0

0

1977 days ago,
823 views

PowerPoint PPT Presentation
"AP-42 Constant Drop Mathematical statement versus Stack Testing" Southeastern Area IV Allowing Workshop Tampa, Florida May 9-11, 2007. Sterlin Woodard, P.E. EPC-Hillsborough Province. AP-42 Ceaseless Drop Mathematical statement versus Stack Testing. Why Is It Essential? Hillsborough Area

"AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing" Southeastern Region IV Permitting Workshop Tampa, Florida May 9-11, 2007 Sterlin Woodard, P.E. EPC-Hillsborough County

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Why Is It Important? Hillsborough County 7 Largest Port in United States PM-RACT Title V/PSD Applicability-PTE & Actuals Rule 62-210(242)"Potential to Emit", F.A.C.- the most extreme limit of an emanation unit or office to discharge a poison under its physical and operational outline . Any physical or operational or operational impediment on the limit of the outflow unit or office to transmit a toxin, including air contamination control gear and confinements on hours of operation or on the sort or measure of material combusted, put away, or prepared , should be dealt with as a major aspect of its outline if the constraint or the impact it would have on discharges is governmentally enforceable.

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Why Is It Important? Title V/PSD Applicability-PTE & Actuals- Rule 62-210.370, F.A.C. requires the utilization of the most precise strategy: CEM Mass Balance EF based upon site-particular Stack Testing (eg. lb/ton) Published EF specifically relevant to the procedure EF based upon a comparative, however unique process

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Started in 2000 with Permit 0570094-003-AC @ IMC Big Bend Facility in Hillsborough County Scott McCann/Golder PM EF=0.00387 lb/ton utilizing M=0.5%; U=1.3 mph from AP-42, Section 13.2.4 (AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation) EPC Proposed PM EF-0.06 lb/ton from AP-42, Table 8.5.3-1 & EAT Stack Test PM EF=0.05 lb/ton

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing IMC consented to PM Stack Test in June 2000 Conducted by Dr. John Koogler on GTSP @ TP #3 Results: BH CE of 99% PM EF of 0.01lb/ton for oiled GTSP PM EF of 0.05 lb/ton for un-oiled GTSP Permit 0570094-003-AC issued with 0.05 lb/ton un-oiled PM EF for each Transfer Point

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Continuous Drop Equation: AP-42, Section 13.2.4, Equation 1 PM = k(0.0032)(U/5) 1.3 (lb/ton) (M/2) 1.4 U= wind speed (1.3-15 mph) M= dampness content (0.25-4.8%) k=particle estimate multiplier (0.74 < 30 m) Silt Content Range:0.44-19% Predictive EF based upon scattering demonstrating and Ambient PM checking. Just Measures up to PM 30

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Silt Content Missing From Continuous Drop Equation No huge connection with outflows 200 Mesh Screen (ASTM-C-136) <= 75 μ m Typical Silt Content (AP-42 Table 13.2.4-1): Limestone-1.3%-1.9% Coal-0.6%-4.8% Fly Ash-78%-81%

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Stack Tests: Based Upon EPA Method 1,2,4 and 5 Measures PM Usually Well Designed Permanent Ventilation & Capture System Permanent/Temporary Stack Sampling Platform

I. Phosphate Rock A. AP-42, Section 13.2.4, Equation 1 PM = k(0.0032)(U/5) 1.3 (lb/ton) U= wind speed (M/2) 1.4 M= dampness content PM = 0.74(0.0032)(8.4/5) 1.3 = 0.0026 lb/ton (3/2) 1.4 B. CSX Ship Loading #7 BH, 11/15/97 Stack Test On 67 BPL Rock PM = (6.07 lb/hr) = 0.0024 lb/ton (controlled) (2500 tons/hr) PM = 0.24 lb/ton (uncontrolled) utilizing 99% BH CE Scale Factor = 92 *PM @ 1,000,000 tpy = 1.3 tpy versus 120 tpy

II. GTSP A. AP-42, Section 13.2.4, Equation 1 PM = k(0.0032)(U/5) 1.3 (lb/ton) U= wind speed (M/2) 1.4 M= dampness content PM = 0.74(0.0032)(8.4/5) 1.3 =0.006 lb/ton (1.7/2) 1.4 B. IMC Big Bend TP #3, 6/17-19/2000 Stack Test On GTSP PM = 0.01 lb/ton (BH channel controlled with DS) PM = 0.05 lb/ton (uncontrolled) utilizing 80% DS CE Scale Factor = 8.3 *PM @ 1,000,000 tpy = 3 tpy versus 25 tpy

III. DAP A. AP-42, Section 13.2.4, Equation 1 PM = k(0.0032)(U/5) 1.3 (lb/ton) U= wind speed (M/2) 1.4 M= dampness content PM = 0.74(0.0032)(8.4/5) 1.3 = 0.006 lb/ton (1.7/2) 1.4 B. CSX Ship Loading #7 BH, 5/22/03 Stack Test On DAP PM = (0.23 lb/hr) = 0.00013 lb/ton (controlled) (1815 tons/hr) PM = 0.065 lb/ton (uncontrolled) utilizing 99% BH CE & 80% DS CE Scale Factor = 10.8 *PM @ 1,000,000 tpy = 3 tpy versus 32.5 tpy

IV. AFI (Mono & Dicalcium Phosphate-Triple Super Phosphate) A. AP-42, Section 13.2.4, Equation 1 PM = k(0.0032)(U/5) 1.3 (lb/ton) U= wind speed (M/2) 1.4 M= dampness content PM = 0.74(0.0032)(8.4/5) 1.3 = 0.00037 lb/ton (12/2) 1.4 B. Kinder Morgan-IMC Pt Sutton, 2/22/05 Stack Test On AFI PM = (0.11 lb/hr) = 0.00016 lb/ton (controlled) (684.9 tons/hr) PM = 0.016 lb/ton (uncontrolled) utilizing 99% BH CE Scale Factor = 43 *PM @ 1,000,000 tpy = 0.2 tpy versus 8 tpy

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Not All Stack Tests Are Created Equal: EPA Method 201A/5 utilizing Temporary Ventilation & Capture System Small 6 in Ducts Usually S-Type Pitot Tube versus Required Standard Pitot Tube for Small Ducts (<12 crawled in Diameter) Vertical Traverses Low Hood Capture Velocities Low Duct Transport Velocities EPA Method 201A/5 utilizing Well Designed Permanent Ventilation & Capture System Adequate Hood Capture Velocities-200-500 fpm (ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual & AP-40) Adequate Duct Transport Velocities > 2000 fpm (ACGIH Industrial Ventilation Manual & AP-40)

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Case Study-CEMEX AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation= 0.0011 lb/ton (U=5, M=2) because of a RAI, Conducted Stack Test @ Inglis Based upon EPA Method 201 utilizing Temporary Ventilation & Capture System ( 0.00087 lb/ton PM EF; M=7, S=0.7) Small 6 in Ducts S-Type Pitot Tube Vertical Traverses Inadequate Hood Design Low Duct Transport Velocities < 1000 fpm No VEs Permit Issued-EPC Used Worst Case PM EF of 0.031 lb/ton (Uncontrolled AP-42 EF fromTable 11.6-4 expecting 99% CE for BH & 90% CE for Water Spray) *Scale Factor=28

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Case Study-Martin Marietta Used AP-42, Table 11.19.2-2 for Crushed Stone 0.00014 lb/ton PM EF AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation= 0.0034 lb/ton (U=8.4, M=2.5) Based upon EPA Method 201A/5 utilizing Temporary Ventilation & Capture System @ MM North Carolina Facilities in mid 1990s Small 6 in Ducts S-Type Pitot Tube Vertical Traverses Inadequate Hood Design Low Duct Transport Velocities < 1000 fpm No VEs John Richards,P.E.,Ph.D.- PM 10 Permit Denial/Issued-EPC Suggested Worst Case PM EF of 0.055 lb/ton (Granite with water splash @ 600 tph and M =0.29%) *Scale Factor=393

AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation versus Stack Testing Conclusions: AP-42 Continuous Drop Equation Grossly Underestimates PM outflows up to Several Orders of Magnitude Previously Permitted Minor Sources May be Title V as well as PSD if throughputs are > 1,000,000 tpy Developer of Continuous Drop Equation-High throughputs=Major Source Recommendations: expansive Consistency Critically audit the sensibility of all EFs submitted in application Compare EF versus Stack Test Data Review Stack Test Review the Ventilation & Capture System Design as a component of PTE State Sponsored Stack Testing

SPONSORS

No comments found.

SPONSORS

SPONSORS