In general, the upper portion of the crusher or grinder
should be enclosed as completely as poss.ible, and exhausted
according to the criterion established for transfer points.
The discharge to the belt transfer should also be totally
enclosed. The exhaust rate, however, may vary considerably
depending on crusher type. For impact crushers or grinders,
exhaust volumes may range from 110 to 230 m /min (4,000 to
8,000 cfm). For compression type crushers, an exhaust
3
rate of 46 m /min per meter (500 cfm per foot) of discharge
opening should be sufficient. In either case, pick-up
should be applied downstream of the crusher for a distance
of at least 3.5 times the width of the receiving conveyor.
A typical hood configuration used to control particulate
emissions from a cone crusher is depicted in Figure 3-7.
Product Loading and Bagging
Particulate esmissions from truck loading and other bulk
loading operations can be minimized by reducing the open
height that material must fall from a silo to the shipping
vehicle. Shrouds,, telescoping feed tubes, and windbreaks
can reduce the fucjitive emissions from this intermittent
source.
Bagging operations are controlled by local exhaust
systems and vented to a fabric filter system for product
recovery. Hood face velocities on the order of 150 meters
(500 feet) per minute should be used. An automatic bag
3-24
-------
I
M
l/l
_/
7 /""
INSPECTION
DOOR
CONE .
CRUSHER
COLLECTION
HOODS
CONTROL
DEVICE
DUST
BIN
EXHAUST '
t
FAN
I //
Figure 3-7. Hood configuration used to control a cone crusher.
-------
filling operation and vent system is shown in Figure 3-8.
3.2.2.2 Collection Devices - The most effective dust
collection device in the mineral industry is the fabric
filter or baghouse. For most crushing plant applications,
mechanical shaker type collectors which require periodic
shutdown for cleaning (after four or five hours of opera-
tion) are used. These units are normally equipped with
cotton sateen bags and operated at an air to cloth ratio of
2 or 3 to 1. A cleaning cycle usually requires no more than
two to three minutes of bag shaking and is normally actuated
automatically wher the exhaust fan is turned off.
For applications where it may be impractical to turn
off the collector, fabric filters with continuous cleaning
are employed. Although compartmented mechanical shaker
types may be used, jet pulse units are preferred. These
units usually use wool or synthetic felted bags for a
filtering media and may be operated at a filtering ratio of
as high as 6 or 10 to 1. Regardless of the baghouse type
used, jet pulse or shaker, greater than 99 percent effi-
ciency can be attained even on submicron particle sizes.
Outlet grain loadings recorded during EPA emission tests at
a number of crushed stone facilities processing a variety of
3 23
rock types seldom exceeded 0.02 grams/Nm (0.01 gr/dscf).
These crushed stone operations are similar to those encoun-
tered in these non-metallic minerals.
3-26
-------
500 fpm maximum
Hood attached to bin
— Principal dust source
Scale support
Figure 3-8. Bag filling vent system.21
3-27
-------
Other collection devices used in the industry include
cyclones and low eaergy scrubbers. Although these col-
lectors may demonstrate high efficiencies, 95 to 99 percent,
for coarse particles (40 microns and larger). Their ef-
ficiencies are poor, less than 85 percent, for medium and
22
fine particles (20 microns and smaller). Although high
energy scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators could
conceivably achieve results similar to that of a fabric
filter, there is no indication that these methods are used
to control dust emissions in the industry.
3.2.3 Combination Systems
Wet dust suppression and dry collection techniques are
often used in combination to control particulate emissions
from crushing plant facilities. As illustrated in Figure
3-9, wet dust suppression techniques are generally used to
prevent emissions at the primary crushing stage and at
subsequent screens, transfer points and crusher inlets. Dry
collection is generally used to control emissions at the
discharge of the secondary and tertiary crushers where new
dry surfaces and fine particulates are formed. In addition
to controlling emissions, dry collection results in the
removal of a large' portion of the fine particulates gener-
ated with the resultant effect of making subsequent dust
3-28
-------
TRUCK DUMP
AND FEEDER
CL
ID
BAG
COLLECTOR
PRIMAR"
CRUSHER
BIN AND TRUCK
LOADING STATION
SUPPRESSION
COLLrCTIO]
TERTIARY
CRUSHER
Figure 3-9. Combination dust control systems.
3-29
-------
suppression applications more effective with a minimum of
added moisture. Depending on the production requirements,
dry collection may also be necessary at the finishing
screens.
3.2.4 Control of Portable Plants
Dust control at portable crushing plants is considered
by some industry spokesmen to be difficult since utilities
such as electricity and water are limited, and the amount
of equipment that can be transported from location to loca-
tion is limited. The successful application of a wet dust
suppression system has, however, been reported.24 Further-
more, trailer mounted portable baghouse units are presently
commercially available and have been utilized to control
emissions from portable asphalt concrete batch plants.
Although the application of dry collection systems at port-
able crushing plants is not widespread, portable plant
equipment manufacturers have indicated, unofficially, that
this control option is indeed feasible and that the required
hoods, enclosures and ductwork could be integrated into the
design of the portable plant components. In fact, at least
one manufacturer 'las drafted a proposal for such an instal-
lation.25
3.3 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
Fugitive dus- emissions constitute a large portion of
3-30
-------
the non-metallic mineral industry's emission problem.
Control measures used to reduce fugitive dust emissions from
quarrying operations have already been discussed in Section
3.1. Application of the control methods described in Sec-
tion 3.2 will redace emissions from contained sources. A
review of the control measures applied to open sources is
presented in this section.
3.3.1 Control of Aggregate Storage Piles
Aggregate stockpiles are a significant source of
fugitive dust. Emissions may result both during the actual
formation of stoc
-------
tangular openings at different levels through which the
material may flow. This reduces the free fall distance and
affords wind protection. Another approach is the tele-
scoping chute. Material is discharged to a retractable
chute and falls freely to the top of the pile. As the
height of the stockpile increases or decreases, the chute is
gradually raised or lowered accordingly. A similar approach
is the use of a stacker conveyor equipped with an adjustable
hinged boom which can be used to raise or lower the conveyor
according to the height of the stockpile.
An alternative approach is the application of wet dust
suppression techniques. Water sprays located at the stack-
ing conveyor discharge pulley can be used to wet the product
and, consequently, suppress emissions. For very fine
products such as stone sand a pug mill may be used to elim-
inate particulate emissions by mixing the product with water
prior to stockpiling. If a finely ground product cannot be
wetted, it should be stored in silos prior to shipping.
The most comnonly used technique for controlling
windblown emissions from active stockpiles is to wet them
down. A water truck equipped with a hose or other spray
device may be used. One operator uses spray towers in the
stockpile areas. The towers are equipped with spray nozzles
capable of spraying water at 1900 liters (500 gallons) per
3-32
-------
minute in a continuous circle with a 61 meter (200 foot)
radius. Only three passes are required to effectively wet
down a pile.
The location of stockpiles behind natural or manu-
factured wind breaks will also aid in reducing windblown
dust. In addition, the working side of active piles should
be located on the leeward side of the pile. For very fine
materials, however, or for materials which must be stored
dry, the use of suitable stockpile enclosures or silos is
the only effective means of control, regardless of load-out
problems they may create.
For storage piles which are inactive for long periods
of time and for permanent waste piles or spoil banks, the
application of soil stabilizers, consisting of petroleum or
synthetic resins in emulsion, have been somewhat effective.
These chemical birders cause the topmost particles to adhere
to one another, forming a durable wind and rain resistant
surface crust. As long as this surface crust remains
intact, the stockpile is protected from wind erosion.
3.3.2 Control of Conveying Operations
Conveying operations may result in fugitive dust
emissions in addition to the emissions generated at transfer
points. These emjssions may be either mechanically induced
or windblown.
3-33
-------
Control alternatives include dust suppression and
covering. As noted in Section 3.2.1, a carryover, dust-
proofing effect will result from wet dust suppression
applications. It is unlikely, however, that this carryover
effect is sufficient to afford effective control during
periods of high wind and low humidity or for handling fine
materials. Ultimately, the most effective measure is to
cover open conveyors. Covers provide protection from wind
and prevent airboine particles. In addition to dust con-
trol, covered conveyors also yield certain operating bene-
fits. They increase a plant's capability to operate during
periods of inclement weather by reducing the potential for
mud cake buildup on belts, which can result in damage to
conveyors and hazardous operating conditions; screen blind-
ing; and the production of non-specification products due to
the retention of fines.
3.3.3 Control of Load Out Operations
The transfer of fine materials from stockpiles or
storage bins into open dump trucks generates fugitive dust
emissions. These emissions can be reduced by dust suppres-
sion and by reducing the free fall height of material being
transferred as described in Section 3.2.2. Loader operators
may also contribute to the prevention of dust formation by
placing buckets ais close to truck beds as possible before
dumping.
3-34
-------
At some installations, water spray systems are used to
suppress particulate emissions and also wet the material in
the truck when loading out of bins. In addition, enclosing
the area under the bins as much as practicable will reduce
the potential for windblown emissions. Exhaust systems
using canopy-type hoods such as those used at dry-concrete-
batch plants, are not widely used in the non-metallic min-
erals industry. Operators contend that such a system would
be impractical because of the variability in the bed size of
the trucks loaded. Attempts to ventilate the entire bin
load out area have been ineffective due to the large air
volumes required.
3.3.4 Control of Yard and Other Open Areas
Fugitive dust emissions from plant yard areas are
generated as a result of vehicle traffic and wind. In
general, control of these areas consists of simply main-
taining good housekeeping practices. Spillage and other
potential dust sources should be cleaned up. For paved or
other smooth yard surfaces, the use of street sweeping
equipment such as brush type and vacuum type sweepers has
been effective. For interplant roads, subject to high
traffic volume, the same control measures utilized on quarry
haul roads can be used as described in Section 3.1. For
large open areas and overburden piles, treatment with soil
stabilizers and the planting of vegetation offer viable
3-35
-------
control options. Many chemical stabilizers presently on the
market actually promote the emergence and growth of vege-
tation and offer effective control against rain and wind
erosion.
3.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL SYSTEMS
3.4.1 Dust Suppression
There are a number of factors which may affect the
performance of a wet dust suppression system. These include
wetting agent used, the method of application, character-
istics of the process of flow, and the type and size of the
process equipment serviced. The number, type and config-
uration of spray aozzles at an application point, as well as
the speed at whicn a material stream moves past an appli-
cation point, may affect both the efficiency and uniformity
of wetting. In addition, meteorological factors, such as
wind, ambient temperature and humidity, which affect the
evaporation rate of added moisture, may also adversely
affect the overall performance of a dust suppression system.
Where the material processed contains a high percentage of
fines, such as the product from a hammermill, dust
suppression applications may be totally inadequate because
of the enormous surface areas to be treated.
3.4.2 Dry Collection
For dry collection systems, factors affecting both
capture and collection efficiency are important. Wind
3-36
-------
blowing through hood openings can almost nullify the ef-
fectiveness of a local exhaust system. This can be ap-
preciated when one' considers that an indraft velocity of 61
meters/min (200 fpm) is equivalent to less than 3.7 km/hr
(2.3 mph). Consequently, it may be necessary to house
process equipment in buildings or structures at installations
subject to high prevailing winds. Except for sand and
gravel plants, much of the processing in these industries
occurs in buildings which enclose the equipment.
An exhaust system must be properly maintained and
balanced if it is to remain effective. Good practice
dictates that systems be periodically inspected and capture
and conveying velocities checked against design specifi-
cations to assure that the system is indeed functioning
properly. The primary causes for systems becoming unbal-
anced are the presence of leaks resulting from wear due to
abrasion or corrosion and the settling of dust in poorly
designed duct runs which effectively reduce the cross
sectional area of the duct and increase pressure drop.
Fabric filters and to a lesser extent cyclone type
collectors can be used to capture dust. An important factor
affecting the performance of a baghouse is bag cleaning.
Too frequent or too severe a cleaning action results in
excessive bag wear and the formation of leaks. In addition,
3-37
-------
overcleaning may prevent the formation of an adequate filter
cake and thus lower collection efficiency. Inadequate
cleaning may cause fabric filters to blind resulting in
excessively high pressure drops. The importance of follow-
ing manufacturers recommended operating and maintenance
procedures cannot be overstressed.
Data gathered during emission tests on 12 baghouse
units used to control a variety of process facilities at
seven crushed stone installations processing a variety of
rock types, including limestone, traprock and cement rock,
indicate that the size distribution of particulates col-
lected, the rock type processed, and the facility controlled
23
does not substantially affect baghouse performance.
Cyclone type collectors, though less effective than
fabric filters, may also be used to reduce emissions. Care
must be taken to insure that the cyclone cone does not be-
come plugged and that the inlet sections do not erode away
from the abrasive dust particles.
3.4.3 Wet Collection
Spray chambers and venturi type scrubbers can be used
to reduce particulate emissions. Water from these systems
can generally be clarified and recirculated. Purge streams
from the water circulation system can be used in dust sup-
pression systems.
3-38
-------
3.4.4 Combined Suppression and Collection Systems
The factors effecting the performance of combination
systems are identical to those encountered where dust
suppression or dry collection systems are used alone.
3-39
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. "Dust Control in Mining, Tunneling and Quarrying in the
United States, 1961 through 1976," Bureau of Mines
information circular, No. IC8407, March 196, pp. 11-12.
2. Minnick, J. L., "Control of Particulate Emissions from
Lime Plants - A Survey," Journal of the Air Pollution
Control Association, Volume 21., No. 4, April 1971, p.
198-199.
3. Chiaro, D. A., "Significant Operating Benefits Reported
from Cement Quarry Dust Control Program," Pit and
Quarry, January 1971.
4. "Conrock Controls Fugitive Dust Efficiently and Eco-
nomically," Pit and Quarry, September 1972, pp. 127-
128.
5. "Investigation of Fugitive Dust Volume I - Sources,
Emissions and Control," prepared by PEDCo Environmental
Specialists, Inc., for the Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0044, Task 9, June 1974, p.
4-29.
6. Ibid., p. 4-22.
7. "Rock Products Reference File - Dust Suppression," Rock
Products, May 1972, p. 156.
8. Weant, G. E., "Characterization of Particulate Emis-
sions from the Stone-Processing Industry," prepared by
Research Triangle Institute for the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-
0607-10, May 1975, p. 64.
9. Johnson-March Corporation, Product Literature on Chem-
Jet Dust Suppression System, 1971.
10. Courtesy of Johnson-March Corporation.
11. Reference 8.
3-40
-------
12. Hankin, M., "Is Dust the Stone Industry's Next Major
Problem," Rock Products, April 1967, p. 84.
13. Ibid., p. 114.
14. Anderson, D. M., "Dust Control Design by the Air
Induction Technique," Industrial Medicine and Surgery,
February 1964, p. 3.
15. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hy-
gienists, "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recom-
mended Practice," llth Edition, 1970, p. 5-32.
16. Ibid. pg. 5-33.
17. Ibid. p. 5-31.
18. Ibid. p. 5-34.
19. Reference 14, p. 2.
20. Telephone conversation between Mr. Alfred Vervaert,
EPA, and Mr. Joel McCorkel, Aggregates Equipment
Incorporated, January 28, 1975.
21. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hy-
gienists, "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recom-
mended Practice," llth Edition, 1970, p. 5-28.
22. "Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No.
AP-51, January 1969, pp. 46-47.
23. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission
Reduction for Quarrying and Plant Process Facilities in
the Crushed and Broken Stone Industry. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and En-
gineering Division, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711. Draft. April, 1976.
24. Greesaman, J., "Stone Producer Wins Neighbors' Ac-
ceptance," Roads and Streets, July 1970.
25. Telephone Communication between Mr. Alfred Vervaert
EPA and a representative from Iowa Manufacturing Co.,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa, March 5, 1974.
26. Armbrust, D. V. and Dickerson, J. D., "Temporary Wind
Erosion Control: Cost and Effectiveness of 34 Com-
mercial Materials," Journal of Soil and Water Con-
servation, July - August, 1971, p. 154.
3-41
-------
4.0 STATE AND LOCAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
To determine the impact of New Source Performance Stan-
dards (NSPS), the emissions under state regulations must be
determined. The regulations applicable to particulate emis-
sions in each state from industrial processes are summarized
in Table 4-1. The column labelled "process weight equation"
indicates the equation or pair of equations defining the
maximum allowable emissions in each state where available.
Where equations are not available, tables have been provided
to show maximum allowable emissions (Tables 4-2 through 4-
6). The process weight used in the regulations is inter-
preted as being for the entire plant rather than each piece
of equipment. This agrees with the interpretation used by
many states and is also the more restrictive application,
resulting in a conservative evaluation of the NSPS impact.
The Table 4-1 column labelled "concentration, grains/scf"
indicates the maximum allowable concentration of particulate
in grains per standard cubic foot. The column labelled
"opacity" indicates the maximum allowable visible emission
from industrial processes. In most states the opacity is 20
percent, or equivalent to Ringelmann No. 1.
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. INDUSTRIAL PROCESS PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS REGULATIONS BY STATE
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Bay Area
Kern County
Los Angeles
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansafa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Process
weight
equation
a
b
b
a
c
a
a
a
b (1)
a
c
b
c
b
b
d
b
b
b
b
b
a
e
f
f
b
b
c
b
b
b
b
g
b
b
b
b
b
e
Concentration
grains/scf
0.1
0.05
0.15
0.1 - 0.2
0.3
0.2
0.03
0.02
0.3
3
690 vg/ro
0.3 lb/1000 Ib
0.05
0.2
0.1
Opacity
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
?0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
40
40
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
?0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Comments
Clasi 1 counties
Class 2 counties
Existing source
New source - July 1, 197?
Each county has own
regulations
Valley Basin - Desert Basin
Existing source - see
Table 4-2
New source - January 1,
1973 - Table 4-3
Exi&tinq source - i,eo
Table 4-2
New source - January 17,
1972
Existing source
New source - July 2, 1960
Existing source
New source - December 31,
1972
Same as District of
Columbia
Existing source
New source - June 1, 1972
Existing in critical
regions
Existing source
New source - April 1, 1972
See Table 4-4
Exhaust gas concentrations
- Gypsum
Sec Table 4-5 Pumice, Mica,
Pcrlite
E> luting sourer1
New source - July 1, 1973
Existing source
New source - February 15,
1972
4-2
-------
Table 4-1 (Continued). INDUSTRIAL PROCESS
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS REGULATIONS BY STATE
State
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rxco
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Process
weight
equation
h
b
b
b
b
b
a
i
b
a
b
a
Concentration
grains/scf
0.02
0.2
0.1
Opacity
60
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
60
20
?0
40
40
20
20
20
20
Comments
Existing source
New source - August 9 ,
1969
85% controlled or opacity
laws
See Table 4-2
AQCR 1-6
AQCR 7 - See Table
Lxisting source
New source - February
1972
See Table 4-6
Existing source
New source - April 9,
2,
3973
Process
weight
equation
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
Less
E =
E =
E =
E =
E =
E =
E =
E =
E =
than 30 tons/hr*
3.59 P°'62
4.1 P°-67
4.1 P°'67
2.54 P0-534 ***
55.0 p°-]1 - 40
1/2 (55.0 p0'11 - 40]
5.05 P0-67
0.76 P°'42 **
3.12 P0-985 ****
Greater than 30 tons/hr*
E = 17.31
E = 55.0
(Same as
E = 24.8
(Same as
(Same as
E = 66.0
(Same as
E = 25.4
p0.16
P0-11 - 40
less than 30
P0.16
less than 30
less than 30
P0'11 - 48
less than 30
pO.287
,
tons/hr)
tons/hr)
tons/hr)
tons/hr)
* E unit1: of Ibs/hr, P units of
** E units of Ibs/hr, p units of
*** Leon th.-in 450 toni/hr.
'*** Ixjsr, th.in ?0 tons/hr.
(1) Greater than 30 tons/hr only.
tons/hr, except as noted.
Ibs/hr.
4-3
-------
Table 4-2. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES FOR EXISTING SOURCES IN LOS ANGELES, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, AND MARYLAND, AND ALL SOURCES IN VERMONT*
Process weight
per hour in
pounds
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
3200
3300
Maximum weight
of particulate
discharge per
hours in pounds
0.24
0.46
0.66
0.85
1.03
1.20
3.35
1.50
1.63
1.77
1.89
2.01
2.12
2.24
2.34
2.43
2.53
2.62
2.7?
2.80
2.97
3.12
3.26
3.40
3.54
3.66
3.79
3.91
4.03
4.14
4.24
4.34
4.44
4.55
4.64
4.76
4.84
4.92
5.02
5.10
5.18
5.27
5.36
Process weight
per hour in
pounds
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
J7000
18000
19000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
or
moro
Maximum weight
or particulate
discharge per
hours in pounds
5.44
5.52
5.61
5.69
5.77
5.85
5.93
6.01
6.08
6.15
6.22
6.30
6.37
6.45
6.52
6.60
6.67
7.03
7.37
7.71
8.05
8.39
8.71
9.03
9.36
9.67
10.0
10.63
11.23
11.89
12.50
13.13
13.74
14.36
14.97
15.58
16.19
22.22
28.3
34. 3
40.0
Where the process weight per hour falls between two vnJues in the
table, the maximum weight per hour shall be determined by linear
interpolation.
* This table is applicable in the District of Columbia and Maryland
up to 60,000 Ibs/hr only.
4-4
-------
Table 4-3. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FROM INDUSTRIAL
PROCESSES FOR NEW SOURCES IN LOS ANGELES
Process weight
per hour,
pounds per
hour
250 or less
300
350
400
450
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
6500
7000
7500
8000
8500
9000
9500
10000
Maximum discharge
rate allowed for
solid particulate
matter, pounds
per houra
1.10
1.12
1.23
1.34
1.44
1.54
1.73
1.90
2.07
2.22
2.38
2.66
2.93
3.19
3.43
3.66
4.21
4.72
5.19
5.64
6.07
6.49
6.89
7.27
7.64
8.00
8.36
8.70
9.04
9.36
9.68
10.00
Process weight
per hour,
pounds per
hour
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
250000
300000
350000
4000CO
450000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000 or more
Maximum discharge
rate allowed for
solid particulate
matter, pounds
per houra
10.4
10.8
11.2
11.5
11.8
12.4
13.0
13.5
13.9
14.3
' 14.7
15.3
15.9
16.4
16.9
17.3
18.1
18.8
19.4
19.9
20.4
21.6
22.5
23.4
24.1
24.8
25.4
26.6
27 .,6
28.4
29.3
30.0
Aggregate discharged from all points of process.
4-5
-------
Table 4-4. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSION RATE FROM
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES IN NEW JERSEY
*>•
I
Potential emission
rate from source
operation
Ib/hr
50 or less
100
1000
2000
3000 or greater
Allowable emission
rate (Ib/hr)
(Based on 99% effi-
ciency of collection)
0.5
1.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
Source gas emitted
for source oper.
(scfm)
3,000 or less
6,000
35,000
70,000
140,000
175,000 or greater
Allowable emission
rate (Ib/hr)
(Based on 0.02
grains per SCF)
0.5
1.0
6.0
12.0
24.0
30.0
Note:
1. From columns 1 and 2 above, determine the allowable emission rate based upon the
potential emission rate of solid particles from the source operation.
2. From columns 3 and 4 above, determine the allowable emission rate based upon the
source gas emitted from the source operation. Whenever dilution gas is, for any
purpose, added to the source gas from a source operation, the source gas emitted
shall be considered to be the gas discharge rate prior to such dilution.
3. The greater of the two emission rates as determined from 1 and 2 above shall be
the maximum allowable emission rate. For rates between any two consecutive values
stated in columns 1 and 3, the corresponding allowable emission rates shall be as
determined by interpolation.
-------
Table 4-5. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS FROM
PUMICE, MICA, AND PERLITE PROCESSES IN NEW MEXICO
Process rate ,
pounds per hour
Maximum
stack emission rate,
pounds per hour
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000 and above
10
15
22
28
31
33
37
40
43
47
50
4-7
-------
Table 4-6. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS -FROM
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES IN WEST VIRGINIA
Process weight
rate in
pounds per hour
0
2,500
5,000
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
900,000
1,800,000 and
above
Emission
rate in
pounds per hour
0
3
5
10
16
22
28
31
33
37
40
43
47
50
50
50
50
50
4-8
-------
Process weight equation (b) is by far the most predomi-
nant of those presented in Table 4-1. Note also that equa-
tion (c) is the same as equation (b) for rates less than 30
tons per hour, and is extended to include rates greater than
30 tons per hour.
4-9
-------
5.0 ESTIMATED NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARD EMISSION REDUCTIONS
5.1 NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARD (NSPS) ANALYSIS
METHOD
To determine the potential impact of NSPS on these
industries, calculations were performed using a method known
1 2
as Model IV, ' which mathematically expresses the differ-
ential in atmospheric emissions that could be expected by
1985 with a'nd without NSPS.
Estimated growth and obsolescence rates over a ten year
period were applied to baseline year (1975) industry capac-
ities to obtain the new and modified capacity that could be
regulated by NSPS in the period 1975 to 1985. Emission
levels in 1985, which represent maximum allowable values
based on production, were then calculated by applying 1)
control levels stipulated by the current state regulations,
and 2) new source performance standards recommended by EPA.
The difference between these two emission levels represents
the emission impact of NSPS for a specific industry.
From Reference 2, the equations used to determine the
impact of NSPS are:
5-1
-------
where:
T = (A-B) K E + (B+C) K E (1)
s s s
T = (A-B) K E + (B+C) K E (2)
n s n
T = total emissions in the ith year under
regulations (tons/year).
n
= total emissions in the ith year under
NSPS promulgated in the baseline year
(tons/ year).
A = baseline year industrial capacity (pro-
duction units/year).
B = capacity needed to maintain baseline
year capacity due to replacement of
depreciated equipment or facilities
(production units/year).
C = capacity increase over baseline year
capacity due to the construction of new
equipment or facilities to accomodate
growth (production units/year).
K = normal fractional utilization rate of
baseline year capacity assumed constant
during entire time interval. (capacity)
x (fractional utilization) = production.
E = allowable emission rate under current
o
state regulations (mass/unit capacity).
E = allowable emission rate under NSPS
(mass/unit capacity).
The quantity (A-B) indicates the existing capacity in
the ith year not subject to NSPS. The quantity (B+C) in-
dicates the capacity due to replacement and new construction
which is subject to the current state regulations in equa-
tion (1) and NSPS in equation (2). The difference between
the two equations, T -T , is given by:
o II
5-2
-------
O ^
oil S il
and reflects the control effectiveness of NSPS over the
existing state regulations for a specific industry.
The values of B and C for equations 1, 2, and 3 are
determined as follows:
If replacement, reconstruction, and new construction is
determined to occur at a compounded growth rate
B = A 1(1 + Pb)^ - 1] (4)
C = A 1(1 + P J1 - 1] (5)
O
If a simple growth rate is found
B = A i Pb (6)
C = A i PC (7)
The variable (i) is the elapsed time in years (i = 10
for this study). The variable (P, ) is defined as the aver-
age rate at which depreciated equipment or facilities are
replaced during the time period 1975 to 1985. It is ex-
pressed as a fraction and is applied to the baseline year
capacity, A, to determine B. This is the value of B to
which NSPS can be applied.
The variable (P ) is defined as the average anticipated
v_*
growth rate in industrial capacity during the period 1975 to
1985. It is also expressed as a fraction and is applied to
A to determine C. NSPS are applied to this value of C.
A few modifications have been made to this model for
applications in this report. It is believed that these
5-3
-------
modifications provide a better representation of the effec-
tiveness of NSPS.
The emission rate variable, E , is defined as the
uncontrolled emission rate (mass/unit capacity). Emissions
under current state regulations, E , is compared to E and
s u
the smaller value is used in place of the variable E in
O
equations (1) and (2). In most cases E will be less than
o
E . However, in the rare situation where E is less than E
u us
(such as for the sand and gravel industry), total emissions
cannot exceed those produced at an uncontrolled emission
rate and therefore, should not be calculated based on the
state allowable emission rate. Thus, E is replaced by E
S u.
in order to calculate emissions in the ith year not subject
to NSPS when E is less than E .
u s
Also, the NSPS emission rate, E , is compared to the
two rates previously compared (E and E ), and the smallest
LI fa
value is used in place of the variable E in equation (2).
In most cases E will be the smallest value (such is the
case in this study). However, in contrary situations 1)
total emissions cannot exceed those produced at an uncon-
trolled emission rate should E be less than E , and 2)
allowable emissions will already be limited by current state
regulations should E be less than E . Thus, NSPS will not
3 s n
apply to those industries which are already subject to more
5-4
-------
stringent regulations or limitations. In these situations,
therefore, T will be equal to T and the NSPS will have no
s n
affect.
The NSPS should not allow more emissions than the
current state regulations. Therefore, the quantity (T -T )
s n
should never be negative. For this to be true each of the
three terms on the right side of equation (3) must be posi-
tive. The first term, the fractional utilization, K, is
always a positive decimal between zero and unity. From the
previous discussion of the modifications on E and E , the
o II
second term (E -E ) is always greater than or equal to zero.
«3 Jl
The third term (B+C) represents the capacity subject to
NSPS, and, therefore, it also should never become negative.
The variable, B, will always be positive since facilities
will always depreciate. However, the variable, C, will be
negative for industries whose capacities are decreasing from
that of the baseline year. These industries overall are
declining rather than expanding. If the term (B+C) is
negative, the industry capacity is declining faster than
facilities are depreciating. Therefore, there will be no
capacity subject to NSPS, and (T -T ) should equal zero.
s n
5.2 INPUT VARIABLES FOR NSPS EMISSION IMPACT DETERMINATION
The data necessary when determining the NSPS impact by
Model IV are: 1975 production capacity, fraction utiliza-
5-5
-------
tion of capacity, industry growth (or decrease) in pro-
duction capacity, equipment depreciation rate, uncontrolled
emission factor, allowable emissions under state regula-
tions, and allowable emissions under NSPS. These are sum-
marized in Tables 1-1 and 5-1.
5.2.1 Model Plant Process Weight
A model plant for each mineral industry was necessary
in order to determine the typical control device flow rates
and allowable emissions under state regulations.
To find the model plant size, actual plant capacities
were determined for as many plants as in each industry as
were readily available. References used included the In-
ternational Directory of Mining and Mineral Processing
4 5
Operations , National Emissions Data System (NEDS) , I ri-
ft 7
dustrial Minerals and Rocks, Minerals Facts and Problems ,
o
and Mineral Yearbook . in addition, plant capacities ob-
tained during plant visits and from trade associations were
considered. Also, an "average" plant size was calculated
using total industry production, the number of plants, and
an assumed 6720 hr/yr of operation. With this information,
a model plant size was determined. These are shown in Table
5-1 and the calculations are summarized in Appendix B.
5.2.2 Uncontrolled Emissions
Uncontrolled emission rates for the various processes
in the non-metallic minerals industry were obtained directly
5-6
-------
Table 5-1. TYPICAL NON-METALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING FACILITIES
Mineral
Bante
Borates
Clay
Diatomite
Feldspar
Cypsu-T
Ui y piocci^sos
(excluding dryers
and heating steps)
Primary crashing (^aw)
Screening/Con /eying/
!'andli-->q
Total
Primary Crashing
(Harrmermill)
Secondary Crushing
(HdKimermill)
Tertiary Crushing
( Hammer mi 11 )
Screening/Conveying
Hardling
Total
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Secondary Crushing
(Cyrotory)
Tertiary Crushing
(Ha-jr.eriiill)
Screening/Conveying/
Hardling
Total
Prinary crushing
(Ha-v-iermil] )
Screenirg/Conveying/
Hardlina
Total
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Secondary Crusning
(Gyrotory )
Tcrtaary Crushing
(Ball mill)
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Pn-nary Crushing
(Gyrotory)
Secondary Crushing
(conei
Tertiary Crushing
(roilerTill)
Screen irg/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Model plant
process weight,
MT/hr
14
381
27
18
18
23
ton/hr
15
420
30
20
20
Uncontrolled
emission factor,
kg/t-.T
0.25
1.0
1.25
0.75
0.75
3.0
1.0
5.5
55
0.75
1.00
Ib/ton
0.5
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
6.0
2.0
11.0
110
1.5
2.0
1.75 3.5
0.25
0.75
3.0
1.0
0.5
1.5
6.0
- 2.0
Control device
flow rate,
Nti-Vmn
10.6
210.]
scfm
375
7,425
Allowable emissions
N'SPS, state,
kg/XT
220. 7 7,800 0.049
Ib/tonjkg/.'lT j Ib/ton
0.09SJ0.82
1754 |62,000 0.014: 0.028.0.054
10.6
37.5
29.7
362.9
440.7
24.1
193.1
217.2
10.6
37.5
65.1
324 .7
375
1,325
1,050
12., 825 ._
1.64
0.108
15,575 0.049 0.098IC.67 , 1.34
850
6,825
i
7,675 ;0.026; 0.072|0.-4 ; 0.38
375
1,325
2,300
] 1,475
5.0 10.0 437.9 115,475
25
0.50
0.75
3.0
1.0
5.25
1.0
1.5
6.0
2.0
10.5
37.5
37.5
35.4
346.0
1,323
1,325
1,250
12,225
0.073
456.4 116,125 0.061
0.146 10.71
0.122
0.71
1.42
1.42
-------
Table 5-1 (continued). TYPICAL NON-METALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING FACILITIES
Mineral
Lightweight aggregate
a) Perlite
b) Slag
c) Verraiculite
Pumice
Sand and Gravel
Talc and Soapsto-ie
Dry processes
(excluding dryers
and heating steps)
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Tertiary Crushing
(Ball or rod mill)
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Secondard Crushing (Jaw)
Screens ng/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Primary Crushing
(Hammermill)
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Secondary Crushing
(Gyrotory )
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Primary crushing (Jaw)
Secondary Crushing
(Gyrotory)
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Primary Crushing (Jaw)
Secondary Crushing
(Gyratory)
Tertiary Crushing
(Ball mill)
Screening/Conveying/
Handling
Total
Model plant
process weiaht,
HT/hr
27
272
68
9
91
9
ton/hr
30
300
75
10
100
10
Uncontrolled
emission factor.
kg/M7 Ib/ton
0.25
3.0
3.0
1.0
4.25
0.25
0.75
1.0
2.0
0.25
1.0
1.25
0.25
0.75
1.0
2.0
0.05
0.25
0.75
3.0
1.0
5.0
0.5
6.0
6.0
2.0
8.5
0.5
1.5
2.0
4.0
0.5
2.0
2.5
0.5
1.5
2.0
4.0
0.1
0.5
1.5
6.0
2.0
10.0
Control device
flow rate.
Sm-vmin scfro
10.6
80.7
80.7
296 4
387.7
1,344
97.6
283.7
381. 3
10.6
37.5
248.3
296.4
28. 3
37.5
460.6
375
2,850
2,850
10,475
13,700
47,500
3,450
10,075
Allowable emissions
N£PS. ' si-,-,-f>.
kg/KT
0.043
0.015
13,4751 0.017
375
1,325
8,775
10,475
1,000
1,325
16,275
0.099
526.4 13,600(0.018
10.6
37.5
45. 3
290.8
375
1,325
1,600
10,275
384.2 13.575jO.128
Ib/ton
0.086
0.030
0.034
kg/MT Ib/ton
0.520
0.083
0. 323
1.04
0.166
0.6-.6
0.198J 0.98511.97
0.03510.217 0.434
0.256] 0.980
1.96
Ul
I
00
-------
9
from or based on information contained in AP-42. Total
uncontrolled emission rates were dependent on the number and
types of crushing operations, and screening, handling, and
conveying. These emission factors are shown in Tables 2-7
and 5-1.
5.2.3 Control Device Flow Rate
Theoretical control device flow rates for various types
of equipment used in the non-metallic minerals industry are
graphically displayed in Appendix C. Typical types of
equipment and their respective control device flow rates,
based on the model plant process weights for each industry,
are listed in Table 5-1. In determining the overall flow
rate for each plant the following assumptions were made:
a) one grizzly, one bin discharge opening, and three
storage bin openings per plant,
b) two conveyor transfers per crusher,
c) one vibrating screen per crusher (except for
Diatomite which has no screens).
The total flow rates were used in determining NSPS for the
model plants in each industry.
5.2.4 NSPS Allowable Emission Rates
NSPS allowable emission rates were calculated based on
0.05 g/Nm (0.022 gr/dscf). Also the model plant process
weights from Section 5.2.1 and the model plant control
device flow rates from Section 5.2.3 (both shown in Table
5-9
-------
5-1) are required for these calculations. The formula used
for determing NSPS is:
NSPS emission rate (Kg/metric ton or Ib/ton) =
(0.05 g/Nm or 0.022 gr/dscf)(flow rate)(conversion factors)
(process weight)
NSPS emission rates are also shown in Table 5-1.
5.2.5 Allowable Emissions Under State Regulations
Allowable state emission rates were determined by
weighted averages of emission rates obtained from process
weight tables promulgated in the current regulations of each
state. The allowable emission rate in each state for a
given mineral was weighted according to the percentage of
production of that mineral in that state. In most cases the
regulations from only those states producing the larger
amounts of a given mineral were individually weighted. The
remaining percentage of production of these minerals was
assumed to fall under the most predominant of the state
regulations. The production of minerals for which a break-
down by state was not available was also assumed to fall
under the most predominant of the state regulations. Allow-
able emission regulations for each state are presented in
Chapter 4.0 and the calculations are shown in Appendix D.
The overall state allowable emission rates for all minerals
considered in this report are shown in Table 5-1.
5-10
-------
5.2.6 Industry Capacity, Capacity Utilization, and Growth
Rate
The industry capacity, A, for 1975, capacity utiliza-
tion, K, and capacity growth rate, P , were developed in
(_*
Chapter 1.0 and are summarized in Table 1-1. There were two
exceptions, however, to the 1975 industry capacities ob-
tained from this Table. One exception was borates. Table
1-1 contains the industry-wide total capacity. However,
some plants manufacture borates by a wet method and this
process has minimal particulate emissions. Approximately 80
percent of the production capacity is at plants that dry
process borates. The capacity used for the NSPS evalua-
tion was the approximate 1975 capacity of dry processing
borate ore. This was calculated as follows:
1,174,000 metric tons borate ore capacity x 0.80 =
939,000 metric tons (1,035,000 tons) borate ore capacity,
dry processed.
The other exception was slag. Table 1-1 contains the
total capacity for all types of slag, however, not all types
are crushed and screened. Approximately 93 percent of the
12
slag produced is crushed and screened. The capacity used
for the NSPS evaluation was only that amount crushed and
screened and was calaculated as follows:
45,644,000 metric tons slag capacity x 0.93 =
42,449,000 metric tons (46,792,000 tons) slag capacity,
crushed and screened.
5-11
-------
Detailed capacity calculations for both borate and slag
are presented in Appendix E. The total industry capacity
utilization factors and industry growth rates were used for
these two minerals in the NSPS evaluation.
5.2.7 Equipment Depreciation Rate
As developed in Section 2.3, the expected overall
equipment life in the non-metallic minerals industry is 20
years. Assuming a simple rate of depreciation, S, the
calculation of equipment depreciation rate P. is as follows:
Equipment depreciation rate, P, = —^Tf" = 0.050 S
5.3 NSPS EMISSION REDUCTIONS
The impact of NSPS on emissions as calculated by Model
IV is given in Table 5-2. The results in metric units are
given in Table 5-3. Process steps included in this evalua-
tion are crushing, grinding, sizing, and handling. Handling
includes conveying, bagging, and loading. Combustion sources
(e.g., dryers or kilns) are not included in the analysis.
The largest tonnage reduction is in the sand and gravel in-
dustry, followed closely by the clay industry. Reductions
in all other industries are much smaller. A 42 percent
reduction in emissions is calculated for the sand and gravel
industry, and 52 percent reduction for the clay industry.
The smallest percent reduction is for the barite industry
(36 percent) which has a declining growth rate. For the
5-12
-------
Table 5-3. NSPS IMPACT ON EMISSIONS, 1975-1985, METRIC UNITS
Mineral
Barite
Borate
Clay
Diatomite
Feldspar
Gypsum
Lightweight
aggregates
Perlite
Slag
Vermiculite
Pumice
Sand and gravel
Talc and soap-
stone
Emissions, metric tons/yr
1985
uncontrolled
emissions, T
972
8,192
3,504,000
1,580
4,255
72,450
3,078
76,620
652
27,640
63,260
7,725
1975 emissions
under existing
regulations, Ta
788
46
37,150
263
495
7,728
261
2,712
99
3,679
45,720
1,126
1985 emissions
under existing
regulations , Ts
638
80
42,690
397
603
9,798
376
3,179
168
5,445
63,260
1,513
1985 emissions
under NSPS, T
408
38
20,340
153
284
4,374
151
1,836
55
2,202
37,000
687
Reduction
due to NSPS,
Ts - Tn
229
42
22,350
244
319
5,423
225
1,493
112
3,243
26,260
826
-------
other industries, while the percent reductions range from 47
to 67 percent, the total reduction in emissions is much less
than that of sand and gravel or clay.
The emission rates (uncontrolled, state allowable, and
NSPS) have the most direct effect on the emission reduction.
Also a doubling of the growth rate, P , was found to in-
crease the emission impact (T -T ) by approximately 30 to 60
percent. A change in the depreciation rate, P. , to zero
caused a 30 to 50 percent reduction in the emission impact.
5-15
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5.0
1. Prxorities for the Development of Standards of Per-
formance, Draft, G.W. Walsh, Emission Standards and
Engineering Division, EPA, Durham, North Carolina,
November 13, 1973.
2. Impact of New Source Performance Standards on 1985
National Emissions from Stationary Sources, Volume I.
The Research Corporation of New England, Wethersfield,
Connecticut, October 24, 1975.
3. An Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Re-
duction for Quarrying and Plant Process Facilities in
the Crushed and Broken Stone Industry. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, August, 1975.
4. E/MJ International Directory of Mining and Mineral
Processing Operations. New York, Engineering and
Mining Journal, 1975. 488 p.
5. NEDS Point Source Print-out; U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, National Air Data Branch.
6. Industrial Minerals and Rocks, 4th Edition. Baltimore,
Port City Press, 1975. 1360 p.
7. Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970 Edition. U.S. Bureau
of Mines Bulletin 650, 1970. 1291 p.
8. Minerals Yearbook Vol. 1, 1973 Edition. Washington
D.C., U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1975. 1383 p.
9. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, 2nd
Edition. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Pub-
lication No. AP-42. February 1976. p. 8: 1-1 to 20-2.
10. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Publication AP-40,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May, 1973.
5-16
-------
11. Industrial Minerals and Rocks, 4th Edition. Baltimore,
Maryland, Port City Press, 1975. p. 479.
12. Mineral Industry Survey "Slay-Iron and Steel in 1974".
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
Washington, D.C., 1975.
5-17
-------
6.0 MODIFICATIONS AND RECONSTRUCTION
6.1 GENERAL
Emission limitations promulgated under a New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) apply to new, modified, and
reconstructed facilities. It is recognized that facilities
must be significantly altered or replaced from time-to-time.
It is clear that a basic oxygen furnace which is built to
replace an open hearth furnace is subject to NSPS limita-
tions. But what is the status of an existing EOF which is
remodeled to the extent that a larger oxygen lance is in-
stalled to increase capacity?
Sections 60.14 and 60.15, 40 CFR 60, define "modifica-
tion" and "reconstruction." A step-by-step approach for
determining whether a physical or operational change con-
stitutes a modification or reconstruction under the regula-
tions is shown in Figure 6-1. A simplified definition of
some of the terms used in the regulations follow:
0 Source - Generally an entire plant or process
consisting of more than one facility. For ex-
ample, the BOP-Shop may be considered a source.
0 Facility - A particular operation within a source.
For example, the EOF, Teeming Operation, and Hot
Metal Transfer Operation may each be thought of as
separate facilities within the source.
6-1
-------
EUStlNG FACILITY
WITHIN AN EI1STING
SOURCE
PHtSICAL 0» OPEPATIO'iAl
ChA'iCe IN THE F.CIUI1
ESTI«TE FUEO COITAL COSTS
OF THE NEW COHPOHlhtS. A
ESTIMATE FUED CAPITAL COST
CttWIBlD TO C" STRUCT AN
[MISFIT h{U UCILITr. B
60 ISIoHD
TtCWOlOVCUlt ASO
ECOV«!CA..T FUSIBLE
TO M.E- «5PLICA8lt
HSPS
60 HI5M2)
TOTAJ. EMISSION RATE
EPOM THE FACUITI
IS INOCASED
TOTAL EMISSION RATE
FROH THE SOURCE
IS INCRCASEU
60 M(a)
EIlSTIW FACUITI
SECO-tS AN i'FECTED
fACILITT
CALCULATE CAPITAL EIPEIOI-
TU«t, 0 0 IS THE POODUCT
OF THE IRS REG 101? BASIS
AND THE ANNUAL ASSET GUIDE-
LINE PEPAIR AILOVAKE
F'IP.CINTAGE
CALCULATE TOTAL EIFENOITURE
FOR THE CHANU. C
CHANGE IS Ai INCREASE
IN HOURS C< C'tWTIO,
60 l«»(3)
CIUOGC IS THC USE If
AN ATTCRNATE FUEL OR
MATERIAL FOR WHICH
THE FACUITT WAS
OESICHEO TO UTILIZE
60 M(e)|«)
.-,: CCKSISTS or AOO-
29 USIHC A<| AIR
POll'.-lM CChTROL
SIS'£- .
-------
0 Affected Facility - One which is subject to the
emission limitations of a NSPS. An affected
facility is one which is newly built or one which
has been modified or reconstructed.
6.1.1 Reconstruction
Irrespective of any change in pollutant emission rates,
a physical or operational change may be deemed a reconstruc-
tion of the facility if the Fixed Capital Costs attributable
to the change exceed 50 percent of the estimated Fixed
Capital Costs required to construct a new facility and it is
determined that it is technologically and economically
feasible to meet the emission limitations specified by an
applicable NSPS. The definition of reconstruction does not
specify a time period over which fixed capital costs for
different changes are additive. The purpose of this pro-
vision is to discourage the perpetuation of a facility,
instead of replacing it at the end of its useful life with a
newly constructed facility.
6.1.2 Modification
If a physical or operational change results in an
increase in the emission rate to the atmosphere of any
pollutant to which an NSPS applies, the facility may be
deemed to be modified. However certain exceptions apply, as
shown in Figure 6-1.
The most notable exception is known as the Bubble
Concept. Briefly stated, if the increased emissions from
6-3
-------
the facility in question are offset by a decrease in emis-
sions from another facility within the source, where such
decrease is over and above any emission decrease required by
an applicable State Implementation Plan, the changed facil-
ity shall not be considered modified. However once this
exemption is claimed, it will be more difficult to obtain
subsequent exemptions under subsections (e)(2), (3), and (4)
since, under certain circumstances, these subsequent ex-
emptions could nullify the original reduction in emission
rate used to obtain the Bubble Concept exemption under
subsection (d).
In those cases where the purpose of the change is to
increase production rates, and such change causes an in-
crease in emission rates, the facility is deemed to be
modified only if the total expenditures (both capital and
expense dollars) attributable to the change exceed the
product of the facility's 1012 Basis and the Annual Asset
Guideline Repair Allowance Percentage (AAGRAP). The first
figure is determined per IRS Code Section 1012. Very simply
stated, it may be thought of as the initial cost, or basis,
of the facility. The latter number is found in IRS Publica-
tion 534 (latest edition). Table 6-1 lists to AAGRAP's for
various facilities for which NSPS regulations have been
promulgated. It may generally be stated that if the cost of
6-4
-------
Table 6-1. ANNUAL ASSET GUIDELINE REPAIR ALLOWANCE
PERCENTAGES FOR SPECIFIED FACILITIES PER
IRS PUBLICATION 534 1975 EDITION
Facility
AAGRAP
Nitric acid production unit
Sulfuric acid production unit
Lead smelter cupola
Cat crackers
Electric arc furnace
Mining, milling benefication
and other primary prepara-
tion of non-metallic
minerals
5.5
5.5
4.5
7.0
8.0
6.5
6-5
-------
the changes exceeds ten percent of the original cost of the
facility it will be deemed a capital expenditure.
6.2 APPLICABILITY OF 40 CFR 60.14 AND 60.15 TO THE NON-
METALLIC MINERAL INDUSTRY
The applicability of 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15 is highly
dependent upon the definition of "facility". A facility can
be defined as each piece of equipment (i.e. crushers,
screens, conveyors, and drills) or as the entire non-metal-
lic mineral processing plant. The definition used will
determine the basis for determining the facility's Fixed
Capital Cost and the monetary amount that will be considered
a capital expenditure. The final decision on the definition
of "facility" can not be made without further analysis.
Changes which result in a production and emission
increase or major changes will be considered as modifica-
tions or reconstruction only if certain fixed capital cost
conditions are met. These are stated in Section 6.1. The
fixed capital cost to construct a new facility will be
considerably less if a facility is defined as each piece of
equipment rather than an entire plant. A facility defined
as each piece of equipment results in more changes meeting
the fixed cost conditions and therefore being considered as
modifications or reconstruction.
6-6
-------
6.2.1 Capital Costs of Facilities
A physical or operational change may be considered re-
construction if the capital cost of the new components
exceeds 50 percent of the capital cost of a new facility.
If a facility is defined as the entire plant, it is possible
that a single piece of equipment could be completely re-
placed without making the facility subject to NSPS under the
reconstruction provision. However, if each piece of equip-
ment is considered a facility, overhauling a crusher or
other piece of equipment could bring that facility under the
NSPS. This could include replacing the jaws and overhauling
the motor on a jaw crusher or replacing the rollers, motor
and belts on the conveying system.
6.2.2 Capital Expenditures
Changes effected to increase production rates, which
are not routine maintenance, but cause an emission rate
increase, can be considered modifications. However, the
cost of the change must constitute a capital expenditure per
section 60.2 (bb) (see Section 6.1.2). For the mining,
milling benefication and other primary preparation of non-
metallic minerals this would be the product of the initial
cost of the facility and 6.5 percent. The amount considered
to be a capital expenditure would be quite large if "facil-
ity" is defined as the entire plant. Many changes could be
6-7
-------
made -that would increase the emission rate, but the cost
would not constitute a capital expenditure and the change
would not be considered a modification. By defining "fa-
cility" as a piece of equipment, many changes could be
considered modifications. Most of these changes would be
involved with eliminating bottlenecks in the existing plant.
An example of this would be increasing ball mill capacity by
replacing the existing motor with one that would rotate the
drum at a more efficient speed. This change would increase
production and emissions. The cost of this type of change
could constitute a capital expenditure and bring the fa-
cility under the NSPS. As a result, there would be a more
favorable impact on the environment, but a greater economic
burden for the source.
6-8
-------
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY CAPACITY GROWTH RATES, P,
A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
INDUSTRY CAPACITY GROWTH RATES, P
\*i
Included in this Appendix are the calculations for the
capacity growth rates, P , for each industry. Also shown
are graphs of the available production projection data.
BARITE
Mr. Stan Haines of the Bureau of Mines stated that a
production of 480,000 tons of barium is forecast for 1985.
He also added that the barium production is 56 percent of
the total barite ore production. This value was confirmed
2
by a check of some historical data for both barite ore and
barium.
Predicasts gave a growth rate of four percent per year
4
through 1980. Extrapolating to 1985, production of 1,703,000
tons of barite ore is forecast.
The historical trend of production, from the 1970
3
Mineral Facts and Problems for the years 1958 to 1968, was
nearly level. Mr. Haines also said that the downward trend
in the petroleum industry, the major user of barite, could
cause a decline in barite demand. This projection was used
rather than an extrapolation of Predicasts data. In the
A-2
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVI RON MENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 /771-433O
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by DQRffFL
Source.
.Date.
-------
, PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL.
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number 3/
-------
calculations, barium produced was changed to barite ore by
dividing by 0.56.
BORATE
Some references for this mineral gave projections for
production and capacity in "tons of boron content." A check
of historical figures from Commodity Data Summaries and
78 °
Mineral Yearbooks ' revealed that boron content was con-
sistently 17 percent of the total borate ore produced.
Predicasts projection of 255,000 tons of boron content
4
for 1985 was lower than the 350,000 tons estimated by the
9
1975 Mineral Facts and Problems, and it was also not as
well documented. For this reason, the Bureau of Mines
figure was chosen.
CLAY
Mr. Sarkis Ampian of the Bureau of Mines reported that
clay production will be approximately 100,000 tons in
1985. Considering the historical trends, this figure
seems overly optimistic. Predicasts more conservative
4
forecast of 70,000 tons was more consistent with the
trends. No data for capacity were available for clay,
possibly because the many different types of clay made
capacity hard to define. A utilization constant of 0.8 was
found in the Survey of Current Business. This value
appeared reasonable and consistent with the other utiliza-
tion constants, and was therefore used to estimate capacity.
A-5
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-AG
513 /771-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
i
'
i
(
\
I
^
S
/ |
N
^
~^
^>
j
,
f—
^
•J
i^
\
J
C
i
s.
<>
,/
^
\
J
-,
s.
1
*3j
•73
VI
/
's
^
^
^
^
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
37^ (D-/?/?
eet fo
one by
6o«
r Impact Assessment
DrtffffEL POVvKLL T
)ate
i k
Yr*
r
•j
j
n
1
.»
'v<
1
1^
ou»
X
irt'
"
1
I
r«
It
1C
i
/
c
p
p
1
1
"i
i
ITi
1
tf
f
r
J
t
\
r\
^
|
i
f
• i
'f?<
&L
n
1
i
1
- .1 _
1
1 ^
•["
i
i
i^
i
!
1
~ I
s
ljf
<^\
1
1
i
1
1
^
/
^
(I
£
<»
r
i
Xi_*
1
1
1
i>
i
f-
'
t
i
-T'Ztt
7,
CfTta
^
i
1
1
I
i
i
1
i
I
,
1
j*~r*
I
i
1
i
t \
^i
jf
i
1
I
/
T
>l
'• t
V
n
i
t
")
1
T"
t
f.
*
A
i
i
i
^
1 £
-
/
1
t
r
'2
kf
i>
i
1
i
^
7
i^
*
i
i •
i
1
1
<_
•£
•i
•~
1
i~
&"<
s
-» e
M
'*
^
V
^
^;-
s
/
/
V
'
±
J_ 1
^"
••
««
£
^
>
•<
-
r
w
f
^
i
I
1
/
^
^
=:
1 "^
^:;
^
1
i
7
7
1
^
i^l
- **
1
I
i C"
£
a*
f
t
^>
>/;
s
^
\
j. •
±
I
i
-=p
i
i
M
>
t
F!
i
i
j*
x
• —
^
^
1
i
1
i.
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4-52.46
513 /771-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Hate g-g/-7
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO A52A6
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
_
I
•
1
i
t
\
1
f
'
\
f
\,
•H
/
i
-^
<
S
J
•»
«*
r
s
>
A
7
>
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
5/«/?/?
eet fo
one by
. CLA
i
•>
/
i
_
^
n
— i
qH .
r
1
j
1
-../-I
K
J
j
t
*
' ~i
i
(WO
^
"1 t-
1
n
Q~
^
^
u
_
(
|
c
9
h
If
f
>j
-pk
S
$
•t
c
tfl
K
a
•r
1
1
t,
d
?r
*i
f< i
i
1
1
1
1
i
)
t i
1
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
i
^i_
1
^^
~*j
u
1
i
1
1
1
1
ly "t
r Impact Assessment
D^j?tf£"
i .
i
1
!
!
i
I
i
J£
/
S
•
V
1
( ! ^*>
-tr^r
(
/
\
In*"
1
/I A'
i
i i
1
V
7
,
it
i
9
i
1
I
1 j
i
T
..
f'
j^
^
1 1
^
^
f\
\
-ff
»J=1
J. J
i
i
/
/
1
T
1 A
I
1
/
x* 7
7
/
/
/
/
^[ i
c
i
y \
'
,^
v
A*
'\
7
-B
**
\
t
:
i
V
\\
\
\
\\
\\
1
i
V
I
]
'•> 7
ijp
KKI
«,;
fi
S'
i
I
i
/ 1
r_. i .
^
^
•^
i
_jj
^>
/I
•J
/
/i
1
1
4«
«•
*,
•i
Le
,<
^
^
^
¥2
jD^
k *
7
^
3K"
l^i
<
11
--
^^
^
'
/
7\
=
1
)
^O
I
5P
n
irn
"f
t
\
\
n
4
^
^
/
I
Tr*
JiLC
'l?
_j
/
2
*m*
*r
— «
i
i
c**
•^ ,
i
i
L
' I
fc_.
»- >
§
K
LJ
c.
i
V
w
fl
i
.
|
5
i
1
1,5
i
i
i
I
i
!
-
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 / 7 7 1 -A33O
Project Number
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by JotfO "2&-L&L _
Source
Date
i
ctoarr
III
ITTI
. ._
±
i i i
«pi#
Hi I
Mi|
T' "'T
-t— • t—f-
TT
1
'toW.ti J
fcafboTfi
1:1
-f°
:t
?M-
Q
-!T
' 'IT
an;
i__L
i i
1
~n~r
=PU
37
^c
1 I I
it-b
1-.
-LU-^
'J:
-•!ri±i
rix
in
li
r • r!'
S
T
1~
X
_;. i i.
i LI.
-U-
l ' i 1 i I
1 ' !J-
i l i i I i
_;__[_ |_j i__
-J-
1
y.
11
-F
q:u:
L
I
s
\rn
.u
i i
h-
* i
j u.
i i
FP
u:
i i
i ' i
r IT
i i i
J_L
I i
l i j
" rn
i i
j .I_U
-. r
I I l i . |
I I i i I I
i i . i r
H-L
n
11 _i
T? i i ; i
iXLiinXr
l"l i
__J_,_4_l_i_J_1_,.
i_i_!_Jl!.. _!-l_L
IB
11
_ij.
m
l i i Ml ' i
m±diT
r-n-i
"rrn
n:
3
-
xHi
±hh
^~-U
-L i
i n
q:
XT
_!„_
x-)-4-i_nrx.Li
.'P"Xi'
-U.
-LL-j-l
4-i I L.
_LJj_L-'
-iXJXL
J 4-UJ-i
T-L.}4_L
i i Tri
J '
"ill"
rit!'":7'
i_U~l ! '
+-t
! i I
i r"'~
_i_i j . ' - .
ILXJ
i i i
.l-LUi-LL^
i i
A-9
-------
DIATOMITE
4 12
Predicasts and the 1975 Mineral Facts and Problems
were very nearly in agreement on the forecast for diatomite.
Mineral Facts and Problems projected 1,000,000 tons to be
12 4
mined in 1985 while Predicasts stated 963,000 tons. The
former figure was accepted as it was better documented.
FELDSPAR
The growth rate given for feldspar of 3.6 percent per
year from 1973 to 2000 by the Bureau of Mines resulted in
a prediction of 1,211,000 tons feldspar for 1985. This com-
4
pared to 942,000 tons estimated by the Predicasts. The
Predicasts figure better approximated historical trends and
was therefore accepted.
GYPSUM
The range of projections was very large for gypsum.
Rock Products 1980 prediction was very high at 16.5 million
14
tons, while 1985 figures from the 1975 Mineral Facts and
Problems and Predicasts were lower. The 1975 Mineral Facts
and Problems stated 15,000,000 tons and Predicasts pre-
4
sented 11,700,000 tons as the 1985 estimates. The Mineral
Facts and Problems number was used; it was in the mid-range
and Predicasts appeared overly pessimistic in comparison.
A-LO
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO .452-46
513 /771-4330
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by DflffffeL
Source _J
Date g-gS--1
gt
£5
-------
Project Number
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /77 t-A33O
New Source Performance Standards
.Date.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by.
Source.
-------
/C3.
inaii/j D 1
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source FeiDS
"
J
if
r
••
4
i
\/
^
1
i
i
i
1
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 /771-4330
New Source Performance Standards
3/
•
r\
i
f
-
™
i
Ja
QC
—
P
^
^
\
>
L a
i
i >i"
H
9
—
U,tJ
w
I
l |
!
i
!
|
i
|
'l
f\. <
"1
r
i
j
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
•
i
i
1
j i
l
1
t
I
1
i
i
i
1
1
! I
1J K
1
M
*t
:P
,
v
ri
/
>k,
I
1
1 |
i
T.I
6
<
^,
^
'Vr
f
t*
£
L_
\u
ff
U<
t ^
I
i
i
i
>
T.
^v
i
i"
i
i
i i
1
1
i .
I
' i
l
i i
t i
i i j
i
i
i
1
1
1
L
^^1\
! -!- -L-
rV
/
*r
ir^
V
i
i
1
1
1
1 \ !
i i
i
i
1 1
fe&
• 1
1
t
[/ ^
cc
33
^
A>
K
Ai
i
41
i
4_
i
1
|
i
1
j^^'
t i
*
*T
t
1
1
1
'
/
1
-?
f\
->
L^*1
I/OC
r
i
X
V
^
V
1
i i
^^
i
jTir
_L
i
1
J
p
J
^
kl
f
r,,
* '
\,
^f_
ce
t
*•
*•
^
^
^
H«
1
;
|
1
1
\
|
VJ»
>
AW
Y
>
J
i
i
s
s\
M*
1
'i
f
s
t
i
1
•
• •^
f
-f*
\
i
i
i
i
i
V
'"
/
\
^
•i
.
>'/•
,=w;.
i
i
i
*
1
1
/I
j
i/'
1 ,
fXt
; ;'J.^
i
i
x
]r
r
1 1 !>
_ 1 "T"1
>T""
'*r*
^
&f
^
I*1
.^*fJ
1
!
i t
i i
1
i i
i
iC
'
1 t
I 1
i
! !
V
r £
! */
A
i
c
^
f
c
1
tfl
>
N
1
/fi*
1
'R
|
!
! ' ' I
1
i
I
i
l
;
i
i
1 t
i
I
jf*
>
' I
i i
1
i
1
i i
i
i
1
i
i '
i >
I
1
1
t
I
I
1
1
i
i
'f S
J
i
-------
PEDCo- EN VI RON MENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45346
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Date.
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Source
i
I
-i
t
1
F€<-DSP/?«
i
1
>i
T
>,
c
i
C
/
r
rj
^
^
JLj
»-J>
^r
r.
c
.
t
z
i
£
c
i
/c
.
. r1
<^
.
ty
i
j
/
/
— r\~~
1
i
i
I
i
1
1
i
. 1 1
i
i
1
1
i
r i
i i
.
'/I
^
<.
_
~i
1
kt
*•
>t
nr
*
0
1C
I
T
j
• -
'
>
|
/ \Jfr \
|>fi
1
d
_ i
3
^
)
I
r
7'
i/
c
?
1
<1*
1
',<
t
^
*
C
<•
™j
•
• ^
kL,
I w
1
1
1 1
=\
I
^
^»'J
i
~
V
r
X.
-1
1
i
1
1
i
i
i
i
J
rr
r
I
^
]
A
^
_ii
1
V
•'(
!/
1
I
» n
_
»,
i.
s
<
/
f
3
1
.
•)
„
is
1-
.
^
<
^
f
(
^
f
9
c
(-V
i
1
(
f
\
/
1
S!
.
4
V
1
«
I '
t
1
i
i
'
1
1
f,
^
i
•M
•V
»
<•
^
flj
'<
>
•
i
I
(f
3,
J
iV
^
J
>
1
r
^
.
/
f
•
D
•
i
a
^
^
•\
?
i
7
j
/
A
i
1
<
.
i
«
•
,
t»
-\
J
y*-
f\
v
f
J
j
1
>
>
.
)
^
-
f
*i
^
<
f
i
^
/
r
fi
•f
^
~\
0
ft
V
c
ft
J-
.
f
^
^
t<;
-j
/
i
<
c
>l
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
i
i
( '^
.
('
• »
)
1
M"
1
1
i
'
1
1
1
1
i
i i
i
__
1
...-,
i
1
1
~1
j
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 /771-433O
Comput
Calcul
Source
-
n
g
"\
S
^
1^
!
^i
*J
N
V
*S»
ation Sheet fo
ations Done by
GVPSI/M
r Impact Assessment
DAGffEL POWfLL r
late
i «,
i
•f
1
*>
4-*
t
„.
^
I
i
~
1 <.
\
T
^
^
->
v
0
7
,-•
u
i
1
,
Jt
• i
I
i
i I
.1 i
^_
~
i
m
I
i
1
/
/
_
j*^
•j-i-
t
i
I
i
i
i
i
]
1
i 1 t
i i
i
/
?
£
s
, '
\
\
1
,4
t
'^
i
i
i
fe
Qc
~T
' /tr,/
F
t
r~i
I
A
'/
|
i
i
i
... \I9
\
~
\
i
1
^1
X^
£_
>
1
\F^
~
•>
^
t
1
i
! : 1
i
1 !
i
1
1
'
/
1}
1^
/
a. t
\ /
_X/L
^
f%
r
i
c
^
1
A
**
IX
rA"
i iFOOrs /
'^
1 r
53 'i:
1
,
1
/I1 7
1
/
/
/'
1 II
I
y
/
/
7
T |
a
I
f
I]
/
. nl-*
1
J
/
•**
. |
4&9&3
' M
LK 1_ I
^1
^
V
1
s
\
V
.—
\
"^
1
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
J—
1
If
-
-
i"
A
k(
I
/
. 1
\
\
\
^
|
1
/
Y
i
SJ ^!
V i
**3
_j
/
»^ ^*
^.
"T i
>
^ s
^
i
,s
i
i
i
^
^2
>
__ «• s
1
r~
i
i
r ^
»>.;
/
/
j -
4C
,
/
- -
I
nf
1
/
^
V
i
M
j*"*
f •"
jfJS^
z.^
"i
~~
#•
i
i
1
~"
1
Ktf
!-•
c
1
<'
>/
/
/
1
1
1.
li
1
i*.
t j
i
i
"JffCpl
s^
1
i
1
1
'T
1 ...
I
1
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL.
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-46
513 / 771-4330
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by DHRREL
Source.
Pate a^-2/-
-------
LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATES
Perlite
Units of total crude perlite sold and used were used
because they were most often cited in the literature for
projections.
Two sources, Predicasts and Rock Products predicted
output for expanded perlite. Rock Products presented a
production estimate of 530,000 tons for 1980 and Predi-
4
casts gave a consumption figure of 770,000 tons in 1985.
The apparently most reliable figure was that of the
Bureau of Mines. A representative there said the probable
domestic demand for crude perlite will be 800,000 tons.
Production was assumed to be approximately equal to demand.
This is a more conservative estimate, as the Predicasts
number for expanded perlite alone is nearly as high. On
this basis, the Bureau of Mines projection was chosen.
Slag
Growth rates or projections were not available for
slag, however the Slag Institute reports that slag produc-
18
tion closely parallels steel production. Assuming this
relationship, and that slag capacity grows at approximately
the same rate as production, the growth rate in the steel
19
industry obtained from the Bureau of Mines was used to
calculate a projection for slag capacity.
A-17
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4524.6
513 /771-A33O
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by.
Source.
.Date.
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL-
SUITE is • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771-4330
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by fl/?g/g£X
Source PERLXTE
.Date.
-------
f iKaj5'oo I
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source Sc4<:»
ill1 11
1 1 1
I 1
i
i
I.
i _ _ _ i
. j
~j__!_j" - -j-
...T _i .
i i J 1 i
! _ .1 r
i
! i ' '" 1
•S i , , ' i l
--;— i '
1 ™? i ' i
V r -r r~
"T ' ' /jn.
•*•... Y#
• ,- L J .!
1 -NI
Q.I
P j - ' |-
1 O i
• 0~'TT~ -"
•5 ' : -i,
o ' i i ;**
1 ot i i ~! r
__. J^,— , ,-J-
" . . - n L
s5 ' ~I
'flT i i i
«J ; i i i i
i \f) i n !«'•<
i . eUs
1 • '1
0 i , ,
| :-••!' :
~"£HTHY
1 ' 1 1 '
J J J J_'.-' -
1 "~ t'l ' '
~ ' ' 1
1 • i i
1 ' '
: , !'• r ; x"
,i . _L_ °
_ -7 __r~C7l_'L
, " ~ ~ ~ i i~
• 1 1 i i !
' 1 i
; ' ] i
-
-
-
!
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4-5346
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
3i{
^-Kfc
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
~J<5tf^J %&-C42ft~ Date U5~/o~"7^
[
-
- -
i
',.
—
- - -
~ ~\" "
-M-
t
-
-
-
--
_
-: '."
-
j
i
I
-
--
_LU
-
rr
1
-H
._
i
j—
_|_L
l
i
_ _ i
--
i
i '
i
--
4;
1 Li" .
-
1
J_j__p_
1 . "' _ ~
7
1
1
1
-
!
-
_
-
'
1
i
1
> _
i
.:_
i "
i
i
I
_i_
--,- -
!
1 1
ii- _.
i
r
i
_„_
T"
l
|J i
111 i
I
-U - -
t
i I
I _|ZT ifi
i
---rr-
1
J-
l
1
- -
». •
- -
I
1
I
- -
.
-
-
__
j
r
• i
i
T
pr
1
-
-
-
--
-
f
dn
r
-
-
i
/
/
-V
n
-
t
;
i
_l_
,
-
-
"T
-
-
.1 1_
~n~i
t
.L
-
-
V
fl
T
•c
*
4
$
!
-
-
-
-
^i i *
i
-
»
-
.-
-
-
-
-
i I
i
~,
i
T~
-
_
~
-
—
__
-
-
- - -j-,-,-
--
— -
U ! 1
1
\"
1
- i-
1 1
1
i
~r
i 1
-
1 f
[. 1 " T 1
-
-
70
i
r
i
i-'-
]—
T
-
-
7
1
"
j i
1
. 1 -
1
?f
\
n.
1
T
f-
-
-
C,
z
,•
-
-
K
tf,
_
-
-
-
e
-*
-
~
_L
H-
-
-
I
I
I
-
—
i
y
^
-
?
"'.'i
^
-
-
-
~r
-
-
i
--
_
—
b
H
*
-
;,
•n
-
5.1
F,
r'
-
l
i
—
—
~
-
_
i L ' 1 1
-
-L-i-f-
I i !
r
'
?<*"-
i
i
l
i i i
/T
-
-
-
i
' I !
:-• : -y 1
".T-f : -T
Xil
(
i i
' i
T
V
!>
-
»
-
-
|
i
-
1"
-
-
~
*
)•
-
-
-
-
1
>ttJ
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
•
.i .'
j
_!_]_
i i |
T
l
i
i
I
-
t!
fe
-
-
-
t
-
^
-
-
f
-
-
-
t
l<
>i
H
.*'
1
-
i
1
J_
--
__.
-
~
I
-
i
"
-
-
-
-
-
1
_l_
J
1 i
I
i
1
-
-
i j
1 1
i^-M
i r i i i
i
i
T
1
i
1
~
r M
u I
1
|
U
\
i
i
-
I
1
-
7
-
*
K
r
\
\
—
--
-
-
i
-T
J
-
-
-
c
/
-
-
-
-T-
2-
—
-
__
T
?A
I
—
-
-
—
91
.
-
1
1
—
-
-
-
i
-
s
—
_
i
-
—
1
77
— --
l
-
-
-
_
—
-
-
—
_
-
-
-
~
7
-
h-J-
-
:L
:t
-
-
~
-
-
-
„
7.
_|
J-
*c
1
j
.1
\
-1.
J-
_ !_
_j. .
±
i
i^
1
-
! i
r 71 "
j.. _z!_n_i
1 rri
:RT
I j
i
i
1C
i
i_
~i~*
~\"
I
—
1
Hi
A-20
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-46
513 / 77 1-433O
Project Number .
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by
Source
Date
A--21
-------
Vermiculite
Values for crude vermiculite were used for computations
rather than expanded vermiculite data because of the avail-
ability of data and the interest in the initial processing
of the product. The vermiculite chapter of the 1975 Mineral
Facts and Problems forecast 575,000 tons of vermiculite in
1985 while Predicasts estimated 354,000 tons in the same
4
year. Rock Products predicted 1980 output for exfoliated
21
vermiculite to be 386,000 tons.
The Bureau of Mines estimate was used because it is in
better agreement with historical data.
PUMICE
Volcanic cinder was almost always included with pumice
statistics. For 1985, the Bureau of Mines reported a demand
of 6,100,000 tons pumice and volcanic cinder and Predi-
4
casts estimated 5,910,000 tons. Rock Products reported a
22
figure of 5,200,000 tons in 1980 was consistent with the
other estimates.
The Bureau of Mines prediction was considered the most
acceptable, but the difference between estimates is quite
small. Capacity figures were unavailable because of the
confidentiality of the data.
SAND AND GRAVEL
Predicasts reported a 4.1 percent annual growth rate
4
based on 1968 data, while Rock Products stated a 4 percent
A-22
-------
C3
lKa'J>Dt>
\V^ ^XV
N%:TO^
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
i
i
r»
-£\
Ij
JK,
1^
^C
§i
JSi
1>
Y)
»
_f\
TT
J
Ik
j
J
|
1
)
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
PEDCo -ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE t3 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45346
513 / 77 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
3/*
jb-PR
eet fc
one by
r Impact Assessment
£>/7/?/?£^ pQweLL.
Date
I
.11
K
S
U
1
ft
y
*~
'•
*•*
5
=?
r
1 f
4
AH •
*J
M
i
—
I
LL
i
-
-
--
Mf"
p/i/
i i
iM Ci
7
"^ !
.
1
1
t
lijE
C '/J
-|
-2
\
Mi
A<4
i
1 !
• i
v i
i
i
i
i
iii '
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
! 1
_
;
I !
1
i
1
1
ij
>'
M
.-r
1
1
i '
f«
J 1
fW
S2
w
C
t
1 1
^
r
7r»
A
i
1
4
^
1
M
I
1
1
1 LJ
>if
I
1
,
i
!
1
i i <
i 1 j
1
1
j
.IT
LL
f
i
^2
i
1
i y'
>£.
"w
/
v i
i
1
1
;
\1
.
i
1
•
/i
h
»f
5j£J>l
l
^
*c
/
I
>,
i
^
i
-<
1
i ^
fi
^
^
1
/
P
j
A
/*
( L
i
J
^
^
>
/
^
«
.
<
i
^
^
N
i i ^ '
T
! 1 i
c
-
i
-
\
g* '
/'
1 .
«
<
•
1 •*
'
h
y
i
i
^^
M^
• /
7
*
i
n
^
/
1
A'/
C^
1
y
\
n
i
1
a
*1
-
1
1
1
0
•Eir:
J_r
r\
j
•
*r
v\
P"
^
«K
r
/
1
'
?m
|
h
c.
«•
f\
f\
f
)
/
y
k-l
1
L1
^1
4
^
i.
D
1
As,
k
i
/
1
1
p
•«
1
"
I1
X
..
* \
^
i
/
'•{
•
1
t-
^
;
i
i
15
•
i
i
i
i
i
•
--
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771-4330
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by. C>Ae&£L Pot*//
Source.
.Date.
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 / 77 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Project Numbe
Computation S
Calculations
Source PisMTC.
(
^
|
r
i
n
y
f ^^ / 4J (t-\_~t^ ^?
heet fo
Done by
r Impact Assessment
O/9/?/?FZ. POWEU
rcrre, /)A>r> vocc^AJrr rj-w^f/?
Date
1
1
1
>
t/
^
>
t
•
ki
>"
N
•J
&
',.
T
i
3,^
^
1
*)
*•
f _
1
i
i
r' i i
i
i
- 1
i
^
H
<*
/•
i
!
_P]
i
i i
i
K C
/j
i
i
1
?9A/
i
JqA
rr
i
i
i
i
i
i
1
f
ff
h
pc
*/
^££tL
r\
»
I
|
i i i
i
\l
i
V
i
i
|
|
1
i
1
i
\i
S
A/*
I
l<
rt
A
I1'
i
i
i
i
! 1
i
!
i
1
t i
i
_L
i *
X'
1 x
-]JT
xf1
/^
/
i
^
Ll
y
iN
1
!
fi
,S
i
^/^
1
>/>;
L
^
""W
i
D
\
L
f
t_
\
\
/V
/
\
"
^
i
1
1 i
i
i i
/
•^
f
^/
/
f
*
r
*
I
'•4
t,
/
i
t
f
/
/
A
~)
7
p
1
^
r
J
i
s
/
1
1
/*
/
ftf
i
f
i
/
y
<
,/
^
y
C
1
:^
1
i i
I
*^
I
_
y
^
/
/
n
^
^
/
/
,<
.
,
<
*;
V
^7
<
C|
/
/
/
f
(
J
/
^
^
*
X
>'
y^
F
/
«
/
i
^ ,
"1
-Z^
|
^ !
TI
^
X
/jf
j ' |
/
/ ^
£
i
/
/
E
<
y
r«
y
/£
)
p
'
\
• '
i1
^/
X
•
J
S
/
1
/
]f
S
|/1
f
4
\
•j
4
T
f
/;
'
t
f
"f
r
^
^
;
?(
^
y
^
f>
y
l
^
l
*
t
i
1
( !
^
1
f.
f
,s
1
h\
1
/
1{
7
i i
~n
^
>/
i
r
V
J
i?
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 177 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Date
Project Number
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by OAffftFL
Source
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 1-7-7 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
—
j
In
•
"^
• ^
T
i
»
*>!
-H
1 i
" J
J
• 3
-4
" T
] "*
*d
•
'
.
'
|
•
'
t Numbe
ation S
ations
£/QA/£
r* ^3^^VCa*^?J3
heet f
Done b
/JAfD <
or Impact Assessment
y &f)PR£L POWfCC. Date> £'-SS"'-7G
*&nv&t.
f\
V
T
fn
c
fl
f
Sr
|j
•1
J
«)
*•
I1'
f
a
>
i
fl
f)
fl
—
UP
«
KJ
*
f
t
f\
L
f
f\
f\
./
1
1
n
(
/
t
I
,
y
^
p
)
<
-f
I
A
i
i
!_ |_
!
_j
j
1
I/
/r
f
^
/
r
r
i
i i
i/
^
A
r
-*>!
.^
r
/i
^
^
i
1
T
j
*>
-t
3
/
T
i /
~i/
#
2
^ 2
/
y
|
B
t
1
I/,
/
,
1
<
f
i
/
/
'
/
f
t
k.
' t
f
\ '
n.
i "
•^
• f
.
,'
,.
^
^
<
r
^
1 ;
s
/
/
/
f
y
,
/
i i
3
t
r
f
4
<^
^
t-
r\
)
/
i
s
jf
t
9
/
/
1
\?
'
,
e
/
/
i
1
f
7>
;
_j
-T
^
i
^
•>
A
>
(^
Y
i
r-
H
V
i
i
/•
"j
IV,*
fi
l
1 .
-f
^
1
i
*V ^i
1
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4-5246
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
.
i
n
T
[
<
n
?
F,
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
S/JNO /
31*4(6- RB
set fo
Dne by
9/sLO Of
r Impact Assessment
O/JA?/?£VL POv/FLL Date 6.~*V-?to
?>Qt/fC
!f
f>
|
=t
|M
«^
•
r
4
•
'•
i
i
w
[_]
I
i
1
I
1
i
t
i
»t
1,
/-
5
C
fl
<
1
C
/
0
)l
?
<*
¥
f
j
/
/
1 .
I
\
1
mm
1
1
_
M
^,
C
r
f
X
t
t
C
\
/
!
* '•'
1
|
C
x
t
.. _.i
. J*i
r i
M
0
3C
_0>
1
>Q
t
»
a /
4
t
V
A
1
7
r
i
i
i
j
;
i
i
i
\
J_
i
i
i
I
i
1
i i
1
vA
5
O1
<;
/
^
<
u
5i
1"
9
n
i
f
j-!O
•M
1
' I
i
1
1
1
I
i
<
^
t
1 1
f
$
-/
1
r
\'
Jr
1 i j
f-8'.P'
i r
1
I
i
•
a
i
i
1
^
I
!
i
I
i
1
!
i
1
1 1
i .
|
!
J
C
S
ii
^
c
?
i
?
ik
5
i
«
i
r
•
f
s
/
J
Q
i
•<
f
<
r<
f
v
/
~>
J
•
*l
}
^
*
|
1
1
n i
i
i
?
,
i
•<
k.
a
"J
J
i
i
1
(
)•
i^
1
i
i
fl
j|
.L
'3
rn'
T\V
1
n
9
/
C
(.
C
)<
j-
uj
/s
"1
1
i
>
i
?
c
4
•^^
?
^
I
1
•
<
(
4
J
e
i
-^
D
«
i
r
^
I C.
L
<
f
>b
i
i
i
1
1 1
1
1
i
1
j
i
1
1
1
i^1
1
i
1
i i
1 1
j
1
t
i
j
•
i
1
i
1
i
-------
23
growth in demand from 1974. Both of these predictions
were optimistic when compared to the Bureau of Mines 1975
Mineral Facts and Problems forecast of 1390 million tons for
24
1985. The Bureau of Mines data were used rather than the
others as it was the most recent and more closely follows
historical trends.
TALC, SOAPSTONE, AND PYROPHYLLITE
The 1976 Commodity Data Summaries predicted a 4 per-
cent increase in demand through 1980 while the Mineral Facts
and Problems for 1975 reported that 1,700,000 tons of talc-
25
group minerals are estimated to be mined in 1985. Predicasts
4
more conservative production estimate was 1,310,000 tons
for 1985. Mineral Facts and Problems information was pre-
ferred over an extrapolation of the Commodity Data Summaries
or Predicasts projections since it more closely followed
historical trends.
A-29
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -452-46
513 /77 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Date.
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Source
i
i
i
i
i
r^c, so/9PsroN/r ? pYPvPHYLLtre
J
f
T
.
1
i
(0
^
f
_
-J
1
c
•j
ft
8
>
if
**
*-
m
*•
^
?/
t
•^
1
/
r
N
j
!<
rt
v
4
*>
?'
/
^
(C
<
^
L
/
T
/
>
C
J
-/
•^
1
v<
r
5
7
3
1
i
/,
/f
'
i
f\:
^
(-1
'
»•*
}
(
(\
1
{
&
^
1
I
\
+
t
c
t
f
i
^
•<
/
I
»<
I*
>i
1
ift/
*
l>
If
f
\l
/
/
1
/
J
/
fj,
-»
^
^
*
*
i
i
r<
•>
V
/
\ 1
s
J
.
^
1\
IM 1
f
0
1
I
\
Al
>
^
^
r
\
J
i
f
|
1
(
*
g,
«
I
/i
x
I*
•j
I1
/
0
?'
/
^
^
^
3
^
g
<
/
9
?
J
"-
'
r
C
^
B
f
_4
* '
'/
f
*
s
s
t
^
f
t
€.
S
1
^
x
k
>,
^
f
/•
>
-.
<
^
^
<
x
«
ri
>
^
\
s
t
I
^
'^
^
s>*
H
•
t
f>
( *•
'.
i
i
PI
\
/
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771--433O
^JJSH^
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
rj
-fl
T
[/
»YLL£TE
Date
i _y^2Co^*^D
7
»/
*
•
f
'
"•*
-,7
m r
-f
f-
A »
F i
**
I A
^
t
t
rt
^
*~
>(
Jj
F
»
n
^
»-
r
h
j
/
I
\
ry
/.
y
'
,
1
t
I
i
1
•i
f
j
C
i
V
*.
I
m
t
\
/
^'
J
^
fi
11
?J
7;
^
H
M
?
2"
*~
1
«>
5
H
gl
(•
t
f-c
"(t
i
f
"55
> <•
V
^
^
M
i
1
y
yi
L
•
£
f
*
I
^
aT
1 ,
r^
T
..•
>
-/
•>
C
«•
r
>
1
r
V
^
^
C!
)(
'/
•
«
/
^
^
*
L
(»
/
C
7>
s
>
^
^>
-1
T
,
-j|
''f
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
1. Personal Communication: Mr. Stan Haines, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, B.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., April 27, 1976.
2. Minerals Yearbook 1969. Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1971.
3. Mineral Facts and Problems, 1970. Washington, D.C.,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines.
1970.
4. Predicasts, 1975 Annual Cumulative Edition. Predi-
casts, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, 1976.
5. Personal Communication: Mr. Stan Haines, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C., and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., May 17, 1976.
6. Commodity Data Summaries, 1976. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
7. Minerals Yearbook 1968. Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1970.
8. Minerals Yearbook 1973. Washington, D.C., U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1975.
9. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Boron." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, D.C., 1976.
10. Personal Communication: Mr. Sarkis Ampian, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, D.C. and Darrel Powell, PEDCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc. April 27, 1976.
11. Survey of Current Business. U.S. Department of Com-
merce, Social and Economic Statistics Administration,
Bureau of Economic Analysis. Volume 54, No. 7, July
1974.
A-32
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
12. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Diatomite." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines. Washington, B.C. 1976.
13. Personal Communication: Mr. Mike Potter, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, B.C., and Barrel Powell, PEBCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., April 28, 1976.
14. "Rock Products," Volume 77; p. 50, Becember 1974.
15. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Gypsum." U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Mines. Washington, B.C. 1976.
16. "Rock Products," Volume 77; p. 44, Becember 1974.
17. Personal Communication: Correspondence from A.C.
Meisinger, Bureau of Mines, Washington, B.C., April 29,
1976.
18. Personal Communication: General Eggleston, National
Slag Association, Alexandria, Virginia, and Barrel
Powell, PEBCo-Environmental Specialists, Inc., May 14,
1976.
19. Personal Communication: Horace T. Reno, Bureau of
Mines, Washington, B.C., and Barrel Powell, PEBCo-
Environmental Specialists, Inc., May 14, 1976.
20. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Vermiculite." U.S. Bepartment of the Interior, Bureau
of Mines. Washington, B.C., 1976.
21. "Rock Products," Volume 77: p. 45, Becember, 1974.
22. "Rock Products," Volume 77: p. 54, December, 1974.
23. "Rock Products," Volume 77; p. 48, Becember, 1974.
24. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Sand and Gravel." U.S. Bepartment of the Interior,
Bureau of Mines. Washington, B.C., 1976.
25. Preprint from Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition,
"Talc, Soapstone, and Pyrophyllite." U.S. Bepartment
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Washington, B.C.,
1976.
A-33
-------
APPENDIX B
MODEL PLANT PROCESS WEIGHT DETERMINATION
B-l
-------
/o
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -452-46
513 / 77 1-A33O
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by QQ(-h>-) ZoU-iTYL.
Source Hfi'^'T- PC*HJT" P^ge.tf55 Ct/tnfe/rT' - "BeLrirt.
B-2
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
•i.
™\,
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
Kpt>£*- F
3|L/6>-^£-
eet fo
one by
cAtur- 1
r Impact Assessment
Pfc00fS5 (JtnbHT - TSoron
. i
w
-
i
i
i
H
r
/
h
>i
'/
!
1 ,
i
i
_
-
v
i
i
•^
Ai
-
_
~
_
-
~
-
~
L
:
-
/
T
>
^
-1!
i
< T <
ui
H
h
ii^C
M/
' / 1
iz,
!••
a
-H
h
h
1
I
1
1
1
i
H-H-
--
i
1
n
_
)
1
1
t
I
, l
^
\
,
T"
in
-t
h
, ,
^
iC
-
j
i
?
K
^
1 /
i
f
-
1
i
I
i
i
i |
_j
_i
-
-
_.
_
u-l-J
_L
-
-
•ns/1
,/
bl
1
.-i
^
•L
A
l
V
t/
j<
T
Pl
i
L_
1
_
i
l
•
t
$
>
j
P
i
T
-
-
±
:.
-
^
7
r
/!
A
-
-
i j
Kilt*
*
v,
ij
-
f~
i
K
^
i?
e
J
&
>
6
r
>/
MI
i,
tfa
I
^
i
T
€
«
l
-
d
•rf
V
1
-j-H
i
'
i
i
i
i
j-
-
u
~
_.
_
-
—
-
-
—
-
-
P
"
+
t
fi4<
1
T
-
1
-
-
:
:
-
~
-
--
-
-
~
-
c
-
--
-
-
-
-
r
£
^
rt
irf
»v
taw
S
/
!,
x
V
-
;
•H
I
f 0
«
]
I
i
1
._
1
~i
t
~~"
"T
r
fc
i
(
-
_
1
-
i
j
b
|
L
_L
~
-
:
i
_.
-
-
-
-
li
pf
'
n
e
i
!
it
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -452-46
513 / 77 1--433O
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source H.nt»ei. r
.
(,
*•"
f
~t
•>
j
i
fi
><
^
/>
ii
[L
r
i
f
C
<
tf
i
}d
Q
IV
4
r
h
.
O
~
3ft/k-£C.
eet fo
one by
lifrfor-
r Impact Assessment
v\ot-ho 2cx-<_trvi_
P^
^
• i
A
t
s
t
Y
7
/.
;
h
i
r<
i ,
•
IA
-
j"
-T-
~
-
-
ft
u
7
}
r"
•
^
i
&
S/
|
r
(
*J
i i
|
.
/
T
/
^
£
V
I/I
•w
n
^
Ll
C
V
J?l
/» .f7
^
_(.!_
i
-
b
i
1
_
1
. ^
',
B.
II
si
d
^
,t *
t
/<
n-
i
I
t
0
M
L
h
L
-
^
/
2
' »JC
^ .
1
^
/!&•
4
ti
1 |_
Lj
¥
L
1 1
'1
v
- 14
Jib
i i >
Li4_
I
—
^
-
ii ' i
¥»r«
— i
<:
.>
•f
^
f
1 .
__
* «
w..
77
f
3
4
^
^J
*l
Y
n
f-
,J
1
ly.
m
*j i
i
i
-
-
i
-
_
-
-
_
j
1
i
i
i
i
i i
i
\
-
-
i
"
i
-
-
-
1
i
J..
-
_j_
-
-
•
^
-
f
i
•v
f\
t
4
/
A
/
t*f
f-
t
£
i
4
*
£
/
i
(
/
fl
•A
/:'
X
fl/
f
f
I ff/
i i_
-
-
i
1
-
i_i
£
t
...
~t
4
A
7
H-fcto
-
-
s
4
*
f
It
£
/t
>
I
1
f
f,
i
f
6
1
J
/
7^
J
i/
1
1,
/
r
f
4
f
if
>»
t
f.
*
r
!*
f
W
k
K
j
j
j
7
r
j
^
7
r
«
7
J
3
-
-
P*,ir*.
^-
\ 1
;
-I
1
j
-
-
-
;
-
1
1
I
h
i
~
_1_
._i_|_
L.
r_
-
-
-
-
1
1
1
-
-
-
-
._
I
-
i
"
-
-
—
-
-
-
i
1
i
1
-
T1-
J
—
-
f
1
i
I
H"
-
_
-
-
-{-
-
-
-
-
-
-
':
-
-
i
-
-
L
1
L
-
_
+
i
~P~
LL
-f-
i
_
L
-
r
1
--
-
-
L
_
--
-
-
-
-
1
_
_
:
i
t
-i-
-
-
i
:
_
i
~
1 i i i
i
-
...
-
_
H
-
I
.
U
t
J
-
-
-
-
1
!
t i
2
-t-
i
! i |
1
I
i
-
! j
~r
I
I
n-41-H-
i
i
~
-L
_
1
-h-
t_
1 i
-
~
-
i
i
-
-
-
-
-
—
_
1
I
1
:
-;
_
~~
:
^
-
-
.. . r
..
-
-
-
.
E
"
u
_
"
_1_
_
-
-
—
_
i
•
-
--
--
_l_
i
i
_
"
h
~
th
-
-
_.-
—
B-4
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -45246
513 /771-433O
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source Mrttx»i_ r
j
<
4
<
j
A
A
„
1 1
•
.<
f«
n
«
-
3(46»-fcE.
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
vioi-hO 2dX-<_C6rS5 cJ*r76>^fr - C/flU^ ^COVTIHU<
Date
•D
(D-I8-1C,
/ - '
L
L<
V
,(
*
*•
<
/
\
^^j
/
i
-i-i-i— r
1
J_
^
n
r
1
1
d
>l
f
.
=3
u
IU
-
-
y/
I
1'
-d
-J
-
4*
-
i
p\i
j
.J_
14-
..
r
-
i L
W
*
U
*Hc
: I/
P^iV/i
F
i •
&.
i
J
^
^
ij
a
.
V
I
...Ji
• ^
i
I-
I/
P
M
i
::±
H
Q
6
$
j.
,
«
i
^
/
^
^
'
i
_
i
__
i
1
_
1
_L
..
i
_
i
-
;j
f
3
-
i
.Tli.
fin
~b"
h^1
_
-
.
!
i t
[ i
'
^
A
y
.
J(
l
r
>«
fw
,
>
r>
r>
i
1
f t\
vfS?
i
i
\
-
,j_| —
t
"j | i .
-i-
i
-
-
-
•
^
>
•
f\ 7
\
LI
r
ftn
/
r 1
i
VI
G
i
T
ft
£
<"
£
t
i£
1
L
u
P
M
i
-
-
-
-
\-
4
J
/•
/
5
y.
i
*
I
/
>
,*
t
d
^
•f
t
r
S
~
-
I
a
r
i
7
li
L
I/1
•A-
-
-
-
l
*t«r«
-
•<
(P
—
^»
i
•-
_J I
-
A
.
/
4
r
!
I
-j-
--
-
Lr
r
i
i
t
_
~
-
~r
i i
_LL.l_
-
i
-
-
-
:-
f
-
-
i
-
_
I
1
-
~
"II
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
~
L
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_4_
\
N
£j
-
i
-
-
—
-
-
i
i
_
'
&
• Z]
Ar,
i
-
_
I'l
^
-
1
l
-
i
-
-
J-
-
-
rr
...
i
i
-L
i
_i
tt
I
J
i
-f-
L
i
i i
i
_
1-
' i '
_i__|J_
1
-
1
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
;"
T
_L
_
( t
__L
T
^~
I
i
i
--
J_
i
rh
1 1
-
_^_
T
l
i
-
i
_
i
_i_
!
V
-
-
7
i
-1-
i
i
i
_j
_1_|_|_L
;
1
/.
tta^
^.
^
IpidU^T"
~r
i ' ' i
_
hH-
1
1
i
1
-
-
-
I
-
-
-
-
—
hf
i
i
_
-
-
~
--
-
~
-
_
:
-h-
-
-
—
_
__
-
f
-
-
_]_!_
t-H-
_
i
i
—
-
_
r
•kn.
1
-)-
—
~i
1
—
B-5
-------
f£2
1 IKa'DOD
\^4
Projec
Comput
Calcul
f
Source
v
-J
i
i
I
•
1
to
(,
4
>•
-
i
*.
I
*
&
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 IT7 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
3Mb
-/2.e.
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
'V0c.*T55 (jJtrikHT - "D/a^w»ii'f€-
L
t
-
-
L
-
-
y
f
-
E.
ft
n
'
i
i
-
j
>
_
--
^
i
-H
v
i
•(
A
i i
^llil
1
Lt
c
W
1
i_
A*
IM
l
A.
-
_
-
~~
•
^
t
*<
— *-J
f*
*'
&
F
1?
i
E
1
»
i
*•
1
L-f
f
«•
e
>
1*.
>
t
lr
i.
<
r
T
l
r
~*
i i
4-
i
_
L.
-
-
rh
-
t
\
T ^
\/
d «
„ ,
, .
-4
i
-M
- i -l-l
r
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
! <
-
^
(
_
fcp
•y
r
t
A
-
-
U
_i^
i^Kr*
fn
•j
^,
i>
-
^
1
i
<1
c
1
i
-
MPC
H
w(jc
V
y
i
u
J
r
L
;!
L
"P-
f:
a.
i
4-
-
1
1
-
_j i
H
I
i
-
-
-
b
-
-
—
—f-
j
-
-
-
L—
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
_
-
fir,
i
•
/(
^
i
*
i "
^,
i
e
\*
~
i
-
1
l"
-
i
rr
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
rj
7
4
/i
p
t;
4
_
r<
1
1
1-
'.&
i
1
i
-
-
L
--
-
^
—
-
(
\
_l
i
1
T
Lfcpf*
1
i
-
-
~
-
'
i
-
-
-
-
-
—
I
E
-
-
i
—
-
1
1
„
-
-
•
_
~
1
H
-
-
:
1
T
I
_
~
' i
-
J_
1
1
1
~
-
-
-
i
-
i
i
--
i
... ..i.
! ' ]
^
L
^
-
i
^
-JF
1
tf|j*i*i
-H-
i
i i
t
1 i ' i
-
1
-
i
_j
_
-
-
-
-
1
~I
1
4-
4-
±1
i-q:
jn
„
_1_
-
-
_i_
t
:
p_L
-
-
T
-
fj
-
-
31
-
-
-
r
Aa
4-
i
--
—
-j-
i
--
B-6
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 453A6
513 / 77 1-A33O
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
u
/
V
i
1
IV
:
-
^
7
\
i
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
3lHk-&(L
eet fo
one by
ciHjT" '
r Impact Assessment
Pfc.ipc.tf55 iJeibHT - FelJisvau-
" ' ' i
L
i_
n.
i,
»
A
i
r.
m
i
-\
~~
i i
-
-
-
i
1 1
;
/
1
/
[i
-
)|
T
A
^
—
SJ
i
1
^
/•
V
h^
n
i>i
H
IT.
^«c
T ""I ,
iiiZ,
-j "" "
/y
J
A
i
^/j<
/(
•3%
> ^
5
p •
> ,
_
'
H
r"
j
i i
--1-
-
H
j..
-
i
~
-
-
_i
•j
7
1
-
j
1
1
)>4-
_i
H-
--
i
i
-
-
-
_j_
Ji
f
Y
J
i
y.
fn
_
'£i i>>
7
"
/
t
1
1,
I1
-
M
i
•
I
C
>&(.
i
i
f
-
-1-
-
\
If 1
V
1
^
?
-
•
T
17
^1
n
/
Ik
1
i
4
i
. _L.
L
-
IS
KT*
».'
L«
»
--
(in
/
/
/
u r
1»
i
-
'v
n
y
u
^i
7
pi
«•
><
A
i
i
i
-
i
-
-
•
•)
o
>.
>,
u
>
I
$
1
p>
^i
ft
K
I
-
A
ffi,irU
^
i
_||
rf*
t
4
t
L
u
-
,
*
1
~F
-
i
I
_r
!
i
_
Hh
_L
-1-
J
-
-
i
-
-
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
~r
-
-
-
-
6
_
7
i
_i_
i
-
t
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
_L
-
i
-
L
H
Id
\
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
_
-
~r-
-
-
-
t
ii nl
j
J^
i
1
-
^
-
-
1 1
|
"
1
-4-
f
1
..L
.
i
:
-
r
—
1
-
|
-
-
-
-
t
-
f '
_
h
i
-
M-
1
-
~i
i
~r
_L
.-
-
-
-
-
~
-
i
i
i i
i
i
t ' i
t
f
r
i
r I u»
7! rf
:
*
I<
r
«
V
1
r
i
"
*"
i
X
ri
1
L
i
-
~H
i
1
i
_J_
-
-L.
i
I
-
-
-
_
J
i
--
n
_L
_
L
-
~
-h
i
_
:
_L
4-
_
:
i
-4n
-
-
-
-
—
-
-
i
i
Kx
i
_o_
T
—
r
1
--
B-7
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL.
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513/77 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
.Date.
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by.
Source.
^f
B-8
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -4524.G
513 / 77 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source H/vrwo. F
t
Ii
i
/
^
i
9
_ i
_i_
i
-
3|t/6?-^2-
eet fo
one by
UAJT- (
r Impact Assessment
•^©(•bO 2ot.c(ryi_
?^?CtfS5 cJtT76»/rr - Ai<»/lnw
\
1
1
1
^
C
?*
i
^
f:
"5
i
1
|
|
1 1
-
-
_<
A
^
i
~r
>
6
J
(
S
I
j
-
-
-
-
._
-
1
11
a
rt
-
M^H
i
^
.
A
-
v
9
-
*£]
-
*P"
i
,
i^
t
D
1
OA-
i
-
/
-
h
-1
1 1
1
_J^
_1 I
--
-
i
—
u
-
h
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
J<
_
|
_
i
1
-
-
_L
_LJ
i
H
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
.-
-
e
^
-
H.
-
a
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
\
K
t
«J
-
i
f
't
i
-
brt
i-
#
i
c..
*
-
-
i
i
i
-
~
-
—
r
1
1
-1-
±
:
;
-I
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
~
-
-•
-
_j
t
i
1
l
d
i
'--
-
hr-
_
_
i
—
-
-
-
-
2
9"1
i
i
i
i '
* <
n
f
it-^
Af£
i
i
i
*
t"
^U
i i i
i
i
i
i
-
' i i
i j
-(-
-
J
_
~hh
j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
T
_L
u
jj
-
—
—
-
-f-h
i
_
-
-
i
i
i
u_
J.
-
-
-
.
-
_
-
— -
-f-
-1-
B-9
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4524-6
513 / 7 V 1-433O
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source K«Tvn_ f
--
i
**1
^
-
•
1
-
3ft/6rR2.
eet fo
one by
<>*JT-
r Impact Assessment
fe0C.tf$5 iJtnbHT - /.toAr(*XXflM" A$
srt*
auk- - Sta
» J VU V) n
£i
•?<
^
i
~
_«i
>'
-
4-1-
,
i
_i_
i
i
i
^
C
.
io
1
io
1
i«J
>3
i
r
1
-
tr~
Jl
}
11
f-
f
i
n .
i
^f
-
-
r
-
L
t
i
'
•
I !
l
i
I
#
-
-
i
x
LJ
I
/M,
|[T
1
I
1
u
—
_L
1
-
-
-
\ I
i
r
>
W
*\
1
"'
v
r
A.
A
/
't
,/(
A
>
J,
1
1
-
-
|
-
h
IT
&
>
><
X
t
)
i
t
>
L>
l
A
^C,IT*J
^-
i
-
i
-
-
-
-
~
1
1
^
1
-
->
^
H
1
_
-
-
~
—
-
_
~
-
_
I
4-
1
-
~
_
_
-
-
L
-
_
~
-
-
-
L-
—
-
|
|
1
1
j
I
1
1
it
1
-
-
-
~
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
i
i
i
_
_j L
-
:
-
j
_
_
_
-
—
-
--
'
-
L
"
—
-
:
"
"
-
_
1
i
-
-
•
i
1
L
4
-
j
|
i
i
HI
H-
1
i
i
—
_
-
-|-
i
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
1
J_
-
-
-
-
±
_
i
-
_
_
-
~
-
-
"
1
1
--
B-]0
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513/77 1-4330
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
^
,
W
1
k
t\
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
3/t/6>-^2.
eet fo
one by
(.1*101^
r Impact Assessment
Pfcoc
""Ti>
>'/
iH
V
H
U
C
i 1 l" i r ' *
»
>
1
i
1
1
/
•i'
*jt
«
i
4«
^,
d
6
--
H-
i i
I
i
_
?j
,i
^
t
.1
-
T
.
tr
i i
1 1
••«
i
_j
r
fj
i
i
_
L_
-
!
K-
!
i
1
h^
-H
i
i
£,
^
-
-
i i
r" t 1
i ,
-
-
'»
t
r
_
IN,
|V»»<
A
IM
krv
I'
i
,
t*
flr
%
T
M
t
A
i
i
i
<
•
>
/
r
i
i'
J
.A
A
*;
-------
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 / 7 7 1 -433O
Now Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
--
M
/
/
r
i '_!
__
J
i
4<
-
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
HAI^T- r
3M(t>-&(L
eet f o
one by
UK»T-
r Impact Assessment
vjOtbO 2ocorvj_
Pc^£tfS5 (JtribHr- Pumice
Date
4
_
-
f
)
-
fc
<
^
p
4
i/
i
-
-
-
--4-H-
-
l
-
_L
-
H
-
i
1
-
1
,
'
h
r>
i
rw
-
-
^
LJ
i
7
JIB
'i
)i
^
U
f ' '
'fhi.i/,
, i i1 ( * i '
~
1
M
1
J
4
jb
_ 1
+
-
uT
|
'HI
,
^
, e>
„,
_ir
1
b
-
-
1
-
i
:fr
ri
i . i i *
r
-T— -
1 i
J
_
—
:
-
-
1 ' .
' ' t
-L.
-
-
_
-
_
L.
-
*
V
f
(
-
I
i) .
-
-
-
*~
r>
*
-
t
1
1
/(K*
^r
/<
i
1
-
;
-
i
t
i
1 1
! 1 i
r>««>
-"-H
^
r
1
r ,
V
**/
f
' <
•4,
?
V
1
-
--
~* i
-~H—
-
-
_.
U
-
1
i
J ' ! '
-
-
-
i
-
_
-
h
1
•
y
1j
\
\
W\
f.
r~
f
a
I
j,
i
Vi
—
1
-
|
I
_
-
-
>
P"
'A
A
71
i
-
-
_
. ;
i
l_
_
-
_
:.
~
1
_
-
-
1
_
-
-
-
l
-t
i
_
_
i
I
_L
-
-
1
-
_
—
C
-
i
I
_
:
J
-
—
-
n
«
f
?j
FT
li
£
1
I
•^
M
i
i
.. , ., L
Tfh
W3&
' *
1
i
-i
i
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
^
j
_L
i
1
_Ll_
±
-
t
I
i i j_
-
h"1
±u
Tr
t
_.
-
i
-
-
-
t
I
-
-
7
i
_
-
i
:
-L
"T"
+
~r
-
..
i.
:
_
-
j
_
:
i •••
T
1
i
-p
-
-H-
-
_
t
[
1 1
i
i
I
r
H
u ' i
/j ijpxa i i i
—
f
?&
i
1 '
r;
•wf~
\
• i
i
-
i
l
rb
L
=4-
i ' *
1
-
-
_
-
i
_
:
~i
1
-
—
_
-
-
i
-
..
i
-
I
i
i
i
-
-
t-
j
z
_
-
-
_
-
"~
x
-
._
_
i
i
-L-
J_
-r-
-t-
j
|
1
1
_L
-f-
I
B-12
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-46
513/77 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by QOtW ZoLUIYi.
Source HfjT^fL. PoK^r" F^>e.tf55 jJeibHT- StLtdL f Crntvcj
Date
B-13
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
5 t 3 / 7 7 1-433O
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by QQtW ZccufVL.
Source ^i^t>fL. PofrAjT""' r&0c.tf55 u/trrfefrT-• ~T"fp~74>
B-14
-------
APPENDIX C
CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATE REQUIREMENTS
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C
CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATE REQUIREMENTS
Belt Conveyor Transfer
The criteria used to determine the air flow require-
ments for dust collection from belt conveyor transfer points
are:
a) 350 cfm/ft belt width for belt speeds less than
200 ft/min,
b) 500 cfm/ft belt width for belt speeds greater than
200 ft/min.
Belts smaller than 1.5 ft wide are not used in the
minerals industry. This size belt (1.5 ft) will accomodate
100 tons/hr at 200 ft/min, unless the material being con-
veyed has not been through the primary crusher. In the
latter event, the air requirements are derived from crite-
rion (b). This air volume exceeds the minimum required to
convey dust a distance of 250 ft. in a vacuum system (4.5
scf/lb dust maximum volume needed for pneumatic conveying).
Therefore, the air flow requirement for belt transfer points
is:
(1.5 ft belt width) (350 cfm/ft belt width) = 525 cfm
Bin Openings
The air flow requirement for dust collection from bin
discharge openings is 200 ft/min through openings.
C-2
-------
Minimum bin opening (width) = (3) (largest lump size)
= (3) (16 inches) = 48 inches = 4 ft
Bin discharge with feeder opening has
air flow requirement
= (width of bin opening, ft) (1.25) (200 ft/min)
= (4 ft) (1.25) (200 ft/min) = 1000 acfm
where
1.25 is a factor based on engineering judgement to
account for the difference in the areas of the bin and
feeder openings.
Bin discharge with feeder grizzly (see "Grizzly")
Storage Bin receiving opening has
air flow requirement
= (2)(volume of raw material flow into bin) +
(one conveyor transfer air flow requirement)
Assume a mineral density of 80 Ib/ft entering storage bin
at a maximum rate of 100 tons/hr. Therefore, volume of
displaced air equals
100 tons. ,2000 lb_. , ft^ hr =
( hr ' ( ton' (80 lb} ( 60 min} 4il/ Ctm
Air flow requirements due to displacement = (2) (41.7) =
83.4 cfm. This requirement is negligible compared to the
conveyor transfer air flow requirement of 525 cfm. There-
fore, the air flow requirement for storage bin openings is
equivalent to that for conveyor transfers.
Grizzly (and Feeder)
The air flow requirement for dust collection from a
2
grizzly is 200 cfm/ft of screen. Grizzly width = grizzly
length = nominal bin opening width = 4 ft.
C-3
-------
air flow requirements (same as for shakeouts )
2
= (grizzly area) (200 cfm/ft grizzly area)
= (4 ft) (4 ft) (200 cfm/ft2 grizzly area)
= 3200 cfm
Vibrating Screen
The air flow requirements for dust collection from a
vibrating screen having 1/4 inch perforations (30% open
area) are:
a) (200 ft/min thru openings) (0.30) (1 ft2/! ft2) =
60 cfm/ft2 of screen area,
2
b) a minimum of 25 cfm/ft of screen area.
The predominant demand is (a) which, based on engi-
2
neering judgement, will be reduced to 50 cfm/ft of screen
area to account for solids.
Screens are sized on the basis of "thru" material (-1/4
inch) present, which is assumed to be a maximum of 60% of
the feed material.
Raw feed
(tons/hr)
5
15
25
50
100
Thru material
(tons/hour)
3
9
15
30
60
Approximate
screen area (ft2)
4.2
12.5
20.8
41.6
83.3
Screen
size
(feet)
2x4
3x4
3x8
5x8
6 x 14
Screen
area
(ft2)
8
12
24
40
84
Flow
rate
(cfm)
400
600
1200
2000
4200
1. Danielson, J.A. (Editor). Air Pollution Engineering
Manual. Cincinnati, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, 1967. AP-40. 892 p.
C-4
-------
AIR FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL DEVICES ON CRUSHERS,
LUMPSIZE 16 x 2 1/2 TO 2 1/2 x 0
o
i
a
wia/;
G/rcccrya
Single roll3
Ha-.-er-
-------
THEORETICAL CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATES
n
i
8 4
cr
UJ
QC
Qi
I I
I I
ROD/BALL
MILL
2000
VIBRATING
SCREEN
4520
4200
05 15 25
50
100
TONS PER HOUR
-------
THEORETICAL CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATES
o
i
o
o
o
Cr
UJ
o:
850
550
»• • •
375
1350
•1050
525
I
3450
1325
1000
0 5 15 25
35 '50 60 70
TONS PER HOUR
80
-1250
CRUSHERS
JAW
GYRATORY
SINGLE ROLL
HAMMERMILL
100
-------
THEORETICAL CONTROL DEVICE FLOW RATES
n
i
CO
o
§ 4
oo
o-
LU
GRIZZLY
BIN DISCHARGE OPENING
CONVEYOR TRANSFER
15 25
3200
1000
525
50
TONS PER HOUR
100
-------
SIZE REDUCTION ASSUMPTIONS FOR FLOW RATE CALCULATIONS
16 X 0
n
i
BIN
GRIZZLY
VIBRATING
SCREEN
2 1/2 X 1/4
1/4 X 0
A-^s SECONDARY
(_}_\ CRUSHER
1/4 X 0
-100 M -*-
BALL (ROD)
MILL
TRANSFER POINT
-------
f IKaUXDT) j
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source MoTV?_
_*j
j
^
x
4
4
*
V
r
—
c
.
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 453-46
513 / 77 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
JMd
7-&R.
eet fo
one by
&/faoi
r Impact Assessment
Joff>0 2oLC(><2_ Date £>-l8-~?6»
r FcdiO fcATlT Pot. PcA*STS > /OO Tb*/kr-
<
(
1,
1
-
^
^
i
V)
11
r
rj
{
C
J
I
r
—
1
J\
H
j
i\
-4
3l
s_
I
11
V
.
M
s
/
l\
s
1
M
y
\
1
J ~
l
i
»!A
Kp
/
n
0
f
*•
4
|
I
1
/•
5
i
A
. 1
*»
r\
f
n-
JJ
p«|M
A
Or
RX"*
In
i|
RV
[
<*^
•
\
•\
1
KJ
•*
.
^
f
tl
^1
^>
Hi*
i
e,r
>t
)<
H'
i
1
II
1l
T
t
to
,*
i
i
I
I
1
I
>«
f
n
i
^
rirv
T
rtf
T7G
1
^
5
(T
r<
^
• I
•ft
0 t~pi
r(U
T
i j
HA.
i
/
M>
Pf
cr
*
«!
o
T
,
<
I-
n
<,
|<>
<
^
/
9
f
1
«|r
A
•T
•
b|H
b-i&&
A,
T
^
1
t
r
>
L ,^1-
^.jf
fT
i
[
1
i
— |
/
/
( ,
f(
f
i
i
j
L
P
F
'
^
/
,
••
/I
*
''V
t
i
\J
y
f
^
/
y
/
i
i
|
!
I*
F
^
/
c
t.
\
.
)
l
f
n
^
i
y
j/
/
f
f
\
i
f
t
f
f
^,
J'(V
If
I ,
1i
|
1
I/
,r
i
V)
i
f
V
r
t
1
i
'
L
1
9,
L
~
• 1
3
^
'A
1
•p
\
4.
y
1
1
1
"
i"
p
4\
ill
1
<
m
[
M
1
•* if
1
>
/
i
|
S
r
I
S
)'
~i
/
*
*•
r
XT
^
S
4
/
71
in
k
i
J
i
^
f
t
f
f
f
\
l
t
/
/l
i
»i
k
7
>
^
i
i
4.
T
f\
J
i
f
r
•
i
i
t
J
ft
C
<^
»
j
f
/
^
i
n
>
!
/
f
f
I/
f
;
1
t
1
t
1 1
t
1
1
1
i
i
i
>
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
4
/
1
/
i
i
i
1
1
I
|
1
;
i i
1 !
1
1
i
I
1
i
i
i
i i
C
c
1
i
i
|
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D
CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE EMISSIONS
UNDER STATE REGULATIONS
D-l
-------
( IKa'JJDt
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
/
(
Is
•\-
1
NM
1
vil
1
\R
I
J,
T- r
rt
.1.
1 C
T
I
S
k
i
r
l
,f
/
1
s,
f-
c
I
1
9
t Numbe
ation S
ations
"Ba.r
i I 1 . _ - O 1 N V , 1 \ V •> (INI, . 1 \._
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO 45246
5 t 3 / 77 t-4330
New Source Performance Standards
r 3»4<
»-f?R
heet fo
Done by
fc.
r Impact Assessment
STE?H£V Oi.D«>fS Date Ju'VS /6, /9?6
7
\
r£
Ov,
r
i
i
i*
41
1
4
sJ
(
h!
-
J
4 ^
1
t
-I-
!. i
, J
I
S
G
"Tr^
flo"<5
-
1
1
JOJ
k- 1 C
i
i
"rS
! v
•_ s
J^
[£
4.
^
a
h
t9
**
* «»
b
*
«
,7
4.
i
§
1
'V
^
1
1
1
f
^
1-
1
'
iH
4
l r
\,!S
t
1
1
k-
tf
i
>
1
44J
1-M-M-
fii^TpT/
FVMfiJTT
l
-
1
-
j
rf<
1
ll
S
/i
t
J
i
UL
C
•L
5li
(J
?/v
"
5
~~
v
0
,^
V-
_
>•
w «
7
•
f
i
&
s.
-*r~
i
-
-
-
_
"
-
=1 ;
t
(
1
i
;
1
ll
i
i
i~i
-
i
-
J
j
r
^
L
_
.
-
i
_
J
L
L
111 1
i
-
•v
-
-
v
— .
s.
^i
s
-
•
t l
»
-
-
-y
-
4
I
4
X
4
^
(
V
0
i
7
;;
V
1
i
j
;t
ll
p
i
^
t,
9
'
^ji
H
1
"'
1
d{t
/\h
:
,
r f
f
J
o
y
C
L
^
*/
p
rt
NM
L
>U
i
1
^
-
t
^L
i
,*
£
/
C
-
-J4
i
i
-
-
-
r_
<^>
i
i
-
*i
-
I
I
1
-
l |
'I
a
i/
r
_
:apiy
K
iT
^
5
fj
^
i.
^
«
P
7S
i y
-
_
I
_
A
$
H-
i
i
~
-
^
U
J
-
I
-
-
i_
£
S
9
I
ft
r<
£
-
..
-
1
9>
4
t.
t
»
-
£>
-
_l 1
_
J
=
1
J
1
j
I
_
Q
2
/,
H
-
i
~
a
^
_
•j
J
P
±
_
-
:.
r
i
-
~
L
I
-
*
"j
.1
_
-
-
-
-\
.
5
J;
-
_
— 1
&
j
1
•
1
-
1
_
t>
1
-
_
i
i
i
*
-I-
~l
"
-
_
-
-
i.
/
i
_L
A,
-
€'
-------
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513/771-.4 33O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
i
f
\
i
i
H
i
i
I
\
)
T
/
'I
:
-
/
•
H
*
-
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
"Bora
3I4C.-RR
eet fc
one bj
.TCS
3r Impact Assessment
/• 7i«o /./i/m^S^TTrt Date Jove l(>, /97fe
J
T
'£
?
K
•V
-
v
^
i
r1
'fl
v
A
)
>
L1
C
1
T-
L
£
!
i
P
1
-
#
FT
<
r
V
1
'/
7.
i
i
_
i
1
1
I
-J4-
+H4-
T^fflTv"
1
i
"~
HI
1
'<
H
>/"
>
>
r
i
i
t
T
j
1 .
'
i
'
1
-
~
—
i
i
*
-f-
l
r
' i
1
i
l
-
i
1
1
1
i
i |
-L
I
/i
'
-»
-
_
'i
-
_
-
<€
V
—
_
)
-
-
4-4-
-U-
1
T^
j
n
-
-
-
i
/
L
l
\
i.
I
V
a,
*i
i
i
t>
/
^
^
^
,
i
r
A
i
i
-
y
%
•**
6
*_
t
i
l
i
i
_j
2
r
*i
_L
t
t
—
-
-i
±
±
/
-
/
_L
J_
K.
-
-
"
]
Yn
i
1
I
-
t
i
-
'i
r
/
h
i
-
IP
0
^
-
&
z-
h
|
^
i
-4-
Li
fr
1 "
-
-
1
~
-
-
-
-
-
£
k
a
-
-
-
g
<
£
-
:
_.
_.
-
-
XI
*•
_
-
Q
^
/,
-1
-
-1-
^
7
?.
l/«
P>
_ j.. .
_
-
:
1
T"
--
H
-If
I
1
I
t
-
-
i
A
t
'
_L
-
i
i
.
--
-
'P-'
T
-
.
J
2
7
-
•..
-
-
(VJ
I
_L
•T
r
-H-
— r
|T
-
-
-
1
1
i
i
i
I
I
_
r~ i
i
--
--
._
.c
I
-
l
I
1
— j —
1
-
_
-
-
I~
~
—
-
-
f..
-
?_
-
]
rwi
i
i
i
•t
/
i
f>
?/
• i
feA-
A
£
r
r i
|
1
_L
IS-
)
1 i_
HH-
i
1
1
1
i
i
1
1 1
i
•
i
I
_i_
i ' ! i
i
T
:
-
9
-
t
i
-
u i
—
Jt
nfv
j
--
_
"i
U
ft
:l
L.
a
;
I
—
--
-
-
E
-•
-
I
--
1
I
-!-
D-3
-------
[Kajiflc
v£
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
i
t
f
P
.__
i
f
•<
>
\i
T
d
;>
Y
9
i
J
4U
*L
Hfc
1
*
;
7
_
/
k
t
e
()
/
;
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
SUITE. 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE.
CINCINNATI, OHIO 452-4.6
5t3 / 77 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
3l46
>-ffR
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
^ob "Livm SS "W>\ Date Jt^CX /. /976
W
'
i
J(
.
c
n
/
t
A
k
f
k
V
h
3
fi*
i
-H
Ml
-
I
1
u
n
1
&
Q
V
i
—
^
1
/
0
A
^
^~
•„'
"5t''€
-
J
~i
'/
^T *
ft
¥
JV
1
1
~-
£
£
i
4
';
b
1
^-j f
-
i
^
f
sr
i
J
q1
i
i
1
^
. i •
t
^
i
•I/
• f
f.
1
1
1i
'C
£i^
i
i
hH
r
£
^
«
IP
>/
f j^_
j
1
-H-
444-
irJty+r
/til
"T
|
-
1 c •
1
-
to
1
4"
•y
-
-
;
r
' vS
j.
t
/
i,
^
f
i
1
i
1 (T.
>
2-
«.£'
>i
Yil*
!»
?
>
/ 1* 1
V1
i
L
1
/U
I
i
/
|
1
l
-
<
^
.J
I
^
| .
1 i
Y
Is
1-
i
l
,
i i
1 i
fr
t
x
)
?:
^
7<
1
'•
f*'
7 i
>
_J
i
/<
/
i
|i
M i
-
|
i
1
i
-I-
rf
1
1
-
-
H
_14,JJ
_
^
7
—
S
l
_J
—
^
!__
l
-
-
__
i
4
-
/
3
i.
fc
i.
i
i
i
i
t
JC
I
1
1
1 1
/
/
4
>
-j-
1
-H-
i
2
—
i
,
3-
i
,
-
J
tl
1
^
^
|
fi
-
-
V
A
L
P
L
^
$
y
,
,
.r
~
_
1
r
•/
r
.
-
1 W t» .
r i
I
_
f/r-T
it.
?j
v
3.
U
1
i
1 |
1
!
"
-
-
-
-
U
*
:
£
~r
—
-
,?
SJ~
"~
_L
-
-
Q
2
h
i
H
j
2.
4-
_.
_]
-
i
D
P
~
1
_j
n
-
-
1
-i..
•i.
£
"(
|
b
°
S
,
L
£
A-
-
t
t
1
b
1
-
I
>>
e
/<
i
i
i
-
1
-
?,
u
-
3
7i
1
i
T
i
i
._
_._
•;
r~
i -1
_
-
-
-
-
d
/
-
-
_
5?
—
-
---
i
_
L
l
j !
r
l
— -i
i
1
"1
1
-1
-
-
4-h
t <
:l
j
-;
1
r
*!
i
~]
1
3
K
_l
1
1
J
t
-
i
_i i
r
/••
,
.
t
<
^•3^
j
J '•
t=h
f j'l iT
C
- f P
>
!7ir-
)
i
T 1 !
i:
i_ <
•
7
i
> .i/
%
.
^tj.'fe
1
;
i
_L i -
4
(
i
-,
-
j
1
.L
-
L
i i >
_Ll i- !
&
-t:
-V
j
-
j_
-4-
--
!_«_'
-4
i
<-
-
i
-L
l~
i
-
--
i
-1
*-
t
i ] {
-
_
-
t
--
|
D-4
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo-ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 4524e
513 /771-4330
Project Number 3/46 -RR
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by "Bak
Source
Date
D-5
-------
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO -452-4G
513 / V 7 1-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
~\
Ir1
f.
«.
i
*-i
V
3
f
>l
f.
^
J
1
\i
i
^ i
p
L
/
)
^
/6eS Date JUVG l& , 1^1 (y
7
|L
v<
V
h
1
i
h
^
1<
j
do
1
IV
f
<-
i .
i_*y
* fi
rt
3
1
n
X
i
1
i i
i
i
—
P
i
-
-
1 i '
1
Pif«
-^
-
-
-
-
^
T
^
+i
5
KE
-
>/
ky
-
-
1
~
•<)t>
i
!
i_
H
Ir!
P
i
I
1.
rm
11
l '
r
r
D
1
P'
1
3
t\-S&
f
jir
ID
,
o t
I
1
i i
i
1 >
f^4 r
1 »
t
t
1
i
Jr
il
1
i
i
i
1
i
_
_.
.1 l_
1
1
i i
_
t-
t,
-i
J_<
/
Jfc
-r
_.
i
~T
*'
•\
\,
-.!>
i ,
l
-
1
!
' i
-*-! 1
i
J_
1
i
5S
.
I
J
_
-m
_
i
_
_»
>
|
-
—
•^
A]
(1
1
\
^
/
/
V
j
t*
"^
^
,/
!c
^
u
/
9
\,
4
/
7
*
Imfal
?
7"
a
5
y
r
i
j i
~*
_
1
u
1
L
-
-
*
N
^
i.
g.
^
t
.
i
/
to
6
<<
-
/
i
_
/
J,
1
1
-
i ,
'I
!
'£
}
p
i
i
J
3
f)
1
-
i
i
1
-
r
1
1
P_jfc.
^
; ^
~i~
-
1"
n
1
-
-
-
-
E
-
:
-
5
-
-
-
V
3
n
V
P
^^
+
1
-
0
.<
2
-
"
_
--
-
-
,
i
J_
~
r!+
£•
F-
-
fi
^
7,
-
*
i
bfe
—
--
~
-
-
-
-
-
_l_
-
i.
-
-
$
z
-
.:
_
-
-
-
L
0
-
»."
;
-
-
-
f*
/,
1
€/<
1
|
t
~
LL
1
i
-
I!
7
:
r.
~
£r
""j
_
-
~*
i
X
1
, |
i
i
,7
-
—
-
—
-
-~f
_
MM
-
0
—
1
~|
-
_
~
-
_
t
-
-
i
£
9
~
^
-
8
•^
a
J-f
1
:.
-
-
r
_
/•
1
t«
0
P
>
"
^
/
,
1
^
£
f
t
i/i
1
-
•?
-
/
h
r
/
|
f i
-------
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source 7?ia*Ta
<
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 IT7 t-4330
New Source Performance Standards
6-RRL
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
"3
Date
-Jun^c. l(o /?! (>
y
i
r
t
i
M
{
i
i
n-
<.
1
>l
V
Q
i i
*
,
u.
t
^
i
•
&
V*i
/
I
\
I
\ \
1 !
,
i
i i
! 1
1
i
fir
I
1
I
t
i
h
1
>|
i
U
^
i ,
j_
H-
i
i
*
i
P€
"t
rj
t
i
gji
i
y
j
rif
'
•
1 p i i
1
t
i
i
AW
\
i
!
^
I
V
TU
! ' i
\
i
l
'l
\ i
j
1 T
i
I ' '
i
i
i
N
i
A
H
*
i
i
.
H*-
1
^
)i
/
Mi
|f
1
1
XJ
f
>
t
>T
f
1
'
f
\
I
jj
i
i
><
i i i
i-
I/
!
J
(
t
1.
r
"
•
(l
4
u
y
0
j
i4K
1 l
I
.
i
41
l
j
ii
""!
i
fi
,»
«
1
<
1
n
H
4
4
i
1
r
ji
p
^
u
fl
Jf
, i
,
fi
<
I.
'
(j
f
^
1
/
\
1
i
j
JL
w»
. 1
1*
/
I ,
I
*J
fr
•V
c
s
>*
i
A
1
(
j\
-
1
/I
<.
•I
71.
W
1
u
,v
1
J
1
1
M
"
r
1
i
1
t
'l
,&
•1
1
' t
N
/
^
.
fjf
'
1 J
1
J)
I
'A
i i i
! 1 1
.
/
' *t
'^
•
i
i
L
1
^
^j
AI
i
c
1
t'
V
I*1
L
i /
i
f<*.
i -i
i i
i i
I
1 ! 1 |
1 I.) !
,
i
i
1
i i
|
1
6
1
•W
TT
/\
1 1 .
1 i jjj
1
,
•
i
i
>*
ii
Jt-f-71
>!,. i
to *io
1 1 ' 1 1
i
1
i
i
i
\
\
!
l
1
D-7
-------
lhaiL>i)b
, ,
W
New Source Performance Standards
6UITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO 45246
513 /77 1-4330
Projec
Comput<
Calcul<
Source
/
-(.
rs
*
f
*
^
f
ij
3
V
ffc
r
/•
r*
V
T
•)
^
/
1
if
*
i
r
>
.1
i
^
-
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
iklJis
3i4d> -??R
eet fo
one by
r Impact Assessment
Date
r4
.
,
to
T
'i
!|Q
'ft
if
" U
t<°
I"
I
k
r
i
f
T
7
i
w
1 (Jt/€
1
-
-
1
V
'1
f
P7
L
"
H
1
l
L
11
1
.1
r
I
j
-
-
-
£
\
•
i
• f^
\
J
«8k
1
-t
i
ef_
"
-
1
J
(-
t
T
A>
J J
I
^
A
i
t
1
r«
Ql^~i i
> i*T^~
1
i
— 13
i
r
i
, L)
r>
r
VII,
d.i
j"
1 1
\ \
1
--
-:
i
i
-1
1
n
, IN'
'Jibs
_.
-
-
-
-
--
_
i
-
•«
r - i^<
/
L
; i
L,
_J
-
~
-
*
i
/
^
A
f
V
i
-
^
,*l
^
V
rv
64
/
L
4
f
^
).
><•
i
Hr
>,
^
s
M
i
)
^1
&S
-L,
i
-T-
?
t
t
rf
•\
*"
*.
£
^ 1
1
1
-1
:r
_
-
-
-\
/
1
_
/
T
-
3/
i
f
f
1
,
i i
c
c1
_
-
1
-
'(
5
\o
1
\
C
^
p
1
j
i/
•)
i
^
1
1
H-
Atf
r?i
"-
\
n
j
-I
T:
~
-
1
_
-
-
£
[<
*
-
-
-
-
ft
1
£
—
-
_
-
-
-
A
a-
_.
-
*
)
,
-
-
Q
^
/,
I
4-
1
_L
^
A
V
-
•7
p
-
:i:
-1-
i-
~
_
_
-
-
-
*
-
-
f
0
\
-
-
s
17,
-
~
-
-
-
•~
-
f"
i
A.
<;
/(,
1
_
_
$•
r-.
».,
-
-
-
J
-
\
-
-.
-
-
r\
i
i
-\~
:
~
—
-
-
-
_
-
=i
-
i
1
_L
-
-
-
—
i
i
1
--
i
-
4
+H-
_.
_1
9
--
_'
..
j
—
~
-
~
_
~
_,
r(
1
_£
v
^
1
i
• t
I
B
S .
J
',f
j >
j /
*
i
t]p
/»r
1
}
/*•
|
|
'\t tr
C1./
^ •/
^ I
t
,. !
1
J
i
j
I
|
i
1
]
If
--
--
g
-
jr
--
1
_
1 1 ' ii
i
1
I
. LJ
.,>
---
J
—
H
1 1
.L!
1-
-
:
:b|
--
-1
—
:±
--
-
-
-
~l
T
-
--
|
i
i
--
--
X
--
--
D-8
-------
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 / 77 I-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
::1
V
1
7-
^
"
J
•i
f
,1
"S
p
ij
)
A
1
T
,|
^
/
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
3l4t-^R
eet fo
one by
Sw«1
r Impact Assessment
1
T
IP
MI
i
ii
if
T
i
^
f.
^
ft
i
f«
/*
1
<;
|
(J
j[
t
4
|
1
A
T<
"I
><
:
TPT
1
-
P
A
_
ir
-*)
1
' /n
,i a
1
J
4-
l*.
J.
)J
!_
L
-L
-r
— P
/
^j
f
1^
^
1
l i
/4»
•if i
j
/
i
9
1
i
3
!
1
i
-H
i
5S
r
-
^
1
4-
-
-,
r
*
---
- 3
f
tr
//>
z,
1
V-
.
.
_
,. . U
^I£
*/ji£i '
i
*T*
T
1
i
i
I |
4
i
i
j
! i
.S.
-
1*
~
1
j
i
rl
-
—
'T
i
..j
6
1
—
-
-
—
|
l
i
i
—
D-9
-------
New Source Performance Standards
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO 452A6
513 / 77 1-433O
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source rCrl
•
4_
j^
*
\
/
\
J
1
1
Y
i
?
n
ij
r?
1
/
y
*
i
!*•
i
i
(
>
B
X
z
'l
1
4
V
_
3l4fc -ftR
eet fc
one b}
• H
Dr Impact Assessment
? 3«i^ /./^'I^STOTX
"" J
Date
i
A
J/
rt\
tf,
/'
rf'
I
,
(i
4
If
,'/
t >
* '
,>
i1/
X
I
iV
1 /
\
i
1
r '
L/
1*
£
-
-
|
/W
1
'/
J
if
1
/
1
i
i
£
1
4
i
-
1
_1_
~\-L\
JJP£
<££1
-
-
-
-
*
f\
I-
f-
6,
7,
(.
4
I
'/
\,
7
r
i
J
7
:
'<>.
Jl«
V,
•
S
—
1
T^
i
i
_i_
t
_L
-J-r-
S
4-
• r
i ;
i
^
\
-*
!0'6T
rp f '
-
^
7
i
i
Ip
4-
H
ft
O'
1
i
r
'
•, ^
ri
\oltt?
/IS
_j'
_
1
|
1
j'i
)<
"v
• i
-
-
-
i
5
V
J
H ,
1
i
!
i
1
!
i
i
i
1
'
i
r i
i
i
1
i
1
i
I
_
_4_
-4-4-
-L.
5S
—
-
I
i
-+|
' Ml
_^
j
c
4
d.
|
^
^>
/
V
7
3
1,
V
i
1
J
t
_L
u
/
I
>t
h
f
y
r
c
• 9
f
1
73
Or
0
d
o
C
0
^
•v
•*
L.
i
i i
t
—
1
1
-
1
1
I
/
(
L
*&
1
1
0
•^
-
1
'6d
.-ipn
a
vv
£
4
t
1
A
m
-1
"
1
j
1
1
m
u.
i
£<
5
_J U_j. j-
f
1
T
1
-
-
..
-
-
-
-
-
-
ft
J
'
-
a
-
--
-
x
^
3l
i
-
3
-
-
-
-H-
Q
£
/,
3
d
?.
-
ii
p
-
l
_
I
_
~
1
„
-
-
-
'1 I
£0'fJ
-
i
-
-
-
1
-
5
/.
-
-
-
-
I
-
i
-
i i
'.
-
-
?
7
l\
-[
-
-
-
/^
GI/(
j
!
i
-
-i-
—
—
i
1
-
i
1
_1_L
i
~
..
r
-
l
-
-1
a?
±
1
T
i
-
-
*•/))
j
^ <
:t
t
0
I
I?
.
O,f
l_
.
_
J
Z
Rfr
*i
•f
P
i
Vit
y
f
^
1
/*•
)
i i
210
i i
I . I
f
n
i
i
i
i
~rr
i
L
'
i
1 i M
1
t
_*^
—
I
,
\L\
--,
t
.-
.i_
-
,
-
-
j
j
•
i
i
!
!
|
F
1
L
i
..;
H
*
-
-
-H
-
-
-p
i
__
--
D-10
-------
6UITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO 452^VG
513 / 77 t-433O
New Source Performance Standards
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
<
f
^
±
z
>
i
r
3
.
fl
7
\
j
V
t'Ai
.
¥
j.
/C
1
Ik
" "^
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
US(&
3l4k-7?R
eet fo
one by
-4
r Impact Assessment
0
Date
T
;;
c
'6
1 1
A1
|
/
c
H
[i
H
i
-j
c
'.
;.
V
c
,l
/
1
Jp
Qo
iTi
€.
'/
!
1^
».
/_
I/
;
|
1
A
f
1
-
6
£
J
,1
i
\
_
i
1
>
*
,
T
^
2
_
/
1 1'
1
1
a
1
(<
>,*
r
/
^
rpc
i
a
»
f I
0.1
P
/
•
•:
i
%
ft
1
•*
V
r.
p •
1
t
K
'
» In
•
i,
'1
In
ft
. i
«H
—
»_
f
i
H
1
1
/_4
|
1
1
r fi/I
4
*^
-
0
1
f<
1
-
_
*
'
X
'V
-
-
1
!
...
-
1
— 1 —
I
i-
•\
)
si
-
-
J
~ i
1
4
—
K
1
<
/
L
i
\
A
/
1
-
Q
]
«
u
/
1
k
'I
/
J
2
*>
tH
9
5
3
V
r
t
,
t
.
3.
1
LL
i
X
3
-f-
-
1
¥
*
/
4
V
fi
0
0
/.
t
1
/
I
-
J
•t
p.jk
Pi
_T
/•(7
1
i
1
-
1
-
'I
-
;a
f
L
1
1
V
«
I
|y
^l
i
7
J
1
1
1
1
-
I
'"
;h
1
Jf
-
_
4
B
J
q
-
-
-
£
r~
5
_.
-
-
3
J
-
a-
-
-
7
6
—
-
~
-
-
_L
-
.L
Q
1
A
-1
J
_
-
3
•ft
a
-
z-
~
-
P
-
:
:-
-
-
..
-
r^
1
-
!
^
I
i
-
f.
-
€'<
i
i
-
i
_
! 1
-
-
:
5
j
-
-
-
H
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
s
j."
--
7
_.
-
-
(V
Li
..
-
—
-
-
^
7
-
-
J
-
-
'I
-_
»~
>w
_
a
—
~
-
i
J
_
-
1
II
D-ll
-------
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL-
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-46
5 t 3 / 77 1-A33O
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source 5/O-4
'
3/46 -RR.
eet fo
one by
0
1
I
^
-*
O
I i
I
t
b
f
\
f
L
*L
V
A
ffij
1
A
i
/,
p.
x
i
|L
1
/
j^
«v
M
$
4
i
i
.
/
/
^i
\>
£4
i\ fl> •
1
i
i _.
--
I
1
r Impact Assessment
^
Date
iti
ni
*r
Q,
!
L.
J
i
if
i
i
4
k ,
*KC
T
.4
1
i
I-^F
i
!
L
<
0f.
-C
!
r
,
|
C
1 T
^
fl-j
i
1
?P
1 j
| l
^
-7
f
1
j
1
i
i
l
I i
I
*~
= K
3
t.
f.
**
iv •
1
L
3
f.
»
X
/n
\
*
r
V
•i
I
1
i
K.
>
2
1'
i
t^
1
I
•
,
Hd
1
/
^
—
•
•V
If
A
H
t
&
i
^_
„
0
JC
|
~*'~ Q>
• •
4
t
;>
i
, i
,v
*
»'
fl
I
/
i
/^
t
fa
j
<
1
T
• 1
o
?•
F
/
1
5
J
L
«*•
f
t
r
ZJ[v
y
K
jrttL
A
i
1
n
J
-
~^
i
|
V
i
L
f
w
ii
"T**
j»
l«L
f
JJ
i
<,
>*
1
-
i
i
-
-
1
1
-
i
I
A
/i
«
e
f
i
*
f
,
-
£
./
<
>
f
**,
V
I
h-
L
*
t
i
i
i
r
'
i
^
i\r\
' 1
t
i
1
L*
»
l
1
1
[
1
i
oo\
^
>1
<.
?
1
i
j.
^T '
1
1
]
A
.!
/
T^
i
' 1
i
-
1
i
! 1
i 1
-
i
D-12
-------
New Source Performance Standards
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO -4521G
513 /77 1-A330
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
/
«
* i *
Vf •
4
4
t,
I
^
,.
«u
r
\
V
i
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
Uer»
3»4t-ftR
eet fc
one b]
V)l C.U(|
3r Impact Assessment
f Dot ^/l^/K\4STOA
M
Date
J
f
/]
'I
f(
V
(
^
«
i
i
1
i
1
-
J)
Kfl
flty
5
a
L
//
I
1"
1
/;
j£
J
<; v/
)
__
i
~
L
..
5
-
-f
-
t
a
Tl
-
fci
1
1
i
-M4
* — i
JT
T
J_.
|
|
_ -T
'^f
>/
9
>
f
• * P
1
^ i*1 *
»
i
>
r
J»-
*f*
>.
1
1
_L
n
•
/
!
i
i/
1
'
i
i
1
1
•
i
i
!
-
1
i
_
-I-M
_i
i ' '
i
'/f
l
i
^
j
/
s
'
1 • L_
3
1
y
^
*•
L
(
\
\
A
/
Q
1
ft
I
*f
^
r
8
(I
'
^
I
_.
,
,
j!
r
H
V
1
!
*{\L
•^
3
I
i
1
1
i
1
-
/.
i
1
/
^_
1
o
_J
U.
*
-h
a.
-
-
J
-
~
\
\
_
A
i
y
j
_
-
-
-1
£
5
-
_
-
&
t
-
~
'£
1
i
-
P
5
i
^
i
L
—
-
1
-
-
-
1 1
3
y
-
0
~£
h
—
1
-
-
-
—
-
-
i
7
k/
-
r
p_
_|i
r|
I
-p
1
_
i
z.
-
c
S
^.
-
7M
i.
-
1
i
_
.
-
a
^
i
f.
€/<-
3
^
L
1
i
i
i
J
i
jj
TJ
-i
/
r
l
X
-U
fl
-
I
±
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
-•
-
H
I
1
l
:
i
—
i
~
i
:
-
n
-) —
—
_
0
j
_
_
-I
it
^ «
i
^.
0 *
b »
i
b
\9
/
•>
/ j
3
-------
/'(
1 iKamoi
\£Z2
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
2
/
A
/;
^
-c
J
X
>
ri
^
5
IL
i
'I
4.
7
(
M
>(
•^
T
•1
F
Z
7
i/
1
^
/
71
».
c
^
?
^1
•i
9
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
Pt/*M
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452-46
513 /771-433O
New Source Performance Standards
3H
to-RR
eet fo
one by
T
?
»/i:
'/'
f i
^
c
*V
i
v
*j
t
i
Afj
jlj
•K
-1
|
/i
«
1
-. I
fe£
i<"€
6
M-
/
f
a
f
h
' -
i
y
(9
<^
i
p
j
^
1 l
t-
,
i
V
t
•
V.
t
A
f
f
j i
(.
r>
t
p
a
{
'/ r
y
t 4
?,i
t-fc
C .
T
C
^ *-
n <
T< !/ 'O
i
1
P
i
P.
-~l
»
;•-
T!
t
i
i
l
f
4-
A.
' I
1
i
1
t
i
i i
i i
i
T~
^,
~Yl
r Impact Assessment
£>ofe A./l//Kl•//
r
/
*j
6
il -L
IL3'
7
*E
i
{7
1
U «
i
iV
i
7
'
1
i
-!-
|
i
t
,
i
1
i '
_
hh
1
i
I
i
,
i
i i
i
3><
-i4
i
i ii i
^
V
5
^
s
_l
af
_
|
'<
x
i
1
*
^
/
i
i
oUf
it
jW
j
If
1
J,
/I/
/
j
t
f
i
J?
,
.
5 •
y
.
r
V
3
/
o
Z
£
,fi_
7 7. ''2
'
:
?
_
_j_
-h
i
i
N
""
L.
>• B
,
|
f
_
1
-
-J
_
^ (<
t
"/
\.
o
i
i
l
-
i i
T
1
?
P
ifciZ
i
•
i
i i
.ejtx
^
-
7i
r\rtt
i
I
-
i i
Li
-
_1_1_
-rfl
y
-
__
-
-
£
;
-
-
z
/
-
?
V
O
7J
?
6
!
U
1
3Q
~
.t
-1
~!
^-
/*
/.
I
_
1
p
-
I
-r
^>
...
^
i
i
__
-
t
-
-
I
th
jCk/^
T
i
y
.11
i
•j
7
-
A
€'/
1
I
1
j
1
-
i
i
i
I
-H
l
£
Si
1
-
-
i
f
I
—
-
-
_J
i
i
i
,
-
"I
-1
i
i
1
i
_
-
-
-
-1
l
--
L"?
(1
4.
j
f
/
i
!
1?
.
,
^
<*
b
t>
a
^
&P* 1
*i
<
k>
i 1 !
i ' i i
/
1
1
1
1
/,
-
r
1 |
Qi
y.
y
~
7
—
^
f
•
-
J
-.
__
if:
^fc
«*
^
b:
r-
r'
j_
i
i
i
--
-f-
i
i
D-14
-------
New Source Performance Standards
/ V^ L^ ~ l_l I •>• V II \ V > i N IV | | | , 1 /-A I
SUITE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI OHIO 452-16
513/771-4330
Projec
Comput
Calcul
Source
~ «
/
^
/*
t
I
j>
1
i
L
fl
r/
^
?
>
I
i
^
£
(,
F
P
V
r
j
..
^
£
7"
h
>
IT
/
^
t Number
ation Sh
ations D
Sa.n^
3l4k-RR
eet £0^
one by
r Impact Assessment
tSop ^.H/fKl^STDM
^ ^
Date
J
•&
K/
I
ft
*
3
4
s
/
S
y.
-J;-H
1
^
f\
f
.
\j
/
r
>"€<
i i
_JE5
1
fR
/
M-
/
c
R
0
s
\
t
£
\J
T
j
~IZ
It's
i
£
t
r
•
5
<^
^
r
^
. ,
1 1
5
I
-H-f
±p£*
•-
.i
?1
9
•1
•
'>
^'
p
j
T
"
i
r
• i»
r
o
i
'
1
-H
-j-l-L
-H-4-
^Tfj'y/
•fftT X 1
|
TTV
j '
_L
1
-
1
• '<
vh
^
X
y
XX
J/LV
«* rS
lUi
i>i *
i
n
>
a
7,
i(
y
V
1
^j
j
1
t
r
J yu 1 I
f • ***•
--
-L.
'.
f/
r
1
1
1
i
1
L
V
V
-
1
1
1
1
1
__
H
Cj | .
i
*n
--
-
•>
)
-
i
3
1
/
_.
-
-
't
/
L
.
(
\
i.
1
L
p
i
»
,i
iv
5
K
y
^
s
/
7
i
/
/
u
-V
/l/i
?
«
«
L
4
i
•f
«
%
. 7
•
•
_
i
i
d
^
i
r
m
I
i
•*
*iA<
*l iT
S
t
"f
a
^
£
j
y
•-
1
/+>•
)
?
7! —
j i
z
•p
r
1 A
* Vt *
1
r
i
I
J
;J
^
I
I
i
•^
-»
L
/
s
5"
j
^
i
i i ' i
i
i
,
•*
I'v
--
i
fl
Ift
--
-
"
.
116
1
1 »
-
-
£
i
_
MB
7
£
-
1 '
^
7
*
a
4
M
d
_
t
7
-
~
•^
-
i
••liBI
-~
— U
--
D-15
-------
New Source Performance Standards
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 / 77 1-433O
Project Number.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by *Bd/) Li^u**'.
- fl . /• I V
Source.
.Date.
D-16
-------
r
U^ v.^ ^ - Ci. I N V I i \ ^_> 1 N IV | Li: i - 3 I f-\ i—
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 452A6
513 /7V 1-4330
New Source Performance Standards
Project Number
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by "Bob
Source T*L/C +*
- <•
V
V
•
r*
/
(
<
i
4
Y
/
>£
• •
)
T
/
<
£
j1
••
/i
:
<
ri
7
>i
•f
_.
A
i
y
t
f
Tf
b
t
^
0
5
4
r
/•
A
ft
*i
It
f
i
(
4^
•
/
f
4
L
5
/4
i<
«
>i
I
.1
£
V
E
£
t
<;
c
1
«^l
<
7
G
-
J
P
-1
-
j
E
•,
i
/
^
I
-
i
3
t.
r
^
7
£
£
' J
\
,
ft
f
i
4
f
=11
m
f
y
(t.
»
I
i
_
T
/:
1
-h
s
"TZ
1
'J
"V
-
f*
,(
e
.
'<
?
[/
*i
•>.
^l
/
i
i"1
/
/
£
r
)
"
',
-
o
a
D
4.
i;
i«-
•{
6
«
IT
r
J_
^!
*-
_j
-
)(
i
«
If
vT,
l i
i
i
^n"1"
i
i
i
•
i
_
5
A
j
L--t
S
1 1
i
__
..
.1
*
4_
i
j
_
i
i
/
i
(
V
f-
1
f
i
/
!/
1
/
/
1
0
)
t
0
/
?
y
y
i
5
_
_
tx
/
»
•
,
'/
/
'L
/
y
.)%
,
z
y
r
%
i
_
i
1
1
¥
N
*
L
_
X
-
f
±
i^
1
i
P4
c
_
PI
7
i
-
1
-
'{
flVk
>_A
i
r
„
-
1
LI
T
"1
1
>J
4
-
£
._(
*
-
r
2
/
/
p
9
T
|V
u
V
1
J
J
1
-
?
-
-
a
t
1
Li
~
i
0
t
/„
^
/<
k/_
-
1
-
L
iy
p
-
-
t-
i
-T
-
-
-
3
^
"
_
-
-
-
P
!
-
-
f
S.
'm
-
_
L
-
t
i
7
/.
€/
1
-
*j
tT
'
-
<;
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
i
-
~
-
-
L
_
I
I
J
I
I
-
~
t~
i
-
-
~
i
H
f
L"?<
/
,J
5
f
i>
!?
,
(
.
( .
?
^
2.
7
b
fc*
A
i
9
ie
i
9
T
1
?
l > '
j_
7
(
«
-
"
-.-
6
J
f
/
r
/
!••
n-
i
i
l
J
y
6
-
MB
-
\
f
t
-"
&
r\
D-17
-------
APPENDIX E
INDUSTRY CAPACITY MODIFICATIONS
E-l
-------
tpauxpt) j
Project Number
Computation Sh
Calculations D
Source "SofcATE
— j
T
4
f
4
^
•i
I
L
(\
^-
J
i
/h
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAL
SUITE13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO A5aA6
513 /771-A33O
New Source Performance Standards
314
(e-j^e.
set fo
Dne by
r Impact Assessment
D2.V f£ftC«rS^/*>'fc> , Pff&c&uT
-jl
-r-
'Vri
M
^
t
-
k
J
f
L
Sx-.tf
^
-n
J'
I
^
i
1
t
1
fc
b*>
wr
fTTjr
f/^d
i
1 ,
fir j
-,i
1 1
fcUL
IT
T
»W
>
I
f
u
-
H-
f
i
Si 7
rfjjr^
A
T
U
i
^u
I
ran
l/^
rj 5
i
1
l^
Ft
—• t
L i
T"
i.
••ft
•Ic
f '1
0
K
fi
i
'
-*
^
j
•¥
1.
_
^
^
n
*
/vv
PL
1
A
n
fl
•i
.(
y.
T r*
{1
"1
t
^
i
T
f
>
T. 1?
T
> ?'
i
i#
/
r?
^4
fc '1
i
i
1
1
1
I
h
f
p 3t
I
IV
i
1
i *•
J
t
arl
as
? j
T1
Q
-i
T
t>
*4*-
ill
Mo
rir,
i
in
(f
^
•f
|V
ll
vii^lr
T
1
i
I
l
1
i
"!
0
L
s
L
£
r*
Ut
p
.
1
IM > <
w
r
'h
>*
1 t
1
flUI**
TT
j
i
I
i
dJ£a
^
» 1
i
\
^
i
i
I
1
i O3
"H~
6>*
7
7
(
•t
1
.
1
•^
X
T
t
N
1
$
n
r
t
•*
_LJ
i
j
•
^
>
•
T
(-
tj
U
li
^
i
.,
y
I
u
s
/;
a
.
J
^
i>
^
i
/
— M
>-F
/l>
•Xi,
T
Ul
f 1 F
C ! rf
n
i
»e
i
Wlii
T
1
""*
_
^
IS
PO
• *
a.j
Xt
J
35
if
• tf
^
^
7
•^
f
* i
e —
-/I
1
J-
I
i
n
tl
T
l|
^
^L 1
fl
h L
h,
/ 1
U:
• <«
:,
p> '/
IT
^
i J
V-
«.
1
("1
IV
>1
71
'•
7;
ft
_
c
IP
T
f
T'
|
t
ft
T
•i
t
?
$y/
^
^
i
-*
u
4)
-f
3:
',
)
45-
1
1
p»
r
H
•
' 15
i
*
i .
i
*
1
1
A
c?
1
'•'5$
'A
• i
i
>J
91
' 1
,/(
1
/
V
|
T
.
C
i
«.
•>
?
f
<
«
V, t
"»'
it.
k
t
^
i
BT^
*• J
"~7
,.
s
-^p
f\
* '•)
(^
= r
1
IW
1
r^v
cc'
I
tr;
?
A
v*tf
/t
-r
1
j^j£
h
^
t
i
h
yi
JtL
1Lt
71
14
1
rrs —
1
!C^.
ft
\
jJJ
C.i
'If
^
i
v W -^
H
•
A
TY
•v
W f
vT
L\J^
' JTS
i
"'
1
^ •
t
I
1
t
>*,
(
1
i
l
1
1
j .
i
)l
V
1
jf
_
=1
ttl/ T t
i 1
|
i
I ~
UXiy
/•
r.
:*
TT-
Jr
L~
1
fft;\j i i
\
|
j i
ysj)
i
1 ; ;
I
j
!
1
'
i
1 !
1
J
tf i -i /
i
_J_
i r^
|
1
i
i
i
l
I
-
~"
i
1
j
E-2
-------
Project Numbers
PEDCo- ENVIRONMENTAl-
suiTE 13 • ATKINSON SQUARE
CINCINNATI. OHIO 45246
513 /771-4330
New Source Performance Standards
.Date.
Computation Sheet for Impact Assessment
Calculations Done by APH*^
Source SLAr<» - fct?.g.far>Lrr
E-3
-------
APPENDIX F
LIST OF CONTACTS
F-l
-------
Vendors
Organization
Contact
Phone
Address
Allis-Chalmers
Denver Equipment Div.
Joy Manufacturing Co,
W. D. Meagher
T. A. Gray
(414) 734-9831
(303) 773-1133
Box 2219
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Box 22598
Denver, Colorado 80222
i
K)
-------
Control Agencies
Organization
Contact
Phone
Address
Kern County Air Pollution
Control District
Michigan State Agency
Georgia Department of Natural
Resources
L. Landis
T. Paxton
C. G. Oviatt
B. Harris
Nevada Department of Human H. Ricci
Resources
New Mexico Environmental
Improvement Agency
North Carolina Department of
Natural and Economic Resources
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency
Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency
Oregon State Agency
Department of Environmental
Quality
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Con-
trol
Texas Air Control Agency
T. C. Allen
V. Fisher
D. Redic
J. Broad
K. W. Mason
J. Pennington
(805) 861-2111
(517) 373-7573
(404) 656-4713
(702)
(505)
(919)
(614)
(513)
(503)
885-4670
827-5271
829-4740
466-7390
225-4435
229-5696
(803) 758-5496
(512) 451-5711
Box 997
Bakersfield, California 93302
Air Quality Division
Stevens T. Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Michigan 48926
Environmental Protection Div.
Air Protection Branch
270 Washington Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Capital Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Box 2348
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
451 W. Third Street
Dayton, Ohio 45402
1234 S. W. Morrison Street
Portland, Oregon 97205
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
8520 Shoal Creek Boulevard
Austin, Texas 78758
-------
Operating Companies
Organization
Building Materials and Gypsum
Div.
The Flintkote Company
Ohio Gravel Div.
Dravo Corporation
Contact
E. F. Gordon
E. T. Kerr
Phone
(702) 875-4111
(513) 321-2700
Address
Star Poute 89031
Box 2900
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
-------
Trade Associations
Organization
Contact
Phone
Address
i
Ul
American Iron and Steel
Institute
National Slag Association
National Sand and Gravel
Association
Expanded Shale, Clay
and Slate Institute
Perlite Institute, Inc.
Lightweight Aggregate
Producers Association
Gypsum Association
Vermiculite Association
Pit and Quarry Publication
Mr. Platt
Mr. Lewis
H. K. Eggleston
Mr. Davison
F. G. Erskine
R. Milanese
T. R. Berger
F. J. Rogers
Mr. Regal
J. G. Kostka
(202) 452-7100
(703) 549-3111
(301) 587-1400
(202) 783-1669
(212) 265-2145
(215) 435-9687
(312) 491-1744
(404) 321--7994
(312) 726-7151
1000 16th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
300 S. Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
900 Spring Street
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
1041 National Press Building
Washington, D.C.
45 W. 45th Street
New York, New York 10036
546 Hamilton Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101
Suite 1210
1603 Orrington Ave.
Evanston, Illinois 60201
52 Executive Park South
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
105 Adams Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
-------
Bureau of Mines
Minerals
Contact
Phone
Address
Clay
Boron
General
Iron and Steel
Barite
Perlite, Pumice, and
Diatomite
Talc, Soapstone, and
Feldspar
Talc
Gypsum
Vermiculite
General
S. Ampian
K. P. Wang
Mr. Josephson
H. Reno
S. Raines
A. C. Meisinger
M. Potter
R. Wells
A. Reed
R. Singleton
T. A. Henrie
(202) 634-1180
(202) 634-1177
(202) 634-1187
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1194
(202) 634-1202
(202) 634-1305
Washington, D.C,
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C,
Washington, D.C.
Washington, DiC.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before utmpleting)
1 REPORT NO
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO
4 TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
5 REPORT DATE
Background Information for the Non-Metallic
Mineral Industry
August 31, 1976
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
Richard W. Gerstle, John M. Zoller
and Fred D. Hall
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
i PER FORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
PEDCo Environmental Specialists
Suite 13, Atkinson Square
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-1321, T.O. 44
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
13 TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
DSSE project officer for this report is James Eddinger,
16 ABSTRACT
This study presents background information for the development
of Federal New Source Performance Standards for processes handling 10
selected non-metallic minerals. The information applies to particulate
emissions from mining, sizing, crushing, and handling operations.
Processes involving heating are not addressed. Emissions are based
on AP-42 emission factors and those for general stone crushing pro-
cesses. Industry growth projections, plant listings, process descrip-
tions, and control techniques are presented. To determine the potential
impact of the proposed New Source Performance Standards on the non-
metallic mineral industry, state emission regulations are surveyed and
calculations are performed using a mathematical model which expresses
the differential in atmospheric emissions that could be expected by
1985 both with and without the standards.
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI I idd/Group
Mines
Nonmetalliferous Minerals
Air Pollution
Dust
Standards
Mineral Mining
Minerals
Emission Factors
Particulates
New Source Performanc
Standards
081
08G
13B
11G
14G
18 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19 SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
21 NO. OF PAGES
267
22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |