logging in or signing up case study cement plants Sebastiana Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 2280 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (1) Dislike it (0) Added: February 11, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 1 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: yahya22 (8 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: indrajeet1 (16 month(s) ago) hkkll Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Presented by: Matthew A. Paque, Esq. Environmental Attorney Supervisor Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The Facility: A wet process portland cement manufacturing plant Located in Ada OklahomaAir Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility produces Portland cement. Materials are calcined at temperatures of 2500F to 3000F in a rotary kiln to produce "clinker". The facility has two kilns. The clinker is then finely ground and mixed with other materials (primarily gypsum) to produce cement. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant In addition to other fuels, the facility combusts whole tires to account for up to 18% of the total input heat required. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Between November 19-21, 2002, DEQ Air Quality Division personnel conducted an evaluation of the facility, assisted by Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On January 28, 2003, a follow-up evaluation was conducted. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility is subject to NSPS Subpart Y – Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants, 40 CFR §§ 60.250-.254 (2002); and Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant NSPS General Provisions found at 40 CFR §§ 60.1-.19. Through June 13, 2002, components of the facility were also subject to Subpart F – Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 40 CFR §§ 60.60-.66 (2002).Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility is also subject to NESHAP Subpart- LLL- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (“PC-MACT”), 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1340-.1359 (2002). Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL, § 63.1343 Standards for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills, states in part the following: Existing, reconstructed, or new brownfield/major sources. No owner or operator of an existing, reconstructed or new brownfield kiln or an existing, reconstructed or new brownfield in-line kiln/raw mill at a facility that is a major source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources, any gases which…. Exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant § 63.1350 Monitoring requirements, states in part the following: The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill shall monitor opacity at each point where emissions are vented from these affected sources including alkali bypasses in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section….To remain in compliance, the opacity must be maintained such that the 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 20 percent. If the average opacity for any 6-minute block period exceeds 20 percent, this shall constitute a violation of the standard.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant During the evaluation, it was discovered that from June 14, 2002 to April 7, 2003, the facility operated above 20 percent opacity for a total of 6092 minutes, or 1015 violations of a six-minute opacity standard. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Other PC MACT violations found: failed to comply with § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) by failing to maintain records or a “checklist” that confirm conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) by failing to maintain records or a “checklist” that confirm conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with § 63.9(g)(1) by failing to provide the required 60-day notification that they were conducting a performance evaluation on the COMS installed on the clinker coolers in June 2002.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with the temperature limit requirements of § 63.1344(a). Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with the monitoring requirements of § 60.63(b) Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Previous noncompliance: Respondent operated in noncompliance with § 63.1345 when performance testing demonstrated that the emissions from Clinker Cooler No. 2 exceeded the PM emission limit of 0.10 pounds per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Matter referred to Air Quality Enforcement Several EPA HPV Criterion triggered. Notice of Violation Issued $321,000 penalty assessed Settlement negotiations began Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Company proposed an “Indirect Firing Project” as compliance measure. Facility originally used a “direct fire” process” that allowed minimal control of the combustion process.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant “Indirect firing” allows for greater combustion control. Kiln burners were replaced with Low-NOx designed burners. Bag filters added. Project Cost: $ 4,108,700Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Improved combustion control and efficiency. Decrease in Kiln downtime. Reduced dust generation.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Reduced particulate loading to the ESP. Reduced stack gas opacity. Reduced emissions of Carbon Monoxide. Reduction in CO emissions reduces ESP outages. Reduction in ESP outages will reduce occurrences of excessive opacity.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Company also proposed 2 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs): Purchase and utilize at the facility a heavy-duty industrial vacuum loader truck. Cost $ 226,000. Install and utilize an irrigation system to wet unpaved roads at the facility. Cost $ 45,000Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plantAir Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Consent Order executed September 2005. Projects completed. You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
case study cement plants Sebastiana Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINTLite Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 2280 Category: Entertainment License: All Rights Reserved Like it (1) Dislike it (0) Added: February 11, 2008 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 1 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... By: yahya22 (8 month(s) ago) good Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close By: indrajeet1 (16 month(s) ago) hkkll Saving..... Post Reply Close Saving..... Edit Comment Close Premium member Presentation Transcript Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Presented by: Matthew A. Paque, Esq. Environmental Attorney Supervisor Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The Facility: A wet process portland cement manufacturing plant Located in Ada OklahomaAir Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility produces Portland cement. Materials are calcined at temperatures of 2500F to 3000F in a rotary kiln to produce "clinker". The facility has two kilns. The clinker is then finely ground and mixed with other materials (primarily gypsum) to produce cement. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant In addition to other fuels, the facility combusts whole tires to account for up to 18% of the total input heat required. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Between November 19-21, 2002, DEQ Air Quality Division personnel conducted an evaluation of the facility, assisted by Region 6 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. On January 28, 2003, a follow-up evaluation was conducted. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility is subject to NSPS Subpart Y – Standards of Performance for Coal Preparation Plants, 40 CFR §§ 60.250-.254 (2002); and Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant NSPS General Provisions found at 40 CFR §§ 60.1-.19. Through June 13, 2002, components of the facility were also subject to Subpart F – Standards of Performance for Portland Cement Plants, 40 CFR §§ 60.60-.66 (2002).Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant The facility is also subject to NESHAP Subpart- LLL- National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry (“PC-MACT”), 40 C.F.R. §§ 63.1340-.1359 (2002). Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart LLL, § 63.1343 Standards for kilns and in-line kiln/raw mills, states in part the following: Existing, reconstructed, or new brownfield/major sources. No owner or operator of an existing, reconstructed or new brownfield kiln or an existing, reconstructed or new brownfield in-line kiln/raw mill at a facility that is a major source subject to the provisions of this subpart shall cause to be discharged into the atmosphere from these affected sources, any gases which…. Exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant § 63.1350 Monitoring requirements, states in part the following: The owner or operator of a kiln or in-line kiln/raw mill shall monitor opacity at each point where emissions are vented from these affected sources including alkali bypasses in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section….To remain in compliance, the opacity must be maintained such that the 6-minute average opacity for any 6-minute block period does not exceed 20 percent. If the average opacity for any 6-minute block period exceeds 20 percent, this shall constitute a violation of the standard.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant During the evaluation, it was discovered that from June 14, 2002 to April 7, 2003, the facility operated above 20 percent opacity for a total of 6092 minutes, or 1015 violations of a six-minute opacity standard. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Other PC MACT violations found: failed to comply with § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) by failing to maintain records or a “checklist” that confirm conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with § 63.6(e)(3)(iii) by failing to maintain records or a “checklist” that confirm conformance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with § 63.9(g)(1) by failing to provide the required 60-day notification that they were conducting a performance evaluation on the COMS installed on the clinker coolers in June 2002.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with the temperature limit requirements of § 63.1344(a). Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant failed to comply with the monitoring requirements of § 60.63(b) Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Previous noncompliance: Respondent operated in noncompliance with § 63.1345 when performance testing demonstrated that the emissions from Clinker Cooler No. 2 exceeded the PM emission limit of 0.10 pounds per ton of feed (dry basis) to the kiln. Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Matter referred to Air Quality Enforcement Several EPA HPV Criterion triggered. Notice of Violation Issued $321,000 penalty assessed Settlement negotiations began Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Company proposed an “Indirect Firing Project” as compliance measure. Facility originally used a “direct fire” process” that allowed minimal control of the combustion process.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant “Indirect firing” allows for greater combustion control. Kiln burners were replaced with Low-NOx designed burners. Bag filters added. Project Cost: $ 4,108,700Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Improved combustion control and efficiency. Decrease in Kiln downtime. Reduced dust generation.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Reduced particulate loading to the ESP. Reduced stack gas opacity. Reduced emissions of Carbon Monoxide. Reduction in CO emissions reduces ESP outages. Reduction in ESP outages will reduce occurrences of excessive opacity.Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Company also proposed 2 Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs): Purchase and utilize at the facility a heavy-duty industrial vacuum loader truck. Cost $ 226,000. Install and utilize an irrigation system to wet unpaved roads at the facility. Cost $ 45,000Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plantAir Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant: Air Quality Case Study Portland cement manufacturing plant Consent Order executed September 2005. Projects completed.