## (



# ( APPENDIX A.1 STATUS REPORT PRESENTED AT AUGUST 15, 1995 MEETING WITH OHIO EPA

# c Energy & 

# Environmental Management, Inc. P.O. Box 71, Murrysville, PA 15668-0071 (412) 733-0022 FAX (412) 733-0018 

## August 14, 1995



# ( William R. Samples, Ph.D. Director, Environmental Control WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORP. 1134 Market Street Wheeling, WV 

## 26003-2971 Dear Bill: This letter is a status report on the results of the plume rise study at the Basic ..• Oxygen Furnace (BOF). in Mingo Junction. The study began on August 2. 

## Data were collected until noon on August 12. BOF operating data have been submitted to us through August 10. Five temperature and wind speed sensors are located in the roof monitor opening on the. sixth floor of the. BOF building. The sensors are in the east opening which is directly.above Vessel A. Data are ..•recorded every 15 seconds and stored to a·· Data Logger. Mr. Bill Polomik of your office uploads that data every second day to us for our review. The 15 second data (56, 984 records to date) were processed into hourly averages to match the hourly meteorological data from .the Follansbee tower maintained by the WV. 

## DEP. Hourly· valtles are listed in Attachment 1. Temperature differences at the five sites are presented in Fahrenheit degrees as the sensor reading minus the Follansbee air temperature. Vessel A operation is .identified based on my interpretation of the BOF Operating Records
. Sensors are located from south to north··with site 3 centered· on the BOF Hot Stack for Vessel 

## A. Results are summarized in Table!. The results cOmpar<: well to those reported in our September 1994 report containing. the August 1993. and March 1994 results.
. Our earlier results indicated a mean temperature .. difference of 21.9po and mean velocity of 238 feet per minute for the active portion of the roof monitor. Data in Table 1 indicate a mean .temperature difference of 18.3Fo Cj.nd a mean velocity of 467 feet per minute. Both factors are linear in the buoyancy equation, so we may see a slight increase in buoyancy fro.m this study as compared to the buoyancy value' of 114 m 4

## /sec 3 

## used in the BLP modeling. More results will be made available as they are collected. Sincerely,

# ~~ •• 

## Larry**~.** 

## Simmons, P.E. Principal CC: W.V. Polomik -WPSC C-348 ENGINEERING AND PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES 

## APPENDIX A.I, Page A
..I-1

## Dr. W.R. Samples Page 2 of 2 E2

## M-I07-95 08/14/95 

# (

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE AND AIR FLOW FROM BOF ROOF MONITOR (AUGUST 2-10) Temperature Difference (FO) Vessel A Vessel A Operating Not Operating Total ( 

### 1 

### 2 3 4 

### 5 

## Mean 21.46 18.85 20.14 22.96 20.05 21. 50 20.43 18.01 19.21 16.65 15.00 15.81 15.24 14.20 14.72 19.35 17.22 18.28

Roof Exhaust Speed (feet per minute) 

# * Vessel A Vessel A Operating Not Operating Total 

# ( (

(



### 1 2 3 

### 4 

### 5 

## Mean 516.67 529.63 483.72 660.45 (476.52) 438.59 525.81 (489.03) 468.79 496.29 454.99 573.51 (442.46) 407.41 480.20 (453.99) 470.59 512.80 469.22 598.80 (459.32) 422.85 494.85 (466.96) <.



# * Note that the sensor at Site 4 malfunctioned beginning at Hour 20 on August 6. Readings from. Site 4 are suspect from that time on. Values in ( ) reflect replacement of. Site 4 data ( with the mean of Site3 and 5 when Site 4 values were not within±25% of that mean. (

APPENDIX A.I, PaCTe A.1-2

## (



# ( ATTACHMENT I HOURLY AVERAGE PARAMETERS FROM PLUME RISE STUDY AT MINGO JUNCTION BOF THROUGH AUGUSTIO

APPENDIXA.l, Page A.1-3

### FollansbeeDirecSite 1 

### Site 2 

### Site 3 

### Site 4 

### Site 5



### tion Speed Temp 

### Ditt Speed DUt Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed DUt Speed Vessel A Date 

### lit: 

## 1MEHl. 

## ...LZL 10 (FPM) 

## J.E:1.. lEEMl. 

## 10 (FPM) 

## J.E:1.. (FPM) 

## 1U (FPMl Ooeratinq 08/02/95 12 229.4 5.6 90.73 7.3 448.0 12.2 471.0 8.1 434.0 5.4 432.0 4.5 394
..0 08/02/95 13 218.1 6.4 92.50 6.5 422.0 10.6 460.0 6.6 397.0 4.0 398.0 3.9 369.0 08/02/95 14 204.2 5.0 93.10 8.0 368.0 10.9 421.0 7.5 356.0 504 370.0 4.8 344.0 08/02/95 15 234.7 5.6 93.46 8.1 395.0 10.5 476.0 8.0 400.0 7.1 436.0 6.1 392.0 

### Yes 08/02/95 16 334.2 5.6 89.97 17.2 482.0 20.0 542.0 15.2 475.0 13.4 486.0 12.6 439.0 

### Yes 08/02/95 17 20.2 5.5 87.90 18.7 536.0 22.7 595.0 18.9 534.0**16.~ 5~0.0** **~5.3** 

### 442.0 

### Yes 08/02/95**~8** 

### 36.2 5.3 85.72 22.0 479.0 23.8 535.0 20.5 488.0 18.8 504.0 18.3 442.0 

### Yes 08/02/95**~9** 

### 40.1 6.7 83.35 30.4 429.0 27.2 467.0 22.7 460.0 20.7 482.0 21.4 427.0 

### Yes 08/02/95 20 68.4 7.5 80.63 27.2 486.0 27.9 486.0 23.5 464.0 20.9 490.0 21.0 436.0 

### Yes :J::l 

### 08/02/95**2~** 

### 96.4 4.9 76.88 18.8 386.0**~9.7 4~6.0** **~8.2** 

### 369.0**~7.2 41~.0** **16.~** 

### 366.0 '"Cl 

### 08/02/95 22 34.4 4.2 73.29 23.0 477.0 23.8 508.0**2~.5** 

### 465.0**~8.9** 

### 483.0**~7.3** 

### 435.0 '"Cl 

### :Pi 08/02/95 23 97.5 3.2 71. 53 25.3 423.0 27.1 454.0 24.1 401.0**2~.** 

### 7**4~4.0 2~.4**  

### 389.0 t':l Z 

### 08/03/95 

## o**~06.3** 

### 4.5 70.31 25.0 486.0 26.6 534.0 23.9 486.0 22.4 505.0 21.2**44~.0** 0 

### 08/03/95**~04.5** 

### 5.1 69.65 24.2**53~.0** 

### 25.7 585.0 23.6 536.0 22.0 552.0**21.~** 

### 486.0 H 

### :Pi 08/03/95 2**~27.8** 

### 5.6 70.26 21.2 533.0 23.6 589.0**2~.2** 

### 526.0**~9.7** 

### 558.0**~8.2** 

### 483.0 X () 

## :r: 08/03/95 3**~~9.2** 

### 6.2 70.70 21.8 528.0 22.2 540.0 19.6 497.0**~8.6** 

### 506.0 17.8 442.0 );l 3: 

### 08/03/95 4**~~8.6** 

### 6.0**70.6~** 

### 21.0 503.0**2~.5** 

### 539.0**~8.3** 

### 491.0**~7.6** 

### 492.0**~7.4** 

### 456.0 

### Yes I:I1 -' 

### Z 08/03/95 5**~20.2** 

### 4.8 70.28 22.4 534.0 23.0 530.0 20.4 491.0**~8.3** 

### 495.0**~8.4** 

### 445.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 6 124.4 3.8 72.79 22.9 542.0 21.6 594.0 19.3 523.0**~7.2** 

### 540.0**~5.5** 

### 467.0 

### Yes f-1 

### 08/03/95 7**~69.7** 

### 7.6 79.06 19.8 569.0 20.7 580.0 17.0 521.0**~3.6** 

### 551.0 11.8 467.0 

### Yes "'d 

### 08/03/95 8 177.6**~0.7** 

### 84.32 16.2 554.0**~8.5** 

### 572.0**~5.5** 

### 521.0 11.6 533.0 9.8 475.0 

### Yes 11 

### 08/03/95 9 196.2 9.3 87.32 13.4 592.0 16.9 584.0 14.5 528.0**1~.7** 

### 550.0**~0.7** 

### 496.0 

### Yes :::l 'tl 

### 08/03/95 10 211.9 9.7 90.62 12.2 558.0 16.5 567.0 13.9 521.0 11.5 533.0 10.0 482.0 

### Yes D SU lO 

### 08/03/95 11 220.6 9.2 93.14 14.0 547.0 17.9 560.0 H.6 504.0 11.1 522.0 10.J. 468.0 

### Yes }::f CD 

### 08/03/95 12 213.7 8.8 93.41 15.6 535.0 19.3 535.0 15.5 '493.0 13.2 506.0 11.6 451.0 

### Yes -I f-1 

### 08/03/95 13 194.1 10.3 94.24 14.6 536.0 19.0 569.0 16.2 515.0 14.3 535.0. 12.9 481.0 

### Yes I I 

### 08/03/95 14 182.5 11.5 97.88 10.0 562.0 13.7 551.0 12.4 498.0 11.4 512.0 9.9 458.0 

### Yes I:'> f-1 

### 08/03/95 15 193.410.8 97.44 10.0 573.0 14.1 560.0 12.8 472.0 12.5 505.0 10.0 434.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 16 207.4 10.7 96.20 11.8. 523.0 16.0 562.0 14.7 488.0 H.4 534.0 J.l.8 458.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 17 223.4 9
..8 94.56 16.5 545.0 19.0 598.0 17.5 533.0 15.8 579.0 13.4 502.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 18 217.3 9.5 91.43 20.2 621.0 20.3**7~3.0 ~9.8**  

### 646.0**~8.2** 

### 636.0**~6.6** 

### 549.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 19**~95.2** 

### 5.5 85.88 25.6 529.0 27.5 594.0 23.5 540.0 21.3 538.0 J.9.5 466.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 20**~~4.2** 

### 3.4 78.35 29.3**5~5.0** 

### 31. 0 573.0 26.7**53~.0** 

### 24.8 528.0 23.9 467.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 21**~46.5 4.~**  

### 76.49 28.4 543.0 30.0 549.0 26.7 489.0 21.5 486.0 J.9.8 432.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 22**~43.0** 

### 3.7 74.63 24.9 528.0 26.5 522.0 24.2 484.0 J.8.4 470.0 J.7.0 423.0 

### Yes 08/03/95 23 148.3 4.2 73.92 23.1 527.0 25.0 517.0 23.7 485.0 16.5 464.0 15.8 429.0 

### YeS 08/04/95 

## o 145,8 3.3 73.40 22.3 550.0 24.4 560.0 22.7 507.0 16.2 502.0 J.6.1 443.0 08/04/95 1 149.5 3.8 74.11 19.7 507.0 23.5 547.0 20.6 479.0 14.7 451.0 12.4 381. 0 08/04/95 2 151. 3 3.9 75.06 16.3 475.0 20.9 521.0 18.5 448.0 12.8 421.0 9.9 362.0 08/04/95 3 157.6 4.8 75.26 17.5 475.0 20.2 495.0 17.7 449.0 13.8 434.0 12.5 390.0 08/04/95 4 142.0 3.0 74.60 18.3 489.0 20 1 500.0 19.3 456.0 14.6 442.0 13 8 398.0 08/04/95 5 145.9 3.7 74.19 J.9.1 486.0 21 1 508.0 21. 0 457.0 15.9 456.0 15 2**4~8.0** 

### 08/04/95 6**~70.5** 

### 4.9 75.80**~7.0** 

### 493.0 18 6**S~2.0** 

### 15.9 477.0**~3.2** 

### 483.0**~2** 

### 6 439.0

/"-,**.~** 

### ""'. .-, .-, r-. r- r- f' 

### . ,.....

# ,--"

FollansbeeDirecSite 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

tion Speed Temp Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Vessel A Date 

### fu: l.!&gl 

## 'lMEHl. J..:.£:L 

## 10 illMl. 

## .il::l. 

# ..u:.oo .il::l. (FPM) 

## 10 lliMl. 

## .u::L illMl. Operatinq 08/04/95 7 199.8 8.4 76.63 16,.7 493.0 17.6 490.0 14.5 457.0 12.8 463.0 13.3 419.0 08/04/95 8 208.3' 8.9 77.66 17.5 523.0 18.5 538.0 15.6 490.0 13.8 485.0 14.5 442.0 08/04/95 9 200.6 9.9 81.10 14.8 501.0 15.8 552.0 13.3 509.0 11.5 492.0 11.4 441.0 08/04/95 10 218.6 9.1 82.88 14.2 504.0 15.4 586.0 13.3 536.0 12.0 540.0 11.6 482.0 08/04/95 11**245~2** 

### 10.2 82.19 16.9 591.0 15.8 696.0 14.0 625.0 13.9 599.0 12.9 518.0 08/04/95 12 242.6 7.7 75.87 23.8 698.0 19.5 809.0 17.3 740.0 20.6 679.0 20.4 584.0 08/04/95 13 263.8 5.0 74.82 20.9 652.0 17.8 737.0 15.1 676.0 16.4 625.0 16.3 539.0 08/04/95 14 286.5 8.5 76.55 18.8 566.0 19.4 626.0 17.7 559.0 14.6 526.0 13.9 470.0 08/04/95 15 300.8 4.9 75.11 23.6 674.0 22.3 756.0 20.0 659.0 19.7 615.0 17.9 536.0 

### :J::l 08/04/95 16 201.4 6.1 76.51 25.4 612.0 25.1 639.0 21.8 561.0 17.7 541,0 17.3 487.0 Yes t-el 

### 08/04/95 17 268.4 5.0 76.56 22.9 564.0 24.5 588.0 20.6 533.0 15.6 531.0 15.2 479.0 Yes t-el 

### 08/04/95 18 306,0 5.0 74.64 28.1 598.0 28.4 630.0 25.0 567.0 19.5 554.0 19.3 480.0 Yes t':l 

### 08/04/95 19 171.2 3.5 73.41 31.7 648.0 33.2 677.0 30.1 595.0 22.4 556.0 19.8 477.0 Yes Z 08/04/95 20 104.9 3.0 72.24 27.7 595.0 27.5 627.0 26.3 557.0 18.6 509.0 17.7 451.0 Yes 0 H () 

### 08/04/95 21 118.9 4.0 71.66 26.6 567.0 28.3 568.0 27.1 511.0 20.7 495.0 18.0 438.0 :><: 

## ::r: 08/04/95 22 136.3 3.7 71.30 23.7 562.0 24.4 554.0 24.9 515.0 18.8 498.0 16.3 438.0 

### :J::l 3: 

### 08/04/95 23 124.5 3.6 71.28 22.6 560.0 23.3 564.0 23.0 513.0 16.4 487.0 15.4 433.0 tr:I 

### Z 08/05/95 0 50.1 3.1 71,.08 21.1 528.0 22.6 531.0 20.7 493.0 16.7 501.0 15.9 449.0 f-1 1-3 

### 08/05/95 1 44.2 2.8 70.74 22.1 536.0 23.2 547.0 21.5 498.0 16.4 480.0 16.0 426.0 Yes 

# .. 08/05/95 2 122.5 4.5 70.68 23.8 558.0 25.4 595.0 22.9 545.0 17.1 510,0 15.3 442.0 Yes I-' t-el 

### 08/05/95 3 121.6 4.5 70.48 26.1 553.0 26.2 554.0 23.9 505.0 18.1 497.0 17.5 452.0 Yes OJ 

### 08/05/95 4 115.1 3.9 70.19 24.1 533.0 25.3 527.0 22.2 471.0 17.4 487.0 16.2 435.0 Yes lQ ttl 

### 08/05/95 5 105.9 4.1 69.82 23.0 507.0 25.2 505.0 22.2 446.0 17.4 479.0 15.8 433.0 Yes CD p; lQ 

### 08/05/95 6 12.9 7.2 70.07 18.4 470.0 22.2 497.0 19.2 453.0 15.0 480.0 13.4 431.0 

### :J::l CD 

### 08/05/95 7 348.7 8.3 70.38 20.6 548.0 23.3 591.0 21.3 529.0 15.8 521.0 12.7 470.0 I-' 

### 08/05/95 8 120.7 3.8 70.22 22.6 543.0 25.3 571.0 22.7 514.0 16.5 506.0 14.2 453.0 f-1 

### 08/05/95 9 176.3 5.2 69.46 22.2 553.0 23.8 580.0 21.4 510.0 14.8 483.0 13.7 425.0 I I (J1 

### 08/05/95 10 140.9 4.6 69.15 23.1 517.0 22.9 562.0 20.3 472.0 13.8 446.0 13.3 414.0 08/05/95 11 149.5 4.3 70.87 19.1 496.0 19.2 512.0 16.4 453.0 11.6 431.0 11.5 396.0 08/05/95 12 200.3 4.4 72.62 16.7 449.0 16.4 470.0 14.6 403.0 9.6 380.0 8.6 349.0 08/05/95 13 10.6 3.1 72.79 15.8 444.0 16 .•5 490.0 15.4 414.0 10.5 379.0 8.7 331.0 08/05/95 14 13.5 4.9 72.86 17.1 478.0 18.3 514.0 16.3 451.0 12.7 422.0 12.6 384.0 08/05/95 15 195.4 4.0 72.73 18.5 496.0 19.8 541.0 17.6 475.0 13.6 442.0 12.7 389.0 08/05/95 16 165.3 4.3 72.60 19.0 491.0 19.5 532.0 18.1 459.0 13.6 427.0 12.5 370.0 08/05/95 17 198.4 6.8 72.40 20.2 483.0 21.6 487.0 19.7 435.0 14.6 416.0 14.0 376.0 08/05/95 18 173.8 4.6 71.47 18.1 474.0 19.8 513 .0 18.6 465.0 13.5 421.0 12.9 

### 386.0 08/05/95 19 137.4 3.1 70.56 17.6 442.0 20.4 485.0 20.2 437.0 14.0 397.0 13.3 364.0 08/05/95 20 94.9 4.5 69,.91 16.5 411.0 20.1 459.0 18.3 415.0 13.5 392;0 12.2 367.0 08/05/95 21 89.1 5.1 69.65 15.9 394.0 18.9 434.0 16.2 388.0 14.5 413.0 13.4 '370.0 08/05/95 22 98.5 5.3 69.47 18.2 415.0 20.3 438.0 16.5 408.0 15.0 412.0 14.6 375.0 08/05/95 23 97.6 4.5 69.02 18.2 432.0 19.7 450.0 17.2 412.0 15.3 423.0 15.3 381.0 08/06/95 0 57.6 3.7 68.33 18.5 451.0 19.9 470.0 17.5 428.0 15.8 425.0 15.5 381.0 08/06/95 1 81.9 3.2 67.97 19.0 421.0 20.5 432.0 17.7 407.0 15.7 404.0 15.8 366.0**~,**

### FollansbeeDirecSite 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

tion Speed Temp Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Vessel·A Date 

### H.t:.• 

## 1M£H1. 

## .D:L J.E:L illMl. J.E:L J.EEMl. If:.:l (FPM) 

## If:.:l lE2Ml. 

## J.E:L illMl. Qperatinq 08/06/95 2 44.6 4.3 67.86 18.7 403.0 19.6 418.0 18.0 386.0 15.2 384.0 15.1**355~0** 

### 08/06/95 3 57.9 5.1 67.72 18.6 381.0 19.2 399.0 17.6 353.0 14.7 355.0 13.6 302.0 08/06/95 4 33.7 5.0 67.55 18.6 361.0 20.3 386.0 18.5 354.0 15.1 348.0 14.3 309.0 08/06/95 5 20.6 6.1 67.30 22.1 370.0 25.0 373.0 22.4 332.0 17.6 353.0 17.2 301.0 Yes 08/06/95 6 13.3 5.9 68.17 20.0 440.0 22.3 448.0 20.6 410.0 16.1 426.0 15.4 394.0 08/06/95 7 2.5 5.6 69.80 19.1 414.0 19.7 426.0 19.6 386.0 15.2 411.0 13.6 377.0 08/06/95 8 356.2 8.6 72.29 16.6 428.0 17.0 438.0 16.4 409.0 13.4 439.0 12.8 414.0 08/06/95 9 354.9 8.7 74.75 14.0 380.0 15.0 428.0 14.7 401.0 11.1 427.0 9.8 399.0 08/06/95 10 4.7 10.2 77 .35 12.9 382.0 14.7 436.0 13.3 412.0 10.5 438.0 9.1 412.0 Yes )::I 

### 08/06/95 11 7.8 9.2 79.36 15.0 390.0 16.8 436.0 14.8 408.0 10.9 435.0 9.1 392.0 Yes lj 

### 08/06/95 12 11.1 9.9 81.49 16.9 389,0 20.3 394.0 18.2 381.0 13.6 424.0 10.9 394.0 Yes lj 

### :t:' 08/06/95 13 9.0 9.1 82.92 18.2 402.0 21.7 428.0 20.1 401.0 14.7 440.0 11.1 403.0 Yes :rl 

### 1-3 

### 08/06/95 14 355.5 9.4 84.04 14.7 360.0 16.8 377.0 16.7 366.0 13.2 399.0 11.1 367.0 Yes 

## z: ::J 

### 08/06/95 15 2.6 7.4 84.75 18.1 449.0 20.6 482.0 18.5 450.0 14.3 499.0 11.8 450.0 Yes --l () 

### 08/06/95 16 2.6 7.6 84.72 23.6 457.0 27.8 470.0 24.9 429.0 19.9 487.0 15.6 434.0 Yes 

## x: 

## ::r: 08/06/95 17 5.7 6.5 83.28 26.5 518.0 29.8 521.0 26.6 464.0 20.4 486.0 16.0 433.0 Yes )::l 3: 

### 08/06/95 18 16.3 5.6 80.76 28
.. 9 516.0 30.4 494.0 29.7 444.0 23.8 489.0 20.0 430.0 Yes J:Ij 

### Z 08/06/95 19 11.0 6.8 74.68 35.5 528.0 36.2 516.0 36.0 464.0 29
..3 454.0 25.6 441.0 Yes -1 

### 1-3 

### 08/06/95 20 12.6 8.2 72.50 35.2 570.0 36.6 559.0 35.6 486.0 30.5 790.0 25.4 438.0 Yes f-1 

### 08/06/95 21 8.9 6.6 70.60 33.9 523.0 35.1 497.0 35.0 454.0 30.0 965.0 24.4 423.0 Yes "'d 

# .. 08/06/95 22 3.8 5.5 69.68 31.7 508.0 31. 9 493.0 32.6 446.0 28.3 953.0 22.9 411.0 Yes 11 

### 08/06/95 23 7.8 4.4 68.52 30.7 564.0 31.2 547.0 30.5 488.0 25.8 -1.0 23.0 451.0 Yes Ilj 

### 08/07/95 0 5.9 4.7 67.85 30.0 -1.0 30.2 618.0 30.2 547.0 23.6 -1.0 21.0 459.0 1) III 

### to 08/07/95 1 12.7 3.8 66.90 27.5 -1.0 27.7 604.0 27.0 550.0 22.1 -1.0 20.8 483.0 )::I CD 

### 08/07/95 2 11.5 3.9 66.02 26.0 -1.0 26.4 593.0 26.0 562.0 20.7 -1.0 19.7 475.0 -1 f-1 

### 08/07/95 3 18.6 3.6 65.48 24.6 -1.0 25.5 585.0 25.6 549.0 20.0 -1.0 18.8 455.0 I I 

### 08/07/95 4 44.0 3.2 65.01 25.8 -1.0 26.3 590.0 25.0 542.0 19.7 -1.0 18.6 451.0 Yes 1) w 

### 08/07/95 5 54.0 2.9 64.72 25.1 -1.0 26.3 587.0 25.4 531.0 18.4 974.0 16.3 408.0 Yes 08/07/95 6 72.7 3.4 65.76 22.9 -1.0 25.0 597.0 21.9 547.0 16.7 979.0 15.6 472.0 Yes 08/07/95 7 50.4 2.2 68.60 18.2 -1.0 22.0 597.0 20.6 551.0 14.4 967.0 13.0 498.0 Yes 08/07/95 8 163.9 4.4 74.97 17.2 533.0 19.0 585.0 15.8 544.0 11.4 942.0 10.2 511.0 Yes 08/07/95 9 164.0 5.8 79.07 16.0 541.0 17.1 590.0 14.3 529.0 11.0 953.0 10.1 509.0 Yes 08/07/95 10**159~4** 

### 7.3 82.47 16.0 514.0 18.3 561.0 15.5 486.0 12.4 914.0 10.5 485.0 Yes 08/07/95 11 137.1 6.2 83.24 23.2 501.0 22.1 477 .0 18.6 470.0 15.2 910.0 14.2 443.0 Yes 08/07/95 12 109.7 7.3 84.03 26.6 535.0 24.1 505.0 20.4 492.0 16.2 973 .0 15.1 473.0 Yes 08/07/95 13 125.8 7.6 84.92 24.4 -1. 

### 0 22.5 526.0 18.0 504.0 14.8 933.0 13.8 

### 466.0 Yes 08/07/95 14 122.3 8.4 87.63 16.4 419.0 16.6 433.0 13.8 401.0 10.9 701.0 8.8 373.0 08/07/95 15 113.4 10.0 86.23 16.3 426.0 18.4 434.0 17.0 414.0 14.2 743.0 13.0 384.0 08/07/95 16 116.4 11.2 83.14 17.2 386.0 17.4 404.0 16.3 392.0 14.1 712.0 12.7 369.0 08/07/95 17 105.4 9.6 81. 07 15.1 413.0 15.4 459.0 14.5 416.0 12.6 733.0 11. 7 403.0 08/07/95 18 105_7 7.2 76.86 19.4 408.0 18.8 445.0 17.4 395.0 14.7 735.0 13.3 349.0 08/07/95 19 109.4 7.1 73.08 22.0 474.0 22.2 495.0 21.2 453.0 17.4 798.0 16.0 411.0 08/07/95 20 115.2 7.4 70.03 27.0 477.0 25.4 490.0 23.9 443.0 19.0 778.0 17.6 380.0



### ,...., ,...., 

### ""' !"""', !""'" r**~.**



### FollansbeeDirecSite 1 

### Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 

### Site 

### 2-

tion Speed Temp Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Vessel A Date Hr (MPH) 

## ..L.EL. .1.EEMl. (FPM) 

### l.O (FPM) 

### l.O J..El:M.L 

### JE:L ..!.E.EML Operatinq 08/07/95 21 110.8 5.0 68.29 24.2 503.0 23.5 506.0 22.0 482.0 18.4 818.0 17.1 431.0 OB/07/95 22 105.6 4.6 67.47 23.6 453.0 22.7 473.0 21.0 424.0 18.2 772.0 17.1 384.0 08/07/95 23 102.3 3.9 66.78 24.0 445.0 23.3 446.0 20.9 405.0 18.4 757.0 17.8 367.0 OB/08/95 

## o 111.7 4.5 66.57 22.3 437.0 21. 7 445.0 19.6 427.0 17.7 779.0 17.6 396.0 08/08/95 1 99.6 3.8 66.20 20.5 478.0 21.2 504.0 18.8 474.0 16.4 801.0 16.2 422.0 08/08/95 2 101. 3 3.7 65.66 18.7 393.0 20.5 430.0 18.5 391.0 15.5 701.0 14.6 349.0 08/0B/95 3 83.2 3.7 63.84 21.4 428.0 23,3 460.0 21.2 430.0 17.8 721.0 16.B 385.0 08/08/95 4 108.3 3.7 63.65 20.1 383.0 21.4 421.0 19.9 387.0 17.5 673 .0 17.2 335.0 08/08/95 5 112.2 4.5 63.55 20.6 459.0 21.7 483.0 19.7 444.0 16.8 730.0 17.0 404.0 

### :J:l 08/08/95 6 131. 3 5.6 64.73 18.0 406.0 19.1 428.0 16.3 393.0 14.3 678.0 14.1 362.0 I"(J 

### 08/08/95 7 133.1 5.2 66.87 15.7 482.0 17.9 520.0 14.6 493.0 12.6 750.0 12.7 436.0 I"(J 

### 08/0B/95 B 140.8 6.4 70.36 13.7 430.0 15.3 446.0 13.5 411.0 10.6 687.0 10.3 387.0 l:'1 

### 08/08/95 9 127.4 7.3 71.81 14.2 415.0 15.7 410.0 14.7 380.0 12.1 682.0 11.3 376.0 

### Z t:1 

### 08/08/95 10 117.9 8.0 73.42 13.7 393.0 15.1 376.0 13.8 362.0 12.0 651.0 11.3 348.0 H () 

### 08/08/95 11 121.6 9.1 75.85 12.7 450.0 13.3 420.0 11.9 404.0 9.6 678.0 9.3 389.0 X 

## ::r: 08/08/95 12 132.5 7.7 73.77 14.5 403.0 16.0 414.0 14.6 384.0 13.1 691.0 12.6 372.0 

### :J:l 3: 08/08/95 13 150.7 5.2 73.99 14.8 444.0 16.2 434.0 14.2 414.0 12.5 693.0 11.8 379.0 tx:l 

# . Z 08/0B/95 14 16B.5 5.0 74.52 15.2 478.0 17.5 494.0 15.8 452.0 12.6 724.0 12.3 406.0 f-I 

### J-3 

### 08/08/95 15 111.4 8.2 76.12 13.2 468.0 15.5 501.0 13.5 463.0 10.7 724.0 10.1 397.0 

# .. j-! 

### 08/08/95 16 89.8 7.5 77,75 10.5 36.9.0 12.1 3.98.0 10.B 364.0 8.3 649.0 7.6 342.0 I"(J 

### 08/08/95 17 115.3 7.9 76.49 9.2 308.0 10.3 370.0 9.6 314.0 7.9 626.0 6.3 297.0 ·OJ 

### 08/08/95 18 109.7 6.0 73.87 15.4 393.0 18.4 440.0 16.6 412.0 15.7 710.0 13.7 392.0 lQ tU 

### 08/08/95 19 102.8 7.1 70.27 16.6 311.0 17.9 364.0 16.6 335.0 16.0 644.0 14.8 311.0 

### Yes CD OJ lQ 

### 08/08/95 20 110.7 7.6 69.37 19.8 334.0 20.4 343.0 18.9 314.0 17.6 644.0 15.9 304.0 

### Yes 

### :J:l CD 

### 08/08/95 21 113.3 7.7 68.99 24.7 451.0 24.9 441.0 21.4 408.0 19.1 714.0 17.3 370.0 

### Yes 

# . 08/08/95 22 117.7 5.9 68.10 22.9 455.0 23.0 444.0 19.2 400.0 16.4 695.0 15.3 370.0 

### Yes f-I j-! I I 

### 08/08/95 23 129.3 4.6 67.45 22.3 488.0 24.2 489.0 20.8 439.0 16.5 717.0 15.2 392.0 

### Yes -.J If:> 

### 08/09/95 

## o 128.6 6.3 65.80 27.0 529.0 27.8 498.0 24.1 457.0 20.2 754.0 18.3 421.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 1 126.6 6.0 64.84 27.6 501.0 27.5 476.0 24.7 431.0 20.1 727.0 18.4 401.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 2 118.0 8.2 65.47 24.5 506.0 26.0 475.0 23.2 433.0 18.7 737.0 16.6 420.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 3 126.8 5.4 63.60 26.5 486.0 28.2 462.0 24.7 426.0 21.8 717.0 19.2 401.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 4 135.6 4.3 62.33 28.2 519.0 28.4 493.0 25.8 438.0 22.8 736.0 20.9 420.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 5 131.2 3.3 61.94 23.0 487.0 24.4. 475.0 20.9 447.0 19.0 726.0 19.5 406.0 08/09/95 6 61.9 2.4 62.61 20.7 462.0 21. 7 455.0 19.0 429.0 16.2 709.0 15.1 402.0 08/09/95 7 110.5 3.1 66.25 14.9 451.0 17.3 460.0 13.5 438.0 11.7 715.0 11.8 411.0 

### 08/09/95 8 139.7 

### 5.5 69.99 12.7 481.0 14.3 481.0 11.0 456.0 9.1 736.0 B.B 422.0 08/09/95 

### 9 138.0 5.8 70.80 12.7 445.0 13.7 450.0 11. 3 467.0 10.7 721.0 11.0 427.0 08/09/95 10 145.2 6.6 71.47 14.1 402.0 15.0 393.0 12.9 416.0 12.1 673.0 12.5 372.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 11 169.1 5.7 74.06 14.6 481.0 15.3 486.0 12.2 475.0 11.0 735.0 11. 7 428.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 12 154.3 5.3 74.77 16.5 518.0 18.7 523.0 14.8 485.0 11.9 762.0 11.5 442.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 13 96.5 4.8 75.39 17.2 466.0 18.2 450.0 15.2 436.0 12.3 704.0 12.0 399.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 14 146.5 6.2 74.55 16.0 423.0 17.7 420.0 14.9 424.0 13.6 694.0 13.9 377.0 

### Yes 08/09/95 15 150.9 5.1 76.13 J.3.7 433.0 17.4 435.0 14.1 430.0 11.4 710.0 9.8 390.0 

### Yes

### FollansbeeDirecSite 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

tion Speed.Temp Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Vessel A. 

### Date Hr JQgg"L 

### (MPH)
.

## .L.El.- ..Ln (PPM) 

## ..Ln lHM.l.. (PPM) 

## ..Ln (PPM) 

## ..Ln (PPM) Operatina 08/09/95 16 158.3 5.5 77.53 18.6 484.0 18.9 474.0 14.9 443.0 11.5 737.0 11.0 408.0 Yes 08/09/95 17 160.3 7.4 76.41 20.4 480.0 19.7 439.0 16.5 456.0 14.7 745.0 14.7 427.0 08/09/95 18**163~9** 

### 7.1 74.60 17.3 489.0 18.3 485.0 16.6 488.0 15.8 775.0 14.8 450.0 08/09/95 19 119.1 6.0 72.66 17.8 481.0 18.5 483.0 17.2 487.0 16.6 777.0 15.9 450.0 08/09/95 20 118.9 6.0 70.65 19.5 413.0 20.4 429.0 18.7 438.0 18.3 722.0 18.3 407
..0 08/09/95 21**121~6** 

### 4;2 69.42 22.1 447.0 20;8 432.0 18.4 418.0 17.4 708.0 17.1 380.0 Yes 08/09/95 22 100.0 3.8 68.89 26.0 551.0 25.5 539.0 20.8 492.0 18.4 778.0 18.1 459.0 Yes 08/09/95 23 92.5 5.9 68.12 26.2 543.0 27.1 520.0 22.5 477 .0 18.9 780.0 18.6 462.0 Yes 08/10/95 0 97.4 6.0 67.59 25.8 524.0 26.9 474.0 21.4 457.0 19.2 753.0 20.4 446.0 :J:::! 

### 08/10/95 1 154.5 3.5 67.86 22.7 507.0 25.0 480.0 19.7 459.0 17.8 742.0 18.2 433.0 

### r-o 08/10/95 2 118.3 4.3 66.57 22.3 533.0 24.3 513.0 19.4 481.0 17.2 764.0 17.7 443.0 

### r-o ;J;I 

### 08/10/95 3 121. 9 5.7 66:74 20.4 525.0 22.6 516.0 18.3 479.0 15.8 764.0 16.3 445.0 t:r:I 1--3 

### 08/10/95 4 120.7 4.1 66.06 22.3 535.0 23.5 529.0 19.4 488.0 16.6 759.0 17.3 453.0 Yes Z 1--3 tJ ;J;I 

### 08/10/95 5 116.5 3.4 65.88 23.7 537.0 23.9 543>.0 21.4 488.0 16.0 754.0 16.4 439.0 Yes H () 

### 08/10/95 6 126.8 3.6 67.44 21.8 546.0 23.3 557.0 21.2 499.0 13.9 763,0 13.9 438.0 Yes 

## :x: ::r: 08/10/95 7 129.1 5.1 70.28 20.1 571.0 21.3 573.0 19,4 514.0 12.2 771.0 11.6 449.0 Yes :J:::! 3: 

### 08/10/95 8 163.9 5.6 72.42 22.2 550.0 22.8 518.0 18.7 459.0 12.8 764.0 13.0 440.0 Yes t%j 

# . Z 

### 08/10/95 9 154.5 6.3 73.48 18.7 547.0 22.1 520.0 21.9 483.0 15.2 805.0 13.7 456.0 Yes I--' 1--3 

### 08/10/95 10 179.8 7.0 75.12 16.3 494.0 19.4 457.0 19.0 426.0 14.3 773.0 13.0 433.0 Yes I-' 

### 08/10/95 11 178.5 6.3 77..66 14.5 524.0 17.1 485.0 17.0 472.0 12.6 798.0 11.4 453.0 Yes 

### r-o 08/10/95 12**193~4** 

### 5.4 8L09 11.4 512.0 13.8 481.0 12.4 455.0 9.0 767.0 8.7 429.0 Yes OJ 

### 08/10/95 13 193.0 6.5 84.09 11.3 494.0 13.5 475.0 10.7 452.0 8.8 757.0 9.8 419.0 Yes lQ ttl 

### 08/10/95 14 257.4 7.6 84.84 15.6 548.0 1.7.5 574.0 14.3 529.0 12.0 810.0 11.6 455.0 Yes (1) OJ 

### 1.0 

### 08/10/95 15 269.3 6.3 85.35 .18.0 668.0 16.2 732.0 12.9 646.0 11.8 893.0 11.4 522,0 Yes :J:::! (1) 

### 08/10/95 16 255.3 6.2 85.11 19.8 661.0 19.7 718.0 16.7 628.0 14.7 900.0 13.0 513.0 Yes 

# . 08/10/95 17 260.1 5.4 83.34 23.0 657.0 23.2 709.0 20.1 627.0 16.8 916.0 15.5 508.0 Yes I--' I-' 

### 660.0 583.0 18.2 896.0 16.6 468.0 Yes I I 

### 08/10/95 18 287.5 5.1 80.04 24.7 618.0 26.9 24.7 

### co lJl 

### 08/10/95 19 17.1 2.9 75.75 30.1 616.0 31.6 635.0 29.8 562.0 23.3 890.0 19.5 444.0 Yes 08/10/95 20 88.1 3.7 73.09 27.7 587.0 28.7 576.0 27.4 526.0 21.0 848.0 19.0 435.0 Yes 08/10/95 21 127.5 3.8 71.99 24.0 535.0 27.7 536.0 26.2 484.0 20.3 818.0 17.9 415.0 Yes 08/10/95 22 122.2 3.8 70.81 23.5 543.0 26.8 539.0 23.1 490.0 19.7 826.0 18.6 449.0 Yes 08/10/95 23 119.5 3.3 70.01 23.9 532.0 25.8 522.0 24.3 474.0 19.3 793.0 17.8 411.0 Yes



# -- Note: Follansbee wind speed and direction from 30-meter level atWV DEP meteorological tower.

(-'.**,~.**
r- r- 

### r--. ,-**.~**,- ,- '""\ 

### '""'**~""-', .~** 

# ( APPENDIX A.2 COMMENTS FROM OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ON EARLIER SUBMITTAL OF PLUME RISE RESULTS

## ( 

# "CHDEA\ StateofOhioEnv;ironmentalProteCtionAgency STREETADDRESS: IIAIUHGADllRESS: 1800WaterMark Drive COIumbus,OH43215-1099


### January 26, 1996 :raE: (61<4)**644-302<l1'~** (6,1<41'644-2329

.. ' .. '. . -, ' 

### . ";"

.**~"'.,...** - ,-**:.~** .. . , ..'l'P.O. Box 1049 CoIlJrnbus,**OH~16-1049**



### . : '-;'::.



# (

( W. R. 

### Samples, Ph.D., Director, 'Environmental Control Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation Duvall Center Wheeling, WV 26003 Dear Dr. Samples: I am writing to convey the results of our review of several submittals by WPS/EEM supporting proposed source characterizations for soUrces to be modeled> with the BLP model. These sources include the Blast Furnace, the Basic'OxygenFurnace and the Coke Batteries. The development of, the needed**par~eters** 

### was to ,follow a procedure provided to WPS by Ohio EPA in a letter dated June 16, 1995. This involved the placement of wind and temperature sensors on the BFand BOF sources in such away as to measure the heat flux across the area of ernission egress. For the. coke batteries, either video documentation or measurement of the heat plume. downwind•• Of, the batteries was to. provide· a basis for estimating the heat flux from the batteries. After discussions and consultations between Ohio" West Virginia., Region III and Region V concerning these submittals, we have the following' comments. General: EEM calculated source average temperature differences and wind speeds, incorporating those**re~ults** 

### into the calculation of F'. The correct procedure for calculating the sotirce flux would be to calculate the F' for each of the individual sample pairs and then calculate the average F'. Blast Furnace: The procedure used to monitor the heat flux from this source is consistent'. with the protocol. Basic Oxygen Furnace: The monitoring was performed in a manner essentially consistent with the protocol. As stated in the 6/16/95 letter, though, only that area encompassed by the monitoring would be credited with •the calculated flux
... It was assumed that each furnace would have a similar heat flux. Since the monitors were spaced at approximately 9 meter intervals, the 

# * Printed on Aecyc:led Paper George V. Volnovlch, Governor Nancy P. Hollister, Ll Governor Donald R. SChregardus, Director 

## APPENDIKA.2,Page A.2-1

## five monitors. on the east side. would only span 36 meters. ( Assuming an. equal coverage on.the second furnace would yield a total length of 72 meters instead of the 91. 4 meters contained in the' EEM F'calculations. Coke Batteries: 

## Neither of the two approache's'identifiedin the protocol were followed. Instead, an approach similar to that applied to the BF and BOF was followed. Only Battery 8 was monitored. A primary difference between the batteries and the other two sQurcesisthe lack of an actual a'rea of opening through which the flux is flowing. Therefore, a flux calculation consistent with the BF and BOF cannot be calculated. On the other hand, there are multiple heat sources of varying intensity and duration along the entire length of the battery. The data collected do indicate that a heat flux does exist at the battery. However, the question remains what volume
..of plume shouid be assumed to have the observed temperature increase. We accept the assumptions that the flux which is calculated would apply to the entire length of the battery and to the vertical rate indicated by vertical flow measurements . Given the potential for edge effects, though, we reconunend that the temperature. increase be applied to the span covered by the temperature probes and not extrapolated to the. full width of the batteries. with these caveats, we.accept the use of the collected information for this study. Batteries 1, 2 and 3we:r-e assumed to average half the temperature increase and and half the flow. of battery 8 due to the shed· over one side. of the battery which·collectedemissions and heat. It is quite possible that the variability of temperature difference from one battery to the next could be on the order of a magnitude
.. WPS has assumed that both the temperature and flow were 50 percent(L e.1, 

## roughly one fourth the heat flux) of that calculated for battery 8. A. 

## similar·portion of the width of Batteries 1,2 

## and 3 which was calculated for.battery8 would also be credited. We would accept this approach for these batteries. The videos. which**W'er~·suppliedby** 

## EEM provided no support**~or** 

## plume rise from these sources. Ohio EPA intends to compare plume rise calculatedbyBLP.· to real. world observations
. If these cOlUparisons indicate that the calculated values· are out of line with reality, the F'calculations or the use of BLP will be revisited. (

(

(

(



## Once the. remaining <

## inventory revisions are completed, an alternative '1996' attainment demonstration can be completed. If you have any questions concerning this response, please feel free to contact me at 614-644-3618. ( 

## (

APPENDIXA.Z,Paae A.2-2

# ( ( Sincerely,·

# f!4-k~ 

# . .... Wl.lll.am F. Spl.res, Meteorologl.st Division of Air Pollution Control cc:Jim Orlemann,DAPC Tom Kalman, DAPC John Summerhays, Region V Tom Casey, Region III Tim Carrol, WV Sama.r Joshi, WV Larry Simmons,· EEM

APPENDIX A.2, Page A.2-3

# (

( 

## , 

## (

APPENDIX A.3 RECOGNIZING BUOYANCY OF HEATED FUGITIVE EMISSIONS FROM BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE AND BLAST FURNACES PRESENTED AT ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS IN THE METALS INDUSTRY FOR THE 2pt 

## CENTURY MARCH 31

- APRIL 

## 2, 1998 PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA AIR & 

## WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

# (



# (

( Recognizing Buoyancy ofHeated Fugitive Emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces and BlastFurnaces
William R. Samples, Ph.D. Director. Environmental Control Wheeling-PittsburghSteel Corporation 1134 MarketStreet Wheeling, WV 26003-2971 William V. Plliomik, Jr. Environmental Coordinator Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation SouthThird StreetExtension

Steubenville, OH 43952 Larry L. Simmons, P.E. Principal Energy &Environmental Management, Inc.

4115 William Penn Highway, Suite201 Murrysville, PA 15668-1809 ABSTRACT Reviewofairdispersion models reveals tl1atno EPA Regulatory model is available to represent the dispersionofaheated Iilgitive emissionincomplex terrain..· Fugitive emissions from sources such as basicoxygenfurnaces andblastfurnaces are treatedas volume sources in the EPA models(SCST3 and AERMOD and aredispersedas ground-huggingemissions. A"ground-hugging" dispersiontreatment of the sourceyields high property line impacts. However. when observing fugitive elnissions from vesscl charges, itis obvious the emissions leave the structure withasignificant vertical velocity inducedby the buoyancydifference betweenthe heatedemission and the ambientair. The EPA approvedmodel, Buoyant Lineand Point(BLP) model,may beused to representthedispersion ofthese sources intlallerraill. However, BLP has notbeenapproved for use in complex terrain. This paperpresents atechnique by which the BLPderivedbuoyancy from theheated fugitiveemission is incorporatedinto an EPAapprovedmodel forimpactassessmentincomplex terrain. Fieldtested values ofplume buoyancy from abasic oxygen furnace andablast furnacearepresented. Results are presented from dispersion model runs with and withoutthe field measured buoyancy effects forthe Basic Oxygen Furnace(BOF) and BlastFurnace (BF) in complex terrain to demonstratethe intlueneeofbuoyancy. INTRODUCTION Fugitive emissions from theroofmonitor(RF) ofabasic oxygenfurnace (BOF) oracasthouse of ablast furnace (BF) must beincluded indispersion model based StateImplementation Plans (SIP). These fugitive emissions are released from the top ofthestructure as convection-driven flows exitthe structure. The convection-driven exhaustair is heated above ambient, thus resulting in averticalrise of the exhaustair. Historically, the fugitive emissions from the BOF and SFhave been treated as avolume sourcein the EPAmodels suchas the Industrial Source Complex ShortTerm (ISCST3). Avolume source is configured using avirtual pointsourcealgorithm in ISCST3 1and does not have any plumerise because thevolume source treats theemission as "cold." Dispersion modeling using ISCST3 tends to 

### 683



## Appendix A.3 J 

## PageA.3-1 of 8create "ground-hugging" impacts withthevolume source. This isinsharpcontractto theobvious plume rise seen ataBarorBF. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation(WPSC) operates BlastFurnace No.5 (4,500 tons perday) and aBOF(9,000tonsperday) atMingoJunction, Ohio. DevelopmentofaPMIO SIPrequired dispersionmodeling ofthese facilities. Computergenerated impacts from the BOFat Mingo Junction, Ohio were seen as notbeingrealisticbecause ofthe lackofplumebuoyancy. Negotiations with theOhio Envirorunental ProtectionAgency(OEPA) resultedin an approvedprotocol to measure theplume buoyancy from theBOFand BFatMingoJunctionand to incorporate themeasured plumebuoyancy into adispersion model.
. Vertical riseofaheated fugitiveemissionis afunction ofthetemperaturedifferenceoftheeluissionand ambient, the exhaustvelocityandconfigurationofthe source. Thebuoyancyparameterused within the BuoyantLine and PointSource(HLP) DispersionModel isrepresentedbythe following equation: 

## ( (

(

(

where F' 

### =**~g** __ L

__**W_m_w~** .• _(T_,_-_T a _)

. T, F' 

### =the average line sourcebuoyancy parameter(m4 /sJ) g =the acceleration ofgravity (9.81 m/s2 ) L =the line source length (01) W

m =the line source width (01) w 

### =the exitvelocity (rn/s) T, =theexittemperature (OK) T. =the ambienttemperature (OK)! Equation (I )
(

The BLP modelwas developedto representfugitive emissions fromelevated line sources. A BOFRoofMonitorand BlastFurnace(BF) Casthousearc long line sources thathave releases ofheated fugitives andare well suitedforapplication forBLP. Thisreportpresents results oftesting atthe BOFRoofMonitorand BF#5 Casthouse atMingo Junction to develop the independentvariables forinputto Equation l. MONITORING PROTOCOL BOFRoofMonitor Atotal ofseven thermocouples/ducted anemometers was placed in theroofmonitor.· Results were recorded continuouslyevery 15 scconds andreferenced to the BOFclockto understand howplant operations influenced the exhausttempcratll1'e and speed. The sevensensors were spacedto measure the influenceofasingle vessel. Locationofthe sensors is showninFigure I. Avideo camerawas directed towardtheeastroofmonitorfortheduration ofthe study. The sensors \Vere spacedat9.2meterintervals. BFRoofMonitor Testing included aducted velocity sensorand thermocouple atfour locations inthe roofmonitor ofBlastFurnaceNo.5 as shownin Figure2. Outputsignals from the sensors were readevery 15 seconds and recorded. The testwas run for approximatelyoneweek. Avideo camerawas directed toward the south sideofthecasthouseforthe durationofthe study.



### 684



## Appendix A.3, Page A.3-2 of 8 ( \

# (

(



# c

l

(

### RESULTS BOFRoofMonitor Testingwas conductedover11 12-dayperiod. Datawererecorded every 15 seconds andprocessed forhourly avemges. Meteorologicaldatafrom the WestVirginiaDEPtowerform thebasetemperatureagainstwhichthe sevensensors arecompared. Asummary ofthe datais listedbelow: Temperature ExhaustVelocity Difference (FO) (FeetperMinute(FPM)) Site 1 Site2 Site 3 Site4 Site 5 Site6 Site7 Meanfor EastSide MeanforWestSide 23.0 24.1 21.7 17.6 16.4 23.5 17.7 20.6 20.6 542.4 579.1 513.2 518.5 456.4 385.4 305.1 521.9 345.3 

# ( Preliminaryresults fromearliertesting showthattheoperationalstatus ofany single vessel does not have adramaticeffectonthe temperaturedifference and exhaust velocity from theroofmonitor
..As longas one ofthetwovessels is operational, we expectthatthe mean values listedabove arerepresentativeofBOFoperations. Accordingly, dIeabove results canbe llsed forbothVessel Aand Vessel Bin calculatingtheBOFbuoyancyparameter. Plumebuoyancy was calculatedforeachmatchedpairoftemperature differenceandvelocity. Results werepresented fora sourcelengthof73.5 meters andasourceheightof2.4 meters. TheEast RM had aplume buoyancyof167.9m 4 /sJ• The West RM hadaplume riseof110.9m 4 /sJ•.The BLP manual recommends averagingthe twovalues. Therefore, the F'will be: 

### F' = (167.9 + 110.9)/2 = 139.4 m4 /s J Equation (2) BlastFurnace#5 Testingwasrun overasix-dayperiod. Datawere recordedevery 15 seconds andprocessed for hourly averages. MeteorologicaldatafromtheWest VirginiaDEPtowerform the basetemperatures againstwhichthe four sensors are compared. Asummaryofthedata is listed below: Temperature ExhaustVeloDifference. (FO) city
.(FPM) Site I Site2 Site3 Site4 Mean 40.19 43.73 40.36 38.17 40.61 313.60 322.62 341.74 322.60 325.14



## ( The 115 hours oftestingresultedinamean temperature difference of40.61 F" andamean exhaustspeedof325.14 feetperminute. Plumebuoyancy (F') was calculated foreachpairoftemperature difference and velocity dataandthosevalues averaged as inputto the equation. This suggestedprocedure was followed using asourcelengthof25 meiers and sourceheightofI meter foreachmatched pair ofdata. TheF' determined fromthe full setoftests was28.96 m 4 /s3

•


### 685



## AppendixA.3, Page .A.3-3 of 8DispersionModeling BLP is arolling terrainmodel whichisnotapprovedbyEPAforcomplex terrain,Le., terrain aboveplumerise. The BLPbuoyancyparameterwas incorporatedinto acomplex terrainmodel using thehourlyBLPplumerise transferredinto theIntegrated OaussianModel (10M) usingprocedures developedby Energy &Environmental Management, Inc. for the PMIOSIPinAllegheny County, Pennsylvania.(J)
. OEPAdispersion modelingforthe PMIOSIPin JeffersonCounty, Ohioutilizedthe ISC model. 10Mallowsthe use ofISCforflatterrainandtheuseoftheRoughTerrain Diffusion Model (RTDM). Testruns ofISCSTJusingComplexIwere madetocompareto 10M runs using the BLP plume buoyancyforthe ISCSTJ flatterrain modein 10Mand forRTDM incomplex terrain. The 382receptors selectedby OEPAforthe PM,oSIPwereused. Theoneyearofon-sitemeteorological datafrom the WV DEP site inFollansbee, WestVirginiawasused as perthe OEPA guidanceforthe PMIO SIP. Results forthe BOFmodelingareshowninFigure3. MaximumISCSTJ impactwas 54/lg/m) versus the maximumBLPbuoyancy valueof43 /J.g/m). Thegreatbulkoftile values intile scalierplot are higherforISCSTJ. Results forthe BFmodeling are showninFigure4. Maximum ISCSTJimpactwas 47/lg/m) versus the maximum BLPbuoyancyvalueofII j.lglml • All values inthe scatlerplotwerehigherfor ISCSn Therelatively lowrelease heightoftheBFand itsproximity to the property line arethe major factorforthe large difference in modeledimpacts betweenthetwo procedures. CONCLUSIONS Buoyancyoffugitive emissions from BasicOxygenFurnaces and BlastFurnacescanbe measured. Dispersionmodeling impacts, whenincorporatingbuoyancy, are reduced whencomparedtothe historicalpracticeofmodelingheated fugitive emissions as volume sources inlSCSTJ. REFERENCES I. "User's Guide/orthe IndustrialSource ComplexDispersionModels, Volume II- Descriptionof ModelAlgorithms,"U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, EPA-450/4-92·008b, March 1992. 2. Defined as Equation2-47 in "BI/oyantLineandPointSource (BLP) DispersionModel User's Guide,"PB81-164642,July 1980
.

. 3. Weaver, C.J. and D.A. SUllivan,"ModelingPM IOEmissionsjrontCoke Ovens/orAllegheny County'sPM/IIState ImplementationPlan,"A&WMA 88thAnnual Meeting, SanAntonio, Texas, June 18-23, 1995.



### 686



## Appendix A.3, 

## Page A.3-4 

## of8 

## (



# ( (

(

(

(

(



### l

(·Figure 1. 

### Testingsites at Basic OxygenFurnaceatMingoJunction, Ohio
..

l'i o**--~-_** ....**~,.-** 

### ,- z iii : 

# i:
•.

_ _ L'•.**~It 1II1~**  I I I I 

# ._.1-

1 

# !

--- 1 , --' 

# (

687



## AppendixA,3, Page A"3-5 of 8

## (

l"igure2. SideviewofBlastFurnaceNo.5 atMingoJunction, 

### Ohio,

i i i i CR SPAN
I Ii i i 

### I 

# ( (

(

(

(

15 NORTH SLAG TRACK
5 10 SCAlE - F£[1

I I "- 3/4' PI..
.. . .... HEAT SHIEU'
.. ... .. I 

### ! i i i i i

# ~~===+=====t==f~ i i i 

## i I i i i i 

### !

688



### Appendix A.3, Page A.3-6 of 8

## (

Figure3. Comparison ofmaximum24·hourPMIOimpacts ofBOFroofmonitoremissions using ISCST3 in volume source modeand 10M usingmeasuredBLP buoyancy.

Volume Source Height = 51.2 Meters Emission Rate = 4.68g/s BOF 

## 50
40
(Y) < 

# ( E


# -- 30 CJ) :J (Y) I'- (J) U (J) 

## 20
10



# o o "

" /

..'


## I. "**~,**

## ....

10 20 30 40 IGM wI 

### BlP Buoyancy (ug/mA

### 3)



### 689 

## 50

Appendix A.3, Page A.3-7 of 

### 8Figure4. Comparisonofmaximum24·HourPMIOimpactsofBFNo.5 casthouseemissions using ISCST3 involumemodeand 10M using measuredBLPbuoyancy. 

# ( (

(



# c

(



### 40

('f) < 

### 30 E


# -- 01 :J ('f) I- (j) 

### 20 

## u (j)


### 10



# o o / 

### ../ /;/ /////



### ../ /' 

# //

10 20 30 40



### IGM wIBLP Buoyancy (ug/m"3)

690



## AppendixA.3, PageA.3-Sof 8 

## 50 

# ( (

(



# c

(

# (



# (

( APPENDIX B PM10 

### ALLOWABLE EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR

WHEELING-PITTSBURGH STEEL CORPORATION FACILITIES IN JEFFERSON AND BROOKE COUNTIES

## (



# (

( APPENDIX B.1 PM10 

### ALLOWABLE EMISSION CALCULATIONS FOR YEAR 2005 PLAN FOR MINGO JUNCTION FACILITIES

## (



# (

( Ilvllngo .JUnellon emission**~ummary** Allowable PM10 (Ib/hr) 24-Hour Annual
a. Mingo Junction Energy Center 

### 17.60 10.88 b. Blast Furnace Storage Piles 

### 0.47 0.47 c. Blast Furnace Materials Handling 

### 3.77 1.19 d. Blast Furnace Stove 

### 2.71 2.71 e. Blast Furnace Fugitives 

### 5.74 4.40 f. Blast Furnace Baghouse 

### 2.41 2.41 g. Blast Furnace Flue Dust Handling 

### 0.07 0.01 h. Skip Car 

### 0.42 0.42 i. Blast Furnace Gas Flare 

### 1.63 1.37 j. BF Backup Materials Handling 

### 3.01 0.69 k. Desulfurization Baghouse 

### 2.75 2.75 Fugitives 

### 0.19 0.14 I. Hot Metal Transfer Baghouse 

### 1.61 1.21 Fugitives 

### 0.33 0.25 m. BOF Materials Handling 

### 3.33 3.33 Scrap Handling 

### 0.39 0.39 n. BOF Shop A & B Scrubber 

### 5.83 2.91 Fugitives 

### 28.06 14.01 Preheater 

### 1.20 1.20 o. CAS-OB Operation 

### 0.69 0.34 Materials Handling 

### 0.04 0.02 Heater 

### 0.00 0.00 p. Non-Casting Reladling 

### 0.24 0.24 

### q. Slab Caster 

### 1.50 1.33 r. Hand Scarfing 

### 1.13 1.05 s. Reheat Furnaces 

### 2 6.00 6.00 3 6.00 6.00 4 6.00 6.00 t. Dekishing Station 

### 0.00 0.00 u. Cooling Towers 

### 0.11 0.11 v. Roads 

### 7.67. 7.24 w.Olympic Mill Services 

### 3.98 3.98 x. Electric Arc Technology EAFBaghouse 

### 17.97 15.08 Ladle Preheater 

### 0.10 0.08 MaterialsHandling 

### 1.40 1.40 Storage Silos 

### 0.46 0.40 FluxWeigh Hopper 

### 0.03 0.03 y. Emergency WaterPump 

### 0.08 0.00 z. BF Waste Water Lime Silo 

### 0.22 0.22 TOTAL 135.13 100.25 

## Appendix B.I, Page lOf 26

# a. Mingo Junction Energy Center new source - not in JEFFINAL Model Inventory (Source 9232)

I 

### EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD



## PM10 

# = 17.60 Ib/hr PTI
EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD 

## PM10 

# = 10.88 Ib/hr EAF netting increses requestfrom 45 

# . tons/year allowable to 47.64 tons/year

Appendix B.l, Page26f 26 ( 

## (

(

(

( 

# ( (

(

(b. Blast Furnace Storage Piles JEFFINAL Model Source 915 1741090010 F002 1. Load-In, Batch Drop, No Controls
Material Method 1 Moisture Content (%) 4 Transfer Rate

(tons/hr) TSP2 Emission Factor (Iblton) TSP Emissions

(Iblhr) PM10 2 Emission Factor (Iblton) PM10 Emissions

(Ib/hr)
Pellets uonveyorrrom Primary pellets 2 312 0.0031 0.98 0.0015 0.46
2. Active Storage Piles
EF

## = 0.0029 Ib/hr/acre Storage Area: Area was divided into 3 squares measuring 76.2 m per side. A= 4.3 Acres TSP = 0.0124 Ib/hr PM 10 fraction found by using a ratio of batch drop particle size mUltipliers from AP-42 Table 112.3-2
x 

### =0.3510.74 =0.47 PM10= 0.0059 Iblhr 

# ( Total TSP = 0.99 Ib/hr PM10 

## = 0.47 Ib/hr 1. WPSC Pernil Appfication. 2. 8' = (k)(.0032) (LY5)**1.31 (M'2)-1.4 (Af'.42, p. 11.2.3-3) U = 6.19 nph at 10 rreter level at Follansbee rreteorological tower kTSP= 0.74 k PM10 = 0.35

Af'.42, FlQure 11.2.1-1 (9/88) Follansbee 1 D-rreter elevation rret data frequency distribution showed 95% of hourly winds at5.37 rreters or less. From Section 3,.1 Main Texl, Follansbee rret data frequency distribution showed 95% of hourly w!nds at 5.37 rreters/sec or less. Based on Response #3 in L.L. Simmons leiter (E2M-492-93) to Bruce Mlrgan dated March 8, 1993, which responded toJan 14,1993 leiterfrom George Czerniak of USEPA Region V.EPA questioned the**si~** fraction of pellets. A log plot of sieving data showed a siltfraction of 0.2%. 3. Estirreted errission potential does .notjustify conputation via Af'.42 13.2.2-1

Used Af'.42 p.11.2.3c5, rev. 9/88 8'= 1.7 (5/1.5) «365-p)/235) (f/15) (1/24) Where: 150 days

,2% 5= p= f=



### Appendix· B.I, 

### Page. 3 of 26c. Blast Furnace Materials Handling 1741090010 F003 JEFFINAL ModelSource 916 EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD 1. Load-In Raw Materials to Storaae Bins I M TSP 

# • Control TSP PM 10 PM 10 Material Method Moisture Throughput EF Efficiency Emissions EF Emissions content ('Yol ltonslhrl IIb/tonl ('Yo) IIb/hrl lIb/tonl IIblhrl· Pellets 1 Barge 2.0000 500· 0.0031 0 1.5627 0.0015 0.7391 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 .0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 .0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 500 I 0.0031 75 0.3907 0.0015 0.1848 Pellets 2 ClamShell 2.0000 312 0.0031 50 0.4876 .0.0015 0.2306 Dolomite Bottom Drop 

### 1d 350 0.0047 50 0.8182 0.0022 0.3870 Coke Bottom Drop 3.8 500 0.0013 50 0.3181 .0.0006 0.1505 Briquet Bottom Drop 1.5 350 0.0047 50 0.8182 0.0022 0.3870

Slag Bottom Drop 0.92 I 350 0.0093 50 1.6222 0.0044 0.7672 2. Load outfrom storage bins both batch and continuous are enclosed and use wet suppression,

and are negligible. Scrap is also handled, but contributes negligible particulate. Total 7.9712 Ib/hrTSP 6. 3.7702 Ib/hr PM10 6 EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD 1. Load-In Raw Materials to Storaae Bins M I TSP • Control TSP PM 10 PM10 Material Method Moisture Throughput EF Efficiency Emissions EF Emissions content ('Yo) (tons/hrl (Ib/tonl ('Yol (Iblhrl (Ib/tonl (Iblhrl Pellets 1 Barge 2.0000 251 0.0031 0 0.7845 0.0015 0.3710 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015 0.0928 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015 0.0928 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015 0.0928 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015 0.0928 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015 0.0928 Pellets 1 Conveyor 2.0000 251 0.0031 75 0.1961 0.0015**0~0928** Pellets 2 ClamShell 2.0000 50 0.0031 50 0.0781 0.0015 0.0370 Dolomite Bottom Drop 

### 1d 21 0.0047 50 0.0491 0.0022 0.0232 Coke Bottom Drop 3.8 225 0.0013 50 0.1432 0.0006 0.0677 Briquet Bottom Drop 1.5 53 0.0047 50 0.1239 0.0022 0.0586

Slag Bottom Drop 0.5 14 0.0218 50 0.1524 0.0103 0.0721 2. Load outfrom storage bins both batch and continuous are enclosed and use wet suppression,

and are nealiaible. Serao is also handled but contributes nealiaible narticulate. Total 2.5079 Ib/hrTSP 6: 1.1862 Ib/hr PM10 6 1. PrimaryFlux Pellet Unloading System PTI information FAXfrom H.G.Strohmeyerto L.L.Simmons**De~mber** 23, 1998 2; EF = (k)(.0032) [(U/5)-1.31 (M/2)**1.4] AP-42 13.2.4-3 U = 6.19 mph kTSP= 0.74 kPM10 = 0.35 3. The Material Pellets 1 Method Barge will be treated as Source 9186 in the dispersion modeling.

TheMaterial Pellets 1 Method Conveyorwill be treated**asSou~9187in** the dispersion modeling. The remainder ofthe Material will·be treated as Source 9152 in the dispersion modeling. 4. Pellets are limited to 2.2 million tons per year. Remainderoffeed rates are adjusted to a hot metal capacity

2.52 million tons peryearversus the 8,1 OOtons/day * 365 days/yearor2.953 million ton capacityfor both furnaces. 5. Moisture content is 0.92% in OMS PTI 6. Only one railcar bottom drop can occur at any time. Total emissions are calculated as a sumofnon-bottom drop sourcces andthe

hiohest bottom dron source. .: 

### Appendix B.• 1, Page· 4 ··of
.26 

# (

( (

(



# c



# c

(

(

(

(

## (



# (

( d. Blast Furnace 5 Stove 1741090010 P901A & 903A P903A

# =JEFFINAL Model Source 907 EfI..1ISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR M::>DELING PERIOD Blast Emission 1 2 Furnace Capacity I; Standard TSP PM10 Number (MM Btu/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 5 330 0.0082 2.706 2.706

EMISSION RATE FORANNUAL M::>DEl..ING PERIOD Blast 3 Emission 1 2 Furnace Capacity Standard TSP PM10 Number (MM Btu/hr) (lb/MM Btu) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 5 330 0.0082 2.706 2.706
Allowable TSP

# = 2.95 Ib/hrOEPA Value PM10

# =2.951b/hr 1. Wheeling Atlsburgh Steel accepted an allowable of 0.0082 Ib/M'v1 Btu as partof the Peroltto nstall

for the rebuild of Blast Furnace No.5. 2. PM10 fraction

## =1 3. Annualized eolssions set equal to 24-hourvalue



## Appendix B_1, PageS of 26e. Blast Furnace Fugitives 1741090010 903B P903B =JEFFINAL Model Source 908 EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD EF = 0.6 Ib/ton of hot metal AP-42 Table 12.5-1 Throughput BF#5 187.5 tons/hrhot metal 1 Uncontrolled TSP 112.5 Ib/hr Loss· Rate ofCapture Hood and Trough CO'l.ers = 10% 2 TSP 11.31b/hr PM10 Fraction = 0.51 AP-42 Table 12.5-2 PM10 = 5.741b/hr EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD PM10 Allowable 3 BF#5= 4.401b/hr

1. Blast Furnace No.5 w ill produce a maxirrum of 4,500 tons per day of hot metal fOran hourly rate of 187.5 tons per hour. 2. prJ limits opacity to 15 % as six rrinute average. 3. Hot metal is tapped for no rrore than 18 hours per day. Annualized PM10 fugitive errissions would be (18/24) • short-termvalue.


### f. Blast Furnace Baghouse JEFFINAL Model Source 935
PM 10 Fraction 

# = 0.957



# -- Allowable TSP (Ib/hr)= 2.52 OEPAValue 

### Allowable PM10(lb/hr) = 2.41

Appendix B" 1, 

### Page 6 of 26 

## (



# (

( (

(

(

(

(

(

(

# (



# ( g. Flue Dust Handling 1741090010 P903F P903F

# = JEFFINAL Model Source 940 Note: The Year 2000 PM10 Ran included erriSsions from AuelAlst Handing for a throughput of 5.12 tons per hour. These calculations replace those. EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD 1 Control TSP 5 TSP PM 10 PM 10 Process Method Moisture Throughput Efficiency EF Emissions EF Emissions Content (tons/hr) (%) Oblton) (Iblhr) (Iblton) (Iblhr) Load in from To dump truck from 2 3 blastfumace dust catcher 12.4 2.28 95 0.000243 2.77E-QS 1. 149E-D4 1.31E-D5 Load out to To pile from dump 2 storage plies truck 12.4 2.28 0 0.000243 S.54E-04 1. 149E-Q4 2.62E-Q4 Load out to rail From pile by front 4 12.4 83.3 0 0.000243 2.02E-Q2 1. 149E-Q4 9.57E-D3 cars end loader TOTAL 2.08E-02 9.8SE-Q3
EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD 20,000 tons Flue DusUyear 2 • 2.05 6 * TSP EF 5 * ton/2000 Ib= O.OOSO ton TSP per year 20,000 tons Flue Dust/year 2 *2.05 6 * PM10 EF 5 * ton/2000 Ib = 0.0024 ton PM10 peryear
1. WPSC Metallurgical Report (1990) 2. At a production rate of20,000 tons peryear, this is a total of54.8 tons/day or 2.28 tons/hour. 3. Load In occurs within a 3 sided enclosure w ilh water sprays resulting in a 95% control efficiency. 4. Loadoutto railcars is by frontloader. Twenty 100-lon railcars can be loaded in one day, for a throughput of 83.3 tonslhour. 5. EF = (k)(.0032) (U (1-WBY5)**1.3/ (M/2)**1.4 AP-42 13.2.4-3 U= 6.19 mph k TSP = 0.74 k PM10= 0.35 6. !'lJmber of applications of the drop equation is 1*(1-.95) for load-in of. 2 for load out to storage piles then to rail cars. My-Jack Roads (Unpaved) 0.02 miles = Estimated longest distance acrossunpa\ed My-Jack area 4.55 miles = Vehicle miles tra\€led per day. 20 rail cars are filled perday, each car holds six buckets. 9.51 Ib TSPNMT =EF = k * (s/12)"8 * (W/3)"b * 1-D.89 2.53 Ib PM10NMT= EF = k * (s/12)"8 *. (W/3)"b * 1-D.89 Where :k= 4.9 IbNMTforTSP 1.5 IbNMTfor PM10 s= 6.0000 % = Silt content of road surface material, AP-42 a\€ragefor Iron & Steel W= 38.5 tons = Mean \€hicle weight

a= 0.7 forTSP 0.9 for PM10 b= 0.45 forTSP 0.45 for PM10 89 % control efficiency for road dust suppression control perYear 2000 PM10 Plan. 0.1981 Ib TSP/hr = VMT/day * Ib TSPNMT * 1-control efficiency * (day/24hr) 0.0238 ton TSP/year = VMT/day * 10 days/year* Ib TSPNMT* 1-eontrolefficiency * ton/2000lb 0.OS28 Ib PM10/hr 0.0063 ton PM10/year



### Appendix 

### B.I, Page 7 of 26(

g. Flue Dust Handling (Continued) 

### Storage 

# ( (
For an active storage pile: EF = A= TSP= PM 10

## = 0.000243 Ib TSP/hr/acre 1 5 Acres 2 0.0012 Ib.lhr. 0.0001 Ib.lhr. 0.005 0.001 ton/year ton/year Wind Erosion: EF = TSP= PM 10 = 0.00288 Ib TSP/hr/acre 3 0.0144 Ib.lhr. 0.006811 Ib.lhr. 0.063 ton/year 0.030 ton/year (

(

( 

# ( AP-42, Figure 11.2.1-1 (9/88) Follansbee 1D-meterelevation met data frequency distribution showed 95% of hourly winds at 5.37 meters or less. From 2000 PM10 report, Follansbee met data frequency distribution showed 95% ofhourly winds at 5.37 meters/sec or less. % days % 0.2 150

5
s= 1. EF = (k)(.0032) (U/5)**1.3/ (M/2)**1.4 (AP-42, p. 11.2.3-3) U= 6.19 mph at 10 meter lewl at Follansbee meteorological tower M= 12.4 % moisture content k TSP = 0.74 k PM10= 0.35 2. This quantilyis the rraxirrum expected to be in storage atthe sne. 3. Estimated emission potential does not justify computation Ilia AP-42 13.2.2-1 Used AP-42 p. 11.2.3-5, rev. 9/88 EF = 1.7 (s/1.5) «365-p)/235) (f/15) (1/24) Where : p= f=

TOTAL EMISSIONS

( PM10 lPY 0.0024 0.0063 0.0006 0.0298 0.0391 Ib/hr

0.0098 0.0528 0.0001 0.0068 0.0696 lPY 0.0050 0.0238 0.0053 0.0631 0.0972 TSP Ib/hr 0.0208 0.1981 0.0012 0.0144 0.2346 Handling My-Jack Roads Actiw Storage Wind Erosion TOTAL

Ib/hr 0.2138 PTI Applicable Emissions - doesnotinclude perviou5lyapproved handling. TSP PM10 lPY Ib/hr lPY 0.0922 0.0597 0.0367 

# c

( AppendixB.l, Page 8 of26

# (



# ( h. Skip Cars 1741090010 P903E P903E 

# =JEFFINAL Model Source 942 

# I M 1 1 

### TSP 2 

### TSP PM10 2 

### PM10 Material Moisture Throughput EF Emissions EF Emissions content (%) (tons/hr) 

### (Ib/ton) (Ib/hr) 

### (Ib/ton) 

### (Ib/hr) BF#5 Skip Car Pellets 2.6 255 0.0022 0.5520 0.0010 0.2611 Dolomite 1.5 4 0.0047 0.0187 0.0022 0.0088

Coke 3.8 80 0.0013 0.1018 0.0006 0.0481 Briquet 1.5 25 0.0047 0.1169 0.0022 0.0553

Slag 0.92 3 

### 10 0.0093 0.0927 0.0044 0.0438



# - - TOTAL 

### 0.8821 0.4172 1. WPSC Perrrit Application 2000 PM10 Ran PTl 2. 

## s=

# =(k)(.0032) (U/5)**1.3/ (M'2)**1.4, AP-4213.2.4-3 U= 6.19 rrph kTSP= 0.74 kPM10 = 0.35 

### 3. Moisture content is 0.92% in OMS PTI



## AppendixB.l, Page 9 of 26

## i. Blast Furnace Gas Flare New source - not inJEFFINAL Model Inventory (Source 946) EMISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR MODHJNG PERIOD 

# ( (

( 

## BFG Throughput 

# = Heat Content - Emission Factor

# = TSP 

# = PM10 Fraction 

# = PM10 

# = 48.9000 MMCF/day 80.00 Btu/CF 0.0100 Ib/MM Btu 1.63Ib/hr 1.00 1.63 Ib/hr Accepted for Netting



# ( (

(

( 

### EMISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODELING PERIOD 

## COG Throughput 

# = Heat Content 

# = Emission Factor

# = TSP 

# = PM10 Fraction 

# = PM10 - 15,000.0000 MMCF/year 80.00 Btu/CF 0.0100 Ib/MMBtu 1.37 Ib/hr 1.00 1.371b/hr

AppendixB.1, Page 10 of 26 

## Accepted for Netting (

(

(

(

# ( j. BF Backup Materials Handling new source - not in JEFFINAL Model Inventory (Sources 9193, 9194, and 9195) 4 EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD Materials Handling Method Moisture content (%) Throughput (tons/hr) " TSP Control EF Efficiency (o/dlblton) TSP PM10 Emissions Emissions

(Ib/hr) (Iblhr) Oamfrom barge to bin, no control Bin to truck, 3-sided doghouse Truckdurrp to pile, no control Front loaderto raUcar, no control 223.2143 223.2143

, 223.2143 223.2143 

### o 75 

### o o 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.0031 0.6977 0.1744 0.6977 0.6977 2.2674 0.3300 0.0825 0.3300 0.3300 1.0724 Vehicle emissions, unpaved roads 8' = k [{s/12)Aa • {WI3)Ab] / [{M'0.2)"<:] • [(S/15)] • [(365-p)/365] AP-42, p. 13.2.2-3 (Rev. 9/98) Where: k= a= b= c= s= 8' = 2.5820 IbNMT Vehicle mles traveled: 2.6 for PM10 Q:l! for PM10 0.4 for PM10 0.3 for PM10

!! % siK contentof road W= M= S= P

## = gQ tons vehicle weight errpty §. tons vehicle weightfilled 0.2 % surface material moisture content 10 rrph average vehicle speed o days of 0.01" precipitation peryear


# ( Road length = 0.7014 mles one way 223.2143 tonslhour / 25 tonsnoad = VMT= 6.2625 per hour oncefun and once errpty With cherricaldust suppression app6cation every 2 weeks for an 94% control efficiency: 8.9286 tripslhour

Vehicle Enissions : 2.5820 IbNMT • 6.2625 VMTlhr· 2 passes· (1-0.89) = 1.94 Iblhr Total PM10 Emissions= 3.01 Ib/hr EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD Annualized modeling rate is short tel1Tl rate limited to 2,000 hours peryear 0.69 Ib/hr

1. Throughput: turnslweek• 4weeks/month· 8 hours/turn

## =672 hours/month 150,000 tons/mon 672 hours/month

### = 223.2143 tons/hour For annualized throughput: Operations w ill be irriled to 2000 hours/year. Shortterm throughputs are multiprlEld by 2000/8760=0.228. 2. 8'= (k){.0032) {lJ/5)"1.3/ {M'2)"1.4 AP-42 13.2.4 U= kTSP= kPM10= 3. Woisture contentfrom WPSCPerrril Application 6.19 rrph 0.74 Q12

4. Source 9193 is Alternate Flux PelletUnload 

### =sum of"clam from barge to bin, no control" and "bin to truck, 3-sided doghouse".

Source 9194 is Alternate Flux Pellet Road Source 9195 is Alternate Flux Pellet Trestle

### =sum of "truck dump to pile, no control" and "front loaderto railcar, no control".



### Appendix B.1, Page 11 of 26

### k1. 

### Desulfurization Baghouse 1741090010 P907A JEFFINAL Model Source 913 EMISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR MODaING PERIOD 

### PM 10 Fraction = 0.74 AP-42 Table 12.5-2


# - Allowables TSP= 3.7100 Ib/hr OEPA Value PM10 = 2.7454 Ib/hr

EMISSION RATEFORANNUALMODSJNG PERIOD 

### Allowables 1 

### TSP = 3.7100 Ib/hr OEPAValue PM10 = 2.7454lb/hr



### AppendixB.l, Page·.12··of 26 

## (



# (

( (

(

(

(

(

(



# c

(

# ( k2. Desulfurization Fugitives JEFFINAL Model Source 938 1741090010 P907B

EF 

### = Throughput = Uncontrolled TSP.= EMISSION RAlE FOR24-HOUR tvODELING PERIOD 

### 0.1084lb/ton of hot metal per Stack Test

187.5 tons hot metal/hr perWPSC decision 20.325 Ib/hr 2



### Loss Rate ofLocal Hood =

TSP = PM 10 Fraction =

PM10 

# = 0.05 1.02Ib/hr 0.19 0.19 Ib/hr OEPAAssumption

AP-42 Table 12.5-2


# ( Allowables EMISSION RAlE FORANNUAL tvODELING PERIOD

3 

### TSP = PM10 = 0.76Ib/hr 0.14 Ib/hr



# ( 1. Inlet loading at 79.1 #/hr at 768 tons of hot rretaVhour adjusted upward for 95% capture rate into inlet. 2. A"oduction requirerrent to process 4,500 tons per day of hot rreta!. 3. I-btrretal is tapped for no rrore thatn 18 hours per day.• The annualized operation of the desulfurization baghouse would follow this pattern. Annualized TSPerrissions would be (18/24) * 1.02Ib/hr = 0.76Ib/hr. Annualized A\1110 nerrissionswould be (18/24) * 0.19Ib/hr =0.14 Iblhr.



## Appendix B.l,Page130f 26

### I. Hot Metal Transfer F009A

# = JEFFINAL Model Source 943 F009B 

# =JEFFINAL Model Source 920 1741090010 F009 A & 

### B 

# ( (**~ctuals** 

### EF 

### = Throughput

# = Uncontrolled TSP 

### = EMISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR IvODRING PERIOD

0.19lb/ton 

### of metal AP-42 Table 12.5-1 187.5 tons/hr hot metal (4,500tons per day) 35;631b/hr (



### Hood Capture Efficiency 

### = Baghouse Efficiency 

### = Baghouse F009 A TSP 

### = PM10 Fraction 

### = Baghouse F009 A PM10 

### = Hood loss 

### = Fugitives F009 B TSP 

### = Fugitives F009 B PM10 

# = Allowables Baghouse F009 A TSP 

### = Baghouse F009 A PM10 

# = Fugitives F009 B TSP 

# = Fugitives F009 B PM10 

# = 0.8997 3.501b/hr 0.46 1.61 Ib/hr 2% 

### 0.71 Ib/hr 0.331b/hr
3.501b/hr 1.61 Ib/hr 0.71 Ib/hr 0.331b/hr Permit Application Stack Test (6105)


### AP-42 Table 12.5-2
Permit Application

OEPA**V~lue** 

# ( (

(

(

EI\IIISSION RATE FORANNUALlvOoalNG PERIOD 

### Allowables 

# c BaghouseF009 A TSP 

### = Baghouse F009 A PM10 

# = Fugitives F009 B TSP 

# = Fugitives F009 B PM10 

### = 2.631b/hr 1.21 Ib/hr 0.53lblhr 0.251b/hr 1. Hot metal is tapped for no more than 18 hours per day. The annualizedoperationof hot metal transfer would follow this pattern. Annualized emissions are (18/24) * 

### short term emissions.



### Appendix B.l,Page 14.of 

### 26 

## ( (

# ( m.1. BOF Materials Handling JEFFINAL Model Source 918 Materials Handling Fugitives 1741090010 F005



# ( M 1 TSP 5 6 TSP PM10 Material Method Moisture Throughput EF Effectil.e Emissions Emissions content (%) (tons/hr) (Ib/ton) Drop Points (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) Bumt Ume Truck/Rail car 0.7 2 100 0.0136 0.6 0.75 0.35 Dolomite Rail car 2.08 4 100 0.0030 0.6 0.16 0.08 0.91 0.43 OR: M 1 TSP 5 6 TSP PM10 Material Method Moisture Throughput EF Effectil.e Emissions Emissions content(%) (tons/hr) (Ib/ton) Drop Points (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) Fluorspar Truck 0.7 3 100 0.0136 0.6 0.75 0.35 Dolomite Rail car 2.08 4 100 0.0030 0.6 0.16 0.08 0.91 0.43 1. From Bill Polomik Telecon of 02123198 2. Engineering Estimate 3. AP-42 Table 13.2.4-1 4. Weighted MJisture contents from Cherrical Laboratory Results FAXed 01/06/98 5. EF

## =(k)(.0032) (U/5)**1.3 I (M/2)**1.4 AP-42 13.2.4
u = 6.19 mph kTSP= Q:H kPM10 = 0.35 6. Drop points : Control Efficiency: 1. From truck or rail to conl.eyor156 at feeders 0.90 Baghouse pickup point, 2-sided enclosure 2. From conj.eyor156 to**conl.eyor15~154** 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 3. From conl.eyor 153-154 to conl.eyor 157 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 4. From**con~or** 157 to conl.eyor 158 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 5. From conl.eyor 158 to conl.eyor 159 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 6. From conl.eyor 159 to conl.eyor 160 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 7; From conl.eyor 160 toconl.eyor 161 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 8. From conl.eyor 161 to bins 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 9. From bins to conl.eyor 184 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 10. From conl.eyor 184 to BOF Hoppers 0.95 Baghouse pickup point, 3-sided enclosure 9A5 Total Effectil.e Drop Points 

## =10 total drops - total control efficiency fraction (10 - 9.45

## =0.55) Materials Handling Baghouses 21,000 CFM Replacerrent Baghouse 51,700 CFM
.New Baghouse

0.01 gr/CF as above 6.23 Iblhr TSP 6.23 Iblhr PM10 assurred 100% Total Mate.rials Handling 7.14 Iblhr
.TSP 6.661b/hrPM10 Emission rates listed abol.e are hourly emission rates. The PM10 standard is a 24-hour standard. Materials handling at the BOF is limited to 12 hours. per day. Therefore, the PM10 emission rate al.eraged for a 24-hour day is 3.33lb/hr, which will be used forthe dispersion modeling. 

# ( Dispersion Modeling Allowable 3.57 Ib/hr TSP 3.33 Ib/hrPM10


### Appendix B .1, Page 15 of 26

## m.2. BOFScrap Handling New Model Source 9183 Emissions from A scrap 62,442 tons/year 

### * 0.009271b PM/ton scrap 

### * 3 drop points 

### * 0.473 PM10 fraction 

### * year/8760 hours 

# = 0,0938Ib/hr Emissions from remaining scrap 409,362 tons/year 

### * 0.009271b PM/ton scrap 

### * 2 drop points 

### * 0.473 PM10 fraction 

### * (1-.28 portion of clean home scrap) 

### * year/8760 hours 

# = 0.2951 Ib/hr 

## ( (

(

(

( 

### Total emissions 

### = 0.39 Ib/hr Short term modelling value::: long term modeling value.



### Appendix B..l Page 16 of 26 

## ( (

(

(

# (



# (

( '. n.1. BOF Shop A 

### &B Scrubber 1741090010 904A, 905A JEFFINAL Model Source 909 ErIiIISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD PTI Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003, page 47 of93, Emissions of PM1 0 shall not exceed 5.83 Ib/hr. Allowable = 5.83 Ib/hr
ErIiIISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODELING PERIOD PTI Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003, page 47of93, Emissions of PM10 shall not exceed 12.74 ton/yr. Allowable = 12.74 * 20000/8760 = 2.91 Ib/hr

n.2. BOFShopFugitives 17410900109048, 9058 JEFFINAL Model Source 910 EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD Pll Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003, page 47 of 93, Emissions of PM10 shall not exceed 28.06Ib/hr. Allowable = 28.06 Ib/hr
EMISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD Pll Application 06-07034, issued8/27/2003, page 47 of 93, Emissions of PM1 0 shall not exceed 61.37 ton/yr. Allowable = 61.37 * 20000/8760 = 14.01 Ib/hr



### Appendix B.l, pagelTof 26n.3. BOF Shop Preheaters Source 952 - not in original JEFFINAL file.

1 Emission 2 3 Heater Capacity Fuel Factor TSP PM10 Number (MM Btu/hr) Type (Ib/MM Btu) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 1 20 NG 0.020 0.40 0.40 2 20 NG 0.020 0.40 0.40 3 20 NG 0.020 0.40 0.40 4 0 NG 0.020 0.00 0.00



### - Totals 

### 1.20 1.20 1. Four heaters are installed. Only three are operated at one time. 2. OAC Rule 3745-17-10 (B)(1) for gaseous fuels and No.2 Fuel Oil. 3. PM10 fraction 

### = 1 0.1, CAS-OB Operation Source 948 BIIIISSION RATE FOR24-HOURMODB.JNG FffiIOD

Actuals Baghouse 1 Baghouse 1 1 PM10

Process Emission Rate Flow Duration Emissions (grains/act) (ACFM) (minutes) (Ib/hr) Cycle 0.002 40,000 48 0.549 Off-Gycle 0.002 4,000 12 0.014 TOTAL 60 0.562 Allowables Baghouse Baghouse 1 1 PM10 Process Emission Rate Flow Duration Emissions (grains/act) (ACFM) (minutes) (Ib/hr) Cycle 0.002 40,000 60 0.686 BIIIISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODaING FffiIOD Allowables 2

PM10 = 0.342 Ib/hr
1. Bill Polomik FAXofJuly 24, 1995 2. Annual value set equal to 24-hourvalue. 3. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation accepts an.annual capacity of1,640,OOOtons for BOF steel production. The short-term production is 375 tons/hour or3,285,000tons peryear. The annualized emissions would be 1,640,000/3,285,000 or 0.499 times the short-term value 

### Appendix B.l,. Page 18 of 26 

# ( (

(

(

(

(

(



# c

l

# (



# ( 0.2. CAS-QB Materials Handling Source 949 EMISSION RATE FOR 24-HOURMODaING PERIOD M 1 3 Numberof TSP 2 TSP PM10 2 PM10 Material Moisture Throughput Open Drop EF Emissions EF Emissions content (%) (tons/hr) Points (Ib/ton) (Ib/hr) (lb/ton) (Ib/hr) Cooling Scrap 0.1 2.78 3 0.0079 0.06561 0.0037 0.03103

Aluminum 0.1 1.89 1 0.0079 0.01487 0.0037 0.00703 MCFeMn 0.1 0.83 1 0.0079 0.00653 0.0037 0.00309

FeSi 0.1 0.06 

## 1 0.0079 0.00047 0.0037 0.00022 HCFeMn 0.1 0.83 1 0.0079 0.00653 0.0037 0.00309

Coke 

### QJ. 0.13 1 0.0079 0.00102 0.0037 0.00048 TOTAL 0.10 0.04 EMISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODalNG PERIOD Allowables 4 TSP = 0.051b/hr PM10 = 0.02 Ib/hr

1. Bill Polorrik FAX of July 24, 1995 2. EF = (k)(.0032) (U/5)**1.3/ (Ml2)**1.4, AP-42 13.2.4 U= 0.5 J11)h assurred inside BOF kTSP= 0.74 kPM10= 0.35 3. Maxirrumthroughputs fromT. Brow n FAX of July 21, 1998 4. Annualized value would be 0.499 tirres 24-hour value.
0.3. Heater-CAS-QB Operations Source 951 - not in original JEFFINAL file. Emission 1 2 Heater Capacity Fuel Factor TSP PM10 (MM Btu/hr) Type (lb/MM Btu) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) 1 0.2 NG 0.020 0.004 0.004



# -- 1. OACRule 3745-17-10 (B)(1) forgaseous fuels. and No.2 FuelOil. 2. PM10 fraction =1 

## Appendix B.l, Page 9 of 26

### p. Steel Reladle Source 953 -not in original JEFFINAL file. EMISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR MOOalNG FERIOD 

### EF

# = 0.07Ib./tonofsteel AP-42 Table 12.5-1 Throughput

# = 7.5 tons/hr WPSC Decision 1 

### Total TSP 

# = 0.531b/hr PM10 Fraction 

# = 0.45 Assuming teeming particle size distribution is similarto tapping. AP-42, Table 12;5-1 Total PM10 

# = 0.241b/hr EMISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODaING FERIOD 

### Allowables 5 

### TSP 

# = 0.531b/hr PM10 

# = 0.241b/hr

1. Steel Reladle of 2%· heats is expected. One heat every other day 

### is approxirrately 2% ofthetotal heats. A value of7.5 tons/hour represents 2% of the 375.0 tons/hour rraxirrum capacity. 2. Annual value set equal to 24-hour value.



### Appendix B.l,Page 20·of· 26 

## (



# (

( (



### ,**l~**

r \.

(

(

(

(

(

(

# (



# ( q. Slab Caster 1741090010 F010 JEFFINAL Model Source 921 Bv1ISSK>N RATE FOR24-HOUR MOORING PERIOD 

### EF

# = 0.004 Ib/ton 1 

### Throughput

# = 375 tons steel/hr

TSP 

# = 1.501b/hr PM10 Fraction 

# = 1.00 Assumed Total PM10 

# = 1.50 Ib/hr Bv1ISSK>N RATE FORANNUAL MOORING PERIOD 

### Allowables 2 

### TSP 

# = 1.331b/hr PM10 

# = 1.331b/hr

1. Estirrated by Chester 8wironrrentalletter Ref. No. 5270-64dated January 19, 1996 from C.A. Badali to W.R SaJlllles atWPSC. 2.•The slab caster will accept 1,640,000 tons/year from the BOFand 1,280,000 from the EAF. The annualized value would be the ratio (1,640,000+1,280,000)/(375*8760) or 0.889 tirres the short termvalue.



### Appendix B.l, Page 21 of 26

### r. Hand Scarfing 1741090010 F006 JEFFINAL Model Source 944 EMISSION RATE FOR24-HOUR MODBJNG PERIOD 

### EF 

# = 0.1 Ib/ton of metal AP-42 Table 12.5-1 Throughput

# = 12.24 tons/hr metal OEPA Calculations Uncontrolled TSP

# = 1.2241b/hr PM10 Fraction 

# = 0.92 AP-42 Table B.2-2 Category 8 Total PM10 

# = 1.1261b/hr EMISSION RATE FORANNUAL MODaING PERIOD 

### Allowables 1 

### TSP 

# = 1.1381b/hr PM10 

# = 1.0471b/hr 1 .•Some slabs are handscarfed prior to use at the BO-Inch Mil. These slabs typically represent a small percentage of the slabs used in the BD-Inch Mil (approximately 3% in 1995 and 1% in 199B). A capacity of 100,000 tons per year (3.4% of steel capacity linit of 2,950,000 tons of steel production)

### w ill yield an annual adjustment of 0.93.



### s. Reheat Furnaces 2 -4 1741090010. P006-8 JEFFINAL Model Sources 902 through 904 for Reheat Furnaces 2 through 4 Reheat 1 

### Emission 2 2 

### Furnace Capacity Standard TSP PM10 PM10

.Number (MMBtu/hr) (Ib/MM Btu) (Ib/hr) fraction (Ib/hr) 2 300 0.02 6 1 6 3 300 0.02 6 1 6 4 300 0.02 6 1 6



# -- - TOTAL 18 18 1. Iv1axilTlJm fuel capacity was deternined by adding the COG and NG capacity values during the actual operating hours. Furnace No. 4 has a capacity of 299.6 MM Btu/hr. Therefore, a value of 300 MM Btu/hr was selected for each furnace based on the 1991 PM10 plan. 2. OAG Rule 3745-17-10 (B)(1) for gaseous fuels and No.2 Fuel Oil. 

### Appendix B.l t 

## Page 22 of 26 

# (



# ( (

(

(



### l

(



# c

(



### l

# ( t. Dekishing Station Source 950 - not in original JEFFINAL Model Inventory U 1 M 1 3 TSP 2 TSP PM10 PM10 Process Wind Speed Moisture Throughput EF Emissions EF Emissions (mph) content (%) 

### (tons/hr) (Ib/ton) (Ib/hr) 

### (Ib/ton) (Ib/hr) Load in from Torpedo Car 2.25 0.1 0.25 0.0556 0.0139 0.0038 0.0009



# - Load Out by Front End Loader 2.25 0.1 0.25 0.0556 0.0139 0.0038 0.0009

to a Dump Truck 4.50 0.1 0.25 0.1369 0.0342 0.0092 0.0023



# - TOTAL 

### 0.0620 0.0042 1. Bill PolorrikFAX of July 20, 1995 2. EF = (k)(.0032) (U (1-WB)!5)**1.3! (M'2)**1.4 AP-42 13.2.4 kTSP= 0.74 k PM10= 0.05 Assume kish is proportionately largerthan most materials. 3. Throughput per Bill Polorrik FAXof July 20, 1995



### u. Cooling Towers Source 954 - not in JEFFINAL Model Inventory Average 1 Maximum 1 Total 2 TSP PM10 3 Tower Flow TDS Liquid Drift Emissions Emissions (gpm) (ppm) (Ib/M gal) (Ib/hr) (Ib/hr) BOF Gas Tower 19,350 650 1.7 1.28 0.01 Caster Spray System 4,000 2,000 1.7 0.82 0.01 80" Finish Mill 20,200 600 1.7 1.24 0.01 80" Run Out Table 14,000 600 1.7 0.86 0.01 South Blast Furnaces 3,700 6,000 1.7 2.26 0.03 Cogen·4 17,000 2,000 1.7 3.47 0.04



## - TOTAL 

### 9.92 0.11 1. Bill Fbloml< merroof Jan. 23, 1996 to C.A. Badali 2. Estimate fromAP-42 Fifth Edition, Table 13.4-1 for Induced DraftCooling Towers. 3. Calculated from AP-42 Fifth Edition, Table 13.4-1 for Induced Draft Cooling Towers. 

### Appendix•.. B.l, ·Page 23 ()f· 

### 26

### v. Roads and Parking Lots Road Controlled Section Emissions (Ib/hr) 24-Hour 1 Annual 2 Pa\ed

A 2.7800 2.7800 B 2.3522 2.3522 D 0.6304 0.6304 E 0.0004 0.0004 F 0.0000 0.0000 G 0.5978 0.5978 

### I 0.3081 0.3081 L 0.0000 0.0000 U 0.0000 0.0000 BB 0.0002 0.0002 HH 0.0001 0.0001 

## KK 0.0000 0.0000 Unpa\ed B 0.0692 0.0391 D 0.0527 0.0298 E 0.0389 0.0220 H 0.1634 0.0924 

### J 0.0847 0.0479 

## K 0.0142 0.0080 M 0.0095 0.0054 

### 0 0.0830 0.0469 Q 0.0347 0.0196 R 0.0314 0.0178 S 0.2665 0.1506 T 0.0689 0.0389 

### W 0.0191 0.0108 

### X 0.0073 0.0041 

### Y 0.0054 0.0030 

### Z 0.0111 0.0063 AA 0.0127 0.0072 CC 0.0014 0.0008 DD 0.0015 0.0009 EE 0.0035 0.0020 GG 0.0039 0.0022 HH 0.0085 0.0048 

### JJ 0.0114 0.0065 TOTAL 

### 7.6724 7.2362 1. 24-Hour emissions from·Appendix C 2. Annual emissions are calculated for pa\ed and unpa\ed roads separately. Pa\ed road 24-houremissions retained as annual. Unpa\ed road annual emissions are influenced by the number of rain days (148 peryear). Unpa\edannual emissions are calculated as Unpa\ed24-hour* (1-(148/365» or 59% of the Unpa\ed 24-hourvalues. 

### Appendix B.l , Page 24 

### of .26 

# ( (

(

(

(

(

(

# ( w. Olympic Mill Services Process PM10 Emissions Unpaved Roads 0.290 Ib/hr Prl Iron Beaching 0.0461b/hr PTI Button Lancing 0.0091b/hr Prl Storage Piles 0.0781b/hr Prl BF Slag Durrp 0.698 Ib/hr PTI BOF Slag Durrp 2.3071b/hr Prl 1 Kish Durrp 0.0841b/hr PTI Drop Ball 0.007 Ib/hr PTI Deskulling 0.011 ·Ib/hr Prl EAF/BF/BOF Slag Process 0.454 Ib/hr PTI TotalPM10 3.9841b/hr 1. Proposed change by Ohio EPA.
x. Electric Arc Technology EAF Baghouse PTI Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003 PM10 emissions 24 hour 

# = 17.971b/hr Maximum production is 7,700 hours/year. Annual emissions are 17.97*7700/8760= 15.08 Ib/hr Ladle Preheater A 25MMBtu/hr NG firedladle preheaterwill run 30 minutes per hour. NG emission factor is 7.6 Ib/MMCF 24-hour emissions are 25 MMBtu/hr* CF/1000Btu * 7.6 Ib/MMCF * .5

# = 0.095 Ib/hour Annual emissions are 0.095 * 7,700/8760 = 0.0835 Ib/hour Materials Handling PM emissions for materials handling for.the EAF/LMF are 0.00958 Ib/ton ofhot. metal.produced
.. For a production rate of 1.28 MM tons peryear, emissions are 1,280,000 * 0.00958* (1/8760) = 1.400 Ib/hourfor 24·hour and annual. Storage Silos Fourstorage silos will be located outside the EAF building. Each will ha\e a bin\ent filterwith an exhaust flow of650 ACFM and a PM outlet of0.02gr/ACFM. 24-houremissions are (650 *60 * 0.0217000 )*4= 0.46 Ib/hour Annual emissions are 0.46*7700/8760 = 0.40 Ib/hour Flux Weigh Hopper A flux batch weigh hopperwill be located inside the LMF building (70%RACM control).• It will ha\e a bin \ent filterwith an exhaust flow of200 ACFManda PM outlet ofO.02gr/ACFM. 24-hour emissions are (200*60* 0.0217000 )

# = 0.0343 Ib/hour Annual emissions are 0.01*7700/8760

# = 0.03 Ib/hour 

### Appen.dix B.l , Page 250f26( 

# ( y. Emergency WaterPump New Source - not in JEFFINALModelinventory (Source 975) WPSC wilUnstall a diesel powered emergency waterpump emitting 35.52 grams/hour or 0.0783 Ib/hoUf, 24 hourmodeling rate The pump will run no more than 500 hours/year, 0.0045 Ib/hour, annual modeling rate (

(

( 

# Z. 

# Blast Furnace Waste Water Lime Silo New SQurce- not included in JEFFINAL Model Inventory (Source 947) ( ( Flow

# = 1255.9 scfm Allowable 

# = 0.02 grains/dscf Temperature 

# = Ambient PM1 

# o Emissions 

# = 0.2153 Ib/hr

Appendix B.l, Page 26 of 26 

# ( (

(

(