United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EMB Report 79-ELC-6
May 1979
Air
Steel Industry
Electric Arc Steel
Foundaries
Emission Test Report
Armco Steel
Torrance, California
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION EVALUATION REPORT
ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Armco Steel
Torrance, California
Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Measurement Branch
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc,
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
EMB REPORT NO. 79-ELC-6
Work Assignment 15
Contract No. 68-02-2817
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Discussion of Results 2
3.0 Observation Locations and 8
Emission Points
4.0 Observation Procedures 11
APPENDICES
A. Project Participants
B. Field Data Sheets
B-l. Visible Emissions
B-2. Fugitive Dust
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 Plan view of electric arc furnaces 9
and observation points
3.2 Isometric view of electric arc 10
furnace
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2.1 Summary of Tapping Results 4
2.2 Summary of Reladling Results 5
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
retained Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.
to conduct both visible and fugitive emissions
observations at Armco Steel in Torrance, California.
Procedures similar to those outlined in EPA Methods
9 and 22 were incorporated to evaluate fugitive
emissions from two (10 and 25 ton) electric arc
furnaces (EAF) on May 30 and 31, 1979.
To evaluate methods of determining visible
emissions escaping from the EAF control systems,
visible emission data were collected by observers
located inside the building housing these units.
This study was commissioned as Project No. 79-ELC-6,
Contract No. 68-02-2817, Work Assignment 15.
-------
2.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS
Light-type was both natural (sky lights and exit
openings) and artificial (hanging lamps at ceiling level
and on the overhead crane). At the respective observa-
tion points, light meter readings did not exceed 10 foot
candles, even when the light meter was pointed directly
at the source during tapping. During Tap 4 (May 31) a
light reading of 30-50 footcandles was taken approximately
5 feet from the. furnace, but overall surrounding light
levels were low and plume contrast hard to notice.
The greatest difficulty encountered in observing
emissions at the EAF units was the very bright light
created by the molten metal during pouring. This
made emission reading extremely difficult, in that the
back-lighting made the emissions appear denser. Both
opacity and fugitive observations on May 30 at the 10
and 25-ton furnaces were read 1-2 feet above the spout.
The remaining observations on May 31 were obtained about
6 feet above the launder to reduce light interference
from the metal. The bright light, however, remained
an interfering factor, since it reflected off the
furnace and generally illuminated the entire pit area.
Emissions appeared minimal except at the onset of
tapping. As the melt hit the ladle, a dense cloud would
rise to the roof. The plume then dissipated about
- 2 -
-------
2-4 feet above the pit/pouring spout. Sometimes the
smoke hung in the air at this point before dissipating.
This could have biased subsequent readings, as more
emissions were being added to the suspended cloud
throughout the tapping operation.
Quite a lot of air turbulence was noted near the
spout area. This could be a result of heat (convective
rise) from the molten metal; dust collector draft;
and, depending on wind direction, a draft from a main
throughway located just west of the 25-ton furnace pit.
Consideration could be given to taking future
emission readings at a higher level (15-20 feet), where
a more even dispersion of smoke occurs and air turbulence
is lower, although suspended particles could still be a
problem at that level.
Fugitive/Opacity Data
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarize the tapping and re-
ladling results, respectively, for both furnaces. The
lowest and highest opacity readings and the overall average
for each tap, are presented for each observer. Fugitive
emission readings are summarized as specified by
Method 22.
A total of seven taps were observed, three on the
10-ton furnace and four on the 25-ton furnace. The
furnaces were tapped approximately every 4 1/2 and 6 1/2
hours, respectively. Pouring lasted only 2 1/2 minutes
- 3 -
-------
TABLE 2.1. SUMMARY OF TAPPING RESULTS8
Furnace
Number
10 ton
10 ton
10 ton
25 ton
25 ton
25 ton
25 ton
Date
5/30/79
5/31/79
5/31/79
5/30/79
5/30/79
5/31/79
5/31/79
Time
Start Finish
1037 1039:49
0926 0928:25
1404 1406:21
0750 0754:45
1319 1323:48
0805 0810:41
1255 1259:51
Method 22 Results (Percent)
Observer
(T. Harrison)
Accum .
Obser . ,
m i n : sec
3:06
2:27
2: 26
4:54
4:27
5:36
4:07
Accum .
Emis s ion}
min : sec
3:03
0:37
0:44
4:45
3:09
5:31
4:05
Observer
(W. Maxwell)
Accum .
Ob ser . )
min : sec
2:55
2:29
2: 19
4:31
4:43
5:40
4:11
Accum .
Emi s s ion
min : sec
1:10
0:24
0:42
4:26
3:38
5:35
4:07
Inside Opacity Results (Percent)
Observer
(D. Lazarevic)
Low High
40 70
0 20
0 20
10 >70
0 40
5 70
10 75
Avg.
55
6
7
20
42
42
Observe r
(D. Schick)
Low
30
0
0
20
0
0
0
High
55
40
30
80
40
50
75
Avg.
47
11
14
48
28
35
46
tapping is defined as the period of time from start of metal flow to end of metal flow.
-------
TABLE 2.2. SUMMARY OF RELADLING RESULTS
Furna ce
Number
10 ton
10 ton
10 ton
25 ton
25 ton
25 ton
Date
5/30/79
5/31/79
5/31/79
5/30/79
5/31/79
5/31/79
Time
Start Finish
1005 1006
0858 0859:19
1334 1335:47
1243 1246:41
0727 0730:22
1230 1232:42
Method 22 Results (Percent)
Observer
(T. Harrison)
Accum .
Obser .,
min: sec
1:05
b
1:49
3 :41
3:24
2:43
Accum .
Emis s ion.
min : sec
0:59
b
0:42
2:56
3 :20
2 :37
Observer
(W. Maxwell)
Accum .
Obser . 5
min : sec
1 :08
1:25
1 :45
3 :38
3:24
2:40
Accum .
Emiss ion
min : sec
1:08
1 :25
0:33
3 :08
3 :19
2:36
Inside Opacity Results (Percent)
Observer
(D. Lazarevic)
Low
35
30
0
0
20
0
High
40
75
10
65
80
75
Avg.
"38
64
4
36
59
52
Ob se rve r
(D. Schick)
Low High Avg.
50 80 65
0 90 57
0 30 15
0 60 38
30 70 48
0 70 56
aReladling is defined as the period from start of metal flow to end of metal flow.
b.
Photographs were being taken at this time.
-------
for the 10-ton and 4 to 5 minutes for the 25-ton furnace.
Due to the short duration of this operation, the
average of only 12 readings was calculated on the
10-ton furnace and 20 readings on the 25-ton furnace.
A total of six reladles were observed, three
at each furnace. Reladling lasted a little over 1-
minute for the 10-ton and about 3-minutes for the
25-ton furnace.
Consideration was given to taking additional
readings at night, but poor lighting would have biased
the results.
Opacity readings taken during tapping on the
first day for both furnaces showed a maximum
variance of about 8-percent opacity between the two
observers., Differences on the second day for
the 10-ton furnace were 5 and 7-percent opacity,
and 7 and 4-percent opacity for the 25-ton furnace.
Opacities taken on the first day during reladling
showed a variance between two observers of 27 and 2-
percent opacity for the 10 and 25-ton furnaces, respec-
tively. On the second day, differences were 7 and 11-
percent opacity for the 10-ton furnace and 11 and 4-
percent opacity for the 25-ton furnace.
During tapping, Method 22 also pr-oduced the greatest
variance between two observers on the first day with an
accumulated emission difference of 1-minute and 53-
_ 6 -
-------
seconds on the 10-ton and 19 and 29-seconds on the 25-
ton furnace. The differences ranged from 2 to 13-
seconds on the second day of observations.
The accumulated emission difference, during
reladling for both days of the study was 9-seconds
on the 10-ton furnace. On the 25-ton furnace, the
difference for the first day was 12-seconds and 1-
second for the second day.
Summary
Considering all the difficulties encountered in
reading opacities at the EAF units (back-lighting
from the molten metal, plume suspension, etc),
Method 22 appears to be the better of the two methods
for evaluating this particular process. Further
consideration should be given to obtaining a larger
data base in order to allow for meaningful statistical
comparison of individual readings and evaluation of any
significant differences between methods.
-------
3.0 OBSERVATION LOCATIONS AND EMISSION POINTS
Figure 3.1 presents a plan view of the electric
arc furnaces, along with respective observation points.
Figure 3.2 presents an isometric view of the EAF
units showing the location of emission points observed.
Observation point A was a six foot high platform
located approximately 30-feet west of the 25-ton
furnace pit. The platform is used as an access point
for assembling and repairing electrodes. The remaining
observations for this furnace were made at point B
(ground level), approximately 10 feet south of the pit.
All observations of the lO-to^n furnace were made
from point C. This ground level location was about
15 feet south of the furnace.
Since the observers had to contend with three
overhead cranes, the pouring ladle, spraying molten
metal, etc.,safety was an important and limiting factor
in determining observation locations. Observation points
B and C not only permitted optimum viewing of the
tapping operation, but were also the safest observing
po sit ions.
Opacities were read only during tapping, although
emissions were also noted emanating from the top of the
furnace during oxygen lancing and charging.
- 8 -
-------
i
vo
I
Baghouse.
.IT
V __.J
1 .£,., _ . ....
K
Mold
pouring Overhead
area crane
\^
^l
~\
d
A
\ i
i .
\
\
i
.
7 '
r^r
^
IN
Scrap
yard
\
1 ' ' ^
_t _
n
Enc lo sed
pit
-_^
*ar^
-^
Exhaus t
"" hoods ^ ^^.
5 A /To\_
| ton 1 i ton L_
x^
v /
^ Launders
c »
Enclo sed
pit
B
C
. *. .
1
1
k
\
1 v
\
x'x.
\ Overhead
\ 1
crane
\
x i
^
^
' Overhead
c
crane
b =
1
Mold making area
-\
= >>
\
Figure 3.1. Plan view of electric arc furnaces and observation points
(not to scale).
-------
Electrodes
Furnace
Exhaust
hood
Observed
emis sion
point
Pit
Ladle
Figure 3.2. Isometric view of electric arc furnace
(not to scale).
- 10 -
-------
4.0 OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
Visible emission observations were performed in
accordance with EPA Method 22, Visual Determination of
Fugitive Emissions from Material Processing Sources,
and a varied form of EPA Method 9, Visual Determination
of the Opacity of Emissions from Stationary Sources.
Messrs. Terry Harrison of EPA and William Maxwell of
MRI employed Method 22, while Mses. Donna L. Schick
and Dusanka Lazarevic of Clayton Environmental Consul-
tants, Inc. observed using Method 9. This allowed for
comparison of individual readings and evaluation of
differences between the two methods.
Observations were conducted during the reladling
and tapping cycle with respective results reported
herein.
Opacity readings were documented by certified
visible emissions observers simultaneously with the
fugitive emission readings. Due to overcast skies, no
outside readings were taken.
Opacities were read according to width gradients
across the pit (0-1/2 ft, 1/2-1 ft, 1-2 ft, 2-4 ft,
4-8 ft, 8-12 ft) and by depth as presented in Figure 4.2,
The readings were usually averaged over the width
gradient since certain sections of the emission cloud
were denser than others, especially the area directly
above the spout.
- 11 -
-------
APPENDIX A
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
-------
PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Donna L. Schick Environmental Data
Specialist
Dusanka Lazarevic Environmental Data
Specialist
Midwest Research Institute
William Maxwell
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Terry Harrison
-------
APPENDIX B
FIELD DATA SHEETS
B-l. Visible Emissions
B-2. Fugitive Dust
-------
B-l. Visible Emissions
-------
-------
iy₯*
o-fc
LUMlkggy
) I
-------
f-
Q
/)
. Otierv;«r- _
±£M.
Jo.
v^w-
k'.bK-\ Type
T
iode
-<«kVN
-------
-------
J ) 0^-«-
JX
C-
-------
-------
-------
n
3o
J/S
-3
3"
u.s
V
y
b
1 -
^vjpccv.'t i
Ob£erv«V -
^N
JJ
-
/ - * ?'
Type
^ /&OVU-6L.
,f
>
5D
4'0
45
CD
i,-
/b c»r
-------
~~
tr
tT «
Type ^
- t^ww«T"~\ec**''Vt<*v\. ~ '*'
-ty
i .....
0
. v. I ~ V .
.. -..
"" - -1 *
. .._ ,_--. -,*.. .
"^?.
.,..#_,..
i£i
i *
' D > '-
' /P .
' U
'60
'- -
.
ft -U
"".i.w. _.T?
-
-..
-
- -
ir^
/O CfT tnof«. ,
dirtt^ti w
s iQ. ("A If 1 v^^
/vev^t ~~ ,^^^^^
r^^; (
A"1" , J^da"1
.,'-*>, ^ 1 /) / ,
0J)AO-^ ^ JU=»
n ^-' .51 i
fl .. . / /_. K 0 .
KJ/A-^ U J^1
^V^1"*
t^v "'
u*<^
^ n s \ ^ l\
1 4^r\
kc«^ ^f'.
) ( ff/ Jx<9.d1
] l a- NT
^ tr
A// ^ L^1^
^ i 0 - -
h
AAU-V^-
uyu***?^
^IC^
-rv\A-^
. . .TJti-^
-rir^^° A
IIH- j Jn, .
0 AU^^ ,
J^ ^
HN H^^
-------
-------
-------
-------
"*«-
I » r>-\ _
Jx
O
\r*
V.
Ov\ CC.C-V J
c)o's«-Tv' r\OCAJ^; i ovvr^T^K^^i" ~ ^ o-crc*
- \
0
40. rt
lo
/G <5
A^W-
-------
-------
GjOYrvGeo^y
C 0
£/ld4'^
t
Type _
4; 46
2&r
JO
ic
OUWv-? V^_i_V?.ll
r_ T
5^
60
60
(00
SO
60
6D
/G
-------
o
30
y
-------
a
J/S
3"
^
-------
j I
-------
c
0-
a
16
3*0
5
-------
o
)*>
y
.13 do . 6>
(00
lo
60
70
/
/b or
-------
T
- >-
>#.
50
'60
35
At>.
6
5
IffO.
lao
/
/b
4:47
-------
B-2. Fugitive Dust
-------
INSPECTION
Company
Inspector
i r r
Location
Company Rep. _
Facility Type
Affiliation U .5 . £ P
Date J
$\yf .
Emission Sonrr «.
Jy vs CXC
o
Sky Conditions
Precipitation .
Wind
Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
OBSERVATIONS^.)^
Clock
Time
jo'.os'
&*>
f i y ' r '''.'/
- vwi cxt VwrW x/oJ^vP ^s «.i fc^i,' ^l>^'1^*?
\ - pOiAY^Uslk.
U J v
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION
-T i , INSPECTION
-I-'\ck>OT-
Company
Inspector
Location
\ O y v-
*_,
Company Rep,
Affiliation
Date
l).S. £ (PA
Facility Type £ y-SDs
Emission Source
Sky Conditions
Precipitation .
\
V
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
(
OBSERVATIONS
Clock
Time
Ac cumul ated
Observation
Period
(min : sec)
Accumulated
Emission
Time
(min : sec)
Comments
vVV
(^"W )\ ^ f
\Kc\b
Bii!
-------
INSPECTION
Company
Inspector _
Location
0 4r>A
Company Rep,
Affiliation
Date
'
Facility Type
Emission Source
f-
Sky Conditions
Precipitation .
y\Sj I o*-*
Wind Direction A/A
Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
OBSERVATIONS
Clock
Time
/Oo5~
j»r
I
i
I
!
t
Accumul a ted
Observation
Period
(rain: sec)
/' oS>
<2 35~
Accumulated
Eiais sion
Time
(min : sec )
/10&
I'-IO
-
Comments
5 10#f&- /'3'<-a d>d si0/^^ 5x?^^T ^ rerz-t^ioc,'^, /? J Cx^.^-b
1 f f 9 ' 1 J- 1
K<2.&J """ //** 'sPc>^
/ «
-------
INSPECTION
Company
T
C&-
Location
Company Rep.
Facility Type
rv-^.fc .r
Inspector
Affiliation
Date
Emission Source
I «"~>
Sky Conditions
Precipitation .
Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points
I
r~=r^^ ;i
^^j
OBSERVATIONS ,.
Clock
Time
0=1.70
0-30
/3sr
flo*?
\
\
Accumulated
Observation
Period
(min: sec)
I". 2. 6
2:Zcl
/=4£
P-'-l*)
Accumulated
Emission
Time
(min : sec)
(-ZZ
0:2 1_
^-33
0 - X| 7_
Comments
IZaLJL - ^^c,^-lwffc.J
I
C*^JU>UeJ
Re(ftJ ^
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION
., INSPECTION
c
I
c
I
l\ "T*^ . if
ompnn" VV v^xC O Inspector K . V\ N Oum s- v\~.
,o cat ion
)ompany B
'acility
i
Sky Ctsnd^
/\
Pre^xCpit^
c
~~~\ r^^f^> f AF-f^^^1^-lnn f\C /^ tPfl
\ (^,*<" *<~ ^\. \T\ ^ 'P V °*-- V..X t AIIillclLlUH L / i N * L> »J^(
V
pp. Date S/-3u/-Jc\
Type TOu^-^cvrv . Emission Source t/ec"ii-«c ^^^ ^~.w.v~v\o<--^
/ " C~
tir,nc Wind Direction
Unn . Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
X-
xla'
!\
^^^ /onjurrj^
1i~CX
/.J-'".. , ^
S^5^i^,, ' 'r5'7
. OBSERVATIONS,-.. . , . -^ ^r^K ^ $3 ^ *."
Clock
. Time .
tl&Q ^
*i.
7TMS^^
' *** \ *^ * ^1 C }
-
Ac cumu lated
Ob servation
Period
(inin: sec)
3\ S-N
.
3'.4\
Hf.P"?
Accumulated
Emission
Time
(rain : sec)
I'-V^
3; 5^C
-
3^ o«\
Comments
Siu??e^ vo^eK^ -W** «^-j^ .r^rf^^p-lTN^Q^
^O^t ^P(pr-«<. 1 V>0 ^ . ^
ne<4 eA «V <^ Uo ^k
'
X
v OX^VA** c/ ( Vi\Now\4 ^'JO °^-^ ^"CJO\_M\I"^ r^ "T AJ^W>^^ \/ \
C" \ / L. f\.
^Z^'muiv-fr-x -0 JO B5 /f^vf^ji.^^.'*- ^
"V-X^O -o^Ly^. 0^«J) ^ ^u/.*? XnO
^b *3o1-^-A^
5\Xft ^v^.oViStr^Vx^.- «.«K\U\ \*\l AW
"Ko w<3r~ooevT7" aev^ UL rWfh'c^p
at vwi.
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION
,. INSPECTION
O«Jv^
Company
Inspector
H
Location
Company Rep.
Affiliation
Date
^. c;
xm
Clock
Time
Accumul ated
Observation
Period
(niin: sec )
Accumulated
Emis sion
Time
(min : sec )
Comments
C) c~
**?
-+
ICTVN
TA
^M^L
> Sb'.Q ',"
Jl£
-2£-
tT^S-W..
} s-~O
^T
J_i
-------
INSPECTION
c
I
c
I
c\ mn i n V - . f" ^ ' *
^ocation
Company F
"acility
>
Sky Condi
Precipi ta
c
S«5
en.
Type
t io ns
t ion
7 ~~ ^o^-C»AVCC Inspector /l/'\/^XuJ£d.t_
\ o r*- VT-^-OV^ c Affiliation / / ( 1 1> uj £-5 T \^&3 G-AVZ^ ^/
Date So /AA'*\x' "l^
crXi/" - A~0cx/-vc.lr'l-j- Emission Sonrpp 1 A-f*
1 ..
"X^Dc.^ p.'S Wind Direction M\
/V/^j Wind Speed /V4
sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
&
j
©L
J) 1 0?
£> i x
1
ps
. OBSERVATIONS :
Clock
Time
OT^o
/2'15
I32o
Ac cumul ate.d
Observation
Period
(rain : sec)
x? : -$i
3 - .3^
>f:>/3
Accumulated
Emission,
Time
(min : sec)
^Z^
3-'c>&
J]3y
V.
Comments
fad ~2-*~. &.^*u^ U^le ^o^v"^ re-k~*ci~
y
A-f(/»^ i 1 ^ / Vs / c( *IX- 14- -t«
-------
FUGITIVE EMISSION
INSPECTION
Company
- T
Location
Company Rep,
Facility Type
o rc.g
Inspector
Affiliation
Date
Emission Source
Sky Conditions
Precipitation
Wind Direction /V4
Wind Speed
Sketch emission source, indicate observer position relative to source;
indicate potential emission points; and/or actual emission points.
O
. /
(
OBSERVATIONS
Clock
Time
Oll^S
OZlo
/£32
(Z5~5~
Ac cumulated
Ob servat ion
Period
(rnin: sec)
J '£-*(
S^ff
2-^j>
^-l|
Accumulated
Emis s ion
Time
(min : sec )
-3- I6*
5"1- 3 .-T"
<2'2(s
^l-cl
Comments
&./«d/;^ *,t(^ L^ UK-c
t /
foLJ/*
------- |