When it comes to particulate matter, the finest particles of lead, arsenic, chromium and other regulated substances are believed to produce the largest environmental and epidemiological hazards, in terms of their ability to be dispersed broadly by the wind, and to be ingested and inhaled more effectively compared to larger particles. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; Washington, D.C.) is in the process of setting both annual and 24-hour standards for fine particulates — so-called PM2.5 materials (those with diameter 2.5 micrometers or smaller). All states are in the process of developing their State Implementation
 |
| Tom Anderson |
Plans (SIPs) related to PM2.5, which must be in place within the next 14 months, with phased implementation to follow.
Discussing “how PM2.5 will change everything” for facilities throughout the chemical process industries (CPI), Tom Anderson, vice-president of pleated products for Midwesco Filter Resources (Booth 433; Winchester, Va.) will present two educational workshops to provide practical tips for making the most of the pending PM2.5 requirements. The first — “Technologies to Help You Meet EPA’s PM2.5 Standard” — will take place Tuesday, November 17, 10:00 a.m., in Theater A. The second — “Complying with the PM2.5 Emissions Standard” — will take place Tuesday at 3:15 p.m. in Theater B (the second will be presented as part of a group of presentations offered by the Institute of Clean Air Companies; ICAC).
Anderson will provide tips for improving both particulate-removal efficiency and overall energy efficiency to meet PM2.5 standards. He notes that proper media selection impacts the throughput rates (and hence compressed air and energy requirements) of dust collectors, baghouses and other dry-filtration devices, and that the use of a variable-speed drive can lead to more-efficient power consumption. Proper media selection can also extend maintenance intervals and reduce related costs.
One important aspect of the pending requirements, according to Anderson, is the fact that EPA has called for the uniform, third-party evaluation and verification of the PM2.5-removal efficiency of competing dry-filtration media that are used in dry-particulate-collection systems, such as baghouses, cartridge-based dust collectors and pleated-bag dust collectors (including glass media, and polytetrafluoroethylene membrane laminate. Such testing is being carried out by Research Triangle Institute (RTI; Research Triangle Park, N.C.) using the ETV testing protocol (akin to Europe’s ETU testing protocol) and will “help take all the guesswork out of selecting the most-effective and efficient media for your application,” says Anderson.
Users shouldn’t be daunted by the premium costs of today’s premium dry-filtration media. Says Anderson: “It’s not uncommon to find that an element that may cost 20% more initially could generate significantly higher removal efficiencies and significantly lower energy and maintenance costs over the life of the asset.” Similarly, Anderson advises operators to investigate emission-reduction and energy-reduction tax credits that may be available, to help offset the costs of baghouse upgrades to meet PM2.5 requirements.
The advantages of using the EPA/ETV-verified media “go well beyond the simple verification of higher removal efficiencies,” he says, noting that California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has already implemented its Rule 1156, which allows some plants that use an EPA/ETV-verified media to enjoy a reduction in the frequency of measuring and reporting stack emissions. Savings resulting from reduced monitoring and reporting requirements (and similar incentives) can help such PM2.5-removal upgrades to “pay for themselves over time,” says Anderson. Other U.S. states are expected to implement similar incentive programs.
Suzanne Shelley
For a related article, see Estimating the Total Cost of Cartridge and Bag Filtration, Chemical Engineering., October 2009, pp. 3443.