&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-600/2-79-112
May 1979
Research and Development
Level 1 Assessment of
Uncontrolled Sinter
Plant Emissions
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policy of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-112
May 1979
Level 1 Assessment of Uncontrolled
Sinter Plant Emissions
by
C.W. Westbrook
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park. N.C. 27709
Contract No. 68-02-2630
Task No. 3
Program Elements No. 1AB604C and 1BB610C
EPA Project Officer: Robert V. Hendriks
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Sampling and analysis of the uncontrolled emissions from two sinter
plants, one using revert (waste products of other steelmaking operations)
material (Series 1) and one not (Series 2), were undertaken to characterize and
quantify the particulate, organic, and inorganic species present. In both
cases, sampling took place in the windbox gas main before the emission control
equipment using EPA Level 1 Environmental Assessment Methodology. Samples from
the sinter plant not using revert material were delayed in shipment for two
months and, therefore, received a reduced analytical effort.
o
Particulate concentrations of 1405 and 804 mg/m and total organic
emissions of 25.66 and 4.84 mg/m3 were found for Series 1 and 2, respectively.
No known carcinogenic organic compounds were identified. Organics in both
cases were largely high molecular weight materials. For Series 1, concen-
trations of the different organic categories were in the same relative
proportion as found in the process feed sample despite the fact that about 85
percent of the feed organic was destroyed^ Also, analyses indicate that 12
inorganic components and five organic categories might exceed AIR-Health MATE
values if emitted uncontrolled. Calculated control levels needed ranged from 0
to 99.99 percent.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i1i
FIGURES v
TABLES vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY 3
3.0 CONCLUSIONS 6
4.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND TESTING PROGRAM 7
4.1 Facilities 7
4.1.1 Number 2 Sinter Plant 7
4.1.2 Number 3 Sinter Plant 10
5.0 TEST RESULTS 19
5.1 On-Site Results '19
5.2 Analysis of SASS Train Samples • 19
5.2.1 Total Particulate Loading 19
5.2.2 Level 1 Organic Analysis 23
5.2.3 GC-MS Analysis 31
5.2.4 Inorganic Analysis 34
APPENDICES
A LEVEL 1 ORGANIC ANALYSES OF SAMPLE IX, THE PROCESS FEED SAMPLE,
AND INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA 58
B. DATA OBTAINED AND OBSERVATIONS MADE AT SINTER PLANTS NOS. 2 AND 3 78
iv
-------
FIGURES
Figures
1 Schematic of No. 2 sinter plant a U.S. Steel, Gary, IN. 8
2 SASS train sampling procedures. 13
3 Recovery of samples from front half of SASS train. 14
4 Recovery of samples from back half of SASS train. 15
5 Sampling data for SASS test at No. 2 sinter plant. 16
6 Sampling data for SASS test at No. 3 sinter plant. 17
7 Analytical procedures for sinter plant No. 2 21
8 Analytical procedures for sinter plant No. 3 22
A-l Sample IX GC-MS total ion current plot. 66
-------
TABLES
Tables Page
1 Summary of Particulate Data, Uncontrolled Emissions 3
2 Summary of Organic Data, Uncontrolled Emissions 4
3 Summary of Sampling Data for No. 2 Sinter Plant U.S. 2n
Steel, Gary, Indiana
4 Summary of Sampling Data for No. 3 Sinter Plant U.S.
Steel, Gary, Indiana 20
5 Total Mass of Emitted Particles 23
q
6 Total Extractable Organics, mg/m 24
7 Organic Extract Summary Sample 1X--XAD-2 Resin and Module
Rinse 26
8 Organic Extract Summary Process Feed Sample (No. 3 Plant) 28
9 Polycyclic Organic Compounds, Sample IX 30
10 Total Extractable Organics, Sinter Plant No. 3 32
11 Polycyclic Organic Compounds, Sample IX 33
12 Arsenic, Mercury, and Antimony Determinations by Atomic
Absorption 34
13 Total Inorganics, Sinter Plant No. 3 Spark Source Mass
Spectrometry Data 35
14 SSMS Analysis Sheet, Sample 1C1F 38
15 SSMS Analysis Sheet, Sample 1C310 42
16 SSMS Analysis Sheet, Sample, IX 46
17 SSMS Analysis Sheet, Sample 1 IMP 1 50
18 SSMS Analysis Sheet, Sample 1 Process Feed 54
A-l LC Analysis Report, Sample IX 59
A-2 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-1 60
A-3 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-2 60
A-4 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-3 61
A-5 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-4 61
A-6 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-5 62
A-7 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-6 63
A-8 IR Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-7 63
vi
-------
TABLES (Cont'd)
Tables
A-9 Mass Spectroscopy Report—Sample No. IX, Cut LC-1 64
A-10 Mass Spectroscopy Report--Sample No. IX, Cut LC-2 64
A-ll Mass Spectroscopy Report--Sample No. IX, Cut LC-3 65
A-12 Mass Spectroscopy Report—Sample No. IX, Cuts LC 4-7 65
A-13 LC Analysis Report, Sample 1 Process Feed 67
A-14 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-1 68
A-15 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-2 68
A-16 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-3 69
A-17 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-4 69
A-18 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-5 70
A-19 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-6 70
A-20 IR Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-7 71
A-21 Mass Spectroscopy Report--Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-1 71
A-22 Mass Spectroscopy Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-2 72
A-23 Mass Spectroscopy Report—Process Feed Sample, Cut LC-3 72
A-24 Mass Spectroscopy Report—Process Feed Sample, Cuts LC 4-7 73
A-25 Inorganic Analysis of Process Feed Sample, Neat 73
A-26 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. 1C 310 74
A-27 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. 1C1F 75
A-28 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. IX 76
A-29 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. IX-Blank 76
A-30 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. 1 IMP 1 77
A-31 Inorganic Analysis of Sample No. 1 IMP 1-Blank 77
B-l No. 2 Sinter Plant Design Data 79
B-2 Feed Components Rates, Control House Charts (ton/hr) 82
VII
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This report has been submitted by Research Triangle Institute in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of EPA Contract No. 68-02-2630. The author is
grateful to Mr. Robert V. Hendriks, Project Officer, for his advice and
technical direction.
RTI also wishes to acknowledge the significant contributions made by
personnel of Acurex Corporation who designed and carried out the sampling pro-
gram under EPA Contract 68-01-4142, Task 12. Special thanks are extended to
Mr. James Steiner who prepared the Acurex sampling report, parts of which are
used verbatim in this report.
The efforts of Dr. Robert Handy of RTI, who directed the organic work and
interpreted the IR and LRMS spectra are also appreciated. Appreciation is also
expressed to U.S. Steel Corporation and Mr. George Kzapko of Gary Works for
their cooperation and assistance with this project.
viii
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Sinter or reclamation plants are used to recover iron ore fines for use
in the blast furnace. This is accomplished by blending the ores with coke
breeze, limestone, and dolomitic lime and igniting the mixture. During the
burning process, the mix fuses into a solid mass which can then be broken and
crushed to the appropriate size. At some plants, revert materials (waste
products from other steelmaking processes) such as blast furnace flue dust,
sludge, borings, turnings, and mill scale are also added to the raw mix.
Sinter plants are of interest to EPA because of their potential for high
particulate and organic compound emissions. To collect the required data
regarding this potential, EPA contracted with Acurex Corporation for sampling
of uncontrolled emissions from two sinter plants at U.S. Steel's Gary, Indiana
facility and with Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for sample analysis and
data evaluation. These tests were conducted at one plant using revert material
(Series 1, Sinter Plant No. 3) and one not using these materials (Series 2
Sinter Plant No. 2).
This report, prepared by RTI, integrates the following information:
2. process observations and operating data obtained by RTI
personnel present during the tests, and
3. results of the chemical analyses.
Section 2.0 is a summary of the data obtained. Section 3.0 presents
conclusions based on the data presented herein. A description of the test
including the facilities, process, and the sampling and analysis plan is con-
tained in Section 4.0. The test results are presented in Section 5.0. Details
of the analytical results are presented in the Appendices.
-------
Unfortunately, the samples taken by Acurex at the No. 2 Sinter Plant did
not arrive at RTI until two months after sampling occurred (delivered to wrong
address by UPS). These samples were, therefore, subjected to an unknown
storage history. RTI and the EPA Project Officer concluded that a complete
Level 1 analysis of these samples was not warranted because of possible sample
degradation during storage and, therefore, a reduced level of effort analysis
was made.
-------
2.0 SUMMARY
This sampling program, conducted at one sinter plant processing revert
materials (Series 1, No. 3 plant) and one not (Series 2, No. 2 plant), was
directed toward determining if potentially hazardous materials were produced
and whether there is a substantial difference in the emissions from the two
plants. Although the decision to reduce the analytical effort on the Series 2
samples made a detailed comparison impossible, it does not prevent a general
comparison of the two or an evaluation of the No. 3 plant.
Table 1 presents the uncontrolled particulate emissions for both plants.
These data show that, although the No. 3 plant had a higher particulate con-
centration, the total dust generated per hour was about the same for both
plants. Since the No. 2 plant was actually processing less sinter, it is
obvious that this plant was using a higher air-to-raw feed ratio resulting in
a lower particulate concentration. In both cases the uncontrolled particulate
emissions are about 450 kg/hr (1000 Ibs/hr). Data in Table 5, Section 5.0,
also indicate that a larger fraction of the particulate from the No. 3 plant
fell into the less than 3 micron size range. Use of a dust control device with
95 percent collection efficiency, which is within the capability of ESP systems,
would be adequate to meet most state discharge regulations.
Sampling Site
Windbox flow rate, m /hr
Particulate concentration, mg/m3
Particulate generated, kg/hr
kg/ ton feed
No. 2 Plant
525,030*
804
420
No. 3 Plant
320,150
1,405
450
1.44
*Based on data obtained during SASS test. Acurex measured flow from the exhaust
stack (after ESP) the same week as SASS test and found a substantially lower
gas rate.
-------
The total organic content of uncontrolled emissions from the two plants is
given in Table 2 and shows that the emissions from the No. 3 plant are about
five times greater than those from the No. 2 plant. Most of the organics
produced by plant No. 3 were captured in the XAD-2 resin rather than being
associated with the particulates; and over half of the organics were in the
high boiling (GRAV) range. Since the SASS cyclones and oven operated at 204°C
(400°F), substantially hotter than the windbox gas temperature, the organic
matter could have originally been associated with the dust and distilled onto
the XAD-2 resin during sampling. The predominate organic species emitted was
simple aliphatic hydrocarbons, although a wide range of other compound categories
were also present. Fused aromatics with molecular weights over 216 were less
3
than 1 mg/m .
Sampling Site
3
Windbox flow rate, m /hr
3
Total organic concentration, mg/m
Total organic generated, kg/hr
kg/ ton feed
No. 2 Plant
525,030
4.84
2.5
=^K=-^^^KS5^=a=3=^^^=^==:^=^^C=
No. 3 Plant
320,150
25.66
8.2
0.03
Low Resolution Mass Spectrograph (LRMS) analysis contained several
molecular weights that could be associated with carcinogenic material. A GC-MS
run on the XAD-2 sample from Sinter Plant No. 3, however, did not confirm this
identification.
Particularly interesting is the observation that the various compound
categories are in the same relative proportion in both the XAD-2 and process
feed samples. Although this could simply be an artifact of the Level 1 data,
one could speculate that because of the sinter processing method used (down-
draft combustion) the emitted organics are distilled from the lower part of the
mix. The data indicate that about 85 percent of the organics in the raw feed
are destroyed. Comparison of the organic category concentrations with AIR-
Health MATE values indicate that control may be needed for five categories
-------
(halo aliphatics, substituted benzenes, fused aromatics, hetero nitrogen
compounds, and amines). Control needed for these categories could range from
zero to 99.99 percent.
A summary of inorganic emissions is given in Table 13, Section 5.0.
The data presented therein indicate that the emission of uncontrolled
windbox gases would exceed AIR-Health MATE values for copper, nickel,
iron, manganese, chromium, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, aluminum,
arsenic, lead, and possibly sulfur. In order to meet these criteria, a
control efficiency of, respectively, 87, 61, 90-98, 37, 99, 50, 65, 68-
97, 91 and 0-99 percent might be needed. Since no testing was done on
the controlled effluent, no conclusion is possible as to whether this
control is actually achieved.
This report does not contain data proving that carcinogenic organic
compounds are generated or data relating to compound or element emission
levels after the windbox gases have been treated by the cyclones and
ESPs.
-------
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
The data obtained from these tests support the conclusions that:
1. More organic matter is generated by sinter plants processing
oily revert materials.
2. These organics are generated in approximately the same pro-
portions as in the raw feed material.
3. About 85 percent of the organics in the feed material are
destroyed.
4. Substituted benzenes, fused aromatics, halo aliphatics,
hetero nitrogen compounds, amines, and 12 inorganic elements
are generated at sufficiently high levels that some degree
of effluent control may be needed.
-------
4.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND TESTING PROGRAM
4.1 FACILITIES
The plants tested were the No. 2 and No. 3 sinter plants at U.S. Steel
Corporation's Gary, Indiana facility.
4.1.1. Number 2 Sinter Plant
The No. 2 sinter plant has two strands (Nos. 3 and 4) with a total rated
sinter capacity of approximately 2900 tons/day (Figure 1).
The feed material for this plant does not contain any revert material such
as steelmaking dust, cinder, slag, blast furnace flue dust, sludge, borings,
turnings, and mill scale. Elimination of these revert materials from the feed
mix tends to reduce the amount of particulate and condensible material emitted
from the sintering process. The feed material consists of fluxes (24.5 %/wt
limestone and 13 %/wt dolomite), iron ore fines (28.75 %/wt each of No. 13 fines
from the Mesabi range and QCM fines from a Canadian mine), and fuel (5 %/wt coke
breeze). Hot return fines from the sinter breaker at the discharge end of the
sinter machine are recycled to a hopper which adds the return fines to the top
of the sinter mix as it leaves the primary pug mill after the total feed weighing
device. Particulates captured in the cyclones and electrostatic precipitator
from the windboxes of the sintering machine are recycled (cyclone dust to the
primary pug mill and precipitator dust to the secondary pug mill). Water is
added to the pug mills to produce a raw sinter mix with the proper moisture
content. This water is service water and not recycled process water. No
special additives are in the sinter mix. The sinter produced at this plant is a
superfluxing sinter with a basicity (ratio of )CaO + MgOf/{Si02 + AUOJ) of
2.0 although basicity can vary depending on the blast furnace needs.
Each strand has its own set of feed material storage bins except for the
dolomite storage bin. Each storage bin is equipped with a rotating table
feeder which delivers the appropriate amount of feed material to the conveyor
-------
cx>
fcriMH Cokf.-6 mesul
1.1 T
I Erat* \—+ du»p 1 Screen ]— •• **"P |. s
-------
belt. There is no device to actually weigh the amount of each feed material
that is added to the belt (occasional pan tests determine feed rate). The
proper amounts of ore fines, flux, and coke breeze, after being added to the
conveyor belt, are partially mixed by transfer from one conveyor belt to
another. This mixture of feed materials then enters the primary pug mill where
service water is added to adjust the moisture content and to thoroughly mix the
feed materials with recycled dust caught by the cyclones that clean the windbox
gases. At this point, a weighing device determines the weight of the mix on the
belt. Hot return fines from the sinter breaker are added to a groove (created
by a paddle) on top of the mix. There is no device to determine the percent by
weight of return fines added to the mix. The mix and hot return fines then
enter the secondary pug mill where service water is added to adjust the moisture
content and to thoroughly mix these feed materials with recycled dust caught by
the electrostatic precipitator that further cleans the gases leaving the cyclone
dust collectors. Every two hours an operator takes a sample of this raw sinter
mix to measure its moisture content, insuring that the proper amount of moisture
has been added to the mix.
The raw sinter mix is then fed from a swinging spout feeder onto the
moving pallets or grates of the strand. The sinter bed then enters the ignition
furnace. The radiant hood ignition furnace ignites the coke breeze on the
surface of the sinter bed and, as the bed moves along the traveling grate, air
is pulled down through the bed to burn the fuel by downdraft combustion. The
radiant furnace is always fired on natural gas. As the pallets move over the
windboxes toward the discharge end of the strand, the burning zone moves deeper
into the bed. The speed of the traveling grates (9 ft/min) is controlled by
observing the quality of the sinter leaving the stand and monitoring the waste
gas temperature in the windboxes. Every two hours an operator takes a sample of
the sinter and performs a basicity test to insure that the proper grade of
sinter is being produced. Another sample of the cooled sinter is analyzed to
determine its size distribution. The sinter size should be 65 percent greater
than 3 mesh.
At the discharge end, the sinter falls off the strand into a sinter breaker.
The oversized sinter is then cooled in the rotating thermal draft cooler, dumped
-------
onto a conveyor belt and transported to a storage pile in the ore yard. The hot
fines from the breaker are transported to a hot returns hopper equipped with a
vibrating feeder. These fines are returned to the process as described
previously. Neither the breaker nor the sinter cooler has a separate air
pollution control device. Emissions from the breaker box are exhausted to the
windboxes but the collection efficiency of this system is marginal.
The windbox gases and particulates enter a gas main under the sintering
machine and are transported to cyclone separators which remove the large
particles. The effluent from the cyclones enters an electrostatic precipitator
for final particulate removal. The cyclone dust is recycled to the primary pug
mill, and the electrostatic precipitator dust is recycled to the secondary pug
mill. The cleaned gas is then exhausted to the atomosphere through an ID fan
and a stack.
4.1.2 Number 3 Sinter Plant
The basic operation of No. 3 sinter plant is similar to that of No. 2
sinter plant except the feed material does contain revert material.
The No. 3 sinter plant at Gary includes three sinter strands, two 6 feet
wide and one 8 feet wide. The two 6 foot strands are Dwight-Lloyd, (1254 ft )
and the 8 foot strand is by Dravo-Lurgi (1294 ft ). The design production rates
are 5,000 tons per day for each line, although 4,000 tons/ day is more common.
Sinter basicity is about 1.2. Blast furnace sludge, ore, mill scale, and sinter
fines are all used as feed. The conveyor belts are fed from table feeders.
Some of the feeders have gravimetric control, and the others require manual
calibration. The plant does not use a hearth layer. The strand is natural gas-
fired under a radiant hood. A refractory heat retainer follows the ignition
hood over the strand. Most of the first half of the strand is covered with a
hood which is fed air from one of the fans on the circular sinter cooler as a
heat conservation recycle to the windbox. Gas recycle was 15 to 20 percent of
sinter cooler gas flow. The plant utilizes a sinter breaker, hot screening, a
circular cooler, and cold screening.
10
-------
Windbox emissions are controlled by electrostatic precipitators, one for
each sinter line. The ESP's were original equipment (Koppers design) for the
shop, dating about 1958. The precipitators each have had a general rebuild over
the last several years. Gas flow per line is 10,194 acmm at 177°C (360,000
acfm at 350°F). A policeman is used ahead of the ESP. The ESP hoppers are
emptied with a chain conveyor.
The discharge end gases are cleaned in baghouses, one per strand. The
baghouses were designed by Gary Works and built by American Bridge in the late
1960's. Each baghouse includes 10 compartments of 88 bags each. Each bag is
29.21 cm (11 1/2 in.) in diameter, 9.14 meters (30 ft) long, and is set on
35.6 cm (14 in.) centers with two bag reach from the aisles. Design flow rates
are 4,858 acmm at 127°C (171,550 acfm at 261°F) each and includes the discharge
end of the line, the hot sinter conveyor, the hot screen, and the entry portions
of the sinter cooler. The cleaning mechanism for the bags is reverse air, and
the bag fabric is silicone treated fiberglass. The cleaning cycle for a com-
partment occurs about once per hour, and consists of venting the clean side
(outside) of the bags to atmospheric pressure, causing the bags to collapse.
This collapse cycle is repeated three more times in rapid succession. The dust
drops by gravity to the hopper, through dust valves, and, periodically, by
gravity chute to a conveyor belt. There is a cold screening station which is
also controlled with a fabric filter.
During the Level 1 sampling test at No. 3 sinter plant, the following raw
materials were being used to make sinter:
Revert Blend (90 tons/hr)
Roll Scale 17 tons/hr
Sludge 17 tons/hr
#13 Ore Fines 35 tons/hr
Cold BOF Slag 17 tons/hr
Cold Scrap 4 tons/hr
QCM Ore Fines 60 tons/hr
Dolomite 9 tons/hr
Limestone 16 tons/hr
Coke 9 tons/hr
11
-------
Cold Fines 54 tons/hr
Hot Fines 75 tons/hr
Total Mix 313 tons/hr
Level 1 sampling was conducted in the ductwork prior to the air pollution
control equipment on the uncontrolled windbox particulate and gaseous emissions
at both sinter plants.
4.2 SAMPLING
All components of the sampling equipment had been calibrated by Acurex
prior to testing at U.S. Steel. The solvents used were Mallinckrodt Nanograde
reagents. The 30 percent H202» ammonium persulfate, and silver nitrate were
Mallinckrodt Analytical Grade reagents. The XAD-2 resin and SASS train com-
ponents were cleaned and samples recovered by Level 1 procedures. Care was
taken throughout these operations to prevent contamination. Figure 2 is a flow
scheme showing the steps taken for the sampling and Figures 3 and 4 show the
sample recovery procedures.
Prior to the SASS tests, preliminary velocity and temperature traverses of
the ducts to be tested were made to determine an approximate sampling nozzle
size. Static pressure measurements were also made because the ducts were under
significant negative pressure (i.e., upstream of the air pollution control
equipment and ID fan). Based on preliminary measurements of velocity pressure
~ 2.6 mmHg (1.4 in. water), stack gas temperature of 185°C (365°F), and static
pressure of 37.4 mmHg (20 in. water), a nozzle size of 12.65 mm (0.4980 in.) was
selected for the test (exact nozzle size of 12.95 cm (0.5100 in.) being unavail-
able.
Sampling at both the No. 2 and No. 3 sinter plants took place in the gas
main after the windboxes and before pollution control equipment. A 7.6 cm (3
in.) diameter nipple had been welded into place on each duct to allow access for
the SASS probe.
Sampling was conducted at a single point in the duct (no traverse) using a
flowrate through the SASS train of about 0.11 scmm (4 scfm) to insure proper
separation of the sampled particulates in three cyclones. The sampling probe
and the oven containing the cyclones and filter holder were maintained at 204°C
12
-------
Attach Nozzle to Probe
Attach Prose to Oven
Attach Teflon Ho** to Filter Holder
Assenble SASS t
at Sampling Sit
i
Level and Zero Hagnehelic Gauges
Record Clock Tine
Record Dry Gas Meter Reading
Record .'P. V. Ts
Set .'H C J.OO (-4 scfir)
Read Remaining Gauges
Leak Check fron
lOu Cyclone at
1
Record Stop Time and Other Data
«—
Prepare Oiidizl
Solutions In Of
;
rain Components
e
Conne
Conne
Conne
Conne
•
ct Teflon Hose to Organic Module
ct Organic Hodule to Inpinqe'S
Ct Imp infers
Ct Impinger Train to Pumps
ct Pumps to Control Module
Front on
9
Record Lead Rate and Fill*-'
famber on Field Data She<»*.
fig Impinger
flee
Impir
(W
Impir
i>
•>
ff>
f»
(S.
«
ger «1 750 ml. 30 H,0->
ger *2. 13 750 ml. 0 2M
4)2S;Oa ind 0.02M /UNOj
ger »4 750 GM. Silica Gel
-
Charge Impinger Train at
Sampling Site and Heat up
Train to «00°F
i
Team Leader Che
Operator
'
Position Probe
Sampling Point
•
Start SA
c
Add Ice to Impinger Train
as heeded
ci *Hh Process
.
at Single
In Duct
-
SS Test
Insure Process Operating
Properly
Gather Process Data and Feed
Stream Samples
i
Sample at 4 SCFM Until Filter
Plugs
Record Data on Field Data
Sheet
1
Stop Sampling. Remove Probe
fron Duct. Change Filter
Holders
Recover Plugged Filter i\
with New filter
Heat up Train to 400°F, Insert
Probe In Duct and Contlmiv
Sampling
Repeat Until Test Is Complete
Record Final Readings
Disassemble SASS train. Seal
Components in Foil and
Transport to O'fice
Figure 2. SASS train sampling procedures
13
-------
u Cyclone Dutt
Connector Tube and
Filter Holder
Clisi fiber filters
Transfer ttust to
llhtled rolyetnylrne
dime and Irtish >lth 1:1
Kethtnol/Hethylenr
Tr«»s'er (liter to
Separate libtlH 'Ftrt
OMh
Sei>t>er Glass
>al 'or Miio-rxt to
l)|•^ear(M Trtjnqle Intl.
Figure 3. Recovery of samples from front half of SASS train.
-------
cn
Teflon Hose and Internal
Surfaces of Organic
Module
XAO-Z Cartridge
' '
Rinse and Brush with
Hethylene Chloride
Teflon Hose
^
Transfer XAD-2 to
Amber Class Jar
1 }
Transfer Washings to
Labeled Amber Glass
Bottle
Inpinger fl
•
Rinse with 1:1
IPA/DI Water
!
Rinse Cartridge with
Kethylene Chloride
1 ' 1
Seal for Shipment to
Research Triangle Inst.
Impinger 12. n
1
Measure Volume and
Record
1
Transfer Washings to
Labeled Amber Glass
Bottle
r i
Transfer Washings to
Labeled Amber Glass Jar
Containing XAD-Z
1
Seal for Shipment to
Research Triangle Inst.
Inpinger 14
i
Measure Volume and
Record
'
Dinse Connector. Stem.
Bottle with 1:1
IPA/DI Water
l
Seal for Shipment to
Research Triangle Inst
Rinse Connectors, Stems
Bottle with 1:1
IPS/01 water
\
Transfer Impinger
Contents to Labeled
Polyethylene Battle
i
r
Transfer Upinger
Contents to Labeled
Polythylene Bottle
. \
Seal for Shipment to
Research Triangle Inst.
Seal for Shipment to
Research Triangle Inst.
•»
Weigh Silica Gel "
and Discard f
•No condensate collected In glass condensate jar.
Figure 4. Recovery of samples from back half of SASS train.
-------
1
a
PUM U.S. Steel, Gary
IOCATIOH ESP Inlet 13 Sinter Plant
iTKitoi««Tt« d».) 9' - 9.75"
00 DIVISIONS tl».) I (ID.)
#2 Strand
4.01
CAT* 6-26-78
"* 1313
Run SASS
4.01
C OCERAWS Gilchrist, Heffernan
STATIC PRESSURE (IK.UG.) -29.0
AMItXT PRESSURE (IK.HG.) £9.29
T»P£ S PHOT COCFF1CIEHT .778
4.05
STACK PRESSURE (IH.HS.)-27.15
HXfOJUB rtlWT (Lfl/LB-KHC)
KETER 601 *UWE« 001 5
WIFICE WTEH COEFFICIENT 3.74 a =0.96
PH09E IfHSTH (FT.) 5' QlflSS lined
HOZZIE 01AMTTER (IN.) 0.4980"
IS-142-030 IS-142-035
1S-142-029 IS-142-033
IS-142-007 IS-142-031
1S-142-00? IS-142-026
FILTER NUMBER
LEAK RATE 0.045 9 21" H,
SAWU»S CAT*
Filter 1 10 min
Filter 2 7 nin
Filter 3 7 min
Filter 4 4.3 nin
4.0 min
Filter 5. 9.0 min
Filter 6 6.45 mir
3.0 min
FilterJ_ 7.0 nin
Filter 8 7.0 min
1
i
1
1
(OF
Sibling
Point
HuiOtr
2.5
Clock
TIM
1313
1342
Stick G*>
m
338
343
X
355
333
X
315
305
X
348
X
298
X
295
293
X
245
245
X
241
X
243
239
262
272
291.7
Sf
395
398
X
412
406
X
4CO
400
X
395
X
400
X
392
395
X
405
395
X
399
X
406
394
405
393
Gu:ltt Ttnp
CO
X
X
X
X
X
X
.
Cf)
401
399
X
401
402
X
406
405
X
401
X
407
X
400
402
X
401
402
X
403
X
402
599
397
397
3-v CiS M-tcr T«.
Inlet
93
101
X
101
104
X
104
106
X
105
X
107
X
107
107
X
108
110
X
111
X
106
106
106
107
W-
Outlet
CO
97
93
X
100
101
X
104
105
X
107
X
107
X
108
108
X
109
109
X
110
X
108
108
107
107
105.5
Velocity
feid
1.2
1.3
X
1.2
1.2
X
1.1
1.1
X
1.2
X
1.1
X
1.0
1.2
X
1.0
1.1
X
1.2
X
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
OHflee
(In. .?.)
2.0
2.2
X
2.2
2.2
X
. 2.2
2.2
X
2.2
X
2.2
X
2.2
2.2
X
2.2
2.2
X
2.2
X
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
C»i teur
Volu«e
035.800
054.84
075.334
075.334
096.36
104.765
104.765
126.95
134.199
134.199
152.715
152.715
169.300
169.300
190.89
207.662
207.662
229.27
235.332
235.332
247.565
247.565
269.16
277.392
299.07
.,3,07.120
ToU)
271,32
Vicuuw
(In. ng.)
14/17
17/20
X
16/19
20/21
X
16/19
20/21
X
15/18
X
20/21
X
16/19
20/21
X
16/19
20/22
X
19/21
X
17/20
20/21
17/20
20/22
1.056
Figure 5. Sampling data for SASS test at No. 3 sinter plant.
16
-------
M
V
1
M
HMT U.S. Steel. Gary. Indiana
ueATiw Ka1n Wtndbox Gas Main Before Cyclones 12 S1nt*r Plant
JT»CJ Btwrrn (ii.)
_ WCTDDMSICM 120 in. x 120 in.
[MTT 6/22/78
Trw4:30 pm
•01 SASS
4.B C cn»«e« Knlrck. Gtlchrljt
f STATIC muat (H.M.) -20.0
4.u 1 Jminr ntnsuu (I».H§.) 29.46
|_ Tin s HTW camicinrr 0.778
ST«« *u»*i (M.M.). 23.02 178-95
4.07 KXCOUU HI IWT (U/U-HXI) • -96
^» -36
142-024
4.0*
Stop to change—^
filter
Stop to chance .
filter «Te»"
Stop to change—- £
filter
Stop to change— 4
filter
>cm HI *u*n 0015 FILTER NUMStR
O»IHM HTM COWICIMT 3.74 o . Q.96 LEAK RATE
«OM LWW (IT.) 5' gla,j 11,^1
_ wzat oi*«n« (u.) 0.4930
*^V,"f
"****'
^Id-point
ClKk
Tlk.
4:38
4:52
5:22
5:33
6:14
6:27
6:55
7:10
7:57
8:11
S6,.-.1n
FMTlClJlATf VmiM WT«
Stick CM
CO
330
335
330
290
300
313
301
320
335
345
292
268
275
302
nn
Tne
CM
OutUiTi.
CM
77
77
.
78
OrM
T-0
CM
400
335
397
400
100
900
245
too
295
250
too
210
>. -------
(400°F) which was considerably above the stack gas temperature at both locations.
The XAD-2 cartridge was maintained at 15.6°C (60°F) and the impinger temperature
varied between 21 and 26.7°C (70 and 80°F).
Prior to and during the course of the test, one member of the crew made
sure that the strand was operating and recorded process operating data. During
the run, sampling data were recorded on field data sheets (Figures 5 and 6).
Because of the heavy particulate matter concentration of < 1 n size in the
windbox gases, several filter changes were required during each SASS test.
3 3
Although normal Level 1 procedure is to collect about 30 nr (1000 ft ) of gas,
this volume was not collected in either test due to the excessive number of
filter changes (five and eight) required and the excessive time needed to raise
the oven temperature to 204°C (400°F) after each filter change. Minimum volume
collected was 7.3 dscm (260 dscf). Raw feed samples were obtained for both
sinter strands.
18
-------
5.0 TEST RESULTS
5.1 ON-SITE RESULTS
The Acurex Corporation acquired the data at the sampling sites (Tables
3 and 4). Sampling rates were near isokinetic for both tests (120 percent
in Series I—No. 3 plant and 134.7 percent in Series 2—No. 2 plant). In
3 3
neither case was the 30 m (1000 ft ) sample recommended by Level 1 procedures
obtained. High particulate grain loadings in the uncontrolled windbox gases
consistently plugged the 1 p filter at about 9 minute intervals. Thirty to
forty minutes were required to change the filter and reheat the cyclone oven
to the Level 1 prescribed 204°C (400°F). Total sampling time for either location
3 3
was in excess of one hour, with a minimum of 7.3 m (260 ft ) of sample taken.
No on-site gas analyses for low molecular weight organics or inorganic
species were made.
5.2 ANALYSIS OF SASS TRAIN SAMPLES
Data presented in this section are the results of analyses performed by
Research Triangle Institute. Figures 7 and 8 show the analysis procedure used
for each sample.
5.2.1 Total Particulate Loading
The total mass of particulates in the sinter plant windbox gases (before
the control devices) and their concentration is given in Table 5. For sinter
plant No. 3 (processing revert material, Series 1) 79 percent of the particulate
is greater than 3 y in size. Over 12 percent of the particulate was captured
by the < 1 y filter. For the sinter plant not processing revert material (No. 2,
Series 2), 86 percent of the captured dust was over 3 y in size. About 6 per-
cent of the particulate matter was captured on the < 1 y filter.
19
-------
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA FOR NO. 2 SINTER PLANT
U.S. STEEU. GARY^ INDIANA
Date of Test:
Volume of Gas Sampled:
Stack Gas Temperature:
Stack Gas Pressure:
Stack Gas Dry Molecular Weight:
Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight:
Stack Gas Moisture:
Stack Gas Velocity:
Stack Gas Flowrate:3
Total Sampling Time:
SASS Train Flowrate:
% Isokinetic:
6/22/78
371.173 dscf
310°F
28.02 inches Hg
29.18 Ib/lb-mole
28.93 Ib/lb-mole
2.2%
81.7 ft/sec (single point)
242714 dscfma
66 minutes
5.62 dscfm
134.7
Average flowrate measured during 3 compliance tests at ESP outlet was
153766 dscfm.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING DATA FOR NO. 3 SINTER PLANT
U.S. STEEL. GARY, INDIANA
Date of Test:
Volume of Gas Sampled:
Stack Gas Temperature:
Stack Gas Pressure:
Stack Gas Dry Molecular Weight:
Stack Gas Wet Molecular Weight:
Stack Gas Moisture:
Stack Gas Velocity:
Stack Gas Flowrate
Total Sampling Time:
SASS Train Flowrate:
% Isokinetic:
6/26/78
260.666 dscf
292°F
27.16 inches Hg
28.96 Ib/lb-mole
28.22 Ib/lb-mole
6.7%
69.5 ft/sec (single point)
18441 dscfm
64.75 minutes
4.02 dscfm
120
20
-------
1C 10
1C 3
IC1
IF
IPW
IX
ISC
I imp 1
I imp 23
1 Process Feed
310
o
o)
c
'E
15
I
•A
o
CO
i ?
CO <
—A A—
u
2
+-•
X
01
•M
1
CO
—A —
0
U
.A —
CC .f.
o SE
— a A
-9 9 9 Q-
9
-9 - 9 - O - •
O
2
tiz
o
c
o
'^
ra
uZ
o
cc
o
c
o
'5
S
u.
O
-9 - 9
O - 9
c
_g
o
w
LL
O
CO
CO
2
o
CJ
9 - 9
9 - O - O 9
Figure 7. Analytical Procedures for Sinter Plant No. 3.
21
-------
•§.
o
S
1
2
iS
X
w
1
w
w
U.
O
I
1
U.
ro
o
IIC 10
IIC3
IIC1
IIP
IIPW
MX
I ISC
II imp 1
11 imp 23
Figure 8. Analytical Procedures for Sinter Plant No. 2.
22
-------
TABLE 5. TOTAL MASS OF EMITTED PARTICLES
Test Series No.
Plant No.
Sample Point
Volume of gas sampled
TOTAL PARTICULATE
2
2
1
3
Windbox gas main before the cyclones
10.510 m"
7.381 m
3
10 y cyclone
3 v cyclone
1 y cyclone
Filter
Probe and cyclone rinses
TOTAL
TOTAL CONCENTRATION, mg/m3
10 y cyclone
3 y cyclone
1 u cyclone
Filter
Probe and cyclone rinses
TOTAL
6.2700 gms
0.9789
0.5533
0.4921
0.1512
8.4455
597
93
53
47
14
804 mg/m3
5.8654 gms
2.2865
0.7235
1.3027
0.1956
10.3737
795
310
100
175
25
1,405 mg/m
The total particulate loading for sinter plant No. 2 was 804 mg/m while
sinter plant No. 3 particulate concentration was 1,405 mg/m . It is interesting
to note that the plant processing revert material contains a larger fraction of
submicron particulates.
5.2.2 Level 1 Organic Analysis
Total organic material extracted from the various' SASS train components
for both test runs is summarized in Table 6. Low, but not insignificant amounts
of organic matter were found in the sinter plant No. 3 particulates. About 87
percent of the total organic material was found in the XAD-2 extract, 78 percent
of which falls into the GRAV range (high boiling point material).
23
-------
TABLE 6. TOTAL EXTRACTABLE ORGAN ICS. rng/m
Test Series 1 2
Process Sinter Plant No. 3 Sinter Plant No. 2
PARTICULATE EXTRACTS
10 + 3 y 0.15 0.38
1 + Filter 0.99 0.29
Probe + Cyclone 2.17 2.38
Rinses
XAD-2 22.35 1.79
Process Feed Sample 179.9 mg/Kg
Total organic emissions in the windbox are about 16 percent of the organic
in the feed material.
Calculation:
25.66 mg/m organics in emission
320,150 m3/hr gas flow (313 ton feed/hr)
3
1,023 m /ton of feed material
26,246 mg/ton feed
179.9 mg organic/Kg feed material
163,241 mg organic/ton feed
25.66 mg/m3 x 1023 m3/ton feed m 0>16>
179.9 mg/Kg feed x 907.4 kg/ton
Substantially lower organic emissions were found from sinter plant No. 2
(no revert material). Although organics contained in the particulates are not
substantially different for the two runs, a ten-fold decrease in organics
captured by the XAD-2 resin was found. Since samples from sinter plant No. 2
were not received by RTI until two months after sampling, there is a possibility
that some loss or degradation of the organic material occurred. Because most
of the recovered material in the XAD-2 resin from both runs was GRAV (high
boiling) organics, it is not believed that a loss of this magnitude could have
occurred.
24
-------
Level 1 analysis procedures recommend subjecting each SASS extract con-
taining more than 0.5 mg/m of total organics to a liquid chromatography (LC)
3
fractionation. For a 30 m sample this amounts to a minimum of 15 mg of organic
sample, which is the minimum size for which a good LC separation can be done.
No samples containing less than 15 mg of organic matter was subjected to LC
3
even though less than 30 m of sample was collected. Using this criteria, only
the process feed and the XAD-2 SASS samples required LC workup. Both extracts
were taken through LC separations, and the seven LC fractions from each were
analyzed for TCO and GRAV as well as by IR and LRMS. The LC, IR, and LRMS data
are given in the Appendices. From these data the organic species in each
extract were classified into compound categories and the concentration of each
category estimated. Concentration estimates are based on GRAV material only
since the procedures used removed TCO before IR or LRMS spectra were obtained.
Strong peaks in the IR and LRMS were assigned intensity factors of 100; weak
and very weak peaks were assigned intensitites of 10. The GRAV concentration
3
in mg/m was then apportioned to each compound category according to its intensity
factor such that the sum for all categories in a specific LC fraction equalled
the GRAV concentration for that fraction. Tables 7 and 8 show these results
for sinter plant No. 3 and Table 9 is a comparison of the organic extracts. No
LC work was done on the sinter plant No. 2 samples because of their uncertain
history. Regardless of the results that might have been obtained, the results
could have been attributed to sample degradation and were, therefore, not
deserving of complete analysis.
Interesting aspects of the data are:
1. Aliphatic hydrocarbons are shown to be the predominate
category in both feed material and sinter emissions (IX).
2. Substituted benzenes and fused aromatics are the second
major category. Over 50 percent of the fused aromatics
have molecular weights greater than 216. Carcinogenic
material usually has molecular weights above 216.
3. Compound categories in the sinter emission are in about the
same relative proportion as the categories in the raw feed
(Table 9).
4. The LRMS data (Appendix A) contains several molecular weights
associated with known carcinogens.
25
-------
TABLE 7. ORGANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY TABLE
Sample ix — XAD-2 Resin and Module Rinse
o
Total Organic*, mg/mj
TCO. ing
GRAV, mg
LCI '
8.16
24.0
36.2
LC2
4.24
16.7
14.6
LC3
0.69
0.6
4.5
LC4
0.73
2«6
2.3
LC5
0.22
0.0
1.6
LCC
2.03
6.9
8.1
LC7
0.16
0.0
1.2
2
16.23
50.8
69
Category
int/mg/m3 (Based on GRAV only)
Allphatics
Halo alijjhatics
Subst. Benzenes
Halo Benzenes
Fused Aromatics
Hetero N CmjDds
Hetero 0 Cmpds
Hetero S Cmpds
Alkyl S Cmpds
Nitriles
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitroaromatics
Ethers, Epoxides
Alcohols
Phenols
Amines
inn/4.R
10/0.4
-
10/0.09
100/0.9
10/0.09
100/0.9
_ • •
100/0.29
10/0.03
100/0.29
*
100/0.09
inn/Q.nq
inn/n.nq
10/0.01
100/0.09
10/0U01
10/0.01
100/0.03
inn/n.m
100/0.03
in/n.nn;
10/0.00:
100/0.03
io/0o0o:
100/0.03
in/n.nn:
10/0.00:
10/0. oo:
100/0.2
in/n.n?
ion/o.?
100/0:2
100/0.2
100/0.06
in/n.nnfi
in/n.nofi
10/0.006
10/0n006
4.5
0.49
1.19
0.12
1.19
0.38
n.i?
0.12
n_n?q
0.013
0..12
0.013
Oo04
o.?nq
0.209
0.209
r\>
OTl
-------
TABLE 7. (cont'd)
OnG ANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY TABLE
Total Organic?, mg/m
TCO, mg
GRAV.mo
Sample U
LCI'
,!.•• 1 '•
LC2
— .1 • ••
LC3
LC4
LC5
LCC
LC7
,
2
— — ^ —
(Based on GRAV only)
-------
TABLE 8. ORGANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY TABLE
Sample Process" Feed (No. 3 Plant)
Total Organic*, mg/m
TCO. mg
GRAV. mg
LCT
91.0
1.0
54.0
LC2
24.5
1.6
13.2
LC3
12.2
0.6
6.8'
LC4
7.3
0.0
4.4
LC5
6.0
0.0
3.6
LCG
19.2
0.4
11.2
LC7
2.6
fl.O
1.6'-
2
162.8
3.6
94.8
Category
Int/mg/Kg (Based on GRAV only)
\liphatics
lalo aliphatics
Subst. Benzenes
lalo Benzenes
rused Aromatics
tetero N Cmpds
tetero 0 Cmpds
Hetero S CmDds
Alkvl S Crooks
Ntt.rilfx;
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitroaromatics
Ethers, Eooxides
Al cohol s
Phenols
Amines
100/81.2
10/8.1
*
10/1.0
100/10.0
10/1.0
100/10.0
•
100/5.2
10/0.5
100/5.2
•
«
100/1.4
100/1.4
100/1.4
10/0.1
100/1.4
10/0,1
100/1.4
100/0.8
100/0.8
100/0-8
10/0.1
10/0.1
100/0.8
10/0.1
100/Q,8
100/0.8
100/0.8
100/0.8
100/3.4
10/0,4
100/3.4
100/3.4.
100/3.4
10/0.4
10/0.4
10/0.4
81.2
9.1
15.2
1.5
15.2
5.6
2.2
2.2
0.5
0.2
2.2
0.2
2.2
4.6
4.6
• 4.6
CD
-------
TABLE 8. (cont'd)
ORGANIC EXTRACT SUMMARY TABLE
*1 '
Total Organicj, mg/m
TCO. rng
GRAV, mg
LCI '
LC2
LC3
LC4
LC5
LCG
LC7
" :.
'•
2
Category
Int/mg/Kg (Based on GRAV only)
Amides
Esters
Carboxylic Acids
Sulfonic Acids and Sulfones •
•
t
-
•
. - * '
•
10/0.1
10/0.1
100/3.4
10/0.4
10/0.4
10.0.4
• +
10/0.4
10/0.4
10/0.4
10/0.4
3.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
157,7
-------
TARI E 9. COMPARISON OF ORGANIC EXTRACTS FOR SINTER PLANT NO. 3
LCI
TOTAL ORGANICS3
Sample IX 50.3
Process Feed 55.9
TCO
Sample IX 47.2
Process Feed 27.8
GRAV
Sample IX 52.5
Process Feed 57.0
Compound Category
Aliphatics
Halo Aliphatics
Substituted Benzenes
Halo Benzenes
Fused Aromatics
Hetero N Compounds
Hetero 0 Compounds
Hetero S Compounds
Alkyl S Compounds
Nitriles
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitro Aromatics
Ethers, Epoxides
Alcohols
Phenols
Amines
Amides
Esters
Carboxylic Acids
Sulfonic Acids and Sulfoxides
LC2 LC3 LC4
26.1 4.3 4.5
15.0 7.5 4.5
32.9 1.2 5.1
44.4 16.7 0
21.1 6.5 4.1
13.9 7.2 4.6
Process Feed
51.5
5.8
9.6
1.0
9.6
3.6
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.1
1.4
0.1
1.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
LC5 LC6
1.4 12.5
3.7 11.8
0 13.6
0 11.1
2.3 11.7
3.8 11.8
Sample IX
48.1
5.2
12.7
1.3
12.7
4.1
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.1
1.3
0.1
0.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
0.3
3.1
0.3
0.3
LC7
1.0
1.6
0
0
1.7
1.7
aAll data is in percent, calculated as follows: Total organics, TCO, and GRAV
calculated by dividing the total rng/m3 or rug found in each LC fraction (see
Tables 8 and 9) by the sum of the LC fractions for that component.
bAll data is in percent, calculated as follows: (see Tables 8 and 9), the sum
of each compound category for each sample was divided by the sum of all com-
pound categories for that sample.
30
-------
In Table 10 the organic emissions from sinter plant No. 3 are compared to
AIR-Health MATE values. The percent control potentially required is calculated
for the sample actually analyzed (IX) and for the total organic emissions
(assuming all the organic found has the same compound categories in the same
proportion as sample IX). The percent control in all cases was calculated
using the lowest MATE value listed for the category.
5.2.3 GC-MS Analysis
One extract (IX) was subjected to GC-MS analysis for identification and
quantification of potential carcinogenic compounds. The concentrated extract,
before any LC separation, was used. Single ion current plots were obtained for
m/e's 178, 202, 228, 252, 276, 278, and 302. All plots except 178 and 202 were
blank, i.e., no mass associated with those m/e's. There are two possible
explanations for the difference in the GC-MS and LRMS results. It is possible
that the masses found in the LRMS are fragments of much higher molecular weight
compounds. These high molecular weight compounds would not have eluted from
the GC column, therefore, their fragmentation pattern would not appear in the
GC-MS plot. This is the most likely explanation for m/e's 252 and 228 and is
a possible explanation for the masses above 270.
The second possible explanation involves the capabilities of the GC-MS
system and column as used. With the column and conditions used, low volatility
compounds, like polynuclear compounds, above molecular weights of about 270 are
eluted from the GC very poorly, if at all. Thus, it is possible that compounds
having m/e's of 276, 278, and 302 (for example, indenopyrene, benzoperlene,
dibenzoanthracene, and dibenzopyrene) were actually in the sample but not
detected by the GC-MS. Most of these compounds are known to have carcinogenic
properties.
Table 11 presents the GC-MS data, showing the four polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons identified and the calculated concentration in the flue gas. None
of these compounds are known to have carcinogenic properties.
31
-------
TABLE 10. TOTAL EXTRACTABLE ORGANICS, SINTER PLANT NO. 3
co
ro
Compound
Category
Aliphatics
Halo Aliphatics
Sub. Benzenes
Halo Benzenes
Fused Aroma tics
Hetero N Cmpds.
Hetero 0 Cmpds.
Hetero S Cmpds.
Alkyl S Cmpds.
Nitriles
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitro Aromatics
Ethers, Epoxides
Alcohols
Phenols
Ami nes
Esters
Carboxylic Acids
Sulfonic Acids
AIR-Health
Value-Range
mg/m
500-10,000
0.1-7,000
1-600
0.7-700
lx!0"4-300
0.1-100
500
6-50
0.9-90
2-80
0.4-3,000
1-300
200-3,000
30-8,000
3-200
0.1-80
8-800
0.5-300
0.8-200
Emission
Analyzed
As Sample
3
IX, mg/m
4.5
0.49
1.19
0.12
1.19
0.38
0.12
0.12
0.03
0.01
0.12
0.01
0.04
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.29
0.03
0.03
% Control
Potentially
Required
0
0-80
0-16
0
0-99.99°
0-74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-52
0
0
0
Total b
Organic
Emissions
mg/m
12.4
1.35
3.28
0.33
3.28
1.05
0.33
0.33
0.08
0.028
0.33
0.028
0.11
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.80
0.08
0.08
% Control
Potentially
Required
0
0-93
0-70
0
0-99. 99C
0-90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0-83
0
0
0
and Sulfoxides
-------
TABLE 10. (cont'd)
This column is the result of LC. IR, and LRMS analysis of sample IX and is
based on the GRAV weight only. This GRAY weight is 58 percent of the total
orgamcs in sample IX and 36.3 percent of the total organics captured during
the emissions test.
bThis column is obtained by dividing the data in the column referred to in
Note a by 0.363 (ratioing GRAV found in IX to total organics found). The
assumption made is that all TCO and GRAV material captured during the test is
identical to the GRAV component of sample IX. This is probably a poor
assumption, especially for the TCO components, but it does allow an indication
of the total emission level.
cBased on the most toxic or carcinogenic members of the category
for these compounds was found by GC-MS analysis.
No evidence
TABLE 11. PQLYCYCLIC DRRANTr
SAMPLE IX
Compound
MW
Concentration, mg/nf
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Fluoranthene
d10Anthracene (IS)
178
178
202
202
188
0.254
0.042
0.128
0.146
0.054
Ion Source Temperature
Electron Energy
Trap Current
Ace. Voltage
Start Time
Column Name
Flow
Inj. Temp.
Column Temp.
Sep. Temp.
210°C
70 ev
50 ma
3500 V
120
1% SE-30 19M
2.54 ml/15.0 MU
265°C
Held at 100°C for 2 min then heated at 8°C/min
to 265°C
275°C
Multiplier Setting
Interval Time
Factor
425
2.4
0.0
33
-------
5.2.4 Inorganic Analysis
Atomic absorption analyses of samples from No. 3 sinter plant are
presented in Table 12. Arsenic, antimony, and mercury appear to be contained
almost exclusively in the particulate matter. Their emission from the sintering
process will, therefore, depend on the efficiency of the particulate control
equipment used.
TABLE 12. ARSENIC, MERCURY, AND ANTIMONY DETERMINATIONS BY
ATOMIC ABSORPTION
Sample Code
As
Hg
Sb
1 C1F
1 C310
1 X
1 IMP 1
1 IMP 23
TOTAL
Process Feed
0.0142
0.0133
ND
ND
ND
0.0275
ND*
0.00062
0.00033
0.00247
ND
ND
0.00342
mg/Kg
0.272
0.0111
0.0206
ND
ND
ND
0.0317
ND*
*The reason for As and Sb appearing in some samples but not in
the feed sample is not readily apparent.
Spark Source Mass Spectrographic (SSMS) analyses of the sample are pre-
sented in Tables 13 through 18. Table 13 presents the total inorganics found.
The original SSMS data for each sample are in Appendix A.
34
-------
TABLE 13. TOTAL INORGANICS, SINTER PLANT NO. 3
SPARK SOURCE MASS SPECTROSCQPY DATA
Element
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Clilorinc
Pho:phorui
Silicon
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Cirbon
Boron
Lithium
Hydrogen j
Health MATE
Value or Rang
mg/m3
0.2
0.015
0.050
0.7 - 9.0
5.0
0.001
0.5
6.0
16.0
2.0
1.0 -440
n.i - in
in
5.2 - 10
6-10
l~ 2 -53
3-10
0.002
0.022
At Sourcs
Mats/Volumt
W3/rfl or
an.
. 1.48
0.038
0.0047
45.4
7.93
0.075
0.017
0.233
32.2
5.77
15.16
3:08
0.791
10.81
2.54
Major
0.117
0.0006
0.006
% Control
Required
85.6
60.5
0
98.5r80.2
37
98.7
0
0
50
65.4
0-93.4
96.8-67.5
0
5.19-8
0
7 •
0
0
• o
35
-------
TABLE IV frnnt.'rn
Element
Cerium
Lanthanum
Barium
Cesium
Iodine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromina
Solonium
Arunic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Health MATE
Value or Range
mg/nH
37
no;-
, 0.5
, 82
UK
0.5
10
0.010
. 5.0
22
b.O
. 1.0
3.1
120
10
0.2
0.002
0.56
:0'.50
. 4.0
At Sourct
Miii/Volum*
mj/m3 or
PO/L
0.006
0.001
0.049
0.0011
0.013
0.0022
0.012
0.0045
IS
0.0042
0.0058
0.00084
0.0049
0.0021
0.037
0.064
0.034
<0.0056
0.0226
0.0029
0.0032
1.20
% Control
Required
0
0
0
0
UK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i:.Z
0
0
0
36
-------
TABLE 13. (cont'd)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Cold
Platinum
Iridium
Osmium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutecium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
ilolmium
Dysprosium
'erbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
Health MATE
Value or Rang
mg/m J
0.009
0.42
0.150
. 51
AtSourei
M»si/Vplumi
rng/m* or
Mil
< 0.0009
< 0.004
0.0017
0.657
0.0062
o . nn«j
0.0014
0.00015
% Control
Required
0
0
77.2
. ?
•
0
37
-------
TABLE 14. SSMS ANALYSIS SHEET, 1C1F
Contractor
Research Triangle Institute
U.S. Steel. GarV, IN _ Sampl. Acquisition Oat. - 6/26/78
Type of source Sinter Plant Windbox - before control device _
1C1 F
Ten Number _ _ - - . - Sample ID Number _ -
Descry 1 y Cyclone and Filter Particulates
Responsible Analyst GCA _ *— Date Analyzed
Calculations and Report Revievwd By , ReP°rt Dat9
Inrtmment : Resolution
Internal Standard(j> Indium
„.. ,c .1,1 M. 2.0262 grams (at source)
Original Sample Volume or Mass __ 2 i.
an c
Dilution Factor ou'J
Brief Description of Electrode Preparation .
0.1021 grams 1 p dust and 0.2084 gms of filter catch parr bombed and
taken up in 25 ml of solution. 20 ml of solution used in test.
38
-------
TABLE 14. (cont'd)
Element
Copper
Nickel
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Vanadium
Tilonium
Scandium
Calcium
Potassium
Clilurine
Sulphur
I'liosphoruj
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Sodium
Fluorine
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
lydiocjcn
Line Used
for
Estimate
Uncorrecttd
Sample
Value
Blank
Value
Corrected
Sample
Valuo
Sensitivity
Hijh/Low
Calibration
Slsndardi at
Concentration
Added
^
Attlgned
Concentration*
88.6
54.8
0.81
20128
475
24.2
5.39
31.4
16908
17713
5878
242
242
1610
5233
M
354
0.70
14.5
At Source
Miss/Volume
rog/m' or
PB/L
0.0243
0.015
0.00022
5.526
0.130
0.0066
0.0015
0.0086
4.64
4.86
l.bl
0.066
0.066
0.442
1.45
0.097
0.0002
0.004
00
'Results: PPM value (in original sample) or I • interference; NC - not computed; NO • umple value below blank; NO • not Jetecttble (<2o tlank).
-------
TABLE 1
Utah/Low
Cilibrition
Sundtrdi or
Concintrition
Added
Al Sourct
Miis/Volume
or
W/L
Corrected
SimpU
. Vilut
Uncomcted
Simpli
Vtlui
Lint Used
lor
Estimiti
Astljnid
ConctnUttion*
Lanthanum
Oaiium
Cesium
Iodine
Rhodium
Ruthenium
i; NO • not detectibU «2o blink).
-------
TABLE H. - (cont'd)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
'lalinum
Iridium
Osmium
flhcnium
Tungsten
Tantalum
lafnium
Lutecium
Ytterliium
Thulium
•(Ilium
lolinium
Jvjprosium
erbium
iadolinium
•uropium
Samarium
\leodymium
'rascodymium
Lint Used
(or
Estimaii
Uncorrtcttd
Sample
Vilut
Blink
Vtlu«
Corrected
Simple
Vilut
Sensitivity
High/Low
Cilibrition
Stindirds or
Concentration
Added
Assigned
Concentration*
3.22
2013
22.5
At Sourct
Mitt/Volume
rng/m-* or
W/L
0.0009
0.553
0.0062
"Results: PPM value (in original sample) or I • interference; NC - nut computed; NC • sample value below blink; KD - not detectable (< Jo blank)
-------
TABLE 15. SSMS ANALYSIS SHEET, 1C310
Contrartor Research Triangle Institute b
Sampl8Sit(, U.S. Steel. Gary. IN sampleAcquisitionDaw 6/26/78
TypeofSourai Sinter Plant. Windhnx - bfifnrp control
1C310
Test Number . Sample ID Number
samp.,caption 3 u and 10 y Cyclone Catches :
GCA
Responsible Anilyrt , Data Analyzed
Calculations and Htport flwkvwd By — R"P°rt
Instrument . , ^ Resolution
Indium
Internal Sandardd)
8.1519 gms at source (0.0995 gm tested)
Original Sample Volume or Mass •— •———-__—_ «-
Dilution Factor NEAT
Brief Description of Electrode Preparation
42
-------
TABLE
CO
High/Low
Cilibrition
Stindtrdi or
Concentiitlon
Added
At Sourci
Mtss/Votumt
mj/m" or
W/L
Corrected
Simplt
Valu»
Uncorrected
Simpli
Valui
Anlgnid
Concentration
Lint Used
for
Estimate
Scandium
^——^—'
Calcium
M
Potauium
• * "•
Chlorine
Phosplioruj
Silicon
Aluminum
Lithium
i •
Hydrogen
•Reiulu:
-------
TABLE 15. (cont'd)
ilement
;erium
Lanthanum
larium
;«ium
adine
Tellurium
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Ziiconiurn
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromini
Solonium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Lint Used
for
Estimate
Uncorrected
Simplt
Valui
Blink
Value
Corrected
Sample
. Value
Sensitivity
High/Low
Calibration
Standards or
Concentration
Added
Assiined
Concentration*
2.0
0.80
19.0
1.0
12.0
0.66
9.8
3.3
IS
1.6
2.8
0.73
3.9
1.6
23.0
5.5
24.0
<2.5
15.0
2.4
2.7
130.0
At Source
Miss/Volume
mj/m' or
W/L
0.0022
0.00088
0.021
0.0011
0.0133
0.00073
0.011
0.0036
0.0018
0.0031
0.00081
0.0043
0.0018
0.0254
0.0061
0.0265
< 0.0028
0.0166
7UUZ7
0.0030
0.1436
•flejulti: PPM velue (In original sample) or I • Interference; NC • not computed; NG • sample value below blank; NO • not detectable «2o blank).
-------
en
1 r\DLC. 1 v •
ilement
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
Osmium
Rhenium
Tungsten
Tantalum
Hafnium
Lutecium
Ytterbium
Thulium
Erbium
llolinium
Dysprosium
Terbium
Gadolinium
Europium
Samarium
Neodymium
Praseodymium
•fUsults: PPN
V<~UIIL UJ
Lint Used
far
Estimate
Uncorrected
SimpU
Vilut
-
Blink
Valut
Corrected
Sample
Vilut
- - i
Sensitivity
i
High/Low
Calibrition
Standards or
Concentration
Added
• -
Assigned
Concentrttion*
<0.81
<3.3
0.73
yu.u
•
4.5
1.3
. i *t
AtSourct
Uass/Volumt
m8/jL°r
< 0.00089
<0.0036
0.00081
0.099
0.0050
0.0014
.UUU ID
v.,u.(,r,criBin,., mplcJcr.- interference; NC . no. computed; NO -umplev^ue below blank; NO- not detect,.^*, Nan*,
-------
TABLE 16. SSMS ANALYSIS SHEET, IX
Research Triangle Institute
Contractor . fi/?fi/7R
U.S. Steel. Gary. IN shjonDat9 0/ '
Sample Site . — • ~
Sinter Plant Windbox - before control device
_ ,. . ___ Sample ID Number _1_
Test Number . • f
XAD-2 Rocin rparrbombed) and XAD-2 Resin blank (parrbombed)
Sample Description •• ~ "~ "
_ ... , . _ GCA 0,t8 Analyzed
Responsiblt Analyst •..—-
_ . , _ . Raport Date
Caloilrtionj and Raport Rwnw«d By . • — •
. __ Resolution
Instrument . '
Internal Standardfa) . Indium
130.33 grams at source
Original Samplt Voluma or Mass — —
pc
Dilution Factor t-J
Brief Description of Electrode Preparation
1 00 grams XAD-2 resin parr bombed and taken up in 25 ml of solution; 4.0 ml
of solution used in test. Same procedure used for sample and blank.
46
-------
•Y/\B\Fl6. (cont.'rO .. •
.lenient
Copper
Coll alt
Iron
Manganese
Chromium
Titanium
Scandium
Calcium
. • ••^^•— •
Potassium
_. _
Chlorine
Sulphur
Phosphorus
Silicon
Aluminum
Magnesium
Fluorine
Nitrogen
Carbon
Boron
Beryllium
Lithium
Hydrogen
Line Used
for
Estimate
1
Uneorreeted
Simple
Value
0.50
0 32
0.0023
375
0.086
0.24
0.011
0.18
1.8
1.0
18.0
0.12
3.9
8.6
0.31
5.0
0.24
-------
00
TARIF 16. front 'til
Element
;eiium
Lanthanum
aiium
Cesium
Iodine
ulluriuin
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Ytuium
Strontium
Rubidium
Bromine
Selenium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium
Zinc
Line Used
for
Estimate
Uncorrectid
Simple
Vilui
0079
1.096
0.094
IS
0.039
0.0072
0.0093
0.13
Blink
Viluo
0.040
0.012
0.20
IS
0.034
0.0017
0.019
— TT034
0.0031
0.12
Corrected
Simple
. Value
-------
TABLE 16-
-F*
ID
High/Low
Calibration
Standards or
Concintrition
Added
At Source
Mass/Volume
ma/in3 or
Corrected
Simple
Vtlut
Assigned
Concentration
Uncorrccled
Sample
Value
Line Uud
tor
Estimate
Uranium
_^——
Thorium
————
Qismuih
•. '
Lead
Thallium
-. '
Mercury
^^~IVH
Gold
Platinum
-• i •
IriJium
-
Osmium
~
Rhenium
_
Tungsten
Tanlilum
i. i i ' '
Hafnium
~
Lutecium
..I • i *^
Ytterbium
'•—
Tliuliurn
^•^ '
Erbium
_ .
llolmiuin
Terbium
—. . • •
Gadolinium
—.. —
Europium
••~
Samarium
..
Neodymium
-------
TABLE 17. SSMS ANA LYSIS SHEET, 1 IMP 1
Contractor Research Triangle Institute
Sample Site U.S. Steel, Gary. IN Sample Acquisition Date 6/26/78
Typeofsoure. Sinter Plant Windbox - Before control device
Ten Number , — Sample ID Number 1 ™1P '
samp!.Description First Impinqer and blank ;—_
Responsible Analyst - - - , - Date Analyzed
Calculations and Report Rwwvwii By -- — — Rsport Data
Instrument , _ Resolution
Intern,! Standard^ Indi^m .
_.. .. , tl , ... 750 ml at source
Original Sampl* Volumt or Man .
Dilution Factor None
Brief Description of Electrode Preparation
20 ml of solution used in test.
50
-------
TKBLE U
High/Low
CilibriUon
Stindtrds or
Conccntiition
Added
At Source
Mass/Volume
or
W/L
Collected
Simple
Value
Uncoirecttd
Sample
Value
Line Used
lor
Estimate
0.0038
on
13.0
o7
0.0023
0.65
0.022
O50
Copper
••«—-•«
Nickel
. i •
Cobalt
Iron
Mangmcse
_. -
Chromium
~
VtnaJium
00023
0.30
0.013
.0
0.0030
NG
Q.03Q
0.0013
0.35
0.0087
0.0091
0.0030
0.0008
Titenium
.
Scandium
i
Calcium
• - ••-
Potassium
.• •-
Chlorine
0.29
0.072
100.0
0.0
0.065
0.11
Sulphur
Phosphorus
. • —
Silicon
Aluminum
0.77
0.11
0.043
O7
Magnasum
——^-~
Sodium
Oxygen
11
Nitrogen
—
Cuban
—
Baron
• i •
Beryllium
-n nnm | O.o"002] NG
; computed; «C - »mp.e v^e7o« b.M; MO - no. det.ct.Me «2a tUnM.
-------
TABLE 17. (cont'd)
Element
Line Used
lor
Estimate
Uncometed
Simple
Vtlut
Blink
Vilue
Corrected
Simpli
. Value
High/Low
Ctlibrition
Slindiidi or
Conctntntion
Added
At Source
MiH/Volum«
inc I * \j • \j |\/»v»vi . v - ~ .
n,,u.u: PPM v..a. (in .ri.in.l Jmp.e) or.. l^^.; MC. no. computed; KG - »mP.. va.u. be.ow bUnk; NO - not d«,«t.L,. «2o LUnU.
-------
TrVBLE Y7. Uont'
CO
Hijh/Low
CiHbrtlion
Sundirdt or
Cancintritian
Added
AtSourc*
Miu/V o'unw
mj/mj or
-------
TABLE 18. SSMS ANALYSIS SHEET, 1 Process Feed
contractor Research Triangle Institute
it r* r*j i ^*_ .^.. T M
U.S. Steel, Gary,. IN s^,. Action Dat, 6/26/78
Sinter Plant - Raw Feed Material
Type of Sourcs . •- • •
Tert Number . Sample ID Number
o»eription Process - feed material
R«sponsibl« Arwlyrt UUM ; DatB Analysed
Calculations and Report R«vi«vwd By Report Date
Instrument . ' Resolution
Indium
Internal Standard (s)
Qrisinai sample voium.or Ma,, 604.2 grams at source
Dilution Factor t
Brief Description of Electrode Preparation
0.1015 gms used for test (Neat).
54
-------
TABLE 18. (cont'd)
tn
tn
High/Low
Ctlibrition
Standards 01
Conccntiition
Added
AtSourc*
Miss/Volumt
mg/m* or
Corrected
Sample
Vtlut
Uncorrecttd
Sample
Valut
A«Ijned
Concentration*
Line Used
for
Estimate
Aangancu
. _ -
:iiromium
Scandium
Calcium
'otassium
Chlorine
Lithium
.•i • '
llvdroycn
•nelultt: PPMv,.u.(incrioin,.»mPla).r I • in.crt.r.ncc; NC - not co,nPu,.d: NC .«* v.tue b.Iow b.arV; NO
not detectable «2o LlinV).
-------
tp
TABLE 18. fcont'd}
Element
Cerium
Barium
Icsium
Iodine
Antimony
Tin
Indium
Cadmium
Silver
Palladium
Rhodium
Ruthenium
Molybdenum
Niobium
Zirconium
Yttrium
Strontium
Rubidium
Dromino
Sulcnium
Arsenic
Germanium
Gallium •
Zinc
Line Used
(or
Estimate
Uneorreeted
Simple
Vilua
Blank
Value
Corrected
Sample
. Value
Sensitivity
HiDli/Low
Calibration
Stindards or
Concentration
Added
*,
Astigned
Concentration*
2.2
21.0
0.28
71
1.9
1.8
IS
2.8
0.57
4.1
0.88
34.0
1.4
< 4.6
< 0.46
11.0
16.0
< 2.2
130.0
At Source
Miss/Volume
mj/m" or
Kl/L
•Kejults: PPM value (in ordinal sample) or 1 - Interference; HC - not computed; NO - umple vilue below bUnk; HO • not detectablo «2o blink).
-------
TABLE 18. (cont'd)
Element
Uranium
Thorium
Bismuth
Lead
Thallium
Mercury
Gold
Platinum
riJium
hmium
Ihenium
Tungsten
tantalum
lafnium
.utccium
Ytterbium
'Inilium
irbium
lolinium
Dysprosium
'erbium
iaiiolinium
iurQpium
Samarium
Jeodymium
Praseodymium
Lin* Dud
lor
Ertimjte
Uncorrected
Simplt
Value
Blank
Vilue
Corrected
Simple
Valu*
Seniitivity
Higli/Low
Cilibration
Stindirds or
Conctntiition
Addtd
Auignid
Conctntrition*
20.0
< 1.7
AtSourci
Uatt/Vglumi
mj/m-* or
Wl/L
cn
•Retults: PPM value (in uriginEl fample] or I • interference; IJC • not computed; HO • sample value below blank; MO • not detectable «2oblink)
-------
APPENDIX A
LEVEL 1 ORGANIC ANALYSES OF SAMPLE IX, THE PROCESS FEED SAMPLE, AND
INORGANIC ANALYSIS DATA
58
-------
TABLE A-l. LC ANALYSIS REPORT
contractor Research Triangle Institute
U.S. Steel, Gary, TN
Sample Acquisition Oati JUH6 26, 1978
Type of Source Sinfpv Plant N". 3 UTnfJhnx hpfnpe cnnt.rn] device
Test Number c—,. ,„ .,.._,.„ IX
e,^.i m »< L.
Sample ID Mumber
Description XAD-2 and Module Rinse
Original Sample Volume or Mm 130.33 gtHS ReSJH
Responsible Analyst " •
Data Analyzed
Calculation, and Report Re»i.w«J By Handy» Westbrook
Report Dat*
Column Flaw Rat*
Column Temperature
mg GRAV and 0.0 mg TCP found in XAD-2 Blank
Total Sample1
Taken for LC2
Recovered
TCO
ma
36.6
18.0
25.0
•
GRAV
mg
128
63.0
34.0
Total
mg
164.5
81.0
59
1
5
D
1. Quantity in entire sample, determined before LC
2. Portion of whole sample used for LC, actual mg
3. Quantity recovered from LC column, actual mg
4. Total mg computed back to total sample
5. Total mg divided by total volume
Concentration5
mg/M3
22.35
10.97
7.99
59
-------
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
v,cm
2859-2959
1462
1380
722
Total Sample GRAV =
I Assignment
S CH, aliphatic
S CH, aliphatic
S CH, aliphatic
M CH, subst.
TflRIF A-.V TR REPORT-SAMPLE
• 36.2 mg
Possible Categories
Aliphatics
Haloaliphatics
NO. IX. CUT LC-2
I
100
10
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
v, cm
3030-3059
2865-2959
1603
1456
1380
1186, 1262
1034, 1092
711-863
Total Sample GRAV =
I Assignment
M CH, aromatic
S CH, aliphatic
M C=C, aromatic
S CH, aliphatic
M CH, aliphatic
W CH, aliphatic/
aromatic
M CH, aromatic
M CH, multiplet
14.6 mg
Possible Categories
Haloaliphatics
Subst. Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused aromatics
I
10
100
10
100
60
-------
TABLE A-4. IR RFP
v, cm
3059
2859-2959
1603
1456
1380
1263
1092
699-846
-1
v, cm
2862-2963
1728
1603
1466
1383
1276
1074-1122
742
I
M
S
W
M
W
W
M
M
I
S
S
W
S
M
S
M
M
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Total Sample GRAV * 4.5 mg
Assignment Possible Categories
CH, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
C=»C, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic/aromatic
CH, aromatic
CH, multiplet
^
TABLE A-5. IR REPORT- -SAMPi F K|n
XAD-2 Sample and Module
Total Sample GRAV = 2.
Assignment
CH, aliphatic
C-0, ketone
C=«C, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
COC, ether
CH, aromatic; COC, ether
CH, subst.
Subst. Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused aromatics
. IX. CUT LC-4
Rinse
8 mg
Possible Categories
— —
Hetero N Compounds
Hetero 0 Compounds
Hetero S Compounds
Nitriles
Ether, Epoxides
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitroaromatics
==35=:
I
100
10
100
ss s -!— ^=
I
100
100
100
10
100
100
10
61
-------
TABLE A-6. TR REPORT-SAMPLE NO. IX. CUT LC-5
v, cm
-1
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Total Sample GRAV = 1.6 mg
Assignment Possible Categories
I
2862-2961 S CH, aliphatic
1726 S C=0, ketone/ester
1603 W C=C, aromatic
1380,1462 M CH, aliphatic
1287 S COC, ester/ether
1070, 1123 M CH, aromatic;
COC, ether/ester
742 M CH, subst.
Hetero N Compounds
Hetero 0 Compounds
Hetero S Compounds
Alkyl S Compounds
Nitriles
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitroaromatics
Ethers,- Epoxides
Alcohols
Phenols
Amines
Ami des
Esters
100
100
100
10
10
100
10
100
10
10
10
10
100
62
-------
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Total Sample GRAV =-8.1 mg
v, cm
3358
2859-2959
1732
1603
1462
1380
1274
1080-1180
71 7-834
v» cm
2859-2959
1738
1603
1462,1380
1263
1081-1180
722-746
I
M
S
S
W
S
M
S
M
W
I
S
S
M
M
S
VI
W
Assignment
NH or OH (broad)
CH, aliphatic
C=0, ester
OC, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
COC, ester; CN, amine
OH, alcohol /phenol ;
CH, aromatic
CH, multiplet
TABLE A-8, IR REPORT— SA
XAD-2 Sample and
Total Sample
Assignment
CH, aliphatic
C-0, ester
C=»C, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
COC, ester
COC, ester;
CH, aromatic
CH, subst.
Possible Categories
Phenols
Esters
Amines
Hetero N Compounds
Alkyl S Compounds
Sulfonic Acids, Sulf oxides
Carboxylic Acids
Alcohols
Ami des
MPLE NO. IX. CUT 1 C-7
SSES^^^^^T— -^— — J— _•___._-.* W.V_L— _^_VL_ /
Module Rinse
GRAV » 1.2
Possible Categories
Phenols
Esters
Amines
Hetero N Compounds
Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides
Alcohols
Amides
Carboxylic Acids
I
100
100
100
100
10
10
10
100
10
••g*"*— ••' •-—
I
10
100
10
100
10
10
10
10
63
-------
TARLE A-9. MASS SPECTRQSCQPY REPORT-SAMPLE NO. IX. CUT LC-1
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Categories Relative Intensity
Aliphatics
Haloaliphatics
100
1
E A-1Q. MASS SPECTROSCQPY REPORT—SAMPLE NO. IX. CUT LC-2
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Categories Relative Intensity
Haloaliphatics
Substituted Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused aromatics (MW < 216)
Fused aromatics (MW > 216)
Possible Identifications
Phenanthracene, Anthracene
Fluoranthene, Pyrene
Benzanthracene, Chrysene
Benzofluoranthene, Benzopyrene
Dibenzanthracene
Mol. Wt.
178
202
228
252
278
1
10
1
100
100
Relative Intensity
100
100
10
10
100
64
-------
TABLE A-11. MASS SPECTROSCQPY RFPQRT-SAMPLE NO. IX. CUT LE-3
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Categories Relative Intensity
Substituted Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused Aromatics (MW < 216)
Fused Aromatics (MW > 216)
Possible Identifications
Acenaphthylene
Phenanthracene, Anthracene
Fluoranthene, Pyrene
Benzanthracene, Chrysene
Benzofluoranthene, Benzopyrene
Indenopyrene, Benzoperylene
Dibenzanthracene
Dibenzopyrene
Mol. Wt.
152
178
202
228
252
276
278
302
*=»=»==
10
1
10
100
Relative Intensity
10
10
100
10
100
100
100
100
M/
SPECTROSCOPY REPORT.-SAMPLE NO. IX. CUTS LC 4-7
XAD-2 Sample and Module Rinse
Mass spectra for LC fractions 4-7 were too complex for unequi-
vocal category identification. Assessment of LC fractions 4-7
should be based on LC/IR evaluation.
65
-------
0»
01
fftTUT ""I Irt""
a
-------
Contractor
TABLE A-13. LC ANALYSIS REPORT
Research Triangle Institute
. „ June 26. 1978
Sampl* Acquisition Date
Sinter Plant No. 3, Feed Sample
„ . 1 Process Feed
Sampl* ID Number •
Sampi* u8jHiH"u" ' " .
604.2 arams (total extracted)
Original Sampte Volumt or Maa —
Responsible Analyst
Calculations and Report Rwiavwd By
Date Analyzed
Handy, Westbrpok
Report Date
Column Flow Bate
Obswvation*
Column Temptrature
1. Quantity in entire ample, determined before LC
2. Portion of whole sample used for LC. actual mg
3. Quantity recovered from LC column, actual mg
4. Total mg computed back to total sample
5. Total mg divided by total volume
67
-------
TABLE A-14. IR REPORT—PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT LC-1
Total Sample GRAV = 54.0 mg
v, cm"1 I Assignment Possible Categories
2858-2959
1465
1380
723
S
s
S
M
TABLE
CH,
CH,
CH,
CH,
A-l
aliphatic Aliphatics
aliphatic Haloaliphatics
aliphatic
substituted
5 IR REPORT— PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT LC-2
100
10
Total Sample GRAV = 13.2 mg
Vj cm'1 I Assignment Possible Categories
3046
2859-2955
1602
1457
1377
1184
778-949
M
S
W
M
M
W
M
CH, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
C=C, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aromatic/aliphatic
CH, multiplet
Haloaliphatics
Substituted Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused aroma tics
10
100
10
100
68
-------
v, cm
3048
2855-2954
1703
1604
1460
1378
1152
815-882
749
v, cm
3396
3058
2856-2951
1704
1609
1460
1377
1240, 1300
878
753
TABLE A-16. IR REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPI F. TUT
I
W
s
W
W
s
W
W
W
s
- , TABl
I
W
W
s
M
M
S
W
W
W
M
Total Sample GRAV = 6.8 mg
LC-3
Assignment Possible Categories I
CH, aromatic Substituted Benzenes 100
CH, aliphatic Halobenzenes
10
C=0, ketone Fused Aromatics 100
C=C, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
CH, aromatic, aliphatic
CH, multiplet
CH, substituted
^_A=17. IR REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT
Total Sample GRAV = 4.4 mg
LC-4
Assignment Possible Categories I
NH or OH (broad) ' Hetero N Compounds
CH, aromatic Hetero 0 Compounds
CH, aliphatic Hetero S Compounds
C=0, ketone Nitriles
C=C, aromatic Ether, Epoxides
CH, aliphatic Aldehydes, Ke tones
CH, aliphatic Nitroaromatics
COC, ether;
CH, aromatic/aliphatic
CH, substituted
CH, substituted
100
100
100
10
100
100
10
69
-------
v, cm
-1
v, cm
-1
TABLE A-18. TR REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT LC-5
Total Sample GRAV = 3.6 mg
I Assignment Possible Categories
3340
3053
2856-2953
1714
1611
1454
1375
1303
1152
741-970
W
W
s
s
M
S
W
W
W
W
NH or OH (broad)
CH, aromatic
CH, aliphatic
C=0, ketone/ester
C=C, aromatic;
NH, amine
CH, aliphatic
CH, aliphatic
COC, ester;
CN, amine
COC, ester/ether;
COH, alcohol/phenol
CH, multiple!
Hetero N Compounds
Hetero 0 Compounds
Hetero S Compounds
Alkyl S Compounds
Nitriles
Aldehydes, Ketones
Nitroaromatics
Ethers, Epoxides
Alcohols
Amines
Ami des
Esters
100
100
100
10
10
100
10
100
100
100
10
100
TABLE A-19. IR REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT LC-6
Total Sample GRAV = 11.2 mg
I Assignment Possible Categories
I
3233 W OH or NH (broad)
3033-3058 W CH, aromatic
2854-2951 S CH, aliphatic
1661 S C=0, amide
1611 M C=C, aromatic;
NH, amine, amide
1461 S CH, aliphatic
1379 M CH, aliphatic
1003-1273 W COH, alcohol/phenol
753-834 M CH, substituted
Phenols 100
Esters 10
Amines 100
Hetero N Compounds 100
Alkyl S Compounds 10
Sulfonic Acids, Sulfoxides 10
Carboxylic Acids 10
Alcohols 100
Amides 100
70
-------
—— TABLE A-2Q. IR REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. Cl
Total Sample GRAV = 1.6 mg
v» cm l_ AssignmentPossible Categories I
Phenols 10
Esters 10
Amines 10
Hetero N Compounds 10
Sulfonic Acids 10
SuIfoxides 10
Alcohols 10
Amides 10
Carboxylic Acids 10
TABLE A-21. MASS SPFP.TRnSCQPY REPORT-PROCESS FFFH SAMPLE. CUT
Categor1es Relative Intensity
Aliphatics 100
Haloaliphatics 1
71
-------
TABLE A-22. MASS SPFr.TRflSCQPY RFPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT LC-2
Categories Relative Intensity
Haloaliphatics
Substituted Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused Aromatics (MW < 216)
Fused Aromatics (MW > 216)
Possible Identifications
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Phenanthracene, Anthracene
Fluoranthene, Pyrene
Benzanthracene, Chrysene
Benzofluoranthene, Benzopyrene
Indenopyrene, Benzoperylene
1
10
1
10
100
MO-|. wt. Relative Intensity
128 10
152 10
178 100
202 100
228 100
252 10°
276 100
TABLE A-23.
Categories
sPFr.TRnsr.opY,REPORT—PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUT ic-3
Relative Intensity
Substituted Benzenes
Halobenzenes
Fused Aromatics (MW < 216)
Fused Aromatics (MW > 216)
Possible Identifications
Phenanthracene, Anthracene
Fluoranthene, Pyrene
Benzanthracene, Chrysene
Benzofluoranthene, Benzopyrene
Indenopyrene, Benzoperylene
Dibenzopyrene
Mol. Wt.
178
202
228
252
276
302
10
1
10
100
Relative Intensity
100
10
100
100
100
100
72
-------
TABLE A-24. MASS SPECTRQSCQPY REPORT-PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. CUTS 1C 4-7
Sample weight of LC 7 was QNS for analysis. Mass spectra for LC
fractions 4, 5, and 6 were too complex for unequivocal category identi-
fication. Assessment of LC fractions 4, 5, and 6 should be based on
LC/IR evaluation.
TABLE A-25. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF PROCESS FEED SAMPLE. NEAT
Element Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
PB
CE
BA
CS
I
SB
SN
IN
MO
NB
ZR
Y
SR
RB
BR
SE
AS
GE
GA
20
< 1.7
2.2
21
0.28
< 1.1
1.9
1.8
IS*
2.8
0.57
4.1
0.88
34
1.4
< 4.6
< 0.46
11
16
< 2.2
ZN
cu
NI
CO
FE
MN
CR
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
BE
LI
I 1 r ii
130
54
18
3.9
14 (%)
0.25(%)
42
37
150
4.1 (%)
330
0.36 (%)
w • w w \ ft" /
590
1.4 (%)
0.55 (%)
1.3 (%)
400
18
0.80
3.1
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
73
-------
TABLE A-26. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. 1C 310
3 y + 10 y Cyclone Catches
Element Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
u
TH
BI
PB
W
ND
PR
CE
LA
BA
CS
I
TE
SB
SN
w H
IN
CD
MO
NB
ZR
Y
SR
RB
BR
< 0.81
< 3.3
0.73
90
4.5
1.3
0.14
2.0
0.80
19
1.0
12
0.66
9.8
3.3
IS*
1.6
2.8
0.73
3.9
1.6
23
5.5
24
SE
AS
GE
GA
ZN
CU
NI
CO
FE
MN
CR
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
BE
LI
< 2.5
15
2.4
2.7
130
13
12
3.8
3.6
0.71
58
13
160
2.5
650
0.25
0.27
140
0.72
0.100
0.47
17
0.39
1.5
(X)
(%)
(%)
(X)
(%)
(X)
(xj
(X)
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
74
-------
TABLE A-27. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. 1C1F
Aqua Regia Digest of filter and 1 y cyclone
Element Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
BI
PB
TL
CE
LA
BA
CS
TE
SB
SN
IN
CD
MO
NB
ZR
Y
SR
RB
BR
SE
AS
GE
0.040
25
0.28
0.021
0.0044
0.13
0.0007
0.068
0.050
0.041
IS*
0.100
0.058
0.0015
0.015
0.0046
0.12
2.6
0.35
< 0.100
0.11
0.0093
GA
ZN
CU
NI
CO
FE
MN
CR
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
BE
LI
0.0074
1 6
1 • W
1.1
0.68
0.010
250
5.9
0.30
0.067
0.39
210
220
73
3 0
«j • \j
3.0
20
65
MC**
4.4
0.0087
0.18
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
**MC - indicates the element is a major component
75
-------
TABLE A-28. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. IX
XAD-2 Resin (Parr Bombed)
Element Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
CE
BA
SN
IN
SR
RB
AS
ZN
CU
NI
CO
FE
MN
CR
< 0.0072
0.096
0.094
IS*
0.039
0.0072
0.0093
0.13
0.50
0.32
0.0023
3.5
0.086
0.24
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
BE
LI
0.011
0.18
1.8
1.0
18
0.12
3.9
8.6
0.31
5.0
0.24
< 0.0004
0.010
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
TARI E A-2Q INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. 1X-BLANK
Element
XAD-2 Resin Blank (Parr Bombed)
Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
PB
BA
CS
SN
IN
MO
NB
SR
RB
AS
ZN
CU
NI
CO
FE
0.087
0.040
0.012
0.20
IS*
0.034
< 0.0017
0.019
0.034
0.0031
0.12
0.23
0.81
0.0084
4.5
MN
CR
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
BE
LI
0.11
0.72
0.0077
0.067
2.0
0.59
8.2
0.054
2.6
3.1
0.32
1.2
0.22
< 0.0003
0.006
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
76
-------
TABLE A-30. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. 1 IMP 1
First Impinger Solution
Element Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
PB
CE
BA
SN
IN
CD
MO
ZR
Y
SR
SE
AS
ZN
CU
NI
CO
0.045
0.0008
< 0.0028
0.092
IS*
0.0023
0.014
0.0026
0.0020
0.0014
< 0.0056
0.0091
10
13
0.11
0.0023
FE
MN
CR
V
TI
CA
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
LI
0.65
0.022
0.050
0.0030
0.0008
0.17
0.14
100
0.011
0.065
0.11
0.041
0.25
0.0027
< 0.0001
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
TABLE A-31. INORGANIC ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE NO. 1 IMP 1-BLANK
First Impinger Solution Blank (30% Peroxide)
Value (ppm) Element Value (ppm)
SN
IN
ZN
CU
NI
FE
MN
CR
TI
CA
0.100
IS*
0.010
0.0038
0.011
0.35
0.0087
0.0091
0.010
0.29
K
S
P
SI
AL
MG
NA
B
LI
0.072
0.83
0.012
0.77
0.11
0.043
0.97
0.19
0.0002
*IS - indicates the element is an internal standard
77
-------
APPENDIX B
DATA OBTAINED AND OBSERVATIONS MADE AT SINTER PLANTS NOS. 2 AND 3
SINTER PLANT NO. 2
Sinter Plant Operation
The No. 2 sinter plant has two identical strands with a rated capacity of
2900 tons/day. Table B-l lists the strand design data. The feed material for
this plant contains no revert materials (cinder, slag, blast furnace flue dust,
sludge, boring, turnings, or mill scale). Feed materials used during this
test were: OL13F ore, QCM fines, dolomite, limestone, coke, and cold and hot
return fines from the sinter breaker. Cyclone and ESP fines are also returned
to the conveyor belt via table feeders. There is no device to weight the
amount of each material added to the belt. Ratios of materials added are
determined by catching material from the table feeder in a pan placed on the
belt. These catches are reported to the strand operator as pounds caught per
pass. The operator makes changes in these feed rates based on the windbox
temperatures and sinter quality being produced.
SASS Tests - 6/22/78
The SASS system was scrubbed with soap, rinsed with water, passivated with
15 percent nitric acid, and rinsed in succession with dionized water, isopropyl
alcohol, and methylene chloride. XAD-2 resin was added to the canister, then
the system was assembled and leak checked. After leak checking and replacement
of a cooling water pump, the impinger solutions were added. The first sampling
run began at about 4:40 pm (6/22/78) from the windbox gas main just before the
cyclones. The filter (< 1 micron dust) blinded in about 10 minutes, requiring
shut down and filter replacement. This experience was typical of the sampling
effort. Five filters were used in collecting about 250 cubic feet of gas
(sampling was stopped about 8:15 pm). The system was disassembled and samples
recovered strictly according to Level 1 procedures. Concern for maintenance of
sample integrity was high among the Acurex team.
78
-------
TABLE B-1. NO. 2 SINTFR PI-ANT DESIGN DATA
Depth of bed on strand
Width of bed
Length of strand
Number of windboxes
Number of pallets
Size of pallets
Size of pallet bars
Pallet bar spacing
Seal between grate and windboxes
Ignition hood length
Ignition hood type
Ignition hood fuel
Air pollution control device on discharge
Sinter breaker
Hot screens for sinter
Sinter cooler type
Air pollution control device on cooler
Air pollution control on windbox
11.5"
6'
118'
16
129
6' x 2'
3/4"
3/32"
Mechanical
6'
Radiant
Natural gas
No
Yes
No
Thermal updraft
No
Cyclones, ESP
4:00 pm FEED RATES (PAN WEIGHTS)
Total
OL13F ore QCM Fines Cold Fines Coke Dolomite Lime Fresh Feed
41b 8 oz. 81 b 8 oz.
Time
#8
21b 4 oz.
1 Ib
8 oz.
21b 6 oz.
31b
9 oz.
241b 3 oz.
WINDBOX TEMPERATURES, °F
#13
#14
T
2:10
4:00
6:30
7:28
„
310
280
250
625
650
620
550
480
600
510
500
425
500
435
460
275
350
275
310
285
290
295
285
79
-------
WINDBOX VACUUM IN W. C.
Time #i fi fb_ #a #10 #12 #14 £1_6 Fan
2:10 19 20 17 31
4:00 18 20 16 30
6:30 19 19 15 17 16 18 20 15 30
7:28 19 15 16 18 17 10 10 ic 30
#4
19
15
Feed
#6 #8 #10
15 17 16
16 18 17
SAMPLES TAKEN,
to Sinter Machine
5:55 pm
6:30
7:28
8:03
#12 #14
19 20
18 20
18 20
19 19
TIME
Individual Feed
6:05 pm
6:35
7:24
8:10
#16
17
16
15
15
Samples
SINTER PLANT NO. 3
Sinter Plant Operation
This system is of more sophisticated design than the No. 2 sinter plant.
All feed materials enter via weigh belt feeders and the weights are displayed
in the control room. The strand is 8 ft wide (1293 ft2). Design production
rate is 5000 tons/day. The plant does not use a hearth layer. The first 50-70
percent of the strand is covered with a hood through which recycled air from
the sinter cooler is returned (as a heat conservation measure). The sinter
breaker is hooded and fugitive emissions are captured by an induced draft fan.
This system worked quite well except for a short period when water flow to the
sinter mix was lost. This strand uses scrap materials and sludges in addition
to ore fines, coke, limestone, and dolomite. Normally these materials are fed
from separate table feeders, however, during this test a blend was made prior
to entering the sinter plant. Because of the design of the sinter feeder
(sinter distributed by drum roller), a sample of the composite actually being
fed to the machine could not be obtained. A sample containing all components
except hot return fines was obtained.
80
-------
Sampling was started at 1:15 pm in the windbox gas main before the cyclones
and ESP. The filter (< 1 micron) plugged in about 9 minutes. This experience
was typical of the sampling effort. Eight filters were used to collect about
250 cubic feet of gas. After the third sampling period, the filter holder was
damaged (stainless steel screw fitting froze). The only replacement available
had a teflon lining on the back side of the holder. This was used for the
remaining five sampling periods. In addition to this problem, the sinter
machine was stopped twice for periods of 10 and 30 minutes. In both cases, the
machine was allowed to stabilize for a period equaling its downtime before
sampling proceeded. The last run terminated at 8:30 pm. Sample recovery was
strictly according to Level 1 procedures. The Acurex team exercised care in
maintaining sample integrity.
WINDBOX TEMPERATURES, °F
Time
1:20
1:50
2:20
5:12
5:50
6:30
7:57
8:20
Time
1:20
1:50
2:20
5:12
5:50
6:30
7:57
8:30
7
350
350
350
345
340
320
330
290
1
15
13
12
15
17
17
15
16
12
500
480
320
470
330
140
280
310
2 7
24 5
21 5
23 5
24 6
25 7
25 7
27 7
27 7
16
__
—
—
—
—
--
—
—
12
25
23
25
24
27
27
24
28
17 18
630 570
580 580
480 500
495 500
440 445
360 320
370 340
410 460
WINDBOX
16 1
22
23
25
25
27
27
27
28
19
._
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
VACUUM,
7 18
14
15
12
18
18
21
20
21
20
420
420
350
300
310
350
300
220
IN. W.
19
17
18
20
18
23
24
24
24
21
350
370
550
300
320
200
200
340
C.
20
17
17
20
19
22
23
24
23
22
650
670
570
500
400
270
380
400
21
17
17
19
18
20
22
23
23
23
200
220
520
300
310
190
200
450
22
10
12
15
15
17
—
17
17
24
220
220
530
300
310
210
200
330
23
17
20
22
22
21
27
25
24
Fan
330
330
320
300
300
270
335
250
24 Fan
12 35
12 35
12 35
12 34
17 34
17 37
17 38
15 38
81
-------
TABLE B-2. FEED COMPONENTS RATES. CONTROL HOUSE CHARTS (TON/HR)
TIME
Component 1:25 2:20 5:12 5:50 6:30 7:57 8:30
9. Water
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Blend & QCM
Dolomite
Limestone
Coke
Cold Fines
Hot Fines
Total Mix
Total Mix -
Hot Fines
150
10
20
4
50
0-40
300
300
150
10
20
4.2
60
42
325
305
157
10.5
19.5
7.6
58
82
365
295
150
10.5
23
8.3
58
60
350
310
130
10
18
8
80
200
450
350
135
9
18
5.9
75
180
360
260
140
9.5
19.5
6.4
60
>200
330
270
18 gpm 10 gpm 14 gpm 48
INTEGRATOR READING
48
17
Component 1:20
1 791635
2 371083
3 124680
4 911066
5 918955
6 189349
7 827984
8
9 743550
7:50
792429
371622
125576
911374
921800
190113
829990
No Integrator
743550
Avg. ton/hr
122
8.3
13.8
4.7
44
118
309
—
—
Sinter bed temperature just after ignition hood 1650°F at 1:49, 1725°F.at
2:20, less than 1200°F at 5:12 until test end.
Sinter strand speed 12 ft/min all day (except outages).
82
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-112
2.
. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
,evel 1 Assessment of Uncontrolled Sinter Plant
Emissions
. REPORT DATE
May 1979
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
;.W. Westbrook
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Research Triangle Institute
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AB604C and 1BB610C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2630, Task 3
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD C<
Task Final; 3/78 - 3/79
COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
s. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES JERL-RTP project officer is Robert V. Hendriks, Mail Drop 62,
919/541-2733.
6. ABSTRACT
rep0rt gives results of sampling and analysis of uncontrolled emissions
rom two sinter plants, to characterize and quantify the particulate, organic, and
inorganic species present. One plant used revert (waste products of other steelma-
king operations) material (series 1); the other did not (series 2). In both plants , sam-
pling took place in the windbox gas main before the emission control equipment, using
PA Level 1 environmental assessment methodology. Samples from the sinter plant
not using revert material were delayed in shipment for 2 months and, therefore ,
received a reduced analytical effort. Particulate concentrations of 1405 and 804
mg/cu m and total organic emissions of 25. 66 and 4/84 mg/cu m were found for
series 1 and 2, respectively. No known carcinogenic organic compounds were identi-
fied. Organics in both cases were largely high molecular weight materials . For
series 1, concentrations of the different organic categories were in the same relative
proportion as in the process feed sample, despite the fact that about 85% of the feed
organic was destroyed. Analyses indicate that 12 inorganic components and 5 organic
categories might exceed Air-Health MATE values if emitted uncontrolled.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
Pollution Dust
Sintering
Iron and Steel Industry
Emission
Assessments
Analyzing
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Particulate
13B
13H
11F
14B
11G
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
91
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (8-73)
83
------- |