(

(

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 m4 /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

E2M-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
Follansbee

Direction Speed Temp Ditt

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Date lit: 1MEHl. ...LZL 10 Speed

(FPM) J.E:1..

DUt Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed DUt Speed Vessel A lEEMl. 10 (FPM) J.E:1.. (FPM) 1U (FPMl Ooeratinq 08/02/95

08/02/95

12

13

229.4

218.1 6.4

5.6

92.50

90.73

6.5

7.3 448.0

422.0

12.2 471.0 8.1 434.0 5.4 432.0 4.5 394 .. 0

08/02/95 14 204.2 5.0 93.10 8.0 368.0

10.6 460.0 6.6 397.0 4.0 398.0 3.9 369.0

08/02/95 15 234.7 5.6 93.46 8.1 395.0

10.9 421.0 7.5 356.0 504 370.0 4.8 344.0

08/02/95 16 334.2 5.6 89.97 17.2 482.0

10.5

20.0

476.0 8.0 400.0 7.1 436.0 6.1 392.0 Yes

08/02/95 17 20.2 5.5 87.90 18.7 536.0 22.7

542.0 15.2 475.0 13.4 486.0 12.6 439.0 Yes

08/02/95 ~8 36.2 5.3 85.72 22.0 479.0 23.8

595.0 18.9 534.0 16.~ 5~0.0 ~5.3 442.0 Yes

08/02/95 ~9 40.1 6.7 83.35 30.4 429.0 27.2

535.0 20.5 488.0 18.8 504.0 18.3 442.0 Yes

08/02/95 20 68.4 7.5 80.63 27.2 486.0

467.0 22.7 460.0 20.7 482.0 21.4 427.0 Yes

:J::l 08/02/95 2~ 96.4 4.9 76.88 18.8 386.0

27.9

~9.7

486.0 23.5 464.0 20.9 490.0 21.0 436.0 Yes

'"Cl 08/02/95 22 34.4 4.2 73.29 23.0 4~6.0 ~8.2 369.0 ~7.2 41~.0 16.~ 366.0 477.0 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

0

Z 08/03/95

08/03/95

o ~06.3

~04.5

4.5

5.1 69.65

70.31 25.0

24.2

486.0 26.6 534.0 23.9 486.0 22.4 505.0 21.2 44~.0 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 ()

);l

: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 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

08/03/95 6

5

124.4

~20.2 4.8

3.8 72.79

70.28 22.4 534.0 23.0 530.0 20.4 491.0 ~8.3 495.0 ~8.4 445.0 Yes 22.9 542.0 21.6 594.0 19.3 523.0 ~7.2 540.0 ~5.5 467.0 Yes

"'d f-1 08/03/95

08/03/95 8

7

177.6

~69.7

~0.7

7.6

84.32

79.06 19.8 569.0 20.7 580.0 17.0 521.0 ~3.6 551.0 11.8 467.0 Yes 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

-I

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

I 08/03/95

08/03/95

14

13 194.1

182.5

10.3

11.5

94.24 14.6 536.0 19.0 569.0 16.2 515.0 14.3 535.0. 12.9 481.0 Yes 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

08/03/95 15

16

193.410.8

207.4 10.7

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 17 223.4

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

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 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

/"-, .~

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

Follansbee

Direction Speed Temp Diff

Site

Speed

1

Diff

Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 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

08/04/95

7

8

199.8

208.3'

8.4

8.9

76.63

77.66

16,.7

17.5

493.0

523.0

17.6 490.0 14.5 457.0 12.8 463.0 13.3 419.0

08/04/95 9 200.6 9.9 81.10 14.8 501.0

18.5 538.0 15.6 490.0 13.8 485.0 14.5 442.0

08/04/95 10 218.6 9.1 82.88 14.2 504.0

15.8 552.0 13.3 509.0 11.5 492.0 11.4 441.0

08/04/95 11 245~2 10.2 82.19 16.9 591.0

15.4 586.0 13.3 536.0 12.0 540.0 11.6 482.0

08/04/95 12 242.6 7.7 75.87 23.8 698.0

15.8 696.0 14.0 625.0 13.9 599.0 12.9 518.0

08/04/95 13 263.8 5.0 74.82 20.9 652.0

19.5 809.0 17.3 740.0 20.6 679.0 20.4 584.0

08/04/95 14 286.5 8.5 76.55 18.8

17.8 737.0 15.1 676.0 16.4 625.0 16.3 539.0

08/04/95 15 300.8 4.9 75.11 23.6

566.0 19.4 626.0 17.7 559.0 14.6 526.0 13.9 470.0 674.0 22.3 756.0 20.0 659.0 19.7 615.0 17.9 536.0 :J::l

t-el

08/04/95

08/04/95

16

17 268.4

201.4

5.0

6.1 76.51

76.56

25.4

22.9 564.0

612.0 25.1

24.5

639.0 21.8 561.0 17.7 541,0 17.3 487.0 Yes 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

:><: ::r:

() 08/04/95

08/04/95

21

22

118.9

136.3

4.0

3.7

71.66

71.30

26.6 567.0 28.3 568.0 27.1 511.0 20.7 495.0 18.0 438.0

:J::l

23.7 562.0 24.4 554.0 24.9 515.0 18.8 498.0 16.3 438.0 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

f-1 1-3

Z

08/05/95

08/05/95

1

0

44.2

50.1

2.8

3.1 71,.08 21.1 528.0 22.6 531.0 20.7 493.0 16.7 501.0 15.9 449.0 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-'

OJ

t-el 08/05/95

08/05/95

3

4 115.1

121.6

3.9

4.5

70.19

70.48 26.1 553.0 26.2 554.0 23.9 505.0 18.1 497.0 17.5 452.0 Yes 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;

:J::l

lQ

CD

08/05/95

08/05/95 7

6

348.7

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 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

08/05/95

10

11

140.9

149.5

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 12 200.3

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 13

4.4 72.62 16.7 449.0 16.4 470.0 14.6 403.0 9.6 380.0 8.6 349.0 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

~,
Follansbee

Direction Speed Temp Diff

Site

Speed

1

Diff

Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5 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

08/06/95 3

2 44.6

57.9

4.3

5.1

67.86

67.72

18.7

18.6

403.0

381.0

19.6

19.2

418.0 18.0 386.0 15.2 384.0 15.1 355~0

08/06/95 4 33.7 5.0 67.55 18.6 361.0 20.3

399.0 17.6 353.0 14.7 355.0 13.6 302.0

08/06/95 5 20.6 6.1 67.30 22.1 370.0

386.0 18.5 354.0 15.1 348.0 14.3 309.0 25.0 373.0 22.4 332.0 17.6 353.0 17.2 301.0 Yes 08/06/95

08/06/95

6

7

13.3

2.5

5.9

5.6 69.80

68.17

19.1

20.0

414.0

440.0

19.7

22.3 448.0 20.6 410.0 16.1 426.0 15.4 394.0

08/06/95 8 356.2 8.6 72.29 16.6 428.0

426.0 19.6 386.0 15.2 411.0 13.6 377.0

08/06/95 9 354.9 8.7 74.75 14.0 380.0

17.0 438.0 16.4 409.0 13.4 439.0 12.8 414.0

08/06/95 10 4.7 10.2 77 .35 12.9 382.0

15.0 428.0 14.7 401.0 11.1 427.0 9.8 399.0 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

f-1 08/06/95

08/06/95

21

20 12.6

8.9

8.2

6.6

72.50

70.60

35.2

33.9

570.0 36.6 559.0 35.6 486.0 30.5 790.0 25.4 438.0 Yes

"'d 523.0 35.1 497.0 35.0 454.0 30.0 965.0 24.4 423.0 Yes .. 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

-1

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

I

f-1

I 08/07/95

08/07/95

4

3 18.6

44.0

3.6 65.48 24.6 -1.0 25.5 585.0 25.6 549.0 20.0 -1.0 18.8 455.0 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

08/07/95 5

6 72.7

54.0

3.4

2.9

65.76

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 7 50.4 2.2 68.60

22.9 -1.0 25.0 597.0 21.9 547.0 16.7 979.0 15.6 472.0 Yes

08/07/95 8 163.9 4.4 74.97

18.2 -1.0 22.0 597.0 20.6 551.0 14.4 967.0 13.0 498.0 Yes

08/07/95 9 164.0 5.8

17.2 533.0 19.0 585.0 15.8 544.0 11.4 942.0 10.2 511.0 Yes

08/07/95 10 159~4

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 11 137.1 6.2

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 12 109.7

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 13 125.8

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 14 122.3

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 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 !""'"
~.

Follansbee

Direction Speed Temp Diff

Site

Speed

1

Diff

Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 2- 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

OB/07/95

21

22

110.8

105.6 4.6

5.0 68.29

67.47

24.2

23.6 453.0

503.0 23.5 506.0 22.0 482.0 18.4 818.0 17.1 431.0

08/07/95 23 102.3 3.9 66.78 24.0 445.0

22.7 473.0 21.0 424.0 18.2 772.0 17.1 384.0

OB/08/95 o 111.7 4.5 66.57 22.3 437.0

23.3 446.0 20.9 405.0 18.4 757.0 17.8 367.0

08/08/95 1 99.6 3.8 66.20 20.5 478.0

21. 7 445.0 19.6 427.0 17.7 779.0 17.6 396.0

08/08/95 2 101. 3 3.7 65.66 18.7 393.0

21.2 504.0 18.8 474.0 16.4 801.0 16.2 422.0

08/0B/95 3 83.2 3.7 63.84 21.4 428.0

20.5 430.0 18.5 391.0 15.5 701.0 14.6 349.0

08/08/95 4 108.3 3.7 63.65 20.1 383.0

23,3 460.0 21.2 430.0 17.8 721.0 16.B 385.0

08/08/95 5 112.2 4.5 63.55 20.6

21.4 421.0 19.9 387.0 17.5 673 .0 17.2 335.0

:J:l 08/08/95 6 131. 3 5.6 64.73 18.0

459.0 21.7 483.0 19.7 444.0 16.8 730.0 17.0 404.0

I"(J 08/08/95 7 133.1 5.2 66.87 15.7

406.0 19.1 428.0 16.3 393.0 14.3 678.0 14.1 362.0 482.0 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

:J:l

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 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 ..

I"(J

j-!

08/08/95

08/08/95

17

16

115.3

89.8

7.9

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 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

08/09/95 1

o 128.6

126.6

6.3

6.0

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 2 118.0 8.2

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 3 126.8

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

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 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

08/09/95 11

10

169.1

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 12 154.3

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 13 96.5

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 14 146.5

4.8

6.2

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 15 150.9 5.1

74.55 16.0 423.0 17.7 420.0 14.9 424.0 13.6 694.0 13.9 377.0 Yes 76.13 J.3.7 433.0 17.4 435.0 14.1 430.0 11.4 710.0 9.8 390.0 Yes
Follansbee

Direction Speed.Temp Diff

Site

Speed

1

Diff

Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

Date Hr JQgg"L Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Diff Speed Vessel A. (MPH) ..L.El.- ..Ln (PPM) ..Ln lHM.l.. (PPM) ..Ln (PPM) ..Ln (PPM) Operatina 08/09/95

08/09/95 17

16 158.3

160.3

5.5

7.4 76.41

77.53 18.6

20.4

484.0

480.0

18.9

19.7

474.0

439.0

14.9 443.0 11.5 737.0 11.0 408.0 Yes

08/09/95 18 163~9 7.1 74.60 17.3 489.0

16.5 456.0 14.7 745.0 14.7 427.0

08/09/95 19 119.1 6.0 72.66 17.8 481.0

18.3 485.0 16.6 488.0 15.8 775.0 14.8 450.0

08/09/95 20 118.9 6.0 70.65 19.5 413.0

18.5 483.0 17.2 487.0 16.6 777.0 15.9 450.0

08/09/95 21 121~6 4;2 69.42 22.1 447.0

20.4 429.0 18.7 438.0 18.3 722.0 18.3 407 .. 0

08/09/95 22 100.0 3.8 68.89 26.0 551.0

20;8 432.0 18.4 418.0 17.4 708.0 17.1 380.0 Yes

08/09/95 23 92.5 5.9 68.12 26.2 543.0

25.5 539.0 20.8 492.0 18.4 778.0 18.1 459.0 Yes

08/10/95 0 97.4 6.0 67.59 25.8 524.0

27.1 520.0 22.5 477 .0 18.9 780.0 18.6 462.0 Yes

:J:::! 08/10/95 1 154.5 3.5 67.86 22.7

26.9 474.0 21.4 457.0 19.2 753.0 20.4 446.0

r-o 08/10/95 2 118.3 4.3 66.57 22.3

507.0 25.0 480.0 19.7 459.0 17.8 742.0 18.2 433.0 533.0 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:

:J:::!

::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 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

r-o I-'

08/10/95

08/10/95 11

12

178.5

193~4 5.4

6.3

8L09

77..66 14.5 524.0 17.1 485.0 17.0 472.0 12.6 798.0 11.4 453.0 Yes 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

:J:::! 1.0

(1)

08/10/95

08/10/95 16

15 269.3

255.3

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 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 co

I I 08/10/95 18 287.5 5.1 80.04 24.7 618.0 26.9 24.7 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\

State of Ohio Env;ironmental ProteCtion Agency

STREETADDRESS: IIAIUHG ADllRESS:

1800 WaterMark 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 of Heated Fugitive Emissions from

Basic Oxygen Furnaces and Blast Furnaces

William R. Samples, Ph.D.

Director. Environmental Control

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation

1134 Market Street

Wheeling, WV 26003-2971

William V. Plliomik, Jr.

Environmental Coordinator

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation

South Third Street Extension

Steubenville, OH 43952

Larry L. Simmons, P.E.

Principal

Energy & Environmental Management, Inc.

4115 William Penn Highway, Suite 201

Murrysville, PA 15668-1809

ABSTRACT

Review ofair dispersion models reveals tl1atno EPA Regulatory model is available to represent

the dispersion ofa heated Iilgitive emission in complex terrain..· Fugitive emissions from sources such as

basic oxygen furnaces and blast furnaces are treated as volume sources in the EPA models(SCST3 and

AERMOD and are dispersed as ground-hugging emissions. A"ground-hugging" dispersion treatment of

the source yields high property line impacts. However. when observing fugitive elnissions from vesscl

charges, it is obvious the emissions leave the structure with a significant vertical velocity induced by the

buoyancy difference between the heated emission and the ambient air. The EPA approved model, Buoyant Line and Point (BLP) model, may be used to represent the dispersion ofthese sources intlallerraill.

However, BLP has not been approved for use in complex terrain. This paper presents a technique by

which the BLP derived buoyancy from the heated fugitive emission is incorporated into an EPA approved model for impact assessment in complex terrain. Field tested values of plume buoyancy from a basic

oxygen furnace and a blast furnace are presented. Results are presented from dispersion model runs with

and without the field measured buoyancy effects for the Basic Oxygen Furnace (BOF) and Blast Furnace

(BF) in complex terrain to demonstrate the intluenee of buoyancy.

INTRODUCTION

Fugitive emissions from the roof monitor (RF) of a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or a casthouse of

a blast furnace (BF) must be included in dispersion model based State Implementation Plans (SIP).

These fugitive emissions are released from the top ofthe structure as convection-driven flows exit the

structure. The convection-driven exhaust air is heated above ambient, thus resulting in a vertical rise of

the exhaust air. Historically, the fugitive emissions from the BOF and SF have been treated as a volume

source in the EPA models such as the Industrial Source Complex Short Term (ISCST3). Avolume

source is configured using a virtual point source algorithm in ISCST3 1 and does not have any plume rise

because the volume source treats the emission as "cold." Dispersion modeling using ISCST3 tends to

683

Appendix A.3J PageA.3-1 of 8
create "ground-hugging" impacts with the volume source. This is in sharp contract to the obvious plume

rise seen at a Bar or BF. Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation (WPSC) operates Blast Furnace No.5

(4,500 tons per day) and a BOF(9,000 tons per day) at Mingo Junction, Ohio. Development of a PMIO

SIP required dispersion modeling ofthese facilities. Computer generated impacts from the BOF at

Mingo Junction, Ohio were seen as not being realistic because of the lackof plume buoyancy. Negotiations with the Ohio Envirorunental Protection Agency (OEPA) resulted in an approved protocol to measure the plume buoyancy from the BOF and BF at Mingo Junction and to incorporate the measured

plume buoyancy into a dispersion model. .

Vertical rise ofa heated fugitive emission is a function ofthetemperature difference ofthe eluission and ambient, the exhaust velocity and configuration ofthe source. The buoyancy parameter used

within the Buoyant Line and Point Source (HLP) Dispersion Model is represented by the following equation:

(

(

(

(

where

F

'

= ~g__L__W_m_w~.•_(T_,_-_Ta_)

. T,

F' =the average line source buoyancy parameter (m4/sJ

)

g = the acceleration ofgravity (9.81 m/s2

)

L = the line source length (01)

Wm = the line source width (01)

w =the exit velocity (rn/s)

T, = the exit temperature (OK)

T. = the ambient temperature (OK)!

Equation (I)

(

The BLP model was developed to represent fugitive emissions from elevated line sources. A

BOF RoofMonitor and Blast Furnace (BF) Casthouse arc long line sources that have releases of heated

fugitives and are well suited for application for BLP.

This report presents results oftesting at the BOFRoofMonitor and BF #5 Casthouse at Mingo

Junction to develop the independent variables for input to Equation l.

MONITORING PROTOCOL

BOF Roof Monitor

Atotal ofseven thermocouples/ducted anemometers was placed in theroofmonitor.· Results

were recorded continuously every 15 scconds and referenced to the BOF clock to understand how plant

operations influenced the exhausttempcratll1'e and speed. The seven sensors were spaced to measure the

influence of a single vessel. Location ofthe sensors is shown in Figure I. A video camera was directed

toward the eastroofmonitor for the duration ofthe study. The sensors \Vere spaced at 9.2 meter intervals.

BF Roof Monitor

Testing included a ducted velocity sensor and thermocouple at four locations in the roof monitor

ofBlast Furnace No.5 as shown in Figure 2. Output signals from the sensors were read every 15

seconds and recorded. The test was run for approximately one week. Avideo camera was directed

toward the south sideofthe casthouse for the duration ofthe study.

684

Appendix A.3, Page A.3-2 of 8

(

\

(

(

c

l

(
RESULTS

BOF Roof Monitor

Testing was conducted over 11 12-day period. Datawere recorded every 15 seconds and processed for hourly avemges. Meteorological data from the West Virginia DEP tower form the base temperature against which the seven sensors are compared. Asummary ofthe data is listed below:

Temperature Exhaust Velocity

Difference (FO) (Feet per Minute (FPM))

Site 1

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Site 5

Site 6

Site 7

Mean for East Side

Mean for West Side

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

(

Preliminary results from earlier testing show that the operationalstatus of any single vessel does

not have a dramatic effect on the temperature difference and exhaust velocity from the roofmonitor..As

long as one ofthe two vessels is operational, we expect that the mean values listed above are representative ofBOF operations. Accordingly, dIe above results can be llsed for both Vessel Aand Vessel Bin

calculating the BOF buoyancy parameter.

Plume buoyancy was calculated for each matched pair oftemperature difference and velocity.

Results were presented fora source length of73.5 meters and a source height of2.4 meters. The East

RM had a plume buoyancy of 167.9 m4/sJ

• The West RM hada plume rise of 110.9 m4

/sJ•. The BLP

manual recommends averaging the two values. Therefore, the F'will be:

F' = (167.9 + 110.9)/2 = 139.4 m4/s J

Equation (2)

Blast Furnace #5

Testing was run over a six-day period. Data were recorded every 15 seconds and processed for

hourly averages. Meteorological data from the West Virginia DEP tower form the base temperatures

against which the four sensors are compared. Asummary ofthe data is listed below:

Temperature Exhaust VeloDifference. (FO) city .(FPM)

Site I

Site 2

Site 3

Site 4

Mean

40.19

43.73

40.36

38.17

40.61

313.60

322.62

341.74

322.60

325.14

(

The 115 hours oftesting resulted in a mean temperature difference of 40.61 F" and a mean exhaust speed of325.14 feet per minute. Plume buoyancy (F') was calculated for each pair oftemperature

difference and velocity data and those values averaged as input to the equation. This suggested procedure was followed using a source length of 25 meiers and source height of I meter for each matched pair

of data. The F' determined from the full set oftests was 28.96 m4/s 3

•

685

AppendixA.3, Page .A.3-3 of 8
Dispersion Modeling

BLP is a rolling terrain model which is not approved by EPA for complex terrain,Le., terrain

above plume rise. The BLP buoyancy parameter was incorporated into a complex terrain model using

the hourlyBLP plume rise transferred into the Integrated OaussianModel (10M) usingprocedures

developed by Energy &Environmental Management, Inc. for the PMIO SIP in Allegheny County,

Pennsylvania.(J) .

OEPA dispersion modeling for the PMIO SIP in Jefferson County, Ohio utilized the ISC model.

10M allows the use ofISC for flat terrain and the use ofthe Rough Terrain Diffusion Model (RTDM).

Test runs ofISCSTJ using Complex Iwere made to compare to 10M runs using the BLP plume

buoyancy for the ISCSTJ flat terrain mode in 10M and for RTDM incomplex terrain. The 382 receptors selected by OEPA for the PM,o SIP were used. The one year ofon-site meteorological data from the

WV DEP site in Follansbee, West Virginia was used as per the OEPA guidance for the PMIO SIP.

Results for the BOF modeling are shown in Figure 3. Maximum ISCSTJ impact was 54 /lg/m)

versus the maximum BLPbuoyancy value of 43 /J.g/m). The great bulk oftile values in tile scalier plot

are higher for ISCSTJ.

Results for the BF modeling are shown in Figure 4. Maximum ISCSTJimpact was 47 /lg/m)

versus the maximum BLP buoyancy value ofII j.lglml

• All values in the scatler plot were higher for

ISCSn The relatively low release height oftheBF and its proximity to the property line are the major

factorfor the large difference in modeled impacts between the two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Buoyancy offugitive emissions from Basic Oxygen Furnaces and Blast Furnaces can be measured.

Dispersionmodeling impacts, when incorporating buoyancy, are reduced when compared tothe

historical practice ofmodeling heated fugitive emissions as volume sources inlSCSTJ.

REFERENCES

I. "User's Guide/orthe Industrial Source Complex Dispersion Models, Volume II- Description of

Model Algorithms," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-450/4-92·008b, March 1992.

2. Defined as Equation 2-47 in "BI/oyant Line and Point Source (BLP) Dispersion Model User's

Guide," PB81-164642,July 1980.

. 3. Weaver, C.J. and D.A. SUllivan,"Modeling PMIO Emissionsjront Coke Ovens/or Allegheny

County's PM/IIState Implementation Plan," A&WMA 88th Annual Meeting, San Antonio, Texas,

June 18-23, 1995.

686

Appendix A.3, Page A.3-4 of8

(

(

(

(

(

(

(

l

(
·Figure 1. Testing sites at Basic Oxygen Furnace at Mingo Junction, 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"igure 2. Side view ofBlast Furnace No.5 at Mingo Junction, 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

i

i

~~===+=====t==f~

i

i

I

i

i

i

i

!

688

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

Figure 3. Comparison ofmaximum24·hour PMIO impacts of BOF roof monitor emissions using

ISCST3 in volume source mode and 10M using measured BLP buoyancy.

Volume Source Height = 51.2 Meters

Emission Rate = 4.68g/s

BOF

50

40

(Y)

<

( E

--CJ) 30 :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 8
Figure 4. Comparison ofmaximum 24·Hour PMIO impacts ofBF No.5 casthouse emissions

using ISCST3 in volume mode and 10M using measured BLP buoyancy.

(

(

(

c

(

40

('f)

<

E 30

--01

:J

('f)

I-

(j)

u 20

(j)

10

o

o

/ ../

/;/

/////

../

/' //

10 20 30 40

IGM wI BLP 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

Materials Handling 1.40 1.40

Storage Silos 0.46 0.40

Flux Weigh Hopper 0.03 0.03

y. Emergency Water Pump 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 request from 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

uonveyor rrom

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 1D-rreter elevation rret data frequency distribution show ed 95%

of hourly winds at 5.37 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 to Jan 14,1993

leiter from George Czerniak of USEPA Region V.EPA questioned the si~ fraction of pellets. A log plot of sieving data show ed a

silt fraction 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 26
c. 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 out from 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/hr TSP 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 BottomDrop 0.5 14 0.0218 50 0.1524 0.0103 0.0721

2. Load out from 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 FAX from H.G.Strohmeyer to 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 Conveyor will be treated asSou~9187in the dispersion modeling.

The remainder of the Material will· be treated as Source 9152 in the dispersion modeling.

4. Pellets are limited to 2.2 million tons per year. Remainder of feed rates are adjusted to a hot metal capacity

2.52 million tons per year versus the 8,1 OOtons/day * 365 days/year or 2.953 million ton capacity for 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 and the

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 FOR 24-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 FOR ANNUAL 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/hr OEPA Value

PM10 =2.951b/hr

1. Wheeling Atlsburgh Steel accepted an allow able of 0.0082 Ib/M'v1 Btu as part of the Perolt to nstall

for the rebuild of Blast Furnace No.5.

2. PM10 fraction =1

3. Annualized eolssions set equal to 24-hour value

Appendix B_1, PageS of 26
e. 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 fOr an 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-term value.

f. Blast Furnace Baghouse

JEFFINAL Model Source 935

PM10 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 per year

1. WPSC Metallurgical Report (1990)

2. At a production rate of 20,000 tons per year, this is a total of 54.8 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 per day, 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 per Year 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-meter elevation 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%

of hourly 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 at the 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 FOR 24-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 FOR ANNUAL 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)

Oam from barge to bin, no control

Bin to truck, 3-sided doghouse

Truck durrp to pile, no control

Front loader to 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 content of road

W=

M=

S=

P =

gQ tons vehicle weight errpty

§. tons vehicle weight filled

0.2 % surface material moisture content

10 rrph average vehicle speed

o days of 0.01" precipitation per year

(

Road length = 0.7014 mles one way

223.2143 tonslhour / 25 tonsnoad =

VMT = 6.2625 per hour once fun 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 per year 0.69 Ib/hr

1. Throughput: turnslw eek • 4 weeks/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. Short term 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 content from WPSC Perrril Application

6.19 rrph

0.74

Q12

4. Source 9193 is Alternate Flux Pellet Unload =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 loader to railcar, no control".

Appendix B.1, Page 11 of 26
k1. Desulfurization Baghouse 1741090010 P907A

JEFFINAL Model Source 913

EMISSION RATE FOR 24-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 RAlEFOR 24-HOUR tvODELING PERIOD

0.1084lb/ton of hot metal per Stack Test

187.5 tons hot metal/hr per WPSC decision

20.325 Ib/hr

2

Loss Rate

of Local Hood =

TSP =

PM 10 Fraction =

PM10 =

0.05

1.02Ib/hr

0.19

0.19 Ib/hr

OEPA Assumption

AP-42 Table 12.5-2

( Allowables

EMISSION RAlEFOR ANNUAL 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 nerrissions would 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 FOR 24-HOUR IvODRING PERIOD

0.19lb/ton of metal AP-42 Table 12.5-1

187.5 tons/hr hot metal (4,500 tons 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 FOR ANNUALlvOoalNG 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 annualized operationof 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 for the 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 FOR 24-HOUR MODELING PERIOD

PTI Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003, page 47 of 93, Emissions of PM1 0 shall not exceed 5.83 Ib/hr.

Allowable = 5.83 Ib/hr

ErIiIISSION RATE FOR ANNUAL MODELING PERIOD

PTI Application 06-07034, issued 8/27/2003, page 47of 93, 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, issued 8/27/2003, 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 26
n.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 RATEFOR 24-HOUR MODB.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 FOR ANNUAL MODaING FffiIOD

Allowables 2

PM10 = 0.342 Ib/hr

1. Bill Polomik FAXof July 24, 1995

2. Annual value set equal to 24-hour value.

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

per year. 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 Number of 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 FOR ANNUAL 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. Maxirrum throughputs from T. 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) for gaseous 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 FOR 24-HOUR MOOalNG FERIOD

EF = 0.07Ib./tonof steel 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 similar to tapping.

AP-42, Table 12;5-1

Total PM10 = 0.241b/hr

EMISSION RATEFORANNUAL 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% of the total heats.

A value of 7.5 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 RATEFOR 24-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 FOR ANNUAL MOORING PERIOD

Allowables 2

TSP = 1.331b/hr

PM10 = 1.331b/hr

1. Estirrated by Chester 8wironrrentalletter Ref. No. 5270-64 dated January 19, 1996

from C.A. Badali to W.R SaJlllles at WPSC.

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 term value.

Appendix B.l, Page 21 of 26
r. Hand Scarfing 1741090010 F006

JEFFINAL Model Source 944

EMISSION RATE FOR 24-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 Polorrik FAX 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 larger than most materials.

3. Throughput per Bill Polorrik FAX of 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 from AP-42 Fifth Edition, Table 13.4-1 for Induced Draft Cooling 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-hour emissions 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-hour values.

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 of hot.metal.produced.. For a production rate of 1.28 MM tons

per year, emissions are 1,280,000 * 0.00958* (1/8760) =

1.400 Ib/hour for 24·hour and annual.

Storage Silos

Four storage silos will be located outside the EAF building. Each will

ha\e a bin\ent filter with an exhaust flow of 650 ACFM and a PM outlet

of 0.02gr/ACFM.

24-hour emissions 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 hopper will be located inside the LMF building

(70%RACM control).• It will ha\e a bin \ent filter with an exhaust flow

of 200 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 hour modeling 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

(

(

(

(