|TJGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
R. Bohn, et al
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri
March 1978
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
HI IS.
-------
EPA-600/2-78-050
March 1978
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM INTEGRATED
IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
by
Russel Bohn, Thomas Cuscmo Jr.,
and Chatten Cowherd Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
425 Voider Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-2120
ROAP 21AUY-060
Program Element No. 1 ABO 15
EPA Project Officer Robert V. Hendriks
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Energy, Minerals and Industry
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
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
4
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
-------
I fcCHNlCAL HSFORT DATA
on the reverse hefon corr.
t. REPOHT XO,
EPA-600/2-78-050
PB 281 322
4. TS7LE AND SUBTITLE
Fugitive Emissions from Integrated Iron and
Steel Plants
DATE
March 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Russel Bonn, Thomas Cuscino Jr. , and
Chatten Cowherd Jr.
9. PSHPORMING OPOANI2ATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1ABOL5; ROAP 21AUY-060
II. CONTHACT/GrtANT NO.
68-02-2120
11. SPONSORING AGEMCY NAME AND ADDrtESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF n = P3ST AND PERIOD COVERED
13. TYPE OF n = P3STANO
Final; 6/75-6/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
s. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ]ERL-RTP project officer is Robert V. Hendriks, Mail Drop 62.
919/541-2733.
6. ABSTRACT
The report gives results of an engineering investigation of fugitive (non-
ducted) emissions in the iron and steel industry. Operations excluded from the
study are coke ovens, basic oxygen furnace (BOF) charging, and blast furnace cast
houses. Fugitive emission factors for iron and steel sources were compiled from
the literature and from contact with industry sources. Field testing of particulate
emissions from materials handling operations and from traffic on paved and unpaved
roads was utilized to develop improved emission factors for open fugitive emission
sources. Ranking fugitive sources on the basis of typically controlled fugitive emis-
sions of fine particulates (< 5 microns in diameter) indicates that electric fur-
naces, vehicular traffic, BOFs, storage pile activities, and sintering, in decrea-
sing order, are the most important sources of fugitive emissions studied. Substan-
tial progress has been made in developing devices and methods for emission cap-
ture and removal. However, major problems exist in retrofitting proposed systems
to existing operations. There is also a serious lack of data on uncontrolled emission
quantities , control device effectiveness, and control costs.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
ENDED TERMS
c. CCSATI Fi-.-id/Ctnup
Air Pollution Electric Fur-
Iron and Steel Industry naces
Emission Stockpiles
Dust Sintering
Materials Handling
Vehicular Traffic
Air Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Fugitive Emissions
Particulates
138
11F
11G
13H
13A
3. DISTHiauTlON STATEMENT
Unlimited
t'J. SECUfU ry CLASS (This He port}
Unclassified
21. I
20. SECURITY CLASS (
Unclassified. _
22. PRICE
E?A Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
NOTICE
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED
FROM THE BEST COPY FURNISHED US BY
THE SPONSORING AGEN.CY. ALTHOUGH IT
IS RECOGNIZED THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS
ARE ILLEGIBLE, IT IS BEING RELEASED
IN THE INTEREST OF MAKING AVAILABLE
AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE.
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency to pre-
sent the results of work performed under Contract No. 68-02-2120. Mr. Robert
V. Hendriks served as EPA Project Officer.
The program was conducted in the Environmental and Materials Sciences
Division of Midwest Research Institute. Dr. Chatten Cowherd, Head, Air Quality
Assessment Section, served as Program Manager. Mr. Russel Bohn and Mr. Thomas
Cuscino, Jr., were the principal co-investigators. Ms. Christine Maxwell was
responsible for reduction of field testing data.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Preface ii
Figures ..... vii
Tables ix
Summary - xli
Conclusions and Recommendations .... xv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
2.0 Fugitive Emissions Source Identification ... 2-1
2.1 Process sources 2-1
2.1.1 Scrap cutting . 2-1
2.1.2 Sintering . 2-7
2.1.3 Hot metal transfer 2-8
2.1.4 Hot metal desulfurization 2-8
2.1.5 Electric arc furnaces ..... 2-9
2.1.6 Basic oxygen furnaces ....... 2-10
2.1.7 Open hearth furnaces 2-10
2.1.8 Slag quenching 2-11
2.1.9 Teeming 2-11
2.1.10 Scarfing 2-12
2.2 Open dust sources 2-12
2.2.1 Materials handling 2-12
2.2.2 Storage pile activities 2-15
2.2.3 Vehicular traffic 2-17
2.2.4 Wind erosion of exposed areas 2-20
3.0 Fugitive Emissions Quantification 3-1
3.1 Quantification techniques . 3-1
3.1.1 Open dust source quantification by upwind/
downwind method 3-3
3.1.2 Open dust source quantification by exposure
profiling method . 3-4
3.2 Emission factors for process sources 3-7
3.3 Emission factors for open dust sources ....... 3-12
3.3.1 Previously available emission factors .... 3-12
3.3.2 Source testing results 3-16
3.3.3 Refinement of predictive equations ..... 3-24
3.3.4 Determination of correction parameters . . . 3-39
3.3.5 Best open dust source emission factors . . . 3-41
iil
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
4.0 Open Dust Source Surveys 4-1
4.1 Survey results for Plant A ........ 4-1
4.1.1 Vehicular traffic 4-1
4.1.2 Storage pile activities 4-5
4.1.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas 4-7
4.1.4 Summary of dust emissions 4-9
4.2 Survey results for Plant B 4-9
4.2.1 Vehicular traffic 4-9
4,2.2 Storage pile activities ..... . 4-14
4.2.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas ........ 4-16
4.2.4 Summary of dust emissions 4-16
4.3 Survey results for Plant C 4-16
4.3.1 Vehicular traffic . 4-20
4.3.2 Storage pile activities 4-22
4.3.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas 4-24
4.3.4 Summary of dust emissions .......... 4-24
4.4 Survey results for Plant D ..... 4-28
4.4.1 Vehicular traffic 4-28
4.4.2 Storage pile activities 4-30
4.4.3 Wind erosion of exposed areas ........ 4-32
4.4.4 Summary of dust emissions . 4-34
5.0 Control Technology for Process Sources 5-1
5.1 Electric arc furnaces .......... 5-2
5.1.1 Option A: building evacuation 5-2
5.1.2 Option B: canopy hoods ...... 5-8
5.1.3 Option C: total enclosure 5-11
5.1.4 Option D: tapping ladle hoods 5-14
5.1.5 Option E: the hooded scrap bucket ..... 5-15
5.1.6 Option F: process modifications 5-15
5.2 Basic oxygen furnaces 5-16
5.2.1 Option A: monitor enclosing 5-16
5.2.2 Option B: canopy hoods ...... 5-17
5.2.3 Option C: partial and total enclosures . . . 5-19
5.2.4 Option D: novel uses of the primary hood . . 5-21
5.3 Hot metal transfer 5-22
5.3.1 Option A: close fitting ladle hoods .... 5-22
5.3.2 Option B: canopy hoods 5-23
5.3.3 Option C: partial building evacuation . . . 5-24
5.4 Teeming 5-25
5.4.1 Option A: local hoods ........... 5-26
5.5 Other sources 5-26
iv
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
5.5.1 Gas cutting operations 5-27
5.5.2 Sintering 5-27
5.5.3 Hot metal desulfurization 5-28
6.0 Control Technology for Open Dust Sources 6-1
6.1 Materials handling 6-2
6.1.1 Option A: enclosures 6-2
6.1.2 Option B: spray systems 6-4
6.2 Storage pile load-in 6-5
6.2.1 Option A: reduce drop distance 6-5
6.2.2 Option B: enclosures ' 6-7
6.2.3 Option C: spray systems 6-8
6.3 Vehicular traffic around storage piles 6-9
6.4 Wind erosion from storage piles 6-9
6.4.1 Option A: surface stabilization . 6-9
6.4.2 Option B: enclosures 6-10
6.5 Storage pile load-out 6-12
6.5.1 Option A: reduce material disturbance . . . 6-12
6.5.2 Option B: spray systems 6-14
6.6 Vehicular traffic on unpaved roads .... 6-14
6.6.1 Option A: dust suppressants ........ 6-14
6.6.2 Option B: improvement of road surface . . . 6-17
6.7 Vehicular traffic on paved roads 6-18
6.7.1 Option A: sweeping . 6-18
6.7.2 Option B- flushing 6-19
6.8 Wind erosion from exposed areas 6-19
6.8.1 Option A: surface stabilization 6-19
6.8.2 Option B: windbreaks 6-20
7.0 Research and Development Recommendations 7-1
7.1 Determination of control needs 7-1
7.1.1" Ranking criteria 7-1
7.1.2 Ranking of control needs 7-8
7.2 Ongoing research . 7-8
7.2.1 Process sources ..... 7-8
7.2.2 Open dust sources .,....., 7-14
7.3 Additional research needs 7-17
7.3.1 Process sources 7-17
773.2Open~dust sources 7-18
7.4 Cost-effectiveness analysis 7-21
7.4.1 Canopy hood system for electric arc furnaces. 7-21
7.4.2 Unpaved road vehicular traffic 7-22
7.4.3 Comparison of cost effectiveness 7-24
7.5 Suggested research programs 7-24
7.5.1 Process sources 7-24
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
7.5.2 Open dust sources .............. 7-28
8.0 References 8-1
9.0 Glossary 9-1
10.0 English to Metric Unit Conversion Table 10-1
Appendices
A. Field testing methodology ................... A-l
B. Testing results and example calculations B-l
C. Stabilization chemicals for open dust sources .... C-l
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 General flow diagram for Che Iron and steel industry ...... 2-2
2-2 Mass balances—integraCed iron and steel industry 2-3
2-3 1976 Iron and steel industry material flows , 2-5
2-4 Iron steel raw material storage pile activities 2-13
3-1 Example exposure profiling arrangement . 3-6
3-2 MRI exposure profiler , 3-20
3-3 Quality assurance (QA) rating scheme for emission factors . . . 3-25
3-4 Predictive emission factor equation for vehicular traffic on
unpaved roads 3-26
3-5 Predictive emission factor equation for vehicular traffic on
paved roads 3-30
3-6 Predictive emission factor equation for storage pile formations
by means of translating conveyor stacker .... 3-32
3-7 Predictive emission factor equation for transfer of aggregate
from front-end loader to truck 3-35
3-8 Predictive emission factor equations for vehicular traffic
around storage piles 3-37
3-9 Predictive emission factor equation for wind erosion from
storage piles 3-38
3-10 Predictive emission factor equation for wind erosion of exposed
areas 3-40
5-1 Building evacuation system .... 5-4
5-2 EAF canopy hood system . 5-9
5-3 EOF canopy hood system 5-18
5-4 BOF total enclosure 5-20
7-1 Flow diagram to determine the need for R&D 7-2
7-2 Steel production as a function of population density ...... 7-7
7-3 BOF and EAF research program structure 7-27
A-l MRI exposure profiler for line or moving point sources A-4
A-2 Auxiliary air sampler A-5
A-3 Example exposure profiling arrangement ............. A-6
A-4 Positioning of air sampling equipment (top view)--processed
slag load-out A-8
A-5 Positioning of air sampling equipment (rear view)—processed
slag load-out A-9
vii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
A-6 Positioning of air sampling equipment--ore pile stacking .... A-10
A-7 Modified MRI exposure profller--ore pile stacking A-ll
A-8 Positioning of air sampling equipment--unpaved/paved road . . . A-12
A-9 Sinter plant conveyor transfer station . . . ~.~l". . ~. A-13
viii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
CR-1 Comparison of Nationwide Stack and Fugitive Emissions xvi
1-1 Sources of Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron and Steel
Plants 1-3
2-1 Typical Conversion Factors Utilized for Engineering Estimates
of Quantities of Material Handled 2-4
2-2 Fugitive Emission Characteristics . 2-6
2-3 1976 Raw Steel Production by Type of Furnace 2-9
2-4 1976 Industry-Wide Production and Receipt of Input Materials . . 2-15
2-5 Materials Handling Emissions Characteristics 2-16
2-6 Storage Pile Activity Source Extent 2-18
2-7 Storage Pile Activity Emissions Characteristics 2-19
2-8 Vehicular Traffic Source Extent 2-21
2-9 Vehicular Traffic Emissions Characteristics 2-22
2-10 Exposed Area Source Extent 2-24
2-11 Exposed Area Emissions Characteristics 2-24
3-1 Fugitive Particulate Emission Factors for Process Sources . . . 3-8
3-2 Process Fugitive Emission Factors and Their Attainment Methods . 3-9
3-3 Available Particle Size Data for Process Sources 3-13
3-4 Selection of Best Emission Factors and Particle Size Data for
Process Fugitive Emission Sources . 3-14
3-5 Experimentally Determined Fugitive Dust Emission Factors .... 3-17
3-6 Open Dust Source Emissions Test Parameters 3-21
3-7 Results of Open Dust Source Testing—Vehicular Traffic 3-22
3-8 Results of Open Dust Source Testing--Materials Handling and
Storage Pile Activities 3-23
3-9 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Unpaved Roads) . . 3-27
3-10 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Light Duty Vehicles on
Unpaved Industrial Roads) ..... . 3-28
3-11 Estimated Versus Actual Emissions (Paved Roads) 3-31
3-12 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Load-In by Stacker) 3-33
3-13 Predicted Versus Actual Emissions (Load-Out by Loader) 3-36
3-14 Selection of Best Emission Factors for Open Dust Sources .... 3-42
4-1 Fugitive Dust Emission Factors Experimentally Determined by
MRI 4-2
4-2 Plant A: Road Emissions 4-3
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
4-15
4-16
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-20
4-21
5-1
5-2
5-3
Plant A
Plant A
Plant A
Plant A
Plant B
Plant B
Plant B
Plant B
Plant B
Plant C
Plant C
Plant C
Plant C
Plant C
Plant D
Plant D
Plant C
Plant D
Plant D
Summary
Estimati
Identif;
5-4
5-5
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
7-1
7-2
7-3
7-4
7-5
7-6
Storage Pile Emissions .........
Storage Pile Correction Parameters
Exposed Area Emissions
Summary of Open Dust Source Emissions
Road Emissions
Storage Pile Emissions ..........
Storage Pile Correction Parameters
Wind Erosion - Open Area Emissions ....
Summary of Open Dust Source Emissions
Road Emissions
Storage File Emissions ....... .
Storage Pile Correction Parameters ...
Open Area Emissions
Summary of Open Dust Source Emissions
Road Emissions
Storage Pile Ernies ions
Storage Pile Correction Parameters . .
Open Area Emissions
Summary of Open Dust Source Emissions .......
: EAF Controls
Estimated Total Installed Costs—Building Evacuation
Identification of Example Canopy Hoods Systems on Electric Arc
Furnaces
Estimated Total Installed Costs--Canopy Hoods ........
Actual Total Installed Costs—Canopy Hoods and Removal System
Materials Handling Dust Controls .....
Storage Pile Activity Dust Controls .
Example Surface Crusting Agents for Storage Piles and Exposed
Areas
Road Dust Controls ..........
Exposed Area Dust Controls
Nationwide Emission Rates for Fugitive Emission Sources . . .
Fugitive Emission Source Rank on a Nationwide Scale Based on
1976 Production Rates .
Summary of Ongoing or Recently Completed Research Projects Con-
cerning Process Sources of Fugitive Emissions .
Summary of Ongoing Research Projects Concerning Open Dust
Sources
Fugitive Emissions Control Options Recommended for Additional
/•
Research ..... .....
Unpaved Roadway Control Cost Effectiveness .....
Page
4-6
4-8
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-15
4-17
4-18
4-19
4-21
4-23
4-25
4-26
4-27
4-29
4-31
4-33
4-35
4-36
5-3
5-7
5-10
5-12
5-13
6-3
6-6
6-11
6-16
6-21
7-4
7-9
7-12
7-15
7-19
7-23
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
7-7 Cost Effectiveness of Fugitive Emissions Control Methods .... 7-25
A-l Field Measurements A-3
B-l Emissions Test Parametera--Material Load-Out B-2
B-2 Plume Sampling Data--Material Load-Out B-3
B-3 Suspended Particulate Concentration and Exposure Measurements--
Material Load-Out . B-5
B-4 Particle Sizing Data Summary--Material Load-Out ........ B-6
B-5 Corrected Emission Factor Summary—Material Load-Out ...... B-7
B-6 Example Calculation for Run Al —Slag Load-Out . B-8
B-7 Emissions Test Parameters--0re Pile Stacking B-10
B-8 Plume Sampling Data—Ore Pile Stacking B-ll
B-9 Suspended Particulate Concentration and Exposure Measurements--
Ore Pile Stacking B-12
B-10 Particle Sizing Data Summary—Ore Pile Stacking B-13
B-ll Corrected Emission Factor Summary—Ore Pile Stacking . B-14
B-12 Example Calculation for Run A8--Ore Pile Stacking ....... B-16
B-13 Emissions Test Parameters--Unpaved Roads ....... B-18
B-14 Plume Sampling Data—Unpaved Roads B-19
B-15 Suspended Particulate Concentration and Exposure Measurements--
Unpaved Roads B-20
B-16 Particle Sizing Data Summary--Unpaved Roads B-21
B-17 Corrected Emission Factor Summary—Unpaved Roads B-22
B-18 Example Calculation for Run A14--Unpaved and Paved Roads .... B-23
B-19 Emissions Test Parameters—Paved Road B-25
B-20 Plume Sampling Data--Paved Roads . B-26
B-21 Suspended Particulate Concentration and Exposure Measurements —
Paved Road B-27
B-22 Particle Sizing Data Summary--Paved Road B-28
B-23 Corrected Emission Factor Summary—Paved Road B-29
B-24 Emissions Test Parameters—Conveyor Transfer B-31
B-25 Plume Sampling Data—Conveyor Transfer .... B-32
B-26 Suspended Particulate Concentration and Exposure Measurements--
Conveyor Transfer ... ..... B-33
B-27 Particle Sizing Data Summary--Conveyor Transfer B-34
B-28 Corrected Emission Factor Summary--Conveyor Transfer B-35
B-29 Example Calculation for Run E10--Conveyor Transfer B-36
xi
-------
SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an engineering investigation of fugi-
tive emissions in the integrated iron and steel industry. This study was direc
to the accomplishment of the following objectives:
1. Identification of fugitive emission sources within integrated irbn and
steel plants
2. Ranking of identified emissions sources based on relative environmental
impact
3. Recommendations of future research, development and/or demonstration
to aid in the reduction of fugitive emissions from the sources de-
termined to be the most critical.
Operations specifically excluded from this study were coke ovens, charging of
basic oxygen furnaces, and blast furnace cast houses.
Fugitive emissions in the iron and steel industry can be generally divided
into two classes - process fugitive emissions and open dust source fugitive
emissions. Process fugitive emissions include uncaptured particulates and
gases that are generated by iron and steelmaking furnaces, sinter machines,
and metal forming and finishing equipment, and that are discharged to the
atmosphere through building ventilation systems. Open dust sources of fugi-
tive emissions include those sources such as raw material storage piles, from
which emissions are generated by the forces of wind and machinery acting on
exposed aggregate materials.
Quantitative data which characterize process fugitive emissions from in-
tegrated iron and steel plants are sparse. A few measurements of process fugi-
tive emissions have been published, but lack of detail on test methods adds
uncertainty to the results. In a number of cases, crude estimating techniques
have been used to generate fugitive emissions data. To compound the problem,
confusion as to the origin of emissions data frequently results from poor
documentation.
Prior to this study, little attempt had been made to quantify open dust
sources within integrated iron and steel plants. The means used in this study
to assess this source category included (a) detailed open dust source surveys
Preceding page blank
-------
of four integrated iron and steel plants and (b) field testing of dust emissions
from materials handling operations and from traffic on unpaved and paved roads.
The results of this effort indicate that open dust sources contribute substant-
ially to the atmospheric particulate discharged from integrated iron and steel
plants.
Prioritization of control needs was determined by ranking of fugitive
sources on the basis of typically controlled emissions of fine particulate
(smaller than 5 urn in diameter) and suspended particulate (smaller than 30 urn
in diameter). Most adverse health and welfare effects of particulate air pol-
lution are attributed to fine particular, which also has sufficient atmospheric
transport potential for regional-scale impact. However, because airborne par-
ticles smaller than about 30 um in diameter (having a typical density of 2.5
g/cm^) are readily captured by a standard high-volume air samples under nor-
mal wind conditions, both the coarse and fine particle fractions of suspended
particulate contribute to measured ambient particulate levels.
Ranking of fugitive sources on the basis of typically controlled fugitive
emissions of fine particulate and suspended particulate produced the following
prioritization of control needs:
Fine Particulates Suspended Particulates
(1) Electric Arc Furnaces (1) Vehicular Traffic
(2) Vehicular Traffic (2) Electric Arc Furnaces
(3) Basic Oxygen Furnaces (3) Storage Pile Activities
(4) Storage Pile Activities (4) Sintering
(5) Sintering (5) Basic Oxygen Furnaces
It is evident from these rankings that open dust sources should occupy a prime
position in control strategy development for fugitive emissions.
Analysis of available control technology for process fugitive emission
sources indicates the substantial progress has been made in developing devices
•and methods for emissions capture and removal. However, major problems exist
in retrofitting proposed systems to existing operations. This is complicated
by the serious lack of data on (a) uncontrolled emission quantities and char-
acteristics, (b) control device effectiveness (particularly relating to capture
efficiency) and (c) control costs.
A number of promising control methods are also available for open dust
sources. Again, however, little data exist on the effectiveness of these
methods, which must be related to the intensity of control application. Al-
though cost data can be derived, costs need to be related to the specific
method design which will produce the desired level of control.
xiv
-------
Research Is recommended to determine the cost-effectiveness of promising
control options for both process sources of fugitive emissions and open dust
sources. This will allow for rational selection of control methods for further
development. Example cost-effectiveness analyses for a process source (canopy
hood system for electric arc furnace) and for various open dust sources indi-
cate the control of open dust sources has a substantially more favorable cost-
effective ratio.
A major problem hindering the development of control efficiency data is
the lack of specified reference methods for the measurement of fugitive emis-
sions. Generalized methods have been proposed, but these methods have not been
evaluated for accuracy and precision in relation to specific source conditions.
Moreover, practicable measurement method options produce data which are generally
not source specific.
A notable exception to this situation is the MRI exposure profiling method-.
This method was successfully used in this study to measure source specific emis-
sion rates and particle size distributions for a number of open dust sources.
However, in spite of the demonstrated advantages of exposure profiling over
conventional upwind/downwind sampling, the latter technique persists as the
backbone of current field oriented research on open dust sources, which is
being conducted primarily in other industries.
xv
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents the major conclusions reached in this investigation
and recommendations for reducing negative impacts of these conclusions. In
fulfillment of the program objectives, a major effort was put forth to evalu-
ate the need for future research and development programs which would provide
fugitive emissions control technology for integrated iron and steel plants.
Consequently, the recommendations focus on needed future work.
The emission factors available for fugitive process sources (as presented
in Table 3-1 and 3-2) are, for the most part, either derived from testing but
not supported by adequate reporting techniques, or are estimates rather than
measured values. These inadequacies have produced a range of quantitative un-
certainty (as presented in Table 3-4) as large as a factor of 7. The lack of
quantified emission factors hinders the reliable assessment of the air quality
impact of a proposed or existing steel plant, and the development of rational
fugitive emission control strategies.
There are two possible recommendations to deal with the deficiencies in
available fugitive emission factors for process sources. The first would en-
tail contacting original investigators and producing a more detailed report on
available emission factors. Those factors which were obviously inadequately
documented could then be replaced by new, more adequately supported values.
The second recommendation would be to use the available factors to estimate a
range of impacts. However, this latter strategy would be unacceptable if im-
portant decisions hinged on the application of highly uncertain values.
Prior to this study only a few emission factors hod been developed for
open dust sources. As a result of testing conducted as part of this study,
several open dust sources have been quantified, but available data for most
sources are still insufficient to develop predictive emission factor equations
of acceptable reliability. Consequently, an obvious recommendation is to con-
duct further tests on major open dust sources such as unpaved roads and stor-
age piles.
Justification for further investigation of open dust sources is presented
in Table CR.-1, which compares nationwide stack and fugitive emissions for the
iron and steel industry. It is important to note that the emission rates pre-
sented are approximate. These values are intended to give a relative comparison
Preceding page blank
-------
TABLE CR-1. COMPARISON OF NATIONWIDE STACK AND FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Estimated 1976 typically, controlled
General source category
fine participate emission
Stack
Fugitive
A. Process sources
Sintering
Hot metal transfer
Electric arc furnace (EAF)
Basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
Open hearth furnace (OHF)
Scarfing
B. Open sources
Unloading raw materials
Conveyor transfer stations
Storage pile activities
Vehicular traffic
Wind erosion of exposed areas
58,000 t/yr
(52,000 T/yr)
15,000 t/yr
(13,000 T/yr)
13,000 t/yr
(12,000 T/yr)
4,400 t/yr
(4,000 T/yr)
110 t/yr
(98 T/yr)
4,700 t/yr
(2,500 T/yr)
750 t/yr
(830 T/yr)
23,000 t/yr
(25,000 T/yr)
9,100 t/yr
(10,000 T/yr)
1,200 t/yr
(1,300 T/yr)
610 t/yr
(670 T/yr)
430 t/yr
(470 T/yr)
790 t/yr
(870 T/yr)
5,200 t/yr
(5,700 T/yr)
11,500 t/yr)
(13,000 T/yr)
480 t/yr
(540 T/yr)
£/ t/yr = metric tonnes (2,204 Ib) per year; T/yr
year.
= short tons (2,000 Ib) per
xviii
-------
of source Importance rather than an absolute quantification of emissions from
each source.
The major conclusions from Table CR-1 are:
1. Fine participate emissions from vehicular traffic (13,000 T/year) and
storage pile activities (5,700 T/year) rank second and fourth, re-
spectively, in terms of the magnitude of fugitive emissions emitted
nationwide from controlled sources.
2. Fine particulate emissions from vehicular traffic are comparable, on
an individual basis, to typically controlled stack emissions from
EAFs and BOFs.
3. Wind erosion and raw material unloading and conveying are small open .
dust sources on a nationwide "basis. (On a specific plant basis,
wind erosion may constitute a considerable portion of the emissions
because of dry climate,)
Before further testing of fugitive emission sources proceeds, there ex-
ists the need for the specification of standardized methods of measurement. It'
is recommended that for open dust sources, the relative merits of the available
techniques, specifically upwind/downwind sampling and exposure profiling, be
evaluated for each source type and that a single technique be detailed as a
reference method for each source category. The same recommendations are made
for process sources.
The control equipment for the process fugitive sources reviewed in this
study already exists and has been applied in isolated cases. However, problems
with application of these controls lie in retrofitting control equipment to
existing operations. This is complicated by the serious lack of data on (a)
uncontrolled emission quantities and characteristics, (b) control device ef-
fectiveness (particularly relating to capture efficiency), and (c) control
costs.
A number of promising control methods are also available for open dust
sources. Again, however, little data exist on the effectiveness of these
methods, which must be related to the intensity of control application. Al-
though data can be derived, costs need to be related to the specific method
design which will produce the desired level of control.
Research is recommended to determine the cost-effectiveness of promising
control options for both process sources of fugitive emissions and open dust
sources. This will allow for rational selection of control methods for fur-
ther development. The results of a cost effectiveness analysis presented in
Table 7-7 have shown that watering and road oiling of unpaved roads and broom
xix
-------
and vacuum sweeping of paved roads are at least a factor of twenty times more
cost effective than use of canopy hoods in a typical electric arc furnace shop.
Cost effectiveness is measured as dollars of annual capital investment and
operating cost per pound reduction of fine particulate emissions.
The ranking of fugitive sources, on both a nationwide and a local level,
illustrates the importance of control needs for open dust sources. On a nation-
wide scale, the five highest ranked sources are:
Fine Particulatea Suspended Particulates
(1) Electric arc furnaces (1) Vehicular traffic
(2) Vehicular traffic (2) Electric arc furnaces
(3) Basic oxygen furnaces (3) Storage pile activities
(4) Storage pile activities (4) Sintering
(5) Sintering (5) Basic oxygen furnaces
These source emit the largest quantities of fine and suspended particulate,
taking into account typically applied control measures.
The importance of vehicular traffic as a major fugitive source of fine and
suspended particulate is evident by its first and second place positions under
both ranking schemes. On a nationwide basis, there is approximately one-third
as much controlled fugitive emissions of fine particles from unpaved roads as
from electric arc furnaces, and nearly one-sixth as much controlled fugitive
emissions of fine particles from paved roads as from electric arc furnaces.
The favorable cost effectiveness ratio of unpaved road controls suggests that
they be included in plant fugitive emission control programs.
xx
-------
SECTION 1.0
INTHDDUCTION
Until recently, the national effort to control industrial sources of air
pollution has focused on emissions discharged from stacks, ducts or flues, and
carried to the point of discharge in confined flow streams. Control strategies
have been based on the assumption that the primary air quality impact of in-
dustrial operations resulted from the discharge of air pollution from conven-
tional ducted sources.
However, failure to achieve the air quality improvements anticipated from
the control of ducted emissions has spurred a detailed reexamination of the
industrial air pollution problem. Evidence is mounting which indicates that
fugitive (nonducted) emissions contribute substantially to the air quality im-
pact of industrial operations and, in certain Industries, may swamp the ef-
fects of stack emissions.
Iron- and steel-making processes, which are characteristically batch or
semicontinuous operations, entail the generation of substantial quantities of
fugitive emissions at numerous points in the process cycle. Frequent materials
handling steps occur in the storage and preparation of raw materials and in
the disposal of process wastes. Additionally, fugitive emissions escape from
reactor vessels during charging, process heating and tapping.
Fugitive emissions occurring in the metallurgical process industries con-
stitute a difficult air pollution control problem. Emissions are discharged
with a highly fluctuating velocity into large volumes of carrier gases having
poorly defined boundaries. Emissions from reactor vessels contain large quan-
tities of fine particulate with smaller amounts of vaporous metals and organ-
ics in hot, corrosive gas streams* Enclosures and hooding of fugitive sources,
with ducting to conventional control devices, have met with limited success in
controlling emissions.
«
This report presents the results of an engineering investigation of fugi-
tive emissions in the integrated iron and steel industry. This study was di-
rected to the accomplishment of the following objectives:
1. Identification of fugitive emission sources within integrated iron
and steel plants.
1-1
-------
2. Ranking of identified emission sources based on relative environmen-
tal impact.
3. Recommendations of future research, development and/or demonstration
to aid in the reduction of fugitive emissions from the sources determined to
be the most critical.
Operations specifically excluded from this study were coke ovens, charging of
basic oxygen furnaces, and blast furnace cast houses. These sources were be-
ing investigated under separate research efforts at the time this study was
begun.
Fugitive emissions in the iron and steel industry can be generally di-
vided into two classes - process fugitive emissions and open dust source fugi-
(tive emissions. Process fugitive emissions include uncaptured particulates and
gases that are generated by steel-making furnaces, sinter machines, and metal
forming and finishing equipment, and that are discharged to the atmosphere
through building ventilation systems. Open dust sources of fugitive emissions
include those sources, such as raw material storage piles, from which emissions
are generated by the forces of wind and machinery acting on exposed aggregate
materials.
Table 1-1 lists the process sources of fugitive emissions and the open
dust sources which are the subject of this study. Although emissions from
these sources consist primarily of particulates, gaseous emissions associated
with certain operations (such as sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia,
hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides from coke manufacture and carbon monoxide
from blast furnaces, sintering and steel-making furnaces) also can be expected
to escape collection and to become fugitive in nature. Nevertheless, this in-
vestigation is directed to particulate emissions only, because particulate *
matter is the prevalent constituent of fugitive emissions discharged from in-
tegrated iron and steel plants.
The technical approach used to conduct the subject investigation con-
sisted of the performance of the following seven program tasks.
Task 1 - Identify Fugitive EmissionSources: A comprehensive information
collection and data compilation effort was carried out to identify all poten-
tially significant sources of fugitive emissions occurring within integrated
iron and steel plants.
Task 2 - Quantify Fugitive Emissions; Available emissions data based on
source tests and estimating techniques were used to characterize the types
and quantities of fugitive emissions from sources identified in Task 1. MRl's
exposure profiling technique was used to field test open dust sources at east-
ern and western plant sites.
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1. SOURCES OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM
INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
A. Process Sources
1. Scrap cutting
2. Sintering
* Windbox leakage
* Strand discharge
* Cooling
* Screening
3. Hot metal transfer
4. Hot metal desulfurization
5. Electric arc furnace
* Charging
* Electrode port leakage
* Tapping
* Slagging
6. Basic oxygen furnace
* Deskulling
* Charging
* Leakage (furnace mouth, hood sections, and oxygen lance port)
* Tapping
* Slagging
7. Open hearth furnace
* Charging
* Leakage (doors and oxygen lance port)
* Tapping
* Slagging
8. Slag quenching
9. Teeming
10. Scarfing (machine and hand)
B. Open Dust Sources
1. Unloading (rail and/or barge) - raw- materials .
2. Conveyor transfer stations - raw and intermediate— materials
(continued)
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-1 (continued)
c/
3. Storage pile activities - raw, intermediate, and waste- materials
* Load-in
* Vehicular traffic around storage piles
* Wind erosion of storage piles
* Load-out
4. Vehicular traffic
* Unpaved roads
* Paved roads
5. Wind erosion of bare areas
_a/ Raw materials - iron ore, coal, and limestone/dolomite.
bf Intermediate materials - coke and sinter.
c/ Waste materials - slae and flue dust.
1-4
-------
Task 3 - Review Existing Control Technology; Information was collected
and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of available systems and techniques
applicable to the control of process fugitive emissions and open dust sources.
Tasks 4 and 5 - Develop Emissions Classification System and Classify
Emissions; A generic classification system was developed and applied to iden-
tify the similarities and differences in fugitive emission sources thereby de-
fining generalized control problems which might most effectively be treated
in an integral manner*
Task 6 - Determine Critical Control Needs; Using background information
developed in previous tasks, the identified fugitive sources were ranked ac-
cording to the relative environmental benefit of (or need for) emissions con-
trol requiring, if necessary, the development and demonstration of effective
control techniques.
Task 7 - Recommend Research and Development Programs; Having identified
and ranked control needs in Task 6, priority R&D program areas were recommended
to address these needs taking into account deficiencies in available control
technology and the expected results of research programs already underway.
This report is organized by subject area as follows:
. Section 2 identifies fugitive emission sources within integrated iron
and steel plants.
«•»
Section 3 presents data on the quantities of fugitive emissions includ-
ing the results of the field testing of open dust sources.
. Section 4 presents the results of surveys of open dust sources con-
ducted at four integrated iron and steel plants.
^
. Section 5 summarizes control technology applicable to process fugi-
tive emissions sources.
Section 6 summarizes control technology applicable to open dust
sources. a
. Section 7 presents a ranking of critical control needs and defines
priority R&D program areas directed to the development of control
technology for fugitive emissions.
Section 8 lists the references cited in this report.
. Section 9 presents the Glossary of Terms, which defines special termi-
nology used in this report to describe and characterize fugitive emis-
sion sources.
1-5
-------
A mixture of metric and English units was used in this report. The word
ton always refers to short ton (abbreviated "T"), which is equivalent to 2,000
Ib. The word tonne always refers to the metric tonne (abbreviated "t"), which
is equivalent to 2,200 Ib. An Engliah-to-metric conversion table follows Sec-
tion 9,
1-6
-------
SECTION 2.0
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
This section provides a discussion of the various process fugitive emis-
sions sources and open dust sources within the integrated iron and steel in-
dustry. These sources are associated with the major processing operations
used in producing iron and steel and with the handling of large quantities of
raw materials, processed materials, and by-products.
Figure 2-1 gives a process flow diagram for a representative integrated
iron and steel plant. Typical process material balances are given in Figure
2-2 and typical material quantity conversion factors are given in Table 2-1.
Finally, industry-wide material flows are presented in Figure 2-3.
In the following subsections, the identification and characterization of
each fugitive emission source includes: (a) description of the specific op-
erations that generate fugitive emissions, (b) quantification of the source
extent, and (c) discussion of the major physical and chemical characteristics
of the fugitive emissions streams at the point of discharge.
2.1 PROCESS SOURCES
Presented below is a discussion of each of the specific process fugitive
emission sources listed in Table 1-1. The characteristics of fugitive emis-
sions from process sources are summarized in Table 2-2.
2.1.1 Scrap Cutting
Source Description--
Scrap iron and steel is used in the manufacture of steel. Scrap too large
for steel furnace charging buckets and machines is cut to a proper size with
shears or a torch. Torch cutting of scrap, which is typically performed out-
doors, is the source of fugitive emissions considered here.
There are no published data to indicate how many torch operating hours
per year are used in the iron and steel industry. It is likely that most of
these operating hours are utilized to cut home scrap, rather than purchased
scrap.
2-1
-------
I mmmua i
r \ 111 MM UIF!
Figure 2-1. General flow diagram for the Iron and steel industry.
-------
Coke
Air
Cool . 1445 3/
J
Ore :
Coke Breeze
Umeitone
Total
,_ Lump Ore
jD Sinter
3) Coke
Limestone
Total
Air
Ore
Scrap
£) Hot Metal
Alloy
Flux
Oxygen
Total
2) Hot Metal
Scrap
Addition*
Total
£) Scrap
Ore
Alloyi
Coke Breeze
Electrodes
Total
1047
58
115
1220
85"
1150
932
238
3171
3321
70
907
1361
14
140
55
2657
160o"~
659
140
2399
40
14
6
TO
2195"
SCREEN (|)
(§} f Sinter :
BLAST
FURNACE ^-.
1150
,p. 1 L^Slag . 534
Pig Iron : 1361
iAir : 1887
Fuel & Steam : 167
OPEN HEARTH
FURNACE /gv
| ^s
BASIC OXYGEN
FURNACE 0
i(D
ELECTRIC ARC
FURNACE ^
*©^S
lag : 200
lag : 154
S/ AJI Numben m LB/TON Steel
0or@ 2061
SCARFING
©
1 * 1
1. ek i onrvn Steel :
2061
Scrap : 60
Figure 2-2. Mass balances—integrated iron and steel industry."
I/
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. TYPICAL CONVERSION FACTORS UTILIZED FOR ENGINEERING
ESTIMATES OF QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL HANDLED
Conversion factor
Reference
Coke manufacture
Iron produce ion
1.0 unit coal
0.69 unit coke
0.55 unit coke
1.0 unit Iron
1.33 ucttt» of iron bagging material,
1.0 unit Iron
0.5 unit sinter
1.0 unit Iron
1 0 unit tron are
1.0 unit Iron
0.2 unit limestone
1.0 unit iron
0.2 unit slag
1.0 unit iron
Average of 5 years of
AISI data
Calculated by dif-
ference
0.3-0.4 u-.lt alas
1,0 unit iron
EOF steel production
ORF sceel production
0.2-0.35 unit slag
1.0 unit Iron
0.7 unit hot metal
1 0 unit EOF steel
0.3 unit scrap
1.0 unit EOF iceel
0.45-0,55 unit hot metal
1 0 unit OHF steel
0.45-0.55 unit scrap
1 0 unit OHF steel
2-4
-------
IS)
Ui
Numbers indicate 1976 usage
and production in 1000 short
tons.
Figure 2-3. 1976 Iron and steel industry material flows.
-------
TABLE 2-2. FUGITIVE EMISSION CHARACTERISTICS
Fugitive source
Sintering
Hot metal tranafar
Hot matBl
deaulfurliatlon
EAF
BOF
aiF
Scarfing
Point of
emission exit
Roof monitor
Cooler
Roof oonltor
Roof oonltor
Roof monitor
Roof monitor
Roof monitor
Roof monitor
Exit tem-
pera ture
CD
Ambient-ISO
Ambient 1 5O
Anblcnt-200
a/
Ambient -250
150-300
tablent-150
•/
Exit
velocity
(fm)
Z50
a/
a/
a/
ZOO-560
500-3,400
Z50
a_/
Bull
height
(ft)
75
50
I20-Z30
a/
90-160
120-230
a/
a/
Weight percpntagp
of fine partlclcit
5
5
10
a/
70
50
65
90
tosnlble "nlriaion constlttienti*
Frf), FP2O3 , 5IO2. Al2(*3» HaO.
HgO. ZnO
C.FeO, F*iO)
L. Fet>, Fe2°3. C^O, CnCi*1 hj ,
Had!, toCOs
ZnO, FcO, CaO, Cr^Oj, MnO,
AljOj, SO3, BIO. FbO, SIO^.
HgO, CuO, PjOj
FeO, Fej^J, SlOj, A1203, Cm),
PjOtj, HnjOi,. KnO, HgO
F«2^3» FeO, ^102, AIlOS, CnO,
HgU, KnO, ZnO
a/
a/ No meaBured data available.
-------
Home scrap includes crop ends, skull, spills, rejected semi-finished
products, trimmings, and so on. In general, 357. of the raw steel manufactured
tnto finished products will end up as home scrap.—
Source Extent —
In 1976, 25 million tons were used in EAFs, 26.3 million tons in BOFs,
and 12.3 million tons in OHFs. Home scrap constitutes about 557. of total
scrap used by the iron and steel industry, and purchased scrap makes up the
remainder.
Emission Characteristics--
The emission characteristics for torch cutting of scrap are assumed to
be similar to those from scarfing. The most salient and probably the most
important characteristic of scrap cutting emissions is the fine size of the
particulate released.
2.1.2 Sintering
Source Description--
As the fused layer of sinter leaves the sinter machine, it drops into
the sinter breaker and is passed through a hot screening process. The prop-
erly sized material is passed through the cooler which is normally of the in-
duced draft, annular type. Finally, the sinter is transported to the cold
screen where the proper size sinter is separated out and sent to the blast
furnace.
The process sources of fugitive emissions in sinter plants are- (a)
strand discharge, which normally includes the sinter breaker and hot screen,
(b) cooler discharge, and (c) the cold screen. MRI feels that since the
windbox is under negative operating pressure, windbox leakage is not a source
of fugitive emissions.
Source Extent--
As of 1974, there were 36 sintering facilities in existence in the
United States, with plant capacities ranging from 2,000 to 6,000 tons of
sinter per day.— Sinter production in the United States has been on a
downward trend for the last 10 years.—' This trend can be attributed to
the depletion of several natural Iron ore mines and the necessity to uti-
lize the lower grade taconite ores which are pelletized at the mine site.
In 1976, 36,300,000 tons of sinter were produced within the steel industry .2/
Emissions Characteristics —
As indicated in Table 2-2, particulate emissions from sintering are
coarse in comparison with other process fugitive emissions. Only 5% of the
sinter plant fugitive emissions are smaller than 5 ym. The composition given
in Table 2-2 is actually for windbox emissions, but it is assumed that the
2-7
-------
composition of emissions from sources downstream of the windbox is the same,
since the sinter undergoes only physical handling and sizing processes.
2.1.3 Hot Metal Transfer
Source Description--
Every EOF shop and most OHF shops have a hot metal transfer station. At
these stations, _the_torpedp_car from the blast furnace pours molten iron
either into the charging ladle or into a mixer which is subsequently tapped
into the charging ladle. It is the violent mixing during these pours that
produces iron oxide emissions. Another type of emission produced is kish,
which consists of carbonaceous, flake-like particles that leave the molten
iron as it begins to cool.
Source Extent--
In 1976, 82,900,000 tons of hot metal were produced within the industry
and virtually all of this hot metal was transferred prior to processing.
Emissions Characteristics--
Table 2-2 shows that the fugitive particulate emissions from the hot
metal transfer station are coarse in comparison to the other process fugitive
emissions. This is due mainly to the fact that the kish, which is much larger
in size than the iron oxide particles, is produced in greater weight, thus
shifting the combined size distribution toward the coarse end of the spectrum.
2.1.4 Hot Metal Desulfurization
Source Description—
Fugitive emissions are generated by the addition of desulfurizers to hot
metal at a position between the blast furnace and the steel-making furnace.
Emissions result from (a) agitation of the hot metal as the desulfurlzer is
added, (b) handling of the desulfurizer, (c) natural rejection of carbon by
the hot metal, and (d) skimming of the slag into a pot.
Source Extent--
The percentage of hot metal presently desulfurized between the blast
furnace and the steel furnace has not been published.
Emission Characteristics--
Little is known concerning the characteristics of emissions from hot
metal desulfurization. One of the constituents is kish, which has been pre-
viously described. Another of the constituents is iron oxides arising from
the agitation of the hot metal. A third constituent of the emissions is the
desulfurizer itself. Some possible desulfurizers are CaC2 , CaO, NaCC>3, NaOH,
Mg, and
2-8
-------
2.1.5 Electric Are Furnaces
Source Description--
The sources of fugitive emissions from electric arc furnaces are charg-
ing, tapping, slagging, and electrode port leakage. Of these four sources,
only the first three are of regular occurrence. During scrap charging, the
furnace roof is removed and the direct shell evacuation (DSE) system is ren-
dered ineffective. Charging emissions are generated when dirty or oily scrap
is dropped into contact with the hot furnace lining. During tapping, the
furnace tilts forward, and the emissions occur as the molten steel enters the
tapping ladle. During slagging, the furnace tilts back and the emissions oc-
cur as the molten slag enters the slag pot. In both tapping and slagging, it
is the violent mixing of the molten material that produces the fume.
Emissions during meltdown and refining stages are generally captured by
the DSE system. When, for some reason, the draft on the furnace produced by
the DSE system is reduced, fumes escape through the electrode ports.
Source Extent—
Electric arc furnaces are increasing in number in the United States. In
1972, there were 299 operating EAFs; and 450 furnaces are projected to be in
operation by 1980.—' In 1976, EAF production consisted of 69% carbon steel,
24% alloy steel, and 7% stainless steel. In terms of total steel production,
EAFs produced 15% of carbon steel, 41% of the alloy steel and 100% of the
stainless steel for a total of 20% of the entire U.S. steel production (see
Table 2-3).5/
Q/
TABLE 2-3. 1976 RAW STEEL PRODUCTION BY TYPE OF FURNACE-
Furnace
Electric arc
Open hearth
Basic oxygen
Production
(1,000 tons)
24,600
23,500
79,900
Percentage of
total
20
18
62
Total 128,000 100
Emission Characteristics—
The major characteristics of EAF fugitive emissions are particle fine-
ness and low degree of plume buoyance. The emissions are cooled rapidly as
they travel from the EAF to the building monitor. The composition of the
2-9
-------
particles is dominated by iron oxide and zinc oxide, with the latter being
prevalent when galvanized scrap is in the charge.
2.1.6 Basic Oxygen Furnaces
Source Description--
The sources of fugitive emissions from basic oxygen furnaces are charg-
ing, tapping, slagging, puffing, deskulling, and leakage from the lance port
and primary hood. The first three sources occur regularly, but the last three
occur infrequently. During charging, tapping, and slagging, the furnace is
tilted from underneath the primary hood so that emissions generated in these
three positions, unless captured, will rise and leave through the building
monitor. Puffing is caused by the production of fume too large in volume for
the primary hood to handle. This fume escapes between the mouth of the fur-
nace and the primary hood when the hood is of the open type. When the hood is
of the closed or combustion suppression type, puffing is nonexistent. Deskull-
ing emissions are generated during the removal of hardened steel at the mouth
of a BOF with a gas cutting lance. Finally, leakage around the lance port and
through the openings of a sectionalized primary hood occurs in a few isolated
cases. Normally, the negative pressure inside the primary hood prohibits this
type of emission.
Source Extent--
BOF steel production has increased dramatically in the last decade in the
United States, with BOF shops frequently replacing OHF shops. By 1980, 90 EOF
furnaces will be in operation with individual furnace capacities ranging from
75 to 350 tons. In 1976, BOF production consisted of 92% carbon steel and 8%
alloy steel. In terms of total steel production, BOFs produced 667* of the
carbon steel and 44% of alloy steel for a total of 627. of the total U.S. raw
steel production (see Table 2-3) .^
Emissions Characteristics--
BOF fugitive emissions escape to the atmosphere through the roof monitor.
Although there is no standard design for roof monitors, one monitor is known
to be 8 x 500 ft and to have an emission stream exit velocity ranging from
500 to 800 fpm. Particulate emissions from the BOF consist mainly of Fe^Og.
The particle size data available for BOFs are contradictory, with the frac-
tion smaller than 5 pm ranging from 0.06 to 0.90; in Table 2-2, 0.5 has been
chosen as an average.
2.1,7 Open Hearth Furnaces
Source Description—
The sources of fugitive emissions from open hearth furnaces are charging,
leakage, tapping, and slagging. Charging emissions result from the addition
of hot metal or scrap into the hot furnace. Leakage emissions occur as a result
2-10
-------
of improperly positioned charging/tapping doora and from oxygen lance-port
leakage. Tapping and slagging emissions result from the violent nixing of
the poured molten material.
Source Extent--
The increase in new EOF steelmaking capacity in the United States is off-
setting the decrease in OHF steelmaking capacity. OHFs accounted for 55% of
steel produced in 1967, but by 1976 the percentage of steel produced in OHFs
had decreased to 187* (see Table 2-3) . Some forecasters have predicted the
virtual extinction of the open hearth furnace by 1990.
Emissions Characteristics —
The fugitive emissions characteristics of open hearth furnaces are simi-
lar to the other types of steelmaking furnaces.
2.1.8 Slag Quenching
Source Description--
The fugitive emission source considered here is addition of water to
blast furnace and steel furnace slag for the purpose of cooling. The fugi-
tive emission of primary concern is gaseous I^S.
Source Extent —
Calculations show that approximately 25 million tons of blast furnace
slag were produced in 1976. The percentage of this slag that was water cooled
is unknown.
Emission Characteristics--
Little is known concerning the amount of t^S produced by slag quenching,
2.1.9 Teeming
Source Description —
The fugitive emission sources of concern in teeming are handling of ladle
additions and agitation of molten steel during pouring and ladle additions.
Source Extent —
Nearly all molten steel is either teemed into ingot molds or poured into
a tundish feeding continuous casting strands. The amount of steel requiring
ladle additions during teeming is unknown.
Emission Characteristics-
No known tests have been performed to characterize teeming emissions.
2-11
-------
2.1.10 Scarfing
Source Description--
Prior to rolling mill operations, the billets, blooms and slabs are in-
spected so that defects potentially detrimental to the finished products may
be removed by chipping, grinding, or scarfing. Of these operations, scarfing--
either by hand or machine--produces the greater amounts of fugitive emissions.
Both scarfing operations employ methods to burn off the outer steel layer.
Fugitive emissions occur from leaks from the machine scarfer's control equip-
ment and from open (outdoor) hand scarfing.
Source Extent—
Of the total steel produced, approximately 20 to 507»— is scarfed,
mainly by machine scarfing.
Emissions Characteristics —
As indicated in Table 2-2, emissions from steel scarfing consist largely
of fine particles, which because of enhanced light scattering potential, may
create dense plumes.
2.2 OPEN DUST SOURCES
Fugitive emissions are discharged from a wide variety of open dust sources
within an integrated iron and steel plant. Because open dust source emissions
heights are usually less than 10 m above the ground, the open dust source im-
pact at the plant boundary and surrounding areas is greater than the impact of
the elevated high-temperature process source having the same emission rate.
This section gives information on source description, source extent, and emis-
sions characteristics of the following open dust sources: materials handling,
storage pile activities, vehicular traffic and wind erosion of exposed areas.
2.2.1 Materials Handling
Source Description-
There are numerous fugitive dust emission points associated with the han-
dling of raw, intermediate and waste materials in the Integrated iron and steel
Industry. This section traces the methods by which these materials are un-
loaded from barges and railcars and transferred by conveyors.
Figure 2-4 presents a typical flow diagram for materials handling in the
iron and steel industry. Raw materials enter an iron and steel plant by
barge, rail, and to a lesser extent by truck. Barges are unloaded by clam-
shell bucket or conveyor bucket-ladder methods. This transfer process yields
fugitive dust when the material is dropped onto a nearby storage pile or un-
derground conveyor.
2-12
-------
Rolory Dump
T
Bottom Duo?
\-jp-u I -
cnr LOAD-IN
Coke O»nt
Ktail Furnoci
Sintcf Plant
Sl«cl FU.I
K£V
I
LOAD-OUT
: . |
O Fugitive du»t e»l allot) point
CED Conveyor
© Crane-clBBEhell bucket tranefer froa barge
© Barge unloading, bucket-Ladder conveyor
(£) tUUcar «ide duap Into Motorized aide-chute dump car, cji
car duap Inlo pic, ckenshell bucket renaval
(5) gotary duap of rajtcar anta unJ^rground conveyor
Qp BOCLCBI duop of hopper nllcar onto underground conveyor
© Conveyor transport
© Conveyor transfer atatJon
00 Cranu-clawsheit bucket drop onto pile
CD Mobile or btatlcniary atacker t/nio pile
CD Front-end loader, froo iurg.e pHe, dump unco pile
® Wind erosion of itorage oaEeriaU
© Front-end loader aavaaentB arouKl pile
© Katie reclaimer onto underground conveyor
© Frunt-enJ loader duDp Into conveyor bti>
© Bucket. uh*tl reclfliwar onto underground conveyor
© bol tma plow ieeilir to underground conueyur
© CrjiiL-clamshell bucket transfer to underground cunveyur
© Uonveyur acretninK mat (on
Figure 2-4. Iron steel raw material storage pile activities,
-------
Railcars are unloaded at side dump, rotary dump, or bottom-hopper dump
stations. The side railcar dump unloading process, which is associated with
the ore bridge system, turns the loaded car at almost a 90-degree angle; and
the material falls into a special motorized railcar. At a specific location,
this car drops the material through side chutes into a pit. The material is
picked up by a clamshell bucket and is dropped onto a storage pile. Fugitive
dust emission points occur during: (a) railcar side dump, (b) motorized car
side chute dump; and (c) dropping of the material from the clamshell bucket
onto the pile.
The rotary c_..np railcar unloading process rotates the railcar 180 degrees
with the material falling onto an underground conveyor. The material is moved
by conveyor to the storage pile area. Up to this point, fugitive dust emis-
sions occur at the rotary dump station and at conveyor transfer stations.
The bottom dump railcar process utilizes bottom-hopper railcars which
drop their contents onto an underground conveyor. The conveyor moves the ma-
terial to the storage pile area. Fugitive dust emissions points occur at the
bottom dump railcar station and at transfer stations along the conveyor route.
The transport and subsequent transfer of materials via conveyor systems
are open sources of fugitive dust emissions. Dust emissions attributed to
the actual conveyor transport of materials is a relatively insignificant
source of emissions. This is due to the configuration of the open conveyor
belt, which is U-shaped and shields the material from the forces of wind un-
der average wind speed conditions. During high wind speed conditions, how-
ever, wind blown dust emissions can occur during conveyor transport of mate-
rials.
Significant fugitive dust emissions occur at conveyor transfer stations.
Here the conveyed materials are transferred from one conveyor network to
another. The mixing of the exposed free falling aggregate materials and re-
sultant drop onto a conveyor creates noticeable dust emissions.
Fugitive dust emissions result also from the physical sizing of materials
at conveyor screening stations. Here materials pass through a series of
screens to separate fine and coarse fractions. Certain steelmaking processes
such as coking and blast furnaces require materials to be coarse in size;
other processes, such as sintering, utilize materials that are fine in size.
Source Extent —
Every integrated iron and steel plant has facilities for the unloading
and subsequent conveyor transfer and screening of various materials used or
produced in the steelmaking processes. Major raw materials include lump iron
ore, iron-bearing pellets, coal, flux materials (limestone, dolomite, etc.)
and scrap metal. Major intermediate materials include coke and sinter, while
2-14
-------
waste materials include slag and flue dust. Industry-wide usage levels of
these major materials in 1976 are presented in Table 2-4.
TABLE 2-4. 1976 INDUSTRY-WIDE PRODUCTION AND RECEIPT
OF INPUT MATERIALS-^
Production and receipt
Input material (106 tons)
Lump iron ore 17.5
Iron ore pellets 86.7
Coal 79.1
Coke 60.9
Flux 29.5
Scrap metal 68.3
Published data describing the characteristics of fugitive emissions from
materials handling were found to be sparse. Because of this, a conveyor trans-
fer station was included in the source testing phase of this study, to be de-
scribed in Section 3.3.2 of this report. Table 2-5 presents available infor-
mation concerning materials handling emissions characteristics.
2.2.2 Storage Pile Activities
t
Source Description-- -
The production of finished steel products entails the stockpiling of
large amounts of raw, intermediate and waste materials. The majority of
these materials remain in storage for periods ranging between 5 to 60 days;
however, certain materials, such as waste products, may remain in storage
for several years before further usage.^ Fugitivedust emissions associated
with open storage piles result from four source activities:fa) load-in or
addition qf_materiai.-to a storage~piTil (6) vehicular^ traffic around storage
piles, usually related to maintenance of pile configuration; (c) wind erosion
of exposed pile surface; and (d) load-out of "removal ~o"f "mater ial——F-igure 2-4
depicts these source activities relative to the previously mentioned materi-
als handling.
4
In the iron and steel industry, storage pile material load-in is accom-
plished by; (a) gantry-crane clamshell buckets, (b) conveyors attached to
stationary and mobile stackers; and (c) front-end loaders. Fugitive dust
2-15
-------
TABLE 2-5. " MATERIALS HANDLING EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS
Example
source Injection
Source material height
Barge/railcar
unloading Iron ore Ground level
Conveyor transfer
station Sinter Elevated
Conveyor screening
station Limestone Elevated
Particle size of
total emissions^'
Weight % Denbity
Suspended Fine (g/cm-*)
b/
NA NA 5.2^
a/
55 20 3.8s
b/
NA NA 2.7^
Composition-
Fe^O-jf Fe-iO/., some
silica and lime-
stone
Iron oxides, cal-
clte, iron-calcium
silicates, and
quartz
Mostly CaC03
NA = Not available.
al Based on this study's source testing results; Section 3.3.2.
bf Reference 1, p. C-5.
-------
emissions occur as the material is being dropped onto the storage pile, ex-
posing suspendable dust to ambient air currents.
Vehicular traffic arounJL.3torage-pi-1 es-,—consi-3t-ing-of—the~movetnent of
front-end loaders-, bulldozers, and trucks, generates fugitive dust emissions
by traveling over a dust-laden surface, usually consisting of the storage pile
material. Contact of the vehicle with the surface causes pulverization of
surface material and lifting of suspendable fines into wind currents.
Fugitive du 3t emissions also, r.eAu 11_from-the-w
-------
NJ
h-«
00
TABLE 2-6. STORAGE PILE ACTIVITY SOURCE EXTENT
(Average Surveyed Plant!
Major
stockpiled
materials
Coal
Lump iron ore
Pellets
Coke
Limestone
Processed slag
Amount in
storage
(tons)
70,000
140,000
68,750
54,000
20,000
73,000
Annual
storage
throughput
(10& tons)
0.7
1.3
1.2
0.4
0.1
0.9
Duration
of
storage
(days)
107
48
43
50
76
60
Material
silt content
4
12
11
1
2
2
Material
moisture
content
fff \
\ /o /
6
5
1
1
2
1
aj Values shown ace averages of the data compiled from this study's four open dust
source surveys (see Section 4.0).
-------
TABLE 2-7. STORAGE PILE ACTIVITY EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS
Source
Load- In
Example
source
material
Pellets (stacker)
Injection
height
Elevated
Particle size of
total emissions^'
Weight 7.
Suspended Fine
16 5
Density^'
(g/cni3)
4.9
Composition^'
Fe-jOA, Fe20(,i some
Vehicular traffic
around storage piles
Wind erosion
front storage piles
Load-out
Iron ore (stacker) Elevated
Ground level
16
Processed slag
(front-end loader)
Elevated
Elevated
NA
NA
11
NA
NA
3
4.5
NA
NA
3
gangue, mostly
silica; bentonlte
some
silica and lime-
stone
NA
NA
Silicates, slllco-
phosphates, aluml-
nates, borates,
ferriLes£/
NA = Not available.
_a/ Based on LhLs study's source testing; Section 3.3.2.
b/ Reference I, p. C-5.
c.1 The Making. Shnplnn and Treating of Steel. U.S. Steel Corporation, p. 339 (1971).
-------
Unpaved road surfaces produce substantially greater emissions than paved
roads with the same traffic. Within an iron and steel plant, unpaved roads
are usually surfaced with slag or dirt. These roads may be constructed with
a firm roadbed or may consist of trails made by the traveling vehicles. The
roads may periodically be maintained by adding graded crushed slag and dirt
or may be left to the abuse of vehicles and the weather.
Paved roadways, which predominate in the iron and steel industry, are
easier to maintain. However, if the surface dust loading on a paved roadway
is allowed to increase , the level of dust emissions may approach that of an
unpaved road .
Source Extent--
Data on average vehicle miles traveled on unpaved and paved roads within
an integrated iron and steel plant have been compiled from four plant surveys
of open dust sources conducted by MRI as part of this study (see Section 4.0) .
Table 2-8 summarizes the results of the surveys.
Emissions Characteristics--
Table 2-9 presents characteristics of dust emissions generated by vehicu-
lar traffic on unpaved and paved roads. These data are based largely on the
results of source testing conducted as part of this study.
2.2.4 Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas
Source Description--
Typical ly within the boundary of an iron and steel plant, there are land
areas which are devoid of vegetation and unprotected by building structures.
Exposed areas include empty employee parking lots, railroad bed areas, de-
molished building sites, vacant finished product storage areas, vacant tractor -
trailer staging areas, landfill areas, areas between plant buildings and areas
left vacant for future plant development. These bare ground areas are suscepti-
ble to dust reentrainment induced by the eroding action of the wind. Wind ero-
sion is associated with wind speeds greater than the threshold erosion velocity
of 12
Although land area may be left bare of vegetation for a variety of rea-
sons, the major controlling factor is the lack of a proper soil medium for
vegetative growth. Most iron and steel plants are built on slag-covered areas
which do not induce dense vegetative growth. What vegetation may grow is oc-
casionally driven upon by plant vehicles or sprayed with weed -kill ing compounds
to decrease potential fire ha2ards.
Source Extent--
Data on average acreage of exposed area within an integrated iron and
steel plant have been compiled from the four plant surveys of open dust sources
2-20
-------
ro
to
TABLE 2-8. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SOURCE EXTENT
(Average Surveyed Plant)—'
Road
surface type
Unpaved
Dusty paved
Other paved
Plant
road
mileage
6.3
2.7
13.8
Miles traveled/day
Light
duty
285
139
521
Medium
duty
190
185
943
Heavy
duty
300
0
0
Total
775
324
1,464
Vehicle
speed
(mph)
20
24
24
Paved road
surface dust
loadings
(Ib/mile)
-
15,000
5,000
Silt content (7.)
of loose road
surface material
9.5
10. 0
9.0
a/ Based on average of four open dust source surveys (see Section 4.0).
-------
TABLE 2-9. VEHICULAR TRAFFIC EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS
Weight Weight
percentage percentage
Road surface Injection of suspended Of fine
type height particles^' particles^
Unpaved Height of 63 26
the rear
portion
of the
vehicle
K> Paved As above 33 . 44
IV)
Density Probable
(g/cm-*) constituents
3.1 Silica
Carbon ,
CaCC-3,
Fe2°3»
Fe3°4
3 «0 As above
a/ Based on source testing performed during this study (See Section 3.0),
-------
which were conducted as part of this study. Table 2-10 summarizes the results
of the surveys,
.>
Emissions Characteristics-
Data related to the emissions characteristics of dust resuspended by wind
from exposed areas are presented in Table 2-11. It is evident that little is
known about this fugitive emission source.
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-10. EXPOSED AREA SOURCE EXTENT
(Average Surveyed Plant)—
Plant
arei
(acres)
1,007
Exposed
area
(acres)
158
Unsheltered
exposed area
(acres)
94
Surface
credibility
(tons/acra-year)
47
Surface
silt content
(*>
16
Annual
percentage
of time
wind apeed
exceeds 12 mph
28
Precipitation
evaporation
Index
65
Based on average of four open dust surveys (see Section 4.0).
TABLE 2-11. EXPOSED AREA EMISSIONS CHARACTERISTICS
Injection
height
Weight
percentage
of suspended
particles
Weight
percentage
of fine
particles
Density
Cg/cm3)
Probable
constituents
Ground level
NA
NA
CaC03,
sio2,
PeO,
Fe203
NA Not Available.
2-24
-------
SECTION 3.0
FUGITIVE EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION
This chapter contains a discussion of the emission factors currently
available to estimate fugitive emissions in the iron and steel industry. The
major measurement and estimation techniques utilized to quantify fugitive
emission are delineated. Previously measured or estimated factors and parti-
cle size distributions are presented along with a precise literature refer-
ence, where possible. The results of field testing of open dust sources are
discussed. The recent teats are used to develop or modify predictive emis-
sion factor formulas. Finally, the best available emission factors are sug-
gested.
3.1 QUANTIFICATION TECHNIQUES
In large part, proven methods for quantifying fugitive emissions have
not been fully developed. Atypical quantification problems are presented by
the diffuse and variable nature of fugitive sources. Standard source testing
methods, as written, strictly apply only to well defined, constrained flow
fields with velocities above about 2 m/sec. Such methods are applicable to
fugitive emissions only if it is possible to capture the entire plume by means
of an enclosure or hooding device.
There are two general classes of techniques utilized to quantify fugi-
tive emissions: measurement and estimation. For field measurement of fugi-
tive emissions three basic techniques have been suggested!^/ which are sum-
marized as follows:
1. The quasi-stack method involves capturing the entire emissions stream
with enclosures or hoods and applying conventional source testing techniques
to the confined flow.
2. The roof monitor method involves measurement of concentrations and
air flows across well defined building openings such as roof monitors, ceiling
vents, and windows.
3. The upwind/downwind method involves measurement of upwind and down-
wind air quality, utilizing ground-based samplers under known meteorological
3-1
-------
conditions and calculation of source strength with atmospheric dispersion
equations.
MRI has developed two additional measurement techniques, exposure profil-
ing and dilution prof il ing ,ifi/ which offer distinct advantages over the above
methods for source-specific quantification of fugitive emissions, as dis-
cussed below. The exposure profiling method was designed for measurement of
open dust source emissions, while the dilution profiling method was designed
for quantification of emissions from elevated temperature sources released
within a building,
MRl's exposure profiling method involves direct measurement of the total
passage of fugitive emissions immediately downwind of the source by means of
simultaneous multipoint sampling over the effective cross-section of the fug-
itive emission plume. Unlike conventional upwind/downwind testing, exposure
profiling yields source-specific emission data needed to evaluate the prior-
ities for emission control and the effectiveness of control measures. More-
over, based on MRI field tests of several types of open dust sources, the ac-
curacy of measurements obtained by exposure profiling is better than that
achievable by the upwind/downwind method, even with site-specific calibration
of the dispersion model used in the latter method.
MRl's dilution profiling method involves multipoint monitoring of tem-
perature over the effective cross-section of a buoyant plume and the use of
simultaneous measurements of concentration at selected points to convert
plume temperature profiles to concentration profiles. As in the case of ex-
posure profiling, dilution profiling yields the type of source-specific data
that would be obtained from quasi-stack testing without the often Impractical
requirement of enclosing the source. MRI has successfully demonstrated the
dilution profiling method on a laboratory scale source.
None of the reported emission factors for fugitive sources in the iron
and steel industry have been obtained by the quasi-stack technique. This is
because of the high cost associated with enclosing the large sources found in
the industry and the production interference caused by even the temporary
utilization of such a technique.
The roof monitor technique has been the most widely used to quantify
process source emissions, although significant problems are encountered be-
cause of the large size of monitor openings and because plume overlap pre-
cludes the determination of source-specific contributions.
Several of the available fugitive emission factors for integrated iron
and steel plants have resulted from estimation techniques rather than mea-
surement techniques. Estimating techniques include: (a) use of fixed per-
cent of uncontrolled stack emissions; (b) application of data from similar
3-2
-------
processes; (c) engineering calculations; and (d) visual correlation of opac-
ity and mass emissions! Wide use of estimating techniques has been employed
because of the difficulty of testing and the lack of recognized standardized
methods for measuring fugitive emissions.
The most promising and accurate technique for quantifying open dust
sources (storage piles, vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, etc.) in the iron
and steel industry is exposure profiling. The method is source-specific and
its increased accuracy over the upwind/downwind method is a result of the fact
that emission factor calculation does not require the use of an atmospheric
dispersion model. Exposure profiling is compared with conventional upwind/
downwind sampling in the subsections below.
3.1.1 Open Dust Source Quantification by Upwind/Downwind Method
The upwind/downwind method has frequently been used to measure fugitive
particulate emissions from open (unconfinable) sources, although only a few
studies have been conducted in the Integrated iron and steel industry. Typ-
ically, particulate concentration samplers (most often high-volume filtration
samplers) are positioned at a considerable distance from the source (for ex-
ample, at the property line around an industrial operation) in order to mea-
sure the highest particulate levels to which the public might be exposed. The
calculation of the emission rate by dispersion modeling is often treated as
having secondary importance, especially because of the difficult problem of
identifying the contributions of elements of the mix of open (and possibly
confinable) sources.
While the above strategy is useful in characterizing the air quality im-
pact of an open source mix, it has significant limitations with regard to con-
trol strategy development. The major limitations are as follows:
1. Overlapping of source plumes precludes the determination of source -
specific contributions on the basis of particulate concentration alone.
2. Air samplers with poorly defined intake flow structure (including
the conventional high-volume sampler) exhibit diffuse cutoff size character-
istics for particle capture, which tend to be affected by wind conditions.—
3. Uncallbrated atmospheric dispersion models introduce the possibility
of substantial error (a factor of three-iA') in the calculated emission rate,
even if the stringent requirement of unobstructed dispersion from a simpli-
fied source configuration is met.
The first two limitations are not a direct consequence of the upwind/
downwind method but of the way it is used. These limitations could be re-
moved by using samplers designed to capture all or a known size fraction of
3-3
-------
the atmospheric parttculate, and by designing sampler placement to isolate
the air quality impact of a well defined source operation.
However, there would remain the need to improve method accuracy by cali-
bration of the dispersion model for the specific conditions of wind, surface
roughness, and so on, which influence the near-surface dispersion process.
This need is evident from the significant size of the variation in model-
calculated emission rates for aggregate process operations,. based_o_n_.data_
from individual samplers operated simultaneously at different downwind loca-
tions.—' The suggested use of tracers for this purpose is complicated by
the characteristically diffuse and variable nature of an op«n dust source and
the need for a polydisperse tracer test dust approximating the particle size
distribution of the source emissions.
3.1.2 Open Dust Source Quantification by Exposure Profiling Method
As stated above, the exposure profiling method was developed by MRI—
to measure particulate emissions from specific open sources, utilizing the
isokinetic profiling concept which is the basis for conventional source test-
ing. For measurement on nonbuoyant fugitive emissions, sampling heads are
distributed over a vertical network positioned Just downwind (usually about
5 m) from the source. Sampling intakes are pointed into the wind and sam-
pling velocity is adjusted to match the local mean wind speed, as monitored
by distributed anemometers. A vertical line grid of samplers is sufficient
for measurement.of emissions from line or moving point sources while a two-
dimensional array of samplers is required for quantification of area source
emissions.
Grid Size and Sampling Duration--
Sampling heads are distributed over a sufficiently large portion of the
plume so that vertical and lateral plume boundaries may be located by spatial
extrapolation of exposure measurements. The size limit of area sources for
which exposure profiling is practical is determined by the feasibility of
erecting- sampling towers of sufficient height and number to characterize the
plume. This problem is minimized by sampling when the wind direction is paral-
lel to the direction of the minimum dimension of the area source.
Hie size of the sampling grid needed for exposure profiling of a partic-
ular source may be estimated by observation of the visible size of the plume
or by calculation of plume dispersion. Grid size adjustments may be required
based on the results of preliminary testing.
Particulate sampling heads should be symmetrically distributed over the
concentrated portion of the plume containing about 90% of the total mass flux
(exposure). For example, if the exposure from a point source is normally
3-4
-------
distributed, as shown in Figure 3-1, the exposure values measured by the sam-
plers at the edge of the grid should be about 25% of the centerline exposure.
Sampling time should be long enough to provide sufficient particulate
mass and to average over several units of cyclic fluctuation in the emission
rate (for example, vehicle passes on an unpaved road). The first condition
is easily met because of the proximity of the sampling grid to the source.
Assuming that sample collection media do not overload, the upper limit
on sampling time is dictated by the need to sample under conditions of rela-
tively constant wind direction and speed. In the absence of passage of
weather fronts through the area, acceptable wind conditions might be antici-
pated to persist for a period of 1 to 6 hr.
Calculation Procedure —
The passage of airborne particulate, i.e., the quantity of emissions per
unit of source activity, can be obtained by spatial integration (over the ef-
fective cross-section of the plume) of distributed measurements of exposure
(mass/area). The exposure is the point value of the flux (mass/area-time) of
airborne particulate integrated over the time of measurement. Mathematically
stated, the total mass emission rate (R) is given by;
n _.
Iff
where m - dust catch by exposure sampler after subtraction of background
a a intake area of sampler
t - sampling time
h = vertical distance coordinate
w - lateral distance coordinate
A - effective cross-sectional area of plume
In the case of a line source with an emission height near ground level,
the mass emission rate per source length unit being sampled is given by:
R » W
H f
W / m(b)
t J a
o
3-5
-------
Virtual Point Source
LJ
X
Exposure
Profiles
Wind Direction
Figure 3-1. Example exposure profiling arrangement.
-------
where W = width of the sampling intake
H = effective extent of the plume above ground
In order to obtain an accurate measurement of airborne particulate expo-
sure, sampling must be conducted isokinetically, i.e., flow streamlines enter
the sampler rectilinearly. This means that the sampling intake must be aimed
directly into the wind and, to the extent possible, the sampling velocity must
equal the local wind speed. The. first condition is by far the more critical.
If it is necessary to sample at a nonisokinetic flow rate (for example,
to obtain sufficient sample under light wind conditions), multiplicative fac-
tors may be used to correct measured exposures to corresponding isokinetic
nainog 14,18/ These corrections require information on the particle size dis-
tribution of the emissions.
High-volume cascade impactors with glass fiber impaction substrates,
which are commonly used to measure particle size distribution of atmospheric
particulate, may be adapted for sizing of fugitive particulate. A cyclone
preseparator (or other device) is needed to remove coarse particles which oth-
erwise would be subject to particle bounce within the impactor causing fine
particle bias.iJ!/ Once again, the sampling intake should be pointed into the
wind and the sampling velocity matched to the mean local wind speed.
Based on replicate exposure profiling of open dust sources under varying
conditions of source activity and properties of the emitting surface, emis-
sion factor formulae have been derived that successfully predict test results
with a maximum error of 20%.IV These formulae account for the fraction of
silt (fines) in the emitting surface, the surface moisture content, and the
rate of mechanical energy expended in the process which generates the emis-
sions. Based on the above results, the accuracy of exposure profiling is
considerably better than the + 50% range given for the upwind/downwind method
with site-specific dispersion model calibration.H.'
3.2 EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESS SOURCES
Table 3-1 presents the available fugitive emission factors for process
sources. While the number of available emission factors is large, the number
of we11-quantified and well-documented factors is limited. If the estimated
factors are deleted, the resulting number of measured factors is less than 20
with several sources not yet measured. Table 3-2 shows the method of attain-
ment for each emission factor given in Table 3-1.
For the most part measured fugitive emission factors have not been re-
ported in a rigorous, scientific manner.
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-1. FUGITIVE PARTICIPATE EMISSION FACTORS FOR PROCESS SOURCES
Source
1 Sintering
Strand discharge
Cooler discharge
Cold screen
2 Hot metal transfer
3. Furnace operation
. EAF
Total
Y* - BOF
» Total
Charging
Tapping
. OHF
Total
4. Scarfing
. Machine
Hand
Estimated values
Fixed percent Exl rnpol it Jnn of
Measured of uncontrolled darn for lirallir Method
Units values stack processes unknown
Ib/T sinter 22,07
Ib/T sinter 16 8 30
Ib/T sinter 0 7
Ib/T hot 0 056 0 16, 0 2, 0.25
metal
Ib/T steel
1 45, 0.5, 3.7, 1.5-3.0, 3.7
' 28.0, 32.0,
0.9-1.5
Ib/T steel
0.32, 0 42, 10
0 88, 1.0,
1.6
0.14 0 3-0.4
0.29 0.15-0 2
Ib/T Bteel
0 11, 0.168, 0.87
0.46-0.6
Ib/T steel 0 005
Ib/T steel 0 11
-------
TABLE 3-2. PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSION FACTORS AND THEIR ATTAINMENT METHODS
Source
Uncontrolled^/
fuglElvc
emission factor
Bibliography
reference
ninibcr
Co
I
Sintering
•Wlrulbox leakage
•Strand discharge and breaker
•Coaling
•Screens
Uot octal transfer
Electric ore furnnce
•All fugitive sources
Negligible
2 2 Ib/T sinter
0.7 Ib/T sinter
16.8 Ib/T slntor
3.0 Ib/T alntct
0.7 Ib/T BInter
0.056 Ib/T hat octal
0.25 Ib/T hot octal
0.2 Ib/T hot octal
0 16 Ib/T liob mct.nl
1.45 Ib/T steel
1.5 Ib/T atccl
3.0 Ib/T oteel
19
20
21
4
20
20
22
23
20
10, 24
10, 24
Method of attainment
MR I assumption aince ulndbox In
under negative pressure
HRI estimates 101 of an uncon-
trolled emission factor of 22.4
Ib/T by Schuenetnan.
HKI estlmnteB 101 of ait uncon-
trolled emission factor measured
by AISI.
Measurement of uncontrolled emis-
sion factor in England. Process
description and measurement tech-
nique arc not adequately defined.
Unknown method of attainment.
HRI eat (mates 101 of measured strand
discharge emission factor.
Average of eight measurements token
nt one plant. Method of sampling
not known,
Estimate - no teatlpg.
Estimate - no testing.
HRI quote from Industrial source
Sampling methodology unknown
Measurement for an alloy steel EAF.
Ten percent of EAF background docu-
ment value for alloy otcel.
Ten percent of EAF background docu-
ment vulew for carbon OLccl, Au-
tltoro calculated 30 Ib/T as average
of published and measured values.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-2 (continued)
Sourc c
Uncontrolled!'
fugitive
emission fnctor
Bibliography
reference
number
Hethod of attainment
•All fugitive sources
(continued)
Baste oxygen furnace
•Charging
•Topping
-All fugitive (ourcCB
0.9-1.5 Ib/T sterl
3.7 Ib/T steel
0.5-1.0 Ib/T nteel
1 1-3.7 Ib/T Btecl
0.9 Ib/T steel
28-32 Ib/T steel
0.3-0.4 Ib/T atcel
0.14 Ib/T steel
0.29 Ib/T ateel
0.15-0.2 Ib/T sCeel
0.32 Ib/T atecl
1.0 Ib/T ateel
0.42-0.88 Ib/T Btecl
25
25
25
25
22
20
20
22
20
25
Cnnopy hood catch an measured at
haghouse.
Measured DSP. catch at baghouse and
assumed It uas B91 of total while
fugitive emissions were lit.
Measured roof monitor emissions from
EAPs ultli DSE and canopy hoods (In
Sweden).
Honoured roof monitor emissions frcn
EAF with Just DSE (In Sweden).
Measured roof monitor emissions with
Just canopy hood (In Sweden).
Measured roof monitor emissions with
no prtaary or secondary controls (In
Sweden).
Eatlnate
Average of 15 oesourcments mt same
plant. Teat method unspecified.
Average of 15 measurements at same
plant. Test nethod unspecified
Estimate
Average of elx Beasureoents at dif-
ferent plants. Teat method unapocl-
ricd,
Estimate
DC en lied skylight oeaaurenvnts in
BOFi In Sweden for U> process. BOFs
hnvo prln.iry hoods. It Is not clear
If the primary hoods were open or
closed type.
(continued)
-------
TABLE 3-2 (continued)
Source
Uncontrolled:!/
fugitive
emission factor
Bibliography
reference
number
Method of attainment
•All fugitive sources
(continued)
tiii hearth furunce
Scarfing
•Machine
•Hind
1.0-1.6 Ib/T steel
0.16S Ib/T steel
0.11 lh/T steel
0.8? Ib/T Bteel
0.46-0.6 Ib/T steel
0.005 Ib/T steel
scarfed
O.ll Ib/T steel
scarfed
25
20
25
20
20
Same aa above but for Kaldo Process.
MeaBurements In roof monitor ac
one plant Average emission factor
Cor entire cycle for one furnace.
Concentration measuring device un-
known. Flow rate attained by veloc-
ity measurements through given areas
of roof monitor.
Thla value quoted by Ontario, Canada,
control agency. Method of attain-
ment unknown.
Five percent of AP-42 vnlue a asumIng
t>2 lancing. Method of attainment
for AP-4Z value unknown.
Measured roof monitor values In
Sweden for ClIFs with primary con-
trol*.
Five percent of average of nine
teats where ducted emissions were
measured before control devices
Measurement methods unknown in most
caaea.
Average of eight tests performed on
uncontrolled ducted emlfislons from
machine scarfers.
a/ flic cut-off diameter for which the values spply depends on the method of sampling and was not specified In nearly
all cases.
-------
In any emissions quantification effort, one should determine beforehand all
the variables upon which the emission factor ie dependent and then attempt to
quantify (or at least qualify) them during the field testing. Unfortunately,
many fugitive emission quantification programs, performed in a hurried effort
to acquire a value, have neglected to record properly all test conditions,
thus rendering the numerical result of limited use.
In addition to recording all pertinent test conditions, it is also impor-
tant to record the test methodology in detail. The type of equipment used,
the flow rate of the mass sampling device, and the number and location of the
sampling points are but a few examples of the data that should be recorded.
Yet anyone scanning the literature is keenly aware of the distressing lack of
rigor in reporting test methodology.
Table 3-3 presents all the known particle size distributions for process
sources. It should be noted that tests on similar processes have yielded di-
vergent results, especially in the case of BOF furnaces. Were precise test-
ing methods recorded, this divergence may have been explainable.
Table 3-4 shows MRI selections of the best emission factors and particle
size distributions available for each source. It should be cautioned that
many of the "best" values require further improvement.
3.3 EMISSION FACTORS FOR OKN DUST SOURCES
This section presents the rationale used in determining emission factors
for open duet sources, as required for the subject investigation. Predictive
emission factor equations for open dust sources developed for MRI prior to
this project will be presented, along with the modified equations which incor-
porate the results of the open dust source surveys and open dust source test-
ing performed during this study. Finally, the determination of the best emis-
sion factors or predictive equations for open dust sources associated with
integrated iron and steel plants will be presented.
3.3.1 Previously Available Emission Factors
In 1972, MRI initiated a field testing program to develop emission fac-
tors for four major categories of fugitive dust sources: unpaved roads, ag-
ricultural tilling, aggregate storage piles, and heavy construction opera-
tions. Prior to that study, little data had been generated for these sources.
Because the emission factors were to be applicable on a national basis,
an analysis of the physical principles of fugitive dust generation was per-
formed to ascertain the parameters which would cause emissions to vary from
one location to another. These parameters were found to be grouped into three
categories:
3-12
-------
TABLE 3-3. AVAILABLE PARTICLE SIZE DATA FOR PROCESS SOURCES^
Source
1. Sintering
UlinJUix waste gases
(before control)
Cooler
2. Hot metal transfer
3. EAt
Primary waste ganes
(before control)
4. BOF
Noncoinbuated system
Combusted system
5. OHF
Ccnpoalte sample
Lime-Loll sample
.
6. Scarfing I
Bibliography
reft re nee
lllDflber
4
4
4
26
-
37
26
28
26
26
28
28
26
26
4
4
4
4
28
4
4
-
HflRlit 7. less tlian Riven particle diameter (I'm)
100 MO 6U 70 60 50 40 30
40-89 14-50
4U 30
55 JO
50
60 50 30
90
90
90
100
97
too
82
87
75 66
•1
94
90
20
6-3)
30
16
65
86
85
98
89
97
67
58
56 .
h/
It*?'
as
84
98
10
2-19
12
8
16
75
BO
83
95
81
92
61
IB
50
7O
72
92
5
1-7.5
B
3
10
10
68
72
72
57
63
59
43
70
9
6
48
bS
75
90
t
Z
0.5
3
85
22
70
at These sire' distributions arc fiir unctintrol led, ducted emissions. For luck of other data, fugitive emission particle
Size distributions will be abstani-d iu be ItlunLlcal to ducted emission distributions.
\il Actually, |OOZ Ib Itis thdn 15 M"-
-------
TABLE 3-4. SELECTION OF BEST EMISSION FACTORS AND PARTICLE SIZE DATA
FOR PROCESS FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
Source
Sintering
•Strand discharge
(breaker)
•Cooler
•Cold acreen
Hot metal tranafer
•AH fugitive sources
•Alloy
•Carbon
BOF
U> -Ml fugitive source*
^ OBT
•£- 'All fugitive sources
Scarfing
•Machine
•Hand
Unit)
Ib/T
lb/I
Ib/T
lb/I
Ib/T
Ib/T
Ib/T
Ib/f
lb/I
Ib/T
Total
emission
factor
range
0.7-Z I
3. 0-16. B
.
0,056-0 25
I 45-1.5
0.3-3 7
0.32-1.0
0.1&8-O.S7
-
-
Beit
emission
lac tor
0.7
3 0
D 7
0,t
1.45
3.7
0,49
0.166
0 005
0.11
Best estlvate
of suspended
particle percentage
20
ZO
20
ZO
90
W
75
95
100
too
Beat eatlMte
oE fine particle
percentage
5
5
5
10
70
70
50
65
90
90
Suspended
pnrtlculate
emission [actor
0.14
0 6
0 14
0.04
1.3
1.3
0.37
0 16
0 005
0.11
Fine partlculatp
mission factor
0.015
0 15
0 035
0 02
1.0
2.6
O.ZJ
0.11
0.0045
0 O79
-------
1. Measures of source activity or energy expended (for example, the
speed and weight of a vehicle traveling on an unpaved road).
2. Properties of the material being disturbed (for example, Che content
of silt in the surface material on an unpaved road).
3. Climatic parameters (for example, number of precipitation-free days
per year on which emissions tend to be at a maximum).
By constructing the emission factors as mathematical formulas with multipli-
cative correction terms, the factors become applicable to a range of source
conditions limited only by the extent of the program of experimental verifi- ,.
cation.
The use of the silt content as a measure of the dust generation potential
of a material acted on by the forces of wind and/or machLnery, was an impor-
tant step in extending the appicability of the emission factor formulas to
the wide variety of aggregate materials of industrial importance. The upper
size limit of silt particles (75 pm in diameter) is the smallest particle size
for which size analysis by dry sieving is practical, and this particle size is
also a reasonable upper limit for particulates which can become airborne.
Analysis of atmospheric samples of fugitive dust indicate a consistency in
size distribution so that particles in specific size ranges exhibit fairly
constant mass ratios.
In order to quantify source-specific emission factors, MRI developed Che
"exposure profiling" technique, utilizing the isokinetic profiling concept
which is the basis for conventional source testing. Exposure profiling con-
sists of the direct measurement of the passage of airborne pollutant immedi-
ately downwind of the source by means of simultaneous multipoint sampling over
the effective cross-section of the fugitive emissions plume. This technique
uses a mass-balance calculation scheme similar to EPA Method 5 stack testing
rather than requiring indirect calculation through the application of a gen-
eralized atmospheric dispersion model.
Prior to this study, MRI had used the exposure profiling method to de-
velop emissions for the following open dust sources:
1. Light-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved (dirt and gravel) roads.
2. Agricultural tilling utilizing a one-way disk plow and & sweep-type
plow under.ii'
3. Load-out of crushed limestone utilizing a 2.75 cu yard loader.~
4. Vehicular traffic on paved urban roadways.—'
3-15
-------
These sources were tested under dry conditions (i.e., day time periods
at least 3 days subsequent to a precipitation occurrence) so that worst case
emissions could be determined and used as a basis for projecting annual emis-
sions. Additional testing of dust emissions from sand and gravel storage
piles was performed utilizing conventional upwind /downwind sampling to relate
emissions from aggregate materials handling to approximate emissions from
wind erosion and from traffic around storage piles.
Table 3-5 lists the measurements of source extent, the basic emission
factor formulae and the correction parameters aesociated with each pertinent
source category. Supporting information for several of these factors is pre-
sented in EPA's Emission Factor Handbook (AP-42) .— '
Other than MRl's previous work, few emission factor data for open dust
sources exist. Estimated emission factors have been developed for the han-
dling and transfer of storage materials. An uncontrolled emission factor of
0.033 Ib/ton coke for coke being dumped into a blast furnace was calculated
from a measured blast furnace cyclone catch. =-t' This factor might be appli-
2 fl /
cable to a coke conveyor transfer station. AlSIiii' estimated an emission
"? n /
factor of 0.13 Ib/ton of coke for a conveyor transfer station. Also AISI— '
discovered an emission factor range from the literature of 0.04 to 0.96 lb/
ton coal for general coal handling. Speight^.' estimated a value of 1.0 lb/
ton for general coal handling.
The factors presented in Table 3-5 describe emissions of particles
smaller than 30 urn in diameter, the approximate effective cutoff diameter for
capture of fugitive dust by a standard high volume particulate sampler (based
on particle density of 2 to 2.5 g/cm3)._14_/ Analysis of parameters affecting
the atmospheric transport of fugitive dust indicates that approximately 25 to
50% of these emissions (i.e., the portion smaller than 5 urn in size) will be
transported over distances greater than a few kilometers from the source.
3,3.2 Source Testing Results
Field testing of open dust sources was performed at two integrated iron
and steel plants (designated as Plants A and E) as outlined below:
3-16
-------
TABLE 3-5. EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION FACTORS
Source category
Measure of extent
Emission factor^-'
(Ib/unlt of
source extent)
Correction parameters
Aggregate storage Tons of aggregate put
(sand and gravel; through storage cycle
crushed stone)
Unpaved roads
Vehicle-miles traveled
0.33
(P-E/100)2
°-49<'«> fells
P-E = Thornthwaites precipitation-
evaporation index
9 = road surface silt content (%)
S = average vehicle speed (mph)
d = dry days per year
U)
i
Paved roads
Wind erosion
Vehicle-miles traveled 91 x 10~5 L
Acre-years of exposed
land
18
esf
(P-E/50)'
L = surface loading on traveled
portion of road (Ib/mile)
s ~ fractional silt content of
road surface material
e = soil credibility (tons/acre-yr)
s = silt content of surface soil (%)
f = fraction of time wind exceeds
12 mph
P-E = Thornthwaites precipitation-
evaporation index
a_l Annual average emissions of dust particles smaller than 30 |jm in diameter based on particle
density of 2.5 g/on-'.
-------
Plant A
Fugitive dust source
Load out of high silt processed slag Into truck
Load out of low silt product slag Into truck
Mobile stacking of palletized Iron ore
Mobile stacking of It imp iron ore
Light-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Heavy-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Number of
tests
3
3
3
3
1
2
Plant E
Number of
tests
3
3
Fugitive dust source
Heavy-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Light-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Plant vehicle mix on paved road
Conveyor transfer station (sinter)
Criteria used in choosing the above sources for testing included (a) the rel-
ative importance of the various open dust sources determined from the plant
surveys (Section 4), (b) availability of accurate testing techniques for spe-
cific fugitive dust sources configurations, and (c) accessibility of sources
for testing within the iron and steel plants.
One of the two plants (Plant A) was located in the western United States,
where climatological factors favor fugitive dust generation and the other was
situated in the eastern steel-producing section of the country. Preeurveys
were performed to determine special testing equipment requirements and to fa-
miliarize plant personnel with the testing plan. A period of 2 weeks at each
plant was allocated for the testing program. Testing was performed only on
those days having (a) dry weather, (b) constant wind speed and direction, and
(c) sources available for testing.
3-18
-------
The primary tool for measuring fugitive dust generated from open dust
sources was the MRI Exposure Profiler. An adjustable horizontal cross-arm
with attached isokinetic air samplers complemented the vertical sampler mast
shown in Figure 3-2. This vertically oriented two-dimensional array of iso-
kinetic air samplers was utilized when testing (a) load out of processed
slag into a. 35-ton truck via a 10 cu yard front-end loader (six tests), (b)
mobile stacking (pile formation/load in) of palletized and lump iron ore ma-
terials (six tests), and (c) the transfer of sinter at a conveyor transfer
site. At all times the MRI Exposure Profiler was positioned within 5 m of
the source with air samplers covering the effective cross-section of the fug-
itive dust plume.
Testing of dust emissions from vehicular traffic on unpaved roadways was
performed with the MRI Exposure Profiler without the horizontal cross-arm.
Twelve tests were performed in this manner with the Exposure Profiler situ-
ated at a distance of 5 m from the roadway edge. The vertical line grid, of .
isokinetic air samplers spanned the distance from the ground to the effective
height of the fugitive dust plume.
Other equipment utilized in the testing included (a) cascade impactors
with cyclone preseparators for particle sizing, (b) high-volume air samplers
for determining upwind particulate concentrations, (c) dustfall buckets for
determining particulate deposition, and (d) recording wind instruments util-
ized to determine mean wind speed and direction for adjusting the MRI Expo-
sure Profiler to isokinetic sampling conditions. A detailed presentation of
the testing methodology is provided in Appendix A.
The results of the field testing are provided in Tables 3-6 through 3-8.
Table 3-6 presents the various emission tests parameters recorded during the
actual field testing. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 present the emission factors for
suspended particulates (particles smaller than 30 yra in Stokes diameter) and
for fine particulates (particles smaller than 5 pm in Stokes diameter), along
with surface material and wind speed characteristics.
A further explanation of the source testing results is presented in Ap-
pendix B. In order to find emission factors corresponding to particle size
cutoffs other than 30 ym and 5 pm, the following steps must be taken utiliz-
~ing~data given in Appendix B:
1. For a given test, construct a straight-line particle size distribu-
tion on log-probability graph paper using the values for weight percents
smaller than 30 and 5 pen.
2. Determine the value for weight percent smaller than the desired di-
ameter (D ) .
3-19
-------
Figure 3-2. MRI exposure profiler.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-6. OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSIONS TEST PARAMETERS
Null
A. Slug Load Out Al
(4120 Sl-ift) A2
A]
(4U3 Slag) A4
Al
A6
ft. On. Plla Srucklng AB
(Pel lota) A»
Ain
(Open Hearth Ore) All
(Desert Hound Ore) A12
W AI3
rO
I—* C. Ibipaved Road A7
(Fine Slug CCm) All
AI5
(Ilard-Bdie Dirt Cover) El
Sc^acnL 1 C2
EJ
Segment 2 E4
b%
L6
II. Pjvwd Hojd E7
LU
t«
E. Conveyor linnslcr HO
Ell
U2
1)^1 it
4/13/77
4/I5/7/
4/15/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/16/77
',/,!0//7
4/20/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/21/77
4/21/77
4/10/77
4/2?/77
4/22/77
6/15/77
6/15/77
6/11/77
6/17/77
6/17/77
6/17/77
6/17/77
6/20/77
6/20/17
6/21/71
6/21/77
ti/21/77
Si .tL
Tin*
1400
1015
1)00
152U
0410
1130
IU5
IJ30
1505
1137
1)411
1527
1110
1105
1420
1015
IU5
1500
(1946
I01'>
1120
11 III
10111
m2
0910
1114
I2ZH
Exposure
Sampling
Durur Ion
30
'iO
30
30
40
40
30
15
13
22
25
38
30
17
17
30
•15
13
12
11
16
60
Ml
6»
IS
15
15
Source
Orient til Ipn
fc
-
-
_
-
-
E-U
E-W
E-U
F-U
E-W
E-W
t-U
N-S
N-S
N-S
N-S
N-S
HW-SC
HW-;,F,
NU-Sb
N-S
H-S
M-l,
1 E-U in N-S
; ( oiivnyor
( Iriiisi er Si at Ion
Aobtent
Teopcral lire
PD
.
-
58
62
55
61
_
-
60
69
.
-
.
66
B2
74
(76)
79
78
no
(»2>
67
-
-
-
-
-
Ulod
Dl reel Jttn/^peflij
(mph)
S/B
NW/5
MW/«
NW/&
NU/1
U/7
N.JU/",
NNW/ll
KHW/IO
sse/4
S/4
S/5
HHW/I7
U/S
w/a
HE/4
MF/5
EHb/9
•SU/1
USW/7
u;vf>
VarlabU/'i
5V/]
V.rlable/LlBLt
Varl able/Cilia
V<*rf .ible/Cj lia
Vjrlolile/Cjln
Cloud
Cover
(X)
JO
40
D
0
II
O
0
D
0
0
3D
U
0
30
r,o
(V»
51)
(5(1)
iktir
-
-
50
i'>
^
25
25
- 25
-------
TABLE 3-7. RESULTS OF OPEN DUST SOURCE TESTING—VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
participate
cm 1 53 1cm
fflCtOC
Run Ib/v-eltlclr-inlle kg/vehlcle-km '
Unpaved road A7 4.9 > l*
AI5 29 B.2
(hard-base dirt cover) El 17 4 B
Segment 1 E2 16 45
E3 19 5.4
Segment 2 E4 13 37
E5 11 3.1
E6 19 5.4
Paved road E7 O.B 0.23
E» 1.1 0.31
hO • / Includes pickup and nitonnblle pflsnes.
b/ A ••ined denalty (Ref CRC Handbook)
c/ 35-Ton vehicle with 35-ton slag load,
d/ Vehicle olx I - light duty
6 - aedl.ua duty
9 ~ heavy duty
£/ Average vehicle niic apeed,
jf/ Average weight of vehicle* panging armpler location
g/ Vehicle nl«- 6 - light duty
5 - medltq duty
6 * heavy duty
It Vehicle lulu- IO1 - light duty
Fine
ptrtlculatr Surficc laadetj
eni<;ftlDn nuLerfal Vehicle vehicle
[actor Density SllL speed ueleht
Ib/vehlcle-mlle kg/vt Itlc ie-hn Vehicle pn^ses (g/cn^) (X) (nph) (toti!t)
1.1 0 J7 50 Light duty5' | . » 30 3 ,
12 3.4 15 Heavy duty ) ' 30 7I>£
6.6 1 9 I6;f' | ) 14£/ Vt~
5.4 1 5 I651' }l.l Jfi.7 165/ 34^
7.0 2.0 US/ ) J 16£' 271
5.6 1 ,fi JO Light duly5. 1 » 20 3
S.Z 1.5 TO Light duty-. H.I 14.1 20 1
B.9 2.5 30 Light duty- 1 ) V> 3
0.44 n n 127— k i 12 7—
I/ II «/
0.54 o 15 1041' Jl.O J5.I 12 8^'
1 1
'
•
20 - ncdliH duty
6 • hr-avy duty
Vrhlcle «l» 75 - light duty
23 - medium duty
h . [,..„„ J..»u
-------
TABLE 3-8. RESULTS OF OPEN DUST SOURCE TESTING—MATERIALS HANDLING AND STORAGE PILE ACTIVITIES
Suspended
particulate
emission
factor**/
Slag load-out
(4120 slag)
(4133 slag)
w Ore pile stacking
^ (pellets)
u>
(open hearth ore)
(desert mound ore)
Conveyor transfer
Run
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A8
A10
All
A12
A13
E10
Ell
E12
Ib/T
0.056
0.028
0.059
0.030
0.011
0.011
0.004
0.010
0.00099
0.00066
0.00046
0.036
0.064
0.037
kg/t
0.028
0.014
0.030
0.015
0.0055
0.0055
0.002
0.005
0.0005
0.00033
0.00023
0.018
0.032
0.019
Fine
particulate
emission Material
factor!/ transferrec
Ib/T
0.017
0.0084
0.016
0.0093
0.0032
0.0030
0.0014
0.0033
0.00027
0.00021
0.00013
0.012
0.025
0.015
kg/t
0.0085
0.0042
0.008
0.0047
0.0016
0.0015
0.0007
0.0017
0.00014
0.00011
0.000065
0.006
0.013
0.0075
(tons)
140
140
140
175
140
175
500
210
293
333
373
52
52
52
Surface material
1 Density Silt Moisture
(g/cm3) (X) (7.)
U/ I I
>3- ?7.3 >0.25
) ) )
!\ \
3^ ?3.0- >0.30
J ;
^4.9 U.8 Jo.64
4.5 2.8 0.5^
}*•' 1J:J >-
p. 79 >0.7 >< 1-'
Wind
speed
(mph)
3.6
2.2
4.2
2.7
1.3
3.1
2.3
4.5
1.8
1.8
2.2
Calm
Calm
Calm
a/ Emissions per quantity of material transferred.
b/ Assumed density (Ref. CRC Handbook) .
£/ Average of MRI and Plant A measurements.
d/ Estimated.
-------
3. Calculate the emission factor for particles smaller than D using
the following expression:
< Bp < 30 „.
3.3.3 Refinement of Predictive Equations
This section presents refined emission factor equations for open dust
sources, which have improved predictive capability in comparison to the equa-
tions presented in Table 3-5. The precision of the equations is illustrated
in tables of testing results and corresponding predicted emissions. Figure
3-3 gives the quality assurance (QA) rating scheme used to evaluate the pre-
dictive reliability of the refined emission factor equations. Section 3.3.4
describes methods for determination of correction parameters which appear in
the equations .
Vehicular Traffic--
Figure 3-4 shows the predictive emission factor formula for vehicular
traffic on unpaved roads. The coefficient and the first two correction terms
")Q I
are Identical to the expression given in AP-42— ' as follows:
0.6 (0.81 s)
which describes the emissions of particles smaller than 30 urn in Stokes diam-
eter generated by light duty vehicles traveling on unpaved roads. The weight
correction term was developed and the previous terms verified on the basis of
the testing which was conducted as part of this study.
Table 3-9 compares measured emissions with predicted emissions as calcu-
lated from the equation given in Figure 3-4. With the exception of Run E3,
the results agree within about + 20%.
Table 3-10 indicates that for Runs A7, £4, E5, and E6, meaaured emissions
from light duty vehicles were significantly higher than estimated by the for-
mula. The reason for this appears to be that heavy duty vehicles had traveled
the test roads prior to sampling, creating a loading of surface silt in excess
of the amount found on roads traveled only by light duty vehicles. One way of
handling this problem is to use the average vehicle weight for roads traveled
by a mix of vehicle types. The effective vehicle weights, given in Table 3-10
were back calculated from the actual emissions.
3-24
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE RATING SCHEME
A = FORMULATION BASED ON STATISTICALLY REPRESENTATIVE
NUMBER OF ACCURATE FIELD MEASUREMENTS (EMISSIONS,
METEOROLOGY AND PROCESS DATA) SPANNING EXPECTED
PARAMETER RANGES
B = FORMULATION BASED ON LIMITED NUMBER OF ACCURATE
w FIELD MEASUREMENTS
M
C = FORMULATION OR SPECIFIC VALUE BASED ON LIMITED
NUMBER OF MEASUREMENTS OF UNDETERMINED ACCURACY
OR
EXTRAPOLATION OF B-RATED DATA FROM SIMILAR PROCESSES
D = ESTIMATE MADE BY KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSONNEL
E = ASSUMED VALUE
Figure 3-3, Quality assurance (QA) rating scheme for emission factors,
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roads
QA RATING: B for Dry Conditions
C for Annual Average Conditions
EF = 5.9 JLUJL 41
Determined by profiling
of emissions from lighr-
duty vehicles on gravef
and dirt roads under
dry conditions.
V
Estimated factor to
account for mitigating
effects of precipitation
over period of one
year.
Determined by profiling of emissions from
medium- and heavy-duty vehicles on gravel
and dirt roads under dry conditions.
where: EF = suspended particulate emissions (Ib/veh-mi)
s = silt content of road surface material (%)
S = average vehicJe speed (mph)
W = average vehicle weight (tons)
d = dry days per year
Figure 3-4. Predictive emission factor equation for vehicular
traffic on unpaved roads.
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-9. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (UNPAVED ROADS)
Run
""'I
R-2
R-2
,
R-3 "
f R-3
M
•-J
R-4
Road surface
Silt
Type (7.)
12
Gravel 13
13
20
Dirt 5
68
A-14 ] Fine 4.8
> slag
A-15 ) 4.8
\
E-l '
E-2
E-3 >
8.7
• Dirt 1 8.7
8.7
Vehicle
speed
(mph)
30
30
40
30
40
30
30
30
14
16
16
Vehicle
weight
(tons)
3
3
3
3
3
3
70
70
34
34
23
Emission factor—
(Ib/vehicle-mile)
Predicted Actual
5.9
6.4
8.5
9.8
3.3
33
29
29
14
16
12
6.0
6.8
7.9
8.1
3.9
32
27
29
17
16
19
Percent
difference
-2
-6
8
21
-15
3
7
0
-17
0
-37
Predicted
Actual
0.98
0.94
1.08
1.21
0.85
1 03
1.07
1.00
0.82
1.00
0.63
aj Particles smaller than 30 pn in Stokes diameter based on actual density of silt
particles.
-------
TABLE 3-10. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS
(LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES ON UNPAVED INDUSTRIAL ROADS)
Run
A-7
E-4 "
E-5
E-6
Road surface
Silt
Type (7.)
1 Fine 4.8
v
f slag
4.1
Dirt 2 4.1
4.1
Vehicle
Vehicle weight
speed (tons)
(mph) Actual Effective
30 3 7.5
20 3 54
20 3 45
20 3 87
Emission
factor41/
(Ib/vehicle-mile) Percent
Predicted
2.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
Actual difference
4.9 -51
13 -90
11 -88
19 -93
Predicted
Actual
0.49
0.10
0.12
0.07
a/ Particles smaller than 30 urn in Stokes diameter based on actual density of silt particles.
-------
The final term in the emission factor formula given in Figure 3-4 Is used
to reduce emissions from dry conditions to annual average conditions. The
simple assumption is made that emissions are negligible on days with measur-
able precipitation and are at a maximum on the rest of the days. Obviously
neither assumption is defendable alone but there is a reasonable balancing ef-
fect. On the one hand, 0.01 in. of rain would have a negligible effect in re-
ducing emissions on an otherwise dry, sunny day. On the other hand, even on
dry days, emissions during early morning hours are reduced because of over-
night condensation and upward migration of subsurface moisture; and on cloudy,
humid days, road surface material tends to retain moisture. Further natural
mitigation occurs because of snowcover and frozen surface conditions. In any
case, further experimentation is needed to verify and/or refine this factor.
Figure 3-5 shows the predictive emission factor formula for vehicular
traffic on paved roads. As Indicated, the coefficient and the first two cor-
rection terms were determined by field testing of emissions from traffic (con-
sisting primarily of light duty vehicles) on arterial roadways and on a test
strip that was artiflcally loaded with surface dust in excess of normal levels.
The vehicle weight correction term was added by analogy to the experimentally
determined factor for unpaved roadways, and more testing ig needed to confirm
the validity of this correction term.
Table 3-11 compares measured emissions with predicted emissions as cal-
culated from the equation given in Figure 3-5. Although measured emissions
from medium duty and heavy duty vehicles traveling on a paved roadway at
Plant E were substantially in excess of the predicted levels, this is thought
to be due to resuspension of dust from vehicle underbodiea. This phenomenon
was visually evident as the heavy duty vehicles traveled from an unpaved area
onto the paved roadway.
It should be noted that the emission factor for reentrained dust from
paved roadways contains no correction term for precipitation. Although emis-
sions from wet pavement are reduced, increased carryover of surface material
by vehicles occurs during wet periods, and emissions reach a maximum when the
pavement dries. More testing would be helpful in analyzing the net effects
of precipitation on reentrained dust emissions.
Storage Pile Activities--
Figure 3-6 gives the predictive emission factor formula for storage pile
formation (load-in) by means of a translating conveyor stacker. The equation
is based on the results of field testing of emissions from the stacking of
pelletized and lump iron ore at Plant A. The effect of wind speed on emis-
sions occurs presumably because of the Increased atmospheric exposure of sus-
pendable particles during the drop from the stacker to the pile. Table 3-12
compares measured emissions with predicted emissions as calculated from the
predictive equation.
3-29
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Vehicular Traffic on Paved Roads
QA RATING: B for NormaTUrBan'Traffic"
C for Industrial Plant Traffic*
Determined by
profiling of
emissions from
traffic (mostly
light-duty) on
arterial roadways
with values for
s and L assumed.
Assumed by analogy
to experimentally
determined factor
for unpaved roads.
* Tests of industrial
plant traffic yielded
higher than predicted
emissions, presumably
due to resuspension of
dust from vehicle
underbodies.
Determined by profiling of emissions from
light-duty vehicles on roadway which was
artificially loaded with known quantities
of gravel fines and pulverized topsotl.
where: EF = suspended participate emissions (Ib/veh-mi)
s = silt content of road surface material (%)
S = average vehicle speed (mph)
W = average vehicle weight (tons)
L = surface dust loading on traveled portion
of road (Ib/mtle)
Figure 3-5. Predictive emission factor equation for vehicular
traffic on paved roads.
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-11. ESTIMATED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (PAVED ROADS)
Road surface dust
Loading Vehicle Emission factors*!/
excluding curbsS/ Silt weight (Ib/vehicle-mile) Percent Predicted
Run
P-9 !
Type (Ib/mile)
Pulverized 7,060
(%) (tons) Predicted Actual difference Actual
45 3 2.9 3.7 -22 0.78
> topsoil-
P-10 ]
P-14
E-7
E-8
P-356
2,870
Gravel 6,700
(Iron
and 800
92 3 2.4 2.1 14 1.14
23 3 1.4 0.46 204 3.04
5.1 7 0.072 0.8 -91 0.09
steel)
Plant
| Urban
E 800
16.0
5.1 8 0.080 1.1 -93 0.07
16.0 3 0.014 0.015 -6 0.93
> arterial
P-1516
1 site
) Urban
\SJ
14.9
14.9 3 0.013 0.013 0 1.00
J arterial
) site
2~
aj Particles smaller than 30 pm in Stokes diameter based on actual density of silt particles,
W 4-Lane test roadway artificially loaded.
c/ 4-Lane roadway with traffic count of about 10,000 vehicles/day, mostly light duty.
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Storage Pile Formation by Means of
Translating Conveyor Stacker
QA RATING: B
EF= 0.0018
T
Determined by profiling of emissions
frOm pi|e stocking of pelletized and
lump iron ore.
where: EF = suspended particulate emissions
(Ib/ton of material transferred)
s = s»lt content of aggregate (%)
M = moisture content of aggregate (%)
U = mean wi nd speed (mph)
Figure 3-6* Predictive emission factor equation for storage
pile formations by means of translating
conveyor stacker.
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-12. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (LOAD-IN BY STACKER)
LJ
Aggregate
Silt Moisture
Run Type (%) (7=)
A-8
I ron 4.8 0 . 64
, ore
A-IO) pellets 4.8 0.64
A-ll
A-12
A-13
2.8 2.CF-'
Lump
Uron 11.9 4.3
ore
19.1 4.3
Wind
speed
(mph)
2
4
1
1
2
.3
.5
.8
.8
.2
al
Emission factor-
(Ib/ton)
Predicted
0
0
0
0
0
.0078
.015
.00036
.00033
.00065
Actual
0
0
0
0
0
.0040
.010
.00099
.00066
.00046
Percent
difference
95
50
-64
-50
41
Predicted
Actual
1
1
0
0
1
.95
.50
.36
.50
.41
a/ Particles b.aaller than 30 urn in Stokes diameter based on actual density of silt
particles .
b/ Estimated value.
-------
Note that emissions from Tests All and A12 are significantly greater
than predicted during the early stages of pile formation. This is thought to
be due to the increased atmospheric exposure of falling material resulting
from increased drop distance during the early stages of pile formation. The
same effect is not observed in the case of pellets (an artificial aggregate)
possibly because emissions appear to be concentrated at the drop end of the
stacker and from the pile surface as pellets bounce and roll. The possible
effect of drop distance and dust emission should be further quantified by
field testing.
Figure 3-7 gives the predictive emission factor formula for transfer
(load-out) of aggregate from a loader to a truck. The equation is based pri-
marily on field testing of emissions from the transfer of crushed slag at
Plant A. It has the same form as the predictive equation for storage pile
stacking, except for the addition of a term containing the bucket size of the
loader. This term was derived by comparing the results for the 10 cu yard
loader with results obtained several years ago for load-out of crushed limestone
with a 2.75 cu yard loader. Table 3-13 compares measured emissions with emis-
sions calculated from the predictive equation.
Figure 3-8 presents the emission factor formula for dust emissions from
vehicular traffic around storage piles. The coefficient in this equation was
determined from conventional upwind/downwind sampling of total emissions from
a sand and gravel storage pile area during periods of activity (load-In, load-
out, traffic) and periods of inactivity (wind erosion only). The first two
correction terms were added by analogy to experimentally determine factors for
other sources. The climatic factor assumes, as in the case of unpaved roads,
that emissions occur only on dry days; the value of 235 dry days was obtained
by extending to an annual period the frequency of measurable precipitation
which was observed during the 30-day test period.—' Because of the potential
inaccuracies of the sampling methodology and the number of assumptions used
in deriving the correction terms, this predictive emission formula is assigned
a relatively low quality assurance rating.
Figure 3-9 presents the emission factor formula for dust emissions gener-
ated by wind erosion of storage piles. The coefficient in the equation was
determined from testing inactive sand and gravel storage piles, as noted above.
The factor of 0.11 Ib/ton (i.e., 33% of 0.33 Ib/ton) was cut in half to adjust
for the estimate that the average wind speed through the emission layer was one-
half of the value measured above the top of the piles. The other terms in the
equation were added to correct for silt, precipitation and frequency of high
winds. For the reasons given above with respect to the factor for traffic,
this predictive equation requires substantial additional testing to increase
its QA rating to an acceptable level.
3-34
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Transfer of Aggregate from Loader to Truck
QA RATING: B
EF= 0.0018
(iM
\
Determined by profiling of emissions
from load-out of crushed steel slag
and crushed limestone.
where: EF = suspended parriculare emissions
(Ib/ton of material transferred)
s = si It content of aggregate (% )
M = moisture content of aggregate (%)
U =mean wind speed (mph)
Y = effective loader capacity (yd )
Figure 3-7. Predictive emission factor equation for transfer of
aggregate from front-end loader to truck.
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-13. PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL EMISSIONS (LOAD-OUT BY LOADER)
Run
A-lN
A-2
A-3
A-4 I
A 5
A-6 y
L-l)
L-2
Aggregate
Silt
Type (*)
7.3
7.3
Processed 7.3
i steel
slag 3.0
3,
3.0
Crushed 1.3
limestone
1.9
Moisture
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
25
25
25
30
30
30
7ofe/
70t/
Wind
speed
(mph)
3.6
2.2
4.2
2.7
1.3
3.1
13
14
Loader
capacity
(yd3)
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
2
Emission factor—
(Ib/ton)
Predicted
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
073
045
085
016
0075
018
030
047
Actual
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
056
028
059
030
Oil
Oil
053
063
Percent
difference
30
61
44 .
-47
-32
64
-43
-25
Predicted
Actual
1.30
1.61
1.44
0.53
0.68
1.64
0.57
0.75
a/ Particles smaller than 30 pm In Stokes diameter based on actual density of silt particles,
b/ Average of values obtained for both materials tested.
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Vehicular Traffic Around Storage Piles
QA RATING: C
EF = 0. TO
Estimated factors
to correct measured
emissions to other
source conditions.
Determined by difference, i.e.
subtraction of load-in/load-out
emissions and wind erosion
emissions from total emissions
based on upwind/downwind
sampling around sand and gravel
storage piles.
where: EF = suspended parttculate emissions
(Ib/ton of material put through storage cycle)
K = activity factor defined as unity for operation tested
s - si'lt content of aggregate (%)
d = dry days per year
Figure 3-8. Predictive emission factor equations for vehicular
traffic around storage piles.
3-37
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Wind Erosion from Storage Piles
QA RATING: C
Based on upwind/downwind Estimated factors to
sampling of emissions from correct measured
inactive storage piles of emissions to other
sand and gravel. source conditions.
where: EF = suspended particulate emissions
(Ib/ton of material put through storage cycle)
s - si It content of aggregate (% )
D = duration of storage (days)
d = dry days per year
f - percentage of time wind speed exceeds 12 mph
Figure 3-9. Predictive emission factor equation for wind
erosion from storage piles.
3-38
-------
Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas--
Figure 3-10 presents the emission factor formula for wind erosion from
exposed areas. As indicated, this equation was derived (a) from field test-
ing of suspended dust generation during dust storms, as reported by Gillette,—
and (b) by an analogy to the wind erosion equation, which predicts total erosion
rather than suspended dust generation. Although it is known that above the wind
speed threshold of 12 mph for wind erosion, the erosion rate increases with the
cube of the wind speed, the wind speed correction term was simplified to reflect
an average value of 15 mph for periods of erosion. Because of the number of as-
sumptions made in deriving this equation, more testing is needed to increase its
OA rating to an acceptable level.
3.3.4 Determination of Correction Parameters
The following three categories of parameters appear in the refined emission
factor equations presented in the previous section1
I. Measures of source activity,
2. Properties of material being disturbed, and
3. Climatic parameters.
Measures of source activity are expressed in terms of equipment characteristics
(such as vehicle weights and loader bucket sizes) which are available from plant
records. The paragraphs below describe methods for determination of material
properties and climatic parameters.
la order to determine the properties of aggregate materials being disturbed
by the action of machinery or wind, representative samples of the materials must
be obtained for analysis in the laboratory. Unpaved and paved roads are sampled
by removing loose material (by means of vacuuming and/or broom sweeping) from
lateral strips of road surface extending across the traveled portion. Storage
piles are sampled to a depth exceeding the size of the largest aggregate pieces.
Exposed ground areas are sampled by removing loose surface material or, if a
crust has formed, by removing material to a depth of about 1 to 2 cm.
In all cases, several incremental samples are combined to form a composite
sample. The composite sample is then transferred-to^the laboratory in a mois-
ture impervious container.
The material properties of interest are moisture content and texture (spe-
cifically silt content and cloddiness). Moisture is determined in the labora-
tory by weight loss after oven drying at 110°C. Texture is determined by stan-
dard dry sieving techniques.
3-39
-------
OPEN DUST SOURCE: Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas
QA RATING: C
Based on testing of
emissions from wind
erosion of agricultural
fields of varying silt
content.
Estimated factor to
account for fact that
wind erosion occurs
only above threshold
wind speed.
I1
EF - 3400
P-l
I II
Ib/acre-yr
Assumed by analogy to
Wind Erosion Equation
where: EF = suspended particulate emissions (Ib/acre-yr)
e = surface credibility (tons/acre-year)
s = silt content of surface material (%)
f = percentage of time wind speed exceeds 12 mph
P-E = Thornrhwaite's Precipitation-Evaporation Index
Figure 3-10.
Predictive emission factor equation for wind erosion
of exposed areas.
3-40
-------
The moisture content of an exposed aggregate material is dependent on
its initial moisture content and on the precipitation and evaporation which
occurs while the material is in place. Thornthwaite's P-E Index is a useful
approximate measure of average surface soil moisture, but is not suitable for
freely draining aggregate stored in open piles.
The texture of a raw material such as lump iron ore may vary substantially
with the method of mining, processing, and transport. Materials processed at
iron and steel plants such aa slag, sinter, and coke exhibit variable texture
dependent on the method of processing and handling.
The climatic parameters of interest are (a) dry days per year, (b) P-E
Index, and (c) frequency with which the wind speed exceeds 12 mph. Dry days
per year for any geographical area of the United States may be found from a
map of mean annual number of days with 0.01 in. or more of precipitation, as
given in AP-42 .15.' A U.S. map of P-E Index by state climatic region was con-
2 Q /
structed by MRI and is also found in AP-42.— Finally, long-term average an-
nual wind speed distributions for reporting weather stations may be found in
the Climatic Atlas.li/
3.3.5 Best Open Dust Source Emission Factors
Since only a few of the many open dust sources were actually quantified
by field testing, the best open dust source emission factors must necessarily
be a hybrid of both estimated and measured values. In Table 3-14 the best
emission factors are presented for (a) the storage of various raw materials,
(b) materials transfer, (c) vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, and (d) wind
erosion.
The method for determining the best suspended emission particulate fac-
tor and the percent of suspended particulate that is fine is described in the
table as either (a) estimation, (b) measurement, or (c) calculation. These
methods are defined in footnotes to Table 3-14.
3-41
-------
TABLE 3-14. SELECTION OF BEST EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN DUST SOURCES
u>
Source
1. Unloading
raw materials
Iron ore
Lun?
Pellett
Coat
Limestone/
dolomite
2. Conveyor transfer
stations
Iron ore
Unv
Pellets
Cost
Limestone/ '
dolomite
Coke
Sinter
Units
kg/t lump ore
(Ib/T lim^t ore)
kg/t pellets
(Ib/T pellets)
kg/t coal
(Ib/T coal)
kg/t stone
(Ib/T stone)
kg/t lunrj ore
(Ib/I lump ore)
kg/t pelleta
(Ib/T pellet*)
kg/t cr>al
(Ib/T coal)
kg/t stone
(Ib/T atone)
kg/t coke
(Ib/T coke)
kg/t sinter
(Ib/T sinter)
Suspended Brut Qu.lllty
pan Iciilitc Bunpcnrlnd of best
range factor value
D.OOCWS EBtlmatP^
(0.01X19)
0.0(15 Estimate
(0.01)
0.021-0.2 0.02] Eatlmite
((I. 046-0.
-------
TABLE 3-14 (continued)
Source
!• Storage pile
activities
Iron ore
Pel let
Coal
1 Imestone/
do! ooilte
Coke
Sinter Input
naterlals
Slag
4. Vehicular traffic
Unpaved roads
Light duty
Hedlian duty
Heavy duty
Paved roads
Units
kg/t limp ore
(Ib/T lump ore
kg/t pellets
(Ib/T pellets)
kg/t coal
(Ib/T coal)
kg/t stone
(Ib/T stone)
kg/t cuke
(Ib/T coke)
kg/t Input
(Ib/T Input)
kg/t 9UR
(Ib/T alag)
kg/vohlcle-fcn
(Ib/VHTJ
kg/vchlcle-km
(II./VMT)
(lu/VMD
kg/v. hiclc-kin
Suspended Best
partlciilntc fliicpcntird
range factor
0.11
(0.72)
U.ll
(0.22)
0.07
lat2I
0.018
(0.016)
0.012
(O.U2>)
0.0-iS
(0.11)
0.027
(0.054)
0.22
(0.7B)
0.77
(2.7)
I.I
O.ll
(cont i
-------
TABLE 3-14 (continued)
.S
•a
Source Units
5. Wind erosion of kg/ten^/yr
5n*prndril HPT Qu-ilH, frri-i-iit of Qiiillty
p^rtlculntp n«it|>rnded of Li>st susprnded of fln» Best r5tic
factor emlimtnn ficlnr that Is percrnta(»*» enlsElpn
rariRC foctnr valur fln«3/ «il«<> factor
U>J,W>l>-IB/,Om> IU,OnO Calculated W Estimated dJ.OOO
(»17-1,*7(I) (1,190) (1TO)
j/ Weight percent of pnrttctcs with « dlam«*Lpr Ivi9 than 5 Um divided bf wetj;lit p^rceitt of pnrtictes vl th a dt.impter Ip^n thjin
10 lira tlmPB UK).
^/ MRl estimate basecl on co^tartson uith like source*
c/ Average of stfopIIng reeultn as reported In Tnble 1-7*
^/ Average calculated entavion fnctor (or the four surveyed plants (see Section 4,0) weighted
over the source extents*
-------
SECTION 4.0
OPEN DUST SOURCE SURVEYS
This section presents the results of field surveys of open dust sources
at four plants (ranging in capacity from approximately 1.5 to 2.5 million
tons of ingots per year. The purpose of the surveys was to collect data on
source extent, source activity levels, and properties of exposed materials
which comprised the dust emitting surfaces (unpaved and paved roads), storage
piles and exposed ground areas. Survey results are given below for each
plant, denoted by letters A through D.
The experimentally determined emission factors for open dust sources
given in Figures 3-4 through 3-10 and reproduced in Table 4-1 were used to
calculate fugitive dust emissions. Emission rates were determined through
multiplication of the appropriate emission factor and the source extent.
4.1 SURVEY RESULTS FOR PLANT A
This section presents the results of a survey of open dust sources at &
representative iron and steel plant designated as Plant A. Survey procedures
and results are given separately for each source category.
4.1.1 Vehicular Traffic
Table 4-2 lists source extent, emission factor correction parameters,
and calculated emission rates for specific unpaved and paved roads lying
within the property boundaries of Plant A.
Source Extent —
The following steps were used to develop the inventory of roads, vehicle
types, and mileage traveled:
1. Road segments with specific surface and traffic characteristics were
identified and the length of each segment was determined from a map of the
plant.
2. The types and weights of vehicles traveling on each road segment were
specified by plant personnel.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION FACTORS EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED BY MR!
Source category
Measure of extent
(.mission Etctori'
(Ib/uuit oF source extent)
Correction parameters
I Unpaved Roads
2 Paved Roads
3 Batch Load-In
(e.g., front-end
loader, railcar
dump)
4. Continuous Load-In
(e.g., stacker,
transfer station)
5. Storage Pile Maintenance
and Traffic
Vehicle - Miles Traveled
Vehicle - Miles Traveled
Tons of Material Loaded in
Tons of Material Loaded In
Tons of Material Stored
6. Storage File Wind Broalon Tons of Material Stored
7 Batch Load-Out
B Wind Erosion of Exposed
Araas
Tons of Material Loaded out
Acre-Years of Exposed Land
"YsfY8M
12/\30\3/ \365/
0 45
0.001E
0 001E
—
, „
-"
u° 8
Hf
s = Material Silt Content (I)
S *• Average Vehicle Speed (nph)
(tons)
L " Surface Dusc Loading on Traveled
Portion of Road (Ib/olle)
II » Wean Hind Speed (nnh)
H - Hater In I Surface Moisture Content (7)
Y - Dumping Device Capacity (yd3)
K - Activity Correction
d - Number of Dry Daya per Year
f • Percentage of Time Hind Speed breeds 12 nph
D • Duration of Materiel Storage (clays)
e - Surface Erodlblllty (tona/»cre/year)
P - E - ThornthuaUcs Precipitation-Evaporation Index
W
£/ Annual average emtssUias of dust particles smaller than 3D IJTQ In diameter basi»d on particle density of 2.5 g/cn .
-------
TABLE 4-2. PLANT A: ROAD EMISSIONS
Knur) length
- j ,11 \»f
Roada |inlltM")-
Un paved
Slag Ibullng I 3
Hot Strip 0 9
SUn Plant 3 0
Cake Pile 03
Total 5 5
Paved
Coal Storage 0 7
Coke Plant OB
Other raved 12 8
Total 14 1
Vehicle mile Vehicle class
Hoveled (1 lulu dm y A,
(olles/ meiHiMo duty B.
dayjt' hc.vy duty C)
90 C
105 A6B
288 C
2B C
511
120 n
56 B
1 ,010 B
1,206
Correct Ion parameter1) Ealnafona*
Surface Snarly
Rond Rurface loading Ealsainn eaiiRlont
Vehicle uclglit Vehicle aupeil Dry J»ys a III content (In/ factor (tonal
(rant)-' (mill)-' per yt*T (X) nlle)-' (Ib/VHT) yfar)
30 25 275 li' — } 4^' 56
B 2S 275 10t' -- 68 130
3n 10 275 I3i' -- 10. 0 530
30 23 275 4*' -- 78 6U
760
B 25 - IDE.' |5,non£.' 30 66
15 15 - ld£/ 15 (XOCiE/ 4.9 50
B 25 - 7E/ 5.nno£.' 0.6* 130
250
a/ Determined from plant «*p.
b/ Data obtained fron pt>nt personnel
cf ABiuneJ value hy HRI
d/ Determined by means of dry sieving
e./ Factor has been reduced by 751 to account for rond Hiirfdc*- olMnn
* AIL eratBNlon1" are based on pnrticulatei Lei^ than 30 |i Ln dlnmoler.
-------
3. Figures on the daily mileages traveled by each vehicle type were fur-
nished by plant personnel.
4. Information provided by plant personnel was used to apportion the
mileage traveled by each vehicle type over the various road segments.
Approximately 72% of Plant A's 20 miles of roads are paved and on the
whole have relatively low participate surface loadings and resultant emission
rates. Two paved roads, the coal storage and coke plant roads, have very high
surface loadings, with resultant high emissions.
Vehicular traffic at Plant A was comprised of three basic vehicle types:
* Type A - light duty (automobiles and pick-up trucks with 3 ton average
weight) .
* Type B - medium duty (flatbeds and other medium-sized trucks with 15
ton average weight).
* Type C - heavy duty (larger trucks with 30 ton average weight).
Vehicle mileage figures supplied by plant personnel were as follows-
* Open hearth slag hauling trucks (Type C) : 90 miles/day
* Coke hauling trucks (Type C): 83 miles/day
* Miscellaneous medium trucks (Type B): 197 miles/day
* Automobiles and light trucks (Type A): 1,056 miles/day
* Miscellaneous slag plant traffic (Type C): 288 miles/day
The above mileages were distributed among the various road segments based
on observed traffic patterns, confirmed by plant personnel. All slag hauling
truck miles were assigned to the slag hauling road. One-third of the coke
hauling truck miles were assigned to the unpaved portion of the coke hauling
road and two-thirds of the paved portion. AIL slag plant traffic was assigned
to the slag plant roads. The remainder of the vehicular traffic was observed
to be uniformly distributed over all plant roads except the unpaved portion of
the coke hauling road, the slag hauling road, and slag plant roads. Therefore,
this remaining traffic was assigned to each remaining road in direct proportion
to the fraction of the road in ratio to the total road length excluding the
three mentioned above (15.4 mile).
4-4
-------
Correction Parameters—
During the plant survey, samples of loose surface material were taken
from the slag hauling road, slag plant road, and the coke pile road and ana-
lyzed in the plant laboratory. Samples were tested to determine silt content.
The hot strip road was assigned a silt content between the values for the slag
hauling road and the slag plant road. The silt content of surface material on
paved roads was given a typical value of 10%. Surface dust loadings on paved
roads were estimated from observation.
Average vehicle speed for each segment of unpaved or paved road was esti-
mated by plant personnel, and the number of dry days per year for the plant
locale was determined from the Climatic Atlas,<=i' For road segments having a
mixture of vehicle types, average vehicle weights were derived by accounting
for mileage attributed to each vehicle type.
4.1.2 Storage Pile Activities
An inherent part of the operation of integrated iron and steel plants is
the maintenance of outdoor storage piles of mineral aggregates used as raw ma-
terials, and of process wastes. Storage piles are usually left uncovered, par-
tially because of the necessity for frequent transfer of material into or out
of storage.
Dust emissions occur at several points in the storage cycle—during load-
ing of material onto the pile, whenever the pile is acted on by strong wind
currents, and during loadout of material from the pile. Truck and loading
equipment traffic in the storage pile areas are also a substantial source of
dust emissions.
Source Extent--
Table 4-3 gives data on the extent of open storage operations involving
primary aggregate materials at Plant A. This information was developed from
(a) discussions with plant personnel, (b) plant statistics on quantities of
materials consumed, and (c) field estimations during the plant survey.
Table 4-3 also presents the emission factors for the open storage of pri-
mary aggregate materials at Plant A. The rationale for the use of the emission
factor expression (Table 4-1) for each operation is given below.
The operation of loading onto storage piles at Plant A utilized either
overhead loaders, dump truck and front-end loader combinations or various
types of stackers. These operations were Judged to be comparable to the op-
erations for which field measurements were performed. Therefore, Equations
(3) and (4) in Table 4-1 were used directly to describe emissions from stor-
age pile load-in.
4-5
-------
TABLE 4-3. PLANT A: STORAGE PILE EMISSIONS
Material
In
storage
Medium
volatil-
ity coal
High
volatil-
ity coal
Iron ore
pellets
Limp
Iron ore
Coke
Slag
Total
Suurcu
Amount
In
storage
(tons)^'
42 , 500
127,000
125.000
242,000
m.ooob/
129.000
850,000
extent
Annual
throughput
(million
tonu)^
0.5
1.5
1.5
2.9
1.0
1.5
8.9
Vehicular
1-oad In traffic
(lb/toii . lib/ton
stored) storerl)
0.0003 0 11
0.0001 0 039
0.032 c/
0.022 £/
O.OOO7 0.070
0.001 d/
Emission
Wind
e rnglon
rib/ton
stored)
0,098
0.032
0 042
0.14
0.016
0.074
factors^
Load
out
(Ib/ton
stored)
0.0003
0.0001
0.006
0.004
0.001
O.OO3
Total
storage
cycle
(Ib/ton
stored)
0.21
O.073
0.081
0.17
0.096
0.19
Yearly
emissions
(cons/year)
54
54
61
250
48
150
620
a/ Calculated as 1/12 the annual throughput.
b/ Data obtained through plant personnel.
cj Determined negligible,
d/ Considered In the unpaved road calculations.
* All emission* are based on partlculstcs less than 30 p In diameter.
-------
Vehicular traffic around storage piles at Plant A was generally less in-
tense than traffic around emission-tested aggregate storage piles consisting
of truck and front-end loader movements associated with load-in and load-out.
Stored aggregate materials assigned a traffic-related emission factor of zero
were: medium volatility coal, high volatility coal, lump iron ore, and pel-
let ized iron ore. The coke storage piles at Plant A were worked in a manner
similar to the emission-tested aggregate, as reflected by Equation (5) in
Table 4-1 with K = 1. Traffic around processed slag storage piles was cov-
ered under unpaved roads above.
Equation (6) in Table 4-1 was used directly to calculate emissions from
wind erosion of storage piles at Plant A, 'However, the emission factor for
wind erosion from iron ore pellet piles was multiplied by 0.2 to account for
the lack of saltation size particles required for the erosion process.—
A wide range of aggregate load-out (reclaiming) operations were observed
at Plant A. Load-out of lump iron ore and iron ore pellets by gravitational
drop onto underground conveyors generated little fugitive dust, as reflected
by the assumed activity factor of 0.2 for Equation (4), Coal piles were
loaded out through the use of high loaders which dumped material onto under-
ground conveyors, a process similar in nature to load-in of emission-tested
aggregate, but having an assumed activity factor of 0.8. Coke and slag piles
were loaded out in a manner similar to load-out of emission-tested aggregates,
so Equation (7) was used directly.
Correction Parameters--
Values for aggregate silt content and moisture content were obtained
from laboratory analysis of samples of stored materials or were estimated.
Duration of storage for each material was estimated by plant personnel.
Loader bucket sizes were estimated by MRI personnel. Climatic correction
parameters (mean wind speed =8.7 mph, dry days per year = 275, and per-
centage of time that the wind speed exceeds 12 mph = 19) were obtained from
the Climatic Atlas.— The correction factors used in determining emissions
for Plant A's storage pile activities are presented in Table 4-4.
4.1.3 Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas
Unsheltered areas of exposed ground around plant facilities are subject
to atmospheric dust generation by wind erosion, whenever the wind exceeds the
threshold velocity of about 12 mph. The exposed ground area within the bound -
'aries of Plant A was estimated to be 257. of the plant property, based on ob-
servations during the plant survey. To account for the sheltering effect of
buildings, the effective exposed area was taken to be 12.5% of the plant
property.
4-7
-------
TABLE 4-4, PLANT A. STORAGE PILE CORRECTION PARAMETERS-^
af
Material
in
storage
Hedlim
volatil-
ity coal
High
volatil-
ity coal
Iron ore
pellets
Lump
iron ore
Oo Coke
Slag
Silt
content
tt)
6.0l/
2.0i/
13l/
».o!/
l.OE/
1.5S./
Hoisttnre
contentt/<7.)
L.I. L.O
7.0 5.6
7.0 5 6
1.0 1.0
1,0 1 0
1.0 1.0
1.0 O.B
Mean
wind
apeed£/
8.7
B 7
B.7
8.7
B 7
8.7
Percentage
wind speed
>U mphS'
19
19
19
19
19
19
Dry days
per year
(davs)£/
275
275
275
275
275
275
Duration
of
storage
fdavsli'
30
30
30
30
30
90
Effective
loader
capacity
(cu. yd)
L.I. L.O.
a/ 6
g/ 6
B/ a/
a/ B./
20 10
20 10
Activity factorE.'
L.I T. H.E. L 0.
1.0 0.25 1.0 0 B
1 0 0.25 1.0 0.8
1.0 0 0.2 0.2
1.0 0 1.0 0.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
a/ LI." load-in, T. - traffic. U.E - wind erosion, L.O. • load -out.
b/ All moisture values are assumed by MR! based on limited field measurements.
c/ Obtained fron Climatic Atlaa.^-'
d_/ Obtained froo plant personnel.
e_/ Assuned value by MRI.
tl Determined by means of Ury sieving.
^/ Stacker (I. I ) or mechanical reclaimer (L.O.) utilized.
-------
As indicated in Table 4-1, the parameters which influence the amount of
dust generation by wind erosion are surface erodibility, silt content of sur-
face material, P-E Index, and fraction of the time the wind speed exceeds 12
mph. The surface erodibility factor (47) and the surface silt content (15%)
were derived from analysis of surface slag material at Plant B. Thornthwaite 's
P-E Index for Plant A was determined to be 45.—' Finally, the value for the
fraction of time the wind speed was greater than 12 mph (197.) was obtained from
weather records.— The results from wind erosion of Plant A'3 exposed areas
are presented in Table 4-5.
4.1-4 Summary of Dust Emissions
A breakdown of calculated emissions from open dust sources at Plant A is
presented in Table 4-6. For Plant A, the largest contributing source category
was unpaved roads. Emissions generated by storage piles and exposed areas
ranked next in order. The contribution of the paved roads to the dust inven-
tory was minimal.
4.2 SURVEY RESULTS FOR PLANT B
This section presents the results of a survey of open dust sources at a
representative iron and steel plant designated as Plant B. Survey procedures
and results are given separately for each source category.
4.2.1 Vehicular Traffic
Table 4-7 lists source extent, emission factor correction parameters,
and calculated emission rates for specific unpaved and paved roads lying
within the property boundaries of Plant B.
The experimentally determined emission factors for paved and unpaved
roads given in Table 4-1 were used to calculate fugitive dust emissions. The
appropriate measure of source extent is vehicle-miles traveled.
Source Extent--
The following steps were used to develop the inventory of roads, vehicle
types, and mileage traveled:
1. Road segments with specific surface and traffic characteristics were
identified and the length of these segments were determined from a map of the
plant.
2. The types and weights of vehicles traveling on each road segment were
specified by plant personnel.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-5. PLANT A: EXPOSED AREA EMISSIONS
Source CKtenj Correction patametcra Emissions*
Total Total Effective
plant exposed exposed Soil Surface silt Emission Yearly
area area area credibility soil content Wind factor emissions
Bind eroalon (acres) (acres) (acres) (tons/acre/year) (Z) Speed PE (Ib/nere/year) (tons/year)
Plant A open 1,502 3?6 1882.'' 4?k/ 20£/ 19^ 45E/ 4,000 380
areas
a/ Effective exposed area that area uhlch Is unsheltered by nearby buildings (effective exposed area • total exposed
area x 0 5) .
b/ Assumed value by HR1 based on slag ground cover.
£/ Assumed value based on known nearby agricultural land silt content.
&l Percentage of the time the wind a peed is greater than 12 oph.
_p_ e/ Thornthva ties' P-E Index
i
O * AIL emissions are based on participates less than 10 u In dlnoeter.
-------
TABLE 4-6. PLANT A: SUMMARY OF OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSIONS
Malor dust contributors
Suspended particulate
emissions (tons/yr)
Percentage
of total
1. Onpaved Roads
760
38
2. Total Paved Roads
250
12
3. Total Wind Erosion -
Exposed Areas
4. Storage Piles
Lump Iron Ore
Iron Ore Pellets
Combined (High - Low
Volatility) Coal
Other Storage Piles
Total All Open Sources
380
250
61
110
200
2,010
19
12
3
6
10
100%
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-7. PLANT B: ROAD EMISSIONS
Source extent
Vehicle alien (Hght dirty A, RoaJ surCice Surface F.olnnlon Yearly
Road length traveled Medium duty B, Vehicle wrlalit Vehicle Bneed Dry rtdys lilt roncrnt loading (actor f aim Ions
Ro».ls (mile*)".'
-------
3. Data on the daily mileage traveled by each vehicle type was calcu-
lated from plant motor pool information, specifying vehicle hours used per
week. To calculate miles traveled per day, a utilization factor and average
vehicle speed were used.
4. Information provided by plant personnel was used to apportion the
mileage traveled by each vehicle type over the various road segments.
Approximately 787. of Plant B's 17.3 miles of roads are paved and have
relatively low particulate surface loadings and resultant emission rates.
However, about 2 miles of paved roads was assigned a loading of 15,000 lb/
mile, based on visual observation, and have relatively high emissions.
Vehicular traffic at Plant B was comprised of three basic vehicle types:
* Type A - light duty (automobiles and pick-up trucks with 3-ton average
weight).
* Type B - medium duty (flatbeds and other medium-sized trucks with 15-
ton average weight).
* Type C - heavy duty (larger trucks with 30-ton average weight).
Vehicle mileage figures calculated from data obtained from plant personnel
were as follows:
Unpaved roads Paved roads
Type A - 168 miles/day Type A • 1,057 miles/day
Type B - 159 miles/day Type B - 524 miles/day
Type C - 672 miles/day Type C - 582 miles/day
Total: 1,000 miles/day Total: 2,163 miles/day
Paved roads were divided into two categories: highly loaded (dusty) paved
and moderately loaded paved roads. Because dusty paved roads constituted ap-
proximately 157. of the total paved road mileage, it was assumed that 157= of the
apportioned paved road traffic would travel on the dusty roadways.
Correction Parameters--
At Plant B, one unpaved road segment was sampled for the silt content of
the surface material. This laboratory silt content (107.) was assumed to ap-
ply to the other unpaved road segments at Plant B. The surface silt content
for paved roads was assumed to be 107=,, a typically measured value.
4-13
-------
Average vehicle speed for each segment of unpaved or paved road was es-
timated by plant personnel and the number of dry days per year for the plant
locale was determined from the Climatic Atlas.—
For road segments having a mixture of vehicle types, average vehicle
weights were derived by accounting for mileage attributed to each vehicle
type.
4.2.2 Storage Pile Activities
Source Extent--
Table 4-8 gives data on the extent of open storage operations involving
primary aggregate materials at Plant B. This information was developed from
(a) discussions with plant personnel, (b) plant statistics on quantities of
materials consumed, and (c) field estimations during the plant survey.
Table 4-8 also presents the emission factors for the storage of primary
aggregate materials at Plant B. The rationale for the use of the emission
factor expression (Table 4-1) for each operation is given below.
The method of loading onto storage piles at Plant B consisted of various
types of stackers couoled with a sizable conveyor network. Therefore, Equa-
tion (4) from Table 4-1 was used directly to calculate emissions from storage
pile load-in.
Vehicular traffic around storage piles at Plant B was generally less in-
tense than traffic around emission-tested sand and gravel aggregate storage
piles, consisting of truck and high loader movements associated with the
load-in and load-out process. Stored aggregate materials assigned a traffic-
related emission factor of zero were: coal, iron ore pellets, and lump iron
ore.
At Plant B, only the ore bedding, slag piles, and coke have vehicles
moving among the piles during the storage cycle. An activity factor of 0.25
was used with Equation (5) in Table 4-1 to scale the vehicular traffic emis-
sions in the ore bedding area and around coke piles, and a factor of 1 was
used for processed slag piles.
Equation (6) in Table 4-1 was used directly to calculate emissions from
wind erosion of storage piles at Plant B. However, the emission factor for
wind erosion from iron ore pellet piles was multiplied by 0.2 to account for
the lack of saltation size particles required for the erosion process.^2_/
Methods of loading out (reclaiming) materials from the storage piles at
Plant B included reclaimers which "rake" the materials onto a conveyor and
the front-end loader/truck method similar to the emission tested operations.
4-14
-------
TABLE 4-8. PLANT B: STORAGE PILE EMISSIONS
-p-
1
J— •
Ln
Material
in
B Co rage
Coal
Iron ore
pellets
Limp Iron
ore
Coke
Ore
bedding
Slag
Total
Source
Amount
In
storage
(tons).*/
25,000
100,000
I 88,000
Z 0,000 "
15,000
162 .000
510.OOO
extfnt
Annual
throughput:
(million
tons>£/
0.54
0.24
0 62
0 38
0.29
1.97
4.04
Load In
Ub/ton
stored)
0.001
0 005
0 001
0 003
0.006
0.005
Vehicular
traffic
(Ib/tnn
stored)
c/
£/
cj
0.01
0.17
0 11
Emlse Ion
Wind
erosion
(Ib/ton
stored)
0.14
0.13
0.30
0.03
0 60
0 05
factors*
Load
out
Mb/ton
stared)
0 0003
0.04
0 0002
0 0006
0.0009
0 007
Total
storage
cycle
(Ib/Lon
stored)
0.14
0 18
0.30
0.05
0.77
0.17
Yearly
emissions
ftons/vr)
40
22
94
11
110
170
450
a/ Calculated as 1/12 the annual throughput
b/ Daca obtained through plant personnel.
£/ Determined negligible.
* All emissions are based on part fciilates less than 30 pm In diameter.
-------
Equations (7) and (4) in Table 4-1 were used with appropriate activity fac-
tors to calculate emissions from load-outi^ Because the reclaimer method pro-
duces less dust emissions than the stacker, an activity factor of 0.2 was used
with Equation (4) to calculate dust emissions. Equation (7) was used for
those materials removed via front-end loader/trucks.
Correction Parameters--
Values 'for aggregate silt content and moisture content were obtained
from laboratory analysis of samples of stored materials or were estimated.
Duration of storage for each material was estimated by plant personnel.
Loader bucket sizes were estimated by MRI personnel. Climatic correction
parameters (mean wind speed = 11,8 mph, dry days per year = 265, and per-
centage of time that the wind speed exceeds 12 mph = 40) were obtained from
the Climatic Atlas .li' These correction factors are presented in Table 4-9.
4.2.3 Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas
Unsheltered areas of exposed ground around plant facilities are subject
to atmospheric dust generated by wind erosion, whenever the wind exceeds the
threshold velocity of about 12 mph. The exposed ground area within the
boundaries of Plant B was estimated to be 124 acres based on areas outlined
on a map by plant personnel. To account for the sheltering effect of build-
ings , the effective exposed area was taken to be 757, of the indicated bare
ground areas.
As indicated in Table 4-10 the parameters which influence the amount of
dust generation by wind erosion are surface erodibility, silt content of the
surface material, P-E Index, and fraction of the time the wind speed exceeds
12 mph. The values used for these parameters and the exposed area emissions
for Plant B are presented in Table 4-10.
4.2.4 Summary of Dust Emissions
The relative emission contributions of the four source categories are
given in Table 4-11. Emissions generated by unpaved roads account for 587.,
of Plant B's total. Emissions from plant paved roads and storage piles are
next in magnitude. Emissions from exposed area wind erosion are relatively
insignificant.
4.3 SURVEY RESULTS FOR PLANT C
This section presents the results of a survey of open dust sources at a
representative iron and steel plant, designated as Plant C. Survey results
and procedures are given below for each source category.
4-16
-------
TABLE 4-9. PLANT B: STORAGE PILE CORRECTION PARAMETERS-^/
I
I-1
-~l
Material
In
storage
Coal
Iron ore
pellets
Lump Iron
ore
Coke
Ore
bedding
Slag
Mean Percentage Duration
Silt Moisture wind wind a peed Dry days of
content content-' (X) a peed!!/ > 12 mph£/ per year storage
(Z) 1 .1 L 0 m (days>£/ (days)!/
4.4l/ 3 0 3.0 11 8 40 265 30
6.7l/ 2.0 2.0 11.8 40 265 90
9 0£/ 5,0 5 0 11,6 40 265 30
1.0£/ 10 1.0 11.8 40 265 30
9. OS/ 7.0 5.6 11.8 40 265 60
l.5£/ 1.0 O.B 11 6 40 265 30
Effective
loader
capac Lty
(cu, yd) Activity factorE'
L.I. L.O. LI T WE L.O
£/ &/ 100 1 0 0.2
g/ £/ 1.0 0 0.2 0.2
£/ fi/ 100 1.0 0.2
a/ £/ 1.0 0.25 1002
&/ 6 1.0 0.25 1.0 1 0
&/ 6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
a/ L.I. » load-In, T. = traffic, H E. - wind erosion, L O. - load-out.
b/ All moisture values are assumed by HK1 based on limited field measurement
U Obtained from Climatic Atlas.—'
jy Obtained froni plant pursQimel .
e_/ Assume.] value by MKl.
£/ Dvtermlnud by means of dry sieving
j>/ Stacker (1..1.) or mechanical reclaimer (I .O ) utilised
-------
TABLE 4-10. PLANT B: WIND EROSION - OPEN AREA EMISSIONS
Source extent
Hind erosion
Plant B Open
areas
Total
plant
area
(acres)
787
Total
exposed
area
(acres)
126
Effective
exposed
area
(acres)
93»/
Correction parameters Emissions*
Soil
credibility
(tons/acre/yr)
UlV
Surface soil Emission
silt content Wind factor
tt) speed PE
-------
TABLE 4-11. PLANT B: SUMMARY OF OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSIONS
Source
Ma lor dust contributors
Suspended participate
emissions (tons/yr)
Percentage
of total
1. Total Unpaved Roads
2. Paved Roada
3. Total Wind Eroaion -
Exposed Areas
4. Storage Piles
Lump Iron Ore
Ore Bedding
Slag
Other Storage Piles
Total all open sources
1,632
660
79
94
110'
170
76.
2,821
58
23
3
4
6
3
1007.
4-19
-------
4.3,1 Vehicular Traffic
Table 4-12 lists source extent, emission factor correction parameters,
and calculated emission rates for specific unpaved and paved roads lying
within the property boundaries of Plant C.
The experimentally determined emission factors for paved and unpaved
roads given in Table 4-1 were used to calculate fugitive dust emissions. The
appropriate measure of source extent is vehicle-miles traveled.
Source Extent--
The following steps were used to develop the inventory of roads, Vehicle
types and mileage traveled;
1. Road segments with specific surface and traffic characteristics were
identified and the length of each segment was determined by plant personnel.
2, The types and weights of vehicles traveling on each road segment were
specified by plant personnel.
3. Figures on the daily mileages traveled by each vehicle type were fur-
nished by plant personnel.
4. Information provided by plant personnel was used to apportion the
mileage traveled by each vehicle type over the various road segments.
Approximately 817. of Plant C's 27 miles of roads are paved and on the
whole have relatively low particulate surface loadings and resultant emission
rates. There are 4.6 miles of "dusty-paved" roads within Plant C, as indi-
cated by plant personnel. These roads have considerably higher surface par-
ticulate loadings with resultant higher emission factors than the other paved
roads within the plant.
Vehicular traffic at Plant C was comprised of two basic vehicle types:i
I. Type A - light duty (automobiles and pick-up trucks with 3-ton aver-
age weight).
2. Type B - medium duty (flatbeds and other medium-sized trucks with 15-
ton average weight).
Data pertaining to the daily vehicle-miles traveled by both types of ve-
hicles within the plant were obtained from plant personnel. It was indicated
that this mileage was evenly distributed over the various road types at the
plant.
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-12. PLANT C: ROAD EMISSIONS
Roads
Unpaved
. Dusty paved
Other paved
Total paved
Vehicle niilc^
Road length traveled
(•lleB)^' (miles/Jay)-''
52 250
4 e * 1 55*.
1 ; Mn
r
IT 2 1 I 2,082
1 902
21 B 3.77B
VHitelr cla«».S/
(light J.ity A.
medium duty B, Vehicle vplgtil
tieavy duty C) (tons)
A 3
A 3
H 15
A 3
R 15
Correction paraacLcra
Rnncl
(Hnh)i' per year
25 J')5
25
25
25
25
Btirf ace
(t)
10
10
10
10
10
Enltl
Surface Ettltalon
loadlog fiirtor
(lb/n(lr)-' (H./VHT)
3 1
15,000 I 1
15,000 4 9
5,000 0 45
5,000 1 6
Ions*
Yearly
eraL^B lifnc
(tona/yl )
1 511
no
210
170
2W)
770
£- •/ Obtained from plant personnel.
I
!_• b/ Assumed value by MR I
* ^articulate enLaaloni are baaed un particles leas than 30 [i In diameter
-------
Correction Parameters--
Because of adverse weather conditions during the time of the survey, it
was not possible to obtain representative samples of road surface dust from
which to determine silt content. Therefore, a silt content of 107. for the
particulate loading on Plant C's roadways was assumed. Average vehicle speed
for each segment of unpaved or paved road was estimated by plant personnel
and the number of dry days per year for the plant locale was determined from
the Climatic Atlas.—''
4.3.2 Storage Pile Activities
Source Extent--
Table 4-13 gives data on the extent of open storage operations involving
primary aggregate materials at Plant C. This information was developed from
(a) discussions with plant personnel, (b) plant statistics on quantities of
materials consumed, and (c) field estimations during the plant survey.
Table 4-13 also presents the emission factors for the open storage of
primary aggregate materials used in Plant C. The rationale for the use of
the emission factor expression (Table 4-1) for each operation is given below.
Methods o± loading onto storage piles at Plant C consisted of utilizing
clam shell buckets (for blast furnace input materials) , movable stackers (for
all blended ore beds and large stone) ,and front-end loaders for other materi-
als. Equation (4) in Table 4-1 was used directly to calculate emissions from
storage pile load-in with movable stackers and Equation (3) was used for load-
in with clam shell buckets and front-end loaders.
Vehicular traffic around storage piles at Plant C, consisting of the use
of front-end loaders only, was generally less intense than traffic around
emission-tested aggregate (sand and gravel) storage piles, consisting of truck
and high loader movements associated with the load-in and load-out. Stored
aggregate materials assigned a traffic-related emission factor of zero were:
-blast furnace input materials (coke, sinter, and coarse ore) and the use of
front-end loaders for load-out of the limestone-dolomite piles a represented
by an activity factor of 0.25. To account for the use of front-end loaders for
load-in/load-out, an activity factor of 0.5 was used with Equation (5) for all
other materials.
Equation (6) in Table 4-1 was used directly to calculate emissions from
wind erosion of storage piles at Plant C. However, an activity factor of 0.5
was applied to blast furnace coke, sinter, and iron ore piles to account for
the depressed location which partially shelters these materials from the direct
action of wind.
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-13. PLANT C: STORAGE PILE EMISSIONS
Source Extent
Material la
icarata
Cpel
Low uola-
illgh vola-
: 11 ley
Iran Ore
Icah Ore Float
Caarte Ore , 3ed
Ho L
Cj»rje Ort,
Blase furnace
Clean-up Ore
BLeaded Ore bedi
Scone ^ta:erlali
eleclalfi LiaeiCOAe
Floe fiereeaed)
L^nejcaae
Fiae Llaescant
Liaescona
Floe ficrtenedl
DolooUe
Fine Dolaqlce
OalMU.
Miiee Llapeaui
Pacraiija Coke
F.ne CJKS freeze
C,kt. slate F-irna
:>incir, Slue
Furnace
Flue Dust
local
Aoouac la Annual Load-In
•corage±' chraugbout (Ib/cao Vehicular traffic
/eonit ^allllon eonl^*' icored ^lb/con icsredl
10,500
19,000
2,000
3,000
37,000
3,500
16,000
6,500
16,250
3,000
31,750
5,500
1,500
3,000
5,000
7,000
ct 9.000
1,250
£/
135,750
0.06
0.11
0.04
0.10
0 07
0.04
L.14
0.03
0 07
0.02
0.13
0 02
0.01
0 04
0 03
0 08
0.03
0.02
0^03
2.07
0 0001
0.0001
0 003
0.0006
0.0003
0.0004
0 0005
0.0004
0.0004
0 0004
0.0004
0.0004
0 0004
0 OOO4
0.0006
0.004
0.002
0 002
0,0003
0 11
a os
0.78
0 37
b/
0.37
b/
0.06
0.06
0.96
0.03
0.06
0 06
0.03
0 04
0 29
b/
y
0.58
Pinion !
Load-ouc Tacal icarige Yel
Ulad eretlen (Ih/eon cyeLa (lb/cea tail
fib/ton icortdl stand) teared) 'com
0.24
0.08
0 25
0.20
0.60
0 20
0 05
0.10
0 10
0.10
0.10
0 10
0 10
O.LO
0.04
0.15
0.05
C 05
Q 9]
0 0002
0 0001
0 004
0 3009
0 0005
0.0006
0 0001
0.0006
0 0006
0.0006
0 0004
C 0006
0 0006
0 0006
0 300 q
Q OOc
0 005
0 305
0 0008
0 i7
0 17
1.0 I
0 53
o 60 :
C.57 1
0.05 :
0.16
3 14
O.L6
0 13
0 14
0 14
0 13
0 78
0 i« 1
1.35
0.35
'.5 _,
::
b/ Decamlaed negligible
c/ Data nac luiiltMe.
" 111 taliiiana ire btird on pareiclet
Chan 30 alcrant In dlaatetr
4-23
-------
Methods of loading out (reclaiming) materials from the storage piles at
Plant C included (a) reclaimers which "rake" the materials onto a conveyor,
(b) clam shell buckets, and (c) front-end loaders which transfer the material
to a conveyor bin, a process similar in nature to the load-out of emission-
tested aggregate. Equations (4) and (7) in Table 4-1 were used with appropri-
ate activity factors to calculate emissions from load-out. Because the re-
claimer produces less dust emissions than the stacker, an activity factor of
0.2 was used with Equation (4) to calculate dust emissions. An activity fac-
tor of 1 was used with Equation (7) for clam shell buckets and front-end
loaders.
Correction Parameters--
Values for aggregate silt content and moisture content were obtained
from laboratory analysis of samples of stored materials or were estimated.
Duration of storage for each material was estimated by plant personnel.
Loader bucket sizes were estimated by MRI personnel. Climatic correction
parameters (mean wind speed = 8.6 mph, dry days per year = 295, and percen-
tage of time that the wind speed exceeds 12 tnph = 24) were obtained frftm the
Climatic Atlas2^-' These correction factors are presented in Table 4-14.
4.3.3 Wind Erosion of Exposed Areas
Unsheltered areas of exposed ground around plant facilities are subject
to atmospheric dust generated by wind erosion, whenever the wind exceeds the
threshold velocity of about 12 mph. The exposed ground area within the
boundaries of Plant C was estimated to be 26.4 acres, based on plant map
areas outlined by plant personnel. This is an extremely low value for ex-
posed area within an integrated iron and steel plant facility, reflecting
the fact that the vast majority of exposed areas within Plant C have been
paved.
As indicated in Table 4-1, the parameters which Influence the amount of
dust generated by wind erosion are surface credibility, silt content of sur-
fact material, P-E Index, and fraction of the time the wind speed exceeds 12
raph. Soil erodibility and silt content were derived from the soil type in
the vicinity of Plant C. The calculated emissions from wind erosion are pre-
sented in Table 4-15.
4.3.4 Summary of Dust Emissions
A breakdown of calculated emissions from open dust sources at Plant C is
presented in Table 4-16. Paved roads (66%) is the largest contributing dust
source, followed by the storage piles (187.) . The other sources of open dust
at Plant C, as seen in Table 4-16, are relatively small in comparison.
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-14. PLANT C: STORAGE PILE CORRECTION PARAMETERS^'
I Co rav •
Uu voU-
cilUy
High vol*-
Cillcy
Iran Qtt
Ort flnn
Cjari or*
Coart on,
bla t ?um*A«
C141D Up Of*
Bind d oft
bad
S tan« ouctriald
EUclala iiaaieaa*
Fln« (icr..Ud)
Flo* llaaiLaa*
fin* 'acntrwd)
da looic*
?Lnt dalodic*
Lla«icoa«
Datable*
PitroLiu* cota
FLoa eoka hr«»i«
*lu* iuic
Ca*a, QUac fun
Sine*- , blue £UET
*— ~— — ^— — ^— «
a/ L. I. *
ji.it
Caacnc
S.ii'
21'
18 (•'
9S/
9l'
94'
li 71'
1 51'
1. 31'
t 51'
1 31'
131'
I 51'
1 31'
11'
'&'
14^'
t, li'
\ I 51'
•MMM^^^PK^^^
load -ir
lolituri
L.I. t.O,
as 69
96 i 9
i 0 3.2
SO 49
4.0 4 ]
T,l 3.7
9 2 3.:
.0 2..
0 24
.0 24
.0 2 -
0 2 4
.0 2,4
.0 2 4
20 14
2.0 1.6
90 a. 4
10 09
L Q O.i
1. T. ° tn
Ml ID
Wind
mphl
i 6
8.S
„
i
.6
6
6
.6
6
i
6
6
6
6
1 6
a 6
9 i
a s
3 4
ifftc U
wind ip«
E"IL"V*
I.I. '..a. L.!
a a 1.3 o J
6 6 L a 0 3
4 6 1003
6 6 1003
10 iJ 10 0
6 t 1003
I/ I/ 100
« 5 1003
i 6 i 3 0 5
S 4 IOCS
6 a i 3 a s
i 6 1003
J, 6 1 0 0 2J
I/ 4 10023
4 4 1003
* S 1005
s * i o a,j
10 10 130
10 10 100
_ , "5 — :
i : . o
t D • 0
10 L 0
10 1-3
t a 13
03 10
< 3 0
.302
t 3 I 3
1313
'0 10
1 D I 1
13 10
1310
10 13
1 : i a
13 13
'0 1 J
3 ! 15
i 5 • 3
— -
b/ All moisture values are assumed by MRI based on limited field measurements.
£/ Obtained from Clsjnatic Atlas.!/
I/ Obtained from plant personnel.
e/ Assumed value by MRI.
£/ Determined by means of dry sieving.
•&/ Stacker (L.I.) or mechanical reclaimer (L.O.) utilized.
Reproduced from
best available
4-25
-------
TABLE 4-15. PLANT C: OPEN AREA EMISSIONS
*>
<»v
Source
Total
plant
area
(acres)
»*/
extent
Effective
open
area
(acres)
„*'
Correction
pararoeti rs
Soil Surface soil
credibility silt content
(tons/acre/year) (11)
47=/
15*'
Wind
speed
27«>
PE
Index
3sa/
Kmias
Emission
Factor
Tib/acre /vear)
6,000
i Lons*
Yearly
emissions
(tons /rear)
30
a/ Obtained from plant personnel.
t>/ Effective open area that area which Is unsheltered by nuarby buildings.
£/ Assumed value by MRI based on slag ground cover
Aj Percentage of the tine the vlnd speed In greater than 12 uph.
£/ Thornthwalte's P-E Index.
* All emissions are based on particulars less than 30 |H» In diameter.
-------
TABLE 4-16. PLANT C- SUMMARY OF OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSIONS
Ma 1or dust contributors
Suspended particulate
emissions (tons/yr)
Percentage
of total
1. Unpaved Roads
2. Paved Roads
Dusty paved
Other paved
3. Exposed area - wind erosion
4. Storage piles
Coal
Iron ore
Stone materials
Other materials
Total all open sources
150
340
430
30
24
120
25
44
1,160
13
29
37
2
10
2
4
100%
4-27
-------
4.4 SURVEY RESULTS FOR PLANT D
This section presents the results of a survey of open dust sources at a
representative iron and steel plant, designated as Plant D. Survey results
and procedures are given below for each source category.
4.4.1 Vehicular Traffic
Table 4-17 lists source extent, emission factor correction parameters,
and calculated emission rates for specific unpaved roads lying within the
property boundaries of Plant D. The plant had no paved roads within its
boundaries.
The experimentally determined emission factors for unpaved roads given
in Table 4-1 were used to calculate fugitive dust emissions. The appropriate
measure of source extent is vehicle-miles traveled.
Source Extent--
The following steps were used to develop the inventory of roads, vehicle
types, and mileage traveled:
1. Unpaved road segments with specific surface and traffic characteris-
tics were identified by plane personnel, and the length of each segment was
determined from a map of the plant.
2. The types and sizes of the vehicles traveling on unpaved roads were
specified by plant personnel.
3. Figures on the daily mileages traveled by each vehicle type were fur-
nished by plant personnel.
All of the roads at Plant D boundary are slag surfaced. As indicated in
Table 4-17, total unpaved road mileage within the plant is 10.6 miles. These
roads were indicated to be in good condition throughout the plant and to be
regularly maintained.
Vehicular traffic at Plant D was comprised of three basic vehicle types:
* Type A - light duty, 36 vehicles (automobiles and pick-up trucks with
3-ton average weight).
* Type B - medium duty, 22 vehicles (flatbeds and other medium-sized
trucks with 15-ton average wetght).
* Type C - heavy duty, 6 vehicles (larger trucks with 30-ton average
weight).
4-28
-------
TABLE 4-17. PLANT D: ROAD EMISSIONS
^
Roads (miles)-'
UnpaveJ 1O.6
Total 10 6
f> a/ Determined from
Is)
Source extent
Vehicle class
Vehicle miles (light duty A,
(miles /day)- heavy duty C)
720 A
493 B
120 C
1,333
plant map.
Correction parameter 9 Emissions*
Road surface Emission Yearly
(tons)^ (mph}- per year (I) (Ib/VHT) (tons/yr)
3 20 255 10 22 290
15 20 255 10 8.3 750
30 15 255 10 10.8 240
1,260
b/ Data obtained from plant personnel.
cY Assumed value.
* All emissions are based on participates less than 30 p In diameter.
-------
As indicated by plant personnel, these vehicles travel over all the un-
paved roads in the plant. Thus, no specific plant road segments were Identi-
fied as having higher than average traffic volumes.
Correction Parameters--
Because of adverse weather conditions during the time of the survey, it
was not possible to obtain representative samples of road surface dust from
which to determine silt content. Therefore, a silt content of 10% for the
road surface material was assumed. Average vehicle speed was estimated by
plant personnel and the number of dry days per year for the plant locale was
determined from the Climatic Atlas.—
4.4.2 Storage Pile Activities
Source Extent--
Table 4-18 gives data on the extent of open storage operations involving
primary aggregate materials at Plant D. This information was developed from
(a) discussions with plant personnel, (b) plant statistics on quantities of
materials consumed, and (c) field estimations during the plant survey.
During the survey, weather conditions prohibited the collection of repre-
sentative samples of the storage materials to be analyzed for silt content.
Storage pile silt content values were assumed to be the same as the values
obtained for similar materials previously sized at other steel plants.
Table 4-18 also presents the emission factors for the open storage of
primary aggregate materials used in Plant D. The rationale for the use of
the emission factor expression (Table 4-1) for each operation is given below.
The method of loading onto storage piles at Plant D consisted of utiliz-
ing front-end loaders for the coke breeze and screened stone piles; a stacker
for the iron pellet piles; and an overhead gantry/clamshell bucket for the
screened iron ore, large stone, and for the coal piles. Therefore, Equation
(3) from Table 4-1 was used to calculate emissions from load-in using front-
end loaders and clamshell buckets, and Equation (4) was used for the stacker.
Vehicular traffic around storage piles at Plant D was generally less in-
tense than traffic around emission-tested aggregate storage piles, consist-
ing of truck and high-loader movements associated with load-in and load-out.
Stored aggregate materials assigned a reduced traffic-related activity factor
were :
Screened iron ore: K » 0 (no vehicular traffic)
Iron ore pellets: K = 0.25
4-30
-------
TABLE 4-18. PLANT D. STORAGE PILE EMISSIONS
i
Ul
Material
In
B to rage
Lou vola-
tility coal
High vola-
tility coal
Iron ore
pellets
Screened
Iron ore
Cake breeze
Screened
1 imeatone/
dolomite
Dolomite
stone
Total
Source
Amount
in
storage
(tons)"/
25,000
30,000
50,000
66,600
40,000
5.000
12 .QUO
Z16.000
ex rent
Annual
throughput
(million
tons)
0.05
0 06
l.B
0.4
0.04
0.14
0.04
2.53
LuaJ In
(Ib/ton
scored)
0 .000 1
0.0001
0.034
0.001
o.om
0,024
0.002
Vehicular
traffic
(Ib/ton
stored)
0.099
0 036
0.23
b/
0.50
0.65
0.027
Emlaalon
Wind
eroeion
(Ib/ton
atoreJ)
0,66
0.48
0 017
0.76
0.42
0.078
0.045
factors*
Load
out
(lb/tan
stored)
0.0004
0.0001
0.054
0.002
0.029
0.037
0.003
Total
storage
cycle
(Ib/ton
atured)
0.76
0.51
0.34
0.76
0.97
0 79
0.078
Yearly
eol salons
(tone/year)
19
16
310
150
20
55
2
570
«/ Data obtained from plant personnel.
b/ Utilermlned ntytlyible.
.>
* All emissions are butted un part Jcul Btea less ihun 30 (j in diameter.
-------
Coal: K = 0.25
Large stone: K =0.25
The coke breeze and screened stone storage piles at Plant D were worked
in a manner similar to the emission-tested aggregate and were thus assigned
a K-factor of 1.
Equation (6) in Table 4-1 was used to calculate emissions from wind ero-
sion of storage piles at Plant D. The emission factor for wind erosion from
iron ore pellet piles was multiplied by 0.2 to account for the lack of salta-
tion size particles required for the erosion process.—'
The methods of loading-out (reclaiming) from the piles at Plant D con-
sisted of utilizing either a front-end loader pick-up and drop into a conveyor
bin (coal, ore pellets, coke breeze, and stone piles) or a gantry/clamshell
removal and dump into a rail hopper car (iron ore) which released the material
onto an underground conveyor. Equation (7) in Table 4-1 was used to calcu-
late emissions from load-out.
Correction Parameters--
Values for aggregate silt content and moisture content were obtained
from laboratory analysis of samples of stored materials or were estimated.
Duration of storage for each material was estimated by plant personnel.
Loader bucket sizes were estimated by MRI personnel. Climatic correction
parameters (mean wind speed = 9.3 mph, dry days per year = 255, and per-
centage of time that the wind speed exceeds 12 mph = 25) were obtained from
the Climatic Atlas.—' These correction factors are given in Table 4-19.
4.4,3 WindErosion of Exposed Areas
Unsheltered areas of exposed ground around plant facilities are subject
to atmospheric dust generation by wind erosion, whenever the wind exceeds the
threshold velocity of about 12 mph.—' The exposed ground area within the
boundaries of Plant D was estimated to be 107. of the plant property, based on
discussions with plant personnel during the plant survey. To account for the
sheltering effect of buildings, the effective exposed area was taken to be
7.57, of the plant property.
As indicated in Table 4-1, the parameters which Influence the amount of
dust generation by wind erosion are surface credibility, silt content of the
surface material, P-E Index, and fraction of the time wind speed exceeds 12
mph. The soil erodibility factor (47) and the surface silt content (157.)
were derived from previous sieving of similar surface soil materials at an-
other steel plant. Thornthwaites P-E Index for Plant D was determined to be
2 9/
93.— Finally, the value for the fraction of time the wind speed was greater
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-19. PLANT C: STORAGE PILE CORRECTION PARAMETERS-*-'
a/
Mean Percentage
Material Silt Moisture wind wind speed
in content contentk'' speedf.' >12 mph£/
storage (%) LI. L 0 (mph) (7.)
Low vola-
tility
coal
High vola-
tility
coal
Iron ore
pellets
Screened
I Iron ore
U)
U)
Coke breeze
Screened
I loco tone/
dolomite
Do 1 exalte
stone
5.5E/ 7.0 6.0 93 25
Z£/ 7.0 5.6 93 25
13E/ l.O 0.8 9.3 25
19E/ 5.0 4.0 9.3 25
7S/ 1.0 0.8 9.3 25
9£/ 1.0 0.8 9.3 25
1.52/ l.O 0.6 93 25
Effective
Duration loader
Dry days of capacity
per year storage feu. yd) Activity f net or- '
(days)£/ (days)!' L.I. 10 II. T WE L 0
255 1BO 10 6 1.0 0 25 I 0 l.O
255 3&0 10 6 1 0 0 25 l.O l.O
255 10 tl 6 1.0 0 25 0 2 1 0
255 60 10 10 1.0 0 1.0 1.0
255 90 66 1.0 1 .0 1.0 l.O
255 13 6 6 1.0 l.O 1 0 1.0
255 45 10 10 1.0 0.25 10 10
«/ L.I • load-In, T • traffic, W.E. = wind erosion, L O, - load-out.
b/ All moisture values are assumed by MRI based on limited field measurements
£/ Obtained from Cl laiatU Alla3.il/
d/ Ubtalned from plant personnel.
£/ Ar.iiimed value by HR1.
f/ Stacker (I.I.) or mcchiin leal reclaimer (L O ) utilized.
-------
than 12 mph (25%) was obtained from weather records.—The results from
wind erosion of Plant D's exposed areas are presented in Table 4-20.
A.4.4 Summary of Dust Emissions
A breakdown of calculated emissions from open dust sources at Plant D
is presented in Table 4-21. The largest contributing sources were unpaved
roads (68%). Emissions from plant storage piles were next in magnitude (30%)
Wind erosion of exposed areas was relatively insignificant.
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-21. PLANT D: SUMMARY OF OPEN DUST SOURCE EMISSIONS
Major dust contributors
Suspended participate Percentage
emissions (tons/yr) of total
1. Unpaved Roads 1,280 68
2. Winderosion - exposed areas 38 2
3. Storage piles
Low-high volatility coal 35 2
Iron ore pellets 310 16
Screened Iron ore 150 8
Coke breeze 20 1
Stone piles 57. • 3_
Total all open sources 1,890 100%
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-20. PLANT D: OPEN AREA EMISSIONS
I
W
Ui
Source extent
Hind erosion
Plant D open areas
Total Total
plant exposed
area area
(acres) (acres)
1,100s' llftS/
Effective
exposed
area
(acre*)
83k/
Correction parameters Emissions*
Soil
credibility
(tons/acre/yr)
«*'
Surface soil Emission
allt content Wind P-F, factor
(1) speed Index (Ib/acre/yr)
15^/ 2-ii/ 9j£/ 920
Yearly
emissions
(tons/yr)
38
ja/ Data obtained from plant personnel
t)/ That area which Is unsheltered by nearby buildings.
c/ Assumed value by HRI based on slag ground cover.
d/ Percentage of the tine the wind speed Is greater than 12 mnh
e/ Thornthwaites* P-E Index.
~
* Based on particulates leas than 30 Us in diameter
-------
SECTION 5.0
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR PROCESS SOURCES
This section presents an assessment of best available control tech-
nology for process sources of fugitive emissions associated with integrated
iron and steel plants. Information for this assessment was obtained from:
(a) published and unpublished literature; (b) knowledgeable personnel within
the iron and steel industry and within EPA; (c) surveys of representative
iron and steel plants and (d) control equipment manufacturers.
In the sections below, control system options are presented for the fol-
lowing process sources of fugitive emissions:
Steel Making Furnaces
• Electric Arc Furnaces (charging, tapping, slagging and leakage)
• Basic Oxygen Furnaces (charging, tapping, slagging and leakage)
Hoc Metal Transfer
Teeming
Other Sources
* Gas Cutting Operations
• Sinter Plants
. Desulfurization Stations
Open hearth furnaces have been excluded from this discussion since these fur-
naces are gradually being phased out of the industry.
Control options (presented for each source include both emissions cap-
ture and particulate removal aspects. Expected performance and cost data are
given for each alternative. Some options are based on actual installations
while others are promising in concept but have not been demonstrated fully.
5-1
-------
Information on existing installations was obtained from the literature
and from limited contacts with knowledgeable industry personnel* This informa-
tion is not meant to represent an industry wide profile of control practices.
To the extent that source operations vary from plant to plant, it is
less likely that a single control option would be most suitable for uniform
application throughout the industry* Added to this is the need for determining
the degree to which individual fugitive sources at a given plant are to be
-controlled in order to meet plant-specific control strategy objectives. The
most cost-effective control strategy for a particular plant entails the appli-
cation of the most efficient controls to the largest contr %uting sources.
i
5.1 ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Fugitive emissions associated with an electric arc furnace (EAF) are
those unducted emissions which are emitted typically from charging, tapping
and slagging. Electrode leakage constitutes a less typical source. When di-
rect shell evacuation (DSE) cannot be used, melt down and refining are also
significant sources of fugitive emissions*
Only part of these fugitive emissions actually affect ambient air qual-
ity. Excluded is the portion of the fugitive emissions which are too large to
escape in buoyant currents through the building roof monitors and which set-
tle back to the shop floor creating a nuisance problem. Most of the emissions
classified as fine particulate (particles smaller than 5 )j.m in diameter) will
escape the building monitor and impact the ambient air quality off the plant
premises.
Several control options are listed in Table 5-1 and are discussed below.
These control options apply solely to the EAF* Other EAF shop sources and
their controls are discussed elsewhere in this report.
5.1.1 Option A: Building Evacuation
As shown in Figure 5-1, building evacuation systems use the sealed roof
of the melt shop as a collection hood. Buoyant exhaust gases rise from the
furnace to the sealed roof. From the roof, ducts draw the dust-laden gases
to a removal device. If the removal device cannot handle the volume of gas
generated at certain peak periods in the process, the enclosed roof simply
acts as a holding chamber until the fumes can be evacuated.
Extent of Application—
Currently, the use of building evacuation systems for EAF emissions is
documented for four alloy steel producing fact It tigs.33.34/
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF EAF CONTROLS
Control
DSE
DSE + Canopy Hood
DSE + Canopy Hood +
scavenger duct
at roof
DSE + Building Evacuation
Canopy Hood
Canopy Hood + scavenger
duct at roof
Building Evacuation
Total Enclosure
Tapping and slagging
ladle hoods
Hooded scrap bucket
(conceptual idea)
Roof
monitor
Open
Open
Closed
Closed
Open
Closed
Closed
Open
Open.
Closed
Open,
Closed
Furnace
type
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Carbon
Alloy
Alloy
Alloy
Carbon
Alloy,
Carbon
Alloy,
Carbon
Type of emission
controlled^./
Primary
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Primary,
Fugitive
Fugitive
Fugitive
a/ Primary emission - emissions during meltdown.
5-3
-------
Clean Air
Exhaust Gas
Figure 5-1• Building evacuation system.!!/
-------
Problems Associated with Application-
One very obvious problem with building evacuation is the enormous flow
rates involved. This problem is due in part to the need for the building
evacuation system to handle not only the fugitive fumes and gases from the
EAF but also the natural ventilation required to maintain the workroom envi-
ronment* Important variables in the workroom environment affected by the flow
rate of a building evacuation system are temperature and pollutant concentra-
tions* Pollutant concentrations in the workroom environment are now regulated
by the 1970 Threshold Limit Values (TLV's) proposed by the ACGIH and adopted
by OSHA.
The first disadvantage of building evacuation is the high flow rate nec-
essary for adequate control* Canopy hoods with an open roof monitor can re-
duce the flow rate by half for the same furnace size, and canopy hoods with
DSE and an open roof monitor can be expected to require 40% of the flow rate
that building evacuation would.1*!/ Canopies use less flow rate than building
evacuation because the roof monitor handles the actual building ventilation
while the canopy handles only the EAF fumes and gas* Also, because the canopy
is closer to the source than the roof monitor, the volume of fumes and gas
from the EAF will be minimized since the buoyant gases have less time to dif-
fuse and entrain room air into the plume.
A second disadvantage of building evacuation related directly to the
high flow rate is the energy expended to move the air volume* EPA has calcu-
lated that a building evacuation system handling 4,000 dscfm/ton of furnace
capacity coupled with DSE handling 350 dscfm/ton of furnace capacity will re-
quire 37.8 kw-hr of electric energy per ton of furnace capacity. On the other
hand, an 80% efficient canopy hood handling 2,000 dscfm/ton of furnace capac-
ity coupled with DSE handling 350 dscfm/ton of furnace capacity only requires
18.9 kw/hr per ton of furnace capacity.^/ This is 50% reduction in energy
utilization when compared with building evacuation, and yet the canopy-DSE
combination yields the same total emissions (EAF and power plant) as the
building evacuation-DSE combined on .367
The third disadvantage of building evacuation is that environmental prob-
lems can arise inside the tightly enclosed building if (a) the control equip-
ment malfunctions or (b) the ventilation patterns are such that stagnant spots
occur u-.are pollutants can build up* The first problem can be handled with
motor-operated louvers in the building monitor. The second problem is a matter
of proper design of forced or natural air inlets into the building.-
A final disadvantage of building evacuation is that in retrofitting, the
design may produce a ventilation rate lower than the shop originally had under
natural ventilation conditions. This will reduce the in-shop air quality while
improving the ambient air quality.
5-5
-------
Control Device Performance--
Source tests were performed by the U.S. EPA on four building evacuation
systems utilized to control alloy steel furnaces. Flow rates were found to
range from 3,300 dscfm/ton of furnace capacity to 4,200 dscfin/ton of furnace
capacity.3=1' It was suggested that 5,000 dscfm/ton of furnace capacity would
be more representative of the industry as a whole»22/
Building evacuation systems are nearly 100% efficient. The baghouse to
which one of these systems was vented has been quantified as 94% efficient,^'
but MRI expects that 99%+ efficiency is possible.
The maintenance of the capture portion of the building evacuation system
is minimal since the capture portion consists simply of an enclosed roof
vented through ducting. It is possible that settled dust in the ducting would
need to be removed occasionally. The removal portion of the building evacua-
tion system, consisting of baghouse, fans, motors and dust handling equipment,
will require routine maintenance such as bag replacement, lubrication, bear-
ing replacement, fan motor replacement and fan housing lining replacement.
Control Device Cost-
Data have been published!!/ estimating the cost of a building evaucation
system for a shop with three 100-ton furnaces. At 5,000 dscfm/ton of furnace
capacity, the fabric filter removal system was estimated to handle 1.5 mil-
lion scfm. The total installed costs are shown in Table 5-2* Since these
data are 1974 cost data, the values were adjusted to reflect escalation using
the Chemical Engineering plant cost index* This index has been recommended
to handle the inflating costs of air pollution control equipment .Ml'
There are some general conclusions that can be gleaned from an analysis
of the cost data presented in Table 5-2, but one should not immediately ap-
ply these conclusions to the determination of costs for other systems without
giving proper consideration to the differences inherent in each system. Add-
ing the gas gleaning equipment cost and the auxiliary equipment cost, the
total installed cost for the baghouse and its accessories, as listed in Table
5-2, is approximately $2.50/scfm. The total installed cost of the ductwork
as of December 1976 is $0.70/scfm, but this amount is obviously also sensi-
tive to the length, diameter and wall thickness of ductwork required to reach
the removal device. There are several other capital investments in addition
to the gas gleaning equipment, ductwork, fans and motors which are difficult
to generalize about, except to mention that any estimate of total project
cost must consider the following: engineering, building modification, duct-
work support, site preparation, foundations, piping, electrical and instru-
mentation.
5-6
-------
TABLE 5-2. ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COSTS--BUILDING EVACUATION
(for three 100-ton furnaces and an evacuation rate
of 1.5 x 106 scfm)
Investments.'
Cas. cleaning dsvict
BH -/bags
Subtotal
Auxiliary equipment
Scriv conveyor w/driva
Bucket elevator w/ drive
Dust storage silo
Rotating drum cocary
valve w/driva
Canopy
Blower w/drive
Eleccric vibrators
w/drive
Subtotal
Ductwork, utilities
Ductwork
Piping
Instrumentation
Electrical
Lighting
Subcocal
Engineering! overheads, ace.
Engineering
Indiraccs
Start-up
Spare pares
Contractors fee
Subcocal
Total
June 1973
C03C ($)
1,969,900
I,9fi9,900
42,500
7,200
19,800
68,100
90,600
419,000
3,000
650,200
738,200
1,300
176, .5 00
786,000
262,000
1,964,500
366,300
412,600
91,700
45,800
59,600
976, 300
5,561,100
Infla-
tion
multiplier
208.3
143.0
December 1976
cose (S)
2.369,400
2,869,400
208.4
143.0
208.3
143.0
237.4
LSI. 7
198.7
146.9
153.4
105.2
153.4
105.2
153.5
12?. 8
-
.
61
10
28
99
132
610
4
947
1,075
2
238
1,146
382
2,344
133
412
91
,900
,500
,300
,200
,000
,300
,400
,100
,300
,800
,700
.100
,000
,=>00
,300
,600
,700
45,300
177.0
155.6
e"
1,051
7,713
,300
,700
,100
a/ There MB other Important capital Investments such as building
support, ductwork support and site preparation which are not
Included here.
5-7
-------
5.1«2 Option B; Canopy Hoods
Canopy hood capture devices in conjunction with fabric filter removal
devices constitute effective systems for (a) primary and fugitive emissions
from alloy furnaces, (b) fugitive emissions from carbon steel furnaces using
DSE and (c) primary and fugitive emissions in carbon steel shops without DSE.
Canopy hoods can be employed with either open or closed roof openings. When
roof openings are closed, a scavenger system is used to remove emissions that
collect in the roof area. Figure 5-2 depicts a canopy hood control system
coupled with a novel application of an enclosure, not typically found in con-
junction with a canopy hood.
The major advantage of the canopy system is that it can be operated with
less air volume than is required for building evacuation because it is nearer
to the source. This reduced volume requires a less costly initial investment
and results in reduced operating costs. However, if not operated at a suffici-
ent flow rate to handle peak emission of gases and fumes, canopy hoods with
open roof monitors are less efficient in capturing emissions than are build-
ing evacuation systems.
Extent of Application--
There are nine separate operating installations documented as having
canopy hood systems.33^17 These 12 systems represent 25 to 30% of the exist-
ing canopy hood systems applied to EAFs. Three other systems were located
during the course of this research project. The operating characteristics
of these example systems are shown in Table 5-3.
Problems Associated with Application—
When canopy systems are not sized to handle peak generation of fumes and
gases, part of the plume escapes the canopy and gathers in the roof. If the
monitors are open, the emission escapes; if the monitors are closed, the emis-
sion is collected by a scavenger system. Crosscurrents may also cause the
plume to move from under the canopy, causing something less than 100% capture
efficiency.
Finally, retrofitting a canopy hood may present problems simply from a
space point of view. Generally, for a top charged furnace, a distance of at
least 30 to 40 ft is necessary between the top of the furnace and the bottom
of the canopy to allow for charging or tapping crane clearance. There could
be situations in which the space between the top of the crane and the nearest
overhead obstruction would not be adequate for canopy installation.
Control Device Performance-
Actual flow rates for canopy hoods have been measured in a range from
1,500 to 8,000 dscfm/ton of furnace capacity. The capture efficiency of the
canopy system is not known quantitatively, but visual estimates have placed
5-8
-------
•
~i^x Canopy Hood
To Fabric
Filter
Ladle
Charging
Bucket
Operating Floor
Slagging Hood
Slag Pot
Figure 5-2. LAP canopy hood system.
-------
TABLE 5-3. IDENTIFICATION OF EXAMPLE CANOPY HOODS
SYSTEMS ON ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
Ln
I
Plane Identification
Plant C-3'
Plant 7
Plant H
Plant G
Plant it (under construc-
tion In 1974)
Plant L
Plant H
Plant B
J & L at Warren, Mich.
Unidentified
Unidentified
Unidentified
Number and size
(Long) of
furnaces
in operation
2/100,1/73
NA*'
2/100
2/UO
1/150
HA
HA
5/15
5/65, I/JO
2/220
4/170
2/116,2/170
Roof
Open
Open
Open
Closed
CloseJ
Closed
Closed
Closed
NA
NA
NA
HA
Total
ay scan
capacity
(acfra)
598.000
NA
244,500
NA
NA
HA.
NA
HA
700,000
630,000
(scfio)
2,100,000
900,000
Gas temp.
at baghouse
inlet
<°F>
170
NA
118
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
175
NA
250
HA
Reference
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
39
NA
NA
NA
a/ Not, the SJJTIC plant G of Section 4 surveyed for open dust sources*
b/ NA m Not available.
-------
it between 50 and 907..— The canopy hoods on the alloy furnaces at J&L's
Warren facility were guaranteed to collect at least 657» of the combined
primary and fugitive emissions. This value was verified by both visual obser-
vation and comparison of the dust captured by a DSE on a similar-sized fur-
nace (assuming 100% capture) and the dust captured by the canopy.
Control Device Cost—
The total capital investment for a canopy system is sensitive to several
variables, including the total flow rate handled by the system. In this sec-
tion, cost data for system flow rates ranging from 440,000 scfm to 2,100,000
acfm are presented. The first new system to be considered here handles a flow
rate of 440,000 scfm.it!' This was a proposed system and it may not have been
built and actually used. The cost estimate made in 1974 was $1.5 million for
baghouse, ducting, installation of hoods and enclosing of monitors. In addi-
tion, the cost for building modification to support ductwork and hoods was
estimated at $0.75 million. The cost was not a firm bid as evidenced by the
fact that other major items such as engineering and contractor's fees were
not included*
The second system to be considered handles a flow rate of 750,000 scfm
for a three 100-ton furnace.—' This was a theoretical system developed
solely for cost analysis purposes. The costs for this system are listed in
Table 5-4. Certain general conclusions can be drawn concerning the cost of
this specific system. In December 1976, the installed cost-for the baghouse
and auxiliary equipment was $3.25 scfm, while the total installed cost for
the ductwork and utilities was $2.70 scfm.
The last system to be considered is capable of flow rates of 2,100,000
acfm. This is a retrofit system and it is now in operation. The system was
designed to handle emissions from one shop with four 170-ton EAF's. The costs
of separate components of this system are shown in Table 5-5.
Some general conclusions that can be gleaned by studying the cost break-
down in Table 5-5 are: the baghouse cost in December 1976 was $1.70/acfm; the
auxiliary equipment cost $0.SO/acfm and the hoods and ductwork cost $1.50/acfm
to purchase and install. The overall project cost was $7.20/acfm.
5.1.3 Option C; Total Enclosure
~~Total "enclosure, which consists of completely enclosing the furnace down
to the operating floor, Is a very recently applied technology for controlling
fugitive emission from EAF's. The technology of total enclosure had its origin
in BOP (Basic Oxygen Process) and QBOP furnace emission control applications,
but it has been successfully applied to EAF's by Obenchain Corporation. The
enclosure captures all charging, meltdown and refining emissions. The tapping
ladle is moved to the furnace by railcar, and emissions from this source are
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-4. ESTIMATED TOTAL INSTALLED COSTS—CANOPY HOODS
AND REMOVAL SYSTEMS^/ (for three 100-ton
alloy furnaces and a flow rate of 750,000
scfm)'
Investment^./
Baghouse
Auxiliary equipment
Ductwork, utilities
Engineering, overhead
Total
June 1973
cost ($)
1,246,200
440,300
1,321,400
700,900
3,708,800
Inflation
multiplier
208.3
143.0
208.4
143.0
217.0
141.8
153.5
129.8
December 1976
cost ($)
1,815,300
641,400
2,022,200
828,900
5,307,800
a/ No DSE.
b/ Does not include structural support for the ductwork or building
or site preparation.
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-5. ACTUAL TOTAL INSTALLED COSTS—CANOPY HOODS AND
REMOVAL SYSTEM (for four 170-ton carbon
steel furnaces and a flow capacity of
2,100,000 acfm)
Investment
Oust collector
Baghouse
Concrece work
Auxiliary ducts, feeders
Auxiliary equipment
5 Fans and accessories
1 Motor*,''
Concrete work
Dust conveying system
Palletizing unit
Hoods and ductwork
Ductwork-original
Ductwork-modi fled
Hoods
Painting
Dampers
Expansion joints
Engineering
Engineering design
April 1975
cost {$)
3,198,
967,
259,
335,
* 1,900,
1,016,
1.385.
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Inflation
multiplier
212.5
193.0
212. S
193.0
208.3
191.6
153.5
140.7
December 1976
cost (J)
3,521,000
1,719,000
3,170,000
1,511,000
Building structure and support
Modify existing building
Additions to existing
structure
150,
1,075,
Ductwork support structure 1,880,
Contractor's faa
Construction overhead
Electrical
Subtotal
Other
Total
313.
257,
437,
13,172,
762,
13,935,
000
ooo
ooo
700
000
000
700
300
000
192.9
175.5
177.0
166.6
-
L53.4
141.4
3,413,000
333,000
257,000
474,000
14,399,000
762,300
15,160,300
AJ Bought only one motor since four .rare on hand.
5-13
-------
controlled by a stationary tapping ladle hood. The stationary tapping ladle
is discussed in this report as a separate control option. DSE is not re-
quired with total enclosure.
Charging with a total enclosure surrounding the furnace presents a for-
midable but not insurmountable design problem. Doors are installed through
which a clamshell scrap bucket can enter. There is a slot in the top of the
enclosure to allow crane cable clearance. After the crane and the bucket en-
ter the enclosure, the doors are closed and an air curtain is engaged across
the crane cable clearance slot. The primary evacuation ducts in the top of
the enclosure can then capture nearly 100% of the charging emissions.
Extent of Application-
Based on the limited survey conducted, only one operation is known to
be using total enclosures on EAF's. The operation consists of two 65-ton fur-
naces. This entire shop was a new design, not a retrofit. The shop has been
operating since June 1976.
Problems Associated with Application—
The retrofitting of a control device such as a total enclosure may not
be possible in a majority of cases, but the application merits investigation.
The advantages could override the disadvantages such as operational changes*
For new designs, however, this device should be investigated since it yields
high efficiency at low flow rates and consequently offers low costs.
Control Device Performance —
The specific enclosure surveyed is made of unlined, 1/16-in. steel sheet-
ing. Installation time was approximately 2 weeks per furnace enclosure. The
removal system has a capacity of 150,000 scfm, and the temperature inside the
enclosure averages 150°F. This is a very low flow when one considers that
nearly 100% of the meltdown, refining, charging, tapping, slagging and elec-
trode leakage emissions are captured. Not all of the flow capacity is used
continuously; for example, during meltdown only 70,000 scfm is utilized.
Control Device Cost—
The purchase cose was $200,000 each for the particular total enclosure
considered in this report.
5»1»4 Option D; Tapping Ladle Hoods
A relatively recent innovation in tapping emissions control is the tap-
ping ladle hood. When tapping from an EAF with a tapping hood, the ladle must
be moved to the furnace on a railcar* The tapping hood is stationary and the
railcar moves the ladle underneath the hood. The hood extends a little below
the top of the ladle on every side except the side on which the ladle enters
the hood, and there is one slot in the top through which the metal is poured.
5-14
-------
The increased tilting of the furnace during tapping requires that the car ad-
vance the tapping ladle forward. In one case, the advance is 3-1/2 ft from
the beginning to the end of the tap.
Extent of Application-
There are two known applications of this method to tapping emissions,
but the same method has also been applied successfully to at least two known
hot metal transfer stations. These latter two applications are discussed in
detail in another section.
Problems Associated with Application—
As with all controls mounted close to the source, there are potential
operating problems. Care must be taken not to run the ladle into the back of
the hood. Also, the slot in the top must be designed with sufficient clear-
ance between it and the molten steel stream to allow for fluctuations. These
problems are very elementary, but they have indeed occurred.
Device Performance—-
The flow rates necessary to control tapping emissions alone are unknown
for the particular installations now operating, but for hot metal transfer
stations, a hood closed on all sides and with a hole only in the top has re-
quired approximately 50,000 scfm to vent emissions properly. Of course, the
flow rate depends on the volume of metal tapped. This will be discussed fur-
ther in the hot metal transfer section below.
Control Device Cost--
The costs of tapping ladle hoods are unknown at this time.
5.1.5 Option E; The Hooded Scrap Bucket
For emissions from the top charging of scrap from a clamshell bucket
into an EAF, a hooded scrap bucket has been proposed. This idea is still in
the conceptual stages and has not yet been applied. In operation, the covered
scrap bucket rests on the furnace to provide a seal. Since the top of the buc-
ket is covered, the emissions are vented from a duct in the side of the buc-
ket. While the bucket is resting on the furnace, the duct from the bucket can
be connected with a mated stationary duct. This stationary duct can be vented
to the main gas cleaning system. Plants are considering the technique, but
as yet no one has installed this option.
5.1.6 Option F; Process Modifications
A process change which could alleviate charging emissions would be to
charge cleaned scrap. This could be accomplished by passing the scrap through
an induction furnace where any oily coatings would be volatalized. The induc-
tion furnace provides an atmosphere more easily controlled than an EAF with
the roof removed.
5-15
-------
Another process change which has potential to alleviate charging emis-
sions is the charging of direct reduced iron ore* Like cleaned scrap, this
presents the advantage of introducing a cold metal into the EAF free of dirt
and oily deposits* This direct reduced ore could be charged with the conven-
tional clamshell bucket or through a chute leading to a hole in the EAF roof.
Finally, another process change which could reduce emissions is to shred
the scrap and charge it through a chute into the EAF. With the chute charging
system, the DSE could remain on during charging to capture any emissions•
This method of charging also opens up the possibility of continuous instead
of batch steel making.
5.2 BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES
Sources of fugitive emissions in basic oxygen furnace (EOF) operations
are the charging, tapping and slagging processes. Other minor sources include
puffing from the furnace and the handling of fluxes at the conveyors and bins.
Primary emissions during blowing are captured by a hood directly over the
mouth of the furnace. This hood can be tight fitting, in which case combus-
tion of CO is suppressed, or the hood can be positioned so that air space is
available* The advantages of suppressed combustion hoods over open hoods in-
clude a higher capture efficiency, a smaller volume of gas at a lower tem-
perature, and consequently, a lower removal device cost* The secondary emis-
sion control techniques to be discussed in this section are (a) monitor
enclosing, (b) canopy hoods, (c) total enclosures, and (d) novel uses of the
primary hood for fugitive emissions control*
5*2.1 Option A; Monitor Enclosing
This method utilizes the closed roof monitor as a holding chamber for
fugitive emissions convected upward. This monitor is then evacuated at the
convenience of the operator. AS with building evacuation in EAF control, the
removal system must be sized to handle ventilation air necessary for shop
safety.
Extent of Application-
Only one plant is known to have considered this method to supplement a
canopy hood and open monitor system. But the enclosing of the monitor was sup-
planted by the decision to totally enclose the-furnace, an option which is
considered separately below*
Problems Associated with Application-
One of the major problems with monitor enclosure is that the evacuation
system must necessarily handle a large volume of air since the natural venti-
lation air passes through the removal system*
5-16
-------
Control Device Performance--
Since there are no known applications of the control option, details of
performance are not available. But one positive performance trait would be
a nearly 100% capture efficiency during normal operations, because of the en-
closed building.
Control Device Cost--
As stated, exact cost figures are not available, but general categories
of cost can be delineated as follows: (a) building support, (b) steel sheet-
ing for monitor enclosure, (c) ductwork, (d) ductwork support, (e) fans, (f)
motors, (g) removal device, (h) engineering, and (i) contractor's fee.
5.2.2 Option B; Canopy Hoods
While the use of canopy hoods to control fugitive emissions from EAF's
is a well-known technique, their application to BOF's is relatively new. Ret-
rofitting of this control option would certainly be difficult, but specific
situations do exist where retrofitting would be feasible.
Extent of Application—
This control option is known to exist at at least two plants. One system
is documented, but the other is not. The undocumented canopy hood system was
not successful, as the emissions not captured by the canopy were leaving the
monitor in sufficient quantities to exceed the opacity standards. The Inland
Steel installation is documented in the literature ? and is shown in Fig-
ure 5-3. Inland has not reported any deficiencies in their charging aisle
canopy operation. Actually, Inland's canopy hood is a backup hood that cap-
tures the charging emissions that escape local charging hoods mounted near
both 210-ton BOFs. This dual system may be the reason for the apparent suc-
cess of the roof canopy.
Problems Associated with Application—
As with all elevated hoods, the diversion of the plume from the hood by
crosscurrents within the building can be detrimental. The diversion can be
alleviated by adding baffles and constructing walls to beneficially direct
building currents where this action does not severely disrupt operations.
Control Device Cost—
The Inland shop reportedly draws 275,000 scfm through the charging aisle
canopy hood. As with the canopy hoods in EAF shops, 50 to 90% capture effici-
ency is expected. The emissions collected by the canopy hood are combined
with emissions from two hot metal transfer stations and are vented to a
400,000-scfm baghouse.
Control Device Cost-
No information is available on the costs of the two known systems.
5-17
-------
rrom not werai
Tromfer Station •
(12£.000icfrn )
t
To Fabric Filter
(400.000tcfm)
Roof Canopy Hood
(275.000tcfm)
Puffing Duet
Secondary Hood for
Charging Emioions
Retractable-^
Primary Hood
To We* Scrubber'1
(127,500acfm g.
67" W.C and 170° F )
_?•
To Scrubber '2
(150,000acfm §<
Puffing Duct 45" w C )
Enclosed Topoing
Area Directi Fumei
to Primary Hood
f
Rail Tracks
44.45/
FLgure 5-3. EOF canopy hood system.
5-16
-------
5.2.3 Option C:Partial and Total Enclosures
Enclosure is a new technology that was first applied at the Krupp-
Rheinhausen plant in West Germany. This technology was first brought to the
United States by Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation in cooperation with
Baura Company to cope with the unique problems of charging of QBOPs. The QBOP
process requires that nitrogen be blown through the tuyeres in the bottom of
the vessel to keep them from plugging during hot metal charging. The nitro-
gen bubbling through the hot metal causes tremendous charging emissions. There
is not a known QBOP in the United States that does not have a partial or total
enclosure. The partial enclosure extends only to the charging floor while the
total enclosure extends all the way to the tapping floor, which is at ground
level for these newly designed installations. Figure 5-4 depicts a total en-
closure.
Extent of Application--
There are at present seven known and operating QBOPs in the United States
that have either partial or total enclosures. In addition, total enclosures
are presently being constructed around five BOFs at three different steel
plants. One of these plants is retrofitting the enclosures. The advantages of
this control option are achievement of 90% efficiency,—' providing that
proper operating procedures are followed, and a definite, substantial decrease
in operating flow rate.
Problems Associated with Application--
One of the obvious problems with total enclosure is operations interfer-
ence. Charging requires more care than that needed before enclosing the in-
stallation to avoid collisions between the ladle and the enclosure* Tapping
requires a different procedure than used in many plants since a railcar and
not the teeming crane carries the teeming ladle to the BOF.
A problem with these enclosures in the past has been the placement out-
side the enclosure of the secondary hood to capture charging emissions. This
proved to be ineffective as emissions still escaped around the hood. The
later generation of enclosures have the secondary ventilation charging hood
inside the enclosure.
A problem with partial enclosures exists that the total enclosure has
solved. With partial enclosures (extending only to the charging floor), there
are no walls between the charging and the tapping floors to enclose slagging
and tapping emissions* Consequently, a portion of these emissions escape
around the enclosure. The total enclosure with automatic doors to permit car
ingress and egress provides a solution.
Control Device Performance--
For one specific 120-ton vessel with a total enclosure under construc-
tion around it, the design flow rate necessary for evacuation is 382,000
5-19
-------
Secondary Hood
Hot Metal Charging Ladle
Furnace Charging Doors
(Retractable)
Slag Pot
Water Cooled Hood
Hood Transfer Car
Adjustable Skirt
Tapping Emissions Duct
Seal Ring
Furnace Enclosure
Operating Floor
Teeming Ladle
Shop Air Indraft
During Slagging &
Tapping
Figure 5-4. BOF total enclosure.ii.
22/
5-20
-------
acfin. With 140,000 acfm needed as dilution air to achieve temperatures com-
patible with the baghouse, the total flow is 522,000 acfm. As was previously
stated, efficiencies of 90% can be expected providing proper operating pro-
cedures are utilized. The proper procedures include pouring the hot metal
into the furnace at an optimum rate and the utilization of comparatively
clean scrap.22/
Control Device Cost—
For the purchase of a total enclosure for a 200-ton EOF, one could ex-
pect to pay from $600,000 to $700,000 in December 1976. The total installed
cost could be between $1,000,000 and $1,100,000. An itemized cost breakdown
is not available, but there are items involved that could be easily over-
looked, such as heat resistance lining for the enclosure and automatic doors.
5.2.4 Option Q; Novel Uses of the Primary Hood
The primary emission control hood on the BOF has recently been utilized
in the capture of both charging and tapping emissions. In some applications,
changes in either the hood design or operating procedure were required, while
In other applications, additions such as baffles were necessary.
One new design which has a patent pending is the Gaw Damper. Briefly,
this is a wheeled damper which enables the hood's suction to be focused on
either the charging or the tapping side of the furnace. The damper is simply
tolled beneath that portion of the primary hood's face which the operator
wishes to block. Another designer has added baffles on the tapping side to
guide the emissions in the direction of the primary hood. A third method min-
imizes the tilt of the furnace during charging and utilizes a ladle with a
Uniquely long spout. This operating change places the mouth of the furnace
closer to the primary hood.
Extent of Application—-
At least four plants are known to be using the Gaw Damper, but little
is known of the success of this system. The minimizing of the furnace tilt
during charging has been applied at only one known plant, and the use of baf-
fles during tapping has been applied at two known plants. As with all methods
mentioned in this report, several other instances of application may exist
which were not surveyed during the course of the study.
Problems Associated with Application--
Two plants have had problems with the Gaw Damper when the tracks warped
because they were designed too close to the furnace mouth. Little is actually
known about the day-to-day success of the other techniques. However, there
are problems that can be anticipated in their application. The reduction of
the furnace tilt during charging, while it does move the mouth closer to the
5-21
-------
primary hood, cannot possibly put the BOF mouth directly under the hood. Con-
sequently, it is likely that a portion of the charging fumes will still es-
cape capture and rise into the building monitor* With baffles or an enclosure
on the tapping side, interference with the tapping operation may be created*
This particular problem may be alleviated by moving the tapping ladle in un-
derneath the baffle by railcar or by installing biparting baffles which al-
low crane cables through.
Control Device Performance-- "~ - -
In one operation, the application of the Gaw Damper increases the face
velocity of the primary hood flow from 200 to 900 fpm. The damper actually
blocks more than three-fourths of the primary hood face area and thus serves
dual purposes. First, the velocity is increased, effecting greater capture
efficiency; and second, the flow is concentrated at the area of most need,
either the charging or tapping side of the furnace.
Control Device Cost-
Little is known of the cost of these devices.
5.3 HOT METAL TRANSFER
Hot metal transfer is the movement of molten iron from a torpedo car di-
rectly to a charging ladle or from a torpedo car to a hot metal mixer and
then to a charging ladle. This is not to be confused with reladling which is
herein defined as the mixing of molten steel from one ladle to another for
the purpose of evenly distributing some ladle addition*
Forty-two percent of the emissions from hot metal transfer are in a
flake-shaped particulate form called kish. Kish is nearly 100% graphite and
results from the rejection of carbon as the iron cools. Kish is generally
larger than 75 u-m in diameter. The remaining 58% of the emissions from hot
metal transfer are iron oxide with a particle size less than 3 p,m.£±_iz£'
i
In this section, the options to be considered for the control of fugi-
tive emissions from hot metal transfer operations are: (a) close fitting
ladle hoods, both movable and stationary; (b) canopy hoods, also movable or
stationary; and (c) partial building evacuation.
5.3.1 Option A; Close Fitting Ladle Hoods
There are several variations of close fitting ladle hoods. Some are sta-
tionary; others are movable. Some have hot metal inlets in the top while
others are open on one side. Aside from minor design differences, however,
the close fitting hoods are similar in that they all require lower flow rates
for the same degree of control than do the canopy hood options; they all can
be designed to draw enough of a vacuum to keep fumes from leaking from the
5-22
-------
inlet hole or around the bottom of the hood and they all require careful op-
erating procedures.
Extent of Application—
A movable ladle hood with one side open as a hot metal inlet has been
22 /
reported recently.— The hood is said to be movable since one hood serves
a two-ladle hot metal transfer station. Fout stationary ladle hoods with hot
metal inlets in the top are known to be in operation at four different plants,
The ladles are carried under the close fitting hoods on railcars.
Problems Associated with Application—
As with all local hoods, the problems of operation interference and the
possibility of damage due to thoughtless operation do exist. Retrofitting a
stationary, close fitting ladle hood may be incompatible with the moving of
the ladle away from the station by the charging crane. This can be solved by
installing a movable ladle hood or a system such as a railcar for moving the
ladle from beneath the stationary hood.
Control Device Performance—
The volume flow rate required to control hot metal transfer emissions
is directly proportional to the volume of hot metal transferred.^?-' At two
transfer stations, the evacuation rate was 40,000 to 50,000 acfm to handle
approximately 100 tons of hot metal in one case and 200 tons in another. The
construction time for the hood and its ductwork required approximately 10
working days. At a third station, the flow rate was 125,000 scfm to handle
approximately 150 tons of hot metal. The movable, close fitting ladle hood
utilizes 125,000 acfm to handle approximately 270 tons of hot metal. These
values show that actual, normalized evacuation flow rates range from 200 to
500 acfm/ton of hot metal handled for close fitting ladle hoods. The figure
200 aefm/ton of hot metal is probably too low since this particular plant is
lacking air pollution equipment of adequate capacity.
Control Device Cost—
The hood utilized to evacuate a 100-ton hot metal transfer process was
estimated by the purchaser to cost $50,000 to fabricate and install. This
price was estimated for the hood alone and did not include the ductwork and
its support or building modifications. No other costs were available.
5*3.2 Option Bt Canopy Hoods
With canopy hoods as with close fitting hoods, there are several varia-
tions available, such as local or roof mounted canopies and stationary or
movable canopies. Canopies can be used above any of the three hot metal trans-
fer possibilities; that is, torpedo car to charging ladle, torpedo car to
mixer, or mixer to charging ladle.
5-23
-------
Extent of Application-
There is one known application of a movable canopy hood utilized to cap-
ture fugitive emission generated during the transfer of hot metal from a
torpedo car to one of two mixers» The hood can be moved over whichever mixer
is accepting the hot metal. Whether the hood is local or roof mounted is not
known*
Problems Associated with Application--
No unusual problems are associated with the application of canopy hoods*
There are the typical considerations of retrofitting such as availability of
space for Jdie capture device, strength of building supports, routing of
ductwork and availability of space for the removal device. Also, the action
of crosscurrents in minimizing capture efficiency must be reduced. In some
new designs, secondary emission control systems such as hot metal transfer
station hoods, furnace charging, tapping and slagging are vented to a single
removal device. This concept of a centralized removal device to handle sev-
eral sources is becoming common in new plant design.
Control Device Performance--
Little information is available about the one known canopy hood. One can
conclude, however, that if close fitting ladle hoods require 200 to 500 scfm/
ton of hot metal transferred, local canopy hoods will require more ventila-
tion and roof canopy hoods the most ventilation. Values can be calculated us-
ing the Hemeon equations which show that the ventilation volume is dependent
on the size of the source, the temperature difference between the plume and
the ambient atmosphere and the distance the face of the hood is from the
source«1Z/
Control Device Cost-
Little information is available about the one known canopy hood.
5«3.3 Option C; Partial Building Evacuation
While total building evacuation solely to capture hot metal transfer
emissions is extreme, building configuration could sometimes lend itself to
partial evacuation. There are cases where the roof itself may be used as a
holding chamber for hot metal transfer emissions, with only the installation
of a few additional baffles required. The principle of this option is to let
the hot emissions rise to the roof and collect there until the operator de-
sires to evacuate them through a scavenger duct.
Extent of Application-
There is only one known application of this option* The hot metal trans-
fer station serves three 120-ton BOFs. The roof plenum chamber is vented to
a baghouse.
5-24
-------
Problems Associated with Application--
There is one forseeable problem associated with this option. The car-
bonaceous, flakelike particles called kish are large and are not likely to
transport with the upward convective flow, but rather to settle out in the
shop. Particles that did make it to the roof would not remain there long be-
fore settling out. From the perspective of in-shop health, the mass mean di-
ameter of the kish particles is larger than 10 |jm; consequently, kish would
have little impact on human respiration. It is, however, a nuisance problem.
Control Device Performance—
The flow rate used to evacuate the plenum roof chamber during hot metal
transfer was 300,000 acfm for the transfer of approximately 80 tons of hot
metal or approximately 3,600 acfm/ton of hot metal transferred. Of course if
the roof plenum chamber is large enough to hold all the emissions, they can
be collected and evacuated at any desired flow rate able to capture larger
particles before they settled back to the shop floor.
Control Device Cost--
The incremental cost for the hot metal transfer station control is based
on some unknown portion of the total installed cost for secondary emission
control of three 120-ton BOF's which was $5,000,000 in 1976. This value in-
cludes, but is not limited to, enclosure of the roof above the hot metal
transfer stations and above the EOF charging position, the purchase and in-
stallation of a 400,000 acfm fabric filter pressurized baghouse and the pur-
chase and installation of ductwork, fans and motors.
5.4 TEEMING
After the steel is tapped from the furnace, whether EAF, BOF or OHF,
there exists two possible methods to produce a semifinished product. The
steel can be teemed into ingots and eventually rolled Into semifinished stock
after various cooling and reheating processes, or the molten steel can be
transported to a nearby continuous caster and cooled and rolled with no in-
termediate steps or time delay. Teeming the molten steel into the ingots or
pouring it into the tundish that feeds the caster is a source of fugitive
emissions. Many observers have reported ingot teeming to be a minor source
of emissions.—' Unfortunately, quantification of em jsions from teeming
has not yet been accomplished because other sources have been given priority.
Controls have been applied in selective teeming situations where poten-
tially toxic additions are made to the ingots. These additions include lead
and tellurium, to name a couple.M.' The only option considered in this report
is the local hood. Since the main reason for installing controls is to pro-
tect the personnel on the teeming platform, the hood must have a high capture
efficiency, a requisite which local hoods are more likely to fulfill. Other
5-25
-------
options such as roof canopies or partial building evacuation, while possible,
have not been applied because many questions concerning cost versus benefit
exist•
5.4,1 Option A: Local Hoods
Several possible configurations of local hoods exist* The hoods can be
side draft or overhead, mobile or stationary. If the hoods are stationary,
they usually extend over only a few of the ingots, since hoods over the en-
tire teeming line would be of questionable cost-effectiveness.
Extent of Application-
There are three known teeming facilities which have fugitive emission
controls. All of these facilities add either lead or tellurium to their in-
gots. The teeming emission control system at Inland Steel's new No. 2 EOT
shop is documented in the literature although details of the system are
few.4jL/ Knowledge of the remaining two systems was acquired either through
personal meetings or via telephone.
Problems Associated with Application--
There are no known problems with the application of local hoods to con-
trol ingot addition emissions. As with any control close to the operation,
the design must ensure ease of operation.
Control Device Performance—
The Inland Steel lead and fume collection system has a capacity of
60,000 scfm. A second plant vents its hood at 50,000 acfm to its own bag-
house* This second plant has a movable side draft hood attached to a railcar.
The railcar is hooked to the teeming crane and is towed along with it.
Control Device Cost--
The total installed cost for the side draft, railcar-mounted hooding
system was $150,000. This amount represents total cost, with a few of the in-
dividual cost items being the car, the hood, the baghouse, the fan, the motor
and the ductwork.
No costs were available for the other two known systems.
5.5 OTHER SOURCES
The sources to be considered in this section are gas cutting operations,
sinter plants and desulfurization stations. The sources in this section are
not necessarily of less importance or of smaller magnitude than those previ-
ously mentioned. The reason for the placing of these particular sources in
a miscellaneous section is that there was little or no information with which
to identify and evaluate operating fugitive emission control systems.
5-26
-------
5.5.1 Gas Cutting Operations
There are several gas cutting operations at a steel plant. Among these
are (a) cutting buttons, (b) cutting skull, (c) cutting scrap and (d) scarf-
ing. Buttons or buttes are the hardened remnants of molten steel left at the
bottom of a ladle. These are probably an accidental occurrence and conse-
quently are not the result of typical practice. Skull is hardened steel on
the side or mouth of a ladle, tundish, or a steelraaking furnace. The skull
forms where steel at a reduced temperature comes in contact with the ladle,
tundish or furnace lining and cools there. A third source of fugitive emis-
sions, scrap cutting, occurs in the scrap yards. Since purchased scrap is
categorized by size (among other variables), it would not be typical to cut
purchased scrap. One might expect home scrap to be subject to more gas cut-
ting than purchased scrap. Finally, scarfing, both by hand and by machine,
is a source of fugitive emissions. Scarfing is done only when necessary since
each fraction of steel scarfed from the surface represents a loss in dollars.
Control of only one gas cutting source has been observed and that was
the hand scarfing of semifinished products. A roofed shed with open sides was
constructed. The shed contained a crane above which was installed a large
canopy hood. The total flow rate of the hood was 200,000 acfm. This flow was
spread over several exit ducts installed along the hood.
While other controls have been observed, it is possible that local or
canopy hoods could be utilized to capture fugitive emissions from the de-
skulling of ladles and cutting buttes. For the shops that have their own de-
skulling stands, it would be feasible to install a hood over such a stand.
While operations such as deskulling and the cutting of buttes and scarf-
ing may be performed in a single small area capable of being hooded, scrap
cutting is not so amenable to conventional hooding. If a significant amount
of scrap cutting was performed, it might be possible to justify a shed such
as the one described above to control hand scarfing. Another possibility
would be a mobile hood mounted on a wheeled or tracked vehicle. The removal
device could be centrally located in the scrap yard. Were this latter option
to be selected, the respirafale mass of dust generated by the vehicle itself
would necessarily have to be less than that generated by the scrap cutting
operation.
5.5.2 Sintering
There are several potential sources of fugitive emissions within sinter
plants: raw material handling} windbox Leakage} strand discharge; hot screen-
ing; cooler discharge and cold screening. The two most widely mentioned
sources are strand and cooler discharge.
5-27
-------
An interview with one steel industry representative revealed at least
in a qualitative sense, the severity of each of the aforementioned sources.
Raw material input, that is, iron ore fines, flux fines and coke breeze, are
for the most part moist and not a major source of emissions during transport.
This, of course, does not preclude isolated problem cases where the fine in-
put materials are relatively dry and consequently are probable dust sources.
Fugitive windbox emissions were felt by the interviewee to be nonexis-
tent since the windbox is under negative pressure. MRI feels that as long as
negative pressure is maintained, this is true. However, process upsets may
exist where the draft is reduced fo• one reason or another. The frequency of
such upsets is unknown.
Strand discharge into the sinter breaker is a large source of emissions,
although few of these emissions are fugitive since a tight fitting hood is a
typical capture device. Hot and cold screens can also be easily enclosed and
vented to a control device although two plant visits have shown no enclosure
on the cold screens.
Almost all coolers now in operation are annular; most are the induced
draft type. It is common to have a stack on an induced draft cooler so that
the emission is, by definition, not fugitive but an uncontrolled stack emis-
sion. Coolers without stacks, many of which are of the forced draft type,
produce fugitive emissions* With all cooler emissions, it is important to
remember that only an estimated 5% of the particles by weight are smaller
than 5 you
One observed sinter plant control system for fugitive emissions contains
43 different pickup points on the sinter operation, which are all vented to
a baghouse. The fact that there are 43 points of emissions is indicative of
the number of fugitive emission sources within this particular sinter plant.
5.5.3 Hot MetalDesulfurization
Iron desulfurization is the process of removing sulfur from molten iron
for varied purposes such as; (a) to increase steel cleanliness; (b) to reduce
surface defects; (c) to increase hot workability; (d) to increase impact and
ductility values; and (e) decrease porosity in welds.M/ Iron desulfurization
normally takes place between the tap at the blast furnace and the charge to
the steel furnace.
The only known fugitive emission control systems for iron desulfuriza-
tion are applied in foreign plants. Krupp-Rheinhausen has two swivel-type
hoods over two adjacent desulfurization stations.JjO/ Nippon Steel's Oita
Works has a stationary overhead hood on their desulfurization station with
5-28
-------
a flow rate of 50,000 acfm.li7 Kawasaki's Mizushima Works utilizes an over-
head stationary hood to control fugitive emissions from both desulfurization
and deslagging of the iron with a hood flow rate of 150,000 acfm. Nippon
Steel's Yawata Works utilizes a closed type, stationary hood to control de-
sulfurization emissions with 100,000 acfm. It is not known whether this en-
closed hood is of the total enclosure or close fitting ladle hood type.
Finally, Sumitomo's Kashima Works collects emissions from both hot metal
transfer and desulfurization with closed-type stationary hoods utilizing
250,000 acfm.
5-29
-------
SECTION 6.0
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY FOR OPEN DUST SOURCES
This section presents an assessment of best available control technology
for open dust sources associated with integrated iron and steel plants. In-
formation from this assessment was obtained from (a) published and unpublished
literature and (b) surveys of representative iron and steel plants.
In the sections below, control system options are presented for the fol-
lowing open dust sources:
Materials handling (unloading and conveyor transfer stations)
Storage pile activities
* Load-in,
* Vehicular traffic,
* Wind erosion, and
* Load-out.
Vehicular traffic
* Unpaved roads, and
* Paved roads.
Wind erosion of exposed areas
Expected performance and cost data are given for each option along with" the
current extent of application.
The effectiveness and cost of various control options for the reduction
of fugitive dusts generated from open dust sources within an integrated iron
and steel facility are discussed in the following sections. A discussion of
6-1
-------
each control option is given concerning: (a) extent of application; (b) prob-
lems associated with control; (c) control performance; end (d) control costs.
6.1 MATERIALS HANDLING
Materials handling refers to railcar unloading, conveyors and conveyor
transfer stations.
6.1.1 Option A; Enclosures
The total or partial enclosure of railcar unloading stations, conveyors,
and conveyor transfer stations is an effective means to minimize fugitive dust
emissions. Control systems of this type include (a) total enclosure of rail-
car unloading stations with the removal of captured particulate by high effi-
ciency bag filters; (b) the total or partial enclosure of open conveyors; and
(c) the total or partial enclosure of conveyor transfer stations with the re-
moval of dusts by bag filters.
Extent of Application —
The integrated iron and steel plants surveyed by MRI utilized these meth-
ods of control at various points.
Problems Associated with Application--
Problems which may occur with the enclosure of railcar unloading stations,
conveyors and conveyor transfer stations are maintenance related. Leaks in
total enclosure systems equipped with bag filters will reduce the effective-
ness of the dust collection systems. Maintenance of enclosed conveyors and
conveyor transfer stations requires the removal and replacement of sizable
sections of sheet metal.
Control Performance—
Estimated control efficiencies for the enclosure of railcar unloading
stations, conveyors and conveyor transfer stations, as determined by MRI, are
presented in Table 6-1. The total enclosure of railcar unloading stations
and dust collection with bag filters has an estimated control efficiency of
99% in relation to open (uncontrolled^ unloading stations. The control ef-
ficiency estimated for top-covered conveyors is 701. An airtight conveyor
enclosure exhausted to a bag filter has an estimated control efficiency of
99%. The enclosing of conveyor transfer points gives estimated control effi-
ciencies of 70 to 99%. The lower value relates to a simple enclosure, and
the higher value related to a full enclosure exhausted to a bag filter.
Control Cost —
The initial and annual operating costs associated with these three en-
closure control systems are presented In Table 6-1. The initial cost of a
total enclosure and bag filter system for a railcar unloading station has
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. MATERIALS HANDLING DUST CONTROLS
CTi
\
U)
Estimated
control
efficiency
Control method (%)
Option A: Enclosures
Railcar unloading station 993.'
Covering conveyor 70 to 99—
Enclosing conveyor transfer 70 to 99—
station
Option B: Spray systems
Railcar unloading station 80
Conveyor transfer station 70 to 95
Annual
operating
Initial cost cost
(1977 $) (1977 $)
100,000 NA
35 to 70/ft of conveyor- NA
3,000 to IB.OOdS/ NA
30,000 ., NA
15,000 to 200.0002' 0.02 to 0.04/
ton mate-
rial .
.el
treated-
NA = Not available.
al Utilizes high efficiency bag filter.
b/ Low value utilises "weather tight" system; high value utilizes dust collection system.
_c/ Low value simple enclosure; high value enclosure plus bag filter.
^/ Low value reflects control at one transfer station; high value reflects total cost for a
multiple system handling 2.2 x 10° tons of material per year.
_e/ Wetting agent cost applies only to the $15,000 single transfer station control system.
-------
52 /
been estimated by the Dravo Corporation to be $100,000,— but no annual
operating costs were obtained for this system. The initial costs of. install-
ing topcovers and airtight conveyor enclosures were estimated by a materials
handling contractor to be $35 to $70/ft, respectively, but the airtight con-
veyor cost does not include the cost of a dust collection system. No annual
operating costs were obtained. The initial cost of enclosing conveyor trans-
fer stations is $3,000 for simple enclosure to $18,000 for enclosure with bag
filtration,!=/ but no annual operating costs were obtained for this control
measure.
6.1.2 Option B: Spray Systems
Spray systems which utilize water and/or chemical wetting agents are
effective methods of dust control for railcar unloading stations and conveyor
transfer stations. The water spray systems create mists which capture dust
emissions. Wetting agents agglomerate fine particles which would otherwise
escape the control of water sprays.
Extent of Application--
The integrated iron and steel plants surveyed by MRI utilized these
methods of control at various points.
Problems Associated with Application—
Problems associated with spray systems include the inability of the sys-
tems to work below freezing temperatures and the possible buildup of impacted
material at the materials handling station.
Control Performance—
Estimated control efficiencies, as determined by MRI, for materials han-
dling spray systems are presented in Table 6-1. For railcar unloading sta-
tions utilizing spray systems, a control efficiency of 80% is estimated. -^JThe
use of spray systems_at ,a_cpnveyor transfer station has an estimated control
~ to 95%. ~~~~ ' — '
Control Cost —
Table 6-1 presents cost data for spray systems. The initial costs of
implementing spray systems on quick bottom-dump and rotary-dump railcar un-
loading stations have been estimated by the Dravo Corporation-is/ to be
$30,000 and $40,000, respectively; but no annual operating cost data were
obtained for thts system.
The initial cost for a foam-type spray system is $10,000 to $15,000 per
conveyor transfer point. For this system, it is stated that by injecting the
foam into the free falling aggregate at the first transfer point, adequate
dust control will be realized through subsequent conveyor and transfer opera-
tions. The annual operating cost of this system is 2 to 4c/ton of treated ma-
terial throughput.^/
6-4
-------
The initial cost of implementing multiple conveyor sprays for a plant
handling 2 .2 x 10^ tons of material per year was estimated by a materials
handling contractor to be $200,000. No annual operating costs for this sys-
tem were obtained.
6.2 STORAGE PILE LOAD-IN
6.2.1 Option A- Reduce Drop Distance
Reducing the distance that a material falls during the load-in process
minimizes the potential for fugitive duat emissions. Control may be brought
about (a) by increased operator awareness in the use of conventional front-
end loaders, overhead conveyors, or clamshell buckets or (b) through the use
of specialized equipment, including height-adjus table stackers (both station-
ary and mobile) and telescopic chutes.
A telescopic chute is placed at the discharge end of either a mobile or
stationary stacker. The telescopic chute consists of a series of thin-walled
cylinders which guide the material being dropped by the stacker. As the pile
grows in height, a sensor retracts the cylinders so they do not become em-
bedded in the pile. The telescopic chute can reduce the effective material
drop distance to a few feet.
Extent of Application--
Of the four plants surveyed by MRI for open dust sources, three utilized
stackers to some extent in the load-in process. However, telescopic chutes
were not in use at these plants.
Problems Associated with Application--
Because stationary or mobile stackers require tie-in with (existing or
new) conveyor systems, whenever the conveyor system breaks down, the stacker
becomes inoperable. Telescopic chutes could become embedded in the pile with
the result that stacking systems would overload. No information was received
on the frequency of this occurrence.
Control Method Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies associated with reduction of drop dis-
tance, as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-2. The visible dust
generated from the use of stackers and telescopic chutes was compared to the
dust generated utilizing front-end loaders or clamshell buckets, in deriving
the control efficiencies. An estimated control efficiency of 25% is assigned
to stackers, which have the capability of limiting the drop height; and tele-
scopic chutes are assigned an estimated control efficiency of 75%.
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2. STORAGE PILE ACTIVITY DUST CONTROLS
Control method
Load-in
Option A: Reduce drop distance
Sticker - height adjustable
Telescopic chutes
Option Bi Enclosures
Stone ladders
Wind guardi
Estimated
control
efficiency Initial coat
(*> (1977 J)
25 100,000 to 5,300,000
75 7,000
80 20,000
50 10,000 to 50,000
Annual
operating
cost
(1977 »)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Option C: Spray systems
Stacker - sprays 75
Vehicular traffic around storage
piles (sae Table 6-A)
Wind erosion from storage piles
Option A. Surface stabilization .
Ragular watering 80-
Surface crusting agents up to 9
Option B: Enclosures
60,000*
V
9s
11,000
11,000+
NA
0.004 to 0.1/sq ft
Storage silos
Vegetative wind breaks
Lou pile height
Load- out
Option A: Reduce material
disturbance
Gravity-feed-plow reclaimer
Rake reclaimer
Bucket wheel reclaimer
Option B: Spray systems
Bucket wheel reclaimer sprays
100
30
30
85
85
SO
95
60/ton material stored
35 to 350/treeS^
NA
35 to 60/ton material
stored
NA »
2.2 to 5.3 x 106 &1
60, OOO1"
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
aJ Based on a wind-activated sprinkler system.
_b/ Based on measured data, see Appendix C.
_c/ Lou value 8-ft trees, high value 25-ft trees.
_d/ Based on a mobile stacker/reclaimer system.
6-6
-------
Control Cost--
Cost data for stackers and telescopic chutes are presented in Table 6-2,
The initial cost for a stacker is dependent on (a) whether it is stationary
or mobile, (b) the rated capability of the equipment, and (c) whether the
stacker is combined with a reclaiming operation. Depending on rated capaci-
ties, stationary stackers have an initial cost of $100,000+. Mobile stackers
vary greatly in cost as shown by these examples:
1. Ore yard stacker, capacity 2,000 t/hr- $600,000.
2. Iron ore stacker, capacity data not available: $1,800,000.
3. Coal and coke yard stacker/reclaimer combination, stacker capacity
2,000 t/hr- $2,250,000.
4. Coal yard stacker/reclaimer combination, stacker capacity 3,000 t/hr:
$4,000,000.
5. Ore yard stacker/reclaimer combination, stacker capacity 5,000 t/hr-
$5,300,000.
These approximate costs of equipment purchase and erection were obtained
from the Dravo Corporation.-^' No annual operating cost data were obtained.
The initial cost of a telescopic chute, as quoted for a 30-ft maximum
pile height is $7,000. This cost was obtained from a materials handling con-
tractor. No annual operating cost data were obtained.
6,2.2 Option B; Enclosures
The total or partial enclosure of free falling aggregate as it leaves
the discharge end of a stacker reduces fugitive dust emissions. Enclosure
methods applicable to stacker load-in include stone ladders and wind guards.
Stone ladders are permanent devices which guide the material from a
stacker to the pile. The ladder consists of a vertical tube (connected to a
stationary stacker) located in the center of the pile with openings in that
tube at various heights. Material fills up the tube until it reaches an
opening not covered by the pile at which point it flows out onto the pile.
Wind guards are fixed in length and are placed at the discharge end of
the stacker arm. They operate somewhat like the telescopic chute in reduc-
ing the eroding action of the wind.
6-7
-------
Extent of Application—
None of the steel plants surveyed utilized stone ladders or wind guards.
These devices are used to a greater extent in the crushed stone industry.
*
Problems Associated with Application--
Stone ladders are stationary and must be attached to a stationary stacker.
This places restrictions on the type of pile formation possible. No major
problems are associated with wind guards. '
Control Performance—
Estimated control efficiencies associated with enclosures, as determined
by MRI, are presented in Table 6-2. Stone ladders and wind guards have esti-
mated control efficiencies of 80 and 50%, respectively, relative to use of
front-end loader for storage pile load-in.
Control Cost —
The initial and annual operating costs for enclosures are presented in
Table 6-2. The initial cost of a stone ladder, for a 30-ft maximum pile
height, as quoted by a materials handling contractor, is $20,000. Wind
guards have an initial cost, as quoted by the Dravo Corporation, of $10,000
to $50,000.~ Annual operating cost data were not obtained for these con-
trol methods.
6.2,3 Option C: Spray Systems
Utilizing a water or wetting agent spray system at the discharge end of
a stationary or mobile stacker effectively minimizes fugitive dust emissions.
Extent of Application—
None of the plants surveyed by MRI utilized this control method.
Problems Associated with Application—
Because the spray system requires water as the main control agent or as
a carrier medium for chemical wetting agents, special care is required when
working under subfreezing conditions. Also, with mobile stackers, care must
be taken in maintaining the traveling tubing and piping.
Control Performance—
Estimated control efficiencies associated with stacker spray systems,
as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-2. Relative to use of uncon-
trolled front-end loaders, a stacker spray system has an estimated control ef-
ficiency of 757,.
Control Cost--
Cost data for stacker spray systems are presented in Table 6-2. A spray
system which wets the material as it falls from the stacker arm has an initial
6-8
-------
cost of $60,000+. This includes piping, sprays, reels for mid-travel pickup,
and wetting agent proportioners. The above cost information was obtained from
the Dravo Corporation.^.' No annual operating cost data were obtained.
6.3 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AROUND STORAGE PILES
Fugitive dust is generated by the various types of vehicles which trans-
port materials to and from storage and which maintain the storage pile con-
figurations. These vehicles consist mainly of front-end loaders; however,
.large dump trucks may also be used, especially in the slag plant areas. Wa-
tering and chemical dust suppressants may be used to control emissions from
vehicular traffic. Information on these control options are presented in
Section 6.6, Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roads.
6.4 WIND EROSION FROM STORAGE PILES
6.4.1 Option A: Surface Stabilization
The process of stabilizing the surface layer of a pile consists of bind-
ing the surface particulates into a nonerodible crust. Occasional watering
of the pile surface or the addition of chemical crusting agents will accom-
plish this task.
Extent of Application--
At one plant surveyed by MRI, a daily watering program for the coal
storage piles was implemented to reduce wind erosion.
Problems Associated with Application —
Typically, storage piles are subject to the addition or removal of ma-
terial many times during the course of a week. Every time this occurs, the
surface crust is disturbed. Thus, surface watering or the application of
crusting agenta must be done on a frequent basis.
In order to wet the surface layer, a network of sprinklers, towers, wa-
terlines, pumps or tank truck sprayers are required. The positioning of this
equipment may interfere with the normal pile load-in/load-out procedures.
Also, control systems which use water can become inoperable during freezing
weather conditions. In addition, some materials such as processed slag are
normally marketed in the dry state, making the addition of water undesirable.
Control Performance—
Estimated control efficiencies associated with surface stabilization,
as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-2. The control efficiency as-
sociated with periodic watering of the pile surface is estimated to be 807.,
assuming that wetting of storage piles occurs on a regular basis. Water spray
systems may conssit of stationary ground level sprinkler systems, tower-mounted
x
6-9
-------
sprinklers, or mobile tank-truck sprayer systems. An operating example is a
stationary ground level system wetting two 900-ft long coal piles utilizing
sprinkler heads spaced every 180 ft. Under dust producing meteorological con-
ditions, the system of 32 sprinklers surrounding the piles sprays about 13,000
gal. of water per day. This system adequately controls wind erosion genera-
tion of fugitive dust.—'
A sprinkler system mounted on a 30-ft tower producing a dense, 40-ft wide
cloud of water mist has been used to minimize storage pile wind erosion at a
quarry site. This system, which is both wind speed and direction activated,
has produced favorable results.^-'
The control efficiencies associated with the spraying of surface crust-
ing agents upon storage piles can extend to 99%, as derived from wind tunnel
tests (Appendix C) . Surface crusting agents can be applied by either sta-
tionary or mobile sprinkler systems. Example chemicals and application rates
for different types of these crusting agents are presented in Table 6-3.
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs for surface stabilization are pre-
sented in Table 6-2. The initial cost of erecting a stationary elevated water
spray system, which controlled one relatively large stockpile, was estimated
to be about $11,000, including sprays, piping, pumping, wind instruments and
installation costs.^-^ No annual operating costs were obtained for this sys-
tem.
The cost of applying surface crusting agents to storage piles from sta-
tionary equipment is assumed to be slightly more costly. This assumption is
baaed on the need for additional mixing chambers and proportioners to dilute
the crusting agents with water. The cost of applying these various surface
crusting agents is presented in Table 6-3.
6.4.2 Option B; Enclosures
Shielding of storage piles from the direct action of the wind, through
the use of total or partial enclosures, reduces the potential for fugitive
dust. Methods which accomplish this include (a) storage silos, (b) wind-
breaks, and (c) low pile heights, Windbreaks are either natural (trees,
locating piles in low lying areas) or man-made (buildings, fences).
Extent of Application--
Storage silos are used more for the storage of special materials than as
measures against wind erosion. At one plant surveyed by MR1, however, the
majority of coal was stored in one large silo, partially as a measure against
wind erosion. Although the surveyed plants did not utilize natural windbreaks,
6-10
-------
TABLE 6-3. EXAMPLE SURFACE CRUSTING AGENTS FOR STORAGE PILES
AND EXPOSED
Surface crusting
agent (concentrate)
Dilution
Application
rate
Application
cos rl/
A. Organic polymers
• Johnson-March,
SP-301
• Houghton,
Rexosol 5411-B
B. Petroleum resin
water emulsion
• Witco Chemical,
Coherex
C. Latex type-synthetic
liquid adhesive
• Dovell M145
chemical binder
Full 1 gal. concentrate
strength per 100 ft2
2% solution 1 gal. concentrate
per 300 ft*
207.
solution
47. water
solution
1 gal. concentrate
per 50 ft2
4 gal. of 47. solution
per 100 ft2
1.2e
0.7c
0.4
-------
the piles were usually located near buildings (sinter plant, coke ovens or
blast furnaces), and these structures probably reduced the eroding force of
the wind. Many piles were observed to have low heights, which was mainly at-
tributed to the associated pile Load-in methods. Because surface wind speed
increases with height, lower pile heights result in lower surface wind speeds
and less wind erosion.
Problems Associated with Application--
Problems associated with storage silos include (a) maintenance of con-
veyors used for the loading and reclaiming of the stored materials and (b)
possible explosion hazards caused by the high dust concentrations inside the
silos. No major problems are associated with natural windbreaks other than
the time required for trees to reach their mature height. The problem with
maintaining low storage pile height is the requirement for land area, and
the possible offsetting effect of increased pile surface area exposed to the
eroding action of the wind.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies for enclosures, as determined by MRI, are
presented in Table 6-2. Silos, which totally enclose the storage pile mate-
rials, have an estimated control efficiency of 100%. Windbreaks placed up-
wind of the storage pile area based on prevailing wind direction are assigned
an estimated control efficiency of 307.. Maintaining low pile height (not
greater than 15 ft) has an estimated control efficiency of 30%.
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs for enclosures are presented in
Table 6-2. The initial cost of a concrete silo system is approximately $60
per ton of material stored.— The cost of planting trees for use as wind-
breaks ranges from $35 for 8-ft trees (30-ft height in 15 years) to $350 for
25-ft trees. Maintaining low pile heights has no directly associated costs.
No annual operating costs for these measures were obtained.
6.5 STORAGE PILE LOAD-OUT
6.5.1 Option A- Reduce Material Disturbance
Load-out of material from storage piles, accomplished with reclaiming
methods such as gravity feed onto underground conveyors and raking or bucket
reclaiming of material onto conveyors, produces minimal material disturbance,
resulting in less fugitive dust emissions than generated by the use of a
front-end loader to pick up, carry, and dump material onto a conveyor. Rake
reclaimers vibrate along the face of a pile and move material onto an under-
ground conveyor. The bucket wheel reclaiming method moves along the pile ro-
tating the bucket wheel perpendicular to the pile face, depositing material
onto a conveyor .
6-12
-------
Extent of Application—
At the four steel plants MRI surveyed, the main method of reclaiming ma-
terials from storage piles was via front-end loader. Three of the plants
used stacker/reclaimer equipment for a few of their major piles.
Problems Associated with Application--
Problems associated with the gravity feed of pile materials onto under-
ground conveyors include potential mechanical problems with the conveyors and
the possible clogging of the underground transporting rails and plow, which
moves material onto the conveyors. Mobile rake and bucket wheel reclaimers
which are mounted on surface rails and can reclaim at various pile locations,
require special pile orientations and need to be connected to conveyor sys-
tems, requiring periodic maintenance.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies for reduction of material disturbance, as
determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-2. Control efficiencies are esti-
mated relative to use of uncontrolled front-end loaders. Gravity feed plow-
type reclaiming is estimated to have a control efficiency of 857., based on the
fact that the material is being reclaimed from under the pile for the greater
portion of the reclaiming process. Toward the end of the reclaiming process,
front-end loaders may have to push the remaining pile material onto the con-
veyor feed mechanism.
Rake reclaimers are assigned an estimated control efficiency of 85%. One
surveyed steel plant reclaimed iron ore and pellet piles with this method at
material rates of 800 and 900 tons/hr, respectively. The control efficiency
of the bucket wheel reclaiming method is estimated to be 807..
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs associated with reclaiming methods
which reduce material disturbance are presented in Table 6-2. The initial
cost of a gravity feed plow reclaiming system Is estimated to be from $35 to
$60 per ton of material stored,117 but no annual operating costs were obtained
for this system. Cost data were not obtained for the rake reclaiming method.
The bucket wheel reclaimer is often found as part of a stacker/reclaimer
combination. Examples of initial costs associated with this combination are
e, / r
as follows :2£7
1. Coal and coke stacker/reclaimer, reclaiming capacity: 875 tonnes/hr
coal, approximate cost erected: $2,250,000.
2. Stacker/reclaimer, rated reclaiming capacity: 1,500 tonnes/hr ore,
approximate cost erected; $4,000,000.
6-13
-------
3. Stacker/reclaimer, rated reclaiming capacity: 4,000 tons/hr pellets,
approximate cost erected: $5,300,000.
No annual operating coats were obtained for this equipment.
6.5.2 Option B: Spray Systems
The application of water or chemical wetting agents prior to pile load-
out reduces fugitive dust emissions. Methods include simple surface wetting
of pile material to the use of specialized spray systems attached to bucket
wheel reclaimers.
Extent of Application--
None of the steel plants surveyed by MRI utilized these control methods.
Problems Associated with Application--
Since the spray systems utilize water as a control medium, special care
is required when working under freezing conditions. Care oust also be taken
in maintaining piping and tubing equipment which are attached to mobile wheel
reclaimers.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies associated with spray systems are pre-
sented in Table 6-2. The control efficiency for the surface wetting of piles
prior to front-end loader or mechanical reclaimer load-out was not obtained.
It is believed this method has a low control efficiency becauae uulj the £u?t
from the pile surface material is controlled. The control efficiency for a
"bucket wheel reclaimer spray system, relative to load-out with a front-end
loader, was estimated by MRI to be 95%.
Control Costs--
The control costs associated with spray systems are presented in Table
6-2. The initial cost for a spray system which wets material as it is being
reclaimed by a mobile bucket wheel reclaimer is $60,000+. This is estimated
by MRI from data obtained for a stacker (load-in) spray system.Is/ This in-
cludes piping, sprays, reels for mid-travel pickup and wetting agent propor-
tloners. No annual operating cost data were obtained.
6.6 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON UNPAVED ROADS
6.6.1 Option A' Dust Suppressants
The means of fugitive dust control included under this option are un-
pavetj roadway watering, oiling, and the use of chemical dust suppressants.
6-14
-------
Extent of Appltcation--
Roadway watering and oiling programs were implemented at three of the
plants surveyed by MRI.
Problems Associated with Application--
Problemg encountered with the watering of plant unpaved roads include
(a) need for a continuous program, (b) rapid drying of road surfaces during
hot and dry weather, and (c) the pickup of wet road surface material onto
vehicles and the subsequent tracking of this material onto paved roads.
r
To be effective, an unpaved road watering program should be based on
regular and frequent watering. This requires a commitment with regard to
manpower and equipment. Usually two or more waterings per day are applied •
to reduce dust emissions depending on the climate of the plant area. .Plants
located in regions experiencing hot, dry, windy periods will need to increase
the intensity and frequency of road watering.
The watering of unpaved roads increases the tracking of surface material
onto paved road surfaces. This additional particulate surface loading may be
reentrained by paved road traffic. A paved road sweeping program would re-
duce the potential for dust reentrainment at the junction of paved and unpave
roads.
The oiling of unpaved roads may lead to a surface runoff water pollution
problem. Proper equipment must be allocated and the roadway may need to be
re-oiled once a month or more frequently, depending on road travel. The ad-
dition of dust suppressant chemicals requires specialized mixing and applica-
tion equipment and requires periodic reapplication.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies associated with dust suppressant control
methods, as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-4.
The control efficiency realized from an unpaved road watering program is
baaed on the regularity of the program and the type of equipment used. Durin;
steel plant visits, MRI personnel noted the types of watering trucks and fre-
quency of use. The equipment ranged from retrofitted home heating oil deliv-
ery trucks to specialized trucks with mounted pressurized spray bars. The wa
tering programs ranged from sporadic biweekly watering to watering of problem
areas on an almost continuous basis. An estimated control efficiency of 50%
has been assigned unpaved road watering. This value is dependent on the fre-
quency of watering, type of road surface material, characteristics of traffic
on the road, and meteorological conditions.
Monthly oiling of an unpaved road has an estimated control efficiency of
75%. This value is based on observation of heavy truck traffic on oiled and
6-15
-------
TABLE 6-4. ROAD DUST CONTROLS
Control method
Uaaaved roads
Option A, Duit tuppreeaantt
Watering - regular schedule
Road oil
Sftisated
control
efficiency
«>
50b/
7 Si/
Initial coat
(1977 $)
10,000/cruekS/
2 ,300/nllei/
Annual
operating
COit
(1977 $*£/
20,0005.''
(Re -oil once e
Chemical* (e.g., Cohere* or 90 to
Ltgnin)
Option B- Improvement of
road >urfaee
Ui€ of low tilt aggregate 3o£/
Oil and doubl« chip surface SOS!/
Paving
Paved roadi
Option A. Sweeping
Broom
Vacuum
Option B Flashing
Water flush log
isl'
5,000 to U.OOO/milai'' 31,000 to "73.000
HA HA
9,000/n.il*!/ (Raiurfact every
2 to 4 yr)l^
28,000 to 3D,000/cail«i^ (Raiurfact every
5 yr)£/
4,000 to 12,000/truck-'' IS.OOfli/
22 ,OQO/truck£/ 22 ,C
11,000/eruc^
18,QOOi/
NA - Not available.
a/ Baaed on a plant having 6.3 milts of uapaved roadways, the average of open dust
surveys of four plants
b / He fartnca 57
£/ Obtained from tteel plane personnel
d/ Aaauaed by MRI
e/ Obtained from a road contractor.
f_/ Reference 58.
£/ Calculated reduction baaed on unpaved and paved roadway eaiision rate*.
h_/ Obtained from equipment manufacturer.
6-16
-------
nonoiled unpaved road surfaces. Applications of dust suppressants such as
Coherex or Lignin to the surface aggregate has an estimated control effi-
ciency of 90 to 957..^.'
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs for application of dust suppres-
sants to unpaved roads are presented in Table 6-4. The costs of an unpaved
road wat'ering program are based on information obtained from personnel at
one of the surveyed plants. The initial cost of a nonpressurized spray water
truck with a 3,000-gal. capacity is $10,000. The annual operating cost of
watering roadways twice a day was estimated to be $20,000.
The initial cost of $2,500/mile for road oiling was obtained from a road
contractor. The frequency rate of monthly re-oiling was determined from dis-
cussion with personnel at a surveyed plant. The Initial cost of adding dust
suppressants to the unpaved road surface is estimated to be $5,000 to $12,000
per mile .^Z.' Resurfacing is required at least once a year; thus, annual op-
erating costs are estimated to be $31,000 to $75,000 per year for a plant hav-
ing 6.3 miles of unpaved roadways.
6.6.2 Option B: Improvement of Road Surface
The methods of fugitive dust control included under this option are (a)
the use of low silt aggregate for unpaved surfacing, (b) oil and double chip
surfacing, and (c) the paving of unpaved surfaces.
Extent of Application—
The first and last of these control methods were implemented at two plants
surveyed by KRI.
Problems Associated with Application--
The use of low silt aggregate material may require increased road main-
tenance to keep the surface from accumulating fractured aggregate, which will
create dust. An oil and double chip surface will need to be periodically
maintained and may degenerate under heavy truck traffic.
There are two,.-foblens encountered when paving unpaved roads. An ade-
quate roadbed must be provided to handle the weight of vehicles ranging from
3 to 70 tons. Also, once the road is paved, it should be periodically cleaned_
to prevent excessive dust reentrainment by vehicles.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies realized from the improvement of the un-
paved surface, as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-4. The use of
low silt surface aggregate has an estimated control efficiency of 307». Sur-
facing with an oil and double chip layer has an estimated control efficiency
6-17
-------
of 80%. The control efficiency realized from a paving program is dependent
on the degree to which the roads are kept free of surface loadings. Based on
a weekly sweeping program, the control efficiency for paving unpaved surfaces
is estimated to be 9070.
Control Cost —
The initial and annual operating costs for unpaved road surface Improve-
ment are presented in Table 6-4. The costs of using a lower silt aggregate
for the unpaved road slirface were not obtained. A road contractor estimated
an initial cost of $9, 000 /mile for an oil and double chip surface, with re-
surfacing required every 2 to 4 years. The initial cost of paving a road
surface has been estimated at $28,000 to $50,000 per mile, depending on the
type of roadbed required. The cost of resurfacing a paved road, which is
normally required every 5 years, was not determined.
6.7 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC ON PAVED ROADS
6.7.1 Option A: Sweeping
When excessive particulate loading builds up on paved road surfaces, the
degree of vehicle reentrainment of this dust increases. To minimize these
dust emissions, motorized broom sweepers and motorized vacuum sweepers are
used to remove the dusts from the paved roadway.
Extent of
At two plants surveyed by KRI , sporadic programs of broom sweeping were
Implemented. One plant had a biweekly road vacuuming program.
Problems Associated with Application--
The use of broom sweepers may produce more fines than they pick up dur-
ing operation. Also, if there is no means to catch the swept dust, the broom
is itself a source of fugitive dust.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies realized from these measures, as presented
in Table 6-4, are dependent on the frequency of the implemented control pro-
grams. Broom sweeping is estimated to be 707. efficient when done biweekly.
Biweekly street vacuuming is estimated to be 757. efficient, based on discus-
sions with personnel at a plant where this method was implemented. These es-
timated control efficiencies were determined by MRI.
Control Costs--
The initial and annual operating costs for paved road sweeping programs
are presented in Table 6-4. The initial cost of a broom sweeper designed for
industrial roadway applications ranges from $4,000 for a trailer-type sweeper
to $12,000 for a self-propelled unit with a >water spray bar, as determined by
6-18
-------
CQ /
the Roscoe Manufacturing Company.—' Annual operating costs were assumed to
be $18,000. The initial coat for a vacuum street sweeper is $22,000; and the
annual operating cost is also $22,000. These values were obtained from plant
personnel where such a program was implemented.
6.7.2 Option B: Flushing
The flushing of paved road surfaces with water to remove roadway dusts
is a viable method to reduce vehicle reentrained dusts.
Extent of Application--
This technique is used in many urban areas; however, its use was not ob-
served at any of the steel plants surveyed by MRI.
Problems Associated with Application—
Roadway flushers may increase vehicle mud tracking from unpaved areas.
Also, the flushing of roadway surface dust may create a water pollution prob-
lem, as these materials run off to low lying areaa.
Control Ferformance--
As indicated in Table 6-4, an MRI-estimated control efficiency of 807.
was assigned to weekly roadway flushing.
Control Cost—
Table 6-4 presents the initial and annual operating costs for a road
flushing program. The Initial cost of a 3,000-gal. capacity street flusher
is $11,000 excluding the truck chassis. An annual operating cost was esti-
mated by MRI to be $18,000, as obtained from the Roscoe Manufacturing Company.—'
6.8 WIND EROSION FROM EXPOSED AREAS
6.8.1 Option A; Surface Stabilization
The surface layer of an exposed area may be stabilized by periodic water-
ing or occasional application of stabilizing solutions. Oiling and paving,
more permanent methods, are quite effective in reducing exposed area fugitive
dusts generated by wind erosion.
Extent of Application—
Only one plant surveyed by MRI had implemented a program to reduce exposed
area fugitive dust emissions. This plant had paved the vast majority of its
exposed ground area.
Problems Associated with Applicatlon--
Frequently steel plant exposed areas are used for product storage, thus,
preventing the use of sprinkler control systems, which would spray finished
6-19
-------
products. The use of stabilizing chemicals may hinder the growth of vegeta-
tion which is beneficial in reducing wind erosion. The oiling of these ex-
posed areas may create surface water runoff problems and also hinder vegeta-
tive growth. Paving the open areas would require occasional pavement cleaning
to reduce resuspension of participates.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies for stabilizing the surface soil layer
against wind erosion, as determined by MRI, are presented in Table 6-5. The
application of water to the surface layer not only wets the surface, but forms
a hard crust upon drying, which acts to bind the erodible fine material. To
be effective, however, watering must be done periodically to rebuild the sur-
face crust as it degrades. During dry weather, watering two or three times a
week may be necessary. The estimated control efficiency is 50%.
The addition of soil stabilizing chemicals will also form a hard surface
crust upon drying. This surface crust, if left undisturbed, will last from 7
to 12 months, making frequent application unnecessary. The surface stabiliz-
ers as a group are assigned an estimated control efficiency of 707..
The oiling of exposed areas is assigned an estimated control efficiency
of 80%. The areas should be oiled every 2 months. Paving the open areas and
occasional cleaning is estimated to have a control efficiency of 957..
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs for surface stabilization are pre-
sented in Table 6-5. The initial cost of a water sprinkler system was esti-
mated by an irrigation contractor to be $600 per acre. This system is hand-
moved and includes piping and sprinkler heads capable of applying 125 gal. of
water per minute with an effective spray radius of 110 ft. The annual operat-
ing cost for a typical watering program is $4 to $10 per acre.—
The initial cost of oiling the exposed areas was estimated by a paving
contractor to be $85 per acre per application. The annual operating cost
would be dependent on the frequency of surface oiling during the year.
The initial cost of paving an acre of exposed area was estimated by a
paving contractor to be $3,000 for an oil and double chip surface layer and
$10,000 for paving with asphalt. No annual operating costs were obtained for
the se two me thod3.
6.8.2 Option B: Windbreaks
Methods which are applicable in reducing the eroding force of the wind
include planting trees to act as windbreaks and the planting of vegetative
6-20
-------
TABLE 6-5. EXPOSED AREA DUST CONTROLS
Estimated Initial cost Annual operating cost^
Control method control efficiency (%) ($/acre) ($/acre)
Control option A: surface stabilization
Watering
Chemical stabilizers
Oiling
Paving with cleaning
Control option B: windbreaks
Windbreaks
Vegetative ground cover
50
70
80
954
30
70-i/
600
600+
85
3,000-10,000^'
35-350^
NA
4-10
25-50
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA = Not available.
jj/ Reference 57.
W Low value, oil, and double chip surface; high value, asphalt surface.
£/ Low value, 8-ft high trees; high value, 25-ft high trees.
-------
ground cover, which Impedes the wind's eroding ability and holds the surface
soil layer in place.
Extent of Application--
At one plant surveyed by MRI, extensive ground cover was observed. How-
ever, no windbreaks were observed at any plant.
Problems Associated with Application--
No major problems are associated with the planting of windbreaks other
than the time it requires for the trees to grow to maturity. The time lag
can be alleviated by buying 25 to 30 ft trees when starting the windbreak.
The planting of vegetation may be a problem where the surface layer is com-
posed of crushed slag. Earth and soil nutrients could be required to stimu-
late vegetative ground cover. Ground cover could pose a fire hazard during
dry seasons.
Control Performance--
Estimated control efficiencies of windbreaks, as determined by MRI, are
presented in Table 6-5. Based on a tree shelter belt 40 ft in height placed
upwind of the open area's prevailing wind direction, an estimated control ef-
ficiency of 307. is assigned to windbreaks. If the shelter belt surrounds the
exposed area, it may also act as a trap for suspended dusts. The growth of
ground cover has an associated control efficiency of 7070,^2-' based on cover-
age during the entire year.
Control Cost--
The initial and annual operating costs for these control measures are
presented in Table 6-5. The planting of 8 and 25 ft shelter belt trees cost
$35 and $350 per tree, respectively. The cost of planting vegetative ground
cover was not obtained, but it would be dependent on the climate and soil
type of the steel plant's exposed areas. No annual operating costs for these
methods were obtained.
6-22
-------
SECTION 7.0
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
This section identifies the specific research areas within the iron and
steel industry which must be investigated before an adequate control program
can be proposed for fugitive emission sources. Figure 7-1 is a flow diagram
portraying the logic necessary to determine whether a need for research ex-
ists. Although the ultimate objectives of the research and development pro-
gram would be to provide control technology for the most critical sources,
preliminary research may be required to properly characterize and quantify
the sources being considered.
The first step in formulating the recommended R & D program is to deter-
mine the most critical control needs. The criticality of an emissions control
need is based on the preliminary ranking of sources according to nationwide
air quality impact. The subsequent steps address the applicability of current
control technology to each source being considered. As each apparent research
need is identified, ongoing research is examined to avoid overlap in the recom-
mended R & D program.
The following sections present information on each of the above elements
used in arriving at R & D recommendations. Critical emission control needs
are defined; ongoing research is examined; deficiencies in currently available
control technology are identified; and cost-effectiveness analysis is performed.
Finally, specific research and development programs are recommended.
7.1 DETERMINATION OF CONTROL NEEDS
7.1.1 Ranking Criteria
The environmental Impact of a source on a nationwide scale is dependent
on: _(a)__the_emission factor, (b) the nationwide production rate; and (c) Che
percent of fine particulate (particle diameter smaller than 5 urn). Each of
these factors will be discussed and quantified below.
The Emission Factor--
The emission factor is a measure of the strength of the source when active.
It is important to realize that the real time source strength is dependent not
7-1
-------
Develop Preliminary Ranking
of Sourca Control Needi
Bated on Emiuion Rote
Determine Emioion Factor
for High Ranking Source
Yei
Yei
Ye«
Aft Emiuion
Date Adequate?
Are There Control TechniquM
For rhe Source?
is the Control Technique
Efficiency Properly Quantified
ai a Function of All Important
li the Control Technique Colt
Effective at the Detired
Control Efficiency?
Control it Suited for Source
Uncertain
No
Uncertain
Uncertain
No
Uncertain
No
It There Ongoing
Research 7
There Exist! a Need
for Retearch and
Development
Figure 7-1. Flow diagram to determine the need for R&D.
7-2
-------
only on the emission factor, but on source extent. Thus, sources cannot be
compared on the basis of emission factor alone. The best available emission
factors for process sources of fugitive emissions and for open dust sources
were selected and presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
The Nationwide Production Rate--
The production or throughput rate is a measure of the extent of a proces
source. A source with a small nationwide production rate may have a compara-
tively large emission factor while possessing a comparatively small emission
rate and consequently, a small air quality impact. Both the emission factor
and the production rate are important in estimating air quality impact.
The nationwide production of steel and hot metal and the utilization of
raw materials is published on a yearly basis by the Americal Iron and Steel
Institute (AISI). These data, along with the best suspended and fine particu
late emission factors from Tables 3-4, 3-7, and 3-8 were used to calculate
the particulate emission rates for each source as shown in Table 7-1.
The Percent of Fine Particulate—
In this analysis, sources were ranked by the emissions of particles smal
than 5 urn in Stokea diameter. This was done for two reasons: (a) only the
particles smaller then 5 urn in diameter have any significant potential for
transport over distances of regional scale and (b) most adverse health and
welfare effects of particulate air pollution are attributable to particles
smaller than 5 ym in Stokes diameter.
The percent of particulate smaller than 5 pm in size was determined from
the literature and from previous open source tests which MRI has performed to
quantify emissions. The values were presented in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. Be-
cause of the dearth of particle size information for the sources in question,
the "best" value was sometimes the only value. Sometimes it was necessary to
estimate the percent of fine particulate.
The Representative Population Density--
If the ranking were to be performed on a localized scale rather than on
a nationwide scale, special plant-specific impacts would have to be considerei
For example, because iron and steel plants are for the most part located in o
very near large population centers, the localized impact of a particular fac-
ility on an area of high population density may increase the need for control
of otherwise low priority sources at that facility.
Figure 7-2 shows representative population density as a function of fur-
nace type. Population density around a steel plant was taken to be the densii
of the county in which the steel plant was located. As indicated in the figui
the mean population density around BOF shops is greater than around EAF or OH]
shops.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-1. NATIONWIDE EMISSION RATES FOR
FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCES
Soure*
A. Proc«i§ soured
I. Sintering
Strand diinharga
Cooler
Cold « ere en
2. Hot o«tal trinifer
3. £AF
All fugitive tource*
(alloy »te«l
furnae*)
All fugitive toureel
(carbon steel
furnace)
4. SOF
All fugitive aourrei
(LD proeeis)
5. OMF
&. SearCifig
Machine
Hand
1976
Production
Mt« » 10"6
33 c/yr
136 T/yr)
33 t/yr
(36 T/yr)
33 t/yt
(36 t/yr)
73 t/yr
(83 T/yr)
5.4 t/yr
(5.9 t/yr)
IS t/yr
(17 T/yr>
73 t/yr
(80 T/yr)
21 t/yr
(23 T/yr)
12 t/yr
(13 T/yr)
12 t/yr
(13 T/yr)
Uncontrolled
>uipind*d
pirticuUt*
•minion rat*
2,300 t/yr
(2.300 T/yr)
9,800 t/yr
(11,000 T/yr)
2 ,300 t/yr
(2,500 T/yr)
1,500 t/yr
(1.700 T/yr)
i.SOQ t/yr
(3,800 T/yr)
23,000 t/yr
(28,000 T/yr)
' 14,000 t/yr
(IS.OOO T/yr)
1,700 t/yr
(1,800 T/yr)
30 t/yr
(33 T/yr)
650 t/yr
(710 T/yr)
Uncontrolled
fin*
particular*
eainlon rate
570 t/yr
(630 T/yr)
2. 500 t/yr
(2 ,700 T/yr)
570 t/yr
(630 T/yr)
750 t/yr
(830 T/yr)
2,700 t/yr
(3,000 T/yr)
20,000 t'yr
(22,000 T/yr)
9,100 t/yr
(10,000 T/yr)
1,200 t/yr
(1,300 T/yr)
27 t/yr
(29 T/yr)
380 t/yr
(640 T/yr)
&. Open duit sources
1, Unloading raw 11
Iron ore
Lump
Pellet
Cool
Limeiton:/
dolcoit*
15 t/yr
(17 T/yr)
7« t/yr
(87 T/yr)
72 t/yr
(79 T/yr)
20 t/yr
(22 T/yr)
7.0 t/yr
(7.7 T/yr)
390 t/yr
(430 T/yr)
1.600 t/yr
(1,800 T/yr)
460 t/yr
(510 T/yr)
2.1 t/yr
(2.3 T/yr)
120 t/yr
(130 T/yr)
570 t/vr
(630 T/yr)
160 t/yr
(180 T/yr)
(continued)
7-4
-------
TABLE 7-1. (continued)
Source
5.
3.
4.
Conveyor Cranitet itaciona
Iran ore
Lop
Pellat
Coal
Ltmeitone/
dolomite
Colca
Sinter
Storage pile acclvltlea
Iron or*
T -Irtup
Pallet
Coal
Llmaltone/
dolomite
Coke
Sinter input
material!
Slag
Vehicular traffic
Unpavad roadi
Light duty traffic
Medina duty traffic
Heavy dut> traffic
1976
Production,
rat* * 10*
13 l/yr
(17 T/yr)
79 t/yr
(87 T/yr)
72 t/yr
(7« T/yr)
20 t/yr
(12 T/yr)
33 t/yr
(41 T/yr)
33 t/yr
(36 T/yr)
13 t/yr
(17 T/yr)
79 t/yr
(87 T/yr)
72 r./yr
(79 T/yr)
ZO t/yr
(22 T/yr)
J3 e/yr
(61 T/yr)
63 t/yr
(4S T/yr)
13 t/yr
(23 T/yr)
8,400,000 Wyr
(3,200,000 VHT/yr)
3,600,000 km/yr
(3,3000,000 VMT/yc)
a.SOO.OOO kWyr
(3,300,000 V«//r)
Uncontroll«d
auapandad
partlculate
minion rat*
7.0 t/yt
(7.7 T/yr)
390 t/yr
(430 T/yc)
1,«00 t/yr
(1,800 T/yr)
WO t/yr
(310 T/yr)
1,300 t/yr
(1,400 T/yr)
760 t/yr
(840 T/yr)
1.700 e/yr
(1,900 T/yr)
8.700 t/yr
(9,600 T/yr)
3,000 t/yr
(5.300 T/yr)
1,200 t/yr
(1,300 T/yr)
2.300 t/yr
(J.300 T/yr)
8,100 t/yr
(8, WO T/yr)
2.000 t/yr
(3,200 T/yr)
6,100 e/yr
(6,800 T/yr)
12.300 t/yr
(14,000 T/yr)
23,000 t/yr
(18,000 T/yr)
Uncontrolled
fin*
p articulate
million rate
2.1 t/yr
(2.3 T/yr)
120 t/jrr
(UO T/yr)
370 t/yr
(630 T/yr)
160 t/yr
(180 T/yr)
440 t/yr
(490 T/yr)
260 t/yr
(290 T/yr)
310 L/yr
(160 T/yr)
2.600 t/yr
(2,900 T/yr)
1,500 t/yr
(1,700 T/yt)
3oO t/yr
(400 T/yr)
690 t/yr
(760 T/yr)
2,400 t/yr
(2,600 T/yr)
610 t/yr
(670 T/yr)
1,300 c/yr
(2,000 T/yt)
4,300 t/yr
(4,700 T/yr)
9,700 L/yr
(11,000 T/vr)
(continued)
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-1. (continued)
1976
Production
Sourea rat* * 10"'
Paved roads 52,000,000 tra/yr
(32,000,000 VOT/yr)
i, Wind groilon of bar* 18.6 Ion
ar*a« 4,600 aeru
Uncontrolled
au«p coded
partlculat*
«ml»iion rat*
14,000 t/yr
(1S.OOO t/yr)
2,700 e/yr
(3,000 T/yr)
Unconcrollad
fln«
partlculata
•ml* lion rate
17,000 t/yr
(17,300 T/yr)
800 e/yr
(900 T/yr)
7-6
-------
10,000
5
»
o-
iooo
s
«
Cl
4O
Jo
I
a.
100
10
TTn
T~I—i—i—i—n TT
oa
A a
Furnace
Type
Q EAF
O BOF
A OHF
• Combined
Mean Population
Density
640
1200
840
1040
0.01 0.1 0.5
20 40 60 80 95 99 99.9 99.99
Percentage of Production Capacity in Areas with
Population Density Less than Stated Size
Figure 7-2. Steel production as a function of population density.
7-7
-------
7.1.2 Ranking of Control Keeds
The sources were ranked based on typically controlled emission rate of
fine participate or suspended particulate calculated as follows:
Typically Controlled Emission Rate » Uncontrolled Emission Factor x
(1 - typical control fraction) x nationwide production rate.
This can be reduced to the following form:
Typically Controlled Emission Rate B Uncontrolled Nationwide Particulate
Emission Rate x (1 - typical control fraction)
The percentage of fine particulate in the emissions was used to convert sus-
pended particulate emission rates to fine particulate emission rates.
The input values for the latter equation are shown In Table 7-2 and the
source rank is presented In Table 7-2 on an individual source basis and source
category basis for suspended and fine particulate emission. From Table 7-2,
the five fugitive emission source categories with the largest nationwide im-
pact are:
Suspended Particulate Emissions Fine Particulate Emissions
CL; vehicular Lia-CriC - - (1) EAF f"rnflr.es
(2) EAF furnaces (2) Vehicular traffic
(3) Storage pile activities (3) BOF furnaces
(4) Sintering (4) Storage pile activities
(5) BOF furnaces (5) Sintering
.7.2 ONGOING RESEARCH
7.2.1 Process Sources
There are presently several research projects in progress that are con-
cerned with fugitive emissions from process sources In the iron and steel
industry. Table 7-3 is a summary table listing these ongoing or recently
completed projects. As stated in the introduction to this report, coke oven
and blast furnace cast-house fugitive emissions were not studied in this in-
vestigation because those sources are the focus of other EPA-sponsored stud-
ies listed in Table 7-3.
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-2. FUGITIVE EMISSION SOURCE RANK ON A NATIONWIDE SCALE
BASED ON 1976 PRODUCTION RATES
Eacifflatad
typical
control
Sourca £ nee ton
A. Proem aourcaa
I. Sintering
Strand dl*charg« 0.0
Coolar 0,0
Cold icrean 0.0
2. Hoc maeal trantfar 0.0
Controlled
suapandcid
partlculata
•million raca
2.JOO t/yr
(J.JOO T/yr)
9,800 c/yr
Ul.OOO t/yr)
1.300 t/yr
(2 ,500 T/yr)
1,500 t/yr
11,100 T/yr)
Controlled Individual
fine aouree
Dartieulace rank
•ml ••ton rice SuJp«nded Fine
650 t/yr 12 14
(700 T/yr)
2,700 t/yr 4 5
(J, 000 r/yr)
630 e/yr 13 15
(700 T/yr)
7JO e/yr 16 13
(830 T/yr)
Cacagory-uld*
jourco
rank
Suapendad Fine
U 5
•
9 3
3. £AF
U fuglclw loured* 0.0
faltoy itaal fum*eai)
All fugitive lourcaa
(carbon «te«l
fumacas)
4. BOP
ll fugltlv* lourcaa
(LD procata)
0.0
0.0
5. OKF
All fugitive sources 0,0
6. Scarfing
Hachliu
Hand
B. Open duae lourcea
I. Unloading raw materials
Iron ore
0,0
0.0
Pallac
0.3
3,300 t/yr 2,700 c/yr
(3,800 T/yr) (3,000 T/yr)
23.000 e/jrt 20,000 t/yr
(28,000 T/yr) (22,000 T/yr)
14,000 e/yr 9,100
(15,000 T/yr) (10,000 T/yr)
1,700 t/yr 1,200 c/yr
(1,800 T/yr) (1,300 T/yr)
30 c/yr 27 e/yr
(33 T/yr) (29 T/yr)
630 t/yr 580 c/yr
(710 T/yr) (640 T/yr)
3.3 E/yr
(1.9 T/yr)
190 e/yr
(210 T/yr)
1.0 t/yr
(1.1 T/yr)
39 t/yr
(63 T/yr)
14
31
LO
30
31
29
11
10
u
(continued)
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-2. (continued)
Source
Coal
Limeetone/
dolomite
2. Conveyor tranafar
atatlona
Iron ore
[ irrrrn
Pellet
Coal
Limeicone/
dolomite
Coke
Sinter
3. Storage pile
actlvitlaa
Iron ore
Pellet
Coal
Limestone/
dolomlca
Coke
Sinter input
material!
Slag
Eatliuted Controlled
typical iuepended
control parelculate
fraction (miaaloa rite
0.3 820 t/yr
C»0 T/yt)
0.3 230 t/yr
(230 T/yt)
0.3 3.3 t/yr
(3.9 T/yr)
O.J 1W t/yr
(210 T/yr)
0.3 820 t/yr
(MO T/yr)
0.3 230 t/yr
(2JO T/yr)
0.3 650 t/yr
(700 T/yr)
0.3 380 s/yt
IL 1 n T A»^\
0.4 1,000 t/yr
(1,100 T/yr)
0.4 3,200 t/yr
(5,800 I/yr)
0.4 3,000 t/yr
(3,300 T/yr)
0.4 720 t/yr
(780 T/yr)
0.4 1,400 t/yr
(1,300 T/yr)
0.4 4,900 t/yr
(5,300 T/yr)
0.4 1,200 t/yr
(1,300 T/yr)
Controlled Individual Category- wide
fin* aource aouree
particulata rank rank
emieelon rate Suaoeraled Fine Suapended Fine
290 t/yr 20 21
(310 T/yr)
82 t/yr 26 26
(90 T/yr)
6 7
1.0 t/yr 32 32
(1.1 T/yr)
39 t/yr 28 28
(63 T/yr)
290 t/yr 2L 22
(310 T/yt)
82 t/yt 27 27
(90 T/yr)
220 t/yr 23 24
(240 T/yr)
260 t/yr 23 23
3 4
300 t/yr 19 20
(340 T/yr)
1,600 t/yr 7 a
(1,700 T/yr)
900 t/yr 11 12
(1,000 T/yr)
220 t/yr 22 23
(240 T/yr)
410 t/yr 17 IB
(460 T/yr)
1,400 t/yr 8 «
(1,600 T/yr)
370 t'yr 18 19
(400 T/yr)
(continued)
7-10
-------
TABLE 7-2. (continued)
Sourca
Eatimatad Controllad
typical luipendad
control particular
fraction emliilon rita
Controllad Individual
-------
TABLE 7-3. SUMMARY OF ONGOING OR RECENTLY COMPLETED RESEARCH PROJECTS
CONCERNING PROCESS SOURCES OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Source
Prolect title
EPA contractor
1. Coke
manufacture
2. Iron
manufacture
Development and demonstration
of concepts for improving
coke oven door seals
Guidelines for application
of coke oven pollution
control systems
Enclosed coke pushing and
quenching system demon-
stration, Phase II
Sampling of coke oven door
leakage
Air pollution impact of
coke quenching
Smokeless coke oven
charging demonstration
Blast furnace cast house
emission control
Ba tte11e-Columbus
Mitre Corporation
National Steel
Battelle-Columbus
York Research
Corporation
Jones & Laughlln
Steel
Betz
3. Sinter
manufacture
4. BOF
5. General
Sinter plant wind box gas
recycle system demonstra-
tion, Phase II
Development of technology
for control of BOP
charging emissions
Environmental assessment of
ferrous metallurgical pro-
cesses and environmental
control techniques
Study of discharge causing
abnormal operating condi-
tions in the iron and steel
industry
7-12
National Steel
National Steel
Research Triangle
Institute
Research Triangle
Institute
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-3 (continued)
Source Prolect title EPA contractor
5. General • Control program guidelines PEDCo
(continued) for industrial process
fugitive particulate
emissions
• Development of procedures TRC
for the measurement of
fugitive emissions
7-13
-------
Table 7-3 shows that extensive research dollars and effort are presently
being invested in studying the nature and control of coke oven emissions.
Oven door leaks, pushing, quenching and charging emissions are being thoroughly
studied.
In actuality, none of the other process sources of fugitive emissions are
being studied with the concerted effort that is being applied to coke manufac-
ture. There is one major research project each for iron manufacture, sinter
manufacture, and EOF steel manufacture, with no studies specifically concern-
ing EAF and OHF fugitive emissions and control.
Finally, there is a series of general studies with broad scopes. These
studies will help to identify other specific areas of research that require
attention.
7.2,2 Open Dust Sources
The main method utilized to identify current research programs dealing
with open dust sources was a computerized search of the Smithsonian Scientific
Information Exchange. Key words utilized in this search were: (a) air pollu-
tion and dust participates; (b) air pollution dust or particulates—industrial
sources; and (c) air pollution—dust air pollution control. Also, contact was
made with EPA and AISI officials to obtain information concerning ongoing re-
search programs.
Table 7-4 lists the research programs that were identified. Contact was
made with the various project officers and/or principal investigators and
information concerning the particular scope of work and current results was
requested. It should be noted that a majority of these current research proj-
ects are not related directly to the iron and steel industry. The results of
the various projects, however, can be applied to a certain extent to open dust
sources in the iron and steel industry.
Materials Handling and Storage Pile Activities —
The University of Minnesota is performing a program to assess the control
efficiencies of various soil stabilizing compounds used to control the wind
erosion of taconite tailings. The project is funded by the Bureau of Mines,
Mining Research Center. Dr. D. H. Yardley is the principal investigator. He
is performing wind tunnel tests using various soil stabilizing compounds applied
to both coarse and fine tailings materials. The program was scheduled for
completion during the fall of 1977.
The Minnesota Regional Copper-Nickel Study is assessing the environmental
effects of future mining in the state. Dr. Barrel Thingvolv is the principal
investigator. Fugitive dust emissions from various storage pile and transfer
operations will be studied. Minimal field work is planned for the actual test-
ing of fugitive dust emissions. Limited particulate air sampling was scheduled
for completion by the fall of 1977.
-------
TABLE 7-4. SUMMARY OF ONGOING RESEARCH PROJECTS CONCERNING OPEN DUST SOURCES
Source
Project title
Performing agency
Materials handling and
storage pile activities
Assessment of control efficiencies of
various dust suppressants used to
control taconlte tailings piles
University of Minnesota
01 Vehicular traffic
Wind erosion of exposed
areas
Assessment of environmental effects
of future mining (Minnesota copper-
nickel study)
Asbestos emissions from waste tailings
piles
Measurement and control of air pollu-
tion produced by highway construction
operations and related Industries
Testing of fugitive dust emissions
from heavy-truck traffic at
western coal strip mines
Wind erosion study of exposed areas
and tailings piles found in western
open mining developments (proposed
project)
Minnesota interagency task force
Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute (EPA study)
California State Transportation
Laboratory
University of Idaho
National Center of Atmospheric
Research
-------
The Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute has analyzed the
fugitive dust problems associated with asbestos waste tailings. Various tail-
ings pile surface stabilizing chemicals were tested to determine control ef-
ficiencies for both active and inactive storage piles. Ms. Mary Stinson was
the EPA project officer for the majority of the research effort.
Vehicular Traffic--
The California State Transportation Laboratory is performing a Federal
Highway Administration program entitled "Measurement and Control of Air Pollu-
tion Produced by Highway Construction Operations and Related Industries."
Mr. C. R. Sinquist is the principal investigator. Areas of this program which
are potentially applicable to the iron and steel industry include: (a) testing
to determine the air quality impact of heavy-duty vehicles traveling on unpaved
and paved roadways, and (b) the transfer and movement of aggregate materials
by trucks and front-end loaders. The approach taken in the testing effort is
basic upwind/downwind sampling with high-volume filtration samplers. Particle
sizing and particle drift distances are also being studied. The project was
scheduled for completion by September 1977.
The University of Idaho is conducting a project to assess the fugitive
dust emissions generated from heavy-duty vehicles used in western coal strip
mines. The project is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, as a part of the Agency's Surface Environment and Mining (SEAM)
Studies assessing the impact of mining related air and water emissions.
Di. G<~org£ 2clt ±z the prin^pal investigator. Dr. Belt is proposing to test
the emissions generated from heavy-duty vehicles by attaching a trailer" behind
a large truck. A vertical and horizontal array of high-volume filtration sam-
plers will be placed upon the trailer. The testing project is to cover: (a)
fugitive dust emissions generated by vehicles upon dry unpaved roadways and
(b) control efficiency of road watering. Actual testing was to be carried out
in the fall of 1977.
Wind Erosion of Open Areas--
Wind erosion emissions studies of both exposed areas and mining-related
tailings piles will be performed in the future by Dr. Gillette of the National
Center of Atmospheric Research. This is another SEAM project funded by the
USDA Forest Service. Wind erosion of topsoil and spoils piles will be tested
by utilizing a portable wind tunnel. Testing will be performed at various
western coal strip mine sites.
Summary--
It is evident from the previously mentioned research projects that few
research programs specific to open dust sources in the iron and steel industry
are being conducted. While many industry-funded projects may be under way,
they are usually not publicized.
7-16
-------
7.3 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH NEEDS
7.3.1 Process Sources
At the inception of this project, the work statement implied that control
of process fugitive emissions would require development of substantially new
control technology. The question thought to be Important at that time was:
given the highest ranked process sources of Section 7.1, and given the current
research efforts, what are the most important univestigated sources requiring
research to develop adequate control technology? In the course of this study,
however, it became clear there already exists control technology for the major
process fugitive emission sources. Consequently, the Important question is:
what is the efficiency and cost of available fugitive emission controls when
applied to the sources being considered' The question of cost and efficiency
of a control device as a function of the influencing variables are portrayed
as steps 6 and 7 In Figure 7-1.
The variables affecting the efficiency of a process fugitive emissions
control option are:
Face area of capture device
Face velocity through capture device
Size of source (e.g., tons of furnace capacity or ladle capacity)
Degree of obstruction between capture device and furnace
Strength of crosscurrents
Distance between furnace and capture device
Thermal buoyance of plume
The variables affecting a given control device retrofit cost and, to a lesser
extent, a new design cost, are:
Flow rate through control device
Amount of building support necessary to sustain extra load
Amount of ductwork necessary to reach ,r^moval device
The process sources ranked highest on the basis of control need are:
. EAF (charging, tapping, slagging and electrode port leakage).
7-17
-------
Sintering (strand discharge, cooler discharge, screening, and
transfer stations).
. BOF (charging, tapping, slagging, puffing and lance port leakage).
Hot metal transfer stations (torpedo car to ladle, torpedo car to
mixer, and mixer to ladle).
Table 7-5 shows the control options available-for these process sources. It
is these controls for which additional research into cost-effectiveness is
recommended. For each source the control options have been subjectively ranked
according to the potential for favorable cost-effective control.
7.3.2 Open Dust Sources
Various control methods for open dust sources are currently being applied
to a limited extent within the iron and steel industry; however, data needed
to assess the effectiveness these control methods have not been adequately com-
piled. Although a number of these currently implemented control methods appear
to be viable, these methods cannot be adequately assessed until accurate con-
trol efficiencies, operating parameters and operating costs have been carefully
analyzed. Deficiencies of the control technologies currently available for
open dust sources are discussed in the following subsections.
Vf.^-_4-l- U--J1 J _
»• — »w*._u«.u .«u—^....Q
Methods utilized to reduce the dust emissions from unloading of materials
from barges and railcars and from conveyor networks include (a) total or partial
enclosures and (b) spray systems, To adequately assess the control options
presented in Section 6.1, actual operating control system efficiencies and
specific initial and annual operating costs are needed.
Storage Pile Activities--
Various control methods, presented in Section 6.2 to 6.5, are available
to reduce fugitive dusts associated with the open storage of raw, intermediate,
and waste materials. Control technology deficiencies are presented below for
the storage pile activity functions of load-in, vehicular traffic, wind erosion,
and load-out.
Load-in—Control options which mitigate dust emissions from material
load-in include (a) reduce drop distance, (b) enclosures,- and (c) spray sys-
tems. Adequate control efficiencies and initial and operating costs are
needed before specific recommendations can be made pertaining to these meth-
ods.
Vehicular traffic around storageplleB--Applicable control methods for
reducing fugitive dust emissions generated by front-end loaders and trucks
7-18
-------
TABLE 7-5. FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL OPTIONS RECOMMENDED
FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH
Source Control opcion
EAF ' Total enclosure
Canopy hoods
Tapping ladle hoods
Building evacuation
EOF ' Total enclosure
Gaw damper, furnace tilt minimization
and baffles
Canopy and local hoods
Building evacuation
Sintering • Local hoods
Hot metal transfer • Close fitting ladle hood
Canopy hood
Partial building evacuation
7-19
-------
within the storage pile areas are essentially the same as for unpaved roadway
traffic. These control methods include (a) area watering or oiling, (b) area
addition of surface stabilizing compounds, and (c) proper "housekeeping" pro-
cedures. The deficiencies of these control methods are discussed below in the
section on vehicular traffic on plant roadways.
Wind erosion from storage piles—Control methods for wind erosion from
open storage piles, as presented in Section 6.4, include (a) stabilizing the
pile surface layer and (b) enclosures. The control efficiencies for these va-
rious methods must be determined as a function of (a) surface application rate,
(b) reapplication needs, (c) climate, and (d) the configuration of windbreaks.
Operating cost data are needed for a complete assessment of the various con-
trol methods.
Load-out—Methods of fugitive dust control for the load-out process are:
(a) reduction of material disturbance and (b) spray systems. Specific meth-
ods presented in Section 6.5 lack adequate control efficiency data. Efficiency
data are needed for further assessment of these control systems, along with (a)
equipment specifications, (b) additional required materials (conveyors, chemi-
cal dust suppressants), and (c) operating costs.
Vehicular traffic on plant roadways--Mitigative measures which reduce un-
paved roadway fugitive emissions include (a) dust suppressants and (b) improve-
ment of the road surface (Section 6.6). Visual observations indicate that wa-
tering, ciliiig, sTf1 *"h« addition of chemical suppressants greatly reduce
vehicular fugitive dust emissions. However, adequate quantification of the
efficiencies of these control methods is needed to assess the relative effec-
tiveness of these mitigative measures as a function of the cost of control.
Field tests are needed to determine control efficiency as a function of: (a)
application rate and frequency, (b) vehicle usage, (c) road surface material,
and (d) climatic factors.
Fugitive dust emanating from paved road surfaces is a relatively minor
emission source. However, as the paved roadway collects surface participates,
the potential for large quantities of vehicle-generated dust increases. Road
surface cleaning devices are effective in removing visible surface particu-
lates. However, the control efficiencies and costs associated with the vari-
ous roadway cleaning devices are not adequately developed to permit assess-
ment of the relative merits of broom sweeping, road vacuuming or water
flushing techniques (Section 6.7).
Wind erosion from exposed areas--Mitigative techniques that are available
to reduce the impact of emissions generated by wind erosion of exposed areas
as presented in Section 6.8 include surface stabilization and utilization of
windbreaks to reduce the eroding force of the wind. To adequately assess the
effectiveness of the various control systems, control efficiency data are
7-20
-------
needed as a function of application rates for the surface stabilizers and
windbreak configuration.
7.4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
In defining the optimal program for research and development of control
technology directed to the critical control needs, analysis of control cost-
effectiveness is essential. This section presents example derivations of cost-
effectiveness functions (expressed as dollars per pound of reduced fine particl
emissions) for a process source (canopy hood system for an electric arc furnace
and an open dust source (several control measures applied to an unpaved road).
Cost evaluated include (a) annual!zed costs of equipment purchase and installa-
tion and (b) annual operating costs.
7.A.I Canopy Hood System for Electric Arc Furnaces
This section presents a derivation of the cost per pound of controlling
emission from an electric arc furnace shop producing 510,000 T/yr of raw car-
bon steel. Actual December 1976 installed costs, as presented in Table 5-5,
are used to estimate costs, after being adjusted to reflect the difference in
the size of the two shops. Maintenance and operation costs were not available.
The calculation of the yearly cost per pound of fine particulate captured
requires the following assumptions and calculations:
• Type of operation: EAF shop.
Size of furnaces: two 290-ton.
Type of steel made: plain carbon.
Mode of operation: one operating, one down.
Heat time: 5 hr tap to tap.
Shop operation period: 52 weeks/year, 7 days/week, 2A hr/day.
Annual shop production: 510,000 T/year.
Fugitive emission control system: canopy'hooHs over charge and
tap sides vented to baghouse.
Primary control device: DSE .
. Total installed cost for fugitive system. $6,690,000.
7-21
-------
Equipment life estimate: 10 years.
Annual investment rate: 10%/year.
Interest and tax rate: 107,/year.
Annualized cost of fugitive emission control system: 207. of to-
tal installed cost = $1,338,000.
. Uncontrolled, fine particulate emission factor: 2.6 Ib/T.
. Capture device efficiency: 70%.
Pounds of fine particulate captured annually: 928,000 Ib/year.
Based on the above assumptions and calculations, the annualized cost per pound
of fine particulate captured is $1.44/lb/year, It must be pointed out, however,
that were the cost of DSE system and the fine particulate it removes Included
with the canopy hood system, the cost effectiveness would be much improved.
7.4.2 Unpaved Road Vehicular Traffic
The rationale used to determine cost effectiveness of various fugitive
dust control methods for plant vehicles traveling upon unpaved roadways is
presented in uiiia e»ei.Liuii. Ths basis fcr this example cost offor-rivanerift
analysis follows:
1. Source extent data (6.3 miles of unpaved road and plant vehicle
mix) are the averages from four open dust surveys (Section 4.0)
2. Based on the above Information, the annual emissions of fine
particulata from unpaved roads are calculated to be 706,000 Ib/year.
3. The unpaved roadway dust control methods, efficiencies and costs
are those found in Section 6.6 of this report.
4. The investment or initial costs for the control methods are
annualized over a 10-year period. The annualized investment costs were cal-
culated by multiplying the initial costs found in Section 6.6 of this report
by a factor of 0.2 to account for a 10-year lifetime, interest and taxes.
Table 7-6 presents the results of the control cost-effectiveness analysis
for unpaved roads. An example calculation of control cost effectiveness for
watering of unpaved roads follows.
7-22
-------
TABLE 7-6. UNPAVED ROADWAY CONTROL COST EFFECTIVENESS
Control
method
Watering
Oiling
Oust suppressant
(Cohere*)
01 1 ant double
chip surface
Paving
Kattonted
control
efficiency
(X)
50
75
90
80
90
Fine paniculate
emissions reductions
)
0.06
0.4
o.oa
0.03
O.OB
a/ Based on a plant having 6,3 miles of unpaued roadways and the average vehicle rain of this study's (our open dust
surveys.
-------
1. The uncontrolled fine participate emission rate is 706,000 lb/
year , I
2. The estimated control efficiency for watering is 507.., , '
i
3. The reduction of fine particulate emissions per year by road ,
watering is 706,000 Ib/year x 50% = 353,000 lb . ' ' '' ' j
i' i .
, t
4. The initial investment cost for a watering truck is $10,000.
Multiplying this value by 0.2 to account for a 10-year Interest and taxes
gives $2,000 per year annual ized ' ivestment . ' '•
' 4
5. The annual operating cost Is $20,000. v p ,
6. Annualized Investment and annual operating cost effectiveness
are obtained by dividing the annual ized investment and annual operating costs
by the annual fine particulate emissions reductions realized by unpaved road-
way watering.
Annualized investment Annual operating
cost effectiveness cost effectiveness
' $°'°6/lb
7-4.3 Comparison of Cost Effectiveness " .1 t'
Table 7-7 presents a comparison of cost-effectiveness for the example
process source (an EAF canopy hood control system) and three major open dust
sources. Example cost effectiveness calculations presented in Sections 7.4.1
and 7.4.2 were provided to aid in the understanding of this analysis.
Two rankings relating the annual ized investment costs and annual operating
costs of various control methods are given in Table 7-6. It is evident from
this analysis, that the majority of the open dust source control methods have
a more favorable cost-effectiveness than the example process source control
method . > ' jv ' •
7.5 SUGGESTED RESEARCH PROGRAMS ' 0 - >
'
-------
TABLE 7-7. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF FUGITIVE EMISSIONS CONTROL METHODS
Sourca
Procaaa
EAT
Opan duat
Scoraga pi La
accivitlas
Load-in/
load-ouc
Hind aroaion
froia storaga
pilai
(lump Iron ora)
Vehicular traffic
Unpav*d roadvayi
Pavad roadway*
Kind aroaion
frora axpaaad
araai
Control method
Canopy hoodi
Utilize nubila
itactcar/raclaiiMr
combination rachar
chan Cronc-and
loadar activity
for pallat ptlaa
Vatarin;
Chemical itabtllzari
(Coharax 20X solution)
Uatacing
Road oil
Oil and doubla chip
Chaoical scabilliara
(Cahacax )
Paving
Brooa ivaaping
V.cuura twaaping
Road fluahlng
Wacaring . /
Chemical icabilixari~
Oiling
Paving 'Jlth claanlng
Catimatad
control
«fflci«ncy
70
80
SO
97
50
73
SO
90
90
70
75
ao
50
70
30
95
Annualitad
inv«staaat
coac .
(J/lb)4'
1,44
9.68
0.02
0.02
0,006
0.006
0.02
0.02
0.08
0.005
0.01
0.006
0.21
0.16
0.02
o.ai
Ranking
ordar
[a]
[9]
w
Ni
1*2 1
[2]
C*]
L43
[3]
tl]
[3]
w
r?i
[61
fij
D]
Annual
oparating
coat .
Cl/lb)4'
NA
HA
MA
0.008
0.06
0.4
0.03
0.08
O.C8
0.05
0,06
0.05
0 01
0.05
MA
VA
Banking
ordar
n
•
-
.
en
en
[3]
[6]
C«]
w
[51
Si
.
*
1A - Noc availabla.
£/ Dollar par pound raduccion of fina parclculaca par y«»r.
b/ No ipacifte eHanical icablliiar 3
-------
1. Acquisition of detailed reports of methodology from those who have
measured emission factors and failed to adequately report the measurement <
techniques. From Table 3-2, the measured sources lacking adequate published
measurement technique descriptions are sinter cooler, EOF charging, 60F tap-
ping, EOF total emissions, OHF total emission, EAF total emissions, and hot
metal transfer emissions. < .
2. Development and promulgation of reference techniques for measurement
of fugitive emissions from major sources. i ' •
3. Quantification of emission factors for important sources which have
never been experimentally quantified. These sources can be identified from
Table 3-1 as those with estimated but not measured values, such as sinter
strand discharge, sinter cold screening, and machine and hand scarfing. Also
sources with no measured or estimated values (e.g., teeming) might be quanti-
fied. ) >
4. Cost-effectiveness analysis of control methods as a function of the
independent variables listed in Section 7.3.1. The controls recommended for
study are listed in Table 7-5.
' '
An example of a proposed research program under research area (4) is pre-
sented below for the two most important process sources, BOFs and EAFs. Figure
7-3 is a task diagram for this example program. t '' ' •
i
The objective of the project would be to select and define the typical
and best controls for all fugitive emissions from BOF and EAF furnaces. The
best control does not necessarily have to be demonstrated, but if it is not
demonstrated, economic feasibility must be well substantiated. The typical
and best controls for each furnace must be defined in detail. i • ,
i '
The initial task would consist of a survey of the current literature to
ascertain what controls have been applied. EAF and BOF processes and their
variations would be thoroughly analyzed as part of this task. ,, ;
j i ii
*
The second task would consist of a phone survey of at least 50% of the
BOF and EAF shops in the United States. Preference would be given to the
highest capacity shops. The capture devices utilized by each shop for charg-
ing, tapping, and slagging emissions would be tabulated. All those shops with
no controls would also be listed. For those shops with control,, general data
such as capture efficiency estimates, removal device and efficiency, actual
flow rates and temperature, capital and total installed costs, and system
auxiliary equipment identification would be acquired. Visits to selected
plants would be performed to provide proper perspective and understanding of
the systems. Selection of plants for visits would be based on a preliminary
estimate of typical and best controls.
7-26
-------
Task 1
Literature Survey
Task 2
1
Phone Survey and Plant Visits
Task 3
I
Select and Define Typical
and Best Controls
Task
Determine Capture Efficiencies
TaskS
Develop a Detailed Presentation
of the Systems
Figure 7-3. EOF and EAF research program structure.
7-27
-------
Based on the literature search, personal and telephone contacts, and
plant visits, the typical and best control techniques for each furnace type
would be selected, in the third task. Specific shops would be identified
which most nearly represent the typical and best control processes.
Capture efficiencies noted from the specific and best controlled shops
identified in the third task would be determined in the fourth task. If
possible, empirical and theoretical expressions would be utilized to calculate
the capture efficienceis under all expected conditions. Field sampling to
acquire necessary input data would be performed.
In the final task, elevation, plan and detail drawings for the typical
and best control techniques would be developed for each furnace type. A
detailed engineering analysis of each system would also be presented.
7.5.2 Open Dust Sources
Suggested research programs for open dust sources should strive to establish
control efficiencies and costs of available control methods as a function of
specific operating parameters. The criteria utilized for selecting specific
open dust sources for suggested research programs are based on: (a) ranking
of the critical control needs (Section 7.1); (b) deficiencies of current open
dust emission control methods, specified in Sections 6.0 and 7.3.2; and (c)
the extent of current research on open dust sources.
Basis for Source Selection —
Section 7.1 utilized a nationwide ranking scheme to determine the most
critical areas or processes requiring the development and demonstration of
effective control techniques. From this ranking (Table 7-2) the 10 major
fugitive emission categories of fine particulate on a nationwide scale were
indicated as being:
Electric arc furnaces
, Vehicular traffic*
Basic oxygen furnaces
. Storage pile activites*
. Sintering
. Open hearth furnaces
Conveyor transfer stations*
* Open dust sources.
7-28
-------
Hot metal transfer
Scarfing
Wind erosion of exposed areas*
As indicated four open dust source categories (vehicular traffic, storage
pile activities, materials handling, and wind erosion of exposed areas) rank
among the top 10 sources in importance.
As indicated in Section 7.3.2 inadequate data exist for the proper assess-
ment of available control methods for vehicular traffic, storage pile activities,
and material handling. Once current control methods are properly assessed,
their applicability to the iron and steel industry can be more throughly stated.
Current research of open dust sources in the iron and steel industry is
practically nonexistent. There are research programs being performed in the
surface mining industry which may prove beneficial to the iron and steel in-
dustry. Current research on vehicular traffic includes emission factor develop-
ment for heavy duty vehicles on unpaved mine roadways and the testing of unpaved
roadway watering programs. Research projects dealing with storage pile activity
source area consist mainly of the testing of stabilizing compounds for tailings.
While these research programs are indirectly related to the iron and steel
industry, the applicability of results may be limited. Vehicles and roadways
in the surface mining industry are quite different from those found in the iron
and steel industry. Storage and tailings piles in the mining industry are rela-
tively inactive, while storage piles in the iron and steel industry have nearly
continuous turnover rates. Thus, solutions to fugitive dust problems in the
surface mining industry may not be applicable to similar problems in the iron
and steel industry. What is needed is a concentrated effort to analyze the
fugitive dust problems and potential control techniques for vehicular traffic,
storage pile activities, and materials handling associated with integrated
iron and steel plants.
Research and Development Programs--
The following research and development programs are recommended to evalu-
ate the effectiveness of control techniques applicable to major open dust
sources which exist within integrated iron and steel plants. These programs
focus on field testing various control methods to determine: (a) control ef-
ficiencies, and (b) operating parameters and cost effectiveness.
* Open dust sources.
7-29
-------
Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roadways--
An R&D program is recommended to assess the effectiveness of various con-
trol methods to mitigate dust emissions from vehicles traveling on unpaved
roads. Initial evaluations would focus on two control techniques—watering
and chemical dust suppressants.
Industry-wide source characteristics would be analyzed to determine
representative conditions of roadway surface (silt, moisture and density) and
traffic (vehicle count by weight and speed ranges), so that representative
test roadway parameters may be defined.
Uncontrolled emission factors for vehicular traffic on two different sur-
faces (slag and dirt) would be measured utilizing the MRI Exposure Profiling
technique. Tests would also be performed on adjoining sections of the test
roadway to which water or chemical dust suppressants (Coherex and another to
be determined) have been applied. Control efficiency would be determined as
a function of application intensity (gal./yard^) and time since last applica-
tion. In addition, TSP and particle size concentrations would be measured
downwind of each test roadway segment to determine air quality Impact reduction
due to controls. Finally, control cost-effectiveness functions would be de-
termined based on measured control efficiency and costs for various levels of
control.
Storage Pile Activities--
An R&D program is recommended to usaec.» uue eircCuiv^r.^a cf zdtig^tiv:
measures in reducing dust emissions from material load-In, vehicular traffic
around storage piles, wind erosion of storage piles and load-out. This pro-
gram would study fugitive emissions associated with storage piles as a sys-
tem and with separate activities.
First, the air quality impact of combined storage pile activities as a
system would be determined. Upwind and downwind TSP and particle size measure-
ments would be performed on an active storage area to note the air quality ef-
fect of various activity levels and meteorological conditions.
Second, source specific testing would be performed on uncontrolled and con-
trolled sources within the storage pile area to note emission factors and con-
trol efficiencies. The costs associated with the tested control measures would
be obtained for use in cost-effectiveness functions. An example source specific
testing program to determine cost effectiveness for wind erosion of storage piles
follows.
Wind Erosion of Storage Piles--
An R&D program recommended to assess the effectiveness of mitigatlve mea-
sures in reducing fugitive dust emissions resulting from wind erosion of stor-
age piles would focus on two control techniques—watering and chemical dust
7-30
-------
suppressants. Industry-wide source characteristics would be analyzed to deter-
mine representative storage pile parameters such as physical material silt,
moisture, density, and pile configuration.
Uncontrolled emission factors for storage pile wind erosion would be meas-
ured for a range of wind speeds, utilizing the MRI Exposure Profiling technique.
Control efficiency testing would be performed to assess the merits of watering
and chemical dust suppressants.
In addition, TSP and particle size concentrations would be measured down-
wind of each test pile to determine air quality impact reduction due to controls
Finally, control cost-effectiveness functions would be derived from measured
control efficiencies and costs for various levels of control.
Materials Handling--
An R&D program is recommended to: (a) assess the effects of changes in
operating parameters on emission levels from materials handling operations;
and (b) determine the cost effectiveness of control measures in reducing
emissions.
Areas of study would include: (a) identifying industry-wide source char-
acteristics; (b) assessing activity factors of each operation; (c) establish-
ing uncontrolled emission rates; (d) assessing materials handling control tech-
niques and costs; and (e) establishing the downwind TSP and particle size con-
centration reductions from the implementation of controls.
Industry-wide source characteristics would be analyzed to identify: (a)
representative types and operating parameters of equipment utilized for mate-
rials handling; and (b) representative physical characteristics of the materials
transferred: silt content, moisture content, and density.
Relative activity levels would be related to a standard such as, drop
height, mass of material handled, or conveyor speed. Uncontrolled emission
factors would be measured for the following materials handling operations:
railcar unloading, barge unloading, conveyor transfer stations, and conveyor
screening stations. MRI's Exposure Profiling technique would constitute the
primary emissions test method.
Materials handling control techniques would be surveyed to determine
potentially effective dust suppression systems and/or altered operating pro-
cedures. Controlled operations would be field tested to determine control
efficiencies and downwind air quality impact. Finally, control effective-
ness functions would be determined based on measured control efficiency and
cost for various levels of control.
7-31
-------
SECTION 8.0
REFERENCES
1. Varga, J,, and H. Lownte. A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry. Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio,
1969.
2. Vatavuk, W. M., and L. K. Felleisen. Iron and Steel Mills. In: Com-
pilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1976.
3. Rehmus, F. H., D. P. Manka, and E. A. Upton. Control of 1^5 Emissions
during Slag Quenching. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, 23(10):864-869, 1973.
4. Steiner, B. A. Air Pollution Control in the Iron and Steel Industry.
International Metal Review, (9):171-192, 1976.
5. Anonymous. Evolution of Iron and Steelmaking. In: The Making, Shap-
ing, and Treating of Steel, H. E. McGannon, ed. 9th Edition, 1971.
p. 34.
6. Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. Economic Impact of New Source
Performance Standards on Sinter Plants. Final Draft Report Prepared
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 1977. 86 pp.
7. Anonymous. Scrap for Steelmaking. In: The Making, Shaping, and Treat-
ing of Steel, H. E. McGannon, ed. 9th Edition, 1971. p. 254.
8. Reference 1, p. V-5.
9. American Iron and Steel Institute. 1976 Annual Statistics of the AISI.
Washington, D.C., 1977. pp. 67-71.
10. Emission Standards and Engineering Division. Background Information for
Standards of Performance: Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry,
Volume 1: Proposed Standards. EPA-450/2-74-017a7 U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1974. pp.
4-6.
8-1
-------
11. Reference 1, p. C-166.
12. Chepil, W. S., F. H. Siddoway, and D. V. Ambrust. Climatic Index of
Wind Erosion Emissions in the Great Plains. Soil Science Society of
America Proceedings, 27(4) :449-452, 1963.
13. Ralika, P. W., R. E. Kenson, and P. T. Bartlett. Development of Proce-
dures for the Measurement of Fugitive Emissions. EPA-600/2-76-284, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
1976.
14. Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C. M. Guenther, and G. Jutze. Devel-
opment of Emission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-450/3-74-037,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1974. 172 pp.
15. Lundgren, D. A., and H. J. Paulus. The Mass Distribution of Large At-
mospheric Particles. Paper No. 73-163, Presented at the 66th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Chicago, Illinois,
June 24-28, 1973.
16. Turner, D. B. Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates. AP-26,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1970.
17. Blackwood, T. R., T. F. Boyle, T. L. Peltier, E. C. Eimutis, and D. L.
Zanders. Fugitive Dust from Mining Operations. For the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-1320, Task 6, May 1975,
18. Cowherd, C., Jr., C. Maxwell, and D. Nelson. Quantification of Dust En-
trainment from Paved Roadways. EPA-450/3-77-027, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977. 78 pp.
19. Schueneman, J. J., M. D. High, and W. E. Bye. Air Pollution Aspects of
the Iron and Steel Industry. Public Health Service Publication No. 999-
AP-1, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1963. p. 33.
20. American Iron and Steel Institute. Source Data for Steel Facility Fac-
tors. Final Prepared July 13, 1976.
21. Speight, G. E. Best Practicable Means in the Iron and Steel Industry.
The Chemical Engineer, (3)-132-139, 1973.
22. Nicola, A. G. Fugitive Emission Control in the Steel Industry. Iron and
Steel Engineer, 53(7) .'25-30, 1976.
8-2
-------
23. Cowherd, C., Jr., and C. M. Guenther. Development of a Methodology and
Emission Inventory for Fugitive Dust for the Regional Air Pollution
Study. EPA-450/3-76-003, 1976. 84 pp.
24. McCutchen, G., and R. Iversen. Sceel Facility Factors. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, Prepared
1975 and Revised December 8, 1976.
25. Lindau, L., L. Hansson, and B. Mansson. Fugitive Dust from Steel Works.
Solna, June 1976. p. 11.
26. Anonymous. Control Techniques for Particulate Pollutants. AP-51, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
1969. pp. 14-16.
27. Thaxton, L. A. Kish and Fume Control and Collection in a Basic Oxygen
Plant. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 20(5):293-296,
1970.
28. Anonymous. Metallurgical Equipment. In: Air Pollution Engineering
Manual, J. A. Danielson, ed. AP-40, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1973. pp. 255-293.
29. Mann, C. 0., and C. C. Cowherd, Jr. Fugitive Dust Sources. In: Com-
pilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1976. pp.
11.2-lff.
30. Gillette, D. A. Production of Fine Dust by Wind Erosion of Soil: Effect
of Wind and Soil Texture. From Proceedings of the Symposium on Atmos-
pheric Surface Exchange of Particulate and Gaseous Pollutants (1974),
1976. pp. 591-609.
31. U.S. Department of Commerce. Climatic Atlas of the United States. En-
vironmental Science Services Administration, Environmental Data Service,
1968. 80 pp.
32. Bagnold, R. A. The Physics of Desert Sands and Blown Dunes. Methuen,
London, 1941. 265 pp.
33. Reference 10, p. 40.
34. Kaercher, L. T., and J. D. Sensenbaugh. Air Pollution Control for an
Electric Furnace Melt Shop. Iron and Steel Engineer, 51(5):47-51, 1974.
35. Reference 10, p. 27.
8-3
-------
36. Reference 10, p. 55.
37. Reference 10, p. 94.
38. Reference 10, p. 44.
39. Reference 10, p. 97.
40. Alfonso, J. R. F. Estimating the Costs of Gas Cleaning Plants. Chemical
Engineering, (12):86-96, 1971.
41. Wilcox, M. S., and R. T. Lewis. A New Approach to Pollution Control in
an Electric Furnace Melt Shop. Iron and Steel Engineer, 45(12):113-120,
1968.
42. Reference 10, p. 144.
43. Letter from Atlantic Steel to AISI, February 17, 1975.
44. Wozniak, E. H. The Phaseout of No. 2 Open Hearth and the Design and
Startup of No. 2 Basic Oxygen Furnace Shop. In: Proceedings of the
AIME Open Hearth Conference, 1975. pp. 318-346.
45, McCluskey, E. J. Design Engineering of the OG Gas Cleaning System at
Inland's No. 2 EOF bnop. - Iron aim £c«l Splicer, 53(12) •?^-'5
-------
53. Anonymous. Industrial Ventilation. American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygieniats, Committee of Industrial Ventilation, Lansing,
Michigan, 1970.
54. Personal Communication with Howard W. Cole, Jr., and Leonard Brunner,
Deter Company, East Hanover, New Jersey, February 22, 1977.
55. Price, W. L. Open Storage Piles and Methods of Dust Control. Paper Pre-
sented at the October 1972 Meeting of the American Institute of Mining
Engineers, Birmingham, Alabama.
56. Personal Communication with Richard R. Cole, Harry T. Campbell Sons'
Company, Baltimore, Maryland, March 11, 1977.
57. Anonymous. Investigation of Fugitive Duat; Volume I: Sources, Emissions,
and Control. EPA-450/3-74-036, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
search Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1974.
58. Handy, R. L., J. M, Hoover, K. L. Bergeson, and D. E. Fox. Unpaved Roads
as Sources for Fugitive Dust. Transportation Research News, (60)-6-9,
Autumn 1975.
59. Personal Communication with Dave Cook, Roscoe Manufacturing Company,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 1, 1977.
8-5
-------
SECTION 9,0
GLOSSARY
Activity Factor - Measure of the intensity of aggregate material disturbance
by mechanical forces in relation to reference activity level defined as
Cloddinesa - The mass percentage of an aggregate sample smaller than 0.84 mm
in diameter as determined by dry sieving.
Cost, Annual!zed - The equipment cost divided by the number of years represent
ing the life of the equipment.
Cost, Installed - The total cost of the project including design, equipment
purchase* labor and materials for site preparation, construction, equipment
installation, and start-up*
Cost, Operating - The cost for labor and utilities necessary to operate the
equipment •
Cost-Effectiveness - The cost of control per pound of reduced fine particle
emissions.
Dry Day - Day without measurable (0.01 in. or more) precipitation.
Dry Sieving - The sieving of oven-dried aggregate by passing it through a
series of screens of descending opening size.
Duration of Storage - The average time that a. unit of aggregate material
remains in open storage, or the average pile turnover time.
Dust Suppressant - Water or chemical solution which, when applied to an
aggregate material, binds suspendable particulate to larger particles.
Emission Control System, Primary - A control system installed to capture and
remove most of the total emissions prior to atmospheric discharge.
9-1
-------
Emission Control System, Secondary - A control system designed to capture
and remove the smaller portion of the total emissions that the primary sys-
tem does not collect with the smaller portion usually being fugitive in
nature.
Enclosure - A structure which either partially or totally surrounds a fugi-
tive emissions source thereby reducing the amount of emissions.
Enclosure of Steelmaking Furnace, Partial - An enclosure of minimal volume
that completely surrounds a Steelmaking furnace but only extends to the
charging floor.
Enclosure of Steelmaking Furnace, Total - A complete enclosure of minimal
volume that extends to the tapping floor of a Steelmaking furnace.
Exposed Area, Effective - The total exposed area reduced by an amount which
reflects the sheltering effect of buildings and other objects that retard
the wind.
Exposed Area, Total - Outdoor ground area subject to the action of wind and
protected by little or no vegetation.
Exposure - The point value of the flux (mass/area-time) of airborne particu-
late passing through the atmosphere, integrated over the time of measurement.
Exposure, Filter - Exposure determined from filter catch within primary expo-
sure sampler.
Exposure, Integrated - The result of mathematical integration of partially
distributed measurements of airborne particulate exposure downwind of a
fugitive emissions source.
Exposure, Total - Exposure calculated from both filter catch and settling
chamber catch within primary exposure sampler, or from total catch within
secondary exposure sampler.
Exposure Profiling - Direct measurement of the total passage of airborne
particulate immediately downwind of the source by means of simultaneous
multipoint isokinetic sampling over the effective cross-section of the
fugitive emissions plume.
Exposure Sampler, Auxiliary - Directional particulate samples with goose-
necked intake and back-up filter, having stepwise flows control (0.5 to
1 cfm) to provide for isokinetic sampling at wind speeds of 5 to 10 mph.
9-2
-------
Exposure Sampler, primary - Directional participate sampler with settling
chamber and backup filter, having variable flow control (5 to 20 cfm) to
provide for isokinetic sampling at wind speeds of 4 to 15 mph.
Fugitive Emissions, Total - All particles from either open dust or process
fugitive sources as measured immediately adjacent to the source*
Fugitive Emissions - Emissions not originating from a stack, duct,
or flue.
Load-in - The addition of material to a storage pile*
Load-out - The removal of material from a storage pile.
Materials Handling - The receiving and transport of raw, intermediate and
waste materials, including barge/railcar unloading, conveyor transport and
associated conveyor transfer and screening stations.
Moisture Content - The mass portion of an aggregate sample consisting of
unbound moisture on the surface of the aggregate, as determined from weight
loss in oven drying with correction for the estimated difference from total
unbound moisture.
Partial Diameter, Aerodynamic - The diameter of a hypothetical sphere of
unit density (1 g/cm^) having the same terminal settling velocity as the
particle in question, regardless of its geometric size, shape and true
density.
Particle Diameter, Stokes - The diameter of a hypothetical sphere having the
same density and terminal settling velocity as the particle in question,
regardless of its geometric size and shape*
Particle Drift Distance - Horizontal distance from point of particle injec-
tion into the atmosphere to point of removal by contact with the ground
surface.
Particulate, Fine - Airborne particulate smaller than 5 um in Stokes diameter.
i „
Particulate, Suspended - Airborne particulate smaller in Stokes diameter than
30 micrometers, the approximate cut-off diameter for the capture of particu-
late matter by a standard high-volume sampler, based on a particle density
of 2 to 2.5 g/cm3.
Precipitation-Evaporation Index - A climatic factor equal to ten times the
sum of 12 consecutive monthly ratios of precipitation in inches over
evaporation in inches, which is used as a measure of the annual average
moisture of a flat surface area.
9-3
-------
Road, Paved - A roadway constructed of rigid surface materials, such as
asphalt* cement, concrete and brick.
Road, Unpaved - A roadway constructed of non-rigid surface materials such as
dirt, gravel (crushed stone or slag), and oil and chip surfaces.
Road Surface Dust Loading - The mass of loose surface dust on a paved roadway,
per length of roadway, as determined by dry vacuuming.
Road Surface Material - Loose material present on the surface of an unpaved
road.
Source, Open Dust - Any source from which emissions are generated by the
forces of wind and machinery acting on exposed aggregate materials.
Source, Process Fugitive Emissions - An unducted source of emissions involving
a process step which alters the chemical or physical characteristics of a
material, frequently occurring within a building.
Silt Content - The mass portion of an aggregate sample smaller than 75 micro-
meters in diameter as determined by dry sieving*
Spray System - A device for applying a liquid dust suppressant in the form of
droplets to an aggregate material for the purposes of controlling the gene-
ration of dusc.
Storage Pile Activities - Processes associated with aggregate storage piles,
specifically, load-in, vehicular traffic around storage piles, wind erosion
from storage piles, and load-out.
Surface Erodibility - Potential for wind erosion losses from an unsheltered area,
based on the percentage of credible particles (smaller than 0.84 mm In diameter)
in the surface material.
Surface Stabilization - The formation of a resistive crust on an exposed aggre-
• gate surface through the action of a dust suppressant, which suppresses the
release of otherwise suspendable particles.
Vehicle, Heavy Duty - A motor vehicle whose gross vehicle traveling weight
exceeds 30 tons.
Vehicle, Light Duty - A motor vehicle whose gross vehicle traveling weight is
less than or equal to 3 tons.
Vehicle, Medium Duty - A motor vehicle whose gross vehicle traveling weight
is greater than 3 tons, but less than 30 tons.
Windbreak - A natural or man-made object which reduces the ambient wind
speed in the immediate locality.
9-4
-------
SECTION 10.0
ENGLISH TO METRIC UNIT CONVERSION TABLE
English unit
Multiplied by
Metric unit
Ib/T
Ib/vehicle mile
Ib/acre yr
Ib
T
mph
mile
ft
acre
0.500
0.282
112
0.454
0.907
0.447
1.61
0.305
0.00405
kg/t
kg /vehicle km
kg /km2 yr
kg
t
m/s
km
in
km2
10-1
-------
APPENDIX A
FIELD TESTING METHODOLOGY
1.0 Introduction
Field testing of fugitive emissions from open sources at two integrated
iron and steel planta was conducted by MR I during separate 2-week periods
in April and June of 1977. This appendix describes the field testing
methodology that was used.
Testing at the first plant (designated as Plant A) took place from April 11
to 22, 1977. Sources tested at Plant A included:
Number of
Fugitive dust source teats
Load out of high silt processed slag into truck 3
Load out of low silt product slag into truck 3
Mobile stacking of palletized iron ore 3
Mobile stacking of lump iron ore 3
Light-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road 1
Heavy-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road 2
A total of 15 tests were performed.
Testing at the second plant (designated as Plant E) took place from June 13
to 22, 1977. Sources tested at Plant E included:
Fugitive dust source
Heavy-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Light-duty vehicular traffic on unpaved road
Plant vehicle mix on paved road
Conveyor transfer station (sinter)
Number of
tests
3
3
3
3
A-l
-------
A total of 12 tests were performed.
MRI's Exposure Profiling technique was used to quantify dust emissions by
multi-point sampling immediately downwind of the emitting source, utilizing
the isokinetic profiling concept which is the basis for conventional source
testing. To the extent possible, measurements were restricted to periods
with moderate winds (5 to 15 mph) of constant mean direction, 3 or more
days after significant rainfall (accumulation exceeding 0.5 in.).
Table A-l specifies the kinds and frequencies of field measurements that
were conducted during each run. "Composite" samples denote a set of single
samples taken from several locations in the area; "integrated11 samples are
those taken at one location for the duration of the run.
2.0 Sampling Equipment
The primary tool for quantification of emission rate was the MRI ex-
posure profiler, which was developed under EPA Contract No. 68-02-0619.
The profiler (modified for this study) consists of a portable tower
(4 to 6 m height) with an optional horizontal crossarm (extending to
about 5 D in length) supporting an array of sampling heads. Each
sampling head was operated as a directional exposure sampler (with
automatic separation of settleable dust). Sampling intakes were
pointed Into the wind, and sampling velocity was adjusted to match
cne local uieau wiuJ speed, as =czi--rcd by distributed sn
A vertical line grid of samplers (Figure A-l) was used for measure-
ment of emissions from paved and unpaved roads, while a two-dimensional
array of samplers was used for quantification of emissions from storage
pile transfer operations. The primary sampler design (Figure A-l)
entailed passage of the flow stream through a settling chamber,
trapping particles Larger than about 50 um In diameter, and then
upward through a standard 8 in. by 10 in. glass fiber filter positioned
horizontally. Smaller auxiliary samplers of lighter weight (Figure
A-2) were used at perimeter crossarm positions in sampling storage
pile emissions. Assuming that exposure from a point source is normally
distributed (as shown in Figure A-3) , the exposure values measured by
the samplers at the edge of the grid should be about 25% of the center-
line exposure, so that about 90% of the total mass flux (exposure)
lies within the grid boundaries.
Sampling time was sufficient to provide sufficient particulate mass
and to average over several units of cyclic fluctuation in the
emission rate (for example, vehicle passes on an unpaved road). The
first condition was easily met because of the proximity of the sampling
grid to the source.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-l. FIELD MEASUREMENTS
Test Parameter
Unltl
Sampling Mod*
Measurement Method
I. Meteorology
a. Wind speed
b Wind diractioa
e. Claud cover
d, Temper* cure
I Relative humtdIcy
2. Storage Piles
a. Material type
b. Mots cure concent
e. Dust texture
d. Hacerial throughput
3. Road Surficaj
I, Pavement type
b. Surface condition
c Dust toadlog
d. Dust caxture
4. Vehicular Traffic
a. Hix
b. Count
3. Suspended Dust
a. Exposure (verius height)
b. Haai 3U« dlieributloa
c. Downvilnd conceacraeloa
d. Background concentration
a. Durarlon of sampling
6. Deposition
a. Surface (versus distance
from curb)
b. Elevated
mph
d.g
7.
•r
^
% tools Cure
t lilt
coos
g/8,2
% file
tfg/a3
Wg/B3
mis
g/BJ/«eh
g/ai2/veh
Continuous Recording Inicrument at "background"
Continuous jtaclon, tgniors *t reference heLgne
Single Visual observation
Single Sling psychromettr
Single Sling phychroonter
Composite Determined by plant personnel
Single Owen drying
Composite Dry sieving
Determined by plant personnel
Composite Observation (photographs)
Composite Observation
Multiple Dry vacuuming
Multiple Dry sieving
Multiple Observation (car, truck, number of
axles, etc )
Cumulative Automatic counters
Integrated Isokinetlc high-volume filtration
(MSI method)
Integrated High-volume cascade Impaction
Integrated High-volume filtration (EPA method)
Integrated High-volume filtration (SPA method)
Cumulative Timing
Integrated Dustfall buckets (ASTM method)
Integrated Dustfall buckets (A5TH method)
A-3
-------
Figure A-l. MRI exposure profiler for line or moving point sources,
A-4
-------
Stainleui Steel Intake
1/2" ID x 4" Long
Stejnleu Steel Filter
Holder wirh 2-m Oia.
Glau Fiber Filter
Critical Office
(-..75cfm)
To Sampling Caniolc
Figure A-2. Aaxiliary air sampler,
A-5
-------
Virtual Point Source
Exposure
Profiles
Wind Direction
Figure A-3. Example exposure profiling arrangement.
-------
In addition to airborne dust passage (exposure), fugitive dust param-
eters that were measured included suspended dust concentration and
particle size distribution. Conventional high-volume filtration units
were operated upwind and downwind of the test source.
A Sierra Instruments high-volume parallel-slot cascade impactor with
a 20 cfm flow controller was used to measure particle size distribu-
tion along side of the exposure profiler. The impactor unit was
equipped with a. Sierra cyclone preseparator to remove coarse particles
which otherwise would tend to bounce off of the glass fiber impaction
substrates, causing fine particle measurement bias. The cyclone
sampling intake was directed into the wind, resulting in isokinetic
sampling for a wind speed of 10 tnph.
As indicated in Table A-l, other types of parameters that were measured
during each test included (a) prevailing meteorology, (b) properties
of the emitting material, and (c) source extent and activity parameters.
Figures A-A to A-9 show the locations of the sampling instruments
relative to the emitting fugitive dust sources.
3.0 Sample Handling and Analysis^
At the end of each run, the collected samples of dust emissions were
carefully transferred to protective containers within the MRI Instrument
van, to prevent dust losses. High-volume filters (from the MRI
exposure profiler and from standard high-volume units) and impaction
substrates were folded and placed in individual envelopes. Dust
that collected on the interior surfaces of each exposure probe was
rinsed with distilled water into separate glass jars. Dust was trans-
ferred from the cyclone precollector in a similar manner.
Dust samples from the field tests were returned to MRI and analyzed
gravimetrlcally in the laboratory. Glass fiber filters and impaction
substrates were conditioned at constant temperature and relative
humidity for 24 hr prior to weighing (the same conditioning procedure
used before taring). Water washes from the exposure profiler intakes,
cyclone precollector and dustfall buckets were filtered, after which
the tared filters were dried, conditioned at constant humidity, and
reweighed.
Samples of road dust and storage pile materials were dried to deter-
mine moisture content and screened to determine the weight fraction
passing a 200-mesh screen, which gives the silt content. A conven-
tional shaker was used for this purpose. That portion of the material
passing through the 200-mesh screen was analyzed to determine density
of potentially suspendable particles.
A-7
-------
I
AGGREGATE STORAGE PILE
WIND-
*
HIGH LOADER
DUMP TRUCK
OR RAIL CAR
2m
SAMPLING GRID
^Xc Ai
SAMPLING
TRAILER
Figure A-4. Positioning of air sampling equipment (top view)
processed slag load-out.
A-8
-------
PROCESSED SUG LOADOUT
I \i t Air Sompleri
(~l5cfm)
Maximum Towar Height = 6m
Maximum Crou -
Arm Dlifoncn " Sm
Figure A-5. Positioning of air sampling equipment (rear view)
processed slag load-out.
A-9
-------
DUE PILE STACKING
>
i
Slacker
l>okln«>lc
Air SompUti
(~ IScfm)
• HI-VolSompler
• HI - Vol Ccncode
llr^oclor
I*-
--5m-
Figure A-6. Positioning of air sampling equipment--ore pile stacking
-------
ORi PILE STACKING
Arxmomefer
Hi-Vol
Sampler
A
Air Sampler*
(~l5efm)
Hi-Vol
Coicade
Impacror
o
Fe*r
Meter
jAif Sampler
{~.75cfm)
Figure A-7. Modified MRI exposure profiler—ore pile stacking,
A-ll
-------
UNPAVED/PAVED ROAD
KEY
HI-VOL
SAMPLER
HI-VOL
CASCADE
IMPACTOR
_ DU5TFALL
INSTRUMENT SAMPLER
EXPOSURE
PROFILER
Wind Direction
_n Q_
5m
m
3m-H
—5m
J"
4-6m
Figure A-8. Positioning of air sampling equipoent--unpaved/paved road.
-------
Conveyor
Transfer Station
Sampler Array
(2.2m x 1.2m)
Conveyor
SIDE VIEW
Conveyor
Sampler
Array
TOP VIEW
Conveyor
Figure A-9. Sinter plant conveyor transfer station.
-------
4.0 Calculation. Procedure
4,1 Emission Rate
The passage of airborne particulate, i.e., the quantity of emissions
per unit of source activity, is obtained by spatial integration (over
the effective cross-section of the plume) of distributed measurements
of exposure (mass/area). The exposure is the point value of the flux
(mass/area-time) of airborne particulate integrated over the time of
measurement.
Mathematically stated, the total mass emission rate (R) is given by:
I f f *&±
t J A a
w) dhdw
where m = dust catch by exposure sampler after subtraction of
background
a • intake area of sampler
t = sampling time
h - vertical distance coordinate
w • lateral distance coordinate
A = effective cross-sectional area of plume
In the case of a line source with an emission height near ground
level, the mass emission rate per source length unit being sampled
is given by:
where W = width of the sampling intake
H ~ effective extent of the plume above ground
In order to obtain an accurate measurement of airborne particulate
exposure, sampling must be conducted isokinetlcally, i.e., flow
A-14
-------
streamlines enter the sampler rectlllnearly. This means that the
sampling intake must be aimed directly into the wind and, to the
extent possible, the sampling velocity must equal the local wind
speed. The first condition is by far the more critical.
4.2 Igokinetic Corrections
If it is necessary to sample at a nonisokinetic flow rate (for example,
to obtain sufficient sample under light wind conditions), the following mul-
tiplicative factors should be used to correct measured exposures and concen-
trations to corresponding isokinetic values:
Fine Particles Coarse Particles
(d < 5.urn) (d > 50 am) '' "'•
Exposure Multiplier U/u 1
Concentration Multiplier 1 u/U
where u = sampling intake velocity at a given, elevation
U = wind velocity at same elevation as u
d =* aerodynamic (equivalent sphere) particle diameter
For a particle-size distribution containing a mixture of fine, intermediate,
and coarse particles, the isokinetic correction factor is an average of the
above factors, weighted by the relative proportion of coarse and fine par-
ticles. For example, if the mass of fine particles in che distribution
equals twice the mass of the coarse particles, the weighted isokinetic cor-
rection for exposure would be
1/3 [2(U/u) + I]
4.3 Particle Size Distribution
As stated above, a cyclone preseparator was used in conjunction with
a high-volume cascade impactor to measure airborne particle size distri-
bution. The purpose of the preseparator was to remove coarse particles
which otherwise would tend to bounce through the impactor to the back-up
filter, thereby causing fine particle measurement bias.
Although the cyclone precollector was designed by the manufacturer
to have a 50% cutoff diameter of 7.6 |im (particle density of 2.5 g/cm3),
laboratory calibration of the cyclone, reported in May 1976, indicated the
effective cutoff diameter to be 3.5 u,m« Because this value overlapped the
cutoff diameter of the first Ijnpaction stage (6.4 p.m), it was decided to
A-15
-------
add the first stage catch to the cyclone catch, in calculating the parti-
cle size distribution.
As indicated by the simultaneous measurement of airborne particle-size
distribution, one impector being used with a precollector and a second
without a precollector, the cyclone precollector is very effective in re-
ducing fine particle measurement bias* However, the following observations
indicate that additional correction for coarse particle bounce is needed:
1. There is a. monotonic decrease in collected particulate weight on
each successive impaction state, followed by a several-fold increase in
weight collected by the back-up filter*
2. Because the assumed value (0.2 urn) for the effective cutoff di-
ameter of the glass fiber back-up filter fits the progression of cutoff
diameters for the impaction stages, the weight collected on the back-up
filter should follow the particulate weight progression on the impactor
stages.
The excess particulate on the back-up filter is postulated to consist
of coarse particles that penetrated the cyclone (with small probability)
and bounced through the impactor*
To correct the measured particle size distribution for the effects
sf rssid'jsl p«rrfele bounce, the following procedure was used:
1. The calibrated cutoff diameter for the cyclone preseparator was
used to fix the upper end of the particle-size distribution.
2* At the lower end of the particle-size distribution, the particu-
late weight on the back-up filter was reduced to fit the particulate weight
distribution of the impactor stages, thereby extending the monotonic de-
crease in particulate weight observed on the impactor stages).
A-16
-------
APPENDIX B
TESTING RESULTS AND EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
1.0 Introduction
This appendix provides a detailed presentation of the test results and
corresponding calculation procedures for each of five categories of
fugitive emissions sources that were tested. The source categories
tested were:
* Load-out of processed slag into 35-ton capacity dump trucks with
a 10 cu yd front end loader.
* Formation of storage piles of pelletized and lump iron ore with
a mobile conveyor stacker.
* Vehicular traffic on unpaved roads surfaced with slag and dirt.
* Vehicular traffic on paved roads.
* Conveyor transfer statlon--slnter material.
Test results are presented below for each of these source categories.
2.0 Slag Load-Out
Table B-l gives information on the time of each slag load-out run and
the prevailing meteorological conditions at the site. Also given for
each run is the quantity of material loaded with the 10 cu yd front
end loader into the 35-ton capacity truck.
Table B-2 lists the individual point values of exposure (net mass per
sampling intake area) within the fugitive dust plume as measured by
the exposure profiling equipment. Also given for each high-volume sam-
pling head is the exposure measurement consisting of partlculate col-
lected by the filter following the settling chamber.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. EMISSIONS TEST PARAMETERS--MATERIAL LOAD-OUT
Slag type
4120
4133
Run
Al
A2
A3
A4 '
A5
A6
Date
4/13/77
4/15/77
4/15/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/16/77
Start
time
1400
1015
1300
1520
0910
1130
Exposure
sampling
duration
(m±n)
30
40
30
30
40
40
Ambient
Wind
temperature direction/
(*F)
.
-
58
62
55
61
speed (raph)
S/8
NW/5
NW/9
NW/6
NW/3
W/7
Cloud
cover
(%)
30
40
0
0
0
0
Material
loaded
(tons)
140
140
140
175
140
175
-------
TABLE B-2. PLUME SAMPLING DATA—MATERIAL LOAO-OUT
Bun
Al
A2
A3
A4
AS
A6
Sampling
height
(m)
3
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.5
6
2.3
4.37
4,37
4.37
4.37
6.25
2.5
4.37
4.37
4.J7
4.37
6.25
2.5
it. 37
4.37
4.37
4.37
6.25
2.5
4.37
4.37
4.37
4.37
2.5
4.37
4,37
4.37
4.37
6.25
Distance
from
cenCarline
(m)
.
2.1 right
0.7 right
0.7 left
2.1 left
•
.
2.4 right
0.7 right
0.7 left
2.4 left
•
.
2.4 right
0.7 rtght
0.7 Uft
2.4 Uft
-
^
2,4 right
0.7 right
0.7 Uft
2.4 Uft
-
_
2.4 right
0.7 right
0.7 left
2.4 laft
_
2.4 right
D.7 right
0.7 left
2.4 left
-
Sampling
r«ce
-------
Table B-3 gives for each run the integrated exposure value corrected
to isoklnetic conditions and compares particulate concentrations
measured by the upwind hl-vol and by three types of downwind samplers
(exposure profiling head, standard hl-vol, and high-volume cascade
impactor) located in close proximity, near the center of the plume.
Concentrations measured by the downwind hi-vol are significantly
lower than values measured by the other two units because of the low
capture efficiency of the hi-vol for particles larger than about
30 un in diameter. ~ ~
Table B-4 summarizes the particle sizing data for the six slag load-out
tests. Particle size is expressed as Stokes (equivalent-sphere) diam-
eter based on actual density of silt-size particles. In addition to
data from the cascade impactor measurements, Table B-4 also gives for
each run the average percent of the exposure measurement consisting of
filter catch weighted by the exposure value measured by each sampling
head.
Table B-5 presents the emission factors corrected to represent
particles smaller than 30 um in diameter. Also indicated in Table
B-5 are material properties end wind conditions which constitute
correction factors to the emission factors.
-The last column is the coefficient 00 in the proposed emission factor
expression:
EF = k S£
M2
where EF = emission factor (Ib/ton)
s = silt content of aggregate (%)
U = mean wind speed (mph)
M = moisture content of aggregate (7.)
The value k represents a measure of the activity or energy expended
during the load-out process.
Table B-6 presents an example emission factor calculation. The cal-
culation is based on data for Run Al.
B-4
-------
TABLE B-3. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS--
MATERIAL LOAD-OUT
Participate concentration (mg/in') at 4.5 m
above ground— '
Downwind, including background
Slag .
type Run
4120 Al
A2
A3
4133 A4
A5
? A6
01
Background
0.5
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.6
2.6
/
Profiler-'
219
167
318
75
48
44
Standard
hi-vol
S3
38
143
45
8
33
Cascade
impactor
205
117
294
71
20
47
Isokinetic
ratio for
profiler
u/U^
1.2
1.3
1.5
0.96
2.0
l.l
Integrated
filter
exposure?!'
(Ib/ton)
0.15
0.062
0.16
0.032
0.013
0.017
a/ Background at 2 m; others at 4.4 to 4.5 m.
b_/ u = Sampling velocity; U = wind speed.
c/ Isokinetic.
-------
TABLE B-4. PARTICLE SIZING DATA SUMMARY—MATERIAL LOAD-OUT
(Density = 3 g/cm3)
Cascade Impact or
Mass
median
diameter
Slag type
4120
4133
Run
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
>
>
>
>
>
•m)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Percent
< 30 urn
8
10
5.5
13
14
13
Percent
< 5 urn
2.5
3
1.5
4
4
3.5
Profiler
Weighted av-
erage % cap-
tured on the
Ratio^'
0.31
0.30
0.27
0.31
0.29
0.27
filter
22
22
15
14
17
20
.a/ Percent < 5 mn 7 percent < 30 urn.
B-6
-------
TABLE B-5. CORRECTED EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY—MATERIAL LOAD-OUT
Slag
type
4120
4133
Run
Al
A2
A3
A4
A5
A£>
Emission
(1 •
0
0
0
0
0
0
factor (E)-/
'ton)
.056
.026
.059
.030
.Oil
.Oil
Material Surface material Wind
transferred Density Silt (s) Moisture (M) Speed (U)
(tons) (g/cm3) (%) (%) (raph)
140
140
140
175
140
175
3 I
3
'7.3
3.0
3.6
0.25 2.2
4.2
2.7
0.30 1.3
3.1
EM2
sU
0.00013
0.00011
0.00012
0.00033
0.00025
O.OOOU
a/ Represents particles smaller than 30 yen In diameter.
-------
TABLE B-6. EXAMPLE CALCUIATION FOR RUN Al — SLAG LOAD-OUT
Result
A. Plot filter exposure versus sampler location.
B. Graphically integrate to determine the area under the
exposure surface.
C. Divide B by the quantity of material loaded to
arrive at the integrated filter exposure.
D. Multiply C by the ratio of the percent <30 urn (87.)
?"5r -h? uMohrpd nveraee oercent suspended (22%)
to obtain the emission factor for particles
smaller than 30 pm.
E. Correct D to isokinetic conditions following the
procedure given in Appendix A. (All coarse
particles; therefore correction factor = 1.)
20.4 Ib
0.15 Ib/ton
0.056 Ib/ton
0.056 Ib/ton
B-8
-------
3.0 Ore Pile Stacking
Table 6-7 gives information on the time of each ore pile stacking
run and the prevailing meteorological conditions at the site. Also
given for each run is the quantity of material loaded onto the 400-ft
long pile by means of the mobile conveyor stacker.
Table B-8 lists the individual point values of exposure (net mass per
sampling Intake area) within the fugitive dust plume as measured by
the exposure profiling equipment. Also given for each high-volume
sampling head is the exposure measurement consisting of particulate
collected by the filter following the settling chamber.
Table B-9 gives for each run the Integrated exposure value corrected
to isoklnetic conditions and compares particulate concentrations
measured by the upwind hi-vol and by two types of downwind samplers
(exposure profiling head and high-volume cascade impactor) located
in close proximity, near the center of the plume.
Table B-10 summarizes the particle sizing data for the six ore pile
stacking tests. Particle size is expressed as Stokes (equivalent-
sphere) diameter based on actual density of silt-size particles. In
addition to data from the cascade impactor measurements, Table B-10
also gives for each run the average percent of the exposed measure-
ment consisting of filter catch weighted by the exposure value mea-
sured by each sampling head.
Table B-ll presents the emission,factors corrected to represent
particles smaller than 30 urn in diameter. Also indicated in Table
8-11 are material properties and wind conditions which constitute
correction factors to the emission factors.
The last column is the coefficient (k) in the proposed emission
factor expression:
EF = k SV
M2
where E = emission factor (Ib/ton)
s * silt content of aggregate (%)
U =» mean wind speed (mph)
M = moisture content of aggregate (7=)
The value k represents a measure of the activity or energy expended
during the load-out process.
B-9
-------
TABLE B-7. EMISSIONS TESTS PARAMETERS --ORE PILE STACKING
CO
o
Pile material Run
Pellets AS
A9
A10
Open hearth Ore All
Desert mount ore Al2
A1J
4
Date
4/20/77
4/20/77
4/20/77
4/21/77
4/21/77
4/21/77
»
Start
time
1125
1330
1505
11J7
1340
1527
Exposure -
sampling
duration
(nin)
30
15
1]
22
25
28
Source
orientation
t-V
E-W
E-H
E-H
E-U
E-H
Ambient Wind
temperature direction/
( F) speed (roph)
NNW/5
HHU/I3
60 HHU/tO
69 SSE/4
S/5
Cloud
cover
(I)
0
0
0
0
30
0
Material
piled
(tons)
500
250
216
293
333
3T3
-------
TABLE B-8. PLUME SAMPLING DATA—ORE PILE STACKING
Run
AS
A9
A10
All
A12
A13
Sampling
height
(m)
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
3
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
3
3
4
Distance
from
centerline
(m)
1.4 right
1.4 left
1.4 left
1.4 right
1.4 right
1.4 left
1.4 left
1.4 right
1.4 right
1.4 left
1.4 left
1.4 right
Sampling
rate
(cfra)
12
0.7
13
0.7
12
16
20
22
0.7
22
0.7
23
21
22
0.7
22
0.7
25
15
0.7
16
0.7
14
19
12
0.7
14
0.7
12
17
12
14
0.7
11
0.7
16
Total
exposure
(mg/cm^ )
113
18.1
21.7
12.6
11
3
51
48
45.0
62
46.8
26
70
61
31.0
58
30.3
8
38.5
15.1
14.7
9.9
11.5
4.0
10.5
8.0
5.50
1.7
3.72
1.78
1.39
1.65
2.09
2.05
3.62
1.59
Filter
exposure
(rag/ era2)
25.5
5.8
2.4
0.8
19.7
14.6
16.7
6.2
20.6
12.6
15.7
8.5
5.4
2.1
1.3
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
B-U
-------
ta
i
TABLE B-9. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CCNCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS--
ORE PILE STACKING
Farticulace concentration (ru/m3) at 2 a above ground
Dovnwlnd, Including background
Pile material
Pellets
Open hearth ore
Desert laound ore
Ron
A6
A9
410 _
All
A12
A13
Background
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Profllsr-'
SB
9)
160
65
23
5.9
Cascade
Impactor^'
44
-
227
33
16
7.4
IsokineClc
ratio for
profiler
u/U
1.1
0.7
0.9
1.6
1.4
l.l
Integrated
filter
enpoanrefe.'
(Ib/ton)
0.0041
0.024
0.0 J8
0.0038
0 00058
0,00031
at At 2.75 a aampllng height.
W lapklitetlc.
-------
TABLE B-10. PARTICLE SIZING DATA SIWMARY--ORE PILE STACKING
(Density * 4.5 to 4.9 g/cm^)
Cascade Impactor
Pile
material
Pellets
Open hearth
ore
Desert mound
ore
Run
AS
A9&'
A10
All
A12
A13
Mass
median
diameter
(Urn)
> 100
» 100
> 100
> 100
> 100
Percent
< 30 jAm
22
10
11
11
25
Percent
< 5 |j.m
8
3
3
3.5
7
Ratio^
0.36
0.33
0.27
0.32
0.28
Profiler
Weighted av-
erage % cap-
tured on the
filter
23
30
34
42
10
17
.a/ Percent < 5 um 4 percent < 30 p,ra.
b/ Sierra not used.
B-13
-------
TABLE B-ll. CORRECTED EMISSIOl* FACTOR SUMMARY --ORE PILE STACKING
Pile
material
Pellets
Open hearth
ore
Desert
mound oca
Emission factor (E)-'
Run (lb/lon)
AS 0.0040
AlO 0.010
All 0.00099
A12 0.00066
A13 0.00046
aj Represents particles smaller than
CD
I
Material Surface material "ind
transferred Density Slit (s) Moisture (M) Speed (U)
(tons) (g/cmj> (1) <*) (mph)
£ » •
.8 0.64 *'*
4.5
293 4.5 2.8 O.5 1.8
J33 , 11
373 *'* 15
30 microns Ir diameter.
.9 , , .1.8
M 4'3 2.2
EM*
sU
0.0001S
0.00019
O.OOW»49
0.00057
0.00021
-------
Table B-12 presents an example emission factor calculation. The
calculation is baaed on data for Run AS.
B-L5
-------
TABLE B-12. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RUN A8—ORE PILE STACKING
Result
2.0 Ib
0.0041 Ib/ton
A. Plot filter exposure versus sampler location.
B. Graphically integrate to determine the area under
the exposure surface.
C. Divide B by the quantity of material piled to arrive
at the integrated filter exposure.
D. Multiply C by the ratio of the percent <30 urn (227.)
over the weighted average percent suspended (23%)
to obtain the emission factor for particles smaller
than 30 urn.
E. Correct D to isokinetic conditions following the
procedure given in Appendix A. (All coarse
particles; therefore correction factor = 1.)
0.004 Ib/ton
0.004 Ib/ton
B-16
-------
4.0 Traffic on Unpaved Roada
Table B-L3 gives information on the time of each unpaved road run and
the prevailing meteorological conditions at the site. Also given for
each run is the number of vehicle passes by vehicle type.
Table B-14 lists the individual point values of exposure (net mass per
sampling intake area) within the fugitive dust plume as measured by
the exposure profiling equipment. Also given for each high-volume
sampling head is the exposure measurement consisting of particulate
collected by the filter following the settling chamber.
Table B-15 gives for each run the integrated exposure value and
compares particulate concentrations measured by the upwind hi-vol
and by three types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head,
standard hi-vol, and high-volume cascade impactor) located in
close proximity, near the center of the plume. Concentrations
measured by the profiler are significantly lower than values mea-
sured by the other two units because the profiler sampled at 3 m
above ground rather than 2 m.
Table B-16 summarizes the particle sizing data for the six unpaved road
tests. Particle size is expressed as Stokes (equivalent-sphere) diam-
eter based on actual density of silt-size particles. In addition to
data from the cascade impactor measurements, Table B-16 also gives for
each run the average percent of the exposure measurement consisting of
filter catch weighted by the exposure value measured by each sampling
head.
Table B-17 presents the emission factors corrected to represent
particles smaller than 30 urn in diameter. Also indicated in Table B-17
are material properties and wind conditions which constitute correction
factors to the emission factors.
Table B-18 presents an example emission factor calculation. The calcu-
lation is based on data for Run A14.
B-17
-------
TABLE B-13. EMISSIONS T3ST PARAMETERS— UNPAVED ROADS
I
»-•
00
Surface material
Fine Slag
Hard-Base Dirt
Segment 1
SegBent 2
Run
A7
A14
A15
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Date
4/19/77
4/22/77
4/22/77
6/15/77
6/15/77
6/15/77
6/17/77
6/17/77
6/17/77
Start
time
lilt)
1105
1420
1035
1125
1500
094B
1035
1120
Exposure
sampling
durat ion
Cmln)
30
17
17
30
55
ia
12
13
16
Source
orientation
E-U
N-S
N-S
B-S
N-S
N-S
Nrf-SE
Nrf-SE
NJ-SE
Ambient
Wind
temperature direction/
CJ-)
-
66
B2
74
76^
79
78
80
925/
speed (mph)
NNU/17
W/8
H/8
NE/4
HE/S
ENE/9
SW/7
USW/7
HSV/9
Cloud
cover
(t)
0
30
60
yflf
50
sofi/
Haty
.
-
No. of
vehicle
passes
50 Light Duty
15 70- Ton Loaded
15 70-Ton Loaded
16 Mixed-'
16 Hlxed-/
17 Mined-'
30 Light Duty
30 Light Duty
30 Light Duty
a/ Attuned value.
£/ 1 « Light duty; 6 - oedlua duty; 9 - heavy duty.
cj 6 • Light duty, 5 * medium duty, 6 * heavy duty.
-------
TABLE B-14.
PLIMK SAMPLING DATA —
UNPAVED ROADS
A7
A 14
A15
ei
E2
E3
E4
E5
£6
Sampling
height
(a)
1
2
3
4
1.5
3
4.5
6
1.5
3.0
4,5
6.0
1.5
3 0
4.5
6.0
i :
3.0
4.5
6.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
J
3
4
Samp ling
r«c«
(efnO
31
33
29
35
13
16
14
16
14
17
15
16
11.2
12 7
14 2
14.9
14.9
16.5
18. 6
19.6
14 0
17.2
19 2
20 2
10.7
12.7
14.2
14 9
18.2
21.2
22.5
24 0
14.9
17.2
18.7
20.2
Total
exposure
Imticm^
5 34
2.90
1.54
0 28
17.9
6 33
5.11
1.39
12.5
6.78
5.91
2.97
4.53
3.S7
2.33
1.24
4.4.3
3.16
2.92
1.79
5 76
3,07
1 70
0.95
4.24
2.94
1.80
0.86
5.70
3.42
1.82
0,69
8.15
2.25
2.47
0 76
Filter
expo aura
(ma/ era2)
5 46
3 15
1.47
0.32
4.33
1 89
1 33
0.42
3.24
2.16
1.65
0.89-
2.5
1.9
1 4
0 7
2 5
I 7
i. a
1.0
3.0
1.3
0.9
0 3
2 1
i. a
1 I
0,5
3.3
2 3
1.2
0,5
4. a
1.3
1,7
0.8
B-19
-------
TABLE B-15. SUSPENDED PARTICU1ATE CONCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE KEASUREMENTS--UNPAVED ROADS
0
i
Par ticu late concentration (v
iR/m3) at 2m above ground Isokinetic
Downwind, including background
Surface
material
Fine
Slag
Dirt
Dirt
Run
A7
A 14
A15
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Background
284
134
134
156
156
156
937
937
937
Profiler^/
2610
5660S/
6190S/
10500S/
4230i/
7890-/
17500
13200
7790
Standard
Hi-Vol
2910
14960
8370
3720
15200
..
13800
1430G
Cascade
Icnpactor
6440
15600
16600
9970
5710
17600
19700
13600
15600
ratio for
profiler
u/U
0.8
0.8
0,8
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.8
Integrated
filter
exposure
(Ib/vehicle mile)
5.6
16
16
18
19
L6
7.7
11
14.2
a/ 3m Sampling height.
b/ Isokinetic.
-------
TABLE B-I6. PARTICLE SIZING DATA SUMMARY—UNPAVED ROADS (Density ° 3 g/cm3)
u
N)
Surface
material
Fine Slag
Dirt
Dirt
Run
A7
A 14
A15
El
E2
E3
E4
E5
E6
Cascade
Mass
median
diameter
(um)
35
18
15
18
27
25
9
9
10
Impactor
Profiler
Weighted av-
erage °L cap-
Percent
<30 pm
46
60
65
61
53
54
79
75
72
Percent
<5 pm
12
26
28
24
18
20
34
35
34
tured on the
Ratio!/
0.26
0.43
0.43
0.39
0.34
0.37
0.43
0.47
0.47
filter
56
42
42
56
58
50
57
63
62
a/ Percent <5 pm -j- percent <30 pm.
-------
TABLE B-17. CORRECTED EMISSION FACTOR SIMMARY—UN PAVED ROADS
a
i
10
ro
Surface Material Vehicle Vehicle
Surface
Material Run
Slag A7
A15
Dirt El
E2
E3
Dirt E4
E5
£6
Emission Factor (E)-' Vehicle Penalty
(Ib/vehlcle Hlle) Pai sea (R/CB*)
4.9 50 Lifht Duty-
27 15 70-Ton^' l£/
29 li 70-Tont/
17 \ffJ
16 \(£-! J.I
19 1 J—t
13 30 Llgit Dutyl/
11 30 UgJit Duty-' 1.1
19 30 Light Duty£'
Silt (B) Speed (S) Weight
(1) (mph) (tons)
30 3i'
4.8 30 70-'
30 70^
14&/ Wb/
8.7 168/ 34!l/
16&/ Zlil/
20 I?./
4.1 20 3-'
20 3^
a/ Includes pickup and automobile passes.
W 35-Ton vehicle with 35-ton Blag load.
c/ Vehicle otx
d/ Vehicle mix
e_/ Automobile
: 1 - light duty
6 - Medium duty
9 - heavy duty
: 6 - light duty
S - medium duty
6 - heavy duty
pasBes only.
£/ Assumed density (Ref. CBC Handbook).
jj/ Average vehicle mix speed.
h/ Average weight of vehicles passing soapier location.
I/ Represents
particles smaller than 30 olcrors In diameter.
-------
TABLE B-I8. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RUN A14--UNPAVED AND PAVED ROADS
Result
A. Plot filter exposure versus sampler height.
B. Graphically Integrate to determine the area under
the vertical exposure profile.
C. Divide B by the number of vehicle passes to
arrive at the Integrated filter exposure.
D. Multiply C by the ratio of the percent <30 urn
(60%) over the weighted average percent
suspended (427.) to obtain the emission factor
for particles smaller than 30 urn.
E. Correct D to isokinetic conditions following the
procedure given in Appendix A.
240 Ib/mile
16 Ib/vehicle mile
23 Ib/vehicle mile
27 Ib/vehicle mile
B-23
-------
5.0 Traffic on Paved Roads
Table B-19 gives information on Che time of each paved road run and
the prevailing meteorological conditions at the site. Also given for
each run is the number of vehicle passes.
Table B-20 lists the individual point values of exposure (net mass per
sampling intake area) within the fugitive dust plume as measured by
the exposure profiling equipment. Also given for each high-volume
sampling head is the exposure measurement consisting of particulate
collected by the filter following the settling chamber.
Table B-21 gives for each run the integrated exposure value and
compares particulate concentrations measured by the upwind hl-vol
and by three types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head,
standard hl-vol, and high volume cascade impactor) located in
close proximity, near the center of the plume.
Table B-22 summarizes the particle sizing data for the six paved road
tests. Particle size is expressed as Stokes (equivalent-sphere) diam-
eter based on actual density of silt-size particles. In addition to
data from the cascade impactor measurements, Table 8-22 also gives for
each run the average percent of the exposure measurement consisting of
filter catch weighted by the exposure value measured by each sampling
head.
Table B-23 presents the emission factors corrected to represent particles
smaller than 30 um in diameter. Also Indicated in Table B-23 are
material properties and wind conditions which constitute correction
factors to the emission factors.
Table B-18 in the previous section presents an example emission factor
calculation. The calculation is based on data for Run A14.
B-24
-------
TABLE B-19. EMISSIONS TEST PARAMETERS--PAVED ROAD
Run Date
E7 6/17/77
E8 6/20/77
E9 6/20/77
Start
time
1510
1010
1332
Exposure
sampling
duration Source
(rain) orientation
60 N-S
60 -N-S
60 N-S
Ambient Wind Cloud
temperature direction/ cover
(°F) speed (mph) (%)
87 Variable/4 50
SW/3 25
Variable/light 25
Vehicle
passes
126
104
-
0)
i
K>
\Ji
-------
TABLE B-20. PLUME SAMPLING DATA—PAVED ROADS
Sampling Sampling Total Filter
height rate exposure exposure
Run (m) (cfm) (mg/on2) (mg/em2)
E7 1 11.2 .33 .22
2 12.7 .28 .15
3 14.2 .45 .24
4 14.9 .38 .20
E8 1 11.8 .67 .30
2 12.7 .59 ,28
3 14.9 .63 .41
4 15.2 .76 .37
B-26
-------
V
TABLE B-21. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS— PAVED ROAD
Particulate concentration ftie/nr*)
Run
E7
E8
E9
Background
239
264
264
Downwind ,
Profiler
591S/
1230^
354
including
Standard
hi-vol
670
923
258
background
Cascade
Impact or
660
850
565
Isokinetic
ratio for
profiler
u/U
1.4
1.8
~
Integrated
filter
exposure
(Ib/veh. mile)
0.42
1.1
-
w .
fc £/ Isokinetic.
•vl
b/ Light wind.
-------
TABLE B-22. PARTICLE SIZING DATA SUMMARY—PAVED ROAD
(Density = 3 g/em3)
Cascade Impactor
Run
E7
ES
E9
Mass
median
diameter
(M-m)
5
9
7
Percent
< 30 Urn
91
75
85
Percent
< 5 M-m
50
37
41
Profiler
Weighted av-
erage 7. cap-
tured on the
Ratic4' filter
0.55 36
0.49 52
0.48 43
Percent < 5 pm ± percent < 30 Urn.
B-28
-------
TABLE B-23. CORRECTED EHISSIGN FACTOR SO4MARY--PAVED ROAD
td
ro
Run
E7
EB
£9
Emission factor CE) Vehicle
(Ib/vehicle mile)- passes
Surface material
Density Silt (s) Speed (S)
(g/cm3) <*> <"¥»»>
0.80
1.1
a/
126
104
3.0
5.1
12
12
Loaded
vehicle
weight
(tons)
a/ Light and variable winds.
b/ Represents particles smaller than 30 microns In diameter.
-------
6.0 Conveyor Transfer Station
Table B-24 gives information on the time of each conveyor transfer
run and the prevailing meteorological conditions at the site. Also
given for each run is the quantity of sinter material transfered.
Table B-25 lists the individual point values of exposure (net mass per
sampling intake area) within the fugitive dust plume as measured by
the exposure profiling equipment.-- —
Table B-26 gives for each run the integrated exposure value and compares
particulate concentrations measured by the upwind hi-vol and by two
types of downwind samplers (exposure profiling head and high-volume cas-
cade irapactor) located in close proximity, near the center of the plume*
Table B-27 summarizes the particle sizing data for the six conveyor
transfer tests. Particle size is expressed as Stokes (equivalent-
sphere) diameter based on actual density of silt-size particles. In
addition to data from the cascade impactor measurements, Table 6-27
also gives for each run the average percent of the exposure measure-
ment consisting of filter catch weighted by the exposure value mea-
sured by each sampling head.
Table B-28 presents the emission factors corrected to represent
particles smaller than 30 um in dI«nM»ri»i«. Ai?
-------
CO
I
u>
TABLE B-24. EMISSIONS TEST PARAMETERS—CONVEYOR TRANSFER
Run
Date
Start
t ime (_•
Exposure
sampling
duration
(mln)
Source
orientation
Wind
direction/
speed
Cloud
cover
Material
transferred
(tons)
E10 6/21/71 0910
Ell 6/21/77 1114
E12 6/21/77 1220
15
15
15
Variable/calm 25
E-W to N-S Variable/calm 25
Variable/calm 25
52
52
52
-------
TABLE B-25. PLUME SAMPLING DATA—CONVEYOR TRANSFER
Sampling Sampling Total
Probe height rate exposure
Run unit no. (ra) (cfm) (tng/cm^)
£10 5 2.2 .65 16.8
4 1.6 .65 17.2
1 1.6 .65 39.5
2 1.6 .65 51.0
3 1.1 .65 32.2
Ell 2 2.2 .65 45.6
3 1.6 .65 26.8
5 1.6 .65 31.2
1 1.6 .65 57.1
4 1.1 .65 30.4
El 2 4 2.2 .65 16.1
3 1.6 ' .65 31.2
5 1.6 .65 20.3
1 1.6 .65 14.6
2 1.1 .65 18.6
B-32
-------
TABLE B-26. SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATION AND EXPOSURE MEASUREMENTS--
CONVEYOR TRANSFER
Run
E10
Ell
E12
Parttculate concentration (me/ra^)
Downwind, including background
Cascade
Background Profiler irapactor
3.30 102 481
1.23 81 39
1.23 52 25
Integrated
filter
exposure
(Ib/ton)
0.043
0.084
0.038
i
1
1
-------
TABLE B-27. PARTICLE SIZING DATA SUMMARY—CONVEYOR TRANSFER
(Density =3.8 g/cm3)
Sierra ,
Run
E10
Ell
E12
Mass
median
diameter
(Urn)
19
31
21
Percent
< 30 urn
61
49
57
Percent
< 5 ^m
20
19
23
RatioS/
0.33
0.39
0.40
Profiler
Weighted av-
erage 7. cap-
tured on the
filter
72
65
59
j/ Percent < 5 ^m ,f percent <30
B-34
-------
as
i
u>
in
TABLE B-28. CORRECTED EMISSION FACTOR SUMMARY—CONVEYOR TRANSFER
Run
ElO
Ell
E12
Emission factor (e)
(Ib/ton)
0.036
0.064
0.037
Material Material characteristics
transferred Density Silt (s)
(tons) (g/cra3) (%)
52
52
52
3.79
0.7
Wind
Speed (U)
(mph)
Calm
Calm
Calm
-------
TABLE B-29. EXAMPLE CALCUIATION FOR RUN E10--CONVEYOR TRANSFER
Result
A. Plot filter exposure versus sampler location.
8. Graphically integrate to determine the area under
the exposure surface.
C. Divide B by tne quantity ot material transferred to
arrive at the integrated filter exposure.
D. Multiply C by the ratio of the percent <30 um (61%)
over the weighted average percent suspended (727.)
to obtain the emission factor for particles
smaller than 30 um.
3.1 Ib
0.043 Ib/ton
0.036 Ib/ton
B-36
-------
APPENDIX C
STABILIZATION CHEMICALS FOR OPEN DUST SOURCES
The following table lists various dust suppression chemicals and their
resultant control efficiencies* These chemicals were placed on mock
coal storage piles placed in a wind tunnel simulating an average wind
velocity of 10 to 11 mph. The two dust suppression chemical applica-
tion schemes deemed most economical and efficient were Nos» 21 and 22
in the following table JJ
C-l
-------
Dust Suppression Chemical
{water plus as listed; )__ Control Efficiency
1. Dustrol "A" 1:5000 -7.8
2. T-Dec 1:4 76
3. CaO 17. 2.8
4. CaCl2 27. 33.8
5. Cements 57. ' 26.8
6. Goherax 1:15 22.5
7. Goherex 1:8 15.5
"l
8. Cohere* 1:4 97.2
9. Dowel 1 Chemical Binder 17. 70.4
10. Dowell Chemical Binder 27. 97.2
11. Dowell Chemical Binder 37. 97.2
12. 17. CaCl2, in 1:5000 Dustrol "A" 15.5
13. 17. CaO in 1:8 Coherex 31
14. 17. CaO in 27, Dowell Chemical 95.1
15. 17, CaO in 3% Dowell Chemical 81.7
Binder
16. Dried Whole Blood 5% 27.1
17. Dried Pork Plasma 57. 79
18. Dried Pork Plasma 37. 96
19. 17. CaCl2 in 37. Pork Plasma * 52
20. Dri-Pro 57. 7
21. U CaO, 1:3000 T-Det in 27. 98.6
Dowell Chemical Binder
22. 1% CaO, 17. CaCl2, 1:4000 98.6
Dustrol "A" + 27. Dowell
Chemical Binder
C-2
-------
REFERENCE
1. Boscak, V., and J. S. Tandon. Development of Chemicals for Suppression
of Coal Dust Dispersion from Storage Piles. Paper Presented at the 4th
Annual Environmental Engineering and Science Conference, Louisville,
Kentucky, March 4 and 5, 1974.
C-3
-------
|