EMB 73-PLD-l
(REPORT NUMBER)
AIR POLLUTION EMISSION TEST
AMERICAN SMELTING AND
REFINING COMPANY
(PLANT NAME;
GLOVER PLANT
P.O. BOX 7
(PLANT ADDRESS)
GLCVER, MISSOURI 63646
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Water Programs
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
-------
SOURCE SAMPLING "REPORT
EMB Project Report Number 73 PLD-1
Emissions from Lead Smelter
at
American Smelting and Refining Company
Glover, Missouri
17 July 1973 to 23 July 1973
by
E. P. Shea
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Reviewed by: John W. Snyder and Susan R. Wyatt
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228, Task No. 27
(MRI Project No. 3585-C)
-------
PREFACE
The work reported herein was conducted by Midwest Research Institute
(MRI), pursuant to a Task Order issued by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) under the terms of EPA Contract No. 68-02-0228. Mr. E. P. Shea served
as the Project Chief and directed the MRI Field Team consisting of:
Messrs. Henry Moloney, Douglas Weatherman, Harold Branine, Frank Hanis, Jeff
Sprinkle, Kevin Cline, Bill Maxwell, Bob Swartz, Bill Cunningham, Dick Cobb,
Mike Becktold, and Dave Hardin. Dr. J. Spigarelli assisted by Mrs. Carol Green
performed the pollutant analyses at the MRI laboratories. Ms. Christine
Guenther coded the data for the computer calculations. Ms. Susan Wyatt, EPA,
was the Process Engineer. Mr. E. P. Shea prepared this final report.
Approved for:
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
/^
*aul C. Constant, Jr.
Program Manager
9 August 1974
ii
-------
I. TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. Introduction 1
III. Summary and Discussion of Results 4
IV. Process Description and Operation 54
A. Process Flow 54
B. Control Systems 65
C. Sampling Conditions 68
V. Sampling and Analytical Procedures ........ 73
A. Location of Sampling Ports and Points 73
B. Sampling Procedures 76
C. Analytical Procedures 82
Appendix A - Complete Particulate Results with Example
Calculations 84
Appendix B - Complete Gaseous.Results with Example Calculations. „ 129
Appendix C - Complete Operation Results 130
Appendix D - Field Data 147
Appendix E - Operating Data Log 245
Appendix F - Sampling Procedure 267
Appendix G.- Laboratory Report, Analytical Procedures, and Sample
Handling Log. ..... 269
Appendix H - Test Log 300
Appendix I - Project Participants. . . . • 308
Appendix J - Correspondence with Source „ 311
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Figures
No. Title Page
1 Sinter Plant Sampling Points 5
2 Blast Furnace Sampling Points 6
3 Particulate Without Filter 43
4 Particulate With Filter 44
5 Lead Without Filter . . . . 45 ,
6 Lead With Filter 46
7 Glover Plant Flow Sheet 55
8 Sinter Plant. 56
9 Blast Furnace 60
10 Aerial View 64
11 Sample Ports in Sinter Plant Ducts . 74
12 Sample Ports in Blast Furnace Exhaust Duct 77
13 Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stack(s) Configuration 79
14 Sample Port-Point Configuration ; 80
C-l Instrument Chart 133
C-2 Instrument Chart 134
C-3 Instrument Chart 135
C-4 Instrument Chart 136
C-5 Instrument Chart 137
C-6 Instrument Chart. 138 •
C-7 Instrument Chart. ........ 139
C-8 Instrument Chart 140
C-9 Instrument Chart. 141 ,
C-10 Instrument Chart 144
C-ll Instrument Chart. 145 ,
C-12 Instrument Chart. * 146
List of Tables
No. Title Page
I Average Controlled and Uncontrolled Emissions from Sinter
Machine and Associated Operations ..... 7
II Pound Particulate/Ton Sinter Produced 9
III Pound Lead/Ton of Lead in the Sinter Produced (Estimated) . . 11
IV Summary of Uncontrolled Sinter Machine Emissions 13
V Summary of Uncontrolled Emissions from Sintering-Associated
Operations. 15
VI Average of Emissions from Blast Furnace and Baghouse. . . . . 19 ,
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Tables (Continued)
No. Title Page
VII Total Emissions Blast Furnace - Baghouse Per Test 21
VIII Pound Particulate/Total Tons of Feed Material into the
Blast Furnace 23
IX Pound Particulate/Total Tons of Lead Produced 25
X Pound Lead/Ton of Lead in the Sinter Feed to the Blast
Furnace (Estimated) 27
XI Pound Lead/Ton of Lead Produced. 29
XII Summary of Uncontrolled Blast Furnace Emissions 31
XIII Summary of Emissions from Blast Furnace Baghouse - E Stack . 33
XIV Summary of Emissions from Blast Furnace Baghouse - F Stack . 35
XV Summary of Emissions from Blast Furnace Baghouse - G Stack . 37
XVI Percent Lead in Particulate for Andersen Test 47
XVII Andersen Analysis Summary 48
XVIII Andersen Analysis Summary (Lead) 51
XIX Sampling Points D and C Locations Sinter Ducts 75
XX Sampling Points in Blast Furnace Duct Sampling LocationD . 78
A-I Emission Data Uncontrolled Sinter Machine. . ; 86
A-II Example Particulate Calculations for EPA 5 Train 90
A-III Calculations for Askania Sampler on Sinter Machine
Baghouse . . 96
A-IV Equations and Calculations for Askania Sample. ...... 97
.A-V . Emission Data Uncontrolled Blast Furnace . . . . 100
A-VI Particulate Data and Calculated Values 108
A-VII Data for Askania Sampler on Sinter Machine Baghouse
Outlet ....... 114
A-VIII Particulate Data and Calculated Values 117
C-I Operating Data from Sinter Plant 132
C-II Blast Furnace Results 142
C-III Lime Samples '......' 143
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
This emission test is a part of a comprehensive study to determine
a control strategy for lead emissions from stationary sources. The entire
project is referred to as the preferred standards path analysis on lead.
The purpose of this preferred standards path analysis is to recommend a
statutory and regulatory course of action for the control of stationary
sources of lead emissions. The recommendations must be based on a thorough
assessment of the pollutant effects and emissions as related to the Clean
Air Act of 1970, as amended. If it is decided that a regulatory program is
desirable, there are three available options for developing standards:
Section 109-110 - Ambient Air Quality Standards, Section 111 - New Source
Performance Standards accompanied by state standards for existing sources,
and Section 112 - Hazardous Pollutant Standards.
A well defined emission inventory, which is not at this time
available, is vital to the development of a regulatory strategy for lead. Such
an inventory will define the extent of the problem by identifying the major
lead emitters, quantifying the emissions from these sources and determining
the extent and effectiveness of presently employed general particulate
control technology for lead.
A preliminary emission inventory of lead sources was developed
through an EPA contract to determine, from the literature and plant data,
the nature, magnitude and extent of industrial lead emissions to the at-
mosphere in the United States in 1970. However, only a small amount of the
1 . • . .
-------
data was supported by emission testing. A listing of industries for emission
testing has been compiled by EPA, based on information supplied by the
emissions inventory. The emission data gathered during the testing pro-
grams will be used to determine the nature and extent of lead emissions
from stationary sources, i.e., whether a problem exists in the industry,
and if so the nature and extent of the problem. The data will also be
used to help determine the degree to which particulate standards are ef-
fective in controlling lead emissions. Finally, emission data can be used
j
in conjunction with other information on number and location of plants,
trends in lead usage, growth rates, and affected populations to determine
which industries are of highest priority for regulation.
Several lead smelters were surveyed for the purpose of conducting
emission testing. None: of the smelters were completely satisfactory for
emission testing, and at some of them, emission testing was not considered
to be economically feasible. The ASARCO Lead Smelter at Glover was con-
sidered to be the best of the lot.
This report presents the results of the emission testing and
particle sizing which was performed by Midwest Research Institute at the
American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO) sinter plant and blast
furnace in Glover, Missouri. The particulate emission tests were 2-hr
tests using the RAC* Staksampler equipment conforming with the Federal
Register, 36, No. 159, 17 August 1971. The particle size testing was con-
ducted using an Andersen eight plate impactor; the tests were conducted
* Mention of a company name does not imply endorsement by EPA.
2 . .
-------
for 1 hr, 2 hr and 1-1/2 hr. The sinter baghouse was not tested using the
EPA method 5 train, because there were no ports in the stack and not enough
room in the breeching to conduct isokinetic testing. For convenience and
in order to have some emission data from this plant, we utilized the
"Askania" sampler which was installed by ASARCO in the breeching between
the baghouse and the stack.
At the ASARCO smelter domestic ore containing about 707» lead is ;
sintered to prepare a concentrate for blast furnace feed. The ore is mixed
with coke, recycled clay, and baghouse dust, ignited and the sulfur burned
off. The sinter cake is disintegrated, mixed with coke, baghouse dust, scrap
iron, and dross, and fed to the blast furnace. The lead bullion from the
blast furnace goes to the refinery on site for production of refined lead.
The control system for the sinter plant consists of a humidifying.chamber,
fresh air intake, fan and baghouse. The blast furnace control system has
a humidifying chamber, fresh air inlet, lime addition and baghouse. Mea-
sured emissions from the sinter plant and blast furnace operation consisted
of particulates. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and oxygen were measured
by Orsat Analysis. Another emission, sulfur dioxide, was estimated by
Drager tube readings only for the purpose of calculating carrier gas molecular
weight. All particulate samples collected in this test prpgram were ana-
lyzed for lead content.
-------
The two inlet ducts and the baghouse outlet sampling point for
the sinter plant are shown in Figure 1. The sampling points for the blast
furnace are shown in Figure 2.
The following sections of the report treat (1) the summary and
discussion of results, (2) the description and operation of the process,
and (3) sampling and analytical procedures.
III. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Tables I, IA, II, IIA, III, IIIA, IV, IVA, V and VA present a
summary of particulate and lead results from the emission testing oh the
sinter plant. Total particulate emissions were sampled and all samples
analyzed for lead content. Table I contains an average of the controlled
and uncontrolled emissions from the sinter plant (see Figure 1); Table IA
presents the calculated data in metric units* The operation of the sinter
plant, during the test period, was not constant and in the opinion of the
writer was atypical. The baghouse particulate emission rate was 4.94 Ib/hr,
arid the lead emission rate, 0.624 Ib/hr; the calculated feed rate for the
sinter machine during the "Askania" baghouse sampling period was 52.2 tons/hr.
The baghouse emission rate based on this feed rate was: particulate - 0.0946
Ib/tori; lead - 0.0119 Ib/ton. The average feed rate for the sinter machine
during particulate testing was 55.1 tons/hr. The average sinter plant
uncontrolled emissions based on the above feed rate were: particulate front
half catch (probe tip, probe, cyclone and filter) - 55.0 Ib/toh; particulate
total catch - 58.2 Ib/ton; lead front half and total catch 5.95 Ib/ton.
-------
Sinter
Machine
Effluent
Gases
Auxiliary
Operations
Ventilation
Gases
7" Circular Duct
1 Port(B)0 Test Points <
3" Circular Duct
[CJ2 Ports
Water Spray Chamber
^Excess Air
Fan
Askania
Sampler
Nine-Compartment
Baghouse
Breeching
Figure 1 - Sinter Plant Sampling Points
-------
Blast Furnace Effluent
Gases and Auxiliary
Operations Ventilation
Gases
7' Circular Duct
6 Test Point 2 Ports
Water Spray Chamber
•Excess Air
"Lime
Six-Compartment
Baghouse
Test Points
Particle Sizing
F) (G)
3 Square Exhaust Stacks
4 Ports Per Stack
Figure 2 - Blast Furnace Sampling Points
-------
TABLE I
AVERAGE CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM
SINTER MACHINE AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS
Sampling Point
Description Units
Particulate Emissions Ib/hr
- Partial (Probe Tip, gr/DSCF
Probe, Cyclone Filter)
Particulate Emissions Ib/hr
- Total (Probe, Tip gr/DSCF
Probe, Cyclone, Filter
and Impingers)
Lead Emissions Ib/hr
- Partial gr/DSCF
Lead Emissions Ib/hr
- Total gr/DSCF
Feed Rate tons/hr
Particulate Emissions Ib/ton
- Partial
Particulate Emissions Ib/ton
- Total
Lead Emissions Ib/ton
- Partial
Sinter Machine and Associated
Operations (uncontrolled)
3,031
Baghouse
(controlled)gL/
3,207.
3.47k/
328
0.352b-/
328
0.352k/
55.1
55.0
58.2
5.95
4.94
0.00271
0.624
0.000341
52.2
0.0946
Lead Emissions
- Total
Ib/ton
5.95
0.0119
7o Lead - Partial
% Lead - Total
10.8
10.2
12.6
a/ This sample was not taken with the EPA Method 5 sampling train. It was
taken with an "Askania" sampler installed by ASARCO. It is not equiva-
lent to EPA Method 5, but. was used as it was the only method available
for sampling at this location.
b_/ Since this baghouse has two inlet ducts, the average concentrations are
calculated from weighted averages based on duct flowrate for each run
pair. Runs B-6 and C-l, although not simultaneous, were used as a run
pair because the process feed rates differed by only 27».
7
-------
TABLE IA
AVERAGE CONTROLLED AND UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM
SINTER MACHINE AND ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS
Sampling Point
Description Units
Particulate Emissions Kg/hr
-Partial (Probe Tip, Mg/NM3
Probe, Cyclone and
Filter)
Particulate Emissions Kg/hr
- Total (Probe Tip, Mg/NM3
Probe, Cyclone, Filter
and Impingers)
Lead Emissions Kg/hr
- Partial Mg/NM3
Lead Emissions Kg/hr
- Total Mg/NM3
Feed Rate MT/hr
Particulate Emissions Kg/Ml
- Partial
Particulate Emissions Kg/MT
- Total
Lead Emissions Kg/MT
- Partial
Lead Emissions Kg/MT
- Total
Sinter Machine and Associated
Operations (uncontrolled)
1,376
6,732^
1,456
7,945^
149
Baghouse
(controlled)g./
149
806^
50.0
27.6
29.2
2.98
2.98
2.24
6.205
0.283
0.781
47.3
0.0473
0.00596
% Lead - Partial
% Lead - Total
10.8
10,2
12.6
aj This sample was not taken with the EPA Method 5 sampling train. It was
taken with an "Askania" sampler installed by ASARCO. It is not equiva-
lent to EPA Method 5, but was used as it was the only method available
for sampling at this location.
b_/ Since this baghouse has two inlet ducts, the average concentrations are
calculated from weighted averages based on duct flowrate for each run
pair. Runs B-6 and C-l, although not simultaneous, were used as a run
pair because the process feed rates differed by only 2%.
-------
TABLE II
POUND PARTICULATE/TON SINTER PRODUCED
Total Particulate
Emission Rate
Rate of Sinter
Produced!/
Run No.
Controlled
A
Uncontrolled
B-2
B-5
B-6
Average
Uncontrolled
C-l
C-2
C-5
Average
db/hr)
4.94
- Sinter Machine
2,060
1,810
2,450
2,107
- Sinter - Associated
1,360
1,090
852
1,101
(tons/hr)
48.5
44.3
53.5
56.5
51.4
Operations
55.4
44.3
53.5
51.1
a/ Estimated from:
Rate of sinter produced
(tons/hr)
Rate of sintering
feed material
(tons/hr)
Lb/Hr -f Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
0.102
46.5
33.8
43.4
41.2
24.5
24.6
15.9
21.7
0.93
-------
TABLE IIA
Kg PARTICULATE/MTON. SINTER PRODUCED
Total Particulate
Emission Rate
Rate of Sinter
Produced^./
a/ Estimated from:
Rate of sinter produced
(Mton/hr)
Rate of sintering
feed material
(Mton/hr)
Kg/Hr T MTon/Hr
Run No.
Controlled
A
Uncontrolled
B-.2
B-5
B-6
Average
Uncontrolled
C-l
C-2
C-5
Average
(kg/hr)
2.24
- Sinter Machine
935
822
1,110
956
- Sinter - Associated
617
495
387
500
(Mton/hr)
44.0
40.2
48,5
51.2
46.6
Operations
50.2
40.2
48.5
46.3
= Kg/MTon
0.0509
23.3
16.9
:. 21.7
20.6
12.3
12.3
7.98
10.9
0.93
10
-------
TABLE III
POUND LEAD/TON OF LEAD IN THE SINTER PRODUCED (ESTIMATED)
Run No.
Controlled
Total Lead
Emission Rate
(Ib/hr)
0.624
Percent Rate of Lead
Lead in in Sinter
Sinter (tons/hr).g/
Uncontrolled - Sinter Machine
B-2
B-5
B-6
368
113
175
45.4
47.6
47.1
47.1
22.5
21.1
25.2
26.7
Average 219 47.3 24.3
Uncontrolled - Sinter-Associated Operations
C-l
C-2
C-5
178
73.6
76.9
Average 110
46.6
47.6
47.1
47.1
25.8
21.1
25.2
24.0
Lb/Hr ^- Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
0.0277
17.4
4.48
6.55
9.48
6.90
3.49
3.05
4.48
a/ Estimated from:
Rate of lead in
sinter produced
(tons/hr)
Rate of sintering
feed material
(tons/hr)
Percent Lead in
x feed to sinter x 0.93
machine
11
-------
TABLE tilA
KILOGRAM LEAD/MTON OF LEAD IN SINTER PRODUCED (ESTIMATED)
Run No.
Controlled
total Lead
Emission Rate
(kg/hr)
Percent
Lead in
Sinter
Rate of Lead
in Sinter
(Mton/hr) 2/
Kg/Hr .f MTon/Hr
= Kg/Mton
0.283
45.4
Uncontrolled - Sinter Machine
B-6
79.4
47.1
C-l
C-2
C-5
Average
80.8
33.4
34.9
49.7
46.6
47.6
47.1
47.1
a/ Estimated from:
Rate of lead in
sinter produced
(Mton/hr)
20.4
B-2
B-5
167
51.3
47.6
47.1
19.1
22.9
24.2
Average 99.2 47.3 22.1
Uncontrolled - Sinter-Associated Operations
23.4
19.1
22.9
21.8
0.0139
8.74
2.24
3.28
4.75
3.45
1.75
1.52
2.24
Rate of sintering Percent Lead in
feed material x feed to sinter x 0.93
(Mton/hr) machine
12
-------
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED SINTER MACHINE EMISSIONS
Name
VMSTD
PMOS-
TS
QS
CJA
PERI
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
•1C.
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C.
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
PARTICULATES
Particulate Wt-Partial— /
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
Units
DSCF
DEC . F .
DSCFM
ACFM
B-2
07-18-73
25.98
2 .2
492.7
92394
173882
116.0^
B-5
07-21-73
22.50
7.8
427.8
83958
157652
107.2
B-6
07-21-73
23.1.5
10.2
484.5
85046
174612
108.9
-- PARTIAL CATCH^./
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
3766.90
2.23
1.19
1770
3402.40
2.33
1.24
1680
4818.60
3.20
1.56
2340
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL CATCH-/
Particulate Wt-TotaJi/
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total
Perc Irapinger Catch
LEAD --
Wt-Partial-/
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
LEAD --
Wt-Total-/
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Feedrate
Part Emission Total
Lead Emissions Total
Perc Lead Ptl
Perc Lead Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Ttl
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
PARTIAL CATCH-/
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
TOTAL CATCH-
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
T/HR
LB/T
LB'/T
%
%
%
7o '
4391.00
2.60
1.38
2060
14.20
784.06
0.465
0.247
368
784.16
0.465
0.247
368
0.01
47.6
43.3
7.73
20.8
17.9
3685.30
2.52
1.34
1810
7.68
229.64
0.157
0.0837
113
•
229.75
0.157
0.0838
113
0.05
57.5
31.5
1.97
6.73
6.24
11.7
10.4
5048.00
3.36
1.64
2450
4.54
360.12
0.240
0.117
175
360.30
0.240
0.117
175
0.05
60.8
40.3
2.88
7.48
7.15
a/ This value is six over the upper limit of the acceptable isokinetic range
of 90-110%. This difference has no significant effect on other results.
The high value is unexplainable. A portion of the value may be due to
an error in stack temperature readings. The thermocouple was replaced
after the run.
b/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip,
probe, cyclone and filter.
£/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial
catch plus the impingers.
13
-------
TABLE IVA
SUMMARY OK UNCONTROLLED SINTER MACHINE EMISSIONS
Nil mi-
VMSTM
PMOS
TSN
ySH
QAM
PERI
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
(Metric Units)
Description
Date of Kun
VoL Dry Cas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowratc, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Ftowrate
Percent Isokinetic
PARTICULATES
Particulate Wt-Partial2/
Part Load-PtL, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial—
Units
NCM
DEC . C
NM3/MIN
M3/MIN
B-2
07-18-73
0.735
2.2
255.9
2616.3
4923.8
116.0-/
B-5
07-21-73
0.637
7.8
219.9
2377.4
4464.2
107.2
li-6
07-21-73
0.655
10.2
251.3
2408.3
4944.5
108.9
-- PARTIAL CATCH-/
MC
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
3766.90
5109.98
2715.26
802.03
3402.40
5329.00
2837.99
760.03
4818.60
7334.09
3572 . 15
1059.56
PARTICIPATES ~ TOTAL CATCH-'
Particulate Wt-Total-/
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part LoadrTti, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Totalk/
Perc Impinger Catch
LEAD --
Wt-Partial-/
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial-/
LEAD --
Wt-Total-/
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Erais-Total-
Perc Impinger Catch
Feedrate
Part Emission Total
Lead Emission Total
Perc Lead Ptl
Perc Lead Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Ttl
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTIAL CATCH-/
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
TOTAL CATCH^-/
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MTON/HR
KG/MTON
KG/MTON
7.
%
"/.
°l-
4391.00
5956.60
3165.12
934.91
14.21
784.06
1063.62
565.17
166.937
784.16
1063.75
565.24
166.959
0.01
43.2
21.6
3.87
20.8
17.9
11.7
10.4
3685.30
5772.09
3073.96
823.23
7.68
229.64
359.67
191.55
51.297
229.75
359.85
191.64
51.322
0.05
52.2
15.8 .
0.983
6.73
6.24
5048.00
7683.24
3742.20
1110.00
4.54
360.12
548 . 12
266.97
79.187
360.30
548.39
267.10
79.226
0.05
55.1
20.1
1.44
7.48
7.15
a/ This value is six over the upper limit of the acceptable isokinetic range
of 90-110%. This difference has no significant effect on other results.
The high value is unexplainable. A portion of the value may be due to
an error in stack temperature readings. The thermocouple was replaced
after the run.
b/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip,
probe, cyclone and filter.
£/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial
catch plus the impingers.
14
-------
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM SINTERING-ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS
C-2 C-5
07-18-73 07-21-73
93.29 87.25
0.9 2.6
102.5 112.6
21055 19017
23156 21901
92.5 95.8
36533.30 29616.30
6.03 5.23
5.48 4.54
1090 852
36549.50 29646.30
6.03 5.23
5.49 4.54
1090 852
0.04 0.10
2469.70 2672.50
0.408 0.472
0.371 0.410
73.6 76.9
2469.84 2672.63
0.408 0.472
0.371 0.410
73.6 76.9
47.6 57.5
22.9 14.8
1.55 1.34
6.77 9.02
6.77 9.02
9.63
9.63
a/ Partial catch refers to the participate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b_/ Total catch refers to all the participate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers. ,
Name
VMSTD
PMOS
TS
QS
QA
PERI
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
DSCF
DEG.F
DSCFM
ACFM
C-l
07-17-73
103.30
1.4
98.0
21732
23900
91.6
PARTICULARS -- PARTIAL CATCH-/
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
„/
Partlculate Wt-Partial-
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial3-/
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
48843.80
7.28
6.62
1360
PARTICULATES — TOTAL CATCH^/
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
Particulate Wt-Total-
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total-
Perc Impinger Catch
LEAD
Wt-Partial-/
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial-
LEAD
Wt-Total-
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total-
Feedrate
Part Emis-Ttl
Lead Emis-Ttl
Perc Lead Ptl
Perc Lead Ttl
Ave Perc Lead Ptl
Ave Perc Lead Ttl
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
-- PARTIAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
-- TOTAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
TON/HR
LB/TON
LB/TON
%
%
%
%
48863.10
7.28
6.62
1360
0.04
CATCH5-/
6399.85
0.954
0.868
178
CATCH^/
6399.94
0.954
0.868
178
59.6
22.8
2.99
13.1
13.1
15
-------
TABLE VA
SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSIONS FROM SINTERING-ASSOCIATED OPERATIONS
(Metric Units)
Name
VMSTM
PMOS
TSM
QSM
QAM
PERI
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
MT
CAOM
GAUM
CAXM
1C .
Description Units
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond NCM
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature DEG.C
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn NM3/MIN
Actual Stack Flowrate N3/MIN
Percent Isokinetic
PARTICULATES -
Particulate Wt-Partial-/ MG
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn MG/NM3
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn MG/M3
Partic Emis-Partial-/ KG/HR
PARTICULATES
Particulate Wt-Total- MG
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn MG/NM3
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn MG/M3
Partic Erais-Total- KG/HR
Perc Impinger Catch
C-l
07-17-73
2.92
1.4
36.7
615.4
676.8
91.6
- PARTIAL CATCH3/
48843.80
16662.42
15151.44
615.13
-- TOTAL CATCKk/
48863.10
16669.01
15157.43
615.38
0.04
LEAD -- PARTIAL CATCH-'
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
Wt-Partial-/ MG
Load-Ptl, Std Cn MG/NM3
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn MG/M3
Emis-Partial-' KG/HR
6399.85
2183.22
1985.25
80.599
LEAD — TOTAL CATCH^/
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
.
Wt-Total MG
Load-Ttl, Std Cn MG/NM3
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn MG/M3
Emis-Total KG/HR
Perc Impinger Catch
Feedrate MTON/HR
Part Eiriis Tt-.l KG/MTON
Lead Emis Ttl KG/MTON
Perc Lead Ptl %
Perc Lead Ttl 70
Ave Perc Lead Ptl 7,
Ave Perc Lead Ttl %
6399.94
2183.26
1985.27
80.60
0.00
54.1
11.4
1.49
13.1
13.1
C-2
07-18-73
2.64
0.9
39.2
596.2
655.7
92.5
36533.30
13800.73
12548.18
493.60
36549.50
13806.85
12553.75
493.82
0.04
2469.70
932.95
848.27
33.368
2469.84
933.00
848.32
33.37
.0.01
43.2
11.4
.773
6.77
6.77
9.63
9.63
C-5
07-21-73
2.47
2.6
44.8
538.5
620.2
95.8
29616.30
11961.88
10387.02
386.43
29646.30
11974.00
10397.54
386.82
0.10
2672150
1079.41
937.30
34.87
2672.63
1079.46
937.34
34.872
0.00'
52.2
7.41
.668
9.02
9.02
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
16
-------
Table II contains the average of the controlled and uncontrolled
particulate data from the emission tests, in pounds of particulate per ton
of sinter produced. Table IIA contains the same data reported in metric units.
The controlled particulate emission rate is 0.102 Ib particulate/ton sinter
produced. The uncontrolled emission rate averaged 41.2 and 21.7 Ib
particulate/ton sinter produced for the sinter machine and sinter-associated
operations, respectively.
Table III presents the emission rates for lead per ton of lead
in the sinter produced for both the controlled and uncontrolled emissions;
Table IIIA shows the data in metric units, the controlled lead emission
rate is 0.0277 Ib Pb/ton. The average uncontrolled lead emission rate is
9.48 and 4.48 Ib Pb/ton for the sinter machine and sinter-associated opera-
tions, respectively.
Table IV contains the summary of the particulate and lead data
from the emission tests at Point "B," the 7-ft diameter main exhaust duct
from the sinter furnace to the inlet of the control system. Table IVA con-
tains the same data reported in metric units. In figuring the gas molecular
weight the percent S02 estimated from Drager tube readings was subtracted
from the C02 value found in the Orsat analysis, and the S02 value was then
used in the molecular weight calculation. The average values for particu-
late and lead are: particulate in the front half catch - 1,930 Ib/hr;
particulate in the total catch - 2,110 Ib/hr; front half catch and total
17
-------
catch lead - 219 Ib/hr. The wide variation in loading from B stack can be
attributed to the variance in the continuity of operation of the sinter
plant. Run No. 2 shows the highest lead emission values and the plant was
shut down more times during this run than in any other run.
Table V presents the particulate and lead data from the "C" duct,
the 3-ft diameter hygienic duct (collection duct for sintering-associated
operations), which also is a feed duct for the pollution control system.
Table VA contains the metric conversion for Table V. There was less than
• •
200 ppm SC>2 in the duct as shown in Drager tube analysis, and therefore
the S0>2 was not used in calculating carrier gas molecular weight for the
hygienic duct.
The average values for particulate emissions and lead analytical
values for all three runs are: partieulate front half catch and particu-
late total catch - 1,100 Ib/hr; and lead front half and total catch - 110
Ib/hr. The wide variations in loading on "C" duct can also be attributed
to the manner of operation of the sinter plant.
Tables VI, VIA, VII, VIIA, VIII, VIIIA, IX, IXA, X, XA, XI, XIA,
XII, XIIA, XIII, XIIIA, XIV, XIVAj XV and XVA contain the results of the
emission testing on the uncontrolled and controlled emissions from the
blast furnace and associated operations. Table VI is a summary table that
shows the average uncontrolled and controlled emissions from the blast
furnace operation for all three tests combined.
18
-------
TABLE VI
AVERAGE OF EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE AND BAGHOUSE '
Description
Particulate Emissions
- Partial (Probe Tip,
Probe, Cyclone and
Filter)
Particulate Emissions
- Total (Probe Tip,
Probe, Cyclone, Fil-
ter and Impingers)
Lead Emissions
- Partial
Lead Emissions
- Total
Production Rate
Particulate Emissions
Units
Ib/hr
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
gr/DSCF
Ib/hr
gr/DSCF
tons/hr
Ib/ton
Sampling
Inlet to
Control System
2370
3.11
2400
3.16
307
0.403
307
0.403
. 13.8
172
Point
Total Baghouse
Emissions
17.7
0.0142-
34.2
0,0275-'
5.97
0.00482-'
• 6.01
0.00485-
13.8
1.28
- Partial
Particulate Emissions
- Total
Lead Emissions
- Partial
Lead Emissions
- Total
% Lead - Partial
% Lead - Total
Collection Efficiency
Particulate - Partial
Particulate - Total
Lead - Partial
Lead - Total
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
174
22.2
22.2
12.9
12.8
99.25%
98.57%
98.05%
98.04%
2.47
0.433
0.450
33.7
17.6
a/ Since this baghouse has three stacks, the average concentration was calcu-
lated from the weighted averages, based on the flowrate, of the individual
simultaneous sets of runs. •
19
-------
TABLE VIA
AVERAGE OF EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE AND BAGHOUSE
(Metr-ic
Units)
• •
Sampling Point
Description
Particulate Emissions
- Partial (Probe Tip,
Cyclone and Filter)
Particulate Emissions
- Total (Probe Tip,
Probe, Cyclone, Fil-
ter and Impingers)
Lead Emissions
- Partial
Lead Emissions
- Total
Production Rate
Particulate Emissions
- Partial
Particulate Emissions
- Total
Lead Emissions
- Partial
Lead Emissions
- Total
7, Lead - Partial
% Lead - Total
Collection Efficiency
Particulate - Partial
Particulate - Total
Lead - Partial
Lead - Total
Units .-
Kg/hr
Mg/NM3
Kg/hr
Mg/NM3
Kg/hr
Mg/NM3
Kg/hr
Mg/NM3-
MT/hr
Kg/MT .
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
•
Inlet to
' Control System
1070
7110
1090
7220
139
922
139
922
12.5
86.2
87.2
11.1
11.1
12.9
12.8
99.25%
98.57%
98.05%
98.04%
Total Baghouse
Emissions
8.01
32. 52/
15.5 .
63.0*'
2.71
11. 03-7
2.73
12.5
0.641
'. 1.23
0.217
0.224
33.7
17.6
_a/ Since the baghouse has three stacks, the average concentration was cal- .
culated from the weighted averages, based on flowrate, of the individual
simultaneous sets of runs.
20
-------
TABLE VII
Description
Participate Emission
Blast - Partial-/
Participate Emission
Blast - Totalk/
Lead Emission
Blast - Partial^/
Lead Emission
Blast - TotalW
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Total
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Total
Particulate Efficiency
- Partial
Particulate Efficiency
- Total
Lead Efficiency
- Partial
Lead Efficiency
- Total
Production Rate
Particulate Emission
Blast - Partial
Particulate Emission
Blast - Total
Lead Emission
Blast - Partial
Lead Emission
Blast - Total
'Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Total
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Total
TOTAL EMISSIONS BLAST
Units
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
:y
%
;y
%
7.
%
ton/hr
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
Ib/ton
FURNACE - BAGHOUSE
Test 3
2,650
2,690
424
424
20.2
36.8
6.43
6.47
99.2
98.6
98.5
98.5
13.9
191
194
30.5
30.5
1.45
2.65
0.463
0.465
PER TEST
Test 4
2,500
2,530
303
303
10.7
24.2
2.59
2.64
99.6
99.0
99.1
99.1
13 . 8
181
183
22.0
22.0
0.775
1.75
0.188
0.191
Test 7
1,950 •
1,990
193
193
22.2
41.7
8.89
8.93
98.9
97.9
95.4
95.4
13.8 '
141
144
14.0
14.0
1.61
3.02
0.644
0.647
a/ Partial refers to the material caught in the probe tip, probe, cyclone and filter.
b_/ Total refers to the partial plus the material caught in the impingers.
21
-------
TABLE VIIA
TOTAL EMISSIONS BLAST FURNACE - BAGHOUSE PER TEST
Description
Particulate Emission
Blast - Partial-/
Particulate Emission
Blast - Totalk/
Lead Emission
Blast - "Partial
Lead Emission
Blast - Total
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Total
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Total
Production Rate
Particulate Emission
Blast - Partial
Particulate Emission
Blast - Total
Lead Emission
Blast - Partial
Lead Emission
Blast - Total
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Particulate Emission
Baghouse - Total
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Partial
Lead Emission
Baghouse - Total
(Metric
Units
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
Kg/hr
MT/hr
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Kg/MT
Units)
Test 3
1,200
1,220
192
192
9.17
16.7
2.92
2.93
12.6
95.2
96 . 8
15.2
15.2
0.728
1.33
0.232
0.233
Test 4
1,140
1,150
137
137
4.86
11.0
1.18
1.20
12.5
91.2
92.0
11.0
11.0
0.389
0.880
0.0944
0.0960
Test 7
883
903
87.7
87.7
.10.1
18.9
4.03
4.05
12.5
70.6
72.2
7.02
7.02
0.808
1.51
0.322
0.324
a/ Partial refers to the material caught in the probe tip, probe, cyclone
and filter.
b/ Total refers to the partial plus the material caught in the impingers.
22
-------
ro
TABLE VIII
POUND PARTICULATE/TOTAL TONS OF FEED MATERIAL" INTO THE BLAST FURNACE
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7
Average
Controlled
Run 3 (E, F, and 6)
Run 4 (E, F, and G)
Run 7 (E, F, and G)
Total Particulate
Emission Rate
(Ib/hr)
2,690
2,530
1,990
2,403
36.83
24.22
41.65
Rate of Feed Material-'
(tons/hr)
\
35.9
34.2
, . 36.1
35.4
35.9
34.2
36.1
Lb/Hr f Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
74.9
74.0
55.1
68.0 -
1.02
0.708 .
1.15
Average
34.23
35.4
0.959
a/ From Table C-II, Page 142.
Rate of feed material
into blast furnace =
(tons/hr)
Sinter smelted (tons/day)+
Coke smelted (tons/day)+
Scrap iron smelted (tons/day)+
Caustic skims smelted (tons/day)/
(24 hr/day)
-------
ro
TABLE VIIIA
KILOGRAM PARTICULATE/MTONS OF FEED MATERIAL INTO BLAST FURNACE
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7
Average
Controlled
Total Particulate ,
Emission Rate Rate of Feed Material-'
(kg/hr) (Mtcn/hr)
1,220
1,150
903
1,091
Run 3 (E, F, and G) 16.72
Run 4 (E, F,
ind G) 11. CO
Run 7 (E, F, and G) 18. SI
Average
15.54
•)
32.6
31.0
32.7
32.1
32.6
31.0
32.7
32.1
a/ From Table C-II, Page 142.
Rate of feed material .
into blast furnace =
; (Mton/hr)
Sinter smelted (Mton/day) +
Coke smelted (Mton/day) +
Scrap iron smelted (Mton/day) +
Caustic skims smelted (Mton/day)
(24 hr/day)
Kg/Hr v MTon/Hr
= Kg/MTon
37.5
37.1
27.6 .
. 34.1 .
0.513
0.355
0.578
. 0.482
-------
TABLE IX
POUND PARTICULATE/TOTAL TONS OF LEAD PRODUCED
f\5
cn
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7
Average
Controlled
Run 3 (E,
Run 4 (E,
Run 7 (E,
Average
a/ From Tabl
Total Parti cul ate
Emission Rate
(Ib/hr)
2,6:^0 •
j
2,530
1,9'X)
2,4')3
F, and G) 36.83
F, and G) 24.22
t
F, and G) 41.65
34.23
e C-II, Page 142.
Lead Produced
(tons/hr)
;\
I
Lead Produced-'
(tons/hr)
13.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
13.9
13.8
13.8
13.8
Bullion Produced (tons/day)
(24 hr/day)
Lb/hr v Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
194
183
144
174
2.65 .
1.75
3.02
2.47
-------
TABLE IXA
KILOGRAM PARTICULATE/TOTAL MTONS OF LEAD PRODUCED
ro
Run No.
Total Participate
Emission Rate
(kg/hr)
a/ From Table C-II, Page 142.
Lead Produced
(Mton/hr)
Lead Produced-
(Mton/hr)
Bullion Produced (Mton/day)
(24 hr/day)
Kg/Hr * MTon/Hr
= Kq/MTon
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7 '
Average
Controlled
Run 3 (E, F, and 6)
Run 4 (E, F, and G)
Run 7 (E, F, and G)
Average
1,220
1,150
903
1,091
16.72
11.00 ,
18.91
15.54
12.6
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.6
12.5
12.5
12.5
96.8
92.0
72.2
87.0
1.32 .
.88
1.51
1.23
-------
TABLE X
POUND LEAD/TON OF LEAD IN THE SINTER FEED
ro
Run No. •
Uncontrolled
D-3 !
D-4 :
D-7 I
I
Average j
I
Controlled \
. i
Run 3 (E, F,i
i
Run 4 (E,. FJ
Run 7 (E, F,'
Average
TO
Total Lead
Emission Rate
Ob/hr)
424
V
303 ;'
'1
193 I
307
G) 6.47
G) 2.6';-
i
G) 8.93
6.01 j
Table C-II, Page
te of lead in
n + f*v* -f tiaA ma •f*ov»T a
THE BLAST FURNACE
Percent Lead
in
Feed Material
47.0
45.9
45.4
46.1
47.0
45.9
45.4
46.1
142.
, Sinter
(ESTIMATED)
Rate of Lead in Sinter Feed .
Material to Blast Furnace -
(tons/hr)
15.1
14.2
14.8
14.7
15.1
14.2
14.8 •
14.7
Smelted * loaH intn
Lb/Hr v Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
28.1
21.3
13.0
20.8
0.428
'0.186
0.603
0.405
to blast furnace
(tons/hr)
24
(tons/hr)
blast furnace
-------
TABLE XA
KG LEAD/MTON OF LEAD IN SINTER FEED TO THE BLAST FURNACE (ESTIMATED)
r\j
Co
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7
Average !
Controlled I
Run 3 (E, F, and
Run 4 (E, F, and
Run 7 (E, F, and
Average
a/ Estimated from
(metric units)
Total Lead Percent Lead
Emission Rate in
(Kq/hr) Feed Material
192 ;! 47.0
138 . 45.9
87.6 '' 45.4
139
G) 2.93
G) 1.20
G) 3.85
2.66
Table C-II,
Rate of lead in
sinter feed material
to blast furnace
(Mton/hr)
46.1
47.0
45.9
45.4
46.1
Page 142.
Sinter smelted
24
(Mton/hr)
jj
if
i
Rate of Lead in Sinter Feed
Material to Blast Furnace-
(Mton/hr)
13.7
12.9
13.4
13.3
13.7
12.9
13.4
13.3 •
% Lead into ;
blast furnace
Kg/Hr * MTon/hr
= Kg/MTon .
14.0
10.7
6.54
10.4
.214
.093
.'287
.198
-------
TABLE XI
POUND LEAD/TON OF LEAD PRODUCED
no
10
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4 , i
D-7
Average
Controlled j
!
Run 3 (E, F, and 6)
Run 4 (E, F, and G)
Run 7 (E, F, arid G)
|
Average I
Total Lead
Emission Rate
(Ib/hr)
424
303
193
307
(5.47
:?.64
a. 93
(5.01
age 142.1
i
Bullion produced (tons/day)
Rate of Lead Produced
by Blast Furnace-'
(tons/hr)
13.4
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.4
13.3
13.3
13.3
v r*av»r»on+> r\f 1 oar!
Lb/Hr ^ Tons/Hr
= Lb/Ton
31.6
22.8
14.5
23.0
.482
.198
.671
.450
24 hr/day
in bullion
-------
TABLE XIA
KILOGRAM LEAD/MTON OF LEAD PRODUCED
co
o
Run No.
Uncontrolled
D-3
D-4
D-7
Average
Controlled
Run 3 (E, F, a
Run 4 (E, F, a
Total Lead
Emission Rate
(kq/hr)
192
;138
87.6'
i,
ii39 ;
id G) 2.93
id G) 1.20
Run 7 (E, F, and G) '4.05
Average
2.72
Rate of Lead Produced-
(Mton/hr)
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
.2
,1
.1
.1
.2
.1
.1
.1
a/ From Table C-II, Page 142.
Rate =
Bullion produced (Mton/day)
Y now
ont- nf loaH in
Kg/Hr * MTon/Hr
= Kg/MTon
15.7
11.4
7.24
11.4
.240
.099
.334
.224
24 hr/day
-------
TABLE XII
SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED BLAST FURNACE EMISSIONS
Name
VMSTD
PMOS
TS
QS
QA
PERI
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
DSCF
DEG.F
DSCFM
ACFM
D-3
07-19-73
26.03
3.1
258.0
87582
125923
110.8
D-4
07-20-73
26,72
2.0
253.0
90137
127423
110.6
PARTICULATES -- PARTIAL CATCH^/
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partlc Emis-Partial-
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
5978.00
3.54
2.46
2650
5626.70
3.24
2.29
2500
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL CATCH^/
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
MF •
CAN
CAT
CAW
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
Particulate Wt-Total-
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis -Total-/
Perc Impinger Catch
LEAD
Wt-Partial-/
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial-
LEAD
Wt-Total-/
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis -Total-'
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl
Perc Lead Ptl
Perc Lead Ttl
Ave Perc Lead Ptl
Ave Perc Lead Ttl
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
-- PARTIAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
•— TOTAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
TON/HR
LB/TON
LB/TON
%
7o
%
%
6065.10
3.59
2.50
2690
1.44
CATCH^/
954.57
0.565
0.393
424
CATCH^/
955.12
0.565
0.393
424
0.06
13.9
194
30.5
16.0
15.8
5675.40
3.27
2.31
2530
0.86
680.71
0.392
0.277
303
680.81
0.392
0.277
303
0.01
13.8
183
22.0
12.1
12.0
12.7
12.5
D-7
07-23-73
25.85
4.1
206.8
89140
120025
108.2
4278.60
2.55
1.89
1950
4376.30
2;61
1.94
1990
2.23
424.83
0.253
0..188
193
424.99
0.253
0.188
193
0.04
13.8
144
14.0
9.90
9.70
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
31
-------
TABLE XIIA
SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED BLAST FURNACE EMISSIONS
(Metric Units)
Name
VMSTM
PMOS
TSM
QSM
QAM
PERI
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
NCM
DEG.C
NM3/MIN
N3/MIN
D-3
07-19-73
0.737
3.1
125.5
2480.1
3565.8
110.8
D-4
07-20-73
0.756
2.0
122.8
2552.4
3608.2
110.6
PARTICULATES -- PARTIAL CAT OH3-/
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
Particulate Wt-Total
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
LEAD
Wt-Partial
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
LEAD
Wt-Total
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl
Perc Lead Ptl
Perc Lead Ttl
Ave Perc Lead Ptl
Ave Perc Lead Ttl
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
5978.00
8093.77
5629.37
1204.17
b/
CATCH-
6065.10
8211.69
5711.39
1221.72
1.44
5626.70
7418.02
5247.41
1135.84
5675.40
7482.23
5292.82
1145.67
0.86
-- PARTIAL CATCH2-
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
-- TOTAL CAT(
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MTON/HR
KG/MTON
KG/MTON
%
7o -
7.
7.
954.57
1292.42
898.90
192.283
^rr~
955.12
1293.16
899.42
192.394
0.06
12.6
96.9
15.2
16.0
15.8
680.71
897.42
634.82
137.412
680.81
897.55
634.92
137.432
0.01
12.5
91.6
11.0
12.1
12.0
12.7
12.5
4278.60
5831.83
4331.17
883:09
4376.30
5965.00
4430.07
903.25
2.23
424.83
579.05
430.05
87.683
424.99
579.27
430.21
87.716
0.04
12.5
72.2
7.02
9.90
9.70
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
.cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
32
-------
TABLE XIII
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE BAG110USE - E STACK
E-4
Namr
VMSTD
PMOS
TS
QS
QA
PERI
Description
Date of. Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std
Actual. Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
DSCF
DEG.F .
Cn DSCFM
ACFM
PAKTICULATES -- PARTIAL
MF
CAN
.CAT
CAW
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
PARTI CULATES -- TOTAL
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
Particulate Wt-Total-'
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total-/
Perc Impinger Catch
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
E-3
07-19-73
51.72
3.9
141.4
55424
66816
102.0
CATCH-
82.50
0.0246
0.0204
11.7
CATCH-''
137.20
0.0408
0.0339
19.4
39.87
LEAD -- PARTIAL CATCH^'
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
Wt-Partial-'
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial-
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
24.85
0.00740
6.00614
3.51
LEAD -- TOTAL CATCH-^
.MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
Wt-Total-/
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis -Total-'
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl
Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Perc Lead Emis Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Erais Ttl
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
TON/HR
LB/TON
LB/TON
7,
%
%
%
24.94
0.00743
0.00616
3.53
0.36
13.9
1.40
0.254
30.0
18.2
E-7
07-19-73
51.72
3.9
141.4
55424
66816
102.0
07-20-73
63.72
5.3
126.4
70367
84169
99.0
07-23-73
52.53
4.4
131.7
57497
68474
99.9
37.80
0.00914
0.00764
5.51
83.80
0.0202
0.0169
12.2
54.89
7.75
0.00187
0.00157
1.13
7.88
0.00190
0.00159
1.15
1.65
13.8
0.884
0.0833
20.5
9.43
28.3
15.0
73.80
0.0216
0.0182
10.7
147.00 .
0.0431
0.0362
21.2 ;
49.80
25.47
0.00747
0.00627
3.68
25.60
0.00750
0.00630
3.70
0.51
13.8.
1.54
0.268
34.4
17.4
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ total catch refets to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch pius the
impingers.
33
-------
TABLE XIIIA
SUMMARY Of EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE BAGHOUSE - E STACK
Name
VMSTM
PMOS
TSM
QSM
QAM
PERI
Description
Date of Run
VoL Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std-
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
(Metric
Units
NCM
DEG.C
Cn NM3/MIN
M3/MIN
PARTICULATES --
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTICULATES -
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
Particulate Wt-Total
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
Units)
E-3
07-19-73
1.465
3.9
60.8
1569.4
1892.0
102.0
PARTIAL CATCH^
82.50
56.21
46.63
5.29
- TOTAL CATCHk/
137.20
93.48
77.54
8.80
39.87
E-4
07-20-73
1.804
5.3
52.5
1992.6
2383.4
99.0
37.80
20.91
17.48
2.50
83.80
46.35
38.75
5.54
54.89
E-7
07-23-73
1.488
.4.4 .
55.4
1628.2
1939.0
99.9
73.80
49.51
41.57
4.84
147.00
.98.61
82.81
9.63
49.80
' LEAD — PARTIAL CATCHi/ :
MF.
CANM
CATM
CAWM
Wt-Partial
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
24.85
16.93
14.05
1.594
7.75
. 4.29
3.58
0.512
25.47 .
17.09
14.35
1.669
Lead -- TOTAL CATCH^
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
Wt-Total
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl .
Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Perc Lead Emis Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ttl
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MTON/HR
KG/MTON
KG/MTON
%
7,
. %
7.
24.94
16.99
14.10
1.600
0.36
12.6
0.698
0.127
30.0
18.2
7.88
4.36
3.64
0.521
1.65
12.5
0.443
0.0416
20.5
9.43
28.3
15.0
25.60
17.17
14.42
1.677
0.51
12.5
0.770
. . 0.134
34.4
17.4
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
34
-------
TABLE XIV
SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE BAGHOUSE - F STACK
NaiiK'
VMS TO
PMOS
TS
QS
QA
PERI
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
AVG Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
DSCF
DEC . F
Cn DSCFM
ACFM
F-3 •
07-19-73
76.05
4.6
151.3
39425
48664
93.7
F-4
07-20-73
74.13
4.9
147.3
38839
47918
92.7
PARTICULATES -- PARTIAL CATCH^/
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
38.50
0.00780
0.00632
2.63
52.30
0.0109
0.00881
3.62
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL CATCH^-'
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
MT
CAO
CAU
CAX
1C
Particulate Wt-Total
Part Load-TtI, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis -Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Wt-Partial
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
Wt-Total
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl
Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Perc Lead Emis Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Ttl
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
LEAD -- PARTIAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/Hr
LEAD -- TOTAL
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
TON/HR
LB/TON
LB/TON
%
%
%
%
111.40
0.0226
0.0183
7.62
65.44
CATCH^/
8.37
0.00170
0.00137
0.570
CATCH-/
8.47 '
0.00172
0.00139
0.580
1.18
13.9
0.548
0.0417
21.7
7.61
101.60
0.0211
0.0171
7.03
48.52
15.72
0.00327
0,00265
1.09 .
15.89
0.00330
0.00268
1.10
1.07
13.8
0.509
0.0797
30.1
15.6
31.4
15 . 1
64.20
0.0134
0.0111
4.50
123.40
0.0257
0.0213
8.65
47.97
27.22
0.00567
0.00470
1.91
27.32
0.00569
0.00472
1.92
0.37
13.8
0.627
0.139
42.4
22.2
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter. .
b_/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impirigers.
35
-------
TABLE XIVA
(Metric Units)
Name
VMSTM
PMOS
TSM
QSM
QAM
PERI
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
NCM
DEG.C
Cn NM3/MIN
M3/MIN
PARTI CULATES --
MF
CAM
CATM
CAWM
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTIC::LATES --
MT
CAOM
GAUM
CAXM
1C
Particulate Wt-Total
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
F-3
07-19-73
2.154
4.6
66.3
1116.4
1378.0
93.7
PARTIAL CATCHS-'/
38.50
17.84
14.45
1.19
b/
TOTAL CATCH-
111.40.
51.62
41.82
3.46
65.44
F-4
07-20-73
2.099
4.9
64.1
1099.8
1356.9
92.7
52.30
24.86
20.15
1.64
101.60
48.30
39.15
3.19
48.52
F-7.
07-23-73
2.092
4.1
60.7
1111.6
1341.8'
91.4
64.20
30.62
25.37
2.04
123.40
58.86
48.76
3.93
47.97
LEAD -- PARTIAL CATCH-''
MF
CANM.
CATM
.CAWM. ' ,
Wt-Partial
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
8.37
3.88
3.14
0.260
15.72
7.47
6.06
0.493
27.22
12 . 9.8
10.76
0.866
LEAD -- TOTAL CATCH^/
MT
CAOM
.CAUM
CAXM
1C
Wt-Total
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis 'Ttl
Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Perc Lead Emis Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ttl
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MTON/HR
KG/MTON
KG/MTON
%
%
%
%
8.47
3.93
3.18
0.263
1.18
12.6
0.275
0.0208
21.7
7.61
15.89
7.55
6.12
0.498
1.07
12.5
0.255
0.0398
30.1
15.6
31.4
15.1
27.32
13.03
10.80
0.869
0.37
12.5
0.314
0.0695
42.4
22.2
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
W Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
36
-------
TABLE XV
SUMMARY OK EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE BAGHOUSE - G STACK
Name
VMSTD
PMOS
TS
QS
QA
PERI
Description
bate of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
Units
DSCF
DEG.F
DSCFM
ACFM
G-3
07-19-73
82.43
4.8
150.1
43723
54002
91.6
G-4
07-20-73
84.49
5.4
138.5
44762
54665
91.7
G-7
07-23-73
91.52
4.3
154.2
49840
61612
89.2
PARTICULATES -- PARTIAL CATCH^'
MF
CAN
CAT
CAW
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Partial
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
83.80
0.0157
0.0127
5.87
22.00
0.00401
0.00328
1.54
97.40
0.0164
0.0133
7.00
PARTICULATES -- TOTAL CATCH-'
b/
MT Particulate Wt-Total
CAO Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
CAU Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
CAX Partic Erais-Total
1C Perc Impinger Catch
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
140.20
0.0262
0.0212
9.81
40.23
71.40
0.0130
0.0107
4.99
69.19
164.00
0.0276
0.0223
'11.8 .
40.61
LEAD -- PARTIAL CATCH"
MF Wt-Partial
CAN Load-Ptl, Std Cn
CAT Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
CAW . Emis-Partial
MG
GR/DSCF
GR/ACF
LB/HR
33.52
0.00626
0.00507
2.35
5.35
0.000980
0.000800
0.370
45.97 '
0.00774
0.00626
3.30
b/
LEAD -- TOTAL CATCH-
MT Wt-Total MG 33.71 5.64 46.05
CAO Load-Ttl, Std Cn GR/DSCF 0.00630 0.00103 0.00775
CAU Load-Ttl, Stk Cn GR/ACF 0.00510 0.000840 0.00627
CAX Erais-Total LB/HR 2.36 0.390 3.31
1C Perc Impinger Catch 0.56 5.14 0.17
Prod Rate TON/HR 13.9 13.8 13.8
Part Emis Ttl LB/TON 0.706 0.362 0.855
Lead Emis Ttl LB/TON 0.170 0.0283 0.240
Perc Lead Emis Ptl % 40.0 24.0 47.1
Perc Lead Emis Ttl % 24.0 7.82 28.1
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ptl % 37.0
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ttl 7. 20.0
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
impingers.
37
-------
TABLE XVA
(Metric Units)
Name
VMSTM
PMOS
TSM
QSM
QAM
PERI
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
Description
Date of Run
Vol Dry Gas-Std Cond
Percent Moisture by Vol
Avg Stack Temperature
Stk Flowrate, Dry, Std Cn
Actual Stack Flowrate
Percent Isokinetic
PARTI CULATES
Particulate Wt-Partial
Part Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis -Partial
Units
NCM
DEC.C
NM3/MIN
M3/MIN
-- PARTIAL
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
PARTICIPATES -- TOTAL
MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
MF
CANM
CATM
CAWM
•MT
CAOM
CAUM
CAXM
1C
Particulate Wt-TotaL
Part Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Part Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Partic Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
LEAD --
Wt-Partial
Load-Ptl, Std Cn
Load-Ptl, Stk Cn
Emis-Partial
LEAD --
Wt-Total
Load-Ttl, Std Cn
Load-Ttl, Stk Cn
Emis-Total
Perc Impinger Catch
Prod Rate
Part Emis Ttl
Lead Emis Ttl
Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Perc Lead Emis Ttl
Avg Perc Lead Emis Ptl
Ave Perc Lead Emis Ttl
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
G-3
07-19-73
2.334
4.8
65,6
1238.1
1529.2
91.6
a/
CATCH-
83.80
35.83
29.01
2.66
b/
CATCH-
140.20
59.94
48.53
4.45
40.23
G-4
07-20-73
2.393
5.4
59.2
1267.5
1547.9
91.7
22.00
9.18
7.51
0.700
71.40
29.78
24.38
2.26
69.19
6-7
07-23-73
2.592
. 4-3.
67.9
1411.3
1744.7
89.2
97.40
37.51
30.34
3.18
164.00
63.15
51.08
5.35
40.61
PARTIAL CATCH-
MG '
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
33.52
14.33
11.60
1.064
b/
5.35
2.23
1.83
0.170
45.97
17.70
14.32
1.499
TOTAL CATCH"'
MG
MG/NM3
MG/M3
KG/HR
MTON/HR
KG/MTON
KG/MTON
%
%
%
%
33.71
14.41
11.67
1.070
0.56
' 12.6
0.353
0.0849
40.0
24.0
5.64
2.35
1.93
0.179
5.14
12.5.
0.181
0.0143 •
' '24.0
7.82
37.0
20.0
46.05
17.73
14.34
1.501
0.17
12.5
0.428
0.120
47.1 ' '
28.1 .
a/ Partial catch refers to the particulate and lead caught in the probe tip, probe,
cyclone and filter.
b/ Total catch refers to all the particulate and lead caught in the partial catch plus the
itnpingers.
38
-------
Table VIA is the same except in metric units. Since the baghouse has three
stacks, the average concentrations shown are calculated from weighted
averages, based on stack flowrate, for each run. The collection effi-
ciencies for the collection system, humidifying chamber, the excess air
addition, lime addition and baghouse are 98+%. The data in Table VI show
that most of the lead emitted from the baghouse was caught in the front
half of the collection train (i.e., the probe tip, probe, cyclone and
filter), and therefore is composed of larger particles. The particles
caught in the impingers (which are located after the filter) are smaller
than 0.3 u in diameter and account for only 0.04 Ib/hr emission. The
filters used capture all particles larger than 0.3 u in diameter.
Table VII summarizes the data by test. Table VIIA presents the
data in metric units. For Test 3, the first test on the blast furnace and
pollution control system, the efficiency of the collection system was 98.5-
99.27o. In Test 4, the second test on the blast furnace and its pollution
control system, the efficiency of the collection system varied from 99 to
99.6%. In Test 7, the third and final test on the blast furnace and its
pollution control system, the collection efficiency varied from 95.4 to
98.9%. During the first and second emission tests on the blast furnace and
control system, the bagshaking was done on a very irregular schedule.
39
-------
Little or no automatic bagshaking occurred during the period when samples
were being collected. While Test 7 (the last test) was being conducted,
the bags were manually shaken several times in addition to the so-called
automatic shaking. This test shows the lowest collection efficiency for
the baghouse and the highest lead and particulate emissions. Shaking the
bags cleans them and allows the fine material, to pass through, rather than
collecting on a particulate film covering the surface of the bag. The
highest visible emissions occur during bagshaking.
Table VIII shows the pounds of particulate per ton of feed to the
blast furnace, and Table VIIIA has the same information in metric units.
The average emission rate for the uncontrolled particulate is 68 Ib/ton of
feed and for the particulate from the control system 0.959 Ib/ton of feed.
Table IX has the particulate emission data in pounds per ton of
lead produced and Table IXA in metric units. The average uncontrolled
emission rate is 174 Ib/ton of lead, and the average controlled emission
rate is 2.47 Ib/ton of lead.
Table X presents the emission factors for pounds of lead from the
blast furnace, per ton .of. fe.pd. tn thp, furnace:- and Table XA presents the - -
data in metric units. The average uncontrolled emission rate is 20.8
Ib of lead per ton of feed, and the average controlled emission rate is
0.405 Ib/ton of feed.
40
-------
Table XI presents the lead emission rate for ton of lead produced
by the blast furnace, and Table XIA presents the data in metric units. The
average uncontrolled emission rate is 23.6 Ib of lead per ton of lead pro-
duced, and the average controlled emission rate is 0.450.1b of lead per
ton of lead produced.
Table XII presents a summary of results from the emission tests
on the duct from the blast furnace (7-ft diameter) to the control system.
Table XIIA presents the same information in metric units. The percent lead
in the particulate catch is: front half of train - average 12.7%; total
catch - average 12.5%.
The particulate emissions in the total catch from sample location
"D" (inlet duct to blast furnace control system) varied from 1,990 Ib/hr to
2,690 Ib/hr, and 144 Ib/ton to 194 Ib/ton. The lead emissions in the total
catch varied from 193 Ib/hr to 424 Ib/hr, and from 14.0 Ib/ton to 30.5
Ib/ton.
Table XIII presents the summary of results from the three tests
-V.'?u'
run on the baghouse 'exhaust stack E (Figure 2). Table XIIIA presents the
•• -^
data in metric units. The uei «.ciiL leau in trie particulate catch -is:x front
_ •'-•'V.V
half of train - average 28.3%; total catch - average 15.0%. The particu-
late emissions in the total catch varied from 12.2 Ib/hr to 21.2 Ib/hr and
0.884 Ib/ton to 1.54 Ib/ton. The lead emissions in the total catcd ranged
from 1.15 Ib/hr to 3.70 Ib/hr and 0.0833 Ib/ton to 0.268 Ib/ton.
41
-------
Table XIV contains the summary of results for the emission tests
from the baghouse exhaust stack F (Figure 2). Table XIVA presents the data
in metric units. The average percent lead in the particulate catch is:
front half of train 31.4%; total catch - 15.1%. The particulate emissions
in the total catch ranged from 7.62 Ib/hr to 8.65 Ib/hr and from 0.509 Ib/ton
to 0.627 Ib/ton. The lead emissions in the total catch ranged from 0.580
Ib/hr to 1.92 Ib/hr and 0.0417 Ib/ton to 0.139 Ib/ton.
Table XV contains the summary of results from the baghouse ex- :
haust stack G (Figure 2). In Table XVA the data are presented in metric
units. The average percent lead in the particulate catch from the front
half of the train is 37.0%. The average percent lead in the particulate
catch from the complete train is 20.070. The particulate emissions in the
total catch ranged from 4.99 Ib/hr to 11.8 Ib/hr and from 0.362 Ib/ton to!
0.855 Ib/ton. The lead emissions in the total catch ranged from 0.390 Ib/hr
to 3.31 Ib/hr and from 0.0283 Ib/ton to 0.240 Ib/ton.
Figures 3, 4, 5 and 6 and Tables XVI, XVII and XVIII refer to the
Andersen particle size test program conducted at the blast furnace and bag-
house exhaust stack F. The Andersen tests were conducted at point 3, port
3 of this stack (see Figure 14, p. 80). There were three particle size
tests; Test F3A lasted 60 min, Test F4A 120 min, and Test F7A 92 min.
The Andersen sampler was used with a backup filter to capture
particles not collected on the plates. The results, not including the
filter net weight, are listed in Table XVII as "without filter." The rer
suits which include the filter net weight are listed as "with filter."
42
-------
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.9 9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 2 1 0.1 0.01
O
u
S
Q
LU
_l
y
H-
Q.
IUU.U
10.0
1.0
0.1
0.
_ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 -
o F3A
A F4A
D F7A
o A .
°\ V
\ ^D
— o A —
\ D
\V ,
i \Y.E
i iii i i i i i i i i i ii ii i
01 0.1 1 2 5 l6 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899 99.9 99.
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
•
99
Figure 3 - Particulate Without Filter
43
-------
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.9 9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21
100.Or 1 —
£ 10.0
O
on
U
O£
LU
LU
<
O
LU
_l
u
ce
1.0
0.1
1 1 l 1 i 1 1 I 1 1 1 I i i I
\
\ D
\\
\\
4\
1 \9
ol
•D
a
D
D
o F3A
A F4A
D F7A
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.01 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
0.1 0.01
1
99.9 99.99
Figure 4 - Particulate With Filter
44
-------
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.9 9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21 0.1 0.01
100.0
10.0
o
u
3
Q
LLJ
_1
u
i.o
o.i
_ :i iiiiiiii ill T i rii i
o F3A
A F4A
D F7A
I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
0.01 0.1 125 10 20 40 60 80 90 95 9899 99.999.99
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 5 - Lead Without Filter
45
-------
WEIGHT % LESS THAN STATED SIZE
99.99 99.9 9998 95 90 80 60 40 20 10 5 21
100.0
CRONS
o
•
0
ETER
GLE D
1.0
0.1
1 1 I 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
o F3A
A F4A
D F7A
0.1 0.01
1
0.01 0.1 1 2 5 10 20 40 60 80 9095 9899 99.999.99
WEIGHT % GREATER THAN STATED SIZE
Figure 6 - Lead With Filter
46
-------
TABLE XVI
PERCENT LEAD IN.PARTICULATE FOR ANDERSEN TEST
Plate No.
F3A 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Subtotal
Filter
Total
F4A 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Subtotal
Filter
Total
F7A 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Subtotal
Filter
Total
Wt. Part.
(B)
0.00206
0.00276
0.00446
0.00557
0.00617
0.00904
0.00461
0.00248
0.00207
0.03922
0.02370
0.06292
0.00105
0.00084
0.00110
0.00142
0.00057
0.00045
0.00035
0.00010
0.0
0.00588
0.01450
0.02038
0.01376
0.02441
0.04042
0.03737
0.01261
0.00510
0.00402
0.00211
0.00116
0.14096
0.10490
0.24586
Wt. Lead
(mg)
0.3515
0.6765
0.8265
1.2765
1.8265
3.3265
2.6015
1.3415
0.4365
12.6635
3.3973
16.0608
0.4915
0.3640
0.7615
1.0415
0.3815
0.3215
0.3915
0.2515
0.0
4.0045
1.3823
5.3868
7.3265
13.3515
21.9765
21.2265
6.5265
2.9265
2.1265
1.3265
0.4915
77.2785
25.4723
102.7508
% Lead
17.1
24.5
18.5
22.9
29.6
36.8
56.4
54.1
21.1
32.3
14.3
25.5
46.8
43.3
6.9
73.3
66.9
71.4
112.0
25.2
0.0
68.1
9.5
26.4
53.0
54.7
54.4
56.8
51.8
57.3
52.9
62.9
42.4
54.8
24.3
43.7
47
-------
TABLE XVII
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
00
HUN NUMBER FTA
DATE 071973
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
* PAN
47.63437
37.38783
37.99770
38.37489
39.09322
29.08619
29.03880
28.91710
37.91781
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
17.36350
17.51861
17.36051
17.51416
17.37078
17.50546
17.36314
17.50431
17.36192
DENSITV=
IMP.EFF.C=
TARE
PLATE
» PAN
51.20703
40.80516
41.57186
41.79439
42.65582
32.51144
32.61109
32.35057
41.49457
1.000
.140
PAN
FOR
TARE
20.93822
20.93870
20.93913
20.93923
20.93955
20.93975
20.94004
20.94026
20.94075
SAMPLING
RATE =
78110 CFM
FILTER
TOTAL
WT= .02230 GM
WT= .06152 GM
-WITHOUT FILTER-
TARE
OF
PLATE
30.26881
19.86646
20.63273
20.85516
21.71627
11.57169
11.67105
11.41031
20.55382
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
(GM)
.00206
.00276
.00446
.00557
.00617
.00904
.00461
.00248
.00207
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.25
7.04
11.37
14.20
15.73
23.05
11.75
6.32
. 5.28
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.25
12.29
23.66
37.86
53.60
76.64
88.40
94;72
100.00
--WITH FILTEH--
WEIGHT
PERCENT
3.35
4.49
7.25
9.05
10.03
14.69
7.49
4.03
3-j f
• J6
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
3.35
7.83
15.08
24.14
34. 17
48.86
56.36
60.39
63.75
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
60.14
112.15
187.12
309.32
549.90
1330.63
2425.07
4850.14
P«»TIC
01 AM.
(MICR)
10.99
6.86
4.65
3.16
2.03
1.01
.62
.42
-------
TABLE XVII (Continued)
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
VO
RUN NUMBER F4A DENSITY=
DATE 072073 IMP.EFF.C=
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
» PAN
47.54297
37.44772
38.45145
38.72037
39.64761
29.14621
28.83634
29.13314
38.72241
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
17.34190
17.49750
17.34356
17.49893
17.34281
17.49803
17.34262
17.49745
17.35103
TARE
PLATE
* PAN
47.56231
37.31178
38.46902
38.58227
39.66647
29.01016
28.85598
28.99814
38.73347
1.000 SAMPLING
.140 RATE = .70920 CFM
PAN
FOR
TARE
17.36229
17.36240
17.36223
17.36225
17.36224
17.36243
17.36261
17.36255
17.36209
TARE
OF
PLATE
30.20002
19.94938
21.10679
21.22002
22.30423
11.64773
11.49337
11.63559
21.37138
SAMPLF
HEIGHT
(GM)
.00105
.00084
.00110
.00142
.00057
.00045
.00035
.00010
.00000
FILTER WT= .01360 GM
TOTAL WT = .01948 GM
-WITHOUT FILTER- — rtlTH FILTER —
WEIGHT
PERCENT
17.86
14.29
18.71
24.15
9.69
7.65
5.95
1.70
.00
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
17.86
32.14
50.85
75.00
84.69
92.35
98.30
100.00
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.39
4.31
5.65
7.29
2.93
2.31
1.80
.51
.00
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.39
9.70
15.35
22.64
25.56
27.87
29.67
30. 18
30.18
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
54. 61
101.83
169.90
280.85
499.28
1208.14
2201 .04
4403.68
PARTIC
01 AM.
(MICR)
11.54
7.20
4.88
3.32
2.13
1.06
.65
.44
-------
TABLE XVII (Concluded)
ANOERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY
RUN NUMBER F7A UENSITY=
DATE 072373 IMP.EFF.C=
STAGE/
PLATE
/O
0/1
1/2
2/3
3/4
4/5
5/6
6/7
7/8
SAMPLE
PLATE
+ PAN
47.61919
37.38215
38.01382
38.41076
39.06809
29.08781
29.02014
28.92835
37.89888
PAN
FOR
SAMPLE
17.33652
17.49122
17.34025
17.51814
17.33916
17.51060
17.34482
17.51553
17.34322
TAKE
PLATE
* PAN
47.77276
37.37055
38.13734
38.35971
39.22112
29.07705
29.17675
28.91633
38.06024
1.000 SAMPLING
.140 RATE = 1.03750 CFM
PAN
FOR
TARE
17.50385
17.50403
17.50419
17.50446
17.50480
17.50494
17.50545
17.50562
17.50574
TARE
OF
PLATE
30.26891
19.86652
20.63315
20.85525
21.71632
11.57211
11.67130
11.41071
20.55450
SAMPLE
WEIGHT
(O.M)
.01376
.02441
.04042
.03737
.01261
.00510
.00402
.00211
.00116
FILTER »T= .10490 f,M
TOTAL WT= .24586 GM
-WITHOUT FILTER- — WITH FILTER —
WEIGHT
PERCENT
9.76
17.32
28.67
26.51
8.95
3.62
2.85
1.50
.82
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
9.76
27.08
55.75
82.26
91.21
94.83
97.68
99.18
100.00
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.60
9.93
16.44
15.20
5.13
2.07
1.64
.86
.47
CUM.
WEIGHT
PERCENT
5.60
15.53
31.97
47.17
52.29
54.37
56.00
56.86
57.33
JET
VEL.
(CM/S)
79.88
148.97
248.54
410. 36
730.41
1767.41
3221.11
6442.22
PAKTIC
n i aw .
(HICR)
9.52
5.94
4.02
2.73
1.75
.86
.53
.35
-------
Run F3A
gm Partic
0
1
2
3 .
4
5
6
7
8
Filter
Run F4A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Filter
Run F7A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.3515
0.6765
0.8265
1.2765
1.8265
3.3265
2.6015
1.3415
0.4365
3.3973
0.4915
0.3640
0.7615
1.0415
0.3815
0.3215
0.3915
0.2515
0.0755
1.3823
7.3265
13.3515
21.9765
21.2265
6.5265
2.. 9265.
2.1265
1.3265
.0.4915
0.00206
0.00276
0.00446
0.00557
0.00617
0.00904
0.00461
0.00248
0.00207
0.0237
0.00105
0.00084
0.00110
0.00142
0.00057
0.00045
0.00035
0.00010
0
0.0145
0.01376
0.02441
0.04042
0.03737
0.01261
0.00510
0.00402
0.00211
0.00116
TABU: xvm
ANDERSEN ANALYSIS SUMMARY (LEAD)
Pb without Filter
mg Pb/gm Par tic
171
245
185
229
296
368
564
541
211
143
468
433
692
733
669
7i4
1,119
2,515
--
95.3
532
547
544
568
518
574
529
689
424
Weight
m
2.8
5.3
6.5
10.1
14.4
26.3
20.5
10.6
3.5
12.0
8.9
18.7
25.5
9.3
7.9
9.6
6.2
1.9
9.5
17.3
28.4
27.5
8.4
3.8
2.8
1.7
0.6
Cum Weight
2.8
8.1
14.6
24.7
39.1
65.4
85.9
96.5
100.0
12.0
20.9
39.6
65.1
74.4
82.3
91.9
98.1
100.0
9.5
26.8
55.2
82.7
91.1
94.9
97.7
99.4
100.0
Pb with Filter
Filter 25.4723
0.1049
243
Weight
(7.)
2.2
4.2
5.1
7.9
11.4
20.7
16.2
8.3
2.7
21.3
9.0
6.7
13.9
19.1
7.0
5.9
7.2
4.6
1.3
25.3
7.1
13.0
21.4
20.6
6.4
2.8
2.1
1.3
0.5
24.8
Cum. Weight
a>
2.2
6.4
11.5
19.4
30.8
51.5
67.7
76.0
78.7
100.0
9.0
15.7
29.6
48.7
55.7
61.6
68.8
73.4
74.7
100.0
7.1
20.1
41.5
62.1
68.5
71.3
73.4
74.7
75.2
100.0 .
Particle
Diameter
10.99
6.86
4.65
16
03
01
0.62
0.42
11.54
20
88
32
13
06
0.65
0.44
9.52
5.94
4.02
2.73
1.75
0.86
0.53
0.35
51
-------
Figures 3, 4 and 5 are plots of the data in Table XVII using the
cumulative weight percent as the "weight % greater than stated size" and
using the particle diameter in microns calculated from MRI's Andersen com-
puter program, a development of the Ranz and Wong equation.—
Figure 3 shows the particle size distribution of the particles
caught in the Andersen analyzer for all three tests. In Test F3A, 94.5%
of the particles are larger than 0.62 u, and 127o are larger than 11 u.
Test F4A shows that 98.37o of the particulates are larger than 1.1 u, and
32% are larger than 11.5 u. The results of Test F7A show that 99.2% are
larger than 0.52 u, and that 27% are larger than 9.6 u.
Figure 4 presents the results of the particulate size analysis
including the particles that passed through the Andersen and were caught
on the filter. In Test F3A, 62% of the particles are larger than 0.62 u,
and 8% are larger than 11.1 u. The results of Test F4A show that 30% of
the particles are larger than 0.66 u, and that 9.5% of the particles are
larger than 11.15 u. Test F7A shows that 58% of the particles are larger
than 0.35 u, and 16% are larger than 9.6 u.
The particle size analysis of the particulate emissions shows
that more than 65% of the material emitted is smaller than 3.5 u, and about
half of the particulate emission is smaller than 1 u.
I/ Ranz, W. E., and J. B. Wong, "Jet Impactors for Determining the Par-
ticle Size Distribution of Aerosols," Industrial Hygiene and Occupa-
tional Medicine, Vol. 5, pp. 464-477 (1952).
52
-------
The data for the Andersen particle size tests are presented in
two ways. The first presentation is for the particles which are caught on
the Andersen plates. This gives a particle size distribution from about
0.6 u to 11 u.
The data including filter are presented to spread the particle
size distribution from 0.3 u to 11 u. The purpose of the filter is to
catch small particles which pass through the Andersen without being captured.
Figure 5 shows the plot as a result of the analysis for lead of
the particulate catch during the Andersen test. This does not include the
material caught on the filter. The figure shows that on the average 96.07o
of the lead was larger than 0.7 u, and that half of the lead was found in
particles larger than 5 u.
Figure 6 presents the lead data for the same three runs but in-
cludes the lead caught on the filter. About 24% of the lead was smaller
than 0.4 u, arid 80% of the lead was smaller than 9.0 u.
• I
Table XVI presents the percent lead in the particulate on each
stage of the Andersen particle size analyzer as well as on the filter for
each of the three tests. The percent lead in the total catch varied from
25.5 to 43.7% with Test F7A having the highest percentage lead. The dif-
ference in method and frequency of bagshakirig between the first two tests
when the bags were shaken very infrequently and Test 7 (D, E, F, G and FA)
when the bags were shaken manually every 25 min explains the higher partic-
ulate and lead yield for Test 7. The same reasoning might explain the
higher percentage lead in the total Andersen catch.
53
-------
Table XVIII is a summary of the analytical data for lead on the
particulate catch; in the Andersen tests the filter weights are included.
IV. PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
A. Process Flow—'
The ASARCO smelter at Glover is a custom smelter in that all ore
is purchased from other companies. It has a design capacity of 90,000 tons
of lead per year and started production in 1968. The average inlet concen-
trate analysis is 70-757o lead, 2-l/27o zinc, and 17o copper. Figure 7 is
the Glover plant flow sheet. The plant is further described in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
1. Sinter machine: ASARCO's plant at Glover has a highly auto-
mated updraft sinter machine designed to handle more than 1,500 tons of
material per day. Figure 8 is a photograph showing the sinter machine, mixing
drum, feed conveyors and updraft fans. A lead charge which is sized, mixed,
pelletized, and moistened, is fed to the sinter machine where sulfur is
eliminated and the heat of the oxidizing reactions converts the charge to
a fused cellular cake, known as sinter. The basic chemical reactions are
as follows:
The following process description is based on information obtained from
plant personnel, Bulletin No. X-18, published by ASARCO, AIME World
Symposium on Mining and Metallurgy of Lead and Zinc, Donald 0. Rauski
and Burt C. Auacher, Eds. AIME, New York (1970); and Lead—Progress
and Prognosis: The State of the Art: Lead Recovery, A. Worcester and
D. H. Beilstein, IMS, AIME, New York, Paper No. A71-87.
54
-------
GLOVER PLANT FLOW SHEET
hoppei Cut
¥ Customers
From Bulletin No. X-18,
published by ASARCO.
SIO.OB.
Figure 7
55
-------
From Bulletin No. X-18,
published by ASARCO.
Sinter Plant
Figure 8
56
-------
PbS + 1-1/2 02 * PbO + S02
2PbO 4- PbS *3Pb + S02
Charge materials to the sinter machine include lead concentrates,
return sinter, blast furnace slag, and "plant clean-up" materials. The lead
concentrate is conveyed from a storage bin through a Pennsylvania Impactor
where six hammers break the material into smaller pieces. Return sinter,
which consists of fines rejected from the final product of the sinter ,
machine, is added to the sulfur-containing lead concentrates to dilute the
total sulfur content down to a level that can be handled by the machine
(5-6%). Return sinter passes through a cooling drum where it is quenched
and then onto an enclosed conveyor which takes it through two crushers
(corrugated rolls and smooth rolls) and finally to a storage bin.
Slag from the blast furnace which contains a minimum of 3% lead travels by
conveyors to the sinter plant. Spillage from the sinter machine, sinter
breaker, spiked rolls and windbox cleanings is picked up by two apion con-
veyors and, together with floor clean-up and baghouse dust, are conveyed to
a storage bin and then through the Pennsylvania Impactor. The concentrate,
return sinter, slag, and plant clean-up are fed through two 3.05-m by 9.5-m
mixing drums where the feed is moistened and conditioned.
The feed is conveyed to a splitter chute where it is divided into
an ignition layer and a main feed layer. A baffle diverts part of the feed
into the hopper for the ignition layer, and when that demand is satisfied,
the majority of the feed passes into the main feed hopper. The ignition
57
-------
layer passes through a vibrating grizzly which rejects oversized material
and returns it to the main feed hopper. The ignition feed is distributed
evenly across the width of the machine by shuttle conveyors operated by a
hydraulic system and then passes through a gas-fired ignition muffle which
is over a downdraft windbox. The main feed layer is next placed on top of
the ignition layer and the entire bed flows through the updraft section of
the machine, which is 29 m in length and consists of 12 windboxes each
2.44 m long. In the updraft section of the machine, the airflow is reversed
so that the heat from the ignition layer flows upward to ignite the main
feed layer. The material burns as it travels the length of the machine.
The material is cooled as it reaches the end of the machine "so that the
cake will not collapse nor will metallic lead run out of the sinter to
blind the pallet grate bars" (Rauski arid Mauacher, p. 78). The sinter
passes into the sinter breaker and then to a spiked roll, where the material
is pulverized. Spillage from these pulverizers is passed onto the clean-up
conveyors as part of the plant clean-up that is later recharged to the sin-
ter machine. A pan conveyor transfers the hot sinter from the spiked roll
to the Ross Classifying Rolls. The coarser sinter is pushed by the Ross
Rolls into one of two sinter bins which feed the furnace. A swivel vibrator
diverts the sinter into one of the two bins according to the level of material
within each. The fine sinter falls through the Ross Rolls into a storage
bin and then passes through the cooling drum as return :sinter to the sinter
machine.
58
-------
Two small baghouses within the sinter plant handle ventilation
air from the conveyors and crushers for the return sinter. The material
collected by the baghouses is added directly to the belt carrying the sinter
feed. In addition, a wet scrubber system is planned for in-plant ventila-
tion.
. Air from the sinter machine passes through a main duct to the
water spray chamber and then into the sinter plant baghouse. Ventilation
air from the sinter breaker, the spiked roll, the pan conveyor which
carries the product sinter to the Ross Rolls, two clean-up conveyors, and
the cooling drum, passes through a second, auxiliary duct to the water spray
chamber and into the sinter plant baghouse. Ventilation air from the Ross
Classifying Rolls and swivel vibrator (transfer of sinter to storage bin) is
cleaned by the blast furnace control system;
2. Blast furnace: ASARCO has an Australian step jacket design
blast furnace, with a nominal capacity of 300 tons of lead boullion per
day. The furnace proper is 7.6 m long, 1.5 in wide at the lower tuyeres
and 3.0 m wide at the upper tuyeres. A blower can provide up to 510 cu m
of air per minute at 0.26 kg/sq cm to the furnace. This air is distributed
between the lower and upper tuyeres by a proportioning controller. The
lower section of the furnace, where the tuyeres are located, is tapered (see
Figure 9). The top of the furnace, where charging takes place arid effluent
gases are ducted to the control system, is of a typical thimble top design.
59
-------
A Second Slag
Tap for Making
Slag Blocks
Upper Tuyeres
Lower Tuyeres
Tap and
aa Granulator
20 T Lead Pot Being Transferred
from Furnace to Dross Kettles
V Covers Lead Pot
During Tapping
From Bulletin No. X-18,
published by ASARCO.
Blast Furnace
Figure 9
60
-------
A large building at ASARCO houses all receiving and storage bins
for the sinter machine and blast furnace. The charge materials for the
furnace, consisting of coarse sinter, iron, coke, caustic skims, etc., are
stored in a row of bins. The charge materials are automatically weighed as
they pass through feed hoppers into a charge car. The charge car is posi-
tioned on a transfer car and moved along a track which runs past the row
of feed hoppers to the side of the furnace. An automated gantry crane
lifts the charge car from the transfer car and elevates it to the top of
the furnace where the contents are dumped through the bottom of the car.
According to the management, the charge to the furnace was a constant mix-
ture of feed materials during the course of the test program. Charging
usually takes place 17-18 times per shift.
A Roy tapper is situated at the front of the furnace, where a
continuous stream of molten material flows from a 5-ft long slit in the
•
furnace into a box-shaped settler. As the material cools in the settler,
the lead settles to the bottom and the slag accumulates at the top. The
lead is tapped continuously into 20 T ladles. The slag is tapped continu-
ously into a slag granulator where two jets of water break the slag into
small granules of material. The water forces the slag from the granulator
underground to an elevator. The elevator transports the slag up to a pair
of wooden silos for dewatering. From there the slag with a relatively high
lead content (3.2 Pb - June) is transferred by conveyor to the sinter
machine and the slag with a low lead content is transported by truck to a
61
-------
dumping area. A second slag tap is occasionally used, if a customer specifies
a need. The second slag tap, similarly to the lead tap, consists of a
continuous flow of material directly from the settler into large ladles to
form solid slag blocks. Ventilation gases from the front of the furnace,
including the Roy tapper, the two slag taps, and the lead tap, are handled
by one fan, and pass through the blast furnace water'spray chamber and
baghouse. Ventilation air from the slag granulator is handled by a separate
fan, but is also ducted through the blast furnace control system.
When a 20 T lead ladle has been filled, the lead tap is plugged,
the hooding over the ladle is lifted, and the ladle is transferred by a
27-ton crane to one of two dross kettles. The lead ladle is partially
covered by a lid to minimize fuming during tapping, during transfer of the
lead ladle to the dross kettle, and during pouring of the molten lead into
the dross kettle.
A dome-shaped hood is used to cover the dross kettles for ventila-
tion only during pouring of the molten lead into the dross kettles. This
ventilation air passes through the blast furnace control system.
There are two dross kettles, one with a capacity of 300 tons and
the other with a capacity of 250 tons. The lead is poured into one of two
kettles which is maintained at 540°C. The copper solidifies and floats to
the top where it is drossed off. The lead which remains is transferred to
a second dross kettle which is maintained at a temperature of approximately
/ . •
425°C. The copper dross from the second kettle and some drosses from the
62
-------
refinery are transferred back to the first kettle to reclaim lead that may
be mixed in the copper dross. In several of the lead smelters, the copper
dross is treated in a reverberatory furnace 'to make copper matte, but at
ASARCO in Glover the copper dross is transferred by rail to a separate
facility for treatment. The lead from the dross kettles is transferred by
crane to the refinery.
3. Refinery system: Figure 10 is an aerial photo of the smelter
which shows the baghouses and the exhaust stacks as well as the general
outline of the buildings, along with the humidifying chambers. The
humidifiers and baghouses are the control systems. ASARCO operates a
refinery at the Glover plant which removes impurities from the lead bullion
and casts the metal into 100-lb pigs or 1-ton blocks for shipment. The
refinery was surveyed during the course of the testing, but no emission '
tests were conducted at this facility.
The lead concentrate at the Glover plant contains a high percentage
of lead and minimal impurities compared with the two other ASARCO plants.
The lead bullion passes through a series of four kettles for decopperizing,
desilverizing, and dezincing and then to a fifth kettle for refining with
caustic soda and sodium nitrate before it is cast into pigs or blocks.
No visible emissions were observed within the plant. None of the
refinery kettles are vented to the outside. The only two operations vented
to the outside are combustion air from heating of the kettles and air from
the baghouse Used to collect zinc produced in a zinc-silver separating
retort.
63
-------
610' Stack for Sinter
Machine Gases
Blast Furnace &
rspS-jDross Kettles
358' Stacks for
Blast Furnace Gases
Storage Bins
Sinter Machined
From Bulletin No. X-J8,
published by ASARCO.
Aerial View
Figure 10
64
-------
B. Control Systems
1. Sinter machine water spray chamber and baghouse: Effluent
gases from the sinter machine, two clean-up conveyors, sinter breaker,
spiked roll, pan conveyor, and the cooling drum are vented through a water
spray chamber and a baghouse containing microtan synthetic bags which are
resistant to the high temperature of the sintering machine exhaust. The
inlet to the water spray chamber from the sinter machine is 450°-500°C.
The inlet to the water spray chamber from the discharge system is 150°C.
The sinter plant baghouse was designed by ASARCO and is an en-
closed concrete structure of the compartmented, pressure type with a design
efficiency of 99.8%. The bags are 12-1/2 in. diameter by 20 ft long with
204 per compartment and the bags had an average age of 9 months during our
test. The baghouse is inspected daily to insure proper maintenance of the
bags.
In the sinter machine control system for the purpose of cooling,
an undetermined quantity of air is introduced through a vent located between
the water spray chamber and baghouse. The nine compartment baghouse (total
cloth area 129,000 sq ft) has an inlet gas rate of 232,000 ACFM at 204°F
-/'.-. '' • ~ "
(air-to-cloth ratio of 1.8 or 2.0 ACFM per sq ft with one compartment being —
cleaned). Gases from the baghouse are vented through a 12 in. thick,
610 ft tall concrete stack of 20 ft diameter. The stack has four tempera-
ture monitors which in conjunction with a ground level ambient air SQ2
monitor, are used to regulate the smelter production rate based upon weather
65
-------
conditions to prevent an excess ground level concentration of SC^. There is
a sampling house on the ductwork between the baghouse and stack which has
an "Askania" sampler. This bag sampler collects a continuous isokinetic
sample at one point for a 3-4 day period after which the collected material
is weighed.
The water used in the spray chamber is recycled continuously. The
baghouse dust is burned to prevent ignition and to compact the dust. Both
the water spray chamber and the baghouse are cleaned out every 3 weeks, and
the collected material is recycled through the sinter machine. A grab sample
from each of these systems is analyzed for lead at this time.
The baghouse compartments shake consecutively once the pressure
has reached a specified point. Each compartment shakes for approximately
33 sec; a complete baghouse shake continues for 6 min 40 sec.
From 1 January 1973 through 16 July 1973 the sinter machine
water spray chamber has collected on the average 19 tons of particulate
per day (54.27o Pb) and the sinter machine baghouse has collected on the
average 33.5 tons of particulate per day (59.7% Pb). These figures are
based on measurements made when the control system is cleaned (approximately
every 3 weeks).
2. Blast furnace water spray chamber and baghouse: Effluent gases
from the blast furnace, swivel vibrator (transfer of sinter to storage bins),
Ross Classifying Rolls, dross kettles, Roy Tapper, slag granulator, lead.
tap, slag taps and feed hopper drop points are cooled in a water spray
chamber before going to the baghouse.
66
-------
The blast furnace baghouse was designed by ASARCO and is an en-
closed concrete structure of the compartmented, pressure type with a
design efficiency of 99.8%. The blast furnace baghouse contains wool bags
which are less flammable than synthetic bags. The bags are 12-1/2 in.
diameter by 20 ft with 204 in each of six compartments and the average age
of the bags was 8.2 months. The baghouse is inspected daily to insure
proper maintenance of the bags. The six compartment baghouse (total cloth
area 77,000 sq ft) has an inlet gas rate of 131,000 ACFM at 137°F (air-to-
. • ' / 7
cloth ratio of 1.7 or 2.0 ACFM per sq ft with one compartment being
cleaned). Gases from the baghouse are vented through three 58-ft stacks,
each handling gases from two compartments.
An undetermined quantity of air is introduced through a vent
between the water spray chamber and baghouse for codling purposes. In the
blast furnace control system, lime is also added between the water spray
chamber and the baghouse to aid in collection efficiency and to retard
ignition of collected dust.
The bags in each compartment are mechanically vibrated for cleaning.
A damper is closed to prevent flow while vibrating and left closed for about
20 sec after vibration to allow particulate settling. Compartments are
cleaned on a rotation basis when the pressure drop across' the baghouse
exceeds 3 in. of water. If cleaning one compartment fails to lower the
pressure drop enough to satisfy the present value, the next compartment is
cleaned. During the testing program, it was observed that two compartments
were generally cleaned at one time.
67
-------
The collected dust from the blast furnace operation usually con-
tains a high percentage of lead and appreciable quantities of cadmium and
arsenic. From 1 January 1973 through 16 July 1973, the blast furnace water
spray chamber has collected on the average 10.8 tons of particulate per day
(56.0% Pb), and the blast furnace baghouse has collected on the average
30 tons of particulate per day (56.07o Pb). These figures are based on
measurements made when the control system chambers are cleaned out (ap-
proximately every 1-1/2 to 2 weeks).
C. Sampling Conditions
1. Sinter machine; An isokinetic sample could not be obtained
with the EPA train at the outlet of the sinter machine baghouse. There is
no port in the stack, and the breeching between the baghouse and the stack
is not enough duct diameters long for isokinetic sampling. Outlet measure-
ments are therefore based on results from the Askania sampler which is
operated continuously by the plant. Three inlet tests were conducted up-
stream from the water spray chamber, thus providing information on uncon-
trolled emissions from the sinter machine and from auxiliary operations
(crushers, conveyors, cooling drum, etc.) associated with the sinter machine.
A particulate sizing test on the two inlet ducts was planned but was not
completed due to sampling problems. The Askania sampler, which consists
of a bag filter, collects an isokinetic sample from the single point of
average velocity. For the purposes of this test, a pre-weighed clean bag
was inserted in the sampler at 8:30 a.m. on 20 July and removed 23 July at
4:00 p.m.
-------
Historically the lead companies have installed the pollution con-
trol equipment (water spray chamber and baghouse) as material recovery sys-
tems, part of their production equipment. Recovery of lead, not pollution
control, was the primary reason for the installation of the baghouse. In
order to more nearly complete their material balance calculations, which
are made on a yearly basis, ASARCO decided that they should make an attempt
to sample the outlet of the baghouse and analyze for lead. Realizing that
the recognized isokinetic sampling equipment would not work, they set out
to design a fixed sampler to approximate an isokinetic sampler. They in-
stalled a couple of ports in the breeching and conducted a pitot temperature
traverse to determine the point of average velocity. Calculations deter-
mined the orifice size and pumping rate for drawing a proportional sample
from the breeching. The sample system consists of a fixed stainless ori-
fice with a stainless heated delivery line to a heated chamber in which a
bag filter (same material as the bags in the baghouse but much tighter
weave) is installed to trap the samples, and a vacuum pump calibrated to
deliver fixed volume of gas from the breeching. The temperature pressure
and gas flow are measured. At the end of a specified period, generally
during a scheduled shutdown of the sinter machine, the bag is removed,
weighed and placed on a pan in an oven for drying. After drying, the bag
and pan are removed and reweighed to obtain a sample weight. This sample
is then analyzed by ASARCO for lead content to determine lead losses to
the atmosphere.
69
-------
During the first test, the sinter machine was off during 9 min
at the beginning of the test. During four of those minutes a main feed
hopper was being emptied. Emissions from the main feed hopper are venti-
lated through the blast furnace control system, so that no operation ven-
tilated to the sinter machine was functioning during the 9-min shutdown.
The sinter machine duct was not sampled within - 10% of 100% isokinetic
during the first run and was repeated at a later date; therefore, only the
auxiliary duct measurement was affected by the sinter machine shutdown.
2. Fugitive emissions: Occasionally, fugitive emissions within
the one-sided sinter machine building were observed to be fairly high. In
particular, the cooling drum at some times was a source of in-plant emis-
sions. One scrubber has been installed by the plant in the sinter machine
building as a trial unit to collect fugitive dusts for the purpose of indus-
trial hygiene. A complete scrubber system is planned to control in-plant
dust. The dust released by the cooling drum has a high moisture content
which would clog a baghouse, thus necessitating wet scrubber control.
3. Blast furnace: Measurements at the inlet and the outlet of
the blast furnace control system were made simultaneously. The inlet test
was made upstream from the water spray chamber, and the outlet test was
made on all three stacks simultaneously. A lime sample was collected at
the point where lime is introduced into the gas stream between the water
spray chamber and baghouse to ascertain the total particulate loading to
the baghouse. The lime sample was obtained by catching a sample from the
70
-------
lime feeder for 1 miri. The sample was weighed and lime addition rate cal-
culated on this data. Particle sizing was planned on both the inlet and
the outlet, but due to sampling problems at the inlet, only the outlet was
tested for particle size.
Dynamiting of the blast furnace was a common occurrence during
the course of testing. The purpose of dynamiting is to decrease the pos-
sibility of a furnace blow, when emissions would seemingly be highest. A
blow occurs when the material which has built up on the sides of the fur-
nace, forming a chimney within the furnace collapses. When a chimney forms
within the furnace, the air moves directly through the furnace without
maximum contact with the furnace material.
During the first test at the blast furnace (19 July 1973), the
sinter machine was not operating. Therefore, ventilation air from the Ross
Classifying Rolls and Swivel Vibrator was being ducted through the blast
furnace baghouse. According to plant personnel, these two operations may
be expected to contribute a low gas volume, but a relatively large amount
of dust to the blast furnace control system. During the second test, one
baghouse compartment was closed down.
During the third test at the blast furnace (23 July 1973)j the
baghouse compartments were manually shaken six times. Review of the con-
trol room charts indicated that the bags which usually shake when the pres-
sure has reached 3 in. of water, had shaken on the average of 70 times/day
(2.8 times per hour) between 15 June and 15 July. The maximum number of
71
-------
bag shakes was 111 times-day and 4 or 5 shakes an hour was not uncommon.
From our arrival on 16 July through 22 July, the bags shook on the average
of only 33.7 times per day (1.4 times per hour). During Runs No. 1 and 2,
the bag shakes occurred very infrequently during the actual test time.
The infrequent shaking of the bags is assumed to be related to the frequent
dynamiting of the furnace. When material adheres to the sides of the fur-
nace, the air moving through the furnace has less contact with it and the
emissions would seemingly be less. Because the highest visible emissions
to the atmosphere have been observed to follow baghouse shakes, it was de-
cided to manually shake the bags in order to compare the emissions with
the first and second tests when the bags were shaken infrequently. The
manual shaking of the bags was continued during the particle sizing test.
4. Fugitive emissions: Fugitive emissions from several opera-
tions associated with the blast furnace—dross kettles, ray tapper, slag
granulator, lead tap, slag taps, and feed hopper drop points—are reduced
by hooding and ventilation to the blast furnace control system. The lead
tap, particularly at windy times when the lead tap was heavy, produced some
fugitive emissions. At the slag tap, the hooding is not in direct contact
with the receiving chamber, and did not appear to be adequate for complete
collection of fumes. According to plant personnel, problems with the slag
granulator fan contributed to the fuming at the slag tap. The ladles which
receive the lead at the lead tap are partially covered to minimize fugitive
emissions. Occasionally fuming occurs, especially when there is spillage
during the transfer of lead bullion from the furnace to the dross kettles.
72
-------
V. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
.This section of the report discusses the physical layout of the
sampling locations and sampling points at each location. The sampling pro-
cedures used to collect particulate samples at the smelter are presented
herein. The analytical procedures are also discussed;
A. Location of Sampling Ports and Points
For the sinter plant the two sampling locations are shown in
.Figure 11. In the 3-ft duct which vents the operations associated with
sintering, the sample ports were 25 ft, 8-1/3 pipe diameters, downstream
from the elbow, and 10 ft, 3-1/3 pipe diameters, upstream from a distur-
bance. There were two ports 90 degrees apart in the duct. Due to the
physical layout one port was located at 30 degrees from the vertical axis
and the other 30 degrees below the horizontal.
The single port in the 7-ft duct was located 56 ft, 8 pipe diam-
eters, downstream from the nearest flow obstruction, but only 7 ft, 1 pipe
diameter, from the nearest upstream obstruction, a 45-degree elbow. This
port was located at the center line of the duct. The port was at 90 degrees
to the duct. The duct came from the fourth floor of the sinter plant to the
roof of the single-story humidifying chamber at 45 degrees.
The location of the sample points in each duct is shown in Table
XIX. There were 16 points in Duct B and each point was sampled twice for
a total of 32 sample points per test. There were six points in each port
of Duct C.
73
-------
•25'
•10'
FROM SINTER MACHINE
\. FLOW
•4" PIPE NIPPLE
•SAMPLE POINTS
V
-SAMPLE POINT C
FROM OPERATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH SINTER
3' DIAMETER
-SAMPLE POINTS
71 DIAMETER
4" PIPE NIPPLE
3' Die..
7' Dio.
SAMPLE POINT B
HUMIDIFYING
CHAMBER
Figure 11 - Sample Ports in Sinter Plant Ducts
-------
TABLE XIX
SAMPLING POINTS D AND C LOCATIONS
SINTER DUCTS
Point
Port No*
Duct I/B 1
2
3
4
5
6
. ' 7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Duct U/C 1
2
3
4
5
6
Duct
Diameter
(in.)
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
89-9/16
39-5/8
39-5/8
39-5/8
39-5/8
39-5/8
39-5/8
1
1.6
4.9
8.5
12.5
16.9
22.0
28.3
37.5
62.5
71.7
78.0
83.1
87.5
91.5
95.1
98.4
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6
Location
in Duct
(in.)
1-1/2
4-3/8
7-5/8
11-1/4
15-1/8
17-7/8
25-3/8
32-3/4
56-13/16
64-3/16
71-11/16
74-7/16
78-5/16
81-15/16
85-3/16
88-1/16
1-3/4
5-7/8
11-5/8
28
33-3/4
37-7/8
Outside Port
to Inside Duct
(in.)
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/8
3-1/8
3-1/8
3-1/8
3-1/8
3-1/8
Use
(in.)
4-3/4
7-5/8
10-7/8
14-1/2
18-3/8
21-1/8
28-5/8
36
60-1/16
67-7/16
74-15/16
77-11/16
81-9/16
85-3/16
88-7/16
91-5/16
4-7/8
9
14-3/4
31-1/8
36-7/8
41
Duct L/C
Same as upper port
75
-------
The sample location in the 7-ft duct from the blast furnace is
shown in Figure 12. The ports were located at 45 degrees with the horizon-
tal, one on the north axis and the other on the south. The ports were 60
ft, 8.57 pipe diameters, from the upstream 90-degree elbow and 15 ft, 2.14
pipe diameters, from the downstream 90-degree elbow. The sample point
dimensions, six in each port, are in Table XX.
Figure 13 shows the configuration of the blast furnace baghouse
and stacks E, F and G. Figure 14 shows the location of the ports and sam-
ple points in each of the three stacks. The ports were located 36 ft 6 in.,
4-1/2 pipe diameters, above the breeching or inlet to the stack and 11 ft
6 in., 1-2/3 pipe diameters, from the outlet to the atmosphere. The sam-
pling point calculations yielded a value of 32 sampling points, eight per
port.
B. Sampling Procedures
An RAG* Model 2343 Staksampler train was used to sample for par-
ticulates. Glass-lined probes were used for all sampling. The procedures
used are those in the Federal Register, 3j^, 159, 17 August 1971. There
were two exceptions: (1) the exhaust duct from the sinter baghouse was
sampled using the ASARCO's permanent continuous sampler called Askania;
this sampler is supposedly an isokinetic sampler; and (2) as it was not
possible to install and use two 90-degree ports in Duct B, one port was
used and each of the 16 points was sampled twice.
* Mention of a specific company does not constitute endorsement by EPA.
76
-------
•60'
-*
FLOW;.
7'
t
SAMPLE POINT D'
SAMPLE POINTS
HUMIDIFYING'
CHAMBER
1
f
{A"
4" PIPE NIPPLE
Figure 12 - Sample Ports in Blast Furnace Exhaust Duct
-------
no
**~
TABLE XX
SAMPLING POINTS IN BLAST FURNACE DUCT. SAMPLING
LOCATION D
Port
Duct N/D
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Duct
Diameter
(in.)
83-3/4
83-3/4
83-3/4
83-3/4
83-3/4
83-3/4
%
4.4
14.7
29.5
70.5
85.3
95.6
Location
in Duct
(in.)
3-5/8
12-1/4
24-5/8
59-1/8
71-1/2
80-1/8
Outside Port
to Inside Wall
(in.)
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
3-1/4
Use
(in.)
6-7/8
15-1/2
27-7/8
62-3/8
74-3/4
83-3/8
Duct S/D Same, as North Port
-------
v£>
Stack 1 Stack 2
N
Stack 3
1
f Inlet -
I
i
1
"c
L.
o
Q.
E
o
O
/ \
2
/ \
3
i
1
1
|
1
1.
I
1
/ \
i
5 6
i
1
1
I
|
1
i
1
(Top View)
1/2" Asbestos
Cement Board
Sample Port
EPA Train
Rail Support
(Profile)
Figure 13 - Blast Furnace Baghouse and Stack(s) Configuration
-------
J
00
fc
1
3:
•O
• <
»_.
-------
Ducts B and C were sampled simultaneously for 2 hr. The points
in Duct C were sampled for 10 min with readings every 5 min, a total of
2 hr. The 16 points in Duct B were sampled for 4 min with a total time of
64 min per traverse or 2 hr 8 min total sampling. When sampling was dis-
continued on Duct C to change ports, the sampling on Duct B was continued
for 4 min and then discontinued until sampling was started again on Duct C.
At the blast furnace all particulate sampling was conducted
simultaneously for a minimum of 2 hr. The 7-ft duct (12 points) was
sampled for 10 min on a point (total of 2 hr) with readings taken every
5 min. Sampling on the exhaust stacks was 4 min per point, 32 points for
a total of 2 hr 8 min. When the crews on the exhaust stacks stopped to
change ports the crew on the duct also stopped until all four crews were
ready to go.
The Andersen* particle size sampling was conducted at Stack F
Port 3 Point 3 using the RAG* Staksampler equipment with a 3-ft glass
lined probe and an Andersen* sampler.
The Orsat samples were taken by using a stainless steel probe
which contained a glass wool filter. The probe was inserted to Point 3
of each stack and samples were pumped directly into the Orsat analyzer for
5 min to purge the probe, line and Orsat. Three analyses were made for
each test, and each analysis lasted 5 min. Ducts B, C and D were sampled
* Mention of a company name or product does not constitute endorsement by
EPA.
81
-------
and analyzed for each test. Stacks E, F and G were analyzed for Test 3.
On Tests 4 and 7 only G was analyzed. The results of the Orsat analyses
for Test 3 showed that the three stacks had the same composition within
the accuracy of the method.
A Drager tube was used to obtain approximate analysis of the SG
in the gases from the sinter exhaust ducts and the blast furnace exhaust
duct; A stainless steel probe with a glass wool filter was inserted into
the stack to Point 3 and a sample withdrawn into the tube using an MSA*
hand pump. This was done for each test.
Lime is added to the particulate from the blast furnace in the
duct between the water spray chamber and the baghouse. Each day that par
ticulate sampling was conducted around the pollution control system for
the baghouse, a lime sample was taken for the purpose of determining the
lime addition rate. The sample was taken from the vibratory feeder for a
period of 1 min. The lime was weighed and the lime addition rate of 44.7
Ib/hr was determined from the weight of lime collected in 1 min.
C. Analytical Procedures
the particulate analysis was accomplished using the procedures
in the Federal Register. 36_ (159), 15,715-15,716, 17 August 1971.
After the samples were analyzed for particulates, the solid res
idue was digested in 10 ml of boiling aqua regia for 1 hr with reflux.
* Mention of a company name or product does riot constitute endorsement by
EPA.
82 .
-------
The liquid was cooled, diluted to 50 ml and analyzed for lead on the atomic
absorption spectrdphototneter.
The Andersen particle analysis on the plates was done in the
field. Then each plate was carefully washed with acetone into a sample
container. The probe wash and filter were treated as particulate samples
and returned to the MRI laboratories for particulate and lead analysis.
The acetone was evaporated from each of the particulate samples and then
they were analyzed for lead content using the procedure described above.
Orsat and SC^ (approximate) analyses were conducted in the field
as described in Section V-B.
The large filter used to collect particulate samples from the
inlet ducts to the sinter and blast furnace control system had enough par-
ticulate that it was not necessary to digest the filters for. lead analysis.
A weighed sample of the particulate from the large filters was digested
for lead analysis. The small filters used in the baghouse exhaust stacks
were digested along with the particulate for lead analysis.
All particulate and lead blanks have been subtracted from the
values before they were reported.
83
------- |