United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 80-CKO-25
August 1980
Air
Iron and Steel
(Coke Oven Battery
Stack)
Emission Test Report
Kaiser Steel Corporation
Fontana, California
-------
EMISSION TESTING AT
KAISER STEEL'S FONTANA WORKS
COKE OVEN BAGHOUSES C AND E
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Contract No. 68-02-2812
Work Assignment No. 60
July 1980
Prepared by
D. Powell
T. Rooney
TRW
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING DIVISION
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
2 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .2-1
3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION 3-1
4 LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS 4-1
5 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5-1
6 APPENDICES
A. Field and Laboratory Data
1) Traverse Point Locations A-l
2) Field Data Sheets A-2
3) Inorganic Gas Determination A-5
4) Visible Emission Data A-33
a) Battery C A-39
b) Battery E A-72
5) Laboratory Analysis Data A-104
6) Meter Box Calibration Data Sheets A-114
B. Sampl e Cal cul at ions B»l
C. Daily Activity Log C-l
D. Process Data .' D-l
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Baghouse C Plant Schematic and Traverse Point Locations 4-2
2 Baghouse E Plant Schematic and Traverse Point Locations 4-3
3 EPA Method 5 Particulate Sampling Train 5-2
4 Modified EPA Method 5 Sampling Train 5-3
5 Particulate Sampling Train Equipped with In-Stack Filter 5-5
EPA Method 17
TABLES
1 Battery C Baghouse Outlet Method 5 Particulate Results .2-3
2 Battery E Baghouse Outlet Method 5 Particulate Results 2-4
3 Battery E Baghouse Outlet Method 17 Particulate Results 2-5
4 Baghouse C Visible Emission Summary 2-6
5 Baghouse E Visible Emission Summary 2-7
ii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency's program for
developing New Source Performance Standards, personnel from the TRW Environmental
Engineering Division performed emission testing on the outlets of two coke oven
baghouses at Kaiser Steel Corporation's Fontana works. The testing was done
between April 14 and April 17, 1980.
The testing program was designed to provide additional information on the
use of baghouses for controlling particulate emissions from coke oven battery
stacks.
The emission testing was done at the outlets of the baghouses serving
coke oven batteries C and E. The testing at Battery C consisted of three
Method 5 particulate runs. The testing at Battery E consisted of three Method
5 particulate runs and three Method 17 in-stack filter particulate tests. The
Method 5 and Method 17 tests were done simultaneously to provide comparison
data on these two test methods. Each test consisted of a two hour sample and
a composite gas sample for inorganic analysis.
This report presents the results of the sampling and analysis program.
The following sections of the report will present a summary and discussion of
the results, a process description, the description of the sampling location,
and sampling and analytical procedures. The appendices contain field and lab-
oratory data sheets, calibration data, and example calculations.
1-1
-------
SECTION 2
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The Method 5 samples taken at Baghouse C and Baghouse E were analyzed for
front half (filterable) and back half (condensable) particulates, and front
half (aerosol) and back half (vapor phase) sulfates. Since the sampling
methodology used does not separate sulfuric acid and sulfate salts, the results
are expressed as 504. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the Method 5 tests at Baghouse
C and Baghouse E, respectively.
Method 17 samples were taken simultaneously with the Method 5 test at
Baghouse E. Since Method 17, the in-stack filtration method, specifies
recovery of only the front half of the sampling train, data is given only for
front half particulates and front half sulfates. The data from these tests
are summarized in Table 3.
The results of all of the tests show a large proportion of the particulate
catch to be sulfate. The percentage of the total particulate catch attributable
to sulfate ranged from 33% to 67%. The proportion of sulfate to total particulate
was higher at Baghouse E than atBaghouse C (58% at Baghouse E as opposed to 43%
at Baghouse C).
A comparison of the filterable particulate catches for the simultaneous
Method 5 and Method 17.tests at Baghouse E shows a much lower grain loading
for the Method 17 tests. The average front half grain loading for the first
two Method 5 tests was 0.052 gr/SCF, while the corresponding Method 17 tests
had an;average grain loading of only 0.01 gr/SCF. The Method 17 tests also
had a much lower total sulfate grain loading: 0.006 gr/SCF average for the
first two tests, (front 1/2 as apposed to 0.030 gr/SCF for the corresponding
Method 5 tests, (front 1/2)
The difference in sulfate and particulate catch is probably due to the
difference in filter temperature of the two methods. The Method 17 filter
was in the stack at 400°F, while the Method 5 probe and filter were maintained
at 250°F. The method 17 filter was above the acid dewpoint, while the Method
5 probe and filter cooled the gas and allowed condensation to occur.
The particulate filter for the third Method 5 test at Baghouse E was
found to have been contaminated in shipment to the laboratory, consequently
front half data is not available for that test. The back half particulate
and sulfate data for the test is presented in Table 2.
During each test visible emissions observations were made of both baghouse
stacks. These data are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 for Baghouse C and Baghouse
E, respectively. Observations were done at 15 second intervals in six minute
2-1
-------
During each test visible emissions observations were made of both baghouse
stacks. These data are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 for Baghouse C and Baghouse
E, respectively. Observations were done at 15 second intervals in six minute
sets in accordance with EPA Method 9. Visible emissions from the two baghouses
were intermittent and rarely exceeded 5% opacity.
2-2
-------
TABLE 1 BATTERY C BAGHOUSE OUTLET METHOD 5 PARTICULATE RESULTS
RUM NUMBER
I DATE
II STACK PAMICTERS
Pit - SUtlc Pmiurt, *Hg (nffg)
Ps - SUch Gil Prttiurt. 'Kg AbsoluU (irtg)
1 C02 VoluM 1 Dry
I Oj . VoliM S Dry
I CO - Votum S Dry
S NZ - VoluM 3 Dry
Ti - Avtrtgi SUck Tmptratun °F (°C)
I MjO - I Noiiturt In SUck Gil. By ToliM
As - SUck Arw, ft2 (c«2)
W - NDlKuUr y«.ght of SUCk CM. Dry Bail*
Nt - Moltcula Might of SUck Gu, Wtt Basis
Vt - SUck Gi 'Velocity. fl/«e, (/!«)
Qa - SUck Gi VoluMtHc Flo* at SUck Condition!, ACFM (NT/Bin)
Qi - SUck Gi VolwttHc Flow it SUndard Condition*. DSCRt (Mv.rfn)
I CA Ptrctn ExcHt Atr
III TEST CONDITIOMS
Pb - BaroMtMc Pmiurt. "Hg (a**)
On - SupHng Notlti OliMttr. !t>. (m)
T - SwpHng TfM, artn
V. - Swplfl Voliw. ACF (»3)
Up - Ntt Siiollng Points
Cp Pilot Tubt Cotffictmt
T« - Avtragt Ntttr To..ptratur« °F (°C)
P» - Avtnot OH flu Pitsiurt Drop. »£ (rt.,0}
Vic - CondtniiU CollectM U^lngtrs and G«1). »U
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
Vw - Condcnstd Uitir Vipor. SDCF (K*3)
V. - VotiM of Gil SuDltd at SUiKtard CmdUlora. DSCF (Ita3)
WjO . Ptrctnt Nolitur*. By VoluM
M - Nolccular Might of SUck &ts. Htt Bull
Vi - SUck Vtloclty. ft/tK (n/»«c)
V ANALniCAL DATA
At Pirtlculitas Front Half
ProM (ng)
Cyctoot (-9)
Fllur (mt)
PirtlculitM Front Half Toul («g)
gn/SOCF . (mg/»3)
(hr. (kg/hr)
B) PiitlcuUUs -Condtnublts
' (-,)»
gn/SOCF. (fflft/B )
l/hr. (hg/hr)
,C) .Toul Pirttculatts («g)
gn/SDCF. (mtfrn3)
*/hr. (kg/hr)
iD) Front Half S04 («g)
gn/SOCF, (g/a3)
'/hr. (tj/hr)
El Back Half St>4 (ng)
gn/SDCF .(Mg/B3)
*/hr, (kg/hr)
. F) Toul 50j (09)
gn/SOCT. IB.)/.3)
f/hr . (kgfhr)
1
ENGLISH IWITS
VIS/80
-.68
20.37
4.17
14. Z7
0.00
81.56
123
7.67
20.62
29.24
28.38
5S.21
68340
40353
29.09
.185
120
47.673
48
.as
100
.45
19
3.62
43.674
7.6)
28.38
55.21
99.73
-
.0135
4.6524
.0068
2.3567
.0203
7.0091
...
.0016
1.2455
.0011
1.0623
-
.0067
2.1078
KETRIC UNITS
4/15/80
-17.27
720.60
4.17
14.27
0.00
81.56
162
7.67
1.92
29.24
28.18
16.8]
1935.9
1143.6
737.87
4.70
120
1.35
48
.85
38
11.43
77
14 OQ
.10
1.24
7.67
28.38
16.83
99.73
17.4
...
20.7
18.1
30.7948
2.1118
19.3
15.5994
1.0698
57.4
46.3942
3.1816
10.2
8.2443
.5654
8.7
7.0119
.4822
18.9
15.2767
1.476
ENGLISH UNITS
4/16/80
-.68
28.41
1.38
14.80
0.00
81.82
336
6.02
20.63
29.13
28.24
51.41
63636
36909
29.11
.248
120
77.900
48
.85
114
1.31
41
6.07
69.920
8.02
28.24
SI .41 '
97.14
.0154
4.8625
__
.0537
16.9873
.0691
21 .8498
.0074
2.1171
.0359
11 .3435
-
.0431
13.6806
I
METRIC UNITS
4/16/80
-17.27
722.12
3.18
14.80
0.00
81.82
169
8.02
1.92
29.13
28.24
15.67
1802.7
1045.6
739.19
6.30
120
2.21
48
.85
46
33.27
129
11 n
,17
1.98
8.02
28.24
15.67
97.14
16.9
12.8
69.7
15.1889
2.2072
241.5
122.9341
7.7110
313.2
158.1230
9.9182
13.5
16.9129
1.0609
162.6
82.0907
5.1491
ig6.i
99.0036
6.2100
1
ENGLISH UNITS
4/17/80
-.68
28.45
4.37
14.38
0.00
80.75
1J1
10.66
20.63
29.15
28.14
54.64
67615
38261
29.13
.248
120
78.659
48
.85
105
1.46
4;
8.57
71.802
10.66
28.14
54.64
96.23
.0215
7.0905
.1014
33.4334
.1229
40.5124
...
.0097
1.1811
.0554
18.1621
_.
.0651
21.3452
urmic lam
4/17/80
-17.27
722.63
4.87
. 14.38
0.00
80.75
167
10.66
1.92
29.35
28.14
16.66
1916.0
1083.9
739.90
6.30
120
2.23
48
.85
41
37.08
182
14 4A
.24
2.03
10.66
28.14
16.66
96.21
33.6
52.6
86.2
49.2380
3.2222
406.0
231.9098
15.1766
4g2.2
281.1478
18.3988
45.2
22.2217
1.4449
257.9
126.7911
8.2(43
303.1
149.0130
9. MI!
AVE
EIO.ISH UNITS
-.68
28.42
4.14
14.48
0.00
81.38
311
8.7B
20.63
29.24
28.25
53.75
66537.0
18507.7
29.10
.227
120
68.077
48
.85
106
1.07
.
Sg
6.09
61.799
6.78
29.24
53.75
97.70
».
.0168
5.5378
.0540
17.5927
.0708
23.1105
...
.0069
2.2552
.0115
10.1891
.0184
12.4445
RAGE
METRIC UNITS
-17.27
721 .87
4.14
14.48
0.00
81.38
166
8.78
I.g2
29.24
28.25
16.39
1884.9
1090.9
739.06
5.77
120
1.93
48
.85
41
27.26
129
14 22
.17
1.75
8.78
29.24
16.39
97.70
29.3
35.4
64.7
38.4072
2.5138
222.9
123.4811
7.98U
287.6
161.8811
10.49!t5
29.6
1S.79W
1.0217
143.1
71.9711
4.62S2
172.7
87.7612
S.64B9
2-3
-------
TABLE 2 BATTERY E BAGHOUSE OUTLET METHOD 5 PARTICULATE RESULTS
tun NUMCR
I DATE
11 STACK PARAMETERS
Pst - SUtlc Pressure, -Kg (nMg)
Ps - Stack Gas Pressure, *Hg Absolutt (a*g)
t C02 - Volum S Dry
SO. - Voluae S Dry
I CO Volum X Dry
I N2 - Volue* 1 Dry
Ts - Average Suck Tcavjeretura °F (°C)
1 H20 - I Moisture 1n Suck Gas, By Volin
As Stack Area, ft2 toj)
Nd - Molecular Height of Suck Gas. Dry Basis
Ms . Molecular Height of Suck Gas, wet Basts
vs - Suck Gas Velocity, ft/sec , (n/lec)
Qa - Suck Gas VolumtHc Flow at Stack Conditions. ACFN (Na3/Bln)
Qs - Suck Gas volunetrlc Flow at Standard Conditions. DSCFM (NB3/»ln)
: EA - Percent Excess Air
III TEST CONDITIONS
Pb - Barometric Pressure. "Hg (flirkj)
On - Sampling Nozzle Diameter. In. (M)
T - Sampling Time, «1n
V. - Sample »olw«. ACF !«')
No - Net Sampling Points
Cp - Pltot Tube Coefficient
Ta - Average Meter Temperature °F (°C)
Pw - Average Orifice Pressure Drop. "HjO (neHjO)
vie - Condensate Collected (Inplngers and G«1), nils
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
vw . Condensed Water vapor. SDCF (l«a3)
v> - Volume of Gas Saopled at standard Conditions, OSCF (Ha3)
HjO . Percent Moisture, By volun
Ms - Molecular weight of Suck Gas. Hat Basis
vs - Stack Velocity, ft/sec (m/secl
1 I - Percent [soklnetlc
V ANALYTICAL DATA
Probe Ong)
Cyclone Img)
Filter lug)
Partlculates Front half ToUl tag)
grs/SOCF. («g/»3)
Ihr. (kg/hr)
B) Partlculates - Condcnsables
grs/SOCF. («g/«3l
r. (kg/hr)
. £) Back Half SDa («g)
grs/SDCF .(eg/.1)
l/hr. (kg/hr)
F) Toul SOa (*g)
op*
grs/SOCF. («g/»3)
/In- . (kgfhr)
ENGLISH UNITS
4/15/90
28.41
2.15
16.66
0.00
81.19
386
9.13
20.00
29.01
28.00
55.93
67116
36146
29.05
.250
120
85.815
24
111
1.34
.57
7.77
77.276
9.13
28.00
55.93
104.6
.0470
14.5456
...
.2324
71 .9170
...
.2793
86.4826
...
.0274
8.4752
.1609
49.8249
...
.1883
58.3001
METRIC UNITS
4/15/90
-16.26
721 .61
2.15
16.66
0.00
81.19
197
9.13
1.86
29.01
29.00
17.05
1901.3
1023.9
737.87
6.35
120
2.43
24
a
34.04
165
14.48
.22
2.189
9.13
28.00
17.05
104.6
85 9
149.4
253.3
107.4860
6.6027
163.7
531.5930
32.6541
399.0
639.0691
39.2557
137.1
62.6279
3.8471
805.0
368.1842
22.6169
943.1
430.8121
26.4639
ENGLISH UNITS
4/16/80
-.64
28.47
3.82
14.29
0.00
81.83
398
9.34
20.00
29.17
28.12
58.49
70192
37270
29.11
.250
120
87.170
Z4
118
1.39
.62
9.00
77.715
9.34
29.12
58.49
102.0
.0574
18.3284
.0056
1.7936
.0630
20.1230
,0330
10.5464
.0030
.9570
...
.0360
11.5034
1
METRIC UIIITS
4/16/80
16.26
723.14
3.82
14.29
0100
81.93
203
9.34
1.85
29.17
28.12
17.83
1998.4
1055.9
739.39
6.35
120
2.47
24
49
35.31
170
15.75
.23
2.202
9.34
29.12
17.93
102.0
187.7
289.2
131.3615
8.3202
28.3
12.9545
.9142
317.5000
44.2150
9.1344
66.4
75.5828
4.7873
15.1
6.8589
.4344
81.5
82.4416
5.2217
ENGLISH UNITS
4/17/80
-.64
29.49
4.77
13.13
0.00
92.10
403
9.49
20.00
29.29
29.22
61.64
73971
39010
29.13
.250
120
99.635
24
109
1.54
.69
9.52
81 .262
9.49
28.22
61.64
101.9
.0063
2.1190
_
.008
2.9374
.0029
.9770
...
.0117
3.9144
METRIC UMTS
4/17/80
-16.26
723.65
4.77
13.13
0.00
82.10
206
9.49
1.96
29.29
29.22
19.79
2090.4
1105.1
739.M
6.35
120
2.54
24
43
39.12
181
17.53
.2'
2.302
9.49
28.22
19.7?
01.9
93.4
33.4
14.5089
.9619
_.
46.3
20.1126
1.3334
15.4
6.6897
.4435
61.7
26.8023
1.7769
AV
ENGLISH UNIT
-.64
29.46
3.59
14.69
O.OD
81.71
396
9.32
20.00
29.16
26.11
59.69
70426.3
37475.3
29.10
.250
120
87.540
24
113
1.42
.63
8.09
78.751
9.32
8.11
8.69
2.8
."
.0522
16.4375
.1190
36.8653
.1712
53.3028
.0231
7.3197
.0556
17.2530
...
.0787
24.5726
MU
METRIC UNITS
-16.26
722.88
3.58
14.69
0.00
81.71
202
9.32
1.96
29.16
29.11
1.66
1995.1-
1061.6
739.06
6.35
120
2.49
24
45
36.15
172
15.92
.23
2.231
9.32
29.11
1.66
02.9
84.6
62.3
19.4238
7.4614
96.0
72.2189
16.7341
58.2SOO
91.6425
24.1950
16.6
52.7744
3.3226
78.8
27.2442
7.8316
95.4
80.0186
11.1542
- T«t I 3 filter contMtnittd
Not! - Avtr*q*$ Include only ttstl
for front mif d«U.
2-4
-------
TABLE 3 BATTERY E OUTLET METHOD 17 PARTICULATE RESULTS
RUN NUMBER
1 DATE
1! STACK PARAMETERS
PST - STATIC PRESSURE. 'He
DM - SAMPLING NOZZLE DIAMETER, IN. (MM)
I - SAMPLING TIME, MIN
Vn - SAMPLE VOLUME , ACF (n'1
HP - NET SAMPLING POINTS
O - PITOT TUBE COEFFICIENT
IN - AVERAGE MITER TEMPERATURE °F <°c>
PM - AVERAGE ORIFICE PRESSURE DROP, "H^ (MHtUO)
VLC - CONDENSATE COLLECTED ([MPINGERS AND GEL), MLS
OP - STACK VELOCITY HEAD "H20 MjOl
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
V» - CONDENSED WATER VAPOR. SDCF (Nn3)
VN - VOLUME OF GAS SAMPLED AT STANDARD CONDITIONS, DSCF
OB/SD7, CM^M!)
CHI. ffita)
B> F TOUT HALF SO, (MO)
PPM. (MG/M3)
I/HB, (KG.HR)
1
ENGLISH
UIIITS
4/1S/BO
-.64
ZS.*1
MS
II. U
O.OD
11.1?
JSft
t.JI
ZO.D
29.01
a. 04
U.M
(MIO
34272
29.0S
.250
120
82.610
24
.14
106
1.23
.SI
7.24
7S.026
1.11
a. 04
S2.S4
107.1
_
...
.0106
1. 1030
.0097
2.S4U
fCTRIC
UNITS
4/1 VBO
-1S.ZS
721.61
2.1!
16.66
0.00
61.19
197
«.«!
1.66
29.01
2B.C4
16.11
1796.3
970.9
737.67
6.35
120
2.34
24
.84
41
31.24
194
12.95
.21
2.129
1.81
29.04
16.11
107.1
2.9
...
46. S
51.4
24.1839
1.4085
42.1
19.8082
1.1537
2
ENGLISH
UNITS
4/11/80
-.64
28.47
3.62
14.29
0.00
81.63
191
8.76
20.0
29.16
28.20
54.39
65257
34871
29.11
.250
120
81537
24
.84
111
1.29
.54
7.08
73.565
6.76
28.20
54.38
103.2
._
.0103
3.0884
.0037
1.1044
METRIC
UNITS
4/16/80
-16.25
723.14
3.82
14.29
0.00
61.83
203
8.76
1.86
29.18
28.20
16.58
1848.6
987.8
739.39
6.35
120
2.31
24
.84
44
32.77
150
13.72
.20
2.064
8.76
28.20
16.58
103.2
6.9
40.4
49.3
Z3.6U5
1.4019
17.63
8.4S97
.SOI3
3
ENGLISH
UNITS
4/17/BO
-.64
28.49
4.77
13.13
0.00
82.10
403
8.54
20.0
29.29
28.32
Si.08
66097
35222
29.13
.250
120
81.854
24
.84
102
1.30
»
.5!
7.01
'5.097
8.54
28.32
SS.06)
104.3
...
.0115
3.4654
.0078
2.1(81
METRIC
wins
4/17/80
-16.25
723.65
4.77
13.13
0.00
62.10
208
8.51
1.86
29.29
28.32
16.80
1672.4
997.8
739.90
6.35
120
2.32
24
.84
39
33.02
149
11.97
.20
2.127
8.54
28.32
16.80
104.3
11.9
44.0
S5.9
26.2798
1.S730
38.2
17.9586
1.0750
4
ENGLISH
UNITS
-.64
28.46
3.59
14.69
0.00
81.71
396
8.70
20.0
29.16
28.19
54.10
64921 .3
34788.3
29.10
.250
120
62.000
24
.84
106
1.27
...
.53
7.10
74.560
B.JO
28.19
54.10
104.9
.0108
3.2189
.0067
2.0047
METRIC
UNITS
16.2!i
722.80
3. SO
14.611
0.0(1
»1.71
202
8.70
I.Sli
29.10
28.19
IS. 41
1839.1
985.!
739.01
6.3S
120
2.32
24
.84
41
32.34
151
13.46
.20
1. 11?
8.70
28.19
16.49
104.9
7.9
...
44.3
52.2
24.7016
1.4611
32.64
IS. 4088
.9100
2-5
-------
TABLE 4. BAGHOUSE C VISIBLE EMISSION SUMMARY
Test No. 1
Time
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
11:50
11:56
12:03
12:09
12:15
12:21
12:27
12:32
12:35
12:41
12:47
12:53
12:59
13:05
13:11
13:17
13:23
13:35
13:41
13;47
13:53
13:59
Set#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Avg.% Opacity
10
5
0.16
0.125
0
0
0
0.03
0
0
0
3.75
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.83
0
0
0
0.42
0
0
0.6
0.2
0.2
Test No. 2
Time
10:15
10:21
10:27
10:33
10:39
10:45
10:51
10:57
11:03
11:09
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
13:00
13:06
13:12
13:18
13:24
13:30
13.36
13:41
13:47
13:53
Set*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Avg.% Opacity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.8
5.4
6.0
0
1.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.4
0.2
Test No. 3
Time
9:00
9:06
9:12
9:18
9:24
9:30
9:36
9:42
9:48
9:54
10:00
10:06
10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
10:36
10.42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
Set# [Avg.% Opacity
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.75
9.0
2.3
2.1
0.4
4.6
1.5
1.3
2.3
0.6
0
0
0
0
0.6
2-6
-------
TABLE 5. BAGHOUSE E VISIBLE EMISSION SUMMARY
Test No.l
Time
11:25
11:31
IV: 36
11:42
11:48
11:54
12:00
12:06
12:12
12:18
12:25
12:31
12': 37
12:43
12:49
12:55
13:01
13:07
13:13
13:19
13:40
13:46
Set*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Avg.% Opacity
0
0
0.4
0.4
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.9
0.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test No. 2
Time
10:15
10:21
10:26
10:36
10:38
10:44
10:50
10:56
11:02
11:08
11:15
11:21
11:27
11:33
11:39
11:45
11:51
11:57
12:03
12:09
12:15
12:21
12:27
12:33
12:39
12:45
12:51
Set#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Avg.% Opacity
0
0
0
0
0
3.13
1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.96
1.0.4
0
0
0
0
0
3.54
5.0
5.0
5.0
1.67
Test No. 3
Time
9:00
9:06
9:12
9:18
9:24
9:30
9:36
9:42
9:48
9:54
10:00
10:06
10:12
10:18
10:24
10:30
10:36
10:42
10:48
10:54
11:00
11:06
11:12
11:18
11:24
Set#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AvgJS Opacity
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.63
4.4
0.63
0
2-7
-------
SECTION 3
PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Kaiser Steel Corporation operates seven furnace coke ibatteries at its
steel plant in Fontana, California. This is the only U.S. steel plant which
uses fabric filters to control participate emissions from coke oven battery
stacks. Currently, four filters are in operation serving batteries B, C,
D, and E. The filters on batteries F and G are nearing completion. The filter
on battery A is presently under construction while the battery is down for
rehabilitation.
During the period of April 15-17, 1980, emissions tests were conducted
on the outlets of the filter serving battery C and battery E. The filters
for batteries B and D were not selected for testing, because battery D was
fired with blast furnace gas and the filter serving batter B was not operating
properly. TUMV filter was cleaning nearly continuously. In addition, Kaiser
personnel said that it was believed that the bags were partially blinded and
they plan to replace all bags in the B filter in the near future. They also
will install a new reverse air fan and modify the reverse air ducting system.
The purpose of the tests was to quantify the particulate emissions from
the fabric filters. Particulate (EPA method 5) and opacity (EPA method 9)
were measured for both battery C and E. In addition, simultaneous test were
conducted at the outlet of E filter using method 17 (in-stack filter).
Salient facts on the design and operation of batteries C and E are sum-
marized in Tables 3-1 and 3-2. As indicated, both C and E batteries are Koppers-
Becker underjet ovens built in 1949 and 1952 respectively. Brickwork in battery
C has not been rebuilt since 1949, although the battery did have some mechanical
repairs in 1974. A hot end-flue rehabilitation was performed on battery E in
1978. Both batteries are equipped with double collecting mains and each con-
sists of 45 ovens measuring 13 ft in height. Each is charged with 13.5-14.0 tons
of coal. However, during the test period both of the batteries had 8 ovens out
of service (37 ovens were in service). Coking time on battery C was 17 hours,
and on battery E was 16 hours. Kaiser personnel said that the end-flues on
each oven are spray-patched an average of once every 3 months.
Both of these underjet batteries were fired with coke oven gas (COG)
during the entire test period. Charging of the ovens is performed by a larry
car using stage charging techniques. Fuel gas flow to C battery was not
measureable during the tests, although the operators said they were at a max-
imum fuel rate. The fuel flow instrument for E battery was operating, and
varied from 130,000 to 150,000 scfm. However, the proper chart paper was not
available for this instrument so none of these charts are included in Appendix D,
3-1
-------
TABLE 3-1. PROCESS DATA FOR BATTERY C
Date 4/14/80
Plant Name
Plant Location
Battery No.
Kaiser Steel
Fontana, California
Name of Plant Contact
Jake Martzolf
Type of Ovens and Designer
Koppers-Becker (underjet)
Date Built 1949
Date of Last Rehabilitation 1976
Type of Last Rehabilitation Buckstays and jambs
Number of Ovens Total 45 In Service
Size of Ovens Height 13 ft Width 13-1/2 in.
37a
Length 40 ft
Type of coke produced Furnace
Normal coking time (hr) 17 hr
Coal charged per oven (tons 13.5-14
Reversal period (min) 30
Nozzle decarbonization method
Is flue gas recirculated?
Recirculating duct
Yes
COG
No
Heating value
Type of fuel gas
Is fuel gas desulfurized?
Note use of stage charging, preheated coal, etc.
State charging, double collecting main
500 Btu/scf
Stack height and top diameter
Test location (stack or waste heat canal) Filter outlet duct (provide sketch)
225 ft; 10 ft diameter
Control Method Used
Fabric filter
Manufacturer of Filter American Air Filter
Date Installed February 1979. start-up
42.770 ft2"
Number of Compartments
Total Filter Area
Number of Bags
Fan Hp 450 Hp
Cleaning Frequency and Duration Specified AP; clean for 50 sec
Cleaning Set Point (AP) 7.3 inches of water
900
Ovens 108, 109, 111, 115, 116, 134, 147, 149 were out of service.
3-2
-------
TABLE 3-2. PROCESS DATA FOR BATTERY E
Date 4/14/80
Plant Name Kaiser Steel
Plant Location Fontana, California
Battery No.
Name of Plant Contact Jake Martzolf
Type of Ovens and Designer Koppers-Becker (underjet)
Date Built 1953
Date of Last Rehabilitation 1978
Type of Last Rehabilitation Hot end flue rehabilitation
Number of Ovens Total 45 In Service 37a
Size of Ovens Height 13 ft Width 13-1/2 in. Length 40 ft
Type of coke produced Furnace
Normal coking time (hr) 16 hr
Coal charged per oven (tons 13.5-14
Reversal period (min) 30
Nozzle decarbonization method Recirculating duct
Is flue gas recirculated? Yes
Type of fuel gas COG (can burn BFG) Heating value 500 Btu/scf
Is fuel gas desulfurized? No
Note use of stage charging, preheated coal, etc.
State charging, double collecting main
Stack height and top diameter 225 ft; 10 ft diameter
Test location (stack or waste heat canal) Outlet of filter (provide sketch)
at ID fan inlet duct
Control Method Used Fabric filter
Manufacturer of Filter American Air Filter
Date Installed December 1978 - start-up
Number of Compartments 6
Total Filter Area 51,324 ft2
Number of Bags 1.080
Fan Hp 500 Hp
Cleaning Frequency and Duration Specified AP; clean for 30 to 40 sec
Cleaning Set Point (AP) 7.3 inches of water
a Ovens 228, 233, 238, 242, 243, 247, 248, 249 were out of service.
3-3
-------
although the instrument readings were recorded on an hourly basis during the
tests and are included in the data in Appendix D.
The fabric filter units used to collect particulate emissions from the
underfiring exhaust gases were started up in February 1979 (battery C) and
December 1978 (battery E). Both are closed-suction design with reverse air
cleaning. Battery C filter consists of five compartments containing 900 bags
with a total filtering area of 42,770 ft2. Battery E filter consists of six
compartments containing 1,080 bags with a total filtering area of 51,324 ft2.
Both are equipped with graphite-silicone treated glass fiber bags. No pre-
coating of the bags is used.
The fabric filter serving battery C was designed to handle 88,000 acfm
at a net air-to-cloth ration of 2.76:1 with one compartment isolated for clean-
ing. Design operating temperature was 450°F and the actual temperature during
test tests was 332°F. Exhaust gases from this filter are pulled through a
450 Hp induced draft fan and are then discharged to the atmosphere through
a 225 ft stack. Each compartment is cleaned automatically whenever the total
pressure drop reaches a preset level of 7.3 inches of water.
The fabric filter serving battery E was designed to handle 118,000 acfm
at a net air-to-cloth ration of 2.76:1 with one compartment isolated for clean-
ing. Design operating temperature was 450°F and the actual temperature during
these tests was 394°F. Exhaust gases from this filter are pulled through a
450 Hp induced draft fan and are then discharged to the atmosphere through a
225 ft stack. Each compartment is cleaned automatically whenever the total
pressure drop reaches a preset level of 7.5 inches of water.
Dust collected by each filter is landfilled and Kaiser personnel said
they are experimenting with methods to stabilize all such dust that goes to
the landfill.
After each of the daily emission test periods, supplemental tests were
performed to determine the approximate quantity of dust collected by the
battery E filter. This procedure consisted of manually activating the clean-
ing cycle. One hour later, the cleaning cycle was again activated and the
dust discharged from the filter hopper screw conveyor system was collected
and weighed. Three such tests were conducted, one one each of the three
test days, and showed that the quantity of dust was 33, 35, and 25 Ibs.
Assuming that these quantities are representative of the amount of dust captured
by the filter during the 1-hour period between cleaning cycles, the dust
collection rates were 33, 35, and 25 Ib/hour. Similar tests could not be
performed on battery C because the filters serving batteries B and C share a
common discharge system for the collected dust.
During the periods when the emission tests were conducted on the outlets
of C and E filters, both the battery and filter operations were monitored. This
process operating data and observations are presented in Appendix D. All tests
were conducted when the battery and filter were operating within normal limits.
3-4
-------
SECTION 4
LOCATION OF SAMPLING POINTS
A) Outlet from Baghouse C - The discharge from Baghouse C passes through a
61.5 inch round duct to an induced draft fan and to the stack. The
discharge was sampled at a point 10 feet (2 diameters) upstream from the
induced draft fan, and 8 feet (1.6 diameters) downstream from a 45° bend.
The samples were taken at 48 traverse points. Figure lisa diagram of
the sampling location.
B) Outlet from Baghouse E - The discharge from Baghouse E passes through a
rectangular duct with inside dimensions of 8 feet by 2 1/2 feet. The
duct goes to an induced draft fan and then to the stack. The sampling
location was located 15 feet (4.7 diameters) downstream from a 90° bend
and 10 feet (3 diameters) upstream from the induced draft fan. Samples
were taken at 24 traverse points. Figure 2 is a diagram of this sampling
location.
4-1
-------
5
0)
/^ ^\
/ >k
/ \
~L '
1C \
\ /
\ /
x^_ _^/
LJ
I TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
1
BAGHOUSE
]
.
-r^'
STACK
>
=
<
POINT
LOCATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
FRACTION OF
STACK 1.0.
1 .1
3.2
5.5
7.9
10.5
13.2
16. 1
19.4
23.0
27.2
32.3
39.8
60.2
67.7
72.8
77.0
80.6
83.9
86.8
89.5
92. 1
94.5
96.8
98.9
DISTANCE
FROM
INSIDE
WALL (IN.)
0.65
1 .99
3 .39
4 .87
6 .44
8 . 12
9 .93
1 1 .92
14 . 14
1 6 .71
19 .88
24 .47
37.03
4 1 .62
44 .79
47 .36
49 .58
5 1 .57
53 .38
55 .06
56 .63
58.11
59 .51
60.85
J ^-SAMPLING PORTS
/To.
-IGURE 1 BAGHOUSE "C " PLANT SCHEMATIC a TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
4-2
-------
(*- 2- 1/2'*]
6.75
,.1
8'
TRAVERSE
POINT
LOCATIONS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
FRACTION OF
STACK LENGTH
4.17
12.50
20.83
29.17
37.50
45.83
54.17
62.50
70.83
79.17
87.50
95.83
DISTANCE
FROM INSIDE
WALL (IN.)
4.0
12.0
20.0
28.0
36.0
44.0
52.0
60.0
68.0
76.0
84.0
92.0
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 2 BAGHOUSE "E" PLANT SCHEMATIC a TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION
4-3
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE
A) METHOD 5
EPA Method 5 sampling was done in accordance with the method as revised
on August 18, 1977 (Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 160). Figure 3 is a dia-
gram of the sampling train. At the Baghouse C sampling location a vertical
steel girder restricted the clearance so that some of the traverse points
could not be reached with the ten foot probe. In order to provide more clear-
ance, the impinger box was removed from the filter oven and connected to it
by a flexible teflon line. Figure 4 is a diagram of this sampling train con-
figuration.
Before each test a velocity traverse was done to determine the average
velocity and temperature in the duct. The calibrated nozzle size selection
was made based on the preliminary velocity traverse and an estimate of the stack
gas moisture content. The sampling rate was adjusted to isokinetic conditions
using a calculator programmed with the operating nomograph equation. The parti-
culate samples were taken at traverse points at the centers of equal areas with-
in the duct.
After assembling the sampling train at the location it was leak checked,
and sampling was not begun until a leak rate of less than 0.02 cfm at 15 inches
of mercury vacuum had been achieved. At each sampling port change the sampling
train was inspected for cracked or broken glassware and to assure that the
filter remained intact. Leak checks were done at the end of each test at the
maximum vacuum encountered during the test.
Sample Recovery
Upon completion of the test the probe was removed from the sampling train,
the nozzle wiped off to prevent possible contamination of the sample, and the
probe and nozzle were rinsed with acetone. A nylon*, brush with a polypropylene
handle was used to remove particulates from the probe. The probe rinse was
placed in a glass container with a teflon lid liner. The filter holder and
impingers were sealed and moved to the mobile laboratory for sample recovery.
The collected particulates were placed in three containers. The glass
fiber filter was removed from the filter holder and placed in a polyethylene
sample jar. The acetone probe rinse was placed in a glass sample bottle with
a teflon lidt-- liner. The impinger solutions were measured and placed in a
glass container along with the back half rinse.
5-1
-------
12
17
Figure 3 EPA method 5 participate sampling train
1. Calibrated Nozzle
2. Heated Probe
3. Reverse Type Pi tot
4. Cyclone Assembly
5. Filter Holder
6. Heated Box
7. Ice Bath
8. Impinger - (Water)
9. Impinger - (Water)
10. Impinger - (Water)
11. Impinger - (Silica Gel)
KEY
12. Thermometer
13. Check Valve
14, Vacuum Line
15. Vacuum Gauge
16. Main Valve
17. Air Tight Pump
18. ByPass Valve
19. Dry Test Meter
20. Orifice
21. Pi tot Manometer
22. Thermometer
5-2
-------
O1
to
L
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
PROBE
PITOT TUBE
HEATED AREA-
-THERMOMETER
THERMOMETER
REVERSE-TYPE
PITOT TUBE
CHECK VALVE
VACUUM LINE
AIR TI8HT PUMP
-DRY SAS METER
FIGURE 4 MODIFIED EPA IfcTHOD 5 SAMPLING TRAIN
-------
Particulate Analysis
The front half acetone rinse was placed in a tared beaker and evaporated
to dryness. The impinger solution and back half rinse was placed in a tared
beaker and evaporated on a steam bath. The beakers with residue and glass
fiber filter were then placed in a desiccator until they reach a constant
weight. The beakers and filter were weighed to within 0.1 milligrams to deter-
mine the amount of particulate collected.
Sulfate Analysis
After the particulate analysis was completed 100 milliliters of distilled
water was added to each beaker. The particulate filter was then added to the
probe rinse beaker and macerated to dissolve all collected sulfate. The redis-
solved residue was then filtered through a Whatman 541 cellulose fiber filter
to remove turbidity. The solutions were then titrated with standardized
barium perchlorate solution against thorin indicator to determine the amount of
sulfate present in the front and back half particulate catches.
B. METHOD 17
EPA Method 17 entails isokinetic collection of particulates on a glass
fiber filter located inside the duct being sampled. The calibrated nozzle and
and filter holder are located at the end of the probe and sampling is done at
traverse points within the duct as in EPA Method 5. Figure 5 is a diagram of
the Method 17 sampling train.
Preparations for sampling were the same as those for Method 5. The same
size calibrated nozzle was used for both the Method 17 and Method 5 trains
which were operated simultaneously. This made it possible to use the same
nomograph calculations for both trains and assured that the sample volume
would be approximately the same. Leak tests were done before and after the
test as with the Method 5 tests.
Sample Recovery
Upon completion of the test and final leak check, the probe was removed
from the train and the nozzle sealed. The filter holder and nozzle were re-
moved from the probe and taken to the mobile laboratory for recovery. The
filter was removed from the filter holder and placed in a sample container.
The nozzle and front half of the filter holder were rinsed with acetone and
brushed to remove particulates. The front half rinse was placed in a glass
container with a teflon lid^ liner. The impinger solutions were measured to
determine moisture collected and discarded. The silica gel was weighed to
determine moisture gain.
Particulate Analysis
The front half rinse was placed in a tared beaker and evaporated. The
beaker and the filter were then placed in a desiccator and dried to a con-
stant weight. They were then weighed to within 0.1 milligrams to determine the
amount of particulate collected.
5-4
-------
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
cn
I
cn
L «>T.«c.(3li«.)*
TEMPERATURE SENSOR
SAMPLING NOZZLE
IN-STACK FILTER HOLDE
REVERSE-TYPE PITOT TUBE
PITOT TUBE
THERMOMETER
CHECK VALVE
ORIFICE MANOMETER
* SUGGESTED (INTERFERENCE-FREE) SPACINGS
VACUUM LINE
DRY 8A8 METER
FIGURE 5 PARTICULATE SAMPLING TRAIN, EQUIPPED WITH IN-STACK FILTER
EPA METHOD 17
-------
Sulfate Analysis
After completion of the particulate analysis 100 milliliters of distilled
water was added to the beaker. The filter was placed into the beaker and
macerated. The redissolved solution was filtered through a Whatman 541. filter
to remove turbidity. An aliquot of the filtrate was then titrated with stand-
ardized barium perchlorate against thorin indicator to determine the amount of
sulfate present.
C. INORGANIC GAS ANALYSIS
A sample of the stack gas was taken in a tedlar bag at each sampling lo-
cation during each test. These bag samples were analyzed for carbon monoxide,
carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations with a Carle Basic gas
chromatograph with a thermal conductivity detector. One of the advantages of
this detector over the orsat analyzer is that it gives the nitrogen concentra-
tion directly rather than by difference.
5-6
------- |