United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-BOF-4
August 1980
Air
Steel Processing
Fugitive Emissions
Emission Test Report
Armco Steel
Ashland, Kentucky
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION EVALUATION REPORT
DESULFURIZATION STATION
ARMCO STEEL
ASHLAND, KENTUCKY
Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
EMB REPORT NO. 80-EOF-4
Work Assignment 28
Contract No. 68-02-2817
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables -JL
List of Figures ii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Discussion of Results 2
3.0 Observation Locations and Emission Points 7
4.0 Observation Procedures 12
APPENDICES
A. Project Participants
B. Field Data Sheets
B-l. Fugitive Emissions (Method 22)
B-l.l. Desulfurization
B-l.2. Lance Opening and Skimming
B-2. Visible Emissions (Method 9)
B-3. Velocity Traverse
C. Summary of Visible Emissions
D. Method 22
E. Method 9
F. Visible Emission Certifications of Observers
G. Calibration Data
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Fugitive Emission Evaluations of 3
the Desulfurization Station
2.2 Fugitive Emission Evaluations 4
of the Lance Opening and Skimming
Station
2.3 Stack Gas Parameters - Baghouse 5
Outlet, Desulfurization Station
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Plan view of desulfurization station 8
and observation points
3.2 Baghouse outlet sampling location 11
4.1 Elevation view of desulfurization 13
station and emission points
4.2 Stack cross-section and sampling 16
point locations
11
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Act mandates that Standards of Perform-
ance be established for new stationary air pollution
sources. Establishment of these standards requires that
an emission data base be developed for each source category.
This data base is used as a guide for the establishment
of Performance Standards which will minimize air quality
degradation and yet not be impossible to attain.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
retained Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc., to
evaluate both visible and fugitive emissions emanating
from the desulfurization station at the Armco Steel
facility in Ashland, Kentucky. The study was conducted
on April 22 and 23, 1980. Velocity traverses were
conducted simultaneously with the emission observations
of the desulfurization station. Emissions were also
documented of the lance opening and the skimming process
(both are uncontrolled).
The results of this study will be used as part of
the field sampling data for supporting New Source Perform-
ance Standards for fugitive process emissions in the iron
and steel industry. This study was commissioned as
Project No. 80-BOF-4, Contract No. 68-02-2817, and
Work Assignment 28.
-------
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
DESULFURIZATION STATION
Table 2.1 presents the results for both the fugitive
and visible emission evaluations of the desulfurization
station. Ten observation runs were conducted.
Emission frequencies during Test Runs 1 through 10
ranged from 0.0 to 68.2-percent, averaging 44.2-percent,
for Observer 1, from 0.0 to 99.9-percent, averaging
60.4-percent, for Observer 2, and 0.0 to 97.8-percent,
averaging 55.9-percent, for Observer 3. Therefore, the
variability between observers in perceived emission fre-
quency was over the range of 44 to 60-percent.
The average opacities for six tests ranged from
2 to 14-percent.
LANCE OPENING AND SKIMMING
Table 2.2 presents the results for observations
conducted at the lance opening and the skimming station.
Three tests were conducted at each location.
Emission frequencies were 100-percent for each
test at both locations. Both are uncontrolled processes.
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Table 2.3 presents the flowrates and temperatures
from velocity traverses conducted simultaneously with the
fugitive emission evaluations. The flowrates are expressed
in standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) and temperatures
in degrees Fahrenheit (F).
- 2 -
-------
TABLE 2.1. FUGITIVE EMISSION EVALUATIONS OF THE DESULFURIZATION STATION
Test Date
No. 1980
1 4/22
2 4/22
3 4/22
4 4/22
5 4/22
6 4/22
7 4/23
8 4/23
9 4/23
10 4/23
Observer 1
Accum.
Observ.
MiruSec
19:34
15:29
11:16
11:12
16:29
05:25
15:16
12:31
Accum.
Emission
Min:Sec
04:14
00:00
07:41
05:01
10:56
03:27
b
08:28
04:12
Emission
Frequency
%
21.6
0.0
68.2
44.8
66.3
63.7
55.5
33.6
Method
22
Observer 2
Accuro.
Observ.
Min:Sec
19:32
15:29
11:10
11:10
16:26
05:21
15:31
14:48
15:16
13:32
Accum.
Emission
Min:Sec
05:37
00:00
07:28
06:06
12:43
04:08
15:30
14:45
10:21
04:13
Emission
Frequency
%
28.8
0.0
66.9
54.6
77.4
77.3
99.9
99.7
67.8
31.2
Observer 3
Accum. Accum.
Observ. Emission
Min:Sec Min:Sec
19:32 05:32
15:29 00:00
c
15:42 15:19
15:00 14:40
c
Emission
Frequency
%
28.3
0.0
97.6
97.8
Method 9 (Percent)
a
Observer 3
Low High
c
0 25
0 15
0 75
0 50
c
0 20
0 10
Average
7
4
14
12
5
2
I
to
I
Observers are as follows: (1) Dusanka Lazarevic, (2) John Holm, (3) Bruce Bird.
Emissions emanating from the lance opening were observed (see Table 2.2).
C0bserver alternated using Methods 22 and 9.
-------
TABLE 2.2. FUGITIVE EMISSION EVALUATIONS OF THE LANCE OPENING AND SKIMMING STATION
Test
Number
1
2
I
t»
1 3
Date
1980
4/23
4/23
4/23
Method 22
a
Lance Opening
Accum. Accum.
Observ. Emission
Min:Sec Min:Sec
15:33 15:33
14:32 14:32
15:17 15:17
Emission
Frequency
%
100
100
100
b
Skimming
Accum.
Observ.
Min:Sec
3:00
2:52
3:11
Accum.
Observ.
Min: Sec
3:00
2:52
3:11
Emission
Frequency
%
100
100
100
Tests 1 and 2 were observed by D. Lazarevic and Test 3 by John Brown.
Observed by John Brown.
-------
TABLE 2.3. STACK GAS PARAMETERS - BAGHOUSE OUTLET,
DESULFURIZATION STATION
Test
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Date
1980
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
4/22
Flowrate
scfm
22,300
20,400
22,000
20,900
24,200
24,000
23,100
23,000
Temp
F
127
154
120
144
101
107
105
113
- 5 -
-------
The flowrates ranged from 20,400 to 24,200-scfm and
temperatures ranged from 101 to 154F.
- 6 -
-------
3.0 OBSERVER LOCATIONS AND EMISSION POINTS
Figure 3.1 depicts a plan view of the desulfurization
station and the EOF shop showing all respective observa-
tion points.
DESULFURIZATION STATION
Observation points 1 and 2 were located approximately
25 and 60-feet east of the station at ground level,
respectively. Observers alternated between the two
positions depending on wind direction and how heavy
emissions were during desulfurizing. Several times
Point 1 became engulfed in smoke, forcing the observers
to move to the second location. Both Stations A and B
were observed from these locations.
The observation locations permitted optimum viewing
of the process and were also the safest from hot splashing
metal during the desulfurizing process.
Even though observers were facing into the sun during
the afternoon readings, this did not interfere with the
observations. The desulfurization building was tall enough
to block the afternoon sun, allowing the observers to view
the stations without any difficulty- The south side of
the station would have been the best afternoon observing
location with respect to the sun, but the plant had
installed shields on this side to minimize interference
caused by the winds. Therefore, the view of the stations
- 7 -
-------
N
Desulfurization station
i
T -
4:
f
s
1
s
/
00
1
Baghouse
Only obse
;rved
/
this lance opening
(D
III
(
/~\
Pulpit
(D
r\
_--^\ 7
-^^ ' \ I
Lance openings
(&) (3)
J i I7\\ t , ; (Pi i
^-Stations
I)
III
/
j
7
-£
^
/
1 ©
EOF shop
L
Skimming
station
Figure 3.1 Plan view of desulfurization station and observation points.
-------
was completely blocked. Also, since prevailing winds
were from the west-northwest, they would cause emissions
to exit at the opposite side of the station.
LANCE OPENING
The lance opening was located about 20-feet above
ground level, in a building enclosure above the desulfuriza-
tion station. The opening was a slot in the desulfurization
pick-up hood through which the lance was lowered into the
torpedo car. The first test run began at Point 3, which
was northwest of the lance. Within minutes, the entire
enclosure was smoke filled and the lance was barely
visible. At this time the observer moved to Point 4,
(outdoors) to escape the emissions. Test 3 was also
conducted at this location. Test 2 was conducted within
the pulpit (Point 5), which was adjacent to the lance
opening.
SKIMMING
Observations of the skimming process were conducted
indoors about 100-feet south of the ladle at Location
6 (Figure 3.1). The ladle was approximately 25-feet
above the ground.
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
The baghouse outlet was a 36.0-inch by 36 7/8-inch
duct located approximately 23-feet above ground level.
- 9 -
-------
The duct was accessed through three 2 1/2-inch ports
equally spaced across the 36.0-inch duct face. The
ports were located about 11.5-feet downstream from a
bend and 4.5-feet upstream from another bend, providing
adequate upstream/downstream distances to disturbances.
Each traverse consisted of three sampling points for
Test Nos. 1 and 2, and four points for the remaining six
tests. Velocity pressures were measured at each of the
9 and 12 points, respectively. Temperatures were taken
at the center of each port location. Figure 3.2 presents
both plan and elevation views of the traverse location.
- 10 -
-------
Plan view
fan
Baghouse
t!
ports
•
Elevation view
Baghouse
To
fan
Figure 3.2. Baghouse outlet sampling location,
- 11 -
-------
4.0 OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
Visible emissions were evaluated in accordance
with EPA Method 22, Visible Determinations of Fugitive
Emissions from Material Processing Sources, and EPA
Method 9, Visual Determination of the Opacity of
Emissions from Stationary Sources.
DESULFURIZATION STATION
The station is equipped with two desulfurizing units
but only one torpedo car is lanced at a time. Initially,
the lance was partially lowered into the torpedo car
and the nitrogen purge begun. When the lance was fully
lowered into the car, the magnesium/lime mixture was
added. This indicated the starting point of the test.
The designated stop time was when the lance was fully
raised into the hood.
Initially, all three observers used only Method 22.
After the second run, the EPA Technical Manager, Mr.
John Brown, suggested that one individual use Method 9,
while the other two use Method 22. Ms. Dusanka Lazarevic
and Mr. John Holm used Method 22, while Mr. Bruce Bird
used Method 9.
Emission points A and B were observed during the
study. Emissions from the uncontrolled lance opening
emanated from Point C, and were not included (Figure 4.1)
- 12 -
-------
Desulfurization Station
To
fan
x
CO
I
A /I
V \ \
B
Figure 4.1. Elevation view of desulfurization station and emission points.
-------
A great deal of interference was encountered during
the third test. A machine located in front of Point B
was filling the lime bins and spewing lime dust into the
air, making observations at Point B impossible.
The wind may also have been a contributing factor
to the higher emission levels. The wind direction was
predominantly from the west-southwest, channeling itself
through the station. Since the exhaust shrouds were
positioned high enough for a locomotive to pass under
them, it appeared that the emissions were carried away
before they could be drawn into the exhaust system. The
plant has installed shields on the southern side of the
desulfurization building to minimize capture interference
caused by the prevailing winds.
LANCE OPENING AND SKIMMING
Both locations were observed using Method 22. Three
runs were conducted at each location.
VELOCITY TRAVERSE
Exhaust gas sampling was conducted in accordance
with procedures outlined in the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's "Standards of Performance for
New Stationary Sources" (Federal Register 40CFR60,
December 23, 1971, as amended through August 18, 1977).
The duct was divided into equal areas and exhaust
gas velocities were measured at each midpoint. Velocity
- 14 -
-------
pressures were obtained using an S-type Pitot tube and
inclined 0 to 10-inch water gauge manometer, in accordance
with EPA Methods 1 and 2. Figure 4.2 shows the inlet
and outlet stack cross-sections and sampling point loca-
tions .
- 15 -
-------
1
H
1 1
1 1
1 »
O 0 1 0
1 I
[. „ J
1 1
0 , 0 ( 0
I
I 1
1 ,
o i o ' o
1
1 1
1 .
1 i
±2 I*. | 0
jG
36
7/8"
36 7/8"
U |
--J.4 | J.£
36"
• - t>
Point
1
2
3
Distance
(inches)
6.1
18.4
30.7
Point
1
2
3
4
Distance
(inches)
4.6
13.8
23.0
32.3
Figure 4.2. Stack cross-section and sampling point locations.
------- |