US Army Task N256 Scrubbers Technology

Similar documents
Environmental Emissions Testing for Foundry Binder Systems Sairam Ravi Metal Casting Center University of Northern Iowa

New Source MACT and Residual Risk at an Iron Foundry

Organic Hazardous Air Pollutant Emission Factors For Iron Foundries. Prepared by: Air Quality Committee (10-E) American Foundry Society

Recent New Source MACT Determinations and Air Quality Compliance Experience in the Iron Foundry Industry

Whiting Metals, LLC 2230 Indianapolis Boulevard Hammond, Indiana 46394

Iron and Steel Foundry Area Source Final Rule Summary

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Air Quality Program

World Water & Environmetal Resources Congress 2004 Salt Lake City June New Air Quality Requirements for Facilities with Boilers

Technical Support Document for Draft Air Emission Permit No

STATEMENT OF BASIS for NEWARK BAY COGENERATION PARTNERSHIP L.P.

e~~ny Co 4y~,. :. ~.. : ~ ~ ~.,. ~ ~ A AIR QUALITY PROGRAM th Street, Bldg. #7 Pittsburgh, PA

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AIR QUALITY PROGRAM. January 28, 2015

AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO IS ISSUED TO. Grede Foundries Inc. Grede - St Cloud Inc 5200 Foundry Cir St. Cloud, Stearns County, MN 56303

Emission Estimation Technique Manual

CASE STUDY #2: POINT SOURCE - FOUNDRY

Evaluation of Cumulative Risk from an Iron Foundry

EMISSIONS ACTIVITY CATEGORY FORM IRON PRODUCTION

ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AIR QUALITY PROGRAM. October 26, 2018

GEOENERGY WET ESPS FOR BOILER MACT APPLICATIONS

Current Topics In Air Quality

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Department ofenvironl11ental Protection. March 12, "'i\a...

TECHNICAL STANDARDS TO MANAGE AIR POLLUTION

Update on EPA s Rulemakings Affecting Biomass-Fired Boilers

SUNY Westchester Community College Air Emissions Permit Program Latest Revision Date January 2, 2016 Previous Revision Date June 12, 2015.

Essar Steel Minnesota LLC. Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Preparation - Public Information Meeting

Ohio Coal Association. Chairman

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

ROCK CRUSHING PLANT APPLICATIONS ADVICE

Orchard Hill Sanitary Landfill and Granger Electric of Watervliet, LLC SRN: N5719. Located at

STATEMENT OF BASIS. Cheney Lime & Cement Company Landmark Plant Alabaster, Alabama Shelby County Facility No

PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY

PTE. Potential to Emit

SECONDARY NON-FERROUS METALS PROCESSING AREA SOURCE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE

2. How can the University have an expansion of the Cogeneration Facility without an increase in the amount of coal used?

IMPACT AND ANALYSIS OF NEW FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON INCINERATOR MANAGEMENT. Presented By: Jeffrey Layne HRSD Chesapeake-Elizabeth Plant Manager

The requirement to obtain a Part 70 operating permit under this rule shall not apply to:

ASA Bloomingburg, LLC. Air permit-to-install (PTI) number Public Hearing Date April 18, 2006 Comment Period End Date April 25, 2006

SWCAA Emission Inventory Instructions

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Source Inspection Report

Clean Air Act 101 Air Toxics

AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO IS ISSUED TO. COLD SPRING GRANITE COMPANY 202 South 3rd Avenue Cold Spring, Stearns County, MN 56320

Emission Control Technology Review for NorthMet Project Processing Plant RS58A

EPA's Proposed Air Pollution Standards for the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Preliminary Analysis September 2011

PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEW SUMMARY

INDUSTRIAL STAKEHOLDERS GROUP (ISG) MEETING MINUTES February 19, 2010

Attachment 1A Athol Corp. - CAM Plan

AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO IS ISSUED TO. ST. PAUL BRASS AND ALUMINUM FOUNDRY 954 West Minnehaha Avenue St Paul, Ramsey County, MN 55104

TO INTERESTED PARTIES: RE: Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company Expansion

EPA Regulation: Utility MACT Proposal

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. November 8, PERMIT TO INSTALL No A

Comments on Draft Permit #12-POY-079. FTS International Proppants, LLC. Acadia, Trempealeau, Wisconsin. March 15, 2013

Workgroup Recommendations and Other Potential Control Measures Homes and Restaurants Workgroup

AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO IS ISSUED TO AMERICAST TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Pollution Control Agency

EPA S MACT RULE FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTORS. Fredric D. Chanania Chief, Waste Treatment Branch Office of Solid Waste U.S. EPA

TITLE V OPERATING PERMIT STATEMENT OF BASIS

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI AIR POLLUTION CONTROL PERMIT

Huber Engineered Woods, LLC, TV Page 1 of 7

6NYCRR Part 212 Process Operations

T-125 EVOLUTION OF THERMAL REMEDIATION. Technical Paper T-125. EVOLUTION OF THERMAL REMEDIATION by Wendell R. Feltman P.E.

Minntac BART Report September 8, 2006

2010 IEEE-IAS/PCA Environmental Workshop March 30, Robert McIlvaine McIlvaine Company

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. January 26, NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMIT TO INSTALL No.

SUPPLEMENT TO PERMIT NO Connolly North America, Inc Oakland Park Boulevard Highland Park, Michigan August 10, 2000

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Division RENEWABLE OPERATING PERMIT STAFF REPORT. General Motors LLC - Orion Assembly Plant

Can your unit pass a Particulate Emission Compliance Test?

Arkansas Department of pollution Control and Ecology Division of Air Pollution Control. Summary Report Relative to Permit Application

I. CLEAN AIR ACT 103 AND 105 THE GRANT CARROT. 1. Agencies must be qualified. 3. Maintenance of effort required.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation (new Federal)

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. March 17, 2004 NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMIT TO INSTALL

Montmorency-Oscoda-Alpena Solid Waste Management Authority SRN: N8248. Located at Landfill Road, Atlanta, Montmorency, Michigan 49709

Permit Applications Table TABLE OF CONTENTS

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. November 19, 2009 PERMIT TO INSTALL B. ISSUED TO Musashi Auto Parts MI, Inc.

4.0 Emissions Inventory

Michigan Guide to Air Use Permits to Install

AIR EMISSION PERMIT NO Administrative Amendment IS ISSUED TO. Prospect Foundry, LLC

CHAPTER 4 A STUDY ON CONTROLLING POLLUTION IN IRON FOUNDRIES LOCATED IN COIMBATORE DISTRICT OF INDIA

PROPOSED RULE EMISSIONS OF TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS FROM ALLOY STEEL, CHROMIUM ALLOY, STAINLESS STEEL, AND SUPERALLOY MELTING OPERATIONS

Naughton Power Plant. Chapter 6, Section 2 Construction Permit Application. Submitted to the Wyoming Air Quality Division And Prepared by

SECTION.2300 BANKING EMISSION REDUCTION CREDITS

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUfION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY DIVISION OF A1R POLLUfION CONTROL

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality - Air Quality Division ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION FOR BOILERS

POTENTIAL TO EMIT LIMITATIONS FOR PART 70 SOURCES. (Adopted 6/15/1995, revised 1/18/2001 and 1/20/2011)

TITLE V SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION (WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION) APPLICATION REVIEW

Firnuently Asked Questir is rega 'ding. Act 1302 Implcmertation. Auzu-t 7, 2013

Effects of Using Causticized Lignite as a Seacoal Replacement on Mold Gas Emissions

Division of Air Pollution Control Response to Comments Proposed Rule Language Comment Period

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. July 24, 2015 PERMIT TO INSTALL ISSUED TO St. Marys Cement, Inc.

RULE Federally Enforceable Limits on Potential to Emit - Adopted 1/25/96

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AIR QUALITY DIVISION. February 3, NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMIT TO INSTALL No.

Implementation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): Opportunities for Public Participation

STATEMENT OF BASIS. For the issuance of Draft Air Permit # 1937-AR-4 AFIN:

Splitvane Engineers. Cokeless Foundry Technology. Splitvane Engineers

PERMIT TO INSTALL. Table of Contents

RULE 36 - NEW SOURCE REVIEW - HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (Adopted 10/6/98)

ESCO Corporation Portland 25-Year History of Major Environmental Air Quality Projects

GOVERNMENT of PUERTO RICO OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD

Curtis Davis, Chief Operating Officer, Generation and Marketing Allegheny Energy Supply. Governor s Energy Summit 2010

The DeMinimis changes will result in a net increase in permitted particulate (PM/PM 10 ) emissions of 1.6 tons/yr for the facility.

Transcription:

Casting Emission Reduction Program Prepared by: TECHNIKON LLC 5301 Price Avenue McClellan, CA, 95652 (916) 929-8001 www.technikonllc.com US Army Task N256 Scrubbers Technology Technikon #1256-211 This document was revised for unlimited public distribution and published on 6 May 2003 AMERICAN FOUNDRY SOCIETY, INC. Crada Protected Document 1

TECHNICAL REVIEW OF SCRUBBERS WBS: 2.1 REPORT ON THE TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE CAPABILITY OF CUPOLA WET SCRUBBERS TO MEET LIMITS TO BE IMPOSED BY FEDERAL USEPA MACT STANDARDS

Report on the Technical Review of the Capability of Cupola Wet Scrubbers to Meet Limits to be Imposed by Federal USEPA MACT Standards N256 Subtask 2.1 April 9, 2001 A. Summary The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) will propose the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) regulation for Iron and Steel Foundries in May 2001. This MACT will propose that foundries with more than a specified level of Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) emissions either reduce emissions below that level (to opt out of the regulation) or to upgrade/replace existing emission control systems to meet levels established in the MACT. This report reviews the ability of Wet Scrubbers on Cupolas to meet these new requirements. B. Background Foundry operations face many environmental and competitive challenges in today s regulated society. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments contained a set of mandates that includes the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) requirements. These MACT regulations, when promulgated, will require foundries to meet the HAP emission levels equal to the average of the best 12% of the industry. A foundry has to comply with the MACT requirements if they emit up to 10 ton per year of any single HAP or 25 tons per year of total HAPs. The Iron and Steel MACT proposed regulations are expected to be published in the May 2001 Federal Register. The final rule is expected by May 2002 with a compliance date of three years after the final rule. State Air Pollution Control Agencies are likely to start requiring MACT type controls or changes once the draft rule is published. After the Iron and Steel MACT has been implemented, USEPA will analyze the Residual Risk from foundries after MACT compliance is achieved and determine the need to further regulate the industry. The overall MACT rulemaking process has brought about a move to more accurately identify foundry Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) emissions. Many other initiatives aimed at reducing lowlevel ozone concentrations have also identified and targeted foundry emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). A percentage of these VOC emissions, both from core making and from pouring, cooling and shakeout, are HAPs that may be regulated through MACT. The Iron and Steel MACT Regulatory Process, as well as state initiatives in response to local air toxics and VOC regulations, have yielded a limited number of HAP emission estimates for different types of foundry processes. Consultants and stack testing contractors who did not fully understand the processes being tested or the appropriate test protocols have done much of the testing. This Page 1 of 4

condition has yielded many different emission factors for similar processes and added to the already difficult task of determining HAP emission rates. The MACT will propose that all melting systems must comply with an emission limit of 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf) of particulate matter (PM) after the control system. The USEPA has proposed to use PM as a surrogate for metallic HAP emissions. Additionally all dust collection systems, wet or dry, must have an afterburner system to remove the organic HAP emissions. Of all the limits in the proposed MACT, this will be the most difficult and most costly to comply with if the foundry is using older air pollution control technology. C. Objective The objective of this study was to determine if existing emission control systems used by foundries on Cupola melting furnaces could comply with requirements that will be contained in the proposed MACT standards. D. Procedure A review of the results of field stack emission tests performed on Cupola melting systems was conducted. This information came from the EPA Long Form questionnaire submitted to EPA by all medium and large foundries in the United States. Although the EPA requested stack-testing data from 485 foundries the data reviewed was all that was available. From the responses two types of dust collectors were determined to be the primary systems on existing emission control systems used by foundries: a) High Energy Wet Scrubbers (25 data points were reviewed); b) Dry Baghouse Dust Collectors (6 data points were reviewed). The data from these 31 stack tests was charted and reviewed by type of collection system and compared to the USEPA proposed limit. USEPA has esta blished that the top 12% of the operating systems had an average PM emission rate of 0.005 gr/dscf. E. Results Review of the available data indicates that Cupola systems controlled by wet scrubbers would not meet the proposed limit. Cupola systems controlled by dry collectors would most likely meet the proposed limit (6 test is not enough to statistically say that 100% could comply). Figure 1 depicts emission data from EPA Long Form submittals for these two technologies. Figure 2 depicts emission data from EPA Long Form submittals for each wet scrubber tested (25 in all). Page 2 of 5

From the data wet scrubber systems on Cupola furnaces cannot meet the limits that will be in the proposed MACT standard. Replacement of these wet scrubbers is an extremely expensive modification, which is estimated to cost between $5 and $15 million per cupola (depending on size of the furnace and plant layout). Foundries may not have footprint space available to build a large baghouse near the melting area. Weeks to months of production time could be lost during transition from the old system to the new system. At a minimum, transition involves tear out of the old system and installation of new ductwork and controls. It is estimated that 40 Cupola wet scrubbers systems may have to be replaced. At an average cost of $10 million per system this amounts to $400 million. F. Conclusions Wet scrubber systems on Cupola furnaces cannot meet the limits that will be in the proposed MACT standard. Therefore, a significant number of major source foundries will be required to retrofit wet scrubber technology with dry dust collector technology. Page 3 of 5

Figure 1 Average Cupola PM Emission by type of Control Technology gr/dscf 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 Baghouses Collectors Wet Scrubbers EPA Proposed limit is.005 gr/dscf Figure 2 Cupola Emission Data on Wet Scrubbers 0.25 0.2 gr/dscf 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Wet Scrubber EPA Proposed limit is.005 gr/dscf Page 4 of 5