United States	Office of Air Quality	EPA-450/4-79-028
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards	September 1979
Agency	Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Particulate Emission
Factors Applicable to

-------
EPA-450/4-79-028
Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to
the Iron and Steel Industry
by
Thomas A. Cuscino, Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Blvd.
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-2814
EPA Project Officer: Charles C. Masser
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

-------
AP-42 Seetio^i Number: 12.2
Reference Number:	7
Title:	Particulate Emissions Factors
Applicable to the iron and Steel
Industry
EPA-450/479-028
US EPA

-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency
(Mr. Charles Masser, Project Officer) under EPA Contract No. 68-02-2814. The
work was performed in the Environmental and Materials Sciences Division of
Midwest Research Institute, under the supervision of Dr. Chatten Cowherd,
Head, Air Quality Assessment Section. Mr. Thomas Cuscino, Jr., Project Leader,
is the author of this report. He was assisted in data compilation by Mr. Mark
Golembiewski and Dr. Ralph Keller. Mr. Charles Masser wrote the Introduction
of this report.

-------
This document is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to
report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Blvd. , Kansas City, Missouri
64110, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2814. The contents of this
report are reproduced herein as received from Midwest Research
Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Publication Ho. EPA-450/4-79-028

-------
CONTENTS
Preface 								ii
Figures 								iv
Tables. 				iv
1.0 Introduction .......... 	 . 	 ... 1
2.0 Background 						3
2.1	By-product coke oven process			3
2.2	Sintering process .................	7
2.3	Iron manufacturing process			7
2.4	Basic oxygen furnaces	7
2.5	Electric arc furnaces				8
2.6	Open hearth furnaces. 		8
2.7	Scarfing					8
2.8	Miscellaneous combustion sources			9
2.9	Open dust source processes. 			 .	9
3.0 Emission Factors and Support Data. .... 	 .....	10
3.1	By-product coke ovens 			10
3.2	Blast furnaces				17
3.3	Sintering		20
3.4	Basic oxygen furnaces					20
3.5	Electric arc furnaces 				32
3.6	Open hearth furnaces.				35
3.7	Teeming 					35
3.8	Scarfing. 					40
3.9	Miscellaneous combustion sources			40
3.10	Open dust sources 				46
4.0 Development of Representative Emission Factors 		53
4.1	Process stack and fugitive emissions		53
4.2	Open dust sources				61
5.0 Sunmary. ........... 	 .........	62
References.			63
Appendix - Typical Conversion Factors for Material Flow Calculations. . . 74

-------
FIGURES
Number	Page
1	General flow diagram for the iron and steel industry		4
2	1976 Iron and steel industry material flow 			5
3	Building evacuation (BE) system closed roof-Configuration 1. . .	33
4	Canopy hood (CH) open roof--Configuration 2. ... 			34
TABLES
Number	Page
1	Particulate Emission Sources in the Iron and Steel Industry. . .	6
2	Summary of Emission Factors for Coke Pushing Operations. ....	13
3	Summary of Emission Factors for Coke Quenching Operations. ...	16
4	Summary of Uncontrolled Emission Factors for By-Product Coke
Oven Combustion Stacks ......... 	 ....	18
5	Summary of Emission Factors for Blast Furnace Cast House
Operations					21
6	Table of Emission Factors for Sinter Plants. ..........	22
7	Summary of Emission Factors for Basic Oxygen Furnaces. .....	27
8	Summary of Emission Factors for Electric Arc Furnaces. .....	36
9	Suranary of Emission Factors for Open Hearth Furnaces ......	39
10	Emissions from Leaded Steel Teeming at Wisconsin Steel, Chicago,
Illinois - Sunmary of Test Procedures and Results. ......	41
11	Emissions from Unleaded Steel Teeming at Wisconsin Steel,
Chicago, Illinois - Summary of Test Procedures and Results . .	42
12	Summary of Emission Factors for Scarfing Operations		 .	43
13	Fugitive Dust Emission Factors Experimentally Determined by MRI.	48
14	Emission Factor Quality Assurance Limitations. . . 		49
15	Silt Content Values Applicable in the Iron and Steel Industry. .	51
16	Surface Moisture Content Values Applicable in the Iron and Steel
Industry			52
17	Surface Loading on Traveled Lanes of Paved Roads in Iron and
Steel Plants				52
18	Selection of Single Emission Factor Values to Represent Each
Particulate Source Category in the Iron and Steel Industry . .	54
A-l Typical Conversion Factors Utilized for Engineering Estimates
of Quantities of Material Handled		75

-------
SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
An intensified effort has occurred in the last 3 years to update the iron
and steel industry particulate emission factors presented in AP-42 and to add,
for the first time, fugitive source emission factors. The emission factors in
AP-42 for the iron and steel industry are dated April 1973.-^
The intensified effort began in August 1975 when Gary McCutchen of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Emission Standards and Engineering
Division (ESED), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) compiled
a table of particulate point and fugitive emission factors for eight generic
categories of sources. By March 1976, a task force consisting of the American
Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) Fugitive Emission Committee and specific EPA
personnel had been formed at the request of the director of OAQPS.
In July 1976, AISI presented a compilation of particulate source test
data performed at AISI member plants. This compilation and its support docu-
mentation provided significant new test data and became the focal point of
discussions for the following 2 years. From late July until November 1976,
Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, OAQPS, reviewed the support data and cor-
responded with Bill Benzer of AISI to acquire additional information necessary
to evaluate the AISI compilation of test results. By mid-November, Mr. Westlin
had selected a major portion of the tests presented in the AISI compilation
as acceptable. The task force discussions since November 1976 centered mainly
on the development of a methodology which would result in single emission fac-
tor values to represent each process stack, process fugitive, and open dust
source.
It is the objective of this report to present the results of this data
gathering and analysis effort. The report is divided into three major areas.
First, background information will be presented related to the processes in
the iron and steel industry along with a process flow chart. Second, all of
the particulate source test data will be presented and summarized in chart
form. Third, the methodology for selecting single source specific emission
factors and the resulting particulate emission factors will be presented.

-------
All of the particulate emission source test data that were in the posses-
sion of the EPA/AIS1 task force on June 1, 1979, have been included in the
evaluation and emission factor development. If you, as the reader, feel you
are in possession of documented source test data that would further enhance
the understanding of emissions from processes within the iron and steel in-
dustry, please send a copy to the present EPA task coordinator;
Charles C. Masser (MD-14)
Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
As with all average or "typical" emission factors, they are obtained from
a wide range of data of varying degrees of accuracy. The reader must be cau-
tioned not to use these emission factors indiscriminately. That is, the factor
generally may not yield precise emission estimates for an individual installa-
tion. Only on-site source tests can provide data sufficiently accurate and pre
cise to determine actual emissions for that source. Emission factors are most
appropriate when used in diffusion models for the estimation of the impact of
proposed new sources upon the ambient air quality and for community or nation-
wide air pollution emission estimates.
This report represents the combined efforts of EPA and steel industry
experts to establish reasonable particulate emission factors with ranges for
all known stack and fugitive sources within an integrated steel mill. The EPA
task coordinator wants to thank the AISI Fugitive Emission Committee, the EPA
ESED, the Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL), Research Triang
Park, the Enforcement Division of the EPA Regional Offices, and the EPA Divisi
of Stationary Source Enforcement in Washington, B.C., for the data and review
comments which resulted in this report.

-------
SECTION 2.0
BACKGROUND
Particulate emission sources in the iron and steel industry can be gener-
ically classified as (a) process stack emission sources, (b) process fugitive
emission sources, and (c) open dust sources. Process stack emissions are any
emissions exhausted to the atmosphere through a stack duct, or flue. Process
fugitive emissions and open dust sources are both defined as any emissions not
entering the atmosphere from a duct, stack, or flue. Open dust sources tradi-
tionally have included (a) vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads, (b)
raw material handling outside of buildings, and (c) wind erosion from storage
piles and exposed terrain, while all other nonducted sources have been classi-
fied as process fugitive emissions.
Figure 1 portrays a process flow diagram for a representative integrated
iron and steel plant. Industry-wide material flows are presented in Figure 2.
The Appendix presents typical material quantity conversion factors useful in
calculating material flows.
Table i shows the main sources of particulate emissions in the integrated
iron and steel industry. Not all sources are listed, but those of most common
interest are shown. Such sources as dry quenching, hot metal desulfurization,
and argon-oxygen decarburization will not be considered, since little or no
data are currently available.
2.1 BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN PROCESS
Coking is the process of heating coal in an atmosphere of low oxygen
content, i.e., destructive distillation. During this process, organic com-
pounds in the coal break down to yield gases and a residue of relatively
nonvolatile nature.
The integrated iron and steel industry produces coke using the by-product
process. This process will not be found at plants which produce steel only
via the electric arc furnace process. Plants producing steel via the basic
oxygen furnace or open hearth furnace process will normally have a coke plant
but this is not always the case since some plants have their coke brought in
by rail or barge.

-------
fto* ott
SCtfEMNC Of|**t(CN
 rtlUTIZlNG *
< {AT MINI ItTf ) J
LUMP OS
(hommjnu
coke toizi
ftut OWT
r*OM usi
fUtNACl
tt Cai
BSEI22
FiNlS
MILL SCAtf
EXHAUST CAMS
D1HCT
USDDCTiON
CliANI NG
M CM
lOMmr)
ItlH &
NOT SCliN
V.NT11 MACHINf
TO SltU
FIMFNACIS
U>* STONE
IINji
cooii*
SI N T E ft PLANT
Mill SCALE	SINTEI
mai in
KtfEH
*ltfTS
UJMf 0
UMESTONC
sew
KlAf
m Ca* |(0 5h:F Ol ItuCK)
SCHAP MU
CONTINUOUS
CASTING
HUTS. SlAIS. AND KXrOi
IUV!
furnace
MOT WETAL
ItANSnt
l*ON I O
lAiic
OXVGfN
FUftNAtt
4AL1MKUTI
casting
coki mi
T7777f?777777777777?
tlCTItC-A*C
UHNACE
(ALTERNATE)
yff/j//j
0*N HfAfTM
fUtNMI!
LOOM, WlilT.
AND SLAi
OUJNG
ICAIfiNO
LAOU
fOtMlXEtJ ""ON
TCtMlNG
stoves
& A
INGOTS
CAS
CLEANING
SOAKING
Pit
WHEAT
FUtNACf
DfiULPHUtiZATION
GAS CLEANING |
STtIL fUN*CI5
EXHAUST GASES
AND OUST
GA$ CUANIN&
exhaust oasis
AND OUST
FINI5MLD
KOOUCI
KOCI5SING
COK OVEN GAS
rO If USI0 AS FUEL
-MOOUCT
UCOVEIY
SECOND A/Y
CAS
CLEANING
COKING
Cleaned euir fuknacc
GAS TO U USED AS Fufl
COMftUSTION SIACK EMISSIONS
tl Cai
COM *US
BUST
(TO HN1M CI
BLAST fyN*C!>
v II f y
COCI OVIN
II it 1
CO*L
PWEICATCt
CO<1 HNIS
QUENCHING
TO SlNTIft *UNT

-------
Ui
36,400
Nodules/
Briquettes
15,500
Iron Ore
17,500
23,500
12,300
Furnace
26,300
79,900
Iron Ore
(Pellet)
66.000
82,800
25,000
11,100
Limestone
24,600
51,600
u

25,000
_ 76,100
Slog
51,400
Coke
Ovens
Coal


Numbers indicate 1976 usage
and production in 1000 short
tons.
Figure 2, 1976 Iron and steel industry material flows.

-------
TABLE 1. PARTICULATE EMISSION SOURCES IN THE IRON AND STEEL
INDUSTRY
Process
equipment
Process stack and
fugitive eniss ion
sources
Process associated
open dust
SOUrCiS-
By-pcoduct coke ovens
11.
Sinter planes
III. Blase furnaces
Coal Preheating
Charging at coal
Oven door leaks
Coke pushing
Wet coke quenching
Oven coobustion stacks
Coal Preheating
Topside leaks
Windbox
Discharge (crusher and hoc
screen)
CooLer
Cold screen
Slips
Cast house aonitcr
Coal unloading troo rail or
barge
Coal storage pile load-in
Coal storage pile load-out.
Coal jtorage pile wind erosion
Coal conveyor transfer stations
Sinter plant inaut pile load-Lc
Sifiter plant input pile load-out
Sinter plant input pile wind
erosion
sinter plant Input and oucput
convevor transfer scations
Pellet, Lurcp iron ore
flux scorn unloading
or ^arge
Pellet, lurcp iron ore
flux scone storage pi
Pellet, Lump iron ore
flu* stone storage pi
Pellet, lurap iron ore
flu* itone storage pi
erosion
Pellet, lump iron ore
flux itor.e conveyor t
.stations
joke snd
from rail
, coke ind
I* load-in
, coke *nd
le load-out
, coke jnd
le -jind
, coke *nd
rans fer
IV 3asic oxygen furnaces
(3OFs)
V. Electric arc furnaces
(EAFs>
71. Open hearth f'trnaccs
*OKF)
VII. Scarfers
VCII. Misce liarteoua
corsbuation units
Hoc raetai trsnsrar to
charging Udle
scrap and hot metal
cnarging
Steel refining and melting (scrap pre-
heat, Ot blowing, turndovn)
Slag duaping
Steel tapping
Tc easing
ic rap charging
Steel refining and suiting
S lag lumping.
Steel tapping
Teeming
Hoc ?setal transfer to
charging ladle
Scrap iind/or hot ?etal
charging
Steel refining and Melting
Slag dumping and steel
tapping
Teesing
Hand scarfing
Machine scarfing
toilers
Soaking pits
Reheat furnaces
IX. Vehicles
Traffic on paved and up,paved
roads
a/ Wind erosion of exposed plant terrain is also a source but it not shown in the above cable,
since ic is not associated vtth any particular process or piece or equipoent.

-------
The by-product process is oriented toward the recovery of the gases pro-
duced during the coking cycle. The rectangular coking ovens are grouped to-
gether in a series, alternately interspersed with heating flues, called a
coke battery. Coal is charged to the ovens through ports in the top, which
are then sealed. Heat is supplied to the ovens by burning some of the coke
gas produced. Coking is largely accomplished at temperatures of 1100 to
1150C (2000 to 2100F) for a period of about 16 to 20 hr. At the end of the
coking period, the coke is pushed from the oven by a ram and cooled by quench-
ing with water or via a dry quenching process.
2.2	SINTERING PROCESS
Sintering provides a method of agglomerating the fine-sized raw materials
that are input to the blast iurnace. This reduces the occurrence of "bridging"
in the blast furnace and the subsequent occurrence of blast furnace slips.
Sintering is the process of fusing fine iron ore, coke, fluxstone, mill
scale, coke, and flue dust at temperatures between 1300 and 1480C (2400 and
2700F). The sinter bed is ignited on the top surface in the furnace. The
combustion front is propagated as the windboxes draw air down through the bed.
The fused sinter is discharged from the end of the sinter machine where it is
crushed and screened. The larger material is cooled and screened again before
being input to the blast furnace.
2.3	IRON MANUFACTURING PROCESS
IrpnLspcodueed-in-bl'ast Furnaces, which are large refractory-lined
chambers into which iron in the form of natural ore, or agglomerated pro-
ducts such as pellets or sinter, coke, and limestone are charged and allowed
to react with large amounts of hot air to produce molten iron. Slag and blast
furnace gases are by-products of this operation. Hie production of 1 unit weight
of iron requires an average charge of 1.7 unit weights of iron bearing charge,
0.55 unit weight of coke, 0.20 unit weight of limestone, and 1.9 unit weight of
air. Blast furnace by-products consist of 0.3 unit weight of slag, 0.05 unit
weight of flue du^t, and 3.0 unit weights of gas per unit of pig iron produced.
The coke used in the process is produced in by-product coke ovens. The flue
dust and other iron ore fines from the process are converted into useful blast
furnace charge via sintering operations.
2.4	BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES
The basic oxygen process is employed to produce steel from a furnace
charge composed, on the average, of 707. molten blast furnace metal and 30%
scrap metal by use of a stream of commercially pure oxygen to oxidize the
impurities, principally carbon and silicon. Cycle time for the basic oxygen
process ranges from 25 to. 45 min.

-------
Host of the basic oxygen furnaces (BOF) in the United States have oxygen
blown through a lance in the top of the furnace. However, the Q-BOP which is
growing in use, has oxygen blown through tuyeres in the bottom of the
furnace.
There is much CO produced by the reactions in the furnace. This CO can
be combusted at the mouth of the furnace and then vented to gas cleaning de-
vices as is the case with the open hood, or the combustion can be suppressed
at the furnace mouth as is the case with the closed hood. The term "closed
hood" is actually a misnomer since the opening is large enough to allow approx-
imately 10% theoretical air to enter at the furnace mouth. Nearly all the
Q-BOPs in the United States have closed hoods and most of the new top-blown
furnaces are being designed with closed hoods. Most of the furnaces installed
prior to 1975 were of the open hood design.
2.5	ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
^lectric arc furnaces (EAF) are used to produce carbon, alloy, and stain-
less steel^jAll the stainless steel made in the United States in 1976 was via
electric arc furnaces. Cycles range from 1-1/2 to 5 hr for carbon steel and
from about 5 to 10 hr or more to produce alloy steel.
The charges to an electric arc furnace is nearly always 100% scrap. Heat
is furnished to melt the scrap normally via direct-arc electrodes extending
through the roof of the furnace. An oxygen lance may or may not be used to
speed the melting and refining process.
2.6	OPEN HEARTH FURNACES
In the open hearth furnace (OHF), a mixture of scrap iron and steel, and
hot metal (molten iron) is melted in a shallow rectangular basin, or "hearth."
Burners producing a flame above the charge provide the heat necessary for melt-
ing. The mixture of scrap and hot metal can vary from 100% scrap to 100% hot
metal but 507, scrap and 507. hot metal is a reasonable industry-wide average.
The process may or may not be oxygen lanced and this effects the process cycle
time which is approximately 8 hr or 10 hr, respectively.
2.7	SCARFING
Scarfing is a method of surface preparation of semi-finished steel. A
scarfing machine removes surface defects from the steel billets, blooms, and
slabs before they are shaped or -rolled by applying jets of oxygen to the sur-
face of the steel which is at orange heat thus removing a thin upper layer of
the metal by rapid oxidation. Scarfing is normally performed by machine on hot
serai-finished steel or by hand on cold or slightly preheated semi-finished
steel.

-------
2.8	MISCELLANEOUS COMBUSTION SOURCES
* I
Iron and steel plants require energy in the form of heat or electricity
for every plant operation. Some energy intensive operations that produce par-
ticulate emissions on plant property are boilers, soaking pits and slab fur-
naces burning such fuels as coal, No. 2 fuel oil, natural gas, coke oven gas,
or, blast furnace gas.
In soaking pits, ingots are heated such that the temperature distribution
across.the cross-section of the ingots is acceptable and the surface tempera-
ture uniform for further rolling into semi-finished products such as blooms,
billets, and slabs. In slab furnaces, a slab is heated before being rolled
into finished products such as plate, sheet, or strip.
2.9	OPEN DUST SOURCE PROCESSES
As was previously stated, open dust sources include (a) vehicular traffic
on paved and unpaved roads, (b) raw material handling outside of buildings,
and (c) wind erosion from storage piles and exposed terrain.
Vehicular traffic consists of plant personnel and visitor vehicles, plant
service vehicles, and trucks for hauling raw materials, plant deliverables,
steel products, and waste materials.
Raw material, is handled by clamshell buckets, bucket-ladder conveyors,
rotary railcar dumps, bottom railcar dumps, front-end loaders, truck dumps,
and at conveyor transfer stations. All these activities disturb the raw mater-
ials and expose the fines to the wind.
Even fine materials resting on flat areas or in storage piles are exposed
to the wind. It is not unusual to have several million tons of raw material
stored at a plant nor is it unusual to have in the range of 10 to 100 acres of
flat exposed area at a plant. These types of sources are subject to wind ero-
sion.

-------
SECTION 3.0
EMISSION FACTORS AND SUPPORT DATA
This section presents all the known particulate emission factors (EFs)
applicable to iron and steel industry sources and also the details of process
operation and test methodology necessary to evaluate the reliability of the
EFs. A reliability rating is given to each EF based on the following scale:
Rating	Eating description
A	EF was based on a sound test methodology and all test methodology
and process operation support data were presented in detail.
B	EF was based on a sound test methodology, but all test methodology
and process operation support data were not presented in detail.
C	EF was based on questionable or unreported test methodology.
D	EF based on calculations and/or experienced estimate.
Some tests are listed as unrateable. This is because no emission factor
was reported or able to be calculated from the reported data. An unrateable
category does not indicate that the test was not performed properly but
simply indicates that there was no emission factor to rate.
3.1 BY-PRODUCT COKE OVENS
Particulate emissions -occur during the coking operation from the following
sources: (a) charging of coal, (b) oven door leaks, (c) coke pushing, (d)
coke quenching, (e) oven combustion stacks, (f) coal preheating, and (g)
topside leaks. The present practice is to report EFs in pounds per ton of
coal so that the various sources can be compared.
3.1.1 Coal Charging
One of the coal charging values presently included in the data base orig-
inated in a document which was very relevant for its time but is now techni-
cally outdated*^' By estimates and by measurement techniques using greased
plates to quantify deposition, a range of 0.1 to 2.4 lb/ton of coal charged

-------
was acquired. There were no supportive test details listed in the document.
AP-42 presently uses 1,5 lb/ton which is an average of the EFs presented in
Reference 5. This EF is given a D rating.
Measurements were also performed at Bethlehem Steel's Burns Harbor Plant.
Measurements were taken before and after a scrubbing system. The uncontrolled
emissions were measured as 0.52 lb/ton coal and the controlled emissions as
0.02 lb/ton coal. The uncontrolled emissions do not represent all the emis-
sions from charging since emissions from the chuck door during leveling and
from the coal hoppers after emptying were not captured by the system. Speci-
fic details of the tests are not available in the reference. This EF is given
a  rating.
The most rigorous work in measuring the mass of charging emissions was
performed under U.S. EPA Contract at the Pittsburgh Works of the J&L Steel
Corporation.14]/ Emission factors for charging wet coal from a Wilputte larry
car for uncontrolled coal charging and from a specifically designed semi-
automated sequential charging car called the AISI/EPA car were determined.
Mass emissions were measured with a specialized sampling train containing an
in-stack probe followed by an out-of-stack heated cyclone and filter followed
by a heated line connected to a condensate trap. The train was similar to a
Method 5 train although the sampling flow rate and'time permitted a much smal-
ler sample volume than is recommended by Method 5. The six emission points on
the Wilputte car and the three on the AISI/EPA car.were each tested three to
four times. Given a charging rate of 16.7 tons of coal per charge*the
Wilputte car uncontrolled wet coal charging process yielded an emission fac-
tor of 0.11 lb/ton of coal while the AISI/EPA car yielded a controlled emis-
sion factor of 0.016 lb/ton of coal for sequential charging. Because of the
non-isokinetic nature oi the sampling, both emission factors were given a C
rating.
None of the references provides definitive data, but, in the absence of
such data, an average of 085 lb/ton coal will be used to represent uncon-
trolled charging emissions. This average EF is given a C rating.
3.1.2 Door Leaks
AISI submitted data for door leaks from Plant A which showed results of
three coke-side shed tests performed when no pushing was occurring. If one
concludes that the emissions measured must then represent door leaks, the av-
erage door leak EF on the push side of the tested battery was 0.18 lb/ton
coal (range 0.14 to 0.24 lb/ton coal). These tests were conducted before the
scrubber using test method WP-50. The details of the testing effort are not
known. If the value of 0.18 lb/ton coal is doubled to allow for door leaks on
both sides, then a value of 0.36 lb/ton coal represents the total door leak-
age emissions.
t

-------
A similar value was found in another coke-side shed test series.'' The
results of three tests yielded an average of 0.22 lb/ton dry coal (range 0.04
to 0.41 lb/ton dry coal based on particulate captured in the front half of the
sampling train). Doubling this result to allow for door leaks on both sides
yields 0.44 lb/ton dry coal.
In a coke-side shed testing effort at a third plant,^ particulate emis-
sions sampled during the nonpushing cycle ranged from 0.20 to 0.52 lb/ton dry
coal with an average over three tests of 0.36 lb/ton dry coal. These values
are based on particulate collected in the front half of the sampling train.
Assuming that the nonpushing emissions were mainly comprised of door leaks
and allowing for leaks on the other side of the battery, the emissions from
door leaks averaged 0.72 lb/ton dry coal.
A factor of 0.5 lb/ton dry coal represents the average door leak EF. Un-
fortunately, the percent of doors leaking is not known for these tests so that
application to other batteries is difficult. This average EF is given a B
rating.
3.1.3	Coke Pushing
The test data for coke pushing currently available in the data base are
shown in Table 2. Average EFs and their reliabilities along with process param-
eters and test methodology are presented. There are five A-rated EFs, fourteen
B-rated EFs and six-Orated EFs in Table 2.
3.1.4	Coke Quenching
The test data for coke quenching currently available in the data base are
shown in Table 3. Average EFs and their reliabilities along with process param-
eters and test methodology are presented. There are four A-rated EFs and five
C-rated EFs in Table 3.
The reasons for the large differences shown in Table 3 between the A-rated
quench test results at Dofasco's Hamilton, Ontario, plant and those at U.S.
Steel's Lorain Works are currently the topic of much debate. There are five
hypothesized independent variables which may explain the wide variation in
emission factor measurements:
1.
The
vertical speed of the combined air and water vapor mixture
2.
The
water application technique,
3.
The
total suspended solids in the quench water,
4.
The
amount of volatiles remaining in the coke, and
5.
The
existence and design of baffles.

-------
XABLE 2. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR COKE PUSHING OPERATIONS
Average
emission factor.!?/
(lb/ton coal)
Process parameters
E.F.
reliability
Company/
location
Oven Tons of
Battery Test height coke/	Coke
designation date (ft)	push*?/ quality
Emission
capture
system
0.7
1.5
(Total emis-
sions from
pushing as
measured
directly
over car)
0.49
0.68
0. 69^-Suspended
emissions
0.45 - Dustfall
bucket catch frgm
all push side
operations
0.55_e/ without sprays
0.39e/ with sprays
l4ef/ without sprays
l2ef/ with sprays
Northwest
Indiana
a/
B
B
12/77
and
4/78
12
a/
Green
Clean
Overall
No. 1
10/74 20
23.5
Bethlehem
^ Steel, Burns
Harbor, Indiana
No. 1
11/74 20
23.5
a/:
A
A
B
B
No. 1
3/75 20
22-24
a/.
No. 1
3/76- 20
4/76
23.5
a/
None
Moderate
to Green
Coke-
side
shed
Coke-
side
shed
Gas
Gas
flow rate
temp.
(dscfm)
(F)
175,4002./
232/

(81-534)
210,400^/
117

(71-167)
186,400
191
(50,000 -
(71-534)
749,000)

171,000-
308,000
171,000-
308,000
160
115-
170
Coke-side 268,000-	a/
shed; 85% Continuous
capture sampling; 124
efficiency 257,000-
sampling during
peak emissions
Coke-
side
shed; 85%
capture
a/
a/
Test methodology
No. No. of Sample
of pushes/ time Percent
runs	run	(min)	Isokinetic
Samplii l
netnodo.
Average
measured
concentration
(gr/dscf)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton coal)
Comments
Reference
High-volume
(43 scfffl)
isokinetic
saiapler|at
single pt
suspended in
center of plume.
Used 8 in. x 10
a
in. glass fiber
filter. | Cup
anemometer for
velocity mea-
i
surements.
Andersen in-
stack i npactor
in duct
ing to
lector
Alundum
ASTM me
lead-
col-
duct leading to
collector. No
condensate trap.
EPA Met
in duct
ing to
lector
lod 5
lead-
bo 1-
EPA Method 5
in duct
to coll
leading
ector
39
25
64
1
1
Thimble-
thod in
3 -	1-3
during
peak
emissions
2 - 10
during
peak
emissions
3 - 23-25
continuous
3 - 20
during
peak
emissions
4-
without
sprays;
15-
8
a/
a/
a/
2-6
20
288
60
a/
a/
a/
a I
a/
a/
bJ
a/
a/
1.44
0.787
1.18
0.145
0.186
0.054/
0.19/
a /
2.0
(0.09-9.0)
0.7
(0.05-2.0)
1.5
(0.05-9.0)
0.49
0.68
0.69^-
e/
0.55e/
Without
sprays;
G.39e/
With sprays
Cross-sectional shape of
plumes determined with
2 motion picture cameras.
Tests by Bethl'ehem Steel
Corporation Research Depart-
ment# Neglected probe losses#
Tests by Bethlemen Environ-
mental Quality
sion. 10 pts
Control Divi-
sampled per run.
Tests by Clayton Environmental
Consultants. Suspended emission
factor includes fugitive and shed
captured particulate.
Special tests
of water spray
to determine effects
s as control.
10
11
pp. 7,11,27
11
pp. 7,11,32-34
8
p63 and 12
p. 3-25
13

-------
TABLE 2. (Continued)
Average
emission factor^
(lb/ton coal)
Process parameters
E.F.	Company/	Battery Test
reliability location	designation date
Oven
height
(ft)
Tons of
coke/
pushk^
Coke
quality
Emission
capture
system
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Test methodology
Gas
t &CQO
fF)
Sampling
methodology
No, No. of
of pushes/
runs run
Sample
time
(mln)
Percent!
isokinetic
Average
measured
concentration
(gr/dscf)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton coal)
Comments
Reference
0.25^Suspended	A
emissions
1.1 Dust fall	c
bucket catch from
all push side
operations.
P /
2.3 Total uncon-	A
trolled emissions
from pushing as
measured directly
over car.
0.29
0.26	Eg./
0.4/
0.024E
e/
14.4./ Lb /push
Great Lakes
Carbon
St. Louis,
Missouri
Ford Motor
Company,
Steel Division
Dearborn,
Michigan
Company A
(AISI Data)
Company A
(AISI Data)
Company B
(AISI Data)
Company B
(AISI Data)
CF&I
Pueblo,
Colorado
South
a/
a/
No. 3
No. 3
B, C, D
4/75
11
6/24/75 13
to
7/16/75
9/75-
11/75
a/
2/76- a/
3/76
12/73 a/
12/73
a/
8/10/76 a/
to
8/17/76
10.5
12
11.3
11. 3
24
24
a /
a/
Avg.
between
green
and
clean,
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Coke-side 119,000-
shed; 91% 132,000
avg. capture
efficiency
Travelling
hood fitted
directly
over car.
Coke-side
shed
77,000-
82,800
175,100
Coke-side 168,900
shed
Enclosed coke 61,300
car & guide to
venturi scrubbers
via stationary main.
Same as above 66,500
a/
52,400
scfm
69-85
130-209
81
113
118
108
254
Modified EPA
Method 5 in
dut leading
to collector.
Modified EPA
Method 5 in
duct leading
to scrubber.
WP -50 in duct
leiding to
collector
(
in
to
28
IPA-approved"
duct leading
collector)
AStTM PTC-21
inl duct leading
to east and
west scrubbers.
AS.TM PTC-21 in
stacks exiting
ea'st and west
scrubbers.
Single point
sample through
probe" suspended
inj the plume.
Sampled at
45,-61 scfm.
12
10-15	192-288 99.9-102.9
pushing
cycle
168-192
non-pushing
cycle
16 or 24 16 or 24 100-108.6
24
7-13
7-13
24
a/
28-78
28-78
14-30
sec
a/
a/
a/
a/
0.017/
pushing cycle
1.67.
e/
0.063
0.060

0.071*/
1.852 gr/scf
0.25^
suspended
1.1
dustfall
2.3^
0.29
0.26
0.4*/
0.024/
14.4^/
lb/push
Each sample taken at 20
pts in duct. Emission
factor includes uncaptured
fugitive and shed-captured
particulate for pushing
only.
Hood capture efficiency
estimates ranged from
32 to 80j. Scrubber
removed 99.3% of what
was captured.
Unclear how testing
east and west
scrubbers coincides
with pus'
Unclear
east and
scrubber
with pus
Plume cr
ling process.
iow testing
west
s coincides
ling process.
>ss-
sectionajL area
determined photo-
graphically. Plume
temperat ire measured
at singl; point with
a hot wire anemometer.
9 - page 47 and
12 - page 3-25
14 - pp. 11, 98,
182, 220
15
15
16 - p. 4
16 - p. 4
136

-------
TjABLE 2. (Concluded)
Average
emission factor*?/
(lb/ton coal)
E.F.
reliability
Company/
location
0.34E-
e/
0.4 3^/
0.56 (front and
back half of
sampling train)
0.53
0.48 - dust fall
0.32.
>e/
B
Bethlehem
S t ee1,
Burns Harbor,
Ind iana
Bethlehem
Steel,
Burns Harbor,
Indiana
Bethlehem
Steel,
Burns Harbor,
Indiana
Bethlehem
Steel,
Burns Harbor,
Indiana
Beth Iehem
Steel,
Burns Harbor,
Indiana
Battery Test
designation date
No. 1
7/74
No. 1
7/74
No. 1
7/74
a/
a/
a /
.Battery .C 3/75
Oven
height
(ft)
20
20
20
a/
a/
a/
Tons of
coke/
push??/
Process parameters
23.5
23.5
23.5
a/
a/
Coke
quality
Emission
capture
system
if I
a/
a/
a/
a /
a /
-a/-
Coke-
side
shed
Coke-
side
shed
Coke-
s ide
shed
Coke-
side
shed
Coke-
side
shed
-Coke-
side
shed
Gas
flow rate
(dscfro)
a /
a/
a /
a /
a/
-a/-
Gas
temp.
(F)
a /
a/
a/
a/
a/
100
Test methodology
|ampling
methodology
No. No. of
of pushes/
runs run
Sample
time
(min)
Percent
isokinetic
Average
measured
concentration
(gr/scf)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton coal)
Comments
EPA train with
sampling at a
single point
EPA train with
full Method 5
multipoint
traverse
Modified ASTH
train with
out-of-sfcack
filter
ASTM sampling
train
a/

let hod 5
23
8-12
8-12
8-12
8-10
a/ a /
16-24
16-24
16-24
16-20
a/
24
a/
a/
a/
a/
NA
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
NA
0.016
0.34/
0.43
e/
0.56
0.63
0.48
0.32
e/
Emission
sents em:
by shed
Reference
factor repre-
ssions captured
Emission factor repre-
sents emissions captured
by shed I
Emission factor repre-
sents emissions captured
by shed
Emission factor repre-
sents emissions captured
by shed
Emission factor repre-
sents emissions settling
on ground in shed
In stack
after scrubber
with scrubber off
17
17
17
12
3-25
12
p. 3-25
12
P-
3-25
a/	Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data.	!
_b/	Usee. 0. 7 tons coke per ton of coal as conversion where necessary,
c/	Average for 66 tests.
d/	Average temperature for 33 tests.
_e/	Based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train,
f/	AmUdecoti?/\/C?	fr,tes,:s Uit"0Ut spra"s and la 1Wt"	fr tests with sprays as detained by dustfall buckets.
/	AISI - compiled tests selected as acceptable by Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, 0AQPS.

-------
Process parameters
Average
emission
factor
(lb/con coal)
E.F,	Company/
reliability location
Tower
dimensions	Tons of
Test at sampling	coal/
date level	hr
Exhaust
flow rate
	(dscfm)
1.4 +
0.00018	x TDSfej
1.4*1/ -	clean
water	tests
2.61/ - dirty
water tests
0.1
0.44
0.40
0.25H.'
d /
0.2lJ/
>.23!/
0.32
0.04
C
G
U.S. Steel
Lorain,
Ohio
Bethlehem
Steel
Lackawanna,
New York
France
Poland
Dofasco
Hamilton,
Ontario
8/76 Tapered,
cvlindrical
14 ft ID at
100 ft level
4/74 16 ft x 16 ft
41-55
I
181,900
149
a/ af
a/ a /
_./
a/
382,300
wet scfm
a/
a/.
8/77 18 ft x 37 ft 16T coal 152,000-
quench 308,400
Dofasco
Hamilton,
Ontario
Dofasco
Hamilton,
Ontario
8/77 18 ft x 37 ft 16T coal 168,100-
quench
8/77 18 ft x 37 ft 161 coal 149,300-
quench 278,700
U.S. Steel 12/67 15 ft x 15 ft 186
Clairton, Pa.
U.S. Steel 12/67 15 ft x 15 ft 186
Clairton, Pa.
391,000
wet scfm
391,000
wet scfm
Exhaust
temp.
(F)
/
142
a /
a/
155
155
155
150
150
Gallons
H20 per
quench
Sampling
methodology
Sampling
location
6,000-
12,000
a/
a/
a/
a/
High volume, 2 cfm Afte^r baffles
singlepoint sampling
using EPA Method 5
train with pre-
cyclone.
Single point sam-
pling using EPA After baffles
Method 5 sampling with sprays
train
Greased disks	a/
a/	a /
High volume, 2 cfm
sampling at 2-6
points using cy-
clone and heated
probe in the tower
and heated filter
putside the tower
followed by conden-
sate trap
Same as above
5 ft$
abo\
baffiles
Test methodology
Sample
Ho. of
runs
Sample
time/
run
(min)
5 ft
abov
baf!
Same as above
5 ft
abo-y
baff
e
les
e
les
4,000 Greased plate
4,000 Greased plate
In dower with '1
no I
In t
affles
af iteferencii provides :indufficient data on corroboration of data.
_b/ TDS = Total dissolved solids in quench water in parts per million by mass.j
c/ Unclear whether value is based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train or in front and back
halves combined,
d/ Based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train.
e_/ Based on particulate collected in front and back halves of sampling train.
25
a/
;ower with
45-degree
baffles spaced
1-1,2 to 3 in.
apart. Baffles
are washed
once per shift
. |
with sprays.
Only during
quench (2
to 3 min
each)
About 3 min
per quench.
af af
af af
9-14
11-13
6-13
a/
a / a/
No. of
quenches Percent
per run isokinetic
18
a/
a /
3-6
a /
a f
91.1-109.5
67-77
NA
af
92-107
106-108
81-108
NA
NA
TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF, EMISSION FACTORS FOR C0KF. QUENCHING OPERATION
Average
measured
concentration	
(gr/dscf) (lb/hr)
a /
0.1#
c /
a/
a/
a /
a /
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton coal)
af
101. 9^
1.4 +
0.00018 x
TDSbe/
0. 7^
a. f
af
af
a /
0.06131/ 3.965^ 0.25^
0.06551/ 3.417/ 0.21-'
0.06 111/ 3.739^ 0.23^
6 lb/quench 0.32
0.75 lb/quench 0.04
Comments
l
E.F. determined from
best-fit line; 12 clean
water tests and 13 dirty
water tests.
Sampled'north quench
tower handling mainly
Battery 9 coke ovens.
Estimate.
Also contains emissions
from coke pushing.
Using normal recycle
water.
Using normal recycle
water with baffle
sprays Operating.
Using or
water
ce through bay
16
References
18,19
20
5, p. 6
5, p. 19
21
21
21
22

-------
Additional source testing is required to develop an equation relating emissions
to the independent variables.
3.1.5	Coke Oven Battery Combustion Stacks
The test data for coke oven battery combustion stacks currently available
in the data base are shown in Table 4. Average EFs and their reliabilities
along with process parameters and test methodology are presented. There are
21 B-rated EFs, four C-rated EFs, and one unrateable EF in Table 4.
3.1.6	Coal Preheaters
135/
Some limited data exist on emissions from Cerchar coal preheaters.
Uncontrolled emissions of total particulate were measured during 18 tests at
one plant and ranged from 5.3-8.8 lb/ton coal with an average of 7.0 lb/tori
coal. Controlled emissions of total particulate were measured during 18 tests
at Venturi scrubber outlets and ranged from 0.25-1.82 lb/ton coal with an
average of 0.65 lb/ton coal. The original testing reports were not available
to identify the test methodology; consequently, the values are C-rated.
3.2 BLAST FURNACES
Emissions occur during the production of iron when blast furnaces slip
and when emissions escape the cast house monitor.
3.2.1 Slips
Slips occur when a strata of the material charged to a blast furnace does
not settle with the input material below it, thus leaving a gas-filled space
between the two portions of the charge. When this unsettled strata of charge
collapses, the displaced gas may cause the top gas pressure to increase above
the safety limit, thus opening a counterweighted bleeder valve which is open
to the atmosphere.
The only EFs available to quantify slip emissions were estimated by
BattelleJ/ An EF range of 0.0046 to 0.046 lb/ton of hot metal reported by
the Battelle researchers was estimated by the following method.
The amount of dust emitted per slip was estimated by assuming that the
slip-induced dust loading would be 10 to 100 times the maximum normal dust
loading of blast furnace off-gas, which is in the range of 7 to 30 gr/scf*^2y'
Therefore, 300 to 3,000 gr/scf would be contained in the slip-generated gas
volume. This gas volume was quantified using the dimensions of a typical
furnace (30-ft diameter) and assuming a 2-ft slip height, an actual tempera-
ture of 927C, and an actual pressure of 2 atm absolute. The gas volume cal-
culated via the ideal gas law was 18,200 normal liters (643 scf). The entire
volume of slip-generated gas was then assumed to be released through the

-------
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR BY-PRODUCT COKE OVEN COMBUSTION STACKS
Process conditions
^mission
. a/
factor





Otnf







Average
FjnriJ*s1^n

E.F.

0>k?


cliarfced
Civil

St ick R.1S
ft -^k Tst
fn^thodoicJCY
inp.nsi

f .ict or 2/

{lb/ton
rc I i fi-
Company/
buttery
Test
Nn. nf
jiri nvon
Input
rctb/
typif-
f1ow r ,i t *
temj*
Snm{( J iir
No. rtf
Percent
concent ration
(Ih/trm

coat)
bility
location
de&ieiiat ion d.ite
ovcus
(tons)
(tons/hr)
(sclni)
rn
method
runs
isokinetic
gr/dsc*
Ife/hr
cos I )
References
0.35
B
Al*h-v*M
By-Products
No*. 5 -iwl
6(conMK>fl
iom
W
I 7
57.4
ot:
41,900
1?Q
r.VA-5
1
4f
0.039
70.1
0.35
23


Tnrrant,AL
Stark )



uu>%
41. *r-










0.12
B
Antco
I
7/73
11
is.5
NfT
30,500
445
KTA- 5/!>*.*
I
d/
0.01 o
ta
0.12
23
0.21
6
Steel
t
4/75
n
IS,5
Nfl
;o
499
Ownpl t 4nc#
\
d/
o.oi?
1.5
0,21

0,06
B
llmistofi, TX
1
11/76
v.
l.5
41.4
NtJ
19,350
414

>
d/
0.00*
2.6
0.06

0.42
J -

l	
-


 IV. ~ -
-NS	

431


d/
-

0.42

0,36
R
icthlehtm
8
J/75
*'?/
d/
51 *4
u><:
15,*90
VI
State o|
1
d/
0.060
!.5
0.16
23
0.42
B
StMl
8
J/75
*'f/
d/
51.*
rsrc
4?, 3*0
56 5
Hrry(#itd
2
d/
0.053
21-6
0.42


B
Sparrows
9
7/75

d/
54.9
con
VI, W)
560
Steele Trf.r
3
d/
0.141
40*4
0.74

o.ta
B
Polot, HP
Q
m


5*.*
nr<;
51 ,660
527
>V>t hrwl
2
d/
0.0J4
(O.J
0.18

0.43
B

l
6/75

d/
55.3
BFC
55,410
522

5
i'
0.050
21.fi
0.43

0.42
B

11
6/75
"c/
d/
5?.R
rw:
29, >.10
576

3

0.0%
24.1
0.42

0. 90
J	

12
6/75
_ -
T*r
d/
. _
coo
,16*270
519

. _ J
	
0.165
51^ 
0.90

2,5^
B
Bet hi#hen
Steel
Johnstown,
PA
11
17/75
u.5
47.9
coo
66#100
576
P*mnsyf vania
Scat#
1
d/
0.2t*
124
2-59
23
0-53
P
IHmner
Itarina Ctkc
Cor|K)ratlor>
Buffalo.NY
0
12/7.1
J6
i?
28. j
one
*?,**<>
5fifi
f.pa- 5
!
d/
0,077
15.2
0.53
23
1.31
a
Kaiser Steel
Fontana,CA
A
0
425
El'A- 5
4?
d/
0.125
41.2
1.31
23
0,16
c

n
17/72
4 5
14
17*\
air;
4 7,V*>
77 0
filter
7
d/
0.016
5.R
0.16
23
0.12
G

r.
iz/n
45
1'.
3?.l
rfc
.'6,00
160
w 1 r. h p> 1 a 51r
voo I f i 1 r. f i
pr*c*#cH 
Implnjgcr'
X
d/
0.009
4.3
0.12

0.56
0
Lone Star
Steel
Lone Star,
A & B
nnn stack)
2/73
77
17.1
SI .9
ma
17,2'in
46
St-*t* of
Texas with
KPA r.r-ii.i
\
i
0.0-,9
iA.fi
0.36
23
1,04
8
Hational
Steri
Cranit
City,!L
II
o/76
49
16.2
4 ft. 4
wc
28.170
6 (Ml
ETA- 3
2
d/
0.195
4 7.1
1.04

-------
TABLE 4. (concluded)
Average		Process conditions	,	
cm! %%iorj	Av*r	method runs isokinetic	at/dscf Ib/hr	coal)	gcicrencea
0.6?^ 3 Shcnanno.lnc. I A 1 (com- ?/7ft 35	7 7-0 cor.	''ft.fl.K*	F.rft-$/St**<> in	d/	0.131 51.8 0.*7	23
Pittsburgh, mwt stick of
	,	, _ _ _ _ _			_							 J>nsyjlvani.;i			w 			 	
0.B?8 IT U.S." St eel 3 ~ 8/75 A*" 15.2 ~ "s.ft "one .u~m ~ ~2/ F.f'A 5	1	d/	O.0S2~ ~1?7* 0.46	23 '
Sheet & Twbe
f>mp.-iriy
Indiana
0.7 C" C6,100 499	d/	10	d/	0.210 42.8 0,8	24
>0	(AI5I data)
At	4/ CIM	n	fc/7R 31	J/	d/	d/	17,420 441 EPA-5	3 96.9-108.4 0.00650 0.9 4'	139
iHicbln, 00
at	"Front hoif" particulate only,
y	UK; coke ovm *ass BFCi blast furnace **5! Hfii nnltir.il R.'s-
c/	Exact ftumhrr n{ nvens ill opfraf Ion rforlnR testing not knrw>.
a/	Reference provides insufficient d*t* or corrntwratf cm nf data.
/	AlSl-c/ sanpl tken only during ehml" period.

-------
dirty-gas bleeder valve. Thus, the quantity of dust emitted per slip would
range from 27.6 to 276 lb.
Of the total of 135 blast furnaces operating in the United States in
1974 to 1975, it was assumed that 22 were "problem" furnaces which averaged
30 slips per month. The remaining 113 furnaces were assumed to average four
slips per month. Therefore, the total number of slip-induced bleeder valve
emissions in the United States in 1974 was 13,350. Using the 27,6 to 276
lb/slip range and the 1974 net hot metal production rate of 79.9 x 10 tons,
the EFs for slip-induced emissions are found to range from 0.0046 to 0.046
lb/ton of hot metal produced. The document qualifies this as a first attempt
order of magnitude calculation#
3.2.2 Cast House Monitor
The test data for cast house emissions currently available in the data
base are shown in Table 5. Average EFs and their reliabilities along with
process parameters and test methodology are presented. There is one A-rated
EF, five B-rated EFs, and four G-rated EFs in Table 5.
3.3	SINTERING
Bnissions occur at several points in the sintering process. Hie points
of particulate generation are (a) the windbox, (b) the discharge (sinter
crusher and hot screen), (c) the cooler, and (d) the cold screen. In addi-
tion to these sources, there are in-plant transfer stations which generate
emissions and can be controlled by localized enclosures. All the above sources,
except the cooler, are normally vented to one or two control systems.
The main problem with the EFs related to sintering compiled in Table 6
is that the sources contributing to the factor are not delineated in many
cases. There are fifteen A-rated EFs in Table 6, twenty-seven B-rated EFs,
eight C-rated EFs, and ten unrateable factors.
3.4	BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES
There are several sources of particulate emissions in the basic oxygen
-furnace steelmaking process. The emission sources are (a) emissions from the
furnace mouth during refining - collected by local full (open) or suppressed
(closed) combustion hoods, (b) hot metal transfer to charging ladle, (c)
charging scrap and hot metal, (d)"dumping slag, and (e) tapping steel.
Table 7 lists EFs from several of the above sources. The roof monitor
emissions are a composite of the portion of charging, tapping, slagging,
and hot metal, transfer emissions that escape to the atmosphere.

-------
TABLE 5. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR BLAST FURNACE CAST HOUSE OPERATIONS
Average
Emission
factor
(lb/ton
hot metal)
Process parameters
Test methodology
E.F.
relia- [Company/
bility location
Furnace
desig-
nation
Test
date
Tons hot
metal/
cast
Duration
of cast
(min)
Exhaust Gas
rate	temp,
(scfm) (F)
Emission
capture
system
Sampling
methodology
No.
Sample
of time/run
		Average
Percent Measured
Iso concentration
runs (min) kinetic (gr/scf) (lb/hr)
Average
Emissioh
factor J
(lb/ tonj
hot meta'l)
Comments
Reference
o.i/
0.26/
0.25/
0.78/
0.4&/
0.68SJ
0.20./
0.25
0.52
0.31
B
B
B
A
C
C
(Bethlehem
Steel,
Bethlehem,
i
Pa.
B^/
Dofasco,
Hamilton,
Ontario
Canada
I
Bethlehem
Steel,
^Johnstown,
I	*
Pa.
CF&I,
Pueblo,
Colorado
i
Dofasco,
Hamilton,
Ontario
Canada
J
Bethlehem
Steel,
Sparrows
Point, Md.
No. 1
No. 1
No. 1
a/
No. 1
9/76
8-11/76
10/76-
11/76
a/
8/76-
11/76
11/76-
12/76
a/
/
a/
277
321
283
180
a/
a/
391
I
a/	83,500	111
a/	283,700	108
a/	144,100	125
37	308,300	134
32	293,600	140
36	208,100	155
33	289,900	82
a/
a/
a/
300,000
acfm
a/
a/
32-70 458,400- 95
595,200
< 757.
capture
75-90%
capture
80-95%
capture
100% open
fan setting
70% open
fan setting
40% open
fan setting
Total cast
house evac-
uation to
baghouse
a/
Building
evacuation
to baghouse
None
EPA Method 5, 3
Sampled in duct
after hood and 3
before any
control device 3
EPA Method 5, 2
Sampled in duct
leading to bag- 2
house
2
EPA-5
Time lapse
photography
Weight of
particulate
captured by
the baghouse
Hi-Vols sus-
pended in
bays of the
roof monitor
19,
a/
10
30-40
35-65
31-35
35
22
33
33
a/
32-70
a/
a/
a/
101
106-111
111-116
a/
a/
a/
0.05c/
35. 5^
0.102/
0.04l/
98.5^-/
0.26^/
0.09 7/
120
J/
0.25S-'
0.142/
368^
0.78^/
0.126^/
299/
0.48^
0.200^/
326^
0.68j1'
0.029/
60.9^/
0.20^
a/
a /
0.25
0.028
157
0.31
\ Capture efficiency based on
I visual observation of canopy
/ hood collection system. EF
1 represents only locally cap-
tured taphole and trough
emissions.
\ Total cast house evacuation.
I One test per cast.
28;
29,
One test per cast.
Sampling in duct leading
to baghouse.
>tudy done by Celesco
[nd. (Report No, 156).
oes not include weight
if emissions passed by
iaghouse.
29
p. 45,
P-
C-lff
29
p. 52,53,
D-l
29
p. 52
29
pp. 45-46
29
P. 52;
30
&! Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data,
b/ AISI - compiled tests selected as acceptable by Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, OAQPS.

-------
enc
31
32
33
34
35
35
36
37
37
38
38
Process conditions
Teat methodology
Test results
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Cas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp. (F)
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Sampling time Gas	No.
Percent per run flow rate of runs
isokinetic	(rain)	(dscfm) performed
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range
(gr/dscf)
Avg,
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton sinter)
Avg.
(lb/ton sinter)
3/75
1,368-2,369 tons 140,000-224,000
sinter/day
3/4-5/75 1,500-2,340 tons 34,000
sinter/day
10/1/69 150 tons sinter/hr 165,000
10/75-11/75 H3-132 tons
sinter/hr
10/75-11/75 113-132 tons
sinter/hr
188-287
112-151
260
3/70-4/70 150 tons sinter/ 125,000-135,000 206
hr	wet scfm
240,000-284,000 102-215
239,000-312,000 128-208
In stack thinble
10 min tests-
47 mm glass
fiber filter
2 hr t;sts-
alundum thimble
Alundura thimble
Alundura thimble
a/
a/
In windbox
exhaust stack
In discharge stack
In 9 ft sq duct before
fan and after coarse
particulate control
devices.
In 8 ft 0 stack, 85 ft
above ground and 15 ft
from top
!/
a/
10 min tests - single pt in stack
2 hr tests - 24 pt traverse
a/
Single point in stack
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
at
a /
a /
a /
a/
a /
4 tests-2 hr each; a/
11 tests-10 min
each
a/
a/
101-108 90
92-199 120
a/
a /
a/
a /
17
15
16
10
10
0.082-0.196^ 0.135
0.16-0.3l/ 0.21 gr/acf
gr/acf
0.13-0.31/
gr/wet scf
0.176-1.013
b/
0.043-0.17^/ 0.113
0,21/
0. 47/
ib/
5.1-19.02.'
,b/
0.97-1.96^/ 1.54 gr/acfi/	5.3-8.3^/
gr/acf
8.8-17.4^/
0.64-1.5^/
3.1-18.9^/
0.83-3.8^/
10.fib/
6. at/
11.8^/
l.ok/

1.9.
V
4/18-25/74 10,604-11,167
tons sinter/day
12/29/72 1,350 tons
sinter/day
12/29/72 1,350 tons
sinter/day
256,000-274,000 147-175
296,000-302,000 90-95
305,000-308000 70-73
3/27/73 1,471 tons sinter/ 111,800 acfm	a/
day
3/27/73 1,471 tons sinter/ 111,000 acfm
day
a/
In-stack thimble
Standard EPA-
approved train
Standard EPA-
approved train
a/
a/
a/	82-99	a /
In 4- ft x 14.5 ft tile-
lined plenum
In 8 ft 0 stack
Directly after bend
in duct leading to
baghouse
In 3 ft 0 stack 1 ft
beyond fan and 2 ft
from stack exit. Bag-
house had 14 stacks,
1/compartment
Modified EPA Method 5. Each test
was a traverse along a different
single axis.
108-113 97-133
EPA Method 5	99-103 100
EPA Method 5(unspecified number a/	a/
of points in traverses)
EPA Method 5 (unspecified number a/	_a/
of points in traverse-sampling
ports 1 ft beyond fan)
a /
0.4-0.54 3
0.53
a/
a/
2(3rd test suspect
due to temporary
line shut-down)
0.188-0.212^/ 0. "iSJ
0.4019-5.0207/ 2.367tJ
hi
0.014-0.0157/ 0.0148E1
?c/
2.9049-3.7493=/ 3.327l/
2(3rd test suspect) 0.02275-0.02490S./ 0,0238/
0.4-0.7j
18-228E/
0.65-0.73S-/
42-52SJ
). 32-0.39/
0.55y
107./
0. 7'
U7SJ

-------
TABLE 6. (CONTINUED)
Average





Process conditions


Test methodology




Test results



emission
Emission



Process
Gas
Type of
Location of

Sampling time
Gas
No.
Measured
concentrations
Emission factors


factor
factor

Company/
Test
production
flow rate Gas
sampling
sampling
Sampling
Percent per run
flow rate
of runs
Range
Avg.
Range Avg.


(lb/ton sinter)
reliability
Source
location
date
rate
(dscfm) temp. (F)
device
device
nethodology
isokinetic (min)
(dscfm)
performed
(f,r/dscf)
(gr/dscf)
(lb/ton sinter) (lb/ton sinter)
Comments
Reference
9as/ most accurate
46/ avg of all 4 tests
B
C
0.9^
Uncontrolled emissions
from windbox
Company P
(AISI data)
2/73
75 tons sinter/hr 300,000
130
Controlled emissions
from windbox
Company P
(AISI data)
2/73
75 tons sinter/hr 250,000-239,000 100
EPA-approvcd train
In 4 ft x 14 ft scrubber
inlet duct at a bend
EPA-approved train
Modified EPA Method 5 (2 tests at aj
only a single point; 1 test using
a partial traverse; 1 test using a
full traverse in one direction.
Temp, of probe and filter kept the
same as duct gas.
After tray type scrubber Kodified EPA Method 5 (probe and a/
(assume 8 ft 0 stack) filter temp, set to coincide
with flue gas temp.)
90
a/
0.379-2.86SJ 2.86 (most accurate 13-9&?/
test) SJ
98 (most accurate
test)7
90
a/
0.0195-0.0388^ 0.02952/
0.6-1.25/
0.91?/
Number of traverse points in the "most accurate" test
unclear. Lab analysis performed so as not to drive off
condensible hydrocarbons. Report noted that Method 5
analysis produced factor of 2 lower total particulate
emissions.
Tray-type scrubber pressure drop of 9 to 11 in, J^O,
Lab analysis performed so as not to drive off conden-
sible hydrocarbons.
39
39
lli/
0,052.'
d/
0.63-2.
b/
2.6^/(in stack)
lb/ ton feed
10,5b/(leafing
grate) lb/ton
feed
Uncontrolled emissions
from discharge and
other unspecified
sources
Controlled emissions
from discharge and
other unspecified
sources
Controlled emissions
from windbox
Uncontrolled windbox
(every windbox has at
least an inertial
collector for large
particles)
Company A	1/71	3,400 tons sinter/ a/
(AISI data)	day
Company A	1/71	3,400 tons sinter/ 138,200
(AISI data)	day
Company A
(AISI data)
Armco, Inc.
Ashland, KY
5/75	3,600 tons sinter/ 288,000
day
8/70-11/70 150 tons feed/hr af
(feed here includes
hot recycle fines
from windbox and
hot screen)
a /
120
300
a /
Thimble
Thimble
a/
After baghouse
Model EPA-2
emissions para-
meter 'analyzer by
Western Precipi-
tation Div. of
Joy Manufacturing
Alundum thimble
filter packed
with fine glass
wool. Wet impinger.
Water trap.
In 153 in.
after ESP
stack
Induced draft stack.
After S-collector,
multicyclones, and
policeman.
MP-50
WP-50
EPA Method 5. 48 points along 2
parpendicular lines.
a;
a/
a/
37-91
a/
a/
192
a /
af
a/
0.5
a/
40
itene
"one
5.65*/
0.0065/
), 034-0.04 5^ 0.03i/
0.2-0.44b/	0.317 gr/set
gr/scf
None
None
0.56-0.74b/
a /
111/
0.052.'
4/
0.63'
b/
2.6 lb/ton feed
(in stack)
Emissions from hot screen hood, sinter breaker, and two
unknown sources.
40
40
41
75% of dust leaving grate is captured by S-collectors multi-	42
cyclones and policeman. Only dust emissions are reported, not oil.
a/
Ml
Controlled windbox
Armco, Inc.
Ashland, KY
8/70-11/70 150 tons feed/hr a/
a/
Same as above
After pilot scrubber
a/
a/
a/
0.005-0.02lV a /
a /
a /
Concentration varies from high to low as pressure drops across
scrubber was increased from 23 to 76 in. of H2O.
42
0.032-/
0.0012b/
A
A
a/
Inland Steel
E. Chicago, IL
7/75	159 tons sinter/ 118,500
hr
118
Standard EPA
sampling train
In stack after baghouse EPA Method 5
98.4
60
0.6
0.0040-0.00515/ 0,0047/
0.0012-0.0016b/ 0.0014b/
0.026-0.034^
0.0079-0.01b/
0.03
-------
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton sinter)
Process conditions
Test methodology
4.8^/
3.8b/
lb/tons input
a /
a/
a/
c/
0.49:
0.43^/
Q,9S/
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.
(F)
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
a/
a/
a /
Controlled Windboxes
Uncontrolled windbox
Controlled windbox
Controlled emissions
(Assume windbox
emissions)
Combined effluent
from sinter machines
1, 2, and 3
Controlled effluent
from two windboxes
Bethlehem Steel 12/75
Johnstown, PA
Armco, Inc.
Houston, TX
Armco, Inc.
Houston, TX
7/71
7/71
Alan Wood Steel 4/74
Conshohocken, PA
Bethlehem Steel 6/75
Bethlehem, PA
105 tons feed/hr 184,600
(including recycled
fines but excludes
hearth layer)
1194 tons input/
day
1194 tons input/
day
Alan Wood Steel 5/71-6/71 a/
Conshohocken, PA
a/
a/
2000-3000
73.5 tons/hr of
sinter (including
recycled fines)
120 tons/hr of
sinter/two
machines
279,200 scfm
200,300
225
a/
a/
123-180
87
268
Modified EPA
sampling train
Modified EPA
sampling trains
w/2 impingers
Modified EPA
sampling trains
w/2 impingers
Glass probe
in stainless
steel housing,
glass cyclone,
and glass fiber
filter
Standard EPA
sampling train
Modified EPA
sampling train
In stack after Research
Cottrell ESP
In inlet to pilot sized
venturi scrubber
In out from pilot
sized venturi
After hydro-clean
scrubber pilot unit
In stack after hydro
cleaners
In stack after ESP
Sampling
methodology
EPA Method 5
a /
a /
Modified EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
Sampling time
Percent	per run
isokinetic (min)
105
a /
a/
a/
94.2
a/
120
a/
a/
33-53
120
144
0.
ib/
Controlled effluent
from 4 sinter machine
breakers and hot screens
Bethlehem Steel 5/75
Bethlehem, PA
239 tons/hr of
sinter/four
machines
138,100
23?
Modified EPA
sampling train
In stack after baghouse EPA Method 5
a/
120
0.30^
0.41/
A
A
Controlled effluent
from sinter draft
system from machine
No. 2 (Includes wind-
box and discharge
emissions)
Kaiser Steel
Fontana, CA
6/75	160 tons/hr, of 132,700
sinter
302
Microchemical
Specialties Co,
Misco Model
7200 CM glass
lined stainless
steel probe and
glass fiber
filters
In stack after baghouse EPA Method 5
96.2
180
TABLE 6. (CONTINUED)
Gas	No.
flow rate of runs
(dscfm) performed
0.6
Test results
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range
(gr/dscf)
Avg.
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton sinter)
Avg,
(lb/ton sinter)
Comments
Reference
NA
0.32c/
0.256b/
NA
4.8c/
3.8b/
lb/tons input
Emission factor based on tonnage input and not sinter output, 44
12 sampling points; 10 min/sampling point.
a/
55
0.02-0.33b/
gr/wet scf
0.205b/
gr/wet scf
a/
a/
Concentrations represent only dust emissions and not
condensed hydrocarbons.
45
a/
55
0.003-0.0125b/ 0.003b/
gr/wet scf	gr/wet scf
a /
a /
Pressure drops were varied between 23 and 61 in. H2O
during the 55 tests.
45
0.35-0.72 15
0.0049-0.0403b/ 0.017b/
a/
46
a/
NA
0.015c/
NA
. 49c/
47
a/
0.0203-0.0417b/ 0.0301b/
0.0472-0.0759c/ 0.0631c/
0.146-0.299b/
0.34-0.54c/
0.43b/
0.9c/
48
a/
0.019-0.022b/ 0.02b/
0.19-0.22b/
0.2b/
48
0.9
0.03-0.497b/ 0.042b/
0.0450-0.0672c/ 0.0578c/
0.21-0.38b/
0.31-0.52c/
0.30b/
0.41c/

-------
TABLE 6. (CONTINUED)
Average





Process conditions



Test methodology





Test results




emission
Emission




Process
Gas

Type of
Location of


Sampling time
Gas
No.
Measured concentrations
Emission factors


factor
(lb/Con sinter)
factor
reliability
Source
Company/ Test
location date

production
rate
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp. (F)
sampling
device
sampling
device
S ampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
per run
(min)
flow rate
(dscfm)
of runs
performed
Range
(gr/dscf)
Avg.
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton sinter)
Avg.
(lb/ton sinter)
Comments

2.C&/
2 ,3$J
A
A
Controlled effuent
from windboxes 
CF&I 6/75
Pueblo, CO
329 ton/hr feed
rate (including
recycled fines)
164 ton sinter/hr
232,400
221
a/
In stack after multi-
clones and ESP
EPA Method 5
101.6
143
0.4
3
0.148-0.179b/
0.168-0.229c/
0.159b/
0.192c/
1.8-2. oil/
2.16-2.7-/
2.0^
2.34-/

49
6.8 7^
lb/ton feed
6.96/
lb/ton feed
G
C
Uncontrolled effluent
from windobxes.
CF&I 6/75
Pueblo, CO
329 ton/hr feed
rate (including
recycled fines)
164 ton sinter/hr
247,500
195
a/
In ducting before multi-
clones and ESP
EPA Method 5
117
108
0.4
3
0.510-1.494b/
0.544-1.528c/
1.053b/
1.078c/
3.01-10.63b/
3.21-10.87c/
6.87b/
lb/ton feed
6.96c/
lb/ton feed
4 of the six tests were above 110% isokinetic.
49
0.32^/
0.72/
A
A
Controlled effluent
gases from windboxes
Granite City 5/75
Steel Division
Granite City, XL
102 tons/ hr of
sinter
199,000
149
Standard EPA
sampling train
In stack after venturi
scrubber
EPA Method 5
99
176
a/
3
0.017-0.025b/
0.039-0.053c/
0.019b/
0.042c/
0.28-0.37b/
0.64-0.82c/
0.32b/
0.72c/

50

a/
Controlled emissions
(source unclear).
Jones & Laughlin8/72
Steel
Aliquippa, PA
a/

146,200
407

"A" Duct leading to main
stack after precipitator
EPA Method 5
99
180
bJ
5
0.042-0.158b/
0.lib/
a/
a./

51
/
a/
Controlled emissions
(source unclear).
Jones & Laughlin8/72
Steel
Aliquippa, PA
a/

138,200
419

"B" Duct leading to main
stack after precipitator
EPA Method 5
99.6
180
a/
5
0.067-0.252b/
0.131b/
*/
a/

51
1/
a/
Controlled
Portion of
emissions.
effluent,
windbox
Jones & Laughlin2/73
Steel
Aliquippa, PA


2,010
320
Modified EPA
sampling train
After precipitator
EPA Method 5
a/
180
0.5
3
0.0122-0.0988b/
0.0312b/
0.195-0.997 Ib/hr
0.565 Ib/hr
Test on ESP pilot unit.
52
0.03 (solid part.)
G
Controlled
Portion of
emissions.
effuent.
windbox
Jones & Laughlin2/74
Steel
Aliquippa, PA
a/

2,130
113
Stainless steel
probe, implngers
fiberglass filter
After precipitator

a/
125
a/
6
0.0065-0.0174 0,0115
(solid part, and cond. HC)
0.0011-0.0033 0.0092
(solid particulate)
0.04-0.08
0.16
0.03
Test on Mikropul pilot wet ESP.
Sample not analyzed by EPA Method 5.
53
0.13 (solid part.)
B
Controlled
Portion of
emissions.
effleunt.
windbox
Jones & Laughlin4/73
Steel
Aliquippa, PA


1,632
246
Stainless steel
probe, impinters
(no filter)
After gravel bed
Sample taken at center
point of duct
a/
60-120
a/
1
0.005-0.0206 0.0092
(solid particulate)
0.0333-0.0472 0.039
(solid part, and cond. HC)
a/
0.13
0.56
Test on pilot gravel bed filter. Sample not
analyzed by EPA Method 5 since drying filter
and evaporating impinger water drives off
condensible hydrocarbons.
54
a/
a/
Controlled effluent
from windboxes.
Jones & Laughlin5/75
Steel
Aliquippa, PA
a/

/
351
Standard EPA
sampling train
East breeching 15 ft
downstream of fan outlet
& after mechanical col-
lectors
EPA Method 5
bJ
120
0.49
1
NA
0.15b/
NA
a/


-------
TABLE 6. (CONCLUDED)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton sinter)
a/
0.185b/
lb/ton feed
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
a/	Controlled emissions Jones & Laughlin
from windboxes	Steel
Alquippa, PA
Controlled emissions Facility C
from windboxes
5/75
2/76
Process
production
rate
a/
Gas
flow rate
(dscfro)
207,400
184 tons feed/hr 351,900
310
229
Test methodology
Test results
Gas
temp (F)
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Sampling time Gas No,
Percent per run flow rate of runs
isokinetic	(min)	(dscfm)	performed
Standard EPA West breeching 15 ft
sampling train downstream of fan out-
let and after mechani-
cal collectors
a/
After baghouse
EPA Method 5
Modified EPA Method 5
a/
a/
120
75
0.4?
a/
Measured concentrations
Range
(gr/dsef)
Average
(gr/dsef)
NA
0.19b/
0.0085-0.0132b/ 0,0113b/
Emission factors
Range
(lb/ton sinter)
Average
(lb/ton sinter)
Comments
NA
0.13-0.21b/
lb/ton feed
a/
0.185b/
lb/ton feed
Method 5 analytical procedures were modified to
include chloroform-ether extractions of the im-
pinger fraction.
Reference
55
56
a/
6.86b/
lb/ton feed
6.86c/
lb/ton feed
2.0b/
lb/ton feed
2,2 c/
lb/ton feed
0.13b/
lb/ton feed
0.19c/
lb/ton feed
0.093b/
0.17b/
0.21c/
0.956b/
I.18c/
0.934b/
1.19c7
0.59b/
0.604c/
Controlled emissions Facility C
from discharge hood,
breakers, hot fines
bin, two transfer
points and vibrating
feeder to cooler
Uncontrolled emis- Facility F
sions from windboxes
Uncontrolled emis- Facility G
sions from windboxes
Controlled emissions Facility G
fron windboxes
Controlled emissions Facility R
from windboxes
Controlled emissions Facility S
from windboxes
Controlled emissions Geneva Works,
from windboxes for USS
east sinter strand
Controlled emissions Geneva Works,
from windboxes for USS
west sinter strand
Controlled emissions Geneva Works,
from discharge ends USS
of east and west
sinter strand
7/75
a/
118,500
169
a/
After baghouse
Modified EPA Method 5
a/
a/
a/
0.004-0.0051b/ 0.0047b/
a/
a/
Same as above
56
6/75
5/75
5/75
329 tons feed/hr 247,500
257 tons feed/hr 179,000
257 tons feed/hr 199,000
4/76	473 tons sinter/hr 272 ,200
a/	55 tons sinter/hr 49,600
6/7-9/78	61 tons sinter/hr 192,000
6/7-9/78	58 tons sinter/hr 181,000
6/7-9/78	119 tons sinter/hr 41,200
194
272
149
125
105
103
105
104
a /
if
a /
a/
a/
EPA Method
5 train
EPA Method
5 train
EPA Method
5 train
Cyclone inlet
Scrubber inlet
Scrubber outlet
Scrubber outlet
W6t ESP outlet
In north orifice
scrubber outlet
stack
In south orifice
scrubber outlet
stack
In orifice scrubber
outlet stack
Modified EPA Method 5
Modified EPA Method 5
Modified EPA Method 5
Modified EPA Method 5
Modified EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5 at 48
points
EPA Method 5 at
32 points
EPA Method 5 at 48
points
a/
a/
mJ
a/
107
180
175
a/
a/
98.4-100.9 120-144
98.9-102.4 112-128
95.7-102.2 120-144
a/
a/
*/
a/
a/
3
38
0.49-0.57 3
0.54-0.57
0,46-0.49	3
0.94-1.16b/
0.94-1.16c/
0.323-0.362b/
0.349-0.392c/
0.019-0.022b/
0.003-0,022b/
0.003-0.017c/
1.05b/
1.05c/
0.338b/
0.369c/
0.017-0.025b/ 0.019b/
0.023-0.033c/ 0.027c/
0.0198b/
0.01b/
0.012c/
0.0273-0.0437b/ 0.0359b/
0.0334-0.0513c/ 0.0442c/
0.0265-0.0439b/ 0.0354b/
0.0342-0.0553c/ 0.0451c/
0.0941-0.2727b/ 0.2013b/
0.0963-0.282c/ 0.206c/
5.86-7.37b/
lb/ton feed
5.9-7.4c/
lb/ton feed
1.9-2.2b/
lb/ton feed
2.0-2,4 c_/
lb/ton feed
0.11-0.16b/
lb/ton feed
0.15-0.21c/
lb/ton feed
a/
a/
bJ
0.812-1.lb/
0,993-1.291c/
0.72-1.13b/
0.93-1.423c/
0.286-0.782b/
0.293-0.809c/
6.86b/
lb/ton feed
6.86c/
lb/ton feed
2 %/
lb/ton feed
2.2 c/
lb/ton feed
0.13b/
lb/ton feed
0.1.9c /
lb/ton feed
0.093b/
0.17b/
0.21j/
0.956b/
1.18c/
0.934b/
1.19c7
0.59b/
0.604c/
Same as above
Same aa above
Same as above
56
56
56
56
56
138
138
138
sj	Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data.
b!	Based on particulate collected in the front half of sampling train.
c/	Based on particulate collected in the front and back halves of the sampling train.
_d/	Unclear whether value is based on particulate collected in front half of sampling or in front and back halves combined,
e/	AlSI-compiled tests selected as acceptable by Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, 0AQPS.

-------
TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton steel)
Process conditions
Test methodology
30 lb/ton of
input
37
0.1lb/lb/ton of
input
0.09b/
o.ul/
0,21 reported
0.15 avg
0.033
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfra)
Gas
temp.
CF)
Gas
velocity
(fpm)
Ge/
C
Ce/
Uncontrolled
melting and
refining
Uncontrolled
melting and
refining
Company B
(AISI data)
Company H
(AISI data)
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions col-
lected from 4 heats
Company B
(AISI data)
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions col-
lected from 4 heats
Company B
(AISI data)
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Company H
(AISI data)
Company A
(AISI data)
a/
8/29-30/72
12/19/74
12/8-10/71
9/9-10/75
a/
a/
80 tons of steel
per hour
290.9 tons of
input to
furnace per
hour
a/
80 tons of
steel per
hour
216-230 tons of
steel per heat
a/
159,000
scfm
269,000
214,000-
224,900
a/
245,000-
262-500
a/
380-440
245
5/
a /
82-122
a/
a/
3,564 avg
a/
a/
Test results
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
Sampling time
per run
(min)
Sampling
flow rate
(dscfm)
a/
a/
ASTM sampling In 8.5 ft 0
train assembled duct before
as components scrubber
Lear-Slegler
PM100 manual
stack sampler
RAC 2343
Staksamplr
a/
ASME sampling
train
a/
ASTM D2928
In 18 ft 0
stack follow-
ing ESP
In 17 ft 0
stack follow-
ing venturi
scrubber
In 8.5 ft 0
duct after
scrubber
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
In stack after ASME PTC 27
quencher and only during
a/
a/
106
a /
a/
a/
Approx. 20 min
to 30 min
2.3 hr during
4 hr of produc-
tion
81.1-93.3 120
a/
69
a/
a/
0.53
a /
a /
a/
No.
of runs
performed
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range
fgr/dsef)
a /
a/
2	- Silicon steel 2.83-5.57
3	- Alloy steel
None
0.0199-
0.0353b/
0.0281~
0.0424c/
a/
0.004-0.02
Avg.
fpr/dscf1
Range
fib/ton steel)
Avg.
(lb/ton steel)
..Cjommfinta.
References
a/
3.28 for
silicon
steel 4.96
for alloy
steel
0.02E-
b/
0.0293b/
0.0369c/
a/
0.011
a /
22-50
None
0.0705-
0.106b/
0.0998-
0.127c/
0.07-
0.28
0.012-
0.059
30 lb/ton
of input
37
0.11b/ lb/ton
of input
0.09b/
0.11c/
0.15
0.033
Estimate; open hood
Sampling during blowing; open hood
Open hood
scrubber
blowing
In two of the 3 tests* some
particulates passed around
filter and passed into impingers;
open hood
Scrubber operated between 50 and
60 in. H2O.
Sampled during blowing of 4 heats?
Scrubber operated between 65 and
76 in. H20; open hood.
57
58,59
60
57
58
61
0.0l5d/
Ce/
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Company A
(AISI data)
11/6-7/74
200 tons of
steel per hour
67,900-
69,200
140-155
2,660
Unspecified
but EPA
approved
In 6.5 ft 0
stack
EPA Method 5
100-102 59-75
a/
0.013-
0.015d/
0.014d/
0.0138-
0.0163d/
0.015d/
After unknown gas cleaning system;
Closed hood; sampled during blowing
of 4-5 heats per run.
62,143
0.007
0.105b/
Ae/
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Company A	11/16-18/71 200 tons of	56,600-
(AISI data)	steel per hour	62,400
Company J	10/20-22/75 170 tons of	227,000-
(AISI data)	steel per hour.	258,000
(42 min avg cycle
time)
a /
202-207
a/
a/
a/
a /
3,100-3,600 RAC Staksamplr In 12 ft 0 EPA Method 5
stack after
dry ESP
101-113 a/
100-108 140
a /
1.06-1.09
acfm
0.005-
0.014
0.012-
0.013^
0.008
0.012
0.004-
0.0089
0.0926-
0.115
0.007
0.105
Same as above.
Sampled during blowing of consecutive
heats; open hood
63,143
64

-------
TABLE 7. (CONTINUED)
Average








Process conditions




Test methodology




Test results



emission
Emission



Process

Cas
Cas
Gas
Type of
Location of


Sampling time
Sampling
No.
Measured concentrations
Emission factors


factor
(lb/ton steel)
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
production
rate

flow rate
(dscfm)
temp.
(F)
velocity
(fpm)
sampling
device
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
per run
(min)
flow rate
(dscfm)
of runs
performed
Range
(gr/dscf)
Avg.
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton steel)
Avg.
(lb/ton steel)
Comments

0. 269/
0.21k/
A
A
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Bethlehem Steel,
Bethlehem, PA
1/72
274
per
344
per
tons
heat
tons
hour
of
of
steel
steel
493500
200
2,955
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr modi-
fied with EPA
approval
In 18 ft 0
stack after
ESP
Modified EPA
Method 5
106.5
120
0.72
3
0.0231 -
0.0516S./
0.0156 -
0.0451^/
0.0347/
0.027/
0.161-0.402/
0.109-0.352^/
0.26S-/
0.21k./
Sampling from end of charge to
beginning of tap; covered 4
heats; open hood.
65
0.083/
0.052^/
C
C
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Alan Wood Steel,
Conshohocken, PA
11/71
146
per
160
per
tons
heat
tons
hour
of
of
steel
steel
211900
240
1,555
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr
Modified
190 ft up in
16.5 ft 0
stack after
ESP
EPA Method 5
116.2
(113.7 -
119.2)
94
0.42
3
0.00831 -
0.0138/
0.00499 -
0.00939^/
0.01065./
0.0067k/
0.0631-0.107/
0.037-0.073^
0.083/
0.052k/
Sampling from beginning of scrap
preheat to beginning of tap;
covered 4 heats/run; open hood.
66
0.0047/
0.0028^/
A
A
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
U.S. Steel,	1/72
Lorain, Ohio
230 tons of steel
per heat
276 tons of steel
per hour
57650
126
2,597
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr
Modified
After cyclone
and venturi
scrubber.
EPA Method 5
103.4
161
0.72
0.00375 -
0.00637/
0.00164 -
0.00503^/
0.0049 c./ 0.00335-0.00612-^ 0.0047.2/
0.0029^ 0.00147-0.00484^/ 0.0028^/
Sampling from beginning of blow to
beginning of tap; 6 heats covered;
closed hood.
67
0.0079./
0.0044^/
A
A
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
U.S. Steel,
Lorain, Ohio
11/71
230 tons of steel 58770
per heat
276 tons of steel
per hour
120
2,620
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr
Modified
After cyclone
and venturi
scrubber.
EPA Method 5
106.4
160
0.76
0.00466 -
0.0145^-/
0.00222 -
0.007b/
0.008l/ 0.00515-0.0135^-/ 0.0079/
0.0036^/ 0.00202-0.00827^/ 0.0044^/
Sampling from end of charge to
beginning of tap; 6 heats covered;
newly installed scrubbers; closed
hood.
68
a/
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Inland Steel,
E. Chicago,
Illinois
4/75
257 tons of input
per heat
50580
123.2
2,160
Model No. AP-
5000 Modular
Stack-o-Lator
a/
EPA Method 5
a/
a/
a/
0.004 -
0.006^/
0.005H<
>/
a/
a/
Sampling from beginning of blow to
beginning of tap; 2 heats/run;
closed hood.
69
a/
a/
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Inland Steel,	5/75
E. Chicago, IL
Kaiser Steel,	7/72
Fontana, Calif.
257 tons of input
per heat
a /
54250
190900
139.8
340
2,382
a /
Model No. AP-
5000 Modular
Stack-o-Lator
47 mm filter
attached to front
of probe followed
by condensate trap
a /
Precipitator
stacks
EPA Method 5
a /
a/
a/
a/
15-20
a /
a/
0.007 -
0.027/
0.006 -
0.011^/
a/
0.0145./
0.008^/
0.01134
gr/scf
a/
a/
a/
a/
Sampling from beginning of preheat	69
to beginning of tap; 2 heats/run;
closed hood.
Sampling during one blow period/run; 70
open hood.

-------
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton steel)
Emission
factor
reliability
0.01585/
0.0132k/
0.114/
0,106k/
0.0556b/-
primary hood
0.0504k/-
secondary hood
C
G
A
A
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melting,
refining, charging and
tapping emissions from
a Q-BOP
Armco Steel,
Middletown, Ohio
10/71
National Steel,
Weirton, WVA
Republic Steel,
Chicago, IL
12/71
8/77
Process
production
	rate
Process conditions
200 tons of
steel per
heat
340 tons of
steel per
heat
247 tons of
input per heat
247 tons of
input per hr
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.
(F)
Gas
velocity
(fpm)
39,300
148
1,835
219,000
138
1,304
90,COO-
primary hood
180,000-
secondary hood
140-	a/
primary hood
120-
secondary
hood stack
gas
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr con-
forming to
Method 5
RAC Model 2343
Staksamplr
Modified with
EPA approval
a/
BOF Stack No.
15, after
venturi
scrubbers
In stack after
venturi
scrubber
TABLE 7. (continued)
Test methodology
Test results
Sampling
methodology
EPA Method 5
EPA Method 5
In stack after EPA Method 5
venturi scrubber with approved
modifications
Percent
isokinetic
Sampling time
per run
(roln)
Sampling
flow rate
(dscfm)
No.
of runs
performed
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range
(gr/dscf)
Avg.
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton steel)
Avg.
(lb/ton steel)
Comments
Reference
103
237
87 (only one
test between
90 and 110)
98
137
a/
0.49
0.65
a/
0.0125-0.0164-{
0.0112-0.0145k/
0.01455/
0.0125b/
0.0158/
0.0115-0.014]!/
0.0281-0.0424^ 0.03695/
2-primary
hood
2-secondary
hood
0.0353k/
0.0221-0.0225b/
(primary hood)
0.0066-0.0112 b/
(secondary hood)
0.0353k/
0.0998-0.127/
0.106k/
0.0223k/	0.0548-0.0564k/
(primary hood)(primary hood)
0.0089k/
(sec. hood)
0.037-0.0638k/
(secondary hood)
o.oisas/
0.0132k/
0.11435./
0.106k/
Sampling from end of charge to
beginning of tap; 6 heats per
test; closed hood.
Sampling from end of charge to
beginning of tap; 4 heats per
run; open hood.
0.0556k/	6 heats per run; secondary hood
(primary hood)	collects charging and tapping
0.0504k/	emissions; primary hood collects
(second, hood)	blowing emissions; closed hood.
71
72
73
0.00921/
lb per
ton of input
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a /
Controlled melting
refining, charging and
tapping emissions from
a Q-BOP
Controlled melting
refining, charging and
tapping emissions from,
a Q-BOP
Controlled melting,
refining, charging and
tapping emissions from
a Q-BOP
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled melt-
ing and refining
emissions
U.S. Steel,	11/74
Fairfield, AL
U.S. Steel,	10/78
Fairfield, AL
U.S. Steel	10/78
Fairfield, AL
Bethlehem Steel	1974
Burns Harbor, IL
Kaiser Steel,	1972
Fontana, Calif.
Interlake Steel,	1975
Chicago, IL
227 tons of input 68,600
per heat
332 tons of input
per hr
145
a /
a /
a/
76,300
92,700
300 tons per heat a/
120 tons per heat a/
80 tons per heat a/
163
158
a/
a/
3,352
3,752
a/
a/
a/
Standard EPA
Method 5 train
Standard EPA
Method 5 train
a/
a/
a/
In stack after af
gravity collector,
quencher, and
scrubber
After scrubber EPA Method 5
controlling
primary hood catch
After scrubber EPA Method 5
controlling pri-
mary hood catch
101
60
a/
0.013-0.0151/ 0.0141/	a/
0.00921/
After venturi
scrubber
After ESP
After ESP
EPA Method 5
a/
a/
98.7
105
a/
af
a/
60
63
60
60
60
a /
0.53
0.53
0.53
0.02108-
0.02311b/
0.00997-
0.01573k/
a/
a/
a/
0.0218 Ok/ a/
0.01006b/ a/
0.022k/
0.006k/
0.009k/
a/
a/
a/
a_(
a /
a/
a/
a /
Closed hood; pressure drop
across scrubber is 57 in. HUjO;
sampled during oxygen blow.
Sampled during oxygen blow;
closed hood.
Sampled from beginning of blow to
beginning of tapping (therefore,
includes turndown); closed hood.
Open hood; pressure drop across
scrubber is 55 in. H2O.
Open hood.
Open hood.
74
75
75
76
76
76

-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton steel)
Process conditions
24.2b/
0.0614b/
0.11?' lb/ton of
input
0,162^ lb/ton of
input
0.291
0.142 lb/ton of
hot metal charged
0.056 lb/ton of
metal poured
0.28
Emission
factor
reliability
A
C
e/
e/
C<

32.'
Be/
Source
Company/
location
Uncontrolled melt-	CF&I Steel,
ing and refininij	Pueblo, CO
emissions.
Controlled melting and CF&l Steel,
refining emissions. Pueblo, CO
Controlled melting	Company J
and refining emis-	(AXS1 data)
sion
Controlled melting
and refining emis-
sion
Tapping
e/	Charging
Hot metal transfer
Monitor emissions
Company J
(AIS1 data)
Company D
(AISI data)
Company D
(AISI data)
Company D
(AISI data)
Test
date
4/10-17/78
4/10-17/78
2/11,12,
17/76
12/8-10/75
4/28-29/75
4/28-29/75
5/1/7:
Company A	a/
(AISI data)
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
305 tons charged 383,000-
per hour	399,000
45 min. avg
cycle time
a/
268,000-
287,000
196-216 tons of a/
steel per heat
147-182 tons of
hot metal charged
per heat
a /
160-184 tons of a/
hot metal poured
per heat
at
a/
Gas
temp.
(F)
120 tons/heat 90,600-104,400 458-515
120 tons/heat 151,500-169,900 247-289
250-282
247-269
a/
a/
a/
a/
Gss
velocity
(fprc)
Type of
sampling
device
4,780-5,550 In-stack alundum
thimble
4,040-4,410 Method 5 train
5,900"
6,400
4,400-
5,000
a/
a /
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Hi-Vols and
hot wire
anemometers
Test methodology
Test results
Location of
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
Sampling time
per run
(win)
In duct before ESP ASME PTC 27
In stack after ESP EPA Method 5 (undetermined
No. of points)
In 12 ft 
-------
TABLE 7. (CONCLUDED)
Average
emission
factor
(lb/ton steel)
Process conditions
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
data
Process
production
	rate	
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.
JhL
Gas
velocity
(fpm)
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
Test methodology
Test Results
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
0.3
Ce/
0.147
a/
a/
a /
a /
a /
a!
_a /
a/
0.19b/ lb/ton metal A
0.192c/ lb/ton hot metal
0.6b/ lb/ton hot metal A
0.66c/ lb/ton hot metal
0.92b/
0.96c/
0.3-0.4
0.15-0.2
D
D
Monitor emissions
Company A
(AIS1 data)
7/1-2/75
Monitor emissions
Uncontrolled
monitor emissions
Uncontrolled
monitor emissions
Uncontrolled
monitor emissions
Interlake, Inc.
Riverdale, IL
GF&X Steel
Pueblo, Col.
CF&I Steel
Pueblo, Col.
CF&I Steel
Pueblo,Col.
Uncontrolled	CF&I Steel
monitor emissions Pueblo,Col.
a/
12/2-4/75
12/2-4/75
12/2-4/75
12/2-4/75
Hot metal transfer Wisconsin Steel April, May
Chicago, IL	1978
Charging
Republic Steel March, May
Chicago, IL	1978
Tapping
Charging
Tapping
Republic Steel March 1978
Chicago, IL
ai
a/
a!
a/
12,000 tons of
steel per day
100 tons of
steel per hr
120 tons/ heat
120 tons/heat
120 tons/heat
152,000-33,150
330,150 acfm
(through an
opening)
a/
1.62 x 10 -
2.58 x 10
scfm
2.44 x 10
scfm
2.24 x 10*
2.53 x 10
scfm
120 tons/heat 2.35 x 10^-
2.45 x 10
scfm
29.1-90.4 tons 33,000-46,000
of hot metal/min
of pouring
49.5-91.6 tons 268,000-
of hot metal/min 463,000
of charging
37.6-48 tons of 106,000-
steel tapped/min 196,500
a!
a /
a/
a/
a/
300
a /
135-248
168-234
173-313
a!
a/
380-1,080 1 Gelman Hurricane In front of opening Divided building into 9a/
Sampling time
per run
Sampling
flow rate
(dscfm)
No.
of runs
performed
Emission factors
fpm (through air sampler
openings) and a flowtronic
Model 55B1 hot-
wire anemometer
in roof monitor
a/
488-775
MSA personnel
samplers
a /
729
669-757
721-736
a/
3,840-4,530 Method 5 train
4,610-7,600 Method 5 train
1,790-3,850 Method 5 train
sJ
a/
_a /
a/
zones. Each zone has
only one opening.
Grate in roof monitor
above operating 80T BOF.
a /
a/
Roof monitor
openings
Roof monitor
openings
Roof monitor
openings
Roof monitor
openings
High volume samplers 95
High volume samplers
95
High volume samplers 95
High volume samplers
95
In secondary hood Single point
duct leading to wet sample
scrubbers probe loca-
ted 1.5 dia. downstream
of bend in duct
if
a f
a.1
a.f
aj
a/
In hot metal trans- EPA Method 5. 8 points 91.1-109.7 1.3-3.0
fer hood branch dust sampled per test,
leading to ESP
97.2-107.5 2.2-4.3
Same as above
a/
a/
EPA Method 5. 10-12
points sampled/test
a!
a /
92.6-102.5 4.7-6.0
sJ
a/
a/
a /
a/
0,06 acfm
a/
aj
ja/
j/
2.8-5.1
2.8-4.5
1.0-2.0
aJ
a/
1 run/zone
and 9 zones/
test and 3
tests
Measured concentrations
Range Avg.	Range
(gr/dscf)	(gr/dscf) fib/ton steel)
a/
a/
0.02-
0.037
gr/acf
a /
0.019-
0.028
0.008
gr/acf
0.005-
0.012
0.005-
0.007
0 0027
gr/acf
0.024
0.005
0.009
0.006
0.0844-9.682b/ 1.6567b/
0.1095-9.6994c/ 1.6769c/
0.379-2.359b/ 0.917b/
0.4445-2.3902c/ 1.0118c/
0.3853-3.8973b/ 1.6558b/
0.4413-3.9714c/ 1.7269c/
a/
a/
a/
a/
0.26-0.31
Avg.
(lb/ton steel)
Comments
Reference
a/
a/
at
a I
a/
0.009-0.511b/
lb/ton hot metal
0.012-0.512b/
lb/ton hot metal
0.2-1.2b/
lb/ton hot metal
0.23-1.22c/
lb/ton hot metal
0.15-2.28b/
0.18-2.32c/
0.3-0.4
0.15-0.2
0.3
Open hood
85
0.147
sJ
a!
a/
a/
Made multipoint nonsimultaneous velocity measure- 86*87
ments with thermal and vane type anemometers.
Short term tests from charging initiation to time 88
when building clears.
Test ran over cycle marked by the time the building
clears after charging.	88
Tests ran over cycle marked by slagging
initiation.
88
Tests ran over cycle marked by charge initiation. 88
0.118b/	Tests ran over 1-2 transfer operations. Avg EF in
lb/ton hot metalfar left column is adjusted to account for
0.119c/	uncaptured emissions,
lb/ton hot metal
0.6b/	Sampling was done at a different point along the
lb/ton hot metal traverse for each test so that only the avg of
0.66.C/	the six tests is representative
lb/ton hot metal
0.92b/
0.96c/
133
134
0.35
0.17
Estimate
Estimate
134
77
af	Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data.
b/	Based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train.
_c/	Based on particulate collected in front and back halves of sampling train.
AI	Unclear whether value is based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train or in fron and back halves combined.	31

-------
There are also specific charging and capping EFs listed in Table 7. There are
seventeen A-rated EFs, nine B-rated factors, sixteen C-rated factors, three
D-rated factors, and nine unrateable tests in Table 7.
Also shown in Table 7, where data were avilable is whether the furnace
was top or bottom blown and whether the hood was open or closed. Under the
table heading entitled Source, a top blown furnace should be inferred unless
the furnace is specifically identified as a Q-BOP. Whether the hood is open
or closed is a fact to be found under the table heading entitled Comments.
The exact processes included in the source listed as Melting and Refining
in Table 7 are of importance in utilizing the emission factor value given.
There are three possible sources: (a) scrap preheat, (b) blowing or refining,
and (c) turndown, i.e., the period during which a sample of the heat is taken
and analyzed. Where the data were available, what precise processes were tested
are listed under the table heading entitled Comments.
3.5 ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES
There are several sources of particulate emission in the electric arc
furnace steelmaking process. The emission sources are (a) emissions from the
melting and refining of the heat itself, often vented through a hole in the
furnace roof, (b) charging scrap, (c) dumping slag, and (d) tapping steely
There are several possible configurations of control systems to capture
and remove emissions. Figures 3 and 4 show some of the more common configura-
tions. Configuration 1 in Figure 3 is the building evacuation system; Configu-
ration 2 in Figure 4 is direct shell evacuation (DSE) of melting and refining
emissions and canopy hood capture of charging, tapping, and slagging emissions
with both venting to a common baghouse. There are several variations on Con-
figuration 2s (a) the roof monitor can be open to release those emissions not
captured by the canopy hood or closed, or (b) the canopy hood and the DSE sys-
tem can be vented to separate control devices rather than a conmon emission
removal device.
In interpreting emission factor data for EAFs, it is important to know
which configuration was sampled and where the sample was collected. For ex-
ample, suppose Configurations 1 and 2 shown in Figures 3 and 4 are both
sampled at the baghouse inlet. The value obtained from Configuration 1 would
represent all melting, refining, charging, tapping, and slagging emissions
which ascended to the building roof while the value obtained from Configura-
tion 2 would represent nearly all the melting and refining emissions but only
that portion of the charging, tapping, and slagging emissions which were cap-
tured by the canopy hood.

-------
	Clean Air
Exhaust Gas
OJ
U>

Fabric
Furnace

-------
Clean Air
J&S*. Exhaust- Gas
Building A
Monitor f, f
Direct
Shell
Evacuation
Fabric
Filter
Furnace

-------
Table 8 lists EFs for particulate sources in EAF shops. Melting and re-
fining, referred to in Table 8, imply mainly emissions captured by direct shell
evacuation through a hole in the furnace roof. Monitor emissions include the
portion of charging, tapping, and slagging emissions that escape into the atmos-
phere. When the secondary controls are not specified for a monitor test, it is
difficult to judge the typicalness of or to utilize the results.
Listed in the comments column of Table 8 are two of the important parameters
which effect the emission factors: (a) whether the process was to produce car-
bon or alloy steel (two significantly different processes), and (b) what control
device configuration was used.
There are four A-rated EFs in Table 8 and twenty-one C-rated EFs. The
dearth of A- and B-rated EFs is due to poor sampling methods or a failure
to report the sampling method. The poor sampling methods were often not the
fault of the test designer but coupled more with the problems encountered in
sampling a pressure baghouse.
3.6	OPEN HEARTH FURNACES
There are several sources of particulate emission in the open hearth fur-
nace steelmaking process. The activities generating emissions are (a) trans-
ferring hot metal, (b) melting and refining the heat, (c) charging of scrap
and/or hot metal, (d) dumping slag, and (e> tapping steel.
Table 9 lists EFs for particulate sources in OHF shops. Monitor emissions
refer to the portion of the hot metal transfer, charging, tapping, and slagging
emissions that enter the atmosphere through the shop roof monitor. There are onl^
10 total EFs presently included in the data base. Four of these are A-rated, one
is B-rated, and five are C-rated. The main problem is failure to report not only
the details of the tests, but the test methodologies themselves.
3.7	TEEMING
Only one investigative effort to quantify an emission factor for teeming
is available."^*^ The emission factors were measured via stack testing in the
ductwork- leaving a side draft hood which captured emissions from a teeming
operation. Emissions were measured simultaneously before and after the bag-
house removing the captured emissions.
Tests were performed during the teeming of leaded and unleaded steel.
Only the material captured by the hood could be measured via stack tests.
The material captured varied from nearly 100% of that emitted to a much
lower efficiency (not quantified) when the wind was blowing from directions
where building openings occurred.

-------
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES






conditions




	
			
Test methodology





Test results




 	
Average
emission
factor




Process
production
rate
Gas

Gas
Type
of
Location of


Sampling
Gas
Number
Measured
concentrations
Emission
factors



Emission
factor

Company/
Test
date
flow rate
(dsefm)

temp.
fF)
sampling
device
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
time
(min)
flow rate
(dscfm)
of runs
performed
Range
(gr/dscf)
Average
(gr/dscf)
Range
lb/ton steel
Average
lb/ton steel
Comments
Reference
(lb/toil steel)
0.3d/(Alloy Steel)
0.58e/
reliabili
A
A
ty Source
Controlled EAF melting,
refining, charging, tap-
ping, and slagging
emissions.
^ C / L. cdL L# Xv 11
Babcock and
Wilcox
Beaver Fails,
10/18-20/72
FA
18T steel/hr
452,000 (bldg
evacuation sys-
tem included)
98
Method 5
EPA train
In short stacks
after baghouse
EPA method 5 except
probe was not heated
96-104.7
240
0.75-0.79
9
0.0005-
0.0032d/
0.0014-
0.0047e/
0.0014c/
0.0027e/
0.11-0.66d/
0.34~0.95e/
0.3
0.58e/
Shop has 1/50 T and 1/75 T alloy
Steel EAF} control device
configuration 1
89

11.3d/ (Alloy Steel)
11.7e/
A
A
Uncontrolled EAF melting,
refining, charging, tap-
ping, and slagging
emissions.
Babcock and
Wilcox
Beaver Falls,
10/18-20/72
PA
18T steel/hr
452,000 (bldg
evacuation sys-
tem included)
98
Method 5
EPA train
In 12 ft 0
duct before
baghouse
EPA Method 5
except probe
was not heated
97.4-99.5
240
0.72-0.79
3
0.0386-
0.0605d/
0.0397-
0.0618e/
0.0518d/
0.0537e/
8-13.6d/
8.2-13.9e/
11.3d/
11.7e/
Shop has 1/50 T and 1/75 T alloy
steel EAF; control device
configuration 1
89

7.6
C
Uncontrolled EAF
melting and re-
fining emissions.
a/
/
14.4T input/hr
23,920

209
a/


a/
a/
a/
at
a/
1
None
0.5373
None
7.6
50 T furnace. Unclear whether
carbon or alloy steel.
90

11.0
C
Uncontrolled EAF
melting and re-
fining emissions.
a/
a/
13.6-23.5T/hr
a/

281-297
a/


bJ
a/
a/
a/
a/
5
a/
a /
6.9-18.6
11.0
50 and 75 T furnace. Unclear
whether carbon or alloy steel.
90

4.8
C
Controlled EAF melt-
ing and refining
emissions.
a/
a /
13.6-22 T input/
hr
25,900

297
a/


In stack after
scrubber
a /
a,/
a /
at
2
0.109-
0.556
0.333
2.04-7.65
4.8
50 and 75 furnace. Scrubber
control efficiencies of 37 and 707..
Unclear whether carbon or alloy steel.
90

19.5 lb/ingot ton
C
Uncontrolled EAF
melting and refin-
ing emissions.
Company K
(AXSI data)
1/15-24/75
at
a/

a/
a /


a/
Weighed control
device catch and
divided by ingot
tons produced
a /

a/
10
None
None
15.1-34.8
lb/ingot
ton
19.5
lb/ingot
ton
Carbon steel
91,
143
28.8 Ib/T of input
(stainless and alloy)
C
Uncontrolled EAF
melting and refin-
ing emissions.
Company J
(AISI data)
Jan.-April
1976
78,000-83,000
T steel/month
a/

a /
a /


a/
Weighed control
device catchand
divided by tons
of steel melted
a/
a/
at
4
None
None
29-34.2
Ib/T steel
31.7
lb/T steel

92

17.1
C
Uncontrolled EAF
melting and refin-
ing emissions.
Company H
(AISI data)
10/18-25/75
and 6/8/76
4,080 T steel a/
tapped over 7-day
test period. 536
T steel tapped

a/
a/


a/
Weighed control
device catch and
divided by tons
of steel tapped
at
a /
at
2
None
None
13.4-20.8
17.1
Alloy steel
93,
143
over weekend.

-------
94
95
96
97
98
99
99
100
99
99
TABLE 8.
Process conditions
Emission
factor
reliability
Test methodology
Test results
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.
(F)
Type of
sampling
device
Location of
sampling
device
Sampling
methodology
Percent
isokinetic
Sampling
time
(min)
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Number
of runs
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range Average
performed (gr/dscf )	(gr/dscf)
Range
lb/ton steel
Average
lb/ton steel
Comments
cb/
Controlled EAF melt-
ing and fugitive emis-
sions and uncontrolled,
uncaptured monitor emis-
sions.
Uncontrolled EAF melt-
ing and refining emis-
sions.
Uncontrolled EAF melting
and refining emissions.
Company L
(AISI data)
a/
a/
10/9/74
a/
a/
Uncontrolled EAF melting Lukens Steel a./
and retining emissions. CoatsviLle, PA
33 ton steel/hr 247,000-
256,000
_a/
a,/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a /
a/
a/
a /
Rader pneumat- In north ex-
ics high vol- haust plenum
ume sampler. of baghouse.
a/
a/
a /
a/
a /
a/
Single point
sampled
a/
a/
150-204
a/
a/
Weighed baghouse a./
catch
140-245 17.3
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
0.00065-
0.00121
a/
a/
None
0.0009 0.041-0.045
a/
a/
20-30
3-30
a/
0.043
25
16
50
Canopy hood is 70 ft above
furnace. Estimated that 25%
of total emissions escaped
capture and left monitor; O2
lanced carbon steel, control
device configuration 2
Unclear whether carbon or
alloy steel#
Unclear whether carbon or
alloy steel.
Carbon steel; control device
configuration 2
Uncontrolled EAF melting Jones &
and refining emissions. Laugh!in
Cleveland, OH
a/
a/
a/
a /
Test at inlet
to ESP
a/
a/
a /
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
51c/	Carbon steel; modified control
device configuration consists
of DSE vented to ESP.
C	Uncontrolled EAF melting_ Bethlehem Steela/
and refining emissions. Seattle, WA
Charging and tapping
emissions.
Bethlehem Steela/
Seattle, WA
a /
a/
a/
a/
a /
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Weighed baghouse a/
catch
Weighed baghouse aj
catch
a/
a/
a/
a /
a/
a/
None
None
None
None
a /
0.9-1.5
22
1.2
/ Carbon steel; modified control
J device configuration 1 with
\ DSE. Building evaluation and
1 DSE each vented to separate
^ baghouse.
Charging and tapping Bethlehem Steel a/
emissions.	Steelton, PA
a/
a/
a/
a /
a/
Took measurements a/
in roof monitor
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
1.7
Carbon steel; control device
configuration consists of DSE
vented to baghouse.
Uncontrolled EAF melting Bethlehem Steel a/
and,.refinina emissions. Steelton, PA
Uncontrolled EAF melting  , , ,	 .
, e. .	.	Bethlehem Steel a/
and refining emissions	. ,  
1 ,, c .. .	. Los Angeles, CA
plus all fugitive emis-	6
sions.
a/
a/
a/
a/
a /
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
Weighed baghouse a/
catch
Weighed baghouse a/
catch
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
a/
None
None
None
None
a /
a/
2530 Carbon steel; control device
configuration consists of DSE
vented to baghouse.
43	Carbon steel; control device
configuration 2 with motorized
monitor louvers to enable
closing the monitor to
capture fugitive emissions.

-------
1
Average
emission
factor
(Ib/tcm steel)
58.0
029c/
0.145c/lb/T
scrap melted
1. 7d/ Ib/T input
0.33d/lb/T input
TABLE 8* (Concluded)
Process conditions
Test methodology
Test results
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.

-------
TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR OPEN HEARTH FURNACES
Average
emission factor
(lb/ton steel)
5.3c/
0.64c/
0. 28d/
Process conditions
Emission
factor
reliability
Source
Company/
location
Test
date
Process
production
rate
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp.
CF)
Type of
sampling
device
ib/
Uncontrolled OHF melt-
ing, and refining emis-
sions 
Controlled OHF melt-
ing and refining
emissions
Controlled OHF melt-
ing and refining
amissions
Company A
(AISI data)
Company A
(AISI data)
Company A
(AISI data)
7/5-6/73 3,840 T/day
301,000
7/5-6/73 3,840 T/day 301,000
6/25-27/74 4,750-5,012 296,000-
T/day	326,000
350
a/
430-450
a /
a/
EPA Method 5
sampling train
Location of
sampling
device
Test methodology
Test results
Sampling
methodology
Precipitator inlet
Precipitator outlet
In 12 ft 0 precipitator
exit stack
a/
a/
EPA Method 5
Percent
isokinetic
a /
a/
103-104
Sampling time
	(min)	
a/
a/
144
Sampling
flow rate
(dscfm)
a/
a/
0.57
Number
of runs
performed
8
Measured concentrations
Emission factors
Range
(gr/dscf)
0.14-0.58c/
0.02-0.05c/
0.015-0.029d/
Average
(gr/dscf)
Range
(lb/ton steel)
Average
(lb/ton steel)
Comments
0.33c/
0.04c/
0.022d/
2.2-9.4c/
0.32-0.81c/
0.18-0.36d/
5.3c/
0.64c/
0.28d/
8 furnaces in operation.
8 furnaces in operation
10-11 furnaces in operation;
3-4 furnaces were being
blown.
Reference
105
105
106
0. lc/
0.33_c/reported
0.45c/average
C
C
Controlled OHF melt-
ing and refining
emissions.
Controlled OHF melt-
ing and,refining
emissions.
Company N
(AISI data)
Company C
(AISI data)
3/20/72 176 T steel/hr 534,000
5/16-26/71 27 T steel/hr/ 94,500
furnace
385
a/
Western precipitation
stack sampling train.
In-stack thimble.
a/
In 16.5 ft 0 precipitator
exit stack
a/
WP-50
a/
a/
180
a/
0.55
a/
24
None
0.0055-0.037c/
0.004c/
0.015c/
None
0.16-1.lc/
0.1c/
0.45c/
6 furnaces with O2 lances
Venturi scrubber pressures
from 25 to 47 in. H2O.
107
108
0.168 weighted
by sampling time
above and between
furnaces
Roof monitor
emissions
Company F
(AISI data)
6/14-18/73 125 T steel/hr 1,117,000
acfm (total
flow above
and on either
side of one
furnace)
118 above
furnace;
102 between
furnaces
a/
In roof monitor over one
furnace and between two
furnaces
Profiled velocity across
19 ft wide monitor with
vane type anemometer,
Unknown particle con-
centration measuring
technique.
65% of the data
was more than
10% above
isokinetic.
8-75 (tests
conducted during
various segments
of the operation
such as refining,
scrap melt, etc.)
0.3-0.4 acfm
28
0.000639-0.0116
gr/acf (above
furnace)
0.000881-0.0045
gr/acf (between
furnaces)
0.00504 gr/acf 0.07-0.64
(above furnace) (various segments
0.00261 gr/ acf of the operation
(between furnaces)as measured above
furnace)
0.029-0.12 (various
segments of the
operation as measured
between furnaces)
0.22 avg. of the
entire operation as
measured above
furnace.
Only iron oxide was collected.
No klsh was deposited on filters.
0.063 avg of entire
operation as measured
between furnaces
109
23.7d/ducted emissions A
avg during charging
'and blowing;
0.5(1/avg during charging; A
21.ld_/avg during blowing. A
Uncontrolled OHF melt-United States 9/30/75 30 T steel/
and refining emissions steel,	10/1-2/75 hr/furnace
Fairfield, AL
52,600
608
In-stack alundum thimble
followed by heated cyclone
and filter outside stack.
In 88 in. 0 stack
Modified EPA Method 5
98.4-104.4
126-236
0.66
0.8685-1.5429d/
1.4101d/
12.3-30.8d/
23.7d/
Only two tests were performed
for charging and blowing alone
while three were performed for
charging and blowing combined.
110
aj	Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data.
b/	Tests selected as acceptable by Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, OAQPS.
cj	Unclear whether value represents particulate collected in front half of sampling train or in front and back halves combined,
d/	Based on particulate collected in front half of sampling train.

-------
The results of the tests on the teeming of leaded steel are shown in
Table 10. The average uncontrolled emission factor measured by the front half
of a Method 5 train was 0.81 lb/ton steel teemed. The average controlled emis-
sion factor measured by the Iront half of a Method 5 train after the baghouse
was 0.0038 lb/ton steel teemed. The average EFs are given an A rating.
The results of six tests on the teeming of unleaded steel are shown in
Table 11. The average uncontrolled emission factor measured by the front half
of a Method 5 train was 0.07 lb/ton steel teemed. The average controlled emis-
sion factor measured by the front half of a Method 5 train after the baghouse
was 0,0016 lb/ton steel teemed. These average EFs are given an A rating.
3.8	SCARFING
Particulate emissions occur when semi-finished steel products are manually
or machine scarfed to remove surface defects. Table 12 lists controlled and
uncontrolled EFs for machine scarfing. There are seven A-rated, five B-rated,
and three unrateable EFs#
In comparing hand scarfing EFs to machine scarfing EFs, one must consider
the units of the EFs and the process differences. The units for the machine
scarfing EFs are a pound of particulate per ton of steel put through the
machine# In machine scarfing, the entire surface of the product is removed to
a depth that is dependent on the speed of the product through the machine and
on the flame* temperature. Hand scarfing does not involve removal of an entire
surface but rather only spots on the product are scarfed.
If hand and machine scarfing were compared on a pound of particulate per
ton of material removed basis, then one might, as a first estimate, assume
that the hand scarfing EF can be likened in quantity to uncontrolled machine
scarfing. But if the comparison is performed on the basis of pound of particu-
late per ton of steel put through the process, it is believed that hand scarf-
ing is significantly less than uncontrolled machine scarfing. Unfortunately,
no test data, are available to support this assumption for hand scarfing emis-
sions.
3.9	MISCELLANEOUS COMBUSTION SOURCES
Miscellaneous combustion sources include the burning of blast furnace gas,
coke oven gas, natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, or coal for heat used in boilers*
soaking pits, and slab furnaces.

-------
TABLE 10. EMISSIONS FROM LEADED STEEL TEEMING AT WISCONSIN STEEL,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS - SUMMARY OF TEST PROCEDURES AND
RESULTS

Variable
Baghouse inlet
Baghouse outlet
Test date
April and May, 1978
Apri1 and May, 1978
Process production rate
5.1-5.4
5.1-5.4
(T/min of teeming


operation!!/ )
b/
28,000-42,600-
56,600^
Gas flowrate (dscfm)
Gas temperature (F)
90-127
78-118
Gas velocity (fpm)
2,760-4,240
3,070-3,800
Type of sampling device
Method 5 train
Method 5 train
Location of sampling
In 6' 9 BH inlet
In 31 0 BH outlet
device
duct
duct
Samp Iing methodology
EPA Method 5. 24 pts
EPA Method 5. 36 pts

sampled per test.
sampled per test.
Percent isokinetic
100.3-101.1
95.4-103.1
Sampling time per
24
27-29
run (lain)


Sampling lowrate (dscfm)
2.6-4.0
4,5-5.0
Number of runs performed
3
3
Range/average of front
0.6794-1.0877
0.0012-0.0033
half concentrations
(0.8172)
(0.0025)
measured (gr/dscf)


Range/average of combined
0.6918-1.0968
0.0103-0.0155
front and back half
(0.8285)
(0.0135)
concentrations (gr/dscf)


Range/average of front
0.51-1.14

half emission factors
(0.81)
(0.0038)
(Ib/T steel teemed)


Average of combined front
0.81
0.021
and back half emission


factors (lb/T steel


teemed)


a/ The averaging time began with the initiation of teeming into the first
mold and ended with the conclusion of teeming into the last mold.
b/ Some of the flow rate data were incomplete since velocity traverses
were not completed. It still appears, through, that there was a leak
in the collection system that will cause the outlet concentrations to
be reported lower than actual. However, this problem will not affect
the emission factor values.

-------
TABLE 11. EMISSIONS FROM
UNLEADED STEEL TEEMING AT WISCONSIN STEEL,
CHICAQO, ILLINOIS - SUMMARY OF TEST
PROCEDURES AND
RESULTS



Variable
Baghouse inlet
Baghouse outlet
Test date
April and May, 1978
April and May, 1978
Process production rate
3.8-5.9
3.8-5.9
(T/min of teeming


operation^/ )
b/
38,700-44,700-
40,100-44,800^/
Gas flowrate (dscfra)
Gas temperature (F)
81-101
88-92
Gas velocity (f pm)
4,860-6,060
2,450-3,530
Type of sampling
Method 5 train
Method 5 train
device


Location of sampling
In 6' 0 BH inlet
In 3' 0 BH outlet
device
duct
duct
Samp ling methodology
EPA Method 5. 24 pt s
EPA Method 5. 36 pts

sampled per test.
sampled per test.
Percent isokinetic
97.2-108.1
92.1-108.9
Sampling time per run
20-24
24-30
(min)


Sampling flowrate (dscfm)
3.7-4.1
3.6-4.6
Number of runs performed
6
6
Range/average of front
0.035-0.068
0.004-0.0028
half concentrations
(0.0565)
(0.0011)
measured (gr/dscf)


Range/average of combined
0.0375-0.0753
0.0039-0.0133
front and back half
(0.061)
(0.0067)
concentrations (gr/dscf)


Range/average of front
0.04-0.11
-
half emission factors
(0.07)
(0.0016)
(lb/T steel teemed)


Average of combined front
0.076
0.0093
and back half emission


factors (lb/T steel


teemed)
 

a/ The averaging time began with the initiation of teeming into the first
mold and ended with the conclusion of teeming into the last mold.
b/ Some of the flow rate data were incomplete since velocity traverses
were not completed.

-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR SCARFING OPERATIONS
Average
emission factor
(lb/ton metal
scarfed)
Process parameters
0.08c/
0.001c/
0.008c/
0,032c/
0.014c/
0.003c/
0.10
0.087d/
bJ
a/
E.F.
reliability
Company/ Scarfer	Test
location	designation date
Tons Emission Gas
scarfed control flow rate
per hr	system	(dscfm)
Gas
temp,
(F)
Test methodology
Average
Sampling
methodology
No. Sample measured
of time Percent concentration
runs	(mln) isokinetic	(gr/dscf )
&
&
&
&
&
&
B
&
a/
a/
Company A 40 in. bloom 2/76 60
(AISI data)
46 in. slab 10/75 486
24 in.	billet	10/75	147
18 in.	billet	10/75	105
No. 1
18 in.	billet	10/75	89
No. 2
Rail-mill	11/75	111
46 in.	slab	1/67	207
Blooming mill 7/74 275
Company B No. 3 slabbing 5/73 a/
(AISI data) mill
Company C a/
(AISI data)
1/66 200
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
69,900
69,900
(wet scftn)
17,000
(wet scfm)
18,700
19,300
11,300
72,700
95,500
62,800
80
83
84
77
80
90
60
31,600	11Q
114
146
IP A-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
EPA-5
WP-50
a /
3
3
EPA-5
ASME	3
PTC-21,27
120	99.7-100.7
140	99.1-100.5
140	97.5-99.4
140	96.8-98.9
140	98.2-100.2
140	99.9-101.I
7-41	a/
144 98-103
39-
150
150-
180
bJ
a/
0.008c/
0.001c/
0.003c/
0.007cj
0.002c/
0.002c/
0.25d/
0.089d/
0.14e/
0.570
Average
emission factor
(lb/ton metal
	scarfod)
0.08c/
Comments
After ESP
References
0.001c/	After ESP
0.008c/	After ESP
0.032c/	After ESP
0.014c/	After ESI
0.003c/	After ESP
0.Id/	Uncontrolled-sampled
only while slabs were
being scarfed. Assumed
zero emissions between scarfs.
0.087d/	Uncontrolled; concentration probably
represents combined scarfing and non-
scarfing periods,
a/	Uncontrolled
a/	Uncontrolled; concentration
may or may not be converted
to scarfing period only.
111
112
112
112
112
112
113
114
115
116
a /
a/
a/
1/66 200	Kinpactor 62,800
133
NA
150- a/
180
0.04
a/
After Kinpactor and Type
R rotoclone.
116
0.22d/
B
8/71 98.8
22,700
ACFM
120
EPA-5
a /
0.54d/
0.22d/
Uncontrolled; sampled only
during scarfing.
117

-------
TABLE 12. (CONCLUDED)
Average
emission factor
(lb/ton metal
scarfed)	
Process parameters
Test methodology
0.24d/
O.lOe/
0.07c/
E.F.
reliability
Company/	Scarfer	Test
location designation date
Tons
scarfed
per hr
Emission
control
system
Gas
flow rate
(dscfm)
Gas
temp,
( F)
Sampling
methodology
No.
of
runs
B
B
B
a/
8/71
Company Q
(AISI data)
Blooming mill 9/73
a/
3/73
112.5
125
236.5
a/
10,500
ACFM
Scrubber a/
a/
85-120
a/
a/
EPA-5
ASME
FTC-27
In stack
thimble
Sample
time
(mln)
Percent
isokinetic
Average
measured
concentration
(gr/dscf)
80
46
50
a/
a/
a/
0.34d/
0.035c/
Average
emission factor
(,1b/ton metal
scarfed)
0.24d/
0.lie/
0.07c/
Comments
Uncontrolled; sampled during
scarfing and non-scarfing.
After scrubber.
Unclear whether controlled
or uncontrolled.
Reference
117
118
119
a/	Reference provides insufficient data or corroboration of data,
b/	Tests selected as acceptable by Peter Westlin, Test Support Section, OAQPS.
c/	Based on particulate measured in front half of sampling train.
d/	Unclear whether value represents particulate captured in front half of sampling train or in front and back halves combined,
je/	Based on particulate measured in front and back halves of sampling train.

-------
The EFs to be used for burning natural gas, No. 6 fuel oil, or coal in
boilers can be acquired from AP-42 as follows:
Uncontrolled
Fuel	emission factor	Rating
Bituminous coal	16 A lb/ton coal (A is ash content in	A
percent; assume 10%)
No. 6 fuel oil	10 (S) + 3 lb/1,000 gal. (S is sulfur	A
content in percent by weight; assume
1%)
6 3
Natural gas	10 lb/10 ft	A
The EFs for burning of the above fuels in soaking pits or slab furnaces can be
estimated to be the same as those for boilers, but since this is an estimate,
the rating would drop to D.
The EFs for blast furnace gas and coke oven gas have not been researched
by experimentation. The EFs must therefore be acquired by estimation. There
are three facts available in making the estimation. First, the gas exiting the
blast furnace passes through primary and secondary cleaners and can be cleaned
to less than 0.02 gr/ft3 (2.86 lb/106 fSecond, nearly one-third of
coke oven gas is methane. Third, there are no constituents of blast furnace gas
that generate particulate when burned.121/ The combustible constituent of blast
furnace gas is CO which burns clean.
Based on the above three facts, the EFs for burning blast furnace gas
can be estimated. The EF for burning blast furnace gas is assumed to equal the
particulate carried into the burning process with the fuel plus the particu-
late generated in burning the fuel. The particulate carried in with blast
furnace gas is 2.86 lb/106 ft3. There is no appreciable amount of particulate
generated in burning blast furnace gas since there is no particulate generat-
ing combustible gas in it. Consequently, the EF for burning blast furnace gas
is estimated at 2.86 lb/106 ft3.
The EF for burning coke oven gas can be estimated in the same fashion.
Assuming that cleaned coke oven gas has as much particulate in it initially
as cleaned blast furnace gas, the particulate carried in with coke oven gas
is estimated at 2.86 lb/10^ ft^. Since one-third of coke oven gas is methane,
the main component of natural gas, it is assumed that the burning of coke oven
gas generates one-third the particulate that the burning of natural gas does,
i.e., 3.33 lb/106 ft3. Thus, the EF for burning coke oven gas is estimated at
6.2 lb/106 ft3.

-------
Also necessary for calculations is the heating value of each fuel. The
following is a list of heating values and the reference from which they were
obtained:
Heating value
Fuel	(sensible heat)	Reference
Blast furnace gas	75-90 Btu/ft	122
Coke oven gas	500 Btu/ft^	123
No. 6 fuel oil	141,000 Btu/gal.	124
Bituminous coal	25 million Btu/ton	125
Natural gas	1,000 Btu/ft^	126
Putting the EFs into similar units yields the following table:
Fuel
Uncontrolled
emission factor
(Ib/1Q6 Btu)
Emission factor reliability
Boilers Soaking pits Slab furnaces
Blast furnace gas
Coke oven gas
No. 6 fuel oil
Bituminous coal
Natural gas
0.035
0.012
0.09
6.4
0.01
D
D
A
A
A
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
3.10 OPEN DUST SOURCES
In addition to process sources, open dust sources contribute to the
atmospheric particulate burden. Open dust sources at iron and steel plants
include vehicular traffic on paved and unpaved roads, loading into and load-
ing from storage piles, storage pile maintenance, and storage pile and ex-
posed area wind erosion.
3.10.1 Identification of Emission Sources
Emissions occur when vehicles travel on unpaved surfaces. Such vehicles
as passenger cars, pick-up trucks, haul trucks, and delivery trucks all pro-
duce emissions as the tires interact with the road. The heavier the vehicle,
all other variables being the same, the more emissions one can expect.
Emissions occur when vehicles traveling on paved roads elevate dust
from the road surface. The dust is deposited on the road surface by carry-
on, pavement wear, tire wear, and erosion from adjacent areas, to name a few
points of origin.

-------
As stated above, storage piles are also sources of dust. Dust producing
mechanical activities includes
1.	Unloading of raw materials from a barge by a clamshell or bucket
wheel and from a railcar by dumping.
2.	Adding material to a storage pile via stacker, loader, or truck.
3.	Loading of material from the pile onto a conveyor or into a truck.
4.	Maintenance of pile shape with loaders or dozers.
In addition to mechanical activities which produce dust, natural activi-
ties such as wind erosion occur. Particulate is generated from exposed areas
and storage piles where wind speed exceeds the threshold velocity which for
some materials is about 12 mph at 1 ft above the surface.22Z/
Finally, emissions occur when material drops from one conveyor to another.
This is the standard procedure for changing transport direction. It is thought
that little emissions occur elsewhere in the conveying process. The belts them-
selves rest on idler rolls which cause the belts to incline upward 20 or 30 de-
grees on both edges. This provides a shield from the wind and minimizes spill-
age.
3.10.2 Quantification of Emission Factors
Empirically derived predictive EF equations for open dust sources have
been developed by Midwest Research Institute ^mpt ).127-130/ predictive
equations have been modified as more tests have been added to the data base.
A summary of the most currently refined predictive equations is shown in Ta-
ble 13.
The predictive EFs listed in Table 13 can be used for, but are not limited
to, iron and steel plants. Table 14 shows the quality assurance rating currently
assigned to the EFs for each of the source categories listed in Section 3.10.1.
While many of the emission factors are rated A or B when applied to the source
categories listed in Table 14, the rating would be lowered for some of the fac-
tors if controlled emission factors were to be predicted. For example, the ef-
fects of watering and chemical dust suppressants on the emissions from vehicles
traveling on unpaved roads are not well known.
Some of the correction parameters in Table 13 can be determined from pub-
lished literature. Vehicle weight and dumping device capacity, for example, can
be found in manufacturer literature. Mean wind speed, number of dry days, and
percent of time the wind speed exceeds 12 mph at 1 ft above the ground can be
found in the Climatic Atlasili/ or from other local weather stations. The pre-
cipitation-evaporation index has been calculated by MRI for all the state

-------
TABLE 13. FUGITIVE DUST EMISSION FACTORS EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED BY MRI
,3mircc category
Measure of extent
, a/
Bnlssio" far.mr~
(fh/unU of	e*r.ent)
1.	Unpaved roads
2,	Paved Roads
3 Batch toad-In
(eg* front-end loader*
raiicar ditn^^
km Continuous Load-In
(e.g.i st-ick#r, transfer
station)
Vclilcle-Hi les Traveled
Vehicle-Mi Ins Traveled
Tons of material Loaded In
Ton5 of Material traded In
5- Active Storage Pile Mai nt.enanr.e Tons of Material Put Through StorffRff
and Traffic
6* Active Storage Pile Wind Erosion Tons of KiUrial fSit 1>irfugh Storflgc
? Batch t/>ad-f*/e
Tens of Matrri.il Loaded Out
$ Wind Erosion of *posed Areas Acre-Years of Exposed 1/mrt
*K%
>"!!;)(") (?) <)
O.m i /um
ems
0.7
0.0OH '3/\ 'j p 10
o.onm
(")(!)
mm
(IF
-10  ih Cifi)
"ni frfi)(^)fe)(fe)
(SKSKS
(
1,400 (3o)fa)(z5
.* ftK^Xrn,
gr-
m
Correction Parwictcrs
Material $Ut Content (X)
Average Vehicle Speed (tnph)
Vehicle Mdlftht (ton* J
Surface Dust Loading on Traveled Port ion
of Road (lb/mile)
H"fln Wind Speed (r*ph)
Material Surface Moisture Content (*)
3
niwiping Device C^picHy (yd )
b/
Activity Correcttonr
Number of Dry ftay* Tec Year
Percentage nf Time Vilnd Speed Exceeds 12
mph at t ft alyrjw the ground
fiiirstlon of Material Storage (day*)
Surface Erodibility (t.ons/acre/year )
Thornthwalt*1s Precf pi tat ion-Evaporation
Index
th*nb*r of Traveled f-anes
c /
Industrial Road Augmentation Factor"
Average Nirmher of UUeelft on Vehicle >11*
Drop Height (ft)			
a/ Represents particulate smaller than JO jim in diameter b*sei on partible density of 2.5 p./era .
b/ Cquals I *0 for front-end loader maintaining pile tidiness and 50 rouml trips per truck per day in the storage area.
&/ * 
-------
TABLE 14. EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY ASSURANCE LIMITATIONS
(Effective September 1979)
Quality
assurance
Source category	rating
Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roads - Dry	A
Conditions
Vehicular Traffic on Unpaved Roads - Con-	C
trolled Conditions
Vehicular Traffic on Paved Roads	B
Storage Pile Formation by Means of Translating	B
Conveyor Stacker
Transfer of Aggregate from Loader to Truck	B
Storage Pile Maintenance and Related Traffic	C
Wind Erosion from Storage Piles and Exposed	C
Areas

-------
climatic regions in the United States and is reported in published litera-
ture. H2J The erodibility of materials can also be obtained from published
literature.
Some of the correction parameters in Table 13 can be determined with
reasonable accuracy by estimation. Average vehicle speed and number of wheels
can be estimated. The number of traveled paved road lanes can be estimated
for a particular iron and steel plant by plant personnel. The drop height for
aggregate material can be measured or visually estimated with reasonable ac-
curacy.
Finally, there are correction parameters in Table 13 that can best be
estimated by MRI personnel. These parameters are raw material silt and mois-
ture content, paved and unpaved road material silt content, and total surface
dust loading on paved roads.
Tables 15 through 17 show the results of silt, moisture, and loading
analysis of field samples collected by MRI. For each type of material, the
number of samples obtained, the range of values measured, and the mean values
for these correction parameters are given. Samples listed in Tables 15 through
17 were collected at as many as 12 different iron and steel plants in a wide
range of geographic locations.

-------
TABUE 15. SILT CONTENT VALUES APPLICABLE IN
THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Range of silt
Number	content	Average silt
Source	of tests	(70)	content (%)
Unpaved roads
12
4-13
7.3
Paved roads
9
1.1-13
5.9
Material handling activities



and storage pile wind



erosion



a. Coal
7
2-7.7
5.0
b. Iron ore pellets
10
1.4-13
4.9
c. Lump iron ore
9
2.8-19
9.5
d. Coke breeze
1
-
5.4
e. Slag
3
3.0-7.3
5.3
f. Blended ore
1
-
15.0
g. Sinter
I
-
0.7
h. Limestone
I
-
0.4
i. Flue dust
2
14-23

-------
TABLE 16. SURFACE MOISTURE CONTENT VALUES APPLICABLE IN
THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Range of surface	Average
Number moisture content surface moisture
Source	of tests	(%)	content (%)
I. Material handling activities
and storage pile vind
erosion
a.
Coal
6
2.8-11
4.8
b.
Iron ore pellets
8
0.64-3.5
2.1
c,
Lump iron ore
6
1.6-8.1
5.4
d.
Coke breeze
1
-
6.4
e.
Slag
3
0.25-2.2
0.92
f.
Blended ore
1
-
6.6
g-
Flue dust
I
-
12.4
TABLE 17, SURFACE LOADING ON TRAVELED LANES OF PAYD ROADS
IN IRON AND STEEL PLANTS

Number of tests
Range of surface
loading
(lb/mile)
Average surface
loading
(lb/mile)
9
65-17,000

-------
SECTION 4.0
DEVELOPMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EMISSION FACTORS
The final objective of this report is to develop a representative EF
value or predictive equation for each particulate emission source in the iron
and steel industry. Section 3.0 presents all the EF data presently available.
It is from the data in Section 3.0 that the representative EF values were de-
veloped.
4.1 PROCESS STACK AND FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Table 18 shows a summary of the EFs by source and by reliability rating.
(The rating system was defined in Section 3.0). Recalling that nearly every
EF in the left-hand column of Tables 2 through 10 represents an average of a
number of runs (test series), the average of these test series average values
as presented in Table 18 was calculated as follows:
i=T	/i=T
EF = E EF. N / 
avg i=1 i i / i=1
average of test series i,
number of runs in test series i (if N^>3, then set N^ = 3)>
number of test series, and
EF = emission factor average for a specific reliability rating
avg
category.
The philosophy behind Equation 1 is that within the same rating category
the test series composed of the most runs should receive the most weight.
However, a limit to the weighting is set at a value of 3. This is to eliminate
the possibility that a very high number of tests performed at a very dirty or
very clean, and consequently nonrepresentative, plant could unfairly weight
the overall average. Thus, a test series with three tests will be weighted
three times that with only one test while the possibility of a nonrepresenta-
tive plant with many tests distorting the overall average is eliminated.
N.
(1)

-------
TABLE 18. SELECTION OF SINGLE EMISSION FACTOR VALUES TO REPRESENT EACH PARTICULATE
SOURCE CATEGORY IN THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
Teat *rles
SoiiriT
RntIn*
Av*r*r,e F.F
CFXt>
Ry-f*roal <;h*r*t*R
i, Onrfmt rrHeri
2.
U
Crtn f r 11
a.	I,a r r y c*r v {in mutm-
nur+6 In Hrf v^nfloR
r<*kp	h#d)
2, Control\
swirwbbrr
F.F imlt*
fl.U
0.52
1.5
0.02
ft.Otft
n.44
n,;?
fi. ift
0,6>
n.5S
n,?5
0.6R
0.2$
0.2ft
o.j*
#1.43
0,53
0.1?
0.43
0.19
2,1
2.0
0,?
0.4
1.2
0.024
1h/T c
-------
v
ui


TABLE 18.
(continued)















Avrf.igft EF



1>t scri

fnr rut!n$


AvrtMj\f FF

Numh*r of
RfMfojtraphy
r.n P.rRory
SOOTCC
R*t big
CRrp
FT wiits run*
r^f^renre
(F.F aw
D. Qti*nc hi Aft


n/r coal


mi
1, rntraj led hy Buffl^a
A
1.4

n
iati9
1.0*


2.ft

12
is.\q



0.2S

9
2



0. 21

2
21



n.21

f>
21


C
o.o*

? -asinumr !
22
0,04
F.. Uncon^.rnl 1*mI Comtmstton StArk*
R
0.35
1h/T cn.il
3
21
0.5#


0. VI


21



i.ll

A?
?T



n. i*

2
n



1 .04

?
7\



n.OB


ts



n. Aft

3
n



0,1ft

1
21



0.6?

2
23



0.7$

1
23



0. IB

2
21



0.A1

5
21



0.62


21



0.*)


21



0-51

3
23



0.R2

1
23


r:
0.1ft

2
23
0.-.5


0. *2

1
2.1



n. 7

1ft
Ih
%


0.8

10
24

F. Coat PrflietCcrt


Ib/T coil



1, Uncontrolled
c
?.o

18
(35
2.0
2. Controlled by Scrubber
c
0.65

IB
135
0,65
TI. ftlast Furnace*






A. Slips
f>

lh/Up

26
87.0
8. irnronrrnl !c
-------
Source	R.il it*j
III. S inter InR
A. U(ridhnx F,nhlr)n,
rv. BOFn
A. Top Mown F*i|-nncc! Heltlnjt RcHnJnfc
1.	UnrontrctIrd	A
2.	C>ni" ro f | o/l ly Open
VrnteH tr\:
a. FSV	A
h. Scrnhbrr
i
TABLE 18. (continued)
Test ser i<*A
Average KF
KF wit's
Ntidihfr nf
runs
Avnr*p.i* F.F
		for r*tlng
51hlIngr^phy category Calcltftd single EF value
rrff*rcnr* (F.F nv^ffliRc) Average Rnnge	Raring
1H/T ** inter
10,8
n.ft
n.t
7,2
i.n
0,43
0.63
0,1?
o.m
0.7
0. 1?
n.os
0.09 t
i.o
W
r
10
10
3
1
18
&
J
3
ft
3
1*
31
ri
35
15
AO
4ft
&1
5fi
43
37
50
1W
>*
1A
J
\ I.
8.?
;.i
O.'il
0.17
0.03
0.6b
0.1193
1.0
11.1	tO.fi-U.B B
fi. 7	A
t.f,	0.43-2.2 B
o. J 7	8
0.'.7	0.093-0.9^ R
1.0	n
If./T nlnfr
0. 1
ft.SI
IS
1
3
12
4ft
n#
6.S
0. 1
0. V)
6.a
0. I
0.39
O. 3
0,3
0. 3
24-2
\7 f>
Ih/T MerA
n?
7A.3
37 .O
28. "5
0.0*14
o. im
0.21
O.fH?
O. f %
O.031
0.09
0.1 Of.
n?
fifc
'.II
ai
*;?
;2
0. t 3
O.or,?
o. o
0, nnfl
0.13 O.0614-0.21 A
0.09 O.OJ1-0.1*

-------
TABLE 18. (continued)
Controlled by f!losc? Average Range	Riling
O.OOA8	0.006B 0.0028-
0.01 U
U1
Q-gOP MrtMng and Rpflnfng
I. Control le
-------
TABLE 18. (continued)
m
CD
Snurcf*
C.	firflnlnp., r.h.irrtlng.
Tnppltift. ami 5|t|*
1.	Iltirmti rol 1 rA
n. A| Inv
K. r.irhmi slff-l
2.	ContrrOIrrf hy\
*. nrrr*l |irf hy F.SP
ft. Roof flcmltrr F.wif si Ions

Avi'injif Rl'
ii. i
4 Vl>
jfl.O
n. i
O.fWil
i
0.2R
n. i*n
	 fPHt Sf| l*1
VF .Milt*
Ih/T
u/r
Niunhrr >r
rtiMj*
'-..-I'ssiim'"' 1
1
7fl
VII. Toewlup,
A.	I	Si rr 1
1,	Mncnnr rol lrH (/l m^Asnr^il
At t!t<* r.mtrrjn)
2.	Control IfH hy	t
llnod VCO^C'1 t" PUtRhons#1
B.
I. Uncnntrnl int\ (rtn
fit th *frrc)
7.	r"*11 rd hv S I He-cl r*f t
Vrr>* r-rt t<% B.iphoti^n
Ih/T r.l^l
n,*u
0.00w
n.o7
o.nm a
VTlf. Mct!nr Sr,ir f In*
A,	iirimntfol IcH
B.	hv ESI*
n. r	!H/T	thrf>tt]>1*
sr-i  t i-t
O.Hft	1l/T	rUrnnjl
Ji.nnt
n.ntwt
n,m?
n.iiU
O.lltH
t)
I
Avcr.TjM* fT
_ for r;H uft
RJ1H Jf.r.iptiv tMtop.nrv
l ofrrnwr (fil" .IVi.T.lRf)
OlcutaX.c4 sirtglc F valtic
Avrrj R.-ihrc PatlrtR
II. \	11.1	A
so	50	r
101
PI	0.1	0.3	A
9/1	o.cvii	o.mj	r
no	J! I.!	21.1	a
10ft	n.?ft	0.2 ft	A
|fv>	O. |*A	11.1*6	1"
in	ft.RI	n,H|	A
ni	n.noia	n.nni*	A
j-n	o.n?	o.o?	a
111	O.OOUl	0.001ft	A
1 i;
I u
11?
.i	o.i	&
n.or*	o,(i2i o.nm-o.oa ft

-------
TABLE 18. (concluded)
Trfil opr 1 
R-lUnft
A''nr/ip,r F.F
(V.V{)
Nnm1r r
rim?;
|\(|| ?rptr.-if>hv
r <* Trr nmr
Avff nj*/* KF
for r*t 1 n|
r.-if r*frv
(F,F ,TVorRf>
C*1chi>itfH iilrtglc FF v
0,012
o,m
b.h
o,m
n.ni7
o.oo
n.oi
o.oi?
Q.m
o.oi
ih/io* nt
ih/tnr hn
Jb/10* fttn
i?o-i;2
120-122
Ar-',?
Aiv-*2
Al*-42
1 ?fl- I ??
AI*--47
Alv A?
I J-i22
AT -'.Z
Al*-/.?
n.rm
0,01?
0.09
IV. 4
o.oj
n.a2
n 09
o.ni
o.oi?
o.ni
o.oi
ft. 035
0,012
0,09
f .4
O.Of
0.012
n,w
o.oi
0.012
0-09
0.01
^ Ewn though r.hi trst5 w#r<< performed in ,-tn ^crrpt *b te mamirr umI all dftta wi>re reportrd (A-ratlng), i.h*rc ar<* independent variables which effect

-------
Hie value 3 was selected as the cutoff point for weighting averages of
test series averages. This value arises from the unwritten rule generally
followed by the U.S. EPA that 3 tests are sufficient to quantify emissions
from a source. This is evidenced by the multiplicity of sets of three tests
used1 in the published background documents for rcif65-68 71-72/ an(j fap89/
standards.
The process for identifying the test series averages that were excluded
from Table 18 was as follows:
1.	Test series averages reported in units incompatible with the selected
reporting units shown in the Table 18 column entitled "EF Units" were excluded.
For example, EFs for sintering operations reported in pounds per ton input
could not be converted to pounds per ton sinter for two reasons. First, input
can be defined in three ways--raw material from bins, raw material from bins
and recycle fines, and finally, raw material from bins, recycle fines, and
hearth layer. The definition utilized was not made clear in many of the re-
ports. Second, depending on plant operations, the mass ratio between input
and output product may not be the same from plant to plant.
2.	Test series averages representing front and back half particulate as
measured by EPA Method 5 were excluded. Test series which were reported un-
clearly as to whether they represented front and back half or just front half
particulate were also excluded.
3.	Test series for controlled tests for which the control 'device was
not specified were excluded.
4.	Test series that were unclearly reported as to what process source
they represented were excluded.
5.	Test series that were reported unclearly as to whether they were
controlled or uncontrolled were excluded.
The rules for calculating the representative EF for a source were:
1.	If any source category has four or more A-rated test series, then
the representative EF value shall be equal to the average of these A-rated
test series as determined by Equation 1.
2.	If any source category has less than four A-rated test series but
more than zero, then the representative EF value shall be a weighted average
of the A- and B-rated averages with the A-rated EF average receiving twice
the weight that the B-rated EF average does.
3.	If there are no A-rated values, then the representative EF value
shall be equal to the average of the B-rated test series averages as deter-
mined by Equation 1.

-------
If there are no A- and B-rated values, then the representative EF value
shall be equal to the average of C- and D-rated values.
The philosophy behind the above rules is as follows. If there is a sig-
nificant number of A-rated test series, that is, tests performed by a sound
methodology and reported in enough detail to adequately validate the test
series, then the single value should be set equal to the average of the A-
rated values alone. If there is not enough A-rated test series to cover a
significant number- of plants (estimated as four), then the B-rated test ser-
ies should also be included in the averaging process so that the single EF
value approaches a true industry-wide average. But, in order to counter-
balance the fact that B-rated test series may not have been performed prop-
erly, the A-rated average should be weighted as more important than (twice
as heavily as) the B-rated average. If there are no A-rated test series, then
the single value should be set equal to the average of the B-rated test ser-
ies. No C- or D-rated test series should be included with A- or B-rated tests
in determining the single EF, since they were performed by either an unac-
ceptable or unknown methodology or are based on estimat es which cannot be
corroborated. If there are no A- or B-rated test series, then the single EF
value should be set equal to the average of the C- and D-rated test series.
This provides at least an order of magnitude value for the source, but should
by no means be expected to provide any more precision. These C- and D-rated
test series are only used as a last resort since no other data are available.
4.2 OPEN DUST SOURCES
The single EFs that should be used to represent open dust sources at
existing plants are shown in Table 13. These factors are in the form of pre-
dictive equations and, consequently, their use necessitates that the inde-
pendent variables be quantified. For cases where estimates must be made for
plant expansions or new plants, the equations in Table 13 can also be used,
but the independent variables will necessarily have to be estimated. The
average values presented in Tables 15-17 could be used for these estimates.

-------
SECTION 5.0
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report was to develop a representative particulate
EF or predictive equation for each significant source in the iron and steel
industry. To accomplish this, results of emission tests performed by indus-
try, EPA contractors, local, state, and regional environmental regulatory
bodies were compiled in Section 3.0 and each EF rated as to its reliability.
For process stack and fugitive emissions, weighted averages of the most
reliable tests were then calculated in Section 4.0 to develop representative
particulate EF values as shown in Table 18. Unfortunately, much of the com-
piled data were not useful in determining the final representative EF value
for reasons of unreliability, reporting of the production rate in incompatible
units, inclusion of condensable emissions, unspecified control devices, and
lack of clarity concerning which sources were actually sampled.
For open dust sources, predictive equations as shown in Table 13 were
selected as the most accurate method to predict emissions from existing and
proposed plants. The large difference in EF values for the same source due
to varying raw or intermediate material characteristics or climatic variation
with geographic location can than be predicted.
In conclusion, it is important to repeat the caution in Section 1.0
that the values in Tables 13 and 18 are average EFs obtained from a wide
range of data of varying degrees of accuracy. The reader must be cautioned
not to use these emission factors indiscriminately. That is, the factors gen-
erally may not yield precise emission factors for an individual installation.
Only on-site source tests can provide data sufficiently accurate and precise
to determine actual emissions for that source. Emission factors are most ap-
propriate when used in diffusion models for the estimation of the impact of
proposed new sources upon the ambient air quality and for community or nation-
wide air pollution emission estimates.

-------
REFERENCES
1.	Vatavuk, W. M., and L. K. Felleisen. Iron and Steel Mills, In; Com-
pilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1976.
2.	American Iron and Steel Institute. Source Data for Steel Facility Fac-
tors. Final prepared July 13, 1976. 10 pp.
3.	Rehmus, F. H., D. P. Manka, and E. A. Upton. Control of ^S Emissions
During Slag Quenching. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, 23(10):864-869, 1973.
4.	American Iron and Steel Institute. 1976 Annual Statistics of the AISI.
Washington, D.C., 1977. pp. 67-71.
5.	United Nations. Air Pollution by Coking Plants. Economic Commission for
Europe, ST/ECE/Coal/26, 1968. pp. 3-27.
i I
6.	Balla, P A., and G* E. Wieiand. Performance of Gas Cleaning System on
Coke Oven Larry Car at Burns Harbor. Blast Furnace and Steel Plant,
55(I):22-26, 1971.
7.*	Company A. Untitled Summary Tables. Undated.
8.	Lock, T. A.f et al. (Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Source
Testing of a Stationary Coke-Side Enclosure: Burns Harbor Plant,
Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Chestertown, Indiana. EPA-340/1-76-012,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Hay 1977.
9.	Lock, T. A., et al. (Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc.). Source
Testing of a Stationary Coke-Side Enclosure: Great Lakes Carbon Corpora-
tion, St. Louis, Missouri, Plant. EPA-340/l-76-014a, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1977.
10. Jacko, R. B., D. W. Neuendorf, and J. R. Blandford, Plume Parameters and
Particulate Emissions From the By-Product Coke Oven Pushing Operation.
71st Annual Meeting, Air Pollution Control Association, June 1978. 14
pp.

-------
11.	Dennis, R., and R Hall. Particle Size Distribution of Coke-Side Emis-
sions From By-Product Coke Ovens. Draft Final Report, GCA/Technology
Division, GCA Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, EPA Contract No. 68-
01-3155, August 1976.
12.	Trenholm, A. R,, and R. Jenkins. An Investigation of the Best Systems j
of Emission Reduction for the Pushing Operation on By-Product Coke Ovens,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1976.
13.	Summary Report on Bethlehem Steel Corporation Spray System Pushing Emis-
sion tests. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DSSE, August 25, 1976.
8 pp.
14.	Clayton Environmental Consultants. Emission Testing and Evaluation of
Ford/Koppers Coke Pushing Control System: Volume I. Final Report, EPA-
600/2-77-187a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, September 1977 
15.*	Company A. Two Data Tables and Test Method Description From Undefined
Report. Supplemental Information.
16.*	Company B. Test Report on Arco Venturi Scrubber on Coke Battery No, 3,
December 28, 1973.
17.	Letter from David Anderson, Corporate Office for Plant T to Don Goodwin,
Environmental Protection Agency, April 18, 1975.
18.	Edlund, C., A. H. Laube, and J. Jeffrey. Effects of Water Quality on Coke
Quench Tower Particulate Emissions. Presented at the APCA Annual Meeting
in Toronto, Ontario, June 20-24, 1977. 14 pp.
19.	Laube, A. H., J. Jeffrey, and C. Edlund. Particulate Sampling Techniques
for a Coke Quench Tower. Proceedings of the Second Fugitive Emissions
Symposium, sponsored by APCA and IERL May 197 7. pp. 11-C-l through II-
C-24.
20.	Memorandum from Robert A. Armburst, Region 9 of New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation to Bernard Bloom, DSSE, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, November 6, 1975.
21.	Jeffrey, J. D. Test Report for Quench Tower Emissions Tests at Dominion
Foundries and Steel, Ltd., Hamilton, Ontario, 1977-1978.
22.	Fullerton, R. W. Impingement Baffles to Reduce Emissions From Coke
Quenching. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 17(12):
807-809, 1967.

-------
23.	Midwest Research Institute. Study of Coke Oven Battery Stack Emission
Control Technology, Final Report: Volume I - Collection and Analyses
of Existing Emissions Data, March 1979.
24.*	Solitary Table Entitled, Exhibit 1, Plant D, Coke Plant, Combustion
! Stacks - Uncontrolled.
\
25.*	Company A. Supplemental Information. Letter with summary table dated
June 10, 1975. Particulate Emission From Coke Battery Stack.
26.	Mobley, C. E., A. D. Hoffman, and H. W. Lownie. Blast Furnace Slips and
Accompanying Emissions as an Air Pollution Source. EPA-600/2-76-268,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, October 1976.
27.	Anonymous. The Manufacture of Pig Iron. In: The Making, Shaping, and
Treating of Steel, H. E. McGannon, ed. 9th Edition, 1971. p. 442.
28.	Internal Memorandum from T. G. Keller to R. M. McMullen, Bethlehem Steel
Corporation, November 15, 1976. 2 pp.
29.	May, W. P. (Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc.). Blast Furnace Cast
House Emission Control Technology Assessment. EPA-600/2-77-231, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
November 1977. 158 pp.
I
30.*	Company G. Measurement of Cast House Ventilation Rate and Particulate
Emissions During Casting, October 24, 1974.
31.*	Company D. Two Tables Entitled, Sinter Plant Emissions - Windbox Ex-
haust - Uncontrolled, March 10, 1975.
32.*	Company D. Six Tables Entitled, Sinter Plant Emissions - Discharge End -
Uncontrolled.. 
33.*	Company C. Portion of Report Entitled, Air Pollution Survey . . . ,
October 1, 1969.
34.*	Company C. Portion of Report Entitled, Air Pollution Survey - Sinter
Plant Induced Draft - Houston Works, January 6, 1971.
35.*	Company N. Summary Tables Showing Results of Sintering Plant Precipita-
tor Testing, October 15 through November 11, 1978.
36.*	Company N. Memorandum Entitled, Sinter Plant Stack - Emission Tests,
May 13, 1974,

-------
37.*	Company P. Portion of Report Entitled, Performance Evaluation of the ...
Installed at the Sinter Plant . . . , January 1973.	I
I
38.*	Company P. Portion of Untitled, Undated Report.
39.*	Company P. Memorandum Entitled, Sinter Plant Windbox Collection Efficien-
cies, June 19, 1973.
40.*	Company A. Inter-Organization Memorandum Entitled, Performance Test of
Sinter Plant Baghouse at	, February 2, 1971.
41.*	Company A. Inter-Organization Memorandum Entitled, Stack Sampling ...
Sinter Plant, June 12, 1975.
42.	Armco, Inc. Sinter Plant Air Pollution Control. Pilot Plant Study at
Ashland, Report No. 1, Final, August 9, 1971.
43.	Clean Air Engineering. Report of Emissions Tests for Inland Steel Com-
pany, July 1975.
44.	Pennsylvania DER. Testing at Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, December 3, 1975.
45.	Armco, Inc. Sinter Plant Air Pollution Control. Pilot Plant Study at
Houston, Report No. 1, Final, February 17, 1972.
46.	Betz Environmental Engineers. Report and Analysis of the Field Testing
Program for the Hydro-Clean Scrubber of Control Research, Inc., at the
Alan Wood Steel Plant in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, June 1971.
47.	Schlosser, R. W. (PA DER, Norristown, Pennsylvania). Report on Emissions
From Sinter Plant, September 1974.
48.	York Research Corporation. Test Report of Sinter Plant Emissions at Bethlehem
Plant, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EMB
Report No. 75-SIN-1, December 1975.
49.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Air Pollution Mission Test; Colorado
Fuel and Iron. Report No. 75-S1N-5, June 1975.
50.	Loch, T. A. (Clayton Environmental Specialists), Air Pollution Btiission
Test - Sinter Plant, Granite City Steel. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EMB Report No. SIM, November 1975.
51.	Environmental Sciences, Inc. Particulate Emissions From the Aliquippa Main
Stack and Recycle Duct. September 1972.

-------
52.	Environmental Sciences, Inc. Particulate Testing of the Emissions From
Koppers Electrostatic Precipitator Pilot Unit. October 1973.
53.	WFI Sciences Company. Precipitator Efficiency Tests - Mikropul Pilot Wet
Precipitator Sinter Plant Main Exhaust. March 1974.
54.	Environmental Sciences, Inc. Particulate Testing of the Envirex Gravel
Bed Pilot Unit. October 1973.
55.	PA DER. Report on Emission Test From Sinter Plant at Aliquippa Works.
July 1975.
56.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Report - Standards Support
and Environmental Impact Statement - An Investigation of the Best Systems
of Emission Reduction for Sinter Plants in the Iron and Steel Industry.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, May 1977.
57.*	Company B. Report of Work Performance Under EPA Contract. Report Dated
March 23, 1972.
58.*	Company H. Letter Dated February 1976.
59.*	Company H. Field Survey Conducted on the Basic Oxygen Furnace, September
8, 1972.
60.*	Ccropany B. Stack Test Report of the Electrostatic Precipitator at the
Basic Oxygen Furnace Shop, December 19, 1974,
61.*	Company A. Memorandum Entitled, Dust Emission From BOP and BOP Cleaning
System, June 23, 1972.
62.*	Company A. Memorandum Entitled, Particulate Emission Tests for . . . ,
December 12, 1974.
63.*	Undated Single Table Entitled, Summary of Results - BOF Emissions,
64.*	Company J, Report Entitled, Basic Oxygen Furnace Stack Emission Tests,
November 1975.
65.	Roy F. Weston, Inc. Source Testing Report, Bethlehem Steel Corporation,
Basic Oxygen Furnace, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. April 1972.
66.	Engineering Sciences, Inc. EPA Test No. 71-MM-23, Alan Wood Steel Com-
pany, Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. June 1972.
67.	Engineering Sciences, Inc. EPA Test No. 72-MM-02, Basic Oxygen Furnace,
U.S. Steel Corporation, Lorain, Ohio. June 1972.

-------
68.	Engineering Science, Inc. EPA Test No, 71-MM-24, U.S. Steel Corporation,
Lorain, Ohio. March 1972.
69.	Schmidt, J. H., and R, Robertson (NALCO). Source Sampling Studies,
Inland Steel Company, Chicago, Illinois. June 1975
70.	Nishimura, B. San Bernadino County APCD Source Test Report on Kaiser
Steel. July 1972.
71.	Cowherd, C., Jr. (Midwest Research Institute). Source Testing - Artrtco
Steel. February 1972.
72.	Meffert, D. P. EPA Test No. 71-MM-26, Weirton Steel Division, National
Steel Corporation, Weirton, West Virginia. March 1972,
73.	Mostardi-Platt Associates, Inc. Particulate Emission Studies at Republic
Steel Corporation. August 1977.
74.	Jefferson County Department of Health. U.S. Steel Fairfield Works Q-BOP
Particulate Source Test. August 1977.
75.	CH2M Hill. Particulate Emission Measurement on Q-BOP "C" at U.S. Steel
Corporation, Fairfield, Alabama. November 1978.
76.	Drabkin, M., and R. HeIfand (Mitre Corporation). A Review of Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources, Iron and Steel Plants/Basic
Oxygen Furnaces. June 1978,
77.	Nicola, A. G. Fugitive Emission Control in the Steel Industry. Iron and
Steel Engineer, 53(7):25-30, 1976.
78.*	Company J. Undated Report Entitled, Basic Oxygen Furnace Stack Emission
Tests.
79.*	Company J. Single Table Entitled, BOP Test Results, December 29, 1975.
80.*	Company D. Single Undated Table Entitled, No, 2 BOF Shop Tapping Emis-
sions.
81.*	Company D. Single Undated Table Entitled, No, 2 BOF Shop Hot Metal Charg-
ing to Vessel.
82.*	Company D. Single Undated Table Entitled, BOF Shop Reladling Station,
83.*	Company A. Untitled Memorandum of November 9, 1973.
84.*	Company A. Memorandum Entitled, Fugitive Emissions . . . , April 2, 1975,

-------
85.*	Company A. Memorandum Entitled, Roof Emissions . . . , August 19, 1975.
86.	Letter from R. Neulicht, Test Support Section, Emission Measurement
Branch to G. McCutchen, ESED, dated March 23, 1976.
87.	Interlake, Inc. Environmental and Energy Impact - BOF Melt Shop.
December 19, 1973. 13 pp.
88.	Seton, Johnson, and Odell, Inc. Investigation of Particulate Emissions -
Basic Oxygen Furnace Roof Monitors. January 1976.
89.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Background Information for Stan-
dards of Performance: Electric Arc Furnaces in the Steel Industry,
Volume 2: Test Data Summary. EPA-450/2-74-017b, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, pp. 10-13.
90.	Hammond, W. F., et al. Metallurgical Equipment - Steel Manufacturing
Processes. In: Air Pollution Engineering Manual, J. A. Danielson, ed.
AP-40, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, 1973. pp. 245-255.
91.	Company K. Untitled Table. Undated.
92.*	Company J. Single Table Entitled, Dust Collected by Baghouse in 1976,
May 21, 1976.
93.*	Company H. Memorandum Entitled, Flue Dust Collection, October 28, 1975.
94.*	Company L. Untitled, Undated Report.
95.	Environmental Engineering, Inc. Iron and Steel Industry, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March
15, 1971. pp. 3-7.
96.	Battelle Memorial Institute. A Systems Analysis Study of the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry. U.S. HEW, May 15, 1969. pp. C-79 to C-83.
97.	Seiffert, R. D. EPA Trip Report for Visit to Plant M, September 13, 1972.
98.	Report of Emissions Tests at Plant N, Submitted by the Owner, April 21,
1972.
99.	Letter from J. E. Barker, Chairman of an American Iron and Steel Institute
Ad Hoc Committee to D. R. Goodwin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
May 22, 1973.

-------
100.	Plant E. Roof Monitor Emission Data - Summary of Test Results, Sub-
mitted by Owner of Plant E. Undated.
101.	Seiffert, R. D. EPA Trip Report for Visit to Plant F, March 28, 1973.
102.	San Bernadino County Air Pollution Control District. Report of Source
Test Conducted at Witteman Steel Mills, Fontana, California. April
1975.
103.	South Coast Air Quality Management District. Source Test Report Sum-
mary. June 1978.
104.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. Emission Testing at
Marathon Steel, Tempe, Arizona. June 1977.
105.*	Company A. Single Table Entitled, Open Hearth Precipitator Test Results
at Low Stack Draft. Undated.
106.*	Company A. Memo Entitled, Open Hearth Precipitator Dust Emission Tests
at ... , July 16, 1974. Also included is a separate untitled packet
of supplemental information.
107.*	Company N. Report Entitled, Oxygen Lanced Open Hearths - Precipitator
Stack Emission Test, December 3, 1973.
108.*	Company C. Single Undated Table Entitled, Open Hearth Shop Performance
Tests, May 1971.
109.*	Company F. Report Entitled, Data Tables for Roof Monitor Above No. 35
and Between Nos. 34 and 35, July 25, 1973. 35 pp.
110.	Black, Crow, and Eidsness, Inc. Particulate Emission Measurements on
No. 9 Open Hearth Furnace at the Ensley Works of U.S. Steel Corporation,
Birmingham, Alabama. October 1975.
111.*	Company A. Inter-Organization Correspondence. Particulate Emission Tests
on 40-Inch Bloom Scarfer Precipitators. March 17, 1976. 4 pp.
112.*	Company A. Inter-Organization Correspondence. Particulate Emission Tests
on Five Scarfer Wet Precipitators. December 30, 1975. 8 pp.
113.*	Company A. Memorandum. Dust Emissions From Scarfing Machine, February
6, 1967. 2 pp.
114.*	Company A. Inter-Organization Correspondence. Emission Tests on Scarfer
Stack. September 6, 1974. 3 pp.

-------
115.* Company B. Emission Test Report. Emission Study - Scarfer Exhaust -
No. 3 Slabbing Mill. May 8 and 10, 1973. 23 pp.
116.* Company C. Performance Tests on Kinpactor Installation Hot Scarfing
Application. February 24, 1966. 8 pp.
117.*	Company C. Air Pollution Survey - Final Report. Hay to November 1971.
6 pp.
118.*	Company Q. Particulate Emission Testing - Blooming Mill Hot Scarfer.
3 pp.
119.*	Company Q. Summary of Emission Data - Mill Hot Scarfer Testing. Three
tables plus data sheets. 7 pp,
120.	Reference 27, p. 443.
121.	Anonymous. Steel Plant Fuels and Fuel Economy. Inj The Making, Shaping,
and Treating of Steel, H. E. McGannon, ed. 9th Edition, 1971# p. 97.
122.	Reference 121, p. 94.
123# Reference 121, p. 95*
124. Reference 121, p. 90.
125.	Reference 121, p. 81.
126.	Reference 121, p. 92#
127.	Cowherd, C., Jr., K. Axetell, Jr., C M. Guenther (Maxwell), and G. Jutze.
Development of Btiission Factors for Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA-4S0/3-
74-037, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, June 1974. 190 pp.
128.	Cowherd, C., Jr., C. M. Maxwell, and D. W. Nelson. Quantification of Dust
Entrairwient from Paved Roads. EPA-450/3-77-027, U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, July 1977. 89 pp.
129.	Bohn, R., T. Cuscino, Jr., and C. Cowherd, Jr. Fugitive Emissions from
Integrated Iron and Steel Plants. EPA-600/2-78-050, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1978,
276 pp.

-------
130.	Cowherd, C. Jr., fU Bohn, and T. Guscino Jr., Iron and Steel Plant Open
Source Fugitive Emission Evaluation. EPA Contract 600/2-79-103, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
May 1979.
131.	U.S. Department of Conmerce, Environmental Science Service Administration.
Climatic Atlas, June 1968.
132.	Woodruff, M. P. and F. H. Siddoway. A Wind Erosion Equation. Soil Science
Society of America Proceedings, 29(5):602-608, 1965
133.	Steiner, Jim and Jeff Knirck (Acurex). Particulate Matter Bnission Factor
Tests for Hot Metal Transfer and Teeming Operations at Wisconsin Steel,
Chicago, Illinois. Region V, U.S. EPA, Chicago, Illinois, November 1978.
134.	' Steiner, Jim and Jeff Khirck (Acurex). Particulate Matter Emissions
Factor Tests for Q-BOP Hot Metal Addition and Tapping Operations at
Republic Steel, Chicago, Illinois. Region V, U.S. EPA, Chicago, Illinois,
March 1979.
135.	Kemner, W, D. Loudin, J. Snith, and G. Saunders. Control of amissions
from Dry Coal Charging at Coke Oven Batteries. EPA Contract No. 68-02-
2603, Task 28, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Undated
Report Written Between August 1978 and May 1979.
136.	York Research Corporation. Measurement of Coke Pushing Particulate Emis-
sions at CF&I Corporation Coke Plant, Pueblo, Colorado. Report for CF&I
Corporation, October 4, 1976.
137.	York Research Corporation. Performance Testing of Basic Oxygen Furnace
Electrostatic Precipitators. Report for CF&I Steel Corporation, May 1978.
138.	Coy, David W. Report of Stack Test at U.S. Steel, Geneva Works, Sinter
Plant. EPA Contract No. 68-01-4141, Task 13, September 1978.
139.	York Research Corporation, Report on Particulate Emissions Measurements,
"D" Battery Coke Oven Stack. Prepared for CF&I Steel Corporation, July
24, 1978.
140.	Pacific Environmental Services. Air Pollution Mission Test; Kaiser
Steel Corporation, Fontana, California. Report No. 75-SIN-3, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
November 1975.
141.	Bee, R. W. et al. Coke Oven Charging Bnission Control Test Program -
Volume I. EPA-650/2-74/062. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., July 1974.

-------
142.	Stoltz, J. H. Coke Charging Pollution Control Demonstration. EPA-650/2-
74-022. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., March
1974.
143.	Letter from William Benzer of the American Iron and Steel Institute to
Charles Masser of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September II,
1979.
* Submitted by AISI as support documentation for the EFs presented in their
summary table entitled, "Source Data for Steel Facility Factors," July 13,
1976. Names of plants and personnel were deleted by AISI.

-------
APPENDIX
TYPICAL CONVERSION FACTORS FOR MATERIAL FLOW CALCULATIONS

-------
TABLE A-l. TYPICAL CONVERSION FACTORS UTILIZED FOR ENGINEERING ESTIMATES
OF QUANTITIES OF MATERIAL HANDLED
Process
Conversion factor


Reference
Coke manufacture
1.0 unit coal
0.69 unit coke


-
Iron production
0.55 unit coke
1 .0 unit iron


1

1.55 units of iron bearing material
1

1,0 unit iron




0.5 unit sinter
I .0 unit iron


Average of 5 years of
AISI data

1.0 unit iron ore
1.0 unit iron


Calculated by dif-
ference

0.2 unit limestone
1.0 unit iron


1

0.2 unit slag
L.Q unit iron


i

or




0.3-0.4 unit slag
1.0 unit iron


2

or




0.2-0.35 unit slas?
1 .0 unit iron


i
BOF steel production
0.7 unit hot metal
1.0 unit BOF steel
0.3 unit scrap
1.0 unit BOF steel
\

4
OHF steel production
0.45-0.55 unit hot cnetal
1.0 unit 0KF steel
1
)


0.45-0.55 unit scrap
1.0 unit OHF steel
/



-------
APPENDIX REFERENCES
Vatavuk, W. M., and L. K. Felleisen. Iron and Steel Mills. Int Compila-
tion of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42, Environmental Protection
Agency* Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1976.
Rehraus, F. H. D. P. Manka, and E. A. Upton. Control of H2S Emissions
During Slag Quenching. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
23(10);864-869, 1973.
Steiner, B. A. Air Pollution Control in the Iron and Steel Industry.
International Metal Review, (9):171-192, 1976.
Anonymous. Evolution of Iron and Steelmaking. In; The Making, Shaping,
and Treating of Steel, H. E, McGannon, ed. 9th Edition, 1971. p. 34.

-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Phase read Inuruciions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO
EPA-450/4-
79-028
2.
4. I I TL AND SUBTITLE
Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to the
Iron and Steel Industry
7. AUTHOHISi
Thomas A, Cuscino, Jr.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCFSSIOt*NO.
5, REPORT DATE
September 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Midwest Research Institute
42b Volker Blvd.
Kansas City, MO 64110
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1 1. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-2814
Task Number 23
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Monitoring and Data Analysis Division (MD-14)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
EPA Task Officer - Charles C. Masser
16. ABSTRACT
An intensi fied effort has occurred in the last 3 years to update the iron
and steel industry particulate emission factors presented in AP-42 and to add,
for the first time, fugitive source emission factors.
It is the objective of this report to present the results of this data
gathering and analysis effort. The report is divided into three major areas.
First, background information will be presented related to the processes in
the iron and steel industry along with a process flow chart. Second, all of
the particulate source test data will be presented and summarized in chart
form. Third, the methodology for selecting single source specific emission
factors and the resulting particulate emission factors will be presented.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. kDENTl F IE RS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATi Field/Group

Air Pollution
Particulate
Emissions
Emission Factor
Iron and Steel
Particulate Emissions
Emission Factor
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified	
21. NO. OF PAGES
Unlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
JB1_
22. PRICE

-------