United States                   SPA" 600 / 2~ 83-044
              Environmental Protection
              Agency                      June 1983
>tPA        Kesearch and
              Development
              DEMONSTRATION OF THE USE OF

              CHARGED FOG IN CONTROLLING

              FUGITIVE DUST FROM

              LARGE-SCALE INDUSTRIAL SOURCES
              Prepared for
              Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
              Prepared by

              Industrial Environmental Research
              Laboratory
              Research Triangle Park NC 27711

-------
                 RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES


Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination of traditional grouping was  consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

    1. Environmental Health Effects Research

    2. Environmental Protection Technology

    3. Ecological Research

    4. Environmental Monitoring

    5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

    6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)

    7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development

    8. "Special" Reports

    9. Miscellaneous Reports

This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
                        EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

-------
                                     EPA-600/2-83-044
                                     June 1983
   DEMONSTRATION OF THE USE  OF  CHARGED FOG
        IN CONTROLLING FUGITIVE DUST
     FROM LARGE-SCALE INDUSTRIAL  SOURCES
                     by

             Edward T. Brookman
               Kevin J.  Kelley

     TRC Environmental Consultants,  Inc.
          800 Connecticut Boulevard
      East Hartford, Connecticut   06108

        EPA Contract No.  68-02-3115
                Task No.   109
     Task Officer:  Robert C. McCrillis

Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina  27711
                Prepared  for:

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Research and Development
           Washington,  D.C.  20460

-------
                                  ABSTRACT




    Although the charged  fog concept  has  been  widely  applied to  industrial




sources of  fugitive dust,  little  data are available regarding  fogger  control




effectiveness on particulate matter-   To  obtain  such data,  the  Industrial




Environmental  Research Laboratory  of  the  Environmental  Protection  Agency




contracted  TRC  Environmental  Consultants,   Inc.   to   conduct  a  full-scale




demonstration of  a charged  fogger  on  several  industrial  fugitive  emission




sources.  The  sources  tested included  a  primary rock  crushing operation,  a




secondary  rock  crushing  operation,   a  molten  iron spout  hole  at  a  blast




furnace cast house, and a coke screening operation.  The fog device  evaluated




was.  the  "Fogger  IV"  manufactured  by  the  Ritten  Corporation.   This  report




presents and discusses  the results of  these  four  source  tests.




    This report also presents and discusses the results of  three  source tests




jointly funded by EPA and Armco Inc.  The same charged fog devices  were  used




along with  a charged fog device developed by AeroVironment, Inc.  of  Pasadena,




California.  The sources selected for field  testing the two fog devices  were




a stainless  steel slab  torch  cutting  operation, a conveyor  transfer  operation




at a recycle (sinter)  plant,  and a limestone crusher/conveyor operation.




    In  general, the testing  program  showed  that (1) the control  of  emissions




by  the  two  types of  fog   devices  are  generally comparable,   (2)   fogger




efficiency  is  dependent on the positions of  the foggers in  relation  to  the




source, and  (3) charging  a water  spray  appears to  increase its effectiveness




in controlling particulate matter  emissions  by up to 40  percent.




    This  report  was submitted  in  fulfillment of  Contract  No.   68-02-3115




Task 109, by TRC Environmental  Consultants,  Inc.  under the sponorship  of  the




U.S.   Environmental Protection • Agency.    This   report  covers  a  period  from




May 1979 to June 1982  and work was completed as of July 1982.
                                     11

-------
                              CONTENTS
    Abstract	ii

L.  Introduction  	    1
2.  Summary and Conclusions 	    5
3.  Glossary	    7
4.  Field Tests - General 	    9
        Site Selection Process  	    9
        Test Equipment	10
        Laboratory/Data Analysis Procedures 	   21
5.  Field Tests - Specific	23
        Test #1 - Sand and Gravel Company:   Primary Rock Crusher   .  .   23
        Test #2 - Sand and Gravel Company:   Secondary Rock  Crusher   .   38
        Test #3 - Iron and Steel Plant:  Cast House Spout Hole  ...   47
        Test #4 - Iron and Steel Plant:  Coke Screen	63
        Test #5 - Iron and Steel Plant:  Torch Cutting Operation   .  .   82
        Test #6 - Iron and Steel Plant:
          Recycle Plant Transfer Operation  	   96
        Test #7 - Cement Plant:
          Limestone Crusher/Conveyor Operation  	  115
6.  Discussion of Results	132
7.  References	136
                                  111

-------
                                   FIGURES

Figure                                                                    Page

  I       Schematic Representation of Ritten Corporation's Fogger IV  ..  12

  2       Schematic Representation of Fogger IV Control Panel 	  13

  3       Schematic Representation of AeroVironment Charged Fog Generator  17

  4       Photograph of AeroVironment Charged Fog Generator 	  18

  5       Photograph of Typical Spray Pattern of AeroVironment
            Charged Fog Generator	19

  6       Primary Crusher Operation 	  25

  7       Primary Crusher Plot Plan	26

  8       Test Equipment Positions, Types, and Serial Numbers at the
            Primary Rock Crusher	27

  9       Secondary Rock Crusher Operation  	  39

   10      Plot Plan of Secondary Crusher Operation	40

  11      Equipment Positions for Secondary Crusher Test  	  42

   12      Floor Plan of Cast House	49

   13      Photograph of Cast House	50

   14      Equipment Positions for Cast House Tests:
            December 9 to 18, 1980	52

  15      Equipment Positions for Cast House Tests:
            January 26 to February 3, 1981	53

  16      Coke Screening Operation	„	65

  17      Top View of Coke Screen Operation	6S

  18      Side View of Coke Screen Operation	.......  67

  19      Equipment Positions for Coke Screen Tests ..........    50

  20      Torch Cutting Operation  ..... 	 „ 	  2

-------
                             FIGURES (Continued)

Figure                                                                    Page

  21      Equipment Locations for Torch Cutting Operation Test  	   85

  22      High-Volume Sampler Positions and Serial Numbers for
            Torch Cutting Operation Test	86

  23      Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
            Test Conditions (yg/m3) - Torch Cutting Operation     ....   93

  24      Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant.Transfer Operation Test:
            Elevated Samplers and Outside Corner  Foggers  	   99

  25      Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant Transfer Operation Test:
            Hi-Vol with CYC/CI	100

  26      Equipment Locations for Recycle Plant Transfer Operation Test:
            Inside Corner Foggers 	  101

  27      Equipment Location Sketch for Recycle Plant Transfer
            Operation Test	102

  28      Limestone Crusher/Conveyor Operation  	  116

  29      Equipment Locations for Crusher/Conveyor Test:  Foggers ....  118

  30      Equipment Locations for Crusher/Conveyor Test:
            Samplers and Foggers	119

  31      Equipment Location Sketch for Crusher/Conveyor Test 	  120

  32      Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
            Test Conditions (ug/m3) - Crusher/Conveyor Operation:
            Hi-Vol and Hi-Vol with SSI Data	127

  33      Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various
            Test Conditions (ug/m3) - Crusher/Conveyor Operation:
            CYC/CI Data	129

-------
                                   TABLES


Number

   1      Results of Laboratory Tests:   Droplet  Size	1-5

   2      Test Conditions - Primary Crusher 	 .....  28

   3      Results of Fogger Testing at  Primary Rock  Crusher:
            Uncharged Vs. Charged Fog - Standard Hi-Vol 	  32

   4      Results of Fogger Testing at  Primary Rock  Crusher:
            Uncharged Vs. Charged Fog - Hi-Vol with  SSI	33

   5      Results of Fogger Testing at  Primary Rock  Crusher:
            Fan Only Vs. Uncharged Fog  - Standard Hi-Vol	34

   6      Results of Fogger Testing at  Primary Rock  Crusher:
            Fan Only Vs. Uncharged Fog  - Hi-Vol  with SSI	35

   7      Results of Fogger Testing at  Primary Rock  Crusher:
            Fogger Efficiencies (%) 	  36

   8      Test Conditions - Secondary Crusher  	  44

   9      Results of Fogger Testing at  Secondary Rock Crusher 	  45

  10      Test Conditions - Cast House:   December 9  to 18,  1980	55

  11      Results of Fogger Testing at  Cast House:
            December 9 to 18,  1980	56

  12      Test Conditions - Cast House:  January 26  to February 3, 1981  .  61

  13      Results of Fogger Testing at  Cast House:
            January 26 to February 3, 1981	62

  14      Test Conditions - Coke Screening Operation  .	70

  15      Results of Fogger Testing at  Coke Screen Operation:
            Uncontrolled Particulate Matter Concentrations  (pg/m3)       .  73

  16      Results of Fogger Testing at  Coke Screen Operation:
            Fan Only Particulate Matter Concentrations (yg/m3)       ...  74

  17      Results of Fogger Testing at  Coke Screen Operation:
            Uncharged Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations  (pg/m3)      .  75
                                      VI

-------
                                TABLES  (Continued)

Number                                                                    page

  18      Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
            Negative Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations (pg/m3)       .   76

  19      Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
            Positive Fog Particulate Matter Concentrations (yg/m3)       .   77

  20      Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
            Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations
             (ug/m3)      	78

  21      Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
            Fogger Efficiencies  (%) 	   79

  22      Results of Fogger Testing at Coke Screen Operation:
            Cascade Impactor Data	81

  23      Test Conditions  - Torch  Cutting Operation 	   87

  24      Butler Works Torch Cutting Operation:  Arithmetic Mean
            Particulate  Matter  Concentrations Under Various Test
            Conditions  (ug/m3)      	   92

  25      Test Conditions  - Recycle Plant Transfer Operation   	  103

  26      Recycle Plant  Transfer Operation - Standard Hi-Vol and SSI
            Data:  Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations
            Under Various  Test  Conditions  (yg/m3)     	108

  27      Recycle Plant  Transfer Operation - CYC/CI Data:  Arithmetic
            Mean Particulate Matter Concentrations Under Various Test
            Conditions  (yg/m3)      	  110

  28      Results of Fogger Test at Recycle Plant Transfer Operation:
            Sampler with Cyclone Preseparator 	  113

  29      Results of Fogger Test at Recycle Plant Transfer Operation:
            Sampler with Cyclone Preseparator and Cascade Impactor  . . .  114

  30      Test Conditions  - Crusher/Conveyor Operation   	 121

  31      Crusher/Conveyor Operation:  Arithmetic Mean Particulate Matter
            Concentrations Under Various Test Conditions  (yg/m3)      . . 126
                                        vu

-------
                             TABLES (Continued)

Number                                                                    Page
  32      Percent Reduction in Arithmetic  Mean  Uncontrolled  Particulate
            Matter Concentrations Due to Various Test Conditions -
            Crusher/Conveyor Operation  	  .  	  130

  33      Percent Reduction in Arithmetic  Mean  Particulate Matter
            Concentrations  Due to Charging an Uncharged  Fog  -  Crusher/
            Conveyor Operation  	  131

  34      Overall Results of Tests:   Reductions in Baseline  Emission
            Levels Due to Control	133

  35      Overall Results of Fogger Tests:   Increase  in  Efficiency Due
            to Applying a Charge  to a Water Spray	134
                                    Vlll

-------
                                  SECTION 1




                                 INTRODUCTION









    A  spray of fine  water droplets  is  a well  known  means of  airborne dust




removal.   Various  types  of  scrubbers   rely  on  water  droplets  to  remove




entrained  particles from  streams and  direct water  sprays  are often  used  in




mining  and  material  handling  for  dust suppression.   Unfortunately,  water




sprays  are  not very effective  in removing dust from  the ambient air.




    One method of  improving the effectiveness of water  sprays is by applying




an  electrical  charge  to the spray that  is opposite  in  polarity  to the charge




on  the  dust  to  be  suppressed.    It  has  been  found   that   most  industrial




pollutants  and naturally  occurring fugitive  dusts  acquire  an  electrostatic




charge  as  they  are  dispersed into  the  air.    If this  charged,  airborne




material  is exposed to  an  oppositely charged water spray,  contact between the




particulate matter and the  water   droplets  is enhanced.   After  contact  is




made,  the  wetted  particulate matter agglomerates rapidly and falls out of the




atmosphere.




    The effectiveness of  these charged  sprays  can  be  improved  by atomizing




the  water  droplets so  that a  fog  is  produced.    The  fineness  of   the  fog




droplets  enhances  the charge-carrying capability  of the spray.   Hoenig  has




demonstrated  that  the   greatest  effectiveness  is  obtained  when  the  water




droplets  are  of  a  size   similar   to  that of  the  dust  particles  to  be




controlled.  There  is also the 'benefit  of reduced operating  costs since less




water is required when fog  is used.

-------
     A device designed  to  produce  such a fine spray and apply an electrostatic

 charge to it  is  known as a charged  fogger.   The charged  fogger  is intended

 primarily for fugitive dust sources  that cannot  reasonably  be controlled by

 conventional means such as hooding.  Such  sources include materials-handling

 operations  (transfer  points and  conveyors), truck  and railroad  car  loading

 and  unloading,  front-end  loaders,   ship  loading,  grain   silos,  and  mining

 operations.

     Although the  charged  fog  concept  has  been widely applied to  industrial

 sources of  fugitive  dust,  little quantitative  data are  available  regarding

 fogger control effectiveness on particulate matter.   To obtain such data, the

 Industrial Environmental  Research Laboratory of  the Environmental Protection

 Agency at Research  Triangle  Park,  North Carolina,  (IERL/EPA/RTP) contracted

 TRC   Environmental   Consultants,   Inc.   (TRC)    to   conduct  a   full-scale

 demonstration of a charged fogger on several  appropriate  industrial fugitive

 emission   sources.   In particular,   IERL/EPA was  interested  in   testing  the

 largest   fogger,   designated   "Fogger   IV",   manufactured  by   the  Ritten

 Corporation  of Ardmore, Pennsylvania,*  on several sources  within  the iron and

 steel industry and the sand and gravel  industry.

     Following numerous visits  to iron  and  steel  plants  and sand and gravel

 companies,   several  sources were selected  for  Phase  I   field   testing  the

 charged fogger.  These sources were:


     •  Sand  and gravel company:  primary rock crushing operation;
     •  Sand  and gravel company:  secondary rock crushing operation;
     •  Iron  and steel plant:  molten  iron spout hole at a cast  house; and
     •   Iron  and steel plant:  coke screening operation.
* This device is now being manufactured  and  marketed by the Sonic Development
Corporation of Mahwah,  New  Jersey.    (The  Ritten  Corporation has gone out  of
business.)  However,  the device  will be  referred  to as  the  Ritten  fogger
throughout this report.

-------
    Coincidently with  the  EPA/IERL fogger test program, Armco,  Inc.  signed a

Consent Decree with EPA  Region V  under  which  funds  were set aside in  a  trust

fund  for  the demonstration  of  the  use of electrostatically  charged fog  on

several fugitive  dust  sources within Armco1s  plants.   TRC was  designated  as

the firm to perform the demonstration program.

    To  provide  Armco   with  state-of-the-art  information  on   charged   fog

technology,  two  types  of  charged  fog  devices were to  be  field  tested  under

the Consent Decree demonstration program.  The first of  these  devices  was  the

Kitten  Corporation's  Fogger  IV.   The  second device  was one  developed  by

AeroVironment,  Inc.  (AV)  of  Pasadena,  California.   AV  was subcontracted  by

TRC  to assist  in  this  demonstration  program.   As compared  with the  Ritten

fogger,  the  AV  fogger uses  a  different  method  of charging  the fog  and  a

different method of  fog  dispersal.   By testing both fog devices side-by-side,

Armco could be provided  with  a basis for  comparison should a decision  be  made

in the future to purchase  a charged fog device.

    The sources selected for  Phase  II  field testing the two fog devices  were

located within Armco plants and included:


    •  A stainless steel slab torch cutting operation;
    •  A conveyor transfer operation at a  recylce plant; and
    •  A limestone crusher/conveyor transfer operation.


    This report  presents the results  of  both Phase I  and II  charged  fogger

testing programs in the following manner:


    •  Section 2 presents a summary and the conclusions of the study.

    •  Section 3 presents  a  glossary of acronyms and conversion factors  used
       in the report.

    •  Section  4  provides general field  test" information  including a  dis-
       cussion of the  site selection process,  descriptions of  the test equip-
       ment, and descriptions of the laboratory procedures.

-------
•  Section 5 provides specific  information on  the  seven  source tests that
   were  performed.   This  information  includes site  and source  descrip-
   tions,  equipment  locations,  test  procedures,   test  conditions,  and
   results.


•  Section 6  presents a  general discussion  of all the  test results.

•  Section 7  presents the references cited  in the text.

-------
                                  SECTION 2

                           SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
    Based  on  the results  of the  seven  field tests,  the following  specific

conclusions can  be  drawn  regarding  the  performance,  operation,  and  field

installation of the fog devices tested:
    Performance

    •  Charging  a  water  spray  appears  to  increase  its  effectiveness  in
       controlling particulate matter emissions  by up to 40 percent.

    •  The  two Ritten foggers,  operating  at a  combined  water  flow rate  of
       approximately  160  1/hr/  were  capable  of  60  percent effectiveness  in
       controlling  particulate  matter  emissions.   For  control  efficiencies
       greater than  90 percent,  water  flow rates of  300  to  400 1/hr would
       most likely be required for the sources tested.

    •  The  Ritten and  AeroVironment  charged  fog  devices  were  essentially
       comparable  in  terms of  baseline  emissions reduction  and  increase  in
       effectiveness due to charging.

    •  The fog devices tested produced no visual  improvement  in  plume  opacity
       for the following reasons:

          ••  The fog itself has an opacity associated with it.

          ••  The  fogger  water  flow rates  were  insufficient  to completely
              control the quantity of emissions  generated.

          ••  Several of the sources were hot which caused  the fog to  turn  to
              steam and thus added to the visible  plume.

    Operation

    •  The two fog devices  are  extremely difficult to operate in subfreezing
       ambient temperatures.   This  problem might  be  alleviated by   adding
       glycerin to the water  or else by using  steam instead of  water.   Both
       of  these  possible  solutions  have  been  successfully  demonstrated  in
       laboratory work.

-------
     •  The two fog devices, as  presently designed, are not  rugged enough to
        withstand  the  harsh environments often associated with industrial dust
        sources (e.g.,  molten metal, heavy dust plumes, caustic materials.)

     •  The nose  cone  and control  panel  of  the  Ritten fogger  should  be
        redesigned to  allow for  easier  access  to the  inner  workings.   As
        presently  designed,  the Fogger  IV is  extremely  difficult to work on in
        the field.

     Field Installation

     •  The fog devices should be run  with  as low a fan speed  as possible to
        avoid  dust reentrainment.   The  fan  speed should  be  no  greater than
        that necessary  to  carry the fog  to the source.

     •  Foggers should  conceivably  be  placed  above a dust source  and aimed
        down upon it.   This should help to  isolate the agglomerated particles
        at the source.
     In general,  the  two types of  foggers,  as  presently designed,  both show

 promise,  but  have  design  and  operational problems.   These  problems  include

 dust  reentrainment  from the  fan  forced  air  used  to  carry the  fog  to the

 source;  freezeups in cold  weather;  frequent  shorting of  electronics;  lack of

 mobility;  and water  flow limitations.   It is  recognized that both devices were

 designed   as   prototypes  and  that  the  test  program  primarily  focused  on

 evaluating the two  different concepts.   However,  the underlying result is that

 both devices  are not ready for  use in  industry  and neither  device performed

 much better than  the other.

     The future development  of  the Ritten foggers is  no  longer with the  Ritten

 Corporation,  which  terminated  their  business  since  the  beginning  of this

 study.  The  Ritten foggers  are  now being manufactured  and  sold  by  the  Sonic

 Development Corporation.   Sonic  is  incorporating  their  sonic  dry-fog nozzles

 into  the  Ritten induction  ring  fog devices.   To date,  Sonic is  developing  a

prototype  Fogger  I  (the original,  small Ritten fcgger)  using  a 15 4/hr  (4

gph)  water flow nozzle  that produces droplets  in the 1  to  40 urn  range.   They

are  also  planning a  Fogger IV  with a  Sonic  nozzle.   Some  of  the  inherent

-------
problems of  the  Ritten foggers have been  addressed  by Sonic personnel.   They




have eliminated waterlines to  the  gauges  and heat traced those leading  to  the




nozzles,  thus  eliminating  freezeups.   They  are also  using  a  nozzle  that




produces  finer  droplets  which should  increase  the   charge/droplet  ratio  and




thus the capture  efficiency.   Sonic  has also put the controls  into  a  separate




industrial-strength  box  which  reduces  maintenance.   The  product line  offered




should  be  a significant  improvement  over  the prototype  devices  tested  during




this study.

-------
Acronyms

  AV
  CFG
  CI
  CYC
  EPA
  Hi-Vol
  SSI
  TRC
  TSP
                                  SECTION 3

                                  GLOSSARY
       AeroVironment, Inc.
       Charged Fog Generator
       Cascade Impactor
       Cyclone Preseparator
       Environmental Protection Agency
       High-Volume Air Sampler
       Size Selective Inlet
       TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
       Total Suspended Particulate
Conversion Factors
To Convert
cm
m3
9    -
k g/cnr
kW
£
m
Multiply By

(°C) (1.8)
0.3937
35.31
0.002205
14.22
1.341
0.2642
3.281
                                             + 32
                                                                     To Obtain
in
Ibs
psi
hP
gal
ft

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                            FIELD TESTS - GENERAL



SITE SELECTION PROCESS

    During  Phase I,  site visits  were made  to  a number  of  iron  and  steel

plants and sand and gravel companies in order to  locate sources that would  be

acceptable  for  the  first four  fogger  field tests.  Similarly, several  Armco

plants were visited in Phase II in order to  locate three acceptable sites for

the Armco testing program.

    To determine  the acceptability of  a  proposed source  for  fogger  testing,

several  criteria  were  applied  to  each  source  examined  during  the  site

visits.  These criteria were:


    •  Size.  Source  emissions  should  be  of a nature that will not overwhelm
       the spray from two foggers.

    •  isolation.  The  source  should be relatively  isolated  from other dust
       sources.

    •  Physical layout.   The area around the source must  leave  room for the
       foggers/  samplers and test personnel.

    •  Utilities.  Suitable power and  water  supplies must be  available at the
       source.

    •  process continuity.  The process operation should be fairly continuous
       for minimal testing time.

    •  process consistency.   The  emissions  produced should  be  similar from
       test to test.

    •  Dustiness.   A  significant amount of  dust should be  produced  so that
       sampling  time  is minimized.

    •  Meteorological  influence.   The   source  should be  relatively  isolated
       from meteorological influences such as wind and rain.

-------
    •  Commonality.  The  source  should be one common  to  other  steel mills or
       sand and gravel companies.   Demonstration  of the charged-fog technique
       on a unique source would not result in transferable information.

    •  Variety.   A  variety of  source and emission particle types  should be
       tested  so that  a  broader   spectrum  of  information  regarding  fogger
       effectiveness could be obtained.
    While  it  was not  possible  to  locate  any  one  source  that  completely

 satisfied  the  acceptability  criteria,  the  sources  that  were  selected met

 enough  of  these criteria  to be  judged  suitable for the fogger  field tests.



 TEST EQUIPMENT

    The equipment used  for the  field  tests  included two  charged fog devices

 manufactured  by the  Ritten Corporation, two charged  fog  devices developed by

 AeroVironment,   several   high-volume   particulate  samplers,  size   selective

 inlets,  a cyclone  preseparator, cascade  impactors,  and  a  wind measurement

 system.  Each of these items  is  described below.



 Ritten  Charged  Foggers

    Two identical foggers were  specially designed and fabricated for the pro-

 ject  by the  Ritten Corporation  of  Ardmore,  Pennsylvania.   Ritten's  standard

 Fogger  III was  modified  and  upgraded  in order to allow  for  variations of its

 operating  conditions.   The  final configuration, designated  "Fogger  IV",  is

 shown schematically in Figure 1.

    In  the generation  of charged fog  by the  Fogger  IV,  water  is atomized as

 it  is  ejected from a nozzle  by  a  compressed  air supply.   For  the  tests,  a

 1.5 kW compressor was used to supply  the required air pressure  of  5.6  to 8.8

 kg/cm   and local water  supplies  were  utilized  to provide the required water
                                 2
pressure  of  2.1  to  3.5 kg/cm .    The air  flow  is  variable  from  0  to

11.3 m /hr and  the water  flow  is variable from  0  to 151  i/hr.  As  the fog
                                      10

-------
leaves  the nozzle, it  passes  throuqh an  induction  ring, maintained  at 12.5




kvs where  either a positive or  negative charge, depending  on the  nature  of




the dust,  is applied to the spray.   A  power supply of 230 V  is  required for




the  fogger  operation.   A  flow  of   air  around  the  nozzle,  provided  by  a




centrifugal  fan, projects the  fog  towards  the  dust  source.   The  fan is driven




by a  3.7 kw motor  and  operates at a maximum  of 79  m /min.   It  is  variable




from  0  to  100  percent of capacity and produces a maximum output  air velocity




at the  nozzle  face of  3048 ra/min.   A control panel,  located  on  the  back  of




the fogger,  allows fogger operation  and  parameter  variability.   A  schematic




representation  of  the   control  panel   is   shown  in  Figure  2.    Additional




information  regarding the Fogger IV may be found in references 2,  3, and 4.









Flow  Spectra—




    Two  different  flow  nozzles were  used for  the tests,  both  manufactured  by




the  Delavan Manufacturing  Company  of   West Des  Moines, Iowa.   While  both




nozzles  produced a  conical flow  of droplets, one  nozzle had  a slightly higher




flow  capacity than  the  other.




    To  determine the flow spectra  of the  two nozzles,  droplet  sizing  tests




were  performed  at  TRC's laboratory  facilities  by  KLD  Associates,   Inc.  of




Huntington Station,  New York.   The device  used  to measure the droplet  sizes




and  concentrations  was  a  KLD  Model  DC-2A  Droplet  Counter.   The  Droplet




Counter  is a  hybrid electronic  device  which  uses  both  analog  and  digital




techniques  to  measure,  count,   sort   and  display  liquid   droplets.    The




fundamental  technique of this device is  to utilize  a hot wire  anemometer-




type probe which is cooled  by  the impinging droplets.  The degree  of  cooling




is droplet size  dependent.   Further  information  on  this device may  be  found




in reference 5.
                                     11

-------
                        BELT GUARD
                                 JUNCTION BOX (MOTOR)
                                       1-22.9 cm
                                         -j	3.7 kW MOTOR
                                           -T-
15.2 cm DIAMETER INDUCTION RING
 AIR ATOMIZING NOZZLE
     NOSECONE
     WATER LINE-
COMPRESSED AIR LINE


 HIGH-VOLTAGE LINE
   UTILITY BASKET
                                                     BELT DRIVEN CENTRIFUGAL FAN
                                             -48.3 cm
                                               I  r WEATHERPROOF CONTROL
                                                     PANEL ENCLOSURE
                                               j  1   f-CONTROL PANEL

                                              rX.
                                                    N?
      •CONTROL BOX
           AIR AND WATER INPLTT
            CONNECTION PORTS
          230 VAC RECEPTACLE

        230 VAC MAIN
      DISCONNECT SWITCH

           CONTROL CABINET


J~«-LIFTING  EYE FOR SKID JACK
     Figure 1.   Schematic representation  of the Ritten Corporation's  Fogger  IV.

-------
21.6
 cm
I--1
Ul
                    SCFH
                     AIR
                     1-400
                      - 50
                                           110 VAC YELLOW INDICATOR LIGHT


                                     230  VAC RED PUSHBUTTON SWITCH

                              230 VAC BLACK PUSHBUTTON SWITCH
 GPH
WATER
 1-40
                                  -0
                                                          'A
                                                            -230 VAC GREEN INDICATOR LIGHT

j ON
OFF

                                             COMPRESSED
                                                AIR
               ON  OFF
                                                WATER
                                                                             POWER

                                                                             INDUCTION
                                                                              RING

I ON
OFF


                                   INDUCTION
                                    RING
                                                                                 f
                                                                          POWER
                                                                           O
                                                                           ON
                                                                  FAN SPEED
                                                                   76.2 cm
                                                                                 INDICATION LIGHTS FOR THE
                                                                                 PARAMETRIC MOTOR SPEED CONTROLLER
                                 Figure  2.   Schematic  representation of Fogger  IV control  panel.

-------
    Table  L  presents  the  operating  conditions and  results of  the  droplet

sizing tests for the two Delavan nozzles.   Each of  the runs presented in  the

table are the average  of duplicate  tests.   From these results, the  following

observations can be made:
    •  Charging the  spray does not  change the  mass median  diameter of  the
       droplets.

    •  Increasing  the  atomizing air  flow reduces  the  mass  median  diameter
       while increasing the water  flow increases  the  mass median diameter.

    •  The mass median diameter of the droplets  in the  spray  varies according
       to the position in the spray cone.

    •  The two nozzles produced very similar  droplet  spectra.
Charge Per Drop—

    Tests  were performed  at  TRC's  laboratory  facilities  to  determine  the

charge-to-mass ratio  for  the water droplets.   The charged spray  was  directed

at  a  fine  meshed screen  which  in  turn  was  connected  to  an  ammeter.   The

ammeter displayed  the charge on  the total mass  of  droplets  which could  then

be converted to a charge per drop  using the known water  flow rate and droplet

spectra.

    The results of  these  tests indicated  that the charge-to-mass  ratio  for  a

60  )am  diameter   drop  with  75  i/hr  water  flow  is   approximately   0.11

uC/g.  This  ratio is  essentially unaffected by  the  air  flow rate but varies

slightly  with  the  water   flow  rate  (0.10  yC/g  at  114  i/hr;  0.14  uC/g  at

38 i/hr.)



AeroVironment Charged Fog Generators

    AeroVironment  Inc.  of  Pasadena,  California  developed  a  charged  fog

generator   (CFG)  under the  sponsorship of EPA/IERL/RTP.   This  device,  which
                                      14

-------
                                        TABLE 1.  RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTSi  DROPLET SIZE
Run No.
1
2
3A
3B
4A
4B
5A
SB
6
7
a
Nozzle
Type*
D2
02
D2
D2
D2
D2
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Dl
Fan Speed
(% of Max.)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Water Flow
(1/hr)
114
114
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
114
114
Air Flow
(nr'/hr)
2.5
2.5
2.8
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.4
Charge (C)/
No Charge (NC)
NC
C
NC
NC
C
C
NC
NC
C
C
NC
Position In
Spray Cone:
Center (C)/
Outer Edqe(OE)
C
C
C
C
C
OE
C
OE
OE
OE
OE
Calculated
Mass Median
Diameter (MID)
84
81
89
44
44
66
53
66
69
91
90
* Dl - Delavan nozzle, low flow (model 40)
  D2 -., Delavan nozzle, high flow (model 20)

-------
charges the water by directly connecting  the  positive  terminal of a 15  kV dc




power supply to the inflowing water, provides fog with  a  charge-to-mass  ratio




of  approximately  1.2  yC/g for  a  200  ym  diameter  droplet.   Two  of  these




devices were provided for the Armco tests.




    The CFG is  a  modified Ray Oil Burner which consists  of only one  movable




part, a hollow steel shaft upon which are mounted the atomizing cup, the fan,




and  the  motor  rotor.    Figure  3  schematically  represents  the  CFG.    The




modifications  to  the oil  burner  include replacement  of  the  fuel  tube,  air




cone,  and the  spinning  cup with  nonconducting  materials.   The  water  inlet




tube  is  attached  to the  spinning  cup  and  its  rear end  is connected  to  the




water  supply  using a  rotating  seal.    Figure  4  is  a  photograph   of  the




prototype unit used in the Armco study.




    Water  is   introduced  into the  3,600 rprn  spinning cup whose  inside  is




fabricated to a gradual  taper-  Because  of  the  centrifugal  forces,  the  water




becomes a thin film and moves forward into  a  high-velocity  airstream where it




breaks up  into fine droplets.  These  droplets  are projected  forward  by  the




airstream from  the  fan.   An air  butterfly  valve  is used to set the  airflow




rate,  thus  controlling  the  spray  pattern.  Figure  5 shows  a  typical  fog




pattern obtained with the CFG.   The spray pattern covers a  volume of 16  to 24




m3.   The  water  flow  rate can  be  varied  from  about 8   to  70  l/hr.    The




total power requirement  of this unit is  less than 1 kW.   The whole  unit is




mounted on a portable platform for easy transport to a  remote  location,   with




the addition of a small  generator, the CFG can  be operated where  commercial




electric power  is  not available.




    The medians  of  the  size  distribution  of  the water   droplets, measured




using a cloud  optical array  probe for  droplets  in the  range of  30  to  300




ym,  are   a  concentration  median  droplet  diameter of  100  urn  and   a   mass




median droplet  diameter of -200  ym for  droplets  >30  ym.




                                     16

-------
                                 Air Fan
                 Nooconductive
                    Air  cone
  Water Deflecting
 - Baffle
• iNonconductive
  Spinning Cup
         Hollow Shaft
         Motor'
\
    Nonconductive
     Water Tube x
                X
\ Spinning
  Shaft
       TJU
                                                                          Rotating
                                                                          Seal
                                                               Flowmeter-
DC Power
Supply
                                                                                           onconductive
                                                                                           Water,Line
                                      DC Water
                                      Pump  /
                                                  Isolated
                                                  Water
                                                  Supply
                   Figure 3.  Schematic representation  of  AeroVironment  charged fog generator.

-------
Figure 4.  Photograph of AeroVironment charged fog generator.

-------
Figure 5.  Photograph of typical spray pattern of AeroVironment charged
           fog generator.
                                     19

-------
    Additional information regarding the AV fogger may  be  found  in references




6 and 7.









Sampling Equipment




    High-volume air  samplers  (hi-vols)  were used  for  the particulate  matter




measurements.  The number of  samplers used varied from source to  source  and,




in  some  cases,  from test to  test.   The exact  number  used  for  each test  is




discussed in the individual  source test  descriptions.




    The   hi-vols   were  manufactured   by   Misco   Scientific  of   Berkeley,




California,  and were equipped with  automatic  flow control.  This  enabled  the




mass   flow   rate   to  be  held  constant  irrespective  of   filter   loading,




atmospheric  conditions,  or  line voltage changes.  The  hi-vols were  operated




at  a  nominal  flow  of  1.1 m3/min   (40  cfm)  which  corresponds  to  a  design




particulate  size  cutoff of  approximately  30  \im  aerodynamic diameter.   All




hi-vols were calibrated prior  to each of the  seven source  tests.




    Several  of  the  hi-vols  were  fitted  with  size-selective  inlets  (SSIs)




manufactured  by  Sierra Instruments  of  Carmel  Valley,   California.    These




inlets,  when operated  at 1.1 m3/min,   are  designed to  remove all  particles




larger   than 15   um  aerodynamic  diameter   from  the  sampled   air   before




filtering the remaining particulate matter  onto a standard  hi-vol filter.




    For  the  last  two   Armco  source tests,  a  hi-vol  fitted  with a  cyclone




preseparator  (CYC)  was  also  used  for   data  collection.   This  device,  also




manufactured by  Sierra  Instruments,  has  a  particle size cutoff  of   5.5  ym




aerodynamic diameter when operated at 1.1 m3/min.




    Sierra Instruments  Series  230  four-stage  cascade  impactors  (CIs)  were




used during several of the tests in conjunction  with an SSI  or cyclone.  At a




flow rate  of 1.1 m3/min,  the  four  stages separate  the   collected  particles
                                     20

-------
into  aerodynamic  diameter ranges  of:   7.2 to  15 ym  (stage 1),  3.0 to  7.2




urn  (stage  2),  1.5  to  3.0  um  (stage  3),  and  0.95  to  1.5  ym  (stage  4)




when used with an SSI.   The  remaining  submicron particles are collected on  a



backup  hi-vol  filter.    For  the  majority of   the  tests  at  the  limestone




crusher/conveyor, only two of the  four  stages  (numbers  1 and 3)  were used  in



conjunction with the cyclone.
Wind Measurement System




    For the  first  two  source  tests which were performed outdoors, a Mark  III



wind Measuring  System  manufactured by Climatronics of Bohemia, New York,  was




used to measure and record the speed and direction of the wind.



    Wind  speed  is  measured by  a  3-cup anemometer, coupled to  a light chop-



per, which converts the  speed of  rotation  of the cups  to a  signal  with a




frequency proportional  to the wind speed.  The  light  chopper  output is con-




verted to a DC voltage by circuits  located in  the  recorder, and  recorded on a



strip chart.




    Wind  direction is  measured by  a  wind vane, coupled  to a precision low-



torque potentiometer.  The wiper voltage of the potentiometer is  a measure of



wind direction, and is  also recorded  (after  amplification  and  filtering) on a




strip chart.



    Both  wind  speed  and  direction  are  filtered  with a time  constant  of




approximately 6 seconds.  This filtering is used to provide a smooth trace of




both wind speed and wind direction.
LABORATORY/DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES




    Sierra  fiberglass  filters,. Models  C-230-GF  and  C-305-GF,  were  used  as




collection   substrates   for   the   CI  and   standard  hi-vol   measurements,
                                     21

-------
respectively.   Prior  to  installation  in  the  samplers,  the  filters   were

inspected for  defects,  numbered,  and stored  for  24 hours  in a  desiccator.

Filters  were then weighed  in a controlled  atmosphere  where  the  temperature

was  between  20 C   and   25 C,   and  the  relative   humidity   was  below  50

percent.  After  an  additional  24  hours  in  a desiccator,  10  percent of  the

filters,  randomly  selected,  were  reweighed.   In  accordance with procedures of

the  EPA  Quality  Assurance  Handbook,3   the  entire  batch was  reweighed when

any  one  of  the audited filters  differed  by more  than 2.8 mg from  the original

weight.

     After  collection  from   the   samplers,  the  exposed filters  were  also

desiccated  for 24 hours, weighed  and audited.  In  accordance with the above

QA procedures, these filters were  reweighed when any of the  exposed filters

differed by more  than  5.0  mg  from the  original  weight.    The  difference

between  the initial filter  weight   (Wl)  and  final  weight  (WF)  is the mass

loading on  the  filter.   All of  the mass loading  values were  normalized by

calculating the  concentration using  the  following equation:


                       x _      (WF -  WI)  x 106
                                    f X  t

 Where             X =  particulate  matter concentration  (yg/m3)
             WF - WI =  mass loading (gm)
                   f =  average  flow rate of  sampler  (m3/min)
                   t =  duration of  test  (min)
 The average flow rate was obtained from  field  data  by averaging the recorded

 starting and  final  flows of  each high-volume sampling  unit.   Accurate  time

 records were  kept for  each unit  during  each  test.   The  resulting values of

 concentration were used directly to calculate  fogger  efficiency.
                                      22

-------
                                  SECTION 5




                            FIELD TESTS  -  SPECIFIC









    The  specifics  regarding  the  seven source  tests  (four  in phase I,  three in




Phase  II) are presented below in the order in which they were performed.









PHASE  I, TEST #1 - SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY:  PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER




    The  primary rock  crushing  operation at  a  sand  and  gravel  company  in




Connecticut  consists of the  unloading of  quarry rock into  a  crushing  pit  and




the subsequent  crushing of  the  rock  by  a gyratory rock crusher.   The  unload-




ing of the  rock causes dust boil-up at the  rear of the pit  and  the  crushing




of  the  rock  produces  additional  fugitive  dust.    The  control of  these




emissions was  the  subject of  the first  fogger  field  test.  The  testing  was




performed during the  period from October  2  to 24,  1980,  with  a total of  32




test runs conducted.









Site and Process Descriptions




    As one of the  initial  steps in the sand  and gravel  company's operations,




quarry rock  is  brought to a primary  rock crusher.   Approximately 100 dump




trucks per  day, each  carrying  loads   of approximately  45 Mg  (50 tons)   of




quarry rock  (basically basalt)  mixed with dirt, back  up  to the  crushing  pit




to  unload.    Unloading  times   vary  from 30  to  60  seconds,   depending   on




conditions in the  pit.  The pi,t itself  is  roughly 8 meters long, 6 meters




wide,  and 4  meters deep.   The  crushing  is done by  a Superior  4265  gyratory
                                     23

-------
 rock crusher  located  in  the center of the pit.  There is a two-story computer




 control  building  to the  north  side of the crushing pit,  a control shed to the




 east, and a large paved  area to the south side.  All approach roads and  areas




 around the  buildings and  pit  are paved  and  kept reasonably  clean  through




 frequent sweepings and waterings.  Figure 6  is a photograph of  the operation




 and Figure 7  is a plot plan indicating  important  features and dimensions.




     Fugitive dust emissions result from  the  dumping and crushing operations.




 The truck unloading is the primary source of  dust with the major portion com-




 ing from dust boil-up at the rear of  the  pit.  There is also dust at the rear




 of the truck  during  the dump.   The  crushing  procedure  itself  also produces




 dust, but to a much lesser degree than  the unloading process.









 Equipment Placement




     The  locations of the  samplers varied  from day  to  day depending  on the




 wind direction.  Measurements made at the start  of  each  testing day with the




 Mark III  Wind System  were used to insure placement of the samplers within the




 dust plume.   The positions  of  the  foggers  were  somewhat  dependent  on the




 positions of the  samplers.  Where possible,   the  foggers  were  placed so as  to




 blanket  the  pit   with  fog  while  not  impinging  directly  on   the  samplers.




 Figure 8  shows the equipment positions  for the  six days of testing.




     The  optimum fogger positions  appeared to  be  at the  rear of  the  pit with




 one fogger aimed  across  the boil-up area  and  the other fogger directed at the




 rear  of the unloading truck.   This second fogger  would help control the boil-



 up  as well as  the crushing  and truck  emissions.









Test  Program and  Procedure




    The test program  consisted of  32  runs  during  6  days  of  testing.   The test




conditions  are presented  in Table 2.   Conditions  at  the crusher  prevented




                                      24

-------

Figure 6.  Primary crusher operation.
                 25

-------


12m
    PRIMARY
   CRUSHING _L
      PIT
BREAKER ARM

  PRIMARY
  CRUSHER
            15m
             ^'
                 COMPUTER
                  CONTROL
                  BUILDING
                     CEMENT
                     BLOCKS
                    PAVED AREA
                         EDGE OF
                    -*•
                                     -*••
                       EMBANKMENT
                        12m
                              CRUSHER
                              CONTROL
                                SHED
                            CRANE FOR
                            DISLODGING
                            JAMS AND
                            REMOVING
                            OVERSIZE
                            MATERIAL
            Figure 7.  Primary crusher plot plan,
                       26

-------
CD

                    cf
                            4.6m
                                O
                             B
en
                                          1.5m
cQ
O
                                               3.0m
                                                    O
                                                 LEGEND

                                          HI-VOLS-

                                         ^  (7084)STANDARD
                                         O  (7112)STANDARD

                                         <£>  (7106)STANDARD

                                         A  (710DCASCADE
                                             IMPACTOR

                                         A  (7094)CASCADE
                                             IMPACTOR
                                                             O
            (7105)SIZE
             SELECTIVE INLET

            (7092)SIZE
             SELECTIVE INLET
          FOGGERS-

         •   803019

         O   803018
                  Figure 8.  Test equipment positions, types,  and serial numbers
                           at the primary rock crusher.

-------
                                                             TABLE 2.   TEST CONDITIONS - PRIMARY CRUSHER
00
Foqqer 803018
Ambient
Run Equipment Temp.
No. Positions Date Time (
7 Fig. 4a 10-13-80 0938-1000
8 1050-1129
9 1300-1318
10 1326-1350
11 1355-1434
12 Fig. 4b 10-14-80 0833-0915
13 0933-1005
14 1022-1050
15 1059-1125
16 1245-1305
17 1313-1346
18 Fig. 4c 10-15-80 0949-1026
19 1039-1113
20 1116-1156
22 Fig. 4d 10-16-80 0940-1003
23 1021-1038
24 1056-1127
25 1251-1314
26 1323-1345
27 1350-1412
28 Fig. <>e 10-17-80 0850-0927
29 0936-0927
30 ' 1016-1045
31 1105-1135
32 Fig. 4f 10-24-80 0925-0943
33 0950-1004
34 1010-1025
35 1027-1040
36 1045-1112
37 1120-1138
38 1244-1325
39 1334-1403
* Type I: low flow
Type 2i heavy flow
C)
9
10
13
13
13
6
6
7
7
9
10
9
9
11
12
12
16
20
20
20
21
21
21
21
4
4
5
5
5
6
11
11


Relative
Humidity
(«)
77
77
70
70
70
72
72
72
72
72
72
36
36
36
57
57
57
52
52
52
55
55
55
55
82
82
82
82
82
82
68
68



Wind
Direction
N-E
HHW



WNW





Ca m


Calm


SSM


Calm



Calm

N-E


i
SE-S
SE-S


Mind
Hater
Speed No. of Flow
(m/sec) Trucks (l/hr)
2-5
4



Var.
w/gusts
to 9



Calm


Calm


2-5


Calm



Calm





1-2
1-2


8
8 61
8
8 68
8 72
8
8 60
8 57
8 53
8 53
8
10
10 68
8 76
8
4 76
8 72
8 72
8 77
8
8
8 76
8 80
8 76
6
6 76
6
6 76
6 74
6
10
10 78


Air
Flow
(m3/hr)

4.2

4.2
4.0

2.3
2.3
2.7
2.4


4.0
4.1

2.8
2.0
2.6
2.7


3.4
2.2
3.6

4.2

4.7
4.8


4.2


Fan Sign
Speed of
(») Charge

80 (0)

80 (-)
80 ( + )

80 (0)
80 ( + )
80 (-)
80 {-)


50 (-)
50 (0)

80 ( + )
80 (-)
80 ( + )
80 (0)


70 (0)
70 ( + )
70 (-)
80
80 (0)
80
80 (0)
80 (-)
80
80
80 (0)



Nozzle*
Type

I

I
I

1
I
I
I


2~
2

2
2
2
2


2
2
2

2

2
2


2


Water
Flow
Fogger 803019
Air Fan
Flow Speed
Sign
of Nozzle*
ji/lir) (m /hr) (%) Charge Type

68

68
68

66
72
64
61


66
76

76
76
72
77


76
80
76

74

76
78


78



4.2 80

4.2 80
4.0 80

2.3 BO
1.6 80
1.8 80
1.4 80


4.0 50
3.6 50

4.4 80
2.6 80
3.1 80
2.8 80


4.0 70
2.8 70
2.8 70
80
4.2 80
80
4.4 80
4.1 80
80
80
4.2 80



(0) I

(-) I
( + > 1

(0) L
( + ) 1
(-) 1
(-) I


(-) 2
(0) 2

( + ) 2
(-) 2
( + ) 2
(0) 2


(0) 2
( + ) 2
(-) 2

(0) 2

(0) 2
< + ) 2


(0) 2



-------
extensive variations of  fogger operating parameters.  Water  was  provided  by a




tank with  a small pump  which  limited nozzle flow  to  approximately 80  £/hr.




Fan speed was reduced to 80 percent of capacity  to  help  reduce  excessive  dust




reentrainment in the pit.




    The  sampling procedure  was  essentially  the same  for  each test.   Upon




arrival at the test site, the wind measurement system was set up and the  wind




direction determined.  The hi-vol samplers were  then positioned  in  a sampling




array downwind of  the  crushing pit.  The  foggers  were  positioned  to  control




the  dust cloud  while not  spraying  directly  into  the  samplers.   Once  the




equipment was positioned, the pre-weighed hi-vol filters were placed into the




samplers.   The samplers  were  then  turned on simultaneously just prior  to the




first truck  dump of  a predetermined  sequence of  trucks  (typically, 8  trucks




provided  sufficient  material  for sampling purposes).  For  the  runs with the




foggers  in  operation,  the foggers  were  also turned on  at  this  time  and  ad-




justed  to the predetermined  fogger  operational  parameter conditions.   After




the last  truck of  the  sequence had  dumped  into  the  pit  and crushing was  com-




pleted,  the samplers and foggers were  all  stopped  and  the filters removed.




At the  end  of the day,  all  of the filters  were  returned to TRC's chemistry




laboratory where they were subsequently desiccated  and weighed.









Test Results




    The filter loadings  were  used  in  conjunction with  the sampler  flow rates




to   calculate   particulate   matter    concentrations.     Review   of   these




concentraions indicated  that  they did not accurately reflect the particulate




levels  because of the intermittent  nature of the  truck dumps  and the  fact




that each  test  did  not  contain  an equal  number of these  dumps.   Since the




samplers  were not   shut  off  between  truck dumps,  there  was considerable
                                     29

-------
sampling  time during  which  no  emissions  were emanating  from the  crushing




pit.   The  data  were  therefore  reduced   on   a  per-truck  basis  since  the




durations  of the  unloading and  crush-  ing  times,  the  times  when  the  vast




majority of  the  dust was produced, were essentially  the same  for  all  dumps.




The  data,  in the  form of  mg/truck,  were  also adjusted  to  account for  the




slight  deviations  of the actual  sampler  flow rates from  the design flow  of




1.1  m3/min  (40 cfm).




     The majority of the tests (runs 7-31)   were completed  before  results were




available from  the chemistry laboratory.   Upon examination of  these  data,  it




became  evident  that a  different  baseline particulate  level would  be necessary




for  comparison of  fogger effectiveness.  The  fans in the foggers  that project




the  fog toward the  dust  source  were powerful  enough  to redirect  the  plume,




thus causing an   "artificial"  wind  effect.    Since  the  particulate  levels




recorded with the  fog  on  were always  influenced by the  fans, the  most  useful




baseline  for calculating fogger  efficiency  would  be  those  levels  recorded




with just the fans on.   This conclusion  produced  the need for  a  final  series




of  tests  (runs 32-39)  wherein particulate matter  levels  were recorded  with




the  fans on, with  and without  water addition.   The  data from  these runs would




be used for the determination of the efficiency of  an uncharged  water  spray-




     Due to  the  nature of the  test, the  results are presented  separately  and




then  combined  to  provide  overall  fogger  efficiency  information.   The  data




from runs  7-31 provide information  about  the increase in  efficiency as  a




result  of  charging  the  fog.   The  data  from  runs  32-39 provide  information




about fogger  efficiency using uncharged fog.   Combining the two  sets  yields




fogger efficiency information for charged fog.




    The efficiencies were calculated  in  the following  manner.  All data were




grouped by type of  test  (fan only,  positive fog, negative  fog,  uncharged fog)
                                      30

-------
into  either  that measured  by  standard hi-vols  or  hi-vols  with SSI's.   The




data  were  then  separated  into  two groups: the  first  group included the  data



from  test  runs  7-31  and  the second group  included the data  from test  runs



32-39.  The arithmetic means of each data set  were  then calculated and these



means were used to calculate efficiencies.



    Tables 3-6 present the  data,  means,  and  efficiencies for the four groups



of data:  uncharged fog vs. charged fog - standard  hi-vols,  uncharged fog  vs.



charged fog - SSI's,  fan  only  vs. uncharged fog -  standard  hi-vols,  and  fan



only  vs.   uncharged   fog  -  SSI's.    Table  7  summarizes  the   calculated



efficiencies and presents  the overall  fogger  effectiveness.



    There  was  a marked reduction of  20  to 30  percent  in particulate matter



levels  as  a result of the  application of an uncharged  water fog on the  dust



emissions  at  the primary crusher.  When  a  charge  was  applied  to this water




fog,  the  levels  were reduced  an additional  30 to  40 percent.   Thus,   the



charged fog produced  by two Fogger IVs  reduced  the particulate  matter  levels



at the  primary crushing pit 45  to 60  percent.   This level is consistent  with



observations which indicated that more than two  foggers  would be necessary to



control the  dust emissions from  the  pit.  This reduction could be improved



through the use of wind screens  (to reduce turbulence and  fog deflection)  and



increased water flow.



    A significant result  of this  test  is that  the  fogger efficiency seems  to



be consistent regardless  of the  sign  of the charge on  the  fog.  This indi-



cates that  the  dust  is  comprised of  a  combination of  particles,  some  with



negative charge  and some  with positive charge.   This is  not  inconsistent  with


                                1                              9
the  laboratory  work  of   Hoenig   and   the findings  of   Kunkel   that  show  a



charge duality for various types of dust.
                                     31

-------
     TABLE 3.  RESULTS OP FOGGER TESTING  AT  PRIMARY  ROCK  CRUSHER I   UNCHARGED VS.  CHARGED FOG - STANDARD HI-VOL


Run
No.
a
1
13
J
20
1
26
1
T
29
1







Uncharged

Sampler
No.*
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084
7084
7094
7106





ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Fog
Particulate
Loading
(nig/Truck)**
23.5
31.1
30.3
21.7
22.8
34.2
13.9
20.1
24.0
25.7
12.5
18.6
10.4
7.5
26.9





21.5

Positive Fog

Run
No.
11
J
14
J
23
1
25
1
'
30

T







Sampler
No.«
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084
7106
7094
7084
7084
7094
7106
7101




ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Particulate
Loading
(ing/Truck) **
8.4
14.9
21.4
9.2
8.5
12.6
5.0
3.4
10.9
32.1
11.6
24.1
13.0
11.6
27.0
7.0




= 13.8


Run
No.
10
1
15
1
16
t
19
1
T
24
1

31
1

T


PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED = 36




LEVEL


Negative Fog

Sampler
No.*
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7084
7101
7112
7106
7094
7084

7084
7094
7106
7101
ARITHMETIC
MEAN

Particulate
Load i ng
(rag/Truck)**
7.7
8.4
14.4
7.4
9.3
13.8
8.7
11.4
17.6
8.2
12.0
13.9
28.1
14.0
34.2

12.0
9.1
21.6
6.6
» 13.6

PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED =37
LEVEL

NOTE!   * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations
       ** Corrected to 40 cfm

-------
                          TABLE 4.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:  UNCHARGED VS. CHARGED FOG - HI-VOL WITH SSI
U>
OJ
Uncharged Fog
Patticulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No.* (mq/Truck)**
8 7105 6.9
13 7105 9.9
20 7105 13.6
26 7092 2.7
29 7092 3.5
T 7105 7.7
ARITHMETIC
MEAN "



Positive Fog
Particulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No.* (rag/Truck)**
11 7105 6.0
14 7105 4.2
23 7092 2.6
25 7092 2.4
30 7092 2.4
T 7105 8.8
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED = 41
LEVEL

Negative Foq

Particulate
Run
No.
10
15
16
19
24
31




Sampler Loading
No.* (rag/Truck)**
7105
7105
7105
7105
7092
7092
7105
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM UNCHARGED
LEVEL
3.9
5.3
5.5
7.9
3.1
2.0
7.0
= 5.0

= 32

                     NOTE:   * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations
                            ** Corrected to 40 cfm

-------
        TABLE 5.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
                FAN ONLY VS. UNCHARGED FOG - STANDARD HI-VOL

Run
No.
32
1
37
T

Fan Only
Uncharged Foq
Particulate
Sampler Loading
No.* (ing/Truck)**
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
6.0
9.2
14.8
1.3
2.1
3.0
4.8
9.0
11.5
1.6
2.5
2.9
= 5.7
Run
No.
33
1
35
39
1


Particulate
Sampler Loading
No. (mg/Truck)**
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112
7084
7106
7112

ARITHMETIC
MEAN
3.7
7.5
9.3
1.2
2.9
4.0
1.2
2.0
2.3

= 3.8
                                             PERCENT REDUCTION
                                                FROM FAN ONLY
                                                  LEVEL
33
Note:   * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations.
       ** Corrected to 40 cfm.
                                     34

-------
        TABLE  6.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
                FAN ONLY VS. UNCHARGED FOG - HI-VOL WITH SSI


Run
No.
32
34
37
38




Fan Only

Sampler
No.*
7092
7092
7092
7092
ARITHMETIC
MEAN




Particulate
Loading
(rag/Truck)**
2.7
0.8
1.4
0.7
= 1.4



Uncharged Fog
Particulate
Run Sampler Loading
No. No. (rag/Truck)**
33 7092 2.1
35 7092 0.7
39 7092 0.4

ARITHMETIC , ,
MEAN = 1'1
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM FAN ONLY =21
LEVEL
Note:   * Refer to Figure 8 for equipment locations.
       ** Corrected to 40 cfm.
                                      35

-------
        TABLE 7.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT PRIMARY ROCK CRUSHER:
                           FOGGER EFFICIENCIES (%)
Formula Used In
Calculation*
Fan Only - Uncharged , „„
Fan Only
Uncharged - Positive Fog 	
Uncharged
Uncharged - Negative Fog
Uncharged
Fan Only - Positive Fog ,„„
Fan Only ~ 10°
Fan Only - Negative Fog , „„
Fan Only ~ 10°
Percent
Standard
Hi-Vols
33
36
37
57
58
Reduction
Hi-Vols
with
SSI's
21
41
32
53
46
*NOTE:  Input to formulae are the arithmetic mean particulate matter levels.
                                     36

-------
    Another  significant  result is that the efficiency  seems to be consistent




regardless  of  particle   size  range.    The   particulate  matter  reductions




measured  by  the  standard hi-vols  (particles <_  30  pro)  and  by  the  hi-vols




with  SSI's   (particles <_ 15  ym)  are  very  similar.   It  was  hoped that  the




use of  the  cascade  impactors would provide  additional information on  effi-




ciency versus  particle  size,  but the  results proved unuseable  for  this pur-




pose.  Almost  all of the  material  collected  by the  hi-vols fitted with  the




impactors was  collected  on the back-up filter.   This indicated that there was




severe particle  bounce  between  the stages.  The  total mass  loadings  deter-




mined with these  samplers were used as additional  data points in the standard




hi-vol group.




    Attempts were made at obtaining information  in visibility improvement via




EPA  Method   9  (visual  determination  of  opacity)  .   It  was found  that  the




opacity of the fog  was  similar to the opacity of  the uncontrolled dust plume




so that no real visibility improvement was noted.
                                      37

-------
PHASE I, TEST #2 - SAND AND GRAVEL COMPANY;   SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER




    The transfer of crushed stone onto  a  conveyor  belt results in the gener-




ation of fugitive dust emissions.  The control of such emissions was  the  sub-




ject  of  the second  charged fogger  field test.  The source  chosen  for  the




tests was  a secondary rock crusher  operation  at a  sand  and gravel plant  in




Connecticut.  The field testing was performed during  the period of October  28




to November 4, 1980.




    Due to  some  minor  equipment  problems  and the unexpected shutting down  of




the operation  for  the winter,  only  a  limited  amount of  data  was collected.




The source  test  consisted of nine  individual runs  conducted over  a period  of




three days.









Site and Process Descriptions




    The  secondary  rock crusher  operation is  a continuous  process  in which




rock is received from  a primary  jaw  crusher  and further  broken down in size.




The rock enters  the crusher from a bin  which is fed by an  elevated conveyor.




The crushed rock then  falls onto another  conveyor which  transfers  it to  the




next  step  of  the process.   Fugitive dust emissions  result from the  crushing




process and the  falling of  the rock onto the conveyor.   A photograph of  the




operation is presented in Figure 9.




    The  area  around  the  crushing operation to the  northeast is  paved  and




washed daily.   Heavy  accumulations  of  dust  and grit  occur due to  the  num-




erous, uncovered conveyors  in  the area.  A lightly traveled  paved road, which




is occasionally watered, is located to the southeast of the  crusher alongside




a steep  hill.   Storage piles  of crushed stone  and  dirt  are  located to  the




south and  east,  respectively.   Railroad tracks  and  railcars used for trans-




porting crushed  stone  are located to the  northwest.   A plot plan  of  the  area




is provided in Figure  10.




                                     38

-------
Figure 9.  Secondary rock crusher operation.
                    39

-------
\

\
\
   \
   \

   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
   \
HILL
    GRAVEL

   (STORAGE
                 CRUSHER
     CONTROL
       SHED
                                       TRANSFER
                                        STATION
                        PAVED AREA
                                                 RAILROAD
       Figure 10.  Plot plan of secondary crusher operation.
                             40

-------
    While  the  majority of  the dust  in  the area  was  being generated  by the




secondary  crusher,   other  operations  also  generated  emissions  sporadically



which  resulted  in  a  less-than-ideal sampling  environment.   These  emission




sources  included:   the  loading  of  crushed stone  from  the adjacent  storage




piles  into railcars via  front-end loaders,  traffic  on  the  paved road,  the




overhead conveyors,  and the loading of dirt onto a storage pile.









Equipment Placement




    During  the first few days of  utility  hook-up, the  Mark  III  wind  system




was operated in  order  to provide input for  optimum equipment  locations.   The




recorded results, along  with  worker observations,  indicated that the  prevail-




ing  wind  direction  for  that time  of  year  was  from   the  southwest.   The




samplers were  thus positioned  on the  northeast side of the operation.




    The foggers  were placed on either  side of the conveyor  that transported




the crushed stone from  the  base of  the  secondary crusher.  They  were aimed




slightly upwards so  as to more completely  envelop the transfer  area in  fog.




Figure 11 depicts the positions of  the equipment during the test runs.








Problems Encountered




    Two main problems  arose  that  restricted the  amount of data obtained.   The




first problem  was water  line  freeze-up and the  second problem  was the shut-




ting down of the operation for the  winter.




    Although daytime  temperatures  were well above freezing,   night-time  tem-




peratures  fell  below  the  freezing  point  on  several   different  occasions.




Despite precautions,  residual  water  that  was present  in  the various pieces of




pipe and tubing  in the foggers became frozen.  This caused failure in  some of
                                      41

-------
        LEGEND:

     t> FOGGER

     D Hl-VOL

     © Hl-VOL WITH SSI
     O WIND SYSTEM
CONTROL
  SHED
                                                    O
                  CRUSHER
                 T
               3.0m
3.0 m
                      T
                           TRANSFER

                            STATION
  Figure 11.  Equipment positions for secondary crusher test.
                           42

-------
the  joints  of the  rigid  plastic tubing.   These  pieces of  tubing  had to  be




replaced  with more  flexible  materials  and  this  caused  delays  in  the  test




schedule.




    When  testing  was initiated at the secondary crusher, the  plant  operators




indicated that there might be  an  operational shutdown  in several  weeks.   This




still allowed adequate  time  for  the source test.   However,  the operation was




shut down for the  winter  after only  one  week of testing was completed.   This




shutdown, coupled  with  the delays due  to the ice problems,  resulted in the




limited data acquisition.




    A third problem  that  further  limited  the usefulness of the  data  that  were




obtained  was  extraneous  dust  in  the crusher  area.   It was not  possible  to




completely  isolate  the  dust  produced by  the crushing operation from the  dust




being produced by  the  overhead conveyors and  traffic  in  the area.   Dust was




also  periodically generated  by  the  loading  of crushed  stone into railroad




cars upwind of the operation.









Test Results




    The  test  conditions  are  presented  in  Table  8.   The   test  results  are




summarized in Table 9.




    While it visually appeared that  the  two  foggers  succeeded  in  reducing the




dust  emissions  generated  by  the  secondary crusher,  an  inadequate  amount  of




data was collected to verify the amount of reduction.
                                     43

-------
                                             TABLE 8.  TEST CONDITIONS - SECONDARY CRUSHER
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Date
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-30-80
10-31-80
11-4-80
11-4-80
11-4-80
Time
1246-1306
1315-1335
1351-1411
1407-1427
1433-1453
0920-0940
0948-1008
1055-1111
1120-1130
Wind
Direction
S-H
S-W
S-W
S-W
S-W
S-W
SSW
SSH
SSW
Hind
Speed
(m/sec)
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
0-2
1-4
1-4
1-4

Hater
Flow
(l/hr)

114
114

114

102

110
Fogger 803018
Air Fan Sign
Flow Speed of
(ms/hr) (%) Charge

5.4 80 (-)
5.1 80 (0)
80
5.1 80 (+)
80
4.2 100 (+)
100
5.1 100 (-)
Fogger 803019
Nozzle*
Type

2
2

2

2

2
Water
Flow
(l/hr)

114
114

114

95

110
Air Fan
Flow Speed
(m'/hr) (%)

5.4 80
5.1 80
80
5.0 80
80
4.8 100
100
4.2 100
Sign
of Nozzle*
Charge Type

(-) 2
(0) 2

(*) 2

( + ) 2

(-) 2
•Type 2i  heavy flow

-------
TABLE 9.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER
Run Un- Fan
No. Date Controlled Only
1 10-30-80 X
X
X
X
X
2 10-30-80



,
3 10-30-80




4 10-30-80 X
X
X
X
X
5 10-30-80




6 10-31-80 X
X
X
X
" T X
Uncharged Positive Negative Sampler
Fog Fog Fog Type
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
Standard
SSI
Standard
SSI
Standard
Distance Measured
From Source Concentration
(ra) (iiQ/m3 )
6.1 17826
9.1 1516
12.2 7312
15.2 414
18.3 1075
6.1 27954
9.1 2435
12.2 8264
15.2 556
18.3 1477
6.1 13813
9.1 1414
12.2 4351
15.2 446
18.3 664
6.1 37390
9.1 3609
12.2 9694
15.2 860
18.3 1577
6.1 22917
9.1 4441
12.2 8102
15.2 1181
18.3 1342
6.1 31321
9.1 3883
12.2 11267
15.2 1047
18.3 2176
                            (continued)

-------
TABLE 9.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT SECONDARY ROCK CRUSHER  (Continued)
Run Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative Sampler
No. Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Fog Type
7 11-4-80 X Standard



.
X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
8 11-4-80 X Standard




X SSI
X Standard
X SSI
X Standard
9 11-4-80 X Standard
II X SSI
1 X Standard
X SSI
1 X Standard
Distance
From Source
(m)
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
6.1
9.1
12.2
15.2
18.3
Measured
Concentration
(ug/ra1 )
16539
2962
10894
1138
2992
22319
2851
12452
1083
3593
24345
3515
12879
1126
3524

-------
PHASE I, TEST #3 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT:  CAST HOUSE SPOUT HOLE

    The casting of molten  iron  from  a  blast furnace into a ladle car  results

in emissions  of  hot  fume.   The control of  such  emissions was the subject  of

the third charged fogger field  test.   The field testing  was  performed  during

two separate  visits:   December  9  to 18,  1980, and  January  26 to February  3,

1981.    The  second  visit  was  necessitated  by  the  sampling  and   equipment

problems encountered during the initial visit.
                  f


Site and Process Descriptions

    As part  of  the  overall steel-making process, blast furnaces are  utilized

to produce molten iron  and  slag  from iron  ore,   limestone,   coke  and other

materials.  The blast  furnaces  are periodically  tapped  to release this  molten

iron and the  slag that has formed.   The molten iron travels down runners and

pours through spout  holes into torpedoshaped  transport cars, known as ladle

cars, which are positioned underneath  the cast house floor.  The molten iron

is then transported to the next step in the process.  The tapping and pouring

process is known as a cast.

    At  the subject  blast  furnace, approximately twelve casts occur each day

over three work  shifts.   Two  ladle  cars are  generally filled  during each

cast.  The length of  each cast varies from 45  to  90  minutes depending upon

process variables such as  the condition of  the  tap  hole and quantity of iron

and slag to be cast.

    While the molten iron  is being cast,  fugitive dust  emissions, in  the form

of hot fume,  rise up into  the blast  furnace  cast house.  The  fume is created

by the burning  of the  runner material as well  as  the  reaction of the  molten

iron with  atmospheric  oxygen as  it  falls  through  the spout  holes  into the

ladles below.
                                     47

-------
    The essential  floor  plan features of  the furnace cast  house  include the


blast  furnace,   runners,  four  spout  holes,  an  enclosed  control  room,  two


bunker areas for material storage,  a  crane loading  and unloading area, a sand


storage bin, and a workman's  lounge.   A  sketch  of these features is presented


in Figure 12.  A photograph of the  site  is presented in Figure 13.





Test Description;  December 9 to 18, 1980
                                                              i

    During this  initial  visit to  the  blast furnace, a number  of sampling and


equipment  problems were encountered.   As a  result,  only  seven  tests  were


performed and only a limited  amount of data was obtained.





Equipment Placement—


    Due  to safety considerations,  it was  suggested  by plant  personnel  that


the  foggers  be  placed  in one  of   the  bunkers  near  the control  room.   This


meant only one  fogger  could  be  used since there was a limited  amount of  room


in the bunker.  This also meant that  the spout  hole nearest the blast furnace


(spout hole  A in Figure 12)  , the  first  one utilized during a cast,  would be


the  source to  control  since the   fogger  could not  effectively control the


second spout hole  (spout hole C in  Figure 12)  from the bunker position.  This


was  the  fogger  position for five  of  the seven  tests.   For  the  other two


tests, the fogger was moved out from  the bunker because  the spout hole on the


opposite side of the runner  (spout  hole  B  in  Figure 12)  was scheduled for use


and the fogger needed to be moved closer to the source.


    The nearest water  supply  was located on the far side of  the control  room


which necessitated the fogger water supply hose being routed  around the  out-


side of the  furnace  area and into  the back of  the bunker with  the resultant


exposure of the waterline to  the ambient temperature.
                                      48

-------
    CONTROL
      ROOM
MOLTEN
 IRON
RUNNER
     BUNKER
     BUNKER
    WALKWAY
     CRANE
    LOADING/
   UNLOADING
    OPENING
  SAND STORAGE
       BIN
   WORKMAN S
    LOUNGE
> i
  SPOUT
  HOLES
             SPOUT
             HOLES
               T
               51
                      STAIRWAYS
                                        SLAG
                     BLAST FURNACE
             Figure'12.  Floor plan of cast house.
                        49

-------
i^frgS ^ j*5jj*9J£^*'J.
f.
Butfciaisisg
                                   « $!*$>% fFr&ifvl**' '• • t -'  'JTW1!1!1
                                   j ^ v^a.^ -     	, -^^^-••*. ^ ,„,- d  I ,'j
                        Figure 13.   Photograph of  cast house.
                                        50

-------
    It  was  initially decided to use  two  pairs of hi-vol  samplers to measure




the TSP levels, with each pair consisting  of  a standard hi-vol and a standard




hi-vol  fitted  with an SSI.   The samplers were  located on  the  floor between




the spout  hole and  the  furnace  since it  appeared  the  plume was  drawn  via




natural draft  back towards  the  furnace.   This  initial equipment arrangement




is depicted in Figure 14a.




    During  the first set  of tests  (runs 1-3),  it  became apparent  that  the




majority of the fume entering the  samplers was from the  runners  and not from




the spout  hole.   Since  the  fume emitted  from  the  spout hole tended  to rise




rather  than travel across  the floor,  it was decided to raise  the samplers to




obtain  more representative  results.   This  elevating   of  the samplers  would




also help to eliminate two other problems that were occurring:   the fume  was




so heavy  that  the hi-vol filters were plugging within three  to  four minutes




and the heat and  sparks  from the runners and  initial  furnace  tapping  were so




intense that some damage to  the  samplers was being sustained.




    During  the next  two  sets of runs (numbers 4-5  and 6-7) only  one  pair of




samplers was used and this pair  was  elevated  on 2.4  meter high staging with a




heavy metal grating  as  a platform.   The  equipment arrangements  for  these  two




sets of runs are presented in Figures 14b and 14c.   The elevation of the  sam-




plers allowed  test  runs  of   fifteen  minutes  before filter  plugging occurred




and eliminated damage to the samplers.









Problems Encountered—




    While the  elevation  of the  samplers eliminated  some of the test problems,




several others were  encountered which eventually resulted  in the  suspension




of testing  during  this first visit.   The problems  were principally concerned




with the nature of the casting process and the hostile environment during the




cast.




                                      51

-------
           TESTS  1-3
            3.0m

            2.4m

            (	i.
            :3.0m
               (a)
I
                       TESTS  4-5
                   SCAFFOLDING
                             1-f5!
                             I  Bj
(b)
r
          TESTS 6-7
     SCAFFOLDING
               (0
r
                         LEGEND:

                         FOGGER
                         HI-VOL  WITH SSI
                         HI-VOL
Figure 14.  Equipment positions for cast house  tests:  December 9 to  18, 1980.
                                  52

-------
    Due to safety  regulations  and  the  intense heat generated in the test area




at the  time  of a cast, the  pre-weighed  hi-vol filters had  to  be  placed into




the samplers  and the flow  rates  set prior  to the start of  each  cast.  This




was often done  as much  as one  hour  before  the  furnace  was  tapped.   This




caused  an indeterminate  sampling  error  by allowing  particulate matter  to




settle onto the filter before  the samplers were turned on.




    Once  the  furnace was tapped  and the  molten  iron  began to  pour  into the




ladle cars,  the samplers and,  where applicable,  the  fogger were  turned on.




The delay was  necessary  since  the ladle  cars,   positioned  below the  holes




prior to  the  cast,  cannot tolerate water before  the molten  iron enters them.




When the  filters began  to plug up,  which was indicated by rapidly fluctuating




flow control  lights on the  hi-vols, the samplers were turned  off.   Since  it




was not possible to reach the  hi-vols  and remove the filters until the entire




cast was  complete  and  the  tap  hole plugged,  a  heavy  layer  of  metal  flake




material  was  deposited  on the  hi-vol filters,  further   biasing  the  test




results.




    The hostile  environment in and around the cast house also caused problems




throughout the test period.  The ambient  temperature  was below freezing most




of the time which  resulted  in  several  freeze-ups within the various hoses and




tubes associated with the fogger  operation.   The  fogger had to be taken apart




several times in order to  remove  ice  blockages.  The dusty  atmosphere also




caused some problems with the  fogger electronics which necessitated replacing




the originally  installed  fogger  with the other one part  way through the test




period.
                                      53

-------
    One additional problem  encountered,  which  further  complicated the  test-




ing, was that ferrosilicon was added to the iron as it entered the  ladle dur-




ing some  of the  tests.   This addition  caused its  own  plume of  dust  which




could not be distinguished from the spout hole  fume.









Test Results—




    The  test conditions  are  presented  in  Table   10.   The  test  results  are




summarized in Table 11.




    Observations  made during  these tests indicated  that  the fog appeared  to




be  effective  in reducing the  amount  of  fume escaping the  spout  hole.  How-




ever,  the  limited quantity of  data acquired  precludes any  reliable  efficiency




calculations.   It also  appeared  that  one fogger is inadequate to control  the




amount of  fume  present during a cast.









Test Description;  January 26 to February 3,  1981




    Due to the  inconclusive  amount of data obtained during  the  first set  of




tests  at  the blast furnace,  a second visit  to  the site  was proposed.   After




discussions  with  plant  personnel,  it was  felt  that the problems  encountered




during  the first visit could  be  eliminated  if several changes  were made  in




the test set-up.  These changes and the  results obtained are discussed in  the




following  sections.








Equipment Placement—




    To help  eliminate the problem of material  deposition  on the  filters,  it




was decided  to  use the  second spout  hole  (the one used  to  fill the second




ladle car  during  a cast) as  the  test location (spout hole  C in Figure  12) .




It was also decided to  use both  foggers  to  control the  fume since  one fogger
                                     54

-------
      TABLE 10.  TEST CONDITIONS - CAST HOUSE:  DECEMBER 9 to 18, 1980
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Date
12-13-80
12-14-80
12-14-80
12-16-80
12-16-80
12-17-80
12-17-80
Time
1440-1449
1000-1010
1640-1645
1445-1506
1755-1807
1300-1316
1445-1500

Water
Flow
(A/hr)
114


114
114

114

Air
Flow
(m3/hr)
7.1


7.1
7.1

7.1
Fogger
Fan
Speed
60

60
100
90
80
80

Sign
of Nozzle*
Charge Type
(0) 2


(0) 2
(-) 2

(-) 2
*Type 2:  heavy flow
                                      55

-------
TABLE 11.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT CAST HOUSE:  DECEMBER 9  to  IB,  1980
an
3.
L



2
1


F
3
1

I
i
1

i
S
I
7
I
Measured
Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative Concentration
Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Foq Sampler Type (uq/m3 ) Comments
12-13-80 X



X
X
X
12-14-80 X



X
X
X
12-14-80 X
I X
X
J
12-16-80 X
1
12-16-80
1
12-17-80 X
J
12-17-80
I
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard - closest to spout
SSI - closest to spout
Standard - farthest from spout
SSI - farthest from spout
Standard
SSI
X Standard
X SSI
Standard
SSI
X Standard
X SSI
57273
19051
46170
11613
347497
123496
78756
36005
93803
44389
97849
25284
18765
4683
144649
72031
307191
69874
48586
27731
Ferrosilicon added. Fume trom runners
entering samplers. Test ended when
filters cloqqed.

Ferrosilicon added. Fume from runners
entering samplers. Test ended wnen
filters clogged.

Ferrosilicon added. Samplers moved =-
2 meters further from runner. Less
runner fume entering samplers. Test
ended when filters cloqged.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers; on
staging. Fume coming oft of dam.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming oft of dam.
Ferrosilicon added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming off of dam.
Ferrosilicon not added. Samplers on
staging. Fume coming off ot dam.

-------
was judged to  be  inadequate.   These  two changes resulted in the foggers being




located on the cast house floor instead of in bunkers.




    To help prevent freeze-ups, the  main  water  line was routed from the work-




man's lounge instead  of  from near the control  room.   This eliminated excess-




ive exposure to the ambient temperature.




    The fogger and sampler  placements  for the second  set  of  tests  are shown




in Figure  15.   One fogger was placed  on  the blast furnace side of  the spout




hole while the other was placed  on  the  side of  the  hole opposite  the work-




man's lounge.  This  arrangement  allowed a cross-flow  of  fog  across  the open-




ing.  Three samplers were utilized during  five  of  the six tests:   two hi-vols




(one with  an SSI)  were  secured to staging about two  meters high on  the blast




furnace side of  the  hole and the other hi-vol was  positioned  below  the stag-




ing,  on the  cast house  floor,   and  protected  from  runner  fume  by  a  metal




shield.  One  additional  hi-vol  with an  SSI was used during  the first  test




(run number 8).   This sampler  was placed  on  the floor  near the fogger.




    In  order  to operate the foggers  in  the  positions shown in Figure 15,  it




was necessary  to run high  voltage power  lines  and water  hoses  for  distances




of up to 25 meters along the metal floor of the cast house.   This posed dan-




gers  to both  personnel  and equipment since the  lines could  be  tripped over




and the intense heat  and  sparking and  splashing of  molten iron near the holes




could melt the water  hoses  or the insulation on the  power lines causing them




to fail.








Problems Encountered—




    Despite  the  test  set-up  changes  which  were  designed to  help  eliminate




testing difficulties,  a number of problems  still  occurred which  limited the




data acquisition.
                                      57

-------
                     SCAFFOLDING

                               OTJ
                                        SHIELD
                                                I
                                LEGEND
                                           ON STAGING
* FOGGER
• HI-VOL WITH SSI
• HI-VOL
C] HI-VOL-BELOW STAGING
O HI-VOL WITH SSI  -USED DURING
  TEST NUMBER  8 ONLY
Figure 15. Equipment positions for cast house tests:  January 26 to February 3, 1981.
                                 58

-------
    As mentioned  above,  voltage lines and  hoses  had to be  routed across the


floor and  were thus,  at times,  subject to  intense heat.   Precautions were


taken, such as placing boards between  the  lines and the floor, but some power



line protective coverings did  sustain  damage and a  water  line burned through



during one test which caused water to flow across the floor.



    Although  the  area near  the  runners and  spout hole  was extremely  hot,


there were areas in the cast house that  were extremely  cold since it was open


to  the  atmosphere.   Ambient temperatures  during  the testing  period  resulted


in  operating  the  foggers  in  sub-freezing weather.  Unfortunately, as present-


ly  designed,  the  foggers  are extremely difficult to operate  below an ambient

                                   o
temperature   of   approximately  -4 C.    Water   freeze-ups  were  continually


experienced  in the  narrow  tubing  behind  the control  panel and  rotameter.


Freeze-ups also occurred at  the nozzle and these were  compounded by the wind-


chill effect  caused  by the  fan air blowing  around  the  nozzle.   Operating  the

                   o
foggers  below  -12  C  became   virtually  impossible  even  though  extensive


efforts  were  made to  try  to prevent  the  freeze-up problems.  Steps  such  as


heating  the  external water lines with electrical heating tape  and  placing  a


hairdryer behind  the control panel and  at  the nozzle  proved to  be  both time


consuming and inadequate to permit the fogger  to  operate normally.



    In addition to  the freeze-up problems,  one fogger  experienced electrical


problems which caused  it to become unreliable.   The fan  would  not  reach the



speed necessary  to  transport   the fog  to  the source.   Difficulty  was  also



encountered  in  keeping the  fogger  running  as  the  electronic shear  pin kept


tripping out.   The  problem was apparently  caused by  contamination  of  the


electronic  controls  by  dust.   This  fogger was  in a  position   where  it was


heavily coated with dust whereas the other fogger was in a less dusty area.
                                      59

-------
    Another problem was  the  nature of the  casting  process itself which  made




it difficult to  rely  on any set  casting  schedule.   Although plant  personnel




were  cooperative,  it  was  impossible  to  cast at  the  test  spout hole  on  a




regular basis.   Many  variables,  such as  runner condition  and the  positioning




of the ladle cars, affected  the  schedule.   This  made it difficult to  arrange




the tests.




    Based upon the difficulty  in  performing tests in the  harsh  and  hazardous




cast house environment in conjunction  with  the freezing ambient  temperatures,




it was decided  by  all parties involved to  discontinue  testing  at this  site.




The difficulties involved outweighed  the  questionnable  benefits of  obtaining




further data points.









Test Results—




    As a  result of  the  difficulties  encountered,  only six  tests were  per-




formed.  The test conditions are presented in Table 12.  The test  results  are




summarized in Table 13.




    As with  the first  set  of tests,  the  limited quantity  of  data  acquired




precludes  any   reliable  efficiency  calculations.    Furthermore,   the   fume




created by  each  cast varied drastically  as can  be seen by  comparing runs  8




and  13.   The  concentrations measured  during these  two  uncontrolled  tests




differ by a factor  of  ten.   Fume variation  is due  to   several  parameters,




including iron  temperature,  ladle temperature,  silica  content  of  the  iron,




and ambient humidity.   In fact, the opacity of the fume was seen to  vary  from




20 to 100 percent during one individual cast.   These variations make  it  very




difficult to standardize the tests and, thus,  any test program would  have to




include a considerable number of  data points.
                                     60

-------
                                                TABLE 12.  TEST CONDITIONS - CAST HOUSE:  JANUARY  26 to FEBRUARY 3,  1981
Foqqer 803018
Run
No,
8
9
10
11
12
13
Date
1-28-81
1-30-81
1-31-81
1-31-81
2-1-81
2-1-81
Time
1817-1830
1833-1845
1346-1358
1552-1556
1421-1432
1816-1822
Water Air Fan
Flow Flow Speed
(l/hr) (ra'/hr) (»)

114 7.1 80
80
114 7.1 80
114 7.1 80

Sign
of Nozzle*
Charqe Type

( + > 2

(0) 2
( + ) 2

Hater
Flow
(l/hr)

114

114
114

Foqqer 803019
Air Fan Sign
Flow Speed of Nozzle*
(m'/nr) (%) Charge Type

7.1 100 U) 2
80
7.1 80 (0) 2
7.1 80 (+) 2

                          •Type 2i  heavy Clow
CTv

-------
TABLE 13.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT CAST HOUSEi   JANUARY 26- FEBRUARY 3,  1981
Run
No.
8
I


T
9
1
1
10
I

i
i
i
12


13
1
1
Un- Fan Uncharged Positive Negative
Date Controlled Only Fog Fog Fog Sampler Type
1-28-81 X
X
X
X
1-30-81 X
1X
'
1-31-81 X
IX
X
1-31-81 X
IX
X
2-1-81 X
IX
x
2-1-81 X
1 X
X
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
SSI - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Standard - on staging
SSI - on staging
Standard - on floor
Measured
Concentration
(vig/m' ) Comments
10027
9089
9477
9295
16321
14204
22107
53365
69725
63831
8000
13610
12289
14679
10762
18394
102138 Very heavy fume observed
124111
71787

-------
PHASE I, TEST #4 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT:  COKE SCREEN




    The separating of coke  into  size groups by screening results  in  fugitive




emissions.  The objective of the fourth fogger field test was  to  evaluate  the




effect of  charged  fog on such emissions.   The site chosen  for  the test  was




the coke  screening operation  located  at Stelco's  Hilton  Works in Hamilton,




Ontario, Canada.  The field testing  was performed  during  the period of May  1




to 7,  1981 with a total of 51 test runs conducted.









Site and Process Descriptions




    As part of  the overall  steel-making process, coal is converted  to coke in




order to  obtain a  fuel which can  be used in  a blast  furnace  to provide  the




high temperatures and  reducing atmosphere  necessary to smelt the iron out of




the ore.   As  the first  step in this  process,  coal  is placed into  large ovens




and heated to drive off  impurities.  The  resulting  product,  known  as coke,  is




then removed  from  the ovens and transferred via railcar to  the next step  of




the process.




    One of the  subsequent steps  in the process is  to segregate  the  still warm




coke into two different size categories.  The  coke  is transferred  from a con-




veyor belt onto an inclined vibrating screen.  Pieces of coke  that  are  larger




than the pore size of  the screen travel  down  its  face  and are deposited into




a hopper at its end.   Pieces of  coke that are  smaller than the  pore size pass




through the  screen into  a  different hopper.  Conveyor  belts  then transport




the separated material to the next steps  in the process.  The  coke  arrives at




the screen in runs which generally last 2 to 6 minutes.  The runs  are usually




separated by 3 to 10  minutes.




    The discharge end of the conveyor belt, the shaker screen,  and the  hopper




inlets  are all  located  within  one  enclosed   room.  The  screening operation
                                     63

-------
takes place on two different  levels  within this room.  The conveyor belt  and




top  of  the screen are  on the  upper level.  The  hoppers and  bottom  of  the




screen  are  on the lower  level.   A catwalk runs  around  the perimeter of  the




screen  on  the  upper  level.   Figure 16 is  a sketch of the room which  illust-




rates  these  features.    Figures  17  and  18  are  plan  view  and  elevation,




respectively, that provide dimensions of  the important features.




    While the coke is being screened, emissions of coke dust rise  up into  the




room from  the screen and the  hoppers.   The majority of  this  dust exits  the




room through  a large opening  in the  wall at  the  end of  the  screen  on  the




second  level.  The rest  of the dust either  settles out into the room or  exits




the room via roof monitors or doorways.








Equipment Placement




    The equipment used for the majority of  the  coke  screen  test runs included




five hi-vols  (two  with  SSI's)  and the two  Ritten  foggers.   The five  hi-vols




were placed on the  upper level  catwalk  in front  of the  doorway since  the




plume was  observed to travel  across this  area.   The two foggers  had to be




placed  on  the same side of the screen due  to  space  limitations.   One fogger




was  placed  on the upper  level and  aimed  down  and  across the  screen.    The




other fogger  was placed on the  lower level  about  2.7 m from the hopper.   The




front end  of  this fogger was  slightly  elevated so  that  it  aimed across  and




above the  hopper  area.   Figure 19 shows  the positions  and serial numbers of




the equipment.




    The  equipment positions  remained constant for  all  of  the  test  runs;




though   not  all  of the samplers  were used  for  every  run.   All five samplers




were used  for  the first  31  runs.   For  the next  16  runs, only four samplers




were operated  (standard  hi-vol 7094 was  eliminated)  in  order  to allow more
                                     64

-------
en
                                     Figure 16.   Coke screening operati
on

-------
5.2m
                                                          LOWER LEVEL
                    Figure  17.  Top  view of coke screen operation.
                                         66

-------
                                                              T
    CONVEYOR
2.7m
                                                           cc
                                                           o
                                                           o
                                                           Q
            3,0m
                                     RAILING
OVERSIZE

 HOPPER
                                	
                                                              UPPER
                                                              LEVEL
                                                              LOWER

                                                              LEVEL
                                -€.7m-
                    Figure 18.-' Side view of coke screen operation.
                                     67

-------
                              FOGGER
                              803019
                          (UPPER  LEVEU
Figure 19.  Equipment positions for coke screen.
                        68

-------
test runs to be conducted.  The last four  test  runs  were  conducted  using only




one hi-vol  (number 7092)  fitted  with both  an  SSI  and  a four-stage  cascade




irapactor.  The sampler was moved to the center of the doorway for these runs.









Test Program and Procedure




    The test program consisted of 51 runs  during  6 days of  testing.   Included




in the 51 runs were 13 uncontrolled, 8 fan only,  16  uncharged fog,  7  positive




fog and 7 negative fog.  The test conditions are presented in Table  14.




    The procedure was the same for  each of the  test  runs.   Pre-weighed hi-vol




filters were  placed  into the samplers between  coke  runs.  The  samplers  were




simultaneously  started  once coke began  to  fall  from the  conveyor  onto  the




screen  and simultaneously  turned  off at  the  end  of the  coke run.   During




tests  in  which the foggers were  used they  were  started  and adjusted to  the




proper settings prior  to the  start  of  the  coke run.   The hi-vol filters  were




immediately removed from the  samplers  at the end of  each run and placed  into




envelopes.









Test Results




    Following  completion  of  all   the  test  runs,   the  hi-vol  filters  were




returned  to  the  TRC  Chemistry  Laboratory, desiccated,  and  weighed.    The




resulting filter loadings were then used in  conjunction with the sampler  flow




rates to calculate particulate concentrations.
                                     69

-------
                                        TABLE  14.  TEST CONDITIONS - COKE SCREENING OPERATION
Fogger 803018
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 .
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Date
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-1-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-4-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-5-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
Start
Time
1040
1100
1116
1210
1230
1247
1300
1318
1337
1402
1414
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1440
1450
1507
1520
1535
1400
1422
1443
1500
1511
1522
1536
0732
0812
0832
0837
0846
0856
0905
0915
0925
1003
1015
1025
1040
1055
Duration
Of Run
(min.)
5.0
3.5
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.6
3.7
3.5
4.8
5.4
3.4
3.2
6.3
3.1
7.3
2.9
5.1
3.8
3.9
4.9
4.4
3.3
5.4
3.0
4.1
4.6
3.8
4.8
1.2
2.9
2.5
3.1
3.6
5.8
3.5
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.4
2.6
Equipment
Type o£ Test Positions
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Foq
Uncharged Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Uncharged Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Fog
Positive Foq
Uncontrolled
Uncharged Foq
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A
*
*
ft
*
*
ft
*
*
*
*
*
*
ft
ft
ft
A
ft
ft*
ftft
ft ft
ftft
ft*
* *
ft*
ft ft
A ft
ft A
A A
Mater
Flow
(i/hr)


57
53


91
83



61
61

83
79

61
79


76
76

68
79


83
83

83
76

83
83

76
79

76
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)


2.5
3.1


3.4
4.2



4.5
4.5

3.4
3.4

2.8
2.5


2.8
3.7

2.8
2.8


4.0
3.3

3.4
3.1

3.7
4.5

3.7
4.2

3.1
Fan
Speed
(*)


60
60


50
50



50
50

50
40

40
40


40
40

40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Fogqer 803019
Water
Flow
(l/hr)


57
68


76
79



49
49

76
72

53
53


61
68

91
91


83
76

79
83

76
76

91
87

91
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)


2.5
2.8


2.8
2.5



3.1
3.1

2.1
1.4

2.B
2.3


2.8
2.4

2.5
2.3


3.5
3.4

3.7
3.7

3.7
3.7

3.1
3.1

3.7
Fan
Speed
l») _._


50
50


50
50



50
50

50
40

40
40


40
40

40
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
NOTEi
       Refer to Figure 19
        * Five Samplers - 3 standard, 2 SSI
                                                              (continued)

-------
                                  TABLE 14.  TEST CONDITIONS -  COKE  SCREENING OPERATION  (Continued)
Fogger 803018
Run
No.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51

Date
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-81
5-6-71
5-7-81
5-7-81
5-7-81
5-7-81
Start
Time
1110
1225
1238
1255
1315
0922
0940
0956
1015
Duration
Of Run
(min.)
6.4
2.6
1.8
1.4
4.6
2.7
2.7
5.6
2.2
Water
Equipment Flow
Type of Test Positions (l/hr)
Positive Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Positive Fog
Negative Fog
Fan Only
Uncharged Fog
Negative Fog
Positive Fog
*
*
*
*
*
*
83

79
76
76
*
*** 87
*** 79
*** 79
Ait
Flow
(Hi'/hr)
3.7

3.7
4.8
4.0

3.4
3.1
3.4
Fan
Speed
(%)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
Fogger 803019
Hater
Flow
U/hr)
76

79
76
87

83
79
76
Air
Flow
(m'/hr)
3.7

5.0
4.5
4.0

4.0
3.7
4.2
Fan
Speed
(%)
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
NOTE!  Refer to Figure 19
         * Five Samplers - 3 standard, 2 SSI
        «* Four Samplers - 2 standard, 2 SSI (7094 eliminated)
       «** One Sampler - SSI and CI

-------
    Tables  15  through 19 summarize the calculated  concentrations for each of




the  five  test  conditions  (uncontrolled,  fan only,  uncharged  fog,  negative




fog, and positive fog).  The data  set  for  each hi-vol is presented along with




the  arithmetic  mean of  that data  set.  Also  included  in the  tables  are the




average concentrations as measured  by the  standard  hi-vols  and the hi-vols




with SSI's.  Hi-vol 7094 was not used  in  the standard hi-vol averages because




it  was  not operated during all of  the test runs and would  thus bias some of




the  results.   The  arithmetic  means of these  two data sets  are also included




in  the  tables.  A  comparison  of  all  of  the  calculated arithmetic  means is




presented  in Table  20.




     Table  21  presents the fogger efficiencies that were calculated using the




previously  described  means for the  average of  the  two  standard hi-vols and




the  average of  the  two hi-vols with SSI's.   In  calculating  the  efficiencies,




the  fan-only  particulate  matter  concentrations  were used  as  the baseline.




This was  because the  fans create  an  artificial  wind effect  that is constant




for  all  conditions  except  the  uncontrolled  one.   The fan  air  tends  to




redirect  and,  to some extent,  reentrain  some of the  dust  due  to the  limi-




tations  imposed by  the test  apparatus  positioning.   This   phenomenon  would




probably not be  present  at an  actual  installation since the  fog  nozzles would




most probably be positioned  above  the  source  and aimed down  at  it.   This




arrangement is not possible with the experimental test equipment.




    As shown in  Table  21,  there was a  slight  reduction  (12  to 23 percent) in




particulate  matter   concentrations as a  result  of   the application  of  an




uncharged water fog on the dust emissions  at the coke screen operation.  When




a negative  charge  was applied to this  water  fog,  the concentrations  were
                                     72

-------
TABLE 15.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
    UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS  (pg/ra3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
1
2
3
6
7
10
11
12
15
18
21
22
25
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
96743
84111
37395
55996
35770
158356
153497
82320
57816
237970
58460
55635
30758
88064
SSI
7105
43248
47853
18866
29278
20093
69493
54752
42787
34870
95672
29342
24563
17647
40651
Standard
7101
68655
79310
31189
34040
15588
88936
69804
54619
36000
116134
21679
37023
15294
51405
SSI
7092
39587
50025
16458
19097
9867
42424
36262
30909
34747
66004
22810
18306
10665
30551
Standard
7094
75068
59116
44379
28646
20605
54530
52203
52872
43226
73282
48906
52423
26004
48558
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
82699
81710
34292
45018
25679
123646
111650
68469
46908
177052
40069
46329
23026
69734
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
41417
48939
17662
24187
14980
55958
45507
36848
34808
80838
26076
21434
14156
35601
                              73

-------
       TABLE 16.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE  SCREEN OPERATION:
             FAN ONLY PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
28
29
32
35
38
41
44
Standard
7112
205954
229843
115205
149926
144431
148014
181456
SSI
7105
60508
91278
65149
74656
63480
75411
118435
Standard
7101
67576
225319
134932
115376
130322
134221
304563
SSI Standard
7092 7094
27828 28021
75512 136294
51626
41714
43047
46886
91883
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
136765
227581
125068
132651
137376
141117
243009
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
44168
83395
58387
58185
53263
61148
105159
ARITHMETIC
   MEAN      167833   78417
158901   54071
82158
163367
66244
                                     74

-------
TABLE 17.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE  SCREEN OPERATION:
    UNCHARGED FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS  (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation

Run
No.
4
5
8
9
13
16
19
23
26
30
33
36
39
42
45
ARITHMETIC
MEAN

Standard
7112
223620
100933
72356
189098
178908
168438
317657
107765
107819
134123
150095
120065
144588
171003
171168

157176

SSI
7105
93586
46223
31615
81921
43311
160842
103506
45112
36859
58875
86433
56096
64109
84344
97534

72691

Standard
7101
78518
52645
23587
58080
43037
130545
131790
54412
44418
120544
179836
91624
94164
120093
177972

93418

SSI
7092
69921
33943
19063
38274
35763
39292
57152
31879
23623
36058
70426
38542
34824
52397
76210

43824

Standard
7094
98704
51976
31538
57340
84169
89008
76526
52488
27780
43519
-
-
-
-
-

61305
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
151069
76789
47971
123589
110972
149491
224723
81088
76118
127333
164965
105844
119376
145548
174570

125296
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
81753
40083
25339
60097
39537
100067
80329
38495
30241
47466
78429
47319
49466
68370
86872

58258
                              75

-------
TABLE 18.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
    NEGATIVE FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS  (ug/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
14
17
31
34
37
47
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
190759
71705
221220
85006
147459
70055
131034
SSI
7105
60430
22332
122963
46362
75354
55538
63830
Standard
7101
41367
13553
295589
79710
138844
74286
86392
SSI Standard
7092 7094
35745 50831
28486 75668
101086 120442
34844
55784
37218
48861 82314
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
116063
42629
258404
82358
143151
72170
119129
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
48087
25409
112024
40603
65569
46378
56345
                              76

-------
TABLE 19.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN  OPERATION:
    POSITIVE FOG PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS  (yg/m3 )
Hi-Vol Designation
Run
No.
20
24
27
40
43
46
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
Standard
7112
74915
124471
61084
119430
77963
189030
107816
SSI
7105
30512
42521
23356
63225
45944
114244
53300
Standard
7101
20638
42040
14349
94102
83510
187870
73752
SSI Standard
7092 7094
19321 35254
20301 41190
13451 35749
48661
34150
75862
35291 37398
Avg . of
7112
and
7101
47776
83255
31261
106766
80736
188450
89707
Avg . of
7105
and
7092
24916
31411
18403
f
55943
40047
95053
44296
                              77

-------
       TABLE 20.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
           ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS (p g/ra3 )
                           Hi-Vol Designation
  Run
Condition
Standard
  7112
 SSI
 7105
Standard
  7101
SSI   Standard
7092    7094
Avg. of
 7112
  and
 7101
Avg. of
 7105
  and
 7092
Uncontrolled

Fan Only

Uncharged
  Fog

Negative
  Fog

Positive
  Fog
  88064   40651

 167833   78417


 157176   72691
 131034
63830
 107816   53300
  51405   30551    48558     69734    35601

 158901   54071    82158    163367    66244


  93418   43824    61305    125296    58258


  86392   48861    82314    119129    56345


  73752   35291    37398     89707    44296
                                     78

-------
        TABLE  21.   RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION:
                           FOGGER EFFICIENCIES (%)
                                          Percent Reduction
Formula Used In
Calculation*
           Standard
            Hi-Vols
                   Hi-Vols
                  With SSI's
Fan Only - Uncharged
                     x 100
    Fan Only

Uncharged - Negative Fog
    Uncharged

Uncharged - Positive Fog
    Uncharged

Fan Only - Negative Fog
       Fan Only

Fan Only - Positive Fog
       Fan Only
 x 100
 x 100
x 100
x 100
              23
28
27
45
                      12
24
15
33
*NOTE:  Input  to formulae  are the  arithmetic mean  particulate matter  con-
        centrations.
                                      79

-------
reduced  only  slightly further  (approximately 5  percent).   When  a  positive




charge was applied to the water fog, the concentrations were reduced  an  addi-




tional 24  to  28 percent.  This  indicates  that the  dust  plume was primarily




composed of negatively  charged particles.   The  positively  charged  fog pro-




duced  by the  two Fogger  IV s  reduced  the concentrations at the coke  screen




operation 33 to 45 percent.  This level is consistent with  observations  which




indicated  that  more  than two foggers would be necessary  to control  the dust




emissions from the operation.




    The  last four test runs  (48-51)  were conducted using a  hi-vol with an  SSI




and  a  four-stage  cascade  impactor  operated  at 0.6  m /rain.  Additional runs




were  not  conducted  due  to  the  considerable length  of  time  necessary   to




conduct  this type of test.   The results of these  runs  are presented  in  Table




22.  While the results  are  interesting,  not  enough data  were  collected  to




show any firm  conclusions.




    An attempt  to obtain visible  emission  information  was  unsuccessful  since




the  addition of the  fog  to  the  still-warm coke  produced steam  which masked




any changes to the visibility or  opacity of the dust  plume.
                                     80

-------
                      TABLE 22.  RESULTS OP FOGGER TESTING AT COKE SCREEN OPERATION!  CASCADE IMPACTOR DATA
Run No.
48
49
50
Test
Type
Fan Only
Uncharged
Fog
Negative
Fog
Staqe 1
12313
8424
11036
Stage 2
(4.2-10.2nm
20746
10727
16022
Measured Concentrations dig/in* )
Stage 3 Stage 4
I (2.1-4.2n») (1.3-2.1))iii)
6194
4545
4268
4328
3394
2381
Back-up Filter
(0-1. 3ym)
16866
15333
9496
Total
60448
42424
43193
51
             Positive
                                    14088
                                                  17737
                                                                    5766
                                                                                    3431
                                                                                                       13066
                                                                                                                        54088

-------
PHASE II, TEST #5 - IRON AND STEEL PLANT:   TORCH CUTTING OPERATION




    The cutting of  slabs  with a torch  produces  significant amounts of  fume.




The control of this fume was the subject of the  fifth  fogger  field  test.   The




site chosen for  the test  was the torch cutting  operation located  at  Arraco's




Butler Works  in Butler, Pennsylvania.   The  field testing  was  performed during




the  period  from September  1 to  11,  1981,  with  a total  of  132  test  runs




conducted.









Site and Process Descriptions




    Baseplates for use with the coils of an electric arc  furnace  are  produced




by cutting  circles  measuring  approximately  1.2 meters  in diameter  from  slabs




of 304  stainless.   The cutting  machine consists  of  a  template and an oxweld




C39  torch  which  operates  using  iron  powder  together  with  an  oxygen  and




natural  gas flame.   During  the  test, the cutting  speed  of  the torch  was  set




to approximately 9.5 cm/min.  A typical circle was thus cut  in  approximately




40 minutes.   The cutting  resulted  in emissions of fume which  rise  vertically




above the operation.




    The slabs, which are about 5.5 m long by 1.3 m wide by  0.13 m thick,  were




positioned  by an  overhead  crane  on  the  cutting surface  adjacent  to  the




template table.  Four circles were cut out of  each  slab.  After  the first  two




circles are cut, the  crane  was  used to remove  the  two circles and the  scrap




material and  then to position the remaining half of the slab  adjacent to  the




template table for  the cutting of the other  two circles.




    The  entire  cutting  operation   is  located  inside  the  Butler  Works




maintenance building.   The  area in  front and  on both sides  of  the  cutting




table  is a  flat concrete  floor.   The  table  is  positioned   approximately  2




meters  from the rear  wall  of  the  building.    The  cutting  table  itself  is
                                     82

-------
approximately 1 meter high so that the top of  the  slab is 1.1 meters from the




floor.  The maintenance  building  has several  bay  doors which are  opened and




closed  frequently for  vehicle traffic.   Because  of  these  doors  and  space




heater blowers, the air flow shifted directions  at times even though the test



was performed indoors.




    Figure 20 is a photograph of the operation illustrating salient features.









Equipment Placement




    The equipment  used for all the  test runs  included four hi-vols, two  of




which were fitted  with SSIs,  the  two Kitten foggers, and  the  two  AV foggers.




In  addition,  one  of  the hi-vols  with  an  SSI was  fitted with a  four-stage




cascade impactor  during  certain test runs.   The  samplers were  located  above




the  cutting  operation on a movable  platform.   The platform was approximately




3 meters high and  had a  2-meter by 3-meter  metal grating as a surface.   After




the  first seven test  runs,  the  hi-vols  were repositioned slightly  to the rear




of the platform to sample the plume more accurately.




     Because  of the  limited amount  of  space  between  the operation and  the




building wall,  all four  foggers were located  on the same side  of  the  table.




Their  positions remained constant throughout  all the  tests.   The  front-ends




of the  Kitten  foggers were elevated slightly  so that the air and  water were




not  directly  impinging  on the  torch.   Such impingement was  found  to disrupt




the  flow  of  the  iron  powder,  causing  the  torch  to  sputter  or  go  out




occasionally.




    The equipment  positions are shown in Figures 21 and  22.









Test Program and Procedure




    The test  program consisted of 132  test runs during  7 days  of testing.




The  test  conditions  are presented  in  Table  23.   To help  ensure a  valid




                                      83

-------
Figure 20.  Torch cutting operation.
                 84

-------
Figure 21.  Equipment locations for torch cutting operation test.
                                85

-------
       SSI
      7105  '
      7101
          SSI    1
          7112
Grating
                                                            SSI/CI
                                                             7105
                                                              SSI
                                                             7088
                                                                  STD
                                                                  7101
                                                                  STD
                                                                  7112
                                                                      Grating
   Positions for Test Runs 1-7
                                            Positions  for Test  Runs  8-132
Figure 22.  High-volume sampler positions and serial  numbers for torch cutting operation.

-------
                                                             TABLE 23.  TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION
CD

Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Date
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-2-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81

Start
Time
0830
0835
0840
0935
0950
1050
1100
1120
1130
1250
1305
1310
1315
1330
0825
0835
0840
0845
0850
0855
0900
0940
0945
0950
0955
1000
1005
1010
1100
1110
1115
1120
1125
1130
1140
1310
1320
1322


Duration
of run
«otn)
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
00
00
00
28
50
50
42
25
00
00
00
00
68
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00

Ritten Foqqers
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr)t (of /hr)t
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-t-) Fog
AV-Uncharqed
AV-< + ) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
AV-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.6
a 56.8 3.6
a
a
b
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
AV loggers
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (fc/nr)t

50

50
50
56.
56.


50
50
56.
50
56.


75.
75.

75.
75.


75.
75.

75.
75.


75.
75.

75.
75.


75.





8
8




8

8


6
6

6
6


6
6

6
6


6
6

6
6


6
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)


50


50
50

50


50

50

50
50
50
50
50
50

50
50
50
50
50
50

50
50
50
50
50
50

50
50
Cascade
Impactor
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
NO
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
               *Refer to Figure 22.
               tValues are per Individual foqqer.

-------
                                                      TABLE 23.  TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION  (Continued)
CO
CD

Run
No.
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72


Date
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-3-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-4-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-8-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81

Start
Time
1327
1333
1338
1342
0920
0928
0940
0950
1000
1238
1245
1253
1300
1315
1321
1329
1335
1433
1439
1448
1455
1506
0815
0828
0836
0843
1230
1236
1245
1251
1336
1340
1345
1351

Duration
of run
(mln)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.67
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00

Bitten Foqqecs
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (l/hr)t (m1 /hr)t
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-( + ) Foq
AV-Uncharged
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-(+| Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten-Fan Only
Rltten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+( Fog
AV-Fan Only
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b 56.8 3.6
b 56.8 3.6
b
b
b
b
b
AV FoggetB
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(* of max.) 
-------
                                                      TABLE 23.  TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION (Continued)
00
Kitten Foqgers
Run
No.
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
Date
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-9-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-1,0-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-10-81
Start
Time
1356
1402
1425
1441
1447
1453
1456
1502
0923
0929
0935
0940
0945
0951
0958
1004
1010
1016
1022
1030
1105
1110
1116
1122
1130
1136
1143+











Duration
of run
(rain)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Equipment
Type of Test Position*
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-f) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Rltten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-(-) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV- Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV (+)-Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
t
b
Hater
Flow
(*/hr)t


56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8

56,8
56.8

56.8
56.8







56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8






Air-
flow
(mVhr)t


3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6







3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6






AV Foqqers
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (l/hr)t
56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

56.8
56.8


56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40

56.8
56. B

56.8
56.8
Fan
Speed Cascade
(% of max.) Impactor
50 No
50 No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
50 No
50 No
50 No
50 No
No
50 No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
50 No
50 No
50 Yes
50 Yes
50 No
50 No
              •Refer to Figure 22.
              tValues are per individual fogger.
              4 Times not recorded after this point.

-------
                                        TABLE 23.  TEST CONDITIONS - TORCH CUTTING OPERATION (Continued)
Bitten Foqgers
Run
No.
Ill
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Duration
Start of run
Date Time (min)
9-10-81
9-10-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-8,1
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
9-11-81
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Equipment
Mater
Flow
Type of Test Position* (fc/hr)t
AV-Fan Only
AV-(t) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Rltten-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncha rged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Rltten-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(t) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-f) Fog
Ritten-(t) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rged
Both-(+) Fog
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
t
b
b
b
b
b
b



56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8

56.8
56.8
Air-
flow
{of /hr)t



3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6

3.6
3.6
AV Foggecs
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (H/hr)t

56.8
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
Fan
Speed Cascade
(S of max.) Impactor
50 No
50 No
No
NO
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NO
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NO
50 No
50 No
50 Yes
50 Yes
50 No
50 No
•Refer to Figure 22.
tValues are per individual fogger.

-------
comparison  of  results, all  of  the  foggers  were operated  at  the same  water




flow rate  of approximately  56.8  i/hr  (15 gph) .   Fan speed was  kept to  the




minimum required to project the fog to the fume.




    The sampling procedure was  essentially  the  same for each test.   Prior  to




each set of tests  the hi-vol flow  controllers  were set to  approximately  1.1




m'/rain  and  preweighed filters  were placed  into  the samplers.   After  the




torch  cut  had  begun  and  the plume formed, the  foggers  were adjusted to  the




desired conditions.  The platform was then moved so that the samplers were  in




the  visually   thickest   part   of   the   plume.    The  samplers   were  started




simultaneously  by   a   circuit  breaker  at  ground  level  and allowed  to  run




approximately  1 minute since sufficient material  for analysis was  collected




on  the filters  during this time period.  At  the  end of the sampling period,




the  samplers were  shut  off  simultaneously,  the  platform  moved  out of  the




plume, and  the  filters removed from the hi-vols and placed  into  envelopes.









Test Results




    Following  completion  of  all   the  test  runs,  the  hi-vol  filters  were




returned  to the TRC chemistry  laboratory,  desiccated,  and  weighed.    The




resulting filter loadings  were  then used  in  conjunction  with the  sampler flow




rates  to calculate particulate matter concentrations.




    The  next step  in the  analysis  procedure  consisted  of determining  the




arithmetic  mean particulate matter  concentration  for  each  test  condition




 (uncontrolled,  Ritten fan only, etc.) for each  of the four hi-vols,  for  the




standard hi-vols combined,  and  for the hi-vols  with the SSls  combined.   The




resulting  values are  presented in  Table  24.   The combined sampler  data  are




graphically  presented in  Figure  23.   Included in  these  mean  concentration




calculations are the  total  concentrations  from the samplers  when  a cascade
                                      91

-------
      TABLE 24.  BUTLER WORKS TORCH CUTTING OPERATION:  ARITHMETIC MEAN
   PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS  (ug/m3 )
Particulate
Test
Condition
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7112)
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
Concentrations As Measured By:
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
Hi-Vol
With SSI
(7088)
Hi-Vol
With SSI
(7105)*
Hi-Vols
With SSIs
Combined
Uncontrolled
384913
276300
330606
250178
168584
209381
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Onlyt
Both-Unchargedt
Both-(+) Fogt
201838
130549
148538
92147
79109
79877
107043
22955
27192
18673
260695
210507
213847
182017
190792
129547
172377
42422
56504
36198
230426
170528
181192
140078
133588
104134
138950
32688
36963
24514
58622
73971
92482
59569
31560
22254
40499
13067
43084
25427
159191
190102
167531
112128
111431
78576
98536
25471
34873
15185
108906
132036
130006
85848
71496
50415
68843
19269
40347
22013
    Also includes the total concentrations  from runs where a cascade impactor
    was used in this sampler.
    Mean concentrations are based on limited data points.
                                      92

-------
       CO
o

o
       a:

       2
              400
              350
              300
              250
              200
              L50
              100
               50
                      ©
                      A
                               A
                                   A   A   °       O
                                                          O
                                                   A
                    0 Combined  Standard  Hi-Vol  Data

                    A.Combined  Hi-Vol with  SSI  Data
                     c «
                     o "^

                     •II
                         >>  -o



                             IO
                            .c
                              ^™* CT
O  I O
                                                                o»
                                                                o
                                                          o
                                                          c
                                                                 J
                                   RITTEN
                                                   AV
                                                                 O

                                                                 A
                                                                                + o
                                                                      u
                                  BOTH
                                               TEST CONDITION
Figure  23.  Arithmetic  mean  participate  matter  concentrations  under various  test conditions

           (ug/m3)  - torch  cutting  operation.
                                              93

-------
impactor was  used  with an SSI.  In  the calculation of  these  values, several




data  points  were  omitted  when it  was obvious  that the  concentrations were




erroneous because  either  the torch crossed  a  support strut and  thus created




excess emissions or  because  of foreign material  falling  onto  the filter from




the hi-vol housing.   (The  data points that  were  eliminated  from the analysis




are denoted by asterisks in Appendix E.)




    Before any conclusions may be drawn  from  these data, the  limitations of




the test setup must  be considered.   First,  the samplers  were placed where the




plume  visually  appeared  the thickest.   This  undoubtably added  a  degree  of




uncertainty and  inconsistency  in  the data.   Second, the  mass  recorded by the




samplers  was  dictated by the  dispersion  characteristics of  the  plume  and




whether  or  not  a  sampler was in  the path of  the plume.   This,  in  turn,




depended  on  the   air  currents  in   the   building.    Third,   as  discussed




previously, the four foggers had to  be  placed  on  the same side of the cutting




operation because  of  space limitations.   As a result, the fan  air redirected




the  emissions from  the operation  back  toward  the wall  behind  the cutting




table.  Since the  samplers were restricted  as  to  how near the  wall they could




be placed, this redirection  by the  fan  air  caused part of the  plume to  "miss"




the samplers.  This  redirection is  evident  in  the data presented in Figure 23




which  show,   for  the  combined standard  hi-vol  data,  a  reduction  from  the




background level of  30 percent for the Kitten  fan only  case,   60  percent for




the AV fan  only  case, and 90  percent for  the  case where all  four  fans were




operated at the same  time.   An examination  of  the  hi-vol  with  SSI  data shows




a similar trend with even  greater percent  reductions, which is logical since




the fan air would  tend to blow the  finer material further.   Because  of this




redirection, it would  not  be correct to  relate controlled emission levels to




uncontrolled emission  levels.
                                      94

-------
    Introduction of  water droplets to  the fan  air  reduces  the  magnitude of




the redirection force on  the  dust since a percentage of  the  fan air momentum




is used  in  "pushing" the water towards  the  emission point.  This  is evident




in the data, particularly with  the finer material (SSI data) where  it can be




seen that the  measured  concentrations actually  increase  between  the fan only




and  uncharged  test  condition  for  the  Ritten  and  both  foggers  control




conditions.   The water  sprays are  probably reducing  the dust  levels, but this




reduction could not  be measured owing to limitations of the sampling setup.




    The  only  mean concentrations  that  are directly  comparable are  the ones




obtained using  charged  fog  and the ones obtained using  uncharged  fog,  since




the only difference  is  the sign of the  charge on the  water  droplets.   Aside




from the case  where  all  four foggers were used (the data are  too  limited to




draw  realistic  conclusions),  an  examination  of  the  mean  concentrations




(Figure 23)   indicates  that  the  emission levels  increased  when a  positive




charge  was  applied  to  the water spray,  indicating  that  the   torch  cutting




emissions  also carry  a  positive charge.   This  situation  is   unusual  since




Hoenig  found  that  most  industrial  dusts  carry  a  negative charge.    As  a




result, the positively  charged  fog repelled  the dust rather than attracted it




and  the fog  was  rendered less   efficient  than  an uncharged water  spray.




Examining  the  results  using  negatively charged  fog  indicates  that  this




conclusion  is  correct.   The  levels decreased when  a  negative charge  was




applied  to  the water spray.  The  amount of  reduction was 18 percent for the




material less  than   30 pm (standard  hi-vol)  and  35  percent  for  the material




less than 15  ym (hi-vol  with SSI) using the Ritten foggers.   The  AV foggers




were not operated with a  negatively charged fog.




    The  cascade  impactor  data   were  not   useful,   except  from  a  total




concentration standpoint, because  they  were  obtained for only  a few types of




test conditions:   Ritten fan  only,  Ritten  positive charge, Ritten negative




                                      95

-------
charge, AV fan only, and AV  positive  charge.   It was not realized during  the




tests  that  the  fan  only  condition   could  not  be  realistically  used  for




comparison since  this  test  condition had been  used as the  baseline in  the




previous EPA-sponsored test programs.   Therefore, to reduce sampling  time  and




data  reduction costs,  only  a  few  runs were  performed  with  the  cascade




impactor  and  none  of   these   runs   were  conducted  under   uncharged  fog




conditions.   It  may  be   noted,  however,  that  the  levels  recorded  using




negative  fog  were  lower  than  the   levels   recorded   using  positive   fog,




supporting the positively charged plume hypothesis.









PHASE II, TEST #6  - IRON AND STEEL PLANT:   RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION




    The transfer of sinter fines from one conveyor belt  to another results in




fugitive  emissions.   The  objective of the sixth  fogger  field  test  was  to




evaluate  the effect of charged  fog on such emissions.   The  site chosen  for




the  test  was  a  transfer  point  located  at   the  recycle  plant  of  Armco's




Middletown Works in Middletown, Ohio.   The field testing was  performed during




the period from October 2 to 14, 1981, with a  total of 100 test  runs.








Site and Process Descriptions




    As  part  of a  material recycling  process,  iron  ore fines  are  collected




from  the  blast  furnace  wet scrubbers  and  the  open  hearth  slag   crushing




operation, combined with coke  dust, and are fed onto a large  conveyor.   The




conveyor moves slowly through a natural gas-fired oven which  agglomerates  the




material into sinter.  The sinter is  then broken into small pieces and cooled




by blowing air  though  it.   Once the  sinter is crushed,  cooled  and sized,  it




is returned to the blast furnace and  used as charging material  because of  its




iron content and fluxing characteristics.
                                      96

-------
    Due  to  the mechanical  agitation of  the sinter  on the  various conveyor




belts throughout  the  recycle  plant,  small pieces of  material are broken off.




This fine material  is collected  from several conveyor areas and combined onto




a separate conveyor system.   This  system transports the fine material back to




the  beginning  of  the  recycle operation where  it  is  reintroduced  as  input




material.




    As part  of this  fine material  conveyor system,  the  material  is  trans-




ferred several  times  from one conveyor  belt to another.   One of  these  con-




veyor  transfer  points  was  used   as the   location  for  the  fogger  tests.




Fugitive dust  rises up around the transfer area because  of the  dropping  of




the material onto  the next  conveyor  belt.   This particular transfer point has




a drop height of approximately 1.2 meters.









Equipment Placement




    The  equipment  used for  all of  the fogger test  runs included four hi-vols,




two  of which were  fitted with  SSIs, the two  Kitten  foggers, and  the  two AV




foggers.  In addition,  a hi-vol fitted  with a  cyclone  preseparator  (CYC)  and




a cascade impactor  (CI) was used during  the  majority of the tests.




    The  two  standard  hi-vols  and the two hi-vols with  SSIs  were  located  on a




metal grating  directly  above the  transfer  point.   The grating  was  supported




by scaffolding  and was  approximately 2.6 m  above  the  level  of  the discharge




conveyor.  The  hi-vol with  the CYC/CI was placed on  the  existing platform at




the  same level as the discharge conveyor.   For the  fogger  tests,  one Ritten




and one  AV  fogger were placed under  cover   in  an existing structure adjacent




to the transfer point.  The second AV fogger was placed opposite the first on




the  existing platform.   Scaffolding  was  erected  adjacent  to  the existing




platform  to  support  the  second  Ritten  fogger  so  that  it  too  would  be




positioned opposite the first.  All four foggers were on the-same level.




                                      97

-------
    The transfer operation, scaffolding and equipment positions  are  displayed




in the photographs  presented  in Figures  24,  25 and 26.   Note  in Figures  24




and 25 the  wind screen material  and  tarpaulins that were  added to the  test




set-up to reduce the effects of wind on dust  in the  region.  A sketch of  the




equipment positions including  hi-vol serial numbers is presented in Figure 27.









Test Program and Procedure




    The  test  program consisted of  100 test  runs  during  8  days of  testing.




The  test conditions  are  presented  in Table  25.    To   help  ensure  a  valid




comparison  of  results,  all of  the foggers were operated  at  the same  water




flow  rate of  approximately 56.8  i/hr  (15 gph) .   Fan  speed was  kept to  the




minimum required to project the fog to the transfer point.




    The sampling procedure was  essentially  the  same  for each test.  Prior  to




each  test  run, preweighed  filters  were  placed into the  samplers.   For  the




controlled tests, the foggers were then turned  on  and adjusted  to the  desired




conditions.  The  samplers were all started simultaneously through  a  control




box.   During  the  duration  of the  test,  the  samplers'  flow  rates   were




monitored to  ensure that the  flow  controllers were maintaining  the flow  at




approximately  1.1  m3/min.   Following  completion  of  the  test   run,   the




samplers were  shut  off  simultaneously and  the  filters  were removed from the




hi-vols and placed into individual envelopes.









Test Results




    Following  completion  of  all  the  test  runs,  the  hi-vol  filters  were




returned  to  the  TRC  chemistry  laboratory,   desiccated  and  weighed.    The




resulting filter loadings were -then used  in conjunction  with  the sampler flow




rates to calculate particulate matter  concentrations.
                                      98

-------
Figure 24.  Equipment locations for recycle .plant transfer operation test:
            elevated samplers and outside corner foggers.
                                      99

-------
Figure 25.  Equipment locations for recycle plant transfer operation test:
            hi-vol  with CYC/CI.
                                     loo

-------
Figure 26.   Equipment locations for recycle
            inside corner foggers.
plant transfer operation test:
                                    101

-------
                                    AV
                Outgoing
                Conveyor
                                                              	 Facade of 3-
                                                             jStory Structure
                                          Existing
                                          Platform
        'a) Level of Transfer Point
      Hi-Vol
     With SSI
                                                             Facade  of 3-Story
                                                                 Structure
                                                      Erected
                                                     Platform
       (b) Platform Level Above Transfer Point
Figure 27.   Equipment location sketch for recycle plant transfer operation  test

                                      102

-------
                                                     TABLE 25.  TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION
O
LO

Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

25

26

27
28
29


Date
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-81
10-2-01
10-3-81
10-3-81
10-3-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-6-81
10-7-81
10-7-81

10-7-81

10-7-81

10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81

Start
Time
1315
1343
1409
1430
1523
1548
1613
1638
1000
1023
1049
1340
1355
1415
1435
1500
1515
1535
1615
1640
1700
1720
1250
1325

1350

1420

1520
1540
1600

Duration
of run
(rain)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
SSIs-5
others-5.45
SSIs-5
otheru-6.12
SSIS-6
others-7.75
5
5
5

Ritten Foggera
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (l/hr)t (mVhrJt
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Ritten-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Kitten- (+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
AV-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Rltten-(-t-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-(-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only

Ritten-Uncharged

Ritten-(-) Fog

AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.6
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a

a 56.8 3.8

a 56.8 3.8

a
a
a
AV Foggers
Fan Mater Fan
Speed Flow Speed Cascade
(% of max.) U/hr)t (% of max.) Impactor
No
50 No
30 No
56.8 50 No
30 No
56.8 50 No
30 No
No
No
No
50 No
No
No
30 No
50 No
30 No
30 No
No
30 No
30 No
30 No
30 No
	 ________ 	 _\_T^ . ,._ 	 , 	 ____
T
No
30 No

30 No

30 No

56.8 50 No
50 No
56.8 50 No
           *Refer to Figure 27.
           tValues are per individual  fogger.

-------
                                    TABLE 25.  TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION  (Continued)

Run
No.
30
31
32
33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54


Date
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81
10-7-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-'81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81

10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-8-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81

Start
Time
1655
1715
1735
1825

0935

1012

1040

1115

1155

1225

1405

1445

1520

1550

1620
1645
1710
1735
1805
0920
0950
1020
1105
1140
1300


Duration
of run
(min)
5
5
4.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIe-4.
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-4.
others- 4.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
SSIs-5
others-5.
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
^
7
7
7

Ritten Foqgers
Water Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr)t (irf/hr)t


75

5
57
4

08

18

18

12
83
9

33

17

25

17











Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Uncharged

Uncontrolled

AV-Fan Only

Ritten-Fan Only

AV-(-f) Fog

Kitten- (+) Foq

AV-Uncharged

Ritten-Uncharged

Uncontrolled

Ritten-Fan Only

Rlt ten-Uncharged

Ritten-(t) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Foq
Kitten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
a
a
a
a

a

a

a

a

a 56.8 3.8

a

a 56.8 3.8

a

a

a 56.8 3.8

a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
AV Foqqers

Fan Water Fan
Speed Flow Speed Cascade
(% of max.) (l/hr)t 1% of max.) Impactor
No
50 No
56.8 50 No
56.8 50 No

Yes

50 Yes

30 Yes

56.8 50 Yes

30 Yes

56.8 50 Yes

30 Yes

Yes

30 Yes

30 Yes

30 Yes
50 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
56.8 50 Yes
Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
30 Yes
Yes
50 Yes






























(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
(2)
"Refer to Figure 27.
tValues are per individual  fogger.

-------
                                                     TABLE 25.   TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION (Continued)
O
Ul

Run
No.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61

62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
68


Date
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-12-81
10-13-81

10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81
10-13-81

10-13-81
10-13-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81

Start
Time
1320
1410
1435
1505
1530
1615
1000

1025
1050
1110
1125
1240
1305
1325
1345
1405
1425
1450
1515

1545
1605
0845
0905
0925
0950
1010
1025
1050
1110
1240
1300
1320
1340
1400

Duration
of run
(min)
10
10
7
7
10
10
SSIB-9.25
others-10
10
10
10.25
10
15
15
15
15
15
12
15
SSIs-15
others-15.5
15.42
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15 '
15

Kitten Fogqers
Mater Air-
Equipment Flow flow
Type of Test Position* (t/hr)t (mVhr)t
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only

Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged

AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolld
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(-) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a

a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a

a
a
e
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a 56.8 3.8
a
a
a
a
a
a 56.8 3.8
AV Foggers
Fan Water
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (l/hr)t
56.8
56.8

30
30
30
30

30
30
30


56.8
56.8
30
30
30

56.8

56.8


56.8
56.8
30
30
30
30


56.8
56.8
30
30
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)
50
50










50
50
50



50
50

50

50
50
50





50
50
50


Cascade
Impactor
Ves (2)
Yes (2)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                *Refer to Figure  27.
                tValues are per  individual fogger.

-------
                                                   TABLE 25.  TEST CONDITIONS - RECYCLE  PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION (Continued)
O
CT>
Ritten Fog^ers
Run
No.
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Date
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
10-14.-81
10-14-81
10-14-81
Start
Time
1420
1440
1500
1525
1545
1605
1625
1645
1705
1725
1750
1310
Duration
of run
(roin)
14.25
15
15
10
9
12
10
15
15
15
15
15
Type of Test
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten- (-) Fog
Uncontrolled
Both-Fan Only
Both-Oncha rged
Both-(+> Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rged
Both-( + ) Fog
Equipment
Position*
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Hater
Flow
(l/hr)t
56.
56.


56.
56.

56.
56.

56.
56.
8
8


8
a

8
8

8
8
Air-
flow
(of /hr)t
3
3


3
3

3
3

3
3
.8
.8


.8
.8

.8
.8

.8
.8
AV Foggers
Fan Hater
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (i/hr)t
30
30

30
30 56. »
30 56.8
30
30 56.8
30 56.8
30
30 56.8
30 56.8
Fan
Speed
(* of max.)



50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
               •Refer to Figure  27.
               fValues are per individual  Jogger,

-------
    The  next  step in the  analysis  procedure was  to  group the concentrations




by test  day since it was obvious during the testing  that  some days were much




dustier  than  other days.  The  quantity of  emissions generated  at  this site




was  highly dependent on  meteorological  factors such  as  wind   speed,  wind




direction,  and precipitation  and  thus all  the  data  could  not be  grouped




together  as   in  the  case  of  the  torch cutting  operation  data.   Table  26




presents  the  arithmetic  mean  daily  concentrations for each test condition for




the  standard  hi-vols  combined  and  the   hi-vols with  SSIs  combined  (the




samplers  located  above  the operation on the  constructed  platform).   Table 27




presents  the  arithmetic  mean  daily  concentrations for each test condition for




the  hi-vol with  the cyclone preseparator  and  cascade impactor  (the  sampler




located adjacent  to  the  transfer point on the existing platform).




    Examination   of   the  data  presented  in Table   26  reveals  no  definite




trends.   While a few  days  appear  to  display  the  expected  results  (i.e.,




emission  levels  with fan only  greater than emission levels  with  uncharged




fog, greater  than emission levels with  charged  fog),  most of the  days display




highly  erratic results.  This  wide variability in results  from  the samplers




above  the operation  may  be  due to  the  influence of  other dust  sources  near




the  transfer  operation.  Dust  from the ground  surrounding  the operation was




frequently  reentrained   by  the  action  of  wind  and  vehicular traffic;  this




reentrained   material could  have   affected  the  recorded   emission  levels.




Additionally,  downwashed  material  seemed  to  be   impacting  the  samplers




occasionally  from a  shaker-screen  operation located  above the  level  of the




samplers.  Because of the  uncertainty of the accuracy of  the results,  further




analysis of the data  presented in Table  26  does not seem warranted.




    The sampler with  the CYC/CI  located adjacent  to  the operation was not as




subject to the influence of other dust  sources  and an examination of the data




presented  in  Table 27 reveals  some possible trends.   However,  it  should be




                                      107

-------
       TABLE 26.  RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION -
 STANDARD  HI-VOL AND  SSI  DATA:  ARITHMETIC MEAN  PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (yq/m3)


Date
10-2-81







10-3-81







10-6-81







10-7-81









Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Standard Hi-Vols
Combined
(7101 and 7106)
118195
55025
42038
47431
-
344974
53896
39577
148445
-
-
-
-
58023
-
•
70265
78307
108567
101470
85176
161645
-
—
132160
107656
62154
-
102527
257877
158406
111058
Hi-Vols with SSIs
Combined
(7093 and 7105)
35771
26064
15319
19792
-
113809
18433
15102
37238
-
-
-
-
13249
-
•"*
35958
39291
43269
42201
42915
48577
-
"~
84035
54845
27015
-
36185
78549
58139
37948

Numbe r
of Runs
2
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
                             108

-------
 TABLE  26.   (Continued)   RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION -
 STANDARD HI-VOL AND SSI  DATA:   ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE
MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS  (\iq/m3 )


Date
10-8-81







10-12-81







10-13-81







10-14-81












Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Standard Hi-Vols
Combined
(7101 and 7106)
141079
129856
66101
71574
-
164129
35726
104590
26752
32765
10893
17037
26120
9003
24734
14648
2045
2481
2109
1721
870
1753
1646
1424
1491
3389
4181
3595
4938
5779
1995
2044
1617
855
571
Hi-Vols with SSIs
Combined
(7093 and 7105)
46593
51820
20334
23861
-
63684
10880
46879
9870
8634
2942
3448
7526
2410
5194
3497
1174
1009
760
570
200
921
766
678
334
1323
1545
2474
1322
2028
973
1015
938
284
242

Numbe r
of Runs
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
                             109

-------
          TABLE 27.  RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION - CYC/CI DATA:
               ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
                     UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS (pg/m3)
HI-VOL WITH CYC/CI (7084)

Date
10-6-81




f


10-7-81







10-8-81







10-12-81








Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
Av-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-{+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Fog
Kitten- (-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Stage
1


CYCLONE
Stage
2


Stage
3


PRESEPARATOR
Stage
4


ONLY

Backup



NO CASCADE IMPACTOR






CYCLONE












PRESEPARATOR






ONLY








Total
81807
92987
60737
55117
47667
119217
-
—
193267
229828
154590
NO CASCADE IMPACTOR




7366
11385
5007
5058
-
10764
3224
7961
1340
5163
2249
2429
3122
1448
1324
2023




7530
12124
6725
8646
-
13858
4391
9713
785
6099
3541
2357
2920
973
1589
2544




5430
7356
3992
3715
-
6900
2443
5571
676
4982
2119
1562
1876
914
2063
2785




4405
5541
2655
2134
-
4277
1557
4748
*
5312
1574
1128
1199
985
1212
2954




47705
34329
12829
7615
-
15226
4673
32973
5431
83489
16051
10016
5520
8309
9607
54160
87199
186418
158899
129437
















Numbe r
of Runs
3
2
2
1
2
1
0
0
2
1
1
0
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
*Mass of material on filter less than sensitivity of balance.
                                      110

-------
   TABLE 27.   (Continued)  RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION  - CYC/CI  DATA:
              ARITHMETIC MEAN  PARTICULATE MATTER CONCENTRATIONS
                    UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS  (u9/m3)
HI-VOL WITH CYC/CI (7084)

Date
10-13-81







10-14-81











Test Condition
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
Stage
1
*
*
677
675
*
405
*
*
707
901
1204
1014
924
1426
940
801
984
939
981
Stage
2
*
*
672
679
550
419
*
383
680
1187
1831
1627
1029
2389
1589
985
1404
1118
780
Stage
3
*
*
*
766
*
264
*
*
464
843
1094
797
642
1336
851
699
935
1037
702
Stage
4
*
*
315
494
*
255
*
*
439
646
758
614
418
909
573
421
720
731
672

Backup
1886
1335
1690
2768
1980
1123
991
1667
3522
2883
3414
2653
2195
3788
1733
2188
6471
5749
5650
Number
Total of Runs
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
*Mass of material on filter less than sensitivity of balance.
                                      Ill

-------
noted  that  wide  variations  still  occurred  between  similar  tests.   For




example, on October  6,  three  measurements of the background dust  levels  were




made.   During  the three  runs,  the CYC/CI  recorded values  of  24,028  ug/m3,




178,302  ug/m3   and   43,092  yg/m3,   respectively.    These  data   show  some




problems relating  to the  method  of sampling,  or  to the  impact of  external




parameters, or  both.   Nonetheless,  some possible trends are discussed  in the




following paragraphs.




    The  sampling on  October  6  and 7  was  performed  with  only the  cyclone




preseparator and no cascade impactor.  Using the fan only  and  uncharged cases




as  the  baselines,  percent reductions  in concentration levels  were  calculated




for  the  2  days  (Table  28).    (Uncontrolled  levels   are  not  useful   for




comparison  since the uncontrolled dust from the operation rises up  and  away




from  the sampler while  the controlled dust,  theoretically,  is  kept  at  the




platform level.)   Significant reductions  were  obtained for  the  particle  size




range sampled  (approximately  less than 6  ym)  for  both  fog  devices  with  the




Ritten foggers performing slightly better (based on  the limited data).




    The  sampling on  October 8,  12,  13 and  14 was performed  with a cascade




impactor placed inside the sampler with  the cyclone preseparator.   Table  29




presents the percent reductions from the  fan only and  uncharged concentration




levels  for  each stage of  the  impactor for  October  8,   12 and  14.   The  data




from October 13  are  insufficient  to perform this analysis.  Perhaps  the  most




important values shown on  this  table  are  the reductions  from charging  the




spray.   The  Ritten foggers performed  quite well,  particularly on the small




particle ranges  (the respirable range) , with efficiency  increases  of  20 to 40




percent for positive fog, and 20  to 65 percent for negative fog.
                                      112

-------
           TABLE 28.  RESULTS OF FOGGER TEST AT RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER
                  OPERATION:  SAMPLER WITH CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR
                       October 6, 1981
                                           October 7, 1981
 Test
 Condition
  Mean         Percent   Percent    Mean         Percent   Percent
Particulate   Reduction Reduction Particulate   Reduction Reduction
  Matter        from      from      Matter        from      from
Concentration Fan Only  Uncharged Concentration Fan Only  Uncharged
  (yig/m3 )	Condition Condition   (yg/m3 )      Condition Condition
Ritten
 - Fan Only
  92987
Ritten
 - Uncharged    60737
Ritten
 - (+) Fog

Ritten
 - (-) Fog

AV
 - Fan Only

AV
 - Uncharged

AV
 - (+) Fog
  55117
  47667
                34.7
40.7
48.7
                     229828
                     154590
                       32.7
 9.3
21.5
87199
                                     186418
                                     158899
                                     129437
62.1
43.6
                                  14.8
                                  30.6
                                 18.5
*No data for this test condition.
                                      113

-------
             TABLE 29.  RESULTS OF FCGGER TEST AT RECYCLE PLANT TRANSFER OPERATION:
                     SAMPLER WITH CYCLONE PRESEPARATOR AND CASCADE IMPACTOR
CI
Stage
1

2

3

4

Back-
up

October 3,
Percent
Reduction
from
Test Fan Only
Condition Condition
Ritten-Uncharged 56.0
Ritten- (+) Fog 55.6
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Oncharged 70.0
AV-(-) Fog 26.0
Ritten-Uncharged 44.5
Ritten-( + ) Fog 28.7
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 68.3
AV-(-) Fog 29.9
Ritten-Uncharged 45.7
Ritten- (f) Fog 49.5
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 64.6
AV-(-) Fog 19.3
Ritten-Uncharged 52.1
Ritten- (+) Fog 61.5
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 63.6
AV-(-) Fog -11.0
Ritten-Uncharged 62.6
Ritten- (+) Fog 77.8
Ritten- (-) Fog *
AV-Uncharged 69.3
AV-(-) Fog -116.6
1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
-1.0
*
-146.9
-28.6
*
-121.2
-6.9
*
-128.0
-19.6
it
-204.9
-40.6
*
-605.6
October
Percent
Reduction
from
Fan Only
Condition
56.4
53.0
39.5
8.6
-39.7
41.9
61.4
52.1
-63.3
-161.5
57.5
63.6
62.3
-125.7
-204.7
70.4
78.8
77.4
-23.0
-199.9
30.8
88.0
93.4
-15.6
-551.8
12, 1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
-8.0
-38.8
-52.8
33.4
17.5
-60.1
26.3
11.5
-35.0
28.3
23.8
-143.7
37.6
65.6
-463.8
October
Percent
Reduction
from
Fan Only
Condition
-33.6
-12.5
-2.6
34.1
43.8
-54.3
-37.1
13.3
33.5
58.8
-29.3
5.5
23.8
36.3
47.7
-17.3
5.0
35.3
37.0
53.7
-18.4
8.0
23.9
54.3
42.2
14, 1981
Percent
Reduction
from
Uncharged
Condition
15.8
23.3
14.8
11.1
43.8
38.0
27.1
41.3
17.9
19.0
44.9
26.5
22.3
35.7
-26.3
*No data for this test condition.
                                                114

-------
    Data  were  also  obtained  on  October  14  using  all  four  foggers.   An




examination of Table 27 indicates that the data do not show any trends.









PHASE II, TEST |7 - CEMENT PLANT:  LIMESTONE CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION




    The  production of  lime  from  limestone  requires  the  limestone  to  be




crushed.   The  crushing process  is  completed  in  several  steps  which  include




sizing  and  transferring  material  by  conveyor.   Throughout  the process,




significant  amounts of dust  are produced.   The control  of  this  dust  at  a




crusher/conveyor was  the  subject of  the seventh fogger field  test.  The  site




chosen  for the  test  was  the Black  River  Lime  Company  located   in  Butler,




Kentucky.  The field  testing was performed  during the period from  November  16




to December 3, 1981,  with a total of 134 test runs.









Site and Process Descriptions




    During the  lime-making process at  Black River Lime,  limestone  is crushed,




transferred,  and   screened   numerous   times.   The  process  begins   at  an




underground  limestone  mine.    The  material  is  removed  from  the mine  by




conveyor and deposited  into  a hopper from  where  it  is  fed by gravity  into  a




crusher.  The crushed limestone  is then  transferred by conveyor  to the top  of




a  structure  which houses  various  sorting  and  screening  operations.  The




largest  pieces  of material pass to  a crusher  located  below ground level  at




the  base of  the structure.   The crushed  pieces of approximately 10 cm  in




diameter are transferred  to  the next step  in the process by  a  conveyor  that




begins underground  and ends up several  stories above  ground.  The  underground




portion  of  the  conveyor  is  contained  in  a   corrugated  tunnel  of  steel




approximately  3  meters   in  diameter.   All  of  the  dust   generated  by  the




crushing/conveying  process passes through the tunnel and  exits  at its mouth.




Figure 28 is a photograph of the tunnel exit.




                                      115

-------
:igure  28.   Limestone  crusher/conveyor  operation.
                       116

-------
Equipment Placement




    The equipment  used  for most of the  test runs  included  four hi-vols, one




of  which  was  fitted  with  an   SSI   and   another  fitted  with  a  cyclone




preseparator  and  a  cascade  impactor,  one Ritten  fogger,  and  the  two  AV




foggers.  Two of the samplers  (one standard hi-vol and one  with an SSI)  were




located on a platform over the conveyor  belt at  the mouth of the tunnel.   The




other  two  samplers  (one  standard and one  with  a  CYC/CI)  were  located




immediately  inside  the  mouth  of the   tunnel  on  a  walkway  next  to  the




conveyor.    The  foggers  were   located  outside  the  tunnel,  aimed  slightly




downward and back  toward  the crusher.   Two  holes (approximately 0.6 m square)




were cut  in  the sides of  the  tunnel to accommodate the  sprays.   These  holes




were staggered  (by about  6 m)  so  that  the sprays from  the  opposing  foggers




would   not   impinge  on   each   other   which  might  possibly   reduce   their




effectiveness.   Only  one  Ritten   fogger  was  used  owing  to   an  electronic




malfunction  in  the  other  fogger.  To  provide  for  a reasonable  comparison




between the  Ritten and AV foggers, the Ritten  fogger  was  operated  at  twice




the  flow  rate of  one  AV  fogger.   Figures  29  and  30  are photographs of the




equipment  and  Figure  31  is  a  sketch  of   the  locations  indicating  sampler




serial numbers.








Test Program and Procedure




    The test  program consisted  of 134  test runs  during 8 days  of testing.




The test conditions are presented  in  Table  30.  To ensure a valid comparison




of results, each of the AV foggers were  operated at a water flow rate of 56.8




Jl/hr (15  gph)  while the  Ritten  fogger was  operated  at a water flow  rate of
                                      117

-------
Figure 29.   Equipment locations for crusher/conveyor test:
            foggers .
                               118

-------
Figure 30.  Equipment locations for crusher/conveyor test:
            samplers.and foggers.
                           119

-------
                                       Lrusner
      Standard Hi-Vol
    (#7106, Replac
  #7094 Part Way T
          •Program)

Hi-Vol  With CYC/CI
     (#7084)
       Standard Hi-Vol
           (#7101)


1

Vol
ed By 	
hru Test

-Vol

"^ ^"^a



i i
* \
\J_-^





L — i
/~~r
^^

1





(

I
, — --v
r —


*7'tt
)i;^r<^







\
\)
^


^ 	 Corrugated
Steel Tunnel
Hi-Vol With SSI
#7093)
f
Platform
•« — Conveyor
         Figure 31.   Equipment location sketch for crusher/conveyor test.
                                         120

-------
                                               TABLE  30.  TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION


Run
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36



Date
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-16-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-17-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81


Start
Time
1040
1200
1215
1230
1240
1330
0825
0835
0845
0855
0910
0920
0930
0940
1010
1025
1035
1045
1055
1105
1115
1125
1310
1320
1330
1345
1355
1405
1415
1425
0750
0800
0810
0820
0835
0845

Duration
of run
(min)
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4



Type of Test
Uncontrolled
Rltten-Fan Only
Kit ten-Uncharged
Kitten- (+) Foq
Rttten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Rltten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-t-) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(-f) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only


Equipment
Position*
a
a
a
a
a
a








a
a
a

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
I
Hater
flow
W/hr)


113.5
113.5
113.5






113.5
113.5
113.5





113.5
113.5
113.5





113.5
113.5
113.5


113.5
113.5
113.5

Utten FoqqersJ
Air-
flow
(rf/hr)


5.2
5.2
5.2






5.2
5.2
5.2





5.2
5.2
5.2





5.2
5.2
5.2


5.2
5.2
5.2

AV
Fan Hater
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (i/hr)*

40
40
40
40



56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40


56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40


56.8
56.8
40
40
40
40

40
40
40
40

Fogqere
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)





50

50
50
50





50
50
50





50
50
50









50


Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
 *Refer  to Fiqure 31.
 tOnly one foqqer used durinq  test.
4-Values are  per  Individual foqqer.

-------
TABLE  30.   TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION  (Continued)
Rltten Foaaerst AV
Run
No.
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
•Refer
tonlv
Duration
Start of run
Date
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
li-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-18-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-23-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
to Fiqure
one Eoqdet
Time
0855
0905
0955
1005
1015
1025
1035
1045
1055
1105
1235
1245
1255
1305
1315
1325
1345
1355
1415
1425
1435
1445
1130
1150
1205
1220
1240
1300
1405
1425
1440
1450
0905
0920
0935
0950
1005
1015
1030
1125
1145
1155
1210
1225
1235
1247
1312
1325
1336
1350
31.
(min)









4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5.75
5
5.08
5
5.17
5
5.23
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.08
5
5.42
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
i test.
Water Air-
Equipment flow flow
Type of Test Position' (l/hr) (nf /hr)
AV-Unc barged
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-(+) Foq
Ritten-(-) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-(+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten-<+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Uncontrolled
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Kitten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-( + ) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(H-) Foq
Uncontrolled

a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
e
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a

Fan Water
Speed Flow
(% of max.) (H/hr)t
56.8
56.8

40
40
40
40

56.8
56.8

40
40
40
40

56.8
56.8

40
40
40


56.8
56.8
40
40
56.8
56.8
56.8


40
40
40

56.8
56.8

40
40
40

56.8
56.8
40
40
40


Fogqers
Fan
Speed
(% ot max.)
50
50





50
50
50





50
50
50

50
50
50

50
50
50


50
50
50





50
50
50




50
50
50
50
50
50



Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes


-------
                                                 TABLE  30.  TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION (Continued)
NJ
U)
Ritten Foqqetst AV
Run
No.
87
86
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122

Date
11-24-81
11-24-81
11-24-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-1-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
12-2-81
Start
Time
1400
1413
1425
1050
1110
1125
1200
1220
1235
1250
1330
1345
1405
1415
0805
0820
0835
0855
0915
0925
1005
1020
1030
1045
1055
1110
1125
1135
1150
1220
1255
1305
1320
1330
1345
1355
Duration
of run
(min)
5
5.25
5
5
5.25
5
5.08
5.08
5.50
5
5.08
5
5
5
5.25
5.25
5.17
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.17
5
5
5
5
5
5
Water Air-
Equipment Clow flow
Type of Test Position* («./hr) (irf /hr)
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Foq
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-(+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Fog
Uncontrolled
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharqed
AV-<+) Foq
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten- (+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharqed
Both-(+) Fog
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharqed
Ritten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
AV-Fan Only
AV-( + ) Fog
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
Fan Mater
Speed Flow
(» of max.) (l/hr)±
40
40
40


56.8
56.8
40
40
40


56.8
56.8
40
40
40

56.8

56.8
40
40
40

56.8
40
40 56.8
40 56.8
40
40
40


56.8

Foggers
Fan
Speed
(% of max.)




50
50
50




50
50
50



50
50
50
50



50
50
50
50
50



50
50
50
50

Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
         *Refer to Figure  31.
         tOnly one foqger  used during test.
         ^Values are per individual  foqqer.

-------
                                        TABLE 30.  TEST CONDITIONS - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION (Continued)
Ritten Foqqerst AV Foggers
Run
No.
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
Date
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
12-3-81
Start
Time
0845
0855
0910
0920
0935
0945
1000
1010
1020
1030
1045
1055
Duration
of run
(rain)
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5.42
5
5
5.17
Hater Air-
Equipment flow flow
Type of Test Position* (it/hr) (irf /hr)
Ritten-Fan Only
Rit ten-Uncharged
Ritten- (+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Foq
Rltten-Fan Only
Kitten-Uncharged
Ritten- (*) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-(+) Fog
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
a
a
a
a 113.5 5.2
a 113.5 5.2
a
a
Fan Water Fan
Speed Flow Speed
(% of max.) U/hr)* (% of max.)
40
40
40
50
56.8 50
50
56.8 50
40
40
40
50
56.8 50
Cascade
Impactor
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Refer to Figure 31.
tOnly one fogger used during test.
iValues are per individual fogger.

-------
113.6 i/hr  (30  gph) .   Fan speed was  kept  to  the minimum required  to project




the fog across the tunnel.




    The sampling procedure was  essentially the same for each  test.   Prior  to




each test  run,  preweighed filters  were placed  into the  samplers.   For  the




controlled tests, the foggers were then turned on and adjusted to the desired




conditions.  The samplers  were  then  all  started simultaneously by a  control




box.   During  the   duration   of the  test,  the  samplers'   flow  rates  were




monitored  to  ensure  that the flow  controllers were maintaining  the  flow  at



approximately   1.1  m3/nun.    The    samplers   were   allowed  to   run   for




approximately 4  to 5  minutes since sufficient  material was collected  on  the




filters during  this  time for analysis.   At the  end of each  sampling  period,




the samplers  were  shut  off  simultaneously and  the  filters removed  from  the




hi-vols and placed into individual envelopes.









Test Results




    Following completion of  all the  test runs, the  hi-vol filters  were  re-




turned  to  the  TRC  chemistry laboratory,   desiccated  and   weighed.    The



resulting  filter loadings were  then used  in conjunction with  the  sampler  flow




rates to calculate particulate matter  concentrations.




    The  next step  in  the  analysis  procedure  consisted  of   determining  the




arithmetic mean  particulate  matter  concentration for each  test condition  for




each  of  the  four  hi-vols   and  for  the standard  hi-vols  combined.   The




resulting values are presented  in  Table 31.  (Stage  1  impactor data  were  not




included  because  it  was  frequently noted  that   material from  inside  the




cyclone preseparator would fall onto  the  first  stage  of  the  impactor  during




its removal,  thus  invalidating the  results.)-  These  values  are  reproduced




graphically  in   Figures  32   (combined standard  hi-vols and  hi-vol  with  SSI




data)  and Figure 33 (hi-vol with CYC/CI data).




                                      125

-------
     TABLE  31.  CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION:  ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE
         MATTER CONCENTRATIONS UNDER VARIOUS TEST CONDITIONS  (pg/m3 )

                  	   Particulate  Matter Concentrations As Measured By:
     Test
   Condition
Standard   Standard    Standard    Hi-Vol
 Hi-Vol     Hi-Vol     Hi-Vols    with SSI
 (7101)   (7106/7094)   Combined    (7093)
                                  Hi-Vol with
                                  CYC/CI (7084)
                                Stage 3   Backup
Uncontrolled
 338001
446316
390153
152607
38079
11383
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
A V-Unc ha r g ed
AV-(+) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncharged
Both-(+) Fog
263584
231882
214649
283880
310089
278708
245271
170833
150459
192535
404161
386572
335880
394288
461961
446296
354619
*
*
*
320856
289175
255059
339084
368158
354884
284072
*
*
*
160173
126164
126299
199914
148088
154179
110528
123696
103056
101092
33666
31855
26762
37390
36469
40051
31656
31520
28678
27477
8593
6788
6220
5752
9411
10061
7849
10958
7792
7730
*Insufficient data for analysis.
                                     126

-------
         400
         350
         300
  en
  o
  0
  Lul
  UJ
         250
         200
         150
         100
          50
                 0
                                       o
                          o
                              o
                                                 0
O

                 O Combined Standard Hi-Vol  Data  (<30


                 A Hi-Vol with SSI Data  (<15 o-im)
                                                          G
                                    t    i
                           -   «  ~ =
                                                                  A


                       V
                              RITTEN
AV
                                                                        o
            V
        J
BOTH
                                          TEST CONDITION
Figure 32.  Arithmetic mean particulate matter concentrations .under  various  test

            conditions (mg/m3)-crusher/conveyor operation
                                     127

-------
    For this test setup, it is appropriate to compare  the  controlled  emission




levels with the uncontrolled emission  levels  since  all of the emissions  must




exit the mouth of the tunnel.  This comparison was performed  and  the  results,




in terms of percent  reduction  from the  uncontrolled  level,  are presented  in




Table 32.   An  examination  of  these data  reveals  that the positively  charged




fog  reduced the  uncontrolled  level by  17  to  45  percent using  the  Ritten




fogger  and by  17  to  31  percent  using the  AV foggers,  with  the   greater




reductions  occuring   in  the less  than  1.5   um  fraction.   Using  the three




foggers together reduced the uncontrolled levels  up  to 55 percent.




    An  additional  analysis  was  performed  on  the  data  to determine  the




increase in efficiency from charging the spray.  The results  of this  analysis




are  presented  in  Table 33.   It can  be  seen  that  charging  increased  the




efficiency  approximately 10 percent for  the  Ritten  fogger  and 25 percent for




the AV  foggers.   However,  the  increase in efficiency  using  both  foggers was




essentially zero,  possibly because of  the  limited  data  obtained during the




test condition using both foggers.   The lower increase in efficiency with the




Ritten  fogger  may be due  to the  fact that  only  one fogger was  used  at  a




higher  flow rate, causing  the  charge/droplet  ratio  to decrease (same  overall




charge  with increased  number  of droplets) .   There  is also  the possibility




that the spray coverage  using one fogger  is not as good as  with two  foggers.
                                     128

-------
  a:
  LU
  a:
  <
  a.
         400
         350
         300
         250
         200
         150
         100
          50
                 o
                          o
                               o
                                    o
                    "   A


O Stage 3 Data  (1.5 to^S/im)


A Backup Data (<1.5 jjm)
                                                 o
                                           o
                                                      A
                  OJ

                                   ^"•"> I^j7 *>••*•% ^Jl


                                   4- O  I  O
                o
                (J
                                   >> -a

                                   1  §
                                                      u
-f  O
.	^ 1 1.
                                                                    o
                                                                         o
                                                                             o
                                                                         A   A
>•> xJ  '—• cn
i—  O)  + O
c  01  —-u_
o  s_
                                                                         o
                                           J   V.
                                                  v
                       J
                               RITTEN
                                                        BOTH
                                          TEST  CONDITION
Figure 33.   Arithmetic mean participate  matter concentrations  under various  test

             conditions (mg/m3)-crusher/conveyor operation  CYC/CI  data
                                        129

-------
   TABLE 32.   PERCENT REDUCTION IN ARITHMETIC  MEAN UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATE
           MATTER CONCENTRATIONS  DUE  TO VARIOUS  TEST CONDITIONS -
                          CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
Percent Reduction from Background as

Test
Condition
Ritten-Fan Only
Ritten-Uncharged
Ritten-(+) Fog
Ritten-(-) Fog
AV-Fan Only
AV-Uncharged
AV-( + ) Fog
Both-Fan Only
Both-Uncha rg ed
Both-(-) Fog
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
22.0
31.4
36.5
16.0
8.3
17.5
27.4
49.5
55.5
43.0
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7106/7094)
9.4
13.4
24.7
11.1
-3.5
0.0
20.5
*
*
*
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
17.8
25.9
34.6
13.1
5.6
9.0
27.2
*
*
*
Hi-Vol
with SSI
(7093)
-5.0
17.3
17.2
-31.0
3.0
-1.0
27.6
18.9
32.5
33.8
Measured By:
Hi-Vol
CYC/CI
Stage 3
11.6
16.3
29.7
1.8
4.2
-5.2
16.9
17.2
24.7
27.8
with
(7084)
Backup
24.5
40.4
45.4
49.5
17.3
11.6
31.0
3.7
31.5
32.1
*Insufficient data for analysis.
                                     130

-------
      TABLE 33.  PERCENT REDUCTION IN ARITHMETIC MEAN PARTICULATE MATTER
 CONCENTRATIONS DUE TO CHARGING AN UNCHARGED FOG - CRUSHER/CONVEYOR OPERATION
Percent Reduction from Uncharged as Measured By:
Test
Condition
Ritten-(+) Fog
AV-(+) Fog
Both-(+) Fog
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7101)
7.4
12.0
-28.0
Standard
Hi-Vol
(7106/7094)
13.1
20.5
*
Standard
Hi-Vols
Combined
11.8
20.0
*
Hi-Vol
with SSI
(7093)
0.0
28.3
1.9
Hi-Vol
CYC/CI
Stage 3
16.0
21.0
4.2
with
(7084)
Backup
8.4
22.0
0.8
*Insufficient data for analysis.
                                     131

-------
                                  SECTION 6

                            DISCUSSION OF RESULTS



    There are two major  factors to consider when  evaluating the fogger  test

program:   (1)  overall emission  level  reduction  due  to  control, and  (2)  an

increase in fog efficiency from charging.  The results for  the  first of  these

factors, the control device efficiency, are presented in Table  34.  The  torch

cutting operation data  are  not presented  in this  table  since,  as  previously

discussed, there are no real baseline  levels for comparison.  The results for

the  second  evaluation factor,  the  increase  in  fog efficiency  from charging,

are presented in Table 35.  Based on  the  data  presented  in these two  tables,

several generalized comments may be made:
    o  The control of emissions by the two types of fog devices  are  generally
       comparable, with  the  Kitten fogger  appearing  slightly more  efficient
       in the finer size fractions.

    o  The  control efficiencies  of  the Ritten  foggers were  higher for  the
       primary rock crusher  and  coke  screen tests  than  for the Armco  tests.
       While this was probably the result of the former  tests  being  performed
       with  water  flow  rates  that  were 50  to  100 percent  greater  than  the
       rates  used  in  the  Armco  tests  (due  to  the  AV  fogger  flow  rate
       limitation),  there  is  also  the possibility  that  the  foggers  were
       situated in more optimum positions for control  at these  two sources.

    o  Two fog devices,  in the positions tested with the flow  rates  used,  are
       insufficient  to  completely control  the  emissions  from  the  types  of
       sources tested.  This  is  consistent  with  observations  which  indicated
       that greater water flow would most  likely  be needed  (i.e., 300  to 400
       Vhr of charged  fog  required)  as would more optimal fogger  locations
       (i.e., above the source).

    o  Charging a  water spray .does  appear  to increase its effectiveness in
       controlling particulate matter  emissions.   Increases in  effectiveness
       of 10 to 40 percent were noted in some of  these tests.
                                      132

-------
              TABLE 34.   OVERALL RESULTS  OF  TESTS:   REDUCTIONS IN
                    BASELINE EMISSION LEVELS DUE TO CONTROL
                                   Percent Reduction by Particle Size Fraction
Test Site
Primary Rock
Crusher
Coke Screening
Operation
Recycle Plant
Transfer Operation

Limestone Crusher/
Conveyor Operation

Suspendable Inhalable
Fraction Fraction
Test Type (<30 pro) (<15 pm)
Ritten-(+)Fog* 57 53
Ritten-(-)Fog* 58 46
Ritten-(+)Fog* 45 33
Ritten-(-)Fog* 27 15
Ritten-(+)Fog*
Ritten-(-)Fog*
AV-(+)Fog*
Ritten-(+)Fogt 35 17
Ritten-(-)Fogt 13 -31
AV-(+)Fogt 27 28
Fine Respirable
Fraction Fraction
(<=6 pm) (<2-3 wal_


41
55
31
30
2
17


5
24
-552
45
50
31


to 88
to 93
to 54



*Reduction from fan only levels
tReduction from background levels
                                      133

-------
           TABLE 35.  OVERALL RESULTS OF FOGGER TESTS:  INCREASE IN
             EFFICIENCY DUE TO APPLYING A CHARGE TO A WATER SPRAY

                                   Percent Increase by Particle Size Fraction

                                  Suspendable  Inhalable    Fine    Respirable
                                   Fraction    Fraction   Fraction   Fraction
 Test Site  	Test Type	(<30 ym)	(<15 ym)   (<= 6 \im)  (<2-3 gm)
Primary Rock
Crusher
Coke Screening
Operation
Ritten- (+) Fog
Ritten- (-)Foq
Ritten- (+) Fog
Ritten- (-) Fog
36
37
28
5
41
32
24
3
Torch Cutting       Ritten-(-)Fog      18        35
Operation

Recycle Plant       Ritten-(+)Fog                             9     19 to 41
Transfer Operation  Ritten-(-)Fog                            33     24 to 66
                    AV-(+)Fog                                19        *

Limestone Crusher/  Ritten-(+)Fog      12         0          16      8
Conveyor Operation  AV-(+)Fog          20        28          21     22
*Decrease in efficiency
                                      134

-------
    Another  significant  result  of the  test  program can  be  derived fton;  tht




data from the Armco tests obtained with all four fog devices operating at  the




same time.  The data indicated that very little benefit was derived  from  such




action.  Perhaps  the  increased  fan air causes  more dust reentrainment,  thus




counteracting the increased efficiency from increased water flow.  This would




not be the case with one  set of  foggers where the water flow could be doubled




without an increase in fan air.




    It should be  noted that there was considerable scatter  in the  test  data




in  several  cases, most  notably  the  Phase  II  tests.   Thus,  the efficiency




results  for   these   cases   are  more  indicative  of   trends  rather   than




statistically significant differences.   The  data scatter was primarily due  to




process variations and,  in  some  instances,  meteorological conditions.  There




was  also  the  possible  influence of  nearby  sources,   particularly at   the




recycle plant  (Test Number 6) .   The  data obtained during  the  Phase  I  test




sequence exhibit less  scatter.
                                      135

-------
                              SECTION 7

                             REFERENCES
1.  Hoenig,  S.A.   Use of  Electrostatically Charged  Fog  for  Control  of
    Fugitive  Dust  Emissions.   The  University  of  Arizona,  Tucson.    EPA
    600/7-77-131 (NTIS PB 276-645).   1977.

2.  Brookman,  E.T.   Demonstration   of   the  Use  of   Charged  Fog   in
    Controlling  Fugitive  Dust   from  Large-Scale  Industrial   Sources.
    Presented  at  the Symposium on  Iron  and  Steel  Pollution Abatement
    Technology for 1980,  Philadelphia, November  1980.

3.  Brookman, E.T.,  R.C.  McCrillis,  and D.C.  Drehmel.   Demonstration  of
    the Use  of  Charged Fog in Controlling Fugitive Dust from  Large-Scale
    Industrial Sources.   Presented at the Third Symposium on the  Transfer
    and Utilization  of Particulate  Control Technology, Orlando,  Florida,
    March 1981.

4.  Brookman,  E.T.,  K.J.  Kelley,  and R.C.  McCrillis.   Demonstration  of
    the  Use of  Charged  Fog  in Controlling  Fugitive  Dust  from  a  Coke
    Screening  Operation  at a Steel Mill.   Presented  at the Symposium on
    Iron  and  Steel  Pollution  Abatement Technology  for  1981,  Chicago,
    October 1981.

5.  KLD Associates,  Inc.   Operation and  Maintenance Manual For  Model DC-2
    Droplet Measuring Device.  Huntington Station,  New York.

6.  Mathai,  C.V.,  L.A.  Rathbun, and  D.C.  Drehmel.  An  Electrostatically
    Charged  Fog  Generator  for  the  Control  of  Inhalable   Particles.
    Presented  at  the Third Symposium on the Transfer and Utilization of
    Particulate Control Technology,  Orlando, Florida,  March 1981.

7.  Mathai,  C.V.,  L.A. Rathbun, and  D.C.  Drehmel.   Prototype Tests  of a
    Charged Water Droplet Generator for  the  Control of  Inhalable  Fugitive
    Dust.   Presented at  the 74th  Annual  Meeting  of  the Air  Pollution
    Control Association,  Philadelphia, June 1981.

8.  Environmental Protection Agency.   EPA  Quality Assurance Handbook for
    Air Pollution Measurement  Systems.   Volume II,  Ambient Air  Specific
    Methods,  May 1977,

9.  Kunkel,  W.B.   The  Static  Electrification  of  Dust   Particles  on
    Dispersion  into  a Cloud.   Journal  of  Applied  Physics.   21:820-32.
    1950.
                                 136

-------
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Demonstration of the Use of Charged Fog in Controlling
 Fugitive Dust from Large-scale Industrial Sources
                                TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                          /Please read launicnons on the reverse bejore completing}
  REPORT NO.
 EPA-600/2-83-044
                                 6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                       3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION i
                                 5 REPORT DATE
                                   June 1983
7. AUTHOR(S)
Edward T. Brookman and Kevin J. Kelley
                                                       8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
800 Connecticut Boulevard
East Hartford, Connecticut  06108
                                                       10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                  1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
                                  68-02-3115,  Task 109
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 EPA, Office of Research and Development
 Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
                                  13. TYPE OF RE PORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                  Task Final: 5/79 - 7/82
                                  14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                   EPA/600/13
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES IERL_RTp project officer is Robert C.  McCrillis, Mail Drop 63,
919/541-2733.
16. ABSTRACT
          The report gives results of a full-scale demonstration of a charged fogger
(Kitten Corporation's Fogger IV) on  several industrial fugitive emission sources.
(Although charged foggers have been widely applied to industrial sources of fugitive
dust, little data are available on fogger control effectiveness on particulate matter. )
The sources tested included a primary rock crushing operation,  a secondary rock
crushing operation,  a molten iron spout hole at a blast furnace cast house,  and a
coke screening operation. The report  also gives results of three source tests using
the same  charged foggers,  along with  a charged fogger developed by AeroVironment,
Inc. The sources for field testing both foggers were a stainless steel slab torch cut-
ting operation, a conveyor  transfer operation at a recycle (sinter) plant,  and a lime-
stone crusher/conveyor operation. In  general,  tests showed that (l) the control of
emissions by the two foggers are generally comparable, (2) fogger efficiency depends
on the positions of the foggers in relation to the source,  and (3) charging a water
spray  appears to increase its effectiveness in controlling particulate matter emis-
sions by up  to 40 percent.
17.
                             KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
                                                                      COSATl Held/Group
Pollution
Dust
Processing
Leakage
Electrostatics
Spraying
Fogging
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Charged Fog
Fugitive Dust
Particulate
Water Sprays
13B
11G
13 H
14G
20C
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
 Release to Public
                      19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report/
                      Unclassified
                                                                    21. NO. OF PAGES
                                                                        145
                      20. SECURITY CLASS {This page)
                      Unclassified
                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                   137

-------