HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 00 J
Darron Dahle
Cactusberry Frozen Yogurt
116 La Plaza
Palm Springs, CA 92262
In recent weeks there has been a discussion about
the use and status of A frame/menu signs and the fines
for having A frame/menu signs. While this would seem
to be a minor and inconsequential issue, the amount of
the fines and the manhours spent by code enforcement
officers are substantial.
It is my opinion that this issue is the tip of an iceberg
that is either sinking small businesses in downtown
Palm Springs or an indication that any business that
wants to stay afloat should drift down valley where there
are less obstacles.
In the past three weeks, I have had people contact
me to tell me of their frustrations, their recieving notices
from the city, fines, difficulties in getting permits, store
vacancies, why they closed their business or why they
moved away.
From Farrell to Belardo, Smoke Tree to Alejo,
business owners have come into my store to tell me
thier stories. Other residents that have been in Palm
Springs for 5, 10, 20 years have come into our store
telling us how city hall has not improved in all the time
they have lived here and that they wished that the
downtown would somehow get better.
Yes, there are plans on the drawing boards for new
hotels and a new downtown. But these plans have not
been finalized, their financing arranged, or ground
broken. Now, the real estate prices are in a slump. Just
161171, 007
uc Ca,-r�-rE,v7
��22oc1�7,�f1,
r
what is your plan for the interim? Are you going to add
insult to injury by harassing the business people that are
still here? Enforcing the sign code that exists does not
work for downtown merchants.
Except for one sign Nazi whose job seems to
depend on her patrolling the streets with a digital
camera, I do not get the impression that the Planning
Department or Code Enforcement really like the signage
enforcement part of their job. There are the drive by
photos of signs, the certified letters, irate business
people at the planning desk trying to understand the 40
pages of sign laws. City Council makes the rules and
Planning and Code Enforcement are clogged up carrying
out the Council's demands for enforcement.
When I do not place an A frame/menu sign in front of
my store, my business drops off 50% or more. If that
A frame/menu sign isn't there, people think that I am
either closed or just another T-shirt shop.
Six months ago, this council placed a moratorium on
offices on the first floor of the downtown business area.
How can a moratorium to allow A frame/menu signs
requested by the retail businesses that you wanted to
preserve with your first moratorium be that far off the
mark? Wasn't the intent of your first action to preserve
business downtown?
Please, put a moratorium on A frame/menu sign
enforcement. Then have a committee study the existing
laws with a goal of simplification and less red tape.
Show the residents of Palm Springs that this council
wants to improve downtown, not close it down.
r
r• .E �� � 1 f Y �V
i
•.ylxYaxNd.Nt
' �,"Sl'� 1T +r, �q�., .• � .� , "6'�";:'�xAtxls.`.' 'Y,'d"' '�", r '�
thftll ,
r NN , IrN�' ;.�nln• J .w1r.�p
w.....,.Na�.n ... ,anYryrn�r•.r,W.. rw „N�� .. � � .IM4v..�_. ..spa.-X I.. r•, ., w,-rwnWWnry rvl ��� ice!W+w itr. �T
.�iln.,.a.µy� rry+wrY4wrW+�n'N ^d!+IMpYF�?''q r r .rv.+-�..�,1•w+ki°4.iN�.�,.... � �x .,... � a-. .,.n.MwM1 -i.,
rY: N4MJAI�r«7tiNx,ar Ivy.wyr..�µpYµH ,,,ry
..,jr
• � W+ •9M,xnm -�n�e+r � -...��ArWmr �.IAr � Wy arm r n»+
MAI
rrr.owN.wrYWi141arvYrNn1 i � .�. +..»a., , ,„k,...rr r dMw�aw�Nwa�...xw�ha� rr '
d�YrtY�Mwti'+m Nnxk•o,{auw �,.Wre•,.,ynrn w+sexW„�YF.vx,. r'YfruW�l�l�Y�n.Y'�M+18'pMYIeN��I I
M/�eMrNYNFiY�MMwN1YMi�Y+WruYm.•,wyrw4+.�sYwWicwi.WgMF.e.wrlYnt�a�Wr� .
Ip4{`.;�I�Y�YWV�ynyle�r'LNNwns�'N{1"Y r.il'�Yr4.�.�riYYY�/rArB iNn.Y��JI
!.ln.a sa+'61uy, h:kra u•,di:4r,wNw�NlmrWxWYNwxn:.4.a �.Xo'amr+, r�. r>w r .is
11.19.2 Crushed Stone Processing and Pulverized Mineral Processing
11 19 2.1 Process Description '"`
Crushed Stone Processing
Major rock types processed by the crushed stone industry include limestone, gramte,
dolomite,traprock,sandstone,quartz, and quartzite. Minor types include calcarcotLs marl,
marble,shell,and slate. Major mineral types processed by the pulierized minerals industry, a
subset of the crushed stone processing industry,include calcium carbonate,We.and bante
industry classifications a avy considerably arid,in many cases,do not reflect actual geological
definitions.
Rock and crushed stone products generally are loosened by drilling and blasting and then
are loaded by power shovel or front-end loader into large haul trucks that transport the material to
the processing operations. Techniques used for extraction u ary with the native and location of the
deposit. Processing operations may include crushing.screening,size classification,material
handling and storage operations All of these processes can be significant sources of PXf and
PM-10 emissions if uncontrolled
Quarried stone normally is delayered to the processing plant by truck and is dumped into
a bin. A feeder is used as illustrated in Figure 11.19,11. The feeder or screens separate large
boulders from finer rocks that do not require primary cne;hing, thus reducing the load to the
prirmary crusher. ,raw,impactor,or gyratory crushers are usually used for initial reduction. The
crusher product,normally 7.5 to 30 centimeters(3 to 12 inches)in diameter,and the grizzly
Ihroughs (undersize material) are discharged onto a belt conc)or and usually are convey ed to a
surge pile for temporary,storage or are sold as averse aggregates.
The stone front the surge pile is conveyed to a vibrating inclined screen called the
scalping screen. This unit separates oversized rock from the smaller stone. The undersized
material from the scalping screen is considered to be a product stream and is transported to a
storage pile and sold as base material. The stone that is too large to pass through the top deck of
the scalping screen is processed in the secondary Brusher. Cone crushers are commonly used for
Secondary Brushing(although impact crushers are sometimes used), w We h typically reduces
material to about 2.5 to 10 centimeters(l to 4 inches). The material (Ihroughs)front the second
level of the screen bypasses the secondary crusher because it is sud'ficiently small for the last
crushing step. The output from the secondary crusher and the throughs from the secondary screen
are transported by conveyor to the tertiary circwl, which includes a sizing screen and a tertiary
crusher.
Tertiary Lnishing is usually performed using cone crushers or other types of impactor
crushers. O�ersue material froan the top deck of the sitin,a screen is fed to the tertiary crusher
The tertiar) crusher output, which is typically about 0.50 to 2.5 centimeters (3,16th to 1 inch), is
returned to the sizing screen Various product streams with different size gradations are separated
in the screening operation. The products are cone e)ed or trucked directly to finished product
bins,to open area stock piles,or to other processing systems such as wasting,air separators,and
screens and classifiers (for the production of manufactured sand).
Some stone crushing plants produce manufact red sand, This is a small-sized rock
product with a niarammn size of 050 centimeters(3 16 th inch) Crushed stone from the tertiary
sizing screen is sized in a%ibrating inclined screen(fines screen) with relatn ely small mesh sizes,
804 Mineral Products Industry 11 19."1
7
Oversized material is processed in a cone crusher or a hatmnennill (fines crusher)adjasted to
protuce small diameter material. The output is returned to the fines screen for resizing
In certain cases, crone washing is required to meet particulate end product specifications
or dentantls.
Pulverized Mineral Processing
Pulverized minerals are produced at specialized processing plants. These plants supply
mineral products ranging from saes of approximately I micrometer to more than 75 micrometers
aerodynamic diameter Pharmaceutical,paint, plastics, pigment,rubber,and chemical industries
use these products. Due to the specialized characteristics of the mineral products and the markets
for these products,pulverized mineral processing plants have production rates that are less than
.5 n of the production capacities of conventional crushed stone plants, Two alternatit c processing
systems for pulverized minerals are sunmtariced in Figure 11.19.2-2.
In dry processmg systems,the mineral aggregate material from conventional cmghing
and screening operations is subject to coarse and tine grinding primarily in roller mills and'or ball
mills to reduce the material to the necessary product size range. A classifier is aced to size the
ground material and return oversized material that can be pulverized using either wet or dry
processes, The classifier can either be associated with the grinding operation,or it can be a stand-
alone process unit. Fabric filters control particulate matter emissions from the grinding operation
and the classifier. The products are stored in silos and are shipped by truck or in bags
In wet processing systems,the mineral aggregate material is processed in wet anode
coarse and fine grinding operations. Benefictation processes use flotation to separate mineral
impurities. finely ground material is concentrated and flash dried. Fabric filters are used to
control particulate❑miter emissions from the flash dryer The product is then stored in silos,
bagged,and shipped
804 ]hner.1 Products Indu%try II 192-2
Truck I nloading
Mid CLnzzly Feeder
SCC-3.05-(13[E3 L
Thick Loading I Iaul Roads Primary Crunhcr
SCC-3-OS-020-33 SCC3-O6(130-11 SCC3.05dr20-01
Grizzly
Drilling and ShMing 'Phroughs
SCC-3.06-020-09, 10
Primary
Surge Pile
Overm7ed Material
Scalping Screen
SCC 3-OS 020-l.5
7SCC3-
ary Crusher Throughc
05-020-0^_
Product
orcrsi?cd
Tertiary Crusher material Fine.0 rushers
SCC 3-05-020-03 SCC 3-05d120-05
Sizing S"ecn
Sizing Screen SCC 3-05-020-(1^_1
SCC 3-0.<O20.0^_,
03,(u
dl5 cm,r310 in
\lenufaatured Sand
Product Storage
To Pulr en Led Mhnetnl Processing,
Flgun: 11.19 2-2
Figure P 1.19 11. Typical stoic processing plant
804 \hrlmd Products Industry 1119 33
From Crushed Stone.
Figure 11 192-1
Co;lrcc and Fine Coarse Grinding(Wee Mode)
_- _Grindma(Dn Model SfCC'3-0}038.31
SCc 3-0S(38-11
Fabric Filter Benermiadon N is Flotation
SCC M5-035-32
-------------
Fine Cni riding(U et Mode)
Classification(Dry Rlnde) SCC3-()5.03S-33
5C'C 3.05.1135-12
Fabric Filter
Snl i d4 Concenn•atnr(R'et N Indc),
SCC 3,05-038_34
Product Sdo.
_,______-_-_ SCC3-05-(135-13
Fabric Filter --
Fla,h Dryer
SCC-3-05-03&35
Fabric Filtei
Product Packaging and 13olk Loading,
scc-3-0i-039-14
Figure 1 119 32 Floe chart for P0lrerized Mineral Processing
804 Mucnl Products fndusti y 1119 2-4
11.19 2 2 Emissions and Controls
Crushed Stone Processing
Emissions of PAI,PbI-10,and P ail-3.5 occur from a number of operations in stone
gourrying and processing. A substantial portion of these coussions consists of heavy particles
that may settle out within the plant. As in other operations,crushed stone emission sources may
be categorized as either process sources or Fugitive dust sources. Process sources inchtde those
for which emissions are amenable to capture and subsequent control. Fugitive dust sources
generally involve the reentraimncnt of settled dust by wind or machine movement. Emissions
from process sources should be considered fugitive unless the sources are vented to a haghouse or
are contained in an enclosure with a Forced-air vent or stack. Factors affecting emissions from
either source category include the stone size distribution and the surface moisture content of the
stone processed,the process throughput rate,the type of equipment and operating practices used,
and topographical and climatic factors.
Of graphical and seasonal factors,the primary variables affecting meontrolled PhI
emissions are wind and material moisture content, Wind parameters vary with geographical
location,season,and weather. Il can be expected that the level of emissions from unenclosed
sources(principally fugtive dust sources)will be greater during periods of high winds. The
material moisture content also vanes with geographical location,season,and weather. 'Tbrefore,
the levels of uncontrolled emissions from both process emission sources and fugitive dust sources
generally will be greater in arid regions of the country than in temperate ones and greater during
the stutuuer months because of a higher ev aporataon rate.
The moisture content of tine material processed can have a substantial effect on enuesions.
This effect is evident throughout the processing operations. Surface wetness causes fine particles
to agglomerate on or to adhere to the faces of larger stones,with a re-tilting dust suppression
effect. However,as new tine particles are created by crashing and attrition and as the moisture
content is reduced by evaporation,this suppressive effect dinurushes mud may disappear. Plants
that use wet suppression systems(spray nozzles)to maintain relatively high material moisture
contents can effectively control PNI emissions throughout the process. Depending on the
geographical and climatic conditions,the moisture content of mined rock can range from nearly
zero to see oral percent. Because moisture content is usually expressed on a basis of overall
weight percent, the actual moisture amount per twit area will vary with the size of the rock being
handled On a constant mass-fraction basis,the per-unit area moisture content vanes inierschy
with the diameter of the rock. The suppressive effect of the moisture depends on both the
absolute miss water content and the sax of the rock product. Typically, wet material contain
n1.5 percent water.
A v anety of material,equipment,and operating factors can influence emissions from
crushing. These factors include (1) stone type,(2)feed sae and distribution, (3)moisture
content, (4)throughput rate,(5)crusher type, (6)size reduction ratio,and(7) fines content.
(nsulFicient data are available to present a matrix of rock crushing emission factors detailing the
above classifications and variablcs. Av ailable data indicate that PSI-10 and PNI-3.5 emissions
from limestone and granite processing operations are similar. Therefore,the emission factors
developed from the emissions data gathered at limestone and granite processing facilities are
considered to be representative of typical crushed stone processing operations Emission factors
for filterable P\l, PM-10,and PM--2 5 emissions from crushed stone processing operations are
presented in Tables 11.19.2-1 (Metric units)and 11.19.2-2(English units.)
804 Mineral Products Industry 11 192-5
Table 11,192.1 (Metric L ivts). EMISSION FACTORS FOR C:RC SHED S'I.ONE
PROCESSING OPERATIONS (kg
Source b Total EMISSION Total EMISSION Total EMISSION
Particulate FACTOR PNI-10 FACTOR PM-2 5 FACTOR
Nlatter" RATING RATING RATING
Primary Crushing ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-05-020.01)
Primary Cmshing(cnnlrollcd) ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-05-02MI)
Secondary Crushing N❑ ND" ND"
(SCC 3-05-020.03)
Secondary Crushing(controlled) ND ND" ND'
(SCC 3-0!"20-02)
'rerllary Crushing 0.0037' F. 0.0012° C ND"
(SCC 3-050030-03)
Tertiary Crushing(controlled) D 0006' E 0.00027P C 0 0000:5" E-
Fines Crushing 00195` G OW75` E NO
(SCC 3-05-020.05)
Fines Crushing(controlled) 0.00L51 E 00006 E 0.000035" E
(SCC 3-05-020-05)
Screening 0.0125, E 00043 C ND
(SC.C3.05-020-02 03)
Screening(controlled) 000111 E 0,00037' (1 0 Q)002D� E
(SCC-3-M-020-021 W)
Fines Screening 0151 E 0036" E ND
(SCC 3-(). 020.21
Fines Screening(controlled) 00015" h 000118 E ND
(SCC 3-0,"20.21)
Convctor Transfer Point 00015 E OOW55' D ND
(SCC 3-0.5-020.06)
Conveyor Transfer Point(coninrlled) MUM, F 23 ti 10" D 65x ION E
(SCC 3-05-020.06)
1L-el Drilling-Itnfragmentcd Stone ND 40x to E ND
(SCC 3-05-0?0 10)
Truck Unloading-Fragmented Slone ND Sox 10 r E ND
(SCC 3.05-0^_0-31)
Trucklrnloading-C-omeyor crushed ND 50e 10• E Ni)
Aerie(SCC 3.05-020-32)
a. Emisbion factors repmwnt uncontrolled emissions+unless noted Emtssion factors in kg,bfg ol•material
throughput. SCC=Source C IayslGcation Code. ND=No data.
b.Controlled source(with wet suppression)are those that are part of the processing plant that employs
current avl suppression luchnology .imilar to the%tudy group The moisture content of the study group
a about wet suppression systems operas ng(uncontrolled)ranged from 0 21 to 1.3 percent,and the same
I'aci li ties operating act suppression systems(controlled)ranged from 0.55 to 2.88 percent- Due to carry
of er of tbu small amount of moisture reyui red,it has been shown that each source,a ah the exception of
crusher;,does not need to employ direct water .prays. Although the moisture content aas the only
tariable measured,other proeus%features may hate as much influence on ems.rlons from a given source
Visual obscrtarions from each source under normal operating conditions are probably the best indicator
of which emission factor is most appropriate. Plants that employ substandard control measures as
indicated by t isual obsertalions should use the uncontrolled factor with appropriate control efficiency
that best reflects the effecln eness of the controls employed.
c Refercnccs 1,17,and S
904 Mineral Products Intlltstry If 19.,) 6
d References 3,7,and 8
e. Reference 4
f. Refeences 4 and IS
Reference 4
h References 5 and 6
i References 5,6,mid 15
.I Reference I
k Reference I
I Referencev 1,3,7,and 8
m References 1,3,7,8,and 15
n No data as ailable,but emission factorh for PNI-101or tertiary cwshurs can be used as an upper Iimir for
primary crsecondary ciushung
o, References'_,3,7,8
p. References 2,3,7,8,and 15
q. Rcferunce 13
r PM ennsswn factors are presented bawd on PNI-100 data in the Background Support Document for
Seth On l l 19 2
s.GmisNion factors for PM-30and Ph1,50 are aYailnble in Figures 1 119 2-3 through 11 19.2-6
804 Mlincral Products Indactrt 11,19.2-;
Table 11.19 2-2(Ertrl(sh 1.nuts). EMISSION F UTORS FOR CRL SFIFD STONE
PROCESSING OPERATIONS (lb Ton)'
Sowce Total E61IS51ON Total EMISSION Total CmISSION
Particulate FACTOR PNI-10 FACTOR PM-25 FACTOR
]fattci"' R:\'l ING RATING RATING
Primary Crushing ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-05-0^_o,zi)
Pnmary Crushing(controlled) ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-OSO^_O-01)
Secondary Crushing, ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-05-020.02)
Secondary Crushing(amtmllcd) ND ND" ND"
(SCC 3-0.5-020.02)
Tertiary Crushing 0.00.5-r E 0002-P" C ND"
(SCC 3-050030-03)
Tertiary Crushing(controlled) OA012' E n0005-P' C 0.000109 E
(SCC 3-OS-0^_0.03)
Fines Crushing 00390` E 001501 E ND
(SCC 3-05-030-05)
Fines Crushing 6.0030 E 00012 E 0,00(YY709 6
(SCC 3-05.020-05)
Screening 0.025` E 40 87 C ND
(SCC 3,05.020-t12 03)
Screening(controll[d) 0.00?^_ E 0.( 7¢" C 0.000050° F.
(SC('3-05-020-02.03)
Fines Screening 030" E 0.07114 E ND
(SCC 3-05-0^_0-21)
Fines Screening(controlled) oo03b4 F 000 Y E ND
(SCC 3.05-020-21)
CunveyorTransfer Point 0 noun' E 0.00110 D ND
(SCC 3-0o-020-06)
Conveyor Transfer Point(controlled) 0 0001-V E -16 c to 1, D 1.3%10 I E
(SCC 3-05-020-W
Wet Drilling-I)nfmgmcnted Stone ND X-0x 10-' E ND
(SCC 3-05-020-l0)
Truck I nloadmg-Fragmented Slone ND 16 e 1() ' E ND
(SCC 3-05-0^_0-31)
Tmckltnloading-Conveyor,crushed N❑ 000010 F ND
stone(SCC 3-05-O�10-32)
a. P,ml+stun Nctors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted Emission factors to IbiTon of matenal
of throughput, SCC=Source Clussification Code, ND=No data.
b Controlled sources(with wet suppression)are those that are part of the processing plant that employs
current wet suppression technulog) similar to the study group. The moisture content of the study group
without wet suppression systems operating(uncontrolled)ranged from 0 21 to 13 percent,and the same
facilities opefati ng wcl supprecsl on,y s(cmc(controlled)ranged from 0 55 to 2.88 percent. Due io carry
over of the small amount of moisture required,it has been shown that each source,with the exception of
crushers,does not need to employ direct water sprays. Although the mois(urc content was the Drily
variable measured,other process features may have as much influence on emissions from a green source.
seal observations from each source under normal operating conditions are probably the best indicator
of which emission factor is most appropnatc Plants that employ substandard control measures as
indicated by v isual observations should use the uncontrolled factor with an appropriate control efficiency
that bes(reflects the effccliveness of the controls employed.
e References 1,3,7,and 8
d. Rc1 erences 3,7,and 8
804 \finerzd Products Industry 11.19.2-8
e Reference�
f ReferenceY-I anJ 15
g Refcrcncc 4
h. Rcfurcncce 5 and G
i References 5,G,and 15
1 Reference I
k Reference 13
I Referenceh 1,3,7,and 8
in References 1,3,7,8,anJ 15
it, No data ar adable,but emivvion Factors for PAI-10 For ternary cruAury can be used as an upper limn For
primary orsecondary crushmn
o. References 2,3.7,8
p References 2,3,7,S,and 15
y. Reference 15
r. PNI omission factors art presented based on PNI-1fKt data in the Background Support Document for
Secnoo 11 19^_
e.Emtssenn factors for PNI-30 and PAI-50 are acadable in Figures 11 19 2-3 through 11 19 3-6
804 Mner d Products ludustry 11 19 2-9
Emission factor estimates for stone quarry blasting operations are not presented because
of the sparsity and unreliability of available tests Ntihle a procedure for estnnating blasting
emissions is presented in Section 119,Western Surface Coal '.Mining, that procedure should not
be applied to stone quarries because of dissimilarities in hlastmg techniques,material blasted, and
size of blast areas. Emission factors for fugitive dust sources,including paved and unpaved
roads,materials handling and transfer,and wind erosion of gtornee piles,can be determined using
the predictive emission factor equations presented in W-42 Section 13.2.
The data Lied in the preparation of the controled PNf calculations was derived from the
individual A-rated test~for 1'h1--2.7 and P.%I-10 summarized in the Background Support
DoClnment For conveyor transfer points,the controlled Phl value was derived from A-rated PM-
2.5, Pbl-10,and PM data summarized in the Background Support Document
The extrapolation line was drawn through the 1'hI-2.5 value and the neat of the PM-10
values. Phi emission factors were calculated for PhI-30, Pivf-50,and PhI-100. Each of these
particle size limits is used by one or more regulatory agencies as the definition of total particulate
matter. The graphical extrapolatioms used in calculating the emission factors are presented in
Figtn•es 11 19?3,—1,-S,and
804 \hneral Products industry 11 19 2-10
References for Section 1 1.19.1'
1,J. Richav-Lq T. SroLell,and W. Birk, f',11-10 Emissinu F u7nrstint a Stone Crashing Plant
De+sler Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 08-01-0055,Task 2 R4,U. S. Lm ironmental
Protection Agency, Research Trian.olc Park, NC,February 1992,
2.J. RicharcE,T. Brotell,and W ICrk, P.11-10 Finission Farrors for a Stone Crushing Plant
Terriary Crusher, EPA Contract No.68-D 1-0053,Task 2 84, U. S. Env ironmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park,NC, Fcbnwry 19cY_'
3 W Iark,T. Brozell,and.1 Richards, PM- Emission Farrors fnr a Stone Crushing Plant
Deister Vtbratrmg Screen and Crusher, National Stonc AsKmahon,Washington DC,
DeeLmher 1992
4 T. Brozcll,J- Richards,and NV, kirk, P,1.1-10 Emission Fcu fors far a S7o+re Cntshutg Plant
Tertiary Crecsher arrd Vibrating Screen. EPA Contract No (S-DO-0122, V, S
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, December 1992.
5.T. Brozell, PAY-10 Emission Fcu rors fnr Two Transfer Points at a Granite Stone Crushing
Plcnvr. EPA Contract No.68-00-0122, Lt. S. hnvimnmental Protection,agency, Research
Triangle Park,NC,lank , 1994.
6.T. St-mell,PM-10 Emission Fcu tors far a Srcn+e Crushing Plant Transfer Point, F..Pa Contract
No. 68-DO-0122, L1. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Trian1gle Park,NC,
February 1993.
7 T. Broz-cll and.I Richards, PM-10 Emission Fartnrs fnr a Limestone Crashing Plant Vibrating
Screen and Crusher fang Bristol. Tennessee, EPA Contract No, 68-D2.0163, Cr S
Env ironmental Protection Agency, Research Tnangle Park,NC,.1uly 1993.
8.T. Brozell and J. Richmr ls, P19-10 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
Screen and Cnuher fnr d4arvsville, Tennessee, EPA Contract No-68-D2-0163, U. S
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC,.rtdy 1993.
9. Air Pollution Control Teclutiyues fur Nonn+erallrr,Minerals Industry. EPA-4-%3-82-014,
11. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, Anaust 1982.
10. Review Emission Dara Bose and Develop Emission Facracs fnr the Constr a rion Aggregate
Industry, Engincenn.Science, Inc.,Arcadia,CA,September 198-F.
11 P. K. Chalckude e t al.,Emissions froth the Crushed Granite Industry:Stare e f the Art, EP-\-
600 2-78-021, Lr. S Envirortnrental Protection Agency, 1S'ashington, DC, February 1978
12 T. R Blackwoal et al.,Source Assessinent:Crushed Stone, FPA-600 2-7 -00-IL, U S
Emironmenttl Protection .agency, Washing on, DC, May 1978
13.An Investigation of Parricalate Ennssions from Construcrrorr Aggregate Crashing Operattons
and Related New Source Performance Standards, National Cmslied Slone.association,
Washington, DC, December 1979.
' References I through 23 are idenpcal to References I thm1.11gh 23 in the Liackground Support Document
ror AP-42. Section 11 19-2
804 Mincral Products industry 11 19.2-16
14, F Record and W,T. Harnett, Particulate Emission F7utors for the Construrti017 Aggregate
Indastrv, Draft Report, GC.\-TR-CH-KI-02, EPA Contract No, 08-02.3i10'GC A
Corporation,Chapel Hill, NC,Febnunry 1981.
l5. T. Brozcll,T. Holder,and J Richards,.14eusaarenienr ofP,14-!(J mid P.142.5 Enussinn Fau con
at a}roue Crushing Plant.National Stone Association. December 1996,
I G.T. Brozell,and J. Richards, A14,WPAY,s Emission Factor'(Testing for the Pidveri-ed,Whoa ral
Division of the National Stone. Sand and Gravel Association. Report to the National Stone,
Sand and Grav el Assocjatron;OctotxT 2( )l
17. Frank Ward&Company, A Report of Particulate Sourre Sumpinrg Performed for Franklin
litdiestrial Minerals Located in Shenvood, Tennessee. Report to Franklin industrial Minerals,
August 1994.
18. Advanced Industrial Resources, LI.C. Performance Test Report of Baghouse No.37 at
Franklin (ndusInal Minerals, Report to Franklin hidustrial,Minerals, November 1999
19. Advanced Industrial Resources, LLC Performance Test Report ofBH-75(1Lnaestone System
at Franklin Industrial Minerals, Report ro Franklin Industrial.11inerals. A lay 2000.
20. Air Quality Technical Services, Performance Testing for Flash Dryer#I. Ompa,Inc.Plant at
Florence. Vermau.Jtme 1997
21. Air Quality Technical Services, Performance lesling for Flash Drver#2, Omya,Inc. Plant in
Florence, Vernront.tilarch 1998
22. Air Quality Technical San ices Performance Testing for Flash Drver#3, Omya. Fir. Plant ui
Florence, Vennont,August 2000
13 Air Quality 'Technical Scry ices. Perjbrrnaare Tesung for Flash Drver U. Omya. G'rr.MIMI ili
Florence, Vermont,September 2(XX)
24.Air Pollution Control Techniques for Nonmetallir Mmerals Indu5irv,EPA-4703-82.014,
1t.S Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, August 1982,
25. Written communication t'rom.l. Richards, Air Control Techniques, P.C. to B. Shrager,AIR(,
March 18, 1994
26, C Cowherd,,1r. et, al , Development a f Ennvsion Factors For Fugitive Dust Soarres, EP.A-
450a3-74-037, 1IS, Environmental Protection \gency. Research Triangle Park, NC,Arne
1974
804 Mineral Products Industr7 11.19.2-17
Date: May 13, 2003
Subject. Background information for Re%iced AP-42 Section 11.19 2,Crushed Stone Processing
and Pins criced Mineral Proccming
From. John Richards
Air Control Techniques, P.C.
To: William Iiuykendal,E,PAjEIBiEF'NfS (MD-14)
CT S. Environmental Protection Agenc)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
I. iNTRgDLrCTION
This memorandum presents the background information that was used to develop the
revised A P-42 Section 11.19.2 on crushed stone processing and pulverized mineral processing. Emission
data from nine emission tests conducted at stone(granite and limestone)processing plants were used to
develop emission factors for various smutting,screening,and conveying operations Descriptions of these
test reports are provided in Section I1 of this memorandum. In addition,the references froin the previous
i ersion of AP-42 Section 11.19.2 were reviewed. Tables 1 and 2 present PNI-10 emission data and the
new PM-10 cinimion factors developed for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section. Tables 3 and 4 present
PM emission data and the new Pivl emission factors developed for inclusion in the revised A1342 section.
Tables 5 and 6 present I'1NI 2.5 emissions data and the new PM-2.5 enucsion factors developed for
inchision in the revised,AP-42 section. The Al'-42 section narrative also was rei iced to include current
wnninology and industry practices.
Emissions data for pulverized mineral processing operations hai e been added to AP-42 Section
11.19-2, Previously,information concerning this segment of the crushed clone industry has not been
available in AP-42. Data concerning pulverized mineral processing operations are a logical ertemion of
stone crushing phut data be caii_se (1) the quarry,initial cnuslting,and screening operations are identical to
those in stone crushing plants and(2)the specific processes used to produce pulverized minerals are quite
different than those used in other indristrial categories,such as sand and Ousel operations. Enssions data
from sera en emission tests at four pulverized mineral processing plants have been included. Tables 7 and S
present PNI-10 data and the new ennssion factors for four categories of pulverized utinerd processing
operations. Tables 9 and 10 present PM emission data and the new PM emission factors developed for
inclusion in die revised AP-42 section Tables 1 I and 12 present PN-I 2 5 emissions data and the new PhI-
2 5 emission factors developed for inclusion in the rei iced AP-42 section
1
11. UESCRiPCION OF RFFERFNCFS
A. Reference 1
This test report doctnnents an emission test conducted at a Martin Slatietta stone crushing plant in
Raleigh,North Curohna. The test was conducted for the Emission Inventory Branch(EIB)of the U. S
Friviromnental Protection Agency(TPA)as part of an emission lest program undertaken to provide
emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development. Uncontrolled and controlled
particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter(PM-10) emissions front a vibrating screen were
measured tiling EPA Method 201A in conjunction with a track-mounted hood system that was used to
capture fugitive emissions From the screen. The vihrging screen consisted of three vertically stacked
Jecks The upper deck had a mesh opening of 2,86 centimeters (cut) square(1.125 inches (in.] square)
for the first 3.66 meters (m) (12 feel [ft])and 2 54 cni square(1 in. squuue)for the last 2.44 in (8 ft). The
Middle deck had a mesh opening of 147 cm square(0 ti8 in. square),and the lower deck had slot openings
of 0.30 cm (0,118 in.) by 2.54 cut (l in.) :ambient levels of PNI-10 were quantified using P1%l-10IRVol
samplers,and the ambient concentrations were subtracted from the Method 201A Plvl-I0 concentrations
to determine the actual emissions from the screen. Wei suppression was used to control emissions from
the screen. Water spray noccles were located on the conveyor underneath the tertiary crusher,at one
conveyor transfer point,at the top of the stream conveyor above the vibrating screen,and on the inlet
chute to the vibrating screen. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granule) during the
uncontrolled and controlled runs were a1.5 percent and z 1.5 percent,respectively. Average material
moisture contents are shown in Table 1 In addition,sieve analy scs were perfonned on stone sanplcs
taken From the conveyor that feeds the screen. Silt content of due stone as sampled(wet) was negligible,
and the average sill content of the sample after drying was 3 35 percent. The relati ely small anoint of
silt particles(E75 µin) present in the raw material suggests that the potential for P1%1-10 emissions from the
material processinc operations was low
Uncontrolled and controlled 13NI-10 emission factors were developed from the enussion data and the
material processing rates that were measured Ju ing the testing.These emission factors are shown in
Table 1. The cniission factors presented differ sligh% from the emission factors reported in the lest
report because average production rates w etc used in the test report, whereas actrt nun-by-nm
production rates were used in the(Lila analyses presented in this memorandum. The data are assigned an
A rating. 'The relxhrl provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and no problems were
reported.
B. Reference 2
This test report documents at emission test conducted at a Martin Marietta stone crushing plait in
Gamer,North Carolina. The lest was conducted for LIB as part of an emission test program undertaken
to provide emission data(' u stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor devclopnnent. uncontrolled and
controlled PM-10 emissions from a Model 1560 Onmicone conical-type tertiary crusher were measured
using FPA Method 201A in cMitnction with a quasi-slack system, which was used to capture fugity c
emissions from the crusher. The crusher reduces 8.9-to 10 2-cm (3 _`.to q-in.) stone to 2.3 ern (1 in.)
aid smaller. The cntsher inlet and outlet were enclosed and tested separately. Wet suppression was used
to control emissions from the crusher. Water spray nozzles were located on the conveyor underneath the
tertiu} crusher,at one conveyor transfer point,said at the entrance to the surge bin find vibrating feeder.
2
The laureled moisture contents of the raw material (granite) during the uncontrolled and controlled sus
were<1.5 percent and a 1 5 percent,respectively. Average material moisture contents are presented in
Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from the comcyor that fed
the surge bin prior to the crusher. The results of the sieve analyses are not documented in the test report.
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 emission factors were developed from the emission Bala and the
material processing rates that w ere measured during the test. These emission factors are shown in Table
1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology
was sound,and no problems were reported
C. Reference.3
This test report documents an emission test conducted at a Vulcan Materials Company stone
crushing plant in Skippers,Virginia The test was conducted for die National Stone,Sand and Gravel
Association to determine emission factors for v anows stone crushing process operations Uncontrolled and
controlled PNI-10 emissions from a cone crasher(tertiary crusher)and a vibrating screen were measured
using ERR Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-stack and a track-mounted hood system,which were
used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher and screen, respeetively. The crusher produces stone
that is 7.6 cm(3 in.)and smaller in size The u ibrating screen consisted of three vertically stacked decks
The upper deck had a mesh opening of 2.86 cm square(1,12-5 in. square)for the first 3 66 in (12 Ft) and
2.54 cm square(1.0 in.)for tine last 2.44 in (8 ft). The middle deck had a mesh opening of 1.47 cm square
(0.58 in square),and the lower deck had slot openings of 0.30 cm (0.1 I8 in.) by 2.54 cm (1.0 m.). Wet
suppression was used to control emissions front both processes. Water spray nozzles w ere located on the
vibrating feeder to the crusher,on the convey or below the crusher,and on the inlet chute to the ]aster
screens. The targeted moisture contents of the raw materials(granite)during the uncontrolled and
controlled runs were< 1.5 percent and a1.5 percent,respectively Avera.-e nualeri d moisture contents
are shown in Table 1. hi addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from a process
conveyor. The average silt content of the stone as sampled(wet) was 3.3 percent,and the average silt
content of the sample after drying was 4.0 percent. The relatively small amount of sill particles (c75 pun)
present in the raw material suggests that the potential for PNI-10 emissions from the material processing
operations was low.
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 emission factors were developed from the emission data
gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors
are shown in Table 1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail, the
test methodolog) was sound,and no problems w ere reported.
The PM data were not reported by the testing contractor,were not subject to quality assurance
review duping the testing project,and were not anticipated in the test program protocol prepared prior to
the tests. The PNI data have been calculated by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) from laboratory
saruple catch weight data included in the test report. Although Method 201 A is not the reference method
for quantifying PM emissions,the preseparator and filter catch for the method should provide an indication
of PM emissions. The PM data have been assigned a Crating The report provided adequate detail,the
test metlicidolog) was sound,and no problems w ere reported
D. Reference 4
3
This lest report doc:urnents an emission lest conducted at a Nello L. Tecr stone crushing plant in
Raleigh,North Carolina. The lest wan conducted for EIB as par of am emission lest program undertaken
to provide emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development. uncontrolled and
controlled PN610 emissions from a Nlodel 15M Onmicone conical-type cnisher(fines crusher)and a TD
Seco vibrating screen(fines screen)were measured using EPA Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-
stack and a tract:-mounted hood system,which were used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher
and screen,respectively. The crushers reduced 2.5-to l.I-cm (I-and 0.75-in.)stone to 0.476 cm(0.188
in.)and smaller. The screen consisted of three decks. The top and muddle decks were 2.22 and 1.43 cis
square (0.875 and 0.363 in.square),respectively. The bottom deck bad slots of 0.476 by 2.54 cut. (0188
by 1 in.) The crusher inlet and outlet were each enclosed and tested separately. Wet suppression was
used to control emissions From both processes. Water spray nozzles were located at the crusher inlet,
midway through the crusher body,at the crusher outlet,and at the conveyor transfer point to the screen.
The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granite)during the uncontrolled and controlled rims
were a 1.5 percent and x 1.3 percent,respectively Average material moisture contents are presented in
Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from the conveyor that fed
the screen and the conveyor that carried the crusher product. The results of the sieve analyses are not
documented in the test relx)rt.
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 emission factors were developed from the emissions data and
the material processing rates that were measured during the test These emission factors are shown in
Table 1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail, the test
methodology was sound,and no problems were reported during the valid test runs.
The I'M data were not reported by the testing contractor,were not subject to quality assurance
review during the testing prt jecl,and were not anticipated in the test program protocol prepared prior to
the tests. The PNI data have been calculated by NIRI from laboratory sample catch weight data included
in the test report. Although!vlethod 201A is not the reference method for quantifying PNI emissions,the
preseparator and filter catch for the method should provide an indication of PNI emissions. The PM data
have been assigned a C rating. The report prow ided adequate detail,the test nuethalology was sound,and
no problems were reported
E. Reference 5
This test report documents an emission test at a Wake Stone Corporation stone crushing plant In
Knightdale, North Carolina. The test was conducted for EIB as pat of an emission test program
undertaken to provide emission data on stone crashing ror AP-42 emission factor dcvclopnncnt.
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 emissions from two separate conveyor transfer points were measured
using EPA Method 201A in conjunction with quasi-stack systems, which were used to capture fugitive
emissions from the two transfer points. Wet suppression was used to control transfer point emissions
Water spray-nozzles were located on the evil conveyor underneath each transfer point and at numerous
other locations throughout the process. The laugeled moisture contents of the raw material(granite)
during the uncontrolled and controlled runs were a1.5 percent and z 1.5 percent,respectively. Average
material moisture contents are presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone
samples taken from each of the conveyor lines. The average silt content of the samples after drying was
1.4 percent For the first transfer point and 2.4 percent for the second transfer point. The relatively small
amount of silt particles(<75 µin)present in the raw material suggests that the potential for PNi-10
emissions from the material processing operations watt to".
4
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 emission factors were developed from the emission data and the
material processing rates that were measured during the lest '1'hege emission factors are shown in Table
1. The PI I-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,the lest methodology
was sound,and no problems were reported during %slid lest nets.
The P?vI data were not repotted by the testing contractor, were not subject to quality assurance
review during the testing project,and were not anticipated in the test program protocol prepared prior to
the tests. The PNI data have been calculated by NIRI from laboratory sample catch weight data included
in the test report. Although Method 201A is not the reference method for quantifying PM cnissmons,the
prescparator and filter catch for the method shot.dd provide an indication of PNf emissions. The PNI data
have been assigned a C rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and
no problems were reported.
F. Reference 6
This test report documents an emission test at a Martin Marietta stone crushing plant in Raleigh,
North Carolina. The test was conducted for the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association as part of
an emission test program undertaken to pros ide emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor
development. Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and PM enussions from a conveyor transfer point were
measured using EPA Method 201A and) PA Method i,respectively in conjunction w itli a quasi-stack
system,which was used to capture fugith a omissions from the transfer point. Wet suppression was used
to control transfer point emissions. Water spray nozzles are located on the exit corn eyor undemeath the
transfer point and at numerous other locations throughout the process. The targeted motskmre contents of
the raw material (granite) during the uncontrolled and controlled runs were a1,i percent and z 1.5 percent,
respectively Average material moisture contents are presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses
were performed on stone samples taken from the conveyor The average silt content of the dried stone
was 2.2 percent The relatively small amount of silt particles(r75 Rut)present in the raw,material
suggests that the potential for PM-10 emissions from the material processing operations was low.
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 and PNf emission factors were developed from the cnmisgion
data and the material processing rates that were measured doing the test.These crmsston factors are
shown in Table I. The PM-10 data and the PNI (Method 5)data are assigned an A rating. The report
provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and no problems w ere reported during valid test
runs.
The Method 201A derived PNI data were not reported by the testing contractor, were not subject to
quality assurance review during the testing project,and were not anticipated in the test program protocol
prepared prior to the tests. The PNI data have been calculated by NIRI from laboratory sample catch
weight dala included in the test report. Although hlethol 201A is not the reference method for quantifying
PNf emissions,the pmseparstor and filter catch for the method should provide an indication of PNf
emissions- The Method 201A denied PNI data have been assigned a C rating. The report provided
adequate detail,the lest nmethodology was sound,and no problems were reported.
G. Reference 7
5
This test report documucnls an emission test conducted al a Vulcan Materials Company stone
crushing plant in Bristol,Tennessee. The lest was conducted for OB as part of an emission test program
undertaken to provide emission data on stone crushing For AP-42 emission factor development
Uncontrolled and controlled PNl-10 emissions from a cone crusher(tertiary crusher)and a triple-deck
vibrating screen were measured using FPA Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-slack and a
track-mounted hood system,which were used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher and screen,
respectively The crusher produced stone 7.6 cm (3 m.) and smaller to size.The screen consisted of three
vertically stacked decks The upper deck had a mesh opening of 3 173 cm square(1?5 in. square). The
middle deck had a mesh opening of 1.59 cm square(0.625 in. square),and the lower deck had a mesh
opening of OAK35 crn square (0 25 in. square). Wet suppression was used to control emissions from both
processes. Water spray nozzles were located in the feed hopper to the crusher and on the conveyor
helow the crusher. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (limestone)during the uncontrolled
and controlled rims were<10 percent and a 1.0 percent,respectively. average material moisture contents
are shown in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from a process
comeyor. The average silt content of the stone was 18 percent The relatively small amount of sill
particles(<75 µtuu)present in the raw material su.-csis that the potential for PNI-10 emissions from the
material pnncessing operations was pow
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors were developed from the emission data
gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are
shown in Table 1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test
methodology was sound,and no problems were reported
The PM data were not reported by the testing contractor, were not subject to quality assurance
review dining the testing prglect,and were not anticipated in the test program protocol prepared prior to
the tests. The PNl data have been calculated by N1RI from laboratory sample catch weight data included
in the test report Although Method 201A is not the reference method for quantifying PM emissions,the
preseparator and filter catch for the method should provide an indication of PM emissions. The I'M data
have been assigned a C rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and
no problems were reported
H Reference 8
This test report documents an emission test conducted at a Vulcan Materials Company stone
crusluing plant in N[aryl,ille,Tennessee. The test was conducted for FiB as part of an emission test
program undertaken to provide emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emissions from a cone crusher(tertiary crusher)and a triple-deck
vibrating screen w ere measured using EPA Method 201 A in conjtmction with a quasi-stack and a
track-mounted hood system,which wcrc used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher and screen,
respectively. The crusher produced stone 7.6 cm (3 in )and snt<aller in size. 'fhe screen consisted of three
v erttcally stacked decks. The upper deck had a mesh opening of 3 175 cm square (1 25 in. square). The
middle deck had a mesh opening or 1 59 cm square (0 625 in. square), and the lower deck had a mesh
opening of 0.6,15 cm square (0.25 in. square).Wet suppression tv as used to control emissions from both
processes. Cater spray nozzles were located on the v ubralrng feeder to the crusher. The targeted
moisture contents of the raw material (limestone)during the uncontrolled and controlled rims were r 1.0
percent and a 1.0 percent,respectively Ai erage material moisture contents are shown in Table 1. In
addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from a process conveyor. The average
6
silt content of the stone teas 3 25 percent. The relatively small amount of silt particle,(r7-5 µnu)present in
the raw material suggests that the potential for Phl-10 emissions from the material processing operations
was low
Uncontrolled and controlled Phl-10 cutission factors Acre developed from the emission data
gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the lest. These emission factors are
shown in Table 1.The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test
methodology was sound,and no problem,were reported.
The P1NI data were not reported by the testing contractor,were not subject to qro ity assurance
review during the testing project, and were not anticipated in the test program protocol prepared prior to
the tests. The PM data have been calculated by bIRI from laboratory sample catch weight data included
in the test report. Although Method 201A is not the reference method for quantifying PhI emissions,the
preseparator and filter catch for the method should provide an indication of Phf emissions, The I'M data
have been assigned a C rating The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and
no problems were reported.
I Reference 9
This document,which was Reference 1 in the previous AP-42 Section 8.19.2,contains summary
data front several emission tests performed at stone crushing plants. Particulate matter emissions were
measured at baghoutse inlets using EPA Method 5 sampling trains. Each test consisted of three runs.
Emission sources,controls,material types,and emission factors for 12 tests at 5 plants were summarised
in the docuuntent. Data from several of the tests were not analyzed because process rates were not
doctmented. Data from nine of the tests were not amrlyzed because they represent emissions from
combined sources. Data from three of the tests were used to quantify PM emissions from a conveyor
transfer point,a primary crusher,and a screen(referred to as a secondary screen in the document).
The data that were analyzed from the three tests described above arc assigned a C rating The test
methodologies were sound,and no problems were reported during the valid lest runs;. IIowever,the
document did not provide ongmal data sheets,and little detail about the raw materials was documented.
The raw material is assumed to be dry because fabric filtration systems were used for emission control.
The data from the other tests do not meet the mrmmtun criteria for developing emission factors for
inclusion in the revised AP-42 section
J. Reference 10
Tills report,which was Reference 5 in the previous AP-42 Section 8.19.2,contains a review of
emission factors developed in several of the references described above. In addition,data and emission
factors from two emission tests p erfonned by the testing contractor were provided in Appendix(:of
Reference 10. The emission tests were conducted on horizontal screens at two sand and gravel
processing facilities. Data from these two emission tests for primary,secondary,and tertiary Screening
operations are combined to represent all screening operations because no consistent correlation between
the level of screening and the magnitude of PM cinissions was established by the data. The quasi-stack
method was used to capture fup ttve emissions front the screens tested at both plants. Both tests were
performed using wet impingement sampling trains (South Coast AQMD Ivlcthod)for total PM and
cascade impactors for size-specific PbI
7
The Ph(data are assigned a C rating. The test methodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported during the valid lest nuts I•Iowever, the report is a secondary reference and does
not provide sufficient detail to wituant a B rating. The total particulate matter data are outliers in the
emission factor data for screening operations. The PNI-10 data are not rated because only single-run
particle-sic data are provided in the report. These data were not used in developing P1&I-10 and PM
emission factors due to the lack of sufficient test nuns wid due to the lack of supporting test method and
process data.
I{ Reference 11
This doctunient, which was Reference 2 hi the pret ioiis AP-42 Section 8.19.2,examines the granule
crusting industry and the potential environmental impacts of industry emissions.Topics addressed include
a source description,emissions,control tcclnnologoy,and growth and nature of the industry.
Fmission factors for several granite entshing processes were developed using data from two granite
processing facilities. Only stmnrnary infomnation is prov ided in the document,although details on the
processes and test methodology are provided. A GCA Model P Ml 1014 respirable dust monitor was
used to sample PM-10 emissions,and emission rates were calculated using dispersion models. Emissions
were sampled from several processes including dumping to the primary crusher and secondary crushing
and screening. The moriitor was placed about 100 feet from the source being sampled. No emission
controls (for the plants tested) w ere specified,and the silt and moisture contents of the raw materials were
not recorded.
The data do not meet the minnimurn entena for developing emission factors for inclusion in the A1'-
42 section. The lest methodology was not acceptable because only one monitor was tLsed,and the monitor
was too far from the source during testing, In addition,no details about the moisture and sill contents of
the raw material were provided.
1- Refrence 12
This document, which was Reference 3 in the previous �P-42 Section 8.19.2,examines the stone
crushing industry and the potential enviromuental impacts of industry emissions Topics addressed include
a source description,emissions,control technology,and growth and nature of the industry.
Emission factors for several stone crushing processes were developed using data from two traprock
processing facilities Only suunninary information is provided in the document although details on the
processes and test nnethodolo.gy are provided. A GCA Model RD1\I 101-4 respirable dust monitor was
used to sample 1'1%1-10 emissions,and cmicsion rates mere calculated using dispersion models Emissions
were sampled from several processes including primary crLshin.and tunloading,secondary crushing mid
screening,tertiary cnnshing and screening, fines crushing and screening,and conveying. The nnonitor was
placed about 100 feet from the source being sampled. No emission controls were specified,and the sill
and moisture contents of the rave materials were not recorded
The data do not meet the minimum criteria for developing emission factors for inclusion in the:\P-
42 section. The teat methodology was not acceptable because only one monitor was used,and tine monitor
was too far from the source during lesling. In addition, no deutls about the moisture and silt contents of
the raw material were provided
8
tut. Reference 13
This document is divided into four sections,which are addressed separately in the following
discussion.
Section I discusses the emission study(sponsored by the construction aggregate rdustry)that was
performed by Monsanto Research Corporation(NIRC)and The Research Corporation of NewEngland
(TRC). In addition,several conclusions about the control of fugitive dust emissions from construction
aggregate processing facilities were drawn from a comparison of AP-42, N1RC's source assessment
studies,and the NIRC-TRC study. These conclusions are that (1) AP42 emission factors are front 10 to
10,000 times higher than the latest(1 5T79)measurements of uncontrolled emissions,(3)baghouse
emissions from aggregate crushing operations are often higher than uncontrolled emissions (apparently due
to the suspension of fine particles,which are normally associated w ith larger particles and are not normally
released to the atmosphere); (3)the emission factors developed by NIRC in the source assessment
program sponsored by EPA are within one order of magnitude of the emission factors developed in the
NIRC-TRC study,indicating that both data sets are highly reliable; (4) wet suppression can achicne
between 80 and 90 percent control of the emissions from crushers,and(5) wet suppression is more
efficient than fabric filters for controlling IN-10 emissions from crushers. To conclude Section I,an
ambient air quality study perfommul at a sand and gravel production facility in Colorado is summarized-
The study concluded that the sand and gran el processing operations did not have a detectable impact on
air quality.
Section H docuunenl5 the NIRC study that included a cum fnlation of emission data from tests at
seven stone crushing plaints that processed a variety of aggregates Tests were conducted on tom•
primary crushers,set en secondary enishers,three tertiary crushers,and two fines crushers. Aggregate
types included granite(one plant),sand and gravel (two plants),lraprock(one plant),and limestone(three
plants). One of the limestone processing plants used wet suppression to control PNI emissions, Emission
factors for PNI-10 and PNI¢50 pan were developed for all or the processes tested and were presented by
process,aggregate type,and control methods
A GCA Model RDNI 101-1 duct monitor was used to detect fugitive PNI emissions downwind of
the process operations. The monitor was placed approrLnnately 30 feet from the source during each lest.
The "tracer gas methyl" was used to determine the percentage of PNI-10 measured with the GCA
instrument that was emitted from the source bang tested The tilt and moisture contents of the raw
materials were not specified.
The data from this testing program do not meet the minimums criteria for developing emission factors
for the revised AP-42 section because an adequate number of downwind monitors was not used during
testing.
Section III docmmcnts the TRC study that included a compilation of emission data from tests at sit
stone crushing plants that processed a variety of aggregates. Tests were conducted on lour primary
crushers,six secondary crushers,three tertiary crushers,and one fines crusher. Aggregate types included
granite (one plant),sand and gravel (two plants),trapiock(one plant),and limestone (two plants) The
granite processing plant and both Limestone processing plants used w et suppression to control PNI
9
emissions. Emission factors for PM-10 and PNIc50 Vat were developed for all of the processes tested
and were presented by process,aggregate type,and control methods
A GCA Model RDNI 101-4 dust monitor was aced to detect fugitive PM emissions downwind of
the process operations.The monitor was placed apprommately 30 feet from the source during each test.
The tracer gas method was used to determine the percentage of PNI-10 meastred with the GCA
instrument that was emitted from the source being tested The silt and moisture contents of the raw
materials were not specified.
The data from this testing progrutt do not meet the miuiminu criteria for dcvelopin.-emission factors
for the revised AP-42 section because an adequate number of downwind monitors was not used dining
testing.
Section IV,entitled"Settti-annual Report: Ambient.Air Monitoring Program,Cannon-F.RTI.Site,"
contains no data that can be used for emission factor det elopment.
N. Reference 14
This report, which was Reference q in the previous AP-42 Section S.19.2,is a compilation of
emission factors from 16 lest reports. The emission factors from all of the reports were rated and
combined by process in order to develop a single emission factor for each process tested. Data
quantifying PN(-10 emissions from pnmary and secondary crushing operations(from NSPS Subpart 000
test reports)were not used for emission factor development because adequate details about the test
methodology were not provided,and problems bane been reported with cascade impactor tests perforated
before about 1981. The other data presented in this document are presented in several of the other
references described in this review.
O. Reference 15
This test report documents an emission test conducted at a Vulcan Materials Company stone
crushing plant in Pineville,North Carolina. The test was conducted for the National Stone,Sand and
('Travel Ascoeiation as part of an emission factor test program undertaken to provide emission data on
stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development.
Controlled PNI-10 and PNI-2.5 emissions from a Matcl 1560 Onmicone conical-type tertiary
crusher and a 48-inch gry.a-disc fines crusher were measured using preliminary EPA Method 201 B in
conjunction with a quasi-stack system that was utced to capture fugitive emissions from the crushers. The
inlet and outlet of the crushers were eachenclosed and tested simultaneously. Wet suppression was t4sed
to control emissions from the crushers
Controlled PNI-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from a conveyor transfer point were measured using
preliminary EP-A Method 201B in conjunction with a quasi-ctnck system that was used to capture fugitive
emissions from the trutsfer points. The inlet aid outlet of the concyor transfer point were each enclosed
and tested simultaneously. Wet suppression was used to control emissions from the conveyor transfer
point
Controlled PNI-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from a triple-deck vibrating screen were measured using
preliminary EPA Method 201 B in c(mjumction with a track-mounted ho(xl system that was used to capture
10
fugitive emissions from the screen. The screen consists of three vertically stacked decks. Wet
suppression was uused to control emissions Ambient PNI-10 and PNI-2.j concentrations were measured
during the period of each test nun. The ambient air concentrations w ere subtracted from the observed
PNI-10 and PNI-2.5 cone ntratiom measured in the hood exhaust system.
Average material moisture content data(cost suppression controls in operation) are shown in Table
5. In addition, sieve analyses were performed on stone s,unples taken from the process conveyor The
average silt content of the stone was 2.18 percent. The relatively small amoumt of silt particles(¢75 pin)
present in the raw material suggests that the Potential for PNI-10 emissions from the material processing
operations was low.
Controlled PNl-10 and PNI-2 5 emission factors were developed from the emission data and the
material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are shown in Table
6. The data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology was
sound,and no problems were reported.
P. Reference 16.
This report sumimarizes a set of seven emission tests conducted at four separate pu lvenzed mineral
processing plants. The sources tested included four grinding operations,one classifier,one flash dryer,and
one product site. All of the sources tested were controlled by pulse jet or envelope type fabric filters.
These tests were conducted for the National Stone, hand and Gravel Association as pan of an emission
test program undertaken to provide emission data on pulverized mineral processing operations for AP-42
emission factor dei elopment
Controlled PM,PNI-10,and PNI-2.5 emissions froin two roller mills,a horizontal ball mill,and a
vertical tall mill were measured using pnclimmary EPA Method 201B. The mass median diameters of the
products from these grinding operations ranged from 2 micrometers to Cis micrometers. Production rates
varied from a low of 0,i tons per hour to more than 20 tons per hour. The materials processed in these
grinding operations included calcium carbciriale,talc,and t write
The emission data for the v ertical ball mill are considered an outlier for pulverized nuneral industry
grinding operations. The particulate matter concentration data for this source are more than a factor of
twenty above the levels associated with similar processes tested as part of this overall project. A
comparison of the PNI emissions data obtained doing Ibis test with previous data from the same source
indicates that the emissions are also more than a factor of twenty above baseline levels. This level of
difference is well beyond the routine variability in emissions associated with a fabric filter controlled
source. A 1-test of the rim means for the tests with previous test rim data indicates that there is a
difference in means that is significant at more than the 99°'o confidence level. For this reason,the
emissions data from this test have been listed as an excluded outlier.
Controlled PM,PNI-10,and PNI-2.>emissions were measured from a classifier using prelhumary
EPA Method 201B. The mass median diameter of the product being handled in this process was 6
micrometers,and the production rate w as 1.8 tons per hour Calcioun carbonate was being processed in
the classifier tested.
Controlled PM,PM-10,and PNI-2 5 emissions were measured from a flash dryer classifier using
prclnuinary F>PA Method^_O1B The mass median diameter of the product being handled in taus process
11
was 6 micrometers,and the production role was I 1 tons per hour. Calcium carbonate was being
processed in die flash dryer tested
Controlled PM,PM-10,and P\I-2.5 emissions were measured from a product storage silo using
preliminary EPA Method 201B. The mass median diameter of the product being handled in this process
was 3.5 micrometers,and the production rate was 2 tons per hour. Calcium carbonate was being liandled
in the product storage silo.
Controlled emission factors were developed from the emission data and the material processing
rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are shown in Tables 7 through 12. The
PM-10 and PM 2.5 data are assigned an A rating. The PM data are assigned a B rating. The darn were
obtained using full quality assurance procedures; however,Method 201A is not a reference method for
Pti1. The report provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and no problems were
reported.
Q. Reference 17
This test progra in was conducted to determine the PM emissions from a 66 inch Roller hill
gnno4ng system at the Franklin Industrial Minerals plait at Sherwood,'fennessee. Limestone rock of
appmxi mately 1 125 inches is reduced to it size of which 82%is passing 200 mesh in the grinding system.
A closed loop classifier with a flash&3,er for inlet air is used as part of the grinding system. Dry,
undersized limestone particles are entrained from the grinding system and are transported to a
conventional putse jet fabric filter systciu.The tests were conducted in a two foot diameter stack located
downstream of the system induced draft fan. The grinding system production rate during the Method 5
lest prograrn was at or near the maximuun rated production level.
The PM data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported during the test rims. The three test rims were conducted in full accordance with
all Method S testing requirements and quality assurance procedures. The report included adequaate
documentation of all testing procedures and process operating conditions.
R. Reference 18
Reference Method 5 tests for PM were conducted at the stack seeing Baghou_se 37 at the
Franklin Industrial Minerals plant in Dalton,Georgia. The system tested serves a pulverized limestone
product storage silo and truck loadout system. During the test program,the system operated at or near the
maximum rated throughput capacity. The baghouse operated at a tubLsheet static pressure drop ranging
from 3 to 4 inches water gauge.
The Phi data are assigned an A rating. The test nmethodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported doing the test runs. The three test runs w ere conducted in full accordance with
all %lcthod 5 testing requirements and quality assurance procedures. The report included adequate
documentation of all testing procedures and process operating conditions.
S. Reference 19
Reference Method 5 tests for 13NI were conducted at the stack serving Baghouse BH-750 at the
Franklin Industrial Minerals plant m.alabaster, Alabauna The systems tested serves a pulverized limestone
12
grinding operation and truck loadoul operation. During the lest program, the system operated at or near
the maxnmurn rated throughput capacity. The haghonse operated at a mbeaheet static pressure drop of 17
inches water gauge
The PM data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported during the test nuns. The three test runs were conducted in full accordance with
all klethod 5 testing requirements and quality assurance procedures. The report included adequate
documentation of all testinc procedures and process operating conditions
T. Reference 20
The test program concerned flash Dr)er It used for drying w el ground pulverized limestone
material at the Omya,Inc.plant in Florence, Venuont. The effluent gas stream from the dryer is
controlled by a Fabric filter system. During the test program, Flash Dyer Ill operated at or near its
maumnn rated capacity. Product characteristics were typical of normal operations. Emission tests were
conducted in a stack located downstream of the induced draft fan for the flash drying system.
The PN1 data are assigned an A rating. The test methodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported during the teat runs. The three test runs were conducted in hull accordance with
all Method 5 testing requirements and quality assurance procedures. The report included adequate
docu incitation of all testing procedures and process operating conditions,
U. Reference 21
The test program concerned Flash Dryer#2 used for drying wet ground pull erized limestone
material at the Omya, Inc.plant in Florence, Vcrmont. 'I he effluent gas stream from the dryer is
controlled by a Fabric kilter system. During the teat program,Flash Dryer II2 operated at or near its
unaximum rated capacity. Product characteristics were typical of normal operations. Emission tests were
conducted in a stack located downstream of the induced draft fan for the flash drying system.
The PM data are assigned an A ralin.g. the test methodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported during the test nms The three teat nms w ere conducted in fill accordance with
all Method S testing xequirements and quality assurance procedures The report included adequate
documentation of all testing procedures and process operating conditions.
V. References 22 and 23
The test program concerned Flash Dryer#3 used for drying wet gtrnmd pulverized limestone
material at the Onnya, fnc. plant in Florence, Verttmont. The effluent gas stream from the dryer is
controlled by a fabric filter system. During the test program, Flash Dryer#3 operated at or near its
maximum rated capacity. Pxduct characteristics were typical of normal operations. I irusswn tests were
conducted in a stack located downstream of the induced draft fan For the flash drying system. The test
program included one nn conducted in August 2000 and two additional lest runs conducted in September
2000. Process and fabric filter operating conditions were sinular during all three test runs conducted over
the August through September 2000 time period
The I'M data are assigned an A rating. The test nethodology appeared to be sound,and no
problems were reported doing the test runs. The three test nms were conducted in full accordance with
13
all Method 5 testing requirements and gu+hty assurance procedures. The report included adequate
documentation of all testing procedures and process operating conditions
111, RESULTS QF DATA ANALYSIS
Emission factors were developed for conveyor transfer points, screening,tertiary crushing,fines
crushing,and fines screening operations. The only data available for secondary crashing were of
questionable quality and were not consistent with the emission tests included to this review. Therefore,the
revised AP-42 section does not include emission factors for primary and secondary crushing of stone.
However,the emission factors for tertiary stone crushing can be used as am upper limit to primary and
secondary crushing.
Emissions generally were considered uncontrolled if the raw material moisture content was less than
1.3 percent and controlled if the raw material moisture content wave cater than or equal to 1.3 percent
The material moisture contents in the Reference 5 and Reference 8 emission tests did not reach the
targeted 1.3 percent for the controlled runs, However,data from these tests are consistent with data from
other controlled tests and are treated as controlled. Table 2 presents the PNI-10 emission faclors,and
Table 4 presents the PM emission factors developed using the data from References 1 through 10 The
PM-10 emission factors for screening and tertiary crushing were assigned a C rating because A-rated
data from four tests(which is considered a sufficient number of tests to warrant a C rating) conducted al
typical facilities were used. The PM-10 emission factors for lines screening and crushing were assigned
an E rating because data (roan a single A-rated test were used. The PM-10 emission factors for conveyor
transfer points were assigned a D rating,because data from only three tests(conducted at two Typical
facilities) were used.
The controlled PM emission factors were calculalul based on graphical extrapolation of aumssaon
factor data provided in Table 2 for PM-10 and Table 6 for PNI--2.5 for screening,tertiary crushing,fines
crushing,and conveyor transfer points.
The data used in the preparation of the controlled PM calculations were derived from the individual
A-rated tests for PM-3.5 and PM-10 summarized in Tables 2 and 6,respectively. For conveyor transfer
points,the controlled 1'M value was derived from .A-rated PNI-2.5, FN1-10,and PNI data summarized in
Tables 2,4,and 6
The extrapolation line was drawn through the PN1-2_5 value and the mean of the PM-10 values.
PNI emission factors were calculated for PNI-30, PM-50,and PNI-100. Each of these particle size linuts
is used by one or more regulatory agencies as the definition of total particulate matter. The graphical
extrapolations used an calculating the cmission factors are presented in Figures 1,2,3,and 4.
The PM cmission factors calculated in Figures 1 through 4 were checked by plotting the PM-23,
PNI-10,and PNI emission factors for each type of source on to&.probability paper to confirm that the
distribution is log normal as expected for p<aticrlale matter generated by an attrition process The
resulting emission factor distributions for tertiary crashers,screening operations,fine crashers,and
conveyor transfer points arc log normal as shown in Figure 5.The calculated emission factors were also
checked by comparison with the C-rated non-reference method data for References 3 though 8
.summarized in Table 3. With the exception of a few data points,the C-rated emission factors for
References 3 through 8 are reasonably consistent with the calculated PNI emission factors
14
The uncontrolled Pbl cnnssion factors shown in Table 4 har e been calculated from the controlled
PM emission factors calculated in accordance with Frlatrres I through 4 The PNI-10 control efficiencies
deco ed from Table 2 for PM-10 Linissiom (stunntarized below) have been applied to the controlled
emission factor data to calc date the tmcontrolled PM emission rates.
• Screening PNI-10
Controlled=0.00073 Lbs Ton
Uncontrolled=O,WZ)Lhs.,Ton.
Efficiency =91.6%
• Tertiary Crusting PM-10
Controlled=0.0005.4 Lbs./Ton
Uncontrolled=0.00143 4 bs.,Ton
Ffficiency=T7 7%
• Fines CR45hinoP?vl-10
Controlled=0,0012 Lbs-,Ton
Uncontrolled=0 015 Lbs.,'L'on
Efficiency=92.(Fn
• Conveyor Transfer Points PSf-l0
Controlled=0 000045 Lbs[['on
Uncontrolled=0.0011 Lbs.,Ton
Efficiency=95.9%
15
0.004 i
0,0035
0 0 003
m
� 0.0025
00
0- C 002 J
i
0 0.0015 11
h
w 0.001
0.0005 ✓ I
0
1 25 10 30 50 100 30 1000
Particle Size, Micrometers (Aerodynamic)
Figure 1. PM Enussion Factor QduAation.Screening(Controlled)
0.003
00025
c
0
0.002
a
c
a 0.0015 _
N
w
1 2.5 10 30 50 10C 10D0
Particle Size Micrometers(Aerodynamic)
Figure? P?ul Emission Factor C'aladation,Tertiary C rLtshing(Controlled)
16
0.005
00045
0.004
i
101135
� 0.003
0 a 00z ♦ T'
n /
� 0o01s �
W 0.001 /J
0.0005
25 10 30 50 100 300 1000
Particle Size, Micromeiers (Aerodynamic)
1~ic ue 3. Pkf Emission Factor Calcrdati❑n, Fines Crushin,g(Controlled)
0.0003
000025
C
❑
0.0002
G
a
❑
a- 900015
C
0.0001
Lu
0.00005
1 95 10 30 50 100 300 1000
Particle Size. Micrometers (Aerodynamic)
Figure 4. Pn1 Emission Factor Calcrdation,Conveyor'CraisFer Points(Controlled)
17
Phl �I111551On I .
•�� �_j. __ __ ___._._ Value F
< 100 urn ,
I
--I---- - - - Screening -
Forts
Grusrnng _ _ _ Tertiary
- 1 Crusher T
� I
Conveyor _•
7•r8r15tEr �
Figure 5- f,og Probability Plot Used to Check Estimated PM Emission factors
The uncontrolled total pmliculate matter emission factor was calculated from the controlled total
particulate matter using Equation 1.
Uncontrolled emission factor= Controlled lotal paroctdate catnission factor
(lan - I'DI-lo Exf%)1'100°5 Equation 1
18
VI of the Phi emission factors have been rated as E due to the limited lest data and the need to
estimate emission factors using worapolatrons of the PNI 2.5 and PNI-10 data
The Phi-2.5 emission factors for tertiary crushing, screening,conveyor transfer,and fines crushing
(all controlled using wet suppression) were assigned an F rating because data from a single A-rated test
w ere used for each source
The PM-10 and PNI-23 emission factors for pulverized mineral grinding operations have been
assigned a B rating because the factor is based on three A-rated tests, and the three tests represent a
large fraction of the total number of operating units. The 13b1-10 and PM-2,5 emission factors for flash
dryers have been assigned a C rating because the emission factors are based on a single test,and the unit
tested represents a major fraction of the total mmmber of operating units- The PM-10 and Pt4f-2.3
emission factors for pulverized mineral classifying and product storage have been rated E because the
emission factors are based on a single A-rated test
The pulverized mineral PhI emission factor for grinding was assigned a D rating because the factor
is based on two A-rated tests using Method 5 and one A-rated test using,Method 201A. Alethod W lA is
not the reference test method for PM.The pulverized mineral flash dryer PM emission factor was
assigned a C rating because it is based on three A-riled tests,and this unit represents a ma•Por fraction of
the operating units. The pulverized mineral emission factors for classifying were rated E because the
emission factor is based on a single A-rated test using Method 201A. The emission factor for Pulverized
mineral product storage was rated E because it is based on one A-rated Melbod 5 test and one A-rated
Method 201A test
In addition to the emission factors described above,the revised AP-42 section includes emission
factors for wet drillin.a and truck-unloading and loading that were retained from time previous version of
AP-42 Section 8.192. Although the quality of the data upcm which these emission factors was based is
questionable,no other data on those sources were located during this review
TV. RF.FERF..NCW
1.J.Richards,T Brozell,and w'. Iihk, Pa11-10 Emission Facrors far a Stone Crushing Plant Densrer
Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-DI-0075,'fask 2.84, l r, 8. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park,NC,February 1992
2 J. Richards,T Brozell,and W. Kirk, P.49-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant Terrirary
Crusher. EPA Contract No. 68-D1-0055,Task 2.84,U. S. Emtronmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC:, February 19W
3. W. Kirk,T. Brozell,and J. Richards, PM-10 L:mi.ssron Far•tvrs.lor-a Stine Crushing Plant Derster
Vibrating Srrevn and Crusher. National Stone Association,Washington DC,December 1992
4. T Brozell,J. Riclki ds,and W K k-,PM-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Plant Terrnary
Crusher and Vibrating Screen, EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0133,LI 7 s. Environmental Protection
Agency,Research Triangle Park, NC,December 1992.
5 T Brozell, P.W-10 Emission Factors far Two Transfer Paints at a Granite Stone Crushing PI[anl,
EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122, U. S. 6nvironnuental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
NC„January 1994
19
6.T. Brozell,FAII-10 Emission Fac•rors for a Srone Crushing Platt Transfer Point. FPA Contract No
68-DO-0122,U. S. F.nvironmtental protection Agency,Research Triangle Park,NC,February 1993.
7.T. Brozell and J. Richards, PM-10 Etnissron Factors for a LIMeStOne Crushing Plant Vibrating
Screen and Cruusher for Bristol. Tenne55Ce. EPA Contract No. OS-D2-0163,U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,NC,July 1993
S.T. Brozell and J. Richards, PA11-l0 Emission Factors for a Limestone Crushing Plant Vibrating
Screen and Crusher for Alarvsville. Tennessee, EPA Contract No. 68-D2-0163,U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency,Research Tnan.-le Park, NC,July 1993.
9, Air-POIlulion Control Techniques for Nonmetallic Minerals Industry, EPA-4503-82-014,U S
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Tnanglc Park,NC,August 1952.
10. Review Emission Data Bass and Develop Enrrrssuon Factors.for rite Construction Aggregate
Indusrrv, Fngineerinr Science,Inc.,Arcadia,CA, September 1984
11. P. K. C ludekode et aL. Enussutns from The Crushed Uranrte Industry:State of The Art, EPA-
600/2-78-021,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,'Wasl ington,DC,February 1978
12.T R Blackwood el W., Source Assessment: Crashed Stone. EPA-600/2-78-IXlFL, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency,Washington,DC, Nlay 1978.
13. An Investigation of Particulate Ennssrans front COnSirnCtiarn Aggregate Crushing Operations
and Related New Source Performance Standards, National Cnished Stone Association,
Wasbingion, DC, December 1979
14. F. Record and W.T. Barnett, Parric•ulute Emission Factors for rite Construction Aggregate
Industry, Draft Report, GCA-l'R-CH-83-02,EPA Contract Nn 68-O2-3510,GCA Corporation,
Clitpel Ilill, NC,Febnia y 1983
15,T. Brozell,T. Bolder,and J. Riclmrds,A1leasurenrent of PM-10 and PM2.5 Emission Factors at a
Stone Crushing Plant,National Stone Association, December 1996
16,T. Brozell,and 3. RicItards, AW,0PAIL5 Enusaion Fac•mr Testing for the Pulverized Mineral
Division of the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association. Report to the National Stone,Sand
and Gravel Associatton; October 2W 1
17. Frank Ward&Company,A Report of Parric elate Source Sampling Perfornned for Franklin
Indzustrnal Minerals Loc•ared in Sher-wood. 7'ennevicee. Report to Franklin Industrial Minerals,
August 1994
18. Advanced Industrial Resources, LLC Perforinanr•a Test Report of Baghouse No. 37 at Franklin
Industrial Minerals, Report to Franklin Industrial Minerals, November 1999.
19, Advanced Industrial Resources,LLC. Perfannance Test Report of BH-750DTnestone System at
Franklin Industrial Minerals, Report to Franklin Industrial Minerals, May 2000.
20
20, Air Quality Tecluuca.1 Seri ices, Performmance Testing for Flash Dner#1. Onrva. Inc. Plant in
Florence. Verrnorrr..iune 1997
21. Air Quality Technical Services, Performance Testing for Flash Drver#2. Orirvcz, Inc. Plan in
Florence. Vermont, March 1999
22,Air Quality Technical Services. Performance Tvsnng for Flesh Driver#3, Onrya, Inc. Plain in
Florence, Vernrnnr. August 2000.
23. Air Quality Technical Services. Performance Testing for Flash Dryer 0. Onrva. Inc. Plant m
Florence, Vermont, September 2000
a. Note!These references are identical to references 1 through 23 in AP-42, Section 11.19 2
21
TABLE 1, SLtNMARY OF Eh IISSION DATA FOR PNMO FNIISSIONS
I'ROfvf CRLISI-IEDSTONEPROCESSINC; I'ESI"REPORTS'
Data Raring: A
Source (material) Average No, of L•Inission factor Average Ref
material test nuts Burge, kg/Mg pbllon) emission No.
moistm-c Factor,
content b krblg
(lb/ton)
Screening(granite) 0.486 3 0.0010-0.0075 0.0035 1
(0.0020-O.Ol S) (0.0070)
Screening(granite) 1.57"c 3 0.WO2&0.00037 0.00031 1
(0.00056-O.MM) (0.00061)
Tertiary crashing 0 4 4% 3 0.0(X)75-0 0010 0.00090 M
(granite) (O.W15-00020) (0.0018)
Tertiary crushing 1.7% 3 0.00017-0.00055 0.00042 3
(granite) (O.(W4-0.0011) (0.00083)
TertiarycrLv%Wng 0.7n 3 000II-0.0031 0.0020 3
(,-ranite) (0.0021-0.0062) (0.0040)
Tertiarycruching 178% 3 0.00W75-0.00019 0.00013 3
(granite) (000015-0.00037) (O.OW36)
Screening(granite) 0.7(Ph 3 0.01?0.015 0.014 3
(0-024-0.030) (0.027)
Screening(granite) 1.78% 3 0.000.49-0.00055) 0,00050 3
(O.OW,)7-0001I) (0.0010)
Fines crushing(granite) 0.9717v 3 0,017-0.013 00075 4
(0.0034-0.026) (0.015)
Fines crushing(grarule) 1.92"'6 3 0,00055-0.0013 0.0010 4
(0.0011-O.0"02-6) (0.0020)
1~ines screening(granite) a1 5°0 3 0.021-0050 0.036 4
(0.042-0.10) (0.071)
Fines screening(granite) 1.68%, 3 0.0060-0.015 0.011 4
(0.0013-0.0030) (OOP-1)
Conveyor transfcrpoint 0.27°n 3 000010-000021 0,00014 5
(granite)° (0.00020-0.00043) (0.00028)
Conveyor transfer point 0.66% 3 3.Id(P-59UW 4.6NIU' 5
(granite)` (6.1x10-5-1.2x1O`) (9.2-cff')
Conveyor transfer point 0.33`n 3 0.000.37-0.00081 0.OWS_3 5
( anitc)d (0.00074.0.0016) (O.WlI)
22
T XBL6 1. (continued)
Source (material) overage \'o of Duission faLtor Average Ref
material tcsi nine range, kg':vlg(lb/ton) emission No,
morsnue factor,
content b kgilvlg
(lbhon)
Conveyor transfer point 1 11,70 3 9,OxI0 ?6x10'5 1.5x10-5 5
(granite)` (1.8x10'5-5.lx1(Ys) (3.0- l(TS)
Conveyor transfer porn 0 29% 3 0.0013-0.0016 0.0015 6
(granite)d (00025-0.0033) (01)(29)
Conveyor transfer point 2.672% 3 6.Ox10°-95xW 0.75x10" 6
(granite)` (1.2x10-5-19x10-5) (I.5x10")
Tertiary crushing 0.8s% 3 0.00092-0.0030 00015 7
(limestone) (0-0018- 'Owl) (0.W39)
Tertiary crushing 2.(Mv 3 O-OW33-0.00083 0.00053 7
(limestone) (000066-0.0017) (00011)
Screening(limestone) 0.88% 3 0.0033-0.017 0.0092 7
(0,0067-0.033) (0,018)
Screening(limestone) 2.07'S 3 0.00032-0.0011 0.00061 7
(0.0006 0.00"'_3) (0.0012)
Tertiary crushing 0.67'o 3 0.()0039-0.00065 0.00052 8
(limestone) (0.00079-0.()U13) (0.0010)
Tertiary crushing I44I c 3 0-00M53-0000095 O.WW74 8
(limestone) (0.00011-0.OWI9) (0.00015)
Screening(limestone) 067% 3 0.0033-0.00r36 0.0035 8
(0.0067-0.0073) (0 0069)
Screening(limestone) 1.44% 3 0.00024-0.00030 0.00027 8
(00)039-000059) (0.00057
Tertiarycnuhing I.02% 3 000014-0.00029 0.00018 15
(granite)` (0.00028-0.OW44) (0-00036)
Screening(granite)` 0.45°o 3 0,M)IO-0.00024 0-00014 15
(0.00020-0.0004'3) (0.00028)
Conveyor transfer point 0,-P-% 3 0.000010-0,000026 0.000021 15
(granite)` 0.WOQ32-0.000052) (0.0004I2)
FinesLrashing` 0.73% 3 0.00010-0.00031 000016 15
(0.OW20-0.00041) (O.O(M1)
'Emission factors arc in unite of material throughput(prncuss)unleee noted.
"Momure eonrcm a1.5nu indicates uncontrolled and a 1 5''o indicates controlled emissions unless other�irsc
indicated.
` Moisture controlled rests
ytolmare uncontrolled tests
23
TABLE 2. SUXfXL\RY OF P%I-10 EAfISSION FACTORS
FROM CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING OPER.#TIONS '
(Factors re resent uncontrolled emissions unless noted.)
Process(SCC) No of Average emission Emission Ref. Nos.
tests factoi,A+ltvh+(lb,ton) factor eating
Screening 4 00043((),(1086) C 1,3,7,8
(3.05.(20.(r:CB)
Screening with wet suppression 5 00W37(0.00073) C 1,3,7,8,
(3-05-D20-02,-03) 15
Tertiary crushing 4 0 W 1_2(O(KP-4) C 2,3,7,8
(3.0.7W20-03)
Tertiary crushing with wet suppression 5 0.00027(000054) C 2.3.7.8,
(3-05-020-03) 15
Fincv crushing 1 0.00-75(0015) E 4
(3-05-030-0s)
Fincs crushing with wet$uppremion 2 C10W6(0.0012) 1; 4, 15
(3-05 M"5)
Fines vcrnening 1 0036((IWI) I: 4
(3.05.020.02,•03)
Fines screening with wet suppression 1 0,0011(0.0cr-1) E 4
(3.05020-02.03)
Conveyor transfer point 3 00W5.5(0 W11) D 5,6,
(3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer poi nt w i th wet 5 23x10`(4.Sx10"`) C
Su remon(3.05.0204
"Emission factors are in units of material throughput(process)unlcns nolud
24
T 1BLE3 SLI;ufTv(.\FY'OF E�(15510N Dp I?.I Ult E'tvl L-'h11SSIONS PRU1\f
CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING TFSP REPORTS'
Data Raring, C(unless otherwise noted)
Source (material) Average No. of Emission factor rank, Average emission Ref
material test kgg,%[g(lb%ton) factor,k,-Al- No.
moisture runs (lb/ton)
content b
Tertiary crushing 0.794-o 3 0,021-0,045 0.037 3
(granite) (0.043-0.091) (0.074)
Tertiary crushing 1.79% 3 0.0001(>0.00071 0.000I-1 3
(granite) (000032-0.0014) (000087)
Screening(granite) 0.70% 3 0.062-0.16(0,12-031) 0.097(0,19) 3
Screening(granite) 1.78% 3 OAX)96-0.0018 0.0015 3
(0.0019-0,0035) (00029)
rues cnusshing(granite) 0.97% 3 0.13-0.58(0.26- 1.2) 036(0.72) 4
Fines crushing(grtnite) 1.92% 3 0.065-0 It (0.13-013) 0,067(0,13) 4
Fines screening(granite) ¢1.5% 3 0.11-0.18(02-1-0.37) 0.15(0.30) 4
Fines screening(granite) 1.680/n 3 0.00096-0.00-:7 00018 4
(0.0019-0.0054) (0.0036)
Conveyor trnasferpoint 0.27% 3 0.0012-0.0033 0.0015 5
(a ante) (0.0023-0.00O (0.0031)
Conveyor transfer point 0.66% 3 0 000093-0.00019 0.00014 5
(granite) (0.00019-0.00037 ) (0.00028)
Conveyor transfer point 0.33% 3 0 0054-0,0067 0.0078 5
(granite) (0.011 0.017) (0.014)
Conveyor transfer point 1.11% 3 O.WOD23-0.0000Cx5 0.000038 5
(granite) (0 0000460.00013) (0.000076)
Conveyor transfer point 029�c 3 0,033-0.036 0.034 6
(granite) (0.066-0.(171) (01069)
Conveyor transfer point 2.62% 3 O.00W 13-0.000(r-5 0.000019 6
(granite) (f1.000)2(rO.WW50) (0.000CLIS)
Conveyor transfer point 0 2Wo 3 0 014-0 035 0.028 6
(granite)` (0029-0.069) (0.05-5)
Conveyor transfer point 2.62% 3 0.(XMii-0.000081 0,00004 6
(granite) (000W23-0.00016) (0.00008)
Tertiary malting 0.88% 3 0,0032.0.012 0.0073 7
(limestone) (0.0064-0,013) (0.015)
Tertiary crushing 2.07"o 3 0,00067-0.0022 0,0013 7
(limestone) (00013-0.00.43) (0.0035)
Screening(limestone) 0.88 6 3 0.016-0,10 0.073 7
(0 032-0.21) (0.15)
Scmentng(linestone) 2.07% 3 0.0020-0014 0.0062 7
(0.0040-0029) (0.012)
Tertiary crushing 0.670 3 0.000"0.014 0,0096 8
(limestone) (O.W13-0.027) (0,0190)
25
Tertiary clvshing 1.44% 3 0.00042-0.00074 0.0064 8
(limestone) ((1.00(x"wis) (0.0013)
Semeninc(fintcstone) 0.67'o 3 0012-0.052 uV 8
(0,025.0,10) (0.074)
Screening(limestone) 1 4 4% 3 0001Cr0.0021 0.0019 8
(0.0031-0.0043) (0.0037)
Conveyor transfer point 3 1.O..XlW_2.Ox10" 1.3x10 9
0imcstonc)61 (2.0c10-5-40x10') (3.0x10)
Primary crushing 3 0.00010-0,00065 0.00035 9
(limestone) (0.000-0-0.0013) (0.00070)
Screening (11mC5tnne) 3 1.Ox10 -0001 0.00037 9
(2.oxio's-0.002) (0.00074)
Scroemng 9 0,013-0,17 0.059 10
(0.025-0.33) (0,118)
Screening 1.5% 9 0.0011-0.037 0.0031 10
(0,0022-0073) (00061)
Screening 1.5% 9 0.0007-0.0009 0,0008 10
(0.0n1-4-0.0018) (0.0016)
'Emission factor arc in units of material throughput(process)unless noted.
"Moisture content¢1.5%indicates unconlrollud and a1 57o mdicamS contolled eminnions unlms orherwine
indicated
`Data are A-rated
'Data are C-rated unless othermt a indicated.
`Material motstnre content is assumed to be low because wet suppression"an not used
'Data include emissions from three different types of screens.
F Moisture controlled
,Nfoi�turu uncontrolled,
jTest data were not usccl in calculation of cmts�ton factors
26
TABLF 4. St iMN IARI"OF PN 1 EMISSION F.\CTORS
LTONI CRL'SI-IED STONE PPUCESSINC OPIZLkTIONS '
(Factors represent unconholled eim4sium unless noted.)
Procehh(S('('.) No of .lverage emission factor,kgi Mg(Ihllon) Emission Ref.Nos.
tests factor
ratio
Screening°e 4 PNI-30=O008C3(0,0166) L 1.3.7.8
(3-0503U-U3,-t17) PNI=-T=00101(00202) (Fig. 1)
PM-100=0 0125(0 02-SO)
Screening with wet suppression t, 6 PNI-30=0 0 )7(0.O014) E 1,3,7,8
PNI-50=0.01W(00017) (rg I)
PNI-100=0 W11(00021)
Tertiary crushing" 3 PNf-30=0.0018(00(136) E 3,7,8
(3.O5(OM0-03) PNl_50=O.IXr25(0.00 49) (Fig.2)
PNl-1 W=0.0027(O.0054)
Tertiary cruvhing with wet 4 PNI-30=0.W09(O.W08) E 3,7,8
supprehhinn" PNI_50=0.0(m(0,0011) (Fig,2)
(3-O5,M)MI3) PM-t0(1=0(ff6(0.W 12)
Fines crushing` I PN130�OA13O(U U?6U) E 4(Fi 2.3)
(3-05420-0.7 PN 1-50=0 Ol(13(0 M2 7
FN 1.1 W=0 0195(0.0390)
Imes crushing with wet 2 PM-30=0W I1 (o0020) 1: 4(Fiig,3)
auppresvion` PN1_50=00013(00035)
(3-05-cr—-05) PNI-l00=0.0015(OOMO)
Fi nub screening 1 015(U.30) E 4(Table 3)
(3.05-(P-O 2,-03)
Fines screening with wet 1 OW18(0.W36) E 4('I'ahle3)
suppression(3-0-5-020-M,-03)
Conveyor ran-4fur point' 3 PNI-30=0d1010(0 W20) E 5,6, 15 (Fi,.
(3-O5020.06) PM-50=0.0014(U.(X)27) 4)
PNI-1 W=0 W 15(0.IXn9)
Conveyor transfer point with wet -1 PNI-30=O.(A1W3(O.M)CS) E i,6,15 (Fig
suppression[(3-05-020-06) PNl-5U=aoocn5(000011) 4)
FNf-1(IO=0 00006(O.W013)
"Emission factors are in units of material duoughput(process) unless noted.
6Data from references 9 and 10 not included
`.PNf emission factors (controlled)calculated usame Fig-tire I. Uncontrolled emission factors calculated
based on wet suppression efficiency of 91.6%derived from PNI-10 data
PNl emission factors(controlled)calculated using Figure 2. Uncontrolled einission factors calculated
based on wet suppression efticienc) of 77.7% derived from PNI-10 data
OPM emission factors(controlled)calculated using Figure 3. Uncontrolled emission factors calculated
based on wet suppression efficiency of 923%dented front PNI-10 data
'PM emission factors(controlled)calculated using Figure 4. Uncontrolled emission factors calculated
based on wet suppression efficiency of 955.9% derived from PNI-10 data
27
TABLE 5. SLuNIN15LR7- OF EMISSION DATA FOR PNI--2.5 EMISSIONS FROM
CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING REPORTS '
Data Rating: A (finless otherwise noted)
Source (material) Average No. of Emission factor Average Ref No.
material test rims ni nge,kg/Nlg pb/ton) emission faLtor,
moisture kg/Ni,-(lb/ton)
content
Tertiary crusher 1.02 3 0.00005.0.00006 0,00005 15
(granite)b (0.(XXXY,)-0.00011) (0.00010)
Fines crusher 0.73 3 0 000025-0,000040 0.000(Xi5) 15
(gramtc)b (0.00005-0 00)08) (0.00007)
Conveyor transfer point 1,02 3 4.Sx10-7.5x10 65xl0-0 15
(_ anile)b (0000009-0.000013) (1.3x10-�
Screening(granite) 0.49 3 (000003-0.00004) 2.Sx10-, 15
(0.00004L0.00008) (0.00005)
'Frnisv ion faclory are in units of material throughput(procuw) unlcvs noted.
'Moisture wan controlled by WUt�Uppression.
28
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF Ph[-2-5 Eh11SSION FACTORS
FOR CRirSHFI)STONE PROCESSING OPERMONS "
(Factors represent controlled emissions unless noted.)
Process (SCC) No. of Average emission Entissum Ref. Nos.
tests factor,41M,a factor
(lb/ton) rating
Tertiary crushing with wet suppression 1 0.00005 E 15
b (0.00010)
(3-05-0-04B)
Screening with wet suppression 1 2.5r10-4 E 15
(3-05020-02-03) (0.(X100_�
Conveyor transfer point with wet 1 6 5s10' E 15
suppression b (13xig)
Fines cntshrng with wet suppression 1 0.000035 E 15
(3-05-020-05) (0 00007)
'Emission Factors are in units of matenal rhmughput(process)unless noted.
°Moisture was controlled by rNet suppression
29
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF EN➢SSION DAT-3 FOR PU-10 EN➢SSIONS
FROM PULVERZZR)\IINMAL PRCX ESSING TEST REPORTS'
Data Ratin : A
Source (material) Type of No. of rruission factor Average Ref
Emission test runs range,kg)Nlg(lbrlon) emission No.
Control factor,
kg/Mg
(lb/ton)
Grinding,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0.0m5-0.0015 0.0009 1&1
Filter (0.0010.0.0(r9) (00018)
Grinding Roller NO Fabric 3 0.00.34-0.0052 0-0040 16b
Filter (0 0067-0,0104) (0.0(w)
Grinding,Ilori/ontal Sall Fabric 3 0.0432-0,0478 0.0.459 16c
;VLII Filter (O.OKG Q w55) (0.0919)
Grinding,Verticad Ball Fabric 3 0&392-0.7714 0.6904 16d
Ni Filler (1.2784-1.5.428) (1.3808)
Classifier Fabric 3 0.0041-0.0072 0.0052 16e
Filter (00081-0.0144) (0,0104)
Flash Dryer Fabric 3 0,0070-0.0077 0 0073 16f
Filter (0.0141-0.0155) (0.0146)
Product Storage -Silo Fabric 3 0.0005-0.0U11 0.0008 169
Filter (0.0010-0.00•i3) (0.ml(l)
'Emission factors arc in unua of material throughput(procusa)unle4Y noted.
tnurtston data are classified as an oudier.
TABLES,SUNINL4RY OF 4'NI-lU EMISSION FACTORS
FOR PULVERIZED MINERAL PROCESSING OPCRATIONS"
(Factors re resent conmolled emissions unless noted.)
Pnocenb(SCC) No of Avurage omission Emission Ref. No.
tests factor,kg,'N1•(Ibrton) factai rannp
Grinding 3 001091o(L339) B 16a, 161),
(3-05-00-0-05) 16c
ClaaaIfyiug 1 0.0052(0.0104) E I&,
(3-0.}020-099)
Flash Drying 1 U.(IC17.3(00146) C 16f
(3-0�020-12)
Product Storage- Silo 1 0O(M lO.(1016) I; 16g
(3-U5.1(Y3-OS)
'Emission factors in units of material throughput(process) unless noted
30
TASLL 9. SUMMARY OF EMISSION DATA FOR PN I EMISSIONS FROM
PULVERIZED MINER.IL PROCESSING TEST REMRTS'
Data Ratm.. B(unless otherntse noted)
Source (material) Type of No of Emission factor Average Ref
Emission lest runs range,kg/Nlg(lb,ton) emission No.
Control factor,kg(Mg
(Iblton)
Grinding,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0.0012-0.00-10 0.0018 16a
Filter (0.0023-0.0060) (0-0035)
Grinding,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0 OO 75 0 0102 0.0088 16b
Filter (0.0150-0.0304) (0.0176)
Grinrling,HorizontalBall Fabric 3 O0T�1-O.0776 0.0760 16c
NO Filter (0,1463-0,1552) (0.1519)
Grinding,Vertical Ball Fabric 3 0.7�43M.8970 0.7976 16d
NLllb Filter (1.4915-1.7940) (1.5952)
Classifier Fabric 3 0.0084-0.0163 0.0112 16e
Filter (O.OlC0.432>) (0.0?25)
Flash Dryer Fabric 3 0.0116-0.0182 0.0153 161
Filter (00232-O.(1364) (0.0307)
Product Storage -Silo Fabric 3 0.0010-0.0057 0.0032 I6g
Filler (0.(xT (}00114) (O.00Cx3)
Grinding,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0 0052-0.0089 0.0068 17`
Filter (0.0104-0.0178) (0.0136)
Product Storage -Bin Fabric 3 0.0049-0.(X)89 O.O(178 is,
Vent Filter (00098-0.0195) (0.0135)
Grinding,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0.0057-0.0092 0.007$ I T
Filter (0.0113-0.0184) (0,0156)
Flash Dryer Fabric 3 0 0083-0.0145 0.0109 20`
Filter (0.0167.O.OZ90) (OA217)
Rash Dryer Fabric 3 0.0059-0.0149 0.0101 21`
Filter (0 0117-0(P-98) (0 mm)
Flash Dryer Fabric 3 0.0134-0.0246 0.0173 22`and
Filter (0.0367-0.0493) (O.Q145) 23`
'Emission Factors are in units of malurial throughput(proccs4) unlevv noted
,Eminston daru from the(ninding,Vertical Ball Mill classified as an outlier.
`Emission lest data arc rated A
"Emission test data are rated B due to the use of Method 201A to meaeure particulate matter.
31
TABLE 10. SU'vIN14RY OF P.'kR'I'ICUlAf E NI:a I-I'I22 EMT9SION FACTORS
FOR FULVERIZED NQNER\L PROCESSING OPER\TIONS'
(Factors re resent controllud muss Ous unless noted )
Process(SCC) No of Average emission Emission Ref.No
tests factor,kg/Nlg 0b/tan) factorratinn
Grinding 5 0(r202(0.GK4) D 16.1, 16b,
(305,030-05) 1&,17, 19
Classifying 1 00112(00225) E 16e
(3-05(r0-099)
Flash Drying 4 0.0134(0.0368) C 16f,20,21.
(3-0.�02(}12) 77 13
Product Storage 1 0 0055(0 a-M) E 16g
(3,05-IO2-05)
'Emission factors are in units of matenal throughput(process)unless noted*
32
TABLE 11. SUNINIAR1 OF EMISSION DATA FOR PNI-25 ENIISSIONS FROM
1'ULVERi7.ED NIINERkL PROCESSING TEST REPORTS"
Data Rating: A (wtless otherwise noted)
Source (material) Type of No. of Emission factor Average Ref
Ennssicm test tuns range, kg %lg(biton) emission No.
Control factor,
kg)Mg
amon)
Gdndir g,Roller Mill Fabric 3 0.(J00 -0.0007 0.0003 16a
Filter (00008-0,0013) (0.0011)
Grinding,Roller No Fabric 3 0.0006-0.0007 0.0007 16b
Filter (0.0012-0.0014) (0.0013)
(Inndrng,Ilorizontal Ball Fabric 3 0.0160-0.0176 0.0169 16c
Mill Filter (0.0319-0 a352) (0.0338)
Grinding,Vertical Hall Fabric 3 0.3211-0.3296 0.3250 16d
Null Filter (06-F32-0.6593) (0.6501)
Classifier Fabric 3 0.0017-0.0(r-4 O.OD20 16e
Filter (OW-35-0.00=49) (0.0041)
Flash Dryer Fabric 3 0.0035-0.0045 00042 16f
Filter (0.0070-0.0091) (0.0083)
Product Storage Fabric 3 0 000' 0 0004 0 0003 16g
Filler (0.0005-00008) (0.0006)
"Emission faclor4 are to units of material throughput(procus+)unless noted
TABLE 12, SUM M A PY OF PNI-2.5 EMISSION E4CTORS
FOR PULVERIZED M1NER4L PROCESSING OPERATIONS'
(Factors represent controlled emissions unless noted.)
Prccess(SCC) No of Average emieston Emission 2ef Nos.
tests factor,k 'NI (lblton) faclorratin
Grinding 3 O.0 X-0(0.0121) B 16a• 16b.
(3-05020.05) I&:
cla"ifyini l O.(1030(0.00411 E 16c
(3•of t-0-099)
Flash Drying 1 0 Mi-12(0OW) C 161'
(3-05-(C"12)
Product Sloragc 1 O,W(00006) E 16g
(3-0S 102-05)
'Emission factors are in units of malunal throughput(process)unless noted
33
Date. May 11, 1994
Subject. Background lnfonttation for Revised AP-42 Section 11.19.2,Crushed Stone Processing
Review and Update Remaining Sections of Chapter 8(Mineral Products Industry)of AP-
42
EPA Contract 68-132-0159,Work Assignment T-01
h1RI Project 4601-01
Front. Brian Shrager
To. Ron flyers
EPAEIB/EF,%IS (Iv1D-14)
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park,NC 27711
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandtmt presents the background iarnmtation that was used to clef clop the revised AP-42
Section 11.19.2,previously Section 8 19 2,on crushed stone pros cgsmg. Emrssm data from eight
emission tests conducted at stone(granite and limestone)processing plants were laced to develop emission
factors for various crushing,screening,and conveying operations, lhsenpuons of these teat reports are
provided in Section II of fins memorandurn In addition,the referenceq from the prcliouq version of AP-42
Section 8.19 2 were reviewed. Tables 1 and 2 present PM-10 emission data and the new PNl-10 emission
factors developed for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section. 'fables 3 and 4 present filterable Pk(enuasron
data and the new filterable Pn1 emission factors developed for inclusion in the revised AP-42 section. The
AP42 section narrative also was revised to include current lemmnolog) and industry practices. The final
AP42 section is provided as The attachment
11, DhSCIUVI'lON OF REFERENCES
A. Reference 1
This test report doctnnents an emission test conducted at a Martin Marietta stone crushing plant in
Raleigh, North Carolina. The test was conducted for the Emission Inventory Branch(EIB)of the U S
Enviromuendal Protection Agency(EPA)as part of an emission lest program undertaken to provide
emission dada on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor dev elopnieni. Uncontrolled and controlled
particulate matter less Than 10 mic.7rometers (ym)in diameter(PbI-10) emmssions from a Deisler vibmttng
screen were measured using EPA Method 201 N in conjunction with a track-mounted hooch system that was
used to capture fugitive emissions from the screen. The Deister screen consists of three vertically stacked
checks. The upper deck has a mesh opening of 2.86 centimeters(cm) square (1.113 inches [in.]square)for
the first 3.66 meters(in)(12 feet [ft])and 2.54 cm square
2
TABLE 1, SUMMARY OF EMISSION DATA FOR PXI-10 F„h1ISSIONS FROM CRUSHED
STONE.PROCESSINU'I FIST REPORTS'
Data Rating: A
Average No of Average
material lest Fmission emission
moisture nuns factor range, factor, Ref
Source(material) content° k'O/Ma(Ib/ton) kg/Mg pb/ton) No.
Screening(granite) 0 48% 3 0.0010-0 0075 0.0035 1
(0.0020-0015) (0.0070)
Screening(granite) 1.571b 3 0.(XX)28-0.00037 0.00031 1
(0.00056-0-(M73) (0.00061)
Tertiay cntshing(gr:mite) 0.4 4`'ie 3 0-00075-0.0010 0.00090
(0.0015-0.0020) (0 0018)
Tertiary crushing(granite) 1.77% 3 0.000 17-0.( )05-5 0-00042 2
(0.(X)OU-0.0011) (0,00083)
Tertiary cntshing(ganitc) 0.7056 3 0.0011-0-0031 0.0020 3
0.0021-0-0062) (0.0040)
Tertiary crushing(granite) 1.78% 3 0.000075-0 00019 0.00013 3
(0.00015-0.00037) (0-00026)
Screening(granite) 0 70"o 3 0.012-0.015 0.014 3
(0.024-0.030) (0 027)
Screening(granite) 1.78% 3 0.00049-0,00055 0.00050 3
(0 00097-0.(X)l1) (0-0010)
Fines crtrchnng(granite) 0.97% 3 0 0017-0 013 0.0075 4
(0,0034-0 026) (0,015)
Fines crushing(gramme) 1.92°0 3 0-00035-0.0013 00010 4
(0.0011-0.0026) (0,0020)
Fines screening(granite) < 1-3`0 3 O.O21-0.050 0.0-16 4
(0.042-0.10) (0,071)
Fines screening(granite) 1.68% 3 0,00060-0 0015 0,0011 4
(00012-0,0030) (0.0021)
Conveyor transfer point 0.27% 3 0.00010-0.00021 0.00014 5
(gratute) (0.00020-0 00042) (0.00028)
C:omeyor transfer point 0.66c7o 3 3.1x105-5.9x10' 4.6x10' S
( atute) (6.1x10-s-12x10') (9.2x105)
Conveyor transfer Ixunt 0.33�d 3 0.(M37-0.00081 0.00053 5
wile (0-00074-0.0016) (0.0011
3 3
Table 1 (continued)
Average �Io. of -average
material test Cuusston emission
moisture 12ms factor range, factor, Ref
Source(material) content6 k--ib1^ObIton) kg/Mg(Ib/ton) No.
Conveyor transfer point 1 11% 3 9.0e 10-b-2.6x10"5 1.5a10` 5
(granite) (1.8rx105-5.1x105) (3.Ox1O`)
Conveyor transfer point 039% 3 0 W 13-0 0016 O.W l5 6
(granite) (0,0025-00033) (O.W29)
Conveyor transfer point 2.62�u 3 94x106-1 3x105 1.1c105 6
(granite) (19x105-25xW) (23x105)
Tertiary crushing 0.88% 3 0.00092.0.0020 00015 7
(limestone) (0.0018-0.004I) (00029)
Tertiary crushing 2.07% 3 0.00033-0.00083 0.W053 7
(limestone) (000066-0.0017) (O.Wli)
Screening(limestone) 0 88% 3 0.0033-0 017 0.0093 7
(0 0067-0 033) (0.018)
Screening pimestone) 2.07% 3 0.00033-0.001 1 0,00061 7
(0.00064-0.0023) (0.0012)
Tertiary crushing 0.67°o 3 0.(X)039-0 0065 0.0052 8
(limestone) (0.(X)079-0.0013) (0.0010)
Tertiary crushing 1.4 % 3 0.00(X)53-0.(XX1095 0.000074 8
(limestone) (0.00011.0.00019) (000015)
Screening(limestone) 0.67% 3 O.W33-0 0036 0.0035 8
(0-0067-0.0073) (0.0069)
Screening(limeslone) 1 4 4% 3 0 00024-0,00030 0,00027 8
(U.00049-0.00039) (0.00055)
'Emission factors in tmits of material throughput(process)unless noted.
`Moisture content¢1.5°b indreatcs uncontrolled and>13q indicates controlled emissions
TABLE AIR-3: PM-10 Emissions From Rock Crusher
E• nmawd hock Daily Capacity(T ons) 4,000 tons/day
Note: This is a consernatice estimate;dte maximum expected throughput is approximately 2,000 tons'day
Calculation of PM-10 EMi KNioM
Source:5. AP-42,Fifth Edition,Volume 1, United States Environmental Protection Agency;Table
t 1.19.2.2
PM-10 Emissions[lbs/tons Uncontrolled Controlled
Primary Cai.hulg 0.00240 0 00054
Seconckvy Cruchi ng 0.00240 0 M05 4
Tertiary Crtrtihing a002-a0 0000u
Fines Crushing 0.01;OO 0.00120
Screening 0.M970 0.00074
Fines Screening 007200 0.00220
Conveyer Transfer Point 000110 0 M005
Truck Unloading-Conveyer 0.00010 000010
Total PM-10Emissron [I6s/Ton] 010410 0(YV91
Total PM 10 Emissions from Rock
Crushing[Ibs/day] 416.40 23.62
Controlled sources(with wet suppression)are those that utilize
current wet suppression technology.
4
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF PN140I�AIISSiON FACTORS'
(Factors represent uncontrolled emissions unless noted)
No. of Average emission F.ntission
Process(SCC) tests factor,kg,Nll-(lhlon) factor rating Ref. Nos.
Screcrung 4 0 0076(0.015) C 1,3,7,8
(3-05-020-02,-03)
Screening with wet 4 0.00042(0 00084) C 1,3,7,8
suppression
(3-US-020-02;03)
Tertiary crushing 4 0,0012(0.0024) C 2,3,7,8
(3-05-020-03)
Tertiary crushing with 4 0,00029(0.00059) C 2,3,7,8
wet suppression
(3-05-020-03)
Fines crushing 1 0.0075(0.015) E -t
(3-05-(20-05)
Fines crushing with wel 1 0,0010(0.0020) E 4
suppression
(3-05-020-05)
Fines screening 1 0,036(0.071) E 4
(3-05-020- )
Fines screening with wet 1 0.0011 (0,0021) E 4
suppression
(3-0S-020- )
Conveyor transfer point 3 0.00072(0.0014) D 5,6
(3-05-M0-06)
Conveyor transfer point 3 2.4-,10 5(4.8a 10'5) D 5,6
with wet suppression
(3-05-020-06)
'Emission factors in runts of material throughput(process)unless noted.
5
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION DATA FOR FILTER\ISLE PNI EMISSIONS FROM
CRUSHED STONE PROCESSING TEST REPORTS'
Data Rati g: 13(tmless otherwise noted)
Average No Average
material of Emission emission factor,
moisture test factor range, kg/Mg(lb/ton) Ref
Sourcc(material) content'' nuns kgiNlg(lbiton) No.
Tertiary crushing 0.70% 3 0.021-0.045 0.037 3
(granite) (0.013-0.091) (0,074)
Tertiary crushing 1.78% 3 ROW16-0.000r71 0.00044E 3
( unto 1 (0.00032-00014) (0.00087)
Screening(granite) 0.70% 3 0 062-0.16(0.12-0.31) 0.097(0.19) 3
Screeuin=(granite) 1.76% 3 O.O(]096-0.0018 0.0015 3
(O.W19-0.0035) (0.0029)
L111c;crosltin (granite) 0.97% 3 0.13-0.38(0.26-1 2) 0.36(0.72) 4
Fines crushing(granite) 1.97% 3 O 0650,11 (0.13-0 23) 0067(0,13) -E
Fines screening(granite) ¢ 1.570 3 0.11-0.18(0 22-0,3.7) 0.15(030) 4
Pines screening(grante) 1.68% 3 0.00CY96-0.0027 0,00t8 4
(0.0019-0.0054) (O.W36)
Conveyor transfer point 0 27% 3 0.W 12-0 0023 0.0015 5
( ante) (0.0023-0.0040) (0.0031)
Conveyor transfer point 0660a 3 93-,10-5-0.00019 0.0001E 5
(granite) (0.00019-0.00037) (0.00028)
Conn eyor transfer point 0.33% 3 0.005�0.0087 00078 S
granite) (0,011-0.017) (0,014)
Conveyor transfer point 1.1lc0 3 2.3x10'-65x105 38e10-1 5
(g ante) (4.6x10s-1.3xl0) (7.C>r105)
Conveyor transfer point 039T0 3 0.033-0.036 0,034 6
(granite) (0.066-0.071) (0,069)
Conveyor transfer point 2.62% 3 1.3x105'SxIO' 1.9xl0 s 6
( auitc) (2.6x10'-5.0xU1`) (3.8x10')
Conveyor transfer point` 0.290l0 3 0.014-0.035 0.028 6
(granite) (0.029-0.069) (0.0»)
Come eyor transfer point` 2.62%, 3 1.1x105-8.Ix10-1 4.0x10- 6
11 granite 2.3x105-I.6x10" 8.Ox10-'
6 6
Table 3. (continued)
Average No. Average
material of Luission emission factor,
moisture test factor range, kg/Nlg(lb/ton) lief
Source (material) content' rums kgAfg(lb/ton) No.
Tertiary crustung 0.88% 3 0.0032-0.012 0.0073 7
(limestone) (0.0o"o.023) (0,015)
Tertiary ctuslnng 2.07% 3 0.00067-0 0022 00013 7
(limestone) (O.W13-0.0043) (0,0025)
Screening Onnestone) 0.88% 3 0,016-0.10(0.032-021) 0.073 (0.15) 7
Screening(limestone) 2 07% 3 0 W20-0.014 00062 7
(0,0040-0,029) (0.012)
Tertiary crushing 0.674'o 3 0.0"0( 0.014 0.0096 8
(limestone) (0.0013.0.027) (0.019)
Tertiary cnkching 1.44% 3 0.00042-0.00074 0,00064 8
(limestone) (0.00083-0.0013) (0.0013)
Screening(limestone) 0.67% 3 0 012-0.052 0.037 8
(0025-010) (0,074)
Screening(limestone) 1.44% 3 0,0016-0.0021 0.0019 8
(0.0031-0.00-ki) (0.0037)
Conveyorlrtmsfer 3 10x10`-?.Oxio, 1.5xlO' 9
point'(limestone) (2.Ox10`-4.Ox10-5) (3.Ox10.')
Primary crushing' 3 0 00010-0.00065 0.00035 9
(limestone) (0.00020-0.0013) (0.00070)
Screening'(limestone) 3 1.0x105-0.001 0.00037 9
(2.Ox10 5-0.002) (0.00074)
Screenind 9 1 0.013-0 16(0.025-0.33) 0,083(0.17) 10
Screening' 1.54a 9 0,0011-0,011 0.0038 10
(0.0021-0.023) (0.0076)
Screening 1.AG 9 0 00070-0 021 0.0082 10
(0.0014-0,042) (0,016)
'Ltilssion factors in units of material throughput(process)unless noted.
'Moisture content al 5"'6 indicates uncontrolled and>1 5`''o indicates controlled emissions.
`Data are A-rated
`'Data are Grated.
`:Material moisture content is assumed to be low because wet suppression was not used.
7 6
Table3. (continued)
'Data incline enussrons from three different types of screens
8
TABLE 4. SUhIhIARY OF 1ILTERARI I PNI EMISSION FACTORS'
(Factor re present uncontrolled emissions unless noted)
No of Average emission Emission Ref.
Process(SCC) tests factor,kg'Mg(lb%lon) factor rating Nos.
Screening T 0.073 (0.15) E 3,7,8,
(3-05-020-02,-03) 10
Screening with Act suppression 5 0.0042(0,008I) E 3,7,8,
(3-05-020-02,-(A) 10
Tertiary crushing 3 0.018(0.036) E 3,7,8
(3-05-020-03)
Tertiary cncshing with wet 3 0.00079(0.0016) E 3,7,8
suppression
(3-05-030-(3)
Fincs cruslung 1 0.36(0.7?) E 4(3-05-020-05)
Fines crashmg with wet suppression 1 0.067(0,t3) E 4
(3-05-020-05)
fines screening 1 0 15(0.30) E 4
(3-05-020- )
)~mes screening with wet suppression 1 0.0018(0.0036) E 4
(3-05-0r0- )
Conveyor transfer point 3 0.013 (0,020) E 5,C
(3-05-020-06)
Conveyor transfer point with w el 3 0.000069(0.00014) F 5,6
suppression
(3-05-020-06)
Primary crushing 1 0,00035(0.00070) E 9
(3.05-020-01)
'Emission factors in units of material throughput(process) unless noted.
9
(1 in square)for the last 2.44 in(8 ft). The muddle deck has a mesh opening of 1.47 cut square(0.58 in, square),
and the lower deck has slot openings of 0.30 ern(0.118 in)by 2 54 cm (l in.) Ambient levels of PNI-10 were
quantified Lasing HiVol samplers,and the ambient concentrations were subtracted frcn i the Method 201A
concentrations to determine the actual emissions from the screen Wet suppression was used to control emissions
from the screen. Water spray nozzles are located on the cone}or underneath the tertiary crusher,at one conveyor
transfer point,at the top of the stream conveyor above the Deister screen,and on the inlet chute to the Deister
screen The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granite)during the uncontrolled and controlled runs
were a1.5 percent and>1.5 percent,respectively. Average materiel moisture contents are shown in Table 1. In
addition,sicre analyses were perforated on stone samples taken from the conveyor that feeds the screen. Silt
content of the stone as sampled(wet) was negligible,and the average sill content of the sample after drying was
3 35 percent. The relatively small amount of silt particles(C/5 yin)present in the raw material suggests that the
potential for PM-10 emissions from the material processing operations is law.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors were developed from the emission data and the
material processing rates that were measured during the testing. These emission factors are shown in Table 1
The emission factors presented differ slightly from the emission factors reported in the test report because average
production rates were used in The test report,whereas actual rim-by-rim production rates were used in the data
analyses presented in this memorandum. Tlhe data are assigned an A rating. The report provided adequate detail,
the test methodology was sound,and no problems were reported
B. Reference 2
This test report documients an emission test conducted at a Martin Marietta stone crushing plant in Garner,
North Carolina. The test was conducted for FIB as part of an emission test program undertaken to provide
emission data on stone crashing for AP-42 emission factor development. tTncontrolled and controlled PM-10
emissions from a Model I-W)Umnicone conical-type tertiary crusher were measured using EPA Method 201A in
conjunction with a quasi-slack systcm,which was used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher The
crusher reduces 8 9-to 10.2- m(3.5-to 4-in.) stone to 2 5 cm(1 in.)and smaller. The crusher inlet and outlet
each were enclosed and tested separately. Wet suppression was used to c(mtrol emissions fiom the crusher Water
spray nozzles are located on the conveyor undereath the tertian) crusher,at one conveyor transfer point,and at
the entrance to time surge bin and vubreting feeder. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granite)
during the uncontrolled and controlled runs were<1.5 percent and -1 5 percent,respectively. Average material
moisture contents are presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were perfoirined on stone samples taken
from the conveyor that feeds the surge bin prior to the crusher. The results of ere suers analyses are not
documented in the test report
uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 emission factors were developed from the cunssion data and the
material processing rates that were measured during the test These cnussion factors are shown in Table 1 The
data are assigned an A rating. The rclxm provided adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,mid no
problems were reported
C. Reference 3
This test report documents an emission teat conducted at Vulcan Materials Company stone crushmg plant in
Skippers,Virginia. The test was conducted for the National Stone Association to determine emission factors for
variotis stone crushing process operations. Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 and filterable PM emissions from
a cone crusher(tertw) rusher)and a Derietcr%ibratin.o screen were measured rasing&PA Method 201A in
conjunction with a quasi-stack and a track-mounted hood system,which were used to capture fugitive emissions
10
from the crusher and screen,respectively. The crusher produces stone that is 7.6 cm(3 in.)and smaller in size.
The Deister screen consists of three u ertically stacked decks. The upper deck has a mesh opening of
2 86 cm square(1.12a in. square)for the first 3.66 in (12 ft)and 2.51 cot square(1.0 in.)for the last 2.4 4 in(8
fl) The middle deck has a mesh opening of 147 cm square(0,58 in square),and the lower deck has slot openings
of 0.30 cm (0.118 in)by 2.51 cm(1.0 in). Wet suppression was used to control emissions from both processes.
Water spray nozzles are located on the vibrating feeder to the crasher,on the cony eyor below the crusher,and on
the inlet chute to the)]sister screens. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granite)during the
uncontrolled and controlled rims were ail percent and A 5 percent,respectiN ely Average material moisture
contents are shown in Table 1. In addition,siei a analyses were perforated on stone sarriples taken from a process
conveyor. The average silt content of the stone as sampled(wet) was 3.3 percent,and the average silt content of
the saniple after drying w as q 0 percent The relatively small amount of silt particles(¢7i Ern)present in the raw
material suggests plural the potential for PNI-10 emissions from the material processing operations is low
Uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 and filterable PM emission factors were developed from the emission
data gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are
shown in Table 1. The PM-10 data are assigned an A rating. The filterable PM data are assigned a B rating.
Athough Method 201A is not the reference test method for quantifying filterable PM emissions,the prescparator
and filter catch for the method should provide representative results for filterable PM. The report provided
adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and no problems were reported
D. Reference:4
This test report docuucnts an emission test at Nello U Teer~tone smashing plant in Raleigh, North
Carolina. The test was conducted for EIB as pan of an cmrsaon test program undertaken to provide emission data
on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development. i uncontrolled and controlled PNI-10 and filterable PM
emissions from a Model 1560 Omniconc cortical-type crusher(fines crusher)and a TD Seco vibrating screen
(fines screen)were measured using EPA Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-stack and a track-mounted
hood system,which were used to capture fugitive emissions from the crusher and screen,respeclvely. The
crusher reduces 2.5-to 1.9-cm(1-to 0.75-in.)stone to 0.476 cn (0.188 m.)and sunallcr. The screen consisted of
three decks. The top and middle decks were 2.22 and 1.43 Lin square(0.875 and 0 W in. square),respectively
The bottom deck had slots 0.476 by 234 cm(0.188 by 1 in.). The crusher inlet and outlet were each enclosed and
tested separately. Wet suppression was used to control emissions from both processes. Water spray nozzles are
located at the crusher inlet,midway through the crusher body,at the entghcr outlet,and at the conveyor transfer
point to the screen. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (granite)during the uncontrolled and
controlled rms were<1.5 percent and -1 5 percent,respectively. Average material moisture contents are
presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from the conveyor that
feeds the screen and the conveyor that curies the crusher product. The results of the sieve analyses are not
documented in the test report.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and filterable PM emission factors were clLvelopuf from the emission
data and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are tihown in
Table 1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating. The filterable PNI data are assigned a B rating. Although
Method 201A is not the reference test method for quantifying filterable PM emissions,the preseparator and filter
catch for the method should provide representative results for filterable 1'M The report provided adequate detail,
die test methodology was souutd,and no problems uvere reported during the valid lest nuns
11
H Reference 5
This test report documents an emission test at Wake Stone Corporation stone crushing plant in Vnniglntdale,
North Carolina. The test was conducted for EIB as part of an emission test program undertaken to provide
emission data on stone crushing for AP42 eiisszon factor development. Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and
filterable PM emissions from two separate conveyor transfer points were measured using EPA Method 201A in
cmiunction with quasi-stack systems,which were used to capture fugitive emissions from the two transfer points.
Wet suppression was used to control transfer pant emissions. Water spray no77les are located on the exit
conveyor underneath each transfer point,and at numerous other locations throughout the process. The targeted
moisture contents of the raw material(granite)dung the uncontrolled and controlled nuns were<l S Percent and
-1.5 percent,respectively. Ai erage material moisture contents are presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve
analyses were performed on stone samples taken from each of the conveyor lines. The averagge silt content of the
samples after drying was 1.4 percent for the first transfer point and 2 4 percent for the second transfer point. The
relatively small amount of sill particles(c75 hem)present in the raw material suggests that the potential for PNI-10
emissions from the material processing operations is low
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and filterable PNI emission factors were developed from the emission
data and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are shown in
Table 1. The PM-10 data are assigned an A rating.. The Filterable PM data are assigned a B rating. Although
Method 201A is not the reference test method for quantifying filterable PNI emissions,the preseparator and filter
catch for the method should provide representative results for filterable PM. The report provided adequate detail,
the test methodology was sound,and no problems were reported du nn.g the valid test nns.
F. Reference 6
This test report documents an emission test at a Martin Marietta stone crushing plant in Raleigh,North
Carolina. The test was conducted for the National Stone Association as part of an emission test program
undertaken to provide emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development. Uncontrolled and
controlled PNf-10 and filterable PNf emissions from a conveyor transfer point were measured using EPA Method
201A and EPA Method 5,respectively,in conjunction with a quasi-stack system,which was used to capture
fugitive emissions from the transfer point. Wet suppression watt used to control transfer point emissions. Water
spray no7.71es are located(m the exit conveyor underneath the transfer point,and at numerous other locations
throughout the process. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material(rgranile)during the uncontrolled and
controlled nuns were a1.5 percent and A.5 percent,respectively. Average material moisture contents are
presented in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from the cuuveyor. The
average silt content of the dried stone was 2.2 percent. The relatively small amount of silt particles([75 Nm)
present in the raw material suggests that the potential for PIvf.10 emissions from the material processing
operations is low.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and filterable PNI emission factors were der eloped from the emission
data and the material processing rates that were measured during The test. These emission factors are shown in
Table 1. The PM-10 data and the filterable PM(Melbod s)data are assigned an A rating. The filterable PNI data
from the Method 201A tests are assigned a B ratin.-,Although Method 201a is not the reference test method for
quantifying filterable PM emissions,the preseparalor and filter matches for the method should provide results that
are representative for filterable PNI. In addition,the emission factors developed from the Method 201A data are
similar to the emission factors developed using the Method-5 data The report provided adequate detail,the test
methodology was sound,and no problems were reported during the valid test nns.
12
G. Reference 7
This test report documents an emission lest conducted at Vulcan Materials Company stone crushing plant in
Bristol,Tennessee. The test was conducted for BIB as part of an emission test program undertaken to provide
emission data on stone crushing for AP-42 emission factor development. Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and
filterable PM emissions from a cone crusher(tertiary crusher)and a triple-deck vibrating screen were measured
using EPA Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-stuck and a track-mounted hood system,which were used to
capnve f4tive emissions from the crusher and screen,respectively. The crusher produces stone 7.6 cal(3 in.)
and smaller m size. The screen consists of three vertically stacked decks The upper deck has a mesh opening of
3,175 cin square (125 in, square). The middle deck has a mesh opening of 1.59 cm square(0 625 in. square),and
the lower deck has a mesh opening of 0.&15 cm square(0.25 in square) Wet suppression was used to control
emissions from both processes. Water spray nozzles are located in the feed hopper to the crusher and on the
conveyor below the crusher. The targeted moisture contents of the raw material (limestone)dining the
uncontrolled and controlled rims were r1.0 percent and _1.0 percent,respectively. Average material moisture
contents are shown in Table 1. In addition,sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken from a process
conveyor. The average silt content of the stone was 1.8 percent The relatively small amomrt of silt particles
(<75 fin)present in the raw material suggests that the potential for PM-10 emissions from the material processing
operations is low.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and filterable PM emission factors were developed from the emission
data gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are
shown in Table 1. The PNI-10 data are assigned an A rating The filterable P1v(data are assigned it B rating.
Although Method 201A is not the reference test method for quantifying Filterable PM emissions,the preseparator
and filler catch for the method should provide representative results for filterable PNI. The report provided
adequate detwl,the test methodology was sound,and no problems were reported-
H. Reference 8
This test report documents an emission test conducted at Vulcan Materials Company stone crushing plant in
Marysville,Tennessee. The test was conducted for) IB as part of an emission test program undertaken to provide
emission data on stone crushing for AP42 emission factor development. Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and
filterable PNI emissions from a cone crusher(tertiary crusher)and a triple-deck vibrating screen were measured
ttsmg EPA Method 201A in conjunction with a quasi-stack and a tack-mounted hood system,which were used to
capture fugitive emissions from the crusher and screen,respectively. The crusher produces stone 7.6 cm(3 in.)
and smaller in size. The screen consists of three vertically stacked decks. The upper deck has it mesh opening of
3.175 cm square(125 in. square). The middle deck has a mesh opening of 1.59 cm square(0.625 in. square),and
the lower deck bas a mesh opening of 0.635 cm square(0 25 in. square). Wet suppression was uu d to control
emissions from both processes. Water spray nozzles are located on the vibrating feeder to the crasher. The
targeted moisture contents of the raw material (limestone)during,the uncontrolled and controlled ins were< 1.0
percent and_1.0 percent,resp ectit cly. Average niutenal moisture contents are shown in Table 1. In addition,
sieve analyses were performed on stone samples taken front a process conveyor. The average silt content of the
stone was 3.25 percent. The relatively small amount of sill particles ticles (<75 ym)present in the raw material
suggests that the potential For PM-10 emissions front the material processing operations is low.
Uncontrolled and controlled PM-10 and filterable PM emission factors were developed From the emission
data gathered and the material processing rates that were measured during the test. These emission factors are
shown in Table 1. The PM-10 data are assigned an A rating. The filterable PNI data are assigned a B rating.
Although Method 201A is not the reference test method for quantifying filterable PNI emissions,the preseparator
13
and filter catch for the method should prof We representative results for filterable P.M. The report prof ided
adequate detail,the test methodology was sound,and no problems w ere reported.
I Reference 9
This docinnent, which was Reference I in the prey ious AP-42 Section 8.19 2,contains summary data from
several emission teats performed at stone crushing plants. Particulate matter emissions were measured at
baghouse inlets using EPA h lethod 5 sampling trains,and each teat consisted of three runs. Emission sources,
controls,material types,and emission factors for 12 tests at 5 plants were smnmarized in the document. Data
from several of the tests were not analyzed because process rates were not doc uniented. Data from nine of the
tests were not analyzed because they represent emissions from combined sources. Data from three of the tests
were used to quutnlify filterable PM emissions from a conveyor transfer point,a primary crusher,and a screen
(referred to as a secondary screen in the document)
The data that were analyzed from the three teal~described above are assigned a C rating. The test
methodologies were sound,and no problems were reported dit ing the valid test nms. I•Iowever,the document did
not provide one sal data sheets,and little detail about the raw materials was docnncnted. The raw material is
assumed to be dry because fabric filtration systems%were used for emission control. The data from the other lests
do not meet the nuninunu criteria for developing emission factors for inclusion in the revised AP42 section
f. Reference 10
This report,which was Reference 5 in the previous AP-42 Section 8.19.2,contains a review of emission
factors developed in several of the references described above In addition,data and emission factors from two
emission tests performed by Ergnecnng-Science are provided in Appendix C The emission tests were conducted
at two sand and gravel processing facilities,and the screens that were tested w ere honconla l screens. Data from
these two emission tests for primary,secondary,and tertiary screening operations are combined to represent all
screening operations,beeaLuu no consistent correlation between the level of screening and the magnitude of PM
enussion was established by the data. The quasi-slack method was used to capture fugitive emissions from the
screen tested at both plants. Both tests were performed ining wet unpingenient sampling trains (South Coast
AQNID Method)for total PNI,and cascade impactors for size-specific PM.
The PNf data are assigned a B rating. The lest methodology appeared to be sound and no problems were
reported during the valid test revs. IIowever, the report is a secondary reference,and does not provide sufficient
detail to warrant an A rating. The PN1-10 data are not rated because only single-run particle-size data arc
provided in the report.
K. Rcfcrcnec 11
This docwnent,which was Reference 2 in the previous AP-42 Section 8 192,exanunes the granite crttghing
industry and the potential environmental impact%of industry emissions. Topics addressed include a source
description,emissions,control technology,and growth and nature of the industry.
Emission factors for several granite crushing processes were developed using data from two granite
processing facilities. (hilt' stmmiary information is provided in the document,allhough details on the processes
and test methodology are provided. A CCA respirable dust monitor was used to sample PM-10 emissiots,and
enussion rates were calculated using dispersion models Emissions "ere sampled from several processes,
including dumping to the primary crusher,and secondary crushing and screening. The monitor was placed about
14
100 feet from the source being sampled. No emission controls(for the plants tested) were specified,and the silt
and moisture contents of the raw materials were not recorded
The data do not meet the minimum criteria for developing emission factors for inclusion in the AP—I^_
section. The test methodology was not acceptable because only one monitor was cared,and the monitor was too far
from the source during testing. In addition,no detail about the moisture and silt contents of the raw material was
provided.
L. Reference 12
This docmncnt,which was Reference 3 in the previous AP-12 Section 8.191,examines the stone crushing
industry and the potential environmental impacts of industry emissions. Topics addressed include a source
description,emissions,control technology,and growth and nature of the industry.
Emission factors for see oral stone crushing processes were developed using data from two traprock
processing facilities. Only summary information is provided in the document,although details on the processes
and lest methodology are provided. A GCA Model RDIvf 10 1-4respirable dust monitor was used to sample
13b1-10 emissions,and emission rates were calculated using dispersion models. Emissions were sampled from
several processes,including pnmay crushing and unloading,gecnn(Lu) crushing and screening,tertiary crushing
and screening,fines crushing and screening,and conveying. The monitor w•as placed about 100 feet from the
source being sampled No emission controls were specified,and the silt and moisture contents of the raw materials
were not recorded
The data do not meet the mirdmun criteria for developing emission factors for inclusion in the AP-42
section The test methodology not acceptable because only one monitor was used,and the monitor was too far
from the source during testing. In addition,no detail about the moisture and silt contents of the raw inatedal was
provided.
NI- Reference 13
This document is divided into four suctions,which are addressed separately in the following discussion
Section f discmges the emission study(sponsored by the construction ag9cpte industry)that was
performed by_lfonga nto Research Corporation(hiRC)and The Research Corporation of New England(TRC). In
addition, several conchnsionq abou(the control of fugitive dust emissions from construction aggregate processing
facilities were drawn from a comparison of AP-42, hfRC's source assessment studies,and the MRC-TRC sludv.
'these conclusions are. (1) A1342 emission factors are from 10 to 1Q000 tines higher than the latest(1979)
measurements of uncontrolled emissions; (2)haghouse emissions from aggregate crushing operations are often
higher than uncontrolled emissions(apparently due io the suspension of tine particles,which are nonna 113
associated with larger particles and are not normally released to the atmosphere); (3)the emission factors
developed by hIRC in the source assessment program sponsored by FP are within one order of magnitude of the
emission factors developed in the hIRC-TRC study,indicating that both data sets are highly reliable; (4) wet
suppression can achieve between 80 and 90 percent control of the emissions from crushers;and(7)wet
suppression is more efficient than fabric filters for controlling PM•10 emissions from crushers. To conclude
Section I,an ambient air quality study perfomied at a%and and gavel production facility in Colorado is
summarized. The study concluded that the sand and gravel processing operations did not have a detectable impact
on air quality
15
Section Il doaunncnts the h fRC study that rne(uded a compilation of emission data from tests at seven stone
crushing plants that processed a variety of aggrdales Tests were conducted on four primary crushers,sev en
secondary crushers,three tertiary crushers,and two fines crushers. Aggregate types included granite (one plant),
sand and gravel (two plants),traprock(one plant),and limestone(three plaits). One of the limestone processing
plants used wet suppression to control P%1 emissions. Emission factors for PNI-10 and PhIc50 yin were
developed for all of the proccssc5 tested and were presented by process,aggregate type,and control methods.
A GCA hlndel RDbI 101-4 dust monitor was used to detect fugitive PhI emissions downwind of the
process operations, The monitor was placed approximately 30 feet from the source during each tests. The "tincer
gus method°was used to detenllrnC the percentage of PAI-10 measured with the GCA hnstitunent that was emitted
from the source being tested. The silt and moisture contents of the raw materials were not specified.
The data from this testing program do not meet the minimum criteria for der eloping emission factors for the
revised AP-42 section because an adequate numnber of downwind monitors were not used dining testing. The
upwind-downwind test method,specifies a mininumn of five downwind samplers for a valid test
Section III documents the TRC study that included a compilation of emission data from tests at six stone
crushing plants that processed a variety of aggregates Tests were conducted on four primary crushers,six
secondary crashers,three tertiary crashers,and one fines crusher. Aggregate types included granite (one plant),
sand and gravel (two plants), traprock(one plant),and limestone(two plats). The granite processing plant and
both limestone processing plats used wet suppression to control PhI cnnissions. Emission factors for PM-10 and
PNI<50,um were developed for all of the processes tested,and were presented by process,aggregate type,and
control methods.
A GCA Model RDM 101-4 dust monitor was used to detect fugita c Phi emissions downwind of the
process operations. The monitor was placed approximately 30 feet from the source during each test. The tracer
gas method was used to determine the percentage of Ptif-10 measured with the GCA uastrmnent that was emitted
from the source being tested. The silt and moisture contents of the raw materials were not specified.
The data from this testing program do not meet the minimum criteria for developing emission factors for the
revised AP-42 section because an adequate nunmber of downwind monitors were not used during testing. The
upwind-downwind test method,specifies a minimum.of Five downwind samplers for a valid test
Section IV,entitled "Semi<annukal Report ambient Air Monitoring Program,Cannon-ERTL Site,"contains
no data that can be used for emission factor der elopment.
N. Reference 14
Tails report,which was Reference 4 in the previous AP-42 Section 8 19.2,is a compilation of ctnisgion
factors from 16 test reports. The emission factors from all of the reports were rated and combined by process in
order to dcm elop a single emission factor for each process tested. Data quantifying PM-10 enssions from prima•}
and secondary crushing operations(from NSPS lest reports)were not used for emission factor development
because adequate details about the test uuetltalology are not provided,and problems with cascade impactor tests
performed before about 1981 lime been reported. The other data presented in this document arc presented in
several of the other references described in this rer new,.
M. RESC LTS OF DATA ANALYSIS
16
Fnsission factors were developed for conveyor transfer points,screening,pr mary crushing,ternary
crushing,fines crushing,and fines screening operations. The only data atailable for second:+xy crushing were of
questionable quality and were not consistent with the ennssion tests included in this review. 'Therefore,the revised
AP-42 section does not include emission factors for primary and seconds) crushing of stone. However,the
emission factors for tertiary stone crir+hing can he used as an Lipper brit to pnimuy and secondary cnsshing
F•.missions generally were considered uncontrolled if the raw material moisture content was less than
1.5 percent and controlled if the raw material moisture content was greater than or equal to 1.5 percent" The
material moisture contents in the Reference 5 and Reference 8 emission tcstc did not reach the targeted 1.5 percent
for the controlled runs. However,data from these tests are consistent with data from other controlled tests and are
treated as controlled. Table 2 presents the PM-10 emission factors and Table 4 presents the filterable PNi
emission factors dev eloped acing the data from References I through 10" The PN1-10 cmiscion factors for
screening and tertiary crushing were assigned a C:rating because A-rated data froin four tests (which is considered
a sufficient mimber of tests to warrant a C rating)conducted at%r piial"facilities were used. The PNI-10
emission factors for fines screening and crushing were assigned an F.rating because data from a single A-rated test
were used- The PNI-10 emission factors for conveyor transfer points were assigned a D rating because data from
only three testa(conducted at two typical facilities) were used All of the filterable PM emission factors,with the
exception of the primary crushing emission factor,were assigned an E rating because Method MIA,which is not
the reference test method for filterable PNI,was used to quantify emissioils(Reference 6 included a Method 5 test).
The primary crashing emission factor was assigned an F.rating because it is based on a single C-rated test.
In addition to the emission factors described above,the revised AP-42 section includes emission factors for
wet drilling,and trick uniloachng and loading that were retained front the previom version of AP-42
Section 8,1)2. Although the quality of the data upon which these emission factors was based is questionable,no
other data on those s0arees were located during this rev iew.
IV, REFERENCES
I. J. Richards,T, Brozell,and W. Kirk,PA9-10I•:nus.rion Farrnrs for a Stone Crushing Plain Deirter Vibruring
Screen,EPA Contract No.68-DI-0055,Task 2.8 4,13. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park,NC, February 1991
2. J. Richards,T. Brozell,and W. Kirk, PA9-10 Emission Facanrs far a Slone Crushing Plam Tertiary Crustier,
EPA Contract No. (A-DI-0055,Task 2.84, IT. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park,
NC, February 1992.
3. W. Kirk,T.Brinell,and J. Richards,PA9-10 Emission Feavors for a Stone Cridshmg Plarit Deister Vibruring
Screen and Crusher,National Stone Association,Washington DC,December 1992.
4. T. Brozell,J. Richards,and W.Kirk,PH-10 Emission Factors for a Stone Crushing Planr Terrirzry Crasher
(Ltd Vibraring Screen,EPA Contract No. 68-DO-0122,U. S. Emironmentah Protection Agency,Research
Triangle Park, NC, December 1992.
5. '1' F3xoze1l,Pfl�-70 F.miSSrOir F(['inre/vr 7w(r (rr(rzs%Cr POIIILS(!!(L Ui"[L191IG Slone Cnzshnng Plcu'r1, EPA
Contract No. Ctf3-DO-0122,[r. S. Fm'tronmcntal I'rotechon Agency, Recearth Triangle Park,NC,,i,�tiisesry
I99-4.