Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.26
Talc Processing
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
EPA Contract 68-D2-0159
Work Assignment No. 11-01
MRI Project No. 4602-01
July 1995
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.26
Talc Processing
Final Report
For U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Attn: Mr. Ron Myers (MD-14)
EPA Contract 68-D2-0159
Work Assignment No. 11-01
MRI Project No. 4602-01
July 1995
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-D2-0159 to Midwest Research Institute. It has
been reviewed by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and has been approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) for the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under Contract
No. 68-D2-0159, Work Assignment No. 11-01. Mr. Ron Myers was the requester of the work.
in
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES vi
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-2
2.3 EMISSIONS 2-2
2.4 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-4
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 3-1
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING 3-1
3.2 DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-2
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM 3-3
4. REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS 4-
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-
4.2 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS 4-
4.2.1 Reference 1 4-
4.2.2 Reference 2 4-
4.2.3 Reference 3 4-
4.2.4 Reference 4 4-3
4.2.5 Reference 5 4-3
4.2.6 Reference 6 4-4
4.2.7 Reference 7 4-5
4.2.8 Reference 8 4-5
4.2.9 Reference 9 4-6
4.2.10 Reference 10 4-6
4.2.11 Reference 11 4-7
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS 4-7
4.3.1 Primary Crushing 4-11
4.3.2 Screening and Transfer 4-11
4.3.3 Storage Bin Loading 4-11
4.3.4 Grinding 4-11
4.3.5 Classifying 4-12
4.3.6 Pellet Drying 4-12
4.3.7 Pneumatic Conveyor Venting 4-12
4.3.8 Packaging 4-12
4.3.9 Crushed Talc Rail Car Loading 4-12
4.3.10 Crude Ore Dryer 4-12
5. PROPOSED AP-42 SECTION 5-1
-------
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Process flow diagram for talc processing 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1 SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA FROM A TALC
CRUSHING AND GRINDING FACILITY 4-2
4-2 SUMMARY OF METALS ANALYSIS OF TALC PRODUCT AND FABRIC
FILTER CATCH 4-4
4-3 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR TALC PROCESSING 4-8
4-4 SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TALC PROCESSING . 4-10
vn
-------
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.26
Talc Processing
1. INTRODUCTION
The document Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42) has been published by the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since 1972. Supplements to AP-42 have been routinely
published to add new emission source categories and to update existing emission factors. AP-42 is
routinely updated by EPA to respond to new emission factor needs of EPA, State and local air pollution
control programs, and industry.
An emission factor is a representative value that attempts to relate the quantity of a pollutant
released to the atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. Emission factors
usually are expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by the unit weight, volume, distance, or duration of
the activity that emits the pollutant. The emission factors presented in AP-42 may be appropriate to use in
a number of situations, such as making source-specific emission estimates for areawide inventories for
dispersion modeling, developing control strategies, screening sources for compliance purposes, establishing
operating permit fees, and making permit applicability determinations. The purpose of this report is to
provide background information from test reports and other information to support preparation of AP-42
Section 11.26, Talc Processing.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to the report.
Section 2 gives a description of the talc processing industry. It includes a characterization of the industry,
a description of the different process operations, a characterization of emission sources and pollutants
emitted, and a description of the technology used to control emissions resulting from these sources.
Section 3 is a review of emission data collection (and emission measurement) procedures. It describes the
literature search, the screening of emission data reports, and the quality rating system for both emission
data and emission factors. Section 4 details how the new AP-42 section was developed. It includes the
review of specific data sets and a description of how candidate emission factors were developed. Section 5
presents the AP-42 Section 11.26, Talc Processing.
1-1
-------
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
2.1 INDUSTRY CHARACTERIZATION1417
Talc, which is a soft, hydrous magnesium silicate (3MgO 4Si02H20), is used in a wide range of
industries including the manufacture of ceramics, paints, paper, and asphalt roofing. The end uses for talc
are determined by variables such as chemical and mineralogical composition, particle size and shape,
specific gravity, hardness, and color. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for talc mining is
1499 (miscellaneous nonmetallic minerals, except fuels), and the SIC code for talc processing is 3295
(minerals and earths, ground or otherwise treated). There is no Source Classification Code (SCC) for the
source category.
The word talc refers to a wide variety of rocks and rock products. Soapstone is a massive, impure,
talcose rock that has a variable talc content that can exceed 50 percent. It has a slippery feeling and can be
carved by hand. Steatite contains a high-purity talc suitable for making electrical insulators. These talc-
containing rocks (soapstone and steatite) will be treated as talc in this section. The color of talc varies from
snow-white to greenish-gray and various shades of green. The specific gravity of talc ranges from 2.6
to 2.8.
In theory, talc is composed of 63.4 percent silicon dioxide (Si02), 31.9 percent magnesium oxide
(MgO), and 4.7 percent water (H20). The actual composition of commercial talc may vary widely from
these levels. Talcose rocks may contain mineral impurities that are composed of one or more of the
following oxides, ranging in concentration from a trace to several percent: iron, titanium, aluminum,
calcium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, phosphorus, potassium, or sodium. For most end-uses,
these impurities are undesirable and are removed to the extent feasible. Tremolite, anthophylite, and
actinolite, may be found in talc deposits, but are rarely fibrous in such deposits. Chrysotile also can be
found in some talc deposits, but is extremely rare.
Talc deposits can be found in many parts of the world. In 1992, talc minerals were mined and
processed at 19 mines in 8 States, and domestic production amounted to 997,000 megagrams (Mg)
(1,099,000 tons). Talc mines in Montana, New York, Texas, and Vermont accounted for about 98 percent
of total domestic production in 1992.
The largest use of talc-group minerals is for manufacturing of ceramics (31 percent of total 1992
U.S. production), which includes sanitary ware, floor and wall tile, dinnerware glazes, and electrical
porcelains. For these end-products, adding talc to the usual clay-silica-feldspar body mixtures facilitates
the firing of the ware and improves the quality. The second largest user of talc minerals is the paper
industry (20 percent). The third major use of talc is as a filler or a pigment for paints (18 percent),
followed by roofing applications (9 percent), plastics (5 percent), and cosmetics (5 percent). Talc also is
used in the production of synthetic rubber, insecticides, and pharmaceuticals.
Grades of talc are most frequently identified with the end use. Some of the important desirable
properties are softness and smoothness, color, luster, high slip tendency, moisture content, oil and grease
absorption, chemical inertness, fusion point, heat and electrical conductivity, and high dielectrical strength.
2-1
-------
1-2,4-7,16-17
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Most domestic talc is mined from open-pit operations; over 95 percent of the talc ore produced in
the United States comes from open-pit mines. Mining operations usually consist of conventional drilling
and blasting methods.
Figure 2-1 is a process flow diagram for a typical domestic talc plant. Talc ore generally is hauled
to the plant by truck from a nearby mine. The ore is crushed, typically in a jaw crusher, and screened. The
coarse (oversize) material then is returned to the crusher. Rotary dryers may be used to dry the material.
Secondary grinding is achieved with pebble mills or roller mills, producing a product that is 44 to
149 micrometers (um) (325 to 100 mesh) in size. Some roller mills are designed to use heated air to dry the
material as it is being ground. Hammer mills or steam- or compressed air-powered jet mills may be used to
produce additional fine products. Air classifiers (separators), generally in closed-circuit with the mills,
separate the material into coarse, coarse-plus-fine, and fine fractions. The coarse and coarse-plus-fine
fractions then are stored as products. The fines may be concentrated using a shaking table (tabling
process) to separate product containing small quantities of nickel, iron, cobalt, or other minerals, and then
undergo a one-step flotation process. The resultant talc slurry is dewatered and filtered prior to passing
through a flash dryer. The flash-dried product is then stored for shipment, or it may be further ground to
meet customer specifications. The classified material may also be pelletized prior to packaging for specific
applications. In the pelletizing step, processed talc is mixed with water to form a paste and then extruded
as pellets.
2.3 EMISSIONS1-2'4-5'9'17
The primary pollutant of concern in talc processing is particulate matter (PM) and PM less than 10
^m (PM-10). Particulate matter is emitted from drilling, blasting, crushing, screening, grinding, drying,
calcining, classifying, materials handling and transfer operations, packaging, and storage. Although
pelletizing is a wet process, PM may emitted from the transfer and feeding of processed talc to the
pelletizer. Depending on the purity of the talc ore body, PM emissions may include trace amounts of
several inorganic compounds that are listed hazardous air pollutants (HAP), including arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, manganese, nickel, and phosphorus.
The emissions from dryers and calciners include products of combustion, such as carbon
monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, in addition to filterable and condensible PM.
Volatile organic compounds (VOC) also are emitted from the drying and calcining of southwestern United
States talc deposits, which generally contain organic impurities. Products of combustion and VOC may
also be emitted from roller mills that use heated air and from the furnaces that provide the heated air to the
mill.
In the mid to late 1970's, the suspected presence of asbestos in the talc deposits located in upper
New York State was a major controversy. The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety
(NIOSH) reported that the talc deposits in that region contained significant quantities of tremolite and
anthophylite asbestos and reported elevated rates of lung cancer among those exposed to the talc. Later
studies funded by the company mining the talc concluded that the material identified as asbestos in the
NIOSH report was amphibole cleavage fragments rather than asbestos. The studies also concluded that the
elevated cancer rates did not appear to be related to exposure to the talc dust mined from the deposits in
question. Although some disagreement remains, the preponderance of evidence does not support the
conclusion that the talc from those deposits contains asbestos.
2-2
-------
LEGEND
-- FRCCESSFLOW
^j' FMEMSSDNS
t
(
4
1
CRUDE CRE DRYER
CRUSHEDTALCRAL
(SCC 30508912)
TALCMNE
FRCDJCnON
t
FLANTYARD
STCRAGE
(SCC 30508906)
t
CONuElOR
(SCC 30508908)
t
FRIMORY
CRUSHER
(SCC 30508911)
|
CRUSHED TALC
STORAGE EN
LOADING
(SCC 30508914)
1
SCREEN
(SCC 30508917)
©
©
0
©
OvERSEEORE
rry^ J
i i ROTARYCALCNER
I— 1— (SCC30508931-33)
I
f7Y~^
i 1 ROTARYCCCLER
1— 1— (SCC30508941
© 1
i UJPK*
T FELLETEER
(SCC 30508953)
TY?^ t
~LKJ
4 4 FELLETDRYER
*— *— (SCC30508955) /-^ { {
' \-) HNALF
i
t- (
©
V PACK/
I (SCC305
4 4 ROTARYDRYER
>— 1— (SCC30508921-23)
rn * * r?x:
\^ v_A
T GRNDNG GRNDNGWTH HEATED j
I
0 t
w
i GRCUI^DTALC
T STCRAGEHNLOADING
(SCC 30508949)
1 ©
AIR CLASSIFIERS t
(SCC30508950)
HNES 1
=E T
COARSEAND TARING PROCESS
PI^LMATIC RNES (SCC30508961
CCNvEYCR\
-------
2.4 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY1 n 15
Because of the need for product recovery, most emission sources at talc processing plants are
equipped with PM control devices. Fabric filters are commonly used to control emissions from crushing,
grinding, screening, conveying, classifying, storage silo loading, and bagging operations. Cyclones also are
used to capture particles in emission streams from some processing units.
2-4
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. Calciners and Dryers in Mineral Industries—Background Information for Proposed Standards, EPA-
450/3-025a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1985.
2. L. A. Roe and R. H. Olson, "Talc", Industrial Rocks and Minerals, Volume I, Society of Mining
Engineers, New York, NY, 1983.
3. R. L. Virta, "Talc in 1992", Mineral Industry Surveys, Annual, Preliminary, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, January 1993.
4. Written communication from B. Virta, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 28,
1994.
5. Written communication from J. Kelse, R. T. Vanderbilt Company, Inc., Norwalk, Connecticut, to R.
Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 21, 1994.
6. Written communication from S. Harms, Montana Talc Company, Three Forks, Montana, to
R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, March 1994.
7. R. L. Virta, The Talc Industry—An Overview, Information Circular 9220, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, 1989.
8. Emission Study at a Talc Crushing and Grinding Facility, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,
Johnson, Vermont, October 19-21, 1976, Report No. 76-NMM-4, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.
9. Occupational Exposure to Talc Containing Asbestos, DREW (NIOSH) Publication No. 80-115,
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department Of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, DC, February 1980.
10. An Evaluation of Mineral Particles at Governeur Talc Company, 1975 and 1982: A Comparison of
Mineralogical Results Between NIOSH and DGC, Dunn Geoscience Corporation, Latham, NY,
January 4, 1985.
11. R. A. James and K. Ganesan, Paniculate Emissions from Montana Talc Company, Sappington,
Montana, December 1986, Whitehall, MT, December 1986.
12. Emission Test Report-Plant A, Test No. 1, July 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
13. Emission Test Report-Plant A, Test No. 2, September 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
2-5
-------
14. Initial Compliance Test for P articulate Emissions, Luzenac America, Three Forks Mill, Montana Air
Quality Permit #2282-02, January/February 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, April 25,
1995.
15. Paniculate Emissions Compliance Test, Luzenac America, Sappington Mill, Montana Air Quality
Permit 1996-03, December 1994-March 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, March 29,
1995.
16. Written communication from J. Parks, Barretts Minerals Incorporated, Dillon, Montana, to R. Myers,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, February 23, 1995.
17. Written communication from R. Virta, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C., to R. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,
February 13, 1995.
2-6
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
Data for this investigation were obtained from a number of sources within the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and from outside organizations. The AP-42 background files located in
the Emission Factor and Inventory Group (EFIG) were reviewed for information on the industry, processes,
and emissions. The Factor Information and Retrieval (FIRE), Crosswalk/Air Toxic Emission Factor Data
Base Management System (XATEF), and VOC/PM Speciation Data Base Management System
(SPECIATE) data bases were searched by SCC code for identification of the potential pollutants emitted
and emission factors for those pollutants. A general search of the Air CHIEF CD-ROM also was
conducted to supplement the information from these data bases.
Information on the industry, including number of plants, plant location, and annual production
capacities, was obtained from the Bureau of Mines and other sources. The Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS) data base also was searched for data on the number of plants, plant location, and
estimated annual emissions of criteria pollutants. A number of sources of information were investigated
specifically for emission test reports and data. A search of the Test Method Storage and Retrieval (TSAR)
data base was conducted to identify test reports for sources within the talc processing industry. Copies of
these test reports were obtained from the files of the Emissions, Monitoring, and Analysis Division
(EMAD). The EPA library was searched for additional test reports. Using information obtained on plant
locations, State and Regional offices were contacted about the availability of test reports. Publications lists
from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Control Technology Center (CTC) were also
searched for reports on emissions from the talc processing industry. In addition, information about the
industry and emissions was obtained from several talc processing facilities.
To screen out unusable test reports, documents, and information from which emission factors could
not be developed, the following general criteria were used:
1. Emission data must be from a primary reference:
a. Source testing must be from a referenced study that does not reiterate information from
previous studies.
b. The document must constitute the original source of test data. For example, a technical paper
was not included if the original study was contained in the previous document. If the exact source of the
data could not be determined, the document was eliminated.
2. The referenced study should contain test results based on more than one test run. If results
from only one run are presented, the emission factors must be down rated.
3. The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing procedures and source operating
conditions (e.g., one-page reports were generally rejected).
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports,
documents, and information according to these criteria.
3-1
-------
3.2 DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM1
As part of the analysis of the emission data, the quantity and quality of the information contained
in the final set of reference documents were evaluated. The following data were excluded from
consideration:
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted to the selected reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (i.e., comparison of EPA Method 5 front-
half with EPA Method 5 front and back-half);
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified and described; and
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were measured before or after the
control device.
Test data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality rating. The rating system used was
that specified by EFIG for preparing AP-42 sections. The data were rated as follows:
A — Multiple tests that were performed on the same source using sound methodology and reported
in enough detail for adequate validation. These tests do not necessarily conform to the methodology
specified in EPA reference test methods, although these methods were used as a guide for the methodology
actually used.
B — Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for
adequate validation.
C — Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that lacked a significant amount
of background data.
D — Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may provide an order-of-
magnitude value for the source.
The following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for sound methodology and
adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is well documented in the
report. The source was operating within typical parameters during the test.
2. Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a generally acceptable
methodology. If actual procedures deviated from accepted methods, the deviations are well documented.
When this occurred, an evaluation was made of the extent to which such alternative procedures could
influence the test results.
3. Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data are documented in the report,
and any variations in the sampling and process operation are noted. If a large spread between test results
3-2
-------
cannot be explained by information contained in the test report, the data are suspect and are given a lower
rating.
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports contain original raw data sheets. The nomenclature
and equations used were compared to those (if any) specified by EPA to establish equivalency. The depth
of review of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's confidence in the ability and conscientiousness
of the tester, which in turn was based on factors such as consistency of results and completeness of other
areas of the test report.
3.3 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM1
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the test data was rated using the
following general criteria:
A — Excellent: Developed only from A-rated test data taken from many randomly chosen
facilities in the industry population. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the
source category population may be minimized.
B — Above average: Developed only from A-rated test data from a reasonable number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industries. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the source
category population may be minimized.
C — Average: Developed only from A- and B-rated test data from a reasonable number of
facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random
sample of the industry. In addition, the source category is specific enough so that variability within the
source category population may be minimized.
D — Below average: The emission factor was developed only from A- and B-rated test data from
a small number of facilities, and there is reason to suspect that these facilities do not represent a random
sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source category population.
Limitations on the use of the emission factor are noted in the emission factor table.
E — Poor: The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test data, and there is reason
to suspect that the facilities tested do not represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be
evidence of variability within the source category population. Limitations on the use of these factors are
footnoted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an extent upon the individual
reviewer. Details of the rating of each candidate emission factor are provided in Section 4.
3-3
-------
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 3
1. Technical Procedures for Developing AP-42 Emission Factors and Preparing AP-42 Sections,
EPA-454/B-93-050, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, October 1993.
3-4
-------
4. REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the references that were reviewed for data on emissions from talc processing
sources and how the data was used to develop candidate emission factors for this source category. A total
of 11 emission test reports were reviewed. The following paragraphs summarize the information presented
in those reports.
4.2 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
4.2.1 Reference 1
This report documents an emission test at a talc processing plant conducted in 1976. Uncontrolled and
controlled filterable and condensible inorganic PM emissions and particle size distribution were measured.
The PM emissions were measured using a modified Method 17. The particle size distribution was
measured using an Alundum thimble connected to the nozzle by a 12-in. steel probe, followed by a 47-
millimeter-type SGA filter. The particle size distribution of the portion of the sample found to be less than
45 ^m was determined using electronic particle counter methods. Table 4-1 summarizes the particle size
distribution. Because the test report did not include process operating rates, emission factors could not be
developed from the emission data. Because optical procedures rather than inertial separators were used to
determine the particle size distribution, the data are rated E.
4.2.2 Reference 2
This report documents the results of emission tests conducted on a talc processing impact mill and a
ground talc storage bin loading operation. The tests were conducted in 1986 to demonstrate compliance
with State regulations.
The sources tested were each ducted to a separate fabric filter, and only controlled emissions were
measured. Filterable PM emissions were quantified using Method 5. Although three test runs were
conducted, the report includes only the average production rates and filterable PM emission concentrations
for the tests. In addition, due to the configuration of the stack, measurements could be made along one
traverse only.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM emissions from the sources tested. Because of the
lack of adequate detail in the report and the deviation in sampling procedures described above, the emission
data are assigned a rating of D.
4.2.3 Reference 3
This report documents measurement of filterable PM emissions from a talc primary crusher, crushed
ore screen, roller mill, and bagging operation. The sources tested were each ducted to a separate fabric
filter, and only controlled emissions were measured. The tests were conducted in 1990 to demonstrate
compliance with State regulations.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION DATA
FROM A TALC
CRUSHING AND GRINDING FACILITY3
Process
Primary /secondary crushing
Vertical mill
Storage, bagging, air
classification
Diameter, ,amb
55.4
34.9
22.0
17.4
11.0
6.9
3.0
2.0
1.0
29.0
18.8
14.9
11.9
9.4
7.5
4.7
3.0
1.9
1.0
43.9
27.7
17.4
13.8
11.0
6.9
4.4
3.0
2.0
1.0
Cumulative weight, g
1.564
3.932
7.822
9.546
11.063
14.197
17.521
17.898
18.049
0.002
0.017
0.031
0.144
0.943
2.792
4.554
4.821
4.908
4.920
0.014
0.339
2.141
4.289
6.922
12.108
14.847
15.534
15.885
16.016
Cumulative percent
less than diameter
91.3
78.2
56.7
47.2
38.8
21.4
3.0
0.94
0.11
100.0
99.7
99.4
97.1
80.8
43.3
7.5
2.1
0.28
0.04
99.9
97.9
86.6
73.2
56.8
24.5
7.4
3.1
0.92
0.10
Reference 1. Data rated D.
4-2
-------
The primary crusher reduces material up to 100 centimeters (cm) (40 in.) in size to less than 14.6 cm
(5.75 in.). Emissions from the crusher are collected at the ore feed point, at the crushed ore discharge
point, and along the skirted conveyor that transports crushed material to the screen. The emission stream is
ducted to a cartridge type fabric filter. The material exiting the screen is deposited through a chute onto a
conveyor. Emissions from the screen are combined with emissions collected from two pickup points along
the conveyor located on the discharge side of the screen and ducted to a cartridge type fabric filter. In the
roller mill, crushed talc ore is ground to a fine powder. The roller mill system includes a furnace to provide
heated makeup air to entrain the fine particles, which are passed through a product recovery cyclone. The
recovered product is classified by means of a pair of vibrating screens. Undersize material is pneumatically
conveyed to storage and oversize material is returned to the roller mill. In the bagging operation, talc of
four different grades (Grades 36, 85, and 100, and a special order) is bagged separately. Emissions from
the bagging operation are ducted to two fabric filters.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using a Method 5 sampling train with an unheated filter, and
three test runs were conducted. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the exhaust stream
from the roller mill were measured using fyrite. Although no problems were identified in the report, the
information provided in Reference 4 indicates that the fabric filter that controlled emissions from the roller
mill was malfunctioning during the test.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM emissions from all sources and for CO2 emissions
from the roller mill. The emission factors for the primary crushing, screening, and bagging operations were
rated B; the test method was sound and no problems were reported but run-by-run process rates were not
provided. The filterable PM data for the roller mill is rated D due to the problem with the control device.
Finally, the CO2 data for the roller mill was downrated to C because of the test method used and the lack of
run-by-run process data.
4.2.4 Reference 4
This report documents the results of a retest of the roller mill subsequent to the test documented in
Reference 3. Emissions from the mill were tested after repairs were made to the fabric filter that controls
emissions from the mill. The test was conducted in 1990, three months after the test documented in
Reference 3.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using Method 17 with an in-stack filter, and three test runs
were conducted. In addition, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the exhaust stream from the roller mill
were measured using fyrite. No problems were identified in the test report.
Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM and CO2 from the roller mill. The
filterable PM emission factor was rated B; the test method was sound and no problems were reported but
run-by-run process rates were not provided. The CO2 data for the roller mill was downrated to C because
of the test method used and the lack of run-by-run process data.
4.2.5 Reference 5
This report documents measurements of emissions of filterable PM and four metals from a talc roller
mill. Emissions from the mill are controlled with a fabric filter, and only controlled emissions were
measured. The tests were conducted in 1993 to demonstrate compliance with State regulations.
4-3
-------
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using a modified Method 17 to allow measurement of metals
emissions also. The modification consisted of the stainless steel sampling train equipment being replaced
with teflon coated equipment. The sample was analyzed for four metals (arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, and nickel) using National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Method 7300.
Two runs were conducted. The talc product and fabric filter catch also were analyzed for the same metals.
Table 4-2 summarizes the results of those analyses.
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF METALS ANALYSIS OF TALC PRODUCT AND FABRIC
FILTER CATCH3
Reference No.
Analyte
5
6
7
Concentration, mg/kg
Talc product
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
Nickel
802
<0.50
NA
1.96
522
699
0.964
NA
<4.03
965
1.55
0.408
6.53
<0.094
207
Fabric filter catch
Arsenic
Cadmium
Total chromium
Hexavalent chromium
55.1
<0.431
NA
4.88
658
0.984
NA
<4.06
3.32
0.339
12.6
<0.100
Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM, arsenic, and nickel; hexavalent
chromium and cadmium were not detected in the samples. The filterable PM emission data were rated C
because only two test runs were conducted and average rather than run-by-run process rates were provided
in the report. The metals data are not rated because data from other tests indicate that metal emission rates
are inconsistent and dependent on the mineralogy of the talc deposit. Therefore, emission factors based on
the metals emission data may not be representative of the industry.
4.2.6 Reference 6
This report documents measurements of emissions of filterable PM and four metals from a talc roller
mill. Emissions from the mill are controlled with a fabric filter, and only controlled emissions were
measured. The tests were conducted in 1993 to demonstrate compliance with State regulations.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using a modified Method 17 to allow measurement of metals
emissions also. The modification consisted of the stainless steel sampling train equipment being replaced
with teflon coated equipment. The sample was analyzed for four metals (arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent
chromium, and nickel) using NIOSH Method 7300. Two runs were conducted. The talc product and
fabric filter catch also were analyzed for the same metals. Table 4-2 includes the results of those analyses.
4-4
-------
Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM, hexavalent chromium, and nickel;
arsenic and cadmium were not detected in the samples. The filterable PM emission data were rated C
because only two test runs were conducted and average rather than run-by-run process rates were provided
in the report. The metals data are not rated because data from other tests indicate that metal emission rates
are inconsistent and dependent on the mineralogy of the talc deposit. Therefore, emission factors based on
the metals emission data may not be representative of the industry.
4.2.7 Reference 7
This report documents measurements of emissions of filterable PM and four metals from a talc roller
mill. The roller mill was located at the same facility for the test documented in Reference 15. Emissions
from the mill are controlled with a fabric filter, and only controlled emissions were measured. The tests
were conducted in 1993 to demonstrate compliance with State regulations.
Filterable PM emissions were quantified using a modified Method 17 to allow measurement of metals
emissions also. The modification consisted of the stainless steel sampling train equipment being replaced
with teflon coated equipment. The sample was analyzed for five metal analytes (arsenic, cadmium,
hexavalent chromium, total chromium, and nickel) using NIOSH Method 7300. Only one test run was
conducted. The talc product and fabric filter catch also were analyzed for the same metals. Table 4-2
includes the results of those analyses.
Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM, cadmium, total chromium, and nickel;
arsenic and cadmium were not detected in the samples. However, the filterable PM emission data were not
rated because only one test run was conducted. The metals data are not rated because data from other tests
indicate that metal emission rates are inconsistent and dependent on the mineralogy of the talc deposit.
Therefore, emission factors based on the metals emission data may not be representative of the industry.
4.2.8 Reference 8
This report documents measurements of PM emissions from two silos used in talc processing. The
silos are used to store crushed and ground intermediate product prior to classification. The silos are fed
intermittently and the stored material is withdrawn continuously. The emission test runs were conducted
during periods when the silos were being fed with the crushed and ground talc. Emissions were controlled
by fabric filters. The test was conducted in January and February 1995 to demonstrate compliance with
State regulations. Process rates were provided on the basis of material feed.
Particulate emissions were measured using Method 5 with a back-half inorganic analysis. Three test
runs were conducted on each silo. Although some PM was caught in the impinger (back-half) portion of
the sampling train, that material is unlikely to be condensible PM because the emission source operates at
ambient temperatures. Therefore, the mass collected in both the front and back halves of the sampling train
were totaled and used to develop an emission factor for total PM. Emission factors were developed for
total PM emissions from the silos. The emission data are rated B; the test methodology was sound, and no
problems were reported, but run-by-run process rates were not provided.
4-5
-------
4.2.9 Reference 9
This report documents measurements of PM emissions from several emission sources associated with
talc processing. Emissions from all sources were controlled by fabric filters. The test was conducted from
December 1994 to March 1995 to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. Process rates were
provided on the basis of production.
The following emission sources were tested: a primary crusher and discharge conveyor; the screening
and transfer of primary crushed ore; the loading of coarse crushed and screened ore into two storage bins (2
tests); a fluid bed pellet dryer; two air classifying mills that grind and classify crushed material (2 tests); a
classifying cyclone that further classifies material discharged from the air classifying mills; the loading of
fine product into storage silos (2 tests); a pneumatic conveyor vent located on a pneumatic line that
transfers finished product from storage silos to a bagging operation; a bagging operation that dispenses
product into 2,000-lb bulk bags; and a central vacuum system that is used collection floor dust.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using Method 5 with a back-half inorganic analysis. Three
test runs were conducted for each source. Although some PM was caught in the impinger (back-half)
portion of the sampling train, that material is unlikely to be condensible PM because the emission source
operates at ambient temperatures. Therefore, the mass collected in both the front and back halves of the
sampling train were totaled and used to develop an emission factor for total PM. Emission factors were
developed for total PM emissions from all of the sources tested with the exception of the central vacuum
system and the pellet dryer. Emission factors could not be developed from the vacuum system data because
there are no process rates associated with the vacuuming operation. Because a pellet dryer operates at
elevated temperatures, it is possible for material to volatilize within the dryer and condense in the impingers
of the sampling train. Therefore, for the pellet dryer, the front- and back-half data were used to derive
emission factors for filterable and condensible inorganic PM, respectively. With the exception of the data
for the pellet dryer, the emission data are rated B; the test methodology was sound, and no problems were
reported, but run-by-run process rates were not provided. The pellet dryer data are rated C because the
report did not include complete data for one of the three test runs.
4.2.10 Reference 10
This report documents measurements of PM emissions from a crushed talc rail loadout system
equipped with a fabric filter. The test was conducted in May 1995 to demonstrate compliance with State
regulations. Process rates were provided on the basis of production (material loaded into rail cars).
Particulate matter emissions were measured using Method 5 with a back-half inorganic analysis, and
three test runs were conducted. Although some PM was collected in the impinger (back-half) portion of the
sampling train, that material is unlikely to be condensible PM because the emission source operates at
ambient temperatures. Therefore, the mass collected in both the front and back halves of the sampling train
was totaled and used to develop an emission factor for total PM. The emission data are rated B; the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported, but run-by-run process rates were not provided.
4-6
-------
4.2.11 Reference 11
This report documents measurements of PM emissions from a crude ore dryer (loading, exhaust, and
unloading) and a primary crushing system (crusher and loadout). Emissions from both sources were
controlled by fabric filters. The testing was conducted in February 1994 to demonstrate compliance with
State regulations. Process rates were provided on the basis of material load out from the primary crushing
system (equal to dryer output).
Particulate matter emissions were measured using Method 5 with a back-half inorganic analysis, and
three test runs were conducted on each source. During the crusher/loadout test, some PM was collected in
the impinger (back-half) portion of the sampling train. However, that material is unlikely to be condensible
PM because the system operates at ambient temperatures. Therefore, the mass collected in both the front
and back halves of the sampling train was totaled and used to develop an emission factor for total PM from
the primary crusher system. The filterable and condensible measurements for the dryer were reported
separately because dryers are potential sources of condensible PM. The emission data are rated A; the test
methodology was sound, and no problems were reported, and adequate detail was provided.
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS
Table 4-3 summarizes the available data on emissions from talc processing, and Table 4-4 presents the
candidate emission factors for the proposed AP-42 Section 11.26, Talc Processing. Emission factors were
developed for the following sources: crude ore drying, primary crushing, crushed ore rail car loading,
screening and transfer, storage bin loading, grinding, classifying, pellet drying, pneumatic conveyor
venting, and packaging. The following paragraphs describe how the candidate emission factors were
developed from the data presented in Table 4-3.
Emission factors were developed primarily for emissions of total PM. As explained in the descriptions
of References 8 and 9, PM was quantified in the back-half of the Method 5 sampling train for some of the
emission tests. This material generally is classified as condensible PM. However, because the sources that
were tested operate at ambient temperatures, the emission stream should not contain condensible PM.
Therefore, in the cases for which PM was quantified in the back-half of the sampling train, the back-half
and front-half quantities were totalled and are presented as total PM. For some sources, this total PM
factor was combined with filterable PM factors from other emission tests to yield the candidate emission
factor. In such cases, the candidate emission factor is presented as total PM.
All of the data are based on emissions from sources controlled with fabric filters. Therefore, with the
exception of the factor for CO2 emissions from heated grinding mills, all factors are for fabric filter-
controlled emissions; the CO2 factor is considered as uncontrolled because fabric filters have no affect on
CO2 emissions.
The candidate emission factors generally are presented in units lb/1,000 Ib of production. One
lb/1,000 Ib is equal to 1 kg/Mg. However, the factors for storage bin loading are in units of material
loaded into storage bins.
The candidate emission factors generally were developed from one to three B-rated data sets. These
factors were assigned a rating of D to reflect the fact that, although the data were of good quality, the
number of data sets was relatively small.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-3. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR TALC PROCESSING
Process
Grinding (impact mill)
Ground talc storage silo
loading
Product bagging
Primary crushing
Grinding (roller mill) and
screening
Crushed talc screening and
transfer
Grinding (roller mill) and
screening
Grinding (roller mill)
Grinding (roller mill)
Grinding (roller mill)
Ground talc storage silo
loading
Crushed ore screening and
transfer
Primary crushing and
discharge
Crushed ore storage bin
loading
Grinding and classifying
(air classifying mill)
Product silo loading
Pellet drying (fluid bed
dryer)
Product bagging
Pneumatic product conveyor
venting
APCDa
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
FF
Pollutant13
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Arsenic
Nickel
Filterable PM
Cr+6
Nickel
Filterable PM
Cadmium
Chromium
Nickel
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Filterable PM
Cond. inorg.
PM
Total PM
Total PM
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
Data
rating0
D
D
B
B
D
C
B
B
C
C
NR
NR
C
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
Emission factor4
lb/l,0001b
Minimum
NS
NS
0.0013
0.00039
0.088
4.0
0.0011
0.0014
8.3
0.13
7.3 x ID'6
S.lxlO'5
0.0046
4.1xlO-6
1.3xlO-5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0018
0.00042
0.0017
0.0012
0.00019
0.0042
0.016
0.035
0.0025
0.00023
0.014
0.013
0.012
0.00086
Maximum
NS
NS
0.0049
0.00071
0.11
7.9
0.0085
0.0023
16
0.20
1.2xlO-5
7.7 xlO'5
0.0077
9.8 xlO'6
1.3xlO-5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.0038
0.00057
0.011
0.0019
0.00030
0.010
0.028
0.043
0.010
0.00090
0.022
0.015
0.017
0.0024
Average
0.054
0.064
0.0029
0.00053
0.097
6.6
0.0037
0.0019
12
0.16
9.6 xlO'6
6.4 x ID'5
0.0062
6.9 xlO'6
1.3xlO-5
0.010
2.3 xlO'7
4.5xlO-7
6.3 xlO'6
0.0026
0.00050
0.0048
0.0013
0.00024
0.0068
0.023
0.040
0.0063
0.00059
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.0018
Ref.
No.
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-3. (continued)
Process
Ground talc classifying
(cyclone)
Crushed talc rail car
loading
Primary crushing and
discharge
Natural gas-fired rotary
dryer (crude ore drying)
APCDa
FF
FF
FF
FF
Pollutant*
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Filterable PM
Cond. inorg.
PM
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
Data
rating0
B
B
A
A
A
Emission factor4
lb/l,0001b
Minimum
0.00060
0.00042
0.00013
0.00091
0.00017
Maximum
0.0010
0.00058
0.00083
0.0015
0.0012
Average
0.00077
0.00049
0.00040
0.0012
0.00079
Ref.
No.
9
10
11
11
11
aAPCD = air pollution control device. FF = fabric filter.
bCr+6 = hexavalent chromium. Total PM includes PM collected in front and back halves of Method 5 sampling train.
CNR = not rated.
Emission factor units are lb/1,000 Ib of production. One lb/1,000 Ib = 1 kg/Mg. NS = not specified. NA = not
applicable.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR
TALC PROCESSING
Process
Grade ore drying
Grade ore drying
Primary crashing
Screening and transfer15
Crashed talc rail car loading
Storage bin loading15
Grinding
Grinding0
Classify ingd
Storage bin loadingd
Pellet drying
Pellet drying
Storage bin loading6
Pneumatic conveyor venting6
Packaging6
Control
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
None
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Fabric filter
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Cond. inorg. PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
C02
Total PM
Total PM
filterable PM
Cond. inorg. PM
Total PM
Total PM
Total PM
No. of
tests
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
Average emission factor3
lb/1,000 Ib
0.0012
0.00079
0.00074
0.0043
0.00049
0.0036
0.022
9.3
0.00077
0.0016
0.018
0.014
0.0035
0.0018
0.0090
Rating
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
E
D
D
E
E
D
D
D
Ref.
11
11
3,9,11
3,9
10
9
4,9
3,4
9
8
9
9
9
9
3,9
"Emission factor units are lb/1,000 Ib of production. One lb/1,000 Ib = 1 kg/Mg.
bFor crashed talc.
Tor roller mill using heated makeup air.
dFor ground talc.
Tor final product.
4-10
-------
4.3.1 Primary Crushing
For talc ore primary crushing, data were available from one A-rated and two B-rated tests for total PM
emissions. The factors derived from the data range from 0.00040 lb/1,000 Ib to 0.0013 lb/1,000 Ib of
crushed talc production. The average of these factors is 0.00074 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission
factor is rated D.
4.3.2 Screening and Transfer
For screening and transferring crushed talc, data were available from two B-rated tests for total PM
emissions. The factors derived were 0.0037 lb/1,000 Ib and 0.0048 lb/1,000 Ib of crushed talc processed.
The average of these factors is 0.0043 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission factor is rated D.
4.3.3 Storage Bin Loading
For storage bin loading, emission data were available for crushed talc, ground talc, and final product.
For crushed talc, data were available from two B-rated tests for total PM emissions. The factors derived
were 0.00024 lb/1,000 Ib and 0.0068 lb/1,000 Ib of crushed talc loaded. The average of these factors is
0.0036 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission factor is rated D.
For ground talc, data were available from two B-rated tests for total PM emissions. The total PM
factors were 0.0026 lb/1,000 Ib and 0.00050 lb/1,000 Ib of ground talc loaded. The average of these
factors is 0.0016 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission factor is rated D.
For storage bin loading of final product, data were available from two B-rated tests for total PM
emissions. The factors were 0.0063 lb/1,000 Ib and 0.00059 lb/1,000 Ib of final talc product loaded. The
average of these factors is 0.0035 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission factor is rated D.
4.3.4 Grinding
For talc grinding, data were available from 8 data sets for total PM emissions, two data sets for CO2
emissions, and for 3 data sets for emissions of trace metals. The total PM data consist of three B-rated
sets, two C-rated sets, two D-rated sets, and one unrated data set. The factors developed from the C- and
D-rated data ranged from 0.0062 lb/1,000 Ib to 0.16 lb/1,000 Ib, and averaged 0.079 lb/1,000 Ib. The
factors developed from the B-rated data ranged from 0.0019 lb/1,000 Ib to 0.040 lb/1,000 Ib, and averaged
0.022 lb/1,000 Ib of ground talc produced. Because of the large discrepancy between the factors based on
the C-/D-rated data and the factors based on the B-rated data, the C- and D-rated data were discarded. The
candidate emission factor is based on the B-rated data only and is rated D.
For CO2 emissions from a talc grinder mill using heated makeup air, data were available from two C-
rated tests. The factors derived from the data are 6.6 lb/1,000 Ib and 12 lb/1,000 Ib of ground talc
produced. The average of these factors is 9.3 lb/1,000 Ib. Because this factor is based on C-rated data, it
is rated E.
As explained in Section 4.2, the metals data were unrated. Therefore, no candidate emission factors
were developed from the metals data for inclusion in AP-42.
4-11
-------
4.3.5 Classifying
Data were available from one B-rated test for total PM from classifying ground talc by means of a
cyclone. The factor derived from the data is 0.00077 lb/1,000 Ib of ground talc classified. This factor is
rated D.
4.3.6 Pellet Drying
For filterable PM and condensible inorganic emissions from pellet drying, data were available from one
C-rated test. The factor derived from the filterable PM data is 0.018 lb/1,000 Ib of dried pellets produced
and is rated E. The factor for condensible inorganic PM is 0.014 lb/1,000 Ib of dried pellets produced and
also is rated E. The sum of these two factors yields a factor of 0.032 lb/1,000 Ib for total PM emissions.
4.3.7 Pneumatic Conveyor Venting
Data were available from one test for total PM emissions from venting a pneumatic conveyor for
transferring talc product. The data set is rated B. The factor derived from the data is 0.0018 lb/1,000 Ib of
talc product conveyed. This factor is rated D.
4.3.8 Packaging
For talc product packaging, data were available from two B-rated tests for total PM emissions. The
factors derived from the data are 0.0029 lb/1,000 Ib and 0.015 lb/1,000 Ib of talc packaged. The average
of these factors is 0.0090 lb/1,000 Ib. This candidate emission factor is rated D.
4.3.9 Crushed Talc Rail Car Loading
Data were available from one test for total PM emissions from crushed talc rail car loading. The data
set is rated B. The factor derived from the data is 0.00049 lb/1,000 Ib of crushed talc loaded. This factor
is rated D.
4.3.10 Crude Ore Dryer
Data were available from one test for filterable and condensible inorganic PM emissions from a natural
gas-fired crude ore dryer. The data set is rated A. The factor derived from the filterable PM data is
0.0012 lb/1,000 Ib of dried talc produced and is rated D. The factor derived from the condensible
inorganic PM data is 0.00079 lb/1,000 Ib of dried talc produced and is rated D. The sum of these two
factors is 0.0020 lb/1,000 Ib for total PM emissions.
4-12
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Emission Study at a Talc Crushing and Grinding Facility, Eastern Magnesia Talc Company,
Johnson, Vermont, October 19-21, 1976, Report No. 76-NMM-4, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.
2. R. A. James and K. Ganesan, Paniculate Emissions from Montana Talc Company, Sappington,
Montana, December 1986, Whitehall, MT, December 1986.
3. Emission Test Report-Plant A, Test No. 1, July 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
4. Emission Test Report—Plant A, Test No. 2, September 1990, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
5. Emission Test Report—Plant B, February 1994, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential Business
Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
6. Emission Test Report—Plant A, Test No. 3, February 1994, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
7. Emission Test Report—Plant A, Test No. 4, February 1994, Document No. 4602-01-01, Confidential
Business Information Files, Contract No 68-D2-0159, Assignment No. 2-01, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 2, 1995.
8. Initial Compliance Test for Paniculate Emissions, Luzenac America, Three Forks Mill, Montana Air
Quality Permit #2282-02, January/February 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, April 25,
1995.
9. Paniculate Emissions Compliance Test, Luzenac America, Sappington Mill, Montana Air Quality
Permit 1996-03, December 1994-March 1995, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, March 29,
1995.
10. Compliance Test for Paniculate Emissions, Luzenac America, Three Forks Mill, Montana Air
Quality Permit # 2282-02, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT, May 17, 1995.
11. Particulate Emissions and Visible Opacity, Rotary Dryer and Crusher/Loadout, Permit 2282,
Luzenac America, Yellowstone Trail, Three Forks, MT, Bison Engineering, Inc., Helena, MT,
February 15 and 16, 1994.
4-13
-------
5. PROPOSED AP-42 SECTION
The proposed AP-42, Section 11.26, Talc Processing, is presented on the following pages as it
would appear in the document.
5-1
-------
4-8
------- |