United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Ranning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-82-014
August 1982
Air
vvEPA
Air Pollution Control
Techniques for
Non-Metallic Minerals
Industry
-------
EPA-450/3-82-014
Air Pollution Control Techniques
for Non-Metallic Minerals Industry
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
August 1982
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended.to
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available through the Library Services
Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, or from the National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virgina 22161.
-------
Foreword
This document supersedes the previously released document entitled
Air Poljutjon Control Techniques for Crushed and Broken Stone Industry
(EPA-45Q/3-80-019), which was published in May 1980. This document contains
the information and emission test results previously presented for the
crushed and broken stone industry in the above mentioned document.
m
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
LIST OF FIGURES v
LIST OF TABLES vii
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 1-1
1.2 SOURCES AND CONTROL OF EMISSIONS 1-2
CHAPTER 2. SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS. 2-1
2.1 GENERAL..... 2-1
2.2 NON-METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING OPERATIONS AND
THEIR EMISSIONS 2-10
2.3 QUARRYING 2-18
2.4 CRUSHING.. 2-19
2. 5 SCREENING OPERATIONS 2-31
2.6 MATERIAL HANDLING........ 2-35
2.7 GRINDING OPERATIONS 2-40
2.8 SEPARATING AND CLASSIFYING 2-45
2.9 BAGGING AND BULK LOADING OPERATIONS ...... ... 2-45
2.10 WASHING . 2-46
2.11 PORTABLE PLANTS. 2-46
CHAPTER 3. EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES. 3-1
3.1 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 3-1
3.2 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE PROCESS SOURCES 3-7
3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL
METHODS 3-29
3.4 PERFORMANCE OF PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNIQUES 3-32
CHAPTER 4 COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY. 4-1
4.1 MODEL PLANTS... ....... 4-1
4.2 COST OF CONTROLLING PROCESS SOURCES 4-4
4.3 COST OF CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES 4-31
-------
Table of Contents (con't.)
CHAPTER 5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
CHAPTER 6
6,1
6.2
CHAPTER 7
7.1
7.2
CHAPTER 8
8.1
8.2
8.3
APPENDIX A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
AIR POLLUTION IMPACT
WATER POLLUTION IMPACT.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACT ,
ENERGY IMPACT
IMPACT ON NOISE
COMPLIANCE TEST METHODS AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES,
EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES.
ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS
PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
FORMATS
REGULATORY OPTIONS. ,
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES.....
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR FUGITIVE PROCESS SOURCES..
SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA.
Page
5-1
5-1
5-3
5-3
5-4
5-6
6-1
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-1
7-2
8-1
8-1
8-5
8-11
A-l
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 2.1
FIGURE 2.2
FIGURE 2.3
FIGURE 2.4
FIGURE 2.5
FIGURE 2.6
FIGURE 2.7
FIGURE 2.8
FIGURE 2,9
FIGURE 2.10
FIGURE 2.11
FIGURE 2.12
FIGURE 2.13
FIGURE 2.14
FIGURE 2.15
FIGURE 2.16
FIGURE 2.17
FIGURE 2.18
FIGURE 3.1
FIGURE 3.2
FIGURE 3.3
FIGURE 3.4
FIGURE 3.5
FIGURE 3.6
FIGURE 3.7
FIGURE 3.8
FLOW SHEET OF A TYPICAL CRUSHING PLANT............
GENERAL SCHEMATIC FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS
PROCESSING • • •
DOUBLE-TOGGLE JAW CRUSHER
SINGLE-TOGGLE JAW CRUSHER.
PIVOTED SPINDLE GYRATORY -
CONE CRUSHER
DOUBLE-ROLL CRUSHER.......
SINGLE ROLL CRUSHER
HAMMER MILL
IMPACT CRUSHER.
VIBRATING GRIZZLY
VIBRATING SCREEN
CONVEYOR BELT TRANSFER POINT ,
BUCKET ELEVATOR TYPES
ROLLER MILL.
BALL MILL
FLUID-ENERGY MILL -
PORTABLE PLANT -
WET DUST SUPPRESSION SYSTEM
DUST SUPPRESSION APPLICATION AT CRUSHER DISCHARGE.
HOOD CONFIGURATION USED TO CONTROL A CONE CRUSHER.
HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR VIRBRATING SCREEN
HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR CONVEYOR TRANSFER, LESS
THAN 0.91 METER (3 FEET) TALL
HOOD CONFIGURATION FOR A CHUTE TO BELT OR
CONVEYOR TRANSFER GREATER THAN 0.91 METER
(3 FEET) TALL..... ••
EXHAUST CONFIGURATION AT BIN OR HOPPER
BAG FILLING VENT SYSTEM
2-12
2-15
2-22
2-22
2-25
2-25
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
2-33
2-33
2-36
2-38
2-42
2-44
2-44
2-48
3-10
3-12
3-15
3-17
3-18
3-19
3-21
3-22
vn
-------
List of Figures (con't.)
Paqe
FIGURE 3.9 TYPICAL BAGHOUSE OPERATION
FIGURE 3.10 BAGHOUSE CLEANING METHODS
FIGURE 3.11 MECHANICAL-CENTRIFUGAL SCRUBBER
FIGURE 3.12 TYPICAL COMBINATION DUST CONTROL SYSTEM
FIGURE 3.13 PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM NON-METALLIC MINERAL
PROCESSING OPERATIONS
FIGURE 3.14 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM
BEST CONTROLLED PRIMARY CRUSHING SOURCE
(PORTABLE-PLANT R) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9}
FIGURE 3.15 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM
BEST CONTROLLED SECONDARY CRUSHING SOURCE
(PORTABLE-PLANT R) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9)
FIGURE 3.16 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
FROM BEST CONTROLLED PRIMARY CRUSHING SOURCE
(FIXED-PLANT S) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9)
FIGURE 3.17 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS FROM
BEST CONTROLLED SMALL SECONDARY CRUSHER
(FIXED-PLANT S) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9}
FIGURE 3.18 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSION MEASUREMENTS
FROM BEST CONTROLLED LARGE SECONDARY CRUSHING
SOURCE (FIXED-PLANT S) BY MEANS OF WET SUPPRESSION
(ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 9)
3-24
3-25
3-28
3-30
3-39
3-46
3-47
3-48
3-49
3-50
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 2.1 INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS. 2-3
TABLE 2.2 MAJOR USES OF THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS...... 2-5
TABLE 2.3 POSSIBLE SOURCES OF EMISSIONS. 2-14
TABLE 2.4 EMISSION SOURCES AT NON-METALLIC MINERAL
FACILITIES 2-16
TABLE 2.5 PARTICIPATE SIZE DATA FOR NON-METALLIC MINERAL
PROCESSING 2-17
TABLE 2.6 RELATIVE CRUSHING MECHANISM UTILIZED BY VARIOUS
CRUSHERS 2-20
TABLE 2.7 APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF JAW CRUSHERS 2-23
TABLE 2.8 APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF GYRATORY CRUSHERS... 2-23
TABLE 2.9 PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CONE CRUSHERS 2-26
TABLE 3.1 PARTICIPATE EMISSION SOURCES AND APPLICABLE
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES 3-2
TABLE 3.2 BAGHOUSE UNITS TESTED BY EPA 3-33
TABLE 3.3 AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIOS FOR FABRIC FILTERS USED
FOR EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROL 3-36
TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF INLET CONCENTRATIONS OF PARTICULATE
MATTER DURING EPA TESTING 3-38
TABLE 3.5 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM
FUGITIVE SOURCES CONTROLLED BY DRY COLLECTION
SYSTEMS... - • • 3-41
TABLE 3.6 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
FROM FUGITIVE NONCRUSHING SOURCES CONTROLLED
BY WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO EPA
METHOD 22) 3-44
TABLE 4.1 PARAMETERS FOR FIXED CRUSHING MODEL PLANTS
(PLANT TYPE 1) 4-2
TABLE 4.2 PARAMETERS FOR FIXED CRUSHING AND GRINDING
MODEL PLANTS (PLANT TYPE 2) 4-5
-------
List of Tables (con't.)
TABLE 4.3 PARAMETERS FOR PORTABLE CRUSHING MODEL PLANT
(PLANT TYPE 3)
TABLE 4.4 PLANT SIZES FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY
{METRIC UNITS}
TABLE 4.4 PLANT SIZES FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS
INDUSTRY (ENGLISH UNITS)
TABLE 4.5 TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN DEVELOPING CONTROL
SYSTEMS COSTS
TABLE 4.6 ANNUALIZED COST PARAMETERS
TABLE 4.7 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
68 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.8 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
135 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.9 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
270 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.10 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
540 Mg/Hour , ,
TABLE 4.11 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
9.1 Mg/Hour ,
TABLE 4.12 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
23 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.13 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
135 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.14 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
270 Mg/Hour ,
TABLE 4.15 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 3:
135 Mg/Hour
TABLE 4.16 CAPITAL COST FOR WET DUST SUPPRESSION CONTROL
SYSTEMS AT CRUSHING PLANTS
List of Tables (con't.)
Paqe
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-13
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
4-22
4-24
4-27
-------
List of Tables (con't,)
TABLE 4.17 CAPITAL AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR WET DUST
SUPPRESSION.
TABLE 4.18 BREAKDOWN OF INDIRECT COST FACTOR
TABLE 4.19 TOTAL ANNUALI2ED COST FOR WET DUST SUPPRESSION
CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR CRUSHING PLANTS
TABLE 4.20 TOTAL INSTALLED AND ANNUALIZED COST FOR
COMBINATION CONTROL SYSTEMS...,,
TABLE 4,21 CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR
CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS FROM
HAUL ROADS ,
TABLE 4.22 UNIT COSTS FOR CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST
EMISSIONS FROM HAUL ROADS.
TABLE 4.23 ANNUAL COST OF WATERING ROADWAYS
TABLE 4.24 CAPITAL INVESTMENT FROM REDUCING FUGITIVE
DUST EMISSIONS FROM STORAGE PILES. .,
TABLE 5.1 ACHIEVABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS USING DRY
COLLECTION. ... ...
TABLE 5.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC
MINERAL PLANTS.
TABLE 8.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY IMPACTS...,
Paqe
4-28
4-29
4-30
4-32
4-34
4-35
4-36
4-38
5-2
5-5
8-12
XI
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This document presents information on the emission of participates and
their control at non-metallic mineral processing facilities. Emissions from
both process sources, except combustion sources (i.e., dryers and calciners),
and fugitive dust sources are considered. Applicable control techniques
are identified and discussed in terms of performance, environmental
impacts, energy requirements, and cost.
This document supersedes the document entitled Air Pollution Control
Techniques for Crushed and Broken Stone Industry (EPA-450/3-80-019) which
was published in May 1980. This document contains the information and
emission test results previously presented for the crushed and broken
stone industry in the above mentioned document.
1.1, INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
The 17 non-metallic minerals selected for investigation in this study
are:
Crushed and broken stone Clay
Sand and gravel Gypsum
Rock salt Pumice
Gilsonite Talc
Boron Barite
Fluorspar Feldspar
Diatomite Perlite
Vermiculite Mica
Kyanite
Total domestic production of these non-metallic minerals for 1980 was about
1,686 million megagrams (1,859 million short tons}. Geographically, the
non-metallic minerals industry is highly dispersed with all States reporting
production of at least one of these 17 non-metallic minerals. The non-metallic
mineral processing industry is highly diverse in terms of unit production
capacities and end product uses.
1-1
-------
In 1980, there were approximately 11,000 active operations in the
United States located in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Mined non-metallic
minerals are reduced and graded into products by a number of component
process operations integrated into a processing plant. Plants may be either
fixed or portable and range in capacity from less than 9.1 megagrams (10 tons)
to several thousand megagrams (tons) per hour.
The processing of non-metallic minerals can involve a series of
distinct yet interdependent operations. These include quarrying or mining
operations (drilling, blasting, loading, and hauling) and plant process
operations (crushing, grinding, conveying, and other material handling
and transfer operations). Most non-metallic minerals require additional
processing (washing, drying, calcining, and flotation treatment) depending
on the rock type and consumer requirements. However, these additional
processing operations will not be discussed in this document. Some of
the individual operations can be associated with a high degree of moisture,
such as wet crushing and grinding, washing screens, and dredging. These
wet processes do not generate particulate emissions and will not be
discussed. All dry processing operations are considered potentially
significant sources of nuisance particulate emissions, especially when
the operations are located near residential areas.
1.2 SOURCES AND CONTROL OF EMISSIONS
All quarrying and processing operations, including surface mining,
crushing, screening, and material handling and transfer operations, are
potential sources of particulate emissions. Emission sources may be
categorized as either process sources or fugitive dust sources. Process
sources include those sources for which emissions are amenable to capture
and subsequent control. Fugitive dust sources generally involve the
reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement. Factors
affecting emissions from either source category include the type,
quantity, and the moisture content of the non-metallic mineral processed,
the type of equipment and operating practices employed, and topographical
and climatic factors.
1-2
-------
Principal quarrying operations include drilling, blasting, secondary
breakage, and the loading and hauling of broken rock to the non-metallic
mineral processing plant. Emissions from drilling operations are caused by
the removal of cuttings and dust from the bottom of the hole by air flushing.
Generally, two control techniques are available: (1) water injection and
(2} the aspiration of dry cuttings to a control device. Although largely
uncontrollable, emissions from blasting can be minimized by using good blasting
practices and scheduling blasts only under favorable meteorological conditions.
If secondary breakage is required, drop-ball cranes are generally used and
resulting emissions are relatively small. Emissions generated by the loading
of broken rock into in-plant haulage vehicles by front-end loaders or shovels
can be controlled by wetting down rock piles prior to loading. At most
quarries, large haulage vehicles are used to transport broken rock from the
quarry to the processing plant over unpaved roads. Emissions generated are
proportional to the surface condition of the roads and the volume and speed
of the vehicle traffic. Control measures include methods to improve road
surfaces including watering, surface treatment with chemical dust suppressants,
soil stabilization and paving, and operational changes to reduce traffic
volume and vehicle speed.
The principal crushing and grinding process facilities include crushers,
grinders, screens, and material handling and transfer equipment. Particulate
emissions from process equipment are generally discharged at feed and process
material discharge points, and emissions from material handling equipment at
transfer points. Available emission control techniques for these plant-generated
emissions include wet dust suppression, dry collection, and the combination
of the two. Wet dust suppression consists of introducing moisture into the
material flow to prevent or suppress the emission of fine particulates. Dry
collection involves hooding and enclosing dust-producing points and venting
emissions to a collection device. Combination systems utilize both methods
at different stages throughout the processing plant.
Other particulate emission sources include windblown dust from open
conveyors, stockpiles, and the plant yard. Control measures range from the
use of dust suppression techniques to the erection of enclosures or windbreaks.
1-3
-------
2.0 SOURCES AND TYPES OF EMISSIONS
2.1 GENERAL
There are many non-metallic minerals which are individually produced in
a wide range of quantities. For example, the annual domestic demand for sand
and gravel is quoted in millions of megagrams (tons), whereas the production
of industrial diamonds and gem stones is measured in carats. Previous EPA
studies have investigated some of these non-metallic minerals, namely, coal,
phosphate rock, and asbestos. The 17 non-metallic minerals selected for
this study are:
Crushed and Broken Stone Clay
Sand and Gravel Gypsum
Rock Salt Pumice
Gilsonite Talc
Boron Barite
Fluorspar Feldspar
Diatomite Perlite
Vermiculite Mica
Kyanite
These 17 categories are based upon Bureau of Mines classifications and are the
highest mined production segments of the non-metallic minerals industry which
have crushing and grinding operations, excluding coal, phosphate rock, and
asbestos.
Total domestic production of these non-metallic minerals for 1980 was '
about 1,686 million megagrams (1,859 million short tons). The estimated
domestic production level of these minerals in 1985 has been projected to be
1,960 million megagrams (2,160 million short tons). The value of the minerals
ranges from $3.20 per megagram ($2.90"per ton) for sand and gravel, to $261
per megagram ($237 per ton) for boron. Geographically, the non-metallic
minerals industry is highly dispersed, with all states reporting production of
at least one of these 17 non-metallic minerals. The industry is also extremely
diverse in terms of production capacities per facility (from five to several
thousand megagrams (tons per hour) and end product uses.
2-1
-------
2.1.1 Industry Characteristics
Table 2,1 presents industry characteristics for each mineral under
consideration. Crushed stone and sand and gravel are by far the largest
segments, accounting for 1,610 million megagrams {1,775 million tons) of the
1,686 million megagrams (1,860 million tons) produced by the 17 industries.
There are about 6,100 processing plants in the sand and gravel industry and
about 4,100 quarries worked in the crushed stone industry. Each of the other
industries has less than 100 processing plants, except for the clay industry
which has about 120 plants.
Sand and gravel plants are located in every State. Crushed stone plants
are located in every State except Delaware and North Dakota. Clay
plants are located in every State except Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware,
Hawaii, and Alaska. Processing plants for the other industries are
usually distributed among a few States where those mineral deposits are
located. One of the minerals is principally mined and processed in only
one State: boron in California.
Projected growth rates are also presented in Table 2.1. The growth rates
are projected to increase at compounded annual rates of up to 5.5 percent
through the year 2000.
2.1.2 End Uses
End uses for the non-metallic minerals are many and diverse. The
minerals may be used either directly in their natural state or processed into
a variety of manufactured products. Generally, they can be classified as
either minerals for the construction industry; minerals for the chemical and
fertilizer industries; or clay, ceramic, refractory, and miscellaneous minerals.
Minerals generally used for construction are crushed and broken stone, sand
and gravel, gypsum, gilsonite, perlite, pumice, vermiculite, and mica. Minerals
generally used in the chemical and fertilizer industries are barite, fluorspar,
boron, and rock salt. Clay, feldspar, kyanite, talc, and diatomite can
be generally classified as clay, ceramic, refractory, and miscellaneous
minerals. Table 2,2 lists the major uses of each individual mineral.
2-2
-------
TABLE 2.1 INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS
1,2
ro
i
Mineral
Crushed and broken stone
Sand and gravel
Clay
Rock Salt
Gypsum (crude)
Pumice
Gilsonite
Talc
1980
Production
1000 megagrams (1000 tons)
889,136 (980,305)
720,520 (794,400)
44,250 (48,790)
10,710 (11,806)
11,225 (12,376)
3,405 (3,755)
**
1,336 (1,473)
1980 Annual
Price growth rate
(Oollars/Mg) (*)
3.66 3.2
3.20 2.8
3,90-73.76 4.0
16.15 4.0
9.18 2.0
4.54 3.4
2.0
40.79-229.00 2.9
Major producing States
in order of production
Texas
Florida.
Pennsylvania
Illinois
California
Alaska
Texas
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia
Texas
Wyoming
North Carolina
Louisiana
Texas
New York
Texas
California
Iowa
Michigan
Oregon
New Mexico
California
Arizona
Utah
Texas
Vermont
Montana
Number of active
operations
4150 (quarries
6166
120
21
73 (mines)
319
2
40 (mines)
-------
TABLE 2.1 (continued)
r\j
i
Mineral
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Diatomite
Perlite
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyanite
1980
Production
1000 megagrams (1000 tons}
1,400 (1,545)
2,036 (2,245)
83 (92)
644 (710)
625 (689)
580 (638)
306 (337)
99 (109)
**
1980
Price
(Dollars/Mg)
261.73
32.39
110-197
36.03
161.00
28.51
76.88
131.41
77-141
Annual
growth rate
(X)
4.1
2.2
3.8
3.6
5.4
3.7
4.0
1.6
4.7
Major producing States
in order of production
California
Nevada
Missouri
Illinois
North Carolina
California
Nevada
Oregon
New Mexico
Montana
South Carolina
North Carolina
New Mexico
Virginia
Georgia
Number of active
operations
6
37
15
16
9
13
4
15
3
**Production statistics are withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.
-------
TABLE 2.2 MAJOR USES OF THE NON-METALLIC MINERALS
Mineral
Major uses
Crushed and broken stone
Sand and gravel
Clay
Rock salt
Gypsum
Pumice
Gilsonite
Talc
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Diatomite
Perlite
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyanite
Construction, cement manufacturing
Construction
Bricks, cement, refractory, paper
Highway use, chlorine
Wallboard, plaster, cement, agriculture
Road construction, concrete
Asphalt paving
Ceramics, paint, toilet preparations
Glass, soaps, fertilizer
Drilling mud, chemicals
Hydrofluoric acid, iron and steel, glass
Glass, ceramics
Filtration, filters
Insulation, filter aid, plaster aggregate
Concrete
Paint, joint cement, roofing
Refractories, ceramics
2-5
-------
2.1.3 Rock Types and Pisj:rij)gtion
Is
I Major rock types processed by the crushed and broken stone industry
inc|ude limestone and dolomite (which accounted for 74 percent of the total
tonnage in 1980 and has the widest and most important end use range); granite
{12 percent), trap rock (8 percent) and sandstone, quartz and quartzite
(3 percent). Rock types including calcareous marl, marble, shell, slate
and miscellaneous others accounted for only 3 percent. Classifications used
by the industry vary considerably and in many cases do not reflect actual
geological definitions. ^^\
Limestone and dolomite are sedimentary rocks formed from accumulations of
animal remains or chemical precipitation of carbonates in water. In a pure
state, limestone consists of crystalline or granular calcium carbonate
(calcite), while dolomite consists of calcium-magnesium carbonate (dolomite).
Both are often found together in the same rock deposit. Depending on the
proportions of each, the rock may be classified as limestone, dolomitic
limestone, calcareous dolomite or dolomite. Deposits are common and are
distributed throughout most parts of the country, although primarily located
in the Central, Middle Atlantic and South Atlantic regions which combined
accounted for over 94 percent of the total production in 1980.
Commercially, granite consists of any light-colored, coarse-grained
igneous rock. It is composed chiefly of quartz, feldspar and, usually mica.
Deposits are located in the South Atlantic, northeastern, North Central and
western regions of the country. The South Atlantic region accounted for more
than 75 percent of the total tonnage of granite produced in 1980.
Trap rock includes any dark colored, fine-grained igneous rock composed
of the ferro-magnesium minerals and basic feldspars with little or no quartz.
Common varieties include basalts, biabases and gabbros. Deposits are mostly
found in the New England, Middle Atlantic and Pacific regions, which combined
accounted for 80 percent of all trap rock produced in 1980.
Sandstones and quartzitic rocks are scattered throughout the country.
Sandstones are sedimentary rocks composed predominantly of cemented quartz
grains. The cementing material may be calcium carbonate, iron oxide or clay.
2-6
-------
Sand and gravel are products of the weathering of rocks and thus consist
predominantly of silica. Often, varying amounts of other minerals such as
iron oxides, mica, and feldspar are present. Deposits are common and are
distributed throughout the country.
Clays are a group of fine-grained non-metallic minerals which are mostly
hydrous aluminum silicates that contain various amounts of organic and
inorganic impurities. Clays are classified into six groups by the Bureau of
Mines: kaolin, ball clay, fire clay, bentonite, fuller's earth, and miscellaneous
(common) clay.
Kaolin is a clay in which the predominant clay mineral is kaolinite.
Large quantities of high quality kaolin are found in Georgia. Ball clay
consists principally of kaolinite, but has a higher silica-to-alumina ratio
than is found in most kaolin, as well as larger quantities of mineral impurities
and much organic material. Ball clays are mined in Kentucky, Tennessee, and
New Jersey.
The terms "fire clay" and "stoneware clay" are based on refractoriness,
or on intended usage (fire clay indicating potential use for refractories,
and stoneware.clay indicating uses for such items as crocks, jugs, and jars).
Fire clays are basically kaolinitic but include other clay minerals and
impurities. Included under the general term fire clay are the disapore,
hurley, and burley-flint clays. Fire clay deposits are widespread in the
United States, with the greatest reserves being found in the Middle Atlantic
region,
Bentonites are composed essentially of minerals of the montmorillonite
group. The swelling type has a high sodium iron concentration, whereas the
nonswelling types are usually high in calcium. Bentonite is presently produced
in Wyoming and Montana.
Fuller's earths are essentially montmorillonite or attapulgite. A small
area in Georgia and Florida contains the known reserve of attapulgite-type
fuller's earth.
2-7
-------
The term "miscellaneous (common) clay" is a statistical designation used
by the Bureau of Mines to refer to clays and shales not included under the
other five clay types. Miscellaneous clay may contain some kaolinite and
montmorillonite, but illite usually predominates, particularly in the shales.
Miscellaneous clay is widespread throughout the United States,
Rock salt consists of sodium chloride and is the chief source of all
forms of sodium. Rock salt is mined on a large scale in Michigan, Texas,
New York, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah, New Mexico, and Kansas.
Gypsum is a hydrous calcium sulfate normally formed as a chemical
precipitate from marine waters of high salinity. Domestic reserves of
gypsum are geographically distributed in 23 states. Areas deficient in
gypsum reserves are Minnesota, Wisconsin, the Pacific Northwest, the New
England States, the deep South to the east of Louisiana, and northern
California.
Pumice is a rock, of igneous origin, ranging from acidic to basic in
composition, with a cellular structure formed by explosive or effusive
volcanism. The commercial designation includes the more precise petrographic
descriptions for pumice, pumicite (volcanic ash), volcanic cinders, and
scoria. Deposits are mostly found in the Western States.
The mineral gilsonite is a variety of native asphalt which has many
applications. Gilsonite occurs in large boulders, several inches across. It
is black, lustrous mineral found in the Uintah basin in Utah and Colorado.
The mineral talc is a soft hydrous magnesium silicate, 3 MgO-4Si02'H20.
The talc of highest purity is derived from magnesium-rich metamorphic carbonate
rocks; less pure talc from metamorphosed ultra basic igneous rocks. Soapstone
is a term used for a massive form of rock containing the mineral. Pyrophyllite
(Al203«4Si02*H20) is a hydrous aluminum silicate similar to talc in properties.
It is principally found in North Carolina. Talc-group minerals are principally
produced in New York, Texas, Vermont, California, and Montana.
2-8
-------
Boron is a versatile and useful element used mainly in the form of its
many compounds, of which borax and boric acid are the best known. Many
minerals contain boron, but only a few are commercially valuable as sources
of boron. The principal boron minerals are borax, kernite, and colemanite.
Half of the commercial world reserves are in southern California as bedded
deposits of borax (sodium borate) and colemanite (calcium borate), or as
solutions of boron minerals in Searles Lake brines.
Barite is almost pure barium sulfate (BaS04)» and is the principal
commercial mineral source of barium and barium compounds. The reserves are
principally in Missouri and the southern Appalachian States, with the remainder
in Arkansas, Nevada, and California.
Fluorine is derived from the mineral fluorite (CaF2), commonly known as
fluorspar. Fluorspar is principally found in deposits located in Kentucky
and Illinois.
Feldspar is a general term used to designate a group of closely related
minerals, especially abundant in igneous rocks and consisting essentially of
aluminum silicates in combination with varying proportions of potassium,
sodium, and calcium. The principal feldspar species are orthclase or
microcline (both K20-Al2Oa-6Si02), albite (Na20-Al203'6S102) and anorthite
(CaO-Al203'2Si02). North Carolina is the foremost domestic producer,
followed in order of output by California, Connecticut, and Georgia.
Diatomite is a material of sedimentary origin consisting mainly of an
accumulation of skeletons or frustules formed as a protective covering by
diatoms, single-celled microscopic plants. The skeletons are essentially
amorphous hydrated or opaline silica but occassionally are partly composed of
alumina. The terms "diatomaceous earth" and "kieselguhr" are sometimes used
interchangeably and are synonymous with diatomite. Diatomite is found only
in the Western States with a substantial part of the total reserve found in
the Lompoc, California area.
Perlite is chemically a rnetastable amorphous aluminum silicate with
minor impurities and inclusions of various other metal oxides and minerals.
Perlite is mostly found in the Western States.
2-9
-------
Vermiculite is a micaceous mineral with a ferromagnesiurn-aluminum
silicate composition and the property of exfoliating to a low-density
material when heated. Presently, vermiculite is mined from deposits located
in Montana and South Carolina.
Mica is a group name for a number of complex hydrous potassium aluminum
silicate minerals differing in chemical composition and physical properties
but characterized by excellent basal cleavage that facilitates splitting
into thin, tough, flexible, elastic sheets. These minerals can be classified
into four principal types named after the most common mineral in each group -
muscovite (potassium mica), phlogopite (magnesium mica), biotite (iron
mica), and lepidolite {lithium mica). The major producing regions in the
United States are the Southeast and West.
Kyanite and the related minerals - andalusite, sillimanite, dumortierite,
and topaz - are natural aluminum silicates which can be converted to mullite,
a stable refractory raw material. Reserves of kyanite and the related
minerals are mostly found in Virginia, North and South Carolina, Idaho, and
Georgia.
2.2 NON-METALLIC MINERALS PROCESSING OPERATIONS AND THEIR EMISSIONS
2.2.1 Pro cess Des cr i p tion
Non-metallic mineral processing involves the following sequence of
steps: extracting from the ground, loading, unloading and dumping, conveying,
crushing, screening, grinding, and classifying. ( Some minerals processing
also includes washing, drying, calcining, or flotation operations. The
operations performed depend on the rock type and the desired product.')
(The mining techniques used for the extraction of non-metallic minerals
vary with the particular mineral, the nature of the deposit, and the location
of the deposit.) Mining is carried out both underground and in open pits.
Some minerals require blasting while others can be removed by bulldozer or
dredging operations alone.
2-10
-------
The non-metallic minerals are normally delivered to the processing
plant by truck, and dumped into a hoppered feeder, usually a vibrating
grizzly type, or onto screens!, as illustrated in Figure 2,1. These screens
separate or scalp the larger Jaoulders from the finer rocks that do not
require primary crushing, thus minimizing the load to the primary crusher.
Jaw or gyratory crushers are usually used for initial reduction, although
impact crushers are gaining favor for crushing low-abrasion rock such as
talc, and where high reduction ratios are desired. The crusher product,
normally 7.5 to 30 centimeters (3 to 12 inches) in size, and the grizzly
throughs (undersize material) are discharged onto a belt conveyor and
normally transported to either secondary screens and crusher, or to a surge
pile or silo for temporary storage7\
(The secondary screens generally separate the process flow into either
two or three fractions (oversize, undersize, and throughs) prior to the
secondary crusher. The oversize is discharged to the secondary crusher for
further reduction. The undersize, which requires no further reduction at
this stage, normally by-passes the secondary crusher, A third fraction, the
throughs, is separated when processing some minerals. Throughs contain
unwanted fines that are usually removed from the process flow and stockpiled
as crusher-run material. For secondary crushing, gyratory or cone crushers
are most commonly used, although impact crushers are used at some installations.
Mlhe product from the secondary crushing stage, usually 2.5 centimeters
(1 inch) or less in size, is normally transported to a secondary screen
for further sizing. Sized material from this screen is either discharged
directly to a tertiary crushing stage or conveyed to a fine-ore bin which
supplies the milling stage. Cone crushers or hammermiUs are normally used
for tertiary crushing, £od mills, ball mills, and hammermills are normally
used in the milling stage. The product from the tertiary crusher or the
mill is usually conveyed to a type of classifier such as a dry vibrating
2-11
-------
rfji/N^yl TRUCK DUMP
kP^tfol
SURGE PILE
CO
I
IN)
FINISHING
SCREENS
Figure 2.1 Flowsheet of a Typical Crushing Plant
-------
screen system, an air separator, or a wet rake or spiral system (if wet
grinding was employed) which also dewaters the material. The oversize is
returned to the tertiary crusher or mill for further size reduction. At this
point, some mineral end products of the desired grade are conveyed directly to
finished product bins, or are stockpiled in open areas by conveyors or trucks.]
Other minerals such as talc or barite may require air classification to obtaitr
the required mesh size, and treatment by flotation to obtain the necessary
chemical purity and color.
Most non-metallic minerals require additional processing depending on the
rock type and consumer requirements. In certain cases, especially in the
crushed stone and sand and gravel industry, stone washing may be required to
meet particular end product specifications or demands such as for concrete
aggregate. Some minerals, especially certain lightweight aggregates, are
washed and dried, sintered, or treated prior to primary crushing. Others are
dried following secondary crushing or milling. Sand and gravel, crushed and
broken stone, and most lightweight aggregates normally are not milled and are
screened and shipped to the consumer after secondary or tertiary crushing.
Some sand and gravel plants are wet process operations and may require little,
if any, crushing operations. Table 2.3 lists the various unit process
operations for each industry. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show simplified diagrams of
the typical process steps required for the non-metallic minerals investigated
in this report.
2.2.2 Sources of_Efnissions_
Essentially all mining and mineral processing operations are potential
sources of_p_articy1ate emissions. Bnijsjcms may_b£Jca4^-^iM-z€cl-a^--e44Bec-
fugitive emissions or fugitive dust. Operations included within each category
are listed in Table 2.4. Fugitive emission sources include those sources for
which emissions are amenable to capture and subsequent control. Fugitive dust
sources are not amenable to control using conventional control systems and
generally involve the reentrainment of settled dust by wind or machine movement.
2-13
-------
TABLE 2.3 POSSIBLE SOURCES OF EMISSIONS
no
i
Type of plant
Crushed and broken
stone
Sand & gravel
Clay
Gypsum
Pumice
Feldspar
Boron
Talc
Barite
Diatomite
Perlite
Rock salt
Fluorspar
Gilsonite
Mica
Kyanite
Vermiculite
Crushers
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Screens
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Transfer
points
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Grinders
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Loading
operation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bagging
operation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dryers or Drilling
calciners operation
X
- x
X
X
X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
-------
SECONDARY
CRUSHER
STOCKPILE
OR BIN
12 «=
SIZE
CLASSIFIER
STOCKPILE
OR BIN
13
STOCKPILE
OR BIN
14
Figure 2.2 General Schematic for Non-Metallic Minerals Processing
2-15
-------
TABLE 2.4. EMISSION SOURCES AT NON-METALLIC MINERAL FACILITIES
Fugit i ve Emissions Fugitive^ Dust Sources
Drilling Blasting
Crushing Hauling
Screening Haul Roads
Grinding Stockpiles
Conveyor Transfer Points Plant yard
Loading Conveying
2.2.3 Factors that Affect EJJTJSSIons from Mining and Process_0perat_ion_s_
fin general, the factors that affect emissions from most mineral
I 3
processing operations include: the type of ore processed.,—-the type of
equipment and operating practices employed, the moisture content of the ore,
the amount of ore processed, and a variety of geographical and seasonal
factors, j These factors, discussed'in more" detail below, apply to both fugitive
emission and fugitive dust sources associated with mining and processing plant
operation.
The type of equipment and operating practices employed also affect
uncontrolled emissions. [ In general, emissions from process equipment such as
crushers, screens, grinders, and conveyors depend on the size distribution of
the material and the velocity that is mechanically imparted to the material.
For crushers, the particular type of crushing mechanism employed (compression
or impaction) affects emissions. The effect of equipment type on uncontrolled
emissions from all sources will be more fully discussed in subsequent sections
of this report (see Sections 2.4 to 2.11). <
Information is limited on the amount of emissions from non-metallic
mineral processing operations. Table 2.5 presents information concerning the
size of the particulates measured in the inlets to control devices at plants
processing different non-metallic minerals.
2-16
-------
TABLE 2.5 PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR NON-METALLIC MINERAL PROCESSING4'12
Percent of particle
' size less than
Mineral
Clay (kaolin)
Feldspar
Clay (fuller's earth)
Talc
Gypsum
Talc
fs3
1
h-»
-xl
Limestone
Limestone
Traprock
Process
Roller mill
Impact mill
Ball mill (inlet 1)
(inlet 2)
Fluid energy mill
Raymond mill
Ball mill
Raymond mill
Processing plant (inlet 1)
(inlet 2}
(inlet 3)
Primary crusher
Primary screen
Primary crusher and hammermill
Final screen
Tertiary crusher and final screen
2 ym
22
18
14
6
65
3
0
1
.0.3
1
0.2
1
4
4
4
5 ym
70
70
25
16
92
18
37
40
11
28
18
1
3
16
13
16
10 ym
37
27
59
80
34
85
60
32
25
34
20 ym
50
44
82
90
64
99.6
90
52
43
62
Median
(ym)
3.5
3.8
20.0
25.0
1.5
7.0
5 to 10
6
14
7.5
9
>10
>10
19
24
15
Crushing, grinding, and bagging operations all ducted to one baghouse.
Particle size data reported are based on analysis of material collected in control device (baghouse).
-------
The inherent moisture content or wetness of the rock processed can have
a substantial effect on uncontrolled emissions. This is especially evident
during mining, initial material handling, and initial plant process operations
such as primary crushing. Surface wetness causes fine particles to agglomerate
or adhere to the faces of larger stones with a resultant dust suppression
effect. However, as new fine particles are created by crushing and attrition,
and as the moisture content is reduced by evaporation, this suppressive effect
diminishes and may even disappear. Depending on the geographic and climatic
conditions, the moisture content of the mined rock ranges from nearly zero to
several percent.\
\With regard to geographical and seasonal factors, the primary variables
affecting uncontrolled particulate emissions are wind parameters and moisture
content of the material. Wind parameters will vary with geographical location
and season. It can be expected that the level of emissions from sources which
are not enclosed (principally fugitive dust sources) will be greater during
periods of high winds than periods of low winds. The moisture content of the
material also varies with geographical location and season. Therefore, the
level of uncontrolled emissions from both fugitive emission sources and fugitive
dust sources will be greater in arid regions of the country than in temperate
ones and greater during the summer months due to a higher evaporation rate. \
2.3. .QUARRYING ^
^J
Sources of particulate emissions from quarrying operations include drilling,
blasting, secondary breakage, and the loading and hauling of the mineral to
the processing plant. Not all non-metallic mineral deposits require drilling
and blasting to fragment portions of the deposits into pieces of material of
convenient size for further processing. Some mineral deposits can be removed
without blasting by the use of power equipment such as front-end loaders, drag
lines, and dredges.
Particulate emissions from drilling operations are primarily caused by
the removal of cuttings and dust from the bottom of the hole by air flushing.
Compressed air is released down the hollow drill center, forcing cuttings and
dust up and out the annular space formed between the hole wall and drill.
2-18
-------
Blasting is used to displace solid rock from its quarry deposit and to
fragment it into sizes which require a minimum of secondary breakage and which
can be readily handled by loading and hauling equipment. The frequency of
blasting ranges from several shots per day to one per week depending on the
plant capacity and the size of individual shots. The effectiveness of a shot
depends on the characteristics of the explosive and the rock. Emissions from
blasting are evident from visual observations.
If secondary breakage is required, drop-ball cranes are usually employed.
Normally, a pear-shaped or spherical drop-ball, weighing several tons, is
suspended by a crane and dropped on the oversize rock as many times as needed
to break it. Emissions are slight.
Theexcavation and loading of broken rock is normajly perj[orn]ed_by
shovels and f)ron_t-en_d_LQd.ders. Whether the broken rock is dumped into a
haulage vehicle for transport or directly into the primary crusher,
fugitive dust emissions may result. The most significant factor affecting
these emissions is the wetness of the rock.
At most quarries, large capacity "off-the-road" haulage vehicles are used
to transport broken rock from the quarry to the primary crusher over unpaved
haul roads. The vehicle traffic on unpaved roads is responsible for a -large
portion of the fugitive dust generated by quarrying operations. Factors
affecting fugitive dust emissions from hauling operations include the composition
of the road surface, the wetness of the road, and the volume and speed of the
vehicle traffic.
2.4 CRUSHING
Crushing is the process by which coarse material is reduced by mechanical
energy and attrition to a desired size for mechanical separation (screening).
The mechanical stress applied to rock fragments during crushing may be accomplished
by either compression or impaction. These two methods of crushing differ in
the duration of time needed to apply the breaking force. In impaction, the
breaking force is applied very rapidly; in compression, the rock particle
is slowly squeezed and forced to fracture. All types of crushers are both
2-19
-------
compression and impaction to varying degrees. Table 2.6 ranks crushers
according to the predominant crushing mechanism used (from top to bottom,
compression to impaction}. In all cases, there is some reduction by the
rubbing of stone on stone or on metal surfaces (attrition).
TABLE 2.6. RELATIVE CRUSHING MECHANISM UTILIZED
BY VARIOUS CRUSHERS13
Compression Double roll crusher
Jaw crusher
Gyratory crusher
Single roll crusher
Rod mill (low speed)
Ball mill
Rod mill (high speed}
Hammermill (low speed)
Impact breaker
Impaction Hammermill (high speed)
The size of the product from compression type crushers is controlled by
the space between the crushing surfaces compressing the rock particle. This
type of crusher produces a relatively closely graded product with a small
proportion of fines. Crushers that reduce by impact, on the other hand,
produce a wide range of sizes and high proportion of fines.
Because the size reduction achievable by one machine is limited, reduction
in stages is frequently required. As noted previously, the various stages
include primary, secondary, and perhaps tertiary crushing. Basically, the
crushers used in the non-metallic minerals industry are: jaw, gyratory, roll,
and impact crushers.
2-20
-------
Jaw Crushers
Jaw crushers consist of a vertical fixed jaw and a moving inclined jaw
which is operated by a single toggle or a pair of toggles. Rock is crushed by
compression as a result of the opening and closing action of the moveable jaw
against the fixed jaw. Their principal application in the industry is for
primary crushing.
The most commonly used jaw crusher is the Balke or double-toggle type.
As illustrated in Figure 2.3, an eccentric shaft drives a Pitman arm that
raises and lowers a pair of toggle plates to open and close the moving jaw
which is suspended from a fixed shaft. In a single-toggle jaw crusher, the
moving jaw is itself suspended from an eccentric shaft and the lower part of
the jaw is supported by a rolling toggle plate (Figure 2.4). Rotation of the
eccentric shaft produces a circular motion at the upper end of the jaw and an
elliptical motion at the lower end. Other types, such as the Dodge and
overhead eccentric are used on a limited scale.
The size of a jaw crusher is defined by its feed opening dimensions and
may range from about 15 x 30 centimeters to 213 x 168 centimeters (6 x 12 inches
to 84 x 66 inches). The size reduction obtainable may range from 3:1 to 10:1
depending on the nature of the rock. Capacities are quite variable depending
on the unit and its discharge setting. Table 2.7 presents approximate capacities
for a number of jaw crusher sizes at both minimum and maximum discharge
settings.
Gyratory Crushers
Simply, a gyratory crusher may be considered to be a jaw crusher with
circular jaws between which the material flows and is crushed. As indicated
in Table 2.8, however, a gyratory crusher has a much greater capacity than a
jaw crusher with an equivalent feed opening.
There are basically three types of gyratory crushers: the pivoted
spindle, fixed spindle, and cone. The fixed and pivoted spindle gyratories
are used for primary and secondary crushing, and cone crushers are used for
secondary and tertiary crushing. The larger gyratorie? are sized according to
feed opening and the small units are sized by cone diameters.
2-21
-------
FIXED JAW
MOVE ABLE JAW
ECCENTRIC
PITMAN ARM
DISCHARGE
Figure 2.3 Double-toggle Jaw Crusher
MOVEABLE JAW
FEED
FIXED
JAW
DISCHARGE
TOGGLE
Figure 2.4 Single-toggle Jaw Crusher
2-22
-------
TABLE 2.7 APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF JAW CRUSHERS
(Discharge opening - closed)
(14)
91
107
122
152
213
Si
[cm.(i
x 61
x 152
x 107
x 122
x 168
26
n.)l
(36
(42
(48
(60
(84
Smal lest
discharge
x 24)
x 60)
x 42)
x 48)
x 66)
opem
[cm.(i
>6
10.2
12.7
12.7
20.3
ng
n.)3
(3)
(4)
(5)
(5)
(8)
Capacity* Largest
[My/hr (tons/hr)] discharge
68
118
159
218
363
(75)
(130)
(175)
(240)
(400)
opern
[cm.(i
15.2
20.3
20.3
22.9
30.5
ng
n.)3
(6)
(8)
(8)
(9)
(12)
Capacity
[Mg/hr (tons/hr)]
145
181
250
408
544
(160)
(200)
(275)
(450)
(600)
*Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/m3 (100 Ib/cu ft.)
TABLE 2.8 APPROXIMATE CAPACITIES OF GYRATORY CRUSHERS^15)
(Discharge opening - open)
Size
[cm. (in.)]
76 (30)
91 (36)
107 (42)
122 (48)
137 (54)
152 (60)
183 (72)
Smallest
discharge
opening
[cm. (in.)]
10.2 (4)
11.4 (4.5)
12.7 (5)
14.0 (5.5)
16.5 (6.5)
17.8 (7)
22.9 (9)
Capacity*
[Mg/hr. (tons/hr)]
181 (200)
336 (370)
381 (420)
680 (750)
816 (900)
1088 (1,200)
1814 (2,000)
Largest
discharge
opening
[cm. (in.)]
16.5 (6.5)
17.8 (7)
19,1 (7.5)
22.9 (9)
24.1 (9.5)
25.4 (10)
30.5 (12)
Capacity
[Mg/hr. (tons/hr)]
408 (450)
544 (600)
635 (700)
1088 (1,200)
1451 (1,600)
1814 (2,000)
2721 (3,000)
*Based on rock weighing 1600 kg/in3 (100 Ib/cu ft.)
2-23
-------
The pivoted spindle gyratory (Figure 2.5) has the crushing head mounted
on a shaft that is suspended from above and free to pivot. The bottom of the
shaft is seated in an eccentric sleeve which revolves, thus causing the crusher
head to gyrate in a circular path within a stationary concave circular chamber.
The crushing action is similar to that of a jaw crusher in that the crusher
element reciprocates to and from a fixed crushing plate. Because some part of
the crusher head is working at all times, the discharge from the gyratory is
continuous rather than intermittent as in a jaw crusher. The crusher setting
is determined by the wide-side opening at the discharge end and is adjusted by
raising or lowering the crusher head.
Unlike the pivoted spindle gyratory, the fixed spindle gyratory has its
crushing head mounted on an eccentric sleeve fitted over a fixed shaft. This
produces a uniform crushing stroke from the top to the bottom of the crushing
chamber.
For fine crushing, the gyratory is equipped with flatter heads and
converted to a cone crusher (Figure 2.6). Commonly, in the lower section a
parallel zone exists. This results in a larger discharge-to-feed area ratio
which makes it extremely suitable for fine crushing at high capacity. Also,
unlike regular gyratories, the cone crusher sizes at the closed side setting
and not the open side (wide-side) setting. This assures that the material
discharge will have been crushed at least once at the closed side setting.
Cone crushers yield a cubical product and a high percentage of fines due to
interparticle crushing (attrition). They are the most commonly used crusher
in the industry for secondary and tertiary reduction. Table 2.9 presents
performance data for typical cone crushers.
2-24
-------
FEED
FIXED
THROAT
CRUSHING SURFACE
ECCENTRIC
DRivr
DISCHARG
Figure 2.5 The Pivoted Spindle Gyratory
FEED
CRUSHING
SURFACES
DRIVE
DISCHARGE
ECCENTRIC
Figure 2.6 Cone Crusher
2-25
-------
TABLE 2.9. PERFORMANCE DATA FOR CONE CRUSHERS16
Size of
Capacity (Mg/hr (tons/hr))
discharge setting (cm (in))
crusher
(m
0.6
0.9
1.2
1.7
2,1
(ft))
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5.5)
(7)
1.0
18
32
54
(3/8)
(20)
(35)
(60)
-
-
1.3
23
36
73
(1/2)
(25)
(40)
(80)
-
-
1.9
23
64
109
181
229
(3/4)
(25)
(70)
(120)
(200)
(330)
2.5
136
250
408
(1)
-
-
(150)
(275)
(450)
3.8 (
1.5)
-
-
-
308 (340)
544 (600)
2-26
-------
Roll Crushers
These machines are utilized primarily at intermediate or final reduction
stages and are often used at portable plants. There are essentially two
types, the single-roll and the double-roll. As illustrated in Figure 2.7,
the double-roll crusher consists of two heavy parallel rolls which are
turned toward each other at the same speed. Roll speeds range from 50 to
300 rpm. Usually, one roll is fixed and the other set by springs. Typically,
roll diameters range from 61 to 198 centimeters (24 to 78 inches) and have
narrow face widths(about half the roll diameter). Rock particles are caught
between the rolls and crushed almost totally by compression. Reduction
ratios are limited and range from 3 or 4 to 1. These units produce few
fines and no oversize. They are used especially for reducing hard rock to
a final product ranging from 1/4 inch to 20 mesh.
FEED
DISCHARGE
ADJUSTABLE
ROLLS
Figure 2.7 Double-roll Crusher
2-27
-------
The working elements of a single-roll crusher include a toothed or
knobbed roll and a curved crushing plate which may be corrugated or smooth.
The crushing plate is generally hinged at the top and its setting is held by
a spring at the bottom. A toothed-roll crusher is depicted in Figure 2.8.
The feed caught between the roll and crushing plate is broker by a combination
of compression, impact, and shear. These units may accept feed sizes up to
51 centimeters (20 inches) and have capacities up to 454 mecagrams per hour
(500 tons/hr). In contrast with the double-roll, the single-roll crusher is
principally used for reducing soft materials.
FEED
TOOTH
ROLL
CRUSHING
PLATE
Figure 2.8 Single roll Crusher
2-28
-------
Impact Crushers
Impact crushers, Including hammermills and impactors, use the force of
fast rotating massive impellers or hammers to strike and shatter free falling
rock particles. These units have extremely high reduction and produce a
cubical product spread over a wide range of particle sizes with a large
proportion of fines.
A hammermill consists of a high-speed horizontal rotor with several
rotor discs to which sets of swing hammers are attached (Figure 2.9). As
rock particles are fed into the crushing chamber, they are impacted and
shattered by the hammers which attain tangential speeds as high as 76 meters
(250 feet) per second. The shattered rock then collides with a steel breaker
plate and is fragmented even further. A cylindrical grating or screen
positioned at the discharge opening restrains oversize material until it is
reduced to a size small enough to pass the grate bars. Rotor speeds range
from 250 to 1800 rpm and capacities can reach over 907 megagrams per hour
(1,000 tons/hr). Product size is controlled by the rotor speed, the spacing
between the grate bars, and by hammer length.
FEED
BREAKER
PLATE
SWING
HAMMERS
GRATE BARS
DISCHARGE
Figure 2.9 Hammermill
An impact breaker (Figure 2.10) is similar to a hammermill except that
it has no grate or screen to act as a restraining member. Feed is broken by
impact alone. Adjustable breaker bars are used instead of plates to reflect
material back into the path of the impellers. Primary-reduction units are
2-29
-------
available which can reduce quarry-run material at over 907 megagrams per
hour (1,000 tons/hr) capacity to about 2.5 centimeters {1 inch). These
units are not appropriate for hard abrasive materials, but are ideal for
soft rocks.
BREAKER
PLATE
BREAKER
BARS
FEED
/
HAMMER
ROTOR
DISCHARGE
Figure 2.10 Impact Crusher
Sources of Emissions
The generation of particulate emissions is inherent in the crushing
process. Emissions are most apparent at crusher feed and discharge points.
Emissions are influenced predominantly by the type of rock processed, the
moisture content of the rock, and the type of crusher used.
The most important elements influencing emissions from crushing equipment,
as previously mentioned, are the type of rock and the moisture content of the
mineral being crushed. The crushing mechanism employed has a substantial
affect on the size reduction that a machine can achieve, the particle size
distribution of the product (especially the proportion of fines produced),
and the amount of mechanically induced energy which is imparted to fines.
2-30
-------
Crushing units utilizing impaction rather than compression produce a
larger proportion of fines as noted above. In addition to generating more
fines, impact crushers also impart higher velocity to them as a result of
the fan-like action produced by the fast, rotating hammers. Because of this
and the high proportion of fines produced, impact crushers generate larger
quantities of uncontrolled particulate emissions per ton of material processed
than any other crusher type.
The level of uncontrolled emissions from jaw, gyratory, cone, and roll
crushers closely parallels the reduction stage to which they are applied.
Emissions increase progressively from primary to secondary to tertiary
crushing. Factors other than the type of crushing mechanism (compression,
impact) also affect emissions. In all likelihood, primary jaw crushers
produce greater emissions than comparable gyratory crushers because of the
bellows effect of the jaw, and because gyratory crushers are usually choke-fed
to minimize the open spaces from which dust may be emitted. For subsequent
reduction stages, cone crushers produce more fines as a result of attrition
and consequently generate more dust.
2.5 SCREENING OPERATIONS
Screening is the process by which a mixture of rocks is separated
according to size. In screening, material is dropped into a mesh surface
with openings of desired size and separated into two fraction: undersize,
which passes through the screen opening, and oversize, which is retained on
the screen surface. When material is passed over and through multiple
screening surfaces, it is separated into fractions of known particle size
distribution. Screening surfaces may be contructed of metal bars, perforated
or slotted metal plates, or woven wire cloth.
The capacity of a screen is primarily determined by the open area of the
screening surface and the physical characteristics of the feed. It is
usually expressed in tons of material per hour per square foot of screen
area. Although screening may be performed wet or dry, dry screening is the
more common.
2-31
-------
Screening equipment commonly used in the non-metallic minerals industry
includes grizzlies, shaking screens, vibrating screens, and revolving screens,
Grizzlies
Grizzlies consist of a set of uniformly-spaced bars, rods or rails.
The bars may be horizontal or inclined and are usually wider in cross
section at the top than the bottom. This prevents the clogging or wedging
of stone particles between bars. The spacing between the bars ranges from 5
to 20 centimeters (2 to 8 inches). Bars are usually constructed of manganese
steel or other highly abrasion-resistant material.
Grizzlies are primarily used to remove fines prior to primary crushing,
thus reducing the load on the primary crusher. Grizzlies may be stationary
cantilevered (fixed at one end with the discharge end free to vibrate) or
mechanically vibrated. Vibrating grizzlies are simple bar grizzlies mounted
on eccentrics (Figure 2-11). The entire assembly is moved forward and
backward at about 100 strokes a minute, resulting in better flow through and
across the grizzly surface.
Shaking Screejis
The shaking screen consists of a rectangular frame with perforated
plate or wire cloth screening surfaces, usually suspended by rods or cables
and inclined at an angle of 14 degrees. The frame is driven with a
reciprocating motion. The material to be screened is fed at the upper
end and is advanced by the forward stroke of the screen while the finer
particles pass through the openings. Generally, they are used for
screening coarse material, 1.3 centimeters (1/2-inch) or larger.
2-32
-------
Figure 2.11 Vibrating Grizzly
Figure 2.12 Vibrating Screen
2-33
-------
Vjbrating Screens
Where large capacity and high efficiency are desired, the vibrating
screen has practically replaced all other screen types. It is by far the most
commonly used screen type in the non-metallic minerals industry, A vibrating
screen (Figure 2,12) essentially consists of an inclined flat or slightly convex
screening surface which is rapidly vibrated in a plane normal or nearly normal
to the screen surface. The screening motion is of small amplitude but high
frequency, normally in excess of 3,000 cycles per minute. The vibrations may
be generated either mechanically by means of an eccentric shaft, unbalanced
fly wheel, cam and tappet assembly, or electrically by means of an electromagnet.
Mechanically-vibrated units are operated at about 1,200 to 1,800 rpm and
at amplitudes of about 0.3 to 1.3 centimeters {1/8 to 1/2 inch). Electrically
vibrated screens are available in standard sizes from 30 to 180 centimeters
(12 inches to 6 feet) wide and 0.76 to 6.1 meters (2-1/2 to 20 feet) long. A
complete screening unit may have one, two or three decks.
Revolving Screens
This screen type consists of an inclined cylindrical frame around which
Is wrapped a screening surface of wire cloth or perforated plate. Feed
material is delivered at the upper end and, as the screen is rotated, undersized
material passes through the screen openings while the oversized is discharged
at the lower end. Revolving screens are available up to 1.2 meters (4 feet)
in diameter and usually run at 15 to 20 rpm. '
Source of Emissions
Dust is emitted from screening operations as a result of the agitation
of dry material. The level of uncontrolled emissions depends on the quantity
of fine particles contained in the material, the moisture content of the
material, and the type of screening equipment. Generally, the screening of
fines produces higher emissions than the screening of coarse materials. Also,
screens agitated at large amplitudes and high frequency emit more dust than
those operated at small amplitudes and low frequencies.
2-34
-------
2.6 MATERIAL HANDLING
Material handling devices are used to convey materials from one point
to another. The most common include feeders, belt conveyors, bucket elevators,
screw conveyors, and pneumatic systems.
Feeders
Feeders are relatively short, heavy-duty conveyance devices used to
receive material and deliver it to process units, especially crushers, at a
uniformly regulated rate. The various types used are the apron, belt,
reciprocating plate, vibrating, and wobbler feeders.
Apron feeders are composed of overlapping metal pans or aprons which
are hinged or linked by chains to form an endless conveyor supported by
rollers and spaced between a head and tail assembly. These feeders are
constructed to withstand high impact and abrasion and are available in
various widths (18 to 27 inches) and lengths.
Belt feeders are essentially short, heavy duty belt conveyors equipped
with closely spaced support rollers. Adjustable gates are used to regulate
feed rates. Belt feeders are available in 46 to 122 centimeter (18 to
48 inch) widths and 0.9 to 3.7 meter (3 to 12 foot) lengths and are operated
at speeds of 12.2 to 30.5 meters (40 to 100 feet) per minute.
Reciprocating plate feeders consist of a heavy-duty horizontal plate
which is driven in a reciprocating motion causing material to move forward
at a uniform rate. The feed rate is controlled by adjusting the frequency
and length of the stroke.
Vibrating feeders operate at a relatively high frequency and low
amplitude. Their feed rate is controlled by the slope of the feeder bed and
the amplitude of the vibrations. These feeders are available in a variety
of sizes, capacities, and drives. When combined with a grizzly, both scalping
and feeding functions are performed.
2-35
-------
Wobbler feeders also perform the dual task of scalping and feeding.
These units consist of a series of closely spaced elliptical bars which are
mechanically rotateds causing oversize material to tumble forward to the
discharge and undersize material to pass through the spaces. The feed rate
is controlled by the bar spacing and the speed of rotation.
Belt Conveyors
Belt conveyors are the most widely used means of transporting, elevating
and handling materials in the non-metallic minerals industry. As illustrated
in Figure 2.13, belt conveyors consist of an endless belt which is carried
on a series of idlers usually arranged so that the belt forms a trough. The
belt is stretched between a drive or head pulley and a tail pulley. Although
belts may be constructed of other material, reinforced rubber is the most
commonly used. Belt widths may range from 36 to 152 centimeters (14 to
60 inches), with 76 to 91 centimeter (30 to 36 inch) belts the most common.
Normal operating speeds may range from 60 to 120 meters per minute (200 to
400 feet/minute). Depending on the belt speed, belt width, and rock density,
load capacities may be in excess of 1360 megagrams (1,500 tons) per hour.
HEAD
PULLEY
IDLER
TAIL
PULLEY
Figure 2.13 Conveyor Belt Transfer Point
2-36
-------
Elevators
Bucket elevators are utilized where substantial elevation is required
within a limited space. They consist of a head and foot assembly which
supports and drives an endless single or double strand chain or belt to
which buckets are attached. Figure 2.14 depicts the three types most commonly
used: the high-speed centrifugal-discharge, the slow speed positive or
perfect-discharge, and the continuous-bucket elevator.
The centrifugal-discharge elevator has a single strand of chain or belt
to which the spaced buckets are attached. As the buckets round the tail
pulley, which is housed within a suitable curved boot, the buckets scoop up
their load and elevate it to the point of discharge. The buckets are so
spaced so that at discharge, the material is thrown out by the centrifugal
action of the bucket rounding the head pulley. The positive-discharge type
also utilizes spaced buckets but differs from the centrifugal type in that it
has a double-strand chain and a different discharge mechanism. An additional
sprocket, set below the head pulley, effectively bends the strands back under
the pulley causing the bucket to be totally inverted resulting in a positive
discharge.
The continuous-bucket elevator utilizes closely-spaced buckets attached
to a single-or double-strand belt or chain. Material is loaded directly into
the buckets during ascent and is discharged gently as a result of using the
back of the precluding bucket as a discharge chute.
Screw Conveyors
Screw conveyors are comprised of a steel shaft with a spiral or helical
fin which, when rotated, pushes material along a trough. Since these
conveyors are usually used with wet classification, no significant emission
problem is experienced.
Pneumatic Conveyors
Pneumatic conveyors are comprised of tubes or ducts through which material
is conveyed. Pneumatic conveyors are divided into two classes termed by their
operating principles: pressure systems and vacuum (suction) systems.
2-37
-------
0 '>'?.
os
(b)
(c)
LEGEND
(a) centrifugal discharge
(b) positive discharge
(c) continuous discharge
Figure 2.14 Bucket Elevator Types
2-38
-------
Pressure systems are further classified into low pressure and high pressure
types, and vacuum systems into low-, medium-, and high-vacuum types. Pressure
and vacuum systems occasionally are used in combination for special requirements.
Pressure systems operate at pressure obtainable from a fan (low-pressure
systems) or a compressed air system (high-pressure systems). Normally, the
airstream functions in a 20 to 31 centimeters (8 to 12 inches) diameter pipe-
line. Into this line, material is fed from a hopper or other device at controlled
rates. The airstream immediately suspends this material and conveys it to a
cyclone-type or filter-type collector for deposit. Conveying air escapes via
the cyclone vent or through the filter.
Vacuum systems offer the advantage of clean, efficient pickup from rail cars,
trucks or bins for unloading or in-plant conveying operations. Cyclone receivers
or combination receiver-filters are used at the terminal of the system to
separate the material being conveyed from the air. Below the receiver, either
a rotary feeder or gatelock (trap door feeder) is employed as a discharge air
lock. Positive displacement blowers are used as exhausters to provide the
necessary conveying air at the operating vacuum. Generally, the vacuum system
is most applicable where the feed-in point must be flexible, such as unloading
railroad cars, barges, ships, or reclaiming material from open warehouse
storage, or where it is desirable to pick up material from a multiplicity of
stations,
Source of Emissions^
Particulates may be emitted from any of the material handling and
transfer operations. As with screening, the level of uncontrolled emissions
depends on the material being handled, the size of the material handled, the
degree of agitation of the material, and the moisture content of the material.
Perhaps the largest emissions occur at conveyor belt transfer points.
Depending on the conveyor belt speed and the free fall distance between
transfer points, substantial emissions may be generated.
2-39
-------
2,7 GRINDING OPERATION
Grinding is a further step in the reduction of material to particle sizes
smaller than those attainable by crushers. Because the material to be treated
has already been reduced to small sizes, and the force to be applied to each
particle is comparatively small, the machines used in grinding are of
a different type, and may operate on a different principle, from those used
in more coarse crushing.
Many types of grinding mills are manufactured for use by various
industries. The principal types of mills used are: (1) hammer, (2) roller,
(3) rod, (4) pebble and ball, and (5) fluid energy. Each of these types of
mills is discussed separately below,
Hammermi 1il_s_
A hammermill consists of a high-speed horizontal rotor with several
rotor discs, to which sets of swing hammers are attached. As rock particles
are fed into the grinding chamber, they are impacted and shattered by the
hammers which attain peripheral speeds greater than 4,572 meters per minute
(250 feet per second). The shattered rock then collides with a steel
breaker plate and is fragmented even further. A cylindrical grating or
screen positioned at the discharge opening restrains oversize material until
it is reduced to a size small enough to pass between the grate bars.
Product size is controlled by the rotor speed, the spacing between the grate
bars, and by hammer length. These mills are used for nonabrasive materials
and can accomplish a size reduction of up to 12:1.
Roller Mill
The roller mill, also known as a Raymond Roller Mill, with its integral
whizzer separator, can produce ground material ranging from 20 mesh to 325 mesh
or finer. The material is ground by rollers that travel along the inside of
a horizontal stationary ring. The rollers swing outward by centrifugal
force, and trap the material between them and the ring. The material is
swept out of the mill by a stream of air to a whizzer separator, located
directly on top of the mill, where the oversize is separated and dropped
2-40
-------
back for further grinding while the desired fines pass up through the
whizzer blades into the duct leading to the air separator (cyclone). A
typical roller mill is shown in Figure 2.15.
Rod Mill
The rod mill is generally considered as a granular grinding unit,
principally for handling a maximum feed size of 2 to 4 centimeters (1 to
2 inches), and grinding to a maximum of 65 mesh. It is normally used in a
closed circuit with a sizing device, such as a classifier or screen, and for
wet or dry grinding. It will grind with the minimum of the finer sizes,
such as 100 or 200 mesh, and will handle relatively high moisture material
without packing.
The mill in its general form consists of a horizontal, slow-speed
rotating, cylindrical drum. The grinding media consists of a charge of
steel rods, slightly shorter than the mill's inside length and from 5 to
13 centimeters (2 inches to 5 inches) in diameter. The rods roll freely
inside the drum during its rotation to give the grinding action desired.
Pebble and Ball Mills
The simplest form of a ball mill is a cylindrical, horizontal, slow-speed
rotating drum containing a mass of balls as grinding media. When other
types of grinding media such as a flint or various ceramic pebbles are used,
it is known as a pebble mill. The ball mill uses steel, flint, porcelain,
or cast.iron balls. A typical ball mill is shown in Figure 2.16.
The diameter of balls or pebbles as the initial charge in a mill is
determined by the size of the feed material and the desired fineness of the
product. Usually the larger diameter ranges are used for preliminary grinding
and the smaller for final grinding. Ball mills reduce the size of the feed
mostly by impact. These grinders normally have a speed of 10 to 40 revolutions
per minute. If the shell rotates too fast, centrifugal force keeps the
balls against the shell and minimal grinding occurs.
2-41
-------
A Product outlet
Revolving
whizzers
-Whizzer
drive
Grinding ring
'Grinding roller
- Feeder
Figure 2.15 Roller Mill
2-42
-------
FJuid Energy Mills
When the desired material size is in the range of 1 to 20 microns, an
ultrafine grinder such as the fluid energy mill is required. A typical
fluid energy mill is shown in Figure 2.17. In this type of mill, the particles
are suspended and conveyed by a high velocity gas stream in a circular or
elliptical path. Size reduction is caused by impaction and rubbing against
mill walls, and by interparticle attrition. Classification of the particles
takes place at the upper bend of the loop shown in Figure 2.17. Internal
classification occurs because the smaller particles are carried through the
outlet by the gas stream while the larger particles are thrown against the
outer wall by centrifugal force. Product size can be varied by changing the
gas velocity through the grinder.
Fluid energy mills can normally reduce up to 0.91 megagrams/hr (1 ton/hr)
of solids from 0.149 mm (100 mesh) to particles averaging 1.2 to 10 microns
in diameter. Typical gas requirements are 0,45 and 1.8 kg (1 to 4 pounds)
of steam or 2.7 to 4.1 kg (6 to 9 pounds) of air admitted at about 0.07 kPa
(100 psig) per 0.45 kg (1 pound) of product. The grinding chambers are
about 2.5 to 20 cm (1 to 8 Inches) in diameter and the equipment is 1.2 to
2.4 meters (4 to 8 feet) high.
Sourc_e_gf Em i s s1 on s
As with crushers, the most important element influencing emissions from
grinding mills is the reduction mechanism employed, compression or impaction.
Grinding mills generally utilize impaction rather than compression. Reduction
by impaction will produce a larger proportion of fines. Particulate emissions
are generated from grinding mills at the grinder's inlet and outlet. Gravity
type grinding mills accept feed from a conveyor and discharge product into a
screen or classifier or onto a conveyor. These transfer points are the
source of particulate emissions. The outlet has the highest emissions
potential because of the finer material. Air-swept mills include an air
conveying system and an air separator, a classifier, or both. The air
separator and classifier are generally cyclone collectors. In some systems,
the air just conveys the material to a separator for deposit into a storage
2-43
-------
REVOLVING
SHELL
— DRIVE GEAR
FEED
PRODUCT
OUTLET
Figure 2.16 Ball Mill
REDUCTION
CHAMBER
SIZED
PARTICLES
FEED
AIR OR STEAM INLET
NOZZLES
Figure 2.17 Fluid-energy Mill
2-44
-------
by sewing or by pasting, and a single small opening is left on one corner.
Materials are discharged into the bag through the valve. The valve closes
automatically due to the internal pressure of the contents of the bag as
soon as it is filled.
The valve type bag is filled by means of a packing machine designed
specifically for this purpose. The material enters the bag through a
nozzle inserted in the valve opening, and the valve closes automatically
when the filling is completed.
Bagging operations are a source of particulate emissions. Dust is
emitted during the final stages of filling when dust-laden afr is forced
out of the bag. The fugitive emissions due to bagging operation are
generally localized in the area of the bagging machine.
Fine product materials that are not bagged for shipment are either
bulk-loaded in tank trucks or enclosed railroad cars. The usual method of
loading is gravity feeding through plastic or fabric sleeves. Bulk loading
of fine material is a source of particulate because, as in the bagging
operation, dust-laden air is forced out of the truck or railroad car during
the loading operation.
2.10 WASHING
To meet specifications, some aggregate products, such as concrete
aggregate, require washing to remove fines. Although a variety of equipment
is available, washing screens are generally used. A washing screen is a
standard, inclined, vibrating screen with high-pressure water-spray bars
installed over the screening surface. Rocks passing over the screen are
washed and classified. Because it is a wet process, it essentially produces
no particulate emissions.
2.11 PORTABLE PLANTS 19
A portable plant may consist of a single chassis on which one or
several processing units may be mounted; or it may consist of a combination
of chassis on which various types of units are mounted to provide a sequence
of operations such as feeding, crushing, screening, sizing, washing, and
loading. The processing steps for crushed and broken stone and sand and
gravel are the same in both fixed and portable plants. In a portable
plant, however, the processing units are squeezed into a very restricted
space. Thus, the entire plant can be readily moved from one quarry site
to another.
2-46
-------
Portable plants come in various designs and are adaptable to practically
any process conditions and product specifications. They may be grouped into
three categories: simple, duplex, and combination. In the simple portable
plant a single screen receives material from a feed conveyor. The oversized
material is scalped to a jaw crusher, where it is reduced before it is
returned to the feed conveyor. The material that passes through the scalping
screen is the lone product that is collected in a truck or bin directly
underneath the screen.
Additional product sizes may be produced by adding a secondary crusher
and modifying the screening arrangement. This grouping that is commonly
mounted on a single chassis is known as a duplex plant. As shown in Figure 2.18,
pit material is fed to the top of a triple-deck, inclined, vibrating screen
capable of producing three product sizes and oversize which is reduced by a
jaw crusher. Material that is passed to the second screening deck is delivered
to a double- or triple-roll crusher for secondary reduction. The output from
both crushers is conveyed to a rotating drum-type elevator that returns the
material to the feed conveyor. Material passing through the second screen to
the third is classified by size, collected in bins, and conveyed to storage
piles. Combination plants have two or more chassis with various combinations
of processing units.
Portable plants may be used as auxiliary units to large stationary
primary crushers in quarries that produce pit material too large for the
portable plant to handle alone. The ability of some portable plants, however,
is too limited to accept the feed from the larger primary crushers. There-
fore, a secondary or intermediate crusher, which may also be a portable unit,
is required to take full advantage of the capability of the primary crusher.
Conversely, some process conditions preclude the need for an intermediate
crusher, and the flexibility of individual portable processing units allows
the user to meet his product requirements simply by arranging the units in the
most efficient combination.
Emissions from each processing unit in a portable plant are the same as
those from a unit of equivalent size in a stationary plant.
2-47
-------
ro
i
cc
TRIPLE ROLL CRUSHER
JAW CRUSHER
FEED HOPPER
FINISHED PRODUCT
Figure 2.18 Portable Plant (courtesy of Pit and Quarry Handbook)
-------
REFERENCES
1. Minerals Yearbook (1980), Volume I, Bureau of Mines.
2. Mineral Facts and Problems, 1975 Edition, Bureau of Mines.
3. Characterization of Particulate Emissions from the Stone-Processing
Industry, Research Triangle Institute, EPA Contract No, 68-02-0607,
May 1975, p. 57.
4. Source Testing Report - Georgia Kaolin Company, Dry Branch, Georgia.
Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, EPA Report No. 78-NMM-8.
5. Source Testing Report - International Minerals and Chemical Company,
Spruce Pine, North Carolina. Prepared by Clayton Environmental
Consultants, Incorporated, EPA Report No. 76-NMM-l.
6, Source Testing Report - Englehard Minerals and Chemicals Corporation,
Attapulgus, Georgia. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Incorporated.
EPA Report No. 77-NMM-6.
7. Source Testing Report - Pfizer, Incorporated, Victorville, California.
Prepared by Pacific Environmental Services, Incorporated. EPA Report
No. 77-NMM-5.
8. Source Testing Report - Flintkote Company, Blue Diamond, Nevada.
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute, EPA Report No. 76-NMM-3.
9. Source Testing Report - Eastern Magnesia Talc Company, Johnson, Vermont.
Prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Incorporated,
EPA Report No. 76-NMM-4.
10. Source Testing Report - Arizona Portland Cement, Rillito, Arizona.
Prepared by Valentine, Fisher & Tomlinson Consulting Engineers,
EPA Report No. 74-STN-l.
11. Source Testing Report - Ferrante and Sons, Bernardsville, New Jersey,
Prepared by York Research Corporation, EPA Report No. 75-STN-6.
12. Source Testing Report - J. M. Brenner Company, Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
Prepared by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Incorporated,
EPA Report No. 75-STN-7.
2-49
-------
REFERENCES (continued)
13. Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing Guide. 63rd Edition, Pit and
Quarry Publications, Incorporated, Chicago, 1979, p. B-17.
14. Reference 13.
15. Reference 13-
16. Perry, Robert H. (editor), Chemical Engineers Handbook, 5th Edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973, p. 8-21,
17. Reference 13, p. B-144.
18. Reference 13, p. B-73.
19. Rundquist, W. A. The Portable Plant...A Versatile, Hard-Working Tool
Pit and Quarry. May 1974.
2-50
-------
3.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
The emission control techniques that are generally applicable for the
control of particulate emissions from fugitive dust and fugitive process
sources at non-metallic mineral processing plants are discussed in this
chapter. Sources of fugitive dust emissions include drilling, blasting,
mine loading, haul roads, conveyor systems, stockpiles, and wastepiles.
Sources of fugitive process emissions include crushers, screens, grinders,
storage bins, conveyor transfer points, product loading, and product
bagging. The control techniques discussed in this chapter are applicable
for the control of particulate emissions from both fixed mineral processing
plants and portable mineral processing plants.
The diversity of the particulate emission sources involved in mining
and processing non-metallic minerals requires use of a variety of emission
control techniques. Dust suppression techniques, designed to prevent
particulate matter from becoming airborne, are applicable to both fugitive
dust and fugitive process sources. Wet dust suppression techniques are
usually used in the construction aggregate industry. Where particulate
emissions can be contained and captured, dry collection systems may be
used. Emission sources and applicable emission control techniques are
listed in Table 3.1.
3.1 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES1
3.1.1 Drj 1 1 ing Operations
The two methods that are generally applicable for the control of
fugitive dust emissions from drilling operations are water injection and
dry collection systems. Water injection is a technique in which water or
water plus a surfactant (wetting agent) is combined with the compressed air
stream that flushes the drill cuttings from the drill hole. The injection
of fluid into the air stream produces a mist that dampens the drill cuttings
and causes them to agglomerate. Most of the dampened drill cuttings will
settle out at the drill collar when blown from the drill hole.
3-1
-------
TABLE 3.1. PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES AND APPLICABLE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
GO
r
Emission
source
Fugitive dust
Applicable
emission control
technique
Emission
source
Fugitive process
Applicable
emission control
technique
Drilling
Blasting
Quarry loading
Haul roads
Conveyor systems
Stockpiles
Windblown dust
from stockpiles
a. Injection of water or
water plus surfactant
b. Dry collection system
a. Good blasting practices
a. Wetting with water or
water plus surfactant
a. Wetting with water or
water plus surfactant
b. Soil stabilization
c. Paving
d. Traffic control
a. Coverings
b. Wet dust suppression
a. Stone ladders
b. Stacker conveyors
c. Water sprays at
conveyor discharge
a. Wetting with water or
water plus surfactant
b. Coverings
c. Windbreaks
Crushers
Screens
Grinders
Storage bins
Conveyor
transfer points
Product loading
Product bagging
a. Wet dust suppression
b. Dry collection
system
Same as crushers
Same as crushers
Same as crushers
Same as crushers
Same as crushers
a. Dry collection
system
-------
The addition of a surfactant increases the wetting ability of untreated
2
water by reducing its surface tension. This reduces the amount of water
required for effective control. The amount of solution required is dependent
upon the size of the hole, the drilling rate, and the type of material being
drilled. A typical injection rate for an 8.9 centimeters (3.5 inches) diameter
hole is approximately 26.6 liters (7 gallons) per hour. The effective
application of water injection to a drilling operation should eliminate
visible emissions.
Dry collection systems are also used to control emissions
from drilling operations, A shroud or hood encircles the drill rod at the
drill hole collar. A vacuum captures emissions and vents them through a
flexible duct to a control device for collection. The control devices most
commonly used are cyclones or baghouses preceded by a settling chamber.
Cyclone collection efficiencies usually are not high. Although designed for
the collection of coarse-to-medium-sized particles (15 to 40 microns or
larger), cyclones are generally unsuitable for fine particulates (10 microns
and smaller). Cyclone collection efficiencies seldom exceed 80 percent in
the smaller particulate size range. However, baghouses exhibit collection
3
efficiencies in excess of 99 percent through the submicron particle range.
Air volumes required for effective control may range from 15 to 45 cubic
meters (500 to 1500 cubic feet) per minute depending on the type of rock
drilled, drill hole size, and penetration rate. A rotary drill equipped with
a baghouse was tested for visible emissions from the capture system and the
baghouse outlet. For more than 75 percent of the time, the opacity was less
than 20 percent at the capture point. Readings at the baghouse ranged from
0 to 5 percent.
3.1.2 Blasting Operations
No effective method is available for controlling particulate emissions
from blasting. Good blasting practices can minimize noise, vibration, and
air shock. Multidelay detonation devices, which detonate the explosive
charges in millisecond time intervals, can reduce these effects. Scheduling
blasting operations so that they occur only during conditions of low wind and
low inversion potential can substantially reduce the impact of fugitive dust
emissions from this source.
3-3
-------
3.1.3 Quarry Loading Operations
Particulate emissions from the loading of broken rock by loaders or
shovels are difficult to control. However, some control may be attained
by using water trucks equipped with hoses or portable watering systems
to wet down the piles prior to loading.
3.1.4 Haul Roads
A large portion of the fugitive dust generated by quarrying operations
results from the transportation of material from the quarry to the
processing plant over unpaved haul roads. Emissions from hauling operations
are a function of the condition of the road surface and the volume and
speed of vehicular traffic. Consequently, control measures include methods
to improve road surfaces or suppress fugitive dust and operational changes
to minimize the effect of vehicular traffic.
f
\ Various treatment methods applied to control fugitive dust emissions
from haul roads include watering, surface treatment with chemical dust
suppressants, soil stabilization, and pavingi The most common method is
watering. Water is applied to the road in a controlled manner by operators
of water trucks equipped with either gravity-fed spray bars or pressure
sprays. The amount of water required, frequency of application, and
effectiveness are dependent on climatic conditions, the conditions of the
roadbed, and vehicular traffic.
Other haul road fugitive dust suppression treatments include the
application of hygroscopic chemicals (substances that absorb moisture)
such as organic sulfonates and calcium chloride. When spread directly
over unpaved road surfaces, these chemicals dissolve in the moisture
they adsorb and form a clear liquid that is resistant to evaporation.
Consequently, they are most effective in areas of relatively high
humidity. Because the chemicals are water soluble, however, they may
have to be applied repeatedly in areas with frequent rainfall.
3-4
-------
An alternative to surface treatment is soil stabilization. Stabilizers
usually consist of a water dilutable emulsion of either synthetic or petro-
leum resins that act as an adhesive or binder. Quarry operators in
California and Arizona report substantial success with one such agent. *
This product is a nonvolatile emulsion containing about 60 percent natural
petroleum resins and 40 percent wetting solution. Its use in the initial
treatment of new haul roads depends on the characteristics of the road bed
and the penetration depth required. For most roads, an effective dilution
is one part stabilizer to four parts of water (1:4) applied at a rate of
about 9.5 to 23.8 liters per square meter (2 to 5 gallons per square yard).
Once the road has been stabilized by repeated application and compaction of
vehicle traffic, the dilution may be increased to 1:7 to 1:20 for daily
maintenance. Usually, one pass per day is considered sufficient for
effective dust control.
Paving is probably the most effective means for reducing fugitive dust
emissions from haul roads. Initial paving costs may exceed $23,400 per
kilometer ($27,700 per mile) of haul road for a 7.7 centimeters (3 inches)
thick bituminous surface. Maintenance and repair may be relatively high
R
due to the damage caused by heavy vehicle traffic. In addition, the paved
roads would have to be periodically vacuumed or cleaned due to accumulation
of soil and dust on the roadway.
Operational measures that would reduce fugitive dust emissions include
the reduction of traffic volume and control of traffic speed. Replacing
smaller haul vehicles with larger capacity units would minimize the number
of trips required and should reduce the total fugitive dust emissions
generated per magagram (ton) of material hauled. A stringent program to
control traffic speed would also reduce dust emissions. According to a
study of emissions from conventional vehicle traffic on unpaved roads, a
reduction in the average vehicle speed from 48 kilometers (30 miles) per
hour to 40, 32, and 24 kilometers (25, 20, and 15 miles) per hour reduced
emissions by 25, 33, and 40 percent, respectively. Although the situations
may not be completely analogous, it can be concluded that an enforced speed
limit of 8 to 16 kilometers (5 to 10 miles) per hour would reduce fugitive
dust emissions from quarry vehicle traffic.
3-5
-------
3.1.5 Conveyor Systems
Fugitive dust emissions are generated by the wind blowing across the
material being transferred from one process operation to another on
r
nonenqlosed conveyor systems.! The two methods available for the control of
fugitive dust emissions from conveyor systems are coverings or wet dust
suppression^ Coverings can consist of enclosing the entire conveyor system
with sheet metal or the use of plastic or canvas sheets which block the
action of the wind across the conveyor system. The use of wet dust
suppression would require the installation of spray bars at various
intervals along the conveyor systems.
3.1.6 Stockpiles
Fugitive dust emissions, as judged by visible emissions, may result
during the formation of new aggregate piles and the erosion of previously
formed piles. During the formation of stockpiles by stacking conveyors,
participate emissions are generated by wind blowing across the streams
of falling stone and segregating fine particles from coarse particles.
Emissions are also produced when the falling stone impacts on the piles.
/Control methods include wet dust suppression and devices designed to
^minimize the free-fall distance to which the material is subjected, thus
lessening its exposure to wind and reducing emissions generated upon
impact.
The wet dust-suppression effect is carried over at plants that spray
the discharge from the final crushing or screening operations, after which
no new surfaces are created nor the material tumbled. Control devices that
are applied include stone ladders, telescopic chutes, and hinged-boom
stacker conveyors. A stone 1adder"~slmpTy consists of a section of vertical
pipe into which stone from the stacking conveyor is discharged. At
different levels the pipe has square or rectangular openings through which
the material may flow. This reduces the effective free-fall distance and
affords wind protection. Another approach is the telescopic chute. Material
is discharged to a retractable chute and falls freely to the top of the
pile. As the height of the stockpile increases or decreases, the chute is
3-6
-------
gradually raised or lowered accordingly. A similar approach is provided by
a stacker conveyor equipped with an adjustable hinged boom that raises or
lowers the conveyor according to the height of the stockpile.
Watering js_thje_mos-t. conmonly_used_-technique-f-or .control! Ing wi ndbj
emissions f rom-active-stockpiles . A water truck equipped with a hose or
other spray device may be used.
y
Locati ng s tockpi 1 es bejmid_na tural or
ajds in reducing windblown dust.* Also, the working area of active piles
should be located on the leeward side of the pile. Very fine materials or
materials that must be stored dry can be controlled effectively only through
the use of suitable stockpile enclosures or silos, even though these may
create load-out problems.
The application of soil stabilizers._which are Pj^mariJy_pe.t.CO.l£jjm or
synthetic resins in emulsion, has been reasonably effective for storage
piles—that are inactive fof~~long periods of time and for permanent waste
piles or spoil banks. These chemical binders cause the surface particles
to adhere to one another, forming a durable wind-and rain-resistant crust
(relatively insoluble in water). As long as this crust remains intact, the
stockpile, is protected from wind erosion. It should be noted that chemical
binders applied to the stockpiles may contaminate the material being
stockpiled.
3.2 CONTROL OF FUGITIVE PROCESS SOURCES
A non-metallic mineral processing plant can consist of crushers,
grinders, screens, conveyor transfer points, and storage, loading, and bagging
facilities. Effective emission control can present a number of problems
due to the multiplicity of dust-producing sources at the plant. Methods
utilized to reduce fugitive process emissions include wet dust suppression,
dry collection systems, and a combination of the two. Wet dust suppression
consists of introducing moisture into the material flow, causing fine
particulate matter to be confined and remain with the material flow rather
than becoming airborne. Dry collection systems involve hooding and enclosing
dust-producing points and exhausting emissions to a control device. Combination
3-7
-------
systems utilize both methods at different stages throughout the processing
plant. In addition to these control techniques, the use of enclosed structures
to house process equipment may also be effective in reducing fugitive
process emissions.
3.2.1 Met Dust Suppression
In a wet dust suppression system, dust emissions are controlled by
applying moisture in the__fQrm__of water or wat^rpljjs a sujifia eta n t, s p rave d
at critical dust producing points in the process flow. This causes dust
particles to adhere to larger mineral pieces or to form agglomerates too
heavy to become or remain airborne. The objective of wet dust suppression
is not to fog an emission source with a fine mist to capture and remove
particulates emissions, but rather to keep the material moist at all process
stages.
The addition of 5.0 to 8.0 percent moisture (by weight), or greater,
g
in the form of water may be required to adequately suppress dust. In
many installations this may not be acceptable because excess moisture
may cause screening surfaces to blind, thus reducing both their capacity
and effectiveness, or result in the coating of mineral surfaces yielding
a marginal or nonspecification product. To counteract these deficiencies,
small quantitities of specially formulated surfactants are blended with
the water to reduce its surface tension and consequently improve its
wetting efficiency so that dust particles may be suppressed with a
minimum of added moisture (less than one percent). Although these
agents may vary in composition, they are characteristically composed of
a hydrophobic group (usually a long chain hydrocarbon) and a hygroscopic
group {usually a sulfate, sulfonate, hydroxide, or ethylene oxide).
When introduced into water, these agents cause an appreciable reduction
in its surface tension. The dilution of such an agent in minute
quantities in water ( 1 part wetting agent to 1,000 parts water) is
reported to make dust control practical throughout an entire non-metallic
mineral processing plant. Furthermore, these wetting agents reportedly
improve the effectiveness of the suppression system since the application
of plain water will not effectively wet the under 10 \>m particles.1^
3-8
-------
In adding moisture to the process material, several application points
are normally required. Because the time required for the proper distribution
of the added moisture on the mineral is critical to achieving effective dust
control, treatment normally begins as soon as possible after the material to
be processed is introduced into the plant. As such, the initial application
point is commonly made at the primary crusher truck dump. In addition to
introducing moisture prior to processing, this application contributes to
reducing intermittent dust emissions generated during dumping operations.
Spray bars are located either on the periphery of the dump hopper or above
i t. Applicati ons are_al so made^at the_jjj.S£ha.rqe-o.f. tbe-pr-ima-py—e^y-step-and
at all secondary and'tertiary crushers where new dry surfaces and dust are
generated by the fracturing of minerals. Further wetting of thejna.terta-1 at
screens, conveyor transfer points, conveyor and screen discharges to
bins, and conveyor dischargesJQstorage..p.iles ma-y-alsoJae. ,ne£e_ssar.y.
The wetted material may exhibit a carryover dust control effect that may
suppress the dust through a number of material handling operations. The
amount of moisture required at each application point is dependent on a
number of factors including the wetting agent used, its dilution ratio in
water, the type and size of process equipment, and the characteristics of the
material processed (type, size distribution, feed rate, and moisture content).
A typical wet dust suppression system, such as the system illustrated
in Figure 3.1, contains a number of basic components and features including
a dust control agent, liquid proportioning equipment, a distribution system,
and control actuators. A proportioner and pump are necessary to proportion
the surfactant and water at the desired ratio and to provide moisture in
sufficient quantity and adequate pressure to meet the demands of the overall
system.
Distribution of the liquid is accomplished by spray headers fitted with
pressure spray nozzles. One or more headers are used to apply the dust
suppressant mixture at each treatment point at the rate and spray configuration
required to effect dust control. A variety of nozzle types may be used
3-9
-------
TRUCK DUMP
CO
i
INCOMING WATER LINE
COMPOUND M R DRUM
PROPORTIONER
Figure 3.1 Wet dust suppression system.
11
-------
including hollow-cone, solid cone, or gas nozzles, depending on the spray
pattern desired. To prevent nozzle plugging, screen filters are used.
Figure 3.2 shows a typical arrangement for the control of fugitive process
emissions at a crusher discharge.
Spray actuation and control is important to prevent waste and undesirable
muddy conditions, especially when the material flow is intermittent. Spray
headers at each application point are normally equipped with an on-off
controller which is interlocked with a sensing mechanism so that sprays will
be operative only when there is material actually flowing. In addition,
systems are sometimes designed to operate under all weather conditions. To
provide protection from freezing, exposed pipes are usually traced with
heating wire and insulated. When the system is not is use, it should be
drained to insure that no water remains in the lines. During prolonged
periods when the ambient temperature remains below 0 C (32 F), wetted raw
materials will freeze into large blocks and adhere to cold surfaces such as
hopper walls.
Recently, a different type of wet spray system has been available
as an alternative to the wet dust suppression system discussed above.
In this system, the emission source is actually enclosed and fogged with
a fine mist to capture and remove particulate emissions. This system
also,differs from the wet suppression system in that no chemical wetting
agents are used. This fogging system performs like a wet scrubber with
the water sprays contacting the dust particles while airborne.
3.2.2 Dry Collection Systems
Particulate emissions generated at plant process operations (crushers,
screens, grinders, conveyor transfer points, product loading operations,
and bagging operations) may be controlled by capturing and exhausting potential
emissions to a control device. Depending on the physical layout of the
plant, emission sources may be either manifolded to a single centrally
located control device or ducted to a number of individual control devices.
Control systems consist of an exhaust system utilizing hoods and enclosures
to capture and confine emissions, ducting and fans to convey the captured
emissions to a control device, and the control device for particulate
removal prior to exhausting the air stream to the atmosphere,
3-11
-------
SUPPRESSANT
FILTER
CONTROL
VALVE
Figure 3.2 Dust suppression application at crusher discharge.
3-12
-------
3,2,2,1 Exhaust Systems and Dycting
If a control system is to effectively prevent participate emissions
from being discharged to the atmosphere at the locations where emissions are
generated, local exhaust systems including hooding and ducting must be
properly designed and balanced. {Balancing refers to adjusting the static
pressure balance, which exists at the junction of two branches, to obtain the
desired volume in each branch). Process equipment should be enclosed as
completely as practicable, allowing for access for operation, routine maintenance,
and inspection requirements. For crushing facilities, recommended hood
capture velocities range from 60 to 150 meters (200 to 500 feet) per minute. '
In general, a minimum indraft velocity of 61 meters (200 feet) per minute
should be maintained through all open hood areas. Proper design of hood and
enclosures will minimize exhaust volumes required and, consequently, power
consumption. In addition, proper hooding will minimize the effects of cross
drafts (wind) and the effects of induced air (i.e., air placed in motion as
a result of machine movement or falling material). A well-designed enclosure
can be defined as a housing which minimizes open areas between the operation
and the hood and contains all dust dispersion action.
Good duct design dictates that adequate conveying velocities be maintained
so that the transported dust particles will not settle in the ducts along the
way to the collection device. Based on information for crushed stone,
conveying velocities recommended for mineral particles range from 1,050 to
1,350 meters (3,500 to 4,500 feet) per minute.16*17
Adequate design and construction specifications are available and have
been utilized to produce efficient, long-lasting systems. Various guidelines
establishing minimum ventilation rates required for the control of crushing
plant operations, and upon which the ventilation rates most commonly utilized
in the industry are based, are discussed briefly below.
Crushers and Grinders
Hooding and air volume requirements for the control of fugitive process
emissions from crushers and grinders are quite variable depending upon the
size and shape of the emission source, the hood's position relative to the
3-13
-------
points of emission, and the velocity, nature, and quantity of the released
particles. The only established criterion is that a minimum indraft velocity
of 61 meters (200 feet) per minute be maintained through all open hood areas.
To achieve this, capture velocities in excess of 150 meters (500 feet) per
minute may be necessary to overcome induced air motion, resulting from the
material feed and discharge velocities and the mechanically induced velocity
(fan action) of a particular equipment type. To achieve effective emission
control, ventilation should be applied at both the upper portion (feed end)
of the equipment and the discharge point. An exception to this would be at
primary jaw or gyratory crushers because of the necessity to have ready
access to dislodge large rocks which may get stuck in the crusher feed
opening. Where access to a device is required for maintenance, removable
hood sections may be utilized.
In general, the upper portion of the crusher or grinder should be
enclosed as completely as possible, and exhausted according to the criteria
established for transfer points. The discharge to the conveyor should also
be enclosed as completely as possible. The exhaust rate varies considerably
depending on crusher type. For impact crushers or grinders., exhaust volumes
may range from 120 to 240 cubic meters (4,000 to 8,000 cubic feet) per
19
minute. For compression type crushers, an exhaust rate of 50 cubic meters
per minute per meter (500 cubic feet per minute per foot) of discharge
20
opening should be sufficient. The width of the discharge opening will
approximate the width of the receiving conveyor. For either impact crushers
or compression type crushers, pick-up should be applied downstream of the
crusher for a distance of at least 3.5 times the width of the receiving
21
conveyor. A typical hood configuration used to control particulate
emissions from a cone crusher is depicted in Figure 3.3.
Grinding or milling circuits which employ air conveying systems operate
at slightly negative pressure to prevent the escape of air containing the
ground rock. Because the system is not airtight, some air is drawn into the
system and must be vented. This vent stream can be controlled by discharging
it through a control device.
3-14
-------
EXHAUST
GO
I
COLLECTION
HOODS
CRUSHER
DISCHARGE
CONE
CRUSHER
FAN
Figure 3.3 Hood configuration used to control a cone crusher.
-------
Screens^
A number of exhaust points are usually required to achieve effective
control at screening operations. A full coverage hood, as depicted in
Figure 3.4, is generally used to control emissions generated at actual
screening surfaces. Required exhaust volumes vary with the surface area of
the screen and the amount of open area around the periphery of the enclosure.
A well-designed enclosure should have a space of no more than 5 to 10 centimeters
(2 to 4 inches} around the periphery of the screen. A minimum exhaust rate
of 15 cubic meters per minute per square meter (50 cubic feet per minute
per square foot) of screen area is commonly used with no increase for multiple
22
decks. Additional ventilation air may be required at the discharge chute
to conveyor or bin transfer points. If ventilation is needed, these points
are treated as regular transfer points and exhausted accordingly,
Conveyor Transfer Poi nts
At conveyor to conveyor transfer points, hoods should be designed to
enclose both the head pulley of the upper conveyor and the tail pulley of
the lower conveyor as completely as possible. With careful design, the open
area should be reduced to about 0,15 square meter per meter (0.5 square foot
00
per foot) of conveyor width. Factors affecting the air volume to be exhausted
include the conveyor speed and the free-fall distance to which the material
is subjected. Recommended exhaust rates are 35 cubic meters per minute
per meter (350 cubic feet per minute per foot) of conveyor width for conveyor
speeds less than 60 meters (200 feet) per minute and 50 cubic meters per
minute per meter (500 cubic feet per minute per foot) for conveyor speeds
exceeding 60 meters (200 feet) per minute. For a conveyor-to-conveyor
transfer with less than 0.91 meter (3 feet) fall, the enclosure illustrated
in Figure 3.5 is commonly used.
For conveyor-to-conveyor transfers with a free-fall distance greater
than 0.91 meter (3 feet) and for chute-to-belt transfers, an arrangement
similar to that depicted in Figure 3.6 is commonly used. The exhaust
connection should be made as far dovmstream as possible to maximize dust
fallout and thus minimize needless dust entrainment. For very dusty material,
additional exhaust air may be required at the tail pulley of the receiving
3-16
-------
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
FEED
COMPLETE
ENCLOSURE
SCREEN
OVERSIZE
THROUGHS
Figure 3.4 Hood configuration for vibrating screen,
3-17
-------
TO !
CONTROL
DEVICE
45°
RUBBER
SKIRT
CONVEYOR TRANSFER LESS THAN
3' FALL. FOR GREATER FALL
PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXHAUST AT
LOWER BELT. SEE DETAIL AT RIGHT.
PpOOQj5[ 2" CLEARANCE FOR
LOAD ON BELT
DETAIL OF BELT OPENING
Fiqure 3 5 Hood configuration for conveyor transfer
less than 0.91 meter (3 feet) fall.
3-18
-------
FROM CHUTE
OR BELT
ADDITIONAL,
EXHAUST
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
) CONVEYOR
RUBBER
*~~""^ SKIRT
Figure 3.6 Hood configuration for a chute to belt or
conveyor transfer greater than 0,91 meter
(3 feet) fall.
3-19
-------
conveyor. Recommended air volumes are 21 cubic meters (700 cubic feet) per
minute for conveyors 0.91 meter (3 feet) wide and less, and 30 cubic meters
25
(1,000 cubic feet) per minute for conveyors wider than 0,91 meter (3 feet).
Conveyor or chute-to-bin transfer points differ from the usual transfer
operation in that there is no open area downstream of the transfer point.
Thus, emissions are generated only at the loading point. As illustrated in
Figure 3.7, the exhaust connection is normally located at some point remote
from the loading point and exhausted at a minimum rate of 67 cubic meters
per minute per square meter (200 cubic feet per minute per square foot) of
26
open area.
Product loading and Bagging
Particulate emissions from truck and railcar loading of coarse material
can be minimized by reducing the open height that the material must fall
from the silo or bin to the shipping vehicle. Shrouds, telescoping feed
tubes, and windbreaks can further reduce the fugitive process emissions from
this intermittent source. Particulate emissions from loading of fine material
into either trucks or railcar can be controlled by an exhaust system vented
to a baghouse. The system is similar to the system described above for
controlling bin or hopper transfer points (see Figure 3.7). The material is
fed through one of the vehicle's openings and the exhaust connection is
normally at another opening. The system should be designed with a minimum
amount of open area around the periphery of the feed chute and the exhaust
duct.
Bagging operations are controlled by local exhaust systems and vented
to a baghouse for product recovery. Hood face velocities on the order of
Tf50 meters (500 feet) per minute should be used. An automatic bag filling
operation and vent system is shown in Figure 3.8.
3.2.2.2 Control Devices
Baghouses
The most efficient dry collection devices used in the non-metallic
mineral industry are baghouses (fabric filters). For most non-metallic
mineral processing plant applications, mechanical shaker type baghouses
which require periodic shutdown for cleaning after four or five hours
of operation are usually used. These units are normally equipped with
3-20
-------
BELT (
LOADING
^ POINT
TO CONTROL
DEVICE
BIN
OR
HOPPER
Figure 3.7 Exhaust configuration at bin or hopper.
3-21
-------
I
IV
\
V
-_iCL--
/
1
' -. 1
r.".JJ
500 FPM MAXIMUM
X \ 7
HOOD ATTACHED TO BIN
45°
PRINCIPAL DUST SOURCE
\
-SCALE SUPPORT
BAG
Figure 3.8 Bag filling vent system.
27
3-22
-------
cotton sateen bags and operated at an air-to-cloth ratio of 2:1 or 3:1. A
cleaning cycle usually requires no more than two to three minutes of bag
shaking and is normally actuated automatically when the exhaust fan is
turned off. A typical baghouse is illustrated in Figure 3.9.
Another method of bag cleaning is to use reverse airflow down the tubes
at such a rate that there is no net movement of air through the bag. This
causes the bag to collapse which results in the filter cake breaking-up and
falling off the bag, A final method is reverse air pulsing where a perforated
ring travels up and down each bag or sleeve. Air jets in the ring force the
bag to collapse, then reopen, breaking the filter cake apart. These two
methods are shown in Figure 3.10.
For applications where it may be impractical to turn off the control
system, baghouses with continuous cleaning are employed. Although compart-
mented mechanical shaker types may be used, jet pulse units are predominantly
used by the industry. These units usually use wool or synthetic felted bags
for a filtering media and may be operated at an air-to-cloth ratio of as
high as 6:1 to 10:1. Regardless of the baghouse type used, jet pulse or
shaker, greater than 99 percent efficiency can be attained even on submicron
28
particle sizes. Two baghouses tested by EPA for both inlet and outlet
29 "30
emission levels had collection efficiencies of 99.8 percent. '
Another major parameter considered in designing baghouses is the air-
to-cloth ratio or filter ratio defined as the ratio of gas filtered in cubic
meters (feet) per minute to the area of the filtering media in square meters
(feet). A high ratio results in possible blinding or clogging of the bags
and a resultant decrease in the baghouse collection efficiency and an increase
in bag material wear.
The frequency of cleaning can be continuous in which a section of the
baghouse is removed from operation and cleaned before going on to another
section. Alternatively, intermittent cleaning consisting of timed cycles of
cleaning and operation is used. Sensors can be installed that start the
cleaning cycle when some specified pressure drop across the system occurs
because of the buildup of the filter cake.
3-23
-------
HANGERS
CLEAN
AIR
DIRTY .4^
AIR "
CLEAN
SIDE
AIR
BAG
COLLECTED
DUST
Figure 3.9 Typical bacjhouse operation.
3-24
-------
TUBE
COLLECTING
DUST
v..,,,,
CLEAN
SIDE
X
w
REVERSE
AIR ON
ONLY
PRESSURE JET
AND REVERSE
AIR ON
WALLS COLLAPSE TOGETHER \
PREVENT DUST FROM FALLING ^
SLUG OF AIR OPENS TUBE
ALLOWS DUST TO FALL FREELY
Figure 3.10 Baghouse cleaning methods.
32
3-25
-------
Materials used in bag construction include cotton, Teflon, glass,
Orion, Nylon, Dacron, wool, Dynel, and others. Temperature and other operating
parameters must be taken into account in the selection of fabric material,
though most industry processes are at ambient conditions. The most popular
materials in terms of wear and performance are the synthetic fabrics or
cotton sateen. Other parameters considered in the design of bsghouse and
fabric selection include frequency of cleaning, cloth resistances to corrosion,
and ore moisture.
Other control devices used in the industry include cyclones and low
energy scrubbers. Although these control devices may demonstrate efficiencies
of 95 to 99 percent for coarse particles (40 microns and larger), their
efficiencies are less than 85 percent for medium and fine particles (20 microns
31
and smaller). Although high energy scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators
could conceivably achieve results similar to that of a baghouse, these
methods are not commonly used to control participate emissions in the industry.
MetjCajiture Devices
The principal of collection in wet capture devices involves contacting
dust particles with liquid droplets in some way and then having the wetted
particles impinge upon a collecting surface where they can be flushed away
with water. The method of contacting the dust has many variations depending
on the equipment manufacturer. The major types of wet collectors are cyclones,
32
mechanical scrubbers, mechanical-centrifugal scrubbers, and venturi scrubbers.
These devices are more efficient than inertia! separators. Wet capture
devices can also handle high temperature gases or mist-containing gases.
Costs and efficiencies also vary with equipment selection and operating
conditions. Efficiencies are higher at lower particle size ranges than with
dry cyclones.
As with dry cyclones, wet cyclones impart a centrifugal force to the
incoming gas stream causing it to increase in velocity. The principal
difference here is that atomized liquids are introduced to contact and carry
3-26
-------
away dust particles. The dust impinges upon the collector walls with clean
air remaining in the central area of the device. Efficiencies in this type
of equipment average in the vicinity of 98,2 percent.
Mechanical scrubbers have a water spray created by a rotating disc or
drum contacting the dust particles. Extreme turbulence is created which
insures this required contact. Efficiencies are about the same as wet
cyclone scrubbers.
Mechanical-centrifugal scrubbers with water sprays are similar to their
dry counterparts with the exception that a water spray is located at the gas
inlet so that the particulate matter is moistened before it reaches the
blades. The water droplets containing particulate are impinged on the
blades while the clean air is exhausted. This is depicted in Figure 3.11.
In this case, the spray not only keeps the blades wet so that dust will
impinge upon them, but it also serves as a medium to carry away particles.
Some types of scrubbers use high pressure-sprays, consuming more energy and
water, but have higher efficiencies than other wet capture devices.
Venturi scrubbers rely on an impaction mechanism and extreme turbulence
for dust collection. Gas velocities in the throat of the venturi tube are
4,500 to 6,000 meters (15,000 to 20,000 feet) per minute. It is at this
point that low pressure water sprays are placed. The extreme turbulence
causes excellent contact of water and particulate. The wetted particules
travel through the venturi tube to a cyclone spray collector. Efficiencies
33
are very high, averaging 99.9 percent. These high efficiencies are also
evidenced in the small particle size ranges collected (<1 micron). This design is
best suited to applications involving removal of 0.5 to 5 micron sizes. The
construction is similar to a venturi meter with 25° converging and 7°
diverging sections. This results in a 4:1 area reduction between the inlet
and throat.
3-27
-------
WATER SPRAY
VANES
CLEAN
EXHAUST
DIRT-
LADEN
AIR
Figure 3.11 Mechanical - centrifugal scrubber.
3-28
-------
3.2.3 Combination Systems_
Wet dust suppression and dry collection systems are often used in
combination to control particulate emissions from crushing plant facilities.
As illustrated in Figure 3,12, wet dust suppression techniques are generally
used to prevent emissions at the primary crushing stage and at subsequent
screens, transfer points,, and crusher inlets. Dry collection systems are
generally used to control emissions at the discharge of the secondary and
tertiary crushers where new dry surfaces and fine particulates are formed. In
addition to controlling emissions, dry collection systems result in the removal
of a large portion of the fine particulates generated with the resultant
effect of making subsequent dust suppression applications more effective with a
minimum of added moisture.
3.3 FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERFORMANCE OF CONTROL METHODS
3.3.1 Dust Suppression
The effectiveness of wet suppression is dependent on the amount of
moisture added to the process flow. There are a number of factors which may
affect the performance of a wet dust suppression system. These include the
surfactant used, the method of application, characteristics of the material,
and the type and size of the process equipment serviced. The number, type,
location, and configuration of spray nozzles at an application point, as
well as the speed at which a material stream moves past an application
point, may affect both the efficiency and uniformity of wetting. In
addition, meteorological factors such as wind, ambient temperature, and
humidity (which affect the evaporation rate of added moisture) also
adversely affect the overall performance of a wet dust suppression
system. Where the material processed contains a high percentage of
fines, such as the product from a hammermill, dust suppression may be
inadequate because of the large surface areas to be treated.
Dust suppression may offer a viable control alternative to particulate
emission control systems at process facilities if sufficient moisture is
added to the material. Generally, wet dust suppression is only possible with
crushing operations (crushers, conveyor transfer points, and screens) because
3-29
-------
CO
o
TRUCK DUMP
AND FEEDER
BAG
COLLECTOR
PRIMARY
CRUSHER
BIN AND TRUCK
LOADING STATION
SUPPRESSION
COLLECTION
TERTIARY
CRUSHER
Figure 3.12 Typical combination dust control system.
-------
a coarser material is handled and plugging problems will not likely occur.
In addition, wet suppression may not be possible in freezing weather or arid
regions. Also, some industries (e.g., talc, rock salt) prefer not to handle
material with high moisture (even in crushing operations).
3.3.2 Dry Collection Systems
For dry collection systems, factors affecting both capture efficiency
and control efficiency are important. Wind blowing through hood openings can
significantly reduce the effectiveness of a local exhaust system. This can
be appreciated when one considers that an indraft velocity of 60 meters
(200 feet) per minute is equivalent to less than 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles)
per hour. Consequently, the process equipment should be completely enclosed
or the hood openings minimized.
Installations located in areas of high precipitation have chosen to
house process equipment in buildings or structures to increase their operating
hours. An added effect of this is to reduce the impact that high winds may
have on a local exhaust system which is not properly enclosed. Much of the
processing in the industries investigated in this study occurs in buildings
which enclose the equipment.
An exhaust system must be properly maintained and balanced if it is to
remain effective. Good practice dictates that systems be inspected periodically
and capture and conveying velocities checked against design specifications to
assure that the system 1s indeed functioning properly. The primary causes
for systems becoming unbalanced are the presence of leaks resulting from wear
due to abrasion or corrosion, and the settling of dust in poorly designed
duct runs which effectively reduces the cross sectional area of the duct and
increases pressure drop.
3.3.3 Combined Suppression and Control Systems
The factors affecting the performance of combination systems are the
same as those encountered where dust suppression or dry collection systems
are used alone.
3-31
-------
3.4 PERFORMANCE OF PARTICULATE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES
3.4.1 Participate Emission Data
Particulate emission measurements were conducted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on 16 baghouses used to control
emissions generated at crushing, screening, and conveying (transfer points)
operations at five crushed stone plants, one kaolin plant, one fuller's earth
plant, and on one baghouse used to control emissions generated at grinding,
classifying, and fine product loading operations at a feldspar installation.
Table 3.2 briefly summarizes the process operations controlled by each
baghouse tested, along with specifications for each baghouse.
Of the eight plants tested, three processed limestone (A, B, and C), two
processed traprock (D and E), one processed feldspar (G), one processed kaolin
(L), and one processed fuller's earth (M). Four of the five crushed stone
plants were commercial crushed stone operations pYoducing a variety of end
products including dense-graded road base stone, asphalt aggregates, concrete
segregates, and non-specific construction aggregates. In addition, plant B
produced about 54 megagrams (60 tons) of agstone per hour. Facilities Al
through A4 consist of process operations producing raw material for the
manufacture of Portland cement. Facilities Al and Bl are both impact crushers
used for the primary crushing of run-of-quarry limestone rock. Facility A3 is
somewhat unique in that it consists of a single conveyor transfer point at the
tail of an overland conveyor. As indicated in Table 3.2, the remaining
facilities tested consisted of multiple secondary and tertiary crushing and
screening operations, adjunct conveyor transfer points, and grinding operations.
These include one primary jaw crusher, three secondary cone crushers, two
hammer mills, eight tertiary cone crushers, 19 screens, 13 product bins, over
17 conveyor transfer points, one pebble mill, two roller mills, one fluid
energy mill, one impact mill, one bucket elevator, and a fine product loading
system.
A minimum of three test runs, using EPA Method 5 or 17, were conducted at
each process operation tested. (For this industry, both EPA Method 5 and 17
are acceptable particulate sampling methods). Sampling was performed only
3-32
-------
TABLE 3.2 BAGHOUSE UNITS TESTED BY EPA
Baghouse sped
Plant/ Rock type
facility processed
Al
A2
A3
A4
Bl
B2
o Cl
3 C2
Dl
D2
El
E2
Ml
M2
SI
LI
L2
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Traprock
Traprock
Traprock
Traprock
Fuller's earth
Fuller's earth
Feldspar
Kaolin
Kaolin
Type
Jet pulse
Jet pulse
Jet pulse
Jet pulse
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Jet pulse
Jet pulse
Reverse air
Reverse air
Reverse air
Jet pulse
Jet pulse
Air-to-
cloth
ratio
5.
7.
7.
5.
3.
2.
2.
2.
2.
2.
5.
7.
6.
5.
3.
5.
5,
3:
0:
0:
2:
1:
1:
3:
0:
8:
8:
2:
5:
0:
2:
0:
0:
0:
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
fications
Capacity
scmsa
12.
7.
1.
5.
2.
8.
3.
3.
15.
12.
7.
10.
0.
1.
1.
6.
3.
5
5
1
0
7
6
5
1
0
3
0
0
9
6
9
6
3
scfmb
(26
(15
(2
(10
(5
(18
(7
(6
(31
(25
(14
(21
(1
(3
(3
(14
(6
,472)
,811)
.346)
,532)
,784)
,197)
,473)
,543)
,863)
,960)
,748)
,122)
,800)
,300)
,960)
,040)
,960)
Process operations controlled
Primary impact crusher
Primary screen
Conveyor transfer point
Secondary cone crusher, screen
Primary impact crusher
Scalping screen, secondary cone crusher, two
finishing screens, hammer mill, five storage bins,
six conveyor transfer points
Primary jaw crusher, scalping screen, hammer mill
Two finishing screens, two conveyor transfer points
One scalping and two sizing screens, secondary cone
crusher, two tertiary cone crushers, several
conveyor transfer points
Finishing screen, several conveyor transfer points
Two sizing screens, four tertiary cone crushers,
several conveyor transfer points
Five finishing screens, eight storage bins
Raymond and fluid energy mills, conveyor transfer
points, vibrating screens
Pebble mill, bucket elevator, two conveyor
transfer points, fine product loading
Raymond impact mill
Roller mill
Standard cubic meters per second.
Standard cubic feet per minute.
-------
during periods of normal operation and was stopped and restarted to allow for
intermittent process shutdowns and upsets (feed to the process). Where the
process weight rate was indeterminable at a specific process operation, as in
most instances, the process weight through the primary crushing stage was
monitored to assure that the plant was operating at or near normal capacity.
Moisture determinations on the material processed were also performed at each
plant tested (except for plants A, G, L, and M) to permit an assessment of
whether control was effected primarily by the dust collection system or by
excessive moisture inherent in the material processed. The tests were considered
valid if the material moisture was less than two percent.
The baghouses tested included jet pulse, reverse air, and mechanical
shaker type units. The shaker type and reverse air type baghouse used cotton
sateen bags and were operated at air-to-cloth ratios of 2:1 to 3:1. The jet
pulse units tested were fitted with wool or synthetic fibers felted bags.
Air-to-cloth ratios ranged from 5:1 to 7.5:1.
A survey performed by the Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute
under contract to EPA reported air-to-cloth ratios typically used for the various
industry segments based upon the experience of their member companies.
Table 3.3 presents this information. These ratios are based upon the
following premises:
1. Air from a dry crushing or grinding operation at or near ambient
temperature.
2, An Inlet parti cul ate content of 25 g/dscm (10 gr/dscf) for a volume
of air equivalent to that required for a face velocity of 61 meters
(200 feet) per minute at crusher openings.
3. An average particle size of 20 microns and a range from 0.5 to
100 microns.
4. No insulatfon or heating required.
The IGC! report states that the segments considered the most troublesome are
those with the lowest air-to-cloth ratio. The lower ratios employed for
some segments are premised upon such particulate properties as a high
abrasiveness or a tendency to blind the filtering medium. The study further
3-34
-------
states that no differentiation in the air-to-cloth ratio is required for the
source of emission, be it crushing or grinding operation. An exception would
be a micromin source emitting an average particle size smaller than that
cited (i.e. 20 microns). For such a source, a lower air-to-cloth ratio
would be needed than that indicated in Table 3.3.
The industry segment with the lowest air-to-cloth ratio listed in
Table 3.3 is feldspar. EPA conducted tests for particulate emissions at a
feldspar plant on a baghouse controlling emissions from a pebble mill system.
The results of these tests indicate particulate emissions below 0,023 g/dscm
(0.01 gr/dscf). The baghouse had a design air-to-cloth ratio of 3.03:1.
In addition, the IGCI report listed test results (using EPA Method 5)
for two fluid energy mills processing fuller's earth. In both cases, the
particulate emissions were controlled by a baghouse and were below 0.023 g/dscm
(0.01 gr/dscf}. The average particle size of the inlet stream was reportedly
below 10 microns in both cases. EPA conducted tests for particulate emissions
/
from a roller mill and a fluid energy mill, both used to grind fuller's
earth. In both cases particulate emissions were controlled by baghouses.
Emissions from the baghouse controlling the roller mill were less than
0.005 g/dscm {0.002 gr/dscf) and those from the fluid energy mill baghouse
were less than 0.015 g/dscm (0.006 gr/dscf).
Tests were also conducted at two talc plants and a gypsum plant on
baghouses controlling particulate emissions from various process sources.
Emissions from these baghouses (see Appendix A) were greater than the other
measured sources. These higher emission levels are not considered represen-
tative of a well-maintained and operated baghouse because excessive
visible emissions were observed either continuously or frequently during
the tests. The excessive visible emissions may have been caused by the
presence of torn bags. Tests conducted at a kaolin plant on an impact
mill and a roller mill resulted in measured emission rates of 0.037 and
0.016 g/dscm (0.016 and 0.007 gr/dscf) respectively, for the two process
operations.
3-35
-------
TABLE 3.3 AIR-TO-CLOTH RATIOS FOR FABRIC FILTERS USED FOR
EXHAUST EMISSION CONTROL
Industrial
segment
Air-tn-cloth
ratio
acfm/ft2
Sand and gravel
Clay
Gypsum
Lightweight aggregate
Partite
Vermiculite
Pumice
Feldspar
Borate
Talc and soapstone
Barite
Diatomite
Rock salt
Fluorspar
Mica
Kyanite
7.0
6.0
6.0
7.5
4.5
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
4.5
Gilsonite
Crushed and broken stone
N.R.£
7.0
No ratio reported for this segment,
3-36
-------
TABLE 3.4 SUMMARY OF INLET CONCENTRATIONS OF PARTICIPATE MATTER
DURING EPA TESTING
Plant
(type of
mineral)
Inlet
concentration
gr/dscf
Plant B (limestone)
Plant G (feldspar)
Plant H (gypsum)
Plant J (talc)
Plant K (talc)
Plant L (clay)
Inlet 1
Inlet 2
Plant M (clay)
Inlet 1
Inlet 2
6.3
6.03
3.42
7.75
6.18
4.53
1.76
5.24
1.04
3-38
-------
0.02
0.015
•u
o
o
u
$2 J3
3 3
t/> ~o
t/> L-
S: TJ
LLJ C
ujS 0.01
1— l/>
i ^
=> r
O TJ
£ t.
fV QJ
«t o_
a.
c
IO
cr>
0.005
0
Facility
Rock Type*
KEY
H-H AVERAGE
t1
«> EPA TEST METHOD
O OTHER TEST METHOD
f\
|
rf-.
i ( — t
i
I 1
-e n
w
8 .ft
^r?1
j , i T | j
Al AZ A3 A4 Bl B2
L L L L L L
*
L - Limestone
T - Traprock
F - Feldspar
K - Kaolin
I
1
1
1
fl II
II II
£*i **s
, m , AJ
^^ ,"
it 1 1 t
V
b 1 !
| 1
ft W
1
f.
M
P fi U
II
1 1
«• U
t 1 f> 1 1 1 1 1 1
B3 Cl C2 Dl D2 El E2 Gl LI
L LL TT TT FK
H
™
R - -
] i
t
j
1 |^
vt
• -
1 1
i j A
* !',-
ll
jl
» t*
rTTi
C}^ A 1
il^Lj • *
11 1 1 i
V 4>c
1 1 f
L2 HI M2
K FE FE
0.046
0.034
L
•XI
w
i
u
f\
3
U
•E
IQ
0.023 ?
2
in
>>
*o
I.
(U
CL
IA
B
i-
D>
0.011
0
FE - Fuller's earth
Figure 3.13 Particulate emissions from non-metallic mineral
processing operations.
3-39
-------
Observations for visible emissions were also made at hoods and enclosures
to record the presence and opacity of emissions escaping capture. The
results of these measurements are summarized in Table 3.5, In most instances,
essentially no visible emissions were observed at adequately hooded or
enclosed process facilities.
Of the 13 crushers for which visible emission measurements are reported,
10 were cone crushers handling either limestone, traprock, feldspar, or talc.
The other three crushers were an impact crusher handling limestone and jaw
crushers handling feldspar and talc. Except for one jaw crusher and one cone
crusher, no visible emissions were observed from crushers for at least 97 percent
of the time. The one cone crusher (plant B) had visible emissions for
10 percent of the time, but this crusher was identical to two other cone
crushers tested at the same plant which had no visible emissions for 100 percent
of the time. The jaw crusher (plant J) had visible emissions for 28 percent
of the time but the percentage would have been lower if a cover plate had not
been removed during part of the observation period.
In addition, the tests performed at plant B, which include the cone
crusher exhibiting visible emissions for 10 percent of the time, were carried
out while the plant was experiencing dry climatic conditions and problems
with their water suppression system's pump. As with plant J, a cover plate
at the primary crusher had been removed. The combination of these
factors account for the high readings of visible emissions at the cone
crusher and screening operations.
Visible emissions were observed at six grinding mills. All the mills
except the pebble mill exhibited no visible emissions 99 percent of the
time, (The vertical mill is a closed system and, therefore, would not have
a fugitive discharge of dust except through leaks in the system). Visible
emissions were observed from the other ball mills for 0 percent of the time
and for the pebble mill for 7 percent of the time. Three visible emissions
tests were conducted at the railcar bulk loading operation of a kaolin
plant. For two tests, during which rectangular hatch railcars were loaded,
visible emissions were observed for 2 and 6 percent of the time. Visible
emissions were observed for 15 percent of the time during loading of a
3-40
-------
TABLE 3.5 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE SOURCES
CONTROLLED BY DRY COLLECTION SYSTEMS
U)
I
fiat-p of Accumulated
Plant/Rock type processed : ° Process facility observation time
test (minutes)
A
3
D
F
Crushed limestone 7/9/75 Baghouse discharge to conveyor
Primary impact crusher discharge
Conveyor transfer point
Crushed limestone 7/1/75 Scalping screen
Surge bin
Secondary cone crusher No. 1
Secondary cone crusher No. 2
secondary cone crusher No. 3
Hammer raill
3-deck finishing screen (I)
3-deck finishing screen (R)
6/30/75 Two 3-deck finishing screens
Crushed stone 7/8/75 No. 1 tertiary eyrasphere
cone crusher
Ko. 2 tertiary gyrasphere
cone crusher
Secondary standard cone crysher
Scalping screen
Secondary (2-deck) sizing screen
Secondary (3-deck) sizing screen
Traprock 8/26/76 Two tertiary crushers
Four processing screens
Conveyor transfer points
240
240
166
287
287
231
231
231
287
107
107
120
170
170
170
210
210
210
65
180
179
Accumulated
emission time
(minutes)
0
4
3
45
3
23
0
0
0
4
A
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent of tine
with visible
emissions
0
1
?
15
i
10
0
C
0
C
c
7 7
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3.5 (continued)
OJ
I
ro
Date of Accumulated
Plant/Rock type processed * t Process facility observation time
test (minutes)
G Feldspar
K Gypsum
I Mica
J Talc
N Kaolin
9/27/76 Conveyor transfer point No. 1
Conveyor transfer point No, 2
Primary crusher
Secondary crusher
Conveyor transfer point No, 4
Ball mill (feed end)
Ball mill (discharge end)
Indoor transfer point No. 1
Indoor transfer point No. 2
Indoor bucket elevator
Truck loading
Rail car loading
10/27/76 Hanroer mill
9/30/76 Sagging operation
10/21/76 Vertical mill
Primary crusher
Secondary crusher
Bagger
Pebble sill
12/7/78 Rail car loading
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
80
87
60
60
84
60
60
60
60
60
13
32
298
60
90
90
150
150
90
144
99
154
Accumulated
emission time
(minutes)
A
-J
Q
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
0
0
20
4
13
6
17
2
9
Percent of time
with visible
emissions
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
22
3
9
7
12
2
5
-------
"rake-back" rail car. The primary source of emissions was the topping of
each compartment and the subsequent repositioning of the feed hose in the
next compartment.
Visible emissions measurements are also reported for eight screens,
seven conveyor transfer points, one bucket elevator, one product bin,
and two baggers. Except for two screens at plant B, visible emissions
were observed from these process facilities for periods ranging from
0 percent to 9 percent of the time. The remaining screens had visible
emissions for 15 and 72 percent of the time. Both the screens were
located at plant B. The reasons for the high readings were given in the
discussion of the problems at plant B, above. The main dust source at
one of the screens was mainly at the motor powering the screens.
3.4.3 Wet Dust SuppressionEmissions Data
Due to the unconfined nature of emissions from facilities controlled by
wet suppression techniques, the quantitative measurement of mass particulate
emissions is not possible. Thus, no rfess emission data are available which
permit a quantitative comparison of the control capabilities of wet dust
suppression versus particulate emission control techniques. Visible emission
observations were conducted at six crushed stone and sand and gravel plants
(plants F, P, Q, R, S, and T) using wet dust suppression techniques to
control particulate emissions generated at plant process facilities. Emissions
generated by 13 crushers, 14 screens, seven conveyor transfer points, one
impact mill, and one storage bin were visually measured by EPA Methods 9 and
22. Plants R and T are portable crushing facilities. Plants P, Q,
and T process crushed limestone, while plant F processes crushed traprock,
and plant S processes crushed granite. Plant R is a sand and gravel
processing plant.
The results of the tests for non-crushing sources (e.g., screens,
transfer points, and storage bins) are summarized in Tables 3.6 and 3.7.
These results indicate that visible emissions occur less than 10 percent
of the time, and were generally less than 5 percent opacity when they did
occur. The results of the tests for crushing sources from the best
controlled fixed (plant S) and portable (plant R) plants are summarized
3-43
-------
TABLE 3,6 SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS FROM FUGITIVE NONCRUSHING SOURCES
CONTROLLED BY WET SUPPRESSION (ACCORDING TO EPA METHOD 22)
I
•P»
Rock type
Plant processed
P Crushed limestone (F)b
Q Crushed limestone (F)
R Sand and Gravel (P)c
S Crushed granite (F)
T Crushed limestone (P)
F Crushed traprock (F)
Date
of test
10/02/79
10/10/79
10/15/79
10/23/79
12/29/79
8/26/76
Accumulated
observation
Process time
facility (minutes)
Secondary screen
Transfer point
Three process screens
Three process screens
Two transfer points
Two process screens
Two transfer points
Process screen
Transfer point
Storage bin
Four process screens
Transfer point
60
60
270
210
120
240
240
120
120
120
180
179
Accumulated
emission
time
(minutes)
0
<1
2
11
1
10
<1
0
3
0
0
0
Percent of
time with
visible
emissions
0
1
<1
5
<1
4
0
0
2
'0
0
0
Data from observer with highest readings.
}(F) = Fixed plant.
:(P) = Portable plant.
-------
in Figures 3,14 to 3.18. The data are reported in six minute averaging
of Method 9 data. For each testing set (approximately one hour), the
results of the two observers simultaneously measuring visible emissions,
are indicated by a solid and a dashed line. In spite of the fact that
plant R is designated the best controlled portable crushing plant, the
secondary crusher exceeded 15 percent opacity several times, according
to one of the observers. This is attributed to the fact that during the
test, there was no spray bar located near the crusher outlet. It is
felt that had the spray bar for the crusher been relocated closer to the
crusher than its present position some 1.5 meters (5 feet) from the
crusher, emissions would have dropped below 15 percent opacity for all
observer readings.
The positioning and number of spray bars in some of the tested plants
may not have been adequate for effective emission control. Plant S, which
was judged as the best-controlled plant based on the design and operation
of its wet suppression system was at the time of the testing a newly
constructed plant with the wet suppression system designed into the plant.
Existing plants may encounter difficulties in retrofitting the spray bars
in the proper locations due to space limitation or other factors. Therefore,
the results from Plant S may not be representative of the effectiveness of
wet suppression systems retrofitted to existing plants.
During the periods of observation at plant F, no visible emissions were
observed at two crushers, four screens, and one conveyor transfer point. The
two crushers were observed simultaneously for a period of 65 minutes. The
four screens were observed simultaneously for three hours. The conveyor
transfer point was observed for three hours.
Visible emission observations were also conducted at a feldspar crushing
installation which had a wet dust suppression system to control particulate
emissions generated by crushers, screens, and conveyor transfer points.
During the observations the suppression system was used only intermittently,
presumably because the ore had sufficient surface moisture from rains the
previous day. During the periods of observation, essentially no visible
emissions were observed. Surface moisture contents of the ore were 1.6 to
1.8 percent at the primary crusher discharge; 1.4 to 1.5 percent at the
secondary crusher feed; and 1.0 percent at the secondary crusher discharge
conveyor.
3-45
-------
!8r
16
14
12
15 percent OPACITY
g I0
Q.
10 percent OPACITY
8
o
<
a.
o
OBSERVER I
OBSERVER 2
OBSERVER I
OBSERVER 2
SET
SET 2
0 12 24 36 48 60
0 12 24 36 48 60
TIME, minutes
Figure 3.14 Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled primary crushing
source (portable - Plant R) by means of wet suppression (according to EPA
Method 9).
-------
CO
o
a>
o.
18
16
14
12
10
O
I •
OBSERVER 2
-OBSERVER 2
X--X--X
- X
15 percent OPACITY
SET
i •
OBSERVER I
10 percent OPACITY
0 12 24 36 48 60
TIME, minutes
SET 2
OBSERVER I
12 24 36 48 60
Figure 3.15 Summary of visible emission -measurements from best controlled secondary
crushing source (portable - Plant R) by means of wet suppression (according
to EPA Method 9).
-------
CO
i
co
16
16
14
12
10
"E
Ol
a. 8
>"
H
I 6
O
4
2
15 percent OPACITY
10 percent OPACITY
OBSERVER Z
X-, 'xx
^ / v y \
/ \ ,' \
—* • 9—• *^ X
OBSERVER
12 24 36 48 60
TIME, minutes
OBSERVER I
rX
SET 2
12
24 36 48 60
Figure 3.16 Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled primary
crushing source (fixed - Plant S) by means of wet suppression (according
to EPA Method 9).
-------
CO
I
-pa
I8r
16
14
12
io
o
-------
CO
I
CT!
O
18 r
(6
14
12
c
S 10
o.
t8
O
Is
15 percent OPACITY
OBSERVER I
OBSERVER 2
10 percent OPACITY
12
OBSERVER 2
24 36 48 60
12
SET 2
OBSERVER 1
TIME, minutes
24 36 46 60
Figure 3.18 Summary of visible emission measurements from best controlled large secondary
crushing source (fixed - Plant S) by means of wet suppression (according to
EPA Method 9).
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement: An Investigation
of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for Quarrying and Plant
Process Facilities in the Crushed- and Broken-Stone Industry (Draft).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1975.
2. "Dust Control In Mining, Tunneling, and Quarrying in the United States,
1961 through 1967," U.S. Bureau of Mines information circular, No. IC8407.
Harch 1969. pp 11-12.
3. Control Techniques for Paniculate Air Pollutants. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication No. AP-51, January 1969.
4. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. EPA-450/3-77-010. March 1977.
5. Minnick, J.L. "Control of Particulate Emissions from Lime Plants - A
Survey," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 21,
No. 4. April 1971.
6. Chiaro, D.A. "Significant Operating Benefits Reported from Cement Quarry
Dust Control Program," Pit and Quarry. January 1971.
7. "Conrock Controls Fugitive Dust Efficiently and Economically," Pit and
Quarry. September 1972. pp 127-128.
8. Investigation of Fugitive Dust Volume I - Sources, Emissions and Control.
Prepared by PEDCo Environmental, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Contract No. 68-02-0044, Task 9. EPA-450/3-74-036a. June 1974.
9. "Rock Products Reference File - Dust Suppression," Rock Products, May 1972,
p. 156.
10. Meant, 6.E., "Characterization of Particulate Emissions from the
Stone-Processing Industry," prepared by Research Triangle Institute for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contact No. 68-02-0607-10
May 1975, p. 64.
11. Johnson-March Corporation, Product Literature on Chem-Jet Dust Suppression
System, 1971.
3-51
-------
12. Telecon, Eddinger, James, EPA/ISB with Caste!ine, John, Johnson-March
Corporation. March 29, 1982.
13. Reference 11.
14. Hankin, M., "Is Dust the Stone Industry's Next Major Problem," Rock
Products, April 1967, p. 84.
15, "Air Pollution Control at Crushed Stone Operations," National Crushed
Stone Association, February 1976, page V-4.
16. Reference 14, p. 114.
17. Reference 15, page V-5.
18. Anderson, D.M., "Dust Control Design by the Air Induction Technique,"
Industrial Medicine and Surgery, February 1964, p. 3.
19. Telecon. Vervaert, Alfred. EPA:ISB with McCorkel, Joe, Aggregates
Equipment Incorporated, January 28, 1975.
20. Reference 19.
21. Reference 19,
22. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, "Industrial
Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice," llth Edition, 1970,
p. 5-33.
23. Reference 14, p. 2.
24. Reference 22, p. 5-32.
25. Reference 22, p. 5-33.
26. Reference 22, p. 5-31.
27. Reference 22, p. 5-28.
28. Reference 3, p. 46-47.
29. Source Testing Report - Kentucky Stone Company, Russellville, Kentucky.
Prepared by Engineering - Science, Incorporated, EPA Report No. 75-STN-3.
30. Emission Study at a Feldspar Crushing and Grinding Facility. Prepared
by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Incorporated, EPA Report
Number 76-NMM-l.
31. Reference 3.
5-52
-------
32, Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Publication AP-40. p. 128, May 1973.
33. Reference 14, p. 104,
34, Emission Characteristics of the Non-metal lie Minerals Industry.
Prepared by Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-1473, Task No. 25, July 1977.
35. Reference 3.
36. Billings, C.E., and J, Wilder, "Handbook of Fabric Filter Technology,"
Fabric Filter System Study (Volume I). GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology
Division. Bedford, Massachusetts, Contract No. EPA 22-69-38.
December 1970.
3-53
-------
4.0 COSTS OF EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
This chapter presents estimates of the costs of applying emission control
technology in the 17 industries studied in this document. The costs of
controlling process emission sources and fugitive emission sources are
included. Process sources include: crushers, grinders, screens, transfer
points, storage bin loading operations, and bagging machines. Fugitive
emission sources include open conveyors, storage piles, and blasting, loading,
and hauling operations. Costs are presented for dry collection (baghouses),
wet suppression, and combination systems.
4.1 MODEL PLANTS
A model plant approach is used in this document to estimate and present
the cost of applying emission control technology to non-metallic mineral
processing plants. Costs have been estimated and presented below for nine
different model plants. These plants differ in the operations used, the
process capacities, and whether the plant is fixed or portable. The model
plants are parametric descriptions of the types of plants that for the purpose
of subsequent analysis are considered representative of plants currently
operating within the industries.
The nine model plants can be classified into three major types of varying
capacity according to the type of operation and whether the plant is portable
or fixed.
The first type of model plant consists of crushing operations only and is
fixed. The major pieces of process equipment in this type of plant are three
crushers, three screens, several transfer points, conveyor belts and storage
bin loading equipment. Four model plants were developed for this type plant:
68, 135, 270 and 540 megagrams per hour (75, 150, 300, and 600 tons per hour).
Table 4.1 presents the plant parameters for each of the four model plant sizes
of this type of plant.
4-1
-------
TABEL 4.1 PARAMETERS FOR FIXED CRUSHING MODEL PLANTS (PLANT TYPE 1)
4*
I
Item
Primary crusher
Primary screen
Secondary crusher
Secondary screen
Tertiary crusher
Tertiary screen
Feeder
Storage bin
Conveyors
Transfer points
68
Mg/hour (75
Energy
requirement
Size HP
15" x 38" jaw
6' x 10'
13" x 59"
gyratory
61 x 10'
10" x 39"
hammermill
6' x 10'
(2)
24" (1)
18" (2)
24" (1)
18" (4)
75
15
70
15
200
15
7.5
7
13
TPH)
Gas
vol.
CFM
1,000
3,000
1,325
3,000
1,350
3,000
1,000
1,000
3,000
135 Mg/hour (150
Energy
requirement
Size HP
27" x 42" jaw
61 x 12'
4 ' cone
6' x 12'
13" x 59"
gyratory
6' x 12'
(3)
30" (1)
24" (2)
24" (3)
30" (2)
150
20
150
20
125
20
7.5
12
19.5
TPH)
Gas
vol .
CFM
2,500
3,600
3,250
3,600
1,325
3,600
1,500
3,000
2,500
TOTAL
417.5
17,675
524
24,875
-------
TABLE 4.1 (continued)
I
U)
270 Mg/hour (300 TPH)
Item
Primary crusher
Primary screen
Secondary crusher
Secondary screen
Tertiary crusher
Tertiary screen
Feeder
Storage bin
Conveyors
Transfer points
TOTAL
References;
Size
35" x 46" jaw
6' x 12'
4J cone
6' x 16'
4 ' cone
4* cone
T x 20'
(5)
36" (2)
30" (3)
24" (3)
36" (3)
30" {4}
24" (7)
- Estimating
Energy
requirement
HP
200
20
175
20
150
150
30
10
29
48
13
-845
Gas
vol .
CFM
3,500
3,600
3,660
4,800
3,260
3,260
7,000
2,500
4,500
5,000
7,000
48,080
540 Mi/hour (600 TPH)
Size
50" x 60" jaw
6' x 12'
5j cone
5J cone
6' x 16'
5i cone
5j cone
7' x 20'
7' x 20'
(5)
36" (3)
30" (4)
36" (3)
30" (7)
Dust Control Costs for Crushed Stone Plants,
Energy
requirement
HP
300
20
200
200
20
200
200
30
30
20
113
59
1,392
Gas
vol.
CFM
4,660
3,600
6,170
6,170
4,800
6,170
6,170
7,000
7,000
2,500
9,000
8,750
71,990
Bureau of Mines Report,
Rock Products, April 1975.
- Mineral Processing Flowsheets, Denver
- Cedarapids
- Background
Reference Book,
Information for
Equipment Company,
Second Edition.
Iowa Manufacturing Company, Ninth Pocket
Edition.
the Non-Metallic Minerals Industry, PEDCo Environmen
Specialists, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No, 44, August 31, 1976.
- Chemical Engineers Handbook, 3rd Edition, Perry, Robert H. (editor), McGraw Hill.
- Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing Guide, 63rd Edition, Pit and Quarry
Publications, Incorporated, 1970.
- "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice, llth Edition, American
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, 1970.
- Smith Engineering Works, Product Literature on Telsmith Equipment for Mines ...
Quarries and Gravel Pits, Bulletin 266 B.
-------
The second type model plant consists of crushing and grinding operations
and is also fixed. This type model plant contains the same pieces of process
equipment as the first type model plant plus a grinder* another screen,
additional transfer points, and a bagging machine. Model plants were
developed for four capacity sizes: 9» 23, 135, and 270 megagrams per hour
(10, 25, 160, and 300 tons per hour). Table 4.2 lists the model plant parameters
for each size plant of this type.
The third type model plant is a portable plant consisting of crushing
operations only. The major pieces of process equipment are a primary
crusher, a secondary crusher and associated screen, a final screen and
conveyor belts. Only one size portable model plant, with a capacity of
135 megagrams per hour (150 tons per hour), was developed. Table 4.3 lists
the model plant parameters for this size portable plant.
The three model plant types and all of the various plant sizes are not
applicable to each of the 17 industries studied here. Table 4.4 shows which
type model plant should be used for each industry, and the range and typical
plant sizes actually existing in each industry.
4.2 COST OF CONTROLLING PROCESS SOURCES
4.2.1 Introduction
This section discusses the cost of controlling emissions from process
sources by dry collection (fabric filters), wet suppression methods, and a
combination of the two methods. Dry collection involves hooding or enclosing
dust-producing points and exhausting emissions to a collection device. Wet
dust suppression consists of introducing moisture into the material flow to
prevent fine particulate matter from becoming airborne. Combination systems
apply both methods at different stages throughout the process. All control
costs have been based on technical parameters associated with the control
system used. These parameters are listed in Table 4.5.
The model plant costs do not reflect the costs for any specific plant,
but are estimates which are sufficiently accurate for the purposes of this
type of analysis. The costs of control presented in this chapter are for
the installation of control systems at new plants. As noted in Section 3.3.4,
there are increased costs associated with the retrofit installation of a
4-4
-------
TABLE 4.2 PARAMETERS FOR FIXED CRUSHING AND GRINDING MODEL PLANTS (PLANT TYPE 2)
-C.
en
9.1 Mg/hour {10 TPH)
Item
Primary crusher
Primary screen
Secondary crusher
Secondary screen
Tertiary crusher
Tertiary screen
Feeder
Storage bin
Conveyors
Transfer points
Grinder system
TOTAL
Energy
requirement
Size HP
10" x 21" jaw
3' x 4'
2' cone
3' x 4'
24" x 30" roll
3' x 4'
(2)
18" (3)
18" (5)
6' x 8' ball
mill
35
2
25
5
40
5
5
20
150
287
Gas
vol.
CFM
375
600
2,000
600
1,250
600
1,000
3,750
4,000
14,175
23 Mg/hour (25
TPH)
Energy Gas
requirement vol.
Size HP CFM
10" x 30" jaw
3' x 81
13" x 59"
gyratory
3' x 8'
24" x 30" roll
3' x 8'
(2)
18" (3)
18" (5)
8' x 7' ball
mill
60
5
30
5
40
5
7.5
20
300
472.5
525
1,200
1,325
1,200
1,250
1,200
1,000
3,750
4,700
16,150
-------
TABLE 4.2 (continued)
I
cr>
Item
Primary crusher
Primary screen
Secondary crusher
Secondary screen
Tertiary crusher
Tertiary screen
Feeder
Storage bin
Conveyors
Transfer points
Grinder system
TOTAL
References :
27
6'
4'
6'
135
Size
" x 42" jaw
x 12'
cone
x 12'
13" x B9"
gyratory
6'
x 12'
_Mj/hour (150 TPHl
Energy
requirement
HP
150
20
150
20
125
20
7.5
(3)
30
24
24
30
11 CD
" (2)
" (3)
" (2)
10' x 12' (2)
ball mill
_
Estimating
12
19.5
1,600
2,124
Dust Control Costs
270 Kg/hour (300 TPH)
2
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
2
11
36
Gas
vol.
CFM
,500
,600
,250
,600
,325
,600
,500
,000
,500
,300
,175
35"
6'
4i
6'
4'
4'
7'
(5)
36"
30"
24"
36"
30"
24"
x
Size
x 46" jaw
12'
cone
x
16'
cone
cone
x
20'
(2)
(3)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(7)
10' x 12' (4)
ball mill
for Crushed Stone
Rock Products, April 1975,
- Mineral Processing Flowsheets,
- Cedarapids Reference Book, Iowa
- Background Information for the
Plants,
Energy
requirement
HP
EDO
20
175
20
150
150
30
10
29
48
13
3,200
4,045
3
3
3
4
3
3
7
2
4
5
7
22
70
Gas
vol .
CFM
,500
,600
,660
,800
,260
,260
,000
,500
,500
,000
,000
,600
,680
Bureau of Mines Report,
Denver Equipment Company, Second Edition.
Manufacturing Company, Ninth Pocket Edition.
Non-Metallic Minerals Industry, PEDCo Environmen
Specialists, EPA Contract No. 68-02-1321, Task No. 44, August 31, 1976.
- Chemical Engineers Handbook, 3rd Edition, Perry, Robert H. (editor), McGraw Hill.
- Pit and Quarry Handbook and Purchasing Guide, 63rd Edition, Pit and Quarry
Publications, Incorporated, 1970.
- "Industrial Ventilation, A Manual of Recommended Practice, llth Edition, American
Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, 1970.
- Smith Engineering Works, Product Literature on Tel smith Equipment for Mines ...
Quarries and Gravel Pits, Bulletin 266 B.
-------
TABLE 4.3 PARAMETERS FOR PORTABLE CRUSHING MODEL PLANT (PLANT TYPE 3)
135 Mg/hour (150 tons/hour)
Item
Primary crusher
Secondary crusher
Secondary screen
Final screen
Sizea
91 -
(100 -
181 -
(200 -
45 -
(50 -
45 -
(50 -
363
400)
272
300)
181
200)
181
200)
Energy .
requirement,
74.6
(100)
93.3
(125)
14.9
(20)
14.9
(20)
Gas
volume,
99
(3,500)
99
(3,500)
142
(5,000)
142
(5,000)
aGiven in megagrams per hour with tons per hour in parenthesis.
bGiven in kilowatts per hour with horsepower in parenthesis.
cGiven in cubic meters per minute with actual cubic feet per minute in
parenthesis.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4,4 PLANT SIZES FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY
(Metric units)
Industry
Crushed & Broken
Stone
Crushed & Broken
Stone
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Clay
Rock Salt
Gypsum
Pumice
Gilsonite
Talc
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Diatomite
Perlite
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyanite
Plant
model
used*
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
Range
(Mg/hr)
.
«,
14 - 2,177
-
4 - 136
- 753
-
5 * 30
-
5 - 18
31 - 385
9-45
- 23
5-23
8-60
15 - 54
68 - 272
-
-
Typical
size
(Mg/hr }
272
135
272
135
23
68
23
9
9
9
272
9
9
9
23
23
68
9
9
Model plant sizes
pertinent to the
industry (Mg/hr)
68, 135
135
68, 135
135
9.1, 23
23, 68,
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
23, 68,
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
68, 135
9.1, 23
9.1, 23
, 270, 540
, 270, 540
, 68, 135
135, 270, 540
, 68
, 68
, 68
135, 270, 540
, 68
, 68
, 68
, 270
, 68
Model Plant Type 1
Model Plant Type 2
Model Plant Type 3
Fixed crushing plant.
Fixed crushing and grinding plant,
Portable crushing plant.
4-8
-------
TABLE 4.4 PLANT SIZES FOR NON-METALLIC MINERALS INDUSTRY
(English units)
Industry
Crushed and Broken
Stone
Crushed and Broken
Stone
Sand & Gravel
Sand & Gravel
Clay
Rock Salt
Gypsum
Pumice
Gilsonite
Talc
Boron
Barite
Fluorspar
Feldspar
Diatomite
Perl i te
Vermiculite
Mica
Kyanite
Plant
model
used*
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
Range
(TPH)
**•
15 - 2,400
-
4 - 150
- 830
-
5 - 33
-
6-20
34 - 425
10 - 50
- 25
5-25
9-66
16 - 60
75 - 300
-
-
Typical
size
(TPH)
300
150
300
150
25
75
25
10
10
10
300
10
10
10
25
25
75
10
10
Model plant sizes
pertinent to the
industry (TPH)
75, 150, 300,
150
75, 150, 300,
150
10, 25, 150
75, 150, 300,
10, 25
10, 25
10, 25
10, 25
25, 150, 300
10, 25
10, 25
10, 25
10, 25
75
75, 150, 300
10, 25
10, 25
600
600
600
Model Plant Type 1
Model Plant Type 2
Model Plant Type 3
Fixed crushing plant.
Fixed crushing and grinding plant.
Portable crushing plant.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4.5 TECHNICAL PARAMETERS USED IN DEVELOPING
CONTROL SYSTEMS COSTS^
Parameter
Value
1. Temperature
2. Volumetric flowrate
3. Moisture content
4. Particulate loadings:
Inlet
Outlet
5. Plant capacities
6. Operating factors:
a. Fixed plants
Crushing operations
Grinding operations
b. Portable plants
Crushing operations
21°C (70°F)
(see Tables 4.7 to 4.15, 4.20)
2 percent (by volume)
10.8 g/Nm3 (4.7 grains/scf)
0.046 g/Nm3 (0.02 grains/scf)
9.1, 23, 68, 135, 270, and 540 Mg/hr
(10, 25, 75, 150, 300, and 600 tons/hr)
2,000 hours/year
8,400 hours/year
1,250 hours/year
Reference 1.
These capacities represent the sizes typical of generalized model plants.
However, for a particular industry, only some of these sizes are applicable.
4-10
-------
control system at an existing plant. These increased costs may include
such items as increased engineering and design requirements, increased
pumping requirements for a wet suppression system, longer duct runs for
a dry collection system, and a related increase in utility costs. Most
of these costs are associated with a restriction of available space for
the retrofit installation at an existing plant. Estimating actual costs
for a specific plant requires a detailed engineering study.
The model plant costs have been based primarily on data available from
an EPA contractor (Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute), who had in turn
2
obtained control system costs from vendors of air pollution control equipment.
These costs have been supplemented by a compendium of costs for selected air
1
4
3
pollution control systems. The monitoring costs have been obtained from an
equipment vendor.
Two cost parameters have been developed: installed capital cost and
total annualized cost. The installed capital costs for each emission control
system include the purchased costs of the major and auxiliary equipment,
costs for site preparation and equipment installation, and engineering design
costs. No attempt has been made to include costs for research and development,
possible lost production during equipment installation, or losses during
startup. All capital costs in this section reflect July 1980 prices for
equipment, installation materials, and installation labor. These costs were
updated to July 1980 using the Chemica1 Eng ineer ing plant cost index. The
costs which were updated were originally dated between 1976 and 1979.
The total annualized costs consist of direct operating costs and
annualized capital charges. Direct operating costs include fixed and
variable annual costs, such as:
• Labor and materials needed to operate control equipment;
* Maintenance labor and materials;
• Utilities, such as electric power;
• Replacement parts;
• Dust disposal (where applicable).
4-11
-------
The dust disposal costs apply only to dry collection systems (fabric
filters) used to control crushing operations when no grinding operations are
employed. A unit cost of $6.04/Mg ($5.5Q/ton) is used to cover the costs of
trucking the collected particulate to a disposal point on-site (e.g., the
mine).
In those plants that have both crushing and grinding operations, the dust
collected by the crusher baghouses is conveyed to the grinder, while the
particulate captured by the grinder fabric filter is recycled as finished
product. In this case, it has been assumed that the dust recovery credit
offsets the cost of recycling. Therefore, neither a dust credit nor a cost is
included in the direct operating cost.
The annualized capital charges account for depreciation, interest,
administrative overhead, property taxes, and insurance. The depreciation and
interest have been computed by use of a capital recovery factor, the value of
which depends on the depreciable life of the control system and the interest
rate. An annual interest rate of 10 percent and a 20 year depreciable life
have been assumed. Administrative overhead, taxes, and insurance have been
fixed at an additional 4 percent of the installed capital cost per year. The
annual cost factors used in this section are listed in Table 4.6.
Finally, the total annualized cost is obtained simply by adding the
direct operating cost to the annualized capital charges.
4.2.2 Cost of Dry Col lection
As discussed in section 4.1, three model plant types have been developed
for costing purposes: a fixed plant with crushing operations only (Model
Plant 1), another fixed plant with both crushing and grinding operations
(Model Plant 2), and a portable plant with crushing operations only (Model
Plant 3).
The size and number of fabric filter systems required to control the
particulate emissions vary according to the mineral plant capacity and configuration.
For example, only two moderately-sized baghouses are required to control the
crushing and grinding operations at the 9.1 Mg/hour (10 tons/hour) model
plant, while three much larger fabric filters are needed at the 270 Mg/hour
(300 tons/hour) model.
4-12
-------
TABLE 4.6 ANNUALIZED COST PARAMETERS'
Parameter
Value
1. Operating labor
2. Maintenance labor
3. Maintenance materials
4. Utilities:
Electric power
5. Replacement parts:
Polypropylene bags
6. Oust disposal
7. Depreciation and interest
8. Taxes, insurance, and
administrative charges
$14/man-hour
50 percent of operating labor (fabric filters)
40 man-hours/year (opacity monitors)
2 percent of maintenance labor (fabric filters)
1 percent of total installed cost (opacity
monitors)
$O.Q4/kw-hrl
$9.6Q/m2 ($0.9G/ft7T
$6,04/Mg ($5.50/ton)b
11.75 percent of total installed cost
(fabric filters)
16,28 percent of total installed cost
(opacity monitors)
4.0 percent of total installed cost
References 2, 3, 4, and EPA estimates.
bUpdated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
4-13
-------
Each of these fabric filter systems consists of a pulse-jet baghouse with
polypropylene bags, fan and fan motor, dust hopper, screw conveyor, ductwork,
and stack.
Tables 4.7 through 4.10 list installed capital, direct operating,
annualized capital, and total annualized costs for each of the fabric filter
systems installed in Model Plant 1. The four plant sizes for which costs
have been developed cover the range in capacities applicable to the various
mineral industries.
In Table 4.7 and 4.8, the first column lists the technical or cost
parameter in question. The data pertaining to the fabric filter are listed
in the second column. However, in each of Tables 4.9 and 4.10, more than one
fabric filter is needed to control the crushing operation. The data for
these fabric filters appears in the middle columns while the right-hand
column lists the totals for the model plant.
Similarly, Tables 4.11 through 4.14 contain cost data for Model Plant 2.
The costs are itemized according to the fabric filters controlling the
crusher and grinder operations, respectively. Again, the right-hand column
lists data for the total model plant. Note that the installed capital costs
and annualized capital charges for the crusher baghouse(s) are the same as in
the corresponding tables for Model Plant 1. However, because no dust disposal
costs are included with Model Plant 2, the direct operating costs, and the
total annualized costs, are lower.
In these tables, the total annualized cost has been expressed in two
ways: dollars/year and doliars/megagram of product. The latter expression
is the quotient of the total annualized cost and the annual production rate,
based, in turn, on the operating factor. As Table 4.5 indicates, crushing
operations (i.e., Model Plant 1) are assigned an operating factor of 2,000 hours/
year, while with grinding operations, 8,400 hours/year has been used. For
Model Plant 2, where both crushing and grinding operations are employed,
8,400 hours/year is used as the operating factor, solely for the purpose of
computing the unit annualized costs. For Model Plant 3, which is a
portable plant with crushing operations only, 1,250 hours/year has been
used as the operating factor.
4-14
-------
TABLE 4.7 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1: 68 Mg/hour
(75 tons/hour) CAPACITY3
Parameter Valuec
Gas flowrate, m3/m1n (ACFM) 504
(17,800)
Installed capital cost, $ 130,000
Direct operating cost, $/yr 11,550
Annualized capital charges, $/yr 20,600
Total annual!zed cost, $/yr . 32,150
$/Mg product0 0.24
Cost effectiveness, b
$/Mg particulate removed 49.8
aReferences 1, 2, 3, 5.
Quotients are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor.
cCosts are updated to July 1980 using Chemlc_aj En91 neering cost index.
4-15
-------
TABLE 4.8 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
135 Mg/hour (150 tons/hour) CAPACITYa
Parameter Value0
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM) 708
(25,000)
Installed capital cost, $ 168,000
Direct operating cost, $/yr 16,300
Annualized capital charges, $/yr 26,400
Total annualized cost, $/yr . 42,700
$/Mg product0 0.16
Cost effectiveness, .
$/Mg particulate removed 46.7
aReferences 1, 2, 3, 5.
Quotients are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor.
GCosts are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4.9 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
270 Mg/hour (300 tons/hour) CAPACITY9
Parameter
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annuali zed capital charges, $/yr
Total annuali zed cost, $/yr ^
$/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness, u
$/Mg particulate removed
Fabric filter
1,130
(40,000)
221,000
25,500
34,700
60,200
0.11
41.0
Value0
1 Fabric filter 2
226
(8,000)
69,000
5,100
10,800
15,900
0.029
54.8
Total
1,360
(48,000)
290,000
30,600
45,500
76,100
0.14
43.2
^References 1, 2, 3, 5.
Quotients are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor.
cCosts are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.10 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 1:
540 Mg/hour (600 tons/hour) CAPACITY4
03
Parameter
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual ized capital charges, $/yr
Total annual ized cost, $/yr .
$/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness, .
$/Mg particulate removed
Fabric
filter 1
255
(9,000)
74,000
5,600
11,700
17,300
0.016
52.6
Valuec
Fabric
filter 2
906
(32,000)
195,000
20,700
30,800
51,500
0.048
44.1
Fabric
filter 3
877
(31,000)
192,000
20,000
30,300
50,300
0.047
44.4
Total
2,040
(72,000)
461 ,000
46,300
72,800
119,100
0.11
45.3
References 1, 2, 3, 5.
^Quotients are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor.
'Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.11 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
9.1 Mg/hour (10 tons/hour) CAPACITY9
Parameter
Operation controlled
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual ized capital charges, $/yr
Total annual ized cost, $/yr
$/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness,
$/Mg parti cul ate removed
Fabric filter
Crushing
289
(10,200)
82,000
3,700
13,000
16,700
0.92
44.8
Valued
1 Fabric filter 2
Grinding
113
(4,000)
45,000
5,200
7,100
12,300
0.16
20.0
Totalb
—
402
(14,200)
127,000
8,900
20,100
29,000
0.38
29.4
References 1 to 3.
Numbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
Quotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients based
on 8,400 hours/year. Total quotients based on 8,400 hours/year.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemica1 Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.12 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
23 Mg/hour (25 tons/hour) CAPACITY5
I
INJ
O
Parameter
Operation controlled
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual ized capital charges, $/yr
Total annual ized cost, $/yr
$/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness,
$/Mg parti culate removed
Fabric filter
Crushing
325
(11,500)
92,000
4,200
14,400
18,600
0.41
44.3
Valued
1 Fabric filter 2
Grinding
133
(4,700)
49,000
5,600
7,800
13,400
0.07
18.6
Total b
—
458
(16,200)
141 ,000
9,800
22,200
32,000
0.16
28.0
References 1 to 3.
lumbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
"Quotients for crushing based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients based on
8,400 hours/year. Total quotients based on 8,400 hours/year.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.13 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
135 Mg/hour (150 tons/hour) CAPACITY3
.£»
ro
Valued
Parameter
Operation controlled
Gas flowrate, m3/m\n (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual i zed capital charges, $/yr
Total annual i zed cost, $/yr
$/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness,
$/Mg parti cul ate removed
Fabric filter 1
Crushing
708
(25,000)
168,000
9,700
26,400
36,100
0.13
39.5
Fabric filter 2
Grinding
320
(11,300)
89,000
10,700
14,100
24,800
0.02
14.3
Total b
—
1,028
(36,300)
257,000
20,400
40,500
60,900
0.05
23.0
References 1 to 3.
^Numbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations,
**
"Quotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year, operating factor; grinding quotients based
on 8,400 hours/year. Total quotients based on 8,400 hours/year.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemica 1 Engjne_ering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.14 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 2:
270 Mg/hour (300 tons/hour) CAPACITY3
rss
ro
Parameter
Operation controlled
Gas flowrate, m3/min (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual i zed capital charges, $/yr
Total annualized cost, $/yr
S/Mg product
Cost-effectiveness,
$/Mg parti cul ate removed
Fabric
filter 1
Crushing
1,130
(40,000)
221,000
15,000
34,700
49,700
0.09
34.0
Valued
Fabric
filter 2
Crushing
226
(8,000)
69,000
3,000
10,800
13,800
0.03
47.3
Fabric
filter 3
Grinding
640
(22,600)
155,000
23,900
24,400
48,300
0.02
13.9
Total b
—
1,996
(70,600)
445,000
41,900
69,900
111,800
0.05
21.4
References 1 to 3.
'Numbers in the right-hand column pertain to combined crushing and grinding operations.
"Quotients for crushing are based on 2,000 hours/year operating factor; grinding quotients based on
8,400 hours/year. Total quotients based on 8,400 hours/year.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
Table 4.15 contains cost data for Model Plant 3. The costs are itemized
according to the type of option used for control. Option I represents the
cost of controlling emissions with one baghouse. Option II represents the
cost of controlling emissions from the primary crusher, the secondary crusher,
and the final screen with a separate baghouse for each piece of equipment.
Each cost-effectiveness ratio appearing in the tables is simply the
quotient of the total annual! zed cost and amount of particulate collected
annually by the fabric filter system. To compute the particulate collected,
the 2,000 and 8,400 hours/year operating factors are applied, respectively, to
the individual crushing and grinding operations. However, for combined
crushing and grinding operations, the following expression has been used to
calculate cost-effectiveness:
r * « *• r
Cost-effectiveness = C
_
7.65 x 10~7 (2000Q + 8400Qr)
($/Mg particulate
removed)
Where: TACr, TAC^ = total annual i zed costs for crushing and
grinding baghouses, respectively (M$/year)
Q Q = total volumetric flowrates for crushing and
grinding baghouses,' respectively (m3/min)
The numerator is the sum of the annual i zed costs for the crushing and
grinding operations, while the denominator represents the total amount of
particulate removed by the fabric filters controlling these operations.
As the tables indicate, the installed costs in the crushing (only) model
plant (Model Plant 1) range from $130,000 to $461,000, as the plant capacity
goes from 68 Mg/hour to 540 Mg/hour. However, given the eight-fold increase
in the plant capacity, the installed costs increase relatively little. This
is because the fabric filter installed costs are a function of the volumetric
flowrate, not the plant capacity. Moreover, the volumetric flowrate, while
dependent on the capacity, does not increase proportionately with the plant
size.
Based on a 2,000 hour operating year, the total annualized cost increases
from $32,150 to $119,100 per year, corresponding to $0.23 to $0.11/Mg product,
as the plant capacity goes from 68 to 540 Mg/hour. Ordinarily, one would
4-23
-------
TABLE 4.15 FABRIC FILTER COSTS FOR PLANT TYPE 3:
135 Mg/hour (150 tons/hour) CAPACITY
Parameter
Gas flowrate, mVmin (ACFM)
Installed capital cost, S
Direct operating cost, $/yr
Annual ized capital charges, $/yr
Total annual ized cost, $/yr,
$/Mg product
-p»
^ Cost-effectiveness,
-» S/Mg particulate removed
Option Id
481
(17,000)
114,000
17,300
28,100
45,400
0.27
116.8
Valuec
Option IIa
481
(17,000)
130,000
18,800
31,800
50,600
0,30
130,1
aln Option I, all sources are ducted to one baghouse. In Option II, each crusher and the final
screen have their own baqhouse.
Quotients are based on 1,250 hours/year operating factor.
GCosts are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
expect a more substantial increase in the total annualized cost over such a
large range in plant capacities. However, as Tables 4.7 through 4.10 show,
the annual!zed capital charges comprise the bulk of the total annualized
costs. And since the annualized capital charges are directly proportional to
the installed costs, the total annualized cost very nearly follows the change
in the capital cost.
There are several reasons why the direct operating costs are so low.
First, because the gas streams controlled are non-corrosive and low-temperature,
the fabric filter maintenance is less than one percent of the installed
cost annually. Then, because there is a relatively small pressure drop
through the baghouse system, the power cost is relatively low. Costs
for replacement parts such as bags are proportional to the gas flowrate,
but at the same time amount to a small fraction of the direct operating
costs.
A similar pattern appears with the costs for Model Plant 2, which contains
both crushing and grinding operations. The costs here are about the same
order of magnitude as are those for Model Plant 1. The main difference is
the additional baghouse required to control the grinder and its auxiliaries.
Here the installed costs range from $127,000 to $445,000, while the annualized
costs go from $29,000 to $111,800 per year ($0.38 to $O.Q5/Mg product, respectively),
4.2,3 Cost of Met Dust Suppression System
In a wet dust suppression system, dust emissions are controlled by applying
moisture to the crushed material at critical dust-producing points in the
process flow. This causes dust particles to adhere to large stone surfaces or
to form agglomerates too heavy to become or to remain airborne. A detailed
discussion of wet dust suppression systems can be found in Section 3.2,1.
Costs for control of process emissions using wet dust suppression control
systems are presented in this section for fixed plants with crushing operations
only (Model Plant 1) and a portable plant with crushing operations only {Model
Plant 3). Costs are shown for Model Plant 1 sizes of 68, 135, 270, and 540 Mg/
hour (75, 150, 300, and 600 tons/hour, respectively), and the Model Plant 3
size of 135 Mg/hour (150 tons/hour).
4-25
-------
The capital costs for wet dust suppression control systems in crushing
plants are presented in Table 4.16. The costs range from a total capital cost
of $37,620 for a 68 Mg/hour (75 tons/hour) fixed crushing plant to $81,975 for
a 540 Mg/hour (600 tons/hour) fixed crushing plant.
The total cost for installing a wet dust suppression control system is
the sum of the total capital cost (direct cost), total indirect cost, and
contingency cost. The total installed cost is shown in Table 4.17. The
components of total indirect cost are listed in Table 4.18. The total installed
cost ranges from $60,945 for a 68 Mg/hour (75 ton/hour) fixed crushing plant
to $132,800 for a 540 Mg/hour (600 ton/hr) fixed crushing plant.
The total annualized costs for installing and operating a wet dust
suppression control system are presented in Table 4.19. The total annualized
cost consists of annual capital costs, cost of surfactant used, utilities,
cost of water, and annualized operating and maintenance costs. Total annualized
.costs range from $13,098 for a 68 Mg/hour (75 ton/hour) fixed crushing plant
to $29,728 for a 540 Mg/hour (600 ton/hour) fixed crushing plant.
The cost of control per megagram of product can be calculated. Assuming
an operation time of 2000 hours/year, the cost per megagram of product ranges
from $0.10/Mg for a 68 Mg/hour (75 ton/hour) plant to $0.03/Mg for a 540 Mg/hour
(600 Ton/hour) plant.
4.2.4 Cost of Combination Systems
Wet dust-suppression and dry collection techniques are often used in
combination to control particulate emissions from non-metallic mineral facilities.
Wet dust-suppression techniques are generally used to control emissions at
the primary crushing stage and at subsequent screens, transfer points, and
crusher feeds. Dry collection is generally used to control emissions at
secondary and tertiary crusher discharges, where new dry mineral surfaces and
fine particles are formed. A large portion of the fine particulate is removed
by dry collection, but subsequent dust-suppression applications become more
effective with a minimum of added moisture. Depending on production requirements,
dry collection may be the only method that can be used at the finishing
screens.
4-26
-------
TABLE 4.16 CAPITAL COST FOR WET DUST SUPPRESSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
AT CRUSHING PLANTSd
t
ro
Fixed crushing plants
Item
Equipment cost
Cost of piping and
auxiliary equipment
Installation cost
Structural support cost0
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
68 Mg/hour
(75 TPH)
15,970
18,100
3,200
350
37,620
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
19,700
21,300
3,830
465
45,295
270 Mg/hour
(300 TPH)
26,100
26,100
4,470
625
57,295
540 Mg/hour
(600 TPH)
36,200
39,925
5,110
740
81,975
Portable plant
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
19,700
21,300
3,830
465
45,295
Includes piping, insulation, and electrical work.
Based on a wage rate of $12.00/hour ($9.00/hour for labor plus $3.00/hour for fringe benefits).
cBased on a cost of $0.70/lb of structural support.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.17 CAPITAL AND INDIRECT COSTS FOR WET DUST SUPPRESSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
AT CRUSHING PLANTS^
Fixed crushing plants
Item
Total capital cost9
Total indirect cost
Contingency cost0
TOTAL INSTALLED COST
68 Mg/hour
(75 TPH)
37,620
13,165
10,160
60,945
135 Mg/hour
{150 TPH)
45,295
15,855
12,230
73,380
270 Mg/hour
(300 TPH)
57,295
20,055
15,470
92,820
540 Mg/hour
(600 TPH)
81,975
28,690
22,135
132,800
Portable plant
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
45,295
15,855
12,230
73,380
ro
03
Total direct cost.
Equals 35 percent of total capital cost. See Table 4.18 for breakdown of cost components,
Equals 20 percent of capital and indirect costs.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Enc[jneering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.18 BREAKDOWN OF INDIRECT COST FACTOR
Component Value
Contractor fee 1581 of capital costs
Engineering 10* of capital costs
Freight 2% of capital costs
Taxes 2% of capital costs
Spares 1* of capital costs
Allowance for shakedown 5% of capital costs
TOTAL, Indirect costs 35% of capital costs
4-29
-------
TABLE 4.19 TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST FOR WET DUST SUPPRESSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
FOR CRUSHING PLANTS
CO
o
Item
Annuali zed capital costs3 ($)
Cost of surfactant used {$)
Utilities ($}
Water costsc ($)
Annual i zed operating and
maintenance cost" ($)
TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST ($)
68 Mg/hour
(75 TPH)
9,595
147
128
28
3,200
13,098
Fixed crushing
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
11,555
287
192
55
4,470
16,559
plant costs
270 Mg/hour
(300 TPH)
14,610
575
255
128
5,750
21,318
540 Mg/hour
(600 TPH)
20,915
1,150
383
255
7,025
29,728
Portable
plant costs
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
11,555
185
120
37
4,470
16,367
From total cost item in Table 4.17. Based on a capital recovery factor of 15.75 percent, which includes
4 percent for administration costs, 10 year life, and 10 percent interest rate.
Based on a surfactant price of $6.40/gallon.
€Based on IGCI cost data which has been updated to July 1980.
Based on a wage rate of $12/hour ($9/hour for labor plus $3/hour for fringe benefits).
-------
TABLE 1.20 TOTAL INSTALLED AND ANNUALIZED COST FOR COHB1KATION CONTROL SYSTEMS'
Fixed crushing plant costs
68 Hg/hour 135 Hg/hour
(75 TPH) (150 TPH)
Fabric Filter8
Gas flowrate, m'/min
(ACFM)
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, $
Anmialiied capital charges, $
Total annual ired cost, $/yr
Met Oust Suppression
Installed capital cost, $
Direct operating cost, J
^ Annual 1zed capital charges, $
"^ Total annual Ized cost, $/yr
TOTAL INSTALLED CAPITAL COST, $
TOTAL ANHUAL1ZEO COST, $
133
(4,700)
49,000
5,600
7,800
13,400
54 ,800
3,200
8,600
11,800 '
103,800
25,200
225
(9,000)
74,000
5,600
11,700
17,300
66,000
4,500
10,400
14,900
140,000
32,200
•aAssume one fabric filter (baghouse) of given capacity, operating 2,000 hours per year.
All wet dust suppression costs are assumed to be 90 percent of the cost of wet suppression
cCosU are undated to July 1980 using Chemical
Engineering cost index.
270 Hg/hour
(300 TPH)
504
(17,800)
130,000
11,500
20,600
32,100
83,500
6,000
13,100
19,100
213,500
51,200
alone.
540 Mg/h&ur
(600 TPH)
708
(25,000)
168,000
16,300
26,400
42,700
119,500
7,900
18.800
26,700
287,500
69,400
Portable plant costs
135 Mg/hour
(150 TPH)
225
(9,000)
74,000
5,600
11,700
17,300
66,000
4,300
10,400
14,700
140,000
32,000
-------
Published truck speed data are not available, but the industry estimates
that the speed ranges from 16 to 32 km/hr (10 to 20 mph).6 If this speed were
reduced from an average of 24 km/hr (15 mph) to an average of 16 km/hr (10 mph},
this would result in an estimated emission reduction of 33 percent. For model
plant sizes of 135 Mg/hr (150 tons/hour) or less, no additional vehicles
would be required as the result of speed reduction. The 270 Mg/hr (300 ton/hour)
plant would require one additional 31.8 Mg (35 ton) truck and the 540 Mg/hour
(600 ton/hour) plant would require two additional trucks to maintain production.
The estimated costs for controlling emissions by speed reduction are
presented in Table 4,21. The unit cost data for controlling dust emissions
from plant roads is presented in Table 4.22.
The estimated costs for controlling emissions by paving, vacuuming,
oiling, and watering are also presented in Table 4.21. These costs depend on
the extent of plant roads, which usually do not vary significantly with plant
capacity. Therefore, the cost for these methods will be the same for all
sizes of plants. Also, the cost per ton of capacity will be higher for
smaller plants. The length of unpaved roads in a typical plant is estimated
to be 1.64 kilometer (1 mile). Table 4.23 presents a breakdown of the annual
cost of watering. The costs are based on a watering frequency of four to
five times a day.
4.3.4 Conveyors
Emissions from conveyor transfer points are considered to be process
emissions, whereas those due to wind are regarded as fugitive. The latter
can be controlled or suppressed by installing covers over the conveyors or
installing water sprayers along their length. If the material being conveyed
is sprayed at the conveyor inlet (which may be a crusher/screen outlet or
transfer point), the suppression effect is usually carried over. Hence,
installation of additional sprayers may only marginally increase the suppression
efficiency. For this reason, costs of installing sprayers are not estimated
here. Costs of retrofitting covers on existing conveyors may range from $157
to $316 per meter ($47 to $95 per foot) of conveyor length, depending on the
amount of work required and the type of covering. ' The lower figure
4-33
-------
TABLE 4.21 CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR CONTROLLING
FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS FROM HAUL ROADSb
Item
Capital Investment, $
Paving
Vacuuming
Oiling
Watering
Speed reduction
Annual Costs, $
Paving
Vacuuming
Oiling
Watering
Speed reduction
Annual Costs, $/Mg
Paving
Vacuuming
Oiling
Watering
Speed reduction
9.1 Hg/hr
(10 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
--
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
—
0.75
1.03
2.70
2.25
""" """
23 Mg/hr
(25 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
--
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
_-
0.30
0.41
1.08
0.90
•"" "•"
Plant
68 Mg/hr
(75 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
—
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
—
0.10
0.14
0.36
0.30
** «*
size
135 Mg/hr
(150 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
--
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
--
0.05
0.07
0.18
0.15
„ _
270 Mg/hr
(300 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
202,000
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
118,000
0.03
0.03
0.09
0.07
0.26
540 Mg/hr
(600 TPH)
37,700
29,600
40,500
18,900
404,000
11,300
15,400
40,500
34,130
235,800
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.04
0.26
Based on one 31.8 Mg (35 ton) truck for the 270 Mg/hr (300 TPH) plant and two trucks for the
540 Mg/hr (600 TPH) plant.
3Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.22 UNIT COSTS FOR CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
FROM HAUL ROADSh
I
CD
cn
Control
measure
Paving
Vacuuming
Oiling
Watering
Speed .
reduction
Capital cost
Unit
1.7 km, 3.65 m wide
(I mile, 12 ft wide)
One sweeper
1,7 kg, 365 m wide
(1 mile, 12 ft wide)
Truck equipped with
a 1.1 kl (3,000 gal)
tank
One 31.8 Mg (35 ton)
truck
$/unit
37,700b
29,600b
6,700b
16,000 -
22,OQQd
202,000
Annual
cost, $/yra
11,300
15,400C
40,400
34,130e
118,000g
Comment
Repave every 5 years
Vacuuming twice a week
Reoil every month
Watering the roads four
to five times a day
Estimated truck life of
five years
aThe cost of capital (interest) assumed at 10 percent.
From Reference 8,
cAssumed vacuum life of 5 years; maintenance at 3 percent of capital cost; labor at 8 hours per week,
$9.25 per hour including overhead.
From References 9 and 10.
eSee Table 4.23.
Estimated.
^Includes wages of truck driver at $12 per hour, including overhead.
Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemica1 Engineering cost index.
-------
TABLE 4.23 ANNUAL COST OF WATERING ROADWAYS
Cost item
Quantity
Unit cost
Fixedcharges
Capital recovery
Insurance and taxes
26.4 percent of initial tank-truck cost
2 percent of initial tank-truck cost
Cost/year
Operating costs
Water
Fuel
Labor
Maintenance
136 mVday
(36,000 gal/day)
9.5 liters/day
(2.5 gal/day)
2,000 hours
5 percent of initial
$0,085/m3
($0.34/1000 gal)
$0.13/liter
($1.20/gal)
$12.QQ/man houra
tank-truck cost
$ 3,060
750
24,000
950
4,990
380
Total annual cost $34,130
Includes supervision @ 15 percent, payroll overhead @ 20 percent, and plant
overhead @ 50 percent of direct labor.
Engineering estimate.
Based on 5-year truck life and 10 percent interest.
dCosts are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
4-36
-------
applies to a "weather-tight" system which protects the conveyed material
from direct winds and precipitation. A "dust-tight" system, which is
usually vented to a bag filter, costs twice as much. Total conveyor
lengths for non-metallic mineral plants vary significantly, ranging from
a hundred to several hundred meters (yards). Because maintenance costs
of conveyor covers are minimal, the annual cost will depend mainly on
the remaining plant life and the cost of capital (interest).
4.3.5 Storage"Piles
Fugitive emissions from storage piles are due to load-in, wind
erosion, and load-out.
Materials at non-metallic mineral plants are usually taken to
storage piles via a conveyor system. Emissions result mainly from the
free fall of material onto the pile. As discussed in Chapter 3, control
measures include wet dust suppression, telescopic chutes, stone ladders,
and movable stacking conveyors. Enclosures or silos are very good for
controlling load-in and windblown emissions. However, they are not
considered economically practical control measures. Table 4.24 presents
capital investment costs of stone ladders, telescoping chutes, movable
stackers, and enclosures. Because this equipment requires very little
maintenance, the annual cost will depend mainly on the remaining plant
life and the cost of capital (interest).
Spraying storage piles with water effectively reduces fugitive
emissions from wind erosion, and the addition of dust-suppressant chemicals
to the spray increases control efficiency. The truck that waters plant
roads can be equipped with a hose for spraying storage piles. Alternatively,
an elevated sprinkler system may be used to spray the stock piles. The
cost of elevated sprinkler systems ranges from a few thousand dollars to
$27,000, depending on the plant. If the sprinkler pump could be accommodated
in an existing pump house, for example, this would save the cost of a
new pump house. Application costs for spraying storage piles with a
wetting agent are estimated to range from $0.01 to $0.07*5»16 per ^g
($0.01 to $0.06 per ton) of product stockpiled, depending on the type of
chemical used, the number of storage piles, and the frequency of spraying.
The latter depends on climate and operational activities around the
pile.
4-37
-------
TABLE 4.24 CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR REDUCING FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS
FROM STORAGE PILES
Fj xed capi tal 1nvestmentc
Control measure Unit$Tunit
Stone ladder 9.1 m (30 ft) pile 27,000a
Telescoping chutes Chute 35,000 - 57,000b
Moveable stacker 0.91 Mg {1.0 ton) per hour 950a
throughput
Enclosures 0.76 m3 (1.0 yd3) 110 - 270b
Reference 8.
Reference 13.
€Costs are updated to July 1980 using Chemical Engineering cost index.
4-38
-------
8. , Fugitive Emissions Control Technology for Iron and Steel Plants (Draft).
Prepared by Midwest Research Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
under Contract No. 68-02-2120. January 1977. p. 29.
9. Private communication between B. Livingston of PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, and R. McCrate of Reilly-Dven Co., Cincinnati, Ohio.
May 13, 1977.
10. Private communication between B. Livingston of PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, and International Trucks, Cincinnati, Ohio. May 18, 1977.
11. Ref. 8. p. 33.
12. Private communication between A. Kothari of PEDCo Environmental, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio, and W, Van Eaton of Armco Steel Corp., Metal Products
Div., Cincinnati, Ohio. May 1977.
13. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-77-010, March 1977. pp. 2-39 and 2-40.
14. Automated Stockpile Sprinkling System. National Crushed-Stone Association,
1415 Elliot Place, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20007.
15. Ref. 8. p. 36.
16. Ref. 13. p. 2-40.
4-40
-------
TABLE 5.1 ACHIEVABLE EMISSION REDUCTIONS USING DRY COLLECTION
Model
plant
type
1
2
3
Plant size
Mg/h (tons/h)
68 (75)
135 (150)
270 (300)
540 (600)
9.1 (10)
23 (25)
135 (150)
270 (300)
135 (150)
Ventilation
size
mT/s (scfm)
8,35 (17,700)
11.8 (24,900)
22.7 (48,100)
34,0 (72,000)
6.7 (14,200)
7.65 (16,200)
17.1 (36,200)
33.4 (70,700)
8.02 (17,000)
Emissions
Inlet
kg/h (Ib/h)
323 (712)
457 (1,007)
880 (1,940)
1,315 (2,895)
260 (570)
295 (650)
663 (1,460)
1,290 (2,845)
310 (685)
Outlet
kg/h (Ib/h)
1.50 (3.31)
2.12 (4.68)
4.09 (9.01)
6.12 (13.5)
1.21 (2.66)
1.38 (3.04)
3.08 (6.79)
6.01 (13.3)
1.44 (3.18)
Emission
reduction
%
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
tn
I
Note: Inlet emission rates are based on an inlet loading of 10.8 grams per dry standard cubic meter.
This inlet value is the average of emission measurements conducted by EPA on baghouse inlets.
These inlet measurements are reported in Table 3.4 and were measured by EPA Methods 5 or 17.
-------
emissions presented are based on an inlet loading of 10.8 grams per dry
standard cubic meter (4,7 grains per dry standard cubic foot) and the
gas volumes for the model plants. As indicated by the performance data
presented in Chapter 3, the use of fabric filters to collect participate
emissions at non-metallic plants can achieve an outlet concentration of
0.046 g/dscm (0.02 gr/dscf). If adequate hooding and ventilation are
also applied, essentially complete capture is assured. As shown in
Table 5-1, inlet emissions range from 259 to 1,315 kg/h (571 to 2,896
Ib/h). The application of dry collection systems would reduce these
emissions to about 1.21 to 6.12 kg/h (2.66 to 13.5 Ib/h). This is an
emission reduction of 99.5 percent from inlet emission levels.
5.2 WATER POLLUTION IMPACT
The utilization of dry collection techniques (particulate capture
combined with a dry emission control device) for control generates no water
effluent discharge. In cases where wet dust suppression techniques are used,
the water adheres to the material processed until it evaporates. No data
are available concerning the impact of dust suppressants applied to roadways
on water quality. Considering the amount of suppressants required, however,
the use of suppressants should not cause any problem. Therefore, the
application of air pollution control technology to the non-metallic mineral
industry should have little impact on water quality.
5.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IMPACT
The method of disposition of quarry, plant, and dust collector solid
waste materials depends upon State and local government regulations and
corporate policies. When baghouses are used, about 0.5 Mg (0.6 tons)
of solid waste are collected for every 227 Mg (250 tons) of mineral
2
processed. In many cases this material can be recycled back into the
process, sold, or used for a variety of other purposes.
Where no market exists for the collected fines, they are typically
disposed of in the mine or in an isolated location in the quarry. A plant
producing 540 Mg/h (600 tons/h) and using dry collection for control would
generate about 11 Mg (12 tons) of waste over an 8-hour period, which is less
than 0.3 percent of the plant throughput. Generally, the collected fines are
5-3
-------
3
discharged to a haul truck and transported to the quarry for disposal.
No subsequent air pollution problems should develop, provided the waste
pile is controlled by one of the methods discussed in Chapter 3.
Thus, the solid waste generated by the application of dry collection
methods in the non-metallic mineral industry can usually be disposed of
without any adverse impact on the environment. However, some processing
plants can experience problems in handling and disposing of the waste.
When wet dust suppression is used, no solid waste disposal problem
results over that resulting from normal operation.
5.4 ENERGY IMPACT
Application of the alternative control techniques for non-metallic
mineral processing facilities will necessarily result in an increase in
energy consumption over that required to operate a plant without air pollution
controls. Table 5.2 presents estimates of the energy requirements for the
three model plant types, both with and without controls. As in the previous
analyses, the alternative control techniques evaluated include dry collection,
wet dust suppression, and the combination of dry and wet controls.
It is expected that the application of dry collection controls
would result in the highest increase in energy usage of the three alternative
control techniques evaluated. Both the wet dust suppression technique
and the combination system of wet and dry controls have been shown to
use less energy than fabric filters alone for the case of the 540 Mg/h
{600 tons/h) fixed crushing plant. For this reason, only the energy
requirements for the fabric filter technique are reported in Table 5.2.
As indicated in Table 5-2, the energy required to operate a 540 Mg/h
plant of type 1 without controls is about 1038 kW (1392 hp). The application
of dry controls at this plant would require 194 kW (260 hp) of additional
energy to operate the fans, air compressors, and screw conveyors associated
with its application. This represents a 19 percent increase in energy
consumption over that required to operate the uncontrolled plant. In
contrast, the energy requirement associated with the application of wet dust
suppression systems is negligible. For the 540 Mg/h plant, the application
of wet dust suppression control would require only 3.8 kW (5 hp) of additional
5-4
-------
TABLE 5.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR MODEL NON-METALLIC MINERAL PLANTS'
Model
plant
type
1
2
3
Plant
Mg/hr
68
135
270
540
9.1
23
135
270
135
size
(tons/h)
(75)
(150)
{300}
(600)
(10)
(25)
(150)
(300)
(150)
Uncontrol
kw
312
391
630
1,038
214
353
1,584
3,016
391
led
(hp)
(418)
(524)
(845)
(1,392)
(287)
(473)
(2,124)
(4,045)
(524)
Dry col
(fabric
kw
356
450
737
1,232
244
387
1,666
3,170
450
lection
filter)
(hpi
(478)
(604)
(989)
(1,652)
(327)
(519)
(2,234)
(4,252)
(604)
Percent
increase
14
15
17
19
14
10
5
5
15
I
en
Reference 1.
-------
3
energy, or less than a 0.4 percent increase In energy consumption. If
a combination of both wet and dry controls were applied to this model
plant, the additional energy requirement would be 75 kW (100 hp), or
about 7 percent.
5.5 IMPACT ON NOISE
Allowable noise levels and employee exposure times are specified by the
Mine Safety and Health Administration in Parts 55 and 56 of the August 7, 1974,
Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 153. These limits require that potential
noise problems be assessed and sound-dampening equipment be installed as
required. No noise data were developed during this study; however,
compared with the noise emanating from non-metallic mineral process
equipment, any additional noise from control system exhaust fans is
likely to be insignificant. Thus, no significant noise impact is anticipated
as a result of the use of best demonstrated control technology at non-metallic
mineral plants.
5-6
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 5
1. Development Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards of Performance - Mineral Mining and Processing Industry -
Volume I (Minerals for the Construction Industry). Prepared by Versar,
Incorporated, for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. EPA 440/1-75-/059. January 1975. p. V-3.
2, Source Testing Report - Essex Bituminous Concrete Corporation, Dracut,
Massachusetts. Prepared by Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, Westchester,
Pennsylvania, for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Report
No. 75 STN-2. December 27, 1974.
3. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement - An Investigation
of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for Quarrying and Plant Process
Facilities in the Crushed- and Broken-Stone Industry. Draft Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. August 1975.
5-7
-------
6.0 COMPLIANCE TEST METHODS AND MONITORING TECHNIQUES
6.1 EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
EPA relies primarily on Methods 5 and 9 for participate matter measurements
and visible emission observations (opacity) on stacks. In addition, as the
participate concentrations are expected to be independent of temperature for
this industry, Method 17 (in-stack filtration) is an acceptable particulate
sampling method. These are established reference or compliance methods and
were used by EPA in obtaining the emissions data presented in Appendix A on
fabric filter collectors used in the non-metallic mineral industry.
For fugitive emissions which are impractical to quantify, EPA has relied
historically on visual methods, specifically on Method 9, to limit the opacity
of visible emissions and force the application of controls. In this study, a
new method in addition to Method 9 was used, Method 22, This method was
specifically developed by EPA for the visual determination of fugitive emissions
from material processing sources. Rather than assess the opacity of a visible
emission, Method 22 determines the frequency at which a visible emission
occurs during an observation period. A standard can thus be established which
limits the percent of time during which visible emissions from a fugitive
emissions source would be allowed. Both methods were used in assessing the
effectiveness of local exhaust hoods and wet dust suppression systems in
reducing or preventing fugitive emissions from non-metallic mineral process
facilities. Method 22 appears to be more applicable to intermittent sources
of fugitive emissions while Method 9 is more applicable to continuous fugitive
emission sources. In the case of fugitive dust sources which are typically
large in area, EPA has no established procedures for either quantifying
emissions from these sources or for assessing the visibility of emissions from
these sources.
During the test program on fabric filter collectors, it was necessary to
consider the potential problems associated with low levels of controlled
emissions from the sources. Data from an EPA report indicate that particulate
6-1
-------
catches of about 50 mg are adequate to insure an error of no more than 10 percent.
Sampling trains with higher sampling rates, which are allowed by Method 5 and
are commercially available, can be used to reduce the total sampling time and
costs. Sampling costs of a test consisting of three particulate runs (the
number normally specified by performance test regulations) is estimated to
be about $5000 to $9000. This estimate is based on sampling site modifications
such as ports, scaffolding, ladders, platforms all costing less than $2000
and testing being conducted by contractors.
Because the outlet gas stream from the control devices used in this
industry is generally well contained, no special sampling problems are anticipated.
Procedures for monitoring the process are discussed in Chapter 7.
6.2 MONITORING SYSTEMS AND DEVICES
The effluent streams from sources within the non-metallic mineral industry
are essentially at ambient conditions. Therefore, the visible-emission-monitoring
instruments proven adequate for power plants are also applicable for this
industry. These instruments are covered by EPA performance standards contained
in Appendix B of 40 CFR Part 60.
Equipment and installation costs are estimated to $20,000, and annual
operating costs including data recording and reduction, $8000 to $9000 for
2
each stack.
6-2
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 6
1. Mitchell, W.J. Additional Studies on Obtaining Replicate Participate
Samples from Stationary Sources. Unpublished report. Emission
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., November 1973.
2. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement - An Investigation
of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for Quarrying and Plant Process
Facilities in the Crushed- and Broken-Stone Industry. Draft Report,- U.S,
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
August 1975.
6-3
-------
7.0 ENFORCEMENT ASPECTS
When formulating an air pollution control regulation, one must consider
the aspects of enforcing that regulation. A regulation may be set for a
specific operation, a combination of operations, or the entire processing
or manufacturing facility. From a compliance evaluation standpoint, it is
desirable to have separate standards for each affected operation in the
industry. In practice, however, it often may be difficult to do so. This
section identifies alternative air pollution control regulations and discusses
enforcement aspects of these regulations.
7.1 PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
The non-metallic mineral industry is characterized by a number of
separate processing operations and emission sources, a variety of equipment
types and configurations, and feed rates and composition variations. Some
of the particulate emission sources such as quarrying, dumping, and storage
are open sources. Other operations such as conveying and loading are
frequently only partially enclosed, while crushing and screening can be more
completely enclosed. In addition, the moisture content of the material has
a great effect on the particulate emissions. Process feed rates are not
generally measured and some of the individual processes may operate on a
very intermittent basis.
Process parameters that should be monitored to ensure that facilities
are operated normally during enforcement tests or inspections include: the
process throughput rate, the moisture content of the feed material and the
approximate size distribution of the raw material and product. As previously
mentioned non-metallic mineral plants normally are not equipped with devices
for measuring process weight rates. Based on normal screen pass-through and
recycle rates, however, the amount of material entering a processing unit can
be estimated. Guidelines are available for making such estimates. An
7-1
-------
analysis of the moisture content of the material processed is very important
to ensure that dust control at the time of the test is effected by the
control system and not the result of unusually high moisture levels that are
not normal for the plant. When the addition of moisture is part of the
control system (e.g., wet dust suppression), a record should be made of the
amount of added moisture required to effectively control emissions under the
worst operating and climatic conditions. Moisture would have to be determined
by taking samples of the feed streams for subsequent analysis.
7.2 FORMATS
Air pollution regulations for this industry can be expressed in terms
of 1) quantitative particulate emission limits in terms of concentration,
mass rate, or process-weight type units, 2) limits on visible emissions,
3) ambient air concentrations at the plant property line^ 4} equipment
standards that include specifications on process and/or control equipment,
operating conditions»and monitoring requirements, and 5} compatible combinations
of such measures.
7.2.1 Enforcement of Quantitative Emission Limjts
Quantitative emission limits in the form of measured concentrations or
limits on the emission rate per unit of time or throughput could be applied
to plant process facilities (crushers, grinders, screens, conveyor transfer
points, etc.) where emissions are captured by hoods or enclosures and vented
to a control device for collection. Determination of particulate emissions
or concentrations where control devices are used requires a source test on
the exhaust of each control device. This involves utilization of available
test methods (EPA Methods 1, 2, 4, 5), an experienced 2 to 3 person test crew
and equipment, and an expenditure on the order of $5,000 to $9,000 per sampling
location for a series of three runs. At times, a stack may have to be modified
to provide a suitable sampling site. The cost per sampling location will
decrease when more than one is tested at a plant. Due to the low particulate
concentration expected at the outlet of a fabric filter system, the sampling
time may have to be extended to insure adequate sample. Results from source
tests provide accurate data on particulate concentration and emission rates.
7-2
-------
As mentioned previously, non-metallic mineral plants normally are not
equipped with devices for measuring process-weight rates. Consequently,
process-weight type standards in which emissions are related to throughput
may be difficult to enforce unless the plants are required to install
process-weight rate monitors. In addition, in some instances more than one
process may be vented to a common control device and only the total emissions
from the connected processes can be determined.
No special problems exist with the enforcement of concentration or
pollutant mass rate limits. It should be noted, however, that these limits
are applicable to the control device only. As a result, other provisions
(e.g., visible emission limits) will be needed to assure that capture systems
are properly designed and maintained.
7.2.2 En for cemen_t of _Visib 1 e Emis s i on Limits
Visible emission limits are especially useful for limiting fugitive
emissions from plant process facilities. Indeed, visible emission limits and
equipment standards offer the only viable alternatives for limiting emissions
from process facilities controlled by suppression techniques or for ensuring
the effective capture of emissions at process facilities controlled by local
ventilation. In addition, when used in conjunction with a quantitative
emission limit on a control device, opacity limits can be used to ensure that
the control device is properly operated and maintained.
The enforcement of visible emission limits is both feasible and
inexpensive. Determinations can be made with a minimum of resources and
require no special equipment. For opacity determinations using Method 9,
only a single trained and certified observer is needed. In the case of
Method 22, which assesses the frequency of visible emissions from a source,
no special training or certification is required and the equipment needs are
limited to an accumulative type stop watch. The only constraint on these
methods is that readings cannot usually be made at night, indoors under poor
lighting conditions, or during periods of very inclement weather.
7-3
-------
2
7.2.3 Enforcement of EquipmentStandards
Equipment standards relating to the design and installation of both
equipment and control devices are feasible alternatives for limiting emissions
from some of the non-metallic mineral industry processes. For example, the
enclosure of conveyor belts, the hooding of screens and crushers and venting
through a fabric filter system, or the utilization of water spray systems
have been found helpful in reducing emissions. This format for regulation
is not quantitative but does insure that emissions will be minimized
through proper selection and utilization of equipment. Due to the
variations in non-metallic mineral plants, an overall generic-type
equipment standard may not be suitable and therefore, should be tailored
to a particular plant. Such a regulation can be used in conjunction
with both quantitative and visible emission limitations. Enforcement of
equipment standards is accomplished through plant inspections and
observation by an experienced and trained person. An inspection can be
completed in one day by a one or two person team.
Proper operation and maintenance of specified equipment is also
required to minimize emissions. Frequent plant inspections and review of
maintenance records are required to ensure proper operation.
7.2.4 Enforcementof Fence-11neStandards
Ambient air particulate measurements made at a plant's boundary can be
used as an enforcement tool to help assess a plant's overall impact on
particulate concentration. The feasiblity of such an enforcement method is
dependent on the plant configuration, the operating schedule, and on other
particulate emission sources in the area. A number of samplers up and
down-wind of the property will be required, and these must be operated by
trained personnel. Standard procedures which must be carefully followed
and documented include:
(a) Location of sampling station(s),
(b) Records of meteorological conditions,
(c) Use of recommended sampling equipment,
(d) Careful determination of gas flow rate and sample time,
(e) Noting of any unusual conditions which may affect sample,
(f) Proper handling of the collected sample and recording on container
and filter numbers.
7-4
-------
The presence of other particulate sources in the area, especially fugitive
sources such as dirt roads or construction activities, will also influence the
usefulness of any measurements along a plant boundary. Wind speed and variability
will also affect the usefulness of the results. An electrical supply is required
to operate the samplers and this may present a problem at remote locations
unless a portable electric generator is available.
7-5
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 7
1. Pit and Quarry Handbook and Buyers Guide, 68th Edition. Pit and Quarry
Publications, Inc. 1975-1976. p. A9-12.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Participate
Emissions. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, N.C. Publication no. EPA-450/3-77-01Q. March 1977.
7-6
-------
8.0 REGULATORY OPTIONS
Available regulatory options for the control of particulate emissions at
non-metallic mineral processing plants are discussed in this chapter. The
control of both fugitive dust and fugitive process sources are considered,
The regulatory options are based on the alternative control methods described
in Chapter 3, Each option is discussed from the standpoints of applicability,
emission reduction, cost, environmental impacts, and enforcement. In addition,
applicable regulatory formats are presented.
8.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS FOk FUGITIVE DUST SOURCES
Fugitive dust emissions are generated by drilling, blasting, loading,
conveying, hauling, stockpiling, and the action of wind on haul road, plant
yards, and stockpiles. Applicable control techniques include dry collection
systems, watering, wet dust suppression, surface treatment with chemical dust
suppressants, soil stabilization, and paving. Table 3.1 summarizes the
control techniques for fugitive dust emission sources at non-metallic mineral
processing plants.
8.1.1 Dri1 ling and 81 astIng.
Two methods are applicable for controlling fugitive dust emissions from
drilling operations: water injection and aspiration to a control device.
Water injection is a technique in which water and a wetting agent or surfactant
is forced into the compressed air stream that flushes the drill cuttings from
the hole. It produces a mist that dampens the particles and causes them to
agglomerate, and drop at the drill collar rather than becoming airborne. The
use of a wetting agent allows the use of less water for effective control, by
reducing the surface tension of the untreated water.
8-1
-------
Dry collection systems are also used to control drilling emissions. A
shroud or hood encircles the drill rod at the hole collar. A vacuum will
then capture the emissions and vent them through a flexible duct to a control
device, usually a cyclone or baghouse preceded by a settling chamber.
No effective method is available for controlling fugitive emissions from
blasting operations. However, as discussed in Section 3.1.2, scheduling
blasting during periods of low winds and low inversion potential will help
minimize the impact of fugitive emissions.
The environmental, energy, and cost impacts of applying any of the above
mentioned control methods have not been assessed.
8.1.2 Haul Roads
Control techniques used to control particulate emissions from haul roads
include the following; 1) wetting with water or water plus a surfactant;
2} oiling; 3} application of hydroscopic chemicals (substances that absorb
moisture from the air); 4} use of soil stabilizers (water dilutable emulsions
of either synthetic or petroleum resins that act as adhesives or binders);
5) paving; 6) use of larger capacity haul vehicles to reduce the number of trips
required; and 7) reduction in traffic speed. Because minimal data are
available for quantifying particulate emissions from haul roads, the performance
and effectiveness of these methods cannot be accurately estimated. The
effectiveness of the first four methods will depend on such items as the amount
of water or chemical applied, the frequency of application, weather conditions,
and conditions of the road being treated. Sweeping or vacuuming will reduce
emissions from haul roads that have been paved. Negligible water or solid
waste impacts are expected from the application of these control methods.
Minimal data are also available on increased energy use related to these
control methods. However, the energy impact would be small compared to the
energy requirements for quarry and plant operations.
The capital and annualized costs associated with a number of the control
methods for haul roads are presented in Tables 4.21 and 4.22. At the small
size plants, the capital investment for oiling of $40,000 and annualized
8-2
-------
costs of $40,500 make ft the most expensive of the applicable control methods.
However, for the plants larger than 270 Mg/hr (300 TPH), the capital and
annualized costs associated with speed reduction are 5 to 20 times more
expensive than the other methods.
8.1.3 Conveyors
The two methods available for the control of fugitive dust emissions from
conveyor systems are sheet metal, plastic or canvas coverings and wet dust
suppression. If the entire conveyor is enclosed, particulate emissions should
be completely eliminated. Minimal data are available on the effectiveness of
partially enclosing the conveyors or wet dust suppression systems. No water
or solid waste impacts are expected from the application of these control
methods. No increase in energy usage will result from enclosing the conveyors
unless the emissions are vented to a baghouse. The increase in energy usage
associated-with the use of wet dust suppression systems would be small compared
to the energy requirements of plant operations.
As stated in Section 4.3.4, costs of retrofitting covers on existing
conveyors may range from $157 to $316 per meter ($47 to $95 per foot) of
conveyor length, depending on the amount of work required and the type of
covering. The costs associated with wet dust suppression systems are discussed
in Section 8.2.
8.1.4 Storage Piles
The control methods available for the control of fugitive dust emissions
from storage piles include stone ladders, stacker conveyors, plastic or
canvas coverings, the use of material or man-made windbreaks, and wet dust
suppression. Similar to the other sources of fugitive dust emissions,
minimal data are available for quantifying emissions from storage piles or
on the effectiveness of the control methods discussed. No water or solid
waste impacts are expected from the use of these control methods. The increase
in energy usage associated with these control methods would be small compared
to the energy requirements of plant operations.
8-3
-------
Capital costs of control for storage piles are estimated at $27,000 per
telescoping chute, $1,050 per Mg,(950 per ton) of throughput for a movable
•1 O
stacker, and $140 to $350 per m ($110 to $270 per yd ) for enclosures (see
Table 4.24). Application costs for spraying storage piles with a wetting
agent are estimated to range from $0.01 to $0.07 per Mg ($0.01 to $0.06 per
ton) depending on the type of chemical used, the number of storage piles,
and the frequency of spraying. The cost of elevated sprinkler systems
ranges from a few thousand dollars to $27,000 depending on the plant.
8.1,5 A11tern_a_tive Formats
Potential regulatory formats for drilling emissions differ from formats
applicable for other fugitive dust sources. For drilling operations controlled
by dry collection systems, regulatory formats include equipment standards,
visible emission limits, and quantitative emission limits. Equipment standard
specifications could include air-to-cloth ratio, cleaning method, pressure
drop, and aspiration rate,
A concentration limit for a baghouse should be equivalent to that
achievable by baghouses on other non-metallic mineral processing facilities.
Limitations on visible emissions ensure proper operation of the baghouse
and maintenance of an adequate aspiration rate at the capture point.
However, because drilling is an intermittent operation and emissions can
vary because of climatic conditions, care must be taken to obtain readings
under representative conditions.
Applicable regulatory formats for drilling operations controlled by
water injection are a visible emissions limit and equipment specifications.
A visible emissions limit will ensure proper design, operation, and maintenance
of water injection systems. The only important equipment specification is
the rate of water injection which ensures that sufficient water is used for
effective control,
Potential regulatory formats for other fugitive dust sources are visible
emissions limits, equipment specifications, and work practice specifications.
Quantiative emission limits are not applicable because no practical method of
measurement is available. The use of visible emissions limits in terms of
8-4
-------
opacity or percent of time when emissions are visible are useful for fugitive
sources of participates. However, care must be taken to obtain readings
under representative conditions because of the intermittent operation of some
of the processes and the variation in emissions caused by climatic conditions.
In order to specify visible emissions limits for fugitive dust sources in the
non-metallic mineral processing industry, test programs would be required for
monitoring opacity and the percent of time of visible emissions for the
different control techniques and weather conditions.
Because of the absence of visible emissions data, equipment and work
practice standards may be the most suitable formats. Equipment standards can
be specified for some fugitive dust sources, such as enclosures for open
conveyors. These standards are not quantitative but would ensure that
emissions will be minimized through proper selection and utilization of
equipment. A work practice standard could be used to specify the number of
times a haul road is to be watered and how much water is to be used based on
climatic variables.
Possible regulations may require the implementation of one or more of
the control alternatives, The following model performance standard regulation
for fugitive dust sources associated with non-metallic mineral processing
incorporates source specific control measures with a discretionary provision:
(a) No person shall operate or maintain, or cause to be operated or
maintained, any premise, open area, right-of-way, storage pile of
materials, or any other process that involves any handling,
transporting, or disposition of any material or substance likely to
be scattered by the wind, without taking reasonable precautions, as
approved by the regulating agency, to prevent particulate matter
from becoming airborne.
{b} In obtaining approval under subsection (a) of this section, the
regulating agency may impose one or more of the measures and any
operating conditions it deems necessary to attain and maintain
compliance with the provisions of this section.
8.2 REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR FUGITIVE PROCESS SOURCES
Process sources in a non-metallic mineral processing plant include
crushers, grinding mills, screening operations, bucket elevators, conveyor
belt transfer points, bagging operations, storage bins, and truck and railcar
loading stations. Methods for control of plant process emissions include wet
8-5
-------
dust suppression, dry collection, and a combination of the two. Table 3.1
summarizes the control techniques for fugitive process sources. Because of
the cost involved, a control system is designed to control all of the process
sources at a plant. It is not possible to break the cost down on a per piece
of equipment basis. Therefore, all of the discussion in this section will
apply to the control of the entire processing plant.
8.2.1 Fugitive Process Sources and Control Methods
With the exception of bagging facilities, all particulate sources at a
non-metallic mineral processing plant can be controlled by using wet dust
suppression systems, dry collection systems, or a combination of the two.
Because it is necessary to keep the product dry at the bagging operation,
only dry collection systems can be used to control emissions at these operations.
Dry collection systems consist of an exhaust system with hoods and
enclosures to capture emissions and ducting and fans to convey the captured
emissions to a collection device where particulates are removed before the
air stream is exhausted to the atmosphere. Depending on the physical layout
of the plant, emission sources may be ducted to a single centrally located
collector or to a number of strategically placed units. When dry collection
is employed, the most common device for non-metallic mineral processing
facilities is the baghouse (fabric filter). Although high energy scrubbers
and electrostatic precipitators could achieve results similar to those
of a baghouse, these methods are not currently used in the industries.
As discussed in Chapter 3, mechanical-shaker collectors which require
periodic shutdown for cleaning after 4 or 5 hours of operation are used in
most crushing plant applications. These units are normally equipped with
cotton sateen bags and operated at an air-to-cloth ratio of 2:1 to 3:1. A
cleaning cycle, normally actuated automatically when the exhaust fan is
turned off, usually requires only 2 to 3 minutes of bag shaking.
For applications where it may be impractical to turn off the exhaust
fan, baghouses with continuous cleaning are employed. Compartmented
mechanical-shaker units or jet pulse units may be used in these cases. Jet
pulse units usually use wool or synthetic felted bags for a filtering media
and may be operated at an air-to-cloth ratio of as high as 6:1 to 10:1.
8-6
-------
As discussed in Chapter 3, dry collection systems are capable of achieving
high levels of emission reduction. Figure 3.13 summarizes the test data from
various non-metallic processing facilities using properly operated baghouses.
Although impractical to quantify, essentially complete capture can be
achieved if adequate hooding and ventilation rates are applied. Table 3,5
summarizes the test data on visible emissions escaping capture at hoods
and enclosures.
Visual observations can be used to provide some indication of the
effectiveness of wet dust suppression techniques. Visible emissions
measurements were made by EPA at a variety of process sources at five
plants where particulate emissions are controlled by wet dust suppression.
The results obtained indicate that emissions from crushers are generally
greater than those from non-crusher sources. Visual observations made
at twelve crushers including jaw, impact and cone type crushers showed
that emissions were generally continuous (visible over 70 percent of the
time on the average) and typically exceeded 10 percent opacity. In
contrast, emissions from non-crusher sources (screens and conveyor
transfer points) were generally intermittent (visible less than 10 percent
of the time) and typically less than 5 percent opacity based on six-minute
averaging.
Performance levels for combination systems are assumed to be equivalent
to performance demonstrated by wet dust suppression systems or particulate
emission control systems alone.
8.2,2 Envi ronmental Impacts
Air--
The application of baghouses to non-metallic mineral process sources
should result in a substantial reduction in particulate matter emissions.
Based on the estimates developed in Section 5.1, greater than 99 percent
reduction over uncontrolled emissions is projected. Since particulate
emissions from process sources controlled by wet dust suppression cannot be
quantified, no quantitative data are available on their effectiveness. In
8-7
-------
addition, for the same reason, it is not possible to quantify the emission
reduction obtainable through the use of combination systems which use baghouses
and wet dust suppression.
Water—
The use of baghouses to control particulate matter emissions will generate
no water effluent. In cases where wet dust suppression techniques could be
used, the water adheres to the material processed until it evaporates. Wet
suppression systems, therefore, would not result in a water discharge.
Solid Waste--
Where wet dust suppression can be used, no solid waste disposal problem
exists over that resulting from normal operation. When baghouses are used,
about 1.4 megagrams (1.6 tons) of solid waste are collected for every 250 megagrams
(278 tons) processed. In many cases this material can be recycled back
into the process, sold, or used for a variety of purposes. Where no market
exists for the collected fines, they are typically disposed of in an isolated
location in the quarry. No subsequent air pollution problems should develop
provided the waste pile is protected from wind erosion. Therefore, wet
suppression systems and baghouses have a neglible impact as far as solid
waste disposal is concerned.
Noise--
When compared to the noise emanating from crushing and grinding process
equipment, any additional noise from properly designed exhaust fans or pumps
for the control system will be insignificant.
8.2.3 Energy Impact
The only significant increase in energy consumption over an uncontrolled
plant occurs when a baghouse is used for particulate collection. The
additional energy is for operation of fans, air compressors, and screw
conveyors associated with the baghouse. The increase in energy is estimated
to range from 5 to 19 percent higher than the uncontrolled plant, as shown in
Table 5.2. The additional energy required to operate the wet dust suppression
system is estimated to be less than one percent.
8-8
-------
8.2,4 Cost Impact
The overall costs of the control methods for non-metallic mineral processing
plants are presented in Chapter 4. The use of baghouses for participate
emission control is the most expensive control technique (both in capital
investment and annualized costs) followed by the combination systems. Wet
suppression systems are the least expensive of the three.
The capital investment (in 1980 dollars) for baghouses for the different
model plant sizes ranges from $127,000 to $461,000 compared to a range of
$104,000 to $288,000 for combination systems and $61,000 to $133,000 for wet
dust suppression systems. The annualized costs for baghouses ranges from
$29,000 to $119,000 compared to a range of $25,000 to $69,000 for combination
systems and $13,000 to $30,000 for wet dust suppression systems.
8.2.5 Alternative Formats_
Dry collection systems--
Two different formats could be selected to limit fugitive emissions at
the points of capture: an equipment standard or a visible emission standard.
An equipment standard would require that emission points be enclosed or
equipped with hoods so that emissions would be captured and passed through a
control device.
The second alternative for controlling these emissions is a visible
emissions standard, A visible emissions standard would either specify the
maximum allowable opacity or limit the amount of time that visible emissions
are allowed. A visible emissions standard could be applied to any process
operation regardless of whether or not it is enclosed.
Formats for regulations for the control device include equipment standards
and quantitative emission limits on the mass emissions per unit of production
or the concentration of particulate matter in the effluent gases. For
equipment standards on the normal control device (baghouse) the cleaning
method, air-to-cloth ratio, pressure drop, configuration of capture hoods and
enclosures, and capture velocities would need to be specified. Compliance
with these specifications would be determined by the control agency as part
of their permit or licensing program.
8-9
-------
A visible emissions standard that either specifies the maximum allowable
opacity or limits the amount of time that visible emissions are allowed is
most appropriate for the outlet of the control device in addition to one of
the standards discussed above.
Concerning quantitative emission limits, a mass emission standard may
appear more meaningful in the sense that it relates directly to the quantity
of emissions discharged into the atmosphere. However, a major disadvantage
of a mass emission standard for non-metallic mineral processing plants is
that, typically, the production or feed rate of a process operation is not
measured over the short term. Therefore, enforcement of a mass emission
standard would require that devices which measure process weight rates be
installed on belts feeding process equipment.
Concentration emission limits would be easier to implement than the mass
emission limits per unit of production because they do not require the installation
of a weight measuring device.
Wet dust suppression systems--
Two different formats are possible for regulations for wet dust suppression
systems: equipment standards and visible emissions standards. Because it is
not possible to quantify the emission reductions achievable by wet dust
suppression systems, quantitative emission limits are not possible. If
equipment standards were applied, specifications that could be tailored
to a particular plant would include the quantity of spray bars and
nozzles, the configuration of nozzles, spray pressure, and the amount of
moisture to be added.
Visible emissions limits could be applied to sources controlled by wet
dust suppression. As discussed in Chapter 3, visible emissions for non-crusher
sources controlled by wet dust suppression were found to be intermittent
while those from crushers were generally continuous. Because of this distinction,
a different format for limiting visible emissions should be applied to each
class of sources. For non-crusher sources characterized by intermittent
emissions, a visible emissions limitation on the amount of time emissions are
visible is more appropriate. For crusher sources with continuous emissions,
an opacity limit is more appropriate. These visible emissions and opacity
8-10
-------
limits should insure that sufficient water is used in the wet suppression
system to provide effective control of particulate matter emissions.
8.3 SUMMARY
Table 8-1 summarizes the environmental and cost impacts resulting from
the application of alternative emission control systems. Impacts are rated
as beneficial or adverse; magnitudes are ranked as negligible, small, moderate,
or large; and durations are classified as short term, long term, or irreversible.
8-11
-------
TABLE 8-1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
CO
!
Alternative
emission Air
control systems impact
Wet suppression for
crushed stone plant
process facilities +3**
Dry collection for
crushed stone plant
process facilities +3**
Combination wet and
dry for crushed stone
plant process facilities +3**
Dry collection for
drilling equipment +2**
Liquid injection for
drilling equipment +2**
Key: + Beneficial impact
- Adverse impact
0 No impact
Water
impact
0
0
0
0
0
Solid
waste Energy
impact impact
0 -1
-2** -2
_2** -2
-I**' -l
0 -1
1 Negligible impact
2 Small impact
3 Moderate impact
Occupa-
tional
Noise health
impact impact
0 +3**
_^** 4-3**
_^** +3**
_j** +2**
0 +2**
* Short-term impact
** Long-term impact
*** Irreversible impa
Cost
impact
_2**
-2
to
_3**
_2**
_2**
-1**
ct
4 Large impact
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF TEST DATA
A test program was undertaken by EPA to evaluate the best particulate
control techniques available for controlling participate emissions from
non-metallic mineral plant process operations including crushers, screens
and material handling operations, especially conveyor transfer points. In
addition, a control technique for grinding operations was also evaluated.
This appendix describes the process operations tested (their operating con-
ditions, characteristics of exhaust gas streams and, where applicable, de-
viations from prescribed test procedures) and summarizes the results of the
particulate emission tests and visible emission observations.
Sixteen baghouse collectors controlling process operations at five
crushed stone installations (three limestone and two traprock), one kaolin,
and one fuller's earth plant were tested using EPA Reference Method 5 except
as noted in the facility descriptions for determination of particulate matter
from stationary sources. Baghouse collectors utilized to control particulate
emissions from grinding operations at a feldspar, gypsum, and two talc plants
were also tested, but EPA Reference Method 17 was used for determination of
particulate matter. Results of the front-half catches (probe and filter)
from the particulate emission measurements conducted are shown in Figure A-l
and the complete results are summarized in the Tables herein.
Visible emission observations were made at the exhaust of each of the
above control devices in accordance with procedures recommended in EPA
A-l
-------
Reference Method 9 for visual determination of the opacity of emissions from
stationary sources.
At the hoods and collection points for the process facilities, the visible
emission opacity observations were made in accordance with procedures recommen-
ded in EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 and the data are presented in terms of
percent of time equal to or greater than a qiven opacity or in percent of total
time of visible emissions as in Table 3.5. Visible emission observations were
also made at four crushed stone, one sand and gravel plants and a feldspar
crushing plant where participate emissions are controlled by dust suppression
techniques. The results of these tests are given in Tables 97 through 111.
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES
Al. Primary crushing stage incorporating a pan feeder, vibrating grizzly,
impact breaker, T-bar belt feeder and a primary belt conveyor. The impactor
is rated at 1,000 TPH and used to reduce run-of-quarry limestone (cement rock)
to 2 1/2-inch minus. Particulate emissions generated at various points are
confined, captured and vented to a jet pulse type baghouse for collection.
Tests were conducted only during periods when the process was operating
normally. Particulate measurements were performed using EPA Method 5. Visible
emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust and at capture points
in accordance with EPA Method 9.
A2. Primary scalping screen used for scalping the primary crusher
product of facility Al. The plus 2 1/2-inch oversize is chuted to a belt
conveyor and returned to the primary for recrushing. The screen throughs
are also discharged to a conveyor and transported to a storage facility,
Particulate emissions generated from the top of the screen, which is
totally enclosed, and from both chute-to-belt transfer points are aspirated
to a jet pulse baghouse for collection. Tests, using EPA Method 5, were
A-2
-------
conducted simultaneously with those at facility Al. Sampling during all
three tests runs reported herein was overisokinetic. Visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust using EPA Method 9.
A3. Conveyor transfer point at the tail of an overland conveyor, also
located at installation Al. The 30-inch belt conveyor has a 900 TPH
capacity at a belt speed of 700 FPM. The transfer point is enclosed and
emissions vented to a small baghouse unit for collection. Three particulate
samples were collected using EPA Method 5. Visible emission observations
were made at the faaghouse outlet and at the transfer point using EPA
Method 9,
A4. The secondary crushing and screening stage at installation Al
consists of a vibrating screen and a cone crusher. Minus 2 1/2-inch
material is fed to the screen at about 165 TPH where it is separated in two
fractions, plus 3/4-inch and 3/4-Inch minus. The oversize fraction is
discharged to the cone crusher and reduced to 3/4-inch. The crusher product
and screen throughs are then conveyed to a milling circuit. Dust control
is effected by capturing and venting emissions from the screen and crusher
to a jet pulse baghouse for collection. Both particulate measurements and
visible emission observations were made at the collector outlet using EPA
Methods 5 and 9, respectively.
Bl. Primary impact crusher used for the initial reduction of run-of-
quarry limestone rock to three inches. The normal production rate through
this primary crushing stage is 350 TPH. Particulate emissions are collected
from the impact crusher at its discharge hopper and from the discharge hopper
to primary conveyor belt transfer point and then controlled by a fabric filter
A-3
-------
collector. The fabric filter is mechanically shaken twice daily for
cleaning. EPA Method 5 was used for participate measurements and EPA
Method 9 was used for visible emission readings at the collector exhaust and at
the impact crusher.
B2. Secondary and tertiary crushing and screening facilities at the
same installation as Bl. These consist of a scalping screen, a 4-foot
cone crusher, two 3-foot cone crushers, a hammer-mill used to produce
agstone and two final sizing screens. The plant has a 300 TPH design
capacity, crushing to 1 1/2-inch minus, including 60 TPH of agstone. Dust
control throughout this plant is affected by enclosing or hooding dust
producing points and venting captured emissions to a fabric filter for
collection. The collector is mechanically shaken twice daily for cleaning.
Pickup points include the top of the scalping screen, both the feed and
discharge of all three cone crushers, the discharge of the hammermin, the
top of both finishing screens, five product bins and six conveyor transfer
points. Three paniculate measurements were made in accordance with EPA
Method 5. In addition, visible emission observations were made at the
baghouse exhaust and at the process facilities controlled using EPA
Method 9.
B3. The same facility as B2, except that particulate emission
measurements were made using an in-stack filter. Testing was conducted
simultaneously with that described in B2.
Cl. Limestone crushing plant consisting of a primary jaw crusher,
scalping screen and hammermi11. The rated capacity of the plant is 125
TPH. End products produced range from 1 1/2-inch minus dense-graded road
base stone to minus 1/8-inch screenings. Particulate emissions are
controlled by a mechanical shaker type baghouse. Collection points include
the primary crusher discharge, the scalping screen throughs to stacking
A-4
-------
conveyor- transfer point, and both the hammermm feed and discharge.
Tests were conducted using EPA Methods 5 and 9.
C2. Two 3-deck vibrating screens used for final sizing at the same
installation as Cl. Both screens are totally enclosed and particulate
emissions collected from the top of both screens, at the feed to both
screens, and at both the head and tail of a shuttle conveyor between the
screens are vented to a mechanical shaker type baghouse. Again, tests were
conducted in accordance with EPA Methods 5 and 9.
Dl. Secondary and tertiary crushing and screening facilities used
for processing traprock at 250 TPH. The process facilities include a
scalping screen, a 4-foot secondary cone crusher, two sizing screens and two
4-foot tertiary cone crushers. All process facilities are enclosed and
particulate emissions are vented to one of two baghouses for collection.
The baghouses are exhausted through a common stack, Particulate measurements
were conducted using EPA Method 5. Visible emission observations using
EPA Method 9 were also made at the collector exhaust and at the process
facilities controlled.
D2, Finishing screen at the same installation as facility Dl. The
screen 1s totally enclosed and emissions collected from the top of the
screen enclosure, all screen discharge points, and several conveyor transfer
points are vented to a fabr-fc filter. Tests conducted were Identical
to those at Dl and were performed simultaneously.
El. Tertiary crushing and screening facilities at. a 375 TPH traprock
Installation. Process facilities include two sizing screens, four 4 1/4-foot
A-5
-------
G2. Crushing facilities (primary and secondary) used to reduce feldspar
to minus 1.5 inches. Dust control 1s affected by the suppression techniques.
Surface moisture contents were 1.6 to 1.8 percent at the primary crusher
discharge, 1,4 to 1.5 percent at the secondary crusher feed, and 1.0 percent
at the secondary crusher discharge conveyor. Visible emission observations
were made at all process facilities in accordance with EPA Method 9
procedures.
HI. Raymond roller mill used to grind gypsum. The ground product from
the mill is air-conveyed to a cyclone collector for product recovery. The
air is returned to the mill. Excess air is vented to a baghouse. Visible
emission observations were made to determine leaks from the system in
accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
H2. Same facility as HI. Particulate measurements and visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust in accordance with EPA
Methods 5 and 9.
I. Bagging operation used to package ground mica. Particulate
emissions are controlled by a baghouse. Visible emission observations
were made at the capture point in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
Jl. Crushing (primary and secondary), grinding (pebble mill and vertical
mill) and bagging operations at a talc processing plant. Particulate emis-
sons are controlled by a baghouse. Visible emission observations were
made at the capture points in accordance with EPA Method 9 procedures.
J2. Same facility as Jl. Particulate measurements and visible emission
observations were made at the baghouse exhaust in accordance with EPA
Methods 5 and 9.
A-7
-------
K. Pebble mill used to grind talc. Captured emissions are vented to a
pulse type baghouse for collection. Particulate measurements and visible
emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust in accordance with
EPA Hethods 5 and 9.
LI. Raymond Impact Mill used to grind kaolin. Captured emissions are
exhausted to a baghouse for collection. EPA Methods 5 and 9 were used for
particulate measurement and visible emission observation at the baghouse stack,
respectively.
L2. Roller Mill used at same plant as LI. Further grinding of kaolin
is accomplished. Collection of captured emissions takes place in a baghouse
which was tested for the same parameters as LI, again by EPA Methods 5 and 9.
Ml. Roller mill used to grind fuller's earth clay. Captured
emissions are exhausted to a baghouse for collection. Particulate measure-
ments and visible emission observations were made at the baghouse exhaust
in accordance with EPA Methods 17 and 9.
M2. Fluid energy mill used to grind fuller's earth clay at same
plant as Ml. Captured emissions are exhausted to a baghouse for collection.
EPA Methods 17 and 9 were used for particulate measurement and visible
emission observation at the baghouse stack, respectively.
N. Kaolin rail car loading operation. Three complete rail car
loadings were evaluated for fugitive emissions in accordance with EPA
Method 22 test procedures. A baghouse (collection system) is used to
collect dust that is captured in the loading area.
P. Facility P produces crushed stone used primarily for road construc-
tion purposes. The processing operation is located in the bottom of an open
quarry. The quarried materials are carried by tr.jck to the upper rim of the
A-8
-------
pit where they are dumped into hoppers which feed the processing equipment.
The finished product is transported back out of the quarry by belt conveyor.
Visible emission measurements were conducted at the primary (jaw),
secondary (impact), and tertiary (cone) crushers, two process screens, and one
conveyor transfer point by means of EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22. All pro-
cess sources of emissions are directly or indirectly controlled by means of a
wet suppression system.
Q. This facility produces two grades of rock for road-base and decora-
tive stone, respectively. The ore is obtained from an open mining operation
at the top of a mountain, and the process equipment is permanently installed
in a descending arrangement from the mine site to the bottom of the mountain.
The processed rock is accumulated in bins at the lower level for subsequent
truck loading.
Visible emission measurements using the same techniques as Facility
P were conducted at the primary (jaw), and secondary (cone) crushers,'three
process screens, and one conveyor transfer point all controlled by means of a
wet suppression system.
R, A fully portable crushing plant processes bank-run material for road
construction and as concrete component. Ore is removed from a gravel bank and
trucked to the bank top for dumping into the initial screens before the primary
\
crushers. Wet suppression techniques are used to control fugitive dust emana-
ting from the processing of the material.
EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 were used to measure visible emissions
from primary (jaw), and secondary (cone) crushers, three process screens, and
two conveyor transfer points.
S. The facility produces two grades of crushed limestone. The plant is
A~9
-------
relatively new with all process equipment located at ground level. One jaw
crusher, two cone crushers, two process screens and two conveyor transfer
points are all directly or indirectly controlled by means of wet suppression
systems.
EPA Reference Methods 9 and 22 were employed to measure visible
emissions emanating from the above named process sources.
T. A large semi-portable rock crushing facility processing large-size
grades of crushed limestone was tested for visible emissions by means of EPA
Reference Methods 9 and 22.
The sources tested were the primary and secondary (cone) crushers,
one process screen, one conveyor transfer point, and one storage bin. All
sources tested are controlled by the same techniques as Facilities P, Q, R,
and S.
A-10
-------
0.02
0.015
o
°
u
O O
C/l "O
in i.
«— a
ac -a
UJ C
u,5 o.oi
CJ ^3
P t-
2
C
I,
0.005
0
Facility
Rock Type
— — —
. , fl
KEY j
H-H AVERAGE
t'
«. EPA TEST METHOD
O OTHER TEST METHOD
ft ^
R II
II U
A ft
M hrr
n ii b
Id n
M
,D W R - -
n 1 1
' ii) Ji
I Lj
ft 1 P
' •"!* I1
' ' ft ! 1 ft
-^ 1 fi ' W ^ ' M
' H^ fl ! ft ^ ''
1 ^^^ ! ^ 4
i4 3 i d M ^ ^ i
c *d ' ' i y Jv<
mJJP, Hjl fj ^^ W"
i , i y i i i f i i i i i i .1 i i
""AT A2 A3 A4 Bl B2 B3 Cl C2 01 02 El E2 Gl Ll L2 Ml M2
L LL LL LL LL TT TT F*K FE.FE
0.046
0.034
L
4J
i
0
O
"E
*O
0.023 c
IO
in
I-
"^
V.
0)
CL.
Ul
i.
Ol
0.011
0
Figure A-l.
Particulate emissions fron non-metallic minerals
processing operations.
A-ll
-------
Run [lumber
Date
Test Time-minutes
(D
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - OSCFM
Temperature - °F
Viator vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Participate Emission^
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
-Ib/lir
Ib/ton
(2)
Table 1
FACILITY Al
Summary of Results
Average
6/10/74
400
995
26430
22351
81.0
2.5
0.00471
0.00398
0.90
0.00091
—
-
-
_
6/11/74
320
1027
26653
22140
88.0
3.0
See Tables
0.00504
0.00419
0.96
0.00102
0.00597
0.00495
1.13
0.00121
6/12/74
240
1010
27142
22502
88.0
3.3
2 and 3
0.00727
0.00602
1.40
0.00139
0.00839
0.00695
1.62 '
0.00160
-
320
1011
26472
22331
85.7
2.9
0.0056;
0.0047:
1.07
0.0011
0.00711
0.0059
.. 1.38
0.0014
(1) Based on throughput through primary crusher.
(2) Back-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
A-12
-------
TABLE 2
FACILITY AT
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/4/74 - 6/5/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Primary Crusher
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 75 ft,
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
Height of- Point of Discharge: 14 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.E.
Description of Background: Grey building
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 0 - 5 nri/hr.
Color of Plume: None Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 6/4/74 - 78 minutes
6/5/74 - 210 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY^]^
Time
Set Number
1 through 6
7 through 9
10 through 13
14 through 48
Start
8:50
11:23
12:12
8:11
" End
9:26
11:41
12:36
11:41
Opacity
Sum
0
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
observers made simultaneous readings.
A-13
-------
TABLE 3
FACILITY AI
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
(D
Date: 7/8/75 - 7/9/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (cement rock)
Tyoe of Discharge: Fugitive
location of Discharge: Primary Impact crusher discharge
Height of Point of Discharge: 6 fee£
Oescriotion of Background: Qrey wa11
Description of Sky: N.A. (indoors)
Wind Direction: N.A.
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation:
Distance from Observer to discharge Point: 15 feet
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Wind Velocity; No wind (indoors)
Detached Plume: Mo
7/8/75 - 2 hours
7/3/75 - I hours
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
S
n
is
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min. " "
3
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
or
Ooacity
Sec.
30
30
15
15
0
-
-
-
-
-
floacitv,
Percent
55
11
65
70
75
80
85
90
"55
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
^_ sec.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
Not Available
g 20
U
Sis
5 10
% c
o 5
4—* 4-
7/8/75
TIME, hours
7/9/75
(1) Two observers made simultaneous readings, the greater of their readings
1s reported.
A-14
-------
TABLE 4
FACILITY A2
Summary of .Results
Run Number
Date
1
6/10/74 6/11/74 6/12/74
Average
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPlr1'
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions * '
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch *• '
gr/DSCF-
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
400 320
965 1023
15797 15771
13368 13246
90.0 90.0
1.4 2.1
SEE TABLE 5
0.00176 0.00188
0.00149 0.00158
0.20 0.21
0.00021 0.00024
0.00235
0.00197
0.27
0.00030
240
1056
15866
13196
94.0
2.5
0.00222
0.00184
0.25
0.00024
0.00314
0.00261
0.36
0.00034
320
1015
15811
13270
91.3
2.0
0.00195
0.00164
0.22
0.00023
0.00275
0.00224
0.32
0.00032
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
(2) All three test runs were over-lsokinetic.
(3) Back-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
A-15
-------
TABLE 5
FACILITY A2
Sunmary of Visible Emissions^
Date: 6/10/74 - 6/11/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Primary Screen
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 60 f1
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
Height of Point of Discharge: 10 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Eas1
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Southwest Wind Velocity: 0 - 2 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: Hone Detached Plume: Mo
Duration of Observation: 6/10/74 - 192 minutes
6/11/74 _ 36 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY^1'
Set Number
1 through 11
12 through 32
33 through 38
Time
Start
10:35
12:30
9:40
End
11:41
2:36
10:16
Op_ac1 ty_
Sum
0
0
0
Average^
0
0
0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
observers made simultaneous readings.
A-16
-------
TABLE 6
FACILITY A3
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Process Weight Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Fugitive (% Opacity)
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSC,F
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch ^ '
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
; Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1 2
6/10/74 6/11/74
360 288
910 915
2303 2313
1900 1902
98.0 101.0
2.4 2.4
SEE TABLES
0,00095 0.00162
0.00078 0.00134
0.02 0.03
0.00002 0.00003
0.00190
0.00156
0.03
0.00003
3
6/12/74
288
873
2422
2003
97.0
2.3
7
0.00207
0.00171
0.04
0.00004
0.00259
0.00214
0.04
0.00005
Averagi
-
312
899
2346
1935
98.7
2.4
0.00155
0.00128
0.03
0.00003
0.00224
0.00185
0.035
0.00004
(1) Back-half sample for run number 1 was lost.
A-17
-------
TABLE 7
FACILITY A3
Summary of Visible Emissions '
Date: 6/11/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Conveyor Transfer Point
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 60 ft
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
Height of Point of Discharge: 8 ft. nirect.inn of Observer from Discharge Point: Nort
Description of Background: Grey apparatus
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Westerly Wind Velocity: 0-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: None Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY^
Time Opacity .
Set Number Start Hind Sun^ Average
1 through 30 10:40 1:40 0 0
31 through 40 1:45 2:45 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
' MWO observers made simultaneous readings.
A-18
-------
TABLE,?'
FACILITY A4
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
1
6/6/74
6/7/74
6/8/74
Average
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol , %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Parti cul ate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF'
Ib/hr
lb/ ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
320
170
10579
9277
81.0
2.3
0.00036
0.00031
0.03
0.00017
0.00047
0.00041
0.04
0.00022
320 320
162 152
9971 11045
8711 9656
77.0 80.0
2.2 2.1
SEE TAULES-~9 VlUT"
0.00075 0.00074
0.00065 0.00065
0.06 0.06
0.00034 0.00041
0.00104
0.00095
0.08
0.00050
320
163
10532
9214
79.3
2.2
— ..i.
0.00062
0.00054
0.05
0.00031
0.00678
0.00068
0.06
0.00034
A-19
-------
TABLE 9
FACILITY A4
Summary of Visible Emissions^ '
Date: 6/6/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Secondary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 100 •
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground-level
Height of Point of Discharge: 15 ft. (Yirpctinn nf Observer from Discharge Point: Nor
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Variable Wind Velocity: 0 to 10 nn'/hr.
Color of Plume: None Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
(1)
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1 through 30 10:40 1:40 0 0
31 through 40 1:45 2:45 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
* 'Two observers made simultaneous readings.
A-20
-------
TABLE 10
hACILlT/ A 4
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
(1)
Date: 7/9/75 - 7/10/75
Tvoe of Plant: Crushed stone {cement rock)
Tyoe of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Conveyor (transfer point)
Heinht of Point of Discharge: 8 feet
Oescriotion of Background: Sky
"tescriDtion of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Direction: South
Color of Plume: White
Distance from Observer to Tischarge Point: 50 feet
Heiaht of Observation Point: 6 feet
Direction of flbserver from Discharge Point: SE
Wind Velocitv: 3-5 mph
Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 7/9/75 - 106 minutes
* 7/10/75 - 60 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
35
10
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
3
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
or
Opacity
Sec,
0
45
30
0
-
.
-
-
-
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
85
01
15
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
lin.
Sec.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
10
-H-
7/9/75
TIME, hours
7/10/75
(1) Two observers made simultaneous readings, the greater of their readings
is reported.
A-21
-------
TABLE 11
FACILITY Bl
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
(1)
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Mater vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
X Opacity
Paniculate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catcji
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
0} Throughput through primary crusher.
1
10/29/74
T8C
324
5154
4998
70
1,80
2
10/30/74
120
359
6121
5896
76
1.87
3
10/30/74
120
375
6078
5753
83
2.06
Aven
•-
140
353
5784
5549
76.3
1.91
See Table 12
0.009
0.012
0.402
0,0012
0.009
o.on
0.496
0.0015
0,001
0.004
0.072
0.0002
0.001
0.003
0.180
0.0005
0.010
o.on
0.500 -
0.0013
0.010
0.011
0.553
0.0015
0.007
0.009
0,325
0.0007
0.007
0.008
0.408
0.0012
A-22
-------
TABLE V2
FACILITY 81
Surrcsary of
\
Oatt; 10/29/74 - 10/30/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Primary Cosher
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 25 ft.
Description of Background: Grey quarry w<
Description of Sky. Clear to cloudy
Wind Direction: Northwesterly
Color of Plume: White
Distance from Ovserver to Discharge Point: 15 ft.
Height of Observation Point: Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Wind velocity: Not available
Detached Plume; No
Duration of Observation: 10/29/74 - 180 minutes
10/30/74 - 234 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set dumber
— » •
10/29/74
I
2
3
4
5
7
/
8
9
10
11
12
1 t
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
iJl
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
10/30/74
31
33
.. — *• '
Start
_ ~
JO: 30
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
11:42
1 ' 15
1:21
1:27
1:33
1:39
1:45
1:51
1:57
2:03
2:09
2:15
2:21
2:27
2:33
2:39
2:45
2:51
9:05
' y * 1 i
9:17
End
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
1J:36
11:42
11:48
1:2?
1:27
1:33
1:39
1:45
1:51
1:57
2 -.03
2:09
2:15 .
2:21
2:27
2:33
2:39
2:45
2:51
2:57
9:11
a: i7
9:23
Opacity
Sum
10
20
25
15
15
5
lu
25
20
15
25
30
15
0
15
5
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
0
0
. 5
5
0
0
}0
0
u
0
Average
j
0,4
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.2
0.6
0
0.6
0.2
0.2
U
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.4
0
u
0
Set Number
• ' •
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
- 64
65
66
67
oo
69
Time
•
Start
9:23
9:29
9:35
9:41
9:47
9:53
9:59
10:01
10:11
10:17
10:28
10:34
10:40
10:58
11:04
11:10
11:24
11:30
1:02
1:08
1:14
1:20
1:26
1:32
1:38
1:44
1:50
1:56
2:02
2:08
-2:14
2:20
2:26
2:39
C- • "t-J
2:51
Opaci ty
-._ u . ......n ir - ~
.11 -"•••• "*'"
End
„ .1 •
9:29
9:35
9:41
9:4?
9:53
9:59
10:05
10:11
10:17
10:23
10:34
10:40
10:46
11:04
11:10
11:16
11:30
11:36
1:08
1:14
1:20
1:26
1:32
1:38
1:44
1:50
1:56
2:02
2:08
2:14
2:20
2'. 26
2:32
2:45
2: jt
2:57
Sum
0
5
10
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
0
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
0
0
0
s
0
5
S
0
0
0
*r
0
Average
—
0
o.z
0.4
0
0
0.2
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
v» **
0
A-23
-------
TABLE 13
FACILITY B2
Sunmary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Participate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
• gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
10/31/74
108
270
19684
18296
92.0
1.95
0.003
0.003
0.427
0.0016
0.006
0.005
0.916
1 0.0034
2
10/31/74
108
270
18921
17638
96.0
1.92
SEE TABLES
0.005
0.005
0.753
0.0028
0.006
0.006
0.978
0.0036
3
11/11/74
108
270
16487
15681
79.0
2.01
14 - 23
0.003
0.003
0.457
0.0017
0.007
0.007
0.955
0.0035
Average
-
108
270
18197
17205
87.0
1.96
0.0037
0.0037
0.546
0.0020
0.0063
0.0060
0.946
0.0035
A-24
-------
TABLE 14-
FACILITY B2
Summary of miole Emissions
(Observer 1)
Date: 10/31/74 - 11/1/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Secondary and Tertiary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30 ft.
.Location of Discharge: Bagnouse Height of Observation Point: 5 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 8 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear to partly cloudy
Wind Direction: Southeasterly Mind Velocity: Not available
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: No
*
Duration of Observation: 10/31/74 -
240 minutes
11/1/74 -
106 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Date Set Number
10/31/74
11/1/74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 through
40 .
41 through
56 .
Start
9:27
9:33
9:39
9:45
9:51
9:57
10:03
10:09
10:15
10:21
10:27
10:33
10:39
10:45
10:51
10:57
11:03
11:09
11:15
11:21
1:09
8:11
End
9:33
9:39
9:4S
9:51
9:57
10:03
10:09
10:15
10:21
10:27
10:33
10:39
10:45
10:51
10:5?
11:03
11:09
11:15
11:21
11:27,
3:09
9:47
Ooaci_ty
Sum
5
10
5
0
5
5
10
5
20
0
0
0
5
5
10
0
5
0
0
. 10
0
0
Average
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.8
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0
0.2
0
0
0.4
0
0.
Readings ranged from 0 to 5 percent opacity.
A-25
-------
Table 15
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 6/30/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary Cone Crusher (II)
Height of Point of Discharge: 25 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:45 ft.
Oescriotion of Background:Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point:2 ft.
Description of Sky: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:Nortl-
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mph
Color of'Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 231 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
23
0
'
or
Opacity
Sec.
0
45
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Ooacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-26
-------
Table 16
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE E'1ISSIO*iS
(#2)
Oate: 6/30/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary Cone Crusher
Height of Point of Discharge: 25 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:45 ft.
Description of Background: Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point: 2 ft.
Oeseriotion of Skv: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:North
Wind! Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mph
Color of 'Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 231 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
2D
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Sec,
15
0
0
0
Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
TOO
Min.
Sec.
A-27
-------
Tab! <*T7
FACILITY 82
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 6/30/75
Tvoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary Cone Crusher
Height of Point of Discharge: 25 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 45 ft.
Descriotion of Background: Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point: 2 ft.
Description of Sky: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:North
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mph
Color of "Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 231 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
GreaterThan Given Opacity
_._ ""
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
%
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-H8
-------
Table 18
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge:Surge Bin
Height of Point of Discharge: Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:150 ft.
Description of Background:Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point: 15 ft.
Description of Sky: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:SE
Mind Oirection: south Wind Velocity: 5 mpb
Color of Plume: white Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 6/30/74 - 234 minutes
7/1/75 - 53 minutes
Summary of Data:
Opacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Tims Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
2
1
-
-
or
Opacity_
Sec.
0
15
30
-
Ooacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Opacity
Mln. . Sec.
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
Q5
100
A-29
-------
Table 19
FACILITY 82
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Scalping screen
Height of Point of Discharge: 50 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:150 ft.
Oescriotion of Background: Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point: 15 ft,
Description of Sky: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Wind Direction: South Wind Velocity: 5 MPH
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: no
Duration of Observation: 6/30/75 - 234 minutes
7/1/75 - 53 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
44
9
3
0
-
*
or
Opacity
Sec.
45
45
0
30
-
Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
65
70
75
80
85
90
15
100
>4in.
Sec.
A-30
-------
Table 20
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
ate: 6/30/75 - 7/1/75
yoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
ype of Discharge: Fugitive
ocation of Discharge: Hammermill
sight of Point of Discharge: Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:150 ft.
escriotion of Background: Sky & Equipment Height of Observation Point: 15 ft.
escrintion of Sky: Clear Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:SE
ind Direction: South Wind Velocity: 5 mph
olor of'Plume: White Detached Plume: No
uration of Observation: 6/30/75 - 234 minutes
7/1/75 - 53 minutes
ummary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
'Min.'Sec.
0
Onacitv, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
60
65
70
75
eo
85
91
05
100
Min.
Sec.
A-31
-------
Tabln 21
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISTRLE EMISSIONS
Date: 7/1/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: (3-Deck) Finishing Screen (left)
Heiflht of Point of Discharge:40 '
Qescriotion of Background: Hazy Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Southeast
Color of 'Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 107 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:75 ft
Meiqht of Observation Point: Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:Wes1
Mind Velocity: 5-15 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
GreaterThan Given Opacity
ffijl-' Sec.
4 30
Ooacitv, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Ooacit
55
10
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Min.
Sec.
A-32
-------
Table 22
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 7/1/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: (3-Deck) Finishing screen (right)
Height of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
Description of Background: Hazy sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Southeast
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 107 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 75 ft.
Heiaht of Observation Point: Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Wind Velocity: 5-15 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
n
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Gi ven Opaci ty_
Min.'Seel
0
15
Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater ThanGiyen Opacity
55
60
65
70
75
BO
85
90
05
100
Min.
Sec.
A-33
-------
Tablo 23
FACILITY B2
SUMMARY OF VISinLE EMISSIONS
Date: 6/30/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (limestone)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Two (3-Deck) finishing screens
Height of Point of Discharge: 50 ft.
Oescriotion of Background: Hazy sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Southeast
Color of Plume; White
Duration of Observation: ]20 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 75 •
Height of Observation Point:Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:Wes
Wind Velocity: 10-15 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacjty
P__ Sec.
86
28
5
0
0
15
15
30
15
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Qnaci
Min.
Sec.
A-34
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFH
Temperature - 8F
Water Vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Par ti cu 1 ate Emi s s i ons
Prgbe_and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
*1*
TABLE Z4
FACILITY B3
Summary of Results
10/31/74
270
11/1/74
270
3
11/1/74
270
Average
270
18674
17335
92
2.13
0.002
0.002
0.355
0.0013
18405
17186
90
1.73
0.004
0.004
0.614
0.0023
16238
15466
79
1.87
0.003
0.003
0.411
0.0015
17772
16662
87
1.91
0.003
0.003
0.460
0.0017
analysis of bark-half on in-stack filter tests.
A-35
-------
>\
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
0)
TABLE 25
FACILITY Cl
Simmary of Results
12 3 Average
11/19/74 11/21/74 11/22/74
120
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
riater vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Parti culate Emi ssi ons
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF"_
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
lb/hr
Ib/ton
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
240
240
200
7340
7250
66.0
1.0
0.003
0.003
0.18
0.001
0.007
0.007
0.43
0.003
7560
7720
38.0
0.4
See table
0.0007
0.0007
0.05
0.0004
0.001
0.001
0.09
O.OOOB
7520
7800
44.0
0.1
26
0.003
0.003
0.17
0.001
0.003
0.003
0.21
0.002
7473
7593
49.3
0.5
0.0022
0.0022
0.10
0.0008
0.0037
0.0037
0.24
0.0019
A-36
-------
TABLE 26
FACILITY Cl
Summary of Visible Emissions
(1)
Date: 11/2J/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Primary and Secondary Crushing and Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of discharge: 40 ft.
Description of {Jackground: Dark Woods
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: Easterly
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Distance from Observer to discharge Point: 100 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 50 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.W.
Wind Velocity: 10 to 30 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
(2)
Opacity
Set Number
Start
End
Sum
Average
1 through 40 12:10 4:10 °
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the observation period.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
-------
TABLE 28
FACILITY C2
Slir»»n^i—< *•£ II-: .. •! Ul ». C—-! -c •* ~ — -
l<..:..», j \f , i i j i U i U i_m i oil i 0110
ate: 11/21/74
of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
of Discharge: Stack
acation of Discharge: Baghouse
sight of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
ascription of Background: Dark woods
ascription of Sky: Overcast
ind Direction: Easterly
Dior of Plume: White
uration of Observation: 240 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 200 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 50 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N.W.
Wind Velocity: 10 to 30 mi/hr.
Detached Plume:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Opacity
Set Number
Start
End
Sum
Average
1 through 40 12:10 4:10 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the observation period!.
ketch Showing How Opacity Varied With Time:
0
0>
o
at
a.
o
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time -.Minutes
Production Rate -
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFH
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Mater vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSC.F
gr/ACF".
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
TABLE 29
FACILITY 01
Summary of Results
tf
1 ?
3 Average
9/17/74 9/18/74 9/19/74
(1} Throughput through primary crusher
240
225
31830
31370
66.0
1.2
0.0095
0,0094
2.55
0.0113
0.0100
0.0096
2.69
6.0120
240
230
31810
30650
71.0
1.7
SEE TABLES
0.0081 0
0.0078 0
2.13
0.0093 0
0.0085 0,
0.0082 0.
2.23
0.0097 0.
240
220
31950
31230
68.0
1.6
30-36
.0080
.0078
2.13
.0097
.0086
0084
2.30
0105
240
225
31863
31083
68.3
1.5
*•*-
0.0085
0.0083
2.27
0.0101
0.0090
0.0088
2.41
0.107
A-4Q
-------
TABLE 30
FACILITY Ul
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/17/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Secondary and Tertiary Crushing & Screening
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 55 ft.
Description of Background: Trees
Description of Sky: partly Cloudy
Wind Direction: Northerly
»
Color of Plume: None
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 300 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: S.E.
Wind Velocity: 5-10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
Set Number
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Tme " Opacity
Sum Average
StarT
TnT
1 through 40 9:10 1:00 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during the period of observation.
Sketch Snowing How Opacity Varied With Time:
S.
_L
_L
3- 4
Time, hours
A-41
-------
-^ 31
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 7/8/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Terti'ary gyrasphere cone crusher (S)
Height of Point of Discharge:
Oescriotion of Background: Machinery
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: southwest
Color of Plume: white
Duration of Observation: 170 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30 ft
Height of Observation Point: ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Wind Velocity: Q-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Sec.
0
Opacity, Total Tiifie Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
69
65
70
75
80
85
GO
95
100
Min.
Sec.-
A-42
-------
Tablf! 32
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
ate: 7/8/75
yoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
"ype of Discharge: Fugitive
.ocation of Discharge: Tertiary gyrashere cone crusher (N)
of Point of Discharge:
leseriotion of Background: Machinery
Jescrfption of Sky: Overcast
find Direction: Southwest
lolor of Plume: White
)uration of Observation: 170 minutes
Distance from Observer to discharge Point: 30 ft.
Height of Observation Point: ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Qoacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
31
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given J)jgacj_ty.
Hin.'Sec.
0
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
GreaterThan Given Opacity
Min. Sec.
A-43
-------
Tablp 33
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date; 7/8/75
Tv>e of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary standard cone crusher
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Machinery
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: Southwest
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 170 minutes
Distance from Observer to discharge Point: 30
Heiaht of Observation Point:Ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:Wes
Wind Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
' Miri. ' Sec.
0
0
Ooacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onaci
Mln.
Sec,
A-44
-------
Tablf? 34
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 7/9/75
Tvoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Scalp'ing screen
Hsight of Point of Discharge:
Oescriotion of Background: Equipment
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: Southwest
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 210 minutes
Summary of Data;
Ooacity,
Percent
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30 ft.
Meipht of Observation Point: 15 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
' Min. Sec."~~
0
0
-Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Gi ven Onac Uv
Mi n. Sec.
A-45
-------
Tabld 35
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
A-v
Date: 7/9/75
Tvoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary (2-Deck) sizing screens
Height of Point of Discharge:
Oescriotion of Background: Equipment
Oescrintion of Sky:Overcast
WirtH Direction: Southwest
Color of "Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 210 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 15 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mph
Detached Plums: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Miin. Sec.
0
0
Ooacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min,
Sec.
A-46
-------
Table 36
FACILITY Dl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 7/9/75
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary (3-Deck) sizing screens
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Equipment
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: Southwest
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 210 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30 ft
Height of Observation Point: 15 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Wind Velocitv: 0-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
n
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given ..Opacity.
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Min.
Sec.
A-47
-------
Run Number
Date
TABLE 37
FACILITY 02
Summary of Results
9/17/74 9/18/74 9/19/74
Average
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH* '
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Partieulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSC,F
gr/ACFl. .
Whr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
1 lb/hr
Ib/ton
240
225
26790
26200
69.0
1.3
0.0027
0,0027
0.61
0.0027
0.0041
0,0040
0.91
0.0040
240
230
26260
25230
74.0
1.6
See Tab!
0.0038
0.0036
0.82
0.0036
0,0045
0.0043
0.98
0.0043
240
220
24830
24170
72.0
1.3
e 38
0.0023
0.0022
0.47
0.0021
0.0031
0.0030
0.64
0.0029
240
225
25960
25200
71.7
1.4
0.0029
0.0028
0.63
0.0028
0.0039
0.0038
0.84
0.0037
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
A-48
J
-------
TABLE 38
FACILITY D2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Late: 9/1S/74
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens
Type of discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 55 ft.
description of Background: Trees
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: Northerly
Color of Plume: None
Duration of Observation: 240 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 300 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 40 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: North
Mind Velocity: 5 to 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set Number
Start
Opacity
Sum Average
1 through 40 8:30 12:30 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during period of observation.
Sketch Showing How Opacity Varied with Time:
c
m
u
u
w
CL
$
u
CL
o
Time, hours
A-49
-------
Run Number
Date
TABLE 39
FACILITY El
Sunmary of Results
123
11/18/74 11/18/74 11/19/74
Average
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH*1'
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ftCFH
Flow rate - DSCFH
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF- •
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
.120
384
15272
16297
33.1
0.5
!_ 0.0134
0.0143
1.87
0.0049
lq.0170, .
. 0.0181
: 2.37
0.0067
120
342
13997
14796
40,4
0.0
SEE TABLE
0.0116
0,0122
1.47
0.0043
'.. 0.0137
0.0145
1.74 .
0.0051
120
460
14975
15642
41.0
0.5
40
0.0147
0.0154
1.97
0.0043
6.0164
0.0171.
. 2.20 ,
0.0048
120
395
14748
15578
38.2
0.3
0.0132
0.0140
1.77
0.0045
0.0157
0.0166
1 2.10
0.0055
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
A-50
-------
TABLE 40 -
FACILITY El °
Surrr-ary cf Visible Missions
ate: 11/18/74 - 11/19/74
We of Plant: Crushed Stone - Tertiary Crushing and Screening
/pe of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 60 ft.
ocation of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground level
eight of Point of Discharge: 1/2 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
escription of Background: Grey Wall
escription of Sky: Overcast
ind Direction: Westerly Wind Velocity: 2-10 mi/hr.
olor of Plume: None Detached Plume: No
uration of Observation: 11/18/74 - 120 minutes
11/19/74 - 60 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity
Set Number
11/18/74
1 through 10
11 through 20
Start
-
9:00
10:15
End
10:00
11:15
Sum
0
0
Average
0
0
11/19/74
21 through 30 10:07 11:07 0 0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
A-51
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate -
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFH
Flow rate - DSCFK
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Yol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opaci ty
Parti cul ate Emissions^
Probe and filtercatch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF :
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
(1) Throughput through primary crusher.
TABLE 41
FACILITY 12
Sumnary of Results
1 2 3
11/18/74 11/18/74 11/19/74
Average
,120
384
22169
23001
1 44.5
1.1
0.0132
0.0137
2.60
0.0068
0.0205
0.0213
4.05
0.0105
120
342
19772
19930
59.2
1,1
SEE TABLE
0.0096
0.0097
1.65
0.0048
0.1378
0.0139
2.35
0.0069
120
460
21426
21779
55.0
0.6
42
0.0153
0.0155
2.85
0.0062
0.0170
0.0173
•", 3.18
0.0069
120
395
21122
21570
52.9
0.9
0.0127
0.0130
2.37
0.0059
0.0171
0.0175
3.19
0.0081
A-52
-------
TABLE 42 ' /
FACILITY E2
Summary of Visible Emissions
ud Lc; 11 /"i o/' / <» - 11 / 13 / / 4
Type of Plant: Crushed Stone - Finishing Screens and Bins
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 120 ft
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: Ground level
Heignt of Point of Discharge: 1/2 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
Description of Background: Hillside
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind direction: Westerly Wind Velocity: 2-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: None Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 11/18/74 - 120 minutes
11/19/74 - 60 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY*2^
Time
Set Number
11/18/74
1 through 10
11 through 20
11/19/74
21 through 30
Start
12:50
1:50
9:05
End
1:50
2:00
10:05
Opacity
Sum
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
Readings were 0 percent opacity during all periods of observation.
A-53
-------
Tabl* 43
FACILITY F
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS '• '' /',-.
Date: 8/26/76
Tvie of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: TWO tertiary crushers (14 and #5)
H°inHt of Point of 05scharg»: 14-20 ft. Distance; from Observer to discharge Point: 100 ft.
15-10 ft.
Qescnotion of Background: Gray equipment Heictht of Observation Point: ground level
Structures
•tescrlotion of Sky: Partly cloudy Oireetion of Observer from Discharge Point: West
Wind Direction: Variable Winfl Velocitv: 0-5 tnph
Color of Plume: No visible plume Detached Plume:
Duration of Observation: 55 minutes
Summary of Data :
Ooacity, Total Time Equal to or -Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Givflft_Opa_cHy_ Percent firoa ter Than_ Given Onac i tv
" Hin.' S_e_c_-. " Mi n . ^ Sec_^
500 55
!•) - W
15 R5
20 70
25 75
30 80
35 B5
41 90
45 %
50 ' TO
A-54
-------
Tablo 44
FACILITY F ' ,!' .' '/.
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Rate: 8/26/76
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Four'processing screens
Ibujht of Point of Discharge: 50 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 100 ft.
Dcscriotion of Background: gray walls Height of Observation Point: ground level
0"scrintion of Sky: Partly cloudy Direction of rilis^rvor from Discharge Point: NE
Wind Direction: Variable Minn1 Velocity: 0-5 mph
Color of'Plume: No visible plume Detached Plume:
Duration of Observation: 180 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity, Total Time Equal to or nnacitv, Total Time Fqual to or
Percent Greater Than Given Opacity Percent Rrcatcr Than Riven Qnacrtv
— RuT Sec. !iln^ . Sec._
50 0 55
10 - ' - ^
II %
25 75
30 BO
35 as
40 ^
45 °5
50 ' 100
A-55
-------
45
FACILITY F
SUMMARY OF VlSHil.t CMISSI01S
Date: 8/27/76
Tyoe of Plant: Crushed stone (traprock)
Tyoe of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge Conveyor transfer points
of Point of Discharge-: 75 ft. Distance from
OescrioUon of Background: Gray equipment
structures
O^scrintion of Skv: Overcast
Wind Direction: Variable, S-SE
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation:179 minutes
orv^r to Tischargc Point: l&O ft.
Heinht of Observation Point: 50 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Wind Velocitv: 0-10 mph
DetachcH Plums:
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
n
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Groatnr_Thr-in Given Qnaci ty
lli n. Sec.
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
*sn
fiS.
70
75
80
85
GT
H5
100
Total Time Equal to or
Rroater Than Given Onacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-56
-------
Table 46
FACILITY Gl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
te: 9/27/76
oe of Plant: Feldspar
pe of Discharge: Fugitive
cation of Discharge: Primary Crusher
of Point of Discharge: 10-30 ft. Distance fro. Observer to discharge Point: 100 ft
,5criot1on of Background: Quarry wall & "eight of Observation Point: Ground level
equipment structures Qn Qf nbserver fr0m Discharge Point: S
jscrintion of Sky: Partly cloudy • "
ind Direction: Northeast
Dior of Plume:
uration of Observation: 60 minutes
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mph
Detached Plume: No
ummary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Tim? Equal to or
Greater _
0
45
Onacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
teji
Min.
A-57
-------
Tai.l-' 47
1-ACH.m Gl
:,unMARY or VISHNU n;ir,;urris
Oil to: 9/27/76
Tvie of Plant: Feldspar
Tvne of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Conveyor transfer point (#1)
Hoitfit of Point of Discharge: 10 ft. Distance from Observer to OischarrjG Point: 50 ft.
Dcscrintion of Background: Quarry wall lleiahl of O'jsorv.Hion Point: ground level
^scrintion of Skv. Overcast Dirncttrm of nb^rvnr from nir.c'iiirgo Point: SE
Mind Hi ruction: Northeast Winfl Wjlocitv: 0-5 mph
Color of Plumo: No plume Dotachfi'l Plumi: No
Duration of Oiiservation: 80 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooncity, Total Tiin» Equal to or flnacitv. Total Timn Equal to or
PTT.-n't Great ovThnn Hi von Opacijy ^J^^- _ J^Lat9.t'..T'ian r'ivgM 0"acH.v
-_i.— ]iiTi~ Sec".. " """ Mini. . §J^-
50 o nr.
n - - ^
IS r'S
20 "
25 "/r-
30 ^
35 ^
^ 3')
4 5 Ti
GO ' 11°
A-58
-------
Tablo 48
FACILITY Gl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/27/76
TV-DP of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Conveyor transfer point (#2)
Height of Point of Discharge: 40 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 50 ft.
Qescriotion of Background: Quarry wall Height of Observation Point: ground level
Description of Skv: Partly cloudy-Overcast Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Mind Direction: North-northwest Wind Velocity: 0-10 mph
Color of Plume: No plume Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 87 minutes
Summary of Data:
Opacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Min.Sec.
0
Onacitv, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
60
fi5
70
75
80
85
90
%
100
Min.
Sec.
A-59
-------
Tab! o.49
FACILITY Gl
SUMMARY OF VISIRLt EMISSIONS
Date: 9/27/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge:Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary crusher
Height of Point of Discharge: 10-20 ft.
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 75
Height of Observation Point: 75 ft
Descriotion of Background: Equipment
structure
Ooscriotion of Skv: Partly cloudy -cloudy Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SS!
Wind Direction: Northwest
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: 1 hour
Wind Velocity: 0-7 mph
Detached Plume: N/A
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
11
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given_pjiacj_ty_
'Min. Sec.
0
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
00
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onaci
"
A-60
-------
Table 50
FACILITY 61
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/27/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Conveyor transfer Point (#4)
Heiqht of Point of Discharge: 10 ft. Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 84 ft.
Descriotion of Background: cHff or wall Heipht of Observation Point: 75 ft.
Description of Sky: cloudy Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: $E
Wind Direction: North Wind Velocity: 0-7 mph
Color of 'Plume: No visible plume Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 84 minutes
Summary of Data
Oca city,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Hin, Sec.
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
-------
Table 51
FACILITY G2
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Particul ate Ernlssions
r^robe a_nd Fi Her Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
1
9/28/76
120
5070
4210
105
2
9/28/76
120
4830
3940
115
3
9/29/76
120
4470
3720
103
Avert
120
4790
3960
108
See Tables 53 - 62
0.005
0.004
0,17
0,005
0.004
0.17
0.005
0.004
0.18
0.005
0.004
0,18
0.004
0.004
0.14
0.004
0.004
0.14
0.005
0.004
0.16
0.005
0.004
0.16
A-62
-------
Run ilumber
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM .
Flow rate - DSCFMN
Temperature - °F
Hater vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Table 52
FACILITY G2
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
North Inlet
9/28/76
1,520
1,260
103
South Inlet
9/28/76
2,070
1,720
103
Total
3,590
2,980
103
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
' gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
12.9
10.7
140
12.9
10.7
140
—
0.99
0.82
14.6
0.99
, 0.82
14.6
—
6.02
5.00
154.6
6.02
5.00
154.6
A-63
-------
TABLE 53
FACILITY G2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/28/76
Type of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Outlet Stack
Location of Discharge: No.2 Mill Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:TOO'
Description of Background: trees on hillside
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: 2-1/4 hours
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Approx. 40'
Height, of Observation Point:
Approx. 100'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: 1
Wind Velocity: 0-10 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
TTme
Time
"Opacity
Opacity
Set Number Start End
Sum
Average Set Number Start End Sum Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
09:48
09:54
10:00
10:06
10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
1 1 : 36
11:42
09:54
10:00
10:06
10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:54
1-1:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
11:30
11:36
11:42
11:48
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
11:48 11:54 N N
11:54 12:00 N N
12:00 12:06 N N
A-64
-------
TABLH 54
FACILITY 62
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/29/76
Type of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Outlet Stack
Location of Discharge: No,2 Mill Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 100"
Description of Background: hillside with trees
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Wind Direction: NE Wind Velocity: 0-5 mi/hr
Color of Plume: No visible plume Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 2 hrs.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
approx. 50'
Height, of Observation Point:
same level as discharge
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Opacity
Ti me
Opacity
Set Number Start End
Sum
Average Set Number Start End Sum Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
08:35
08:41
08:47
08:53
08:59
09:05
09:11
09:17
09:23
09:29
09:35
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59
10:05
10:11
10:17
10:23
10:29
08:40
08:46
08:52
08:58
09:04
09:10
09:16
09:22
09:28
09:34
09:40
09:46
09:52
09:58
10:04
10:10
10:16
10:22
10:28
10:34
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
21 10:35 10:37 N N
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A-S5
-------
TABU: 55
FACILITY G2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 9/28/76
Type of Plant; Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Outlet Stack
Location of Discharge: No..2 Mill Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge: 100'
Description of Background: grassy hillside
Description of Sky: partly cloudy
Wind Direction: NW
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: approx. 2-1/4 hrs.
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Approx. 40' SE
Height of Observation Point: Approx. 100'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: SE
Wind Velocity: 0-15 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
T
Start
14:48
14:54
15:00
15:06
15:12
15:18
15:24
15:30
15:36
15:42
15:48
15:54
16:00
16:06
16:12
16:18
16:24
16:30
16:36
16:42
ime
End
14:54
15:00
15:06
15:12
15:18
15:24
15:30
15:36
15:42
15:48
15:54
16:00
16:06
16:12
16:18
16:24
16:30
16:36
16:42
L6:43
OPACITY
Opacity
Sum
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Average
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sura Average
21 16:48 16:54 N N
22 16:54 17:60 N N
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A-66
-------
Tab!ft 56
FACILITY G2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Fyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Ball mill (feed end)
Height of Point of Discharge: 20 ft.
Description of Background: Building &
Equipment
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of'Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: 1 hour
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 35 ft.
lleiaht of Observation Point:
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N/A
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume:
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given .Opacity.
_ , "
•Ooacitv, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Min.
Sec.
A-67
-------
Tab!ft 57
FACIL1TY.G2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Ball mill (discharge end)
Height of Point of Discharge: 20 ft.
Descriotion of Background: Building and
equipment
Description of Sky:
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: l hour
Summary of Data:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 35
Height of Observation Point:
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Wind Velocitv: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Miri. Sec.
0 0
"~
-Onacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onaci
MTn^ Sec.
A-68
-------
Tabln 58
FACILITY G2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tvoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Indoor transfer point (#1)
Heiff'it of Point of Discharge:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Descriotion of Background: Building wall Height of Observation Point:
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: MO visible plume
Duration of Observation: i hour
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N/A
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume:N/A
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
RTfu " Sec.
5
n
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
W
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min. Sec.
A-69
-------
Table 59
FACILITY G2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Indoor transfer point (#2)
of Point of Discharge:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Descriofion of Background: Building wall Height of Observation Point:
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: No visible plume
Duration of Observation: 1 hour
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Summary of Data:
Onacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Mi ri. Sec.
0
0
<">nacitv,
Percent
55
W
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-70
-------
Tab!* 60
FACILITY G2
SUMMARY OF VIS KILE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Indoor Bucket Elevator
Height of Point of Discharge: Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Descriotion of Background: Building walls Heiqht of Observation Point:
Description of Sky: N/A Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A Wind Velocitv: N/A
Color, of Plume: No visible plume Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 1 hour
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity.
Tlin. Sec.
0
0
•Opacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
35
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Mi n. Sec.
A-71
-------
Tabln 61
FACILITY G2
SUMMRY OF VISIFJLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Truck loading
Height of Point of Discharge: 15 ft.
Descriotion of Background: Building wall
0?scrintion of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of 'Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 13 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 30
Height of Observation Point: ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Wind Velocitv: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Win. Sec.
0
0
•Onacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
H5
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Riven Onaci'
Min.Sec.
A-72
-------
Tablo 62
FACILITY G2
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/28/76
Tyoe of Plant: Feldspar
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Railroad car loading
Height of Point of Discharge: 15 ft.
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Qescriotion of Background: Building wall Height of Observation Point: ground level
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Mind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation: 32 minutes
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: E
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity,
Min.
5
0
Sec.
15
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
BO
85
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given ODacitv
Mi n . Sec .
1
A-73
-------
Table 63
FACILITY HI
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 10/27 - 28/76
Tv^e of Plant: Gypsum
Type of Discharge: Fugitive (leaks)
Location of Discharge: Hamrnermill
Height of Point of Discharge: Leaks
Description of Background: inside plant
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of 'Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 298 minutes
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
Distance from Observer to Oischarge Point: 25 ft
Height of Observation Point: ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: sw
Wind Velocitv: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
5
IT
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater_ Than Given Qpacity
Min. Sec.
1
0
0
45
15
0
nnacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
BO
B5
GO
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Erea ter Than Gi ven 0nac i t\
^i n. Sec.
A-74
-------
Run number
Date
Test Tiir.s-niinutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFH
Temperature - °F
Vlater vapor - Vol
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
E m 1 s s i o n s
Probe_ a nc! F i Her J^jtch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
l',:ble 64
FACiLtlY H2
Stminuir.y of " f •:•,);
1 2 J
10/27/7.6 10/27/76 10/28/76
88 88 88
See Table 66
Averse
88
4,548
3,542
145.4
4.6
4,364
3,486
147.0
1.8
4,306
3,423
145.3
2.6
4,406
3,484
145.9
3.0
0.071
0.055
2.16
0.063
0.050
1.87
0.066
0.053
1.94
0.067
0.053
1.99
0.073
0.057
2.53
0.064
0.051
2.40
0.068
0.054
2.65
0.068
0.054
- 2.53
A-75
-------
Table 65
FACILITY H2
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
Run iVuiii
Date . '
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Participate Emissions
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
• gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
10/28/76
2,729
2,148
167.5
3.42
2.69
63.0
3.42
2.69
63.0
A-76
-------
TABLE 66
FACILITY H2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 10/27/76
Type of Plant: Gypsum board manufacturer
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Above plant roof
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Height, of Observation Point: roof level
Height of Point of Discharge: 6' above roof Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
225° (S.W.)
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: 0° (N)
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 87 Min
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Wind Velocity: " 10 mph
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2Q
T
Start
131 2; 00.
1357:00
1403:00
1409:00
1415:00
1421:00
1427:00
1433:00
1439:00
1445:00
1451:00
1457:00
1503:00
1509:00
1515:00
ime
End
1316;45
1402:45
1408:45
1414:45
1420:45
1426:45
1432:45
1438:45
1444:45
1450:45
1456:45
1502:45
1508:45
1514:45
1519:05
Opacity
Sum
125
155
135
150
140
125
135
130
125
115
95
70
80
85
60
Average
6.25
6.46
5.62
6.25
5.83
5.21
5.62
5.42
5.21
4.79
3*96
2.92
3.33
3.54
3.53
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A-77
-------
TABLE 66 (con't)
FACILITY H2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 10/27/76
Type of Plant: Gypsum board manufacturer
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Above plant roof
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:25
Height, of Observation Point: roof level
Heiaht of Point of Discharge: 6' above roof Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
y 225° (S.W.)
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: 45° (N,E.) Wind Velocity: 7 10-15 raph
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 92 min.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY . SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2Q
Start
0830:00
0836 : 00
0842; 00
0848; 00
OiS7:QO
1003:00
1009:00
1015:00
1021:00
1027:00
1033:00
1039:00
1045:00
1051:00
1057:00
1103:00
1109:00
End
0835:45
Q841:45
0847:45
0849:00
1002:45
1008:45
1014:45
1020:45
1026:45
1032:45
1038:45
1044:45
1050:45
1056:45
1102:45
1108:45
1110:45
Opacity
Sum
45
65
70
5
125
60
80
85
75
70
85
95
90
90
70
55
25
Average
1.87
2.71
2.92
1.00
5.21
2.50
3.33
3.54
3.12
2.92
3.54
3.96
3.75
3.75
2.92
2.29
3.12
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A-78
-------
TABLE 66 (con't)
FACILITY H2
Summary of Visible Emissions
•ate: 10/28/76
ype of Plant: Gypsum board manufacturer
ype of Discharge: Stack
ocation of Discharge: Above plant roof
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
Height, of Observation Point: roof level
eight of Point of Discharge:6' above roof Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
225° (S.W.)
escription of Background: Sky
escription of Sky: Clear
ind Direction: 180° (S)
olor of Plume: White
uration of Observation: 87 min
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Wind Velocity: ~ 10 mph
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
et Number Start
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2Q
0830:00
0930:00
0936:00
0942:00
0948:00
0945:00
1000:00
1006:00
1012:00
1018:00
1024:00
1030:00
1036:00
1042:00
1048:00
End
0835:45
0935:45
0941:45
0947:45
0953:45
0959:45
1005:45
1011:45
1017:45
1023:45
1029:45
1035:45
1041:45
1047:45
1050:45
Opacity
Sum
40
95
85
65
70
60
90
40
30
25
40
60
25
70
10
Average
1.67
3.96
3.54
2.71
2.92
2.50
3.75
2.50
1.25
1.04
1.67
2.50
1.04
2.92
0.83
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum Average
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
A-79
-------
Tablft67
FACILITY I
SUMMARY OF VISIRLE EMISSIONS
Date: 9/30/76
Tyoe of Plant: Mica
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Bagging Operation
Hsiqht of Point of Discharge: 3 ft.
Descriotion of Background: Indoors
Oescrintion of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: N/A.
Duration of Observation: l hour
Summary of Data
Ooacity,
Percent
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 7 ft
Height of Observation Point: ground level
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
5
n
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to or
Greater^ Than Given Opacity
fTTnTSec.
0
0
•Onacitv,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
%
100
Total Tiifie Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-80
-------
Table 68
FACILITY Jl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 10/20 - 21/76
Tyoe of Plant: Talc
Type of Discharge: Fugitive (leaks)
Location of Discharge: Vertical mill
Height of Point of Discharge: In room
Qescriotion of Background: ceiling
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 90 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 10 ft.
Heiqht of Observation Point: Floor
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:W
Wind Velocity: N//\
Detached Plume:
Summary of Data:
Ooacity,
Percent
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Opacity
Min.""Sec.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
0
Opacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
15
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than Given Onacitv
Min.
Sec.
A-81
-------
Table 69
FACILITY Jl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 10/20/76
Tyoe of Plant: Talc
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Primary crusher
Height of Point of Discharge: In room
Oescriotion of Background: wall
description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: go minutes
Summary of Data:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 5 ft
Height of Observation Point: Floor
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:w
Wind Velocitv: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Opacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
20
8
1
0
--
"
or
Opacity
Sec.
15
0
15
0
•**-"
Opacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Onacitv
Mi n . Sec .
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
05
100
A-82
-------
Tablo 70
FACILITY Jl
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Oate: 10/20 - 21/76
Tyoe of Plant; Talc
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Secondary crusher
Height of Point of Discharge: in room
Description of Background: wall
Oescrintion of Sky: N/A
Mind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: white
Duration of Observation: 150 minutes
Summary of Data:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 5 ft.
Heiaht of Observation Point: floor
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:s
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Ooacit.y,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
3
0
0
*•»
%
or
Opacity^
Sec.
45 .
15
~
floacitv. Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Ooacitv
Nin. Sec^_
55
60
65
70
75 •
80
85
go
95
100
A-83
-------
Table 71
FACILITY Jl
SUMMARY OF VIS I RLE EMISSIONS
Date: 10/19 - 21/76
Tyoe of Plant: Talc
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Bagger
Height of Point of Discharge: In room
Descriotion of Background: wall
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 150 minutes
Summary of Data:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 10 f
Height of Observation Point: floor
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:W
Wind Velocitv: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Ooacity,
Percent
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
12
5
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
* 1
or
Opacity
Sec.
45
15
0
15
0
0
30
30
15
15
Opacity,
Percent
55
<50
65
70
75
80
35
90
95
TOO
Total Time Equal to
Greater Than Given
Min.
0
0
0
0
0
_
or
Oiwcit
Sec.
45
45
15
15
0
-
A-84
-------
Tables 72
FACILITY Jl
SUHMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS
Date: 10/19/76
Tyoe of Plant:
Type of Discharge: Fugitive
Location of Discharge: Pebble Mill No. 2
Heifj^t of Point of Discharge: In room
Oescriotion of Background: wall
Description of Sky: N/A
Wind Direction: N/A
Color of 'Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 90 minutes
Summary of Data:
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 10 ft.
Height of Observation Point: floor
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: w
Wind Velocity: N/A
Detached Plume: N/A
Ooacity, Total Time Equal to or
Percent Greater Than Given Opacity,
jtin.
5 5
10 0
15 Q
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Sec .
0
45
0
-
•Ooacity,
Percent
55
60
65
70
75
80
05
90
05
100
Total Time Equal to or
Greater Than GivenOpacity
*tin. Sec.
A-85
-------
Table 73
FACILITY
Run ."lumber
Date
Test Tine-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Viator vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Participate Emissions
Summary of Itosi;! ts
1
10/20/76 10/20/76 10/21/76
120 120 120
See Table 75
- Avc-triKje
120
21,100
20,200
80
0.3
21,300
20,200
83
0.3
21,300
19,500
82
1.0
21,200
20,000
82
0.5
Probe and Fil ter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
0.047
0.045
8.17
-
0.065
0.062
11.2
_
0.068
0.065
11.8
-
0.071
0.067
12.2
_
0.067
0.061
11.2
-
0.068
0.062
11.3
-
0.061
0.057
10.4
-
0.068
0.064
11.6
-
A-86
-------
Table 74
FACILITY J2
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
Inlet Number ,1 2
Date . 10/20/76 10/20/76
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM 11,500 3,570
Flow rate - DSCFM 11,300 2,940
Temperature - °F 60 160
Water vapor - Vol .%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF 8.80 1.26
gr/ACF 8.64 1.04
Ib/hr 852 31.7
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
,3 1A IB • Total
10/20/76, 10/21/76 10/21/76
•"<
3,520 396 614 , 19,600
3,410 393 603 18,646
45 48 52 74
t
-:.'
*
3.08 64.6 9.06 7.75'
2.99 63.7 8.76 7.36
90.1 218 46.8 1,239
•
.
A-87
-------
TABLE 75
FACILITY J2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 10/21/76
Type of Plant: Talc
Type of Discharge; Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Outlet
Height of Point of Discharge:30'
Description of Background: Hills and trees
Description of Sky: Overcast - rain
Wind Direction: 60° NE
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: Approx. 2 hrs.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
approx. 100'
Height, of Observation Point:
approx. 36'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
160° SE
Wind Velocity: 8-12 mi/hr - Gust up to 20
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Start
08:00
08:06
08:12
08:18
08:24
08:30
08:36
08:42
08:48
08:54
09:00
09:06
09:12
09:18
09:24
09:30
09:36
09:42
09:48
09:54
End
08:06
08:12
08:18
08:24
08:30
08:36
08:42
08:48
08:54
09:00
09:06
09:12
09:18
09:24
09:30
09:36
09:42
09:48
09:54
10:00
Opacity
Sum
10
0
0
5
0
5
5
0
0
0
5
10
15 *
5
5
5
5
0
5
5
Average
0.4
0
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum
21 10:00 10:05 0
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Average
0
A-88
-------
TABLE 75 (con't)
FACILITY 02
Summary of Visible Emissions
Jate: 10/20/76 .
[ype of Plant: Talc
fype of Discharge: Stack
.ocation of Discharge: Baghouse Outlet
teight of Point of Discharge: 30'
tescription of Background: Hills and trees
Jescription of Sky: Overcast - Rain
Hnd Direction: 290° NW
kilor of Plume: White
Hiration of Observation: 2:05 min.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 100'
Height of Observation Point:approx. 36'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
160° SE
Wind Velocity: 4-7 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
>et Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Start
12?54
13?(10
13506
13:12
13:18
13:24
13;30
13:36
13;42
13:48
13:54
14:00
14:06
14:12
14:18
14:24
14:30
14:36
14:42
14:48
End
13;QQ
13;Q6
13:12
13:18
13:24
13:30
13:36
13:42
13:48
13:54
lft:00
14:06
14:12
14:18
14:24
14:30
14:36
14:42
14:48
14:54
Opacity
Sum
Q
0
0
5
5
10
5
5
15
15
5
0
5
0
5
0
5
5
0
0
Average
0
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0
0
Time Opacity
Set Number Start End Sum
• 21 14:54 14:59 0
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Average
0
A-89
-------
TABLE 75 (con't)
FACILITY J2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 10/20/76
Type of Plant; Talc
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Outlet
Height of Point of Discharge: 30'
Description of Background: Hills and trees
Description of Sky: Overcast
Wind Direction: 290° NW
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 2:22 min.
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:
approx. TOO1
Height, of Observation Point:
approx. 36'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:
SE y
Wind Velocity: 4-7 mi/hr
Detached Plume: N/A
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Start
Q8j35
08:41
08:47
08:53
08:49
09:05
09:11
09:17
09:23
09:29
09:35
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59
10:05
10:11
10:17
10:23
10:29
End
08:41
08:47
08:53
08:59
09:05
09:11
09:17
09:23
09:29
09:35
09:41
09:47
09:53
09:59
10:05
10:11
10:17
10:23
10:29
10:35
Opacity
Sum
0
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
0
10
0
0
5
5
10
5
0
10
Average
0
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.4
0
0
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
0.4
Set Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Time Opacity
Start End Sum Average
10:35 10:41 5 0.2
10:41 10:47 5 0.2
10:47 10:53 10 0.4
10:53 10:58 5 0.25
A-90
-------
Run ilumber .
Date
Test Tine-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFH
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Participate Emissions
P_robs and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Table 76
FACILITY K
iry of Mosu
1
6/21/77
120
4,567
3,637
135.3
1.69
See
0.024
0.020
0.75
Us
2
6/21/77
120
4,113
3,196
152.3
1.36
Table 77
0.027
0.022
0.75
3
6/22/77
120
4,579
3,646
136.8
1.63
0.041
0.034
1.29
Average
120
4,420
3,493
141.5
1.56
0.031
0.025
0.93
A-91
-------
TABLE 77
FACILITY K
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/20 - 6/21/71
Type of Plant: Talc
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Pebble mill
Height of Point of Discharge:40 ft.
Description of Background: Equipment and Mountain
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: North Wind Velocity: 5 mph
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: N/A
\
Duration of Observation:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 125
Height, of Observation Point:25 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: W
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
OpacityTime
Set Number Start End Sum Average SetTNumber StartT^End"
Opacity 7
Sum Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'9
10 .
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 -• . %
1314
1320
1326
1332
1338
1344
1350
1356
1402
1408
1417
1423
1429
1435
1441
1447
1453
1459
1505
1511
1320
1326
1332
1338
1344
1350
1356
1402
1408
1414
1423
1429
1435
1441
1447
1453
1459
1505
1511
1517
80
10
5
10
10
0
5
0
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
0
0
5
0
10
3.33
0.42
0.21
0.42
0.42
0.0
0.21
0.0
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.42
0.21
0.0
0.0
0.21
0.0
0.42
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
802
808
814
820
826
832
838
844
850
856
903
909
915
921
927
933
939
945
951
957
808
814
820
826
832
838
844
850
856
902
909
915
921
927
933
939
945
951
957
1003
10 .
5 '
5
30
0
0
40
75
50
65
35
20
55
25
55
55
30
55
70
40
0.42
0.21
0.21
1.25
0.0
0.0
1.67
3.13
2.08
2.32
1.46
0.83
2.29
1.04
2,29
2.29
1.24
2.29
2.92
1.67
A-92
-------
TABLE 77 (con't)
FACILITY K
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/20 - 6/21/71
Type of Plant: Talc"
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Pebble Mill
Height of Point of Discharge: 40 ft.
Description of Background: Equipment and Mountain
Description of Sky: Clear
Wind Direction: North Wind Velocity: 5 mph
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: N/A
Duration of Observation."
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:125 ft.
Height, of Observation Point: 25 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: W
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Time
Set Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
•9
10 .
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 -• *
Start
1004
1208
121S
1220
1226
1232
1238
1244
1250
1256
1302
1313
1318
1325
1331
1337
1343
1349
1355
1401
End
1009
1214
1220
1226
1232
1238
1244
1250
1256
1302
1308
1319
1325
1331
1337
1343
1349
1355
1401
1407
Opacity
Sum
30
105
no
85
90
125
85
105
95
25
65
95
105
40
30
60
55
35
5
75
Average
1.25
4.38
4.58
3.54
3.75
5.21
3.54
4.38
3.96
1.32
2.95
3.96
4.38
1.67
1.30
2.61
2.29
1.94
0.36
3.13
Set Number
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Time Opacity
Start End Sum Average
1407 1413 125 „ 5.21
A-93
-------
TABLE 78
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
I Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
FACILITY LI
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
1*
12/6/78
60
17180
14040
136
7.4
4.53
3.70
545
Total catch
gr/OSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
* Test conducted concurrently with Run 2» Table 79.
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
A-94
-------
Run Number
Date
Test. Time - Hinutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Parti culate Emi'ssions,
Probe and. Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
TABLE 79
FACILITY LI
Summary of Results
1 2*
12/6/78 12/6/78
96 96
Total catch
CD
0.020
0.017
2.49
0.012
0.010
1.54
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
*Test conducted concurrently with Run 1, Table 78.
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests.
3
12/6/68
96
Average
96
17690
14790
131.
7.0
see
Table
80
17960
14650
141.
7.8
-
18060
15080
141.
5.4
-
17903
14840
138
6.7
-
0.016 0.016
0.013 0.013
2.01 2.01
A-95
-------
TABLE 80
FACILITY LI
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 12/6/78
Type of Plant: Clay Processing
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 7 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 80 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 80 ft. Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Soul
Description of Background: Green Pine Forest
Description of Sky: Blue
Wind Direction: Northwest Wind Velocity: 5 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: No
Duration of Observation: 90 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Start
1400
1406
1412
1418
1424
1430
1436
1442
1448
1454
1500
1506
1512
1518
1524
Time
End
1406
1412
1418
1424
1430
1436
1442
1448
1454
1500
1506
1512
1518
1524
1530
Sum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 .
0
Opacity
Average
0
0
0
0
0 i
o L
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-96
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM.
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Parti oil a te Emi s s i ons
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
TABLE 81
FACILITY L2
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
1
12/6/78
56
Total catch
(1)
8550
6960
134
7.9
1.76
1.43
105.
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests,
A-97
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH ,
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol . %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
I Opacity
Part icul ate Emissions
Probe and Fi 1 ter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total
TABLE 82
FACILITY L2
Summary of Results
1 2
12/5/78 12/5/78
120 120
0.010
0.008
0.73
0.005
0.004
0.38
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests,
3 Average
12/6/78
120 120
9780
8120
129
8.4
see
Table
83
9830
8150
123
9.4
see
Table
84
10340
8560
136
6.7
see
Table
85
9983
8277
129
8.2
-
0.007 0.007
0.006 0.006
0,48 0.53
A-98
-------
TABLE 83
FACILITY 12
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 12/5/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: TOO Ft. Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: Southeast
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation: approx. 120 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Time
Start
0953:00
0959:15
1005:45
1011:45
1018:15
1024:15
1030:15
1037:00
1044:00
1048:00
1054:15
1100:15
1106:15
1112:15
1118:30
1124:30
1131:00
1137:00
1143:15
1149:30
1156:30
Opacity Set Time Opacity
End
0959:15
1005:45
1011:45
1018:15
1024:15
1030:45
1037:00
1039:00
1048:00
1054:15
1100:15
1106:15
1112:15
1118:30
1124:30
1131:00
1137:00
1143:15
1149:30
1156:30
1202:30
Sum Average Number Start End Sum Average
120
120
120
120
120
120
100
80
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
115
no
5 21 1202:30 1203:00 10 5
5
5
5
5
5
4.2
3.3
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.8
4.6
A-99
-------
TABLE 84
FACILITY L2
Summary of Visible Emissions
s
Date: 12/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 25 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 100 ft.Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Sout
east
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation: 128 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERASE OPACITY
Set Time
Number Start
1 1357
2 1403
3 1409
4 1415
5 1421
6 1427
7 1433
8 1439
9 1445
10 1451
11 1457
12 1503
13 1509
14 1515
15 1521
16 1527
17 1533
18 1539
19 1545
20 1551
Ojpaci|y Set Time Qpacity_
End
1403
1409
1415
1421
1427
1433
1439
1445
1451
1457
1503
1509
1515
1521
1527
1533
1539
1545
1551
1557
Sum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average Number Start End Sum Averag
0 21 1557 1603 0 0
0 22 1603 1605 0 0
0
0
0
0 l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-100
-------
TABLE 85
FACILITY L2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 12/5/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point; 25 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 100 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: 100 ft.Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: South
east
Description of Background: Clear Blue
Description of Sky: Clear Blue
Wind Direction: East Wind Velocity: 5-10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: White Detached Plume: Yes
Duration of Observation: approx. 120 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
18
20
Time
Start
1050
1056
1102
1108
1114
1120
1126
1132
1138
1144
1152
1158
1204
1210
1216
1222
1228
1234
1240
1246
End
1056
1102
1108
1114
1120
1126
1132
1138
1144
1150
1158
1204
1210
1216
1222
1228
1234
1240
1246
1251
Opacity
Set Time
Sum Average Number Start End
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opacity
Sum Average
A-101
-------
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
TABLE 86
FACILITY Ml
Summary of Results
1
6/14/78
120
2 3 Average
6/15/78' 6/15/78
120 , 120 120
1840
1620
124
2.8
see
Table
88
1490
1300
121
4.1
see
Table
89
1560
1360
124
4.2
see
Table
90
1630
1427
123
3.7
-
0.001
0.001
0.01
0.001
0.001
0.02
Total catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests,
0.007 0.003
0.006 0.003
0.09 0.04
A-102'
-------
Run Jlumber
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFH
Temperature - °F
Hater vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Table 87
FACILITY Ml
(Inlet)
Summary of Results
6/15/78
2,060
1,740
123
6.0
1.04
15.6
Average
A-103
-------
TABLE 88
FACILITY Ml
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/14/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation: 151 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 90 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 35 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Wind Velocity: 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Time
Start
1538
1544
1550
1556
1602
1608
1614
1620
1626
1632
1638
1644
1650
1656
17,02
1708
1714
1720
1726
1732
Opaci ty
End
1544
1550
1556
1602
1608
1614
1620
1626
1632
1638
1644
1650
1656
1702
1708
1714
1720
1726
1732
1738
Sum
0
0
0
0
0
0
o-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Set Time
Number Start End
21 1738 1744
22 1744 1750
23 1750 1756
24 1756 1802
25 1802 1808
26 1808 1809
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Opacity
Sum Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
\
A-104
-------
TABLE 90
FACILITY Ml
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation; 183 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 90 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 35 ft.
Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: East
Wind Velocity: 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Time
Start
1332
1338
1344
1350
1356
1402
1442
1448
1454
1500
1506
1512
1518
1524
1530
1536
1542
1548
1554
1600
End
1338
1344
1350
1356
1402
1408
1448
1454
1500
1506
1512
1518
1524
1530
1536
1542
1548
1554
1660
1606
Opacity
Sum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Set Time
Number Start End
21 1606 1608
1625 1629
22 1629 1634
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Opacity
Sum Average
0 0
0 0
A-106
-------
TABLE 91
FACILITY M2
Summary of Results
Run Number
Date
Test Time - Minutes
Production Rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate- DSCFM
Temperature - F
Water vapor - Vol. %
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
% Opacity
Particulate Emissions
Probe and Filter catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total catch
(1)
1
6/14/78
120
2580
2100
183
1.1
see
Table
93
0.002
0.002
0.03
2
6/15/78
120
2460
2090
151
1.7
see
Table
94
0.002
0.002
0.04
3
6/15/78
120
2450
2100
150
1.6
see
Table
95
0.001
0.001
0.02
Average
-
120
2497
2097
161
1.5
0.002
0.002
0.03
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
(1) No analysis of back-half on in-stack filter tests,
A-107
-------
Run i!u;nber
Date
Test Time-minutes
Production rate - TPH
Stack Effluent
Flow rate - ACFM
Flow rate - DSCFM
Temperature - °F
Water vapor - Vol.%
Visible Emissions at
Collector Discharge -
Percent Opacity
^articulate Emissions
Probe and Filter Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF •
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Total Catch
gr/DSCF
gr/ACF
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Table 92
FACILITY M2
(Inlet)
Summary of ."(jr.it 1 ts
1
6/15/78
130
2,560
2,170
170
2.0
5.24
97.4
Average
A-108
-------
TABLE 93
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/14/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack
Location of Discharge: Baghouse
Height of Point of Discharge:
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation: 30 minutes
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 90 ft.
Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Wind Velocity: 10 mi/hr.
Detached Plume:
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time
Number Start End
1 1528 1534
2 1534 1540
3 1540 1546
4 1546 1552
5 1552 1558
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Opacity
Sum Average
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
/
Set Time
Number Start End
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Opacity
Sum Average
A-109
-------
TABLE 94
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date; 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 90 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: East
Description ot Background: bky
Description of Sky: cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE
Color of Plume:
Duration of Observation
Wind Velocity: 10 mi/hr.
Detached
: 128 minutes
Plume:
•
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Time
Number Start
1 850
2 856
3 902
4 908
5 914
6 920
7 926
8 932
9 938
10 944
11 950
12 956
13 1002
14 1008
15 1014
16 1020
17 1026
18 1032
19 1038
20 1044
End
856
902
908
914
920
926
932
938
944
950
956
1002
1008
1014
1020
1026
1032
1038
1044
1050
Opacity^
Sum Average
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Set Time
Number Start End
21 1050 1056
22 1056 1058
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Opacity
Sum Averag
0 0
0 0
A-110
-------
TABLE 95
FACILITY M2
Summary of Visible Emissions
Date: 6/15/78
Type of Plant: Clay
Type of Discharge: Stack Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: 90 ft.
Location of Discharge: Baghouse Height of Observation Point: 85 ft.
Height of Point of Discharge: Direction of Observers from Discharge Point: East
Description of Background: Sky
Description of Sky: Partly cloudy
Wind Direction: NNE Wind Velocity: 10 mi/hr.
Color of Plume: Detached Plume:
Duration of Observation: 139 minutes
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Start
1359
1405
1411
1417
1423
1429
1435
1441
1447
1453
1459
1505
1511
1517
1523
1529
1535
1541
1547
1553
Time
End
1405
1411
1417
1423
1429
1435
1441
1447
1453
1459
1505
1511
1517
1523
1529
1535
1541
1547
1553
1559
Sum
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opacity
Average
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Set Time
Number Start End
21 1559 1605
22 1605 1611
23 1611 1617
24 1617 1618
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Opacity
Sum Average
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
A-lll
-------
TABLE 96
FACILITY N
Summary of Results of Fugitive Emission Tests performed
on three separate rail car loadings
Observation
area
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Accumulated
observation
period
(mi n: sec)
144:32
144:32
144:32
99:45
99:45
99:45
154:20
154:20
154:20
Accumulated
emission
time
(min:sec)
Test #1
22:42
17:30
0:00
Test #2
18:50
2:06
0.00
Test #3
63:42
0:20
9:21
% Emission
(AET/AOP x 100}
15.7
12,1
0
18.9
2.1
0
41.3
0.2
6.1
1. Designation of observation positions
A. Loading hose
B. West end of shed
C. East end of shed
A-112
-------
TABLE 97
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY P
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Time Observed time •
period (minutes) Observer
Test point 5, Final screens, 10/3/79
1035-1055 20 0 <1
1105-1125 20 <1 0
1130-1150 20 <1 0
Test point 7, Transfer point, 10/3/79
1324-1424 60 1 1
A-113
-------
TABLE 98
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES'
FACILITY P
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
TP-5
Final Screens
Observer
3 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
TP-7
Transfer Point
Observer
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
JValues reported in percent opacity
A-114
-------
TABLE 99
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES3
FACILITY P
Run
TP-1
Pri mary
Crusher
Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
9
7
14
14
13
11
12b
7C
-
9
11
10
13
8
10
10
8
4
13
11
15
17
11
11
11
10
13
10
15
18
10
8
10
11
5
TP-4
Impact
Crusher
Observer
3
15
11
11
11
11
10
10
n
13
11
4
10
7
7
10
10
8
13
13
10
9
TP-6
Cone
Crusher
Observer
3
4
5
9
11
9
' 10
9
7
10
8
8
13
7
8
8
1
0
0
0
1
4
11
18
22
25
23
17
16
15
15
16
15
21
13
13
15
4
2
1
1
4
aValues reported in percent opacity.
4-nrinute average
c5-minute average
A-115
-------
TABLE 100
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY Q
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Time Observed time
period (minutes) Observer
Test point 2, Initial screens, 10/10/79 - 10/11/79
1010-10409 30 34 65
0820-0856 30 47
Test point 3, Transfer point, 10/10/79
0851-0921a 30 27 31
0931-1001a 30 64 67
Test point 5, Secondary screens, 10/8/79
0848-0918 30 00
0940-1010 30 00
1015-1045 30 00
1057-1127 30 <1 0
Test point 7, Final screens, 10/8/79
1250-1320 30 00
1330-1400 30 00
1407-1437 30 00
1451-1521 30 00
"Red Rock" material. Not processed under representative conditions. Data
omitted.
A-116
-------
TABLE 101
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES*
FACILITY Q
TP-2
Run Initial Screens
Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
3
3
2
3
5
10
8
4
9
7
5
3
4
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
TP-3 b
Transfer Point
Observer
3
0
1
1
2
1
10
9
8
8
8
10
9
14
13
12
11
12
12
14
13
4
0
1
1
2
1
12
10
8
9
9
7
7
10
8
9
9
10
9
10
10
TP-5
Secondary Screens
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
<1
1
1*
2
2
<1
1
2
3
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
TP-7
Final Screens
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
o .
0
0
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*Five minute average
aValues reported in percent opacity
fa,,
Red Rock" material. vNot processed under representative conditions. Data omitted.
A-117
-------
TABLE 102
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES*
FACILITY Q
TP-1 TP-6
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Observer
3
n
11
6
12
12
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
4
n
14
8
18
17
5
9
4
8
6
6
7
8
12
10
6
6
5
2
3
Observer
3
15
18
18
17
10
15
19
20
23
24
28
26
28b
25
28
29
27C
27
29
26
25C
4
12
17
19
19
12
18
19
21
23
23
24
26
28b
23
28
26
26^
29
34
38
39C
Values reported in percent opacity,
4-minute average.
c
5-minute average.
A-llfi
-------
TABLE 104
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES'
FACILITY R
TP-1 TP-3 TP-4
Run Initial Screens Transfer Point Secondary Screens
Observer Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
<1
0
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
<1
<1
<1
0
0
0
2
2
4 34
0 00
0 0 1
0 2 1
1 <1 <1
1 0 0
<1 1 4
0 24
0 <1 3
<1 34
1 4 5
<1
0
<1
1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
Observer
3
0
<1
<1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ob
-------
TABLE 105
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES9
FACILITY R
•
Run -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TP-2 TP-5
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Observer
3
14
16
16
16
12
9
13
9
13
12
17
9
14
13
15
8
6
7
10
9
4
13
14
14
9
13
15
14
14
15
13
16
13
11
12
13
9
6
9
11
12
Observer
3
8
9
9
12
13
11
13
12
13
12
12
10
9
7
8
12
13
11
11
12
4
12
14
17
15
15
15
16
14
16
14
17
17
17
10
15
10
11
11
11
11
Data reported in percent opacity.
A-121
-------
TABLE 106-
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY S
Time
period
Observed time
(minutes)
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Observer
Test point 2, Initial Screens, 10/24/79
1516-1546 30
1558-1628 30
1100-1130 30
1302-1332 30
Test point 4, Secondary screens, 10/22/79, 10/23/79
1108-1138 30
1143-1158 15
0745-0805 15
0810-1840 30
0845-0915 30
Test point 6, Transfer point, 10/23/79, 10/24/79
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 10
1 13
1 5
1 6
1 7
1257-1327
1335-1350
1338-1353
1355-1425
1433-1503
Test point 7» Transfer point,
0750-0820
0826-0856
0915-0945
0955-1025
30
15
15
30
30
10/25/79
30
30
30
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-122
-------
TABLE 107
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES*
FACILITY S
TP-2 TP-4
Run Initial Screens Secondary Screens
Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Observer
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TP-6 TP-7
Transfer Point Transfer Point
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.
0
0
Values reported in percent opacity
A-123
-------
TABLE 108
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES3
FACILITY S
F
Run -
TP-1
'rimary crusher
Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
. 3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
<1
0
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
3
3
2
0
4
1
2
1
0
1
3
2
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
2
0
2
3
1
1
TP-3
4-1/2 in.
Cone crusher
Observer
3
3
4
4
2
4
6
6
3
2
5
4
5
3
5
5
4
3
3
3
1
4
3
4
5
3
3
4
4
2
2
3
3
5
2
4
3
2
0
2
1
2
TP-5
5-1/2 in.
Cone crusher
Observer
3
0
0
3
5
4
10
n
14
n
13
11
11
12
8
10
12
9
6
7
5
4
0
2
5
5
4
9
9
10
10
10
11
10
15
9
12
12
10
9
n
9
Data reported in percent opacity.
A-124
-------
TABLE 109
SUMMARY OF METHOD 22 RESULTS - FACILITY T
Time
period
Test point 2, Transfer
1353-1427
1428-1458
1533-1603
1125-1155
Test point 3, Initial
1300-1330
1336-1406
1412-1542
1450-1520
Test point 5, Storage
0755-0825
1023-1053
0908-0938
0947-1017
Observed time
(minutes)
point, 10/26/79, 10/29/79
30
30
30
30
screens, 10/29/79, 10/30/79
30
30
30
30
bin, 10/29/79, 10/30/79
30
30
30
30
Percent of time
with visible emissions
Observer
1 2
0 1
4 2
3 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
A-125
-------
TABLE 110
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES*
FACILITY T
Run
TP-2
Transfer Point
Observer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TP-3
Initial Screens
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TP-5
Storage
Bin
Observer
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<1
0
<1
0
0
0
<1
0
Values reported in percent opacity
A-126
-------
TABLE 111
METHOD 9 - 6-MINUTE AVERAGES3
FACILITY T
TP-1 TP-4
Primary crusher Cone crusher
Run
]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Observer
3
4
6
9
3
5
10
4
9
8
7
8
8
8
13
10
13
10
9
10
6
4
8
7
8
3
5
8
3
5
7
7
8
8
6
8
6
8
5
4
6
5
Observer
3
18
21
22
23
19
17
20
15
15
15
16
6
10
17
19
18
15
16
18
13
4
15
14
14
15
13
11
13
8
8
9
6
7
11
16
16
15 '
15
13
16
14
Data reported in percent opacity.
A-127
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-82-014
2.
3, RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. RIPORT DATE
Air Pollution Control Techniques for
Non-Metallic Minerals Industry
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO,
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Air pollution control technologies for the control of particulate emissions
from non-metallic mineral processing plants are evaluated. Specific control
technologies considered include the use of local ventilation followed by fabric
filter collection and wet dust suppression techniques. Performance data based on
mass particulate measurements and visual observations are presented. In addition,
the capital and annualized emission control costs for several . model plant sizes
are estimated.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b,IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATi Field/Group
Air Pollution
Control Technology
Non-Metallic Minerals
Particulate Emissions
Air Pollution Control
Particulate Control
Fabric Filter
Wet Oust Suppressions
Non-Metallic Minerals
13 B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
317
Urlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77} PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
United States Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Environmental Protection Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Agency Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Official Business Publication No, EPA-450/3-82-014 pn.,»n«, anrt
Penalty .or Private Use SXd
Environmental
Protection
Agency
cpA 'i'SK
C rf\ tjjo
If your address is incorrect, pleasechange on the above label;
tear ofi; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving this technical report
series, CHECK HERE D ; tear oft label; and return it lo the
above address.
-------
|