p. 1



# OAR Box 1131 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 144 ) II-I-2 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 2

Printed 4/21/2008 2:34:13 PM

Sheet 144 of 162P. 2



# fi-&>-&=> u-x-*4 -•-r-yT - -•"-••-TP- *

GCA-TR-83-105 G Prepare d fo r U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO NAGENC Y Ambien t Standard s Branc h Strategie s an

d Ai r Standard s Divisio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina 2771 1

Contrac t No . 68-02-380 4 Wor k Assignmen t No . 1 5 EP AProjec t Office r John Haine s

COS T ASSESSMENT O F REGULATOR Y ALTERNATIVE S FO R LEA D NATIONA

L AMBIEN T AI R QUALITY STANDARD S Revise d Draf t Repor t

by WilliamBatty e Rebecc a Batty e Nanc yBrown e Michae l Clower s Jeann e Eichinge r Georg e Viconovi c

Jul y198 5

GCACORPORATIO

N GCA/TECHNOLOG

Y DIVISIO

N Chape l Hill , Nort hCarolina 2751 4P. 3 

# 7 1

DISCLAIME R Thi s Draf t Fina l Repor t wa s furnishe d t o the Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yb

yGC ACorporation , GCA/TechnologyDivision , 21 3 Burlingto n Road , Bedford , Massachusett s 01730 , i n fulfillmen t o f Contrac t No . 68-02-3804 , Tas k No . 15 . Th e opinions , findings , an d conclusion s expresse d ar e thos e o f the author s an

d no t necessaril ythos e o f th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Mentio n o f compan yo r produc t nam e i s no t t o b e considere d a s an endorsemen t b

yth e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . I



### i iP. 4 ,-,-«•• - ..r.-^fj^r.- -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S Thi s repor t reflect s th e effor t o f manyinvestigator s ove r a n extende d perio d during whic hth e dat a bases , methodologica l approaches , analytica l assumption s an d th e standard s t o b e evaluate d hav e undergon e considerabl e change . Th e author s wis ht o than k th e following investiga

tor s fo r thei r participatio n i n earlie r phase s o f th e study : Timoth yCurtin , Jame s Lent , an

d Budd yNewman . W e als o wis ht o acknowledg e the guidanc e an d contribution s o f th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) projec t officer s o n thi s study , John Haine s an d Rober t Kellam .

1X 1

/P. 5

TABL E O F CONTENT S Acknowledgement s ii i Figure s v i Table s vi i Executiv e Summar

yx 1 . Introductio n 1 1.1 . Purpos e 1 1. 2 Stud

yMethodolog

y2 2 . Lead Emission s an d Ambien t Concentration s 6 2. 1 Lead Emission s 6 2. 2 Typica l Ambien t Lead Concentration s Nea r Emissio n Sources. . 8 2. 3 Lea

d Concentratio n Distributio n an d Recen t Trend s 1 1 2. 4 Effect s o f Averaging Time an d Averag e Lea

d Concentration. . 1 5 3 . Mobil e Sourc e Ambien t Impact s an d Cost s 2 6 3. 1 Curren t Ambien t Impact s fromMobil e Source s 2 7 3. 2 Projecte d Ambien t Lead Impact s fro mMobil e Source s 3 1 3. 3 Interactio n o f Mobil e Sourc e an d Stationar

ySourc e Ambien t Lead Impac t 3 9 3. 4 Lead Phasedow n Cost s 4 1 4 . Generalize d Stud yMethodologie s 4 5 4. 1 Identificatio n o f Affecte d Industr yCategorie s 4 6 4. 2 Selectio n o f Baselin e Contro l Strategie s 4 8 4. 3 Estimatio n o f Baselin e Ambien t Impact s 4 9 4. 4 Sourc e Interaction s 5 2 4. 5 Identificatio n o f Individua l Affecte d Source s 5 4 4. 6 Contro l Strateg yIdentificatio n an d Costing 5 4 4. 7 Estimatio n o f Lowes t Cos t o f Attainmen t fo r Existing Source s • • 5 7 4. 8 Ne wSourc e Cost s 5 8

I VP. 6

Tabl e o f Content s (continued )
5 . Industry-Specifi c Stud yMethod s an

d Stud yResult s 6 2 5. 1 Primar

yLead Smelting an d Refining 6 2 5. 2 Secondar

yLead Smelter s 6 8 5. 3 Lea

d Or e Processing 7 5 5. 4 Lead-Aci d BatteryManufactur e 8 0 5. 5 Lead Alky l Manufactur e 8 8 5. 6 Gra

yIro n Foundrie s 9 1 5. 7 AlloyStee l Electri c Ar c Furnace s 9 7 5. 8 Stee l Electri c Ar c Furnace s 10 2 5. 9 Iro n an

d Bronz e Industr

y- Sintering 10 8 5.1 0 Bras s an

d Bronz e Ingo t Productio n 10 9 5.1 1 Primar

yCoppe r Smelting an d Refining 11 7 5.1 2 Tota l Nationwid e Contro l Cost s 13 0 5.1 3 Uncertaint yAnalysi s 13 3 6 . Ne wSourc e Control s 14 0 7 . Cost s o f Wast e Oi l Combustio n Regulation s 14 2 Appendice s A . Lead Emission s Inventor y14 6 B . RawDat a Use d i n Predicting Mobil e Sourc e Impact s 15 3 C . Sampl e Cos t Calculatio n 15 8 D . Cost s o f Industry-Specifi c Contro l Option s an d Techniques... . 16 7 E . Identificatio n o f BatteryPlant s Affecte d Unde r Alternativ e NAAQ S Level s 18 9

/P. 7

LIS T O F FIGURE S Numbe r Pag e 2- 1 Predicte d maximu mquarterl yaverag e ambien t lea d concentration s aroun d a larg e secondar

ylea d smelte r 1 2 2- 2 Averag e 24-hou r concentratio n o f lea d a t variou s elevation s an

d se t bac k distance s 1 3 2- 3 Trend s i n mea n maximu mquarterl ylea

d concentratio n o f variou s monito r group s 1 6 2- 4 Trend s i n overal l annua l averag e lea d concentratio n fo r variou s monito r group s 1 6 2- 5 Frequenc ydistributio n o f monthly-to-quarterl ylea d concentratio n rati o fo r al l lea d monitor s an

d fo r poin t sourc e monitor s 2 0 2- 6 Frequenc ydistriubtio n o f monthly-to-quarterl ylea d concentratio n rati o fo r microscal e an d neighborhoo d an

d middl e scal e roadsid e monitor s 2 1 2- 7 Monthl yaverag e lea d concentratio n plotte d agains t quarterl yaverag e 2 2 3- 1 Quarterl yan d annua l averag e ambien t lea d concentration s a t NAM S 03060013G0 1 3 2 3- 2 Relativ e tota l lea d burne d i n gasolin e (197 4 B 1.0)......... . 3 2 3- 3 Maximu

mquarterl ylea

d concentratio n a t NAM S site s a s a functio n o f totoa l lea d burne d i n gasolin e 3 6 5- 1 Conventiona l coppe r smelting proces s 12 0 5- 2 Sensitivit yo f NAAQ S cost s t o Standard Leve l 13 5

v i iP. 8

Numbe r LIS T O F TABLE S Pag e 1 Nationwid e NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Th e Uppe r Limi t Mobil e Sourc e Backgroun

d x i 2 Nationwid e NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Th e Lowe r Limi t Mobil e Sourc e Backgroun

d xi i 2- 1 Estimate d Atmospheri c Lead Emission s Fo r Th e Unite d States ,

198 1 7 2- 2 Typica l Maximu mQuarterl yLead Concentratio n Nea r Lea d Emission s Source s 9 2- 3 Frequenc yDistribution s o f Maximu mQuarterl yLea

d Concentration s B

ySite-Typ e 1 4 2- 4 Propertie s o f Th e Distributio n o f Maximu mQuarterl yLea

d Concentratio n Fo r Variou s Sit e Type s 1 7 2- 5 Lead Concentratio n Trend s Fo r 198 0 t o 198 3 1 8 2- 6 Monthly-To-Quarterl yAverag e Concentratio n Ratio s Fo r

Variou s Lead Monitor s Categorie s 2 3 2- 7 Monthl yConcentratio n Limit s Equivalen t T o Th e Quarterl y

NAAQ S Levels , I n Term s o f Allowe d Averag e Concentratio n 2 3 2- 8 Daily-To-Quarterl yAn d Daily-To-Monthl yConcentratio n Fo r Differen t Monito r Type s 2 5 2- 9 Monthl yConcentratio n Limit s Equivalen t T o The Quarterl y

NAAQ S Levels , I n Term s o f Expecte d Dail yConcentratio n 2 5 3- 1 Sit e Parameter s An d Ambien t Lead Dat a Fo r Selecte d Miscroscal e NAM S 2 8 3- 2 Sit e Parameter s an d Ambien t Lead Dat a Fo r Selecte d Middlescal e NAM S 2 9 3- 3 Sit e Parameter s an d Ambien t Lead Dat a fo r Selecte d Neighborhoo d Scal e NAM S 3 0 3- 4 Lead Burne d I n Gasolin e 3 5

v nP. 9

Lis t o f Table s (continued )
3- 5 Projecte d Lead I n Gasolin e an d Ambien t Lea

d Impact s From Mobil e Source s 4 0 4- 1 Curren t Capacit yUtilizatio n an d Growt hRate s Fo r Industrie s Affecte d b ythe NAAQ S Alternative s 5 9 5- 1 Nationwid e NAAQ S Cost s Fo r PrimaryLea d Smelter s an

d Refinerie s 6 9 5- 2 Controlle d Emissio n Factor s an d Source-Recepto r Coefficient s Fo r Secondar yLead Smelting 7 3 5- 3 Nationwid e NAAQ S Cost s Fo r Secondar yLead Smelter s (Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 7 6 5- 4 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s FromLea d Or e Processing 7 9 5- 5 NAAQ S Control s Cost s Fo r Th e Lead Or e Processing Industr y (Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 8 1 5- 6 Estimate d Breakdow n o f BatteryPlant s B ySiz e Rang e an

d Contro l Statu s 8 4 5- 7 Emissio n Factor s Fo r Lead-Aci d Batter yManufactur e 8 5 5- 8 Nationwid e NAAQ S Cost s Fo r Th e Lead Aci d Batter y Manufacturing (Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 8 9 5- 9 Nationwid e NAAQ S Control s Cost s Fo r Th e Lead-Alky l

Productio n (Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 9 2 5-1 0 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s Fo r Gra yIron Foundr yCupol a Furnace s 9 6 5-1 1 NAAQ S Control s Cost s Fo r Th e GrayIro n Foundr yIndustr

y (Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 9 8 5-1 2 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s Fo r Allo yStee l Electri c Ar c Furnace s 10 1 5-1 3 Nationwid e NAAQ S Cost s Fo r Allo yStee l EAF s (Octobe r 198 4

Dollar s ) 10 3

v i n ;P.1 0 1 ! \

Lis t o f Table s (continued )
5-1 4 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s Fo r Stee l Electri c Ar c Furnace s 10 6 5-1 5 Nationwid e NAAQ S Cost s Fo r Carbo n Stee l EAF s 10 7 5-1 6 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s o f Iron an d Stee l Sintering 11 0 5-1 7 NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Iro n Sintering Il l 5-1 8 Baselin e Emission s an d Ambien t Impact s fo r Bras s an d Bronz e Productio n 11 4 5-1 9 NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Iro n Sintering 11 6 5-2 0 Domesti c PrimaryCoppe r Smelter s 12 1 5-2 1 Fugitiv e Emissio n Contro l Technique s A t Primar yCoppe r Smelter s 12 6 5-2 2 Baselin e Emission s an d Predicte d Ambien t Lead Concentration s Afte r Contro l 12 8 5-2 3 NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Th e PrimaryCoppe r Smeltin g Industr y12 9 5-2 4 Nationwid e NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r Th e Uppe r Limi t Mobil e

Sourc e Background 13 1 5-2 5 Nationwid e NAAQ S Contro l Cost s Fo r The Lowe r Limi t Mobil e

Sourc e Background 13 2 6- 1 NSP S Cost s Fo r Th e Lead-Aci d Batter yIndustr

y(Octobe r 198 4 Dollars ) 14 1 6- 2 NSP S Cost s Fo r Allo yStee l Electri c Ar c Furnac e (Octobe r

198 4 Dollar s 14 1 7- 1 Nationwid e Cost s O f Hazardou s Wast e an d Use d Oi l Combustio n Regulation s (198 4 Dollars ) 14 4

I XP.1 1 (

EXECUTIV

E SUMMAR

Y Thi s repor t present s a cos t analysi s o f the curren t nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard (NAAQS ) fo r lead , an d a rang e o f lea

d standard alternatives . Th e curren t lea

d standard i s 1. 5 microgram s pe r cubi c mete r (ug/ m) average d ove r a calenda r quarter . Othe r standard s considere d i n thi s analysi s wer e 0.2 5 ug/m 3 , 0. 5 ug/m 3 , 0. 8 ug/m 3 , 1. 0 ug/m 3 , 2. 0 ug/m 3 , and 2. 5 ug/m 3

. Th e nationwid e cost s o f thes e standard s b y199 0 o r 199 5 wer e calculated . Stationarysource s tha t woul d no t attai n th e variou s alternativ e standard s wer e identifie d using atmospheri c dispersio n modeling an d ambien t lea

d monitorin g data . I n projecting the attainmen t statu ? o f stationar ysource s i n urban area s wit hsubstantia l mobil e sourc e emissions , a backgroun d mobil e sourc e ambien t impac t wa s adde d t o the predicte d ambien t impac t fo r the stationar

ysource . Cost s o f control s neede d t o attai n eac halternativ e wer e the n calculate d fo r the affecte d plant s an d summe d t o obtai n nationwid e costs . Table s 1 an

d 2 presen t estimate d nationwid e capita l an d annua l cost s o f attaining the variou s alternative s fo r stationar ysource s unde r tw o possibl e scenario s fo r mobil e sourc e lea d emissions . At present , EPAlead-in-gasolin e phasedown regulation s se t a standard o f 0.1 0 gram s o f lea d pe r gallo n o f leaded gasoline , effectiv e January1 , 1986 . EPAha s als o solicite d publi c comment s o n a possibl e tota l ban o f lea d i n gasoline . The fina l for mo f lead-in-gasilin e phasedow

n regulation s wil l determin e the averag e mobil e sourc e backgroun d lea d concentratio n aroun d source s i n urban areas . Tabl e 1 give s stationar ysourc e cost s calculate d base d o n the curren t lead-in-gasolin e phasedow n program , whil e Tabl e 2 give s stationar ysourc e cost s unde r the propose d tota l ba n o f lea d i n gasoline . Eithe r lead-in-gasolin e phasedow n scenari o woul d resul t i n substantia l reduction s o f mobil e sourc e lea d emission s b

y1988 , t o the poin t wher e thes e emission s wil l neithe r caus e no r contribut e t o exceedence s o f an yo f the lea

d NAAQ S alternative s i n 199 0 o r 1995 . The curren t phasedow n rul e i s expecte d t o resul t i n a 62 0 millio n dolla r pe r yea r (198 4 dollars ) increas e i n refiner y operating cost s i n 1986 . B y1990 , thes e cost s wil l hav e droppe d t o 48 0 millio nTABL E 1 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S FO R TH E UPPE R LIMI T MOBIL E "SOURC E BACKGROUND

Cost s fo r note d NAAQ S alternativ e (millions ) 2. 5 2. 0 1. 5 1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0.2 5

CAPITAL COST S Primarylead smeltin g Secondarylea

d smeltin g Lead or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lea d alky l productio n Cra yiro n foundrie s Alloystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sinterin g Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r smeltin g 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 COST S Primarylea

d smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lea d or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lead alky l productio n Gra yiro n foundrie s Allo ystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sinterin g Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primar ycoppe r 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. 8TABL E 2 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S FOR TH E LOWE R LIMI T MOBIL E SOURC E BACKGROUND

Cost s fo r note d NAAQ S alternativ e (millions ) 2. 5 2. 0 1. 5 1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0.2 5

CAPITAL COST S Primarylea

d smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lea d or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lea d alky l productio n Cra yiro n foundrie s Allo ystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sintering Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r 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 COST S Primarylead smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lead or e processing Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lead alky l productio n Gra yiron foundrie s Alloystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sintering Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r 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. 7P.1 4

dollar s pe r year , an d additiona l cost s fo r 199 5 ar e estimate d a t 44 0 millio n dollar s pe r year . Th e lead-in-gasolin e phasedown regulations , an d thu s thes e costs , ar e independen t o f whic hNAAQ S alternativ e i s selected . Becaus e o f th e lowprojecte d mobil e sourc e ambien t impact s afte r 1986 , mobil e sourc e lea d emissio n control s ove r an d abov e the lea

d phasedown requirement s wer e no t considere d i n thi s study . Anothe r EPAactivit ywhic hwoul d affec t ambien t lea d level s i s a propose d extensio n o f hazardou s wast e managemen t regulation s t o appl yt o marketing o f an d burning fo r energ yrecoveryo f hazardou s waste s an d use d oils . The propose d rul e woul d establis hmaximumlevel s o f lea d an d othe r contaminant s fo r use d oi l burne d i n nonindustria l boilers . Th e maximumcontaminan t level s coul d b e achieve d b

ydilutio n o f the use d oi l wit hvirgi n oi l prio r t o burning . The propose d limi t fo r lea d i s 10 0 part s pe r millio n (ppm) , howeve r a 1 0 ppmlimi t i s als o being considered . Tota l capita l cost s o f the propose d marketing rule s ar e estimate d a t 6. 1 millio n dollars , an d annua l cost s ar e estimate d a t 2 1 millio n dollar s pe r year . Thes e cost s ar e als o independen t o f whic hlea d NAAQ S i s selected . Al l o f the cost s presente d i n Table s 1 an d 2 represen t cost s o f control s i n additio n t o thos e alread yi n place . Especiall yi n the cas e o f primaryan d secondar

ylea d smelters , substantia l cost s alread yhav e bee n incurred i n the implementatio n o f the curren t standard . Also , control s installed t o mee t OSH A lea d standard s an

d EP Aparticulat e emissio n limit s generall yac t t o reduc e lea d ambien t concentration s fromlead-emittin g industries . Du e t o the implementa

tion proces s fo r emissio n regulations , ther e mayb e an overla p i n the installa

tio n o f contro l equipmen t tha t i s considere d t o b e "i n place " an d tha t require d t o attai n the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Th e cost s presente d i n Table s 1 an d 2 an d throughou t thi s analysi s ar e incrementa l cost s fo r attainmen t o f the variou s NAAQ S alternative s b y1990 . The incrementa l cost s fo r the tw o alternative s i n whic hthe lea d NAAQ S i s relaxe d do no t includ e an ycos t saving s fo r discontinuing th e us e o f control s tha t wer e installe d t o mee t the curren t standard ; thu s cost s for thes e alternative s ar e biase d upward . Conversely , cost s fo r th e lowe r alternative s ar e biase d downward , becaus e control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allo w some plant s t o attai n thes e alternatives . Som e o f the plant s fo r thichcost s wer e develope d ar e currentl yuncontrolled . Control s fo r thes e plant s maybe

x mP.1 5

require d t o mee t the particulat e matte r NAAQS . Thus , som e o f th e cost s fo r al l o f the NAAQ S alternative s ma yb e partiall yattributabl e t o the particulat e NAAQS . Th e attainmen t cost s fo r 199 5 ar e expecte d t o b e the same a s thos e fo r 199 0 (in constan t dollars ) fo r tw o reasons . First , ne wstationar ysourc e cost s associate d wit hattainmen t o f the lea d NAAQ S afte r 199 0 wil l b e attributabl e t o ne wsourc e performanc e standards . Second , becaus e the backgroun d lea d concentratio n aroun d stationarylea

d source s b

y199 0 i s expecte d t o be negligibl e i n mos t cases , the attainmen t statu s o f a give n plan t wil l no t b e affecte d b

ychange s externa l t o the plant . A s note d above , the lead-in

gasolin e phasedown programwil l reduc e mobil e sourc e contribution s aroun d stationar

ysource s t o negligibl e levels . Also , becaus e o f the relativel ysmal l numbe r o f stationarylea d sources , mos t plant s ar e no t subjec t t o backgroun d concentration s fromneighborin g plants . The result s o f thi s analysi s ar e subfec t t o a numbe r o f limitations , du e t o the uncertaint yi n the inpu t data , an d du e t o simplifying assumption s mad e a s par t o f the genera l methodologyused . Th e majorit yo f lea d emission s from majo r industrie s producing an d using lea

d ar e fugitive emissions , becaus e othe r emission s ar e largel ycontrolled . Fo r othe r industries , lea d emission s ar e du e t o the presenc e o f lea d a s a contaminan t i n feed materials , ofte n a t trac e levels . Thus , lea

d concentration s i n emission s depen d o n the qualityo f feed material s used , an

d ar e no t easil yquantified . I n addition , dispersio n modelin g an

d the costing o f lea d emissio n contro l system s ar e subjec t t o uncertiantie s an

d estimatio n limitations .

i xi vP.1 6

1 . INTRODUCTIO

N 1. 1 PURPOS E Sectio n 109(d)(1 ) o f the Clean Ai r Act , a s amended , state s tha t the EP A Administrato r shal l "complet e a thoroughrevie wo f the criteri a publishe d unde r sectio n 10 8 an d the nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s promulgate d unde r thi s sectio n an d shal l mak e suchrevision s i n suchcriteri a an d standard s an

d promulgat e suc hne wstandard s a s mayb e appropriate... " I n accordanc e wit hthi s requirement , the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r QualityStandard (NAAQS ) fo r the lea d i s being reviewed . A s par t o f thi s reviewprocedure , thi s repor t analyze s alternativ e standard level s an d potentia l contro l cost s fo r meetin g thes e levels . The repor t give s cost s fo r th e lowes t ne t annualize d cos t method s o f achieving alternativ e NAAQ S levels . Th e contro l cost s presente d i n thes e repor t wil l b e use d i n an economi c analysi s a s par t o f the Regulator

yImpac t Analysi s (RIA) . I n addition , ambien t impact s predicte d i n thi s stud ywil l b e inpu t t o an exposur e assessmen t fo r the RIA . Th e curren t nationa l primaryan d secondar

yambien t ai r qualitystandard s fo r lea d ar e 1. 5 micrograms/cubi c mete r (ug/m3 ) average d ove r a calenda r quarte r (4 0 CF R 50.12) . Lead contro l cost s require d t o mee t thi s standard ar e analyze d i n thi s report , along wit hcost s fo r the followin g alternativ e standards : 0.25 , 0.5 , 0.8 , 1.0 , 2.0 , an d 0. 5 ug/m 3 quarterl yaverages . I n addition , the relationshi p betwee n averag e lea d concentratio n an

d averaging tim e wa s studie d t o idenif ymonthl yan d dail ylea

d concentration s tha t ar e equivalen t t o variou s quarterl yaverages , i n terms o f th e degre e o f protectio n offered .1. 2 STUDY METHODOLOG Y P . 1 7 

## T l

Th e firs t step i n estimatin g nationwid e contro l cost s t o mee t an alternativ e standard leve l i s t o projec t ho wman yarea s wil l no t attai n tha t standard wit hbaselin e emissio n controls . Fo r thi s analysis , attainmen t statu s i s projecte d fo r 199 0 an d 1995 . Severa l cause s o f exceedance s o f the alternativ e standard s wer e studied : lea d emission s fro

mindividua l plants , interactio n o f emission s fro mtw o o r mor e plants , lea d emission s fro

mmobil e sources , an

d interatio n o f mobil e sourc e an d poin t sourc e emissions . Fo r existing sources , baselin e emission s control s ar e take n generall ya s thos e control s currentl yi n place . Fo r ne wsources , the baselin e i s th e emissio n control s require d b yne wsourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS) . Ambien t concentratio n o f lea d aroun d poin t source s wer e estimate d using atmospheri c dispersio n modeling o f projecte d emissions . Wher e available , dat a o n ambien t lea d concentration s i n the vicinit yo f poin t source s als o wer e used . Fo r mobil e sources , ambien t monitorin g dat a fo r lea d nea r roadway s wer e use d t o predic t 199 0 an d 199 5 mobil e sourc e lea d impact s b

ycomparing tim

e variation s o f roadsid e lead concentration s wit hthe tim e variatio n i n the nationwid e averag e amoun t o f lea d use d i n gasoline . Mobil e sourc e ambien t impact s hav e bee n reduce d dramaticall ysinc e the institutio n o f EP A regulation s requiring the phasing dow n o f lea

d us e i n gasoline . Th e impact s ar e expecte d t o b e reduce d eve n furthe r b y1990 . Regresion s develope d base d o n pas t dat a wer e the n use d wit hprojection s o f futur e lea d i n gasolin e t o estimat e futur e mobil e sourc e lea d impacts . Thes e projection s indicat e tha t mobil e sourc e ambien t impact s wil l b e mino r i n compariso n wit hstationarysourc e impacts . Therefore , mobil e sourc e control s ove r an

d abov e the lea

d phasedow

n progra

mwer e no t considere d i n developing cost s fo r the lead NAAQ S alternatives . I n general , mos t poin t source s tha t mus t b e controlle d t o mee t an alternativ e NAAQ S woul d requir e contro l eve n i n the absenc e o f mobil e sourc e emissions . Fo r stationar

ysources , a least-cos t algorith mwa s used t o estimat e th e cost s o f control s t o mee t eac halternativ e lea d standard . Th e tota l cos t t o mee t eac halternativ e standar d wa s the n estimate d b ysummin

g cost s t o individua l sources . I n the least-cos t algorithm , eac hplan t i s assume d t o instal l contro l equipmen t necessaryt o attai n a give n lea d standard i n a manne r tha t minimize s tota l ne t annualize d cost s fo r th e plant .A n alternat e assumptio n migh t b e tha t al l lea d source s aroun

d whic h th

e standard i s exceede d woul d instal l reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologie s (RACT) . Ther e i s a significan t differenc e i n estimate d cost s predicte d usin g thes e tw

o assumptions . Aleast-cos t algorith mwa s chose n fo r us e her e becaus e (1 ) i t model s mor e realisticall ythe behavio r o f firms an d contro l agencie s i n achieving a "negotiated " contro l strateg yfor eac hfir

m(a s par t o f the Stat e Implementatio n Pla n [SIP ] process) , an d (2 ) th

e bubbl e policya s wel l a s recentl ypropose d preventio n o f significan t ai r qualitydeterioratio n (PSD ) an d ne wsourc e revie wrule s defin e a pollutan t "source " a s an entir e plant . Th e significanc e o f thes e rule s i s tha t eac hplan t i s considere d a s a n entity an d can appl ycontrol s t o the source s i t choose s a s lon g a s the plan t emissio n limi t i s achieved . Thus , RAC T probabl ywil l no t b e applie d on a source-by-sourc e basis . Give n tha t a plan t ha s some discretio n o n whic h source s t o control , i t seem s reasonabl e tha t thei r decision s wil l b e mad e t o minimiz e costs. * Du e t o the nee d t o compar e cos t estimate s provide d i n thi s repor t wit hthe benefit s o f an ambien t standard , a leas t cos t metho d i s th e preferre d approac hbecaus e a t allow s the estimatio n o f incrementa l costs . Incrementa l cost s mus t b e compare d wit hincrementa l benefit s fo r the variou s NAAQ S alternatives. 1 I n som e industrie s affecte d b ythe lea

d NAAQS , plan t closure s mayoccur du e t o economi c conditions . Fo r instance , i n the cas e o f alky l lea d additives , a decreas e i n domesti c deman d o f abou t 7 0 percen t i s expecte d b y 1990 , causing som

e plan t closures . Fo r gra yiro n foundries , numerou s plan t closure s hav e occurre d i n the recen t past , an d thi s tren

d i s expecte d t o continue . Th e cos t effect s o f plan t closur e wil l b e addresse d i n the Economi c Impac t Analysi s fo r the RIA . I n thi s cos t assessment , severa l sourc e categorie s an d individua l source s wer e identifie d a s needin g additiona l emissio n control s a t the leve l o f th e curren t lea

d NAAQ S (1. 5 ug/m^) . Some o f thes e categorie s an d source s mayno t i n fact , requir e contro l unde r Stat e Implementatio n Plan s (SIPs ) fo r meeting the curren t standard . Conversly , some sourc e categorie s ma yrequir e contro l unde r the curren t SIP s tha t ar e no t identifie d i n thi s stud ya s needing additiona l control . Also , thi s repor t present s projecte d ai r lea d concentration s an

d emissions , identifie s level s o f contro l needed , an dP.1 9 —j-f l
predict s tha t certai n source s mayno t b e abl e t o compl ywit hthe curren t standard . Thes e scenario s mayb e quit e differen t fro minformatio n presente d i n the curren t lea

d SIPs . Whil e thi s situatio n mayon the surfac e appea r t o b e an inconsistency , i t i s i n fac t a natura l consequenc e o f the tw o processe s employe d - - cos t assessmen t an d SI P development . Thi s repor t necessaril y relie s on a mor e "broad-brush " nationa l approac hi n whic htim e an d resourc e limitation s preclud e the kin d o f detaile d area-by-are a analyse s require d fo r actua l SIPs . Furthermore , whil e the author s consulte d the lea d SI P file s during the preparatio n o f thi s report , severa l lea d SIP s hav e no t ye t bee n complete d a s o f thi s writing .

# n

REFERENCE S FOR SECTIO N1 Wilson , J.H . Jr. , D.L . Keyes , an d J.W . Lent . Cos t an d Economi c Analysi s o f Regulator

yAlternative s fo r NO 2 NAAQS . Jun e 1982 .P.2 1

LEA D EMISSION S AN

D AMBIEN

T CONCENTRATIONS

Althoughsom

e lea d i n the atmospher e result s fro mnatura l proces s such a s th e win d erosio n o f lead-bearing dust , lea d emission s fro

mhuma n activit y greatl youtweighthes e natura l processes , bot hi n the magnitud e o f lea d emission s an

d i n thei r contributio n t o ambien t lea d levels . Lead emission s resul t no t onl yfro mthe processing an d us e o f lea

d an d it s compounds , bu t als o fro

mthe processing an d us e o f material s contaminate d b ylead . Thi s sectio n present s an overvie wo f lea d emission s an

d ambien t concentraion s resulting fro

mthem . 2. 1 LEA

D EMISSIONS . A n inventor

yo f lea

d emission s i n the U.S . i s show n i n Tabl e 2-1 ; assumption s an

d dat a source s use d t o deriv e th e value s give n i n the tabl e ar e detaile d i n Appendi x A . A s Tabl e 2- 1 shows , gasolin e combustio n i n automobile s currentl yaccount s fo r the larges t shar e o f tota l lea d emissions . Thes e emission s resul t fromth e us e o f alky l lea d compound s a s antiknoc k additive s i n gasoline . Althoughthe us e o f leaded gasolin e ha s bee n phased dow n b yabou t 7 5 percen t sinc e 1974 , emission s fro mit s us e ar e stil l substantial . Stationar

ysource s ar e divide d int o thre e categorie s i n Tabl e 2- 1 - - combustio n sources , metallurgica l processes , an d othe r industria l processes . Lead emission s fro mcrankcas e oi l combustio n resul t fro m contaminatio n o f automotiv e oi l wit hlea d du e t o leaded gasolin e use . Som e soli d waste s als o ar e contaminate d wit hlead . Coa l an d residua l oi l contai n lea d i n trac e quantities . Emission s fro mcombustio n o f thes e fuel s ar e substantia l becaus e o f the larg e amount s o f thes e fuel s tha t ar e burned .

# ^ m \
TABL E 2-1 . ESTIMATE D ATMOSPHERI C LEA D EMISSION S FO R TH E UNITE D STATES , 198 1

Annua l emission s Sourc e categor

y(Mg/yr )

Mobil e Source s Gasolin e combustio n 35,00 0 StationarySource s Wast e oi l combustio n 83 0 Soli d wast e incineratio n 31 9 Coa l combustio n 95 0 Oi l combustio n 24 3
Or e crushing an

d grinding 32 5 Primarylea

d smelting 92 1 Secondarylea

d smelting 63 1 Iro n an d stee l productio n 53 3 Gra yiro n productio n 29 5 Primarycoppe r smelting 3 0 Othe r metallurgica l 5 4

Lead alky l manufactur e 24 5 Lead aci d batterymanufactur e 8 5 Portlan d cemen t productio n 7 1 Miscellaneou s 22 3 TOTAL 40,70 0Lead emission s resul t fro mthe processing o f lea d ores , an

d fro mprimar

y an d secondar

ylea d smelting . Becaus e lea d i s presen t i n othe r meta l ores , i t i s als o emitte d fro miro n an

d stee l productio n an d fro mthe smeltin

g o f coppe r an d othe r metals . Lead emission s fro

mothe r industria l processe s generall yresul t fro mth e us e o f lea

d t o produc e product s sucha s lead-aci d batteries , leaded glass , an d alky l lea

d gasolin e additives . Lea d emission s fro

mPortlan

d cemen t manufactur e resul t fro mthe presenc e o f trac e quantitie s o f lea d i n the cemen t rawmaterials . Th e natur e an

d chemica l for

mo f lea

d emission s depen

d on thei r origi n an d the mechanis mo f formation . Combustio n processe s an d smelting processes , becaus e o f thei r hightemperature , emi t submicro n particulat e fumes . Lea d emission s fro

mhandling an

d mechanica l processes , sucha s or e processing , compris e large r particles . Chemica l forms o f lea d emission s includ e elementa l lea d (Pb) , it s oxide s (PbO , Pb02 , Pb03 » etc.) , lea d sulfate s an

d sulfide s (PbSo4 , PbS , etc.) , lea d chloride s an

d bromide s (PbCl 2 , PbCIBr , PbBr 2 , etc.) , an d alky l lea

d (Pb(CH 3 ) 4 an

d Pb(C 2 H 5 )4) . 2. 2 TYPICAL AMBIEN T LEA D CONCENTRATION S NEA R EMISSIO

NSOURCE S Althoughleade d gasolin e combustio n i s the primarysourc e o f lea d emission s i n the U.S. , the majorit yo f exceedence s o f the curren t NAAQ S result s mainl yfro

mstationarysourc e emissions . Th e averag e quarterl ylea d concentratio n detecte d b yroadsid e ambien t lea d monitor s (5-1 5 meter s fro mth e road ) wa s 0.7 7 micrograms/cubi c mete r (ug/mr ) fo r 1983 , an d non e o f the roadsid e monitor s the n i n plac e hav e showed exceedence s o f the curren t standard . Thi s absenc e o f exceedence s fo r sucha larg e emissio n sourc e result s fro

mthe wid e spatia l dispersio n o f automotiv e admissions . Fo r simila r reasons , man yo f the majo r stationar ysource s o f lea

d emission s listed i n the previou s sectio n do no t caus e correspondingl ynumerou s o r significan t exceedence s o f th e curren t standard . Tabl e 2- 2 summarize s typica l maximu

mquarterl ylea

d concentration s aroun d lea d emissio n sources . Ambien t monitoring result s ar e presente d wher e dat a ar e available . Wher e monitorin g dat a ar e unavailable , the tabl e present s the result s o f dispersio n modeling studie s describe d i n Section s 3 an d 5 . 8TABL E 2-2 . TYPICAL MAXIMU M QUARTERL Y LEA

D CONCENTRATION S NEA R LEA D EMISSION S SOURCE S

Sourc e category Ambien t lea d concentratio n (ug/m 3 ) Dat a sourc e Mobil e Source s Gasolin e combustio n 0.36- 1 Monitoring a * k StationarySource s Wast e oi l combustio n Commercia l 0.1 5 Utilit y<0. 1 Soli d wast e incineratio n <0.0 1 Coa l combustio n <0.0 1 Oi l combustio n (residual ) <0.0 1 Or e crushing an

d grinding 1. 7 Primarylea

d smelting 6. 6 Secondarylea

d smelting 3. 0 Iro n an d stee l productio n <0. 5 Grayiro n productio n <0. 5 Primarycoppe r smelting 0. 8 Leade d bras s productio n 0. 3 Lea k alky l manufactur e 1. 6 Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e 0. 5 Portlan d cemen t productio n <0.0 1 Leade d glas s productio n <0. 1 Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling Monitoring Monitoring Modeling Modeling Monitoring Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling Modeling

a Fro mthe SAROA

D compute r fil e fo r ambien t lea d data . •^Concentration s ar e fo r monitor s locate d 5-1 5 meter s fro mwell-travele d road 050,00 0 vehicles/day) .Th e tabl e show s tha t the combustio n source s o f lea d emission s hav e lo w ambien t lea

d impacts . Thi s i s no t surprising in the cas e o f coa l an d residua l oi l combustio n an

d soli d wast e incineration . The magnitud e o f nationwid e lea d emission s fro

mthes e categorie s (Tabl e 2-1 ) i s du e mor e t o the volume o f materia l burne d an

d the number s o f source s mor e tha n t o hig

hconcentration s o f lea d i n fue l o r soli d waste . Also , thes e source s hav e hig hstack s whic h promot e dispersio n o f emissions . Th e lo wambien t impact s predicte d fo r wast e oi l combustio n ar e somewha t surprising , a s wast e oi l contain s abou t 120 0 pp mlead . The predicte d impact s ar e lo wbecaus e pur e wast e oi l i s expecte d t o b e burne d onl yi n smal l commerical-size d heating units . Wher e wast e oi l i s burne d i n larg e units , i t i s adde d t o othe r fuels . Also , i n larg e unit s burining wast e oil , particulat e emissio n control s ar e ofte n used , an d thes e woul d reduc e lea d emission s i n the for mo f particulat e matter . Th e lowpredicte d impact s for smal l wast e oi l combustio n unit s resul t partiall yfro mlimitation s i n atmospheri c dispersio n modeling . Thes e smal l combustio n source s typicall yhav e shor t stacks . The shor t stac k height , couple d wit hbuilding wak e effect s an d stac k downwash , woul d caus e the plume t o impac t veryclos e t o th e source . However , dispersio n model s generall ycanno t estimat e concentration s close r tha n 10 0 meter s fro

ma source . Thus , dispersio n modeling mayno t give the maximu mambien t impac t for thes e sources . Th e highambien t impact s aroun d primar

yan d secondar

ylea d smelter s resul t mainl yfro

mlo wleve l fugitiv e emission s fro mthes e plants . Proces s emissio n source s ar e typicall ywel l controlle d fo r thes e categories . Th e fugitive emissio n source s includ e material s handling , furnac e upsets , an d furnac e charging an

d tapping operations . Th e highambien t impact s aroun d smelter s ar e localized ; concentration s typicall yfal l below1. 5 ug/m 3 withi n 1 km , an d belo w0. 1 ug/m 3 withi n 5 km . Fo r iro n an

d stee l production , gra yiron production , lead-aci d batter y manufacture , bras s an d bronz e production , an d primar

ycopper-smelting the typica l lea

d impact s a s show

n i n Tabl e 2- 2 ar e wel l belowthe 1. 5 ug/m 3 standard . However , fo r uncontrolle d o r poorl ycontrolle d facilitie s i n thes e sourc e categories , ambien t impact s ar e expecte d t o b e substantiall yhighe r than thos e presented , resulting i n exceedence s o f th e curren t standard .

1 0-p .

Spatia l variation s i n ambien t lea d concentratio n ar e illustrate d fo r stationar

yan d mobil e source s i n Figure s 2- 1 an d 2-2 . Figur e 2- 1 show s ambien t concentration s predicte d b ydispersio n modelin g aroun d a secondar

ylea d smelter . Source s o f lea d emission s fromthe smelte r includ e bot hfugitive an d stac k sources . A s the figur e shows , the ambien t concentratio n drop s rapidl y wit hdistanc e fromth e smelter . Figur e 2- 2 graph s the lea d concentratio n nea r a roadwaya s a functio n o f heigh t an d distanc e fro

mthe road . The concentra tion s show

n ar e average s o f monitore d lea d level s fo r Apri l an d May198 0 nea r a roa d wit haverag e deil ytraffi c o f abou t 60,00 0 vehicle s pe r day . Th e lea d concentratio n nea r the road i s approximatel yconstan t betwee n 5 an d 1 5 meter s fro mth e road . Th e result s o f othe r EPAmodeling studie s indicat e tha t the concentratio n decline s rapidl yfo r distance s greate r than 1 5 meters . 2. 3 LEA

D CONCENTRATIO

NDISTRIBUTION S AN D RECEN T TREND S
Th e distribution s o f maximu mquarterl ylea d concentration s a t ambien t lea d monitorin g site s wer e studie d usin g the computerize d SAROA D ambien t monitorin g . dat a bas e (Decembe r 1984) . Distribution s wer e determine d fo r the entir e se t o f monitors , fo r site s designe d t o monito r concentration s nea r stationar ysources , an d fo r site s designe d t o monito r roadsid e lea d concentration s du e t o mobil e sourc e emissions . Roadsid e lea d monitor s ar e divide d int o thre e subset s base d o n distanc e fromthe roadway . Microscal e roadsid e site s ar e closes t t o the monitore d roadways , middl e scal e roadsid e site s ar e a t an intermediat e distance , an

d neighborhoo d site s ar e a t a greate r distanc e fro mth e monitore d roadway . Adetaile d definitio n o f the thre e type s o f roadsid e monito r site

type s i s give n i n Sectio n 3 . Monitorin g dat a wer e studie d bot hfo r th e period 198 0 t o 198 3 an d fo r th

e mos t recen t yea r o f data , 1983 . Tabl e 2- 3 show s the frequencywit hwhic h the maximumquarte r fel l int o five concentratio n range s - - 0 t o 0. 5 ug/ m, 0. 5 t o 1. 0 ug/m 3 , 1. 0 t o 1. 5 ug/m 3 , 1. 5 t o 2. 0 ug/m 3 , and ove r 2. 0 ug/m 3

. Tabl e 2- 4 give s othe r propertie s o f the distributio n o f maximumquarterl yconcentration , including : the minimuman d maximu mobservations , the frequencydistributio n peak (o r mode) , the media n an d mean , an

d th e 80th , 90th , 95th , an d 99t h percentil e levels .

1 1£Z7

Figur e 2-1 . Predicte d maximu mquarterl yaverag e ambien t lea d concentration s aroun d a larg e secondar

y lea d smelte r (yg/m 3 )



### 1 2"H I

1.40

. r

1.30 - 1.2 0 1.1 0

n 1.0 0 0.9 0 2 0.8 0 S 0.7 0 <_> o

" 0.6 0 0.5 0 0.4 0 0.3 0 0.2 0 0.1 0 L 1 ni i I r i i

J l JO- 5 METE RELFV&TTnr ,

_ L J

_ 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 MONITO RSETBACKDISTANCE , meter s TOWE R NO . 3

I L 2 0 2 2



### Figur e 2-2 . Averag e 24-hou r concentratio no f

lea d a t variou s elevation s an dsetbac k distances
. 1 3TABL E 2-3 . FREQUENC Y DISTRIBUTION S O F MAXIMU M QUARTERL Y LEA D CONCENTRATION S BY SITE-TYPE * Percen t o f site-year s i n concentratio n range s Tota l Tota l site

- numbe r Sit e type/time frame <0. 5 0.5-1. 0 1.0-1. 5 1.5-2. 0 >2. 0 year s o f site s 198 0 through198 3 Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborhoo d scal e 198 3 onl y Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborhoo d scal e 6 9 6 2 1 7 3 9 6 1 2 2

1 6 4 0 4 2 3 2 5

8 2 7 1 8 5 2

3 1 3 0 0 2

1 1 3 0 2 118 9

15 9 3 0 3 3 6 2 41 4

5 6 1 8 1 5 2 9

7 1 5 3 1 6 5 3 7 2 1 9

2 4 4 7 3 3 2 8 5

9 3 2 1 3 0 1

2 5 0 0 3

1 1 0 0 0 36 0

4 5 1 9 1 5 2 9 36 0

4 5 1 9 1 5 2 9

a Dat a ar e the number s o f site-year s fo r whic hthe maximu mquarterl yconcentration s fal l withi n the designate d concentratio n ranges . T o b e included , a site-yea r mus t hav e fou r vali d quarter s o f data . 'Concentratio n range s ar e i n unit s o f ug/ m.P.3 0

A s illustrate d i n Table s 2- 3 an d 2-4 , the tota l numbe r o f lea d monitor s i s muc hlarge r than the su mo f the number s o f monitor s designe d t o cove r station

ar yan d mobil e lea

d emissio n sources . Thi s discrepancyresult s fro mrecen t change s i n lea

d monito r siting guidelines , whic hhav e cause d a majo r reworkin g o f the nationa l monitorin g network . Th e overal l monito r networ k include s man y monitor s whic hwer e positione d prio r t o the promulgatio n o f the curren t sitin g guidelines . Thes e monitor s wer e site d t o determin e urba n lea d levels , an

d di d no t generall yconformt o guideline s fo r roadsid e monitor s o r poin t sourc e monitors . Trend s i n lea

d concentration s ove r the period 198 0 t o 198 3 wer e analyze d bot hfo r maximu mquarterl yconcentratio n an d annua l averag e concentration . I n orde r t o avoi d biase s relating t o change s i n the monitorin g network , the tren d stud yinclude d onl ysite s wher e vali d dat a wer e availabl e for thre e o f the fou r year s studied . ( Avali d site-yea r mus t hav e vali d dat a fo r al l four quarters. ) The tren

d stud ywa s don e fo r stationar ysourc e monitors ; microscale , middl e scale , an

d neighborhoo d scal e roadsid e monitors ; an d the entir e se t o f lead monitors . Figure s 2- 3 an d 2- 4 illustrat e trend s i n maximumquarterl ylead concentratio n an

d annua l averag e lea d concentration , respectively , fo r the fiv e type s o f monitors . Tabl e 2- 5 present s the dat a illustrate d i n the figures , an d show s the number s o f site s meetin g the stud ycriteri a fo r eac ho f the monito r types . Fro mthe differenc e betwee n monito r count s give n i n Table s 2- 3 an d 2- 4 an d thos e give n i n Tabl e 2-5 , i t ca n b e see n tha t onl ya smal l percentag e o f the roadsid e monitor s i n servic e i n 198 3 wer e i n servic e a t the beginning o f the stud

yperiod . 2. 4 EFFECT S O F AVERAGIN G TIM E O

NAVERAG E LEA

D CONCENTRATIO

N Whe n the ambien t lea d standard wa s originall ypropose d i n 1977 , the averaging tim e fo r the primarystandar d wa s specifie d a s a calenda r quarter . Steady-stat e lead-in-bloo d level s fo r adult s adjus t t o change s i n ai r lea d concentratio n i n approximatel y6 0 days . Th e on e mont haveraging tim e wa s originall ypropose d becaus e o f the ris k o f exposur e t o young children , whos e faste r metabolism s woul d presumabl yresul t i n faste r adjustment s t o ai r lea d concentrations . Afte r reviewin g publi c comment s o n th e propose d standard , EP A promulgate d the NAAQ S wit ha n averaging tim e o f a calenda r quarter . Th e
1 5P.3 1 

## Ti l

tlC 3 .

U 01 U I-l a 3 C T s 3 • 5 » < a e 0 1 x '2 - I

5 4 - I 

# • ] MICROSCAL E S TATIO I' l AR V "5<5 y RC ES

. . KEiC-HBOR-HOC- O SCAL E AL L MONITOR'S ;

1.S7 S 1.S8 1 Yea r 1.58- - 

### Figur e 2-3 . Trend s i nmeanmaximu mquarterl y lea d concentratio nfo r

variou s monito r

groups .

1e e o 3cone.Laverageannua]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 C O 1 

# 'V

. STATIONAR YS O U R C E 3 MICROSCAL E
NEIGHBORHOO D SCAL E ty\0 OLESCALEfe"-^---- ^ AL LMONlTC'rrS--'!^-- ,

1 .53 1 Yea r 1.S8 3 Figur e 2-4 . Trend s i n overal l annua l averag e lead

concentratio n fo r variou s monito r groups .



### 1 6TABL E 2-4 . PROPERTIE S O F TH E DISTRIBUTIONO F MAXIMUM QUARTERL Y LEA D CONCENTRATIONFO R VARIOU S SIT E TYPE S Othe r distributio n benchmark s Tota l Tota l Minimu m; Maximumsite

- numbe r Sit e type/time fram e valu e Mod e Media n Mea n 80 % 907 . 95 % 987 . 997 . valu e year s o f site s 198 0 through198 3 Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborho6 d scal e 198 3 onl y Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborhoo d scal e 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 0.5 3

0.9 5 0.9 9 0.6 8 0.5 1 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. 1 118 9

15 9 3 0 3 3 6 2 41 4

5 6 1 8 1 5 2 9

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 0.5 1

0.8 8 0.8 3 0.6 0 0.4 0 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 35 9

4 5 1 8 1 5 2 9 35 9 4 5 1 8 1 5 2 9

Dat a ar e lea

d concentration s i n ug/m3 . T o b e include d a sit e yea r mus t hav e four vali d quarter s o f data . > I indicate s tha t insufficien t observation s ar e availabl e t o calculat e the give n percentil e levels . Value s i n parenthese s ar e uncertain .T 1

TABL E 2-5 . LEA

D CONCENTRATIONTREND S FOR 198 0 T O 198 3 Mea n concentratio n (ug/m3 ) Sit e type 3 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 Numbe r o f site s Maximu mquarte r Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborhoo d scal e Annua l averag e Al l monitor s Stationarysourc e Microscal e roadsid e Middl e scal e Neighborhoo d scal e 0.7 9 1.7 5 1.8 7 0.8 8 0.8 6 0.6 1

1.4 7 1.2 8 0.6 3 0.6 4 0.5 2

0.6 1 1.3 2 0.7 5 0.5 2 0.3 9

0.4 8 0.9 9 0.6 0 0.5 0 18 1

2 7 3 4 9

0.5 5 1.2 4 1.2 5 0.5 6 0.6 0 0.4 4

0.9 8 0.9 2 0.4 7 0.4 6 0.3 6

0.4 4 0.8 9 0.4 3 0.3 8 0.3 0

0.4 1 0.8 0 0.4 4 0.3 7 18 1

2 7 3 4 9

a T o b e included , a sit e mus t hav e four vali d quarter s o f dat a fo r eac h o f thre e ou t o f the four year s studied .

1 8possibilit yo f elevate d ai r lea d level s withi n the quarterl yperiod wa s no t expecte d t o hav e a substantia l impac t o n publi c health . However , dat a fro m recen t studie s hav e prompte d EPAt o conside r shortening the averaging time fo r th e standard . Therefore , a revie wo f ambien t lea d dat a wa s conducte d t o identif ymaximu mmonthl yan d dail yaverag e level s whic hwoul d be equivalen t t o variou s quarterl ylevels , i n term s o f the degre e o f protectio n afforde d t o th e public . Ratio s betwee n maximummonthl yconcentration s an d quarterl yaverag e concentration s wer e calculate d fo r the entir e se t o f SAROA D lea d monitors , an

d fo r thre e lea

d subgroups : poin t sourc e monitors , microscal e roadsid e monitors , an d the combinatio n o f middl e an d neighborhoo d scal e roadsid e monitors . I n addition , frequencydistribution s fo r the monthly-to-quarterl yconcentratio n rati o wer e determined . Thes e distribution s ar e show n i n Figure s 2- 5 an d 2-6 . A s thes e figure s show , the monthly-to-quarterl yconcentratio n rati o i s generall ybetwee n 1. 1 an d 1.3 , an

d seldomexceed s 2 . I f identica l number s o f sample s ar e collecte d i n al l month s o f a quarter , the theoretica l maximum monthly-to-quarterl yrati o i s 3 . Figur e 2- 3 show s a smal l peak a t 3. 0 fo r th e overal l monito r population , an d som e ratio s ove r 3 . Value s i n exces s o f th e theoretica l maximu mo f 3 can an d do resul t whe n far fewe r sample s ar e collecte d during the highes t concentratio n mont hthan durin g the othe r tw o months . Th e larges t discrepanc ybetwee n monthl yaverag e concentratio n an d quarterl yaverag e concentratio n i s i n the cas e o f poin t sourc e monitors , wher e th e averag e monthly-to-quarterl yconcentratio n rati o i s abou t 1.4 . The monthly-to-quarterl ylea d concentratio n ratio s o r microscal e an d neighborhoo d scal e monitor s ar e somewha t lowe r than the averag e rati o fo r th e monito r populatio n a s a whole . Tabl e 2- 6 present s mea n ratios , medians , distributio n peak s (modes ) an d variou s upper-limi t level s fo r the distributions . The tabl e als o give s th e correlatio n coefficien t o f the rati o wit hthe measure d averag e concentration . The lowcorrelatio n coefficient s give n i n Tabl e 2- 6 sugges t tha t ratio s studied ar e largel yindependen t o f averag e lea d concentration . Figur e 2- 7 illustrate s th e dependenc e o f maximummonthl yconcentratio n on quarterl yconcentration . Thi s figur e present s dat a fo r 50 0 monitor-quarter s selecte d randoml yfromth e 10,71 1 monitor-quarter s i n the SAROA D system . A s Figur e 2- 7 shows , th e maximum

1 92. 4

t o o c

n

- a C n ) t o 3 o ^ 2 4- 1 O J 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 i j - U ra- rV

. ' \



## • V

H Al l \ monitor s 

### 'k \ \ Poin t source s 0 . tl

_ ~"- k

" T E H— I ,•!
- 1 . 8 'Z.'Z iC

b Rati o o f monthl yt o quarterl ylead concentratio n Figur e 2-5 . Frequenc ydistributio n o f monthly-to-quarterl ylead concentratio n

rati o fo r al l lea

d monitor s an

d fo r poin t sourc e monitors .r o 9 0 8 0 - 7 i ~ 0 ) o C c u f- i

. u 3 o o o o o c C U 3 cr oi u 7 U 6 0 5 U - 4- 0 3 i i 2 0 

# f

I 

# 4 I }"' \' i Neighborhood/middl e \scal e roadsid e

1 0 

# w

\ \ Micro

- \ \ scal e \ ' , roadsid e V

/"S--.. , i : « X i j I .4

- 1 . 8 2. 2 2. 6 3 Rati o o f monthl yt o quarterl ylead concentratio n •-\~ ~ 3. 4

Figur e 2-6 . Frequenc ydistributio n o f monthly-to-quarterl ylea d concentratio n rati o fo r microscal e an

d neighborhoo d an

d middl e scal e roadsid e monitors .

T JRVGC4 8

•s 5 c 

# I I s i

— i m m 3 3 3 3 > 

# _^ ° •p- m o o 3

—i 33 

# 1 *

0- 0 " %

ac P rj i o n A

s

I ' ' 0- 5 ••I •• 3- 0 1. 0 1. 5 2- 0 2- 5 QUARTERLYflVERRGE LEfl O CON C (UG/M»*3 1 LECEN0 : SOURCE

. a O a N0NP0IN Tt\ Aa POIN T 3- 5 4. 0

Figur e 2-7 . Monthl yaverag e lea d concentratio n plotte d agains t quarterl yaverage .

2 2TABL E 2-6 . MONTHLY-TO-QUARTERL Y AVERAG E CONCENTRATIO NRATIO S FOR VARIOU S LEA

D MONITOR S CATEGORIE S

Distributio n propert y Mea n rati o Media n Distributio n pea k Al l monitor s 1.3 5 1.2 8 1.2 0 Poin t

sourc e monitor s 1.4 0 1.3 1 1.2 5 Microscal e

roadsid e monitor s 1.2 7 1.2 3 1.2 0 Neighborhoo d

scal e roadsid e monitor s 1.2 7 1.2 5 1.2 0 Uppe r limit s (on

e tailed ) 8 0 percen t 9 0 percen t 9 5 percent ' 9 8 percen t 9 9 percen t Correlatio n coefficient * 1.5 0 1.6 8 1.8 9 2.2 4 2.6 2
0.02 8 1.6 0

1.8 2 2.0 9 2.4 3 2.8 6
-0.02 1 1.3 0

1.5 6 1.7 9 1.8 0 2" . 0 0

-0.05 8 1.3 9

1.5 0 1.6 7 1.8 9 2.0 9

0.06 8 Correlatio n coefficien t o f ratio n wit hquarterl yaverag e concen tration .

TABL E 2-7 . MONTHL Y CONCENTRATIO NLIMIT S EQUIVALEN T TO THE QUARTERLY NAAQ S LEVELS , I NTERM S O F ALLOWE D AVERAG E CONCENTRATIO N

NAAQ S leve l (ug/m3 ) 0.2 5 0.5 0 0.8 0 1.0 0 1.5 0 2.0 0 2.5 0 Monthl y

Al l monitor s 0.3 4 0.6 8 .1.0 8 1.3 5 2.0 3 2.7 0 3.3 8 concentratio n

Poin t sourc e monitor s 0.3 5 0.7 0 1.1 2 1.4 1 2.1 1 2.8 1 3.5 1 equivalent s

Microscal e roadsid e monitor s 0.3 2 0.6 4 1.0 2 1.2 7 1.9 1 2.5 5 3.1 8 (ug/m3 )

Middl e an

d neighborhoo d scal e » site s 0.3 2 0.6 4 1.0 2 1.2 7 1.9 1 2.5 5 3.1 9



### 2 3P.3 9

monthl yconcentratio n i s roughl ya straigh t line functio n o f quarterl yaverag e ove r the concentratio n rang e o f greates t importance , 0 t o 1. 5 ug/m3 . Thi s confirm s tha t the rati o o f maximu mquarterl yconcentratio n t o quarterl yaverag e concentratio n i s roughl yconstan t ove r thi s range . Th e monthl yconcentratio n limi t tha t woul d offe r th e same degre e o f protection , i n term s o f the measure d averag e concentration , a s a give n quarterl ylimi t can b e calculate d fo r a give n typ e o f monito r b ysimpl y multiplyin g the quarterl ylimi t b yth e appropriat e mea n rati o from Tabl e 2-6 . Tabl e 2- 7 list s the monthl yconcentratio n limit s tha t woul d b e equivalen t t o the quarterl yNAAQ S level s currentl yunde r study . Monthl ylimit s determine d b ythe above metho d offe r th e same degre e o f protectio n a s the corresponding quarterl ylimi t i n term s o f the lon g ter m averag e (monthl yo r quarterly ) concentratio n tha t woul d b e permitted . A n alternat e metho d o f defining th e equivalenc e o f monthl yan d quarterl ylimit s i s i n term s o f the maximumshor t termconcentratio n tha t woul d b e expected , for instanc e the expecte d maximu mdail yconcentration . Th e monthl ylimi t whic h woul d give the sam e expecte d dail ymaximu ma s a give n quarterl ylimi t can b e calculate d b

ymultiplyin g the quarterl ylimi t b ythe th e mea n rati o o f maximum dail yvalu e t o quarterl yaverage , an d dividing b

yth e mea n rati o o f maximum dail yvalu e t o monthl yaverage . Tabl e 2- 8 give s ratio s o f maximumdail yvalu e i n a quarte r t o quarterl yaverage , an d maximumdail yvalu e i n a give n mont h t o monthl yaverag e fo r the variou s monito r types . Tabl e 2- 9 list s the monthl y concentratio n limit s tha t woul d b e equivalen t t o th e quarterl yNAAQ S level s currentl yunde r stud yi n term s o f the expecte d maximumdail yconcentration .

2 4• n

TABL E 2-8 . DAILY-TO-QUARTERL Y AN D DAILY-TO-MONTHLY CONCENTRATIO N FOR DIFFEREN

T MONITO R TYPE S

Sit e typ e Averag e dail y t o monthl y concentratio n rati o Averag e dail y

t o quarterl y concentratio n rati o Al l monitor s Poin t source s Microscal e roadsid e monitor s Neighborhood/middl e scal e roadsid e Maximu mdail yconcentratio n i n the quarter . Maximu mdail yconcentratio n i n the month .

TABL E 2-9 . MONTHL Y CONCENTRATIONLIMIT S EQUIVALEN T TO THE QUARTERLY NAAQ S LEVELS , INTERM S O F EXPECTE D DAILY CONCENTRATIO N

NAAQ S leve l (ug/m3 ) 0.2 5 0.5 0 0.8 0 1.0 0 1.5 0 2.0 0 2.5 0 Al l Monthl y

monitor s 0.3 5 0.7 1 1.1 3 1.4 1 2.1 2 2.8 3 3.5 4 concentratio n

Poin t sourc e monitor s 0.3 8 0.7 5 1.2 0 1.5 0 2.2 6 3.0 1 3.7 6 equivalent s

Microscal e roadsid e monitor s 0.3 3 0.6 6 1.0 5 1.3 2 1.9 8 2.6 4 3.3 0 (ug/m3 )

Middl e an

d neighborhoo d scal f isite s 0.3 3 0.6 7 1.0 7 1.3 4 2.0 1 2.6 8 3.3 5

2 5P.4 1

3 . MOBIL E SOURC E AMBIEN T IMPACT S AN

D COST S

I n 1973 , EPApromulgate d regulation s requiring the phasin g dow n o f th e us e o f alky l lea

d antiknoc k additive s i n gasoline . Thes e regulation s wer e revise d i n 198 2 an

d i n 1983 ; the mos t recen t rule , issued i n Marc h1985 , set s a standard o f 0.1 0 gram s o f lea d pe r gallo n o f leaded gasolin e (gplg) , effective January1 , 1986. * A s a resul t o f thes e phasedow n regulations , the us e o f lea d gasolin e additive s i n the U.S . wa s reduce d fro mabou t 18 0 gigagram s (Gg ) i n 197 4 t o abou t 5 5 Gg i n 1982, 2 > 3 an d i s expecte d t o b e reduced t o abou t 3 G g (27 . o f the 197 4 amount ) i n 1986.-'

- Correspondingly , lea d concentration s nea r roadway s hav e bee n reduce d dramaticall ysinc e 197 4 an d ar e expecte d t o b e reduce d furthe r i n the future , especiall yi f a tota l ban on leaded gasolin e being considere d fo r 198 8 i s pu t int o effect . Th e res t o f thi s chapte r detail s the dat a an d technique s use d t o predic t the ambien t impact s o f mobil e sourc e lea d emissions , the method s use d t o conside r the interactio n o f mobil e an d stationar

ysourc e lea

d emissions , an

d the cost s o f the lea d phasedow

n program . T o determin e whethe r mobil e sourc e emission s alon e woul d caus e exceedence s o f an yalternative NAAQ S levels , the uppe r limit s o f mobil e sourc e ambien t impact s wer e projecte d fo r 199 0 an d 1995 . I n addition , mea n mobil e sourc e ambien t impact s wer e predicte d for 199 0 an d 1995 , t o determin e the approximat e contributio n o f mobil e source s t o concentration s i n the vicinit yo f poin t source s o f lead . Thes e prediction s wer e mad e b

yfirs t quantifying the relationshi p betwee n pas t trend s i n roadsid e concentration s an d lea d additiv e use , an

d the n combining thi s informatio n wit hprojection s o f futur e lea d additive use . The uppe r limi t o f ambien t lea

d impact s fro

mmobil e sources , assumin g tha t leaded gasolin e i s no t banne d an

d contain s 0.1 0 gplg , i s projecte d t o be 0.1 5 ug/m 3 i n 1990 , an d 0.1 3 ug/m 3 i n 1995 . Thus , becaus e thes e value s ar e les s tha n th e lowes t NAAQ S alternativ e being considere d (0.2 5 ug/m 3 ) an d woul d b e eve n lowe r i f leaded gasolin e wer e banned , mobil e sourc e emission s b ythemselve s ar e no t expecte d t o excee d whateve r ne wstandard i s set . However , mobil e sourc e emission s ma y

2 6JM 2 •'"T l

contribut e t o exceedence s i n the vicinitie s o f urba n poin t sources . The averag e contributio n o f mobil e sourc e emission s t o th e lea d concentratio n nea r a poin t sourc e i n 199 0 wa s estimate d t o b e betwee n 0.0 5 ug/m 3 an d 0.0 2 ug/m 3 fo r the 0.1 0 gpl g standard , o r betwee n 0.0 2 ug/m 3 an d 0.0 1 ug/m 3 i f a tota l ba n o n leaded gasolin e wer e imposed . 3. 1 CURREN

T AMBIEN

T IMPACT S FROM MOBIL E SOURCE S Regulation s promulgate d b yEP Ai n 198 0 requir e that , beginning i n 1981 , ambien t lea

d impact s fro

mmobil e source s b e monitore d i n an yurbanize d are a wit ha populatio n greate r than 500,000 . The primar yobjective fo r Nationa l Ai r Monitoring Station s (NAMS ) i n sucharea s i s t o monito r i n the location s wher e the populatio n exposure s ar e expecte d t o be the highest , consisten t wit h the averaging tim

e o f the NAAQS . Fo r monitoring ambien t lea d concentrations , NAM S siting criteri a requir e (at a minimum ) i n eachurba n are a (1 ) a microscal e o r middl e scal e statio n locate d i n the are a o f expecte d maximu m concentrations , an

d (2 ) a neighborhoo d scal e statio n located i n a n are a tha t combine s poo r ai r qualit ywit hhighpopulatio n density , bu t tha t i s no t necessaril yan are a o f expecte d maximu mconcentrations . Bot ho f thes e station s ar e t o b e locate d adjacen t t o a roadwa ywit han averag e dail ytraffi c volum e (ADT ) greate r than 30,00 0 vehicle s pe r day . Eac ho f the thre e type s o f station s mentione d above represent s a differen t spatia l scale :

miscroscale--define s the concentration s i n ai r volume s associate d wit h are a dimension s ranging fro msevera l meter s u

p t o abou t 10 0 meters ; middl e scale--define s the concentratio n typica l o f area s u p t o severa l cit yblock s i n siz e wit hdimension s ranging fro mabou t 10 0 meter s t o 0. 5 kilometer ; neighborhoo d scale--define s concentration s withi n som e extende d are a o f the cit ytha t ha s relativel yunifor mlan d us e wit hdimension s i n the 0. 5 t o 4. 0 kilometer s range . Currently , 11 5 NAM S hav e bee n approve d fo r lead , including 3 2 microscale , 2 8 "middl e scale , an d 5 5 neighborhoo d scal e sites . Table s 3-1 , 3-2 , an d 3- 3 2 7

### TABLE 3-1 . SIT E PARAMETERS AN

D AMBIEN T LEA D DAT AFO R SELECTE D MICROSCALE NAMS *

DsancsasasaaaannanittBaein i 8 BS j 8 9 B S HBIHUC I 0 9 I S B3B3B8B9R B C 9 CSSSBSB S B S B O I S S 3 0 3 B l B E M l £ 3 10 8 C3 I B B Bi d B3C 3 E 3 C 3 B9E*3 B8E3C S 18 ) B O B 8 C 8 B 8 Ef l ECE B E I S 3 S I B 3 8QQE3B 3 C 3 2



### Sit e numbe r Prob e heigh t (meters ) 2 5 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 6 3 4 4 3 3

a t io n Av g . roadwa y

volum e (100 0 vehicle s pe r da y 3 0 2 5 10 0 10 4 7 5 6 4 3 5 6 9 9 7 3 3 7 8 15 0 1 5 13 2 3 6 6 4 1 6 D i stanc e

t o roa d (meters ) 9 6 1 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 7 7 1 4 7 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 4 9 1 5 5 Annua l

averag e concentration , 198 3 (ug/m3 ) 0.8 6 0.7 0 1.1 3 1.0 2 0.4 0 0.4 4 0.5 1 0.6 3 0.7 3 0.7 4 0.6 4 0.7 3 0.4 4 1.2 2 0.3 6 1.2 2 1.3 0 0.7 7 0.3 1 Maximu m

quarter1 y concentration | 198 3 (ug/m3 ) 1.0 4 1 . 1 0 1.3 9 1 . 1 5 0.4 3 0.6 0 0.5 9 0.7 0 0.8 7 0.9 5 0.6 9 0.9 0 0.5 0 1.3 7 0.4 1 1.3 0 1.5 0 0.9 1 0.3 5 t o 0 0 

### 0103B0028B0 1 05390000110 1 100860024GO 1 101960084H0 1 151780009H0 1 210120041F0 1 220240002F0 1 2430B0004F0 1 310960002F0 1 320040022H0 2 330660017F0 1 3346B0052F0 1 37220001BF0 2 381460082F0 1 397140047H0 2 402140003F0 1 451700027F0 1 Mea n valu e Sampl e std

. deviatio n BIBaP'IH8lt3'jS8nnBlBSBilBBaB>f8IBfl'BIBfl M 

### *0nl ysite s wit h fou r quarter s o- f dat a -fo

r 198 3 wer e included . I BB I B B 8 H M D

B B 8 K B B 8 K B B* tBf l U B C

U B 9 E 3 B l H B

O B l B S B l

^TABL E 3-2 . SIT E PARAMETER S AN D AMBIEN T LEA

D DAT AFO R SELECTE D MIDDL E SCAL E NAMS *

I B S B 3 UE B O E 3 B B B B 8 8 E 3 E 3 83 1 E S US 3 B S B B B S B B n 

### Avg . roadwa y

volum e (100 0 Distanc e vehicle s t o roa d pe r da y(meters ) smmamsamtnKiaBammmsBtsawaisivBatmmmBimamwaKavsaa



### Sit e numbe r 030600017G0 1 056980004I0 1 05716000110 1 09002002710 1 101840001G0 1 141220026H0 1 222160007F0 1 261040002G0 1 262380002H0 1 402160004F0 1

, o 410300007F0 1 "° 451310029H0 1 451B80003F0 1 4518B0023F0 1 512200099F0 1 Prob e heigh t (meters ) 4 4 4 1 0 4 8 4 1 3 6 4 5 7 7 6 1 3 Annua l averag e concentration , 1983 <ug/m3 ) 0.7 0 0.3 4 0.2 8 0.2 3 0.3 1 0.4 5 0.7 6 0.3 5 0.2 1 0.4 7 0.6 9 0.2 9 0.6 0 0.7 0 0.2 9 0.4 4 0 . 1 9 Ma n i mu m

quarterl y concentration , 19B 3 <ug/m3 ) 1.0 8 0.4 4 0.3 5 0.3 2 0.4 1 0.5 2 0.9 9 0.4 0 0.3 3 0.5 6 0.9 2 0.3 7 1 . 0 0 0.9 0 0.3 2 0.5 9 0.2 9 1 9 1 0 1 3 3 4 3 8 17 7 8 1 5 3 1 4 1 2 9 0 7 9 1 3 7 0 1 6 2 5

1 4 1 9 3 3 3 7 1 3 5 1 4 3 5 6 1 6 2 3 2 4 2 1 5 0 2 8 Mea n valu e Sampl e std . deviatio n

B B B B l B S B l B B B S B S B B B l B S B B B S B 8 B 8 B B B M B S B S B B B l t nB B B B B S B B B B B S B l B 3 B S B B B B B S B S B S B B B B B 3 C 3 B B B B S 3 B S B S B S BSE S B S B 3 C 3 I B B l B S B S S B 

### *0nl ysite s wit h fou r quarter s o f dat a fo r 198 3 wer e included .TABL E 3-3 . SIT E PARAMETER S AN D AMBIEN T LEA D DAT AFO R SELECTE D NEIGHBORHOO D SCAL E NAMS * BSmBfljKaBtSB*Bn2BKSOSB3 1 E 3 IB S B B B B S B BIB B B

Sit e numbe r 030600013Q0 1 05278000110 1 05418010310 1 05653500110 1 05686000410 1 141220052H0 1 151520014H0 1 152040038H0 1 172340001F0 1 220380002F0 1 222160011F0 1 26003000 1 G O 1 2B1BB0019G0 1 312320003F0 1 320040019H0 1 3346B0079F0 1 372200033F0 1 3B14600B0F0 1 390400002G0 1 397140049H0 1 402160003F0 1 410300017F0 1 451700010G0 1 434570034F0 1 4B3240005F0 1 Prob e heigh t (meters ) 1 3 6 1 3 7 9 4 1 0 1 5 3 1 2 1 4 4 1 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 4 3 . B 

## a 1 4

. - 3 I S 9 t B B B B l B S B B B S B S B B B S B B B B B UB S M S Avg . roadwa y volum e (100 0 vehicle s pe r da y M S B B B B B S B S B8BSBS8 B B3 B Distanc e t o roa d (meters ) B B S I B B l B B B S U B B B B B B S B S B B B l B B B S B S E B B O B S B H B 3 B X B B E S B B B S B S B S B B B S Q C B

Annua l averag e concentration , 1983 (ug/m3 ) Maximu m quarterl y concentrat i on , 198 3 (ug/m3 )

U J O I B 2 4 9 1 8 5 14 0 2 5 7 0 1 1 7 5 4 6 3 3 6 4 3 3 1 3 0 9 1 9 2 7 7 3 4 9 12 3 8 5 0 4 3 13 0

8 7 3 8 1 5 12 0 30 0 8 3 B O 15 0 10 6 10 0 8 1 9 2 1 2 11 7 40 0 15 0 9 5 13 0 10 0 15 2 3 2 10 0 10 3 Mea n valu e Sampl e std . deviatio n 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 . O i 0 .• 3 6 2 1 6 0 3 0 2 6 4 9 .3 0 3 B .14 3 1 .4 2 2 4 0 9 3 9 3 5 3 6 1 3 2 1 2 2 4 6 1 9 4 2 2 1 4 0 1 7 3 0 1 3 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 . 5 4 3 0 9 0 5 0 2 9 5 7 3 9 4 7 1 5 4 0 5 5 2 9 1 0 4 2 4 9 4 7 1 4 2 8 2 3 5 7 2 3 6 0 3 0 6 0 2 4 4 0 I B *Qnl ysite s wit h fou r quarter s o f dat a fo r 19B3 wer e included .P.4 6

summariz e ambien t dat a fo r monitor s tha t had complet e dat a ( 4 quarters ) for 1983 . Fo r eac hsite , annua l averag e an d maximu

mquarterl yconcentration s ar e given , a s wel l 3 s physica l sit e characteristics . Concentratio n dat a ar e summarize d wit hmean s an d standard deviations . 3. 2 PROJECTE D AMBIEN T LEA D IMPACT S FROM MOBIL E SOURCE S
The firs t step i n predicting futur e ambien t lea d concentration s fro mth e projecte d amoun t o f lea d additive s burne d i n gasolin e i s t o mode l the pas t relationshi p betwee n thes e tw o variables . Sectio n 3.2. 1 discusse s the us e o f literatur e informatio n an d availabl e monitoring dat a i n defining the variables , an

d introduce s tw

o technique s use d t o quantif ythe relationship s betwee n them . Section s 3.2. 2 an d 3.2. 3 detai l the applicatio n o f thes e tw o technique s t o predic t ambien t lea d concentration s fo r 199 0 an d 1995 . 3.2. 1 Definitio n o f Variable s an d Genera l Methodologie s

T o calculat e the tota l annua l amoun t o f lea d burne d i n gasolin e (th e independen t variable ) i n the calenda r year s 197 4 throug h1983 , informatio n on averag e gasolin e lea d content s reporte d t o EPAb yrefiner s ws s combine d wit h Departmen t o f Energ yfigure s on tota l U.S . gasolin e consumption . Tabl e 3- 4 present s thi s informatio n a s wel l a s reference s an d detail s on calculations . Two separat e indicator s o f the tren d i n ambien t lea

d concentration s wer e chose n a s dependen t variables : the highes t quarterl yaverag e concentratio n fo r a give n calenda r year , an d als o the annua l averag e concentration . Figur e 3- 1 show s quarterl yaverag e an d annua l averag e concentration s a t on e neighborhoo d scal e sit e sinc e 197 4 (nea r the star t o f the lea d phasedow

n program) . Th e concentratio n fluctuate s seasonally , bu t ther e i s a genera l downwar d trend , illustrate d b ythe line highlighting the maximu mquarterl y average s an

d b yth e lin e connecting the annua l averages . Fo r comparison , Figur e 3- 2 show s the downwar d tren d i n tota l lea

d burne d i n gasolin e pe r year , relativ e t o 197 4 = 1. 0 (se e Tabl e 3-4) .

3 1~ yrr r- r'1FVT" * 

### V

z 5 2 i - <

rZ k l U z 2. 0 o o o < tn

- 1 U l a "J . < H a •> * it i o « 5 •* - < > -

_ i u j 1. 0 l c rQUA 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 ^ MAXIMU M CALENDA R QUARTER S

^ CALENDA R QUARTER S

^ ANNUA L AVERAGE S



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

### ' * . \ •\ . ' ••' \ s O : •\ 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-> » 197 5 —

• I976- * 197 7 - > 1978 - 1979 - YEA R 198 0 -*•

1981- •1982- * 1983 - Figur e 3-1 . Quarterl yan d annua l averag e ambien t lea d concentration s a t NAM S 030600013G0 1

Figur e 3-2 . Relativ e tota l lea d burne d i n gasolin e (197 4 - 1.0 )

3 2Maximu mquarterl yaverag e (MQA ) an d annua l averag e (AA ) lea d concentration s fo r the calenda r year s betwee n 197 4 an d 198 3 wer e compile d for al l curren t NAMS . Fo r an ygive n monitor , however , onl ythos e year s durin g whic hal l dat a me t SAROA D summarizatio n criteri a (OAQP S Guidelin e 1.2-040 , Vol . 3 , Sec . 2.3.0 ) wer e include d i n the study ; thi s eliminate d man y site-year s o f data . Two technique s wer e use d t o describ e th e pas t relationshi p betwee n th e variable s an

d the n t o projec t futur e ambien t lea d concentration s fro m projecte d lead-in-gasoline : regressio n analysi s an d rati o analysis . Applying ordinaryleas t square s regressio n analysi s t o dat a fro mpas t year s produce s a mode l o f the form :

A A(or MQA ) = P 0 + Pi(GASPB )
wher e P 0 an

d p ^ ar e th e regressio n coefficient s (intercep t an d slope , respectively ) o f a straigh t line , an d GASP B represent s the annua l lea d burne d i n gasoline . Thus , onc e the coefficient s ar e known , annua l averag e o r maximu m quarterl yconcentration s ca n b e predicte d b ysubstitutin

g int o the equatio n the projecte d amoun t o f lea d burne d i n a give n futur e year . If , however , the intercep t i s equa l t o zero , the n a secon d method , rati o analysis , can b e applied . I n thi s case , th e followin

g equatio n describe s the relationshi p betwee n the variables :

A A(or MQA ) = C • (GASPB )
or : A

A(or MQA ) = C . GASP B wher e C i s a direct-proportionalit yconstant , representing th e valu e o f th

e rati o o f the independen t an d dependen t variables . Azer o intercept , implyin g negligibl e backgroun d concentration s i n the absenc e o f lea d i n gasoline , make s sens e fo r thi s analysi s fo r tw o reasons . Backgroun d concentration s can b e cause d b

ypoin t sourc e contribution s o r b yre-entrainmen t o f lea d fro m contaminate d roadsid e dust . However , the NAM S chose n for thi s analysi s ar e

•? 3 3 :monitor s fo r mobil e source s o f lead , an d ar e no t affecte d b ypoin t source s o f lead . I n addition , b y1990 , the leve l o f lea d i n gasolin e wil l hav e bee n ver y low(0.1 0 gpl g maximum ) fo r four years , implyin g tha t contaminatio n o f roadsid e dus t (an

d therefor e lea

d re-entrainment ) wil l be minimal . Thus , intuitively , a zer o intercep t an d the us e o f rati o analysi s appea r t o b e a bette r choic e than regressio n analysis . 3.2. 2 Applicatio n o f Regressio n Analysi s
The bes t monitorin g site s fo r us e i n regressio n analysi s wer e thos e wit h dat a extending bac k int o the mid-1970's , becaus e thes e showclearl ythe downwar d tren

d i n ambien t lea

d concentration s ove r time . However , onl ysi x NAMS-approve d site s hav e suc hdata , providing a tota l o f tw o set s o f 3 2 observation s eac ht o b e use d i n conjunctio n wit hthe dat a on annua l gasolin e lea

d burne d (GASPB ) give n i n Tabl e 3-4 . The relationship s betwee n tota l lea

d burne d i n gasolin e an d the maximu

mquarterl yconcentration s for eac h o f the si x site s fro m197 4 t o 198 2 ar e show n i n Figur e 3-3 ; eac hsite' s data , an

d al l sit e dat a combine d a s well , showan apparen t correlatio n betwee n the two variables . I f annua l averag e concentration s wer e graphed i n plac e o f maximu mquarterl yconcentrations , a simila r plo t woul d result . Using the two 32-observatio n datasets , tw o simpl e linea r regression s o f the for mgive n i n Sectio n 3.2. 1 wer e derived . The evaluative mode l statistic s (R 2 an d the standard erro r o f the estimate , Sy/ X ) indicated fairl ygood models , bu t the residual s plot s showed pronounce d heteroskedasticit y (nonhomogeneit yo f variance , increasing a s th e valu e o f GASP B increased) ; thi s i s a violatio n o f a n OL S regressio n assumption , an d implie s tha t calculate d confidenc e limit s an d significanc e test s do no t apply . T o correc t th e heteroskedasticity , al l value s o f A A(or MQA ) an

d GASP B wer e divide d b yth e GASP B value s ( a commo n correctio n technique) , a ne wregressio n wa s ru n using thes e transforme d value s (e.g. , [AA/GASPB ] = P 0 + Pifl/GASPB]) , th e equatio n the n multiplie d throug hb yGASP B t o retur n th e variable s t o thei r origina l metric s (i.e. , A

A= p 0 [GASPB ] + P ^ - - not e tha t the coefficient s revers e places) , an

d the evaluativ e statistic s calculate d b yhand . Thi s yielde d th e following tw

o equations : 3 4P.5 0 

# 1

TABL E 3-4 . LEA

D BURNE D INGASOLINE

• — " • •'- , • '

Yea r 197 4 197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 Gasolin e Usag e

(100 0 bbl/day) a Leade d Unleade d
653 7 0 N AN

A 5424 e 155 4 520 1 197 6 489 1 252 1 423 6 279 8 351 2 306 7 332 4 326 4 313 0 340 9 297 5 364 7 Tota l
653 7 667 5 697 8 717 7 741 2 703 4 657 9 658 8 653 9 662 2 Averag e

lea d conten t o f leaded fuel(g/gal) b

1.7 9 1.8 2 2.0 2 2.0 3 1.9 4 1.8 5 1.3 8 1.1 5 1.2 4 1.1 4 Tota l

lea d burned (Gg) c 

### 17 9 174 d 

### 16 8 16 2 14 6 12 1 7 5 5 9 6 0 5 3 Tota l lea d burned relative t o 197 4 

### 1. 0 0.9 7 0.9 4 0.9 1 0.8 2 0.6 8 0.4 2 0.3 3 0,3 4 0.3 0

N A- no t availabl e

a Referenc e 3 ; 1 bb l = 4 2 gallons . ^Referenc e 2 .
c I n calculating the tota l amoun t o f lead compound s burned , the averag e lea d conten t i n unleade d gasolin e wa s take n a s 0.01 4 grams/gallo n (Referenc e 2) . ^Becaus e dat a on leade d an d unleade d fue l us e i n 197 5 ar e unavailable , the tota l amoun t o f lea d burne d i n gasolin e i n 197 5 wa s estimate d b ytakin g th e averag e o f the 197 4 an d 197 6 values .
e Leade d an

d unleade d fue l us e rate s i n 197 6 wer e estimate d base d on nin e month s o f dat a (Referenc e 4) .

3 5• f W-.P"-^ r . T T .-. r P.5 1

uya n (1982 1 

### 3. 0 (1980 )

t o c = L z o r - < t r 

### S 2. 0 o z o ( J a < I d Ui < U J > <

c r Ui i tr < o

X < 2 

## w i i (1979 ) (19771(1973 ) 11978 ) I97Q (1974 )

-0S1T EI D 030600013G0 1 -AS1T EI D 056400003F0 I

- • SIT EI D 05653500110 1

- XSIT EI D 05680000 4 10 1

• - + SIT EI D 05698000 4 10 1 —VS1T EI D 10176000 1 G0 1



### J L 

## I I t1 

## 1. 0 0 0. 5 '.... , RELATIV E TOTA L LEA D BURNE D I N GASOLIN E (197 4 = 1 ) Figur e 3-3 . Maximu mquarterl y lea dconcentratio na t NAM S site s a s a functio no f

tota l lea dburne di ngasoline
.

3 6A A= 0.067 1 + 0.0070 6 (GASPB ) R 2 = 0.8 1 (s~ = 0.068 ) (s fi = 0.001 ) s v / „ = 0.2 1 

### P P n y 

### = 3 2 MQ A= 0.11 9 + 0.010 1 (GASPB ) R 2 = 0.7 0 (s 8 = 0.124 ) (s ft = 0.002 ) s v / „ = 0.3 8 

### P P n y 

### = 3 2
The residual s plot s appeare d randoml yscattere d an d heteroskedasticit ywa s eliminated . Using thes e regressio n equation s t o predic t futur e ambien t lea d concentration s appeare d questionable , though , becaus e a t the lo wlevel s o f GASP B projecte d fo r 199 0 an d 1995 , the intercep t woul d contribut e muc hmor e t o th e predicte d A

Ao r MQAvalu e tha

n the (p^[GASPB] ) term ; tha t is , the lead-in-gasolin e contributio n t o roadsid e lea d level s woul d b e lowe r than th e unexplaine d contribution . Thi s i s counter-intuitive , a s discusse d i n Sectio n 3.2.1 . Using rati o analysi s instead o f regressio n analysi s t o mak e predictions , however , hinge s on establishing tha t the intercep t i s no t significantl ydifferen t fro mzero , a s discusse d below . The standard error s (s« ) fo r bot hintercept s wer e ver yhigh(relative t o the magnitude s o f the intercept s themselves) , indicating tha t the intercept s migh t b e equa l t o zero . Using the nul l hypothesi s H 0 :P 0 = 0 an d the alternativ e hypothesi s H^ : p 0 > 0 , prob-value s wer e calculate d an d looke d u

p i n a Student 1 s- t table . Fo r bot hmodels , th e prob-valu e la

ybetwee n 0.1 5 an

d 0.20 , implying tha t H 0 coul d b e rejecte d wit honl y80Z-857 . confidenc e (th e usua l leve l fo r rejectio n i s 95 % confidence) . Thus , a s expected , the hypothesi s tha t the intercep t i s differen t fro mzer o i s no t accepted . A n intercep t equa l t o zer o i s substantiate d bot hstatisticall yan d intuitively . 3.2. 3 Applicatio n o f Rati o Analysi s

A s discusse d i n Sectio n 3.2.1 , rati o analysi s i s base d on thes e tw o equations :

A

A= C ] GASP B 3 7MQA= C : GASP B

I n orde r t o bas e calculatio n o f C ^ an d C 2 on a s muc hpas t dat a a s possible , the 32-observation/6-sit e datase t use d i n regressio n analysi s wa s expande d t o includ e al l site-year s tha t ha d four complet e quarter s o f data . Eac ho f th e fina l MQAan

d A Adataset s consiste d o f 12 2 observation s representing the year s 197 5 through198 3 (primaril y1981-1983) , an d the followin

g number s o f each sit e type : 1 7 microscal e site s (2 8 observations) , 1 8 middl e scal e site s (3 2 observations) , an d 2 8 neighborhoo d scal e site s (6 2 observations) . Thes e dat a ar e give n i n Appendi x B . Calculatio n o f Cj ^ an d C 2 an d o f projecte d lead-in-gasolin e us e allow s estimatio n o f mea n futur e mobil e sourc e impacts , confidenc e level s fo r thes e means , an

d uppe r limit s (99thpercentiles ) fo r futur e maximu mquarterl yan

d annua l averag e concentrations . The firs t ste p i n calculating C ^ an d C £ wa s t o creat e two ne wdataset s (on e fo r AA , on e fo r MQA ) b ydividing eac hvalu e o f MQAo r A

Ab ythe corresponding GASP B leve l fo r the yea r o f measurement, , producing two set s o f ratios . Creating histogram s fro mthes e tw

o 122-poin t set s produce d log-norma l distributions . T o calculat e distributio n propertie s an d confidenc e intervals , the dat a wer e transforme d t o produc e norma l distribution s b

ytaking the natura l log o f eac hratio . Next , the geometri c mea n an d standard deviatio n o f eac hIn-transforme d distributio n o f ratio s wa s calculated , along wit han uppe r limi t o n eac hmea n rati o (using : x + [t.Ql I • [s/Vn]) , an

d the 99t hpercentil e o f eac hdistributio n o f ratio s (using : x + [t.Ol l * [s])» Then , t o pu t th e means , uppe r limit s on means , an d percentile s bac k int o thei r origina l metric , the invers e log s o f eac ho f thes e wer e taken . Finally , t o arriv e a t value s fo r A Ao r MQ A(an d uppe r limit s an

d percentiles ) fo r 199 0 an d 1995 , eac hrati o wa s then multiplie d b ythe predicte d value s o f GASP B fo r thos e years . Predicte d GASP B wa s calculate d a s i n Tabl e 3-4 , using value s give n i n the Federa l Register * on projecte d gasolin e usage , an

d assuming tha t leaded gasolin e woul d no t b e phase d out , woul d contai n 0.1 0 gplg , tha t n o fue l switching woul d occur , an d tha t unleade d gasolin e woul d contai n 0.01 4 gpg lead . Value s o f GASP B an d predicte d futur e 3 8P.5 4

impact s fo r al l site s type s combine d ( a sor t o f nationa l average ) ar e give n in the firs t tw

o column s o f Tabl e 3-5 . T o allowsite-type-specifi c predictions , th e tw o 122-observatio n dataset s wer e eac hspli t int o thre e subsets—on e fo r microscal e site s (2 8 points) , one fo r middl e scal e site s (3 2 points) , an d on e for neighborhoo d scal e site s (6 2 points)--an

d th e same manipulation s a s describe d above wer e performe d on eac h subset . The resulting prediction s ar e show n i n th e firs t tw

o column s o f Tabl e 3-5 . Finally , al l calculation s wer e repeated , using the level s o f GASP B tha t woul d resul t i f the us e o f leaded gasolin e wer e banned , an d al l gasolin e used containe d 0.01 4 gpg lead. 1 Result s ar e give n i n the las t tw o column s o f Tabl e 3-5 . T o determin e whethe r mobil e sourc e emission s alon e woul d caus e exceedence s o f an yNAAQS , onl ythe prediction s fo r maximu mquarterl yconcentration s wer e considered , a s thes e represen t mor e o f a worst-cas e situatio n tha t the annua l averag e values ; specifically , the 99t hpercentil e prediction s for microscal e site s wer e used : 0.1 5 ug/m- * fo r 1990 , 0.1 3 ug/nr * for 1995 . Thus , becaus e thes e value s ar e les s than the lowes t NAAQ S alternative being considere d (0.2 5 ug/m-*) , mobil e sourc e emission s b ythemselve s ar e no t expecte d t o exceed whateve r ne wstandard i s set . 3. 3 INTERACTIO

NO F MOBIL E SOURC E AN D STATIONAR

Y SOURC E AMBIEN

T LEA D IMPACT S

I n projecting the attainmen t statu s o f area s wit hbot hmobil e an d stationarysource s o f lea d emissions , a backgroun d mobil e sourc e ambien t impac t wa s adde d t o the projecte d impac t fo r stationar ysources . A s show n i n Tabl e 3-5 , the averag e mobil e sourc e impac t i n 199 0 coul d rang e fro m 0.0 1 ug/m ^ (th

e valu e calculate d fo r neighborhoo d scal e sites , wit ha ban on leaded gasoline ) t o 0.0 5 ug/m- * (calculate d for microscal e sites , wit hleaded gasolin e i n us e an

d containing 0.1 0 gplg) . I n analyzing NAAQ S cost s fo r stationar

ysources , cost s wer e studie d fo r bot hthe highes t mean mobil e sourc e impac t (0.0 5 ug/m- 3 ) an d the lowes t mea n impac t (0.0 1 ug/up) . I t shoul d be note d that , i n bot ho f thes e cases , mea n mobil e sourc e impact s wer e used , no t uppe r o r lowe r limits . Clearly , som e urba n source s ar e located i n area s wher e 3 9TABL E 3-5 . PROJECTE D LEA D I N GASOLIN

E AN D AMBIEN

T LEA D IMPACT

S FRO M MOBIL E SOURCE

S Projections

(leade d oasolin e at 0.10 " gplg ) Projection s (tota l ba no

n leadedgasoline ) 199 0 199 5 199 0 199 5 Lea dburne di ngasolin e (Gg/yr ) Mobil e sourc e aabien t iiipact s (ug/a3 ) Annua l averag e value s Al l sit e type s coabine d Hsa niapac t Uppe r liai t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n Microscal e site s onl y Hsa nimpac t Uooe r Hal t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n Middl e scal e site s onl y Mea niapac t Uooe r hal t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n Neighborhoo dscal e site s onl y Mea niapac t Uooe r liai t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n 2. B 2.

4 1.

4 1.

4

0.02 1 0.02 7 0.076
0.039 0.04 7 0.1 1
0.02 1 0.025 0.055
0.01 6 0.01 8 0.046 0.01 3

0.023 0.066
0.033 0.04 1 0.092
0.01 8 0.02 1 0.04 7
0.01 4 0.01 6 0.039 0.01 1

0.01 3 0.038
0.01 9 0.02 4 0.053
0.01 0 0.01 2 0.028
0.008 1 0.009 2 0.023 0.01 1

0.01 3 0.03 8
0.01 9 0.02 4 0.053
0.01 0 0.01 2 0.028
0.008 1 0.009 2 0.023 Maxim aquarterly value s Al lsit e types coabine

d Mea niapac t Uppe r liai t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n Microscal e site s onl y Mea niapac t Uooe r liai t onaean * 99t hpercentil e o f distributio n Middl e scal e site s onl y Mea niIDac t Uooe r liai t onaean * 99t hpercentil e of distributio n Neighborhoo dscal e site s onl y Mea niapact Uooe rliai to naean* 99t h percentil e o

f distributio n 0.029 0.035 0.1 1
0.048 0.059 0.1 5
0.02 9 0.035 0.085
0.02 2 0.02 5 0.07 0 0.02

4 0.030 0.09 1
0.04 1 0.05 1 0.1 3
0.02 4 0.030 0.073
0.01 8 0.02 1 0.060 0.01 4

0.01 8 0.053
0.02 4 0.030 0.07 3
0.01 4 0.01 7 0.043
0.01 1 0.01 2 0.035 0.01 4

0.01 8 0.053
0.024 0.030 0.073
0.01 4 0.01 7 0.043
0.01 1 0.01 2 0.035 *99 J confidenc

e 4 0the backgroun d wil l b e highe r than the 0.0 5 ug/m 3 average , whil e other s ar e locate d i n area s wher e the backgroun d mayb e lowe r than 0.0 1 ug/m 3

. Thus , th e us e o f a constan t background concentratio n result s i n som e inaccuracyi n th

e cos t estimate s fo r individua l sources . However , i t i s no t expecte d t o bia s the overal l nationwid e cos t results . 3. 4 LEA

D PHASEDOW

NCOST S

I n 1982 , the origina l 197 3 lea d phasedow

n rule s wer e replace d wit h regulation s requiring tha t the concentratio n o f lea d i n leaded gasolin e b e les s than 1. 1 gram s pe r gallon. 5 Th e annua l operating cost s attributabl e t o thes e regulation s wer e estimate d a t 11 0 millio n dollar s (198 4 dollars) , o r abou t 0. 2 cent s pe r gallo n o f leaded gasoline. ^ i n Januar y1986 , the 1. 1 gpl g rul e wil l b e replace d b ya 0.1 0 gpl g standard , whic hwil l creat e additiona l refining costs . Initially , the additiona l cost s i n 198 6 wil l b e 62 0 millio n dollar s pe r yea r (198 4 dollars) , o r 0. 6 cent s pe r leaded gallon ; b y1990 , the

y wil l drop t o 48 0 millio n dollar s pe r year , an d the estimate d additiona l cost s fo r 199 5 ar e 44 0 millio n dollar s (0. 4 cent s pe r gallon) . Fo r compariso n o f mobil e sourc e cost s wit hstationar ysourc e cost s i n thi s study , the cost s attributabl e t o the 198 6 phasedow n rule s wer e used . The bes t metho d ove r an d abov e the lea

d phasedow

n progra

mfo r reducing mobil e sourc e lea

d emission s i n area s wit hhighlea d concentration s woul d probabl yb e loca l restriction s o n leade d gasolin e sales . Anothe r potentia l metho d woul d b e t o lowe r the speed limit s i n thes e areas . A t lowe r speeds , mos t lea

d i n gasolin e i s deposite d i n the engin e an d exhaus t syste

minstead o f being emitte d t o the atmosphere . The fractio n o f lea d emitte d increase s wit h vehicl e speed. " Fo r a numbe r o f reasons , mobil e sourc e lea d emissio n control s ove r an d abov e the lea

d phasedow

n progra

mwer e no t considere d i n developing cost s o f complianc e fo r the lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Becaus e the averag e mobil e sourc e backgroun

d aroun d poin t source s shoul d no t exceed abou t 0.0 5 ug/nH , the mobil e sourc e contributio n t o an exceedenc e o f the alternativ e level s woul d b e mino r i n compariso n wit hthe poin t sourc e contribution . Fo r instance , fo r the 0.2 5 ug/m 3 alternative , the contributio n o f mobil e sourc e backgroun d t o an y 4 1 • 'violatio n woul d b e a t mos t abou t 2 0 percent . I n general , mos t poin t source s

tha t mus t b e controlle d t o mee t an alternativ e NAAQ S woul d requir e contro l eve n i n the absenc e o f mobil e sourc e background . Also , wher e stationar y sourc e control s ar e applied , the ygenerall yar e efficien t enoug hs o tha t the

y reduc e the ambien t impac t fro mthe sourc e t o a leve l a t whic hther e i s no t a n exceedenc e eve n whe n the backgroun d i s added . Finally , i f mobil e sourc e control s wer e t o b e used , the scal e a t whic h the control s woul d b e require d woul d necessaril yb e muc hlarge r than the scal e o f the exceedenc e t o b e eliminated . A s show n i n Sectio n 2 , the scal e o f an exceedenc e i n the vicinit yo f a stationar ysourc e i s typicall yles s tha n 1 kilometer . However , automobile s being operate d i n the vicinit yo f the sourc e wil l typicall yhav e come fro mlocation s ten s o f kilometer s fro mthe source , an

d mayhav e come fro mlocation s hundred s o f kilometer s away . Thus , fo r example , t o effec t the eliminatio n o f an exceedenc e i n an are a on e squar e kilomete r i n size , contro l o f mobil e source s o r leaded gasolin e sale s mayb e require d fo r ten s o r hundred s o f squar e kilometers .

4 2

### 1 1

REFERENCE S FOR SECTIO N3
1 . Regulatio n o f Fuel s an d Fue l Additives : Federa l Register . 50:9386-9399 . Marc h 7 , 1985 . 2 . SupplementaryGuideline s fo r Lead Implementatio n Plans—Update d Projection s fo r Moto r Vehicl e Lead Emission s (EPA-450/2-83-002) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . Marc h 1983 . 3 . Energ

yInformatio n Administration . Petroleu mSuppl yMonthly . DOE/EIA-010 9 (83/03) , U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Washington , D.C . Decembe r 1984 . 4 . Energ

yInformatio n Administration . Petroleu mSuppl yMonthly . DOE/EIA-010 9 (78/05) , U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Washington , D.C . May1978 . 5 . Regulatio n o f Fuel s an d Fue l Additives . Federa l Register . 47:49322-49334 . Octobe r 29 , 1982 . 6 . SupplementaryGuideline s fo r Lead Implementatio n Plan s (EPA-450/2-78-038) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , N.C . Augus t 1978 . p . 153 .

4 3-•*-•-- " ' " *H T '

4 . GENERALIZE DSTUD YMETHODOLOGIE S

Cost s o f attainin g the alternativ e leadNAAQ S level s wer e develope dfo r eac ho f th e industrie s tha t woul db e affecte db y an y o f th e NAAQ S alternatives . Thes e wer e the nsumme dt o obtai nnationwid e costs . Fo r eac h affecte dindustry , on e o f tw o basi c methodologie s wa s use dt o obtai ncontro l costs , dependin g o nthe natur e o f th e industry . Fo r the primary lea dsmeltin g an dalky l leadmanufacturin g industries , whic hcompris e a smal l numbe r o f plants , eac hplan t wa s considere dseparately . Fo r large r industries , .a "mode l plant " approac hwa s used . I nthi s approach , plant s wer e groupe dint o classe s base do nsize , proces s type , contro l status , an dothe r characteristics . Cost s o r othe r impact s fo r a clas s o f plant s wer e the nestimate dbase do nthe operatin g parameter s o f a "model " o r hypothetica l plan t considere dt o b e representativ e o f th e class . A numbe r o f step s wer e involve di ndevelopin g cost s bot hfo r industrie s comprisin g smal l number s o f plant s andfo r large r industries . First , th e affecte dindustrie s wer e categorize dandcontro l strategie s t o b e use da s baseline s i ndevelopin g th e attainmen t cost s wer e identified . Ambien t impact s wer e the ndetermine dfo r th e baseline emissions , an demissio nreduction s necessar y

t o attai nth e variou s NAAQ S alternative s wer e quantified . Contro l option s wer e identifie dfo r eac hemissio nsourc e an dcost s were develope dfo r eac hoption . Control s t o achieve eac hNAAQ S alternativ e a t the lowes t ne t annualize dcos t wer e the nselecte dfro m among th e availabl e options , an dthe cost s o f thes e selecte dcontro l system s wer e summedt o obtai ntota l plan t an d industry

cost s o f attainment . Thus , a s note di nSectio n1 , the cost s develope di nthi s stud y ar e th e leas t ne t annualize dcost s o f attainin g th e variou s NAAQ S alternatives . I t i s importan t t o not e tha t thi s stud y ha s bee nconducte dove r a perio d o f severa l year s beginnin g i nlat e 1982 . Th e origina l stud y pla nha s bee n extende dt o includ e th e additiona l lo w leve l NAAQ S alternative s o f 0.2 5 an d 0. 5 ug/m 3 , an

dt o includ e a stud y o f th e effec t o f averagin g tim e o nmeasure d 

### 4 5P.6 0

lea dconcentration . Thus , th e stud y i s base

do ndat a o

f a number of ages . For instance , th

e dat a use

dt o identify

affecte

dindustrie s are fro m 1982 . Th e analysi s o f major lead-emittin g sourc e categorie s i s base do ndat a fro

m lat e 1983 . Finally , th e analysi s o

f smaller emitter s i s base do ndat a fro

m lat e 1984 . Th

e followin

g discussio

ndeal s withbasi c methodologie s an d assumption s use

dinthi s study . Specifi c methodologie s an dassumptions use

d i nth e analysi s o

f individua l industria l categorie s are presente din Sectio n5 . 4. 1 IDENTIFICATIO

N O F AFFECTEDINDUSTR

YCATEGORIE S Industr y categorie s whic hwoul dbe affecte dunder th

e lea dNAAQ S alternative s wer e identifie db y tw o methods . First , industrie s associate d withexceedence s of th e current NAAQ S of 1. 5 micrograms/cubi c mete r (ug/m 3 ) woul dbe affecte

db y that alternativ

e an db y th e lower alternativ

e level s of 0.2 5 ug/m 3 , 0. 5 ug/m 3 , 0. 8 ug/m3 an d1. 0 ug/m 3 . Second , a s part o

f th e exposur e assessmen t fo r th e lea dRegulator

y Impac t Analysi s (RIA) , dispersio n modelin g wa s conducte

dfo r al l significant stationar y lea dsource s i nte

n urbanize

dareas . Significant source s o f lea demissions wer e identifie dusing , th e Decembe r 198 2 update s of th e Nationa l Emission s Dat a Syste m (NEDS ) an

dth e Hazardou s an

dTrac e Emission s Syste m (HATREMS ) computerize ddat a files . Th

e te nurbanizedarea s studie dare :

• Butte , Montana ; • Chicago , Illinois ; • Dallas , Texas ; • Minneapolis-St . Paul , Minnesota ; • Nashville , Tennessee ; • Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ; • Phoenix , Arizona ; • Tampa , Florida ; • Washington , D.C ; an d • Waterbury , Connecticut .



### 4 6P.6 1

Th e result s o f thes e studie s wer e use d extensivel yi n identifying industrie s whic hwoul d b e affecte d unde r the NAAQ S alternatives . Severa l industrie s whic hwer e foun d t o b e majo r sourc e categorie s i n th e lea d emissio n inventory(Sectio n 2 ) currentl yar e no t associate d wit h exceedence s o f th e 1. 5 ug/m 3 NAAQS . Fo r coa l an d residua l oi l combustion , overal l emission s o f lead ar e substantial ; howeve r projection s base d o n lead emissio n factor s an d pas t EPAmodeling studie s fo r othe r pollutant s indicate d tha t ambien t level s cause d b yindividua l member s o f thes e categorie s o r disperse d group s ar e verylow . Therefore , thes e industrie s wer e eliminate d a s significan t contributor s t o ambien t lead level s prio r t o th e modeling studie s fo r urbanize d areas . Othe r industrie s identifie d a s majo r source s o f tota l lea d emission s wer e no t include d i n the modelin g fo r urbanize d area s becaus e source s wer e no t locate d i n th e te n area s studied . Fo r thes e industries , dispersio n modelin g wa s conducted , or , wher e available , ambien t dat a fromnearb ymonitor s wer e reviewe d t o determin e whethe r source s coul d b e affecte d b yan yo f th e NAAQ S alternatives . Th e following industr ycategorie s wer e identifie d a s potentiall yaffecte d unde r on e o r mor e o f the lead NAAQ S alternatives :

• primar

ylea d smelting ;

• secondar

ylead smelting ;

• lea d or e processing ;

• lead-aci d batterymanufacture ;

• alky l lea

d manufacture ;

• gra yiro n cupolas ;

• alloystee l electri c ar c furnaces ;

• carbo n stee l electri c ar c furnaces ;

• iro n or e sintering ;

• bras s an

d bronz e production ; an d

• primarycoppe r smelting .



### 4 7Sourc e categorie s tha t wer e studie db y on e or mor e o f th e abov e methods , an d tha t ar e no t expecte dt o be affecte dunde r an y o f th e lea dNAAQ S alternative s include :

• coppe r or e processing ;

• Portlan dcemen t production ; • wast e oi l combustion ; • municipa l wast e incineration ; • sewag e sludg e incineration ; • leade dglas s manufacture ; • residua l oi l combustion ; and

• coa l combustion . 4. 2 SELECTION

OF BASELIN E CONTRO L STRATEGIE S

Th e baselin e contro l strategy fo r a particula r industr y i s the se t o f control s use da s a benchmar k fo r th e estimatio no f th e impact s o f a regulator y actio no nth e industry . Fo r thi s study , the baseline control s selecte dwer e .-. - thos e tha t ar e currentl y i nuse . Thes e control s includ e thos e installe dt o attai nthe curren t NAAQS s fo r lead , particulat e matter , andsulfu r dioxide , an dthos e installe dt o mee t ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS) . Becaus e the Stat e implementatio nproces s fo r the curren t lea dNAAQ S i s no t ye t complete , baseline control s i nmany case s do no t achieve the curren t standard . Baselin e control s ar e no t necessaril y th e sam e fo r al l member s o f a n affecte dindustry , bu t ma y represen t a distributio no f control s acros s th e industry . Control s currentl y i nus e depen do nplan t siz e an dplan t location . Fo r instance , control s var y dependin g o nwhethe r a plan t i s i na nattainmen t o r a non-attainmen t are a fo r particulat e matter , an do nth

e degre e o f completio no f th e implementatio nproces s fo r the lea dNAAQ S i nth e Stat e wher e th e plan t i s sited . Fo r new plants , baselin e contro l wa s take na s the degree o f contro l require db y NSPS .



### 4 8

### V:

4. 3 ESTIMATION

O F BASELIN E AMBIENT IMPACT S
Ambien t leadimpact s wer e estimate dfo r source s wit hbaselin e control s i n orde r t o determin e th e degre e o f emissio ncontro l tha t woul dbe require dunde r eac ho f th e leadNAAQ S alternatives . Th e baselin e ambien t impact s wer e take n a s th e maximu

m averag e lea dconcentratio nresultin g fro m plan t emission s fo r a calenda r quarter .
4.3. 1 Dispersio nModelin g Atmospheri c dispersio nmodelin g result s wer e th e majo r inpu t i nth e estimatio no f baselin e ambien t impacts . A s note di nSectio n4.1 , atmospheri c dispersio nmodelin g wa s conducte dfo r al l significan t source s o f leadi nte n urbanize dareas . Fo r eac ho f thes e urbanize dareas , th e are a covere dinclude d al l o f th e countie s associate dwit hth e urbanize dare a i nth e 197 0 census.- * Modelin g wa s conducte dfo r eac hplan t i nthe primar y leadsmelting an d leadalky l manufactur e sourc e categories . I naddition , dispersio nmodelin g wa s performe dfo r a hypothetica l lea dor e processin g plant , tw o hypothetica l leade dglas s plants , a commercia l heatin g uni t fire db y wast e crankcas e oil , a sewag e sludg e incinerator , an da municipa l wast e incinerator . Th e Industria l Sourc e Comple x- Shor t Term (ISCST ) mode l wa s use di nmos t cases . The mode l wa s chose nove r th e ISC-Lon g Term (ISCLT ) mode l t o allo w the assessmen t o f shor t ter m exposure s a s wel l a s long ter m exposures . Wher e ISCS T wa s used , terrai neffect s wer e neglected . Fo r fiv e primary lead smelters , terrai neffect s wer e considere dimportan t an dth e COMPLE XI mode l wa s use dt o tak e the m int o account . Thes e model s wer e use dto predict , fo r eac hsource , th e dail y averag e ambien t lea dimpac t a t a narra y o f receptor s fo r a ful l year . The recepto r networkwa s radial , wit h16 0 receptor s i n1 6 direction s i n22.5 ° sectors , a t distance s o f 0.2 , 0.3 , 0.5 , 0.7 , 1 , 2 , 5 , 10 , an d2 0 kilometer s fro m the source . Fo r th e modelin g i nthe urbanize dareas , receptor s wer e als o locate da t the centroid s o f al l o f th e censu s tracts . Th e dail y averag e concentration s wer e average dt o obtai nimpact s fo r fou r calenda r quarters .



### 4 9Fo r th e urbanize d are a exposur e assessmen t modeling , the meteorologica l

dat a use d wer e fro

maerometri c station s i n thos e cities . Fo r modeling o f individua l sources , th e dat a use d wer e fro mth e closes t statio n fo r whic hdat a hav e bee n preprocesse d fo r shor t ter mEPAdispersio n models , an d wer e th e mos t recen t dat a available . Intermediat e plum e ris e wa s assumed , an d rura l o r urba n setting s fo r th e model s wer e selecte d a s appropriat e base d o n plan t location . Stac k downwas heffect s wer e take n int o account , using NED S stac k parameters . Building wak e effect s wer e include d fo r emission s release d a t roo f level . Generally , building dimension s wer e assume d t o b e 5 0 meter s b y 5 0 meter s by1 0 meter s high . Particl e depositio n wa s take n int o accoun t wher e larg e particle s wer e known t o b e emitted . Generally , however , particl e siz e dat a wer e no t available , s o particl e depositio n effect s wer e no t included . 4.3. 2 Emission s Dat a use d i n Modeling Studie s Th e primarysourc e o f emission s dat a fo r dispersio n modeling wa s th e computerize d NED S file . Stac k parameter s wer e take n directl yfro mNEDS . Wher e possible , lea d emissio n rate s wer e calculate d usin g th e operating rate s give n i n NED S an

d lead emissio n factor s publishe d b yEPA.2> 3 Fo r lead-aci d batterymanufactur e an d alky l lead additiv e manufacture , th e NED S file s wer e incomplete . Fo r primaryan d secondar

ylea d smelters , fugitiv e emission s generall yar e no t addresse d i n NEDS . Fo r thes e four sourc e categorie s emission s dat a wer e develope d frompublishe d source s an d contact s wit hEPARegiona l Offic e personne l an d Stat e an

d loca l agenc ypersonnel . Th e derivatio n o f mode l input s fo r thes e categorie s i s describe d i n furthe r detai l i n Sectio n 5 . 4.3. 3 Baselin e Ambien t Impact s fo r Industrie s wit hSmal l Number s o f Plant s

Fo r the lead alky l manufactur e an d primarylea

d smelting industries , whic hcompris e a smal l numbe r o f plants , cost s wer e develope d o n a plant-by-plan t basis . Therefore , baselin e ambien t impact s wer e estimate d for eac hindividua l plant . I n the cas e o f lead alky l manufacture , the baselin e impact s wer e estimate d base d entirel yo n dispersio n modelin g results . Th e 

### 5 0baselin e impac t fo r eac hplan t wa s take nsimpl y a s th e maximum

quarterl y averag e concentratio npredicte db y dispersio nmodelin g fo r fou r calenda r quarters . Fo r fou r o f th e fiv e primar y leadsmelters , ambien t leadconcentratio n dat a ar e available fro m nearby

monitors . Fo r tw o o f thes e smelters , sourc e apportionmen t studie s hav e bee nconducte da s par t o f implementatio nprogram s fo r th e curren t leadNAAQS . Dat a fro m ambien t monitor s andsourc e apportionmen t studie s wer e use di nplac e o f or i nconjunctio nwit hdispersio n modelin g result s t o predic t baselin e ambien t impact s fo r primary lea d smelters . The developmen t o f baseline ambien t impact s fo r primar y lead smelter s i s discusse di nmor e detai l i nSectio n5 .
4.3. 4 Baselin e Ambien t Impact s fo r Industrie s wit hLarg e Number s o f Plant s

Fo r mos t o f th e industrie s considere di nthi s study , dispersio nmodelin g wa s conducte dfo r onl y a smal l se t o f sources . Thus , i t wa s necessar y t o extrapolat e thes e modelin g result s t o estimate ambien t impact s fo r th e entire populatio no f plants . Thi s wa s don e usin g source-recepto r coefficients . A source-recepto r coefficien t i s define da s th e ambien t impac t o f a sourc e : divide db

y it s emissio nrate . I nthi s study , the source-recepto r coefficien t fo r a give nsourc e wa s calculate db y dividin g th e maximum quarterl y concentratio nb

y the emissio nrat e fo r th e source . Source-recepto r coefficient s wer e calculate dfo r source s modele di nthe te nurbanize darea s liste dabove . I t wa s assume dtha t th e maximum ambien t impac t occur s outsid e th e plan t boundary . Fo r lead-emittin g industrie s comprisin g larg e number s o f plants , mos t plant s ar e locate di nurba narea s wher e larg e tract s o f propert y ar e expensiv e an

ddifficul t t o obtain . These plant s wer e assume dt o ow npropert y t o a t mos t 15 0 meter s awa y fro m th e actua l emissio nsources . Becaus e th e maximu m lea dimpact s predicte db y dispersio nmodelin g occu r a t distance s o f 200-30 0 meters , eve nfo r lo w lying sources , thes e maxim a generall y wil l be outsid e plan t property . Source-recepto r coefficient s generall y var y wit hemissio nheight , emissio ntemperature , andothe r stac kparameters ; an dwit hatmospheri c 

### 5 1conditions . Th e coefficien t i s independen t o f emissio nrate . I t i s als o

independen t o f plan t siz e i f stac kvelocit y an dtemperatur e ar e independen t o f plan t size . Fo r a give ntyp e o f operatio ni na give nindustry , stac k parameter s generall y ar e simila r acros s th e industry . Therefore , muc ho £ th e variatio ni nth e source-recepto r coefficien t fo r a give ntyp e o f operatio n result s fro

m variation s i nmeteorologica l parameter s fro m sit e t o site . Nevertheless , difference s o f u pt o a norde r o f magnitud e wer e foundi n source-recepto r coefficient s fo r variou s operations . Fo r eac htyp e o f lea demittin g operation , th e mea nsource-recepto r coefficien t wa s calculate dfo r al l operation s o f tha t typ e modele di nthe te n citie s assessed . Ambien t impact s fo r source s outsid e th e te ncitie s wer e the n calculate dby

multiplyin g thei r emissio nrate s b y the appropriat e source-recepto r coefficients . Source-recepto r coefficient s use dfor thi s analysi s ar e give ni nSectio n5 . 4. 4 SOURC E INTERACTIONS

Fo r othe r criteri a pollutants , th e interactio no f emission s fro m larg e number s o f plant s i s a majo r caus e o f exceedence s o f ambien t standards . Becaus e o f th e distance s tha t separat e majo r leademittin g sources , however , interactio no f emission s fro m separat e plant s were no t considere di nthi s study . Figur e 4- 1 show s th e lea dconcentration s predicte db y dispersio nmodelin g fo r censu s trac t centroid s i ncentra l Dallas , Texas . Th e figur e doe s no t includ e th e entir e Dalla s metropolita narea , bu t show s onl y th e larges t concentratio no f emissio nsources . Plant s Gan dH ar e secondary leadsmelter s an dPlan t A

i s a Portlan dcemen t plant . Plant s Gan dH ar e larg e source s o f leademissions , eac ho f whic hcause s significan t exceedence s o f the curren t standar do f 1. 5 ug/m 3 . Althoug hth e source s ar e les s tha n1 0 kilometer s apart , ther e i s no sourc e interaction . I f the emission s fro m plant s Gan

dH were lowere dsufficientl y t o resul t i nattainmen t o f th e curren t standard , the plant s woul dhav e t o b e move dt o withi nabou t 0. 5 kilomete r fo r th e interactio no f thei r emission s t o caus e a violation .



### 5 2Base do nth e studie s conducte di nthe te ncitie s fo r th e exposur e

assessment , source s generall y ar e no t locate di nsuc hclos e proximity . I n fact , i nal l o f th e modelin g don e fo r th e te ncities , no instance s o f interaction s betwee nsource s wer e foundtha t woul dno t be eliminate dwhe nbot h source s are brough t int o attainmen t a t thei r plan t boundaries . A stud y wa s als o made o f al l source s o f leademission s nationwide, usin g th e NED S files . Th e sourc e recepto r coefficient s discusse di nth e previou s subsectio nwer e use di nconjunctio nwit hNED S dat a o nparticulat e emissio n rate s andpublishe ddat a o nparticulat e lea dconcentration s t o estimat e th e maximu m ambien t lea dimpac t fro m eac hlead-emissio nsource . Fo r eac hpai r o f plant s locate dwithi nte nkilometer s o f one another , th e ambien t impac t o f eac hplan t wa s estimate da t the sit e o f maximu m ambien t impac t fo r the other . Thi s wa s don e b

y assumin g tha t the ambien t impac t fo r eac hplan t decline s a s th e reciproca l o f th e distanc e fro m th e plan t andusin g plan t locatio ndat a give ni nNEDS . Sourc e interactio nwa s considere dt o occu r wher e th e ambien t impac t fro

m one plan t make s mor e tha na te npercen t difference i nthe emissio n reductio nnecessar y fo r anothe r plan t t o achieve a nNAAQS . B y thi s method , sourc e interactio nwa s foundt o occu r fo r a tota l o f onl y fiv e plant s nationwid e fo r th e 0. 5 ug/m 3 alternativ e an dnone fo r th e 2. 5 ug/m 3 alternative . The neglec t o f sourc e interaction s i nthi s stud y ma y have resulte di n som e underestimatio no f tota l costs . Because o f th e absenc e o f sourc e interactio ni nth e exposure assessmen t citie s an dth e smal l numbe r o f interactin g pair s detecte di nth e cursor y NED S analysis , thi s bia s i s no t expecte dt o b e substantia l i ncompariso nwit hth e tota l contro l costs . Interaction s o f stationar y sourc e emission s wit hmobil e sourc e emission s wer e take nint o accoun t fo r urba nsource s b y superimposin g th e stationar y sourc e impact s o na calculate daverag e mobil e sourc e backgroun dlevel . Two mobil e sourc e backgroun dconcentratio nlevel s wer e studied , 0.0 1 ug/m 3 an d 0.0 5 ug/m 3 . Thes e level s cove r the rang e o f possibl e averag e mobil e sourc e background s whic hmigh t exis t i n1985 . Th e derivatio no f thes e averag e backgroun dlevel s wa s base do ntw o possibl e fina l forms fo r lead-in-gasolin e phasedow

nrules . Detail s o f the calculation s ar e give ni nSectio n3 .



### 5 34. 5 IDENTIFICATIO N O F INDIVIDUA L AFFECTE DSOURCE S

Usin g baselin e ambien t impact s an dbackgroun dambien t lea d concentrations , individua l plant s wer e identifie dtha t woul db e affecte dunde r the variou s lea dNAAQ S alternatives . Fo r mos t o f th e affecte dindustries , individua l plant s wer e studie dt o determin e thei r statu s wit hrespec t t o th e variou s NAAQ S alternatives . I ngeneral , a plan t wa s determin e t o b e affecte d unde r a give nalternativ e i f th e su m o f th e baselin e ambien t leadimpac t an d th e backgroun dconcentratio nfro m mobil e source s aroundthe plan t woul dexcee d th e give nalternative .
4. 6 CONTRO L STRATEGYIDENTIFICATIO N AN DCOSTING

Fo r th e majo r lead-emittin g source s i nthe industr y categorie s identifie d a s potentiall y

affecte dunde r the variou s NAAQ S alternatives , emissio ncontro l option s wer e develope dan dassessed . Thes e wer e develope dusin g a numbe r o f sources . Majo r source s use di ncontro l optio ndevelopmen t include :

• State implementatio nplan s fo r th e curren t lea dNAAQS ;

• backgroun dinformatio ndocument s (BIDs ) for NSP S for particulate matte r an

dlea demissions ;

• contro l technique s guideline (CTG ) document s fo r particulat e matte r emissions ; an

d

• othe r EP A

publications .

Contro l efficiencie s fo r th e variou s option s als o wer e obtaine dfro m thes e sources . Fo r eac hcontro l technique , capita l an dannualize dcost s wer e developed . Th e approac htake ni nthe developmen t o f thes e cost s depende do nth e numbe r o f plant s i nth e affecte dindustr y category . Fo r th e primar y leadsmeltin g an d alky l lea dgasoline additiv e manufactur e categories , whic hcompris e a smal l numbe r o f plants , contro l cost s wer e estimate dfo r eac hindividua l plant . Fo r large r industries , contro l cost s wer e develope dfo r mode l plants , representin g variou s siz e categories . 

### 5 4

# 7 1

4.6. 1 Capita l Cost s

Th e tw o component s o f tota l capita l cost s are direc t capita l cost s and indirec t capita l costs . Direc t capita l cost s includ e suc hitems a s equipmen t purchas e costs , cost s o f instrumentatio nandproces s controls , ductwor kan d piping , electrica l work , structura l andfoundatio ncosts , an ddirec t labo r cost s associate dwit hconstructio nandinstallation . Indirec t capita l cost s includ e suc hitem s a s engineerin g anddesig ncosts , contracto r fees , supervisor y

expenses , an

dstartupandperformanc e tes t expenses . Capita l cos t estimate s fo r the contro l option s include di neac hcontro l techniqu e wer e develope dfro

m cos t dat a obtaine dfro m manufacturer s o f emissio ncontro l equipment , industr y trad e associations , governmen t publications , an dstandar d cos t references . The standar dcos t reference s use di ndevelopin g th e cos t estimate s included :

• "Estimatin g Cost s o f Ai r Pollutio nContro l Systems. " (Part s I throug hXI) . Chemica l Engineering ; an d

• Gard , Inc . Capita l an dOperatin g Cost s o f Selecte dAi r Pollutio n Contro l System s (EPA-450/5-80-002) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n. Agency , Researc hTriangle Park , N.C , Decembe r 1978 .

BID s an

dCTG s fo r particulat e matte r emission s wer e als o majo r source s o f cos t information . A nadditiona l componen t o f capita l cos t associate dwit hth e installatio n o f emissio ncontro l technique s a t a nexistin g plan t i s th e retrofi t cos t penalty . Thi s cost , whic hca nrange from 1 0 t o 7 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost , i s du e t o spac e limitation s an dadditiona l structura l an d ductwork requirement s fo r a retrofitte dcontro l system . 4.6. 2 Annualize dCost s

Th e tw o component s o f tota l annualize dcost s ar e annualize dcapita l charge s an

dannua l operatin g an dmaintenanc e cost s fo r the contro l options . Annualize dcapita l charge s includ e capita l recover y o f th e tota l capita l cost s
5 5andth e miscellaneou s capita l charg e o f taxes , insurance , an dadministration . Th e capita l recover y facto r use di s a functio no f th e interes t rat e selecte d an dth e genera l lif e expectanc y o f th e piec e o f equipmen t or capita l investment . Th e interes t rat e tha t wa s use di ndevelopin g th e capita l recover y

factor s i s 1 0 percen t an dth e averag e lif e o f th e contro l option s include di neac hcontro l techniqu e range s fro m 5 t o 2 5 years . I naddition , a standar dfacto r o f 4 percen t o f th e installe dcapita l cos t wa s use dfo r th e miscellaneou s annua l charg e o f taxes , insurance , an dadministration . The annua l operatin g an dmaintenanc e cost s includ e suc hitem s a s operatin g an d maintenanc e labor , utilities , fue l usage , repai r materials , an doverhead . A s wit hth e capita l costs , the tota l annualize dcos t estimate s fo r eac hcontro l optio nwer e develope dusin g cos t dat a obtaine dfro m th e industry

trad e associations , governmen t reports , standar dcos t references , equipmen t manufacturers , an darchitectura l an dengineerin g firms . I nadditio nt o tota l annualize dcost s fo r the contro l option s i neac h contro l techniqu e considered , annua l saving s an dcost s associate dwit hproduc t recover y

o r disposa l wer e estimated . Produc t recover y i s achieve dwhe na n emissio ncontro l device capture s a pollutan t tha t ca nb e recycle dint o th e productio nprocess , sol da s a byproduct , o r use da s fue l o r a fue l substitute . Thes e annualize dsaving s ar e presente da s a separat e componen t o f th e cos t analysis , bu t ar e deducte dfro m the tota l annualize dcos t o f eac hrespectiv e contro l techniqu e t o giv e a fina l tota l ne t annualize dcos t or savings . I t shoul dbe note dtha t annualize dsaving s du e t o produc t recovery , lik e othe r capita l an

dannualize dcos t components , do no t necessaril y appl y t o al l contro l technique s o r options . 4.6. 3 Cos t Updatin g

Al l cost s o r saving s (capita l an dannualized ) were update dt o Octobe r 198 4 dollars . Capita l cost s wer e update dusin g the appropriat e facto r fro m the Chemica l Engineerin g Plan t Index . Annua l operatin g an dmaintenance cost s were calculate dfro m thes e update dcapita l cost s an dth e Octobe r 198 4 cost s fo r suc hitem s a s utilitie s an dlabor . Annualize dcost s wer e update di ntw o step s wher e possible . The annualize dcapita l charge s wer e recalculate dusin g 

### 5 6P.7 1

the update dcapita l costs . Annua l operatio nan dmaintenanc e cost s wer e the n update dusin g th e appropriat e cos t indices . I nsom e o f th e source s used , the annualize dcost s ar e no t broke ndow nsuc htha t thi s methodolog y coul dbe employed . I nthes e cases , th e Chemica l Engineerin g Plan t Indexwa s use dt o escalate the entir e annualize dcosts .
4. 7 ESTIMATION

O F LOWES T COS T O F ATTAINMEN T FOREXISTINGSOURCE S Althoug hinteraction s o f emission s fro m tw o o r mor e separat e plant s are no t a majo r caus e o f NAAQ S exceedences , exceedence s ofte nar e cause db y th e interactio no f differen t emissio nsource s a t a singl e plant . Thus , fo r plant s wit ha numbe r o f lead-emissio noperations , variou s contro l strategie s wer e compare dt o determin e whic hwoul dachiev e eac hNAAQ S alternativ e a t th e leas t cost .
4.7. 1 Leas t Cos t Contro l Strategie s

Th e developmen t o f a leas t cos t contro l strategy fo r a particula r plan t . bega nwit ha revie w o f th e ambien t impac t nea r the plant . .First , the poin t wit hth e highes t ambien t impac t aroundth e plan t wa s found . Thi s impac t wa s the napportione dbetwee nth e variou s source s a t the plan t base do ndispersio n modelin g result s o r othe r sourc e apportionmen t studies . Th e resul t wa s a se t o f ambien t impact s fo r individua l source s withi nthe plant . Whe na contro l strategy

i s applie dt o a source , th e percentag e reductio ni nth e ambien t impac t fro

m the source i s th e sam e a s the percentag e reductio ni nth e emissio n rate . Fo r eac hNAAQ S alternative , a targe t leve l wa s define db y subtractin g th e mobil e sourc e backgroun dfro m th e NAAQS . Thi s targe t represent s th e leve l below whic hth e tota l plan t impac t woul dhav e t o b e reduce di norde r fo r the NAAQ S alternativ e t o b e attained . Emissio nreduction s wer e the napplie dt o the individua l sourc e ambien t impact s i norde r t o identif y the se t o f contro l option s tha t woul dreduc e the tota l plan t impac t below the targe t leve l a t the lowes t tota l cost . Cost s use di nthi s exercis e wer e th e ne t annualize d contro l costs . Afte r th e identificatio no f the lowest-cos t control s t o attai n a particula r alternativ e a t th e poin t o f maximu m baselin e impact , controlle d

5 7impact s wer e estimate dfo r othe r receptor s t o ensur e tha t th e contro l strategy woul dresul t i nattainmen t a t al l point s aroun dth e plant . Thi s genera l methodolog y wa s use dbot hfo r individua l plant s i nth e primar y

smeltin g an

dalky l leadmanufacturin g industries , an dfor mode l plant s representin g large r industries . Afte r th e identificatio no f the least-cos t se t o f control s fo r a particula r plant , contro l cost s wer e summedfo r th e plan t t o obtai ntota l capita l an dannualize dcost s o f attainment . 4.7. 2 Contro l Cos t Aggregatio n

Fo r th e primar y

smeltin g an

dalky l leadmanufactur e sourc e categories , tota l industry-wid e cost s wer e develope dsimpl y b y summin g cost s fo r th e individua l plants . Fo r large r industries , cost s o f contro l were develope do n a mode l plan t basis , an daggregate cost s als o wer e develope dusin g a mode l plan t methodology . The firs t ste pi ndevelopin g aggregat e cost s fo r th e large r industrie s wa s t o grou pth e affecte dplant s int o classe s b y size . Th e tota l cost s o f attainmen t fo r eac hsiz e rang e wer e the ncalculate db y multiplyin g th e numbe r o f affecte dplant s i nth e range b y th e cos t o f attainmen t fo r th e mode l plan t representin g th e range . The tota l cost s fo r th e variou s siz e range s wer e the n summe dt o obtai na nindustry-wide cost . 4. 8 NEW

SOURC E COST S

4.8. 1 Industr y

Growt h

Fo r eac ho f th e industrie s identifie da s potentiall y affecte dunde r the NAAQ S alternatives , industr y growt hwa s estimate di norde r t o determin e whethe r ne w

source s wil l be buil t b y 1995 . Tabl e 4- 1 give s curren t capacit y utilizatio nan

dgrowt hrat e estimate s fo r thes e industries . Th e reference s use dt o develo pthes e estimate s andthe projectio nperiod s fo r the growt h rate s ar e als o listed . I t wa s assume dtha t whe na sourc e categor y reache s a capacit y utilizatio n o f 9 0 percent , ne w capacit y

wil l b e added . Thus , ne w capacit y

i s expecte dt o


### 5 8TABL E 4-1 . CURRENT CAPACITYUTILIZATIO N AN DGROWT H RATE S FO

RINDUSTRIE S AFFECTE DB

YTH E NAAQ S ALTERNATIVE S

Current capacity utilization (percent ) 8 3 5 0 6 8 7 5 N A 68 d N A 68 d 68 d 8 2 8 2 Estimated

growthrat e (percent / year) a 1.0-2.5 b <1. 0 3. 0 c 2-3 d 4.0 e 2-3 d 2-3 d f -1. 0 Reference s

Capacity 4 4 4, 5 7 9
— 9 9 9 9 Growt h

4, 5 4, 5 6 7 8 1 0 11,1 2 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 Projection

perio d 1978-199 0 1978-199 0 1979-198 5 1983-198 8 1983-199 0 1985-198 9 1982-198 8 1985-198 9 1985-198 9 1985-198 9 1985-198 9 v o Primar

y lea dsmeltin

g Secondar

y lea dsmeltin s Lea dor e processin

g Lead-aci dbatter

y manufactur e Alky l lea

dmanufactur e Gra y iro nproductio

n Allo y stee l electri c arc furnace s Stee l foundr

y electri c ar c furnace s Iro nan dstee l sinterin

g Bras s an

dbronz e productio n Primar y copper smeltin

g

a Excep t fo

r electri c arc furnaces , growthrate s are fo r produc t deliveries . Th e estimatedincreas e intota l lea dconsumptionrange s fro m 1. 0 t o 2. 5 percen t pe r year . Th e lowe r estimat e (Referenc e 2 ) i s th e average increas e intota l lea dconsumptionsinc e 1970 . Th e higher estimat e i s th e Burea uo f Mine s projectio no f th

e increas e i

nlea dconsumptio n throug h199 0 fro

m a 197 8 base . c Consumptio no f alky l lea di nth e U.S . i s expecte

dt o decreas e b

y ove r 9 0 percen t b y 199 0 (Sectio n3) ; wit hth

e exac t rat e dependin g o nth e fina l lea

dphasedow

nrules . Foreignexport s o f alkyl lea

dare als o expecte dt o decline . Average capacity

utilizationan

dgrowthfo

r th e iro nan dstee l industries .
e Growt hi

nproductio

ncapacity . A declin e i nbras s an

dbronz e productio ni s expecte

dove r th

e nex t severa l years .

i. > «• • ' , i. , : ib e adde dt o th e lead-aci dbatter y manufacturin g industr y beginnin g i n1990 . Ne w electri c ar c furnace s fo r th e allo y stee l industr y

currentl y

ar e bein g buil t an

dindustr y

projection s indicate thi s growt hwil l continu e throug hthe 1990s . I nthi s study , i t wa s assume dtha t th e growt hwil l continu e throug h 1995 . Fo r th e lea dsmeltin g industry , base do nth e lo w growt hprojection s fo r leadminin g andth e lo w capacit y

utilizatio nfo r secondar y leadproduction , i t wa s assume dtha t mos t o f the projecte dincreas e i nleaddemandwil l b e fille d b y secondary

lea dsmelter s rathe r tha nb y primar y

smelters . N

o new capacit y wa s projecte dfo r eithe r industr y base do ncurren t growt hestimates . 4.8. 2 Cos t Estimate s

Fo r bot hlead-aci dbatter y manufactur e an

dalloy

stee l electri c ar c furnaces , capacit y i s expecte db

y industr y

source s t o be adde db y constructio n o f ne w larg e facilitie s rathe r tha nby expansio no f existin g facilities. ' »•*•** • Thi s i s als o assume dt o be th e cas e fo r gra y ironproductio nan dbras s and bronz e production . I nal l cases , control s require db y NSP S wil l b e sufficien t fo r attainmen t o f al l o f th e NAAQ S alternatives . Thus , the cost s o f attainmen t fo r ne w source s ar e expecte dt o be attributabl e entirel y t o NSPS .



### 6 0REFERENCE S FO RSECTIO

N 4

1 . 198 0 Censu s of Population , Volum e 1—Characteristic s of th e Population , Chapte r A—Numbe r of Inhabitants , Part s 1 to 5 2 (PC70-1-A) . U.S . Department of Commerce , Washington , D.C . 1982 . 2 . Compilatio

nof Ai r Pollutant Emissio nFactors , Thir

dEdition , an

d Supplement s 1 throug h1 4 (AP-42) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Researc hTriangl e Park , N.C . 197 7 t o 1983 . 3 . Contro l Technique s fo r Lea dEmission s (EPA-450/2-77-012) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , ResearchTriangl e Park , N.C . 1977 . 4 . Minera l Commodit y Summarie s - 1983 . U.S . Burea uo f Mines . Januar y 1983 . 5 . Th e Internationa l Competitivenes s o f th e U.S . Non-Ferrou s Smeltin g Industr y an dth e Clea nAi r Act . America nMinin g Congress . Apri l 1982 . 6 . Engineerin

g & Minin

g Journal . Marc h198 2 an dJanuar

y 1983 . . • ? 7 . Telecon . W . Battye , GCA/Techolog y Division , withR . Burkhard , Batter y Counci l Internationa l Marketin g Committee . Apri l 16 , 1983 . Growt hin th e lead-aci dbatter

y industry . 8 . Regulatio

nof Fuel s an

dFue l Additives . Federa l Register . 47:49322-49334 . Octobe r 29 , 1982 . 9 . Federa l Reserv

e Statistica l Release : Capacit y Utilization : Manufacturing , Mining , Utilities , an dIndustria l Materials . G.3(402 ) Th e Federa l Reserv

e System , Washington , D.C . Jun e 17 , 1985 . 10 . 198 5 Industria l Outlook . U.S . Department of Commerce . Januar y 1985 . 11 . Electri c Ar c Furnace s an dArgon—Oxyge nDecarburizatio nfo r Vessel s i n Stee l Industr

y - Backgroun

dInformatio

nfo r Propose

dRevisio

nt o Standard s (EPA-450/3-82-020a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , ResearchTriangl e Park , N. C 1983 . 12 . EPR I Journal . Electrica l Power ResearchInstitute . Jun e 1982 . 13 . Telecon . Michae l Clowers , GCA/Technolog y Division , withth

e Bras s an

d Bronz e Ingot Institute , Apri l 10 , 1985 .



### 6 15 . INDUSTRY-SPECIFI C STUDY METHOD S AND STUD Y RESULT S
The genera l stud

ymethodolog

ywa s describe d i n the previou s section . Becaus e o f difference s i n availabl e data , however , the stud ymethod s differed betwee n the variou s lead-emitting industries . Thi s sectio n detail s th e industry-specifi c method s use d an d present s the stud yresult s fo r eac h affecte d industry . Fo r eac hindustry , a descriptio n i s give n o f processing technique s use d an

d the competitiv e structure . Th e assume d baselin e control s an d the method s o f determining baselin e ambien t impact s ar e detailed . The control s require d t o mee t eac halternativ e NAAQ S (or t o approac hi t a s closel y a s possible ) ar e the n describe d an d cost s ar e presente d fo r the NAAQ S controls . Finally , the tota l NAAQ S cost s fo r eac hindustr yar e aggregate d t o obtai n nationwid e NAAQ S costs . 5. 1 PRIMARY LEA

D SMELTIN

G AN D REFININ

G '. . . . 5.1. 1 Proces s Description *
Th e primarysmelting o f lea d or e concentrate s (SI C 3332 ) produce s lea d meta l an

d othe r meta l byproducts . Th e four basi c productio n processe s o f primarysmelting are : sintering ; reduction ; drossing ; an d refining . Sinterjng - Lead or e concentrate s mus t b e agglomerate d an d desulfurize d prio r t o being use d a s the primar yfeed materia l i n the reductio n process . Agglomeratio n o f the lea d or e concentrate s occur s i n bedding o r blending plant s wher e the concentrat e i s mixe d wit hsulfur-fre e fluxes , sucha s lime , silica , an

d iron-bearing materials , an d pelletized . Thi s pelletize d materia l o r sinte r charg e i s loade d ont o pallet s tha t ar e attache d t o a continuou s conveyo r bel t systemi n a sinte r machine . Heate d draf t ai r i s forced throug h the moving pallets , whic har e perforate d an d slotte d t o accommodat e thi s process . Th e sinte r charg e i s heate d t o approximatel y1000° C (1800°F) , whic h i s jus t belo wit s meltin g point . Oxidatio n o f the sinte r charg e occur s a t

6 2thi s temperatur e an d sulfu r dioxid e i s released . Properl ysized sinte r i s the n sen t t o the blas t furnac e fo r reduction ; undersize d sinter , whic h usuall y result s frominsufficien t desulfurization , i s recycle d int o the sinte r process . Reductio n - Th e blas t furnac e use d i n the reductio n proces s i s a wate r jackete d shaf t furnac e supporte d b ya refractor

ybase . Pressurize d combustio n ai r i s injecte d int o the furnac e throughevenl yspaced tuyere s tha t ar e locate d nea r the furnac e base . The materia l mi x tha t i s charge d int o the blas t furnac e consist s o f sinte r (8 0 t o 9 0 percen t o f tota l charge ) metallurgica l cok e ( 8 t o 1 4 percent) , an d othe r charg e an

d recycle d material . Th e combustio n o f the metallurgica l cok e supplie s the necessarycarbo n monoxid e an d hea t t o reduc e the sinte r t o bullio n lea

d an d byproducts . Th e byproduct s include : speis s (arseni c an d antimon ycompounds) ; matt e (coppe r sulfid e an d othe r meta l sulfides) ; an d slag (silicates) . Thes e material s ar e tappe d of f fro mthe bullio n lea

d fo r furthe r processing an

d meta l recovery . Drossing - Th e bullio n lea d tha t i s tappe d fro mthe blas t furnac e i s coole d t o approximatel y370 ° t o 430° C (700 ° t o 800°F ) i n dros s kettles . I n thi s process , impuritie s sucha s copper , zinc , arsenic , an d antimon

yar e precipitate d according t o thei r solubilit ylimit s an d collecte d o n the surfac e o f bullio n lea

d a s a dross . Sulfur bearing materials , zinc , o r aluminu mmay b e adde d t o the drosse d bullio n t o furthe r reduc e it s coppe r content . Refining - I n the refining process , bullio n lea d i s cas t i n iro n kettle s an d the following refining operation s occur :

zin c combine s wit hgol d an d silve r t o for

man insolubl e intermetalli c substanc e a t operating temperature s (Parke' s Process) ; zin c i s remove d unde r vacuum ; calciu man d magnesiu

mar e adde d t o for

man insolubl e compoun d wit h bismut h(Betterso n Process) , whic hi s skimme d off ; an d sodiu mhydroxid e an

d sodiu mnitrat e ar e adde d fo r th e remova l o f remaining trace s o f meta l impurities .

6 3Th e refine d lea d produce d i s o f 99.99 0 t o 99.99 9 percen t purity . 5.1. 2 Industr

yStructure * Currently , ther e ar e five domesti c primar ylea d smelting/refining complexe s an

d on e lea

d refinery . Th e annua l primar ylea d capacit yo f thes e complexe s i s 595,00 0 Mg (656,00 0 tons) , wit hindividua l plan t capacitie s ranging fro

m76,00 0 t o 209,00 0 Mg (84,00 0 t o 230,00 0 tons) . Primarylea d productio n accounte d fo r slightl yles s tha n 5 0 percen t o f tota l domesti c lea d productio n fo r 198 2 an d thi s percentag e shoul d declin e t o aroun d 4 0 percen t b

y the yea r 200 0 a s secondarylea d smelter s increas e thei r marke t shar e (U.S . Bureau o f Mine s projections) . Thes e projection s woul d chang e i f the Bunke r Hil l smelte r i n Kellogg , Idaho , wer e t o b e restarted . Thi s smelting/refining comple x wa s close d i n 198 2 an d woul d nee d extensiv e retrofi t befor e resuming an yprimarylea

d production. 2 Fo r thi s industry , i t i s estimate d tha t n o ne w capacit ywil l b e require d through1990 . Thi s estimat e i s base d o n the low growt hprojectio n (les s tha n on e percen t pe r year ) fo r the lea d or e processing industry , whic hprovide s th e basi c feed materia l fo r primar ylea d smelters , an d the lowcapacit yutilizatio n rat e o f 5 0 percen t fo r secondar ylea d smelters , whic hleave s a larg e quantit yo f unuse d capacit yt o mee t an y increas e i n tota l lea d demand . Th e five domesti c primar ylea d smelter s ar e presentl yoperating a t 8 3 percen t o f capacit yan d mayexcee d 9 0 percen t o f capacit yduring futur e pea k deman d periods . *-» 3

5.1. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Contro l Lead-bearing particulat e i s emitte d fro mprocess , fugitive process , an d fugitive dus t source s a t primarylea d smelter s an

d refineries . Proces s emissions , sucha s thos e generate d i n furnac e smelting operations , ar e wel l controlle d throughth e us e o f extensiv e hooding an d ducting systems , high efficienc ybaghouses , an d dispersio n o f emission s fro mhighstacks . Th e fugitive emissio n contro l technique s tha t ar e utilize d i n the primarylea d smelting an

d relate d industrie s include :

6 4hooding an d ducting o f fugitiv e proces s emission s t o baghouse s o r scrubbers ; paving , traffi c control , we t suppressio n an d soi l stabilizatio n fo r unpave d hau l road s an d genera l ope n wor k areas ; an d
we t suppression , surfactants , an d enclosure s fo r stockpile s an d conveyo r systems . Du e t o the well-controlle d natur e o f proces s emissio n sources , fugitive proces s an

d fugitive dus t emissio n source s wer e the primar ysource s evaluate d fo r the installatio n o f variou s contro l technique s t o achieve the alternativ e lea d NAAQ S levels . Th e baselin e emission s an d contro l technique s use d i n thi s evaluatio n wer e thos e tha t currentl yexis t a t eac hplant . 5.1. 4 Industr

ySpecifi c Method s 5.1.4. 1 Estimatio n o f Baselin e Ambien t Impact s

Fo r the primarylea d smelting an

d refinin

g industry , the baselin e ambien t impac t wa s estimate d fo r eac hlea d sourc e a t eac hindividua l plant . Lea d emissio n parameter s use d i n the analysi s o f thi s industr ywer e base d on dat a - obtaine d throughcontact s i n lat e 198 3 wit hStat e an d federa l environmenta l agencie s an

d plan t personnel.4-1 1 Sourc e apportionmen t studie s hav e bee n mad e fo r two o f the primar ylea d smelter s i n the developmen t o f Stat e implementatio n plan s fo r the curren t lea d NAAQS.9,1 0 Thes e studie s use d chemica l an

d particl e siz e analyse s o f ambien t monito r sample s an d emissio n sample s t o apportio n ambien t lea d impact s betwee n the individua l source s a t the smelters . Th e result s o f thes e sourc e apportionment s wer e use d i n the presen t stud

ya s baselin e ambien t impact s fo r individua l sources . Fo r the othe r thre e smelter s an d the primar

yrefinery , baselin e ambien t impact s wer e estimate d using atmospheri c dispersio n modeling . Th e COMPLE X I mode l wa s use d fo r poin t sources , an d the ISCS T mode l wa s used fo r are a sources . Terrai n effect s wer e take n int o accoun t fo r poin t sources , bu t n o dispersio n model s wer e identifie d whic hcoul d includ e terrai n effect s fo r are a sources . I n eac hcase , the meteorologica l dat a inpu t t o the model s wer e th e mos t recen t availabl e preprocesse d dat a fro mthe closes t meteorologica l

6 5P.8 0

station . Th e maximu mdistanc e froman

ysmelte r t o th e neares t meteorologica l statio n wa s abou t 10 0 miles . Plan t sit e meteorologica l dat a woul d hav e bee n preferabl e t o the nearest-statio n dat a becaus e o f possibl e impact s o f terrai n o n meteorologica l parameters . Plan t sit e dat a hav e bee n gathered i n man y cases , bu t thes e dat a eithe r ar e incomplete , o r hav e onl ybee n processe d fo r long ter

mdispersio n models . Shor t ter mmodel s wer e use d i n thi s stud yi n orde r t o allowthe assessmen t o f shor t ter mexposure s a s wel l a s lon g ter m exposures . Additiona l detail s o n the genera l modeling protocol s use d i n thi s stud yar e giv e i n Sectio n 4 . Ambien t monitorin g dat a ar e availabl e fo r two o f the thre e modele d smelter s an

d fo r the primaryrefinery . Fo r on e o f the smelter s an d the refinery , thes e dat a wer e i n agreemen t wit hthe dispersio n modeling results . I n the cas e o f the othe r smelter , the concentratio n predicte d b ydispersio n modelin g a t the plan t boundarywa s abou t a facto r o f 2. 5 highe r than the concentratio n measure d a t a monitorin g sit e a t the same location . Fo r thi s plant , th e monitore d concentratio n wa s take n a s th e tota l plantwid e baselin e ambien t impact . Th e monitore d concentratio n wa s apportione d betwee n source s withi n the plan t base d o n the modelin g result s t o obtai n baselin e impact s fo r the individua l source s a t the smelter . (Thi s wa s don e fo r eac hsourc e b y multiplyin g the monitore d plan t boundaryconcentratio n b ythe rati o o f the predicte d ambien t impac t fo r the sourc e a t the boundaryt o the tota l ambien t impac t fo r the plan t a t the boundary. )
5.1.4. 2 Mobil e Sourc e Backgroun d Concentratio n

I n the tw

o smelte r sourc e apportionmen t studie s discusse d above , background lea

d concentration s fro mmobil e source s wer e measure d a t 0.3 6 ug/m 3 an d 0.2 0 ug/m 3

. Bot ho f thes e smelter s ar e locate d i n smal l cities . Th e lea d refineryi s als o locate d i n a smal l city , an d i s expecte d t o b e subjec t t o a simila r mobil e sourc e background . Whe n the lea d phasedow

n progra

mi s take n int o accoun t (usin

g th e method s give n i n Chapte r 3) , predicte d mobil e sourc e background s i n 199 0 an d 199 5 ar e les s than 0.0 3 ug/m 3 fo r thes e thre e sources . The concentratio n i s negligibl e i n compariso n wit hthe ambien t impac t o f eve n a well-controlle d lea d smelte r o r refinery . Mobil e sourc e background s aroun

d the remaining thre e smelter s i n 199 0 an d 199 5 ar e als o

6 6P.8 1

assume d t o b e negligibl e becaus e o f thei r rura l locations . Thus , i n th e identificatio n o f necessaryemissio n reduction s aroun d primar

ysmelters , the mobil e sourc e background wa s take n t o b e zer o i n al l cases . 5.1. 5 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s Usin g the result s fro mthe calculatio n o f the baselin e ambien t impact s an d background ambien t lead concentrations , individua l plant s wer e identifie d whic h woul d b e affecte d unde r the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Aplan t wa s determine d t o b e affecte d unde r a give n alternativ e i f the su mo f the baselin e ambien t impac t an d background ambien t lea d concentratio n fro mmobil e source s a t an

ypoin t outsid e the plan t boundaryexceede d the NAAQ S level . Contro l technique s tha t wer e evaluate d fo r emission s fro mfugitive proces s an d fugitiv e dus t source s included :

additiona l hooding , ducting , an d ventilatio n systems fo r produc t handling , sinte r machines , blas t furnaces , dros s kettles , an d refining operations ; replacemen t o f existing contro l system s wit hmor e efficien t systems ; an d fugitiv e dus t contro l systems , sucha s paving an d we t suppression . I n addition , the constructio n o f ne wstack s o r the extensio n o f existing stack s wer e considere d i n severa l cases . Th e heigh t increase s considere d wer e withi n the definitio n o f goo d engineering practice . The highe r stac k allowe d fo r bette r dispersio n o f primarylea d plan t emissions . Acquisitio n o f lan d aroun d th e smelter s wa s als o considere d a s a possibl e mean s o f attaining NAAQ S alternatives . Becaus e a polic yo n i t i s unde r revie wwithi n EPA , an d becaus e o f the locatio n o f publi c roadway s o r urba n area s nea r plan t property , lan d acquisitio n wa s judge d no t t o b e a feasibl e mean s o f compliance .

*EPAi s currentl yrevising it s stac k heigh t regulation s i n respons e t o a cour t ruling (Sierr a Clu

b vs . EPA , 719.2 d 43 6 (D.C . Cir . 1983) , cert , denied , 5 2 U.S.L.W . 392 9 (U.S . Jul y2 , 1984)) . Credi t i n dispersio n modeling fo r stac k heigh t increases , eve n u p t o good engineering practic e mayb e affecte d b yth e forthcoming EPArulemaking o n thi s matter . Estimate d cost s o f attainmen t for primarysmelter s shoul d b e interprete d i n ligh t o f thi s possibility . 

### 6 7P.8 2

Based o n result s o f dispersio n modeling , contro l strategie s wer e develope d fo r eac ho f the si x domesti c primarylea d plants . The contro l strategie s includ e the contro l technique s an d relate d cost s tha t woul d be necessaryfor eac hsmelte r t o attai n eac ho f the lea d NAAQ S alternative s unde r consideration . Thes e control s ar e i n additio n t o existing emissio n contro l techniques . Th e cost s associate d wit hthe contro l technique s evaluate d ar e presente d i n Appendi x D . I n addition , the tota l industr ycapita l an

d annualize d contro l cost s associate d wit hachieving eachlea d NAAQ S alternative ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-1 . N o contro l strategie s wer e identifie d whic h showed attainmen t o f the lowes t NAAQ S level s al l si x o f the primarylea d plants . Give n the uncertaintie s i n emission s estimate s an d dispersio n modeling , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowe r NAAQ S level s using the identifie d controls . I n addition , othe r control s ar e availabl e whic hwer e no t assesse d i n thi s stud

ybecaus e o f difficultie s i n ascertaining thei r effectiveness . 5. 2 SECONDAR

Y LEA D SMELTER S 5.2. 1 Proces s Descriptio n Secondarylea

d smelter s (SI C 3341 ) proces s a variet yo f lead-bearing materia l an

d scra p t o produc e lea

d an d lea d alloyingots , lea d oxide , an

d lea d pigments . Th e basi c productio n processe s a t a secondar ylea d smelte r are : scra p treatment ; smelting ; an d refining/casting . Scra p Treatmen t - I n thi s process , meta l an d nonmeta l contaminant s ar e remove d fro

mthe lead-bearing materia l an d scrap . Thi s mayinclud e suc h operation s a s batterybreaking , crushing , an d sweating . Sweating separate s lea d fro mhigh-melting metal s b yheating the scra

p i n direct-fire d rotar yo r reverberatoryfurnaces . Th e partiall ypurifie d lea d i s periodicall ytapped fro mthes e furnace s fo r furthe r processing smeltin g o r po t furnaces . Smelting - Smelting result s i n the productio n o f purifie d lea d b ymelting an d separating lea

d fro mmeta l an

d nonmeta l impuritie s an d b yreducing oxide s

6 8TABL E 5-1 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S COST S FO R PRIMAR Y LEA D SMELTER S AND REFINERIES 3

Cost s (millions ) Numbe r Numbe r Lead NAAQ S Installe d Tota l o f plant s unabl e t o Alternative s (ug/m3 ) capita l annua l affecte d comply* 5

0.2 5 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

backgroun d ambien t lea d leve l fo r al l si x plant s ar e assume d t o b e negligible . ^Control s coul d no t b e identifie d whic hwoul d allowsome smelter s t o compl y wit h some o f the NAAQ S alternatives .



### 6 9t o elementa l lead . Th e two type s o f furnace s use d fo r smeltin g ar e reverberatoryan

d blast . Th e reverberatorysmelting furnac e produce s a semi-sof t lea

d produc t containing 3 t o 4 percen t antimony . Blas t furnace s produc e hard o r antimonia l lead , whic hcontain s 1 0 percen t antimony . A s wit h othe r smelting an

d meltin g productio n processes , thes e furnace s ar e charged wit h a variet yo f material , including lea d scrap , recycle d lea d dust , fluxe s (such a s limestone) , an d coke . Th e charg e materia l i s heate d b ycombustio n ai r o r gase s an

d the sla g i s tappe d off . Th e molte n lea d tapped fro

mth e furnac e i s pu t int o a holding po t an d the n cas t int o larg e ingots . Refining/Casting - Th e refining/casting productio n proces s consist s o f the following operations :

• Remelting - Material s charge d fo r remelting ar e usuall ylea d alloy s whic hrequir e n o furthe r processing befor e casting ;

• Alloying - Alloying furnace s simpl ymel t an d mi x lea

d ingo t wit h alloying materials . Commo n lea d alloying material s includ e antimony , arsenic , copper , nickel , an d tin ;

• Refining - Refining furnace s remov e antimon yan d coppe r fro

mlea d ingot s t o produc e sof t lea d o r remov e arsenic , copper , an d nicke l t o produc e hard lead . Variou s compound s mayb e added o r injecte d durin g the refining operatio n t o for mdrosses , whic har e skimmed off . I n addition , sawdus t mayb e adde d t o separat e lea d fro mthe dros s an

d t o reduc e som

e o f the lea

d oxid e t o elementa l lead ; an d

• Oxidizing - Oxidizing furnace s ar e eithe r kettl e o r reverberator y furnace s whic hoxidiz e lea d an d entrai n the produc t i n the combustio n ai r stream . Th e produc t i s recovere d i n highefficiencybaghouses . 5.2. 2 Industr

yDescription 1
Ther e ar e approximatel y4 9 domesti c secondar ylea d smelter s whic haccoun t fo r slightl yove r hal f o f tota l domesti c lea d production. 1 ' 3 ' 1 2 Thes e plant s ar e locate d primaril ynea r larg e urbanize d area s du e t o th e suppl yo f scra

p lea d (mostl yuse d automobil e an d truc k batteries ) an d the proximit yo f thei r mai n customer s (lead-aci d batter ymanufacturers) . Th e basi c industr ytren d i s toward larger , mor e efficien t secondar ylea d smelters , an

d man ysmaller , les s efficien t operation s hav e bee n phase d ou t during the las t decade . Based on

7 0U.S . Bureau o f Mine s estimates , secondarylea d smelters , whic har e operatin g a t a capacit yutilizatio n rat e o f approximatel y5 0 percent , hav e adequat e existing unuse d capacit yt o mee t the projecte d increas e i n tota l lea d demand. 1 ' 3 Thi s shoul d allo wsecondarylea d smelter s t o increas e thei r marke t shar e o f lea

d suppl yfromjus t ove r 5 0 percen t presentl yt o nearl y6 0 percen t b y2000 . 5.2. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Controls 1

Lead bearing particulat e matte r i s emitte d fro mprocess , fugitive process , an d fugitive dus t emissio n source s a t secondar ylea d smelters. 1 3 Proces s emissions , whic har e generate d during the smelting/refining processe s describe d above , ar e well-controlle d throug hthe us e o f extensive hooding an d ducting systems , highefficienc ybaghouse s an d scrubbers , an

d dispersio n o f emission s throug

hhighstacks . Fugitiv e emission s resul t fro mincomplet e captur e o f proces s lead emissions , storag e an d handling o f lead-bearin g materials , an

d reentrainmen t o f dus t fro mplan t propert ydu e t o win d o r vehicl e traffic . Mos t secondarysmelter s ar e equippe d wit hcaptur e systems an d contro l device s fo r fugitiv e emission s fro mfurnaces . Also , i n orde r t o mee t OSH

Aregulations , housekeepin g measure s ar e usuall ytake n t o minimiz e lea d dus t levels . 13 > 1 " +
5.2. 4 Industr

ySpecifi c Methodologie s

Fo r thi s study , i t wa s assume d tha t baghouse s ar e use d t o contro l proces s emissions . Also , i t wa s assume d tha t mos t proces s fugitive emission s ar e capture d b

yhood s an

d ducte d t o baghouses . Th e lea d emissio n source s considere d i n thi s stud yinclude :

• controlle d proces s emissions ,

• proces s fugitiv e emission s escaping captur e systems , an d

• batter

ybreaking emissions .

7 1Controlle d emissio n factor s fo r thes e source s ar e give n i n Tabl e 5-2. 13 » 1 5

Thes e emissio n factor s wer e use d instead o f plant-specifi c emissio n data , becaus e plan t specifi c dat a ar e no t availabl e fo r fugitive emissions . Tabl e 5- 2 als o present s averag e source-recepto r coefficient s fo r the above emissio n sources . Thes e wer e obtaine d using dispersio n modeling result s fro m the urbanize d are a exposur e assessment . Dispersio n modeling wa s conducte d for secondarysmelter s i n th e following metropolita n area :

• Chicago , Illinois ;

• Dallas , Texas ;

• Minneapolis

- St . Paul , Minnesota ; an d

• Tampa , Florida . A s note d i n Sectio n 4 , the source-recepto r coefficien t i s define d a s the rati o betwee n th e maximu

mambien t impac t an d the emissio n rate . Th e baselin e ambien t impac t wa s calculate d fo r eachsmelte r b ysummin

g th e baselin e ambien t impact s fo r the individua l source s withi n the smelter . The baselin e impac t fo r a give n sourc e wa s obtaine d b ymultiplying the productio n rat e b ythe produc t o f the emissio n facto r an d the source-recepto r coefficien t fro mTabl e 5-2 . Smelte r productio n rate s wer e obtaine d (lat e 1983 ) fro mth e Bureau o f Mine s an

d fromthe EPANationa l Emission s Dat a System. 1 2 Becaus e mos t secondarylea d smelter s ar e locate d i n urban areas , the urban mobil e sourc e background concentration s derive d i n Sectio n 3 wer e used . Thes e concentrations , 0.0 1 an d 0.0 5 ug/m 3 , bracke t the rang e o f potentia l averag e urba n mobil e sourc e impact s fo r the two lead-in-gasolin e phasedow n program s currentl yunde r study . Cost s o f complianc e fo r secondar ylea d smelter s wer e estimate d fo r eac ho f thes e background levels . I t wa s assume d tha t the maximu mambien t impac t occur s outsid e the plan t boundary . Fo r th e secondarylea d smelting industry , mos t o f the plant s ar e locate d i n urba n area s wher e larg e tract s o f propert yar e extensiv e an d difficul t t o obtain . Thes e plant s wer e assume d t o ow n propert yt o a distanc e n o greate r than a t mos t 15 0 meter s away s fro mthe actua l emissio n sources . Becaus e the maximu

mlea d impact s predicte d b ydispersio n modeling occu r a t

7 2

### " H

TABL E 5-2 . CONTROLLE D EMISSIONFACTOR S AN D SOURCE-RECEPTOR COEFFICIENT S FOR SECONDAR Y LEA D SMELTIN

G Baselin e emissio n Averag e source facto r recepto r coefficien t Sourc e (g/Mg) a ug/m J pe r Mg/yr Controlle d furnac e emission s 20 0 0.00 6 Fugitiv e emission s Charging are a 28. 1 Tappin g are a 19. 4 Genera l furnac e 18 . Batterybreaking 2 6 Genera l furnac e 18. 8 \ 0.7 3

Referenc e 15 . Genera l furnac e fugitiv e emission s wer e apportione d 5 0 percen t t o charging an

d 5 0 percen t t o tapping .



### 7 3

## • n

distance s o f 200-30 0 meter s eve n fo r lowlyin g sources , thes e maxima generall y wil l b e outsid e plan t property . Using the baselin e ambien t impact s calculate d an d backgroun

d ambien t lea

d concentrations , individua l plant s wer e identifie d whic hwoul d be affecte d unde r th e variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Fo r the secondar ylea d smeltin

g industry , eac hplan t wa s studie d t o determin e it s statu s wit hrespec t t o the variou s NAAQ S alternatives . I n general , a plan t wa s determine d t o b e affecte d unde r a give n alternativ e i f the su mo f the baselin e ambien t lea d impac t an

d the backgroun

d concentratio n fro mmobil e source s aroun d the plan t exceede d the alternative . Th e majo r sourc e o f uncertaint yi n the analysi s o f secondar ylea d smelter s wa s the selectio n o f baselin e contro l level s an d the identificatio n o f baselin e emissio n factors . Emissio n factor s fo r fugitive source s wer e base d o n test s conducte d a t a singl e plant . Fugitiv e emissio n control s a t individua l smelter s mayb e muc hmor e effectiv e o r les s effectiv e tha n the control s use d a t the teste d facility . I n addition , fugitive emissio n factor s coul d no t b e obtaine d fo r some sources , an d thes e source s wer e no t include d i n thi s study . Alternatively , some o f the source s considere d i n thi s study , such a s batterybreaking , probabl yar e no t presen t a t som e smelters . Becaus e fugitiv e emission s ar e no t include d i n the Nationa l Emission s Dat a System , an d becaus e o f th

e siz e o f the secondarysmelting sourc e category , i t wa s no t feasibl e t o mak e an in-dept hstud yo f the fugitive source s a t eac hplant . Anothe r sourc e o f uncertaint yfo r the secondar ysmelting categor

yi s the selectio n o f 15 0 meter s a s the typica l distanc e t o the plan t boundary . I n some cases , secondar ysmelter s mayow

n mor e propert yaroun d the plant . A s note d above , the poin t o f maximu mambien t impac t fro msecondar

ylea d smelter s i s 20 0 t o 30 0 meter s fromthe emissio n sources . Thus , fo r smelter s owning propert ymor e than 20 0 t o 30 0 meter s fro mthe plant , attainmen t o f the NAAQ S alternative s woul d b e les s costl ythan thi s stud yha s indicated . 5.2. 5 NAAQ S Control s an d Costs . NAAQ S control s assesse d fo r the secondar ylea d smelting industr

yinclude :



### 7 4• building enclosur e an d proces s modification s for batter ybreaking ;

• enclosur e an

d proces s modificatio n fo r furnac e charging ; an d

• additiona l hoo d an d proces s modification s fo r meta l an d slag tapping . Tabl e 5- 3 give s industry-wid e cost s require d t o achieve th e variou s lea

d NAAQ S alternatives . Appendi x D present s dat a o n emission s an d cost s use d t o develo p the value s give n i n Tabl e 5-3 . Contro l strategie s coul d no t be identifie d whic h woul d showattainmen t o f the lowe r alternative s fo r u p t o 4 9 smelters . Give n the uncertaintie s o f the stud ymethodology , however , i t i s possibl e tha t some o f thes e smelter s coul d attai n the lowe r level s wit hth e identifie d controls . Also , control s ar e availabl e whic har e no t assesse d becaus e o f difficultie s i n ascertaining thei r effectiveness . Thes e includ e wor k practice s fo r furnac e charging an d tapping , an

d othe r wor k practices . 5. 3 LEA D OR E PROCESSING 17 ' 18 ' 1 9

5.3. 1 Proces s Descriptio n
Or e processing a t lea d mine s (SI C 1031 ) comprise s a tw o stag e process ; the firs t stag e being the dryproces s operation s o f crushing an d grinding o f stockpile d ore , an

d th e secon

d stag e o f the we t proces s operatio n o f flotation . I n the dr yproces s operations , stockpile d or e (suc ha s galena an

d othe r lead-bearing ores ) i s siz e reduce d b yja wan d gyrator

ycrusher s i n combinatio n wit hgrizzl ybars , screens , an d conveyor s whic hfeed int o fine or e bins . Some minin g operation s wit hcentrall ylocated vertica l shaft s emplo y undergroun

d crusher s fo r the initia l siz e reductio n step . Grinding o f the siz e reduce d or e i s accomplishe d throug hthe us e o f ro

d mills , whic hhav e les s tendencythan othe r grinding method s t o overgrin d the sof t an

d friabl e galena . Bal l mills , i n close d circui t wit hhydrocyclones , ar e use d fo r fin e grinding , whic hprepare s the or e fo r the flotatio n process . Floatatio n i s the primar ymetho d use d fo r th e concentratio n o f lead-bearin g ores . Depending on the mineralog

yo f the ore , two o r mor e floatatio n cell s ma yb e require d t o

7 5

## " n

TABL E 5-3 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S COST S FOR SECONDAR Y LEA D SMELTER S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS ) \ Backgroun d an d NAAQ S leve l (ug/m3 ) Backgroun d =

0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun d =

0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0.0 5

0.0 1 Cost s

Installe d capita l

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 )

Tota l annua l

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 Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d

4 9 4 4 4 1 3 9 3 1 2 8 1 8
4 9

. 4 1 4 0 3 8 2 9 2 3 1 8 Numbe r

unabl e t o compl y*

-

4 0 3 8 1 1 9 3 0 0
3 8 3 3 1 1 8 2 0 0

a Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allowsom e smelter s t o compl y wit hsome NAAQ S alternatives .



### 7 6P.9 1

- j T*' •I'-^TfW^""

achiev e the designe d percen t o f lea d i n the concentrate . Th e concentrat e i s the n shippe d t o on e o f the five domesti c primar ylea d smelter s fo r furthe r processing . 5.3. 2 Industr

yStructure 17 ' 18 > 19 » 2 0> 2 1 Currently , ther e ar e thirtee n domesti c lea d or e processing plants , located primaril yi n the Ne wLead Bel t o f Missouri . Based o n a capacit yutilizatio n rat e o f 6 8 percen t fo r thi s industr yan d a projecte d increas e i n tota l lea d consumptio n o f les s than on e percen t pe r year , n o ne wlea d or e processing plant s ar e predicte d through1995 . Selecte d expansion s o f existing plant s ma y occu r during thi s period ; however , two recen t expansio n project s hav e bee n abandone d du e t o technica l an d economi c factors. 2 ^
5.3. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Control s Particulat e lea

d emission s ar e generate d fro mbot hfugitive dus t source s an d fugitiv e proces s source s a t lea d or e processing operations . Th e fugitive dus t source s includ e reentrainmen t fromhau l road s an d lea d or e stockpiles , an d wind blow

n dus t fromope n wor k area s an d conveyors . Th e fugitive proces s source s consis t o f the crushing an d grinding operation s involve d i n siz e reductio n o f the lead-bearing ores , including conveyo r transfe r point s an d dr y produc t loading . T o contro l thes e particulat e emissions , lea d or e processin

g plant s currentl yus e we t dus t system s an d mediu menerg ywe t scrubber s fo r fugitive proces s sources. 1 8 Du e t o the we t natur e o f the proces s operation s involved , littl e i f an yparticulat e lea

d emission s ar e generate d during flotation. 1 8

5.3. 4 Industry-Specifi c Methodologie s
Fo r the lea

d or e processing industry , i t wa s assume d tha t proces s source s a t thes e plant s (crushers , grinders , screens , an d storag e hoppers ) wer e controlle d throug

hth e us e o f hooding an d ducting system s an d mediu menerg y

7 7

# I I

(1. 5 kPa ) we t scrubber s (abou t 8 5 percen t efficiency) . Th e fugitive emissio n source s a t or e processing plant s (i.e . lea d or e storag e piles ) wer e assume d t o b e uncontrolled . Emissio n factor s fo r proces s an d fugitive emissio n source s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-4. 18 » 2 2 Thes e represen t the leve l o f contro l describe d above . Thes e emissio n factors , along wit hpublishe d stac k parameter s fo r tw

o mode l size s (27 0 an d 54 0 megagram s pe r hour throughputs) , wer e use d i n the dispersio n modelin g analysis . Tabl e 5- 4 als o present s the baselin e ambien t impact s for the abov e emissio n source s an d mode l plan t sizes . Thes e wer e obtaine d fro mdispersio n modeling result s fo r the tw o mode l plan t size s using St . Louis , Missouri , meteorologica l data . Th e St . Loui s dat a wer e use d fo r thi s industr ybecaus e i t wa s assume d t o b e the mos t representativ e availabl e meteorologica l dat a fo r th e Ne wLead Bel t are a o f Missouri , wher e th e majorit yo f domesti c lea d or e processing plant s ar e located . Th e concentration s presente d i n Tabl e 5- 4 ar e fo r the plan t boundary , whic hi s assume d t o b e on e kilomete r fro mthe processing plant . Becaus e o f the rura l locatio n o f lea d or e processing plants , th e backgroun d lea d concentratio n fro mmobil e source s wa s assume d t o b e negligible . Usin g the baselin e ambien t impact s calculate d fo r the mode l plants , each o f the 1 3 domesti c lea d or e processing plant s wer e groupe d int o on e o f the two sets , represente d b ythe mode l plan t sizes , t o determin e individua l plan t impacts . Fiv e o f the existing or e processing facilitie s correspon d roughl yt o th e 27 0 Mg/da

ymode l plant , whil e the remaining eigh t correspon d t o the 54 0 Mg/da

ymode l plant . Contro l strategie s wer e develope d t o bring the tw o group s int o complianc e wit hthe lea d NAAQ S alternatives . 5.3. 5 NAAQ S Contro l an d Cost s

Base d o n emissio n factor s fo r uncontrolle d are a source s (lea d or e stockpiles ) an

d plan t proces s source s controlle d b ymediu menerg y(1. 5 kPa ) we t scrubbers , dispersio n modeling indicate s tha t the lea d or e processing mode l plant s woul d excee d the variou s ambien t lea d concentration s unde r consideration . Th e additio n o f fugitiv e dus t control s a t thes e operation s

7 8"fj

- ---j'-TtT ^

TABL E 5-4 . BASELINE EMISSION S AN D AMBIEN

T IMPACT S FROM LEA

D OR E PROCESSIN

G Baselin e Baselin e ambien t emission s impact . Sourc e (g/sec) a (ug/m 3 )
27 0 Mg/h r plan t Proces s source s 2.3 2 1. 6 Storag e pile s 0.000 5 54 0 Mg/h r plan t Proces s source s 2.7 4 1. 7 Storag e pile s 0.000 7

Base d o n particulat e emissio n factor s fro mReferenc e 2 2 an

d lead or e composition s fro mReferenc e 18 . Base d o n dispersio n modelin g fo r th e tw o mode l plant s wit hSt . Louis , Missour i meteorologica l data . Concentration s presente d ar e fo r th e plan t boundary , assume d t o b e 1 k mawa yfro mth e processing plant . c Baselin e contro l fo r al l proces s source s wa s assume d t o b e mediu menerg yscrubbers .



### 7 9(i.e . we t dus t suppressio n systems ) woul d hav e an insignifican t impac t o n

ambien t lea

d concentrations . Thus , the require d reduction s mus t b e accomplishe d throughthe increase d contro l o f plan t proces s emissio n sources . Contro l cost s wer e develope d fo r the retrofi t o f hig henerg y(3.7 5 kPa ) ventur i scrubber s a t existing lea d or e processing plants . Thes e contro l device s wil l allowthe plant s t o achiev e al l level s o f the ambien t lea d concentration s unde r consideration . Appendi x D give s th e cost s o f attaining th e lea d NAAQ S alternativ e for individua l plants . Al l o f the plant s ar e expecte d t o b e affecte d b yNAAQ S les s than o r equa l t o th e curren t standard . Tabl e 5- 5 give s industry-wid e cost s fo r lea

d or e processing . Contro l strategie s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d showattainmen t o f the lowe r NAAQ S alternative s fo r lea d or e processing plants . Give n the uncertaintie s o f the stud ymethodology , however , i t i s possibl e tha t som e o f the plant s coul d attai n the lowe r levels . 5. 4 LEAD-ACI D BATTER Y MANUFACTUR E 5.4. 1 Productio n Processes. 23

. Th e manufactur e o f lead-aci d batterie s (SI C 3691 ) begin s wit hthe castin g o f lea d grid s an

d the productio n o f lea d oxid e powder . Th e lea d oxid e i s produce d b

yoxidizing eithe r molte n lea d o r lea

d ingot s i n air . Th e oxid e i s mixe d wit hsulfuri c aci d an d wate r t o produc e a paste . Pasting machine s ar e use d t o forc e the past e int o the interstice s o f lea d grids . The paste d grids , calle d plates , ar e cure d an d the n sen t t o a thre e proces s operatio n comprisin g plat e stacking , burning , an d elemen t assembly . Plate s ar e stacke d i n an alternating positiv e an d negativ e bloc k formation , wit hinsulator s betwee n them , t o produc e elements . Then , i n the burning operation , lead s ar e welde d t o tab s o n eac hpositiv e o r negativ e plate . A n alternativ e t o thi s operatio n i s the cast-on-strap process , i n whic hmolte n lea d i s poured aroun

d th e plat e tab s t o for

mthe connection , an d positiv e an

d negativ e terminal s ar e then welde d t o eac hsuc hconnecte d element . The complete d element s ar e assemble d i n batterycase s eithe r befor e o f afte r the formatio n step . I n formation , the

8 0TABL E 5-5 . NAAQ S CONTROL S COST S FO R TH E LEA D OR E PROCESSIN

G INDUSTR Y (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 3

Lead NAAQ S alternativ e (ug/m 3 Cost s (millions ) Tota l annua l 

### Installe d cap ] 18 . 18 . 18 . 1 8 1 8 

### .ta l 3 3 3 3 3 Numbe r o f plant s impacte d Numbe r

unabl e t o comply "
0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 7. 3 7. 3 7. 3 7. 3 7. 3 1 3

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 0 0 1 3

1 3 8 0 0 0 0

a Th e background ambien t lea d leve l fo r lea

d or e processing facilitie s i s assume d t o b e negligible . -'Control s coul d no t b e indentifie d tha t woul d allowthe lea d or e processin

g facilitie s t o compl ywit hsome NAAQ S alternatives .

8 1 i'"• •

plate s ar e immerse d i n dilut e sulfuri c aci d an d connecte d t o a direc t curren t source . Formatio n can b e don e eithe r i n the batter ycase s (we t formation ) o r i n a n ope n tan

k (dr yformation) . Defectiv e part s ar e eithe r reclaime d a t the batteryplan t o r ar e sen t t o a secondar

ylea d smelter . Lead reclamatio n facilitie s a t batter yplant s generall yar e smal l po t furnaces . Approximatel y1 percen t o f the lea d processe d a t a typica l lea d aci d batteryplan t i s recycle d throug hth e reclamatio n operation . 5.4. 2 Industr

yStructur e

Lead aci d storag e batterie s ar e produce d i n man ysizes , bu t the majorit y i s produce d fo r us e i n automobile s an d fal l int o a standard siz e range . A standard batter

ycontain s abou t 11. 8 kg (2 6 lb ) o f lead , o f whic habou t hal f i s presen t i n the lea d grid s an

d hal f i n the lea

d oxid e paste . Lead aci d storag e batteryplant s rang e i n productio n capacit yfro mles s than 50 0 batterie s pe r da yt o abou t 10,00 0 batterie s pe r da y(bpd) . I n 1979 , i t wa s estimate d tha t ther e wer e 19 0 lead-aci d batter yplant s i n the U.S . o f whic hfewe r than 10 0 had the capacit yt o produc e ove r 50 0 bpd. 2 3 Sinc e tha t time , becaus e o f a declin e i n batterydemand , man yplant s hav e bee n closed . Th e averag e capacit yutilizatio n i s onl yabou t 7 5 percen t fo r the companie s supplying mos t o f the batterie s sol d i n Nort hAmeric a (eight companie s accoun t fo r abou t 9 5 percen t o f sales) . Optimu mcapacit yutilizatio n i s abou t 9 0 percent. 2 * * Batter ydeman d i s expecte d t o increas e b yles s than 3 percen t pe r year. 2 " * Thus , ne wcapacit yi s no t expecte d t o b e require d unti l 1990 . Industr y source s expec t ne wcapacit yt o b e adde d throug hconstructio n o f ne wplant s i n the 10,00 0 bpd rang e rathe r than throughexpansio n o f existing plants. 2 * * 5-4. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Controls 2 3

Lea d oxid e emission s resul t fro mthe discharg e o f ai r use d i n the lea d oxid e productio n process . I n addition , lead-bearing particulat e matte r i s generate d i n the gri d casting , past e mixing , lea d reclamation , an

d

8 2T' T

thre e proces s operations . Thes e particulate s ar e usuall ycollecte d b y ventilatio n system s t o reduc e employe e exposur e t o airborn e lead . Fabri c filter s ar e incorporate d int o al l lea d oxid e productio n operation s fo r produc t recovery . Fabri c filtratio n i s als o ofte n use d t o contro l emission s fro

mthe three-proces s operation . Th e past e mixing operatio n consist s o f tw

o phases . Th e first , i n whic hdr yingredient s ar e charge d t o the mixer , result s i n emission s o f lea d oxid e an

d usuall yi s vente d t o a baghouse . Fo r the secon d phas e o f the cycle , whe n moistur e i s presen t i n the exhaus t stream , the past e mixe r i s generall yvente d t o an impingmen t scrubber ; howeve r fabri c filtratio n can als o b e use d fo r thi s phase . Gri d casting machine s ar e sometime s vente d t o an impingemen t scrubber . Lea d reclamatio n facilitie s ar e generall yals o vente d t o impingmemen t scrubber s 5.4. 4 Industry-Specifi c Method s 5.4.4. 1 Assessmen t o f Baselin e Contro l Statu s an d Emissio n Rate s Th e emissio n control s use d fo r batteryproductio n operation s varywidel y fro mplan t t o plant . Thi s variatio n result s mainl yfro mthe variatio n fro m plan t t o plan t i n the design o f the batteryproductio n operation s themselves . Becaus e lead-aci d batteryplant s generall yar e no t majo r source s o f an y criteri a pollutant s othe r than lead , onl yabou t on e thir d o f themar e listed i n th e Nationa l Emission s Dat a System(NEDS). 1 6 Thus , dat a wer e no t availabl e t o asses s the contro l statu s o f eac hlead-aci d batter yplant . However , fro ma surveyo f the plant s include d i n NEDS , i t wa s possibl e t o asses s the frequencie s o f contro l an d typica l contro l efficiencie s for variou s operations . Base d o n the source s include d i n NEDS , i t wa s estimate d tha t al l lea d reclamatio n facilitie s wer e controlle d wit han averag e efficiencyo f 9 9 percent ; 8 3 percen t o f past e mixin g facilitie s wer e controlle d wit h an averag e efficienc y(fo r controlle d facilities ) o f 97. 7 percent ; 7 9 percen t o f three-proces s operatio n facilitie s ar e controlle d wit han averag e efficiency o f 98. 5 percent ; an d 5 5 percen t o f gri d casting facilitie s wer e controlle d wit ha a n averag e efficienc yo f abou t 9 5 percent . A s note d above , lea d oxid e

8 3



## A iTABL E 5-6 . ESTIMATE D BREAKDOW NO F BATTER

Y PLANT S B Y SIZ E RANGE S AND CONTRO L STATUS 1
Facilitie s wit h control s Estimate d numbe r o f plant s Smal l Mediu m d

Large • PbO ; Re c PbO ; Rec ; P M PbO ; Rec ; PM ; 3- P PbO ; Rec ; PM ; 3-P ; G C 5 1 7 1 5 7 2 1 0 2 3 4 1 6 1 3 Tota l 

### 2 8 4 2 2 4

a , 'PbO " refer s t o lea

d oxid e production ; "Rec " t o lea d reclamation ; "PM " t o past e mixing ; "3-P " t o th e three-proces s operation ; an d "GC " t o gri d casting . 3 400-l,00 0 batterie s pe r day(bpd) . : 1,000-3,50 0 bpd . W e r 3,50 0 bpd .



### 8 4' " r^-^r^rfw^

TABL E 5-7 . EMISSIONFACTOR S FO R LEAD-ACI D BATTER Y MANUFACTUR E MMnMUttOMIHIIMilMaMgaMUMM M Emissio n factor s (g/battery ) uncontrolle d controlle d 

# "T l

V

Gri d casting Past e mixin g Lead oxid e production " Thre e proces s operatio n Lea d reclamation 0 

### 0.3 5 1.1 3

4.7 9 0.6 3 __ a

0.02 6 0.0 5 0.07 2 0.00 6

3 Contro l o f gri d casting wa s no t foun d t o b e require d t o mee t an yo f the NAAQ S alternatives . D Lea d oxid e productio n facilitie s ar e equippe d wit hbaghouse s fo r produc t recovery .

c I n a surveyo f NEDS , lead reclamatio n wa s foun d t o b e controlle d i n al l cases .



### 8 5T H

productio n incorporate s fabri c filtratio n fo r produc t recovery . No correlatio n wa s foun d i n the surveyo f NED S betwee n contro l statu s an d facilit ysize . Tabl e 5- 6 give s the assume d baselin e contro l statu s o f the lea d aci d batter ymanufacturing industry . Existing plant s wer e divide d int o twelve categorie s base d o n thei r siz e an d the contro l status . I t wa s assume d tha t the frequencyo f contro l fo r the facilitie s listed i n NED S i s characteristi c o f the industr

ya s a whole . Thus , lea d reclamatio n an

d lea d oxid e productio n wer e take n t o b e controlle d i n al l cases . I t wa s als o assume d that , a t a give n plant , past e mixin g i s controlle d first , followe d b ythe three-proces s operation , an

d finall ygri d casting . Thi s assumptio n wa s based on the result s o f the NED S surveyan d o n the cost-effectivenes s o f controlling thes e facilitie s Tabl e 5- 7 give s the uncontrolle d an d controlle d emissio n factor s use d i n thi s stud

yt o determin e baselin e emissions . Th e uncontrolle d value s ar e publishe d EP Aemissio n factor.2 5 Th e controlle d factor s ar e base d o n the uncontrolle d factors , an d the averag e contro l efficiencie s detecte d i n th e NED S survey . 5.4.4. 2 Identificatio n o f Affecte d Source s Dispersio n modeling fo r the urbanize d are a exposur e assessmen t indicated source-recepto r coefficient s fo r lead-aci d batterymanufactur e ranging fro m 0.08 9 ug/nr * t o 0.5 1 ug/m-* . I n calculating the source-recepto r coefficients , i t wa s assume d tha t the maximu mambien t impac t fro ma batter

yplan t occur s outsid e the plan t boundary . Th e locatio n o f the maximu mimpac t range d fro m 20 0 t o 30 0 meter s fro mth e emissio n sources . Becaus e mos t lead-aci d batter y plant s ar e locate d i n urba n areas , wher e lan d i s difficul t an

d expensive t o obtain , i t wa s assume d tha t plant s generall yow n lan d t o a t mos t 15 0 meter s awa yfromthe plan t buildings . Dispersio n modeling wa s conducte d for lead-aci d batter

yplant s i n the following urbanize d areas :

• Chicago , Illinois ;

• Dallas-Ft . Worth , Texas ;

8 6P. 2 

## m

• Nashville , Tennessee ;

• Philadelphia , Pennsylvania ; an d

• Tampa , Florida . Th e stac k parameter s use d i n the dispersio n modeling (emission height , velocity , an

d temperature ) wer e obtaine d fro mthe NED S file* " an d publishe d sources.'*^ J Thes e wer e no t dependen t on sourc e typ e o f size . Thus , the wid e rang e i n source-recepto r coefficient s fo r lead-aci d batter yplant s result s mainl yfro

mdifference s betwee n meteorologica l condition s i n the above urbanize d areas . Th e source-recepto r coefficient s wer e no t distribute d normall yo r log-normally , bu t wer e instead uniforml ydistribute d betwee n th e observe d minimu

man d maximu

mvalues . Eac ho f the 1 2 plan t group s show n i n Tabl e 5- 6 wer e studied t o determin e the numbe r o f plant s whic hwil l b e affecte d i n the grou p unde r th e NAAQ S alternatives . Thi s wa s don e b ycalculating the probabilit ytha t a mode l plan t representativ e o f thi s grou p wil l b e affected , an d multiplying b

ythe numbe r o f plant s i n the group . Asiz e o f 50 0 batterie s pe r da y(bpd ) wa s chose n t o represen t plant s i n the 0-100 0 bpd siz e range , an d size s f 200 0 an

d 650 0 bpd , respectively , wer e selecte d t o represen t the 1000-350 0 bp d an d 3500-and-ove r ranges . Eac ho f the four contro l statu s grouping s wer e studie d separatel yfor eac hsiz e range . Th e method s use d t o estimat e the number s o f affecte d plant s i n eac hsiz e an

d control-statu s grou p ar e detaile d i n Appendi x E . Mos t lead-aci d batteryplant s ar e located i n urba n areas . Therefore , the uppe r an

d lowe r limi t urba n mobil e sourc e background s derive d i n Sectio n 3 wer e used . Thes e concentrations , 0.0 1 an d 0.0 5 mg/nH , bracke t the rang e o f possibl e averag e urba n mobil e sourc e impact s fo r the tw o lead-in-gasolin e phasedow

n alternatives . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r lead-aci d batter yplant s wer e estimate d fo r bot hpossibl e backgroun d levels. .

8 7P. 3

5.4. 5 NAAQ S Control s an d Cost s
Contro l strategie s identifie d i n thi s stud yt o mee t the NAAQ S alternative s wer e retrofi t o f fabri c filter s t o uncontrolle d past e mixing an d three-proces s operations . Contro l o f gri d casting wa s no t foun d t o b e require d fo r an yo f the NAAQ S alternatives . Also , smal l plant s wer e no t foun d t o b e affecte d unde r an

yo f the alternatives . Tabl e 5- 8 give s the tota l cost s an d the number s o f affecte d plant s fo r eac ho f the NAAQ S alternatives . Appendi x D present s cos t dat a use d t o develop the figure s presente d i n thi s table . 5. 5 LEA D ALKY L MANUFACTUR E 

## T l

5.5. 1 Productio n Processe s 2 6 Commercially , lea

d alky l compound s ar e produce d b ythe batc halkylatio n o f sodium-lead alloy(SI C 2869) . Th e basi c step i n thi s proces s i s th e reaction o f sodium-lea d alloywit han exces s o f ethy l chlorid e i n autoclave s a t 70° C t o 75° C a s describe d b ythe following equation :
4 NaP b + 4C 2 H 5 C1—^(C 2 H 5 )4—P b + 4NaC l + 3P b Thi s reactio n als o can b e carrie d ou t continuousl yi n a proces s develope d b y duPont . Detail s o f the continuou s proces s ar e no t available . I n the batc hprocess , sodium-lead alloyi s produce d b ycombining molte n lead , virgi n o r recycled , wit hsodiu mi n a 9-to- l rati o i n a n airtigh t allo

y pot . Th e molte n alloyi s solidifie d an d flaked i n an oil-coole d flaker . The flake d alloyi s discharge d int o the autoclaves . Ethy l chlorid e the n i s added , an d the liquid s an

d solid s ar e intimatel ymixed . Initiall ythe batc hi s heate d t o star t the reaction ; the exothermi c reactio n i s maintaine d a t 70° C t o 75° C b yexterna l cooling an d ethy l chlorid e reflux . Whe n the reactio n i s complete , the autoclav e i s vente d throug h a condense r fo r exces s ethy l chlorid e recovery , an d the reactio n mas s i s discharge d int o strea mstill s fo r separation .

8 8P. 4

TABL E 5-8 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S COST S FOR TH E LEA D ACI D BATTER

Y MANUFACTURIN

G (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 3 Backgroun

d an d NAAQ S leve l (ug/m-* ) Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0.0 5

0.0 1 Cost s (thousands )

Installe d capita l

6,47 7 517 1 4,08 2 3,50 2 2,12 8 2,08 5 1,55 3

626 0 4,88 1 379 2 350 2 212 8 208 5 155 3 Tota l

annua l

1,86 2 142 1 1,12 9 97 1 59 4 57 8 43 1

178 1 1,34 2 105 0 97 1 59 4 57 8 43 1 Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d

2 1 1 3 1 1 9 5 4 3

2 0 1 4 1 0 9 5 4 3



### 8 9P. 5

Fromth e reactio n mixtur e containing NaCI , tetraethy l lead , unreacte d lead , an

d dissolve d ethy l chloride , ethy l chlorid e i s remove d an d collecte d i n a brin e condense r system . Awater-coole d condense r the n i s use d t o collec t wate r an

d th e tetraethy l lead product . Non-condensibl e vapor s ar e vente d t o the atmosphere . Th e separatio n operatio n last s fo r approximatel ytw o hours , an d the residu e i n th e stil l the n i s sluice d t o a sludg e pi t fo r lea d recovery . Collecte d tetraethy l lea d an d wate r i s decanted , an d then tetraethy l lea d i s purifie d b

yai r blowin g o r washin g wit hdilut e aqueou s solution s o f oxidizing agent s t o oxidiz e bismut hcompound s presen t i n the rawlead . Th e clea n tetraethy l lea d i s filtered , an

d stabilizing agent s ar e added . Th e sludge , consisting o f fin e lead particles , water , dissolve d salt , an d trace s o f tetraethy l lead , i s leache d wit hwate r i n the sludg e pi t t o separat e lea d an d salt . Th e sludg e pi t bottoms , consisting mostl yo f lead , ar e drie d i n an indirec t stea

mdryer . Th e drie d sludg e i s fe d t o a gas-fire d reverberator y furnac e t o recove r lead . 5.5. 2 Industr

yStructur e Tetraethy l lea

d an d tetramethy l lea

d ar e produce d a s primar yanti-knoc k gasolin e additive s i n tw o manufacturin g facilitie s operate d b yduPon t an

d Ethy l Corporation . A s a resul t o f decrease d deman d fo r gasolin e additives , th e capacit yfo r lea d alky l manufactur e ha s decrease d substantiall yi n the recen t past . Th e numbe r o f lead alky l plant s i n th e U.S . ha s decrease d fro m six , i n 1975 , t o two plant s operating a t present . Th e Ethy l plan t i s als o expecte d t o remai n i n operation , a t leas t i n the nea r future , serving the smal l U.S . marke t an d als o exporting some lea d additives . 5.5. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Control s Th e reverberatoryfurnac e i s the majo r lea d emission s source . A s apparen t fro mthe reactio n equation , les s than one-fourt ho f the lea d introduce d int o th e autoclave s actuall yreact s t o for mlea d alkyl . Th e reverberator yfurnace , therefore , processe s approximatel yfour time s the amoun t o f lea d i n the lea

d alky l product . Th e emission s consis t mainl yo f particulat e lea d oxid e an

d ar e simila r t o emission s fromsecondarylead smelters .
9 0P. 6

5.5. 4 Industry-Specifi c Method s

Fo r the alky l lea

d industry , the baselin e ambien t impac t wa s estimate d fo r eac hlea

d sourc e a t eac hindividua l plant , using th e ISCS T atmospheri c dispersio n model . Lead emissio n parameter s use d i n the analysi s wer e obtaine d throug h contact s wit hStat e an d federa l environmenta l agencie s an d publishe d sources. ' Ver ylittl e dat a ar e availabl e fo r duPont' s Deepwater , Ne wJersey , plant . Claim s o f confidentialit ynecessitate d making assumption s concerning the plant' s operation . Essentially , a mode l lea d alky l plan t wa s develope d t o represen t the duPon t plan t base d o n the processe s use d a t th e recentl yclosed Ethy l an

d Nalc o plants . Th e plan t wa s assume d t o hav e tw o majo r lea

d emissio n source s resulting i n a maximu maverag e ambien t concentratio n o f 1.19 3 ug/m- * o n a quarterl ybasis . Becaus e o f the suburban locatio n o f the Deepwate r plant , the mobil e sourc e background concentratio n aroun d thi s plan t i n 199 0 an d 199 5 wa s assume d t o b e neglible . 5.5. 5 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s
On e fabir c filte r woul d b e require d fo r the mode l plan t t o achiev e the 1. 0 an d 0. 8 ug/m- * alternatives ; an d two fabri c filte r system s woul d b e require d t o mee t the 0. 5 an

d 0.2 5 ug/m 3 alternatives . Cost s fo r fabir c filter s fo r the mode l plan t ar e give n i n Appendi x D . Cost s o f attainmen t for the plan t ar e tabulate d i n Tabl e 5-9 . 5. 6 GRA

Y IRO NFOUNDRIE S 5.6. 1 Proces s Description^ '
Gra yiron , whic hi s define d a s an iro n wit ha carbo n conten t o f 2 t o 4 percent , i s produce d fro mthe melting an

d casting o f scra

p metal , foundr

y returns , an

d pi g iro n a t foundr yoperation s (SI C 3321) . Th e four basi c productio n processe s a t a gra yiro n foundr

yare : rawmateria l handling ; meta l

9 1P. 7

TABL E 5-9 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S CONTROL S COST S FOR TH E LEAD-ALKYL PRODUCTIO N (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 3

Lea d NAAQ S alternativ e ug/m 3 ) Cost s (thousands ) Installe d capita l Tota l

annua l Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 2,08 0 2,08 0 1,04 0 1,04 0 74 9

74 9 37 5 37 5 1

1 1 1 0 0 0

3 Th e backgroun

d ambien t lea

d leve l fo r the lea d alky l plan t wa s assume d t o b e negligible .



### 9 2P. 8

melting ; mol d an

d cor e production ; an d casting an

d finishing . Becaus e lea d i s presen t a s a contaminan t i n th e rawmaterials , the productio n o f gra yiron result s i n lea

d emissions .
RawMateria l Handling - Th e rawmateria l handling operation s includ e th e receiving , transfer , an d storag e o f rawmaterials . Thes e material s includ e pi g iron , meta l scrap , foundr yreturns , fluxe s (limestone , soda ash , fluorspar , calciu

mcarbide) , coke , an d binders . Afte r receipt , thes e material s ar e transferre d t o storag e area s unti l require d fo r the productio n o f gra yiron .
Meta l Melting - Th e thre e majo r type s o f furnace s used i n the meta l meltin g proces s a t gra yiro n foundrie s are : cupolas , whic hus e heate d combustio n ai r t o mel t the furnac e charge ; electri c arc , whic huse s thre e graphit e electrodes ; an d electri c induction , whic huse s th e magneti c fiel d create d fro

malternating curren t tha t energize s the meta l coil s surrounding the furnace . The basi c step s i n the meta l melting proces s include :

furnac e charging , i n whic hmetal , scrap , alloyin g material , coke , an d flu x ar e charge d int o the furnace ; melting ; backcharging , whic hinvolve s the additio n o f meta l an d alloying material ; refining an

d treating ; sla g tapping ; an

d meta l tapping int o ladle s o r molds . Mol d an d Cor e Productio n - "Hold s ar e forms use d t o shap e the exterio r o f casting s an

d core s ar e shape s use d t o mak e the interio r void s o f castings . Bot h ar e mad e fro

msan d an d variou s binding material s an d then heate d o r dried fo r for mretention .

9 3P. 9

Casting an

d Finishing - Afte r tapping fro mthe furnace , molte n meta l may b e treate d throug

hth e additio n o f magnesium , lime , soda ash , o r graphite . Th e treate d meta l i s the n poure d int o mold s an d allowe d t o cool . Th e partiall ycoole d casting s ar e place d o n a vibrating gri d wher e mol d an d cor e san d i s shake n away , collected , an d recycled . Burrs , risers , an d gate s ar e broke n o r groun

d of f i n the finishing proces s t o matc hth e contour s o f the castings . I n the fina l step , casting s ar e sho t blaste d t o remove remaining mol d san

d an d scale . 5.6. 2 Industr

yDescriptio n Th e casting produce d a t gra yiro n foundrie s ar e use d primaril yi n th e productio n o f industria l equipment , suc ha s automobile s an d trucks , far

m machinery , an

d machineryfo r heav yindustries . Th e gra yiron found

yindustr

y ha s undergon e a dramati c chang e during the las t 4 0 years , a s new , large r capacit yoperation s hav e force d smaller , les s efficien t foundrie s fro mthe market . I t i s estimate d tha t the numbe r o f gra yiro n foundrie s ha s decrease d fro mapproximatel y1,50 0 i n the earl y1970' s t o aroun d 70 0 t o 80 0 a t present . Tota l industr

yproductio n ha s remaine d relativel yconstan t durin g tha t period an d capacit yutilizatio n fo r thi s industr yi s currentl yaroun d 6 8 percent.2°i2 9 Althoughoveral l growt hfo r the non-ferrou s casting s industr y i s predicte d t o b e abou t 4 percen t pe r year,2 8 mU c h o f thi s growt hi s expecte d t o occu r i n electri c furnaces.2 9 i nfact , the Electri c Powe r Researc h Institut e predict s tha t electri c furnace s wil l replac e fuel-fired furnace s suc h a s cupolas . Thus , growt hi n gra yiro n b

yfuel-fire d furnace s i s no t expecte d t o excee d 2 percen t pe r year . 5.6. 4 Industr

ySpecifi c Methodologie s

A s stated i n the proces s descriptio n section , the gra yiron foundr

y industr yuse s thre e majo r type s o f furnace s i n the meta l melting process : cupolas , electri c arc , an d electri c induction . Based on emissio n calculation s an d dispersio n modeling results , the onl yemissio n sourc e a t gra yiro n

9 4P.1 0

foundrie s tha t contribute d significantl yt o exceedence s o f the lead NAAQ S alternative s wer e uncontrolle d cupol a furnaces . The NED S file s indicate d tha t ther e wer e eleve n o f thes e furnace s o f varying capacities . Th e dispersio n - modeling result s fo r thi s industr ywer e base d o n source s located i n the following urbanize d areas :

• Chicago , Illinois ;

• Dallas , Texas ;

• Minneapolis/St . Paul , Minnesota ; an d

• Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . T o determin e the baselin e ambien t impact s o f thes e furnaces , eac hwa s classifie d int o on e o f three-mode l plan t categorie s base d o n furnac e chargin g capacity : smal l (2 3 megagram s pe r heat) ; mediu m(9 1 Mg/heat) ; an

d larg e (27 2 Mg/heat). 3 ^ Using particulat e emissio n factor s develope d fo r eac ho f thes e mode l plant s sizes2'» 3 0 an d an averag e lea

d conten t fo r the particulat e o f thre e percent 3 ^ , annua l baselin e lea d emission s wer e calculated . Thes e emission s wer e the n multiplie d b ya source-recepto r coefficien t fo r thi s industr yo f 0.1 5 ug/ mpe r Mg/yr , baselin e ambien t impact s wer e developed . The input s use d i n developing thes e impact s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-10 . Mos t gra

yiro n foundrie s ar e locate d i n urba n areas . Therefore , the uppe r an d lowe r limi t urba n mobil e sourc e backgroun d level s derive d i n Sectio n 3 wer e used . Thes e concentrations , 0.0 1 an d 0.0 5 ug/m 3 , bracke t the rang e o f possibl e averag e urba n mobil e sourc e impact s fo r the tw o lead-in-gasolin e phasedow

n alternatives . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r gra yiro n foundrie s wer e estimate d fo r bot hpossibl e backgroun d levels . A s wit hothe r stationar y source s locate d i n urbanize d areas , i t wa s assume d tha t gra yiron foundrie s owne d propert yu

p t o 15 0 meter s fro mthe emissio n source . 5.6. 5 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s Industria l sourc e categorie s tha t woul d no t attai n on e o r mor e o f the lea d NAAQ S alternative s wer e determine d fro mdispersio n modeling o f source s i n ten

9 5P.1 1

TABL E 5-10 .

Plan t BASELINE EMISSION S AN D FOUNDRY CUPOL

AFURNACE S

Furnac e identificatio n Capacit y numbe r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 (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 B

a p e AMBIEN T

selin e rcen t control 3 6 2 9 5 0 0 9 8 9 5 0 7 1 9 5 7 5 9 8 2 5 9 7 9 7 7 8 9 5 9 9 9 2 4 8 0 0 0 5 3 0 9 5 IMPACT S FOR GRA Y Baselin e lea d emission s (Mg/y r ) 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 IRO

N Baselin e ambien t impac t (ug/m3) c 0.9 6 1.5 7 1.8 7 1.4 9 1.2 0 0.2 9 0.7 0 0.5 8 0.5 8 0.2 8 0.3 2 0.2 5 1.1 0 0.6 3 1.2 3 1.6 3 0.3 8 0.3 1 .0.2 3 6.5 2 0.5 8 0.3 8 0.2 6 0.5 5 0.2 6 Fromthe Decembe r 198 4 updat a o f NEDS . Baselin e lea

d emission s wer e calculate d base d o n controlle d emissio n rate s give n i n NED S an d a lea d concentratio n i n particulat e o f 3 percen t (referenc e 30) .
c Base d o n a source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.1 5 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr .

9 6' 1

selecte d urbanize d areas . Base d o n thi s modeling , i t wa s determine d tha t uncontrolle d cupol a furnace s a t gra yiro n foundrie s woul d exceed a t leas t on e o f the lea

d NAAQ S alternatives . Th e contro l strateg ydevelope d fo r thi s industr yconsist s o f the installatio n o f a sid e draf t hood ducte d t o a baghous e contro l system . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r thi s industr yar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-11 . Appendi x D give s background dat a o n the developmen t o f contro l technique s an

d costs . Tabl e 5-1 1 project s tha t som e plant s wil l no t b e abl e t o attai n the curren t NAAQ S an d lowe r alternatives . Give n uncertaintie s involve d i n the us e o f a n averag e lead-in-particulat e concentratio n an d a n averag e source-recpto r coefficient , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowe r NAAQ S using the identifie d controls . I n addition , du e t o plan t closure s associate d wit hindustrytrend s toward large r plants , som e o f the plant s o n whic hthi s analysi s wa s base d mayno t b e i n operatio n b y1990 . 5. 7 ALLO Y STEE L ELECTRI C AR C FURNACE S
5.7. 1 Proces s Description- ^ Direc t electri c ar c furnace s (EAFs ) (SI C 3313 ) ar e refractory-lined , cylindrica l vessel s tha t hav e a bowl-shape d heart han d domed roof . Thre e graphit e o r carbo n electrode s ar e use d t o hea t charge d materia l i n the furnac e an d ar e raise d an

d lowere d throug

hhole s i n the furnac e roo f a s needed . Thebasi c processe s use d i n the productio n o f alloystee l b yEAF' s are : charging ; meltdow

n an d refining ; an

d tapping . Becaus e lea d i s presen t a s a contaminan t i n the rawmaterials , the productio n o f allo ystee l result s i n lea d emissions . Charging - Adrop-bottom(cla mshel l type ) bucke t i s use d t o charg e EAF' s wit h iro n an

d stee l scrap ; alloying material s suc ha s nickel , copper , an d molybdenum ; lime , whic hi s use d a s a flu x materia l t o reduc e the sulfur an d phosphoru s conten t o f th e molte n steel ; an d coke . Chargin

g i s accomplishe d throug hopening o f the furnac e roof .



### 9 7ar- j..

. •.. T"pi»- . P.1 3

TABL E 5-11 .

Lea d NAAQ S an

d mobil e sourc e backgroun

d (ug/m 3 )

Backgroun

d = 0.0 5 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun

d = 0.0 1 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 NAAQ S CONTROL S COST S FOR TH E INDUSTRY (OCTOBE R GRA Y IRO N 198 4 DOLLARS )

Cost s (thousands ) Installe d capita l

21,33 0 16,20 0 10,98 0 10,98 0 6,58 8 2,19 6 2,19 6

20,87 1 16,20 0 10,98 0 8,78 4 4,30 2 2,19 6 Tota l

annua l

4,82 8 3,66 5 2,49 4 2,49 4 1,49 6 49 9 49 9

4,72 0 3,66 5 2,49 4 1,99 5 99 8 49 9 Numbe r

o f plant s impacte d

1 4 9 5 5 3 1 1

1 3 9 5 4 2 1 FOUNDR

Y

Numbe r unabl e t o comply 3

1 4 7 3 3 2 0 0

1 3 7 3 3 2 0

3 Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allowsom e plant s t o attai n variou s NAAQ

Aalternatives .

9 8P.1 4 "T l

Melting an

d Refining - Afte r charging , the furnac e roo f i s close d an d the electrode s ar e lowere d t o the charg e material . Electrica l current s ar e passed throughthe electrode s t o caus e arcing . Thi s arcing heat s the charg e an d a molte n poo l o f mel t i s forme d i n the cente r o f the hearth . The furnac e man y b e backcharge d on e or e mor e time s during the melting process . The sla g forme d during melting i s tappe d of f prio r t o tapping o f the molte n metal . Tapping - Tapping o f th e molte n meta l i s accomplishe d throug htiltin

g o f the furnac e vesse l an d pouring the produc t int o ladles . Ferromanganes e alloy , ferrosilico n alloy , an d aluminu

mmayb e adde d t o th e lade l t o adjus t the oxyge n conten t o f the alloysteel . I n addition , alloying material s such a s aluminum , zirconium , titanium , vanadium , an d boro n mayb e added t o achieve the desire d product . Bottomtapping o f EAF s i s a fairl yne wadvanc e tha t i s bein g use d a t some ne wfacilities . 5.7. 2 Industr

yDescription- ^

EAF s ar e utilize d typicall yi n semi-integrate d an d nonintegrate d stee l mill s an

d specialit ystee l shops . Th e semi-integrate d stee l mill s us e direc t reduce d iro n along wit hiro n an d stee l scra

p a s a sour e o f ferrou s material.Th e nonintegrate d mill s operat e melting units , sucha s EAFs , castin g units , an

d fabricatio n mill s t o produc e limite d produc t line s fo r regiona l markets . Thos e wit hannua l productio n o f les s tha n 544,20 0 megagram s (600,00 0 tons ) ar e classifie d a s mini-mills . Specialit ystee l shop s ar e simila r t o nonintegrate d mill s excep t fo r a n additiona l secondar yrefining o f the molte n meta l tappe d fro

mEAFs . Th e us e o f EAF s i n the stee l productio n industr yi s expecte d t o continu e a n upwar d growt htrend , a s thi s proces s account s for an increasing shar e o f tota l stee l output . I t i s estimate d tha t 3 0 ne wEAF s wil l come on-lin e b

y199 0 an

d an additiona l 1 1 b y1995. 31 » 3 2

5.7. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Controls 3 * Th e charging , melting/refining , an d tupping operation s a t EAF s contribut e t o the emissio n o f fugitiv e proces s particulat e lead . Currently , the typica l

9 9 ; 1contro l systemuse d fo r proces s emission s i s direct-shel l evacuatio n an d fabri c filte r contro l system . Fo r fugitiv e proces s emissions , the contro l technique s tha t ar e typicall yuse d includ e fabri c filters , singl e o r segmented canop yroofs , scavenge r duct , cross-draf t partitions , an d enclose d dus t handling equipment . 5.7. 4 Industr

ySpecifi c Methodologie s

T o determin e the baselin e ambien t impact s fro malloystee l EAF's , each o f thes e source s tha t appeare d i n the NED S fil e wa s classifie d int o on e o f thre e mode l plan t size s base d o n furnac e capacity . Th e thre e size s develope d were : 2 3 megagram s pe r heat ; 9 1 Mg/heat ; an d 27 2 Mg/heat. 3 * Th e furnace s appearin g i n NED S wer e thu s classifie d an d emissio n factors 3 2 an d operating rate s wer e use d t o esimat e tota l particulat e emissions . Fo r the alloystee l EAF industry , dispersio n modelin g result s wer e base d o n source s locate d i n the tw o urbanize d area s o f Chicago , Illinois , an d Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . I t wa s the n assume d tha t th e particulat e emission s had a n averag e lea d conten t o f two percent . Fromthis , lea d emissio n estimate s wer e develope d for eac hsource . Usin g a source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.1 2 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr fo r alloystee l EAFs , baselin e ambien t impact s o n a source-by-sourc e basi s wer e calculated . Thes e estimate s ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-12 . Fromthes e estimations , i t wa s determine d tha t onl yuncontrolle d alloystee l EAF s woul d excee d the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . A s wit h othe r sourc e categorie s locate d primaril yi n urba n areas , the uppe r an

d lowe r limi t mobil e sourc e backgroun d level s derive d i n Sectio n 3 wer e used . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r alloystee l EAF s wer e estimate d fo r bot h possibl e backgroun

d levels . 5.7. 5 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s

Base d o n the dispersio n modelin g an d emissio n calculation s a s describe d above , i t wa s determine d tha t alloystee l EAF s woul d caus e exceedence s o f th e variou s NAAQ S alternative s being studied . Contro l strategie s designe d t o

10 0P.1 6

TABL E 5-12 . BASELINE EMISSION S AND AMBIENT IMPACT S FOR ALLOY STEE L

ELECTRI C AR C FURNACE S Plan t identificatio n numbe r 

### 1 2 3 4 Furnac e

capacit y (Mg/hr ) 36. 4 52. 7 77. 3 

### 9. 1 Baselin e

percen t contro l 99. 9 90. 5 99. 5 

### 0 Baselin e

lea d emission s (Mg/y r ) b 

### 4. 8 2. 3 4. 9 3. 8 Baseline

ambien t impac t (ug/m3) c 0.5 8 0.2 8 0.5 9 0.4 6 g Fromthe Decembe r 198 4 updat e o f NEDS . b Baselin e lea

d emission s wer e calculate d base d o n controlle d emission rate s give n i n NED S an d a lea d concentratio n i n particulat e o f 3 percen t (referenc e 30) . Based o n a source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.1 2 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr .



### 10 1P . 1 7 ' TT j bring thes e source s int o attainmen t wit hthe lea d NAAQ S alternative s wer e then developed . Th e thre e strategie s develope d contai n the sam e proces s emission contro l system(direct-shel l evacuatio n an d fabri c filte r contro l system) , bu t varyi n the degre e o f fugitive proces s emissio n control . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternative s on an industry-wid e basi s ar e give n i n Tabl e 5-13 . Appendi x D present s dat a used i n the developmen t o f contro l technique s an d costs . Tabl e 5-1 1 project s tha t some plant s wil l no t b e abl e t o attai n the lowe r NAAQ S alternatives . Give n uncertaintie s involve d i n the us e o f an averag e lead-in-particulat e concentratio n an

d an averag e source-recepto r coefficient , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowe r NAAQ S using th e identifie d controls . 5. 8 STEE L ELECTRI C AR C FURNACE S 5.8. 1 Proces s Description 3 2 Direc t electri c ar e furnace s (EAFs ) (SI C 3313 ) ar e refractory-lined , cylindrica l vessel s tha t hav e a bowl-shape d heart han d domed roof . Thre e graphit e o r carbo n electrode s ar e use d t o hea t charge d materia l i n the furnac e an d ar e raise d an

d lowere d throug

hhole s i n the furnac e roo f a s needed . The basi c processe s use d i n the productio n o f stee l b yEAF s are : charging ; meltdow n an d refining ; an

d tapping . Becaus e lea d i s presen t a s a contaminan t i n the rawmaterials , the productio n o f stee l result s i n lea d emissions . Charging - Adrop-bottom(cla mshel l type ) bucke t i s use d t o charg e EAF' s wit hiro n an

d stee l scrap ; alloying material s suc ha s carbo n raiser , manganese , an

d silicon ; lime , whic hi s use d a s a flu x materia l t o reduc e t o sulfu r an

d phosphoru s conten t o f the molte n steel ; an d coke . Charging i s accomplishe d throug hopening o f the furnac e roof . Melting an

d Refining - Afte r charging , the furnac e roo f i s close d an d the electrode s ar e lowere d t o the charg e material . Electrica l current s ar e passed throughthe electrode s t o caus e arcing . Thi s arcing heat s the charg e an d a molte n poo l o f mel t i s formed i n the cente r o f the hearth . Th e furnac e ma ybe

10 2P.1 8

TABL E 5-13 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S COST S FOR ALLO Y STEE L EAF s

(OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS ) Backgroun

d an d NAAQ S leve l (ug/m3 ) Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 0.0 5

0.0 1 Cost s (thou

Installe d capita l

8,06 9 6,81 8
— — — —

- -

8,06 9

- - — — — — -• • sands )

Tota l annua l

2,45 7 1,82 6
— — — —

- -

2,45 7
— —

- - — —

• • — Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d

2 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Numbe r

unabl e t o comply 3

2 2 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 0 0 0 0 0

a Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allowsom e plant s t o compl ywit h the lowe r alternatives .



### 10 3backcharge d on e o r mor e time s during th e meltin g process . The sla g formed

during meltin g i s tappe d of f prio r t o tapping o f the molte n meltal . Tapping - Tapping o f the molte n meta l i s accomplishe d throughtiltin g o f the furnac e vesse l an d pouring the produc t int o ladles . Ferromanganes e alloy , ferrosilico n alloy , an d aluminu

mmayb e adde d t o th e ladl e t o adjus t the oxyge n conten t o f the alloysteel . Bottomtapping o f EAF s i s a fairl yrecen t advanc e tha t i s bein g use d a t some ne wfacilities . Afte r the tapping process , the molte n mel t i s poure d int o cast s fo r cooling . P.1 9 

## T H

5.8. 2 Industr

yDescriptio n 3 2

EAF s ar e utilize d typicall yi n semi-integrate d an d nonintegrate d stee l mill s an

d specialit ystee l shops . Th e semi-integrate d stee l mill s us e direc t reduce d iro n along wit hiro n an d stee l scra

p a s a sourc e o f ferrou s material . Th e nonintegrate d mill s operat e meltin g units , suc ha s EAF s casting units , an d facricatio n mill s t o produc e limite d produc t line s fo r regiona l markets . Thos e wit hannua l productio n o f les s tha n 544,20 0 megagram s (600,00 0 tons ) ar e classifie d a s mini-mills . Specialit ystee l shop s ar e simila r t o nonintegrate d mill s excep t fo r a n additiona l secondaryrefining o f the molte n meta l tapped fro mEAFs . 5.8. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Contro l 3 2

Th e charging , melting/refining , an d tapping operation s a t EAF s contribut e t o the emissio n o f fugitiv e proces s particulat e lead . Currently , the typicalcontro l systemuse d fo r proces s emissio n ar e sid e draf t hood s an d fabri c filter s fo r smal l furnace s an d direct-shel l evacuatio n an d fabri c filte r contro l system s fo r mediu man d larg e furnaces . Fo r fugitive proces s emissions , the contro l technique s th t ar e typicall yuse d includ e fabri c filters , singl e o r segmente d canop yroofs , scavenge r duct , cross-draf t partitions , an

d enclose d dus t handling equipment . Th e averag e lead concentratio n i n particulat e fo r stee l EAF s wa s taken t o b e 2 percent . I t wa s assume d tha t the source-recepto r coefficien t fo r stee l

10 4EAF s i s the sam e a s tha t fo r alloystee l EAFs , o r 0.1 2 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr (Sectio n 5.1.4) . Tabl e 5-1 4 give s baselin e lea d emission s an

d ambien t impact s wer e calculate d fo r individua l stee l EAF s using thes e factor s an d particulat e emissio n rate s fro

mNEDS . A s wit hothe r stationar ysource s located primaril y i n urbanize d areas , the cost s o f attainmen t wer e estimate d the uppe r an d lowe r limi t mobil e sourc e background level s derive d i n Sectio n 3 . 5.8. 4 Industr

ySpecifi c Methodologie s

T o determin e the baselin e ambien t impact s fro mstee l EAF's , eac ho f thes e source s tha t appeare d i n the NED S fil e wa s classifie d int o on e o f thre e mode l plan t size s base d o n furnac e capacity . Th e thre e size s develope d were : 3. 6 megagram s pe r heat ; 9. 1 Mg/heat ; an d 22. T Mg/heat. 3 2 The furnace s appearin g i n NED S wer e thu s classifie d an d emissio n factors 3 2 an d operating rate s wer e use d t o estimat e tota l particulat e emissions . 5.8.5 . NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s

Base d o n the dispersio n modelin g an d emissio n calculation s a s describe d above , i t wa s determine d tha t stee l EAF s woul d caus e exceedence s o f th e variou s NAAQ S alternative s being studied . Contro l strategie s designe d t o brin g thes e source s int o attainmen t wit hthe lea d NAAQ S alternative s wer e than developed . The thre e strategie s develope d contai n the sam e proces s emissio n contro l system(side draf t hoo d o r direct-shel l evacuatio n an d fabri c filte r contro l system) , bu t varyi n the degre e o f fugitive proces s emissio n control . Cost s o f attainmen t fo r the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternative s o n an industry-wid e basi s ar e give n i n Tabl e 5-15 . Appendi x D present s dat a used i n the developmen t o f contro l technique s an d costs . Tabl e 5-1 5 project s tha t some plant s wil l no t b e abl e t o attai n the curren t NAAQ S an d the lowe r alternatives . Give n uncertantie s involve d i n the us e o f an averag e lead-in-particulat e concentratio n an d an averag e source-recepto r coefficient , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowe r NAAQ S using the identifie d controls .

10 5P.2 1

TABL E 5-14 . BASELINE EMISSION S AND AMBIENT IMPACT S FOR STEE L

ELECTRI C AR C FURNACE S
Plan t identificatio n numbe rt-i 

### 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 Furnac e

capacit y (Mg/hr ) 

### 1. 5 7. 9 48. 2 

### 9. 1 9. 1 33. 2 

### 3. 9 17. 9 

### 9. 1 9. 1 8. 5 Baselin e

percen t contro l 

### 0 97. 2 95. 0 

### 0 0 96. 5 

### 0 0 0 99. 9 99. 0 Baselin e

lea d emission s (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

ambien t impac t (ug/m3) c 0.3 5 0.3 7 0.2 3 0.5 4 0.7 3 0.5 3 0.4 3 0.8 6 0.2 9 0.4 8 0.7 3 Fromthe Decembe r 198 4 updat e o f NEDS . 3aselin e lea

d emission s wer e calculate d base d o n controlle d emissio n rate s give n i n NED S an d a lea d concentratio n i n particulat e o f 3 percen t (referenc e 30) .

c Base d o n a source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.1 2 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr .

10 6TABL E

Backgroun

d an d NAAQ S leve l (ug/m3 ) Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 

### 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun

d = 0.2 5 

### 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 

### 0

0 5-15 .



### 0 5



### .0 1 NATIONWID E

(OCTOBE R :

Cost s NAAQ S L98 4 D ( (thou Installe d capita l

2,45 9 1,45 1 

### 65 4

— — —

- -

1,94 9 1,45 1 

### 65 4

— — — " — COST S FOR

DLLARS )
sands ) Tota l annua l

1,18 9 

### 67 0 28 7

- - — —

- -



### 99 8 67 0 28 7
—

- - —

~ — CARBO

NSTEE L

Numbe r o f plant s affecte d



### 9 5 2 0 0 0 0

8 5 2 0 0 0 0 EAF s

Numbe r unabl e t o comply 3



### 4 2 1 1 1 0 0

4 2 1 1 1 0 0

a Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allo wsom e plant s t o compl ywit h the curren t NAAQ S an d the lowe r alternatives .



### 10 7- T r w - a„- 1 „- TlW m . •

5. 9 IRO

NAN D STEE L INDUSTR

Y - SINTERIN

G
5.9. 1 Proces s Descriptio n 3 3
Sintering operation s ar e use d i n iro n an d stee l manufactur e a t large , integrate d mills . Th e sintering proces s convert s fine material s int o an agglomerat e tha t can b e charge d t o a blas t furnace . Feed material s t o sintering operation s includ e fin e iro n ore , cok e breeze , fluxstone , mil l scal e an d flu e dust . Thes e material s ar e mixe d wit hwater , an d the n place d on a grat e tha t move s throughthe sinte r furnace . I n the furnace , the cok e i n the feed materia l i s ignited , providing the necessar yhea t fo r surfac e melting an d agglomeration . Fuse d sinte r i s discharge d a t the en d o f the furnace , an d i s the n crushe d an

d screened , wit han yundersize d materia l recycle d t o th e furnace . Sinte r produc t i s coole d eithe r b yai r o r b

ya wate r spray , an d i s the n fed t o blas t furnace . 5.9. 2 Emissio n Source s an d Controls 3 3
Combustio n ai r fromthe sintering proces s contain s entraine d sinte r particulate , an

d i s generall yducte d t o a particulat e contro l device . Fugitiv e particulat e emission s emulat e fro mmaterial s handling , the sinte r furnac e charg e an

d discharg e ports , an d the cooling an

d crushing operation . I n thi s study , control s wer e identifie d fo r sinte r fugitive emission s fro m material s handling , an d fro mthe sinte r furnac e area . Fo r material s handling , the control s identifie d wer e covering o f truck s an d railcars , wit hventilatio n t o a fabri c filter . Fo r the furnac e area , the control s identifie d wer e hooding an

d ventilatio n o f the furnac e ports , an d replacemen t o f th e crushin

g circui t wit ha close d system. ' 5.9. 3 Industr

ySpecifi c Methodologie s Th e averag e lea

d concentratio n i n particulat e matte r fo r sintering fugitive s wa s take n t o b e 1. 7 percent ; an d the averag e source-recepto r coefficien t fo r the sintering operatio n wa s assume d t o be the sam e a s tha t for

10 8gra

yiro n production , o r abou t 0.1 5 ug/m 3 (Section 5.6.4) . Tabl e 5-1 6 give s baselin e lea

d emission s an

d ambien t impact s wer e calculate d fo r individua l sintering operation s using thes e factor s an d particulat e emissio n rate s fro m NEDS . A s wit hothe r stationar ysource s locate d primaril yi n urbanize d areas , the cost s o f attainmen t wer e estimate d using the uppe r an d lowe r limi t mobil e sourc e backgroun

d level s derive d i n Sectio n 3 . 5.9. 4 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Cost s

Cost s fo r the sinte r material s handling an d sinte r furnac e emissio n contro l system s identifie d i n thi s stud yar e give n i n Appendi x D . Tabl e 5-1 7 give s tota l estimate d attainmen t cost s fo r sinte r operation s fo r the variou s NAAQ S alternatives . Th e tabl e indicate s tha t som e plant s wil l no t b e abl e t o attai n the lowe r NAAQ S alternatives . Give n uncertaintie s involve d i n the us e o f a n averag e lead-in-particulat e concentratio n an d an averag e source-recepto r coefficient , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowe r NAAQ S using th e identifie d controls . 5.1 0 BRAS S AN

D BRONZ E INGO T PRODUCTIO N 5.10. 1 Proces s Descrip t ion 3 4

Th e rawmaterial s use d i n bras s an d bronz e productio n (SI C 3341 ) ar e almos t entirel yderive d fro mscrap material s wit hvirgi n metal s use d onl yt o adjus t the compositio n o f the produc t a s desired . Thes e ra wmaterial s ar e subjecte d t o a serie s o f sorting , classification , an d preparatio n step s befor e undergoing the actua l ingo t productio n process . Th e ingot s produce d ar e generall yfurthe r processe d b yremelting , shaping , rolling , extracting , etc . i n bras s o r bronz e mill s t o produc e fina l product s o r intermediat e product s fo r deliveryt o bras s an d bronz e manufacturing facilities . Th e scra

p rawmaterial s ar e prepare d fo r the productio n o f ingot s b y mechanica l hydrometallurgical , o r pyrometallurgica l treatment . Thes e processe s remove the undesireabl e scra p component s leavin g a mixtur e o f metal s a s clos e a s possibl e t o the compositio n o f the desire d product . 10 9

# n

TABL E 5-16 . BASELINE EMISSION S AN D AMBIENT IMPACT S O F IRO NAN D STEE L SINTERIN

G
Plan t identificatio n1-1 2 3 4 5 Operatio n

Materia l handling Furnac e Furnac e Materia l handling Furnac e Baselin e percen t control 3 Baselin e

lea d emission s (Mg/y r ) b Baseline

ambien t impac t (ug/m3) C 0 82. 0 75. 0 99. 9 96. 0 2. 7

61. 5 14. 9 1. 8 3. 4 0.3 3

9.2 1 1.7 9 0.2 2 0.4 0 Fromthe Decembe r 198 4 updat e o f NEDS . Baselin e lead emission s wer e calculate d base d on controlle d emissio n rate s give n i n NED S an d a lea d concentratio n i n particulat e o f 3 percen t (referenc e 30) . Base d o n a source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.1 2 ug/m 3 pe r Mg/yr .



### 11 0TABL E 5-17 . NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S FOR IRO NSINTERIN

G (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS )

Lead NAAQ S an

d mobil e sourc e backgroun

d (ug/m

Backgroun

d = 0 . 0.2 5 

### 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 Backgroun

d - 0 0.2 5 

### 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 ' )



### 0 5

0 1 Cost s (thou

Installe d capita l

23,56 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 6,70 0 6,70 0 23,56 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 13,40 0 6,70 0 6,70 0 sands )

Tota l annua l

6,55 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 1,84 0 1,84 0 6,55 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 3,68 0 1,84 0 1,84 0 Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d



### 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 Numbe r

unabl e t o comply 3



### 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1r-i 

### 0 0 0 0 0

3 Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allowsom e plant s t o achiev e the lowe r alternatives .



### Il l

## " H The productio n o f bras s an d bronz e ingot s take s plac e i n on e o f thre e type s o f furnaces : direct-fire d reverberatory , indirect-fire d o r electric . Th e rawmaterial s ar e charge d t o the furnac e an d whe n the charg e attain s the prope r hea t an

d impuritie s hav e bee n draw n of f int o the slag , the molte n meta l i s teste d fo r it s alloycomposition . Adjustment s ar e mad e a s neede d an d th e meta l i s brough t t o the idea l pouring temperatur e fo r the specifi c allo yan d the ingot s ar e poured . 5.10. 2 Industr

yStructure 3 5

Ther e ha s bee n a stead ydeclin e i n the numbe r o f plant s an d productio n sinc e the peak yea r o f 196 6 despit e th e hig hwartim e deman

d during the lat e sixtie s an

d earl yseventies . Ther e wer e 6 0 producer s i n 196 9 an d onl y3 5 i n 1978 . Thi s negativ e growt hi s expecte d t o continue d fo r two majo r reasons : the firs t i s a declin e i n marke t deman d fo r certai n bras s an d bronz e products , an d the secon

d i s substitutio n o f othe r material s o r technologie s fo r the previousl yuse d bras s o r bronze . Fibe r optic s fo r telephon e an d dat a transmissio n i s expecte d t o caus e eve n furthe r decline s i n bras s an d bronz e demand . 5.10. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Controls 3 0

Lead bearing particulat e matte r i s emitte d fro mproces s an

d fugitive proces s source s a t bras s an d bronz e ingo t productio n plants . Th e exten t o f th e lea d emission s depend s o n the lea d compositio n o f the scra p an d othe r charge d materials , temperature , typ e o f furnac e an d variou s operating factor s suc ha s method s o f charging , slagging , alloying an d pouring ingot s Th e lea d fractio n o f particulat e matte r emission s range s fro m1-1 2 percen t fo r mos t operations . Th e proces s emission s can b e collecte d an d ducte d t o a high-efficiency baghous e fo r contro l o f al l particulat e matte r fractions . Afe whig hpressur e drop ventur i scrubber s ar e use d i n the industr ybu t thei r overal l contro l efficienc y(6 0 percent ) i s significantl ylowe r than tha t o f baghouses .

11 25.10. 4 Industr ySpecifi c Methodologie s Particulat e emission s frombras s an d bronz e productio n plant s wer e obtaine d fro

mthe Decembe r 198 4 updat e o f NEDS . Particulat e emission s fro m bras s an

d bronz e productio n rang e fro m2. 5 t o 5 6 percen t lead ; however , for the majorit yo f bras s an d bronz e alloys , the lea d conten t o f particulat e emission s i s abou t 1 5 percent . Thi s averag e lea d conten t wa s use d t o estimat e lea d emission s fromthe individua l plants ; an averag e source-recepto r coefficien t o f 0.9 0 ug/m 3 wa s use d t o estimat e baselin e ambien t lea d impacts . Thi s source-recepto r coefficien t wa s calculate d using dispersio n modeling result s fo r bras s an d bronz e productio n plant s i n Chicag o an d Phoenix ; gra

y iro n foundrie s i n Chicago , Dallas , Minneapoli s - St . Paul , an d Philadelphia ; an d alloystee l plant s i n Chicag o an d Philadelphia . Modelin g result s fo r the iro n an d stee l industr

ywer e use d i n the stud yo f bras s an

d bronz e plant s becaus e o f the similarit yi n emissio n an d stac k parameters . Baselin e lea

d emission s an

d ambien t impact s determine d using the above method s ar e give n i n Tabl e 5-18 . Th e cost s o f attainmen t for the bras s an d bronz e industr

ywer e estimate d fo r the uppe r an d lowe r limi t mobil e sourc e background level s (Sectio n 3) . Ther e wer e n o dat a availabl e concerning fugitive emission s an d the ywer e therefor e no t considere d i n thi s analysis . The sourc e impac t fo r eac h plan t wa s determine d an

d the emission s reduction s necessarya t the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternative s wer e calculated . Th e contro l o f choic e fo r the industry , high efficienc ybaghouse , wa s applie d i n the instance s wher e reduction s wer e necessary . 5.10. 5 NAAQ S Control s an d Cost s NAAQ S contro l fo r the bras s an d bronz e ingo t productio n plant s i s limited t o the applicatio n o f high-efficienc ybaghouse s contro l o f furnac e emissions . Tabl e 5-1 9 give s industry-wid e cost s t o achieve the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Th e cost s associate d wit hthe contro l technique s evaluate d ar e presente d i n Appendi x D .

11 3TABL E 5-18 . BASELINE EMISSION S BRONZ E PRODUCTION
Plan t identificatio n numbe r 

### 1 2 3 4

5

6

7

8

9 1 0 1 1 Furnac e

capacit y (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

Baselin e percen t control 3 

### 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
9 5 8 5 9 5 9 5 

### 0 8 0 

### 0 --CONTINUED-
-



### 11 4 IMPACT S FO R BRAS S

Baselin e lea d emission s (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 •



### AN D Baseline ambien t impac t (ug/m3) c 0.6 0 0.2 8 0.6 9 0.2 2 0.2 3 0.4 5 0.5 9 0.2 0 0.0 9 0.8 7 0.1 5 0.1 0 0.0 5 0.2 9 0.9 4 1.0 2 1.9 6 0.2 6 0.0 5 0.0 6 0.3 9 0.7 6 0.6 6 0.4 3 0.7 6 

## '7 1

-t n to C O IV a . o 3 to ( 0 o c M O ro i i- t ro n fl> • d r t o H O o I D H i H i H - o H - ( D 3

._ . r t 

## G ° ^ H i o o V O C 0 0 0 O J t > A l- t S 0 0 ^ H • O J >o ro f i o n > 3 r t s-\ f l re H i rt> M ro 3 o ro O J o ^ ^ •

. M to r t ( D C O o o H - < ro 3 H - 3 2 5 W t ) W to 3 a . to H * ro to a . o o 3 n ro 3 r t •- ( to r t H o 3 H - 3
• a to H r t H o C i- 1 to r t ro o H i c u to C O ro i - " H - 3 ro t-a ro to a . ro 0 H - C O C O H - o 3 ( 0 « ro i ro o to • - • o c H " to r t ro Q . c r to C O ro Q . o 3 O o 3 r t ti O i - " ro a . ro 0UOTSST **. n o 

### n rt V ro tt ro n ro 0 c r ro M t-a V O 0 0 4 > c > a O to r t ro o H i 2 5 M rt C O

. 0 0 O J

t o t o O l O l t-a

I O OV O J O J O J O J

O vO vO O O l O l O l O l O v O l O l t O t-a

4 > 4 > O J N J O J H o m m M s t

o 0 0 « > oo « s ws O v4 * v o v o 4 > O l t O O J

0 0 H N J s J 0 0 J > t o t o O V - J

o o o o o o o o O l o O J v o v o v o v o v o v o

v o O S v o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v o v o O l O i O O OOOO O

H O H > O - J f•• 0 0 O l H

O tr> t o O J

. . O J O J H

O H > O O t o t oti .. . . t O t O O r- 1 H O s i H 0 0 >KJOOOOOt- 1 t-> O J OJtOOvOvvotOi- ' H O H > t o O t" < •• O V O V H O H H i > O J 4 > tr1•• t O t-a H o H > O * * O O v(- • tr 1 O vs J O J O l O l

o o o o o o oooo o OOOOOOO O o o o M H > O H " O O O O O o vo o v s J O V t-a J > r- « I O

O l 0 0 s i U J O O •- •H *

O V t-a I- " O V s J -P "

O -P-HJOOOOO O

SOOHWUlSH O t o t o o 0 0 O J O l •P - O U J

H CO U H " O O J O O l H- "

O O l o o t o O J t o a

c 0 c r ro r. H - D . ro 3 r t H - H i H - O to r t H - o 3 •f l *- • to 3 r t I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ^ s O >*i Kt u c 0 0 T J ri - s , to 3 CL. O to to H - O v< ! r t ro

n T J w o ro to i- t w o ro ro H * 3 H > n - a ro 3 r t ft O

ro 0 KH - w

to c o o o c o ro ro c o c u v< J >- tO w3 C O )-a. (X. H -

3 ro

s-* H - C 0 0 0 XI H - s . to ro 0 o 3 O J r t r t to w 0 to c rc o ro H 3 ro > nt o I If nw I I I I O i n i I I (- • 1 1 o o I I I I^ s I Io o z H H I z a I I w I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

. JTABL E 5-19 . NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S FOR IRO NSINTERIN

G (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS )

Lead NAAQ S an

d mobil e sourc e backgroun

d (ug/m

Backgroun

d = 0 . 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 l )

0 5 Cost s

Installe d capita l

5,57 5 3,61 3 2,30 0 1,44 0 74 5 74 5 40 4 (thou sands )

Tota l annua l

1,56 8 98 0 62 4 39 0 20 2 20 2 10 9 Numbe r

o f plant s affecte d

1 9 1 2 8 5 3 3 2 Numbe r unabl e t o comply 3

4 2 0 0 0 0 0 P.3 1

Backgroun

d = 0.0 5 0.2 5 0. 5 0. 8 1. 0 1. 5 2. 0 2. 5 5,57 5 3,60 9 1,89 6 1,44 0 74 5 40 4 40 4 1,56 8

87 1 51 5 39 0 20 2 10 9 10 9 1 9

1 1 7 5 3 2 2 4

2 0 0 0 0 0

a Control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allowsom e plant s t o achiev e the lowe r alternatives .



### 11 65.1 1 PRIMARY COOPE R SMELTIN G AND REFININ

G
5.11. 1 Proces s Descriptio n Th e materia l processe d a t U.S . primarycoppe r smelter s (SI C 3331 ) ar e predominatel ysulfid e or e concentrates , o f whic hthe mos t commo n coppe r bearin g constituen t i s chalcopyrit e (CuFeS2) . Th e coppe r conten t o f the or e a s minde d i s generall yles s tha n 1 weigh t percent , an d flotatio n method s ar e use d t o produc e a coppe r concentrat e tha t serve s a s th e feed t o th e primary smelting plant . Atypica l coppe r or e concentrat e contain s 1 5 t o 3 0 weigh t percen t coppe r an

d larg e amount s o f iron , sulfur , an d silicon . Othe r importan t constituent s ar e lead , antimony , zinc , cadmium , bismuth , selenium , an d arsenic. 3 ' Th e coppe r bearin g mineral s i n th e or e concentrat e ar e separate d fro mthe othe r material s an

d converte d t o 9 9 percen t pur e "bliste r copper " a t the primarycoppe r smelter . Ther e ar e thre e majo r processe s involve d a t mos t smelters : roasting , smelting , an d converting . 5.11.1. 1 Roasting Coppe r or e concentrate s requir e roastin g i f theyhav e a lowcoppe r conten t relativ e t o sulfur an d othe r impurities . Roasting involve s heating th e or e concentrat e t o abou t 650° C (belo wth e meltin g poin t o f the charge ) an d ha s thre e functions : (1 ) eliminating a portio n o f th e sulfur a s SO2 ; (2 ) converting a portio n o f the iro n sulfide s t o iro n oxides ; an d (3 ) removing volatil e impuritie s suc ha s antimony , arsenic , bismuth , an d cadmium . Th e roaste d produc t i s known a s th e calcine . Currently , ther e ar e tw o type s o f roaster s used—multipl e heart hroaster s an d th e newe r flui d be d roasters . Fo r a give n degre e o f sulfur removal , flui d be d roaster s requir e a shorte r concentrat e residenc e time an d produc e a highe r strengt h SO 2 offga s strea mtha n d o multipl e heart hroasters .



### 11 7T* ;

5.11.1. 2 Smeltin g

I nth e smeltin g proces s eithe r ho t calcin e fro m the roaste r o r unroaste d or e concentrate s ar e melte dwit hsuitabl e fluxe s i na smeltin g furnac e to chemicall y

reduc e coppe r an dhighe r ironoxide s an dt o liberat e sulfu r a s SO2 . Thi s proces s result s i nth e productio no f tw o products : a copper-ric h matte , whic hgenerall y contain s 1 5 t o 5 0 percen t copper , togethe r wit hiron , mos t o f the sulfu r an dan y containe dperciou s metals ; an da copper-poo r slag , th e wast e flu

xhig hi nsilico nan diro nan

dcontainin g smal l amount s o f coppe r andothe r oxid e impurities . Thes e "phases " ar e mutuall y insoluabl e an

d separat e withi nth e furnace , th e sla g floatin g o nto po f the matte . Th e matte andsla g ar e draw nof f (tapped ) separately , wit hthe sla g bein g discarde dor recycle dan

dth e matt e bein g sen t t o th e converte r for furthe r processing . There ar e severa l type s o f smeltin g furnace s currentl y use di ndomesti c coppe r smelters : reverbator y furnaces , electri c furnaces , flas hfurnaces , an d continuou s (Noranda ) furnaces . The reverbator y furnac e i s th e oldes t technolog y

anddiffer s fro

m the res t i ntha t i t produce s anoffga s strea m wit h a relativel y

lo w SO 2 content , generall y betwee n0. 5 an

d1. 5 percen t SO2 5 a s oppose dt o the othe r furnace s whic hproduc e offga s stream s havin g greate r than 3. 5 percen t SO2 . 5.11.1. 3 Convertin g

Th e molte nmatt e produce di nthe smeltin g furnac e i s transferre dt o th e converte r wher e fluxmaterial s ar e adde dt o provid e a mediu m i nwhic han

y iron containe di nthe matt e ca nbe remove da s slag . There ar e tw o stage s i nth

e converte r operations . Durin g th e "sla g blow, " th e iro nsulfid e i nthe matt e i s preferentiall y oxidize dt o iro noxide . Th e iro noxid e dissolve s i nth e fluxan

dforms a ferrou s sla g laye r tha t i s remove dfro m the converte r an d recycle dt o th e smeltin g furnace . Followin g the sla g blow , the molte ncoppe r sulfide i s converte dt o metalli c bliste r coppe r an dsulfu r dioxid e during th e "coppe r blow. " Th e SO 2 conten t o f th e offga s i s highe r durin g the coppe r blo w tha ndurin g the sla g blow .

11 8Th e 9 9 percen t pur e bliste r coppe r fro mthe converte r i s subsequentl y refine d t o reduc e the leve l o f impurities . Refining consist s o f a serie s o f operation s i n whic hbliste r coppe r i s firs t oxidize d t o Cu0 2 an d then reduced bac k t o metalli c copper . Figur e 5- 1 show s a conventiona l coppe r smeltin g process . 5.11. 2 Industr

yStructur e Currently , ther e ar e seve n companie s operating twelve domesti c primar y coppe r smelter s wit ha combine d productio n capacit yo f 1,421,00 0 Mg (1,563,10 0 tons). 3 " Thi s represent s a n 1 8 percen t reductio n i n capacit yfro m 198 4 du e t o the closing o f thre e smelters : the ASARC O smelte r i n Tacoma , Washingto n (90,00 0 Mg capacity) , an d the Phelp s Dodg e smelter s i n Aj o (64,00 0 Mg capacity ) an d Morenc i (160,00 0 M g capacity) , Arizona. 3 7 I n 1984 , domesti c primarycoppe r smelte r productio n wa s 989,72 0 Mg (1,088,69 2 tons) , approximatel y5 7 percen t o f capacity . Th e Coppe r Range/Whit e Pin e smelte r ha s bee n close d sinc e 1982 , bu t negotiations , wit hinten t t o reope n the min e an d smelte r ar e currentl y underway. 3 ^ N o growt hi n U.S . capacit yi s expecte d an d a contractio n o f th e industryi s probabl e ove r the shor t term ; an averag e annua l growt hrat e o f 1. 7 percen t pe r yea r from198 3 t o 200 0 i s predicted.^ ° Tabl e 5-2 0 show s th e company , locatio n an d estimate d productio n capacit yo f the twelv e operating smelters . 5.11. 3 Emissio n Source s an d Control s Lead-bearing particulate s ar e emitte d fro mprocess , fugitive process , an d fugitiv e dus t source s a t primarycoppe r smelters . 5.11.3. 1 Proces s Emission s

Proces s emission s can b e wel l controlle d throug hthe us e o f extensive hoodin g an

d ducting systems , baghouses , contac t sulfuri c aci d plants ,

11 9- .

? *

is l a g

Figur e 5-1

. ROASTIN G

•multipl e heart h
•flui d bed

calc i n e

i ' SMELTIN G

•reverbator y •electri c •continuou s •flas h

m a

1 :t e

CONVERTIN G

blist e - coppe r

REFININ G

Conventiona l coppe rsmeltin g process .

12 0

I T r - - —nfii r

•

## 1

TABL E 5-20 . DOMESTI C PRIMAR Y COPPE R SMELTER S

Compan y Smelte r locatio n Coppe r Productio n Capacity 3 Mg/y

r (tons/yr )

ASARC O

Tennesse e Chemica l Coppe r Rang e Inspiratio n Consolidate d Kennecot t

Magm a Phelp s Dodg e E l Paso , Texa s Hayden , Arizon a Copperhill , Tennesse e Whit e Pine , Michiga n Miami , Arizon a Garfield , Uta h Hayden , Arizon a Hurley , Ne wMexic o McGill , Neved a San Manuel , Arizon a Douglas , Arizon a Hiladago , Ne wMexic o 91,00 0 182,00 0 13,60 0 52,00 0 136,00 0 254,00 0 71,00 0 73,00 0 45,00 0 181,00 0 115,00 0 163,00 0 (100,000 )

(200,000 ) (15,000 ) (57,000 ) (150,000 ) (280,000 ) (78,000 ) (80,000 ) (50,000 ) (200,000 ) (127,000 ) (179,000 )

a Productio n o f bliste r copper .



### 12 1electrostati c precipitator s (ESPs) , scrubbers , an d dispersio n o f emission s fro mtal l stacks . Roaster s - - Th e emissio n contro l technologie s tha t can b e applie d t o th e two type s o f roaster s (multipl e heart han d flui d bed ) depen

d o n the SO 2 conten t o f the offga s streams . Flui d be d roaste r offga s stream s hav e a hig h enoughSO 2 concentratio n t o b e economicall ytreate d wit ha contac t sulfuri c aci d plant , whic hwhe n use d i n conjunctio n wit han ES P achieve s a 99. 9 percen t reductio n i n h e lea d conten t o f the wast e stream . Th e SO 2 concentratio n o f multipl e heart hroaste r offga s i s to o lowfo r economica l treatmen t wit ha contac t sulfuri c aci d plan t unles s the strea mi s blende d wit hanothe r mor e concentrate d SO 2 stream . ESP s ar e use d fo r particulat e control , an d col d ESP s ca n remov e u

p t o 9 9 percen t o f particulates , efficiencie s fo r ho t ESP s rang e fro m2 0 t o 8 0 percent.^ 1

Furnace s —Th e existing contro l equipmen t employe d o n smelting furnac e offga s stream s depend s o n the furnac e type . A s wit hthe multipl e heart h roaster , th e SO 2 conten t o f reverberatoryfurnac e offga s i s to o lo wt o trea t th e streameconomicall ywit ha contac t sulfuri c aci d plant , an d othe r forms o f SO 2 control , suc ha s flu e ga s desulfurization , ar e no t practice d i n the domesti c primarycoppe r smelting industry . ESP s ar e use d exclusivel ywithi n th e industryt o remov e particulat e matte r fromreverberatoryfurnac e offgases . Contac t sulfuri c aci d plant s ar e use d t o trea t stream s fro m electric , flash , an d continuou s (Norahda ) furnace s becaus e o f thei r relativel y hig hSO 2 concentration . Converter s - - Offgase s fro mthe converte r operatio n tha t ar e capture d b y th e primaryconverte r hoodin g systemar e treate d i n contac t sulfuri c aci d plant s a t 6 o f th e 9 coppe r smelter s modele d fo r thi s study . O f the remainin g thre e plants , two us e ho t ES P system s fo r particulat e contro l an d the othe r ha s n o converte r offga s pollutio n contro l equipment. 3 7

12 25.11.3. 2 Fugitiv e Emission s Fugitiv e emission s mayb e characterize d a s emission s whic hescap e directl y fro mthe proces s are a t o the atmospher e rathe r than throug ha flu e o r exhaus t system . Theyresul t fromleakag e i n an d aroun d proces s equipmen t an d fro m materia l handling an d transfe r operations . Thes e emission s maybe considere d a s lo wleve l emission s whe n compare d t o proces s emissions , sinc e the yusuall y leave the smelte r a t o r nea r groun d level , wherea s proces s emission s ar e discharge d througha tal l stack .
Roaste r —Fugitiv e emission s seldomoccur s during charging o f multipl e heart hroaster s becaus e o f the wate r conten t (8-1 0 percent ) o f the feed , an d the chok e feed mechanis mo n the charging hoppers . Becaus e o f the enclose d feed an d discharg e system , fugitive s ar e seldomemitte d fro mflui d be d roasters . Fugitiv e emission s fro mmultipl e heart hroaster s mayb e emitte d fro mleak s tha t ca n occu r a t th e door s locate d a t eac ho f the heart hlevels , fro mhole s i n the actua l shel l o f the roaster , o r fro mleak s aroun

d the shaf t supportin g the rabbl e arms . Unde r norma l operating conditions , thes e emission s ar e minimize d b

yoperating the multipl e heart hroaster s unde r a sligh t negativ e pressure . Calcin e Transfe r —

Fugitiv e emission s mayb e generate d during the discharg e an

d transfe r o f ho t calcin e fro mroaste r t o smelting furnaces . Smelter s wit hmultipl e heart hroaster s usuall yus e larr ycar s (smal l rai l cars ) t o transpor t calcine s t o th e furnace . Whe n the materia l i s droppe d fro m the calcin e hoppe r locate d unde r the roaste r int o the covere d ca r throug h a feed opening , larg e quantitie s o f dus t ar e generate d a s a resul t o f materia l movemen t an

d pressur e change s withi n the car . Some fugitive emission s ca n als o occu r during the transportatio n o f the roaste r calcine s t o the smeltin g furnace . I n the cas e wher e larr ycar s ar e used , thei r feed opening i s usuall y covere d t o minimiz e thi s effect. 3 ' Fugitiv e emission s ar e seldomemitte d fro ma properl yoperate d flui d bed roaste r during calcin e transfe r operation s sinc e i t i s essentiall ya closed system . 12 3Smelting Furnace s —A s note d previously , four basi c type s o f smelting

furnace s ar e used : reverberatory , electric , continuou s (Noranda) , an d flash . Depending o n th e metho d use d fo r charging an d th e typ e o f smelting furnace , fugitiv e emission s ca n b e generated . However , b yusing add-o n contro l system s whic har e activate d a t th e time the charg e i s dropped , effectiv e reductio n o f potentia l fugitiv e emission s ca n b e obtained . Sinc e mos t smelter s ar e currentl yusin g suc hcontro l systems , i t i s reasonabl e t o assume tha t fugitive lead emission s during charging o f smelting furnace s ar e negligible . Reverberatoryfurnace s ar e usuall yoperate d unde r sligh t negativ e pressur e whic hhelp s preven t fugitiv e emission s fromth e man ypotentia l leakag e point s aroun d th e furnace . Th e reduce d requiremen t fo r providing oxyge n t o electri c furnace s result s i n thes e furnace s bein g bette r sealed . I f positiv e pressur e i s momentaril ygenerated , fugitiv e emission s du e t o leakag e ar e considerabl y less . Th e constructio n o f flas hfurnace s i s suc htha t the yar e virtuall y gas-tight , preventin g leakag e o f emissions . Provide d the yar e properl y operate d an

d maintained , i t i s reasonabl e t o assume tha t fugitive lead emission s du e t o leakag e fromsmelting furnace s ar e negligible. 3 ' Matt e an

d sla g tapping ar e th e principl e fugitive emissio n source s a t the smelting furnace . Smelting furnace s hav e fromon e t o thre e matt e ta p hole s wit h associate d launder s o n eac hside . Th e launde r direct s the flowing matt e t o a poin t wher e i t ca n b e collecte d i n a larg e ladle . Fugitiv e emission s ar e observalb e fromthe poin t a t whic hth e matt e leave s th e furnac e t o the locatio n wher e i t enter s th e ladle . Typically , a matt e tapping operatio n take s 5 t o 1 5 minutes . Sla g ta p port s an

d sla g launder s hav e bee n observe d t o emi t les s fugitiv e emission s tha n thos e emitte d during matt e tapping operations ; however , fugitiv e emission s ar e observabl e fro mthe poin t o f the sla g leaving th e furnac e t o th e locatio n wher e i t enter s the ladle . Atypica l sla g tapping operatio n take s 1 0 t o 2 0 minutes . I t ha s bee n conclude d tha t a properl ydesigne d an d operate d ventilatio n systemapplie d t o matt e an d sla g tapping operation s shoul d achiev e a minimu m captur e efficienc yo f 9 0 percent. 3 ^ Thes e capture d emission s can b e vente d t o a n availabl e contro l devis e fo r treatment .



### 12 4'7* 1

Converter s —During converte r charging , visibl e fugitive emission s o f shor t duratio n occu r whe n matt e o r othe r material s ar e poured fro ma ladl e int o a converter . During the blo wphase , som e fugitive emission s ar e discharge d throughopening s betwee n th e primaryhood s an d the converte r openings . Skimming operations , du e t o equipmen t requirements , generall y resul t i n significan t fugitiv e emissions . Fugitiv e emission s als o occu r whe n the bliste r coppe r i s poure d fro mthe converte r int o the ladle . Additiona l fugitive s mayoccu r during holding operation s an d fro moccassiona l converte r leaks . Fugitiv e emission s control s fo r converter s includ e ai r curtai n secondar y hoo d captur e systems , usuall yvente d t o a fabri c filte r o r othe r existing contro l device , whic hcan achiev e u p t o 9 5 percen t captur e efficiency . Dus t Transfe r an

d Handling--Dus t handling an d transfe r can generat e fugitiv e emission s i f carelessl yperformed . Howeve r mos t smelter s tak e reasonabl e precaution s t o minimiz e fugitiv e emission s fro mdus t handling an

d transfer . Fugitiv e dus t emissio n contro l technique s include : paving , traffi c control , we t suppression , an d soi l stabilizatio n fo r unpave d hau l road s an d ope n wor k areas ; an d we t suppression , surfactants , an d enclosure s fo r stockpile s an

d conveyo r systems . Tabl e 5-2 1 list s fugitive emissio n contro l technique s use d a t primarycoppe r smelters . 5.11. 4 Contro l Straget yDevelopmen t 5.11.4. 1 Estimatio n o f Baselin e Ambien t Impact s

A s note d earlier , four primarycoppe r smelter s hav e bee n close d recently , thre e o f the

mpermanently . Th e remaining smelter s currentl yi n operatio n an d the on e whic hmayreope n wer e studie d individually . The baselin e ambien t lea d impac t fo r eac hplan t wa s determine d fo r eac hplan t eithe r b ymodeling , o r whe n availabl e an

d adequate , fro

mambien t monitoring data . Four smelter s had annua l quarterl ymaximum s belo wthe lowes t alternativ e an d wer e no t modeled . Whe n adequat e amb.ren t dat a wa s no t availabl e o r indicated ambien t impact s abov e 0.2 5 ug/m 3 , annua l maximu mquarterl yconcentration s wer e estimate d using

12 5P.4 1 "" H

TABL E 5-21 . FUGITIVE EMISSIONCONTRO L TECHNIQUE S A T PRIMAR

Y COPPE R SMELTER S Fugitiv e emissio n soruc e aaatai e Contro l technique s

Roaste r

Calcin e Transfe r Smelting Furnac e

Converter s

Dus t handlin g an d transfe r

Stoc k piles/conveyo r system s 1 . Negativ e pressur e 2 . Hoodin g 1 . Hooding 1 . Negativ e pressur e 2 . Captur e an

d collectio n an

d system s 1 . Ai r curtai n secondar

yhood captur e systems 1 . Paving 2 . We t suppressio n 3 . Soi l stabilizatio n 1 . Surfactant s 2 . Enclosure s

12 6P.4 2

ISCST.4- 2 Emissio n parameter s fo r mos t o f the remaining coppe r smelter s wer e availabl e fro

mInorgani c Arseni c Emission s fro mPrimar

yCoppe r Smelter s - Backgroun

d Informatio n fo r Promulgate d Standards. 3 " Win d frequencyan

d directio n data , whe n available , came fro mthe neares t stat e meteorologica l station . Whe n possible , coordinate s o f proces s an d fugitive emissio n source s wer e take n fro

mplan t sit e plan s o r th e Nationa l Emission s Dat a bas e (NEDS)^ 3 i n orde r t o estimat e emission s fro meac hsource , rathe r tha n colocating al l source s a t plan t center . 5.11.4. 2 NAAQ S Contro l Strategie s an d Costs
Usin g the result s fro mthe calculatio n o f the baselin e ambien t impacts , individua l plant s wer e identifie d whic hwoul d b e impacted b ythe variou s NAAQ S alternatives . Aplan t wa s determine d t o b e affecte d i f the know n o r predicte d annua l maximu

mquarterl yambien t lea d concentratio n a t a poin t outsid e the plan t boundryexceede d the NAAQ S level . Becaus e o f the remot e location s o f the primarycoppe r smelters , the background concentration s aroun d themwer e assume d t o b e negligibl e Base d o n the result s o f dispersio n modeling , contro l strategie s wer e develope d fo r the nin e domesti c primarycoppe r smelter s modeled . Tabl e 5-2 2 show s the baselin e ambien t lea d concentration s an d predicte d concentration s afte r contro l fo r eac h plant . Tota l installe d capita l an d annualize d contro l cost s associate d wit hachieving eac halternativ e ar e presente d i n Tabl e 5-23 . Cost s fo r individua l control s ar e give n i n Appendi x D . Si x o f the nin e smelter s modele d attaine d the lowes t NAAQ S alternative wit hadd-o n control s fo r converte r and/o r furnac e fugitive emissions . O f these , on e wil l achiev e the lowes t NAAQ S alternativ e wit hbaselin e control s the yhav e installe d o r wil l instal l b y1987 . Fo r remaining thre e smelters , control s coul d no t b e identifie d t o achiev e the lowes t NAAQ S alternative . However , give n the uncertaintie s i n the conservativ e emissio n estimate s for the technologie s employe d a t thes e smelter s an d i n dispersio n modeling , i t i s possibl e tha t the plant s woul d attai n the lowes t alternativ e using the identifie d controls .

12 7rT ' iv-rtrtw 

### •T l

TABL E 5-22 . BASELINE EMISSION S AN D PREDICTE D AMBIEN

T LEA D CONCENTRATION S AFTE R CONTRO L

Baselin e emission s Sourc e (g/sec )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0.02 0 0.3 7 0.4 0 0.1 4 12 . 1. 1 1. 3 0.3 3 0.05 9 Baselin e

ambien t concentration 3 (ug/m 3 )
0.4 5 

### 1. 2 4. 2 0.8 1 0.3 6 

### 4. 3 2. 4 4. 6 0.5 8 Predicte d ambien t

concentratio n afte r control 3 ** * (ug/m 3 )
0.068 c 0.05 6 0.28 d 0.051(0.25 e ) 0.1 4 0.29 d 0.01 5 0.26 d 0.03 6

3 Annua l maximu

mmea n quarterl yambien t lea d concentration . ^Wit h adde d converte r an d furnac e secondar

yemissio n controls .

c Sourc e wil l achiev e thi s wit hbaselin e control s b y1987 . d Give n the uncertaintie s i n emissio n estimate s fo r ne wtechnologie s an d dispersio n modeling , i t i s possibl e tha t the smelte r woul d attai n the 0.2 5 ug/m 3 alternativ e using the identifie d controls .

e Wit h adde d converte r secondar ycontrol s only .



### 12 8' T " T*" '""wn* 1 " " " P.4 4 "'T l

TABLE 5-23 .
Lea dNAAQ S alternative s (ug/m3 )

2. 5 2. 0 1. 5 NAAQ S CONTROL

Industr y co r Capita l

2 6 2 8 4 4 0 9

. 2 COST S FO

RTH E

ltro l cost s Annualize

d

6. 8 7. 3 11. 6 PRIMAR

Y COPPE R
Numbe r o f plant s impacte d

3 4 4 SMELTIN

GINDUSTR

Y
Numbe r of plant s unabl e t o compl y

1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0.2 5 49. 7

50. 6 61. 6 75. 2 13. 2

13. 5 16. 5 20. 0 7

8 3

a 0n e sourc e ha s baselin e control s (existin g proces s an

dfugitiv

e control s planne do r agree dt o b e installe

dbefor e 1987 3 ^ ) whic hwil l brin

g it belo

w th e lowes t NAAQ S alternativ e o f 0.2 5 ug/m 3 . Baselin e control s hav

e n o additiona l cost s associate

dwit hthe

m are therefor e are exclude dfro m th e cos t analysis .



### 12 9t&mmm

5.1 2 TOTAL NATIONWID E CONTRO L COST S
Table s 5-2 4 an

d 5-2 5 presen t estimate d nationwid e capita l an d annua l cost s o f attaining the variou s alternative s fo r stationar ysource s fo r tw

o scenario s fo r urba n mobil e sourc e background lead concentrations . Tabl e 5-2 4 give s calculate d stationarysourc e cost s base d o n the curren t lead-in-gasolin e phasedow

n program , whic hi s expecte d t o resul t i n a reductio n o f th e averag e urba n mobil e sourc e impac t t o 0. 5 ug/m 3

. Tabl e 5-2 5 give s stationar ysourc e cost s unde r th e propose d tota l ba n o f lead i n gasoline , unde r whic hth e averag e mobil e sourc e lea d impac t i s predicte d a t 0.0 1 ug/m 3 (Sectio n 3) . Mos t o f th e cost s fo r an yo f th e alternative s woul d b e born e b ythe metal s industries , especiall ythe lea d industry . Al l o f th e cost s represen t cost s o f control s i n additio n t o thos e alread yi n place . Especiall yi n the cas e o f primaryan

d secondar

ylead smelters , substantia l cost s alread yhav e bee n incurre d i n the implementatio n o f th e curren t standard . Also , Control s installe d t o mee t OSH Alea d standard s an

d EP Aparticulat e emissio n limit s generall yac t t o reduc e lea d ambien t concentration s fro mlead-emitting industries . Du e t o th e implementatio n o f contro l equipmen t regulations , ther e mayb e a n overlap i n the installatio n o f contro l equipmen t tha t i s considere d t o b e "i n place " an d tha t require d t o attai n the variou s lea d NAAQ S alternatives . Th e cost s presente d i n Table s 5-2 4 an d 5-2 5 an

d throughou t thi s analysi s ar e incrementa l cost s fo r attainmen t o f the variou s NAAQ S alternative s b y 1990 . Th e incrementa l cost s fo r th e tw o alternative s i n whic hthe lea d NAAQ S i s relaxe d d o no t includ e an ycos t saving s fo r discontinuing the us e o f control s tha t wer e installe d t o mee t the curren t standard ; thu s cost s for thes e alternative s ar e biase d upward . Conversely , cost s fo r th e lowe r alternative s ar e biase d downward , becaus e control s coul d no t b e identifie d tha t woul d allo wsome plant s t o attai n thes e alternatives . Some o f the plant s fo r whic hcost s wer e develope d ar e currentl yuncontrolled . Control s fo r thes e plant s mayb e require d t o mee t th e particulat e matte r NAAQS . Thus , som e o f th e cost s fo r al l o f the NAAQ S alternative s mayb e partiall yattributabl e t o the particulat e NAAQS .

13 0TAM. E 5-24 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S FO R TU E UPPE R LTMI T MOBIL E SOURC E BACKGROUND

Cost s fo r note d NAAQ S alternativ e (millions ) 2. 5 2. 0 1. 5 1. 0 0. 8 0. 5 0.2 5

u > CAPITAL COST S

Primarylead smelting Secondarylead smelting Lea d or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lead alky l productio n Gra yiro n foundrie s Allo ystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sintering Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r smelting TOTA L ANNUA L COST S Primarylea

d smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lea d or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lead alky l productio n Grayiro n foundrie s Alloystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sintering Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primar ycoppe r 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 TOTA L 30. 6 39. 1 65. 7 76. 6 80. 7 89. 8 101. 8M UJ t o i

TABL E 5-25 . NATIONWID E NAAQ S CONTRO L COST S

================================= =

CAPITAL COST S Primarylea

d smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lead or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lead alky l productio n Grayiro n foundrie s Allo ystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sinterin g Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r smelting 'TOTA L ANNUA L COST S Primarylea

d smelting Secondarylea

d smelting Lead or e processin g Lead-aci d batterymanufactur e Lea d alky l productio n Grayiro n foundrie s Allo ystee l EAF s Stee l EAF s Iro n an d stee l sinterin g Bras s an

d bronz e productio n Primarycoppe r smelting TOTAL FOR TH E LOWE R

====== = Cost s fo r 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 ======== = LIMI T MOBIL E SOURC E BACKGROUND

======= = note d NAAQ S al t 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 ======== = ernativ e 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 0.2 5

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

,Th e attainmen t cost s fo r 199 5 ar e expecte d t o b e the sam e a s thos e for 199 0 (i n constan t dollars ) fo r two reasons . First , ne wstationar ysourc e cost s associate d wit hattainmen t o f th e lea d NAAQ S afte r 199 0 wil l be attributabl e t o ne wsourc e performanc e standards . Second , becaus e th e backgroun

d lea d concentratio n aroun d stationar

ylea d source s b

y199 0 i s expecte d t o b e negligibl e i n mos t cases , the attainmen t statu s o f a give n plant s wil l no t b e affecte d b ychange s externa l t o the plant . As note d above , the lead-in-gasolin e phasedow n progra

mwil l reduc e mobil e sourc e contribution s aroun d stationar

ysource s t o negligibl e levels . Also , becaus e o f the relativel ysmal l numbe r o f stationarylea d sources , mos t plant s ar e no t subjec t t o backgroun d concentration s fromneighboring plants . 5.1 3 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSI S
Th e result s o f the nationwid e analysi s presente d above ar e subjec t t o a numbe r o f limitations . Thes e resul t fro muncertaint yi n inpu t dat a an d simplifying assumptio n mad e a s par t o f the genera l methodology . I n addition , dispersio n modeling an d costing o f contro l equipmen t ar e subjec t t o uncertainties . Th e mai n sourc e o f uncertaint yi n the inpu t dat a i s i n the emissio n factor s an

d emissio n inventorie s use d i n the study . The dat a use d i n th e analysi s wer e the bes t dat a availabl e a t the time o f the analysi s (198 3 t o 1984) . However , becaus e o f th e natur e o f mos t dat a lea d emissions , emissio n dat a fo r lea

d ar e subjec t t o mor e uncertaint ythan dat a fo r othe r pollutants . Highambien t lea

d impact s generall yar e the resul t o f fugitive lea d emissions , whic h ar e difficul t t o quantify . I n addition , fo r som e industrie s included i n thi s study , lea

d i s presen t a s a trac e componen t i n particulat e emissions . Th e compositio n o f lea d i n thi s particulat e matte r mayvar yb ya s muc h a s a facto r o f ten betwee n differen t source s o f the same genera l type . A s a resul t o f the implementatio n proces s fo r th e curren t lea d standard , the dat a bas e for lea d emission s i s continuousl ybeing augmente d an d improved . Simplifying assumption s mad e i n the stud ycan b e characterize d briefl ya s follows :

13 3" T

averag e source-recepto r coefficient s wer e use d for secondar ylea d smelting , gra

yiro n cupolas , an

d alloystee l EAFs ; mode l plant s wer e use d t o identif yaffecte d facilitie s i n lead-aci d batterymanufactur e an d lea d or e processing ; mode l plant s wer e use d t o develop cost s fo r al l industrie s excep t primar ylea d smelting an

d lea d alky l manufacture ; an d
an averag e mobil e sourc e backgroun d concentratio n wa s used . Source-recepto r coefficient s wer e foun d t o varyb

ya s muc ha s a facto r o f te n fo r the same typ e o f sourc e locate d i n differen t cities . Mobil e sourc e background s mayvaryfro m0. 0 ug/m 3 t o abou t 0.1 3 ug/m 3

. NAAQ S cost s wer e develope d fo r two mobil e sourc e backgrounds , 0.0 1 ug/m 3 an d 0.0 5 ug/m 3

. Th e uncertaint yassociate d wit hthe mode l plan t approac hi s difficul t t o quantif y bu t i s expecte d t o hav e les s effec t tha n uncertaintie s i n the inpu t data . I n additio n t o the above , costing o f emissio n control s typicall yi s subjec t t o an uncertaint yo f i5 0 percent . Dispersio n modeling typicall yi s subjec t t o a n uncertaint yo f a facto r o f two . Th e sensitivit yo f contro l cost s t o variation s i n inpu t variable s an d uncertaintie s i n costing an d modelin g technique s can b e illustrate d b ya grap

h o f cos t versu s NAAQ S level . Figur e 5- 2 give s suc ha plo t fo r the 0.0 1 ug/m 3 urba n mobil e sourc e background level . Adoubling o f emissio n facto r o r source-recepto r coefficien t woul d hav e cos t resul t simila r t o dividing th e NAAQ S leve l b

ytwo . An increas e i n backgroun d concentratio n woul d hav e the same effec t a s a corresponding decreas e i n NAAQS . Th e overal l uncertaint yo f the analysi s i s difficul t t o quantify . I t i s no t expecte d tha t the uncertaintie s i n the cost s fo r variou s industrie s wil l b e i n the same direction . Rather , some uncertaintie s woul d b e expecte d t o be cancelle d b

yuncertaintie s i n the opposit e directio n fo r othe r industries .

13 4-



# | T

T\ 

# / 

# I t

/ / I / 

# f / / / / / 

# / i / 

# 1 - / \ 1 /

1



### / /

. |—|—|—]— i i ri ' ' ' 1 ' ' '

_- , .- , ,- i n n O O u

- , .- . ri

n o '" » O ° ° ' - ^ ^ ~ n f i 'X' - + 

## S * S o S « •

+ t J 

## ° l):

## ' '" ' 

## - - ;? , S S r . C 4 c-

i wC M N ---- - - (SUOTTTTM ) s^so o apTAUOT^ R

13 5 

### -

+ C- 4

- C- i

« 9

- ^ 0 )tiv

- cfl c ) H Q J 

### w£

' T- < c n



# - s 5 8 1 C O " c

-

. J -

_ o

—o o C- 4

« r .—rrr—^' ^ ' " ' •rdlevel.tostanda

c n • P c n o o w Q * 

## 3 5 - U H o J- l • H 

## • S

• U • r l c nSen:

C N 1 u- i C Uigur P ^ 

## - " TP.5 1

REFERENCE S FO R SECTIO N5
1 . Th e Internationa l Competitivenes s o f the U.S . Non-Ferrou s Smeltin g Industryan

d th e Clea n Ai r Act . Everes t Consulting Associates , Inc. , Princeton , NJ , an

d CR UConsultants , Inc. , Ne wYork , NY . Apri l 1982 . 2 . Telecon . G . Viconovic , GCA/Technolog yDivision , wit hW . Woodbury , U.S . Burea u o f Mines . Novembe r 15 , 1983 . Th e curren t statu s o f the Bunke r Hil l primarylead smelter . 3 . Minera l C ommodit ySummarie s —1983 . U.S . Bure a o f Mines . Januar y1983 . 4 . Lette r an

d attachment s fro

mBradle yReynolds , Missour i Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog yDivision . Decembe r 8 , 1982 . Modelin g inventorie s fo r Missouri' s lea d smelters . 5 . Lette r an

d attachment s fro

mBradle yReynolds , Missour i Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog yDivision . Decembe r 22 , 1982 . Dispersio n modelin g input s fo r Missouri' s lead smelters . 6 . Lette r an

d attachment s fro

mRichar d Daye , EPARegio n VI , t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog

yDivision . Decembe r 13 , 1983 . Dispersio n modeling inpu t an d result s fo r Missouri' s lea d smelters . 7 . Stat e o f Texa s Lea d SI P Analysi s (Draft) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Dallas , TX . October , 1981 . 8 . Mem o fromBo b Kellam , EPA/ASB , t o Joh n Haines,'EPA/ASB . Visi t t o Asarc o E l Pas o Smelte r an

d Meeting s wit hRegio n V I an d TACB . Octobe r 5 , 1982 . 9 . Energ

yTechnolog

yConsultants . Identificatio n o f the Source s o f Tota l Suspende d Particulate s an d Particulat e Lead i n E l Pas o Are a b y Quantitativ e Microscopi c Analysis . Texa s Ai r Contro l Board , Austin , TX . 1983 . 10 . Houck , J.E. , e t al . Particulat e Sourc e Apportionmen t Analysi s Using the Chemica l Mas s Balanc e Recepto r Model . Prepare d b yNEA , Inc. , Beaverton , OR , fo r the Montan a Departmen t o f Healt han d Environmenta l Sciences . 1982 . 11 . Balentine , H.W. , e t al . Modelin g Analysi s o f Ambien t Lead Level s Aroun d a PrimaryLead Refinery . Radian , Austin , TX . Decembe r 19 , 1983 .
13 612 . Lette r fromW . Woodbury , U.S . Burea u o f Mines , t o J . Haines , U.S .

Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Octobe r 15 , 1982 . Worl d Directory : SecondaryLea d Plants , compile d b ythe Internationa l Lead/Zin c Conference . 13 . Compilatio n o f Ai r Pollutan t Emission s Factors , Third Edition , an d Supplement s 1 through1 4 (AP-42) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1983 . Sectio n 7.11 . 14 . PreliminaryStud yo f Inorgani c Source s o f Arseni c (EPA-450/5-82-005) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1982 . 15 . Schwitzgabel , K. , e t al . (Radian Corp.) . Fugitiv e Emission s a t a SecondaryLead Smelter . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Decembe r 1981 . 16 . Nationa l Emission s Dat a System(NEDS) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Decembe r 1982 . 17 . Minera l Fact s an d Problem s - Lead . 198 0 Edition . U.S . Burea u o f Mines . 1981 . 18 . Metalli c Minera l Processing Plant s - Background Informatio n fo r Propose d Standar d (EPA-450/3-81-009a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . 1982 . 19 . Lea d - Minera l Commodit ySummary . U.S . Burea u o f Mines . Decembe r 1977 . 20 . Mineral s an

d Materials , ABimonthl ySurvey . U.S . Burea u o f Mines , Washington , DC . 21 . Engineering & Minin g Journal . Marc h198 2 an d January1983 . 22 . Referenc e 13 . Sectio n 7.1 8 an d Appendi x E . 23 . Lead-Aci d BatteryManufactur e - Background Informatio n fo r Propose d Standard s (EPA-450/3-79-028a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1979 . 24 . Telecon . W . Battye , GCA/Technolog yDivision , wit hR . Burkhard , Batter y Counci l Internationa l Marketin g Committee . Apri l 16 , 1983 . Growt h i n th e lead-aci d batteryindustry . 25 . Referenc e 13 . Sectio n 7.15 . 26 . Referenc e 13 . Sectio n 5.22 . 27 . Referenc e 13 . Sectio n 7.1 0



### 13 728 . 198 3 Industria l Outlook . U.S . Departmen t o f Commerce . Januar y1983 . 29 . Federa l Reserv e Statistica l Release : Capacit yUtilization : Manufacturing , Mining , Utilities , an d Industria l Materials . G.3(402 ) Th e Federa l Reserv e System , Washington , DC . Novembe r 16 , 1983 . 30 . Contro l Technique s fo r Lead Ai r Emission s - Volume II : Chapte r 4 - Appendi x B (EPA-450/2-77-012) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Decembe r 1977 . 31 . Electri c Ar c Furnace s i n Ferrou s Foundrie s - Backgroun d Informatio n for Propose d Standard s (EPA-450/3-80-020a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc yResearc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1980 . 32 . Electri c Ar c Furnace s an d Argon—Oxyge n Decarburizatio n fo r Vesse l i n Stee l Industry- Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Revisio n t o Standard s (EPA-450/3-82-02a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . 1983 . 33 . EPR I Journal . Electri c Powe r Researc hInstitute . Jun e 1982 . 34 . ARevie wo f Standard s o f Performanc e fo r Ne wStationar ySource s - SecondaryBras s an

d Bronz e Plants . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . Publicatio n No . EPA-450/3-79-011 . Jun e 1979 . 35 . Persona l Communicatio n betwee n Bras s an d Bronz e Ingo t Institut e an d Michae l Clower s o f GCA , Apri l 10 , 1985 . 36 . Compilatio n o f Ai r Pollutan t Emissio n Factors . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . Publicatio n No . AP-42 . Jul y1979 . 37 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Inorgani c Arseni c Emission s fro m Low-Arseni c PrimaryCoppe r Smelters . Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin g an

d Standards , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Apri l 1983 . 38 . Telecom . Janic e J . Jolly , Physica l Scientist , Divisio n o f Nonferrou s Metals , U.S . Burea u o f Mines , wit hNancyBrowne , GCA/Technology . 6 Jun e 1985 . 39 . Telecom . Da n Edelstein , Physica l Scientist , Divisio n o f Nonferrou s Metals , U.S . Burea u o f Mines , wit hNancyBrowne , GCA/Technology , 1 7 Jun e 1985 . 40 . U.S . Departmen t o f the Interior . Copper . Preprin t fro mBulleti n 675 , Minera l Fact s an

d Problems . Bureau o f Mines , U.S . Departmen t o f the Interior , Washington , D.C . 1985 .

13 841 . Compilatio n o f Ai r Pollutan t Emissio n Factors . Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . Jul y1979 . U.S . Environmenta l Publicatio n No . AP-42 . 42 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Industria l Sourc e Comple x (ISC ) Dispersio n Mode l User' s Guide , Volume EPA-450/4-79-030 . Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1979 . 43 . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency . Nationa l Emission s Dat a Syste m (NEDS ) Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC .

13 96 . NE W SOURC E CONTROL S

Th e cost s o f meetin g alternativ e ambien t standard s fo r lea d ar e th e primaryfocu s o f thi s cost s assessment . However , anothe r perspectiv e ca n b e gaine d b

ycomparing thes e cost s t o th e cost s o f meetin g newsourc e performanc e standards . Cost s o f meetin g ne wsourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) wer e assesse d fo r th e lead-aci d batterymanufactur e industryan d fo r alloystee l electri c ar c furnaces . Thes e ar e th e onl yindustrycategorie s affecte d b y the NAAQ S fo r whic hgrowt hi n capacit ywa s projecte d (Sectio n 4.8) . Table s 6- 1 an

d 6- 2 summariz e NSP S cost s fo r lead-aci d batter ymanufactur e an d alloystee l electri c ar c furnaces , respectively . Thes e wer e develope d base d o n projection s o f growt hi n Sectio n 4. 8 an d cost s estimate s give n i n th e background informatio n document s fo r th e NSPS . Dat a use d t o deriv e th e NSP S cost s fo r lead-aci d batterymanufactur e an d alloystee l EAF' s ar e presente d i n Appendice s E an

d H , respectively . Compariso n o f Table s 6- 1 an d 6- 2 wit hTabl e 5-1 4 indicate s tha t tota l NAAQ S cost s ar e highe r tha n NSP S cost s fo r lead-aci d batterymanufacture . Fo r alloystee l EAF's , tota l NSP S cost s ar e th e higher . I n bot hcases , per-plan t NAAQ S cost s an

d NSP S cost s ar e roughl ycomparable .



### 14 0TABL E 6-1 .

=========== =

Yea r 199 0 199 1 199 2 199 3 199 4 199 5 NSP S COST S FO R TH E LEAD-ACI D BATTER Y INDUSTR Y

========== = Numbe r o f ne w plant s 

### 1 1 1 1 1 1 (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS )

================= = Tota l cost s Capita l 

### 82 6 82 6 82 6 82 6 82 6 82 6 ============ =

(thousands ) Annua l 

### 24 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 24 9 Siz e o f eac hne wplan t i s estimate d t o b e 10,00 0 batterie s pe r day .

TABL E 6-2 . NSP S COST S FO R ALLO Y STEE L ELECTRI C

AR C FURNACE S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS ) Numbe r Tota l cost s (millions ) o f ne w' Yea r plant s Capita l Annua l 198 3 5 32. 0 12. 0 198 4 4 25. 7 9. 1 198 5 4 24. 4 9. 2 198 6 3 18. 0 6. 3 198 7 4 24. 4 9. 1 198 8 3 18. 0 6. 3 198 9 4 24. 4 9. 1 199 0 3 18. 0 6. 3 199 1 3 19. 2 7. 4 199 2 2 12. 8 4. 6 199 3 2 12. 8 4. 6 199 4 2 10. 5 3. 4 199 5 2 10. 5 3. 4

14 17 . COST S O F WAST E OI L COMBUSTIO NREGULATION S

I n January1985 , EPAissued a propose d rul e tha t woul d exten d the hazardou s wast e managemen t regulation s t o appl yt o marketing o f an d burnin

g fo r energ

yrecoveryo f hazardou s waste s an d use d oils . Thi s rul e woul d establis hmaximu

mcontaminan t leve l an d minimu

mflas hpoin t specification s for use d oi l burne d i n nonindustria l boilers . Burning o f off-specificatio n fue l oi l woul d b e prohibited , becaus e emission s fro msuchburning ar e potentiall y hazardou s t o huma n healt han d the environment . I n additio n t o regulating actua l burning , EP Ai s proposing administrativ e requirement s tha t creat e a tracking systemfro minitia l wast e fue l marketers , throug hdistributors , t o burners , including notification , receip t o f identificatio n number , complianc e wit hmanifes t o r invoic e system , an d recordkeeping. * Thi s rul e i s being propose d becaus e used oi l contain s a numbe r o f toxi c contaminants , including toxi c metal s an d a variet yo f chlorinate d solvent s an d othe r organi c chemicals . On e o f the metal s o f concer n i s lead . Typically , use d oi l contain s a media n concentratio n o f 24 0 pp mlead , an

d a 90t h percentil e concentratio n o f 120 0 ppm ; bot hthes e value s ar e mor e tha n tw o order s o f magnitud e greate r than the analagou s value s fo r virgi n fue l oils . T o determin e the ambien t lea d contributio n o f use d oi l burning , EP A conducte d a modeling stud yo f a hypothetica l urba n are a wher e use d fue l oi l containing 100 0 pp

mlea d wa s being burne d acros s the cityi n residential , institutional , an

d commercia l boilers . Thi s stud yshowed tha t th

e ambien t lea d concentration s associate d wit huse d oi l burning wer e ove r 0. 7 ug/m 3 i n certai n section s o f the stud yarea . Thi s valu e i s almos t thre e time s th e lowes t NAAQ S being considere d (0.2 5 ug/m 3 ) , an d abou t 507 . o f th

e curren t standar d (1. 5 ug/m 3 ). * Base d on othe r modelin g studies , EP Abelieve s tha t a lea d specificatio n leve l fo r use d oi l o f 10 0 pp mwoul d ensur e tha t ambien t lea d level s i n th

e vicinit yo f bot hlarg e an d smal l singl e an

d clustere d source s woul d b e wel l belo wthe curren t standard o f 1. 5 ug/m 3

. However , a 1 0 pp mleve l i s als o being discussed , becaus e th e curren t NAAQ S i s being revise d downward ; thi s

14 2

- j1 0 pp mspecificatio n leve l woul d effectivel ypreclud e mos t burning o f use d fue l oil , becaus e onl y30 % o f use d oi l can mee t thi s lea d level . I f th

e Agenc ydoe s begi n regulating the burning o f use d oi l a s fuel , th e ne wNAAQ S wil l hav e t o be considere d whe n choosing the specificatio n leve l fo r lead. l EPAha s estimate d the nationa l cost s o f implementing th e hazardou s waste/use d oi l burning rule s fo r nonindustria l boilers , a s show n i n Tabl e 7-1 ; not e tha t the annualize d cost s attributabl e t o use d oi l regulation s alon e woul d b e les s than the tota l cost s give n i n the table . The estimate s ar e base d o n worst-cas e condition s wit hrespec t t o a numbe r o f marketer s an d burner s subjec t t o regulation ; thus , the cost s mor e closel yapproximat e maximu mrathe r than actua l costs . However , thi s upward bia s i s negate d a t leas t i n part , becaus e EPAdi d no t attemp t t o determin e an d includ e the cost s o f tw o importan t impact s o f the propose d rule : (1 ) th e cos t t o marketer s o f treating use d oi l t o mee t the use d oi l fue l specification , an d (2 ) the cost s t o nonindustria l boile r owner s o f having t o bu yspecificatio n use d oi l fue l o r commercia l fue l oi l instead o f hazardou s wast e fue l o r off-specificatio n use d oi l fuel . Th e fina l specificatio n level s se t fo r lea d an d othe r toxi c contaminant s i n use d oi l wil l i n par t determin e thes e costs . *

14 3P.5 9

TABL E 7-1 . NATIONWID E COST S O F HAZARDOU S WAST E AN D USE D OI L COMBUSTIO N REGULATION S (198 4 dollars) a » b

Requiremen t Nationwid e cost s (thousan d ofdollars ) One-time Recurring Tota l capita l annua l annualize d

Notificatio n Manifes t system(hazardou s waste ) Invoic e syste

m(used oil ) Certificatio n t o supplier s Use d oi l analysi s Specificatio n oi l Off-specificatio n oi l Storag e TOTAL 169 1 

### 2 0 7 8 

### 90 0 

### 0 0 347 6 

### 0

37 9 1721 3 

### 30 7 32 8 202 4 106 1 

### 11 3

38 0

. 1721 8 

### 36 7 32 8 202 4 129 4 616 5 2131 2 2172 4

a Thes e cost s mor e closel yapproximat e maximu mrathe r than actua l costs . ^Thes e cost s do no t includ e the cost s t o marketer s o f treatin g use d oi l t o mee t specifications , no r the cost s t o nonindustria l boile r owner s o f no t bein g abl e t o us e hazardou s wast e fue l o r off-specificatio n use d oi l fuel .

14 4

### _--- p

REFERENCE S FOR SECTIO N7
Hazardou s Wast e Managemen t System : Standard s fo r the Managemen t o f Specifi c Waste s an

d Specifi c Type s o f Wast e Facilities . Federa l Register . 50:1684-1724 . January11 , 1985 .

14 5P.6 1

.„,._ - .-, w , r „ - ir ,. fr?1 ^-, Br _-_-, T „ B; .

APPENDI X A LEA D EMISSION S INVENTORY



### 14 6TABL E A-l . ESTIMATE D ATMOSPHERI C LEA D EMISSION S FO R TH E UNITE D STATES , 198 1 Annua l emission s Sourc e category(Mg/yr ) Mobil e Source s Gasolin e combustion 3 35,00 0 StationarySource s Wast e oi l combustion 0 83 0 Soli d wast e incineration 0 31 9 Coa l combustion ^ 95 0 Oi l combustion e 24 3

Or e crushing an

d grinding ^ 32 5 Primarylea

d smelting S 92 1 Secondarylea

d smelting " 63 1 Iro n an d stee l production 1 53 3 Grayiro n production ^ 29 5 Primarycoppe r smelting ^ 3 0 Othe r metallurgica l 5 4

Lea d alky l manufacture TM 24 5 Lea d aci d batterymanufacture 1 1 8 5 Portland cemen t production 0 7 1 Miscellaneous ^ 22 3 TOTAL 40,70 0

a . Reference s 1 an d 2 . Base d o n tota l gasolin e sale s o f 10 0 billio n ga l EP A weighte d lead conten t requirement s i n effec t i n 198 1 (0. 5 g/gal) , an d a lead emissio n rat e o f 7 0 percen t o f the lea d i n gasoline . b . Referenc e 4 , an d 39 . Base d o n tota l annua l wast e oi l combustio n o f 37 0 millio n gallon s (Reference s 3 an d 4) , an averag e lea d conten t o f 120 0 pp m(Referenc e 39) , and . a n emissio n facto r o f 5 0 percen t o f the lea d presen t i n the wast e oi l (Referenc e 4) . 14 7 !

m —amc . Referenc e 5 an d 6 . Base d o n tota l annua l soli d wast e combustio n o f 6.7 6 T g (Referenc e 5) , a n emissio n facto r o f 0. 2 g/k g (Referenc e 6) , an d an averag e emissio n contro l efficienc yo f 7 6 percen t (Referenc e 6) . d . Reference s 6 an d 10 . Base d o n coa l consumptio n b ysecto r fro

mReferenc e 7 , contro l technolog

yapplicatio n rate s an d lea d emissio n factor s fo r variou s contro l technique s fromReference s 8 throug h10 , an

d uncontrolle d lead emission s fro

mReferenc e 6 . e . Reference s 4 , 6 , 7 , an d 8 . Base d o n residua l an d distillat e oi l consumptio n b ysecto r fro

mReferenc e 7 ; averag e residua l an d distillat e oi l lead content s o f 3. 5 pp

m(Referenc e 8 ) an

d 0. 1 ppm(Referenc e 6) , respectively ; an emissio n facto r o f 5 0 percen t o f th e oi l presen t i n the fue l (Referenc e 4) ; an d contro l technolog

yapplicatio n rate s an d contro l efficiencie s fro mReferenc e 9 . f . Reference s 4 , 6 , 11 , an d 12 . Base d o n tota l or e productio n fo r 198 1 o f 32 0 T g fo r the copper , lead , an d zin c or e processing industries . Th e percentag e breakdow n o f th e typ e o f ore s processe d wa s obtaine d fro m Referenc e 4 an

d th e appropriat e P b emissio n facto r fo r eac hor e typ e wa s obtaine d fro

mReferenc e 6 . Al l or e processe d wa s assume d t o b e dr yore . g . Referenc e 1 3 through21 . Base d o n estimate s o f poin t an d fugitiv e emission s develope d b

yFederal , State , an d loca l ai r pollutio n agencie s i n respons e t o Stat e Implementatio n Pla n requirements . h . Reference s 4 , 22 , an d 23 . Base d o n NED S listing o f tota l particulat e emission s fromsecondarylead smelter s an d a lead conten t o f 2 3 percen t fo r th e particulat e (Referenc e 4) . Tota l lea d emission s wer e prorate d upwar d fo r th e percen t o f secondarylead smelte r capacit yno t liste d i n NEDS . i . Reference s 4 , 5 , 6 , an d 2 4 t o 26 . Base d on rawstee l productio n o f 10 8 Tg fo r 198 1 (Referenc e 24 ) an d proces s input s obtaine d fo r Referenc e 5 . Emissio n contro l efficiencie s fo r the variou s proces s source s wer e obtaine d fromReference s 4 an d 6 . j . Reference s 5 , 6 , an d 2 7 t o 29 . Base d o n gray-iro n shipment s o f 9 T g fo r 198 1 (Referenc e 27 ) an d a productio n breakdow n fo r cupola , electri c induction , an

d reverberatoryfurnace s fro mReferenc e 28 . Th e lead emissio n factor s use d fo r thi s industryar e average s fro mReferenc e 6 . Averag e industryemissio n contro l efficienc yo f 9 8 percen t fo r cupola s an d 0 percen t fo r electri c inductio n furnace s an d reverberator

yfurnace s were.base d o n dat a fromReferenc e 5 an d 29 . k . Reference s 5 , 6 , 24 , an d 30 . Base d o n an estimate d tota l coppe r concentrat e inpu t fo r 198 1 o f 6. 3 T g (Reference s 2 4 an d 30) . Pb emissio n factor s fo r roasting , reverberatoryfurnace , an d converte r operation s wer e obtaine d fro mReferenc e 6 an

d overal l particulat e emissio n contro l efficiencyo f 9 6 percen t wa s base d o n Reference s 5 an d 6 . 1 . Reference s 4 , 5 , 6 , 31 , 32 , 3 3 an d 34 . Include s primaryzinc smelting , ferroalloyproduction , an d bras s an

d bronz e production . 14 8 !

# T

m . Reference s 1 3 an d 35 . Base d o n estimate s o f poin t an d fugitiv e emission s develope d b

yFederal , State , an d loca l ai r pollutio n agencie s i n respons e t o Stat e Implementatio n Pla n requirements . n . Reference s 6 , 22 , an d 36 . Base d o n uncontrolled ' emissio n rate s fro m Referenc e 6 , weighte d averag e contro l technolog yapplicatio n rate s an d efficiencie s fromReferenc e 22 , an d a batter

yproductio n rat e o f 7 0 millio n unit s (Reference s 3 2 an d 36) . o . Reference s 6 , 22 , an d 37 . Tota l lead emission s wer e calculate d b ysummin

g particulat e emission s tabulate d i n the NED S systemfo r portlan d cemen t plant s an

d applying an averag e particulat e lead conten t o f 45 0 pp m (Referenc e 22) . p . Reference s 4 , 6 , 32 , an d 38 . Include s the manufactur e o f glass , lead pigments , lead oxide s no t produce d a t batter yplants , typ e metal , ammunition , an

d othe r lead products .



### 14 9REFERENCE S FO R APPENDI X A

1 . Petroleu

mSuppl yMonthly . DOE/EIA-0109(82106) , Energ yInformatio n Administration , U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Washington , DC , Jun e 1982 . 2 . SupplementaryGuideline s fo r Lea d Implementatio n Plan s Revise d Sectio n 4. 3 (Projectin g Automotiv e Lea d Emissions) . EPA-450/2-78-038a , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , Jul y1979 . 3 . Hess , L.Y . Reprocessing an d Disposa l o f Wast e Petroleu mOils . Noye s Dat a Corp. , Par k Ridge , NJ , 1979 . 4 . Contro l Technique s fo r Lea d Ai r Emissions . EPA-450/2-77-012 , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standards , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1977 . 5 . GCA/Technolog

yDivision . Surveyo f Cadmiu mEmissio n Sources . EPA-450/3-81-013 , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1981 . 6 . Compilatio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Emissio n Factors , Thir d Editio n (Includin g Supplement s 1 through7 ) an d Supplement s 8 throug h13 . AP-42 , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1982 . 7 . Stat e Energ

yDat a Report , 196 0 through1980 . DOE/EIA-0214(80) , Energ y Informatio n Administration , U.S . Departmen t o f Energy , Washington , DC , Jul y1982 . 8 . Shih , CC , R.A . Orsini , D.G . Ackerman , R . Moreno , E . Moon , L.L . Scinto , an d C Yu . Emission s Assessmen t o f Stationar yCombustio n Systems ; Volume III : Electricit yGeneratio n Externa l Combustio n Soruces . EPA-600/7-81-003a , US . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1981 . 9 . Surprenant , N.F. , W . Battye , D . Roeck , an d S.M . Sandberg . Emission s Assessmen t o f Stationar yCombustio n Systems ; Volum e V : Industria l Combustio n Sources . EPA-600/7-81-003c , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1981 . 10 . Surprenant , N.F. , P . Hung , R . Li , K.T . McGregor , W . Piispanen , an d S.M . Sandberg . Emission s Assessmen t o f StationaryCombustio n Systems ; Volum e IV : Commercial/Insitutiona l Combustio n Sources . EPA-600/7-81-003b , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1981 . 15 0 jr

## n

11 . Engineering & Minin g Journal . January1982 . 12 . Metalli c Minera l Processin g Plant s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . EPA-450/3-81-009a , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , 1982 . 13 . Stat e o f Texa s Lead SI P Analysi s (Draft) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Dallas , TX , October , 1981 . 14 . Memo fro

mBob Kellamt o Joh n Haines , Visi t t o Asarc o E l Pas o Smelte r an d Meeting s wit hRegio n V I an d TACB , Octobe r 5 , 1982 . 15 . Lette r an

d attachment s fromBradle yReynolds , Missour i Departmen t o f Natura l Resources , t o Timoth yCurtin . GCA/Technolog yDivision , Decembe r 8 , 1982 , modelin g inventorie s input s fo r Missouri' s lead smelters . 16 . Letter s an

d aattachment s fro

mBradle yReynolds , Missour i Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog yDivision , Decembe r 22 , 1982 . Dispersio n modelin g inpu t fo r Missouri' s lead smelters . 17 . Lette r an

d attachment s fro

mRichar d Daye , EPARegio n V I t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog

yDivision . Decembe r 13 . Dispersio n modeling inpu t an d result s fo r Missouri' s lead smelters . 18 . PES , Inc . Emissio n Measurement s a t th e Asarc o Lea d Smelte r i n E . Helen a MT , May1980 . 19 . ET AEngineering , Inc . Technica l Suppor t Document : Analysi s o f Ai r Qualit yLevel s i n E . Helena , MT . November , 1980 . 20 . Lette r an

d Attachment s fromGen e Robinson , Stat e o f Nebraska , Departmen t o f Environmenta l Control , t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog yDivision , January10 , 1982 . Stat e Implementatio n Pla n fo r Lead . 21 . Lette r an

d Attachment s fro

mRober t Timmerman , Cit yo f Omaha Housing an d Communit yDevelopmen t Department , t o Timoth yCurtin , GCA/Technolog y Division , January7 , 1982 , Emissio n Inventor yfo r Asarco , Omaha , NB . 22 . Nationa l Emission s Dat a System . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1982 . 23 . Worl d Directory : SecondaryLea d Plants . Receive d fro mWillia

mWoodbury , U.S . Burea u o f Mines . Octobe r 15 , 1982 . 24 . Minera l Commodit ySummarie s 1982 . U.S . Burea u o f Mines , Janaur y1982 . 25 . Minera l Commodit yProfiles : Iro n Ore . U.S . Burea u o f Mines , May1978 . 26 . Basi c Oxyge n Proces s Furnace s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Decembe r 198 1 (Review Draft) . 15 1

- >P.6 7 

## " 1

27 . GrayIro n FoundryShipments . FoundryTechnolog yManagement . Apri l 1982 . 28 . AMetho d fo r Characterizatio n an d Quantificatio n o f Fugitiv e Lead Emission s fromSecondaryLea d Smelters , Ferroallo yPlant s an d GrayIron Foundrie s (Revised) . EPA-450/3-78-00 3 (Revised) , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Augus t 1978 . 29. . Hazardou s an

d Trac e Substance s Emissio n System . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1982 . 30 . Th e Internationa l Competitivenes s o f the U.S . Non-Ferrou s Smelting Industr y an d the Clea n Ai r Act . America n Minin g Congress . Apri l 1982 . 31 . 198 1 U.S . Industria l Outlook . U.S . Departmen t o f Commerce , Washington , DC , 1981 . 32 . Preprin t fo r Lea d fromMineral s Yearboo k 1981 : Volum e I - Metal s an d Minerals . U.S . Burea u o f Mines , Washington , DC , 1983 . 33 . Electri c Submerge d Ar c Furnace s fo r Productio n o f Ferroalloy s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . EPA-450/2-74-018a , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1974 . 34 . SecondaryBras s an d Bronz e Ingo t Productio n Plant s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . APTD-1352 , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1973 . 35 . Stat e o f Louisian a Lea d SI P Analysi s (Draft) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Dallas , TX , 1981 . 36 . 198 2 BatteryCounci l Internationa l Statistic s Annual . BatteryCounci l International , Chicago , IL , 1982 . 37 . Minera l Industrie s Survey s - Directoryo f Cemen t Producer s i n 1982 . U.S . Bure a o f Mines , Washington , DC , 1982 . 38 . Glas s Manufacturin g Plant s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards . EPA-450/3-79-005a , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC , 1979 . 39 . Brinkman , D.W.,-P . Fennelly , an d N . Surprenant . Th e Fat e o f Hazardou s Waste s i n Use d Oi l Recyclin g - . Pape r presente d a t the Conferenc e o n Measurement s and Standard s fo r Recycle d Oi l -IV , Gaithersburg , Md . (Nationa l Burea u o f Standards) , Septembe r 14-16 , 1982 .



### 15 2APPENDI X B RA W DATAUSE D I N PREDICTIN

G MOBIL E SOURC E IMPACT S



### 15 3P.6 9

TABL E B-1 . RA

W DAT A AN DSIT E PARAMETER S FO RMICROSCAL E NAM S :=;:::;:;;;:==;:=:: :

Sit e Sit e nuabe r typ e 01033002SS0 1 HI C 05390000110 1 HI C

10086002460 1 HI C 101960084H0 1 HI C

151780009H0 1 HI C 210120C45F0 1 HI C 220240002F0 1 HI C 243C80004F0 1 HI C

310960002F0 1 HI C 320040022H0 2 HI C 330660017F0 1 HI C 334680052F0 1 HI C 372200013FC 2 HI C 381460082F0 1 HI C 397140047H0 2 HI C 402140003F0 1 HI C 451700027F0 1 HI C ====_r=== =

Prob e heigh t deters ) 

### 2 5 3 3 3 2 5 2 2 3 2 & 

### 3 4 4 3 3 ==r====r== = == = Avg . roadway vol . (100 0 vehicle s pe r day ) 

### 3 0 2 5 10 0 10 4 7 5 6 4 3 5 4 9 9 7 3 5 7 8 15 0 15. 13 2 3 6 6 4 1 6 :-===_=_.==

_ Distanc e fro a road (aeters ) 

### 9 6 1 5 1 4 1 2 1 3 7 7 1 4 7 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 4 9 1 5 5 :rr==== =

Yea r 198 3 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 3 198 1 198 2 19B 3 198 3 198 2 198 3 198 3 193 1 198 2 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 2 198 3 1982 . 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 1 198 2 198 3 :===========

=

Tota l lea d burned(Gg ) 

### 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 3 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 ==-========_-=

= Annua l averag e concsntratic n (ug/a3 ) 0.8 6 1. 1 0. 9 0. 7 1.1 5 1.0 1 1.1 5 1.0 2 0.4 0 0.6 7 0.4 4 0.5 1 0.7 5 0.5 0 0.6 3 0.7 3 0.7 4 0.6 4 0.7 3 0.4 0 0.4 4 1.3 2 1.2 2 0.3 6 1.2 2 1. 5 1. 1 1. 3 ==:::: = :::=r=;==:: r

H a nau s quarterl y concentration (ug/a3 ) 1.0 4 1. 5 1. 6 1. 1 1.3 9 1.4 1 1.7 1 1.1 5 0.4 3 0.8 5 0.6 0 0.5 9 0.8 9 0.5 7 0.7 0 0.3 7 0.9 5 0.6 9 0.9 0 0.4 0 0.5 0 1.6 3 1.3 7 0.4 1 1.3 0 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 )



### 15 4P.7 0

TABL E B-2 . RA

WDAT A AND SIT E PARAMETER S FO RMIDDL E SCAL E NAMS

Sit s nuaber Sit e

typ e Probe heigh t (aeters ) Avg . roadwa

y vol . (100 0 vehicle s pe rday ) Distanc e

fro a roa d (aeters ) Tota l lea d

Yea rburne d (Gg) Annua l averag e concentratio n (ug/i3 ) Haxiau i

quarterl y concentratio n (ug/fi3 ) 030600017SO I HI D4 056400003F0 1 KI D4

05680000410 1 HI D1 2

056980C04IO I HI D4 1 9 4 0



### 1 0 2 5

2 5

1 0

1 4 198 3 197 5 198 0 198 1 197 5 I96 0 198 1 198 2 197 5 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 5 3

17 4 7 5 5 9 17 4 7 5 5 9 6 0 17 4 7 5 5 9 6 0 5 3 0.7 0

1.8 4 1.0 2 0.7 4 1.0 1 0.6 7 0.5 6 0.4 5 1.2 4 0.6 6 0.3 7 0.5 0 0.3 4 1.0 8

2.3 3 1.4 6 1.0 0 1.5 1 1.2 2 0.90 . 0.8 1 1.9 9 0.9 4 0.4 7 0.8 8 0.4 5 (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 ) 05716000110 1

070420014F0 1 09002002710 1 101840001S0 1 141220026H0 1 222160007F0 1 261040002S0 1 262330002H0 1 402160004F0 1 410300007F0 1 451310029H0 1 451BB0003F0 1 451880023F0 1 512200099FO I HI

D

HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D HI D 4
1 3 1 0 4 8 4 1 3 6 4 5 7 7 6 1 3 1

5
1 8 3 4 3 8 17 7 8 1 5 5 1 4 1 2 9 0 7 9 1 5 7 0 1 6 1

9

1 2 3 3 3 7 1 5 5 1 4 3 5 6 1 6 2 3 2 4 2 1 5 0 2 8 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 2 198 3 198 2 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 2 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 5 9

6 0 5 3 5 9

_ . 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 3 6 0 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 0.2 4

0.3 5 0.2 8 0.3 7 0.2 3 0.3 1 0.4 5 0.7 6 0.4 5 0.3 5 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.4 7 0.6 9 0.2 9 0.2 9 0.6 0. 7 0.2 9 0.3 0

0.5 5 0.3 5 0.4 7 0.3 2 0.4 1 0.5 2 0.9 9 0.5 1 0.4 0 0.2 8 0.3 3 0.5 6 0.9 2 0.3 5 0.3 7 1.0 0.9 0.3 2 (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 )



### 15 5P.7 1

TABL E B-3 . RA

W DAT AAND SIT E PARAMETER S FOR NEIGHBORHOO D SCAL E NAM S

Sit s nusbe r 030600013B0 1

05278000110 1

05418010310 1

05653500110 1

05536000410 1

101760001S0 1

141220052HO I 151520014H0 1 152040058H0 1 172340001F0 1 220380002F0 1 222160011F0 1 242260050FO I 260030001B0 1 281B80019S0 1 312320003F0 1 320040019H.0 1

__-____---- - Sit e

typ e NE I

NE I

NE I

NE I

NE I

NE I

NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I NE I

...... . Prob e heigh t (aeters ) 1 3

6
1 3

7

9
1 2

4 1 0 1 5 5 1 2 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1

--..---- - Avg . roadwa y

vol . (100 0 vehicle s pe r day ) 1 8

2 4
9
1 8

5
5 3

14 0 2 5 7 0 1 1 7 5 4 6 1 5 3 3 6 4 3 3 1

............... . Distance

fro a road (aeters ) 2 5

13 0
8 7
3 8

1 5
12 9

12 0 30 0 8 3 8 0 15 0 10 6 25 0 10 0 8 1 9 2 1 2

.__._-._--- . Yea r

197 5 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 2 '198 3 19B 1 198 2 198 3 197 5 198 0 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 2 198 3 197 6 197 7 197 8 197 9 198 0 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 1 198 2 198 3 198 3 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 3

======== (continued ) 15 6 Tota l lea

d burned(Gg ) 17 4 16 8 16 2 14 6 12 1 7 5 5 9 6 0 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 17 4 7 5 5 9 6 0 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 16 8 16 2 14 6 12 1 7 5 6 0 5 3 5 9 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 5 3 5 9 5 3

===========

= Annua l averag e concentration (ug/a3 ) 1.5 7 1.0 9 1.5 3 1.1 6 0.5 5 0.6 9 0.5 6 0.4 5 0.3 6 0.2 5 0.2 8 0.2 1 1. 0 0. 7 0. 6 1.1 6 0.5 8 0.4 8 0.4 1 0.3 8 0.2 8 0.2 8 0.2 6 0.9 5 0.8 6 0.8 3 0.7 1 0.5 8 0.3 7 0.4 9 0.3 4 0.3 0 0.3 8 0.1 4 0.3 1 0.4 2 0.2 7 0.1 7 0.2 4 0.0 9 0.5 4 0.3 9 0.4 5 0.3 5 isrsrs.sszsrrss ; Ha

x iau i quarterl y concentration (ug/s3 ) 2.I B 1.9 1 2.7 6 1.6 4 1.9 5 1.0 6 0.9 4 0.6 9 0.5 4 0.3 7 0.4 2 0.3 0 1.3 1.0 0. 9 1.4 6 0.8 4 0.6 4 0.4 9 0.5 3 0.3 5 0.3 7 0.2 9 1.2 1 0.9 9 0.9 9 0.8 4 0.7 9 0.4 0 0.5 7 0.4 5 0.3 9 0.4 7 0.1 5 0.4 0 0.5 5 0.3 9 0.2 0 0.2 9 0.1 0 0.7 0 0.4 2 0.6 4 0.4 9 *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 (qt r (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 )
:rr s 

# mTABLE B-3 . (con'd. ) 

# 1

Sit e nuabe r Avg . roadway

Prob e vol . (100 0 Distanc e Sit e heigh t vehicle s fro a road typ e (aeters ) pe r day ) (aeters ) Tota l lead Yea r burne d(Gg ) Annua l -

averag e concentration (ug/a3 ) Haxiou a

quarterl y concentration (ug/a3 ) 334680079F0 1 NE I 1 4 3 0 372200033F0 1 NE I 1 5 9 381460082F0 1 NE I 4 1 9 390400002S0 1 NE I 5 2 7

397140049K0 1 NE I 8 7 5 402160005F0 1 NE I 8 - 4 9 410300017F0 1 NE I 1 4 12 3 451310046H0 1 NE I 4 5 9 45170001CG0 1 NE I 5 8 454570034F0 1 NE I 1 5 5 0 483240005F0 1 NE I 9 4 5 

### 11 7 40 0 15 0 9 5 15 0 10 0 15 2 2 0 3 2 10 0 10 5 198 3 198 2 19B 3 198 2 198 3 198 1 19B 2 198 3 198 3 198 3 198 3 19B 2 198 2 198 3 198 1 198 3 198 2 198 3 

### 5

3 6 0 5 3 6 0 5 3 5 9 6 0 5 3 

### 5 3 5 3 5 3 6 0 6 0 5 3 5 9 5 3 6 0 5 3 0.3 6 0.4 7 (qtr . 4 )

0.1 4 0.1 3 0.1 9 0.2 1 0.2 5 0.2 9 0.2 2 0.4 6 0.1 9 0.4 2 0.3 4 0.2 6 0.2 1 0. 5 0. 4 0.1 9 0.1 7 0.1 9

0.1 4 0.2 3 0.2 8 0.3 1 0.4 0 0.2 3 (qt r 0.5 7 0.2 5 0.6 0 0.4 4 0.3 3 0.3 0 0. 7 0. 6 0.3 0 0.2 4 (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 )



### 15 7- f J T "W-WJT W '

APPENDI XC SAMPL ECOS T CALCULATIO N

15 8'T

APPENDI X C ., - I SAMPL E COS T CALCULATIO N
Wher e possible , contro l cost s fo r plant s o f variou s size s i n a give n industr y wer e take n fro

mpublishe d source s an d simpl yupdate d t o 198 2 dollars . Fo r some industries , however , cos t dat a wer e incomplet e o r no t available . I n thes e cases , th e neede d cos t component s wer e estimate d using standard cos t factor s o r equations . I n orde r t o illustrat e th e us e o f thes e factor s an d equations , thi s appendi x present s a sampl e cos t calculation . Th e sampl e calculatio n i s fo r a fabri c filte r applie d t o a three-proces s operatio n an d a past e mixin g facilit ya t a 10,00 0 batterype r da ybpd ) lead-aci d batteryplant . Becaus e n o cos t dat a wer e availabl e fo r th e 10,00 0 bpd plant , thi s exampl e wil l giv e a n illustratio n o f al l o f th e variou s cos t estimatio n technique s used . AIRFLOW RAT E Th e firs t requiremen t t o estimat e contro l cost s i s the flowrat e throug h th e contro l device . Th e require d ventilatio n rate s fo r the 10,00 0 bpd thre e proces s operatio n an

d past e mixin g facilit ywer e estimate d base d o n typica l airflo wrate s fo r smalle r facilities . Tabl e B- 1 list s ventilatio n rate s give n fo r 500 , 2000 , an d 650 0 bpd facilitie s i n th e background informatio n documen t fo r lead-aci d batterymanufactur e ne wsourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS) . I t wa s assume d tha t the require d facilit yventilatio n rat e i s relate d t o hourl yproductio n capacit yb

ya powe r law :

V = aC b( D wher e a , b = constant s 3

V < * facilit yventilatio n rat e ( m/min ) C = productio n capacit y(batteries/h r o r bph ) Give n the ventilatio n rate s fo r tw o facilit ysizes , the constant s a an d b can b e determine d a s follows :



### 15 9



# •r»*-'(f7"fr» "

= lQ g V l ' l0 S V 2 (2 ) log ^ - logC 2

a = V/C b(3 ) wher e subscript s a an d b refe r t o specifi c plan t size s Base d o n the dat a give n i n Tabl e C-l ^ the followin g relationship s can b e develope d fo r the thre e proces s operatio n an d the past e mixing facilit yventilatio n rates . fo r 62. 5 < ' C < 125. 0 bph : V3 P = (34.16)C (0,635 ) (4 ) V p M= (13.07)C (0 \ 398 ) (5 ) fo r 125. 0 < C < 270.0 / bph : V 3 p = (7.816)C (0 *? 41 ) (6 ) V p M= (3.020)C ( °' 702 ) (7 ) wher e subscript s 3 P an d P M refe r t o thre e proces s an d past e mixing facilities , respectivel y Th e ventilatio n rate s require d fo r 10,00 0 bpd facilitie s wer e estimate d b y extrapolating the secon d se t o f relationship s t o 416.6 7 batterie s pe r hou r (equivalen t t o 10,00 0 bp d fo r a facilit yoperating 2 4 hour s pe r day) :

V 1000 0 = 7.816(416.67)°' 94 1 + 3.02(416.67) 0 ' 70 2 (8 ) 

### TO T

= 249 0 m 3 /mi n .:. • " " ' (9 ) wher e superscrip t 1000 0 refer s t o the 10,00 0 bpd size , subscrip t TO T refer s t o the combine d thre e proces s an d past e mixin g ventilatio n rat e CAPITA L COST S Purchas e Cos t Th e relationshi p betwee n the cos t o f contro l equipmen t an d ventilatio n rat e 2 i s als o assume d t o b e governe d b ya powe r law . Fo r fabri c filtratio n wit h an air-to-clot hrati o o f 6:1 , the NSP S backgroun d documen t give s contro l equipmen t 16 0H

TABL EC-l
. VENTILATIO NRATE S FO RTYPICA L'BATTER

Y PLANT S Dail y battery productio n capacit y 

### 50 0 200 0 650 0 Operatin g hour s pe r day 

### 8 1 6 2 4 Hourl y

battery productio n capacit y 62. 5 125. 0 270. 8 Ventilatio n Thre e proces s 

### 47 2 73 3 151 7 ( m/min )

Past e mixing 67. 9 89. 5 154. 0

16 1- TM

purchas e cost s o f $10,50 0 an d $100,60 0 (1977 ) fo r airflo wrate s o f 14 2 m 3 /mi n 3 3 an d 198 2 m/min , respectively . Usin g thes e dat a an d the technique s outline d i n equation s 1 t o 3 , th e following relationshi p can b e obtaine d fo r contro l systempurchas e cost :

P (7? ) = (151.2)V (0>8563 ) (10 ) wher e ?(-,-,-. ~ purchas e capita l cos t i n 197 7 dollar s Fo r a baghous e applie d t o the combine d exhaus t fro m10,00 0 bpd thre e proces s an d past e mixing operations :

P (77 ) = (151.2)*(2490) (0,8563 ) (11 )

= 122,36 1 Cos t indexe s fro

mChemica l Engineerin g wer e use d t o updat e the 197 7 purchas e cos t t o 198 2 dollars :

P (82 ) = P (77 ) * ( 1 ' 506 ) (12 )

- = 184,00 0 wher e (1.506 ) •= rati o betwee n th e third quarte r 198 2 Chemica l Engineering plan t cos t inde x an d th e fourt h quarte r 197 7 plan t cos t inde x p = purchas e cos t i n third quarte r 198 2 dollar s (82 ) Installe d Cos t Th e NSP S background documen t give s equipmen t installatio n cost s a s a functio n o f purchas e cos t fo r contro l device s a t ne wfacilitie s an d fo r retrofi t installations . Installatio n cos t factor s fo r a fabri c filte r ar e presente d i n

4 Tabl e C-2 . A s the tabl e shows , tota l installatio n cost s ar e give n b y 2.2 8 time s the equipmen t purchas e cost . Becaus e th e exampl e cas e i s fo r a ne w plant , thi s figur e doe s no t includ e a retrofi t penalty . Th e retrofi t cos t i s normall y2 0 t o 5 0 percen t o f th e tota l installe d cost . Fo r the exampl e case , installatio n an

d tota l installe d cost s ar e give n by : Installatio n cos t = 2.2 8 * 184,00 0 (13 )

= 419,50 0 - 1 ' - •" • v Installe d cos t = 419,50 0 + 184,00 0 (14 )

= 603,50 0 i 16 2Componen t TABL E C-2 . COMPONEN T CAPITAL COST.FACTOR S FOR AFABRI C FILTE R A S AFUNCTIONO F EQUIPMEN T COST , E Direc t cost s Materia l Labo r Equipmen t Ductwor k Instrumentatio n Electrica l Foundation s Structura l Sitewor k Painting 1.00 E 0.04 E 0.04 E 0.11 E 0.03 E 0.03 E 0.02 E 0.004 E 0.25 E 0.21 E 0.006 E 0.16 E 0.05 E 0.05 E 0.02 E 0.02 E

Tota l direc t cost s 1.27 E 0.77 E

Componen t Indirec t cost s Measur e o f cost s Facto r Engineering Contractor' s fe e Shakedow

n Spare s Freigh t Taxe s 10 % materia l an d labo r 15 % materia l an

d labo r 5 % materia l an

d labo r 1 % materia l 3 % materia l 3 % materia l 0.204 E 0.306 E 0.102 E 0.013 E 0.038 E 0.038 E Tota l indirec t cost s Contingencie s - 20 % o f direc t an d indirec t cost s Tota l capita l cost s 0.696 E 0.547 E 3.28 E



### 16 3ANNUALIZE D COST S . . - -

Electricit y Th e NSP S background documen t estimate s the electricit yrequirement s fo r fabri c filter s applie d t o lead-aci d batteryproductio n operation s a t 2 0 watt s 3 pe r m/mi n o f airflow , an d give s an operating schedul e o f 600 0 hour s pe r yea r fo r a larg e plant . An electricit ycos t o f 4. 9 cent s pe r kilowat t (kW)-hour 3 wa s use d i n thi s study . Usin g th e tota l ventilatio n requiremen t o f 249 0 m/mi n fo r the thre e proces s operatio n an d the past e mixing facility , the electricit y requirement s an

d cost s ar e give n a s follows : Electricit y= (249 0 m 3 /min ) (20.8W/m 3 /min ) (600 0 hr/yr ) (15 )

= 31 1 MW-hr/yr Cos t = (311,00 0 kW-hr/yr ) (0.04 9 $/kW-hr ) (16 )

= $15,200/yr

Maintenanc e an

d Supplie s Maintenanc e labo r an d materia l cost s fo r a baghous e a t a lead-aci d batter y plan t ar e estimate d i n th e NSP S background documen t a t 6 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l costs , an d supplie s ar e estimate d a t 1 5 percen t o f labo r an d material . Base d o n th e tota l installe d cos t o f $603,500 , maintenanc e an d suppl ycost s fo r th e exampl e cas e can b e calculate d a s follows :

Maintenance/supplie s = (0.06 ) (1.15 ) ($603,500 ) (17 )

= $ 41,600/yr Operating Labo r Th e NSP S background documen t estimate s the direc t labo r requiremen t fo r a baghouse.a t a lead batteryplan t a t 1 operato r hou r pe r 1 0 hour s o f operation . Supervisio n labo r i s estimate d a t 1 5 percen t o f direc t labor . Hourl yoperating labo r cost s fo r the lead-aci d batterymanufacturing industrywer e estimate d i n thi s stud

ya t 1 2 dollar s pe r hou r (includin g benefits) . Using the baghous e operating schedul e o f 600 0 hour s pe r year , tota l operating labo r requirement s an d cost s fo r the exampl e cas e ar e give n a s follows :



### 16 4Operating labo r = (1.15 ) ( 1 hr/1 0 hr ) (600 0 hr/yr ) (18 )

= 69 0 hr/y r Cos t = (69 0 hr/yr ) (1 2 $/hr ) (19 )

= $8280/yr Capita l Charge s Astandar d 1 0 percen t interes t rat e wa s assume d i n calculating capita l recoveryfactor s fo r thi s study . Base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years , thi s interes t rat e result s i n a capita l recoverycharg e o f 13. 2 percen t pe r year . I n addition, , a n additiona l 4 percen t capita l charg e wa s added t o cove r stat e taxes , insurance , an d overhea d costs . Thus , using the tota l installe d capita l cos t o f $603,500 , annua l capita l charge s ar e calculate d a s follows :

Annua l capita l = (0.132/y r + 0.04/yr ) ($603,500 )

= $103,800/yr (20 )



### 16 5P.8 1

REFERENCE S
1 . Lead-Aci d BatteryManufactur e - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standards , EPA-450/3-79-028a , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , Nort hCarolina . Novembe r 1979 . pg . 8-14 . 2 . Referenc e 1 . pg . 8-24 . 3 . Referenc e 1 . pg . 8-19 . 4 . Referenc e 1 . pg . 8-60 . 5 . Referenc e 1 . pg . 8-31 . 6 . Referenc e 1 . pp . 8-2 8 an d 8-29 . 7 . U.S . Burea u o f Labo r Statistics . Monthl yLabo r Statistics . 1982 .



### 16 6

-j

# 1

APPENDI X D COST S O F INDUSTRY-SPECIFI C CONTRO L OPTION S AN

D TECHNIQUE S



### 16 7TABL E D-1 . CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S AND COST S FO R PRIMARY LEA D SMELTER S AND REFINERIE S

o o Emissio n sourc e I 'i n1 1 n o i. i naa M Contro l techniqu e Overal l emission s contro l efficienc y(% ) Contro l costs £ Capita l Annua l Smal l or e storag e pil e Larg e or e storag e pil e Ope n wor k area s Produc t handling / unloadin g Concentrat e storag e buildin g Sinte r plan t

Blas t furnac e

Dros s plan t Refinery Zin c Oxid e plan t Sla g pil e Continuou s we t dus t 9 0 suppressio n wit hsurfactant s Continuou s we t dus t 70 + suppressio n wit hsurfactant s Pavin g an

d sweeping " 9 0 Railca r an

d truc k cover s 7 5 Dus t contro l system 6 0 meter s (20 0 feet ) stac k 99 + Ductin g an

d fan Hoodin g an

d ventilatio n 7 0 Replacemen t sinte r crushing circui t Ai r filtratio n system Hoodin g an

d ventilatio n 7 5 Replacemen t baghous e system Automati c tuyer e punchin g Plenu mbuildin g ventilatio n 50-7 0 Hoodin g an

d ventilatio n Building ventilatio n 50-6 0 Hoodin g an

d ventilatio n Hooding , ventilation , an d cover s 7 5 fo r materia l handling Chemica l surfactant s 9 0 $ 342,60 0 $ 261,00 0

(continued ) 1,469,30 0 105,10 0 3,463,90 0 473,10 0 377,00 0

45,10 0 1,027,80 0 118,60 0 6,702,700 c

2,583,000 °

2,034,700 c 2,981,600 ° 627,90 0 949,80 0 1,842,500 °

449,550 °

719,900 ° 1,373,900 ° 190,10 0 204,20 0 \

t

• '
______TABL E D- 1 (CONTINUED) . CONTRO L TECHNIQUE S AND COST S FOR PRIMARY LEA D SMELTER S AND REFINERIE S

Emissio n sourc e Contro l techniqu e Overal l emission s contro l efficienc y(% ) Contro l costsi L Capita l Annua l

Duco n scrubbe r sysrem Baghous e dumping Baghous e stack s Replacemen t baghous e system Conveyo r an

d hoppe r system Ne wcentra l stack , ductin g an d fan s 9 3 9 9 99 + $ 169,20 0

1,135,70 0 941,20 0 $ 93,50 0

215,70 0 214,30 0

as v o a 0ctobe r 198 4 dollars . ^Base d o n a tota l pave d surfac e are a o f 11,20 0 meters ^ (120,00 0 feet^) . °Contro l cost s ar e average s base d o n combination s o f contro l options . Reference s 1 , 2 , 3 , an d 4 .

rr4TABL E D-2 . FUGITIVE EMISSIONCONTRO L TECHNIQUE S AT SECONDAR

Y LEA D SMELTERS 5 > 6 Fugtiv e Estimate d emissio n Contro l contro l sourc e technique s efficiencie s (7.) a

1 ) Batter

ybreaking a . Building enclosur e 7 5

b . Proces s modification s 2 ) Charing a . Building enclosur e 7 5 b . Proces s modification s 3 ) Tapping a . Hoodin g an d automate d 7 5 sla g tapping

. b . Hoodin g fo r meta l tapping c . Automate d tuyer e punching

a Thes e averag e contro l efficiencie s ar e base d on fugitive emissio n contro l efficiencydat a fro mReference s 2 an

d 5 , an d good engineering judgement .

17 0TABL E D-3 . CONTRO L COST S ESTIMATE S FO RFUCIT1VE EMISSION SOURC E A T EXISTING SECONDARYLEA

DSHELTER S (OCTOIIE R198 4 DOLLARS) 6

Plan t siz e (Mg/hr ) 1. 5 4. 5 9. 1 B B Clir

g Tp g B B Clir

g Tpg B B Chr g Tpg Capita l cost s Tota l syste

m Installe d$ 404,00 0 $ 833,00 0 $ 177,00 0 $ 950,00 0 $ 1,960,00 0 $ 417,00 0 $ 1,650,00 0 $ 3,400,00 0 $ 723,00 0 capita l cos t Annualize dcost s Operating maintenance 0 40,40 0 83,30 0 17,70 0 95,00 0 196,00 0 41,70 0 165,00 0 340,00 0 72,30 0 Capita l charges b76,60 0 51,00 0 48,60 0 180,00 0 363,00 0 114,00 0 313,00 0 629,00 0 198,00 0 Tota l annua l cost s $ 117,00 0 $ 134,40 0 $ 66,30 0 $ 275,00 0 $ 559,00 0 $ 155,70 0 $ 478,00 0 $ 969,00 0 $ 270,30 0

B B - Battery

breaking Chr g - Chargin g Tpg - Tapping

a Operatln g an

dmaintenanc e cos t basedo n1 0 percen t o f tota l Installe dcapita l cost . "Capita l recover

y facto r basedo

n1 0 percen t Interes t rat e an dcontro l techniqu e live s o f 5 t o 2 5 year s dependin g upo ntechnique .•""(*"""'"""Tl *

TABL E D-4 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FOR EXISTIN G LEA D OR E PROCESSIN

G PLANT S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 7 " 1 1

Plan t siz e 27 0 Mg/hr 54 0 Mg/hr Capita l cost s Contro l systempurchas e cost 3 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t Retrofi t cost b Tota l capita l cos t Annualize d cost s Utilitie s Maintenance 0 Operating labor 0 Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) Capita l charges 0 Gros s annualize d cost s Produc t recovery e Ne t annua l cos t $ 299,00 0 636,00 0 186,00 0 1,121,00 0

$ 137,00 0 21,70 0 65,20 0 $ 223,90 0 227,00 0 $ 450,90 0 (1,030 ) $ 449,87 0 $ 421,00 0 898,00 0 264,00 0 1,583,00 0

$ 203,00 0 38,60 0 65,20 0 $ 306,80 0 321,00 0 $ 627,80 0

(1,130 ) $ 626,67 0

a Contro l systemconsist s o f 3.7 5 kP a (1 5 in . W.G. ) Ventur i scrubbe r (9 5 percen t efficiency) . b 2 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost . °Maintenanc e base d o n 2 manhour s pe r 8-hou r shif t an

d operating labo r base d on 6 manhour s pe r 8-hou r shif t an

d a labo r rat e o f $15.0 0 pe r hour . Operating schedul e o f 5,82 0 hour s pe r year . ^Capita l recover

yfacto r base d on an equipmen t lif e o f 1 0 years .
e Base d o n a recovere d produc t valu e o f $25.11/Mg (Octobe r 1984) . Also , the parenthese s indicat e a cos t savings .

17 2rytf- — • V TW*— - 

### f

l

TABL E D-5 . CONTRO L COST S FO R EXISTIN G LEAD-ACI D BATTER

Y PLANTS—PAST E MIXIN G (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 2

Plan t siz e (batterie s pe r da y 50 0 2,00 0 6,50 0 Capita l cost s Contro l syste

mpurchas e cost 3 $ 8,59 0 $ 11,00 0 $ 17,60 0 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t 19,80 0 25,10 0 40,00 0 Retrofi t cost b5,73 0 7,26 0 11,60 0 Tota l capita l cos t 34,12 0 43,36 0 69,20 0 Annualize d cost s Electricity 0 Maintenanc e an

d supplies 0 Operating labor e Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) Capita l charges * Tota l annua l cost s

3 Contro l systemconsist s o f a baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 2 0 percen t o f installe d capita l cost . °Operating schedule s ar e 25 0 day s pe r yea r a t 8 hour s pe r da yfo r 50 0 batter

y pe r da yplants , 1 6 hour s pe r da yfo r 2,00 0 batterype r da yplants , an

d 2 4 hour s pe r da

yfo r 6,50 0 batterype r da yplants . ^6. 9 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . Include s ba g replacement .
e Base d on 1 operato r manhou r pe r 1 0 hour s o f operatio n an d supervisio n manhour s a t 1 5 percen t o f operato r manhours . Th e labo r rat e wa s $12.3 5 pe r hour . fCapita l recover

yfacto r base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years . $ 14 3 2,36 0 2,84 0 5,34 3 5,89 0 11,23 3 $ 

### 37 6

2,99 0 5,69 0 9,05 6 7,45 0 16,50 6 $ 97 5

4,77 0 8,53 0 14,27 5 11,90 0 26,17 5

17 3TABL E D-6 . CONTRO L COST S FO R EXISTIN G LEAD-ACI D BATTER

Y PLANTS
THREE-PROCES S OPERATION(OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 2 Capita l cost s

Contro l syste

mpurchas e cost 3 $ 45,70 0 $ 66,60 0 $ 124,00 0 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t 104,00 0 152,00 0 283,00 0 Retrofi t cost b30,20 0 44,00 0 81,90 0 Tota l capita l cos t $ 179,90 0 $ 262,00 0 $ 488,90 0 Annualize d cost s Electricity 0 $ 93 3 $ Maintenanc e an

d supplies 0 12,40 0 Operating labor e 2,84 0 Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) 16,23 3 Capita l charges f 31,00 0 Tota l annua l cost s $ 47,23 3 $ 71,98 0 $ 136,28 0

a Contro l systemconsist s o f a baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 2 0 percen t o f installe d capita l cost . °Operating schedule s ar e 25 0 day s pe r yea r a t 8 hour s da yfo r 50 0 batterype r da yplants , 1 6 hour s pe r da yfo r 2,00 0 batter

ype r da

yplants , an

d 2 4 hour s pe r da yfo r 6,50 0 batterype r da yplants . d 6. 9 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . Include s ba g replacement .

e Base d 3,08 0 18,10 0 5,70 0 26,88 0 45,10 0 $ 9,85 0

33,80 0 8,53 0 52,18 0 84,10 0

17 4TABL E D-7 . CONTRO L COST S FOR EXISTIN G LEAD-ACI D BATTER

Y PLANTS-
- THREE-PROCES S OPERATIONAN D PAST E MIXIN

G (OCTOBE R 1984) 1 ' 2

Plan t siz e (batterie s pe r day ) 50 0 2,00 0 6,50 0co1,14 0 13,90 0 2,84 0</> 3,46 0

20,00 0 5,69 0 5 10,50 0

36,70 0 8,53 0 Capita l cost s Contro l systempurchas e cost 3 $ 1,30 0 $ 73,50 0 $ 135,00 0 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t 117,00 0 168,00 0 308,00 0 Retrofi t cost b33,80 0 48,50 0 89,00 0 Tota l capita l cos t $ 202,10 0 $ 290,00 0 $ 532,00 0 Annualize d cos t Electricity 0 Maintenanc e an

d supplies 0 Operating labor e Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) $ 17,88 0 $ 29,15 0 $ 55,73 0 Capita l charges f 34,70 0 49,80 0 91,40 0 Tota l annua l cost s $ 52,58 0 $ 78,95 0 $ 147,13 0

3 Contro l systemconsist s o f a baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 2 0 percen t o f installe d capita l cost . °Operating schedule s ar e 25 0 day s pe r yea r a t 8 hour s da yfo r 50 0 batter

ype r da yplants , 1 6 hour s pe r dayfo r 2,00 0 batterype r dayplants , an d 2 4 hour s pe r da yfo r 6,50 0 batterype r da yplants . d 6. 9 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . Include s ba g replacement .
e Base d o n 1 operato r manhou r pe r 1 0 hour s o f operatio n an d supervision s manhour s a t 1 5 percen t o f operato r manhours . Th e labo r rat e wa s $12.3 5 pe r hou r ^Capita l recover

yfacto r base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

17 5'T l

TABL E D-8 . CONTRO L COST S FO R EXISTIN G LEAD-ACI D BATTER

Y PLANTS-
- GRI D CASTIN

G (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 ' 2

Plan t siz e (batterie s pe r day ) 50 0 2,00 0 6,50 0 Capita l cost s Contro l systempurchas e cost 3 $ Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t Retrofi t cost b Tota l capita l cos t $ Annualize d cos t Electricity 0 $ Water 0 Maintenanc e an

d suplies 0 Operating labor e Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) $ Capita l charges * Tota l annua l cost s $ 15,50 0 40,90 0 9,48 0 $ 19,00 0

49,90 0 11,50 0co25,50 0

67,40 0 15,60 0 65,88 0 $ 80,40 0 $ 108,50 0



### 10 3 41 2 4,53 0 2,88 0 7,92 5 11,30 0 19,22 5CO--co•CO 

### 51 5

1,24 0 5,56 0 5,67 0 12,98 5 13,80 0 26,78 5 $•COco1,65 0

4,22 0 7,52 0 8,55 0 21,94 0 18,60 0 40,54 0

a Contro l systemconsist s o f a baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 2 0 percen t o f installe d capita l cost . °Operating schedule s ar e 25 0 day s pe r yea r a t 8 hour s da yfo r 50 0 batterype r da yplants , 1 6 hour s pe r da yfo r 2,00 0 batterype r da yplants , an

d 2 4 hour s pe r da yfo r 6,50 0 batterype r da yplants . d 6. 9 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . Include s ba g replacement .
e Base d on 1 operato r manhou r pe r 1 0 hour s o f operatio n an d supervision s manhour s a t 1 5 percen t o f operato r manhours . The labo r rat e wa s $12.3 5 pe r hou r fCapita l recoveryfacto r base d o n a n equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

17 6TABL E D-9 . CONTRO L COST S FO RNE W I.KAD-ACID BATTERYPLANTS- - 10,00 0 BATTERIE S PERDA Y(OCTOBER198 4 DOLLARS) 1 2

Past e mixing , Lea doxid e Crl dthree-proces s Lea d production 0 casting operatio nreclamatio n Capita l cos t Contro l syste

m purchas e cost b$ 2,97 0 $ 30,00 0 $ 190,00 0 $ 23,30 0 Contro l syste

m installatio ncos t 6,76 0 79.30 0 432,00 0 61.40 0 Tota l capita l cos t $ 9,73 0 $109,30 0 $ 622,00 0 $ 84,70 0 Annua l cost s Electricity 0 -- - $ 2,92 0 $ 15,70 0 $ 76 9 Water 0 -- - 6,48 0 -- - 2,03 0 Maintenanc e an

dsupplies' 1 67 2 7,54 0 42,90 0 5,85 0 Operatin g labor e — - 8,53 0 8,53 0 5,16 0 Subtota l (direc t operatin g costs ) $ 67 2 25,47 0 $ 67,13 0 $ 13,85 9 Capita l charges * 1,67 0 18,80 0 107,00 0 14,60 0 Tota l annua l cost s $ 2,34 2 $ 44,27 0 $ 174,13 0 $ 28,45 9

a Lca doxid e productioncontro l cost s ar e th e differenc e th

e cost s o f a baghous e normall y usedfo

r produc t recovery ( 3 t o 1 ai r t o clot hratio ) an don e usedfor recovery an d emissio ncontro l ( 2 t o 1 ai r t o clot hratio) . "Control s ar e baghouse s for lea doxid e production , past e mixin g an dthe thre e proces s operation ! an

dImpingemen t scrubber s fo r gri dcasting an

dlea dreclamation . Airflo w rate s fo

r th c 10,00 0 battery'plan t we r extrapolate dfro m th e airflow s give ni n referenc e 2 for the 650 0 an d200 0 battery

plants . Exponent s use dwer e 1. 0 for lea d oxid e productio nan dgri dcasting , 0.7 1 for past e mixing , an d0.9 4 for th

e three-proces s operation .

c 0peratin g schedule s ar e 25 0 day s pe r yea r at 8 hour s per da y for 50 0 battery

pe r da

y plants , 1 6 hour s pe r day for 2,00 0 batter y pe r day

plants , an

d2 4 hour s pe r da y fo r 6,50 0 battery

pe r da

y plants . d 6. 9 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . Include s ba g replacemen t for baghosues .

e Rase do

n1 operato r manhou r pe r 1 0 hour s o f operatio nan dsupervisio nmanhour s a t 1 5 percen t o f operato r manhours . Th c labo r rat e wa s $12.0 0 pe r hour . 'Capita l recovery

facto r base dona nequipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .



### -4

# n

TABL E D-10 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE-BAGHOUS E FOR SMAL L

ALKY L LEA

D PLAN T (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 3 Capita l Cost s Contro l systempurchas e cost 3 $ 35,00 0 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t 43,30 0 Retrofi t cost b

. 23,70 0 Tota l capita l cos t $102,00 0 Annualize d Cos t Utilitie s $ 5,20 0 Maintenance 0 39,10 0 Operating labo r 58,70 0 Bag replacemen t 1,85 0 Subtota l $104,85 0 Capita l charges d17,00 0 Tota l annua l cos t $121,85 0

a Contro l systemconsist s o f baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 3 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost . Maintenanc e base d o n 2 manhour s pe r 8-hour shif t an d operating labo r based on 3 manhour s pe r 8-hour shif t an d a labo r rat e o f $17.8 5 pe r hour ; 2 4 hour s pe r day , 36 5 day s pe r year . d Capita l recover

yfacto r base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

17 8

*' H

TABL E D-ll . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE-BAGHOUS E FOR LARG E

ALKY L LEA

D PLAN T (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 3 Capita l Cost s Contro l syste

mpurchas e cost 3 $ 361,00 0 Contro l syste

minstallatio n cos t 439,00 0 Retrofi t cost b240,00 0 Tota l capita l cos t $1,040,00 0 Annualize d Cos t Utilitie s $ 36,10 0 Maintenance 0 39,40 0 Operating labo r 59,20 0 Bag replacemen t 65,90 0 Subtota l $ 200,60 0 Capita l charges d174,00 0 Tota l annua l cos t $ 374,60 0

3 Contro l systemconsist s o f baghous e (9 9 percen t efficiency) . b 3 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost . Maintenanc e base d o n 2 manhour s pe r 8-hou r shif t an

d operating labo r base d on 3 manhour s pe r 8-hou r shif t an

d a labo r rat e o f $17.8 5 pe r hour ; 2 4 hour s pe r day , 36 5 day s pe r year . d Capita l recoveryfacto r base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

17 9TABL E D-12 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMAT E FOR LARG E ALKY L LEA D PLAN T STACK (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 3 Capita l Cost s Contro l syste

mpurchas e cost 3 Contro l systeminstallatio n cos t Retrofi t cost b Tota l capita l cos t Annualize d Cos t Utilitie s Maintenanc e Operatin g labo r Subtota l Capita l charges 0 Tota l annua l cos t $ 35,30 0 43,30 0 23,60 0 $ 102,20 0

$ 5,97 0

9,89 0 $ 15,86 0 17,10 0 $ 32,96 0

3 Contro l systemconsist s o f stac k an d auxiliaryequipment . b 3 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost . °Capita l recover

yfacto r base d on an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

18 0TTMf»- •*-"! • TIT " "

TABL E D-13 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FOR EXISTIN G GRA Y IRO NFOUNDRIES
UNCONTROLLE D CUPOLAFURNAC E (OCTOBE R 1984) 14 " 1 7

Furnac e mel t capacit y(Mg/hr ) 3. 6 9. 1 20. 0 Capita l cost s Contro l systempurchas e cost 3 Contro l syste

minstallatio n cos t Retrofi t cost b Tota l capita l cos t Annualize d cos t $ 163,00 0 190,00 0 106,00 0 $ 459,00 0

$ Utilitie s Maintenanc e an

d suplies 0 Operating labor 0 Ba g replacemen t Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) $ 36,24 0 Capita l charges d72,20 0 Tota l annua l cost s $ 108,44 0 8,03 0 7,21 0 10,80 0 10,20 0 $ 357,00 0 $ 778,00 0

418,00 0 911,00 0 233,00 0 507,00 0 $1,008,00 0 $ 2,196,00 0

$ 21,20 0 8,65 0 13,00 0 22,10 0 $ 64,95 0 159,00 0 $ 223,95 0 $ 76,70 0

12,70 0 19,00 0 44,40 0 $ 152,80 0 346,00 0 $ 498,80 0

3 Contro l systemconsist s o f sid e draf t hoo d an d baghouse . (88.67 . efficiency) . b 3 0 percen t o f installe d capita l cost . Maintenanc e base d o n 2 manhour s pe r 8-hou r shif t an

d operating labo r based on 3 manhour s pe r 8-hour shif t an d a labo r rat e o f $18.0 0 pe r hour . Operating schedules : 3. 6 Mg/h r plan t - 1,60 0 hr/yr 9. 1 Mg/hr plan t - 1,92 0 hr/yr 20. 0 Mg/h r plan t - 2,80 0 hr/yr d Capita l recover

yfacto r base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 2 0 years .

18 1P.9 7 "T l

TABL E D-14 . DESCRIPTIONO F CONTRO L OPTION S FOR ALLO Y STEE L ELECTRI C

AR C FURNACES 1 8

Contro l Optio n Proces s Control s Fugitiv e Control s

Direct-shel l evacuatio n contro l an

d fabri c filter s

Direct-shel l evacuatio n contro l an

d fabri c filter s

Direct-shel l evacuatio n contro l an

d fabri c filter s Fabri c filters ; singl e canop y hood , ope n roo f monito r enclose d dus t handling equipment . Fabri c filters ; segmente d canop yhood , scavenge r duct , cross-draf t partition s (or singl e canop

yhoo d wit h separat e tapping an d slagging hoods) , close d roo f (ove r furnace)/ope n roo f monito r elsewhere ; enclose d dust-handling equipment . Fabri c filters , segmente d canop yhood , scavenge r duct , cross-draft ; enclose d dust-handling equipment .

18 2Furnac e capacit y(Mg/heat ) TABL E D-15 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FO R EXISTIN G ALLO Y STEE L ELECTRI C AR C FURNACE S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 1 8 " 2 1

2 3 9 1 27 2

Contro l option 8

C » Capita l cost s

Contro l syste mpurchas e cos t Contro l syste mInstallatio ncos t Retrofi t cost 0 Tota l installe dcapita l cos t Annualize d cost s Utilitie s Maintenanc e Operatin g labo r Monitorin g Soli d wast e disposa l Filte r replacemen t Subtota l (direc t operatin g costs ) Capita l charges 0 Tota l annua l cost s NAN A$ 777,00 0 $ 1,980,00 0 $ 2,050,00 0 1,170,00 0 2,970,00 0 3,080,00 0 583,00 0 1,490,00 0 1,540,00 0 $ 2,530,00 0 $ 6,440,00 0 $ 6,670,00 0

63,30 0 17,50 0 27,30 0 20,50 0 62,60 0 6,59 0 197,79 0 345,00 0 $

19,00 0 29,90 0 28,40 0 269,00 0 25,10 0 716,40 0 $ 345,00 0

19,00 0 29,90 0 20,50 0 272,00 0 25,10 0 711,50 0 1,110,00 0 1,140,00 0 H A NA N

A N A HA N A

$ 630,79 0 $ 1,826,40 0 $ 1,851,00 0 $ 2,530,00 0 3,790,00 0 1,900,00 0 $ 8,220,00 0

$ 526,00 0 23,20 0 36,30 0 20,50 0 999,00 0 45,30 0 $ 1,650,30 0 1,410,00 0 $ 3,060,30 0

N A Contro l optio n no t applicabl e t o thi s siz e mode l plant .

a Contro l optio n 1 - 80.07 . fugitiv e emissio n contro l Contro l optio n 2 - 90.0 % fugitiv e emissio n contro l Contro l optio n 3 - 97.5 % fugitiv e emissio n contro l "3 0 percen t o f tota l annualize d cost s

c Capita l recover yfacto r base d o n a n equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .TABL E D-16 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FOR EXISTIN G STEE L ELECTRI C ARC FURNANCES. 2 2 (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS )

Furnac e capacit y(Mg/heat ) Capita l cos t Contro l systempurachas e an d installatio n costs 3 Retrofi t costs b Tota l installe d capita l cost s Annua l cost s Utilitie s Maintenanc e Operating labo r Bag replacemen t Subtota l (direc t operating costs ) Capita l charges 0 Tota l ne t annua l cost s 3. 6

$ 352,00 0 106,00 0 $ 458,00 0

$ 8,96 0 3,50 0 13,40 0 11,60 0 $ 37,46 0 78,50 0 $ 115,96 0 9. 1

$ 278,00 0 83,00 0 $ 361,00 0

$ 7,28 0 2,80 0 16,10 0 7,56 0 $ 33,74 0 61,90 0 $ 95,64 0 22. 7

$ 527,00 0 158,00 0 $ 685,00 0

$ 25,80 0 5,32 0 23,50 0 18,90 0 $ 73,52 0 117,00 0 $ 190,52 0

3 Contro l optio n consist s o f sid e draf t hoo d an d baghous e fo r 3. 6 Mg/hea t plan t an d direc t furnac e evacuatio n an d baghous e fo r 9. 1 an d 22. 7 Mg/hea t plants . b 3 0 o f tota l purchas e an d installatio n cost s °Capita l recover

ybase d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

18 4p. 1 T 

## 1

TABL E D-17 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FOR EXISTIN G IRO NOR E SINTERIN

G OPERATION S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS). 23

- 2 4

• ' • — Materia l handling Sinte r plan t operation s Capita l cost s Tota l systeminstalle d capita l costs 3 Annua l Cost s Operating an

d maintenanc e Capita l charges " Tota l annua l cost s $ 3,460,00 0

$ 440,00 0 590,00 0 $ 1,030,00 0 $ 6,700,00 0

$ 690,00 0 1,150,00 0 $ 1,840,00 0

a Materia l handling - Railca r an d truc k cover , plu s dus t contro l system (757 . contro l efficiency ) Sinte r plan t operation s - Hoodin g an d ventilation , replacemen t o f sinte r crushing circuit , an d ai r filtratio n system . "Base d on an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

18 5P. 2

TABL E D-18 . CONTRO L COS T ESTIMATE S FOR EXISTIN G BRAS S AND BRONZ E INGO T PRODUCTIONFACILITIE S (OCTOBE R 198 4 DOLLARS) 2 4

Furnac e siz e (Mg/da youtput ) Capita l cost s Systeminstallatio n cost 3 Retrofi t cost b Tota l installe d capita l cos t 18. 1

$ 176,00 0 52,80 0 45. 4

$ 262,00 0 78,60 0 68. 1

$ 310,00 0 93,00 0 $ 228,00 0 $ 340,60 0 $ 403,00 0

Annua l cost s Operating an

d maintenance c Capita l charges " Tota l annua l cos t $ 22,90 0 $ 34,10 0 $ 40,30 0 39,20 0 58,40 0 69,10 0 $ 62,10 0 $ 92,50 0 $ 109,40 0 Replacemen t o f existing particulat e contro l system s wit h957 . + efficien t baghous e contro l system . *>3 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost .
c 0peratin g an

d maintenanc e base d o n 1 0 percen t o f tota l installe d capita l cost . '--Base d o n an equipmen t lif e o f 1 5 years .

18 6TABL E D-19 . CONTRO L OPTION S ANNUALIZE D FOR EAC H SOURC E P. 3

Sourc e Contro l Optio n Capita l 5 Annualize d ( $ x 1 0 ) 1 2
3

4 5
6

7
8 a )

b )
a ) b )

a ) b )
a ) b )
a ) b )
a ) b ) SecondaryConverte r SecondaryConverte r Secondar

yFurnac e SecondaryConverte r SecondaryFurnac e SecondaryConverte r SecondaryConverte r SecondaryFurnac e SecondaryConverte r SecondaryFurnac e SecondaryConverte r SecondaryFurnac e SecondaryConverte r SecondaryFurnac e 4. 6 10. 1 0.9 5 8. 3 0.9 2 9. 0 8. 9 7. 9 10. 1 1. 8 6. 9 0.9 2 4. 6 0.9 2 1. 3 2. 9 0.2 7 2. 2 0.2 7 2. 3 2. 0 1. 9 2. 9 0.5 3 1. 8 0.2 7 1. 3 0.2 7



### 18 7P. 4

REFERENCE S FO R APPENDI X D Primar yLead Smelting an

d Refining 1 . Charle s Rive r Associates . Economi c an d Enviornmenta l Analysi s o f th e Curren t OSH

ALead Standard . Occupationa l Safet yan d Healt h Administration . Washington , DC . 1981 . 2 . Technica l Guidanc e fo r Contro l o f Industria l Proces s Fugitiv e Particulat e Emission s (EPA-450/3-77-010) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriange l Park , NC . Marc h1977 . 3 . Cos t Files . Chemica l Engineering . 198 0 t o 1983 . 4 . Uhl , Vincent . AStandar d Procedur e fo r Cos t Analysi s o f Pollutio n Contro l Operations . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1979 . Secondar

yLead Smelting 5 . Schwitzgebel , K. , e t al . (Radian Corp.) . Fugitiv e Emission s a t a SecondaryLea

d Smelter . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Philadelphia , PA . Decembe r 1981 . 6 . Ref . 2 . Lead Or e Processing 7 . Metalli c Minera l Processing Plants—Backgroun d fo r Propose d Standards . (EPA-450/3-81-009a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . Augus t 1982 . 8 . Th e Internationa l Competitivenes s o f th e U.S . Non-Ferrou s Smelting Industr yan d the Clea n Ai r Act . America n Mining Congress . Apri l 1982 . 9 . Referenc e 4 . 10 . Neveril , R.B . Capita l an d Operating Cost s o f Selecte d Ai r Pollutio n Contro l System(EPA-450/5-80-002) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triange l Park , NC . Decembe r 1978 . 11 . Engineering an

d Mining Journal . Septembe r 1982 . 12 . Lead-Aci d Batter yManufactur e - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standard s (EPA-450/3-79-028a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1979 .

18 8Lead Alky l Plant s 13 . Referenc e 10 . GravIro n Foundrie s

• ***+M»i-.»** . • • i •••J — •—!•—. - ^^-> * 14 . Electri c Ar c Furnace s i n Ferrou s Foundrie s - Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standard s (EPA-450/3-80-020a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1980 . 15 . Referenc e 4 . 16 . Referenc e 10 . 17 . Contro l Technique s fo r Lead Emission s (EPA-450/2-77-012) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1977 . AlloyStee l Electri c Ar c Furnac e 18 . Electri c Ar c Furnace s an d Argon-Oxyge n Decarburizatio n fo r Vessel s i n Stee l Industr

y- Background Informatio n fo r Porpose d Revisio n t o Standard s (EPA-450/3-020a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC . 1983 . 19 . Referenc e 4 . 20 . Referenc e 10 . 21 . Referenc e 17 . Stee l Foundrie s - Electri c Ar c Furnace s 22 . Referenc e 14 . Iro n Or e Sintering 23 . Referenc e 1 . 24 . Referenc e 4 . Bras s an

d Bronz e Ingo t Productio n 25 . Secondar

yBras s an

d Bronz e Ingo t Productio n Plan t —Backgroun d Informatio n fo r Propose d Standard s (APT D 1352a) . U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc hTriangl e Park , NC . 1973 .

18 9P. 6 **i***********5*I*******************************************************f***j |

APPENDI X E IDENTIFICATIONO F BATTERY PLANT S AFFECTE D UNDE R ALTERNATIV E NAAQ S LEVEL S



### 19 0P. 7

APPENDI X E IDENTIFICATIO

NO F BATTERY PLANT S AFFECTE D UNDE R ALTERNATIVE NAAQ S LEVEL S Tabl e E- 1 give s the baselin e contro l statu s o f the lead-aci d battery manufacturin g industry . Existing plant s wer e divide d int o 1 2 group s b ysiz e an d contro l statu s base d o n a NED S survey . Eac ho f the plan t group s show n i n Tabl e E- l wer e studie d t o determin e the numbe r o f plant s whic hwil l b e affecte d i n the grou p unde r the NAAQ S alternatives . Thi s wa s don e b y calculatin g the probabilit ytha t a mode l plan t representativ e o f the grou p wil l b e affected , an d multiplyin g b

ythe numbe r o f plant s i n the group . Thi s appendi x present s the algorithm s use d t o estimat e th e number s o f affecte d plants . I n addition , th e input s t o the algorithm s ar e give n an d a sampl e calculatio n i s presented . E.l . CALCULATIONMETHO D Th e source-recepto r coefficient , define d a s the rati o betwee n the maximu m ambien t impac t fo r a give n sourc e t o th e emissio n rat e fo r th e source , wa s use d extensivel yi n determining the numbe r o f batteryplant s affecte d unde r th e NAAQ S alternatives . Fo r lead-aci d batterymanufacture , the source - i recepto r coefficien t wa s foun d t o b e dependen t onl yo n the plan t locatio n an d distribute d uniforml ybetwee n a maximu man d minimu

mobserve d value . Th e coefficien t wa s foun d t o b e independen t o f the individua l emissio n sourc e unde r study . Give n a uniformdistributio n o f thi s coefficient , the numbe r o f plant s affecte d b ya give n NAAQ S i n a give n size/contro l statu s categor y ca n b e calculate d a s follows :

SRCA(i,j ) = P(i,j ) =

= = n(i,j ) = NAAQ S - MS B

ER(i,j ) 

### 0 1 SRCUL - SRCA(i,i ) SRCUL - SRCL L P(i,j)*N(i,j ) i f SRCA(i,j ) > SRCU L i f SRCA(i,j ) < SRCL L i f SRCL L < SRCA(i.j ) > SRCUL

19 1TABL E E-l . ESTIMATE D BREAKDOW NO F BATTERY PLANT S

. B Y SIZ E RANGE S AN D CONTRO L STATU S P. 8

Facilitie s wit h control s Estimate d numbe r o f plant s Smal l Mediu m Larg e PbO ; Re c PbO ; Rec ; P M PbO ; Rec ; PM ; 3- P PbO ; Rec ; PM ; 3-P ; GC 5 1 7 1 5 7 2 1 0 2 3 4 1 6 1 3 Tota l 

### 2 8 4 2 2 4 "PbO " refer s t o lea d oxid e production ; "Rec " t o lea d reclamation ; "PM " t o past e mixing ; "3-P " t o th e three-proces s operation ; an d "GC " t o gri d casting , b , 400-1,00 0 batterie s pe r day(bpd) , : 1,000-3,50 0 bpd . Ove r 3,50 0 bpd .



### 19 2P. 9

where : SRCA(i,j )

NAAQ S =

• MS B = ER(i,j ) = 

## PU,j ) 

## =
SRCUL = i s a variabl e use d fo r calculatio n purpose s equivalen t

t o the valu e o f th e source-recepto r coefficien t abov e whic h a mode l plan t representing siz e clas s i an d contro l statu s j woul d b e affected , the NAAQ S alternativ e leve l unde r consideration , th e mobil e sourc e background , th e emissio n rat e fo r the mode l plan t representing siz e clas s i an

d contro l statu s j , th e probabilit ytha t a plan t i n siz e rang e i an d wit h contro l statu s j wil l caus e a n exceedence , th e uppe r limi t o f the source-recepto r coefficien t a s determine d b

ydispersio n modeling , SRCL L r.(i,j ) = th e lowe r limi t o f the source-recepto r coefficient ,

N(i,j ) = th e numbe r o f plant s affecte d b ythe NAAQ S i n siz e rang e i an

d wit h contro l statu s j , th e tota l numbe r o f plant s i n siz e rang e i an d wit h contro l statu s j , E. 2 INPUT S Asiz e o f 50 0 batterie s pe r da y(bpd ) wa s chose n t o represen t plant s i n the 0-100 0 bp d siz e range , an d size s o f 200 0 an

d 650 0 bpd , respectively , wer e selecte d t o represen t th e 1000-350 0 bp d an d 3500-and-ove r ranges . Operating hour s use d i n thi s stud ywer e 8 hour s pe r da yfo r smal l plants , 1 6 hour s pe r da yfo r medium-size d plants , an d 2 4 hour s pe r da

yfo r larg e plants , a t 25 0 day s pe r year . Uncontrolle d an d controlle d emissio n factor s use d i n thi s stud y ar e give n i n Tabl e E-2 . Th e lowe r an d uppe r limit s o f the source-recepto r 3 coefficien t wer e 0.08 9 an d 0.5 1 (ug/ m)/(Mg/yr) , respectively . Amobil e 3 . sourc e background concentratio n o f 0. 2 ug/ mwa s assumed . E . 3 SAMPL E CALCULATION S 3 Tak e a s a n exampl e th e 1. 0 ug/ mNAAQ S alternativ e applie d t o th e grou p o f larg e batteryplant s wit hn o control s fo r lhe past e mixing , thre e proces s operation , o r gri d casting facilities . FromTable s E~ l an d E- 2 an

d the input s liste d i n the previou s section :



### 19 3TABL E E-2 . EMISSIONFACTOR S FO R LEAD-ACI D BATTER Y MANUFACTUR E Emissio n factor s (g/battery ) uncontrolle d controlle d P.1 0

Gri d casting Past e mixin g Lea d oxid e productio n Thre e proces s operatio n Lea d reclamatio n 0.3 5 1.1 3

4.7 9 0.6 3 0.02 6

0.0 5 0.07 2 0.00 6 Contro l o f gri d casting wa s no t foun d t o b e require d t o mee t an yo f th e NAAQ S alternatives . Lea d oxid e productio n facilitie s ar e equippe d wit hbaghouse s fo r produc t recovery . I n a surve yo f NEDS , lea d reclamatio n wa s foun d t o b e controlle d i n al l cases .



### 19 4P.1 1 \ Emissio n facto r
ER(i.j )

SRCUL SRCL L NAAQ S 

### MS B N(i,j ) Substituting int o the

SRCA( i

SRCA( i 

### P( i n( i =

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

= (0.3 5 + 1.1 3 + 0.0 5 + 4.7 9 + 0.006 ) g/batter y 6.3 3 g/battery (6.3 3 g/b)*(650 0 b/day)*(25 0 day/yr ) 10.2 8 Mg/y r 3 0.5 1 ug-yr/ m-M

g 3 0.8 9 ug-yr/ m-M

g 3 1. 0 ug/ m 0. 2 ug/ m 

### 4 equation s give n i n Sectio n E.l . 

### ,j )

,j ) .j ) ,j ) Thus , al l o f the plant s 3 3 1. 0 ug/ m- 0. 2 ug/ m 10.2 8 Mg/y r

= 0.07 8 ug-yr Mg/y r < SCRL L

= 1

= 1* 4 3 i n thi s grou

p wil l b e affecte d unde r the 1. 0 ug/ m NAAQ S an

d oul d nee d t o contro l a t leas t the past e miing facility . T o determin e ho wman

yplan t three-proces s operation , fo r past e mixing : Emissio n facto r

ER(i,j )

!

. SRCA(i.j )

P(i,j )

* • =

=

• =
=

=

= s i n the grou

p woul d als o nee d t o contro l the the controlle d emissio n rat e mus t b e use d

(0.3 5 + 0.02 6 + 0.0 5 + 4.7 9 + 0.006 ) (g/batter y 5.2 2 g/batter

y 5.2 2 * 650 0 * 25 0 8.4 9 Mg/y r 1. 0 - 0. 2 8.4 9 3 0.09 4 ug-yr/ m-Mg 0.5 1 - 0.09 4 0.5 1 - 0.08 9

19 5 

# T

iP.1 2

= 0.98 8 n(i,j ) = 0.98 8 * 4

= 4 plant s Thus , al l plant s i n th e grou p woul d requir e contro l o f bot hpast e mixing an d the three-proces s operation .



### 19 6