United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 78-NMM-10
February 1979
Air
&EPA Non-Metallic Minerals
Emission Test Report
Edward C. Levy
Detroit, Michigan
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION EVALUATION REPORT
NON-METALLIC MINERALS
Edward C. Levy
Detroit, Michigan
December 19-21, 1978
Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
EMB REPORT NO. 78-NMM-10
Work Assignments 8 and 13
Contract No. 68-02-2817
February 1979
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Discussion of Results 2
3.0 Process Description and Operation 6
4.0 Observation Locations and Emission Points 7
5.0 Observation Procedures 10
APPENDICES
A. Project Participants
B. Field Data Sheets
B-l. Visible Emissions
B-2. Fugitive Dust
C. Summary of Visible Emissions
D. Method 22
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
4.1 Plan view of crushing and screening
operation 8
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
retained Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. to
conduct both visible and fugitive emissions observa-
tions at the Edward C..Levy Company} Plant No. 2, in
Detroit, Michigan. EPA Methods 9 and 22 were incor-
porated to evaluate emissions from the screening and
crushing operations buildings on December 19 through
21, 1978.
The results of this study will be used in research
and development efforts for a state-of-the-art emission
evaluation of slag processing plants. This study
was commissioned as Project No. 78-NMM-10, Contract
No. 68-02-2817, Work Assignments 8 and 13.
-------
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
General Observations
Weather conditions during, the testing period were
extremely poor. Cloud cover was very low, with a
gray sky. Temperatures ranged from 30-40F. These
low temperatures caused exce'ssive steam to rise from
the hot slag, thus masking actual emissions.
Water sprays were used to cool the slag
prior to crushing and to reduce dust emissions when
transferring the crushed slag onto the screens.
When sprays were used, higher amounts of steam were
observed emanating from both the crusher building and
the screening room through doors, windows, cracks,
and chute openings.
The temperature of the slag varied within the same
pile depending on how recently it had been dumped.
This could account for the great fluctuation of steam
present in the screening room.
Difficulty was encountered distinguishing between
dust and steam. Therefore, "less than" and "greater
than" values were incorporated to estimate percent opacity,
It was assumed that the steam contained dust particles.
More dust appeared to be generated by trucks on the
haul roads and at the dump stations than by the processes
themselves. At times these occurrences interfered with
obtaining emission readings.
- 2 -
-------
The slag piles themselves did not appear to be discrete
emission sources. Only steam was observed emanating
from the hot slag as it was transferred to the crusher
unit. When the slag was dumped onto the grating for
transfer into the crusher building however, much dust was
generated. During the entire study, a constant
shower of dust was noted; dust on the data sheets,
on ears, in the mouth and nose.
Screening Building
More dust was emanating from material transfer
points, i.e., the hoppers, than from the actual
screening. Dust from the conveyors and transfer
points appeared to be dependent upon the amount and
type of material on the conveyor, wind direction, and
moisture from rain or water sprays.
A sand hopper, located east of the three blend
hoppers, was a definite emission source. A steady plume
of sand dust escaped from the hopper as it filled.
A front end loader would remove the sand which had
accumulated on the ground below the hopper so that a
truck could drive underneath the hopper to receive a
load of sand. The sand dust plume subsided after the
hopper had been emptied and reappeared as soon as the
hopper began to fill.
- 3 -
-------
Screening Room
For practical purposes, each of the three screens
was considered an emission source. However, only one
combined reading was reported. In most cases, steam
and dust were interspersed between and among each of the
screens, making discrete readings of the individual
screens impossible.
Observations were made while standing in the midst
of the emission due to space limitations, timeliness
of the project, and at the request of EPA. This made
it very difficult to determine percent opacities ,
especially with steam present. However, dust was
indeed present; the data sheets were constantly covered
with a layer of dust. Better results could have
been obtained if the observer were located, away from
the emission source enabling vision of the entire process,
Crusher Building
Most of the dust was emitted during loading of
the crusher via the dump station located adjacent to
the crusher building. As was stated above, observing and
distinguishing between dust and steam emissions with the
adverse sky conditions present during the study presented
a problem. Most of the observations, however, indicated
no visible emissions. This would usually be the case,
if the material was already cold and water sprays were
used on the transfer conveyor which moves the slag from
the loading station to the crusher.
- 4 -
-------
If steam was present the readings were less than
5-percent. This is of,course, the best judgement that
could be given to this process in view of the variables
encountered during the observation period.
- 5 -
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
Supplied and completed by EPA.
- 6 -
-------
4.0 OBSERVATION LOCATIONS AND EMISSION POINTS
Figure 4.1 presents a plan view of the crushing
and screening operation along with respective observa-
tion points.
Observation point A was approximately 200 feet
northwest of the screening building at ground level.
This location permitted optimum observation of the
dumping station, the conveyors, and the building itself.
Observation of the crusher building initially began
at Point B. About 40-minutes into the test, observers
moved to location C. Point C was approximately 200 feet
west of the crusher building at ground level and
provided a better view of the entire operation including
the slag dumping into the crusher, the chute opening,
and doorway.
Screening Building
The screening building is approximately 55 feet above
ground level. The building and its dumping station were
observed separately since both were emissions sources.
Screening Room
The screening room, located about 40 feet
above ground level, is approximately 28 x 32 x
15 feet high at the building center. The observers
were located within 5 feet of the screens. Background
- 7 -
-------
Slag pile
Opacity meter
i
00
water sprays
Covered
conveyor
Screening building-*)
-4 Covered return 6onveyor-\
ri -—Chute
Covered conveyor
To screening operation
Observation
Point A
Observation
\\\ I /
Slag pile
Slag pile
Observa•
t ion
Point C
Figure 4.1. Plan view of crushing and screening operation.
-------
consisted of walls, floor, ceiling^ and railings
which were covered with gray colored accumulated
dust. Steam was present throughout the observation
period; at times the screens were not visible. At
times dust particles appeared to be so fine that
they could not be seen unless observed directly
below a light source (0-percent readings were recorded
at this time).
Crusher Building
Observations at the crusher building were similar
to those noted at the screening building. The
building itself was approximately 30 x 30 x 20 feet high,
and located at ground level. The building openings
were two doors, a conveyor opening, and a chute opening.
Three-fourths of the crusher was located below ground
level alo^ng the east wall of the building.
- 9 -
-------
5.0 OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
Visible emission observations were performed in
accordance with Method 9, Visual Determination of
the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources and
Method 22, Visual Determination of Fugitive Emissions
from Material Processing Sources.
Four one-hour observation periods were conducted
on the crusher building and five periods on the
screening building. One observation period was
conducted inside the screening room for approximately
one hour. Further evaluations at this location were
terminated due to difficulties which are discussed
in Section 2.0. In all cases, the one-hour fugitive
emissions observation periods were divided into three
20-minute segments, with a five minute break between
each segment, as required by Method 22 (Appendix D).
The fifth evaluation of the screening building was
conducted without any breaks so that the entire test
could be completed before dark.
Opacity readings were documented simultaneously
with the fugitive emission readings by a certified
visible emissions observer. "Less -than" and "greater
than" values were estimated when steam was present.
- 10 -
-------
In this case, it was assumed that dust was present
in the steam since the processes themselves were of
a dusty nature. Visible emissions data are summarized
in Appendix C.
- 11 -
------- |