-------
FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Comparative Results of Gas Analysis
Figure 2-2 Relationship of CO, NO , Concentrations.
and % (Dxygen; Test #1 x
Figure 2-3 Relationship of CO, NO
and % Oxygen; Test #2
Figure 2-4 Relationship of CO, NO.
Concentrations.
% Opacity
% Opacity
% Opacity
Concentrations,
and % Oxygen; Test #3 "
Figure 4-1 Schematic of Battery Stack No. 2
Figure 5-1 Schematic Method 5 Train
Figure 5-2 Schematic BaP Train
Figure 5-3 Schematic Battelle Trap
Figure 5-4 Schematic ftathod 7 Train
Figi're 5-5 Schematic of Continuous Monitors
F- 4jre 5-6 Schematic of Calibration Gas Injection for Continuous
Monitors
Page
16
17
18
19
27
34
35
36
3;
38
ii
-------
TABLES
Table 2-1 Sample Coding System
Table 2-2 Particulate and Sulfate Results
Table 2-3 BoP Results
Table 2-4 Continuous Monitoring Data Test #1
Table 2-5 Continuous Monitoring Data Test #2
Table 2-6 Continuous Monitoring Data Test #3
Table 2-7 NO Method 7 Results
Table 2-8 Sulfate Results
Table 2-9 Visible Emission Results
Table 2-10 Visible Emission Results
Table 2-11 Visible Emission Results
Table 3-1 Plant Design and Operation Data
Table 3-2 Mobile Gun Spraying Log for Battery No. 2
Table 3-3 Daily Average Fuel Gas Analysis and Coal Analysis
Table 4-1 Traverse Point Location for Circular Ducts
Page
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
22
23
24
26
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of the personnel at Bethlehem Steel's Sparrow's Point
Operation is gratefully acknowledged. We are particularly indebted to Mr.
Xavier, Mr. Kidwell, Mr. Thomas and Mr. Sorti for their cooperation and help
during testing.
iv
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's program
for developing New Source Performance Standards, TRW Environmental Engineering
Division participated in emission testing on a coke oven battery stack at
Bethlehem Steel Corporation's Sparrows Point, Maryland facility. The testing
was conducted the week of 9 July 1979. The results of this testing effort
will be used in the development effort for supporting the New Source Perfor-
mance Standards for Coke Oven Battery Stacks in the iron and steel industry.
Emission tests were conducted at the outlet of the battery stack to
determine concentrations of the following constituents in the flue gas: par-
ticulate, benzo-a-pyrene (BaP), oxygen (O). carbon dioxide (J. carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NO ), visible emissions, and sulfates (SO/,).
X H
Particulate and BaP trains were run simultaneously. Continuous monitors were
run throughout the test to measure concentrations of 09, CO and NO . In ad-
L~ f\
dition to continuous monitoring, integrated bag samples were obtained for
measuring 02, CO, CC2» and Ng. This analysis was used for molecular weight
determination. EPA Method 7 was performed to measure NO . Visible emissions
A
were read for the duration of each test by the prescribed procedure in EPA
Method 9. Sulfate analysis was performed on the parti cul ate train filter and
water (H«0) impinger collection.
Bethlehem Steel's Sparrows Point facility, manufacturing iron and steel,
employs mobile gunning for control of battery stack emissions. Emission tests
were conducted at the 80 foot level of Coke Oven Battery Stack No. 2. The
test locations are described in Section 4.
This report presents the results of the testing program. The following
sections of the report contain: a summary of the results, descriptions of
the sampling points, a description of the process, and delineation of the
sampling and laboratory analytical procedures. The appendices contain field
data, sample calculations and a daily activity log.
-------
2. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of the testing program at the Sparrow's Point facility are
summarized in Tables 2-1 through 2-8. Table 2-1 presents the coding system
used for the testing program.
Table 2-2 presents the concentrations and emission rates of particulates
and sulfates. The stack parameters and test conditions are also shown. The
total particulate concentrations ranged from 0.19614 to 0.34397 gm/scm and
averaged 0.27741 gm/scm. Emission rates for particulates ranged from 37.13
Ib/hr (16.84 kg/hr) to 65.82 Ib/hr (29.86 kg/hr) with an average of 54.43
Ib/hr (24.69 kg/hr).
SOp concentrations ranged from 19.34 mg/scm to 51.98 mg/scm and averaged
35.66 mg/scm. Sulfate concentrations ranged from 63.43 mg/scm to 151.56
mg/scm and averaged 106.16 mg/scm.
Table 2-3 presents the concentrations and emission rates of Benzo-a-
Pyrene (BaP) as well as the stack parameters and test conditions for these
tests. BaP emission rates ranged from 77.29 x 10 Ib/hr (35.07 x 103yg/hr)
to 371.8 x 10"6 Ib/hr (169.0 x 103 yg/hr) and averaged 267.0 x 10"6 Ib/hr
(121.3 x 103 yg/hr).
Tables 2-4 through 2-6 present the results of continuous monitoring for
Oxygen (Op), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOw). The results
for Op are expressed as percent (%\ and the results for CO and NO are
w 7\
expressed as parts per million (ppm). Percent Op ranged from 9 to 13 for
Test #1 with an average of 11.2. Percent 02 ranged from 10 to 14 for Test #2
with an average of 11.9. Percent 02 ranged from 10 to 12 for Test #3 with
an average of 10.9.
All concentration levels reported were calculated on a dry basis.
-------
Integrated bag samples were taken and analysis was performed on a Gas
Chromagraph (G.C.) as well as an Orsat Analyzer for comparative results (see
Figure 2-1). The continuous results for (L are slightly high in comparison
with the GC results. The higher concentrations of (L reported by the contin-
uous monitors are due to 02 variations that resulted during Coke Oven pushing
cycles. The Orsat results are lower than both continuous monitoring and GC
analysis. The lower results produced by the Orsat are suspect and were the
results of weak chemicals used in the Orsat analyzer. Figure 2-1 presents a
comparison of gas analysis by the various methods.
The results of continuous monitoring for CO for test No.'s 1, 2, and 3
also are presented in Tables 2-4 through 2-6. CO concentrations ranged from
35 to 285ppmfor Test #1, with an average of 72 ppm. CO concentrations ranged
from 75 to 310 ppm for Test #2 with an average of 141 ppm. CO concentrations
ranged from 40 to 400 ppm for Test #3 with an average of 112 ppm.
The Orsat and G.C. are not capable of measuring concentrations in this
range so no comparative data could be obtained. Figures 2-2 through 2-4
present the relationship of CO, NO , percent Opacity and percent 0? for the
A £
duration of each test. Peaks of CO occurred during monitoring, as a result
of oven push cycles, and the average concentrations are high as a result of
these peaks.
The results of the three tests using continuous monitoring for NO are
/\
also presented in Tables 2-4 through 2-6. NO concentrations ranged from 25
J\
to 130 ppm for Test #1, with an average of 70 ppm. NO concentrations ranged
/\
from 30 to 90 ppm for Test #2, with an average of 65 ppm. NO concentrations
/\
ranged from 50 to 105 ppm for Test #3, with an. average of 79 ppm.
EPA Method 7 was used to determine NO ,in addition to continuous moni-
A
toring. The results are presented in Table 2-7. NO concentrations averaged
/\
40 ppm for Test #3. The EPA Method 7 results are less than the results ob-
tained by monitoring on a continuous basis. This is the result of peaks that
occurred during oven push cycles which are presented in Figures 2-2 through
2-4.
-------
Problems occurred with the continuous NO monitor. The continuous
^
monitor used operates on internal pumps. Extreme heat during the test
resulted in lost voltage rendering the pumps inoperative. After brief cooling
periods, the pumps were reset and continuous monitoring was resumed. This
should not affect the results of the data obtained since the instrument
responded to the correct calibration values at the end of each test.
Visible emissions were recorded for the duration of Tests #1 and #2.
No visible emissions were recorded for Test #3 due to darkness. A graphic
summary of opacities is presented in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. Additional visible
emission data is included in Tables 2-9 through 2-11.
The sulfate analysis on the particulate train water impingers is
expressed as SC^. It is believed that not all of the SCL gas was caught in
the water impingers; therefore, the S02 emissions reported are likely to be
less than actual. This is because there was no oxidizing agent other than
oxygen in the stack gas to create a more reactive form of sulfur oxide such
as S03-
-------
TABLE 2-1. SAMPLE CODING SYSTEM
For Participate
Test Number
1
2
3
Sample Code
CKO-15-M5-1
CKO-15-M5-2
CKO-15-M5-3
Date
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-12-79
Time
1518-2012
1145-1820
2010-0055
For BAP
Test Number
1
2
3
Sample Code
CKO-15-BAP-1
CKO-15-BAP-2
CKO-15-BAP-3
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-12-79
1516-2008
1145-1825
2010-0105
For NO
x
Test Number
1
2
3
Sample Code
CKO-15-M7-1
CKO-15-M7-2
CKO-15-M7-3
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
1530-1630
1215-1315
2040-2110
-------
TABLE 2-2. PARTICULATE AND SULFATE ANALYSIS
RUN NUMBER
I DATE
11 STACK PARAMETERS
Pst - Static Pressure, *Hg (mHg)
Ps - Stack Gas Pressure, "Kg Absolute (i«rtg)
I COj - Volume I Dry
« Oj - Volume I Dry
I CO - Volume t Dry
J N2 - Volume J Dry
Ts - Average Stack Temperature °F (°C)
I H - I Moisture 1n Stack Gas, By Volume
As - Stack Area, ft2 ( m2)
NHd- Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Dry Basis
NH - Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Het Basis
Vs - Stack Gas Velocity, ft/sec , (m/sec)
Qa - Stack Gas Volumetric F1on at Stack Conditions. ACFM ( m3/m1n)
Qs - Stack Gas Volumetric Flm at Standard Conditions. DSCFM ( m3/m1n)
III TEST CONDITIONS
Pb - Barometric Pressure, "Hg (Mg)
On - Saanllng Nozzle Diameter, in. (m)
T - Sampling Time, m1n
Vm - Sample Volume, ACF (m3)
Np - Net Sampling Points
Cp - Pilot Tube Coefficient
Tm - Average Meter Temperature °F (°C)
Pm - Average Orifice Pressure Drop, "HjO (nH20)
We - Condensate Collected (Inplngers and Gel), mis
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
Vt^as - Condensed Hater Vapor, SCF (m3)
Vn - Volume of Gas Sampled at Standard Conditions, DSCF ( t?)
IM - Percent Moisture, By Volume
NH- Molecular Height of Stack Gas, Het Basis
Vs - Stack Velocity, ft/sec (m/sec)
t I - Percent Isoklnetlc
V ANALYTICAL DATA
A) Partlculates Front Half
Probe, gr/DSCF (gm/m3)
Filter, gr/DSCF (gm/m3)
Partlculates Front Half Totyl
gr/DSCF. (mg/m3)
l/hr, (kg/hr)
B) Partlculates - Condensables
Organic
Sr/OSCF, (mg/m3)
l/hr, (kg/hr)
Inorganic
gr/DSCF, (ng/m3)
l/hr, (kg/hr)
C) Partlculates - Total Condensables
gr/DSCF, (mg/m3)
l/hr. (kg/hr)
D) Total Partlculates
gr/DSCF. (mg/m3)
l/hr. (kg/hr)
E) Sulfates
ppm S02/(mg/m3)
10"6 I/DSCF S02,(kg/m3)
pom S04,(»g/m3)
10"° I/DSCF S04/(kg/m3)
CCO-1S-M5-1
ENGLISH UNITS
7-11-79
-0.09
29.9
4.0
9.0
NIL
87.0
562
12.87
153.9
29.000
27.584
12.184
112305
50590
30.0
O.SO
128
67.085
32
0.85
88
0.89
9.590
64.925
:2.B7
27.584
12.184
112.8
0.01070
0.07038
0.08107
35.14987
0.00123
0.53476
0.00334
1.45001
0.00458
1.98476
0.08565
37.13464
7.31
1.22
25.96
6.46
METRIC UNITS
7-11-79
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(294.4)
(14.30)
(3.714)
(3.186.2)
(1,431.7)
(762.)
(12.7)
(1.900)
(31.1)
(22.6)
(203.6)
(0.272)
(1.837)
(3.714)
(0.02450)
(0.16116)
(0.18566)
(15.94398)
(0.00282)
(0.24256)
(0.00766)
(0.65772)
(0.01048)
(0.90029)
(0.19614)
(16.84427)
(19.34)
(19.34)
( 103.48)
(103.5)
2
CKO-15-N5-2
ENGLISH UNITS
7-12-79
-0.09
29.9
3.6
8.9
NIL
87.5
565
14.95
153.9
28.932
27.298
12.652
116833
5U32
30.0
0.50
160
82.037
32
0.85
98
0.94
13.706
77.982
14.95
27.298
12.652
107.5
0.00810
0.14021
0.14831
64.98926
0.00164
0.71826
0.00026
0.11250
0.00190
0.83075
0.15020
65.82001
19.84
3.28
15.92
3.68
METRIC UNITS
7-12-79
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(296.1)
(14.30)
(3.857)
(3,308.8)
(1,447.0)
(762.)
(12.7)
(2.323)
(36.7)
(23.9)
(291.0)
(0.388)
(2.207)
(3.857)
(0.01854)
(0.32109)
(0.33963)
(29.47913)
(0.00375)
(0.32580)
(0.00059)
(0.05103)
(0.00434)
(0.37683)
(0.34397)
(29.85596)
(51.98)
(51.98)
(63.43)
(63.4)
3
CKO-15-M5-3
ENGLISH UNITS
7-12-79
-0.09
29.9
3.6
9.4
NIL
87.0
567
12.70
153.9
28.952
27.561
13.334
121128
5i202
30.0
0.50
160
88.627
32
0.85
100
1.05
12.218
83.968
12.70
27.561
13.334
107.2
0.00805
0.11657
0.12462
58.95697
0.00176
0.83295
0.00117
0.55530
0.00293
1.38824
0.12756
60.34521
13.55
2.24
38.03
9.45
METRIC UNITS
7-12-79
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(297.2)
(14.30)
(4.065)
(3,487.0)
(1,562.2)
(762.)
(12.7)
(2.510)
(37.B)
(26.7)
(259.4)
(0.346)
(2.376)
(4.065)
(0.01844)
(0.26695)
(0.28539)
(26.74288)
(0.00403)
(0.37782)
(0.00269)
(0.25188)
(0.00672)
(0.62971)
(0.29211)
.(27.37259)
(35.50)
(35.50)
(151.56)
(151.6)
AVERAGE
ENGLISH UNITS
-0.09
29.9
3.7
9.1
NIL
87.2
565
-13.51
153.9
28.96
27.481
12.723
117/189
52308
30.0
0.50
149.3
79.250
32
0.85
95
0.96
11.838
72.625
13.51
27.481
12.723
109.2
0.00542
0.06699
0.11800
53.03203
0.00154
0.69532
0.00159
0.70594
0.00314
1.40125
0.12114
54.43329
13.61
2.25
26.64
6.53
METRIC UNITS
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(295.9)
(14.30)
(3.879)
(3,327.3)
(1,480.3)
(762.)
(12.7)
(2.244)
(35.2)
(24.4)
(251.3)
(0.335)
(2.140)
(3.879)
(0.02049)
(0.24973)
(0.27023)
(24.05533)
(0.00353)
(0.31539)
(0.00365)
(0.32021)
(0.00718)
(0.63561)
(0.27741)
(24.69094)
(35.66)
(35.66)
(106.16)
(106.2)
-------
TABLE 2-3. B<*P RESULTS
RUN NUMBER
1 DATE
II STACK PARAMETERS
Pit - Static Pressure, "Kg (ffg)
Pi - SUck 6*1 Pressure, *Hg Absolute (««g)
J COj - Volwe 1 Dry
« Oj - Voluec < Dry
I CO - VolifK I Dry
I N; - Volute I Dry
Tl - Avenge SUck Te^wrature °F (°C)
« M . j Moisture In Suck Gis, By Voluee
As - Stick Area, ft2 ( I2)
MNd- Molecular Height of Stick Gas, Dry Bills
m- Noleculir Height of Suck Sis, Vet B«1s
Vs - SUck Gil Velocity, ft/iec , (l/iec)
Qa - SUck Gas Volwetrlc Flow it Stick Conditions. ACFM ( n3/»1n)
Qs - SUck Gii Volunetrlc Flox at Standard Conditions, DSCFM ( «3/i1n)
III TEST CONDITIONS
Pb - BaroMtrlc Pressure. "Hg («*g)
Dn - SupUng Nozzle Dliieter, In. (n)
T(- Sampling Tire. Bin
Vi - Sanple Volume, ACF (i3)
Up - Net SanpHng Points
Cp - Pilot Tube Coefficient
Ti - Avenge Meter Temperature °F (°C)
Pfi - Average Orifice Pressure Drep, "K^O (mH^O)
IV TEST CALCULATIONS
V» A^ondemed Hater Vapor, s CF ( I3)
Vm - Volume of Sis Sailed it Standard Conditions, DSCF ( i3)
* M: . Percent Holiture, By Voluee
MH - Molecular Height of SUck Gu, Het Basil
Vs - SUck Velocity, ft/sec (i/sec)
S I - Percent Isoklnetlc
V ANALYTICAL DATA - 8oP EMISSIONS
Probe Rinse, (ug)
XAD-2 Adsorbent (vg)
Filter, (vg)
BoP Total (vg)
BoP Total, io"6 l/hr (103 «g/hr)
B«P Total, »/year (kg/year)
,*Tlken directly fron partlculate simple train.
CKO-15-BAP-1
ENGLISH UNITS
7-11-79
-0.08
29.9
4.0
9.0
NIL
87.0
555.3
12.87
153.9
29.000
27.586
12.316
113,730
51,485
30.0
0.50
128
67.42
32
0.85
89
0.86
65.125
12.87"
27.584
12.316
111.2
371.8
3.26
METRIC UNITS
7-11-79
(-2.03)
(759.5)
(290.7)
(14.30)
(3.755)
[3.221)
(1,457.0)
(762.0)
(12.7)
(1.91)
(21.8)
(1.844)
(3.755)
(0.185)
(3.20)
(0.180)
(3.565)
(169.0)
(1.48)
1
CKO-15-BAP-2
ENGLISH UNITS
7-12-79
-0.09
29.9
3.6
8.9
NIL
87.5
569.0
14.95
153.9
28.932
27.296
11.963
110,469
48,147
30.0
0.50
160
80.81
32
0.85
98
0.80
76.789
14.95-
27.298
11.963
112.4
77.29
0.676
METRIC UNITS
7-12-79
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(298.3)
(14.30)
(3.647)
(3,128)
(1.362.6)
(762.0)
(12.7)
(2.29)
(20.3)
(2.175)
(3.647)
(0.468)
(0.200)
(0.265)
(0.933)
(35.07)
(0.307)
1
CKO-1S-BAP-3
ENGLISH UNITS
7-12-79
-0.09
29.9
3.6
9.4
NIL
87.0
567.0
12.70
153.9
28.952
27.561
14.199
131.111
58,782
30.0
0.50
165
97.51
32
0.85
95
1.12
93.232
12.70'
27.561
14.199
108.2
351.9
3.08
METRIC UNITS
7-12-79
(-2.29)
(759.5)
(297.2)
(14.30)
(4.329)
3,713)
(1,663.5)
(762.0)
(12.7)
(2.76)
(28.4)
(2.640)
(4.329)
(0.440)
(3.20)
(0.585)
(4.225)
(159.7)
(1.40)
AVERAGE
ENGLISH UNITS
-.09
29.9
3.7
9.1
NIL
87.2
563.8
13.51
153.9
28.961
27.481
12.826
18,437
52,805
30.0
0.50
151
81.91
32
0.85
94
0.93
79.049
13.51-
27.481
12.826
110.6
267.0
2.34
METRIC UNITS
(-2.20)
(759.5)
(295.4)
(14.30)
(3.910)
3354)
(1494.4)
(762.0)
(12.7)
(2.32)
(23.6)
(2.239)
(3.910)
(0.364)
(2.20)
(0.343)'
(2.908)
(121.3)
(1.06)
-------
Table 2-4.
Continuous Monitoring Data
Bethlehem Steel
Battery Stack #2
Test #1
Time
15:15
15:30
15:45
16:00
16:15
16:30
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
18:30
18:45
19:00
19:15
19:30
19:45
20:00
20:15
OXYGEN (U2J
10.6
11.0
11.8
11.1
11.0
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
(ppm)
65
285
70
60
110
11.0 l 60
12.1
12.0
35
60
FLOW INTERRUPTION
11.6 ; 50
13.0
11.6
11.4
11.2
11.1
12.0
11.2
9.2
:' 11.0
10.0
10.0
55
85
50
90
70
45
40
95
40
35
46
OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NO/,)
(ppm)
70 ;
65 !
t
106 J
j!
65 !
'i
65
65 |
130
61
1
87
80
70
85
40
50
60
65
65
25
75
70
8
-------
Table 2-5.
Continuous Monitoring Data
Bethlehem Steel
Battery Stack #2
Test #2
Time
11:45
12:00
12:15
12:30
12:45
13:00
13:15
13:30
13:45
14:00
14:15
14:30
14:45
16:45
17:00
17:15
17:30
17:45
18:00
18:15
OXYGEN (02)
(*)
12.8
13.0
12.0
12.0
12.5
12.2
11.5
11.8
11.5
11.5
12.0
11.3
13.0
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
(ppm)
90
95
100
105
310
210
130
120
130
150
75
75
100
-« Process Problems-2 hrs. hold +
14.0
10.8
12.4
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
90
120
225
110
290
150
0
UXlUtb Uh INllKUbtN I NUA
(ppm)
30
65
70
68
80
50
50
80
90
50
52
i
70
60
;
*
60
70
80
80
60
70
* NO pump tripped
A
-------
Table 2-6.
Continuous Monitoring Data
Bethlehem Steel
Battery Stack #2
Test #3
Time
20:15
20:30
20:45
21:00
21:15
21:30
21:45
22:00
22:15
22:30
22:45
23:00
23:15
23:30
23:45
24:00
00:15
00:30
00:45
01:00
OXYGEN (02)
(%)
11.0
11.1
11.4
11.1
11.1
11.2
12.0
10.5
10.7
11.0
10.6
10.6
10.5
11.0
10.0
11.0
10.5
11.0
11.0
10.5
CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)
(ppm)
65
85
85
180
180
160
65
60
80
110
200
110
65
400
140
50
55
60
55
40
OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NOX)
(Ppm)
65
55
75
100
95
100
105
105
50
90
95
60
50
*
105
65
63
57
85
85
*NO pump tripped
/\
10
-------
TABLE 2-7. NOx METHOD 7 RESULTS
RUN NUMBER
Flask A
Flask B
Flask C
Flask D
Average
CKO-15-M7-1
23 ppm
60 ppm
19 ppm
58 ppm
40 ppm
CKO-15-M7-2
103 ppm
37 ppm
58 ppm
77 ppm
69 ppm
CKO-15-M7-3
17 ppm
59 ppm
48 ppm
47 ppm
40 ppm
11
-------
TABLE 2-8. SULFATE RESULTS
RUN NUMBER
Vm (DSCF)
S02, ppm (dry)
S0£, pound/DSCF
S02» pound/hr
S04, ppm (dry)
$04, pound/DSCF
$04, pound/hr
CK-15-M5-1
64.925
7.31
1.22 x ID'6
3.70
25.96
6.46 x 1CT6
19.6
CKO-15-M5-2
77.982
19.84
3.28 x 10'6
10.1
15.92
3.68 x 10'6
11.3
CKO-15-MF-3
83.968
13.55
2.24 x 10"6
7.42
38.03
9.45 x 10"6
31.3
12
-------
Table 2-9. FACILITY: SPARROWS POINT
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS: TEST #1
Date: 7-11-79
Type of Plant: Coke Oven
Type of Discharge: Exhaust Gas
Location of Discharge: #2 Battery Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: =150'
Description of Background:Clouds
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Wind Direction: Variable
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 1525-1757
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:=150'
Height of Observation Point: =40'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Nortt
Wind Velocity: 0_5 mph
Detached Plume:No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1
2
3
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 "^
10
15
15
5
0
0
25
0
0
0
20
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
- 0
0
10
25
0
0
0
25
25
0
0
25
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
415
500
55
60
60
195
575
0
270
365
230
555
45
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
17.3
20.8
2.3
2.5
2.5
8.1
24.0
0.0
11.2
15.2
9.6
23.1
1.9
0.6
0.0
3.54
1.67
0.0
0.0
0.0
Set Number Start End . Sum
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
Average
0.0
0.0
n o
0 0
n n
0.0
aJiiitf^jivrllr-r-.l:
[i!.Pi]-HlH:rnL-::ii1
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
36
-------
Table 2-10. FACILITY: SPARROWS POINT
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS: TEST #2
Date: 7-12-79
Type of Plant: Coke Oven
Type of Discharge: Exhaust Gas
Location of Discharge: #2 Battery Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: -150'
Description of Background: Clouds
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Wind Direction:Variable
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 1135-1504
First Half of op
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point:=
Height of Observation Point: - 40'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point:NcBM
Wind Velocity: 0-5 mph
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 -^
20
15
0
0
0
0
0
10
5
0
10
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
. 0
5
15
0
0
0
0
0
- 10
10
5
10
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
270
60
75
0
0
0
105
110
55
130
40
0
55
70
0
0
0
0
0
175
11.2
Z.b
3.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
4.6
2.3
5.4
1.7
0.0
2.3
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.3
Set Number Start End
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
PLAN
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' WENT D
Sum . Average
55
0
0
0
0
0
95
5?n
245
0
0
0
0
0
0
DWN
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
21.7
10.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30
25
14
-------
Table 2-11. FACILITY : SPARROWS POINT
SUMMARY OF VISIBLE EMISSIONS : TEST #2 (CONT.)
Date:7-12-79
Type of Plant: Coke Oven
Type of Discharge: Exhaust Gas
Location of Discharge: #2 Battery Stack
Height of Point of Discharge: =150'
Description of Background: Clouds
Description of Sky: Cloudy
Wind Direction: Variable
Color of Plume: White
Duration of Observation: 1635-1829
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Distance from Observer to Discharge Point: ~150'
Height of Observation Point: ~40'
Direction of Observer from Discharge Point: Nortl
Wind Velocity: 0-5 mph
Detached Plume: No
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE OPACITY
Set Number Start End Sum Average
1
2
3
4
' 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 "^
20
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
n
0
0
n
0
20
20
30
-20 .
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
20
20
30
20
20
520
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
360
540
460
475
21.7
4.b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14.0
15.0
22.5
19.2
19.8
Set Number Start End . Sum
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
< 40
Average
i:h;!=T;!:r-jj-
10 12 14
16 18 20 22 24 26 2*8 30 32 34
15 '
36
-------
: 1 O#
\c%
11%
10%.
9%
CM 8%
0
7%
6%
5%
0
1%.
o
6%
. ! 5%'
4%
CM
O
O
3%
2%
1%
0
i
-. .
r
j _
;
_. -
-
«M*»US-
:
- --- ~"
__.. -
-- *-
"""
i i '
" i
i
,
.
;
'
«.
~ i
i-.-iif.
!
.:....
-
*
.
** * * *"
~..+J?.
K,
I
-
::;|ii;
: !
...:..
..;.:.
_....
-
'
*
. i
MMM^IBMH
,1
j.i '
; - .
--
_:
i
1
r "
""~~i "" '
~ 1 "
1 '
*
.- ,rn i . - ,
1
^WMMI
-..,;.».
w
-.
*-!«*»«
_.
mm^mmmt
'
:._
'.
. ... .
-~-
,
1
MM*
.
r^^
ursg
tlau(
-
. i.
-~lh
.
--
*""
.
* ~
*
--- .V.-
iis~...
.....
.
"
, ,L r
.~~~.-
' "
-.
_-..,-
-
.
-
~ -
"
Tes
Tes
Tes
-
i1!!:
__L|i^_
'-'1 -:-
. : '. "
t #1
Orsat
G.C.
Continuous
t #2
Orsat
G.C.
Continuous
t #3
Orsat
G.C.
Continuous
i
.
--' -- -
:t .
i
1 ,
-r-4
' ' . ".
- -
... i,.
r~'
' * *
. i
.
°2
9.25%
10.09%
11.2%
8.95%
10.42%
11.86%
9.4%
10.6%
10.9%
...v,^^
-. .... .
V .
.....
co2
3.87%
4.52%
3.55%
4.85%
3.6%
5.34%
.
«««««»*M
1 ;
1
1
1
. . ...
-
-
-
u
"
M^B^H^K
CT>
Test Number
FIGURE 2-1. COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF GAS ANALYSIS
-------
en
en
FIGURE 2-2. JEST #1 .RELATIONSHIP OF CO, NQY CONENTRATIONS, % OPACITY AND % OXYGEN
-------
^ ""
oo
£ 1 3 8 £ § s g £8 s -g .5; HOLD .g § - u,
FIGURE 2-3. TEST #2 RELATIONSHIP OF CO, NOX CONCENTRATIONS, % OPACITY AND % OXYGEN
-------
0
ro ro ro ' ro ro ro
o o o » > <
' co -p» o co
tn CD tn o tn o
ro ro ro ro ro
ro ro ro ro
tn o tn o en
ro ro
oo co
O
O tn o
ro
to
ro ro
to -P*
-t> . O
tn o
o
o
'
tn
O
o
co
o
O O
o »
£> O
tn o
FIGURE 2-4. TEST #3 REUTIONSHIP OF CO, N0₯ CONCENTRATIONS, % OPACITY AND % OXYGEN
'«
-------
3. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
There are twelve coke oven batteries (No . 1 through No. 12) at Bethlehem
Steel's Sparrows Point, Maryland integrated steel plant. Presently, there
are 10 batteries operating with two batteries (Nos. 7 and 8) permanently shut-
down. Future plans include the construction of a new 6-m battery and discon-
tinuing operations of some existing batteries after the new battery is on-line.
Only two of the coke oven battery stacks (No. 2 and No. 12) had appro-
priate sampling ports and platforms for stack sampling. Of these, only Battery
No. 2 was fired with coke oven gas (COG). Therefore, the battery stack
serving Battery No. 2 at Sparrows Point, Maryland was selected to carry out
emission tests of a coke oven facility where mobile gunning is employed.
Battery No. 2 is a 60-oven Koppers gun-flue battery, fired with un-
desulfurized coke oven gas from the by-product plant. No. 2 Battery began
operations in 1961 and has not been rehabilitated since start-up. Additional
plant design and operational data are presented in Table 3-1. Maintenance
techniques used on Battery No. 2 are mobile-gunning and hand-held gun slurry
patching.
The mobile gunning device is a 200 gallon refractory slurry spraying
system with a 50 foot water-cooled spraying boom mounted on a 50,000 GVW truck.
It is used to spray the oven roofs and the top portion of the oven walls. The
mobile-gun spray patching was started on Battery No. 2 in July 1978 and
stopped in early September 1978. During this 2 to 3 month period, all ovens
except for Ovens No. 245 and No. 228, had the entire upper region of the
oven above the coke line sprayed at least once with the mobile-gunner.
During February and March of 1979, the mobile gun sprayer was used to
patch 14 additional ovens (Nos. 201, 202, 206, 208, 211, 221, 246, 248, 249,
256, 258, 259, 264 and 266) on Battery No. 2. On May 3, 1979, use of the
mobile gunner was restarted on Battery No. 2. The dates when each oven was
sprayed since that time are shown in Table 3-2.
In addition to oven spraying with the mobile gun truck, hand-held slurry
20
-------
spraying guns were used to patch the end flues and door jambs of the ovens.
This procedure has been employed frequently for a long time. For example,
in the first half of 1979 each oven (door jambs and end flues) in No. 2
Battery has been patched at least four times. The actual hand-held gun
patching occurred after an oven was pushed and before the door-machines
replaced the doors on the oven. This maintenance technique takes 10 to 15
minutes for each door.
During each test day, process operating data was obtained at approx-
imately 1-hour intervals. The time that each oven was pushed and charged was
recorded whenever possible. Bethlehem Steel performed daily coke oven fuel
gas and coal analysis. The daily average fuel gas and coal analysis results
during the testing period are reported in Table 3-3. Copies of circular
charts recording the daily process data were obtained along with the flue
inspection sheets and the wall temperature logs. All process operating logs
and charts obtained during the tests are presented in Appendix E.
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
The process description that follows was supplied by
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
21
-------
Table 3-1. PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION RECORD
Date 7/9/79
Plant Name Bethlehem Steel
Plant Location Sparrows Pt., MD
Battery No. 2
Name of Plant Contact George Thomas (Heater Foreman)
Type of Ovens and Designer Koppers-Gunflue
Date Built 1960 - started 1961
Date of Last Rehabilitation None
Type of Last Rehabilitation N/A
Number of Ovens Total 60 In Service 60
Size of Ovens Height in ft » Width 19.75in, .Length 37 ft
Type of coke produced Met. Coke
Normal coking time (hr) 20.25
Coal charged per oven (tons) 13.8
Reversal period (min) 30
Nozzle decarbonization method Carbon Caps
Is flue gas recirculated? No
Type of fuel gas Coke Oven Gas Heating value 490-500 Btu/scf
Is fuel gas desulfurized? No
Note use of stage charging, preheated coal, etc. Stage charging w/
single stand pipe loading
Stack height and top diameter 250 ft 16 ft 6^ in. ID bottom 11 ft 0 in. ID at top
Test location (stack or waste heat canal) Stack (provide sketch)
Control method used Mobile Gunning
Fuel gas analysis Coal analysis
Component Vol.% Component Vol.%
C02 . _ Ash _
111. _ S _
0, _ HO _
CD VM
N.
22
-------
Table 3-2. MOBILE GUN SPRAYING LOG FOR BATTERY NO. 2
SLUR
^BATTERY
OVEN
OVBJ
01
45
11
55
|W
'65
31
06
.41
T6
~tf/Z77?
61
36
1//8J>
V'ff/A
46
22
07
32
17
42
27
52
37
62
03
13
-2T
33
&/tf/79
28
43
38
ST
04
14
34
29
39
~4^
"6T
15
-------
Table 3-3. DAILY AVERAGE FUEL GAS ANALYSIS AND COAL ANALYSIS
Fuel Gas
Component (vol . %)
co2
111.
02
CO
H2
CH4
N2
H2S (grains \
V00 scf/
Coal
Component (wt. %)
Ash
S
H20
VM
Bulk Density
7/10/79
2.5
2.7
0.4
5.4
56.3
26.9
5.8
310
6.7
1.04
7.2
31.5
46.8
7/11/79
2.5
2.7
0.2
6.6
56.8
26.7
4.5
298
6.7
1.03
6.6
32.3
46.7
7/12/79
2.1
2.6
0.3
6.5
56.0
27.0
5.5
293
6.9
1.00
6.4
32.0
46.6
(lb/ft3)
-------
4. SAMPLING LOCATIONS AND LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS
The sample locations were at the eighty (80*) foot level of Battery
Stack No. 2. Access to the testing platform was gained by way of a caged
ladder. Equipment was transported to the testing platform by means of a
pulley and davit. Cummunications were established by citizen band radio
between the testing location and the mobile laboratory. Figure 4-1 is a
generalized schematic of Battery Stack No. 2.
Table 4-1 lists the traverse point location as calculated and utilized
in the field. The normal procedure of two perpendicular traverses was modi-
fied in order to facilitate easier sampling. Therefore, eight (8) points at
four (4) locations were utilized rather than sixteen (16) points at two (2)
locations. These traverse points at all four ports were used for preliminary
velocity traverse, the particulate, and the benzo-a-pyrene sampling. Port
D was used for the continuous monitoring. Port A was used for the Method 7
sampling.
25
-------
"HOT CAR" TRACKS
ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
Table 4-1.
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATION FOR CIRCULAR DUCTS
PLANT Bethel em Steel - Sparrows Point
DATE... 1.1.W7 9
SAMPLING LOCATION Battery Stack #2
INSIDE OF FAR WALL TO
OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE. (DISTANCE A).
INSIDE OF NEAR WALL TO
OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE. (DISTANCE B).
16.83'
2.83'
STACK I.D., (DISTANCE A - DISTANCE B)_JlzML_
NEAREST UPSTREAM DISTURBANCE >r> I.D.
NEAREST DOWNSTREAM DISTURBANCE _
CALCULATOR JONGLEUX
-M.
I.D.
LADDER A
SCHEMATIC OF SAMPLING LOCATION
TRAVERSE
POINT
NUMBER
1
2
3
, 4.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
144
15
16
FRACTION
OF STACK I.D.
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
STACK I.D.
14 ft.
14-ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft
14 ft
14 ft
14 ft
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
14 ft.
PRODUCT OF
COLUMNS 2 AND 3
(TO NEAREST 1/8 INCH)
.224' ft
.686 ft.
-1.19 ft.
J.75-
2.366
3 na ft
^ Qfi? ft
5.25 ft.
8.75 ft
10.038 ft.
10.92 ft.
11.634 ft.
12.25 ft.
12.81 ft.
13.314 ft.
13.776 ft.
»
DISTANCE B
34"
34"
34"
34"
34"
34"
31 "
34"
*4"
74"
3d"
34
34"
34"
34"
34"
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONi
FROM OUTSIDE OF NIPPLE
(SUM OF COLUMNS 4 & 5)
36.7"
42.2" _
48.3"
55.0"
62.4" '
71 0"
81. B"
107.0"
._
«
*»
--
26
-------
19' Stack O.D.
14' Stack I.D.
0,80'
DAVIT
o
ELECTRICAL HOOK-UP 1
"HOT CAR
TRACKS"
- Port 4"
- 110 Volt outlet
PORT
Caged
Ladder
FIGURE 4-1. SCHEMATIC OF BATTERY STACK #2.
27
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
PARTICULATE SAMPLING
Flue gas particulate concentrations were measured at the outlet of
the battery stack. The sampling procedure used was EPA Method 5 as
outlined in the Federal Register (40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A). The
only deviation from Method 5 was in the analysis and is discussed under
Sulfate Analysis and Ether Chloroform extraction. The prescribed Method
5 analysis was performed prior to the Sulfate analysis and Ether chloroform
extraction. A diagram of the Sampling train is shown in Figure 5-1.
The particulate and BaP trains were run simultaneously. A process
upset occured midpoint of Test No. 2 which resulted in a 2-hour hold
before testing could be resumed. The particulate train sampled four
minutes at thirty-two points during Test No. 1. The time sampled at
each point was increased to five minutes for the next two tests to
assure that adequate volumes would be sampled.
SULFATE ANALYSIS OF PARTICULATE SAMPLES
After analysis of the particulate samples, a 25ml portion of the
^0 collection was removed for sulfate analysis. Analysis was performed
by titrating with 0.0100 N Barium perchlorate. The filter was soaked in
80% Isopropyl alcohol and titrated for sulfate analysis.
ETHER CHLOROFORM EXTRACTION
Ether and chloroform extraction was performed on the H£O portion of
the particulate samples for condensibles. This was performed on the H«0
collection minus the 25ml portion used for sulfate analysis. The remaining
portion of the H«0 samples was evaporated and the residue weighed and
included in the particulate emissions.
28
-------
BaP SAMPLING
The BaP train and the particulate train were run simultaneously.
A process upset occurred midpoint of Test No. 2 which resulted in a 2-
hour hold before testing could be resumed. The BaP train sampled four
minutes at thirty-two points during Test No. 1. The time sampled at
each point was increased to five minutes for the next two tests to
assure that adequate volumes would be sampled.
Testing was conducted to determine concentrations of BaP at the
outlet of the battery stack. The sampling procedure used consisted of
an EPA Method 5 train, modified in the following manner (see Figure 5-
2). A Battelle trap was used as an adsorbent sampler and was inserted
between the heated filter and first impinger. A thermostatically controlled
water bath was used to control the temperature of the adsorbent sampler
at 127°F. The Battelle trap was shielded from visible and ultraviolet
light during sampling by wrapping with aluminum foil. The adsorbent
sampler was capped after sampling and remained covered until analysis
was performed (see Figure 5-3). Methylene Chloride was used for rinsing
the probe, filter holder, and connecting glass-ware up to the Battelle
trap. Acetone was used for rinsing the remainder of the train.
The adsorbent sampler consists of a length of 8mm pyrex tubing wound
for approximately eight coils. The adsorbent is retained by an extra
coarse Pyrex frit and a spring loaded glass wool plug. The adsorbent
section has dimensions equal to a 15mm radius and 70mm in length.
Analysis was performed by extracting the BaP from the XAD-2 resin using
Cyclohexane. The samples were refrigerated until analysis was performed.
Final analysis was performed by measuring the wavelength of the extracted
BaP.
Since the adsorbent trap is located in the train prior to the
impingers and is cooled to 127°F, some condensation occurs in the trap
prior to the impingers. Impingers and silica gel moisture catches do
not reflect the total moisture in the stack gas. For this reason,
moisture content values from Method 5 runs were used for BaP calcula-
tions.
29
-------
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE FOR BaP
A fluorescence spectrophotometry analysis was used to determine
concentrations of BaP. The equipment used for this analysis was the
Aminco Model SPF125 Spectrof1uorometer with a 7mm lightpath cell. This
instrument accurately measures concentrations of BaP as low as 0.001
ppm. The wavelength settingswere 378 nm excitation and 403 nm emission
with respective slit width openings of 1mm and 5mm. All the samples
were in a liquid state, so the only preparations involved with examining
each sample was diluting in Cyclohexane any sample which was darkly
colored, contained abundant suspended material, or was extremely viscous.
This was necessary because any particles or opacity will affect the
absorbence. This instrument (the Spectrof1uorometer) becomes extremely
substance specific at very narrow slit widths, as were used in this
analysis.
Filtered particulates and solid samples required an eight hour
extraction period in Cyclohexane before analysis could be performed. A
Cyclohexane blank was run and taken into account on all extracted and
diluted samples in the final calculations.
The quality control procedures taken for this analysis included
preparation of a series of BaP standards, exclusion from light, and
spiking. A set of standards were prepared for each range (high, medium,
and low concentrations) by serial dilutions. Each set was analyzed for
linearity by continual measurement throughout the days testing. Since
BaP is light sensitive, standards and sample aliquots were discarded
after analysis and the samples were kept in closed, dark containers.
Lastly, a spiking procedure was used to determine recovery efficiencies
on solid and filtered samples, and on samples with very low BaP concen-
trations. A spiking procedure was followed to assure accurate detection
near the limits of the instrument.
No major problems were encountered with the fluorescence spectro-
photometric procedure for BaP analysis. This method is preferred over
the thin layer chromatographic (TLC) method for low level BaP analysis,
as the TLC method had only about 0.01 the sensitivity of direct liquid
measurement. The benzo-a-pyrene method was tailored to these samples.
30
-------
The method originally chosen was intended to be a thin layer chromatography
separation with measurement by scanning in situ with a scanning attachment for
the fluorescence spectrophotometer. This method lacks the sensitivity
required for the analyses. The samples were to be preconcentrated using
Kuderna-Danish concentrators with a nitrogen stream flowing over them. It was
found, reviewing the literature, that no compound expected to be present in
these samples had similar excitation/ emission spectrum to benzo-o-pyrene.
Previous analyses by GC/MS on similar samples were the basis of the compounds
to be considered as interferences. In addition, a general compendium of
polyorganic materials and other organics showed no similar spectrum. It was,
therefore, decided to go to a direct in situ method as previously described.
Analysis for BaP was also conducted in the water impingers, but no
significant concentrations were found.
Fluorescence and Phosphorescence Data Compendium,
Donald L. Helman, American Instrument Co., 1977.
31
-------
SAMPLING FOR NITROGEN OXIDES
Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) were sampled according to EPA Method 7 and by
continuous monitoring. One sample flask (CK-15-M7-2B) was opened inadver-
tently by the sampler, and low concentrations are suspected for that flask.
Method 7 uses a grab sample of the flue gas which is collected in an evacu-
ated 2-liter flask containing 25 ml. of a dilute Sulfuric acid-Hydrogen
peroxide absorbing solution. Four NOX samples were taken during each test
run. A diagram of the sampling train is shown in Figure 5-4.
ANALYSIS
Nitrogen oxides, except nitrous oxide, were measured colorimetrically
using the phenoldisulfonic acid (PDS) procedure which is the Federal Register
Method.
GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Two grab bag samples were taken for each test. The samples were analyzed
for C02» 02, N2, and CO. Two methods were employed for determining gas
composition. Samples of each bag were analyzed on a Gas Chromatograph (GC)
using the thermal conductivity principle, and then the bag samples were
analyzed using an Orsat analyzer. The GC concentrations were slightly higher
than the Orsat concentrations. The Orsat analyzer was suspected of having
weak chemicals which would result in the lower concentrations. This would be
substantiated by the greater than normal number of passes required before
complete absorption occurred. The Orsat analyzer was used, in addition to
the GC, for the purpose of maintaining program continuity. The bag sample
analysis was used for determining molecular weight and for providing support-
ive data for the continuous monitors.
CONTINUOUS MONITORS
Continuous monitors were run throughout each test to measure 02, CO, and
NOx. A stainless steel probe was inserted into the centroid of the stack for
removal of flue gas for the continuous monitors (see Figure 5-5). The probe
was followed by an ice bath moisture trap for removal of moisture. A pump
followed the ice bath moisture trap and supplied flue gas to a mobile labora-
tory located adjacent to the Battery stack. A second ice bath moisture trap
was located inside of the mobile laboratory and was followed by a filter for
32
-------
removal of particulate. Each continuous monitor was equipped with a flow
meter to control flows to the desired operating range of the equipment (see
Figure 5-6). The electrical output of the continuous monitors was connected
to recorders and recordings were made of emission levels throughout each test.
The continuous monitors were conditioned prior to field testing to verify
the accuracy of the instruments. Calibration gases certified as traceable
to National Bureau of Standards (NBS) were applied to analyzers to determine
analyzer response, drift, linearity, and traceability of calibration gases.
The instruments were operated in the field prior to testing and data was
obtained to determine the arithmetic mean value and 95% confidence interval
of the equipment. The calibration error determination for these instruments
can be found in Appendix D.
Oxides of Nitrogen were sampled by EPA Method 7 and by continuous moni-
toring. Problems occurred with the continuous monitor used for monitoring NO
A
periodically. The continuous monitor used operates on internal pumps. Extreme
heat at the sampling location resulted in lost voltage which rendered the
pumps inoperative. After brief cooling periods, the pumps were reset and
continuous monitoring was resumed. This should not affect the results of the
data obtained, since the instrument responded to the correct calibration values
at the end of each test.
Continuous monitors were run to monitor Op and CO in addition to NOX.
Comparative results for the Op and CO continuous monitoring were obtained by
the GC and Orsat analysis. The averages of the concentrations obtained by
the CO continuous monitor are high in comparison with the bag sample analysis.
The higher concentrations are the result of peaks of CO that occurred during
monitoring on a continuous basis. This is shown in Figure 2-1.
OPACITY
Visible determination of Opacity was performed for the duration of tests
No. 1 and No. 2. Test No. 3 was performed at night and no visible determination
could be obtained. The observations were performed in accordance with EPA
Method 9 by a qualified visible emission person.
33
-------
CO
to
c
n>
en
ca
Ol
r*
n>
to
Ol
3
-a
Ol
\
\
X
\l
\
\J
\
Nl
\
\
GREENBURG-SMITH
IMPINGERS
-------
ta
c
en
i
ro
01 to
' §
-fl
0)
Battelle trap
Filter
Stainless Steel Prnhp
Pi tot Tube
co Nozzle
r? rr
Water Bath
Controlled
127 F
Umbilical Cord
-------
Glass Water Jacket
8mm Glass Cooling Coil
Glass Fritted Disc
Figure 5-3 Battelle Trap
36
-------
EVACUATE
PURGE
SAMPLE
PROBE
o
73
FILTER
FLASK SHIELD
SQUEEZE BULB
FLASK
-------
S.S. PROBE
STACK
FLOW
METER
NOX
ANALYZER
RECORDER
PUMP
ICE BATH
MOISTURE TRAP
V
\
4-
Calibration Gases
FLOW ±
METER '
ICE BATH
MOISTURE TRAP
VALVE
POINT OF BAG SAMPLES
Calibration Gases
FLOW >
METER '
CO
ANALYZER
ANALYZER
Cal Gases
DUAL CHANNEL
RECORDER
Figure 5-5 Continuous Monitor Schematic
38
-------
Sample Gas
Zero
Gas
3-way Valve
Analyzer
Mid-Level Gas
2-way Valve
High-level Gas
Flow Meter
Figure 5-6
Schematic of Calibration Gas Injection
For Continuous Monitors
39
-------