EPA-650/2-74-028
APRIL 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
X'X-X:X-X*X-X - X -X v X vXvXv'
SipgSgS:;
x^^>S*
j::yw>:i::j:;x
^;^?X^^^K^^^:X^^:!^:^
:>XvX
#i::¥:
ivX-x-
X-X'X'x'X-X'X-X'XvX'l
111
X'X'X;
>x::%:
m*
>:•:•:•:•:•
•>x-:'A'
lii:i:
-WWW
::::V>:¥
III
•ii^ii^iiiiiiiiiiiiii^
-------
EPA-650/2-74-028
LONE STAR STEEL STEAM-HYDRO
AIR CLEANING SYSTEM
EVALUATION
by
Joseph D. McCain and Wallace B. Smith
Southern Ruse-arch Institute
2000 Ninth Avenue- South
Birmingham, Alabama 35205
lor
M. W. Kellogg Company
1300 Three Greenway Plaza
Houston, Texas 77046
Contract No. 68-02-1308 (Task 11)
ROAP No. 21ADL-04
Program Element No. 1AB012
EPA Project Officer: Dale L. Harmon
Control Systems Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
April 1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of fractional and
overall mass efficiency tests of the Lone Star Steel
Steam-Hydro scrubber. The tests were performed on one
of seven modules of a full scale scrubber used for
controlling particulate emissions from an open hearth
furnace. Total flue gas particulate mass concentrations
were determined at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber
by conventional (Method 5) techniques. Inlet and out-
let particulate concentrations as functions of size
were determined on a mass basis using cascade irapactors
for sizes from about 0.3 ym to 5 um, and on a number
basis for sizes smaller than about 1 ym using optical
and diffusional methods.
The text of this report includes brief descriptions
of the open hearth process, the Lone Star Steel steam-
hydro scrubber, economics of operating the scrubber, the
measurement methods for calculating the fractional
efficiency, a synthesized time history of the open
hearth particulate emissions, and fractional efficiencies
as measured for several scrubber operating conditions.
This report was submitted in fulfullment of a sub-
contract to Southern Research Institute per Task No. 11
of Contract 68-02-1308 by the M. W. Kellogg Company
under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Work under the subcontract was completed as of
February 15, 1974.
111
-------
"XV.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ill
CONCLUSION 1
INTRODUCTION 2
DISCUSSION 5
APPDENDICES 25
A - MANUFACTURER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE
OPERATION OF THE SCRUBBER 26
B - SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING
TESTS 28
C1- OPEN HEARTH FURNACE OPERATING
SUMMARY 30
C2- OPEN HEARTH FURNACE MATERIALS
SUMMARY 31
D - ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS OF THE
STEAM HYDRO AIR CLEANING SYSTEM 32
E - CONVERSION FACTORS 36
FIGURES
1 - The Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro
Air Cleaning System 4
2 - Optical and Diffusional Sizing
System 8
3 - Condensation Nuclei Data Taken During
the Oxygen Lance Cycle 11
4 - Optical and Condensation Nuclei
Counter Data Taken During the
Charge Cycle 12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
FIGURES
(Continued) Page
5 - Inlet and Outlet Particle Size
Distributions Measured using Optical
and Diffusion Techniques 14
6 - Fractional Efficiency of the Lone
Star Steel Steam-Hydro Scrubber 15
7 - Time History of the Particulate
Loading at the Inlet of the Steam-
Hydro Scrubber 17
8 - Fractional Efficiency Calculated
Using Imp actor Data Only 21
TABLES
I - Optimization of Steam Hydro Scrubber
Performance 9
II - Scrubber Outlet Loading by Size
Interval 19
III - Scrubber Inlet Loading by Size
Interval 20
IV - Mass Train Test Results, Lone Star
Steel Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning
System 22
V - Mass Train Test Results, Lone Star
Steel Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning
System 23
VI
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
The collection efficiency of the Steam-Hydro
air cleaning system is quite high. As measured using
conventional (Method 5) techniques on a source pro-
ducing particulate having a mass mean diameter of
about 1 ym the efficiency was measured at 99.90 and
99.84% for two days of testing. Measured fractional
efficiencies were about 90% at 0.01 ym, about 70% at
0.05 ym, 85% at 0.1 ym, 99.9% at 0.5 ym, 99.99% at 1 ym,
and 99.6% at 5 ym. The minimum in the fractional
efficiency at about 0.05 ym is probably real, but the
actual value is somewhat uncertain because of diffi-
culties in making diffusional measurements in the time
variable open hearth process. The manufacturer's
estimate of the energy requirements for achieving the
efficiencies given above are approximately 8250 BTU/1000
SCF to 12,750 BTU/1000 SCF for system back pressures
ranging from one to six inches of water.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
This report presents results of the tests con-
ducted by Southern Research Institute to determine
the capability of the Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro
scrubber to collect fine particulates. The goals
of the tests were: (1) to determine optimum operating
conditions of the scrubber, (2) to determine the over-
all mass efficiency and the fractional efficiency of
the scrubber while operating under optimum conditions,
and (3) to determine the fractional efficiency of the
scrubber for some non-optimum operating conditions
as time and circumstances permitted. Figure 1 is a
schematic of the basic Lone Star Steam-Hydro scrubber
showing the inlet and outlet sampling locations.
At the time tests were conducted four of five
open hearth furnaces at this plant were operating con-
tinuously 24 hours per day. Each furnace producing
three 300 ton batches of steel per day with the pro-
duction time scheduled for each of the four furnaces
staggered by about two hours for logistical purposes,
although the actual timing for any one furnace varied
somewhat from this schedule. The operations for any
one batch were: (1) charging of the furnace with scrap
metal, requiring about four hours, (2) addition of
iron directly from a blast furnace, requiring about
thirty minutes, (3) the refining phase (oxygen lance),
-------
requiring about three hours, and finally (4) furnace
tapping and pouring, requiring about thirty minutes.
The highest sustained particulate emission rates
occur during the oxygen lance portion of the operation,
with the actual emission rate and size distribution
of the particulate being quite variable throughout
the cycle. This variability caused some difficulty
in both measurement and interpretation of data as is
described in the discussion section of this report.
The waste process gases, at temperatures of
about 1500°F from the four furnaces, are carried
through a series of flues, flow controllers, and ducts
to three waste heat boilers, each of which supplies
steam to drive seven of the scrubber modules shown in
Figure 1. These are arranged in a semi-circle around
the boilers. The gas temperature leaving the boilers
is about 530°F. The draft for the entire furnace and
scrubber system is provided by the steam ejectors in
the scrubber modules. Because only three boiler/scrubber
systems are used to control the emissions from four
furnaces, each system treats the emissions from more
than one furnace. The system on which the measurements
were made was fed primarily by furnaces 3 and 4 with
approximately 67% of the gas handled by the system
coming from furnace No. 4. The fact that more than
one furnace supplied the system being measured also
added to the difficulty in interpreting some of the
results and made it impractical to attempt to isolate
certain portions of the overall furnace cycle for analysis,
The manufacturers description of the operation of the
scrubber is given in Appendix A.
3
-------
Outlet sampling.
locations
Mixing tube
Injection water.
Steam nozzel
inlet
Particle
accelerator
Cyclones
Atomizer water
Cyclone
slurry
Inlet duct
Inlet sampling
locations
Rue gas from waste
heat boiler. Fed by
open hearth furnance
Atomizer slurry
Figure 1. The Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning
System.
-------
SECTION III
DISCUSSION
A total of four measurement techniques were
used during the tests. These were: (1) diffusional
techniques using condensation nuclei counters and
diffusion batteries for determining concentration
and size distribution on a number basis for particles
having diameters less than approximately 0.2 urn,
(2) optical techniques to determine concentrations
and size distribution for particles having diameters
between approximately 0.3 ym and 1.5 urn, (3) inertial
techniques using cascade impactors for determining
concentrations and size distributions on a mass basis
for particles having diameters between approximately
0.25 ym and 5 ym, and (4) standard mass train measure-
ments for determining total inlet and outlet mass
loadings.
The useful concentration ranges of both the
optical counter and the condensation nuclei counters
are such that extensive dilution of the gas streams
being sampled was required. Dilution factors of
about 65:1 were used for the outlet measurements and
about 500:1 for the inlet measurements. In order to
insure that condensation effects were minimal and
that the particles were dry as measured, the diluent
air was dried and filtered, and diffusional driers
were utilized in the lines carrying the diluted samples
to the various instruments.
Because of the size and complexity of the optical
and diffusional measuring systems, and the fact that
only one set of equipment exists for measurements
5
-------
of this type, it was not possible to obtain simul-
taneous inlet and outlet data with these methods.
The system was first installed at the outlet sampling
location, the scrubber was tuned, and all the outlet
data were obtained. Subsequently, the equipment was
moved to the inlet and the necessary inlet data were
obtained. For the purposes of calculating the
efficiency of the scrubber, the assumption was made
that the open hearth process was sufficiently repe-
titive that the inlet data, as obtained above, were
a valid representation of that which would have been
obtained during the time the outlet measurements were
made. Accuracy in the diffusional measurements was
limited by process variations and the efficiencies
derived from these data are rather uncertain. However,
the trerds in the fractional efficiencies derived
from the data are probably real and the fractions of
the influent material that penetrate the scrubber are
probably correct to within a factor of two to three.
Similar tests on a source with less process variations
(i.e., a Kraft recovery boiler, or a pulverized coal-
fired power boiler) would be desirable in order to
refine the efficiency data.
The optical data are presented on the basis of
equivalent polystyrene latex sizes and the indicated
sizes can differ from the true sizes by factors as
large as two to three. Data obtained using this
method were primarily intended as a means of real time
monitoring of process changes and the results of
changes in the scrubber operation, but also serve as
rough checks on the data obtained with the cascade
-------
impactors. The sampling system used for obtaining
the optical and diffusional data is illustrated
diagrammatically in Figure 2.
The tests took place on the dates of December
4 through December 11, 1973, with December 4 pri-
marily used for instrumentation setup, checkout,
and preliminary measurements. Optimization of the
scrubber operating parameters was accomplished on
December 5 using the optical and condensation nuclei
counters. The results of these tests are given in
Table I , which includes the three primary operating
variables (cyclone accelerator position, steam
pressure at the ejection nozzle inlet, and gas flow
rate). Direct comparisons of data between some of
the test conditions are not meaningful because of
variations in the open hearth process. This is
especially true of tests that are separated by
periods of more than a few minutes. The operating
condition chosen from the real time optical and CN
data did appear to produce lower outlet loadings as
later measured with the impactors when compared with
two other conditions also used in the tests. The
optimum conditions appeared to be accelerator position
3, steam pressure 250 Ibs and 11,000 scfm flow rate.
Other conditions tested were accelerator position 2,
250 Ibs steam pressure and 15,000 scfm; and accelerator
position 3, 300 Ibs steam pressure, and 13,000 scfm.
Diffusional data for efficiencies below 0.3 ym
were obtained only under the apparent optimum condi-
tion. A brief test using the condensation nuclei and
-------
Flowmeters
Cyclone Pump
Process
Exhaust
Line
v
Particulate
Sample Line
Aerosol
Photometer
Diffusional Dryer
(Optional)
\ Device
\
Cyclone
(Optional)
Pressure
Balancing
Line
Recirculated
Clean Dilution
Air
Filter
Pump
Bleed
Figure 2. Optical and Diffusional Sizing System.
-------
TABLE I
OPTIMIZATION OF STEAM HYDRO SCRUBBER PERFORMANCE
Time
1130
1140
1150
1225
1230
1240
1255
1300
1310
1330
1340
1730
1740
1750
1800
Particle
Acceleration
Position
2
2
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
2
2
3
3
3
Steam
Pressure
psig
250
300
350
250
300
350
250
300
350
250
300
350
300
250
Gas Flow
Ibs/min
1320
1453
1526
1404
1498
1581
1510
1612
1702
1096
1182
1163
1048
916
Particles/on3* Particles/cm3*
Dia.iO.06 ym Dia.^0.45 ym
0.72 x 10s
0.69
0.90
0.94
1.51
2.24
0.93
1.58
1.47
0.78
0.78
1.38
1.1
0.79
2.0 x 10 3
2.0
2.2
> 2.3
> 2.3
> 2.3
> 2.4
> 2.4
> 2.4
> 2.2
> 2.2
1.35
1.24
1.17
Particles/cm3*
Dia.il. 0 urn
45
14
200
2100
2400
2400
> 2400
> 2400
1200
1.6
1.9
6.7
< 2
< 2
Particles/cm3*
Dia.il. 6 gm
2
2
11
105
123
248
588
235
214
11
11
< 2
< 2
< 2
250
1283
0.85
> 2.1
15
< 2
* Concentration of particles larger than the stated size in the scrubber effluent gas stream.
-------
optical techniques with the atomizer water turned
off indicated a definite increase in the concen-
tration of submicron particles with the atomizer
water off. Insufficient data were obtained to
fully quantify the effect.
Figures 3 and 4 are recordings made at the
outlet using the optical and diffusional systems.
Figure 3 is condensation nuclei data which corre-
sponds to particulate concentrations over the range
from 0.01 to 0.2 ym in particle diameter. This
data was taken over a 25 minute period on December "1,
during oxygen lance. It is evident from Figure 3
that even during lance, the most stable process,
variations in the particulate concentration are large.
Because of this, the accuracy of the diffusional
results is limited. For example, when testing, the
diffusional system operator may be looking for ten
percent changes in concentration due to size related
penetration differences in the diffusion batteries,
while the open hearth process interjects concentration
changes of almost an order of magnitude. In short,
the "signal" to "noise" ratio was unfavorable when
operating the diffusional system on the open hearth
process.
Figure 4 shows optical and diffusional data
taken December 7, during a charging cycle. The vari-
ations in particulate concentration are quite large,
and periodic. The periodicity may be related to the
charge operations or to the furnace draft direction
10
-------
4.0
3.6
U)
3.2
U
•rl
•P
2.8
I*-)
o
CO
c
o
a2'4
u
z
o
U
1.6
1.2
0.8
I
10
15
TIME, min.
25
30
Figure 3. Condensation Nuclei Data Taken During the
Oxygen Lance Cycle.
11
-------
60
50
i-i
o
•H
•U
h
10
en
o 40
R)
01
3
€ 30
K
Ul
§
o 20
10
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
D)
O
•H
3
s
&
o
o
10
15
20
TIME, min.
25
30
35
40
Figure 4,
Optical and Condensation Nuclei Counter Data Taken During
the Charge Cycle. (a) Optical Data (0.3 - 2 ym Diameter),
(b) Diffusional Data (0.01 - 2 ym Diameter). Concentrations
are those obtained after dilution by a factor of 1:65.
-------
changes. Curve (a) is optical data and corresponds
to the particle concentration from about 0.3 to 2 ym
diameter. Curve (b) is condensation nuclei data
corresponding to the concentration within the size
range from 0.01 to 0.1 ym diameter.
Notice that when the large particle concen-
tration curve (a) increases, the small particle
concentration curve (b) decreases. This probably
occurs as a result of a higher loss rate by agglo-
meration resulting from changes in the surface area
to which the ultrafine particles may diffuse.
Figure 5 shows typical inlet and outlet size
distributions as obtained by optical and diffusional
methods during oxygen lance, the most stable process
during the heat cycle (see Figure 7). Figure 6 shows
the fractional efficiencies calculated from these data
together with a set of typical results from the impac-
tor measurements.
Inertial sizing was accomplished using Brink
cascade impactors for inlet measurements and Andersen
impactors for outlet measurements. Sampling was done
at near isokinetic rates. Errors due to deviations
from isokinetic sampling should be of little consequence
for particles having aerodynamic diameters smaller
than 5 ym or physical diameters smaller than 2 ym for
an assumed density of 5.2 gm/cm3. Further, because
the sampling was at near isokinetic rates, the calcu-
lated collection efficiencies for larger particles are
13
-------
0.01
O.I 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER, j
10.0
Figure 5. Inlet and Outlet Particle Size Distributions
Measured using Optical and Diffusional
Techniques.
14
-------
\J.UI
0 1
1
5
10
O
K
U
S 50
0.
88
90
99
999
QQQQ
:
; + + * + + +**'
D
•
-
O 0
O
O
•
-
•
-
O DIFF
n OPT
+ IMPACT
-
i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i i i
99.9
99
98 o
90 >-
UJ
u
u.
u.
UJ
8
.LECTION
_i
0
u
10
5
1
O.I
0.01
001 01 10 100
PARTICLE DIAMETER, jiin
Figure 6. Fractional Efficiency of the Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro Scrubber.
-------
probably reasonably close to the true values.
Because of the relatively small duct dimensions as
compared to the sizes of the impactors, single
point sampling was used in the ducts with the in-
let impactors at flue gas temperature (^515°F).
The outlet impactors were heated to about 40° above
flue gas temperature to insure that no condensation
took place within the impactor. Such condensation
might cause operational difficulties or lead to
incorrect sizing.
Because of the wide disparity in the inlet
and outlet mass loadings (inlet ^1-2 grains/cf,
and outlet ^0.001 grain/cf) complete simultaneity
in the inlet and outlet sampling was not possible.
Outlet samples were generally of about 6 hours dura-
tion while inlet samples were of about 6 minutes
duration. Because of the very low outlet loading
and the consequent length of the outlet sampling
time, it was found to be impractical to attempt to
isolate individual portions of the overall furnace
cycle for analysis. A secondary consideration in
omitting the furnace operation breakdown in the out-
let measurements was the fact that the scrubber was
being fed from two furnaces, approximately 67% from
number four and 33% from number three, with the
phase relations between the two furnace cycles being
quite variable. Since the inlet sampling could not
correspond directly with the outlet sampling, an
inlet mass loading history for one complete furnace
cycle was synthesized for each size interval covered
by the inlet impaction stages. Examples of these
synthesized histories are shown in Figure 7.
16
-------
M
a
3
Q
o
o
1
s
s
b.
o>
a
w
a>
O
Tap
Start
charge
!
End Start End hot metal
charge hot start lance
metal
l
Tap
Figure 7. Time History of the Particulate Loading at the Inlet of the Steam-Hydro
Scrubber. The Time Period Shown is About Eight Hours.
-------
Appropriate time averages from the synthesized
complete cycle was used in computing the frac-
tional efficiencies from the impactor data.
The sizes reported here for the inertial data
are based on an assumed particle density of 5.2 gm/cnr .
If the true particle densities are lower than this
value/ the sizes as given should be increased by a
factor equal to the square root of ratio of the
assumed density to true density. The impactor data
are summarized in Tables II and III and the fractional
efficiencies as calculated from these data are shown
in Figure 8.
Mass train measurements were obtained by Guardian
Systems, Inc., of Anniston, Alabama, under subcontract
to Southern Research Institute on December 10 and 11,
and the results of these measurements are shown in
Tables IV and V. The overall efficiencies, by mass,
based on these results are included in Table V.
Appendices are included which contain summaries
of furnace and scrubber operations during the time
intervals over which data were obtained, and cost-
estimates for the operation of the scrubber.
With regard to the scrubber energy requirements,
it should be noted that the steam flow is that which
is required to pump and clean a gas stream with
approximately five to seven inches of water back
pressure. According to the manufacturer, the amount
of steam used is a function of this back pressure.
18
-------
vo
TABLE II
SCRUBBER OUTLET LOADING BY SIZE INTERVAL
DATE(S)
& TIHE(S)
Acc. Position
Steam Fres.
Scrubber Flow Rate 11
§4 Furnace Operations
During Measurement
Overall Loading (gr/dscf)
Size Interval/Loading
Microns/ (gr/dscf)
>6.04
3.75-6.04
2.53-3.75
1.71-2.53
1.09-1.71
0.52-1.09
0.30-0.52
0.18-0.30
<0.18
* Heater failed resulting
12/6
12:03/
13:33
3
250
,000
Lance
0.0012
0.00009
0.00002
0.00000
0.00008
0.00001
0.00008
0.00018
0.00017
0.00053
in large
** Value represents the total loadin
12/6
17:45/
19:15
12/7
11:45/
13:32
3
250
11,000
Lance
0.0012
0.00013
0.00005
0.00006
0.00004
0.00001
0.00007
0.00015
0.00017
0.00052
amount of water
g for all partic
12/7*
10:03/
11:33
13 : 35/
14:00
3
250
11,000
Non-
Lance
0.0014
0.00040**
0.00018
0.00081
condensing in
:le sizes large
12/8
10:30/
16:30
3
300
13,000 15
60% NL
40% L
0.00086
0.00003**
0.00007
0.00014
0.00012
0.00049
impactor .
12/9
09:30/
10:25
10:55/
16:00
2
250
,000
60% NL
40% L
0.0016
0.00007
0.00006
0.00004
0.00003
0.00002
0.00006
0.00016
0.00020
0.00091
12/10
10:15/
19:15
3
300
13,000
60% Lance
40% NL
0.00009
0.00004
0.00004
0.00004
0.00002
0.00002
0.00005
0.00014
0.00011
0.00042
12/11
09:45/
16:10
3
300
13,000
60% Lance
40% NL
0.0017
0.00015
0.00010
0.00009
0.00012
0.00009
0.00012
0.00023
0.00017
0.00060
r than the minimum size
-------
TABLE III
SCRUBBER INLET LOADING BY SIZE INTERVAL *
Date
12/11
12/09
12/07
12/08
12/05
12/08
12/11
12/08
12/05
12/10
12/07
to
° 12/09
12/08
12/09
12/11
12/06
12/06
12/07
12/05
12/05
12/09
12/10
12/10
12/06
12/11
12/06
12/10
Tine
10:23
13:07
14:44
15:03
15:00
09:48
11:33
16:01
15:57
16:12
10:46
09:54
11:45
16:10
13:34
17:52
12:18
11:57
11:46
11:55
11:13
18:15
11:38
18:49
14:37
13:16
12:32
Tine
After
Op.
14 Oper. Start.
Charge 3
10
15
35
40
60
75
90
100
160
180
End of
Charge
to Hot
Meta] 15
45
Hot Metal 0
Lance 19
22
30
30
40
50
55
55
63
80
82
86
Tap 7
Total
Load
0.157
0.346
0.385
0.182
0.129
0.656
1.29
1.81
0.784
0.656
2.55
0.507
0.768
0.616
1.30
2.46
2.20
1.18
2.63
2.11
1.87
2.02
1.82
2.18
1.61
1.32
0.267
nia.
(p=5.2 >6.0
0.024
0.064
0.029
0.088
0.176
0.075
0.063
0.238
0.337
0.472
0.148
0.154
0.209
(Dia.
(pal. >14
Loading in Size interval,
>3.4
0.048
0.048
0.250
0.299
0.109
0.203
0.077
0.230
0.346
0.444
0.433
0.134
0.274
0.113
si O
>7 .9
3.4-6.0
0.021
0.005
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.000
0.006
0.048
0.035
0.050
0.009
0.029
0.031
2.0-3.4
0.029
0.016
0.013
0.003
0.017
0.027
0.062
0.042
0.027
0.002
0.028
0.009
0.038
0.019
0.057
0.060
0.066
0.079
0.068
0.127
0.052
0.075
0.022
0.032
0.059
0.047
0.022
1.3-2.0
0.012
0.029
0.018
0.014
0.008
0.057
0.045
0.123
0.080
0.016
0.139
0.035
0.070
0.014
0.152
0.218
0.180
0.266
0.230
0.196
0.138
0.170
0.031
0.050
0.143
0.209
0.006
0.70-1.3
0.021
0.096
0.084
0.020
0.005
0.207
0.210
0.290
0.225
0.152
0.430
0.118
0.161
0.112
0.403
0.797
0.678
0.206
0.866
0.679
0.379
0.622
0.390
0.202
0.367
0.205
0.012
grains/sdcf
0.43-0.70
0.036
0.128
0.088
0.043
0.013
0.158
0.312
0.459
0.171
0.252
1.066
0.205
0.142
0.197
0.274
0.589
0.469
0.141
0.569
0.425
0.527
0.572
0.612
0.967
0.428
0.324
0.041
0.23-0.43
0.100
0.029
0.319
0.471
0.735
0.125
0.149
0.356
0.273
0.205
0.304
0.248
0.256
0.056
OfiQ-1 1
. uy i . 4
<0.43
0.014
0.007
0.065
0.110
0.094
0.159
0.070
0.125
0.156
0.156
0.605
0.747
0.294
<0.23)
0.033
0.008
0.091
0.123
0.049
0.029
0.048
0.214
0.188
0.251
0.042
0.200
0.032
0.016
<0.69)
• Samples are ordered to synthesize one complete furnace cycle.
-------
0.001
99.999
0.01
99.99
o
K O.I
Ul
Q.
*
o
o
*
UJ
u
u.
u.
99.9 u
a
UJ
o
o
1.0
10.0
•
o
+
ACC.
POS.
3
2
3
STEAM
PRESSURE
250
250
300
GAS
FLOW
11000
15000
13000
I
j i
0.01 O.I 1.0
PARTICLE DIAMETER, urn
Figure B. Fractional Efficiency Calculated Using
Impactor Data Only.
99
90
10.0
21
-------
TABLE IV
MASS TRAIN TEST RESULTS
Lone Star Steel
Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning System
Position:
Date:
Test No. :
Stack Temp:°R
to Moisture, %
Avg. Velocity, fpm
Flow, ACFM
Flow, DSCFM
Grains/ACF
Grains/DSCF
Run Duration (min)
Time:
Inlet
12/10
1
965
5.42
1428
17939
9110
0.306
0.597
60
11:15
Inlet
12/10
2
965
4.68
1613
20261
10476
0.132
0.255
120
12:35
Inlet
12/10
3
970
8.50
1780
22350
11036
0.259
0.525
40
15:30
Inlet
12/10
4
965
4.04
1835
23047
11996
0.627
1.205
120
17:15
Inlet
12/11
1
995
3.63
1398
17561
8849
0.157
0.312
160
09:00
Inlet
12/11
2
995
3.44
1718
21582
10940
0.467
0.921
165
13:20
-------
TABLE V
MASS TRAIN TEST RESULTS
Lone Star Steel
Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning System
(O
u
Position:
Date:
Time:
Test No. :
Stack Temp. : °R
Moisture , %
Grains/ACF
Grains/DSCF
Run Duration (min)
Scrubber Eff.
Outlet
12/10
11:30
1
620
29.31
0.0002
0.0003
70
99.95
Outlet
12/10
13:00
2
623
34.21
0.0003
0.0005
60
99.80
Outlet
12/10
15:00
3
621
28.78
0.0003
0.0005
60
99.90
Outlet
12/10
17:00
4
621
20.71
0.0006
0.0008
60
99.93
Outlet
12/11
09:00
1
624
29.21
0.0004
0.0007
60
99.78
Outlet
12/11
10:30
2
622
33.00
0.0004
0.0007
60
99.78
Outlet
12/11
12:00
3
624
36.44
0.0004
0.0007
60
99.78
Outlet
12/11
13:30
4
625
38.44
0.0004
0.0007
60
99.92
Outlet
12/11
15
5
:00
625
34
0.
0.
60
99
.43
0004
0007
.92
-------
For example, the amount of steam required to pump and
clean a system with two inches of water back pressure
is approximately one third that required at five to
seven inches. (Excessive back pressure is caused in
the case of the Lone Star Steel system by dirty waste
heat boilers).
24
-------
SECTION IV
APPENDICES
A MANUFACTURER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION
OF THE SCRUBBER
B SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING TESTS
C1 OPEN HEARTH FURNACE OPERATING SUMMARY
C2 OPEN HEARTH FURNACE MATERIALS SUMMARY
D ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS OF THE STEAM
HYDRO AIR CLEANING SYSTEM
E CONVERSION FACTORS
25
-------
APPENDIX A
MANUFACTURER'S DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATION
OF THE SCRUBBER
The system utilizes a high-speed steam drive
with injected water to perform an extremely efficient
scrubbing action. The heart of the system, which
contains no moving parts, consists of a steam nozzle,
water injector, mixing tube and twin cyclones. System
operation is simple and easily controlled.
Normally, the system operates on energy produced
by waste heat captured from the process being con-
trolled. The heat is used to generate steam in a
waste heat boiler. In installations where heat energy
is low, supplemental heat may be provided. In many
cases, a package steam boiler may supply all the energy.
In addition to driving the system, the steam
nozzle creates draft which draws contaminated gases
into the system.
Atomizer Chamber
First stage of cleaning is done in an optional
atomizing chamber with water sprays that may be
employed to cool the gas stream and remove heavy par-
ticulate. Most processes do not require this chamber
but it can be installed as a first-phase cleaner for
certain difficult effluents. A negative pressure is
26
-------
maintained in this chamber. A process occurs where
steam joins small particulate for second-phase re-
moval in the mixing tube.
Mixing Tube
Collision between injected water droplets and
the particulate, (including acidic gases if present)
encapsulation, nucleation, and droplet growth take
place in the mixing tube. Collisions occur between
particulate and billions of high-speed water droplets.
Particulate is encapsulated and a growth process
begins to bring submicron particulate to manageable
size for disposal through low-pressure-drop cyclones.
To insure positive capture of all particulate, a
shock wave pattern is created in the mixing tube.
Massive turbulence created by the shock wave pattern
subjects encapsulated particulate to a sudden and
violent scrubbing action.
Cyclones
Separation of particulate from the gas is
achieved by entering low-pressure-drop cyclones with
appropriate velocities and particulate which has
grown to a size matched to the system. Centrifugal
energy in the cyclones is maintained by force imparted
from the mixing tube.
27
-------
APPENDIX B
SCRUBBER OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING TESTS
24 Hour
Date Tina
12/05/73 11 05-13:40
12 20-12.35
12-35-13 40
17-30-18 33
17.30-16:15
12/06/73 12 00-13 41
12 20-12:35
12.35-14:50
14:20-16:20
15 05-13.15
15.15-17.25
17:15-17:30
17.30-19:30
N)
00 18.05-19.30
12/07/73 09.00-10 09
09.00-10.50
10-50-12 45
11:15-11 30
11.30-13:05
13.25-13-55
13.55-15 38
14:30-15 38
12/08/73 10 30-11 i 00
11.05-12.55
12.10-12.25
12:25-13 50
13.30-13 45
13 45-15.40
14.30-16 30
Furnace
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
Condition
Lance
Hot Metal
Lanco
Lanco
Charge
Lance
Hot Metal
Charge
Charge
Hot Metal
Lance
Hot Metal
Lance
Charge
Lance
Charge
Charge
Hot Metal
Lance
Hot Metal
Lance
Lance
Charge
Charge
Hot Hotel
Lance
Hot Metal
Lance
Charge
Steam
Plow
Lba/hr
8379
7851
8S19
8108
7932
7357
7357
7357
7357
7357
7357
7357
7560
7560
7270
7270
7357
7357
7386
7328
7299
7328
8695
8840
9202
8811
8695
8724
8666
Gas Flow
SCFH
18,441
18,449
18,562
14,362
13,887
10.926
11.116
10,741
10,659
10,674
10,761
11,065
10,782
10,782
10,937
10,919
10,722
10,638
10,770
10.817
10,954
10,949
12,999
12,933
12,904
13,036
13,200
13,011
12,967
Injection
Hater
GPM
30
30
30
31 5
31 6
33 6
33.6
33.l>
33.6
33 6
33.6
33 1
32.6
32.6
33.6
33.2
32.7
32.6
32 7
33.1
32. E
32.6
33.4
33 5
33.6
33.6
33.6
33 6
33 4
Atomizer
Hater
27.2
27 6
27 5
25.7
26.1
26 2
26.2
26.2
24 6
24.3
23.6
0
26.4
26.4
25.9
25.9
26.3
26.6
26.1
26 0
26.3
26.4
26.0
26.0
25.9
25.8
25.8
25 9
25 9
Atomizer
Slurry
GPM
23.3
22 2
24.4
26 9
27 4
23 7
23. S
23.9
23.9
23.9
24.1
0
23.9
23.9
23.6
23.6
24.4
25.6
23.8
25.7
25 8
25.9
23 0
22.6
22.4
22 5
23.3
22.3
22.2
Cyclone
Slurry
CP»
29.8
30 7
28.4
28 3
28 5
28 1
28.1
28 1
28.1
28 1
28.6
24.1
28 B
28.8
30 1
29 6
27.6
28.1
28 1
27.4
28.5
28.6
31.4
31.3
31.3
31.6
31.6
31.5
31 4
Particle
ACCIl.
Position
Varied
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
1-3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Nozzle
Steam
Pros
Varied
250-350
250-350
250-350
250-350
250-350
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
:so
250
250
250
250
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Steam
Tenp
'F
590-620
590-620
590-620
590-620
590-620
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
545
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
550
560
560
560
560
560
560
560
Emission
CR/SCF
0 0012
0 0012
0 0012
0.0012
0.0012
0.0012
0 0012
0.0012
0 0012
0 noi2
0 0012
0 0012
0.0012
0.0012
0 0012
0.0012
0 0012
0.00082
0 00082
0.00082
O.OOOB2
0.00082
0 OOOB2
0 00082
•Tine intervals are shown to cover the individual furnace operation of
furnaces 3 and 4.
-------
APPENDIX
B
(Continued)
24 Hour
Date Timo
12/09/73 08 30-09.40
08 30-09:40
10 05-10 20
10:20-12:20
10:20-12:40
12:40-13:10
13 00-15:35
13.20-15:35
16:10-16:25
16:20-16:30*
16:25-16:30*
12/10/73 09:00-09:30
09:00-11:04
10:20-10:35
IO 10:35-12:25
VD
11:45-13:45
13:30-16:25
14:30-14:45
14:45-16:40
17:00-17:20
17:20-19.10
17:20-19.10
12/11/73 08:30-09:15
09:15-09:30
09:30-12:15
lOi 20-13: 00
13:00-13:20
13:10-16:05
13:20-16:05
Furnace
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
4
Condition
Lanco
Charge
Hot Metal
Lance
Charge
Hot Hotal
Charge
Lance
Hot Metal
Charge
Lance
Charge
Lance
Hot Metal
Lance
Charge
Charge
Hot Hotal
LancB
Hot Metal
LBJICB
Charge
Charge
Hot Hotal
Lance
Charge
Hot Metal
Charge
Lance
Steam
Flow
Lbs/hT.
7287
7287
7299
7317
7317
7328
7328
7328
7386
7386
7386
8834
8753
8561
8666
8753
8736
8724
8753
8637
8637
8637
8724
8724
8695
8737
8753
8782
8782
Gas Flow
SCPM
15,094
15,094
15,146
15,022
15,059
15,020
14,996
15,065
14,933
14,933
14,933
12,834
13,042
13,149
13,060
13,021
12,985
13,088
13,364
13,355
12,909
12,909
13,026
12,927
12,877
12,852
12,894
13,040
13,040
Injection
Water
35.5
35.5
35.5
35.6
35.6
35.0
35.0
35.1
35.0
35.0
35.0
34.6
34.4
34.1
34.1
34.1
33.7
33.6
33.6
34.1
33.0
33.0
34.1
34.1
33.4
33.2
33.1
33.6
33.6
Atomizer
Wator
GPH
25.9
25.9
25.6
24.9
24.9
24.7
24.8
24.8
24.5
24.5
24.5
25.9
26.6
27.3
26.8
26.7
26.7
27.1
26.7
26.6
26.5
26.5
26.2
26.4
26.5
26.5
26.4
26.3
26.3
Atomixer
Slurry
GPH
22.5
22.5
24.0
22.7
22.6
21.7
21.5
21.5
19.9
19.9
19.9
21.9
23.1
24.9
23.5
23.0
22.6
22.3
22.5
23.1
22.7
22.7
24.1
23.9
24.2
24.1
24.7
23.8
23.8
Cyclone
Slurry
GPH
32.5
32.5
32.0
32.0
32.1
33.5
33.7
33.7
34.8
34.8
34.8
33.4
32.7
32.4
32.3
32.0
32.2
32.2
32.3
32.9
32.1
32.1
32.0
31.8
31.6
31.3
30.9
32.0
32.0
Particle
Accrl.
Position
**"*^*****
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Nozzlo
Steam
Pros
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
Steam
Temp.
•p
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
555
55S
555
555
555
555
555
Emission
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.0015
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0 00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
0.00089
•Stopped Sampling at 16:30
-------
APPENDIX Cl
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE OPERATING SUMMARY
U)
O
Number *
37770
47657
37771
47658
37774
47661
37775
47662
37777
47665
37778
47666
37782
47669
37783
47670
37785
47673
37786
47674
37787
37789
47677
37790
47678
37791
37793
47681
37794
Date
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/05/73
12/06/73
12/06/73
12/06/73
12/06/73
12/07/73
12/07/73
12/07/73
12/07/73
12/08/73
12/08/73
12/08/73
12/08/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/09/73
12/10/73
12/10/73
12/10/73
12/10/73
12/10/73
12/11/73
12/11/73
12/11/73
TIME
Previous
Heat
Tapped
0830
0705
1450
1340
0840
0700
1727
1340
0500
0710
1010
1310
1010
0810
1540
1350
0335
0700
0940
1220
1535
0330
0630
1105
1225
1640
0425
0800
1215
Began
Charging
0910
0745
1600
1420
1125
0740
1805
1420
0540
0750
1050
1430
1105
• 850
1645
1430
0415
0740
1020
1300
1620
0610
0755
1145
1330
1720
0545
1020
1315
Finish
Charging
1010
1015
1815
1645
1400
1035
2020
1620
0740
1050
1245
1710
1255
1100
1915
1710
0625
0940
1240
1535
1805
0755
0930
1345
1625
1925
0840
1230
1600
Begin
Hot Metal
Addition
1220
1050
1850
1715
1505
1120
2050
1715
0815
1115
1325
1750
1330
1210
1955
1745
0710
1005
1310
1610
0830
1020
1430
1700
1945
0915
1300
1643
End
Hot Metal
Addition
1235
1105
1900
1730
1515
1150
2100
1730
0830
1130
1355
1800
1345
1225
2005
1800
0725
1020
1320
1625
0845
1035
1445
1720
2010
0930
1315
1700
Heat
Tapped
1450
1340
2130
1916
1727
1341
2250
1934
1009
1305
1538
1944
1541
1350
2209
2007
0939
1219
1536
1819
1104
1225
1640
1910
2210
1214
1602
1935
* The first digit identifies the furnace, the remaining four identify the
batch number.
-------
APPENDIX C2
OPEN HEARTH FURNACE MATERIALS SUMMARY
U)
Heat
Number
47657
47658
47661
47662
47665
47666
47669
47670
47673
47674
47677
47678
47681
37770
37771
37774
37775
37777
37778
37782
37783
37785
37786
37787
37789
37790
37791
37793
37794
Cold
Iron
Charge*
38200
40000
0
0
49000
42000
34000
34200
0
55000
0
54200
25000
41200
58800
0
0
35600
49000
24400
54400
0
57000
67200
0
23000
65300
61000
35000
Steel
Charge
317100
311300
314000
285800
311800
310300
314200
314200
314800
314000
314800
308100
311400
319200
314800
286600
285100
311000
310800
314800
314000
315600
314200
313400
312200
314200
316800
314400
312800
Non
Metallic
Charge
27200
28000
25200
27000
20500
23500
23500
22300
21700
22300
23100
23700
23900
25200
25100
35400
21300
24500
23500
22300
21700
22900
22500
20900
22700
23500
21900
23900
23500
Hot Metal
Charge
(Direct)
217000
216500
258000
286000
213900
224200
216700
203000
261000
201000
259900
200000
227900
212000
197800
283300
284700
219200
212800
231800
202000
258000
202000
197000
260900
234500
196000
199000
220000
Extra
Hot Metal
Addition
8000
15000
Metallic
Addition
9000
5000
14100
11000
8800
5800
7700
15800
10800
5000
5700
7900
8500
13300
13300
13100
5800
6300
7600
7700
7700
17000
8100
14800
15300
6200
5000
11500
13300
Non
Metallic
Addition
4500
4000
4000
4000
4500
4000
* All charges and additions are weights of material in pounds.
-------
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS OF THE STEAM
HYDRO AIR CLEANING SYSTEM
Data for these cost estimates were taken from
Peters and Timmerhans, Plant Design and Economies
For Chemical Engineers, 2nd edition, 1968 and are
based on cost data for the year 1967.
Steam Cost
500 PSIG $0.60 - $1.20/1000 Ib
100 PSIG 0.50 - 1.00/1000 Ib
Water
Well 0.03 - 0.15/1000 gal
River 0.02 - 0.06/1000 gal
Fuel Oil 0.05 - 0.15/gal
Figure Dl shows estimated energy requirements
as furnished by Lone Star Steel for achieving various
levels or grain loadings when operating on the open
hearth process. Note that as the backdraft increases,
the steam requirement increases. In the case of waste
heat boilers - if these are not designed so that they
can be kept clean, the steam requirement is higher than
for a clean system. Attention is also invited to the
fact that on installations such as cupolas and sinter
32
-------
360
320
280
240
200
160
120
•H
A
iH
9
n
80
40
For removal of Hydrocarbon Vapors,
Aerosols, and other organics - add
33% to energy requirements
-2
-4
-6
"H20
-8
-10
-12
Figure Dl.
Steam Hydro Steam Requirements Necessary for Producing
the Indicated Outlet Loadings When Handling Open Hearth
Emissions.
33
-------
plants, the energy to remove hydrocarbon vapors,
aerosols, and other organics is approximately 1/3
higher than for the removal of inorganics, i.e.,
particulate. The level of cleaning can be readily
changed by a change in the energy to the system.
Once the Steam-Hydro is installed, capital costs are
not involved in increasing the cleaning level, simply
the operating costs. The operating costs described
here are based on two conditions one in which the
system energy is derived solely from process waste
heat and one for which fuel oil supplies the energy.
These figures are estimates only and do not include
such things as savings deriving from the fact that
the system provides its own draft as well as that for
the furnaces, consequently eliminating I.D. and F.D.
fans, blowers, etc.
The conditions of the tests were:
Steam usage: 7300 Ib/hr at 250 PSIG
Water usage: 61 gal/min (of which 55 gal/min
is recovered)
Air flow: 13000 SCFM with a system back
pressure of 6" H 0.
Outlet particulate loading: 0.0007 gr/DSCR
Note that in this application the system back
pressure was anomalously high as a result of fouling of
the waste heat boiler which was installed with tube
rappers but without soot blowers. Figure Dl indicates
that this back pressure would lead to a 50% increase in
the system energy requirements as compared to the require-
ments at a back pressure of 1 inch of water.
34
-------
Assuming nominal values for costs of $0.85/1000 Ib
for steam (including the cost of fuel), 0.04/1000 gal
for water, and 0.08/gal for fuel oil, the operating
cost per thousand SCF when running with a back pressure
of 6" W.G = are $0.007977 for steam production, which
includes a fuel cost of $0.00671, and a water cost of
$0.000188. With a system back pressure of 1" W.G. the
steam cost is reduced to $0.00532 of which $0.00474
represents the cost of fuel. Thus where waste heat is
available for steam production, eliminating the fuel
cost, the operating cost per 1000 SCF are $0.00145 and
$0.00077 respectively for operating at 6" W.G. and
1" W.G. back pressures. For applications where waste
heat is not available for steam production and fuel must
be supplied the costs rise to $0.00817 and $0.00551
per thousand SCF at the afore mentioned back pressures.
For operation at 1" W.G. back pressure the annual
operating costs per SCFM are $0.403 in the waste heat
case and $2.89 for the case in which fuel must be
purchased. For the purposes of the proceeding operating
cost estimates amortization of capital costs were not
included. Inclusion of capital cost amortization would
result in substantial increases in the above figures.
35
-------
APPENDIX E
TABLE OF CONVERSION FACTORS
To Convert From
Ibs
grains/cf
cfm
lbs/in2
op
°R
inches w.g.
gallon
Btu
feet/min
To
Kg
grains/m3
m3/sec
Kg/m2
°K
°K
mm Hg
liter
Joules
m/sec
Multiply By
0.454
2.288
0.000472
703.1
(°F + 460) x 5/9
0.556
1.8682
3.785
1054.8
0.00508
36
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read luaniriivns on the rei me before completing
I REPORT NO
EPA-650/2-74-028
3 RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO
4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Lone Star Steel Steam-Hydro Air Cleaning
System Evaluation
5 REPORT DATE
April 1974
6 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOH(S)
J. D. McCain and W. B. Smit h, Southern
Research Institute, Birmingham, Ala. 35205
8 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
M.W. Kellogg Co.
1300 Three Greenway Plaza
Houston, Texas 77046
10 PROGRAM ELEMENT NO
1AB012; ROAP 21ADL-04
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
68-02-1308 (Task 11)
12 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
NERC-RTP, Control Systems Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13 TVPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (Through 2/15/74)
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16 ABSTRACT,^ rep0rfgives results of fractional and overall mass efficiency tests of
the Lone Star Steel steam-hydro scrubber. The tests were performed on one of
seven modules of a full scale scrubber used for controlling particulate emissions
from an open hearth furnace. Total flue gas particulate mass concentrations were
determined at the inlet and outlet of the scrubber by conventional (Method 5)
techniques. Inlet and outlet particulate concentrations as functions of size were
determined on a mass basis using cascade impactors for sizes from about 0. 3 to
5 jum, and on the number basis for sizes smaller than about 1 jum using optical and
diffusional methods. The report includes brief descriptions of the open hearth
process, the Lone Star Steel steam-hydro scrubber, economics of operating the
scrubber, measurement methods for calculating fractional efficiency, a synthesized
time history of the open hearth particulate emissions, and fractional efficiencies
as measured for several scrubber operating conditions.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c COSATI Held/Group
Air Pollution
Soot
Scrubbers
Measurement
Openhearth Furnaces
Flue Dust
Economic Analysis
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
P articulates
Steam-Hydro Scrubber
13B, 14A
21B
07A
13A
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19 SECURITY CLASS (Tin: Report I
Unclassified
21 NO OF PAGES
43
Unlimited
20 SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
EPA Form 2220-1 19-71)
37
------- |