MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
MRI
REPORT
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM
SELECTED STATIONARY SOURCES
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
June 1977
EPA_Gontract No. 53-02-1399, Task No, 5
MRI Project No. 3925-L(5)
For
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
Mr* Gary McCutchen
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600
-------
MRI-NORTH STAR DIVISION 3100 38th Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406* 612 721-6373
MRI WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-1522 K STREET, N.W. • 202 293-3800
-------
PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM
SELECTED STATIONARY SOURCES
by
Lance S. Granger
DRAFT FINAL REPORT
June 1977
EPA Contract No. 68-02-1399, Task No. 5
MRI Project No. 3925-L(5)
For
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
Attn: Mr. Gary McCutchen
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816753-7600
-------
PREFACE
This study was conducted under Task No. 5 of EPA Contract No. 68-02-
1399 (MRI Project No. 3925-L(5).
The work on this task was conducted under the direction of Mr. Paul C.
Constant, Jr., Program Manager. This report was written by Mr. Lance S.
Granger. Dr. Chatten Cowherd was responsible for the modeling calculations
with assistance from Mr. Dan Nelson. Messrs. Etnile Baladi, William Maxwell,
and Joseph Slanina participated in acquisition of information.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
/Shannon, Director
Environmental and Materials
Sciences Division
June 23, 1977
11
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Preface* .............................. ii
Figures v
Tables •• ........................ viii
Summary ............................ 1
1. Introduction ....................... 8
Background* ..................... 8
Purpose of Task ...............*... 10
Overall Task Approach ................ 14
2* Lead Production and Consumption Trends .......... 20
3* Types of Emissions .................... 26'
4« Federal and State Regulations for Particulates, Lead and
Fugitive Emissions ...... ........ 29
5» Methodology for Atmospheric Dispersion Modeling* * . * * * 32
6* Industrial Sources of Lead Emissions ••••••••••• 37
Primary Lead Smelters ................ 37
Secondary Lead Smelting ............... 44
Mining and Milling of Lead Ore* ........... 46
Primary Copper Smeltering .............. 49
Gray Iron Foundries ................. 54
Ferroalloy Production ................ 64
Gasoline Additives Manufacturing (Alkyl Lead) . * . . 68
Lead Oxide Production . . 73
Lead Pigment Production ............... 80
Lead Storage Battery Manufacturing* ......... 84
Soldered Can Manufacturing* ............. 91
Cable Covering Operations ....... 92
Type Metal Operations ................ 95
Combustion of Fossil Fuels (Coal and Oil) ...... 98
Waste Oil Combustion 105
Waste Crankcase Oil Combustion 107
Metallic Lead Products. ............... 109
iii
-------
CONTENTS (concluded)
7. Environmental Impact. ••••••••••••••••••• 113
No Federal Action ....... 113
NAAQS 114
NSPS 115
NESHAP 116
Total Ban 116
References .•••••...•........«.••«.....« 119
Appendices
A. Emission Calculation Worksheets . ....... 120
B. Trip Reports 234
C. Supplementary Listing of State Regulations. ........ 250
D. Some Previous Emission Studies. .............. 280
iv
-------
FIGURES
Number
2-1
5-1
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
6-10
6-11
6-12
6-13
6-14
6-15
6-16
Typical underground lead ore mining and milling operation
V
Page
25
33
38
41
42
43
45
47
50
51
53
55
56
57
58
61
62
63
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
6-17
6-18
6-19
6-20
6-21
6-22
6-23
6-24
6-25
6-26
6-27
6-28
6-29
6-30
6-31
6-32
6-33
6-34
6-35
6-36
Schematic representation of sodium-lead alloy process
Schematic representation of electrolytic process (TML
Schematic of the Ball Mill Process for lead oxide
Schematic of the Barton Pot Process for lead oxide
Representative flow diagram for the production of lead
Flow diagram for pulverized coal-fired utility boiler . •
Furnace configurations for pulverized coal firing • . • .
65
69
70
74
75
76
78
79
81
85
90
94
94
96
97
99
101
102
111
112
vi
-------
FIGURES (concluded)
Number Page
A-l Lead smelters, mines, and recoverable lead production* • • • 123
B-l Flow diagram for AMAX Lead Smelter ............. 240
B-2 Flow diagram for Magma Copper Smelter at San Manuel* • . • . 242
B-3 Flow diagram of Kennecott Ray Plant Copper Smelter at
Hayden 245
B-4 Flow diagram of Copper Smelter at Inspiration Consolidated
Copper Company ...................... 248
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
S-l Particulate and Lead Emissions for 1975 from Selected
Lead Producing, Consuming or Emitting Industries. . . . • . 2
S-2 Effect of State Regulations and New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) on the Estimated Lead Emission Rate
from Typical Sources* ................... 3
S-3 Fenceline Ambient Lead Concentrations for Typical Plant
Emission Rates Based on CDM at or Below 1, 2, or 5
|4g/m3 Governed by State Regulations and Section
lll(d) NSPS 5
S-4 Model Plant Parameters* ................... 6
1-1 Priority Ranking for Stationary Source Categories of Lead
Emissions Except for Waste Crankcase Oil.......... 11
1-2 Combustion of Waste Crankcase Oil: Emission Reduction
Achievable Through Section 111 Standards Setting as
Influenced by Two Variables ................ 12
1-3 Source Categories ...................... 15
2-1 Lead Industry, Yearly Consumption of Lead in the United
States* ...............*.......... 21
2-2 Salient Lead Statistics in the United States (1972-1975). . . 22
2-3 Mine Production of Recoverable Lead in the United States* * . 23
3-1 Potential Sources of Lead Emissions from 17 Specified
Source Categories .......... 28
4-1 Comprehensive Review of State Implementation Plans for Par-
ticulates, Lead, Fugitives, and Opacity as Applied to
Lead Consuming, Producing, or Emitting Industries 30
viii
-------
TABLES (concluded)
Number Page
5-1 Summer Meteorological Parameters. .............. 35
7-1 Possible Control Options for Lead on Listed Industries
Based on Results of Model Study for Fenceline Con-
centrations • •••••••••«••••••••*••• 118
A-l Number of Coal Burning Boilers in the Continental United
States in the Year 1971 211
C-l All Other Sources > Particulates 275
C-2 Secondary Metals Operations 276
C-3 Nonferrous Foundries. .............. 277
C-4 Gray Iron Foundries 278
D-l Lead Emissions by Source 1970 281
D-2 Lead Emission Factors from Selected Sources ........ 282
D-3 Lead Pollutant Sources - Summary of Data Presented by The
Mitre Corporation 283
D-4 Lead Emissions Reported by The Mitre Corporation. ..... 284
D-5 Lead: Summary of Input/Output Variables for Model IV
Emission Calculations from TRC Report - Lead Emissions. • 285
D-6 National Atmospheric Lead Emissions in 1975 ........ 286
D-7 Lead Emission Factors, Annual Emissions, and Control
Techniques Taken from a Report Prepared by PEDCo
Environmentalist for the EPA, 1975. ........... 287
IX
-------
SUMMARY
A study was made of the process and fugitive particulate and lead emis-
sions from 17 categories of lead emitting sources. Estimates were made for
particulate and lead emissions from both process and fugitive sources. The
effectiveness of state implementation plans, regulations, and new source
performance standards were determined for controlling lead emissions. Ambi-
ent lead concentrations at the fenceline were determined and the sources
at or below 1, 2, or 5 ug/nr for a 90-day average were delineated. Environ-
mental impacts are discussed.
Results of the particulate and lead emissions estimated are summarized
in Table S-l. Fugitive lead emissions make a major contribution to atmo-
spheric lead levels in the primary lead and copper smelting industries. Esti-
mates for lead fugitives for 1975 total 5,673 tons. Estimates for total lead
emissions for 1975 reached 20,109 tons for the sources listed in Table S-l.
Total particulate emissions estimated for 1975 are 5,909,613 tons for the
listed sources.
Table S-2 summarizes the effect of state and federal, in many cases,
potential regulations on a typical plant's emissions for the sources listed.
Plant parameter selection is reviewed in the calculation worksheets in Ap-
pendix A.
-------
Table s'-L. PARTICULATE AND LEAD EMISSIONS FOR 1975 FROM SELECTED
LEAD PRODUCING, CONSUMING OR EMITTING INDUSTRIES
Source
Primary lead smelting
Secondary lead smelting
Mining and milling of lead ore
Primary copper smelting
Gray Iron foundry
Ferroalloy production
Gasoline additives manufacture
Lead oxide production
Lead pigments production
Lead storage battery production
Can soldering
Cable covering operations
Type metal operations
Combustion of fossil fuel
Waste oil combustion
Waste crankcase oil combustion
Metallic lead products
641,584
641,596
621,464
1.374,324
13.24 x 106
1,926,454
286,650
372,700
76,075
699,414
1.3446 x 10
2,477,097
16,211
470 x 10*
2.16 x 10
No estimate
5.75
10
.8
234,262
2,549
503
927
176
2,649
503
927
176
Remarks
Baaed
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based
Baaed
Based
Based
Based
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on tons
on base
on tons
on tons
on tons
Pb produced
Pb produced
Pb recovered
Pb produced
iron casting
ferroalloy
alkyl lead
Pb consumed
Pb consumed
Pb consumed
boxes of cans
Pb processed
Pb consumed
coal, gal. oil
Based on gal. oil
Based on tons Pb consumed
-------
TaBle S-2. EFFECT OF STATE REGULATIONS AND NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS (NSPS) ON THE ESTIMATED LEAD EMISSION RATE
FROM TYPICAL SOURCES
Estimated
total
emission
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Primary lead smelting
Secondary lead smelting
Mining and milling of lead ore
Primary copper smelter
Gray iron foundries
Ferroalloy production
Alkyl lead production
Lead oxide manufacturing
Lead pigment manufacturing
Lead acid batteries manu-
facturing
Metal can soldering
Lead cable covering
Type metal operations
Combustion of fossil fuels
Waste oil combustion
Waste crankcase combustion
Metallic lead products
rate
1975
(g/sec)
16.9
0.05
0.25
30.7
0.21
0.17
8.62
0.03
0.15
0.29
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.19
0.02
0.32
0.09
State regulations
(typical plant)
Estimated
total
emission
rate
(g/sec)
3.2
0.02
0.71
3.6
0.05
0.03
12.1
0.3
0.6
0.06
0.03
0.35
0.06
0.05
0.08
3.1
0.33
Percent
reduction
81
60
NEi/
88
76
32
NEi/
NEi/
NEi/
79
NE^
NE^
NE£/
74
60
NEi'
NEi/
NSPS-lll(d) Typical plant
Estimated
total
emission
race
(g/sec)
7.0
0.005
0.005
2.52
0.004
• 0.03
0.65
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.00005
0.000002
0.01
0.02
0.003
1.1
0.001
Percent
reduction
with respect
to 1975
59
90
98
92
98
32
92
NE^
93
90
99.8
99.9
50
89
35
NEl'
99
Percent
reduction
with respect to
state regulations
H*'
75
99
30
92
HE*'
95
90
98
50
99.8
99.9
83
60
63
65
99.7
a/ NE = No effect.
-------
Table S-3 presents the fenceline levels to expect from the modeling
results on the emission levels of the typical plants. In 10 cases state-
regulated estimated emission levels for lead resulted in fenceline concen-
o
trations below 1 |j,g/m , and in 14 cases federal standards or potential
federal standards would result in fenceline level ambient concentrations
o
below 1 p,g/m • In all but one case, it was estimated based on the model
that federal or potential federal regulations would maintain lead ambient
o
fenceline concentrations of the typical plants modeled at or below 5 (j,g/m .
In many cases (those not presented in graphical form in Chapter 6) esti-
mated present emisssions would result in fenceline concentrations below
0.5 |j,/m .
Typical plant parameters were selected for each source category. In
some cases more than one typical plant was modeled for a particular source.
This occurred where an industry was characterized by two or more processes
that were quite different in terms of emission characteristics. Table S-4
presents a review of the parameters selected for modeling. The predicted
emission curves from the Climatological Dispersion Model (CDM) are presented
o
in Chapter 6; only those emissions that exceed 0.5 |4,g/mr at the fenceline
are reported in graphical form. Appendix A presents the methodology followed
to arrive at the emission rates for the model. In most cases typical plant
parameters were selected from plant averages on typical processes.
-------
Table S-3. FENCELINE AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS FOR TYPICAL PLANT EMISSION
RATES BASED ON COM AT OR BELOW 1, 2, OR 5 ug/nr3 GOVERNED
BY STATE REGULATIONS AND SECTION lll(d) NSPSi/
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
a/
5 1 UR/m3
State
regulations
Primary lead smelting
Secondary lead smelting X
Mining and milling of lead ore
Primary copper smelter
Gray iron foundries X
Ferroalloy production X
Alkyl lead production (gasoline
additives)
Lead oxide manufacturing
Lead pigment manufacturing X
Lead acid batteries manufacturing X
Metal can soldering X
Lead cable covering
Type metal operations X
Combustion of fossil fuels X
Waste oil combustion X
Waste crankcase combustion X
Metallic lead products
NSPS
lll(d)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Categories not marked indicate fenceline emissions exceed the
< 2 uK/m3
State
regulations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
column's value.
NSPS
lll(d)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
^ 5 uf»/
State
regulations
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'm3
NSPS
lll(d)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-------
Table S-4. MODEL PLANT PARAMETERS
Source
1° Pb smelting A
(A and B - 2 stacks) B
(C = fugitives) C
2° Pb smelting A
(no fugitives) B
Mining and milling Pb ore
Process
Building fugitives
1° Copper smelting
Process
Building fugitives
Gray iron foundries A
(Process/fugitives) B
C
Ferroalloy plants
Process
Building fugitives
Alkyl lead production A
(3 processes) B
(no fugitives) C
Lead oxide manufacturing
(no fugitives)
Lead pigment manufacturing
(no fugitives)
Lead acid storage batteries
(no fugitives)
Metal can soldering
(no fugitives)
Lead cable covering
(no fugitives)
Type metal operations
(no fugitives)
Combustion of fossil fuel
(no fugitives)
Waste oil combustion
(no fugitives)
Waste crankcase oil combustion
(no fugitives)
Metallic lead products
(no fugitives)
Building
size
(H)
100
Building
45.7
45.7
30.5
76.2
76.2
76.2
76.2
121.9
51.8
30.5
45.7
61
61
61
21.5
91.4
55
55
23
Building
height
(H)
21.3
9.1
9.1
6.1
12.2
18.3
18.3
18.3
18.3
12.2
6.1
6.1
9
9
9.1
. 7
30.5
30
JO
6.1
Stack
height
(M)
15.2
76.2
45.7
10.7
7
171
19.8
19.8
19.8
22.9
30.5
45.7
45.7
6.1
45.7
9
10.1
13.7
7.6
76.2
100
100
7.6
Stack
diameter
(M)
1.5
4.6
3.05
0.8
0.6
7.3
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.91
1.5
1.22
0.38
1.8
Building
0.5
0.7
0.3
3.05
5
5
3
Stack
temperature
CO
66
93
204
80
25
121 .
93
93
93
57
60
25
25
66
66
75
50
75
40
204
204
204
40
Stack
velocity
(M/sec)
7.8
13.5
1.62
1.62
8.1
5.1
30.5
13.1
35.1
44.5
3.6
0.91
16.2
12.7
8.4
5
6
6
6
58.2
8.2
8.2
6
1975
Emission rate
(8/sec)
0.4
1.8
14.7
0.053
0.0023
0.131
0.131
23.6
7.1
0.10/0.11
0.12/0.045
0.036/0.12
0.15
0.021
3.01
4.31
1.3
0.029
0.15
0.29
0.026
0.014
0.01S
0.19
0.015
0.32
0.091
1975 State
regulation
emission rate
(8/sec)
,0.2
1.4
1.61
0.017
0.020
0.356
0.356
1.8
1.8
0.05/0.0008
0.034/0.00034
0.056/0.00092
0.006
0.021
4.65
3.88
3.58
0.26
0.61
0.064
0.032
0.354
0.064
0.045
0.0076
3.1
0.33
NSPS
emission rate
(g/sec)
0.5
3.0
3.5
0.0052
0.0053
0.0026
0.0026
2.0
0.52
0.003/0.0008
0.00016/0.00033
0.0052/0.00087
0.005
0.021
0.59
0.043
0.013
0.029
0.014
0.029
0.000048
f.
1.5 x W'6
0.0095
0.016
0.0026
1.1
0.0013
-------
It appears that based on the results of the model predictions for fence-
line lead ambient concentrations that problems due to the emission contribu-
tions of all but one of the industries reviewed are basically nonexistent.
Present controls and emission levels do not appear to be contributing sig-
nificantly to the ambient lead concentration. Auto emissions of lead appear
to be the main contribution to the ambient lead levels presently being ob-
served
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTBQDUCTION
BACKGKDUND-
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a
study in September of 1974 dealing with the preferred standards path for
lead emissions from stationary sources. This investigation has reached the
following conclusions and makes the following recommendations:
Conclusions:
1.. The control of lead emissions from stationary sources is warranted
as an adjunct program to the reduction of lead emissions from mobile sources
because of distinct differences in source location and impact.
2. The preferred standards path analysis indicates that Sections 108-
110 and 112 of the Act are not appropriate for regulating lead because a
safe ambient level of lead cannot be prescribed and because lead does not
meet the specifications of the Act's definition of "hazardous air pollut-
ant." Section 111 is an appropriate standards path, however, because lead
emissions from stationary sources do contribute to the endangerment of
health and welfare, and "best control technology (considering cost)" is an
effective means for minimizing these emissions.
8
-------
3. Standards of performance are needed for only a limited number of
source categories because lead emissions are primarily in particulate form
and are already well controlled by state/local regulations.
Recommendations:
1. Initiate a program leading to promulgation of standards of perfor-
mance for lead emissions from:
a. Lead-acid storage battery manufacture
b. Gasoline additive manufacture
2. Obtain additional data on melting of type metal by printing and
newspaper companies and, if warranted, proceed with promulgation of stan-
dards of performance.
3. Maintain current information file on the combustion of waste crank-
case oil. If a trend develops indicating the use of waste crankcase oil in
uncontrolled combustion units, take action to promulgate the necessary stan-
dards of performance.
4. Study the problem of regulating fugitive emissions through emis-
sion standards and equipment specifications.
The study conclusions were arrived at through a method of priority
ranking. The deciding factor for a priority ranking system previously used
by EPA is the difference between the total nationwide emissions from a
given source category under existing emission standards (T ) and the total
nationwide emission from that source if new source performance standards
(NSPS) are in effect (T ). Thus, the source category with the largest (T -T )
n s n
would be ranked highest on the list for setting a standard.
-------
Since lead emissions are not regulated by Sections 108-110 or Section
112 of the Glean Air Act, the factor (T ) should include the effect of emis-
n
sion reduction achieved through standards set under Section lll(b) and lll(d).
When an NSPS under Section lll(b) is developed for lead for a given source
category, the states will be required by Section lll(d) to regulate emissions
for existing sources of the same category. This new factor (T .) represents
nd
the total nationwide emission with both Section lll(b) NSPS and Section lll(d)
state standards in effect. The deciding factor in this priority ranking sys-
tem for lead emissions is the magnitude of (T -T ,). Several other minor
s nd
factors are considered as discussed in the text of the EPA report. Tables
1-1 and 1-2 were developed for the study and are presented for reference
purposes.
As a result of a court decision on March 1, 1976, EPA was instructed
to list lead under Section 108 of the Clean Air Act. Presently an ambient
air quality standard for lead is being developed. This is a reversal of the
position taken on lead emissions in the "Preferred Standards Path Analysis
on Lead Emissions from Stationary Sources," as reviewed.
PURPOSE OF TASK
The Environmental Protection Agency recognized in its study that lead
emissions from fugitive emission sources can contribute to total mass emis-
sions within several of the source categories considered.
Potential fugitive lead emission source categories include:
1. Primary lead smelters,
2. Secondary lead smelters,
10
-------
Table 1-1. PRIORITY RANKING FOR STATIONARY SOURCE CATEGORIES OF
LEAD EMISSIONS EXCEPT FOR WASTE CRANKCASE OIL3'
Ranking (Ts-Tn) (Ts-Tnd)
1. Lead-acid storage battery manufacture 547 715
(including battery lead oxide pro-
duction, battery assembly, lead
recovery)
2. Gasoline additive manufacture 211 247
3. Gray iron foundries 151 151
4. Type metal 95 111
5. Primary lead smelter 0 47
6. Lead pigment manufacture 25 40
7. Mining and milling 38 38
8. Metallic lead products (includes 13 27
12 source categories)
9. Can manufacture (soldering process) 14 24
10. Secondary lead smelter 0 17
11. Cable cover process 5 10
12. Ferroalloy production 0 7
13. Combustion of fossil fuel 3.8 3.8
14. Primary copper smelter 0 0
_a/ Waste crankcase oil appears in Table 1-2.
11
-------
a/
Table 1-2. COMBUSTION OF WASTE CRANKCASE OIL- : EMISSION REDUCTION
ACHIEVABLE THROUGH SECTION 111 STANDARDS SETTING AS
INFLUENCED BY TWO VARIABLES
Emission reduction
tons/year (1985)
Variables
CASE I
Without lead additive regulations;-/ 10,200 20,400
without EPA recommendation—'
CASE II
With lead additive regulations;-' 2,996 5,997
without EPA recommendation-^'
CASE III
Without lead additive regulations;—' 51 51
with EPA recommendation-^'
CASE IV
With lead additive regulations;^/ 15 15
with EPA recommendation—'
a/ Assumes that 75% of the waste crankcase oil will be collected and burned
in 1985. It is estimated that 50% is currently burned.
_b/ Based on the December 6, 1973, regulations which will reduce the average
lead content of gasoline from the current level of approximately 2 g/
gal. to 0.5 g/gal. by 1979 (75% reduction).
_c/ EPA is recommending to Congress that waste crankcase oil should be
burned only in sources which employ highly efficient particulate
control unless it has been pretreated to remove the lead.
12
-------
3. Lead-acid storage battery production,
4. Gasoline additive manufacture,
5. Lead pigment manufacture,
6. Primary copper smelters.
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act provides authority for setting stan-
dards for emission rates, but fugitive emissions are very difficult to
quantify since they are not ducted. The following points regarding fugi-
tive emissions were made in the EPA study:
1. To control fugitive emissions by setting an opacity standard, a
process standard would also have to be set.
2. An opacity standard would have to be in terms of a lead standard
whenever a lead standard was being developed for the process emission to
cause the states by Section lll(d) to regulate both process and fugitive
lead emissions.
In order to explore sufficiently the importance of specific lead stan-
dards from an enforcement point of view, and to explore the magnitude and
effect of fugitive lead emissions on the total emission rate of a given pro-
cess, further study was needed to obtain sufficient information upon which
to base policy decisions relating to fugitive emissions.
In June 1975, the U.S. EPA gave Midwest Research Institute (MBI) a
task under Contract No. 68-02-1399 to make a preliminary environmental im-
pact analysis.
The task required a determination of relative adverse and beneficial
environmental impacts that could result from the three alternative regulatory
13
-------
approaches to the control of lead emissions from stationary sources. Specific
subtasks were:
1. Estimation of total particulate and lead emissions (fugitive and
process) for the sources in Table 1-3.
2. Assessment of the effectiveness or potential effectiveness (i.e.,
if and when enforced) of existing State Implementation Plan (SIP) regula-
tions for total particulates in reducing lead emissions.
3. Estimation of the potential for standards developed under Section
111 of the Act to further reduce lead emissions and the extent of such re-
duction.
4. Determination, by means of dispersion modeling and the results
that are available from the trace-element analysis of particulate samples,
of expected ambient air concentration of lead in the vicinity of typical
plants for emissions under SIP control or performance standard control.
5. Delineation of those source categories for which performance stan-
dards and/or SIP regulations can be expected to reduce or maintain ambient
3
lead levels at or below 1, 2, and 5 fAg/m averaged over 90 days.
6. Analysis of the alternatives to show adverse or beneficial envi-
ronmental impact.
OVERALL TASK APPROACH
The overall approach that was taken in the performance of MRI's task
can be summarized as: (a) literature and data acquisition; (b) review and
assimilation of literature; (c) analysis of available data; (d) emission
assessment; and (e) report preparation.
14
-------
Table 1-3. SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. Primary lead smelter
2. Secondary lead smelter
3. Mining and milling of lead ore
4. Primary copper smelter
5. Gray iron foundry
6., Ferroalloy plant
7. Gasoline additive plant (alkyl lead)
8. Lead oxide plant
9. Lead pigment manufacture
10. Lead-acid battery plant
11. Can soldering
12. Cable covering plant
13. Type metal operation
14. Combustion of fossil fuel
15. Waste oil combustion
16. Waste crankcase oil combustion
17. Metallic lead products
15
-------
Sources from which information was sought covered EPA, state agencies,
industry, technical groups or associations, and the open literature. The
general approach to EPA and state agencies was to send a letter explaining
the purpose of the study and the type of information being sought. In many
cases, this letter was followed by telephone conversations. The general ap-
proach to industry and technical groups or associations was to call and ex-
plain the purpose of the study. In some cases, these calls were followed by
correspondence, especially when a plant visit needed to be arranged.
The principal sources within EPA were the task project officer, re-
gional offices, and the Air Pollution Technical Information Center (APTIC).
The principal state sources were state air pollution agencies. All states
were contacted by letter for a copy of their implementation plans for the
control of particulate matter and for information on current and past fugi-
tive and process sampling from lead sources, as well as sources of fugitive
lead emissions. In the case of California, it was necessary to contact the
different districts.
In general, the overall response to MRI's inquiries was less than had
been hoped. Thirty-eight states responded, and not all provided a copy of
their regulations. Fugitive dust data, and more specifically fugitive lead
emissions data, are not readily available. It was learned that several stud-
ies are under way and the need for data has been recognized, but it is be-
yond the scope of this project to provide a review of projects and work
presently being done or planned.
16
-------
In response to Subtask 1, to estimate total particulate and lead
emissions (both fugitive and process) for the 17 source categories given
in Table 1-3, production data and control estimates were made for 1975.
To arrive at overall national emission quantities, it was necessary to ob-
tain production data for industry, to estimate emissions either on an un-
controlled basis and estimated extent of control, or to estimate emissions
based on present control. In many cases it was felt that the reliability
of the emission factors quoted in the literature was rather shaky but it
was the only attempt to quantify emissions from the industry. For each
source, the best available emission data were utilized. Combining the emis-
sion factor, the production levels, and the overall degree of emission con-
trol for the industry led to an estimate of the total national emissions
for particulates and lead including fugitives (which most often are not in-
cluded in emission estimates).
To accomplish Subtask 2 all the state regulations were reviewed. It
was found that most states had general process weight rates for the emis-
sion of particulates, which applied to all industry within the individual
state. In addition it was found that two-thirds of the states had ad-
dressed the problem of fugitive particulate emissions and required reason-
able efforts by the operator to eliminate them. For the purpose of this
study it was assumed that control of particulates would also mean control
of lead emissions at the same degree. This assumption is supported by some
data presented in Ref. 1 that show lead collection efficiency for baghouses
at the same levels as particulates. It is not generally known what efficiencies
17
-------
ESP's would have for lead. With no other information to use, it was felt
that the assumption of lead being controlled at the same level as particu-
lates in all control devices was an acceptable one. Also, for the purposes
of this study it was assumed that fugitive emission regulations (as well
as process particulate regulations) were enforced, and that the operating
companies would either reduce fugitives altogether by some means (e.g., by
enclosing an outdoor storage pile) or that they would vent the fugitives
to the appropriate control devices and the emissions would become part of
the process emissions, thereby being emitted at the same levels and being
subject to the same process weight rate regulations.
For Subtask 3, it was assumed that regulations would be promulgated
under Section lll(b) with Section lll(d) being applied to the existing
sources. Also, to regulate fugitive emissions, it would be necessary to
be able to specify equipment standards along with emission limits. It was
felt that opacity standards for fugitives coupled with emission limits to
process emissions could not be used to estimate emission reduction because
opacity is not directly related to concentration. It was further assumed
that NSPS would be able to limit fugitive emissions as well as process
emissions to a level reflecting best control technology applied to the in-
dustry being studied. This is similar to the assumption made for state
fugitive regulations.
2/
The EPA Climatological Dispersion Model— (CDM) was used to deter-
mine expected ambient lead concentrations in the vicinity of typical plants
for the 17 source industries studied. Average plant conditions were generally
18
-------
used to represent a typical plant. Emission rates were derived from state
regulations and best control was assumed for emissions under performance
standards.
The results of the COM will show whether NSPS or SIP regulations can
3
be expected to keep ambient lead levels below or at 1, 2, or 5 /ig/m on a
90-day average basis based on the parameters selected for the model plant.
In light of the recent court decision (March 1, 1976), an ambient air
quality standard (AAQS) for lead is the only alternative, but it remains
to be seen whether an AAQS is necessary and also whether it will have an
effect on the emission sources of concern.
19
-------
CHAPTER 2
LEAD PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION TRENDS
Table 2-1 shows actual U.S. lead consumption by end-use category for
1972 to 1975. The 1974 consumption of 1.45 million metric tons of lead was
the highest ever. It is not surprising to see the 1975 lead consumption
level down over 18%. Projections by the lead industry (Ref. 3) call for an
increase in consumption, with a growth from the 1975 level to reach the
1974 highs by 1980. This calls for a 14% improvement in battery lead con-
sumption, no major decrease in tetraethyl lead demand, and a 14% improve-
ment overall in the pigment, ammunition, cable sheathing, and solder markets
for 1976. This would be a recovery to 1.25 million metric tons for consump-
tion. For 1977 to 1980, projections call for a 6% growth in battery manufac-
ture, a decrease in tetraethyl lead production, and a modest increase (7 to
10%) in metallic lead products. Lead battery manufacture is projected to be
the major consumer of lead for 1980 at an estimated 69% of the total 1.6
million metric tons projected consumption. These growth projections demon-
strate no critical growth in industrial capacity except for lead battery
manufacture. The trend will be for return to previous high levels before
real capacity growth can be projected. Table 2-2 shows salient lead sta-
tistics for 1972 to 1975.
20
-------
Table 2-1. LEAD INDUSTRY, YEARLY CONSUMPTION OP LEAD IN THE UNITED STATES-
1972
Metal products:
Ammunition
Bearing metals
Brass and bronze
Cable covering
Calking lead
Casting metals
Collapsible tubes
Foil
Pipes craps and bonds
Sheet lead
Solder
Storage battery girds, posts, etc.
Storage battery oxides
Terne metal
Type metal
Total
Pigments:
White lead
Red lead and litharge
Pigment, colors
Other^'
Total
Chemicals:
Gasoline antiknock additives
Miscellaneous chemicals
Total
Miscellaneous uses:
Annealing
Galvanizing
Le ad-plating
Weights and ballast
Total
Other uses unclassified
Total reported-'
Metric tons
76,890
14,448
17,979
41,695
20,410
6,481
3,649
4,169
16,141
21,485
64,716
315,211
344,389
458
18.105
966,226
2,555
63,364
14,764
306
80,989
252,677
771
253,448
3,930
1,268
579
19.338
25,115
22,537
1,348,315
Short tons
84,699
15.915
14,805
45,930
22,483
7,139
4,020
4.592
17,780
23,667
71,289
347,225
379,367
504
19.944
1,064,359
2,814
69,799
16,264
337
89,214
278,340
849
279,189
4.329
1,397
638
-2LOQ2
27,666
24.826
1,485,254
1973
Metric tons
73,967
14,213
20,639
39,040
18,208
6,554
2,596
4,525
19,328
21,237
65,153
331,853
366,651
2,413
19.901
1,006,278
1,588
81,318
15,399
433
98,738
249,109
857
249,966
3,608
1,175
675
.18.9Z6..
24 , 384
JJL.744
1,399,110
Short tons
81,479
15,657
22,735
43,005
20,057
7,220
2,860
4,985
21,291
23.394
71,770
365,557
403.890
2,658
21,922
1,108,480
1,749
89,577
16,963
477
108 , 766
274,410
944
275,354
3,974
1,294
744
20.848
26,860
21,749
1,541,209
X
1974
Metric tons
79,060
13,262
20,189
39,422
17,919
6,815
2,259
3,998
14,938
19,331
60,169
355,385
417,953
2,088
18,624
1,071,412
1,812
87,297
13,543
2,847
105,499
227,406
643
'228,049
3,719
1,511
452
J9.443
25,125
21.876
1,451,961
Short tons
87,090
14,609
22,240
43,426
19,739
7,507
2,488
4.404
16,455
21,294
66,280
391,479
460,402
2,300
20.516
1,180,229
1,996
96,163
14,918
3,136
116,213
250,502
708
189,536
4,097
1,664
498
21,418
27,677
24.098
1,599,427
1975
Metric tons
68,159
11,061
12,168
20,061
12.978
7,000
2,012
2,909
12,921
22,567
52,057
296,591
338,337
1,372
14.716
874,909
2,268
59,163
9,639
453
71,782
189,372
764
189,586
2,387
1,115
341
18,172
22,015
- 19.264
1,177,506
Short tons
75,081
12,184
13,404
22,099
14,296
7,711
2,216
3,205
14,233
24,859
57,344
326,714
372,700
1,511
16.211
963,768
2,498
65,457
10,618
499
79,072
208.605
181
208,786
2,629
1,228
376
20.018
24,251
21.221
1,297,098
% of Total
1975
5.79
0.94
1.03
1.70
1.10
0.59
0.17
0.25
1.10
1.92
4.42
25.19
28.73
0.12
1.25
74.3
0.19
5.05
0.82
0.04
6.1
16.08
0.02
16.1
0.20
0.09
0.03
1.54
1.86
-1..64.
100. 0
jj/ Reported in short tons and converted into metric tons (0.9078 x short tons = metric tons).
b/ Includes lead content of leaded zinc oxide production.
c/ Includes lead content of scrap used directly in fabricated products.
Source: Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 20240.
-------
Table 2-2. SALIENT LEAD STATISTICS IN THE UNITED STATES (1972-1975)
Production:
Primary:
Mine (reasonable)
Refinery:
Refined lead
Antlmonial lead (lead content)
Secondary:
Reported by smelters
Recovered from copper-based
stock
to
Metric
tons
1972
561,851
632,599
12,710
540,121
13,267
Short
tons
1972
618,915
696,848
14,001
594,978
14,614
Metric
tons
1973
547.425
612,326
12,971
577,738
15,256
Short
tons
1973
603,024
674,516
14,288
636,416
16,805
Metric
tons
1974
602,661
610,971
10,363
618,019
14,853
Short
tons
1974
663,870
673,024
11,416
680,788
16,361
Metric
tons
1975
564,165
577,472
4,958
582,441
12,276
Short
tons
1975
621,464
636,122
5,462
641,596
13,523
Stocks, end of period
Primary refiners
Secondary smelters and consumers
Imports (general)
Ores and concentrates
Refined metal
58,522 64,466 23,675 26,080 33,819 37,254 73,780 81,273
107,614 118,544 112,677 124,121 151,229 166,589 121,023 133,315
92,154 101,514 93,034 102,483 85,605 94,299 79,487 87,560
220,854 243,285 161,679 178,100 108,207 119,197 91,663 100,973
Consumption
Reported
1,348,314 1,485,254 1,399,110 1,541,209 1,451,960 1,599,427 1,177,506 1,297,098
Exports
Lead materials excluding scrap
Scrap
7,604
31,985
8,376
35,233
60,438
54,353
66,576
59,873
56,267
53,892
61,982
59,366
19,296
45,346
21,256
49,951
-------
Table 2-3. MINE PRODUCTION OF RECOVERABLE LEAD IN T1IE UNITED STATES".'
1971
States
Arizona
California
Colorado
Idaho
Illinois
Maine
Missouri
Montana
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
Other states
Total
Metric tons
780
2,073
23,372
60,469
1,124
-
390,022
558
101
2,697
796
34,742
3,074
4,700
683
18
525,209
Short tons
859
2,284
25,746
66,610
1,238
-
429,634
615
111
2,971
877
38,270
3,386
5,177
752
20
578,550
1972
Metric tons
1.600
1,047
28,456
55,745
1,212
77
444,275
261
-
3,252
989
18,797
3,124
2,330
687
_
561,852
Short tons
1,763
1,153
31,346
61,407
1,335
85
489,397
287
-
3,582
1,089
20,706
3,441
2,567
757
.
618,915
1973
Metric tons
693
40
25,520
56,051
491
185
442,228
160
-
2,320
2,092
12,467
2,394
2,013
766
.
547,420
Short tons
763
44
28,112
61,744
541
204
487,143
176
-
2,556
2,304
13,733
2,637
2,217
844
.
603,024
1974
Metric tons
867
23
22,229
46,470
412
253
515,563
271
1,619
2,135
2,789
9,599
2,818
1,179
1,063
.
607,290
Short tons
955
25
24,487
51.190
454
279
567,926
299
1,783
2,352
3,072
10,574
3,104
1,299
1,171
668,970
1975
Metric tons
381
60
24,590
45,749
-
330
468,387
186
2,702
1,753
2,748
11,510
2,316
-
-
3.453
564,165
Short tons
420
66
27,088
50,395
-
364
515,958
205
2,976
1,931
3,027
12,679
2,551
-
-
3.804
621,464
7. of Total
1975
0.07
0.01
4.36
8.11
-
0.06
83.0
0.03
0.48
0.31
0.49
2.04
0.41
-
-
0.61
100.0
al Reported In short tons and converted Into metric tons (0.9078 x short tons = metric tons).
Source: Metal Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 20240. Lead production, monthly.
-------
Table 2-3 shows recoverable mine production of lead by state. Mine pro-
duction also peaked in 1974 and dropped by 77o in 1975. Figure 2-1 shows that
at the refinery, production levels have been decreasing steadily for several
years. Also domestic secondary production decreased in 1975. It appears that
the domestic primary and secondary smelters will not be experiencing real
growth in terms of new plants or capacity. Demand has yet to call for peak
production at all existing facilities. In terms of environmental effect, the
limited growth potential for the lead industry would portray no increase in
emissions over 1974 levels for several years to come.
In addition to the industries that use or produce lead directly, this
study is also concerned with lead emissions from the primary copper produc-
tion, gray iron foundries, ferroalloys production, waste oil combustion,
waste crankcase oil combustion and the combustion of fossil fuels. Lead can
be a trace metal in some of these industries, but due to the large produc-
tion or utilization, as in the case of fossil fuel combustion, the actual
emissions to the atmosphere are substantial. One study (Ref. 4) predicts
that for the total lead emissions from process sources, approximately 9070
of 1975's lead emissions were from combustion sources, with the internal
combustion engine emitting the most, or approximately 927o.
24
-------
to
c
o
^o
L.
-a
c
o
«/>
3
o
t~
1—
IOUU
1400
1200
<
1000
800
600
Total Consumption ^
.*• -^~— ••"
v*****^ "^*-
—
Secondary
Production .,•
/ r^^^ A
-— * ^=7^
-o
o
.3
400
X^ \
mr PA£I r>ftr-\ / Pl"r-k/ll I ^ I- 1 ^Nr\
200 r-
0
I
I
Domestic Ore
I
I
I
l
I
J
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
1970
Year
1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
Figure 2-1. Lead industry growth (1965-1975).
-------
CHAPTER 3
TYPES OF EMISSIONS
By the very nature of industrial processes, those that tend to give
off air pollutants will exhibit some type of fugitive emission. There are
basically two separate but sometimes very similar types of fugitive emis-
sion categories. Classed as fugitive emissions are those that include gas-
eous and particulate emissions from industry-related operations. They are
emitted to the atmosphere through vents, doors, openings, etc., but not
through a primary exhaust system; fugitive emissions escape from metallurgi-
cal processes, materials handling, transfer and storage operations, and a
variety of other industrial processes. The second classification is fugitive
dust.emissions* These are usually associated with natural or man-created
activity that causes particulates to become airborne due to the forces of
the wind. Types of fugitive dust emissions include windblown particulates
from unpaved roads, farm land, aggregate storage piles, and exposed areas
of soil. A dust storm is an example of a major fugitive dust emission prob-
lem.
For this study the above definitions of fugitve emissions and fugi-
tive dust emissions will be used. Also to be included in the definition of
emissions are process emissions, those which are confined or ducted to a
26
-------
discharge point such as a stack or to a control device and then to a stack.
Thus, the total particulate emissions for a given industrial site would be
the sum of the process particulate emissions, fugitive particulate emissions,
and fugitive dust emissions. Process particulate emissions can be readily
measured as they are confined to a duct or stack, and methods such as EPA
Method 5 have been developed to measure particulates. Due to the efforts
of the EPA and others a large inventory of particulate emissions data is
available. Fugitive emission data on the other hand are not so readily
available. Recently studies have been initiated to provide the data that
are missing.
Fugitive emissions levels and sources within the industry source cat-
egories already listed will be estimated where sufficient data warrant.
Fugitive dust emissions will generally not be included in the estimates;
where applicable, the reader's attention will be drawn to the fact that
fugitive dust emissions could be substantial for the industry being dis-
cussed. Those emissions not included are typically due to road dust to and
from the immediate plant area and fugitive dust emissions generated by moving
vehicles within the plant area. Worst case 90-day ambient level averages
will be predicted which will include the effects of wind on building or
process fugitives; and in the case of one or two industries, storage pile
emissions are included in the estimate.
Table 3-1 presents a review of the possible sources of emissions for
each industry.
27
-------
Table 3-1. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM
17 SPECIFIED SOURCE CATEGORIES
Industry source
category
Type of emission
Fugitive dust emissions
Fugitive emissions
1. Primary lead smelters Windblown dust from storage piles Process leaks
Roof vents
Ore handling
2. Secondary lead smelters Windblown dust from storage piles Process leaks
Mining and milling of Blasting, hauling, windblown
lead ore dust from exposed storage
piles
4. Primary copper smelter
5. Gray iron foundry
6. Ferroalloy
7. Gasoline additive
plant (TEL)
3. Lead oxide plant
9. Lead pigment manu-
facture
10. Lead acid battery plant
11. Can manufacturing
12. Cable covering plant
13. Type metal operation
Ore storage piles
14. Combustion of fossil
fuel (coal and
oil)
15. Waste oil combustion
combustion
16. Waste crankcase oil
combustion
17. Metallic lead products^'
Storage piles
Ore handling
Crushing and
screening
Roof vents
Ore handling
Process leaks
Roof vents
Material handling
Process leaks
Roof vents
Ore handling
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Material handling
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process leaks
Roof vents
Coal - handling
Process leaks
Roof vents
Process emissions
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
Uncontrolled, poorly controlled
and well controlled processes
a/ Lead used in the production of terne metal, solder, ammunition, weights and ballasts, plumbing supplies,
caulking lead, roofing materials, casting metal, foils, sheeting, galvanizing, annealing and lead plating.
28
-------
CHAPTER 4
FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS FOR PARTICULATES,
LEAD AND FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
The national Ambient Air Quality Standard (AAQS) for particulates for
3
the annual geometric mean average concentration is set at 75 Mg/m and for
a 24-hr average concentration at 260 jug/m , not to be exceeded more than
once per year. Most of the states have adopted a similar, sometimes more
stringent, ambient air quality standard for particulates. Four states,
California, Montana, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, have ambient air qual-
ity standards for lead at 1.5, 5, 3, and 5 jLtg/m , respectively, for a 30-
day averaging time.
State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations usually are in the form
of general process weight rates applied to all stationary sources within
the state. A study by the Mitre Corporation (Ref . 8) has listed the process
weight regulations for 42 of the states, and a search through the regula-
tions of those states left out revealed that most states have an emission
regulation on particulates for general source categories (see Table 4-1 and
Appendix C). Generally, the states have not promulgated regulations for spe-
cific source categories. Appendix C reviews the various regulations of inter-
est from the individual states. With few exceptions the 50 states have regu-
lations governing the particulate emissions from power plants and steam
29
-------
Table 4-1. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR PARTICULATES, LEAD, FUGITIVES, AND OPACITY
AS APPLIED TO LEAD CONSUMING, PEDDUCING, OR EMITTING INDUSTRIES2'
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
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
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Utah
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
. Pb regulations (2)-
Particulate regulations (I)2 nK/nrV
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fugitive .
regulations O)5
HTS
HTS
T
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
T
HTS
67%
HTS
HTS
HTS
T
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
T
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
HTS
TS
HTS
HTS
Visible emission
regulations^
207.
207.
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
None
20%
207.
20%
20%
40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
40%
40%
0%
20%
20%
407.
20%
207.
20%
40%
20%
207.
207.
207.
207.
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
207.
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
407.
20%
20%
20%
Source
A.B
B,C
B,D
B
A,B,C,D
A,B,C,D
A,B,C
A,B,C,D
B,C
A.B.C
B,C,D
A,B,C,D
A,B,C,D
A,B,C
A.B.C
A,B,C,D
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A,B,C,D
A,B,C,D
A.B.C.D
A,B,C
A,B,C
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A,B,C,D
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A,B,C,D
A.B.C.D
A,B,C,D
A,B,C
A.B.C.D
B,C,D
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A.B.C.D
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A.B.C
A,B,C,D
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
A.B.C.D
A.B.C.D
A.B.C
A.B.C
A.B.C.D
a/ See extended table for state in Appendix C.
b/ Lead regulations for each state found in "The World Air Quality Management Standards."
c/ No handling, transporting, or storing (HTS). H = handling, T = transporting, S = storing.
_d/ Visible emission regulations apply to all industrial sources except where noted in the remarks table.
Source: A; Abel, D. J., 'Instruments and Control Systems." 1975 Buyers' Guide Issue, pp. 28-39.
B. Strategies and Air Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
"State Implementation Plan Emission Regulations for Particulate Matter: Fuel Combustion," EPA-450/2-76-010, 75 pages,
August 1976.
C. Duncan, L. J.» "Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and Regulations," The Mitre Corporation, prepared
for the Office of Air Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0248, 83 pages, July 1972.
D. MM experience with obtaining SIP information for individual states either'by letter communication from state or by ob-
taining a copy of a state's SIPs in response to an MRI inquiry.
30
-------
boilers of industrial size (> 100 x 10 Btu/hr). An EPA study (Ref. 6) lists
the emission rates for those states that have boiler regulations.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) have been promulgated for par-
ticulate emissions for secondary lead smelters, primary lead and copper
smelters, and ferroalloy production facilities. Another industry that is
part of this study, lead acid battery manufacture, is presently undergoing
review for a possible standard for lead emissions. As such no NSPS have
been promulgated that regulate lead emissions from a stationary source. It
is expected that most particulate regulations in effect control lead emis-
sions to the extent of the percentage of lead compounds that make up the
particulate emission, assuming that these lead compounds are removed at
the same efficiency as the particulates in the various control devices. It
has not been determined conclusively that these control levels are suffi-
cient to provide desired ambient concentration levels.
31
-------
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY FOR ATMOSPHERIC DISPERSION MODELING
The study objectives call for the prediction of 90-day, worst-case dis-
tributions of ground-level lead concentrations in the vicinity of each of
the designated industrial operations. Presented below is a discussion of the
strategy used to model the atmospheric dispersion of fugitive and ducted
lead emissions associated with each industry.
EPA1 s Climatological Dispersion Model (COM) (Figure 5-1) was used to
derive seasonal distributions of ground-level concentrations beyond a typi-
cal fenceline distance taken to be 250 m from the source. COM utilizes the
conventional Gaussian dispersion equation and treats the ground as a flat,
reflective surface. Thus, the effects of particulate settling and complex
terrain were neglected.
In the modeling process, each industrial operation was represented as
a symmetrical source configuration consisting of a single building struc-
ture with stacks (if any) located at the center. This simplifying assump-
tion is not critical as long as the realistic source distribution lies
within a 22.5-degree sector when viewed from the fenceline. In industries
with multiple (emitting) buildings, plant boundaries generally exceed the
32
-------
Model characteristics
Averaging period: 90-day
Pollutants studied: Lead
Dispersion conditions: Worst case
Dispersion equation: Standard Gaussian
Dispersion coefficients: Pasquill and Gifford
Plume rise equation: Briggs
Input requirements
Source data
Emission rate (g/sec)
Stack height (m)
Stack diameter (m)
Exit velocity (m/sec)
Exit temperature (°C)
Other data
Receptor grid coordinates
Source coordinates .
Meteorological data
Mean ambient temperature (°C)
Joint frequency function (wind
direction, wind speed, stability)
Average morning mixing height (m)
Average afternoon mixing height (m)
Output
Seasonal average ground-level concentrations
receptor grid coordinates.
at user- specified
Figure 5-1. Summary of COM model.—
7/
33
-------
250-m distance from the source by an amount sufficient that distributed
sources may be treated as a symmetrical cluster.
Ducted emissions were modeled as point sources, and fugitive emissions
discharged from buildings (roof openings, windows, etc.) were modeled as
elevated area sources. Stack emissions were assigned appropriate values for
lead emission rate, temperature, stack height and diameter, and exit veloc-
ity. Fugitive emissions were assumed to be discharged uniformly from the
roof area of the building.
Seasonal meteorological conditions for the St. Louis area (Table 5-1)
were input into CDM. St. Louis meteorology was assumed to be representative
of a large portion of the country and was applied to all industries for con-
sistency. Seasonal mixing height data were taken from records for Columbia,
Missouri, the radiosonde station nearest St. Louis. Modeling results indi-
cated that summer meteorological conditions produce the highest 90-day con-
centrations, with the maximum ground-level concentration occurring directly
to the north of the source operation.
As part of the computer modeling methodology, integration increments
were decreased in size until no effect on computed results was noted. The
final increment values used were DINT = 20 and DELR = 1.
The final product of the modeling consisted of contours of summer
ground-level lead concentration in the direction (north) of the maximum
receptor. Computed concentration distributions extended from the 250-m
fenceline value to either: (a) about 6 km from the source; or (b) the dis-
tance at which the lead concentration dropped below 0.5 /xg/m . Concentration
34
-------
Table 5-1. SUMMER METEOROLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Mean ambient temperature (°C) 24.9~
Avg morning mixing height (m) 321~
Avg afternoon mixing height (m) 1,723~
Joint frequency function—STAR format 1970-1974
(stability/wind rose) St. Louis, ft
a.1 St. Louis, MO (based on the period, 1941-1970).
b/ Columbia, MO (based on the period, 1960-1964).
35
-------
distributions were divided into the contribution from ducted emissions and
the contribution from nonducted emissions.
36
-------
CHAPTER 6
INDUSTRIAL SOURCES OF LEAD EMISSIONS
PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS
Process Description
Figure 6-1 presents a general process schematic for the primary lead
smelting industry. The processing steps are basically the same for the
whole industry: (a) sintering, (b) reduction in a blast furnace, and (c)
refining. The ore is received at the smelter as a concentrate containing
55 to 70% lead from the mining and milling operations. Flux and other mate-
rials are added and the resulting mixture is sintered. Sintering converts
the sulfide form of the lead ore to an oxide by roasting, and also cal-
cining occurs which produces a strong, porous mass suitable for reduction
in the blast furnace.
In the blast furnace, the oxide is reduced to the base metal by the
presence of carbon monoxide produced from coke which is fed into the fur-
nace. The heat necessary for this reaction is provided by complete combus-
tion of some of the coke to carbon dioxide. The metal impurities, such as
zinc and iron oxides, require higher temperatures for reducing; and as a
result, these oxides react with silica which is added to the furnace to form
a slag. Blast furnace slag is fluid at the temperatures on the bottom of
37
-------
00
HlAiGHl LINf 1
C*SllMG MAChlfs* f
Figure 6-1* Representative flow diagram for lead smelters.
-------
the furnace, which protects the molten reduced lead from reoxidizing. Lead
is continuously tapped from the furnace. In addition to the molten lead and
slag, speiss and matte are withdrawn from the furnace. These molten products
are further processed in other operations at the smelter to remove the lead
and other metals contained.
The lead is refined at the smelter in a dross reverberatory furnace
and lead refining kettles. The product is lead bullion. In addition to the
above process, some smelters also operate cadmium wastes, slag fuming fur-
naces and deleading kilns.
Emissions
Particulate and lead emissions can occur from all of the above opera-
tions. It has been estimated that the primary lead smeltering industry
emitted 14,435 tons of process and fugitive particulate containing 3,432
tons of lead to the atmosphere in 1975. Process emissions occur from the
sinter plant stack, or in the case of an acid plant's being incorporated
in the tail gas clean-up system, at the acid plant stack (usually well
controlled and thus low). The blast furnace is another important source
which is usually controlled but has higher emissions due to larger vol-
umes of off-gas from the process. The other processes discussed also would
be potential emission sources within the primary lead smelter.
Process fugitives can occur from all of the areas discussed and if un-
controlled, are emitted to the atmosphere through roof monitors and build-
ing vents. Of the 14,435 tons of particulates estimated as total emissions,
13,152 tons were attributed to fugitive emissions from all areas of pri-
mary lead smeltering operations. This estimate may be somewhat conservative
39
-------
because the data base was from an older smelter, but it serves as a maxi-
mum potential emission level figure.
Emission Control Techniques
For the three U.S. smelters with contact sulfuric acid plants, particu-
late matter has the adverse effect of deactivating the catalyst used to con-
vert the S02 to SO-jJ thus, complete removal of particulates in the sinter
machine off-gas is necessary prior to the acid plant. The remainder not
removed in the control device is removed by being absorbed in the acid
plant. Essentially no lead emissions occur from the acid plant.
For the remainder of the gas streams, wet collectors, fabric filters,
and electrostatic precipitators have been shown to be effective, with ef-
fectiveness up to 99.9%. Control techniques being applied to fugitive
process emissions involve hooding and enclosure. Generally the higher vol-
umes associated with hygiene air from proper hooding and venting presents
a control problem. The guiding factor for size selection for a control de-
vice is volume throughput. The larger the gas volume, the more costly the
control device.
Model Results
Figures 6-2, 6-3, and 6-4 show the results of the Climatological Dis-
persion Model (CDM) applied to emission rates from a typical lead smelter
under present rates, state rates, and performance standard rates. Shaded
areas under the curve represents contribution of fugitive lead emissions
to ambient lead concentrations.
40
-------
90
80
70
1 60
\
o>
^C
g so
I
UJ An
U ^O
O
U
3i 30
20
10
Primory Lead Smelting
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions in 1975
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
5.0
6.0
Figure 6-2. Modeling results for primary lead smelting<
-------
-p-
N>
Primary Lead Smelting
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
1.0 1.5
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
2.0
2.5
Figure 6-3. Model results for primary lead smelting.
-------
25r
CO
O)
Z
O
I
Z
UJ
u
Z
O
u
5 -
0
Primary Lead Smelting
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by New
Source Performance Standards - 1975
Emissions ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>-.-...-..'-.-.-.-.!.-.-...-.-!-.-...-.-.rr
3.0
4.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 6-4. Model results for primary lead smelting.
-------
The fenceline ambient levels are predicted to be at their best of 10.1 )j,g/nr
under state rates for total lead emissions. This indicates that enforcement
of state regulations would be helpful in controlling lead emissions but
not to the level set forth in Subtask 5 of < 1, 2, or 5 ng/mP.
SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING
Process description
Figure 6-5 presents a simplified process schematic for the secondary
lead smelting industry. Three types of furnaces are commonly used: rever-
beratory, blast or cupola, and pot. The grade of lead to be produced dic-
tates the furnace types.
Semisoft lead is produced in the reverberatory furnace. The charge
consists of lead scrap, battery plates, lead oxides, drosses, and lead
residues. Hard lead is produced in the blast or cupola furnace. The charge
makeup includes: serum slag from previous runs; lead-containing cast iron
scrap, limestone; coke; and drosses from pot furnace refining, lead oxides
and reverberatory slag. Pot furnaces are used for smelting, alloying and
refining. Lead and/or alloy materials are melted and blended until the de-
sired metallurgy is obtained.
Emissions
The 1975 total particulate emissions for the secondary lead smelting
industry were estimated at 3,362 tons, of which 51 tons were attributed to
lead emissions. No references were made in the literature to measurements
of fugitive emissions even though it is suspected that they could be a
problem. Emissions occur at and from the various furnaces involved in pro-
cessing the scrap lead. It is suspected that minor emissions could occur
44
-------
LEAD HOLDING,
MELTING
AND REFINING POTS
BLAST AIR
\—r
SLAG
LEAD
••ip
/>/W*H\*»
BLAST FURNACE
CHARGE
SLAG
TO BLAST FURNACE
CONTROL SYSTEM
TO VENTILATION
CONTROL SYSTEM
LEAD
TO REVERBERATORY
FURNACE
CONTROL SYSTEM
X
Figure 6-5. Secondary lead smelter.
-------
when batteries are cut to remove the plates and during material handling
operations. Proper venting and hooding would reduce these emission prob-
lems*
Emission Control Techniques
Well-controlled secondary lead smelters utilize wet scrubbers or bag-
houses to reduce dust and fume emissions from the furnaces. Incineration
is normally used to reduce hydrocarbons and to convert CO to C02 to prevent
fabric blinding if a baghouse is used to control emissions on a blast fur-
nace. It is not necessary to incinerate emissions from a reverberatory fur-
nace before a baghouse. Collection efficiencies can be as high as 95 to 98%
for wet scrubbers and in excess of 99% for baghouses. Often the hot furnace
gases must be cooled before entering the baghouse as many fabrics can only
tolerate relatively cool temperatures (up to 550°F). Cooling is usually
accomplished by dilution with ambient air, heat exchange devices, or a
combination of the two.
Model Results
The COM predicted fenceline ambient lead levels for emissions at pres-
ent, state regulation, and performance standard levels to be below 0.5 p,g/nr,
No graphs are presented. These results indicate that current control would
be sufficient to meet Subtask 5 requirements of being < 1, 2, or 5 |j,g/nr.
MINING AND MILLING OF LEAD ORE
Process Description
Figure 6-6 presents a simplified process diagram of the mining and
milling of lead ore by the "room pillar" technique. Lead ores are normally
46
-------
5 PRODUCTION
LEVEL
w&f,PRIMARY;CRUSHED
M«NlcRUSHER ORE BIN
TERTIARY
CRUJHER SECONDARY
SCREENING
CONCENTRATE
THICKENER
CONCENTRATE
ROUGHER CLEANER THICKENER FILTER
ZINC SMELTER
•• TAILING POND
Figure 6-6. Typical underground lead ore mining and milling
operation flow diagram.
-------
deep mined. Preliminary or primary crushing generally occurs within the mine,
usually at a lower level than the production level. The crushed ore is lifted
to the surface where further crushing, grinding, and screening operations
are performed. From there the ore is concentrated to about 45 to 80% lead
by flotation processes. The concentrate is then shipped to the primary lead
smelter.
Emissions
In 1975, it was estimated that the mining and milling of lead ore emitted
621 tons of particulates to the atmosphere including process fugitives. Of
this, 31 tons were attributed to lead emissions. Emissions from mining and
milling lead ore are a result of ore handling, crushing, and screening. Since
these processes involve only physical changes in the ore, emissions would
be essentially the same as the ore. Lead ore typically contains from 1 to
5% lead mainly as the sulfide. Emissions from outside ore storage, a practice
used less and less, can be considerable.
Emission Control Techniques
Fugitive emissions from outside storage of ores can be prevented by
proper enclosures or the use of storage bins. Transport of ores also is a
major source of fugitives. Proper enclosure of conveyors, dumping points,
and turnarounds can also prevent those emissions. The crushing, grinding
and screening operations are typically controlled with cyclones and/or bag-
houses, with from 60 to 99.9% efficiency. The low estimate for emissions
from mining and milling of lead ore indicates this industry has no major
control problems.
48
-------
Model Results
Figure 6-7 shows GDM predictions for ambient lead levels in the vicinity
of a typical lead mining and milling operation. Present emission levels are
predicted at fenceline to be at the 2 to 6 ng/nr level. Predictions for emis-
sions under state regulations for ambient lead levels are shown in Figure
6-8. Performance standards reduce the fenceline level below 0.5 |j,g/m . No
graph is presented. Results indicate present controls are sufficient to main-
tain lead levels below 5 [j,g/m at fenceline.
PRIMARY COPPER SHELTERING
Process Description
Copper smelting practices are fairly uniform in the United States. There
are slight differences to accommodate the variations in the copper ores,
but most of the processes are similar in design. With the exception of one
smelter, the rest of the U.S. smelters were built 20 or more years ago. New
technology is continually incorporated into plant process operations as cop-
per smelting is a process that undergoes periodic modifications.
Copper metal called blister copper is extracted from the copper con-
centrate. Feed concentrates are usually dried or roasted before being charged
into a reverberatory furnace. The roasting process is utilized by nearly
half of the copper smelters in the United States. Roasting is necessary when
the feed concentrate is low in copper and high in iron and sulfur.. The pyrite
sulfur and iron is converted to a sulfur dioxide and iron oxides in the roaster«
Particulate emissions from the roaster can be considerable, as much as 3
to 6% of the feed weight.
49
-------
Ln
o
CO
\
CO
Z
O
1
Z
LU
U
O
u
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0
Mining and Milling of Lead Ore
Worst Case Emissions Predicted by
COM Modeling on Typical Plant
Emissions in 1975
0.5
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
1.0
Figure 6-7. Model results for mining and milling of lead ore.
-------
Ul
8.0
7.0
6.0
CD
,5 5.0
O
4.0
2
LU
u
8 3.0
2.0
1.0
Mining ond Milling of Lead Ore
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
1.75
2.00
2.25 2.50
Figure 6-8. Model results for mining and milling of lead ore(
-------
The hot calcined ore is fed directly to the reverberatory furnace
where the charge becomes molten and separates into layers of matte and slag.
The matte consists of copper and iron sulfides, plus small amounts of other
metals, sulfides and oxides. The molten matte is transferred to the conver-
ters where flux is added and air is blown through the molten mass. Oxidation
of the iron sulfides occurs first, followed by the copper sulfides which
are converted to the blister copper product. Blister copper is the principal
product of a primary copper smelter and is shipped to an electrolyte re-
fining plant. Figure 6-9 shows a representative copper smelter.
Emissions
During 1975, it was estimated that 48,388 tons of particulates, both
process and fugitives, were emitted to the atmosphere by the primary cop-
per industry, and of that amount 8,933 tons were estimated to be lead. Emis-
sion points would be at the dryer, roaster, converter, and reverberatory
furnace. Since the concentrate is usually wet, ore handling would not ap-
pear to be a problem.
Emission Control Techniques
Currently electrostatic precipitators are used on all the roasters,
converters, and reverberatory furnaces in the U.S. primary copper industry.
The waste off-gas may be combined with the reverberatory gases prior to treat-
ment. The converter off-gases are generally treated in an acid plant to re-
duce SCU after dust removal. This causes almost no particulate emissions
from the converter process. Reverberatory furnace off-gases are often pre-
treated in cyclones or balloon flues before entering an electrostatic pre-
cipitator; either hot or cold ESP's are used.
52
-------
FROM MINE
CONCENTRATOR
v RR CAR /
oo oo
COPPER ORE
8. PRECIPITATE
COPPER '
SI
RR CAR
oo oo
SILICA/LIMESTONE
I I
CONCENTRATE PRECIPITATE
SILICA
I 1
LIMESTONE
o
DUSTS (TO
V$?&
I
'ESP& YS
r
ALCINEl /^
. 1— REVERBERATOR
1 | FURNACE
^ lv/l
TORAGE Y FUMES COOLING
CYCLONE
] r HOOD Km1
U i
-1 t MATTE 1 ' ' • 1_,
YLJ ™" .p» "* ''
L_J SLAG 1 LUHVLKILK BIICTCD ^^D»CD
AVIT | , 1 1 1 --•-•
)ILER t*-^--.--»— — -
I AIR
ESP] »-i PREHEATER
4-J L _ J
WSLAG
TO
DUMP
HZ TAIR "FUEL
- FUMES
JRNACE) , WEAK ACID
JRNALt) MA|cp ||p L LIMESTONE
SYSTEM ~*
V
-> L *•-
^RS (OR ABSORBTION
TOWER)
SO2 REMOVAL ^
SYSTEM |
1
1
t
WEAK ACID ^ NFIITRAII7ATION
(ALTERNATE)
i 1 ^Cf
SULFUR)1" ACIC1
PLANT WASTE TREATMENT
SULFURIC LAGOON ^
, ACID
— ^lESPJPUSTS
"" *^^S (1O REVERBERA1
V~7 FURN
0 0
B
(ALTERNATE) c
1 " c
1 AIR C
_| t
1— «. FIRE ^ K
REFINING ^"^
FIIRKJArF
HZ*-! • N
o o SLAG
i
:
QUENCHING
TANK
kLCIUM, T A
LFATE 1 RR CAR | TO E
OO1 '00 REI
TREATED
WATER
BLISTER
COPPER
CASTING &
COOLING
BLISTER COPPER
i~i r~i r~i SHIPMENT
00 °° TO REFINERY
NATURAL GAS (OR LOGS)
M.°i!E2!_C_OJ>PJr!l
(ALTERNATE)
CASTING
COPPER
INGOTS,
SLABS,
BARS
ANODES
oo oo
TO FURTHER
PROCESSING
(ROLLING MILL,
WIRE, OTHER
C
RR CAR
OO OO
Figure 6-9. Flow diagram of a representative copper smelter.
-------
Model Results
Figures 6-10, 6-11, and 6-12 show the CDM-predicted ambient lead levels
in the vicinity of a typical lead smelter. Level emissions at the fenceline
for emissions under performance standard levels are 3.9 (ig/np. The lead levels
for emissions at 1975 levels and under state regulations are predicted at
much higher levels. This indicates the new source performance standards on
the emissions of a typical smelter are necessary to reduce emissions to
below 5
GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
Process Description
Figure 6-13 presents a simplified flow diagram for the gray iron foun-
dry industry with either a cupola, reverberatory furnace, or an electric
arc furnace. Some plants have a combination of two different furnaces.
Usually as new units are built, electric arc furnaces replace the cupola.
The charge to a cupola contains coke, fluxes and metal (pig iron, scrap
and steel). These are layered alternately and the furnace is ignited. Charg-
ing continues as the metal melts until the desired volume is reached. The
blast or firing is then stopped. The molten metal is tapped from one layer
and the slag from another. At the end of the cycle the bottom of the fur-
nace is dropped and the excess charge is dumped out to be recycled into
the next charge.
The charge to a reverberatory furnace is metal scrap, pig iron and steel
which is heated by direct flame until molten. The iron is tapped and the cycle
is over.
54
-------
Ol
1=
\
CD
so r
45
40
35
30
z
o
| 25
LU
u
O 20
15
10
Primory Copper Smelter
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions for 1975
31;
1.0
2.0 3.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
4.0
5.0
6.0
Figure 6-10. Model results for primary copper smelting.
-------
z
o
s
U
Z
O
u
14 -
13 -
12
11
10
E
^ 9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Primary Copper Smelter
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
0.5
1.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
1.5
2.0
Figure 6-11. Model results for primary copper smelting.
-------
Ui
0
0
Primary Copper Smelters
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by a
New Source Performance
Standard - 1975
Figure 6-12.
.
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Mode! results for primary copper smelting,
-------
LIMESTONE
[MOLD
CORE MAKING
Figure 6-13. Schematic flow diagram of the gray iron foundry.
-------
The electric arc furnace has become more prevalent in recent years.
The metal charge is subjected to an electric current from three graphite
electrodes and the charge melts. The slag is removed and the molten iron
is tapped.
Emissions
In 1975 an estimated 187,565 tons of particulates, both process and
fugitives, were emitted to the atmosphere from the gray iron foundry pro-
cesses. Of that, 1,876 tons were lead emissions. Lead is basically a trace
element in iron materials charged to the furnaces. It is possible to attribute
some of the potential lead emissions to the contaminants in the scrap such
as paint, waste crankcase oil and many other lead-containing compounds.
The cupola is suspected to be the largest contributor of particulate
emissions. Charging, tapping and blistering are operations that release con-
siderable fumes. For the reverberatory and electric arc furnaces, the charg-
ing and tapping cycle releases large amounts of fumes. Fugitive emissions
are high at a gray iron foundry, an estimated 59,376 tons for 1975.
Emission Control Techniques
Cupola emissions present difficulties for good emission control. If
the off-gases are withdrawn above the charge door, larger volumes of air
are drawn into the charge door and must pass through the process control
equipment, for which much larger and more expensive equipment needs to be
used. In contrast, if the off-gases are withdrawn below the charge door,
precise control must be exercised to prevent explosions. In addition, the
off-gases are generally cooled either by water quench or with the use of
U-tube cooling devices. Fabric filters and wet scrubbers are the accepted
59
-------
control equipment for cupolas and are widely used to control emissions from
them.
Fabric filters are commonly used to control emissions on electric arc
and reverberatory furnaces. Generally, special problems with corrosion due
to condensation of sulfuric acid mist make fabric filters a successful con-
trol method even with the need for lowering the gas temperature. Electrostatic
precipitators are not widely used to control emissions from gray iron furnaces.
Many problems are encountered, such as the variability of emissions and flow
rates, small particle sizes and unusually high resistivity.
High and low energy scrubbers have been used to control cupola emis-
sions. Recently high energy scrubbers have been installed to meet state par-
ticulate regulations. Due to the high temperatures and corrosiveness of the
off-gases, a serious potential exists for extended and periodic maintenance.
Stainless steel has shown satisfactory results.
Fugitive emissions are a problem for the gray iron industry. Proper
hooding and venting would eliminate much of the building fugitives assoc-
iated with the tapping, charging, and transporting of molten iron and slag.
Scrap piles and scrap preparation facilities can be enclosed and properly
vented. Ambient temperature fugitives can be efficiently controlled by fabric
filtration systems.
Model Results
The CDM-predicted fenceline ambient lead levels for a typical gray iron
foundry are 1 ^g/nP or less for all cases. Figures 6-14, 6-15, and 6-16 show
predicted ambient levels for typical plants at present emission rates.
60
-------
\
O)
1.0
.9
.8
.7
Z -6
O
I .5
z1 -4
O
u
Q .3
.2
.1
0
1
Gray iron Foundry - A
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emission for 1975
0
.3 .4
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
.5
.6
.7
Figure 6-14. Model results for gray iron founding.
-------
ON
ro
\
O)
1.0
.9
.8
.7
Z -6
O
I -5
u 4
Z
O
u
Q .3
.2
.1
0
Gray Iron Foundry - B
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emission for 1975
.3 .4
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
.5
.6
.7
Figure 6-15. Model results for gray iron founding.
-------
Gray Iron Foundry - C
Worst" Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions for 1975
:£' Processs Emissions :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 6-16. Model results for gray iron founding.
-------
The model predicted ambient levels below 0.5 p-g/nP for emission rates under
state and performance standard regulations. No graphs are presented for
these. Present emission levels are sufficiently controlled to meet requirements
of being at or below 1, 2, or 5 |o,g/m .
FERROALLOY PRODUCTION
Process Description
Ferroalloys are iron in combination with one or more other elements
such as silicon, chromium, manganese, and other less common elements. They
are used for alloying, deodorizing and graphitizing steel. Ferroalloys are
big business in the United States, which is the world's leading producer
at 2,283,500 tons in 1975. Figure 6-17 presents a schematic of the ferroalloy
process.
Over 90% of the smelting in the ferroalloy industry is done in submerged
arc furnaces; blast and aluminothermic furnaces make up the remaining 10%.
The charge makeup includes aluminum (reducing agent), coke slagging mate-
rials, and raw ore. The high temperatures around the carbon electrodes cause
carbon reduction of the metallic oxides in the charge. The molten ferroalloy
is tapped from the bottom of the furnace.
The co-reduction of iron oxides and other metallic oxides by aluminum,
called the aluminothermic process, has a charge consisting of raw ore,
aluminum powder, and iron scrap, with a thermal booster such as sodium chlo-
rate and a fluxing agent. Ignition of the reaction is accomplished by either
an electrical arc from submerged electrodes or the use of a small quantity
of aluminum plus barium perioxide to ignite a priming batch. After initial
ignition, the smelt continues without the addition of any more energy as
64
-------
Dust
Ore
1
Unloading
Storage Crushing Weigh-Feed ing
Smelting Tapping Casting
Crushing Screening Storage Shipment
Figure 6-17. Process schematic of the ferroalloy industry,
-------
the reaction is highly exothermic. Upon completion of the reaction the molten
alloy is tapped from the bottom of the furnace. Ferroboron, ferrochrome,
ferroniobium, ferromolybdenum, and other uncomnon alloys are produced by
this process.
Blast furnaces are also of limited importance in domestic production
of ferroalloys; there are only two in operation. The charge of raw ore, iron
ore, coke, and limestone is blasted or fired with fuel oil or natural gas.
The temperature is held just above the slag-forming temperature. Carbon re-
duction occurs, and the ferroalloy is tapped from the bottom.
Slag is processed to recover the metals present to recharge to the fur-
nace. Two metods are used: concentration and shotting. To concentrate, the
slag is dumped into water and the metal particles sink to the bottom while
t
the slag floats and is removed. The shotting method involves the granulation
of the molten slag in water.
Molten alloy from the various furnaces is usually cast into ingots.
The size and shape depend on the type of ferroalloy. The castings, after
sufficient cooling, are removed from the molds, graded, and processed fur-
ther by breaking. Then the ferroalloy is crushed and screened to produce
material of uniform size for shipment to the steel mills.
Emissions
Particulate emissions for the ferroalloy industry are estimated at
125,248 tons, both process and fugitive, for 1975. Lead emissions account
for only an estimated 65 tons of the particulate emissions.
66
-------
Emissions vary with furnace type, charge composition, and type and quan-
tity of alloy being produced. Open furnaces have a much larger volume of
off-gas to treat than closed furnaces, but the off-gas from an open furnace
is generally completely combusted to carbon dioxide and water vapor, whereas
the closed furnaces emit considerable quantities of carbon monoxide which
must be incinerated before entering a control device. In addition to the
carbon monoxide, quantities of phenols and cyanides are also emitted.
Lead appears in ferroalloy production as a trace contaminant naturally
present in the ores.
Aluminothermic furnaces also produce a wide variety of emissions. Fine
particles are more prevalent due to fineness of the charge materials neces-
sary for the process. In addition, the reaction is highly exothermic, often
violent, thus producing considerable emissions. The nature of the emissions
varies with the alloy being produced.
Blast furnaces produce large amounts of carbon monoxide in addition
to metallic vapors and various organics.
Incineration is necessary before being emitted to the atmosphere or
a control device. Particle size tends to be between 0.1 to 1.0 p,m, with 20%
being larger than 20 p,m.
Emission Control Techniques
Wet scrubbers and fabric filters are commonly used control devices in
the ferroalloy industry, and electrostatic precipitators are in limited use.
Fugitives are quite prevalent in the industry; effective hooding and venting
practices are important to prevent emissions from escaping uncontrolled.
67
-------
The wet scrubbers service the open and semienclosed furnaces with ef-
ficiencies 96 to 99%. Baghouses are also very common, but they often need
the gases cooled before they enter. They also produce efficient control in
the 95 to 99% or greater range. Electrostatic precipitators are used in
limited cases for control on open furnaces. The limited utilization is due
to the high resistivity of the ferroalloy production emissions, which many
times exceeds the maximum resistivity limit of 10 ohm-cm for efficient
precipitators.
Model Results
The CDM predicted the fenceline ambient lead concentration to be be-
low 0.5 jj,g/rar for all cases. No graphs are presented. Present emissions levels
are sufficient to keep lead fenceline concentrations at or below 1, 2, or
5 (ig/m3.
GASOLINE ADDITIVES MANUFACTURING (ALKYL LEAD)
Process description
Figures 6-18 and 6-19 present the schematic representation of the two
processes for producing alkyl lead additives for gasoline. The sodium-lead
alloy process accounts for more than 90% of the tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl
lead production, with the remainder produced by the electrolysis of an alkyl
Grignard reagent. Both products are produced by either process.
The sodium-lead alloy process involves the alloying of molten lead with
sodium and reacting this with tetramethyl chloride or tetraethyl chloride
in an autoclave. The reaction yield is about 90 to 95%. At the completion
of the reaction, the reaction mass is further processed in steam stills to
68
-------
To Incinerator
To Ethyl Chloride
Rectifying Column
To Incinerator
t
Ethyl
Chloride
Rectifying
Column
Blending
Washing
Purification
Figure 6-18. Schematic representation of sodium-lead alloy process (TEL production)
-------
Mg
Porticufate
MgC12
To Refinery
Propone Grignard
Refrigeration Doctor
* ^/ VT Ethe
T ri
»
AC
Rectifier '
Ethylene Dibromide
Ethylene Dichloride
Toluene Dye
Antioxidant
TML MotorMix
Figure 6-19. Schematic representation of electrolytic process
(TML production).
70
-------
purify the tetraethyl lead or tetramethyl lead. The residue is dumped into
a sludge pit for eventual recovery of lead in a reverberatory furnace.
Further purification is necessary after the steam stills. At the end, the
alkyl lead compound is blended with various stabilizing compounds and dyes,
and it becomes the motor mix to be added to the gasoline by the refiner.
The electrolyte process starts with the production of methylmagnesium
chloride or ethylmagnesium chloride. Methyl or ethyl chloride is reacted
with magnesium in ether. This product in solution is fed to electrolyte cells
with specially prepared lead pellets that are the anodes. At the lead pellets
the reaction takes place and tetraethyl or tetramethyl lead is formed. The
yields are higher than the sodium-lead alloy process at 95%.
Emission
Particulate emissions from alkyl lead manufacturing for 1975 were esti-
mated at 2,176 tons for both process and fugitive emissions; 1,727 tons of
lead emissions were estimated to make up the 2,176 tons of total particulates.
The process lead emissions accounted for all but an estimated 11 tons of
the total estimated lead emissions. The emissions vary for each process.
The emissions from the sodium-lead alloy process are particulates containing
lead and alkyl lead fumes or vapors, and the electrolyte process emits only
alkyl lead fumes or vapors. The lead recovery process associated with the
sodium-lead process is a major contributor to the total emissions.
The sodium-lead alloy process emissions are from the lead recovery fur-
nace, process vents, and from fugitive releases. The reaction for the sodium-
lead process used 4 parts lead to produce 1 part alkyl lead product. Therefore,
71
-------
for every pound of alkyl lead produced the recovery furnace processes 4 Ib
of recycled lead. This accounts for the furnace being the largest emission
source in the process.
As the emissions are low, the process vents are typically uncontrolled
for the production of tetraethyl lead. When producing tetramethyl lead, a
scrubbing system is needed to minimize the losses due to vaporization as
a product recovery device and to prevent atmospheric pollution.
Fugitives are minimal and occur mainly when a rupture disc on an auto-
clave blows; this occurs infrequently. Other possibilities are breaks in
process lines and leakage from pumps, seals, etc. These emissions are dif-
ficult to quantify.
The electrolyte process does not require a recovery furnace; thus, one
major source is eliminated. The rest are similar to the sodium-lead alloy
process. Valuable solvents would be lost if not for the addition of scrubbers
to the process vents along with product.
Emission Control Techniques
The furnace effluent is controlled by several types of particulate con-
trol devices. The most frequently used are baghouses and wet scrubbers. As
has been noted, baghouses are more efficient but have more operational and
maintenance problems than the wet scrubber systems. Current practice is to
use low efficiency control systems. Fugitives are generally prevented by
careful control of the reaction temperature in the autoclaves so that a
rupture will not occur, and by practicing good housekeeping procedures.
72
-------
Model Results
Figures 6-20, 6-21, and 6-22 show GDM modeling results for gasoline
additives typical plant emissions.
The GDM predicted lead ambient concentrations at the fenceline to be
reduced from 14 p,g/nr under existing emissions conditions for a typical
o
plant to less than 2.5 p,g/m for fenceline concentrations for the typical
plant regulated by state and performance standards. This indicates that en-
forcement of state particulate emission levels may be sufficient to reduce
o
lead emissions to a reasonable level, that is, below 5 p,g/m •
LEAD OXIDE PRODUCTION
Process Description
The majority of the lead oxide production (85% for 1975) is storage
battery oxides. In this case particles of finely divided lead and lead
monoxide are mixed with acid to form a paste and cast into a grid for use
in the battery.
The oxides of commercial importance include litharge (PbO), lead di-
oxide (Pb02) and red lead (Pb30^). Black oxide is the mixture of PbO and
finely divided lead used mainly in storage batteries.
Lead oxides for batteries are produced by tumbling pieces of lead in
a ball mill. Once initiated, the oxidation process is self-sustaining and
the rate can be controlled by the humidity of the large volumes of air used
in the process. The air flow picks up the oxide powder and a small amount
of lead particles. The product is collected by the use of settling chambers,
cyclones or centrifugal mills, and fabric filtration of the process air flow.
73
-------
1.0
Gasoline Addtives Production
Worsf Case Emissions Predicted by
COM Modeling on Typical Plant
Emissions in 1975
2.0 3.0 4.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
5.0
Figure 6-20. Model results for gasoline additives.
-------
25 r
z
o
I
LU
U
O
u
20
15
10
Gosoline Additives Production
Worst Case Emissions Predicted by
COM Modeling on Typical Plant
Emissions Governed by State Regulations
1.0
2.0 3.0 4.0
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
5.0
6.0
Figure 6-21. Model results for gasoline additives production,
-------
2.5
2.0
O)
O
i
1.5
u
§ '-°
(J
0.5
J L
Gasoline Additives Production
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
New Source Performance
Standards - 1975
_L
_L
J_
J_
J_
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
1.0
1.1
1.2
Figure 6-22. Model results for gasoline additives production.
-------
Figure 6-23 shows a process schematic for a ball mill process for the pro-
duction of PbO.
Another process commonly used to produce lead oxide is with a Barton
Pot* Figure 6-24 shows the schematic flow of the Barton Pot process. Molten
lead is subjected to an air stream which oxidizes the lead exothermically.
The oxide is entrained in the exit air stream and removed by the use of cyclones
and fabric filters.
The other forms of lead oxides are usually formed in reverberatory fur-
naces.
Emissions
The 1975 estimated emissions for particulates from process sources for
lead oxide production is 105 tons, of which 84 tons are lead. Emission control
is necessary for product recovery and therefore, control efficiency is high.
It is estimated that the lead oxide production control efficiency is as high
as 99.95%. No fugitive emissions are expected from this industry.
Emissions Control Techniques
Commonly employed product recovery systems include the use of settling
chambers, dry cyclones, and fabric filters. Sometimes for more efficient
product control a second fabric filter is added on in series. Recovery is
not as high (around 95%), as the particulate sizes are below 1 |j,m coming
from the first fabric filter. Actually, pollution control is a by-product
of product recovery in this case.
77
-------
OO
PbO& Pb
Figure 6-23. Schematic of the Ball Mill Process for lead oxide manufacture.
-------
Molten Lead
Air
I
Barton Pots
Classifying
Mill
Oxide Formation
Cyclone
Fabric
Filter
Handling and Storage
Ventilation
Oxide Storage
Fabric
Filter
J
ATM
1
\
1
Y Cyclone
Fabric
Filter
M
ATM
Wet
Type
Dust
Collector
ATM.
Wet
Type
Dust
Collector
Figure 6-24. Schematic of the Barton Pot Process for lead oxide manufacture.
-------
Model Results
Figure 6-25 shows the results of CDM predictions for ambient levels
of lead within the vicinity of a typical lead oxide production facility.
The fenceline concentration is 2.6 |j,g/nP for emission rates estimated for
a typical plant adhering to state regulations for particulates. The other
two cases, typical plant at present conditions and under potential performance
standards, have predicted fenceline lead concentrations below 0.5 (j,g/m.
Therefore present control levels are sufficient to meet the Subtask 5 re-
3
quirement of being at or below 1, 2, or 5 (ig/m .
LEAD PIGMENT PRODUCTION
Process Description
Pigments and colors are a minor part of the lead consumption industries,
accounting for 79,072 tons of lead consumed in 1975. The production of lead
pigments encompasses a variety of pigments. Operations conmon to the production
of the various pigments include grinding, pulverizing, bagging, and material
handling.
Pigments of importance include: (a) red lead (Pb^0,)j (b) white lead
((2PBC03) - Pb(OH)2)> (c) lead chromates (such as PbCrO^ and PbO PbCrO^);
and (d) leaded zinc oxides (PbZnO). Other less important lead-based pigments
include molybdenum orange, lead antimonite, oxychloride of lead, blue basic
lead sulfate, dibasic lead phosphate, and lead metal flakes.
80
-------
00
CO
\
CO
Z
O
(J
Z
O
u
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Lead Oxide Production
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
0.5
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
1.0
Figure 6-25. Model results for lead oxide production.
-------
Red lead (Pb30A), the most commonly produced pigment, is used prin-
cipally in ferrous metal protective paints. The manufacture of red lead
begins by charging litharge (PbO) into a reverberatory furnace held constant
at 900 to 950°F. Oxidation occurs until a desired amount of lead monoxide
is converted to Pb304» The 85% grade red lead is made in about 24 hr under
these conditions. A typical red lead manufacturing plant will produce 30
tons of red lead per day.
The commercial varieties of white lead include basic carbonate white
lead, basic sulfate white lead, and basic lead silicate. Manufacture of basic
carbonate white lead is based on the reaction of litharge (PbO) with acetic
acid or acetate ions. The product of this reaction is then reacted with car-
bon dioxide to form lead carbonate (PbCOo). White leads other than carbonates
are made either by chemical or fuming processes. The chemical process is
like that described above except that other mineral dioxides are used in
place of carbon dioxide. The fuming process differs, however, in that the
product is collected in a baghouse rather than by wet slurry filtration.
Consequently, dryers are not needed for these products. Only about 3,400
tons of white lead were produced in 1975.
Chromate pigments are generally manufactured by precipitation or cal-
cination. A. commonly used process treats an aqueous slurry of lead monoxide
with chromic acid, resulting in the direct reaction of the two to form lead
chromate:
PbO + Cr03 ^ PbCr04
82
-------
Leaded zinc oxides are used almost entirely as white pigments for ex-
terior oil-base paints. Leaded zinc oxides are produced either by smelting
and cofuming combinations of zinc and lead sulfide ores or by mechanically
blending separately prepared fractions of zinc oxide and basic lead sulfate.
The first process involves heating the two materials to produce a fume, which
is cooled and collected in baghouses.
/
Emissions
The 1975 estimated particulate emissions for lead pigment manufactur-
ing is 60 tons of which 36 tons are lead. No fugitive emissions are suspectedt
Because product recovery dictates high levels of control in some pigment pro-
duction processed, emissions are low.
The reverberatory furnace used to produce red lead is a potential source
of emission but is controlled for product recovery. Lead chromate pigments
are produced by chemical reaction and thus would not be a source of emissions.
The reaction is wet. The pigments are filtered from solution and dried. Emis-
sion would be expected from the dryer gases but again product recovery would
dictate some type of control. Other areas within the process have potential
emissions such as the grinding and bugging operations. Hygiene air is usually
ventilated to a control device for product recovery.
Leaded zinc oxides are produced by smelting and cofuming with the prod-
uct collected by a fabric filter. Product recovery produces low emissions
83
-------
because of economics. Mechanical blending is also used to produce leaded
zinc oxides. Some type of control is necessary for product recovery. White
lead production has declined but like other pigment processes product re-
covery dictates control.
Emission Control Techniques
Wet scrubbers have been in use where the stack gas is low in product
content but some type of control device is needed to meet local regulations.
The use of fabric filters is quite common for product recovery and efficien-
cies up to 99.9% are not uncommon. Of course, pollution control is a by-product,
and the favorable economics of product recovery demand efficient product re-
covery. Much of the hygiene air normally vented directly to the atmosphere
is instead vented to a fabric filter again for product recovery.
Model Results
The GDM predicted ambient fenceline concentrations of lead below 0.5
|j,g/nr for all cases of the typical plant emissions for lead pigment manu-
facture. No graphs are presented. Therefore, present control methods are
sufficient to meet requirements of Subtask 5.
LEAD STORAGE BATTERY MANUFACTURING
Process Description
Figure 6-26 is a flow diagram for a typical storage battery manufac-
turing plant. Lead oxide manufacturing, depending on the size of the bat-
tery plant, may or may not be carried out. Purchased oxides are common
for small battery manufacturers.
84
-------
LEAD ALLOY
REFINED LEAD
DUST AND FUME
DROSS
• k^
I
OXIDE*
PRODUCTION
r
t
FUME
GRID CASTING
FUME
^"^ I DUST
I OXIDE i
rJT I 1
GRID CASTING
J
PASTE
PREPARATION
SULFATE
PASTE
1
GRID CASTING
PASTED GRIDS
I
DUST
BATTERY
ASSEMBLY
I
PLATE FORMING
FUME
TERMINAL
ASSEMBLY
J
I
I
DUST
BATTERY
ASSEMBLY
PLATE FORMING
T
I
FUME
TERMINAL
ASSEMBLY
J
\
WET CHARGE BATTERY
DRY CHARGE BATTERY
Oxides may be purchased by some manufacturers
Figure 6-26. Representative flow diagram for the production
of lead storage batteries•
85
-------
Casting techniques for battery grids change depending on the alloy used,
type of molds, and mold preparation before casting. Lead alloy ingots are
melted in a gas-fired lead pot at approximately 700°F. The furnace is often
equipped with a hood to vent the fumes to the atmosphere. Melting pots are
tapped, and molten lead flows directly to grid gasting machines. After the
grids are cast, they are ejected, trimmed, and stacked. Some facilities feed
the molding machines from a central pot furnace, from which the molten lead
is pumped.
Paste making, a batch-type process, takes place in a Muller, Day, or
dough-type mixer. From 600 to 3,000 Ib of lead oxide (a mixture of PbO and
Pb) is loaded into the mixer. Water, varying amounts of sulfuric acid, an
organic expander, and other constituents are added, depending on whether
the paste batch is for positive or negative plates. The mixture is blended
to form a stiff paste. Because of the exothermic conditions, mixers are
usually water-jacketed and air-cooled to prevent excessive temperature
buildup which causes the paste to become stiff and difficult to cast into
grids. A duct system vents the exhaust gases from the mixer and loading sta-
tion to a control device. Duration of the mixing cycle is dependent on the
type of mixer used, ranging from 15 min to an hour.
Pasting machines extrude the lead sulfate paste into the interstices
of the grid structure at rates exceeding 200 plates per min. (Grids are
called plates after the paste has been applied.) The freshly pasted plates
are transported by a horizontal chain through a temperature-controlled heated
tunnel about 20 ft long, where the surface water is evaporated. This allows
86
-------
the plates to be stacked without sticking together. Generally, no emission
control is provided or needed for grid pasting and plate drying operations.
The floor area around pasting operations must be kept clean of paste, how-
ever, since this is a potential source of fugitive dust. The plates are cured
for up to 72 hr. Following the curing stage, the plates are sent to the as-
sembly operations where they are stacked in an alternating positive and
negative block formation. Insulators are sandwiched between each plate to
insulate the oppositely charged plates. Materials such as wood, treated paper,
plastics, or rubber are used for insulation. Although machines have been
designed that can stack the plates and separators automatically, hand stacking
is not uncommon, even in some relatively large plants.
Leads (pronounced leeds) are welded to the tabs of each positive and
negative plate, fastening the assembly (element) together. This is called
the burning operation. An alternative to the welding or burning process is
the "cast-on-strap" process by which molten lead is poured around and between
the plate tabs, thus forming the connection. Then a positive and negative
terminal are welded to the element. The completed elements can be used in
either battery type, wet or dry.
In the wet battery line, elements are placed within cases made of durable
plastic or hard rubber. Covers equipped with openings and lead inserts are
aligned so the terminals project from the inserts. The covers to the cases
are then sealed, and the batteries are filled with dilute sulfuric acid and
made ready for formation.
For dry batteries the elements are formed prior to being placed in a
sealed case. The dry batteries are shipped without acid.
87
-------
Formation involves a chemical reaction whereby the inactive lead oxide-
sulfate paste is converted into an active electrode. An oxidation-reduction
reaction occurs in which the positive plates are oxidized from lead oxide
to lead peroxide and the negative plates are reduced from lead oxide to metal-
lic lead. By placing the unformed plates in a dilute sulfuric acid solution
and connecting the positive plates to the positive pole of a DC source and
the negative plates to the negative pole of the DC source, the reaction is
started.
All batteries are inspected during manufacturing. The various metal-
lic parts such as grids, posts, and connectors, if not satisfactory for pro-
duction use, are recycled. Depending upon the size of the operation, the
manufacturer may have a reclaiming furnace or the defects are sent to a secondary
lead smelter nearby.
Pot-type furnaces are generally used for reclaiming scrap lead at bat-
tery manufacturing plants. Defective lead parts are collected and stored
until a sufficient amount is available for charging a remelting furnace,
usually gas-fired. Because of the relatively low operating temperatures,
emission concentrations are low. Some plants feed scrap plates to a tumbling
operation to separate the lead paste from the grids. The separated paste
is then sent to the paste mixer, and the grids are remelted.
Emissions
The estimated particulate emissions for 1975 are 7,242 tons, of which
449 tons were lead. Fugitive emissions could not be quantified due to lack
of information, but it is suspected that they would be low. Emissions occur
at several points and are usually ducted to one or more control devices.
88
-------
These include the melting furnace for grid casting, paste mixing, lead burn-
ing and the recovery furnace. Also, in plants considered well controlled,
the lead oxide production area is included.
Emission Control Techniques
Source areas such as the grid casting furnace, paste mixers, plate
dryers, reclaiming furnaces, and parts casting operation are often controlled
by low to medium energy cyclones and/or scrubbers. Also fabric filters are
in use for these sources which provide a much higher degree of control.
Since grid casting furnaces, plate dryers, and casting machines are minor
sources of emissions, they usually are left uncontrolled. Lead oxide produc-
tion facilities are controlled by fabric filtration with efficiencies of
99% or greater. Mechanical collectors sometimes precede the fabric filter.
Again, the industry is concerned with product recovery, and pollution
control is a by-product. Whereever economics dictate profitable recovery,
a control device is usually installed.
Model Results
The GDM predicts ambient lead concentrations within the vicinity of
<5
a typical lead battery plant to be below 2.5 |j,g/m for all cases considered.
o
Figure 6-27 shows the fenceline value for lead at 2.4 iig/m for a typical
plant emitting at estimated present levels. Ambient levels for lead on the
typical plant emitting at levels within state regulations or performance
standards are below 0.5 (ig/nr at fenceline. No graphs for these are presented.
Requirements of Subtask 5 are being met.
89
-------
2.5
CO
\
O)
O
U
Z
O
o
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Lead Acid Battery Production
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions for 1975
- ||||||;|||||||^
[I'!°""!°!"!"!°!°!"!"!\"!"!"!'!'I*I*!'!'!'I'!\"I*!°!'''*'v!'!'!"!'!°
I
0.5
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 6-27. Model results for lead acid battery production.
1.0
-------
SOLDERED CAN MANUFACTURING
Process Description
Lead solder is used to join the cylindrical can body. A wiping opera-
tion follows which removes the excess solder. Other methods are used for
can welding, but they do not involve the use of lead.
The process of can welding starts with the metal piece being mechani-
cally formed. Then the can body is preheated at the seam and is passed di-
rectly over the solder bath where a grooved roller applies the solder. The
newly soldered can is heated again and passed through the wiping station
where excess solder is removed.
Emissions
The estimated particulate emissions for 1975 are 571 tons, with lead
accounting for 111 tons. The emission points are at the solder bath and the
wiping station. Emissions are low at the solder bath except during a short
period when flux is added, which usually occurs about every 8 hr.
The wiping station area emissions are mostly large flakes of solder.
Emission Control Techniques
Proper hooding and ventilation are important in this industry. Duct-
ing is usually to a cyclone. Larger particles are removed, and the fine
ones are exhausted to the atmosphere. Low energy wet scrubbers or fabric
filters can be readily adapted to control lead emissions, but application
is historically low because the industry has a low emission rate.
91
-------
Model Results
o
The CDM predicted fenceline lead ambient concentrations below 0.5 |j,g/m
for a typical can soldering plant's emissions under present conditions, state
regulations and performance standards. No graphs are presented. Results demon-
strate that fenceline lead concentrations under present control levels are
sufficient to meet requirements of Subtask 5.
CABLE COVERING OPERATIONS
Process Description
Lead cable covering operations produce two types of cable: (a) per-
manent lead sheathed cable, and (b) temporary lead-cured jacketed cable.
Lead coverings are applied to insulated multistrand cable by extrusion of
solid lead around the cable. Extrusion presses are continuous operation
machines. One type is stopped periodically to replenish its molten lead sup-
ply. Lead is consumed at a rate of 3,000 to 15,000 Ib/hr. Molten lead is
supplied from a lead melting kettle with a capacity sufficient to supply
a press for several hours without being replenished. Most melting kettles
are completely enclosed, and all emissions from the melting operation are
vented to the atmosphere. Lead is transferred to the extrusion press in a
closed system to avoid dross inclusions in the extruded lead sheath caused
by the molten lead coming in contact with air.
The melting kettles appear to be the only source of(emissions from the
permanent sheath lead extrusion process. The lead is kept molten even when
the extrusion presses are not operating. A survey conducted for the EPA
indicated that lead-melting kettles were enclosed and ducted to the atmosphere
92
-------
but that few operators had installed control devices to remove lead emissions
from the vented melting kettles.
Permanenet lead sheathed cable accounts for about 10% of the lead con-
sumed during cable covering production in the United States, and 90% of the
consumption of lead occurs during the production of lead cured jacketed
cables. Lead cured jacketed cable does not consume as large quantities of
lead as does the lead sheathed cable covering because the lead in the lead
cured jacketed cable is used as a catalyst in the vulcanization process
and the lead is recycled so that only a small fraction of it is consumed
(less than 0.5%).
The lead cured jacketed cable process uses lead only as a mechanical
catalyst in the vulcanizing treatment for the manufacture of rubber insulated
cable. The lead is then stripped from the cable and remelted. Again this
process appears to have as its only lead emission source the melting kettles.
Figures 6-28 and 6-29 show the schematic layout of the two processes for
lead cable covering plants.
Emissions
Particulate emissions from cable covering operations for 1975 are esti-
mated at 99 tons, with lead accounting for 15 tons. Emission points include
the melting kettles, extrusion presses, and floor pits. The cable covering
industry is typically not controlled.
Emission Control Techniques
Proper hooding and ventilation ducted to a low energy collector such
as a wet rotoclone or a fabric filter would provide collection efficiencies
of 75 to 85% and 99.9%, respectively.
93
-------
t
Vented
Emissions
Melting
Kettle
Molten
Lead
Extrusion
Press
Sheathed
Cable
Figure 6-28. Lead sheathed cable process schematic.
t
Vented
Emissions
Melting
Kettle
i
-»-
1 Cable with
1 1 Rubber Coating
Extrusion
Press
Lead Sheathed
Cable
Lead Sheath Recycled to Ke
/ Cable \
I Spool )
i 1 Cured
T 1 Cable
~L^ Lead Sheath
_f^^^ Cutter
jttle
Figure 6-29. Temporary lead cured cable process schematic.
94
-------
Model Results
The COM predicted fenceline ambient lead concentration for a typical
plant to be less than 3.0 p,g/m , and for a typical plant emitting at levels
to comply with state and federal regulations, the CDM predicted lead levels
o
below 0.5 |j,g/m at the fenceline. Figure 6-30 shows ambient lead levels for
a typical plant emitting at present levels. No graphs are presented for the
other two cases. Results demonstrate that present controls can keep fenceline
lead concentrations below 5 (j,g/nr.
TYPE METAL OPERATIONS
Process Description
Figure 6-31 shows a representative type metal operation. Type metal
is an alloy of lead with smaller amounts of antimony and tin. Lead type is
used primarily in the letterpress portion of the printing industry. There
are three types of typemaking processes; (a) linotype, (b) monotype, and
(c) stereotype. Linotype and monotype processes produce a mold, and the
stereotype process produces a plate for printing. All hot-metal typemaking
processes are closed-cycle.
The type is cast from the molten lead alloy and then remelted after
printing. A small portion of virgin metal is added periodically to the melt-
ing pot to adjust the metallurgy and to replace losses.
Emissions
Process particulate emissions for 1975 were estimated.at 666 tons, con-
taining 233 tons of lead. The melting pot is the major source of emissions.
95
-------
3.Or
0
Lead Cable Covering Operation
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
0.2
0.7
0.8
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 6-30. Model results for lead cable covering operations.
0.9
1.0
-------
MAKE-UP ALLOY
-PROSS
USED TYPEMETAL
CASTING
CAST METAL
TRIMMING
AND FINISHING
LEAD TYPE
PRINTING.(STEREOTYPE)
OR MOLD MAKING
(LINOTYPE & MONOTYPE)
•RECYCLED METAL
Figure 6-31. Schematic flow diagram of a type metal operation.
97
-------
When used plates and type are added to the melting pot, printing ink, paper
and other impurities burn off and generate emissions which contain some hydro-
carbons as well as lead. Another possible source is the type casting and
plate molding operations. Trimming and finishing operations involve large
particles which settle out on the floor around the trimming saws.
Emission Control Techniques
Low energy control equipment such as Rotoclones and wet scrubbers are
commonly used. Also fabric filters and electrostatic precipitators are being
used. In addition proper hooding and ventilation is necessary with the hygiene
air being vented to a control device.
Model Results
The GDM predicted ambient lead levels at the fenceline for a typical
plant to be below 1 |j,g/iir for all three cases. Figure 6-32 shows lead ambient
concentrations for a typical plant at present emission levels. No graphs
are presented for the others as they are below 0.5 n,g/nr at fenceline. Re- *
suits demonstrate that present control levels are sufficient to maintain
fenceline lead concentrations below 1
COMBUSTION OF FOSSIL FUELS (COAL AND OIL)
Process Description - Goal
Utility and industrial boilers account for nearly all of the coal com-
bustion in the United States. There is still some minor residential coal
buring, but it is suspected to be less than 1% of the total tonnage of coal
burned per year. The estimated coal consumption by category is utility
/: /-
boilers - 412 x 10 tons; industrial boilers - 54 x 10 tons; and commerical
and institutional - 4 x 10 tons.
98
-------
VO
10
CO
\
O)
Z
O
I
u
z
o
u
Type Metal Operations
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by CDM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
_L
0.3
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
Figure 6-32. Modeling results for type metal operations,
0.4
-------
Pulverized coal-fired units, stokers and cyclone-fired combustion sys-
tems are in use in the United States presently. Figure 6-33 shows a typical
pulverized utility boiler flow diagram, and Figure 6-34 shows the various
ways pulverized coal can be fired in a boiler successfully.
Cyclone-fired boilers are the least conmon and comprise less than 2%
of the total number of utility coal-firing systems. Coarse coal is fed into
a horizontal combustion chamber, into which part of the combustion air is
introduced tangentially, imparting a centrifugal motion to the coal.
Stoker systems are crushed coal burned on or above a grate. There are
numerous types of stokers including spreader, vibrating grate and travel-
ing grate stokers.
Pulverized coal-firing systems are the most common of the combustion
systems used for utility and large industrial boilers. The pulverized coal
is fed to the combustion chamber in an air suspension. A more finely divided
fly ash results from this method of combustion as well as a greater yield
of ash.
Emissions - Coal--
The estimated particulate emissions from coal combustion in 1975 are
5.41 x 10 tons, with a lead content of 1,880 tons. The emission source is
entirely the stack venting the combustion chamber. No emissions are suspected
from other points within the utility itself. There are some chances during
high winds for unprotected coal piles to contribute to the emissions via
fugitive dust. No reasonable estimates for occurrence rates were found in
the literature.
100
-------
To Atmosphere
1
Water In
Economizer
(Preheats
Water)
Steam Out to Turbine
Air
Preheater
t
Induced-
Draft Fan
Emission
Control
Device Forced -
Draft Fan
Furnace
Wall Tubes
o
— Primary Air
Coal-Air
Mixture
Coal
Pulverizer
Ash Hopper
Figure 6-33. Flow diagram for pulverized coal-fired utility boiler.
101
-------
Primary Air 1 r— Tertiary Air
and Coal | |
. Primary Air
\ and Coal
Secondary
Air ——
v
\^
Secondary
Air
Primary Air
and Coal
Z
x\
Secondary
Air
Fanrail Multiple Intertube
(a) Vertical Firing
Plan View of Furnace
(b) Tangential Firing
Primary Air
and Coal
Primary Air
and Coal
}
Multiple Intertube
I f
Secondary Air I
Secondary Air
Circular
(c) Horizontal Firing
Secondary Air
Primary Air
and Coal
Secondary Air
Cyclone
(d) Cyclone Firing (e) Opposed-Inclined Firing
Figure 6-34. Furnace configurations for pulverized coal firing,
102
-------
Several factors influence the emission of lead from coal combustion.
Lead is usually present in coal in trace amounts as PbS and is generally
emitted in the ash as PbO. The bottom ash also contains a portion of the
lead. The amount found in the battery ash and the amount emitted to the atmo-
sphere or to the control device depend upon the properties of the coal, the
operating conditions, and boiler configuration. The temperature at which
combustion occurs has some influence on the lead emission rate also.
Emission Control Techniques—
The electrostatic precipitator has been the most widely applied con-
trol device to coal-fired utility boilers. Some use is also made of mechani-
cal collectors, fabric filters, and wet scrubbers.
Efficiencies of 70 to 90% can be achieved with multiclones for particu-
lates. Lead-containing particles tend to be smaller, and thus, a reduced
efficiency is expected. Mechanical collectors such as the multiclone are
routinely used on stoker-fired coal units. In addition, multiclones are used
for precleaning the gas stream ahead of an electrostatic precipitator on
some of the pulverized coal-fired units.
Until the last few years, fabric filters were not used on large com-
bustion sources, but due to their success in other industries, fabric fil-
tration is presently being applied to coal-fired utility boilers. High ef-
ficiencies can be achieved with the use of the higher temperature resistant
bags made of fiberglass or teflon.
Electrostatic precipitators are widely used on the larger utility boilers
due to the reasonable success in application. The electrostatic precipitator*s
103
-------
performance is influenced by the entering flue gas temperature, moisture
content, sulfur dioxide concentration, particle resistivity, and particle
size distribution. Efficiencies on coal-fired utility boilers generally ex-
ceed 90% and may be as high as 99%.
High energy venture scrubbers have been used where sulfur dioxide re-
moval is required. They also provide for particulate control with efficiencies
of 99% or higher. The operating reliability is not as good as desired. Corro-
sion problems and maintenance requirements are high. Various attempts have
been made to reduce these problems, such as by using 316L stainless steel,
fiberglass-reinforced polyester, rubber-lined steel surfaces, and other
corrosion resistant materials.
Emission levels from venturi scrubbers depend on particle size, par-
ticle concentrations and other flue gas characteristics. To maintain adequate
pressure drops as the boiler load fluctuates, a variable throat design is
used.
Process Description - Oil
Oil combustion is more widely diversified than coal because of the large
number of residential and commercial applications. The major groups of oil
combustion sources are: (a) electric utility; (b) industrial; (c) commercial
and institutional; and (d) residential units. Larger utility and industrial
boilers typically burn residual and distillate fuel oils. The others burn
distillate oils of the Numbers 1 and 2 variety and kerosene. Residential
units burn almost exclusively Number 2 fuel oil or kerosene. Utility boilers
generally emit lower quantities of particulate matter per gallon of oil burned
than do the smaller industrial and commercial sized boilers using the same
type of fuel. 104
-------
Emission - Oil—-
The estimate for particulate emissions from oil-fired boilers for 1975
is 101,953 tons of which 83 tons is attributed to lead emissions. Lead is
a trace contaminant of oil at usually less than 1 ppm. Over 60% of the lead
content of the fuel oil is emitted to the atmosphere in the case of controlled
emissions and the rest appears in the bottom ash.
Emission Control Techniques-
Emission control is not practiced on oil-fired boilers since particu-
late regulations can be met by proper design, operation, and maintenance
of the burners and other equipment involved in the combustion process*
If necessary electrostatic precipitators or fabric filter systems could
be readily applied to larger oil-fired combustion sources to control particu-
lates with potential efficiencies of 99% or greater. Low lead containing
fuel burned in larger utility-type burners would be one way of minimizing
lead emission.
Model Results
The CDM predicted ambient lead levels at fenceline to be below 0.5 )j,g/nr
for all cases on a typical combustion process. No graphs are presented. Pres-
ent controls are sufficient to keep lead levels below 1 |j,g/nr at fenceline.
WASTE OIL COMBUSTION
Process Description
Strictly speaking waste oil is quite different from waste crankcase
oil in that waste crankcase oil is derived from automobile lubricants
usually picked up from service station holding tanks. The next section covers
waste crankcase oil combustion.
105
-------
Waste oil is usually derived from (a) metal-working lubricants from
industrial sources, (b) heavy hydrocarbon fuels, (c) animal and vegetable
oils and fats, and (d) industrial oil materials. Other than outright dis-
posal, which is another problem, there are two effective uses for waste oils.
Re-refiners prefer industrial waste oils over used crankcase oils from service
stations because of several factors. Industrial waste oil composition is
more stable than crankcase oils, which could contain crankcase drainings,
transmission fluid, gear lubricants, and hydraulic oils from the brake sys-
tems. Also, waste industrial oil does not contain the high percentage of
lead and other heavy metals that used crankcase oil contains. Besides re-
refining waste oil there has been increased interest in burning this oil
in industrial and utility boilers either entirely or as a blend with virgin
fuels. Other applications would be in direct firing of rotary cement kilns
or as a supplementary fuel in small boilers generating steam for space heat-
ing and processing.
Emissions
The estimated 1975 particulate emissions for waste oil combustion is
in combination with waste crankcase oil combustion because adequate data
for separating the two quantities were not found in the literature. The two
terms were used interchangeably. The emissions for both total 2,649 tons
of particulates. It is felt that no significant lead emissions would occur
from strictly waste oil combustion. Emission points would be at the stacks.
One problem noted in the literature is the inability to account for
most of the oil used by industry for lubricants. It is suspected that a
106
-------
significant portion of these potential waste oils are used in combustion
processes, but the level is difficult to determine.
Emission Control Techniques
The oil-fired industrial and utility boilers are not routinely controlled.
But application of controls is readily feasible to meet the possibly more
stringent regulations than those existing at present. Both ESP's and fabric
filters would be applicable.
Model Results
The CDM predicted ambient fenceline lead concentrations below 0.5 |u,g/rrp.
No graphs are presented. The results demonstrate that present emission levels
are sufficient to maintain lead fenceline concentrations below 1 |j,g/nr.
WASTE CRANKCASE OIL COMBUSTION
Process Description
Waste crankcase oils are generally collected from holding tanks at ser-
vice stations, fleet vehicles operations, and trucking concerns. Included
in the waste crankcase oils are crankcase oil, transmission fluids, differ-
ential gear lubricants, and hydraulic oils from steering and braking systems.
These fluids are generally all put into the holding tank. Re-refining of
these oils is one option for disposal of waste crankcase oils. Current ca-
pacity of re-refineries is approximately 100 x 10 gal. of waste oil per
year. This is only a small fraction of the waste oil generated each year.
Combustion of waste crankcase oil has received more interest as the
search for alternative energy surces progresses. Generally the waste crank-
case oil is blended untreated with virgin residual or distillate fuel oil
in amounts from 5 to 50%. Of concern is the lead concentration of waste
107
-------
crankcase oil. It can have as much as 600 Ib of lead per 10,000 gal. Several
problems occur when higher concentrations of waste crankcase oil are com-
busted. Burner fouling becomes a severe and repeated problem causing a shut-
down of the boiler system for maintenance over short periods of time, often
every 2 weeks. Another severe problem is the contribution of waste crankcase
oil combustion to a rapid buildup of scale and corrosion of the heat transfer
surfaces within the combustion chambers. General fouling of the pumping
and fuel system occurs repeatedly.
Emissions
The 1975 estimated particulate emissions are in conjunction with waste
oil combustion. The combustion of these two waste oils adds 2,449 tons of
particulates to the already high value for fossil fuel combustion. The lead
emissions were estimated at 927 tons attributed to waste crankcase oil com-
bustion only. As previously stated the oil fired combustion equipment pres-
ently in use seldom has particulate control devices.
Emission Control Techniques
Perhaps the most effective way to eliminate lead emissions from waste
crankcase oil combustion would be to pretreat to remove the lead. Alter-
natively would be to add particulate control devices such as a fabric fil-
ter or electrostatic precipitators. Where S02 regulations must be met, the
use of high energy venturi scrubbers would also be effective in removing
particulate lead emissions.
108
-------
Model Results
The GDM predicted ambient fenceline level concentrations to below 0.5
(j,g/nr for all three typical combustion processes emission cases. No graphs
are presented. Results demonstrate that present emission levels are suf-
ficiently low to maintain lead fenceline concentrations below 1 (j,g/nr.
METALLIC LEAD PRODUCTS
Process Description
Metallic lead products can be typified by the melting or melting and
alloying and casting of lead into a product such as ammunition, lead shot,
lead bearings, weights and ballasts, caulking lead, plumbing supplies, lead
foils, collapsible tubes, and sheet lead. These operations can be of the
one man type or part of a larger industry that consumes large amounts of
lead.
Emissions
Most of the operations included as metallic lead products would be un-
controlled. The 1975 estimated emissions for particulates are 503 tons, of
which 176 tons are lead. The melting process would be the major contribution
to the emissions, with processes such as trimming and sawing in addition.
Emission Control Techniques
Low energy devices such as cyclones or rotoclones are used in limited
cases for the control of emissions. Basically the industry is uncontrolled
due to the low emissions potential. A fabric filter system could be readily
utilized by the industry for effective emissions control.
109
-------
Model Results
The COM predicted a fenceline lead ambient concentration of approxi-
mately 0.9 (o,g/mr for a typical metallic lead operation emitting at current
estimated levels (Figure 6-35). Ambient levels governed by state reegula-
tions are shown in Figure 6-36. Ambient fenceline lead concentration for
a typical plant emitting at a rate governed by performance standards is
O
predicted to be below 0.5 [j,g/m • No graph for this is presented. Results
demonstrate that present emission levels are sufficiently low to maintain
lead fenceline levels below 1 y,g/nr.
110
-------
.9
CO
E
V
0)
u
z
o
u
.8
.7
.4
Metallic Lead Products
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions for 1975
.3
0.3
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
0.4
Figure 6-35. Model results for metallic lead products,
-------
CO
o
1
U
Z
O
u
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Metallic Lead Products
Worst Case Emissions Predicted
by COM Modeling on Typical
Plant Emissions Governed by
State Regulations - 1975
_L
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
DOWNWIND DISTANCE (km)
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
Figure 6-36. Model results for metallic lead products.
-------
CHAPTER 7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The Clean Air Act of 1970 as amended describes the criteria available
to EPA for recommending a preferred standards path. The factors are: (a)
presence and magnitude of health and/or welfare effects of a pollutant; (b)
nature and distribution of pollutant sources; and (c) supporting data (im-
plied).
The basic standard setting options related to lead stationary sources
considered are: (a) no federal regulations; (b) National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standards (NAAQS - Sections 108-110); (c) Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources (NSPS - Section 111); (d) National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP - Section 112); and (e) total ban. A
brief description of each of these options follows.
NO FEDERAL ACTION
The choice of this option can be based either on the lack of demon-
strated control technology, or on the belief that existing federal, state,
or local controls are adequate and effective. In the case of the lead in-
dustries studied, many are controlled at an adequate level.
113
-------
NAAQS
The Act requires the promulgations of primary "ambient air quality stan-
dards the attainment and maintenance of which in the judgment of the adminis-
trator, . . . allowing an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to protect
the public health" [Section 109(b)(l)]. Similarly, secondary NAAQS are re-
quired to "protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects" [Section 109(b)(2)]. Ambient air quality standards are based upon
criteria which delineate "all identifiable effects on public health or wel-
fare" from a pollutant whose "presence ... in the ambient air results from
numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources" [section 108(a)]. The Act
further requires each state to "adopt and submit to the Administrator . . .
a plan which provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
such . . . standard in each air quality control region . . . within such
State" [Section 110(a)(l)].
In light of a recent court decision instructing EPA to list lead un-
der Section 108 of the Clean Air Act, this would be the only alternative
available to EPA.
In controlling pollutants under the ambient option the effect of
existing ambient concentrations on health and welfare must first be ana-
lyzed. Such data must be published in a criteria document simultaneously
with a proposed national standard for a specific ambient concentration
which can be supported. Then the states are left to establish the relation-
ship between ambient concentrations and emission levels from sources. This
relationship is affected by such factors as terrain, number of sources, and
114
-------
effect of buildup or persistence of the candidate pollutant in the environ-
ment. States are responsible for prescribing and enforcing emission standards,
procedures for control of number or location of sources, etc. However, the
Administrator must issue control techniques information simultaneously with
criteria documents [Section 108(b)(l)].
NSPS
The Act specifies that the administrator include a category of sources
on a proposed list for standards of performance "if he determines it may
contribute significantly to air pollution which causes or contributes to
the endangerment of public health and welfare" [Section lll(b)(l)(A)]. Fur-
ther, within 120 days "the Administrator shall propose regulations, estab-
lishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within such cate-
gory" and ". . . promulgate within 90 days" [Section lll(b)(l)(B)].
The Act further requires the administrator to "prescribe regula-
tions . . . under which each state shall submit ... a plan which (A)
establishes emission standards for any existing source for any air pollut-
ant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not
included on a list published under Section 108(a) or 112(b)(l)(A) but (ii)
to which a standard of performance under subsection (b) would apply if such
existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation
and enforcement of such emission standards" [Section lll(d)(l)].
NSPS are particularly effective when a limited number of source cat-
egories or a limited number of predominant categories exist. If Section 111
is used, the effect of atmospheric emissions of the candidate pollutant on
115
-------
health and welfare must be analyzed first. However, the Act does not re-
quire calculating a relationship between ambient concentrations and emis-
sions since the standard will reflect the best demonstrated system of emis-
sion reduction for the affected new source (taking cost into account). For
unmodified existing sources, states must enact emission standards using
available practical approaches, subject to EPA review and approval [Section
lll(d)].
NESHAP
Under the Act the administrator is allowed to use his judgment to de-
termine whether a pollutant is hazardous, i.e., "may cause, or contribute
to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or in-
capacitating reversible, illness" [section 112(a)(l)]. Within 180 days af-
ter publishing a list of suspected hazardous pollutants the administrator
must publish proposed regulations setting emission standards together with
a notice of public hearings. "Not later than 180 days after such publica-
tion, the Administrator shall prescribe an emission standard for such pol-
lutant, unless he finds, on the basis of information presented at such
hearings, that such pollutant clearly is not a hazardous air pollutant,
[then] the Administrator shall establish any such standard at the level
which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air pollutant" [section 112(b)(l)(B)].
TOTAL BAN
If health data warranted, a total ban on emissions could be achieved
directly under the NESHAP option, indirectly under the ambient standard
116
-------
option through stringent ambient level requirements, and directly under
the NSPS option if an adequately demonstrated system exists to achieve zero
emissions (considering cost).
Based on the results of the modeling study on lead emitting sources
listed in Table 1-3, p. , Table 7-1 was prepared to provide a matrix of
possible options under the previously discussed alternatives. More than one
option is available depending upon level of control desired. Also, a com-
bination of options can be used in some cases.
Table 7-1 shows that for 11 of the 17 industries, no action is required
to continue with low level ambient concentrations in the vicinity of a typi-
cal plant as predicted by the CDM. An ambient air quality standard will have
an effect on six of the industries. NSPS is a possible option for five of
the sources. Further study and review are indicated for three of the sources
to assess environmental lead levels more completely.
117
-------
Table 7-1. POSSIBLE CONTROL OPTIONS FOR LEAD ON LISTED INDUSTRIES BASED ON
RESULTS OF MODEL STUDY FOR FENCELINE CONCENTRATIONS!/
No federal Total More
action NAAQS NSPS NESHAP ban review
Primary lead smelting X
Secondary lead smelting X
Mining and milling of lead X
ore
Primary copper smelter X
Gray iron foundries
Ferroalloy production
Alkyl lead production
Lead oxide manufacturing
Lead pigment manufacturing
Lead acid batteries
manufacturing
Metal can soldering X
Lead cable covering X X
Type metal operations X
Combustion of fossil fuels . X
Waste oil combustion X
Waste crankcase combustion X
Metallic lead products
a./ X in column indicates possible option.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
118
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards Engineering
Division, "Preferred Standard Path Analysis on Lead Emissions from Sta-
tionary Sources," Draft Edition, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
September 1974.
2. Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman, User's Guide for the Climatological
Dispersion Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No.
EPA-R4-73-024.
3. Wright, J. A., "Lead and Zinc Outlook 1976-1980," NARI - 63rd Annual
Convention, San Francisco, California, March 22, 1976.
4. PEDCo - Environmental Specialists, Inc., "Control Techniques for Lead
Air Emissions," Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, ESED, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1976.
5. Duncan, L. J., "Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules
and Regulations," Contract No. 68-02-0248, Prepared by: The Mitre Cor-
poration, Washington, D.C. For: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July
1972.
6. Strategies and Air Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "State Implementation Plan Emission Regulations for Particulate
Matter: Fuel Combustion," Contract No. EPA-450/2-76-010, SASD, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
August 1976.
7. Busse, A. D., and J. R. Zimmerman, User's Guide for the Climatological
Dispersion Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication No.
EPA-R4-73-024.
119
-------
APPENDIX A
EMISSION CALCULATION WORKSHEETS
120
-------
Following are 17 sets of worksheets of calculations with assumptions and
references for the emission estimates and model plant parameters used in the
body of the report. To arrive at these estimates, some recurring assumptions
were made and are generalized as follows for all the calculations herein:
* Base year for calculations is 1975.
* Averages when necessary are used for production rates.
* Lead is controlled by particulate collectors with the same efficiency
as particulates.
* State regulations affecting at least 857o of industry by state location
are considered where possible.
* If no specific regulations exist for the individual states or if pro-
duction data are not available by state, then the average process
weight rate curve from Ref. 03 is used.
* Process regulations are enforced and existing industry is meeting
these emission levels.
* New Source Performance Standards emissions levels are assumed at the
best available control technology level when a standard does not exist
for the process.
* Model plant parameters are derived from averages, experience with the
literature, personal communications, personal experience with the in-
dustry and/or engineering approximations and estimates.
* 250 Meters universal fenceline distance from plant buildings.
* By controlling particulates, defacto control of lead is achieved.
121
-------
A-l Primary Lead Smelters
(Ref. 02, pp. 6-107) Estimated capacity - 6 U.S. lead smelters—765,000 tons
lead
Mineral industry surveys - Lead in 1975 by the Bureau of Mines
* 641,584 tons produced
(Ref. 01, p. 4-1)
Lead smelter locations and capacities
1. ASARCO - Texas, 90,000 tons Pb/year
2. ASARCO - Montana, 90,000 tons Pb/year
3. ASARCO - Missouri, 90,000 tons Pb/year
4. Moloc - Missouri, 140,000 tons Pb/year
5. St. Joe - Missouri, 225,000 tons Pb/year
6. Bunker Hill - Idaho, 130,000 tons Pb/year
State capacity - tons/year Frequency
Idaho
Montana
Texas
Missouri
130,000
90,000
90,000
455,000
0.170
0.118
0.118
0.594
765,000 1.000
Average - 6 plants at 765,000 tons/year total capacity
765,000/6 = 127,500 tons/year/365
= 349 tons/day/24
= 14.5 tons/hr
Particulate Emissions Estimate
(Ref. 02, pp. 5-30, Table 5.4)
Total particulate emissions for 6 smelters - 3.52 tons part./day during
which 1,757 tons Pb/day produced
122
-------
Idaho Mines
Mine Production of Recoverable Lead
in Metric Tons/Year for 1975
to
LO
Star Unit
Bunker Hill
Dayrock
Silver Star
'3453) Other States
Idarado
Leadville
Sunnyside
Camp Bird
Eagle
Qj Smelting Locations
1. El Paso, Texas AS & R
East Helena, Montana AS & R
Glover, Missouri AS &R
Buick, Missouri AMAX
Herculaneum, Missouri St. Joe Minerals
Kellogg, Idaho, Bunker Hill
Buick
Fletcher
Magmont
Ozark
Viburnum No. 27,28 & 29
Indian Creek No. 23 & 32
Brushy Creek
Figure A-l. Lead smelters, mines, and recoverable lead production.
-------
3.52 tons part. 2.000 Ib
day ton
1,757 tons Pb prod.
day
4.0 Ib part.
ton Pb prod.
Above emission rate reflects present controls.
(Ref. AP42, Section 7.6-1)
Primary lead smelter uncontrolled emission rate of:
488 Ib part.
ton Pb prod.
Thus,
4.0 Ib part
ton Pb prod
- represents 99% control — " x 100
. ' L ^°° -I
(Ref. 13, p. 5) states process emissions show average lead content of 30%.
Several references show process emissions to contain lead at 15 to 65%.
For calculations here 35% will be used as the average lead content of
process emissions.
1975 Part. Emissions - Process
4.1 Ib part. ... _0/ _, , 1 ton part.
——K—— x 641,584 tons Pb prod, x £ —
ton Pb prod. 2,000 Ib part.
1,283 tons part, x
0.35 tons Pb _
tons part.
Fugitive Emissions
(Ref. 11, MRI source test)
P. 33 data reduced to pounds per hour by dividing by 24
Glover, Mo.
*
1. Sinter building
2. Blast furnace
3. Ore storage
10.47
4.54
1,283 tons part.
449
tons
Pb
Part.
Ib/hr
5.07
5.13
0.34
Lead
Ib/hr
1.76
2.62
0.16
"43% Pb
124
-------
(Ref. 11, p. 33, data reduced to pounds per hour)
East Helena, Montana
1. Sinter building
2. Dross reverberatory
building
3. Blast furnace
4. Zinc fuming facility
5. Zinc furnace
2.7
12.5
1.46
0.58
1.40
18.64
0.26
2.78
0.16
0.06
0.13
3.39
18% Pb
(Ref. 12, Chapter 3)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Bunker Hill
Sinter transfer opera-
tion
Ore concentrate build-
ing
Ore preparation build-
ing
Sinter product line
Sinter product dump oven
Sinter feed to blast
furnace
Inlet to blast furnace
Blast furnace roof vents
Lead refinery roof vents
Lead casting roof vents
Part.
Ib/hr
490
25
34
11
0.54
23
0.28
1.9
6.7
13
Lead
Ib/hr
93
9.2
10.7
6.4
0.17
8.9
0.09
0.9
2.5
5.0
605.4
136.86
"23% Pb
Average lead content of fugitives = 28% -»
will use 30%
125
-------
(Ref. 12, Chapter 3)
Fugitive test results: hand-held high volume sampler
1. Sinter belt and rotoclone discharge
a. Suspended part. - 0.82 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 0.29 Ib/hr
2. Conveyor belt dump from ore blending building
a. Suspended part. - 350 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 50 Ib/hr
3. 108-Ft conveyor belt on roof of ore preparation building
a. Suspended part. - 6.3 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 3.2 Ib/hr
4. Sinter dump at end of blending building
a. Suspended part. - 135 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 39 Ib/hr
5. Exhaust from ore concentrate building - 2-60 in. fans vent building
at a rate of 8,240 ft/min
a. Suspended part. - 25 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 9.2 Ib/hr
6. Exhaust from ore preparation building - 2-60 in. fans vent build-
ing at a rate of 1,005 ft/min - west side fan
1,086 ft/min - east side fan
a. West side suspended part. - 14 Ib/hr
West side lead - 5.2 Ib/hr
b. East side suspended part. - 20 Ib/hr
East side lead - 5.5 Ib/hr
7. Sinter product line from sizer to storage area
a. Suspended part. - 11 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 6.4 Ib/hr
8. Outdoor sinter product dump area - piles ss 25 ft diameter
a. Suspended part. - 0.54 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 0.17 Ib/hr
9. Sinter tunnel feed to blast furnace
a. Suspended part. - 23 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 8.9 Ib/hr
Sinter
transfer
operation
126
-------
10. Inlet to blast furnace
a. Suspended part. - 0.28 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 0.09 Ib/hr
11. Blast furnace - upset conditions (5 times/day for 3-15 min)
a. Suspended part. - 220 Ib/hr - 120 min/day upsets
b. Lead - 7.1 Ib/hr - 30 min/day upsets
12. Blast furnace roof vents - 66-in. diameter (one vent)
aa velocity of 2,440 ft/min
a. Suspended part. - 1.9 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 0.9 Ib/hr
13. Lead refinery roof vents - 4-66 in. diameter vents
3 at 2,590 ft/min avg
1 at 4,300 ft/min
a. Suspended part. - 6.7 Ib/hr avg for four vents
b. Lead - 2.5 Ib/hr
14. Lead casting roof ducts - 4-66 in. diameter vents - avg velocity
of 2,500 ft/min
a. Suspended part. - 13 Ib/hr
b. Lead - 5 Ib/hr
Fugitive measurements add up to approximately 600 Ib part./hr
Process rate during measurements - 350 tons Pb/day
600 Ib part. 24 hr 1 day
r jc ——^•~— x
hr day 350 tons Pb produced
41 Ib part, fugitives
tons Pb produced
This rate probably represents a worst case for the 6 smelters in the
United States.
0.3 Ib Pb fugitive 41 Ib part, fugitive _
x
Ib part, fugitive tons Pb produced
9.3 Ib Pb fugitive
tons Pb produced
41 Ib part, fugitive ... ,0/ _, , , 1 ton part, fugitive
K— f—-— x 641,584 tons Pb produced x . -nn ' °—r~:
tons Pb produced F 2,000 Ib part, fugitive
13,152 tons part, fugitive
127
-------
9.3 Ib Pb fugitive 1 ton Pb fugitive
— " — x 641,584 tons Pb produced x . .-. .. „, Q—r~T
tons Pb produced 9_noo in PK fnoihn
2,000 Ib Pb fugitive
2,983 tons Pb fugitive
1975 Emission Summary
Process part. - 1,283 tons
Process lead - 449 tons
Fugitive part. - 13,152 tons
Fugitives lead - 2,983 tons
SIP Regulations - Emission Rates
Average process weight rate —
349 tons lead 1 day 2 tons ore
^— ^— — — — — — — — 2£ ' j£ ^^^^-^^^——
day 24 hr 1 ton Pb
2,000 Ib ore 58,167 Ib ore
r — 1
ton ore hr
(Ref. 08, Table III) Procedure following is for weighted state regulatory
rate:
Allowable
emissions
Frequency from
first page
Missouri - 39.1 Ib/hr
Idaho - 39.1 Ib/hr
Montana - 39.1 Ib/hr
Texas - 66.6 Ib/hr
14.54 tons/hr = 2.69 Ib/ton x 0.594
14.54 tons/hr = 2.69 Ib/ton x 0.174
14.54 tons/hr = 2.69 Ib/ton x 0.118
14.54 tons/hr = 4.58 Ib/ton x 0.118
Total
Assuming lead content same as before = 357o
= 1.60
= 0.46
= 0.32
= 0.54
2.94 Ib part./
ton Pb produced
2.94 Ib part.
tons Pb produced
0.35 Ib Pb
x —— —
Ib part.
1.03 Ib Pb/ton Pb produced
NSPS - emission rates
(Ref. 01, p. 1.1-2) NSPS - part, for primary lead smelters is 0.022 g/dscf
An average SCF/ton/day will be generated from data presented in Ref. 02,
Table 5.4.
128
-------
(Ref. 02, Table 5.4)
Bunker Hill
Moloc
St. Joe
ASARCO, Missouri
ASARCO, Texas
Production
during test
350 T/D
380 T/D
550 T/D
222 T/D
150 T/D
1,400
Total flow
rate (SCFM)
346,500
242,250
356,000
355,700
460,000
SCFM/ (T/D)
SCFM/T/D
-r 5 = 1,400
The model plant will be based on 300 tons Pb/day production.
300 tons Pb
Thus:
1,400 SCFM^
'
tons/day
Emission rate:
day
, „ nnn
420,000 SCFM
0.022 gr 420.000 SCF
—_—_Q_ x 1—.
dscf mm
1 Ib 60 min 24 hr 1 day
7,000 gr hr day 300 tons Pb produced
6.34 Ib part.
tons Pb produced
'Note: rate is higher than'
state regulations
average
Assuming Pb content is same as before:
6.34 Ib part. 0.35 Ib Pb
x
tons Pb produced
Ib part.
2.22 Ib Pb
tons Pb produced
State Regulations' Effect on Fugitive Emissions
Note: For the states in which the 6 primary lead smelters are located, fugi-
tives are essentially not permitted. They call for reasonable efforts
to prevent fugitives. Thus, it will be assumed that fugitives would
be emitted at the same level as process emissions regulated by the
states. Reasonable efforts to prevent airborne dusts could be con-
strued as control at the best available levels. For the purposes of
this estimate, it will be assumed that the fugitives would be controlled
to the same level as the process emissions.
129
-------
NSPS Effect on Fugitives
Performance standards reflect best control considering cost. Therefore,
it will be assumed that fugitives will be controlled at the same level as pro-
cess emissions.
Model Plant Parameters
Note: Process parameters selected from generalized averages taken from Refs.
01, 02, 11, 12, and 13 to reflect a typical lead smelter producing
300 tons/day of lead.
130
-------
MODEL PIANT Primary Lead Smelter
Production rate 300 tons Pb produced per day
Special conditions:
one updraft sintering machine
one 275 ton/day acid plant - A stack
one blast furnace - B stack
Bldg dimensions 100 x 100 x 21.3 m
Stack parameters: A
Height 15.2 m
Dia. 1.5 m
Temp. 66 C
Vel. 7.8 m/sec
B
76.2 m
4.6 m
93° C
13.5' m/sec
Fugitives
composite
from bldg.
and storag*
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
0.4 g/sec
0.2 g/sec
0.5 g/sec
1.8 g/sec
1.4 g/sec
3.0 g/sec
14.7 g/sec
1.61 g/sec
3.5 g/sec
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
131
-------
A-2 Secondary Lead Smelters
Assorted information from the listed references is presented first to be
used later in the calculations and the model plant parameters.
(Ref. 23, p. 37)
1. Average stack height for 2° Pb smelter - 150 ft*
2. Average smelter dust estimated to be 63% Pb*
3. Dust can be up to 2% of Pb product
4. Controlled by BH or HE scrubbers
5. Typical blast (cupola) - 50 tons/day - 15,000 dscf
6. NSPS of 0.022 gr/dscf on a blast furnace corresponds to 2.6 Ib part./
hr for a 50 ton/day plant.
7. NSPS of 10% opacity on pot furnaces
(Ref. 23, p. 40) Emissions from a well-controlled plant
1. Blast furnace + BH (avg) - 0.003 gr/dscf
2. Blast furnace + BH + Venturi scrubber (avg) - 0.009 gr/dscf
3. Blast furnace + Venturi scrubber (avg) - 0.015 gr/dscf
4. Reverberatory furnaces + BH (avg) - 0.004 gr/dscf
(Ref. 23, p. 41)
1971 - 23 firms operating 45 2° Pb smelters in the United States
4 largest companies account for 72% of output, growth at 3.2%/year--
not true for 1975
(Ref. 01, Volume II)
Summary of 5 Secondary Lead Smelter Source Tests
Source
1. BF (45 tons/day)
2. Reverberatory
3. 2 BF, reverberatory
refinery kettles
4. Reverberatory furnace
5. BF (77 tons/day)
6. BF
7. Slag tap for 2 BF
5 refinery kettles
Slag top and refinery
kettles
Lb/ton
Control Location produced
Lead Ib/ton
produced °L Lead
Scrubber
BH
BH
Scrubber
BH
BH
BH
BH
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet
Outlet
Inlet
Inlet
Outlet
1.785
1.071
2.9442
0.8252
3.1583
308.4
2.82
2.04 Ib/hr
9.53 Ib/hr
1.84 Ib/hr
0.085
0.0298
0.0096
0.0369
0.0244
50.4
0.0336
1.05 Ib/hr
1.08 Ib/hr
0.26 Ib/hr
4.8
2.9
0.3
4.5
0.8
16.3
1.2
51.5
11.3
14.1
132
-------
(Ref. 24, p. 65) Lists 56 plant locations for 2° Pb smelters.
641,596 tons produced, 1975
(Ref. 9, p. 406) Breaks down scrap fed to various furnaces.
Pot 53,000 7%
Blast 119,000 16%
Reverberatory 554,000 77%
726,000 tons
scrap
(Ref. 25, p. 300) From material balance - 47% yield
from furnace
Therefore 0.47 Ib Pb produced
1 Ib scrap charged
(for reverberatory furnace)
(Ref. 25, p. 300) For blast furnace
0.71 Ib Pb produced
1 Ib scrap charged
(Ref. 05) 29 Plants produce approximately 90% of 2° Pb
With 0.716 Pb emitted (controlled plants)
tons Pb produced
Information based on questionnaire (1970 data)
Emissions for the three types of furnaces used:
1. Blast
2. Reverberatory
3. Pot
are different enough to be considered separately.
A synthetic breakdown will be generalized for producing emissions from
each furnace.
(Ref. 09, Volume III)
Pot 53,000 tons scrap x 0.59 = 31,270 8.3%
Blast 129,000 tons scrap x °'7 tons pb = 83,300 22.2%
tons scrap
Reverberatory 554,000 tons scrap x °'47 tons pb = 260,380 69.4%
tons scrap
374,950
133
-------
Need conversion rate for pot furnace - take average of other two, since
pot represents only 770, this figure is as good as any.
= 0.59
(Ref. 23, p. 39) 50 tons/day at 15,000 dscfm — NSPS — 2.6 Ib/hr (part.)
6,900 Ib/hr at 15,000 dscfm — NSPS — 7.7 Ib/hr (part.)
New furnaces - 20 to 80 tons/ day output at 10,000 to 40,000 dscfm
(Ref. 23, p. 42) Level of control for industry was 90% in 1967.
Model plant used for control cost
Blast furnace - 50 tons/day - 4,000 Ib/hr — 12,500 tons/year
Reverberatory furnace - 50 tons/day - 4,000 Ib/hr — 12,500 tons/year
(Ref. 06, pp. 4-99) Uncontrolled emission rates
(PEDCo Report)
BF, Eu = 240 Ib part. /ton Pb reclaimed) These values come
> from an EPA document
RF, Eu = 225 Ib part. /ton Pb reclaimed) by George Crane
Pot 8.3% x 641,596 = 53,252 tons produced
Blast 22.2% x 641,596 = 142,434 tons produced
Reverberatory 69.4% x 641,596 = 445,268 tons produced
1975 Particulate Emissions; Assuming 95% control overall based on 90% control
in 1967
Reverberatory - — — P . ' x 445,268 tons Pb produced x 0.05 x
' tons Pb produced r 2,000 Ib
2,505 tons part.
1"n
Blast Du > A * 1*2,434 tons Pb produced x 0.05 x
^
Du A , . ,n..
tons Pb produced ^ 2,000 Ib
855 tons part.
Pot (Ref. 09, Volume III, p. 406) Eu =
1 Luu JLIJU
1.36
0.59 tons Pb produced
Ib part.
tons Pb produced
134
-------
1.36 Ib part. __ ___ , n n, 1 ton
— ,; x 53,252 tons produced x 0.05 x „ nnn ,,
tons Pb produced F 2,000 Ib
2 tons part.
Total part. = 3,362
1975 Particulate emissions summary
Reverberatory furnaces - 2,505 tons part.
Blast - 855 tons part.
Pot - 2 tons part.
Lead emissions have been listed in the literature at several different
percentages of the particulates.
(Ref. 05) : (controlled rate)
tons lead produced
(Ref. 06) Part, emissions are 23% Pb.
(Ref. 23) Part, emissions are 63% Pb.
(Ref. 01, Volume II) Summary tables of 5 source tests on controlled 2nd Pb.
Assuming lead controlled with some efficiency as particulates.
Blast furnaces 0.085 Ib Pb/ton produced
0.0096 Ib Pb/ton produced
0.0244 Ib Pb/ton produced
Avg — 0.04 Ib Pb/ton produced (controlled)
0.04 • y = 0.01 — y = 4 lb **b—- (uncontrolled)
tons produced
Reverberatory furnaces 0.0298 lb Pb/ton produced
O.Q369 lb Pb/ton produced
Avg = 0.033 lb Pb/ton produced
3.3 lb Pb
0.033 • y = 0.01 y =
tons produced
135
-------
BF - Lead Emission
0.05 x 4 Ib Pb/ton produced x 142,434 tons produced
t represents 99% control
Reverberatory Furnace - Lead Emissions
3.3 Ib Pb
0.05
tons produced
445 268 tons produced x
c
14.2 tons Pb repre-
sents emissions from
95% of BFs that are
controlled
= 36.7 tons Pb
2,000 Ib
Pot - Lead Emissions - take average of: * — 1.5%
2.,
/Find % lead of \
\part. emissions/
and
14.2
855
1.6% Pb
= 1.7%
1.6% x 2 tons part. = 0.032 tons Pb
Total Process Pb Emissions
14.2
36.7
0.032
50.932 =
51 tons Pb emitted
For 1975 using same percentages as reported for scrap usage:
Pot 7%
Blast 16% (Ref. 24, p. 65 - lists 56 2° Pb smelters)
Reverbera- 77%
tory
To find typical hourly rate in 1975:
53,252 tons Pb 1 ton scrap
_ _ _ year 0.59 tons Pb _ . 2,000 Ib _
Pot - l , „ _,n ,—— = 2.6284 tons/hr x —*-
,760 hr \ ton
(56 x 0.07) x (8,760hr)
\ vear /
year
, i cnn/ / -i - 31.5 tons/day
11,500/year/plant = : L
J r plant
5,257 Ib/hr
142,434 tons Pb 1 ton scrap
„, fc _ year 0.7 tons Pb 2,000 Ib
Blast - , . .—r = 2.5924 tons/hr x —*
ton
(56 plants x 0.16) x /8,760 hr\
\ vear '
year
5,185 Ib/hr
136
-------
Reverberatory =
455,268 tons Pb 1 ton scrap
1 ™ ••' ^ iii in- i- -••- in .« • • ii • i
year 0.47 tons Pb
(56 olants x 0.77) x (8?76° hr)
\ year /
2.000 Ib
x —* =
ton
= 2.5081 tons/hr x
5,016
Ib/hr
Pot - 5,257 Ib scrap per hour
Blast - 5,185 Ib scrap per hour
Reverberatory - 5,016 Ib scrap per hour
Regulations from (Ref. 03, p. 33) - average process weight of most
state regulations - only information available is list of plants and locations
but no state-by-state production rates. A look at the list shows:
California with 8 plants
Texas with 9 plants
Pennsylvania with 4 plants
New York with 3 plants
Georgia with 3 plants
and the rest scattered 1 or 2 to the state to number 56 total
Above figures must be converted into typical capacity figures, k = 0.7 -*
(Ref. 01 uses 0.7) (Ref. 03 uses 0.68)
5.257 Ib 1 , C10 „
Pot * x —— = 7,510 Ib scrap per hour —
hr 0.7
9.8 Ib
jart,
hr
5,185 Ib 1 , .„, _.
Blast —*— x -—; = 7,407 Ib scrap per hour —
hr 0. /
9.6 Ib
hr
5.016 Ib 1 , .,, ,,
Reverberatory , x —— = 7,166 Ib scrap per hour —•
hr U. /
9.4 Ib
>art.
hr
To get in terms of pounds particulate per ton Pb produced:
9.8 Ib part.
Pot - x
2,000 Ib 1 ton scrap _
7,510 Ib scrap X ton X 0.59 tons Pb
4.42 Ib part.
ton lead
137
-------
9.6 Ib part. 1 hr 1 ton scrap
Blast ' X 7,407 Ib scrap X 0.7 tons Pb produced
hr
2.000 Ib
ton
3.70 Ib part,.
ton lead
9.4 Ib part. 1 hr 1 ton scrap
Reverberatory ^ x 7jl66 lb scrap x 0.47 ton Pb produced
2,000 Ib
ton
5.58 lb
ton Pb
Emission (particulate) under SIP regulations, 1975:
4.42 lb part. „ co oco = ng tons
Pb emissions
Pot
ton Pb
x 53,252 =
part.
3.70 lb parr. 1/0 , ,, _
Blast T7 x 142,434 -
ton Pb
264 tons
part.
Reverberatory 5-58 lb P*rt- x 445,268 = 1,242 tons
t0n Pb part.
1,624 tons
part.
x 0.015 = 2
2 x 2,000
53,252
x 0.017 = 4
4.5 x 2,000
142,434
x 0.0150 =
tons
0.75 lb Pb/
ton Pb pro-
duced
.5 tons
.063 lb
Pb/ton Pb
produced
18.6 tons
18.6 x 2,000
445,268
— U.UO<+ LU
Pb/ton Pb
produced
part, are 1.54% Pb | Total-[ 25 tons Pb [
NSPS for Particulate
(Ref. 23, p. 37) states that for a typical 50 ton/day plant
would be 2.6 Ib/hr emissions.
0.022 gr/dscf
138
-------
2.6 Ib 24 hr 1 day = 1.25 Ib part.
ENSPS hr x day X 50 tons Pb ton Pb
for either
a reverbera-
tory or a
blast furnace
NSPS for pot furnace is just controlled by limiting opacity to 10%. Observa-
tions are that in order to meet 10% opacity, a control device must be installed.
S_ __. par •'- £„ pot is lower than E_ pot
ot ton Pb u v s
4.42 Ib part. . = = 1.36 Ib part.
Espot ton Pb * ' bNSPSpot buexist ton Pb
1.36 Ib part. & Pb _ 0.02 Ib Pb
ton Pb produced * part. ton Pb produced
1.25 Ib part. Pb _ 0.02 Ib Pb
Blast rr—^~. 7 x 0.017 — — ,
ton Pb produced part. ton Pb produced
1.25 Ib part. Ib _ 0.02 Ib Pb
Reverberatory — K— x 0.015 - rr ~, T
ton Pb produced part. ton Pb produced
0.02 Ib Pb x 641.596 tons
2,000
6.4 tons Pb emitted/NSPS
Fugitive emissions:
There were no literature references to fugitives in the 2 Pb smelters.
Model plant parameters:
Plant parameters are selected to represent average conditions on the typi-
cal plant with information provided in Ref. 23.
139
-------
MODEL PLANT Secondary Lead Smelter
Production rate 50 tons/day
Special conditions:
A = Blast furnace emissions
B = Pot furnace emissions
No fugitive emissions estimated
Bldg dimensions
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
s:
A
45.7 m
3.05 m
204° C
1.6 m/sec
B
10.7
0.8
80" C
1.6 m/sec
0.053 a/sec
0.017 g/sec
0.052 g/sec
0.0023 e/se
0.2 g/sec
0.0053 g/se
c
Other Bldg or stack parameters;
Bldg dimensions
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. __
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
140
-------
A-3 Mining and Milling of Lead Ore
(Ref. - Mineral Industry Surveys - 1975 - Bureau of Mines)
1. 621,464 tons lead recovered from ore mined in 1975
2. 1975 production by state
State - Tons Pb Frequency
A. Missouri 515,958 83.0%
B. Idaho 50,395 8.1%
C. Colorado 27,088 4.4%
D. Utah 12,679 2.0%
E. Others 15,344 2.5%
(Ref. 28, Volume I, p. 353)
Bunker Hill
Crushing building - 46 x 135 ft, attached storage 38 x 110 ft
3,000-ton storage bin - 50-ft diameter x 24 ft high
Concentration building - 265 x 168 ft
(grinding, flotation, thickening, filtering)
Crushing rate - 200 TPH
Ore is 6.18% lead
Pb concentrations is 66.59% Pb
Control - Rotoclone
(Ref. 28, Volume 1, p. 215)
Ventilation to mine in New Lead Belt - 100,000 to 400,000 cfm through
a 56- to 60-in. shaft.
(Ref. 28, Volume 1, p. 454)
Buick mine and mill - plant designed to process 5,000 tpd of 5% Pb
Crusher capacity - 550 TPH
(p. 462) Pb concentration in ore - 6.10% Pb
Pb concentration contains 80.347,, Pb
Tails - 0.19% Pb
(Ref. 28, Volume I, p. 642)
Fletcher Mill - 35,347 ft2, three-floor building I I area =
109 x 109 x 30 ft 109 x 109 x 30 ft
5,000 tpd concentrator (4,958)
141
-------
(Ref. 28, Volume I, p. 758)
Aerial view of concentrator building, Burgin Mine and Mill, Utah,
500 tpd concentrates.
Some ores sent directly to smelter (have high Pb content).
50 x 160 ft - main building 40 ft high
15 x 80 ft - lean-to on one side of building
(Ref. 27, p. 86)
1974 - 1,231,652 MT of concentrates
1974 - 607,290 MT of lead recovered - 49.37o lead recovered on average
Note: Emission rates for mining and milling are limited; fugitive data
are limited also.
1975 -» 621,464 tons lead recovered from ore mined at 5 to 6% lead
Thus, 621,464 x /f, .,.,,. N = 11,299,345 tons ore mined in U.S.
/ U.1)5 T U.Uo \
\ 2 /
Mines in Missouri, Idaho, and Utah are underground mines; only emissions
would be from ventilation shafts.
Eighty-three percent of the lead produced from ore comes from Missouri.
The mines and mills are new and utilize the latest technologies for mining
and control. Mills are modern with paved grounds, organized tailings ponds,
covered storage bins, etc.
State regulations - emission rates:
Typical plant will be for concentrator operations.
5,000 tpd capacity of 5% Pb in ore.
(Ref. 08, Table III)
5,000 tons ore 0.05 tons Pb 10.4 ton Pb
_j _ x = _
day ton ore hr
5.000 tons 1 day 2,000 Ib _ ... ,,_ ... ,
' . x ' x —* — 416,667 Ib ore per hour
day 24 hr ton ' *
142
-------
Frequency Allowable emission rate
Missouri - 0.830 56 Ib/hr = 46.5
Idaho - 0.081 56 Ib/hr = 4.5
Colorado - 0.044 59 Ib/hr = 2.6
Utah - 0.020 85% control or 59 Ib/hr - PRC curve = 1.2
Others - 0.025 59 Ib/hr = 1.5
56.3 Ib/hr part.
Assuming lead control is at same efficiency as particulates:
5,000 tpd ore = 10.4 TPH Pb at 5%
56.3 JJ»-rrgrtT 0.05 Ib Pb -4r-*n- = 0.27 Ib Pb
sPb -k*~ X JJa-f*trtT X 10.4 ton Pb tons Pb produced
Results in 84 tons Pb emitted if under state regulations.
(Ref. 06, p. 4-28) E., = - ^ - - (uncontrolled emissions)
" ton ore
Control devices on crushers and grinders can be rotoclones or other low
energy collectors. No reference in literature to application of more sophis-
ticated control, although many would be applicable such as fabric filters.
Assuming 7570 control for low energy collectors:
6 Jbr: * 0-25 x 621,464
n nB r
n m _t mi i nil JM mini i if
= 13,050 tons part.
Note: During the processing of the ore, Pb concentrations are going from
5 to 507»; these activities would have negligible emissions. The
concentrate is usually wet.
Emissions: particulate - uncontrolled
(Ref. 06, p. 4-31)
Transport and storage - 4.0 Ib/ton ore processed as fugitives
Crushing and grinding - 2.0 Ib/ton ore processed as fugitives
Process emissions from milling
143
-------
(Ref. 05, p. 16)
Estimates overall emissions from M&M to be 0.21 Ib Pb/ton lead processed.
If these emissions are only from processing ore containing Pb at an aver-
e 0.05 Ib Pb • , n .
age content of : , then: (also assume that lead emissions are a con-
Ib ore
stant portion of the particulate emissions)
0.2 Ib Pb emitted 1 Ib ore emitted as part. 4 Ib part.
p* "' •••^•••M ••• Ml - I ll.l—•• -, I I ' '•" lim,^*m,mmmm,m, ••!• • •— •• — ^ I I — ...••I..I. I !• —I— ••••..
uPb ton Pb received 0.05 Ib Pb emitted ton Pb recovered
Assuming overall control of 507o applied to process and fugitives:
——E—-r—- x 621,464 tons produced x • -n- ., x 0.5 = 621 tons part.
ton Pb produced r 2,000 Ib K
rr x 621,464 tons produced x •' . ,. x 0.5 = 31 tons Pb
ton Pb produced y 2,000 Ib
To account for fugitives from an overall emission factor as used from
(Ref. 05), we will assume 50% represents contribution of fugitive emissions.
Thus:
Process emissions -» 31 tons part.
16 tons Pb
1975
Fugitive emissions -* 311 tons part.
16 tons Pb
SIP regulations: 56.3 Ib/hr part, x 621,464 tons/year = 70.94 tons/hr
0.05 = 2.82 Ib Pb/hr also = 1,419 tons ore/hr
2.82 J^-PIT I3rf 621,464 -totiu uiuaaLLlJ" 1 ton
—br— X 10.4 -UutL, i'Li piudm-LJ X year 2,000 -VB
84 tons Pb emitted
year
NSPS - emission level:
Assume 99% overall control and fugitives vented to control device.
'x 621,464 -Luttu uini-lUlli-ir x 0.01 x n ^nn .. = 0.6 tons Pb emitted
^ 2,000-Hr
144
-------
MODEL PLANT Mining and Milling of Lead Ore
Production rate 5,000 ton/day crusher = 10.4 tons Pb produced per hour
Special conditions:
Rest of plant suitably sized
Bldg dimensions 30.5 x 30.5-x 6.1 m
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
s:
Process
7 m
0.6 m
20° C
8.1 m/ sec
Fugitives
0.131 g/sec
0.36 g/sec
0.003 g/sec
0.131 g/sec
0.36 g/sec
0.003 g/sec
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
145
-------
A-4 Primary Copper Smelters
(Ref. 02, Table 6-1) Smelter Review Information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
3.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
ASARCO
Tacoma, WA
(acid plant)
ASARCO
Hayden, AZ
(acid plant)
ASARCO
El Paso, TX
Phelps Dodge
Douglas, AZ
Phelps Dodge
Morenci, AZ
(acid plant)
Phelps Dodge
Ajo, AZ
Magma
San Manuel, AZ
Kennecott
Hurley, NM
Kennecott
McCill, NV
Kennecott
Hayden, AZ
(acid plant)
Kennecott
Garfield, UT
Anaconda
Anaconda, MT
White Pines
Whiti.- Pines, MI
Cities Services
Copperhill, TN
Inspiration
Miami, AZ
Cone.
1,200 TPD
(1,644)*
2,000 TPD
(2,630)
700 TPD
(1,518)
2,260 TPD
(2,397)
2,113
(2,466)
680
(822)
1,700
(1,836)
767
(1,096)
750.
(1,096)
1,050
(1,151)
2,200
(2,740)
1,710
(2,740)
700
(700)
300
(247)
840
(1 , 233 )
18,970 TPD
1.265 TPD
p lant
Blister Cu
300
366
260
363
470
197
310
234
135
220
750
600
220
50
300
4,327
344.3 TPD
plant
Reslster
5/5
Gas
7/5
Gas
4/3
110,000 SCFM
17/7 ESP
1/0
None
None
None
None
1/0 cvclones, ESP
50%
None
None
None
I/O ESP, cyclones,
scrubber
None
Smelter furnaces
1/1 2 ESPs
98.47.
2/0 ESP
98.37.
1/0 ESP
98.6%
3/0
Gas
4/0 2 ESPs
78.5%
1/0 2/0 (ESP for both)
2/0 ESP
897.
1/1 ESP
95%
2/0 ESP
70-857.
1/0 ESP
95%
3/0 ESP
50%
3/1
1/1 2- ESP
1/0
1/0
Converters
3/1 82% to ESP
94.3%
4/1
3/0 ESP
91.7%
312 ESP
8/0 ESP
98.5%
5/0 ESP
95%
3/1 multiclone
85%
3/1 multiclone
857.
2/1 ESP
957.
7/2 ESP
60- 707.
6/0 ESP
36.9%
l/l
1/0
3/1
Stack height
563 ft
300
30
828
344 RF
536 C
600 F
600 C
360
515 F
550 C
500 F
626 C
300 F
840
100 R, 1/2 C
600 F, 1/2 C
2-408 F
5-95, 95, 87
82, 126
925 FC
1 500 FC
200
200
160
275 F
200 C
Flow race
450,000
403,000
81,200
720,000
470,000
264,000
310,000
406,000
397,000
175,000
117,000
81,000
90,000
261,000
271,000
75,000
211,000
1,187,000
259,000
1,950,000
169,000
UR
260,800
163,400
Part T/D
2.04
1.5
- 0
3.5
39
9
14.7
0.8
0.7
1.79
0.54
0.75
2.8
9.1
3.9
~ 0
1.1
4.33
0.46
22.5
2.4
~ 0
NR
120.91
Second Line is capacity
146
-------
120.9 tons part./day x
14 plants
= 8.62 tons part./day/plant
120.9 tons part.
day
4,527 tons Cu
day
0.027 tons part. _ 53.4 Ib part.
tons Cu produced tons Cu produced
(1975 1° smelter production)
x 1,374,324 tons Cu produced =
36,706 tons part,
To calculate state regulations:
Arize
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Jna
ASARCO, Hayden, AZ
Inspiration, Miami, AZ
Kennecott, Hayden, AZ
Phelps Dodge, Douglas, AZ
Phelps Dodge, Moremi, AZ
Phelps Dodge, AJo, AZ
Magma, San Manuel, AZ
Total
Smelter
capacity
furnace
change
(TPY)
960,000
450,000
420,000
875,000
900,000
300,000
670,000
4,575,000
TPD
2,630
1,233
1,151
2,397
2,466
822
1,836
12,535
Ref. 02 Table 6-1
cone, to furnace
2,000
840
1,050
2,260
2,113
680
1,700
Ref. 02 Table 6-1
Cu produced
366
300
220
365
470
197
310
Cone.
produced
5.5
2.8
4.8
6.2
4.5
3.5
5.5
TPD
ratio Frequency
478
440
240
387
548
235
334
0.509
State SIP
emission 1 fugitive
limits x regulations
47.3 24.1 Yes
Michigan
1. Copper Range, White
Pines, MI
Montana
1. Anaconda, Anaconda, MT
Nevada
1. Kennecott, McCill, MV
New Mexico
1. Kennecott, Hurley, NM
Tennessee
1. Cities Services,
Copper Hill, TN
Texas
1. ASARCO, El Paso, TX
Utah
1. Kennecott, Salt Lake
City, UT
Wjshineton
1. ASARCO, Tacoma, KA
345,000 945
1,000,000 2,740
400,000 1,096
400,000 1,096
90,000 247
516,000 1,573
1,000,000 2,740
600,000 1,644
24,621
1,710
2,200
1,200
220
600
185
234
50
260
750
300
3.2
3.3
6.0
2.7
3.8
avg
295 0.038
945 0.111
267 0.045
332 0.045
50 0.010
584 0.064
945 0.111
433 0.067
6,513
47.3
47.3
47.3
82.6
60.8
385.7
1.8
5.3
2.1
1.8
0.5
5.3
73.4
Ib/hr
147
-------
6,513 tons Cu tQtal ^ Cu smelter capacity from 15 smelters
day
—* = 434.2 tons Cu/day average plant size
24,621 tons/day total cone, feed to furnaces for 15 smelters
1,641.4 tons/day average feed = 136,783 Ib/hr process feed rate for
an average Cu smelter with roaster,
converter, and smelter
State regulations:
73.4 Ib ^tfT' 24 JMT- _ 4.1 Ib part.
-I • IN — I I III • •*» I -. -I !•!•!• • M, I . 1*11. I..— —.1. J£ - ^- 1
—kr— 434.2 tons Cu produced *&sf ton Cu produced
Pa'
x 1,374,324 tons Cu produced x
2,817 ton part.
. ,,
ton Cu produced 2,000 Ib
NSPS - particulates controlled at 0.022 gr/dscf:
from AP-42 - Uncontrolled emissions
1. Roasting 45 Ib part. /ton feed
2. Smelting 20 Ib part. /ton feed
3. Converting 60 Ib part. /ton feed
Using a ratio from p. 2 of 3.8 tons feed results in 1 ton Cu produced.
Roasting = 45 x 3.8 = 171 (since only 7 out of 15 plants roast) x
7/15 = 80
Smelting = 20 x 3.8 = 76
Converting = 60 x 3.8 = 228
Eu = 80 + 76 + 228
E = 384 Ib part. /ton Cu produced
148
-------
For smelters with Cu roaster, smelter, and converter:
450.000 dcfm _ 1.500 dscfm
300 ton Cu produced ton Cu produced
M , 484.000 _
No. 2 777 - 1,322
job
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5 '^r" = L523
No. 10
No. 15
JUU
1,691 dscfm
ton Cu produced
1.691 scfm .,. 0 „ . . 734.232 scf 0.022 gr 1 Ib
* : x 434.2 ton Cu produced = !—; x —a- x
ton Cu produced mm scf 7,000 gr
2.31 Ib min 0.038 Ib 454 g ._ . ,
part. = : x — = x ——-^ = 17.5 g/sec
mm 60 sec sec Ib
ENT,, = 0.1875 x EN = 0.1875 x 17.5 g/sec = 3.27 g/sec
1NPb 1Npart.
(Ref. 29, p. 5 and p. 67)
Lead emission rate at ASARCO, Tacoma, Washington, smelter
24.65 Ib Pb/hr
Converter - 14.2 Ib/hr Lead collection effort - 90%
Roaster and reverberatory furnace - 10.45 Ib/hr
149
-------
(Ref. 29, p. 31)
1 B
2 B
[ Outlet to converter ESP
[ Outlet to reverberatory
Part, emission
Avg velocity Temp. rate
30.3 ft/sec 214°F
30.0 ft/sec 277°F
35.2 ft/sec 176°F
36.0 ft/sec 181°F
furnace ESP
Sampling began when at least 6 of 8 roasters were operating
107 Ib/hr
55.9 Ib/hr
18 Ib/hr
268 Ib/hr
(Ref. 36, Table 5-2, p. 22)
1. Ore cone., storage, and handling
2. Limestone storage and handling | 10 Ib part, fugitives (Chem. analysis shows no
ton Cu produced Pb except for No. 4 re-
ported as unknown)
!18% Pb
Unknown
2.0 tons/day (data supplied by Utah Copper Divi-
sion of Kennecott Copper Corporation, 18% Pb
No lead
) 4-5 tons/day
J 50% Pb
3. Slag handling
4. Dust collection and transfer
5. Roaster loading and operation
6. Calcine transfer
7. Reverberatory furnace loading
and operations
8. Matte transfer
9. Converter loading and blowing
10. Blister copper transfer
(Ref. 33, Table x) Fugitive emissions of particulates (data submitted by Utah Divi-
sion of Kennecott Copper Corporation)
1. Anode building - 0.29 tons/day
2. Converter building - 2.04 tons/day
3. Reverberatory building - 0.96 tons/day
(Ref. 34) Slag dumping fugitive emissions estimate
Part. - 136.9 Ib/day = 28 tons/year
Pb - 24.3 Ib/day =5.0 tons/year
(Ref. 31. p. 23) Reports tvoical analysis of copper smelter dusts
Roaster - 7.6% Pb
Reverberatory furnace - 30.5% Pb
Converters - 47.1% Pb
From stack -
23.4% Pb
150
-------
(Ref. 32, p. 76) Reports Pb concentrations in smelter dusts
Dryer dusf- 0.6%
Roaster dust - 1.5%
Reverberatory furnace dust - 4.9%
Converter dust - 21.2%
Combined flow after ESP -
Stack emissions of Pb:
(Ref. 31) i 23.4% Pb
(Ref. 32)' 14.1% Pb
18.75% Pb will be used to calculate process Pb emissions
E, . = E_ x 0.1875
sPb s
= 4.1 x 0.1875
0.77 Ib Pb
ton Cu produced
0.77 x
1,374,324
2,000
| 529 tons Pb
£A_. = E. x 0.1875
APb Apart.
%Pb x °'1875
_ 53.4 Ib part.
ton Cu produced
0.1875
= 1.15 x 0.1875
10 Ib Pb
ton Cu produced
0.22 Ib Pb
ton Cu produced
10 Ib Pb
ton Cu produced
1.374.324 tons Cu produced
•^^•^HMMH«Av^^M^M^BM«^H*W*^MHV^H^V^VI^X^IMMI^»*a^^^^M^^H
2,000
6,872
tons
Pb
n 00
II f J
*
1.374,324
^W^^t^^BV^.HV^^b^ll^«V^MHri*
2,000
151
.2
tons
Pb
151
-------
Fugitive emissions:
(Ref. 36 and 34) indicate by estimates from several sources (see p. 4)
17 Ib part, fugitives , 3 Ib Pb fugitives
-»-i . ancj _ 1-_ _
ton Cu produced ton Cu produced
17 Ib part, fugitives 1,374,324 tons Cu produced _
ton Cu produced 2,000 Ib
11,682 tons fugitive particulates
3 Ib Pb fugitives 1.374,324
x
ton Cu produced 2,000
2,061 tons Pb fugitives
Fugitives under SIP control: assume controlled by proper venting or control
and emissions will be at same level as allowed by state regulations.
152
-------
MODEL PLANT
Primary Copper Smelter
Production rate 450 tons Cu/day
Special conditions:
Bldg dimensions 76.2 x 76.2 x 12.2 m
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Process Fugitives
171 m
7.3
121°C
5.1
23.6 g/sec
1.8 g/sec
2 g/sec
7.1 g/sec
1.8 g/sec
0.52 g/sec
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. • _
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
153
-------
A-5 Gray Iron Foundry
(Ref. 14, pp. 3-30, 31)
Lead oxide - chemical analysis of particulate emissions from electric arc
furnaces.
Foundry A - 1% by weight
Foundry B - 2% by weight
Foundry C - 0.5% by weight
Lead content of 10,000 ppm
(Ref. 14, pp. 4-15, 16)
Plant A - 2 EAF 15-16 tons capacity each - one BH
Flow - 2,490 dscfm/ton product
Emissions - 0.975 Ib part./ton product
Plant B - 2 EAF 12-13 tons capacity each - one BH
Flow - 3,117 dscfm/ton product
Emissions - 0.126 Ib part./ton product
Plant C - 2 EAF 8 ton capacity each - two BHs
Flow - 2 x 1,855 dscfm/ton product
Emissions - 0.71 Ib part./ton product
Plant D - 1 EAF 6 ton capacity - one BH
Flow - 3,100 dscfm/ton product
Emissions - 0.787 Ib'part./ton product
Plant E - 1 EAF 14 tons capacity - one BH
Flow - 2,810 dscfm/ton product
Emissions - 0.346 Ib part./ton product
Plant F - 2 EAF 30-35 tons capacity
Flow - 157,000 acfm at 275°F
Emissions - 0.1078 Ib part./ton product
(Ref. 14, p. 7-7)
EAF - uncontrolled emission rate -
•— 13.8 Ib part./ton charge
Uncontrolled EAF
PbO - 0.5-4% by weight
154
-------
•(Ref. 14, p. 8-38)
Gray iron foundry - EAF model plant
Using Model B
11-ft diameter stack - 2
Melt rate of 10 TPH
1,920 hr of operation
Annual melt - 19,200 tons
Annual cost production - 11,520 tons
Raw material charge
407o foundry castings
5-10% borings
50-557o heavy, coarse, sheet metal
Stack temp. - 200°F
Height - 40 ft
On baghouse controlling plant
(Ref. 14) Emission sources
1. Melt operations
2. Other dust producing operations
a. Scrap yard
b. Mold preparation
c. Shake out
d. Cleaning and finishing
e. Sand conditioning
f. Core preparation
EAF - 13.8 Ib part./ton melted r~ ;
i or, n 11- / •, 65% conversion
Cupola - 20.8 Ib part./ton melter *
{ Overall 25% control |
Overall nonmelt emissions of 5.83 Ib/ton melted
155
-------
(Ref. 14, p. 3-3)
Weight of Metal Melted in 1973
Gray, malleable
Ingot molds
Furnace 10& short
type 10^ kg tons 10^
Cupola 1.85 2.04 17
Arc 2
Induction - - 2
and ductile Total
106 short 106 short
kg tons 10^ kg tons %
.02 18.76 18.87 20.80 82
.10 2.32 2.105 2.32 9
.10 2.32 2.105 2.32 9
Total 1.85 2.04 21.22 23.40 23.080 25.44 100
(Ref. 14, p. 3-4)
Gray and Ductile Foundries - 1973
Capacity,
Furnace type No. of units Companies tons/hr Fraction
Cupola 1,804 1,092 14,213 0.743
Channel induction 408i , ,„. .„_
, . . ^0,} 1,134 397 2,362 0.123
Coreless induction 726 '
Arc 371 187 2,555 0.134
Air and reverberatory 159 - - -
3,309 1,676 19,130
(Ref. 16, p. 69)
Gray Iron Castings Data and Projections
(Thousands of Tons)
Industry 1973 1974 1975
Quantity
Gray, including ductile iron
Malleable, including
pearlitic iron
Total quantity shipped
17,047 15,651* 12,520*
1,031 913* 720*
18,078 16,564 13,240
* Estimates by the Bureau of Domestic Commerce.
156
-------
« Average 2 units per company
S3 Average 6 tons per unit
1975 EAF emissions
(Ref. 14, p. 7-6, 11)
58% control of which
83% are baghouses
17% are scrubbers
weighted avg
99.5% eff.
99.7% eff.
99.53%
Part.
13.8 Ib part. ^ (Q.42) x (1.0047) x (13.24 x 106 ton Fe produced)
ton Fe melted
(Ref. 15, p. 47)
100 tons Fe melted
X 65 tons Fe produced X
2,000
7,947
tons
part.
Lead
7,947.2 tons part, x
0.01 tons lead
ton part.
79.47
tons
lead
Information in Ref. 14 leads to 1% estimate as lead content of particu-
lates emitted from arc furnaces.
1975 cupola emissions
Part.
(Ref. 15, p. 47)
20.8 Ib part.
ton Fe melted
X \Q'15\
13.24 x 106 tons Fe shipped x
100 tons Fe melted
65 tons Fe shipped
0.743 1
1 ton part
2,000 Ib part
*]•
118,050 tons part.
157
-------
Lead
No available data to substantiate this or any other value best assumption
(transfer from EAF).
118,050 ton part, x
0.01 ton lead emitted _
ton part, emitted
1,180.5 tons lead
1975 Induction Furance Emissions
Part.
1.75 Ib part
ton Fe melted
- x U3.24 x 106 ton Fe shipped!
dl L J
100 tons Fe melted
65 ton Fe shipped
•
2,192
tons
part.
Lead
2,192 tons part, x
0.01 ton lead emitted
ton part, emitted
21.9
tons
lead
Fugitives - Process and other nonprocess fugitives to atmosphere.
(Ref. 15, p. 48)
Part.
5.83 Ib part. ., „. In6 , . , 100 tons Fe melted
": ; x 13.24 x 10° tons Fe shipped x — — x
ton metal melted 65 tons Fe shipped
1 ton
2,000 Ib
59,376 tons part,
Lead
Lead content of fugitives would not be any different (due to lack of data),
0.01 tons Pb _
59,376 tons part, x
ton part.
593
.76
tons
Pb
158
-------
Total Emissions Summary 1975
Total
Particulate
187,565
Lead
EAF
Cupola
Induction
Fugitives
7,947
118,050
2,192
59,376
79.5
1,180.5
21.9
593.8
1,875.7
Process totals
128,189 tons part.
1,281.9 tons lead
State regulations:
1969 State distribution of GFE (from Ref. 17, Exhibit III-3) shows
1,571 gray iron foundries - gives number of foundries per state.
1975 Total reported number of GFE (from Ref. 16, p. 68) shows 1,399,
a decrease of 172 establishments.
Thus, 89.05% of the foundries were still operating in 1975 compared to
1969.
There is no reason to suspect that any one area suffered a sudden major
decrease in foundry activity, so it will be assumed a uniform decrease oc-
curred over the entire country.
159
-------
State
1. Pennsylvania
2. Ohio
3. Michigan
4. Illinois
5. Wisconsin
8. Indiana
7. New York
6. California
9. Alabama
10. Texas
12. New Jersey
11. Massachusetts
13. Tennessee
14. Iowa
15. Minnesota
16. Georgia
17. Virginia
18. North Carolina
21. Kansas
20. Missouri
19. Connecticut
22. Washington
Major Foundry Locations by State
1969 # # corrected to 1975 levels (x 0.8905)
169 150
166 148
123 110
104 93
96 85
80 71
87 77
90 80
61 54
59 53
47 42
55 49
43 38
38 34
37 33
34 30
33 29
30 27
26 23
28 25
29 26
22 20
1,297
Twenty-two states have 1,297 foundries, which accounts for over 907o
(92.7) of the number of foundries in the United States.
Production figures by state or plant are not available, so it was as-
sumed that uniform distribution of production over the United States would
be a reasonable first approximation for production distribution.
% companies
each state
x total production = production for that state
160
-------
State
1. Pennsylvania
2. Ohio
3. Michigan
4. Illinois
5. Wisconsin
6. California
7. New York
8. Indiana
9. Alabama
10. Texas
11. Massachusetts
12. New Jersey
13. Tennessee
14. Iowa
15. Minnesota
16. Georgia
17. Virginia
18. North Carolina
19. Connecticut
20. Missouri
21. Kansas
22. Washington
Corrected
number Fugitive regulations
150 No S
148 No H, S, T
110 No regulations
93 No H, S
85 No H, S, T
80 Local by district - also nuisance controls
77 No regulations
71 No fugitive dust above 67% of ambient up-
wind concentration
54 No H, S, T
53 No handling, storage, or transporting
49 No regulations
42 No regulations
38 No H, S, T
34 No H, S, T
33 No H, S, T
30 No H, S, T
29 No H, S, T
27 No regulations
26 No H, S, T
25 No H, S, T
23 No H, S, T
20 No H, S, T
Based on available information; 5 out of 22 states have no fugitive regula-
tions.
National capacity - 19,130 tons/hr 4- 1,399 companies = 13.67 tons/hr (avg plant
capacity)
EAF - 13.66 tons/hr avg capacity per plant
IF - 5.95 tons/hr avg capacity per plant
Cupola - 13.02 tons/hr avg capacity per plant
1975 production by furnace type:
Only data for 1975 show total production at 13.24 x 10 tons cast Fe shipped.
To obtain production by furnace type, assume frequency distribution applies
to production distribution and also assuming a 16-hr day of production utilization.
161
-------
13.24 x 1Q6 tons
EAF - x
year
371 furnaces
r, i->/ 1 year 1 day
x 0.134 x ' x ' x
365 days 16 hr
2,000 Ib
ton
1.637.7 Ib
hr
furnace
Induction -
13.24 x 10° tons
year
1
1,134 furnaces
x 0.0123 x
365 days
2,000 Ib 491.8 Ib
16 hr
ton
hr
furnace
Cupola -
13.24 x 10° tons
year
x
1,804 furnaces
n -a o 1 year
x 0.743 x 7 x
365 days
1 day 2.000 Ib 1,867.5 Ib
16 hr ton hr
furnace
Having no geographic distribution of furnace types by state, the average
process weight rate curve will be used from Ref. 3, p. 33.
EAF - (3.57 Ib/hr) *
2,000 hr
= 4.34
-r j ^- /i in TU/V. \ • 491.8 ton Fe _
Induction - (1.70 Ib/hr) -f „ ___ — ; - = 6.91
^ ,
ton Fe shipped
Ib part.
c
2,000 hr
Cupola - (4.0 Ib/hr) *
SEAF
EST , = 6.91
slnd
So
sCup
= 4.28
2,000 hr
= 4
ton Fe shipped
Ib part.
ton Fe shipped
_ Ib part. 100 tons Fe melted
"EAF * ton Fe melted 65 tons Fe shipped
21.2 Ib part.
ton Fe shipped
= 1.75 x
100 tons Fe melted _ 2.7 Ib part.
65 tons Fe shipped ton Fe shipped
_ 100 tons Fe melted _ 32 Ib part.
aCup * 65 tons Fe shipped ton Fe shipped
162
-------
Process emissions for gray iron foundries under SIP control (actually
under average process weight rate 1975 limitations)
EAF - I,
4.34 Ib part. 13.24 x 106 tons Fe shipped
— ' X X U.JLjf X
ton Fe shipped furnaces
1 ton
2,000 Ib
3,849.9 tons part,
Still assuming lead to be same percentage of emissions as before.
Lead = 0.01 x part. = 38.5 tons lead
Ind - TA2 =
ES2K2A2
6.91 Ib part. 13.24 x 106 tons Fe shipped
ton Fe shipped all furnaces
1 ton
2,000 Ib
5,626.5 tons part.
Still assuming lead to be same percentage of emissions as before.
Lead = 0.01 x part. —
56.3
tons
lead
Cup -
Es3K3A3
4.28 Ib part. 13.24 x 106 tons Fe shipped
ton Fe shipped all furnaces
1 ton
2,000 Ib
21,052
tons
part.
Still assuming lead to be same percentage of emissions as before.
Lead = 0.01 x part. = 210.5 tons lead
Five of the 22 states that have 9070 of the foundries do not have fugi-
tive regulations.
163
-------
As in the case of primary lead smelters, if fugitives are restricted to
those which are emitted only after reasonable attempts to control them as
many states require or if fugitives are eliminated as directed by states that
require no fugitives from the handling, storage or transportation of materi-
als shall be emitted, then there would be a reduction in fugitives to the
same levels as best control. In this case if existing regulations were en-
forced, there would be low levels of fugitives.
Effect of NSPS Section lll(b) and 111 (d):
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is preparing a NSPS on electric
arc furnaces in the gray iron foundry industry (Ref. 14).
In order to estimate the effect of a potential NSPS, the best level of
control will be applied to the uncontrolled emissions. (Ref. 14, p. 7-28 -
average of three (99.2%) control efficiencies (ESP, scrubber, BH)
EAF .
21.2 lb part.
ton Fe shipped
fcon pe ship ed x 0.134 x 0.008 x -~-
2,000
231.5
tons
part.
2.3
tons
lead
x 0.01 for lead =
Induction - 2>? lb Part' x 13.24 x 106 x 0.123 x 0.008 x -
ton Fe shipped
1
2,000
27.1
tons
part.
x 0.01 for lead = 0.27 tons lead
Cupola
^
_ 32 lb part. x 13^4 x 1Q6 x 0.743 x 0.008 x -777
ton Fe shipped
1
2,000
1,937.2 tons part,
x 0.01 for lead = |l9.4 tons lead
x 0.01 for lead =
438.4 tons part.
4.4
tons
lead
164
-------
(Ref. 14, pp. 3-4)
1,092 Companies have 1,804 Cupolas with a capacity of 14,213 tons/hr.
This gives an average size capacity rate of:
Cupola
.2 per company
397 Companies have 1,134 induction furnaces with 2,362 tons/hr. This
gives an average size capacity rate of:
Induction furnaces
3 per company
187 Companies have 371 electric arc furnaces with 2,555 tons/hr. This
gives and average size capacity rate of:
EAF
2 per company
Lead emissions with SIP control:
EAF - 38.5 tons lead -f 13.24 x 106 tons lead shipped x ' x
0.434 Ib lead
ton Fe shipped
Ind - 56.3 tons lead -=- 13.24 x 106 x 2,000 x
0.123
0.069 Ib lead
ton Fe shipped
Cup - 210.5 tons lead x 13>24 x 1Qb
*
2,000 Ib
ton
0.0428 Ib lead
ton Fe shipped
Fugitives - limited to same degree of control as process emissions; assume
that in order to comply with a no fugitives allowed SIP regulation, fugitives
would be vented to process control equipment and would only add to the size con-
straints placed on the particular control device.
Therefore: 593.8 tons Pb emitted x 0.008 x
13.24 x 10° tons Fe shipped
x
2,000 Ib _
ton
0.0007 Ib Pb
ton Fe shipped
Control of fugitives would signifi-
cantly reduce lead emissions.
165
-------
MODEL PLANT Gray iron foundry
Production rate 1.-14 tons/hr 2-6 tons/hr 3-16 tons/hr
Special conditions:
1 = EAF (2 furnaces)
2 = Ind. F. (3 furnaces)
3 = Cupola (2 furnaces)
Bldg dimensions 76.2 x 76.2 x 18.3 m (same for each)
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
s:
l.-Proc.
19.8 m
0.9 m
93°C
30.5 m/sec
1-Fug.
2-Proc.
19.8 m
0.9 m
93°C
13.1 m/se
2- Fug.
•
0.1 a/ sec
0.05
0.003
0.11 2/sec
0.0008
0.0008
0.12 e/se
0.034
0.00016 '
: 0.045 e/sec
0.00034
0.00033
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions Same as above
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
:
3-Proc.
19.8 m
0.9 m
93UC
35.1 m/sec
0.036 g/sec
0.056
0.0052
3- Fug.
0.12 g/sec
0.00093
0.00087
166
-------
A-6 Ferroalloys
1975 Ferroalloy production (Ref. 20)
1975 - 1,9,26,454 tons^i
1974 - 2,283,501 tons produce
1973 - 2,519,955 tons produced \ Reported in Ref. 22, p. 512 to be
1972 - 2,526,624 tons produced capacity production
.*. Capacity taken at 2,520,000 tons
. «-tM-<>•'«
These are several types of furnaces used in the production of ferroalloys;
1. Submerge arc furnace
2. Exothermic furnace
3. Electrolytic furnace
4. Vacuum furnace
5. Induction furnace
(Ref. 21, p. V-l) reports the types of alloys produced by furnace type:
1. Submerge arc furnace (SAF)
a. Silvery iron
b. 50% FeSi
c. 65-75% FeSi
d. Si
e. CuSi
f. SiMgZ
g. High carbon FeMn
h. SiMn
i. FeMnSi
j. Charge chrome
k. High carbon FeCr
2. Exothermic furnace
a. Low carbon (LC) FeCr
b. LC FeMn
c. Medium carbon FeMn
d. Cr, FeTi, FeV, FeCb
3. Electrolytic process furnace
a. Chrome metal
b. Manganese metal
4. .Vacuum furnace
a. Low carbon FeCr
167
-------
5. Induction furnace
a. FeTi
Examining the production breakdown given in (Ref. 20), it is obvious that
the majority of the production in the ferroalloy industry is from SAFs.
1975 Figures show:
FeMn 575,809 tons
SiMn 143,262 tons
FeSi* 790,860 tons
HCFeCr 117,643 tons
SiFeCr 51,992 tons
1,679,566 tons
The five categories above represent 87.2% of 1975 production and are all
produced exclusively in SAF.
* Fe Si production figures include:
65-90% FeSi
50% FeSi
Silvery iron
Silicon metal
CaSi
(Ref. 21, p. VI-15) has in Table VI-3 production and emission factors for un-
controlled open furnaces (values are results of industry questionnaires).
Uncontrolled
FeMn
SiMn
FeSi**
HCFeCr
SiFeCr
Prod.
frequency
0.343
0.085
0.471
0.070
0.031
emissions
(Et
335
219
586
335
830
ij.)*
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Production
Particulate
emissions
62 Ib/MW-hr
50 Ib/MW-hr
92 Ib/MW-hr
62 Ib/MW-hr
112 Ib/MW-hr
MW-hr/
prod.
5.4
4.4
6.6
4.2
7.4
Ton charge
ton prod.
3.0
3.1
3.1
4.0
3.4
To be
continued
on
next page
* Uncontrolled particulate emissions.
** FeSi emission numbers will be synthesized by weighting emission factors for:
168
-------
(Ib/ton)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
65-90% FeSi
50% FeSi
Silvery iron
Silicon metal
CaSi
915
446
116
1,200
1,343
Particulates
(Ib/MW-hr)
104
89
45
86
114
1971
prod.
(tons)
109,951
377,403
94,801
88,888
10,309
681,352
Prod.
frequency
0.161
0.554
0.139
0.131
0.015
1,000
Freq. x
Eu
147
247
16
156
20
586S/
Freq. x
part.
23.7
49.3
6.3
11.2
1.7
92.2V
_a/ 586 Ib/ton - weighted emission factor to represent emissions from production
of those alloys listed on p. 2 as FeSi.
b/ 92.2 Ib/MW-hr - weighted emission factor to represent emissions for all al-
loys listed as part of FeSi on p. 2.
(Above table continued)
1
2
3
4
5
MW-hr/
ton prod.
8.8
5.0
2.6
14.0
11.8
Ton charge/
ton prod.
4.5
2.5
1.8
4.9
3.9
Freq. x
MW-hr/ton
prod.
42
77
0.36
Freq. x
ton charge/
ton prod.
0.72
1.39
0.25
0.64
0.06
3.06^
£/ 6.55 MW-hr/ton produced - weight emission factor
for FeSi as above.
_d/ 3.06 Ton charge/ton produced - weighted emission
factor for FeSi as above.
An overall emission factor will be synthesized from emission data from
above table.
Freq.
Eui
Freq. x
MW-hr/
ton prod.
Freq. x
ton charged/
ton prod.
1. FeMn
2. SiMn
3. FeSi
4. HCFeCr
5. SiFeCr
E = 458.8 = 459 Ib part.
u ton FA prod.
5.9 MW-hr
ton FA prod.
3.14
ton charge
ton prod.
169
-------
To find average plant production:
5.9 MW-hr
ton FA produced
ton FA produced
........... •*"-
3.14 ton charge
1.88 MW-hr
ton charged
1
1.88 MW-hr
ton charged
1,064 Ib charged
MW-hr
Furnace size is rated by megawatt capacity. The trend in new furnaces
has been toward larger furnaces up to 75 MW capacity. The range of furnace
sizes is 7 to 75 MW (Ref. 18, Volume 1, p. 66). A furnace capacity of 30
MW (used in report as model size) will be used as a representative size for
calculations.
1,064 Ib charged
x 30
31,920 Ib charged/hr
Average process
rate
31,920 Ib charged/hr will be used to calculate effect of various state regu-
lations on emissions.*'1'
5.9 MW-hr
ton produced
339 Ib produced
MW-hr
x 30 MW =
10,170 Ib produced
hr
(typical rate)
5.09 ton produced
hr
(Ref. 21, p. IV-3) Table IV-2 shows 1971 distribution of SAFs by state.
will assume frequency is the same for 1975.
We
170
-------
Es state
A£ emission
State
OH
WV
TN
AL
KY
OR
NY
WA
IA
TX
SC
NJ
$_ frequency
52
25
14
12
11
8
6
6
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.359
.172
.097
.083
.076
.055
.041
.041
.034
.021
.014
.007
25
23
25
19
25
23
21
19
25
38
25
30
limit*
.93
.15
.93
.40
.93
.41
.22
.34
.93
.92
.93
.00
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
A. y P
1 ^S
9
3
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
.31
.98
.52
.61
.97
.29
.87
.79
.88
.82
.36
.21
24.61
Ib part.
hr
Fugitive
regulations**
Yes
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Ref. 08, p. 29-31 and Ref. 21, p. VIII-2 was for the State of
Washington.
Most states listed here have a regulation for fugitive emissions
of some type. Most states require reasonable attempts to avoid
any operation that would cause fugitive emissions. For the
sake of this study, fugitive regulations will be interpreted
as requiring the same degree of control as a potential NSPS or
existing NSPS.
Es =
_ 24.61 Ib part.
hr
A.
5.09 tons produced/hr
4.83 Ib part.
ton produced
E^j will be taken directly from proposed standard document (Ref. 18),
NSPS for part. 0.91 — Si, FeSi, CaSi, SiMnZ
0.51 -* HCFeA, A, FeMn, SiMn, CaC2, FeASi,
FeMnSi, silvery iron
For 1975, production is about the same for the two groups of alloys;
therefore, to get a representative EN , a simple average will be taken.
0.91 + 0.51
0.71 Ib part.
MW-hr
171
-------
0.71 Ib part. 5.9JW-hr- _ 4.19 Ib part.
^ _JlW-lrr~" ton produced ton produced
It is interesting to note that 0.01 x EM = —* ~-—r1 which
" ton produced
says that a 99% control efficiency is about right for the ferroalloy industry.
Uncontrolled emissions - (potentially emitted for 1975)
4.59 Ib part. ^ i 926,454 tons produced = 385,460 tons part.
ton produced
Emissions from state regulations assuming enforcement:
1975 TA = kEsA
= 0.764 x 4.83 x 2,520,000 x ~—
&., uuu
= 4,649.6 tons part.
= 4,650 tons part.
1975 Actual emissions:
Assuming SAF emissions (8770 ferroalloys produced by SAFs) are represen-
tative of all furnace emissions involved in production of ferroalloys.
(Ref. 19, p. 11) - Claims 75 to 80% of operable U.S. ferroalloy furnace ca-
pacity has pollution control equipment. So being conservative 75% will be
used.
(Ref. 21, p. II-5 to 8) - Control varies from 75 to 99.9% with the vast ma-
jority over 9970, so we will assume 9970 is achieved by the controlling portion
of the industry.
Uncontrolled part.
459 x 1,920,454 x \ x 0.25 = 110,530 tons part.
£, f UUU
Controlled part.
459 x 1,920,454 x * x 0.75 x 0.01 = 3,316 tons part.
113,846
Total 1975 emissions = 113,846 tons part.
172
-------
(Ref. 21, Appendix E) - Values were reported for trace metal analysis on
samples taken from source tests on nine furnaces. Range - 0.001 to 0.1%.
Eight taking a simple average:
= 0.0505% Pb
Ey (lead) = 0.0005 x 459 = 0.23 Ib/ton produced
Control achieved by state particulate regulations:
Eo (lead) = 0.0005 x 4.83 = 0.0024 Ib/ton produced - control by
default
Control achieved by NSPS:
Ev, (lead) = 0.0005 x 4.19 = 0.0021 Ib Pb/ton produced (rate deemed
^ achievable)
(Ref. 21, p. VI-29, 31) Emissions from handling of raw materials - %
of product (tons/year):
1. Receipt and storage of raw materials « 0.1%
2. Preparation of raw materials « 0.1%
3. Batching and delivery to furnace ?» 0.09%
4. Treatment of molten alloys « 0.47%
5. Casting of product « 0.01%
6. Crushing and grinding of product « 0.03%
0.8%
The text of the reports cautions against adding up these values and using
them as an overall emission value, but as a first approximation we will use
them anyway.
1975 fugitives - Ts = 0.764 x 0.008 x 2,520,000 =
15,402.2 tons part.
Assuming fugitive dust to contain the same amount of lead as a trace con-
taminant 0.05%:
1975 lead fugitive emissions = 0.005 x 15,402 = 7,7 tons Pb
7.7 x 2.000
Fugitive Pb emission factor - ^ 92^
0.008 Ib Pb
ton produced
1975 Pb process emissions - 0.0005 x 113,846 = 56.9 tons Pb
173
-------
Summary of values - 1975:
Process particulate emissions - 113,846 tons
Process lead emissions - 57 tons
Total lead emissions
Fugitive particulate emissions - 15,402 tons
Fugitive lead emissions - 8 tons
Total particulate emissions I129>248 tpns j
SIP effects: Particulate emission rate (present) - 118.2 Ib part./ton produced
Particulate emission rate (SIP control) - 4.83 Ib part./ton produced
NSPS: Particulate emission rate/NSPS - 4.19 Ib part./ton produced
Assuming lead is a trace contaminant with about the same concentration
(0.05%), then the above ratios would be the same for lead.
Fugitives: Particulate emission rate (present) - 16 Ib part./ton produced
Particulate emission rate (SIP control) - 0* or 4.83 Ib part./ton
produced
* Zero refers to the fact that most states do not allow fugitives and that if
fugitives were eliminated, then they would be vented to a control device
which would be under process SIP regulations, thus 4.83 Ib part./ton emis-
sion rate.
174
-------
MODEL PLANT Ferroalloy Plant
Production rate 5.1 tons alloy per furnace
Special conditions:
Four furnaces
Bldg dimensions 121.9 x 121.9 x 18.3 m
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
s:
Process
22.9 m
1.2 m
57°C
44.5 m/sec
Fugitive
.0.15 g/sec
0.006
0.005
0.021 g/sec
0.021
0.021
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
175
-------
A-7 Gasoline Additives - Alkyl Lead)
1975 Lead consumption - 208,605 tons = 417,210,000 Ib lead consumed
Two compounds produced in U.S. 1. Tetraethyl lead
2. Tetramethyl lead
6 plants in 4 states (Ref. 04, p. 87)
Annual capacity for TEL and TML production
Texas - 3 plants 320 million Ib
Given as 34o! California - 1 plant 170 million Ib
for both J New Jersey - 1 plant 170 million Ib
Louisiana - 1 plant
Total
250 million Ib
910 million Ib
TEL and TML are made by
!• Sodium lead process
2* Electrolysis of alkyl Grignard reagent
Motor Mix
61.5% TEL
58.8 TML
TEL (Ref. 04, p. 95) 92.5% by NaPb process - > [80% TEL, 20% TML]
7.5% by electrolytic process
4 NaPb + 4(C2H5)C1 -
TML by electrolytic process
2 CH3MgCl + 2 CH3C1 + Pb
+ 4 NaCl + 3 Pb [85-90% yield]
+ 2 MgCl2
Pb-207 M.W, for (G2H5) Pb - >64.1% lead
24 116 NaPb process
Hi
29
116
207
323
M.W. for (GH3)4Pb-
.77.5% lead
12
_3
15
60
207
267
95% yield
64% use low efficiency
controls 80-85%
36% high efficiency
95-99%
TEL is not controlled
from venting of
process
TML is controlled at
97%
176
-------
To find actual alkyl lead production (only data for 1975 show con-
sumption of lead)
(Ref. 04, p. 94) in 1973 74% TEL from NaPb process -N
2% TEL from electrolytic process I Based on
18.5% TML from NaPb process ( capacity
5.5% TML from electrolytic process
assuming capacity mix to be same as actual production mix and same for 1975•
76% of output is TEL
24% of output is TML
Ib prod. = X
0.76 X = Ib TEL A = Ib TEL 417,210,000 Ib Pb
0.24 X = Ib TML B = Ib TML
0.641 = lead content of prod, from TEL 0.641
0.775 = lead content of prod, from TML
0.641 A + 0.775 B = 417,210,000
A + B = C
1.4875 x 108 Ib TML
4.7103 x 108 Ib TEL
0.76 C = A
0.24 G = B
0.641 (0.76 G) + 0.775 (0.24 C) =
417,216,000
0.48716 + 0.186 C = 417,216,000
0.67316 C = 417,216,000
C = 6.1978 x 108 Ib prod.
5.733 x 108 Ib alkyl lead produced
by NaPb process
0.46484 x 108 Ib alkyl lead produced
by electrolytic process
Lead emission factors from Ref. 06, pp. 4-6, 4-8 (uncontrolled)
Lead recovery furnace - 55 Ib/ton alkyl lead product - mostly PbO
Process vents - TEL - 4 Ib/ton alkyl lead product - alkyl lead vapor
Process vents - TML - 150 Ib/ton alkyl lead product - alkyl lead vapor
Sludge pit both TEL and TML - 1.2 Ib Pb/ton alkyl lead product
Electrolytic process (used at one plant) 1.0 Ib Pb/ton alkyl lead product
(7.5% of total capacity)
Melting furnance and alloy reactor - negligible
fugitives occur only in the event of ruptured discs which reportedly are
rare (Ref. 01, notes on gasoline additives) gives a reference which esti-
mates it at 0.08 Ib Pb/ton product
177
-------
Typical plant size determined by taking a simple average
910,000,000 Ib total capacity . _.._ 108 ..
'• , ' , ' ' ' = 1.5167 x 10 Ib - average capacity
6 plants
Rounding off for convenience
1.5 x 108 Ib/year
76% TEL
24% TML
1.14 x 10° Ib/year
0.36 x 108 Ib/year
All by NaPb process (92.5% of industry)
NaPb process feeds lead at the rate of 4 molecules of NaPb to every one
molecule of TEL or TML produced (see p. 1) with 3 Pb left over. Thus to
obtain feed rate:
Process emission rate
for recovery furnaces
assuming 90% yield
for TEL
TML - assuming 95%
yield
1.14 x 108 Ib TEL prod. 1 year 1 day
year X 365 days X 24 hr
621 Ib Pb prod. !_
X 323 Ib TEL Prod. * 9
2.78 x 104 1!3 P recovered
_hr
TEL Process
0.36 x 108 Ib TML prod. 1 year
year
X 365 days X 24 hr
621 Ib Pb prod. 1 _ -
X 267 Ib TML prod. X 0.95 ~ X
Ib Pb recovered
hr
Total Pb to recovery furnance =
3.79 x 1(T Ib/hr
SIPS (Ref. 08, pp. 29-33)
Emission Fraction
Frequency rate (Ib/hr) 'emission rates
Texas
California*
New Jersey
Louisiana
0.362
0.187
0.187
0.275
56.6
29.3
30.0
29.3
20.5
5.5
5.6
39.7 Ib Part./
hr
* California regulations are by county and Ref. 08 does not list these,
assume county regulations are at least as stringent as the most
stringent state. California usually leads the way.
178
-------
Process Emission Rate for Process Vents
TEL
1.14 x 108 Ib TEL prod. 1 year 1 da
•••HMMMMMM^^^MIMMMtaMiM^^MIaMM •^M^WHMVMM «««M
year
X 365 days X 24 hr
1,176 Ib feed 1
323 Ib TEL prod. X 0.9
=5.26 x 104 Ib feed/hr
TML
0.36 x 108 Ib TML prod. 1 year 1 day 1,120 Ib feed l
year
A 365 days
A 24 hr ^ 267
Ib TML prod. A
= 1.81 x 104 Ib feed/hr
Total
SIPS (Ref. 08, pp.
Texas
California*
New Jersey
Louisiana
7.07
29-33)
Frequency
0.362
0.187
0.187
0.275
x 104 Ib feed
hr
Emission
rate (Ib/hr)
69.5
30.0
30.0
41.9
Fractional
emission rate
25.4"
5.6
5.6 >
11.5
Part, emission
48.1 lb/hr~]
* California particulate regulations are by county and will assume that they
are at least as stringent as the most stringent state listed.
Sludge Pit Emissions
Sludge pit receives what is left over from NaPb process reaction (fine
Pb particles, water, NaCl and trace alkyl lead cpds.).
Four our purposes we will consider Pb and NaCl as major weight con-
stituents.
1.5 x 108 Ib alkyl lead prod. 1 year 1 day 853 Ib NaCl and Pb prod
year X 365 days X 24 hr X 310 Ib alkyl lead prod.*
= 5.18 x 104 Ib/hr feed to sludge pit (less H90)
* Weighted average M.W.
** Weighted average percentage yield.
179
-------
SIPS (Ref. 08, pp 29-33)
Emission Fractional
Frequency rate (Ib/hr) emission rate
Texas
California*
New Jersey
Louisiana
0.362
0.187
0.187
0.275
64.2
30.0
30.0
36.1
23.2"
5.6
5.6
9.9 J
>
44.3 Ib part./hr
* California regulations are by county and Ref. 08 does not list these or any
other available reference. Assume that California counties have regula-
tions as stringent as the most stringent state regulation listed.
Q .
Particulate SIP Emission Limits Summary (1*5 x 10° Ib alkyl lead product per
1. Recovery furnace
2. Process vents
3. Sludge pit
4. Melt furnace
5. Alloy reactor
year model plant)
39.7 Ib/hr
48.1 Ib/hr
44.3 Ib/hr
Negligible
Negligible
1975 Particulate and Lead Emissions
Particulate emission rates are not usually found in the literature for
gasoline additive manufacture.
1. Particulates from recovery furnance would mostly be PbO and for this
estimate will assume 100% PbO.
2. Process vents emit mostly alkyl lead vapors. If these are defined
as particulates when emitted then will assume 100% alkyl lead emitted.
3. Sludge pits will emit mostly alkyl lead particulates so assume all
alkyl lead emissions and = particulate emissions
Emissions will be based on NaPb process (92.5% of total production capacity)
1. PbO is 93% by weight Pb
2. TEL is 64% by weight Pb
5.733 x 108 Ib alkyl lead produced by NaPb process
3. TML is 78% by weight Pb = 2.8665 x 105 tons alkyl lead produced
180
-------
Particulate Emissions 1975
Recovery furnace
Weighted Control Efficiency
55
Ib Pb
1 Ib part.
ton prod. 0.93 Ib Pb
2.8665 x 108 ton prod.
2,000
1-{0.64 x 0.825 + 0.36 x
0.879
0.975), 1
= 1,026 tons particulates
Process Vents
r\
4 Ib Pb 1 Ib part. 0.76 TEL 2.8665 x 105 ton prod. |
ton prod. X 0.64 Ib Pb X 1.0 prod. X 2,000 /
f 150 Ib Pb 1 Ib part. 0.24 TML 2.8665 x 105 ton prod.
\^ton prod. X 0.78 Ib Pb X 1 prod. X 2,000
= 879 tons particulates
Sludge Pit
(No control)
1.2 Ib Pb 2.8665 x 105 ton prod. 1 Ib part.
ton prod. X 2,000 X/0.76 x 0.64 + 0.24 x 0
TEL
TML
.78)
= 255 tons particulates
Total Process Particulates = 2,160 tons
Particulate fugitives - only from < • ~
rupture discs
0.08 Ib Pb 1 Ib part. 2.8665 x 105 ton prod.
ton prod. X 0.7 Ib Pb X 2,000
= 16 tons particulates
depending upon time during
process when rupture happens
emissions could be NaPb, NaCl,
TEL, TML; other hydrocarbons
for sake of estimates will
assume 70% by weight is lead.
Lead Emissions - 1975 (same equations as above leaving out lead to particulate
conversions)
Recovery Recovery furnace - 954 tons
Process vents - 590 tons Pb
Sludge pit - 172 tons Pb
Fugitives 11 tons Pb
181
1,716 tons Pb
-------
Emission rates under NSPS for lead emissions
Emissions come from:
1. Recovery furnace - partial control - 88%
2. Process vents - partial control
3. Sludge pits - uncontrolled presently
4. Fugitives - rupture discs - uncontrolled presently
Recovery furnace - industry figures show 95-99% as best control (Ref. 04,
p. 90) for estimated will assume industry can attain 99% efficiency.
55 Ib Pb
ton prod.
0.01
2.8665 x 105 ton prod. _
2,000
79
tons
Pb
Process vents - control efficiency can be 99% so for estimate will assume 99%
for all process vents.
4 Ib Pb
ton prod.
x 0.01 +
150 Ib Pb
ton prod.
x 0.01 x
286,650 ton prod. =
2,000
221
tons
Pb
Sludge pits - assumes venting to control device at same efficiency as above
-99%.
1.2 Ib Pb . A1 286,650 ton prod.
. x 0.01 x l—„ nnn—c =
ton prod.
2,000
2
tons
Pb
Fugitives - assumes rupture discs can be directed in a closed system similar
to oil refinery approach to a control device at same efficiency as above
(99%).
0.08 Ib Pb
ton prod.
x 0.01 x
286,650 ton prod. _
2,000
1
ton
Pb
Total process emissions now are total of all—303 tons Pb with no fugitives.
182
-------
MODEL PLANT Gasoline Additives
Q
Production rate 1«5 x 10 Ib TEL/year - NaPb process
Special conditions:
Bldg dimensions 51.8 m x 51.8 m x 12.2 m
s:
Recovery
furnace
10.5 m
0.91 m
60°C
3.6 m/sec
Process
vent
45.7 m
1.5 m
25 °C
0.91 m/sec
Sludge
pit
45.7 m
1.22 m
25°C
16.2 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
3.01 g/sec
4.65
0.59
4.31 g/sec
3.88
0.043
1.3 g/sec
3.58
0.013
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
183
-------
A-8 Lead Oxide Plant
1975 - 440,655 tons Pb consumed in the production of white lead, red lead,
litharge and storage battery oxides.
(Ref. 39, p. 18) - Source test on lead oxide mill stack (base mill)
Part. - 0.0133 gr/scf 313 Ib/hr,
Pb - 18.761 mg/m3
Stack temperature - 152°F
Flue gas velocity - 2,470 ft/min
Flue gas flowrate - 2,745 scfm.-
Stack dia. - 15.5 in.
(Stack height - level with sloping
roof height)
0.039 g/sec particulate
0.024 g/sec Pb
0.018761 K 2.745 ft3
3 X min
m
Process average feed - 963 Ib/hr lead
PbO prod. - 1,031 Ib/hr
2.832 x IP"2 1 min
X ft3 X 60 sec
= 2.431 x lO-2
(Ref. 41) 2 ball mills each controlled by two baghouses in parallel
common outlet - one stack
Pb feed rate to each mill - 1,500 Ib Pb/hr
Emission rate - 0.014 Ib Pb/hr (6.6 x 10"4 gr/dscf)
(Ref. 04, p. 69)
States, typical plant probably capturing more than 99.95% of product and
emitting less than 1 Ib of airborne lead oxide particles for every ton produced.
Also uses 4,300 tons/year as a typical plant capacity
1 da';
4.300 2.000 Ib 1 year
year ton 365 days 24 hr
982 Ib Pb/hr
•1,000 Ib/hr
Many battery manufacturers also are oxide manufacturers for their own
use in addition to those companies who make oxides for pigment purposes.
184
-------
(Ref. 01, p. 9-3) Lead emissions estimated at 0.7 Ib/ton Pb processed.
(Ref. 01, p. 9-1) « 83% of oxides used in storage batteries in 1971.
The list of manufactures of oxides presented in Ref. 01, pp. 9-1 and
9-2 in addition to battery manufacturers encompasses most of the states -
without individual production figures the TRC curve for average process
weight will be used (Ref. 03, p. 33).
SIP regulation limit on typical plant of 1,000 Ib/hr - 2.63 Ib/hr particulates
(Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI)
Source test data on lead oxide production in battery plant - particulates
PbO prod. - 8 Barton Pots 1,740 Ib Pb/hr each emit 0.319 Ib/hr average
flow rate of 3,140 scfm with 8 baghouses, one each
(Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI)
Source test data on lead oxide manufacturing
Type of Uncontrolled Controlled Uncontrolled Controlled
1. Barton Pot
2. Furnace,
hammermill
control
BH
j>art,
part.
Part.
Pb
NR
Cyclone 227 Ib/hr
and BH
3. Furnace vent No con- 0.037 Ib/hr
trol
BH
0.420 Ib/hr
0.606 Ib/ton
Pb processed
0.067 Ib/hr
0.0574 Ib/
ton processed
NA
NR
0.332 Ib/hr
0.469 Ib/ton
processed
209 Ib/hr 0.0535 Ib/hr
0.0423 Ib/ton
processed
4. Loading
operations
5. Auxiliary
furnace
operations
Overall con-
trolled plant
BH
NR
50 Ib/hr
0.033 Ib/hr
NR
NA
0.08 Ib/hr NR 0.125 Ib/hr
0.032 Ib/hr 0.9345 Ib/hr 0.0085 Ib/hr
0.675 Ib/ton
prod.
0.512 Ib/ton
processed
185
-------
In 1975 372,700 for battery oxides
65,457 f for pigment oxides.-
2,498
85% Pb used for battery oxides
440,655
0.606 Ib part, emitted
ton Pb processed
hr
0,420 Ib part, emitted
1,386 Ib Pd feed
hr
for data
presented
Emission for 1975
Note - lead oxide manufacture is well controlled as material captured
is product.
Particulates:
Emission rates found in literature (see pp. 1 and 2)
1. 0.319 Ib part./hr - 1,740 Ib Ph/hr feed 0.367 Ib part./ton feed
2. 0.675 Ib part./ton lead processed
3. 0.313 Ib part./hr - 963 Ib/hr lead feed 0.650 Ib part./ton lead feed
take average =
0.565 Ib part./ton Pb processed
well controlled - assume
control at 99.5% applies
to whole industry.
105.3
tons
part.
0.565 Ib part. 372,700 tons Pb processed 1 ton
^^M^M«>««Mn^HM»^MB^M^MMM*lVM «• •••^••^•^•Mi««MM«*«B»««*^™^WB"^"™«^"^»*"-™"™"™^™" ^f ^^••^••B^^^^^^^W
ton Pb processed year 2,000 Ib
Data from p. 2 indicates Pb content of particulates at approximately
0.452 Ib Pb
80%
ton Pb prod.
0.565 x 0.8 x 372,700 x
2,000
84 tons Pb emitted
This industry cannot afford losses so that control is even on loading operations
and auxiliary furnace operations as indicated in Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI
data, therefore will assume no fugitives.
186
-------
Emission rates for SIPS - plant size 1,000 Ib/hr - 2.63 Ib part./hr
No fugitives - > 2.1 Ib Pb/hr
Emission rate for NSPS
Emissions already are judged to be between 99.1 and 99.9% control now.
Average = 99.5
Assuming * is 99.5% control
hr
Then * lb pb would be for 99. 9% control
hr
which is beyond accuracy of these computations thus assume
either no effect by NSPS or efficiency at 99.99% could be
attained.
187
-------
MODEL PIANT
Lead Oxide Plant
Production rate 1,000 lb Pb Processed/Hr
Special conditions:
No fugitives
Bldg dimensions 30*5 m x 30«5 m x 6.1 m
Process
fi.l m
0.38 m
66°G
12.7 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
0.029 g/se
0.26
0.029
^
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
188
-------
A-9 Lead Pigment Manufacture
1975 consumption 79,072 tons Pb
Lead pigments include - white lead, red lead, litharge and other lead color
agents.
From (Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI)
Reports particulate emissions and lead emissions emitted (no indication
of amount of lead processed).
16.2 Ib part./hr| U.9 Ib Pb/hr j
(Ref. 06, p. 4-203) which references Battelle report White lead - 2,498 tons Pb
red lead controlled 1.0 Ib Pb/ton lead red lead and litharge -
white lead controlled 0.55 Ib/ton 65,457
lead chromates controlled 0.13 Ib/ton pigment colors - 10,618
others - 499
Litharge appears to be the predominant pigment produced -
(Ref. 04, p. 9) 1971 9,000 tons white lead - 75-80% Pb
24,000 tons red lead Pb304 - 91% Pb
138,000 tons litharge PbO - 93% Pb
In 1971 81.3 x 103 tons Pb consumed 1 ,
TO-,.. n_- , no . j j? other pigments are less than 1,000 tons
1971 171 x 10J tons pigment produced] r e *
about 2 to 1 ratio product to Pb consumed
Red lead manufacture - 1975 production lumped with litharge - 65,457 tons of both
(Ref. 06, p. 20) estimates 1.2 Ib part./hr from 3° tOnS red lead plant
day r
(Ref. 06, p. 33) estimates 0.325 Ib Pb/hr from 60 tons chrome pigment/day
typical plant
(this is 95% control) 2.0 Ib part./hr from 60 tons chrome pigment/day
typical plant
control required for product recovery
189
-------
1975 Emissions
The level of production of white lead is low enough along with the esti-
mated emission being low (less than 1 ton/year) that it will not be considered
in these estimates*
1. Red lead and litharge will be considered together - (represents 99.1% control)
1.2 Ib part. 1 day
hr 30 tons
x ' = 0.96 Ib part./ton product
day
0.96 Ib part. 1 ton product
ton product 0.92 ton lead
1.04 Ib part.
ton Pb
0.96 Ib Pb
ton Pb
1.04 Ib part. ,._ .__ , 1 ton
-f x 65,457 tons Pb x , .
ton Pb 2,000 Ib
34 tons particulates
0.96 Ib Pb ._ .__ . 1 ton
x 65,457 tons Pb x
ton Pb
2,000 Ib
31.4 tons Pb
2. Leaded chrome pigments (95% control)
1 day
2.0 Ib part.
hr
_______________ 24 hr 1 ton prod.
X 60 tons prod. X day X 0.1625 ton Pb
4.9 Ib part.
ton Pb
4.916 Ib part. 0.1625 Pb _ 0.8 Ib Pb
ton Pb 1 Ib part. ton Pb processed
4.9 Ib part. nn ..,,, „, 1 ton
^r x 10,618 ton Pb x 0 nr.A '
ton Pb 2,000 Ib
26 tons part,
0.8 Ib Pb 1 ton
x 10,618 ton Pb x
ton Pb
2,000 Ib
4.2
tons
Pb
Total 1975 emissions
60
tons
part.
36
tons
Pb
190
-------
SIP'S
Red lead and litharge
. . t 30 tons 1 day 2,000 Ib
Typical plant — x ,. , J x —r
day 24 hr hr
2,500 Ib/hr
Particulate emission rate will be taken from TRG curve
(Ref. 04, p. 33)
5.2 Ib part./hr -J4.8 Ib Pb/hr
hr
2,000
2,500 Ib x ton
x
4.2 Ib Pb
ton Pb processed
1 ton produced
0.92 ton Pb
Leaded chrome pigments
.-•ii* 6° tons 1 day 2,000 Ib I, nnn .. ..
typical plant -— x -. ' x —l = 5,000 Ib/hr
J day 24 hr ton __
7.5 Ib part./hr =
1.2 Ib Pb/hr
No fugitives
2.95 Ib Pb
ton Pb processed
NSPS would only upgrade controls from 95% to 99.9% effluent.
1. Red lead and litharge
99.9% control yields:
0.96 Ib Pb . nn .„ . . .
• is 99.1% control projecting to
ton Pb
0.11 Ib Pb
ton Pb produced
is best control emission rate
2. Leaded chrome pigments 0.8 Ib Pb/ton Pb processed is 95% control
99.9% control yields
0.016 Ib Pb
ton Pb processed
191
-------
MODEL PLANT
Lead Pigment Plant
Production rate
1.25 tons/hr
Special conditions:
Bldg dimensions
45.7 m x 45«7 x 6.1 m
45.7 m
1.8 m
66°G
8.4 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
0.1S o/SPr
0.61 g/sec
0.014 g/se
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. • _
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
192
-------
A-10 Lead Acid Batteries
1975 - 326,714 tons Pb consumed in grids, pacts, etc.
- 372,700 tons Pb consumed in storage battery oxides
(Ref. 40, p. 17) lists following data obtained by private communication from
nine plants*
Plant
1
2*
3*
4*
5
6
7
8
9
Control
None
BH
BH
BH
Lead traps
None
Filter pads
None
BH
Pb
Emissions
0.03 tons/
year
0.91
1.04
0.36
0.006
0.02
0.12
0.10
0.42
PbO
Emissions
0.26 tons/
year
0.23
0.26
0.03
-
0.40
3.00
0.80
0.02
Pb
Emission
factor
0.92 lb/
ton
processed
0.80
0.80
0.55
0.86
1.0
0.80
0.83
0.81
PbO
Emission
factor
20 Ib/ton
processed
0.20
0.20
0.02
-
20
20
20
0.05
* Plants 2, 3, 4, 9. Also are all controlled by BHj are larger production
facilities > 1,000 tons Pb consumed per year. Plants 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 are
300 tons Pb consumed per year or less with no effective controls.
For 2, 3, 4, 9
(0.8 + 0.8 + 0.55 + 0.84)/4 = 0.74 lb Pb/ton processed Pb
(0.2 + 0.2 -»- 0.02 + 0.05)/4 = 0.12 lb PbO/ton processed PbO
For 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 (0.92 + 0.86 + 1.0 + 0.80 + 0.83)/5 = 0.88 lb Pb/ton
processed Pb
(20 + 20 + 20 + 20)/4 = 20 lb PbO/ton processed PbO
(Ref. 40, p. 16) 5,000 battery/day plant emits 16.875 lb PbO/day
0.003 lb Pb/battery
193
-------
(Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI) - Emission data for lead-acid storage battery
manufacture.
Process
Process weight
rate
Avg. part.
emission
SCFM
Controls and
no.
1. 2-Reverb. fum. 2,000 Ib/hr each 2.45 Ib/hr 15,000 1 BH
2. 3-Oxide grinders 4,800 Ib/hr each 0.61 Ib/hr 3,066 3 Cyclone/bag/
rotoclones
3. 9-Paste mixers 2,275 Ib/hr each 1.73 Ib/hr 8,600 3 Rotoclones
4. Stackers - 2 20,000 Ib/hr each 5.0 Ib/hr 21,000 2 Rotoclones
5. Battery break- 100,000 Ib/hr total 2.41 Ib/hr 21,000 3 Rotoclones
apart
1 - casting furnace - (no control^ part. 0.0226 Ib/hr 0.197 Ib/ton Pb input
24.616 mm grids
29% Pb
Pb 0.0063 Ib/hr 0.0421 Ib/ton Pb input
5.25 Ib/mm grids
1 - paste mixer - scrubber Part. 0.0774 Ib/hr 0.147 Ib/ton Pb feed
0.124 Ib/ton paste produced
Eff. = 85% for Pb - 83.4% for part. Pb 0.0398 Ib/hr 0.0530 Ib/ton lead oxide
.^f 0.0447 Ib/ton paste
51% Pb
3 process operation - baghouse part. 0.486 Ib/hr 11,000 Ib/mm batteries
7\ produced
1.3% Pb
(stacking, burning and
assembly)
Pb
0.0061 Ib/hr 59.4 Ib/mm batteries
produced
Eff. = 97% for Pb - 35% for part.
overall control led plant^ 0.884 Ib part./ton material processed
0.668 Ib/ton product
6.2% Pb0.0546 Ib Pb/ton Pb processed
0.0293 Ib Pb/ton of product
(Ref. 01, p. 67, Vol. II) states that an estimated 93% of all storage batteries
are lead-acid storage batteries. Also 240 battery plants nationwide.
194
-------
(Ref. 40, Appendix, Table 1.1) list the storage battery manufactures in the
U.S. with all (240 locations) with from one to several hundred employees with
most being less than 50 employees (71.7%).
(Ref. 06, p. 4-21, 4-22) data presented caused authors to arrive at an esti-
mated 5.0 Ib Pb/1,000 batteries emission rate states 1975 production at
48,325,000 batteries and overall industry control at 80%.
Potential sources
1. Lead melting pots
2. Castings machines
3. Oxide mixing
4. Pasting and assembly
5. Battery breakapart (part of secondary smelter)
(Ref. 39, p. 18) grid casting pot stack emissions controlled by cyclone
stack temperature -140°F
velocity 3,774.7 ft/min
16 in. stack
(5 pots with/2 casters each)
Part. - 0.0039 gr/scf
Pb - 0.3323 mg/m3
4,575.9 scfm
prod. 1,291 Ib Pb processed/hr
0.135 Ib Pb/grid
0.0039 Rr 4,575.9 ft3 60 min 1 Ib
ft3
0.
ton
237
Pb
x .
min
Ib part.
processed
X hr X 7,000 gr
0
.153
Ib
part
./hr
0.3323jae 0.0283 m3
=3a- x _ -s x
\JK 1 Ib 4.575.9^ 60jaflf
1,000 jag
hr
0.0057 Ib/hr lead
0.0088 Ib Pb
ton Pb processed
3.7% of particulates
195
-------
(Ref. 42, p. 1-4)
Source Control
1. Pasting line BH
2. Grid and parts Rotoclone
casting
3• Vacuum cleaner No
4. Postburner and No
cpd. pot
5. Heat seal No
6. Pasting line furnace No
Efficiency
99.6%
97.2%
Total
Part.
emission
0.04 Ib/hr
0.048 Ib/hr
0.025 Ib/hr
0.18 Ib/hr
0.104 Ib/hr
0.045 Ib/hr
0.442 Ib/hr
Refining data from p. 2 to compare with'data on p. 1.
2.45 Ib part. 1-kg 2,000-tfr
Reverberatory furnace
4,000
ton
1.23 Ib part.
ton Pb feed
assume 100% Pb =
1.23 Ib Pb
ton Pb feed
Oxide grinders
Paste mixers
0.61 Ib part.
Jax-
1.73 Ib part.
hr
X
-l-hr
2,000
4,800
1 hr
ton PbO
0.085 Ib part.
ton PbO feed
2,275 Ib PbO 9
I 2,000 Ib PbO _
ton PbO
0.169 Ib part.
ton PbO feed
r « ,,./, 1 hr 1 2,000 Ib
Stackers 5.0 Ib/hr x „. nnn ., „, x — x —«- =
For 1 reverberatory
furnace
For 1 oxide grinder
For 1 paste mixer
For 1 stacker
20,000 Ib Pb 2
Part.
from above
1.23 Ib/ton Pb
0.085 Ib/ton PbO
0.169 Ib/ton PbO
0.25 Ib/ton Pb
1.58 Ib/ton Pb
0.25 Ib/ton PbO
ton
0.25 Ib part.
ton Pb processed
Other data p. 2
0.2 Ib/ton Pb
0.147 Ib/ton PbO
0.486 Ib/hr
Overall 0.884 Ib part./ton Pb processed
0.0546 Ib Pb/ton Pb processed
(part, is 6.2% Pb)
The conclusions of 0.74 Ib Pb/ton processed Pb and 0.12 Ib PbO/ton processed
PbO from p. 1 seems in tune with other estimates (overall controlled plant from
p. 2 at 0.884 Ib part./ton material processed), and from above 1.5 Ib/ton Pb
and 0.25 Ib/ton PbO.
196
-------
1975 Emission
0.74 lb Pb/ton processed Pb
+
r, ,„ -.1. r. / jr. 207 lb Pb 1 ton processed PbO
0.12 lb PbO/ton processed PbO x OOQ x -A-93 ' TT
0.12 lb Pb
ton Pb feed
From a review of the industry it appears that the majority of the pro-
duction comes from 28% of the industry and that they would be controlled at
95 to 99% leaving the rest with either no controls or at best low energy
type controls up to 80% efficiency; for the sake of this estimate will assume
rest has no control. Assume 99% for industry with control and 90% of produc-
tion is included in these 28% (of production). There are few opportunities for
fugitives in a controlled plant with good housekeeping practices, therefore
will assume no fugitives.
Large industry
lb Pb
x 326,714 ton Pb x 0.9 x „- = 109 tons Pb
, . „-
ton Pb processed 2,000
0.12 lb PbO 0.93 lb Pb 1 ton PbO .__ ^nn „. 1 _ 00 .. _.
x Trrrr-— TT x 372,700 ton Pb x r-rrr = 22 tons Pb
ton PbO processed A lb PbO 0.93 ton Pb "'->'~~ ~" " " 2,000
Small industry (Note: Small industry would most likely not produce there own
PbO and therefore all emissions based on lead consumed
in parts or casting.)
0.88 lb Pb 14 tons pb
ton Pb processed
20 lb PbO 0.93 lb Pb 0_ ... „. _ . 1
x ———rrr— x 326,714 tons Pb x 0.1 x n nnn = 304 tons Pb
. . . <,. . .. ..
ton Pb lb PbO 2,000
1975 total Pb emissions =
449 tons Pb
197
-------
It is suspected that the emission data presented in (Ref. 40, p. 17) are
somewhat misleading. Plants 2, 3, 4, 9 have baghouses for control and also
are larger plants consuming over 1,000 tons Pb/year each. It has been esti-
mated by TRC in their work sheets on Lead Acid Batteries that it takes 12
Ib of Pb and 13 Ib of PbO to make one average battery. Note: at this rate
1,000 tons Pb consumed per year is approximately 225 batteries produced per
day. It is also suspected that these larger plants might reclaim their own
scrap and produce their own PbO. Thus, the reported plant emissions would
appear high in comparison to Plants 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 (see p. 1) which would
sell their scrap and buy PbO. In light of this argument the estimated total
lead emissions could be comprised of 2° lead smelter emissions and lead oxide
emission and give a false high total to the entire 17 industry lead emission
total.
1975 Particulate Emissions
There does not seem to be any relationship between particulates and the
Pb content reported in the several references investigated here. Values
range from: [1.3% to 51% Pb]
An overall plant figure calculated for various processes from data given
on p. 2 is 6.2% Pb, so that
449 tons Pb x *..,, n ° r * = 7,242 tons particulates
O.U62 ton Pb
SIP Reg. Emissions
(Ref. 06, p. 4-21) 48,325,000 batteries manufactured in 1975, straight
average yields 550 batteries per day as average size plant.
A typical plant would be more on the order of 4,000 to 4,500 batteries
per day, will use 4,500 batteries per day plant as one of typical production
capacity.
Since there are 240 battery plants spread over most of the U.S. will
use the TRC average process weight rate curve (Ref. 03, p. 33).
(4,500 batteries/day) For 48,325,000 batteries produced in 1975 it took
326,714 tons Pb - 123 tons emitted to the atmosphere during production of
the batteries and 372,700 tons Pb to produce 400,753 tons of PbO - 393 tons
Pb emitted to the atmosphere to produce these batteries.
13.5 Ib Pb/battery average
16.6 Ib PbO/battery average
30.1 Ib material/battery
198
-------
4,500 batteries 1 day 30.1 lb material processed __
day
24 hr
Es =8.2 lb part./hr
battery
at 6.2% Pb =
5,644 Ib/hr
0.51 lb Pb/hr
0.51 lb Pb
hr
hr
5,644 lb process material
2,000 lb v 0.96 part, process material
'' •" "— X •—" •" -««^«i
ton
1 pb
0.17 lb Pb
ton Pb feed
Note: for smaller plants where the major emissions are
suspected, this value would be lower.
It is recognized that various processes have different feed rates within
a battery plant and would be subject to emissions rates for each emission
point, but in an effort to arrive at average conditions the above approach
is used here and in many of the other sections of this work sheet volume.
NSPS emissions
NSPS would have little effect on large plants
0.74 lb Pb
ton Pb process
represents 99% control
, also represent 99% control
ton PbO processed
Taking control to 99.9% which should represent best control yields emission
rates of:
0.074 lb Pb
ton Pb processed
and
0.012 lb PbO _
ton pbO processed
0.012 lb Pb
ton Pb processed to make PbO
NSPS would have reasonably good results
0.88 lb Pb
20 lb PbO
19.5 lb Pb
ton lb Pb processed
19.5 lb Pb
-------
MODEL PLANT Lead Acid Battery
Production rate
4,500 batteries/day
Special conditions:
Three shifts
Modeled as building emissions
No fugitives
Bldg dimensions
61 m x 61 m.x 9 m
10 m
—
75°G
5 m/sec
•
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
0.29 g/sec
0.064 g/sec
0.029 e/sec
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
200
-------
A-11 Metal Can Soldering
1975 - 134,610,000 base boxes of steel tinplate cans shipped = 15,400 base
boxes per hour average (Source: Bureau of the Census - Metal Cans,
December 1976 in current industrial reports).
Emission pts - solder bath, wiping station
57,344 tons Pb consumed in all solder applications in 1975
(Ref. 04, p. 73) projects 50 billion cans soldered in 1975
(Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter VI) Data from can manufacturing operations
Amount Pb in solder
(%) Weight solder bath Lb Pb emitted/hr Lb/year
1. 98 800 2.4 x 10~6
2. 98 450 1.0 x 10-6
3. 40 225 0.018
4. 60 213 0.076
5. 60 225 0.086
6. 98 550 0.011
7. 98 550 0.009
8. 98 3,072 0.061
9. 98 350 0.012
10. 98 300 0.294
11. 98 350 0.33
12. NR NR 0.013
(4 tons Pb)
Data indicate total nationwide emissions for Pb by can
manufacturing will be low
,- «,\ 1»8 Ib Pb consumed
(Ref. 01, Vol. II, Chapter IX, p. 21) 1 QQQ cans
(REf. 04, pp. 75, 76) Reports for a company using a "typical" can line that
produces 1.44 x 10 cans per year 96.4 Ib Pb/year emitted from solder bath
and 412 Ib of lead per year at the wiping station. The 412 represents a
control efficiency of 50% - 4,800 hr operation.
Data presented in the Bureau of the Census, CIR, Metal Cans, December
1976 enables an average number of cans per base box to be estimated at 468
(39 dozen)
201
-------
134,610.000 base boxes x cans = 62.997 billion cans
' base box
62.997 x 109 cans x ' . •* - 56,697 tons Pb consumed
Less than total Pb con
sumed in solder cases
category
There are no good estimates for the percentage soldered metal cans out of
the total number referenced 134,610,000 base boxes
508 Ib Pb emitted QQ . n9 1 ton
above data gives - rrs - x 62.997 x 107 cans x _»„ .
e 1.44 x 10° cans 2,UUU ID
= 111 tons Pb emitted
Note: Rather than guess at the percentage soldered cans it was de-
sired to be conservative and assume all cans were soldered
to arrive at maximum emissions
(Ref. 06, p. 4-217) states particulate contain 3 to 38% Pb so back figuring
particulates from lead emissions yields:
/ A /0.03 + 0.38\
I 111 tons Pbjx ( ) =
541 tons particulates
fugitives would not exist in estimatable amounts so assume no fugitives.
SIP emissions
State by state production figures for cans were not available so the
TRC average process weight rate curve will be used (Ref. 03, p. 33)
Typical plant from p. 2
1.44 x 108 cans/year - 4,800 hr operation = 30,000 cans/hr
30,000 cans 1.8 Ib Pb consumed _ 54 Ib Pb consumed 3 Ib used
hr X cans ~ hr 1 Ib consumed
162 Ib Pb feed
hr
0.205 Pb
PWR curve =
0.8 Ib part./hr
202
x
1 part
-------
for two typical lines running
PWR =
1.2 Ib part./hr
x 0.205 = 0.25 Ib Pb/hr
0.16 Ib Pb
hr
NSPS
412 Ib/year at wiping station represents 50% control
96.4 Ib/year at solder station represents no control
Projecting to 99.9% control:
0.82 Ib/year - wipe station
0.096 Ib/year - bath
0.91 6 Ib/year =
0.00019 Ib Pb/hr
203
-------
MODEL PLANT
Metal Can Soldering
Production rate
Special conditions:
1«44 x 10^ cans/year/line
2 cans running
Bldg dimensions
61 m x 61 m x 9 m
10.1 m
0.5 m
50°C
6 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
0.026 g/sec
0.032
0.000048
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
204
-------
A-13 Type Metal Operations
Type metal consumption for 1.975 - | 16,211 tons Pb | - misleading figure
since the industry uses Pb alloys and recycles its used type and plates. Thus
lead consumed per year represents replacement lead due to losses to the atmo-
sphere and to other losses.
(Ref. 06, pp. 4-212-4-213) 35% total particulate emissions is Pb
330 recycle to replacement ratio
1/2 current Pb type operations control by 80% rest
uncontrolled
(Pb content 60 to 85%)
(Ref. 26, p. 74) 220 large newspapers using hot type process
6,680 commerical typesetters
630 periodicals
380 book publishing and printing
70 business forms printers
50 greeting card printers
1,730 printing trade services
1,020 miscellaneous operators
Total 10,780 establishments use lead in the form of type
An average of 71% of these companies employ less than 20 people, thus small
operators are the rule.
The rate of consumption turns out to be an average of 1.5 tons Pb/establishment
Thus * . ,— • '••'• x 330 = 495 tons Pb processed per year per
year/establishment
establishment
Emissions from type metal operations would be from the melting pot and
typecasting. Source test data are limited on type metal operations but should
be similar to lead melting in cable covering operations, etc. Any one of the
processes that melt lead. Can soldering also.
(Ref. 05, p. 88) - replaced 104 tons type metal to make up for losses during
remelting of 37,000 tons
205
-------
Particules = 62% noneombustables average
40% Pb average
Emission rate of 3.9 Ib Pb/day x
3.9 Ib Pb year 365 days 1 ton metal consumed
•M^^M^BH^^B^B^BHM V •^•••"•"•"•Mi^^"""""^^"^"""^"""^*^"* \f •^•^•••••••^^•B -^ •—^^•^^•^^^^•••^•^•••-•••^••^^^•^•^•^•^•^•••^
day 104 tons type metal year 0.725 tons Pb consumed
11 A 18.9 Ib Pb x
Uncontrolled = , 1
ton Pb consumed
18.9 x 16,211 0.6 x \ = 92 tons Pb emitted (1975)
£. y UUU
Type casting would be similar to grid and post casting in battery manufacturing.
(Ref. 39. p. 18) — ~ controlled by cyclone (assume 90% efficiency)
r ton Pb processed
0.088 Ib Pb 330 tons Pb processed
— MM^MH^MMWVMMMMMMMM ^ ««^BMBM^M
ton Pb processed ton Pb consumed
29 Ib Pb ... „_, , , 1 ton
= . x 16,211 tons Pb consumed x , n '
ton Pb consumed 2,000
x 0.6 = 141 tons Pb
It appears that total Pb emissions from type metal operations would be
sum of melting pot emissions and type casting emissions.
92
141
233 tons Pb
Particulates will be back calculated, Pb reported as 35% of emissions
(see p. 1)
233
n •• = 666 tons particulates
U.Jo
No fugitives expected.
206
-------
SIP Regulstions 495 tons Pb/year processed is average size operation
Assume 1,000 tons Pb/year processed is typical
228 Ib Pb/hr x
1 Ib alloy
0.725 Ib Pb
315 Ib/hr process rate
Since the number of operations is large 710,000 (see p. 1) will use average
process weight rate curve (Ref. 03, p. 33).
1.3 Ib part./hr x 0.35 =
0.46 Ib Pb 1 hr
" x
hr
x
2,000 Ib Pb
228 Ib Pb ton Pb consumed
0.46 Ib Pb/hr
=
3.2 Ib Pb/ton Pb consumed
NSPS
233 tons Pb emitted
28.7 Ib Pb
16,211 tons consumed ton Pb consumed
47.9 Ib Pb
Uncontrolled rate =
ton Pb consumed
= 40% overall control
^ assume best control at 99%
0.48 Ib Pb
ton Pb consumed
0.48 Ib Pb
ton Pb oonGumcd
1 ton Pb eonaumed 228 Ib Pb
«
330 tono pr-oceoacd
hr
0.33
Ib
Pb/hr
207
-------
MODEL PIANT
Production rate 1,000 ton Pb/year melted
Special conditions:
Type metal casting is only a small portion of a printing
operation, therefore a completely artifical building model
will be assumed
Bldg dimensions
21.5 m x 21.5 m x 7 m
7.6 m
0.3 m
40°C
6 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Nov
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters;
Bldg dimensions
0.015 g/sec
0.064
O.OOQS
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. - _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
208
-------
A-14 Combustion of Fossil Fuel
Not to include gasoline:
(Ref. 44, p. 18)
Pb in coal by type
Cone* in coal Approximate stack conci
f~57% of coal burned - 4-15; ppm - 10 0.4-1.5 mg/m3
for utilities \ Appalachian average
^34% of coal burned - 10-17 ppm - 14 0.8-1.4 mg/m3
Interior Eastern average
Interior Western 10 ppm 1 mg/m
Southwestern 0 0
Great northern 9 ppm 0.7 mg/m
plains
Western 6-10 ppm 0.5-1.0 mg/m
(Ref. 44, p. 22-23, Table 2) range of reported Pb concentration in coals
0.20-218 ppm
(Ref. 44, p. 28, Table' 6) Pb concentration in U.S. crude oil and residual
oil 0.3-20 ppm
From data above it appears that 10 ppm is a good average Pb concentra-
tion for coal burned in the U.S.
(Ref. 06, p. 3-76) coal combusted in
1. Utility boilers - 412 x 106 tons
2. Industrial boilers - 54 x 10^ tons
3. Commercial and - 4 x IP tons
institutional
Total = 470 x 106 tons
(Ref. 06, p. 3-77) 60-90% of Pb in coal ends up in fly ash
average - 75% ends up in fly ash
209
-------
1,520 jj,g Pb/g ash = (1,520 ppm)
Starting with 10 ppm average Pb concentration in all the coal fired in
the U.S. will calculate emissions to the atmosphere based upon 60% removal in
(Ref. 44, p. 40, Table 14) > Bottom ash and fly ash collector.
Removal efficiency from several references
1. 60.8
2. 32.0
3. 86.O/average = 59.6% = 60%
1 ton Pb /i5'{ R coal 2,000 Ib coal
10 us Pb J_
- g coal X lO^utg Pb * f\5/\ g, Pb x 2,000 Ib Pb * 1 Ib coal A 1 Ib coal
1,880
tons Pb/year
0.008 Ib Pb/ton
coal
470 x 10ft ton cocri: 0.4 ton Pb emitted
—MH^HMM^Bm^B^B^^HHMHMMHBV^M «r •••MB^MMIHHMnBMM«-»MMMM«M«* j—j
year ton Pb—
Particulates from Coal Fired Boilers
There were 43,561 coal burning boilers in 1971 (see Table A-l)
(Ref. 46, AP-42, pp. 1.1-3, 1.1-2, 1.3-2) Emission factors for coal
No. (A) Ib part./ pL. 16A > 100 x 10° Btu/hr, bituminous, general, pulverized
ton coal : ) 2. 13A > 100 x 10° Btu/hr, bituminous, wet bottom pulverized
A = % ash in coal 3. 17A > 100 x 10" Btu/hr, bituminous, dry bottom pulverized
I 4. 2A > 100 x 10^ Btu/hr, bituminous, cyclone, pulverized
High use *—
Utilities
1,300 instillations
40,000 institutions<
high use
5. 13A 10 to 100 x 10*> Btu/hr, bituminous, spreader stoker,
pulverized
6. 2A < 10 x 10^ Btu/hr, bituminous, spreader stoker,
pulverized
7. 17A
8. 2A
Average = 10.25
Low use
"9. 7A
10. 6A
11. 7A
12. 3A
anthranite, dry bottom, pulverized
anthranite, overfeed stoker,
pulverized
Lignite, dry bottom, pulverized
Lignite, cyclone, pulverized
Lignite, spreader stoker, pulverized
Lignite, other stokers, pulverized
Average = 8.75 A
Overall factor would be 10A Ib part./ton coal
Ash content 8-15%
1 = 11.5%
210
-------
a/
Table A-l. NUMBER OF GOAL BURNING BOILERS IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 1971-
Size range
(installed capacity
106 Btu/hr input)
0.5-1
1-2
2-5
5-10
10-20
20-50
50-100
100-200
200-500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-5,000
5,000-10,000
10,000-20,000
> 20, 000
Total all sizes
percent
Stoker coal
Commerical
4,910
3,387
4,998
3,917
1,378
1,053
336
47
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,039
Industrial
1,754
1,967
3,946
3,264
2,004
2,579
1,573
643
157
15
5
2
0
0
0
17,903
Utility
1
1
6
3
14
39
67
117
58
5
2
2
0
0
0
315
Total
6,665
5,355
8,950
7,184
3,396
3,671
1,976
807
228
20
7
4
0
0
0
38,263
87 . 8%
Commerical
0
109
0
27
63
100
33
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
348
Pulverized coal
Industrial
281
765
689
326
428
368
294
409
220
, 51
10
5
1
0
0
3,847
Utility
0
0
0
0
2
14
19
81
302
235
266
125
53
2
4
1,103
Total
281
874
689
353
493
482
346
506
522
286
276
130
54
2
4
5,298
12.27.
Grand
total
6,946
6,229
9,639
7,537
3,889
4,153
2,322
1,313
750
306
283
134
54
2
4
43,561
1007.
a/ Data taken from the following reference: Putnam, A. A., E. L. Kropp, R. E. Barrett - Battelle Columbus Laboratories,
~" "Evaluation of National Boiler Inventory," EPA-600/2-75-067, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
October 1975 (NTIS No. PB-248-100).
-------
Uncontrolled Emissions
10 x 11.5 Ib part. 1 ton part. ._ft ,rtfi i
; 7 r * I; 7- x 470 x 10° tons coal
ton coal 2,000 Ib part.
(Ref. 06, p« 3-80) assume 80% overall collection
= 27.025 x 106 x 0.2
= 5.41 x 10° tons particulates from coal combustion
Oil Combustion
(Ref. 44, p. 28, Table 6)
Pb content of crude oil and residual oil (ppm) range 0.3-20
skewed toward 0.3
(Ref. 06, p. 3-85) oil consumption
1.04 x 109 bbl - dist. fuel oil ~ No. 1 and 2
1.12 x 109 bbl - residual fuel oil ~ No. 5 and 6
(Ref. 46 - AP-42, p. 1.3-2) Emission factors for fuel oil combustion
Particulates:
1. Power plants 8 lb/103 gal.
2. Residual 23 lb/103 gal.
3. Distillate 15 lb/103 gal.
4. Domestic 10 lb/103 gal.
77% of residual fired in utility boilers in 1974
23% of residual fired in industrial boilers in 1974
(Ref. 06, <
p. 3-90)
57% of distillate burned in utility boilers in 1974
43% of distillate burned in industrial boilers in 1974
Also that 60% of lead in fuel is emitted to atmosphere.
0.1 ppm in distillate
1 ppm in residual
Average API gravity of U.S. residual = 13° API
Average API gravity of distillate fuel oil = 36° API
212
-------
American Crudes - 1975 Oil and Gas Journal review of crude oils
Kerosine
Diesel
Wide range
Residual
46
39
40
46.2
40
41
42
40
33
37
43
39
46.9
40.4
51.4
52.7
50.8
52.1
48.5
—
—
*»
**„-,,
Avg. 43.6° API
Distillate fuel
0.1 ppm Pb
0.1 jift-Pfe -4§4-
g— . .r "I i %*
41.7
41
35
33
38.9
35
36
34
36
29
34
35.7
36
37.7
.
30.0
35.6
42
41.1
-
_
_
_
"
Avg. 36.2° API
Avg. 35.7° API
oil
= -j^ 36° API = 7
a oil 7.04 Ib oil
-» -J 1 *-» rt 1
1.04 x !09~bWr oil
21.7
29
28
24
26.6
29
28
22.5
27
22
26
27.3
28
22
21.1
24.6
28
31.5
26.9
34
34
35.3
36
30
Avg. 27.2° API
.04 Ib/gal.
42 gal. oil 1 Ib Pb
bbl oil A 4^4 x 1n (is
7.9
14
14
10
11.2
11
15
6
15
15
15
-
14
18.8
12.1
11.2
16.9
15
11.5
24.8
11
12
18
_5
Avg. 13.2°
Pb
API
2,000 Ib Pb
x 0.4 = 6.15 tons Pb emitted
213
-------
Residual oil
1 ppm Pb = 1 jig Pb/g oil 13° API = 8.2 Ib/gal.
1 u,g Pb 1 _g Pb 1 Ib Pb 1 ton Pb in oil 454 g-oil- 8.2 -Ib-oil
g oil x 10° ^g-'pb X 454 g Pb X 2,000 Ib Pb X Ib oil X gal, oil
42-gal, oil 9 0.4 ton Pb emitted __ . _ _, . _ ,
• ' °—— x 1.12 x ICr bbl oil x —: —— = 77.15 tons Pb emitted
•bbl oil 1 ton Pb in oil
Total Pb emitted 83.3 tons Pb
Grand total Pb for coal and oil combustion for 1975 =
1,963 tons Pb |
Particulates:
Q
Residual - 1.12 x 10 bbl Using same breakdown as 1974
Fuel oil - 1.04 x 109 bbl
1.12 x 109 bbl x 0.77 x 8 lb/103 gal. x 4" ?al* x 0.2 x Vnnn^f' = 28,977
bbi 2
1.12 x 109 bbl x 0.23 x 23 lb/103 gal. x 42 x 0.2 x 1/2,000 = 24,884
1.04 x 109 bbl x 0.57 x 8 lb/103 gal. x 4?.?al* x 0.2 x 1/2,000 = 19,918
.
bbl
1.04 x 109 bbl x 0.43 x 15 lb/103 gal. x 4?J?a1' x 0.3 x 1/2,000 = 28,174
bbl
Total =101,953
tons
SIP regulations for fossil fuel fired steam boilers -
(Ref. 03 - worksheets on Es determination for particulates) - to avoid unneces-
sary duplication where TRC's estimates are as good as any.
Particulates
Es = 0.039 lb/106 Btu boilers < 0.3 x 10 Btu in states w/o regulations
Esexist = °*48 lb/1C)6 Btu boilers 0.3 to 10 x 106 Btu
Es = 0.428 lb/106 Btu boilers 0.3 to 10 x 106 Btu
new
E» = 0.383 lb/106 Btu boilers 10 to 250 x 106 Btu
"sexist
214
-------
'new
= 0.334 lb/106 Btu boilers 10 to 250 x 106 Btu
Esexist = °-277 lb/106 Btu boilers greater than 250 x 106 Btu
Es = 0.1 lb/106 Btu boilers greater than 250 x 106 Btu
"new
Pb
NSPS - FFF steam generators - Q > 250 mm Btu/hr > 0.1 Ib/mm Btu
0.1 Ib part. 10^" Btu n nn, ., ... ,
77S— « x TT T = °«°°1 Ib part./lb coal
10° mm Btu Ib coal
Total particulate emissions - 1975 for coal and oil combustion =
5,410,000 tons
101,953 tons
5,511,953 tons
coal
oil
215
-------
MODEL PLANT
Combustion of Fossil Fuel
Production rate 500 mw power plant - coal fired
Special conditions:
Fuel usage - 340 kg coal/MWH
Fuel gas flow - 51 Nm^/min/mw
Bldg dimensions 91.4 m x 91.4 m x 30.5 m
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
76.2 m
3.05 m
204°G
58.2 m/sec
0.19 g/sec
0.045
0.016
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
216
-------
A-15 Waste Oil Combustion
The literature emphasis has been on Pb from waste crankcase oil combus-
tion due to its high concentration of Pb.
More than 2.4 x ICr gal. of lubricating oil are sold annually for non-
automobile use (Ref. 49). The literature has not been specific on how much
of this is burned. Hints are made but no one seems to really know what in-
dustry does with their waste oils.
Reference 48 prefers to collect industrial waste oils because they do not
have the high concentrations of metallic oxides for re-refining.
Reference 52, Appendix A estimates 1971 industrial oil accounted for as
4 x 10° gal. but not necessarily burned
This is only 0.2% of total amount.
It is (our) guess that the total waste oil burned quoted in Ref. 06
which quotes another source includes all waste oils burned; therefore, no
estimate will be made for wastes oils separately for particulates and Pb
emissions.
It is suspected that waste nonindustrial oils would have nearly the
same lead concentrations as found in the oil purchased from the refinery
?« 1 ppm.
For a model plant burning 100% waste oil in a 250 x 10 Btu/hr boiler
emissions would be
.UB Pb la Pb 1 Ib Pb 454 R oil- 7.5 Ib -&U 1 gal, oil 250 x 106 -Bfctt-
x b X 454 g Pb X Ib -aii- X gal. oil X 16,000 B£«-X hr
0.12 Ib Pb/hr
For 250 x 106 Btu/hr SIP = 0.277 Ib part./106 Btu x 25° * 10 Btu
__ j^j.
_ 69.3 Ib part.
hr
217
-------
2,000 83.3 tons Pb
2,000 X 101,953 tons part.
8.2 x IP"4 Ib Pb
Ib part.
69.3 Ib part./hr x 8.2 x 10~4 Ib Pb/lb part,
0.06 Ib Pb/hr
NSPS
' x 25° x 106 Btu x 8-2 x 10'4
0.021
Ib/hr
218
-------
MODEL PLANT
Waste Oil Combustion
Production rate 250 x 106 Btu/hr firing rate
Special conditions:
Bldg dimensions
100 m
5 m
204° G
8.2 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters;
Bldg dimensions
0.015 g/sec
0.0076
0.0026
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
219
-------
A-16 Waste Crankcase Oil Combustion
(Ref. 48, p. 7) - Quotes data from a W. G. McCrone Associates, Inc., study,
1970.
Lead content of combustion products per 10,000 gal. of drainings as oxides
Jackson, Mississippi 650 Ib
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 650 Ib
Washington, D.C. 400 Ib
Doraville, Georgia 570 Ib 600 Ib Pb _ 0.06 Ib PbO (avg.)
San Carlos, California 480 Ib 10,000 gal. ~ gal.
Dearborn, Michigan 720 Ib
St. Louis, Missouri 650 Ib
Houston, Texas 570 Ib
Lyons, Illinois 650 Ib
Average « 600 Ib PbO
(Ref. 49, p. 5, Table 1) results of a study-base year 1970
Sources of Env. Petroleum Pollution (Interested in those that would or
could become involved in waste oil or waste crankcase oil combustion)
Highway motor vehicles 1,000,000 tons/year
Industrial machinery and 1,300,000 tons/year
off-the-road vehicles
100 to 150 x 10° gal. of waste auto oil re-refined annually
RS 2.5 x 109 gal. lubrication oils sold annually in U.S.
1.1 x 10' gal. are automotive oils.
(Ref. 47, p. 18 1. Tests show constant 55% of lead into boiler emitted
from stacks without controls - tests on used oil
with 1.11 wt % lead blended with No. 6 fuel oil.
2. Another facility showed up to 45.5% of lead emitted.
3. Another facility showed up to 28% of lead emitted.
2.16 x 109 bbl x 42 gal./bbl = 9.072 x 1010 gal. oil combusted
= 0.12 = 1.2% auto oils as function of combusted oil reduces to
less than 0.5% when coal is added in.
220
-------
(Ref. 50, p. 145, Table II) presents data on the combustion of 22% waste oil
addition to fuel oil.
No. 2 fuel oil + 27%
Emission rate No. 2 fuel oil waste oil
gr/scf 0.047 0.262
Ib/M Btu 0.031 0.158
Ib/hr 0.184 0.938
Trace metal emissions
lead g/day 3.86 172
Stack data
Sample volume scm 2.76 2.56
Total catch g 0.0520 0.2533
Cone, g/scm 0.0189 0.0990
Mass rate Ib/hr 0.0842 0.9350
(Ref. 51) Specifically recommends that waste crankcase oil be treated to
remove sludge and heavy metals before combustion due to problems with com-
bustion in boilers and also environmental consequence. Burner fouling and
high maintenance costs with repeated shutdowns are experienced burning high
concentrations of waste crankcase oil.
(Ref. 52, Appendix A) Waste lub. oil - 1971
Total 998,824,069 gal.
Auto 680,455,390 gal.
Industrial 318,368,679 gal.
(Ref. 52, p. 82) Possible places where waste oil can be used as an addition
to the virgin fuel oil used.
1. Domestic oil burner
2. Industrial steam boiler - potentially major user
3. Utility steam boiler
4. Auxiliary fuel in municipal incinerator
(Ref. 52, p. 83) Calculated results on combined firing of 5 to 50% waste oil
with 0.5 to 1.1% by weight Pb predict ground level concentra-
tion at or below 1
221
-------
(Ref. 52, p. 48) Waste oil is between 20.0 and 27.9° API-
p. 58) Lead content of waste oil is 800 to 11,200 ppm.
p. 49) Heating value 13,000 to 19,000 Btu/lb.
p. 73) 40 to 97% of lead entering boiler in utility boiler system
remains in boiler system as bottom ash or deposits on heat
transfer surfaces (< 50% before collection device, amount
Pb in flue gas as percentage of Pb in fuel).
p. 75) Waste oil is cleaner buring than coal, significantly less
particulates.
p. 78) 600 MWH steam generating station consumes 30,000 gal/hr
of No. 6 residual.
5 wt % waste oil/fuel oil blend = 1,500 gal/hr
waste oil fired.
p. 2) Utilities consume RS 25% of nations energy
Industry consumes t& 30% of nations energy
Re-refining of auto crankcase oil reduces lead content to « 1 ppra.
(Ref. 48, p. 2) 1972-1974 rerefineries.
20-27.9° API = 7.7 to 7.4 Ib/gal.
(Ref. 53, p. 1) Estimates 450 x 10 gal. waste auto oil disposed of annually
could be as high as 750 x 106 gal.
(Ref. 53, p. 3) Estimates re-refineries capacity for 1971 at 100 x 10° gal/year
which is a decrease from 1966 at 300 x 10° gal/year.
(Ref. 01, Chapter VI) Stack data on an uncontrolled 55 mw utility boiler
Part. Lead
(Ib/hr) (Ib/hr)
100% fuel oil 34.75 1.43 (contains residue from previ-
ous waste combustion)
6% waste 20.7 6.7
Avg. Pb con- 6% waste 25.77 6.73
tent of 13% waste 28.01 6.77 < (20 mw)
waste oil 100% fuel oil 24.23 2.16 (contains residue from previ-
= 0.7% ous waste combustion)
222
-------
(Ref. 06, p. 3-104) 1. Pb emission factor = 40 x m lb/103 gal.
where m = Pb content in waste oil in °/a
2. 50% emitted with flue gas before collector
3. 5.75 x 108 gal. waste oil burned in 1975
Estimated 1.25 x 109 gal. lubricating oil sold in 1975 for automobiles.
Estimated maximum capacity of re-refineries 1.0 x 10® gal.
(Ref. 06, p. 3-104) Estimates 5.75 x 108 gal. turned as waste fuel
Amount staying in system
600 tb-PfrO 0.93 -tfr-TS , _, In8 . o ^ n 1 ton Pb
10 gal' X °*5 X °-
10,000 gal. i^PbO ' ' * - 2,000 Ib Pb
Amount estimated
— |927 tons Pb escaping controls
Estimates have determined that Pb is 35% of emitted particulates.
927
_ = 2,649 tons particulates
U ..35
SIP Emission Regulations - Boiler regulations are in section of Fossil Fuel
Combustion (Ref. 03 - Worksheets).
Assuming majority of waste oil combusted in boilers with capacity > 250 x
106 Btu:
_ 0.277 Ib part.
EsExist - 106 Btu
Heating value of residual 6.384 x 106 Btu/bbl x } bbl = 1.52 x 105 Btu/gal.
42 gal.
Heating value of distillate 5.817 x 106 Btu/bbl x * bbl. = 1.385 x 105 Btu/gal,
42 gal.
Average 1.45 x 10^ Btu/gal.
For a 250 x 106 Btu boiler = 1,724 gal/hr
5% waste oil fired x 0.05
|l,638 gal. virgin oil 86.2 gal. waste oil/hr
|86 gal. waste oil
223
-------
x 250 x 106 Btu =
69.3 Ib part.
hr
x 0.35
24.3
Ib
Pb/hr
NSPS Q 7,250 x 106 Btu/hr = 0.1 Ib/mra Btu
0.1 Ib 250 x 106 Btu
10b Btu
x
hr
._ ., fc ,, n ,.
= 25 Ib part./hr x 0.35
8.75 Ib Pb
hr
224
-------
MODEL PLANT
Waste Crankcase Oil Combustion
Production rate 250 x 106 Btu/hr
Special conditions:
Bldg dimensions
•x: 55 m x 30 m
100 m
5 m
240°C
8.2 m/sec
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
Other Bldg or stack parameters:
Bldg dimensions
0.32 g/sec
3.1
1.1
Stack parameters:
Height _
Dia. • _
Temp. _
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP regs
NSPS
225
-------
A-17 Metallic Lead Products
Metallic lead products include the manufacture of ammunition, bearings,
weights and ballasts, caulking leads, pipe, sheets, and other products.
1975 - 234,262 tons Pb consumed.
Emissions occur from melting, casting and extruding the lead into the
various products. Low Pb emissions are suspected because the lead is only
raised to just above its melting point for casting, melting and extruding.
(Ref. 06, p. 4-235) Emission factor of 1.5 Ib/ton assume similar to other
melting operations and thus 35% of particulates is Pb.
1.5 Ib Pb
ton Pb consumed
x 234,262 tons Pb consumed x
1 ton
2,000 Ib Pb
176
tons
Pb
X
0.35
503
tons
part.
No appreciable fugitives would exist in these industries.
SIP's - There are many industries small and large that used the 234,262 tons
Pb for 1975. Selecting a given size will be quite arbitrary. Will select 1,000
tons Pb/year consumed as an industry to examine. Also only 2,080 hr operation
per year. Due to the diversity of the sources the TRC average process weight
curve will be used (Ref. 03, p. 33) = 962 Ib Pb/hr.
SIP allowable =
2.6 Ib Pb/hr
2.6 Ib Pb
hr
1 hr
X 962 Ib Pb X
2,000 Ib
ton
NSPS - For the sake of comparison apply 99% control:
1.5 Ib Pb
ton Pb
x 0.01 =
0.02 Ib Pb
ton Pb
226
-------
MODEL PLANT
Metallic Lead Products
Production rate Casting 1,000 tons Pb/year
Special conditions:
2,080 hr operation
Bldg dimensions
23 m x 23 m x 6.1 m
Stack parameters:
Height
Dia.
Temp.
Vel.
Emission rates:
Now
SIP Regs
NSPS
7.6 m
0.3 m
40° n
6 m/sec
O.OQ1 o/
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
!• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards Engineering Divi-
sion, "Preferred Standard Path Analysis on Lead Emissions from Stationary
Sources," Draft Edition, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September
1974.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAWM, OAQPS, "Background Information
for New Source Performance Standards: Primary Copper, Zinc, and Lead
Smelters, Vol. I - Proposed Standards," EPA-450/2-74-002a, Research Tri-
angle Park, North Carolina, October 1974.
3. Hopper, T. C., and W. A. Massone, "Impact of New Source Performance Stan-
dards on 1985 National Emissions from Stationary Sources," EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1382, Task No. 3, prepared by: The Research Corporation of
New England, Withersfield, Connecticut, for: Emissions Standards Engineer-
ing Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, October 1975.
4. Beltz, P. R., et al., "Economics of Level Removal in Selected Industries,"
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0611, Task No. 3, prepared by: Battelle, Columbus
Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1973.
5. Davis, W. E. "Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants -
1970, APTD - 1543," Contract No. 68-02-0271, prepared by: W. E. Davis,
and.Associates, Leawood, Kansas, for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAWP, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1973.
6. PEDCo - Environmental Specialists, Inc., "Control Techniques for Lead
Air Emissions," Draft Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS,
ESED, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1976.
7. Wright, J. A. (Vice President - Sales at St. Joe Minerals Corporation),
"Lead and Zinc Outlook, 1976-1980," NARI - 63rd Annual Convention,
San Francisco, California, March 22, 1976.
8. Duncan, L. J., "Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules
and Regulations," Contract No. 68-02-0248, prepared by: The Mitre
Corporation, Washington, D.C., for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1972.
228
-------
9. Midwest Research Institute, "Particulate Pollutant System Study, Vol.
I - Mass Emissions, Vol. II - Fine Particle Emissions, Vol. Ill - Hand-
book of Emission Properties," prepared by: Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri, for: Air Pollution Office, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1971,
August 1971.
10. Shea, E. P. "Emissions from Lead Smelter at American Smelting and Re-
fining Company," Glover, Missouri, July 17, 1973 to July 23, 1973, Con-
tract No. 68-02-0228, Task No. 27, prepared by: Midwest Research In-
stitute, Kansas City, Missouri, for: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, EMB Project Re-
port No. 73-PLD-l, August 1974.
11. Midwest Research Institute, "Sample Fugitive Lead Emissions from Se-
lected Industries," Draft Report, prepared by: Midwest Research In-
stitute, Kansas City, Missouri, for: Source Receptor Analysis Branch,
MDAD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, November 1976.
12. Elfers, L. A., and G. A. Jatze, "Silver Valley/Bunker Hill in Plant
Fugitive Dust Emission Tests," Contract No. 68-02-1343, Draft Report,
prepared by: PEDCo - Environmental, Cincinnati, Ohio, for: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, SAAD, Seattle, Washington,
January 1975.
13. Valentine, Fisher, and Tombinson, "Atmospheric Emission Evaluation at
The Bunker Hill Company, Kellogg, Idaho - Particulates," EPA Contract
No. 68-02-0236, by: Valentine, Fisher, and Tombinson, Seattle,
Washington, February 1975.
14. Georgieff, N. T., and F. L. Bunyard, "Standards Support and Environ-
mental Impact Statement - An Investigation of the Best System of Emission
Reduction for Electric Arc Furnaces in the Gray Iron Foundry Industry,"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS, ESED, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, November 1975.
15. Gutow, B. S., "An Inventory of Iron Foundry Emissions," Contract No.
CPA 22-69-106, prepared for: Air Pollution Control Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, by: A. T. Kearney, and Company, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois, Modern Eating, January 1972, pp. 46-48.
229
-------
16. U.S. Department of Commerce, "U.S. Industrial Outlook - 1976," U.S.
Department of Commerce, Domestic and International Business Administra-
tion, Bureau of Domestic Commerce, January 1976.
17. Kearney, A. J., and Company, Inc. "Systems Analysis of Emissions and
Emissions Control in the Iron Foundry Industry. Vol. II - Exhibits,"
Contract No. CPA 22-69-106, prepared by: A. T. Kearney and Company,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois, for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Division of Process Control Engineering, APCO, February 1971.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Standards Engineering
Division, "Background for Information for Standards of Performance:
Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys, Vol. 1 -
Proposed Standards, Vol. 2 - Test Data Summary, Vol. 3 - Supplemental
Information," Emission Standards Engineering Division, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Contract No. 450/2-74-018 a/b/c, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, Vol. 1 - October 1974, Vol. 2, October
1974, Vol. 3 - April 1976.
19. Person, R. A. "Current Status of Ferroalloys Emission Control,"
Presented at AIME - Electric Furnace Conference, December 1975.
20. Bureau of Mines, "Ferroalloys in 1975," Mineral Industry Surveys,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C.
21. Dealy, J. 0., and A. M. Killin, "Air Pollution Control Engineering
and Cost Study of the Ferroalloy Industry," Contract No. EPA-450/2-
74-008, NTIS No. D PB 236 762, OAQPS, CPDD, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1974.
22. Matthews, N. A. "Ferroalloys," Minerals Yearbook, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines (1973).
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Background Information for Pro-
posed New source Performance Standards: Asphalt Concrete Plants,
Petroleum Refineries, Storage Vessels, Secondary Lead Smelters and
Refineries, Brassor Bronze Ingot Production Plants, Iron and Steel
Plants, Sewage Treatments Plants: Vol. I, Main Test," Contract No.
APTD-1352a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAWP, OAQPS,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1973.
24. Metal Statistics Yearbook, American Bureau of Metal Statistics, New
York (1975).
j
25. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition, AP-40, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
Ed: John A. Danielson, May 1973.
230
-------
26. Short, John and Associates, Inc., "Preliminary Technological Feasibility,
Cost of Compliance and Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed OSHA
Standard for Lead," prepared by: John Short and Associates, Inc.,
1414 Walker Bank Building, Salt Lake City, Utah, for: U.S. Department
of Labor, OSHA, Health Standard Development, Washingtin, D.C. (1976).
27. Midwest Research Institute, "A Study of Waste Generation, Treatment
and Disposal in the Metals Mining Industry," Draft Final Report,
prepared by: Midwest Research Institute, for: Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Division, OSWMP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., July 1976.
28. Rausch, D. 0., and B. C. Mariacher, eds, "Mining and Concentrating of
Lead and Zinc," Vols. I and II, The American Institute of Mining,
Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, New York, AIME
World Symposium on Mining and Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc (1970.
29. Statnick, R. M., "Measurement of Sulfur Dioxide, Particulate, and Trace
Elements in Copper Smelter Converter and Roaster/Reverberatory Gas
Streams," Contract No. EPA-650/2-74-111, Central Systems Laboratory,
NERC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1974.
30, Weisenberg, I. J. "Fugitive Emissions Section of the Final Report on
the Evaluation of the Controllability of Copper Smelters in the State
of Arizona," Contract No. 68-02-1354, prepared by: Pacific Environ-
mental Services, Inc., Santa Monica, California, for: Program Planning
Branch, AWPD, EPA Region IX, San Francisco, California, Draft Copy,
November 1974.
31. Davis, W. E., "National Inventory of Sources and Emissions: Barium,
Boron, Copper, Selenium, and Zinc, 1969 - Copper Section III," Con-
tract No. 68-02-0100, prepared by: W. E. Davis, and Associates,
Leawood, Kansas, for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAP,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, April 1972.
32. Hallowell, J. B., R. H. Cherry, Jr., and G. R. Smithson, Jr., "Trace
Metals in Effluents from Metallurgical Operations. Cycling and Con-
trol of Metals," Proceedings of an Environmental Resources Conference,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute, Foundation
and Columbus Laboratories of BMI, Columbus, Ohio, October 31 to
November 2, 1972.
33. Personal Communication between Mr. Richard Rovany, Control Systems
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and Robert J. Heavey,
Process Control and Environmental Engineers, Utah Copper Division,
Kennerolt Copper Corporation, November 22, 1974.
231
-------
34. Internal Communication of the Washington State Department of Ecology,
Memo from J. W. Roberts to the Chief of Engineering, Subject: Esti-
mate of Arsenic, Lead and Cadmium Emissions from Sludge Dumping at
Cerarco, Tacoma, Washington, November 22, 1974.
35. The Research Corporation of New England, "Development of Procedures
for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions, Vol. 1, Industrial Fugi-
tive Emissions Sources and Sampling Strategies," prepared by: The
Research Corporation of New England, Wethersfield, Connecticut, for:
Central Systems Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1975.
36. Wright, J. A., "Lead and Zinc Outlook 1976-1980," NARI - 63rd Annual
Convention, San Francisco, California, March 22, 1976.
37. Lead Industries Association, Inc., Annual Review 1975, U.S. Lead In-
dustry, Booklet Published by Lead Industries Association, Inc., New
York.
38. Strategies and Air Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, "State Implementation Plan Emission Regulations for Particu-
late Matter: Fuel Combustion," Contract No. EPA-450/2-76-010, SASD,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, August 1976.
39. Enviroclean Limited, "Report on Source Testing of a Grid Casting Pots
Stack and a Lead Oxide Mill Stock," prepared by: Enviroclean Limited,
Willowdale, Ontario, for: The Prestolite Company, Battery Division,
Toronto, Ontario, January 1974.
40. Vulcan - Cincinnati, Inc., "Screening Study to Develop Background In-
formation and Determine the Significance of Emissions from Lead Bat-
tery Manufacture," Contract No. 68-02-0299, prepared by: Vulcan -
Cincinnati, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio, for: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, OAQPS, ISB, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December
1972.
41. Private Communication with Lee L. Beck, ISB, ESED, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
42. Confidental Source Test Report on a Lead Storage Battery Project.
43. Shea, E. P., "Emissions from a Cable Covering Facility at General
Electric Company, Wire and Cable Division, Bridgeport, Connecticut,"
Contract No. 68-02-0228, prepared by: Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri, for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, June 1973.
232
-------
44. Gorman, P., et al», "Evaluation of the Magnitude of Potentially
Hazardous Pollutant Emissions from Coal and Oil-Fired Utility Boilers,"
Contract No. 68-02-1097, prepared by: Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, Missouri, for: IERL, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1976.
45. Block, C., and R. Davis, "Level Content of Coal, Coal Ash, and Fly Ash,"
Water, Air and Soil Pollution, 5j207-211 (1975).
46. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Compilation of Air Pollutant
Emission Factors," Second Editions, AP-42, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1973 to
December 1975.
47. Aust, Steven P., "Aerosol Lead: Its Present and Future in Maryland,"
State of Maryland, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Environ-
mental Health Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, October 1974.
48. Booth, G. T., Jr., "The Oil Company's Partner in Proper Service Station
Waste Oil Disposal. The Collector and Refiner," National Fuels and
Lubricants Meeting, New York, New York, September 14 and 15, 1972.
49. Bonnifey, Pierre, Robert Dutrian, and John W. Andrews, "A New Process
for Reclaiming Spent Lubricating Oils," National Fuels and Lubricants
Meeting, New York, New York, September 14 and 15, 1972.
50. Le Pera, M. E., and G. DeBono, "Investigation of Waste Oil Disposal by
Direct Incineration, J. of the APCA, ^7_(2), February 1977.
51. National Oil Recovery Corporation, "Conversion of Crankcase Waste Oil
Into Useful Products," Contract No. 15080DBO, prepared by: National
Oil Recovery Corporation, Bayonne, New Jersey, for: Water Quality
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1971
52. Chansky, S., et al., "Waste Automotive Lubricating Oil Reuse as a
Fuel," Contract No. EPA 600/5-74-032, Office of Research and Develop-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., September
1974.
53. Committee on Disposal of Waste Products, Waste Oil Roundup No. 1,
Division of Marketing, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
(1973).
233
-------
APPENDIX B
TRIP REPORTS
234
-------
TRIP REPORT - ST. JOE MINERALS LEAD SMELTER, HERCULANEUM, MISSOURI
I. Trip Objectives
The general objective of the trip was to obtain information
from industry personnel concerning sources of fugitive emissions in the
lead smelting industry. Specifically, the objectives were' to: (a) ob-
tain available data detailing the quantity or quality of fugitive emis-
sions, (b) discuss the economic and technical problems associated with
the control of fugitive emissions, and (c) tour the smelter in order
to better understand the operations and sources of emissions from these
operations.
II. Date and Place of Meeting
The meeting took place on October 31 at St, Joe Minerals Cor-
poration in Herculaneum, Missouri.
III. Attendees
MRI St. Joe Minerals
Dr. C. Cowherd Mr. D. Beilstein, Chief Metallurgist
Mr. P. Constant
Mr. D. Wallace
IV. Preliminary Discussion
The major portion of the visit to the St. Joe smelter consisted
of discussion among the attendees concerning: (a) reservations of St.
Joe Minerals about cooperating with the study and (b) the possible sources
of fugitive emissions for which adequate control technology is not avail-
able. Some time was also spent discussing the necessity for a tour of the
smelter operation,
Mr. Beilstein indicated the four smelter operations which he
considered to be possible sources of fugitive emissions, the most sig-
nificant source consisting of S02 leakage from corrosion holes in the
ducting system. He indicated that holes are constantly formed by corro-
sion in both the flues and in the valves around blowers.
235
-------
Each of the kettles in the refining operation may be a minor
source for the emission of metal fumes. However, Mr. Beilstein feels that
minimal amounts of these emissions reached plant boundaries. He did indi-
cate that several hooding devices had been used to control these emissions,
but that none proved satisfactory.
Another source of fugitive emisssions are blow holes in the top
of the blast furnace. Here the velocity of the gas stream is such that it
is not captured in the ducting system. However, new equipment has been
installed which will control the majority of the blow hole emissions.
The final group of sources are the materials handling opera-
tions. Mr, Beilstein feels that the best possible control systems have
been installed or are being planned for these operations and that minimal
amounts of emissions from these operations will reach plant boundaries.
We were taken through only portions of the smelter. Therefore,
it was not possible to prepare an exact flow diagram of this plant. How-
ever, Mr. Beilstein indicated that St. Joe's operation is similar to the
AMAX operation. One observed exception is that St. Joe has two blast fur-
naces in operation.
During the abbreviated tour of the plant only two sources of
emissions were noted which have not been discussed earlier. The control
system on one of the blast furnaces was not operating properly. As a
result, the emissions were not being captured, and highly visible emis-
sions were observed around the settler.
Although we were not allowed to see the inside of the sinter
building, visible emissions were noted from the building vents. Emissions
were also noted below transfer points along the side of the sinter build-
ing.
236
-------
TRIP REPORT - AMAX LEAD SMELTER, BOSS, MISSOURI
I. Trip Objectives
The general objective of the trip was to obtain information
from qualified industry personnel concerning sources of fugitive emis-
sions in primary lead smelters. The specific objectives were to: (a)
obtain available data on quantity or quality of fugitive emissions; (b)
discuss the technical and economic problems associated with the control
of fugitive emissions; and (c) tour the smelter operation to gain a
better understanding of the process and the associated fugitive emissions.
II. Date and Place of Meeting
The meeting took place on October 30, 1974, at the AMAX Smelter
in Boss, Missouri.
III. Attendees
MRI
Dr. C. Cowherd
Dr. F. Honea
Mr. D. Wallace
Mr. P. Constant
AMAX
Mr. J. Shannon, General Manager
Mr. G. Carr, Environmental Engineer
Mr. H. Rowland, Chief Engineer
IV. Preliminary Discussion
The first half of the visit consisted of a discussion among the
above-mentioned parties concerning some of the fugitive emissions problems
at the AMAX smelter and the system currently being planned to reduce these
emissions.
AMAX feels that any data collected over the past several years
as well as visible emissions noted during the smelter tour are of minimal
significance due to the control systems presently being installed.
The discussion focused on the major sources of fugitive emissions
and the control technology that is being utilized by AMAX to control these
emissions. The plant personnel feel that they have had two primary sources
237
-------
of fugitive emissions: (a) materials handling operations and (b) windblown
dust from both ESP and baghouse catch and from areas where spillage has oc-
curred. They indicated that the problem emissions are the lead sulfide par-
ticulates. However, it was believed that minimal amounts of fugitive emis-
sions reach the plant boundary.
As noted above, the most obvious sources of fugitive emissions
are the materials handling operations. Mr. Shannon noted that all mate-
rials used are fine and thus susceptible to suspension during transfer
operations. To alleviate some of the problems, AMAX is presently covering
most conveyors and installing hooding on most transfer points with ducting
to one of nine new wet scrubbers. AMAX feels that this will reduce emis-
sions from transfer operations and spillage from conveyors and transfer
points, which in turn should lead to a reduction in windblown emissions.
The other major source of fugitive emissions is windblown dust
from the transfer and storage of ESP and baghouse catch. A system is
presently being installed which will slurry the catch from both opera-
tions. The slurry will then be put through a filter and the resultant
wet cake put back into the system.
It should also be noted that during the last year AMAX has paved
much of the plant area. Water trucks are now used to keep the area damp
in order to reduce emissions from vehicular traffic.
The final point of discussion concerned the ambient air studies
that have been conducted around the AMAX smelter by the University of
Missouri at Rolla. Mr. Shannon suggested that we contact the University
for the data. If any additional information is required, it can be ob-
tained from George Carr.
V. Plant Tour
After the discussion, a tour of the smelter was conducted by
Mr. H. Rowland and Mr. G. Carr. The following paragraphs discuss the
smelter operation and those fugitive sources noted during the tour. It
should be mentioned again that some of these problem areas are expected
to be reduced by the new emissions control system.
A flow diagram of the AMAX smelter is presented in Figure B-l.
The smelter produces 400 tons/day of lead bullion. The concentrate feed
rate is 600 to 864 tons/day and the acid plant output is 8 to 10 tons/hr
of about 93% "black" sulfuric acid. Because of the corrosion problems,
the sulfuric acid plant has been nearly 100% replaced during the 8 years
since the smelter was brought on stream. (In other words, for economic
evaluations, the amortized life should be less than the 15 years quoted
in many studies.) This plant is operated by 305 people on three shifts,
7 days/week.
238
-------
Three noticeable sources of fugitive emissions were observed
in the sintering operation* Heavy dust emissions were noted from the
conveyor drop, from the cooling drum, and from the top of the Ross roller*
However, Mr. Rowland indicated that these emissions should be controlled
by the new system. Some SC^ emissions were also noted from the top of
the sinter machine during startup. Even, though these last only a short
time, data needs to be gathered to determine whether the amount of S02
emitted is significant.
The blast furnace area has three potentially significant sources
of fugitive emissions. The dustiest area of the smelter is the blast fur-
ace charge preparation building. Here, hot sinter and coke are combined
for charge to the furnace. The emissions include lead particulate and
possibly some fume from the hot sinter. A minor source of emissions is
the slag cooling area where small amounts of lead have been found en-
trained in steam. The final source of fugitive emissions from blast fur-
nace operation occurs when there is a blow in the furnace, i.e., when
a hole is accidently formed straight to the top of the charge and air
rushes through this small opening at such a fast rate that it cannot be
captured.
Each of the furnace and kettle operations in the refinery area
may be a source of metal fumes. However, plant personnel feel that since
these are dense metals, the probability of the fumes leaving the plant
boundary is negligible.
239
-------
to
4>
O
H-
QQ
I
a.
H-
P>
OP
HI
O
f
(T)
fu
$
rt
(D
H
SMELTER •
Incoming Concentrate
Silica Sand
Iron Ore
Limestone
Coke
SC>2 Gases
to Acid Plant
i i , iy w>" , .. .
HJ ' 4 dood 4 Main
Ignition II s—v \ I Layer
Layer ^ U Hopper
()
Sinter Machine
Sinter
Breaker
Smooth
Roll
Crusher
Reciprocating
Feeder
Cooling
Drum
s
1
1
7*t| Corrugc
VM Roll Cr
Ffl
ited
usher
r^riu
uur
1
Rolls
ESP
Dust
1
mrr
Shipping
2000 Ib.
Cakes
Blast Furnace
Charge Preparation
Slag to
Dump
Straight Line f
Casting Machine \ f~
Shipping
Lead
Bullion
100 Ib.
Pigs
Matte
Shipping
REFINERY
-------
TRIP REPORT - MAGMA COPPER SMELTER, SAN MANUEL, ARIZONA
I. Trip Objectives
Primary objectives of this visit were to: (a) develop a better
understanding of a "green feed" smelter and the associated fugitive emis-
sions; and (b) elicit the cooperation of Magma personnel to achieve a
realistic study.
II. Date and Place of Meeting
The meeting took place on November 7, 1975, at the Magma Copper
Smelter in San Manuel, Arizona.
III. Attendees
MRI
Dr. C. Cowherd
Dr. F. Honea
Mr. D. Wallace
Mr. E. K. Staley, General Manager
Mr. E. J. Caldwell, Engineer
IV. Preliminary Discussion
Since Mr. Staley had indicated during the original telephone con-
tact that a minimum amount of time was available, a brief visit was planned.
MRI personnel explained the program to Mr. Staley and then proceeded directly
to the smelter where a tour was led by Mr. Caldwell.
V. Plant Tour
The Magma Smelter employs 270 people and produces about 700 tons
of anode copper per day. The system includes a sulfuric acid plant that
produces approximately 1,400 tons of ^SO^ per day. This accounts for about
63% of the sulfur entering the process.
As shown in the process flow diagram in Figure B-2, the Magma
Smelter is a "green feed" smelter; that is, the concentrate is fed directly
to one of three reverberatory furnaces. The slag is tapped from the fur-
nace and taken by rail to the slag dump. The matte is tapped from the fur-
nace and transported by ladle to one of six converters. Both operations
are nearly continuous at this smelter. Slag is skimmed from the converter
and returned to a furnace and matte is added until the converter is filled
241
-------
NJ
*»
ro
FROM MINE
CONCENTRATOR
RR CAR
RR CAR
oo1—rtjoo
SILICA/LIMESTONE |
(12) (13!
(TO REVERBERATORY
FURNACES)
NATURAL GAS
COPPER ORE
& PRECIPITATE
~. ~. (TO REVERBERATORY
U U FURNACE)
OO
00
COPPER ANODES
TO ELECTROLYTIC
REFINERY
Figure B-2. Flow diagram for Magma Copper Smelter at San Manuel.
-------
with blister copper, which is then transferred to the refining vessels and
finally poured into cast anodes.
As in the Kennecott smelter, the main area of fugitive emissions
in the Magma Smelter seemed to be the converter aisle. The major sources
are the converters during matte charging and slag skimming, which emit pri-
marily S02- Other less significant sources in the converter aisle are the
transport of matte from the furnace to the converter and slag from the con-
verter to the furnace. Mr. Caldwell indicated that emissions may also occur
when the slag is dumped back into the reverberatory furnace; however, we
were unable to observe this operation during the visit. Fugitive emissions
are vented to the atmosphere through an opening in the roof of the converter
aisle building.
The Magma Smelter has two primary gas streams. The SOo-bearing
gas stream from the converters is cooled in a high-velocity flue, cleaned
in an ESP and then treated in an acid plant. The gases from the furnace
area are passed through two waste heat boilers for cooling, an ESP for dust
removal, and then emitted to the atmosphere; these gases contain about 25%
of the sulfur input from the concentrate.
It should be noted that the Magma Smelter (as well as all other
smelters in the State of Arizona) has an ambient SC^ monitoring network
with stations up to 30 miles away. Episode control is achieved by stopping
smelter operations whenever any station exceeds ambient standards as a re-
sult of smelter emissions.
243
-------
TRIP REPORT - KENNECOTT COPPER SMELTER, HAYDEN, ARIZONA
I. Trip Objectives
Primary objectives of this trip were to: (a) tour the smelter to
gain an increased understanding of smelting operations and the associated
fugitive emissions; and (b) obtain information from plant personnel con-
cerning fugitive sources and emission quantities and composition.
II. Date and Place of Meeting
The meeting took place on November 6, 1975, at the Kennecott Ray
Division Copper Smelter in Hayden, Arizona.
III. Attendees
MRI
Dr. C. Cowherd
Dr. F. Honea
Mr. D. Wallace
Kennecott
Mr. K. Ho Matheson, General Manager
Mr. S. Nebeker, Superintendent
Mr. D. Nelson, Engineer
IV. Preliminary Discussion
The visit opened with a brief discussion among the attendees
about the MRI study. Kennecott personnel indicated concern that informa-
tion released in the past from such studies had been improperly interpreted,
To avoid this problem, Kennecott requested the opportunity to review the
draft and make comments before it is submitted to EPA. This was agreed to
by.MRI personnel.
V. Plant Tour
After the discussion MRI personnel toured the smelter with
Mr. D. Nelson. The Kennecott Smelter produces between 220 and 230 tons of
anode copper per day. The acid plant produces 800 to 900 tons of sulfuric
acid per day. This accounts for about 90% of the sulfur in the concentrate,
As shown in the process flow diagram in Figure B-3, the Kennecott
Ray Division Smelter uses a roaster ahead of the reverberatory furnace to
remove part of the sulfur. The calcine from the roaster is transferred to
the reverberatory furnace in a closed system. The slag from the reverber-
atory furnace is removed and transferred to an open pit slag dump. The
244
-------
FROM MINE
CONCENTRATOR
ho
4>
Ui
V~7 DUST
OZT (TO CALCINE
FEED BIN)
OO
COPPER ORE
& PRECIPITATE
DUST •*—I CYCLONES |
(TO REVERB)
-NATURAL GAS
CASTING
COPPER DUSTS
(TO REVERBERATORY
FURNACE)
TO ELECTROLYTIC
lOO REFINERY
Figure B-3. Flow diagram of Kennecott Ray Plant Copper Smelter at Hayden.
-------
matte is tapped from both sides of the furnace and transferred into ladles
(located in a confined area) for transport to the converter. The slag
skimmed from the converter is transferred back to the furnace for additional
copper removal. When the converter is filled with blister copper, it is
poured into a ladle and transferred to the refining furnace where it is first
blown with air to remove any remaining sulfur and then fired with natural
gas to remove excess oxygen. The copper is then cast into anodes.
During the trip through the plant, one source of fugitive emissions
was particularly noticeable. During the addition of matte and the skimming
of slag and for about 5 min after the completion of each operation, the con-
verter emitted significant quantities of 862. Metal fumes may also be in-
cluded in this emission stream. Fugitive emissions from the converters are
eventually vented to the atmosphere through an opening in the roof of the
building. Some leakage was noticed from one of the converter hoods, which
Mr. Nelson indicated was the result of a malfunction in the gas control sys-
tem, probably a plugged scrubber. It should be noted that emissions from
these standard converters seemed higher than those from the Hoboken conver-
ters at the Inspiration Consolidated Smelter.
Several possibly minor sources of fugitive emissions were pointed
out by Mr. Nelson during the tour. There was some leakage of SC^ and par-
ticulate around the cyclone from the roaster, even though the system is
totally enclosed. The tapping of both slag and matte from the reverbera-
tory furnace may also be sources of fugitive emissions, although Mr. Nelson
indicated that these are minimal compared to converter emissions. Neither
operation was taking place while we were in the area, so it was not possible
to determine the extent of visible emissions. The anode casting wheel may
be a source of metal fume emissions; however, no visible emissions were
noted during the tour.
During this tour, as well as the tours of other copper smelters,
it was noted that the dust problem from materials handling did not seem as
extensive in the copper industry as in the lead industry. The only sources
of open dust emissions noted were those from vehicle traffic on dirt roads.
The gas handling system in the Kennecott Smelter is similar to
most that we have seen. The gases from both the converter and the roaster
are cooled and cleaned by ESP's. The SC^-bearing gases are then treated
in the acid plant. The weak gas streams (those with low SC>2 concentrations)
are simply treated for dust removal and then vented to the atmosphere.
However, since these SCL-bearing gases are captured in a ducted system be-
fore reaching the atmosphere, they are not fugitive emissions.
246
-------
TRIP REPORT - INSPIRATION COPPER SMELTER, MIAMI, ARIZONA
I. Trip Objectives
Primary objectives of this trip were to: (a) tour the smelter
operation to develop a better understanding of the copper smelting process
and the associated fugitive emissions; (b) elicit the cooperation of
Inspiration personnel with this study; and (c) obtain information from
plant personnel concerning sources of fugitive emissions and difficulties
in the control of these sources.
II. Date and Place of Meeting
The meeting took place on November 5, 1975, at the Inspiration
Consolidated offices and smelter in Miami, Arizona.
III. Attendees
MRI
Dr. C. Cowherd
Dr. F. Honea
Mr. D. Wallace
Inspiration Consolidated
Mr. D. W. Middleton, Vice President
and General Manager
Mr. J. P. Holman, General Superintendent
IV. Preliminary Discussion
The first half of the visit consisted of a discussion among the
attendees concerning the question of the benefits of cooperating with the
study. Inspiration personnel felt that information provided in the past
had been improperly used to the detriment of the copper smelting industry.
MRI personnel indicated a desire to cooperate with industry in order to
achieve a realistic study.
V. Plant Tour
The remainder of the visit was spent touring the smelter. The
Inspiration Consolidated smelter is the newest in the United States and
employs smelting technology different from the other domestic plants. The
smelter employs between 400 and 450 employees and produces about 450 tons
of anode copper per day.
The smelting process for Inspiration is shown in Figure B-4.
The concentrate is dried to about 0.5% moisture and then fed to the
247
-------
00
FROM MINE
CONCENTRATOR
RR CAR
/]
oo— ^^oo
COPPER ORE
& PRECIPITATE
DUST
-NATURAL GAS
CASTING
COPPER ANODES
TO ELECTROLYTIC
iO REFINERY
OO
OO
Figure B-4. Flow diagram of Copper Smelter at Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company.
-------
electric arc furnace. The slag from this furnace is dumped into an open pit.
The matte is transported to the Hoboken converters by ladles.
The converter operation is a batch process with alternating matte
addition and slag skimming until the full load is 98% pure copper. The
slag from the converter is returned to the furnace. Upon completion of a
batch, the copper is oxidized to remove the remaining sulfur and transferred
from the converted to the refinery, where the copper is cast into anodes.
The gases from the converter and the electric arc furnace are first
cooled and then cleaned with an ESP. These gases, which contain about 4%
S02, are then treated in an acid plant. About 93 to 95% of the sulfur in
the concentrate is converted to
During the tour, only two significant sources of fugitive emissions
were noted. The first was the electric furnace during matte removal, which
generates emissions (primarily SC^) that are vented to the atmosphere through
the converter aisle roof. The other source of emissions is the converter
during matte charging or slag skimming; however, the emissions (primarily
802) from the Hoboken converters seemed to be less than those from the stan-
dard converters.
One possible emissions source that was not operating during our
visit was the furnace slag disposal system. Slag is removed from the fur-
nace, transported to the pit and dumped. However, plant personnel felt
that slag emissions are minimal and for the most part do not reach the
property line.
249
-------
APPENDIX C
SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING OF STATE REGULATIONS
250
-------
ALABAMA
Class I Counties
0.50 lb/106 Btu (Q < 10 10$ Btu/hr)
0.121 lb/106 Btu (Q > 250 10& Btu/hr)
E = 1.380-°-44lb/106 Btu (10 < Q < 250 106 Btu/hr)
Class II Counties
0.8 lb/106 Btu (Q ^ 10 MM Btu/hr)
E = 3.109Q'°-589lb/106 Btu (10 < Q < 250 10& Btu/hr)
0.121 lb/106 Btu (Q > 250 106 Btu/hr)
ALASKA
Annual geometric mean: 60 ng/nr; 24-hr max.: 150 Ug/m
For combustion of fossil fuel: 0.1 lb/106 Btu
ARIZONA
Opacity is 40%, applies to fuel burning and incineration only.
E = 1.02Q"°'769lb/hr (Q < 4200 106 Btu/hr)
E = 17.0(T432lb/hr (Q ;> 4200 106 Btu/hr)
ARKANSAS
Opacity is 20% for new equipment, 40% for existing.
A. The suspended particulate matter contribution from any premises shall
not exceed 75 ug/m3 above the background level for any 24-hour period,
or 150 ug/m3 above background for any 30-minute average.
B. The particulate fallout contributed from such premises shall not exceed.
15 tons/mile/month above the background level.
C. The number of particles > 60 micrometers in diameter downwind of the
premises shall not exceed 120 particles/cm2 for 24 consecutive hours.
Note: The State has established the following emission limits for new or
modified sources (proposed for approval by EPA on 4-12-76).
Potential emission rate Allowable
without control, Y emission rate*
(Ib/hr) (Ib/hr)
Y < 1000 0.4167 Y0-7782
Y ;> 1000 4.3574 Y0.4383
* Derived from figure in the state regulations.
251
-------
CALIFORNIA
Lead regulation - AAQS - 0015 rag/m^.
All Fuels:
Great Basin Valleys Air Basin (AQCR 23)
South Coast Air Basin (Metropolitan Los Angeles
AQCR 24):
Existing Sources:
Southwestern Los Angeles, Orange, and southern
Santa Barbara counties
Western Riverside, southwestern San Bernardino,
and Ventura counties
New Sources (constructed after 5-30-72):
Southern Santa Barbara County
Other counties
North Central Coast Air Basin (AQCR 25):
Monterey and Santa Cruz counties
San Benito County
North Coast Air Basin (AQCR 26):
North Sonoma County
Other counties—'
Northeast Plateau Air Basin (AQCR 27)
Sacramento Valley Air Basin (AQCR 28):
Plumas County
Shasta County
Stack ht < 1000 ft
Stack ht > 1000 ft
Glenn County
Other counties
San Diego Air Basin (AQCR 29)
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (AQCR 30)
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (AQCR 31)
Existing Sources:
Madera County
Other counties
New Sources (constructed after 5-30-72):
Western Kern County
Madera County
Other counties
South Central Coast Air Basin (AQCR 32)
0.3 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.1 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
10 Ib/hr
0.15 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.1 grains/SCF
0.2 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.01944 grains/SCF
0.15 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
No emission limit
0.3 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.3 grains/SCF
0.1 grains/SCF
0.1 grains/SCF
0.1 grains/SCF^
10 Ib/hr
0.3 grains/SCF
a./ Lake County (in North Coast Air Basin) limits emissions from sources
constructed after 5-20-72 to 0.1 grains/SCF.
b_/ In addition, emissions from new sources in Madera County are limited
to 10 Ib/hour.
252
-------
CALIFORNIA (concluded)
Southeast Desert Air Basin (AQCR 33):
Existing Sources:
Eastern Kern County 0.2 grains/SCF
San Bernardino County 0.1 grains/SCF
Other counties 0.3 grains/SCF
New Sources:
Eastern Kern and San Diego counties 0.1 grains/SCF
Other counties 10 Ib/hr
Notes: Emission limits expressed in units of grains/SCF are corrected to
507o excess air.
COLORADO
Fuel Burning Equipment
Q < 1 106 Btu/hr (0.5 lb/106 Btu)
1 < Q < 500 106 Btu/hr (E = 0.50'0'26) lb/106 Btu)
Q s 500 106 Btu/hr (0.1 lb/106 Btu)
CONNECTICUT
Existing Sources: 0.20 lb/106 Btu
New Sources: 0.10 lb/106 Btu
DELAWARE
Q s 1 x 106 Btu/hr (0.3 lb/106 Btu)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Opacity standard is no visible discharge.
0.13 lb/106 Btu (Q < 3.5 106 Btu/hr)
E = 0.175 Q~°'235lb/106 Btu (3.5 < Q < 10,000 106 Btu/hr)
0.02 lb/106Btu (10,000
-------
FLORIDA
Ambient air quality standards-suspended particulates: 50 ug/nH annual geo-
metric mean; 180 ug/rrr max. 24-hr concentration.
Opacity is 20% for fuel burning and incineration and no visible discharges
for sulfuric acid and nitric acid plants.
Q < 250 106 Btu/hr "Latest Technology"
Q > 250 106 Btu/hr 0.1 lb/106 Btu
GEORGIA
Opacity is 40% for existing equipment, 20% for new equipment•
A. Existing Equipment:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.70 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 2,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.115Q'0-202 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 2,000 MMBtu/hr 0.24 Ib/MMBtu
B. New Equipment (constructed after 1-1-72):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.50 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.58lQ-°-5lb/MMBtu
Q > 250 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
HAWAII
Bagasse Burning Boilers - 0.4 lb/100 Ib bagasse burned,
Other Fuel Burning Equipment - no emission limit.
IDAHO
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr (0.60 lb/106 Btu)
10 < Q < 10,000 106 Btu/hr (E = 1.2060'0-233 lb/106 Btu)
Q > 10,000 106 Btu/hr (0.121 lb/106 Btu)
254
-------
ILLINOIS
A. Solid Fuels:
1. Existing Sources:
a. Chicago Major Metropolitan Area§/
(in AQCR 67) 0.1 Ib/MMBtu
b. Outside Chicago Major Metropolitan Area:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 1.0 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr E = 5.180'0-715 Ib/MMBtu
Q ;> 250 MMBtu/hr 0.1 Ib/MMBtu
c. "Controlled" Sources^/ 0.2 Ib/MMBtu
2. New Sources (constructed after 4-14-72): 0.1 Ib/MMBtu
B. Liquid Fuels:
Any Source 0.1 Ib/MMBtu
C. Combinations of Fuels:
Any Source EEfQf lb/hrc
a/ Counties of Cook, Lake, Will, DuPage, McHenry, Kane, Grundy, Kendall,
Kankakee, and Macon.
b/ The "controlled" sources regulation applies only if the emission rate
based upon either the original equipment design or performance tests
(whichever is stricter) is less than 0.20 Ib/MMBtu (or a variance has
been granted to achieve a rate < 0.20 Ib/MMBtu and construction of
such equipment or modification has commenced), and the emission con-
trol is not allowed to degrade more than 0.05 Ib/MMBtu.
£/ The subscript, f, refers to fuel type.
255
-------
INDIANA
A. Existing Equipment:
1. Metropolitan Indianapolis AQCR (80) and
the Indiana portion of Metropolitan
Chicago Interstate AQCR (67) (Lake and
Porter Counties): E = 0.87Q"0'16 Ib/MMBtu
2. Other Areas:
The allowable emission rate is determined
using ASME Standard APS-1, with a maximum
allowable rate of: 0.8 Ib/MMBtu
B. New Equipment (constructed after 9-14-72):
1. Q < 250 MMBtu/hr:
The allowable emission rate is determined
using ASME Standard APS-1, with a maximum
allowable rate of:
2. Q ^ 250 MMBtu/hr
0.6 Ib/MMBtu
0.1 Ib/MMBtu
IOWA
A. Existing Equipment:
1. Within any Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area (SMSA) the allowable emission rate is
determined using ASME Standard APS-1, with
a maximum allowable rate of:
2. In other areas the allowable emission rate is
determined using ASME Standard APS-1, with
a maximum allowable rate of:
0.6 Ib/MMBtu
0.8 Ib/MMBtu
B. New Equipment (constructed or modified after
9-23-70):
0.6 Ib/MMBtu
256
-------
KANSAS
Opacity standard is 20% for new equipment, 40% for existing^
Indirect Heating Equipment:
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr (0.60 lb/106 Btu)
10 < 0 < 10,000 106 Btu/hr (E = 1.026 Q-°-233ib/106 Btu)
0 :> 10,000 106 Btu/hr (0.121 lb/106 Btu)
Units operated < 100 hr/year may emit up to 1.2 lb/106 Btu
KENTUCKY
Opacity is 20% for Priority I region and 40% for Priority II and III,
Existing Installations:
1. Priority I AQCRs (72, 77, 78, 79)
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr
2. Priority II AQCRs (101, 102, 104):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr
3. Priority III AQCR (105):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr
*E =
*E =
*E =
B. New Installations (constructed after 4-9-72):
Q < MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr *E
Q & 250 MMBtu/hr
0.56 Ib/MMBtu
0.9634Q"0'236 Ib/MMBtu
0.11 Ib/MMBtu
0.75 Ib/MMBtu
1.2825Q-0-233 Ib/MMBtu
0.15 Ib/MMBtu
0.8 Ib/MMBtu
1.3152CT0-216 Ib/MMBtu
0.18 Ib/MMBtu
0.56 Ib/MMBtu
0.9634Q'0'236 Ib/MMBtu
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
LOUISIANA
Emission Limit 0.6 lb/106 Btu
257
-------
MAINE
O
Ambient air-quality standards for particulates: 100 fig/in (24-hr cone.) and
50 fj,g/nP (annual geometric mean).
3 < Q < 150 106 Btu/hr (E = 1.082Q~°'256 lb/106 Btu)
Q > 150 106 Btu/hr (0.3 lb/106 Btu)
MARYLAND
Proposed ambient-air quality standards for suspended particulate matter:
75 (j,g/m3 is annual arithmetic avg.j 160 p,g/m3 - 24-hr max. not to be ex-
ceed more than one time a year. More adverse - 65 fig/m^ for annual arithmetic
avg.j and 140 ^g/rn^ for 24-hr max., which is not to be exceeded more than
one a year.
A. Metropolitan Baltimore (AQCR 47) and
National Capital (AQCR 115):
1. Solid Fuel-Burning Installations:
Q < 200 MMBtu/hr 0.050 grains/SCFD
Q > 200 MMBtu/hr 0.030 grains/SCFD
2. Residual Oil-Burning Installations:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.030 grains/SCFD
10 < Q < 50 MMBtu/hr 0.025 grains/SCFD
50 < Q < 200 MMBtu/hr 0.020 grains/SCFD
Q > 200 MMBtu/hr:
Existing or Modified 0.020 grains/SCFD
New (constructed after 1-17-72) 0.010 grains/SCFD
3. Distillate Oil Burning Installations No emission limit
B. Other AQCRs:
1. Existing Installations:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.026Q-0.233 ib/MMBtu
Q ;> 10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.12 Ib/MMBtu
2. New Installations (constructed after 1-17-72):
Solid Fuel 0.03 grains/SCFD
Distillate Oil Same as A.3 above
Residual Oil Same as A.2 above
Note: Regulations expressed in grains/SCFD are corrected to 50% excess air.
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in the
SIP regulation.
258
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
A. Existing Facilities:
1. Critical area of concern (Berkshire, Central Mass-
achusetts, Merrimack Valley, Metropolitan Boston,
Pioneer Valley, and Southeastern Massachusetts Air
Pollution Control Districts):
Q > 3 MMBtu/hr 0.12 Ib/MMBtu
2. Other areas
Q > 3 MMBtu/hr 0.15 Ib/MMBtu
B. New Facilities (construction or modification initiated
after 8-17-71):
3 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 250 MMBtu/hr 0.05 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 250 MMBtu/hr (with S02 control equipment
and State permission) 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Note: Ash content greater than 9% is not permitted.
259
-------
MICHIGAN
A.
B.
Wayne County (in AQCR 132):
1. Facilities firing pulverized coal—:
0 < R < 300 103 Ib steam/hrk/
300 < R < 3600 103 Ib steam/hr
R = 3600 103 Ib steam/hr
2. Other facilities:
0 < R < 100 103 Ib steam/hr
100 < R < 300 103 Ib steam/hr
300 < R < 800 103 Ib steam/hr
R > 800 103 Ib steam/hr
a/
Other Areas:
1. Facilities firing pulverized coal—
0 < R <. 115 103 Ib steam/hr
115 < R < 10,000 103 Ib steam/hr
R > 10,000 103 Ib steam/hr
2. Other coal firing facilities:
0 < R < 100 103 Ib steam/hr
100 < R < 300 103 Ib steam/hr
R > 300
*E = 0.3-3.33 x 10'4R lb/103
Ib stack gas
*E = 0.205-1.515 x 10"5R lb/103
Ib stack gas
0.15 lb/103 stack gas
0.65 lb/103 stack gas
*E = 0.75-1.0 x 10'3R lb/103
Ib stack gas
*E = 0.54-3.0 x 10'4R lb/103
Ib stack gas
0.30 lb/103 Ib stack gas
0.30 lb/10J Ib stack gas
*E = 0.964R'0'246 lb/103 Ib
stack gas
0.65 lb/103 Ib stack gas
*E = 0.75-1.0 x 10'3R lb/103
Ib stack gas
c/
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
&l The regulation value is dependent upon the rated capacity (R), which is
the steam output in 1,000 lb/hr.
b/ The emission limit is established on an individual basis by the State
Air Pollution Control Commission. In general, for facilities with
rated capacities < 107 Ib steam/hr the equation (E = 0.964R"0*246) is
used. For larger facilities, the allowable limit usually is 0.1 Ib/
103 Ib stack gas.
c/ The emission limit is established on an individual basis by the State
Air Pollution Control Commission.
260
-------
MINNESOTA
Opacity standard is 20% for new sources and 60% for existing.
A. Existing Installations:
The allowable emission rate is determined using
ASME Standard APS-1.
!• The maximum allowable emission rate in the
Minneapolis-St. Paul AQCR (131) and the
City of Duluth is:
2. The maximum allowable emission rate in
other areas is:
B. New Installations (constructed after 4-13-72):
The allowable emission rate is determined using
ASME Standard APS-1 with a maximum allowable
rate of:
0.4 Ib/MMBtu
0.6 Ib/MMBtu
0.4 Ib/MMBtu
MISSISSIPPI
Fossil Fuel Burning
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr (0.60 lb/106 Btu)
10 < Q < 10,000 106 Btu/hr (E = 0.88030-0-1665 lb/106 Btu)
Q> 10,000 106 Btu/hr (0.19 lb/106 Btu)
Combination boilers using a mixture of combustibles
(Fossil Fuel + a nonfossil fuel)
0.30 grains/SCFD
261
-------
MISSOURI
Air quality standards for suspended particulates (sampling with hi-volume
samplers): K.C. metropolitan area - 60 ug/m3 max annual geometric mean
at any sampling site and 150 ug/m 24-hr avg not to exceed more than one
24-hr period in any three consecutive months at any sampling site; St.
Louis metropolitan area - 75 ug/m3 annual geometric mean at any sampl-
ing site and 200 ug/m3 not to be exceeded over one day in any 3-month
period at any sampling site; Springfield-Greene County area - 60 ug/m3
max annual geometric mean at any sampling site and 150 ug/m3 24-hr avg
not to be exceeded on more than one 24-hr period in any three consecutive
calendar months at any sampling site.
Opacity standard is 4070 for existing equipment, 207o for new equipment.
A. Kansas City Metropolitan Area, Kansas City and
the Springfield-Greene County area:
1. Existing and new sources:
Q <_ 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.026Q'0-233 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.12 Ib/MMBtu
B. Other Areas:
1. Existing sources— :
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 0.896Q"0'1743 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.18 Ib/MMBtu
2. New Installations (modified or constructed
after 2-24-71)S/:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 2000 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.3072Q"0'3381 Ib/MMBtu
Q s; 2000 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
In addition, the following regulations are applicable in the St. Louis
Metropolitan Area, St. Louis County and St. Louis City:
1. For an installation of multiple stacks, the allowable emission
rate is the lesser of B (above) and ASME Standard, APS-1, Figure
2 (see Appendix D).
2. For an installation with Q > 5 MMBtu/hr, control equipment is
required which will remove at least 85% of the particulate matter
from effluent gases.
3. Emission of particles > 60 urn is prohibited.
262
-------
MONTANA
Opacity standard is 40% for existing equipment, 20% for new equipment. Lead
regulation: 0,005 mg/m3 AAQS.
A. Existing Equipment:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q ;> 10,000 MMBtu/hr
B. New Equipment (constructed or modified after
11-23-68):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q 5 10,000 MMBtu/hr
0.60 Ib/MMBtu
*E = 0.8803Q~0<1665lb/MMBtu
0.19 Ib/MMBtu
0.60 Ib/MMBtu
*E = 1.026Q-0-233 Ib/MMBtu
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
NEBRASKA
Existing Equipment:
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr (0.60 lb/106 Btu)
10 < Q < 3800 106 Btu/hr E = 1.026Q'0-233 lb/106 Btu
Q s 3800 106 Btu/hr 0.15 lb/106 Btu
New Equipment
0.10 lb/106 Btu
NEVADA
Opacity standard is 40% with copper smelters exempted.
Ambient air quality standard for particulate matter concentration is:
60 [ig/m3 annual geometric mean, and 150 (ig/m3 max 24-hr concentration.
Indirect Heat Transfer Fuel Burning Equipment:
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr
10 10 < Q < 4000 106 Btu/hr
Q £ 4000 106 Btu/hr
(0.6 lb/106 Btu)
(E = 1.02Q-0-231 lb/106 Btu)
(E = 17.0Q"0'568 lb/106 Btu)
263
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
No person shall operate a new or modified secondary lead smelter or a new
or modified secondary brass or bronze ingot production plant in such a
manner as to discharge or cuase to discharge into the atmosphere any gas
gasps from blast (cupola) furnaces'which contain particulate matter in
excess of 50 mg/dscm. Primary ambient air quality standards for suspended
particulate matter of air shall be determined by hi-volume samplers are:
(1) the annual geometric mean for all particulates shall not exceed 60
ug/nr; (2) the annual geometric mean will consist of the geometric mean
for the 12-month period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30; and
(3) the 24-hr max cone, of particulates shall not exceed 150 ug/m^ over
one day per year.
Opacity is 20% for new equipment, 40% for existing equipment.
A. Existing Equipment:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 0.8803Q'0'1665 Ib/MMBtu
,. in nnn MVTR*-,,/VIT- n id TK/MMTH-I,
Q
10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.19 Ib/MMBtu
B. New Equipment (constructed after 2-18-72):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.0286Q"0'2341 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 250 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
NEW JERSEY
Fuel Burning Equipment
Heat Input Rate, Q Allowable Emission
(106 Btu/hr) (Ib/hr)
1 0.6
10 6.0
100 . 15.0
140 17.5
180 19.3
200 20.0
> 200 0.1Q
264
-------
NEW MEXICO
Ambient air quality standards for total suspended particulate-max allowable
concentrations: (1) avg daily 150 ug/m3 for any 24-hr period; (2) avg
weekly 110 ug/m3; (3) avg monthly 90 ug/nr; and (4) annual geometric mean
60 ug/m3.
When one or more of the following elements are present in the total suspended
particulate, the max cone, of the element involved is: Lead-10 ug/m3 30-
day avg; Beryllium - 0.01 ug/m3 30-day avg; Arsenic, copper and zinc-10
ug/m 30-day avg in any combination.
After April 30, 1974, no person owning or operating a nonferrous smelter
shall permit, cause, suffer or allow particulate matter emissions to the
atmosphere in excess of 0.03 grains/avg sampled ft3 of discharge gas at
standard temperature and pressure.
Lead regulation: 0.003 mg/m3 AAQS.
A. Coal Burning Equipment
*0.05 lb/106 Btu
B. Oil Burning Equipment
Q < 106 106 Btu/year/unit (< 114.16 10 Btu/hr) No emission limit
Q> 106 106 Btu/year/unit (> 114.16 106 Btu/hr) 0.005 lb/106 Btu
For particulates with equivalent aerodynamic diameters < 2 urn, the
emission limit is 0.02 lb/ 106 Btu.
265
-------
NEW YORK
Opacity standard is 20% for fuel burning and incineration only.
A. Solid Fuel Burning Installations3./^/
1. Individual Installations (Q < 300 MMBtu/hr)
in operation prior to 6-1-72:
a. Spreader Stokers 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
b. Other than Spreader Stokers:
1 < Q < 100 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
100 < Q < 300 *E = 0.75 - 1.5Q X 10-3
Ib/MMBtu
2. Other Installations:
1 < Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr E = 1.02Q~°'219 Ib/MMBtu
3. New Installations (Q > 250 MMBtu/hr)£/ 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
B. Oil Burning Installations3- - 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
* Indicates an equation derived from figures or other information given
in the SIP regulation.
a/ The allowable emission rate (E) for a mixture of fuels burned in a
single furnace is calculated using: E = E (allowable emission rate
of a fuel) x (heat input derived from each fuel).
b/ The State has established an emission limit of 0.10 Ib/MMBtu for plants
converting from oil to coal-firing.
£/ If an application for a permit to construct is submitted after 8-11-72
then the source is classified as a new installation.
NORTH CAROLINA
Opacity standard is 20% for new equipment, 40% for existing equipment.
Ambient air quality standards for suspended particulate matter are: 60 ug/n
annual geometric mean, and 150 ug/mj max 24-hr cone, not to be exceeded
more than once a year.
Q < 10 106 Btu/hr (0.6 lb/106 Btu)
10 < Q < 10,000 106 Btu/hr E = 1.0903Q-0.2594
lb/106 Btu
Q ;> 10,000 106 Btu/hr (0.1 lb/106 Btu)
266
-------
NORTH DAKOTA
Opacity standard is 20% for new equipment, 40% for existing equipment (from
Source C).
Ambient air quality standards for suspended particulate matter are: 60 ug/m3
annual geometric mean, and 150 ug/m3 max 24-hr cone.
A. Existing Installations (0.8 lb/106 Btu)
B. New Installations
Q < 10 10^ Btu/hr (0.6 lb/106 Btu)
Q > 10 106 Btu/hr E = 0.811'q-0.131
lb/106 Btu
OHIO
Maximum annual geometric mean: 60 |0,g/m3. Maximum 24-hr concentration: 150
P-g/m3.
A. Priority I— Regions:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.40 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 1000 MMBtu/hr *E = 0.8003Q"0*3011 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 1000 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
B. Priority II-/ and III- Regions:
1. By 7-17-72:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 1000 MMBtu/hr *E = 1.2006Q"0'3011 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 1000 MMBtu/hr 0.15 Ib/MMBtu
2. By 7-1-75:
0 < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.40 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 1000 MMBtu/hr *E = 0.8003Q"0-3011 Ib/MMBtu
Q s> 1000 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Note: The enforcement of these regulations is being held in abeyance by
the Ohio EPA until the sulfur oxide emission regulations are
promulgated and are legally enforceable.
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
a/ Priority I Regions include AQCR's 079, 103, 124, 173, 174, 176, 178,
179, and 181.
b/P Priority II Regions include AQCR's 175, 177, and 183.
£/ Priority III Regions include AQCR's 180 and 182.
267
-------
OKLAHOMA
Fuel Burning Equipment:
A. AQCR's 017, 022, 184, and 186:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q ;> 10,000 MMBtu/hr
B. AQCR's 185, 187, 188, and 189
0.60 Ib/MMBtu
*E = 1.0903Q"0'2594 Ib/MMBtu
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
'No emission limit
* Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
OREGON
Opacity standard is 20% for incorporated cities of 4000 or more and within
3 miles of such otherwise 40% for all sources.
Ambient air quality standards for suspended particulate matter at a primary
mass station shall not exceed: (1) 60 ug/m^ of air, as an annual geo-
o
metric mean for any calendar year; (2) 100 ug/nr of air, 24- hr cone, for
more than 157<> of the samples collected in any calendar month; and (3)
150 ug/m^ of air, 24-hr cone., more than once a year.
0.2 grains/ft3
0.1 grains/ft3
A. Existing sources
B. New Sources
Note: Emissions are to be corrected to 50% excess air.
268
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Opacity standard is 20% for 3 min in any 1 hr.
Ambient air quality standards - the max value of lead concentration avg
over 30 days shall not exceed 5
0.20 lb/103 Ib stack gas*
0.10 lb/103 Ib stack gas*
0.40 Ib/MMBtu
E = 3.6Q"0'56 Ib/MMBtu
0.08 Ib/MMBtu
0.40 Ib/MMBtu
E = 3.6Q-°-56 Ib/MMBtu
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
A. City of Philadelphia:
Existing sources
New sources (constructed after 8-17-71
B. Allegheny County:
Combustion units:
0.2 < Q < 50 MMBtu/hr
50 < Q < 850 MMBtu/hr
Q s 850 MMBtu/hr
C.
Other Areas:
Combustion units:
2.5 < 0 < 50 MMBtu/hr
50 < Q < 600 MMBtu/hr
Q > 600 MMBtu/hr
* Regulations expressed as lb/10-3 Ib stack gas are corrected to 12%
CO 2 by volume.
RHODE ISLAND
Fuel Burning Equipment
1 < Q < 250 106 Btu/hr
Q ;» 250 106 Btu/hr
(0.2 lb/10b Btu)
(0.1 lb/106 Btu)
269
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Existing Equipment (in use or under construction)
before 2-11-71):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.8 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 10 MMBtu/hr See graph below
New Equipment (constructed after 2-11-71):
Q < 300 MMBtu/hr
Q > 300 MMBtu/hr
0.6 Ib/MMBtu
See graph below
TOTAL EQUIPMENT CAPACITY RATING
MILLION BTU/HR INPUT
PQ
W
CO
to
M
W
H
U
H
H
PM
I.J
1.0
0.9
On
• Q
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
02
• A
0.1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II
— PRIOR TO FEB. 11, 1971
* jf.
•
*
*
*
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 i M
' —
—
"jf \ \ \ \ 600 «, 800
— ON OR AFTER FEB. 11, 1971 ^ STACK HEIGHT *. \ \ \ \ —
(FT)
• * »
» ft k * *
ABOVE GRADE \ «. \ \ %
BASIS
~ 1. SUBSTANTIALLY FLAT TERRAIN
2. 12% OF HEAT INPUT UP STACK
3. STACK HEIGHT IS PHYSICAL STACK HEIGHT
4. SUBSTANTIALLY NO EMISSION GREATER
THAN 60 MICRONS DIAMETER ALLOWED
1 1 1 ll 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 ll 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ll
» * * « ^ .
^^^ ft ft * ** * * '
\ *. \ \
*. • \ •
*. *• \ 300 *•
• v . \
\ 275\ «.
**• *• — *,
ISO *.
•
«
•
•
1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.5 1
5 10
50 100
500 1000
5000 10,000
SOUTH DAKOTA
Solid Fuel Burning Equipment
0.3 lb/106 Btu
270
-------
TENNESSEE
Opacity standard is 20%« Ambient air quality standard for particulates is
60 (ig/m? as an annual geometric mean and 150 (j,g/np as the max 24-hr cone.
A. Existing Installations:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr
Q :> 10,000 MMBtu/hr
B. New Installations (constructed or
modified after 4-3-72):
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 250 MMBtu/hr
Q > 250 MMBtu/hr
0.60 Ib/MMBtu
*E = 1.0903Q"0'2594
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Ib/MMBtu
0.60 Ib/MMBtu
*E = 2.1617Q'0'5566 Ib/MMBtu
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
Note: A source may choose the diffusion equation below to compute allowable
rates of emission if the heat input rate (Q) of the source is less
than 4000 MMBtu/hr.
E =
20650 a h
^0.75
E = maximum allowable emission (Ib/MMBtu)
fo.67 if stack height < 200 ft
3 \ 0.80 if stack height > 200 ft.
h = stack height (ft)
Q = total plant heat input (Btu/hr)
When more than one stack exists, a weighted average of the stack
heights is used in the equation and the emission limit, E, is
divided by (number of stacks)0' .
Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
271
-------
TEXAS
All toxic elements (lead included) above 10 |j,g/m (arbitrarily selected)
are on the prime priority element surveillance list.
Lead regulation: 0.005 mg/nr* = AAQS.
Solid Fossil Fuel Fired Steam Generators: 0.3 Ib/MMBtu
Note: A state regulations (not part of the SIP) imposes
the following restrictions:
A. Oil or Gas Fired Steam Generator:
Q > 2500 MMBtu/hr 0.1 Ib/MMBtu
Q <£ 2500 MMBtu/hr:
1. maximum ground level concentration
on a property:
100 ug/m3, maximum 5 hr avg
200 ug/nH, maximum 3 hr avg
400 ug/nH, maximum 1 hr avg
2. allowable emission rate in Ib/hr:
E = 0.048 x (stack effluent flow
rate in acfm)^-^^; further re-
duction is required for low stack
height.
UTAH
Air quality standards of performance for secondary lead smelters and secon-
dary brass and bronze ingot production plants—no emission of particulate
matter from a blast (cupola) or reverberatory furnace shall exceed 50 rag/
dscm; for iron and steel mills, emissions shall not exceed 50 mg/dscm. Am-
bient air quality standards: 60 |o,g/m^ as annual geometric mean and 150
fig/m as a maximum 24-hr cone.
A. General Regulation for Coal-fired Steam Electric 85% Control of
Potential Emissions
B. Wasatch Front (AQCR 220):
Fuel Burning Sources:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < 0 < 10,000 MMBtu/hr E = 0.87Q"0'16 Ib/MMBtu
Q > 10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.20 Ib/MMBtu
272
-------
VERMONT
Fuel Burning Equipment:
Existing Equipment:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr
10 < Q < 300 MMBtu/hr
Q > 300 MMBtu/hr
New Equipment (constructed after 7-1-71):
Q > 1000 MMBtu/hr
0.50 Ib/MMBtu
*E - 1.4865Q-0'4732
0.10 Ib/MMBtu
0.06 Ib/MMBtu
Ib/MMBtu
Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
VIRGINIA
Existing Fuel Equipment
Q < 25 106 Btu/hr
25 ^ Q < 10,000 106 Btu/hr
Q ;> 10,000 106 Btu/hr
(0.40 lb/106 Btu)
E = 0.8425Q-0-2314 Ib/lO^Btu
(0.1 lb/106 Btu)
WASHINGTON
Ambient air quality standards. The suspended particulate cone, in the
ambient air, averaged over any 24-hr period, shall not exceed: (1) 60
ug/m annual geometric mean; (2) 100 ug/m3 for more than 15% of the
samples collected in any calendar month; and (3) 150 ug/m3 not to be
exceeded more than once a year.
A. Puget Sound Interstate AQCR (229):
1. New sources (constructed or modified after
10-5-73)
2. Existing sources
B. Whatcom, Skagit, San Juan and Island Counties
(in AQCR 228):
1. Residual Oil
2. Other Fuel
C. Other Areas:
1. Existing sources:
Before 7-1-75
After 7-1-75
2. New Sources (constructed or modified'
after 10-5-73)
0.05 grains/SCFD
0.10 grains/SCFD
0.10 grains/SCFD
0.05 grains/SCFD
0.20 grains/SCFD
0.10 grains/SCFD
0.10 grains/SCFD
273
-------
WEST VIRGINIA
A. Electric Power Plants 0.050 Ib/hr
Maximum discharge rate 1200 Ib/hr
B. Industrial Furnaces 0.090 Ib/hr
Maximum discharge rate 600 Ib/hr
WISCONSIN
A. Existing Sources:
1. Lake Michigan Interstate AQCR (237):
The allowable emission rate is determined using
ASME Standard APS-1, with a maximum allowable
rate of: 0.30 Ib/MMBtu
2. Southeast Wisconsin Interstate AQCR (239)- 0.15 Ib/MMBtu
3. Other AQCRs:
The allowable emission rate is determined using
ASME Standard APS-1, Figure 2 (see Appendix D)
with a maximum allowable rate of: 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
B. New or Modified Sources (after 4-1-72):
Q < 250 MMBtu/hr 0.15 Ib/MMBtu
Q :> 250 MMBtu/hr 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
a./ Installations in the Southeast Wisconsin Interstate AQCR with a heat
input-rate (Q) less than 250 MMBtu/hr shall not burn coal.
WYOMING
Opacity standard is 207o for new equipment, 407o for existing.
The ambient air standards for total suspended particulates are: (1) 60
ug/m^ - annual geometric mean; and (2) 150 Hg/m^ - max 24-hr concentra-
tion not to be exceeded more than once per year.
A. Existing Sources:
Q < 10 MMBtu/hr 0.60 Ib/MMBtu
10 < Q < 10,000 MMBtu/hr *E = 0.8963Q"0'1743
Ib/MMBtu
Q s 10,000 MMBtu/hr 0.18' Ib/MMBtu
B. New Sources (constructed after 4-9-73) 0.10 Ib/MMBtu
a/ Indicates equations derived from figures or other information given in
the SIP regulation.
274
-------
Table C-l. ALL OTHER SOURCES-
.PARTIGULATES
Arkansas (all other sources)
100 Ib/hr process weight
California (all other sources)
100 Ib/hr process weight
Maryland (all other sources)
100 Ib/hr process weight
10 Ib/hr process weight
North Carolina (all other sources)
100 Ib/hr process weight
10 Ib/hr process weight
Oregon (all other sources)
100 Ib/hr process weight
75 (J,g/m3/day
0.1-0.3 g/scf
0.46 Ib/hr
46.72 Ib/hr
0.551 Ib/hr
69.0 Ib/hr
0.1 g/scf
275
-------
Table C-2. SECONDARY METALS OPERATIONS
Delaware
For 1000 Ib/hr process weight 0.75 Ib/hr
For 50,000 Ib/hr process weight 37.5 Ib/hr
Virginia
For 1000 Ib/hr process weight 3.05 Ib/hr
For 50,000 Ib/hr process weight 42.0 Ib/hr
Massachusetts
0.10 Ib particulate/1000 Ib gas for new nonferrous foundries.
0.15 Ib particulate/1000 Ib gas for existing nonferrous foundries.
New Hampshire
Process Weight Rate (Ib/hr)
1000 10,000 20,000 40.000 50,000 200,000 1,000,000
New Installa-
tions 2.58 12.00 19.20 -- 40.0 for 51.20 69.0
60,000
Existing
Installa-
tions 3.17 14.85 23.62 -- 49.31 for 61.53 82.75
60,000
Pennsylvania
F = 0.5 Ib/ton of product.
276
-------
Table C-3. NONFERROUS FOUNDRIES
(Includes Primary Lead Smelters)
New Hampshire
1,000 Ib/hr process weight 2.58 Ib/hr
50,000 Ib/hr process weight 37.3 Ib/hr
New Mexico
1,000 Ib/hr process weight 0.03 g/scf
50,000 Ib/hr process weight 0.03 g/scf
277
-------
Table C-4. GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES
Process Weight (Ib/hr)
State
1000 5000 10.000 20.000 40.000 50.000
Regulation
Alabama
Connecticut
Iron cupolas
Foundry sand
Georgia
If > 50,000
Ib/hr Input
If < 50,000
Ib/hr Input
Indiana
new foundries
existing found-
ries
lowag/
Massachusetts
Production
Foundry
Jobbing Foundry
Michigan
Product foundry
Jobbing Foundry
Minnesotak'
Missouri^
New Hampshire
New foundries
Existing
Foundries
New York-
North Carolina^/
Oklahoma
Tulsa
Tennessee*!/
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Cupolas
Sintering
3.05
2.58
3.05
2.58
3.05
3.05
2.58
3.17
3.05
3.05
3.05
•
9.58
7.58
9.58
7.58
9.65
9.58
7.58
9.35
9.58
9.58
9.58
13.00
16.65
12.00
16.65
12.00
16.65
16.55
12.00
14.85
16.65
16.65
16.65
19.00
25.10
19.20
25.10
19.20
24.00
25.10
19.20
23.62
25.10
25.10-
25.10
26.00
37.00
30.50
33.76
30.20
36.00
-
.
37.00
37.00
-
36.00
42.40
35.40
35.40
35.40
42.00
•
-
42.40
-
-
40.00
Remove 857. by weight of all participate
matter In discharge gases or release not
mor« than 0.8 Ib part/ 1000 Ib discharge
gas.
a nuisance and at least 907. collection
efficiency for fugitive dust.
0.10 Ib part/ 1000 Ib gas for new foundries
and existing foundries In critical areas
0.25 lb/1000 Ib gas for existing foundries
0.40 Ib part/ 1000 Ib g».
0.40 Ib part/1000 Ib gas for 0-10 tons/hr
plant capacity.
0.25 Ib part/1000 Ib gas for 11-20 tons/hr
plant capacity.
0.15 Ib part/1000 Ib gas for 2 21 toni/hr
plant capacity
0.40 Ib part/ 1000 Ib g««.
Remove 857. by weight of all partlculate
matter In discharge gases or release not
more than 0.4 gr part/scf of gas.
Remove 857. by weight of all partlculate
more than 0.4 gr part/scf of gas.
0.40 gr/scf of exhaust gas or must be
equipped with control equipment which
would collect not < 85% of the partlculate
matter entering the device.
0.45 Ib dust/1000 Ib gas.
0.2 Ib dust/ 1000 Ib gas.
a_/ For all existing foundry cupolas with a process weight < 20,000 Ib/hr;
not exceed general process weight rates.
b/ For all existing jobbing cupolas.
£/ For all jobbing foundries after January 1, 1971.
d/ Proposed for existing jobbing foundries.
foundry cupolas > 20,000 Ib/hr may
278
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR APPENDIX G
Abel, D. J., "Instruments and Control Systems," 1975 Buyers' Guide Issue,
pp. 28-29.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Strategies and Air Standards Division,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, "State Implementation Plan Emis-
sion Regulations for Particulate Matter: Fuel Combustion," EPA-450/2-76-
010, August 1976, 75 pages.
Duncan, L. J., "Analysis of Final State Implementation Plans - Rules and
Regulations," The Mitre Corporation; prepared for the Office of Air Pro-
grams, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0248,
July 1972, 83 pages.
MRI experience with obtaining SIP information for indivudual states either
by letter communication from state or by obtaining a copy of a state's SIPs
in response to an MRI inquiry.
279
-------
APPENDIX D
SOME PREVIOUS EMISSION STUDIES
280
-------
Table D-l. LEAD EMISSIONS BY SOURCE 1970
Source Emission in tons
Primary lead smelting 1,700
Secondary lead 220
Mining and milling lead ore 60
Primary copper smelting 1,700
Gray iron foundries 2,300
Ferroalloys 70
Gasoline additives 1,900
Lead oxide production 140
Lead pigment manufacture 210
Storage battery manufacture 480
Metallic lead products 90
Cable covering manufacture 50
Type metal 200
Coal and oil combustion 740 (650 + 90)
Waste and waste oil combustion 3,200
Source: Davis, W. E., "Emission Study of Industrial Sources
of Lead Air Pollutants 1970," prepared for the
USEPA, OAWP, OAQPS, RTF, NC. Contract No. 68-02-0271
APTD-1543.
281
-------
Table D-2. LEAD EMISSION FACTORS FROM SELECTED SOURCES^-
a/
ro
oo
ro
Source
Mining and milling
Primary lead production
Primary copper production
Secondary lead production
Lead oxide processing
Storage batteries
Gasoline additives
Cable covering
Type metal
Waste oil combustion
Coal combustion
Distillate oil combustion
Residual oil combustion
Gray iron foundries
Lead pigments
Ferroalloys
Silicomanganese
Electric furnace
Factor
0.2 Ib/ton Pb mined (controlled)
5.0 Ib/ton of product (controlled)
0.6 Ib/ton of Cu cone, (controlled)
0.7 Ib/ton of product (controlled)
0.7 Ib/ton of lead oxide (controlled)
8.0 Ib/ton of lead processed (uncontrolled)
1.3 Ib/ton of lead processed (controlled)
14.0 Ib/ton of lead processed (controlled)
2.0 Ib/ton of lead processed (controlled)
17.0 Ib/ton of lead processed (controlled)
0.04 Ib/bbl of oil burned (controlled)
2.2 lb/1,000 tons of coal burned (controlled)
0.1 lb/1,000 bbl of oil burned (uncontrolled)
0.04 Ib/bbl of oil burned (uncontrolled)
0.3 Ib/ton of iron (uncontrolled)
10 Ib/ton of Pb processed (uncontrolled)
0.9 Ib/ton of product (uncontrolled)
Qualifier^
Plant visit
Q
Est.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Est.
Est.
S.S.
S.S.
Est.
Q
Est.
a/ Source: Davis, W. E. Emission Study of Industrial Sources of Lead Air Pollutants 1970,
APTD-1543, prepared for the U.S. EPA, OAWP, OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC.
b_/ Q = Questionnaires returned to Davis.
Est. = Estimate by Davis.
S.S. = Stack tests.
-------
Table D-3. LEAD POLLUTANT SOURCES - SUMMARY OF DATA PRESENTED
BY THE MITRE CORPORATION
Combustion
of
fossil fuel
Source
Lead mining and ore crushing
Primary copper
Roasting
Reverberatory furnaces
Converters
Material handling
Primary lead
Sintering
Blast furnace
Dross reverberatory furnace
Secondary lead
Scrap preparation
Blast furnace
Reverberatory furnace
Pot refining
Barton process
Gray iron foundry
Cupola
Lead alkyl chemicals
Power plant boilers
Pulverized coal
Stoker coal
Cyclone coal
All oil
Industrial boilers
Pulverized coal
Stoker coal
Cyclone coal
All oil
Residential/commercial boilers
Coal
Oil
Amount
in tons
345
1,400
810
614
71
21
7
27
95
14
5
9 ;
12
380
680
2,020
875
Source: The Mitre Corporation, Selected Characteristics
of Hazardous Pollutant Emissions, May 1973 for
USEPA Contract No. 68-01-0438
283
-------
Table D-4. LEAD EMISSIONS REPORTED BY THE MITRE CORPORATION^/ k/
Source
Lead mining and raw material
handling
Ore crushing
Raw material handling
1° Copper .
Roasting
Reverberatory furnace
Converters
Material handling
1° Lead smelting
Sintering
Blast furnace
Dross reverberatory furnace
Material handling
2° Lead smelting
Scrap preparation
Sweat furnaces
1. Blast
2. Reverberatory
Pot refinery
Barton process (PbO)
Grey iron foundry
Cupola
Cupola
Cupola
Cupola
Cupola
Ferroalloys
Blast furnace
Electric arc furnace
Material handling
Lead alkyl chemicals
Combustion of fossil fuels
Power plants
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Residual or distillate oil
Industrial
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Pulverized coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Stoker fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Cyclone fired coal boilers
Residual or distillate oil
Natural gas and LNG
Res identia 1/Commercia 1
Coal
Oil
Lead emissions In short tons
(7. of total source emissions)
345 (3.84)
Negligible
127 (1.42)
54 (0.6)
163 (1.82)
36 (0.40)
485 (5.39)
138 (1.45)
65 (0.73)
Not reported
Negligible
1,500 (16.67)
500 (5.56)
Negligible
20 (0.23)
1
\ 1,400 (15.56)
J
No emission data
No emission data
No emission data
810 (9.00)
614 (6.83)
1
> 71 (0.79)
J
I 21 (0.24)
7 (0.08)
> 27 (0.30)
J
V 95 (1.06)
> 14 (0.16)
"1
> 5 (0.06)
j
9 (0.10)
Controls
None
Hoods, settling chamber, cyclones,
ESP, baghouses
Settling chamber, water spray, ESP
ESP
Settling chamber and cyclones or
ESP
Hood, settling chambers, cyclones,
ESP, baghouse
Cyclones and baghouses or ESP
Cyclones and baghouses or ESP
Waste heat boiler and baghouse or
ESP
Hoods, settling chambers, cyclones,
baghouses, or ESP
None
Baghouse, ESP
Baghouse, ESP
Hoods and baghouses
Ducting, baghouses, screw conveyor
ESP
Cyclones
Baghouse
Wet scrubber
Wet cap
Settling chambers, cyclones, scrub-
ber, ESP
Hood, settling chambers, cyclones,
scrubber , ESP
Hood, settling chambers, cyclones,
scrubber, ESP
Scrubbers, baghouses
Cyclones
ESP
ESP plus cyclones
Settling chambers
None
ESP'
Cyclones
None
Cyclones
Cyclones plus ESP
None
None or cyclones (for soot blowing)
Multicyclones
ESP
None
Multicyclones
ESP
None
Multicyclones
ESP
None
None or cyclone or ESP (for soot
blowing)
None
None
None
7. Application
0
35
100
80-85
85
35
90
98
50-60
35
0
95-100
95-100
95
100
Negligible
5
3 >337.
18
7
100
50
35
100
1007.
4.5 1
82.6 > 100%
12 . 9 j
13.31
57.3 V 1007.
29. 4j
Unknown
65.9 1
29.6 > 1007.
4.5 J
52.61
9.1 > 1007.
38.3 J
40. 7 T
49.8 > 1007,
9.5 J
Unknown
0
0
0
7. Efficiency
0
90
85
95
95
90
95
85
95
90
0
95
95
95
95-99
97
75
99
90
50
99
81
90
88
82.2
96
96
Negligible
0
\
J 807.
J 91%
Estimated 99
->
\ 84.77.
84.77.
> 82. 4%
Estimated 99
0
0
0
a/ Duncan, L. J., et al., "Selected Characteristics of Hazardous Pollutant Emissions," The Mitre Corporation.
Prepared for the U.S. EPA, Contract No. 68-01-0438, May 1973.
b/ Most of data referenced by The Mitre Corporation to Volume III of Particulate Pollutant System Study,
"Handbook of Emission Properties," by Midwest Research Institute for the U.S. EPA, May 1971.
284
-------
Table D-5. LEAD: SUMMARY OF IN PUT/OUTPUT VARIABLES FOR MODEL IV EMISSION CALCULATIONS FROM TRC REPORT - LEAD EMISSIONS
Emisalon rates
Category
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7,
fO
00
Ul 8.
9.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
Primary lead shelter
Secondary lead sawlter
I. Reverb
2. Blast
3. Pot
HI Ing and milling
ead ore
Pr mary copper smelting
Cr y iron foundry
Fe roalloy plant
Gaaollne additives: Na
Elect
Lead oxide
Lead plgmenta
Can manufacture
Cable covering
Type metal
Combustion of fossil fuel
Waste oil combustion
combustion
Metallic lead products
k
0.85 Exist.
0.99 Neu
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.92
Not Reported
Not Reported
0.90
0.62
0.62
0.83
0. 76
0.81
10. 0
1.0
Not Reported
Not Reported
Not Reported
Units
Ib/ton lead
Produced
Ib/ton Pb
Produced
Ib/ton Pb
produced
Ib/ton Pb
produced
Ib/ton lead
mined
Ib/ton ferro-
alloy prod.
Ib/ton lead
in prod.
Ib/ton lead
In prod.
Ib/ton lead
in prod.
Ib/bat tery
prod.
Ib/ton lead
in prod.
Ib/ton lead
produced
Ib/ton lead
produced
burned
EH
37.0
175.0
171.0
0.857
0.20
0.34
86.2
33.2
9.5
0.005
7.1
0.0439
77.3
0.075
Elllfd)
0.056
0.66
0.66
0.026
0.10
0.0034
3.96
2.31
0.0095
0.0
1.78
0.0109
15.5
0.0075
£,
0.14
4.06 Ex
0.79 Neu
2.74 Ex
0.79 Neu
0.86
0.20
0.017
10.78
4.1
3.12
0.005
3.92
0.0439
38.8
0. 38
Crovth rate
En Pc
0.056 0
0.66 0.032c
0.66 0.032c
0.026 0.032C
0.10 0
0.0034 0.015C
N.A. -O.lUc
N.A. -O.lUc
N.A. -0.075c
0.0 0.5c
N.A. -0.085C
N.A. -0.043c
N.A. -0.065
0.00075 0.0090
B| PnfeetnnK frnn Sfatlo
Pb
0.0365
0.0245
0.0245
0.0245
0.055
0.0285
0
0
0
0.045
0
0
0
0
larv Sources
Industrial capacity
A 8 c
Units/year 1975 1985 ,955
10° tons Pb 0.765 0.275 0
10° tons lead 0.713 0.171 0.264
10° tons lead 0.148 0.036 0.055
10° tons lead 0.065 0.016 0.024
10° tons lead 0.622 0.311 0
10 tons terro- 1.56 0.44 0.25
al toy
10° tons lead 0.283 0 -0.195
10° tons lead 0.025 0 -0.017
10° tons lead 0.0717 0 -0.038
10 batteries 80 32 50.3
10° tons lead 0.0555 0 -0.032
10° tons lead 0.0444 0 -0.016
10° tons lead 0.016 0 -0.0096
10 gal oil 0.629 0 59
Emissions 1.000 tons/vr
Ta
1975
0,046
0.984
0.138
0.019
0.057
0.012
0.945
0.032
0.093
0.152
0.088
0.0097
0.310
6.9
Ts
1985
0.048
0.865
0.104
0.026
0.057
0.014
0.294
0.0099
0.044
0.25
0.0377
0.0063
0.124
7.6
Tnd
1985
0.019
0.219
0.046
0.0008
0.6286
0.003
0.108
0.0055
0.0001
0
0.0171
0.0016
0.050
1.4
lavact tons/yr
Ts-TDd
29
646
58
25
29
11
186
4.3
44
250
21
4.8
75
6,200
Source: Hopper. T. C. and V.
Vol. I. prepared fi
Page 80.
: the U.S.E.P.A. OAOPS, Research Triangle Park, N.C. EPA Contract No. 68-02-1382 Task 3, October 24, 1975.
-------
Table D-6. NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC LEAD EMISSIONS IN 1975-/
Process Metric tons Short tons
Primary lead smelting 400 440
Primary copper smelting 617 680
Ore crushing and grinding 493 544
Secondary lead smelting 750 830
Gray iron production 1,080 1,192
Ferroalloy production 391 430
Lead oxide production 100 110
Pigment production 12 13
Cable covering • 113 125
Can soldering 63 70
Type metal 435 480
Metallic lead products 77 85
Waste oil disposal 10,430 11,500
Lead alkyl production 1,000 1,100
Storage battery production 22 24
Coal combustion 400 440
Oil combustion 100 110
Total 16,483 18,173
a/ Source: PEDCo Environmental, Control Techniques for
Lead Air Emissions, Draft Report for the U.S. EPA,
OAQPS, Research Triangle Park, NC.
286
-------
Table D-7. LEAD EMISSION FACTORS, ANNUAL EMISSIONS, AND CONTROL TECHNIQUES TAKEN FROM A
REPORT PREPARED BY PEDCo ENVIRONMENTALIST FOR THE EPA, 1975
Uncontrolled lead
Industry process
Coal combustion
Oil combustion
. utilities
. industrial
. other sources
Waste oil combustion
T. ead alkyl manufacturing
Sodium-lead alloy process
. recovery furnace
. process vents, TEL
. process vents, TML
. sludge pits
Electrolytic process
Storage battery manufacture
. grid casting
. paste mixing
. lead reclaim
. small parts casting
Ore crushing and grinding
Primary copper smelting
. roasting
. reverberatory furnace
. converting
Primary lead smelting
. sintering
. blast furnace
. dross reverberatory
Secondary lead smelting
. blast furnaces
. reverberatory furnaces
Gray iron production
. cupola furnace
. reverberatory furnace
. electric furnace
Ferroalloy production
. FeMn, bl.ast furnace
. FeMn, electric furnace
. SiMn, electric furnace
Lead oxide production
Red lead production
White lead production
Chrome pigments production
Type metal operations
Can soldering operations
Cable covering operations
Metallic lead products
Ammunition manufacturing
emission
B/kg3'
0.80L
0.5P
4.8M
28
75
2
0.6
0.5
2.3
0.2
1.23
0.78
0.05
0.05
0.006-0.15
1.2P
0.83
1.3
4.2-170
8.7-50
1.3-3.5
28
27
0.3
0.035
0.026
1.9
1.5
0.5
0.22h-/
o yi
(1 7 flfo/
0.065
O.lji'
o.i&i/
0.25i/
0.75
0.5
factor
Ib/ton
1-6Lc/
4.2P^/
40M
55
150
4
1.2
1.0
5-£/
0.44
2.71
1.73
0.10
0.10
0.012-0.3
2.3p3/
1.7
2.6
8.4-340
17.5-100
2.6-7
56
53
0.6
0.07
0.05
3.7
3.1
1.0
0.44
0.9
0.55
0.13
0.25
n.3?4/
' tf /
l.O*'
1975 ',ead
mesa q rams
400
45
14
41
10,430
1. 000
14
22
493
69
150
400
400
755
950
33
96
391
100
3
0.9
3.0
436
60
113
77
emissions
tons
440
50
15
45
11,500
1,100
15
24
544
76
165
440
440
830
1,050
36
106
430
110
9
I
3.3
480
57
125
85
negligible
Control
FF
R
R
R
R
R
R
T
R
R
R
R
0
0
T
0
T
R
R
R
R
T
T
T
T
T
0
0
R
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
R
R
R
R
teehniaues-
WC
0
R
R
R
R
R
0
0
0
0
T
0
T
T
T
R
T
R
R
T
T
R
T
T
T
T
R
T
T
T
R
R
R
R
T
3
R
R
R
ESP
T
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
T
T
T
0
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
0
R
R
R
R
0
R
R
R
R
Source: PEDCo Environmental, Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions, draft report for USEPA, OAQPS,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Pages 2-31 to 2-35.
£/ Units are g/kg produced unless indicated otherwise by footnote.
b/ FF = fabric filter, WC • wet collector, ESP » electrostatic precipitator.
c/ L • lead content of coal in ppm by weight. Resulting emission factor units are in g/Mg of coal
(lb/10 ton). U.S. coals average about 8.3 ppm lead.
d/ P » lead content of oil in ppm by weight. Resulting emission factor units are g/m oil (lb/10 gal).
e_/ M » lead content of waste oil in percent by weight. (Generally around 17.*) Resulting
emission factor units are kg/m3 oil (lb/103 gal).
f/ Units are kg/103 batteries produced (lb/103 batteries) for all processes in battery manufacturing.
£/ p • lead content in copper concentrate in percent by weight. Average lead content for U.S. con-
centrates is 0.3%. Emission factor units for all copper operations are expressed in g/kg
concentrate (Ib/ton).
h/ Emission factor given is after control with eyelone/fabric filter product recovery system.
i/ Units are g/kg of lead processed (Ib/ton).
j/ Units are kg/106 baseboxes (lb/10° baseboxes).
k/ Units are g/Mg lead processed (lb/103 ton).
287
-------
|