United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Air Quality
Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-01-005
January 2001
FINAL REPORT
Air
National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Integrated Iron
and Steel Plants - Background Information
for Proposed Standards
Final Report
-------
EPA-453/R-01-005
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for
Integrated Iron and Steel Plants - Background Information for Proposed
Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Metals Group, MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared Under Contract By:
Research Triangle Institute
Center for Environmental Analysis
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
January 2001
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and approved for publication. Mention of
trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Copies of this report are available through the Library Services (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, or from the National Technical Information Services 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Statutory Basis 1-1
1.2 Selection of Source Category 1-2
2.0 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 2-1
2.1 Background 2-1
2.2 Geographic Distribution 2-3
2.3 Size Distribution 2-3
2.4 Product Characterization 2-3
2.5 References 2-5
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE EMISSIONS 3-1
3.1 Sinter Plants 3-1
3.1.1 Emission Points 3-3
3.1.2 Factors Affecting Emissions 3-3
3.1.3 Estimates of Baseline Emissions 3-5
3.1.3.1 HAP Metal Emissions from the Windbox 3-5
3.1.3.2 PAH Emissions from the Windbox 3-7
3.1.3.3 Volatile Organic HAP Emissions from the Windbox 3-9
3.1.3.4 Emissions of D/F from the Windbox 3-9
3.1.3.5 Emissions from the Discharge End 3-9
3.1.3.6 Emissions from the Cooler 3-10
3.1.4 Uncertainties in the Emission Estimates 3-11
3.2 Blast Furnaces 3-12
3.2.1 BlastFurnaceAuxiliaries 3-14
3.2.1.1 Stoves 3-14
3.2.1.2 BlastFurnace Gas Cleaning 3-15
3.2.1.3 Pulverized Coal Injection 3-15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.2.2 Emission Points and Factors Affecting Emissions 3-16
3.2.3 Estimates of Baseline Emissions 3-19
3.2.3.1 Casthouse PM Emissions 3-19
3.2.3.2 Miscellaneous Emission Points 3-19
3.2.3.3 Estimates of MnEmissions 3-26
3.2.3.4 Estimates of HCNEmissions 3-26
3.2.4 Uncertainties in the Emission Estimates 3-27
3.3 Basic Oxygen Process Furnace 3-33
3.3.1 Reladling, Desulfurization, and Slag Skimming 3-33
3.3.2 BOPF Shop 3-37
3.3.2.1 Bottom Blown Furnace 3-39
3.3.2.2 Combination Blowing 3-39
3.3.3 Ladle Metallurgy 3-40
3.3.4 Emission Points and Factors Affecting Emissions 3-40
3.3.5 Estimates of Baseline Emissions 3-43
3.3.5.1 BOPF Charging, Oxygen Blow, and Tapping PM Emissions 3-43
3.3.5.2 Miscellaneous Emission Points 3-43
3.3.5.3 Estimates of Mn Emissions 3-44
3.4 References 3-51
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT 4-1
4.1 SinterPlant 4-1
4.1.1 Windbox 4-1
4.1.1.1 Baghouses 4-3
4.1.1.2 Scrubbers 4-5
4.1.2 DischargeEnd 4-7
4.1.3 Materials Handling 4-7
4.1.4 Capture and Control System Performance 4-8
4.1.5 Pollution Prevention 4-8
4.2 Blastfurnace 4-9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.2.1 Casthouse 4-9
4.2.2 Gas Cleaning 4-14
4.2.3 Wastewater 4-14
4.2.4 Capture and Control System Performance 4-16
4.3 BOPF Shop 4-16
4.3.1 Primary Furnace Controls 4-16
4.3.1.1 Open Hood Designs 4-17
4.3.1.2 Closed Hood Designs 4-21
4.3.2 Secondary Sources of Emissions 4-24
4.3.2.1 Furnace Controls 4-24
4.3.2.2 Ancillary Operations 4-27
4.3.3 Ladle Metallurgy Operations 4-28
4.4 References 4-36
5.0 EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS 5-1
5.1 SinterPlant 5-1
5.1.1 Windbox 5-1
5.1.2 DischargeEnd 5-1
5.1.3 SinterCooler 5-2
5.2 Blast Furnace 5-5
5.3 BOPF Shop 5-8
5.3.1 Primary Control Devices 5-8
5.3.2 BOPF Secondary Controls 5-8
5.3.3 Hot Metal Transfer, Desulfurization, Slag Skimming, and Ladle Metallurgy 5-11
5.3.4 BOPF Shop Roof Monitor 5-12
6.0 CONTROL COSTS 6-1
6.1 Approach 6-1
6.2 BOPF Primary Control Systems 6-1
6.3 Secondary Capture and Control Systems 6-2
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
6.4 Bag Leak Detection Systems 6-4
6.5 Total Nationwide Costs 6-4
6.6 References 6-5
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7-1
7.1 Emission Reductions 7-1
7.2 Secondary Impacts 7-2
7.3 References 7-3
APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF SINTER PLANT TESTING A-l
APPENDIX B - DOCUMENTATION FOR THE MACT FLOOR B-l
IV
-------
FIGURES
2-1 Locations of Integrated Iron and Steel Plants 2-4
3-1 Schematic of Sinter Plant Emission Points and Typical Controls 3-4
3-2 Schematic of Blast Furnace Emission Points and Typical Controls 3-17
3-3 Schematic of BOPF Shop Emission Points and Typical Controls 3-41
v
-------
TABLES
2-1 Integrated Iron and Steel Plants 2-2
3-1 Estimates of PM Emissions From Sinter Plants 3-6
3-2 Estimates of HAP Emissions From Sinter Plants 3-8
3-3 Casthouse PM Emission Estimates Submitted by the Companies 3-20
3 -4 Raw Material Handling, Slag Handling, and Furnace Slip PM Emission Estimates Submitted by the
Companies 3-21
3-5 Blast Furnace Stove PM Emission Estimates Submitted by the Companies 3-23
3-6 Estimates of PM Emissions From Blast Furnace Operations 3-24
3-7 Mn Data Provided By the Companies 3-28
3-8 Estimates of Mn Emissions From Blast Furnace Operations 3-29
3-9 Estimates of HCN Emissions From Blast Furnace Wastewater Treatment 3-31
3-10 BOPF Shop Emission Control Systems-Closed Hood BOPF Shops 3-34
3-11 BOPF Shop Emission Control Systems-Open Hood BOPF Shops 3-35
3-12 Summary of Controls for Ancillary Processes 3-36
3-13 PM Emissions From the BOPF Shop Reported by the Companies 3-45
3-14 Emission Factors Used for the BOPF Shop 3-46
3-15 Estimates of PM Emissions From the BOPF Shop 3-47
3-16 Estimates of Mn Emissions From the BOPF Shop 3-49
4-1 Emissions Controls for Sinter Plant Windboxes 4-2
4-2 Sinter Discharge and Cooler Control Technologies 4-7
4-3 Casthouse Capture and Control Systems 4-10
vi
-------
TABLES (continued)
4-4 Emissions Controls for Blast Furnace Casthouses 4-12
4-5 Gas Cleaning Systems for Each Furnace 4-15
4-6 Open Hood BOPF Shop Primary Control System 4-19
4-7 Operating Parameters of Closed Hood BOPF Systems - Venturi Scrubbers 4-23
4-8 Secondary Emission Control Systems in the BOPF Shop 4-29
4-9 Secondary Control Device Parameters 4-30
4-10 Ladle Metallurgy Station Control Device Parameters 4-33
5-1 Sinter Plants in the US 5-1
5-2 Controls and Emission Limits for the Discharge End 5-3
5-3 Discharge End Fugitive Emissions: Opacity Limitations 5-4
5-4 Sinter Cooler Descriptions and Limits 5-4
5-5 Casthouse Emission Controls and Opacity Limits 5-6
5-6 Emission Limits for Casthouse Control Devices 5-7
5-7 Emission Limits for Primary Control-Open Hood 5-9
5-8 Emission Limits for Primary Control-Closed Hood 5-10
5-9 Emission Limits for Secondary Control Devices at Closed Hood BOPF Shops 5-10
5-10 State Emission Limits for Secondary Control Devices at Open Hood BOPF Shops 5-11
5-11 State Limits for Transfer, Desulfurization, and Slag Skimming - All Baghouses 5-13
5-12 State Limits for Ladle Metallurgy Process 5-14
5-13 Summary of BOPF Roof Monitor Opacity Limits 5-15
vii
-------
6-1 Baghouse Costs 6-3
TABLES (continued)
6-2 Nationwide Cost Estimates 6-5
7-1 Estimates of Emission Reductions 7-2
vui
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
acfm Actual cubic feet per minute
BOPF Basic oxygen process furnace
CAA CleanAir Act
cfm Cubic feet per minute
CO Carbon monoxide
D/F Dioxin and furan
dscfm Dry standard cubic feet per minute
EAF Electric arc fumace(s)
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
g/scm Gram(s) per standard cubic meter
gr/dscf Grain(s) per dry standard cubic foot
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
HCN Hydrogen cyanide
Ib/hr Pound per hour
Ib/ton Pound per ton
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
Mn Managanese
NESHAP National emission standard for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS New source performance standard
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon(s)
Pb Lead
PM Particulate matter
Q-BOP Quelle basic oxygen process
scfm Standard cubic feet per minute
tpd Tons per day
tpy Tons per year
VOC Volatile organic compound(s)
IX
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document summarizes the basic background information used in the development of MACT
standards for the integrated iron and steel manufacturing source category. All references cited in this document
are available in Docket No. A-2000-44. In addition, this document is supplemented by technical memoranda
to the docket to document those steps in the standards development process not covered within this
compilation of background information.
The balance of this chapter summarizes the statutory basis for MACT standards and the selection of the
source category. Chapter 2 provides an overview of the industry. Chapter 3 discusses the processes in detail
and provides estimates of baseline emissions for each process. Emission control technologies and their
performance are summarized in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 presents the determination of the MACT floor. Model
plants are developed in Chapter 6 (for use in estimating potential impacts), and options for emission control and
monitoring are discussed. Environmental and energy impacts are estimated for the model plants and for all
plants nationwide in Chapter 7. The estimated costs for emission control and monitoring are given in Chapter
8. Appendix A summarizes the emissions data and Appendix B documents the information used to develop the
MACT floor.
1.1 STATUTORY BASIS
Section 112 of the CAA requires the development of NESHAP for the control of HAP from both new
and existing major or area sources. The statute requires the standard to reflect the maximum degree of
reduction in emissions of HAP that is achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the emission
reduction, any nonair quality health and environmental reduction, and energy requirements. This level of control
is commonly referred to as MACT.
Emission reductions may be accomplished through application of measures, processes, methods, systems
or techniques including, but not limited to: (1) reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of, such
pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications, (2) enclosing systems or
processes to eliminate emissions, (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when released from a
process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point, (4) design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standards (including requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in subsection (h), or (5) a
combination of the above [section 112(d)(2)].
1-1
-------
1.2 SELECTION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
Section 112 specifically directs the EPA to develop a list of all categories of all major and area sources as
appropriate emitting one or more of the HAP listed in section 112(b). The EPA published an initial list of
source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576) and may amend the list at any time. A schedule for
promulgation of standards for each source category was published on December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63941).
Integrated iron and steel manufacturing is one of the 174 categories of sources listed. As defined in the
EPA report, "Documentation for Developing the Initial Source Category List" (EPA-450/3-91-030), the
category consists of plants engaged in producing steel. The source category includes, but is not limited to, the
following process units: (1) sinter production, (2) iron production, (3) iron preparation (hot metal
desulfurization), (4) steel production, (5) semi-finished product preparation, (6) finished product preparation,
and (7) handling and treatment of raw, intermediate, and waste materials. The iron production process includes
the production of iron in blast furnaces by the reduction of iron-bearing materials with a hot gas. The steel
production process includes BOPF.
The listing was based on the Administrator's determination that integrated iron and steel plants may
reasonably be anticipated to emit several of the listed HAP in sufficient quantity to be designated as major
sources. The EPA schedule for promulgation of the section 112 emission standards requires MACT rules for
the integrated iron and steel source category to be promulgated by November 15, 2000. If MACT standards
for this source category are not promulgated by May 15, 2002 (18 months following the promulgation
deadline), section 112(j) requires States or local agencies with approved permit programs to issue permits or
revise existing permits containing either an equivalent emission limitation or an alternative emission limitation for
HAP control.
1-2
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW
The steel industry is composed of two distinct types of facilities: integrated plants and non-integrated
plants ("minimills"). A fully integrated facility produces steel from raw materials of coal, iron ore, and scrap.
Non-integrated plants do not have all of the equipment to produce steel from coal, iron ore, and scrap on-site.
Instead, they purchase their raw materials in a processed form (primarily scrap). This rulemaking includes
only the integrated iron and steel industry, which has sinter plants, blast furnaces, and BOPF (see Table 2-1).
2.1 BACKGROUND1
In the past 15 years, the U.S. steel industry has lost over 61 percent of its employees and 58 percent of
its facilities. Slow growth in demand for steel, markets lost to other materials, increased imports, and older, less
efficient production facilities are largely responsible for the industry's decline. While the integrated steel industry
was contracting, minimills more than doubled their capacity in the same period and they continue to expand into
new markets. Minimills use EAF to melt scrap and other materials to make steel products. In addition to
fundamentally different production technologies, other differences between the integrated steel mills and minimill
are also significant. Minimills have narrow product lines and often have small, non-unionized work forces that
may receive higher hourly wages than a comparable unionized work force, but without union benefits.
Additionally, minimills typically produce much less product per facility (less than 1 million tons of steel per year).
Lower scrap prices in the 1960s and 1970s created opportunities for the minimill segment of the market to
grow rapidly.
Initially, the EAF technology could only be used in the production of low quality long products, such as
concrete reinforcing bar. However, minimill products have improved in quality over the years and overcome
technological limitations to diversify their product lines. Recently, minimills have entered new markets, such as
flat-rolled products; however, more than half of the market for quality steel products still remains beyond
minimill capability and is supplied by integrated producers.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Company
Acme Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva Steel
Gulf States Steel
Inland Steel
LTV Steel
LTV Steel
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
USX
USX
USX
USS/Kobe Steel
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel
City & State
Riverdale, IL
Ashland, KY
Middletown, OH
Burns Harbor, IN
Sparrows Ft, MD
Orem, UT
Gadsden, AL
East Chicago, IN
Cleveland, OH
East Chicago, IN
Granite City, IL
Ecorse, MI
Dearborn, MI
Braddock, PA
Fairfield, AL
Gary, IN
Lorain, OH
Warren, OH
Youngstown, OH
Weirton, WV
Mingo Junction, OH
Follansbee, WV
Totals
BOPF Shops
Vessels
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
6
2
2
2
2
50
Shops
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
23
Blast
Furnaces
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
1
4
2
1
2
2
39
Sinter
Plants
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
2-2
-------
2.2 GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION1
Figure 2-1 shows the locations of integrated plants that produce iron and steel. The highest geographic
concentration of mills is in the Great Lakes region, where most integrated plants are based. According to the
Census of Manufactures, 46 percent of steel mills are located in six Great Lakes States: New York,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, with a heavy concentration of steel manufacturing in the
Chicago area. Approximately 80 percent of the U.S. steelmaking capacity is in these States. The South is the
next largest steel-producing region, although there are only two integrated steel plants. Steel production in the
western U.S. is limited to one integrated plant and several minimills.
Historically, the mill sites were selected for their proximity to water (tremendous amounts are used for
cooling and processing, and for transportation) and the sources of their raw materials, iron ore and coal.
Traditional steelmaking regions included the Monongahela River valley near Pittsburgh and along the Mahoning
River near Youngstown, Ohio.
2.3 SIZE DISTRIBUTION1
Large, fully-integrated steel mills have declined considerably in the last 15 years, largely due to loss of
market share to other materials, competition, and the high cost of pension liabilities. In comparing the 1992
Census of Manufacture data with the data from 1977, these changes are clear. While the number of
establishments under SIC 3312 fell by 58 percent from 504 facilities in 1977 to 247 in 1992, the absolute
number of integrated mills has always been small, and the reduction is largely due to a drop in the number of
small establishments. A more relevant statistic is the reduction in employees during the same time period. The
work force for these facilities was dramatically reduced as plants closed or were reorganized by bankruptcy
courts. Those that remained open automated and streamlined operations resulting in a 61 percent reduction in
the number of production employees over the same 15 year period. Approximately 172,000 were still
employed in SIC 3312 establishments in 1992.
2.4 PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATION1
The iron and steel industry produces iron and steel mill products, such as bars, strips, and sheets, as
well as formed products such as steel nails, spikes, wire, rods, pipes, and non-steel electrometallurgical
products such as ferroalloys. Under SIC 3312, Blast Furnaces and Steel
2-3
-------
FIGURE 2-1. LOCATIONS OF INTEGRATED IRON AND STEEL PLANTS
2-4
-------
Mills, products also include coke and products derived from chemical recovery in the coking process, such as
coal tar and distillates.
Historically, the automotive and construction sectors have been the two largest steel consuming
industries. Consequently, fluctuations in sales and choice of materials in these industries have a significant
impact on the iron and steel industry. Over the last two decades, the structure of the steelmaking industry has
changed dramatically due to new technologies, foreign competition, and loss of market share to other materials.
Many of the large, fully-integrated facilities have closed, and those that are still operating have reduced their
workforce, increased automation, and invested in new technologies to remain competitive.
2.5 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Profile of the Iron and Steel Industry. EPA Office of
Compliance Sector Notebook Project. EPA/310-R-95-005. September 1995.
2-5
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND BASELINE EMISSIONS
This chapter provides a brief description of the sintering, ironmaking, and steelmaking processes used
at integrated iron and steel plants. Detailed descriptions of these processes are available in "The Making,
Shaping, and Treating of Steel1." Emission points, factors affecting emissions, HAP, and the baseline level of
emissions are also presented. Emission estimates are based on data submitted by individual companies, tests of
sinter plants conducted by EPA, and AP-42 emission factors.
3.1 SINTER PLANTS
Sintering is a process that recovers the raw material value of many waste materials generated at iron
and steel plants that would otherwise be landfilled or stockpiled. An important function of the sinter plant is to
return waste iron-bearing materials to the blast furnace to produce iron. Another function is to provide part or
all of the flux material (e.g., limestone, dolomite) for the ironmaking process.1' 2
Feed material to the sintering process includes ore fines, reverts (including blast furnace dust, mill scale,
and other byproducts of steelmaking), recycled hot and cold fines from the sintering process, and trim materials
(calcite fines, and other supplemental materials needed to produce a sinter product with prescribed chemistry
and tonnage).
The materials are proportioned and mixed to prepare a chemically uniform feed to the sinter strand, so
that the sinter will have qualities desired for satisfactory operation of the blast furnace. The chemical quality of
the sinter is often assessed in terms of its basicity, which is the percent total basic oxides divided by the percent
total acid oxides ((CaO+MgO)/(SiO2+Al2O3)); sinter basicity is generally 1.0 to 3.0. The relative amounts of
each material are determined based on the desired basicity, the rate of consumption of material at the sinter
strand, the amount of sinter fines that must be recycled, and the total carbon content needed for proper ignition
of the feed material.2
The sintering machine accepts feed material and conveys it down the length of the moving strand. Near
the feed end of the grate, the bed is ignited on the surface by gas burners and, as the mixture moves along on
the traveling grate, air is pulled down through the mixture to bum the fuel by downdraft combustion; either coke
oven gas or natural gas may be used for fuel to ignite the undersize coke or coal in the feed. As the grates
move continuously over a series of windboxes toward the discharge end of the strand, the combustion front in
the bed moves progressively downward. This creates sufficient heat and temperature to agglomerates the fine
3-1
-------
particles, forming a cake of porous clinker, and providing the strength and other properties needed for use in
the blast furnace.
The sinter machine strand is composed of pallets which ride on rails over the windboxes. Each pallet
has a grated bottom, open ends where the cars come together, and sideboards of maximum height for the sinter
bed. The windboxes provide for a controlled distribution of combustion air as it is drawn through the sinter
bed. Air is drawn down through the burden, into the windboxes and through an initial separator to a large fan.
Very coarse particles are recovered in the windboxes. Other somewhat less coarse particles are removed by
the separator. After the fan, the gases are further cleaned before discharge to the atmosphere.2 Each sinter
strand generally has 12 to 22 windboxes. The height of the sinter bed varies between 9 and 24 inches.
The cake of porous clinker is discharged from the sinter strand to a breaker which reduces the sinter to
smaller pieces, generally less than 6 inches in diameter. The crushed product is screened before and/or after
cooling; in older plants one or both steps of screening may be absent. Fines and other pieces similar for use as
a hearth layer are returned to the feed system.2 The sinter is cooled to below 300* F so that it can be handled
on conveyor belts. The sinter product is then transferred to feed areas for the blast furnace. Sinter coolers are
often used in conjunction with a water quench and circular or straight line moving beds with forced or induced
draft, or they may be quiescent. A portion of the cooling air may be fed to the windbox system to utilize its heat
content. The finished product is then ready to be used in the blast furnace feed (burden), along with iron ore
pellets, coke, and fluxing agents.1'2
The amount of return fines may fluctuate if the quality of the sinter changes or if the efficiency of
screening changes. Some facilities may use a hearth layer, although some older plants do not have the
necessary equipment for creating the hearth layer. The amount of flux material varies depending on the
percentage of sinter used in the blast furnace burden, the flux requirement of the blast furnace, and other
production factors in the ironmaking process. Economics generally favor a high, or super flux sinter.2
There are currently nine sinter plants in operation in the United States. Four of the plants are located in
Indiana, with two in Ohio, and one each in Utah, Maryland, and West Virginia. The plants range in capacity
from 0.5 to 4.4 million tpy with a total nationwide capacity of 17.6 million tpy.
3.1.1 Emission Points
3-2
-------
The emission points associated with the sinter plant are shown in Figure 3-1. The figure also indicates
the typical emission control devices, if any, that have been installed for each emission point. The most
significant source of emissions is the windbox, which is controlled either by a baghouse or wet scrubber at each
of the nine plants. This emission point is a potential source of organic HAP as well as metal HAP because oil
and other organics may be present in the sinter feed material.
The other emission points shown in the figure are primarily sources of PM emissions. Emissions from
the discharge end of the sintering operation are also controlled at each of the plants (the discharge end
emissions points include discharge, crusher, hot screen, cold screen, and the cooler at some plants). Emissions
from material storage and handling, mixing, and sinter storage are generally uncontrolled.
3.1.2 Factors Affecting Emissions
Several factors can affect the PM emissions, and consequently, the emissions of HAP metals in the PM.
For example, PM emissions from the windbox are affected by the amount of fines (e.g., pollution control dust
from the steelmaking process) and their particle size distribution; an increase in fines can result in a larger
quantity of PM being emitted as well as lower particle sizes in the emissions. The composition of the feed
material, such as the amount of manganese and lead, also affects the quantity of these HAP that comprise the
PM. Operating parameters, such as the bed air flow rate, bed depth, proper proportioning and mixing of the
feed materials, and condition of the grate and machine seals affect the generation of PM from the windboxes.2
3-3
-------
1. Emissions from raw
material storage, handling
4
None
2. Emissions 3. Windbox 4. Discharge
fr
9m mixing
f
None
1 )
emissions
4
Baghouse
or scrubber
V J
emissions
4
Baghouse
V. J
5. Crusher
emissions
Baghouse
Raw material
storage and handling
^oke A Fines
-lux T Slag
Ore | Sludge
cale
Sinter to blast furnace
^^_^^_^ Mixing
drum
A Air and fuel i
Water
Sinter ^^^^^
storage "*
i
None
V J
\
i
9. Sinter storage
emissions
Cold
screen
Sintering
L
Baghouse
V J
i
Discharge
Crusher
Fines
1
8. Cold screen
emissions
l_
Cooler
Baghouse
V J
I
7. Cooler
emissions
^ '
Hot
screen
Baghouse
V J
\
i
6. Hot screen
emissions
FIGURE 3-1. SCHEMATIC OF SINTER PLANT EMISSION POINTS AND TYPICAL CONTROLS
3-4
-------
Emissions of hydrocarbons, pyrolysis products, and products of incomplete combustion are also
affected by the feed composition, especially the amount of oily material in the feed,
as well as by the combustion conditions. Hydrocarbon vapors, identified by a bluish plume, originate from oil in
the feed when it is vaporized on the sinter strand ahead of the flame front and is evaporated or pyrolized. The
oil in the feed originates from oily mill scale, blast furnace sludge, and coke breeze, which may contain tarry
material and oil absorbed from the sump in which it is recovered.2
Emissions from the discharge end, including screening and crushing, are primarily PM and are affected
by the amount of fines generated and their composition (i.e., the amount of metal HAP that comprise the PM)
and by the ventilation rate that is used. The capture efficiency of the hoods used on the discharge end is a
major factor affecting the fugitive emissions from the process. Emissions from the sinter cooler are affected by
the quantity of fines in the sinter product being cooled and the type of cooler, whether quiescent, circular, or
straight line moving beds, and whether they use forced or induced draft.2
3.1.3 Estimates of Baseline Emissions
The major emission points of interest for the sinter plant and those for which data are available are the
windbox stack, the discharge end (includes the discharge, crushing, screening, and transfer points, which are
usually ducted to a common control device), and the cooler stack. At a few plants, emissions from the cooler
are also ducted to the control device used to control emissions from the discharge end.
3.1.3.1 HAP Metal Emissions from the Windbox. Emission test data were obtained from several
plants to characterize typical PM emissions from the control device that treats the combustion air and offgases
from the sinter plant windboxes. The PM data, when combined with dust analyses for HAP metals, provide
one means to estimate potential HAP metal emissions. The PM data summarized in Table 3-1 for the windbox
were taken from References 3 through 18. Most of the data were obtained from responses to a survey of the
industry (section 114 information collection request) and from test reports provided by individual companies.
In addition, EPA conducted tests at two sinter plants in 1997 and measured HAP metal emissions from a plant
with a baghouse and one with a scrubber.17'18
3-5
-------
TABLE 3-1. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM SINTER PLANTS3
Plant
AK Steel, Mddletown, OH3' 4
Bethlehem Steel,
Bums Harbor, IN5' 6
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD7
Geneva Steel, Provo, UT8' 9
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IN10'11
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
USX Gary, IN14
WCI Steel, Warren, OH15
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Follansbee, WV16
Totals
Capacity
(million
tpy)
0.9
2.9
4.0
0.8
1.4
1.9
4.4
0.8
0.5
17.6
Control device
Windbox
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
-
Discharge
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Cyclone
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
-
Cooler
Baghouse
None
Cyclone
No cooler
None
None
None
Baghouse
None
-
PM Emissions (tpy)
Windbox
148
247
507
22
60
14217
200e
5.418
116
1,447
Discharge
172
87b
196
8.0
41
7012,13
132b
1.818
8.8
717
Cooler
c
l,450d
245
--
700d
950d
2,200d
c
250d
5,795
Total
320
1,784
948
30
801
716,380
2,532
7
375
7,959
a Emission estimates without footnotes are as reported in the reference under "Plant."
b Based on an emission factor of 0.06 Ib/ton (see text).
0 Included with discharge emissions (common control device).
d Based on an emission factor of 1 IbAon (see text).
e No emissions data because the plant recently upgraded control to a baghouse; used emission factor of 0.09 Ib/ton based on average factor from Geneva and Inland Steel.
3-6
-------
HAP metals that have been reported in the PM include antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium.17> 18 However, manganese (Mn) and lead
(Pb) have been the most prevalent by far of the metal HAP; all other metal HAP combined represent less than
1 percent of the quantity of Pb and Mn. Consequently, the focus of the baseline emission estimates will be on
Mn and Pb as the HAP metals of interest.
The emission estimates for lead and manganese in Table 3-2 that are referenced are the values that
were measured and reported by the companies and also include the results of two tests conducted by EPA in
1997. These data were used to develop estimates of Mn and Pb as a percent of PM that could be applied to
the other plants to estimate emissions. For example, Bethlehem Steel reported manganese as 0.3 percent of
PM7, Inland reported it as 0.8 percent10' n, and the two EPA tests showed a wide range of 0.05 to 3.5
percent.17'18 To estimate Mn emissions from other plants, an average value of 1.2 percent of PM was used.
For Pb, Bethlehem reported a value of 2 percent of the PM,5'6 Inland reported 0.3 percent,10' n AK
Steel reported 1.3 percent3'4, and EPA measured 2.2 percent at WCI.18 For the estimates in Table 3-2, an
average value of 1.5 percent of PM was used to estimate Pb emissions.
3.1.3.2 PAH Emissions from the Windbox. In the two sinter plant tests conducted by EPA in
1997, PAH known as the "7-PAH" and "16-PAH" were analyzed. The 7 PAH include benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene, indeno(l,2,3-
cd)pyrene. The 16-PAH add to this list naphthalene, phenanthrene, pyrene. acenaphthene, acenapthylene,
anthracene, benzo(ghi)perylene, fluoranthene, and fluorene. Based on the test results, the emission factors
given below were developed for plants with baghouses and scrubbers:17'18
Control device 7-PAH (Ib/ton) 16-PAH (Ib/ton)
Baghouse 6.5 xlO'4 1.0 xlO'2
Scrubber 2.4 xlO'5 9.7 xlO'4
3-7
-------
TABLE 3-2. ESTIMATES OF HAP EMISSIONS FROM SINTER PLANTS
Plant
AK Steel, Middletown, OH
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel,
Sparrows Point, MD
Geneva Steel, Provo, UT
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
USX, Gary, IN
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, Follansbee, WV
Totals
HAP emissions (tpy)
Windbox
Mna
0.133-4
3.0
1.57
0.03s
0.510'11
0.0617
2.4
O.I18
1.4
9.12
Pbb
2.6s'4
495,6
7.6
0.03s
0.210-11
1417
3.0
0.0818
1.7
34.1
Volatiles0
9.9
32
44
8.8
15
21
48
8.8
5.5
194
7-PAH"
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.3
0.5
0.0117
1.4
0.3
0.006
2.6
16-PAH*
0.4
1.4
1.9
4.0
7.0
0.617
22
4.218
0.2
42
Discharge
Mnf
0.533-4
0.7
0.67
0.00s
0.510-11
0.712- 13
1.0
0.0718
0.07
4.2
Coole
r
Mnf
g
11
0.77
h
5.3
7.1
16.5
g
1.9
42
Total
14
53
56
13
29
43
94
14
11
327
' Based on 1.2 percent of PM emissions in Table 3-1 unless specific reference is given.
b Based on 1.5 percent of PM emissions in Table 3-1 unless specific reference is given.
0 Based on an emission factor of 0.022 Ib/t (see text).
d Based on emission factors of 6.5 x 10"4 and 2.4 x 10"5 Ib/t for baghouses and scrubbers, respectively.
e Based on emission factors of 1.0 x 10"2 and 9.7 x 10"4 Ib/t for baghouses and scrubbers, respectively.
f Based on 0.75 percent of PM emissions in Table 3-1 unless specific reference is given.
B Combined with discharge emissions (common control device).
h No cooler.
-------
3.1.3.3 Volatile Organic HAP Emissions from the Windbox. Several plants reported emissions of
VOC from the windbox, some of which are HAP. For example, a test report provided by Inland Steel
reported 0.39 Ib/ton of non-methane hydrocarbons (expressed as propane)20, and another test report provided
by LTV Steel reported 167 Ib/hr of VOC (expressed as carbon).21 For a typical production rate of 416 ton/hr
of sinter12'13, the emission factor would be 0.40 Ib/ton. Based on an emission factor of 0.39 to 0.40 Ib
VOC/ton, VOC emissions from the windbox for the individual plants would range from 100 to 880 tpy with a
nationwide total of 3,800 tpy.
Speciated data for volatile HAP were provided by Bethlehem Steel22:
Compound Ib/yr
Benzene 25,283
Carbon disulfide 21,507
Toluene 10,015
Xylene 4.186
Total 64,971
Chloromethane, ethyl benzene, and styrene were also reported at much lower levels, about 10 percent of the
quantity of toluene that was measured. For an annual production rate of 2.92 million tons of sinter in 19925'6,
these HAP compounds were emitted at a rate of 0.022 Ib/ton. This emission factor was applied to the other
plants to estimate volatile HAP emissions.
3.1.3.4 Emissions of D/F from the Windbox. Testing was conducted for D/F by EPA at two sinter
plants.17'18 The results expressed as TEQ (total equivalent to 2,3,7,8-TCDD) were 0.7 g/yr (5.5 x 10'7 g/ton
of sinter) for the plant with a wet scrubber and 2.8 g/yr (3.4 x 10"6 g/ton of sinter) for the plant with a baghouse.
Based on a nationwide capacity of 10.2 million tpy for plants with scrubbers and 7 million tpy for plants with
baghouses, the nationwide estimate of TEQ from sinter plants is 29 g/yr.
3.1.3.5 Emissions from the Discharge End. The only significant HAP reported by the companies in
emissions from the discharge end were metals, and Mn was by far the most prevalent. Test data for PM were
obtained from several plants (those not marked with a footnote in Table 3-1). The data from the reporting
plants were used to derive a PM emission factor for the other plants:
5-9
-------
Plant Control PM (Ib/ton)
LTV12'13 scrubber 0.074
Weirton19 scrubber 0.041
WCI18 baghouse 0.0044
Inland10'n baghouse 0.082
Bethlehem7 baghouse 0.098
Wheeling-Pittsburgh16 baghouse 0.035
Average 0.06
Other than the very low results for WCI, there are no obvious differences in the emission factors for scrubbers
and baghouses; consequently, the average value of 0.06 Ib/ton was used to estimate PM emissions from the
discharge end for the other plants.
Dust analyses provided by Bethlehem Steel showed Mn to be 0.3 percent of PM for discharge
emissions,7 and similar data from Inland revealed a value of 1.2 percent.10' n A midrange value of 0.75
percent of PM was used to estimate Mn emissions for the other plants.
3.1.3.6 Emissions from the Cooler. Test data were available for 2 tests conducted at USS Gary
Works for an uncontrolled cooler in October 1979 and December 1987. The results showed a concentration
of 0.033 gr/dscf, 147 Ib/hr, and 518,700 dscfm. The resulting emission factor is about 1 Ib/ton. Test data
were also available from Bethlehem's Sparrows Point plant for a cooler controlled by a cyclone with a rated
efficiency of 90 percent. The cyclone achieves an outlet concentration of 0.02 gr/dscf with a flow of 640,000
acfm at 600* F with a resulting emission factor of about 0.12 Ib/ton.7 Assuming 90 percent control, the
uncontrolled emission factor would be 1.2 Ib/ton. For the estimates presented in this section, an uncontrolled
emission factor of 1 Ib/ton is used. This emission factor likely represents coolers with very high flow rates of air
through the bed of hot sinter. If other plants use lower flow rates or quiescent coolers, the uncontrolled
emissions may be much lower than 1 Ib/ton. This factor was coupled with the concentration derived for Mn
from the discharge end (0.75 percent of PM) because the composition of the sinter dust from the discharge end
and cooler should be about the same. Consequently, the estimates of Mn emissions from the cooler for the
plants without controls are based on PM emissions of 1 Ib/ton and 0.75 percent Mn in the PM.
3-10
-------
3.1.4 Uncertainties in the Emission Estimates
A major uncertainty in the emission estimates is the quantity of emissions that are not captured and
escape as fugitive emissions with the ventilation air. The plants reported measured emissions from point
sources, which were the stacks from which emissions from the control device were discharged. However, the
capture efficiency of hoods used on several emission points associated with the discharge end was reported as
about 95 percent,7 which means that the quantity that was not captured was far more than the quantity emitted
from control devices that were generally rated as 99 to 99.9 percent efficient in the control of PM. Some of the
larger particles may settle out in the building, and other PM that escapes capture is emitted with the ventilation
air to the atmosphere.
Uncertainty is also introduced by differences in the composition of the feed materials used by the plants.
The percent of Pb and Mn in the dust may be directly related to the amount of these metals in the feed
materials. In addition, some of the more volatile metal compounds may be more concentrated in fine particles
(i.e., the concentration of HAP metals may vary as a function of particle size). The quantity and type of
organics in the feed material (such as oily scale), may also affect the type and quantity of organic compounds
that are emitted.
3-11
-------
3.2 BLASTFURNACES
The blast furnace converts iron oxide into molten iron for subsequent refining in the BOPF shop to
produce steel. A typical burden (feed) may consist of iron ore, pellets, sinter, limestone, coke, mill scale,
BOPF slag, and other iron bearing materials. The burden material is charged into the top of the furnace and
slowly descends through the furnace. The coke provides the thermal energy required for the process and
provides carbon to reduce the iron oxide and to remove oxygen in the form of CO.
The blast furnace is a vertical shaft furnace. Raw materials are charged into the top of the furnace and
fall to the top of the burden of raw materials already in the furnace. As they descend in the furnace, they are
heated by a countercurrent flow of gas. Heated air is injected through the tuyeres, located near the bottom of
the furnace just above the hearth. The air moves countercurrent to the burden, consuming the coke (carbon).
Raw materials are introduced at the top of the blast furnace; the hottest temperature zone in the furnace is at the
hearth level, where the burden is molten.
The furnace filling is controlled by the level of burden in the furnace. When the level is below a preset
point, the stockhouse functions continuously, filling the skips with predetermined weights of materials in the
ordered sequence. The top of the blast furnace is enclosed so that blast furnace gas can be drawn off above
the stock level and a bell and hopper arrangement can be used for charging the furnace. Most installations use
a combination of two bells so that a gas tight space can be provided between the two bells to prevent gas from
escaping while the lower bell is opened. Raw materials are taken to the furnace top by a skip hoist or a
conveyor belt and dropped into the upper hopper. With the large bell closed, the small bell is lowered and the
charge material is dropped into the large-bell hopper. When the large-bell hopper is full, the small bell is held
closed, the large bell is lowered, and the material is dumped into the blast furnace without allowing any of the
gas to escape.
A more recent innovation, used on several blast furnaces in the industry, is the Paul Wurth bell-less
top, in which the charge materials are deposited into hoppers located at the top of the furnace. The hoppers
can be depressurized for loading and repressurized for discharging the material into the furnace. There are at
least two hoppers so that while one is being loaded, the other can be discharged into the furnace. As the
charge material enters the furnace, it is directed by a rotating chute to various locations on top of the stockline.1
3-12
-------
With this design, the furnace burns fuel more efficiently, leaks less, and can hold pressure. There is also not a
problem with wearing a hole in the bell or sealing bell rods.1
In the blast furnace process, the heated raw materials react chemically with one another. The principal
set of reactions are the complex ones between coke, air, and iron ore. Part of the coke is consumed by the
oxygen in the air to produce heat for the process. Another part of the coke combines with the oxygen in the
iron ore and releases free iron, which melts, drips to the bottom of the furnace, and collects in the hearth. A
final portion of the carbon dissolves in the iron. The heat of the blast furnace serves to calcine the limestone.
The resulting calcium oxide reacts with the impurities in the ore, principally sulfur, and, in molten form, descends
to the hearth. The slag, being about one-third the density of the iron, floats in a separate layer on the iron bath.
Ironmaking is a continuous process within the blast furnace; however, it is a semi-continuous process
with respect to periodic charging of materials into the top of the furnace and periodic tapping of molten iron and
slag from the bottom of the furnace. Periodically, the hearth becomes full of molten iron and slag. Because
there is a limit to the amount that can be tolerated before it interferes with the furnace operation, they must be
removed from the furnace at regular intervals. The iron notch, which is used for tapping the hot metal, is
located just above the floor of the hearth; each furnace has one or more iron notches When the furnace is in
operation, the iron notch is completely filled with a refractory material, called taphole clay. To cast the hot
metal from the furnace, a tapping hole is drilled through this material.
The hot metal flows through this hole and is discharged into a trough, which is a long narrow basin
typically 3 to 5 feet wide and 26 to 40 feet long; the trough generally has a slightly sloping bottom away from
the furnace. At the far end of the trough, there is a dam to hold back the hot metal until the depth of the metal
in the trough is sufficient to contact the bottom of a refractory skimmer block. The skimmer holds back the slag
and diverts it into the slag runners. The hot metal flows over the dam and down the iron runner, where it is
directed in sequence to a train of ladles positioned under stationary spouts along the runner. At several large
blast furnaces, a tilting spout is used, positioned between two hot metal tracks. The spout is first tilted to fill the
ladle on one track and then to fill the one on the other track. While the second ladle is being filled, the first one
can be replaced with an empty one so that the cast can be continued uninterrupted while several ladles are
filled.
3-13
-------
After the flows of iron and slag cease, the tap hole is plugged with fresh clay by a device called a "mud
gun", and the ironmaking process resumes. The hot metal is transported from the blast furnace to the BOPF
shop in refractory-lined ladles that have a course of insulating material between the lining and the steel shell.23
Blast furnace gas (primarily CO) is collected from offtakes at the top of the furnace; this gas is cleaned
of PM and is used to fire the blast furnace stoves that heat the furnace air. Excess blast furnace gas is used as a
fuel in other processes at the plant.
There are currently a total of 39 blast furnaces at 20 plants that are owned by 14 companies in the U.S.
The plants are located in 10 different States, with the largest number in Ohio and Indiana. Each furnace has the
capacity to produce 700,000 to 3,440,000 tpy of hot metal.
3.2.1 Blast Furnace Auxiliaries
3.2.1.1 Stoves. About 30 percent of the blast furnace gas is utilized to heat the hot air blast by means
of the blast furnace stoves; there are generally 3 to 4 stoves per blast furnace. The remainder is used for other
heating purposes throughout the facility.
Before the blast air is delivered to the blast furnace tuyeres, it is preheated by passing it through
regenerative stoves that are heated primarily by combustion of the blast furnace off-gas. In this way, some of
the energy of the off-gas that would otherwise have been lost from the process is returned to the process. The
additional thermal energy returned to the blast furnace as heat decreases the amount of fuel that has to be
burned for each unit of hot metal and thus improves the efficiency of the process. In many furnaces, the off-gas
is enriched by the addition of a fuel with much higher calorific value, such as natural gas or coke oven gas, to
obtain even higher hot blast temperatures. This decreases the fuel requirement and increases the hot metal
production rate to a greater extent than is possible when burning off gas alone to heat the stoves.
3.2.1.2 Blast Furnace Gas Cleaning. As the blast furnace gas leaves the top of the furnace, it
contains dust particles varying in size from about 6 millimeters to a few microns. The dust that is carried out of
the top, referred to as flue dust, is made up of fine particles of coke and burden material and extremely fine
particles of chemical compounds formed from reactions within the blast furnace. Before the blast furnace gas
can be burned in either the hot blast stoves or the boiler house, it must be cleaned to remove most of the flue
3-14
-------
dust and prevent plugging and damaging of the checkers or burners and to keep the dust from being
discharged into the atmosphere with the products of combustion. The gas normally passes through a dry
dustcatcher, where the coarser particles are removed, and then through a wet-cleaning system, where the very
fine particles are scrubbed from the gas with water.
3.2.1.3 Pulverized Coal Injection. At least six facilities in the industry have installed pulverized coal
injection systems to replace some of the coke required for the blast furnace. Coal injection systems are much
less costly than building new coke batteries and have fewer environmental problems, as temperatures are not
high enough to liberate any problem elements in the coal. As much as 40 percent of the furnace coke can be
replaced on a one-for-one basis with coal. The quantity of coal that can be used is affected by quality of the
coke and is also limited by the amount of oxygen available at the tuyeres.
In preparing coal for injection, the first step is a grinding or pulverizing operation; most systems take the
coal down to 80 percent-200 mesh. The coal is stored under a controlled atmosphere, brought up to furnace
pressure in feed tanks, and pneumatically conveyed in a single pipe to the blast furnace area. The coal-air
mixture is then divided in a static distributor for delivery to each pipe by way of individual pipes.24
Uniform distribution to the furnace tuyeres is critical. At the tuyeres, fine coal meets the hot blast at
around 2,000 • F. The obj ect of coal inj ection is to get the particles broken down to atoms of carbon and
combusted with oxygen before the end of the raceway, the combustion zone in front of the tuyeres. Coal
injection has a positive effect on blast furnace operations. The flame temperature can be more effectively
controlled and there is an indication that slips occur less frequently.25
3.2.2 Emission Points and Factors Affecting Emissions
A schematic of the emission points is given in Figure 3-2 and described in this section. The major
emissions of interest occur from the casthouse during tapping when molten iron and slag are removed from
the furnace.
Emissions occur at the taphole, from the trough, from the runners that transport the iron and slag, and
from the ladle that receives the molten iron. These emissions include flakes of graphite (carbon) called "kish"
that is released as the metal cools (because the solubility of carbon in the metal decreases as it cools) and metal
oxides that form when the reduced metal (e.g., iron, manganese) reacts with oxygen in the air.23 Factors
3-15
-------
affecting these emissions include the duration of tapping, exposed surface area of metal and slag, length of
runners, and the presence/absence of runner covers and flame suppression, which reduce contact with air.
Gaseous and particulate emissions occur from slag handling as the slag is discharged and allowed to
cool. Particulate emissions also occur when the solidified slag is later broken up and removed. These
emissions are generally uncontrolled.
Emissions from raw material handling occur from the storage, sizing, screening, mixing, and transport
of the feed materials that comprise the blast furnace burden. These raw materials that generate dust include iron
ore, pellets, sinter, coke, and flux materials such as limestone and silica23 Emissions are affected by the extent
to which fine particles are generated, use of enclosures and extent of exposure to the atmosphere, use of water
sprays or other materials for suppression, etc.
The gas leaving the blast furnace is primarily CO and nitrogen and is heavily laden with PM. The gas is
cleaned and is used as fuel in the blast furnace stoves and other operations at the plant. Emissions occur from
the stove stack when this gas is burned. The quantity and composition of these emissions are affected by the
amount and type of particles remaining after cleaning and the combustion conditions when the fuel is burned.
3-16
-------
1. Emissions
matei
,
i from raw 2. Emissions from
•ials furnace slips
i A
( None j ( None
i
Raw material
storage and handling
^ ^ Ore, pellets
Coke
Flux
EOF slag
Sinter ^ '
Slag transfer,
disposal
C None J
\
Feed ^ Blast furnace
ei TT Coal
Slag Hot
1
metal
i '
Casting
I operations
BFgas
F-»
1
1
r— -1
i
Coal
drier ^
1
i
i
Hot metal to ( Baghouse
steelmaking
f Suppression; ^
covered runners;
\^ baghouse ^/
Dust
t
.
Clean BFgas
r ~^ • ~ • • Wastewater
1
1 ^ '
Blast furnace -^^ — ' Wastewater
1 1 i
Hot air I
1 | . |
Coal j Sludge
|
i
i
J ( None J ( None J
I I
| | |
! ! !
j 5. Emissions from 4. Stove stack BF gas to 3. Emissions from
' coal drier emissions other operations wastewater treatment
7. Emissions from slag
transfer, disposal
6. Casting emissions
FIGURE 3-2. SCHEMATIC OF BLAST FURNACE EMISSION POINTS AND TYPICAL CONTROLS
3-17
-------
Emissions also occur from furnace "slips." A slip occurs when the burden material hangs or bridges
in the furnace rather than continuing its downward movement. When this happens, the solid material below the
"hang" continues to move downward and form a void below the hang that is filled with hot gas at very high
pressure. When the hang finally collapses, the sudden downward thrust of the burden material forces the hot
gas upward with the force of an explosion. To prevent damage to the furnace, the pressure is relieved through
bleeder stacks on top of the furnace that discharge the particle-laden gas directly to the atmosphere.1 Factors
that are believed to contribute to blast furnace slips include re-solidification of previously fused slag and molten
iron, an excessive quantity of fines in the coke, alkalis such as oxides of sodium and potassium, and
overblowing of the furnace (excess air).23 One plant reported that slips were very infrequent now because they
used pellets rather than iron ore.19 Older blast furnaces are reported to experience more slips than are newer
furnaces.23 The quantity of emissions from slips is related to the duration of the slips, their frequency, how fast
the pressure rises, and how quickly it is relieved.
Emissions are also discharged uncontrolled to the atmosphere during a practice known as "back
drafting." Back drafting occurs when it is necessary to take the furnace out of blast for a short period of time
(generally less than 2 hours) to perform maintenance. The blast air is stopped, the bleeders are opened to pull
some of the furnace gas out of the top, and gas is also drawn back through the tuyeres to a hot stove where it is
burned and discharged through the stove stack. Some plants use a back-draft stack to discharge the gas rather
than drawing the gas back through a stove.1'23 Only one plant reported their level of emissions from back
drafting (200 tpy of PM).8 No other information was available on the frequency of back drafting or the level of
emissions.
Emissions also occur from the wastewater collection and treatment system The blast furnace gas
is heavily laden with particles (on the order of 30 g/scm) as it leaves the furnace. The gas is cleaned by passing
it through a cyclone (called a dust catcher) and then directing it to venturi scrubbers for final cleaning. The
direct contact water used in the scrubber dissolves HCN from the gas, and the HCN is subsequently stripped
from the water when it passes through the cooling tower.
3.2.3 Estimates of Baseline Emissions
3-18
-------
The approach used in this section to estimate baseline emissions relies on estimates submitted by the
individual companies and emission factors in EPA's AP-42 emission factor document.26 For metal HAP, Mn
was the only HAP metal reported by most companies. Estimates of PM emissions are used with analyses of
the dust for metals (expressed as percent Mn) to estimate Mn emissions. The only other HAP identified from
blast furnace operations was HCN. HCN was measured and reported by two plants as being emitted from the
blast furnace water.7'27 The estimates of HCN emissions from these two plants are applied to other plants to
estimate HCN emissions.
3.2.3.1 Casthouse PM Emissions. The emission estimates for PM submitted by the companies are
summarized in Table 3-3. The table indicates there was considerable variability in the emission factors used by
the different plants even though similar controls are in place. For example, five plants that use flame
suppression and covered runners used an emission factor of 0.3 to 0.6 Ib/ton, while other plants used lower
values. The AP-42 emission factor for the casthouse roof monitor is 0.6 Ib/ton or 0.3 Ib/ton for the taphole and
trough only. If local evacuation is used, an emission factor (prior to any control device) of 1.3 Ib/ton is
recommended.26 Because 5 of the 11 plants in Table 3-4 that use suppression controls (e.g., flame
suppression, covered runners) used the factor of 0.3 to 0.6 Ib/ton to estimate their emissions and it is consistent
with the AP-42 number, a value of 0.6 Ib/ton (from AP-42) is used in this section to estimate emissions for
plants without hoods and baghouses.
The emission factors used by seven plants with hoods to capture the emissions and a control device
(baghouse or a scrubber) to remove PM are also shown in Table 3-4. These factors range from 0.01 to 0.1
Ib/ton and average about 0.05 Ib/ton. Consequently, emissions from casthouse operations that use hoods to
capture emissions and direct them to a control device will be estimated as 0.05 Ib/ton.
3.2.3.2 Miscellaneous Emission Points. The PM emission estimates provided for raw material
handling are given in Table 3-4 and show a range of 0.0086 to 0.1 Ib/ton with an average of 0.04 Ib/ton,
which will be used in this section to estimate baseline emissions.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-3. CASTHOUSE PM EMISSION ESTIMATES SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANIES
Plant (State)
Acme Steel (IN)28'29
AK Steel (KY)30'31
AK Steel (OH)3-4
Bethlehem Steel (IN)5'6
Geneva Steel (UT)8
LTV Steel(OH)32
USX(AL)33'34
Rouge Steel (MI)35
USS/Kobe No. 436
LTV Steel H3 (IN)12'13
Weirton Steel (WV)19
Wheeling-Pitt No. 1 (WV)16
Control
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
FS,CR
Production
(106 tpy)
0.8
1.92
2.2
5.5
2.7
4.1
1.9
2.7
1.0
1.6
2.1
0.7
PM
emissions
(tpy)
53
288
330
1,250
189
147
570
122
300
48
80
14
Emission
factor
(Ib/ton)
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.07
0.6
0.09
0.6
0.06
0.08
0.04
Plants with local hoods vented to a control device
Bethlehem Steel (MD)7
Inland Steel No.7 (IN)10'11
Inland Steel Nos. 5,6 (IN)10' n
National Steel (X)37'38
USS/Kobe No. 336
USX (PA)33'34
Wheeling-Pitt 5,6 (OH)16
FS, ECR, Hood, BH
ECR, Hood, BH
ECR, Hood, Scrubber
CR,Hood,BH
ECR, Hood, BH
FS, AC, BH
FS, CR, AC, Hood,
BH
3.5
4.0
2.5
2.4
1.3
22
1.6
208
146
48
94
57
29
8.7
0.1
0.07
0.04
0.08
0.087
0.03
0.01
FS = flame suppression, usually for covered runners and sometimes at the taphole.
CR = covered runners.
ECR = evacuated covered runners (vented to a control device).
Hood = local hoods used to capture emissions at the tap hole and trough, and sometimes from the torpedo car, and subsequently ducted to
a control device.
BH = baghouse.
AC = an air curtain that is used to contain emissions within a limited area of the casthouse where they are captured by a hood and sent to a
control device.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-4. RAW MATERIAL HANDLING, SLAG HANDLING,AND FURNACE SLIP PM
EMISSION ESTIMATES SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANIES
Plant
Production
(106tpy)
PM emissions (tpy)
Emission factor
(Ib/ton)
Raw material handling
Acme Steel28'29
Geneva Steel8
Inland No. 710'11
USX (AL)33' 34
USS Kobe36
Weirton Steel19
Wheeling-Pitt No. I16
Wheeling-Pitt No. 5,616
0.8
2.7
4.0
1.9
2.3
2.1
0.7
1.6
30
39
45
71
118
16
O
15
Average
0.075
0.029
0.023
0.075
0.1
0.015
0.0086
0.019
0.04
Slag handling
Acme Steel28'29
AK Steel (KY)30'31
National (IL)37'38
USX (AL)33' 34
USS Kobe36
Weirton Steel19
0.8
1.92
2.4
1.9
2.3
2.1
1.6
53
4.7
3.2
80.9
3.4
0.0040
0.056
0.004
0.0034
0.07
0.0032
Slips
Acme Steel28'29
AK Steel (KY)30'31
Geneva Steel8
USX (AL)33' 34
0.8
1.92
2.7
1.9
1
295
69
20
0.0025
0.31
0.051
0.021
3-21
-------
3-22
-------
The emission estimates for slag handling are also shown in Table 3-4 and range from 0.003 to 0.07
Ib/ton. The AP-42 estimate for emissions from slag handling (using a front-end loader) is 0.026 lb/ton.26 This
value is used to provide a highly uncertain estimate of fugitive emissions from slag handling.
Three plants provided estimates of PM emissions from furnace slips that were in the range of 0.0025
to 0.31 lb/ton (see Table 3-4), which spans a range of 2 orders of magnitude. Emissions from slips are highly
variable and difficult to estimate. A median value between the extremes of 0.03 lb/ton is used to provide a
highly uncertain estimate of emissions from slips.
The emissions of PM from the blast furnace stoves were provided by several plants and are
summarized in Table 3-5. The average value of 0.056 lb/ton will be used to estimate PM emissions from the
blast furnace stove.
These emission factors are applied to each emission point at each plant in Table 3-6 to estimate total
PM emissions from blast furnace operations. The use of consistent emission factors for plants with similar
controls should provide a better relative comparison among plants than the use of site-specific emission factors
of unknown origin.
3-23
-------
TABLE 3-5. BLAST FURNACE STOVE PM EMISSION ESTIMATES SUBMITTED BY THE
COMPANIES
Plant (State)
Acme Steel (IN)28' 29
AK Steel (KY)30'31
Geneva Steel (UT)8
LTV Steel(OH)32
LTV Steel H3 (IN)12' 13
LTV Steel H4 (IN)12' 13
National (IL)37' 38
Rouge Steel (MI)35
USX (PA)33' 34
USX (AL)33' 34
USS Kobe (OH)36
Weirton Steel (WV)19
Wheeling-Pitt No. 1 (WV)16
Wheeling-Pitt No. 5,6 (WV)16
Production (106
tpy)
0.8
1.9
2.7
4.1
1.6
2.0
2.4
2.7
2.2
1.9
2.3
2.1
0.7
1.6
PM emissions (tpy)
26.1
50
30
152
36
48
13
5.8
20
161
18.7
61
21
84
Average
Emission factor (Ib/ton)
0.052
0.05
0.022
0.074
0.045
0.048
0.011
0.0043
0.018
0.17
0.016
0.058
0.060
0.11
0.05
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-6. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE OPERATIONS
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL28 29
AK Steel, Ashland, KY3"1
AK Steel, Middletown, OH14
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows
Point, MD
Geneva Steel,
Orem, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel,
Cleveland, OH
LTV Steel,
East Chicago, IN
Furnace
1
A
3
C,D
L*
1,2,3
2
7
5, 6
C1,C5
C6
H3
Capacit
y
(millio
n tpy)
1.0
1.9
2.2
5.5
3.5
2.7
1.2
4.0
2.5
2.7
1.4
1.6
Casthouse control
Flame suppression and covered
runners
Covered runners with flame
suppression
Flame suppression at taphole,
torpedo car
Flame suppression at taphole,
covered runners, N2 over torpedo car
Hood over tapping, evacuated runner
covers, both to baghouse; flame
suppression at torpedo car
Partially covered runners with flame
suppression
No controls
Hood over tapping, evacuated runner
covers, both to baghouse
Hood over tapping, evacuated runner
covers, both to scrubber
Covered runners with flame
suppression
Covered runners with flame
suppression; fume suppression hoods
for tapping
Covered runners with flame
suppression
Particulate matter emissions (tpy)
Casthouse
300
570
660
1,650
88
810
360
100
63
810
420
480
Raw
materials
20
38
44
110
70
54
24
80
50
54
28
32
Slips
15
29
33
83
53
41
18
60
38
41
21
24
Stoves
25
48
55
138
88
68
30
100
63
68
35
40
Slag
13
25
29
72
46
35
16
52
33
35
18
21
Total
373
709
821
2,052
343
1,007
448
392
245
1,007
522
597
3-25
-------
TABLE 3-6. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE OPERATIONS
Plant
National Steel,
Granite City, IL
National Steel,
Ecorse MI
Rouge Steel,
Dearborn, MI
USX, Braddock, PA
USX, Fairfield, AL
USX, Gary, IN
USX, Gary, IN
USS/Kobe Steel,
Lorain, OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Weirton Steel,
Weirton, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel,
Mingo Junction, OH
Furnace
H4
A,B
A,B,D
B, C
1, 3
8
4,6,8
13
3
4
1
1,3
IN
Capacit
y
(millio
n tpy)
2.0
2.4
4.9
2.7
2.3
2.0
3.4
2.7
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.1
0.7
Casthouse control
Covered runners with flame
suppression; hood over tapping and
tilting spout to baghouse
Hoods over tapping and torpedo car
to baghouse; covered runners
Hoods over tapping and tilting spout
to baghouse
Flame suppression at taphole & at
covered runners
Air curtain at tapping to baghouse,
flame suppression
Covered runners with flame
suppression
Flame suppression
Hood and evacuated covered runners
to baghouse
Hood over tapping to baghouse,
covered runners
Flame suppression
Hoods over tapping and pouring
station to baghouse
Covered runners with flame
suppression for iron & slag
Partially covered runners with flame
suppression
Particulate matter emissions (tpy)
Casthouse
50
60
123
810
57
600
1,020
68
33
300
40
630
210
Raw
materials
40
48
98
54
46
40
68
54
26
20
32
42
14
Slips
30
36
74
41
35
30
51
41
20
15
24
32
11
Stoves
50
60
137
76
64
56
95
76
36
28
45
59
20
Slag
26
31
64
35
30
26
44
35
17
13
21
27
9
Total
196
235
495
1,015
232
752
1,278
273
131
376
162
790
263
3-26
-------
TABLE 3-6. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE OPERATIONS
Plant
Furnace
5S
Totals
Capacit
y
(millio
n tpy)
1.6
60.9
Casthouse control
Hood in roof (with air curtain) for
tapping, hood over torpedo car, both
to baghouse; covered runners with
flame suppression
Particulate matter emissions (tpy)
Casthouse
40
10,350
Raw
materials
32
1,218
Slips
24
914
Stoves
45
1,601
Slag
21
792
Total
162
14,875
* H and J are operated only when L is down for a re-line.
3-27
-------
3.2.3.3 Estimates of Mn Emissions. Several plants provided data from dust analyses to estimate
Mg emissions from the blast furnace casthouse. A few plants reported the percent Mn in the dust from other
operations. These data are summarized in Table 3-7. The table indicates that Mn was reported to range from
0.1 to 1.7 percent of PM with an average of 0.6 percent, which is the value used in Table 3-8 to estimate Mn
emissions from the casthouse. This same value (0.6 percent) was also used to estimate Mn emissions from raw
material handling, slag, and slips because the few data points for these sources are relatively consistent with the
range seen for casthouse dust. A value of 0.2 percent Mn was used to estimate Mn emissions from blast
furnace stoves (Table 3-8). Total Mn emissions from blast furnace operations are given in Table 3-8.
3.2.3.4 Estimates of HCN Emissions. Emissions of HCN were reported for the cooling tower used
for the blast furnace scrubber water. Two plants calculated the amount of HCN stripped from the water in the
cooling tower by analyzing the water for HCN concentration before and after cooling and measuring the
wastewater flow rate. The decrease in HCN concentration times the water flow rate provides a measure of the
HCN that was emitted. One plant reported the average value from several measurements as resulting in 51 tpy
of HCN emissions and an emission factor based on iron production of 0.035 lb/ton.7 Another plant reported a
range of 40 to 70 tpy of HCN emissions based on their measurements.27 For a typical production rate of 1.15
million tpy, this range results in an HCN emission factor of 0.07 to 0.12 lb/ton. The emission estimates for
HCN presented in Table 3-9 are based on a midrange value 0.08 lb/ton.
The Bethlehem Burns Harbor plant reported that there was essentially no HCN in their scrubber water
and provided data from samples taken and analyzed by EPA. Differences in the furnace design and operation
such as furnace top temperatures and pressures may explain why HCN is generated in some blast furnace
operations and not in others. The Burns Harbor plant has indicated that HCN can be produced at certain times
during the startup or shutdown of the blast furnace for a reline. No HCN emissions were estimated for the
Burns Harbor plant to reflect the normal steady-state operation.
If HCN is produced in the blast furnace operation, it will remain in the scrubber water under alkaline
conditions because it will be in an ionized form. Under acidic conditions, HCN is in an un-ionized form and is
stripped from the scrubber water as it goes through a cooling tower. The pH of blast furnace water systems is
3-28
-------
controlled at different levels depending on the corrosiveness and fouling potential of the system. A system that
is either too basic or too acidic can result in damage to equipment or piping.
3.2.4 Uncertainties in the Emission Estimates
There is inherent uncertainty in the estimates of emissions from blast furnace operations because of their
fugitive nature. The limited data on casthouse emissions apparently were developed from tests in other
countries for casthouses that were entirely evacuated to a control device. In addition, there are few data
available on the effectiveness of covers and flame suppression or on the capture efficiency of local hoods that
are used at some plants. Another uncertainty is the variation in the Mn content in the iron, which may be
affected by the Mn content of the iron ore or other materials. One plant reported a significant decrease in Mn
content, which would mean the Mn emitted with the PM may be less than the estimates provided here.
Uncertainly is also introduced for the HCN emission estimates because data were available for only three
plants. Data on the HCN concentration in the wastewater entering and leaving the scrubber for other plants
would improve the HCN emission estimates.
3-29
-------
TABLE 3-7. Mn DATA PROVIDED BY THE COMPANIES
Source
Casthouse
Raw material handling
Slag
Stove
Slips
Plant
Acme Steel28'29
AK Steel (KY)30'31
BSC (MD)7
Geneva Steel8
Inland No. 710'11
Inland Nos. 5, 610' n
LTVH312'13
LTVH412'13
National37' 38
Rouge Steel35
USX (PA)33' 34
USX (AL)33' 34
USS Kobe (OH)36
Average
Acme Steel28'29
Weirton Steel19
National Steel37' 38
National Steel37' 38
USX (AL)33' 34
Geneva Steel8
Percent Mn in PM
0.81
1.7
0.29
0.25
0.43
1.2
0.55
0.52
0.14
0.13
0.52
0.11
0.3
0.6
0.60
1.2
0.64
0.25
0.20
0.25
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-8. ESTIMATES OF Mn EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE OPERATIONS
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL
AK Steel, Ashland, KY30- 31
AK Steel, Middletown, OH3'
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows
Point, MD
Geneva Steel,
Orem, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden,
AL
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel,
Cleveland, OH
LTV Steel,
East Chicago, IN
National Steel,
Granite City, IL
National Steel,
Ecorse MI
Rouge Steel,
Dearborn, MI
USX, Braddock, PA
Furnace
1
A
3
C,D
L
1,2,3
2
7
5, 6
C1,C5
C6
H3
H4
A,B
A,B,D
B, C
1, 3
Capacity
(million
tpy)
1.0
1.9
2.2
5.5
3.5
2.7
1.2
4.0
2.5
2.7
1.4
1.6
2.0
2.4
4.9
2.7
2.3
Mn emissions (tpy)
Casthouse
1.8
3.4
4.0
9.9
0.5
4.9
2.2
0.6
0.4
4.9
2.5
2.9
0.3
0.4
0.7
4.9
0.3
Raw materials
0.12
0.23
0.26
0.66
0.42
0.32
0.14
0.48
0.30
0.32
0.17
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.59
0.32
0.28
Slips
0.090
0.171
0.198
0.495
0.315
0.243
0.108
0.360
0.225
0.243
0.126
0.144
0.180
0.216
0.441
0.243
0.207
Stoves
0.056
0.106
0.123
0.308
0.196
0.151
0.067
0.224
0.140
0.151
0.078
0.090
0.112
0.134
0.274
0.151
0.129
Slag
0.078
0.148
0.172
0.429
0.273
0.211
0.094
0.312
0.195
0.211
0.109
0.125
0.156
0.187
0.382
0.211
0.179
Total
2.1
4.1
4.7
11.8
1.7
5.8
2.6
2.0
1.2
5.8
3.0
3.4
1.0
1.2
2.4
5.8
1.1
3-31
-------
TABLE 3-8. ESTIMATES OF Mn EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE OPERATIONS
Plant
USX, Fairfield, AL
USX, Gary, IN
USX, Gary, IN
USS/Kobe Steel,
Lorain, OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Weirton Steel,
Weirton, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel,
Mingo Junction, OH
Furnace
8
4,6,8
13
3
4
1
1,3
IN
5S
Totals
Capacity
(million
tpy)
2.0
3.4
2.7
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.1
0.7
1.6
60.9
Mn emissions (tpy)
Casthouse
3.6
6.1
0.4
0.2
1.8
0.2
3.8
1.3
0.2
62.1
Raw materials
0.24
0.41
0.32
0.16
0.12
0.19
0.25
0.08
0.19
7.3
Slips
0.180
0.306
0.243
0.117
0.090
0.144
0.189
0.063
0.144
5.5
Stoves
0.112
0.190
0.151
0.073
0.056
0.090
0.118
0.039
0.090
3.4
Slag
0.156
0.265
0.211
0.101
0.078
0.125
0.164
0.055
0.125
4.8
Total
4.3
7.3
1.3
0.6
2.1
0.8
4.5
1.5
0.8
83.1
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-9. ESTIMATES OF HCN EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT (COOLING TOWER)
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL
AK Steel,
Ashland, KY30'31
AK Steel, Mddletown,
OH3'4
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows
Point, MD
Geneva Steel,
Orem, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden,
AL
Inland Steel,
East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel,
Cleveland, OH
LTV Steel,
East Chicago, IN
National Steel,
Granite City, IL**
National Steel,
Ecorse, MI
Rouge Steel,
Dearborn, MI
Furnace
1
A
3
C,D
L
1,2,3
2
7
5,6
C1,C5
C6
H3
H4
A,B
A,B,D
B,C
Capacity
(million tpy)
1.0
1.9
2.2
5.5
3.5
2.7
1.2
4.0
2.5
2.7
1.4
1.6
2.0
2.4
4.9
2.8
HCN emissions (tpy)
40
76
88
*
140
108
48
160
100
108
56
64
80
96
196
112
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-9. ESTIMATES OF HCN EMISSIONS FROM BLAST FURNACE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT (COOLING TOWER)
Plant
USX, Braddock, PA
USX, Fairfield, AL
USX, Gary, IN
USS/Kobe Steel,
Lorain, OH
WCI Steel,
Warren, OH
Weirton Steel,
Weirton, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel,
Mngo Junction, OH
Furnace
1,3
8
4,6,8,13
3
4
1
1,3
IN
5S
Total
Capacity
(million tpy)
2.3
2.0
6.1
1.3
1.0
1.6
2.1
0.7
1.6
61
HCN emissions (tpy)
92
80
244
52
40
64
84
28
64
2,220
* This plant provided data showing essentially no HCN in the scrubber water.
** This plant does not have a cooling tower. HCN emissions are likely to occur at other steps in the
wastewater treatment process.
3-34
-------
3.3 BASIC OXYGEN PROCESS FURNACE ' 39
This section provides a brief description of the BOPF process; additional details on the process can be
found in References 1 and 39. The BOPF shop is a cyclical batch operation, beginning when the molten iron is
brought from the blast furnace in torpedo cars and transferred to a ladle. Each shop is comprised of several
distinct operations including: (1) hot metal transfer of the molten iron received from the blast furnace; (2)
deslagging of the hot metal; (3) desulfurization; (4) charging of hot metal and steel scrap to the BOPF vessel;
(5) refining the hot metal into steel; (6) tapping the furnace; (7) deslagging; (8) ladle metallurgy, where additional
alloy additions and final changes to the chemistry of the steel may be made; and (9) transfer of the steel to a
continuous caster.
The plants and their production capacities, process flow rates, and control devices for primary and
secondary emissions are listed in Tables 3-10 and 3-11. Information on controls used for ancillary processes is
given in Table 3-12. This information was obtained from survey responses listed in References 3 through 8, 10
through 13,15 through 17, and 27 through 38. There are a total of 23 BOPF shops at 20 plants that are
owned by 14 companies with a nationwide capacity of about 68 million tpy. The plants are located in 10
different States, with the largest number in Ohio and Indiana with 6 shops each.
3.3.1 Reladling, Desulfurization, and Slag Skimming
After the hot metal is produced in the blast furnace, it is transferred to the BOPF shop. Brick lined
torpedo cars are preferred because of their insulating qualities and consequent lower heat loss from the iron.
The hot metal is then reladled from the torpedo cars to the BOPF shop ladle. This transfer is accompanied by
the emissions of kish, a mixture of fine iron oxide particles together with larger graphite particles. The reladling
generally takes place under a hood to capture these emissions.
Desulfurization of the hot metal is accomplished by means of various reagents such as oda ash, lime,
and magnesium. Injection of the reagents is accomplished pneumatically with either dry air or nitrogen.
Desulfurization may take place at various locations within the iron and steel making facility; however, if the
location is the BOPF shop, then it is most often
3-35
-------
TABLE 3-10. BOPF SHOP EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS - CLOSED HOOD BOPF SHOPS
Closed Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
AK Steel30-31
AK Steel3'4
Geneva Steel
Inland Steel No. 2 Shop
LTV Steel No. 2 Shop
USS/Kobe Steel
USS Fairfield Works
Location
Ashland, KY
Middletown, OH
Provo, UT
East Chicago, IN
Cleveland, OH
Lorain, OH
Fairfield, AL
Capacity (tpy)
2,167,545
2,716,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
4,380,000
2,600,000
2,200,000
Flow (dscfm)
78,000
40,000 (#15)
51,000 (#16)
77,800
50-60,000
138,000
58,000 (L)
59,000 (N)
81,000
Top/bottom
blown
Top
Top
Bottom
Top
Top
Top
Bottom
Primary
control
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Secondary
control
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
3-36
-------
TABLE 3-11. BOPF SHOP EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS - OPEN HOOD BOPF SHOPS
Open Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Acme Steel28-29
Bethlehem Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Gulf States Steel
Inland Steel No. 4
LTV Steel
LTV Steel No. 1 Shop
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
USS Edgar Thomson Works
USS Gary Works
USS Gary Works
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel
Location
Riverdale, IL
Bums Harbor, IN
Sparrows Point, MD
Gadsden, AL
East Chicago, IN
East Chicago, IN
Cleveland, OH
Granite City, IL
Ecorse, MI
Dearborn, MI
Braddock, PA
Gary, IN
Gary, IN
Warren, OH
Weirton, WV
Mingo Junction, OH
Capacity (tpy)
1,290,000
5,353,500
4,000,000
1,300,000
2,740,000
4,161,000
3,340,000
2,575,440
4,100,000
3,309,000
2,760,000
2,933,935
3,992,812
1,728,000
3,200,000
2,600,000
Flow (dscfm)
288,000
339,600b
600,000C
327,000
310-380,000
458,100
550,000
330,000
500,000
500,000
174,000
267,858C
267,227C
480,000C
280,000
210,000
Top/bottom blown
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Bottom
Top
Top
Top
Primary
control
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Secondary
control3
None
Noneb
None
None
Baghouse
None
None
Enclosure to
primary system
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None
None
None
a Only systems with separate capture and control devices for fugitive emissions are listed; several plants use the primary control system for partial capture of charging and
tapping emissions.
b acfm total for 3; this shop has 1 closed hood and 2 open hood vessels. The closed hood vessel has a scrubber for secondary control.
0 acfm.
5-37
-------
TABLE 3-12. SUMMARY OF CONTROLS FOR ANCILLARY PROCESSES
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL28- 29
AK Steel, Ashland, KY
AK Steel, Middletown, OH
Bethlehem, Bums Harbor, IN (3
vessels in 1 shop) — 3 stations
Bethlehem, Sparrows Pt, MD
Geneva Steel, Orem, UT
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, (o)
IN (2 shops) (c)
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH (o)
(2 shops) (c)
National Steel, Granite City, IL
National Steel, Ecorse, MI
Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI
USX, Fairfield, AL
USX, Gary, IN (2 shops) (o)
(o)
USX, Braddock, PA
USS/Kobe Steel, Lorain, OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Weirton Steel, Weirton, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Mingo
Junction, OH
Other controls
Hot Metal
Reladle
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Baghouse- 1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
None
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse- 1,2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Flame
suppression
Flame supp.
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Hot Metal
desulfurization
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Baghouse- 1,2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Unknown
Hot Metal
deslagging
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-3
None
Baghouse-1
None
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
None
None
None
None
None
Baghouse-1
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-1
Slag
transfer
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Water spray
Ladle
metallurgy
Baghouse
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-3,
Scrubber
Baghouse-3
Baghouse-4
None
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-2
& scrubber
Baghouse-3
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-3,4
Baghouse-3,4
Baghouse
Baghouse-1
Cyclone/
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-2
Baghouse-3
None
3-38
-------
o = open; c = closed
* One ladle met station has no controls; a steam injector and condenser are used for vacuum degassing operations.
3-39
-------
accomplished at the reladling station to take advantage of the fume collection system at that location.
Skimming of slag from the ladle of molten iron keeps this source of high sulfur out of the steelmaking
process. Skimming results in the emissions of kish, and is therefore normally done under a hood.40
3.3.2 BOPF Shop
The BOPF receives a charge composed of molten iron and scrap and converts it to molten steel. Each
BOPF shop contains at least two BOPF vessels that may be operated alternately; in some shops, both vessels
may be in use at different stages of the cycle. The distinct operations in the BOPF process are:
(1) charging - the addition of molten iron and metal scrap to the furnace,
(2) oxygen blow - introducing oxygen into the furnace to refine the iron,
(3) turndown - tilting the vessel to obtain a sample and check temperature,
(4) reblow — introducing additional oxygen, if needed,
(5) tapping — pouring the molten steel into a ladle, and
(6) deslagging - pouring residual slag into a slag pot.
A jet of high purity oxygen oxidizes the carbon and the silicon in the molten iron in order to remove these
products and to provide heat for melting the scrap. After the oxygen jet is started, lime is added to the top of
the bath to provide a slag of the desired basicity. Fluorspar and mill scale are also added in order to achieve
the desired slag fluidity. The oxygen combines with the unwanted elements (with the exception of sulfur) to
form oxides, which leave the bath as gases or enter the slag. As refining continues and the carbon content
decreases, the melting point of the bath increases. Sufficient heat must be generated from the oxidation
reactions to keep the bath molten.1
The furnace is a large, open-mouthed vessel lined with a basic refractory material (the term "basic" refers
to the chemical characteristic of the lining). There are currently three methods that are used to supply the
oxidizing gas: (1) top blown, (2) bottom blown, and (3) combination blowing. These processes are described
in detail below.
The basic oxygen steelmaking process is a thermochemical process; computations are made to determine
the necessary percentage of molten iron, scrap, flux materials, and alloy additions. Various steelmaking fluxes
are added during the refining process to reduce the sulfur and phosphorus content of the metal to the
3-40
-------
proscribed level. The oxidation of silicon, carbon, manganese, phosphorus, and iron provide the energy
required to melt the scrap, form the slag, and raise the temperature of the bath to the desired temperature.
After the steel is refined, alloy or other additions are made in the vessel as necessary, and the vessel is
then turned down and tapped. If the analysis is correct, the heat is tapped; however, if the analysis is off, then it
may be necessary to either blow with additional oxygen to elevate the temperature and/or cool the steel by
coolant additions to the bath. In most shops, the steel is transferred to a ladle metallurgy station for further alloy
additions and then to a continuous caster. A few facilities may still teem some of their steel, pouring the molten
steel into ingot molds, but most facilities have switched to the more modern and efficient process of continuous
casting.
The BOPF shop is generally arranged with three parallel aisles. The first aisle, the charging aisle, has one
or more cranes for handling charge materials to the furnace as well as handling ladles of molten slag away from
the furnace. The second aisle, the furnace aisle, contains the furnaces, collection hood for the fumes, lances for
injecting oxygen into the bath, and overhead bins for storing and metering out the various flux materials and
alloy additions. The third aisle, the pouring aisle, handles the finished heats of steel. This aisle has one or more
overhead cranes and facilities for receiving heats of steel into ingot molds or continuous casting machines.
During the oxygen blow in the top blown process, the oxygen lance is lowered through a special hole in
the top wall of the hood, is stopped a short distance above the bath of steel, and the oxygen flow is initiated.
The vessel is upright during the blow and the fumes have a direct access from the mouth of the furnace into the
mouth of the hood. At other times in the process, the vessel may be tilted so that the mouth of the vessel does
not align with the opening in the hood and capture of the fumes becomes more difficult. The vessel is tilted
toward the charging aisle for charging with scrap, charging with molten iron, sampling the heat for analysis, and
dumping the slag. The vessel is tilted toward the pouring aisle when pouring the finished heat of steel from the
furnace into the steel ladles. These operations are controlled by a secondary capture system at some facilities in
the industry. The desired specifications of the end product are usually accomplished by the additions of suitable
alloying materials to the ladle of finished steel as it is filled. The gases which evolve from the steelmaking
operation are captured by the hood and then enter a gas cleaning system consisting of a electrostatic
precipitator or a wet scrubber.40
3-41
-------
3.3.2.1 Bottom Blown Furnace. An alternative to the use of an oxygen lance is found in the Q-BOP
process. In this process, oxygen and natural gas are injected through tuyeres in the bottom of the vessel. The
metallurgy of the process, the ancillary equipment, and the fume suppression system are generally the same as
for the BOPF. The principal advantage of the Q-BOP is that it requires less headroom in the furnace aisle than
the BOPF. This has allowed the Q-BOP to be installed in an existing open hearth building, saving cost in
construction. The Q-BOP is also capable of producing steel at a somewhat faster rate than does the BOPF.
When the Q-BOP is tilted to receive scrap and molten iron, or to sample the steel for analysis, it is
necessary to maintain a flow through the tuyeres so that they do not become blocked. In normal practice, the
oxygen and natural gas are turned off when the vessel is tilted and these gases are replaced by a flow of
nitrogen. Because of this, there is an unrestrained flow of emissions of fumes from the mouth of the vessel due
to the gas flow from the tuyeres. For this reason, the Q-BOP is more fully enclosed at the level of the charging
floor than many BOPF vessels. In order to direct the gases back into the collection system, a pair of large
horizontally sliding doors are provided; these doors are opened to permit the addition of scrap and molten iron
but are closed at all other times.40
3.3.2.2 Combination Blowing. Combination blowing processes utilize oxygen through a top lance and
an inert gas through tuyeres or permeable elements in the furnace bottom to stir the bath. A second class of
combination blowing processes uses some of the oxygen through a top lance or tuyeres mounted in the top
cone of the vessel, and the balance of the oxygen through Q-BOP type tuyeres in the vessel bottom. These
processes can usually switch the bottom gas from oxygen to argon or nitrogen for stirring purposes.1
3.3.3 Ladle Metallurgy
The purpose of ladle metallurgy (also referred to as secondary steelmaking) is to produce steel which
satisfies stringent requirements of surface, internal, and microcleanliness quality and mechanical properties.
Ladle metallurgy is a secondary step of the steelmaking process often performed in a ladle after the initial
refining process in the primary BOPF is completed. This secondary step enables plants to exercise control
over many processing conditions contributing to a higher quality of steel including:
1. Teeming temperature, especially for continuous casting operations;
2. Deoxidation;
3. Decarburization (ease of producing steels to low carbon levels of less than 0.03 percent);
3-42
-------
4. Additional adjustment for chemical composition;
5. Increasing production rates by decreasing refining times in the furnace.*
Nearly all of the integrated iron and steel facilities have ladle metallurgy operations. Several ladle
metallurgy processes are commonly used, including vacuum degassing, ladle refining, argon/oxygen
decarburization, and lance powder injection.
3.3.4 Emission Points and Factors Affecting Emissions
The emission points associated with the BOPF shop are shown in Figure 3-3. The most significant
sources of emissions are from charging, tapping, and the oxygen blow portions of the furnace cycle. Auxiliary
processes including hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming, and ladle treatment also contribute to the
total emissions. Emissions from desulfurization and ladle metallurgy are captured and controlled by a series of
one or more control devices at most plants. Emissions from slag removal, slag transfer and disposal, and from
transfer to the continuous caster or ingot molds are generally uncontrolled.
3-43
-------
1 Ei
Hot metal
Additives
\ t
Torpedo car
transfer
V
Hot metal
1
1
C Baghouse ~N
or ESP J
1 —
4
2. Desulfurization
emissions
Transfer to
continuous
Cast steel
missions from
transfer 3. Emissions from 5. Emissions from
I skimming 4. Charging emissions oxygen blow
i A i
^ "N {
Baghouse j
^ ) 1
1
Baghouse
i
i
___ Slag skimming
i !
i !
1 ESP, scrubber | f Scrubber |
1 or baghouse II or ESP I
i 1
i 1
i I
i 1
1 1
i !
I I
metal .
^ Basic oxygen furnace Slag
»-
1 " t
Scrap 1
Additives Flux Molten steel Oxygen
1 V
Ladle
i
i
i
1
1
Tapping
/" "X
6. Emissions from
slag removal
4
i
i
Cone, scrubber^
ESP, or
baghouse J
1
1
_ Deslagging
\ '
Slag transfer,
disposal
i
t
None or baghouse
i
T
10. Transfer emissions
Baghouse or
scrubber
i
9. Emissions from ladle
metallurgy
ESP, scrubber
or baghouse
i
8. Emissions from
tapping
None or
•water spray
I
7. Emissions from slag
transfer, disposal
FIGURE 3-3. SCHEMATIC OF BOPF SHOP EMISSION POINTS AND TYPICAL CONTROLS
3-44
-------
The major HAP reported to be emitted from the BOPF process is Mn; some Pb has also been
reported, as have very small quantities of chromium, copper, mercury, nickel, and selenium.7'8'37'38 Emission
control performance for this operation has been determined traditionally based on PM emissions.
There are differences in BOPF and types of control devices among the various shops. The primary
emission capture and control system for the BOPF vessel is either an open hood directed to an ESP or wet
scrubber, or a closed hood ducted to a wet scrubber. In the closed hood system, the diameter of the hood is
approximately the same as the diameter of the vessel, and the lower portion of the hood is a skirt that can be
lowered onto the mouth of the vessel. This seals off the space between the hood and the vessel, limiting the
amount of air that can enter the system.
In contrast, the open hood is loose-fitting and draws in dilution air with the emissions captured from the
BOPF. The volume of gas collected in the closed hood system is reduced by 80 to 85 percent as compared to
the open hood system. Because there is less danger from explosion in the open hood system, the vessels may
be connected to a common gas cleaning system. In an closed hood system, each vessel has a separate
scrubber system because of the potential explosion hazard from leakage of air into the system from an idle
furnace. There are currently 7 closed hood BOPF shops and 16 open hood BOPF shops in operation in the
U.S.
BOPF vessels are also differentiated as either "top blown" or "bottom blown." There are currently
3 bottom-blown shops and 20 top-blown shops in the US
As discussed above, differences in process design and operation affect the quantity and concentration
of pollutants that escape capture and are emitted as fugitive emissions. In addition, charging emissions are
affected by the quality, quantity, and composition of scrap charged to the furnace as well as the pour rate and
pouring technique used to charge the hot metal.
After refining in the BOPF vessel, the steel may be sent to a ladle metallurgy station for further refining
or alloy additions before subsequent transfer to the continuous caster. All of the BOPF shops in the U.S. have
a ladle metallurgy station, although the actual process varies from plant to plant. Emissions from these
operations are affected by the type of capture device used and the surface area of molten metal that is exposed
to the atmosphere.
3-45
-------
3.3.5 Estimates of Baseline Emissions
The approach used in this section to estimate baseline emissions relies on estimates submitted by the
individual companies and emission factors in EPA's AP-42 emission factor document.26 For metal HAP, Mn
was the HAP metal most reported by the facilities. Estimates of PM are used with analyses of the dust for
metals (expressed as percent Mn) to estimate Mn emissions.
3.3.5.1 BOPF Charging, Oxygen Blow, and Tapping PM Emissions. Emission estimates for PM
from BOPF charging, oxygen blow, and tapping, are provided in Table 3-13 from estimates provided by each
company in response to survey questionnaires. Many companies apparently reported only emissions from the
discharge stacks of emission control devices, and only a few attempted to estimate fugitive emissions that
escape through the roof monitor. To put the estimates on a common basis, the AP-42 emission factors26 were
used in an attempt to account for both primary system emissions and fugitive emissions from certain processes
that escape through the roof monitor. Several plants submitted emission measurements for the primary control
system; consequently, when measurements were available, the measurements were used instead of the AP-42
emission factors.
3.3.5.2 Miscellaneous Emission Points. The PM emission estimate factors used for hot metal
transfer, desulfurization, charging, oxygen blow, and tapping, are summarized in Table 3-14. The PM emission
measurements for ladle metallurgy shown in Table 3-13 are very low relative to emissions from other points
because this process is controlled by baghouses at almost all plants. Consequently, ladle metallurgy operations
contribute very little to HAP metal emissions (i.e., Mn) from the BOPF shop. All of the emission factors except
that for the primary control system for closed hood BOPFs are from AP-42. For closed hood shops, the
emission factor of 0.0068 Ib/ton was not consistent with the test measurements submitted by three plants with
closed hood shops. Their measurements given below were used to derive an emission factor of 0.035 Ib/ton.
3-46
-------
Plant Capacity (tpy) Emissions (Ib/yr)
1 1,700,000 64,000
2 2,500,000 134,000
3 4,400,000 102,000
Total 8,600,000 300,000
Emission factor (closed hood BOPFs) = 300,000/8,600,000 = 0.035 Ib/ton
3.3.5.3 Estimates of Mn Emissions. More than half of the plants provided data on Mn emissions
from the BOPF shop, and they typically estimated these emissions from the
percent of PM that was Mn. Emissions of Mn far exceeded all other FtAP metals combined; consequently,
estimates of FtAP emissions from this process will focus on Mn as the FtAP of interest. The data from various
companies ranged from 0.14 to 10.7 percent of PM; however, the vast majority was in the range of about 0.5
to 1.5 percent. Neglecting the two outliers on the extreme end of the range, the overall average of the data
indicated that Mn was 0.95 percent of PM. This value of 0.95 percent should be accurate within a factor of
two or less for most plants and was used to estimate Mn emissions from charging, oxygen blow, and tapping
operations for the BOPF shop. The emission estimates for PM and Mn are provided in Tables 3-15 and 3-16.
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-13. PM EMISSIONS FROM THE BOPF SHOP REPORTED BY THE COMPANIES
Plant
Acme Steel (IL)
AK Steel (KY)
AK Steel (OH)
Bethlehem Steel (IN)
Bethlehem Steel (MD)
Geneva Steel (UT)
Gulf States Steel (AL)
Inland Steel #2
Inland Steel #4
LTV Steel (IN)
LTV Steel (OH) #1
LTV Steel (OH) #2
National Steel (IL)
National Steel (MI)
Rouge Steel (MI)
USS/Kobe Steel (OH)
USX (AL)
USX BOPF (IN)
USX Q-BOP (IN)
USX (PA)
WCI Steel (OH)
Weirton Steel (WV)
Wheeling-Pitt (OH)
Capacity
(million
tpy)
1.3
2.2
2.7
5.3
4.0
2.5
1.3
2.5
2.7
4.2
3.3
4.4
2.6
4.1
3.3
2.6
2.2
2.9
4.0
2.8
1.7
3.2
2.6
Reported PM Emissions (tpy)
Desulf-
urization
24
7
19
119d
33g
6d
5d
4r
2g
76d
31k
9.8
1
2.5d
12>
11
Charge
29
193
93
22
50e
89e
159e
161
5.5
496e
149e
18
O2 Blow
51
9
58
51°
226
28
67f
400
307h
1583'4
23 Oc
208C
17.4
23
203
96
Tap
64
220a
394
119
32
301
4.2
52
Ladle
Met.
0
13
0.3b
0.6
8.4
5
2
10
39b
10.3
5.6
2
9
"includes transfer, desulfurization, skimming, charging
bfrom control device only
'includes charging, tapping; from control device only
Includes hot metal transfer
Includes charging; 354 tpy from roof
'includes transfer, skim, tap, charge
5-48
-------
dincludes transfer, slag skimming
"includes tapping
Includes slag skimming
Includes roof monitor
'roof monitor only
'reported 84 tpy from roof monitor
TABLE 3-14. EMISSION FACTORS USED FOR THE BOPF SHOP
Emission point
Open hood with ESP
Open hood with scrubber
Closed hood with scrubber
Q-BOP with scrubber
Charging fugitives with baghouse
Tapping fugitives with baghouse
Uncontrolled charging fugitives
Uncontrolled tapping fugitives
Hot metal transfer at roof monitor
Desulfurization with baghouse
PM in Ib/ton
0.13
0.09
0.035
0.056
0.0006
0.0026
0.142
0.29
0.056
0.009
Source
AP-42
AP-42
Derived (see text)
AP-42
AP-42
AP-42
AP-42
AP-42
AP-42
AP-42
5-49
-------
TABLE 3-15. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM THE BOPF SHOP
Plant
Capacity
(106tpy)
Estimates of PM emissions (tpy) from AP-42 factors3
Transfer, desulfurization
Charge
O2 blow
Tap
Total
Open hood shops with no secondary controls b
Acme Steel (IL)
Bethlehem Steel (IN)
Bethlehem Steel (MD)
Gulf States Steel (AL)
LTV Steel (IN)
LTV Steel (OH) #1
National Steel (IL)
Rouge Steel (MI)
USX Gary (IN)
WCI Steel (OH)
Weirton Steel (WV)
Wheeling-Pitt (OH)
1.3
5.3
4.0
1.3
4.2
3.3
2.6
3.3
2.9
1.7
3.2
2.6
42
174
130
42
135
109
84
107
95
56
104
85
92
380
284
92
295
237
1
234
208
123
227
185
85
51C
180
85
270
158C
168
215
132
113
203C
96C
189
776
580
189
603
484
3
479
425
251
464
377
408
1,381
1,174
408
1,303
988
256
1,035
860
543
998
743
Open hood shops with secondary controls
Inland Steel #4
National Steel (MI)
USX (PA)
2.7
3.5
2.8
89
114
90
1
1
1
400°
159=
124
4
5
4
494
279
218
Closed hood shops with secondary controls
AK Steel (KY)30'31
Inland Steel #2
LTV Steel (OH) #2
USS/Kobe Steel (OH)
2.2
2.5
4.4
2.6
71
81
142
48
1
1
1
0
90
67C
51C
26
o
3
o
3
6
2
83
152
200
76
5-50
-------
TABLE 3-15. ESTIMATES OF PM EMISSIONS FROM THE BOPF SHOP
Plant
Capacity
(106tpy)
Estimates of PM emissions (tpy) from AP-42 factors3
Transfer, desulfurization
Charge
O2 blow
Tap
Total
Closed hood shops with no secondary controls
AK Steel (OH)3'4
2.7
88
192
230°
392
902
Q-BOPs with secondary controls
Geneva Q-BOP (UT)
USXQ-BOP(AL)
USX Q-BOP (IN)
Total
2.5
2.2
4.0
68
81
72
130
2,169
0.8
0.7
1.2
2,558
28C
62
112
3,024
3.3
2.9
5.2
5,249
113
138
248
13,001
a Estimated from the emission factors in Table 3-14 unless otherwise noted.
b Assumes no capture and control by the primary system; most open hood shops control some of the
fugitive emissions by the primary capture and control system.
c These are based on emission measurements submitted by the companies.
5-51
-------
TABLE 3-16. ESTIMATES OF Mn EMISSIONS FROM THE BOPF SHOP
Plant
Capacity
(106tpy)
Estimates of Mn emissions (tpy) a
Transfer,
desulfurization
Charge
O2 blow
Tap
Total
Open hood shops with no secondary controls
Acme Steel (IL)
Bethlehem Steel (IN)
Bethlehem Steel (MD)
Gulf States Steel (AL)
LTV Steel (IN)
LTV Steel (OH) #1
National Steel (IL)
Rouge Steel (MI)
USX Gary (IN)
WCI Steel (OH)
Weirton Steel (WV)
Wheeling-Pitt (OH)
1.3
5.3
4.0
1.3
4.2
3.3
2.6
3.3
2.9
1.7
3.2
2.6
0.4
2
1
0.4
1
1.0
0.8
1
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.9
4
3
0.9
3
2.3
0.0
2
2.0
1.2
2.2
1.8
0.8
0
2
0.8
3
1.5
1.6
2
1.3
1.1
1.9
0.9
1.8
7
6
1.8
6
4.6
0.0
5
4.0
2.4
4.4
3.6
3.9
13
11
3.9
12
9.4
2.4
10
8.2
5.2
9.5
7.1
Open hood shops with secondary controls
Inland Steel #4
National Steel (MI)
USX (PA)
2.7
3.5
2.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.8
1.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
2.6
2.1
Closed hood shops with secondary controls
AK Steel (KY)
Inland Steel #2
LTV Steel (OH) #2
USS/Kobe Steel (OH)
2.2
2.5
4.4
2.6
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
1.4
1.9
0.7
5-52
-------
TABLE 3-16. ESTIMATES OF Mn EMISSIONS FROM THE BOPF SHOP
Plant
Capacity
(106tpy)
Estimates of Mn emissions (tpy) a
Transfer,
desulfurization
Charge
O2 blow
Tap
Total
Closed hood shops with no secondary controls
AK Steel (OH)
2.7
0.8
1.8
22
3.7
8.6
Q-BOPs with secondary controls
Geneva Q-BOP (UT)
USXQ-BOP(AL)
USX Q-BOP (IN)
Total
2.5
2.2
4.0
95
0.8
0.7
1.2
21
0.0
0.0
0.0
24
0.3
0.6
1.1
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
50
1.1
1.3
2.4
124
* Based on 0.95 percent Mn in the PM (Table 3-15).
-------
3.4 REFERENCES
1. United States Steel. The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel. Published by the Association of
Iron and Steel Engineers (AISE). Available from AISE at Suite 2350, Three Gateway Center,
Pittsburgh, PA.
2. Carpenter,B., D. VanOsdell, D. Coy, and R. Jablin. Pollution Effects of Abnormal Operations in
Iron and Steel Making - Volume n. Sintering, Manual of Practice. EPA-600/2-78-118b. June
1978. pp. 12-15.
3. Francis, S.L., AK Steel, Middletown, OH to B. Jordan, EPA. Responding to section 114
request. September 5, 1991.
4. Felton, S.S., AK Steel, Middletown, OH, to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. November 30, 1998.
5. Riley, W.J., Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. February 14, 1994.
6. Ossman, G.A., Bethlehem Steel, to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background information
document for integrated iron and steel plants, February 1, 1999.
7. Anderson, D.A., Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section
114 request. August 29, 1991.
8. Starley, J.R., Geneva Steel, Provo, UT to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
October 29, 1993.
9. Christiansen, R, Geneva Steel to J. Calcagni, Research Triangle Institute. Sinter plant test results
for the new baghouse. March 12, 1996.
10. Shoup, S.P., Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 12, 1993.
11. Allie, G.R., Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 1, 1998.
12. Thomas, M.J., LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 29, 1993.
5-54
-------
13. Piccirillo, B.L., LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants. April 13, 1999.
14. Summaries of Stack Test Results Provided by USS Gary Works to EPA Region V for the Sinter
Plant. Total of 42 Runs Performed Between April 1982 and October 1984.
15. Stack Test Results for WCI Sinter Baghouse Provided by T. Shepker, WCI Steel: Envisage
Environmental, Inc. on July 10, 1991 and CSA Company on May 27, 1992.
16. Samples, W.R., Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
November 12, 1993.
17. Summary of Emission Testing Conducted by EPA at LTV Steel's Sinter Plant in East Chicago,
Indiana. June 25-27, 1997.
18. Summary of Emission Testing Conducted by EPA at WCI Steel's Sinter Plant in Youngstown,
Ohio. August 12-15, 1997.
19. Current, G. P., Weirton Steel, Weirton, WV, to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. January 6, 1994.
20. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc. Paniculate Metals and Gaseous Emissions Study: Sinter Plant
Windbox Baghouse Stack. Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN. May 16-17, 1995.
21. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc. Particulate and Gaseous Emission Study Performed for LTV Steel
Company at the Sinter Plant Stack. East Chicago, IN. May 29, 1992.
22. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc. Diagnostic Gaseous Study Performed for Bethlehem Steel
Company at the Sinter Plant Scrubber Stack. Burns Harbor, IN. March 9-11, 1992.
23. Jablin, R., D. Coy, et al. Pollution Effects of Abnormal Operations in Iron and Steel Making -
Volume HI. Blast Furnace Ironmaking Manual of Practice. EPA-600/2-78-118c. June 1978.
93pp.
24. Blast Furnace Coal Injection, Long Proven... Now Economically Justified, The Armco/Babcock &
Wilcox Coal Injection System.
25. McManus, George J. Coal Gets a New Shot, Iron Age, Jan. 1989, p. 31-38.
26. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors.
Publication AP-42. Section 12.5 Iron and Steel Production. July 1995.
3-55
-------
27. Stewart, E.M., Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. February 11, 1994.
28. Zibble, D., Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request. June
2, 1994.
29. Wentz, J. Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. January 6, 1999.
30. Felton, S.S., AK Steel to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for Ashland Works.
November 15, 1993.
31. S. S. Felton, AK Steel, Mddletown, OH to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. November 30, 1998.
32. Nemeth, R.L., LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
December 16, 1993.
33. Dilanni, L.G, USX to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for USX Fairfield
Works. December 28, 1993.
34. W.S. Kubiak, U.S. Steel to P. Mulrine, EPA. Forwarding information on U.S. Steel's sinter, iron
and steel production facilities. December 4, 1998.
35. J. Earl, Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. May 10, 1999.
36. Ames, H.C., USS/Kobe Steel, Lorain, OH to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on the draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 15, 1999.
37. Heintz, J.K., National Steel to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for National
Steel's plants in Granite City, IL and Ecorse, MI. January 31, 1994.
38. J.K. Heintz, National Steel, Mishawaka, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. December 14, 1998.
39. Revised Standards for Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces — Background Information for Proposed
Standards. EPA-450/3-82-005a. December 1982.
40. Jablin, R, D. Coy, et al. Pollution Effects of Abnormal Operations in Iron and Steel Making -
Volume VI. Basic Oxygen Process, Manual of Practice. EPA-600/2-78-118f June 1978.
5-56
-------
4.0 EMISSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT
This chapter presents an overview of the techniques typically used to capture and control PM
emissions from integrated iron and steel processes, including sinter plants, blast furnaces, and BOPF
shops. This overview describes equipment design parameters, operating conditions, application of
these control techniques in the industry, and factors that determine the effectiveness of these techniques
in reducing emissions. Each section includes a discussion of the various capture systems and control
techniques, performance of controls, and pollution prevention opportunities. Detailed descriptions of a
few systems in place at actual plants are given to provide more insight into operation and design
considerations.
4.1 SINTER PLANT
4.1.1 Windbox
The sinter plant windbox serves as the capture system for the sintering machine and is the most
critical source of emissions in the sinter plant because of the number and variety of pollutants to be
controlled and the high volume flowrate of the exhaust air. After sinter materials are mixed, they are
ignited on the surface by gas burners. As the materials move through the sinter bed, air is pulled down
through the mixture to bum the fuel by downdraft combustion through a series of windboxes, and
evacuated to a control device.1
Baghouses and wet scrubbers are the principal means for controlling emission from the sinter
plant windbox. Four plants use a baghouse and five plants use a wet scrubber to control windbox
emissions. The final control unit may be preceded by a mechanical collector to remove large, heavy,
and abrasive particles.2
The control of emissions from the windbox is made more difficult by factors such as the high
volume rate of gas, the sometimes high resistivity of the dust, and the presence of hydrocarbon vapors.
Table 4-1 presents various operating parameters for the windbox control systems.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. EMISSION CONTROLS FOR SINTER PLANT WINDBOXES
Plants with baghouses
Plant
Geneva Steel3
Inland Steel4'5
USS Gary Works6-7
WCI Steel8
State
UT
IN
IN
OH
Capacity (tpy)
803,000
1,000,000
4,400,000
840,000
Flow (dscfm)
306,800
400,000
675,000
(estimate)
400,000
Air/cloth ratio
(acfm/ft2)
4.0
1.4
3.9
• P(in-
water)
6
4.9
-
Cleaning
Pulse jet
Reverse air
Pulse jet
Filter
Material
Polyester
Polyester
Nomex
Location
Windbox
Windbox
Windbox
Plants with wet scrubbers
Plant
AK Steel9- 10
Bethlehem11'12
Bethlehem13' 14
LTV Steel15'16
Wheeling
Pittsburgh17
State
OH
IN
MD
IN
WV
Capacity (tpy)
895,000
2,922,000
4,000,000
1,927,000
500,000
Flow (dscfm)
219,000
485,000
600,000
265,000
141,000
L/G
(gal/ 1000 acf)
8.2
12
12
9
9.4
• P(in-
water)
50-55
60-70
35
40-55
80
Scrubber Type
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Demister
Mist eliminator
Chevrons
Chevrons
Chevrons
-
Location
Windbox
Windbox
Windbox
Windbox
Windbox
air/cloth ratio = ratio of air flow to cloth area in actual cubic feet per minute per square foot of cloth
• p = pressure drop in inches of water
L/G = liquid to gas ratio in gallons of water per 1,000 actual cubic feet of gas.
4-2
-------
4.1.1.1 Baghouses. In a baghouse, the particle-laden gas flows through a number of filter
bags placed in parallel, leaving the dust retained by the fabric. The type of filter material used in a
baghouse depends on the specific application in terms of chemical composition of the gas, operating
temperature, dust loading, and the physical and chemical characteristics of the particulate. The type of
filter material used will limit the maximum operating gas temperature for the baghouse.
Extended operation of a baghouse requires that the dust be periodically cleaned off the cloth
surface and removed from the baghouse; this is commonly accomplished in the sinter plant by reverse
air or pulse jet cleaning; shaker cleaning may also used in certain circumstances, and is used for several
baghouses on the discharge end of the sinter plant. After a new fabric goes through a few cycles of use
and cleaning, it retains a residual layer of dust that becomes the filter medium; this phenomenon is
responsible for highly efficient filtering of small particles.
In reverse air cleaning, gas flow to the bags is stopped in the compartment being cleaned, and a
reverse flow of air is directed through the bags. This reversal of air gently collapses the bags and the
shear forces developed remove dust from the surface of the bags. The reverse air for cleaning comes
from a separate fan capable of supplying clean, dry air for one or two compartments at an air-to-cloth
ratio similar to that of the forward air flow.18
In pulse jet cleaning, a burst of air is forced down through the bag expanding it violently. The
fabric reaches its extension limit, and the dust separates from the bag. The filtering flows are opposite
in direction when compared with reverse air designs. Bags are mounted on wire cages to prevent
collapse while the dusty gas flows through them. The top of the bag and cage assembly is attached to
the baghouse structure, whereas the bottom end is loose and tends to move in the turbulent gas flow.
Pulse jet baghouses may be compartmented; the bags are cleaned by compartment, with one
compartment off-line at a time. Where they are not compartmented, bags are cleaned by rows when a
timer initiates the burst of cleaning air through a quick-opening valve. A pipe above each row of bags
carries the compressed air. The pipe is pierced above each bag so that cleaning air exits directly
downward into the bag.
In shaker cleaning, inside-to-outside air flow is used and cleaning is accomplished by
suspending the bag from a motor-driven hook or framework that oscillates. The motion creates a sine
4-:
-------
wave along the fabric, which dislodges the previously collected dust. Chunks of agglomerated dust fall
into a hopper below the compartment. The compartments operate in sequence so that one
compartment at a time is cleaned. Parameters that affect cleaning include the amplitude and frequency
of the shaking motion and the tension of the mounted bag. The vigorous oscillations tend to stress the
bags and require heavier and more durable fabrics.18
Baghouses have been installed on the sinter plant windbox at four plants. Two of the
baghouses are pulsejet and one is a reverse air cleaning system; the remaining baghouse is a dry
injection baghouse. One of these systems is described in greater detail below. The baghouses
generally have an air flowrate of 300,000 to 400,000 scfrn, an air-to-cloth ratio of 1.0 to 4.0 acfm/ft2,
and a pressure drop of 4 to 9 inches of water. Two of the windbox baghouses have polyester bags and
one has Nomex® bags; information is not currently available on the fourth baghouse since it was only
recently brought on-line.
The plants with baghouses have strict limits on the amount of oil in the sinter feed or the amount
of oily mill scale that can be used because organic condensibles from the process can foul ("blind") the
fabric used to filter PM. The oil content of the sinter is measured so that it does not exceed a level of
approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent oil in the mill scale feed material. Plants with wet scrubbers can use
more oily mill scale in their mix because the hydrocarbon vapors do not interfere with the scrubber's
control of PM.
Baghouse Installation at WCI Steel.* A system of four baghouses is used to control
emissions from the sinter plant at WCI Steel, known as the strand, A, C, and cooler baghouses. The
system was modified from an ESP system that was previously used to control emissions. No new
building or major structural changes were required to modify the system. A new instrument/control
room was built for the new control device system.
The baghouse on the strand was manufactured by Environmental Elements. It is a pulse jet
baghouse with 14 compartments, utilizing Nomex® bags. Air is pulled down through 21 windboxes
and evacuated to the baghouse. The flow to the baghouse is approximately 400,000 cfm. The
baghouse has an air to cloth ratio of 3.90 acfm/ft2. A preheat burner is used to minimize condensation
and to bring the gas up to the desired inlet temperature of 275 • F. The dust is removed from the
4-4
-------
baghouse by rotary screw to bins where it is stored on the ground to gather moisture and is blended
back into the sinter feed.
When the strand baghouse system was first brought online, there were problems with sparks
and burning bags in the baghouse. In order to decrease the likelihood of fires occurring in the
baghouse, a few changes were made to the system. Spark deflectors were added to the baghouse
inlet, and the inlet temperature to the baghouse was decreased from 325* F to 275* F. The molecular
size of the hydrocarbons was increased by lowering the inlet temperature so that the bags would not
ignite as easily. Additional deflector plates were also added to the baghouse.
Based on the present performance of the system, several changes would have been made if the
system was redesigned from the beginning: (1) baffles would be added to the baghouse; (2) the
baghouse would be set further away and would have a longer system of duct work and an expansion
chamber to drop out sparks before they reach the baghouse; (3) the air-to-cloth ratio would be
lowered from 3.9 to 2.5 acfm/ft2; and (4) spark deflectors would have been added to the system from
the beginning.
The C baghouse was manufactured by Bahnson-Hawley and is a pulse jet baghouse that utilizes
polyester bags. It serves the material handling bins and the conveyors that transfer the sinter mix to the
sinter machine.
The A baghouse was also manufactured by Bahnson-Hawley. It is a pulse jet baghouse with
four compartments, utilizing polyester bags. The system serves the discharge end, including the sinter
production bins, sinter breaker, hot and cold screens, and 30-40 transfer points.
The cooler baghouse was manufactured by Ohio Ferroalloy. It is a shaker baghouse with 9
compartments, utilizing Nomex® bags. Eight of the compartments are used for the cooler and one
compartment is used for the truck loadout station. There are four 200 horsepower fans on the sinter
cooler. The first fan is the dirtiest fan and is directed back to hoods on the sinter machine and sent
back through as preheat air. The other 3 fans are ducted to the baghouse. The truck loadout station
has a 70,000 cfm fan.
4.1.1.2 Scrubbers. High energy scrubbers are used to control emissions from the sinter plant
windbox at five plants. Four of the units are high energy venturi scrubbers and one is an impingment
4-5
-------
scrubber. The impingment scrubber and three of the venturi scrubbers are preceded by a cyclone to
remove the heavy particles.
The wet scrubbers generally have an air flowrate of 140,000 to 600,000 scfm, a liquid to gas
ratio of 2.0 to 12.0 gallons per thousand actual cubic feet, and a pressure drop of 35 to 80 inches of
water.
In general, the wet scrubbers do not have the same limitations as the baghouse systems in the
amount of oily mill scale that they can handle. While the use of larger quantities of mill scale will not foul
up the scrubber systems, the level of control achievable for hydrocarbons and organic compounds
depends on a number of factors.
High energy scrubbers offer good control of particulate condensible hydrocarbons, and, in
addition, offer control of the fluorides and sulfur dioxide contained in sinter plant windbox gases.
Control of hydrocarbons has been shown to depend on three factors: the concentration of the
hydrocarbons in the inlet gas; the particle size of the hydrocarbon mist; and the pressure drop across
the venturi throat. The most critical factor in controlling oil emissions when using a high energy scrubber
is the control of oily emissions from the sinter strand itself. The efficiency of the oil removal from the
scrubber system has rarely been shown to exceed 80 percent.2
4.1.2 Discharge End
Emission points on the discharge end include sinter discharge, crusher, hot screen, sinter cooler,
and cold screen. These emission points are generally hooded individually with an enclosed hood or a
suspended hood and evacuated to one or more control devices; the majority of facilities use a series of
one or more baghouses. Scrubbers and rotoclones are also used by several plants to control emissions
from these sources. The sinter product is generally cooled by air, although water sprays are
occasionally used.
The baghouse is the best demonstrated emission control device for discharge end emission
control. In designing a suitable baghouse, the high abrasion characteristics and temperature of the dust
require special consideration. Approximately ten baghouses are in use to control emissions from the
various discharge emission points, handling one or more emission points. The most common cleaning
mechanism is pulse jet, although shaker and reverse air systems are also used. Most of the baghouses
4-6
-------
use polyester bags, but Nomex® and fiberglass baghouses are also used at some facilities. The
baghouses generally have an air flowrate of 32,000 to 350,000 scfm, an air-to-cloth ratio of 1.5 to 6.0
acfm/ft2, and a pressure drop of 4 to 12 inches of water.
Venturi scrubbers and cyclones are also used to control discharge end emission points at
several plants. The venturi scrubbers generally have an air flowrate of approximately 100,000 scfm and
a pressure drop of 35 inches of water. The cyclones generally have an air flowrate of 5,000 to 33,000
scfm and a pressure drop of approximately 5 inches of water.
Emissions from the discharge end consist mainly of PM and metals. Table 4-2 shows the
various control technologies used for sinter discharge emission points at each plant in the industry.
TABLE 4-2. SINTER DISCHARGE AND COOLER CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Plant
Bethlehem, IN
Inland Steel, IN
LTV Steel, IN
U.S. Steel, IN
Bethlehem, MD
AK Steel, OH
WCI Steel, OH
Wheeling-Pitt, OH
Geneva Steel, UT
Discharge
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Rotoclone
Crusher
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
N/A
N/A
Hot Screen
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
N/A
Rotoclone
Cooler
None
Baghouse
None
None
Cyclone
Baghouse
Baghouse
Water sprays
N/A
Cold Screen
N/A
None
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Water sprays
Baghouse
Water sprays
N/A
* Certain transfer points are controlled by the discharge baghouse.
4.1.3 Materials Handling
Emissions from material handling are generally fugitive emissions and are usually uncontrolled.
These emissions result from material storage, materials mixing, and sinter storage. Fugitive emissions
escaping the raw material handling equipment are normally confined within the building in which they are
processed, and primarily affect the worker environment. Only one sinter plant in the country uses a
baghouse to control emissions from material storage and handling; the remaining plants use no control.
Emissions from mixing are also generally uncontrolled, although they are also normally contained within
4-7
-------
the building. One plant, however, uses water sprays to wet the materials at the various transfer points.
While water sprays by themselves may be effective on materials such as dry ore, they are not effective
in controlling hot fines. Emissions from sinter storage are generally uncontrolled, although one plant
uses chemical dust suppression on the product.
4.1.4 Capture and Control System Performance.
Windbox capture efficiencies were reported by six companies in a 1993 industry survey and by
one company in a 1991 screening survey response. These efficiencies range from 93 to 99.9 percent
based on engineering estimates. Control device efficiencies varied considerably, ranging from 96.2 to
99.5 percent for a baghouse and from 70 to 99+ percent for a wet scrubber.
4.1.5 Pollution Prevention
Pollution from sinter plants is generated by particulate emissions from various emission points
and by organic emissions from the windbox. Sinter plants serve as a means of recycling waste iron-
bearing materials that would otherwise be landfilled from other processes at an integrated iron and steel
facility and within the sinter plant itself. The use of sinter plants is an effective pollution prevention
measure, but significant quantities of particulate and organic compounds are generated as a result of the
recycling process.
One of the major sources of organic emissions in the sinter plant is from oily mill scale blended
into the feed materials. One way to reduce organic emissions in the sinter plant would be to set a limit
for the oil content of the sinter mixture or for the amount of oily mill scale that a plant may use. Even
though a high energy wet scrubber may be able to handle larger quantities of oil than a comparable
baghouse system, limiting the amount of oil for all plants may reduce organic emissions. Another option
may be to de-oil the mill scale prior to recycling the scale in the sinter plant.
4-8
-------
4.2 BLAST FURNACE
4.2.1 Casthouse
Emissions from molten iron and slag occur primarily at the tap hole of the blast furnace and in
the iron trough immediately adjacent to it. Emissions also result from the runners that transport the iron
and slag and from the ladle that receives the molten iron. These emissions include flakes of graphite
(carbon) called "kish" that is released as the metal cools (because the solubility of carbon in the metal
decreases as it cools) and metal oxides that form when the reduced metal (e.g., iron, manganese) reacts
with oxygen in the air.19 Factors affecting these emissions include the duration of tapping, exposed
surface area of metal and slag, length of runners, and the presence/absence of runner covers and flame
suppression, which reduce contact with air.
Table 4-3 presents the capture and control systems in place on each furnace in the industry.
Three furnaces at three facilities did not report the presence of capture or control systems for emissions
from the casthouse. A combination of flame suppression and covered runners is most commonly used
at the remaining furnaces in the industry; in addition, more than one-third of the furnaces evacuate
emissions to a control device, most commonly a baghouse.
Flame suppression consists of blowing natural gas over the iron runners and torpedo cars. The
combustion of the gas consumes oxygen, which suppresses emissions. In addition to flame suppression,
many facilities use covered runners on the iron and slag runners. Most furnaces have a removable
cover over the iron trough; the cover is removed during drilling of the furnace and is quickly put back
into place when the molten iron starts to flow. The cover is removed again at the end of the tap to plug
the taphole with refractory clay.
One method of controlling emissions from the casthouse is to totally enclose the casthouse and
evacuate it to a baghouse. Alternatively, there may be localized hooding over the iron trough, iron and
slag runners, and hot metal ladles that are evacuated to a baghouse. Two furnaces at one facility use a
vertical rod-type scrubber to control casthouse emissions.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-3. CASTHOUSE CAPTURE AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
Plant
Acme Steel20- 21
AK Steel22- 23
AK Steel9- 10
Bethlehem Steel13' 14
Bethlehem Steel11-12
Geneva SteeP
Gulf States SteeP4
Inland SteeP' 5
LTV Steel15- 16
LTV SteeP5
National SteeP6- 27
National SteeP6- 27
Rouge SteeP8' 29
USX SteeP0' 31
USX SteeP
USX SteeP2' 33
USS/Kobe SteeP4' 35
WCI Steel8
Weirton SteeP6
Wheeling Pittsburgh
Steel17
Location
IL
KY
OH
MD
IN
UT
AL
IN
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
AL
IN
PA
OH
OH
WV
WV
Furnace
A
A
3
L
C,D
1,2,3
2
5,6
7
H3
H4
C1,C5,C6
A3
AB,D
B,C
1
4,6,8
13
1,3
3
4
1
1
3
1
5
Casthouse
FSa
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
None
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
CRb
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
None
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Control
None
None
None
Baghouse
None
None
None
Scrubber
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
Baghouse
3 Flame suppression
b Covered runners
4-10
-------
The most common baghouse cleaning mechanism is pulse jet, although shaker and reverse air
systems are also used. Most of the casthouse baghouses use polyester or polypropylene bags. The
baghouses generally have an air flowrate of 125,000 to 400,000 scfrn, an air-to-cloth ratio of 2.0 to
7.0 acfm/ft2, and a pressure drop of 3 to 14 inches of water. Table 4-4 presents the operating
parameters for various control systems used on blast furnaces in the U.S.
Gaseous and particulate emissions occur from slag handling as the slag is discharged and
allowed to cool. Particulate emissions also occur when the solidified slag is later broken up and
removed. These emissions are generally uncontrolled, although some facilities use covered runners.
No. 7 Blast Furnace at Inland Steel. The No. 7 blast furnace at Inland Steel has four holes
for tapping. One taphole is always open and the hot metal is removed continuously. To stop tapping,
clay is injected into the taphole under pressure to seal the hole. The molten iron and slag that leave the
furnace after tapping are separated in troughs and runners. The slag is diverted outside the casthouse
and is sprayed with water to cool. The molten iron is transferred to Pugh ladles to be sent to the
BOPF. There are covers over the runners for the molten metal and slag as well as canopies above the
tapholes, which are evacuated to route the emissions to the baghouse. The casthouse is controlled by
two baghouses, a new baghouse with computerized control that can concentrate on specific sources
during the various phases of operating practice, and an older general baghouse that serves as back-up.
Dust from the baghouses is currently stored for later recycle.37
4-11
-------
TABLE 4-4. EMISSIONS CONTROLS FOR BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSES
Furnaces with baghouses
Plant
Bethlehem
Steel13- 14
Inland Steel4'5
LTV Steel15'16
Rational Steel26'
Rational Steel26'
USX Steel32'33
USX Steel6
USS/Kobe34'35
State
MD
IN
IN
IL
MI
PA
IN
OH
Capacity
(tpy)
3,450,000
4,000,000
1,971,000
2,372,500
2,000,000
900,000
2,000,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
3,440,000
1,300,000
Furnace
1
7
H4
A
B
A
B
D
1
3
13
3
Flow (dscfm)
420,000 acfm
@170-200
-
250,000-
275,000
220,000
369,000
100,000 acfm
400,000
170,000
275,000
140,000
140,000
600,000 acfm
224,000
Air/cloth ratio
(acfm/ft2)
4.0
-
4.2
4.4
6.88
5.82
5.15
9.0
5.38
-
-
4.8
6.28
• P(in-
water)
8
-
7
7
14
10
3-8
4-8
3-6
3-12
3-12
<8
3-10
Cleaning
pulse jet
-
pulse jet
pulse jet
pulse jet
shaker
reverse air
pulse jet
pulse jet
-
-
pulse jet
pulse jet
Filter material
polyester
-
polyester
polyester
polyester
polyester
polyester
needle felt
polyester felt
polyester
woven
-
-
polyester felt
polyester
Location
Runner covers
Canopies over 4
notches
Iron trough and
tilting spout
"A" & "B"
taphole
Torpedo cars
Iron trough/
tilting spout
Casthouse
Casthouse
Casthouse
4-12
-------
TABLE 4-4. EMISSIONS CONTROLS FOR BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSES (continued)
Furnaces with baghouses
Plant
WCI Steel8
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh17
State
OH
OH
Capacity
(tpy)
1,500,000
1,682,000
Furnace
1
5
Flow (dscfm)
125,000
103,200
Air/cloth ratio
(acfm/ft2)
1.98-2.23
4.5
• P(in-
water)
-
4-6
Cleaning
shaker
pulse jet
Filter material
-
polyester felt
Location
Casthouse
Furnaces with wet scrubbers
Plant
Inland
Steel4'5
State
IN
Capacity (tpy)
1,253,000
1,253,000
Furnace
5
6
Flow (dscfm)
40,000 acfm
@250«F
40,000 acfm
@250«F
L/G
(gal/1000 acf)
10.0
10.0
• P (in.
water)
24-30
35
Scrubber type
Multi-element fixed
throat vertical rod
type scrubber (2
scrubbers)
Multi-element fixed
throat (1 scrubber)
Demister
vanes in
tank
Location
Local hoods
over notch, iron
and slag
runners, and
pugh ladles
air/cloth ratio = ratio of air flow to cloth area in actual cubic feet per minute per square foot of cloth
• p = pressure drop in inches of water
4-13
-------
4.2.2 Gas Cleaning
Blast furnace gas is primarily CO and is heavily laden with particles (on the order of 30 g/scm)
as it leaves the furnace. The gas is cleaned and is used as fuel in the blast furnace stoves and other
operations at the plant. Emissions occur from the stove stack when this gas is burned; these emissions
are generally uncontrolled at all facilities in the industry.
Most furnaces are equipped with a multistage dust collection consisting of a dry cyclone and a
wet collection. The gas is cleaned by passing it through the cyclone (called a dust catcher) and then
directing it to venturi scrubbers for final cleaning. The preferred method of cleaning the gas is the
venturi scrubber. Gases in the venturi scrubber are accelerated in the convergent section of the venturi
throat in order to impact at high velocity with the injected scrubber water. The wetted particles of dust
are agglomerated to form droplets in the venturi diffuser due to decreasing velocity and surface tension.
The water droplets containing the pollutants are then separated from the gas in the subsequent gas
separator. Most modern venturi scrubbers are designed with an adjustable throat section to
compensate for varied rates of gas flow from the blast furnace. Wear in the throat of the venturi is
minimized by the provision of a hardened lining and by a protecting film of water on the convergent
inner wall.
Two of the major consumers of blast furnace gas, blast furnace stoves and the underfiring jets
of coke ovens, require that the gas be as free of PM as possible. Any excess PM that might remain in
the gas would tend to deposit in the combustion spaces of these units causing premature outages and
failures. Because the units are essential to the ironmaking process and require a high investment of
capital, the plants find it necessary to maintain and operate the gas cleaning equipment at maximum
efficiency.19 Table 4-5 presents the various gas cleaning systems used at integrated iron and steel
facilities.
4.2.3 Wastewater
The direct contact water used in the scrubber dissolves HCN from the gas, and the HCN is
subsequently stripped from the water when it passes through the cooling tower. Cooling tower
emissions are not controlled.
4-14
-------
4-15
-------
TABLE 4-5. GAS CLEANING SYSTEMS FOR EACH FURNACE
Plant
Acme Steel20'21
AK Steel22' 23
AK Steel9' 10
Bethlehem Steel13' 14
Bethlehem Steel11' 12
Geneva Steel3
Gulf States Steel24
Inland Steel4' 5
LTV Steel15' 16
LTV Steel25
National Steel26' 27
National Steel26'27
Rouge Steel28
USX Steel30
USX Steel6
State
IL
KY
OH
MD
IN
UT
AL
IN
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
AL
IN
ID
A
A
3
L
C,D
1,2,3
2
5,6
7
H3,H4
C1,C5,
C6
A
B
A
B
D
B,C
1
4,6,8,1
3
Gas cleaning system
Dry dust catcher, variable throat venturi scrubber, mist
eliminator
Dust catcher, Bischoff venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, Bischoff venturi scrubber, mist eliminator
Dust catcher, venturi scrubber
1) Dust catcher; 2) primary wet scrubber; 3) water
separator; 4) 3 cone scrubber; 5) water separator; 6)
gas cooler; 7) mist eliminator
Dust collector, venturi scrubber, gas washer
Dust collector, venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, Bischoff scrubber
Dust catcher, fixed orifice scrubber, variable throat
scrubber
Mechanical dust collector, gas washer and cooler,
venturi scrubber, gas recirculation stoves
Mechanical dust collector, Bischoff variable throat anulus
wet scrubber
Dust collector, variable throat venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, variable throat venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, fixed orifice scrubber, gas washer, cooler
tower
Dust catcher, fixed orifice scrubber, variable throat
venturi gas cooler/scrubber, demister
Mechanical collector, venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, quencher, scrubber
Mechanical collector, gas cleaning
4-16
-------
Plant
USX Steel32
USS/Kobe Steel34
WCI Steel8
Weirton Steel36
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh17
State
PA
OH
OH
WV
OH
ID
1,3
3,4
1
1,3
1N,5S
Gas cleaning system
Dry scrubber, wet scrubber
Dust catcher, quencher, venturi scrubber
Dust collector, primary orifice scrubber, secondary
venturi scrubber, spray chamber-type gas cooler
Mechanical dust collector, venturi scrubber
Dust catcher, variable throat venturi scrubber, gas cooler
4.2.4 Capture and Control System Performance
Casthouse capture efficiencies were reported by several companies in a 1993 industry survey.
These efficiencies range from 50 to 99 percent based on engineering estimates. Control device
efficiencies were on the order of 99 percent.
4.3 BOPF SHOP38
4.3.1 Primary Furnace Controls
Primary emissions refer to those emissions leaving the mouth of the furnace vessel during the
oxygen blow that are captured by the primary hood. Primary emission control systems are divided into
two basic types: open full combustion and closed suppressed combustion; partial combustion systems
also exist. Use of high energy venturi scrubbers and ESP have been the traditional, best demonstrated
control technologies for controlling BOPF primary emissions. More recently, use of fabric filters has
been proven to be effective, although this technology is not currently in use at any facility in the U.S.
CO is emitted from the vessel mouth during the oxygen blow phase of the furnace cycle. The
gas temperature is sufficiently hot to promote combustion of CO if air is permitted to mix with the waste
gas. A design decision must be made to determine how much air, if any, is allowed to mix with the gas,
so that hood cooling capacity can be matched to the needs of the system. Some air must be admitted
to obtain sufficient capture velocity necessary to contain fume emissions within the hood. Capture
velocities generally run 14 to 58 feet per second.
4-17
-------
Many BOPF furnace installations use ESP for controlling PM emissions. Because of the
potential for igniting the CO/air mixture by precipitator sparking, it is necessary to use an open hood to
admit large quantities of excess combustion air at the hood and to facilitate the complete combustion of
CO. This design decision leads to larger gas volumes to be treated for control of particulate emissions
than is necessary for closed hood furnaces.
More recent designs have incorporated limited or partial combustion of CO (closed hood
design), reducing the heat generated in the hood and the volume of gas to be treated. Careful control of
the amount of air entering the hood allows 10 to 50 percent combustion of CO. Gas cleaning in closed
hood systems is exclusively venturi scrubbers to reduce explosion hazards. The advantages of
suppressed combustion (closed hood systems) are reduced energy consumption for gas cleaning as
compared to full combustion and the potential for recovering CO as a low-grade fu el source. Ten
BOPF shops and one vessel in an open hood BOPF shop currently operate with suppressed
combustion hoods; however, none of the plants are recovering the CO, and the gas is generally flared
before discharging it to the atmosphere.
4.3.1.1 Open Hood Designs. Both wet scrubbers and ESP are used to control emissions
from open hood systems. In this system, the hood skirt is in a fixed position and no precautions for
leakage into the system are necessary. Control systems may be shared between furnaces and multiple
fans operating in a parallel flow arrangement may be used.
When an ESP is used, gas cooling down stream from the hood skirt is continued by the use of
water sprays located in the upper part of the hood. These sprays are generally controlled by time and
temperature to turn on and off at various points in the operating cycle. The intent is to limit the gas
temperature reaching the precipitator and to moisture condition the gases for better precipitation.
Emissions during the oxygen blow are captured by the open hood, enter a hood cooling section, and
pass through a conditioning chamber where the gas is cooled and humidified to the required levels for
proper ESP operation. The gas cleaning system commonly consists of precipitators, fans, dust handling
equipment, and a stack for carrying away the cleaned gases. ESP can be used with open hoods
because the combustible CO generated during the oxygen blow burns at the mouth of the vessel,
4-18
-------
reducing the risk of explosions which could be set off by sparks in the precipitator. Alternatively, a
venturi scrubber may be used to control emissions. Because there is less danger of explosion in the
open hood system as compared to the closed hood system (most of the CO has been converted to
carbon dioxide), all of the vessels in the shop may be connected to a common gas cleaning system.
Control device parameters for open hood BOPF systems are presented for each facility in Table 4-6.
The venturi scrubbers on open hood systems generally have an air flowrate of approximately
210,000 to 600,000 scfm and a pressure drop of 25 to 55 inches of water. The ESP on open hood
systems generally have an air flowrate of 230,000 to 720,000 scfm and a plating area of approximately
80,000 to 650,000 ft2.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-6. OPEN HOOD BOPF SHOP PRIMARY CONTROL SYSTEM
Wet Scrubber Control Technology
Plant
Bethlehem11' 12
Bethlehem13' 14
Inland (#4)4' 5
USX, Gary6
USX, Gary
(Q-BOP)6
USX,
Braddock32
Weirton Steel36
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh17
State
IN
MD
IN
IN
IN
PA
WV
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
5.35
4.00
2.74
2.9
4.0
2.76
3.20
2.95
Flow
(dscfm)
1 13,200 x
O
600,000a
310,000-
380,000
268,000
267,000
174,000
280,000
210,000
L/G
(gal/1000 ac
0
20
8
1.0
13.1
34.7
--
--
10
- p (in.
water)
55
50
25
70-75
70
68-76
50
50
Scrubber type
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Demister
Pall rings
Chevrons
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Wood
Yes
Location
3 scrubbers for 2
vessels (#1 & 2)
4 Scrubbers for 2
vessels
2 vessels
3 vessels
3 vessels
2 vessels
1 Scrubber for 2
vessels
North & south
scrubbers
4-20
-------
TABLE 4-6. OPEN HOOD BOPF SHOP PRIMARY CONTROL SYSTEM (continued)
ESP Control Technology
Plant
Acme Steel20
Gulf States24
LTV Steel15
LTV (#1)25
National26
National26
Rouge Steel28
WCI Steel8
State
IL
AL
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
OH
Capacity
(million
tpy)
1.29
1.30
4.16
3.34
3.58
4.1
3.3
1.73
Flow
(dscfm)
288,000
327,000
458,000
550,000
410,000
500,000a
500,000
400,000
ESP type
Single
Stage
Single
stage
Single
stage
—
—
—
—
—
Plate
area
ft2
92,000
150,000
650,000
255,000
--
80,200
--
114,000
# of fields
in series
O
8
5
4
4
4
4
6
Type
bottom
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
Dry
—
—
Cleaning
method
Rapping
Rapping
Rapping
Rapping
Rapping
Rapping
Rapping
--
Conditioning
Agents
Water
Water/steam
Water/steam
Water
Water/steam
Water/steam
Humidification
—
aacfm
4-21
-------
Gulf States Steel ESP upgrade:'9 Gulf States Steel has an open hood BOPF shop with an
550,000 acfm primary gas cleaning system. Extensive developments were carried out to improve the
effectiveness of the system. The system became operational in 1994 and has proven to be effective in
reducing stack emissions to within regulatory limits.
Air atomized spray nozzles were used to replace direct pressure nozzles in the spray chamber.
The improved atomization reduced moisture and dust build-up in the off-gas ducting, as well as the ESP
and dust handling system. These nozzles also improved the moisture content of the off-gas, lowering
the dust resistivity and improving collection efficiency. However, during low temperature periods of the
blowing cycle, the desired cleaning efficiency was not being achieved. Therefore, the plant decided to
install a new precipitator system in parallel with the existing units.
To determine the additional collection plate area, the precipitator performance was predicted
during the entire blowing system for the existing system, 50 percent and 100 percent expansion. Based
on stack opacity, the 100 percent expansion was required to provide acceptable stack opacity levels
(10 percent) throughout the oxygen blowing cycle. The expanded system increased the specific
collection area from 285 to 560 ft2/l,000 acfm. The expanded system increased the collection
efficiency from 99 to 99.93 percent, and the outlet particulate concentration was reduced from 0.059 to
0.004 gr/acf (0.14 to 0.01 gr/dscf).
4.3.1.2 Closed Hood Designs ,38 In a closed hood system, the diameter of the hood face is
roughly the same as the diameter of the mouth of the vessel. The hood usually fits close to the furnace
mouth to restrict the inflow of combustion air. Because a completely closed hood would restrict vessel
tilting necessary for charging and tapping the furnace, the hood skirt must be movable. The lower
portion of the hood is a skirt that can be lowered onto the mouth of the vessel, sealing off the space
between the hood and the vessel, thereby limiting the amount of air that can enter the system. The gas,
mainly CO, is collected in an uncombusted state. The volume of gas collected in a closed hood system
is reduced by as much as 80 to 85 percent as compared to that of an open hood system. In addition,
there is a need to limit the amount of air infiltration downstream of the hood. Normal points of leakage
4-22
-------
in an open hood system such as the lance port and flux chutes must be sealed and purged of nitrogen
before use in the closed hood system.
Gas cleaning is performed by a scrubber to minimize the risk of explosion. The cleaned gas is
usually flared at the stack. Because of the potential explosion hazard from leakage of air into the
system from an idle furnace, the closed hood system must have a separate scrubber system for each
vessel. Control device parameters for closed hood BOPF systems are presented for each facility in
Table 4-7.
Initial cooling of the gas leaving the furnace is carried out using a water-cooled hood. Cooling
is continued by the use of a spark box or quencher, in which grit and coarse particles resulting from
refractory and chunks of slag or metal are separated from the gas stream. From the quencher, the
waste stream flows to a high energy scrubbing device where the removal of fine particles occurs. The
most common scrubber type is a venturi with an adjustable throat. The venturi is opened or closed to
increase or decrease gas velocity, i.e., pressure drop through the throat. A critical part of the scrubbing
unit is a moisture-separating device to knock out drops of water carried out of the throat. The device
may be a series of baffles or a centrifugal chamber in which the gas rotates, causing the drops to
impinge on the chamber walls. An after cooling chamber is occasionally used, in which the used cooling
water is sprayed to further reduce the gas temperature. At cooler temperatures, moisture condenses
from the gas, reducing the volume of gas to be handled by the fan. The system may have multiple
venturi throats, but draft is provided only by a single fan. The gas cleaning facilities are not shared
between adjacent furnace vessels; each furnace has an independent gas cleaning system. All closed
hood systems in the U.S flare the CO-rich waste gas stream generated during oxygen blowing. The
venturi scrubbers on closed hood systems generally have an air flowrate of approximately 40,000 to
268,000 scfm, a pressure drop of 40 to 80 inches of water, and a liquid-to-gas ratio of 2.6 to 34.7
gal/1,000 acf
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-7. OPERATING PARAMETERS OF CLOSED HOOD BOPF SYSTEMS-VENTURI SCRUBBERS
Plant
AK Steel22
AK Steel9
Bethlehem
Steel11
Geneva (Q-
BOP)3
Inland
Steel (No. 2)4
LTV Steel
(No. 2)25
USS/Kobe34
USS Steel30
State
KY
OH
IN
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Capacity
(million
tpy)
2.17
2.71
--
2.5
2.5
4.38
2.6
2.2
Vessel
1
2
15
16
3
1
2
1,2
1
2
L
N
U
X
c
Flow
(dscfm)
78,000
78,000
40,000
51,000
197,000a
78,300
77,300
50,000-
60,000
55,000
55,000
58,000
59,000
—
76,000
76,000
L/G
(gal/1000 acf)
11.5
11.5
2.9
2.6
21
--
--
10
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
- p (in.
water)
60
60
45-50
40-50
55
70-80
70-80
55
--
--
--
--
60-95
51-92
59-96
Scrubber
type
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Venturi
Demister
Yes
Yes
No
No
--
--
--
Yes
--
--
Yes
Yes
--
--
--
Efficiency
(%)
99+ (E)
99+ (E)
99+
99+
—
99
99
99.8 (E)
99.9
99.9
99+
99+
—
—
—
aacfm
4-24
-------
4.3.2 Secondary Sources of Emissions
Secondary sources of emissions within a BOPF shop include hot metal transfer, desulfurization,
slag skimming, charging, turndown, tapping, deslagging, teeming, ladle maintenance, flux handling, slag
handling and disposal, and ladle metallurgy operations. Most facilities use a combination of one or
more baghouses or, less frequently, wet scrubbers, to control secondary BOPF shop emissions.
Capture and control systems are described in detail in the following sections. Following the general
description of the controls, Table 4-8 presents the controls currently used for each emission point at the
various facilities and Table 4-9 presents the operating parameters for each control device.
4.3.2.1 Furnace Controls ,38 Emissions that occur during the steps of the furnace cycle that
require the vessel to be tipped out from under the hood include scrap charging, hot metal charging,
sampling, tapping, and deslagging. These sources are often poorly controlled by the primary system.
When the BOPF vessel is tipped out from under the hood of the primary control system, whether for
charging, sampling, or tapping refined steel, the primary control system may be rendered entirely
ineffective. Secondary furnace emissions are typically produced by unconfmed sources such as leaks
from the primary furnace hood or the open top of a ladle. These emissions may be captured by
enclosures or hoods and ducted to a paniculate control device.
Capture techniques for secondary furnace emissions include furnace enclosures, local hoods,
full or partial building evacuation, and, in the case of open hood systems, adapting the primary furnace
hooding to also capture secondary emissions. Particulate removal techniques that are currently in use
include baghouses and wet scrubbers. These systems are described in detail below.
Furnace enclosures. A furnace enclosure is a structure that may partially (on at least two
sides) or fully (on four sides plus the top) enclose a furnace vessel. Most recently constructed BOPF
vessels are enclosed. A partial enclosure may be designed to shield the BOPF from most drafts, other
natural convection, permitting hoods within or adjacent to the enclosure to be more effective at lower
air flow rates. In comparison to a full enclosure, a partial enclosure is less expensive, easier to retrofit
(possibly without interrupting production), and less likely to impede operations.
4-25
-------
In a total enclosure system, the enclosure can be relatively simple on two sides because the
vessel is designed routinely to tilt about only one horizontal axis. The enclosure roof is usually
penetrated by the primary exhaust duct, and it must be high enough to permit maneuvering the hood in a
closed system. Similarly, the flux chute and the oxygen lance of top blown vessels must penetrate either
the roof of the enclosure or the primary hood. Within the enclosure, and sometimes as part of the
enclosure, there may be charging and tapping hoods.
The enclosure can extend partially or completely to the operating floor at the rear-facing
tapping aisle. Tapping is carried out at and below the level of the vessel, and there is a tendency for
hot, dusty gases to escape in the natural draft induced by the process heat. A hood that is either
permanently arranged so that it does not interfere with operations or that is otherwise retractable to
collect tapping emissions is preferred. Most of the complications resulting from full enclosure arise in
the front facing charging aisle. This side of the enclosure includes a door that is moved out of the way
while charging scrap and hot metal. Because these operations occur at and above the vessel, natural
convection will permit a plume of hot dusty gas to escape into the building.
The secondary control system (capture plus paniculate removal) may be an extension of the
primary control system. Hoods designed to capture charging and tapping emissions may be ducted to
the primary system. Gas flow may also be adjusted for the differing demands of several parts of the
cycle. In a closed hood system, the typical arrangement is to duct the charging and tapping hoods in
the furnace enclosure to a secondary control unit, most commonly a baghouse.
Furnace operations dictate the necessity for opening and closing the doors on a furnace
enclosure. For a total enclosure, the charging of scrap and hot metal to the furnace requires the doors
to be open; immediately following hot metal charging, the doors may be closed. As the oxygen blow
portion of the cycle is completed, it is necessary to take a metal sample and measure the metal
temperature; most furnaces must be turned down to do this. Another opening in the enclosure door
may be provided to insert a thermocouple and sampling spoon. Where such an opening has not been
provided, it is necessary to open the doors at least partially, which may cause poor control of emissions
during the sampling period. If the doors are left open for the remainder of the production cycle,
4-26
-------
generally poorer capture of secondary furnace emissions can be expected. Doors on the tapping side
of the enclosure generally do not need to be opened except for maintenance.
Primary control systems used for secondary emission control. Consent decrees
negotiated between EPA and steel companies have included provisions for reducing roof monitor
discharges from BOPF shops. In several instances, roof monitor emissions have been decreased to
levels complying with consent decree terms by using primary emission control systems to capture
charging and tapping emissions. The use of the primary system to achieve compliance has been
strengthened by the adoption of operating practices conducive to lesser fume generation and by the
modification of, and in addition to, process equipment and pollution control.
Those shops with relatively large flow capacity in their primary control system are better suited
to achieving low roof monitor emissions from furnace operations. Higher flow capacity means that
higher indraft velocities can be achieved to capture fugitive emissions at a given distance from the hood.
In addition, the use of clean, non-oil-bearing, non-galvanized scrap, the positioning of the hot metal
ladle with respect to the hood face and furnace mouth, and the proper furnace tilt angle are all means of
reducing charging emissions.
Extension (flanges) from the primary hood into the charging and tapping aisles helps to provide
more draft closer to the points of emission. Similarly, an extension of the pouring spout on the hot metal
charging ladle will move the emission generation point closer to or under the hood.
Canopy or roof hoods, partial building evacuation. The design of hoods for BOPF shop
secondary emissions is complicated by cross drafts that develop within the building, interfering with
fume capture. A hood that is located close to the source and intended to reduce cross drafts may get in
the way of crane operations. Every design is a compromise between hood and vessel clearance and
the clearance necessary for crane operations. In addition to emissions that are collected regularly at
fixed locations, certain necessary maintenance operations generate dust that is less susceptible to
collection by local hoods.
The canopy hood is one method for collecting some emissions that have either not been
provided for or that inevitably escape the local hoods. A canopy hood will not interfere with furnace
4-27
-------
operations, can collect the fine, entrained particles at relatively low velocities, and can be ducted
continuously to a collecting device. Disadvantages to canopy hoods include: (1) cross drafts in the
shop that displace rising fume so that it evades the hood or the face; (2) a significantly larger volume of
gas to be cleaned; and (3) when added to an existing system, canopy hoods may reduce draft in the
rest of the system to the point that air velocity in the other hoods is too low to capture fume effectively.
One method of reducing the impact of cross drafts and avoiding the problem of the plume's
becoming larger than the hood face dimensions is to use partial building evacuation. The building
structure becomes the hood for a particular portion of the operation. Partition walls may be installed
between building columns to prevent lateral movement of the plume into adjacent portions of the
building. These partition walls may extend as low as crane operations will permit and may extend as
high as the roof. Sheeting or partitions may also be used to seal the roof area to prevent the escape of
emissions by natural thermal draft. One or more duct connections may be made into the sealed portion
of the building to extract contaminated air for gas cleaning.
4.3.2.2 Ancillary Operations. Ancillary operations, including hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and slag skimming are usually controlled by hooding ducted to a control device separate
from the primary control device, although one facility uses the primary furnace ESP to control
secondary emissions in the BOPF shop.
Inland Steel No. 2 BOPF shop39 The hot metal transfer baghouse at Inland's No. 2 BOPF
shop was upgraded in June 1994 in order to optimize the existing equipment. The 400,000 acfm
negative pressure shaker baghouse operated at excessively high pressure drop, reducing system flow
capacity and causing dust to bleed through the bags.
As part of the overall secondary emission control system upgrade, a baghouse appraisal study
was completed to help define the problems. The investigation indicated that the absence of hopper air
lock valves and leaks in the screw conveyor dust disposal system caused dust reintrainment which
prevented regular dust disposal and resulted in a slow, steady rise in bag pressure drop, even with
proper cleaning. The primary cause of bag failure was identified as abrasion resulting from under-
tensioning of the bags in their attachment to the shaker mechanism. The strap bag attachment induced
4-28
-------
the bags to fold during shaking, which restricted dust removal. Ingress of moisture through poorly
sealing access doors allowed bags to get wet, resulting in crust formation on the bags. A high degree of
shaker maintenance was attributed to generally poor mechanical design and aggravated by wear on a
knife edge support at the far ends of the shaker logs. In addition to mechanical problems, the original
hard-wired relay control system was found to be unreliable and too difficult to maintain.
A new bag design, complete with a spring-tensioned attachment, and top and bottom sewn
rings was installed in a test compartment and operated for several weeks. The new bag design was
subsequently installed in all 18 compartments. A new screw conveyor system was installed utilizing a
rotary air lock at each compartment hopper to eliminate reintrainment of dust through the hopper
discharge conveyors. Other modifications included replacement of all compartment doors with a new
design that provided better sealing, the replacement of butterfly outlet dampers with poppet dampers on
all compartments, and a new PLC baghouse control system. Baghouse performance was greatly
improved as a result of the modifications. The bag pressure drop was reduced to 6 in. water and the
system capacity was restored to the original design.
4.3.3 Ladle Metallurgy Operations
After hot metal is refined into steel in the BOPF vessel, further alloy additions and refining of the
steel occur during ladle treatment and vacuum degassing. Most BOPF shops have a separate ladle
metallurgy station. Emissions are generally captured and controlled from ladle metallurgy operations
using a baghouse, although one facility uses a wet scrubber. Several facilities also use a wet scrubber
to control emissions from vacuum degassing operations. The control device parameters for each facility
are presented in Table 4-10.
4-29
-------
TABLE 4-8. SECONDARY EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS IN THE BOPF SHOP
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL20
AK Steel, Ashland, KY22
AK Steel, Middletown, OH9
Bethlehem, Bums Harbor, IN (3
vessels in 1 shop/1
Bethlehem, Sparrows Pt, MD13
Geneva Steel, Orem, UT3
Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL20
Inland Steel, East Chicago, (o)
IN (2 shops)4
(c)
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN15
LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH (2 (o)
shops)"
(c)
National Steel, Granite City, IL26
National Steel, Ecorse, MP6
Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MP8
USX, Fairfield, AL30
USX, Gary, IN (2 shops)6 (o)
(0*)
USX, Braddock, PA32
USS/Kobe Steel, Lorain, OH34
WCI Steel, Warren, OH8
Weirton Steel, Weirton, WV36
Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel, Mingo
Junction, OH17
Secondary Emission Controls
HMReladle
HM desulf
Skimming
Charging
Tapping
Baghouse with canopy hoods
Baghouse with canopy hoods
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse with canopy hoods
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse with side draft hoods
Baghouse
None
!• Scrubber
!• Scrubber
Baghouse, doghouse
!• ESP
Baghouse
Scrubber
!• ESP
Flame
suppression and
tapside enclosure
!• ESP
Baghouse with multiple hoods controlled by dampers
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse (2)
Fume supp.
Fume supp.
Baghouse- 1
Baghouse- 1
Baghouse
Baghouse
Flame supp.
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
None
Hood to !•
ESP
!• ESP,
doghouse
Baghouse
!• ESP
Baghouse**
1 • scrubber
1 • scrubber
None
Enclosure to baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
!• SCR
Baghouse, enclosure
!• ESP
None
Slow pour,
!• SCR
!• SCR
4-30
-------
1 • = primary furnace control
BH = baghouse o = open
SCR = scrubber c = closed
* Bottom blown
** To be installed by 2000.
4-31
-------
TABLE 4-9. SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS
Plant
Acme Steel20
AK Steel22
AK Steel9
Bethlehem
Steel13
Bethlehem
Steel11
Geneva Steel3
Gulf States
Steel24
Inland Steel4
State
IL
KY
OH
MD
IN
UT
AL
IN
Capacity
(million
tpy)
1.29
2.17
2.71
4.0
5.4
2.5
1.3
2.5
4.7
Shop
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
4
Flow
(dscfm)
227,500
450,000
149,000
40,000
200,0001
SO^OO1
40,0001
135,000-
leo^oo1
30,700
ISO^OO1
288,000
167,000
193,000
470,000
Air/cloth
ratio
(acfm/ft2)
4.0
4.8
5.0
4.9
4.3
5.0
4.9
4.1-5.1
--
3.9
3
5.2
4.3
5
- p (in.
water)
6-11
5
2-5
4-12
10
4
6
4-18
--
5
--
7.2
10
6
Cleaning
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Shaker
Pulse jet
Shaker
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Filter
material
Polyester
Felt
Polyester
—
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Nomex
Location
HMT, DS,
SS, C, T
HMT, DS,
SS, C, T
HMT,DS
SS
HMT
DS
SS
HMT, DS,
SS
DS
HMT, DS,
SS
HMT, DS,
SS
HMT,DS
HMT,DS
C, T, F
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-9. SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS (continued)
Plant
LTV Steel15
LTV Steel25
National
Steel26
National
Steel26
Rouge Steel28
USS/Kobe34
USX30
USX6
USX32
State
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
OH
AL
IN
PA
Capacity
(million
tpy)
4.2
3.3
4.4
2.6
3.5
3.4
2.6
2.2
2.9
4.0
2.8
Shop
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
BOPF
Q-BOP
1
Flow
(dscfm)
220,000!
163,000!
680,000!
90,000
30,000
210,000
500,000
106,000
68,000
349,000
126,000
480,000
--
--
124,600
Air/cloth
ratio
(acfm/ft2)
5.0
2.0
5.4
2.8
3.4
2.8
2.8
2.1
--
5.45
3.3
2.6
--
--
--
- p (in.
water)
10
6
4-6
10.0
11.7
6-8
--
--
--
3-10
--
1.172
--
--
--
Cleaning
Pulse jet
Shaker
Pulse jet
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
Shaker
--
--
Pulse Jet
--
--
--
--
--
Filter
material
Polyester
felt
Polyester
Nomex
Polyester
Orion
Polyester
Polyester
—
—
Polyester
Dacron
Nomex
—
—
—
Location
HMT, DS,
SS
HMT, DS,
SS
HMT, DS,
SS, C, T
HMT,DS
SS
HMT, DS,
SS
C, T
HMT
DS, SS
C, T, HMT
HMT,DS
HMT,DS
HMT,DS
HMT, C, DS
HMT,DS
4-33
-------
TABLE 4-9. SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS (continued)
Plant
WCI Steel8
Weirton
Steel36
Wheeling
Pittsburgh17
Plant
Inland
Steel4
State
OH
WV
OH
State
IN
Capacity
(million
tpy)
1.73
3.2
2.6
Capacity
(million
tpy)
2.5
Shop
1
1
1
Shop
2
Flow
(dscfm)
450,700
--
100,000!
150,000!
181,200
80,000
Air/cloth
ratio
(acfm/ft2)
--
--
4.5
5
--
--
- p (in.
water)
--
--
5
6
3-5
5-6
Cleaning
--
--
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Plants with wet scrubbers
Flow
(dscfm)
100,000
L/G
(gal/1000 ac
f)
--
- p (in.
water)
35-45
Scrubber type
Venturi
Filter
material
—
—
Nomex
Polyester
Nomex
Nomex
Demister
No
Location
C
HMT,DS
HMT
DS, SS
HMT
DS, SS
Location
C, T
1acfin
2in. Hg
HMT= hot metal transfer
DS = desulfurization
SS= slag skimming
C = charging
T = tapping
4-34
-------
TABLE 4-10. LADLE METALLURGY STATION CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS
LMF stations with baghouses
Plant
Acme Steel20
AK Steel22
AK Steel9
Bethlehem
Steel11
Bethlehem
Steel13
Gulf States
Steel24
Inland Steel4
LTV Steel15
LTV Steel25
State
IL
KY
OH
IN
MD
AL
IN
IN
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
1.29
2.17
2.71
5.35
4.00
1.30
2.50
4.16
3.34
4.38
Shop
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
Flow
(dscfm)
110,000
40,000
6,000
13,500a
45,000a
120,000a
70,000a
45,000-
120,000
144,000
192,800a
120,000a
Air/cloth
ratio
(acfm/ft2)
3.9
5.5
--
5.4
6.7
3.8
--
5
3.9
4.3
--
- p (in.
water)
6-11
5-6
--
varies
8
4
--
2-8
5
0-6
5
Cleaning
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Pulse jet
Filter
material
Polyester
felt
Polyester
felt
—
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
Polyester
felt
Polyester
felt
Polyester
Nomex
Location
LMF at
Continuous
Caster
LMF
Cas ob
Material
handling
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
4-35
-------
TABLE 4-10. LADLE METALLURGY STATION CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS (continued)
LMF stations with baghouses
Plant
National
Steel26
National
Steel26
Rouge Steel28
USS/Kobe34
USX30
USX (Q-
BOP)6
WCI Steel8
Weirton
Steel36
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh17
State
IL
MI
MI
OH
AL
IN
OH
WV
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
2.58
3.50
3.3
1.4
1.2
2.20
4.0
1.73
3.20
2.60
Shop
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
Flow
(dscfm)
60,000a
165,000
144,000
37,400
37,700
60,000
--
--
--
8,000a
40,000a
Air/cloth
ratio
(acfm/ft2)
3.5
2.9
--
--
--
5.7
2.4
--
--
4.5
5
- p (in.
water)
--
--
--
--
3-12
4-12
--
--
--
5
6-8
Cleaning
Shakeout
pulse
Shaker
Pulsejet
Pulsejet
Pulsejet
Pulsejet
Pulsejet
--
--
Pulsejet
Pulsejet
Filter
material
Woven
polyester
Polyester
—
—
Nomex
Gortex
Nomex
—
—
Nomex
Nomex
Location
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
LMF
4-36
-------
TABLE 4-10. LADLE METALLURGY STATION CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS (continued)
LMF Stations with wet scrubbers
Plant
AK Steel9
Inland4
LTV Steel25
State
OH
IN
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
1.71
2.74
4.38
Shop
1
4
2
Flow
(dscfm)
2,200
3,100a
72,000a
L/G
(gal/1000 ac
f)
—
—
—
- p (in.
water)
--
--
--
Scrubber type
Condenser
Condenser
Hot well
Demister
--
--
--
Location
Vacuum
degassing
Vacuum
degassing
Vacuum
degassing
' acfm; LMF = ladle metallurgy
4-37
-------
4.4 REFERENCES
1. United States Steel. The Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel. Published by the
Association of Iron and Steel Engineers (AISE). Available from AISE at Suite 2350, Three
Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, PA.
2. Carpenter,B., D. VanOsdell, D. Coy, and R. Jablin. Pollution Effects of Abnormal Operations
in Iron and Steel Making - Volume H. Sintering, Manual of Practice. EPA-600/2-78-118b.
June 1978. pp. 12-15.
3. Starley, J.R., Geneva Steel, Provo, UT to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
October 29, 1993.
4. Shoup, S.P., Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 12, 1993.
5. Allie, G, Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 1, 1998.
6. Moniot, J.D., USS Technical Center, to B. Jordan, EPA. Transmitting final U.S. EPA
screening information request for USS Gary Works. Prepared by ENSR Consulting and
Engineering. September 5, 1991.
7. Calcagni, J., RTI, to P. Mulrine, EPA. Trip Report for Visit to USX Gary Works, Gary, IN.
August 31, 1995.
8. Calcagni, J., RTI, to P. Mulrine, EPA. Trip Report for Visit to WCI Steel, Warren, OH.
August 31, 1993.
9. Francis, S.L., AK Steel, Middletown, OH to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. September 5, 1991.
10. Felton, S., AK Steel, Middletown, OH to P. Mulrine, EPA . Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. November 30, 1998.
11. Riley, W. J., Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbor, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. February 14, 1994.
12. Ossman, G., Bethlehem Steel to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background information
document for integrated iron and steel plants.
4-38
-------
13. Anderson, D.A., Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to
section 114 request. August 29, 1991.
14. Ossman, G., Bethlehem Steel, to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants.
15. Thomas, M.I, LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 29, 1993.
16. Piccarillo, B., LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants. April 13, 1999.
17. Samples, W.R., Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 12, 1993.
18. Benitez, J., Process Engineering and Design for Air Pollution Control, pp. 414-438, 1993.
19. Jablin, R, D. Coy, et al. Pollution Effects of Abnormal Operations in Iron and Steel Making -
Volume HI. Blast Furnace Ironmaking Manual of Practice. EPA-600/2-78-118c. June 1978.
93pp.
20. Zibble, D., Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
June 2, 1994.
21. Zibble, D., Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
June 2, 1994.
22. Felton, S.S., AK Steel to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for AK Steel's
Ashland Works. November 15, 1993.
23. Felton, S.S., AK Steel, Middletown, OH to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. Noverber 30, 1998.
24. Stewart, E.M., Gulf States Steel, Gadsden, AL to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. February 11, 1994.
25. Nemeth, R.L., LTV Steel, Cleveland, OH to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. December 16, 1993.
26. Heintz, J.K., National Steel to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for National
Steel's plants in Granite City, IL and Ecorse, MI. January 31, 1994.
4-39
-------
27. Heintz, J.K., National Steel, Mishawaka, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants.
28. Earl, J., Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI to P. Mulrine, EPA. Response to section 114 request.
November 16, 1993.
29. Earl, J., Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. May 10, 1999.
30. Dilanni, L.G., USX to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for USX Fairfield
Works. December28, 1993.
31. Kubiak, W. U.S. Steel to P. Mulrine, EPA. Forwarding information on U.S. Steel's sinter, iron
and steel production facilities. December 4, 1998.
32. Dilanni, L.G., USX to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114 request for the USX plant in
Braddock, PA. December 28, 1993.
33. Kubiak, W., U.S. Steel to P. Mulrine, EPA. Forwarding information on U.S. Steel's sinter,
iron and steel production facilities. December 4, 1993.
34. Stinson, R., USS/Kobe Steel, Lorain, OH to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 16, 1993.
35. Ames, H., USS/Kobe Steel, Lorain, OH to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 15, 1999.
36. Current, G.P., Weirton Steel, Weirton, WV to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. January 6, 1994.
37. Calcagni, J., RTI, to J. Myers, EPA. Trip Report for visit to Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN.
JuneS, 1993.
38. Revised Standards for Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces - Background Information for
Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-82-005a.. December 1982.
39. Cesta, T., Optimization of BOPF Air Emission Control Systems. Iron and Steel Engineer, July,
1995, pp. 23-31.
4-40
-------
5.0 EXISTING STATE REGULATIONS
5.1 SINTER PLANT
5.1.1 Windbox
There are nine sinter plants in the U.S.; however, only seven were operating in 2000. The
windbox exhaust is controlled by a baghouse at four plants and by a venturi scrubber at five plants.
State emission limits for the windbox are given in Table 5-1. Most of the limits are in concentration
units of gr/dscf; however, two States have limits in Ib/hr, and one has a limit in Ib/ton.
TABLE 5-1. SINTER PLANTS IN THE U.S.
Plant
Inland
USS
Geneva*
WCI Steel
LTV
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Wheeling-Pittsburgh*
AK Steel
State
IN
IN
UT
OH
IN
IN
MD
WV
OH
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
PM emission limit
0.007 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0122 gr/dscf; 27 Ib/hr
501b/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.277 Ib/ton
0.03 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
501b/hr
* These plants were not operating in 1999 - 2000.
5.1.2 Discharge End
The sinter plant discharge end is comprised of sinter breakers (crushers), hot screens,
conveyors, and transfer points that are designed to separate undersize sinter and to transfer the hot
sinter to the cooler. In most cases, these discharge end operations are housed in a building. Emissions
are usually controlled by local hooding and ventilation to one or more baghouses or wet scrubbers.
Seven plants use baghouses and two plants use wet scrubbers. Details on existing limits are given in
5-1
-------
Table 5-2. For comparison purposes, the equivalent concentration limits were estimated for plants with
limits expressed as a mass rate (Ib/hr) based on the typical volumetric flow rate. The PM limits for
control devices vary substantially from plant to plant both in terms of format and numerical values. Four
plants have concentration limits for total PM (0.01, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.03 gr/dscf), one has
concentration limits for PM10, and three have mass rate limits (42.9, 50, and 50 Ib/hr).
Existing State regulations also include both building opacity standards to limit releases of fugitive
emissions (those escaping capture). As shown in Table 5-3, five of the seven operating sinter plants
are subject to a building opacity limit. One plant is subject to a 10 percent limit (6-minute average),
and four plants are subject to 20 percent limits (6-minute average).
5.1.3 Sinter Cooler
Sinter plant coolers are large diameter circular tables through which ambient air is drawn to
cool the hot sinter after screening. Seven plants operate sinter coolers to cool the sinter product prior
to storage. Two plants that are not currently operating have no cooler and stockpile hot sinter directly.
Of the seven plants with coolers, three vent directly to the atmosphere, one vents to a cyclone, two vent
to a baghouse, and one vents half of the cooler exhaust to a baghouse with the remainder vented
directly to the atmosphere. Five plants have emission limits expressed as concentration or mass rate
while two plants have no emission limits (see Table 5-4).
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-2 . CONTROLS AND EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE DISCHARGE END
Plant
AK Steel, OH
Bethlehem, MD
Bethlehem, IN
Geneva, UT
Ispat-Inland, IN
LTV, IN
USX Gary, IN
WCI, OH
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh, WV
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Rotoclones
(scrubbers)
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse A
Baghouse
Emission Points
discharge, crusher,
hot screen, cooler
discharge, crusher,
hot screen, cold
screen
discharge, crusher,
hot screen
discharge
discharge, crusher,
hot screen, 1A cooler
discharge
discharge, crusher
hot and cold screens,
conveyors
discharge, crusher,
hot screen, cold
screen
discharge
Emission
limit
50.0 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
42.9 Ib/hr
0.0096
gr/dscf PM10
0.01 gr/dscf
0.02 gr/dscf
0.02 gr/dscf
PM10
0.0052
gr/dscf PM10
50.0 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
Flow
rate
(dscfm)
112,000
340,000
212,000
105,000
122,000
100,000
161,322
180,000
141,470
32,900
Best
estimate of
TSP (gr/dscf
0.05
0.03
0.024
—
0.01
0.02
—
—
0.04
0.02
5-:
-------
TABLE 5-3. DISCHARGE END FUGITIVE EMISSIONS: OPACITY LIMITATIONS
Plant
Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, MD
Ispat-Inland, East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
USX Steel, Gary, IN
Geneva Steel, Provo, UT
Limit for sinter building and fugitives
10% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
TABLE 5-4. SINTER COOLER DESCRIPTIONS AND LIMITS
Plant
Ispat-Inland
WCI Steel
Bethlehem, Sparrows
Point
USS, Gary
AK Steel, OH
Bethlehem, Bums
Harbor
LTV, East Chicago
Description
Baghouse controls the discharge, scrubber, hot screen
and !/2 of cooler (one quadrant where the sinter is
transferred to the cooler and one quadrant where it is
removed); the other half is covered and vents through an
uncontrolled stack. 20 minute residence time. Baghouse
flow is 120,000 dscfm.
Baghouse with forced air at 189,000 dscfm
Cyclone at 320,000 dscfm and 0.02 gr/dscf; 90 to 120
min residence time
3 coolers, uncontrolled; with hood and stack; 360,000
dscfm each
Baghouse controls discharge, crusher, hot screen and
cooler; flow of 1 12,000 dscfm
Uncontrolled, with hood over cooler; 30-ft diameter and
575,000 dscfm; 60 min residence time
Uncontrolled; 60-ft diameter and 320,000 dscfm;
100 min residence time
Limit
0.01 gr/dscf (for
controlled
portion)
42.9 Ib/hr (about
0.027 gr/dscf)
0.03 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
50 Ib/hr (about
0.05 gr/dscf)
no limit
no limit
5-4
-------
Geneva Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
These plants do not have coolers. Sinter is transferred from the hot screen
to a storage pile and cooled by ambient air. Wheeling-Pittsburgh also uses
water sprays.
5.2 BLAST FURNACE
The casthouse is a building or structure that encloses the section of the blast furnace where hot
metal and slag are tapped from the furnace. These emissions are controlled in one of two fundamentally
different ways, flame suppression or conventional ventilation practices and control. Flame suppression
consists of blowing natural gas over the iron runners and torpedo cars. The combustion of the gas
consumes oxygen, which retards (suppresses) the formation of emissions. Ventilation practices
employed include the use of localized hooding and ventilation applied at the iron trough and iron and
slag runners. Alternatively, the casthouse may be totally enclosed and evacuated. Eighteen of the 39
blast furnaces have capture and control systems, 16 are controlled by baghouses and two are
controlled by one wet scrubber.
As a means for limiting fugitive emissions of PM from the casthouse during hot metal tapping,
most States have developed visible emission standards that limit the opacity of emissions discharged
from the casthouse roof monitor or other openings. As shown in Table 5-5, the most common limit is
20 percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 of the 39 casthouses.
States also apply particulate limits on gases discharged from control devices used to capture
tapping emissions. The most common form is a concentration limit, typically on the order of 0.01
gr/dscf (Table 5-6).
5-5
-------
TABLE 5-5. CASTHOUSE EMISSION CONTROLS AND OPACITY LIMITS
Plant
Acme Steel, IL
AK Steel, KY
AK Steel, OH
Bethlehem Steel, IN
Bethlehem Steel, MD
Geneva Steel, UT
Gulf States Steel, AL
Inland Steel, IN
LTV Steel, OH
LTV Steel, IN
National Steel, IL
National Steel, MI
Rouge Steel, MI
USX, PA
USX, AL
USX, IN
USS/Kobe Steel, OH
WCI Steel, OH
Furnace
A
Amanda
3
C
D
L
1
2
3
1
7
5
6
Cl
C5
C6
H3
H4
A
B
A
B
D
B
C
1
3
8
4
6
8
13
3
4
1
Casthouse control
Flame suppression (FS), covered runners
FS, covered runners
Flame suppression
Inert suppression, FS
Inert suppression, FS
Baghouse, evacuated runner covers &
hoods
FS, partially covered runners
FS, partially covered runners
FS, partially covered runners
No controls
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
FS, covered runners
FS, covered runners
Fume suppression hoods
FS, covered runners
FS, covered runners, baghouse
Baghouse, covered runners
Baghouse, covered runners
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Covered runners, FS
Covered runners, FS
Baghouse
Baghouse
Covered runners, Baghouse
FS
FS
FS
Baghouse, covered runners, evac. hood
Baghouse, covered runners
FS
Baghouse
Casthouse opacity limit
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
Covered under a "bubble"
No opacity limit
No opacity limit
5%, 6 minute average, 20% drilling, O2
lance and mudding
For all 3: 20%, except for any
aggregate of 3 min. (12 readings) in any
60 min.
None
15%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
15%, 6 min., w/ exceptions to 20%
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
For both: Not to equal or exceed 20%
except for 12 readings per hour
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
15%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
5-6
-------
Plant
Weirton Steel, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh
Steel, OH
Furnace
l
4
1
5
Casthouse control
Covered runners, FS, baghouse
Covered runners, FS
Covered runners, FS
Covered runners, FS, baghouse
Casthouse opacity limit
20%, except 40% for 5 minutes/hour
20%, except 40% for 5 minutes/hour
20%, 6 minute average
5% to 20%
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-6. EMISSION LIMITS FOR CASTHOUSE CONTROL DEVICES
Plant
Bethlehem Steel,
MD
Ispat-Inland, IN
LTV Steel, IN
National Steel, IL
National Steel, MI
USX, PA
USS/Kobe, OH
WCI Steel, OH
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh, OH
Furnace
L
7
H4
A
B
A
B
D
1
3
3
1
5
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse
Baghouse #1
Baghouse #2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Capture Points
Evacuated runner
covers & hoods
Canopy hood
Runners
Hood over tilting spout
& iron trough
Suspended hood
6 air hoods, 3 at each
furnace with damper
control
Hoods over trough &
pouring spouts — each
furnace
Air curtain
Evacuated runner
covers & hoods
Trough hood, covered
runners, hood at tilting
runners
Emission Limit
0.03 gr/dscf
0.003 gr/dscf
0.0 11 gr/dscf
No limit
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0075 gr/dscf
0.02 Ib PM/1000 Ib
exhaust
0.0052 gr/dscf
No limit
No limit
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.03 Ib/ton
0.31 Ib/hr; proposed
PM10limitof5.93
Ib/hr
5-i
-------
5.3 BOPF SHOP
5.3.1 Primary Control Devices
There are 50 BOPF located in 23 BOPF shops. The 50 BOPF include 34 furnaces with open
hood systems at 16 shops and 16 furnaces with closed hood systems at 8 shops. All of the BOPF
have capture and control systems for the primary emissions. For the open hood systems, 8 shops are
controlled by venturi scrubbers and 8 shops are controlled by ESP. All 8 of the closed hood shops are
controlled by venturi scrubbers. Open and closed hood vessels are very different in terms of
operation, pollutant loading, and emissions. Open hood systems are characterized by very high primary
exhaust air flowrates due to the large quantities of combustion air introduced at the furnace mouth to
support CO combustion. In contrast, closed hood systems, which include hoods that are tightly fitted
to the vessel to suppress CO combustion, are characterized by much lower exhaust air flowrates.
Typical flowrates for open hood shops are 200,000 to 500,000 acfm, while closed hood designs are
usually less than 100,000 acfm.
Each shop is subject to existing State limits with a wide variety of formats, including
concentration limits in gr/dscf and lb/1,000 Ib gas for PM or PM10, mass emission rate limits in Ib/hr,
and process weighted limits in Ib/ton of steel. In addition, the emission test period required for
compliance with the existing State limits varies from testing over the steel production cycle, only during
the oxygen blow, for 1-hour runs, and for 2-hour runs. Emission limits are summarized in Tables 5-7
and 5-8.
5.3.2 BOPF Secondary Controls
Secondary or fugitive emissions occur from the BOPF when the molten iron and scrap metal
are charged to the furnace and when the molten steel and slag are tapped from the furnace. The
emissions generated are primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the molten
iron or steel. Twelve of the 23 BOPF shops have a separate capture and control system for BOPF
charging and tapping emissions. Ten of these shops use baghouses and the other two use scrubbers.
Existing State limits for the control devices are shown in Tables 5-9 and 5-10 and range from 0.0052 to
0.015 gr/dscf and the NSPS limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. The most common limit is 0.01 gr/dscf.
5-9
-------
TABLE 5-7. EMISSION LIMITS FOR PRIMARY CONTROL - OPEN HOOD
Open Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Acme Steel
Bethlehem Steela
Bethlehem Steel
Gulf States Steel
Ispat-Inland No. 4
LTV Steel
LTV No. 1 Shop
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
USX Gary (BOPF)
USX Gary(Q-BOP)
USX Edgar Thomson
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
State
IL
IN
MD
AL
IN
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
IN
IN
PA
OH
WV
OH
Control
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Emission Limit
0.028 gr/dscf
0.09 Ib/ton liquid steel
0.03 gr/dscf
—
0.1871b/ton
0.018 gr/dscf PM10
39.8 Ib/hr
60.0 Ib/hr or 0.255 Ib/ton
0.057 lb/1000 Ib gas
0.02 gr/dscf PM10
0.02 gr/dscf PM10
Process rate
62.90 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
21.40 Ib/hr; 7.09 Ib/hr PM10 (pending)
Two furnaces are open hood and one is closed hood.
5-10
-------
TABLE 5-8. EMISSION LIMITS FOR PRIMARY CONTROL - CLOSED HOOD
Closed Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
AK Steel
AK Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland No. 2
LTV No. 2
USS/Kobe Steel
USX Fairfield
State
KY
OH
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Control
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Emission Limit
0.03 gr/dscf
1141b/hra
0.02 gr/dscf PM10
0.058 Ib/ton
15 Ib/hr (for each of 2 stacks)
45.0 Ib/hr
0.022 gr/dscf; c process rated
3 Both vessels combined
b During oxygen blow
c Furnace C, subject to NSPS, Subpart NN, which is 0.022 gr/dscf for closed hood shops
d Furnaces X & U
TABLE 5-9. LIMITS FOR SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICES AT CLOSED HOOD
BOPF SHOPS
Closed Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland No. 2 Shop
LTV No. 2 Shop
USS/Kobe Steel
USX Fairfield
State
IN
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Control
Scrubber
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Limit
0.05 Ib/ton liquid steel (#3)
0.002 gr/dscf
0.015 Ib/ton TSP
0.010 gr/dscf
0.0 12 gr/dscf
0.010 gr/dscf
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-10. STATE EMISSION LIMITS FOR SECONDARY CONTROL DEVICES AT
OPEN HOOD BOPF SHOPS
Open Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Acme Steel
Inland No. 4 Shop
USX, Gary (Q-BOP)
USX, Braddock
State
IL
IN
IN
PA
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Actual Limit
10.22 Ib/hr, 0.0052 gr/dscf
0.006 gr/dscfTSP
0.0052 gr/dscf
Process weight limit
1 gr/dscf PM
10
5.3.3 Hot Metal Transfer, Desulfurization, Slag Skimming, and Ladle Metallurgy
There are several different ancillary operations performed within the BOPF shop:
(1) operations associated with the molten iron before it is charged to the BOPF (hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and slag skimming), and (2) treatment of the molten steel after tapping (various ladle
metallurgy operations). The emissions from these operations are primarily metal oxides formed when
oxygen in the air reacts with the molten iron or steel.
Molten iron is transported from the blast furnace casthouse to the BOPF shop in a torpedo car
and transferred to a vessel at the reladling (or hot metal) station, where it is usually desulfurized and slag
is skimmed from the surface. Emissions from these operations are captured by local hooding and
controlled by a baghouse. Existing State emission limits for these operations shown in Table 5-11
range from 0.0052 to 0.04 gr/dscf, but most are on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.
The steel from the BOPF is usually transferred to a ladle where final adjustments in temperature
and chemistry are made in an operation known as ladle metallurgy. Emissions from ladle metallurgy are
captured by a close fitting hood and ducted to a baghouse. Existing State limits for ladle metallurgy
shown in Table 5-12 are a mixture of mass emission rates in Ib/hr and concentration limits in gr/dscf.
The mass emission rate limits range from 0.42 to 7.5 Ib/hr and the concentration limits range from
0.0052 to 0.02 gr/dscf.
5-12
-------
5.3.4 BOPF Shop Roof Monitor
The BOPF shop is a building or structure that houses several operations involved in
steelmaking. These include hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming stations; one or more
BOPF for refining iron into steel; and ladle metallurgy stations. Fugitive emissions from these
operations in the BOPF shop exit through the roof monitor.
States have set roof monitor opacity standards to limit these fugitive emissions (see Table 5-
13). The most stringent existing limit is the NSPS opacity limit of 10 percent (6-minute average, with
one exception per cycle up to 20 percent). The most common standard is a 20 percent limit (3-minute
average) that is applied to 14 of the 23 BOPF shops. In addition, there is an NSPS limit of 10 percent
opacity during the steel production cycle of any top-blown BOPF or during hot metal transfer or
skimming operations for any bottom-blown BOPF; except that an opacity greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle.
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-11. STATE LIMITS FOR TRANSFER, DESULFURIZATION, AND SLAG
SKIMMING-ALL BAGHOUSES
Plant
Acme Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland Steel No. 2
Inland Steel, No. 4
LTV Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
National Steel
USS, Edgar
USS, Fairfield
USS Gary Works,
USS Gary
USS/Kobe Steel
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel
State
IL
KY
OH
IN
UT
IN
IN
IN
IL
MI
MI
PA
AL
IN
IN
OH
OH
WV
OH
Process
Transfer, desulfurization, skimming
Transfer, desulfurization, skimming
Transfer and desulfurization
Deslagger
Transfer, desulfurization, skimming
Desulfurization Buildings 1& 2
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Transfer, desulfurization, skimming
Transfer and desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Transfer and desulfurization
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer backup
Emission Limit
10.2 Ib/hr
0.01 gr/dscf
58 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
23.1 Ib/hr
0.011 gr/dscf PM,n
0.011 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.008 gr/dscf PM,n
0.01 gr/dscf
0.007 gr/dscf
Process weight rate
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf PM,n
0.03 gr/dscf
0.04 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
5.97 Ib/hr
5.01 Ib/hr (proposed)
6.41 Ib/hr (proposed)
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-12. STATE LIMITS FOR LADLE METALLURGY PROCESS
Plant
Acme Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
Inland Steel, No. 2
LTV Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
Rouge Steel
USS Fail-field
USS Gary Q-BOP
USS Gary Q-BOP
USS/Kobe
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
State
IL
KY
OH
OH
IN
IN
IL
IL
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
AL
IN
IN
OH
WV
OH
OH
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse3
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse lb
Baghouse 2a
Baghouse 3C
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Emission Limit
0.037 lb PM10/ton
3.8 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.004 gr/dscf PM10
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
1.261b/hr
2.131b/hr
1.1 Ib/hr
7.50 Ib/hr
1.6 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf PM10
0.01 gr/dscf PM10
0.002 gr/dscf
0.42 Ib/hr
0.54 lb/hrd
2.3 Ib/hr, 0.02 gr/dscf
Vacuum degassing
Ladle metallurgy, No. 2 argon stirring
No. 1 argon stirring station
Proposed limit
5-15
-------
TABLE 5-13. SUMMARY OF BOPF ROOF MONITOR OPACITY LIMITS
Plant
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL
AK Steel, Ashland, KY
AK Steel, Middletown, OH
Bethlehem, Bums Harbor, IN (3 vessels in 1
shop)
Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, MD
Geneva Steel, Orem, UT
Gulf States, Gadsden,AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN (2 shops)
LTV, Cleveland, OH (2 shops)
LTV, East Chicago, IN
National, Granite City, IL
National, Ecorse, MI
Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI
USX,Braddock,PA
USX,Fairfield,AL
USX Gary, IN (2 shops)
USS/Kobe, Lorain, OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Weirton Steel Weirton, WV
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, OH
Open or
closed
Open
Closed
Closed
Open(2)
Closed(l)
Open
Closed*
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Open
Open
Closed*
Open
Open*
Closed
Open
Open
Open
Primary
control
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Secondary
control
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
Scrubber
None
Baghouse
None
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouseb
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
None
Roof monitor opacity
limit
20%, 3 minute average
20% except for 3 min/hr
Covered under "bubble"
40%, 6 minute average;
<60% for 15-min in 6 In-
S-day roll avg of 15% (6-min
avg), except 3 min/hr
10%, 6 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
Not to equal or exceed 20%
except for 12 readings per
hour.
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
None
20%
20%, 3 minute average
a Bottom blown
b Canopy hood baghouse controls emissions from "C" furnace only; new secondary control system under construction.
0 The NSPS for the roof monitor is 10 percent opacity based on 6-minute averages, except one period per cycle can go to 20 percent.
5-16
-------
6. CONTROL COSTS
6.1 APPROACH
The costs associated with improved emission control are based on what each plant may have to
do with respect to upgrading or replacing emission control equipment. The estimates are worst case or
upper bound estimates because they assume in several cases that plants will have to replace existing
control equipment, when if fact, it may be possible to upgrade existing controls.
The cost estimates are derived from industry survey responses, information from vendors, and procedures
in EPA's manual for estimating costs.
6.2 BOPF PRIMARY CONTROL SYSTEMS
Two plants were identified as candidates for upgrading or replacing their venturi scrubbers used as
the primary control devices for BOPF. Ispat-Inland's Number 4 BOPF shop has three venturi scrubbers
that are over 30 years old and were designed with a lower pressure drop (25 inches of water) than most
scrubbers that are currently used. The company had performed an engineering analysis in 1990 to
estimate the cost of replacing these scrubbers with higher pressure scrubbers.1 The estimate is based on
an entirely new emission control system that includes three venturi scrubbers and three new capture hoods
for the BOPF. The capital cost estimates are presented below and are indexed to 1998 dollars:
Item Capital cost (millions of dollars)
Three venturi scrubbers 11
Three new B OFF hoods 6.6
Engineering 0.7
Miscellaneous 0.4
Total ($1990) 18.7
Total ($1998) index = 389.5/357.6 20
The increase in operating cost for the new scrubbers is primarily the cost of increased energy
(electricity) due to operating at the higher pressure drop. A cost function is provided in EPA's cost
manual2 that expresses electricity cost as a function of the volumetric flow rate and pressure drop:
Electricity cost ($/yr) = 0.00018 x acfm x • p x hrs/yr x $/kW-hr
Estimates of electrical costs are given below for pressure drops of 25 and 50 inches of water based on
600,000 acfm , 8,760 hrs/yr, and $0.059/kW-hr:
6-1
-------
* p (in. water) Cost ($ millions/yr)
25 1.4
50 2.8
The increase in operating cost for the higher pressure drop scrubbers is estimated as $1.4 million per year.
Test data indicated that the venturi scrubbers at AK Steel (Mddletown, OH) may require a minor
upgrade to improve emission control. These scrubbers were designed with an adequate pressure drop
(50 to 60 inches of water). However, the water supply system may need to be upgraded, and the
scrubbers do not have demisters. Estimates obtained from a vendor (Coastal Technologies, Inc.)
indicated that two demisters for two 72-inch diameter stacks would cost about $7,000 (316 stainless steel
chevrons). The cost of new water supply piping2 for venturi scrubbers of this size was estimated as
$10,600 for a total equipment cost of $17,600. Based on a retrofit factor of 1.3 and an indirect cost
factor (from the cost manual2) of 36 percent of the purchased equipment cost, the total installed capital
cost for the minor scrubber upgrade is estimated as $31,000.
6.3 SECONDARY CAPTURE AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
Capture and control systems are used for fugitive emissions in many blast furnace casthouses and
BOPF shops. Table 6-1 summarizes the capital and operating costs reported by several plants that use a
baghouse as the control device.
Only one plant reported no controls for their casthouse - Gulf States Steel in Gadsden, Alabama.
This plant may be able to use flame suppression and covered runners to provide adequate control to meet
an opacity limit for the casthouse. However, a worst case approach is used by assuming that a capture
system and baghouse may need to be installed. Based on the cost for such a system as reported by
USS/Kobe Steel in Table 6-1, costs are estimated as an installed capital cost of $3.3 million, an operating
cost of $0.7 million per year, and a total annualized cost of $ 1.0 million per year (includes capital recovery
based on a 20-year life and 7 percent interest rate.)
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. BAGHOUSE COSTS
Plant
Process
Date installed
Type
Air: cloth
Flow (acfin)
Temperature (• F)
Bag type
Installed capital
cost ($1998)
Annual operating
cost($1998/yr)
Geneva Steel3
sinter windboxes
1993
pulse jet
4.0
540,000
275
polyester
$4,300,000
$610,000
WCI Steel4
sinter windboxes
1991
pulse jet
4.0
400,000
300
Nomex®
$4,700,000
$1,000,000
USS/Kobe5
blast furnace
fugitives
1992
pulse jet
6.3
300,000
250
polyester
$3,300,000
$730,000
Geneva Steel3
Q-BOP fugitives
1991
pulse jet
4.8
440,000
145
Nomex®
$3,400,000
$460,000
AK Steel6
BOPF fugitives
1992
pulse jet
4.8
880,000
275
polyester
—
$500,000
Gulf States7
hot metal transfer,
slag skimming,
desulfurization
1992
pulse jet
3.9
150,000
250
polyester
$4,300,000
--
6-3
-------
AK Steel has a closed hood BOPF shop in Middletown, OH that does not have a secondary
capture and control system. The cost of a new system, including a baghouse control device, is estimated
from the costs reported by two plants in Table 6-1 (Geneva Steel and AK Steel in Kentucky): capital
cost of $3.4 million, an operating cost of $0.5 million per year, and a total annualized cost of $0.8 million
per year (includes capital recovery based on a 20-year life and 7 percent interest rate.)
The MACT technology for secondary capture and control systems is a baghouse, and all plants
except two use baghouses. Ispat-Inland and Bethlehem Steel (Burns Harbor, IN) use scrubbers as the
control device for secondary emissions in the BOPF shop. There is uncertainty about the level of emission
control these scrubbers can achieve. As a worst case, assume these scrubbers must be replaced by a
baghouse at a capital cost of $3.4 million. There would be no increase in operating cost (the operating
cost for baghouses would be less than the current operating costs for the scrubbers).
6.4 BAG LEAK DETECTION SYSTEMS
Each baghouse will be equipped with a bag leak detection system. These systems have an
installed capital cost of $9,000 each with an annual operating cost of $500/year8. There are
approximately 88 baghouses at the 20 iron and steel plants. Consequently, the total capital cost for bag
leak detectors is $0.8 million with an annual operating cost of $44,000/year.
6.5 TOTAL NATIONWIDE COSTS
The nationwide costs are summarized in Table 6-2 and represent a somewhat worst case estimate
because some of these plants may not have to install new controls. The nationwide capital cost is
estimated as $34 million with a total annualized cost of $5.9 million/year.
6-4
-------
TABLE 6-2 NATIONWIDE COST ESTIMATES
Source
Gulf States, baghouse for casthouse
AK Steel (Mddletown, OH), baghouse for
secondary BOPF system
AK Steel, BOPF scrubber upgrade
Ispat Inland, new primary scrubbers and hoods for
No. 4 BOPF shop (50" • p)
Ispat-Inland, baghouse to replace scrubber for
secondary BOPF system
Bethlehem, Burns Harbor, baghouse to replace
scrubber for secondary BOPF system
Bag leak detection systems
Total
Capital
($ million)
3.3
3.4
0.03
20
3.4
3.4
0.8
34
Operating
($ million/yr)
0.7
0.5
0
1.4
0
0
0.04
2.6
Total annual
($ million/yr)
1.0
0.8
0.003
3.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
5.9
6.6 REFERENCES
1. Carson,! No. 4 EOF Gas Cleaning Upgrade (dated 9/21/90). Provided on April 6, 2000.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control Cost Manual. 5th edition. EPA453/B-
96-001. February 1996.
3. Shaw, K.C. Geneva Steel's response to pollution control equipment cost survey. January 26,
1996.
4. Shepker, T. WCI Steel's response to pollution control equipment cost survey. January 12, 1996.
5. Stinson, R. USS/Kobe Steel's response to pollution control equipment cost survey. March 6,
1996.
6. Bradley, L. AK Steel's response to pollution control equipment cost survey. January 1996.
7. Stewart, E.M. Gulf States Steel's response to pollution control equipment cost survey. January
17, 1996.
5-5
-------
EPA. Supporting Statement for the Primary Lead MACT Information Collection Request. April
1998.
6-6
-------
7. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
7.1 EMISSION REDUCTIONS
There are four integrated iron and steel plants that may be impacted by MACT. Each plant,
emission points, controls, and assumptions for emission reductions are described below.
Gulf States Steel Gulf States Steel has neither suppression controls nor a capture and control
system for the blast furnace casthouse. Assume as a worst case the installation of a capture and control
systems that will achieve a 90-percent reduction in fugitive emissions.
Ispat-Inland. Ispat-Inland's Number 4 BOPF shop has venturi scrubbers that operate at a
pressure drop of about 25 inches of water. Assume these scrubbers must be replaced by higher energy
scrubbers that will achieve a 50 percent reduction in emissions. The plant uses scrubbers to control
secondary emission from the BOPF, and most plants use baghouses. Assume as a worst case that the
scrubbers may be replaced by baghouses for secondary emissions and will result in a 50 percent decrease
in baseline emissions.
AK Steel. AK Steel (Mddletown, Ohio) may have to upgrade the venturi scrubbers in their
BOPF shop. Assume the upgrade will result in a 50 percent reduction in emissions. The plant does not
have a capture and control system for secondary emissions from the BOPF. Assume a capture system
and baghouse will be installed that will achieve a 90 percent reduction in secondary emissions.
Bethlehem Steel. Bethlehem Steel (Burns Harbor) has a scrubber for the control of emissions
from hot metal transfer, desulfurization, charging, and tapping in their BOPF shop. Assume the scrubber
may be replaced by a baghouse and will result in an emission reduction of 50 percent.
Table 7-1 summarizes the baseline emissions and expected reductions based on reductions of 50
percent for upgrading control systems and 90 percent for new capture and control systems for fugitive
emissions. Details on the estimates of baseline emissions are given in Chapter 3.
7-1
-------
TABLE 7-1. ESTIMATES OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS
Plant
Gulf States3
Ispat-Inland No. 4
BOPFb
AK Steel (OH)
BOPFb
Bethlehem (Bums
Harbor) BOPFb
Source
blast furnace casthouse
oxygen blow
secondary emissions
oxygen blow
secondary emissions
transfer, desulfurization
charging
tapping
Totals
Baseline emissions
(tpy)
PM
360
400
94
230
672
58
127
259
2,200
HAP
2.2
3.4
0.9
2.2
6.4
0.6
1.2
2.5
19
Emission reduction
(tpy)
PM
324
200
47
115
605
29
64
130
1,514
HAP
2.0
1.7
0.5
1.1
5.8
0.3
0.6
1.3
13
a Estimates of baseline emissions are from Tables 3-6 and 3-8.
b Estimates of baseline emissions are from Tables 3-15 and 3-16.
7.2 SECONDARY IMPACTS
Secondary impacts include the increased generation of solid waste or wastewater and increased
energy usage as a result of upgrading or installing new pollution control equipment. From Table 7-1, the
installation of baghouses will result in an increase in dust generation of 1,200 tpy. Upgrading venturi
scrubbers will result in a reduction in PM emissions of 320 tpy. Assuming 10 percent solids in the sludge
generated, the increase in sludge to be disposed of is 3,200 tpy.
The largest increase in energy usage will be from the venturi scrubbers at Ispat-Inland if the
pressure drop is increased from 25 to 50 inches of water. The minor scrubber upgrade at AK Steel is
associated with improving water supply and not pressure drop because the scrubbers already operate at
50 inches of water. Baghouses for uncontrolled sources will also result in increased energy usage;
however, baghouses that replace existing scrubbers will reduce energy usage because scrubbers require
more energy.
7-2
-------
The OAQPS control cost manual1 provides the following empirical equation for estimating a fan's
energy usage for capture and control systems based primarily on the system's pressure drop and the
volumetric flow rate.
kw-hr/yr = 0.00018 xacfmx pressure drop (inches of water) x hrs/yr
For Ispat-Inland's venturi scrubber with a flow rate of 600,000 acfm, an increased pressure drop
of 25 inches of water, and operation 8,760 hrs/yr, the increased energy usage would be:
kw-hr/yr = 0.00018x 600,000x 25x 8,760 = 24x 106 kw-hr/yr
The increased energy usage for the two new baghouses at Gulf States Steel and AK Steel is more than
offset by the replacement of venturi scrubbers with baghouses at Ispat-Inland and Bethlehem Steel.
Consequently, there is no net increase in energy usage from the installation of baghouses.
7.3 REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control Cost Manual. 5th edition. EPA
453/B-96-001. February 1996.
7-:
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SINTER PLANT TESTING
A.1 LTV Steel's Sinter Plant at East Chicago, Indiana
LTV Steel's sinter plant at their Indiana Harbor Works was constructed in 1959 and is a part of
the integrated iron and steel plant that also includes blast furnaces, BOPF, ladle metallurgy, continuous
casting, rolling mills, and galvanizing lines. The sinter plant has a maximum rated capacity of 5,280 tpd and
operates 24 hours per day, 7 days a week. Typically, the plant produces 3,800 tpd and operates 24
hours per day for about 310 days per year. Emission testing was performed June 25-27, 1997.
Emissions are generated in the process as sinter dust and combustion products and are discharged
through the grates and windboxes to a common collector main. Coarse dust particles settle out of the air
stream in the collector main and are discharged through flapper valves to a conveyor belt. This conveyor
also receives the returns from a series of hoppers that collect any particles that fall under the sinter
machine. This material is returned by conveyor to the sinter mix feed for recycle to the process. The
exhaust then passes through a battery of cyclones and a series of chambers (originally designed for an ESP
that is no longer used). The cyclones and chambers remove dust particles, which are also deposited onto
a conveyor (through air actuated valves) for recycle to the process.
The exhaust is moved by a 6,000 horsepower fan to the primary control device, which is a
double-throat Kinpactor scrubber designed by American Air Filter. The parameters associated with the
scrubber that are monitored include the pressure drop across the scrubber, flow rate of water to the
scrubber, exhaust fan draft and amperage, and the scrubber water blowdown rate.
A. 1.1 Parameter Montoring
The operating parameters associated with the process and control device were recorded at 15-
minute intervals throughout each test day. The process parameters that were monitored included the feed
rate from each of the 10 bins that were used in the sinter mix, the temperatures and the fan draft for the
windboxes, percent water in the feed, sinter machine speed, and the sinter production rate. The emission
control device parameters that were monitored included the pressure drop across the scrubber, the water
flow rate, blowdown rate, fan draft, and fan amps. Tables A-l and A-2 present a summary of the range
of values for these parameters for each test period.
A-l
-------
The process and control device appeared to be stable throughout the three test days;
consequently, sampling was conducted under normal and representative conditions. The feed rates of mill
scale and other materials were typical of the historical rates in recent years that had been reported by the
plant. In addition, the oil content of the mill scale was typical (target is 0.2 percent, maximum) with an
average of 0.21 percent oil (a range of 0.17 to 0.24 percent) based on the analysis of 5 samples. An
examination of the monitoring data showed that the average pressure drop across the scrubber was 43.1,
42.8, and 42.4 inches of water for the 3 test days. The coke rate seemed to be the most variable
parameter during the tests because adjustments were made frequently to change the sintering temperature.
The coke rate for the 3 tests averaged 1.7, 1.15, and 0.67 ton per hour; consequently, the emission test
results may provide some insight into the effect of coke rate on emissions. The windbox temperatures also
varied somewhat during the tests. Using Windbox 20 as an example, the average temperatures during the
3 tests were 538, 567, and 443'F.
A.1.2 Analysis of Monitoring and Test Results
Table A-3 summarizes the emission results for each run along with selected parameters that were
monitored during the test. Only a few comparisons can be made because the process operated stably and
consistently during the 3 test runs. One difference is that the coke (fuel) rate during Run 3 was only 39
percent of the rate during Run 1 and only 58 percent of the rate during Run 2. The lower fuel rate during
Run 3 is reflected in the lower windbox temperature during Run 3, which was about 100* F lower than in
the previous 2 runs. The pollutants most likely to be affected by the change in combustion conditions are
D/F and PAH.. During Run 3, the emission rates for all of these compounds were lower than in the
previous 2 runs.
The highest emissions of PM and Pb occurred during Run 3. The cause is not conclusive, but
some of the possible factors affecting this, perhaps in combination, were that Run 3 had the highest sinter
feed and production rate and the lowest average pressure drop across the scrubber. In addition, Table A-
1 indicates that Run 3 had a higher feed rate of fines (pellet fines and BOPF slag fines) than that recorded
during the previous 2 runs. Service water was used in the scrubber during Run 1 and recycled blast
furnace water was used during Runs 2 and 3. There is no obvious difference in emissions that can be
clearly attributed to the type of scrubber water.
A-2
-------
The major metal HAP that was found was Pb, which accounted for over 97 percent of the total
metal HAP emissions. Discussions with the plant and examination of data from the analysis of blast
furnace fines and sludge indicated that a likely source of the Pb emissions was from this fine material
recycled from the blast furnace. Data in the literature showed that the Pb content of blast furnace dust and
sludge was generally in the range of 0.01 to 0.1 percent. At a typical feed rate for the dust and sludge of
28,000 Ib/hr (14 tph), these materials would introduce 2.8 to 28 Ib/hr of Pb into the process, which could
easily account for the Pb that was found entering the scrubber (4.2 Ib/hr). In addition, the small particle
size of these pollution control residues from the blast furnace may increase the probability that they
become airborne, and the volatility of Pb and some Pb compounds from combustion processes may tend
to increase the concentration of Pb in the windbox emissions.
Table A-4 through A-6 presents a summary of the annual emissions and the emission factors
derived from this test.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-l. PROCESS PARAMETER VALUES DURING THE TESTS
Parameter
Run 1 (6/25/97)
Run 2 (6/26/97)
Run 3 (6/27/97)
Feed rate (tph):
Mil scale
BOPF slag/filter cake
Fines
Pellet chips
Pellet fines- blend
Limestone
Cold fines
Coke breeze
Flue dust
BOPF slag fines
Other parameters:
Percent water
Grate speed
Windbox 20 temperature (• F)
Windbox draft (in. water)
Feed rate (tph)
Sinter production (tph)
25.2 (24.8 - 25.5)
16.7(16.1 -17.9)
16.7(16.1 -17.6)
77.4 (75.9 - 78.8)
9.5 (8.5 - 10.2)
27.2 (26.9 - 27.7)
19.6(17.6-21.4)
1.7(1.5-1.9)
5.9 (5.8 - 6.0)
7.9 (7.6 - 8.2)
6.7-7.5
70-76
453 - 656
13.6-17.4
205-210
155 - 158
25.2 (24.9 - 25.5)
16.9(15.9-18.2)
16.4(15.9-18.0)
77.7 (76.2 - 79.0)
10.7(10.1 -11.4)
27.5 (26.8 - 27.8)
17.2(15.2-19.5)
1.2(0.9-1.5)
5.9 (5.8 - 6.0)
9.3(9.4-10.1)
6.5-7.4
70-76
474 - 659
13.3-18.2
201 -212
153 - 161
25.2 (24.8 - 25.6)
16.9(15.5-17.9)
16.7 (15.3 - 18.0)
77.6 (76.5 - 79.5)
12.3(11.3-13.6)
27.7 (27.4 - 28.8)
17.8(16.8-23.2)
0.7(0.34-1.1)
5.9 (5.8 - 6.0)
10.0(9.8-10.1)
7.2 - 8.2
70-82
334 - 571
14.2- 18.2
209 - 213
159-161
TABLE A-2. CONTROL DEVICE OPERATING PARAMETERS DURING THE TESTS
Parameter
Pressure drop (in. water)
Water flow (gal/min)
Slowdown (gal/min)
Fan amps
Fan draft (in. water)
Type of water
Run 1 (6/25/97)
38.4-46.6
3,040 - 3,085
236 - 239
663 - 695
3.1 -5.8
service (lake)
Run 2 (6/26/97)
39.4 - 46.3
3,080 - 3,130
242 - 246
685 - 700
3.2-5.8
Run 3 (6/27/97)
39.8-47.0
3,080-3,110
241 - 244
700 - 730
3.8-5.1
recycled blast furnace
A-4
-------
TABLE A-3. VENTURI SCRUBBER: RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN
Parameter
PMa - inlet
PM - outlet
PM efficiency
PM - inlet
PM - outlet
HAP metals - inb
HAP metals - outb
Metals efficiency
D/F congeners0
D/FTEQd
7PAHe
16 PAH
TOTAL PAH
Sinter production
Scrubber* p
Windbox 20
temperature
Units
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
percent
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
percent
•g/hr
•g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
tons/hr
in. water
•F
Runl
419
34
92
0.20
0.014
4.5
3.8
16
810
93
1.9
69
83
156
43.1
538
Run 2
479
38
92
0.23
0.017
4.5
3.7
18
768
91
2.0
78
92
159
42.8
567
Run3
550
43
92
0.25
0.019
4.9
3.9
20
694
79
1.4
61
73
160
42.4
443
Average
483
38
92
0.23
0.017
4.6
3.8
17
757
88
1.7
69
83
158
42.8
516
1 PM = participate matter
b Mostly lead
c D/F congeners are those dioxins and furans that have a toxicity equivalent factor relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
d D/F TEQ is the toxicity equivalent expressed relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
e PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
A-5
-------
TABLE A-4. VENTURI SCRUBBER: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PM AND HAP METALS
Pollutant
Particulate
matter
Concentration (gr/dscf)
Inlet
0.23
Outlet
0.017
Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Inlet
483
Outlet
38
Efficiency
(%)
92
Annual rate (tpy)a
Inlet
1,800
Outlet
142
Emission factor (Ib/t sinter)
Inlet
3.1
Outlet
0.24
Pollutant:
HAP metals
Mercury
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Total HAP
metals
Concentration (• g/dscm)
Inlet
0.96
4.3
0.054
20
0.30
24
400
23
4,500
2.6
13
5,000
Outlet
1.5
1.1
0.052
17
0.050
5.2
17
22
3,700
1.6
8.7
3,800
Emission rate (g/hr)
Inlet
0.41
1.8
0.023
8.4
0.18
9.9
171
9.8
1,900
1.1
5.5
2,100
Outlet
0.69
0.50
0.023
7.8
0.023
2.4
7.9
9.9
1,690
0.75
4.0
1,700
Efficiency
(%)
0
73
0
7.4
87
76
95
0
11
32
28
18
Annual rate (tpy)
Inlet
3.3 x lO'3
l.SxlO-2
1.9xlO-4
6.9 xlO'2
l.SxlO-3
S.lxlO'2
1.4
8.0 xlO'2
16
9.0 xlO'3
4.5 x lO'2
17
Outlet
5.7 x lO'3
4.1xlQ-3
1.9xlO-4
6.4 xlO'2
1.9xlO-4
1.9xlO-2
6.4 xlO'2
8.1xKr2
1.4xlO+1
6.1xlO-3
3.2 xlO'2
1.4xlO+1
Emission factor
(Ib/ton sinter)
Inlet
5.7 x lO'6
2.5 x 10'5
3.2 xlO'7
1.2xlQ-4
2.5 xlO'6
1.4xlO-4
2.4 xlO'3
1.4xlQ-4
2.7 xlO'2
l.SxlO'5
7.7 x lO'5
2.9 xlO'2
Outlet
9.7 x lO'6
7.0 xlO'6
3.3 x lO'7
l.lxlO'4
3.3 x ID'7
3.3 x ID'5
l.lxlO'4
1.4xlQ-4
2.4 xlO'2
l.OxlO-5
5.5 x lO'5
2.4 xlO'2
Based on operation for 24 hours per day for 310 days per year.
A-6
-------
TABLE A-5. VENTURI SCRUBBER: RESULTS FOR PAH AND D/F
Pollutant: PAH3
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Total 7 PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(g.h,l)perylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total 16 PAH
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Perylene
Total -all PAH
D/F
D/FTEQC
D/F Congeners'1
Concentration
(• g/dscm)
0.53
0.23
1.2
0.22
1.3
0.097
0.26
3.9
3.5
7.6
1.8
0.36
6.9
5.4
78
43
3.0
153
29
0.039
0.76
0.058
183
Concentration
(ng/dscm)
0.19
1.7
Emission rate
(g/hr)
0.24
0.11
0.54
0.10
0.60
0.044
0.12
1.7
1.6
3.4
0.81
0.16
3.1
2.4
35
19
1.4
69
13
0.018
0.30
0.026
83
Emission rate
(• g/hr)
88
757
Emissions'"
(tpy)
0.0019
0.00086
0.0044
0.00082
0.0049
0.00036
0.00096
0.014
0.013
0.028
0.0067
0.0013
0.026
0.020
0.29
0.16
0.011
0.57
0.11
0.00015
0.0028
0.00022
0.68
g/yr
0.66
5.6
Ib/ton sinter
3.3 x 10- 6
l.SxlO'6
7.5 xlO'6
1.4xlO-6
8.4 xlO'6
6.1xlO'7
1.6xlO-6
2.4 x 10 5
2.2 xlO'5
4.8 xlO'5
l.lxlO'5
2.2 xlO'6
4.3 x ID'5
3.4 xlO'5
4.9 xlO'4
2.7 x 10'4
1.9xlO-5
9.7 x 10 4
l.SxlO'4
2.5 xlO'7
4.8 xlO'6
3.7 x 10'7
1.2 x 10 3
g/ton
5.5 x 10'7
5.0 xlO'6
a PAH = poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
b Based on operation for 24 hours per day for 310 days per year.
0 D/F TEQ is the toxicity equivalent expressed relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
A-7
-------
1D/F congeners are those dioxins and furans that have a toxicity equivalent factor relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
A-8
-------
A.2 Youngstown Sinter Company's Sinter Plant
The Youngstown sinter plant is operated by Youngstown Sinter Company, a wholly owned
subsidiary of WCI Steel. The plant was purchased from LTV Steel Company and was brought on line in
June 1991. The sinter plant is located a few miles from the WCI Steel integrated iron and steel plant in
Warren, OH. The integrated plant includes one blast furnace, a BOPF shop containing two BOPF
vessels, ladle metallurgy, continuous casting, rolling mills, and galvanizing lines. The sinter plant has a
capacity of 60,000 tons per month (tpm) and operates 24 hours per day with 2 days scheduled downtime
every seven days for routine maintenance. Testing was performed August 12-15, 1997.
Emissions are generated in the process as sinter dust and combustion products are discharged
through the grates and the 21 windboxes to a common collector main and are then collected by the strand
baghouse. The pulse jet baghouse is manufactured by Environmental Elements and uses Nomex® bags
that are coated with an acid-resistant finish. There are 14 modules, each containing 306 bags. The bags
are 6 inches in diameter and 15 feet in length, and the total cloth area for each module is 7,215 square
feet. The gross air-to-cloth ratio is 3.96 acfm/ft2 and the net air-to-cloth ratio, with one module off-line for
cleaning is 4.26 acfm/ft2.
The flow to the baghouse is approximately 400,000 cfm. A preheat burner is used to minimize
condensation and to bring the gas up to the desired inlet temperature. The dust is removed from the
baghouse by rotary screw to bins where it is stored on the ground to gather moisture and is blended back
into the sinter feed. The parameters associated with the baghouse that are monitored include the pressure
drop across the baghouse, inlet temperature, stack temperature, damper percent, and fan amps.
Three additional baghouses are used to control emissions from the sinter plant. The C baghouse,
a pulse jet baghouse utilizing polyester bags, is used to control emissions from the material handling bins
and the conveyors that transfer the sinter mix to the sinter machine. The cooler baghouse controls
emissions from the sinter cooler and from the main truck loadout station. The baghouse is a shaker
baghouse that utilizes Nomex® bags and contains nine compartments. Eight of the compartments are used
for the cooler and one compartment is used for the truck loadout station. There are four 200 horsepower
fans on the sinter cooler. The first fan is the dirtiest fan and is directed back to hoods on the sinter
A-9
-------
machine and sent back through as preheat air. The other three fans are ducted to the baghouse. In
addition, the truck loadout station has a 70,000 cfm fan. These baghouses were not evaluated as part of
this test program.
The A baghouse that serves the discharge end of the sinter plant was evaluated as part of this test
program. This baghouse controls emissions from discharge end emission points, including the hood before
the sinter machine; the hood over sinter discharge; the sinter breaker and hot screen which is enclosed by
a cloth curtain; the tail end of the sinter cooler; emissions from each of the ten sinter feed bins; a variety of
transfer points for the transport of sinter, dust, and fines; and emissions from sinter bins located in the sinter
overflow storage area. At any point where there is hot sinter, emissions are first ducted to a cyclone
before going to the baghouse.
All of the baghouses are monitored on a weekly basis by an outside contractor to check the
operation and for any visible opacity. A whole compartment is dye- tested if there is more than 5 percent
visible emissions observed, and the broken bags are then replaced. Every other month, a complete
compartment of either the strand or cooler baghouse is replaced; each compartment is replaced
approximately every 3 years.
A.2.1 Monitoring Results During the Tests
The operating parameters associated with the process and control device were recorded at 15-
minute intervals throughout each test day. The process parameters that were monitored included the
temperatures and the fan draft for the windboxes, percent water in the feed, sinter machine speed, and the
temperature of each of the four cooling fans. In addition, the turn supervisor's report provided additional
information, including tons per hour of pre-blend, and tons per 8-hour turn of limestone, dolomite, coke
fines, and cold fines. The emission control device parameters that were monitored included the pressure
drop across the baghouse, damper percent, inlet temperature, stack temperature, fan amps, and the
pressure drop of each of the 14 compartments of the baghouse. Tables A-6 and A-7 present a summary
of the range of values for these parameters for each test period. Table A-8 presents a summary of the
pressure drops of each compartment of the baghouse for the four days of testing.
A-10
-------
The process and control device appeared to be stable throughout the four test days; consequently,
sampling was conducted under normal and representative conditions. An examination of the monitoring
data showed that the average pressure drop across the baghouse was 10.8, 12.0, 12.9 and 13.5 inches of
water for the 4 test days. The pressure drop across the baghouse did increase slightly during each day of
testing. On the third day, the compartments were double cleaned to try to reduce the pressure drop. The
temperatures and draft of the windboxes varied somewhat during the tests; plant operators stated that the
temperature of windboxes 19 and 20, should generally be 475-500 • F to achieve proper burnthrough of
the sinter bed.
During each run of testing performed on A baghouse, the pressure drops of each compartment and
the pressure drop across the baghouse were monitored periodically, generally every 20 to 30 minutes.
The plant does not monitor any other parameters on A baghouse; since the A baghouse is responsible for
the capture and control of dust sources throughout the sintering process, malfunctions are readily apparent.
Table A-9 presents a summary of the pressure drops of each compartment and the pressure drop across
the baghouse during each test period.
A.2.2 Analysis of Monitoring and Test Results
Table A-10 summarizes the emission results for each run for key pollutants from the outlet of the
control device on the sinter strand, along with selected parameters that were monitored during the test.
Only a few comparisons can be made because the process operated stably and consistently during the 3
test runs. One difference is that the pressure drop across the strand baghouse increased over the four
days of testing, from an average of 10.78 on the first day of testing, to an average of 13.48 on the final day
of testing. However, the results were fairly stable and did not appear to be impacted by the increased
pressure drop over the course of testing. Table A-l 1 presents emission results for each run for key
pollutants from the baghouse that controls emissions from the discharge end ("A" baghouse).
Paniculate matter and HAP metal emissions were fairly steady over three runs. One interesting
factor is that while paniculate matter emissions during Run 2 were three times lower than during Run 1,
and two times lower than during Run 3, HAP metal emissions were steady over the course of the three
A-ll
-------
runs. The major metal HAPs that were found were Pb and Mn; both were effectively captured and
controlled by both the Strand baghouse and A baghouse.
A-12
-------
TABLE A-6. PROCESS PARAMETER RANGES DURING THE TESTS
Parameter
Testl
(8/12/97)
Test 2
(8/13/97)
Tests
(8/14/97)
Test 4
(8/15/97)
Feed rate:
Pre-blend (ore) (tons/hour)
Limestone (tons/turn)
Dolomite (tons/turn)
Coke fines (tons/turn)
Cold fines (tons/turn)
120
144
43
19
1738
120
114
39
17
1545
120
167
43
18
1787
120
—
—
—
—
Other parameters:
Percent water
Grate speed (feet/min)
Windbox 1 temperature (• F)
Windbox 1 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 3 temperature (• F)
Windbox 3 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 13 temperature (*F)
Windbox 13 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 18 temperature (*F)
Windbox 18 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 19 temperature (*F)
Windbox 19 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 20 temperature (• F)
Windbox 20 draft (in. H2O)
Windbox 21 temperature (*F)
Windbox 21 draft (in. H2O)
7.0-7.2
—
177-211
18.0-22.1
167-195
16.2-20.3
187-266
—
327-463
14.7-18.3
396-542
16.4-21.1
373-580
14.5-18.9
—
14.9-17.7
6.7-7.6
—
150-202
20.3-23.5
108-186
18.6-21.5
184-233
—
251-459
16.6-19.9
357-513
18.4-21.9
391-546
17.0-20.7
360-465
15.7-19.3
6.8-7.0
—
157-207
19.5-22.3
149-181
18.1-20.5
169-231
—
288-457
15.7-18.5
350-460
18.0-20.4
372-496
16.2-18.9
332-429
15.1-17.5
6.7-6.8
6.3 -7.0
166-220
19.5-21.8
159-198
18.0-20.1
165-342
—
301-521
16.0-17.8
363-545
17.2-20.5
385-545
16.5-18.6
355-443
15.3-17.2
A-13
-------
Cooling Fan Temperatures (• F)
A
B
C
D
420-463
505-546
430-460
185-243
411-460
405-544
205-458
116-237
395-415
456-530
372-440
157-200
376-413
456-507
385-435
172-192
TABLE A-7. CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS DURING THE TESTS - WINDBOX
BAGHOUSE
Parameter
Pressure drop (in. H2O)
Inlet Temp. (• F)
Stack Temp. (• F)
Fan amps
Damper (%)
Testl
(08/12/97)
9.30-11.87
242 - 265
243 - 248
684-735
88.9-90.1
Test 2
(08/13/97)
10.60-12.59
217-253
231-248
667-690
89.5-91.2
Tests
(08/14/97)
11.61-13.57
211-245
216-243
667-694
88.8-90.9
Test 4
(08/15/97)
12.09-14.12
217-236
227-248
659-690
89.0-90.8
TABLE A-8. PRESSURE DROP ACROSS EACH COMPARTMENT OF THE WINDBOX
BAGHOUSE
Compartment
Pressure Drop
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Testl
(08/12/97)
7.0-8.6
8.2-9.2
7.1-8.6
5.6-8.0
7.1-8.5
6.6-7.9
6.4-8.0
6.7-8.4
Test 2
(08/13/97)
6.8-9.3
6.7-9.6
8.6-9.8
6.8-8.8
8.0-9.8
7.8-9.3
7.1-9.4
6.0-8.8
Tests
(08/14/97)
7.0-9.6
6.9-9.8
9.4-10+
7.4-9.8
9.1-10+
8.3-9.9
8.9-10.0
7.7-9.7
Test 4
(08/15/97)
8.6-9.9
8.0-10.0
9.9-10+
7.9-10+
10.0-10+
8.9-10+
9.7-10+
7.2-10+
A-14
-------
Compartment
Pressure Drop
9
10
11
12
13
14
Total
Testl
(08/12/97)
7.6-9.4
7.1-9.0
6.8-8.9
7.6-9.4
6.4-9.0
6.4-9.2
9.9-11.5
Test 2
(08/13/97)
8.6-9.9
7.8-9.7
7.3-9.4
8.8-10+
7.6-10+
7.6-10+
10.0-11.5
Tests
(08/14/97)
9.4-10+
9.3-10+
8.5-10+
9.6-10+
9.8-10+
9.4-10+
11.4-12.3
Test 4
(08/15/97)
9.5-10+
9.9-10+
8.2-10+
10+
10.0-10+
8.5-10+
12.0-13.0
TABLE A-9. PRESSURE DROP ACROSS EACH COMPARTMENT OF DISCHARGE END
BAGHOUSE ("A")
Compartment
1
2
O
4
Total
Test 1 (08/15/97)
2.6-3.8
2.8-3.7
4.7-5.5
4.4-6.0
7.7-8.1
Test 2 & 3 (08/16/97)
3.0-4.7
3.7-5.5
1.5-2.0
5.5-7.4
7.9-10.9
A-15
-------
TABLE A-10. WINDBOX BAGHOUSE: RESULTS FOR EACH TEST RUN
Parameter
PM — inlet
PM — outlet
PM efficiency
PM — inlet
PM — outlet
HAP metals - inleta
HAP metals - outlet
Metals efficiency
Parameter
Dioxin/furan congenersb
Dioxin/furan TEQC
7 PAH
16 PAH
Total PAH
Sinter production
Baghouse • P
Windbox 20 Temp.
Units
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
%
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/hr
%
Units
• g/hr
• g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
g/hr
tons/hr
in.H2O
•F
Run 1
1,960
2.35
99.9
0.68
0.001
11.7
0.063
99.5
Runs 1 & 2
unacceptable
leak checks
110
10.8
474
Run 2
1,120
0.71
99.9
0.41
0.0003
11.9
0.120
99.0
Run 3
2,142
342
28.9
510
691
110
12.0
467
Run 3
1,490
1.30
99.9
0.52
0.00055
11.8
0.068
99.4
Run 4
2,444
404
34.8
457
634
110
12.9
446
Runs 4 & 5
-
--
--
--
--
-
-
Run 5
2,186
375
33.9
575
755
110
13.5
457
Average
1,520
1.45
99.9
0.54
0.0006
11.8
0.084
99.3
Average
2,257
374
32.5
514
693
110
12.3
461
a Mostly Pb.
b D/F congeners are those dioxins and furans that have a toxicity equivalent factor relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
0 D/F TEQ is the toxicity equivalent expressed relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD
A-16
-------
TABLE A-ll. DISCHARGE END BAGHOUSE ("A") - RESULTS FOR EACH RUN
Parameter
PM — outlet
Mn — outlet
HAP metals — outlet
Units
Ib/hour
Ib/hour
Ib/hour
Runl
0.53
0.0033
0.012
Run 2
0.67
0.036
0.046
Run 3
0.26
0.016
0.028
Average
0.48
0.019
0.029
A surprising result is the emission rate of PAH that was measured during the testing. Emissions for
PAH were slightly higher than PM emissions from the outlet of the strand baghouse. These results were
consistent over all test runs; even though the first two test runs resulted in questionable data, the results still
are consistent with the remaining three test runs. It is not known if the higher emissions were present in
the inlet stream or if the baghouse performed poorly in the capture and control of PAH emissions, since
inlet testing for PAH was not performed. The major PAH present in the outlet stream were naphthalene
and 2-methylnaphthalene, with 3,660 and 2,920 Ibs/yr being emitted respectively.
Table A-12 presents a summary of PM and metal HAP results for the strand baghouse, including
concentrations, efficiencies, annual emission rates, and emissions factors for each metal HAP. Table A-13
presents similar results for PAH and D/F. Table A-14 presents a summary of results for the discharge end
baghouse for PM and metal HAP .
A-17
-------
TABLE A-12. WINDBOX BAGHOUSE: SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR PM AND HAP METALS
Pollutant
Particulate
matter
Concentration (gr/dscf)
Inlet
0.54
Outlet
0.0006
Emission rate (Ib/hr)
Inlet
1,520
Outlet
1.45
Efficiency
(%)
99.9
Annual rate (tpy)a
Inlet
5,700
Outlet
5.4
Emission factor (Ib/t sinter)
Inlet
13.8
Outlet
0.013
Pollutant:
HAP metals
Mercury
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
Total HAP
metals
Concentration (• g/dscm)
Inlet
6.23
8.27
0.075
32.2
9.35
90.2
2230
18.3
7153
2.48
23.1
9,573
Outlet
5.02
0.452
0.038
0.180
0.135
4.47
29.1
2.07
21.3
1.21
18.0
82
Emission rate (g/hr)
Inlet
3.5
4.6
0.04
18.0
5.2
50.5
1,247
10.2
4,001
1.4
12.9
5,354
Outlet
2.35
0.21
0.02
0.08
0.06
2.09
13.62
0.97
9.97
0.57
8.42
38
Efficiency
(%)
32.5
95.4
57.7
99.5
98.8
95.9
98.9
90.5
99.8
59.3
34.7
99.3
Annual rate (tpy)
Inlet
0.03
0.04
0.00
0.15
0.04
0.41
10.16
0.08
32.61
0.01
0.11
44
Outlet
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.07
0.31
Emission factor (Ib/t sinter)
Inlet
7.0 xlO'5
9.3 xlO'5
8.4 xlO'7
3.6 xlO'4
1.0 xlO'4
1.0 xlO'3
2.5 xlO'2
2.0 xlO'4
8.0 xlO'2
2.8 xlO'5
2.6 xlO'4
l.lxlO-1
Outlet
4.7 x 10'5
4.2 xlO'6
3.6 xlO'7
1.7xlO-6
l.SxlO'6
4.2 xlO'5
2.7 xlO'4
1.9xlO-5
2.0 xlO'4
l.lxlO-5
1.7xlO'4
7.7 xlO'4
' Based on operation for 24 hours per day, 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year (7400 hours/year).
A-18
-------
TABLE A-13. WINDBOX BAGHOUSE: RESULTS FOR PAH AND D/F
Pollutant: PAH
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Total 7 PAH
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(g.h,l)perylene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total 16 PAH
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Chloronaphthalene
Benzo(e)pyrene
Perylene
Total -all PAH
D/F
D/FTEQb
D/F Congeners0
Concentration
(• g/dscm)
21.2
2.07
8.81
2.79
34.6
0.590
0.433
70.7
19.0
34.5
44.2
0.419
122
40.3
478
250
54.8
1114
382
1.74
4.27
0.557
1503
Concentration
(ng/dscm)
0.81
4.9
Emission rate
(g/hr)
9.79
0.956
4.07
1.29
16.0
O.273
O.200
32.6
8.80
16.0
20.4
O.194
56.3
18.8
221
115
25.3
514
176
0.804
1.98
O.257
693
Emission rate
(• g/hr)
374
2,257
Emissions3
tpy
0.0799
0.0078
0.0332
0.0105
0.1305
0.0022
0.0016
0.266
0.072
0.1305
0.1664
0.0016
0.459
0.1534
1.80
0.938
0.206
4.19
1.44
0.0066
0.0162
0.0021
5.65
g/yr
2.8
16.7
Ib/ton sinter
1.96xlO-4
1.92xlO'5
8.16xlO-5
2.58xlO-5
3.21xlO'4
5.47X10'6
4.01xlO-6
6.53xl04
1.76xlO-4
3.21xlO-4
4.09xlO-4
3.89X10'6
l.lSxlO'3
3.77xlO-4
4.43xlO'3
2.30xlO-3
5.07xlO-4
1.03xl02
3.53xlO-3
1.61xlO-5
3.97xlO'5
S.lSxlO'6
1.39xl02
g/ton
3.4 xlO'6
2.1xlO'5
1 PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
b Based on operation for 24 hours per day for 310 days per year.
c D/F TEQ is the toxicity equivalent expressed relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
d D/F congeners are those dioxins and furans that have a toxicity equivalent factor relative to 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
A-19
-------
TABLE A-14. DISCHARGE END BAGHOUSE ("A") - RESULTS FOR PM AND METAL HAP
Pollutant — PM
PM
Pollutant — Metal
HAP
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Antimony
Selenium
HAP metals
Outlet
Ib/hr
0.48
gr/dscf
0.0007
Outlet
g/hr
0.10
0.013
0.017
0.039
1.2
0.29
8.4
1.0
1.1
0.48
0.43
13.1
• g/dscm
0.755
0.098
0.126
0.292
8.92
2.13
62.3
7.59
7.88
3.57
3.21
96.9
Emissions a
tpy
1.8
Emissions a
tpy
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
0.0003
0.0099
0.0024
0.070
0.0084
0.0086
0.0040
0.0036
0.11
Emission Factor
Ib/ton sinter
0.0044
Emission Factor
Ib/ton sinter
2.4 xlO-6
2.6 xlO-7
3.4 xlO-7
7.8 x 10-7
2.4 xlO-5
5.8 x 10-6
1.7 xlO-4
2.0 xlO-5
2.2 xlO-5
9.6 xlO-6
8.6 xlO-6
2.6 xlO-4
3 Based on operation for 24 hours per day, 6 days per week, 52 weeks per year (7400 hours/year)
A-20
-------
APPENDIX B
DOCUMENTATION FOR THE MACT FLOOR
This appendix documents the data analyses used to develop the MACT floor for integrated iron
and steel manufacturing facilities. The data are presented and referenced, and all references are
available in EPA Docket Number A-2000-44. The proposal preamble provides details on the
rationale for selection of the floor and MACT, and all data summarized in the preamble are presented in
detail in this appendix. Additional details on existing State limits are given in Chapter 5.
B.1 SINTER PLANT WINDBOXES
The sintering process converts fine-sized raw materials, including iron ore, coke breeze,
limestone, mill scale, and flue dust, into an agglomerated product (sinter) of suitable size for charging
into the blast furnace. There are nine sinter plants in the U.S.; however, only seven are currently
operating. The windbox exhaust is controlled by a baghouse at four plants and by a venturi scrubber at
five plants (see Table B-l).
B.1.1 PM Emission Control Performance
Useful test data on actual PM emissions are given in Table B-2 and are available for six of the
nine plants, two equipped with baghouses and four equipped with venturi scrubbers. In each case, the
data reflect the results of performance tests comprised of the average of three test runs, expressed in
terms of total PM. Details for each run are given in Table B-3 and are plotted in Figure 1.
An initial characterization of achievable performance based on concentration (gr/dscf)
suggested that baghouses perform substantially better than do scrubbers. Concentration values
recorded for the two baghouses are two to nearly four times lower than those recorded for the four
scrubbers. Upon closer scrutiny, the results show that much of the difference in perceived performance
is due to the fact that baghouses require the addition of relatively large quantities of ambient air to cool
the hot windbox exhaust gases prior to control, whereas scrubbers do not. To correct for this
difference, the test results were transformed into a pounds of emissions per ton of sinter (Ib/ton) format.
The test results expressed in terms of the hourly mass rate were converted to annual emissions assuming
8,760 hours per operating year. The resultant annual emissions were then divided by a best estimate of
annual sinter production for each plant (average for the 5-year period from 1995 through 1999). The
results range from 0.26 to 0.33 Ib PM/ton of sinter.
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l. SINTER PLANTS IN THE U.S.
Plant
Inland
USS
Geneva*
WCI Steel
LTV
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Wheeling-Pittsburgh*
AK Steel
State
IN
IN
UT
OH
IN
IN
MD
WV
OH
these plants were not operating in 19
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
PM emission limit
0.007 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0122 gr/dscf; 27 Ib/hr
501b/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.277 Ib/ton
0.03 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
501b/hr
99 - 2000.
TABLE B-2. TEST RESULTS FOR SINTER PLANT WINDBOX EXHAUST
Sinter plant
WCI Steel,
Youngstown, OH
Ispat-Inland,
East Chicago, IN
Bethlehem Steel,
Sparrows Point, MD
LTV Steel,
East Chicago, IN
AK Steel,
Middletown, OH
Bethlehem Steel,
Burns Harbor, IN
Control
device
Baghouse
Baghouse
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Venturi
scrubber
Average of the top five
PM emissions
(Ib/ton of sinter)
0.26
0.26
0.30
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.29
Concentration
(gr/dscf)
0.009
0.007
0.026
0.017
0.017
0.025
~
Flow rate
(dscfm)
270,000
470,000
530,000
270,000
220,000
460,000
-
B-2
-------
FIGURE B-l. SINTER PLANT - LB/TON FOR INDIVIDUAL RUNS
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
= 0.25
,2
-0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Baahouses
Scrubbers
The mean and median of the top 5 = 0.3 Ib/ton
WCI Steel Inland Steel Bethlehem LTV Steel AK Steel Bethlehem
Sparrows Pt Burns Harbor
Plant
-------
TABLE B-3. SUMMARY OF SINTER PLANT TEST DATA
WCI Steel3 (05/27/92)1 Method 5
lun
lunl
Iun2
Iun3
Average
Flow, dscfm
261,036
264,472
274,274
266, 594
gr/dscf
0.0072
0.0107
0.0084
0.0088
Ib/hr
16.07
24.22
19.72
20.00
Ib/ton
0.20
0.31
0.25
0.26
[nland Steelb (05/1 7/95)2 Method 5
lunl
Iun2
Iun3
Average
438,188
484,168
477,703
466,686
0.0088
0.0038
0.0083
0.0070
33.19
15.58
33.87
27.55
0.31
0.15
0.32
0.26
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Pointc (07/23/9 1)3 Method MD1005
Morth stack
Average
South stack
Average
ioth stacks 1
ioth stacks 2
3oth stacks 3
Overall
246,980
255,087
251,521
251,196
278,081
280,540
279,311
--
--
--
—
0.0243
0.0285
0.0257
0.0262
0.0272
0.0256
0.0264
--
--
--
0.0263
51.4
62.3
55.5
56.4
64.8
61.5
63.2
116.0
123.8
118.7
119.5
—
--
--
--
—
--
--
0.29
0.31
0.30
0.30
LTV Steel -EPA test1 (06/25/97)4 Method 29
lunl
Iun2
Iun3
Average
271,569
268,850
260,870
267,085
0.0140
0.0170
0.0190
0.0170
34.00
38.00
43.00
38.00
0.27
0.30
0.34
0.31
4K Steel6 (11/22/93)5 Method 5
lunl
Iun2
Iun3
4verage
218,090
225,994
220,965
221,683
0.0146
0.0139
0.0219
0.0168
27.38
26.88
41.42
31.89
0.27
0.27
0.42
0.32
B-4
-------
lun
Flow, dscfm
gr/dscf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton
Bethlehem Steel, Burns Harbo^ (03/1 1/92)6 Method 5
lunl
Iun2
Iun3
4verage
458,088
457,195
477,942
464,408
0.0208
0.0273
0.0254
0.0245
81.85
106.90
104.21
97.65
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.33
1 Based on the average annual production of 686,828 tpy. d Based on the average annual production of 1,103,202 tpy
b Based on the average annual production of 935,743 tpy. 'Based on the average annual production of 874,112 tpy.
'Based on the average annual production of 3,460,737 tpy. f Based on the average annual production of 2,568,117 tpy.
B.I.2 Organic HAP
The windbox exhaust gas can contain appreciable quantities of organic HAP, including both
volatile and semivolatile compounds. There is strong evidence that demonstrates that the quantity of
organic HAP emitted is directly related to the quantity and oil content of the mill scale component of the
sinter feed. United States sinter plants limit organic emissions by carefully monitoring and limiting the oil
content of the sinter feed. This pollution prevention control measure is an effective method for
preventing, and thus reducing, emissions of organic HAP. Two plants in Indiana have performed testing
to relate oil content with emissions of VOC. The test results show a strong correlation between oil
content and potential VOC emissions.
One of the organic pollutants of concern that has been related to oil content is a family of
compounds called poly chlorinated dibenzodioxins and furans (D/F). A 1994 paper7 identified sinter
plants in Germany as one of the most important industrial sources of D/F. Tests showed an average
concentration in the windbox exhaust of 47 ng toxicity equivalent (TEQ)/m3 and annual emissions of
122 g TEQ. The D/F emissions were attributed to high levels of oils and chlorinated organics in the
waste materials recycled to the sinter plant.
EPA conducted emission tests at two representative facilities to characterize D/F emissions
from U.S. sinter plants, one that uses a venturi scrubber as the windbox control device and one that
uses a baghouse. The test results are presented in Appendix A. The tests were performed in 1997 on
the venturi scrubber at LTV Steel in East Chicago, IN4 and on the baghouse at WCI Steel in
Youngstown, OH.8 These plants routinely monitor the oil content of their sinter feed, which averages
B-5
-------
0.014 percent oil at the East Chicago, IN facility and 0.025 percent oil at the Youngstown, OH facility.
The average D/F concentration from three 4-hour runs at each plant ranged from 0.2 ng TEQ/m3 at the
East Chicago, IN facility to 0.8 ng TEQ/m3 at the Youngstown, OH facility, both far below the levels
reported for the German sinter plant. Assuming typical operation of each plant (310 days/yr), annual
emissions would range from 0.7 to 2.8 g TEQ/yr, well below the levels indicated by the German data.
Based upon emission factors derived from these test results, nationwide emissions from all U.S. sinter
plants are estimated to be 26 g TEQ/yr, which corresponds to less than one percent of current
estimates of the national inventory from all sources.
The operators of all seven active sinter plants as well as the two inactive plants were surveyed
to obtain information on the oil content of their sinter feed. As shown in Table B-4, four of the active
plants provided data that ranged in magnitude from 976 samples collected over one year (sampling
about three times per day) to 14 samples collected over 14 months (monthly sampling). All four plants
carefully monitor their sinter feed for oil to minimize emissions of volatile organic compounds. In
addition, plants with baghouses are motivated to limit oil content due to concerns over blinding of bags
and possible fire hazards. The other three active plants and the two inactive plants provided little data
since none routinely monitor oil content. The four plants providing data reported long-term averages of
0.014, 0.02, 0.02 and 0.025 percent, respectively.
TABLE B-4. HISTORICAL DATA FOR FOUR PLANTS WITH LOW OIL CONTENT*
Plant
LTV, IN9
Bethlehem, IN10
USS, IN11
WCI, OH12
Percent oil in sinter feed
Average
0.014
0.02
0.02
0.025
Range
0.001 to 0.03
0.00 to 0.086
0.003 to 0.086
0.01 to 0.046
Description
Plant samples routinely three times per
day; results based on 976 samples
Plant samples routinely once per month;
results based on 48 samples
Plant samples twice per week when
blending with purchased scale; results are
for 69 samples taken over one year (1999)
Plant samples routinely once per month;
results based on 14 samples over 14
months
B-6
-------
* The oil content results for Ispat Inland13 and Bethlehem Steel (MD)14 were not considered
representative because they were collected over a short period of time for special purposes. No data
were available for AK Steel, Geneva Steel, and Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel
B.2 SINTER PLANT DISCHARGE END
The sinter plant discharge end is comprised of sinter breakers (crushers), hot screens,
conveyors, and transfer points that are designed to separate undersize sinter and to transfer the hot
sinter to the cooler. In most cases, these discharge end operations are housed in a building. Emissions
are usually controlled by local hooding and ventilation to one or more baghouses or wet scrubbers.
Seven plants use baghouses and two plants use wet scrubbers. Details are given in Table B-5.
Existing State regulations include both building opacity standards to limit releases of fugitive
emissions (those escaping capture) and PM emission standards assigned to control devices. Five of the
seven operating sinter plants are subject to a building opacity limit. One plant is subject to a 10 percent
limit (6-minute average), and four plants are subject to 20 percent limits (6-minute average). The PM
limits for control devices vary substantially from plant to plant both in terms of format and numerical
values. Four plants have concentration limits for total PM (0.01, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.03 gr/dscf), one has
concentration limits for PM10, and three have mass rate limits (42.9, 50, and 50 Ib/hr).
Credible source test data on actual emissions were available from only one plant - the
refurbished sinter plant in Youngstown, Ohio (Table B-6). Captured emissions from the discharge end
are ventilated to a relatively new baghouse (1991) for control. No data were available on the opacity
of fugitive emissions that escape capture from the discharge end.
As noted above, five plants are subject to standards that limit the opacity of visible emissions
released from the discharge end building (Table B-7). These range from 10 percent (one plant) to 20
percent (four plants) with a median value of 20 percent opacity based on a 6-minute average.
For control devices, the top five most stringent existing emission limits for total PM are shown in
Table B-8. These include the four concentration limits cited above and a fifth value derived from the
lowest mass rate limit to which a plant is subject (42.9 Ib/hr), which is equivalent to 0.02 gr/dscf. The
average of these five values is 0.02 gr/dscf.
B-7
-------
TABLE B-5 . CONTROLS AND EMISSION LIMITS FOR THE DISCHARGE END3
Plant
AK Steel,
OH
Bethlehem,
MD
Bethlehem,
IN
Geneva, UT
Ispat-Inland,
IN
LTV, IN
USX Gary,
IN
WCI, OH
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh,
WV
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Rotoclones
(scrubbers)
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
BaghouseA
Baghouse
Emission Points
discharge, crusher, hot
screen, cooler
discharge, crusher, hot
screen, cold screen
discharge, crusher, hot
screen
discharge
discharge, crusher, hot
screen, /^ cooler
discharge
discharge, crusher
hot and cold screens,
conveyors
discharge, crusher, hot
screen, cold screen
discharge
Emission limit
50.0 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
42.9 Ib/hr
0.0096 gr/dscf
PM10
0.01 gr/dscf
0.02 gr/dscf
0.02 gr/dscf
PM10
0.0052 gr/dscf
PM10
50.0 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
Flow
Rate
(dscfm)
112,000
340,000
212,000
105,000
122,000
100,000
161,322
180,000
141,470
32,900
Best estimate
of PM (gr/dscf
0.05
0.03
0.02
b
0.01
0.02
b
b
0.04
0.02
a Compiled from 1993 industry survey
b No equivalent PM limit could be estimated because the existing limit is expressed in terms of PM10.
-------
TABLE B-6. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE DISCHARGE END15
Plant
WCI - baghouse for discharge,
crusher, hot screen, cold screen
(1991)
average
gr/dscf
0.0059
0.0053
0.0059
0.0057
Ib/hr
7.5
6.3
7.0
7.0
TABLE B-7. DISCHARGE END FUGITIVE EMISSIONS: TOP FIVE LIMITATIONS
Plant
Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, MD
Ispat-Inland, East Chicago, IN
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
USX Steel, Gary, IN
Geneva Steel, Provo, UT
Median
Limit for sinter building and fugitives
10% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
TABLE B-8. DISCHARGE END CONTROL DEVICE: TOP FIVE LIMITATIONS
Plant
Ispat-Inland, East Chicago, IN
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
LTV Steel, East Chicago, IN
Bethlehem, IN
Bethlehem, MD
Average
gr/dscf
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02*
0.03
0.02
*Estimated from Ib/hr limit and volumetric flowrate.
B-9
-------
B-10
-------
B.3 SINTER PLANT COOLER
Sinter plant coolers are large diameter circular tables through which ambient air is drawn to
cool the hot sinter after screening. Seven plants operate sinter coolers to cool the sinter product prior
to storage. Two plants that are not currently operating have no cooler and stockpile hot sinter directly.
Of the seven plants with coolers, three vent directly to the atmosphere, one vents to a cyclone, two vent
to a baghouse, and one vents half of the cooler exhaust to a baghouse with the remainder vented
directly to the atmosphere. Five plants have emission limits expressed as concentration or mass rate
while two plants have no emission limits (see Table B-9).
TABLE B-9. SINTER COOLER DESCRIPTIONS AND LIMITS3
Plant
Ispat-Inland
WCI
Bethlehem, Sparrows
Point
USS, Gary
AK Steel, OH
Bethlehem, Burns
Harbor
LTV, East Chicago
Geneva Steel
Description
Baghouse controls the discharge, scrubber, hot screen
and l/2 of cooler (one quadrant where the sinter is
transferred to the cooler and one quadrant where it is
removed); the other half is covered and vents through an
uncontrolled stack. 20 minute residence time. Baghouse
flow is 120,000 dscfm.
Baghouse with forced air at 189,000 dscfm
Cyclone at 320,000 dscfm and 0.02 gr/dscf; 90 to 120
minute residence time
3 coolers, uncontrolled; with hood and stack; 360,000
dscfm each
Baghouse controls discharge, crusher, hot screen and
cooler; flow of 1 12,000 dscfm
Uncontrolled, with hood over cooler; 30-ft diameter and
575,000 dscfm; 60 minute residence time
Uncontrolled; 60-ft diameter and 320,000 dscfm;
100 minute residence time
Limit
0.01 gr/dscf (for
controlled
portion)
42.9 Ib/hr (about
0.03 gr/dscf)
0.03 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
50 Ib/hr (about
0.05 gr/dscf)
no limit
no limit
These plants do not have coolers . Sinter is transferred from the hot screen
LU a snjiayc puc tuiu tuuicu uy cunuieiii an. vviieeiiiiy-riusuuiyn aisu uses
water sprays.
B-ll
-------
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Compiled from 1993 industry survey
Information on actual releases is limited to one source test of controlled emissions from the
cooler located at Youngstown, Ohio that is equipped with a baghouse (Table B-10).
TABLE B-10. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS DATA FOR THE SINTER COOLER
16
Description
WCI- baghouse (1991)
Run
1
2
3
average
gr/dscf
0.018
0.0050
0.0052
0.0093
Ib/hr
29
8.3
8.0
15
As shown in Table B-9, three plants have concentration limits (0.01, 0.03, and 0.03 gr/dscf),
and two plants have mass rate limits. The mass rates in Ib/hr were converted to equivalent
concentration limits in gr/dscf based on the volumetric flow rate through the coolers. The two mass rate
limits resulted in equivalent concentration values of 0.03 and 0.05 gr/dscf. The average of the five
concentration limits shown in Table B-l 1 is 0.03 gr/dscf.
TABLE B-ll. SINTER COOLER: TOP FIVE LIMITATIONS
Plant
Ispat-Inland, East Chicago, IN
WCI
Bethlehem, MD
USS Gary
AK Steel, OH
Average
gr/dscf
0.01
0.03*
0.03
0.03
0.05*
0.03
B-12
-------
* Estimated from the Ib/hr limit and volumetric flowrate.
B.4 BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE
The casthouse is a building or structure that encloses the section of the blast furnace where hot
metal and slag are tapped from the furnace. The emissions from the blast furnace casthouse are fugitive
emissions that escape through the roof monitor and other building openings during tapping. The
emissions are primarily metal oxide fumes that are formed when air contacts the surface of the molten
metal. Factors affecting these emissions include the duration of tapping, the exposed surface area of
metal and slag, and the presence or absence of runner covers and flame suppression, which reduce
contact with air.
These emissions are controlled in one of two fundamentally different ways, flame suppression or
conventional ventilation practices and control. Flame suppression consists of blowing natural gas over
the iron runners and torpedo cars. The combustion of the gas consumes oxygen, which retards
(suppresses) the formation of emissions. Ventilation practices employed include the use of localized
hooding and ventilation applied at the iron trough and iron and slag runners. Alternatively, the
casthouse may be totally enclosed and evacuated. Eighteen of the 39 blast furnaces have capture and
control systems, 16 are controlled by baghouses, and two are controlled by wet scrubbers (see Table
B-12).
As a means for limiting fugitive emissions of PM from the casthouse during hot metal tapping,
most States have developed visible emission standards that limit the opacity of emissions discharged
from the casthouse roof monitor or other openings. These limits are given in Table B-12. The most
common limit is 20 percent (6-minute average), which is applied to 24 of the 39 casthouses. States
also apply particulate limits on gases discharged from control devices used to capture tapping emissions
(see Table B-13). The most common form is a concentration limit, typically on the order of 0.01
gr/dscf.
B-13
-------
As shown in Table B-14, the most stringent opacity limit is 15 percent (6-minute average) and
is applied to two casthouses. The next most stringent limit is 20 percent (6-minute average), which is
applied to 24 casthouses.
B-14
-------
TABLE B-12. CASTHOUSE EMISSION CONTROLS AND OPACITY LIMITS
Plant
Acme Steel, IL
AK Steel, KY
AK Steel, OH
Bethlehem Steel, IN
Bethlehem Steel, MD
Geneva Steel, UT
Gulf States Steel, AL
Ispat-Inland Steel, IN
LTV Steel, OH
LTV Steel, IN
National Steel, IL
National Steel, MI
Rouge Steel, MI
USX, PA
USX, AL
USX, IN
USS/Kobe Steel, OH
WCI Steel, OH
Furnace
A
Amanda
3
C
D
L
1
2
3
1
7
5
6
Cl
C5
C6
H3
H4
A
B
A
B
D
B
C
1
3
8
4
6
8
13
3
4
1
Casthouse control
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression
Flame suppression, inert suppression
Flame suppression, inert suppression
Baghouse, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
No controls
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Baghouse, flame suppression, covered runners
Baghouse, covered runners
Baghouse, covered runners
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse, covered runners
Flame suppression
Flame suppression
Flame suppression
Baghouse, covered runners
Baghouse, covered runners
Flame suppression
Baghouse
Casthouse opacity limit
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
Covered under a "bubble"
No opacity limit
No opacity limit
5%, 6 minute average, 20% drilling,
O2 lance and mudding
For all: 20%, except for any
aggregate of 3 min. (12 readings) in
any 60 min.
15%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
15%, 6 min.avg, exceptions to 20%
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
For both: Not to equal or exceed
20% except for 12 readings per hr.
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
15%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
20%, 6 minute average
B-15
-------
Plant
Weirton Steel, WV
Wheeling Pittsburgh
Steel, OH
Furnace
l
4
1
5
Casthouse control
Baghouse, flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Flame suppression, covered runners
Baghouse, flame suppression, covered runners
Casthouse opacity limit
20%, except 40% for 5 min/hour
20%, except 40% for 5 min/hour
20%, 6 minute average
5% to 20%
TABLE B-13. EMISSION LIMITS FOR CASTHOUSE CONTROL DEVICE
Plant
Bethlehem Steel,
MD
Ispat-Inland, IN
LTV Steel, IN
National Steel, IL
National Steel,
MI
USX, PA
USS/Kobe, OH
WCI Steel, OH
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh, OH
Furnace
L
7
H4
A
B
A
B
D
1
3
3
1
5
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
1
Baghouse
2
Baghouse
Baghouse
1
Baghouse
2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Capture Points
Evacuated runner covers & hoods
Canopy hood
Runners
Hood over tilting spout & iron
trough
Suspended hood
6 air hoods, 3 at each furnace with
damper control
Hoods over trough & pouring
spouts — each furnace
Air curtain
Evacuated runner covers & hoods
Trough hood, covered runners,
hood at tilting runners
Emission Limit
0.03 gr/dscf
0.003 gr/dscf
0.011 gr/dscf
No limit
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0075 gr/dscf
0.02 lb/1000 Ib
gas
0.0052 gr/dscf
No limit
No limit
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.03 Ib/ton
0.311b/hr;
proposed PM10
Iimitof5.931b/hr
B-16
-------
B-17
-------
TABLE B-14. BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSE: TOP FIVE LIMITATIONS
Plant
Ispat-Inland, East Chicago, IN
USS/Kobe, Lorain, OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Acme, Riverdale, IL
AK Steel, KY (and several others)
Furnace
7
O
1
A
A
Median
Opacity limit
15% (6-min average)
15% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
20% (6-min average)
B-18
-------
As shown in Table B-12, there are 18 casthouses equipped with hooding and ventilation equipment to
limit fugitive emissions. Sixteen use a baghouse for the control of captured emissions. Industry survey
information on the baghouses indicate they are similar in design and performance (Table B-15). Most
are pulse jet baghouses with air to cloth ratios of around 4 acfm/ft2.
Performance test data were available for four of the 16 baghouses and are presented in Figure
B-2 and Table B-16. The database includes a total of eight source tests; four tests at one facility, two
tests at another facility, and single tests at the two other facilities. Each performance test is comprised
of three individual test runs. The three run averages for each of the eight tests range from 0.002 to
0.009 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs range from 0.001 to 0.009 gr/dscf. The highest emitting unit
is the one at National Steel in Granite City, IL facility for which there are four independent performance
tests. The performance tests range from 0.006 to 0.009 gr/dscf with individual runs ranging from 0.003
to 0.009 gr/dscf. Three tests were conducted in 1988 and one in 1985, and all tests met the facility's
State limit of 0.01 gr/dscf.
B-19
-------
FIGURE B-2. TEST RESULTS FOR BAGHOUSES IN BLAST FURNACE CASTHOUSES
u>
U.U IUU
n nnan •.
.UUoU
.uu/ u
.UUoU
.uuou
.UU4U
.UUoU
.UUzU
.UU IU
n nnnn -
<
1
4
<
>
1
r
>
>
i
i
r
,
4
1
1
<•
s
1
1
^
1
II
0
Bethlehem, WCI Steel (1) WCI Steel (1) National, National, National, National, Wheeling Pitt.
SP (L) Granite City Granite City Granite City Granite City (5)
(A & B) (A & B) (A & B) (A & B)
Plant
TABLE B- 15. CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS3
B-20
-------
Furnaces with baghouses
Plant
Bethlehem Steel
Inland Steel
LTV Steel
National Steel
National Steel
USX Steel
USX Steel
USS/Kobe
State
MD
IN
IN
IL
MI
PA
IN
OH
Capacity
(tpy)
3,450,000
4,000,000
1,971,000
2,372,500
2,000,000
900,000
2,000,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
3,440,000
1,300,000
Furnace
1
7
H4
A
B
A
B
D
1
o
J
13
o
J
Flow (dscfm)
420,000 acfm
@170-200
-
250,000-275,000
220,000
369,000
100,000 acfm
400,000
170,000
275,000
140,000
140,000
600,000 acfm
224,000
Air/cloth ratio
(acfm/ft2)
4.0
-
4.2
4.4
6.88
5.82
5.15
9.0
5.38
-
-
4.8
6.28
• P(in-
water)
8
-
7
7
14
10
3-8
4-8
3-6
3-12
3-12
<8
3-10
Cleaning
pulse jet
-
pulse jet
pulse jet
pulse jet
shaker
reverse air
pulse jet
pulse jet
-
-
pulse jet
pulse jet
Filter material
polyester
-
polyester
polyester
polyester
polyester
polyester
needle felt
polyester felt
polyester
woven
-
-
polyester felt
polyester
Location
Runner covers
Canopies over 4
notches
Iron trough &
tilting spout
"A" & "B"
taphole
Torpedo cars
Iron trough/
tilting spout
Casthouse
Casthouse
Casthouse
B-21
-------
TABLE B- 15. CONTROL DEVICE PARAMETERS (continued)
Furnaces with baghouses
Plant
WCI Steel
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh
State
OH
OH
Capacity
(tpy)
1,500,000
1,682,000
Furnace
1
5
Flow (dscfm)
125,000
103,200
Air/cloth ratio
(acfm/ft2)
1.98-2.23
4.5
• P(in-
water)
-
4-6
Cleaning
shaker
pulse jet
Filter material
-
polyester felt
Location
Casthouse
Furnaces with wet scrubbers
Plant
Inland
Steel
State
IN
Capacity (tpy)
1,253,000
1,253,000
Furnace
5
6
Flow (dscfm)
40,000 acfm
@250«Fx(2)
40,000 acfm
@250«F
L/G
(gal/1000 acf)
10.0
10.0
* P (in.
water)
24-30
35
Scrubber type
Multi-element fixed
throat vertical rod
type scrubber (2
scrubbers)
Multi-element fixed
throat (1 scrubber)
Demister
vanes in tank
Location
Local hoods
over notch, iron
and slag
runners, and
pugh ladles
Compiled from 1993 industry survey
air/cloth ratio = ratio of air flow to cloth area in actual cubic feet per minute per square foot of cloth
• p = pressure drop in inches of water
B-22
-------
TABLE B-16. PM DATA FOR CASTHOUSE CONTROL DEVICE
National Steel, Granite City (A & B)17
24 August 1988
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
4 May 1988
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
23 February 1988
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
4 January 1985
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
333,787
324,833
333,206
330,609
dscfm
dscfm
dscfm
340,906
360,747
373,219
358,291
gr/dscf
0.0087
0.0058
0.0033
0.0059
gr/dscf
0.0093
0.0093
0.0091
0.0093
gr/dscf
0.0074
0.0088
0.0052
0.0071
gr/dscf
0.0092
0.0061
0.0039
0.0064
Ib/hr
25.00
16.23
9.41
16.88
Ib/hr
25.68
24.49
25.21
25.13
Ib/hr
21.14
26.06
14.93
20.71
Ib/hr
WCI Steel18
29 May 1996
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
17 November 1992
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
268,200
266,220
264,960
266,460
dscfm
193,700
gr/dscf
0.0030
0.0020
0.0070
0.0040
gr/dscf
0.0040
0.0010
0.0028
0.0026
Ib/hr
7.03
5.04
15.64
9.24
Ib/hr
7.66
1.45
4.45
4.52
Wheeling Pittsburgh (5)19
August 1999
Runl
dscfm
102,840
gr/dscf
0.0029
Ib/hr
2.56
B-23
-------
Run 2
Run 3
average
106,120
100,640
103,200
0.0012
0.0032
0.0024
1.09
2.76
2.14
Bethlehem, SP "L" Furnace20
18 June 1996
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
140,016
140,474
140,897
140,462
gr/dscf
0.0037
0.0006
0.0016
0.0019
Ib/hr
4.38
0.67
1.87
2.30
B-24
-------
B.5 BOPF PRIMARY EMISSIONS
Primary emissions from the BOPF refer to the particulate emissions generated during the steel
production cycle which are captured and controlled by the furnace's primary emission control system.
The majority of the emissions occur during the oxygen blow. The oxygen blow is the period in the steel
production cycle when oxygen is lanced or injected into the vessel. Some shops operate open hood
furnaces and others use closed hood systems. Open and closed hood vessels are very different in
terms of operation, pollutant loading, and emissions. Open hood systems are characterized by very
high primary exhaust air flowrates due to the large quantities of combustion air introduced at the furnace
mouth to support CO combustion. In contrast, closed hood systems, which include hoods that are
tightly fitted to the vessel to suppress CO combustion, are characterized by much lower exhaust air
flowrates. Typical flowrates for open hood shops are 200,000 to 500,000 acfm, while closed hood
designs are usually less than 100,000 acfm.
There are 50 BOPF located in 23 BOPF shops. The 50 BOPF include 34 furnaces with open
hood systems at 16 shops and 16 furnaces with closed hood systems at 8 shops. All of the BOPF
have capture and control systems for the primary emissions. For the open hood systems, 8 shops are
controlled by venturi scrubbers and 8 shops are controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). All 8
of the closed hood shops are controlled by venturi scrubbers. Each shop is subject to existing State
limits with a wide variety of formats, including concentration limits in gr/dscf and lb/1,000 Ib gas for PM
or PM10, mass emission rate limits in Ib/hr, and process weighted limits in Ib/ton of steel. In addition,
the emission test period required for compliance with the existing State limits varies from testing over
the steel production cycle, only during the oxygen blow, for 1-hour runs, and for 2-hour runs. Emission
limits are summarized in Tables B-17 and B-18.
B-25
-------
TABLE B-17. EMISSION LIMITS FOR PRIMARY CONTROL - OPEN HOOD
Open Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Acme Steel
Bethlehem Steela
Bethlehem Steel
Gulf States Steel
Inland No. 4
LTV Steel
LTV No. 1 Shop
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
USX Gary (BOPF)
USX Gary(Q-BOP)
USX Edgar Thomson
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
State
IL
IN
MD
AL
IN
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
IN
IN
PA
OH
WV
OH
Control
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Emission Limit
0.028 gr/dscf
0.09 Ib/ton liquid steel
0.03 gr/dscf
—
0.1871b/ton
0.018 gr/dscf PM10
39.8 Ib/hr
60.0 Ib/hr or 0.255 Ib/ton
0.057 lb/1000 Ib gas
0.02 gr/dscf PM10
0.02 gr/dscf PM10
Process rate
62.90 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
21.40 Ib/hr; 7.09 Ib/hr PM10 (pending)
3 Two furnaces are open hood and one is closed hood.
For the data analysis, the control performance for open and closed hood furnaces was
evaluated separately due to the operational differences and volumetric air flowrates between the two
designs as discussed previously. This is consistent with the development of separate standards for open
and closed hood vessels for the NSPS in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart N. The NSPS for open hood
B-26
-------
BOPF is a PM limit of 0.022 gr/dscf and for closed hood the PM standard is 0.030 gr/dscf. For both
types of furnaces the NSPS PM limit is measured during the primary oxygen blow.
B-27
-------
TABLE B-18. EMISSION LIMITS FOR PRIMARY CONTROL - CLOSED HOOD
Closed Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
AK Steel
AK Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland No. 2
LTV No. 2
USS/Kobe Steel
USX Fairfield
State
KY
OH
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Control
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Emission Limit
0.03 gr/dscf
114 Ib/hr1
0.02 gr/dscf PM10 2
0.058 Ib/ton
15 Ib/hr (for each of 2 stacks)
45.0 Ib/hr
0.022 gr/dscf;3 process rate4
1 Both vessels combined
2 During oxygen blow
3 Furnace C, subject to NSPS, Subpart NN, which is 0.022 gr/dscf for closed hood shops
4 Furnaces X & U
B.5.1 Open Hood BOPF
Control devices applied to primary emissions at open hood shops include both ESP and venturi
scrubbers (see Table B-19). Source test data and design information are available for seven of the 16
open hood shops, five with ESP and two with venturi scrubbers. The test data indicate that the ESP
perform better than the venturi scrubbers. All the test data (based on charge-to-tap measurements) for
the ESP are less than 0.019 gr/dscf (see Figure B-3 and Table B-20). All of the ESP are similar in
design and operation. All have three to five fields in series and operate at specific collection areas
greater than 300 ft2/l,000 cfm. Data for the two plants with venturi scrubbers, operating at pressure
drops of 25 to 35 inches of water, averaged 0.025 and 0.035 gr/dscf, respectively.
B-28
-------
TABLE B-19. OPERATING PARAMETERS OF OPEN HOOD PRIMARY CONTROL
Wet Scrubber Control Technology
Plant
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Inland (#4)
USS Steel
(BOPF)
USS Steel (Q-
BOP)
USS Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh
State
IN
MD
IN
IN
IN
PA
WV
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
5.4
4.0
2.7
2.9
4.0
2.8
3.2
2.95
Flow (dscfm)
11 3,200^ 3
600,000!
310,000-
380,000
268,000 x 3
267,000 x 3
174,000 x 2
280,000
210,000
L/G
(gal/1,000 acf)
20
8
1.0
13.1
34.7
~
~
10
• p (in. water)
55
50
25
70-75
70
68-76
502
50
ESP Control Technology
Plant
Acme Steel
Gulf States
LTV Steel
LTV (#1)
National
National
Rouge Steel
WCI Steel
State
IL
AL
IN
OH
IL
MI
MI
OH
Capacity
(million tpy)
1.3
1.3
4.2
3.3
3.6
4.1
3.3
1.7
Flow
(dscfm)
288,000
327,000
847,000!
550,000
330,000
500,000!
500,000
440,000
Collectio
n plate
area
(ft2'
92,000
150,000
650,000
255,000
~
80,200
~
114,000
No. of
fields in
series
3
4 (2 sets)
5
4
4
4
4
6
SCA
(ft2/l,000
cfm)3
320
460
770
560
~
160
~
260
1 acfm
2 Scrubber upgrade increased the pressure drop from 35 to 50 inches.
3 SCA = specific collection area
B-29
-------
FIGURE B-3. OPEN HOOD SHOPS WITH ESPs (charge to tap testing)
0.025
0.015 -•
U)
0.010 --
0.005 --
0.000
H 1 1 1 h
H h
H 1 h
LTV, OH LTV, OH LTV, OH LTV, OH LTV, OH LTV, OH LTV, OH WCI WCI WCI LTV, IN Acme National,
IL
Plant
B-30
-------
TABLE B-20. BOPF TEST DATA: OPEN HOOD SHOPS WITH ESP
AND CHARGE-TO-TAP TESTING
Acme Steel21
November 1998
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
129,149
139,031
140,072
136,084
gr/dscf
0.0059
0.0096
0.0042
0.0066
Ib/hr
6.49
11.43
5.02
7.65
LTV, Cleveland #1 BOPF shop22
26 October 1989
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
510,238
531,430
580,559
540,742
gr/dscf
0.0085
0.0064
0.0036
0.0062
Ib/hr
37.10
29.34
17.78
28.07
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop23
20 November 1986
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
486,825
493,755
504,465
495,015
gr/dscf
0.0248
0.0063
0.0050
0.0120
Ib/hr
104.46
26.97
21.49
50.97
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop24
25 November 1985
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
544,252
573,541
531,181
549,658
gr/dscf
0.0079
0.0053
0.0064
0.0065
Ib/hr
36.78
26.28
29.40
30.82
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop25
8 April 1985
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
503,922
466,345
463,267
477,845
gr/dscf
0.0089
0.0082
0.0078
0.0083
Ib/hr
34.81
30.36
26.95
30.71
B-31
-------
TABLE B-20. BOPF TEST DATA: OPEN HOOD SHOPS WITH ESP
AND CHARGE-TO-TAP TESTING
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop26' 27
18 October 1984
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
337,400
348,300
356,700
347,467
gr/dscf
0.0047
0.0042
0.0027
0.0038
Ib/hr
13.51
12.40
8.16
11.36
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop28
Particulate emissions with 7 of 8 sections of ESP
3 January 1983
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run5
Run 6
Run?
Run8
average
dscfm
384,000
388,000
372,800
388,300
363,700
334,800
347,400
378,800
369,725
gr/dscf
0.0090
0.0095
0.0070
0.0080
0.0085
0.0080
0.0085
0.0075
0.0083
Ib/hr
30.20
32.00
23.70
25.80
24.90
23.60
19.90
24.10
25.53
LTV Cleveland #1 BOPF shop29
9 December 1982
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
average
dscfm
426,000
439,200
441,400
425,900
433,125
gr/dscf
0.0136
0.0141
0.0080
0.0050
0.0102
Ib/hr
48.60
52.60
29.50
17.90
37.15
LTV, East Chicago30
20 August 1992
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
490,329
433,827
450,196
458,117
gr/dscf
0.0059
0.0251
0.0140
0.0150
Ib/hr
24.83
93.26
54.05
57.38
B-32
-------
National Steel, Granite City31
30 March 1989
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
349,127
332,540
337,902
339,856
gr/dscf
0.0216
0.0190
0.0170
0.0192
Ib/hr
64.64
54.16
49.17
55.99
WCI Steel18 32 33
12 April 1996
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
25 August 1993
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
17 May 1990
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
460,970
436,470
423,450
440,297
dscfm
380,200
391,552
413,012
394,921
dscfm
371,888
372,305
368,611
370,935
gr/dscf
0.0130
0.0140
0.0160
0.0143
gr/dscf
0.0165
0.0114
0.0147
0.0142
gr/dscf
0.0076
0.0109
0.0027
0.0071
Ib/hr
52.07
52.28
56.34
53.56
Ib/hr
53.91
38.27
52.05
48.08
Ib/hr
24.31
34.91
8.41
22.54
B-33
-------
B.5.2 Closed Hood BOPF
All 16 of the furnaces at the 8 closed hood shops use high-energy venturi scrubbers. Closed
hood systems produce an exhaust gas high in CO which precludes the use of other types of control
devices (such as baghouses or ESP) due to potential explosion or fire hazards. Information on the
design and operation of these scrubbers shown in Table B-21 were obtained through an industry
survey. These scrubbers operate at a pressure drop of 50 inches of water or more, and most have
liquid-to-gas ratios greater than 10 gallons per thousand cubic feet of gas.
Recent test data were available for only one of the eight closed hood shops with testing during the
oxygen blow. However, performance test data were available from five other furnaces that were used
to develop the NSPS. All tests include three test runs and all were performed only during the oxygen
blow. Each of these plants use a high-energy venturi scrubber with a pressure drop of 50 inches of
water or more. The three run averages for each of the six tests range from 0.015 to 0.024 gr/dscf.
Results from individual runs range from 0.013 to 0.031 gr/dscf. The data are presented in Figure B-4
and Table B-22.
B-34
-------
TABLE B-21. OPERATING PARAMETERS OF CLOSED HOOD VENTURI
SCRUBBERS
Plant
AK Steel
AK Steel
Bethlehem
Steel
Geneva (Q-
BOP)
Inland
Steel (No. 2)
LTV Steel
(No. 2)
USS/Kobe
US Steel
State
KY
OH
IN
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Capacity
(million tpy)
2.17
2.71
~
2.5
2.5
4.38
2.6
2.2
Vessel
1
2
15
16
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
L
N
U
X
c
Flow
(dscfm)
78,000
78,000
40,000
51,000
197,000a
78,300
77,300
50,000-
60,000
50,000-
60,000
55,000
55,000
58,000
59,000
~
76,000
76,000
L/G
(gal/1,000 acf)
11.5
11.5
2.9
2.6
21
~
~
10.0
10.0
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
• p (in. water)
60
60
45-50
40-50
55
70-80
70-80
55
55
~
~
~
~
60-95
51-92
59-96
aacfm
B-35
-------
FIGURE B-4. CLOSED HOOD BOPF TEST DATA (all for the oxygen blow)
0.030
0.025
^•••••••^••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••^••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••iV"i
Or\i~tr\ I 1 J** yv
.UZU T I M ^^
O
| 0.015
O)
O
0.010
Q.005
0.000
Geneva
USS Fairfield USS Fairfield Kaiser (Furnace 5) Kaiser (Furnace 6) Armco Middletown
(Furnace C) (Furnace X)
Plant
B-36
-------
TABLE B-22. BOPF TEST DATA: CLOSED HOOD SHOPS WITH VENTURI
SCRUBBERS AND TESTING DURING THE OXYGEN BLOW
Geneva Steel34
16 June 1992
Scrubber 1
Scrubber 2
average
dscfm
82,000
77,000
79,500
gr/dscf
0.024
0.019
0.022
Ib/hr
16.90
12.60
14.80
USS Fairfield, Furnace C35
October 1978
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
74,600
76,600
77,600
76,300
gr/dscf
0.021
0.021
0.023
0.022
Ib/hr
13.58
13.86
15.43
14.29
USS Fairfield, Furnace X35
December 1978
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
78,600
76,100
74,600
76,400
gr/dscf
0.019
0.024
0.021
0.021
Ib/hr
12.67
15.39
13.21
13.76
Kaiser No. 535
December 1978
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
82,000
87,000
90,400
86,571
gr/dscf
0.021
0.020
0.018
0.020
Ib/hr
6.44
5.46
6.02
5.97
Kaiser No. 635
December 1978
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
dscfm
79,000
68,000
83,000
76,500
gr/dscf
0.015
0.013
0.017
0.015
Ib/hr
4.68
3.48
3.75
3.97
Armco Steel35
October 1971
Runl
Run 2
dscfm
37,000
32,000
gr/dscf
0.021
0.031
Ib/hr
--
--
B-37
-------
Run 3
average
49,000
39,000
0.020
0.024
--
--
B.6 SECONDARY BOPF EMISSION CONTROL
Secondary or fugitive emissions occur from the BOPF when the molten iron and scrap metal
are charged to the furnace and when the molten steel and slag are tapped from the furnace. The
emissions generated are primarily metal oxides formed when oxygen in the air reacts with the molten
iron or steel. Twelve of the 23 BOPF shops have a separate capture and control system for BOPF
charging and tapping emissions. Ten of these shops use baghouses and the other two use scrubbers.
Existing State limits for the control devices are summarized in Table B-23 and range from 0.0052 to
0.015 gr/dscf, and the NSPS limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. The most common limit is 0.01 gr/dscf.
TABLE B-23. STATE LIMITS FOR BOPF SECONDARY CONTROLS
Closed Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland No. 2 Shop
LTV No. 2 Shop
USS/Kobe Steel
USX Fan-field
State
IN
UT
IN
OH
OH
AL
Control
Scrubber
Baghouse
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Limit
0.05 Ib/ton liquid steel (#3)
0.002 gr/dscf PM10
0.015 Ib/ton
0.010 gr/dscf
0.012 gr/dscf
0.010 gr/dscf
Open Hood BOPF Shops
Plant
Acme Steel
Inland No. 4 Shop
USX, Gaiy (Q-BOP)
USX Braddock
State
IL
IN
IN
PA
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Actual Limit
10.22 Ib/hr, 0.0052 gr/dscf
0.006 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf PM10
Process weight limit
The top five most stringent existing emission limits for total PM are given in Table B-24. The
five plants with the most stringent secondary BOPF emission State limits are subject to concentration
B-38
-------
limits of 0.0052, 0.006, 0.01, 0.01 and 0.012 gr/dscf. Each of these is associated with a facility with
baghouse controls. The median of the five values is 0.01 gr/dscf.
Available data on secondary BOPF emissions (Table B-25) is limited to one test run at a facility using a
baghouse. This one test run includes measurements of multiple baghouse modules and averaged 0.001
gr/dscf. It is not likely that one test run will adequately reflect the full range of performance of a
particular technology, and the results of the one available test run appear to represent, at most, what
this type of control is able to achieve under very favorable circumstances.
TABLE B-24. BOPF SECONDARY CONTROLS: TOP FIVE LIMITATIONS
Plant
Acme Steel, IL
Inland, IN
LTV, OH
USX,AL
USS/Kobe Steel, OH
Shop
1
4
2
1
1
Median
gr/dscf
0.0052
0.006
0.01
0.01
0.012
0.01
TABLE B-25. BOPF SECONDARY BAGHOUSE TEST AT USX, BRADDOCK, PA36
(October 12-13,1993)
Baghouse module
1
2
O
4
5
6
7
dscfm
66,700
59,800
64,000
63,400
61,400
65,200
66,400
Weighted average gr/dscf
gr/dscf
0.00157
0.00008
0.00075
0.00011
0.00151
0.00163
0.00233
0.001
B-39
-------
B-40
-------
B.7 HOT METAL TRANSFER, DESULFURIZATION, SLAG SKIMMING, AND LADLE
METALLURGY
There are several different ancillary operations performed within the BOPF shop:
(1) operations associated with the molten iron before it is charged to the BOPF (hot metal transfer,
desulfurization, and slag skimming), and (2) treatment of the molten steel after tapping (various ladle
metallurgy operations). The emissions from these operations are primarily metal oxides formed when
oxygen in the air reacts with the molten iron or steel.
Molten iron is transported from the blast furnace casthouse to the BOPF shop in a torpedo car
and transferred to a vessel at the reladling (or hot metal) station, where it is usually desulfurized and slag
is skimmed from the surface. Emissions from these operations are captured by local hooding and
controlled by a baghouse. Existing State emission limits for these operations range from 0.0052 to 0.04
gr/dscf, but most are on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf (see Table B-26).
The steel from the BOPF is usually transferred to a ladle where final adjustments in temperature
and chemistry are made in an operation known as ladle metallurgy. Emissions from ladle metallurgy are
captured by a close fitting hood and ducted to a baghouse. Existing State limits for ladle metallurgy are
a mixture of mass emission rates in Ib/hr and concentration limits in gr/dscf. The mass emission rate
limits range from 0.42 to 7.5 Ib/hr and the concentration limits range from 0.0052 to 0.02 gr/dscf (Table
B-27).
B-41
-------
TABLE B-26. STATE LIMITS FOR TRANSFER, DESULFURIZATION, AND SLAG
SKIMMING-ALL BAGHOUSES
Plant
Acme Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
Bethlehem Steel
Geneva Steel
Inland Steel, No. 2
Inland Steel, No. 4
LTV Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
National Steel
USS, Edgar
USS, Fairfield
USS Gary
USS Gary
USS/Kobe Steel
WCI Steel
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Steel
State
IL
KY
OH
IN
UT
IN
IN
IN
IL
MI
MI
PA
AL
IN
IN
OH
OH
WV
OH
Process
Transfer, desulfurization skimming
Transfer, desulfurization skimming
Transfer and desulfurization
Deslagger
Transfer, desulfurization skimming
Desulfurization Buildings 1&2
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Transfer, desulfurization skimming
Transfer and desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Reladle and desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Desulfurization
Reladle and desulfurization
Transfer and desulfurization
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer
Desulfurization
Hot metal transfer backup
Emission Limit
10.2 Ib/hr
0.01 gr/dscf
58 Ib/hr
0.03 gr/dscf
23.1 Ib/hr
0.011 gr/dscf PM,n
0.011 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.008 gr/dscf PM,n
0.01 gr/dscf
__
0.007 gr/dscf
Process weight rate
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf PM,n
0.03 gr/dscf
0.04 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
5.97 Ib/hr
5.01 Ib/hr (proposed)
6.41 Ib/hr (proposed)
B-42
-------
TABLE B-27. STATE LIMITS FOR LADLE METALLURGY PROCESS
Plant
Acme Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
AK Steel
Inland Steel, No. 2
LTV Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
National Steel
Rouge Steel
Rouge Steel
USS Fail-field
USS Gary Q-BOP
USS Gary Q-BOP
USS/Kobe
Weirton Steel
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
Wheeling-Pittsburgh
State
IL
KY
OH
OH
IN
IN
IL
IL
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
AL
IN
IN
OH
WV
OH
OH
Control
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse3
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse lb
Baghouse 2a
Baghouse 3C
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse
Baghouse 1
Baghouse 2
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Emission Limit
0.037 lb PM10/ton
3.8 Ib/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.03 gr/dscf
0.0052 gr/dscf
0.004 gr/dscf PM10
0.01 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf
1.261b/hr
2.131b/hr
1.1 Ib/hr
7.50 Ib/hr
1.61b/hr
0.02 gr/dscf
0.01 gr/dscf PM10
0.01 gr/dscf PM10
0.002 gr/dscf
0.42 Ib/hr
0.54 lb/hrd
2.3 Ib/hr, 0.02 gr/dscf
Vacuum degassing
Ladle metallurgy, No. 2 argon stirring
No. 1 argon stirring station
Proposed limit
B-43
-------
Source test data were available for three of the 23 baghouses that control emissions from hot
metal transfer and desulfurization and for seven of the 20 baghouses that control emissions from ladle
metallurgy. These data are shown in Figures B-5 and B-6, and data for each run are given in Tables B-
28 and B-29. Each performance test is comprised of three individual runs. The three run averages for
the ten tests range from 0.001 to 0.012 gr/dscf. Results from individual runs range from 0.001 to 0.021
gr/dscf.
The highest three run averages and highest individual runs were examined more closely. In this
case, both were obtained on the same baghouse, 0.012 and 0.021 gr/dscf. An examination of the test
results on all 10 baghouses indicates that these results are 2 to 2.5 times higher than those obtained on
the next highest emitting unit, suggesting that this baghouse is either an underperformer or that the test
results include an outlier. Eliminating the 0.021 gr/dscf value from the three run average produces an
average of 0.007 gr/dscf which is in line with the next highest emitting unit's three run average of 0.006
gr/dscf and the highest individual run of 0.0085 gr/dscf. Consequently, the 0.021 gr/dscf value is an
outlier and does not reflect the level of performance demonstrated to be achievable for a baghouse
applied to emissions from hot metal transfer, desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy operations.
B-44
-------
FIGURE B-5. TRANSFER AND DESULFURIZATION TEST DATA - ALL BAGHOUSES
u.uzo •
0.02 •
0.015 •
•5
in
•a
u>
0.01 •
0.005 •
n .
One run outlier— not
characteristic of a
i
baghouse
Tested 13 modules
for transfer and
desulfurization; one run
pjr. module
i
1
1
Inland No. 4(1979)
Wheel-Pitt (1992)
Plant
USS, PA (1993)
B-45
-------
FIGURE B-6. LADLE METALLURGY TEST DATA - ALL BAGHOUSES
u.u iuu -
0.0090 -
0.0080 -
0.0070 -
0.0060 -
•5
| 0.0050 -
U)
0.0040 -
0.0030 -
0.0020 -
0.0010 -
n nnnn -
lance injection,
desulfurization,
add alloys
\
<
lance injection,
lance injection,
fslofH" rnm^inn ctti/^
reheat, add alloys
stirring, add alloys
capped argon
huJhbling
4
I
I
I
I
I
$
argon stirring,
fefieat
1 1 1
1
1
i
I
s
1
-
o
lance injection,
ar.gQ.n.s.tir.ring
add alloys
1
USS/Kobe#1 Acme Inland, No. 2 WC I Steel
Plant
LTV, IN Wheeling-Pitt LTV, OH No. 2
B-46
-------
TABLE B-28. TEST DATA FOR METAL TRANSFER, DESULFURIZATION
Inland #4 (July 1979)37
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Flowrate, dscfm
165,000
165,000
163,000
3 -run average
gr/dscf
0.0022
0.0017
0.0010
0.0016
Ib/hr
3.11
2.41
1.40
2.31
Wheeling-Pittsburgh (October 1992 - desulfurization)19' 38
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
69,930
65,030
69,070
68,010
gr/dscf
0.0058
0.0207
0.0085
0.0117
Ib/hr
3.5
11.5
5.0
6.7
Wheeling-Pittsburgh (July 1980 - hot metal transfer)19' 38
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
182,336
176,416
179,656
179,469
gr/dscf
0.0051
0.0016
0.0016
0.0027
Ib/hr
8.0
2.4
2.5
4.3
TABLE B-29. TEST DATA FOR LADLE METALLURGY
Acme Steel, Chicago, IL21
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
71,923
74,924
78,618
75,155
gr/dscf
0.0085
0.0035
0.0046
0.0055
Ib/hr
5.24
2.25
3.10
3.53
Inland, No. 2 BOPF shop39
1 1 Sept 86
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
46,920
47,490
44,080
46,163
gr/dscf
0.0043
0.0015
0.0019
0.0026
Ib/hr
1.70
0.60
0.70
1.00
B-47
-------
LTV, E. Chicago40
15 Jun 89
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
130,324
125,203
134,437
129,988
gr/dscf
0.0055
0.0041
0.0035
0.0044
Ib/hr
6.18
4.35
4.02
4.85
LTV Cleveland, No. 2 BOPF shop41
21 Apr 93
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
127,872
147,083
125,950
133,635
gr/dscf
0.0078
0.0034
0.0028
0.0047
Ib/hr
8.59
4.28
3.02
5.30
USS/Kobe Steel, #2 LMF42
5 Nov 97
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Flowrate, dscfm
gr/dscf
0.0011
0.0014
0.0013
0.0012
Ib/hr
0.55
0.72
0.65
0.64
WCI Steel43
4 Nov 91
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
71,139
85,810
76,195
77,715
gr/dscf
0.0050
0.0028
0.0027
0.0035
Ib/hr
3.07
2.09
1.79
2.32
Wheeling Pittsburgh38
29 Sept 95
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
average
Flowrate, dscfm
39,400
36,830
39,330
38,540
gr/dscf
0.0010
0.0016
0.0037
0.0021
Ib/hr
0.35
0.50
1.24
0.70
B-48
-------
B.8 BOPF SHOP FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
The BOPF shop is a building or structure that houses several operations involved in
steelmaking. These include hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming stations; one or more
BOPF's for refining iron into steel; and ladle metallurgy stations. Fugitive emissions from these
operations in the BOPF shop exit through the roof monitor and other building openings.
Table B-30 summarizes existing opacity limits for BOPF shops. Top and bottom blown furnaces were
evaluated independently based on operational differences between the two designs. For top blown
furnaces, the most stringent and also the most common State standard is a 20 percent limit (3-minute
average) that is applied to 13 of the 20 BOPF shops that operate top blown furnaces. For bottom
blown furnaces, the BOPF shop with the most stringent standard (Geneva Steel) is subject to a 10
percent opacity limit (6-minute average, with one exception per cycle up to 20 percent). A second
shop (USX Gary) has three furnaces subject to a 20 percent limit (3-minute average). A third shop
(USX Fairfield) has two furnaces subject to a 20 percent limit (6-minute average), and a third furnace
subject to a 10 percent limit (3-minute average), with one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but
less than 20 percent applied only during hot metal transfer or skimming operations.
Similar to the existing State standards, the NSPS for top blown furnaces applies during the
entire production cycle. However, the NSPS for bottom blown furnaces applies only during periods
of hot metal transfer and slag skimming. Both standards limit opacity to less than 10 percent (3-minute
average), except that one 3-minute average greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent can occur
during each applicable performance period.
B-49
-------
TABLE B-30. SUMMARY OF BOPF SHOP OPACITY LIMITS
BOPF Shop
Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL
AK Steel, Ashland, KY
AK Steel, Middletown, OH
Bethlehem, Bums Harbor, IN (3 vessels
in 1 shop)
Bethlehem, Sparrows Point, MD
Gulf States, Gadsden, AL
Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN
(2 shops)
LTV, Cleveland, OH
(2 shops)
LTV, East Chicago, IN
National, Granite City, IL
National, Ecorse, MI
Rouge Steel, Dearborn, MI
USX Braddock, PA
USX Gary, IN
USS/Kobe,Lorain,OH
WCI Steel, Warren, OH
Weirton Steel Weirton, WV
Wheeling-Pittsburgh, OH
Geneva Steel, Orem, UT
USX Fan-field, AL
USX Gary, IN
Type
Top
Top
Top
Top (2)
Top (1)
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Top
Bottom
Bottom
Bottom
Primary
control
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
ESP
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Secondary
control
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
Scrubber
None
None
Scrubber
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
None
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Baghouse
Roof monitor opacity limit
20%, 3 minute average
20% except for 3 min/hr
Covered under "bubble"
40%, 6 minute average;
<60% for 1 5-min in 6 hr
3 -day roll avg of 15% (6-min avg),
except 3 min/hr
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
Not to equal or exceed 20% except fo:
1 2 readings per hour.
20%, 3 minute average
20%, 3 minute average
None
20%
20%, 3 minute average
10%, 6 minute average3
10%, 3-min avg/20%, 6-min avg*
20%, 3 minute average
a Allows one 6-min average per steel production cycle up to 20%.
b One furnace has a limit of 10% (3-min average) for hot metal transfer and skimming with one 3-min average per cycle over 10% but
less than 20%; the other 2 furnaces have a 20% (6-min average) limit.
B-50
-------
B.9 COST ESTIMATES FOR BAGHOUSES APPLIED TO SINTER PLANT DISCHARGE
END AND COOLER
The cost estimates are based on guidance provided in the OAQPS Cost Manual (Chapter 5:
Fabric Filters)44 and the associated spreadsheet.45 The baghouse design is a pulse jet unit with an air-
to-cloth ratio of 3 acfm/ft2. For the discharge end, a typical ventilation rate of 120,000 acfm is used,
and a typical rate of 200,000 acfm is used for the sinter cooler.
B.9.1 Capital and Total Annual Costs
The capital cost elements for the two baghouses are given in Table B-31. The list of items
associated with annual operating costs from the OAQPS cost manual are given in Table B-32 and are
used to estimate the total annualized costs presented in Table B-3 3.
TABLE B-31. CAPITAL COST ELEMENTS
Item
Baghouse
Bags
Cages
Auxiliaries (hoods, ductwork, fans, stacks)
Total
Purchased equipment cost (1.18)
Index (1.02 for 1998 to 1999)
Retrofit factor (2)
Total capital investment, including installation (2.17)
Capital cost
(120,000 acfm)
368,827
73,784
25,460
209,287
678,359
800,463
816,472
1,630,000
3,500,000
Capital cost
(200,000 acfm)
607,352
122,973
42,436
280,525
1,053,286
1,242,872
1,267,729
2,536,000
5,500,000
B-51
-------
TABLE B-32. OPERATING COST ELEMENTS
Item
Operating hours per year
Operating labor rate
Maintenance labor rate
Labor overhead
Operating labor required
Maintenance labor required
Supervisory labor
Maintenance materials
Electricity usage
Electricity cost
Compressed air cost
Dust disposal
Taxes, insurance, administration
Interest rate
Bag life
Capital recovery factor for bags
Control system life
Capital recovery factor for control system
Value
8,760
$17.27/hr
$17.74/hr
60%
2 hr/shift
1 hr/shift
15%
equal to maintenance labor
kw-hr/yr = 0.00018 x acfm x • p x 8,760
$0.0671 kw-hr
$0.25/1,000 scf
$25/ton
4%
7%
2 years
0.553
20 years
0.0944
B-52
-------
TABLE B-33. ESTIMATES OF TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS
Item
Operating labor
Supervisory labor
Maintenance labor
Maintenance materials
Labor overhead
Electricity
Compressed air
Bag replacement
Dust disposal
Tax, insurance, administration
Capital recovery
Total annual cost
Annual cost
($/yr for 120,000 acfm)
37,282
5,592
19,159
19,159
48,715
100,593
31,104
70,416
44,434
141,773
322,541
840,800
Annual cost
($/yr for 200,000 acfm)
37,282
5,592
19,159
19,159
48,715
167,656
51,840
117,362
74,057
220,130
499,439
1,260,000
B.9.2 Emission Reduction and Cost Effectiveness
Emission reductions and cost effectiveness are presented for two cases: (1) installing a
baghouse on the discharge end to reduce emissions of PM from 0.02 gr/dscf (the MACT floor) to 0.01
gr/dscf and (2) installing a baghouse on the sinter cooler to reduce emissions of PM from 0.03 gr/dscf
(the MACT floor) to 0.01 gr/dscf. Data from two plants showed that the HAP content of dust from the
discharge end ranged from 0.3 percent46 of PM to 1.2 percent.47 For this estimate, use a midrange
value of 0.75 percent for both the discharge end and cooler because the dust from the cooler should be
similar in composition to that from the discharge end.
B-53
-------
B-54
-------
The PM and HAP emission reductions for the two cases are given in Table B-34. The cost
effectiveness ranges from $1.2 to $2.5 million per ton of HAP reduced.
TABLE B-34. EMISSION REDUCTIONS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS
Emission point
Discharge end
(120,000 acfm)
Cooler
(200,000 acfm)
PM emission
reduction (tpy)
45
150
HAP emission
reduction (tpy)
0.34
1.1
Total annual cost
($million/yr)
0.84
1.3
Cost effectiveness
($million/ton
HAP)
2.5
1.2
B.10 REFERENCES
1. Stack test Results for WCI Sinter Baghouse Provided by T. Shepkar, WCI Steel: Envisage
Environmental Inc. and CSA Company on May 27, 1992.
2. Test Report. Particulate, metals, and gaseous emissions study, performed for Inland Steel
Company, Sinter Plant, Windbox Baghouse Stack, East Chicago, Indiana, on May 16-17,
1995, Mostardi-Platt Associates, July 18, 1995.
3. Test report. Emission testing for particulate, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid mist for north and
south sinter plant windbox stacks. Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD. By Entropy
Environmentalists. July 23-24, 1991.
4. Integrated Iron and Steel Industry: Test Report for the Sinter Plant at LTV Steel Company,
East Chicago, Indiana. Final Report. Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. for EPA's
Emission Measurement Center. September 1997.
5. Letter. M. Fischer, Hamilton County Environmental Services, to J. Calcagni, RTI, February
11, 1998. Enclosing stack test reports for the basic oxygen furnace and sinter plant windbox at
AK Steel Corporation.
6. Test Report. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Particulate Compliance Study Performed for
Bethlehem Steel Corporation at the Burns Harbor Plant, Burns Harbor, Indiana Sinter Plant
Scrubber Stack March 9 and 11, 1992, submitted April 6, 1992.
7. Article, U. Lahl and S. Lindenstr, Sinter Plants of Steel Industry - PCDD/F Emissions Status
and Perspective, Chemosphere, 1994,2(9-11): 1939-1945.
B-55
-------
8. Integrated Iron and Steel Industry: Test Report for the Sinter Plant at Youngstown Sinter Co.
(WCI Steel). Youngstown, Ohio. Final Report. Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc.
for EPA's Emission Measurement Center. January 1998.
9. Letter. R. Zavoda, LTV Steel, to P. Mulrine: EPA:OAQPS:ESD, April, 2000. Completed
sinter feed oil content survey for the Indiana Harbor Division of LTV Steel.
10. Letter. T. Easterly, Bethlehem Steel, to P. Mulrine, EPA:OAQPS:ESD, March 21, 2000.
Enclosing the completed sinter feed oil content survey for the Bums Harbor Division of the
Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
11. Letter. W. Kubiak, U.S. Steel, to P. Mulrine, EPA:OAQPS:ESD, April 2, 2000. Enclosing
response to information request regarding the oil content of sinter feed materials at US Steel's
sinter plant at Gary, Indiana facility.
12. Letter . T. Shepkar, Youngstown Sinter Company, to P. Mulrine, EPA:OAQPS:ESD, March
17, 2000. Enclosing response to "percent oil in sinter feed" questionnaire along with the
analytical method being used to analyze for oil in sinter scale.
13. Letter. G Allie, Ispat Inland, to P. Mulrine, EPA:OAQPS:ESD, March 17, 2000. Enclosing
response to request for information concerning oil analysis in sinter plant feeds.
14. Letter. J. Schindler, Bethlehem Steel, to P. Mulrine, EPA:OAQPS:ESD, March 24, 2000.
Response to information request for the sinter feed oil content - for the No. 7 sinter plant at
Bethlehem's Sparrows Point plant.
15. Test Report. CSA Company, Source Emissions Test at Warren Consolidated Industries
Warren, Ohio, Sinter Plant "A" Baghouse Outlet, October 24, 1991.
16. Test Report. CSA Company, Source Emissions Test at Warren Consolidated Industries
Warren, Ohio, Sinter Cooler Baghouse, November 20, 1991.
17. Siebenberger, L., Naational Steel, Granite City, IL to B. Jordan, EPA. Screening survey
response. 1991.
18. Test data for WCI Steel & USS Kobe Steel from Northeast Ohio EPA, testing conducted in
1996-1997.
19. Letter. H. Strohmeyer to J. Calcagni, RTI, February 19, 1998. Enclosing summaries of recent
stack tests performed at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Steubenville.
B-56
-------
20. Letter. L. Daniel, Maryland Department of the Environment, to P. Mulrine,
EPA:OAQPS:ESD, March 30, 1998. Enclosing Stack Test for "L" Blast Furnace Baghouse at
Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, conducted September 3, 1996.
21. Letter. Wentz, Jeffrey, Acme Steel, Riverdale, IL to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants. January 6, 1999.
22. Test Report. LTV Steel Company, West Cleveland, Ohio, Basic Oxygen Furnace -
Electrostatic Precipitator, Particulate Emission Evaluation, Envisage Environmental
Incorporated, October 17, 25-26, 1985.
23. Test Report. LTV Steel Company, EOF #1 Cleveland, Ohio, EPA Methods 1-5, Emissions
Evaluation BOF, ESP Exhaust, Envisage Environmental Incorporated, November 18-20,
1986.
24. Test Report. LTV Steel Company, Cleveland, Ohio, BOF #1, Cleveland West, EPA Methods
1-5, Particulate Emission Evaluation, Prepared by Envisage Environmental Incorporated,
November 25-27, 1985.
25. Test Report. Envisage Environmental Incorporated, LTV Steel Corporation Cleveland West
#1 BOF Shop ESP, EPA Methods 1-5 Particulate Compliance Test, April 8 & 9, 1985.
26. Test Report. Supplement to particulate compliance testing, BOF nos. 94 and 95 precipitator,
LTV Steel Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, October 19, 1984, submitted by WFI Sciences
Company, November 28, 1984.
27. Letter. R Nemeth, LTV Steel Company, to Chief, EPA:AMD:ACB and Commissioner of
Cleveland Division of Air Pollution Control, December 5, 1984. Enclosing final report of the
electrostatic precipitator compliance test conducted October 16-18, 1984 at LTV No. 1 BOF
shop, and summaries of opacity meter calibration, hot metal analysis and flux, BOF heat
analysis, and opacity recorder charts.
28. Test Report. Particulate emissions with seven sections, BOF nos. 94 and 95 precipitator,
prepared by WFI Science Company for Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, January 28,
1983.
29. Test Report. Compliance testing of stack emissions, BOF nos. 94 and 95, Jones and Laughlin
Steel Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, conducted on December 9, 10, 13, and 14, 1982, WFI
Sciences Company, January 14, 1983.
30. Test Report. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Precipitator Performance Test Program
Performed for LTV Steel Company at the Indiana Harbor Works BOF East Chicago, Indiana,
August 18 and 20, 1992. Submitted November 5, 1992.
B-57
-------
31. Letter. Heintz, J.K., National Steel, Mishawaka, IN to P. Mulrine, EPA. Comments on draft
background information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 14, 1998.
32. Test Report. Source Emission Test at WCI Steel, Inc., Warren, Ohio, BOF Precipitator
Stack, performed by CSA Company, August 25, 1993.
33. Test Report. Warren Consolidated Industries, Inc., Warren, Ohio, Basic Oxygen Furnace
Electrostatic Precipitator Particulate Emission Evaluation, performed by Envisage
Environmental Incorporated May 17, 1990.
34. Letter. M. Maxell, State of Utah department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality,
to J. Calcagni, RTI, August 17, 1993. Enclosing copies of the State Implementation Plan,
emissions test data, and the approval orders for Quelle Basic Oxygen Process (Q-BOP), the
Sinter Plant, the Blast Furnace, and the Primary Mill Hot Scarfing Machine Facility.
35. Revised Standards for Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces - Background Information for
Proposed Standards. EPA-450/3-82-005a. December 1982. pp 4-47 to 4-50.
36. Letter and attachments. A Lorenzi, U.S. Steel, to J. Calcagni, RTI, February 16, 1998.
Enclosing summary pages from compliance demonstrations performed in 1987 and 1993, and a
copy of the report Basic Oxygen Process Compliance Demonstration, U.S. Steel Corporation,
Mon Valley Works, Edgar Thompson Plant, Braddock, Pennsylvania, prepared by Geraghty &
Miller, Inc. for U.S. Steel, January 1997.
37. Letter. H. Taylor, The Almega Corporation, to Inland Steel Company, July 3, 1979,
summarizing test methods and results for the Baghouse Exhaust Particulate Emission Testing of
the Fume Emission Control System for the Hot Metal Transfer Station at Inland Steel, East
Chicago, Illinois on June 28, 1979; enclosing summary of emission test data and process weight
rate summary data.
38. Letter . H. Strohmeyer, Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, to P. Mulrine,
EPA:OAQPS:ESD, April 25, 2000. Enclosing corrections to the MACT Floor Analysis for
Integrated Iron and Steel Plants - Sinter Plants, Blast Furnaces, and Basic Oxygen Furnace
Shops.
39. Test Report. Report on Particulate Emissions, Prepared by Clean Air Engineering,
Incorporated for Inland Steel Company, September 17, 1986.
40. Test Report. Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc., Baghouse Performance Study Performed for
LTV Steel Company at the LMF Baghouse of Indiana Harbor Works Indiana Harbor, Indiana,
June 15, 1989.
B-58
-------
41. Test Report. LTV Steel Company, Cleveland, Ohio, #2 EOF, LMF Baghouse exhaust,
paniculate emissions evaluation, Envisage Environmental Incorporated, April 21, 1993.
42. Letter. Ames, H., USS/Kobe to P. Mulrine. Enclosing comments on draft background
information document for integrated iron and steel plants. December 15, 1998.
43. Test Report. CSA Company, Source Emissions Test at Warren Consolidated Industries
Warren, Ohio, LMF Baghouse Outlet, October 31 and November 4, 1991.
44. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. OAQPS Control Cost Manual. 5th edition. Chapter
5: Fabric Filters. EPA453/B-96-001. February 1996.
4 5. Available at http ://www. epa. gov/ttn/catc
46. Anderson, D.A., Bethlehem Steel, Sparrows Point, MD to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to
section 114 request. August 29, 1991.
47. Shoup, S.P., Inland Steel, East Chicago, IN to B. Jordan, EPA. Response to section 114
request. November 12, 1993.
B-59
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-453/R-0 1-005
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
for Integrated Iron and Steel Plants - Background Information for
Proposed Standards
7. AUTHOR(S)
Marvin Branscome and Stacey Molinich, RTI and Phil
Mulrine, EPA
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
John Seitz, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 2771 1
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
January 2001
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D6-0014
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND
Final
PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report provides the background information for the proposed NESHAP to control metal and organic hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs) from integrated iron and steel plants. The emission control techniques, estimates of emissions,
control costs, and environmental impacts are presented.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
emission controls
environmental impacts
estimates of air emissions
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
Iron and Steel Plants
Hazardous Air Pollutants
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Field/Group
21. NO. OF PAGES
205
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
------- |