# OAR Box 1770 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 37 ) XII-C-8
Docket Number: 

# A-79-1 5

Printed 10/28/200810:20:29AM Sheet 37 of 93 P. 1P. 2
l -4'_ l .dd.dWOl

10-4£ m LM H DURHRU , IN C 

### Docke t No

. A-79-1 5 Ite mNo

. XH-C- 8

^ e0S 

### X 

# oM-^- ^ 001 5 

# 12E Z

'« < PBO^ 0 • * • UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , N C 2771 1 

# SE P 

# 2 5 200 1 OFFIC E Of AI R OUAUT Y PLANNIN G AN D STANDARD S



### Mr

. Davi dC

. Ailo r America n Cok e andCoa l Chemical s Institute 125 5 Twenty-thir

dSt. , N.W

. Washington , D.C

. 2-0037
Dea r Dave : A s afollow-u

p t o ou r telecon o f Septembe r 24* , I a mforwardin

g th e documentatio n o f th e emissio n estimate s fo

r th e cok e oven s ris k

analysi s an

databl e tha

t indicate s th e percent complianc e wit

h LAE Rlimit s fo r MAC T trac k batteries

. Pleas e contact

m e a t 919-541-2910 , i f yo u hav e an

y question s regarding thi s information

. Sincerely ,

Lul aH

. Melton Emission Standard s Divisio n Enclosure s

### PERCEN T COMPLIANC E B Y MAC T TRAC K BATTERIE S WIT H LAE RLIMIT S

PLAN T
A K Steel , Ashland , K Y A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P A
Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda , Buffalo , N Y I D
3 3 A B 2 2 Date s
Fro m 01/01/9 6 01/01/9 6 01/30/9 8 01/30/9 8 03/01/9 6 08/29/9 7 T o

04/30/0 1 04/30/0 1 11/30/9 8 11/30/9 8 04/30/0 1 11/30/9 8 Numbe r

1,94 8 1,94 6 30 4 30 4 1,65 3 43 0 Percen tcomplianc e wit h 1/1/1 0 LAE R limit s Chargin g 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 Door s

78 * 10 0 10 0 10 0 94. 5 10 0 Lid s

10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 99. 5 10 0 Offtake s

10 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 99. 2 10 0
Thi s batter

y ha s bee n i

n complianc e wit

h th e LAE

R201 0 limi t

fo r doo r leak s (3.3% ) 10 0 percen to f th e tim e fro m 1/1/9 8 throug h 4/30/0 1 fo r atota l o f 1,21 6 consecutiv e complianc e determinations

.

C OP. 4

V* - Docke tNo . A-79-1 5 Ite m No . XII-C- 8 Attachmen

t1 o f 2



# DOCUMENTATION O

F TH E EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FO RTHE COK E OVEN S RIS KANALYSI S

Septembe r 12 , 200 1

### DOCUMENTATIO N O F TH E EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FORTH E COK E OVEN S RIS K ANALYSI

S

1 . Purpos e an

d Approac

h Th e purpos e o

f thi s technica

l note i s t o documen t ho w th e emission s wer

e estimate dfo

r th e cok e oven s risk

analysis

. Thi s documentatio n include s adescriptio n o f th e estimatin g procedures , exampl

e calculations , th e result s fo r eac h batter y andemission point , an

dreferences

. The approac

h fo r estimatin g emission s fro

mth e coking proces s (startin g wit h chargin g
coa l t o th e ove n an dending whe

n th e cok e i s quenched

) i s basedo

n using extractabl e organi c emission s as asurrogat

e fo r cok e ove n emissions

. Dat

aar e availabl e fo

r benzene solubl e organic s (BSO) an

dmethylene chlorid e soluble organic s (MCSO)

. Estimate s fo r individua l compound s i

n th e cok e ove n emission s ar

e derivedfro

mthe rati o o

f th e compoundt o th e BS O or MCSO

. Benzen

e i s th e primar

y pollutant

o f concer n i n emission s fro

mth e by-produc t

recover y plant

. Estimate s fo

r othe r hazardou s air

pollutant s (toluene an

dxylene ) ar

e base do n their typica l rati o t o benzene

. 2

. BS O fro

m Charging , Doors , Lids , an d Offtake s Th e estimate s fo

r charging , doors , lids , an

dofftake s ar

e base do n battery-specifi c dat

afo r th e numbe r o f doors , lids , an

dofftake s o

n eac h batter y an dth e numbe

r o f charge s pe

r year . Th e batter y characteristic s ar

e give n i n Tabl e 1 an

dwer e obtainedfro

ma n EP A surve y o f the industry 1 

### an

dfro ma n EP A repor t tha t assessedcontro l performanc e fo r thes e emissio n points. 2 

### Estimate s ar

e provide dfo r tw o cases : on e base

do n dat afro mMetho d30 3 inspection s (actua l visibl e emissions ) summarizedi n Tabl e 2 an

danothe r basedo n emissio n limit s (allowabl e emissions ) give

n i n Tabl e 3

. Th

e Metho d30 3 dat

awer e obtaine dfro

mReferenc e 2 and supplemente

db y mor e recen t dataprovide db

y tw o o f the companies. 3, 4 

### Th e estimatin g procedure s ar

e fro mth e revise ddraf

t o f AP-42, 5 

### an

drelevan t excerpt s ar

e give n i n Appendi x A

. BS O emission s fro

mdoo r leak s ar e base do n a n emission rat

e o f 0.0 4 lb/h r pe r lea k fo r leaks visibl e fro

mth e yar d(as determine dby EP

A Metho d303 ) an

d0.02 3 lb/h

r fo r leaks visibl

e onl y fro mthe bench (estimate das 6 percen t o f th e doors)

. Th e observation s fro mth e yar da s specifiedi

n Metho d30 3 ar

e mad e roughly 5 0 t o 10

0 fee t fro mth e doors

. EP

ATABL E 1

. SITE-SPECIFI C BATTER Y INFORMATIO N

PLAN T

A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y
A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A
Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda , Buffalo

. N

Y I D

3 4 3 A B 2 2 NUMBE R O F OVEN S 7 6 7 0 7 6 2 3 3 5 7 0 6 0 NUMBE R

O F LID S PE ROVE N 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 NUMBE R

O F OFFTAKE S PE ROVE N 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 CYCL E

TIM E (HRS ) 19 18 2 0 2 8 2 8 1 7 2 8 NUMBE R

O F DOOR S 15 2 14 0 15 2 4 6 7 0 14 0 12 0 NUMBE R

O F LID S 22 8 28 0 22 8 9 2 14 0 21 0 18 0 NUMBE R

O F OFFTAKE S 7 6 14 0 15 2 2 3 3 5 7 0 6 0 CHARGE S

PER YEA R 34,67 5 33,69 2 34,14 2 7,19 6 10,95 0 36,07 1 18.77 1 TABL E 2

. METHO D 30 3 INSPECTIO N DAT A

PLAN T AK Steel , Ashland , KY
A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P A
Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda , Buffalo , NY I D 3 4 3 A B 2 2 Date s Fro m 01/01/9 6 01/10/9 5 01/01/9 6 01/30/9 8 01/30/9 8 03/01/9 6 08/29/9 7 T o

04/30/0 1 04/30/0 1 04/30/0 1 11/30/9 8 11/30/9 8 04/30/0 1 11/30/9 8 METHO D 30 3 INSPECTIO N DAT A SUMMAR Y

Numbe r 1,94 8 2,30 2 1,94 6 30 4 30 4 1,65 3 43 0 Av g s/ch g

3.7 4 2.6 4 2.7 8 3.8 2 3.8 2 7.0 9 2.3 5 Av g PL D

2.4 3 2.8 1 2.0 5 2.0 1 1.5 8 2.9 8 2.4 9 Av g PL L

0.13 0 0.08 0 0.08 0 0.03 7 0.05 6 0.15 0 0.03 3 Av g PL O

0.8 2 1.6 4 0.7 2 0.6 1 0.8 7 1.4 1 0.3 3
TABL E 3

. EMISSIO N LIMIT S

PLAN T A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y
A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P A Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda , Buffalo , NY I D 3 4 3 A B 2 2 EMISSIO N LIMIT S S/CH G 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 PL D

5. 0 3. 8 5. 0 5. 0 5. 0 5. 0 5. 0 PL L

0.6 0 0.4 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 0.6 0 PL O

3. 0 2. 5 3. 0 3. 0 3. 0 3.0 0 3.0 0 s/ch g = second s pe r

charge ; PL D = percen t

leakin g doors ; PLL = percen t leakin g lids ; PL O = percen t leakin g offtake s

b >P. 7



### studie s hav e foun

dtha t whe n observation s ar e mad e fro mthe benc

h jus t inche s fro

mth e doors , more leak s ar

e observed

. One stud

y foun dtha

t a n additiona

l 6 percen t o f th e door s wer e foun dt o b e leakin g when observe dfro mth e bench. 6 

### In addition , the cok e ove n NESHA P (4 0 CFRPart 63 , Subpar

t L ) allow s 6 percent

of th e doo r leak s t o b e subtracte dwhe n they are observe dfro m th e benc h unde

r acokeside she dto put

the mo n abasi s simila

r t o Metho d30 3 yardobservations

. Li dan dofftak

e leak s ar e base don 0.007 5 l b BSO/h r pe r lea k a s presente di n th e draf

t revision s t o AP-42. 5 

### Chargin g emission s ar e base do n 0.009 3 l b BS O fo

r eac h 1 0 second s of

emissions. 5 

### Result s base do

n Metho d30 3 ar

e give n i n Tabl e 4 an

dthos e base do n emissio n limit s are given i n Tabl e 5

. Exampl e calculation s are give n below

.
Exampl e calculatio n fo r

A K Ashlan dBatter y 3 base do n Metho d30 3 data : Charging : (3.7 4 s/charge ) * (34,67 5 charges/yr ) * (0.009 3 lb/1 0 seconds ) = 12 1 lb/y r = 0.0 6 tp y BS O Doors : (15 2 doors ) * (2.4 3 percen t leaking)/10 0 * (0.0

4 lb/hr) + (15 2 doors ) * ( 6 percen t leaking)/10 0 * (0.02 3 lb/hr ) = 0.3 6 lb/h r = 1. 6 tp y BS O Lids : (22 8 lids ) * (0.1 3 percen t leaking)/10 0 * (0.007 5 lb/hr ) = 0.002 2 lb/hr = 0.0 1 tp y BS O Offtakes : (7 6 offtakes ) * (0.8 2 percen t leaking)/10 0 * (0.007 5 lb/hr ) = 0.004 7 lb/h r = 0.0 2 tp y BS O

TABL E 4

. BS O ESTIMATE S BASE D ON METHO D 30 3

PLAN T AK Steel , Ashland , K

Y
AK Steel , Middletown , OH Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A
New Boston , Portsmouth , OH Tonawanda , Buffalo , N

Y I D

3 4 3 A B 2 2 TON S PE RYEA RO F BENZEN E SOLUBL E ORGANIC S (BSO ) BASE D ON METHO D 30 3 INSPECTION S (ACTUAL ) DOOR S 1.5 7 1.5 4 1.4 6 0.4 4 0.6 2 1.5 8 1.25 LID S

0.01 0 0.007 4 0.006 0 0.001 1 0.002 6 0.01 0 0.002 0 OFFTAKE S

0.02 0 0.07 5 0.03 6 0.004 6 0.01 0 0.03 2 0.006 4 CHARGIN G

0.06 0 0.04 1 0.04 4 0.01 3 0.01 9 0.1 2 0.02 0 TOTA L

1.6 6 1.6 6 1.5 5 0.4 6 0.6 5 1.7 4 1.2 8P. 8



### TABL E 5 . BS O ESTIMATE S BASE D O N EMISSIO N LIMIT S

PLAN T A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y
A K Steel , Middletown , OH Eri e Coke , Erie , P A
Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda

. Buffalo , N

Y I D

3 4 3 A B 2 2 rON S PE RYEARO F BENZEN E SOLUBL E ORGANIC S (BSO ) BASE D O N EMISSIO N LIMIT S (ALLOWABLES ) DOOR S 2.2 5 1:7 8 2.25 0.6 8 1.0 4 2.07 1.7 8 LID S

0.04 5 0.03 7 0.04 5 0.01 8 0.02 8 0.04 1 0.03 5 OFFTAKE S

0.07 0.1 1 0.1 5 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0 7 0.0 6 CHARGIN G

0.1 9 0.1 9 0.1 9 0.0 4 0.0 6 0.2 0 0.1 0 TOTA L

2.5 6 2.1 2 2.64 0.7 6 1.1 6 2.3 8 1.9 8



### 3 . Emission s fro m Pushing , Quenching , an d Battery Stack s The procedur e fo

r estimatin g MCS O emission s i s describe din "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAP)

for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks-Background Informationfor

Proposed

Standards. " 7 

### Th e relevan t excerp t i s give n i n Appendi x B

. Th e estimate s fro mthi s documen

t are base do

n th e emission s expecte d afte r the standard s fo

r pushing , quenching , an

dbatter y stack s ar

e implemented

. Th e estimate s fo r pushin g an dbatter

y stack s ar

e derive dfro

mtw o EP A tests , on e a

t abatter y producin g foundr y coke 8 

### an done a

t abatter y producin g blas t

furnac e coke. 9 

### Emission s fromquench tower s
ar e base do n a197 7 EP

A test. 1 0 

### The emissio n factor s ar

e afunction of

th e ton s of

cok e produce dor

th e ton s o

f coa l charged

. Site-specifi c informatio n on ton s o f coa l charge dan dton s o

f coke produce dwer

e obtaine dfro

ma n EP A survey 1 

### o

f th e industr

y an dfro mdat acompile dfromasurvey conducte d b y IC F Consulting. 1 1 

### 3. 1 Fugitiv e Pushin g Emission s MCS O fugitiv e emission s frompushin g ar e estimate da s 0.011 6 lb/to n cok e produce dfo r plant s wit h contro l device s an

d0.01 8 lb/to n cok

e produce dfo r

batterie s withou t

contro l devices

. A s discusse di n Appendi x B , thes e emissio n factor s ar e base do n 0. 5 percen t

o f th e pushe s bein g severel y gree n an da1 0 percent

capture efficiency , 5 percen t o f th e pushe s bein g moderately gree n an da4 0 percen t

capture efficiency , an

d94. 5 percen t

o f th e pushe s bein g non-green an da 9 0 percen t capture efficiency

. Th e emissio n estimate s for eac h batter

y are give n i n Tabl e 6 , an d

a n exampl e calculatio n i s given below

.P. 9



### Exampl e calculation s fo r MCS O fo r A KStee l Ashlan d Battery 3 : Pushin g fugitive s = 376,00 0 tp y coke * 0.011 6 lb/to n = 4,40 0 lb/y r = 2. 2 tpy MCS O
TABL E 6 . ESTIMATE S FO RFUGITIV E PUSHIN G EMISSION S

Plan t

A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A New Boston , Portsmouth , OH* Tonawanda , Buffalo , NY

I D

3 4 3 A B 2 2 Cok e (tpy )

376,00 0 589,00 0 423,00 0 65,00 0 99,00 0 353,00 0 218,70 1 METHYLEN E CHLORID E SOLUBLE ORGANIC S (tpy ) Pushin g fugitive s 2. 2 3. 4 2. 5 0. 4 0. 6 3. 2 2. 0


### Thes e plant s d o not

have acontro l devic e for

pushin g emissions

.
3.2 . Pushin g Emissio n Control Devic e Th e EP A conducte dtw o sourc e test s i n 1998 8 

### ' 9 

### t o evaluat e emission s fro mcontro l device s applie dt o pushin g emissions

. On e tes t wa s conducte don Batter

y No

. 2 a t Bethlehe m Steel , Burn s Harbor , IN , an dth e other wa s conducte do

n Batterie s 5 an

d6 a t AB C Coke i n Tarrant , AL

. Bethlehe mStee l produce s furnac e coke , andAB C Cok e produce s foundr

y coke

. Bot h batterie s us e puls e je t

baghouse s a s th e contro l device s for pushin g emissions

. Battery 2

a t Burn s Harbo r

i s th e newes t

batter y i n th e U.S

. (1994) , andi t

ha s ane w state-of-th e ar

t baghouse

. Th e baghous e a t AB C Cok e i s olde r (1986) , an dth e batterie s ar e muc h olde r (1951)

. Fo r

thi s analysis , the result s fromAB C Cok e are use dbecaus e th e batter y age , batter y condition , an dcontro l devic e ar e expecte dt o b e mor e representativ e of batterie s on th e MAC T track

. Th e performanc e o f the baghous e at

Burn s Harbo r

wa s somewha

t better : 99 % remova l

o f th e 7-PAH s vs . 97 % a

t AB C Cok e an d99.8 % remova l of

PM v s 98.9 % a

t AB C Coke

. Emissio n factor s fo

r PAH s an dmetal s for

th e AB C Coke tes t

ar e given i n Table s 7 an d 8 , respectively

. Th e PAH result s are base do n th e average s fromRun s 2 an d3 an dd o no t includ e Run 1

. There wa s aseverely gree n pus h durin g Run 1

. Th e severely gree n pus hP.1 0



### occurre dfro

ma n ove n tha t wa s adjacen

t t o a n ove n tha t ha dbeen taken ou t

of servic e fo r repair , which ca

n caus e inadequat

e cokin g on th e sid

e o f the ove n tha t share s flue s wit

h th e empt y oven . Thi s pus h exhibite dopacit y tha t approache d100% , and th e hig h opacit y continue ddurin g travel t

o th e quench tower

. Thi s i s expecte dto b e arar e occurrenc e afte r th e MAC T standar

di s i n plac e becaus e th e propose drul e require s tha t action s b e taken to mitigate th e effect o n adjacen t oven s whe

n a n ove n i s take n ou

t o f service

. I n addition , th e frequenc y o f

occurrenc e durin g Ru

n 1 ( 1 i n 2 1 pushes ) i s no t

representativ e of

th e performanc e o

f batterie s
o n whic h MAC T i s based

. The MAC T batterie s rarel y have pushe s tha t excee da n averag e opacit y of 50%

. Consequently , Ru

n 1 a t AB C Cok

e i s not representativ e o f

emission s level s expecte dafte

r th e implementatio n o

f MACT

.
TABL E 7 . PAH EMISSIO N FACTOR S FO RTHE PUSHIN G EMISSIO N CONTRO L DEVIC E A T AB C COK E

PAHs Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Indeno( l ,2,3-cd)pyren e Acenaphthene Acenaphthylene Anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylen e Fluoranthen e Euoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyrene 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pyren e Perylen e BAGHOUS E OUTLE T (lb/ton ) Ru n 2 3.7e-0 7 N D 2.8e-0 7 2.4e-0 7 9.8e-0 7 N D ND 3.8e-0 6 3.4e-0 5 5.0e-0 6 N D 5.0e-0 6 l.le-0 5 1.4e-0 4 6.9e-0 5 1.2e-0 5 3.7e-0 5 N D N D Ru

n 3 3.7e-0 7 ND 3.3e-0 7 2.2e-0 7 l.le-0 6 N D N D 5.5e-0 6 2.7e-0 5 8.0e-0 6 N D 8.0e-0 6 1.4e-05 1.7e-0 4 4.2e-0 5 1.0e-05 5.6e-0 5 1.7e-0 7 N D Averag e 3.7e-0 7 N D 3.1e-0 7 2.3e-0 7 1.0e-0 6 N D N D 4.7e-0 6 3.1e-0 5 6.5e-0 6 ND 6.5e-0 6 1.3e-0 5 1.6e-0 4 5.6e-0 5 l.le-0 5 4.7e-0 5 8.5e-0 8 N D
N D = no t detecte dP.1 1



### TABL E 8 . METAL S EMISSIO N FACTOR S FO RTH E PUSHIN G EMISSIO N

CONTRO L DEVIC E A T AB C COKE

Metal Antimon y Arseni c Bariu m Berylliu m Cadmium Chromium Cobal t Coppe r Lea d Manganes e Mercur y Nicke l Phosphoru s Seleniu m Silve r Thalliu m Zin c BAGHOUS E OUTLE T (lb/ton ) Run l ND 4.6E- 7 7.5E- 6 N D 1.4E- 7 2.9E- 6 ND 4.3E- 6 1.8E- 6 3.8E- 6 N D ND 2.4E- 5 N D ND N D 1.7E- 5 Run 2

ND 5.7E- 7 9.9E- 6 4.3E- 8 1.7E-7 4.3E- 6 ND 5.2E- 6 3.6E- 6 6.5E- 6 ND 2.6E- 6 2.2E- 5 8.6E- 7 ND N D 1.9E- 5 Ru n 3

N D 8.4E- 7 1.3E- 5 6.7E- 8 1.2E- 7 5.9E- 6 N D 7.4E- 6 2.7E- 6 9.1E- 6 N D 2.0E- 6 3.4E- 5 N D N D N D 2.5E- 5 Averag e

ND 6.2E- 7 1.0E- 5 3.7E- 8 1.4E-7 4.4E- 6 ND 5.6E- 6 2.7E- 6 6.4E- 6 ND 1.5E- 6 2.7E- 5 2.9E- 7 ND ND 2.0E- 5 ND = no t detecte d



### Th e onl y availabl e dat afo

r benzen e emission s fro

mth e contro l devic e wer

e fro ma
sourc e tes t

conducte da

t Bethlehe mSteel , Bum s Harbo r in 1995. 2 4 

### Benzen e result s fo r thre e
run s i n lb/to n o

f cok e were 3.7 7 x 10 7 2.5 4 x 10" 4

### , and 9.9 4 x IO" 5



### . Th e averag e valu e o f 2.4 3 x 10"4 

### lb/to n o

f coke wa s use dto estimat

e benzen e emission s fro

mth e contro l device

. Site-specifi c informatio n o n th e ton s o

f coke produce da

t eac h of th e MAC T trac k batterie s wa s obtaine dfroma n EP A survey 1 

### of

th e industr

y an d fromdat acompile dfroma
surve y conducte db y IC F Consulting. 1 1 

### Th e coke productio n i n ton s pe r yea r wa s multiplie db y th e emissio n factor s (lb/to n of coke ) t o estimate th e annua

l emission s in lbs/y r

give n in Tabl e 9

.P.1 2



### TABL E 9

. EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FO RPUSHIN G EMISSIO N CONTRO L DEVICE S

Plant

Battery Cok e (tpy ) PAHs : Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysen e Acenaphthen e Acenaphthvlen e Anthracen e Fluoranthen e Fluoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyren e 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pvren e Metals : Arseni c Bariu m Berylliu m Cadmiu m Chromiu m Copper Lea d Manganes e Nickel Phosphoru s Seleniu m Zinc Benzen e A KSteel , Ashland , K

Y 3 376,00 0 A KSteel ,

Ashland , K

Y 4 589,00 0 F

A 0.13 9 0.11 7 0.08 6 0.37 6 1.77 11. 7 2.4 4 2.4 4 4.8 9 6 0 2 1 4. 1 1 8 0.03 2
0.23 3 3.7 6 0.01 4 0.05 3 1.6 5 2.1 1 1.0 2 2.4 1 0.5 6 1 0 0.10 9 7. 5
9 1 . 0.21 8

0.18 3 0.13 5 0.58 9 2.7 7 18. 3 3.8 3 3.8 3 7.6 6 9 4 3 3 6. 5 2 8 0.05 0
0.36 5 5.8 9 0.02 2 0.08 2 2.5 9 3.3 0 1.5 9 3.7 7 0.8 8 1 6 0.17 1 11. 8
14 3 AKSteel ,

Middletown , O

H 3 423,00 0 Eri e Coke ,

Erie , P A A 65,00 0 Eri e Coke ,

Erie , P A B 99,00 0 /HSSION S 'lh/vrt 0.15 7 0.13 1 0.09 7 0.42 3 1.9 9 13. 1 2.7 5 2.7 5 5.5 0 6 8 2 4 4. 7 2 0 0.03 6
0.26 2 4.2 3 0.01 6 0.05 9 1.8 6 2.3 7 1.1 4 2.7 1 0.6 3 1 1 0.12 3 8. 5
10 3 0.02 4

0.02 0 0.01 5 0.06 5 0.3 1 2. 0 0.4 2 0.4 2 0.8 5 1 0 3. 6 0. 7 3. 1 0.00 6
0.04 0 0.6 5 0.00 2 0.00 9 0.2 9 0.3 6 0.1 8 0.4 2 0.1 0 1. 8 0.01 9 1. 3
1 6 0.03 7

0.03 1 0.02 3 0.09 9 0.4 7 3. 1 0.6 4 0.6 4 1.2 9 1 6 6 1. 1 4. 7 0.00 8
0.06 1 0.9 9 0.00 4 0.01 4 0.4 4 0.5 5 0.2 7 0.6 3 0.1 5 2. 7 0.02 9 2. 0
2 4


### An exampl e calculatio n i s give n belo w for Battery 3 a

t AK Steel , Ashland , KY : Benzo(a)anthracen e = 376,00 0 tpy cok e x 3. 7 x IO" 7 

### lb/to n = 0.13 9 lb/yr Arseni c = 376,00 0 tpy coke x , 6. 2 x 10" 7 

### lb/to n = 0.23 3 lb/yr Benzen e = 376,00 0 tpy coke x 2.4 3 x IO" 4 

### lb/to n = 9 1 lb/yr

.P.1 3



### 3. 3 Quenchin g Emission s MCS O emission s fro

mquenchin g ar

e base do n 0.0070 6 lb/to n o

f coa l charged

. Additiona l detail s ar

e give n i n Appendi x B

. Emissio n estimate s ar e given i n Tabl e 10 , anda n exampl e calculatio n i s give n below

. Exampl e calculation s fo r MCS O fo r A K Steel Ashlan d Battery 3 : Quenchin g = 533,00 0 tp

y coa l * 0.0070 6 lb/to n = 3,80 0 lb/yr = 1.9 tp y MCS O

TABL E 10 . EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FO RQUENCHIN G

Plant

AK Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Middletown , O H Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A Eri e Coke , Erie , P

A New Boston , Portsmouth , O H Tonawanda , Buffalo , N

Y I D

3 4 3 A B 2 2 Coa l (tpy )

533,00 0 833,00 0 592,00 0 79,00 0 120,00 0 530,00 0 275,00 0 METHYLEN E

CHLORID E SOLUBL E ORGANIC S (tpy ) 1.9 2. 9 2 1 0.2 8 0.4 2 1. 9 1.0


### 3.4 . Battery Stack s Emission s estimate s fo

r PAH s an dmetal s fro

mbatter y stack s ar

e als o derive dfro

mth e tw o EPA tests 8,9 

### ' 2 2 

### an dthe AB C Cok e results

. Th e tes t

result s fo r AB C Cok e are use dbecaus e th e batter y conditio n (specifically th e ove n walls ) i s more representativ e o f th e MAC T trac k batterie s tha

n th e ne w batter

y a t Bum s Harbo r

woul dbe

. However , emission s are scale dbase d

o n opacit y andvolumetri c flo

w rate a s explaine di n th e Backgroun dInformatio n Document fo r the MAC T standard. 7 

### Fo r

example , th e averag e opacit y a t AB C Cok

e wa s 1.7% , an dth e averag e opacit

y afte r MAC T i s implemente di s estimate dto b e amaximu mo f 5 % (th e batterie s
usedt o establis h the MAC T standardfor batter y stack s averag e 2 % t o 5 % opacity)

. Consequently , emission s ar e scale du p b y afactor

of 2.9

. I n addition , th e mas s emissio n rate a t
agiven concentratio n i s proportiona l t o th e volumetri c flow rate , whic h wa s 83,00 0 acf ma tP.1 4



### AB C Coke

. Emission s fo

r agiven batter

y ar e estimate dfromth e lb/hr

measure da

t AB C Cok e fro mth e followin g equation :

Emissions (lb/hr) = lb/hr (at ABC Coke) x 2.9(opacity adjustment) *(acfm) I (83,000acfm).

Th e tes t result s fo r the PAH s an

dmetal s a t AB C Coke are given in Table s 1 1 an d12 , respectively

. Th e annua

l emissio n estimate s fo

r PAH s an dmetal s fo

r th e MAC T trac k batterie s ar

e give n i n Tabl e 13 , anda

n exampl e calculatio n i s give n belo w fo r Batter y 3 a t A K Steel , Ashland : Benzo(a)anthracen

e = 5. 1 x 10"* lb/h

r * 2. 9 * 54,20

0 acfm/83,00

0 acf m= 9.6 6 x 10

- 6 

### lb/h r = 0.08 5 lb/y

r Arseni c = 2. 0 x IO"

4 

### lb/h r * 2. 9 * 54,20

0 acf m/ 83,00 0 acf m= 3.7 9 x IO"

4 

### lb/h r = 3. 3 lb/yr

.

Th e result s o f

test s fo r benzen e fro

mbatter y stack s a t four batterie s wer

e reviewe dt o deriv e a n emissio n factor

. Th e tes t result s ar e summarize di n Tabl e 14

. For thi s analysis , th e tes t result s in Tabl e 1 4 fo

r Kaiser Stee l an dBethlehe mStee l wer e used

. Benzene emission s fro mbatter y stack s ar

e base do n aconcentratio n of

3 pp m(6.0 7 x IO" 7 

### lb/dscf ) an dth e site

specifi c volumetri c flow rate i n dscfm

. Th e emissio n estimate s are given i n Tabl e 15 , an da

n exampl e calculatio n i s given belo w fo r Batter y 3 at A K Steel , Ashland :

31,77 3 dscf

m* 6.0 7 x IO"

7 

### lb/dsc f = 0.019 3 lb/mi n = 10,10 0 lb/yr

.

1 0P.1 5



### TABL E 11

. PAH TES T RESULT S FO RBATTER Y STACKS » AB C COK E

PA H Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysen e Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Ideno ( 1,2,3-cd)pyren e Acenaphthen e Acenaphthylen e Anthracen e Benzo(g,h,i)peryIen e Fluoranthen e Fluoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyren e 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pyren e Pervlen e Run l 8.6E-0 6 1.2E-0 5 1.5E-0 5 N D 2.0E-0 5 N D N D 1.5E-0 5 8.6E-0 4 3.3E-0 7 N D 2.9E-0 4 5.0E-0 5 5.3E-0 3 5.9E-0 4 1.5E-0 4 1.5E-0 4 1.6E-0 5 N D EMISSION S (Ib/hr )

Ru n 2 4.7E-0 6 9.9E-0 6 2.0E-0 5 1.2E-07 2.2E-0 5 N D N D 1.1E-0 5 3.2E-0 3 4.1E-0 7 N D 5.6E-0 4 3.2E-0 5 6.1E-0 3 9.4E-0 4 9.9E-0 4 1.1E-0 4 6.6E-0 5 N D Ru n 3

N D ND 1.1E-05 N D 1.5E-05 ND N D 6.0E-0 6 6.5E-0 4 1.1E-05 ND 2.4E-0 4 1.8E-05 3.8E-0 3 4.9E-0 4 1.7E-0 4 7.9E-0 5 1.8E-0 5 N D Ru n 4 7.2E-0 6 7.7E-0 6 1.3E-05 1.4E-0 7 2.5E-0 5 ND ND 1.2E-05 ND 3.6E-0 7 ND 3.4E-0 4 6.3E-0 5 4.8E-0 3 8.5E-0 5 2.2E-0 4 2.1E-0 4 1.4E-05 ND Averag e

5.1E-0 6 7.5E-0 6 1.4E-0 5 6.4E-0 8 2.0E-0 5 N D ND 1.1E-0 5 1.2E-0 3 3.0E-0 6 N D 3.6E-0 4 4.1E-0 5 5.0E-0 3 5.3E-0 4 3.8E-0 4 1.4E-0 4 2.8E-0 5 N D 

### N D = no t detecte d TABL E 12 . METAL S TES T RESULT S FO RBATTER Y STACK S - - AB C COKE

Meta l Antimon y Arseni c Barium Berylliu m Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Coppe r Lea d Manganes e Mercur y Nickel Phosphoru s Seleniu m Silve r Thallium Zin c Run l N D 1.2E- 4 2.4E- 4 8.9E- 7 1.4E- 5 2.3E- 4 N D 2.2E- 4 3.6E- 4 1.1E- 4 N D 4.9E- 5 6.7E- 4 8.9E- 5 N D 4.0E- 5 1.2E- 3 Emission s (Ib/hr )

Ru n 2 N D 2.4E- 4 5.7E- 4 3.3E- 6 1.7E- 5 5.1E- 4 N D 2.4E- 4 4.0E- 4 2.7E- 4 N D 1.4E- 4 1.7E- 3 2.0E- 4 N D 4.8E- 5 1.5E- 3 Ru n 4

ND 2.3E- 4 4.0E- 4 1.5E- 6 2.3E- 5 2.8E- 4 N D 2.8E- 4 2.6E- 4 3.0E- 4 N D 7.8E- 5 1.5E- 3 2.5E- 4 ND 3.9E- 5 1.5E- 3 Averag e

N D 2.0E- 4 4.1E- 4 1.9E- 6 1.8E- 5 3.4E- 4 N D 2.5E- 4 3.4E- 4 2.2E- 4 N D 8.8E- 5 1.3E- 3 1.8E- 4 N D 4.2E- 5 1.4E- 3
N D = no t detecte d



### 1 1P.1 6



### TABL E 13 . EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S O F PAH S AN D METAL S FO RBATTER Y STACKS
Plant Stac k Batter y Stack ga s flo w rate (acfm

) PAHs : Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysen e Acenaphthen e Acenaphthvlen e Anthracen e Fluoranthen e Fluoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyren e 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pvren e Metals : Arseni c Bariu m Berylliu m Cadmiu m Chromium Coppe r Lead Manganes e Nicke l Phosphoru s Seleniu m Thalliu m Zin c A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y 9 3 54,20 0 A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y 1 5 4 191,00 0 A K Steel , Middletown , O

H 1 W 156,00 0 Eri e Coke , Erie , P A 1 A, B 37,90 0 Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , O

H 2 2 60,70 0 Tonawanda , Buffalo , N Y 2 2 97,00 0 EMISSION S HWv H 0.08 5 0.12 4 0.23 2 0.001 1 0.33 2 0.18 2 19. 9 0.05 0 6. 0 0.68 0 8 3 8. 8 6. 3 2. 3 0.46 4
3. 3 6. 8 0.03 2 0.29 9 5. 6 4. 1 5. 6 3. 6 1.5 21. 6 3. 0 0.69 7 23. 2 0.29 8

0.43 8 0.81 8 0.003 7 1.1 7 0.64 3 70. 2 0.17 5 21. 0 2.4 0 29 2 31. 0 22. 2 8. 2 1.6 4
11. 7 24. 0 0.11 1 1.0 5 19. 9 14. 6 19. 9 12. 9 5. 1 76. 0 10. 5 2.4 6 81. 8 0.24 4

0.35 8 0.66 8 0.003 1 0.95 5 0.52 5 57. 3 0.14 3 17. 2 1.9 6 23 9 25. 3 18. 1 6. 7 1.3 4
9. 5 19. 6 0.09 1 0.85 9 16. 2 11. 9 16. 2 10. 5 4. 2 62. 1 8. 6 2.0 1 66. 8 0.05 9

0.08 7 0.16 2 0.000 7 0.23 2 0.12 8 13. 9 0.03 5 4. 2 0.47 6 5 8 6. 1 4. 4 1. 6 0.32 5
2. 3 4. 8 0.02 2 0.20 9 3. 9 2. 9 0 3. 9 2. 6 1. 0 15. 1 2. 1 0.48 7 16. 2 0.09 5

0.13 9 0.26 0 0.001 2 0.37 2 0.20 4 22. 3 0.05 6 6. 7 0.76 2 9 3 9. 8 7. 1 2. 6 0.52 0 3. 7 7. 6 0.03 5 0.33 4 6. 3 4. 6 6. 3 4. 1 1. 6 24. 2 3. 3 0.78 0 26. 0 0.15 1

0.22 3 0.41 6 0.001 9 0.59 4 0.32 7 35. 6 0.08 9 10. 7 1.2 2 14 8 15. 7 11. 3 4. 2 0.83 1 5. 9 12. 2 0.05 6 0.53 4 10. 1 7. 4 10. 1 6. 5 2. 6 38. 6 5. 3 1.2 5 41. 6



### 1 2P.1 7



### TABL E 14 . TES T RESULT S FO RBENZEN E FRO M BATTER Y STACK S

Plan t

J&L Steel , Battery P-4 , Pittsburgh , PA , Ma y 1979 1 2 Nationa l Stee l Battery C , Granite City , IL , Jul y 1979 1 2 Kaiser Stee l Battery B , Fontana , CA , September 1979 1 2 Bethlehe mStee l Batter

y 1 , Bum s Harbor , IN , March 1995 1 3 Benzen e emission s fro m battery stack s pp m 0. 6 t o 1.6

0. 1 t o 0. 2

1. 8 t o 4. 1

2. 6 t o 3. 2 lb/to n o f coal 0.004 5 t o 0.0 1

0.002 2 t o 0.003 1

0.02 9 t o 0.06 6

0.02 3 t o 0.02 8 tons/y r

1. 5 t o 3. 4

0. 3 t o 0. 4

3. 5 t o 7. 9

15 t o 18



### TABL E 15 . BENZEN E EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FO RBATTERY STACK S

Plan t A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Middletown , O

H Eri e Coke , Erie , PA Ne w Boston , Portsmouth , OH Tonawanda , Buffalo , N

Y Stack

9 15 1 1 2 2 Battery

3 4 W A, B 2 2 Stac k ga s flow rat e (dscfm )

31,77 3 111,88 2 91,57 7 22,20 9 35,57 0 56,84 2 Benzen e (lb/yr )

10,10 0 35,70 0 29,20 0 7,09 0 11,30 0 18,10 0



### 4 . Benzen e Emission s fro m Proces s Equipmen ti n th e By-Produc tRecovery Plan t Estimate s o f

benzen e emission s fro

mproces s equipmen t

i n th e by-produc t

recover y plant ar e base do n th e emissio n factor s i

n lb/to n of

coke fromAP-42 5 

### (se e th e excerp t provide d i n Appendi x C)

. Th e emissio n factor s ar e given in Tabl e 1 6 ~ on e set for furnac e coke andone fo r foundr y coke

. Tonawand aan

dEri e Cok

e produc e foundr

y coke , an dth e other

plant s produc e furnac e coke

. Mos t of th e emissio n factor s are for source s wit

h emission s controlle db y ga s blanketin g a s require db y th e benzen e NESHA P fo r by-produc t

recovery plant s (4 0 CF

R Par t 61 , Subpar

t L)

. Th e exception s ar

e th e exces s ammoni aliquo r tank s an dlight

oi l storag e tank s fo r foundr y coke batteries , which ar

e no t require dt o b e controlled

.

1 3

### TABL E 16 . BENZEN E EMISSION S FRO M PROCES S EQUIPMEN T I N TH E BY-PRODUC T PLAN T

Emissio n poin t

Light oi l storag e tank Ta r decante r Ta r sump Ta r dewaterin g Ta r storag e tan k Ligh t oi l condense r Ligh t oi l sump Flus h liquo r

circulatio n tan k Exces s ammoni aliquo r tank Was h oi l decante r Was h oi l tan k Ammoni astil l Benzen e emissio n facto r (lb/to n o f cok e produced )

furnac e (lb/t ) 0.0002 4 0.002 2 3.80E-0 4 0.0008 4 0.0007 6 0.003 6 0.000 6 0.0005 2
0.00005 6
0.0001 5 0.0001 5 foundr y (lb/ton )

0.0062 * 0.00 1 1.80E-0 4 0.000 4 0.0003 6 0.001 9 0.0003 2 0.0003 8
0.002 *
0.00008 2 0.00008 2 tp y o f cok e = typ e o f cok e =

Tota l AKSteel , Ashland , K

Y 964,97 7 furnac e A K Steel ,

Middletown , O H 423,25 2 furnac e Eri e Coke ,

Erie , P A 164,12 3 foundry Ne w Boston ,

Portsmouth , O H 353,09 1 furnac e Tonawanda ,

Buffalo, N Y 219,43 9 foundr y Benzen e emission s (lb/yr ) 23 2 212 3 36 7 81 1 73 3 347 4 57 9 50 2
5 4
14 5 14 5 Non e 9,16 3 Non e

93 1 16 1 35 6 32 2 Non e Non e 22 0
2 4
6 3 Non e Non e 2,07 6 Non e

Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e 32 8
Non e Non e Non e 32 8 8 5

77 7 13 4 29 7 26 8 127 1 Non e 18 4
2 0
5 3 5 3 Non e 3,14 1 136 1

Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e Non e 43 9
Non e Non e 2,80 0 4,60 0

* Uncontrolle demissio n factor

.



### 1 4P.1 9



### Site-specifi c informatio n o n th e processe s present

a t eac h plan t

i s use dt o estimate emissions

. Fo r

example , whe

n emission s fro

mprocesse s ar

e labele da s "None " in Tabl e 16 , i t
mean s tha t th e proces s i s no t

present o r tha t it i s aclose dvent

syste moperate dunder

negativ e pressure (n o leaks)

. A

K Steel-Middletow n an dEri e Cok e d o no t hav e alight

oi l recover

y process ; consequentl y the

y do not hav e alight

oil condenser , ligh t

oil storage , an dother

proces s vessel s associate dwit

h ligh t oil recovery . Th e estimat e fo

r th e ammoni astil l for

Tonawand aCoke wa s provide db y th e company . Eri e Cok e doe s no t hav e a n ammoni astill , New Bosto n Coke vent s i t to th e coke ove n ga s system , an dA K Steel vent s i t

to atherma

l oxidizer

.
Exampl e calculatio n fo r A KStee l Ashland : Ligh t oil storag e = 964,97 7 tp

y cok e * 0.0002 4 lb/to n = 23 2 lb/y r

5

. Benzen e Emission s fro m Equipmen tLeak s Benzen e emission s fro

mequipmen t

leak s ar e estimate dfro mth e procedure s i n "Protocol for Equipment

Leak Emission Estimates. " H 

### Th e protoco l for estimatin g emission s i s determine d by the amoun

t o f informatio n tha

t i s available

. I

f ther e ar e n o Medio d 2 1 dat aavailable , emission s ar

e base do n asingl e se

t of defaul t emissio n factors

. I

f there i s informatio n o

n the number o f leakin g component s but

n o screenin g value s fromMetho d21 , th e protoco l applie s on e
set o f emissio n factor s t

o non-leakin g component s an danothe r se t t o leakin g components

. Th e
mos t refinedapproac h i s base dthe actual screenin g valu e that i s measure dfo

r aleakin g component

. Emission s ar

e estimate dfo r

eac h leakin g component , an dasmal l defaul t emissio n factor i s applie dt o non-leakin g components

. Th e plant s wit

h equipment

in benzen e servic e ar

e thos e tha t

recove r ligh t oi l ( amixture of benzene , toluene , an dxylene)

. A K Stee l Ashland , Ne

w Bosto n Coke , an dTonawand aCok e hav e light oi l recover y system s an

dequipmen t

in benzen e service

. A K

Stee l Ashland 1 5 

### andNe w Bosto n Coke4 

### provide dMetho d2 1 dat afo r inspection s o f

thei r ligh t oi l system

. Consequently , thei r emission s were estimate dfro mcorrelation s fo

r th e Metho d2 1 screenin g values

. Default emissio n factor s fromthe protoco l wer e applie dto the equipmen t component s for

Tonawand a

1 5P.2 0



### Coke

. Eac

h o f the plant s provide dthe numbe r of equipment

component s (pumps , valves , flanges , pressure relie f

devices ) in benzen e servic e an dth e concentratio n of benzen e i n the proces s stream. 1 1 

### Result s ar e give n in Tabl e 1 7 fo

r A K Stee l Ashland , Tabl e 1 8 fo r Tonawand aCoke , an d Tabl e 1 9 fo

r Ne w Bosto n Coke

. Exampl e calculatio n fo r A K Steel Ashlan d

• One valv e leakin g a t ascreenin g leve l o f

5,00 0 pp mhandlin g ligh

t oi l (75 % benzene ) durin g on

e quarterly inspectio n (2,19 0 hr/yr) :

2.29E-0 6 * (5,000) 074 6 

### = 0.001 3 kg/h r * 2,19 0 hr/yr

* 0.7 5 (fraction benzene ) = 2. 2 kg/yr = 4. 8 lb/y r

• One valv e wit

h screening leve l pegge da t 10,00 0 pp minspecte dannually :

6.4E- 2 kg/h

r * 8,76 0 hr/y

r * 0.7 5 (fractio n benzene ) = 42 0 kg/y r = 92 5 lb/y

r
Exampl e o

f defaul t approac h fo r Tonawand aCok e

• 3 6 valve s handlin g ligh t oi l wit h 65 % benzen e - defaul t

emissio n factor

i s 0.010 9 kg/hr

pe r valve :

3 6 valve s * 0.010 9 kg/hr/valv e * 0.6 5 (fractio n benzene ) * 2. 2 lb/k g * 8,76 0 hr/y r

= 4,91 6 lb/y r

1 6P.2 1

TABL E 17 . BENZEN

E EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S - A KSTEE L ASHLAN D

COMPONEN T
Valv e Valv e Pressure relie f

devic e Pressure relie f

devic e STREA M
Ligh t oi l

STREA M

Rich was h oi l

Lea n was h oi l PERCEN T BENZEN E 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5
PERCEN T BENZEN E
7 5

PERCEN T BENZEN E
3

0.1 4 EMISSION S FRO M LEAKIN G COMPONENT S

SCREENIN G VALU E (SV ) p D m v 500 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 hrs/y r

leakin g 219 0 876 0 438 0 438 0 kg/h r 2.29E-06*(SV) 074 < 6.40E-0 2 7.30E-0 2 7.30E-0 2 Benzen e

Ob/vr ) 4. 8 92 5 52 8 52 8 EMISSION S FRO M NON-LEAKIN G COMPONENT S COMPONEN T

Pum p Rang e Valv e Open en dlin e COMPONEN T

Pum p Flang e Valv e Open en dlin e Pum p Flang e Valv e Open endline NUMBE R

5 4 6 9 1 3 0 NUMBE R

3 1 0 11 6 2 1 3 1 0 13 1 1 9 EMISSIO N

FACTO R (ke/hr/source ) 2.40E-0 5 3.10E-0 7 7.80E-0 6 2.00E-0 6 EMISSIO N FACTO R (ke/hr/source ) 1.14E-0 1 2.50E-0 4 1.09E-02 2.30E-0 3 1.14E-0 1 2.50E-0 4 1.09E-02 2.30E-0 3 Tota l Benzen e Ob/yr )
1.7 0. 2 10. 3 0. 9 Benzen e Ob/yr )
19 8 1 73 1 2 8 9 0. 1 3 9 1 3.00 0
TABL E 18 . BENZEN

E EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S - TONAWAND A COKE
STREA M Ligh t oi l % BENZEN E

6 5 COMPONEN T

Pum p Flang e Valv e Open en dlin e NUMBE R

1 3 7 3 6 1 EMISSIO N FACTO R

(kg/hr/source ) 1.14E-0 1 2.50E-0 4 1.09E-0 2 2.30E-0 3 Tota l BENZEN E (lb/yr ) 1,42 8 11 6 4,91 6 2 9 6,50 0
TABL E 19 . BENZENE EMISSION S FRO M EQUIPMEN T LEAK S - NE W BOSTO N COKE
STREA M Ligh t oi l

Ga s PERCEN T

BENZEN E 6 7

1 0 COMPONEN T

Pum p Flang e Valv e Ope n en dlin e Pressure relie f device s NUMBE R

9 84 8 122 7 2 8
1

EMISSIO N FACTO R (ke/hr/source ) 2.40E-0 5 3.10E-0 7 7.80E-0 6 2.00E-0 6 se e Table s 2 0 an d2 1
fota l BENZEN E (Ib/vr ) 2. 8 3. 4 12. 3 1. 9 42. 1
6 3


### 1 7P.2 2

TABL E 20 . EMISSION S FROM LEAKING PRESSUR E RELIE F DEVICE S • NEW BOSTO N COK E
Date Jan-9 7 May-9 7

n o datafo r Nov-9 7

Feb-9 8

Jul-9 8

Sep-9 8

Nov-9 8 Sep-9 9 Jun-0 0 Sep-0 0 Proces s flushing liquo

r tan k ta r tan k ta r tan k flushing liquo

r tan k ta r storag e wastewater

tan k Jul y 199 7 through Oct

wastewate r tan k wastewate r tan k secondar y separator primar y separator was h oi l tan

k ligh t oi l tan k ta r storag e ta r receiver wash oi l tan

k ligh t oi l tan k was h oi l tan

k primar y separator secondar y separator wash oi l tan

k wastewate r tan k wastewate r tan k ligh t oi l tan k ligh t oi l tan k wash oi l tan

k ta r sum p primar y separator wastewater

tan k ta r decanter ta r decanter ta r decanter was h oi l tan

k Screenin g

valu e (SV ) 89 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 >be r 199 7 75 0 1000 0 100 0 75 0 500 0 1000 0 750 0 500 0 500 0 1000 0 100 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 200 0 100 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 700 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 1000 0 % Benzen e 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.1 6 0.1 6 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0.1 6 1 0 1 0 0.1 6 0.1 6 0.1 6 1 0 kg/hr/sourc e 1.36E-5(SV) 058 9 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 136E-5(SV) 0M9 0.07 3 1.36E-5(SV) 038 9 1.36E-5(SV) 0

- 58 9 1.36E-5(SV) 058 9 0.07 3 1.36E-5(SV) W8 9 1.36E-5(SV) 0

- 58 9 1.36E-5(SV) OJ8 9 0.07 3 1.36E-5(SV)°- S8 9 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 1.36E-5(SV) 058 9 1.36E-5(SV) 038 9 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 1.36E-5(SV) 058 9 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 0.07 3 Benzen e

(lbs/month ) 0.00 2 0.18 5 0.18 5 0.18 5 0.18 5 11. 6
0.10 6 11. 6 0.12 6 0.10 6 0.32 5 11. 6 0.00 7 0.00 5 0.32 5 11. 6 0.12 6 11. 6 11. 6 11. 6 0.18 9 0.12 6 11. 6 11. 6 11. 6 0.00 6 11. 6 11. 6 0.18 5 0.18 5 0.18 5 11. 6 15 3 lb s f < Commen

t

lea k visually detected

assume d10,00 0 pp m

screenin g level no t reporte d- assumed 10,00 0

) r 4 4 month s = 4 2 Ibs/vr



### 1 8P.2 3

TABLE 21 . EMISSIO N ESTIMATE S FO RNON-LEAKIN G PRESSURE RELIEF DEVICES-NE W BOSTO N COK

E
Dat e Jan-9 7 Feb-9 7 Mar-9 7 Apr-9 7 May-9 7 Jun-9 7 Nov-9 7 Dec-9 7 Jan-9 8 Feb-9 8 Mar-9 8 Apr-9 8 May-9 8 Jun-9 8 Jul-9 8 Aug-9 8 Sep-9 8 Oct-9 8 Nov-9 8 Dec-9 8 Jan-9 9 Feb-9 9 Mar-9 9 Apr-9 9 May-9 9 Jun-99 Jul-9 9 Aug-9 9 Sep-9 9 Oct-9 9 Nov-9 9 Dec-9 9 Jan-0 0 Feb-0 0 Mar-0 0 Apr-0 0 May-0 0 Jun-0 0 Jul-0 0 Aug-0 0 Sep-0 0 Oct-0 0 Nov-0 0 Dec-0 0 Numbe r

8 8 8 8 7 8 2 8 8 5 8 8 8 8 3 8 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8 ke/hr/sourc e

4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 4.00E-0 6 % benzen e

1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 lb/mont

h 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.004 4 0.005 1 0.001 3 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.003 2 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.001 9 0.005 1 0.003 2 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.003 8 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.004 4 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.005 1 0.2 1 lb s fo r 4 4 month s = 0.0 6 lbs/y r



### 1 9

### 6 . Benzen e Emission s fro m Produc tLoadin g Benzen e emission s occur

whe n ta r an dligh t oil ar e loade dinto tank

trucks

. Emissio n estimate s fo

r produc t loadin g (basedo

n AP-4 2 loadin g equations ) were provide dby A K Stee l an d Tonawand aCoke

. A

K Stee l reporte d5,60 0 lbs/yr o f benzen e emitte dfromloadin g ligh t oil

. Base do n acoa l usag e rate o f

1,305,00 0 tpy , th e emissio n factor

i s 4. 3 x IO" 3 

### lb/to n o f

coal

. Tonawand areporte d840 lbs/yr , whic h give s a n emissio n factor

o f 3. 1 x IO" 3 

### lb/to n of

coa l base d

o n coa l usag e of 275,00 0 tpy

. The averag e of thes e emissio n factor s (3. 7 x 10' 3 

### lb/ton ) wa s applie dto the other

plant s to estimat

e emission s fro

mloadin g ligh

t oil

. A K Steel reporte d54 0 lbs/y

r o f benzen e emission s fro

mloadin g tar , whic

h give s a n emissio n factor

o f 4. 1 x 10" 4 

### lb/to n o

f coal

. I n th e absenc e o f

other information , thi s emissio n facto r wa s applie dto each o f

th e othe r plant s t o estimate benzen e emission s fro mta r loading

. Th e result s ar

e summarize di n Tabl e 22

.

7

. Benzen e Emission s fro m Wastewate r Benzen e emission s fromwastewate r were estimate dfro

minformatio n provide db y th e plant s o n the quantit

y o f benzen e i n wastewater

an da n estimate tha

t 85 % i s emitte d(fro mth

e EPA documen

t "Locating and

Estimating Air

Emissions

from Sources of

Benzene")} 6



### Benzene emission s fro

mwastewater

are controlle dbecaus e th e benzen e wast e NESHA P (4 0 CF

RPar t 61 , Subpar t FF ) applie s t

o thes e plants

. Result s ar

e given i n Tabl e 22

.

2 0P.2 5



### TABL E 22 . BENZENE EMISSION S FRO M PRODUC T LOADIN G AND WASTEWATE R

Plan t

AK Ashlan d

A K Middletow n Tonawand a



### Eri e Ne w Bosto n Produc t

Ta r Ligh t oi l Ta r Ta r Ligh t oi l Ta r Ta r Ligh t oi l Benzen e fro m loadin g

(lb/yr ) 54 0 5,60 0 94 0 120 84 0 120 22 0 2,00 0 Sourc e

AP-42 ' AP-42 " AP-42 " Emissio n factor 1 1
AP-42 " Emissio n factor

1 " Emissio n factor

1 " Emissio n factor* Benzen e fro m

wastewate r (lb/yr ) 90 0

73 0 51 0

120 nil "



### "Fro msite-specifi

c dat aan d AP-4 2 procedures

. b 

### Fro mA K Stee l (Ashland ) emissio n facto r o f 4. 1 x 10"

4 

### lb/to n coa l charged

. c 

### Fro maverag e emissio n facto r o f 3. 7 x 10' 3 

### lb/to n coa l charge d fro mA K Stee l (Ashland ) an d Tonawand

aCoke

. d

### This plan t installe dane w wastewate

r treatmen t syste mi n 1999

. Th e syste mis enclosed/covere

dan d vente dt o a contro l system , an d emission s ar e negligible

. 8 . Ratio s o f

Othe r Constituents to Extractabl e Organic s Datafrom1 2 cok

e plant s supplie dby th e American Cok e an dCoal Chemical s Institute 1 7 

### indicate s tha

t EPA' s grou

p of 7 PAH s compris e 4.5 % o f th e BS O base do n analyse s of coa l tar

.
TABL E 23 . 7 PAH s I N BS O
7 PAHs Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Ideno ( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene Tota l Averag e (% ) 0.9 0 0.8 4 0.6 8 0.5 9 1. 1 0.05 2 0.3 7 4. 5 Rane e (%)

0.57-1. 5 0.46-1. 3 0.37-1. 1 0.37-1. 0 0.8 0 - 2. 2 0.015-0.1 1 0.2 1 - 0.5 3

Datafro mother source s (a s wel l a s th e result s i n Tabl e 23 ) indicat e that benzo(a)pyrene , traditionall y use da s a

n indicato r

o f coke oven emissions , i s abou t on e percen t

o f the BSO. 18 

### ' 19 

### ' 2 0 

### EP A conducte dasourc e tes t

i n 197 8 tha

t measure dBS O an dPAH s i n ali dlea k durin g th e first
2 1P.2 6



### hou r of coking. 2 1 

### Th e result s fo

r additiona l PAH s (othe

r tha n th e 7 PAH s liste di n Tabl e 23 ) ar e give n i n Tabl e 24

. Othe

r constituent s i

n coke ove

n emission s fro

mthe revise dAP-42 5 

### are given in Tabl e 25

.
Tabl e 24 . ADDITIONA L PAH s IN BSO 2 1


### PA H Fluoranthen e Fluoren e Naphthalene Phenanthrene Pyrene Total % o f BS O 2. 3 1. 1 10. 5 4. 2 2. 4 20. 5
TABL E 25 . OTHERCONSTITUEN T IN COKE OVEN EMISSIONS 5


### Compoun d Carbo n monoxid e Carbon dioxid e Hydroge n sulfide Ammoni a Hydrogen cyanid e Methan e Ethan e Propan e Butan e Ethylen e Propylen e Propyn e Buten e Penten e Benzen e Toluen e Xylene Acetylen e Butadien e Carbony l sulfide Carbon disulfid e Rati o t o BS O 1. 1 0. 5 0.1 5 0.1 5 0.0 5 2. 7 0. 3 0.0 3 0.0 2 0. 4 0.0 8 0.00 3 0.0 7 0.0 1 0. 5 0.0 4 0.00 5 0.00 9 0.00 9 0.00 1 0.00 1

2 2P.2 7



### Compoun d Thiophene s Ammoni aan dacids : HC 1 H F HN0 3 

### H,SO_

. Metals : Arseni c Mercur y Seleniu m Semivolatiles : Benzofura n Benzonitril e Dibenzofura

n Dimethy l pheno l Hexanoi c aci ddioctylester 2-methy l pheno l 4-methy l pheno l Pheno l Propanenitril e Propyny l benzen e Pyridin e Trimethy l benzen e Volatil e organics : Methylethy l benzen e Rati o t o BS O 0.00 3

0.000 9 5x10- * 7xl0" 5 

### 0.000 7

- 2xl0" 7 

### 2xl0" 7 

### 2xl0" 7



### 7xl0" 5 

### 2xl0" 5 

### 9X10" 6 

### 9x10 * 2xl0" 5 

### 7xl0' 5 

### 2X10"4 

### 6x10" 4 

### 9x10" * 2xl0 5 

### 0.000 2 5xl0" 5



### 0.00 3
Fo r pushin g emissions , dat

aar e availabl e fro

mEP A test s tha

t quantifie dsemivolatil e organic s an

dmetals

. Th e result s ar

e presente din Tabl e 2 6 fo r PAH s andTabl e 2 7 for

metal s base do n their rati o t o methylen e chlorid e solubl e organics

.

2 3P.2 8



### TABL E 26 . PAH s IDENTIFIED I N FUGITIV E PUSHIN G EMISSIONS 8

7 PAH s Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysene Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Ideno ( 1,2,3-cd)pyrene Tota l 7 PAHs 1 6 PAH s Acenaphthen e Acenaphthylen e Anthracene Benzo(g,h,i)perylen e Fluoranthen e Ruoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyren e Tota l 1 6 PAHs Othe r PAH s 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pyren e Perylene Tota l - al l PAH s Rati o t o MCS O

0.001 7 0.000 5 0.001 5 0.000 9 0.002 9 0.000 0 0.001 0 0.008 4 Rati o t o MCS O 0.001 3 0.008 2 0.001 5 0.000 0 0.004 8 0.001 9 0.033 0 0.014 0 0.003 3 0.077 0 Rati o t o MCS O 0.007 2 0.000 6 0.000 1 0.084 0


### TABL E 27 . RATIO S O F METAL S T O EXTRACTABL E ORGANIC S FO RFUGITIV E PUSHIN G EMISSION S
Meta l
S b As B e C d Cr C o P b M n Hg N i S e Tota l Rati o t o extractable s organic s

AB C Coke 8 2.3E-0 5 1.8E-0 3 6.2E-0 5 5.3E-0 4 1.6E-0 3 2.9E-0 4 2.6E-0 3 3.2E-0 3 N D 2.8E-0 3 5.9E-0 4 1.3E-0 2 Bethlehem 9

4.7E-0 4 1.0E-02 1.3E-0 4 2.4E-0 4 9.6E-0 4 4.7E-0 4 1.6E-02 5.1E-0 3 6.7E-0 5 9.8E-0 3 2.2E-0 3 4.6E-0 2

2 4P.2 9



### 9 . Rati o o

f Xylen e an

d Toluene to Benzen e i n By-ProductRecover y Plan tEmission s Dat afromsevera

l source s wer

e examine dan

dar e liste dbelow

. Th e rati o o f xylen e to benzen e range s fro

m0.0 1 t o 0.055 , an

dth e rati o o

f toluen e to benzen e range s from0.0 6 t o 0.1 6

a . Fro m"Th e Making , Shaping , an dTreatin g of

Steel " 23


### ~ Compositio n of ligh t oi l (benzene , toluene , an dxylene )

Benzen e Toluen e Xylen e %



### 60-8 5 6-1 7 1- 7 Midrang e % Rati o t o benzen e

72. 5 11. 5 0.1 6 4 0.05 5
Fro mdraf t AP-4 2 Tabl e 12.2.5 5



### - - component s of ra w coke ove n ga s

Benzen e Toluen e Xylen e Rati o t o BS O

0. 5 0.04 0.00 5 Rati o t o benzen e

0.0 8 0.0 1

mg/m 3 

### 35,80 0 23,90 0 21,40 0 27,00 0 3,00 0 1,52 0 2,26 0 Rati o to benzen e

0.0 8 Fro m"Identit

y andChemica

l andPhysica

l Propertie s of

Compound s in Cok

e Ove n Emissions"

- Mino r

Constituent s i n Cok e Oven Gas 1 8



### Benzen e

averag e Toluen e
averag e Xylen e 50 0 0.0 2
Fro m"Identit

y an dChemica

l andPhysical Propertie s of Compound s i

n Cok e Ove n Emissions"-

- Selecte dVapor Concentration s i

n th e Cok e Ove n Batter

y Environmen t

a t Fiv e U.S

. Cok

e Plants. 1 8



### Rati o to benzen e 0.0 6 0.0 3

2 5 

### Benzen e Toluen e Xylen e Mea

n mg/m 3 

### 9. 5 0. 6 0. 3P.3 0



### 10 . Reference s 1

. Memorandu mwit

h attachments , S

. Burns , RTI , t o th e docket , enclosin g datacompile d fromEP A Sectio n 11 4 surve

y responses , Jul y 1998

. Docke t Ite mU-I-4 5 i

n Docket Number A-2000-34

. 2

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Metho d30 3 Inspection s of By-Produc t

Cok e Oven Batterie s - Complianc e wit h the NESHAP

. September 1999

. 3

. Memorandum

. Stephe n Felton , A K Steel , to Denni s Pagano , U S EPA

. Enclosin g A K Steel' s response s t

o EPA' s residua

l risk questionnaire

. Ma

y 15 , 2001

. 4

. Memorandum

. Thoma s DeCamp , Ne w Bosto n Cok

e Corp. , t o Denni s Pagano , U S EPA

. Enclosin g residua

l ris k datasubmission

. Ma

y 24 , 2001

. 5

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Emissio n Facto r Documentatio n fo

r AP-4 2 Sectio n 12.2 : Cok

e Production

. Revise dDraf t Versio n a s of

Jul y 2001

. 6

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Metho dDevelopmen t Tes t Repor t No

. 1

. U.S

. Stee l Clairto n Cok

e Work s Batterie s 7 , 8 , and9

. Dec-ket4temJI-A-5 4 inJDacke t A-79-15

. Augus t 1981

. 7

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. National Emissio n Standard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP ) fo

r Cok e Ovens : Pushing , Quenching , an dBatter y Stacks

Backgroun dInformatio n fo r Propose dStandards

. EPA-453/R-01-006

. Februar y 2001

. 8

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Emission s Testin g of Combustio n Stack

an d Pushin g Operation s a

t Cok e Batter y No

. 5/ 6 a t AB C Cok

e i n Birmingham , Alabama

. EPA
454/R-99-002a

. Februar

y 1999

. 9

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Emission s Testin g o f Combustio n Stac k

an d Pushin g Operation s a

t Cok e Batter y No

. 2 a t Bethlehe mStee l Corporation' s Burn s Harbo r Divisio n i n Chesterton , Indiana

. EPA-454/R-99-001a

. Februar y 1999

. 10

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Cok e Quenc h Towe r

Emissio n Testin g Program

. EPA-600/2-79-082

. Apri l 1979

. 11

. Memorandum

. D

. Paul , IC F Consulting , t o T

. Palma , U S EPA

. Revise dEmissio n Estimate s fo

r Cok e Oven Emissions

. Augus t 21 , 2000

. 12

. U.S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency

. Cok e Ove n Batter

y Stacks-Backgroun d Informatio n fo

r Propose dStandards

. Preliminar y Draft

. U S EP A Office o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

dStandards

. Ma

y 1980

.

2 6P.3 1



### 13

. Mostardi-Plat

t Associates , Inc

. Particulat e an dGaseou s Emissio n Diagnosti c Stud y Performedfo

r Bethlehe mStee l a t th e Numbe

r 1 Underfir

e Stack , Bum s Harbor , Indiana

. Marc h 2 0 to 22,1995

. 14

. U.S

. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency

. Protocol fo r Equipmen

t Lea k Emissio n Estimates

. EPA-453/R-95-017

. Novembe r 1995

. 15

. Memorandum

. Stephe n Felton , A

K Steel , t o Marvi n Branscome , RTI

. Enclosin g A K Steel' s Metho d2 1 Inspectio n Results

. Ma y 10,2001

. 16

. U.S

. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency

. Locating andEstimatin g Air Emission s fro

m Source s o f Benzene

. EPA-454/R-98-011

. June 1998

. 17

. Datasupplie db

y Davi dAilor , America

n Cok e an dCoa l Chemical s Institute

. Septembe r 2000

. 18

. Mabey , W.R

. Identit y an dChemica l an dPhysica l Propertie s o

f Compound s i

n Cok e Ove n Emissions

. Stanfor

dResearch Institute

. Septembe r 1977

. 19

. Suta , Benjamin

. Huma n Populatio n Exposure s t

o Atmospheri c Cok

e Ove n Emissions

. SR I International

. Octobe

r 1978

. 20

. White , L

. et

al

. Atmospheri c Emission s o f Coking Operation s - aReview

. Universit y o f Cincinnati

. EP

A Docke t No

. A-79-15 , Ite

m13-1-9

. 21

. Hartman , M.W

. Sourc e Tes t a t U.S

. Stee l Clairton Cok

e Ovens

. Prepare dfo

r U S EPA' s Emission s Measuremen

t Branch

. 1978

. 22

. E-mail fro

mMichael Maret , PES , to Lul aMelton , EPA

. Transmittin g revise dtes t repor t tables

. Jun e 15,2001

. 23

. Unite dState s Steel

. Th e Making , Shaping , an dTreatin g o

f Steel

. Associatio n o

f Iron an d

• Steel Engineers

. 10 t h

### Edition

. 1985

. 24

. Mostardi-Plat

t Associates , Inc

. Particulat e an dGaseou s Emissio n Diagnosti c Stud y Performedfo

r BethlehemSteel a

t the Numbe

r 1 Cok e Batter y Pushin g Contro l Stack , Bum s Harbor , Indiana

. March 2 1 to 23,1995

.

2 7P.3 2



### APPENDI

X A . EXCERPT S FRO M REVISE D AP-4 2



### A- 1P.3 3



# Emissio n Factor Documentation for AP-42

Sectio n 12.2

Cok e Production

Revise d Draf tRepor t (For internal review - July 2001)



## Fo r U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an dStandard s Emissio n Facto r

an dInventory Grou p

EP A Purchas e Orde r

7D-1554-NAL

X

MR I Projec t

No

. 4864 November

199 8

A- 2P.3 4

NOTIC E
Thi s document

i s apreliminar

y draft

. It ha s no t bee n formally release db y th e U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agenc y an dshoul dno t a t thi s stag e b e construe dt o represen t Agenc y policy

. I t i s bein g circulate dfor

comment s o

n it s technical meri t

an dpolic y implications

.



### A- 3P.3 5

4.1. 2 Developmen t

o f Candidat e Emissio n Factor s fo

r Leak s an dChargin g Th e emissio n dat afo

r uncontrolle d or

poorl y controlle ddoo r

leak s are given in Tabl e 4-1

. Th e result s fromReference s 1 through 4 ar e average dt o generate a

n emissio n factor

o f 0. 5 lb/to n (0.2 5 kg/Mg ) of

coa l charge dfo

r filterable PM

. Doo r

leak s controlle da

t th e pre-NESHA P leve l are als o given in Tabl e 4- 1 in term s o f cok e pushed

. Th e ratio s o

f BSO:filterabl e P

M (1.1 ) an dcondensible : filterable PM (0.6 ) were taken fro mReferenc e 3

. A s doo r lea k contro l ha s improve dover th e pas t 2 0 years , observation s andtheoretica l model s sugges t tha t th e natur e o

f th e leak s hav e change dfro mlarg e leak s (wit

h occasional doo r

lea k fires ) t o muc h smalle r leaks

. Referenc e 5 ha s ahighe r lea k rate tha n tha t reporte din Referenc e 3 althoug h th e percen t

leakin g door s wa s higher

. Tabl e 4- 2 summarize s dat afromReference s 3 an d5 that sho w BS O lea k rate s o f 0. 4 t o 1. 3 l

b BSO/h r (0.1 9 t o 0.5 8 kg/hr) pe r

leakin g doo r

fo r averag e level s of

7 0 an d 2 9 percen t leakin g respectively

. Th e differenc e ma y represen t

variability betwee n batterie s that coul db e du e t o difference s i n collectin g main pressure , typ e o f coal , or th e cokin g cycl e (e.g. , 3 0 hour s i n Referenc e 3 an d1 8 hour s i n Referenc e 5)

. A theoretical exponentia l mode l wa s develope di n Referenc e 6 t o extrapolat e fro mth e datapresente di

n Reference s 3 an d5 an duse din Referenc e 9 t o estimat e emission s fromcok e ove n door s a t improve dperformanc e levels

. Thi s exponential mode l result s in apredicte drang e o f 0.0 2 t o 0.2 6 lb/hr

(0.0 1 t o 0.1 2 kg/hr ) for

1 0 percen t

leakin g doors

. Th e midrang e of

thes e predicte demissio n rate s i s 0.1 4 lb/hr (0.06 3 kg/hr ) andi s th e valu e recommende dfor door s controlle dt o th e pre-NESHA P levels

. Doo r lea k dat afromReference s 7 and3 9 ar e given in Tabl e 4-3

. Becaus e th e calculation s in bot h report s di dno t

follo w standar

dpractices , th e datafo

r al l leak s were recalculate dfor thes e tests

. Thi s recalculatio n ha dth e mos t effec t for th e Categor

y 0,0. 5 an d1 leak s fromReferenc e 7 becaus e o f th e hig h blank

corrections , th e us e o

f negativ e number s i

n calculation s an da

n inappropriat e metho dfor determinin g th e minimu mdetectibl e weights

. Th e us e o f solvent s wit

h lowe r solid s an dth e negativ e number s proble mwa s correcte di n th e subsequen t

tes t reporte di n Referenc e 39

. Th e Categor y 4 result s for BS O (0.4 9 lb/hr ) are in th e sam e rang e a s thos e reporte di n Reference s 3 an d5 for heavy , uncontrolle ddoo r

leak s but ar e no t representativ e o

f th e curren t

leve l o f emissio n control

. Th e BS O result s for th e smalles t

leak s (Categorie s 0. 5 an d1 ) were no t statisticall y different

an daverage d0.02 3 an d0.02 6 lb/hr

(0.01 1 an d0.01 2 kg/hr) respectively

. Th e BS O emissio n rat e increase da s th e visibl e siz e o f th e lea k increase dwit

h average s o

f 0.06 1 an d0.1 1 lb/hr

(0.02 8 an d0.0 5 kg/hr ) for Categorie s 2 , an d3 , respectively

. Th e averag e emissio n rat e for lea k rat e Categor

y 3 compare s ver

y favorabl y wit

h th e midrang e value s predicte db y th e exponential mode l in Referenc e 9 , whic h estimate drate s of 0.1 4 lb/hr (0.06 3 kg/hr ) for

a n averag e o

f 1 0 percen t

leakin g doors

. Thi s implie s that a t leas t on e doo r woul db e visibl y leakin g a

t abou t th e Categor

y 4 level

. At

th e NESHA P performanc e level , i t i s expecte dtha

t th e visibl e doo r

leak s woul db e dominate db y Categor y 0. 5 and1 leak s wit

h som e Categor

y 2 leak s an dafew Categor y 3 leaks

. Th e availabl e dat afo r Categorie s 0. 5 throug h 3 leak s ar e dominate db y th e 1 8 Categor y 0. 5 an d1 test s wit

h only 5 Categor

y 2 test s an d3 Categor y 3 tests

. Th e ru n b y ru n averag e lea

k rat e fo r Categorie s 0. 5 throug h 3 in Tabl e 4- 3 i s 0.04 1 lb/hr (0.01 9 kg/hr) , whic h i s ver y clos e t o th e mode l predictio n of

0.0 5 lb/hr

(0.02 3 kg/hr ) for

a n averag e of

5 percen t leakin g door s an di s th e valu e recommende dfor

well-controlle ddoor s wit h emission s visibl e fro mth e yar da s measure db y EPA Metho d303

. Ther e are several reason s for no t applyin g th e exponentia l mode l result s fro mth e NESHA P backgroun ddocumen t

for percen t leakin g door s les s tha

n 1 0 percen t

i n thi s analysis

. First , th e

A- 4P.3 6

exponentia

l mode l i s no t

applicabl e fo

r level s belo w 5 percen t

leakin g door s becaus e i

t doe s no t accoun t fo r th e highe r

ove n pressure s in th e firs t five t o 1 0 minute s after

charging

. I n addition , th e mode l doe s no t account for emission s tha

t ar e visibl e fro

mth e benc h ( 3 t o 1 5 feet

distance ) bu t

no t th e yar d(5 0 t o 7 5 fee t distance)

. Lastly , th e mode l i s basedo n th e self-sealin g mechanism , an dman y batterie s ar

e no w usin g improve ddoo r

sea l design s and/or

sodiu msilicate a s asupplemental sealan t t o reduce th e numbe r o f leakin g doors

. Th e improve dperformanc e o f th e newer doo r seal design s an dth e us e o f th e sealan t are no t accounte dfor

b y th e mode l an

ddoe s no t relat e t o th e calculation s o f sealin g time (du e t o tar condensation ) that

th e mode l uses . Heav

y doo r leaks , whic h shoul db e uncommo n under th e NESHAP , wouldhav e ahighe r

emissio n rate tha

n 0.0 6 lb/hr

(0.02 7 kg/hr) , an ddoor s wit h onl y smal l wisp s o

f emission s woul dhav e alower rate

. The dat afromReference s 7 an d3 9 provide s additiona l suppor t i n tha t even th e smalles t

visibl e leak s (i

n Categorie s 0. 5 and1 ) hav e highe r emissio n rate s tha

n woul db e predicte db y th e exponential mode l fo r ver y lo w level s of

percen t leakin g doors

. Consequently , th e us e o f th e exponentia l model predictio n fo r level s belo w 5 percen t

leakin g door s woul dresult i n asignificant underestimate o f

emissions

. A s implie dabove , EPA Metho d30 3 doe s no t identif y al l of th e door s that

hav e visibl e emissions

. A subset o f th e dat afromReference s 7 an d3 9 ca n b e use dt o quantif

y emission s fromdoor s tha t ar e visibly leakin g when observe dfro mth e benc h bu t

ar e no t counte da s visibl y leakin g b y EP A Metho d 303

. EP A Metho d30 3 include s a

n adjustmen

t o f 6 % for door s observe dfromth e benc h rathe r tha n th e yard

. A s aresul t

there ma y b e 7 t o 8 door s a

t atypica l batter y o f 6 2 oven s tha

t hav e leak s tha

t woul db e visibl e fro mth e benc h tha

t woul dno t b e counte db y EPA Metho d303

. Door s wit h visibl e emission s fro mth e benc h bu t

no t th e yardare assigne da

n emissio n rat e o f

0.02 3 lb/h r

(0.01 1 kg/hr)

. Thi s i s th e averag e emissio n rat e o

f door s wit h the lowes t

(0.5 ) grade dvisibl e emissions

. Thi s grad e leve l represent s visibl e emission s tha t ar e barely perceptibl e an dma y b e misse ddurin g EP

A Metho d30 3 observations

. Give n tha

t th e measure demission s fro mth e lowes t

tw o grade dvisibl e emission s were no t statisticall y different , i t

i s plausibl e tha

t emission s tha

t are onl y visibl e fro mth e benc h woul dals o hav e comparabl e emissions

. Dat afro mReference s 7 , 3 9 an d18 1 sugges t

tha t emission s ma

y exis t when ther e are n o visibl e emission s even fromth e bench

. Ther e ar e plausibl e reason s why emission s ma y exis t when there ar e n o visibl e emission s fromdoor s durin g norma l operations

. Dat afro mReferenc e 3 9 documente ddetectibl e level s of emission s fromdoor s on oven s tha t were empty

. Thes e measure demission s were abou t thre e time s lower

than th e smalles t

visibl e lea

k clas s an dwere a

t leas t fiv e time s highe r

tha n th e backgroun d BS O results

. Th e measure demission s fro mth e empt

y oven s show n i n th e report range dfrom0.00 6 t o 0.01 6 lb BSO/

h (0.002 6 t o 0.00 7 k

g BSO/h)

. Th e abov e emission s are base dupo n alimi t o f detectio n of thre e time s th e averag e blank value

. However , th e Emissio n Measuremen t Cente r (EMC ) guidanc e o n limit s of detectio n an dquantificatio n (http://www.epa.gOv/ttn/emc/facts.html#lab ) indicate s tha t th e limi t o f detectio n i s generall y base dupo n avalu e o f thre e time s th e standar ddeviatio n o f th e blank value

. Whe n thi s criteri ai s used , onl y th e middl e valu e i s change dfro m0.00 7 l b BSO/ h t o 0.00 5 l b BSO/h

. At th e detectio n limit , there i s a99.9 % probabilit y tha t th e valu e coul db e betwee n zero an dtwic e th e value, a99 % probabilit

y tha t th e valu e coul db e betwee n 22 % o f th e valu e an d1. 5 time s th e valu e anda90 % probabilit y tha t th e valu e coul db e between 0.5 7 o f th e valu e an d1.4 time s th e valu e Th e EM C guidanc e als o indicate s that

value s les s tha

n te n time s th e standarddeviatio n of th e blan k valu e are considere dt o b e belo w th e limi t

of quantification

. A

t th e limi t o f quantification , ther e i s a99.9 % probabilit y that th e measure dvalu e i s betwee n 69 % and130 % of th e actua l value , a99 % probability tha t th e measure dvalu e i s between 77 % an d120 % o f th e actua l valu e an da90 % probability tha t th e measure dvalu e i s betwee n 87 % an d110 % o f

th e actual value

. Basedupo n th e reporte dvalues , tw o o f th e thre e sample s were

A- 5P.3 7

betwee n th e limit

of detectio n an dth e limi t

o f quantification

. A s aresult , th e uncertaint y of th e measure d emission s i s greate r

tha n thos e typicall y use dt o quantif y asource s emissions

. In addition , som e of th e reporte dmasse s ar e questionable

. Th e prob e catc h for run 2 an dth e secon dfilter

catc h for ru n 6 ma y b e anomalie s whe

n compare dt o al l other

runs . Th e valu e reporte dfo r th e prob e catc h for

ru n 2 appear s t o b e atypographical erro r

i n tha t th e valu e i s a

n orde r o f magnitude highe

r tha t th e othe r tw o runs . Th e secon dfilter

catc h for ru n 6 ha s th e highes t

weight gai n o f all th e secondfilters althoug h thi s i s onl y slightl y abov e th e minimu

mdetectio n limit

. I

f thes e tw o anomalou s value s ar e excluded , al l thre e test s o f empt y oven s woul db e betwee n th e detectio n limi t an dth e quantificatio n limit

. Th e averag e emissio n rat e fo r empty/n o visibl e lea

k oven s wit

h thes e tw o value s include di s 0.00 9 lb/h r (0.00 4 kg/hr ) bu t

wit h thes e tw o value s exclude di s 0.00 5 lb/h r (0.00 2 kg/hr)

. Th e averag e emissio n rat e for empty/n o visibl e lea k oven s wit h th e tw o value s exclude di s assigne dt o oven s wit h n o visibl e emissions

. Becaus e thes e emissio n rate s ar

e base do n tes t datatha t are somewha

t abov e th e detectio n limi t

bu t ar e substantiall y belo w th e quantificatio n limit th e uncertaint

y associate dwit

h th e resultin g emissio n facto r i s greate r

tha n mos t sourc e tes t

base demissio n factors

. Quantitativel y th e uncertantie s ar e closes t t o dat aa t th e limi t o f detection

. Therefore , afootnote wil l b e include di n th e emissio n facto r tha t indicate s th e hig h degre e of uncertaint y associate dwit

h th e non-visibl y leakin g doo r portio n o f th e emissio n factor

. Whe n any o f th e recommende demissio n factor s are applied , th e use r shoul db e awar e tha t

ther e i s asignificant

amount o f uncertainty i

n th e estimate

. Th e uncontrolle demissio n facto r i s base dupo n test s o f tw o batterie s wit

h significantl y differen

t performanc e an

dwit h emissio n rate s tha t

ar e no t consisten t wit h thei r relativ e visual performance

. Th e pre-NESHAP an dNESHA P emissio n factor s ar e base dupon mor

e dat atha t i s mor e consistent , ther e i s stil l asignifican t amount of uncertainty

. Fo r

th e EP A Metho d30 3 visibl e leak s portio n o f th e emissio n factor , ther

e ar e n o dat aavailabl e on th e distributio n of

size s among doo r

leaks , whic h probabl y includ e bot h smal l an dlarg e leaks

. Fo r

leak s tha t are visibl e fro

mth e benc h bu t

no t th e yard , ther e i s some uncertaint y tha t thi s clas s of

leak s ar e adequatel y represente dby th e measure demission s fro mth e lowes t grad e of leak

. Lastl y th e emissio n estimate s fo

r door s tha t ar e no t visibl y leakin g fro mth e benc h ar e quantifie db y onl y fou r

tes t run s tha t ar e ver y nea r th e limit o f detectio n of

th e metho dan dhav e a

t leas t one componen t

o f th e tes t exclude d du e t o anomalou s values

. Therefore , dependin g o n th e number o f leak s andth e typica l lea

k sizes , actua l emission s fro

magiven Batter

y ma y b e several time s highe r

o r lowe r tha n th e estimat e provide db y thes e emissio n factors

. Fo r leak s fromlid s an dofftakes , arang e of 0.007 5 to 0.04 8 lb BSO/

h (0.003 3 t o 0.02 1 k g BSO/h ) i s recommende dfromth e topsid e tes t measurin g a0.3

- to 2-mete r (1

- t o 6-foot) plum e i n Referenc e 8

. I

t i s recommende dtha

t emission s of

0.007 5 lb BSO/

h (0.003 3 k g BSO/h ) b e use dfor th e NESHA P leve l of

contro l an dthat

emission s o f

0.04 8 l b BSO/

h (0.02 1 kg BSO/h ) b e use dfo r th e pre NESHA P level o

f control

. Lackin g othe r

data , thi s emissio n rate ca n als o b e applie dt o othe r

leak s o n th e topsid e o f th e battery , such a s leak s fromrefractor y o r flu e caps . Ver y fe w dat aare availabl e for

chargin g emissions

. However , visibl e emissio n observation s hav e shown tha

t th e implementatio n of

stag e chargin g ove r

th e pas t 2 0 year s ha s resulte di n dramati c reduction s i

n emissions

. When chargin g wa s uncontrolled , cloud s o f emission s occurre dthroughou t th e 3

- t o 5-minut

e chargin g perio dan dobscure dth e chargin g car . Today , emission s ar e limite dt o afew second s per

charg e (throug h th e us e o f steamaspiratio n an dstag e charging ) an dar e characterize d primaril y a s wisp s o

r puff s of emissions

. T o mee t

th e curren t

NESHAP limi t

o f 1 2 second s o f

visibl e emission s pe

r charge , mos t

batterie s wil l nee dt o averag e about 1 0 second s o f

emission s pe r

charge

.

A- 6P.3 8

Th e informatio n availabl e fo r uncontrolle dchargin g i s summarize din Tabl e 4-4

. Th e recommende demissio n factor fo r filterable P M i s 0. 7 lb/to n o f coal charge d(0.3 5 kg/Mg ) base do n th e averag e o f th e thre e result s in th e table

. T o estimate controlle demission s fro mcharging , th e NESHA P backgroun ddocument

(Referenc e 9 ) use da

n exponentia l mode l t o predic t mas s emission s whe n visibl e emission s ar e reduce dto afe w second s per

charg e in duration

. Th e pre-NESHA P contro l leve l fo r mos t batterie s wa s on th e orde

r o f 2 5 t o 3 0 second s pe r

charge

. Referenc e 9 estimate s BS O emission s a s 0.02 9 t o 0.1 6 l b BS O (1 3 t o 7 5 g BSO ) pe r charge

. Fo r

a n averag e of

1 0 second s pe r

charg e (NESHA P level) , th e emission s are estimate da s about 0.000 1 t o 0.01 8 l b BS O (0.0 6 t o 8. 3 g BSO ) pe r charge

. Thes e estimate s o

f emission s fro

mchargin g ar

e th e mos t uncertai n o

f th e estimate s in thi s sectio n an dar e further complicate dby the expectatio n tha t chargin g emission s ma

y hav e acompositio n somewha t different fromtha t o f ra w cok e ove n gas . I n addition , i f

occasional uncontrolle do r poorly-controlle d charge s occur , th e emissio n rate give n abov e coul dsignificantl y underestimate th e quantit y o f emissions

. Fo r thi s analysis , amidrang e valu e o f 0.009 3 lb BS O pe r

charg e (4. 2 g BS O pe r

charge ) i s recommende d t o estimat e emission s fro

mbatterie s controlle da

t th e NESHA P leve l whe

n they ar e averagin g abou t 1 0 second s o f visibl e emission s per

charge

. For

th e pre-NESHA P level , amidrang e estimat e o f 0.09 7 l b BS O pe r charg e (4 4 g BS O per

charge ) i s recommended

. Fro mReference s 1 2 an d13 , th e BS O emissio n rat e i s estimate da s 1.2 time s th e filterable P M emissio n rate

. On e Batter y i n th e U.S

. use s ascrubbe r t o captur e emission s i

n additio n t o stag e charging

. Referenc e 4 report s a n emissio n facto r

o f 0.01 4 lb/to n (0.00 7 kg/Mg ) for

filterabl e PM

. [Note : Ther e are n o batterie s i n th e U.S

. tha

t us e pipelin e charging , an

dn o batterie s are expecte dt o b e constructe dusin g thi s technology

. Consequently , pipelin e chargin g i s no t considere di n thi s analysis

. Currentl y (1995) , ther

e i s only on e Batter

y tha t use s ascrubbe r

system(lime-based ) for

chargin g emission s an danother

Batter y charge s dr

y coal wit h aRedle r

conveyor . However , thes e batterie s mus t meet th e NESHA P limit s fo

r visibl e emissions , andth e emissio n estimate s give n abov e shoul dals o appl y t o thos e emission s tha

t escap e capture durin g charging. ]

A- 7P.3 9

TABL E 4-1

. SUMMARY O F UNCONTROLLE D AN D CONTROLLED DOO RLEAK EMISSION S

Referenc e 1

2

3

4
16 6 Pollutan t Filterabl e PM Uncontrolle d Filterabl e P

M Uncontrolle d Filterabl e PM Uncontrolle d Condensibl e P M Uncontrolle d BS O Uncontrolle d Filterabl e P M Uncontrolle d Filterabl e P M pre-NESHA P Controlle d No

. o f run s 3

3

4

4

4

3
3 Emissio n factor

Rang e 0.4-1. 0 0.2-0. 5 0.08-0. 8 0.04-0. 4 0.4-0. 9 0.2-0. 5 0.1-0. 5 0.05-0. 3 0.6-0. 7 0.3-0. 4
0.3-0. 5 0.2-0. 3 0.03-0. 2 0.02-0. 1 Averag e

0.7 2 0.3 6 0.4 4 0.2 2 0.5 7 0.2 9 0.3 6 0.1 8 0.6 2 0.3 1
0.3 6 0.1 8 0.06 6 0.0 5 Units 3

lb/to n kg/M g lb/to n kg/M g lb/to n kg/M g lb/to n kg/M g lb/to n kg/M g
lb/to n kg/M g lb/ton b kg/Mg b Ratin g

D

D

D

D

D

D

E

"Based o n lb/to n or

kg/M g of coal charge dunles s otherwis e specified

. "Converte d fromlb/to n of

cok e pushe dusing factor s o f 0.6 9 for lb/to n an d0.34 5 for

kg/Mg

. TABL E 4-2

. BS O ESTIMATE S FO RDOO RLEAK S

Referenc e 5 3 9 9 Percen t

leakin g door s 2 9 7 0 5 1 0 BS O rat e pe r doo r kg/h r 0.5 8 0.1 9 0.0036-0.04 1 0.01-0.1 2 lb/hr

1. 3 0.4 2 0.008-0.08 9 0.02-0.2 6 Comment

Cok e sid e she dtes t Cok e sid e she dtes t Mode l prediction 8 Mode l prediction "

1 Mode l predictio n estimate s fro mreferenc e 9 ar e extrapolate dfromtes t dat afro mreference s 3 an d5

.

A- 8P.4 0

TABLE 4-3

. DOO

RLEA K EMISSION S DAT A

Referenc e 3 9 3 9 3 9 7 Ru n

2h 6 h 7 h 1 1 Lea

k category " 0 (empt y oven) 0 (empt y oven ) 0 (empt y oven ) 0 (n o visible ) Averag e 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 7 7 7 ll h

li e 3 h 3 c 4 h 4 c 5 1 0 1 2 0. 5

0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 Averag e 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 7 7 7 5 h

5 c l c l h 10 c lO h 4 6 9 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Averag e 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 7 9 c

9 h 8 c 8 h 3 2

2 2 2 2 Averag e 7 7 7 2

1 8 3

3 3 Averag e 7 1 7 1 4 Particulat e matter , lb/hi* 0 Reporte d 0.02 8 0.01 9 0.01 4 0.01 0 0.01 8 0.O4 8 0.03 3 0.04 3 0.06 8 0.O4 5 0.04 2 0.02 9 0.01 4 -0.00 2 0.03 6 0.08 5 0.06 2 0.03 7 0.04 6 0.04 1 0.05 8 0.03 9 0.03 3 0.01 0 0.04 6 0.04 9 0.05 5 0.08 7 0.08 9 0.12 8 0.08 2 0.11 9 0.08 8 0.20 2 0.13 6 0.57 9 Revise d

0.02 5 0.01 1 0.01 0 0.01 0 0.01 4 0.04 4 0.02 7 0.04 3 0.05 8 0.04 4 0.04 0 0.02 9 0.01 4 0.01 6 0.03 5 0.08 5 0.06 2 0.03 1 0.04 0 0.04 1 0.05 8 0.03 9 0.03 3 0.01 3 0.04 5 0.04 8 0.05 4 0.08 6 0.08 8 0.13 0 0.08 1 0.12 4 0.08 8 0.20 2 0.13 8 0.58 0 BSO , lb/hr *

Reporte d 0.01 6 0.00 6 0.00 7 -0.00 9 0.00 5 0.05 2 0.03 6 0.01 9 0.02 7 0.01 8 0.02 3 0.00 8 -0.00 5 0.00 4 0.02 0 0.04 7 0.04 2 0.02 7 0.03 3 0.03 0 0.02 4 0.01 0 0.00 8 -0.00 2 0.02 4 0.03 0 0.03 0 0.06 5 0.06 3 0.10 9 0.05 9 0.08 6 0.05 0 0.16 4 0.10 0 0.48 5 Revise d

0.016/0.00 2 0.006/0.00 4 0.00 5 0.007 5 0.009/0.00 5 0.05 2 0.03 5 0.01 8 0.02 6 0.01 6 0.02 3 0.01 8 0.01 0 0.01 2 0.02 3 0.04 7 0.03 8 0.02 4 0.01 9 0.03 0 0.02 2 0.02 0 0.02 0 0.01 3 0.02 7 0.02 8 0.02 8 0.06 5 0.06 4 0.12 0 0.06 1 0.09 6 0.05 9 0.17 3 0.10 9 0.49 4 Lea k categorie s ar

e base d o n rang e o f

ligh tleak s t o dens e leak s wit h 0. 5 a s th e lea k categor y wit h leas tvisibl e o r intermittentl y visibl e leak s and 4 a s th e lea k categor y wit h th e highes tdensity . Th e P M include s filterabl e an d condensibl e PM . Tw o BS O emission s rat

e value s ar

e presented , th e firsti s a

s wa s presente d i n th e tes treportwhic h use d thre e time s th e averag e blank valu e a s th e detectio n limit , th e secon d (revised ) use s a detectio n limi to f thre e time s th e standar d deviatio n o f th e blan k value s fo r tes treferenc e 3 9 wher e individua l blan k results wer e availabl e an d fo r tes treferenc e 7 recalculate s emissio n rate s b y usin g a zer o weigh tgai n fo r filters thatshowe d weigh tloss . Al l emission s estimate s fo r Catagor y 0 leak s ar e highl y suspec t becaus e sample s wer e nea r th e detectio n limi tan d anomolie s thatexis twit h individua l sampl e portions .



### A- 9P.4 1

TABL E 4-4

. DAT A FO RUNCONTROLLE D CHARGIN G

Referenc e 

### 1 2 12,13 ,



### 4 4 Pollutan t

Filterabl e PM Benzen e solubl e organic s Condensibl e P M Filterabl e P

M Filterabl e P M Emissio n facto r kg/M g 0.05 5 0.06 5 0.05 5 0.2 6 0.7 5 lb/to n

0.1 1 0.1 3 0.1 1 0.5 2 

### 1. 5 Ratin g



### D D D D D

REFERENCE S FO RSECTIO N 4

1

. Source Testing of

a Stationary Coke-Side Enclosure: Great Lakes Carbon Corporation, St. Louis, MO,EPA-340/l-76-014(a ) and(b) , U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Washington , DC , Augus t 1977

. 2

. Source Testing of

a Stationary Coke-Side Enclosure: Burns Harbor Plant, Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Chesterton, IN, EPA-340/1-76-012 , U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Washington , DC, Ma y 1977

. 3

. Emission Testing at

a Byproduct

Coke Oven Battery, Wisconsin Steel, Chicago, IL, EM B 77-CKO-ll , U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Washington , DC, May 1978

. 4

. Particulate Emission Factors Applicable to the Iron and Steel Industry, EPA-450/4-79-028 , U

. S

. Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , Septembe r 1979

. 5

. Emission Test

Report: Armco Steel, Houston, TX. EM B 79-CKO-22

. U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , November 1979

. 6

. C

. Allen , A Model

to Estimate Hazardous Emissions from Coke Oven Doors, EP A Contrac t No

. 68-02-1408 , Docke t

Ite mB-A-3 8 in Docke t

No

. A-79-15 , Marc h 1980

. 7

. Final Phase I Method Validation Report

for Quantitative Coke Oveti Door Leak Measurement Study, ENS RConsultin g an dEngineering , fo r American Iro n an dStee l Institute , Washington , DC

. December 1991

. 8

. Emission Test

Report - U.S. Steel

Corporation, Clairton, Pennsylvania, EM B Report No

. 7 78-CKO-13

. TRW , Inc

. Jul y 1980. , 9

. Coke Oven Emissions from Wet-Coal

Charged Byproduct

Coke Oven Batteries - Background Information

for Proposed

Standards, EPA-450/3-85-028a , U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC

. Apri l 1987

.

A-1 0P.4 2

10

. Memorandu mfromAckerman , E. , USEP A Regio n HI , t o A

. Agnew , EPA/OAQPS

. Transmittin g informatio n o

n bypasse dcok

e oven gas . Apri l 8,1991

. 11

. Coke Oven Ga s Stud

y Performedfor

Bethlehe mStee l Corporation , Mostardi-Plat t Associates , Inc. , Decembe r 1992

. 12

. RW

. Be e e t

al , Coke Oven Charging Emission Control Test Program, EPA-650/2-74-062 , U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Jul y 1974

. 13

. A

. Trenhol mandL

. Beck , Assessment of Hazardous Organic Emissions from Slot Type Coke Oven Batteries, unpublished

paper, U

. S

. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Researc h Triangl e Park , NC , Marc h 1978

. 39

. Draft

Final Phase II Method Validation Report

for Quantitative Coke Oven Door Leak Measurement

Study, ENS RConsultin g an dEngineering , fo r America n Iro n an dStee l Institute , Washington , DC

. Januar

y 1992

. 181

. Sampling and

Analysis of

Coke-Oven Door

Emissions, EPA-600/2-77-213 , U

. S

. Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Washington , DC , Octobe r 1977

.



### A-l lP.4 3



### APPENDIX B . EXCERP T FRO M TH E BACKGROUN D INFORMATIO N DOCUMEN T FO RPUSHING , QUENCHING , AN D BATTER Y STACK SP.4 4

Unite d States Environmenta

l Protectio

n Agenc y Offic e O f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g An d Standard

s Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 EPA-453/R-01-00 6

Februar y 200 1 FINAL REPOR

T Ai r 

# Nationa l Emission Standards fo r Hazardous Ai r Pollutant

s (NESHAP

) for Cok e Ovens : Pushing , Quenching , an

d Batter y Stack s - Background Information fo r Proposed

Standards

Fina l Repor tP.4 5



### 5 . ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S

Thi s chapter

focuse s o n th e environmental impact s associate dwit h achievin g th e MAC T leve l o f control

. Th e primar

y impac t i s th e reductio n o f

emission s o f

HA P whe n MAC T i s implemented

. Secondar

y impacts , suc h a s th e generatio n o f soli dwast

e andincrease denerg y usage , ar e als o discussed

. Emissio n reduction s o f HA P are expresse di n term s o f th e liste dHA P "cok e ove n emissions " whic h include s avariety o f organi c compounds

. Methylen e chlorid e extractable s i s use da s asurrogate measur e for cok e ove n emission s an

dinclude s organi c particulat e matter

(semivolatil e organics ) suc h a s PO M an dPAH

.

5. 1 DERIVATIO N O F EMISSIO N FACTOR S FORPUSHIN G Cok e oven emission s frompushin g originat e whe n coa l ha s no t bee n completel y coked , whic h produce s "gree n coke. " Durin g pushin g gree n cok e generate s emission s o f

avariet y o f volatil e andsemivolatil e organi c compound s tha t ar e no t capture do r

controlle deffectivel y b y pushin g emissions ' capture andcontro l systems

. Emission s frompushin g depen do n th e frequenc y an

dextent tha t green pushe s occur . Som e o f th e bes t controlle dbatterie s hav e ver y few gree n pushes , an dother s hav e highe r level s a s indicate db y th e hig h opacity o f emission s tha t escap e capture

. Th e EP A conducte dtest s o f

pushin g emission s a

t Bethlehe mStee l (Burn s Harbor , IN) 1



### an dAB C Cok

e (Birmingham , AL) 2



### . Thes e tw o plant s hadver y fe w green pushe s durin g th e tests ; however , th e result s ca n b e use dt o deriv e emissio n factor s fo r green cok e an dcok e tha t i s
no t green . Becaus e mos t

o f th e emission s fromgree n cok e ar e no t capture dan dcontrolled , th e actua l samplin g result s mus t b e use di n combinatio n wit h estimate s o f

capture.efficienc y an dth e numbe r o f gree n pushe s observe ddurin g di e tes t t o deriv e emissio n factors

. Tabl e 5- 1 summarize s th e result s fo r th e tes t conducte da

t Bethlehe mSteel

. Ther e wer e thre e pushe s durin g Run s 1 an d3 tha t wer e characterize da s partiall y t o moderatel y gree n (opacit y o n the order

o f 30 % t o 50 % observe ddurin g th e push ) compare dt o si x pushe s o f a simila r natur e durin g Ru n 2

. Th e emission s o f th e pollutant s o f

interes t wer e highes t

durin g Ru n 2 , whic h reflect s th e highe r emission s fromthes e moderatel y gree n pushes

. Fo r example , th e

5- 1P.4 6



### extractabl e organic s durin g Run 2 wer e 0.005 7 lb/to n compare d t o a n averag e o f

0.004 5 lb/to n durin g Rim s 1 an d 3

.

TABL E 5-1

. PA H RESULT S FO RPUSHIN G - BETHLEHEM , BURN S HARBOR 1

7 PA H 1 Benzo(a)anthracen e 2 Benzo(a)pyren e 3 Benzo(b)fluoranthen e 4 Benzo(k)fluoranthen e 5 Chrysen e 6 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e 7 Ideno(l,2,3-cd)pyren e

Total 7 PA H 1 6 PA H 8 Acenaphthen e 9 Acenaphthylen e 1 0 Anthracen e 1 1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylen e 1 2 Fluoranthen e 1 3 Fluoren e 1 4 Naphthalen e 1 5 Phenanthren e 1 6 Pyren e Total 1 6 PA H Othe r PA H 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pyren e Perylen e Tota l Othe r PAH Total - al l PAH
Extractabl e organic s (lb/hr ) Numbe r of

moderatel y gree n pushe s Numbe r of

nongree n pushe s Tota l number o f

pushe s Percen tgreen Run l 7.1E-07 4.8E-0 7 5.9E-0 6 2.3E-0 6 4.3E-0 6 8.6E-07 2.1E-0 6 1.7E-0 5
5.4E-07 4.3E-0 6 5.7E-07 1.7E-0 6 1.1E-0 5 1.7E-0 6 2.1E-0 5 1.6E-0 5 1.7E-0 6 7.4E-0 5
6.2E-0 6 1.6E-0 6 7.8E-0 8 7.8E-0 6 8.2E-0 5
4.9E-03
3 4 3 4 6 7 BAGHOUS E INLE T (lb/ton )
Ru n 2 5.7E-0 7 3.2E-0 7 6.1E-0 6 2.3E-0 6 4.4E-0 6 8.1E-0 7 2.0E-0 6 1.7E-0 5
3.5E-0 7 4.4E-0 6 5.1E-0 7 1.6E-0 6 1.3E-0 5 1.3E-0 6 2.6E-0 5 1.9E-0 5 1.9E-0 6 8.4E-0 5
5.0E-0 6 1.4E-0 6 0.0E+0 0 6.4E-0 6 9.0E-0 5
5.7E-0 3
6 4 1 4 7 1 3 Ru n 3 1.3E-0 7 1.3E-0 7 3.0E-0 6 8.5E-0 7 1.9E-0 6 2.5E-0 7 4.6E-0 7 6.7E-0 6
5.4E-0 7 2.7E-0 6 6.5E-0 7 3.3E-0 7 6.8E-0 6 1.3E-0 6 2.9E-0 5 2.0E-0 5 3.9E-0 7 6.9E-0 5
3.1E-0 6 4.0E-0 7 O.OE+0 0 3.5E-0 6 7.2E-0 5
4.0E-0 3
3 3 9 4 2 7 Averag e 4.7E-0 7 3.1E-0 7 5.0E-0 6 1.8E-0 6 3.6E-0 6 6.4E-0 7 1.5E-0 6 1.3E-0 5
4.8E-0 7 3.8E-0 6 5.8E-0 7 1.2E-0 6 1.0E-0 5 1.5E-0 6 2.5E-0 5 1.8E-05 1.3E-0 6 7.6E-0 5
4.7E-0 6 1.1E-0 6 2.6E-0 8 5.9E-0 6 8.2E-0 5
4.9E-0 3 Run l

3.6E-0 8 3.1E-0 8 4.7E-0 8 4.4E-0 8 7.1E-0 8 9.1E-0 9 4.1E-0 8 2.8E-0 7
9.1E-0 8 1.9E-0 7 5.5E-0 8 9.1E-0 9 3.1E-07 1.9E-0 7 4.7E-0 6 7.6E-07 1.8E-0 7 6.8E-0 6
1.0E-0 6 3.1E-0 8 7.1E-0 9 1.1E-06 7.9E-0 6
3.1E-0 3 BAGHOUS E OUTLE T

Ru n 2 2.4E-0 8 1.5E-0 8 3.4E-0 8 1.8E-0 8 7.6E-0 8 0.0E+0 0 1.6E-0 8 1.8E-0 7
6.6E-0 8 1.5E-07 2.1E-0 8 2.5E-0 9 1.3E-07 1.5E-07 4.8E-0 6 5.2E-0 7 9.8E-0 8 6.1E-0 6
1.4E-0 6 1.8E-0 8 7.1E-0 9 1.4E-0 6 7.5E-0 6
2.4E-0 3 (lb/ton )

Ru n 3 1.2E-0 8 1.0E-0 8 1.9E-0 8 1.3E-0 8 3.2E-0 8 0.0E+0 0 1.3E-0 8 9.9E-0 8
4.9E-0 8 1.7E-07 1.0E-0 8 3.3E-0 9 7.6E-0 8 1.0E-0 7 4.7E-0 6 3.1E-0 7 4.9E-0 8 5.5E-0 6
8.6E-0 7 1.2E-0 8 0.0E+0 0 8.7E-0 7 6.4E-0 6
2.7E-0 3 Averag e

2.4E-0 8 1.9E-0 8 3.4E-0 8 2.5E-0 8 6.0E-0 8 3.0E-0 9 2.3E-0 8 1.9E-07
6.9E-0 8 1.7E-07 2.8E-0 8 4.9E-0 9 1.7E-0 7 1.5E-0 7 4.7E-0 6 5.3E-0 7 1.1E-0 7 6.1E-0 6
1.1E-0 6 2.0E-0 8 4.7E-0 9 1.1E-0 6 7JE-0 6
2.7E-0 3



### 5-2

### Th e result s for AB C Cok

e are give n i n Tabl e 5- 2 an d sho w tha t ther e wer e 4 gree n pushe s identifie d fo

r eac h o f th e 3 runs . Mos t

o f thes e pushe s wer e moderatel y green (i n th e rang e o f 30 % t o 50 % opacity) ; however , durin g Ru n 1 , aseverel y gree n pus h wa s observe d tha t ha d a n opacit y o n th e orde r o f 95 % durin g bot

h th e pus h an d travel , an d ayello w brow n plume cam e fromth e quenc h tower durin g quenching

. Th e oven that wa s pushe d wa s adjacen

t t o a n oven that

ha d bee n take n out
o f servic e fo r repair

. Th e effect

o f thi s green pus h o n th e emission s i s evident wit h emissio n level s tw o to thre e time s higher

fo r Run 1 than fo

r th e other runs . Fo r example , extractabl e organic s durin g Run 1 wer e 0.01 6 lb/to n compare d t o 0.007 8 lb/to n durin g Run s 2 an d 3

.



## TABL E 5-2

. PAH RESULT S FO R PUSHIN G - AB C COKE 2

7 PA H 1 Benzo(a)anthracen

e 2 Benzo(a)pyren

e 3 Benzo(b)fluoranthen

e 4 Benzo(k)fluoranthen

e 5 Chrysen

e 6 Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e 7 Ideno d ,2,3-ccnDvren

e Total 7 PA H 1 6 PAH 8 Acenaphthen

e 9 Acenaphthylen

e 10 Anthracen

e 1 1 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 1 2 Fluoranthen

e 1 3 Fluoren

e 14 Naphthalen

e 15 Phenanthren

e 1 6 Pyren e Total 1 6 PA H Othe r PAH 2-Methylnaphthalen

e Benzo(e)pyren

e Perylen e Tota l Othe r PA H Tota l - all PA H
Extractabl e organic s (Ib/hr)
Numbe r of

severel y gree n pushe s Numbe r o f moderatel y gree n pushe s Numbe r of

nongreen pushe s Tota l number o f

pushe s Percen tgree

n Run l

2.3E-0 5 9.8E-0 6 2.6E-0 5 1.4E-0 5 4.0E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 1.7E-0 5 1.3E-0 4
2.3E-0 5 1.4E-0 4 2.5E-0 5 O.OE+0 0 7.7E-0 5 5.3E-0 6 5.6E-0 4 2.5E-0 4 5.1E-0 5 1.3E-03
1.2E-0 4 1.0E-0 5 1.7E-0 6 1.3E-0 4 1.4E-0 3
1.6E-0 2
1 3 1 7 2 1 1 9 BAGHOUS E INLE T (lb/ton ) Ru n 2 1.3E-0 5 3.4E-0 6 9.3E-0 6 6.6E-0 6 2.1E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 7.7E-0 6 6.1E-0 5
7.7E-0 6 6.4E-0 5 7.7E-0 6 0.0E+0 0 3.2E-0 5 2.9E-0 5 2.1E-0 4 9.5E-0 5 2.3E-0 5 5.3E-0 4
4.3E-0 5 4.6E-0 6 5.0E-0 7 4.8E-0 5 5.8E-0 4
9.8E-0 3
0 4 1 7 2 1 1 9 Run 3 1.5E-0 5 2.4E-0 6 8.2E-0 6 4.9E-0 6 2.4E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 5.3E-0 6 6.0E-0 5
8.5E-0 6 4.5E-0 5 1.2E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 3.4E-0 5 2.4E-0 5 2.2E-0 4 8.9E-0 5 2.4E-0 5 S.1E-0 4
5.5E-0 5 4.5E-0 6 3.8E-0 7 6.0E-0 5 5.7E-0 4
5.8E-0 3
0 4 1 8 22 1 8 Averag e 1.7E-05 5.2E-0 6 1.5E-05 8.6E-0 6 2.9E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 1.0E-05 8.4E-0 5
1.3E-05 8.2E-0 5 1.5E-05 O.OE+0 0 4.8E-0 5 1.9E-05 3.3E-0 4 1.4E-04 3.3E-0 5 7.7E-0 4
7.2E-0 5 6.4E-0 6 8.6E-0 7 7.9E-0 5 8.4E-0 4
1.0E-0 2 Run l

4.7E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 3.3E-0 7 3.3E-0 7 1.2E-06 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 2.3E-0 6
1.1E-0 5 8.1E-05 3.3E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 3.3E-0 5 3.4E-0 5 4.7E-0 4 1.1E-0 4 2.6E-0 5 8.0E-0 4
8.9E-0 5 2.1E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 9.0E-0 5 8.9E-0 4
2.4E-0 2 BAGHOUS E OUTLE T 0b/ton )

Ru n 2 3.7E-0 7 O.OE+0 0 2.8E-0 7 2.4E-0 7 9.8E-07 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 1.9E-0 6
3.8E-0 6 3.4E-0 5 5.0E-0 6 0.0E+O 0 5.0E-0 6 1.1E-05 1.4E-0 4 6.9E-0 5 1.2E-05 2.9E-0 4
3.7E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 3.7E-0 5 3.2E-0 4
4.9E-0 3 Ru n 3

3.7E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 3.3E-0 7 2.2E-0 7 1.1E-0 6 0.0E+O 0 0.0E+0 0 2.0E-0 6
5.5E-0 6 2.7E-0 5 8.0E-0 6 0.0E+0 0 8.0E-0 6 1.4E-05 1.7E-04 4.2E-0 5 1.0E-05 2.9E-0 4
5.6E-0 5 1.7E-0 7 O.OE+0 0 5.6E-0 5 3.4E-0 4
2.4E-0 3 Averag e

4.0E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 3.1E-0 7 2.6E-0 7 1.1E-0 6 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 2.1E-0 6
6.9E-0 6 4.7E-0 5 1.5E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 1.5E-0 5 2.0E-0 5 2.6E-0 4 7.3E-0 5 1.6E-0 5 4.6E-04
6.1E-0 5 1.3E-07 0.0E+0 0 6.1E-0 5 5.2E-0 4
1.0E-0 2



### 5- 3P.4 8



### 5.1. 1 Derivatio n o

f a n Emissio n Facto r from th e Bethlehe m Stee l Tes tResults The Bethlehe mStee l result s were use dto deriv e a n emissio n factor

fo r moderatel y green pushes

. Thi s estimat e assume s acaptur e efficienc y o f

90 % fo r non-green pushe s an d40 % fo r moderately gree n pushes

. A n exampl e i s give n belo w for th e extractabl e organic s an dinvolve s solving tw o independen t

equation s wit

h tw o unknowns

.

• Durin g Ru n 2 , si x pushe s wer e moderatel y green an d4 1 wer e not ; th e emissio n rat e wa s 0.005 7 lb/t

.

• Durin g Run s 1 and3 , thre e pushe s were moderatel y green and4 1 (average ) wer e not ; th e emissio n rat e average d0.004 5 lb/t

.

• Le t "x " equal th e emissio n factor fo r uncontrolle dnon-gree n pushe s an d"y " th e emissio n facto r fo r uncontrolle dmoderatel y gree n pushes

. Equation s ca

n b e writte n fo

r th e tes t run s base do n th e numbe r o f eac h typ e o f

pus h an dth e captur e efficienc y fo

r eac h type , whic h correspond s t o what wa s capture dan dmeasure da t th e baghous e inlet

. Th e equatio n fo r Run 2 (for

extractabl e organic s measure da t me baghous e inlet ) is : [(41)(0.9)(x ) + (6)(.4)(y)]/4 7 = 0.005 7 lb/ t

or 36. 9 x + 2. 4 y = 0.2 7 Equation (1)

Th e equatio n for

Run s 1 an d3 is :

or [(41)(0.9)(x ) + (3)(.4)(y)]/4 4 = 0.004 5 lb/ t

36. 9 x + 1.2 y = 0.2 0 Equation (2)

5- 4P.4 9



### Solvin g th e Equation s (1 ) and(2 ) for x andy yields :
x = 0.003 5 lb/

t (uncontrolle dnon-gree n pushes ) y = 0.05 8 lb/

t (uncontrolle dmoderatel y green pushes)

. Th e procedure was repeate dfo r th e other pollutant s o f

interes t wit h th e result s i n Tabl e 5-3

.

TABL E 5-3 . EMISSIO N FACTOR S FRO M THE BETHLEHEM STEE L TES T Pollutan t 7 PA H 1 6 PAH Extractabl e organic s lb/ tfo r non-gree n 6. 7 x IO"

6 

### 6. 4 x 10"

5 

### 3. 5 x 10"

3 

### lb/

tfo r moderately gree n 2. 3 x IO"

4 

### 6.7 x IO"

4 

### 5. 8 xlO" 2 

### Rati o



### 3 4 1 0 1 6

Th e ratio s in th e tabl e indicate that th e emission s frommoderatel y gree n pushe s are o n th e orde r
o f 1 0 t o 3 4 time s higher

tha n thos e o f non-gree n pushes

.

5.1. 2 Derivatio n o f

a n Emissio n Facto r fro m th e AB C Coke Tes tResult s A n approac h simila

r t o tha t use dfo r th e Bethlehe mStee l tes t

wa s use dt o deriv e an estimat e o f

th e contributio n o f

gree n pushe s t o overal l emission s fromth e AB C Coke test

. I n thi s
case , thre e equation s andthre e unknown s wer e use dfo r th e 7-PA H an d16-PAH t o deriv e emissio n factor s fo

r non-green , moderatel y green , an dseverel y green pushes

. A n exampl e i s give n belo w fo

r th e 7-PA H an dassume s acaptur e efficienc y o f 90 % fo r th e non-gree n pushes , 40 % fo r th e moderatel y green pushes , an d10 % for th e severel y green push

.

• Le t "x " equal th e uncontrolle demission s i n lb/to n fo r th e non-gree n pushes

.

• Le t "y " equa l th e uncontrolle demission s i n lb/to n fo r th e moderatel y gree n pushes

.

• Le t "z " equa l th e uncontrolle demission s i n lb/to n fo r di e severel y gree n pus h durin g Ru n 1

.

• The emission s o f

7-PAH wer e 1. 3 E-4 , 6. 1 E-5 , an d6. 0 E- 5 lb/to n for Run s 1,2 , an d3 , respectively

.



### 5- 5

### Th e equatio n for Run 1 wit

h 1 7 non-gree n pushes , 3 moderatel y gree n pushes , an d1 severel y green pus h is : [(17)(0.9)(x ) + (3)(0.4)(y ) + (l)(0.1)(z)]/2 1 = 0.0001 3 lb/to n
o r 15. 3 x + 1.2 y + 0. 1 z = 0.0027 3 Equation (I)

Th e equatio n for

Run 2 wit

h 1 7 non-gree n pushe s and4 moderatel y green pushe s is : [(17)(0.9)(x ) + (4)(0.4)(y)]/2 1 = 0.00006 1 lb/to n
o r 15. 3 x + 1. 6 y = 0.0012 8 Equation (2) Th e equatio n for

Run 3 wit

h 1 8 non-gree n pushe s an d4 moderatel y green pushe s is :
[(18)(0.9)(x ) + (4)(0.4)(y)]/2 1 = 0.00006 0 lb/to n
or 16. 2 x + 1. 6 y = 0.0012 6 Equation (3)

Solvin g Equation s (1) , (2) , and(3 ) for x, y , an dz yield s th e followin g emissio n factor s for th e 7-PAH :
x = 4. 3 E- 5 fo r non-gree n pushe s y = 3. 0 E- 4 for

moderatel y gree n pushe s
z = 1. 6 E- 2 fo

r severel y green pushes

.

Th e procedur

e wa s repeate dt o deriv e emissio n factor s fo r th e 16-PAH

. Thi s approac h coul dno t b e use dfo r th e extractabl e organic s for AB C Cok e becaus e o f

th e anomalou s result s for

Ru n 2 , whic h appea

r t o b e hig h b y afactor

o f tw o base do n th e 7-PAH and16-PA H results

. Fo r example , the 16-PA

H wer e 8 % t o 9 % o f

th e extractabl e organic s fo r Run s 1 an d3 compare dt o about 5 % fo r Ru n 2

. A simila

r discrepanc y i s see n wit

h th e 7-PAH results

. Consequently , emissio n factor s fo

r extractabl e organic s wer e derive dbase do n arati o o f 0.0 8 for 16

- PAH:extractables

. Result s fo r bot h o f th e test s ar e summarize di n Tabl e 5-4

.

5- 6P.5 1



### TABL E 5-4 . UNCONTROLLE D EMISSIO N FACTOR S FO RPUSHIN G Ob/to n coke )

Pollutan t 7-PA H 16-PAH Extractable s Non
BS C 6. 7 E- 6 6. 4 E- 5 3. 5 E- 3 jree n

AB C 4. 3 E- 5 1. 0 E- 4 1. 3 E- 3 Moderatel y gree n

BS C 2. 3 E- 4 6. 7 E- 4 5. 8 E- 2 AB C

3. 9 E- 4 6. 0 E- 3 7. 5 E- 2 Severel y gree n

AB C 1. 6 E- 2 1.9 E- l 

### 2. 3

5.1. 3 Frequenc y o f

Gree n Pushe s Informatio n o n th e frequency o f green pushe s a

t differen t batterie s i s neede dt o us e th e emissio n factor s derive di n th e previou s section

. A mode l batter y approac h i s develope dher e becaus e pushin g dat aar e no t availabl e fo

r ever y battery

. Base do n th e dat aavailable , individua l batterie s ar e classifie das : (1 ) batterie s currentl y operat e a t th e MAC T leve l o f

contro l (Grou p 1) , (2 ) batterie s tha

t wil l requir e moderate improvemen t t o achiev e MAC T (Group 2) , an d (3 ) batterie s tha

t wil l hav e to achiev e significan t reduction s i n gree n pushe s t o achiev e MAC T (Grou p 3)

. Dat afo r several batterie s sho w green pushe s occur , eve n o n batterie s tha t are amon g th e bes t controlled

. However , severel y gree n pushe s wit h opacit y greate r tha n 50 % ar e rar e fo

r well

controlle dbatteries

. Fo r

example , ou r

databas e show s tha t

1 6 wel l controlle dbatterie s exceede d 50 % opacit

y onl y onc e i n 3,70 0 observations

. Fo r th e mode l battery approach , w e wil l us e a conservativ e estimate o f

0.5 % severel y gree n pushe s for th e Grou p 1 batterie s (MAC T leve l o f control)

. Fo r

moderatel y green pushe s i n th e rang e o f 30 % t o 50 % opacity , th e well-controlle d batterie s average d0 % t o about 5 % o f th e pushe s i n thi s range . W e wil l us e aconservativ e estimate o f

5 % gree n pushe s fo

r th e Grou p 1 batteries

. Tw o batterie s tha t

ar e les s wel l controlle d(US S Clairto n Batterie s 1 9 an d20 ) average d 2 % o f th e pushe s over

50 % opacity

. A n estimate o f 2 % severel y gree n pushe s (ove r 50 % opacity ) wa s chose n for

thi s analysi s t o develo p conservativ e estimate s o f emission s fo

r Grou p 2 batterie s (moderate improvement required)

. Fo r

thes e same tw o batteries , abou t 15 % o f th e pushe s wer e i n th e rang e o f 30 % t o 50 % opacit

y (moderatel y green)

. Similarly , a t Tonawand a



### 5- 7P.5 2



### Cok e about 20 % o f th e pushe s wer

e i n th e rang e o f

30 % t o 50 % opacity

. For thi s analysis , a conservativ e valu e o f

20 % moderately gree n pushe s wa s use dfo r Group 2 batteries

. Dat afo r Gul f State s Stee

l fromth e observatio n o f

27 5 pushe s were use dt o characteriz e th e frequenc y o f

gree n pushe s fo

r Group 3 batteries

. Approximatel y 20 % o f th e pushe s average d

ove r 50 % opacity , an d35 % wer e i n th e rang e o f

30 % t o 50 % opacity

. Th e distributio n o f

pushe s fo r th e thre e group s i s summarize di n Tabl e 5-5

.

TABL E 5-5 . DISTRIBUTIO N O F GREE N PUSHE S FO RDIFFEREN T GROUP S O F BATTERIE S Grou p



### 1 2 3 Percen to f pushe s i n each category Severely gree n 

### 0. 5 2 2 0 Moderatel y gree n



### 5 2 0 3 5 Non-gree n

94. 5 

### 78 4 5

5.1. 4 Estimate s o f

Nationwid e Emission s Th e approac h t o estimate nationwid e emission s for pushe s i s base do n developin g emissio n factor s fo

r eac h typ e or

grou p o f battery , assignin g eac h actual batter y t o on e o f

th e groups , andsummin g emission s acros s batteries

. Th e averag e emissio n factor s for extractabl e organic s fromth e test s a

t AB C Cok e an dBethlehe mStee l are summarize di n Tabl e 5-6

.

TABL E 5-6 . AVERAG E UNCONTROLLE D EMISSIO N FACTOR S FO RPUSHIN G Typ e Non-green Moderately gree n Severel y gree n Extractabl e organic s (lb/to n o f coke ) 0.002 4 0.06 7 

### 2. 3

5- 8P.5 3



### Th e emissio n estimate s ar

e base do n th e followin g assumptions :

A non-gree n pus h i s define da s on e wit h a n averag e opacit

y les s than 30% , moderatel y gree n i s 30 % t o les s tha

n 50% , an dseverely gree n i s 50 % or greater

. Fo r batterie s tha

t hav e captur

e an dcontrol , captur e efficiencie s ar e assume dt o b e 90 % for non-green , 40 % fo

r moderatel y green , and10 % for severel y gree n pushes

. Emission s fromth e contro l devic e ar e estimate da s 0.006 4 lb/to n fromth e averag e o f th e tes t result s a t Bethlehe mStee l an dAB C Cok e (0.002 7 an d0.0 1 lb/ton , respectively)

.
A n emissio n factor

fo r th e Grou p 1 batterie s i s estimate da s follows :
(1 ) Emission s fromnon-gree n pushes : Fraction non-green x

emission factor for non-green pushes x

fraction not

captured = 0.945 x 0.0024 lb/ton x

(1 - 0.9) = 0.0002 lb/ton (2 ) Emission s frommoderatel y green pushes : Fraction moderately green x emission factor for moderately green pushes x fraction not

captured

0.05 x 0.067 lb/ton x (1-0.6) = 0.0013 lb/ton (3 ) Emission s fromseverel y gree n pushes : Fraction severely green x emission factor for severely green pushes x

fraction not

captured = 0.005 x 2.3 lb/ton x

(1 - 0.1) = 0.010lb/ton (4 ) Emission s fromth e contro l device : 0.0064 lb/ton (5 ) Tota l fo r Grou p 1 : 0.0002 + 0.0013 + 0.010+ 0.0064 = 0.018Iblton. A simila r procedure wa s use dfor

th e other group s t o develo p th e emissio n factor s give n in Tabl e 5-7

. Some batterie s i n Group 2 d o no t hav e captur e an dcontrol s fo r pushin g emissions ; consequently , emissio n factor s were develope dfo r both th e controlle dan duncontrolle dcases . Non e o f th e batterie s i n Grou p 3 hav e captur e an dcontrol ; therefore , onl y uncontrolle demissio n factor s wer

e develope dfo

r thi s group .
5- 9P.5 4



### TABL E 5-7 PUSHIN G EMISSIO N FACTOR S Grou p 1 - controlle d 2 - controlle d 2 - uncontrolle d 3 - uncontrolle d Extractabl e organi c emission s (lb/ton ) 0.01 8 0.05 3 0.06 1 0.4 8

Each batter y wa s assignedt o on e o f th e group s liste di n Tabl e 5-7 base do n pushin g emission s data , abes t

gues s whe

n n o dat awer e available , an dth e presenc e o r absenc e o f

a captur e an dcontro l system

. Th e emissio n factor s wer e the n applie dt o eac h plan t t o estimate emissions

. Th e emissio n estimates , assignments , an demissio n factor s are give n i n Tabl e 5-8

.

5. 2 EMISSION S FRO M BATTER

Y STACK S Estimate s o f

emission s o f

extractabl e organic s frombattery stack s are base do n m e test s conducte db y EPA

. Th e tes t result s ar e summarize di n Table s 5-1 0 an d5-1 1 for Bethlehe mStee l (Bum s Harbor , IN ) an dAB C Cok e (Birmingham , AL), respectively

. The results are reasonabl y consistent excep t for Run 3 a t Bum s Harbor

. Thi s ru n ha dabou t 1 0 time s mor e naphthalen e and 3 time s mor

e extractabl e organic s than th e othe r runs , h i addition , th e extractabl e organic s wer e 2 0 t o 3 0 time s highe r

a t Bethlehe mSteel , bu t

th e PA H wer e th e sam

e order o f magnitud e a s a

t AB C Coke

. Thes e result s indicat e that extractabl e organic s ar e no t agoo dsurrogat e fo

r PO M fo r th e Bethlehemtes t

becaus e it

ma y includ e compound s tha t

ar e no t POM o r PAH

. Consequently , emissio n estimate s fo

r batter y stack s are base do n th e tes t result s fo r AB C Cok e t o avoi d overestimatin g emission s i f th e Bethlehe mStee l tes t

results wer e used

. 5.2. 1 Relationshi p Between Opacit y and Concentratio n The theoretica l relationship betwee n opacity expresse da s afraction (Op ) an dmas s concentratio n (C ) i s give n b y Equatio n l 3,4 

### : C = - I n (1. 0 - Op)/constan tEquation (1)

5-1 0

### TABL E 5-8 . NATIONWID E ESTIMATE S O F EXTRACTABL E ORGANIC S EMISSION S FRO M PUSHIN G

No . 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 6 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5
2 5 2 6 2 7 Plan t
AB C Coke , Tarrant , A

L Acm e Steel , Chicago , IL A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Middletown , O

H Bethlehe mSteel , Bum s Harbor , IN Bethlehe mSteel , Lackawanna , N Y Citizen s Gas , Indianapolis , I N Empire Coke , Holt , A

L Eri e Coke , Erie , PA Genev aSteel , Provo , U

T Gul f State s Steel , Gadsden , A

L Koppers , Monessen , P

A LTV Steel , Chicago , I

L LT V Steel , Warren , OH Nationa l Steel , Ecorse , M

I National Steel , Granite City , IL Ne w Boston , Portsmouth,O H Shenango , Pittsburgh , P

A Slos s Industries , Birmingham , A L Tonawanda , Buffalo , N

Y USS , Clairton , PA 0.2.3,7,8,9,13,14,153 ) USS , Clairton , PA (19&20 ) USS , Gary , IN Wheeling-Pitt , Eas t

Steubenville , W

V Cok e (tpy )
80336 9 51356 8 101399 2 42830 0 184581 0 79541 2 68766 4 15152 0 15275 9 74686 2 54555 0 37555 4 63153 0 57364 2 98160 8 59258 0 34050 0 37184 4 46430 6 21870 1 390000 0
110000 0 181348 3 134617 6 TOTAL S 

### TABL E 5-9 . CONCENTRATIO N / Opacit y (% ) 1. 7 5 1 0 1 5 -I

n ( 1 - Op a 1. 7 5. 1 lO. f 1 6 Control ?
Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s N o Ye s
Ye s Ye s Ye s •
LDJUS T city/100 ] Grou p

1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
2 2 2 lb/to n
0.01 8 0.01 8 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.01 8 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.48 0 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.48 0 0.05 3 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.01 8 0.05 3 0.06 1 0.05 3 0.05 3 0.06 1 0.01 8
0.05 3 0.05 3 0.05 3



### MENT S FO

F

> EXTRA C

ORGAN 1 BASELIN E 7 4. 6 26. 9 11. 4 16. 6 21. 1 18. 2 36. 4 4. 0 19. 8 130. 9 10. 0 5. 7 5. 2 8. 8 15. 7 10. 4 9. 9 12. 3 6. 7 35. 1
29. 2 48. 1 35. 7 529. 7 .TABL E

CS(tpy ) Afte r MAC T 7. 2 4. 6 9. 1 3. 9 16. 6 7. 2 6. 2 1. 4 1. 4 6. 7 4. 9 3. 4 5. 7 5. 2 8. 8 5. 3 3. 1 3. 3 4. 2 2. 0 35. 1
9. 9 16. 3 12. 1 183. 6 

### I OPACIT Y Rati o t o 1.7 % opacit

y 1 3 6. 2 9. 4

5-1 1P.5 6



### TABLE 5-10 . TES T RESULT S FO RSTACK S - - BETHLEHEM , BURN S HARBOR 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 7 PAH s Benzo(a)anthracen

e Benzo(a)pyrene Benzo(b)fluoranthen

e Benzo(k)fluoranthen

e Chrysen e Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen

e Ideno( l ,2,3-cd)pyrene

Tota l 7 PAH s 1 6 PAH s Acenaphthen

e Acenaphthylen

e Anthracen

e Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Fluoranthen

e Fluorene Naphthalen

e Phenanthren

e Pyren e Total 1 6 PAH s Othe r PAH s 2-Methylnaphthalen

e Benzo(e)pyrene Perylene Tota

l Othe r PAH s Total - all PAH s
Extractabl e Organic s (Ib/hr) Averag e Opacit

y (% ) Run l 5.5E-0 6 5.8E-0 6 9.3E-0 6 6.1E-0 6 1.5E-05 1.5E-0 6 5.4E-0 6 4.8E-0 5
2.3E-0 5 1.2E-0 4 6.3E-0 6 1.0E-05 5.3E-0 5 1.0E-0 4 1.3E-03 1.9E-04 2.1E-0 5 1.9E-0 3
7.1E-0 4 5.2E-0 6 1.5E-0 6 7.1E-0 4 2.6E-0 3
4. 5 4. 7 EMISSION S (Ib/hr ) Ru n 2 3.0E-0 6 2.9E-0 6 5.5E-0 6 3.8E-0 6 7.2E-0 6 O.OE+0 0 3.9E-0 6 2.6E-0 5
1.3E-0 5 3.5E-0 5 2.4E-0 6 9.5E-0 6 2.7E-0 5 2.8E-0 5 3.7E-03 8.6E-05 9.7E-0 6 3.9E-0 3
2.4E-0 4 3.9E-0 6 O.OE+0 0 2.4E-0 4 4.2E-0 3
3. 7 5. 8 Run 3 7.4E-0 6 3.3E-0 6 6.6E-0 6 4.0E-0 6 1.6E-0 5 O.OE+0 0 3.6E-0 6 4.1E-0 5
4.6E-0 5 2.7E-0 4 8.9E-0 6 6.5E-0 6 6.4E-0 5 1.3E-0 4 1.9E-0 2 1.7E-04 2.3E-0 5 1.9E-0 2
8.4E-0 4 3.5E-0 6 O.OE+0 0 8.4E-0 4 2.0E-0 2
12. 4 4. 7 Averag e 5.3E-0 6 4.0E-0 6 7.1E-0 6 4.6E-0 6 1.3E-0 5 4.9E-07 4.3E-0 6 3.9E-0 5
2.8E-0 5 1.4E-0 4 5.8E-0 6 8.6E-0 6 4.8E-0 5 8.7E-0 5 7.8E-03 1.5E-0 4 1.8E-0 5 8.4E-0 3
6.0E-0 4 4.2E-0 6 4.9E-0 7 6.0E-0 4 9.0E-0 3
6. 9 5. 1



### 5-1 2

### TABL E 5-11

. TES T RESULT S FO RSTACK S - AB C COKE 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 7 PAH s Benzo(a)anthracen e Benzo(a)pyren e Benzo(b)fluoranthen e Benzo(k)fluoranthen e Chrysen e Dibenzo(a,h)anthracen e Ideno( l ,2,3-cd)pyren e Tota l 7 PAH s 1 6 PAH s Acenaphthen e Acenaphthylen e Anthracen e Benzo(g,h,i)perylen e Fluoranthen e Fluoren e Naphthalen e Phenanthren e Pyren e Tota

l 1 6 PAH s Othe r PAH s 2-Methylnaphthalen e Benzo(e)pyren e Perylen e Total Othe r PAH s Tota l - all PAH s
Extractabl e Organic s (Ib/hr) Averag e Opacit

y (% ) Run l

8.6E-0 6 1.2E-05 1.5E-05 O.OE+0 0 2.0E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 O.OE+0 0 5.6E-0 5
1.5E-05 8.6E-04 3.3E-0 7 O.OE+0 0 2.9E-0 4 5.0E-0 5 5.3E-0 3 5.9E-04 1.5E-0 4 7.3E-0 3
1.5E-0 4 1.6E-0 5 O.OE+0 0 1.7E-0 4 7.5E-0 3
0.2 3 1. 8 EMISSION S (lb/hr )

Ru n 2 4.7E-0 6 9.9E-0 6 2.0E-0 5 1.2E-07 2.2E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 O.OE+0 0 5.6E-0 5
1.1E-0 5 3.2E-0 3 4.1E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 5.6E-0 4 3.2E-0 5 6.1E-0 3 9.4E-0 4 9.9E-0 4 1.2E-0 2
1.1E-04 6.6E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 1.8E-0 4 1.2E-0 2
0.2 0 1. 6 Run 3 0.0E+0 0 O.OE+0 0 1.1E-05 O.OE+0 0 1.5E-05 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 2.5E-0 5
6.0E-0 6 6.5E-04 1.1E-05 O.OE+0 0 2.4E-0 4 1.8E-05 3.8E-0 3 4.9E-0 4 1.7E-0 4 5.4E-0 3
7.9E-0 5 1.8E-0 5 O.OE+0 0 9.7E-0 5 5.5E-0 3
0.3 6 2. 8 Ru n 4 7.2E-0 6 7.7E-0 6 1.3E-0 5 1.4E-07 2.5E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 0.0E+0 0 5.3E-0 5
1.2E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 3.6E-0 7 0.0E+0 0 3.4E-0 4 6.3E-0 5 4.8E-0 3 8.5E-0 5 2.2E-0 4 5.5E-0 3
2.1E-0 4 1.4E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 2.2E-0 4 5.7E-0 3
0.0 9 0. 7 Averag e

5.1E-0 6 7.5E-0 6 1.4E-05 6.4E-0 8 2.0E-0 5 O.OE+0 0 O.OE+0 0 4.7E-0 5
T.1E-0 5 1.2E-0 3 3.0E-0 6 0.0E+0 0 3.6E-0 4 4.1E-0 5 5.0E-0 3 5.3E-04 3.8E-0 4 7.5E-0 3
1.4E-0 4 2.8E-0 5 0.0E+0 0 1.7E-0 4 7.7E-0 3
0.2 2 * 1. 7



### B y applyin g Taylor' s expansion,

- th e equatio n reduce s t o alinea r relationshi p betwee n opacit y
an dconcentratio n fo

r dilute concentration s (lo w opacities) :

C - constan tx Op . Equation (2)

Th e stac k opacity a t AB C Cok e average donl y 1.7% ; consequently , a n adjustment

mus t b e mad e whe n extrapolatin g th e result s t o batterie s wit h highe r opacitie s t o reflec t

th e highe r concentrations

. Th e concentratio n adjustment s fo r batterie s with opacitie s o f 5% , 10% , an d 15 %

are given i n Tabl e 5- 9 and ar e base don th e relationshi p i n Equatio n 1

.

5-1 3P.5 8



### Fo r example , i f

th e AB C Cok

e tes t result s ar e extrapolate dt o abatter

y wit h 15 % opacity , th e AB C Cok e emissio n rate i s multiplie db y 9. 4 t o adjus t fo r th e highe r

concentratio n whe n th e opacit y i s 15%

.

5.2. 2 Adjustmen tfor Volumetri c Flo w Rate Th e adjustmen t

fo r opacit y correct s th e mas s concentration

. However , th e mas s emissio n rate i s th e produc t

o f concentratio n an dvolumetri c flow rate

. Therefore , a n adjustmen

t mus t b e made fo r volumetri c flo

w rate whe

n extrapolatin g th e result s t o another battery

. Fo r

example , th e volumetri c flow rat e a

t AB C Cok e wa s 83,00 0 acfm

. I f

th e result s are use dt o estimate mas s emission s from abatter

y wit h astack flow rat e o f

150,00 0 acfm , th e mas s emissio n rat e (i n lb/hr) fo r AB C Coke ar e multiplie db y 150,000/83,00 0 o r 1.8

.

5.2. 3 Extrapolatio n t

o Othe r Batterie s Informatio n o n stack

opacit y an dvolumetri c flo w rat e ar e neede dt o extrapolate th e result s fromth e tes t

a t AB C Cok e t o other batteries

. Dat aar e availabl e o n stac k ga s flow rate froma n EP A surve y o f

th e industry

. However , onl y limite ddat aare availabl e o n stac k opacity

. Tabl e 5-1 2 summarize s th e averag e stac k opacit y frombatterie s tha

t provide ddat acollecte db y COMS

. Thes e dat aar

e use dto develo p typical opacit y level s for

tw o conditions : (1 ) th e baselin e leve l wit h n o MAC T standar dand(2 ) th e leve l after

MAC T i s i n place

. Fo r

thi s analysis , atypica l valu e o f 10 % i s use da s th e baselin e for batterie s no t

a t th e MAC T leve l base d

on th e rang e o f

7.5 % t o 10.5 % a

t US S Gary

. Th e result s i n Tabl e 5-1 2 fo r th e US S Clairto n an dBethlehe mStee l (Bum s Harbor ) batterie s ar

e use dt o estimate the leve l achievabl e b y MACT

. Th e averag e opacit y range s from 1.5 % t o 4.5%

. Fo r

thi s analysis , aconservativ e estimat e o f 5 % opacit

y i s use dt o estimate th e performanc e leve l that

wil l b e achieve db y MACT

. A n exampl e calculatio n i s give n belo w fo r Acm e Stee l Batter

y 1 wit h an assume d baselin e opacit

y o f 10 % an davolumetri c flow rat e o f 30,00 0 cfm

. 0.22 lb/hr(ABQx 6.2 (adjustment for10% opacity)x[(30,000 acfm)+(ABC acfm of 83,000)] = 0.49 lb/hr= 2.2 tpy

5-1 4P.5 9



### A simila r procedur e wa s use dfo

r th e other batterie s t o giv e th e result s show n i n Tabl e 5-13

.



## TABL E 5-12

. SUMMAR Y O F BATTER Y STAC K OPACIT Y DAT A Plan t

US S Gar y Batter y

2 3 5 7 Rang e (baselin e befor

e MACT ) US S Clairto n

Bethlehem , Burn s Harbor 1 3 14 1 5 2 0 B 1 2 Rang e (afte

r MACT ) Averag e opacit y (% ) 

### 10. 5 8. 8 7. 5 9. 6 7. 5 t o 10. 5 2. 1 1. 8 2. 9 1. 5 4. 3 4. 5 3. 8 1. 5 t o 4. 5 Date s

3/9 7 throug h 6/9 8 3/9 7 throug h 6/9 8 3/9 7 throug h 6/9 8 3/9 7 throug h 6/9 8

1/9 9 throug h 3/9 9 1/9 9 throug h 3/9 9 1/9 9 throug h 3/9 9 1/9 9 throug h 3/9 9 1/9 9 throug h 3/9 9 8/9 3 throug h 7/9 9 12/9 4 throug h 7/9 9



### 5-1 5P.6 0
«

TABL E 5-13 . ESTIMATE S O F EXTRACTABL E ORGANI C EMISSION S FRO M BATTER Y STACK S

Plan t

AB C Coke , Tarrant , A L AB C Coke , Tarrant , AL Acm e Steel , Chicago , I

L Acm e Steel , Chicago , I

L A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Ashland , KY A K Steel , Middletown , O H Bethlehe mSteel , Burn s Harbor , I N Bethlehe mSteel , Burn s Harbor , I N BethlehemSteel , Lackawanna , NY BethlehemSteel , Lackawanna , N Y Citizen s Gas , Indianapolis , I N Citizen s Gas , Indianapolis , I N Citizen s Gas , Indianapolis , I N Empir e Coke , Holt , AL Eri e Coke , Erie , PA Genev aSteel , Provo , U T Genev aSteel , Provo , U T Genev aSteel , Provo , U T Genev aSteel , Provo , U T Gulf State s Steel , Gadsden , AL * Gulf State s Steel , Gadsden , AL * Koppers , Monessen , PA Koppers , Monessen , P A LT V Steel , Chicago , IL LT V Steel , Warren , O H Nationa l Steel , Ecorse , M I Nationa l Steel , Granit e City , E

L Nationa l Steel , Granit e City , I

L New Boston , Portsmouth , OH * Shenango , Pittsburgh , PA Slos s Industries , Birmingham , AL * Slos s Industries , Birmingham , AL * Tonawanda , Buffalo , N Y USS , Clairton , P

A USS , Clairton , PA USS^Clairton , PA Battery

5& 6 IA 1 2 3 4 W 1 2 7 8 E H 1 1, 2 A, B 1 2 3 4 2 3 I B 2 2 4 5 A B 2 1 3 & 4 5 2 1 2 3 Stac k ga s flow rat e (acfm ) 185,00 0 187,00 0 30,00 0 30,00 0 70,90 0 185,10 0 137,40 0 226,00 0 164,00 0 209,86 9 176,01 3 25,00 0 25,00 0 37,20 0 94,54 5 37,90 0 80,00 0 83,00 0 100,00 0 110,00 0 100,00 0 100,00 0 37,64 5 19,19 6 94,28 0 187,17 0 343,00 0 83,70 0 103,70 0 35,00 0 101,00 0 85,00 0 85,00 0 97,00 0 82,10 0 90,75 0 74,15 0
5-1 6 Extractabl e organi c emission s (tpy ) Baselin e 6. 4 13. 5 2. 2 2. 2 5. 1 13. 3 9. 9 7. 9 5. 7 15. 1 12. 7 1. 8 1. 8 2. 7 6. 8 2. 7 5. 8 6. 0 7. 2 7. 9 7. 2 7. 2 2. 7 1.4 6. 8 13. 5 24. 7 6. 0 7. 5 2. 5 7. 3 6. 1 6. 1 7. 0 2. 9 3. 2 2. 6 Afte r MAC T

6. 4 6. 5 1.0 1.0 2. 5 6. 4 4. 8 7. 9 5. 7 7. 3 6. 1 0. 9 0. 9 1. 3 3. 3 1. 3 2. 8 2. 9 3. 5 3. 8 3. 5 3. 5 1. 3 0. 7 3. 3 6. 5 11. 9 2. 9 3. 6 1. 2 3. 5 3. 0 3. 0 3. 4 2. 9 3. 2 2. 6P.6 1

TABL E 5-13 . ESTIMATE S OF EXTRACTABL E ORGANI C EMISSION S FRO M BATTER

Y STACK S (continued )

Plan t

USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , PA USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , P A USS , Clairton , PA USS , Gary , I N USS , Gary , I N USS , Gary , I N USS , Gary , I N Wheeling-Pittsburgh , Eas t Steubenville , WV * Wheeling-Pittsburgh , Eas t Steubenville , WV * Wheeling-Pittsburgh , Eas t Steubenville , WV * Wheeling-Pittsburgh , Eas t Steubenville , WV * Batter y

7 8 9 13 1 4 15 1 9 2 0 B 2 3 5 7 1 2 3 8 Stac k gas flo w

rate (acfm ) 79,95 0 86,70 0 88,70 0 71,60 0 76,00 0 74,60 0 149,00 0 133,00 0 207,50 0 116,90 8 179,95 9 67,82 4 80,07 0 37,00 0 37,00 0 37,00 0 164,00 0 TOTAL S Extractabl e organi c emission s (tpy ) Baselin e 2. 8 3. 0 3. 1 2. 5 2. 6 2. 6 5. 2 4. 6 7. 2 8. 4 13. 0 4. 9 5. 8 2. 7 2. 7 2. 7 11. 8 33 7 Afte r MAC T

2. 8 3. 0 3. 1 2. 5 2. 6 2. 6 5. 2 4. 6 7. 2 4. 1 6. 3 2. 4 2. 8 1. 3 1. 3 1. 3 5.7 19 5

* Volumetri c flow rat e wa s estimate d fromth e industry averag e o f 0. 3 acfm/tp y coke

.

5-1 7P.6 2



### 5. 3 EMISSION S FRO M QUENCHIN G 5.3. 1 HA P Dat a fo r Quenchin g Th e mos t usefu l tes t

repor t for quenchin g wa s fromtestin g performe dat U S Steel' s coke plan t in Lorain , Ohio , i n 197 7 b y Yor k Researc h under

contrac t t o EPA. 5 

### Th e testin g include d1 5

run s (fou r t o si x quenche s pe r

run)

—si x run s fo

r quenchin g usin g clea

n quenc h wate r

wit h non green coke , fiv e wit

h clean water

whe n green cok

e wa s quenched , an dfou

r usin g contaminate d water (flushin g liquo r

fro mth e byproduc t

plant ) wit h non-gree n coke

. Th e analyse s focuse do n organi c compounds , especiall y PAH ; result s wer e als o obtaine dfo r BSO , PM , an dbenzene

. Th e tes t result s are summarize di n Tabl e 5-14

. Th e major HAP were PAH , includin g BaP , bot h o f whic h ar e indicator s o f

cok e oven emissions

. Th e PAH foundi n th e greates t quantit y wa s naphthalene

. Dirt

y water (fromth e coke by-produc t plant ) wa s th e major contributo r

t o emission s o f

organi c compound s durin g quenching ; however , mos t plant s n o longer us e contaminate dwater

. Gra b sample s take n for

benzen e showe dlo w level s o f 0.0 1 t o 0.1 3 g/M g o f

coal (0.00 5 t o 0.0

4 ppm) ; total hydrocarbon s range dfrom3 0 t o 6 0 g/M g (8. 5 t o 1 7 ppm)

. Th e report

indicate dtha

t agrea t dea l o f effor t wen t int o identifyin g an dtryin g t o solv e potential samplin g problems , includin g th e us e o f ahig h volum e sampler

(becaus e o f

th e shor t duratio n o f

quenches) , obtainin g avelocit y profil e (velocity varie s with time) , usin g asorben t tra p i n th e bac k

hal f o f th e trai n to capture organics , an dtrainin g o f observer s t o identif

y an d grade green pushes

. However , som e reviewer s commente dthat th e PM result s are no t representativ e o f

mos t quenc h tower s an dshoul db e use donl y fo r tal l quenc h towers

. Th e Lorai n tower wa s very tal l (samplin g wa s performe d9 5 fee t abov e th e ground) , i t

ha dmissin g baffles , an dth e steamplum e velocity wa s higher

. Th e tes t repor t confirme dtha

t th e PM emission s containe dmore larger particles , capture d in th e cyclon e that

precede dth e filter , than hadbee n see n i n previou s tests

. Thi s probabl y resulte dfroma

n ope n are awher

e baffle s were missing

. However , th e repor t note dthat

th e PA H

were almos t

al l foun di n th e sorben

t trap , whic h indicate dtha t the y wer e i n vapo r

for mo r wer e particle s les s tha n 0. 3 microns

. Consequently , th e concern s expresse dabou t th e P M d o no t

5-1 8

### TABL E 5-14 . RESULT S O F QUENC H TOWE REMISSIO N TEST S AN D WATE RANALYSES 5



### Pollutan t

7 PA H 1 6 PA H Tota l PA H

BaP c 

### P M

Anilin e Pheno l Toluidin e Quenc h towe r emission s (g/M g coal) 1 

### Clea n wate r Non-gree n pushe s 0.1 1 0.2 9 0.4 2 Gree n

pushe s 0.2 2 0.6 8 1.1 7 Dirt y wate r

Non-gree n pushe s 3. 6 2 7 32. 1

0.02 4 79 0 0.01 2

62 0 0.08 1

1,10 0

0.000 8 0. 4 0.000 4 0.000 5

0. 8

— 

### 2. 8

24 3 1. 0 Quenc h wate r analyse s (g/M g coal )

Clea n wate r Suppl y

0.05 2 0.05 7 0.08 1 Nozzle "

0.01 1 0.02 9 0.03 3 Dirt y wate r

Flushin g liquo r 3. 2 12. 3 16. 6

~

~ 

### 0.01 6

— 

### 0.1 8

~

—

—

— ~

~

— 

### 1. 8

1. 7 1. 2 NozzIe b



### 1. 2 4. 2 6. 0

0.2 7

~



### 0.5 4 1. 4 0.1 1
Abbreviations : PAH=polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbons , BaP=benzo(a)pyrene , PM=particulat e matter

. " Divide b y 500 (or

multipl y by 0.002 ) t o conver

t t o lb/to n of coal

. b 

### Water spraye don the coke ; sample take n a t th e nozzl e c 

### Result s base do

n aspecia l analysi s wit

h high sensitivit

y fo r BaP , atraditiona

l indicato r fo r cok e ove n emissions

.

5-1 9P.6 4



### appl y t o th e organics

. I n summary , th e tes t repor t provide s th e only useful informatio n foun d with whic h t o estimate HAP emission s fromquenching

.

5.3. 2 Extrapolatio n t o Othe r Batterie s Th e estimate s o f

quenchin g emission s are base don th e EP A test s a t th e US S Lorai n cok

e plan t an dth e result s fo

r th e 16-PAH s i n Tabl e 5-14

. Th e 16-PA H ar e assume dt o b e 8 % o f

th e EO M base don th e pushin g tes t result s for

AB C Coke : Fo r non-gree n pushe s an d clea n water : 16-PA H (lb/to n coal ) = 0.2 9 g/M g x 0.00 2 (g/M g t o lb/ton ) = 0.0005 8 EO M (lb/to n coal ) = 0.0005 8 + 0.0 8 = 0.00 7 Fo r green pushe s and clean water : 16-PA H (lb/to n coal ) = 0.6 8 g/M g x 0.00 2 (g/M g t o lb/ton ) = 0.001 4 EO M (lb/to n coal ) = 0.001 4 •* • 0.0 8 = 0.01 8

Facto r fo r pushe s no tseverel y gree n

0b/to n coal ) 16-PA H 0.0005 8 EOM

0.00 7 Facto r fo r severel y gree n pushe s (lb/to n coal )

16-PA H 0.001 4 EO M 0.01 8

Th e estimate s i n Sectio n 5. 1 (Pushin g Emissions ) use dvalue s o f 0.5% , 2 % an d20 % fo

r severel y green pushe s fo

r Group s 1,2 , an d3

. Th e same group assignment s wer e use di n Tabl e 5-1 5 t o estimate emission s fromquenching

. An exampl e calculatio n i s give n belo w fo r AB C Cok e assumin g 0.5 % o f

th e pushe s ar e severel y green :
(0.007 lb/ton x 0.995 + 0.018 lb/ton x 0.005) x 1,160,000 tpyxl ton/2,000 lb = 4.1 tpy. [99.5 % no t

severel y green][0.5 % severel y green][coal usage ] [lb s t o tons ]

5-2 0I

### TABL E 5-15 . ESTIMATE S O F EXTRACTABL E ORGANI C EMISSION S FROM QUENCHIN G
No .

1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 6 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 2 3 2 4 2 5
2 5 2 6 2 7 Plan t

AB C Coke , Tarrant , A

L Acme Steel , Chicago , I

L A K Steel , Ashland , K

Y A K Steel , Middletown , O

H Bethlehe mSteel , Burn s Harbor , I N Bethlehe mSteel , Lackawanna , N Y Citizen s Gas , Indianapolis , I N Empire Coke , Holt , A

L Eri e Coke , Erie , P A Genev aSteel , Provo , UT Gul f State s Steel , Gadsden , A

L Koppers , Monessen , P

A LTV Steel , Chicago , I L LTV Steel , Warren , O

H National Steel , Ecorse , M l National Steel , Granit e City , I L Ne w Boston , Portsmouth.O H Shenango , Pittsburgh , P

A Slos s Industries , Birmingham , A L Tonawanda , Buffalo , NY USS , Clairton , P A (1,2,3,7,8,9,13,14,153 ) USS , Clairton , P A (19&20 ) USS , Gary , I N Wheeling-Pitt , Eas t

Steubenville , W

V Cok e (tpy )
803,36 9 513,56 8 1,013,99 2 428,30 0 1,845,81 0 795,41 2 687,66 4 151,52 0 152,75 9 746,86 2 545,55 0 375,55 4 631,53 0 573,64 2 981,60 8 592,58 0 340,50 0 371,84 4 464,30 6 218,70 1 3,900,00 0 1,100,00 0 1,813,48 3 1,346,17 6 Coa

l (tpy) *
1,164,30 3 744,30 1 1,469,55 4 620,72 5 2,675,08 7 1,152,77 1 996,61 4 219,59 4 221,39 0 1,082,40 9 790,65 2 544,28 1 915,26 1 831,36 5 1,422,620 858,81 2 493,47 8 538,90 4 672,90 7 316,95 8 5,652,17 4 1,594,20 3 2,628,23 6 1,950,98 0 Percen t

Severel y Gree n 0. 5 0. 5 2 2 0. 5 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0. 5 0. 5 0. 5 2 2 2 2 2 0. 5
2 2 2 lb/to n

7.06e- 3 7.06e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.06e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 9.2e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 9.2e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.06e- 3 7.06e- 3 7.06e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.06e- 3
7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 7.22e- 3 TOTAL S EXTRACTABL E ORGANIC S (tpy ) BASELIN E 4. 1 2. 6 5. 3 2. 2 9. 4 4. 2 3. 6 1. 0 0. 8 3. 9 3. 6 2. 0 3. 2 2. 9 5. 0 3. 1 1.8 1.9 2. 4 1. 1 20. 0
5. 8 9. 5 7. 0 106. 6 Afte r MAC T

4. 1 2. 6 5. 2 2. 2 9. 4 4. 1 3. 5 0. 8 0. 8 3. 8 2. 8 1. 9 3. 2 2. 9 5. 0 3. 0 1.7 1.9 2. 4 1. 1 20. 0
5. 6 9. 3 6. 9 104. 3 

### Estimate basedo n atypica l yiel do f 0.6 9 to n o f

coke pe r to n o f coal

.

5-2 1P.6 6



### 5. 4 OTHE RENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT S Th e bul k o f thi s chapte

r focuse s o n emission s an dreduction s associate dwith cok e ove n emission s with methylen e chloride extractable s a s asurrogate measure . Th e extractabl e organic s represen t organi c PM , an dVO C ar

e no t include di n th e extractabl e organics

. Althoug h n o dat a
are availabl e t o quantif

y thes e volatiles , benzene , toluene , xylen e andother hazardou s volatil e organic s are know n t o b e present i n cok e ove n emissions

. MAC T wil l reduc e emission s o f thes e volatil e HA P a s wel l a s th e extractable s (PO M an dPAH)

. MAC T wil l als o achiev e reduction s i n tota l PM

. Fo r battery stacks , MACT i s achieve dthroug h pollutio n preventio n technique s suc h a s sealin g crack s i n ove n walls , repairin g damage dovens , an dother wor k practice s that

reduce th e
amoun t o f coke ove n ga s leakin g throug h m e walls

. Similarly , MAC T fo r pushin g focuse s o n preventin g gree n pushes , an di f the y occur , takin g correctiv e action s t o preven t thei r
reoccurrence . Consequently , thes e pollutio n preventio n measure s do no t resul t i n any significant secondar y impacts , suc h a s th e generatio n o f soli dwaste , wastewater , or increase dusag e o f energy .
5. 5 REFERENCE S
1

. Report , Emission s Testin g o f Combustio n Stac k

an dPushin g Operation s a t Cok e Batter

y No

. 2 a t Bethlehe mSteel Corporation' s Bum s Harbo r Divisio n i n Chesterton , Indiana , EPA-454/R-99-001a , Februar y 1999

. 2

. Report , Emission s Testin g o f Combustio n Stac k

an dPushin g Operation s a t Cok e Batter

y No

. 5/ 6 a t AB C Cok

e i n Birmingham , Alabama, , EPA-454/R-99-002a , February 1999

. 3

. Report , Study o n Benefit s o f Continuou s Opacity Monitor s Applie dt o Portlan dCemen t Kilns

- Chapter

3 : Relationship s Betwee n Opacity an dConcentratio n o f Particulat e Emissions , EPA , Ma

y 15,1991

. 4

. Report , Investigatio n o f Opacit y an dParticulat e Mas s Concentration s fromHo t Metal Operations , prepare db y Davi dEnso r fo r EPA , September

1981

. 5

. Report , Cok

e Quenc h Tower

Emissio n Testin g Program , EPA-600/2-79-082 , Apri l 1979

.

5-2 2P.6 7
1

_ •



### APPENDIX C . EMISSIO N FACTOR S FORBY-PRODUC T RECOVER Y PROCESSE S I N REVISE D AP-4 2TABL E 4-30

. COK E BYPRODUC T PLAN T EMISSIO N FACTOR S FO RBENZEN E AN D BTX a
EMISSIO N FACTO RRATING : E , EXCEP T A S NOTE D

Typ e o f byproduc t plan t operatio n Light-oi l storag e tank b Ta r decante r Naphthalen e separatio n an d processin g Coolin g towe r

Ta r interceptin g sum p Ta r dewaterin g tan k

Ta r storag e tan k
Light-oi l condense r ven t Light-oi l sum p

BT X storage " Contro l devic e

Uncontrolled Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolled Activate dcarbo n Direct-water , uncontrolle d Tar-bottom , uncontrolle d Uncontrolle d Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolled Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolled Ga s blanketin g Benzen e Furnac e plan t kg/M g 0.005 8 0.0001 2 0.054 c 0.0011 ° 0.1 1 0.0003 5 0.2 7
0.07 0
0.009 5 0.0 2 l d 0.0004 5 0.0066 d 0.0003 8 0.08 9 0.001 8 0.015 " 0.0003 0 0.005 8 0.0001 2 lb/to n

0.011 6 0.0002 4 0.108 c 0.0022 c 0.2 2 0.0007 0 0.5 4
0.1 4
0.01 9 0.042 d 0.0008 4 0.0132 d 0.0007 6 0.17 8 0.003 6 0.030- 1 0.0006 0 0.011 6 0.0002 4 Foundry plan t

kg/M g 0.003 1 0.0000 6 0.02 5 0.000 5 0.0 8 0.0002 5 0.2 0
0.05 1
0.004 5 0.009 9 0.0002 0 0.003 1 0.0001 8 0.04 8 0.0009 7 0.008 1 0.0001 6 0.003 1 0.00006 0 lb/to n

0.006 2 0.0001 2 0.05 0 0.001 0 0.1 6 0.0005 0 0.4 0
0.10 2
0.009 0 0.019 8 0.0004 0 0.006 2 0.0003 6 0.09 6 0.0019 4 0.016 2 0.0003 2 0.006 2 0.0001 2 B l

Furnac e plan t kg/M g 0.008 3 0.0001 7 0.07 7 0.001 6 0.1 6 0.0005 0 0.6 9
0.1 0
0.01 4 0.03 0 0.0006 0 0.009 4 0.0005 4 0.1 3 0.002 6 0.02 1 0.0004 3 0.008 3 0.0001 7 lb/to n

0.016 6 0.0003 4 0.15 4 0.003 2 0.3 2 0.001 0 1.3 8
0.2 0
0.02 8 0.06 0 0.001 2 0.018 8 0.0010 8 0.2 6 0.005 2 0.04 2 0.0008 6 0.016 6 0.0003 4 

## rx Foundr y plan t

kg/M g 0.004 9 0.00009 4 0.03 9 0.0007 9 0.1 3 0.0003 9 0.6 1
0.08 0
0.007 1 0.01 6 0.0003 1 0.004 9 0.0002 8 0.07 6 0.001 5 0.01 3 0.002 5 0.004 9 0.00009 4 lb/to n

0.009 8 0.00018 8 0.07 8 0.0015 8 0.2 6 0.0007 8 1.2 2
0.1 6
0.01 4 0.03 2 0.0006 2 0.009 8 0.0005 6 0.15 2 0.003 0 0.02 6 0.005 0 0.009 8 0.00018 8 > S T H 3 z re 3
ft ) _£ • 5 X o

• • r > 8 , 9 •- • (s j o o " p

## O
Typ e o f byproduc t plan t operatio n Benzen e storage "

Flushin g liquo r circulatio n tan k Excess-ammoni a liquo r tan k Wash-oi l decante r
Wash-oi l circulatio n tan k Contro l devic e

Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Uncontrolle d Ga s blanketin g Benzen e Furnac e plan t kg/M g 0.005 8 0.0001 2 0.013 c 0.0002 6 0.001 4 0.00002 8 0.003 8 0.00007 6 0.003 8 0.00007 6 lb/to n

0.011 6 0.0002 4 0.026 c 0.0005 2 0.002 8 0.00005 6 0.007 6 0.0001 5 0.007 6 0.0001 5 Foundr y plan t

kg/M g 0.003 1 0.0000 6 0.009 5 0.0001 9 0.001 0 0.00002 0 0.002 1 0.00004 1 0.002 1 0.00004 1 lb/to n

0.006 2 0.0001 2 0.01 9 0.0003 8 0.002 0 0.00004 0 0.004 2 0.00008 2 0.004 2 0.00008 2 BT X

Furnac e plan t kg/M g 0.005 8 0.0001 2 0.01 9 0.0003 7 0.002 0 0.00004 0 0.005 4 0.0001 1 0.005 4 0.0001 1 lb/to n

0.011 6 0.0002 4 0.03 8 0.0007 4 0.004 0 0.0000 8 0.010 8 0.0002 2 0.010 8 0.0002 2 Foundr y plan t

kg/M g 0.003 1 0.0000 6 0.01 5 0.0003 0 0.001 6 0.00003 1 0.003 3 0.00006 5 0.003 3 0.00006 5 lb/to n

0.006 2 0.0001 2 0.03 0 0.0006 0 0.003 2 0.00006 2 0.006 6 0.0001 3 0.006 6 0.0001 3
Emissio n facto r

unit s ar e kg/M g an dlb/to n o f cok e pushed

. BT X = benzene , toluen e an dxylene

. Benzen e emissio n factor s i n thi s tabl e ar e derive dfrom Reference s 2 9 throug h 38

. Th e emissio n factor s for BT X ar e estimate dfromequation s give n i n th e tex t an ddevelope dfromReference s 2 6 an d27

. Uncontrolle demissio n factor s represen t pre-byproduc t

plan t pre-NESHA P contro l levels ; controlle demissio n factor s represen t post-NESHA P contro l levels

. N o emission s ar e allowe dfromnaphthalen e processing

. Th e reade r

may als o us e EPA' s TANK S progra mt o estimat e emission s fromthi s source . Th e progra mi s availabl e i n electroni c for mthroug h EPA' s Technolog y Transfe r

Network

. Fo r

informatio n cal l (919 ) 541-5285

. Th e benzen e emissio n facto r ratin g fo r

thi s furnac e plan t

operatio n i s D

. Th e benzen e emissio n facto r ratin g fo r

thi s furnac e plan t

operatio n i s B

.