Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.23
Taconite Ore 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. 4-02
MRI Project No. 4604-02
February 1997
-------
Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42
Section 11.23
Taconite Ore 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)
Emission Factor and Methodologies Section
EPA Contract 68-D2-0159
Work Assignment No. 4-02
MRI Project No. 4604-02
February 1997
-------
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. 4-02. Mr. Ron Myers was the requester of the work.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Roy Neulicht
Program Manager
Environmental Engineering Department
JeffShular
Director, Environmental Engineering
Department
February 1997
in
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY 2-1
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 2-1
2.3 EMISSIONS 2-7
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 2-7
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 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. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-1
4.2 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS 4-1
4.2.1 Reference 1 4-1
4.2.2 Reference 2 4-2
4.2.3 Reference 3 4-3
4.2.4 Reference 4 4-3
4.2.5 Reference 5 4-4
4.2.6 Reference 6 4-6
4.2.7 Reference 7 4-6
4.2.8 Reference 8 4-6
4.2.9 Reference 9 4-7
4.2.10 Reference 10 4-7
4.2.11 Reference 11 4-8
4.2.12 Reference 12 4-8
4.2.13 Reference 13 4-8
4.2.14 Reference 14 4-9
4.2.15 Reference 15 4-9
4.2.16 Reference 16 4-10
4.2.17 Reference 17 4-10
4.2.18 Reference 18 4-10
4.2.19 Reference 19 4-11
4.2.20 Reference 20 4-11
4.2.21 Reference 21 4-11
4.2.22 Reference 22 4-12
4.2.23 Reference 23 4-12
4.2.24 Reference 24 4-12
4.2.25 Reference 25 4-13
4.2.26 Reference 26 4-13
4.2.27 Reference 27 4-13
4.2.28 Reference 28 4-14
4.2.29 Reference 29 4-15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.2.30 Reference 30 4-15
4.2.31 Reference 31 4-15
4.2.32 References 32 to 35 4-16
4.2.33 Reference 46 4-16
4.2.34 Reference 47 4-17
4.2.35 Reference 48 4-17
4.2.36 Reference 49 4-17
4.2.37 Reference 52 4-18
4.2.38 Reference 53 4-18
4.2.39 References 54 and 55 4-18
4.2.40 References 56 and 57 4-19
4.2.41 Review of FIRE, XATEF, and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors 4-19
4.2.42 Review of Test Data in AP-42 Background File 4-19
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS 4-20
4.3.1 Indurating Furnaces 4-36
4.3.2 Other Sources 4-38
4.4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO AP-42 SECTION 4-39
4.4.1 Section Narrative 4-39
4.4.2 Emission Factors 4-39
4.5 CROSS-REFERENCE OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 4-39
4.6 NEW SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR TACONITE ORE
PROCESSING 4-39
5. REVISED AP-42 SECTION 11.23 5-1
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Process flow diagram for taconite ore processing 2-3
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
2-1 NUMBER AND PRODUCTION RATE OF TACONITE MINES BY STATE 2-2
2-2 KEY FOR SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR TACONITE ORE
PROCESSING 2-4
4-1 SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING
FURNACES 4-2
4-2 SUMMARY OF PM EMISSION TEST DATA PRESENTED IN REFERENCE 4 ... 4-5
4-3 EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT
TACONITE MINES 4-20
4-4 SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING 4-21
4-5 SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE
ORE INDURATING FURNACES 4-31
4-6 SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING--
OTHER SOURCES 4-33
4-7 CROSS-REFERENCE OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 4-40
4-8 SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING 4-41
vn
-------
EMISSION FACTOR DOCUMENTATION FOR AP-42 SECTION 11.23
TACONITE ORE 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 revisions
to AP-42 Section 11.23, Taconite Ore Processing.
This background report consists of five sections. Section 1 includes the introduction to the
report. Section 2 gives a description of the taconite ore processing industry. It includes a
characterization of the industry, an overview of the different process types, a description of emissions,
and a description of the technology used to control emissions resulting from taconite ore processing.
Section 3 is a review of emission data collection and laboratory analysis 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 revisions to the existing AP-42 section narrative and
pollutant emission factor development. It includes the review of specific data sets, a description of how
candidate emission factors were developed, and a summary of changes to the AP-42 section. Section 5
presents the revised AP-42 Section 11.23, Taconite Ore Processing.
1-1
-------
2. INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION
The taconite ore processing industry (Standard Industrial Classification [SIC] Code 1011)
produces usable concentrations of iron-bearing material by removing nonferrous rock (gangue) from low-
grade ore. The six-digit source classification code (SCC) for taconite ore processing is 3-03-023.
Taconite, a hard, banded, low-grade ore, is the predominant iron ore remaining in the United
States. Ninety-nine percent of the crude iron ore produced in the United States is taconite. If magnetite
is the principal iron mineral, the rock is called magnetic taconite; if hematite is the principal iron mineral,
the rock is called hematic taconite.
About 98 percent of the demand for taconite comes from the iron and steel industry. The
remaining two percent comes mostly from the cement industry but also from manufacturers of
heavy-medium materials, pigments, ballast, agricultural products, and specialty chemicals. Ninety-seven
percent of the processed ore shipped to the iron and steel industry is in the form of pellets. Other forms
of processed ore include sinter and briquettes. The average iron content of pellets is 63 percent.
2.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY1
Combined U.S. and Canadian production represents only 12 percent of the world output of
usable ore. About 45 other countries mine crude ore, most of which is a higher grade than taconite. The
leading producer is the former U.S.S.R., which accounts for about 24 percent of world output in terms of
metal content. Other large producers include Brazil, Australia, France, Mexico, and South Africa.
Domestic steel companies control about 76 percent of usable ore production in the United States.
Canadian companies control about 11 percent. Due in large part to the location of taconite mines, close
ownership ties exist between U.S. and Canadian steel companies.
There are 21 companies operating 21 taconite mines nationwide. However, 99 percent of the
output is accounted for by only 10 mines. Table 2-1 shows the geographic spread and production rate of
taconite mines in the United States. The Missouri mine is the only underground mine; all other mines are
open pit.
TABLE 2-1. NUMBER AND PRODUCTION RATE OF TACONITE MINES BY STATEa
State
Minnesota
Michigan
Missouri
Other
Total
No. of mines
7
2
1
11
21
No. of pellet
plants
7
3
0
0
10
Crude ore
producedb
140,000
45,000
1,600
1,100
187,700
Usable ore
producedb
41,000
16,000
1,000
1,000
59,000
aReference 1.
Thousand metric tons per year in 1989.
2-1
-------
Because 98 percent of its sales are to the iron and steel industry, the prosperity of the taconite ore
processing industry is highly dependent upon the well-being of iron and steel industry.
2.2 PROCESS DESCRIPTION2'6
Processing of taconite consists of crushing and grinding the ore to liberate iron-bearing particles,
concentrating the ore by separating the particles from the waste material (gangue), and pelletizing the
iron ore concentrate. A simplified flow diagram of these processing steps is shown in Figure 2-1.
Table 2-2 provides a key to the SCCs for taconite ore processing, as indicated in Figure 2-1.
Liberation is the first step in processing crude taconite ore and consists mostly of crushing and
grinding. The ore must be ground to a particle size sufficiently close to the grain size of the iron-bearing
mineral to allow for a high degree of mineral liberation. Most of the taconite used today requires very
fine grinding. Prior to grinding, the ore is dry-crushed in up to six stages, depending on the hardness of
the ore. One or two stages of crushing may be performed at the mine prior to transport to the processing
facility. Gyratory crushers are generally used for primary crushing, and cone crushers are used for
secondary and tertiary fine crushing. Intermediate vibrating screens remove undersize material from the
feed to the next crusher and allow for closed-circuit operation of the fine crushers. After crushing, the
size of the materials is further reduced by wet grinding in rod mills or ball mills. The rod and ball mills
are also in closed circuit with classification systems such as cyclones. An alternative to crushing is to
feed some coarse ores directly to wet or dry semiautogenous or autogenous grinding mills (using larger
pieces of the ore to grind/mill the smaller pieces), then to pebble or ball mills. Ideally, the liberated
particles of iron minerals and barren gangue should be removed from the grinding circuits as soon as they
are formed, with larger particles returned for further grinding.
Concentration is the second step in taconite ore processing. As the iron ore minerals are
liberated by the crushing steps, the iron-bearing particles must be concentrated. Because only about 33
percent of the crude taconite becomes a shippable product for iron making, a large amount of gangue is
generated. Magnetic separation and flotation are the most commonly used methods for concentrating the
taconite ore.
Crude ores in which most of the recoverable iron is magnetite (or, in rare cases, maghemite) are
normally concentrated by magnetic separation. The crude ore may contain 30 to 35 percent total iron by
assay, but theoretically only about 75 percent of the iron is recoverable magnetite. The remaining iron is
discarded with the gangue.
Nonmagnetic taconite ores are concentrated by froth flotation or by a combination of selective
flocculation and flotation. The method is determined by the differences in surface activity between the
iron and gangue particles. Sharp separation is often difficult.
Various combinations of magnetic separation and flotation may be used to concentrate ores
containing various iron minerals (magnetite and hematite, or maghemite) and wide ranges of mineral
grain sizes. Flotation is also often used as a final polishing operation on magnetic concentrates.
Pelletization is the third major step in taconite ore processing. Iron ore concentrates must be
coarser than about No. 10 mesh to be acceptable as blast furnace feed without further treatment. The
finer concentrates are agglomerated into small "green" pellets, which are classified as either acid or flux
pellets. Acid pellets are produced from iron ore and a binder, and flux pellets are produced by adding
2-2
-------
TACONITE ORE
STORAGE (A)
1
(D
PRIMARY CRUSHING (c)
'
SECONDARY CRUSHING (E)
Undersize ore
SCREENING
Oversize
TERTIARY CRUSHING (G}(H)
Oversize ore
SCREENING
Oversize
PRIMARY GRINDING
CLASSIFICATION
MAGNETIC SEPARATION
Oversize
Tailings
SECONDARY GRINDING
CLASSIFICATION (M)
©@©
PELLET COOLING (BC)
i
'
PELLET SCREENING
PELLET STORAGE
(BF)(BG)(BH)
Figure 2-1. Process flow diagram fortaconite ore processing.
(Refer to Table 2-2 for Source Classification Codes)
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. KEY FOR SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR
TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
Key
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
w
X
Y
Z
AA
AB
AC
AD
Source
Ore storage
Ore transfer
Primary crusher
Primary crusher return conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing line
Secondary crusher return conveyor transfer
Tertiary crushing
Tertiary crushing line
Tertiary crushing line discharge conveyor
Screening
Grinder feed
Primary grinding
Classification
Magnetic separation
Secondary grinding
Conveyor transfer to concentrator
Concentrate storage
Bentonite storage
Bentonite transfer to blending
Bentonite blending
Green pellet screening
Chip regrinding
Grate/kiln furnace feed
Straight grate furnace feed
Vertical shaft furnace feed
Hearth layer feed to furnace
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, flux pellets
sec
3-03-023-05
3-03-023-04
3-03-023-01
3-03-023-25
3-03-023-27
3-03-023-28
3-03-023-02
3-03-023-30
3-03-023-31
3-03-023-03
3-03-023-34
3-03-023-06
3-03-023-36
3-03-023-17
3-03-023-38
3-03-023-41
3-03-023-44
3-03-023-07
3-03-023-45
3-03-023-08
3-03-023-47
3-03-023-11
3-03-023-49
3-03-023-79
3-03-023-69
3-03-023-48
3-03-023-51
3-03-023-52
3-03-023-53
3-03-023-54
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Key
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
AO
AP
AQ
AR
AS
AT
AU
AV
AW
AX
AY
AZ
BA
BB
BC
BD
BE
BF
BG
BH
Source
Grate/kiln, coke -fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, acid pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, top gas stack, flux pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, acid pellets
Vertical shaft, gas-fired, bottom gas stack, flux pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, gas-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, oil-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke-fired, flux pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, acid pellets
Straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, flux pellets
Grate/kiln furnace discharge
Vertical shaft furnace discharge
Straight grate furnace discharge
Hearth layer screen
Pellet cooler
Pellet screen
Pellet transfer to storage
Pellet storage bin loading
Secondary storage bin loading
Tertiary storage bin loading
sec
3-03-023-55
3-03-023-56
3-03-023-57
3-03-023-58
3-03-023-59
3-03-023-60
3-03-023-61
3-03-023-62
3-03-023-71
3-03-023-72
3-03-023-73
3-03-023-74
3-03-023-81
3-03-023-82
3-03-023-83
3-03-023-84
3-03-023-85
3-03-023-86
3-03-023-87
3-03-023-88
3-03-023-50
3-03-023-70
3-03-023-80
3-03-023-93
3-03-023-15
3-03-023-95
3-03-023-16
3-03-023-96
3-03-023-97
3-03-023-98
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-2 (continued)
Key
b
b
b
b
b
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
Source
Haul road, rock
Haul road, taconite
Nonmagnetic separation
Tailings basin
Other, not classified
Traveling grate feed
Traveling grate discharge
Indurating furnace: gas-fired
Indurating furnace: oil-fired
Indurating furnace: coal-fired
Kiln
Conveyors, transfer, and loading
sec
3-03-023-21
3-03-023-22
3-03-023-18
3-03-023-40
3-03-023-99
3-03-023-09
3-03-023-10
3-03-023-12
3-03-023-13
3-03-023-14
3-03-023-19
3-03-023-20
fRefers to labels in Figure 2-1.
shown in Figure 2-1.
clnactive code.
between 1 and 10 percent limestone to the ore and binder before pelletization. Agglomeration is
normally accomplished by tumbling moistened concentrate with a balling drum or balling disc. A binder,
usually powdered bentonite, may be added to the concentrate to improve ball formation and the physical
qualities of the "green" balls. The bentonite is lightly mixed with the carefully moistened feed at 5 to
10 kilograms per megagram (kg/Mg) (10 to 20 pounds per ton [lb/ton]).
The pellets are hardened by a procedure called induration. The green balls are dried and heated
in an oxidizing atmosphere at incipient fusion temperature of 1290° to 1400°C (2350° to 2550 °F),
depending on the composition of the balls, for several minutes and then cooled. The incipient fusion
temperature for acid pellets falls in the lower region of this temperature range, and the fusion temperature
for flux pellets falls in the higher region of this temperature range. The three general types of indurating
apparatus currently used are the vertical shaft furnace, the straight grate, and the grate/kiln. Most large
plants and new plants use the grate/kiln. Currently, natural gas is the most common fuel used for pellet
induration, but heavy oil is used at a few plants; coal and coke may also be used.
In the vertical shaft furnace, the wet green balls are distributed evenly over the top of the slowly
descending bed of pellets. A stream of hot gas of controlled temperature and composition rises counter
to the descending bed of pellets. Auxiliary fuel combustion chambers supply hot gases midway between
the top and bottom of the furnace.
The straight grate furnace consists of a continuously moving grate, onto which a bed of green
pellets is deposited. The grate passes through a firing zone of alternating up and down currents of heated
gas. The fired pellets are cooled either on an extension of the grate or in a separate cooler. An important
feature of the straight grate is the "hearth layer," which consists of a 10- to 15-centimeter (4- to 6-inch)
thick layer of fired pellets that protects the grate. The hearth layer is formed by diverting a portion of the
fired pellets exiting the firing zone of the furnace to a hearth layer screen, which removes the fines.
These pellets then are conveyed back to the feed end of the straight grate and deposited on to the bare
2-6
-------
grate. The green pellets being fed to the furnace are deposited on the hearth layer prior to the burning
zone of the furnace.
The grate/kiln apparatus consists of a continuous traveling grate followed by a rotary kiln. The
grate/kiln product must be cooled in a separate cooler, usually an annular cooler with counter-current
airflow.
2.3 EMISSIONS2'5
Particulate matter (PM) sources in taconite ore processing plants are indicated in Figure 2-1.
Particulate matter emissions also arise from ore mining operations.
The taconite ore is handled dry through the crushing stages. All crushers, size classification
screens, and conveyor transfer points are major points of particulate emissions. Crushed ore is normally
wet ground in rod and ball mills. A few plants, however, use dry autogenous or semi-autogenous
grinding and have higher emissions than do conventional plants. The ore remains wet through the rest of
the beneficiation process (through concentrate storage, Figure 2-1) so PM emissions after crushing are
generally insignificant.
The first source of emissions in the pelletizing process is the transfer and blending of bentonite.
There are no other significant emissions in the balling section, since the iron ore concentrate is normally
too wet to cause appreciable dusting. Additional emission points in the pelletizing process include the
main waste gas stream from the indurating furnace, pellet handling, furnace transfer points (grate feed
and discharge), and annular coolers for plants using the grate/kiln furnace. Induration furnaces generate
sulfur dioxide (SO2). The SO2 originates both from the fuel and the raw material (concentrate, binder,
and limestone). Induration furnaces also emit combustion products such as nitrogen oxides (NOX),
carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2). Because of the additional heating requirements,
emissions of NOX and SO2 generally are higher when flux pellets are produced than when acid pellets
are produced.
The largest source of PM emissions in taconite ore mines is traffic on unpaved haul roads. Wind
erosion is also a significant PM emission source at taconite mines. Although blasting is a notable source
of the various size fractions of PM, it is a short-term event and most materials settle quickly.
2.4 CONTROL TECHNOLOGY2-6
Particulate matter emissions from taconite ore processing plants are controlled by a variety of
devices, including cyclones, multiclones, rotoclones, scrubbers, baghouses, and electrostatic
precipitaters. Water sprays are also used to suppress dusting.
Emissions from crushing and conveying operations are generally controlled by a hood-and-duct
system that leads to a cyclone, rotoclone, multicyclones, wet scrubber, or fabric filter. The inlet of the
control device is often fed by more than one duct.
The combination of multicyclones and wet scrubbers is a common control configuration for
furnace waste gas. The purpose of the multicyclones is to recover material from preheat gases after they
pass through the bed of green pellets. The wet scrubber reduces SO2 concentrations in the furnace waste
gas in addition to PM that may be entrained by the waste gas stream as it leaves the preheat stage and
passes through the bed of pellets in the drying stage.
Annular coolers normally operate in stages. The exhaust of the first-stage cooler is usually
vented to the indurating furnace as preheated combustion gas. The second and third stages generally are
left uncontrolled.
2-7
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. C.M. Cvetic and P.H. Kuck, "Iron Ore," in: Minerals Yearbook, Vol. I, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1991, pp. 521-547.
2. J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation and Pelletization,
Volume I, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute, Minnetonka, MN, June 1983.
3. A. K. Reed, Standard Support and Environmental Impact Statement for the Iron Ore Beneficiation
Industry (Draft), EPA Contract No. 68-02- 1323, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, OH,
December 1976.
4. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB 76-IOB-2, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
5. T. A. Cuscino et al, Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
6. Written communication from P. O'Neill, Minnesota Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN,
to R. E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 20, 1996.
2-8
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
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 Minerals Yearbook, Census of Minerals, Census of Manufactures, 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 taconite ore 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. A list of plants that have been tested within the past 5 years was compiled from
the AIRS data base. Using this information and information obtained on plant location from the
Minerals Yearbook, Census of Manufactures, and Census of Minerals, State and Regional offices were
contacted about the availability of test reports. However, the information obtained from these offices
was limited. Publications lists from the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Control
Technology Center (CTC) were also searched for reports on emissions from the taconite ore industry. In
addition, representative trade associations, including the American Iron Ore Association, the American
Mining Congress, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and The Iron Mining Association of Minnesota,
were contacted for assistance in obtaining information about the industry and emissions.
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).
3-1
-------
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough review of the pertinent reports,
documents, and information according to these criteria.
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 test runs that were performed 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 unproven or new methodology or that lacked a significant
amount of background information.
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.
3-2
-------
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 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 from A- and B-rated source 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- or 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 industries. The source category is specific enough so that variability within the source
category population may be minimized.
C—Average: Developed only from A-, B- and/or C-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-, B-, and/or C-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.
REFERENCE FOR SECTION 3
1. Procedures for Preparing Emission Factor Documents, Third Revised Draft Version, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC, November 1996.
3-3
-------
4. AP-42 SECTION DEVELOPMENT
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes how the revised AP-42 section on taconite ore processing was developed.
First, descriptions of data sets reviewed for this revision are presented, followed by a discussion of how
candidate emission factors were developed from the data. Finally, the proposed changes to the existing
AP-42 section on taconite ore processing are summarized.
4.2 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
Forty-seven new emission test reports and test summaries were documented and reviewed in the
process of developing the section on taconite ore processing. The three test reports (References 1, 2, and
3) and two other reports (References 4 and 45) in the current background files for Section 11.23 also
were reviewed. Two of these original five reports (References 1 and 3) had not been used previously to
develop emission factors, and one report used previously to develop emission factors was missing from
the background file. Four of the five original references contained some data that were not used before.
The results from a trace metal analysis on fine crushing emissions were also found and are presented in
this document. Reference 45 included data on emissions from vehicle traffic at taconite ore mines.
These data were presented in the previous version of AP-42. However, because the predictive emission
factor equations presented in Chapter 13 of AP-42 provide more accurate estimates of emission from
traffic, the data from Reference 45 were deleted from the revised AP-42 section. In addition, summaries
of emission tests and an accompanying letter (Reference 53) submitted by a State air pollution control
agency were reviewed. Five of the summaries were taken from references already included in the files
for the study; the other four summaries are included as References 54 to 57.
Emission factors could not be developed from 11 of the test reports and summaries
(References 36 to 44, 50, and 51) due to a lack of process data. The following paragraphs describe the
references that included sufficient data to develop emission factors for taconite ore processing sources.
4.2.1 Reference 1
This emission test (Report No. 76-IOB-3) was sponsored by the Emissions Measurements Branch
of EPA and was conducted from November 17 to 20, 1975. The emissions measured included filterable
and condensible inorganic PM and SO2 from a gas-fired grate/kiln processing acid pellets. The samples
were also analyzed for asbestos, but none was detected.
Sulfur dioxide emissions were measured in accordance with Method 6. Particulate matter and
asbestos sampling procedures were in accordance with Method 5, with two noted exceptions. A
millipore filter was used in place of the usual glass fiber filter in order to conduct subsequent asbestos
analysis, and the filter temperature had to be maintained below 93 °C (200°F) to prevent degradation. No
information is provided on the analytical procedures used to quantify the condensible inorganic PM
(back half of the sampling train) emissions.
Four sites were sampled—the inlet and outlet of the venturi scrubber on the main grate/kiln stack
and the inlet and outlet of a small Ducon scrubber controlling emissions from the discharge end of the
grate/kiln traveling grate. Three samples were collected at each site. The sample taken during the first
run on the venturi scrubber inlet was discarded because a problem developed in the support mechanism
4-1
-------
for the inlet sample train, and the glass filter disk was broken. Samples were taken from the inlet and
outlet of both controls simultaneously to estimate the efficiency of the control systems.
A rating of B was assigned to the filterable PM and SO2 emission data in this report. Multiple
runs were performed, sufficient process descriptions were provided, and the data were presented in
adequate detail. However, because of temperature irregularities, the data was down-rated from A to B.
Due to the lack of documentation, the condensible inorganic PM data is rated C.
4.2.2 Reference 2
This emissions test (Project No. 76-IOB-2) was sponsored by EPA in an effort to collect data for
the establishment of emission standards for iron ore beneficiation facilities. The test was conducted from
November 18 to 21, 1975. Samples were collected for measurement of PM and asbestos emissions from
a natural gas- and No. 2 oil-fired grate kiln processing acid pellets. However, no data pertaining to
asbestos emissions were reported. Carbon dioxide emissions were also quantified.
The four sampling locations and the number of samples collected were as follows: (1) nine
samples of uncontrolled emissions from the grate/kiln—four for PM and five for particle size distribution,
(2) five samples of ESP-controlled emissions from the grate/kiln—three for PM and two for particle size
distribution, (3) three samples of uncontrolled pellet discharge emissions, and (4) three samples of pellet
discharge emissions after control by a rotoclone. Because the rotoclone malfunctioned during the test,
the results for controlled emissions from the pellet discharge were discarded. All particle size
distribution tests were conducted using cascade impactors with a cyclone preseparator. The particle size
data are summarized in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR TACONITE ORE
GRATE/KILN INDURATING FURNACESa
Aerodynamic
diameter, /mi
2.5
6.0
10.0
Cumulative percent less than diameter
Uncontrolled
17.4
25.6
35.2
ESP-controlled
48.0
71.0
81.5
aReference 2. Data rated A.
Sampling procedures followed those outlined in Methods 1 through 5. The Method 5 impinger
catch was extracted with chloroform-ether in order to quantify the condensible organic particulate
emissions. The residue was combined with the residue from the liquid portion to give total condensible
PM. Several deviations were noted, all of which pertained to the collection and rinsing of asbestos
fibers.
A rating of A was assigned to the filterable PM and particle size data in this report. Multiple
runs based on predescribed methodologies were performed, sufficient process descriptions were
provided, and the data were presented in adequate detail. The condensible PM data are rated B. The
method used (extraction with chloroform-ether) was sound, but data were lacking in detail.
4-2
-------
4.2.3 Reference 3
This emission test was sponsored by EPA, and its primary purpose was to identify and quantify
possible asbestos emissions. The test was conducted from September 11 to 13, 1973. Four emission
points were sampled for PM: fine crusher exhaust stack, straight grate waste gas stack, pellet drying
hood vent stack, and a concentrator stack. Three samples were taken at each location. The report
contains the analytical results of only one run on each source except the concentrator stack for which no
results are reported. Data on filterable PM and asbestos emissions are reported.
This facility operated eight furnaces (processing acid pellets). In an effort to reduce emissions,
three were recently modified by the addition of a roll screen to reduce fines from the green pellet feed.
Because the only furnace tested was modified, the straight grate and drying hood vent stack test results
may not be representative of uncontrolled emissions from typical sources.
Sampling procedures followed those predescribed in Method 5. Three deviations from the
method were necessary for collection of asbestos-containing PM. The deviations were (1) the use of a
Millipore type AA membrane filter in place of a glass fiber filter, (2) maintenance of probe temperature
at 62° to 82 °C (150° to 180 °F) rather than 93 °C (225 °F) to prevent decomposition of the membrane
filter, and (3) the probe was washed with water rather than acetone and kept separate from the impinger
contents and wash.
With the exception of the asbestos samples, a rating of D was assigned to the test data presented
in this reference. The test followed established procedures and provided adequate detail about the
process. However, only one test run was performed. The asbestos emission data are unrated because
there is some question as to whether or not the material was correctly identified as asbestos.
4.2.4 Reference 4
This reference was prepared for EPA in June of 1978. Its purpose was to identify emission
sources in the iron ore mining, beneficiation, and pelletizing industry; to quantify those emissions; to
rank the emissions based on their environmental impact; and to recommend future research,
development, and/or demonstration projects to reduce emissions from the most critical sources. To
complete these objectives the investigators conducted emission tests at a crushing operation controlled by
a baghouse, a vertical shaft furnace (processing acid pellets) fired with fuel oil, a shovel loading site at a
taconite mine, and an uncontrolled annular cooler. The first two emission sources were located at one
plant and the next two at another plant.
Volume 1 contains summaries of the test results, and Volume 2 of this report contains most of
the detailed information from the emission tests, including production rates at the sites sampled.
However, a copy of Volume 2 could not be obtained. Three sites were sampled for asbestos emissions
and none of them were determined to emit asbestiform material. Also, a trace metal analysis was
performed on the emissions from three emission points associated with the fine crusher. The ore feeding
this crusher was unusually soft for taconite ore, resulting in emissions that were approximately one
percent of normal crushing operations. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect that the composition of the this
ore may have been significantly different from most other taconite ores. In addition, the report presents
only concentrations, and no data is provided on volumetric flow rates or process operating rates.
Therefore, the data were of limited value and could not be used for AP-42.
4-3
-------
Reference 4 also includes summaries of emission data for several controlled and uncontrolled
taconite ore processing sources. The bases of the emission data in Reference 4 include "field testing,"
"field sampling," emission estimates, tests sponsored by control device manufacturers and manufacturers'
ratings of control equipment. These data form the basis of the uncontrolled PM emission factors in the
taconite ore processing section of the current version of AP-42; the controlled data presented in
Reference 4 are not included in the current version of AP-42. In addition, these uncontrolled and
controlled emission data form the basis for the table of control efficiencies (Table 11.23-2) in the current
version of Section 11.23.
The emission data in Reference 4 are presented in tables, and the primary sources of the data are
not identified. However, because most of the data summarizes the results of tests on sources for which
(other than fine crushing) no other emission test data are available, the results are presented here.
Table 4-2 summarizes the data from field testing, field sampling, and manufacturer-sponsored testing
taken from this reference; data based on emission estimates and manufacturers' ratings are not presented
in Table 4-2. The emission factors presented in Table 4-2 for uncontrolled emissions differ significantly
from those uncontrolled emission factors included in the current version of AP-42. There are two
reasons for these differences. First, as mentioned above, data for emission estimates and manufacturers'
ratings were not considered for emission factor development in Table 4-2, but were incorporated into the
emission factors in the current version of the section. Second, the emission factors presented in
Table 4-2 take into account the number of tests conducted on each configuration of source and control
device (i.e., each test for each configuration is counted as a single data point in the average), whereas the
emission factors in the current version of the section are based on each configuration as a single point.
The data presented in Table 4-2 are given a rating of C because they are based on a secondary
reference; no descriptions of the tests are provided and only average emission rates for each test are
presented.
4.2.5 Reference 5
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 from a petroleum coke-
and natural gas-fired straight grate pelletizing machine. The purpose of the emission test was to
demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in August 1985. Another test on
this furnace also was documented in Reference 8.
The pelletizing machine has two exhausts: the windbox and hood exhausts. The windbox
exhaust is precleaned by a multitube mechanical collector, and then joins the hood exhaust in a common
header. This combined exhaust is then routed to four venturi rod wet scrubbers, each of which has an
exhaust stack. Only one of the scrubber exhaust stacks was tested.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide determinations were performed in accordance with the large impinger version
of EPA Method 6 using the back half of the Method 5 sampling train, and three test runs were conducted.
The CO2 concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and three runs were conducted. Emission
factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 are rated D. The test methodologies appear
to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher
4-4
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF PM EMISSION TEST DATA PRESENTED IN
REFERENCE 4a
Process
Grade ore dump pockets
Coarse crashing
Ore transfer
Fine crashing
Bentonite transfer
Bentonite blending
Grate feed
Grate discharge
Kiln
Pellet handling
Control
None
Cyclone
None
Dry mechanized
Multiclone
Rotoclone
Scrubber
Cyclone
None
Scrubber
Multiclone
Rotoclone
Dry mechanized
None
Rotoclone
Scrubber
None
Scrubber
None
Scrubber
baghouse
None
Scrubber
None
Scrubber
None
Cyclone
ESP
None
Rotoclone
Scrubber
No. of tests
2
2
16
1
4
4
6
1
32
25
5
1
1
22
11
11
2
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
61
58
3
7
1
6
Average emission factor
kg/Mg
0.022
0.0033
0.029
0.013
0.0028
0.0018
0.0010
0.011
0.43
0.0029
0.0015
0.0038
0.0010
6.6
0.0061
0.055
1.6
0.053
9.6
0.13
0.053
0.32
0.0041
0.69
0.0048
18
3.4
0.20
0.52
0.00018
0.0049
Ib/ton
0.044
0.0066
0.058
0.026
0.0057
0.0036
0.0020
0.022
0.86
0.0057
0.0029
0.0076
0.0019
13
0.012
0.11
3.2
0.11
19
0.25
0.11
0.63
0.0082
1.4
0.0096
36
6.7
0.41
1.0
0.00036
0.0099
aAll data rated C.
4-5
-------
rating. In addition, because only one of the four stacks was tested and volumetric flowrates for the other
three stacks were not reported, emission rates from the untested stacks were assumed to be equal to those
from the stack tested, thus introducing a significant potential for error.
4.2.6 Reference 6
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 emissions from the same
sources addressed in Reference 5: a petroleum coke- and coal-fired straight grate pelletizing machine.
The purpose of the emission test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was
conducted in April 1985. Another test on this same furnace is documented in Reference 9.
The pelletizing machine has two exhausts: the windbox and hood exhausts. It appears that these
exhausts are combined before passing through a scrubber system consisting of four wet scrubbers, each
with an individual stack. Only one of the four scrubber exhaust stacks were tested.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide determinations were performed in accordance with the large impinger version
of EPA Method 6 using the back half of the Method 5 sampling train, and three test runs were conducted.
The CO2 concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and three runs were conducted. Emission
factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 are rated D. The test methodologies appear
to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher
rating. In addition, because only one of the four stacks was tested and volumetric flowrates for the other
three stacks were not reported, emission rates from the untested stacks were assumed to be equal to those
from the stack tested, thus introducing a significant potential for error.
4.2.7 Reference 7
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from four conveyors that feed
taconite from the primary crusher to four different rotary grinding mills. The purpose of the emission
tests was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in January 1977.
The PM emissions from each conveyor are controlled with a wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted on each conveyor. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM for each conveyor. The
emission data for filterable PM are rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems
were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher rating.
4.2.8 Reference 8
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from a hearth layer feeder, two
straight grate induration furnaces fired with No. 6 fuel oil (Bunker C), one induration machine discharge,
a hearth layer screen, a fired pellet transfer point, and a bentonite storage bin. The purpose of the tests
was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in June and July 1977.
Other tests on these furnaces are documented in References 5 and 31. Particulate matter emissions from
the bentonite storage bin are controlled by a fabric filter. Particulate matter emissions from the two
induration furnaces are each controlled by a multiclone dust collector followed by four venturi wet
4-6
-------
scrubbers, each with its own stack. Participate matter emissions from all of the other sources tested are
each controlled by an individual wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted on each source. However, the PM sample for test run No. 1 conducted on indurating machine
No. 1 was destroyed in a laboratory accident, and only two runs of data are available for this source.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM for each source tested.
The emission data for filterable PM are rated B, with the exception of the two induration
furnaces. The test methodology appears to be sound, but the report lacked adequate documentation to
warrant a higher rating. The emission data for filterable PM from the straight grate furnaces are rated D.
Because only one of the four stacks on each furnace was tested and volumetric flowrates for the other
three stacks were not reported, emission rates from the untested stacks were assumed to be equal to those
from the stack tested, thus introducing a significant potential for error. In addition, only two runs of PM
data are available for furnace No. 2.
4.2.9 Reference 9
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from a hearth layer feeder, a
straight grate induration furnace fired with No. 6 fuel oil (Bunker C), an induration machine discharge,
and a grinder feed line. Carbon dioxide emission data are also presented for the induration furnace. The
purpose of the tests was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in
September 1979. Another test on this same furnace is documented in Reference 6. Particulate matter
emissions from the induration furnace are controlled by a scrubber system consisting of four wet
scrubbers, each with an individual stack. Particulate matter emissions from each of the other sources
tested are controlled by an individual wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted on each source. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the indurating furnace exhaust were
determined by Orsat analysis, and data for three test runs are reported. Emission factors were developed
for filterable PM for each source, and CO2 emission factors were developed for the indurating furnace.
With the exception of the data for the indurating furnace, the emission data for filterable PM are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating. The filterable PM and CO2 data for the indurating
furnace are rated D. Because only one of the four stacks on the furnace was tested and volumetric
flowrates for the other three stacks were not reported, emission rates from the untested stacks were
assumed to be equal to those from the stack tested, thus introducing a significant potential for error.
4.2.10 Reference 10
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from the first stage of a 2-stage
taconite ore primary crusher. The purpose of the emission test was to assess control device performance.
The test was conducted in March 1990. The PM emissions from the crusher are controlled with a
cyclone precleaner and multiclone in series.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The emission data for filterable PM are
4-7
-------
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation for a higher rating.
4.2.11 Reference 11
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from the second stage of 2-stage
primary crusher. The crusher tested was the same crusher as for Reference 10. The purpose of the
emission test was to assess control device performance. The test was conducted in March 1990. The PM
emissions from the crusher are controlled with a cyclone precleaner and multiclone in series.
Particulate matter emissions were measured at the inlet and outlet of the multiclone using EPA
Method 5, and three test runs were conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The
emission data for filterable PM are rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems
were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher rating.
4.2.12 Reference 12
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the top gas stacks
of two natural gas-fired vertical shaft induration furnaces processing acid pellets. The purpose of the
emission tests was to assess control device performance. The tests were conducted in May 1984. Other
tests conducted at this facility are documented in References 13, 14, 24, 56, and 57. The report specifies
only feed rates; production rates were estimated based on the information provided in References 56 and
57. The PM emissions from the furnaces are controlled with multiclones.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the furnace exhaust were determined by Orsat analysis, and
three test runs were conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM and CO2 for each
furnace.
The emission data for filterable PM and CO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to be
sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher rating.
4.2.13 Reference 13
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the top gas stack
of a natural gas-fired vertical shaft induration furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose of the
emission test was to assess control device performance. The test was conducted in December 1981.
Other tests conducted at this facility are documented in References 12, 14, 24, 56, and 57. The report
specifies only feed rates; production rates were estimated based on the information provided in
References 56 and 57. Emissions from the furnace are controlled with a multiclone.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the furnace exhaust were determined by Orsat analysis, and
data from three test runs were reported. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM and CO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to be
sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher rating.
4-8
-------
4.2.14 Reference 14
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the top gas stack
of a natural gas-fired vertical shaft induration furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose of the
emission test was to assess control system performance. The test was conducted in February 1980.
Other tests conducted at this facility are documented in References 12, 13, 24, 56, and 57. The report
specifies only feed rates; production rates were estimated based on the information provided in
References 56 and 57. Particulate matter emissions from the furnace are controlled with a multiclone in
series with a wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. The method used to measure CO2 concentrations in the furnace exhaust was not specified in
the report. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM and CO2.
The emission data for uncontrolled filterable PM are rated C. The test methodology appears to
be sound, and no problems were reported at the inlet, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a
higher rating. The emission data for controlled filterable PM are rated C because of the existence of
large scale turbulence at the outlet test location, and it was suspected that the results are biased low. The
CO2 data are rated C because the test method was not specified.
4.2.15 Reference 15
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from ataconite ore crusher, a
kiln cooler, and an unloader pocket, and emissions of SO2 from a petroleum coke- and coal-fired
grate/kiln induration furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose of the tests was to demonstrate
compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in October 1987. Other emission tests on
this same furnace are documented in References 18, 19, and 29.
The PM emissions from the crusher and kiln cooler are controlled with wet scrubbers. The PM
emissions from the unloader pocket are controlled with a fabric filter. Emissions from the grate/kiln
induration furnace are controlled with a wet scrubber system. The scrubber system consists of two
identical scrubber systems operated in parallel and identified as Side A and Side B. Each side has four
venturi scrubbers followed by two drum demisters. Each side has an individual stack. Only Side B was
tested in this evaluation.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide testing on the induration furnace was performed using the EPA Method 6
large impinger sampling train without the isopropanol impinger, and three test runs were conducted.
However, the report indicates that the first run was not valid due to sampling problems. Emission factors
were developed for SO2 from the induration furnace only. No other emission factors were developed due
to a lack of process data or volumetric flowrates.
The emission data for SO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no
problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation for a higher rating. In addition,
because only one of the two stacks on the furnace was tested, and volumetric flowrates for the other stack
were not reported, emission rates from the untested stack were assumed to be equal to those from the
stack tested, thus introducing a significant potential for error.
4-9
-------
4.2.16 Reference 16
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from a kiln cooler. The purpose
of the test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in July 1981.
An emission control device is not specified in the test report. Therefore, it is assumed that the cooler was
uncontrolled. Another test on this cooler is documented in Reference 17.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The emission data for filterable PM are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.17 Reference 17
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from a kiln cooler. The purpose
of the test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in March 1980.
The cooler tested was the same cooler reported in Reference 16, and, again, a control device was not
specified.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The emission data for filterable PM are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.18 Reference 18
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and CO2 emissions from a kiln cooler and
a coal- and fuel oil-fired grate/kiln indurating furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose of the tests
was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in December 1979.
Other emission tests on this same furnace are documented in References 15, 19, and 29. The report
indicates that the kiln cooler was controlled, but a control device is not specified. Emissions from the
furnace are controlled by a wet scrubber system consisting of two essentially identical sides, Side A and
Side B. Each side consists of four venturi scrubbers followed by two drum demisters and has an
individual stack. Only side A of the grate/kiln scrubber system was tested.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test
runs were reported. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM and CO2 for the grate/kiln only.
No other emission factors were developed due to a lack of process data.
The emission data for filterable PM and CO2 for the grate/kiln are rated C. The test
methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate
documentation to warrant a higher rating. In addition, because only one of the two stacks on the furnace
was tested and volumetric flowrates for the other stack were not reported, emission rates from the
untested stack were assumed to be equal to those from the stack tested, thus introducing a significant
potential for error.
4-10
-------
4.2.19 Reference 19
This report documents measurements of NOX emissions from a natural gas-fired grate/kiln
induration furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose of the emission test was to assess control device
performance. The test was conducted in June 1975. Emissions from the furnace are controlled with a
wet scrubber. Other tests on this same furnace are documented in References 15, 18, and 29. The report
specified furnace feed rates rather than production rate. However, using the feed-to-production ratio of
1.19 presented in Reference 29 for the same furnace, the production rates for the test were estimated.
The NOX determinations were carried out in accordance with EPA Method 7, and three test runs
were conducted. Emission factors were developed for NOX and reported as NO2.
The emission data for NOX are rated C. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no
problems were reported, but the report did not specify production rates and lacked adequate
documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.20 Reference 20
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 emissions from two
grate/kiln induration furnaces processing acid pellets. One of the grate/kilns was fired with natural gas
and the other grate/kiln was fired with a combination of natural gas and wood. The purpose of the
emission tests was to assess control device performance. The tests were conducted in March and April
1992. Emissions from each grate/kiln are controlled with a multiple throat venturi wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test
runs were reported. The SO2 determinations were carried out in accordance with EPA Method 6, and
three test runs were conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 are rated B. The test methodology appears to
be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a
higher rating.
4.2.21 Reference 21
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from two crushed taconite ore
conveyor transfer points. The conveyors carry oversize material from the secondary crusher. The
purpose of the tests was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in
February 1992. Particulate matter emissions from each conveyor are controlled with a multiple throat
venturi wet scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The emission data for filterable PM are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4-11
-------
4.2.22 Reference 22
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from two taconite ore primary
crushers. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was
conducted in October 1982. Particulate matter emissions from each crusher are controlled with a venturi
rod wet scrubber with a design flowrate of 40,000 actual feet per minute (acfm). The exhaust from both
scrubbers is ducted to a common stack.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. An emission factor was developed for filterable PM emissions from both crushers. The
emission data for filterable PM are rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems
were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.23 Reference 23
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from a taconite ore loading
pocket, which is a storage bin for fired pellets, and two fired pellet screens. The purpose of the test was
to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in June 1980. Particulate
matter emissions from the loading pocket are controlled by a rotoclone wet collector. Particulate matter
emissions from the two pellet screens are combined and controlled by a single rotoclone wet collector.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were conducted.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM.
The emission data for filterable PM are rated B, with the exception of the inlet data for the pellet
screens. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported for these runs, but
the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating. The inlet data for filterable PM
emissions from the pellet screens are rated C. Only two test runs were valid because a calculation error
by the console operator at the inlet test site resulted in an isokinetic ratio of 119 percent on the first run.
4.2.24 Reference 24
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and CO2 emissions from the top gas stacks
of two natural gas-fired vertical shaft induration furnaces processing acid pellets. Each furnace was
tested twice. The purpose of the emission test was to assess control device performance. The test was
conducted in June 1984. Particulate matter emissions from each furnace are controlled by a mechanical
collector. Other emission tests conducted at this facility are documented in References 12, 13, 14, 56,
and 57. The report specifies only feed rates; production rates were estimated based on the information
provided in References 56 and 57.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and six test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from six test runs
were reported. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM and CO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to be
sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher
rating.
4-12
-------
4.2.25 Reference 25
This report documents measurements of SO2 and CO2 emissions from a coal-fired grate/kiln
processing flux pellets. The test was conducted in August 1991. Sulfur dioxide emissions are controlled
by a wet scrubber. Other tests on this same furnace are documented in References 26 and 27. Process
rates are provided in units of feed rate; production rates were estimated as 75 percent of feed rates based
on information provided in Reference 53.
Sulfur dioxide determinations were performed in accordance with EPA Method 6 Tester Option
No. 2, which uses a Method 5 sampling train in which the water in the impinger train is replaced with 3
percent peroxide solution; three test runs were conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were
determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test runs were reported. Emission factors were
developed for SO2 and CO2.
The emission data for SO2 and CO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to be sound, and
no problems were reported, but production rates were not reported and the report lacked adequate
documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.26 Reference 26
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 emissions from a coke- and
coal-fired grate/kiln processing flux pellets. The test was conducted in January 1990. Particulate matter
and SO2 emissions are controlled by a wet scrubber. Other tests on this same furnace are documented in
References 25 and 27. Process rates are provided in units of feed rate; production rates were estimated as
75 percent of feed rates based on information provided in Reference 53.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide samples were collected in the back half of the Method 5 sampling train in
accordance with the large impinger version of Method 6 without the isopropanol, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test
runs were reported. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 are rated C. The test methodology appears to
be sound, and no problems were reported, but production rates were not reported, and the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.27 Reference 27
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, CO, total nonmethane organic compounds
(TNMOC), and CO2 emissions from a coal- and petroleum coke-fired traveling grate/kiln processing flux
pellets; filterable PM, NOX, and CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired traveling grate/kiln processing
flux pellets; filterable PM and CO2 emissions from a pellet cooler; filterable PM emissions from a
primary gyratory crusher; and filterable PM emissions from a turn bin conveyor, which conveys oversize
material back to the crusher. The purpose of the tests was to demonstrate compliance with State
regulations. The tests were conducted in March 1989. Other tests on this same furnace are documented
in References 25 and 26. Process rates are provided in units of feed rate; production rates were assumed
to be 75 percent of feed rates based on information provided in Reference 53.
4-13
-------
Participate matter emissions from each grate/kiln are controlled by an individual wet scrubber;
PM emissions from the primary crusher are controlled by a fabric filter, and PM emissions from the turn
bin conveyor transfer are controlled by a wet scrubber. No control device is indicated for pellet cooler
emissions.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test
runs were reported. Carbon monoxide (CO) content was determined in accordance with EPA Method 10
using a nondispersive infrared analyzer (NDIR), and three test runs were conducted. Oxides of nitrogen
samples were collected using the EPA Method 7 absorbing reagent and analyzed per Method 7A by ion
chromatography, and three test runs were conducted. Emissions of TNMOC were quantified using EPA
Method 25, and three test runs were conducted. The TNMOC results were reported as pounds of carbon
per hour and converted to pounds of propane per hour. Emission factors were developed for filterable
PM, CO2, CO, NOX, and TNMOC.
The emission data for filterable PM, CO2, NOX, and TNMOC are rated C. The test methodology
appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but production rates were not reported, and the
report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating. The emission data for CO are rated C
because only summary data are available, and process rates are assumed to be the same as those for other
test runs.
4.2.28 Reference 28
This report documents measurements of filterable PM emissions from 10 material processing and
handling sources. The first test point was the entire secondary crusher line, including conveyors, crusher,
screens, and transfer points. The second test was the secondary bins holding the material going to the
secondary crusher. The third test point was a conveyor transfer point that transferred the undersize
material from the secondary and tertiary crushers to the conveyor leading to the concentrator. The fourth
test point was the tertiary crusher line. The fifth test point was the conveyor that transferred the oversize
material from the secondary and tertiary crushing to be recrushed. The sixth test point was a conveyor
transfer point in the tertiary crushing line prior to the crusher. The seventh test point was the tertiary
storage bin, which is used to store material prior to tertiary crushing. The eight test point was the grate-
feed end stack. The ninth test point was an entire tertiary crushing line (feeder, crusher, transfers,
screens). The tenth test point was another entire tertiary crushing line.
The tests were conducted to demonstrate compliance with State regulations and were conducted
in January 1980. Particulate matter emissions from each source are controlled by an individual wet
scrubber.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM. The emission data for filterable PM are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound and no problems were reported, but the report lacked
adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4-14
-------
4.2.29 Reference 29
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, CO2, and sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
emissions from petroleum coke-fired grate/kiln induration furnace processing acid pellets. The purpose
of the test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in May 1987.
Emissions from the furnace are controlled by a wet scrubber system consisting of two essentially
identical sides, Side A and Side B. Each side consists of four venturi scrubbers followed by two drum
demisters. Each side has an individual stack, and both sides of the scrubber system were tested. Other
tests on this same furnace are documented in References 15, 18, and 19.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide and H2SO4 mist testing was performed using the EPA Method 8 sampling
train, and three test runs were conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat
analysis, and data from six test runs were reported for the outlet and from three test runs for the inlet.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, CO2, and H2SO4.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, CO2, and H2SO4 are rated B, with the exception of the
inlet CO2 data. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report
lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating. The inlet CO2 data are rated C because no
inlet volumetric flowrates were provided, and the emission factors were developed on the assumption
that inlet and outlet flowrates were comparable.
4.2.30 Reference 30
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 emissions from a
petroleum coke- and natural gas-fired straight grate indurating furnace processing acid pellets. The
purpose of the test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in
August 1986. Emissions from the furnace are controlled by four wet scrubbers, each with its own stack
and identified as stacks A through D, and emissions from each stack were tested.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Sulfur dioxide determinations were performed using the large impinger version of EPA
Method 6 via the back half of the Method 5 sampling train, and three test runs were conducted. Carbon
dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test runs were reported.
Emission factors were developed for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2.
The emission data for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 are rated B. The test methodology appears to
be sound, and no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a
higher rating.
4.2.31 Reference 31
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, SO2, NOX, CO, lead, beryllium, and CO2
emissions from a natural gas-fired straight grate indurating furnace processing acid pellets and from a
petroleum coke- and natural gas-fired straight grate indurating furnace processing acid pellets. The tests
were conducted in May 1987. Another emission test on this same furnace is documented in Reference 8.
4-15
-------
The emission control system on each indurating machine consists of a multicyclone dust
collector followed by four venturi rod wet scrubbers. Each of the scrubbers has a rated flow capacity of
171,675 scfrn and has its own stack. All four stacks for both indurating machines were tested.
Particulate matter emissions were measured using EPA Method 5, and three test runs were
conducted. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis, and data from three test
runs were reported. Carbon monoxide content was determined in accordance with EPA Method 10 using
an NDIR analyzer, and three test runs were conducted. Oxides of nitrogen samples were collected using
EPA Method 7, and three test runs were conducted. Sulfur dioxide concentrations were determined in
accordance with EPA Method 6 using the back half of the EPA Method 5 sampling train, and three test
runs were conducted. Lead concentrations were determined in accordance with EPA Method 12, and
three test runs were conducted. Beryllium concentrations were determined in accordance with EPA
Method 104, and three test runs were conducted. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM,
SO2, NOX, CO, lead, beryllium, and CO2.
The emission data for all pollutants are rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and
no problems were reported, but the report lacked adequate documentation to warrant a higher rating.
4.2.32 References 32 to 35
These references consist of test report summaries for filterable PM emission tests conducted on a
natural gas-fired grate/kiln from 1989 to 1992. The source is the same source for which emissions were
documented in References 49, 54, and 55, as described below.
Emissions from the grate/kiln are controlled with a multiclone. The type of pellets produced
during the tests is not specified; it is assumed that acid pellets were being manufactured during these
emission tests. These references document measurements of emissions of filterable PM using Method 5.
For the Reference 32, 33, and 34 tests, exhaust gas CO2 concentrations also are reported, as measured by
Orsat. One of two stacks were sampled and total emissions were estimated by doubling the measured
emission rates. Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM and CO2
The data in these summaries are assigned a rating of C. The documentation was incomplete and
only one of two stacks were measured.
4.2.33 Reference 46
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, condensible PM, and CO2 emissions from
a natural gas-fired grate/kiln induration furnace processing flux pellets. The purpose of the test was to
demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in October 1994. Emissions
from the grate/kiln are controlled by multiclones, and one of two identical stacks was sampled during the
test program.
Filterable PM emissions were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and
condensible PM emissions were quantified using an EPA Method 202 analysis on the back-half of the
Method 5 sampling train. Carbon dioxide concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis. Three test
runs were conducted for each pollutant.
The emission data are rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were
reported. However, only one of the two stacks was tested, and emissions from the untested stack were
4-16
-------
assumed equal to the measured emissions. This assumption is supported by historical data (tests on both
stacks) that indicate that the emissions from the two stacks are similar.
4.2.34 Reference 47
This report documents measurements of filterable PM, condensible organic PM, and CO2
emissions from two grate/kiln induration furnaces processing flux pellets. One of the grate kilns was
fired with natural gas and the other was fired with a combination of natural gas and fuel oil. The purpose
of the emission tests was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The tests were conducted in
April 1993. Emissions from each grate/kiln are controlled with a multiple throat venturi scrubber (both
scrubbers operate with a 6 inch pressure drop).
Filterable and condensible organic PM emissions were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-
and back-half analyses), and CO2 concentrations were determined by Orsat analysis. Three test runs
were conducted on each kiln.
The emission data are rated A. The test methodology appears to be sound, adequate detail was
provided in the report, and no problems were reported.
4.2.35 Reference 48
This report documents measurements of NOX emissions from a natural gas-fired straight grate
induration furnace processing flux pellets. The purpose of the emission tests was to demonstrate
compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in July 1990. Four stacks vent emissions
from the kiln, and each stack is equipped with a venturi rod scrubber.
Nitrogen oxide emissions were measured using EPA Method 7E (instrument analyzer). Three
test runs were conducted on each stack, and the emission rates from the four stacks are summed to
determine total NOX emissions from the kiln.
The emission data are rated A. The test methodology appears to be sound, adequate detail was
provided in the report, and no problems were reported.
4.2.36 Reference 49
This report documents measurements of filterable PM-10, condensible PM, CO, SO2, NOX, TOC,
and CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired grate/kiln induration furnace processing acid pellets (three
tests) and semi-flux pellets (one test). The semi-flux pellets contained 1 percent limestone. The purpose
of the test was to compare emissions from acid pellet and flux pellet production. The test was conducted
in October 1994. Emissions from the grate/kiln are controlled by multiclones, and one of two identical
stacks venting emissions from the kiln was sampled during the test program.
Filterable PM-10 and condensible PM emissions were measured using EPA Methods 201A and
202, respectively. Lead emissions were quantified using mass balance. Sulfur dioxide, NOX, CO, TOC,
and CO2 concentrations were quantified using EPA Methods 6C, 7E, 10, 25A, and 3 (Orsat analysis),
respectively. The TOC concentrations are reported on an "as propane" basis. Nine test runs were
conducted for each pollutant during acid pellet production, and three test runs were conducted for each
pollutant during flux pellet production. The first three acid pellet tests were anisokinetic (158 percent
isokinetic), and the PM-10 and condensible PM measurements from these tests are void. In addition, the
4-17
-------
measured flow rates during the first three acid pellet tests are suspect; therefore, the data from these tests
is not used for emission factor development.
The emission data, with the exception of the data from the first three acid pellet test runs, are
rated B. The test methodology appears to be sound, and no problems were reported. However, only one
of the two stacks was tested, and emissions from the untested stack were assumed equal to the measured
emissions. This assumption is supported by historical data (tests on both stacks) that indicate that the
emissions from the two stacks are similar. The data from the first three acid pellet test runs are not rated
for the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph.
4.2.37 Reference 52
This report documents measurements of filterable PM and PM-10, condensible PM and PM-10,
SO2, and CO2 emissions from a natural gas-fired grate/kiln processing acid pellets. The purpose of the
test was to demonstrate compliance with State regulations. The test was conducted in March 1994.
Emissions from the grate/kiln are uncontrolled. Additional process data for this report are presented in
Attachment No. 1 of Reference 53.
Filterable PM emissions were measured using EPA Method 5 (front-half analysis) and PM-10
emissions were measured using EPA Method 201 A. Condensible PM emissions were quantified using
EPA Method 202 (back-half analysis). Sulfur dioxide emissions were measured using EPA Method 6
and CO2 emissions quantified using Orsat analysis. Emission factors were developed for filterable PM,
condensible PM, filterable PM-10, condensible organic PM-10, condensible inorganic PM-10, SO2, and
CO2. Three test runs were conducted for each pollutant. Two tests of three runs each were conducted
for CO2.
The emission data are rated A. The test methodology appears to be sound, adequate detail was
provided in the report, and no problems were reported.
4.2.38 Reference 53
This reference consists of a letter and attachments from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
with comments on the previous draft of the background report for AP-42 Section 11.23. The attachments
include several test report summaries and supplemental information for some of the test reports described
previously in this chapter. The attachments also contain test report summaries that provide additional
emission data. For the purposes of this report, these new test report summaries are treated as separate
references (References 54 to 57), as described below.
4.2.39 References 54 and 55
These references consist of test report summaries for filterable PM emission tests conducted on a
natural gas-fired grate/kiln in 1993 and 1995. The source is the same source for which emissions were
documented in References 32 to 35 and 49, as described previously.
Emissions from the grate/kiln are controlled with a multiclone. The type of pellets produced
during the tests is not specified; it is assumed that acid pellets were being manufactured during these
emission tests. These references document measurements of emissions of filterable PM using Method 5.
For the Reference 54 test, exhaust gas CO2 concentrations also are reported, as measured by Orsat. One
4-18
-------
of two stacks were sampled and total emissions were estimated by doubling the measured emission rates.
Emission factors were developed for emissions of filterable PM and CO2.
The data in these summaries are assigned a rating of C. The documentation was incomplete and
only one of two stacks were measured.
4.2.40 References 56 and 57
These references consist of test report summaries for two emission tests conducted on a natural
gas-fired vertical shaft indurating furnace during 1994 and 1995. Other tests conducted on this facility
are documented in References 12, 13, 14, and 24.
The furnace has two stacks: a top gas stack and a bottom gas stack. Emissions from the top gas
stack are controlled with a heat recuperation unit that acts as a wet scrubber; emissions from the bottom
gas stack are controlled with a rotoclone. The type of pellets produced during the tests is not specified; it
is assumed that acid pellets were being manufactured during these emission tests.
Reference 56 includes results of total PM (filterable plus condensible) and TOC from the bottom
gas stack, and total PM (filterable plus condensible), NOX, SO2, CO, and TOC from the top gas stack.
Data also are provided on CO2 concentrations in the exhaust stream from the top gas stack. Reference 57
includes results of filterable PM and condensible PM from the bottom gas stack and the top gas stack.
Data also are provided on CO2 concentrations in the exhaust stream from the top and bottom gas stacks.
The test methods are not specified, but it is assumed that EPA reference methods were used to quantify
the emissions. Emission factors were developed for all the pollutants sampled.
The emission data are rated C. The references lacked adequate documentation for a higher
rating.
4.2.41 Review of FIRE. XATEF. and SPECIATE Data Base Emission Factors
No new information was found in these data bases.
4.2.42 Review of Test Data in AP-42 Background File
The test reports in the background file (References 1 through 4) contained information that was
not used previously in Section 11.23. References 1, 2, and 3 include emission data for CO2, SO2, and
asbestos. The asbestos emission factors developed from Reference 3 are not included in AP-42
Section 11.23. Evidence related to mineralogy, animal testing, and human health effects, all point to the
conclusion that the fibers generated from ore mined at the east end of the Biwabik iron formation (as
reported in Reference 3) are not the same, in form or carcinogenicity, as true asbestos. Reference 4
contains summaries of controlled emission tests for several taconite ore processing emission sources and
controls. These data summaries are considered useful only for order-of-magnitude estimates for sources
for which no other emission test data are available.
As explained previously, the previous AP-42 section on taconite ore processing also includes
emission factors for uncontrolled fugitive dust emissions from unpaved roads. These emission factors
are based on one study (Reference 45). The results of this study are presented in Table 4-3. Because the
predictive emission factor equations presented in AP-42 Section 13.2 are based on more data and are
considered to provide more reliable estimates of fugitive dust emissions, the fugitive dust emission
4-19
-------
factors presented in Reference 45 were not incorporated into the revised AP-42 section for taconite ore
processing.
TABLE 4-3. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HEAVY DUTY VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON HAUL ROADS AT TACONITE MINESa
Aerodynamic
diameter, /^m
2.5
5.0
10.0
15.0
30.0
Emission factor
rating:
Crushed rock and glacial till
kg/VKT
0.62
1.1
1.7
2.2
3.1
C
Ib/VMT
2.2
3.9
6.2
7.9
11
C
Crushed taconite and waste
kg/VKT
0.54
0.90
1.5
1.9
2.6
D
Ib/VMT
1.9
3.2
5.2
6.6
9.3
D
aReference 45.
VKT = vehicle kilometers traveled. VMT = vehicle mile traveled.
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS
Table 4-4 summarizes the test data from References 1 through 35, 46 through 49, 52, 54 to 57.
Table 4-5 presents the candidate emission factors for taconite ore indurating furnaces; and Table 4-6
presents the candidate emission factors for other sources associated with taconite ore processing.
Appendix A presents a summary of the data from Table 4-4 that were used and how the data were
combined to calculate the emission factors in Tables 4-5 and 4-6.
Candidate emission factors generally were developed by grouping the data from similar
combinations of source, pollutant, and control device, discarding the inferior data sets, and averaging the
emission factor derived from each data set. For indurating furnace emissions, the data for pollutants
other than PM also were segregated according to pellet type (acid or flux). In some cases, data were
available from multiple tests on the same source. In such cases, the emission factors from the tests on
that source were averaged first, and the resulting factor was then averaged with the factors from the other
similar sources.
The emission factor ratings assigned to the factors for the revised AP-42 section are based on the
guidelines presented in Section 3.3 of this report. All candidate emission factors were developed from
some combination of A-, B-, and C-rated data. As a result, none of the factors were assigned a rating
higher than C. In addition to the guidelines in Section 3.3, the following the criteria were used in
establishing the emission factor ratings in the revised AP-42 section:
1. Factors based on a combination of A-, B-, or C-rated data sets from five or more sources were
assigned a rating of C;
2. Factors based on a combination of A-, B-, or C-rated data sets from two to four sources were
assigned a rating of D;
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY OF TEST DATA FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
Source
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Grate/kiln discharge,
natural gas-fired
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
and oil-fired)
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
and fuel oil-fired)
Grate/kiln pellet
discharge
Fine crusher
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(oil-fired)e
Fine crushing
Control
None
None
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
None
None
Wet
scrubber
Wet
scrubber
Noneb
Venturi
scrubber
None0
None
None
ESP
ESP
None
Rotoclone
Noned
Rotoclone
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensible
inorganic PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
inorganic PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
inorganic PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
inorganic PM
S02
S02
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Asbestos
No. of
runs
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
6.5-9
(13 - 18)
0.003-0.012
(0.006 - 0.024)
0.175-0.36
(0.35 - 0.72)
0.0015-0.007
(0.003-0.014)
0.65-0.8
(1.3 - 1.6)
1.5xlO-5-6.5xlO-5
(3.0 x 10'5 - l.SxlO'4)
0.0006-0.0014
(0.0012-0.0028)
4.0 xlO'5- 0.0001
(7.0 x 10-5 - 0.0002)
0.042-0.047
(0.084-0.093)
0.0005-0.068
(0.001-0.135)
52-59
(104-117)
0.6-1.6
(1.2-3.2)
0.14-0.02
(0.028 - 0.040)
0.005-0.0115
(0.010-0.023)
0.0125-0.034
(0.025 - 0.068)
0.12-0.12
(0.24-0.25)
8.5xlO'5 - 0.00028
(0.00017-0.00055)
NA
NA
NA
average
7.5
(15)
0.0075
(0.015)
0.29
(0.58)
0.0035
(0.0070)
0.7
(1.4)
4.5 x 10'5
(9.0 x 10'5)
0.00095
(0.0019)
6.0 x 10-5
(0.00012)
0.045
(0.089)
0.027
(0.053)
55
(110)
1.1
(2.2)
0.018
(0.035)
0.0085
(0.017)
0.023
(0.045)
0.12
(0.24)
0.00018
(0.00035)
0.00064
(0.0013)
0.60
(1.2)
4.0 x 10-5
(7.9 x 10-5)
Data
rating
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
C
B
B
A
A
B
A
B
A
B
D
D
NR
Ref
No.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(oil-fired)
Straight grate dry hood
exhaust (oil-fired)
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(petroleum coke- and
natural gas-fired)f
Straight grate
processing flux pellets
(petroleum coke- and
coal-fired)g
Grinder feed
Grinder feed
Grinder feed
Grinder feed
Hearth layer feed
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(No. 6 fuel oil-fired)f
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(No. 6 fuel oil-fired)h
Straight grate discharge
Hearth layer screen
Product conveyor
transfer
Bentonite storage bin
loading
Hearth layer feed
Control
None0
Noned
Multiclone and
wet venturi
scrubber
Multiclone and
wet venturi
scrubber
Multiclone and
wet venturi
scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Pollutant
Asbestos
Asbestos
Filterable PM
S02
CO2
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
runs
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
NA
NA
0.038-0.069
(0.077-0.14)
0.56-0.57
(1.1-1.1)
48-48
(96 - 97)
0.050-0.18
(0.10-0.36)
0.23-0.34
(0.46 - 0.67)
39-40
(78 - 80)
0.00049-0.0012
(0.0010-0.0024)
0.00028-0.00041
(0.00056 - 0.00082)
0.00019-0.00025
(0.00038 - 0.00049)
0.00030 - 0.00032
(0.00060 - 0.00064)
0.0093-0.014
(0.019-0.029)
0.029-0.033
(0.058 - 0.067)
0.041-0.060
(0.081-0.120)
0.0090-0.010
(0.018-0.021)
0.016-0.022
(0.032 - 0.044)
0.0017-0.0019
(0.0034 - 0.0038)
1.0- 1.5
(2.1-3.0)
0.0057 - 0.0059
(0.011-0.012)
average
1.3 x 10'3
(2.6 x 10'3)
4.9 x 10-4
(9.7 x 10-4)
0.052
(0.10)
0.56
(1.1)
48
(96)
0.10
(0.19)
0.28
(0.57)
40
(79)
0.00076
(0.0015)
0.00035
(0.00071)
0.00023
(0.00045)
0.00031
(0.00062)
0.011
(0.022)
0.031
(0.062)
0.048
(0.096)
0.0095
(0.019)
0.019
(0.038)
0.0018
(0.0036)
1.2
(2.4)
0.0058
(0.012)
Data
rating
NR
NR
D
D
D
D
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
No.
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(No. 6 fuel oil-fired)g
Straight grate discharge
Grinder feed
Primary crusher, first
stage
Primary crusher, first
stage
Primary crusher, second
stage
Primary crusher, second
stage
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)'
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas fixedk
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)
Control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Cyclone and
multiclone
Cyclone
Cyclone and
multiclone
Cyclone
None
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Multiclone and
wet scrubber
Multiclone and
wet scrubber
Pollutant
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.036 - 0.048
(0.073 - 0.096)
7.6 - 22
(15-44)
0.0017-0.0024
(0.0033 - 0.0048)
0.0011-0.0012
(0.0022 - 0.0024)
0.016-0.023
(0.033 - 0.045)
0.042 - 0.058
(0.083-0.12)
0.008-0.013
(0.017-0.026)
0.055 - 0.090
(0.11-0.18)
5.3 - 16
(11-33)
30-37
(60 - 73)
0.47-2.1
(0.93-4.1)
33-34
(65 - 67)
8.5- 18
(17-35)
35-37
(70 - 74)
0.65 - 1.4
(1.3-2.8)
31-37
(62 - 73)
0.26-0.32
(0.52 - 0.64)
26-27
(52 - 54)
2.5-5.4
(5.0-11)
39-40
(78 - 79)
0.25 - 0.49
(0.49 - 0.98)
33-37
(67 - 74)
average
0.043
(0.086)
14
(27)
0.0020
(0.0040)
0.0011
(0.0023)
0.019
(0.038)
0.050
(0.10)
0.011
(0.022)
0.075
(0.15)
9.0
(18)
34
(68)
1.0
(2.1)
33
(66)
13
(25)
36
(72)
1.0
(2.0)
35
(69)
0.29
(0.57)
27
(53)
3.5
(7.1)
39
(79)
0.33
(0.66)
35
(70)
Data
rating
D
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
Ref.
No.
9
9
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
14
14
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (petroleum
coke- and coal-fired)™
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (petroleum
coke- and coal-fired)
Pellet cooler11
Pellet cooler11
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (coal- and
fuel oil-fired)111
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)111
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)111
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas-
and wood-fired)
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Secondary crusher
oversize material
conveyor transfer
Secondary crusher
oversize material
conveyor transfer
Primary crusher
Pellet screen
Control
None
None
Wet scrubber
None
None
None
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
None
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Wet venturi
scrubber
Rotoclone
Pollutant
Filterable PM
C02
S02
S02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
CO2
NOX
NOX
Filterable PM
S02
CO2
Filterable PM
SO2
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
runs
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
10- 12
(20 - 25)
31-34
(61-67)
0.79 - 0.80
(1.6- 1.6)
1.1- 1.1
(2.3-2.3)
0.018-0.032
(0.037 - 0.065)
0.052 - 0.090
(0.10-0.18)
0.069-0.14
(0.14-0.28)
34-36
(68 - 73)
0.75 - 0.82
(1.5-1.6)
0.84-1.1
(1.7-2.3)
0.039-0.043
(0.077 - 0.086)
0.066 - 0.072
(0.13-0.14)
61-69
(123 - 138)
0.026 - 0.030
(0.053 - 0.060)
0.058 - 0.070
(0.12-0.14)
62-63
(123 - 125)
0.00029 - 0.00053
(0.00059-0.0011)
0.0014-0.0020
(0.0029 - 0.0040)
0.00049 - 0.00080
(0.0010-0.0016)
0.010-0.028
(0.021-0.056)
average
11
(22)
o *•>
32
(63)
0.80
(1.6)
1.1
(2.3)
0.027
(0.055)
0.073
(0.15)
0.095
(0.19)
35
(70)
0.79
(1.6)
1.0
(2.0)
0.040
(0.081)
0.069
(0.14)
66
(130)
0.028
(0.057)
0.063
(0.13)
62
(120)
0.00039
(0.00078)
0.0017
(0.0034)
0.00061
(0.0012)
0.019
(0.037)
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
No.
14
14
15
15
16
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
21
21
22
23
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Pellet screen
Pellet storage bin
Pellet storage bin
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)*
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)'
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)*
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)*
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Vertical shaft
processing acid pellets,
top gas stack only
(natural gas-fired)k
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (coal-fired)p
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (coke- and
Control
None
Rotoclone
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Multiclone
Multiclone
None
None
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
CO2
Filterable PM
C02
S02
C02
Filterable PM
No. of
runs
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
3.2-7.1
(6.4 - 14.2)
0.034-0.039
(0.068 - 0.078)
1.8-1.9
(3.6-3.8)
0.52 - 0.62
(1.0- 1.2)
31-37
(63 - 75)
5.0-7.2
(10- 14)
28-38
(55 - 75)
0.70 - 0.89
(1.4-1.8)
33-36
(67-71)
6.5-8.6
(13 - 17)
38-41
(76 - 82)
0.44 - 0.60
(0.87 - 1.2)
29-30
(58-61)
5.6-8.7
(11-17)
25-30
(50 - 59)
0.60 - 0.84
(1.2-1.7)
24-32
(48 - 63)
8.0- 11
(16 - 22)
24-27
(49 - 53)
0.64 - 0.88
(1.3-1.8)
100 - 120
(210-240)
0.056 - 0.062
(0.11-0.12)
average
5.2
(10.3)
0.036
(0.071)
1.9
(3.7)
0.56
(1.1)
34
(68)
5.8
(12)
32
(64)
0.79
(1.6)
35
(70)
7.8
(16)
40
(79)
0.53
(1.1)
30
(60)
7.5
(15)
27
(54)
0.74
(1.5)
28
(56)
9.8
(20)
26
(51)
0.74
(1.5)
110
(220)
0.060
(0.12)
Data
rating
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ref.
No.
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
25
25
26
coal-fired)p
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (coal- and
petroleum coke-fired)
Pellet cooler
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas-
fired)1'
Primary crusher
Primary crusher return
conveyor
Secondary crushing line
Secondary bin loading
Conveyor transfer to
concentrator1
Tertiary crusher
Secondary crusher
return conveyor
transfer5
Tertiary crushing line
conveyor transfer'
Tertiary storage bin
loading
Grate/kiln feed
Control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
None
None
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Fabric filter
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Pollutant
S02
C02
Filterable PM
TNMOC as
propane
CO
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
NOX
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.024-0.031
(0.048 - 0.063)
100- 110
(200 - 220)
0.067 - 0.089
(0.13-0.18)
0.0047-0.10
(0.0093 - 0.20)
0.047 - 0.057
(0.094-0.11)
94 - 100
(190-210)
0.072 - 0.089
(0.14-0.18)
2.5-3.9
(5.0 - 7.8)
0.049 - 0.093
(0.097-0.19)
0.61-0.81
(1.2-1.6)
61-86
(120 - 170)
0.00071 -0.0015
(0.0014-0.0029)
0.00012-0.00019
(0.00025 - 0.00037)
0.0011-0.0017
(0.0022 - 0.0035)
8.6 xlO'5- 0.00011
(0.00017-0.00022)
0.00010-0.00021
(0.00020 - 0.00042)
0.00088-0.0017
(0.0018-0.0033)
0.00073-0.014
(0.0015-0.027)
0.00036-0.0018
(0.00071-0.0036)
0.0012-0.0016
(0.0024 - 0.0033)
2.4E-05 - 4.3E-05
(4.8E-05 - 8.6E-05)
average
0.028
(0.057)
100
(200)
0.077
(0.15)
0.038
(0.075)
0.051
(0.10)
97
(210)
0.080
(0.16)
3.2
(6.4)
0.069
(0.14)
0.69
(1.4)
77
(150)
0.0010
(0.0019)
0.00015
(0.00031)
0.0014
(0.0027)
9.4 x 10'5
(0.00019)
0.00014
(0.00028)
0.0013
(0.0027)
0.0067
(0.013)
0.00085
(0.0017)
0.0014
(0.0027)
3.3E-05
(6.6E-05)
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
No.
26
26
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
28
4-26
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Tertiary storage bin
loading11
Tertiary crushing lineq
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (petroleum
coke-fired)"1
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (petroleum
coke-fired)"1
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(petroleum coke- and
natural gas-fired)
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(natural gas-fired)
Control
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
None
None
None
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
S02
C02
H2S04
S02
C02
Filterable PM
H2S04
Filterable PM
S02
C02
Filterable PM
S02
NOX
CO
Lead
Beryllium
C02
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.00038 - 0.00043
(0.00076 - 0.00086)
0.00017-0.00022
(0.00034 - 0.00044)
0.90 - 0.97
(1.8- 1.9)
53-55
(107- 110)
0.080 - 0.089
(0.16-0.18)
0.63 - 0.67
(1.3-1.3)
51-52
(103 - 104)
0.049 - 0.052
(0.10-0.10)
0.047-0.051
(0.094-0.10)
0.056-0.061
(0.11-0.12)
0.62 - 0.64
(1.2-1.3)
36-39
(73 - 78)
0.049 - 0.050
(0.10-0.10)
0.046 - 0.060
(0.091-0.12)
0.28-0.31
(0.57-0.61)
0.019-0.020
(0.038-0.041)
3.3E-05 - 3.5E-05
(6.5E-05 - 7.0E-05)
7.7E-08 - 1.4E-07
(1.5E-07-2.9E-07)
23-26
(45 - 53)
average
0.00041
(0.00082)
0.00020
(0.00040)
0.95
(1.9)
54
(110)
0.085
(0.17)
0.65
(1.3)
52
(100)
0.051
(0.10)
0.049
(0.099)
0.058
(0.12)
0.63
(1.3)
o o
38
(76)
0.049
(0.10)
0.052
(0.10)
0.30
(0.60)
0.019
(0.039)
3.4E-05
(6.8E-05)
1.1E-07
(2.2E-07)
25
(50)
Data
rating
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
No.
28
28
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
4-27
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Straight grate
processing acid pellets
(petroleum coke- and
natural gas-fired)f
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas
and fuel oil-fired)
Control
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
and wet
scrubber
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Pollutant
Filterable PM
S02
NOX
CO
Lead
Beryllium
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
CO2
Filterable PM
Condensible
organic PM
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.052 - 0.057
(0.10-0.11)
0.30-0.36
(0.59 - 0.72)
0.13-0.15
(0.26 - 0.30)
0.074 - 0.079
(0.15-0.16)
2.9E-05 - 5.5E-05
(5.8E-05-1.1E-04)
8.1E-08-2.3E-07
(1.6E-07-4.6E-07)
30-31
(60 - 62)
0.11-0.18
(0.22 - 0.37)
23-28
(46 - 55)
0.19-0.23
(0.37 - 0.47)
16-24
(33 - 49)
0.39-0.66
(0.79 - 1.3)
33-36
(66 - 73)
0.36-0.41
(0.73 - 0.82)
0.14-0.17
(0.29-0.35)
0.0059 - 0.0073
(0.012-0.015)
21-31
(43-61)
0.026 - 0.043
(0.052 - 0.087)
0.00026-0.0011
(0.00053 - 0.0022)
average
0.054
(0.11)
0.34
(0.68)
0.14
(0.28)
0.077
(0.15)
3.8E-05
(7.6E-05)
1.5E-07
(2.9E-07)
31
(61)
0.15
(0.31)
25
(50)
0.21
(0.42)
22
(43)
0.53
(1.1)
35
(70)
Oo o
.38
(0.77)
0.16
(0.32)
0.0068
(0.014)
25
(50)
0.032
(0.065)
0.00077
(0.0015)
Data
rating
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
A
A
Ref
No.
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
35
46
46
46
47
47
4-28
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Grate/kiln processing
flux pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Straight grate
processing flux pellets
(natural gas-fired)
Grate/kiln processing
processing acid pellets
(natural gas-fired)v
Grate/kiln processing
semi-flux pellets
(natural gas-fired)
Control
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Multicylone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Pollutant
C02
Filterable PM
Condensible
organic PM
C02
NOX
Filterable PM
Filterable
PM-10
Condensible
PM
C02
CO
S02
NOX
TOCas
propane
Lead
Filterable PM
Filterable
PM-10
Condensible
PM
C02
CO
S02
NOX
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
55-63
(110- 130)
0.030-0.036
(0.061-0.073)
0.0026 - 0.0043
(0.0052 - 0.0086)
59-68
(120 - 140)
1.2- 1.3
(2.5 - 2.6)
0.14-0.18
(0.27 - 0.37)
0.063 - 0.070
(0.13-0.14)
0.011-0.024
(0.022 - 0.048)
18-28
(37 - 56)
0.0044-0.012
(0.0088 - 0.024)
0.082-0.091
(0.16-0.18)
0.67 - 0.84
(1.3 - 1.7)
0.00033 -0.0028
(0.00066 - 0.0056)
9.9 x 105 - 0.00040
(0.00020 - 0.00080)
0.15-0.18
(0.30-0.35)
0.054 - 0.075
(0.11-0.15)
0.0099-0.028
(0.020 - 0.055)
29-32
(58 - 65)
0.0064 - 0.0068
(0.013-0.014)
0.093 - 0.096
(0.19-0.19)
0.59-0.62
(1.2-1.2)
average
60
(120)
0.032
(0.065)
0.0033
(0.0066)
62
(120)
1.3
(2.5)
0.16
(0.33)
0.068
(0.14)
0.018
(0.035)
23
(45)
0.0072
(0.014)
0.086
(0.17)
0.74
(1.5)
0.0019
(0.0039)
0.00025
(0.00050)
0.16
(0.32)
0.062
(0.12)
0.016
(0.032)
31
(61)
0.0066
(0.013)
0.094
(0.19)
0.61
(1.2)
Data
rating
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
No.
47
47
47
47
48
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
49
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Grate/kiln processing
acid pellets (natural gas-
fired)
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Grate/kiln firing acid
pellets (natural gas-
fired)v
Vertical shaft firing acid
pellets, bottom gas stack
(natural gas-fired)w
Vertical shaft firing acid
pellets, top gas stack
only (natural gas-fired)w
Control
Multicyclone
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Multicyclone
Rotoclone
Rotoclone
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Pollutant
TOCas
propane
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
Filterable
PM-10
Condensible
organic PM
Condensible
inorganic PM
S02
C02
C02
Filterable PM
C02
Filterable PM
Total PM
(filt. + cond.)
TOC, as
propane
Total PM
(filt. + cond.)
NOX
SO2
CO
TOC, as
propane
CO2
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.0016-0.0020
(0.0032 - 0.0040)
2.3-2.9
(4.6 - 5.8)
0.0045 - 0.0078
(0.0089-0.016)
0.28-0.34
(0.57 - 0.67)
0.0081 -0.012
(0.016-0.024)
0.036 - 0.080
(0.072-0.16)
0.34-0.38
(0.68 - 0.75)
60-65
(120 - 130)
60-65
(120 - 130)
0.20 - 0.25
(0.40 - 0.49)
27-27
(53 - 54)
0.40 - 0.46
(0.80-0.91)
0.010-0.014
(0.020 - 0.028)
0.0092-0.032
(0.018-0.064)
0.052-0.11
(0.10-0.21)
0.096-0.10
(0.19-0.20)
0.13-0.14
(0.26 - 0.28)
0.038-0.039
(0.077 - 0.078)
0.0032 - 0.0098
(0.0064 - 0.020)
100-110
(200 - 220)
average
0.0017
(0.0035)
2.6
(5.1)
0.0063
(0.013)
0.31
(0.63)
0.0097
(0.019)
0.052
(0.10)
0.36
(0.71)
62
(120)
62
(120)
0.22
(0.43)
27
(54)
0.42
(0.84)
0.011
(0.022)
0.023
(0.046)
0.072
(0.14)
0.098
(0.20)
0.14
(0.28)
0.039
(0.077)
0.0065
(0.013)
110
(2 10)
Data
rating
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ref
No.
49
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
52
54
54
55
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
56
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-4. (Continued)
Source
Vertical shaft firing acid
pellets, bottom gas stack
only (natural gas-fired)w
Vertical shaft firing acid
pellets, top gas stack
only (natural gas-fired)w
Control
Rotoclone
Rotoclone
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
Pollutant
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
Filterable PM
Condensible
PM
C02
No. of
runs
3
3
3
3
3
Emission factor, kg/Mg
(lb/ton)a
range
0.014-0.018
(0.029 - 0.037)
0.00060-0.011
(0.0012-0.022)
0.030 -0.057
(0.059-0.11)
0.021-0.029
(0.042 - 0.047)
100 - 100
(200 - 200)
average
0.016
(0.031)
0.0043
(0.0086)
0.046
(0.92)
0.025
(0.050)
100
(200)
Data
rating
C
C
C
C
C
Ref
No.
57
57
57
57
57
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-5. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES.
Type
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
grate/kiln
Fuel
gas
gas
coal/oil
coke
coke/coal
gas/oil
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas/oil
gas
gas
coke
coke/coal
gas
gas
coal/coke
gas
gas
gas
NA
NA
gas
gas
gas
coke
coke
Control (a) | Pollutant
none
WS
WS
WS
WS
ESP
MC
none
MC
none
none
WS
none
none
none
WS
WS
WS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MC
none
WS
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM-10
filt. PM-10
cond. PM
cond. PM
cond. PM
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
SO2
NOx
CO
CO
CO2
CO2
VOC (c)
VOC (d)
lead
H2SO4
H2SO4
Pellet
type(b)
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
acid
acid
acid
acid
flux
A/F
A/F
acid
flux
acid
flux
acid
flux
acid
acid
acid
Number of
tests [sources
3
5
1
1
2
1
9
1
2
5
2
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
5
2
1
12
9
2
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
2
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
1
5
7
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Min. | Max.
2.2
0.057
0.12
0.31
0.12
0.013
0.035
0.002
0.089
0.13
1.3
1.2
0.013
43
50
0.0035
15
0.14
0.15
1.1
0.14
0.035
0.045
0.0083
0.71
0.14
1.6
2.0
0.014
120
220
0.0038
Ave.
7.4
0.082
0.19
0.10
0.14
0.017
0.44
0.63
0.13
0.022
0.040
0.0055
0.29
1.9
2.3
0.053
0.14
1.5
1.5
0.014
0.10
99
130
0.0037
0.075
0.00050
0.17
0.099
Rating
D
C
E
E
D
E
D
E
E
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
D
D
D
E
E
C
C
D
E
E
E
E
References
12,52
20, 27, 47
18
29
26,27
2
32-35, 46, 49, 54-55
52
49
1, 46, 49, 52
2
1,47
1, 49, 52
29
15
1
20
15,25,29
19, 27, 49
49
27
2, 18, 29, 32-34, 49,
52,54
20, 25-27, 46-47
49
27
49
29
29
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-5. (Continued)
Type
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-hot.
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-hot.
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-top
vertical shaft-hot.
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
straight grate
Fuel
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
gas
oil
coke/gas
coke
gas
coke/gas
gas
gas
coke/gas
coke/gas
gas
coke/gas
gas
coke/gas
Control (a)
none
MC
WS
MC/WS
RC
WS
RC
WS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
none
WS
MC/WS
WS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MC/WS
MC/WS
MC/WS
MC/WS
Pollutant
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
cond. PM
cond. PM
SO2
NOx
CO
CO2
VOC (c)
VOC (c)
filt. PM
filt. PM
SO2
S02
NOx
NOx
CO
CO
C02
lead
lead
beryllium
beryllium
Pellet
type (b)
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
A/F
acid
acid
acid
acid
acid
acid
A/F
A/F
acid
acid
acid
flux
acid
acid
acid
acid
acid
acid
acid
Number of Emission factor, Ib/ton
tests
8
7
18
3
2
1
2
-
j
source
s
o
J
o
J
5
3
2
1
2
-
j
Min.
7.1
0.57
51
0.10
0.68
0.28
50
Max.
25
2.1
210
0.12
1.3
0.60
76
Ave.
16
1.4
0.92
0.66
0.031
0.050
0.0086
0.28
0.20
0.077
94
0.013
0.046
1.2
0.11
0.99
0.10
0.44
2.5
0.039
0.15
62
0.000068
0.000076
2.20e-07
2.90e-07
Rating
D
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
C
E
E
E
D
D
E
D
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
References
12-14, 24
12, 13,24
57
14
57
57
57
56
56
56
12-14, 24, 56-57
56
56
o
5
30,31
30,31
31
31
48
31
31
30,31
31
31
31
31
(a) NA = not applicable. WS = wet scrubber. MC = multiclone. RC = rotoclone. ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
00 A/F = acid or flux.
(c) Based on Method 25 A data.
(d) Based on Method 25 data.
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-6. SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING-OTHER SOURCES
Source
Primary crusher
Primary crusher
Primary crusher
Primary crusher
Secondary crushing line
Fine crusher
Tertiary crushing line
Grinder feed
Hearth layer feed
Grate/kiln feed
Hearth layer screen
Grate/kiln discharge
Grate/kiln discharge
Grate/kiln discharge
Grate/kiln discharge
Grate/kiln discharge
Straight grate feed
Straight grate discharge
Straight grate discharge
Pellet cooler
Pellet cooler
Pellet screen
Pellet screen
Primary crusher return conveyor
transfer
Secondary crusher return conveyor
transfer
Product conveyor transfer
Conveyor transfer to concentrator
Tertiary crusher line conveyor transfer
Control
(a)
C
CMC
WS
FF
WS
RC
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
none
WS
none
none
WS
none
none
WS
none
none
none
RC
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
Pollutant
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
condensible inorg. PM
condensible PM
condensible inorg. PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
C02
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
No. of
tests
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
(b)
(b)
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Minimum
0.0004
0.00045
0.012
0.24
0.0040
0.055
0.00078
Maximum Average
0.00270
0.0023
0.022
1.4
0.019
0.16
0.013
0.25
0.060
0.0012
0.0019
0.0027
0.0013
0.0016
0.0011
0.017
0.000066
0.038
0.82
0.0019
9.0e-05
0.00035
0.00012
0.63
1.4
0.012
0.12
6.4
10
0.037
0.00031
0.0057
0.0036
0.00028
0.0017
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
C
D
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
E
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
References
10,11
10,11
22
27
28
3
28
7,9
8,9
E 28
8
1,2
1
1
2
1
4
4
8,9
16,17,27
27
23
23
27
2128
8
28
28
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-6. (Continued)
Source
Bentonite storage bin
Bentonite transfer
Bentonite transfer
Bentonite blending
Bentonite blending
Bentonite blending
Pellet storage bin loading
Pellet storage bin loading
Secondary storage bin loading
Tertiary storage bin loading
Control
(a)
WS
none
WS
none
WS
FF
none
RC
WS
WS
Pollutant
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
filterable PM
No. of
tests
1
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
1
1
1
2
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Minimum Maximum | Average
0.00082
2.4
3.2
0.11
19
0.25
0.11
3.7
0.071
0.00019
0.0027 0.0018
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
References
8
4
4
4
4
4
23
23
E 28
28
WS = wet scrubber. RC = rotoclone. MC = multiclone. C = cyclone. FF = fabric filter.
Based on secondary reference.
4-35
-------
3. Factors based on two data sets from the same source also were rated D; and
4. Factors based on only C- or D-rated data sets, or factors based on a single emission test, were
assigned a rating of E.
The following paragraphs describe how the data presented in Table 4-4 were used to develop the
candidate emission factors. The development of average emission factors for taconite ore indurating
furnaces is discussed first, followed by a discussion of how the candidate emission factors for other
sources were derived.
4.3.1 Indurating Furnaces
As explained previously, emission data for indurating furnaces were grouped according to the
type fuel, pollutant, and control device. For pollutants other than PM, the data also were grouped by
pellet type (acid or flux). After grouping the data sets, the majority of candidate emission factors were
determined as the arithmetic mean of the factors developed from each available data set in the group.
However, for several groups of data, it was necessary to make additional assumptions about the data in
order to arrive at a reasonable result. The following paragraphs describe the development of candidate
emission factors for those groups and data sets for which the arithmetic mean of the data did not appear
to provide a reasonable or consistent result. The development of factors for grate/kilns is presented first,
followed by explanations of how the factors for vertical kilns and straight grates were developed.
4.3.1.1 Grate/Kiln Furnaces. For grate/kilns, data were available on emissions of a wide variety
of pollutants from the production of both acid pellets and flux pellets. The following paragraphs first
describe how the candidate emission factors for grate/kiln furnaces were developed.
4.3.1.1.1 Filterable PM. Three data sets were available for uncontrolled filterable PM from
grate/kilns. Two of the data sets were derived from tests on gas-fired grate/kilns, and the third data set
from a test on a grate/kiln fired with a combination of gas and oil. It would be expected for the factor for
the gas/oil-fired furnace to be higher than the factors for furnaces fired with gas only. However, the
factor for the gas/oil-fired furnace was the lowest of the three. Therefore, all three data sets were
combined to yield a candidate emission factor for gas-fired grate/kilns.
Six data sets were available for wet scrubber-controlled filterable PM emissions from grate/kilns.
Four of the data sets were from tests on grate/kilns fired with natural gas, and the other two data sets
were for furnaces fired with combinations of either gas and oil (0.065 Ib/ton) or gas and wood
(0.081 Ib/ton). One of the data sets for a gas-fired furnace (0.58 Ib/ton) was discarded because the
emission factor for the test was an order of magnitude higher than the factors from the other tests in this
group. In addition, if this emission factor were included in the calculation, the resulting candidate
emission factor would be inconsistent with the factors for grate/kilns fired with coal or coke. The tests
on furnaces with gas in combination with other fuels resulted in emission factors that fell within the
range of the factors for the remaining three tests (0.065 to 0.14 Ib/ton). Therefore, the data for the
combination fuels were included in the candidate emission factor calculation.
Separate candidate emission factors also were developed from either one or two data sets for wet
scrubber-controlled filterable PM emissions from grate/kilns fired with a combination of coal and oil
(0.19 Ib/ton), coke (0.10 Ib/ton), and a combination of coke and coal (0.14 Ib/ton). A factor also was
developed from a single test for emission from a gas- and oil-fired grate/kiln controlled with an ESP
(0.017 Ib/ton).
4-36
-------
4.3.1.1.2 Filterable PM-10. One data set was available for uncontrolled filterable PM-10
emissions from a grate/kiln (0.63 Ib/ton). Two data sets were for multiclone-controlled filterable PM-10
emissions from gas-fired grate/kilns. The factors ranged from 0.12 Ib/ton to 0.14 Ib/ton and averaged
0.131b/ton.
4.3.1.1.3 Condensible PM. For emissions of condensible PM from grate/kilns producing acid
pellets, eight data sets were identified. The grate/kilns tested were fired either with gas or a combination
of gas and oil. For two of the data sets, emissions were controlled with venturi scrubbers, and the
emission factors (0.0066 and 0.0015 Ib/ton) were significantly lower than the factors for the other tests.
Therefore, it was assumed that the scrubbers had a significant effect on emissions, and these two data
sets were grouped separately. For one of the tests (Reference 52), the inorganic and organic fractions of
the condensibles were quantified. These fractions are provided in the footnote to the emission factor
table in the revised AP-42 section. In addition, data were available from two tests in which only the
inorganic fraction of the condensibles were quantified. The data for these two tests were scaled up using
the ratio of condensible organic PM to condensible inorganic PM derived from Reference 52. For the
remaining two gas- and oil-fired grate/kilns, the candidate factor was calculated as 0.040 Ib/ton. The
resulting candidate emission factors were 0.022 Ib/ton for uncontrolled, gas-fired grate/kilns and
0.00055 Ib/ton for wet scrubber-controlled, gas-fired grate/kilns.
4.3.1.1.4 SO2. For SO2 emissions from grate/kilns producing acid pellets, data sets were
grouped according to fuel types. In addition, the data for emissions controlled with scrubbers were
grouped separately; the other controls (multiclones) were assumed to have no effect on SO2 emissions.
For gas-fired grate/kilns, four data sets were available. The candidate emission factor developed from
these data is 0.29 Ib/ton. Separate emission factors also were developed for uncontrolled SO2 emissions
from coke-fired grate/kilns (1.9 Ib/ton) and for coke- and coal-fired grate/kilns (2.3 Ib/ton) firing acid
pellets.
For wet scrubber-controlled SO2 emissions, a candidate emission factor was developed for gas-
fired grate/kilns (0.053 Ib/ton) based on the results of one test. Data also were available from one test on
a coke-fired grate/kiln (1.3 Ib/ton) and one test on a coke- and coal-fired grate/kiln (1.6 Ib/ton).
For emissions for SO2 from grate/kilns producing flux pellets, data were available for four
emission tests, all of which were conducted on wet scrubber-controlled furnaces: one test on a gas-fired
furnace (0.13 Ib/ton), one test on a gas- and wood-fired furnace (0.14 Ib/ton), one test on a coal-fired
furnace (1.5 Ib/ton), and one test on a coke- and coal-fired furnace (0.057 Ib/ton). The data for the gas-
fired and the gas- and wood-fired grate/kilns were comparable and were combined (0.14 Ib/ton). The
factor for the coal-fired furnace fell within the range spanned by the data for wet scrubber-controlled SO2
from grate/kilns firing acid pellets. Therefore, the data for flux pellets were combined with acid pellet
data to yield a candidate emission factor of 1.5 Ib/ton. The data for the coke- and coal-fired grate/kiln
producing flux pellets were inconsistent with the other SO2 data and were discarded.
4.3.1.1.5 NOX. For NOX emissions from grate/kilns producing acid pellets, data sets were
identified from four tests, all of which were conducted on gas-fired furnaces. The control devices for the
furnaces tested were assumed to have negligible effects on NOX emissions and the data sets were
combined. For NOX emissions from flux pellet production, data were available from one test on a gas-
fired grate/kiln (1.4 Ib/ton). Because the flux pellet data fell within the range spanned by the acid pellet
data, all NOX data were combined to yield a candidate emission factor of 1.5 Ib/ton.
4-37
-------
4.3.1.1.6 CO. For CO emissions from grate/kilns producing acid pellets, data were available
from two tests on gas-fired grate/kilns. The candidate emission factor developed from these data is
0.014 Ib/ton. For flux pellet production, data were available for one test of CO emissions from a coal-
and coke-fired grate/kiln (0.10 Ib/ton).
4.3.1.1.7 CO2 For CO2 emissions from grate/kilns producing acid pellets, data were available
from 12 tests on 5 furnaces. Most of the tests were conducted on gas-fired grate/kilns; other fuels used
included gas/oil, coke, and coal/oil. Because the range of the gas-fired furnace data encompassed the
data for the furnaces fired with the other fuels, fuel type was ignored. Control devices also were assumed
to have negligible effects on CO2 emissions. The data ranged from 43 to 120 Ib/ton, and the candidate
emission factor was calculated as 99 Ib/ton.
For CO2 emissions from grate/kilns producing flux pellets, data were available from nine tests on
seven furnaces. Both fuel type and emission control again were assumed to have no significant effects on
CO2 emissions and the data were all combined. The data ranged from 50 to 220 Ib/ton, and the candidate
emission factor was calculated as 130 Ib/ton.
4.3.1.1.8 Other Pollutants. Emission factors also were developed for emissions of the following
from grate/kiln furnaces: VOC as propane, lead, and sulfuric acid. For each of these, the emission factor
was derived from one or two emission tests.
4.3.1.2 Vertical Shaft Furnaces. Most of the data on emissions from vertical shaft furnaces were
based on tests conducted on the top gas stack only. All of the data pertain to gas-fired furnaces
producing acid pellets. Factors were developed for the following pollutants: filterable PM, condensible
PM, SO2, NOX, CO, CO2, and VOC. Separate factors were developed for top gas stacks and for bottom
gas stacks. For uncontrolled filterable PM (8 tests), test-specific factors for top gas stacks ranged from
7.1 to 25 Ib/ton and averaged 16 Ib/ton. For multiclone-controlled filterable PM (7 tests), the factors for
top gas stacks ranged from 0.57 to 2.1 Ib/ton and averaged 1.4 Ib/ton. For CO2 emissions from top gas
vertical shaft furnace stacks (18 tests), the factors ranged from 51 to 210 Ib/ton and averaged 94 Ib/ton.
The remaining factors all are based on a single emission test each and are presented in Table 4-5.
4.3.1.3 Straight Grate Furnaces. For straight grate furnaces, data were available for one test of
NOX emissions from the production of flux pellets; all other data were from tests on furnaces firing acid
pellets. Data were available for emissions of filterable PM, SO2, NOX, CO, CO2, lead, and beryllium
emissions. Several data sets for filterable PM, SO2, and CO2 emissions were rated D and were discarded
because data of higher quality were available. For each pollutant, one to three high quality data sets were
remained. The candidate emission factors were developed from these data using the procedures
described previously.
4.3.2 Other Sources
Data also were available for emissions (primarily, filterable PM) from several other taconite ore
processing sources, including crushing, grinder feeding, hearth layer feeding, hearth layer screening,
grate/kiln discharging, straight grate discharging, pellet cooling, conveyor transfer, and material storage
bin loading. Appendix A (Table A-2) lists the data sets used for each candidate emission factor
determination. The emission factors were determined using the procedures discussed in Section 3 of this
report. These candidate emission factors are presented in Table 4-6.
4.4 SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO AP-42 SECTION
4-38
-------
4.4.1 Section Narrative
Only minor changes were made to the narrative of Section 11.23. The description of the industry
structure was expanded. The process description also was expanded slightly to account for emission
sources not previously addressed in the AP-42 section. In addition, the process flow diagram was
modified to be consistent with the process description, and SCC's were added to the figure.
4.4.2 Emission Factors
The emission factor tables for the AP-42 section were completely revised to incorporate the
emission factors developed from the additional test data. The previous versions of the section presented
emission factors for PM emissions only; the revised section includes factors for filterable PM, PM-10,
PM-2.5, SO2, NOX, CO, CO2, and other pollutants. The previous AP-42 section presented factors for
uncontrolled emissions only, but included a table of control device efficiencies; the revised section
includes factors for both controlled and uncontrolled emissions. In addition, the table of control
efficiencies was eliminated because the table was based on old data that may not be representative of the
control efficiencies achieved currently, and because many of the efficiencies in the table were not based
on emission test data. The other major change to the emission factors was that the factors for fugitive
dust emissions from haul road traffic were eliminated because the predictive emission factor equations
presented in AP-42 Section 13.2 are based on more data and are considered to provide more reliable
estimates of emissions than the fugitive dust factors presented previously in the taconite ore processing
AP-42 section.
4.5 CROSS-REFERENCE OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Table 4-7 presents a cross-reference of the documents reviewed as part of this study, with the
reference numbers that correspond to each document in this background report and the AP-42 section. It
should be noted that many of the references used in the revised AP-42 section have different reference
numbers where they are discussed in Chapters 2 and 4 of this background report.
4.6 NEW SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
During the process of revising the AP-42 section on taconite ore processing, several new SCCs
were assigned. Table 4-8 presents a complete list of SCCs for this source category.
4-39
-------
TABLE 4-7. CROSS-REFERENCE OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
Background report
Chapter
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ref. No.
1
2
o
J
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5,6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
AP-42
section
Ref. No.
1
2
3
5
Not used
41
4
5
6
2
Not used
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Background report
Chapter
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Ref. No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36 to 45
46
47
48
49
50,51
52
53
54
55
56
57
AP-42
section
Ref. No.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Not used
36
37
38
39
Not used
40
41
42
43
44
45
4-40
-------
TABLE 4-8. SOURCE CLASSIFICATION CODES FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
sec
3-03-023-01
3-03-023-02
3-03-023-03
3-03-023-04
3-03-023-05
3-03-023-06
3-03-023-07
3-03-023-08
3-03-023-09
3-03-023-10
3-03-023-11
3-03-023-12
3-03-023-13
3-03-023-14
3-03-023-15
3-03-023-16
3-03-023-17
3-03-023-18
3-03-023-19
3-03-023-20
3-03-023-21
3-03-023-22
3-03-023-25
3-03-023-27
3-03-023-28
3-03-023-30
3-03-023-31
3-03-023-34
3-03-023-36
3-03-023-38
3-03-023-40
3-03-023-41
3-03-023-44
Descriptor!
Primary crushing
Fines crushing
Ore screening
Ore transfer
Ore storage
Dry grinding/milling
Bentonite storage
Bentonite blending
Traveling grate feed
Traveling grate discharge
Chip regrinding
Indurating furnace: gas-fired
Indurating furnace: oil-fired
Indurating furnace: coal-fired
Pellet cooler
Pellet transfer to storage
Magnetic separation
Non-magnetic separation
Kiln
Conveyors, transfer, and loading
Haul road: rock
Haul road: taconite
Primary crusher return conveyor transfer
Secondary crushing line (includes feed and discharge
points)
Secondary crusher return conveyor transfer
Tertiary crushing line (includes feed and discharge
points)
Tertiary crushing line discharge conveyor
Grinder feed
Classification
Secondary grinding
Tailings basin
Conveyor transfer to concentrator
Concentrate storage
Units
Ib/ton material crushed
Ib/ton material crushed
Ib/ton material screened
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material stored
Ib/ton material ground
Ib/ton bentonite stored
Ib/ton bentonite added
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton material reground
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton material fed
Ib/ton material fed
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/vehicle-mile travelled
Ib/vehicle-mile travelled
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material crushed
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material crushed
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material ground
Ib/ton material fed
Ib/ton material ground
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material stored
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-8. (continued)
sec
3-03-023-45
3-03-023-47
3-03-023-48
3-03-023-49
3-03-023-50
3-03-023-51
3-03-023-52
3-03-023-53
3-03-023-54
3-03-023-55
3-03-023-56
3-03-023-57
3-03-023-58
3-03-023-59
3-03-023-60
3-03-023-61
3-03-023-62
3-03-023-69
3-03-023-70
3-03-023-71
3-03-023-72
3-03-023-73
3-03-023-74
3-03-023-79
3-03-023-80
3-03-023-81
3-03-023-82
3-03-023-83
3-03-023-84
3-03-023-85
3-03-023-86
Descripton
Bentonite transfer to blending
Green pellet screening
Hearth layer feed to furnace
Grate/kiln furnace feed
Grate/kiln furnace discharge
Induration: grate/kiln, gas-fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, gas-fired, flux pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, gas- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coke-fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coke -fired, flux pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coke- and coal-fired, flux pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coal -fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coal -fired, flux pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, acid pellets
Induration: grate/kiln, coal- and oil-fired, flux pellets
Vertical shaft furnace feed
Vertical shaft furnace discharge
Induration: vertical shaft, gas-fired, acid pellets, top
gas stack
Induration: vertical shaft, gas-fired, flux pellets, top
gas stack
Induration: vertical shaft, gas-fired, acid pellets,
bottom gas stack
Induration: vertical shaft, gas-fired, flux pellets,
bottom gas stack
Straight grate furnace feed
Straight grate furnace discharge
Induration: straight grate, gas-fired, acid pellets
Induration: straight grate, gas-fired, flux pellets
Induration: straight grate, oil-fired, acid pellets
Induration: straight grate, oil-fired, flux pellets
Induration: straight grate, coke-fired, acid pellets
Induration: straight grate, coke-fired, flux pellets
Units
Ib/ton material transferred
Ib/ton material fed
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
4-42
-------
TABLE 4-8. (continued)
sec
3-03-023-87
3-03-023-88
3-03-023-93
3-03-023-95
3-03-023-96
3-03-023-97
3-03-023-98
3-03-023-99
Descripton
Induration: straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, acid
pellets
Induration: straight grate, coke- and gas-fired, flux
pellets
Hearth layer screen
Pellet screen
Pellet storage bin loading
Secondary storage bin loading
Tertiary storage bin loading
Other not classified
Units
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
Ib/ton pellets produced
4-43
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
1. Air Pollution Emissions Test, Eveleth Taconite, Eveleth, MN, EMB 76-IOB-3. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
2. Air Pollution Emission Test, Empire Mining Company, Palmer, MI, EMB 76-IOB-2, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, November 1975.
3. Emission Testing Report, Reserve Mining Company, Silver Bay, MN, EMB 74-HAS-l, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1974.
4. J. P. Pilney and G. V. Jorgensen, Emissions from Iron Ore Mining, Beneficiation and Pelletization,
Volume I, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2113, Midwest Research Institute, Minnetonka, MN, June 1983.
5. Results of the August 5, 1986, Particulate and SO 2 Compliance Tests on the No. 2 Machine Wind
Box and Hood Exhaust No. 4 Scrubber Stack at the Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Ribbing, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 25, 1986.
6. Results of the April 30, 1985, Particulate and SO 2 Emission Test on the No. 3 Machine Wind Box
and Hood Exhaust No. 4 Scrubber Stack at the Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Hibbing, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 16, 1985.
7. Results of the January 1977 Particulate Emission Testing of Crusher Feed Mill Scrubbers Nos. 2, 3,
5, and 6 Conducted at the Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
June 8, 1977.
8. Results of the June 27-July 1, 1977 Particulate Emission Tests Conducted on Selected Sources in the
Pelletizer Building at the Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Hibbing, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul,
MN, August 16, 1977.
9. Phase II Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing, Hibbing Taconite Company, Hibbing, MN,
September 4-6, 1979.
10. Results of the March 15, 1990 Dust Collector Performance Test on the No. 1 Crusher Primary Dust
Collector at the Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility in Babbitt, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, April 19, 1990.
11. Results of the March 9, 1990 Dust Collector Performance Test on the No. 1 Crusher Secondary
Collector at the Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility in Babbitt, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, April 18, 1990.
12. Results of the May 22 and 23, 1984, Dust Collection Efficiency Tests on the D-2 and E-2 Furnace
Top Gas Mechanical Collectors at the Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 29, 1984.
13. Results of the December 17, 1981 Compliance Test on the D-2 Furnace Dust Control System at the
Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
December 22, 1981.
4-44
-------
14. Results of the February 20, 1980 Paniculate Emission Test on the D-l Furnace Top Gas Wet
Collector at the Erie Mining Company Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN,
March 4, 1980.
15. Results of the October 12-15, 1987 Air Emission Compliance Tests at the Eveleth Taconite Plant in
Eveleth, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, December 18, 1987.
16. Results of the July 9, 1981 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test on the Kiln Cooler Exhaust Stack
at Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., St. Paul, MN, July 22, 1981.
17. Results of the March 11, 1980 Paniculate Emission Compliance Test on the Kiln Cooler Exhaust
Stack at Eveleth Mines, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, April 18, 1980.
18. Results of the December 13 and 14, 1979 P'articulate Emission Compliance Tests on the Kiln Cooler
Exhaust and the 2A Waste Gas Stacks at the Eveleth Expansion Company Plant Near Eveleth, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, January 22, 1980.
19. Results of the June 12, 1975 Oxides of Nitrogen Determinations at the Fairlane Plant Pellet Furnace
Wet Scrubber Inlet and Outlet, Eveleth Taconite Company, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul,
MN, June 30, 1975.
20. Results of the March/April 1992 Emission Performance Tests on the Nos. 4 and 5 Scrubber Stacks at
the USSMinnesota Ore Operations Facility in Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.,
Circle Pines, MN, April 23, 1992.
21. Results of the February 18 and 19, 1992 Paniculate Emission Performance Testing on Two SEI
Multiple Throat Venturi Type Wet Scrubber Systems at the USS Minnesota Ore Operations Facility,
Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, March 11, 1992.
22. Crusher Environeering Wet Scrubber Dust Collectors Paniculate Emissions Compliance Testing
Hibbing Taconite Company, Ribbing, MN, October 18, 1982.
23. Results of the June 25 and 26, 1980 Paniculate Emission Compliance Tests on the No. 2 Loading
Pocket Collector and the Nos. 7 and 8 Pellet Screen Collector at the Erie Mining Company Plant
Near Hoyt Lakes, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, July 7, 1980.
24. Results of the June 12-15, 1984, Dust Collection Efficiency Tests on the D-2 and E-2 Furnace Top
Gas Mechanical Collectors at the Erie Mining Company Pellet Plant Near Hoyt Lakes, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 22, 1984.
25. Results of the August 6, 1991 SO2 Emission Engineering Tests at the USX Minnesota Ore Operation
Facility in Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 15, 1991.
26. Results of the January 25, 1990 Paniculate and Sulfur Dioxide Engineering Emission Test on the
Line 7 Grate Kiln at the USX Minnesota Ore Operation Facility, Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, March 7, 1990.
27. Results of the March 28-31, 1989 Air Emission Compliance Testing at the USS Plant in Mountain
Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, April 21, 1989.
4-45
-------
28. Results of the January 8-10, 1980 Paniculate Emission Compliance Tests on Emission Source Nos.
6.39, 6.40, 6.34, 6.44, 6.41, 6.56, 6.43, 8.43, 8.47, and 8.49 at the U.S. SteelMinntac Plant in
Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll, Inc., St. Paul, MN, February 8, 1980.
29. Results of the May 21 and 22, 1987'Paniculate and SO^SO3 Emission Compliance Tests on the Line
2 Induration Furnace Waste Gas Systems at the Eveleth Taconite Plant in Eveleth, MN, Interpoll
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 25, 1987.
30. Results of the August 6-8, 1986, Paniculate and SO2 Compliance Tests on the Indurating Gas Wet
Scrubber Stacks at the Inland Steel Mining Company in Virginia, MN, Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,
MN, August 19 1986.
31. Results of the May 5-7, 1987, Atmospheric Emission Tests on the Induration Furnaces at the Hibbing
Taconite Company in Hibbing, MN, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, May 14, 1987.
32. Paniculate Emissions Testing for National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas Stack
No. 2B, June 17, 1992, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, July 17, 1992.
33. Paniculate Emissions Testing for National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas Stack
No. 2A, June 5, 1991, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc. Columbia, MO, June 28, 1991.
34. Paniculate Emissions Testing for National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas Stack
No. 2B, May 16, 1990, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, May 30, 1990.
35. Paniculate Emissions Testing for National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Waste Gas Stack
No. 2A, June 7, 1989, Shell Engineering and Associates, Inc., Columbia, MO, June 14, 1989.
36. Paniculate Emissions Testing for National Steel Pellet Company, Keewatin, MN, Six Sources, July
and August, 1988.
37. Results of the April 17-19, 1990, Paniculate Emission Compliance Tests on Four Sources at the
Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility in Silver Bay, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
May 4, 1990.
38. Results of the January 23 and 24, 1979 Paniculate Emission Compliance Tests on the 2A Waste Gas,
The Kiln Cooler and the Grate Feed End Stacks at the Eveleth Expansion Company Plant, Eveleth,
MN, Interpoll Inc., St. Paul, MN, February 9, 1979.
39. Results of the August 20, 1985, Particulate and SO 2 Emission Test on the No. 1 Machine Wind Box
and Hood Exhaust No. 3 Scrubber Stack at the Hibbing Taconite Company Plant, Hibbing, MN,
Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 30, 1985.
40. Results of the October 23, and 24, 1979, Particulate Emission Compliance Tests on the Coarse
Crusher Discharge, Crusher Dump Pocket Discharge and North Loading Tunnel at the Eveleth
Taconite Company ThunderbirdMine, Eveleth, MN, Interpoll, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, November 28,
1979.
41. Results of the January 7-9, 1992 Engineering Scrubber Performance Tests at the Cyprus Northshore
Mining Facility in Silver Bay, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, February 6, 1992.
4-46
-------
42. Results of the July 24-27, 1990 Air Emission Compliance Tests on the Nos. 11 and 12 Pelletizers and
the No. 2 Power Boiler at the Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility in Silver Bay, MN, Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, October 21, 1990.
43. Results of the September NO x Emission Tests on the Induration Furnace Scrubbers, Inland Steel
Mining Company, Virginia, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, October 18, 1991.
44. Results of the March 12, 1991 Efficiency Test on the No. 1 Primary Crusher Dust Collector at the
Cyprus Northshore Mining Facility in Babbitt, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
April 9, 1991.
45. T. R. Cuscino, et al., Taconite Mining Fugitive Emissions Study, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, Roseville, MN, June 1979.
46. Results of the October 13, 1994 National Steel Pellet Company Paniculate and Visible Waste Gas
Stack 2B Emissions Compliance Test, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN, November
1994.
47. Results of the April 28, 1993 State Air Emission Compliance Testing on the No. 4 and 5 Pelletizers at
the U.S. Steel Plant in Mountain Iron, MN, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, June 10,
1993.
48. Results of the July 31 and August 1, 1990 NOX Emission Compliance Test on the Flux Pellet
Induration Furnace at the Inland Steel Mining Plant, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
October 10, 1990.
49. Results of the September 12, 16, 23, and October 12, 1994 National Steel Pellet Company Waste Gas
Stack 2B Emission Tests, Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN, November 1994.
50. Results of the January 10-13, 1995 Air Emission Compliance Testing at the Northshore Mining
Facility in Silver Bay, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, January 25, 1995.
51. Results of the May 24-27, 1994 Air Emission Testing at the Northshore Mining Facility in Silver
Bay, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 6, 1994.
52. Results of the March 25, 1994 Air Emission Engineering Tests on the No. 3 Waste Gas Stack at the
US Steel Plant in Mountain Iron, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN,
April 1994.
53. Written communication from P. O'Neill, Minnesota Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis,
MN, to R. E. Myers, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 20,
1996.
54. Results of the June 22, 1993 Paniculate and Opacity Compliance Tests Conducted on the No. 2A
Waste Gas Stack at the National Steel Pellet Plant in Keewatin, Minnesota, Interpoll Laboratories,
Inc., Circle Pines, MN, July 26, 1993.
55. Results of the June 6, 1995 National Steel Pellet Company P'articulate Emission Compliance Test
Waste Gas Stack 2A (Emission Point 30), Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, MN, June 1995.
4-47
-------
56. Written Communication from D. Koschak, LTV Steel Mining Company, Hoyt Lakes, MN, to
S. Arkley, Minnesota Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, MN. October 31, 1995.
57. Results of the July 11 - 13, 1995 State Air Emission Performance Testing at the LTV Steel Mining
Plant Company Pellet Plant in Hoyt Lakes, Minnesota (Permit No. 48B-95-1/O-1), Interpoll
Laboratories, Inc., Circle Pines, MN, August 28, 1995.
4-48
-------
5. REVISED AP-42 SECTION 11.23
The revised AP-42 Section 11.23, Taconite Ore Processing, is presented in the following pages
as it appears in the document.
5-1
-------
APPENDIX A.
SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR
AP-42 SECTION 11.23, TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
-------
SUMMARY OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTOR CALCULATIONS FOR
AP-42 SECTION 11.23, TACONITE ORE PROCESSING
The following tables summarize the calculations that were used to develop the candidate
emission factors for taconite ore processing. Table A-l summarizes the calculations for indurating
furnace emission factors, and Table A-2 summarizes the calculations for emission factors for other
taconite ore processing sources.
The candidate emission factors generally were calculated as the mean of the test-specific
emission factors for each emission factor category. However, several of the candidate emission factors
for indurating furnaces (Table A-l) are based on multiple tests on the same furnace. In such cases, the
mean emission factor for each furnace was calculated first, followed by the mean of the factors across all
of the furnaces for which data were available. The entry in the comment column indicates the furnaces
for which there were multiple data points.
-------
Table A-l can be found in spreadsheet file TAC_TA-l.wk3
-------
TABLE A-l. CALCULATION OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE INDURATING FURNACES.
Pell
Type Fuel Control Pollutant typ
et No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
e tests Minimum Maximum Average
grate/kiln gas none filt. PM acid 5.1
grate/kiln gas none filt. PM acid 15
grate/kiln gas/oil none filt. PM acid 2.2
Gas-fired grate/kiln
3 2.2 15 7.4
grate/kiln gas VS filt. PM acid 0.58
grate/kiln gas VS filt. PM flux 0.057
grate/kiln gas WS filt. PM flux 0.14
grate/kiln gas VS filt. PM flux 0.065
grate/kiln gas/oil VS filt. PM flux 0.065
grate/kiln gas/wood VS filt. PM flux 0.081
Gas-fired grate/kiln with scrubber
5 0.057 0.14 0.082
grate/kiln coal/oil WS filt. PM acid 0.19
Coal/oil-fired grate/kiln with scrubber
1 NA NA 0.19
grate/kiln coke WS filt. PM acid 0.10
Coke-fired grate/kiln with scrubber
1 NA NA 0.10
grate/kiln coke/coal WS filt. PM flux 0.12
grate/kiln coke/coal WS filt. PM flux 0.15
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln with scrubber
2 0.12 0.15 0.14
grate/kiln gas/oil ESP filt. PM acid 0.017
Gas/oil-fired grate/kiln with ESP
1 NA NA 0.017
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 1.1
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.33
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.77
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.43
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.42
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.84
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM acid 0.31
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM semi-flux 0.32
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM flux 0.32
Gas-fired grate/kiln with multiclone
9 0.31 1.1 0.44
grate/kiln gas none filt. PM-10 acid 0.63
Gas-fired grate/kiln
1 NA NA 0.63
Data
rat.
A
B
A
B
B
C
A
A
B
C
B
C
C
A
C
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
B
A
Ref. Comment
52
1
2
1 Discarded; factor order of
magnitude higher than others
20
27 Furnace P
47
47
20
1 8 Furnace M
29 Furnace M
26 Furnace P
27
2
34 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
35 Furnace V
54 Furnace V
33 Furnace V
55 Furnace V
32 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
46
52
A.1-1
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pell
Type Fuel Control Pollutant typ
et No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
e tests Minimum Maximum Average
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM-10 acid 0.14
grate/kiln gas MC filt. PM-10 semi-flux 0.12
Gas-fired grate/kiln with multiclone 2 0.12 0.14 0.13
grate/kiln gas none cond. PM acid 0.013
grate/kiln gas MC cond. PM acid 0.035
grate/kiln gas MC cond. PM semi-flux 0.032
grate/kiln gas MC cond. PM flux 0.014
grate/kiln gas none cond. PM acid 0.018
Gas-fired grate/kiln 4 0.013 0.035 0.022
grate/kiln gas/oil none cond. PM acid 0.035
grate/kiln gas/oil ESP cond. PM acid 0.045
Gas/oil-fired grate/kiln 2 0.035 0.045 0.040
grate/kiln gas VS cond. PM flux 0.0066
grate/kiln gas/oil VS cond. PM flux 0.0015
grate/kiln gas VS cond. PM acid 0.0083
Gas-fired grate/kiln with scrubber 2 0.0015 0.0066 0.0055
grate/kiln gas none cond. inorg. 1 acid 0.10
grate/kiln gas none con. org. PM acid 0.019
grate/kiln gas none cond. inorg. 1 acid 0.015
grate/kiln gas VS cond. inorg. 1 acid 0.0070
grate/kiln gas none SO2 acid 0.71
grate/kiln gas none SO2 acid 0.089
grate/kiln gas MC SO2 semi-flux 0.19
grate/kiln gas MC SO2 acid 0.17
Gas-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets 4 0.089 0.71 0.29
grate/kiln coke none SO2 acid 1.9
Coke-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets 1 NA NA 1.9
grate/kiln coke/coal none SO2 acid 2.3
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets 1 NA NA 2.3
grate/kiln gas VS SO2 acid 0.053
Gas-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets, with scrubber 1 NA NA 0.053
grate/kiln gas VS SO2 flux 0.13
grate/kiln gas/wood VS SO2 flux 0.14
Gas-fired grate/kiln, flux pellets, with scrubber 2 0.13 0.14 0.14
Data
rat.
B
B
A
B
B
B
C
B
B
A
A
C
A
A
C
C
A
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
Ref. Comment
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
52
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
46
1 Scaled up using Ref. 52 data
2
2
47
47
1 Scaled up using Ref. 52 data
52 Data used to estimate
52 organic/inorg. fractions
1 Used to estimate cond. PM
1 Used to estimate cond. PM
52
1
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
29
15
1
20
20
A. 1-2
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pellel
Type Fuel Control Pollutant type
grate/kiln coal WS SO2 flux
grate/kiln coke WS SO2 acid
grate/kiln coke/coal WS SO2 acid
Coal and/or coke-fired grate/kiln, acid/flux pellets, with scrubber
grate/kiln coke/coal WS SO2 flux
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln, flux pellets, with scrubber
grate/kiln gas none NOx acid
grate/kiln gas WS NOx acid
No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton Data
tests Minimum Maximum Average rat.
1.5 C
1.3 B
1.6 C
1 1.3 1.6 1.5
0.057 C
1 NA NA 0.057
2.0 C
1.6 C
grate/kiln gas MC NOx semi-flux 1.2 B
grate/kiln gas MC NOx acid
grate/kiln gas WS NOx flux
Gas-fired grate/kiln, acid/flux pellets
grate/kiln gas MC CO acid
1.5 B
1.4 C
1 1.2 2.0 1.5
0.014 B
grate/kiln gas MC CO semi-flux 0.013 B
Gas-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets
grate/kiln coke/coal WS CO flux
Coal/coke-fired grate/kiln, flux pellets
grate/kiln gas none CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas none CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas/oil none CO2 acid
grate/kiln coke none CO2 acid
grate/kiln coal/oil WS CO2 acid
grate/kiln coke WS CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 acid
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 acid
2 0.013 0.014 0.014
0.10 C
1 NA NA 0.10
120 A
120 A
110 A
110 C
70 C
100 B
50 C
70 C
54 C
45 B
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 semi-flux 61 B
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 acid
Grate/kiln, acid pellets
43 C
12 43 120 99
Ref. Comment
25 Furnace P
29 Furnace M
1 5 Furnace M
26 Discarded; results inconsistent
1 9 Furnace M
1 9 Furnace M
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
27 Furnace P
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
27
52
52
2
29 Furnace M
1 8 Furnace M
29 Furnace M
32 Furnace V
34 Furnace V
54 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
49 Furnace V
33 Furnace V
A. 1-3
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pell
Type Fuel Control Pollutant typ
et No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
e tests Minimum Maximum Average
grate/kiln gas VS CO2 flux 120
grate/kiln gas WS CO2 flux 150
grate/kiln gas VS CO2 flux 120
grate/kiln gas/oil VS CO2 flux 120
grate/kiln gas/wood VS CO2 flux 130
grate/kiln coal WS CO2 flux 220
grate/kiln coke/coal WS CO2 flux 210
grate/kiln coke/coal WS CO2 flux 200
grate/kiln gas MC CO2 flux 50
Grate/kiln, flux pellets
9 50 220 130
grate/kiln gas MC VOC semi-flux 0.0035
grate/kiln gas MC VOC acid 0.0038
Gas-fired grate/kiln, acid pellets
2 0.0035 0.0038 0.0037
grate/kiln gas MC lead acid 0.00050
Gas-fired grate/kiln
1 NA NA 0.00050
grate/kiln coke none H2SO4 acid 0.17
Coke-fired grate/kiln
1 NA NA 0.17
grate/kiln coke WS H2SO4 acid 0.099
Coke-fired grate/kiln, with scrubber
1 NA NA 0.099
grate/kiln coke/coal WS VOC flux 0.075
Coke/coal-fired grate/kiln
1 NA NA 0.075
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 1 8
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 7. 1
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 12
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 15
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 16
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 22
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 25
vertical shaft-t gas none filt. PM acid 20
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack
8 7.1 25 16
Data
rat.
B
C
A
A
B
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ref. Comment
20
27 Furnace P
47
47
20
25 Furnace P
27
26 Furnace P
46
49 Furnace V, Method 25A data
49 Furnace V, Method 25A data
49 Furnace V
29
29
27 As measured by Method 25
12 Furnace J
1 3 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
24 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
14
12 Furnace K
24 Furnace K
A. 1-4
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pell
Type Fuel Control Pollutant typ
et No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
e tests Minimum Maximum Average
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 2.1
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 0.57
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 1.6
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 1.1
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 1.1
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 1.5
vertical shaft-t gas MC filt. PM acid 2.0
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, with multiclone 7 0.57 2.1 1.4
vertical shaft-t gas WS filt. PM acid 0.92
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, with scrubber 1 NA NA 0.92
vertical shaft-t gas MC/WS filt. PM acid 0.66
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, with multiclone/scrubber 1 NA NA 0.66
vertical shaft-t gas RC filt. PM acid 0.031
Gas-fired vertical furnace, bottom gas stack, with rotoclone 1 NA NA 0.031
vertical shaft-t gas WS cond. PM acid 0.050
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, with scrubber 1 NA NA 0.050
vertical shaft-t gas WS total PM acid 0.14
vertical shaft-t gas RC cond. PM acid 0.0086
Gas-fired vertical furnace, bottom gas stack, with rotoclone 1 NA NA 0.0086
vertical shaft-t gas RC total PM acid 0.022
vertical shaft-t gas WS SO2 acid 0.28
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, acid pellets, with scrubber 1 NA NA 0.28
vertical shaft-t gas WS NOx acid 0.20
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, acid pellets 1 NA NA 0.20
vertical shaft-t gas WS CO acid 0.077
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, acid pellets 1 NA NA 0.077
Data
rat.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Ref. Comment
12 Furnace K
13
24 Furnace J
24 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
24 Furnace K
12 Furnace J
57 Furnace W
14
57 Furnace W
57 Furnace W
56 Discarded; results inconsistent
with filt. and cond. PM totals
57 Furnace W
56 Discarded; results inconsistent
with filt. and cond. PM totals
56 Furnace W
56 Furnace W
56 Furnace W
A. 1-5
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pell
Type Fuel Control Pollutant typ
et No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
e tests Minimum Maximum Average
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 72
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 64
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 54
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 79
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 79
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 63
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 51
vertical shaft-t gas none CO2 acid 68
vertical shaft-t gas WS CO2 acid 210
vertical shaft-t gas WS CO2 acid 200
vertical shaft-t gas MC/WS CO2 acid 70
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 66
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 56
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 68
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 60
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 70
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 53
vertical shaft-t gas MC CO2 acid 69
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, acid pellets
18 51 210 94
vertical shaft-t gas WS TOC acid 0.013
Gas-fired vertical furnace, top gas stack, acid pellets
1 NA NA 0.013
vertical shaft-t gas RC TOC acid 0.046
Gas-fired vertical furnace, bottom gas stack, acid pellets
1 NA NA 0.046
straight grate oil none filt. PM acid 1.2
Oil-fired straight grate
1 NA NA 1.2
straight grate oil WS filt. PM acid 0.086
straight grate oil VS filt. PM acid 0.062
straight grate oil VS filt. PM acid 0.096
Data
rat.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
Ref. Comment
12 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
24 Furnace K
1 3 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
14
24 Furnace K
12 Furnace J
56 Furnace W
57 Furnace W
14
12 Furnace K
24 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
24 Furnace K
24 Furnace J
1 3 Furnace K
12 Furnace J
56 Furnace W
56 Furnace W
3
9 Discarded
8 Discarded
8 Discarded
A. 1-6
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Pellet
Type Fuel Control Pollutant type
straight grate coke/coal WS filt. PM acid
straight grate coke/gas WS filt. PM acid
straight grate gas MC/WS filt. PM acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/WS filt. PM acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/VS filt. PM acid
Coke/gas-fired straight grate, with scrubber
straight grate coke/coal WS SO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas WS SO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/WS SO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/VS SO2 acid
Coke/gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets, with scrubber
straight grate gas MC/WS SO2 acid
Gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets, with scrubber
straight grate gas MC/WS NOx acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/WS NOx acid
Coke/gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets
straight grate gas VS NOx flux
Gas-fired straight grate, flux pellets
straight grate gas MC/WS CO acid
Gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets
straight grate coke/gas MC/WS CO acid
Coke/gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets
straight grate oil WS CO2 acid
straight grate coke/coal WS CO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas WS CO2 acid
straight grate gas MC/WS CO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/VS CO2 acid
straight grate coke/gas MC/WS CO2 acid
Coke/gas-fired straight grate, acid pellets
straight grate gas MC/WS lead acid
Gas-fired straight grate
No. of Emission factor, Ib/ton
tests Minimum Maximum Average
0.19
0.12
0.10
0.11
0.10
3 0.10 0.12 0.11
0.57
1.3
0.68
1.1
2 0.68 1.3 0.99
0.10
1 NA NA 0.10
0.60
0.28
2 0.28 0.60 0.44
2.5
1 NA NA 2.5
0.039
1 NA NA 0.039
0.15
1 NA NA 0.15
27
79
76
50
96
61
3 50 76 62
0.000068
1 NA NA 6.8E-005
Data
rat.
D
B
B
B
D
D
B
B
D
B
B
B
A
B
B
D
D
B
B
D
B
B
Ref. Comment
6 Discarded
30
3 1 Furnace H
3 1 Furnace F
5 Discarded
6 Discarded
30
3 1 Furnace F
5 Discarded
31
31
31
48
31
31
9 Discarded
6 Discarded
30
3 1 Furnace H
5 Discarded
3 1 Furnace F
31
A. 1-7
-------
TABLE A-1. (Continued)
Type
straight grate
Coke/gas-firec
Fuel
Control
coke/gas MC/WS
straight grate
straight grate gas
Gas-fired straight grate
straight grate
Coke/gas-firec
MC/WS
coke/gas MC/WS
straight grate
Pollutant
lead
beryllium
beryllium
Pellet No
type te
acid
acid
acid
of Emission factor, Ib/ton
sts Minimum
1 NA
1 NA
1 NA
Maximum
NA
NA
NA
Average
0.000076
7.6E-005
0.00000022
2.2E-007
0.00000029
2.9E-007
Data
rat.
B
B
B
Ref.
31
31
31
Comment
WS = wet scrubber.
VS = venturi scrubber.
MC = multiclone.
ESP = electrostatic precipitator.
RC = rotoclone.
A. 1-8
-------
Table A-2 can be found in spreadsheet file TAC_TA-2.wk3
-------
TABLE A-2. CALCULATION OF CANDIDATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR TACONITE ORE PROCESSING-OTHER SOURCES
Source
crusher, primary (1st stage)
crusher, primary (2nd stage)
Control
C
C
Primary crusher, with cyclone
crusher, primary (1st stage)
crusher, primary (2nd stage)
CMC
CMC
Primary crusher, with cyclone and multiclone
crusher, primary
WS
Primary crusher, with wet scrubber
crusher, primary
FF
Pollutant
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
Primary crusher, with fabric filter
secondary crushing line
WS
Secondary crushing line, with wet scrubber
crusher, fine
RC
Fine crusher, with rotoclone
crusher, tertiary
tertiary crushing line
WS
WS
Tertiary crushing line, with wet scrubber
feed, grinder
feed, grinder
feed, grinder
feed, grinder
feed, grinder
WS
WS
WS
WS
WS
Grinder feed, with wet scrubber
feed, hearth layer
feed, hearth layer
WS
WS
Hearth layer feed, with wet scrubber
feed, grate/kiln
WS
Grate/kiln feed, with wet scrubber
screen, hearth layer
WS
Hearth layer screen, with wet scrubber
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
0.10
0.15
0.038
0.022
0.0012
0.0019
0.0027
0.0013
0.0027
0.00040
0.00062
0.00045
0.00071
0.0015
0.0023
0.022
0.012
0.000066
0.038
Data
rat.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
D
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
10
11
10
11
22
27
28
o
J
28
28
7
7
7
7
9
8
9
28
8
Candidate
emission factor,
Ib/ton
0.25
0.060
0.0012
0.0019
0.0027
0.0013
0.0016
0.0011
0.017
0.000066
0.038
Rating
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
C
D
E
E
Comments
2-stage crushing, both stages
2-stage crushing, both stages
Entire crushing line
Entire crushing line
A.2-1
-------
TABLEA-2. (continued)
Source Control
discharge, grate/kiln none
discharge, grate/kiln none
Grate/kiln discharge, uncontrolled
discharge, grate/kiln WS
Grate/kiln discharge, with wet scrubber
discharge, straight grate WS
discharge, straight grate WS
Straight grate discharge, with wet scrubber
discharge, grate/kiln none
Grate/kiln discharge, uncontrolled
discharge, grate/kiln none
Grate/kiln discharge, uncontrolled
discharge, grate/kiln WS
Grate/kiln discharge, with wet scrubber
cooler, pellet none
cooler, pellet none
cooler, pellet none
Pellet cooler, uncontrolled
cooler, pellet none
Pellet cooler, uncontrolled
screen, pellet none
Pellet screen, uncontrolled
screen, pellet RC
Pellet screen, with rotoclone
conveyor transfer, primary crusher return WS
Primary crusher return conveyor transfer, with wet scrubber
conveyor transfer, secondary crusher return WS
conveyor transfer, secondary crusher return WS
conveyor transfer, secondary crusher return WS
Secondary crusher return conveyor transfer, with wet scrubber
conveyor transfer, product WS
Product conveyor transfer, with wet scrubber
Pollutant
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
con. inorg. PM
cond. PM
con. inorg. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
CO2
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
1.4
0.24
0.0019
0.019
0.0040
9.0E-005
0.00035
0.00012
0.055
0.15
0.16
6.4
10
0.037
0.00031
0.013
0.00078
0.0034
0.0036
Data
rat.
B
A
B
B
B
C
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
1
2
1
8
9
1
2
1
16
17
27
27
23
23
27
28
21
21
8
Candidate
emission factor,
Ib/ton
0.82
0.0019
0.012
9.0E-005
0.00035
0.00012
0.12
6.4
10
0.037
0.00031
0.0057
0.0036
Rating
D
E
D
E
E
E
D
E
E
E
E
D
E
Comments
A.2-2
-------
TABLEA-2. (continued)
Source
conveyor transfer to concentrator
Conveyor transfer to concentrator, with wet scru
conveyor transfer, tertiary crusher
Tertiary crusher line conveyor transfer, with wet
storage bin, bentonite
Bentonite storage bin, with wet scrubber
storage bin loading, pellet
Pellet storage bin loading, uncontrolled
storage bin loading, pellet
Pellet storage bin loading, with rotoclone
storage bin loading, secondary
Secondary storage bin loading, with wet scrubbs
storage bin loading, tertiary
storage bin loading, tertiary
Tertiary storage bin loading, with wet scrubber
Control
WS
bber
WS
scrubber
WS
none
RC
WS
;r
WS
WS
Pollutant
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
filt. PM
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton
0.00028
0.0017
2.4
3.7
0.071
0.00019
0.0027
0.00082
Data
rat.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
Ref.
28
28
8
23
23
28
28
28
Candidate
emission factor,
Ib/ton
0.00028
0.0017
2.4
3.7
0.071
0.00019
0.0018
Rating
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
Comments
WS = wet scrubber.
RC = rotoclone.
MC = multiclone.
C = cyclone.
FF = fabric filter.
A.2-3
-------
Ms. Lisa J. Thorvig
Manager, Air Quality Division
Minnesota Air Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Dear Ms. Thorvig:
Enclosed is one copy each of the final AP-42 section 11.23,
Taconite Ore Processing (Enclosure 1), and corresponding
background documentation report (Enclosure 2). The AP-42 section
and background report have been revised to incorporate comments
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in
their June 20, 1996 letter from Patrick O'Neill to me. Also
enclosed (Enclosure 3) is a copy of a memorandum, dated
February 13, 1997, from Midwest Research Institute to me that
explains how MPCA's comments were addressed in the final taconite
ore processing report.
If you have any questions concerning the final AP-42 section
or background report, please contact me at (919) 541-5407.
Please also note that copies of the final AP-42 section and
report may be downloaded from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) CHIEF web site WWW.EPA.GOV/TTN/CHIEF/. For
questions or assistance in obtaining copies of these documents
through CHIEF, contact the Info CHIEF Help Desk at (919) 541-1000,
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Myers
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
3 Enclosures
OAQPS/EMAD/EFIG:RMyers, rm 455B, 4201 Bldg., 541-5407, MD-14
(MRI/BLShrager/LKaufman/677-0249/02/20/97)
-------
Mr. George F. Ryan
Executive Director
American Iron Ore Association
614 Superior Avenue, West
915 Rockefeller Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44133-1383
Dear Mr. Ryan:
Enclosed is one copy each of the final AP-42 section 11.23,
Taconite Ore Processing (Enclosure 1), and corresponding
background documentation report (Enclosure 2). The AP-42 section
and background report have been revised to incorporate comments
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in
their June 20, 1996 letter from Patrick O'Neill to me. Also
enclosed (Enclosure 3) is a copy of a memorandum, dated
February 13, 1997, from Midwest Research Institute to me that
explains how MPCA's comments were addressed in the final taconite
ore processing report.
If you have any questions concerning the final AP-42 section
or background report, please contact me at (919) 541-5407.
Please also note that copies of the final AP-42 section and
report may be downloaded from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) CHIEF web site WWW.EPA.GOV/TTN/CHIEF/. For
questions or assistance in obtaining copies of these documents
through CHIEF, contact the Info CHIEF Help Desk at (919) 541-1000,
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Myers
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
§A§PS^ESftB^SFIG:RMyers, rm 455B, 4201 Bldg., 541-5407, MD-14
(MRI/BLShrager/LKaufman/677-0249/02/20/97)
-------
Mr. Chuck Hoffman
Iron Mining Association of Minnesota
c/o Cliffs Mining Services Company
Suite 811-200 West Superior Street
Duluth, Minnesota 55802
Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Enclosed is one copy each of the final AP-42 section 11.23,
Taconite Ore Processing (Enclosure 1), and corresponding
background documentation report (Enclosure 2). The AP-42 section
and background report have been revised to incorporate comments
submitted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in
their June 20, 1996 letter from Patrick O'Neill to me. Also
enclosed (Enclosure 3) is a copy of a memorandum, dated
February 13, 1997, from Midwest Research Institute to me that
explains how MPCA's comments were addressed in the final taconite
ore processing report.
If you have any questions concerning the final AP-42 section
or background report, please contact me at (919) 541-5407.
Please also note that copies of the final AP-42 section and
report may be downloaded from the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) CHIEF web site WWWW.EPA.GOV/TTN/CHIEF/. For
questions or assistance in obtaining copies of these documents
through CHIEF, contact the Info CHIEF Help Desk at (919) 541-1000,
Sincerely,
Ronald E. Myers
Emission Factor and Inventory Group
3 Enclosures
OAQPS/EMAD/EFIG:RMyers, rm 455B, 4201 Bldg., 541-5407, MD-14
(MRI/BLShrager/LKaufman/677-0249/02/20/97)
------- |