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

-------