EPA-340/l-77-014b
August 1977
Stationary Source Enforcement Series
ram!
ram!
SOURCE TESTING
OF A
STATIONARY
COKE-SIDE
ENCLOSURE
GREAT LAKES CARBON CORPORATION
ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI PLANT
« VOLUME II
ragp A
ram!
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Enforcement
Office of General Enforcement
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
STUDY OF COKE-SIDE COKE-OVEN EMISSIONS
(Volume 2 of 3 — Appendices A to I)
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
Contract No. 68-02-4108
Task No. 14
Prepared for :
Technical Support Branch
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared by:
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
August 31, 1977
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection
Agency by Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-02-1408, Task Order No. 14. The contents of
this report are reproduced herein as received from the contractor.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
-------
vi
LIST OF APPENDICES
VOLUME 2
A Emission Measurement Project Participants
B Pushing-Cycle Particulate Test Results
C Non-Pushing-Cycle Particulate Test Results
D Particle Size Distribution Data
E Emission Results of Gases and Other Materials
F Sampling Summary Sheets
G X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer Analysis of
Coke-Side Particulate Emissions
H Microscopic Analysis of Coke-Side Particulate Emissions
I EPA Report of Continuous Opacity Measurements Using a
Transmissoraeter
VOLUME 3
J Method of Pitot Tube Calibration
K Pitot Tube Calibration Data
L Method of Meter and Orifice Calibration
M Meter and Orifice Calibration Data
N Method of Temperature Sensor Calibration
0 Method of Nozzle Calibration
P Particulate Sampling Train Data Sheets
Q Sampling and Analytical Method — Sulfur Dioxide and
Sulfur Trioxide
R Determination of Various Emissions Adsorbed on Activated
Carbon from Coke-Oven Pushing
S Determination of Various Emissions Absorbed in Cyclohexane
from Coke-Oven Pushing
T Determination of Various Emissions Captured in a Glass
Gas Burette During Coke-Oven Pushing
-------
vii
U Determination of Various Emissions Absorbed in
Sodium Hydroxide from Coke-Oven Pushing
V Coke Pushing Evaluation Data
W Quench Tower Opacity Data
X Transmissometer Chart Recordings
Y Door Leakage Data
Z Example Calculations
AA Chain of Custody
BB Wind Observation Data Taken at GLC Coke Plant Site
CC Wind Ro;ses — Lambert Field
-------
APPENDIX A
EMISSION MEASUREMENT PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.
John Mutchler, P.E.
Fred Cooper
Victor Hanson
Gerald Schlaf, P.E.
Richard Marcus
George Santorilla
Richard Keller
John Knowles
James McClain
Wilbert Lee
Mark Wysin
Sally Akehurst
Kent Shoemaker
Lawrence Beaubien
Duane Root
David Holmberg
Michael Kelly
Rebecca Cooper
Janet Vecchio
Kathy Hoskins
Janice Nordin
Contract Project Manager
Project Leader
Non-pushing-cycle particulate
measurement, Assistant Project
Leader
Non-pushing particulate measurement
Pushing-cycle particulate measure-
ment
Pushing-cycle emission measurement
Particle size measurement
Particle size measurement
Gaseous contaminant measurement
Gaseous contaminant measurement
Gaseous contaminant analysis
Dustfall measurement
Particulate, chloride, sulfur
oxide analysis
Particle sizing analysis
Nitrogen oxide and particle siting
analysis
Gaseous contaminant analysis
Gaseous contaminant analysis
Dustfall analysis
PNA analysis
Data processing
Data processing
Clerical
Clerical
-------
A-2
APPENDIX A (continued)
EMISSION MEASUREMENT PROJECT PARTICIPANTS
U.S» Environmental Protection Agency
Kirk Foster Project Coordinator
Bernard Bloom Technical Consultant
Louis Paley Technical Consultant
Source Testing Observer
Byron Taylor Region VII Representative
Visible Emissions Observer
Dr. Wayne Smith Push Observer
Visible Emissions Observer
Paul DePercin Visible Emissions Observer
Norman White Transmissometer Operation
Bruce McElhoe Transmissometer Operation
Visible Emissions Observer
Ron Mitchell Photographer
Stan Coerr Photographer
St. Louis Air Pollution Control Department of Public Safety
Tom Wiese Visible Emissions Observer
Tom Frank Visible Emissions Observer
-------
APPENDIX B
PUSHING-CYCLE PARTICULATE TEST RESULTS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
B- 1
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
°F
Am3/min (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (?)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentra t ion
Particulate
Emission
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNra3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
L_kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21-22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6.83
6.70
241.3
236.5
0.99
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
99.9
38.8
42.8
285.02
41.7
42.6
0.018
0.019
9.3
0.24
20.6
Q.48
2
4/22
14:10
18:48
4.39
4.22
155.0
149.1
0.75
29
85
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
102.9
42.7
47.1
129.55
29.5
30.7
0.613
0.013
6.2
0.15
13.7
0.29
3
4/23
08:45
14:59
4.54
4.37
160.2
154.3
1.3
23
74
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
100.4
37.9
41.7
149.21
32.9
34.1
0.014
0.015
7.1
0.19
15.7
0.38
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2.93
2.73
103.3
96.3
2.0
31
88
3660
3410
129,000
121,000
100.6
29.8
32.9
174.58
LJ9.7
64.0
0.026
0.028
13.2
0.44
29.0
0.88
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C> 760 mm Hg
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton = 1000 kg)
-------
B-2
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
S£0 Louis, Missouri
April 2l°24P.1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Binsets ions: 89=3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Percent Moisti
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Percent Isokir
Feed Rate
Sample Weight
Particulate
Concentration
Part icula te
Era is s ion
Rate
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (4)
ire by Volume
°c
°F
Am3/rain (i)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
letic
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
(mg)
mg/Am3
mg/DNra3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21-22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6.83
6,70
241.3
236,5
0.99
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129jOOO
99.9
38,8
42.8
300.42
44.0
44.9
0.019
0.020
9.8
0,25
21.7
0,51
2
4/22
14:10
18:48
4,39
4.22
155.0
149.1
0,75
29
85
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
102.9
42.7
47.1
153.45
35.0
36.3
0.015
0.016
7.3
00 17
16.2
0,34
3
4/23
08:45
14:59
4.54
4,37
160.2
154.3
1.3
23
74
3610
3480
128,000
123^00
100.4
37.9
41,7
181.01
39.9
41.4
0.017
0.018
8.7
0.23
19.1
Oo46
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2,93
2.73
103.3
96.3
2.0
31
88
3660
3410
129,000
121^000
100.6
2908
32,9
193.68
66.2
71.0
0.029
0.031
14.6
0.49
32.2
0.98
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Actual cubic meters
stack conditions
Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic feet
Dry standard cubic
stack conditions
feet = 20°C
Actual cubic meters perminute
760 mm
stack
Hg
conditions
Dry normal cubic meters perminute - 20°C5) 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
Dry standard cubic feet per minute
Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton
20°Cj, 760 mm
1000 kg)
-------
B-3
FILTERABLE CYANIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions:89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
OF
Am^/min (5)
DNm3/min (6>
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr(9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emiss ion
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNra3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21-22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6.83
6.70
241.3
236.5
0.99
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
99.9
38.8
42,8
<12.1
<1.8
<1.8
<0.0008
<0.0008
<0.40
<0.01
<0.87
<0.02
2
4/22
14: 10
18:48
4.39
4.22
155.0
149.1
0.75
29
85
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
102.9
42.7
47,1
<6.84
<1.6
<1.6
<0.'0007
<0.0007
<0.33
<0.008
<0.72
<0.02
3
4/23
08:45
14:59
4.54
4.37
160.2
154.3
1.3
23
74
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
100.4
37. 9
41. .7
<6.50
<1.4
<1.5
<0.0006
<0.0006
<0.31
<0.008
<0.69
<0.02
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2.93
2.73
103.3
96.3
2.0
31
88
3660
3410
129,000
121,000
100.6
29,8
32,9
<6.03
<2.1
<2.2
<0.0009
<0.001
<0.45
<0.02
<1.0
<0.03
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton « 1000 kg)
Hg
Hg
-------
B~4
TOTAL CYANIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Missouri
April 2l°248. 1975
Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
iotas;89-3/4"x84«
Test dumber
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF (3)
DSCF (4)
1
4/21=22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6,83
6,70
241,3
236,5
Percent Moisture by Volume || 0.99
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Fiowrate
°C
°F
Am3/rain (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM- (7)
DSCFM (8)
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
Percent Isokinetlc | 9909
Feed Rate
M £ on s /tir ^ '
tons/hr
Sample Weight (ing)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Eniss ion
Kate
tng/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
38,8
4208
<28,7
<4,2
<4.3
2 1 3
4/22
14:10
18:48
4,39
4,22
155,0
149,1
0,75
29
85
4/23
08:45
14:59
4,54
4,37
160,2
154,3
1.3
23
74
3500 3610
3360 3480
123,000 128,000
119^000 123^000
102,9 100,4
42,. 7 37,9
47ol
<15,5
<3,5
41,7
<18,8
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2o93
2,73
103,3
96.3
2,0
31
88
3660
3410
129S000
_lilj»000
100,6
2908
32,9
<17,8
<4 , 1 <6 . 1
<3,7 | <4,3
<0,002 <0^002
<0,002
<0,94
<0002
<2.1
<0,05
<0,002
<0.74
! <1,6
<0,002
<0,002
<6.5
<0,003
<0,003
<0.90 <1.3
<0n02
<2.0
<0,03 | <0,05
<0,04
<3,0
<0,09
(1)
(2)
(3)
(5)
(7)
Actual cubic meters = stack conditions
Dry normal cubic meters = 20°CS 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic feet = stack conditions
Dry standard cubic feet = 20°C, 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic meters per minute ° stack conditions
Dry normal cubic meters perminute ° 209Cs, ^^ snm
Actual cubic feet per minute = stack conditions
standard cubic feet per minute ° 20°C8 7SO mm
itric tons per hour (1 metric ton ra
-------
B-5
FILTERABLE CHLORIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source; Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions:89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (M
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
OF
Am3/rain (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (?)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Iso kinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr(9>
tons/hr
Sample Weight (ing)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Era is sion
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21-22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6.83
6.70
241.3
236.5
0.99
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
99.9
38.8
42.8
0.548
0.08
0.08
0.00004
0.00004
0.02
0.0005
0.04
0.000-9
2
4/22
14:10
18:48
4.39
4.22
155.0
149.1
0.75
29
85
3500
3360
123,000
119 ,000
102.9
42.7
47.1
0.938
0.21
0.22
0.60009
0.0001
0.04
0.0009
0.10
0.002
3
4/23
08:45
14:59
4.54
4.37
160.2
154.3
1.3
23
74
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
100.4
37.9
41.7
1.170
0.26
0.27
0.0001
0.0001
0.06
0.002
0.12
0.003
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2.93
2.73
103.3
96.3
2.0
31
88
3660
3410
129,000
121 ,000
100.6
19.8
32.9
1.240
0.42
0.45
0.0002
0.0002
0.09
0.003
0.21
0.006
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters perminute -stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters perminute - 20°C, 760 mm
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20CC, 760 mm
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton » 1000 kg)
Hg
Hg
-------
B-6
TOTAL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
©!?isa erosions: 89~3/4"x84"
Teat Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DHra3 (2)
ACF O)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
1 | 2 1 3
•4/21=22 1 4/22 | 4/23
10:35 09:49
14:10
17:55 12:02| 18:48
6.83
6.70
241»3
236.5
0.99
'C || 24
°F
Am3/min (5)
DNm3/min (&)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
75 .
4,39
4.22
155,0
149.1
0.75
29
85
3740 j 3500
3670
1323000
129,000
Percent Isokinetic jj 9909
Feed Rate
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (rig)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emission
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
3808
42,8
6.818
1.0
3360
123,000
119,000
102.9
42,7
47.1
6.798
08:45
14:59
4.54
4.37
160.2
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2.93
2o73
103.3
154.3 96.3
1.3 2.0
23 31
74 88
3610 3660
3480 3410
128,000 129,000
123^000 121^00
100.4 100.6
37o9 29»8
41.7 32.9
7.020 5.670
1 . 5 7~1 ° 5 1.9
loO | 1.6 j 1.6 2.1
Oo0004
0.0004
0.0007
0.0007
0.22 | 0.33
0.006
0.49
0,01
OoOOS
0.72
0002
0.0007 0.0008
0.0007 0.0009
0.34 0.43
Oo009 0.01
0.74
0.02
0.94
0.03
20°CS 760 mm Hg
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters
(3) Actual cubic feet = stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet = 20°Cs, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters perminute = stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°CS 760 mm
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per miaute ° 20°CS 760 mm
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric toa =, 1000 kg)
-------
B-7
FILTERABLE SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions:89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
An»3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (4)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
OF
Am-* /rain (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Peed Rate
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Etniss ion
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNra3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr :
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21-22
10:35 09:49
17:55 12:02
6.83
6.70
241.3
236.5
0.99
24
75
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
99.9
38.8
42.8
3.4
0.50
0.51
0.0002
0.0002
0.11
0.003
0.25
0.006
2
4/22
14:10
18:48
4.39
4.22
155.0
149.1
0.75
29
85
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
102.9
42.7
47.1
0.7
0.16
0.17
0.00007
0.00007
0.03
0.0007
0.07
0.001
3
4/23
08:45
14:59
4.54
4.37
160.2
154.3
1.3
23
74
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
100.4
37.9
41.7
1.6
0.35
0.37
0.0002
0.0002
0.08
0.002
0.17
0.004
4
4/24
10:43
13:44
2.93
2.73
103.3
96.3
2.0
31
88
3660
3410
129,000
121,000
100.6
29.8
32.9
0.9
0.31
0.33
0.0001
0.0001
0.07
0.002
0.15
0.005
conditions
- 20°C, 760 mm
Hg
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack
(2) Dry normal cubic meters
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute -stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton » 1000 kg)
-------
B-8
TOTAL SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Gir 760 ram
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton => 1000 kg)
-------
APPENDIX C
NON-PUSHING CYCLE PARTICIPATE TEST RESULTS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
. St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
C-.I.
FILTERABLE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Non-pushing cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNra3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (4)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
«F
Am^/min (5)
DNra3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr^9>
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Etnis s ion
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18: 18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19,1
55.73
14.2
14.3
0.006
0.006
3.1
0.18
6.9
0.36
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125 ,000
101.2
17.5
19.3
93.96
20.5
21.3
0.009
0.009
4.5
0.26
10.0
0.52
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137,000
132,000
102.0
18. 2
20.0
37.14
7.6
7.9
0.003
0.003
1.8
0.10
3.9
0.2Q
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton = 1000 kg)
Hg
Hg
-------
C-2
TOTAL PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Non-pushing cycle)
Dimensions; 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
°F
Am3/min (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emis s ion
Rate
mg/Am3
tng/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18:18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19.1
58.73
15.0
15.1
0.007
0.007
3.3
0.19
7.2
0.38
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125,000
101.2
17.5
19.3
104.56
22.8
23.7
0.010
0.010
5.0
0.29
11.1
0.58
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137,000
132,000
102.0
18.2
20.0
50.34
10.4
10.7
0.005
0.005
2.4
0.13
5.3
0.26
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20*C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton •' 1000 kg)
-------
C-3
FILTERABLE CYANIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source; coke Shed (Non-pushing cycle)
Dimensions; 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Plowrate
°C
°F
Am3/min (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr^9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emission
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18:18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19.1
<10.4
<2.7
<2.7
<0.001
<0.001
<0.58
<0.03
<1.3
<0.0?
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125,000
101.2
17.5
19.3
<8.97
<2.0
<2.0
<0.0009
<0.0009
<0.43
<0.02
<0.95
<0.05
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137.000
132,000
102.0
18.2
20.0
<7.18
<1.5
<1.5
<0.0006
<0.0007
<0.34
<0.02
<0.76
<0.04
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters perminute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters perminute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton - 1000 kg)
Hg
-------
TOTAL CYANIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Lakes
®^
April 21°248 1975
Coke Shed (Non°pushJLn.g eye 1 @_)
SsoS M(u®Iber.
S)a£ | 17..3
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
IParticulate
Coac exit rat ion
En£ssioia
SaEe
sng/Am3
mg/DNm3
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4,59
4,41
162.1
155,6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
3
^>/23
11:00
16:31
4086
4,69
171.6
165»6
1.9
21
70
3880
3140
137,000
-125,000 [ 132S000
101.2
1705
1 Q 1 j 1 Q Q
L y o l. [I i. > o -^
<18,6
<4»7
<4c8
gr/ACF J <0,002
gr/DSCF
<0»002
kg/hr | <1 „ 0
kg/M ton of feed || <0006
Ib/lhr [) <2«3
Ib/tom of feed (| <0012
1 <17.1
L 10200
18,2
20,0
<16o2
<3 o 7 1 <3 „ 3
! <3,9
<0,002
1 <0,002
i <0082
<(>-<: Q 5
1 <1 . 8
| <0o09
f <3,5
<0o001
<0,002
1 <0o77 1
<0004
I <1.7
j <0008
Actual enable saeters •= sfcack eondltions
Dry morraal cubic saeters = 20s
Actual cubic feet =
Dry standard cubic feet
Actual cubic meters per
Dry saormal cubic meters peraainute
Actual cubic feet, per miraut©
a®o© kg)
-------
FILTERABLE CHLORIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Non-pushing cycle)
Dimensions; 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNn>3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (4)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
OF
Am^/min (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr(y)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emission
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18:18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19.1
0.878
0.22
0.23
0.0001
0.0001
0.05
OiOOS
0.11
0.006
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125,000
101.2
17.5
19.3
1.800
0.39
0.41
0.0002
0.0002
0.09
0.005
0.19
0.01
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137,000
132,000
102.0
18.2
20.0
0.678
0.14
0.14
0.00006
0.00006
0.03
0.002
0.07
0.004
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic
Dry standard
Actual cubic
feet - stack conditions
cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm
meters per minute - stack
Hg
conditions
Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton » 1000 kg)
-------
G-6
TOTAL CHLORIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
April 21-245, 1975
Coke Shed (Mon°pushing cycle)
Blmem®ioias; 89°3/4"x84"
Teat dumber 123
Date • 1 4/21' 1 4/22
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start | 13:28 | 09:29
Stop | 18:18
17:59
Aia3 (1) 3o92 | 4.59
4/23
11:00
16:31
4086
4\ f f\ \ 1 (I H
1ft tVY 1000"kg)
-------
C-7
FILTERABLE SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: coke Shed (Non-pushincr cycle)
Dimensions; 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF 0)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
OF
Am^/min (5)
DNra3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hr<9)
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Part icula te
Emission
Rate
mg/Am3
mg/DNm3
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18:18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19.1
<0.5
<0.13
<0.13
<0. 00006
<0. 00006
<0.03
<0.002
<0.06
<0.003
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125,000
101.2
17.5
19,3
1.4
0.30
0.32
0.0001
0.0001
0.07
0.004
0.15
0.008
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137,000
132,000
102.0
18,2
20.0
<0.3
<0.06
<0.06
-------
C-8
TOTAL SULFATE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Non-pushing cycle)
Dimensions; 89-3/4"x84_"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Start
Stop
Am3 (1)
DNm3 (2)
ACF (3)
DSCF (*)
Percent Moisture by Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
°C
°F
Am^/rain (5)
DNm3/min (6)
ACFM (7)
DSCFM (8)
Percent Isokinetic
Feed Rate
M tons/hrw
tons/hr
Sample Weight (mg)
Particulate
Concentration
Particulate
Emission
Rate
mg/Am-*
mg/DNm^
gr/ACF
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
kg/M ton of feed
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
4/21
13:28
18:18
3.92
3.89
138.3
137.3
0.75
21
69
3650
3630
129,000
128,000
99.7
17.3
19.1
1.0
0.26
0.26
0.0001
0.0001
0.06
0.003
0.12
0.006
2
4/22
09:29
17:59
4.59
4.41
162.1
155.6
1.1
29
85
3690
3540
130,000
125,000
101.2
17.5
19.3
5.3
1.2
1.2
0.0005
0.0005
0.26
0.01
0.56
0.03
3
4/23
11:00
16:31
4.86
4.69
171.6
165.6
1.9
21
70
3880
3740
137,000
132,000
102.0
18,2
20.0
<0.7
<0.14
<0.15
<0. 00006
<0. 00007
<0.03
<0.002
<0.07
<0.004
(1) Actual cubic meters - stack conditions
(2) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic feet - stack conditions
(4) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(7) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(8) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm
(9) Metric tons per hour (1 metric ton - 1000 kg)
Hg
Hg
-------
APPENDIX D
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
D-l
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Brink
Test Number
Fraction
Cyclone Wash
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characte ristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(li)
>6.3
6.3-
3.0
3.0-
1.8
1.8-
1.2
1.2-
0.63
0.63-
0.40
<0.40
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
5.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.2
Weight
(percent )
71.0
4.0
2.6
4.0
5.3
10.5
2.6
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
29.0
25.0
22.4
18.4
13.1
2.6
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
2.0
\
]
/ *
I
\
J
Pe r cent
of
Total
37.0
*
* The low total particulate weight combined with the large number of
individual fractions, precluded a successful analysis for organic
solubles.
-------
D-2
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Brink
Test Number
Fraction
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characte ristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(u)
>6.8
6.8-
3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
9.2
0.5
1.3
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.2
Weight
(percent)
67.2
3.6
9.5
4.4
8.8
5.1
1-4
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
32.8
29. 2
19.7
15.3
6.5
1.4
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(ing)
1.2
\
)
>1.7
(
J
1
Percent
of
Total
13.0
37.8
-------
D-3
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
Cyc lone wash
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
00
>6.8
6.8-
3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
6.9
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.2
Weight
(percent)
69.0
7.0
4.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
2.0
Cumulat ive
Weight
(percent )
100.0
31.0
24.0
20.0
17.0
11.0
2.0
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
0.4
\
> i.o
I
}
)
Pe rcent
of
Total
5.8
32.3
-------
D-4
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
00
>6.3
6.3-
3.0
3.0-
1.8
1.8-
1.2
1.2-
0.63
0.63-
0.40
<0.40
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
4.2
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.2
Weight
(percent)
60.9
7.2
8.7
7.2
2.9
10.2
2.9
Cumulative
Weight
(percent)
100.0
39.1
31.9
23. 2
16.0
13.1
2.9
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
0.2
\
)
/ *
\
)
Percent
of
Total
4.8
*
* The low total particulate weight combined with the large number of
individual fractions, precluded a successful analysis for organic
solubles.
-------
D-5
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
Cyclone wash
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(u)
>6.8
6.8-
3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
3.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
1.3
0.2
0.4
Weight
(percent)
53.4
8.2
5.5
6.9
17.8
2.7
5.5
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
46.6
38.4
32.9
26.0
8.2
5.5
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
0.7
\
L
/
Percent
of
Total
17.9
70.6
-------
D-6
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(n)
>6.2
6.2-
3.0
3.0-
1.7
1.7-
1.2
1.2-
0.63
0.63-
0.39
<0.39
Total Sample
Weight
(rag)
9.3
0.7
<0.1©
0.2
0.4
<0.1©
0.3
Weight
(percent )
83.8
6.3
0.9
1.8
3.6
0.9
2.7
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
16.2
9.9
9.0
7.2
3.6
2.7
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
0.8
•>
)
\ *
Pe rcent
of
Total
8.6
*
^ Under limit of detectability
* The low total particulate weight combined wi.th the large number of
individual fractions, precluded a successful analysis of organic
solubles.
-------
D-7
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
f
Fraction
Cyclone &
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
GO.
>3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
5.9
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.4
Weight
(percent)
81.8
1.4
5.6
2.8
2.8
5.6
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
18.2
16.8
11.2
8.4
5.6
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
N
0.4
/
Percent
of
Total
5.6
-------
D-8
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
i
Cyc lone wash
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
GO
>6.8
6.8-
3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
6.2
0.3
0.1
<0.1©
0.1
0.2
0.4
Weight
(percent)
83.8
4.1
1.4
1.3
1.4
2.7
5.4
Cumulative
Weight
(percent)
100.0
16.2
12.1
10,8
9.5
8.1
5.4
Acetone and
Cyclohexahe
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
0.4
*
Percent
of
Total
6.5
*
© Under limit of detectability
* The low total particulate weight combined with the large number of
individual fractions, precluded a successful analysis of organic
solubles.
-------
D-9
Test Method Brink
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Number
Fraction
Stage 0
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Final Filter
Characte ristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(u)
>6.8
6.8-
3.1
3.1-
1.8
1.8-
1.3
1.3-
0.66
0.66-
0.42
<0.42
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
6.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
Weight
(percent )
69.4
5.3
4.2
6.3
7.4
4.2
3.2
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
30.6
25.3
21.1
14.8
7.4
3.2
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
<0.2
^
1.1
Pe rcent
of
Total
<3.0
37.9
-------
D-10
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method Andersen
Test Number 10
Fraction
Nozzle wash
Stages 0 + 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Final Filter
& Wash
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
GO
>8.2
8.2-
5.3
5.3-
3.5
3.5-
2.4
2.4-
1.6
1.6-
0.79
0.79-
0.48
0.48-
0.32
<0.32
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
51.0
14.0
9.4
5.3
2.6
2.4
1.3
1.7
6.6
Weight
(percent)
54.1
14.8
10.0
5.6
2.8
2.5
1.4
1.8
7.0
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
45.9
31.1
21.1
15.5
12.7
10.2
8.8
7.0
Acetone and
Cyc lohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
1.4
/ 0.8
/
A
/
^ 6.5
[
\
)
Percent
of
Total
2.7
3.4
32.7
-------
D-ll
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Andersen
Test Number
11
Fraction
Nozzle wash
Stages 0 & 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Final filter
it wash
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(u)
>9.2
9.2-
5.5
5.5-
3.8
3.8-
2.8
2.8-
1.7
1.7-
0.83
0.83-
0.52
0.52-
0.35
<0.35
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
16.5
3.3
3.0
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
2.6
Weight
(percent)
51.6
10.3
9.4
9.1
3.1
2.8
2.5
3.1
8.1
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
48.4
38.1
28.7
19.6
16.5
13.7
11.2
8.1
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
2.9
/O. 5
(
\
(
t
Percent
of
Total
17.6
7.9
32.6
-------
D-12
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Andersen
Test Number
12
Fraction
Nozzle wash
Stages 0 & 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Final filter
& wash
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
00
>9.0
9.0-
5?4
5:4-
3.6
3.6-
2.7
2.7-
1.6
1.6-
0.81
0.81-
0.50
0.50-
0.33
<0.33
Total Sample
Weight
(rag)
8.7
2 .0
1.2
1.4
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.4
2 .0
Weight
(percent)
46.5
10.7
6.4
7.5
4.3
7.5
4.3
2.1
10.7
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
53.5
42.8
36.4
28.9
24.6
17.1
12.8
10.7
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(rag)
1.0
/0.4
)
\
7-3.3
Percent
of
Total
11.5
12.5
48; 5
-------
D-13
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Anders en
Test Number
13
Fraction
Nozzle wash
Stages 0 & 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Final filter
& wash
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(n)
>8.7
8.7-
5.4
5.4-
3.6
3.6-
2.5
2.5-
1.6
1.6-
0.80
0.80-
0.48
0.48-
0.32
<0.32
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
17.4
5.8
5.2
4.2
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.1
1.9
Weight
(percent)
43.0
14.4
12.9
10.4
4.5
4.7
2.7
2.7
4.7
Cumulat ive
Weight
(percent )
100.0
57.0
42.6
29.7
19.3
14.8
10.1
7.4
4.7
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(mg)
6.3
JO. 8
(
>
(
i
3.5
)
Pe rcent
of
Total
36.2
7.3
29.2
-------
D-14
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Test Method
Andersen
Test Number
14
Fraction
Nozzle wash
Stages 0 & 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 4
Stage 5
Stage 6
Stage 7
Stage 8
Final filter
& wash
Characteristic
Diameter
of
Particles
(n)
>8.4
8.4-
5.4
5.4-
3.5
3.5-
2.4
2.4-
1.6
1.6-
0.80
0.80-
0.48
0.48-
0.32
<0.32
Total Sample
Weight
(mg)
132.7
23.7
13.4
4.3
4.0
4.5
4.3
2.8
12.6
Weight
(percent)
65.6
11.7
6.6
2 .2
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.4
6.2
Cumulative
Weight
(percent )
100.0
34.4
22.7
16.1
13.9
11.9
9.7
7.6
6.2
Acetone and
Cyclohexane
Solubles
Weight
(rag)
17.0
)
? 3.2
\
/
?13.5
Percent
of
Total
12.8
8.6
41.5
-------
APPENDIX E
EMISSION RESULTS OF GASES AND OTHER MATERIALS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
E-l
ACETYLENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84*
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF (2>
°C
OF
Am3/min <3>
0 (f.\
DNni /min k '
ACFM (5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
1
4/22
14: 10
14: 11
—
— — -
(27)
(81)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
1.0
_
— —
0.22
0.48
2
4/22
14:28
14:29
__
— —
(66)
(150)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
0.2
—
0.04
0.10
3
4/23
13:08
13:09
__
_
(49)
(120)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
0.5
.
^^_
0.11
0.25
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Rate during pushing
-------
E-2
BENZENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 80-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2)
°C
OF
Am3/min <3)
DNm3 /m in ^4)
ACFM ^
DSCFM * ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:18
17:22
0.0623
2.20
(24)
(76)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.22
—
—
0.16
0.35
2
4/22
14:42
16:20
0.104
3.67
(29)
(85)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
0.39
__
—
0.26
0.57
3
4/24
10:47
11:47
0.0610
2.15
(28)
(83)
3660
3410
129,000
121,000
0.6.8
_
—
0.45
1.0
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 ram Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-3
BENZENE & HOMOLOGUES EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 (1)
DSCF <2>
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM ^
DSCFM ^
ppm
0
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16: 18
17:22
0.0623
2.20
(24)
(76)
. 3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.31
—
-
0.22
0.48
2
4/22
14:42
16:20
0.104
3.67
(29)
(85)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
0.51
_
__
0.33
0.73
3
4/24
10:47
11:47
0.0610
2.15
(28)
(83)
3660
3410
129,000
121^000
0.89
_
_
0.60
' 1.3
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-4
FILTERABLE BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 <*>
DSCP <2>
°C
•F
Am3/min . <3)
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM * '
ppm
q
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<0.22
<0.0001
<0.05
<0.11
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.18
<0. 00008
<0.04
<0.08
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.22
<0.0001
<0.05
<0.10
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-5
TOTAL BENZO(a)PYRENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF (2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM *5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<0.34
<0.0001
<0.07
<0.16
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.28
-------
E-6
CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4" x 84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2>
°C
°F
Am3/min <3)
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM *5)
DSCFM * *
ppm
mg/DNm3
gr/DSCF
kg/hr (7)
Ibs/hr <7)
1
4/23
08:30
08:31
^•••MB '
^_
(19)
(66)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
45
^^••^H
«•—••
11.0
24.2
2
4/23
08:48
08:49
_
(18)
(65)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
20
•BM«^
_—
4.9
10.7
3
4/23
08:48
08:49
«HM.
_
(18)
(65)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
15 .
«_BM
^—
3.7
8.1
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Rate during pushing
-------
E-7
FILTERABLE CHRYSENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentra tion
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF W
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /rain (4)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM (6)
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<0.13
<0. 00006
<0.03
<0>.'06
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0 . 1 1
<0. 00005
<0.02
<0.05
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.12
<0. 00005
<0.03
<0.06
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-8
TOTAL CHRYSENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3)
DNm3 /m in ^^
ACFM (5)
DSCFM (6)
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<0.19
<0. 00008
<0.04
<0.09
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.16
<0. 00007
<0.03
<0.07
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.19
<0. 00008
<0.04
<0.09
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-9
GASEOUS CHLORIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 (D
DSCF <2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM *6^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
1.3
0.0006
0.29
0.63
2
4/22
09:06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
____
0.89
0.0004
0.19
0.43
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
— —
0.83
0.0004
0.18
0.40
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-10
GASEOUS CYANIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2>
°C
OF
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min ^4)
ACFM ^
DSCFM *6^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.004
0.000002
0.0009
0.002
2
4/22
09:06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.016
0.000007
0.003
0.008
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132.000
129,000
.
0.003
0.000001
0.0007
0.002
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-ll
FILTERABLE CYCLOHEXANE SOLUBLE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84'
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF (2)
°C
oF
Am3/min <3)
DNm3 /m in *4)
ACFM ^5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
q
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<32.0
<0.014
<7.0
<15.4
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
26.3
0.011
5.5
12.1
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
31.1
0.014
6.5
14.3
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3), Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4). Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-12
TOTAL CYCLOHEXANE SOLUBLE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3)
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM *5)
(6)
DSCFM v '
ppm
0
rag/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
32.0
0.014
7.0
15.4
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
39.4
0.017
8.2
18.1
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123^000
124
0.054
26.0
57.3
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-13
FILTERABLE CYCLOHEXANE INSOLUBLES EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM (5)
DSCFM *6^
ppm
q
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
— —
<19.2
<0.008
<4.2
<9.3
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
446
0.195
93.3
206
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
62.2
0.027
13.0
28.7
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-14
TOTAL CYCLOHEXANE INSOLUBLES EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
0 ( AN
DNin /min V '
ACFM (5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<22.4
<0.010
<4.9
<10.8
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
446
0.195
93.3
206
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
62.2
0.027
13.0
28.7
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-15
ETHENE AND HOMOLOGUES EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source:
Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flovrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /m in ^
ACFM *5*
DSCFM * *
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr <7>
Ibs/hr <7>
1
4/22
14:10
14:11
— .
(27)
(81)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
4.7
1.1
2.4
2
4/22
14:28
14:29
___
— —
(66)
(150)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
2.3
__
^— -
0.54
1.2
3
4/23
13:08
13:09
___
___
(49)
(120)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
2.0
__
— —
0.49
1.1
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20*C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Rate during pushing
-------
E-16
FILTERABLE FLUORANTHENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
°C
°F
Am3/min <3)
o /A \
DNin /min V '
ACFM ^
DSCFM (6)
ppm
0
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<0.11
<0. 00005
<0.02
<0.05
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
0.12
0.00005
0.02
0.05
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.11
<0. 00005
<0.02
<0.05
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-17
TOTAL FLUORANTHENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Kumber
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Con centra tion
Emiss ion
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2)
°C
«F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM ^5)
DSCFM * '
ppm
0
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<0.16
<0. 00007
<0.04
<0.08
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123^000
<0.16
<0. 00007
<0.03
<0.07
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123^000
<0.16
<0. 00007
<0.03
<0.07
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-18
TOTAL LIGHT HYDROCARBONS (AS METHANE)
EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source:
Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flovrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF ^
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM ^
DSCFM * '
ppm
9
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr (7>
Ibs/hr <7)
1
4/22
14:10
14:11
—
____
(27)
(81)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
26.6
_____
3.6
7.9
2
4/22
14:28
14:29
__.
— -
(66)
(150)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
30.5
»
_
4.1
9.1
3
4/23
13:08
13:09
___
____
(49)
(120)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
15.4
—
— _
2.1
4.7
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Rate during pushing
-------
E-19
METHANE AND HOMOLOGUES EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source:
Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84'
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /m in *4)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM * *
ppm
0
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr <7>
Ibs/hr <7>
1
4/22
14:10
14:11
i.
..
(27)
(81)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
22.6
— — '
3.1
6.7
2
4/22
14:28
14:29
_
— —
(66)
(150)
3500
3360
123,000
119,000
26.8
3.6
8.0
3
4/23
13:08
13:09
-
(49)
(120)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
13.. 6
1.9
4.2
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(7) Rate during pushing
-------
E-20
GASEOUS NITROGEN OXIDES (AS NO ) EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF (2)
°C
•7
Am3/min (3>
DNm3 /m in (A)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM * ^
ppm
mg/DNm3
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
0.19
0.00008
0.04
0.09
2
4/22
09:06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.12
0.00005
0.03
0.06
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
——
0.10
0.00004
0.02
0.05
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-21
GASEOUS PHENOLICS (AS PHENOL) EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Enission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 (D
DSCF <2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM *5'
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<1.1
<0.0005
<0.25
<0.54
2
4/22
09:06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
—
<0.89
<0.0004
<0.19
<0.43
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
____
<0.71
<0.0003
<0.15
<0.34
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-22
FILTERABLE PYRENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 (D
DSCF <2>
°C
OF
Am3/min <3)
DNm3 /m in V^
ACFM *5^
DSCFM (6^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<0.10
<0. 00004
<0.02
<0.05
2
4/23
09:00
10: 14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.14
<0. 00006
<0.03
<0.07
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123^000
<0.12
<0. 00005
<0.03
<0.06
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-23
TOTAL PYRENE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Zmiss ion
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM *5^
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0626
2.21
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129^000
<0.14
<0. 00006
<0.03
<0.07
2
4/23
09:00
10:14
0.0761
2.69
(23)
(74)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0.18
<0. 00008
<0.04
<0.08
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0643
2.27
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123jj300
<0.17
<0. 00007
<0.04
<0.08
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 200C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-24
PYRIDINE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84'
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Em is s ion
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF (2>
°C
°F
Am3/min <3>
0 ( f.~\
DNm /m in v '
ACFM ^
DSCFM (6)
ppm
q
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
11: 11
13:05
0.0616
2.18
(22)
(72)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<0.02
— -
—
<0.01
<0.03
2
4/22
09:09
10:50
0.0629
2.22
(25)
(77)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
<0.02
—
—
<0.01
<0.03
3
4/23
13:23
14:25
0.0631
2.23
(24)
(75)
3610
3480
128,000
123,000
<0..02
__
—
<0.01
<0.03
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-25
GASEOUS SULFATE (SO^*) EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Saapling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
DSCF (2)
°C
°F
Am3/min <3)
o (L \
DNin /min v '
ACFM *5^
DSCFM ^6)
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16: 12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
— —
7.3
0.003
1.6
3.5
2
4/22
0 9 : 06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
— —
1.1
0.0005
0.23
0.51
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132.000
129,000
.1.
2.5
0.001
0.56
1.2
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-26
GASEOUS SULFITE (S03 = ) EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flovrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DN»3
°C
•F
Am3/min <3>
DNm3/min (A)
ACFM (5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
0
mg/DNra
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
16:12
16:44
0.892
31.5
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
i -
<0.17
<0. 00007
<0.04
<0.08
2
4/22
09:06
10:30
1.13
39.8
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
.11 ..
2.3
0.001
0.51
1.1
3
4/22
10:40
11:32
1.42
50.0
(26)
(79)
3740
3670
132.000
129,000
..
0.23
0.0001
0.05
0.11
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-27
SULFUR TRIOXIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4"x84"
Test Number
Date
/
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3 CD
DSCF <2>
°C
OF
Am3/min <3>
DNm3 /m in (4)
ACFM ^
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
10:45
11:15
0.855
30.2
(20)
(68)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
2.4
7.9
0.003
1.7
3.8
2
4/21
13:05
13:35
0.835
29.5
(22)
(72)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.79
2.6
0.001
0.58
1.3
3
4/21
17:20
17:50
0.852
30.1
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.52
1.7
0.0008
0.38
0.84
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
E-29
SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
Source: Coke Shed (Pushing Cycle)
Dimensions: 89-3/4" x 84"
Test Number
Date
Sampling
Period
Sampled
Volume
Average Stack
Temperature
Stack Gas
Flowrate
Concentration
Emission
Rate
Start
Stop
DNm3
DNm3/min (4)
ACFM (5)
DSCFM ^
ppm
o
mg/DNm
gr/DSCF
kg/hr
Ibs/hr
1
4/21
10:45
11: 15
0.855
30.2
(20)
(68)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.32
0.86
0.0004
0.19
0.42
2
4/21
13:05
13:35
0.835
29.5
(22)
(72)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.83
2.2
0.001
0.49
1.1
3
4/21
17:20
17:50
0.852
30.1
(23)
(74)
3740
3670
132,000
129,000
0.65
1.7 .
0.0008
0.38
0.84
(1) Dry normal cubic meters - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(2) Dry standard cubic feet - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(3) Actual cubic meters per minute - stack conditions
(4) Dry normal cubic meters per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
(5) Actual cubic feet per minute - stack conditions
(6) Dry standard cubic feet per minute - 20°C, 760 mm Hg
-------
APPENDIX F
SAMPLING SUMMARY SHEETS
PUSHING AND NON-PUSHING CYCLE PARTICULATE TESTS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
SAMPLING SUMMARY SHEET
Plant Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Sampled Source Coke Shed ^Pushing Cycle)
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Run
1
2
3
4
Date
4/21-22/75
4/22/75
4/23/75
4/24/75
NP
24
24
24
24
Pm
2.47
2.23
2.39
2.34
Pb
30.02
29.97
29.55
29.55
Vm
243.1
157.6
161.5
101.7
T
*m
88
102
89
94
v
mstd
236.5
149.1
154.3
96.3
vw
50
24
43
41
vw
wgas
2.36
1.13
2.03
1.93
%M
0.99
0.75
1.3
2.0
Md
0.990
0.992
0.987
0.980
Run
1
2
3
4
MWd
28.85
28.85
28.85
28.85
MW
28.74
28.76
28.71
28.63
Pst
-0.012
-0.012
-0.012
-0.014
Ps
30.01
29.96
29.54
29.54
CP
0.845
0.845
0.845
0.847
VkpgX(Ts+460)c
17.14
16.00
16.40
16.61
Vs
2525
2359
2437
2471
Ts
75
85
74
88
Tt
288
192
197
125
Dn
0.246
0.246
0.246
0.246
%I
99.9
102.9
100.4
100.6
W
100 « V
I M-
M,, • 100 -tM
• too
It
r, • suo.i.i c» • / **$ » IT, * UOf |^pt • wJ
v*
SI
1,0» , (T, » «W) . V
* ' « « " •
Total Ho. of Sampling Points
Average. Orl f let Pressure
Drop. In. HjO
Barometric Pressure. In. If.
Absolute
Volume of Dry Gas at HeUr
Tuitions. OCF
Average Meter Temperature,
•F
w Volume of Water Vapor Collect**
"ga» D
V
% M
of Dry Gas at STP.
OSCf"
Total H.O Collected In tuln-
gers'and Silica Gel. it
t COj,
S Oj
S CO
S M|
YUA
at STP. SCF
I Moisture by Volim
Hole Fraction of Dry (•*
Volune S Dry
Volune S Dry
Volume S Dry
Voluno S Dry
Molecular Weight »f Stack 6al,
Dry Oasis
Molecular Weight «f Stack
Gas. Uet lasls
* Dry standard cubic feel atfcftV, U.M In. Hg.
k Stan4aN condition* at^fi,*F. 29.92 In. llg.
•
• / a>. « (T. '*
^ • »
1» deUralned fcy awraglng th« squar* root «f th«
pnduct of the velocity head (a?s) ami the
sUck toperatvr* frtio each sanpllng point,
.t
"
9 I
Static Prcttwre of Stack
Cat. In. ity
Stack C«s Preisvre. In. Nf
Absolute
Pltot Tube Coefficient
Stack Gas Velocity at Stack
Conditions, fpe.
Average Stack TcvpcraUf*
•r
Mat Tin «f Test. Mai.
Sailing Moult Wm»\»rt t
Nrcent
-------
SAMPLING SUMMARY SHEET
Plant
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
;S amp led Source
Coke Shed (Non-pushing Cycle)
Run
1
*•
2
3
Date
4/21/75
4/22/75
4/23/75
NP
24
24
24
Pm
2.47
2.36
2.70
Pb
30.02
29.97
29.55
Vm
143.0
161.4
173.8
T
^m
95
92
91
Vmstd
137.3
155.6
165.6
Vw
22
35
68
vw
wgas
1.04
1.65
3.20
7.M
0.75
1.1
1.9
"d
0.992
0.989
0.981
Run
1
2
3
MWd
28.85
28.85
28.85
MW
28.76
28.73
28.64
Pst
-0.012
-0.0121
-0.012
Ps
30.01
29.96
29.54
S
0.847
0.847
0.847
V^P8X(T8+460)C
16.69
16.85
17.54
Vs
2464
2491
2616
Ts
69
85
70
Tt
168
192
192
Dn
0.247
0.247
0.247
%I
99.7
101.2
102.0
IUO
_flli
•-• JOO-JJl
• 100
«&»*
11(1 -
.§.« CD » / *P. » (T.'* IU) IT«wI
* • » v • «j
(T ~T«0> a »
Total No. of Sinpllnf
Average Drl ft c« frtstm
Drop. tn. HjO
Itrometrlc Pressure, 1a. If.
Absolute
felunc of Dry 6*t r« fro* cadi
Static Pretture of Stack
C«t. In. it)
Stack C*s
Absolute
In. Mf
Pltot Tube Coefficient.
V, Stack Cas Velocity at Stick
" Conditions. fpA.
T$ Average Stack Tcmperabirt
Tt Nat Tin *f Test. Pit*.
t, Saavtlng Koult OlMUr, to.
S I Nrtent l«e)kla*tlc
-------
APPENDIX G
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETER
ANALYSIS OF COKE-SIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
G-l
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE SPECTROMETER ANALYSIS OF COKE-SIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE
A Siemens multichannel wavelength x-ray fluorescence spectrometer has
been adapted by EPA's Environmental Research Center/RTP for rapid analysis of
particulate samples^ '. The system consists of sixteen fixed-wavelength spectro-
meters setup for analysis of 16 preselected elements and a computer-operated
scanning channel used to determine additional elements that might be desired.
The EPA simultaneous wavelength x-ray spectrometer has been specially designed
for analysis of filter deposited samples of particulate matter. The spectrometer
is being used by EPA to determine the elemental composition of particulate emissions
collected from mobile sources, power plants, incinerators, and chemical process
industries, and from ambient air at various locations. Table 1 lists typical data.
COLLECTION OF COKE-SIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS SAMPLES
A special sampling train consisting of a 2-mm nozzle, probe, and 47-mm
filter holder, and an air pump with 2.3 1pm flow orifice was used to collect
samples of push emissions at the GLC Coke Plant. The particulate matter was
sampled from the exhaust duct airstream under isokinetic flow conditions and
collected on cellulose-acetate filter matrix. A total of five filter samples
were collected, all during peak push periods on April 24, 1975. The sample
collection periods varied from 15 seconds to 3 minutes. At least two of the
samples were collected during "green" pushes.
X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Tables 2-7 presents the XRF analysis of filterable particulate emissions pro-
duced during the pushing of the coke oven. The data results are displayed in the
original computer printout format. Footnotes have been included in the tables
where explanation of chemical symbols or measurement units are appropriate.
-------
G-2
These analysis indicated that the non-carbon portion of the collected parti-
culate contained the elements chlorine, sulfur, silicon, and aluminum with
small amounts of calcium and iron. The other 20 trace elements analyzed in
the coke-side particulate emission samples were present in concentrations below
the minimum detection limits of the XRF analytical procedure.
Although the filters were not analyzed gravimetrically, the total weight
of the material collected can be roughly estimated based on the volume of air
sampled and an assumed average grain loading for the peak push period. In
Table 1, the concentration of the collective trace elements is compared with
the estimated gross concentration of the total particulate filter catch for
each of three samples. The data indicates the composition of coke-side emissions
is mainly carbonaceous material, ranging from 92 to 99 percent carbon by weight.
Table 1. ESTIMATED PERCENT CARBON COMPOSITION OF COKE-SIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
TOTAL WEIGHT (ug/cm2)
Sampling Trace %
Filter No. Period Elements Sample Carbon
D-2A
B-3
D-2B
C-4
A- 5
15 sec.
30 sec.
30 sec.
30 sec.
3 min.
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.4
4.5
32.8
65.5
65.5
65.5
393.0
92
95
96
95
99
The data in Table 1 shows a trend towards proportionally higher concentra-
tions of trace elements in the samples with the shortest sampling time. This
initially suggested that the amount of material collected on the filter for the
15 and 30-second samples may have been insufficient for accurate XRF analysis
and that the collective sample concentration reported for all of the trace elements
in these samples could be positive baised. The filter samples were collected
primarily for light microscopic examination and the sampling times were purposely
-------
G-3
kept low to prevent appreciable participate buildup on the filter surface.
However, the microscopic examination results, which are reported in Appendix
H , tend to collaborate the XRF data results in that the relative amount of
trace elements present in sample D-2A was unequivalocity observed to be sub-
stantially greater than in the longer term Sample A-5. The greenness of the
push does not appear to a deciding factor since all three of the 30-second
samples contained approximately the same amount of trace elements and only
D-2B was designated a green push sample.
No explanation can be offered for at this time for the greater percentage
of non-carbonaceous material in some of the samples. Nevertheless, the XPF
analysis results for sample A-5 is probably more representative of the com-
position of coke-side particulate emissions and quantities of trace elements
released during the typical peak push period since the 3-minute sampling time
was sufficiently long to include all of the coke push.
REFERENCE
(1) Bennet, R., Wagman, 0. and Knapp, K. The Application of a Multichannel
Fixed and Sequential Spectrometer System to the Analysis of Air Pollution
Particulate Samples, EPA, Research Triangle Park, N. C. October 1975
-------
G-4
1
TABLE 1. TYPICAL XRF ANALYSIS DATA FOR AIR POLLUTION PARTICULATE SAMPLES
Concentration: mlcrograms/em'
Element
Sample
F
Na
A1
SI
p
s
Cl
K
Ca
T1
¥
Cr
Fe
HI
Zn
Br-
Cd
Ba
Pb
Data reported in Reference No. 1.
Coal Power
Flyash
15
0.29
0.42
2.0
103.
55.
0.54
7.8
.
.
.
3.6
0.55
23.
20.2
0.03
4.6
0.89
0.02
0.62
1.7
Plant
no •
0.15
0.3S
1.2
48.
26.
1.0
7.8
.
-
4.9
1.5
0.25
15.
9.2
.
0.13
-
0.007
0.33
1.1
Ambient
Mr
17-24
.
-
0.06
1.20
1.60 ,
3.20
0.15
0.47
0.90
o.oa
-
-
0.70
. '
0.05
-
0.007
0.04
0.23
no-04
0.09
0.09
0.14
5.30
7.60
0.18
1.77
0.47
2.06
2.67
0.16
0.03
-
2.73
-
0.16
0.75
0.04
0.10
3.00
-------
G-5
TABLE 2. BLANK FILTER ANALYSIS AND OTHER XRF ANALYSIS INFORMATION
BLANK I
ELEMENT
CR
PB
MM
AS
HG
BR
P
SI
CD
AL
S
HA
F
MG
K
CL
AR
PT
£N
CU
HI
FE
V
TI
BA
CA
TIME
20
100
100
100
110
100
100
100
1.00
100
100
too
100
100
1.00
100
20
20
35
20
20
20
20
20
21
80
CPS
32.4
688.6
344. 14
7459.88
478.92
2529.25
22.8
2.06
3.28
..65
118.74
.21
2.09
.1.05
1.73.8
180.29
54.3
6D..55
2 It. 7 1429
491.25
38.85
30.05
21.75
13.7
8.55
828. 7 5
DETECTION
J
537 .
32911
8178
558
22257
0078
00696
00287
00613
00677
02814
17721
00455
00593
06602
2886574E-
3431.
09715
34334
02309.
1 079 1 -
02739
00568
08689
06435
LIMIT
CR
PB
MN
AS
HO
BR
P
SI
CO
AL
S
MA
F
MG
K
. CL
1 AR
PT
ZN
CU
NX
FE
V
TI
BA
CA
CPS - Counts per second
2
Detection Limit - Minimun detection limits (jug/cm )
-------
G-6
TABLE 3. SAMPLE NO. A-5
SAMPLE TIME - 3 MINUTES (COMPLETE PUSH)
SAMPLE 3
ELEMENT
CR
f>B
MN
AS
HO
BK
P
SI
CO
«L
s
• A
r
H8
R
CL
AR
PT
EN
CU
HI
ri
V
TI
BA
CA
RAW CPS
33.7
726.62
371* 06
7511.7
493,3
2601.11
24
57.67
3.74
33.7
265.79
,.55
1.86
3.54
258.48
344.6
56.7
68.2 ..
35.37143
544.8
47.* 4
61.45
26.7
52.3
14
348.8
-
CPS-BL/WK
1.3
38.02
26.92
51.82
14.38
7.1*86
1.2
55.61
.46
33.05
147.05
.34
-.23
2.49
84.68..
164.31
2.4
7.65
13.65714
53.55
8,55
31.4
4.95
38.6
5*45
186.15
CONCENTRATION
. I737039E-1
.2292636
.1536315
.4597547
.2489638
. 1427485
.8959954E-2
.4788338
. 2658515E-2
.4093052
.5249397. ..
.636994 IE- 1
ND
.2422284E-L
• 6981857E-I
• 647Q25
• J40I483E-I
. 1123083
.0648295
.283635
• 5894897E-1
.2360902
.2748504E-1
. 45Q7459E-I
.0218
. 1435368
CR
pa
MN
AS
KG
BR
P
SI
CD •
AU
S
NA
T •
MG
K
CU
AR •
PT •
ZN *
CU •
NI
FE
V
TI
BA
CA
CPS-Blank - Blank reading subtracted from sample reading.
E-l - Preceeding concentration to be multiplied by 10" .
ND - Not detectable.
As/Ar - Arsenic element analyzed by two methods.
* - Below minimun detection limits.
2
Concentration - Units of jjg/cm filter area.
-------
G-7
TABLE 4. SAMPLE NO. B-3
SAMPLE TIME - 30 SECONDS
S AMPLEST
ELEMENT
CR
PB
MM
AS
HO
8R
P
51
CO
AL
S
NA
r
MQ
K
CL
AR
PT
£N
CU
NI
F£
V
TI
BA
CA
..
RAW CPS
33.45
753.55
388.35
7509.85
502.3
2593.39
22.53
19.67
3.48
.14.45
152. 65
.29
2.07
1.72
204.59
246.61
63.3
75. 15
29,57143
530.55
5ft
51.7
29.4
29.. 65
11.7
250.4
CPS- BLANK
1.05
69.95
44.71
49.97
23.38
63. 14
-»27 ..
17.61
,2
13.8..
33.91
.08
-.02
.67
30.79
66.32
9
14.6
7.857143
39.. 3
11.15
21.65
7.. 65
15,95
3. 15
27.65
CONCENTRATION
. 14D2993E- 1
.421804
.8551583
.4433412
•4047825
. 1254264
ND
.1516337
.1155876E-2
.170905..
. 1210521 >
• 0149881
NO
.6517793E-2
. 2538632E- 1
.2611569
.0525556
.21434 .. .
. 372973 IE-1
.2081579 .
.7.687 49 8 E- 1
. 162782
.4247 687 £-1
. 1 8 62538 E- I .
.01.26
. 3I48587E-1
CR •
PB •
MN •
AS •
HG •
BR •
P •
SI
CD •
AL
S
NA •
F •
MG
K
a
AR
PT •
ZN •
CU •
NI
FE
V
TI
BA
CA
-------
G-8
TABLE 5. SAMPLE NO. C-4
SAMPLE TIME - 30 SE'CONDS
SAMPLE 5
ELEMENT
CR
PB
MN
AS
HO
BR
P
SI
CD
At
S
MA
r
HG
K
CL
AR
PT
ZN
CU
NI
FE
V
TI
BA
CA
RAW CPS
34. 85
734.68
378.5
7523.45
496. 06
2609.83
23.23
25.46
a. 52
15.36
187.93
.54
1.99
3.49
217.44
275.88
60-2
71
27
535..05
44. 1
45
26.6
29.4
11.65
339.8
CPS- BLANK
2. IS
46.28
34.36
63. 57
17. 14
80.58
.43
23.4
.24 .
14.71
69. 19
.33
-. 1
2.44
43.64
95.59
5.9
10.45 .
5. 2857 14
43.8
5.25
14.95
4.85
15,7.
3. 1
117.05
CONCBJTRAT.ION
.2872795E-I
.2790721
.1960913
.5640024
.2967482
. 1600706
.321365E-2
.2014395
• 1.387 05 IE- 2
. 1821749
.2469943
.0618259
ND
.2373644E- 1
.35981I3E- 1
.3764172
. 34453 11E-1
.1534146
.2509092E- I
.2319927
• 3619674E- 1
. 112406
.269 2978 E- 1
. I83334SE-I
.0124
. 1332883
CR
PB
MN
AS
HG
BR
P
SI
CD •
AL
S
NA
F •
MG
K
CL
AR
PT •
ZN •
CU *
NI
FE
V •
TI
BA
CA
-------
G-9
TABLE 6. SAMPLE NO. D-2A
SAMPLE TIME - 15 SECONDS (GREEN PUSH)
SAMPLE 1
ELEMENT
CR
PB
NN
AS
HO
BR
f
SI
CO
AL
s
NA
r •
MO
X
CL
AR
PT
ZN
cu
HI
rt
V
ti
BA
CA
RAW CPS
32.95
699. 4 1
351.84
7476.02
479.6
2604.29
23.05
25.2
3.5
14.77
227.39
.54
2.02
3,.3
212 ..
406. 16
53.65
62.85
23.25714
523.7
42.65
44.55
25.9.
33.1
9*75
324.9
CPS- BLANK
.55
18.81
7.7
16. 14
.6800003
75.04
.25
23.14
».22..
1.4. 12
108.65
.33
-.07
2.25
38.2
225.87
•.65
2.3
1.542857
32.45
3.8
14*5
4* IS
19.4
1.2 .
102.15
CONCENTRATION
.734901 IE- 2
.6518516E- 1
.A394362E-1
.1431965
. J.177298E-1
.1490655
• 1866657E-2
.1992507
. J271464E-2
. 1748681
.3878592
.0618259
ND..
.2.18881 IE-]
• 3149586E- I
.8894378
ND
• 3376589E-I
.7323835E-2
. 1718759
• 26I9954E-1
•1090226
•230430IE-1
.22654 07 E-l
• 1048
• 1163212
CR
PB
MN
AS
HO
BR
P
SI
CO *
AL
S
NA
F •
MG
K
a
AR *
PT •
ZN •
CU •
NI
FE
V •
TI
BA •
CA
-------
TABLE 7. SAMPLE NO. D-2B
G-10
SAMPLE TIME - 30 SECONDS (GREEN PUSH)
SAMPLE 2
ELEMOIT
CR
PB
MM
AS
H6
BR
P •»
31
CO
M.
S
• A
r
KG
K
CL
AR
PT
ZN
CU
NI
F£
V
TI
BA
CA
RAW CPS
30.9
717.84
364.23
7460.28
485.82
2548.37
24.77
29.75
3.32
17.93
817.04
• 56
2. 18
3.53
226.26
291.95
57.1
66.5
25, 14286
521. 15
43.95
53.2
24>8
31.4
10.65
344.25
CPS- BLANK
-1.5
29.24
20.09 ..
.4000015
6.9
19. 12
1.97 -
27.69 .
.64
17.28
98.3
.35
.09
2.48
52.46
111.66
2.8
5.95
3.428571
29.9
5. 1
23.45
a. os
17,7
2.1
191.5
CONCENTRATION
ND
.1763195
. 1146529
.3548872E-2
. II9461J
.3798I51E-I
. I470926E-I
.2384292
.23II752E-3
.2140028
.3509113
.65S7292E-JL
.4I00336E-1
.24I25S6E-J,
.432532 IE- I
.4396982 .
. 1635063E-1
.0873509 .
.1627519E- t
.1583695 ..
.3516254E-1
.1740602 ..
. 1693522E-1
. 206689 2E-1
• 0084
. 1383556
CR
PB
MN
AS
HQ
BR
P
SI
CO •
AU
S
NA
T •
MG
K
CL
AR •
PT •
ZN •
CU •
NI
FC
V •
TI
BA
CA
-------
APPENDIX H
MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS OF
COKE-SIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
R
H-l
III Husoaich Inslitud:
10 Wnsi 3!> Slrnet. Chicago. Illinoi:; 60616
31 >>/567-4000
November 5, 1975
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSE - Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Drop - 7
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Subject: "Coke Oven Emissions"
Letter Report on IITRI Project No. C6333t Task 1
We have completed the analysis of your five Millipore
filter samples of coke oven emissions from Great Lakes Carbon.
The analysis techniques, results, and recommendations are
presented below. Photomicrographs are included at the end of
this report.
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
The bulk of the sample analyses were performed with the
optical microscope. A small pie-shaped section was cut from
each filter and was mounted in immersion oil (nj) = 1.515) on
a glass slide under a cover slip. Reflected light and
polarized light were employed to perform particle characteri-
zation and sizing.
Supplementary analysis was performed on four of the five
samples with the scanning electron microscope (SEM). A small
section of each filter was coated with a thin layer of evapora-
ted carbon to make the section electrically conductive. In
addition to the particle size information supplied by the
secondary electron image, information on particle elemental
composition was obtained with the energy dispersive x-ray
analyzer attachment.
RESULTS
The particles in each sample were classified into eight
different categories based on particle morphology, color,
birefringence, and surface characteristics. The particle
types are described below:
Fly Ash -- Colorless to pale green or yellow, partially
to completely formed glassy spheres. These particles are
-------
H-2
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSE - Environmental Protection Agency
Page 2
November 5, 1975
formed by heat fusion of coal minerals and typically consist
of primarily aluminum, silicon, potassium, and calcium. Other
mineral components such as sodium, magnesium, and titanium are
also often found. Fly ash color is due to the presence of
metals such as iron and chromium in solid solution.
Fex°x Iron oxi-des ~" Fe°> Fe2°3> Fe3°4 are typically
found in coal. The iron appears as hematite particles and
partially fused spheres, magnetic oxide spheres, and hydrated
iron oxide particles. Color is the key to identification of
these particles.
Minerals -- A variety of mostly silicate minerals are
found in coal. The small particle size of most of the minerals
found in the samples made identification as to mineral type by
optical microscopy impossible. The SEM x-ray analyzer could
merely confirm that the few mineral particles present were
primarily aluminosilicates.
Coal -- These particles range in shape from essentially
equant chunks with sharp, angular edges to thin, flat flakes,
also with sharp, angular edges. The thicker particles are,
of course, opaque and black in color; the thinner particles
appear red under transmitted light. Under reflected light,
coal is distinguished from other carbonaceous particles by
its very smooth, black, lustrous surface.
Partially coked coal -- Particles in various stages of
coking were present in all samples. As coal begins to coke,
microfissures and air bubbles form on the particle surfaces
due to escaping gases. These disturbances of the particle
surface texture cause the particles to appear silvery in
reflected light due to light diffraction. In addition to
surface texture changes, particle morphology changes occur
also. Particles lose their sharp, angular edges as they
begin to melt. As more of the volatilized hydrocarbons
escape, particles become lacey and holey in appearance.
Coke .-- The larger (> 3 ym) coke particles are quite
obvious by their morphology and surface characteristics.
They appear as gray-black sponge-like particles.
Fine Carbonaceous Particles -- Carbonaceous particles
below 3 ym are practically impossible to classify as coal,
coke, or partially coked coal. If the particles are thin
enough to transmit light, then they can be identified (as
coal if they are red). If the particles are spherical in
-------
H-3
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSii - Environmental Protection Agency
Page 3
November 5, 1975
shape, then they can be identified as at least partially coked.
Submicron particles appearing in fluffy clusters are most
likely completely pyrolized, and can therefore be classed as
coke.
Vitreous Flakes and Balls — This particle type forms
from the slow combustion of the low volatile components of
coal. The flakes appear as spiney fragments with thin
vitreous films joining the spines. The vitreous balls appear
with either the thin joining films intact, or as skeletal
structures because of complete combustion of the more volatile
film.
A-5 3 minute sampling Normal Push
The sample was heavily loaded with the various types
described above. Table 1 presents size distribution data and
approximate relative concentrations of the particle types.
Coking appeared to be fairly extensive in the sample as
evidenced by the extremely fine coke particles present (down
to .01 ym), some of which appeared in fluffy clusters. Most
of the larger particles also showed quite a bit of coking, as
evidenced by the lacey edges on the particles.
The mineral content was extremely low in this sample.
Most of the minerals seen were extremely small in size.
Aluminum, silicon, sulfur, chlorine, potassium, calcium,
titanium, chromium, and iron were detected by the SEM x-ray
analyzer in various individual particles. Sulfur was the
only element which was present in sufficient concentration to
be detected by a large area x-ray scan of the sample.
B-3 30 second sampling Normal Push
The sample was very lightly loaded with the various parti-
cle types. Due to the shorter sampling time, the proportion
of submicron particles is lower on this sample compared to the
A-5 sample.
Again the particle morphologies indicate good coking;
therefore, the hydrocarbon content should be low.
Mineral content was slightly greater than the A-5 sample.
Concentrations of the inorganic elements were high enough
only in individual particles to be detected by SEM x-ray; a
large area x-ray scan did not reveal the presence of any
-------
Table 1
PARTICLE CHARACTERIZATION
Particle
Type
Fly Ash
Fe 0
X X
Minerals
Coal
Partially
Coked Coal
Coke
Fines
Virteous
Flakes
Normal Push
A-5
Size
Range (ym)
0.2 - 12
0.4 - 7
0.2 - 24
<0.8 - 56
<0.2 - 72
<0.2 -110
0.01- 3
5 - 12
Size
Mode(ym)
0.4
0.8
2
4
3
3
0.08
10
Cone*
t
t
m
M
P
P
M
t
B-3
Size
Range (ym)
0.2 - 5
0.2 - 16
0.2 - 72
<0.8 - 64
<0.2 -160
<0.2 -160
0.01- 3
5 - 81
Size
Mode (vim)
0.8
1
3
5
3
3
0.08
16
Cone*
t
t
m
M
P
P
M
t
C-4
Size
Range(ym)
0.2 - 5
0.2 - 16
0.2 - 24
<0.8 - 56
<0.2 - 72
<0.2 -110
0.01- 3
4 - 16
Size
Mode(ym)
0.4
0.8
2
3
3
4
0.08
8
Cone*
t
t
m
M
P
P
m-M
t
Green Push
D-2
Size
Range (ym)
0.2- 32
0.2- 24
0.2- 56
<0 . 8-960
<0. 2-720
<0.2-160
0.1- 3
4-56
Size
Mode(ym)
1
1
3
5
4
3
0.5
12
Cone*
t
t
m
M
P
P
M
m
? = > 25% by weight
M - 5-25%
m = 0.5-5
t = < 0.5
-------
H-3
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSE - Environmental Protection Agency
Page 5
November 5, 1975
elements higher than sodium in atomic number. Elements seen
in individual particles of this sample not seen in A-5 were
sodium and magnesium.
C-4 30 second sampling Normal Push
The sample was lightly loaded with the various particle
types. A slightly greater percent of submicron particles was
present in this sample compared to B-3.
This sample showed the greatest degree of coking of any
of the samples examined. Particle morphologies, as well as
the absence of a great number of the larger uncoked coal
particles allows this statement to be made.
The mineral content of this sample was essentially similar
to that of A-5.
D-2 15 and 30 second sampling Green Push
The two green push samples were essentially identical in
concentration and size ranges of the various particle types.
Both samples were also fairly heavily loaded with particles.
Both samples contained a higher proportion of coal parti-
cles and particles which were only slightly coked as compared
to the three normal push samples. The surface texture of the
particles, however, indicated that all particles had been
exposed to heat for only a short time immediately before
sampling.
The carbonaceous particles in the very small sizes (less
than 0.5 ym) were lower in concentration than in the normal
push samples. However, the size range 0.5-1 ym showed a
greater concentration in the green push as compared to the
normal push samples. The particles in this size range were
more angular for the green push samples as compared to the
normal push samples. These findings, as well as the lack of
much lacey structure in the larger particles, indicates that
coking was rather incomplete in these samples.
The mineral content was also higher in the green push
samples. Definite peaks for silicon, aluminum, sulfur, and
calcium could be seen in a large area x-ray scan. This
indicates a definite higher concentration of these elements in
-------
H-6
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSE - Environmental Protection Agency
Page 6
November 5, 1975
the green as compared to the normal push samples. Individual
particles contained the same elements seen in the normal push
sample.
CONCLUSIONS
It is difficult to draw conclusions on the difference
between normal and green coke pushes when so few samples are
examined. However, based on the assumptions that these samples
are truly representative of the two types of pushes, a few
conclusions can be drawn.
If one assumes that the B-3 and C-4 samples were obtained
under the same conditions (i.e., same distance from the oven
door, same flow rates, etc.) as the D-2 30 second sample,
then it is quite obvious that a green push produces a greater
proportion of fine particles (less than 3 jam) than a normal
push.
The green push also contains a greater proportion of
uncoked and slightly coked material. The higher concentration
of particles in the 0.5-1 ym range in the green push, as well
as particle morphologies, indicates this.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Future samplings should include size selective sampling
of the green and normal pushes. Several samples of each type
of push should be taken.
One of the problems encountered in determining particle
sizes was due to the heavy loading of submicron particles and
the type of filter used. Millipore filter has a highly
textured surface and is therefore a poor substrate for parti-
cle analysis on the SEM. It is suggested that future samplings
include collection of samples specifically for microscope
examination. The Millipore filter should be used for col-
lection of a sample for optical microscopy. A Nuclepore filter
-------
H-7
Mr. Kirk Foster
DSSE - Environmental Protection Agency
Page 7
November 5, 1975
(Nuclepore Corp., 7035 Commerce Circle, Pleasonton, Calif.
94566, 415-462-2230) should be used to collect samples for
scanning electron microscope analysis. The Nuclepore filter
has a very flat, smooth surface making it ideal for SEM
analysis.
If you have any questions on our analyses, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Approved by
Fohn D. Stockham
Scientific Advisor
Manager
Fine Particles Research
JG:RGD/eb
cc: Mark Antell
yean Graf
Associate Chemist
Fine Particles Research
t^Wt/Wy
Rori
ild G. Draftz / ^
Senior Scientist
Fine Particles Research
-------
H-8
LIST OF FIGURES
1. A-5 163X; T* and R**; Partially coked coal flake (bottom)
and completely coked particle showing lacey texture (top).
2. A-5 163X; Typical field of view showing shiney flakes of
partially coked particles, angular coal fragments, large
lacey coke particles, and fine carbonaceous particles.
3. A-5 420X; T*; Fluffy agglomerate of fine carbonaceous
particles in the center.
4. A-5 l.OOOX; SEI***; Typical flakey, equant and fluffy
clusters of carbonaceous particles; the background is
composed of the other submicron carbonaceous particles
coating the textured Millipore surface.
5. A-5 30.000X; SEI***; Edge of fluffy cluster in center of
Figure 4; note rounded nature of the particles.
6. B-3 163X; T* and R**; Typical particles; note low con-
centration.
7. B-3 l.OOOX; SEI***; Although there are significantly
fewer fine particles present, the background in this
picture appears the same as in Figure 4 - the tfexture
of the Millipore.
8. C-4 163X; T* and R**; Note lacey structure of most of
the particles.
9. C-4 420X; T*.
10. C-4 1,OOOX; SEI***.
11. D-2 30 sec.; 65X; T* and R**; Some large slightly coked
particles found along the edge of the filter.
12. D-2 30 sec.; 163X; T* and R**; When compared to Figures 6 and
8 which are comparable sampling times, it is obvious the
green push (D-2) produces more fine particles than a normal
push if in fact sampling conditions for the two pushes were
identical.
13. D-2 30 sec.; 420X; T*; The small particles here are quite
angular and are most abundant in the 0.5-1 ym range.
14. D-2 30 sec.; l.OOOX; SEI***.
15. D-2 15 sec. ; 163X.
* T plane polarized (transmitted) light
** R reflected light
*** SEI = secondary electron image
-------
H-9
CM
01
14
•H
fa
0)
M
bO
•H
fa
-------
H-10
-------
H-ll
Q)
E
•H
-------
H-12
A
,'*
oo
, *<»^
'A
r~-
0)
-------
H-13
* • "<
;
.-»'
•
ON
QJ
50
•H
-------
H-14
0)
En
-------
H-15
toO
-------
H-16
Figure 15
-------
APPENDIX I
EPA REPORT OF CONTINUOUS OPACITY MEASUREMENTS
USING A TRANSMISSOMETER
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
St. Louis, Missouri
April 21-24, 1975
-------
1-1
CONTINUOUS OPACITY MEASUREMENTS OF
COKE-SIDE EMISSIONS USING A TRANSMISSOMETER
(Supplemental report to EPA Contract Report No. 68-02-1408,
Task No. 14; Study of Coke-Side Coke Oven Emissions)
Prepared by
Kirk E. Foster
Technical Support Branch
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Norman White
Stationary Source Emissions Research Branch
Emissions Measurement Characterization Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Bernard Bloom
Technical Support Branch
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
July 1976
-------
1-2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1-3
DESCRIPTION OF TRANSMISSOMETER SYSTEM AND ITS
OPERATION I- *
TIME/DENSITY PATTERNS OF COKE-SIDE EMISSIONS I- 6
TRANSMISSOMETER DATA REDUCTION 1-12
CORRELATION OF TRANSMISSOMETER MEASUREMENTS WITH
PARTICULATE LOADING I'15
CONTRIBUTION OF PEAK EMISSIONS TO TOTAL PUSH CYCLE
EMISSIONS I'21
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PUSH CYCLE TEST RESULTS I-"22
VARIABILITY OF PUSH EMISSIONS T-24
RELATIONSHIP OF PEAK OPTICAL DENSITY TO PART1CULATE-
MASS EMISSIONS l~26
IMPACT OF COKE PLANT OPERATING PRACTICES ON COKE-
SIDE EMISSIONS 1-32
APPENDIX A TRANSMISSOMETER DATA REDUCTION AND
COMPILATION
-------
1-3
CONTINUOUS OPACITY MEASUREMENTS OF COKE-SIDE
EMISSIONS USING A TRANSMISSOMETER
INTRODUCTION
As part of an EPA study of coke-side oven emissions at
a coke manufacturing plant of the Great Lakes Carbon Cor-
poration (GLC), St. Louis, Missouri, a transmissometer was
temporarily mounted in the fan exhaust system leading from
the coke-side shed. The transmissometer system was used to
continuously measure the transmittance (or optical density)
of the exhaust air discharged from the emission entrapment
i
structure during the time manual sampling for particulate-
roass concentration was being conducted by an EPA contrac-
tor. The purpose of the transmissometer measurements was
to monitor the opacity of the rapidly fluctuating particu-
late loadings released during the coke-push cycle in an
attempt to determine the relative contribution of the coke-
push period to the overall coke-side emissions. The real-
time data also provide an indication of the effectiveness of
the ventilation system in removing the entrapped emissions
from the shed. Other applications of the transmissometer
data, such as characterization of the process operation,
became apparent as the study progressed.
a Background information describing the scope of the EPA
study and the physical features of the coke-side shed
entrapment structure are presented in the Contractor
Report No. 68-02-1408, Task 14:. "Study of Coke-Side Coke
Oven Emissions," prepared by Clayton Environmental con-
sultants for the Division of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment.
-------
1-4
DESCRIPTION OF TRANSMISSOMETER. SYSTEM AND ITS OPERATION
A Lear-Siegler RM-4 Optical Transmissometer was used to
continuously monitor the smoke density levels in the exhaust
duct of the shed. The RM-4 transmissometer is an electro-
optical instrument that measures the attenuation of a light
beam transmitted, in this application, through the exhaust
airstream. The beam is transmitted across the exhaust duct
to a retroreflector, which reflects the beam back across the
stack to a detector. Because the instrument utilizes the
visible light spectrum, the opacity readings can be related
to opacities sensed by the human eye.
The RM-4 model transmissometer is designed for data
a
output in units of either optical density or opacity. To
facilitate correlation of the transmissometer measurements
I
with the particulate concentrations in the exhaust duct, a
linear optical density readout scale was selected. The
density measurements were continuously recorded on a strip
chart recorder. The analog strip chart records were manu-
ally reduced and translated into optical density values by .1
data reduction technique described later in this report.
The transmissometer system was mounted on the exhaust
duct near the point of exit from the shed structure, ap-
proximately 20 feet upstream of the exhaust fan and 60 feet
from the manual particulate sampling site. (See Figure 1).
The transceiver and retroreflector were mounted horizontally
to 4-inch flanges located approximately 29 inches from the
bottom of the 6-foot-square duct.
Transmissometer measurements were made continuously
during the 4-day period of particulate emissions tests
The optical density and opacity relationship is defined
as follows:
% transmittance = 100 - % opacity
Optical density - Log10 % transmittance
-------
SHED EXHAUST DUCT
QUENCH TOWER
EXHAUST FAN
TRANSMISSOMETER
PARTICULATE EMISSION TEST SITE
Figure 1. Location 01 cransmissometer system temporarily installed at the GLC Plant.
-------
1-6
(April 21-24, 1975). During the night-time non-testing
hours (1800-0800), the strip chart recorder was operated on
low chart speed (2 inches/hour) to minimize the generation
of strip chart paper. During the daytime while particulate
sampling was in progress, higher chart speeds (2 to 4 inches/
minute) were used to allow better peak resolution and more
accurate delineation of the relatively short-term "bursts"
of coke-push emissions. After initial operation of the
instrument on the 0 to 0.45 optical density (OD) full-scale
range (about 65 percent opacity) during the earlier tests,
the unit was switched to the highest range, 0 to 0.9 OD,
when measurements indicated that the peak opacity during
pushes of "green" cokea often exceeded 60 to 80 percent.
Sensitivity in detecting the very low optical density values
measured between coke pushes possibly could have been in-
creased by operating on the lower span ranges; however, the
instrument appeared to provide adequate sensitivity even at
the very low end of the 0.9 OD scale.
The transmissometer zero and span calibrations were
checked at least twice daily. Little or no calibration
drift was noted over 7 days of operation, even though strong
vibrations were induced in the duct structure by the opera-
tion of a large-diameter axial fan some 20 feet downstream.
No instrument malfunctions or other operating problems
occurred during the test period.
TIME/DENSITY PATTERNS OF COKE-SIDE EMISSIONS
The highly cyclic nature of the coke-side emissions is
apparent in the transmissometer recorder tracing shown in
Figure 2. This low-speed strip chart tracing depicts the
"Green" coke is insufficiently carburized coke containing
quantities of volatile carbonaceous materials that ignite
and burn when exposed to the atmosphere.
-------
1-7
in
2.00
1.
00
g 0.75
0.62.
co
UJ
Q.
O
0.50 •
0.40-
0.30
0.20-
0.10 -
cfl
o
(0
?USH PERIOD
NOH PUSH
PERIOD
TIME, HOURS
Figure 2. Tracing of optical density/time variations of
coke-side particulate emissions from coke oven battery.
-------
1-8
time intervals of one complete push turn on the coke-oven
battery equipped with the coke-side shed. A push turn for a
battery at the GLC plant normally consists of pushing five
to six ovens in sequence at 15- to 20-minute intervals; the
corresponding prominent peaks, varying in magnitude, are
shown clearly in the tracing. These peaks represent the
emissions generated during a coke push of less than 1 minute
duration. The higher-than-baseline density levelsoccurring
between pushes are contributed by various other coke-side
operations connected with the pushing event, such as oven-
door removal, door-jamb cleaning, and clearing of coke
debris from the bench following the push. The relatively
constant but low level of density preceding and following
the 1- to 1 1/2-hour push turn represents background coke-
side emissions contributed mainly by leaking oven doors.
Composite tracings of individual coke-push events
recorded at the higher chart speeds used during daytime
particulate emissions testing are shown in Figure 3. The
tracings are of actual push events, selected to typify
subjective ratings of the "greenness" of the coke being
pushed or, loosely, the "greenness" of the push. The
tracings show that the total time from start of a push to
complete evacuation of the smoke emissions captured by the
coke-side shed was usually about 1 1/2 to 2 minutes. The
rapid decrease in optical density levels after the push and
the relatively consistent length of time required to clear
smoke from the shed indicate that the fan system 4.3 ade-
quately designed and sized for efficient removal of en-
trapped particulate from the shed even in pushes of very
green coke. The emission profiles shown in Figure 3 are a
fair representation of changes in particulate concentrations
-------
1-9
vo
VO
to
0)
4J
cd
to
UJ
Q
0
Q-
O
2.00
1.25-
0. 75
0.62
0.50
0.40
0. 30-
0.20
0. 10
DIRTY PUSH
HOOERATLY
DIRTY PUSH
TIME, MINUTES
Figure 3. Composite tracing of optical density time variations
of coke-side particulate emissions for typical coke pushes.
-------
T-10
during coke pushes at this plant. All of the pushes moni-
tored during the EPA study exhibited a similar time/density
pattern, which follows closely the thermal expansion (volume)
curve predicted by designers of the shed.
Detailed variations of particulate loadings in the shed
exhaust were correlated with the push operation sequence
during several pushes. Figure 4 shows an individual tracing
with the time scale indexed according to the push operation
taking place. The emission profiles of this push and the
other examples shown in Figure 3 are generally consistent
with what would be predicted by persons familiar with the
physical features and operation of a coke-oven battery.
Suggested explanations for each segment of the curve are as
follows:
A. At the start of the push (Point 1), particulate
emissions rapidly increase to a maximum value
(Point 2). Generally, the ends of the coke mass,
which tend to be less fully coked because of heat
loss through the oven doors, contribute most of
the emissions. EPA's visual observation and
rating of coke pushes at this plant suggest that
the coke-side end accounted for more than two
thirds of the greener-than-average pushes.b At
other plants the push-side end may be an equal or
more significant factor in the pushing of green
coke, depending on the battery maintenance or
other physical features.
Reference is made to the bell-shaped curve shown in Drawinq
No. 3 contained in U.S. Patent No. 3,844,901 dated October
29, 1974 for coke oven emission control system assigned to
Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, N.Y., N.Y.
A tabulation of optical density values and push ratings
for 50 pushes is presented in Table A-l. The three-digit
push rating was designed to reflect of the greenness of
the three parts of the push, end-mcLddle-end, as well as
.the intensity of emissions. Ratings are on a scale of 1
to 4.
-------
-------
1-12
B. The optical density levels begin to decrease
fairly rapidly from the initial peak (Point 2).
Relatively fewer emissions are generated while the
better-coked middle section of the coke mass is
emerging from the oven. Particulate emissions are
being evacuated from the shed at a faster rate
than emissions are being generated.
C. As the push-side coke end emerges from the oven
and is exposed to the atmosphere, another burst of
emissions results, creating a second, smaller peak
(Point 3). The push-side coke end generally is
less coked than the middle section but more coked
than the coke-side end at this plant.
D. The oven is clear of coke and the quench car has
transported the hot coke from under the shed
structure (Point 4). Emissions continue to de-
crease as the remaining entrapped smoke and dust
are cleared from the shed by the ventilation flow.
E. Cleanup operations on the bench immediately after
the push (Point 5) may generate sufficient emis-
sions to keep the baseline slightly elevated for
another 1 to 2 minutes. These activities include
shoveling burning coke debris from the bench,
cleaning door jambs, and other routine operations
before the oven door is placed back on the oven
and luted.
F. Eventually the particulate level in the shed
returns to baseline conditions (Point 6). The
aggregate emissions contributed by the manifold,
but relatively small, oven leaks tend to maintain
a fairly constant, low-level background of dust
and smoke in the shed exhaust at all times.
TRANSMISSOMETER DATA REDUCTION
The transmissometer measurements made during the push-
cycle emission test periods were reduced to units of average
and peak optical density for comparison and correlation with
the particulate-mass concentration measurements. The aver-
age optical density was determined graphically from.the
-------
1-13
transmissometer strip charts by manually integrating the
area under the chart tracing for the measured time period.
Copies of the strip chart recordings made during the 1-
week study period are included in Appendix B. A calibration
curve for scaling and reducing the chart readings to optical
density units is shown in Figure A-l. The calibration curve
was developed by experimental measurement of known optical
density filter standards in an EPA laboratory prior to
installation of the instrument at the GLC plant. The tech-
nique used to reduce the chart readings is illustrated in
Figure A-2, which shows the grid superimposed over the chart
tracing. Essentially, the average smoke density, translated
into optical density units (OD), is multiplied by the mea-
surement interval, expressed in seconds, to give a value
expressed in optical density-seconds (OD-Sec). The OD-Sec
value is closely related to particulate-mass flowrate,
discussed in the following section. A complete tabulation
of optical density data reduced from the strip chart re-
cordings in this fashion appears in Tables A-3 through A-7.
The transmissometer data obtained during particulate
emission tests are summarized in Table 1 along with per-
tinent data on the particulate concentrations determined
concurrently. The average optical density calculated for
each of the four test periods is shown on line 9; the aver-
age grain loading for each of the tests is shown on line 20.
The values show that correlation between the optical density
measurements and grain loadings for each of the test periods
a Following the procedure outlined in EPA Emission Moni-
toring Requirements, Appendix B - Performance Specifica-
tions, paragraph 8.1 - Transmissometer Calibration, pub-
lished in Federal Register dated October 6, 1975.
Results of sampling are presented in the contract report
cited earlier (No. 68-02-1408, Task 14).
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF TRANSMISSOMETER DATA COLLECTED DURING PUSH-CYCLE EMISSION TESTS
Test number (1)
Date of test (2)
Number of pushes sampled (3)
Total period (4)
Sampling Push mode (5)
time, sec % total (6)
Nonpush mode (7)
% total (8)
Avg. for period (9)
Avg. push mode (10)
Avg. nonpush (11)
Max. push peak (12)
Min. push peak (13)
Total for period (14)
Push mode (15)
% total (16)
Nonpush mode (17)
% total (18)
Avg. push value (19)
Grains/acf (20)
Grams/Am (21)
Ibs/hr (22)
Optical
density
(1.73 meter path)
Optical
density,
seconds
Particulate
concentration
Emission rate
Ratio: Avg. OD to grains/acf (23)
1
4/21-22
16
17,280
1, 730
10.01
15,550
88.99
0.01659
0.10877
0.00634
1.2500
0.0700
286.76
188.18
65.62
98.58
34.38
11.76
0.018
0.0417
20.6
0.921
2
4/22
11
11,520
1,175
10.20
10,345
89.80
0.01417
0.09544
0.00494
0.7500
0.0550
163.20
11.2.15
68.72
51.05
31.28
10.19
0.013
0,0295
13.7
1.090
3
4/23
10
11,820
1,100
9.31
10,720
90.69
0.01225
0.06772
0.00655
0.5100
0.0750
144.79
74.50
51.45
70.29
48.55
7.45
0.014
0.0329
15.7
0.875
4
4/24
5
7,500
575
7.66
6,925
92.33
0.02561
0.22454
0.00909
2.000
0.108
192.08
129.11
67.22
62.97
32.78
25.82
0.026
6.0597
29.0
0.985
I
I—•
-p-
-------
1-15
was reasonably good. In fact, the ratio of optical density
to grain loading for each test run, reported on line 23, is
approximately 1:1, and variations did not exceed 20 percent
in any test. Although the two sets of data from Test No. 3
did not agree as closely as the data sets from the other
tests, the deviation is within the acceptable range of
measurement error for the two sampling techniques. The
utility of continuous opacity measurements in estimating
particulate loadings during push periods and other short-
term process events depends on a strong correlation between
the optical density and mass concentration measurements.
CORRELATION OF TRANSMISSOMETER MEASUREMENTS WITH PARTICULATE
LOADING
l
The data in Table 1 demonstrate a good functional
relationship between the transmissometer measurements and
particulate loadings. Although the data are limited to four
tests, the transmissometer can be empirically calibrated in
terms of particulate concentrations. The relationship
between optical density and particulate-mass concentrations
for coke-side emissions during the emission test period is
shown in Figure 5, in which the average optical density
readings for each of the emission tests are plotted against
the measured particulate concentrations. A straight-line
calibration curve is drawn through the data points by use of
least-squares linear regression analysis. The four data
points designated 1A through 4A represent average particu-
late concentrations and optical densities measured during
each of the push-cycle emission tests. The three data
points labeled IB through 3B, plotted in the lower left of
the chart, represent particulate concentrations measured
during the nonpush cycles.
-------
1-16
0.031iir
0.02
IT)
I
C7J
c
O)
IX)
CL.
CO
0.01'
O -
0.
O
J !
i i
Y = 0.91 X
TEST 2A
O
TEST 3B / TEST2B
o /6 Q •
TEST IB
i i i i
TEST 4A
TEST 1A
TEST 3A \
O
A - PUSH CYCLE
B - NON PUSH CYCLE
I I
J I
J i
0.01 0.02
PARTICIPATE MASS CONCENTRATION, GRAINS/ACF
D.03.
Figure 5. Optical density-mass concentration relationship
of coke-side particulate emissions.
-------
1-17
. The average optical densities for the nonpush cycles
were estimated differently than those for the push cycles.
Strip chart records show that when the ovens were not being
pushed, optical densities measured in the exhaust duct were
consistently very low. The nonpush OD readings seldom rose
above background levels except when oven leaks became un-
usually severe or persistent. Most of the time the optical
densities ranged from 0.004 to 0.008. The OD measurements
reported in Table 1 for the nonpush mode (time between
pushes during push-cycle test) support this observation.
The average OD reading between pushes for the four test
periods was approximately 0.007. Therefore, rather than
attempting to manually integrate the minuscule area under
the strip chart tracing for the nonpush cycle, an average OD
reading of 0.006 was arbritarily selected to represent the
background OD value for all three nonpush-cycle emission
tests.
The rationale for assuming a constant baseline value
for nonpush conditions is as follows. First, the error
associated with visually scaling these low chart values
would negate any increased accuracy gained by accounting for
the occasional excursion from baseline values. Second, a
certain amount of inaccuracy is unavoidable in reading the
extremely low-level background chart traces. With an in
situ instrument (across-the-stack measurement) there is no
way of establishing "absolute" zero on the transmissometer
readout scale while the device is mounted on the exhaust
duct. As the fan system moves contaminated air from the
shed, the airstream contains some smoke and dust at all
times. Shutting down the fan will not provide a clean
optical path since dust-laden air can continue to infiltrate
the open duct system. An alternative calibration procedure
-------
1-18
is to set up the transmissometer system in the laboratory to
simulate the actual field pathlength conditions and make the
necessary zero and span calibration adjustments on clean
room air before installing the unit on the exhaust duct.
After the.unit is placed on the exhaust duct, the electronic
zero adjustment control is used to establish the zero point
during the period of emission testing. With this technique
of setting the zero point on the transmissometer scale in
the field, the low-level baseline optical density values
could not be measured much closer than 0.002 OD unit. The
sensitivity of the transmissometer is adequate to detect
changes of 0.001 OD or less in the smoke density levels but
inaccuracies entailed in setting true zero preclude highly
accurate readings when the optical density is near the zero
end of the measurement range.
The straight-line correlation curve shown in Figure 5
can be expressed in equation form:
y =.0.91x
where: y = optical density
x = grains/acf
This equation can be used to convert the instantaneous
optical density readings recorded at the GLC plant to
equivalent grain loadings. Thus, the transmissometer, with
its fast temporal resolution, when properly calibrated in
terms of particulate mass concentrations, can provide at
least a semiquantitative estimate of the short-term peak
particulate loadings. Of course, the equation is applicable
only for converting the optical density readings made at the
GLC plant and under the same optical path length (1.73
meters). For application of the data to other coke-manu-
facturing plants and other path lengths, it is useful to
convert the optical density scale to an attenuation co-
-------
1-19
efficient (extinction per unit path length) for coke-side
particulate emissions. The equation for the conversion is
as follows:
a - 2.303 (OP)
L
where: a = attenuation coefficient (meter )
OD = measured optical density
L = path length in meters
The opacity-mass relationship shown in Figure 5 is
replotted in Figure 6 in terms of the attenuation coeffi-
cient and mass-concentration expressed in metric units. If
the path length (diameter or width of the duct or stack) of
any given outlet stack is known and either the opacity or
the mass-concentration of particulate emissions is known,
the other parameter may be estimated by use of the slope (K)
of the curve in Figure 6 and the following equation:8
% opacity = (l-e~KCmL) x 100
2
. K = attenuation [meter /gram]
wnere: * mass concentration
Cm = mass concentration [gram/meter ]
L = path length of opacity measurements
[meters]
As an example of the application of this equation and
the K factor for coke-side emissions (0.53), one could
estimate the maximum grain loading not to exceed 20 percent
opacity when emissions are vented from the shed capture
device into the atmosphere through a 6-foot stack.
Formula derived by William D. Conner, National Environ-
mental Research Center/RTF, author of EPA publication No.
AP-30, Optical Properties and Visual Effects of Smoke-
stack Plumes, revised May 1972.
-------
I I I I
SLOPE(K) = 0.53
0.01
0.02 0.03 0.04
MASS CONCENTRATION, GRAMS METER
0.05 0.06
-3
0.07
Figure 6. Opacity-mass concentration relationship of coke-side emissions,
-------
1-21
In - 12E .-.
cm = _ 100 -
c _ In (0.8)
m (0.53)(1.83)
^ 0.23
CONTRIBUTION OF PEAK EMISSIONS TO TOTAL PUSH-CYCLE EMISSIONS
As stated earlier, the OD-Sec data reported in Table 1
for each of the push-cycle tests were derived by multiplying
the average optical density by the time interval in seconds
and summarizing these values for the entire test period.
Thus, the OD-Sec parameter reflects concentration as well as
the duration of the particulate loading and, therefore, is
an Indirect measure of pollutant mass flowrate. In reduc-
tion of the strip charts, individual OD-Sec data reported in
Table 1 for the "push mode" represent emissions from the
time the push is started until approximately 1 to 1 1/2
minutes later, when the particulate in the exhaust duct has
returned to near-background levels. The data for the "non-
push mode" reflect densities measured at all other times
during the push-cycle test period.
Comparison of data from the push mode and the nonpush
mode reveals that, on the average, 63 percent of the total
push-cycle emissions are released during the peak push
period. Particulate emissions emitted during other phases
of the push-cycle operation, include background emissions
from oven-door leaks, contribute the remaining 37 percent.
This estimate of the relative contribution of the peak push
period (63 percent) agrees well with the estimate of 56
percent, determined independently from the manual particu-
late sampling data.a
Given in the contract report referenced earlier.
-------
1-22
REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PUSH-CYCLE TEST RESULTS
The continuous transmissometer measurements provided a
record of the GLC plant operation for the entire 4-day
emission testing period and also for 2 weekend days pre-
ceding the test. Visual examination of the strip chart
tracings and review of the optical density data reveal no
identifiable periods in which plant operation differed
substantially from what plant management reports to be
normal and typical of the present operating practices. It
is noted, however, that in the push-cycle emission test
conducted on April 24th (Test No. 4), a combination of short
sampling period and one or more extremely green pushes
during that period may have markedly influenced the data for
that test.
1 The grain loading reported for Test No. 4 in Table 1 is
approximately twice the grain loadings reported for the
other three push-cycle tests. Examination of the trans-
missometer data revealed that at least one of the coke
pushes in the Test No. 4 sampling period (Oven No. 53), was
unusually green, generating particulate emissions approxi-
mately 10 times greater than those released from a typical
push at the GLC plant. In Figure 7, the chart tracing of
this push is superimposed over the typical push tracings as
given in Figure 3 to illustrate the greater magnitude of
emissions caused by this push. Although the push must be
considered atypical of normal operations at the GLC plant,
its effect on emissions gives some idea of the high level 01
coke-side particulate emissions that can occur under worst-
case conditions. The high particulate loading of this
single push, when averaged with those from the relatively
few pushes sampled during this test, definitely biased the
average grain loading for the entire test period.
-------
1-23
vO
V0
•
m
I
(0
cu
to
UJ
a
a.
o
2.00
1.25'H
0.75
0.62
0.50^
0.40
0.30-1
0.20
0.10
TRACING OF EMISSIONS
FROM PUSHING OVEN
NO. 53 ON APRIL 24th
DIRTY PUSH
MOOERATLY
DIRTY PUSH
1 2
TIME, MINUTES
Figure 7. Comparison of push emissions from an excessively
green push with typical pushes.
-------
1-24
The higher grain loading for Test No. 4 can be "ad-
justed" by substituting the OD-Sec value of a typical push
for the value recorded in the extremely green push, and
recalculating the average optical density. Substituting the
median push value of 6.5 OD-Sec for the value of 73.3 OD-
Sec recorded in the green push gives an "adjusted" average
optical density of 0.016 for test period No. 4. Applying
the conversion factor to the adjusted average optical
density of 0.016 gives an equivalent grain loading of about
0.0167 grain/acf. Therefore a more realistic range of grain
loadings for a typical push cycle at the GLC plant would be
0.013 to 0.018 grain/acf, with an average push-cycle emis-
sion rate of about 17 pounds per hour.
VARIABILITY OF PUSH EMISSIONS
The maximum and minimum optical densities recorded for
peak push periods during the four push-cycle tests are
included in Table 1. The peak emission intensities ranged
from a low of 0.07 to a high of 2.0 OD; these values in-
dicate a range of some 30-fold for about 40 push events
included in the push-cycle sampling. This wide range of
optical densities, together with the chart tracings of
individual pushes>shown in Figure 3, illustrates the high
variability of emissions among individual push events.
Optical density readings for all of the push tracings
graphically reduced from the strip chart recordings are
listed in Table A-l. The push events were ranked by peak
optical density readings and a bar chart constructed (Figure
8) to show the relative frequency of occurrence. The pushes
are grouped into 12 classes of peak optical density ranging
from 0 to 1.2 and four classes of opacity ranging from
Median OD-Sec value for pushes is shown in Figure 9.
b . , c OD
grain/acf = --
-------
1-25
o
< o
UJ
_J*«
.0 O
«*
I
O
_
>- O
_J
UJ X
h-0
UJ I
o
o o
o
2
o
o: o
H-l 00
o
I
o
to
>-
*—I
o
o o
o
Q£ *""
UJ I
>
o
00
1 J
14
13
12
11
t2lO
z
to
2 9
u.
0.
of 8
m
i 7
6
5
4
3
2
1
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
^^MM
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
-
—
-
NUMBER OF PUSHES - 50
AVERAGE VALUE - 0.38
MEDIAN - 0.2
RANGE - 0.005 TO 2.00
—
— ~
—
-
I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 <
PEAK OPTICAL DENSITY
Figure 8. Frequency distribution of peak optical density
.readings of coke pushes.
-------
1-26
"clean" to "very dirty" on a scale of 0 to 100 percent. As
the chart shows, over half of the pushes monitored at the
CLG plant during the 1-week test period are classified as
"clean," not exceeding 0.2 OD (40 percent opacity). On the
other hand, at least 16 percent of the pushes are rated as
"very dirty" (greater than 0.7 OD and 80 percent opacity).
This finding suggests that even in a well-operated coke
plant, occasional pushes yielding heavy emissions are un-
avoidable.
The OD-Sec values calculated for individual pushes are
tabulated and ranked in Table A-2 in the same manner as the
peak optical density measurements. A bar chart of the
frequency distribution of the OD-Sec values is shown in
Figure 9. This chart indicates that most of the pushes
contributed only nominally to the overall coke-side emis-
sions. As the pushes become increasingly green, however,
the total mass emissions released during the push increases
dramatically. As in the range of peak OD readings, emis-
sions contributed by the very dirty pushes are at least 30
times those of the very clean pushes.
RELATIONSHIP OF PEAK OPTICAL DENSITY TO PARTICULATE MASS
EMISSIONS
As described earlier, the typical pattern for a push
period (shown in Figure 3) consists of a sharp increase in
optical density, reaching a maximum soon after the start of
the push, followed by a less rapid decline to background
levels within about 1 1/2 minutes from the start of the
push.
An attempt was made to correlate the height of the peak
(OD) with the area under the tracing recorded on the strip
chart (OD-Sec). The peak height represents maximum optical
-------
1-27
29
28
UJ
§7
Q-
OQ
NUMBER OF PUSHES - 50
AVERAGE VALUE - 13.0
MEDIAN - 6.5
RANGE 2.0 TO 73.3
8 16 24 32 40 48 56
OPTICAL DENSITY-SECONDS UNITS
64 72
80
Figure 9. Frequency distribution of OD-Sec values
recorded for coke rushes.
-------
1-28
density or mass concentration and the peak area is analogous
to pollutant mass flow rate. The maximum optical density
reading for each push is plotted against the OD-Sec value
calculated for that push, yielding a correlation as shown in
Figure 10. Since the data points show a reasonably linear
relationship, one may assume that the maximum optical den-
sity value for a given push is a good indicator of the total
emissions contributed by the push.
This correlation can be used to advantage to simplify
the strip chart data reduction method for estimating push
emissions and the visual technique used to rate greenness of
the pushes. For example, an easier method of quantifying
the mass emissions of each push might be to scale only the
peak optical density off the transmissometer strip chart
tracing or a nonrecording meter readout device and apply the
conversion factor shown in Figure 10 to calculate the total
OD-Sec value. This procedure eliminates the tedious manual
integration of the strip chart tracing for each push. Also,
the relationship provides a rationale for simplifying the
subjective visual technique used during the EPA study to
rate opacities and thus the degree of greenness of the coke
pushed.
The technique used to rate the opaqueness of plumes
resulting from the pushing of each coke oven is as follows.
Each push was divided into three approximately equal parts:
coke-side end, middle, and push-side end. Plumes emitted
during each of these parts were then rated in terms of
opacity on a scale ranging from 1 to 4, clean to dirty. A
faint or light plume was rated 1, and an especially dense
plume, usually accompanied by flames, was classified as 4.
The.sum of the three digits rated for each part of the push
-------
1-29
0
20
30 40 50
CURVE AREA, OD-SEC
60
70
Figure 10. Relationship of peak optical density, reading to
optical density-seconds value calculated for coke push.
80
-------
1-30
was considered to indicate reasonably well the overall
greenness of a push. Since duration of the pushes varied
somewhat, a time-weighted product of the duration, in
seconds, and the sum of the degree-of-greenness ratings was
selected.as the parameter that would best characterize each
push in terms of plume appearance and the emissions gen-
erated.
This degree-of-greenness index was used in several ways
to analyze the impact of various process parameters on coke-
side emissions. For example, the measured particulate mass
emission rates, in pounds of filterable particulate per ton
of feed, were plotted as a function of average degree-of-
greenness rating for pushes observed during each of the four
pushing-cycle particulate tests, as shown in Figure 11.a
Although the correlation was good, showing that the green-
ness of the coke was a substantial factor in producing high
emissions, the fact that Tests No. 1, 2, and 3 yielded
nearly identical average degree-of-greenness ratings limited
the usefulness of the correlation analysis.
A possible alternative technique for rating the green-
ness of the pushes would be to read and note only the high-
est intensity level occurring during any part of the push,
without regard to the duration of the push. An expanded
rating scale of 1 to 8, in place of the 1 to 4 scale, would
better characterize the range of smoke intensities typically
encountered at a coke plant. For evaluation of this alter-
native technique, the three-digit ratings recorded during
the EPA study were converted to a single rating index by
a This figure and a detailed discussion of the degree-of-
greenness observations appear in the EPA contractor report
referenced earlier.
-------
o
I
JD
«c
_J
^
«=t
O_
CO
<£
OC.
Lu
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 .270
AVERAGE DEGREE OF GREENNESS (S*D)
280 290 300
Figure 11. Degree of greenness versus filterable particulate emissions .
-------
1-32
selecting only the highest rating reported; the results,
plotted in the same format as in Figure 11, are shown in
Figure 12.
The relationship in Figure 12 shows a much more con-
sistent agreement between the degree-of-greenness and emis-
sion rates. Furthermore, if the mass emission rate data
were expressed in pounds per hour, rather than as emission
factors, pounds per ton of coal charged, the agreement would
have been even closer. Further refinements of the sub-
jective rating technique could make it more sensitive to
emission variations, perhaps by giving some additional
weight to the reading when an especially dense plume per-
sists for more than half of the push period. Regardless of
the technique used to evaluate greenness of a push, the data
obtained during this study show that the degree-of-greenness
rating is a useful tool in assessing coke-side emission
potential at a coke plant.
IMPACT OF COKE PLANT OPERATING PRACTICES ON COKE-SIDE
EMISSIONS
It is widely accepted that good coke-oven operating
practices can achieve considerable reductions in coke-side
emissions. Leakage from oven doors can be minimized by
proper maintenance of the doors and door jambs and by
careful luting of the door promptly after the coke push, at
luted-door plants. Application of sufficient heat to the
coal over a sufficient period will reduce the production of
green coke, which is responsible for the release of copious
quantities of smoke when it is pushed from the oven.
: The visual appearance of coke-side emissions at the GLC
plant is better than that of emissions at plants where good
operating practices are not stressed. The transmissometer
-------
1.0
0.9
0.8
u. 0.7
o
.0
LU
3
o.
LU
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
~ 0.2
u.
0.1-
TEST 4
2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
AVERAGE DEGREE OF GREENNESS
(MODIFIED TECHNIQUE USING SINGLE HIGHEST READING)
U)
Figure 12. Degree of greenness versus filterable particulate emissions.
-------
1-34
measurements and other data collected at the GLC plant
indicate that most of the coke pushes during the 1-week
emission testing period generated relatively small quan-
tities of smoke. Although some leakage from doors was
observed nearly all of the time, the number of doors leaking
on the coke-side usually did not exceed 10 percent of the
total number of ovens. Moreover, the smoke leaked generally
was wispy and light in color. Overall, operations at the
GLC plant reflected the intent to avoid unnecessary coke-
side emissions wherever possible and practical. Local APC
agency personnel assisting EPA in the study confirmed this
observation and indicated that the visual appearance of the
coke-push plumes during the testing period were representa-
tive of normal operations at this plant. The coke-side
emission rates determined for the GLC plant are, therefore,
judged to be indicative of emissions from a reasonably well-
operated plant. If operation and maintenance were allowed
to deteriorate appreciably, the magnitude of emissions would
be expected to increase significantly.
The transmissometer measurements provide some insight
into the potential impact of poor operating practices on
coke-side emission rates. The following discussion explores
the possible ranges of particulate emissions that could be
contributed by various operational factors.
At the GLC plant, emissions from door leaks., evaluated
visually, seem inconsequential when compared with the more
spectacular short-term bursts occurring during the coke
push. In contrast however, the transmissometer measurements
and the emission test data both show that door leaks account
for as much as half of the total coke-side emissions on a
long-term basis, largely because of the continuous, per-
sistent nature of the leaks. Any increase in either the
-------
1-35
number of leaking doors or the intensity of the leakage will
produce a sizable impact on daily emissions rates. The
upper curve in Figure 13 is a transmissometer chart tracing
of background smoke densities recorded during a period when
one or more oven doors were leaking more heavily than usual.
The fluctuating baseline increases 2 to 3 times over the
normal background level of approximately 0.006 optical
density. Conceivably, if several oven doors consistently
leaked heavily for periods of 1 hour or more, the average
background smoke levels might increase 2-to-3-fold, causing
a 30 to 50 percent increase in total daily coke-side emis-
sions.
Figure 13 depicts other push operations that can also
contribute measurably to coke-side particulate loadings.
The middle curve shows a momentary increase in background
smoke levels during cleaning of a door jamb. Also, the hot
coke debris dropping from the coke guide on to the bench can
add appreciably to background smoke density until the
smoldering material is cleared from the bench. Perhaps the
single, most significant nonpush emission source other than
door leakage observed at the GLC plant was the occasional
practice of removing the oven doors 5 to 10 minutes before
the start of the push. The lower curve in Figure 13 shows a
substantial increase in baseline emissions when the door was
lifted off an oven that presumably contained a green coke
end. These examples of operational factors causing higher-
than-normal background emissions illustrate that well-
coordinated and prompt performance of work assignments on
the coke-side bench can help reduce nonpush emissions.
Emissions from pushing of 'the coke are highly visible
and are the largest single source of coke-side emissions.
-------
1-36
0.201
3 o.io-
o
0.05-
CHART A
CHART B
HIGH INTENSITY DOOR LEAKS
C.201
oo
•z.
UJ
o
< o.iol
Q.
O
0.05-
CHART B
CHART A
DOOR JAMB CLEANING
0.201
LU
Q
0.10-
0.05.
CHART C
PREMATURE REMOVAL OF OVEN DOOR
TIME,, MINUTES
Figure 13. Examples of coke-side operations contributing to
the nonpush background smoke density level.
-------
1-37
This report has shown that the pushing of green coke exerts
an overwhelming impact on emissions. The transmissometer
tracing of one push, Oven No. 53 (in Figure 7) illustrates
the maximum range of push emissions. Although not typical
of normal plant operations, the emissions from this push may
typify worst-case emissions, particularly, if deterioration
of the oven heating systems and/or short-cycle coke produc-
tion create a pattern of extremely dirty pushes.
If emissions from all five of the pushes during Test
No. 4 had been of the same magnitude as those in the worst
case, the average optical density for the emission test
period would have been 0.057, which is approximately equiv-
alent to an average grain loading of 0.062 grain/acf.
Further calculation would give an emission rate of about 70
pounds per hour, or roughly 5 times the emission rate of
13.7 pounds per hour reported for Test No. 2.
Although the emission projections cited here are based
on only a few observations and measurements, the estimates
illustrate the potential impact of various operational
factors on coke-side emissions. The coke-side emission
factors developed for the GLC plant could be considered
conservative, since smoke and dust emissions under less
favorable operations and practices could easily range as
high as 5 to 6 times the emission rates determined during
the EPA study.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors acknowledge the assistance and guidance of
Mr. W. D. Conner of the Environmental Science and Research
Laboratory, EPA, NERC/RPT in the loan and calibration of the
-------
1-38
transmissometer system and in formulation of convenient
equations for expressing optical density in terms of par-
ticulate-mass concentration.
-------
T-39
APPENDIX A
Transmissometer Calibration Curve
Transmissometer Data Reduction Technique
Ranking of Coke Pushes According to Peak
Optical Density and Optical Density -
Second Values
Tabulation of Optical Density Data
Derived for Push Cycle Emission Tests
Figure A-l
Figure A-2
Tables A-l, A-2
Tables A-3 thru A-7
-------
1-40
MID-RANGE CHART SCALE (0-0.45 O.D.)
30 50 70 9,° HI-RANGE CHART SCALE (0-0.9 O.D.)
30 40 50 60 70
TRANSMISSOMETER OPTICAL DENSITY READING
Figure A-l. Calibration curve for RM-4 LS transmissometer
system used at GLC plant.
-------
1-41
• DENOTES AVERAGE O.D.
FOR 10-SEC. INTERVAL
10 SECONDS
Figure A-2. Graphical method of estimating push
peak area (optical density-seconds).
-------
1-42
TABULATION AND RANKING OF PUSH EVENTS IN TERMS OF
PEAK OPTICAL DENSITY AND OPTICAL DENSITY-TIME VALUE
TABLE A-l. PEAK OPTICAL DENSITY
TABLE A-2. OPTICAL DENSITY-SECONDS VALUES
RANK PUSH NO. DATE
1
2
3
4.
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 i
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 .
26
27
28
29
•30
31
32
33
34
. 35 '
36
37
38
J9
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
53
27
12
7
43
17
32
12
7
25
32
17
51
25
7
37
43
47
5
13
17
47
47
41
22
45
27
13
45
5
33
22
53
55
27
15
23
37
23
37
33
55
34
42
52
15
35
2
2
14
24th
23
21
23
24
21
21
22
21
22
22
22
24
23
22
23
23
23
23
24
23
21
22
24
21
22
22
23
23
22
24
22
23
21
21
23
24
21
23
22
23
23
22
21
21
22
23
21
22
22
PUSH
RATING
3-4-4
3-4-2
4-4-4
2-1-4
4-2-1
3-3-2
4-4-2
4-4-4
2-3-2
3-3-2
4-3-2
4-3-2
N/A
3-2-2
2-3r2
2-2-1
4-3-2
4-2-1
2-2-2
4-3-2
3-4-2
3-1-1
2-1-1
N/A
3-3-1
2-1-2
2-2-1
2-1-1
2-1-1
1-3-1
2-1-2
2-1-1
2-1-1
2-1-1
3-2-2
2-1-1
3-1-2
2-1-2
2-2-1
Irlfl
3-2-1
1-2-1
2-1-1
4-3-2
1-1-1
2-2-2
2-1-2
2-2-1
2-2-1
2-2-1
00 PEAK
VALUE
2.000
1.500
1.250
.950
.820
.750
.750
.750
.680
.680
.680
.540
.520
.510
.500
.450
.450
.420
.420
.410
.300
.220
.220
.220
.200
.190
.167
.160
.160
.150
.150
.150
. .134
.125
.120
.115
.108
.105
.105
.100
.100
.100
.095
.090
.090
.080
.075
.070 .
.060
.055
.RANK
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
29 •
30
31
32 "
33
34
35
36
37 •
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
PUSH
53
27
12
43
7
17
32
12
25
7
32
17
.13
51
25
43
5
7
37
47
17
47
22
47
•45
33
41
27
13
45
5
53
22
23
27
55
23
15
37
42
52
37
33
55
34
14
2
35
2
•15
NO. DATE
24th
23
21
24
23
21
21
22
22
21
22
22
24
24
23
23
23
.22
23
23 .
23
22
21
21
22
24
24
22
23
23
22
23
22
24
21
21
23
23
21
21
21
22
23
23
22
22
22
23
21
22
PUSH
RATING
3-4-4
3-«-2
4-4-4
4-2-1
2-1-4
3-3-2
4-4-2
4-4-4
3-3-2
2-3-2
4-3-2
4-3-2
4-3-2
N/A
3-2-2
4-3-2
2-2-2
2-3-2
2-2-1
4-2-1
3-4-2
2-1-1
3-3-1
3-1-1
2-1-2
2-1-2
N/A
2-2-1
2-1-
2-1-
1-3-
2-1-
2-1-
3-1-2
3-2-2
2-1-
2-2-
2-1-1
2-1-2
4-3-2
1-1-
1-1-
3-2-
1-2-
2-1-
2-2-
2-2-
2-1-2
2-2-1
2-2-1
OD-StC
VALUE
73.30
57.70
42.00
26.15
25.95
25.00
25.00
25.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
19. CO
18.48
18.31
17.50
15.00
14.00
13.72
11. EO
11.14
10.97
7.50
7.00
7.31
6.50
6.34
6.32
•6,14
5.50
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
4.84
4.52
4.50
4.00
" 4.00
3.84
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
2.69
2.50
2.50
2.50
2.00
-------
1-43
TABLE A-3.
TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM TRANSMISSOMETER
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST NO. 1, APRIL 21-22, 1975.
STR
CM
-Me
b
—
"i.
—
—• i-
10
1
IP
RT
_._
3
4
5
A
1
2
"i i
4
5
b
8
10
II
12
13
JHj
15
J7
18
n
H
5
b
7
B
f
.. . ,|
MODE or OPERATION <
STWTT TEST mi
STM?TTesTG> IZM
PUSH MO. z/7
NON POSH PERIOD
POSH NO. 31
NOM POSH PERIOD
STOP TEST <£> 130]
STAETTEST © 1304
POSH MO. 47
NOM POSH PERIOD !
STOP TEST woo
JJDN PUSH PERIOD .
PUSH NO. 52.
MON POSH PERIOD
. STOP TEST oq^H
PUSH NO 5
WON POSH PERIOD"
PUSrt NiO. 15
WON PUSH PERIOD
STOP TEST® 1025
START TEST c? 1029
PUSH Ma 2.S
STOP TEST io-i^
TEST WUMSEKONE C0^
CATE
21 a
. 1
_.. 1
. 1
C
. I
(TtKv.
PBU
/TIME:: C£
,„,„ [TEST,
365d|
55O50
"d
.4930
i
i
. i ..:.,
30foo!/
0540]
..::•
b29000
3050.!
37000
3100
f-500
H650
5700
70700
85C
I
I100
0
/
• :
ucoi
2.75Q'
WlOO'o
5050
007000
JO SO
1
eO IN
I ;
1 '1
i°
TAE
LATION
)t)ECO 1
t'
2
2
!a
1
1 . i
2.
... ;2
/
. ...a.
7.
.. -.j/.
.. '*•
...i
2.
H-EJ.
. — j_.
J ' '
il^._«iJL
TDTA
VA
*•••• t
23
?1
3'
4
t
3
"-J|
LOD
LJJE__
JO
30
i°__
. i
• |
52.'
V3
B1/
',"T-S!
1 ;|
-I?
/
3
... 3
1
" T"
i
1
7
. , t
{
2
"
23
2
1-
31.
3t
i
50 '
00
Ifc
fcfc
8f
50
i
•1
18
50
52 \
i
• i
DO
21
00
¥0
00
i .
t
• r
'. T'
MAX.
-,^
• -.-
I
-
OD
H£ _
WO
030
750
/20
DOS
IDS
DOS
i
220
6&LJL
OOf
150
OOle
Zoo
cot?
7SO
OOf-
!
Oof-
090
coy
1
. .f.
ISO
OlS
oeo
ISO
035
i
- \ -
'• i
DURATION '
no
1010
no
eso__
i
i
•
-
— i
•
?tf
290
?0
w
100
3W
no
/20
no
tio
120
no
I
¥20
no
k30
1
. . t .
• 1
110
?70
no
no
no
130
• 1 1
pus
^RAT
2-
3-
2-
3-
2-
3-
*
2-
3-
H
IWG^
3-2
3-2
2-1
'-?.
/-J
2-1
. i..
I-/
i
2-1
! -
5-2.
i
. i
i
1
1
-------
1-44
TABLE A-3A. TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST
TRANSMISSOMETER
NO. 1, APRIL 21-22, 1975.
STR
CM
To
...
—
—
....
—
- —
— -
--
•-
JP
R.T
L.
to
Vi
12
13
.!*
_.
—
_.
—
—
_..
—
—
—
—
~
Ij
nout 01- uffcioMiun ;CATE/TIME
-II
STMJT TEST ® IOM-9
WON PUSH PERlOb
£>TDP TEST (? 1050
START TEST & IOSS
PUSH NO. M-5
WON POSH PERlOb
PUSH NO. 55
WDM PUSH PERIOD
END TEST G> 12.07.
,
•
22*
I
-r-,-
1
~"- r
j i
!
i •
i i
t
1 .
1 I
.11
1!
11
1
1
"i'i
_TF
i
i
.. .
1;
-J!
I :
i i
t j
\ •
• !
OHSO
1
. i.
1
1
;
I
-
!
1
1
:.
• '1
1
4-
PUS
RA1
2-
z"
•
— 1
«J
I-Z
w
:
i
-------
1-45
TABLE A-4. TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM TRANSMISSOMETER
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST NO. 2, APRIL 22, 1975.
STR
CHA
_Nt
II
- —
—
i
—
. —
12
... _i*
= : r
IP
er
L.
i
2
3
V
5
fe
i
8
9
rjf
IZ
15
It,
Jl
1
z
3
5
b
7
8
-
' —
MODE OP OPERATION
START TEST <5> 1410
PUSH NO. 7
NOW 'PUSH PERldb
PUSH MO. 17
_N_ON PUSH_ PERI Op
PUSH NO. 21
NOW PUSH PERIOD
STOP TEST o 14-sa
STftRTTEST @> ISOO
NON PUSH PEB.IOt>
STOP TEST IS5f
WON PUSH PERlOb
PUSH NO. 14
.WON PUSH PERIOD
PUSH NO. 34-
WON PUSH PERIOD
STOP TEST & IIP4-Z.
WON PUSH PERIOD
S>TOP TEST KtftTfc
STMITTEST «? 1312. ..
PUSH NO. Z
NON POSH PERlOb
PUSH NO. 12-
WON pysri PERIOD
PUSH ls)0. Z-2-
NON PUSH Pe-fi.»ob .
PUSH MO. 32.
NON PUSH pEwob
ENb TEST g> 18^9
... _..
- - -
DATE
23*1
1
1
- -r-
. 1
• -.-
...
1
-1
i;.
1 i
.....
1 '
fa
«-:
u,
27
ITABU
IE CO
[TEST
ro' 1
00 >l
so
00
•3D
^?o
50
I"
0
0
0
0
1
i
UYTKW
DE
/NODE'
. i
i 5
"Hj
: M"
H|
'
i !
1
V*"T"
""
1
z
z
-*
"""z
1
.1:2-
.2
1
. 1
1
2
1 *
1
1
;
I
TDfALOb
1371
H20
IUO
312
1
- ' J
" 4
; i
80.
.....
350
-f -
.........
T|BO
:|o
... 388
•
2
:
^
»
63
50
85
...2^00
Vso
5JOO
2300
2
25
:
|
MAV.OD :
SCALE
~'I '"
500
005
SfO
Ion
.-.
...
'I '
00*
i
i
• 1
100
ow
220
020
-
00+
05S_
004
075
jO^
i
DOT
005
750
025
01 S
t>80
012.
'
...
DUR/
jSc
,
— J
/
/
_._
^T(ON i
lllJ
too
Bt>0
105
US..
110
200
iio
730
730
200
510
HO
970
720
1
II 0
370...
IIO
+30
IIO
£70
no
250
l
'..I
PA-
2-
H-
2-
'-
2-
2.-
(V
2-
2-
H
3-2
3-2
2-1
i
/-/
L-l..-
i
i
i
z-i
H-t
l-l
i
1
i
i
1
1
-------
1-46
TABLE A-5 TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM TRANSMISSOMETER
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST NO. 3, APRIL 23, 1975.
STR
CHA
-fif
—
_!..
—
—
._...
... . J
—
IP
KT
k-
M-
5
&>
n.
8
<*
10
12
14
15
..
ISA
Jto
17
2C
21
27
23
25
S
27
18
26
.HODE OF OPERATION;
START TEST © 0345
NON PUSH PERIOD
PUSH NO. 23
IWKNOWM/ MODE"
PUSH NO. 33
UNHMOI^A/ M0D(T
PUSH MO. 43
NON PUSH peveioD
^TOPTEST 6° 093*
START TEST C1 0?3b
NON POSH P£RtOD
STOPTCST e oisfc
START TEST UOZ.
fJON PUSH PcPJOD
sropresT e> //os
START TEST <® 1307
PUSH NO. 5
fJON PUSH PERIOD
STOP TEST USH MO. 35
NON POSH PERIOD
STOP TEST <£> 1408
START TEST c? IHIO
NOM.PUSH PERIOD
POSH NO. H5
NON PUSH PERIOD
PUSH NO. ss
WON PUSH PERIOD
END TEST
-------
1-47
TABLE A-6. TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM TRANSMISSOMETER
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST NO. 4, APRIL 24, 1975.
5TD
CH>
_N
Ib
.J.7.
»&
—
•r
—
-—
—
—
—
,P|
Kt
1=
10
II
IZ
13
.1
Z
3
5
b
.7
e
i
3
5
t
7
3
5
—
....
...
1 .. \
MODE OF OPe*AkTIOi^ jDAiTE/TlME|
START TEST & 104-3
NON PUSH PERlOb
PUSH NO. 13
NON PUSH PERIOD
NON PUSH PERIOD
NON PUSH PERIOD
PUSH NO. Z3
NON POSH PERIOD
STOP TEST @> 1 1 1 la
START TEST <3> m£
^RA
4-
3-
Z-
. 4-
3-
...
•-
-
-
;.r-;rrf f
>H
nw6^
3-2.
I-Z
I
I-Z
-4
1
1
z-i
H-T
i
t
• r
i
j
I
i
j
-------
1-48
TABLE A-7. TABULATION OF OPTICAL DENSITY DATA REDUCED FROM TRANSMISSOMETER
MEASUREMENTS MADE DURING THE GLC COKE PLANT TEST PERIOD, APRIL 23, 1975.
sm
CHft
14
1
.._..
— .
_..
.....
. -_1"
RT
'•
1
2
3
Jt
S
7
6
J.
10
II
IZ
-
—
--
—
—
—
--
....
..
t —
MODE OF OpeMnOH
NON PUSH PERlOb
PUSH NO. 7
NON POSH P£RlOb
POSH WO. 17
. NON POSH PERIOD
NON POSH PERIOD
P\)SH NO. 27
NON PUSH PERIOD
PUSti NO. 3J
NON PUSH PERIOD
. PUSH NO. 47
NON PUSH PERIOD _.
•
IWE/T/MEI
:
23 1
. /
"J
4}
.41
T"
1
Jr
li
-4
:Tt
1
...j
_! !
:
fef/00
¥2/0
WOO
SSIO
57
703
09
10
lk>
17
25
3i
*~'r
1 1
TT
' :
•1 i
; j
' i
4
; i
• j !
l
! i
! l
l i
i :
• i
j i
ii
• ;
OD
10
to
HO
10
50
30
ID
~
_
T*Bl
60
•.
'
• ,
i
1 |
..I..
1 i
1 '
"71
! 1
. j !
! !
i
1 •
i j
i i
i :
...L;
; l
-
r
• " :
' t
ILKTOW
oe
/MObb
_ _. 2
2
.. :2
:Z
; z
2
. j
• ;
, i
,
• i
• i
I i
• i
i !
| I
! :
i i
°~i~
• i
; i
: i
!
:t
i
i
..:..
. i
...
"•V1
1
TbfllL OD
Vf\L\X.
L
15-95
.2,fc*'
/097
5-770
326
:
n
j
i :
j •
!
!
i
j '
4;
"fr
• !"•
i .
1 !
-: '
2$ ..
<+ .
88
: 1
"1
i
•l i
: i
' '
i
i|
.
: |
"it"
i i
• '
: i
, !
'••
...
"T"
MA*. OD
SCALE
.fe
300
... P'O
/po
!
t
. ;
. , '
1 i
t i
1 !
-.:..;
1 ;
i '
• •
i
I
'-
-
0/0
WO
' '
—
— i ..
-,--
--
•
- • -
-
.... .
DUMTlDN
:..
- •
•
i — _.
••* ;
.
lit
10
100
t.10
no
370
2*0
90
tso
too
80
860
I '
-I
'•••
':)
;:
•
' j
, i
1 •
•
t
i
fi
i !
1
-
It
1
...
PUS
JRW
3-
!
0
i
i
-
1
• -j ••
1
-r^
'I.
..:
H
r/N6_
- ••
.- -I
--
.- ..
;.|-
|
- •
' • |
i
1
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(flcatt read Insjniciions on the revsnc before completing)
I. REPORT NO.
EPA/l-77-014b
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIO.V.NO.
4. TITLE A.\O SUBTITLE
Study of Coke-Side
Volume II
DATE
Coke-Oven Emissions
August 31, 1977
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOif
7. AUTHOR(S)
John E.
Fred I.
Mutchler, Thomas A. Loch,
Cooper, Janet L. Vecchio
3. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION S^fC^T;^
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Clayton Environmental Consultants,
25711 Southfield Road
Southfield, Michigan 48075
Inc
11. CONTRACT/GHANY W6. ~~
68-02-1408; Task 14
12.S°ON3ORJNG AGENCY NAME. AND ADDRESS
Division of Stationary: Source Enforcement
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M Street, S.W.
13.TYP6 OF REPORT AND PERIOD COvT
14:SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
Washington, D.C,
20460
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Volumes II and III
Volume I.
of this report are appendices that supplement
16. ABSTRACT
This report summarizes a study of coke-side emissions at three coke-
oven batteries producing foundry coke at Great Lakes Carbon Corporation
(GLC) in St. Louis, Missouri. Of the three bateries, the south battery
"A" is equipped with the coke-side shed. The center battery "B" and the
north battery "C" were not equipped with a functional shed at the time o
the study. Objectives of this study were to develop:
1) Basic engineering data
from the shed, capture
concerning
efficiency
teristics of contaminants present
process eimssions, fugitive emiss io-is
of
in
the shed, and quantity and charae-
the shed exhaust.
2) Other basic engineering data for specification of future retrofitted
control devices for removal of air contaminants in the shed exhaust.
3) Correlations to relate these measurements to process conditions.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIEHS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
C. COSATI KisM/GlOup
Coking
Air pollution
Opacity
Visual inspection
Particles
Particle size distribution
New Source Performance
Standards
Emission Testing
Performance Tests
13B
14D
^DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This ttrnn-
Unclassified
2). NO. OF P.AC£S
148
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. mice
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
|