p.1 

OAR Box 1131 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

144) II-I-24 

Docket Number: 

A-83-22 

Printed 4/21/2008 2:34:13 PM Sheet 144 of 162 
P.2 

fi -&>-&=> u-x-*4 

-•-r-yT- -•"-••-TP-* 

GCA-TR-83-105G 

Prepared for 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ambient Standards Branch 

Strategies and Air Standards Division 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 

Contract No. 68-02-3804 

Work Assignment No. 15 

EPA Project Officer 

John Haines 

COST ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY 

ALTERNATIVES FOR LEAD NATIONAL 

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 

Revised Draft Report 

by 

William Battye 

Rebecca Battye 

Nancy Browne 

Michael Clowers 

Jeanne Eichinger 

George Viconovic 

July 1985 

GCA CORPORATION 

GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 
P.3 

7 1 

DISCLAIMER 

This Draft Final Report was furnished to the Environmental Protection 

Agency by GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, 213 Burlington Road, 

Bedford, Massachusetts 01730, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-3804, 

Task No. 15. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those 

of the authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection 

Agency. Mention of company or product name is not to be considered as an 

endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency. I 

ii 
P.4 

,-,-«••- ..r.-^fj^r.--

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

This report reflects the effort of many investigators over an 

extended period during which the data bases, methodological approaches, 

analytical assumptions and the standards to be evaluated have undergone 

considerable change. The authors wish to thank the following investigators for their participation in earlier phases of the study: Timothy Curtin, 

James Lent, and Buddy Newman. We also wish to acknowledge the guidance and 

contributions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) project 

officers on this study, John Haines and Robert Kellam. 

1X1 

/ 
P.5 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Acknowledgements iii 

Figures vi 

Tables vii 

Executive Summary x 

1. Introduction 1 

1.1. Purpose 1 

1.2 Study Methodology 2 

2. Lead Emissions and Ambient Concentrations 6 

2.1 Lead Emissions 6 

2.2 Typical Ambient Lead Concentrations Near Emission Sources.. 8 

2.3 Lead Concentration Distribution and Recent Trends 11 

2.4 Effects of Averaging Time and Average Lead Concentration.. 15 

3. Mobile Source Ambient Impacts and Costs 26 

3.1 Current Ambient Impacts from Mobile Sources 27 

3.2 Projected Ambient Lead Impacts from Mobile Sources 31 

3.3 Interaction of Mobile Source and Stationary Source 

Ambient Lead Impact 39 

3.4 Lead Phasedown Costs 41 

4. Generalized Study Methodologies 45 

4.1 Identification of Affected Industry Categories 46 

4.2 Selection of Baseline Control Strategies 48 

4.3 Estimation of Baseline Ambient Impacts 49 

4.4 Source Interactions 52 

4.5 Identification of Individual Affected Sources 54 

4.6 Control Strategy Identification and Costing 54 

4.7 Estimation of Lowest Cost of Attainment for Existing 

Sources • • 57 

4.8 New Source Costs 58 

IV 
P.6 

Table of Contents (continued) 

5. Industry-Specific Study Methods and Study Results 62 

5.1 Primary Lead Smelting and Refining 62 

5.2 Secondary Lead Smelters 68 

5.3 Lead Ore Processing 75 

5.4 Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture 80 

5.5 Lead Alkyl Manufacture 88 

5.6 Gray Iron Foundries 91 

5.7 Alloy Steel Electric Arc Furnaces 97 

5.8 Steel Electric Arc Furnaces 102 

5.9 Iron and Bronze Industry - Sintering 108 

5.10 Brass and Bronze Ingot Production 109 

5.11 Primary Copper Smelting and Refining 117 

5.12 Total Nationwide Control Costs 130 

5.13 Uncertainty Analysis 133 

6. New Source Controls 140 

7. Costs of Waste Oil Combustion Regulations 142 

Appendices 

A. Lead Emissions Inventory 146 

B. Raw Data Used in Predicting Mobile Source Impacts 153 

C. Sample Cost Calculation 158 

D. Costs of Industry-Specific Control Options and Techniques.... 167 

E. Identification of Battery Plants Affected Under Alternative 

NAAQS Levels 189 

/ 
P.7 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Number Page 

2-1 Predicted maximum quarterly average ambient lead 

concentrations around a large secondary lead smelter 12 

2-2 Average 24-hour concentration of lead at various 

elevations and set back distances 13 

2-3 Trends in mean maximum quarterly lead concentration of 

various monitor groups 16 

2-4 Trends in overall annual average lead concentration for 

various monitor groups 16 

2-5 Frequency distribution of monthly-to-quarterly lead 

concentration ratio for all lead monitors and for point 

source monitors 20 

2-6 Frequency distriubtion of monthly-to-quarterly lead 

concentration ratio for microscale and neighborhood and 

middle scale roadside monitors 21 

2-7 Monthly average lead concentration plotted against 

quarterly average 22 

3-1 Quarterly and annual average ambient lead concentrations 

at NAMS 03060013G01 32 

3-2 Relative total lead burned in gasoline (1974

 B 1.0).......... 32 

3-3 Maximum quarterly lead concentration at NAMS sites as 

a function of totoal lead burned in gasoline 36 

5-1 Conventional copper smelting process 120 

5-2 Sensitivity of NAAQS costs to Standard Level 135 

vi 

i 
P.8 

Number 

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

1 Nationwide NAAQS Control Costs For The Upper Limit Mobile 

Source Background xi 

2 Nationwide NAAQS Control Costs For The Lower Limit Mobile 

Source Background xii 

2-1 Estimated Atmospheric Lead Emissions For The United States, 

1981 7 

2-2 Typical Maximum Quarterly Lead Concentration Near Lead 

Emissions Sources 9 

2-3 Frequency Distributions of Maximum Quarterly Lead 

Concentrations By Site-Type 14 

2-4 Properties of The Distribution of Maximum Quarterly Lead 

Concentration For Various Site Types 17 

2-5 Lead Concentration Trends For 1980 to 1983 18 

2-6 Monthly-To-Quarterly Average Concentration Ratios For 

Various Lead Monitors Categories 23 

2-7 Monthly Concentration Limits Equivalent To The Quarterly 

NAAQS Levels, In Terms of Allowed Average Concentration 23 

2-8 Daily-To-Quarterly And Daily-To-Monthly Concentration For 

Different Monitor Types 25 

2-9 Monthly Concentration Limits Equivalent To The Quarterly 

NAAQS Levels, In Terms of Expected Daily Concentration 25 

3-1 Site Parameters And Ambient Lead Data For Selected 

Miscroscale NAMS 28 

3-2 Site Parameters and Ambient Lead Data For Selected 

Middlescale NAMS 29 

3-3 Site Parameters and Ambient Lead Data for Selected 

Neighborhood Scale NAMS 30 

3-4 Lead Burned In Gasoline 35 

v n 
P.9 

List of Tables (continued) 

3-5 Projected Lead In Gasoline and Ambient Lead Impacts From 

Mobile Sources 40 

4-1 Current Capacity Utilization and Growth Rates For 

Industries Affected by the NAAQS Alternatives 59 

5-1 Nationwide NAAQS Costs For Primary Lead Smelters and 

Refineries 69 

5-2 Controlled Emission Factors and Source-Receptor 

Coefficients For Secondary Lead Smelting 73 

5-3 Nationwide NAAQS Costs For Secondary Lead Smelters 

(October 1984 Dollars) 76 

5-4 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts From Lead Ore 

Processing 79 

5-5 NAAQS Controls Costs For The Lead Ore Processing Industry 

(October 1984 Dollars) 81 

5-6 Estimated Breakdown of Battery Plants By Size Range and 

Control Status 84 

5-7 Emission Factors For Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture 85 

5-8 Nationwide NAAQS Costs For The Lead Acid Battery 

Manufacturing (October 1984 Dollars) 89 

5-9 Nationwide NAAQS Controls Costs For The Lead-Alkyl 

Production (October 1984 Dollars) 92 

5-10 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts For Gray Iron 

Foundry Cupola Furnaces 96 

5-11 NAAQS Controls Costs For The Gray Iron Foundry Industry 

(October 1984 Dollars) 98 

5-12 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts For Alloy Steel 

Electric Arc Furnaces 101 

5-13 Nationwide NAAQS Costs For Alloy Steel EAFs (October 1984 

Dollars ) 103 

v i n ; 
P.10 

1! 

\ 

List of Tables (continued) 

5-14 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts For Steel Electric 

Arc Furnaces 106 

5-15 Nationwide NAAQS Costs For Carbon Steel EAFs 107 

5-16 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts of Iron and Steel 

Sintering 110 

5-17 NAAQS Control Costs For Iron Sintering Ill 

5-18 Baseline Emissions and Ambient Impacts for Brass and 

Bronze Production 114 

5-19 NAAQS Control Costs For Iron Sintering 116 

5-20 Domestic Primary Copper Smelters 121 

5-21 Fugitive Emission Control Techniques At Primary Copper 

Smelters 126 

5-22 Baseline Emissions and Predicted Ambient Lead Concentrations 

After Control 128 

5-23 NAAQS Control Costs For The Primary Copper Smelting 

Industry 129 

5-24 Nationwide NAAQS Control Costs For The Upper Limit Mobile 

Source Background 131 

5-25 Nationwide NAAQS Control Costs For The Lower Limit Mobile 

Source Background 132 

6-1 NSPS Costs For The Lead-Acid Battery Industry (October 

1984 Dollars) 141 

6-2 NSPS Costs For Alloy Steel Electric Arc Furnace (October 

1984 Dollars 141 

7-1 Nationwide Costs Of Hazardous Waste and Used Oil 

Combustion Regulations (1984 Dollars) 144 

IX 
P.11 

( 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report presents a cost analysis of the current national ambient air 

quality standard (NAAQS) for lead, and a range of lead standard alternatives. 

The current lead standard is 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m ) averaged 

over a calendar quarter. Other standards considered in this analysis were 

0.25 ug/m3, 0.5 ug/m3, 0.8 ug/m3, 1.0 ug/m3, 2.0 ug/m3, and 2.5 ug/m3. The 

nationwide costs of these standards by 1990 or 1995 were calculated. 

Stationary sources that would not attain the various alternative standards 

were identified using atmospheric dispersion modeling and ambient lead 

monitoring data. In projecting the attainment statu? of stationary sources in 

urban areas with substantial mobile source emissions, a background mobile 

source ambient impact was added to the predicted ambient impact for the 

stationary source. Costs of controls needed to attain each alternative were 

then calculated for the affected plants and summed to obtain nationwide costs. 

Tables 1 and 2 present estimated nationwide capital and annual costs of 

attaining the various alternatives for stationary sources under two possible 

scenarios for mobile source lead emissions. At present, EPA lead-in-gasoline 

phasedown regulations set a standard of 0.10 grams of lead per gallon of leaded 

gasoline, effective January 1, 1986. EPA has also solicited public comments on 

a possible total ban of lead in gasoline. The final form of lead-in-gasiline 

phasedown regulations will determine the average mobile source background lead 

concentration around sources in urban areas. Table 1 gives stationary source 

costs calculated based on the current lead-in-gasoline phasedown program, while 

Table 2 gives stationary source costs under the proposed total ban of lead in 

gasoline. 

Either lead-in-gasoline phasedown scenario would result in substantial 

reductions of mobile source lead emissions by 1988, to the point where these 

emissions will neither cause nor contribute to exceedences of any of the lead 

NAAQS alternatives in 1990 or 1995. The current phasedown rule is expected to 

result in a 620 million dollar per year (1984 dollars) increase in refinery 

operating costs in 1986. By 1990, these costs will have dropped to 480 million 
TABLE 1. NATIONWIDE NAAQS CONTROL COSTS FOR THE UPPER LIMIT MOBILE "SOURCE BACKGROUND 

Costs for noted NAAQS alternative (millions) 

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.25 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Cray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

TOTAL 

17.8 

54.2 

- -

1.6 

— 

2 . 2 

— 

- -

6 . 7 

0 . 4 

26.0 

27.3 

72.4 

- -

2 . 1 

- -

2 . 2 

- -

- -

6 . 7 

0 . 7 

28.9 

44.5 

96. 1 

18.3 

2 . 1 

— 

6 . 6 

— 

- -

13.4 

0 . 7 

44.2 

46.6 

118.7 

18.3 

3 . 5 

1.0 

11.0 

- -

— 

13.4 

1.4 

49.7 

53.3 

124.4 

18.3 

4 . 1 

1.0 

11.0 

— 

0 . 7 

13.4 

2 . 3 

50.6 

53.3 

133.3 

18.3 

5 . 2 

2 . 1 

16.2 

6 . 8 

1.5 

13.4 

3 . 6 

61.6 

53. 3 

144.0 

18.3 

6 . 5 

2. 1 

21.3 

8 . 1 

2 . 5 

23.6 

5 . 6 

75.2 

108.9 140.3 225.9 263.7 279.1 315.3 360.3 

ANNUAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

4 . 5 

6 . 4 

— 

0 . 4 

— 

0 . 5 

— 

— 

1.8 

0 . 1 

6 . 8 

6 . 7 

22.0 

- -

0 . 6 

— 

0 . 5 

- -

__ 

1.8 

0 . 2 

7 . 3 

11.9 

28.9 

7 . 3 

0 . 6 

- -

1.5 

— 

- -

3 . 7 

0 . 2 

11.6 

12.6 

' 35.5 

7 . 3 

1.0 

0 . 4 

2 . 5 

— 

— 

3 . 7 

0 . 4 

13.3 

14.5 

36.8 

7 . 3 

1.1 

0 . 4 

2 . 5 

— 

0 . 3 

3 . 7 

0 . 6 

13.5 

14.5 

38.5 

7 . 3 

1.4 

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

1.8 

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

1.0 

16.5 

14.5 

40. 8 

7 . 3 

1.9 

0 . 7 

4 . 8 

2 . 5 

1.2 

6 . 6 

1.6 

20.0 

TOTAL 30.6 39.1 65.7 76.6 80.7 89.8 101.8 
TABLE 2. NATIONWIDE NAAQS CONTROL COSTS FOR THE LOWER LIMIT MOBILE SOURCE BACKGROUND 

Costs for noted NAAQS alternative (millions) 

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.25 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Cray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

TOTAL 

17.8 

54.2 

- -

1.6 

- -

2 . 2 

- -

- -

6 . 7 

0 . 4 

26.0 

27.3 

70.3 

— 

2 . 1 

- -

2 . 2 

- -

— 

6 . 7 

0 . 4 

28.9 

44.5 

95.7 

18.3 

2 . 1 

- -

4 . 4 

- -

— 

13.4 

0 . 7 

44.2 

46.6 

118.6 

18.3 

3 . 5 

1.0 

8 . 8 

- -

— 

13.4 

1.4 

49.7 

53.3 

123.4 

18.3 

3 . 8 

1.0 

11.0 

- -

0 . 7 

13.4 

1.9 

50.6 

53.3 

132.7 

18.3 

4 . 8 

2 . 1 

16.2 

- -

1.5 

13.4 

3 . 6 

61.6 

53.3 

140.3 

18.3 

6 . 3 

2 . 1 

20.9 

8 . 1 

1.9 

23.6 

5 . 6 

75.2 

108.9 137.9 223.3 261.4 277.4 307.4 355.5 

ANNUAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

4 . 5 

16.4 

- -

0 . 4 

- -

0 . 5 

- -

— 

1.8 

0 . 1 

6 . 8 

6 . 7 

21.2 

— 

0 . 6 

— 

0 . 5 

- -

— 

1.8 

0 . 1 

7 . 3 

11.9 

28.7 

7.3 • 

0 . 6 

— 

1.0 

- -

— 

3 . 7 

0 . 2 

11.6 

12.6 

35.4 

7 . 3 

1.0 

0 . 4 

2 . 0 

- -

— 

3 . 7 

0 . 4 

13.3 

14.5 

36.5 

7 . 3 

1.1 

0 . 4 

2 . 5 

— 

0 . 3 

3 . 7 

0 . 5 

13.5 

14.5 

38.3 

7 . 3 

1.3 

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

- -

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

0 . 9 

16.5 

14.5 

40. 1 

7 . 3 

1.8 

0 . 7 

4 . 7 

2 . 5 

1.0 

6 . 6 

1.6 

20.0 

TOTAL 23.8 30.9 53.4 62.7 66.7 71.0 80.7 
P.14 

dollars per year, and additional costs for 1995 are estimated at 440 million 

dollars per year. The lead-in-gasoline phasedown regulations, and thus these 

costs, are independent of which NAAQS alternative is selected. Because of the 

low projected mobile source ambient impacts after 1986, mobile source lead 

emission controls over and above the lead phasedown requirements were not 

considered in this study. 

Another EPA activity which would affect ambient lead levels is a proposed 

extension of hazardous waste management regulations to apply to marketing of 

and burning for energy recovery of hazardous wastes and used oils. The 

proposed rule would establish maximum levels of lead and other contaminants for 

used oil burned in nonindustrial boilers. The maximum contaminant levels could 

be achieved by dilution of the used oil with virgin oil prior to burning. The 

proposed limit for lead is 100 parts per million (ppm), however a 10 ppm limit 

is also being considered. Total capital costs of the proposed marketing rules 

are estimated at 6.1 million dollars, and annual costs are estimated at 21 

million dollars per year. These costs are also independent of which lead NAAQS 

is selected. 

All of the costs presented in Tables 1 and 2 represent costs of controls 

in addition to those already in place. Especially in the case of primary and 

secondary lead smelters, substantial costs already have been incurred in the 

implementation of the current standard. Also, controls installed to meet OSHA 

lead standards and EPA particulate emission limits generally act to reduce lead 

ambient concentrations from lead-emitting industries. Due to the implementation process for emission regulations, there may be an overlap in the installation of control equipment that is considered to be "in place" and that required 

to attain the various lead NAAQS alternatives. 

The costs presented in Tables 1 and 2 and throughout this analysis are 

incremental costs for attainment of the various NAAQS alternatives by 1990. 

The incremental costs for the two alternatives in which the lead NAAQS is 

relaxed do not include any cost savings for discontinuing the use of controls 

that were installed to meet the current standard; thus costs for these 

alternatives are biased upward. Conversely, costs for the lower alternatives 

are biased downward, because controls could not be identified that would allow 

some plants to attain these alternatives. Some of the plants for thich costs 

were developed are currently uncontrolled. Controls for these plants may be 

x m 
P.15 

required to meet the particulate matter NAAQS. Thus, some of the costs for all 

of the NAAQS alternatives may be partially attributable to the particulate 

NAAQS. 

The attainment costs for 1995 are expected to be the same as those for 

1990 (in constant dollars) for two reasons. First, new stationary source costs 

associated with attainment of the lead NAAQS after 1990 will be attributable to 

new source performance standards. Second, because the background lead 

concentration around stationary lead sources by 1990 is expected to be 

negligible in most cases, the attainment status of a given plant will not be 

affected by changes external to the plant. As noted above, the lead-ingasoline phasedown program will reduce mobile source contributions around 

stationary sources to negligible levels. Also, because of the relatively small 

number of stationary lead sources, most plants are not subject to background 

concentrations from neighboring plants. 

The results of this analysis are subfect to a number of limitations, due 

to the uncertainty in the input data, and due to simplifying assumptions made 

as part of the general methodology used. The majority of lead emissions from 

major industries producing and using lead are fugitive emissions, because other 

emissions are largely controlled. For other industries, lead emissions are due 

to the presence of lead as a contaminant in feed materials, often at trace 

levels. Thus, lead concentrations in emissions depend on the quality of feed 

materials used, and are not easily quantified. In addition, dispersion 

modeling and the costing of lead emission control systems are subject to 

uncertianties and estimation limitations. 

i xiv 
P.16 

1. INTRODUCTION 

1.1 PURPOSE 

Section 109(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, states that the EPA 

Administrator shall "complete a thorough review of the criteria published 

under section 108 and the national ambient air quality standards promulgated 

under this section and shall make such revisions in such criteria and 

standards and promulgate such new standards as may be appropriate..." In 

accordance with this requirement, the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for the lead is being reviewed. As part of this review procedure, 

this report analyzes alternative standard levels and potential control costs 

for meeting these levels. The report gives costs for the lowest net 

annualized cost methods of achieving alternative NAAQS levels. The control 

costs presented in these report will be used in an economic analysis as part 

of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). In addition, ambient impacts 

predicted in this study will be input to an exposure assessment for the RIA. 

The current national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards 

for lead are 1.5 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/m3) averaged over a calendar 

quarter (40 CFR 50.12). Lead control costs required to meet this standard are 

analyzed in this report, along with costs for the following alternative 

standards: 0.25, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0, 2.0, and 0.5 ug/m3 quarterly averages. In 

addition, the relationship between average lead concentration and averaging 

time was studied to idenify monthly and daily lead concentrations that are 

equivalent to various quarterly averages, in terms of the degree of protection 

offered. 
1.2 STUDY METHODOLOGY 

P. 17 

Tl 

The first step in estimating nationwide control costs to meet an 

alternative standard level is to project how many areas will not attain that 

standard with baseline emission controls. For this analysis, attainment 

status is projected for 1990 and 1995. Several causes of exceedances of the 

alternative standards were studied: lead emissions from individual plants, 

interaction of emissions from two or more plants, lead emissions from mobile 

sources, and interation of mobile source and point source emissions. For 

existing sources, baseline emissions controls are taken generally as those 

controls currently in place. For new sources, the baseline is the emission 

controls required by new source performance standards (NSPS). Ambient 

concentration of lead around point sources were estimated using atmospheric 

dispersion modeling of projected emissions. Where available, data on ambient 

lead concentrations in the vicinity of point sources also were used. 

For mobile sources, ambient monitoring data for lead near roadways were 

used to predict 1990 and 1995 mobile source lead impacts by comparing time 

variations of roadside lead concentrations with the time variation in the 

nationwide average amount of lead used in gasoline. Mobile source ambient 

impacts have been reduced dramatically since the institution of EPA 

regulations requiring the phasing down of lead use in gasoline. The impacts 

are expected to be reduced even further by 1990. Regresions developed based 

on past data were then used with projections of future lead in gasoline to 

estimate future mobile source lead impacts. 

These projections indicate that mobile source ambient impacts will be 

minor in comparison with stationary source impacts. Therefore, mobile source 

controls over and above the lead phasedown program were not considered in 

developing costs for the lead NAAQS alternatives. In general, most point 

sources that must be controlled to meet an alternative NAAQS would require 

control even in the absence of mobile source emissions. 

For stationary sources, a least-cost algorithm was used to estimate the 

costs of controls to meet each alternative lead standard. The total cost to 

meet each alternative standard was then estimated by summing costs to 

individual sources. In the least-cost algorithm, each plant is assumed to 

install control equipment necessary to attain a given lead standard in a 

manner that minimizes total net annualized costs for the plant. 
An alternate assumption might be that all lead sources around which the 

standard is exceeded would install reasonably available control technologies 

(RACT). There is a significant difference in estimated costs predicted using 

these two assumptions. A least-cost algorithm was chosen for use here because 

(1) it models more realistically the behavior of firms and control agencies in 

achieving a "negotiated" control strategy for each firm (as part of the State 

Implementation Plan [SIP] process), and (2) the bubble policy as well as 

recently proposed prevention of significant air quality deterioration (PSD) 

and new source review rules define a pollutant "source" as an entire plant. 

The significance of these rules is that each plant is considered as an entity 

and can apply controls to the sources it chooses as long as the plant emission 

limit is achieved. Thus, RACT probably will not be applied on a 

source-by-source basis. Given that a plant has some discretion on which 

sources to control, it seems reasonable that their decisions will be made to 

minimize costs.* Due to the need to compare cost estimates provided in this 

report with the benefits of an ambient standard, a least cost method is the 

preferred approach because at allows the estimation of incremental costs. 

Incremental costs must be compared with incremental benefits for the various 

NAAQS alternatives.1 

In some industries affected by the lead NAAQS, plant closures may occur 

due to economic conditions. For instance, in the case of alkyl lead 

additives, a decrease in domestic demand of about 70 percent is expected by 

1990, causing some plant closures. For gray iron foundries, numerous plant 

closures have occurred in the recent past, and this trend is expected to 

continue. The cost effects of plant closure will be addressed in the Economic 

Impact Analysis for the RIA. 

In this cost assessment, several source categories and individual sources 

were identified as needing additional emission controls at the level of the 

current lead NAAQS (1.5 ug/m^). Some of these categories and sources may not 

in fact, require control under State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for meeting 

the current standard. Conversly, some source categories may require control 

under the current SIPs that are not identified in this study as needing 

additional control. Also, this report presents projected air lead 

concentrations and emissions, identifies levels of control needed, and 
P.19 

—j-f l 

predicts that certain sources may not be able to comply with the current 

standard. These scenarios may be quite different from information presented 

in the current lead SIPs. While this situation may on the surface appear to 

be an inconsistency, it is in fact a natural consequence of the two processes 

employed -- cost assessment and SIP development. This report necessarily 

relies on a more "broad-brush" national approach in which time and resource 

limitations preclude the kind of detailed area-by-area analyses required for 

actual SIPs. Furthermore, while the authors consulted the lead SIP files 

during the preparation of this report, several lead SIPs have not yet been 

completed as of this writing. 
n 

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 

Wilson, J.H. Jr., D.L. Keyes, and J.W. Lent. Cost and Economic Analysis 

of Regulatory Alternatives for NO2 NAAQS. June 1982. 
P.21 

LEAD EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS 

Although some lead in the atmosphere results from natural process such as 

the wind erosion of lead-bearing dust, lead emissions from human activity 

greatly outweigh these natural processes, both in the magnitude of lead 

emissions and in their contribution to ambient lead levels. Lead emissions 

result not only from the processing and use of lead and its compounds, but 

also from the processing and use of materials contaminated by lead. This 

section presents an overview of lead emissions and ambient concentraions 

resulting from them. 

2.1 LEAD EMISSIONS. 

An inventory of lead emissions in the U.S. is shown in Table 2-1; 

assumptions and data sources used to derive the values given in the table are 

detailed in Appendix A. As Table 2-1 shows, gasoline combustion in 

automobiles currently accounts for the largest share of total lead emissions. 

These emissions result from the use of alkyl lead compounds as antiknock 

additives in gasoline. Although the use of leaded gasoline has been phased 

down by about 75 percent since 1974, emissions from its use are still 

substantial. 

Stationary sources are divided into three categories in 

Table 2-1 -- combustion sources, metallurgical processes, and other industrial 

processes. Lead emissions from crankcase oil combustion result from 

contamination of automotive oil with lead due to leaded gasoline use. Some 

solid wastes also are contaminated with lead. Coal and residual oil contain 

lead in trace quantities. Emissions from combustion of these fuels are 

substantial because of the large amounts of these fuels that are burned. 
^m 

\ 

TABLE 2-1. ESTIMATED ATMOSPHERIC LEAD EMISSIONS 

FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1981 

Annual emissions 

Source category (Mg/yr) 

Mobile Sources 

Gasoline combustion 35,000 

Stationary Sources 

Waste oil combustion 830 

Solid waste incineration 319 

Coal combustion 950 

Oil combustion 243 

Ore crushing and grinding 325 

Primary lead smelting 921 

Secondary lead smelting 631 

Iron and steel production 533 

Gray iron production 295 

Primary copper smelting 30 

Other metallurgical 54 

Lead alkyl manufacture 245 

Lead acid battery manufacture 85 

Portland cement production 71 

Miscellaneous 223 

TOTAL 40,700 
Lead emissions result from the processing of lead ores, and from primary 

and secondary lead smelting. Because lead is present in other metal ores, it 

is also emitted from iron and steel production and from the smelting of copper 

and other metals. 

Lead emissions from other industrial processes generally result from the 

use of lead to produce products such as lead-acid batteries, leaded glass, and 

alkyl lead gasoline additives. Lead emissions from Portland cement 

manufacture result from the presence of trace quantities of lead in the cement 

raw materials. 

The nature and chemical form of lead emissions depend on their origin and 

the mechanism of formation. Combustion processes and smelting processes, 

because of their high temperature, emit submicron particulate fumes. Lead 

emissions from handling and mechanical processes, such as ore processing, 

comprise larger particles. Chemical forms of lead emissions include elemental 

lead (Pb), its oxides (PbO, Pb02, Pb03» etc.), lead sulfates and sulfides 

(PbSo4, PbS, etc.), lead chlorides and bromides (PbCl2, PbCIBr, PbBr2, etc.), 

and alkyl lead (Pb(CH3)4 and Pb(C2H5)4). 

2.2 TYPICAL AMBIENT LEAD CONCENTRATIONS NEAR EMISSION SOURCES 

Although leaded gasoline combustion is the primary source of lead 

emissions in the U.S., the majority of exceedences of the current NAAQS 

results mainly from stationary source emissions. The average quarterly lead 

concentration detected by roadside ambient lead monitors (5-15 meters from the 

road) was 0.77 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/mr) for 1983, and none of the 

roadside monitors then in place have showed exceedences of the current 

standard. This absence of exceedences for such a large emission source 

results from the wide spatial dispersion of automotive admissions. 

For similar reasons, many of the major stationary sources of lead 

emissions listed in the previous section do not cause correspondingly numerous 

or significant exceedences of the current standard. Table 2-2 summarizes 

typical maximum quarterly lead concentrations around lead emission sources. 

Ambient monitoring results are presented where data are available. Where 

monitoring data are unavailable, the table presents the results of dispersion 

modeling studies described in Sections 3 and 5. 

8 
TABLE 2-2. TYPICAL MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD CONCENTRATIONS 

NEAR LEAD EMISSIONS SOURCES 

Source category 

Ambient lead 

concentration 

(ug/m3) Data source 

Mobile Sources 

Gasoline combustion 0.36-1 Monitoring

 a*k 

Stationary Sources 

Waste oil combustion 

Commercial 0.15 

Utility <0.1 

Solid waste incineration <0.01 

Coal combustion <0.01 

Oil combustion (residual) <0.01 

Ore crushing and grinding 1.7 

Primary lead smelting 6.6 

Secondary lead smelting 3.0 

Iron and steel production <0.5 

Gray iron production <0.5 

Primary copper smelting 0.8 

Leaded brass production 0.3 

Leak alkyl manufacture 1.6 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 0.5 

Portland cement production <0.01 

Leaded glass production <0.1 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Monitoring 

Monitoring 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Monitoring 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

Modeling 

aFrom the SAROAD computer file for ambient lead data. 

•^Concentrations are for monitors located 5-15 meters from well-traveled 

road 050,000 vehicles/day). 
The table shows that the combustion sources of lead emissions have low 

ambient lead impacts. This is not surprising in the case of coal and residual 

oil combustion and solid waste incineration. The magnitude of nationwide lead 

emissions from these categories (Table 2-1) is due more to the volume of 

material burned and the numbers of sources more than to high concentrations of 

lead in fuel or solid waste. Also, these sources have high stacks which 

promote dispersion of emissions. 

The low ambient impacts predicted for waste oil combustion are somewhat 

surprising, as waste oil contains about 1200 ppm lead. The predicted impacts 

are low because pure waste oil is expected to be burned only in small 

commerical-sized heating units. Where waste oil is burned in large units, it 

is added to other fuels. Also, in large units burining waste oil, particulate 

emission controls are often used, and these would reduce lead emissions in the 

form of particulate matter. The low predicted impacts for small waste oil 

combustion units result partially from limitations in atmospheric dispersion 

modeling. These small combustion sources typically have short stacks. The 

short stack height, coupled with building wake effects and stack downwash, 

would cause the plume to impact very close to the source. However, dispersion 

models generally cannot estimate concentrations closer than 100 meters from a 

source. Thus, dispersion modeling may not give the maximum ambient impact for 

these sources. 

The high ambient impacts around primary and secondary lead smelters result 

mainly from low level fugitive emissions from these plants. Process emission 

sources are typically well controlled for these categories. The fugitive 

emission sources include materials handling, furnace upsets, and furnace 

charging and tapping operations. The high ambient impacts around smelters are 

localized; concentrations typically fall below 1.5 ug/m3 within 1 km, and 

below 0.1 ug/m3 within 5 km. 

For iron and steel production, gray iron production, lead-acid battery 

manufacture, brass and bronze production, and primary copper-smelting the 

typical lead impacts as shown in Table 2-2 are well below the 1.5 ug/m3 

standard. However, for uncontrolled or poorly controlled facilities in these 

source categories, ambient impacts are expected to be substantially higher 

than those presented, resulting in exceedences of the current standard. 

10 
-p. 

Spatial variations in ambient lead concentration are illustrated for 

stationary and mobile sources in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. Figure 2-1 shows ambient 

concentrations predicted by dispersion modeling around a secondary lead 

smelter. Sources of lead emissions from the smelter include both fugitive and 

stack sources. As the figure shows, the ambient concentration drops rapidly 

with distance from the smelter. Figure 2-2 graphs the lead concentration near 

a roadway as a function of height and distance from the road. The concentrations shown are averages of monitored lead levels for April and May 1980 near a 

road with average deily traffic of about 60,000 vehicles per day. The lead 

concentration near the road is approximately constant between 5 and 15 meters 

from the road. The results of other EPA modeling studies indicate that the 

concentration declines rapidly for distances greater than 15 meters. 

2.3 LEAD CONCENTRATION DISTRIBUTIONS AND RECENT TRENDS 

The distributions of maximum quarterly lead concentrations at ambient lead 

monitoring sites were studied using the computerized SAROAD ambient monitoring . 

data base (December 1984). Distributions were determined for the entire set of 

monitors, for sites designed to monitor concentrations near stationary sources, 

and for sites designed to monitor roadside lead concentrations due to mobile 

source emissions. Roadside lead monitors are divided into three subsets based 

on distance from the roadway. Microscale roadside sites are closest to the 

monitored roadways, middle scale roadside sites are at an intermediate 

distance, and neighborhood sites are at a greater distance from the monitored 

roadway. A detailed definition of the three types of roadside monitor sitetypes is given in Section 3. 

Monitoring data were studied both for the period 1980 to 1983 and for the 

most recent year of data, 1983. Table 2-3 shows the frequency with which the 

maximum quarter fell into five concentration ranges -- 0 to 0.5 ug/m , 0.5 to 

1.0 ug/m3, 1.0 to 1.5 ug/m3, 1.5 to 2.0 ug/m3, and over 2.0 ug/m3. Table 2-4 

gives other properties of the distribution of maximum quarterly concentration, 

including: the minimum and maximum observations, the frequency distribution 

peak (or mode), the median and mean, and the 80th, 90th, 95th, and 99th 

percentile levels. 

11 
£Z7 

Figure 2-1. Predicted maximum quarterly average ambient 

lead concentrations around a large secondary 

lead smelter (yg/m3) 

12 
"HI 

1.40. r1.30-

1.20 

1.10 

n 1.00 

0.90 

2 0.80 

S 0.70 <_> 

o 

" 0.60 

0.50 

0.40 

0.30 

0.20 

0.10 

L 

1 n i i I r i i 

J l 

JO- 5 METER ELFV&TTnr, 

_L J_ 

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 

MONITOR SETBACK DISTANCE, meter s 

TOWER 

NO. 3 

I L 

20 22 

Figure 2-2. Average 24-hour concentration of lead 

at various elevations and setback distances. 

13 
TABLE 2-3. FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS OF MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD CONCENTRATIONS BY SITE-TYPE* 

Percent of site-years in concentration ranges Total Total 

site- number 

Site type/time frame <0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 >2.0 years of sites 

1980 through 1983 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborhood scale 

1983 only 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborhood scale 

69 

62 

17 

39 

61 

22 

16 

40 

42 

32 

5 

8 

27 

18 

5 

2 

3 

13 

0 

0 

2 

11 

3 

0 

2 

1189 

159 

30 

33 

62 

414 

56 

18 

15 

29 

71 

53 

16 

53 

72 

19 

24 

47 

33 

28 

5 

9 

32 

13 

0 

1 

2 

5 

0 

0 

3 

11 

0 

0 

0 

360 

45 

19 

15 

29 

360 

45 

19 

15 

29 

aData are the numbers of site-years for which the maximum quarterly concentrations fall 

within the designated concentration ranges. To be included, a site-year must have four 

valid quarters of data. 

'Concentration ranges are in units of ug/m . 
P.30 

As illustrated in Tables 2-3 and 2-4, the total number of lead monitors is 

much larger than the sum of the numbers of monitors designed to cover stationary and mobile lead emission sources. This discrepancy results from recent 

changes in lead monitor siting guidelines, which have caused a major reworking 

of the national monitoring network. The overall monitor network includes many 

monitors which were positioned prior to the promulgation of the current siting 

guidelines. These monitors were sited to determine urban lead levels, and did 

not generally conform to guidelines for roadside monitors or point source 

monitors. 

Trends in lead concentrations over the period 1980 to 1983 were analyzed 

both for maximum quarterly concentration and annual average concentration. In 

order to avoid biases relating to changes in the monitoring network, the trend 

study included only sites where valid data were available for three of the four 

years studied. (A valid site-year must have valid data for all four quarters.) 

The trend study was done for stationary source monitors; microscale, middle 

scale, and neighborhood scale roadside monitors; and the entire set of lead 

monitors. Figures 2-3 and 2-4 illustrate trends in maximum quarterly lead 

concentration and annual average lead concentration, respectively, for the five 

types of monitors. Table 2-5 presents the data illustrated in the figures, and 

shows the numbers of sites meeting the study criteria for each of the monitor 

types. From the difference between monitor counts given in Tables 2-3 and 2-4 

and those given in Table 2-5, it can be seen that only a small percentage of 

the roadside monitors in service in 1983 were in service at the beginning of 

the study period. 

2.4 EFFECTS OF AVERAGING TIME ON AVERAGE LEAD CONCENTRATION 

When the ambient lead standard was originally proposed in 1977, the 

averaging time for the primary standard was specified as a calendar quarter. 

Steady-state lead-in-blood levels for adults adjust to changes in air lead 

concentration in approximately 60 days. The one month averaging time was 

originally proposed because of the risk of exposure to young children, whose 

faster metabolisms would presumably result in faster adjustments to air lead 

concentrations. After reviewing public comments on the proposed standard, EPA 

promulgated the NAAQS with an averaging time of a calendar quarter. The 

15 
P.31 

Til 

tlC 

3 . 

U 

01 

U 

I-l 

a 

3 

CT 

s 

3 •5 »< a 

e 

01 

x 

'2 -I 

5 

4 -I 

•] 

MICROSCALE 

S TATIO I'l A RV "5<5y R C E S 

. . KEiC-HBOR-HOC-O SCALE 

ALL MONITOR'S; 

1.S7S 1.S81 

Year 

1.58--

Figure 2-3. Trends in mean maximum quarterly lead 

concentration for various monitor groups. 

1 

e 

eo 

3 cone. L average annua] Overall 

1 .5 

1 .4-

1 .3 (-1 

1 .1 

1.0 

0.3 

0.8 

0.7 

0.5 

0.5 

0.-4-

0..3 

C.2 

0.1 

CO 

1 

'V. 

STATIONARY S OU R CE 3 

MICROSCALE 

NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE 

ty\0OLE SCALEfe"-^----^ 

ALL MONlTC'rrS--'!^--, 

1 .531 

Year 

1.S83 

Figure 2-4. Trends in overall annual average lead 

concentration for various monitor groups. 

16 
TABLE 2-4. PROPERTIES OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF MAXIMUM QUARTERLY LEAD CONCENTRATION FOR VARIOUS SITE TYPES 

Other distribution benchmarks Total Total 

Minimum ; Maximum site- number 

Site type/time frame value Mode Median Mean 80% 907. 95% 987. 997. value years of sites 

1980 through 1983 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborho6d scale 

1983 only 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborhood scale 

0 

0 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.3 

0.2 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.9 

0.6 

0.5 

0.53 

0.95 

0.99 

0.68 

0.51 

0.6 

1.1 

1.4 

1.0 

0.7 

1.0 

2.2 

1.7 

1.1 

0.9 

1.4 

3.6 

1.8 

1.2 

1.1 

2.2 

(6) 

I 

I 

(1.4) 

3.4 

(10) M 

I 

I 

13.7 

13.7 

2.6 

1.5 

2.1 

1189 

159 

30 

33 

62 

414 

56 

18 

15 

29 

0 

0 

0.3 

0.3 

0.1 

0.3 

0.2 

0.6 

0.4 

0.3 

0.3 

0.5 

0.8 

0.5 

0.4 

0.51 

0.88 

0.83 

0.60 

0.40 

0.6 

1.1 

1.2 

1.0 

0.5 

1.0 1.4 2.9 (4.1) 

3.0 (3.7) I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 

6.7 

5.5 

1.4 

1.1 

1.0 

359 

45 

18 

15 

29 

359 

45 

18 

15 

29 

Data are lead concentrations in ug/m3. To be included a site year must have four valid quarters of data. 

> 

I indicates that insufficient observations are available to calculate the given percentile levels. 

Values in parentheses are uncertain. 
T1 

TABLE 2-5. LEAD CONCENTRATION TRENDS FOR 1980 TO 1983 

Mean concentration (ug/m3) 

Site type3 1980 1981 1982 1983 

Number 

of 

sites 

Maximum quarter 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborhood scale 

Annual average 

All monitors 

Stationary source 

Microscale roadside 

Middle scale 

Neighborhood scale 

0.79 

1.75 

1.87 

0.88 

0.86 

0.61 

1.47 

1.28 

0.63 

0.64 

0.52 

0.61 

1.32 

0.75 

0.52 

0.39 

0.48 

0.99 

0.60 

0.50 

181 

27 

3 

4 

9 

0.55 

1.24 

1.25 

0.56 

0.60 

0.44 

0.98 

0.92 

0.47 

0.46 

0.36 

0.44 

0.89 

0.43 

0.38 

0.30 

0.41 

0.80 

0.44 

0.37 

181 

27 

3 

4 

9 

aTo be included, a site must have four valid quarters of data for 

each of three out of the four years studied. 

18 
possibility of elevated air lead levels within the quarterly period was not 

expected to have a substantial impact on public health. However, data from 

recent studies have prompted EPA to consider shortening the averaging time for 

the standard. Therefore, a review of ambient lead data was conducted to 

identify maximum monthly and daily average levels which would be equivalent to 

various quarterly levels, in terms of the degree of protection afforded to the 

public. 

Ratios between maximum monthly concentrations and quarterly average 

concentrations were calculated for the entire set of SAROAD lead monitors, and 

for three lead subgroups: point source monitors, microscale roadside monitors, 

and the combination of middle and neighborhood scale roadside monitors. In 

addition, frequency distributions for the monthly-to-quarterly concentration 

ratio were determined. These distributions are shown in Figures 2-5 and 2-6. 

As these figures show, the monthly-to-quarterly concentration ratio is 

generally between 1.1 and 1.3, and seldom exceeds 2. If identical numbers of 

samples are collected in all months of a quarter, the theoretical maximum 

monthly-to-quarterly ratio is 3. Figure 2-3 shows a small peak at 3.0 for the 

overall monitor population, and some ratios over 3. Values in excess of the 

theoretical maximum of 3 can and do result when far fewer samples are collected 

during the highest concentration month than during the other two months. 

The largest discrepancy between monthly average concentration and 

quarterly average concentration is in the case of point source monitors, where 

the average monthly-to-quarterly concentration ratio is about 1.4. The 

monthly-to-quarterly lead concentration ratios or microscale and neighborhood 

scale monitors are somewhat lower than the average ratio for the monitor 

population as a whole. 

Table 2-6 presents mean ratios, medians, distribution peaks (modes) and 

various upper-limit levels for the distributions. The table also gives the 

correlation coefficient of the ratio with the measured average concentration. 

The low correlation coefficients given in Table 2-6 suggest that ratios studied 

are largely independent of average lead concentration. Figure 2-7 illustrates 

the dependence of maximum monthly concentration on quarterly concentration. 

This figure presents data for 500 monitor-quarters selected randomly from the 

10,711 monitor-quarters in the SAROAD system. As Figure 2-7 shows, the maximum 

19 
2.4 

to 

o 

cn 

-a 

C 

n) 

to 

3 

o 

^2 

4-1 

OJ 

o 

c 

QJ U 3 

O 

O 

O 

u 

c 

3 

cu 

1 .6 

1 .4-

1 .2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4-

0.2 

ij 

-U 

ra-rV 

.' \ 

•V 

H All 

\ monitors 

'k 

\ 

\ 

Point 

sources 

0. 

tl_ 

~"-k 

"T 

EH — 

I ,•!- 1 .8 'Z.'Z iCb 

Ratio of monthly to quarterly lead concentration 

Figure 2-5. Frequency distribution of monthly-to-quarterly lead concentration 

ratio for all lead monitors and for point source monitors. 
ro 

9 0 

80 -

7 i ~ 

0) 

o 

C 

cu 

f-i 

. u 3 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

c 

CU 3 

cr 

oi 

u 

7U 

6 0 

5U -

4-0 

3i i 

2 0 

f 

I 4 

I }"' \ 'i Neighborhood/middle 

\ scal e roadsid e 

10 

w 

\ \ 

Micro- \\ 

scale \ ', 

roadside V /"S--.., i

:«X 

i j 

I .4- 1 .8 2.2 2.6 3 

Ratio of monthly to quarterly lead concentration 

•-\~ ~ 

3.4 

Figure 2-6. Frequency distribution of monthly-to-quarterly lead concentration ratio 

for microscale and neighborhood and middle scale roadside monitors. 

TJ 
RVGC4 

8 

• s 5 

c II 

si 

—i m 

m 33 

33 > _^° 

•p-m 

o o 3 

—i 

33 1* 

0-0 

" % 

acP 

rji on A 

s 

I ' ' 

0-5 

• • I • • 

1.0 1.5 2-0 2-5 3-0 

QUARTERLY flVERRGE LEflO CONC (UG/M»*31 

LECEN0: SOURCE. a O a N0NP0INT t\ A a POINT 

3-5 4.0 

Figure 2-7. Monthly average lead concentration 

plotted against quarterly average. 

22 
TABLE 2-6. MONTHLY-TO-QUARTERLY AVERAGE CONCENTRATION RATIOS FOR 

VARIOUS LEAD MONITORS CATEGORIES 

Distribution 

property 

Mean ratio 

Median 

Distribution peak 

All 

monitors 

1.35 

1.28 

1.20 

Point 

source 

monitors 

1.40 

1.31 

1.25 

Microscale 

roadside 

monitors 

1.27 

1.23 

1.20 

Neighborhood 

scale 

roadside 

monitors 

1.27 

1.25 

1.20 

Upper limits (one tailed) 

80 percent 

90 percent 

95 percent' 

98 percent 

99 percent 

Correlation 

coefficient* 

1.50 

1.68 

1.89 

2.24 

2.62 

0.028 

1.60 

1.82 

2.09 

2.43 

2.86 

-0.021 

1.30 

1.56 

1.79 

1.80 

2". 00 

-0.058 

1.39 

1.50 

1.67 

1.89 

2.09 

0.068 

Correlation coefficient of ration with quarterly average concentration. 

TABLE 2-7. MONTHLY CONCENTRATION LIMITS EQUIVALENT TO THE QUARTERLY 

NAAQS LEVELS, IN TERMS OF ALLOWED AVERAGE CONCENTRATION 

NAAQS 

level 

(ug/m3) 

0.25 

0.50 

0.80 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

Monthly 

All 

monitors 

0.34 

0.68 

.1.08 

1.35 

2.03 

2.70 

3.38 

concentration 

Point 

source 

monitors 

0.35 

0.70 

1.12 

1.41 

2.11 

2.81 

3.51 

equivalents 

Microscale 

roadside 

monitors 

0.32 

0.64 

1.02 

1.27 

1.91 

2.55 

3.18 

(ug/m3) 

Middle and 

neighborhood 

scale » sites 

0.32 

0.64 

1.02 

1.27 

1.91 

2.55 

3.19 

23 
P.39 

monthly concentration is roughly a straight line function of quarterly average 

over the concentration range of greatest importance, 0 to 1.5 ug/m3. This 

confirms that the ratio of maximum quarterly concentration to quarterly average 

concentration is roughly constant over this range. 

The monthly concentration limit that would offer the same degree of 

protection, in terms of the measured average concentration, as a given 

quarterly limit can be calculated for a given type of monitor by simply 

multiplying the quarterly limit by the appropriate mean ratio from Table 2-6. 

Table 2-7 lists the monthly concentration limits that would be equivalent to 

the quarterly NAAQS levels currently under study. 

Monthly limits determined by the above method offer the same degree of 

protection as the corresponding quarterly limit in terms of the long term 

average (monthly or quarterly) concentration that would be permitted. An 

alternate method of defining the equivalence of monthly and quarterly limits is 

in terms of the maximum short term concentration that would be expected, for 

instance the expected maximum daily concentration. The monthly limit which 

would give the same expected daily maximum as a given quarterly limit can be 

calculated by multiplying the quarterly limit by the the mean ratio of maximum 

daily value to quarterly average, and dividing by the mean ratio of maximum 

daily value to monthly average. Table 2-8 gives ratios of maximum daily value 

in a quarter to quarterly average, and maximum daily value in a given month to 

monthly average for the various monitor types. Table 2-9 lists the monthly 

concentration limits that would be equivalent to the quarterly NAAQS levels 

currently under study in terms of the expected maximum daily concentration. 

24 
•n 

TABLE 2-8. DAILY-TO-QUARTERLY AND DAILY-TO-MONTHLY CONCENTRATION 

FOR DIFFERENT MONITOR TYPES 

Site type 

Average daily 

to monthly 

concentration 

ratio 

Average daily 

to quarterly 

concentration 

ratio 

All monitors 

Point sources 

Microscale roadside monitors 

Neighborhood/middle scale roadside 

Maximum daily concentration in the quarter. 

Maximum daily concentration in the month. 

TABLE 2-9. MONTHLY CONCENTRATION LIMITS EQUIVALENT TO THE QUARTERLY 

NAAQS LEVELS, IN TERMS OF EXPECTED DAILY CONCENTRATION 

NAAQS 

level 

(ug/m3) 

0.25 

0.50 

0.80 

1.00 

1.50 

2.00 

2.50 

All 

Monthly 

monitors 

0.35 

0.71 

1.13 

1.41 

2.12 

2.83 

3.54 

concentration 

Point 

source 

monitors 

0.38 

0.75 

1.20 

1.50 

2.26 

3.01 

3.76 

equivalents 

Microscale 

roadside 

monitors 

0.33 

0.66 

1.05 

1.32 

1.98 

2.64 

3.30 

(ug/m3) 

Middle and 

neighborhood 

scalf i sites 

0.33 

0.67 

1.07 

1.34 

2.01 

2.68 

3.35 

25 
P.41 

3. MOBILE SOURCE AMBIENT IMPACTS AND COSTS 

In 1973, EPA promulgated regulations requiring the phasing down of the use 

of alkyl lead antiknock additives in gasoline. These regulations were revised 

in 1982 and in 1983; the most recent rule, issued in March 1985, sets a 

standard of 0.10 grams of lead per gallon of leaded gasoline (gplg), effective 

January 1, 1986.* As a result of these phasedown regulations, the use of lead 

gasoline additives in the U.S. was reduced from about 180 gigagrams (Gg) in 

1974 to about 55 Gg in 1982,2>

3 and is expected to be reduced to about 3 Gg 

(27. of the 1974 amount) in 1986.-'- Correspondingly, lead concentrations near 

roadways have been reduced dramatically since 1974 and are expected to be 

reduced further in the future, especially if a total ban on leaded gasoline 

being considered for 1988 is put into effect. 

The rest of this chapter details the data and techniques used to predict 

the ambient impacts of mobile source lead emissions, the methods used to 

consider the interaction of mobile and stationary source lead emissions, and 

the costs of the lead phasedown program. To determine whether mobile source 

emissions alone would cause exceedences of any alternative NAAQS levels, the 

upper limits of mobile source ambient impacts were projected for 1990 and 

1995. In addition, mean mobile source ambient impacts were predicted for 1990 

and 1995, to determine the approximate contribution of mobile sources to 

concentrations in the vicinity of point sources of lead. These predictions 

were made by first quantifying the relationship between past trends in 

roadside concentrations and lead additive use, and then combining this 

information with projections of future lead additive use. The upper limit of 

ambient lead impacts from mobile sources, assuming that leaded gasoline is not 

banned and contains 0.10 gplg, is projected to be 0.15 ug/m3 in 1990, and 

0.13 ug/m3 in 1995. Thus, because these values are less than the lowest NAAQS 

alternative being considered (0.25 ug/m3) and would be even lower if leaded 

gasoline were banned, mobile source emissions by themselves are not expected 

to exceed whatever new standard is set. However, mobile source emissions may 

26 
JM2 

•'"Tl 

contribute to exceedences in the vicinities of urban point sources. The 

average contribution of mobile source emissions to the lead concentration near 

a point source in 1990 was estimated to be between 0.05 ug/m3 and 0.02 ug/m3 

for the 0.10 gplg standard, or between 0.02 ug/m3 and 0.01 ug/m3 if a total 

ban on leaded gasoline were imposed. 

3.1 CURRENT AMBIENT IMPACTS FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

Regulations promulgated by EPA in 1980 require that, beginning in 1981, 

ambient lead impacts from mobile sources be monitored in any urbanized area 

with a population greater than 500,000. The primary objective for National 

Air Monitoring Stations (NAMS) in such areas is to monitor in the locations 

where the population exposures are expected to be the highest, consistent with 

the averaging time of the NAAQS. For monitoring ambient lead concentrations, 

NAMS siting criteria require (at a minimum) in each urban area (1) a 

microscale or middle scale station located in the area of expected maximum 

concentrations, and (2) a neighborhood scale station located in an area that 

combines poor air quality with high population density, but that is not 

necessarily an area of expected maximum concentrations. Both of these 

stations are to be located adjacent to a roadway with an average daily traffic 

volume (ADT) greater than 30,000 vehicles per day. 

Each of the three types of stations mentioned above represents a different 

spatial scale: 

miscroscale--defines the concentrations in air volumes associated 

with area dimensions ranging from several meters up to about 

100 meters; 

middle scale--defines the concentration typical of areas up to 

several city blocks in size with dimensions ranging from about 

100 meters to 0.5 kilometer; 

neighborhood scale--defines concentrations within some extended area 

of the city that has relatively uniform land use with dimensions in 

the 0.5 to 4.0 kilometers range. 

Currently, 115 NAMS have been approved for lead, including 32 microscale, 

28 "middle scale, and 55 neighborhood scale sites. Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 

27 
TABLE 3-1. SITE PARAMETERS AND AMBIENT LEAD DATA FOR SELECTED 

MICROSCALE NAMS * 

DsancsasasaaaannanittBaein i 8 BSj 89 BS HBIHUC I 09 IS B3B3B8B9RB C9 CSSSBSBS BS BO IS S3 03 Bl BE Ml £3 108 C3I BB Bi d B3C3 E3 C3 B9E*3 B8E3CS 18) BO B8 C8 B8 Efl ECEB E I S3 S I B3 8QQE3B 3 C3 2 

Site number 

Probe 

height 

(meters) 

2 

5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

3 

2 

6 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

at ion 

Avg . roadway 

volume (1000 

vehicles 

per day 

30 

25 

100 

104 

75 

64 

35 

69 

97 

33 

78 

150 

15 

132 

36 

64 

16 

Di stance 

to road 

(meters) 

9 

6 

15 

14 

12 

13 

7 

7 

14 

7 

12 

10 

11 

14 

9 

15 

5 

Annual 

average 

concentration, 

1983 (ug/m3) 

0.86 

0.70 

1.13 

1.02 

0.40 

0.44 

0.51 

0.63 

0.73 

0.74 

0.64 

0.73 

0.44 

1.22 

0.36 

1.22 

1.30 

0.77 

0.31 

Maximum 

quarter1y 

concentration| 

1983 (ug/m3) 

1.04 

1. 10 

1.39 

1. 15 

0.43 

0.60 

0.59 

0.70 

0.87 

0.95 

0.69 

0.90 

0.50 

1.37 

0.41 

1.30 

1.50 

0.91 

0.35 

to 

00 

0103B0028B01 

053900001101 

100860024GO1 

101960084H01 

151780009H01 

210120041F01 

220240002F01 

2430B0004F01 

310960002F01 

320040022H02 

330660017F01 

3346B0052F01 

37220001BF02 

381460082F01 

397140047H02 

402140003F01 

451700027F01 

Mean value 

Sample std . deviatio n 

BIBaP'IH8lt3'jS8nnBlBSBilBBaB>f8IBfl'BIBflM 

*0nly sites with four quarters o-f data -for 1983 were included. 

I BBI BB 8H M DB B8 KB B8 KB B*t Bfl U B CU B9 E3 Bl H BO Bl BS Bl 

^ 
TABLE 3-2. SITE PARAMETERS AND AMBIENT LEAD DATA FOR SELECTED 

MIDDLE SCALE NAMS* 

I BS B3 U EB O E3 BB BB 88 E3 E3 831 ES U S3 BS BB BS BB n 

Avg. roadway 

volume (1000 Distance 

vehicles to road 

per day (meters) 

smmamsamtnKiaBammmsBtsawaisivBatmmmBimamwaKavsaa 

Site number 

030600017G01 

056980004I01 

057160001101 

090020027101 

101840001G01 

141220026H01 

222160007F01 

261040002G01 

262380002H01 

402160004F01 

,o 410300007F01 

"° 451310029H01 

451B80003F01 

4518B0023F01 

512200099F01 

Probe 

height 

(meters) 

4 

4 

4 

10 

4 

8 

4 

13 

6 

4 

5 

7 

7 

6 

13 

Annual 

average 

concentration, 

1983 <ug/m3) 

0.70 

0.34 

0.28 

0.23 

0.31 

0.45 

0.76 

0.35 

0.21 

0.47 

0.69 

0.29 

0.60 

0.70 

0.29 

0.44 

0. 19 

Man i mum 

quarterly 

concentration, 

19B3 <ug/m3) 

1.08 

0.44 

0.35 

0.32 

0.41 

0.52 

0.99 

0.40 

0.33 

0.56 

0.92 

0.37 

1. 00 

0.90 

0.32 

0.59 

0.29 

19 

10 

13 

34 

38 

177 

81 

53 

14 

12 

90 

79 

13 

70 

16 

25 

14 

19 

33 

37 

13 

51 

43 

56 

16 

23 

24 

21 

50 

28 

Mean value 

Sample std. deviation 

B BB Bl BS Bl BB BS BS BB Bl BS BB BS B8 B8 BB BM BS BS BB Bl tn B B BB BS BB BB BS Bl B3 BS BB BB BS BS BS BB BB B3 C3 BB BB S3 BS BS BS BSES BS B3 C3 IB Bl BS BS SB 

*0nly sites with four quarters of data for 1983 were included. 
TABLE 3-3. SITE PARAMETERS AND AMBIENT LEAD DATA FOR SELECTED 

NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE NAMS* 

BSmBfljKaBtSB*Bn2BKSOSB31 E3 IBS BB BB SB BIBB B 

Site number 

030600013Q01 

052780001101 

054180103101 

056535001101 

056860004101 

141220052H01 

151520014H01 

152040038H01 

172340001F01 

220380002F01 

222160011F01 

260030001 GO 1 

2B1BB0019G01 

312320003F01 

320040019H01 

3346B0079F01 

372200033F01 

3B14600B0F01 

390400002G01 

397140049H01 

402160003F01 

410300017F01 

451700010G01 

434570034F01 

4B3240005F01 

Probe 

height 

(meters) 

13 

6 

13 

7 

9 

4 

10 

15 

3 

12 

14 

4 

11 

11 

4 

14 

13 

4 

3 . 

B 

a 

14 

.- 3 

IS 

9 

tB BB Bl BS BB BS BS BB BS BB BB BU BS MS 

Avg. roadway 

volume (1000 

vehicles 

per day 

MS BB BB BS BS B8BSBS8B B3B 

Distance 

to road 

(meters) 

B BS IB Bl BB BS UB BB BB BS BS BB Bl BB BS BS EB BO BS BH B3 BX BB ES BB BS BS BS BB BS QC B 

Annual 

average 

concentration, 

1983 (ug/m3) 

Maximum 

quarterly 

concentrati on, 

1983 (ug/m3) 

UJ 

O 

IB 

24 

9 

18 

5 

140 

25 

70 

11 

75 

46 

33 

64 

33 

1 

30 

9 

19 

27 

73 

49 

123 

8 

50 

43 

130 

87 

38 

15 

120 

300 

83 

BO 

150 

106 

100 

81 

92 

12 

117 

400 

150 

95 

130 

100 

152 

32 

100 

103 

Mean value 

Sample std. deviation 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0, 

0. 

0 

0. 

0 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

Oi 

0. 

• 36 

21 

60 

30 

26 

49 

.30 

3B 

.14 

31 

.42 

24 

09 

39 

35 

36 

13 

21 

22 

46 

19 

42 

21 

40 

17 

30 

13 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

0. 

o.. 

0. 

0. 

54 

30 

90 

50 

29 

57 

39 

47 

15 

40 

55 

29 

10 

42 

49 

47 

14 

28 

23 

57 

23 

60 

30 

60 

24 

40 

IB 

*Qnly sites with four quarters of data for 19B3 were included. 
P.46 

summarize ambient data for monitors that had complete data (4 quarters) for 

1983. For each site, annual average and maximum quarterly concentrations are 

given, as well 3s physical site characteristics. Concentration data are 

summarized with means and standard deviations. 

3.2 PROJECTED AMBIENT LEAD IMPACTS FROM MOBILE SOURCES 

The first step in predicting future ambient lead concentrations from the 

projected amount of lead additives burned in gasoline is to model the past 

relationship between these two variables. Section 3.2.1 discusses the use of 

literature information and available monitoring data in defining the 

variables, and introduces two techniques used to quantify the relationships 

between them. Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 detail the application of these 

two techniques to predict ambient lead concentrations for 1990 and 1995. 

3.2.1 Definition of Variables and General Methodologies 

To calculate the total annual amount of lead burned in gasoline (the 

independent variable) in the calendar years 1974 through 1983, information on 

average gasoline lead contents reported to EPA by refiners wss combined with 

Department of Energy figures on total U.S. gasoline consumption. Table 3-4 

presents this information as well as references and details on calculations. 

Two separate indicators of the trend in ambient lead concentrations were 

chosen as dependent variables: the highest quarterly average concentration 

for a given calendar year, and also the annual average concentration. 

Figure 3-1 shows quarterly average and annual average concentrations at one 

neighborhood scale site since 1974 (near the start of the lead phasedown 

program). The concentration fluctuates seasonally, but there is a general 

downward trend, illustrated by the line highlighting the maximum quarterly 

averages and by the line connecting the annual averages. For comparison, 

Figure 3-2 shows the downward trend in total lead burned in gasoline per year, 

relative to 1974 = 1.0 (see Table 3-4). 

31 
~ yrr r - r '1FVT"* 

V 

z 

52 

i-< 

rZ 

k l 

U 

z 2.0 

o 

o 

o < 

tn 

- 1 

Ul 

a "J. 

< H 

a •>* 

iti o« 

5 •*-

< >-

_ i 

uj 1.0 

lcr QUA 

C 

z 

< 

- 1 

< 3 Z 

Z < 

0 

_ 

— 

"Q 1 

- o 

_ 

-

-

• i. 

• '. 

• : 

\ • 

* • 

1 • 

* 0 

, 1 

1 ? 

: ; \ 

': \ 

•M. : \ 

• \ ; l 

• \. * : \ Q 

• •• ^\A / 

*£ I * 

6 ' "; | 

6 ! 

''o 

i i i 1 i i 

: 6 

i 1 

f] 

: G 

• 

6 

i i i 

9 

6. 

I , 

6 

i 

^ MAXIMUM CALENDAR QUARTERS 

^ CALENDAR QUARTERS 

^ ANNUAL AVERAGES 

^^^^^^^ ^ "* X \ 

' *. \ • \. 

'• • ' \ 

sO : • \ 

7N> • • £ * ^^^""••'w ^ 

* ^*^ . • '*'' ^^***tf\ 

N. " t \ Nr* 

• rck , • '• ^ 

U ' \S-LJ"" 

0' *. :" ^--Vk. 

G>0 •. / 

'Q.6 

1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 

'•©• 

1 , 

7 

.* 

6 

i i 

^. p 

\ " :* 

o-o 

1 , , I 

1974->» 1975 —• I976- * 1977 - > 1978- 1979 -

YEAR 

1980 -*• 1981- • 1982-* 1983-

Figure 3-1. Quarterly and annual average ambient lead concentrations 

at NAMS 030600013G01 

Figure 3-2. Relative total lead burned in gasoline (1974 - 1.0) 

32 
Maximum quarterly average (MQA) and annual average (AA) lead 

concentrations for the calendar years between 1974 and 1983 were compiled for 

all current NAMS. For any given monitor, however, only those years during 

which all data met SAROAD summarization criteria (OAQPS Guideline 1.2-040, 

Vol. 3, Sec. 2.3.0) were included in the study; this eliminated many 

site-years of data. 

Two techniques were used to describe the past relationship between the 

variables and then to project future ambient lead concentrations from 

projected lead-in-gasoline: regression analysis and ratio analysis. Applying 

ordinary least squares regression analysis to data from past years produces a 

model of the form: 

AA (or MQA) = P0 + Pi(GASPB) 

where P0 and p^ are the regression coefficients (intercept and slope, 

respectively) of a straight line, and GASPB represents the annual lead burned 

in gasoline. Thus, once the coefficients are known, annual average or maximum 

quarterly concentrations can be predicted by substituting into the equation 

the projected amount of lead burned in a given future year. 

If, however, the intercept is equal to zero, then a second method, ratio 

analysis, can be applied. In this case, the following equation describes the 

relationship between the variables: 

AA (or MQA) = C • (GASPB) 

or: 

AA (or MQA) = C . 

GASPB 

where C is a direct-proportionality constant, representing the value of the 

ratio of the independent and dependent variables. A zero intercept, implying 

negligible background concentrations in the absence of lead in gasoline, makes 

sense for this analysis for two reasons. Background concentrations can be 

caused by point source contributions or by re-entrainment of lead from 

contaminated roadside dust. However, the NAMS chosen for this analysis are 

•? 33 : 
monitors for mobile sources of lead, and are not affected by point sources of 

lead. In addition, by 1990, the level of lead in gasoline will have been very 

low (0.10 gplg maximum) for four years, implying that contamination of 

roadside dust (and therefore lead re-entrainment) will be minimal. Thus, 

intuitively, a zero intercept and the use of ratio analysis appear to be a 

better choice than regression analysis. 

3.2.2 Application of Regression Analysis 

The best monitoring sites for use in regression analysis were those with 

data extending back into the mid-1970's, because these show clearly the 

downward trend in ambient lead concentrations over time. However, only six 

NAMS-approved sites have such data, providing a total of two sets of 

32 observations each to be used in conjunction with the data on annual 

gasoline lead burned (GASPB) given in Table 3-4. The relationships between 

total lead burned in gasoline and the maximum quarterly concentrations for 

each of the six sites from 1974 to 1982 are shown in Figure 3-3; each site's 

data, and all site data combined as well, show an apparent correlation between 

the two variables. If annual average concentrations were graphed in place of 

maximum quarterly concentrations, a similar plot would result. 

Using the two 32-observation datasets, two simple linear regressions of 

the form given in Section 3.2.1 were derived. The evaluative model statistics 

(R2 and the standard error of the estimate, Sy/X) indicated fairly good 

models, but the residuals plots showed pronounced heteroskedasticity 

(nonhomogeneity of variance, increasing as the value of GASPB increased); this 

is a violation of an OLS regression assumption, and implies that calculated 

confidence limits and significance tests do not apply. To correct the 

heteroskedasticity, all values of AA (or MQA) and GASPB were divided by the 

GASPB values (a common correction technique), a new regression was run using 

these transformed values (e.g., [AA/GASPB] = P0 + Pifl/GASPB]), the equation 

then multiplied through by GASPB to return the variables to their original 

metrics (i.e., AA = p0[GASPB] + P^ -- note that the coefficients reverse 

places), and the evaluative statistics calculated by hand. This yielded the 

following two equations: 

34 
P.50 

1 

TABLE 3-4. LEAD BURNED IN GASOLINE 

• — " • •'- , • ' 

Year 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

Gasoline Usage 

(1000 bbl/day)a 

Leaded Unleaded 

6537 0 

NA NA 

5424e 1554 

5201 1976 

4891 2521 

4236 2798 

3512 3067 

3324 3264 

3130 3409 

2975 3647 

Total 

6537 

6675 

6978 

7177 

7412 

7034 

6579 

6588 

6539 

6622 

Average 

lead content 

of leaded 

fuel(g/gal)b 

1.79 

1.82 

2.02 

2.03 

1.94 

1.85 

1.38 

1.15 

1.24 

1.14 

Total 

lead 

burned 

(Gg)c 

179 

174d 

168 

162 

146 

121 

75 

59 

60 

53 

Total 

lead burned 

relative 

to 1974 

1.0 

0.97 

0.94 

0.91 

0.82 

0.68 

0.42 

0.33 

0,34 

0.30 

NA - not available 

aReference 3; 1 bbl = 42 gallons. 

^Reference 2. 

cIn calculating the total amount of lead compounds burned, the average lead 

content in unleaded gasoline was taken as 0.014 grams/gallon (Reference 2). 

^Because data on leaded and unleaded fuel use in 1975 are unavailable, the 

total amount of lead burned in gasoline in 1975 was estimated by taking the 

average of the 1974 and 1976 values. 

eLeaded and unleaded fuel use rates in 1976 were estimated based on 

nine months of data (Reference 4). 

35 
• f W -.P"-^ r . T T .-. r P.51 

uya n 

(19821 

3.0 

(1980) 

to 

c 

=L 

z 

o 

r -

< 

tr 

S 2.0 

o 

z 

o 

(J 

a 

< 

Id 

Ui 

< 

UJ 

> 

< 

cr 

Ui 

itr 

< 

o 

X 

< 

2 

w ii 

(1979) (19771(1973) 

11978) I97Q (1974) 

-0S1T E ID 030600013G01 

-AS1TE ID 056400003F0I 

- • SITE ID 056535001101 

-X SITE ID 05680000 4 101 

• - + SITE ID 05698000 4 101 

—VS1TE ID 101760001 G01 

J L I I t 1 

0 1.0 0.5 '.... , 

RELATIVE TOTAL LEAD BURNED IN GASOLINE (1974 = 1) 

Figure 3-3. Maximum quarterl y lead concentration a t NAMS site s as a 

function of tota l lead burned in gasoline . 

36 
AA = 0.0671 + 0.00706 (GASPB) R2 = 0.81 

(s~= 0.068) (sfi= 0.001) sv/„ = 0.21 

P P ny= 32 

MQA = 0.119 + 0.0101 (GASPB) R2 = 0.70 

(s8= 0.124) (sft= 0.002) sv/„ = 0.38 

P P n y = 32 

The residuals plots appeared randomly scattered and heteroskedasticity was 

eliminated. 

Using these regression equations to predict future ambient lead 

concentrations appeared questionable, though, because at the low levels of 

GASPB projected for 1990 and 1995, the intercept would contribute much more to 

the predicted AA or MQA value than the (p^[GASPB]) term; that is, the 

lead-in-gasoline contribution to roadside lead levels would be lower than the 

unexplained contribution. This is counter-intuitive, as discussed in 

Section 3.2.1. Using ratio analysis instead of regression analysis to make 

predictions, however, hinges on establishing that the intercept is not 

significantly different from zero, as discussed below. 

The standard errors (s«) for both intercepts were very high (relative to 

the magnitudes of the intercepts themselves), indicating that the intercepts 

might be equal to zero. Using the null hypothesis H0:P0 = 0 and the 

alternative hypothesis H^: p0 > 0, prob-values were calculated and looked up 

in a Student1s-t table. For both models, the prob-value lay between 0.15 and 

0.20, implying that H0 could be rejected with only 80Z-857. confidence (the 

usual level for rejection is 95% confidence). Thus, as expected, the 

hypothesis that the intercept is different from zero is not accepted. An 

intercept equal to zero is substantiated both statistically and intuitively. 

3.2.3 Application of Ratio Analysis 

As discussed in Section 3.2.1, ratio analysis is based on these two 

equations: 

AA = C] 

GASPB 37 
MQA = C: 

GASPB 

In order to base calculation of C^ and C2 on as much past data as possible, 

the 32-observation/6-site dataset used in regression analysis was expanded to 

include all site-years that had four complete quarters of data. Each of the 

final MQA and AA datasets consisted of 122 observations representing the years 

1975 through 1983 (primarily 1981-1983), and the following numbers of each 

site type: 17 microscale sites (28 observations), 18 middle scale sites 

(32 observations), and 28 neighborhood scale sites (62 observations). These 

data are given in Appendix B. 

Calculation of Cj^ and C2 and of projected lead-in-gasoline use allows 

estimation of mean future mobile source impacts, confidence levels for these 

means, and upper limits (99th percentiles) for future maximum quarterly and 

annual average concentrations. The first step in calculating C^ and C£ was to 

create two new datasets (one for AA, one for MQA) by dividing each value of 

MQA or AA by the corresponding GASPB level for the year of measurement,, 

producing two sets of ratios. Creating histograms from these two 122-point 

sets produced log-normal distributions. To calculate distribution properties 

and confidence intervals, the data were transformed to produce normal 

distributions by taking the natural log of each ratio. Next, the geometric 

mean and standard deviation of each In-transformed distribution of ratios was 

calculated, along with an upper limit on each mean ratio (using: x + [t.QlI • 

[s/Vn]), and the 99th percentile of each distribution of ratios (using: x + 

[t.Oll * [s])» Then, to put the means, upper limits on means, and percentiles 

back into their original metric, the inverse logs of each of these were 

taken. Finally, to arrive at values for AA or MQA (and upper limits and 

percentiles) for 1990 and 1995, each ratio was then multiplied by the 

predicted values of GASPB for those years. Predicted GASPB was calculated as 

in Table 3-4, using values given in the Federal Register* on projected 

gasoline usage, and assuming that leaded gasoline would not be phased out, 

would contain 0.10 gplg, that no fuel switching would occur, and that unleaded 

gasoline would contain 0.014 gpg lead. Values of GASPB and predicted future 

38 
P.54 

impacts for all sites types combined (a sort of national average) are given in 

the first two columns of Table 3-5. 

To allow site-type-specific predictions, the two 122-observation datasets 

were each split into three subsets—one for microscale sites (28 points), one 

for middle scale sites (32 points), and one for neighborhood scale sites 

(62 points)--and the same manipulations as described above were performed on 

each subset. The resulting predictions are shown in the first two columns of 

Table 3-5. 

Finally, all calculations were repeated, using the levels of GASPB that 

would result if the use of leaded gasoline were banned, and all gasoline used 

contained 0.014 gpg lead.1 Results are given in the last two columns of 

Table 3-5. 

To determine whether mobile source emissions alone would cause exceedences 

of any NAAQS, only the predictions for maximum quarterly concentrations were 

considered, as these represent more of a worst-case situation that the annual 

average values; specifically, the 99th percentile predictions for microscale 

sites were used: 0.15 ug/m-* for 1990, 0.13 ug/nr* for 1995. Thus, because 

these values are less than the lowest NAAQS alternative being considered 

(0.25 ug/m-*), mobile source emissions by themselves are not expected to exceed 

whatever new standard is set. 

3.3 INTERACTION OF MOBILE SOURCE AND STATIONARY SOURCE AMBIENT LEAD IMPACTS 

In projecting the attainment status of areas with both mobile and 

stationary sources of lead emissions, a background mobile source ambient 

impact was added to the projected impact for stationary sources. As shown in 

Table 3-5, the average mobile source impact in 1990 could range from 

0.01 ug/m^ (the value calculated for neighborhood scale sites, with a ban on 

leaded gasoline) to 0.05 ug/m-* (calculated for microscale sites, with leaded 

gasoline in use and containing 0.10 gplg). In analyzing NAAQS costs for 

stationary sources, costs were studied for both the highest mean mobile source 

impact (0.05 ug/m-3) and the lowest mean impact (0.01 ug/up). It should be 

noted that, in both of these cases, mean mobile source impacts were used, not 

upper or lower limits. Clearly, some urban sources are located in areas where 

39 
TABLE 3-5 . PROJECTED LEAD IN GASOLINE AND AMBIENT LEAD IMPACTS FROM 

MOBILE SOURCES 

Projections 

(leaded oasoline 

at 0.10" gplg) 

Projections 

(total ban on 

leaded gasoline) 

1990 1995 1990 1995 

Lead burned in gasoline (Gg/yr) 

Mobile source aabient iiipacts (ug/a3) 

Annual average values 

All site types coabined 

Hsan iapact 

Upper liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Microscale sites only 

Hsan impact 

Uooer Halt on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Middle scale sites only 

Mean iapact 

Uooer halt on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Neighborhood scale sites only 

Mean iapact 

Uooer liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

2.B 2.4 1.4 1.4 

0.021 

0.027 

0.076 

0.039 

0.047 

0.11 

0.021 

0.025 

0.055 

0.016 

0.018 

0.046 

0.013 

0.023 

0.066 

0.033 

0.041 

0.092 

0.018 

0.021 

0.047 

0.014 

0.016 

0.039 

0.011 

0.013 

0.038 

0.019 

0.024 

0.053 

0.010 

0.012 

0.028 

0.0081 

0.0092 

0.023 

0.011 

0.013 

0.038 

0.019 

0.024 

0.053 

0.010 

0.012 

0.028 

0.0081 

0.0092 

0.023 

Maxima quarterly values 

All site types coabined 

Mean iapact 

Upper liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Microscale sites only 

Mean iapact 

Uooer liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Middle scale sites only 

Mean iIDact 

Uooer liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

Neighborhood scale sites only 

Mean iapact 

Uooer liait on aean* 

99th percentile of distribution 

0.029 

0.035 

0.11 

0.048 

0.059 

0.15 

0.029 

0.035 

0.085 

0.022 

0.025 

0.070 

0.024 

0.030 

0.091 

0.041 

0.051 

0.13 

0.024 

0.030 

0.073 

0.018 

0.021 

0.060 

0.014 

0.018 

0.053 

0.024 

0.030 

0.073 

0.014 

0.017 

0.043 

0.011 

0.012 

0.035 

0.014 

0.018 

0.053 

0.024 

0.030 

0.073 

0.014 

0.017 

0.043 

0.011 

0.012 

0.035 

*99J confidence 

40 
the background will be higher than the 0.05 ug/m3 average, while others are 

located in areas where the background may be lower than 0.01 ug/m3. Thus, the 

use of a constant background concentration results in some inaccuracy in the 

cost estimates for individual sources. However, it is not expected to bias 

the overall nationwide cost results. 

3.4 LEAD PHASEDOWN COSTS 

In 1982, the original 1973 lead phasedown rules were replaced with 

regulations requiring that the concentration of lead in leaded gasoline be 

less than 1.1 grams per gallon.5 The annual operating costs attributable to 

these regulations were estimated at 110 million dollars (1984 dollars), or 

about 0.2 cents per gallon of leaded gasoline.^ in January 1986, the 1.1 gplg 

rule will be replaced by a 0.10 gplg standard, which will create additional 

refining costs. Initially, the additional costs in 1986 will be 620 million 

dollars per year (1984 dollars), or 0.6 cents per leaded gallon; by 1990, they 

will drop to 480 million dollars per year, and the estimated additional costs 

for 1995 are 440 million dollars (0.4 cents per gallon). For comparison of 

mobile source costs with stationary source costs in this study, the costs 

attributable to the 1986 phasedown rules were used. 

The best method over and above the lead phasedown program for reducing 

mobile source lead emissions in areas with high lead concentrations would 

probably be local restrictions on leaded gasoline sales. Another potential 

method would be to lower the speed limits in these areas. At lower speeds, 

most lead in gasoline is deposited in the engine and exhaust system instead of 

being emitted to the atmosphere. The fraction of lead emitted increases with 

vehicle speed." 

For a number of reasons, mobile source lead emission controls over and 

above the lead phasedown program were not considered in developing costs of 

compliance for the lead NAAQS alternatives. Because the average mobile source 

background around point sources should not exceed about 0.05 ug/nH, the mobile 

source contribution to an exceedence of the alternative levels would be minor 

in comparison with the point source contribution. For instance, for the 

0.25 ug/m3 alternative, the contribution of mobile source background to any 

41 •' 
violation would be at most about 20 percent. In general, most point sources 

that must be controlled to meet an alternative NAAQS would require control 

even in the absence of mobile source background. Also, where stationary 

source controls are applied, they generally are efficient enough so that they 

reduce the ambient impact from the source to a level at which there is not an 

exceedence even when the background is added. 

Finally, if mobile source controls were to be used, the scale at which the 

controls would be required would necessarily be much larger than the scale of 

the exceedence to be eliminated. As shown in Section 2, the scale of an 

exceedence in the vicinity of a stationary source is typically less than 

1 kilometer. However, automobiles being operated in the vicinity of the 

source will typically have come from locations tens of kilometers from the 

source, and may have come from locations hundreds of kilometers away. Thus, 

for example, to effect the elimination of an exceedence in an area one square 

kilometer in size, control of mobile sources or leaded gasoline sales may be 

required for tens or hundreds of square kilometers. 

42 
11 

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 

1. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Federal Register. 50:9386-9399. 

March 7, 1985. 

2. Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans—Updated 

Projections for Motor Vehicle Lead Emissions (EPA-450/2-83-002). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. March 1983. 

3. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Monthly. 

DOE/EIA-0109 (83/03), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

December 1984. 

4. Energy Information Administration. Petroleum Supply Monthly. 

DOE/EIA-0109 (78/05), U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 

May 1978. 

5. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives. Federal Register. 

47:49322-49334. October 29, 1982. 

6. Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans 

(EPA-450/2-78-038). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, N.C. August 1978. p. 153. 

43 
-•*-•--" '" *H T ' 

4. GENERALIZED STUDY METHODOLOGIES 

Costs of attaining the alternative lead NAAQS levels were developed for 

each of the industries that would be affected by any of the NAAQS 

alternatives. These were then summed to obtain nationwide costs. For each 

affected industry, one of two basic methodologies was used to obtain control 

costs, depending on the nature of the industry. For the primary lead smelting 

and alkyl lead manufacturing industries, which comprise a small number of 

plants, each plant was considered separately. For larger industries, .a "model 

plant" approach was used. In this approach, plants were grouped into classes 

based on size, process type, control status, and other characteristics. Costs 

or other impacts for a class of plants were then estimated based on the 

operating parameters of a "model" or hypothetical plant considered to be 

representative of the class. 

A number of steps were involved in developing costs both for industries 

comprising small numbers of plants and for larger industries. First, the 

affected industries were categorized and control strategies to be used as 

baselines in developing the attainment costs were identified. Ambient impacts 

were then determined for the baseline emissions, and emission reductions 

necessary to attain the various NAAQS alternatives were quantified. Control 

options were identified for each emission source and costs were developed for 

each option. Controls to achieve each NAAQS alternative at the lowest net 

annualized cost were then selected from among the available options, and the 

costs of these selected control systems were summed to obtain total plant and 

industry costs of attainment. Thus, as noted in Section 1, the costs 

developed in this study are the least net annualized costs of attaining the 

various NAAQS alternatives. 

It is important to note that this study has been conducted over a period 

of several years beginning in late 1982. The original study plan has been 

extended to include the additional low level NAAQS alternatives of 0.25 and 

0.5 ug/m3, and to include a study of the effect of averaging time on measured 

45 
P.60 

lead concentration. Thus, the study is based on data of a number of ages. 

For instance, the data used to identify affected industries are from 1982. 

The analysis of major lead-emitting source categories is based on data from 

late 1983. Finally, the analysis of smaller emitters is based on data from 

late 1984. The following discussion deals with basic methodologies and 

assumptions used in this study. Specific methodologies and assumptions used 

in the analysis of individual industrial categories are presented in 

Section 5. 

4.1 IDENTIFICATION OF AFFECTED INDUSTRY CATEGORIES 

Industry categories which would be affected under the lead NAAQS 

alternatives were identified by two methods. First, industries associated 

with exceedences of the current NAAQS of 1.5 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/m3) 

would be affected by that alternative and by the lower alternative levels of 

0.25 ug/m3, 0.5 ug/m3, 0.8 ug/m3 and 1.0 ug/m3. Second, as part of the 

exposure assessment for the lead Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), dispersion 

modeling was conducted for all significant stationary lead sources in ten 

urbanized areas. Significant sources of lead emissions were identified using, 

the December 1982 updates of the National Emissions Data System (NEDS) and the 

Hazardous and Trace Emissions System (HATREMS) computerized data files. The 

ten urbanized areas studied are: 

• Butte, Montana; 

• Chicago, Illinois; 

• Dallas, Texas; 

• Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; 

• Nashville, Tennessee; 

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 

• Phoenix, Arizona; 

• Tampa, Florida; 

• Washington, D.C; and 

• Waterbury, Connecticut. 

46 
P.61 

The results of these studies were used extensively in identifying industries 

which would be affected under the NAAQS alternatives. 

Several industries which were found to be major source categories in the 

lead emission inventory (Section 2) currently are not associated with 

exceedences of the 1.5 ug/m3 NAAQS. For coal and residual oil combustion, 

overall emissions of lead are substantial; however projections based on lead 

emission factors and past EPA modeling studies for other pollutants indicated 

that ambient levels caused by individual members of these categories or 

dispersed groups are very low. Therefore, these industries were eliminated as 

significant contributors to ambient lead levels prior to the modeling studies 

for urbanized areas. 

Other industries identified as major sources of total lead emissions were 

not included in the modeling for urbanized areas because sources were not 

located in the ten areas studied. For these industries, dispersion modeling 

was conducted, or, where available, ambient data from nearby monitors were 

reviewed to determine whether sources could be affected by any of the NAAQS 

alternatives. 

The following industry categories were identified as potentially affected 

under one or more of the lead NAAQS alternatives: 

• primary lead smelting; 

• secondary lead smelting; 

• lead ore processing; 

• lead-acid battery manufacture; 

• alkyl lead manufacture; 

• gray iron cupolas; 

• alloy steel electric arc furnaces; 

• carbon steel electric arc furnaces; 

• iron ore sintering; 

• brass and bronze production; and 

• primary copper smelting. 

47 
Source categories that were studied by one or more of the above methods, and 

that are not expected to be affected under any of the lead NAAQS alternatives 

include: 

• copper ore processing; 

• Portland cement production; 

• waste oil combustion; 

• municipal waste incineration; 

• sewage sludge incineration; 

• leaded glass manufacture; 

• residual oil combustion; and 

• coal combustion. 

4.2 SELECTION OF BASELINE CONTROL STRATEGIES 

The baseline control strategy for a particular industry is the set of 

controls used as a benchmark for the estimation of the impacts of a regulatory 

action on the industry. For this study, the baseline controls selected were .-.-

those that are currently in use. These controls include those installed to 

attain the current NAAQSs for lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide, 

and those installed to meet new source performance standards (NSPS). Because 

the State implementation process for the current lead NAAQS is not yet 

complete, baseline controls in many cases do not achieve the current standard. 

Baseline controls are not necessarily the same for all members of an 

affected industry, but may represent a distribution of controls across the 

industry. Controls currently in use depend on plant size and plant location. 

For instance, controls vary depending on whether a plant is in an attainment 

or a non-attainment area for particulate matter, and on the degree of 

completion of the implementation process for the lead NAAQS in the State where 

the plant is sited. For new plants, baseline control was taken as the degree 

of control required by NSPS. 

48 
V: 

4.3 ESTIMATION OF BASELINE AMBIENT IMPACTS 

Ambient lead impacts were estimated for sources with baseline controls in 

order to determine the degree of emission control that would be required under 

each of the lead NAAQS alternatives. The baseline ambient impacts were taken 

as the maximum average lead concentration resulting from plant emissions for a 

calendar quarter. 

4.3.1 Dispersion Modeling 

Atmospheric dispersion modeling results were the major input in the 

estimation of baseline ambient impacts. As noted in Section 4.1, atmospheric 

dispersion modeling was conducted for all significant sources of lead in ten 

urbanized areas. For each of these urbanized areas, the area covered included 

all of the counties associated with the urbanized area in the 1970 census.-* 

Modeling was conducted for each plant in the primary lead smelting and 

lead alkyl manufacture source categories. In addition, dispersion modeling 

was performed for a hypothetical lead ore processing plant, two hypothetical 

leaded glass plants, a commercial heating unit fired by waste crankcase oil, a 

sewage sludge incinerator, and a municipal waste incinerator. 

The Industrial Source Complex - Short Term (ISCST) model was used in most 

cases. The model was chosen over the ISC-Long Term (ISCLT) model to allow the 

assessment of short term exposures as well as long term exposures. Where 

ISCST was used, terrain effects were neglected. For five primary lead 

smelters, terrain effects were considered important and the COMPLEX I model 

was used to take them into account. These models were used to predict, for 

each source, the daily average ambient lead impact at an array of receptors 

for a full year. The receptor network was radial, with 160 receptors in 16 

directions in 22.5° sectors, at distances of 0.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 1, 2, 5, 10, 

and 20 kilometers from the source. For the modeling in the urbanized areas, 

receptors were also located at the centroids of all of the census tracts. The 

daily average concentrations were averaged to obtain impacts for four calendar 

quarters. 

49 
For the urbanized area exposure assessment modeling, the meteorological 

data used were from aerometric stations in those cities. For modeling of 

individual sources, the data used were from the closest station for which data 

have been preprocessed for short term EPA dispersion models, and were the most 

recent data available. Intermediate plume rise was assumed, and rural or 

urban settings for the models were selected as appropriate based on plant 

location. Stack downwash effects were taken into account, using NEDS stack 

parameters. Building wake effects were included for emissions released at 

roof level. Generally, building dimensions were assumed to be 50 meters by 

50 meters by 10 meters high. Particle deposition was taken into account where 

large particles were known to be emitted. Generally, however, particle size 

data were not available, so particle deposition effects were not included. 

4.3.2 Emissions Data used in Modeling Studies 

The primary source of emissions data for dispersion modeling was the 

computerized NEDS file. Stack parameters were taken directly from NEDS. 

Where possible, lead emission rates were calculated using the operating rates 

given in NEDS and lead emission factors published by EPA.2>3 

For lead-acid battery manufacture and alkyl lead additive manufacture, 

the NEDS files were incomplete. For primary and secondary lead smelters, 

fugitive emissions generally are not addressed in NEDS. For these four source 

categories emissions data were developed from published sources and contacts 

with EPA Regional Office personnel and State and local agency personnel. The 

derivation of model inputs for these categories is described in further detail 

in Section 5. 

4.3.3 Baseline Ambient Impacts for Industries with Small Numbers of Plants 

For the lead alkyl manufacture and primary lead smelting industries, 

which comprise a small number of plants, costs were developed on a 

plant-by-plant basis. Therefore, baseline ambient impacts were estimated for 

each individual plant. In the case of lead alkyl manufacture, the baseline 

impacts were estimated based entirely on dispersion modeling results. The 

50 
baseline impact for each plant was taken simply as the maximum quarterly 

average concentration predicted by dispersion modeling for four calendar 

quarters. 

For four of the five primary lead smelters, ambient lead concentration 

data are available from nearby monitors. For two of these smelters, source 

apportionment studies have been conducted as part of implementation programs 

for the current lead NAAQS. Data from ambient monitors and source 

apportionment studies were used in place of or in conjunction with dispersion 

modeling results to predict baseline ambient impacts for primary lead 

smelters. The development of baseline ambient impacts for primary lead 

smelters is discussed in more detail in Section 5. 

4.3.4 Baseline Ambient Impacts for Industries with Large Numbers of Plants 

For most of the industries considered in this study, dispersion modeling 

was conducted for only a small set of sources. Thus, it was necessary to 

extrapolate these modeling results to estimate ambient impacts for the entire 

population of plants. This was done using source-receptor coefficients. A 

source-receptor coefficient is defined as the ambient impact of a source : 

divided by its emission rate. In this study, the source-receptor coefficient 

for a given source was calculated by dividing the maximum quarterly 

concentration by the emission rate for the source. Source-receptor 

coefficients were calculated for sources modeled in the ten urbanized areas 

listed above. 

It was assumed that the maximum ambient impact occurs outside the plant 

boundary. For lead-emitting industries comprising large numbers of plants, 

most plants are located in urban areas where large tracts of property are 

expensive and difficult to obtain. These plants were assumed to own property 

to at most 150 meters away from the actual emission sources. Because the 

maximum lead impacts predicted by dispersion modeling occur at distances of 

200-300 meters, even for low lying sources, these maxima generally will be 

outside plant property. 

Source-receptor coefficients generally vary with emission height, 

emission temperature, and other stack parameters; and with atmospheric 

51 
conditions. The coefficient is independent of emission rate. It is also 

independent of plant size if stack velocity and temperature are independent of 

plant size. For a given type of operation in a given industry, stack 

parameters generally are similar across the industry. Therefore, much o£ the 

variation in the source-receptor coefficient for a given type of operation 

results from variations in meteorological parameters from site to site. 

Nevertheless, differences of up to an order of magnitude were found in 

source-receptor coefficients for various operations. 

For each type of lead emitting operation, the mean source-receptor 

coefficient was calculated for all operations of that type modeled in the ten 

cities assessed. Ambient impacts for sources outside the ten cities were then 

calculated by multiplying their emission rates by the appropriate 

source-receptor coefficients. Source-receptor coefficients used for this 

analysis are given in Section 5. 

4.4 SOURCE INTERACTIONS 

For other criteria pollutants, the interaction of emissions from large 

numbers of plants is a major cause of exceedences of ambient standards. 

Because of the distances that separate major lead emitting sources, however, 

interaction of emissions from separate plants were not considered in this 

study. 

Figure 4-1 shows the lead concentrations predicted by dispersion modeling 

for census tract centroids in central Dallas, Texas. The figure does not 

include the entire Dallas metropolitan area, but shows only the largest 

concentration of emission sources. Plants G and H are secondary lead smelters 

and Plant A is a Portland cement plant. Plants G and H are large sources of 

lead emissions, each of which causes significant exceedences of the current 

standard of 1.5 ug/m3. Although the sources are less than 10 kilometers 

apart, there is no source interaction. If the emissions from plants G and H 

were lowered sufficiently to result in attainment of the current standard, the 

plants would have to be moved to within about 0.5 kilometer for the 

interaction of their emissions to cause a violation. 

52 
Based on the studies conducted in the ten cities for the exposure 

assessment, sources generally are not located in such close proximity. In 

fact, in all of the modeling done for the ten cities, no instances of 

interactions between sources were found that would not be eliminated when both 

sources are brought into attainment at their plant boundaries. 

A study was also made of all sources of lead emissions nationwide, using 

the NEDS files. The source receptor coefficients discussed in the previous 

subsection were used in conjunction with NEDS data on particulate emission 

rates and published data on particulate lead concentrations to estimate the 

maximum ambient lead impact from each lead-emission source. For each pair of 

plants located within ten kilometers of one another, the ambient impact of 

each plant was estimated at the site of maximum ambient impact for the other. 

This was done by assuming that the ambient impact for each plant declines as 

the reciprocal of the distance from the plant and using plant location data 

given in NEDS. Source interaction was considered to occur where the ambient 

impact from one plant makes more than a ten percent difference in the emission 

reduction necessary for another plant to achieve an NAAQS. By this method, 

source interaction was found to occur for a total of only five plants 

nationwide for the 0.5 ug/m3 alternative and none for the 2.5 ug/m3 

alternative. 

The neglect of source interactions in this study may have resulted in 

some underestimation of total costs. Because of the absence of source 

interaction in the exposure assessment cities and the small number of 

interacting pairs detected in the cursory NEDS analysis, this bias is not 

expected to be substantial in comparison with the total control costs. 

Interactions of stationary source emissions with mobile source emissions 

were taken into account for urban sources by superimposing the stationary 

source impacts on a calculated average mobile source background level. Two 

mobile source background concentration levels were studied, 0.01 ug/m3 and 

0.05 ug/m3. These levels cover the range of possible average mobile source 

backgrounds which might exist in 1985. The derivation of these average 

background levels was based on two possible final forms for lead-in-gasoline 

phasedown rules. Details of the calculations are given in Section 3. 

53 
4.5 IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED SOURCES 

Using baseline ambient impacts and background ambient lead 

concentrations, individual plants were identified that would be affected under 

the various lead NAAQS alternatives. For most of the affected industries, 

individual plants were studied to determine their status with respect to the 

various NAAQS alternatives. In general, a plant was determine to be affected 

under a given alternative if the sum of the baseline ambient lead impact and 

the background concentration from mobile sources around the plant would exceed 

the given alternative. 

4.6 CONTROL STRATEGY IDENTIFICATION AND COSTING 

For the major lead-emitting sources in the industry categories identified 

as potentially affected under the various NAAQS alternatives, emission control 

options were developed and assessed. These were developed using a number of 

sources. Major sources used in control option development include: 

• State implementation plans for the current lead NAAQS; 

• background information documents (BIDs) for NSPS for particulate 

matter and lead emissions; 

• control techniques guideline (CTG) documents for particulate matter 

emissions; and 

• other EPA publications. 

Control efficiencies for the various options also were obtained from these 

sources. 

For each control technique, capital and annualized costs were developed. 

The approach taken in the development of these costs depended on the number of 

plants in the affected industry category. For the primary lead smelting and 

alkyl lead gasoline additive manufacture categories, which comprise a small 

number of plants, control costs were estimated for each individual plant. For 

larger industries, control costs were developed for model plants, representing 

various size categories. 

54 
71 

4.6.1 Capital Costs 

The two components of total capital costs are direct capital costs and 

indirect capital costs. Direct capital costs include such items as equipment 

purchase costs, costs of instrumentation and process controls, ductwork and 

piping, electrical work, structural and foundation costs, and direct labor 

costs associated with construction and installation. Indirect capital costs 

include such items as engineering and design costs, contractor fees, 

supervisory expenses, and startup and performance test expenses. Capital cost 

estimates for the control options included in each control technique were 

developed from cost data obtained from manufacturers of emission control 

equipment, industry trade associations, government publications, and standard 

cost references. 

The standard cost references used in developing the cost estimates 

included: 

• "Estimating Costs of Air Pollution Control Systems." (Parts I 

through XI). Chemical Engineering; and 

• Gard, Inc. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution 

Control Systems (EPA-450/5-80-002). U.S. Environmental Protection . 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C , December 1978. 

BIDs and CTGs for particulate matter emissions were also major sources of cost 

information. 

An additional component of capital cost associated with the installation 

of emission control techniques at an existing plant is the retrofit cost 

penalty. This cost, which can range from 10 to 70 percent of total installed 

capital cost, is due to space limitations and additional structural and 

ductwork requirements for a retrofitted control system. 

4.6.2 Annualized Costs 

The two components of total annualized costs are annualized capital 

charges and annual operating and maintenance costs for the control options. 

Annualized capital charges include capital recovery of the total capital costs 

55 
and the miscellaneous capital charge of taxes, insurance, and administration. 

The capital recovery factor used is a function of the interest rate selected 

and the general life expectancy of the piece of equipment or capital 

investment. The interest rate that was used in developing the capital 

recovery factors is 10 percent and the average life of the control options 

included in each control technique ranges from 5 to 25 years. In addition, a 

standard factor of 4 percent of the installed capital cost was used for the 

miscellaneous annual charge of taxes, insurance, and administration. The 

annual operating and maintenance costs include such items as operating and 

maintenance labor, utilities, fuel usage, repair materials, and overhead. As 

with the capital costs, the total annualized cost estimates for each control 

option were developed using cost data obtained from the industry trade 

associations, government reports, standard cost references, equipment 

manufacturers, and architectural and engineering firms. 

In addition to total annualized costs for the control options in each 

control technique considered, annual savings and costs associated with product 

recovery or disposal were estimated. Product recovery is achieved when an 

emission control device captures a pollutant that can be recycled into the 

production process, sold as a byproduct, or used as fuel or a fuel substitute. 

These annualized savings are presented as a separate component of the cost 

analysis, but are deducted from the total annualized cost of each respective 

control technique to give a final total net annualized cost or savings. It 

should be noted that annualized savings due to product recovery, like other 

capital and annualized cost components, do not necessarily apply to all 

control techniques or options. 

4.6.3 Cost Updating 

All costs or savings (capital and annualized) were updated to October 

1984 dollars. Capital costs were updated using the appropriate factor from 

the Chemical Engineering Plant Index. Annual operating and maintenance costs 

were calculated from these updated capital costs and the October 1984 costs 

for such items as utilities and labor. Annualized costs were updated in two 

steps where possible. The annualized capital charges were recalculated using 

56 
P.71 

the updated capital costs. Annual operation and maintenance costs were then 

updated using the appropriate cost indices. In some of the sources used, the 

annualized costs are not broken down such that this methodology could be 

employed. In these cases, the Chemical Engineering Plant Index was used to 

escalate the entire annualized costs. 

4.7 ESTIMATION OF LOWEST COST OF ATTAINMENT FOR EXISTING SOURCES 

Although interactions of emissions from two or more separate plants are 

not a major cause of NAAQS exceedences, exceedences often are caused by the 

interaction of different emission sources at a single plant. Thus, for plants 

with a number of lead-emission operations, various control strategies were 

compared to determine which would achieve each NAAQS alternative at the least 

cost. 

4.7.1 Least Cost Control Strategies 

The development of a least cost control strategy for a particular plant . 

began with a review of the ambient impact near the plant. .First, the point 

with the highest ambient impact around the plant was found. This impact was 

then apportioned between the various sources at the plant based on dispersion 

modeling results or other source apportionment studies. The result was a set 

of ambient impacts for individual sources within the plant. When a control 

strategy is applied to a source, the percentage reduction in the ambient 

impact from the source is the same as the percentage reduction in the emission 

rate. For each NAAQS alternative, a target level was defined by subtracting 

the mobile source background from the NAAQS. This target represents the level 

below which the total plant impact would have to be reduced in order for the 

NAAQS alternative to be attained. Emission reductions were then applied to 

the individual source ambient impacts in order to identify the set of control 

options that would reduce the total plant impact below the target level at the 

lowest total cost. Costs used in this exercise were the net annualized 

control costs. After the identification of the lowest-cost controls to attain 

a particular alternative at the point of maximum baseline impact, controlled 

57 
impacts were estimated for other receptors to ensure that the control strategy 

would result in attainment at all points around the plant. 

This general methodology was used both for individual plants in the 

primary smelting and alkyl lead manufacturing industries, and for model plants 

representing larger industries. After the identification of the least-cost 

set of controls for a particular plant, control costs were summed for the 

plant to obtain total capital and annualized costs of attainment. 

4.7.2 Control Cost Aggregation 

For the primary smelting and alkyl lead manufacture source categories, 

total industry-wide costs were developed simply by summing costs for the 

individual plants. For larger industries, costs of control were developed on 

a model plant basis, and aggregate costs also were developed using a model 

plant methodology. 

The first step in developing aggregate costs for the larger industries 

was to group the affected plants into classes by size. The total costs of 

attainment for each size range were then calculated by multiplying the number 

of affected plants in the range by the cost of attainment for the model plant 

representing the range. The total costs for the various size ranges were then 

summed to obtain an industry-wide cost. 

4.8 NEW SOURCE COSTS 

4.8.1 Industry Growth 

For each of the industries identified as potentially affected under the 

NAAQS alternatives, industry growth was estimated in order to determine 

whether new sources will be built by 1995. Table 4-1 gives current capacity 

utilization and growth rate estimates for these industries. The references 

used to develop these estimates and the projection periods for the growth 

rates are also listed. 

It was assumed that when a source category reaches a capacity utilization 

of 90 percent, new capacity will be added. Thus, new capacity is expected to 

58 
TABLE 4-1. CURRENT CAPACITY UTILIZATION AND GROWTH RATES FOR INDUSTRIES 

AFFECTED BY THE NAAQS ALTERNATIVES 

Current 

capacity 

utilization 

(percent) 

83 

50 

68 

75 

NA 

68d 

NA 

68d 

68d 

82 

82 

Estimated 

growth rate 

(percent/ 

year)a 

1.0-2.5b 

<1.0 

3.0 

c 

2-3d 

4.0e 

2-3d 

2-3d 

f 

-1.0 

References 

Capacity 

4 

4 

4,5 

7 

9 

— 

9 

9 

9 

9 

Growth 

4,5 

4,5 

6 

7 

8 

10 

11,12 

10 

10 

13 

10 

Projection 

period 

1978-1990 

1978-1990 

1979-1985 

1983-1988 

1983-1990 

1985-1989 

1982-1988 

1985-1989 

1985-1989 

1985-1989 

vo 1985-1989 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smeltins 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Alkyl lead manufacture 

Gray iron production 

Alloy steel electric arc furnaces 

Steel foundry electric arc furnaces 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

aExcept for electric arc furnaces, growth rates are for product deliveries. 

The estimated increase in total lead consumption ranges from 1.0 to 2.5 percent per year. The 

lower estimate (Reference 2) is the average increase in total lead consumption since 1970. 

The higher estimate is the Bureau of Mines projection of the increase in lead consumption 

through 1990 from a 1978 base. 

cConsumption of alkyl lead in the U.S. is expected to decrease by over 90 percent by 1990 

(Section 3); with the exact rate depending on the final lead phasedown rules. Foreign exports 

of alkyl lead are also expected to decline. 

Average capacity utilization and growth for the iron and steel industries. 

eGrowth in production capacity. 

A decline in brass and bronze production is expected over the next several years. 

i.> «•• ' , i., 

: i 
be added to the lead-acid battery manufacturing industry beginning in 1990. 

New electric arc furnaces for the alloy steel industry currently are being 

built and industry projections indicate this growth will continue through the 

1990s. In this study, it was assumed that the growth will continue through 

1995. 

For the lead smelting industry, based on the low growth projections for 

lead mining and the low capacity utilization for secondary lead production, it 

was assumed that most of the projected increase in lead demand will be filled 

by secondary lead smelters rather than by primary smelters. No new capacity 

was projected for either industry based on current growth estimates. 

4.8.2 Cost Estimates 

For both lead-acid battery manufacture and alloy steel electric arc 

furnaces, capacity is expected by industry sources to be added by construction 

of new large facilities rather than by expansion of existing facilities.' »•*•**• 

This is also assumed to be the case for gray iron production and brass and 

bronze production. In all cases, controls required by NSPS will be sufficient 

for attainment of all of the NAAQS alternatives. Thus, the costs of 

attainment for new sources are expected to be attributable entirely to NSPS. 

60 
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 

1. 1980 Census of Population, Volume 1—Characteristics of the Population, 

Chapter A—Number of Inhabitants, Parts 1 to 52 (PC70-1-A). U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 1982. 

2. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition, and 

Supplements 1 through 14 (AP-42). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1977 to 1983. 

3. Control Techniques for Lead Emissions (EPA-450/2-77-012). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 1977. 

4. Mineral Commodity Summaries - 1983. U.S. Bureau of Mines. January 1983. 

5. The International Competitiveness of the U.S. Non-Ferrous Smelting 

Industry and the Clean Air Act. American Mining Congress. April 1982. 

6. Engineering & Mining Journal. March 1982 and January 1983. . •? 

7. Telecon. W. Battye, GCA/Techology Division, with R. Burkhard, Battery 

Council International Marketing Committee. April 16, 1983. Growth in 

the lead-acid battery industry. 

8. Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives. Federal Register. 

47:49322-49334. October 29, 1982. 

9. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Capacity Utilization: 

Manufacturing, Mining, Utilities, and Industrial Materials. G.3(402) The 

Federal Reserve System, Washington, D.C. June 17, 1985. 

10. 1985 Industrial Outlook. U.S. Department of Commerce. January 1985. 

11. Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon—Oxygen Decarburization for Vessels in 

Steel Industry - Background Information for Proposed Revision to 

Standards (EPA-450/3-82-020a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, N.C 1983. 

12. EPRI Journal. Electrical Power Research Institute. June 1982. 

13. Telecon. Michael Clowers, GCA/Technology Division, with the Brass and 

Bronze Ingot Institute, April 10, 1985. 

61 
5. INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC STUDY METHODS AND STUDY RESULTS 

The general study methodology was described in the previous section. 

Because of differences in available data, however, the study methods differed 

between the various lead-emitting industries. This section details the 

industry-specific methods used and presents the study results for each 

affected industry. For each industry, a description is given of processing 

techniques used and the competitive structure. The assumed baseline controls 

and the methods of determining baseline ambient impacts are detailed. The 

controls required to meet each alternative NAAQS (or to approach it as closely 

as possible) are then described and costs are presented for the NAAQS 

controls. Finally, the total NAAQS costs for each industry are aggregated to 

obtain nationwide NAAQS costs. 

5.1 PRIMARY LEAD SMELTING AND REFINING '.. .. 

5.1.1 Process Description* 

The primary smelting of lead ore concentrates (SIC 3332) produces lead 

metal and other metal byproducts. The four basic production processes of 

primary smelting are: sintering; reduction; drossing; and refining. 

Sinterjng - Lead ore concentrates must be agglomerated and desulfurized 

prior to being used as the primary feed material in the reduction process. 

Agglomeration of the lead ore concentrates occurs in bedding or blending 

plants where the concentrate is mixed with sulfur-free fluxes, such as lime, 

silica, and iron-bearing materials, and pelletized. This pelletized material 

or sinter charge is loaded onto pallets that are attached to a continuous 

conveyor belt system in a sinter machine. Heated draft air is forced through 

the moving pallets, which are perforated and slotted to accommodate this 

process. The sinter charge is heated to approximately 1000°C (1800°F), which 

is just below its melting point. Oxidation of the sinter charge occurs at 

62 
this temperature and sulfur dioxide is released. Properly sized sinter is 

then sent to the blast furnace for reduction; undersized sinter, which usually 

results from insufficient desulfurization, is recycled into the sinter process. 

Reduction - The blast furnace used in the reduction process is a water 

jacketed shaft furnace supported by a refractory base. Pressurized combustion 

air is injected into the furnace through evenly spaced tuyeres that are 

located near the furnace base. 

The material mix that is charged into the blast furnace consists of sinter 

(80 to 90 percent of total charge) metallurgical coke (8 to 14 percent), and 

other charge and recycled material. The combustion of the metallurgical coke 

supplies the necessary carbon monoxide and heat to reduce the sinter to 

bullion lead and byproducts. The byproducts include: speiss (arsenic and 

antimony compounds); matte (copper sulfide and other metal sulfides); and slag 

(silicates). These materials are tapped off from the bullion lead for further 

processing and metal recovery. 

Drossing - The bullion lead that is tapped from the blast furnace is 

cooled to approximately 370° to 430°C (700° to 800°F) in dross kettles. In 

this process, impurities such as copper, zinc, arsenic, and antimony are 

precipitated according to their solubility limits and collected on the surface 

of bullion lead as a dross. Sulfur bearing materials, zinc, or aluminum may 

be added to the drossed bullion to further reduce its copper content. 

Refining - In the refining process, bullion lead is cast in iron kettles 

and the following refining operations occur: 

zinc combines with gold and silver to form an insoluble intermetallic 

substance at operating temperatures (Parke's Process); 

zinc is removed under vacuum; 

calcium and magnesium are added to form an insoluble compound with 

bismuth (Betterson Process), which is skimmed off; and 

sodium hydroxide and sodium nitrate are added for the removal of 

remaining traces of metal impurities. 

63 
The refined lead produced is of 99.990 to 99.999 percent purity. 

5.1.2 Industry Structure* 

Currently, there are five domestic primary lead smelting/refining 

complexes and one lead refinery. The annual primary lead capacity of these 

complexes is 595,000 Mg (656,000 tons), with individual plant capacities 

ranging from 76,000 to 209,000 Mg (84,000 to 230,000 tons). Primary lead 

production accounted for slightly less than 50 percent of total domestic lead 

production for 1982 and this percentage should decline to around 40 percent by 

the year 2000 as secondary lead smelters increase their market share (U.S. 

Bureau of Mines projections). These projections would change if the Bunker 

Hill smelter in Kellogg, Idaho, were to be restarted. This smelting/refining 

complex was closed in 1982 and would need extensive retrofit before resuming 

any primary lead production.2 For this industry, it is estimated that no new 

capacity will be required through 1990. This estimate is based on the low 

growth projection (less than one percent per year) for the lead ore processing 

industry, which provides the basic feed material for primary lead smelters, 

and the low capacity utilization rate of 50 percent for secondary lead 

smelters, which leaves a large quantity of unused capacity to meet any 

increase in total lead demand. The five domestic primary lead smelters are 

presently operating at 83 percent of capacity and may exceed 90 percent of 

capacity during future peak demand periods. *-»3 

5.1.3 Emission Sources and Control 

Lead-bearing particulate is emitted from process, fugitive process, and 

fugitive dust sources at primary lead smelters and refineries. Process 

emissions, such as those generated in furnace smelting operations, are well 

controlled through the use of extensive hooding and ducting systems, high 

efficiency baghouses, and dispersion of emissions from high stacks. The 

fugitive emission control techniques that are utilized in the primary lead 

smelting and related industries include: 

64 
hooding and ducting of fugitive process emissions to baghouses or 

scrubbers; 

paving, traffic control, wet suppression and soil stabilization for 

unpaved haul roads and general open work areas; and 

wet suppression, surfactants, and enclosures for stockpiles and 

conveyor systems. 

Due to the well-controlled nature of process emission sources, fugitive 

process and fugitive dust emission sources were the primary sources evaluated 

for the installation of various control techniques to achieve the alternative 

lead NAAQS levels. The baseline emissions and control techniques used in this 

evaluation were those that currently exist at each plant. 

5.1.4 Industry Specific Methods 

5.1.4.1 Estimation of Baseline Ambient Impacts 

For the primary lead smelting and refining industry, the baseline ambient 

impact was estimated for each lead source at each individual plant. Lead 

emission parameters used in the analysis of this industry were based on data -

obtained through contacts in late 1983 with State and federal environmental 

agencies and plant personnel.4-11 Source apportionment studies have been made 

for two of the primary lead smelters in the development of State 

implementation plans for the current lead NAAQS.9,10 These studies used 

chemical and particle size analyses of ambient monitor samples and emission 

samples to apportion ambient lead impacts between the individual sources at 

the smelters. The results of these source apportionments were used in the 

present study as baseline ambient impacts for individual sources. 

For the other three smelters and the primary refinery, baseline ambient 

impacts were estimated using atmospheric dispersion modeling. The COMPLEX I 

model was used for point sources, and the ISCST model was used for area 

sources. Terrain effects were taken into account for point sources, but no 

dispersion models were identified which could include terrain effects for area 

sources. In each case, the meteorological data input to the models were the 

most recent available preprocessed data from the closest meteorological 

65 
P.80 

station. The maximum distance from any smelter to the nearest meteorological 

station was about 100 miles. Plant site meteorological data would have been 

preferable to the nearest-station data because of possible impacts of terrain 

on meteorological parameters. Plant site data have been gathered in many 

cases, but these data either are incomplete, or have only been processed for 

long term dispersion models. Short term models were used in this study in 

order to allow the assessment of short term exposures as well as long term 

exposures. Additional details on the general modeling protocols used in this 

study are give in Section 4. 

Ambient monitoring data are available for two of the three modeled 

smelters and for the primary refinery. For one of the smelters and the 

refinery, these data were in agreement with the dispersion modeling results. 

In the case of the other smelter, the concentration predicted by dispersion 

modeling at the plant boundary was about a factor of 2.5 higher than the 

concentration measured at a monitoring site at the same location. For this 

plant, the monitored concentration was taken as the total plantwide baseline 

ambient impact. The monitored concentration was apportioned between sources 

within the plant based on the modeling results to obtain baseline impacts for 

the individual sources at the smelter. (This was done for each source by 

multiplying the monitored plant boundary concentration by the ratio of the 

predicted ambient impact for the source at the boundary to the total ambient 

impact for the plant at the boundary.) 

5.1.4.2 Mobile Source Background Concentration 

In the two smelter source apportionment studies discussed above, 

background lead concentrations from mobile sources were measured at 0.36 ug/m3 

and 0.20 ug/m3. Both of these smelters are located in small cities. The lead 

refinery is also located in a small city, and is expected to be subject to a 

similar mobile source background. When the lead phasedown program is taken 

into account (using the methods given in Chapter 3), predicted mobile source 

backgrounds in 1990 and 1995 are less than 0.03 ug/m3 for these three 

sources. The concentration is negligible in comparison with the ambient 

impact of even a well-controlled lead smelter or refinery. Mobile source 

backgrounds around the remaining three smelters in 1990 and 1995 are also 

66 
P.81 

assumed to be negligible because of their rural locations. Thus, in the 

identification of necessary emission reductions around primary smelters, the 

mobile source background was taken to be zero in all cases. 

5.1.5 NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

Using the results from the calculation of the baseline ambient impacts and 

background ambient lead concentrations, individual plants were identified 

which would be affected under the various lead NAAQS alternatives. A plant 

was determined to be affected under a given alternative if the sum of the 

baseline ambient impact and background ambient lead concentration from mobile 

sources at any point outside the plant boundary exceeded the NAAQS level. 

Control techniques that were evaluated for emissions from fugitive process 

and fugitive dust sources included: 

additional hooding, ducting, and ventilation systems for product 

handling, sinter machines, blast furnaces, dross kettles, and 

refining operations; 

replacement of existing control systems with more efficient systems; 

and 

fugitive dust control systems, such as paving and wet suppression. 

In addition, the construction of new stacks or the extension of existing 

stacks were considered in several cases. The height increases considered were 

within the definition of good engineering practice. The higher stack allowed 

for better dispersion of primary lead plant emissions. Acquisition of land 

around the smelters was also considered as a possible means of attaining NAAQS 

alternatives. Because a policy on it is under review within EPA, and because 

of the location of public roadways or urban areas near plant property, land 

acquisition was judged not to be a feasible means of compliance. 

*EPA is currently revising its stack height regulations in response to a court 

ruling (Sierra Club vs. EPA, 719.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 52 

U.S.L.W. 3929 (U.S. July 2, 1984)). Credit in dispersion modeling for stack 

height increases, even up to good engineering practice may be affected by the 

forthcoming EPA rulemaking on this matter. Estimated costs of attainment for 

primary smelters should be interpreted in light of this possibility. 

67 
P.82 

Based on results of dispersion modeling, control strategies were developed 

for each of the six domestic primary lead plants. The control strategies 

include the control techniques and related costs that would be necessary for 

each smelter to attain each of the lead NAAQS alternatives under 

consideration. These controls are in addition to existing emission control 

techniques. The costs associated with the control techniques evaluated are 

presented in Appendix D. In addition, the total industry capital and 

annualized control costs associated with achieving each lead NAAQS alternative 

are presented in Table 5-1. 

No control strategies were identified which showed attainment of the 

lowest NAAQS levels all six of the primary lead plants. Given the 

uncertainties in emissions estimates and dispersion modeling, it is possible 

that the plants would attain the lower NAAQS levels using the identified 

controls. In addition, other controls are available which were not assessed 

in this study because of difficulties in ascertaining their effectiveness. 

5.2 SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS 

5.2.1 Process Description 

Secondary lead smelters (SIC 3341) process a variety of lead-bearing 

material and scrap to produce lead and lead alloy ingots, lead oxide, and lead 

pigments. The basic production processes at a secondary lead smelter are: 

scrap treatment; smelting; and refining/casting. 

Scrap Treatment - In this process, metal and nonmetal contaminants are 

removed from the lead-bearing material and scrap. This may include such 

operations as battery breaking, crushing, and sweating. Sweating separates 

lead from high-melting metals by heating the scrap in direct-fired rotary or 

reverberatory furnaces. The partially purified lead is periodically tapped 

from these furnaces for further processing smelting or pot furnaces. 

Smelting - Smelting results in the production of purified lead by melting 

and separating lead from metal and nonmetal impurities and by reducing oxides 

68 
TABLE 5-1. NATIONWIDE NAAQS COSTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES3 

Costs (millions) Number Number 

Lead NAAQS Installed Total of plants unable to 

Alternatives (ug/m3) capital annual affected comply*5 

0.25 53.3 14.5 6 6 

0.5 53.3 14.5 6 5 

0.8 53.3 14.5 6 4 

1.0 46.6 12.6 6 4 

1.5 44.5 11.9 6 2 

2.0 27.3 6.7 6 0 

2.5 17.8 4.5 5 0 

background ambient lead level for all six plants are assumed to be negligible. 

^Controls could not be identified which would allow some smelters to comply 

with some of the NAAQS alternatives. 

69 
to elemental lead. The two types of furnaces used for smelting are 

reverberatory and blast. The reverberatory smelting furnace produces a 

semi-soft lead product containing 3 to 4 percent antimony. Blast furnaces 

produce hard or antimonial lead, which contains 10 percent antimony. As with 

other smelting and melting production processes, these furnaces are charged 

with a variety of material, including lead scrap, recycled lead dust, fluxes 

(such as limestone), and coke. The charge material is heated by combustion 

air or gases and the slag is tapped off. The molten lead tapped from the 

furnace is put into a holding pot and then cast into large ingots. 

Refining/Casting - The refining/casting production process consists of the 

following operations: 

• Remelting - Materials charged for remelting are usually lead alloys 

which require no further processing before casting; 

• Alloying - Alloying furnaces simply melt and mix lead ingot with 

alloying materials. Common lead alloying materials include antimony, 

arsenic, copper, nickel, and tin; 

• Refining - Refining furnaces remove antimony and copper from lead 

ingots to produce soft lead or remove arsenic, copper, and nickel to 

produce hard lead. Various compounds may be added or injected during 

the refining operation to form drosses, which are skimmed off. In 

addition, sawdust may be added to separate lead from the dross and to 

reduce some of the lead oxide to elemental lead; and 

• Oxidizing - Oxidizing furnaces are either kettle or reverberatory 

furnaces which oxidize lead and entrain the product in the combustion 

air stream. The product is recovered in high efficiency baghouses. 

5.2.2 Industry Description1 

There are approximately 49 domestic secondary lead smelters which account 

for slightly over half of total domestic lead production.1'

3'12 These plants 

are located primarily near large urbanized areas due to the supply of scrap 

lead (mostly used automobile and truck batteries) and the proximity of their 

main customers (lead-acid battery manufacturers). The basic industry trend is 

toward larger, more efficient secondary lead smelters, and many smaller, less 

efficient operations have been phased out during the last decade. Based on 

70 
U.S. Bureau of Mines estimates, secondary lead smelters, which are operating 

at a capacity utilization rate of approximately 50 percent, have adequate 

existing unused capacity to meet the projected increase in total lead 

demand.1'

3 This should allow secondary lead smelters to increase their market 

share of lead supply from just over 50 percent presently to nearly 60 percent 

by 2000. 

5.2.3 Emission Sources and Controls1 

Lead bearing particulate matter is emitted from process, fugitive process, 

and fugitive dust emission sources at secondary lead smelters.13 Process 

emissions, which are generated during the smelting/refining processes 

described above, are well-controlled through the use of extensive hooding and 

ducting systems, high efficiency baghouses and scrubbers, and dispersion of 

emissions through high stacks. Fugitive emissions result from incomplete 

capture of process lead emissions, storage and handling of lead-bearing 

materials, and reentrainment of dust from plant property due to wind or 

vehicle traffic. Most secondary smelters are equipped with capture systems 

and control devices for fugitive emissions from furnaces. Also, in order to 

meet OSHA regulations, housekeeping measures are usually taken to minimize 

lead dust levels.

 13> 1"+ 

5.2.4 Industry Specific Methodologies 

For this study, it was assumed that baghouses are used to control process 

emissions. Also, it was assumed that most process fugitive emissions are 

captured by hoods and ducted to baghouses. The lead emission sources 

considered in this study include: 

• controlled process emissions, 

• process fugitive emissions escaping capture systems, and 

• battery breaking emissions. 

71 
Controlled emission factors for these sources are given in Table 5-2.13»

15 

These emission factors were used instead of plant-specific emission data, 

because plant specific data are not available for fugitive emissions. 

Table 5-2 also presents average source-receptor coefficients for the above 

emission sources. These were obtained using dispersion modeling results from 

the urbanized area exposure assessment. Dispersion modeling was conducted for 

secondary smelters in the following metropolitan area: 

• Chicago, Illinois; 

• Dallas, Texas; 

• Minneapolis- St. Paul, Minnesota; and 

• Tampa, Florida. 

As noted in Section 4, the source-receptor coefficient is defined as the ratio 

between the maximum ambient impact and the emission rate. 

The baseline ambient impact was calculated for each smelter by summing the 

baseline ambient impacts for the individual sources within the smelter. The 

baseline impact for a given source was obtained by multiplying the production 

rate by the product of the emission factor and the source-receptor coefficient 

from Table 5-2. Smelter production rates were obtained (late 1983) from the 

Bureau of Mines and from the EPA National Emissions Data System.12 

Because most secondary lead smelters are located in urban areas, the urban 

mobile source background concentrations derived in Section 3 were used. These 

concentrations, 0.01 and 0.05 ug/m3, bracket the range of potential average 

urban mobile source impacts for the two lead-in-gasoline phasedown programs 

currently under study. Costs of compliance for secondary lead smelters were 

estimated for each of these background levels. 

It was assumed that the maximum ambient impact occurs outside the plant 

boundary. For the secondary lead smelting industry, most of the plants are 

located in urban areas where large tracts of property are extensive and 

difficult to obtain. These plants were assumed to own property to a distance 

no greater than at most 150 meters aways from the actual emission sources. 

Because the maximum lead impacts predicted by dispersion modeling occur at 

72 
"H 

TABLE 5-2. CONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS AND SOURCE-RECEPTOR 

COEFFICIENTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTING 

Baseline 

emission Average sourcefactor receptor coefficient 

Source (g/Mg)a ug/mJ per Mg/yr 

Controlled furnace emissions 200 0.006 

Fugitive emissions 

Charging area 28.1 

Tapping area 19.4 

General furnace 18. 

Battery breaking 26 

General furnace 18.8 \ 0.73 

Reference 15. 

General furnace fugitive emissions were apportioned 50 percent to 

charging and 50 percent to tapping. 

73 
•n 

distances of 200-300 meters even for low lying sources, these maxima generally 

will be outside plant property. 

Using the baseline ambient impacts calculated and background ambient lead 

concentrations, individual plants were identified which would be affected 

under the various lead NAAQS alternatives. For the secondary lead smelting 

industry, each plant was studied to determine its status with respect to the 

various NAAQS alternatives. In general, a plant was determined to be affected 

under a given alternative if the sum of the baseline ambient lead impact and 

the background concentration from mobile sources around the plant exceeded the 

alternative. 

The major source of uncertainty in the analysis of secondary lead smelters 

was the selection of baseline control levels and the identification of 

baseline emission factors. Emission factors for fugitive sources were based 

on tests conducted at a single plant. Fugitive emission controls at 

individual smelters may be much more effective or less effective than the 

controls used at the tested facility. In addition, fugitive emission factors 

could not be obtained for some sources, and these sources were not included in 

this study. Alternatively, some of the sources considered in this study, such 

as battery breaking, probably are not present at some smelters. Because 

fugitive emissions are not included in the National Emissions Data System, and 

because of the size of the secondary smelting source category, it was not 

feasible to make an in-depth study of the fugitive sources at each plant. 

Another source of uncertainty for the secondary smelting category is the 

selection of 150 meters as the typical distance to the plant boundary. In 

some cases, secondary smelters may own more property around the plant. As 

noted above, the point of maximum ambient impact from secondary lead smelters 

is 200 to 300 meters from the emission sources. Thus, for smelters owning 

property more than 200 to 300 meters from the plant, attainment of the NAAQS 

alternatives would be less costly than this study has indicated. 

5.2.5 NAAQS Controls and Costs. 

NAAQS controls assessed for the secondary lead smelting industry include: 

74 
• building enclosure and process modifications for battery breaking; 

• enclosure and process modification for furnace charging; and 

• additional hood and process modifications for metal and slag tapping. 

Table 5-3 gives industry-wide costs required to achieve the various lead NAAQS 

alternatives. Appendix D presents data on emissions and costs used to develop 

the values given in Table 5-3. Control strategies could not be identified 

which would show attainment of the lower alternatives for up to 49 smelters. 

Given the uncertainties of the study methodology, however, it is possible that 

some of these smelters could attain the lower levels with the identified 

controls. Also, controls are available which are not assessed because of 

difficulties in ascertaining their effectiveness. These include work 

practices for furnace charging and tapping, and other work practices. 

5.3 LEAD ORE PROCESSING17'

18'19 

5.3.1 Process Description 

Ore processing at lead mines (SIC 1031) comprises a two stage process; the 

first stage being the dry process operations of crushing and grinding of 

stockpiled ore, and the second stage of the wet process operation of 

flotation. In the dry process operations, stockpiled ore (such as galena and 

other lead-bearing ores) is size reduced by jaw and gyratory crushers in 

combination with grizzly bars, screens, and conveyors which feed into fine ore 

bins. Some mining operations with centrally located vertical shafts employ 

underground crushers for the initial size reduction step. Grinding of the 

size reduced ore is accomplished through the use of rod mills, which have less 

tendency than other grinding methods to overgrind the soft and friable 

galena. Ball mills, in closed circuit with hydrocyclones, are used for fine 

grinding, which prepares the ore for the flotation process. Floatation is the 

primary method used for the concentration of lead-bearing ores. Depending on 

the mineralogy of the ore, two or more floatation cells may be required to 

75 
"n 

TABLE 5-3. NATIONWIDE NAAQS COSTS FOR SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) \ 

Background and 

NAAQS 

level (ug/m3) 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

0.05 

0.01 

Costs 

Installed 

capital 

144.0 

133.3 

124.4 

118.7 

96.1 

72.4 

54.2 

140.3 

132.7 

123.4 

118.6 

95.7 

70.3 

54.2 

'millions) 

Total 

annual 

40.8 

38.5 

36.8 

35.5 

28.9 

22.0 

16.4 

40.1 

38.3 

36.5 

35.4 

28.7 

21.2 

16.4 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

49 

44 

41 

39 

31 

28 

18 

49 

. 41 

40 

38 

29 

23 

18 

Number 

unable to 

comply *-

40 

38 

11 

9 

3 

0 

0 

38 

33 

11 

8 

2 

0 

0 

aControls could not be identified that would allow some smelters to comply 

with some NAAQS alternatives. 

76 
P.91 

- j T*' •I'-^TfW^"" 

achieve the designed percent of lead in the concentrate. The concentrate is 

then shipped to one of the five domestic primary lead smelters for further 

processing. 

5.3.2 Industry Structure17'

18>19»20>21 

Currently, there are thirteen domestic lead ore processing plants, located 

primarily in the New Lead Belt of Missouri. Based on a capacity utilization 

rate of 68 percent for this industry and a projected increase in total lead 

consumption of less than one percent per year, no new lead ore processing 

plants are predicted through 1995. Selected expansions of existing plants may 

occur during this period; however, two recent expansion projects have been 

abandoned due to technical and economic factors.2^ 

5.3.3 Emission Sources and Controls 

Particulate lead emissions are generated from both fugitive dust sources 

and fugitive process sources at lead ore processing operations. The fugitive 

dust sources include reentrainment from haul roads and lead ore stockpiles, 

and wind blown dust from open work areas and conveyors. The fugitive process 

sources consist of the crushing and grinding operations involved in size 

reduction of the lead-bearing ores, including conveyor transfer points and dry 

product loading. To control these particulate emissions, lead ore processing 

plants currently use wet dust systems and medium energy wet scrubbers for 

fugitive process sources.18 Due to the wet nature of the process operations 

involved, little if any particulate lead emissions are generated during 

flotation.18 

5.3.4 Industry-Specific Methodologies 

For the lead ore processing industry, it was assumed that process sources 

at these plants (crushers, grinders, screens, and storage hoppers) were 

controlled through the use of hooding and ducting systems and medium energy 

77 
II 

(1.5 kPa) wet scrubbers (about 85 percent efficiency). The fugitive emission 

sources at ore processing plants (i.e. lead ore storage piles) were assumed to 

be uncontrolled. Emission factors for process and fugitive emission sources 

are presented in Table 5-4.18»

22 These represent the level of control 

described above. These emission factors, along with published stack 

parameters for two model sizes (270 and 540 megagrams per hour throughputs), 

were used in the dispersion modeling analysis. 

Table 5-4 also presents the baseline ambient impacts for the above 

emission sources and model plant sizes. These were obtained from dispersion 

modeling results for the two model plant sizes using St. Louis, Missouri, 

meteorological data. The St. Louis data were used for this industry because 

it was assumed to be the most representative available meteorological data for 

the New Lead Belt area of Missouri, where the majority of domestic lead ore 

processing plants are located. The concentrations presented in Table 5-4 are 

for the plant boundary, which is assumed to be one kilometer from the 

processing plant. Because of the rural location of lead ore processing 

plants, the background lead concentration from mobile sources was assumed to 

be negligible. 

Using the baseline ambient impacts calculated for the model plants, each 

of the 13 domestic lead ore processing plants were grouped into one of the 

two sets, represented by the model plant sizes, to determine individual plant 

impacts. Five of the existing ore processing facilities correspond roughly to 

the 270 Mg/day model plant, while the remaining eight correspond to the 

540 Mg/day model plant. Control strategies were developed to bring the two 

groups into compliance with the lead NAAQS alternatives. 

5.3.5 NAAQS Control and Costs 

Based on emission factors for uncontrolled area sources (lead ore 

stockpiles) and plant process sources controlled by medium energy (1.5 kPa) 

wet scrubbers, dispersion modeling indicates that the lead ore processing 

model plants would exceed the various ambient lead concentrations under 

consideration. The addition of fugitive dust controls at these operations 

78 
"fj - ---j'-TtT^ 

TABLE 5-4. BASELINE EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT IMPACTS 

FROM LEAD ORE PROCESSING 

Baseline 

Baseline ambient 

emissions impact. 

Source (g/sec)a (ug/m3) 

270 Mg/hr plant 

Process sources 2.32 1.6 

Storage piles 0.0005 

540 Mg/hr plant 

Process sources 2.74 1.7 

Storage piles 0.0007 

Based on particulate emission factors from Reference 22 and lead 

ore compositions from Reference 18. 

Based on dispersion modeling for the two model plants with St. 

Louis, Missouri meteorological data. Concentrations presented 

are for the plant boundary, assumed to be 1 km away from the 

processing plant. 

c Baseline control for all process sources was assumed to be 

medium energy scrubbers. 

79 
(i.e. wet dust suppression systems) would have an insignificant impact on 

ambient lead concentrations. Thus, the required reductions must be 

accomplished through the increased control of plant process emission sources. 

Control costs were developed for the retrofit of high energy (3.75 kPa) 

venturi scrubbers at existing lead ore processing plants. These control 

devices will allow the plants to achieve all levels of the ambient lead 

concentrations under consideration. 

Appendix D gives the costs of attaining the lead NAAQS alternative for 

individual plants. All of the plants are expected to be affected by NAAQS 

less than or equal to the current standard. Table 5-5 gives industry-wide 

costs for lead ore processing. 

Control strategies could not be identified that would show attainment of 

the lower NAAQS alternatives for lead ore processing plants. Given the 

uncertainties of the study methodology, however, it is possible that some of 

the plants could attain the lower levels. 

5.4 LEAD-ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURE 

5.4.1 Production Processes.23. 

The manufacture of lead-acid batteries (SIC 3691) begins with the casting 

of lead grids and the production of lead oxide powder. The lead oxide is 

produced by oxidizing either molten lead or lead ingots in air. The oxide is 

mixed with sulfuric acid and water to produce a paste. Pasting machines are 

used to force the paste into the interstices of lead grids. The pasted grids, 

called plates, are cured and then sent to a three process operation comprising 

plate stacking, burning, and element assembly. Plates are stacked in an 

alternating positive and negative block formation, with insulators between 

them, to produce elements. Then, in the burning operation, leads are welded 

to tabs on each positive or negative plate. An alternative to this operation 

is the cast-on-strap process, in which molten lead is poured around the plate 

tabs to form the connection, and positive and negative terminals are then 

welded to each such connected element. The completed elements are assembled 

in battery cases either before of after the formation step. In formation, the 

80 
TABLE 5-5. NAAQS CONTROLS COSTS FOR THE LEAD ORE PROCESSING 

INDUSTRY (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)3 

Lead NAAQS 

alternative 

(ug/m3 

Costs (millions) 

Total 

annual 

Installed 

cap] 

18. 

18. 

18. 

18 

18 

.tal 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Number 

of plants 

impacted 

Number 

unable to 

comply" 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

7.3 

7.3 

7.3 

7.3 

7.3 

13 

13 

13 

13 

13 

0 

0 

13 

13 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

aThe background ambient lead level for lead ore processing facilities is 

assumed to be negligible. 

-'Controls could not be indentified that would allow the lead ore processing 

facilities to comply with some NAAQS alternatives. 

81 

i 
'"• • 

plates are immersed in dilute sulfuric acid and connected to a direct current 

source. Formation can be done either in the battery cases (wet formation) or 

in an open tank (dry formation). 

Defective parts are either reclaimed at the battery plant or are sent to a 

secondary lead smelter. Lead reclamation facilities at battery plants 

generally are small pot furnaces. Approximately 1 percent of the lead 

processed at a typical lead acid battery plant is recycled through the 

reclamation operation. 

5.4.2 Industry Structure 

Lead acid storage batteries are produced in many sizes, but the majority 

is produced for use in automobiles and fall into a standard size range. A 

standard battery contains about 11.8 kg (26 lb) of lead, of which about half 

is present in the lead grids and half in the lead oxide paste. 

Lead acid storage battery plants range in production capacity from less 

than 500 batteries per day to about 10,000 batteries per day (bpd). In 1979, 

it was estimated that there were 190 lead-acid battery plants in the U.S. of 

which fewer than 100 had the capacity to produce over 500 bpd.23 Since that 

time, because of a decline in battery demand, many plants have been closed. 

The average capacity utilization is only about 75 percent for the companies 

supplying most of the batteries sold in North America (eight companies account 

for about 95 percent of sales). Optimum capacity utilization is about 

90 percent.2** 

Battery demand is expected to increase by less than 3 percent per year.2"* 

Thus, new capacity is not expected to be required until 1990. Industry 

sources expect new capacity to be added through construction of new plants in 

the 10,000 bpd range rather than through expansion of existing plants.2** 

5-4.3 Emission Sources and Controls23 

Lead oxide emissions result from the discharge of air used in the lead 

oxide production process. In addition, lead-bearing particulate matter is 

generated in the grid casting, paste mixing, lead reclamation, and 

82 
T'T 

three process operations. These particulates are usually collected by 

ventilation systems to reduce employee exposure to airborne lead. 

Fabric filters are incorporated into all lead oxide production operations 

for product recovery. Fabric filtration is also often used to control 

emissions from the three-process operation. The paste mixing operation 

consists of two phases. The first, in which dry ingredients are charged to 

the mixer, results in emissions of lead oxide and usually is vented to a 

baghouse. For the second phase of the cycle, when moisture is present in the 

exhaust stream, the paste mixer is generally vented to an impingment scrubber; 

however fabric filtration can also be used for this phase. Grid casting 

machines are sometimes vented to an impingement scrubber. Lead reclamation 

facilities are generally also vented to impingmement scrubbers 

5.4.4 Industry-Specific Methods 

5.4.4.1 Assessment of Baseline Control Status and Emission Rates 

The emission controls used for battery production operations vary widely 

from plant to plant. This variation results mainly from the variation from 

plant to plant in the design of the battery production operations themselves. 

Because lead-acid battery plants generally are not major sources of any 

criteria pollutants other than lead, only about one third of them are listed 

in the National Emissions Data System (NEDS).16 Thus, data were not available 

to assess the control status of each lead-acid battery plant. However, from a 

survey of the plants included in NEDS, it was possible to assess the 

frequencies of control and typical control efficiencies for various 

operations. Based on the sources included in NEDS, it was estimated that all 

lead reclamation facilities were controlled with an average efficiency of 

99 percent; 83 percent of paste mixing facilities were controlled with an 

average efficiency (for controlled facilities) of 97.7 percent; 79 percent of 

three-process operation facilities are controlled with an average efficiency 

of 98.5 percent; and 55 percent of grid casting facilities were controlled 

with a an average efficiency of about 95 percent. As noted above, lead oxide 

83 

Ai 
TABLE 5-6. ESTIMATED BREAKDOWN OF BATTERY PLANTS 

BY SIZE RANGES AND CONTROL STATUS1 

Facilities with 

controls 

Estimated number of plants 

Small Medium 

d 

Large• 

PbO; Rec 

PbO; Rec; PM 

PbO; Rec; PM; 3-P 

PbO; Rec; PM; 3-P; GC 

5 

1 

7 

15 

7 

2 

10 

23 

4 

1 

6 

13 

Total 28 42 24 

a, 'PbO" refers to lead oxide production; "Rec" to lead reclamation; "PM" to 

paste mixing; "3-P" to the three-process operation; and "GC" to grid 

casting. 

3400-l,000 batteries per day (bpd). 

:1,000-3,500 bpd. 

W e r 3,500 bpd. 

84 
'" r^-^r^rfw^ 

TABLE 5-7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAD-ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURE 

MMnMUttOMIHIIMilMaMgaMUMMM 

Emission factors (g/battery) 

uncontrolled controlled 

"Tl 

V 

Grid casting 

Paste mixing 

Lead oxide production" 

Three process operation 

Lead reclamation0 

0.35 

1.13 

4.79 

0.63 

__a 

0.026 

0.05 

0.072 

0.006 

3Control of grid casting was not found to be required to meet any of the 

NAAQS alternatives. 

DLead oxide production facilities are equipped with baghouses for product 

recovery. 

cIn a survey of NEDS, lead reclamation was found to be controlled in all 

cases. 

85 
TH 

production incorporates fabric filtration for product recovery. No 

correlation was found in the survey of NEDS between control status and 

facility size. 

Table 5-6 gives the assumed baseline control status of the lead acid 

battery manufacturing industry. Existing plants were divided into twelve 

categories based on their size and the control status. It was assumed that 

the frequency of control for the facilities listed in NEDS is characteristic 

of the industry as a whole. Thus, lead reclamation and lead oxide production 

were taken to be controlled in all cases. It was also assumed that, at a 

given plant, paste mixing is controlled first, followed by the three-process 

operation, and finally grid casting. This assumption was based on the results 

of the NEDS survey and on the cost-effectiveness of controlling these 

facilities 

Table 5-7 gives the uncontrolled and controlled emission factors used in 

this study to determine baseline emissions. The uncontrolled values are 

published EPA emission factor.25 The controlled factors are based on the 

uncontrolled factors, and the average control efficiencies detected in the 

NEDS survey. 

5.4.4.2 Identification of Affected Sources 

Dispersion modeling for the urbanized area exposure assessment indicated 

source-receptor coefficients for lead-acid battery manufacture ranging from 

0.089 ug/nr* to 0.51 ug/m-*. In calculating the source-receptor coefficients, 

it was assumed that the maximum ambient impact from a battery plant occurs 

outside the plant boundary. The location of the maximum impact ranged from 

200 to 300 meters from the emission sources. Because most lead-acid battery 

plants are located in urban areas, where land is difficult and expensive to 

obtain, it was assumed that plants generally own land to at most 150 meters 

away from the plant buildings. Dispersion modeling was conducted for 

lead-acid battery plants in the following urbanized areas: 

• Chicago, Illinois; 

• Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas; 

86 
P.2 

m 

• Nashville, Tennessee; 

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 

• Tampa, Florida. 

The stack parameters used in the dispersion modeling (emission height, 

velocity, and temperature) were obtained from the NEDS file*" and published 

sources.'*^J These were not dependent on source type of size. Thus, the 

wide range in source-receptor coefficients for lead-acid battery plants 

results mainly from differences between meteorological conditions in the above 

urbanized areas. The source-receptor coefficients were not distributed 

normally or log-normally, but were instead uniformly distributed between the 

observed minimum and maximum values. 

Each of the 12 plant groups shown in Table 5-6 were studied to determine 

the number of plants which will be affected in the group under the NAAQS 

alternatives. This was done by calculating the probability that a model plant 

representative of this group will be affected, and multiplying by the number 

of plants in the group. A size of 500 batteries per day (bpd) was chosen to 

represent plants in the 0-1000 bpd size range, and sizes f 2000 and 6500 bpd, 

respectively, were selected to represent the 1000-3500 bpd and 3500-and-over 

ranges. Each of the four control status groupings were studied separately for 

each size range. The methods used to estimate the numbers of affected plants 

in each size and control-status group are detailed in Appendix E. 

Most lead-acid battery plants are located in urban areas. Therefore, the 

upper and lower limit urban mobile source backgrounds derived in Section 3 

were used. These concentrations, 0.01 and 0.05 mg/nH, bracket the range of 

possible average urban mobile source impacts for the two lead-in-gasoline 

phasedown alternatives. Costs of attainment for lead-acid battery plants were 

estimated for both possible background levels.. 

87 
P.3 

5.4.5 NAAQS Controls and Costs 

Control strategies identified in this study to meet the NAAQS alternatives 

were retrofit of fabric filters to uncontrolled paste mixing and three-process 

operations. Control of grid casting was not found to be required for any of 

the NAAQS alternatives. Also, small plants were not found to be affected 

under any of the alternatives. Table 5-8 gives the total costs and the 

numbers of affected plants for each of the NAAQS alternatives. Appendix D 

presents cost data used to develop the figures presented in this table. 

5.5 LEAD ALKYL MANUFACTURE 

Tl 

5.5.1 Production Processes 26 

Commercially, lead alkyl compounds are produced by the batch alkylation of 

sodium-lead alloy (SIC 2869). The basic step in this process is the reaction 

of sodium-lead alloy with an excess of ethyl chloride in autoclaves at 70°C to 

75°C as described by the following equation: 

4 NaPb + 4C2H5C1—^(C2H5)4—Pb + 4NaCl + 3Pb 

This reaction also can be carried out continuously in a process developed by 

duPont. Details of the continuous process are not available. 

In the batch process, sodium-lead alloy is produced by combining molten 

lead, virgin or recycled, with sodium in a 9-to-l ratio in an airtight alloy 

pot. The molten alloy is solidified and flaked in an oil-cooled flaker. The 

flaked alloy is discharged into the autoclaves. Ethyl chloride then is added, 

and the liquids and solids are intimately mixed. 

Initially the batch is heated to start the reaction; the exothermic 

reaction is maintained at 70°C to 75°C by external cooling and ethyl chloride 

reflux. When the reaction is complete, the autoclave is vented through a 

condenser for excess ethyl chloride recovery, and the reaction mass is 

discharged into stream stills for separation. 

88 
P.4 

TABLE 5-8. NATIONWIDE NAAQS COSTS FOR THE LEAD ACID BATTERY 

MANUFACTURING (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)3 

Background 

and NAAQS 

level (ug/m-*) 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

0.05 

0.01 

Costs (thousands) 

Installed 

capital 

6,477 

5171 

4,082 

3,502 

2,128 

2,085 

1,553 

6260 

4,881 

3792 

3502 

2128 

2085 

1553 

Total 

annual 

1,862 

1421 

1,129 

971 

594 

578 

431 

1781 

1,342 

1050 

971 

594 

578 

431 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

21 

13 

11 

9 

5 

4 

3 

20 

14 

10 

9 

5 

4 

3 

89 
P.5 

From the reaction mixture containing NaCI, tetraethyl lead, unreacted 

lead, and dissolved ethyl chloride, ethyl chloride is removed and collected in 

a brine condenser system. A water-cooled condenser then is used to collect 

water and the tetraethyl lead product. Non-condensible vapors are vented to 

the atmosphere. The separation operation lasts for approximately two hours, 

and the residue in the still then is sluiced to a sludge pit for lead recovery. 

Collected tetraethyl lead and water is decanted, and then tetraethyl lead 

is purified by air blowing or washing with dilute aqueous solutions of 

oxidizing agents to oxidize bismuth compounds present in the raw lead. The 

clean tetraethyl lead is filtered, and stabilizing agents are added. The 

sludge, consisting of fine lead particles, water, dissolved salt, and traces 

of tetraethyl lead, is leached with water in the sludge pit to separate lead 

and salt. The sludge pit bottoms, consisting mostly of lead, are dried in an 

indirect steam dryer. The dried sludge is fed to a gas-fired reverberatory 

furnace to recover lead. 

5.5.2 Industry Structure 

Tetraethyl lead and tetramethyl lead are produced as primary anti-knock 

gasoline additives in two manufacturing facilities operated by duPont and 

Ethyl Corporation. As a result of decreased demand for gasoline additives, 

the capacity for lead alkyl manufacture has decreased substantially in the 

recent past. The number of lead alkyl plants in the U.S. has decreased from 

six, in 1975, to two plants operating at present. The Ethyl plant is also 

expected to remain in operation, at least in the near future, serving the 

small U.S. market and also exporting some lead additives. 

5.5.3 Emission Sources and Controls 

The reverberatory furnace is the major lead emissions source. As apparent 

from the reaction equation, less than one-fourth of the lead introduced into 

the autoclaves actually reacts to form lead alkyl. The reverberatory furnace, 

therefore, processes approximately four times the amount of lead in the lead 

alkyl product. The emissions consist mainly of particulate lead oxide and are 

similar to emissions from secondary lead smelters. 

90 
P.6 

5.5.4 Industry-Specific Methods 

For the alkyl lead industry, the baseline ambient impact was estimated for 

each lead source at each individual plant, using the ISCST atmospheric 

dispersion model. Lead emission parameters used in the analysis were obtained 

through contacts with State and federal environmental agencies and published 

sources.' 

Very little data are available for duPont's Deepwater, New Jersey, plant. 

Claims of confidentiality necessitated making assumptions concerning the 

plant's operation. Essentially, a model lead alkyl plant was developed to 

represent the duPont plant based on the processes used at the recently closed 

Ethyl and Nalco plants. The plant was assumed to have two major lead emission 

sources resulting in a maximum average ambient concentration of 1.193 ug/m-* on 

a quarterly basis. Because of the suburban location of the Deepwater plant, 

the mobile source background concentration around this plant in 1990 and 1995 

was assumed to be neglible. 

5.5.5 NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

One fabirc filter would be required for the model plant to achieve the 1.0 

and 0.8 ug/m-* alternatives; and two fabric filter systems would be required to 

meet the 0.5 and 0.25 ug/m3 alternatives. Costs for fabirc filters for the 

model plant are given in Appendix D. Costs of attainment for the plant are 

tabulated in Table 5-9. 

5.6 GRAY IRON FOUNDRIES 

5.6.1 Process Description^' 

Gray iron, which is defined as an iron with a carbon content of 2 to 4 

percent, is produced from the melting and casting of scrap metal, foundry 

returns, and pig iron at foundry operations (SIC 3321). The four basic 

production processes at a gray iron foundry are: raw material handling; metal 

91 
P.7 

TABLE 5-9. NATIONWIDE NAAQS CONTROLS COSTS FOR THE LEAD-ALKYL PRODUCTION 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)3 

Lead NAAQS 

alternative 

ug/m3) 

Costs (thousands) 

Installed 

capital 

Total 

annual 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

2,080 

2,080 

1,040 

1,040 

749 

749 

375 

375 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3The background ambient lead level for the lead alkyl plant was assumed 

to be negligible. 

92 
P.8 

melting; mold and core production; and casting and finishing. Because lead is 

present as a contaminant in the raw materials, the production of gray iron 

results in lead emissions. 

Raw Material Handling - The raw material handling operations include the 

receiving, transfer, and storage of raw materials. These materials include 

pig iron, metal scrap, foundry returns, fluxes (limestone, soda ash, 

fluorspar, calcium carbide), coke, and binders. After receipt, these 

materials are transferred to storage areas until required for the production 

of gray iron. 

Metal Melting - The three major types of furnaces used in the metal 

melting process at gray iron foundries are: cupolas, which use heated 

combustion air to melt the furnace charge; electric arc, which uses three 

graphite electrodes; and electric induction, which uses the magnetic field 

created from alternating current that energizes the metal coils surrounding 

the furnace. The basic steps in the metal melting process include: 

furnace charging, in which metal, scrap, alloying material, coke, and 

flux are charged into the furnace; 

melting; 

backcharging, which involves the addition of metal and alloying 

material; 

refining and treating; 

slag tapping; and 

metal tapping into ladles or molds. 

Mold and Core Production - "Holds are forms used to shape the exterior of 

castings and cores are shapes used to make the interior voids of castings. 

Both are made from sand and various binding materials and then heated or dried 

for form retention. 

93 
P.9 

Casting and Finishing - After tapping from the furnace, molten metal may 

be treated through the addition of magnesium, lime, soda ash, or graphite. 

The treated metal is then poured into molds and allowed to cool. The 

partially cooled castings are placed on a vibrating grid where mold and core 

sand is shaken away, collected, and recycled. Burrs, risers, and gates are 

broken or ground off in the finishing process to match the contours of the 

castings. In the final step, castings are shot blasted to remove remaining 

mold sand and scale. 

5.6.2 Industry Description 

The casting produced at gray iron foundries are used primarily in the 

production of industrial equipment, such as automobiles and trucks, farm 

machinery, and machinery for heavy industries. The gray iron foundy industry 

has undergone a dramatic change during the last 40 years, as new, larger 

capacity operations have forced smaller, less efficient foundries from the 

market. It is estimated that the number of gray iron foundries has decreased 

from approximately 1,500 in the early 1970's to around 700 to 800 at present. 

Total industry production has remained relatively constant during that period 

and capacity utilization for this industry is currently around 68 

percent.2°i29 Although overall growth for the non-ferrous castings industry 

is predicted to be about 4 percent per year,28 mUch of this growth is expected 

to occur in electric furnaces.29 in fact, the Electric Power Research 

Institute predicts that electric furnaces will replace fuel-fired furnaces 

such as cupolas. Thus, growth in gray iron by fuel-fired furnaces is not 

expected to exceed 2 percent per year. 

5.6.4 Industry Specific Methodologies 

As stated in the process description section, the gray iron foundry 

industry uses three major types of furnaces in the metal melting process: 

cupolas, electric arc, and electric induction. Based on emission calculations 

and dispersion modeling results, the only emission source at gray iron 

94 
P.10 

foundries that contributed significantly to exceedences of the lead NAAQS 

alternatives were uncontrolled cupola furnaces. The NEDS files indicated that 

there were eleven of these furnaces of varying capacities. The dispersion -

modeling results for this industry were based on sources located in the 

following urbanized areas: 

• Chicago, Illinois; 

• Dallas, Texas; 

• Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota; and 

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

To determine the baseline ambient impacts of these furnaces, each was 

classified into one of three-model plant categories based on furnace charging 

capacity: small (23 megagrams per heat); medium (91 Mg/heat); and large (272 

Mg/heat).3^ Using particulate emission factors developed for each of these 

model plants sizes2'»30 and an average lead content for the particulate of 

three percent3^, annual baseline lead emissions were calculated. These 

emissions were then multiplied by a source-receptor coefficient for this 

industry of 0.15 ug/m per Mg/yr, baseline ambient impacts were developed. The 

inputs used in developing these impacts are presented in Table 5-10. 

Most gray iron foundries are located in urban areas. Therefore, the upper 

and lower limit urban mobile source background levels derived in Section 3 

were used. These concentrations, 0.01 and 0.05 ug/m3, bracket the range of 

possible average urban mobile source impacts for the two lead-in-gasoline 

phasedown alternatives. Costs of attainment for gray iron foundries were 

estimated for both possible background levels. As with other stationary 

sources located in urbanized areas, it was assumed that gray iron foundries 

owned property up to 150 meters from the emission source. 

5.6.5 NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

Industrial source categories that would not attain one or more of the lead 

NAAQS alternatives were determined from dispersion modeling of sources in ten 

95 
P.11 

TABLE 5-10. 

Plant 

BASELINE EMISSIONS AND 

FOUNDRY CUPOLA FURNACES 

Furnace 

identification Capacity 

number 

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 

(Mg/hr) 

13.6 

6.9 

36.4 

43.6 

5.9 

40.9 

12.0 

16.9 

104.6 

13.8 

5.9 

14.5 

45.5 

36.4 

32.5 

25.5 

22.3 

21.8 

4.7 

36.4 

7.1 

5.5 

6.9 

8.3 

14.3 

Ba 

pe 

AMBIENT 

seline 

rcent 

control3 

62 

95 

0 

0 

98 

95 

0 

71 

95 

75 

98 

25 

97 

97 

78 

95 

99 

92 

48 

0 

0 

0 

53 

0 

95 

IMPACTS FOR GRAY 

Baseline 

lead 

emissions 

(Mg/yr )b 

6.4 

10.5 

12.5 

10.0 

8.0 

1.9 

4.7 

3.8 

3.9 

1.9 

2.1 

1.7 

7.3 

4.2 

8.2 

10.9 

2.5 

2.1 

1.6 

43.5 

3.8 

2.6 

1.7 

3.7 

1.8 

IRON 

Baseline 

ambient 

impact 

(ug/m3)c 

0.96 

1.57 

1.87 

1.49 

1.20 

0.29 

0.70 

0.58 

0.58 

0.28 

0.32 

0.25 

1.10 

0.63 

1.23 

1.63 

0.38 

0.31 

.0.23 

6.52 

0.58 

0.38 

0.26 

0.55 

0.26 

From the December 1984 updata of NEDS. 

Baseline lead emissions were calculated based on controlled emission 

rates given in NEDS and a lead concentration in particulate of 

3 percent (reference 30). 

cBased on a source-receptor coefficient of 0.15 ug/m3 per Mg/yr. 

96 
' 1 

selected urbanized areas. Based on this modeling, it was determined that 

uncontrolled cupola furnaces at gray iron foundries would exceed at least one 

of the lead NAAQS alternatives. The control strategy developed for this 

industry consists of the installation of a side draft hood ducted to a 

baghouse control system. Costs of attainment for this industry are presented 

in Table 5-11. Appendix D gives background data on the development of control 

techniques and costs. Table 5-11 projects that some plants will not be able 

to attain the current NAAQS and lower alternatives. Given uncertainties 

involved in the use of an average lead-in-particulate concentration and an 

average source-recptor coefficient, it is possible that the plants would 

attain the lower NAAQS using the identified controls. In addition, due to 

plant closures associated with industry trends toward larger plants, some of 

the plants on which this analysis was based may not be in operation by 1990. 

5.7 ALLOY STEEL ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES 

5.7.1 Process Description-^ 

Direct electric arc furnaces (EAFs) (SIC 3313) are refractory-lined, 

cylindrical vessels that have a bowl-shaped hearth and domed roof. Three 

graphite or carbon electrodes are used to heat charged material in the furnace 

and are raised and lowered through holes in the furnace roof as needed. 

Thebasic processes used in the production of alloy steel by EAF's are: 

charging; meltdown and refining; and tapping. Because lead is present as a 

contaminant in the raw materials, the production of alloy steel results in 

lead emissions. 

Charging - A drop-bottom (clam shell type) bucket is used to charge EAF's 

with iron and steel scrap; alloying materials such as nickel, copper, and 

molybdenum; lime, which is used as a flux material to reduce the sulfur and 

phosphorus content of the molten steel; and coke. Charging is accomplished 

through opening of the furnace roof. 

97 
ar- j.. . •.. T"pi»-. 

P.13 

TABLE 5-11. 

Lead NAAQS and 

mobile source 

background (ug/m3) 

Background = 0.05 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background = 0.01 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

NAAQS CONTROLS COSTS FOR THE 

INDUSTRY (OCTOBER 

GRAY IRON 

1984 DOLLARS) 

Costs (thousands) 

Installed 

capital 

21,330 

16,200 

10,980 

10,980 

6,588 

2,196 

2,196 

20,871 

16,200 

10,980 

8,784 

4,302 

2,196 

Total 

annual 

4,828 

3,665 

2,494 

2,494 

1,496 

499 

499 

4,720 

3,665 

2,494 

1,995 

998 

499 

Number 

of plants 

impacted 

14 

9 

5 

5 

3 

1 

1 

13 

9 

5 

4 

2 

1 

FOUNDRY 

Number 

unable to 

comply3 

14 

7 

3 

3 

2 

0 

0 

13 

7 

3 

3 

2 

0 

3Controls could not be identified that would allow some plants to attain 

various NAAQA alternatives. 

98 
P.14 

"Tl 

Melting and Refining - After charging, the furnace roof is closed and the 

electrodes are lowered to the charge material. Electrical currents are passed 

through the electrodes to cause arcing. This arcing heats the charge and a 

molten pool of melt is formed in the center of the hearth. The furnace many 

be backcharged one ore more times during the melting process. The slag formed 

during melting is tapped off prior to tapping of the molten metal. 

Tapping - Tapping of the molten metal is accomplished through tilting of 

the furnace vessel and pouring the product into ladles. Ferromanganese alloy, 

ferrosilicon alloy, and aluminum may be added to the ladel to adjust the 

oxygen content of the alloy steel. In addition, alloying materials such as 

aluminum, zirconium, titanium, vanadium, and boron may be added to achieve the 

desired product. Bottom tapping of EAFs is a fairly new advance that is being 

used at some new facilities. 

5.7.2 Industry Description-^ 

EAFs are utilized typically in semi-integrated and nonintegrated steel 

mills and speciality steel shops. The semi-integrated steel mills use direct 

reduced iron along with iron and steel scrap as a soure of ferrous 

material.The nonintegrated mills operate melting units, such as EAFs, casting 

units, and fabrication mills to produce limited product lines for regional 

markets. Those with annual production of less than 544,200 megagrams (600,000 

tons) are classified as mini-mills. Speciality steel shops are similar to 

nonintegrated mills except for an additional secondary refining of the molten 

metal tapped from EAFs. The use of EAFs in the steel production industry is 

expected to continue an upward growth trend, as this process accounts for an 

increasing share of total steel output. It is estimated that 30 new EAFs will 

come on-line by 1990 and an additional 11 by 1995.31»

32 

5.7.3 Emission Sources and Controls3* 

The charging, melting/refining, and tupping operations at EAFs contribute 

to the emission of fugitive process particulate lead. Currently, the typical 

99 ; 

1 
control system used for process emissions is direct-shell evacuation and 

fabric filter control system. For fugitive process emissions, the control 

techniques that are typically used include fabric filters, single or segmented 

canopy roofs, scavenger duct, cross-draft partitions, and enclosed dust 

handling equipment. 

5.7.4 Industry Specific Methodologies 

To determine the baseline ambient impacts from alloy steel EAF's, each of 

these sources that appeared in the NEDS file was classified into one of three 

model plant sizes based on furnace capacity. The three sizes developed were: 

23 megagrams per heat; 91 Mg/heat; and 272 Mg/heat.3* The furnaces appearing 

in NEDS were thus classified and emission factors32 and operating rates were 

used to esimate total particulate emissions. For the alloy steel EAF 

industry, dispersion modeling results were based on sources located in the two 

urbanized areas of Chicago, Illinois, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

It was then assumed that the particulate emissions had an average lead 

content of two percent. From this, lead emission estimates were developed for 

each source. Using a source-receptor coefficient of 0.12 ug/m3 per Mg/yr for 

alloy steel EAFs, baseline ambient impacts on a source-by-source basis were 

calculated. These estimates are presented in Table 5-12. From these 

estimations, it was determined that only uncontrolled alloy steel EAFs would 

exceed the various lead NAAQS alternatives. 

As with other source categories located primarily in urban areas, the 

upper and lower limit mobile source background levels derived in Section 3 

were used. Costs of attainment for alloy steel EAFs were estimated for both 

possible background levels. 

5.7.5 NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

Based on the dispersion modeling and emission calculations as described 

above, it was determined that alloy steel EAFs would cause exceedences of the 

various NAAQS alternatives being studied. Control strategies designed to 

100 
P.16 

TABLE 5-12. BASELINE EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT IMPACTS FOR ALLOY STEEL 

ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES 

Plant 

identification 

number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

Furnace 

capacity 

(Mg/hr) 

36.4 

52.7 

77.3 

9.1 

Baseline 

percent 

control 

99.9 

90.5 

99.5 

0 

Baseline 

lead 

emissions 

(Mg/yr )b 

4.8 

2.3 

4.9 

3.8 

Baseline 

ambient 

impact 

(ug/m3)c 

0.58 

0.28 

0.59 

0.46 

g 

From the December 1984 update of NEDS. 

b Baseline lead emissions were calculated based on controlled emission 

rates given in NEDS and a lead concentration in particulate of 

3 percent (reference 30). 

Based on a source-receptor coefficient of 0.12 ug/m3 per Mg/yr. 

101 
P. 17 

' TTj 

bring these sources into attainment with the lead NAAQS alternatives were then 

developed. The three strategies developed contain the same process emission 

control system (direct-shell evacuation and fabric filter control system), but 

vary in the degree of fugitive process emission control. 

Costs of attainment for the various lead NAAQS alternatives on an 

industry-wide basis are given in Table 5-13. Appendix D presents data used in 

the development of control techniques and costs. Table 5-11 projects that 

some plants will not be able to attain the lower NAAQS alternatives. Given 

uncertainties involved in the use of an average lead-in-particulate 

concentration and an average source-receptor coefficient, it is possible that 

the plants would attain the lower NAAQS using the identified controls. 

5.8 STEEL ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES 

5.8.1 Process Description32 

Direct electric are furnaces (EAFs) (SIC 3313) are refractory-lined, 

cylindrical vessels that have a bowl-shaped hearth and domed roof. Three 

graphite or carbon electrodes are used to heat charged material in the furnace 

and are raised and lowered through holes in the furnace roof as needed. The 

basic processes used in the production of steel by EAFs are: charging; 

meltdown and refining; and tapping. Because lead is present as a contaminant 

in the raw materials, the production of steel results in lead emissions. 

Charging - A drop-bottom (clam shell type) bucket is used to charge EAF's 

with iron and steel scrap; alloying materials such as carbon raiser, 

manganese, and silicon; lime, which is used as a flux material to reduce to 

sulfur and phosphorus content of the molten steel; and coke. Charging is 

accomplished through opening of the furnace roof. 

Melting and Refining - After charging, the furnace roof is closed and the 

electrodes are lowered to the charge material. Electrical currents are passed 

through the electrodes to cause arcing. This arcing heats the charge and a 

molten pool of melt is formed in the center of the hearth. The furnace may be 

102 
P.18 

TABLE 5-13. NATIONWIDE NAAQS COSTS FOR ALLOY STEEL EAFs 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

Background and 

NAAQS 

level (ug/m3) 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

0.05 

0.01 

Costs (thou 

Installed 

capital 

8,069 

6,818 

— 

— 

— 

— 

--

8,069 

--

— 

— 

— 

— 

-•• 

sands) 

Total 

annual 

2,457 

1,826 

— 

— 

— 

— 

--

2,457 

— 

— 

--

— 

— 

• • — 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Number 

unable to 

comply3 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

aControls could not be identified that would allow some plants to comply with 

the lower alternatives. 

103 
backcharged one or more times during the melting process. The slag formed 

during melting is tapped off prior to tapping of the molten meltal. 

Tapping - Tapping of the molten metal is accomplished through tilting of 

the furnace vessel and pouring the product into ladles. Ferromanganese alloy, 

ferrosilicon alloy, and aluminum may be added to the ladle to adjust the 

oxygen content of the alloy steel. Bottom tapping of EAFs is a fairly recent 

advance that is being used at some new facilities. After the tapping process, 

the molten melt is poured into casts for cooling. 

P.19 

TH 

5.8.2 Industry Description 32 

EAFs are utilized typically in semi-integrated and nonintegrated steel 

mills and speciality steel shops. The semi-integrated steel mills use direct 

reduced iron along with iron and steel scrap as a source of ferrous material. 

The nonintegrated mills operate melting units, such as EAFs casting units, and 

facrication mills to produce limited product lines for regional markets. 

Those with annual production of less than 544,200 megagrams (600,000 tons) are 

classified as mini-mills. Speciality steel shops are similar to nonintegrated 

mills except for an additional secondary refining of the molten metal tapped 

from EAFs. 

5.8.3 Emission Sources and Control 32 

The charging, melting/refining, and tapping operations at EAFs contribute 

to the emission of fugitive process particulate lead. Currently, the 

typicalcontrol system used for process emission are side draft hoods and 

fabric filters for small furnaces and direct-shell evacuation and fabric 

filter control systems for medium and large furnaces. For fugitive process 

emissions, the control techniques tht are typically used include fabric 

filters, single or segmented canopy roofs, scavenger duct, cross-draft 

partitions, and enclosed dust handling equipment. 

The average lead concentration in particulate for steel EAFs was taken to 

be 2 percent. It was assumed that the source-receptor coefficient for steel 

104 
EAFs is the same as that for alloy steel EAFs, or 0.12 ug/m3 per Mg/yr 

(Section 5.1.4). Table 5-14 gives baseline lead emissions and ambient impacts 

were calculated for individual steel EAFs using these factors and particulate 

emission rates from NEDS. As with other stationary sources located primarily 

in urbanized areas, the costs of attainment were estimated the upper and lower 

limit mobile source background levels derived in Section 3. 

5.8.4 Industry Specific Methodologies 

To determine the baseline ambient impacts from steel EAF's, each of these 

sources that appeared in the NEDS file was classified into one of three model 

plant sizes based on furnace capacity. The three sizes developed were: 3.6 

megagrams per heat; 9.1 Mg/heat; and 22.T Mg/heat.32 The furnaces appearing 

in NEDS were thus classified and emission factors32 and operating rates were 

used to estimate total particulate emissions. 

5.8.5. NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

Based on the dispersion modeling and emission calculations as described 

above, it was determined that steel EAFs would cause exceedences of the 

various NAAQS alternatives being studied. Control strategies designed to 

bring these sources into attainment with the lead NAAQS alternatives were than 

developed. The three strategies developed contain the same process emission 

control system (side draft hood or direct-shell evacuation and fabric filter 

control system), but vary in the degree of fugitive process emission control. 

Costs of attainment for the various lead NAAQS alternatives on an 

industry-wide basis are given in Table 5-15. Appendix D presents data used in 

the development of control techniques and costs. Table 5-15 projects that 

some plants will not be able to attain the current NAAQS and the lower 

alternatives. Given uncertanties involved in the use of an average 

lead-in-particulate concentration and an average source-receptor coefficient, 

it is possible that the plants would attain the lower NAAQS using the 

identified controls. 

105 
P.21 

TABLE 5-14. BASELINE EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT IMPACTS FOR STEEL 

ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES 

Plant 

identification 

number t-i 2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Furnace 

capacity 

(Mg/hr) 

1.5 

7.9 

48.2 

9.1 

9.1 

33.2 

3.9 

17.9 

9.1 

9.1 

8.5 

Baseline 

percent 

control 

0 

97.2 

95.0 

0 

0 

96.5 

0 

0 

0 

99.9 

99.0 

Baseline 

lead 

emissions 

(Mg/yr)b 

2.9 

3.1 

2.0 

4.5 

6.1 

4.4 

3.6 

7.2 

2.4 

16.0 

6.1 

Baseline 

ambient 

impact 

(ug/m3)c 

0.35 

0.37 

0.23 

0.54 

0.73 

0.53 

0.43 

0.86 

0.29 

0.48 

0.73 

From the December 1984 update of NEDS. 

3aseline lead emissions were calculated based on controlled emission 

rates given in NEDS and a lead concentration in particulate of 

3 percent (reference 30). 

cBased on a source-receptor coefficient of 0.12 ug/m3 per Mg/yr. 

106 
TABLE 

Background and 

NAAQS 

level (ug/m3) 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background = 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

0 

0 

5-15. 

05 

.01 

NATIONWIDE 

(OCTOBER : 

Costs 

NAAQS 

L984 D( 

(thou 

Installed 

capital 

2,459 

1,451 

654 

— 

— 

— 

--

1,949 

1,451 

654 

— 

— 

— 

"

 — 

COSTS FOR 

DLLARS) 

sands) 

Total 

annual 

1,189 

670 

287 

--

— 

— 

--

998 

670 

287 

— 

--

— 

~ — 

CARBON STEEL 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

9 

5 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 

5 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

EAFs 

Number 

unable to 

comply3 

4 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

4 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

aControls could not be identified that would allow some plants to comply with 

the current NAAQS and the lower alternatives. 

107 
- T r w - a„-1„-TlWm . • 

5.9 IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY - SINTERING 

5.9.1 Process Description 33 

Sintering operations are used in iron and steel manufacture at large, 

integrated mills. The sintering process converts fine materials into an 

agglomerate that can be charged to a blast furnace. Feed materials to 

sintering operations include fine iron ore, coke breeze, fluxstone, mill scale 

and flue dust. These materials are mixed with water, and then placed on a 

grate that moves through the sinter furnace. In the furnace, the coke in the 

feed material is ignited, providing the necessary heat for surface melting and 

agglomeration. Fused sinter is discharged at the end of the furnace, and is 

then crushed and screened, with any undersized material recycled to the 

furnace. Sinter product is cooled either by air or by a water spray, and is 

then fed to blast furnace. 

5.9.2 Emission Sources and Controls33 

Combustion air from the sintering process contains entrained sinter 

particulate, and is generally ducted to a particulate control device. 

Fugitive particulate emissions emulate from materials handling, the sinter 

furnace charge and discharge ports, and the cooling and crushing operation. 

In this study, controls were identified for sinter fugitive emissions from 

materials handling, and from the sinter furnace area. For materials handling, 

the controls identified were covering of trucks and railcars, with ventilation 

to a fabric filter. For the furnace area, the controls identified were 

hooding and ventilation of the furnace ports, and replacement of the crushing 

circuit with a closed system.' 

5.9.3 Industry Specific Methodologies 

The average lead concentration in particulate matter for sintering 

fugitives was taken to be 1.7 percent; and the average source-receptor 

coefficient for the sintering operation was assumed to be the same as that for 

108 
gray iron production, or about 0.15 ug/m3 (Section 5.6.4). Table 5-16 gives 

baseline lead emissions and ambient impacts were calculated for individual 

sintering operations using these factors and particulate emission rates from 

NEDS. As with other stationary sources located primarily in urbanized areas, 

the costs of attainment were estimated using the upper and lower limit mobile 

source background levels derived in Section 3. 

5.9.4 NAAQS Control Strategies and Costs 

Costs for the sinter materials handling and sinter furnace emission 

control systems identified in this study are given in Appendix D. Table 5-17 

gives total estimated attainment costs for sinter operations for the various 

NAAQS alternatives. The table indicates that some plants will not be able to 

attain the lower NAAQS alternatives. Given uncertainties involved in the use 

of an average lead-in-particulate concentration and an average source-receptor 

coefficient, it is possible that the plants would attain the lower NAAQS using 

the identified controls. 

5.10 BRASS AND BRONZE INGOT PRODUCTION 

5.10.1 Process Descript ion34 

The raw materials used in brass and bronze production (SIC 3341) are 

almost entirely derived from scrap materials with virgin metals used only to 

adjust the composition of the product as desired. These raw materials are 

subjected to a series of sorting, classification, and preparation steps before 

undergoing the actual ingot production process. The ingots produced are 

generally further processed by remelting, shaping, rolling, extracting, etc. 

in brass or bronze mills to produce final products or intermediate products 

for delivery to brass and bronze manufacturing facilities. 

The scrap raw materials are prepared for the production of ingots by 

mechanical hydrometallurgical, or pyrometallurgical treatment. These 

processes remove the undesireable scrap components leaving a mixture of metals 

as close as possible to the composition of the desired product. 

109 
n 

TABLE 5-16. BASELINE EMISSIONS AND AMBIENT IMPACTS OF IRON AND STEEL SINTERING 

Plant 

identification 1-1 2 

3 

4 

5 

Operation 

Material handling 

Furnace 

Furnace 

Material handling 

Furnace 

Baseline 

percent 

control3 

Baseline 

lead 

emissions 

(Mg/yr )b 

Baseline 

ambient 

impact 

(ug/m3)C 

0 

82.0 

75.0 

99.9 

96.0 

2.7 

61.5 

14.9 

1.8 

3.4 

0.33 

9.21 

1.79 

0.22 

0.40 

From the December 1984 update of NEDS. 

Baseline lead emissions were calculated based on controlled emission 

rates given in NEDS and a lead concentration in particulate of 

3 percent (reference 30). 

Based on a source-receptor coefficient of 0.12 ug/m3 per Mg/yr. 

110 
TABLE 5-17. NAAQS CONTROL COSTS FOR IRON SINTERING 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

Lead NAAQS and 

mobile source 

background (ug/mBackground = 0. 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

Background - 0 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

') 

05 

01 

Costs (thou 

Installed 

capital 

23,560 

13,400 

13,400 

13,400 

13,400 

6,700 

6,700 

23,560 

13,400 

13,400 

13,400 

13,400 

6,700 

6,700 

sands) 

Total 

annual 

6,550 

3,680 

3,680 

3,680 

3,680 

1,840 

1,840 

6,550 

3,680 

3,680 

3,680 

3,680 

1,840 

1,840 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

4 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

Number 

unable to 

comply3 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 r-i 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3Controls could not be identified that would allow some plants to achieve the 

lower alternatives. 

Ill 
"H 

The production of brass and bronze ingots takes place in one of three 

types of furnaces: direct-fired reverberatory, indirect-fired or electric. 

The raw materials are charged to the furnace and when the charge attains the 

proper heat and impurities have been drawn off into the slag, the molten metal 

is tested for its alloy composition. Adjustments are made as needed and the 

metal is brought to the ideal pouring temperature for the specific alloy and 

the ingots are poured. 

5.10.2 Industry Structure35 

There has been a steady decline in the number of plants and production 

since the peak year of 1966 despite the high wartime demand during the late 

sixties and early seventies. There were 60 producers in 1969 and only 35 in 

1978. This negative growth is expected to continued for two major reasons: 

the first is a decline in market demand for certain brass and bronze products, 

and the second is substitution of other materials or technologies for the 

previously used brass or bronze. Fiber optics for telephone and data 

transmission is expected to cause even further declines in brass and bronze 

demand. 

5.10.3 Emission Sources and Controls30 

Lead bearing particulate matter is emitted from process and fugitive 

process sources at brass and bronze ingot production plants. The extent of 

the lead emissions depends on the lead composition of the scrap and other 

charged materials, temperature, type of furnace and various operating factors 

such as methods of charging, slagging, alloying and pouring ingots The lead 

fraction of particulate matter emissions ranges from 1-12 percent for most 

operations. 

The process emissions can be collected and ducted to a high-efficiency 

baghouse for control of all particulate matter fractions. A few high pressure 

drop venturi scrubbers are used in the industry but their overall control 

efficiency (60 percent) is significantly lower than that of baghouses. 

112 
5.10.4 Industry Specific Methodologies 

Particulate emissions from brass and bronze production plants were 

obtained from the December 1984 update of NEDS. Particulate emissions from 

brass and bronze production range from 2.5 to 56 percent lead; however, for 

the majority of brass and bronze alloys, the lead content of particulate 

emissions is about 15 percent. This average lead content was used to estimate 

lead emissions from the individual plants; an average source-receptor 

coefficient of 0.90 ug/m3 was used to estimate baseline ambient lead impacts. 

This source-receptor coefficient was calculated using dispersion modeling 

results for brass and bronze production plants in Chicago and Phoenix; gray 

iron foundries in Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis - St. Paul, and Philadelphia; 

and alloy steel plants in Chicago and Philadelphia. Modeling results for the 

iron and steel industry were used in the study of brass and bronze plants 

because of the similarity in emission and stack parameters. 

Baseline lead emissions and ambient impacts determined using the above 

methods are given in Table 5-18. The costs of attainment for the brass and 

bronze industry were estimated for the upper and lower limit mobile source 

background levels (Section 3). 

There were no data available concerning fugitive emissions and they were 

therefore not considered in this analysis. The source impact for each plant 

was determined and the emissions reductions necessary at the various lead 

NAAQS alternatives were calculated. The control of choice for the industry, 

high efficiency baghouse, was applied in the instances where reductions were 

necessary. 

5.10.5 NAAQS Controls and Costs 

NAAQS control for the brass and bronze ingot production plants is limited 

to the application of high-efficiency baghouses control of furnace emissions. 

Table 5-19 gives industry-wide costs to achieve the various lead NAAQS 

alternatives. The costs associated with the control techniques evaluated are 

presented in Appendix D. 

113 
TABLE 5-18. BASELINE EMISSIONS 

BRONZE PRODUCTION 

Plant 

identification 

number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Furnace 

capacity 

(Mg/day) 

34.2 

45.2 

0.2 

6.9 

• 10.3 

3.3 

6.4 

6.5 

2.0 

3.3 

29.5 

29.5 

109.1 

76.4 

109.1 

218.2 

17.5 

18.2 

54.5 

AND AMBIENT 

Baseline 

percent 

control3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

95 

85 

95 

95 

0 

80 

0 

--CONTINUED--

114 

IMPACTS FOR BRASS 

Baseline 

lead 

emissions 

(Mg/yr)b 

7.4 

3.5 

8.4 

2.7 

2.9 

TOTAL 

7.2 

2.4 

1.1 

TOTAL 

1.8 

1.2 

0.6 

TOTAL 

11.6 

12.5 

TOTAL 

3.2 

0.6 

0.8 

4.8 

TOTAL 

8.1 

5.3 

9.3 

m 

• 

AND 

Baseline 

ambient 

impact 

(ug/m3)c 

0.60 

0.28 

0.69 

0.22 

0.23 

0.45 

0.59 

0.20 

0.09 

0.87 

0.15 

0.10 

0.05 

0.29 

0.94 

1.02 

1.96 

0.26 

0.05 

0.06 

0.39 

0.76 

0.66 

0.43 

0.76 

'71 

-
tn 

to CO IV a. 

o 

3 

to (0 

o 

c M 

O 

ro 

i 

i-t 

ro 

n 

fl> 

•d rt 

o 

H 

O 

o ID H i H i H -

o H

-

(D 

3 

._. rt G^ H ° i 

o 

o VO 

C 00 

0 OJ 

t > 

A 

l-t 

S 00 

^ 

H 

• 

OJ >o 

ro f i 

o n> 

3 rt 

s-\ f l 

re H i 

rt> 

M 

ro 

3 

o 

ro OJ 

o 

^ ^ • 

. 

M 

to rt (D CO oo H-

< 

ro 

3 H

-

3 25 

W t ) 

W 

to 

3 a. 

to H * 

ro 

to a. 

o 

o 

3 

n 

ro 

3 rt 

•-( to rt Ho 

3 H

-

3 •a 

to H rt Ho 

C 

i- 1 

to rt 

ro 

o H i 

cu 

to CO 

ro 

i - " H -

3 

ro 

t-a 

ro 

to a. 

ro 

0 H

-

CO CO H -

o 

3 (0 

« ro 

i 

ro 

o 

to 

• -• 

o 

c H " 

to rt 

ro Q . cr 

to CO 

ro Q . 

o 

3 

O 

o 

3 rt 

ti 

O 

i - " 

ro a. 

ro 

0 UOTSST 

**. 

n 

o 

n 

rt 

V 

ro 

tt 

ro 

n 

ro 

0 cr 

ro 

M 

t-a VO 0 0 4 > 

c >a Oto rt 

ro 

o H i 25 

M 

rt CO 

. 

00 

OJ 

to to Ol Ol 

t-a IO OV OJ OJ OJ OJ 

Ov Ov O O 

Ol Ol Ol Ol 

Ov Ol O l 

tO t-a 4> 4> OJ NJ OJ 

H o mm M s to 

00 «> oo« s w s 

Ov 4 * 

vo vo 

4> Ol 

tO OJ 00 H NJ sJ 00 J> t o t o OV - J 

o o o o 

o o o o 

Ol 

o 

OJ vo vo vo vo vo vo 

vo OS vo 00 00 00 00 

vo vo Ol Oi 

O O OOOO O 

H 

O 

H > O - J f • • 00 Ol 

H 

O 

tr> 

to OJ 

. . OJ OJ 

H 

O 

H > O O t

o to 

ti ... . 

tO tO O r-1 

H 

O 

si H 

00 >KJOOOOOt- 1 

t-> 

OJ OJtOOvOvvotOi- ' 

H 

O 

H > t

o O 

t"< • • OV OV 

H 

O H H i > OJ 4> 

tr

1

 • • tO t-a 

H o 

H > O *

* O Ov (-• 

tr1 

Ov sJ OJ Ol Ol 

o o o o o o oooo o OOOOOOO O o o o 

M H> O 

H" O O O O O 

ov o ov sJ OV t-a 

J> r-« IO 

Ol 00 s i 

UJ O O •-• H* 

OV t-a I-" OV sJ 

-P" 

O 

-P-HJOOOOO O 

SOOHWUlSH O 

to to o 

00 OJ Ol 

•P- O UJ 

H CO U 

H" O OJ O Ol H-" 

O Ol oo to OJ to 

a 

c 0 cr 

ro 

r. 

H-

D . 

ro 

3 rt H - H i H -

O 

to rt H -

o 

3 

•fl 

*-• to 

3 rt 

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 

^s O >*i K tu c 00 TJ ri 

- s, to 3 

CL. O to 

to H- O 

v<! rt ro 

n TJ w 

o ro to 

i-t w o ro 

ro H * 3 H> n- a 

ro 

3 rt 

ft 

O 

ro 

0 

K H-

w 

to co 

oo co ro ro co cu 

v<J 

>-t O w 3 CO 

)-a. (X. H-

3 

ro 

s-* H-

C 0 00 XI H 

- s. to ro 

0 o 3 OJ rt rt 

to w 0 to cr co 

ro H3 

ro 

> 

n to II f n w II II Oi n i II (-• 11 oo II II ^ s II o o 

z 

H HI 

z a 

II w 

II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 

. J 
TABLE 5-19. NAAQS CONTROL COSTS FOR IRON SINTERING 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

Lead NAAQS and 

mobile source 

background (ug/mBackground = 0. 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

l) 

05 

Costs 

Installed 

capital 

5,575 

3,613 

2,300 

1,440 

745 

745 

404 

(thou sands) 

Total 

annual 

1,568 

980 

624 

390 

202 

202 

109 

Number 

of plants 

affected 

19 

12 

8 

5 

3 

3 

2 

Number 

unable to 

comply3 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

P.31 

Background = 0.05 

0.25 

0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.0 

2.5 

5,575 

3,609 

1,896 

1,440 

745 

404 

404 

1,568 

871 

515 

390 

202 

109 

109 

19 

11 

7 

5 

3 

2 

2 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

aControls could not be identified that would allow some plants to achieve the 

lower alternatives. 

116 
5.11 PRIMARY COOPER SMELTING AND REFINING 

5.11.1 Process Description 

The material processed at U.S. primary copper smelters (SIC 3331) are 

predominately sulfide ore concentrates, of which the most common copper 

bearing constituent is chalcopyrite (CuFeS2). The copper content of the ore 

as minded is generally less than 1 weight percent, and flotation methods are 

used to produce a copper concentrate that serves as the feed to the primary 

smelting plant. A typical copper ore concentrate contains 15 to 30 weight 

percent copper and large amounts of iron, sulfur, and silicon. Other 

important constituents are lead, antimony, zinc, cadmium, bismuth, selenium, 

and arsenic.3' 

The copper bearing minerals in the ore concentrate are separated from the 

other materials and converted to 99 percent pure "blister copper" at the 

primary copper smelter. There are three major processes involved at most 

smelters: roasting, smelting, and converting. 

5.11.1.1 Roasting 

Copper ore concentrates require roasting if they have a low copper content 

relative to sulfur and other impurities. Roasting involves heating the ore 

concentrate to about 650°C (below the melting point of the charge) and has 

three functions: (1) eliminating a portion of the sulfur as SO2; 

(2) converting a portion of the iron sulfides to iron oxides; and (3) removing 

volatile impurities such as antimony, arsenic, bismuth, and cadmium. The 

roasted product is known as the calcine. 

Currently, there are two types of roasters used—multiple hearth roasters 

and the newer fluid bed roasters. For a given degree of sulfur removal, fluid 

bed roasters require a shorter concentrate residence time and produce a higher 

strength SO2 offgas stream than do multiple hearth roasters. 

117 
T*; 

5.11.1.2 Smelting 

In the smelting process either hot calcine from the roaster or unroasted 

ore concentrates are melted with suitable fluxes in a smelting furnace to 

chemically reduce copper and higher iron oxides and to liberate sulfur as 

SO2. This process results in the production of two products: a copper-rich 

matte, which generally contains 15 to 50 percent copper, together with iron, 

most of the sulfur and any contained percious metals; and a copper-poor slag, 

the waste flux high in silicon and iron and containing small amounts of copper 

and other oxide impurities. These "phases" are mutually insoluable and 

separate within the furnace, the slag floating on top of the matte. The matte 

and slag are drawn off (tapped) separately, with the slag being discarded or 

recycled and the matte being sent to the converter for further processing. 

There are several types of smelting furnaces currently used in domestic 

copper smelters: reverbatory furnaces, electric furnaces, flash furnaces, and 

continuous (Noranda) furnaces. The reverbatory furnace is the oldest 

technology and differs from the rest in that it produces an offgas stream with 

a relatively low SO2 content, generally between 0.5 and 1.5 percent SO25 as 

opposed to the other furnaces which produce offgas streams having greater than 

3.5 percent SO2. 

5.11.1.3 Converting 

The molten matte produced in the smelting furnace is transferred to the 

converter where flux materials are added to provide a medium in which any iron 

contained in the matte can be removed as slag. There are two stages in the 

converter operations. During the "slag blow," the iron sulfide in the matte 

is preferentially oxidized to iron oxide. The iron oxide dissolves in the 

flux and forms a ferrous slag layer that is removed from the converter and 

recycled to the smelting furnace. Following the slag blow, the molten copper 

sulfide is converted to metallic blister copper and sulfur dioxide during the 

"copper blow." The SO2 content of the offgas is higher during the copper blow 

than during the slag blow. 

118 
The 99 percent pure blister copper from the converter is subsequently 

refined to reduce the level of impurities. Refining consists of a series of 

operations in which blister copper is first oxidized to Cu02 and then reduced 

back to metallic copper. Figure 5-1 shows a conventional copper smelting 

process. 

5.11.2 Industry Structure 

Currently, there are seven companies operating twelve domestic primary 

copper smelters with a combined production capacity of 1,421,000 Mg 

(1,563,100 tons).3" This represents an 18 percent reduction in capacity from 

1984 due to the closing of three smelters: the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma, 

Washington (90,000 Mg capacity), and the Phelps Dodge smelters in Ajo 

(64,000 Mg capacity) and Morenci (160,000 Mg capacity), Arizona.37 In 1984, 

domestic primary copper smelter production was 989,720 Mg (1,088,692 tons), 

approximately 57 percent of capacity. 

The Copper Range/White Pine smelter has been closed since 1982, but 

negotiations, with intent to reopen the mine and smelter are currently 

underway.3^ No growth in U.S. capacity is expected and a contraction of the 

industry is probable over the short term; an average annual growth rate of 

1.7 percent per year from 1983 to 2000 is predicted.^° Table 5-20 shows the 

company, location and estimated production capacity of the twelve operating 

smelters. 

5.11.3 Emission Sources and Controls 

Lead-bearing particulates are emitted from process, fugitive process, and 

fugitive dust sources at primary copper smelters. 

5.11.3.1 Process Emissions 

Process emissions can be well controlled through the use of extensive 

hooding and ducting systems, baghouses, contact sulfuric acid plants, 

119 
-. 

? 

* 

isl ag 

Figure 5-1 . 

ROASTING 

• multiple hearth 

• fluid bed 

calci ne 

i ' 

SMELTING 

• reverbatory 

• electric 

• continuous 

• flash 

ma 

1 

:te 

CONVERTING 

bliste - copper 

REFINING 

Conventional copper smelting process. 

120 

IT 

r- - — nfii r 

• 
1 

TABLE 5-20. DOMESTIC PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS 

Company Smelter location 

Copper Production 

Capacity3 Mg/yr (tons/yr) 

ASARCO 

Tennessee Chemical 

Copper Range 

Inspiration Consolidated 

Kennecott 

Magma 

Phelps Dodge 

El Paso, Texas 

Hayden, Arizona 

Copperhill, Tennessee 

White Pine, Michigan 

Miami, Arizona 

Garfield, Utah 

Hayden, Arizona 

Hurley, New Mexico 

McGill, Neveda 

San Manuel, Arizona 

Douglas, Arizona 

Hiladago, New Mexico 

91,000 

182,000 

13,600 

52,000 

136,000 

254,000 

71,000 

73,000 

45,000 

181,000 

115,000 

163,000 

(100,000) 

(200,000) 

(15,000) 

(57,000) 

(150,000) 

(280,000) 

(78,000) 

(80,000) 

(50,000) 

(200,000) 

(127,000) 

(179,000) 

aProduction of blister copper. 

121 
electrostatic precipitators (ESPs), scrubbers, and dispersion of emissions 

from tall stacks. 

Roasters -- The emission control technologies that can be applied to the 

two types of roasters (multiple hearth and fluid bed) depend on the SO2 

content of the offgas streams. Fluid bed roaster offgas streams have a high 

enough SO2 concentration to be economically treated with a contact sulfuric 

acid plant, which when used in conjunction with an ESP achieves a 99.9 percent 

reduction in he lead content of the waste stream. The SO2 concentration of 

multiple hearth roaster offgas is too low for economical treatment with a 

contact sulfuric acid plant unless the stream is blended with another more 

concentrated SO2 stream. ESPs are used for particulate control, and cold ESPs 

can remove up to 99 percent of particulates, efficiencies for hot ESPs range 

from 20 to 80 percent.^1 

Furnaces — The existing control equipment employed on smelting furnace 

offgas streams depends on the furnace type. As with the multiple hearth 

roaster, the SO2 content of reverberatory furnace offgas is too low to treat 

the stream economically with a contact sulfuric acid plant, and other forms of 

SO2 control, such as flue gas desulfurization, are not practiced in the 

domestic primary copper smelting industry. ESPs are used exclusively within 

the industry to remove particulate matter from reverberatory furnace 

offgases. Contact sulfuric acid plants are used to treat streams from 

electric, flash, and continuous (Norahda) furnaces because of their relatively 

high SO2 concentration. 

Converters -- Offgases from the converter operation that are captured by 

the primary converter hooding system are treated in contact sulfuric acid 

plants at 6 of the 9 copper smelters modeled for this study. Of the remaining 

three plants, two use hot ESP systems for particulate control and the other 

has no converter offgas pollution control equipment.37 

122 
5.11.3.2 Fugitive Emissions 

Fugitive emissions may be characterized as emissions which escape directly 

from the process area to the atmosphere rather than through a flue or exhaust 

system. They result from leakage in and around process equipment and from 

material handling and transfer operations. These emissions may be considered 

as low level emissions when compared to process emissions, since they usually 

leave the smelter at or near ground level, whereas process emissions are 

discharged through a tall stack. 

Roaster — Fugitive emissions seldom occurs during charging of multiple 

hearth roasters because of the water content (8-10 percent) of the feed, and 

the choke feed mechanism on the charging hoppers. Because of the enclosed 

feed and discharge system, fugitives are seldom emitted from fluid bed 

roasters. 

Fugitive emissions from multiple hearth roasters may be emitted from leaks 

that can occur at the doors located at each of the hearth levels, from holes 

in the actual shell of the roaster, or from leaks around the shaft supporting 

the rabble arms. Under normal operating conditions, these emissions are 

minimized by operating the multiple hearth roasters under a slight negative 

pressure. 

Calcine Transfer — Fugitive emissions may be generated during the 

discharge and transfer of hot calcine from roaster to smelting furnaces. 

Smelters with multiple hearth roasters usually use larry cars (small rail 

cars) to transport calcines to the furnace. When the material is dropped from 

the calcine hopper located under the roaster into the covered car through a 

feed opening, large quantities of dust are generated as a result of material 

movement and pressure changes within the car. Some fugitive emissions can 

also occur during the transportation of the roaster calcines to the smelting 

furnace. In the case where larry cars are used, their feed opening is usually 

covered to minimize this effect.3' 

Fugitive emissions are seldom emitted from a properly operated fluid bed 

roaster during calcine transfer operations since it is essentially a closed 

system. 

123 
Smelting Furnaces — As noted previously, four basic types of smelting 

furnaces are used: reverberatory, electric, continuous (Noranda), and flash. 

Depending on the method used for charging and the type of smelting furnace, 

fugitive emissions can be generated. However, by using add-on control systems 

which are activated at the time the charge is dropped, effective reduction of 

potential fugitive emissions can be obtained. Since most smelters are 

currently using such control systems, it is reasonable to assume that fugitive 

lead emissions during charging of smelting furnaces are negligible. 

Reverberatory furnaces are usually operated under slight negative pressure 

which helps prevent fugitive emissions from the many potential leakage points 

around the furnace. The reduced requirement for providing oxygen to electric 

furnaces results in these furnaces being better sealed. If positive pressure 

is momentarily generated, fugitive emissions due to leakage are considerably 

less. The construction of flash furnaces is such that they are virtually 

gas-tight, preventing leakage of emissions. Provided they are properly 

operated and maintained, it is reasonable to assume that fugitive lead 

emissions due to leakage from smelting furnaces are negligible.3' 

Matte and slag tapping are the principle fugitive emission sources at the 

smelting furnace. Smelting furnaces have from one to three matte tap holes 

with associated launders on each side. The launder directs the flowing matte 

to a point where it can be collected in a large ladle. Fugitive emissions are 

observalbe from the point at which the matte leaves the furnace to the 

location where it enters the ladle. Typically, a matte tapping operation 

takes 5 to 15 minutes. Slag tap ports and slag launders have been observed to 

emit less fugitive emissions than those emitted during matte tapping 

operations; however, fugitive emissions are observable from the point of the 

slag leaving the furnace to the location where it enters the ladle. A typical 

slag tapping operation takes 10 to 20 minutes. 

It has been concluded that a properly designed and operated ventilation 

system applied to matte and slag tapping operations should achieve a minimum 

capture efficiency of 90 percent.3^ These captured emissions can be vented to 

an available control devise for treatment. 

124 
'7*1 

Converters — During converter charging, visible fugitive emissions of 

short duration occur when matte or other materials are poured from a ladle 

into a converter. During the blow phase, some fugitive emissions are 

discharged through openings between the primary hoods and the converter 

openings. Skimming operations, due to equipment requirements, generally 

result in significant fugitive emissions. Fugitive emissions also occur when 

the blister copper is poured from the converter into the ladle. Additional 

fugitives may occur during holding operations and from occassional converter 

leaks. 

Fugitive emissions controls for converters include air curtain secondary 

hood capture systems, usually vented to a fabric filter or other existing 

control device, which can achieve up to 95 percent capture efficiency. 

Dust Transfer and Handling--Dust handling and transfer can generate 

fugitive emissions if carelessly performed. However most smelters take 

reasonable precautions to minimize fugitive emissions from dust handling and 

transfer. Fugitive dust emission control techniques include: paving, traffic 

control, wet suppression, and soil stabilization for unpaved haul roads and 

open work areas; and wet suppression, surfactants, and enclosures for 

stockpiles and conveyor systems. Table 5-21 lists fugitive emission control 

techniques used at primary copper smelters. 

5.11.4 Control Stragety Development 

5.11.4.1 Estimation of Baseline Ambient Impacts 

As noted earlier, four primary copper smelters have been closed recently, 

three of them permanently. The remaining smelters currently in operation and 

the one which may reopen were studied individually. The baseline ambient lead 

impact for each plant was determined for each plant either by modeling, or 

when available and adequate, from ambient monitoring data. Four smelters had 

annual quarterly maximums below the lowest alternative and were not modeled. 

When adequate amb.rent data was not available or indicated ambient impacts 

above 0.25 ug/m3, annual maximum quarterly concentrations were estimated using 

125 
P.41 

""H 

TABLE 5-21. FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES AT PRIMARY COPPER SMELTERS 

Fugitive 

emission 

soruce 

aaataie 

Control 

techniques 

Roaster 

Calcine Transfer 

Smelting Furnace 

Converters 

Dust handling 

and transfer 

Stock piles/conveyor 

systems 

1. Negative pressure 

2. Hooding 

1. Hooding 

1. Negative pressure 

2. Capture and 

collection and systems 

1. Air curtain 

secondary hood 

capture systems 

1. Paving 

2. Wet suppression 

3. Soil stabilization 

1. Surfactants 

2. Enclosures 

126 
P.42 

ISCST.4-2 Emission parameters for most of the remaining copper smelters were 

available from Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from Primary Copper Smelters -

Background Information for Promulgated Standards.3" Wind frequency and 

direction data, when available, came from the nearest state meteorological 

station. When possible, coordinates of process and fugitive emission sources 

were taken from plant site plans or the National Emissions Data base (NEDS)^3 

in order to estimate emissions from each source, rather than colocating all 

sources at plant center. 

5.11.4.2 NAAQS Control Strategies and CostsUsing the results from the calculation of the baseline ambient impacts, 

individual plants were identified which would be impacted by the various NAAQS 

alternatives. A plant was determined to be affected if the known or predicted 

annual maximum quarterly ambient lead concentration at a point outside the 

plant boundry exceeded the NAAQS level. Because of the remote locations of 

the primary copper smelters, the background concentrations around them were 

assumed to be negligible 

Based on the results of dispersion modeling, control strategies were 

developed for the nine domestic primary copper smelters modeled. Table 5-22 

shows the baseline ambient lead concentrations and predicted concentrations 

after control for each plant. Total installed capital and annualized control 

costs associated with achieving each alternative are presented in Table 5-23. 

Costs for individual controls are given in Appendix D. 

Six of the nine smelters modeled attained the lowest NAAQS alternative 

with add-on controls for converter and/or furnace fugitive emissions. Of 

these, one will achieve the lowest NAAQS alternative with baseline controls 

they have installed or will install by 1987. For remaining three smelters, 

controls could not be identified to achieve the lowest NAAQS alternative. 

However, given the uncertainties in the conservative emission estimates for 

the technologies employed at these smelters and in dispersion modeling, it is 

possible that the plants would attain the lowest alternative using the 

identified controls. 

127 
rT' iv-rtrtw •Tl 

TABLE 5-22. BASELINE EMISSIONS AND PREDICTED AMBIENT LEAD 

CONCENTRATIONS AFTER CONTROL 

Baseline 

emissions 

Source (g/sec) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

0.020 

0.37 

0.40 

0.14 

12. 

1.1 

1.3 

0.33 

0.059 

Baseline 

ambient 

concentration3 

(ug/m3) 

0.45 

1.2 

4.2 

0.81 

0.36 

4.3 

2.4 

4.6 

0.58 

Predicted ambient 

concentration 

after control3*** 

(ug/m3) 

0.068c 

0.056 

0.28d 

0.051(0.25e) 

0.14 

0.29d 

0.015 

0.26d 

0.036 

3Annual maximum mean quarterly ambient lead concentration. 

^With added converter and furnace secondary emission controls. 

cSource will achieve this with baseline controls by 1987. 

dGiven the uncertainties in emission estimates for new technologies and 

dispersion modeling, it is possible that the smelter would attain the 

0.25 ug/m3 alternative using the identified controls. 

eWith added converter secondary controls only. 

128 
' T" T* " '""wn*1" "" 

P.44 

"'Tl 

TABLE 5-23. 

Lead NAAQS 

alternatives 

(ug/m3) 

2.5 

2.0 

1.5 

NAAQS CONTROL 

Industry cor 

Capital 

26 

28 

44 

0 

9 

.2 

COSTS FOR THE 

ltrol costs 

Annualized 

6.8 

7.3 

11.6 

PRIMARY COPPER 

Number 

of plants 

impacted 

3 

4 

4 

SMELTING INDUSTRY 

Number of 

plants unable 

to comply 

1.0 

0.8 

0.5 

0.25 

49.7 

50.6 

61.6 

75.2 

13.2 

13.5 

16.5 

20.0 

7 

8

3 

a0ne source has baseline controls (existing process and fugitive controls 

planned or agreed to be installed before 19873^) which will bring it below the 

lowest NAAQS alternative of 0.25 ug/m3. Baseline controls have no additional 

costs associated with them are therefore are excluded from the cost analysis. 

129 
t&mmm 

5.12 TOTAL NATIONWIDE CONTROL COSTS 

Tables 5-24 and 5-25 present estimated nationwide capital and annual costs 

of attaining the various alternatives for stationary sources for two scenarios 

for urban mobile source background lead concentrations. Table 5-24 gives 

calculated stationary source costs based on the current lead-in-gasoline 

phasedown program, which is expected to result in a reduction of the average 

urban mobile source impact to 0.5 ug/m3. Table 5-25 gives stationary source 

costs under the proposed total ban of lead in gasoline, under which the 

average mobile source lead impact is predicted at 0.01 ug/m3 (Section 3). 

Most of the costs for any of the alternatives would be borne by the metals 

industries, especially the lead industry. All of the costs represent costs of 

controls in addition to those already in place. Especially in the case of 

primary and secondary lead smelters, substantial costs already have been 

incurred in the implementation of the current standard. Also, Controls 

installed to meet OSHA lead standards and EPA particulate emission limits 

generally act to reduce lead ambient concentrations from lead-emitting 

industries. Due to the implementation of control equipment regulations, there 

may be an overlap in the installation of control equipment that is considered 

to be "in place" and that required to attain the various lead NAAQS 

alternatives. 

The costs presented in Tables 5-24 and 5-25 and throughout this analysis 

are incremental costs for attainment of the various NAAQS alternatives by 

1990. The incremental costs for the two alternatives in which the lead NAAQS 

is relaxed do not include any cost savings for discontinuing the use of 

controls that were installed to meet the current standard; thus costs for 

these alternatives are biased upward. Conversely, costs for the lower 

alternatives are biased downward, because controls could not be identified 

that would allow some plants to attain these alternatives. Some of the plants 

for which costs were developed are currently uncontrolled. Controls for these 

plants may be required to meet the particulate matter NAAQS. Thus, some of 

the costs for all of the NAAQS alternatives may be partially attributable to 

the particulate NAAQS. 

130 
TAM.E 5-24. NATIONWIDE NAAQS CONTROL COSTS FOR TUE UPPER LTMIT MOBILE SOURCE BACKGROUND 

Costs for noted NAAQS alternative (millions) 

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.25 

u> 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

TOTAL 

ANNUAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

17.8 

54.2 

— 

1.6 

— 

2 . 2 

— 

— 

6 . 7 

0 . 4 

26.0 

27.3 

72.4 

— 

2 . 1 

- -

2 . 2 

— 

— 

6 . 7 

0 . 7 

28.9 

44.5 

96. 1 

18.3 

2 . 1 

— 

6 . 6 

— 

— 

13.4 

0 . 7 

44.2 

46.6 

118.7 

18.3 

3 . 5 

1.0 

11.0 

— 

— 

13.4 

1.4 

49.7 

53.3 

124.4 

18.3 

4 . 1 

1.0 

11.0 

— 

0 . 7 

13.4 

2 . 3 

50.6 

53.3 

133.3 

18.3 

5 . 2 

2 . 1 

16.2 

6 . 8 

1.5 

13.4 

3 . 6 

61.6 

53. 3 

144.0 

18.3 

6 . 5 

2 . 1 

21.3 

8 . 1 

2 . 5 

23.6 

5 . 6 

75.2 

108.9 140.3 225.9 263.7 279.1 315.3 360.3 

4 . 5 

16. 4 

- -

0 . 4 

— 

0 . 5 

- -

— 

1.8 

0 . 1 

6 . 8 

6.7 

22. 0 

— 

0 . 6 

— 

0 . 5 

— 

— 

1.8 

0 . 2 

7 . 3 

11. 9 

28. 9 

7 . 3 

0 . 6 

— 

1.5 

— 

— 

3 . 7 

0 . 2 

11. 6 

12. 6 

35. 5 

7 . 3 

1.0 

0 . 4 

2 . 5 

- -

— 

3 . 7 

0 . 4 

13. 3 

14. 5 

36. 8 

7 . 3 

1.1 

0 . 4 

2 . 5 

— 

0 . 3 

3 . 7 

0 . 6 

13. 5 

14. 5 

38. 5 

7 . 3 

1.4 

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

1.8 

0 . 7 

3 . 7 

1.0 

16. 5 

14. 5 

40. 8 

7 . 3 

1.9 

0 . 7 

4 . 8 

2 . 5 

1.2 

6 . 6 

1.6 

20. 0 

TOTAL 30. 6 39. 1 65. 7 76. 6 80.7 89.8 101.8 
M 

UJ 

to 

iTABLE 5-25. NATIONWIDE NAAQS CONTROL COSTS 

================================== 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

'TOTAL 

ANNUAL COSTS 

Primary lead smelting 

Secondary lead smelting 

Lead ore processing 

Lead-acid battery manufacture 

Lead alkyl production 

Gray iron foundries 

Alloy steel EAFs 

Steel EAFs 

Iron and steel sintering 

Brass and bronze production 

Primary copper smelting 

TOTAL 

FOR THE LOWER 

======= 

Costs for 

2.5 

17.8 

54.2 

— 

1.6 

--

2.2 

— 

— 

6.7 

0.4 

26.0 

108.9 

4.5 

16.4 

— 

0.4 

— 

0.5 

— 

— 

1.8 

0.1 

6.8 

_____ 

23.8 

2.0 

27.3 

70.3 

— 

2.1 

--

2.2 

— 

--

6.7 

0.4 

28.9 

137.9 

6.7 

21.2 

--

0.6 

--

0.5 

--

— 

1.8 

0.1 

7.3 

_____ 

30.9 

========= 

LIMIT MOBILE SOURCE BACKGROUND 

======== 

noted NAAQS alt 

1.5 

44.5 

95.7 

18.3 

2.1 

— 

4.4 

— 

— 

13.4 

0.7 

44.2 

-----

223.3 

11.9 

28.7 

7.3 

0.6 

--

1.0 

— 

— 

3.7 

0.2 

11.6 

_____ 

53.4 

1.0 

46.6 

118.6 

18.3 

3.5 

1.0 

8.8 

— 

— 

13.4 

1.4 

49.7 

_____ 

261.4 

12.6 

35.4 

7.3 

1.0 

0.4 

2.0 

--

— 

3.7 

0.4 

13.3 

-----

62.7 

========= 

ernative 

0.8 

53.3 

123.4 

18.3 

3.8 

1.0 

11.0 

0.7 

13.4 

1.9 

50.6 

--—-

277.4 

14.5 

36.5 

7.3 

1.1 

0.4 

2.5 

— 

0.3 

3.7 

0.5 

13.5 

_ _ 

66.7 

========= ========= 

(millions) 

0.5 

53.3 

132.7 

18.3 

4.8 

2.1 

16.2 

— 

1.5 

13.4 

3.6 

61.6 

307.4 

14.5 

38.3 

7.3 

1.3 

0.7 

3.7 

--

0.7 

3.7 

0.9 

16.5 

_____ 

71.0 

0.25 

53.3 

140.3 

18.3 

6.3 

2.1 

20.9 

8.1 

1.9 

23.6 

5.6 

75.2 

--- — 

355.5 

14.5 

40.1 

7.3 

1.8 

0.7 

4.7 

2.5 

1.0 

6.6 

1.6 

20.0 

80.7 

, 
The attainment costs for 1995 are expected to be the same as those for 

1990 (in constant dollars) for two reasons. First, new stationary source 

costs associated with attainment of the lead NAAQS after 1990 will be 

attributable to new source performance standards. Second, because the 

background lead concentration around stationary lead sources by 1990 is 

expected to be negligible in most cases, the attainment status of a given 

plants will not be affected by changes external to the plant. As noted above, 

the lead-in-gasoline phasedown program will reduce mobile source contributions 

around stationary sources to negligible levels. Also, because of the 

relatively small number of stationary lead sources, most plants are not 

subject to background concentrations from neighboring plants. 

5.13 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 

The results of the nationwide analysis presented above are subject to a 

number of limitations. These result from uncertainty in input data and 

simplifying assumption made as part of the general methodology. In addition, 

dispersion modeling and costing of control equipment are subject to 

uncertainties. 

The main source of uncertainty in the input data is in the emission 

factors and emission inventories used in the study. The data used in the 

analysis were the best data available at the time of the analysis (1983 to 

1984). However, because of the nature of most data lead emissions, emission 

data for lead are subject to more uncertainty than data for other pollutants. 

High ambient lead impacts generally are the result of fugitive lead emissions, 

which are difficult to quantify. In addition, for some industries included in 

this study, lead is present as a trace component in particulate emissions. 

The composition of lead in this particulate matter may vary by as much as a 

factor of ten between different sources of the same general type. As a result 

of the implementation process for the current lead standard, the data base for 

lead emissions is continuously being augmented and improved. 

Simplifying assumptions made in the study can be characterized briefly as 

follows: 

133 
"T 

average source-receptor coefficients were used for secondary lead 

smelting, gray iron cupolas, and alloy steel EAFs; 

model plants were used to identify affected facilities in lead-acid 

battery manufacture and lead ore processing; 

model plants were used to develop costs for all industries except 

primary lead smelting and lead alkyl manufacture; and 

an average mobile source background concentration was used. 

Source-receptor coefficients were found to vary by as much as a factor of ten 

for the same type of source located in different cities. Mobile source 

backgrounds may vary from 0.0 ug/m3 to about 0.13 ug/m3. NAAQS costs were 

developed for two mobile source backgrounds, 0.01 ug/m3 and 0.05 ug/m3. The 

uncertainty associated with the model plant approach is difficult to quantify 

but is expected to have less effect than uncertainties in the input data. 

In addition to the above, costing of emission controls typically is 

subject to an uncertainty of i50 percent. Dispersion modeling typically is 

subject to an uncertainty of a factor of two. 

The sensitivity of control costs to variations in input variables and 

uncertainties in costing and modeling techniques can be illustrated by a graph 

of cost versus NAAQS level. Figure 5-2 gives such a plot for the 0.01 ug/m3 

urban mobile source background level. A doubling of emission factor or 

source-receptor coefficient would have cost result similar to dividing the 

NAAQS level by two. An increase in background concentration would have the 

same effect as a corresponding decrease in NAAQS. 

The overall uncertainty of the analysis is difficult to quantify. It is 

not expected that the uncertainties in the costs for various industries will 

be in the same direction. Rather, some uncertainties would be expected to be 

cancelled by uncertainties in the opposite direction for other industries. 

134 
-

| T T\ 

/ It 

/ / 

I / 

f 

/ / 

/ 

/ 

/ / i 

/ 

11 / - / 1 \ 

/ / 

. |—|—|—]— i i r i ' ' ' 

1 ' ' ' _ -, .-, ,-i n n O O u 

-, .-. ri n o '"» O ° ° '- ^ ^ ~ n f i 'X' -+ 

S * S o S « •+

 tJ

 ° l):' '"' - -

;?, S S r. C 4 c-i w CM N ---- - -

(SUOTTTTM ) s^soo apTAUOT^R 

135 

-+ 

C-4 

- C-i 

«9 

-

^ 0) tiv 

- cfl 

c 

)H 

QJ 

w £ 

' T- < 

cn 

- s 

58 

1 

CO 

" c 

-

. J -

_ 

o 

— o 

o 

C-4 

«r 

.—rrr—^'^ ' " ' • 

r

d level. to standa 

cn 

•P 

cn 

o 

o 

w Q* 

3 5-

UH 

o 

J-l 

•H 

•S •U 

• rl 

cn Sen: 

CN 

1 

u-i 

CU igur 

P^ 

- "T 
P.51 

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 5 

1. The International Competitiveness of the U.S. Non-Ferrous Smelting 

Industry and the Clean Air Act. Everest Consulting Associates, Inc., 

Princeton, NJ, and CRU Consultants, Inc., New York, NY. April 1982. 

2. Telecon. G. Viconovic, GCA/Technology Division, with W. Woodbury, U.S. 

Bureau of Mines. November 15, 1983. The current status of the Bunker 

Hill primary lead smelter. 

3. Mineral C ommodity Summaries — 1983. U.S. Burea of Mines. January 1983. 

4. Letter and attachments from Bradley Reynolds, Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, to Timothy Curtin, GCA/Technology Division. 

December 8, 1982. Modeling inventories for Missouri's lead smelters. 

5. Letter and attachments from Bradley Reynolds, Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, to Timothy Curtin, GCA/Technology Division. 

December 22, 1982. Dispersion modeling inputs for Missouri's lead 

smelters. 

6. Letter and attachments from Richard Daye, EPA Region VI, to Timothy Curtin, 

GCA/Technology Division. December 13, 1983. Dispersion modeling input and 

results for Missouri's lead smelters. 

7. State of Texas Lead SIP Analysis (Draft), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Dallas, TX. October, 1981. 

8. Memo from Bob Kellam, EPA/ASB, to John Haines,'EPA/ASB. Visit to Asarco El 

Paso Smelter and Meetings with Region VI and TACB. October 5, 1982. 

9. Energy Technology Consultants. Identification of the Sources of Total 

Suspended Particulates and Particulate Lead in El Paso Area by 

Quantitative Microscopic Analysis. Texas Air Control Board, Austin, TX. 

1983. 

10. Houck, J.E., et al. Particulate Source Apportionment Analysis Using the 

Chemical Mass Balance Receptor Model. Prepared by NEA, Inc., 

Beaverton, OR, for the Montana Department of Health and Environmental 

Sciences. 1982. 

11. Balentine, H.W., et al. Modeling Analysis of Ambient Lead Levels Around 

a Primary Lead Refinery. Radian, Austin, TX. December 19, 1983. 

136 
12. Letter from W. Woodbury, U.S. Bureau of Mines, to J. Haines, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. October 15, 1982. World Directory: 

Secondary Lead Plants, compiled by the International Lead/Zinc 

Conference. 

13. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors, Third Edition, and 

Supplements 1 through 14 (AP-42). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1983. Section 7.11. 

14. Preliminary Study of Inorganic Sources of Arsenic (EPA-450/5-82-005). 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1982. 

15. Schwitzgabel, K., et al. (Radian Corp.). Fugitive Emissions at a 

Secondary Lead Smelter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. December 1981. 

16. National Emissions Data System (NEDS). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. December 1982. 

17. Mineral Facts and Problems - Lead. 1980 Edition. U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

1981. 

18. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants - Background Information for Proposed 

Standard (EPA-450/3-81-009a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1982. 

19. Lead - Mineral Commodity Summary. U.S. Bureau of Mines. December 1977. 

20. Minerals and Materials, A Bimonthly Survey. U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

Washington, DC. 

21. Engineering & Mining Journal. March 1982 and January 1983. 

22. Reference 13. Section 7.18 and Appendix E. 

23. Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture - Background Information for Proposed 

Standards (EPA-450/3-79-028a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1979. 

24. Telecon. W. Battye, GCA/Technology Division, with R. Burkhard, Battery 

Council International Marketing Committee. April 16, 1983. Growth in 

the lead-acid battery industry. 

25. Reference 13. Section 7.15. 

26. Reference 13. Section 5.22. 

27. Reference 13. Section 7.10 

137 
28. 1983 Industrial Outlook. U.S. Department of Commerce. January 1983. 

29. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Capacity Utilization: 

Manufacturing, Mining, Utilities, and Industrial Materials. G.3(402) The 

Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC. November 16, 1983. 

30. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions - Volume II: Chapter 4 -

Appendix B (EPA-450/2-77-012). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. December 1977. 

31. Electric Arc Furnaces in Ferrous Foundries - Background Information for 

Proposed Standards (EPA-450/3-80-020a). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Research Triangle Park, NC. 1980. 

32. Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon—Oxygen Decarburization for Vessel in 

Steel Industry - Background Information for Proposed Revision to Standards 

(EPA-450/3-82-02a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. 1983. 

33. EPRI Journal. Electric Power Research Institute. June 1982. 

34. A Review of Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources -

Secondary Brass and Bronze Plants. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. EPA-450/3-79-011. June 1979. 

35. Personal Communication between Brass and Bronze Ingot Institute and 

Michael Clowers of GCA, April 10, 1985. 

36. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Publication No. AP-42. 

July 1979. 

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inorganic Arsenic Emissions from 

Low-Arsenic Primary Copper Smelters. Background Information for Proposed 

Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 

April 1983. 

38. Telecom. Janice J. Jolly, Physical Scientist, Division of Nonferrous 

Metals, U.S. Bureau of Mines, with Nancy Browne, GCA/Technology. 

6 June 1985. 

39. Telecom. Dan Edelstein, Physical Scientist, Division of Nonferrous 

Metals, U.S. Bureau of Mines, with Nancy Browne, GCA/Technology, 

17 June 1985. 

40. U.S. Department of the Interior. Copper. Preprint from Bulletin 675, 

Mineral Facts and Problems. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Washington, D.C. 1985. 

138 
41. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 

July 1979. 

U.S. Environmental 

Publication No. AP-42. 

42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Source Complex (ISC) 

Dispersion Model User's Guide, Volume EPA-450/4-79-030. Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1979. 

43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Emissions Data System 

(NEDS) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 

139 
6. NEW SOURCE CONTROLS 

The costs of meeting alternative ambient standards for lead are the 

primary focus of this costs assessment. However, another perspective can be 

gained by comparing these costs to the costs of meeting new source performance 

standards. Costs of meeting new source performance standards (NSPS) were 

assessed for the lead-acid battery manufacture industry and for alloy steel 

electric arc furnaces. These are the only industry categories affected by 

the NAAQS for which growth in capacity was projected (Section 4.8). 

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 summarize NSPS costs for lead-acid battery manufacture 

and alloy steel electric arc furnaces, respectively. These were developed 

based on projections of growth in Section 4.8 and costs estimates given in the 

background information documents for the NSPS. Data used to derive the NSPS 

costs for lead-acid battery manufacture and alloy steel EAF's are presented in 

Appendices E and H, respectively. 

Comparison of Tables 6-1 and 6-2 with Table 5-14 indicates that total 

NAAQS costs are higher than NSPS costs for lead-acid battery manufacture. For 

alloy steel EAF's, total NSPS costs are the higher. In both cases, per-plant 

NAAQS costs and NSPS costs are roughly comparable. 

140 
TABLE 6-1. 

============ 

Year 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

NSPS COSTS FOR THE LEAD-ACID BATTERY 

INDUSTRY 

=========== 

Number 

of new 

plants 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

================== 

Total costs 

Capital 

826 

826 

826 

826 

826 

826 

============= 

(thousands) 

Annual 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

249 

Size of each new plant is estimated to be 

10,000 batteries per day. 

TABLE 6-2. NSPS COSTS FOR ALLOY STEEL ELECTRIC 

ARC FURNACES (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

Number Total costs (millions) 

of new ' 

Year plants Capital Annual 

1983 5 32.0 12.0 

1984 4 25.7 9.1 

1985 4 24.4 9.2 

1986 3 18.0 6.3 

1987 4 24.4 9.1 

1988 3 18.0 6.3 

1989 4 24.4 9.1 

1990 3 18.0 6.3 

1991 3 19.2 7.4 

1992 2 12.8 4.6 

1993 2 12.8 4.6 

1994 2 10.5 3.4 

1995 2 10.5 3.4 

141 
7. COSTS OF WASTE OIL COMBUSTION REGULATIONS 

In January 1985, EPA issued a proposed rule that would extend the 

hazardous waste management regulations to apply to marketing of and burning 

for energy recovery of hazardous wastes and used oils. This rule would 

establish maximum contaminant level and minimum flash point specifications for 

used oil burned in nonindustrial boilers. Burning of off-specification fuel 

oil would be prohibited, because emissions from such burning are potentially 

hazardous to human health and the environment. In addition to regulating 

actual burning, EPA is proposing administrative requirements that create a 

tracking system from initial waste fuel marketers, through distributors, to 

burners, including notification, receipt of identification number, compliance 

with manifest or invoice system, and recordkeeping.* 

This rule is being proposed because used oil contains a number of toxic 

contaminants, including toxic metals and a variety of chlorinated solvents and 

other organic chemicals. One of the metals of concern is lead. Typically, 

used oil contains a median concentration of 240 ppm lead, and a 

90th percentile concentration of 1200 ppm; both these values are more than 

two orders of magnitude greater than the analagous values for virgin fuel 

oils. To determine the ambient lead contribution of used oil burning, EPA 

conducted a modeling study of a hypothetical urban area where used fuel oil 

containing 1000 ppm lead was being burned across the city in residential, 

institutional, and commercial boilers. This study showed that the ambient 

lead concentrations associated with used oil burning were over 0.7 ug/m3 in 

certain sections of the study area. This value is almost three times the 

lowest NAAQS being considered (0.25 ug/m3), and about 507. of the current 

standard (1.5 ug/m3).* 

Based on other modeling studies, EPA believes that a lead specification 

level for used oil of 100 ppm would ensure that ambient lead levels in the 

vicinity of both large and small single and clustered sources would be well 

below the current standard of 1.5 ug/m3. However, a 10 ppm level is also 

being discussed, because the current NAAQS is being revised downward; this 

142 

-j 
10 ppm specification level would effectively preclude most burning of used 

fuel oil, because only 30% of used oil can meet this lead level. If the 

Agency does begin regulating the burning of used oil as fuel, the new NAAQS 

will have to be considered when choosing the specification level for lead.l 

EPA has estimated the national costs of implementing the hazardous 

waste/used oil burning rules for nonindustrial boilers, as shown in Table 7-1; 

note that the annualized costs attributable to used oil regulations alone 

would be less than the total costs given in the table. The estimates are 

based on worst-case conditions with respect to a number of marketers and 

burners subject to regulation; thus, the costs more closely approximate 

maximum rather than actual costs. However, this upward bias is negated at 

least in part, because EPA did not attempt to determine and include the costs 

of two important impacts of the proposed rule: (1) the cost to marketers of 

treating used oil to meet the used oil fuel specification, and (2) the costs 

to nonindustrial boiler owners of having to buy specification used oil fuel or 

commercial fuel oil instead of hazardous waste fuel or off-specification used 

oil fuel. The final specification levels set for lead and other toxic 

contaminants in used oil will in part determine these costs. * 

143 
P.59 

TABLE 7-1. NATIONWIDE COSTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND USED OIL COMBUSTION 

REGULATIONS (1984 dollars)a»

b 

Requirement 

Nationwide costs 

(thousand ofdollars) 

One-time Recurring Total 

capital annual annualized 

Notification 

Manifest system (hazardous waste) 

Invoice system (used oil) 

Certification to suppliers 

Used oil analysis 

Specification oil 

Off-specification oil 

Storage 

TOTAL 

1691 

20 

78 

900 

0 

0 

3476 

0 

379 

17213 

307 

328 

2024 

1061 

113 

380 

. 17218 

367 

328 

2024 

1294 

6165 21312 21724 

aThese costs more closely approximate maximum rather than actual costs. 

^These costs do not include the costs to marketers of treating used oil to 

meet specifications, nor the costs to nonindustrial boiler owners of not being 

able to use hazardous waste fuel or off-specification used oil fuel. 

144 
_---p 

REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7 

Hazardous Waste Management System: Standards for the Management of 

Specific Wastes and Specific Types of Waste Facilities. Federal 

Register. 50:1684-1724. January 11, 1985. 

145 
P.61 

.„,._- .-, w , r „ - ir,.fr?1^-,Br_-_-,T „ B;. 

APPENDIX A 

LEAD EMISSIONS INVENTORY 

146 
TABLE A-l. ESTIMATED ATMOSPHERIC LEAD EMISSIONS 

FOR THE UNITED STATES, 1981 

Annual emissions 

Source category (Mg/yr) 

Mobile Sources 

Gasoline combustion3 35,000 

Stationary Sources 

Waste oil combustion0 830 

Solid waste incineration0 319 

Coal combustion^ 950 

Oil combustione 243 

Ore crushing and grinding^ 325 

Primary lead smeltingS 921 

Secondary lead smelting" 631 

Iron and steel production1 533 

Gray iron production^ 295 

Primary copper smelting^ 30 

Other metallurgical 54 

Lead alkyl manufactureTM 245 

Lead acid battery manufacture11 85 

Portland cement production0 71 

Miscellaneous^ 223 

TOTAL 40,700 

a. References 1 and 2. Based on total gasoline sales of 100 billion gal EPA 

weighted lead content requirements in effect in 1981 (0.5 g/gal), and a 

lead emission rate of 70 percent of the lead in gasoline. 

b. Reference 4, and 39. Based on total annual waste oil combustion of 

370 million gallons (References 3 and 4), an average lead content of 

1200 ppm (Reference 39), and. an emission factor of 50 percent of the lead 

present in the waste oil (Reference 4). 

147 ! 

m 

—am 
c. Reference 5 and 6. Based on total annual solid waste combustion of 

6.76 Tg (Reference 5), an emission factor of 0.2 g/kg (Reference 6), and 

an average emission control efficiency of 76 percent (Reference 6). 

d. References 6 and 10. Based on coal consumption by sector from Reference 7, 

control technology application rates and lead emission factors for various 

control techniques from References 8 through 10, and uncontrolled lead 

emissions from Reference 6. 

e. References 4, 6, 7, and 8. Based on residual and distillate oil consumption 

by sector from Reference 7; average residual and distillate oil lead contents 

of 3.5 ppm (Reference 8) and 0.1 ppm (Reference 6), respectively; an emission 

factor of 50 percent of the oil present in the fuel (Reference 4); and control 

technology application rates and control efficiencies from Reference 9. 

f. References 4, 6, 11, and 12. Based on total ore production for 1981 of 

320 Tg for the copper, lead, and zinc ore processing industries. The 

percentage breakdown of the type of ores processed was obtained from 

Reference 4 and the appropriate Pb emission factor for each ore type was 

obtained from Reference 6. All ore processed was assumed to be dry ore. 

g. Reference 13 through 21. Based on estimates of point and fugitive emissions 

developed by Federal, State, and local air pollution agencies in response 

to State Implementation Plan requirements. 

h. References 4, 22, and 23. Based on NEDS listing of total particulate 

emissions from secondary lead smelters and a lead content of 23 percent 

for the particulate (Reference 4). Total lead emissions were prorated 

upward for the percent of secondary lead smelter capacity not listed in 

NEDS. 

i. References 4, 5, 6, and 24 to 26. Based on raw steel production of 108 Tg 

for 1981 (Reference 24) and process inputs obtained for Reference 5. 

Emission control efficiencies for the various process sources were obtained 

from References 4 and 6. 

j. References 5, 6, and 27 to 29. Based on gray-iron shipments of 9 Tg for 

1981 (Reference 27) and a production breakdown for cupola, electric 

induction, and reverberatory furnaces from Reference 28. The lead emission 

factors used for this industry are averages from Reference 6. Average 

industry emission control efficiency of 98 percent for cupolas and 0 percent 

for electric induction furnaces and reverberatory furnaces were.based on 

data from Reference 5 and 29. 

k. References 5, 6, 24, and 30. Based on an estimated total copper concentrate 

input for 1981 of 6.3 Tg (References 24 and 30). Pb emission factors for 

roasting, reverberatory furnace, and converter operations were obtained 

from Reference 6 and overall particulate emission control efficiency of 

96 percent was based on References 5 and 6. 

1. References 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 33 and 34. Includes primary zinc smelting, 

ferroalloy production, and brass and bronze production. 

148 ! 
T 

m. References 13 and 35. Based on estimates of point and fugitive emissions 

developed by Federal, State, and local air pollution agencies in response 

to State Implementation Plan requirements. 

n. References 6, 22, and 36. Based on uncontrolled' emission rates from 

Reference 6, weighted average control technology application rates and 

efficiencies from Reference 22, and a battery production rate of 70 million 

units (References 32 and 36). 

o. References 6, 22, and 37. Total lead emissions were calculated by summing 

particulate emissions tabulated in the NEDS system for portland cement 

plants and applying an average particulate lead content of 450 ppm 

(Reference 22). 

p. References 4, 6, 32, and 38. Includes the manufacture of glass, lead 

pigments, lead oxides not produced at battery plants, type metal, 

ammunition, and other lead products. 

149 
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A 

1. Petroleum Supply Monthly. DOE/EIA-0109(82106), Energy Information 

Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC, June 1982. 

2. Supplementary Guidelines for Lead Implementation Plans Revised 

Section 4.3 (Projecting Automotive Lead Emissions). EPA-450/2-78-038a, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 

July 1979. 

3. Hess, L.Y. Reprocessing and Disposal of Waste Petroleum Oils. Noyes 

Data Corp., Park Ridge, NJ, 1979. 

4. Control Techniques for Lead Air Emissions. EPA-450/2-77-012, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977. 

5. GCA/Technology Division. Survey of Cadmium Emission Sources. 

EPA-450/3-81-013, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC, 1981. 

6. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Third Edition (Including 

Supplements 1 through 7) and Supplements 8 through 13. AP-42, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982. 

7. State Energy Data Report, 1960 through 1980. DOE/EIA-0214(80), Energy 

Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC , 

July 1982. 

8. Shih, CC , R.A. Orsini, D.G. Ackerman, R. Moreno, E. Moon, L.L. Scinto, 

and C Yu. Emissions Assessment of Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume III: 

Electricity Generation External Combustion Soruces. EPA-600/7-81-003a, 

US. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981. 

9. Surprenant, N.F., W. Battye, D. Roeck, and S.M. Sandberg. Emissions 

Assessment of Stationary Combustion Systems; Volume V: Industrial 

Combustion Sources. EPA-600/7-81-003c, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981. 

10. Surprenant, N.F., P. Hung, R. Li, K.T. McGregor, W. Piispanen, and 

S.M. Sandberg. Emissions Assessment of Stationary Combustion Systems; 

Volume IV: Commercial/Insitutional Combustion Sources. EPA-600/7-81-003b, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1981. 

150 j 
rn 

11. Engineering & Mining Journal. January 1982. 

12. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants - Background Information for Proposed 

Standards. EPA-450/3-81-009a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982. 

13. State of Texas Lead SIP Analysis (Draft), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Dallas, TX, October, 1981. 

14. Memo from Bob Kellam to John Haines, Visit to Asarco El Paso Smelter 

and Meetings with Region VI and TACB, October 5, 1982. 

15. Letter and attachments from Bradley Reynolds, Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources, to Timothy Curtin. GCA/Technology Division, 

December 8, 1982, modeling inventories inputs for Missouri's lead 

smelters. 

16. Letters and aattachments from Bradley Reynolds, Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources to Timothy Curtin, GCA/Technology Division, 

December 22, 1982. Dispersion modeling input for Missouri's lead 

smelters. 

17. Letter and attachments from Richard Daye, EPA Region VI to Timothy Curtin, 

GCA/Technology Division. December 13. Dispersion modeling input and 

results for Missouri's lead smelters. 

18. PES, Inc. Emission Measurements at the Asarco Lead Smelter in E. Helena 

MT, May 1980. 

19. ETA Engineering, Inc. Technical Support Document: Analysis of Air 

Quality Levels in E. Helena, MT. November, 1980. 

20. Letter and Attachments from Gene Robinson, State of Nebraska, Department 

of Environmental Control, to Timothy Curtin, GCA/Technology Division, 

January 10, 1982. State Implementation Plan for Lead. 

21. Letter and Attachments from Robert Timmerman, City of Omaha Housing 

and Community Development Department, to Timothy Curtin, GCA/Technology 

Division, January 7, 1982, Emission Inventory for Asarco, Omaha, NB. 

22. National Emissions Data System. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982. 

23. World Directory: Secondary Lead Plants. Received from William Woodbury, 

U.S. Bureau of Mines. October 15, 1982. 

24. Mineral Commodity Summaries 1982. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Janaury 1982. 

25. Mineral Commodity Profiles: Iron Ore. U.S. Bureau of Mines, May 1978. 

26. Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces - Background Information for Proposed 

Standards. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1981 (Review 

Draft). 

151 

-> 
P.67 

"1 

27. Gray Iron Foundry Shipments. Foundry Technology Management. April 1982. 

28. A Method for Characterization and Quantification of Fugitive Lead Emissions 

from Secondary Lead Smelters, Ferroalloy Plants and Gray Iron Foundries 

(Revised). EPA-450/3-78-003 (Revised), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

August 1978. 

29.. Hazardous and Trace Substances Emission System. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1982. 

30. The International Competitiveness of the U.S. Non-Ferrous Smelting Industry 

and the Clean Air Act. American Mining Congress. April 1982. 

31. 1981 U.S. Industrial Outlook. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, 

1981. 

32. Preprint for Lead from Minerals Yearbook 1981: Volume I - Metals and 

Minerals. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC, 1983. 

33. Electric Submerged Arc Furnaces for Production of Ferroalloys - Background 

Information for Proposed Standards. EPA-450/2-74-018a, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1974. 

34. Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plants - Background Information 

for Proposed Standards. APTD-1352, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973. 

35. State of Louisiana Lead SIP Analysis (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Dallas, TX, 1981. 

36. 1982 Battery Council International Statistics Annual. Battery Council 

International, Chicago, IL, 1982. 

37. Mineral Industries Surveys - Directory of Cement Producers in 1982. 

U.S. Burea of Mines, Washington, DC, 1982. 

38. Glass Manufacturing Plants - Background Information for Proposed Standards. 

EPA-450/3-79-005a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC, 1979. 

39. Brinkman, D.W.,-P. Fennelly, and N. Surprenant. The Fate of Hazardous Wastes 

in Used Oil Recycling -. Paper presented at the Conference on Measurements 

and Standards for Recycled Oil -IV, Gaithersburg, Md. (National Bureau of 

Standards), September 14-16, 1982. 

152 
APPENDIX B 

RAW DATA USED IN 

PREDICTING MOBILE 

SOURCE IMPACTS 

153 
P.69 

TABLE B-1. RAW DATA AND SITE PARAMETERS FOR MICROSCALE NAMS 

:=;:::;:;;;:==;:=::: 

Site 

Site nuaber type 

01033002SS01 HIC 

053900001101 HIC 

100860024601 HIC 

101960084H01 HIC 

151780009H01 HIC 

210120C45F01 HIC 

220240002F01 HIC 

243C80004F01 HIC 

310960002F01 HIC 

320040022H02 HIC 

330660017F01 HIC 

334680052F01 HIC 

372200013FC2 HIC 

381460082F01 HIC 

397140047H02 HIC 

402140003F01 HIC 

451700027F01 HIC 

====_r==== 

Probe 

height 

deters) 

2 

5 

3 

3 

3 

2 

5 

2 

2 

3 

2 

& 

3 

4 

4 

3 

3 

==r====r====== 

Avg. roadway 

vol. (1000 

vehicles 

per day) 

30 

25 

100 

104 

75 

64 

35 

49 

97 

35 

78 

150 

15. 

132 

36 

64 

16 

:-===_=_.==_ 

Distance 

froa road 

(aeters) 

9 

6 

15 

14 

12 

13 

7 

7 

14 

7 

12 

10 

11 

14 

9 

15 

5 

:rr===== 

Year 

1983 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1981 

1982 

19B3 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1931 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1982. 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1981 

1982 

1983 

:============ 

Total lead 

burned (Gg) 

53 

59 

60 

53 

53 

59 

60 

53 

53 

60 

53 

53 

59 

60 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

60 

53 

60 

53 

53 

53 

59 

60 

53 

==-========_-== 

Annual 

average 

concsntraticn 

(ug/a3) 

0.86 

1.1 

0.9 

0.7 

1.15 

1.01 

1.15 

1.02 

0.40 

0.67 

0.44 

0.51 

0.75 

0.50 

0.63 

0.73 

0.74 

0.64 

0.73 

0.40 

0.44 

1.32 

1.22 

0.36 

1.22 

1.5 

1.1 

1.3 

==::::= :::=r=;==::r 

H an aus 

quarterly 

concentration 

(ug/a3) 

1.04 

1.5 

1.6 

1.1 

1.39 

1.41 

1.71 

1.15 

0.43 

0.85 

0.60 

0.59 

0.89 

0.57 

0.70 

0.37 

0.95 

0.69 

0.90 

0.40 

0.50 

1.63 

1.37 

0.41 

1.30 

1.7 

1.5 

1.5 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 2) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 3) 

(qtr. 3) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtrs. 3,4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtrs. 1,3,4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 3) 

(qtr. 2) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtrs. 2,4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

154 
P.70 

TABLE B-2 . RAW DATA AND SITE PARAMETERS FOR MIDDLE SCALE NAMS 

Sits nuaber 

Site 

type 

Probe 

height 

(aeters) 

Avg. roadway 

vol. (1000 

vehicles 

per day) 

Distance 

froa road 

(aeters) 

Total lead 

Year burned (Gg) 

Annual 

average 

concentration 

(ug/i3) 

Haxiaui 

quarterly 

concentration 

(ug/fi3) 

030600017SOI HID 4 

056400003F01 KID 4 

056800004101 HID 12 

056980C04IOI HID 4 

19 

40 

10 

25 

25 

10 

14 

1983 

1975 

1980 

1981 

1975 

I960 

1981 

1982 

1975 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

53 

174 

75 

59 

174 

75 

59 

60 

174 

75 

59 

60 

53 

0.70 

1.84 

1.02 

0.74 

1.01 

0.67 

0.56 

0.45 

1.24 

0.66 

0.37 

0.50 

0.34 

1.08 

2.33 

1.46 

1.00 

1.51 

1.22 

0.90. 

0.81 

1.99 

0.94 

0.47 

0.88 

0.45 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtrs. 1,4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

057160001101 

070420014F01 

090020027101 

101840001S01 

141220026H01 

222160007F01 

261040002S01 

262330002H01 

402160004F01 

410300007F01 

451310029H01 

451BB0003F01 

451880023F01 

512200099FOI 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

HID 

4 

13 

10 

4 

8 

4 

13 

6 

4 

5 

7 

7 

6 

13 

15 

18 

34 

38 

177 

81 

55 

14 

12 

90 

79 

15 

70 

16 

19 

12 

33 

37 

15 

51 

43 

56 

16 

23 

24 

21 

50 

28 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

59 

60 

53 

59 

_. 53 

53 

53 

53 

60 

53 

60 

53 

53 

53 

60 

53 

53 

53 

53 

0.24 

0.35 

0.28 

0.37 

0.23 

0.31 

0.45 

0.76 

0.45 

0.35 

0.22 

0.21 

0.47 

0.69 

0.29 

0.29 

0.6 

0.7 

0.29 

0.30 

0.55 

0.35 

0.47 

0.32 

0.41 

0.52 

0.99 

0.51 

0.40 

0.28 

0.33 

0.56 

0.92 

0.35 

0.37 

1.0 

0.9 

0.32 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

Iqtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. I) 

(qtr. 1) 

155 
P.71 

TABLE B-3. RAW DATA AND SITE PARAMETERS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE NAMS 

Sits nusber 

030600013B01 

052780001101 

054180103101 

056535001101 

055360004101 

101760001S01 

141220052HOI 

151520014H01 

152040058H01 

172340001F01 

220380002F01 

222160011F01 

242260050FOI 

260030001B01 

281B80019S01 

312320003F01 

320040019H.01 

__-____-----

Site 

type 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

NEI 

....... 

Probe 

height 

(aeters) 

13 

6 

13 

7 

9 

12 

4 

10 

15 

5 

12 

14 

4 

4 

11 

11 

1 

--..-----

Avg. roadway 

vol. (1000 

vehicles 

per day) 

18 

24 

9 

18 

5 

53 

140 

25 

70 

11 

75 

46 

15 

33 

64 

33 

1 

................ 

Distance 

froa road 

(aeters) 

25 

130 

87 

38 

15 

129 

120 

300 

83 

80 

150 

106 

250 

100 

81 

92 

12 

.__._-._---. 

Year 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1982 

'1983 

19B1 

1982 

1983 

1975 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1983 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1983 

======== 

(continued) 

156 

Total lead 

burned (Gg) 

174 

168 

162 

146 

121 

75 

59 

60 

53 

59 

60 

53 

59 

60 

53 

174 

75 

59 

60 

53 

59 

60 

53 

168 

162 

146 

121 

75 

60 

53 

59 

53 

53 

53 

53 

53 

60 

53 

53 

53 

60 

53 

59 

53 

============ 

Annual 

average 

concentration 

(ug/a3) 

1.57 

1.09 

1.53 

1.16 

0.55 

0.69 

0.56 

0.45 

0.36 

0.25 

0.28 

0.21 

1.0 

0.7 

0.6 

1.16 

0.58 

0.48 

0.41 

0.38 

0.28 

0.28 

0.26 

0.95 

0.86 

0.83 

0.71 

0.58 

0.37 

0.49 

0.34 

0.30 

0.38 

0.14 

0.31 

0.42 

0.27 

0.17 

0.24 

0.09 

0.54 

0.39 

0.45 

0.35 

isrsrs.sszsrrss; 

Hax iaui 

quarterly 

concentration 

(ug/s3) 

2.IB 

1.91 

2.76 

1.64 

1.95 

1.06 

0.94 

0.69 

0.54 

0.37 

0.42 

0.30 

1.3 

1.0 

0.9 

1.46 

0.84 

0.64 

0.49 

0.53 

0.35 

0.37 

0.29 

1.21 

0.99 

0.99 

0.84 

0.79 

0.40 

0.57 

0.45 

0.39 

0.47 

0.15 

0.40 

0.55 

0.39 

0.20 

0.29 

0.10 

0.70 

0.42 

0.64 

0.49 

*Z£====-— 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr; 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(atr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtr. 

(qtrs. 1 

(qtr. 

(qtr 

(qtr 

(q;r 

(qtr 

(qtr 

(otr 

(qtrs. 

(qtr 

(qtr 

======== 

2) 

4) 

4) 

I) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

1) 

4) 

4) 

1) 

1) 

4) 

1) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

1) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

3) 

4) 

1) 

3) 

1) 

3) 

1) 

4) 

3) 

3) 

,3) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

4) 

1) 

2) 

3) 

5,4) 

1) 

. 1) 

:rrs 

m 
TABLE B-3. (con'd.) 

1 

Site nuaber 

Avg. roadway 

Probe vol. (1000 Distance 

Site height vehicles froa road 

type (aeters) per day) (aeters) 

Total lead 

Year burned (Gg) 

Annual -

average 

concentration 

(ug/a3) 

Haxioua 

quarterly 

concentration 

(ug/a3) 

334680079F01 NEI 14 30 

372200033F01 NEI 15 9 

381460082F01 NEI 4 19 

390400002S01 NEI 5 27 

397140049K01 NEI 8 75 

402160005F01 NEI 8 - 49 

410300017F01 NEI 14 123 

451310046H01 NEI 4 59 

45170001CG01 NEI 5 8 

454570034F01 NEI 15 50 

483240005F01 NEI 9 45 

117 

400 

150 

95 

150 

100 

152 

20 

32 

100 

105 

1983 

1982 

19B3 

1982 

1983 

1981 

19B2 

1983 

1983 

1983 

1983 

19B2 

1982 

1983 

1981 

1983 

1982 

1983 

53 

60 

53 

60 

53 

59 

60 

53 

53 

53 

53 

60 

60 

53 

59 

53 

60 

53 

0.36 0.47 (qtr. 4) 

0.14 

0.13 

0.19 

0.21 

0.25 

0.29 

0.22 

0.46 

0.19 

0.42 

0.34 

0.26 

0.21 

0.5 

0.4 

0.19 

0.17 

0.19 

0.14 

0.23 

0.28 

0.31 

0.40 

0.23 (qtr 

0.57 

0.25 

0.60 

0.44 

0.33 

0.30 

0.7 

0.6 

0.30 

0.24 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 2) 

(qtr. 4) 

•s. 1,3,4) 

(qtr. 3) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. 1) 

(qtr. t) 

(qtr. 4) 

(qtr. 4) 

157 
- f JT "W-WJT W ' 

APPENDIX C 

SAMPLE COST CALCULATION 

158 
'T 

APPENDIX C .,- I 

SAMPLE COST CALCULATION 

Where possible, control costs for plants of various sizes in a given industry 

were taken from published sources and simply updated to 1982 dollars. For some 

industries, however, cost data were incomplete or not available. In these 

cases, the needed cost components were estimated using standard cost factors 

or equations. In order to illustrate the use of these factors and equations, 

this appendix presents a sample cost calculation. The sample calculation is 

for a fabric filter applied to a three-process operation and a paste mixing 

facility at a 10,000 battery per day bpd) lead-acid battery plant. Because 

no cost data were available for the 10,000 bpd plant, this example will give 

an illustration of all of the various cost estimation techniques used. 

AIRFLOW RATE 

The first requirement to estimate control costs is the flow rate through 

the control device. The required ventilation rates for the 10,000 bpd three process 

operation and paste mixing facility were estimated based on typical airflow rates 

for smaller facilities. Table B-1 lists ventilation rates given for 500, 2000, 

and 6500 bpd facilities in the background information document for lead-acid 

battery manufacture new source performance standards (NSPS). It was assumed 

that the required facility ventilation rate is related to hourly production 

capacity by a power law: 

V = aCb (D 

where a, b = constants 

3 

V <* facility ventilation rate (m /min) 

C = production capacity (batteries/hr or bph) 

Given the ventilation rates for two facility sizes, the constants a and b can be 

determined as follows: 

159 

• 
r»*-'(f7"fr»" 

=

 lQgVl ' l0SV2 (2) 

log^ - logC2 

a = V/Cb (3) 

where subscripts a and b refer to specific plant sizes 

Based on the data given in Table C-l^ the following relationships can be developed 

for the three process operation and the paste mixing facility ventilation rates. 

for 62.5 <' C < 125.0 bph: 

V3P = (34.16)C(0,635) (4) 

Vp M = (13.07)C(0\

398) (5) 

for 125.0 < C< 270.0/bph: 

V3p = (7.816)C(0*?41) (6) 

Vp M = (3.020)C(°'702) (7) 

where subscripts 3P and PM refer to three process and 

paste mixing facilities, respectively 

The ventilation rates required for 10,000 bpd facilities were estimated by 

extrapolating the second set of relationships to 416.67 batteries per hour 

(equivalent to 10,000 bpd for a facility operating 24 hours per day): 

V

1000 0 = 7.816(416.67)°'941

 + 3.02(416.67)0'

702 (8) 

TOT 

= 2490 m3/min .:.• " "' (9) 

where superscript 10000 refers to the 10,000 bpd size, 

subscript TOT refers to the combined three process and 

paste mixing ventilation rate 

CAPITAL COSTS 

Purchase Cost 

The relationship between the cost of control equipment and ventilation rate 

2 is also assumed to be governed by a power law. For fabric filtration with an 

air-to-cloth ratio of 6:1, the NSPS background document gives control equipment 

160 
H 

TABLE C-l. VENTILATION RATES FOR TYPICAL 'BATTERY PLANTS 

Daily 

battery 

production 

capacity 

500 

2000 

6500 

Operating 

hours 

per day 

8 

16 

24 

Hourly 

battery 

production 

capacity 

62.5 

125.0 

270.8 

Ventilation 

Three 

process 

472 

733 

1517 

(m /min) 

Paste 

mixing 

67.9 

89.5 

154.0 

161 
- TM 

purchase costs of $10,500 and $100,600 (1977) for airflow rates of 142 m3/min 

3 3 

and 1982 m /min, respectively. Using these data and the techniques outlined 

in equations 1 to 3, the following relationship can be obtained for control 

system purchase cost: 

P(7? ) = (151.2)V(0>8563) (10) 

where ?(-,-,-. ~ purchase capital cost in 1977 dollars 

For a baghouse applied to the combined exhaust from 10,000 bpd three process 

and paste mixing operations: 

P(77 ) = (151.2)*(2490)(0,8563) (11) 

= 122,361 

Cost indexes from Chemical Engineering were used to update the 1977 purchase 

cost to 1982 dollars: 

P(82) = P(77) *( 1 '506 ) (12 ) 

- = 184,000 

where (1.506) •= ratio between the third quarter 1982 

Chemical Engineering plant cost index and 

the fourth quarter 1977 plant cost index 

p = purchase cost in third quarter 1982 dollars 

(82) 

Installed Cost 

The NSPS background document gives equipment installation costs as a function 

of purchase cost for control devices at new facilities and for retrofit 

installations. Installation cost factors for a fabric filter are presented in 

4 

Table C-2. As the table shows, total installation costs are given by 

2.28 times the equipment purchase cost. Because the example case is for a new 

plant, this figure does not include a retrofit penalty. The retrofit cost 

is normally 20 to 50 percent of the total installed cost. For the example case, 

installation and total installed costs are given by: 

Installation cost = 2.28 * 184,000 (13) 

= 419,500 -

1' - •"• v 

Installed cost = 419,500 + 184,000 (14) 

= 603,500 

i 

162 
Component 

TABLE C-2. COMPONENT CAPITAL COST.FACTORS FOR A FABRIC 

FILTER AS A FUNCTION OF EQUIPMENT COST, E 

Direct costs 

Material Labor 

Equipment 

Ductwork 

Instrumentation 

Electrical 

Foundations 

Structural 

Sitework 

Painting 

1.00E 

0.04E 

0.04E 

0.11E 

0.03E 

0.03E 

0.02E 

0.004E 

0.25E 

0.21E 

0.006E 

0.16E 

0.05E 

0.05E 

0.02E 

0.02E 

Total direct costs 1.27E 0.77E 

Component 

Indirect costs 

Measure of costs Factor 

Engineering 

Contractor's fee 

Shakedown 

Spares 

Freight 

Taxes 

10% material and labor 

15% material and labor 

5% material and labor 

1% material 

3% material 

3% material 

0.204E 

0.306E 

0.102E 

0.013E 

0.038E 

0.038E 

Total indirect costs 

Contingencies - 20% of direct and indirect costs 

Total capital costs 

0.696E 

0.547E 

3.28E 

163 
ANNUALIZED COSTS .. - -

Electricity 

The NSPS background document estimates the electricity requirements for 

fabric filters applied to lead-acid battery production operations at 20 watts 

3 

per m /min of airflow, and gives an operating schedule of 6000 hours per year 

for a large plant. An electricity cost of 4.9 cents per kilowatt (kW)-hour 

3 

was used in this study. Using the total ventilation requirement of 2490 m /min 

for the three process operation and the paste mixing facility, the electricity 

requirements and costs are given as follows: 

Electricity = (2490 m3/min) (20.8W/m3/min) (6000 hr/yr) (15) 

= 311 MW-hr/yr 

Cost = (311,000 kW-hr/yr) (0.049 $/kW-hr) (16) 

= $15,200/yrMaintenance and Supplies 

Maintenance labor and material costs for a baghouse at a lead-acid battery 

plant are estimated in the NSPS background document at 6 percent of total 

installed capital costs, and supplies are estimated at 15 percent of labor 

and material. Based on the total installed cost of $603,500, maintenance 

and supply costs for the example case can be calculated as follows: 

Maintenance/supplies = (0.06) (1.15) ($603,500) (17) 

= $ 41,600/yr 

Operating Labor 

The NSPS background document estimates the direct labor requirement for 

a baghouse.at a lead battery plant at 1 operator hour per 10 hours of operation. 

Supervision labor is estimated at 15 percent of direct labor. Hourly operating 

labor costs for the lead-acid battery manufacturing industry were estimated in 

this study at 12 dollars per hour (including benefits). Using the baghouse 

operating schedule of 6000 hours per year, total operating labor requirements 

and costs for the example case are given as follows: 

164 
Operating labor = (1.15) (1 hr/10 hr) (6000 hr/yr) (18) 

= 690 hr/yr 

Cost = (690 hr/yr) (12 $/hr) (19) 

= $8280/yr 

Capital Charges 

A standard 10 percent interest rate was assumed in calculating capital 

recovery factors for this study. Based on an equipment life of 15 years, 

this interest rate results in a capital recovery charge of 13.2 percent per 

year. In addition,, an additional 4 percent capital charge was added to cover 

state taxes, insurance, and overhead costs. Thus, using the total installed 

capital cost of $603,500, annual capital charges are calculated as follows: 

Annual capital = (0.132/yr + 0.04/yr) ($603,500) 

= $103,800/yr 

(20) 

165 
P.81 

REFERENCES 

1. Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture - Background Information for Proposed Standards, 

EPA-450/3-79-028a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina. November 1979. pg. 8-14. 

2. Reference 1. pg. 8-24. 

3. Reference 1. pg. 8-19. 

4. Reference 1. pg. 8-60. 

5. Reference 1. pg. 8-31. 

6. Reference 1. pp. 8-28 and 8-29. 

7. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Monthly Labor Statistics. 1982. 

166 

-j 
1 

APPENDIX D 

COSTS OF INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC 

CONTROL OPTIONS AND 

TECHNIQUES 

167 
TABLE D-1. CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND COSTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS AND REFINERIES 

oo 

Emission source 

I 'in 11 no i.i naaM 

Control technique 

Overall emissions 

control efficiency (%) 

Control costs£ 

Capital Annual 

Small ore storage pile 

Large ore storage pile 

Open work areas 

Product handling/ 

unloading 

Concentrate storage 

building 

Sinter plant 

Blast furnace 

Dross plant 

Refinery 

Zinc Oxide plant 

Slag pile 

Continuous wet dust 90 

suppression with surfactants 

Continuous wet dust 70+ 

suppression with surfactants 

Paving and sweeping" 90 

Railcar and truck covers 75 

Dust control system 

60 meters (200 feet) stack 99+ 

Ducting and fan 

Hooding and ventilation 70 

Replacement sinter crushing 

circuit 

Air filtration system 

Hooding and ventilation 75 

Replacement baghouse system 

Automatic tuyere punching 

Plenum building ventilation 50-70 

Hooding and ventilation 

Building ventilation 50-60 

Hooding and ventilation 

Hooding, ventilation, and covers 75 

for material handling 

Chemical surfactants 90 

$ 342,600 $ 261,000 

(continued) 

1,469,300 

105,100 

3,463,900 

473,100 

377,000 

45,100 

1,027,800 

118,600 

6,702,700c 

2,583,000° 

2,034,700c 

2,981,600° 

627,900 

949,800 

1,842,500° 

449,550° 

719,900° 

1,373,900° 

190,100 

204,200 

\ 

t 

• ' ______ 
TABLE D-1 (CONTINUED). CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND COSTS FOR PRIMARY LEAD SMELTERS 

AND REFINERIES 

Emission source Control technique 

Overall emissions 

control efficiency (%) 

Control costsiL 

Capital Annual 

Ducon scrubber sysrem 

Baghouse dumping 

Baghouse stacks 

Replacement baghouse system 

Conveyor and hopper system 

New central stack, ducting 

and fans 

93 

99 

99+ 

$ 169,200 

1,135,700 

941,200 

$ 93,500 

215,700 

214,300 

as 

vo 

a 0ctober 1984 dollars. 

^Based on a total paved surface area of 11,200 meters^ (120,000 feet^). 

°Control costs are averages based on combinations of control options. 

References 1, 2, 3, and 4. 

rr4 
TABLE D-2. FUGITIVE EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES AT 

SECONDARY LEAD SMELTERS5>

6 

Fugtive Estimated 

emission Control control 

source techniques efficiencies (7.)a 

1) Battery breaking a. Building enclosure 75 

b. Process modifications 

2) Charing a. Building enclosure 75 

b. Process modifications 

3) Tapping a. Hooding and automated 75 

slag tapping 

. b. Hooding for metal tapping 

c. Automated tuyere punching 

aThese average control efficiencies are based on fugitive emission control 

efficiency data from References 2 and 5, and good engineering judgement. 

170 
TABLE D-3. CONTROL COSTS ESTIMATES FOR FUCIT1VE EMISSION SOURCE AT EXISTING 

SECONDARY LEAD SHELTERS (OCTOIIER 1984 DOLLARS)6 

Plant size (Mg/hr) 

1.5 4.5 9.1 

BB Clirg Tpg BB Clirg Tpg BB Chrg Tpg 

Capital costs 

Total system Installed $ 404,000 $ 833,000 $ 177,000 $ 950,000 $ 1,960,000 $ 417,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 3,400,000 $ 723,000 

capital cost 

Annualized costs 

Operating maintenance0 40,400 83,300 17,700 95,000 196,000 41,700 165,000 340,000 72,300 

Capital chargesb 76,600 51,000 48,600 180,000 363,000 114,000 313,000 629,000 198,000 

Total annual costs $ 117,000 $ 134,400 $ 66,300 $ 275,000 $ 559,000 $ 155,700 $ 478,000 $ 969,000 $ 270,300 

BB - Battery breaking 

Chrg - Charging 

Tpg - Tapping 

aOperatlng and maintenance cost based on 10 percent of total Installed capital cost. 

"Capital recovery factor based on 10 percent Interest rate and control technique lives of 5 to 25 years depending upon technique. 
•""(*"""'"""Tl* 

TABLE D-4. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING LEAD ORE PROCESSING 

PLANTS (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)7"

11 

Plant size 

270 Mg/hr 540 Mg/hr 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 

Control system installation cost 

Retrofit costb 

Total capital cost 

Annualized costs 

Utilities 

Maintenance0 

Operating labor0 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) 

Capital charges0 

Gross annualized costs 

Product recoverye 

Net annual cost 

$ 299,000 

636,000 

186,000 

1,121,000 

$ 137,000 

21,700 

65,200 

$ 223,900 

227,000 

$ 450,900 

(1,030) 

$ 449,870 

$ 421,000 

898,000 

264,000 

1,583,000 

$ 203,000 

38,600 

65,200 

$ 306,800 

321,000 

$ 627,800 

(1,130) 

$ 626,670 

aControl system consists of 3.75 kPa (15 in. W.G.) Venturi scrubber (95 

percent efficiency). 

b20 percent of total installed capital cost. 

°Maintenance based on 2 manhours per 8-hour shift and operating labor based on 

6 manhours per 8-hour shift and a labor rate of $15.00 per hour. Operating 

schedule of 5,820 hours per year. 

^Capital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 10 years. 

eBased on a recovered product value of $25.11/Mg (October 1984). Also, the 

parentheses indicate a cost savings. 

172 
rytf- — •V TW*—- fl 

TABLE D-5. CONTROL COSTS FOR EXISTING LEAD-ACID BATTERY 

PLANTS—PASTE MIXING (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)12 

Plant size (batteries per day 

500 2,000 6,500 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 8,590 $ 11,000 $ 17,600 

Control system installation cost 19,800 25,100 40,000 

Retrofit costb 5,730 7,260 11,600 

Total capital cost 34,120 43,360 69,200 

Annualized costs 

Electricity0 

Maintenance and supplies0 

Operating labore 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) 

Capital charges* 

Total annual costs 

3Control system consists of a baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b20 percent of installed capital cost. 

°Operating schedules are 250 days per year at 8 hours per day for 500 battery 

per day plants, 16 hours per day for 2,000 battery per day plants, and 

24 hours per day for 6,500 battery per day plants. 

^6.9 percent of total capital costs. Includes bag replacement. 

eBased on 1 operator manhour per 10 hours of operation and supervision 

manhours at 15 percent of operator manhours. The labor rate was $12.35 per 

hour. 

fCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

$ 143 

2,360 

2,840 

5,343 

5,890 

11,233 

$ 376 

2,990 

5,690 

9,056 

7,450 

16,506 

$ 975 

4,770 

8,530 

14,275 

11,900 

26,175 

173 
TABLE D-6. CONTROL COSTS FOR EXISTING LEAD-ACID BATTERY PLANTSTHREE-PROCESS OPERATION (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)12 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 45,700 $ 66,600 $ 124,000 

Control system installation cost 104,000 152,000 283,000 

Retrofit costb 30,200 44,000 81,900 

Total capital cost $ 179,900 $ 262,000 $ 488,900 

Annualized costs 

Electricity0 $ 933 $ 

Maintenance and supplies0 12,400 

Operating labore 2,840 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) 16,233 

Capital chargesf 31,000 

Total annual costs $ 47,233 $ 71,980 $ 136,280 

aControl system consists of a baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b20 percent of installed capital cost. 

°Operating schedules are 250 days per year at 8 hours day for 500 battery per 

day plants, 16 hours per day for 2,000 battery per day plants, and 24 hours 

per day for 6,500 battery per day plants. 

d6.9 percent of total capital costs. Includes bag replacement. 

eBased 

3,080 

18,100 

5,700 

26,880 

45,100 

$ 9,850 

33,800 

8,530 

52,180 

84,100 

174 
TABLE D-7. CONTROL COSTS FOR EXISTING LEAD-ACID BATTERY PLANTS--

THREE-PROCESS OPERATION AND PASTE MIXING (OCTOBER 1984)1'

2 

Plant size (batteries per day) 

500 2,000 6,500 

co1,140 

13,900 

2,840 

</> 

3,460 

20,000 

5,690 

5 10,500 

36,700 

8,530 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 1,300 $ 73,500 $ 135,000 

Control system installation cost 117,000 168,000 308,000 

Retrofit costb 33,800 48,500 89,000 

Total capital cost $ 202,100 $ 290,000 $ 532,000 

Annualized cost 

Electricity0 

Maintenance and supplies0 

Operating labore 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) $ 17,880 $ 29,150 $ 55,730 

Capital chargesf 34,700 49,800 91,400 

Total annual costs $ 52,580 $ 78,950 $ 147,130 

3Control system consists of a baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b20 percent of installed capital cost. 

°Operating schedules are 250 days per year at 8 hours day for 500 battery per 

day plants, 16 hours per day for 2,000 battery per day plants, and 24 hours 

per day for 6,500 battery per day plants. 

d6.9 percent of total capital costs. Includes bag replacement. 

eBased on 1 operator manhour per 10 hours of operation and supervisions 

manhours at 15 percent of operator manhours. The labor rate was $12.35 per 

hour 

^Capital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

175 
'Tl 

TABLE D-8. CONTROL COSTS FOR EXISTING LEAD-ACID BATTERY PLANTS--

GRID CASTING (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)1'

2 

Plant size (batteries per day) 

500 2,000 6,500 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 

Control system installation cost 

Retrofit costb 

Total capital cost $ 

Annualized cost 

Electricity0 $ 

Water0 

Maintenance and suplies0 

Operating labore 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) $ 

Capital charges* 

Total annual costs $ 

15,500 

40,900 

9,480 

$ 19,000 

49,900 

11,500 

co25,500 

67,400 

15,600 

65,880 $ 80,400 $ 108,500 

103 

412 

4,530 

2,880 

7,925 

11,300 

19,225 

CO-

-co 

•CO 

515 

1,240 

5,560 

5,670 

12,985 

13,800 

26,785 

$ •CO co1,650 

4,220 

7,520 

8,550 

21,940 

18,600 

40,540 

aControl system consists of a baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b20 percent of installed capital cost. 

°Operating schedules are 250 days per year at 8 hours day for 500 battery per 

day plants, 16 hours per day for 2,000 battery per day plants, and 24 hours 

per day for 6,500 battery per day plants. 

d6.9 percent of total capital costs. Includes bag replacement. 

eBased on 1 operator manhour per 10 hours of operation and supervisions 

manhours at 15 percent of operator manhours. The labor rate was $12.35 per 

hour 

fCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

176 
TABLE D-9. CONTROL COSTS FOR NEW I.KAD-ACID BATTERY PLANTS--

10,000 BATTERIES PER DAY (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)12 

Paste mixing, 

Lead oxide Crld three-process Lead 

production0 casting operation reclamation 

Capital cost 

Control system purchase costb $ 2,970 $ 30,000 $ 190,000 $ 23,300 

Control system installation cost 6,760 79.300 432,000 61.400 

Total capital cost $ 9,730 $109,300 $ 622,000 $ 84,700 

Annual costs 

Electricity0 --- $ 2,920 $ 15,700 $ 769 

Water0 --- 6,480 --- 2,030 

Maintenance and supplies'1 672 7,540 42,900 5,850 

Operating labore — - 8,530 8,530 5,160 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) $ 672 25,470 $ 67,130 $ 13,859 

Capital charges* 1,670 18,800 107,000 14,600 

Total annual costs $ 2,342 $ 44,270 $ 174,130 $ 28,459 

aLcad oxide production control costs are the difference the costs of a baghouse normally 

used for product recovery (3 to 1 air to cloth ratio) and one used for recovery and 

emission control (2 to 1 air to cloth ratio). 

"Controls are baghouses for lead oxide production, paste mixing and the three process 

operation! and Impingement scrubbers for grid casting and lead reclamation. Airflow 

rates for thc 10,000 battery'plant wer extrapolated from the airflows given in 

reference 2 for the 6500 and 2000 battery plants. Exponents used were 1.0 for lead 

oxide production and grid casting, 0.71 for paste mixing, and 0.94 for the three-process 

operation. 

c0perating schedules are 250 days per year at 8 hours per day for 500 battery per day 

plants, 16 hours per day for 2,000 battery per day plants, and 24 hours per day for 

6,500 battery per day plants. 

d6.9 percent of total capital costs. Includes bag replacement for baghosues. 

eRased on 1 operator manhour per 10 hours of operation and supervision manhours at 

15 percent of operator manhours. Thc labor rate was $12.00 per hour. 

'Capital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

-4 
n 

TABLE D-10. CONTROL COST ESTIMATE-BAGHOUSE FOR SMALL 

ALKYL LEAD PLANT (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)13 

Capital Costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 35,000 

Control system installation cost 43,300 

Retrofit costb . 23,700 

Total capital cost $102,000 

Annualized Cost 

Utilities $ 5,200 

Maintenance0 39,100 

Operating labor 58,700 

Bag replacement 1,850 

Subtotal $104,850 

Capital chargesd 17,000 

Total annual cost $121,850 

aControl system consists of baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b30 percent of total installed capital cost. 

Maintenance based on 2 manhours per 8-hour shift and operating labor based on 

3 manhours per 8-hour shift and a labor rate of $17.85 per hour; 24 hours per 

day, 365 days per year. 

dCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

178 

* 
'H 

TABLE D-ll. CONTROL COST ESTIMATE-BAGHOUSE FOR LARGE 

ALKYL LEAD PLANT (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)13 

Capital Costs 

Control system purchase cost3 $ 361,000 

Control system installation cost 439,000 

Retrofit costb 240,000 

Total capital cost $1,040,000 

Annualized Cost 

Utilities $ 36,100 

Maintenance0 39,400 

Operating labor 59,200 

Bag replacement 65,900 

Subtotal $ 200,600 

Capital chargesd 174,000 

Total annual cost $ 374,600 

3Control system consists of baghouse (99 percent efficiency). 

b30 percent of total installed capital cost. 

Maintenance based on 2 manhours per 8-hour shift and operating labor based on 

3 manhours per 8-hour shift and a labor rate of $17.85 per hour; 24 hours per 

day, 365 days per year. 

dCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

179 
TABLE D-12. CONTROL COST ESTIMATE FOR LARGE ALKYL LEAD PLANT STACK 

(OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)13 

Capital Costs 

Control system purchase cost3 

Control system installation cost 

Retrofit costb 

Total capital cost 

Annualized Cost 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Operating labor 

Subtotal 

Capital charges0 

Total annual cost 

$ 35,300 

43,300 

23,600 

$ 102,200 

$ 5,970 

9,890 

$ 15,860 

17,100 

$ 32,960 

3Control system consists of stack and auxiliary equipment. 

b30 percent of total installed capital cost. 

°Capital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

180 
TTMf»- •*-"!• TIT" " 

TABLE D-13. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING GRAY IRON FOUNDRIESUNCONTROLLED CUPOLA FURNACE (OCTOBER 1984)14"

17 

Furnace melt capacity (Mg/hr) 

3.6 9.1 20.0 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost3 

Control system installation cost 

Retrofit costb 

Total capital cost 

Annualized cost 

$ 163,000 

190,000 

106,000 

$ 459,000 

Utilities $ 

Maintenance and suplies0 

Operating labor0 

Bag replacement 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) $ 36,240 

Capital chargesd 72,200 

Total annual costs $ 108,440 

8,030 

7,210 

10,800 

10,200 

$ 357,000 $ 778,000 

418,000 911,000 

233,000 507,000 

$1,008,000 $ 2,196,000 

$ 21,200 

8,650 

13,000 

22,100 

$ 64,950 

159,000 

$ 223,950 

$ 76,700 

12,700 

19,000 

44,400 

$ 152,800 

346,000 

$ 498,800 

3Control system consists of side draft hood and baghouse. (88.67. efficiency). 

b30 percent of installed capital cost. 

Maintenance based on 2 manhours per 8-hour shift and operating labor based on 

3 manhours per 8-hour shift and a labor rate of $18.00 per hour. 

Operating schedules: 3.6 Mg/hr plant - 1,600 hr/yr 

9.1 Mg/hr plant - 1,920 hr/yr 

20.0 Mg/hr plant - 2,800 hr/yr 

dCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 20 years. 

181 
P.97 

"Tl 

TABLE D-14. DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR ALLOY STEEL ELECTRIC 

ARC FURNACES18 

Control Option Process Controls Fugitive Controls 

Direct-shell evacuation 

control and fabric filters 

Direct-shell evacuation 

control and fabric filters 

Direct-shell evacuation 

control and fabric filters 

Fabric filters; single canopy 

hood, open roof monitor 

enclosed dust handling 

equipment. 

Fabric filters; segmented 

canopy hood, scavenger duct, 

cross-draft partitions (or 

single canopy hood with 

separate tapping and slagging 

hoods), closed roof (over 

furnace)/open roof monitor 

elsewhere; enclosed 

dust-handling equipment. 

Fabric filters, segmented 

canopy hood, scavenger duct, 

cross-draft; enclosed 

dust-handling equipment. 

182 
Furnace capacity (Mg/heat) 

TABLE D-15. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING ALLOY STEEL 

ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)1 8"

21 

23 91 272 

Control option8 

C» 

Capital costs 

Control system purchase cost 

Control system Installation cost 

Retrofit cost0 

Total installed capital cost 

Annualized costs 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Operating labor 

Monitoring 

Solid waste disposal 

Filter replacement 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) 

Capital charges0 

Total annual costs 

NA NA $ 777,000 $ 1,980,000 $ 2,050,000 

1,170,000 2,970,000 3,080,000 

583,000 1,490,000 1,540,000 

$ 2,530,000 $ 6,440,000 $ 6,670,000 

63,300 

17,500 

27,300 

20,500 

62,600 

6,590 

197,790 

345,000 $ 

19,000 

29,900 

28,400 

269,000 

25,100 

716,400 $ 

345,000 

19,000 

29,900 

20,500 

272,000 

25,100 

711,500 

1,110,000 1,140,000 

HA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

HA 

NA 

$ 630,790 $ 1,826,400 $ 1,851,000 

$ 2,530,000 

3,790,000 

1,900,000 

$ 8,220,000 

$ 526,000 

23,200 

36,300 

20,500 

999,000 

45,300 

$ 1,650,300 

1,410,000 

$ 3,060,300 

NA Control option not applicable to this size model plant. 

aControl option 1 - 80.07. fugitive emission control 

Control option 2 - 90.0% fugitive emission control 

Control option 3 - 97.5% fugitive emission control 

"30 percent of total annualized costs 

cCapital recovery factor based on an equipment life of 15 years. 
TABLE D-16. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING STEEL ELECTRIC ARC 

FURNANCES.22 (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS) 

Furnace capacity (Mg/heat) 

Capital cost 

Control system purachase and 

installation costs3 

Retrofit costsb 

Total installed capital costs 

Annual costs 

Utilities 

Maintenance 

Operating labor 

Bag replacement 

Subtotal (direct operating costs) 

Capital charges0 

Total net annual costs 

3.6 

$ 352,000 

106,000 

$ 458,000 

$ 8,960 

3,500 

13,400 

11,600 

$ 37,460 

78,500 

$ 115,960 

9.1 

$ 278,000 

83,000 

$ 361,000 

$ 7,280 

2,800 

16,100 

7,560 

$ 33,740 

61,900 

$ 95,640 

22.7 

$ 527,000 

158,000 

$ 685,000 

$ 25,800 

5,320 

23,500 

18,900 

$ 73,520 

117,000 

$ 190,520 

3Control option consists of side draft hood and baghouse for 3.6 Mg/heat plant 

and direct furnace evacuation and baghouse for 9.1 and 22.7 Mg/heat plants. 

b30 of total purchase and installation costs 

°Capital recovery based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

184 
p.1 

T

1 

TABLE D-17. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING IRON ORE 

SINTERING OPERATIONS (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS).23-

24 

• ' • — 

Material 

handling 

Sinter 

plant operations 

Capital costs 

Total system installed 

capital costs3 

Annual Costs 

Operating and 

maintenance 

Capital charges" 

Total annual costs 

$ 3,460,000 

$ 440,000 

590,000 

$ 1,030,000 

$ 6,700,000 

$ 690,000 

1,150,000 

$ 1,840,000 

aMaterial handling - Railcar and truck cover, plus dust control system 

(757. control efficiency) 

Sinter plant operations - Hooding and ventilation, replacement of sinter 

crushing circuit, and air filtration system. 

"Based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

185 
P.2 

TABLE D-18. CONTROL COST ESTIMATES FOR EXISTING BRASS AND BRONZE 

INGOT PRODUCTION FACILITIES (OCTOBER 1984 DOLLARS)24 

Furnace size 

(Mg/day output) 

Capital costs 

System installation cost3 

Retrofit costb 

Total installed capital cost 

18.1 

$ 176,000 

52,800 

45.4 

$ 262,000 

78,600 

68.1 

$ 310,000 

93,000 

$ 228,000 $ 340,600 $ 403,000 

Annual costs 

Operating and maintenancec 

Capital charges" 

Total annual cost 

$ 22,900 $ 34,100 $ 40,300 

39,200 58,400 69,100 

$ 62,100 $ 92,500 $ 109,400 

Replacement of existing particulate control systems with 957. + efficient 

baghouse control system. 

*>30 percent of total installed capital cost. 

c0perating and maintenance based on 10 percent of total installed capital cost. 

'--Based on an equipment life of 15 years. 

186 
TABLE D-19. CONTROL OPTIONS ANNUALIZED FOR EACH SOURCE 

P.3 

Source Control Option Capital 5 Annualized 

($ x 10 ) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

a) 

b) 

a) 

b) 

a) 

b) 

a) 

b) 

a) 

b) 

a) 

b) 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

Secondary Converter 

Secondary Furnace 

4.6 

10.1 

0.95 

8.3 

0.92 

9.0 

8.9 

7.9 

10.1 

1.8 

6.9 

0.92 

4.6 

0.92 

1.3 

2.9 

0.27 

2.2 

0.27 

2.3 

2.0 

1.9 

2.9 

0.53 

1.8 

0.27 

1.3 

0.27 

187 
P.4 

REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D 

Primary Lead Smelting and Refining 

1. Charles River Associates. Economic and Enviornmental Analysis of the 

Current OSHA Lead Standard. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration. Washington, DC. 1981. 

2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate 

Emissions (EPA-450/3-77-010). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangel Park, NC. March 1977. 

3. Cost Files. Chemical Engineering. 1980 to 1983. 

4. Uhl, Vincent. A Standard Procedure for Cost Analysis of Pollution Control 

Operations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 

NC. 1979. 

Secondary Lead Smelting 

5. Schwitzgebel, K., et al. (Radian Corp.). Fugitive Emissions at a 

Secondary Lead Smelter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Philadelphia, PA. December 1981. 

6. Ref. 2. 

Lead Ore Processing 

7. Metallic Mineral Processing Plants—Background for Proposed Standards. 

(EPA-450/3-81-009a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 

Triangle Park, NC. August 1982. 

8. The International Competitiveness of the U.S. Non-Ferrous Smelting 

Industry and the Clean Air Act. American Mining Congress. April 1982. 

9. Reference 4. 

10. Neveril, R.B. Capital and Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution 

Control System (EPA-450/5-80-002). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangel Park, NC. December 1978. 

11. Engineering and Mining Journal. September 1982. 

12. Lead-Acid Battery Manufacture - Background Information for Proposed 

Standards (EPA-450/3-79-028a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, NC. 1979. 

188 
Lead Alkyl Plants 

13. Reference 10. 

Grav Iron Foundries 

• ***+M»i -.»**. •• i •••J — •—!•—.- ^^-> * 

14. Electric Arc Furnaces in Ferrous Foundries - Background Information for 

Proposed Standards (EPA-450/3-80-020a). U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1980. 

15. Reference 4. 

16. Reference 10. 

17. Control Techniques for Lead Emissions (EPA-450/2-77-012). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1977. 

Alloy Steel Electric Arc Furnace 

18. Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization for Vessels in 

Steel Industry - Background Information for Porposed Revision to Standards 

(EPA-450/3-020a). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 

Park, NC. 1983. 

19. Reference 4. 

20. Reference 10. 

21. Reference 17. 

Steel Foundries - Electric Arc Furnaces 

22. Reference 14. 

Iron Ore Sintering 

23. Reference 1. 

24. Reference 4. 

Brass and Bronze Ingot Production 

25. Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot Production Plant — Background 

Information for Proposed Standards (APTD 1352a). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. 1973. 

189 
P.6 

**i***********5*I*******************************************************f***j| 

APPENDIX E 

IDENTIFICATION OF BATTERY PLANTS AFFECTED UNDER ALTERNATIVE 

NAAQS LEVELS 

190 
P.7 

APPENDIX E 

IDENTIFICATION OF BATTERY PLANTS AFFECTED UNDER 

ALTERNATIVE NAAQS LEVELS 

Table E-1 gives the baseline control status of the lead-acid battery 

manufacturing industry. Existing plants were divided into 12 groups by size 

and control status based on a NEDS survey. Each of the plant groups shown 

in Table E-l were studied to determine the number of plants which will be 

affected in the group under the NAAQS alternatives. This was done by 

calculating the probability that a model plant representative of the group 

will be affected, and multiplying by the number of plants in the group. This 

appendix presents the algorithms used to estimate the numbers of affected 

plants. In addition, the inputs to the algorithms are given and a sample 

calculation is presented. 

E.l. CALCULATION METHOD 

The source-receptor coefficient, defined as the ratio between the maximum 

ambient impact for a given source to the emission rate for the source, was 

used extensively in determining the number of battery plants affected under 

the NAAQS alternatives. For lead-acid battery manufacture, the source- i 

receptor coefficient was found to be dependent only on the plant location 

and distributed uniformly between a maximum and minimum observed value. The 

coefficient was found to be independent of the individual emission source 

under study. Given a uniform distribution of this coefficient, the number 

of plants affected by a given NAAQS in a given size/control status category 

can be calculated as follows: 

SRCA(i,j) = 

P(i,j) = 

= 

= 

n(i,j) = 

NAAQS - MSB 

ER(i,j) 

0 

1 

SRCUL - SRCA(i,i) 

SRCUL - SRCLL 

P(i,j)*N(i,j) 

if SRCA(i,j) > SRCUL 

if SRCA(i,j) < SRCLL 

if SRCLL < SRCA(i.j) > SRCUL 

191 
TABLE E-l. ESTIMATED BREAKDOWN OF BATTERY PLANTS 

. BY SIZE RANGES AND CONTROL STATUS 

P.8 

Facilities with 

controls 

Estimated number of plants 

Small Medium Large 

PbO; Rec 

PbO; Rec; PM 

PbO; Rec; PM; 3-P 

PbO; Rec; PM; 3-P; GC 

5 

1 

7 

15 

7 

2 

10 

23 

4 

1 

6 

13 

Total 28 42 24 

"PbO" refers to lead oxide production; "Rec" to lead reclamation; "PM" to 

paste mixing; "3-P" to the three-process operation; and "GC" to grid 

casting, 

b, 400-1,000 batteries per day (bpd), 

:1,000-3,500 bpd. 

Over 3,500 bpd. 

192 
P.9 

where: SRCA(i,j) 

NAAQS = 

• MSB = 

ER(i,j) = 

PU,j) = 

SRCUL = 

is a variable used for calculation purposes equivalent 

to the value of the source-receptor coefficient above 

which a model plant representing size class i and 

control status j would be affected, 

the NAAQS alternative level under consideration, 

the mobile source background, 

the emission rate for the model plant representing size 

class i and control status j, 

the probability that a plant in size range i and with 

control status j will cause an exceedence, 

the upper limit of the source-receptor coefficient as 

determined by dispersion modeling, 

SRCLL 

r.(i,j) 

= the lower limit of the source-receptor coefficient, 

N(i,j) = 

the number of plants affected by the NAAQS in size 

range i and with control status j, 

the total number of plants in size range i and with control 

status j, 

E.2 INPUTS 

A size of 500 batteries per day (bpd) was chosen to represent plants in 

the 0-1000 bpd size range, and sizes of 2000 and 6500 bpd, respectively, were 

selected to represent the 1000-3500 bpd and 3500-and-over ranges. Operating 

hours used in this study were 8 hours per day for small plants, 16 hours per 

day for medium-sized plants, and 24 hours per day for large plants, at 250 days 

per year. Uncontrolled and controlled emission factors used in this study 

are given in Table E-2. The lower and upper limits of the source-receptor 

3 

coefficient were 0.089 and 0.51 (ug/m )/(Mg/yr), respectively. A mobile 

3. 

source background concentration of 0.2 ug/m was assumed. 

E .3 SAMPLE CALCULATIONS 

3 

Take as an example the 1.0 ug/m NAAQS alternative applied to the group 

of large battery plants with no controls for lhe paste mixing, three process 

operation, or grid casting facilities. From Tables E~l and E-2 and the inputs 

listed in the previous section: 

193 
TABLE E-2. EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAD-ACID BATTERY MANUFACTURE 

Emission factors (g/battery) 

uncontrolled controlled 

P.10 

Grid casting 

Paste mixing 

Lead oxide production 

Three process operation 

Lead reclamation 

0.35 

1.13 

4.79 

0.63 

0.026 

0.05 

0.072 

0.006 

Control of grid casting was not found to be required to meet 

any of the NAAQS alternatives. 

Lead oxide production facilities are equipped with baghouses 

for product recovery. 

In a survey of NEDS, lead reclamation was found to be controlled 

in all cases. 

194 
P.11 

\ 

Emission factor 

ER(i.j) 

SRCUL 

SRCLL 

NAAQS 

MSB 

N(i,j) 

Substituting into the 

SRCA(i 

SRCA(i 

P(i 

n(i 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

= 

(0.35 + 1.13 + 0.05 + 4.79 + 0.006) g/battery 

6.33 g/battery 

(6.33 g/b)*(6500 b/day)*(250 day/yr) 

10.28 Mg/yr 

3 

0.51 ug-yr/m -Mg 

3 

0.89 ug-yr/m -Mg 

3 

1.0 ug/m 

0.2 ug/m 

4 

equations given in Section E.l. 

,j) 

,j) 

.j) 

,j) 

Thus, all of the plants 

3 3 

1.0 ug/m - 0.2 ug/m 

10.28 Mg/yr 

= 0.078 ug-yr Mg/yr 

< SCRLL 

= 1 

= 1* 4 

3 

in this group will be affected under the 1.0 ug/m 

NAAQS and ould need to control at least the paste miing facility. To 

determine how many plant 

three-process operation, 

for paste mixing: 

Emission factor 

ER(i,j) 

!. SRCA(i.j) 

P(i,j) 

*• 

= 

= 

• = 

= 

= 

= 

s in the group would also need to control the 

the controlled emission rate must be used 

(0.35 + 0.026 + 0.05 + 4.79 + 0.006) (g/battery 

5.22 g/battery 

5.22 * 6500 * 250 

8.49 Mg/yr 

1.0 - 0.2 

8.49 

3 

0.094 ug-yr/m -Mg 

0.51 - 0.094 

0.51 - 0.089 

195 

T 

i 
P.12 

= 0.988 

n(i,j) = 0.988 * 4 

= 4 plants 

Thus, all plants in the group would require control of both paste mixing 

and the three-process operation. 

196