Date:
June
2,
2003
Subject:
MACT
Floor,
Regulatory
Alternative,
and
Impacts
for
Particulate
Metals
Emissions
From
Miscellaneous
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Process
Vents
Miscellaneous
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
NESHAP
EPA
Project
No.
95/
08;
RTI
International
Project
No.
08550.001.011
From:
David
Randall
To:
MON
Project
File
I.
Introduction
This
memorandum
describes
development
of
a
MACT
floor
for
particulate
matter
(
PM)
HAP
emissions
(
metal
compounds)
from
process
vents.
This
memorandum
also
presents
the
impacts
for
the
MACT
floor
and
a
regulatory
alternative.

II.
Summary
of
Data
Our
database
of
information
from
responses
to
the
EPA
ICR
for
miscellaneous
organic
chemical
manufacturing
processes
and
state
permits
contained
information
on
PM
HAP
emissions
from
17
vents
for
8
processes
at
6
facilities.
Two
additional
facilities
(
No.
60
and
No.
88)
reported
phosphorus
compound
emissions,
but
since
phosphorus
compounds
are
not
a
HAP,
we
excluded
them
from
the
analysis.
Plant
no.
207
reported
chromium,
nickel,
and
cobalt
compounds
out
of
an
afterburner.
These
emissions
may
have
been
from
the
auxiliary
fuel
rather
than
the
process,
but
for
the
purposes
of
this
analysis,
we
assumed
that
the
metals
are
from
the
process
and
that
the
afterburner
achieves
no
control
of
the
metals
emissions.
Table
1
summarizes
the
HAP
metals
data.

III.
MACT
Floor
Since
only
six
sources
emit
PM
HAP
compounds,
the
MACT
floor
for
existing
sources
is
based
on
the
five
sources
with
the
best
performance.
Only
one
source
is
controlling
PM
HAP
emissions
using
add­
on
controls,
and
we
are
unaware
of
any
other
means
sources
have
taken
to
reduce
PM
HAP
emissions.
The
mean
performance
(
percent
reduction)
of
the
top
five
sources
is
less
than
20
percent,
which
does
not
correlate
with
the
performance
of
a
typical
control
device,
and
the
median
performance
is
no
emissions
reductions.
Thus,
the
MACT
floor
for
PM
HAP
emissions
from
process
vents
at
existing
sources
is
no
emissions
reduction.
2
Table
1.
Summary
of
HAP
Metals
Data
Facility
Process
No.
of
vents
HAP
Control
device
Uncontrolled
emissions,
lb/
yr
Control
efficiency,
percent
63
I1
1
Manganese
compounds
Spray
chamber
1,000
99.9
63
C1
1
Manganese
compounds
Rotoclone
8,045
98
63
C2
1
Manganese
compounds
Baghouse
415
97
91
1
2
Manganese
compounds
None
424
0
95
1
1
Nickel
and
chromium
compounds
None
155
0
139
1
6
Cobalt
compounds
None
15
0
198
1
4
PM10
chromium
compounds
Filter
3.6
0
207
1
1
Nickel,
cobalt,
and
chromium
compounds
Afterburner
3.2
0
The
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
is
based
on
the
control
achieved
by
the
best­
performing
source.
The
best­
performing
source
is
facility
no.
63,
which
is
routing
emission
streams
from
three
processes
to
three
different
control
devices.
The
97
percent
control
achieved
by
the
baghouse
(
fabric
filter)
is
considered
the
best
demonstrated
performance
level
for
a
similar
source.
Particulate
control
efficiencies
are
influenced
by
factors
such
as
filtration
velocity,
particle
loading,
and
particle
characteristics,
which
in
turn
vary
depending
on
the
processes
that
emit
them.
Variations
in
stream
characteristics
make
it
difficult
to
conclude
that
the
higher
reported
control
efficiencies
for
the
spray
chamber
and
Rotoclone
could
be
achieved
for
all
process
vents
that
emit
PM
HAP.
The
performance
criterion
for
the
best
performing
source
is
the
lowest
uncontrolled
PM
HAP
emission
level
for
any
of
the
controlled
processes
(
i.
e.,
415
lb/
yr).
Thus,
the
new
source
MACT
floor
for
PM
HAP
emissions
from
process
vents
is
97
percent
control
for
each
process
with
uncontrolled
PM
HAP
emissions
greater
than
or
equal
to
400
lb/
yr.

IV.
Regulatory
Alternative
We
developed
a
regulatory
alternative
for
existing
sources
that
is
consistent
with
the
MACT
floor
for
new
sources
(
i.
e.,
97
percent
control
for
each
process
with
uncontrolled
PM
HAP
emissions
greater
than
or
equal
to
400
lb/
yr).

V.
Impacts
Two
facilities
(
Nos.
63
and
91)
meet
the
threshold
for
control
under
the
regulatory
alternative.
Although
facility
no.
63
already
meets
the
control
level
of
the
regulatory
alternative,
3
we
used
the
emission
stream
characteristics
for
this
facility
as
a
model
to
estimate
the
impacts
of
the
regulatory
alternative.
We
assumed
that
a
single
fabric
filter
would
be
used
to
control
the
PM
HAP
emissions
from
all
three
emission
streams.
Using
the
reported
flow
rate
for
one
vent
and
average
default
flow
rates
for
the
other
two
emission
streams
at
plant
63,
the
total
emission
stream
flow
rate
was
estimated
to
be
1,130
scfm.
For
this
flow
and
an
estimated
gas­
to­
cloth
ratio
of
8,
a
pulse­
jet
fabric
filter
would
require
only
240
square
feet
(
ft2)
of
fabric
area.
We
used
2,000
ft2
in
the
cost
analysis
because
this
is
the
smallest
size
for
which
the
EPA
OAQPS
cost
correlations
are
valid.
1
We
assumed
the
temperature
of
the
emission
stream
is
ambient,
which
allows
for
the
use
of
inexpensive
polypropylene
bags.
We
assumed
250
ft
of
ductwork,
20
elbows,
and
3
dampers
would
be
needed
to
convey
emissions
to
the
fabric
filter.
We
assumed
that
the
fabric
filter
is
a
"
packaged"
system
for
which
the
installation
costs
are
equal
to
25
percent
of
the
purchased
equipment
costs.

We
assumed
that
the
PM
metals
emissions
are
from
catalysts,
and
that
the
emission
streams
are
routed
through
closed­
vent
systems.
However,
it
is
possible
that
a
hood
or
other
capture
system
would
also
be
needed
if
the
PM
HAP
is
emitted
by
manually
emptying
bags
of
raw
material
(
including
catalysts)
into
an
open
vessel.
We
assumed
operation
for
8,760
hr/
yr
to
be
consistent
with
the
operation
of
one
of
the
processes
at
plant
63.
We
assumed
that
the
captured
dust
would
be
disposed
of
as
a
hazardous
waste
at
a
cost
of
$
150/
ton.
As
shown
in
Attachment
1,
the
fabric
filter
would
cost
about
$
68,000/
yr
and
remove
about
4.3
Mg/
yr
of
PM
HAP
for
a
cost
effectiveness
of
about
$
16,000/
Mg
of
HAP
removed.
In
addition,
electricity
consumption
would
be
about
24,000
kwh/
yr;
generating
the
electricity
would
use
about
230
million
Btu/
yr
of
fuel
energy
(
coal)
and
increase
emissions
of
CO,
NO
x,
SO
2,
and
PM
10
by
about
0.2
Mg/
yr;
and
about
4.3
Mg/
yr
of
hazardous
waste
would
be
generated.
There
would
be
no
wastewater
impacts,
but
solid
waste
impacts
could
be
higher
than
4.3
Mg/
yr
if
the
owner
or
operator
elects
to
use
a
dust
collector
that
includes
water
sprays
and
discharges
the
collected
dust
in
slurry
form.
The
cost
per
Mg
of
HAP
reduction
would
be
even
higher
for
plant
no.
91
because
the
uncontrolled
emission
level
is
so
much
lower
than
for
plant
no.
63.
Taking
all
of
these
results
into
consideration,
we
recommend
setting
the
existing
source
standard
for
PM
HAP
emissions
from
process
vents
at
the
MACT
floor.

VI.
References
1.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
OAQPS
Control
Cost
Manual,
EPA
Publication
No.
EPA
453/
B­
96­
001.
February
1996.
Chapter
5.
Fabric
Filters.
Attachment
1
Cost
Algorithm
for
Fabric
Filter
A­
2
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST
SPREADSHEET
PROGRAM­­
FABRIC
FILTERS
[
1]

COST
BASE
DATE:
Second
Quarter
1998
[
2]

VAPCCI
(
Fourth
Quarter
1998­­
FINAL):
[
3]
110.9
INPUT
PARAMETERS:

­­
Inlet
stream
flowrate
(
acfm):
1130
­­
inlet
PM
HAP
load,
lb/
yr
9460
­­
Inlet
stream
temperature
(
oF):
77
Assumed
­­
Inlet
stream
temperature,
adjusted­­
pulse
jet
on
77
­­
Dust
type:
Metal
,..
­­
Inlet
dust
loading
(
gr/
ft3):
2.9
­­
Dust
mass
median
diameter
(
microns):
7
­­
Filtration
time
(
min):
10
­­
Dust
specific
resistance
(
in.
H2O/
fpm/
lb/
ft2):
15
­­
G/
C
ratio
factors
(
shaker
&
reverse­
air):
A:
2.0
B:
0.9
C:
1.2
­­
G/
C
ratio
factors
(
pulse­
jet):
Material:
9.0
Application:
1.0
­­
G/
C
ratio
factors
(
cartridge
filter
A:
2.1
B:
0.8
C:
0.75
D:
0.9
E:
1.075
­­
Cleaning
pressure,
psig
(
pulse­
jet
only):
100
­­
Fraction
of
bags
cleaned
(
shaker
&
rev­
air):
0.1
­­
Insulation
required?
('
yes'=
1;'
no'=
0):
0
­­
Stainless
steel
required?
('
yes'=
1;'
no'=
0):
0
­­
Bag
material:
Polypropylene
­­
Fabric
effective
residual
drag
(
in.
H2O/
fpm):
1.1
­­
Bag
prices
($/
ft2):
(
from
table
below,
for
bag
material
selected
above
only)
[
4]
Cleaning
Mech.
Bag
Diam.
(
in.)
Price
($/
ft2)
­­­­­­­­­­­­
Pulse
jet­­
BBR
4.5
to
5.125
0.53
6
to
8
0.60
Pulse
jet­­
cart.
4.875
0.00
6.125
0.00
Shaker­­
strap
5
0.88
Shaker­­
loop
5
1.01
Reverse
air
w/
o
rings
8
0.00
11.5
0.00
­­
Cost
of
ductwork,
($):
diameter,
in
1.00
straight
duct
cost
(
carbon
steel),
$/
ft
1.22
length
of
ductwork,
ft
250.00
assumed
elbows
(
carbon
steel),
$
each
36.33
number
of
elbows
20.00
assumed
damper
(
carbon
steel),
$
each
27.26
number
of
dampers
3.00
assumed
total
cost,
$
1,113
use
minimum
diameter
of
3
in.
Highest
value
among
3
streams
at
plant
63
rounded
to
nearest
inch;
assume
2000
ft/
min
minimum
size
for
costing
in
3
in.
dia.

use
minimum
diameter
of
3
in.
A­
3
DESIGN
PARAMETERS
­­
Gas­
to­
cloth
ratio
(
acfm/
ft2
cloth
area):
Shaker:
2.16
Reverse­
air:
2.16
Pulse­
jet:
8.04
Cartridge:
1.22
­­
Net
cloth
area
required
(
ft2):
Shaker:
523
Reverse­
air:
523
Pulse­
jet:
140
Cartridge:
927
­­
Gross
cloth
area
required
(
ft2):
Shaker:
1046
Reverse­
air:
1046
Pulse­
jet:
140
Cartridge:
927
­­
Area
per
bag­­
reverse­
air
(
ft2)
(
8­
in.
x
24­
ft)
50.3
­­
Number
of
bags­­
reverse
air:
21
­­
Area
per
bag­­
shaker
(
ft2)
(
5­
in
x
8­
ft):
10.5
­­
Number
of
bags­­
shaker
100
­­
Area
per
bag­­
pulse
je
Small
(
4.5­
in.
x
8­
ft)
9.42
Large
(
5.125­
in.
x
10­
ft)
13.42
­­
Number
of
bags/
cages
(
pulse­
jet
onlSmall
bags
15
Large
bags
11
­­
Area
per
bag­­
cartridge
(
ft2):
153
­­
Number
of
bags­­
cartridge:
7
­­
Bag
pressure
drop
(
in.
w.
c.):
Shaker:
2.67
Reverse­
air:
2.67
Pulse­
jet:
6.47
Cartridge:
1.43
­­
Baghouse
shell
pressure
drop
(
in.
w.
c.):
3.00
­­
Ductwork
pressure
drop
(
in.
w.
c.):
4.00
CAPITAL
COSTS
Equipment
Costs
($):
Item:
Cost
($):
Shaker
Rev­
air
P­
J
(
mod)
P­
J
(
com)
P­
J
(
cartridge)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Baghouse
29,097
0
14,788
16,633
0
Use
cost
for
2000
ft2
if
area<
2,000
Bags­­
small
921
0
74
74
0
"
­­
large
84
84
Insulation
0
0
0
0
0
Stainless
0
0
0
0
0
Cages­
small
0
0
90
90
0
"
0
0
121
121
0
Auxiliaries
1113
0
1,113
1,113
0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total­­
small
31,130
0
16,065
17,910
0
"
­­
large:
16,106
17,951
PEC($)­
base:
36,734
0
18,956
21,134
0
'
'
­
esc.:
46,743
0
19,340
21,561
0
TCI
($):
101,432
0
41,968
26,952
0
Packaged
system
(
1.25*
PEC)
($/
acfm)
90
0
37
24
0
==================================================================================
A­
4
ANNUAL
COSTS
($/
yr):
Item
Shaker
Reverse­
air
P­
J
(
modular)
P­
J
(
common)
P­
J
(
cartridge)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Oper.
labor
0
0
Supv.
labor
0
0
Maint.
labor
19,425
0
Maint.
matl.
19,425
0
Electricity
1,620
0
Compr.
air
297
0
Bag
repl.
137
0
Dust
dispos.
710
0
Overhead
23,310
0
Tax,
ins.,
adm
1,078
0
Cap.
recov.
2,521
0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total
Annual
0
0
0
68,523
0
ton
removed
(
98%
reduction)
4.635
($/
ton):[
6]
0
0
0
14,783
0
$/
Mg
16,295
ANNUAL
COST
WEIGHTING
FACTORS:

Item
Shaker
Reverse­
air
P­
J
(
mod)
P­
J
(
com)
P­
J
(
cartridge)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Oper.
labor
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.000
0.000
Supv.
labor
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.000
0.000
Maint.
labor
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.283
0.000
Maint.
matl.
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.283
0.000
Overhead
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.340
0.000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
S/
T
labor:
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.907
0.000
Compr.
air
0.000
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
0.004
0.000
Bag
repl.
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.002
0.000
Dust
dispos.
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.010
0.000
Electricity
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.024
0.000
Tax,
ins.,
adm
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.016
0.000
Cap.
recov.
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.037
0.000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
S/
T
capital:
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
0.053
0.000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total:
0.000
#
DIV/
0!
#
DIV/
0!
1.000
0.000
============================================================================
A­
5
RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN
GROSS
AND
NET
CLOTH
AREA
Net
Cloth
Area
>/=
(
ft2):
Gross/
Net
Area
Ratio:
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1
2.000
4001
1.500
12001
1.250
24001
1.170
36001
1.125
48001
1.110
60001
1.100
72001
1.090
84001
1.080
96001
1.070
108001
1.060
132001
1.050
180001
1.040
[
1]
Parameters
and
other
input
data
needed
for
this
program
can
be
found
Chapter
5
is
found
at:
HTTP://
WWW.
EPA.
GOV/
TTN/
CATC/
PRODUCTS.
HTML#
CCCINFO.

[
2]
Base
equipment
costs
reflect
this
date.

[
3]
VAPCCI
=
Vatavuk
Air
Pollution
Control
Cost
Index
(
for
fabric
filters)
corresponding
to
year
and
quarter
shown.
Base
equipment
cost,
purchased
equipment
cost,
and
total
capital
investment
have
been
escalated
to
this
date
via
the
VAPCCI.

[
4]
These
prices
pertain
to
the
bag
material
entered
above.
If
this
bag
material
is
not
available
for
a
baghouse
type,
enter
'
0'.
(
See
'
Manual,'
Chapter
5,
Table
5.8.)

[
6]
Total
annual
cost
($/
yr)
divided
by
total
particulate
captured
(
tons/
yr).
If
PM10,
PM2.5,
or
other
fractions
are
desired,
divide
by
ratio
of
PM10,
PM2.5,
etc.,
to
total
PM.
[
5a]
Total
equipment
cost
for
"
small"
and
"
large"
bags
and
cages
cases,
respectively.
[
5]
Cage
prices
calculated
from
"
500­
cage
lots"
cost
equations.
(
See
Table
5.8.)
in
Chapter
5
(
December
1998
revision)
of
the
'
OAQPS
Control
Cost
Manual'
(
5th
edition).
A­
6
BAG
PRICES
(
2nd
quarter
1998
$/
ft2)
FOR
SELECTED
MATERIALS
[
excerpted
from
Table
5.8,
Chapter
5]
*************************************************************************************************************************

Cleaning
Mech.
Bag
Diam.

(
in.)
Polyethylene
Polypropylene
Nomex
Homo­
acrylic
Fiberglas
Cotton
Teflon
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Pulse
jet­­
TR
4.5
to
5.125
0.75
0.81
2.17
1.24
1.92
NA
12.21
6
to
8
0.67
0.72
1.95
1.15
1.60
NA
9.70
Pulse
jet­
BBR
4.5
to
5.125
0.53
0.53
1.84
0.95
1.69
NA
12.92
6
to
8
0.50
0.60
1.77
0.98
1.55
NA
9.00
Pulse
jet­
cart.
4.875
2.95
NA
6.12
NA
NA
NA
NA
6.125
1.53
NA
4.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
Shaker­
strap
5
0.63
0.88
1.61
1.03
NA
0.70
NA
Shaker­
loop
5
0.61
1.01
1.53
1.04
NA
0.59
NA
Rev.
air
w/
rings
8
0.63
1.52
1.35
NA
1.14
NA
NA
11.5
0.62
NA
1.43
NA
1.01
NA
NA
Rev.
air
w/
o
"
8
0.44
NA
1.39
NA
0.95
NA
NA
11.5
0.44
NA
1.17
NA
0.75
NA
NA
