United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/1-80-001
July 1979
Air
Development of Air
Pollution Control Cost
Functions for the
Integrated Iron and
Steel Industry
-------
EPA-450/1-80-001
Development of Air Pollution Control
Cost Functions for the Integrated
Iron and Steel Industry
Pedco Environmental, Incorporated
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
Contract No. 68-01-4600
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
July 1979
-------
This report is published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
report information of general interest in the field of air pollution. Copies
are available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the Library
Services Office (MD-35) , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/1-80-001
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The capital and operating costs are determined for equipment
to control air pollution from all significant emission sources in
an integrated steel mill. The facilities of every integrated
steel mill in the United States are tabulated. Control costs are
examined as a function of increasing stringency of control.
State and local air pollution regulations applicable to steel
mill processes are presented for all jurisdictions in which
facilities are located. The calculation of control, costs is de-
scribed as a function of design parameters such as flow, tempera-
ture, and efficiency.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This report was prepared for the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Washington, D..C., by PEDCo
Environmental, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio. The EPA Project Officer
was Mr. Donald Walters. The project director was Mr. Timothy W.
Devitt and the project manager was Mr. Donald J. Henz. Principal
investigator was Mr. William F. Kemner, with major contributions
by Messrs. Rodney H. Blick and John W. Traub.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iii
Acknowledgment iv
Figures vii
Tables viii
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-2
1.2 Scope ', 1-4
2. Development of Census and Capacity Data 2-1
2.1 General 2-1
2.2 Relationship Between Capacity and Physical Size 2-3
2.3 Control Levels and Technologies Considered 2-33
3. Determination of Capital and Operating Costs 3-1
3.1 General Considerations in Development of Capital
Cost Functions for Air Pollution Control of
Steel Mill Processes 3-1
3.2 Example of Design Procedures for Air Pollutant
Control Systems: Sinter Plant Windbox 3-6
3.3 Operating Cost Estimation for Air Pollution
Control Systems 3-10
3.4 Capital. Charges 3-20
4. Results 4-1
4.1 Control Costs for Individual Emission Sources 4-1
Appendices
A. Integrated Steel Mills in the United States A-l
B. Listing of Iron and Steel Facilities in the United
States B-l
C. Summary of Exhaust Gas Flow Rate Equations C-l
D. Control Technology Summary and Emission Rates for
RACT, BACT, and LAER D-l
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
Appendices (continued)
E. Description of Control Equipment Modules E-l
F. Sample Cost Estimate Worksheets F-l
G. Example Computer Cost Printout, Sinter Plant Windbox
Control, BACT Technology Level, Three Plant Sizes G-l
H. State Air Pollution Control Regulations H-l
vi
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
2-1 Material storage area requirements 2-4
2-2 Flow required for sinter plant windbox control 2-7
2-3 Sinter production as a function of grate area 2-8
2-4 Flow required for control of sinter plant discharge 2-10
2-5 Flow rate for exhausting conveyor transfer point
hoods 2-11
2-6 Cast house volume as a function of furnace working
volume 2-17
2-7 Blast furnace capacity vs. working volume 2-18
2-8 Flow required for control of hot metal reladling 2-21
2-9 Flow required for open hearth fume control 2-22
2-10 Flow rate for EOF fume control 2-24
2-11 Schematic illustration of EAF control technologies 2-26
2-12 Flow rates required for electric arc furnace control 2-27
2-13 Flow required for control of scarfing emissions 2-30
3-1 Example module cost function, gas cooler-water quench 3-5
3-2 Block diagram of sinter plant windbox control (RACT) 3-9
3-3 Block diagram of sinter plant windbox control (LAER) 3-11
vn
-------
TABLES
No. Page
2-1 Relationships of Size and Other Parameters, Coke
Oven Battery 2-12
2-2 Soaking Pits Emission Analysis 2-29
2-3 Large Reheat Furnace Emission Analysis 2-32
2-4 Exhaust Parameters for Various Boiler Fuels 2-34
3-1 Equipment Modules 3-2
3-2 Sources Requiring Water Treatment as a Result of Air
Pollution Control 3-7
3-3 Operating Cost Rate Factors 3-13
3-4 Annual Operating Hours at Full Horsepower for Control
Device by Process 3-16
4-1 Capital Cost Coefficients, New Installations 4-2
4-2 Capital Cost Coefficients, Retrofit Installation 4-6
4-3 Annual Direct Operating Costs Coefficients 4-10
4-4 Summary of Compliance Status by Source 4-17
4-5 Statistical Summary of Capital Ratings of Emission
Sources 4-19
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The integrated iron and steel industry is a major contrib-
utor to air pollutant emissions in the United States. It is
estimated that 14 million tons of particulate matter was emitted
from iron and steel production processes in 1971. Since that
time industry operators have installed millions of dollars worth
of air pollution control equipment and have phased out many open
hearth furnaces that lacked control equipment. Still many
facilities do not meet the requirements of the applicable state
implementation plan (SIP).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has primary
responsibility for enforcing the mandates of the Clean Air Act.
The environmental problems posed by the iron and steel industry
and the costs of achieving effective control are of major concern
to the EPA. This study is designed to evaluate the integrated
iron and steel industry with respect to compliance with appli-
cable air pollution regulations and the costs of full compliance.
The study provides an estimate of the capital and operating costs
of controlling emissions from the various processes. These are
study estimates (±35 percent precision) and will be used in
another study that EPA is conducting to determine the economic
impact of environmental regulation of the industry as a whole.
This study does not address the costs of water pollution
control, per se, but does consider the water treatment necessi-
tated by installation of air pollution control equipment. For
example, where1 a scrubber is installed, a clarifier and recircu-
lating system for control of suspended solids is included as an
inherent part of the air pollution control system. The blowdown
1-1
-------
from such a system might, in addition, require treatment for dis-
solved compounds. Costs of such secondary treatment are not
included.
In this study compliance with current state implementation
plan (SIP) regulations as of late 1977 was determined on the
basis of information provided by EPA regional office personnel.
Compliance is a complex legal issue; in this study, an emission
source was considered to be substantially in compliance with SIP
regulations if an appropriate control device had been installed.
The cost to achieve SIP-compliance was deemed to be zero for
these sources.
1.1 BACKGROUND
Various studies have been conducted to determine the costs
of air pollution control in the integrated iron and steel in-
dustry. Most of these have provided cost estimates on a broad
aggregate basis. This study represents a departure from earlier
work with respect to the scope of emission sources considered,
the detail in which cost estimates are developed, and the devel-
opment of a computer model that can calculate control cost for
any size of plant. The reader of this report is assumed to have
a general familiarity with the steel industry and steel proc-
esses. Background information can be found in many publications,
a few of which are referenced herein; e.g., Section 1, Reference
1; Section 2, References 13, 17, 28, and 45; and Section 3,
Reference 1.
The technologies defining RACT, BACT, and LAER in this
report were selected, in part,, to examine a wide range of alter-
natives. As such, they should not be interpreted as representing
Agency policy because appropriate technology definitions are
continually evolving.. Furthermore, it should be noted that
various steel plants have site-specific control requirements
that are not intended to be addressed by this study.
1-2
-------
The overall methodology, which is described in detail in the
following sections, can be summarized as follows:
0 ;The emission sources to be considered are defined in
general [Production Process Subcategory Emission
Sources (PPS-ES)].
0 The specific number of these emission sources is
defined (the census or inventory of emission sources).
0 The control technology and resultant emission rate
needed to achieve three degrees of control are defined.
The three degrees of control are:
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER)
Appendix D contains the emission factors and control
technology definitions for RACT, BACT, and LAER.
The control required for compliance with typical state
regulations is characterized as either RACT, BACT, or
LAER, depending on the strictness of-the state imple-
mentation plan (SIP). SIP therefore is not a separate
control level. The current SIP's do not address many
of the fugitive sources considered in this study except
in terms of visible emissions or opacity and general
prohibitions against air pollution. The SIP control
level in such cases is assigned RACT, BACT, LAER, or
uncontrolled based on engineering judgment and inter-
pretation of the regulations.
0 Control equipment modules are defined. These modules
are either individual pieces of equipment, complete
control systems, or control subsystems. Examples are
a fan module, a coke oven gas desulfurization plant
module, and a water pumping subsystem module.
0 A cost function is developed for each module. The
function describes the cost of the module, given
values for the relevant size parameters.
0 These module cost functions are programmed into a
computer model with supporting calculations including
operating cost.
0 The relationships between emission source capacity and
physical size are determined and are programmed into
the computer model.
1-3
-------
0 The combination of modules required to achieve each
level of control at a small, medium, and large source
is determined and entered into the model.
0 The system cost function for each control level is de-
termined as y = AxB where y is cost and x is capacity.
0 The number of emission sources requiring additional
control to meet SIP regulations is based on information
provided by EPA Regional Offices.
1.2 SCOPE
The plants included in this study are the integrated steel
mills operating in the United'States as of December 1977. They
are listed in Table A-l, Appendix A. To be considered as inte-
grated, the plant must include blast furnace and steelmaking
operations. Some plants have no coke facility and purchase coke
from an outside supplier. In such cases the coke plants of these
outside suppliers are not included.
The plant ID number consists of the number of the Air
Quality Control Region (AQCR) in which the plant is located
followed by a two-digit number based on alphabetical order.
The emission sources considered in the study are numbered
according to a production process subcategory (PPS), following
the scheme used in a report on the steel industry prepared by
Arthur D, Little, Inc., (ADL). Emission sources (ES) within a
process are then numbered consecutively. The resulting code is
called a PPS-ES" number. Although this numbering scheme is some-
what cumbersome, it was developed to retain the original ADL
codes for consistency. The ADL codes are product-oriented, and
the emission sources are process-oriented. Thus a situation may
arise wherein, for example, PPS-ES 14-1 and 16-1 are equivalent.
In this example, the PPS of 14 represents "primary breakdown to
blooms" and 16 represents "primary breakdown to slabs." The ES
however is "1-soaking pits." The emissions are a function of
fuel used and of firing rate and are independent of the product
being made. Soaking pits in one plant therefore may be labeled
as 14-1,. and a duplicate set of soaking pits in another plant
could be labeled 16-1.
1-4
-------
The definition of each PPS-ES considered in this study fol-
lows. (Note that the pollutants considered for each PPS-ES are
shown in parentheses.)
1-5
-------
PPS-ES Definition
1-1 Ore Yard - Fugitive Wind Losses (TSP)
^Fugitive emissions arising from the ore yard either
from windblown emissions or material transfer asso-
ciated with the ore yard. This source includes mate-
rial unloading and loading from ships, cars, or trucks;
transfer at the trestle or onto conveyors; and transfer
of sinter after leaving the sinter plant.
2-1 Coal Unloading (TSP)
Windblown emissions from coal piles and coal unloading
by whatever means. This source is separate from coal
preparation (2-3) because most mills receive and store
coal independently in facilities physically separated
from coal preparation.
2-3* Transfer Points - Coal Handling (TSP)
Emissions from all transfer points in the coal prepara-
tion process, pulverizing, screening, and loadout to
bunkers.
3-1 Scrap Yard
2
Because an earlier study determined that emissions
from scrap yard operations are insignificant, these
emissions are not included.
4-1 Sinter Plant Windbox (TSP, SO2, HC)
Emissions from the sinter windbox exhaust.
4-2 Sinter Plant Discharge End (TSP)
Discharge end emissions from crushing, cooling, and
screening and from direct discharge of the sinter from
the strand.
4-3 Sinter Plant Fugitive Building Emissions (TSP)
Emissions from internal transfer points, bins, and
mixers that are housed in the sinter plant building.
5-1 Coking - Charging (TSP, SO2, HC)
Emissions- caused by charging coal into by-product
ovens.
Nonsequential numbers have no significance.
1-6.
-------
PPS-ES Definition
5-2 Pushing (TSP)
Emissions from pushing and hot car travel to the
quench station.
5-3 Quenching (TSP)
Emissions from the quenching operations.
5-4 Door Emissions (TSP)
Emissions from all doors in a battery.
5-5 Topside leaks (TSP)
Emissions from standpipes and lids.
5-6 Coke Oven Combustion Stacks (TSP)
Emissions from the underfire exhaust stacks.
5-7 Coke Handling (TSP)
Emissions from the wharf, crushing, screening, and
loadout of all coke products.
5-8 Coke Oven Gas (S02)
Emissions of SO_ arising from the combustion of coke
oven gas.
5-9 Coal Preheat (TSP, HC)
Emissions from the coal preheater in dry coal charging
systems.*.
6-1 Direct Reduction Unit Emissions
This PPS is omitted on the basis that only one unit is
known to be operating or planned for integrated steel
mills in the United States. The dependence on natural
gas for most direct reduction processes and the current
restrained steel market seem to rule out any signifi-
cant change in this status in the near future. ~"5
7-1 Blast Furnace Top Emissions
Emissions from top leaks, slips, and dumping material
from the skip hoist or conveyor into the receiving
hopper. A previous study6 indicates that slips are not
1-7
-------
PPS-ES Definition
a significant source; also, it is considered that the
other items mentioned .are insignificant except in
isolated local cases. This source is therefore ex-
cluded from the study.
7-2 Cast House Emissions (TSP)
Emissions from the tap hole or monkey, iron trough,
iron and slag runners, and iron spout and receiving
ladle.
7-3 Blast Furnace Slagging (TSP)
Emissions from pouring and granulating operations of
molten blast furnace slags.
7-4 Blast Furnace Off-gas
This source is not included in this study because it is
considered to be well controlled for process and
safety reasons..
7-5 Blast Furnace Slag Processing (TSP)
Emissions arising from screening, crushing, and hand-
ling of blast furnace slag as a by-product operation.
8-1 Open Hearth Hot Metal Transfer (TSP)
Emissions from the pouring of hot metal from hot metal
ladles into transfer ladles or into mixers.
8-2 Open Hearth Stack (TSP)
Emissions from the open hearth stack.
8-3 Open Hearth Fugitive Building (TSP)
Emissions that escape through the building monitor from
tapping, teeming, furnace leaks, pit cleanup, and
various other operations within the building.
8-4 Open Hearth Slag Pouring
Included in 8-3.
8-5 OH Slag Processing (TSP)
Emissions from slag handling, transfer, iron reclama-
tion, crushing, and screening. The operations do not
1-8.
-------
PPS-ES Definition
vary among the three steelmaking processes, although
the slag volume does vary. Therefore (8-5), (9-5),
and (10-5) are considered equivalent with respect to
control technology.
9-1 EOF (Q-BOF) Hot Metal Transfer (TSP)
See discussion under 8-1. No distinction is made
between top and bottom blown, i.e., BOF or Q-BOF.
9-2 BOF Stack (TSP)
Emissions from the BOF stack.
9-3 BOF Charging, Tapping, and Furnace Emissions (TSP)
Emissions from furnace when not in vertical position.
These sources, if uncontrolled, are measured as roof
monitor emissions.
9-4 BOF Slag Pouring (TSP)
Emissions from pouring molten slag onto ground within -
the BOF building.
9-5 BOF Slag Handling (TSP)
See discussion under 8-5.
10-1 Electric Arc Furnace Refining Emissions (TSP)
Stack emission from control systems during entire heat
cycle..
10-2 Electric Arc Furnace - Charging, Tapping, and Slagging
(TSP)
Emissions from these sources associated with the
furnace proper, which are not captured by the primary
control system. Note that this source is zero in the
case of building evacuation, and all emissions shift to
PPS-ES 10-1.
10-3 Electric Arc Furnace - Slag Pouring (TSP)
Emissions from pouring molten slag onto the ground.
10-5 Electric Arc Furnace - Slag Handling (TSP)
See discussion under 8-5.
1-9
-------
PPS-ES Definition
11-1 Conventional Casting (TSP)
Emissions from ingot teeming; independent of the steel-
making process.
12-1 Continuous Casting Billets (TSP)
13-1 Continuous Casting Slabs (TSP)
Emissions from ladle, tundish, and casting unit for
both types of product. There are no significant
differences between these two PPS with respect to the
nature of emissions or type of control device, and they
are treated equally. Emissions depend on the tons of
steel cast, not on the shape of the product.
14-1 Primary Breakdown to Blooms (Soaking Pits) (TSP, SO-)
16-1 Primary Breakdown to Slabs (Soaking Pits) (TSP, SO-f
Emissions from fuel firing for ingot heating. There
are no significant differences between these two PPS
with respect to the nature of emissions or type of
control device, if any? they are therefore treated
equally.
14-3 Scarfing of Blooms (TSP)
16-3 Scarfing of Slabs (TSP)
Emissions from automatic scarfing.
17-1 Heavy Structurals and Rails (Reheat Furnaces) (TSP, S0_)
22-1 Hot Strip Mill (Reheat Furnaces) (TSP, SO,)
28-1 Plate Mill (Reheat.Furnaces) (TSP, S02)
18-1 Bar and Rod (Reheat Furnaces) (TSP, S02)
Emissions from reheating furnaces for these operations.
19-1 Wire Products and Nails
21-1 Seamless Pipe, Tube
24-1 Welded Pipe
Heating furnaces for these operations are not considered
because their impact is considered to be relatively
insignificant.
20 Cold Finished Bars
This is not. considered a significant emission source
and is not included.
1-10
-------
PPS-ES Definition
23 Pickling and Oiling
The only significant emission from this operation is
HC1 fume, which is not included in this study. It is
assumed that pickling fume collection is a part of the
process and not an add-on control feature.
25-1 Cold Reduction and Finishing - Annealing
Process exhaust gas from both batch and continuous
annealing is considered to be an insignificant source
of pollutants and is not included.
26 Galvanizing
This is not considered a significant source and is not
included.
27 Tin Plating and Other Plating
This is not considered a significant emission source
and is not included.
29-1 Ancillary Facilities (On-site Power and/or Steam
Generation) (TSP, SO.)
Includes boiler combustion stack emissions.
The following additional sources have been identified, but
are not included because they occur relatively rarely in inte-
grated steel plants:
Alloy blast furnaces or merchant iron blast furnaces
Lime kilns.
Forging
Incinerators, either solid or liquid
Pelletizing processes other than conventional sintering
Pig machines
Vacuum degassing
Vacuum induction furnaces
Foundries
1-11
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
1. Steel and the Environment: A Cost Impact Analysis. Arthur
D. Little, Inc. May 1975.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugi-
tive Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010. March 1977.
3. Miller, J.F. Global Status of Direct Reduction - 1977.
Iron and Steel Engineer. September 1977.
4. Brown, J.W., and R. L. Reddy. Direct Reduction, What Does
It Mean to the Steelmaker. Iron and Steel Engineer. June
1976.
5. Bertram, J.M. What, How, Who, Where - Direct Reduction.
Iron and Steel Engineer. July .1972.
6. Blast Furnace Slips and Accompanying Emissions as an Air
Pollution Source. EPA 600/2-76-268. October 1976.
-------
SECTION 2
DEVELOPMENT OF CENSUS AND CAPACITY DATA
2 .1 GENERAL
PEDCo has reviewed the following sources of capacity and/or
production data:
Source
NEDS (National Emission Data System)
Deily, Steel Industry in Brief: Data Book USA 1977
Betz, Study of Blast Furnace Emission Control
Industry responses to effluent guideline ("308") questionnaire
4
Varga, Control of Sinter Plants Using ESP
AISI Directory of Steel Plants5
Battelle Screening Study-coking
33 Magazine (Various news releases and articles)
<*
AISE Magazine (Various news releases and articles)
AISI Coke Plant Data Book (By-product Coke Oven Dimensions)
Q
EPA Compliance Report for Steel Industry
Evaluation of these data indicates two problems. First,
different references list different values for capacity; second,
different bases are used for capacity among the various proc-
esses. For example, heating furnaces are rated in tons per
hour, square feet of heating area, Btu per hour; and steelmaking
facilities are rated on a shop basis in tons per year or on a
furnace basis in tons per heat. No single information source
covers all the processes. Moreover, the completeness, accuracy,
2-1
-------
and reference years of the various information sources are
variable.
A third point of difficulty is that pure capacity values may
reflect an hourly or short-term rate of operation but not a
yearly or long-term rate. The unit capacities of many steel
mills are unbalanced; that is, various units must operate con-
tinuously and others intermittently to produce the finished
product. Finishing operations such as reheat furnaces often run
less than 7 days a week. Hot metal supply may limit effective
steelmaking capacity. For example, although two identical EOF
shops should have equal rated capacities, one may produce 20
heats per day and the other 30 heats per day because of differ-
ences in hot metal supply. Furthermore, a mill may operate a
facility in excess of "nameplate" capacity because of innovations
in raw materials or methods since the facility was designed.
The values selected for capacity and/or production are
important because they influence both the cost of control and the
amount of emissions. Furthermore, in evaluation of most control
situations, the physical size and dimensions of the facility must
be known. The relationships between physical size and capacity
of the various emission sources are discussed later.
Capacity data for this study were excerpted from the refer-
ences with priority given to those presenting data direct from
the industry. These include References 3, 5, 7, and 9. Other
sources were used to fill gaps in the industry-reported data.
Considerable cross-checking of data sources was done to resolve
discrepancies and develop a clean data base.
The starting point for the inventory of facilities was the
AISI Directoryr other sources were used to supplement the inven-
tory. Because this projept addresses specific emission sources
within a process, a. simple list- of sinter plants or coke plants
is not sufficient. One must consider the nature and size of the
sources within these processes. Little information is available
on ore yards, coal yards, and slag processing facilities. The
procedure: for calculating the capacity of ore yards and coal
2-2
-------
yards is described below. Capacity of slag handling and process-
ing facilities is based on assumed slag volumes.
•With:
-------
Calculations of Ore Yard Sizes
Consider the idealized piles:
1) « - 37*
r - 100 ft
tan « • h/r * h - 75 ft
V - 1/3*(100)2(75) • 785,000 ft3
let density, p, of •ore" be 120 lb/ft3
therefore, N - 47,100 tons
tons/ft2 • 47,100/w(100)2 - 1.5 tons/ft2 for ore
let p of coal • 45 Ib/ft
17,7C
coal
tons/ft2 - 17,700/ir(100)2
0.56 ton/ft for
2)
V « 1/2 bhl « - 37»
h - b tan «/2 « 37.7
V « 1/2(100)(38)(200) - 380,000 ft3
at » • 120, tons/ft2 (for ore) - 1.1
ato - 45, tons/ft2 (for coal) • 0.4
Consider effective storage density (SD).
b-100
Four piles as above spaced
25 feet apart
A - 525 x 250 * 131,250
SO . 4 (120)(380,000),
• 0_6» ton ore/ft
* 0.26 ton coal/ft2
Three piles as- in 1) with 23ft
spacing between:
A * 700 x 250
•O - 3 X 47,100/700 X 250
* 0.81 tea ore/ft2
-0.31 ton coal/ft2
25
i
i
I
I
1
1
1
i
25
i
25
25
25
25
25
STORAGE AREA
OR
ODD
Figure 2-1. Material storage area requirements.
2-4
-------
Ore Coal
0.69 0.26 effective density, pyrimidal piles
0.81 0.30 effective density, conical piles
It is reasonable to choose the average of each of the two
values as an estimated value for effective storage density.
2
Reference 10 yields a value of 0.82 ton/ft for ore storage
density. This value, applicable to a plant capacity of 5,000,000
ingot tons/yr, compares reasonably well with our calculated
2
average value of 0.75 ton/ft . No other references were found on
the matter. Given the value of effective storage density, one
can use the following procedure to calculate the required storage
area as a function of hot metal and coking capacities.
Assume that 2 tons of ironbearing raw materials and fluxes
are required to make 1 ton of hot metal and that a 3-month supply
is kept on hand. The ore yard storage area required is therefore
equal to:
annual hot metal capacity x 2
4 x effective storage density
Assume the yield of coke from coal is 70 percent and that a
3-month supply of coal is kept on hand. The coal yard storage
area required is therefore equal to:
annual coking capacity ^
0.7 x 4 x effective storage density
Storage areas are determined in this manner in the computer cost
program. The area calculation is used to determine the number of
spray towers and length of piping in dust suppression systems.
The quantity of material stored controls both the emission rate
and the amount of spraying and chemical dust retardant required.
Coal Handling and Crushing
Virtually no data are available on specific handling and
crushing facilities. We therefore make the following assumptions:
2-5
-------
0 The census basis is one coal handling and crushing
facility per plant site. The exceptions to this are
plants with capacities above 8000 tons coal/day. For
these plants, we assume one facility for every incre-
ment of 8000 tons coal/day capacity. The 8000-ton
figure is based on the coal-carrying capacity of a 60-
in. belt. (In general, the belt capacities shown below
are used for sizing conveyor transfer point hooding
systems).
0 The control system assumes four transfer points sized
according to coal handling capacity, with the belt
sizes shown below. Exhaust rates are based on standard
ventilation calculations for hooded transfer points.1!/12
The coal crusher is assumed to be completely enclosed
and ventilated.
CONVEYOR BELT CAPACITIES*
Belt width, in. 18 30 42 60
Coal, tons/h 28 79 162 345
Ore, tons/h 70 198 405 863
Sinter Plant Windbox, Discharge End, and Fugitive Building Emissions
The census basis for these sources is one sinter plant
building. Table B-l, Appendix B, lists the sintering plants
considered. Plants that were shut down prior to 1978 are not
included. One control device is assumed per building for windbox
control, regardless of the number of strands. One control
device per building is used for discharge-end control, and
discharge-end hooding and ducting is based on one strand.
Control of fugitive emissions, i.e., at material transfer points,
is based on five transfer points per building.
Flow rate required for the windbox can be calculated from
Figure 2-2, excerpted from the ADL study. To relate this
equation to capacity, we must determine the relationship between
grate area and capacity (Figure 2-3). Using Figures 2-2 and
Marks, Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers 7th Ed.,
McGraw-Hill.
2-6
-------
u
in
800
700
600
500
o
5 400
300
200
100
0
[SCFM] « 12,897 +205.6 [GRATE AREA]
I I I I I i
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
GRATE AREA, ft*
Figure 2-2. Flow required for sinter plant windbox control.
13
2-7
-------
o
•+•>
IS)
«n
3
O
2500
2000
P 1500
<_>
a.
<_>
o 1000
H-
<_)
O
|
500
V
/:• -'•
T37(X) - 149
500 1000 1500 2000
X =GRATE AREA, ft2
Figure 2-3- Sinter production as a function of grate area,
2-8
-------
2-3, we can determine the flow rate as a function of capacity.
Flow required for control of sinter discharge emissions is ex-
cerpted from Reference 13 and illustrated in Figure 2-4.
Flow rates for enclosed transfer points are based on stan-
dard ventilation calculations for enclosed conveyor transfer
points and are illustrated in Figure 2-5.
Coking Charging
The census basis for this source is a coke oven battery.
The list of coke plants considered is shown in Table B-2.
Larry car sizing is based on oven volume. This means that
cost is proportional to oven size rather than capacity per se.
Table 2-1 illustrates the relation between various coke oven
parameters used to translate physical size into capacity. The
control cost includes providing a steam supply to the battery for
aspiration during charging and a smoke seal arrangement for the
'leveling bar and chuck door. It is assumed that existing larry
cars can be modified to achieve RACT control but that a new car
is required to achieve BACT and LAER control.
Coking Pushing
The census basis is a coke oven battery. One enclosed hot
car is used per battery. The basis of sizing is tons per push.
Flow rate for enclosed hot cars is assumed to be a constant
of 75,000 acfm. Energy requirement is not calculated in kWh as
with other flows, but rather as 0.95 gal No. 2 fuel oil per ton
of coke because this mobile equipment carries its own generator
and water heater. ' Although a particular design of enclosed
hot car is used for costing, the concept is applied in many
variations that are equally effective.
Coking Quenching
The census basis is one quench tower per 2500 tons coke/day.
No data are available on the actual number of quench towers, but
control costs are relatively low with baffles and such an assump-
tion will not introduce significant error into the aggregate
2-9
-------
225
200
175
150
1 125
o
TOO
75
50
25
• [SCFM] • 45,295 + 47.3 [GRATE AREA] ^
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
GRATE AREA, ft2-
3000 3500
Figure 2-4. Flow required for control of sinter
plant discharge.13
2-10
-------
10,000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
o
«3
4000
3000
2000
1000
I lit I r
Y * 192.7 (X)
0.83
I
I
I
I
I I I I
10
20 30 40 50
CONVEYOR WIDTH, in.
60 70 8090100
Figure 2-5,
Flow rate for exhausting conveyor
transfer point hoods.
2-11
-------
Table 2-1. RELATIONSHIPS OF SIZE AND OTHER
PARAMETERS, COKE OVEN BATTERY
Basis: 50 ovens
Oven volume, ft
Tons coke/push
Coking time, h
Pushes/day
Tons • coke/day
Tons coke/year
Oven height, meters
3
540
8.5
17.5
68.6
583
213,000
4
720
. 12.0
17.5
68.6
823
300,000
6a
1390
25.0
17.5
68.6
1715
626,000
6*
1390
25.0
12.5
96
2401
876,000
Conventional battery
Preheated coal battery
2-12
-------
cost. Operating cost for clean quench water is based on water
usage of 150 gal/ton of coking capacity independent of the number
of quench towers. For dry .quenching, maximum system size is 6000
tons/day of coke. With dry quenching, an enclosed hot car is not
required for pushing emissions control because a similar device
is part of the dry quenching system.
Door Emissions
The census basis is the coke oven battery. Control is
either by additional manpower or addition of cleaning equipment.
It is particularly difficult to assess current compliance status
for this emission source and also to generalize as to suitable
control requirements. Control costs for RACT are based on addi-
tion to the workforce of two maintenance men per shift per bat-
tery. For BACT and LAER the cost of door cleaning equipment is
added. Some batteries may require additional steps beyond this
to achieve control, such as replacement of doors and jambs.
Topside Leaks
The census basis is the coke oven battery. No control
equipment is used for topside leaks. Costs of control are
strictly operating costs based on one additional man per shift per
battery to control topside leaks. This does not include main-
tenance and supplies such as new lids, new standpipes or standpipe
caps, major grouting, or other items required for good mainten-
ance. It covers only manpower for "polishing" duties.
Combustion Stacks
The census basis is one coke oven battery. Flow rate is
determined from the coking capacity according to the following
calculations:
Assume 11,000 ft coke oven gas/ton coal
Assume 40 percent used to underfire
Products of combustion = 7.9 ft3/ft gas at 50 percent
excess air.16
Exhaust flow rate at 50 percent excess air = 11,000 x 0.4 x 7.9
= 34,800 ft3/ton coal
2-13
-------
The control technology specified is electrostatic precipitors.
On a new battery, with a suitable maintenance program the emis-
sion limitations for BACT and LAER may be met without the need
for a control device.
Coke Handling
The census basis is one coke plant facility. No further
distinction is made because of the relatively small magnitude of
this source. Four transfer points and a hooded screen constitute
the control system, and flow rate is calculated from standard
ventilation design values..
Coke Oven Gas Desulfurization
The entire cost of coke oven gas desulfurization is included
in this source category. Cost for desulfurization is therefore
not included with the boiler source or other fuel-burning sources.
The control system cost is based on a Sulfiban system with a Glaus
sulfur recovery plant and HCN destruction.
Coal Preheating
The entire cost of pipeline charging, including coal pre-
heating, is considered as a process cost, because any prorating of
costs between process factors (production, replacement) and air
pollution control would be arbitrary. Only the scrubber on the
coal preheater exhaust is considered as an air pollution control
cost. Flow rate for the scrubber on the preheater is determined
from the factor 8900 scf/ton coal.
Cast House Emissions
The census basis is the number of blast furnaces, as shown in
Table B-3. The number of blast furnaces in the United States is
given by various sources as follows:
2-14
-------
Source Number Comment
AISI Directory 186 Integrated plants only.
Complete data on working
volume.
Betz Report 151 Not all companies reported.
1976 AISI Statistical
Summary17 192 114 active as of Jan. 1, 1977.
Deily2 189
308 Survey 152 Accuracy of response
unknown.
g
EPA Compliance Report 169
Some of the differences are due to inclusion of ferroman-
ganese or foundry furnaces, but most can be attributed to the
various degrees of completeness or accuracy of the reports,
including interpretations of whether a furnace is "down," "in-
active," or "retired." Although the AISI values of 186 or 192 are
likely the most accurate regarding existing furnaces, examination
of Table B-3 shows 160 active furnaces in integrated mills.
Active is understood to denote that the furnace is either operat-
ing or is only temporarily down for maintenance or economic rea-
sons.
Three control schemes are considered. The RACT scheme
consists of hooding the tap hole area. The BACT scheme includes
runner covers in addition to tap hole hooding. The LAER scheme
is building evacuation. Reference 3 discusses control of cast
house emissions at length and presents suggested designs. Among
U.S. blast furnaces the configuration and dimensions of runners,
number of spouts, and other cast house features are highly vari-
able and are not necessarily a function of furnace size. There-
fore, the sizing of trough hooding and runner cover systems is
based on representative dimensions. Furnaces over 60,000 ft
working volume are assumed to have two tap holes and therefore
two capture systems. Flow rate for the trough area exhaust is
based on 420 acfm per square foot of exhaust face area. This
2-15
-------
results in flow rates on the order of 200,000 acfm at 175°F for
a medium size furnace. An additional 200,000 acfm is used for
runner cover exhaust. The design of cast house emission controls
in this country is still developmental, and flow rate require-
ments are a major issue. Selection of a design value is impor-
tant because flow rate influences both capital and operating
costs. Also, because the industry operates more cast houses than
any other major facility, cost errors in an individual system can
become magnified in the aggregate. The problems of cross cur-
rents and the impossibility of close hooding in existing cast
houses are the main causes of the high flow rate.
The flow rate required for building evacuation is based on
cast house volume. Figure 2-6 is a plot of cast house volume
versus furnace working volume, based on data from Reference 3.
Capacity is related to furnace working volume according to
Figure 2-7. The flow rate for total building evacuation is based
on 60 air changes per hour. Consequently, flow rate in acfm is
equal to building volume times 1.2 to adjust for a temperature of
175°F. References 3 and 18 raise several issues regarding oper-
ating and maintenance feasibility of runner covers and tap hole
hoods. In the operating cost calculation, we attempt to recog-
nize the severe conditions existing in a cast house by assigning
appropriately high maintenance costs.
Blast Furnace Slagging Emissions
The inventory basis is one blast furnace; one control
system per furnace is assumed. The basis for calculating emis-
sions is tons of hot metal capacity, slag being a function of hot
metal according to the factor 500 Ib slag/ton hot metal. The
emissions are those occurring at the furnace area from the water
quenching or granulation of slag. A hood and stainless steel
scrubber comprise the control system with flow rate estimated as
65 acfm/ton of hot metal/day. Specific data on slag processing
19
methods or the emissions and related control devices are sparse.
This source does not include emissions from processing of cooled
slag, such as crushing and screening.
2-lff
-------
1.000,000
900.000
BOO.000
700.000
600.000
500.000
\ 400,000
j
j
3
" 300,000
irt
5
200.000
100.000
FLOW RATE FOR CAST HOUSE
EVACUATION EQUALS CAST HOUSE
VOLUME X 1.2 IN ACFM AT 175»F
(60 AIR CHANGES/HOUR)
S ~
CHV • 3.426WV1'085 •• •
RAW DATA FROM REF. 3
10.000
20.000
30.000 40.00050.000 | 70.000190,000
60.000 60.000 100.000
3
WORKING VOLUME, ft
Figure 2-6. Cast house volume as a function of
furnace working volume.
2-17
-------
K)
i
H
00
2.0
«? 1.6
I ,.,
i.o
.8
'*
.4
.2
10
ANNUAL CAPACITY - Y • 0.023 (X) - 0.25
20
30
SO
60
70
80
90 100
X • WORKING VOLUME, thousands ftj
Figure 2-7. Blast furnace capacity vs. working volume.
-------
Blast Furnace Off-gas
All off-gas is assumed to be contained in the gas cleaning
system, and top emissions from slips are assumed to be an insig-
nificant source on an industry-wide basis. Because it is assumed
that this source is controlled for process and safety reasons, no
air pollution control costs are assigned. The outlet loading of
cleaned blast furnace gas is assumed to be 0.005 gr/scf. No
control therefore is considered for stove stacks.
Blast Furnace Slag Processing
One slag processing facility is assumed per plant site,
sized to crush and screen the total slag production. Many plants
do not process the slag but dump it as solid waste. Although
processing is usually done by an outside firm, costs of control
are considered to be steel industry costs. It is assumed that
slag is cooled before processing and therefore hooding and exhaust
to a baghouse constitute the control scheme.
Steelmaking Furnance Configurations
For all Steelmaking categories, the configuration of furnace
size and numbers of furnaces for a small, medium, and large shop
is shown below:
Steelmaking method
BOF: annual production,
10b tons/yr
No. furnaces/heat size,
tons
OH: annual production,
106 tons/yr
No. furnaces/heat size,
tons
EAF: annual production,
106 tons/yr
No. furnaces/heat size,
tons
Size designation
Small
1.61
2/150
Medium
2.70
2/250
Large
3.78
2/350
1.17
10/120
0.1
3/20
2.28
10/240
0.47
3/80
3.39
10/360
1.13
3/200
2-19
-------
Steel Slag Processing
For all three steelmaking processes, one slag process facil-
ity per plant site is assumed. The control system consists of
three hooded transfer points and a hooded screen. The flow rate
required is based on standard engineering calculations (see
Appendix C). Although slag processing is normally done by an
outside contractor, the costs of control are considered herein as
steel industry costs.
Open Hearth Hot Metal Transfer, Stack, and Fugitive Emissions
These sources are conveniently discussed together because
the census basis for all three is the open hearth "shop" or
building. Appendix Table B-4 lists the active shops considered
in the study.
For the open hearth sources, only RACT levels of control are
considered feasible. It is assumed that no new open hearths will
be built.
The basis of control of hot metal transfer emissions is a
hood with flow rate sized according to Figure 2-8 (derived from
Reference 13). It is assumed that these relationships, although
derived for BOF reladling operations, apply also to open hearth
reladling. One reladling station per shop is assumed.
For control of stack emissions, it is assumed that all
furnaces are vented to a common control device. Although some
shops are known to control individual furnaces, this study does
not consider site-specific factors. The flow rate basis is that
presented in Figure 2-9 (also derived from Reference 13).
No control is considered for fugitive furnace emissions
during charging, refining, and tapping. It is assumed that
eventual replacement of open hearth facilities with basic oxygen
or electric furnaces will be the ultimate control for these
fugitive emissions.
BOF Emissions
The census basis for BOF emissions sources is the BOF shop
and the number of furnaces. BOF shops considered are shown in
2-20
-------
ITJ
in
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
[SCFM] » 57,547 + 139.6 [tons/heat] _
I
I
I
I
50 100 150 200 250 300
FURNACE CAPACITY, tons/heat
350
Figure 2-8. Flow required for control of
hot metal reladling. -1-3
2-21
-------
u
I/I
IS)
900
800
700
600
500
2 400
o
u.
300
200
100
[SCFM] » 65*578 + 201.6 [tons/heat]
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
TOTAL SHOP CAPACITY, tons/heat
Figure 2-9. Flow required for open hearth fume control.
13
2-22
-------
Appendix Table B-5. For source 09-3 charging and tapping emis-
sions, a hooding or enclosure is included for each furnace, but
the control device is common to all furnaces. For source 9-02,
refining emissions, some shops have separate control devices for
each furnace, but this project assumes one control device per
shop for stack (refining) emissions for open-hood control. For
closed-hood (suppressed combustion) systems, one control device
is assumed for each furnace.
The flow rate basis for hot metal transfer is Figure 2-8.
The flow rate basis for stack emissions is shown in Figure
2-10. A higher flow rate is applied to open hood systems, and a
20
distinction is made between scrubbers and ESP's. Open hood
systems (RACT) are sized to handle two furnaces operating simul-
taneously in both two- and three-furnace shops. For BACT con-
trol, it is assumed that separate closed hood systems are re-
quired for each furnace and, therefore, a distinction is neces-
sary between two- and three-vessel shops. Only the two-vessel
shop case is calculated. Flow rate for the closed hood is based
on a factor of 488 times the heat size in tons and is derived
from data in References 10,23,21,22. For comparative purposes
Figure 2-10 includes curves based on the data in Reference 13.
The agreement is fairly good considering that Reference 13 is
based predominantly on two-vessel shops with open hood systems.
The flow rate basis for 09-3 sources is determined from
analysis of literature references and engineering judgment,
20 24-28
depending upon the scheme used for capture. ' Flow rate
for a furnace enclosure is calculated as 1000 acfm times heat
size. Flow rates for hooding of source 09-5 slag crushing and
screening are based on standard engineering calculations for
conveyor transfer points and canopy hoods. One slag processing
facility per plant is assumed.
The scheme for BACT and LAER control of slag pouring and
cleanup consists of hooding the slag pouring area in the steel-
making shop and venting the emissions to a baghouse. Flow rate
is estimated as 200,000 acfm at a temperature of 150°F for a shop
2-23
-------
to
10
u
in
i/i
-o
O
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
I I
FLOW RATE FOR BASIC OXYGEN FURNACE FUME CONTROL
CURVES 1 AND 3 DERIVED FROM REF. 13
-CURVES 2 AND 4 DERIVED FROM REF. 20
FLOW RATE FOR
THE SHOP ~
CURVES
100
AND 6 DERIVED FROM REF. 20,
21 , AND 22
1
OPEN HOOD ASSUMES CONTROL
SYSTEM IS SIZED FOR TWO FURNACES
IN BOTH TWO- AND THREE-VESSEL 31
O.G. SYSTEM ASSUMES ONE
CONTROL SYSTEM FOR EACH VESSEL
OPS
200 300
HEAT SIZE (H),tons/heat
400
500
Figure 2-10. Flow rate for BOF fume control.
-------
producing 1,000,000 tons per year. Flow is proportioned for
larger shops on this basis, but 200,000 acfm is a minimum flow
rate. Cases where molten slag is transported to a slag dump are
not considered.
Electric Arc Furnace Stack and Fugitive Emissions
Electric arc furnaces in integrated plants are shown in
Appendix Table B-6. When canopy hooding or total building
evacuation is used, it is immaterial to consider stack (refining)
emissions separately from fugitive emissions. The breakdown in
such cases is by type of steel produced rather than by emission
source. The control systems evaluated are shown in Figure
2-11. The flow rate basis is the sum of the heat sizes in the
shop, but the individual furnaces are considered in estimating
the equipment cost for direct shell evacuation ducting and canopy
hoods. In all cases, one control device is used per building.
Air flow rates are derived from Table II-l in Reference 29 and
are presented in Figure 2-12. As can be seen from Figure 2-12,
the flow rates for building evacuation of small (<100 tons) shops
cannot be extrapolated. A lower bound, based on engineering
judgment, is shown. This bound adjustment is made for building
evacuation of small shops and reflects a ventilation rate of 24
air changes/hour and a building volume of 1,125,000 ft (100 by
150 by 75 ft).
Electric Furnace Slag Pouring
Control costs are calculated on the same basis as the BOF
slag pouring.
Conventional Casting
No control is considered for this emission source. The
census basis is one per steelmaking shop.
Continuous Casting
The census basis is one continuous casting machine, indepen-
dent of the number of strands. Continuous casters considered are
2-25
-------
CARBON
ALLOY
RACT
3 Ib/ton
TOTAL = 3.05 ,lb/ten
0.054 Ib/ton
CONTROL
DEVICE
DIRECT SHELL EVACUATION
1.5. Ib/ton
TOTAL -1.95 Ib/ton
0,45 Ib/ton
BACT
0.6 Ib/ton
TOTAL = °'
(80%
capture)
0.31 Ib/ton
c !../*
.a lb/top
TOTAI- " 1-95 Ib/ton
0.45 Ib/ton
LAER
CLOSED ROOF
TOTAL *0.36 Ib/toi
0.36 Ib/ton
CLOSED ROOF
TOTAL - 0.9 Ib/ton
0.9 Ib/ton
Figure 2-11. Schematic illustration of EAT control technologies.
2-26
-------
1.000.000
800.000
600.000
400.000
200.000
200 300 400 500
H • SUM OF HEAT SIZES IN SHOP, tons
600
700
Figure 2-12. Flow rates required for electric
arc furnace control. 29
2-27
-------
shown in Appendix Table B-7. Hooding is used, and flow rate is
estimated as 175,000 acfm at 150°F based on the assumption that
both the ladle and tundish are hooded and the ladle hood must be
located above the crane runway. Special close hooding designs
with lower flow rates may be possible, but these could only be
considered on a site-specific basis. No distinction is made for
the type of shape cast.
Soaking Pits
The census basis is the number of soaking pits as shown in
Appendix Table B-8. In this case, control requirements are a
function of fuel usage and fuel sulfur content. Since these
factors are highly variable by plant, no typical cost can be
calculated. An analysis of emission rates is presented in Table
2-2. The cost for an ESP installation is calculated for oil-
fired pits. Pits fired with gas require no control. Factors
relating production (throughput) to heating area and fuel usage
to production have been developed as follows:
Assume fuel consumption = 1.35 x 106 Btu/ton10'22'30'31
With oil firing at 20 percent excess air:
Exhaust rate = 1.35 x 106 Btu/ton * 150,000 Btu/gal
,x 1871 ftVgal
= 16,839 ft /ton ingots heated.
With coke-oven-gas firing at 10% excess air 3
Exhaust rate » 1.35 x 106 Btu/ton * 500 Btu/ft
,x 6 ft3/ft3 gas
» 16,200 ftVton
Since these values- are very close, the average value of 16,500
ft /ton was used- for either fuel»
Soaking pit loading = 0.54 ton/ft heating area
Annual capacity = 304 x heating area
where 304 = 0.54 x 8760 h/yr x 0.9 availability
14 h/load
Automatic Scarfing
The census basis is one scarfing machine. Scarfing machines
considered are shown in Appendix Table B-9. Flow rate is based
on the relationship shown in Figure 2-13. Emissions are based on
tons of steel capacity.
2-28
-------
Table 2-2. SOAKING PITS EMISSION ANALYSIS
to
I
K>
vo
2
Heating area, ft
Fuel usage, 10 Btu/ton
Throughput, tons/h
Particulate emission with
1% S oil:
lb/106 Btu
Ib/h
Ib/ton
SO- emissions with 1% S oil
Ib/h
Ib/ton
lb/106 Btu
Particulate emissions with 50 gr
H-S/lOO scf coke oven gas
lb/106 Btu (@0.02 gr/scf)
Ib/h
Ib/ton
S02 emissions with 50 gr H2S/100
scf coke oven gas
lb/106 Btu
Ib/h
Ib/ton
tons/year produced at 7000
h/year
Facility size3
Small
2000
1.35
76
0.15
16
0.20
114
1.5
1.1
0.006
0.6
0.008
0.27
55
0.36
532,000
Med ium
4000
1.35
152
0.15
31
0.20
228
1.5
1.1
0.006
1.2
0.008
0.27
55
0.36
1,064,000
Large
10,000
1.35
380
0.15
77
0.20
570
1.5
1.1
0.006
3.0
0.008
0.27
137
0.36
2,660,000
a These figures are for batteries of soaking pits; individual pits have less than
1000 ft2 heating area each (generally 500 to 1000).
-------
FLOW RATE REQUIRED FOR CONTROL OF SCARFING
I/I
•o
c
"3
(/>
3
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
_ O
ACFM • 45,276 + 22,807 X
10 tons/yr
O SCRUBBERS
a MET ESP
O DRY ESP
.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.S
CAPACITY, 1Q6 tons/yr
3.0 3.5
Figure 2-13., Plow required for control, of scarfing emissions.'
36
2-30
-------
Reheating Furnaces
The census basis is the number of furnaces. Reheat furnaces
are listed in Appendix Table B-10. Fuel consumption is calculated
from the relationship 2.8 x 10 Btu/ton steel, a value derived
from review of the literature.10'22'32'33'34'35
Reheat furnace calculations: ,
Assume fuel consumption = 2.8 x 10 Btu/ton
With oil firing and 20 percent excess air,
exhaust rate = 2.8 x 106 Btu/ton •=• 150,000 Btu/gal
x 1871 ft3/gal
= 34,925 ft3/ton slab heated
With coke-oven-gas firing at 10 percent excess air,
exhaust rate = 2.8 x 106 Btu/ton T 500 Btu/ft3
x 6 ft3/ft3 gas
= 33,600 ft3 ton
Since these values are very close, use the average 34,300 ft /ton
for either fuel.
For slab reheat furnaces, firing rate in Btu per hour can be
related to heating area by the equation:
Throughput = 0.075 ton/h per ft2.
This equation assumes 85 percent hearth coverage and represents
a maximum throughput, i.e., firing rate. This relationship is
derived from References 10 and 22.
For soaking pits and reheat furnaces, assume an additional
exhaust flow of 20 percent to account for infiltration of tramp
air. This increases exhaust rates to 20,000 ft /ton and 41,000
ft /ton. Analysis of emission rates for reheat furnaces is
presented in Table 2-3. The cost of an ESP installation for an
oil-fired furnace is calculated. Gas-fired furnaces do not
require control. Reheating furnaces for finishing or heat treat-
ing furnaces for the finishing and special product categories are
not considered a significant source of emissions.
Boilers
Detailed census data on steel mill boilers are very limited.
Boilers considered are shown in Appendix Table B-ll. The costs
2-31
-------
Table 2-3. LARGE REHEAT FURNACE EMISSION ANALYSIS
10
I
' ' 2
Heating area, ft
Fuel usage, 10 Btu/ton
Maximum throughput, tons/h
Particulate emissions with
1% S oil
lb/10^ Btu
lb/h
Ib/ton
SO- emission with 1% S oil
lb/h
Ib/ton
;b/106 Btu
Particulate emissions with 50 gr
H-S/lOO scf coke oven gas
ib/106 Btu
lb/h
Ib/ton
SO2 emissions with 50 gr H2S/100
scf coke oven gas
lb/106 Btu
lb/h
Ib/ton
Tons/yr produced at 7000 h/yr
(avg throughput = 0.045 ton/h)
Furnace size
Small
500
2.8
37
0.15
16
0.4
115
3
1.1
0.006
0.7
0.017
0.27
28
0.75
158,000
Medium
1500
2.8
110
0.15
48
0.4
347
3
1.1
0.006
1.9
0.017
0.27
85
0.75
470,000
Large
3500
2.8
260
0.15
110
0.4
810
3
1.1
0.006
4.5
0.017
0.27
197
0.75
1,103,000
-------
of particulate plus S0~ control are considered for a coal-fired
boiler. The cost of particulate control of oil-fired boilers to
comply with a limit of 0.02 gr/scfd is also presented. Boilers
fired with blast furnace gas, desulfurized coke oven gas, low-
sulfur oil (< 1.2 lb/10 Btu), or combinations thereof do not
require additional control. Obviously, the need for control
equipment on boilers is highly fuel-dependent. Boilers fired
with by-product fuel, i.e., coke oven gas or blast furnace gas,
may normally need no control. If the boiler is switched to oil
for a short period during shortage of by-product fuel or high
steam demand, control may be required. The wide variation in
emissions is illustrated in Table 2-4. This study does not
address the compliance complications arising from short-term fuel
switching.
Steel mill boilers have generally low firing rates compared
to utility boilers. Flue gas desulfurization systems on such
small boilers have a high cost per Btu. If there were only one
coal-fired boiler in a mill complex, fuel switching or shutdown
would have to be considered as alternatives to control.
Appendix Table C-l summarizes the flow rates described in
this section.
2.3 CONTROL LEVELS AND TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED
Table D-l, Appendix D, summarizes the emission rates and
control technologies that constitute the general definitions of
Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), Best Available
Control Technology (BACT), and Lowest Achievable Emission Rate
(LAER) in this study. Because some detail is lost in condensing
so much information into a table, extensive footnotes are pre-
sented to provide further information on the emission rates.
Note that the emission rates are not necessarily intended to be
equivalent to generally accepted emission factors. Although some
of the factors are formally recognized in AP-42 or other pub-
lished sources, many are only estimates or averages of widely
2-33
-------
Table 2-4. EXHAUST PARAMETERS FOR VARIOUS BOILER FUELS
(at 50% excess air)
fuel or Regulation
Blast furnace gas
Coke oven gas
400 gr H2S/100 set'
50 gr H^S/lOO scf
10 gr H2S/100 scf
1% S oil
2.5% S oil
2.5% S, 10% ash coal
NSPS* boiler *250 x 10
Btu/h
Particulate
lb/106 Btu
0.008
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.15
0.15
5.4
O.'l
gr/scfd
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.06
0.06
2.2
0.04
scf/106 Btu
26,300
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
17,000
SO,
lb/106 Btu
0
2.0
0.2
0.05
1.1
2.7
4.0
0.8 oil
1.2 coal
ppm (weight)
0
1500
190
40
840
2100
3100
600
920
M
I
New Source Performance Standard.
-------
variable data; consequently, there is some controversy as to the
correct value. Very few actual data are available for many of
the fugitive sources that are not widely controlled.
This study is relatively insensitive to minor differences in
emission rates, and such differences do not seriously influence
the calculated costs. The costs of quench tower baffles and dry
quenching, for example, are independent of the emission rates
from coke quenching. The cost of an ESP would be influenced
somewhat, in that the efficiency required would change with
emission rate and consequently would affect the total plate area.
The emission rates are considered reasonable for the purpose
intended, i.e.,. to indicate the relative degrees of control
achievable with, various control technologies. The factors should
not be interpreted as representative of emissions at any specific
plant.
Obviously, the technologies listed in Table D-l are abbre-
viated descriptions. Specific control equipment is described in
detail in Section 3.
2-35
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
1. National Emissions Data System (NEDS). Point Source List-
ings. 1970-1976.
2. Deily, Richard L. Steel Industry in Brief: Data Book
U.S.A., 1977.
3. Blast Furnace Cast House Emission Control Study. (Draft)
Betz Environmental Engineers Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania.
Prepared for EPA Control Systems Laboratory, Office of
Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.
4. Varga, J. Control of Reclamation (Sinter) Plant Emissions
Using Electrostatic Precipitators. Battelle Columbus Lab-
oratories. EPA 600/2-76-002. January 1976.
5. Iron and Steel Works Directory of the United States and
Canada. American Iron and Steel Institute. 1977.
6. Varga, John, Jr. Screening Study on By-product Coke Oven
Plants. Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Contract Number
68-02-0611. September 1974. 117-121.
7. By-product Coke Oven Dimensions. Technical Committee on
Coke Oven Practice. American Iron and Steel Institute.
1976.
8. Air and Water Compliance-Summary for the Iron and Steel
Industry. U..S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Enforcement. October 20, 1977.
9. Industry Response to Section 308 Effluent Guidelines Ques-
tionnaires. 1976-1977.
10. Labee, C. From Sand to Steel. The Burns Harbor Story.
Iron & Steel Engineer. October 1971. pp. B18-B48.
11. Industrial Ventilation. Edward Bros, llth Edition. Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
12. Air Pollution Engineering Manual. AP-42. 2nd Edition.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
2-36
-------
13. Arthur D. Little, Inc. Steel and the Environment: A Cost
Impact Analysis. May 1975.
14. Rudolph, H., and S. Sawyer. Engineering Criteria for a
Hooded Quench Car System. Iron and Steel Engineer. March
1977. pp. 27-35.
15. Enclosed Coke Quench Cars Gain Ground as Method of Cleaning
Oven-push Emissions. 33 Magazine. October 1976.
16. Making, Shaping, and Treating of Steel. United States Steel
Corporation, 9th Ed. 1971.
17. Annual Statistical Report. American Iron and Steel Insti-
tute. 1976.
18. Blast Furnace Cast House Emissions Investigations. Un-
published memo concerning Stelco Steel blast furnace.
February 27, 1976.
19. Stoehr, R.A., and Pezze, J.P. Effect of Oxidizing and Re-
ducing Conditions on The Reaction of Water with Sulfur
Bearing Blast Furnace Slags. Journal of the Air Pollution
Association. November 1975. pp. 1119-1122.
20. Rowe et al. Waste Gas Cleaning Systems for Large Capacity
Basic Oxygen Furnaces. Iron and Steel Engineer. January
1970. pp. 74-90.
21. McCluskey, Ernest J. Design Engineering of the OG Gas
Cleaning System at Inland's No. 2 EOF Shop. Iron and Steel
Engineer. December 1976. pp. 53-58.
22. Kashay, A.M. Armco's Middletown Works, Iron and Steel
Engineer. September 1974. pp. M47-M78.
23. Hubbard, H.N., and W.T. Lankford, Jr. Development and
Operation of the Q-BOP Process in the U.S. Steel Corp. Iron
and Steel Engineer. October 1973, pp. 37-43.
24. Ekberg, P.H. Design and Initial Operation of Youngstown's
BOF's. at Indiana Harbor. Iron and Steel Engineer. January
1972. pp. 41-47.
25. Baum, J.P. Gas Cleaning and Air Pollution Control for Iron
and Steel Processes. Iron and Steel Engineer. June 1976.
pp. 25-32.
26. BOSP Charging and Tapping Emissions Baghouse. Kaiser Steel
Corp. Fontana, California.
2-37
-------
27. Kotsch, J.A. The New LD-Steel Shop at Fried Krupp Hutten-
Works AG, Rheinhausen Works. Iron and Steel Engineer. June
1976, pp. 33-36.
28. Nicola, A.G. Fugitive Emission Control in the Steel Indus-
try. Iron and Steel Engineer. July 1976. pp. 25-30.
29. Standards Support Document: An Investigation of the Best
Systems of Emission Reductions far Electric Arc Furnaces in
the Steel Industry. (Draft) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air and Waste Management. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina.
30. Gilbert, K.L. Soaking Pit Innovations - Allegheny Ludlum.
Iron & Steel Engineer. July 1971. pp. 33-38.
31. Katofiasc, T.W. Lauching of Ford's 48- x 96-in. Universal
Slabbing Mill.. Iron and Steel Engineer. June 1971. pp.
49-54.
32. Nemeth, E.L. and C.H. Wexler. Phoenix Steel's 160-in. Plant
Mill. Iron and Steel Engineer. July 1970. pp. 33-40.
33. Easter, H.C. Operations at Inland's New 12-in. Bar Mill.
Iron and Steel Engineer. June 1972. pp. 41-56.
34. Kinsey, C.J. Republic Steel Corp.'s New 134-in. Plate Mill
at Gadsden. Iron and Steel Engineer. July 1970. pp. 33-
40.
35. Wilthew, R.M~, and R..M. Davidson. Youngstown's 84-in. Hot
Strip Mill. Iron and. Steel Engineer. May 1972. pp. 53-63.
36. The Cost of Clean Air. Battelle Memorial Institute. Columbus,
Ohio. 1974. EPA Publication No. 600/2-76-002.
2-38
-------
SECTION 3
DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS
3.1 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITAL COST
FUNCTIONS FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL OF STEEL MILL PROCESSES
The approach used in developing capital cost estimates is to
define various fundamental elements of control equipment, de-
scribed herein as modules, and then combine the modules into a
control system. The large number of modules considered here
results directly from the variety of emission sources covered.
Throughout these estimations we attempt to recognize the
severe service conditions of steel plant operation. These are
reflected in installed spares for pumps and motors, liberal plate
thicknesses in hoods and structurals, painting of exposed mem-
bers, and adequate instrumentation. The overall procedure is in
five steps:
1) Establish individual elements of air pollution control
equipment. These elements are referred to as modules.
In some cases, the modules are general pieces of
equipment such-as fans, fabric filters, and ductwork.
In other cases, the modules are total systems unique to
the steel industry such as enclosed hot cars and coke
oven gas desulfurization systems. The modules are
shown in Table 3-1 and are described in Appendix E.
2) Using standard engineering methods estimate the total
installed costs of the module. These estimates are
given for at least three sizes of modules and include
separate estimates for equipment, installation, and
indirect cost. An example estimate package for the
Module 6, water quench-gas'cooler, is shown in Appendix
F. Some modules that are typically considered as a
total system, such as coke oven gas desulfurization,
are not estimated in equivalent detail, but costs are
based on total system quotation plus engineering and
on-site work. Installation costs are based on a 40-
hour work week. The cost of interest during construc-
tion is a function of estimated installation time.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. EQUIPMENT MODULES
Module and
version no.
Module name
01-01
01-02
03-01
03-02
03-03
03-04
04-01
04-02
05-01
05-02
06-01
06-02
06-03
07-01
09-01
10-01
11-01
11-02
13-01
14-01
16-01
17-01
17-02
17-03
18-01
18-02
18-03
18-04
19-01
19-02
19-03
20-01
20-02
20-03
20-04
21-01
21-02
21-03-
21-04
22-01
24-01
24-02.
24-03
24-04
24-05
(Continued)
Carbon steel, dry ESP
Stainless steel, wet ESP
Carbon steel baghouse <_ 50,000 acfm, uninsulated
Carbon steel baghouse <. 50,000 acfm, insulated
Carbon steel baghouse > 50,000 acfm, uninsulated
Carbon steel baghouse > 50,000 acfm, insulated
Carbon steel venturi scrubber
Stainless steel venturi scrubber
Lined cyclone.
Unlined cyclone
Contact gas-cooler <. 250,000 acfm
Contact gas cooler > 250,000 acfm
Carbon steel noncontact gas cooler
Raw material receiving station sprays
Enclosed hot car
Pipeline charging
Modify larry car
Larry car - stage charge
Windbox recirculation
Quench tower baffles
Dry quenching
Blast furnace flare
Coke oven gas. flare
EOF gas flare
Carbon steel wire-mesh-type mist eliminator
Stainless steel wire-meshrtype mist eliminator
Carbon steel blade-type mist eliminator
Stainless steel blade-type mist eliminator
Fan and drive (0-800 bhp)
Fan and drive (801-2000 bhp)
Fan and drive (> 2000 bhp)
Carbon steel ductwork, unlined, 100 ft
Stainless steel ductwork, unlined, 100 ft
Carbon steel ductwork, lined, 100 ft
Stainless steel ductwork, lined, 100 ft
Carbon steel stack, unlined
Stainless steel stack, unlined
Carbon steel stack, brick lined
Stainless steel.stack, brick lined
SO2 monitor-
EAF canopy hood:
SQ canopy hood <_ 10 ft sides
SQ canopy hood > 10 ft sides
SQ canopy hood <_ 10 ft sides with skirt
SQ canopy hood > 10 ft sides with skirt
3-2:
-------
Table 3-1 (continued)
Module and
version no. Module name
24-06 SQ canopy hood £ 10 ft sides with lining
24-07 SQ canopy hood > 10 ft sides with lining
24-08 SQ canopy hood £ 10 ft sides with lining
24-09 SQ canopy hood > 10 ft sides with lining
25-01 Wastewater recycle system
27-01 Building louvres
28-01 Cast house runner cover
29-01 EOF enclosure
30-01 Coke oven gas desulfurization (50 grains)
30-02 Coke oven gas desulfurization (35 grains)
30-03 Coke oven gas desulfurization (10 grains)
40-01 Conveyor transfer point hoods
41-01 FGD system, SC>2
41-02 FGD system, particulate and S02
41-03 FGD system, particulate, S02 and water treatment
41-04 SC-2 scrubber for sinter plant
42-01 Dust handling hoppers and conveyors
43-01 Leveling bar smoke seal
44-01 Steam supply, stage charging
45-01 Carbon steel damper, <_ 7-ft diameter
46-01 , Carbon steel damper, >_ 7-ft diameter
47-01 Stainless steel damper
48-01 Spray towers
49-01 Transfer point spray
50-01 Spray truck
51-01 Storage yard dust suppression system
52-01 Opacity monitor
53-01 Combustion control monitor
54-01 Wastewater return system
55-01 Water pumping system (< 1500 gpm)
55-02 Water pumping system (> 1500 gpm)
56-01 Water-cooled plate duct
57-01 Fan and drive electrical (< 150 bhp)
57-02 Fan and drive electrical (> 150 bhp)
58-01 Coke oven door cleaner
59-01 EOF closed hood, one furnace
59-02 EOF open hood, one furnace
60-01 Slag water sprays
3-3
-------
3) Determine the mathematical cost function by plotting
the estimate in dollars versus the size parameter. The
size parameter is often acfm, but it may be a process
size. Estimates for -some modules require multiple
parameters; for example, acfra, pressure drop, and
temperature in the case of fans. An example module
cost function is shown in Figure 3-1.
4) Design the control system judged to be capable of
achieving the level of control desired. The design
step therefore consists of two parts. First, assemble
the appropriate modules; second, establish broad param-
eters of design to- meet the control level. The param-
eters include such variables as acfm, air/cloth ratio,
and collection area. All of the parameters, can be
varied, however, in the computer model. For existing
sources, an appropriate retrofit multiplier must be
chosen since the module cost functions are based on a
new installation.
5) Calibrate the control system cost functions by compar-
ing with actual cost data where they are available.
Care must be exercised to ensure that the actual cost
data represent a control system equivalent to that
being estimated and that the data include no extraor-
dinary site-specific costs.
In this procedure three system designs represent each level
of control for each emission source; albeit some may be identi-
cal. Furthermore, parameters of design must be chosen for three
different sizes of each emission source to establish a control
system cost function. In some cases, two alternative systems may
be capable of achieving the same degree of control. For example,
an ESP or scrubber may be equally suitable. In such cases a con-
trol system was chosen for this study based on such factors as
industry practice, economy, and maintenance and operation.
A concern that arises in such generalized costing procedures
as are described herein deals with the validity of the costs in
specific cases and the ability to estimate accurately when real-
world situations vary markedly-.. This study- does not attempt to
estimate costs of a control system for a specific plant. Rather
it develops cost for the industry, broken down by type of process,
size of process, and degree of control. The aggregate is based
3-4
-------
U)
Ul
10.000,000
« 1.000,000
m
o
Ul
_l
S 100,000
INSTALLED COST • 47.« acfm'
0.715
10,000
100.000
FLOW RATE, acfm
1,000,000
10.000,000
Figure 3-1. Example module cost function, gas cooler-water quench.
-------
on a level of detail that leads tqr a balancing out of plus and
minus errors.
The retrofit situation presents a significant problem in
estimating procedures because steel mills vary greatly in size,
age, and layout. The use of the module approach, however,
permits some degree of distinction to be made. When each type of
control system is considered for each emission source, difficulty
of the retrofit can be estimated on the basis of typical condi-
tions in many mills. Certainly the estimates cannot be consid-
ered site-specific, but at least there is an accounting for
retrofit costs. Retrofit multipliers are assigned in the com-
puter cost model in increments of 0.1 (10%). A retrofit multi-
plier of 20 percent, for example, designates that the retrofit
cost is 20 percent higher than the cost of a new installation.
The retrofit multipliers are assigned separately and indepen-
dently for each module.
This study is intended to consider only the costs of air
pollution control. Another contractor, Temple, Barker & Sloane,
will address costs of water pollution control. Table 3-2 indi-
cates the emission sources that will generate process water
requiring treatment and the expected contaminants. Unlike all
other air pollution control systems, however, the water treatment
portion of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) systems for coal-fired
boilers is included as an inherent part of the system.
3.2 EXAMPLE OF DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR AIR POLLUTANT CONTROL
SYSTEMS: SINTER PLANT WINDBOX
The technology table discussed (Appendix Table D-l) provides
the current EPA estimates of emission rates required under three
levels of technology. To avoid any legal implications in inter-
pretations, the terms RACT, BACT, and LAER, are used herein
simply as labels for three different situations. Whether they
are in fact "reasonable," "best,." or "lowest" is not an issue in
this application-
3-6
-------
Table 3-2. SOURCES REQUIRING WATER TREATMENT AS A RESULT OF
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Source
Sinter windbox3
Coke pushing
Enclosed car
Coke quenching
Coke comb, stack3
EOF stack3
FGD boilers
Pollutant parameters
SS
X
X
X
X
X
PH
X
X
X
X
X
F
X
X
CN
X
X
Phenol
X
X
Other
(NH3, SO-, etc.)
X
X
X
Water treatment is include'd with air
po
llution control sys
i P
tern
These sources could use a dry control system, in which case
water treatment would not be required.
3-7
-------
Figure 3-2 illustrates the building block concept wherein
appropriate control modules are combined to make a control
system. The design parameter of flow used in this example is
380,000 acfm. This is for a "medium-sized" sinter plant produc-
ing 3767 tons/day. Flow and tonnage are determined as described
in Section 2. The uncontrolled emission rates are 4.3 Ib TSP/ton
sinter, 1.8 Ib S02/ton sinter, 0.24 Ib condensible HC/ton sinter,
and 4.7 Ib gaseous HC/ton sinter. The level of control achieved
by system 1 is for TSP only and is 0.035 gr/scf. At the produc-
tion rate used, this can be converted to 0.5 Ib/ton sinter or 90
percent control of particulate. Note that for a "small" sinter
plant (1671 tons/day and 179>000 acfm), the same grain loading
results in 0.55 Ib/ton sinter or 88 percent control. Such
variation occurs in many processes because flow is not always di-
rectly proportional to production.
The cyclone is not included as part of the control system
because it is considered to be part of the process. One hundred
and fifty feet of carbon steel ductwork is the first element of
the system. A retrofit factor of 1.6 is used for existing
plants to account for elbows, eyes, and general layout complica-
tions of the ductwork.
A wet stainless steel scrubber with a pressure drop of 40
in. of water is the second element. A retrofit factor of 1.1
accounts for layout complications. Associated with the scrubber
is a wastewater return module and makeup water supply module,
both with a 1.1 retrofit factor. A water recirculating module is
included, consisting of a clarifier, vacuum filter, and asso-
ciated pumps and piping. The clarifier is sized to achieve 100
mg/liter suspended solids outlet with a 5 percent blowdown. A
stainless steel blade mist eliminator module is added with a
retrofit factor of 1.1.
The fan is sized for the flow and temperature required and
at a total static pressure capacity of 70 in. The total pressure
consists of 40 in. for the scrubber, 25 in. for the process, and
5 in. for duct loss and stack outlet. In calculation of operating
3-8
-------
FROM CYCLONE
TO EXISTING
UJ
Figure 3-2. Block.diagram of sinter plant windbox control (RACT).
-------
cost, only the incremental 40 in. for control is used. The
retrofit factor is 1.1. The installed spare fan capacity is 50
percent.
A stack module is not included in this case because it is
considered part of the process.
The only change required for system 2 is an increase in
scrubber pressure drop. A pressure drop of 60 in. is used to
decrease the outlet loading to 0.-02 gr/scf F.H.* This translates
to 0.3 Ib/ton or 94 percent control of particulate. Fan sizing
is based on 90 in. water pressure drop.
Figure 3-3 illustrates a significantly more complex system
designed to hold total outlet loading to 0.02 gr/scf F.T.** and
also provide 90 percent control of SO_ emissions. A wet'ESP is
used in conjunction with windbox gas recirculation and SO-
scrubbing. Flow rate to the scrubber is reduced by 40 percent.
Note that continuous monitoring for opacity and SO- is added.
The retrofit factor for windbox recirculation is 1.6. Even this.
system provides essentially no control of gaseous hydrocarbons.
This entire procedure is then repeated for. a "small" plant
and a "large" plant to yield three control system cost functions.
Although not within the scope of this project, it is clear that
intermediate control levels or other values for design parameters
could be examined in the same fashion by use of the computer
model. Appendix, G contains computer model example printout of
the sinter plant, windbox control systems.
3.3 OPERATING COST ESTIMATION FOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS
The costs of operating pollution control systems fall into
three major categories: utilities, operating labor, and main-
tenance and supplies- Subcategories of each are discussed
below.
F.H. = Front Half, EPA Method 5.
F.T. = Full Train, EPA Method 5.
3-10
-------
;|pS'-\ ?v>5;;:-i:^ :' <;'";;'- '•-! '•'"'• '•
I".'- •,.-.- •'. :'.Ai.';t-'•.,•'•!•: -..'••••.•' v •
^-.V
CTClOHf ri H«PIO?
Figyre 31^3
of sinter plant windbox control tLAER).
-------
Operating costs have been estimated separately for each of
the modules in the study. To determine the operating cost of a
given control system, the operating costs developed for the
modules in that system are added.
Utilities
The category of utilities includes four subcategories :
water, electricity, steam, and fuel. The utility rates were
taken from Reference 1 and are shown, in Table 3-3. The water
subcategory includes scrubber and nonscrub.ber water. A cost of
$0.145 per 1000 gallons is used for all supply water. This study
does not address costs of water pollution control except to the
extent that a clarifier-vacuum filter system is used with wet
control devices for water recirculation. The costs associated
therewith are included as an inherent cost of air pollution
control. Costs of water treatment of dissolved compounds such as
fluorides, phenols, or cyanides are not included. Certain air
pollution control systems such as those for coke oven pushing or
sinter plant windbox might require water treatment beyond sus-
pended solids removal. The Value used for cost of clean water
for coke quenching is $8.22 per 1000 gallons and is derived from
Reference 1. Treatment of coke plant wastes that would otherwise
be used for quenching is the basis of this cost. The capital
cost of coke plant wastewater treatment is considered to be a
water pollution related cost*
Water treatment for a boiler FGD system is integral to the
system and: consists of a clarifier-vacuum filter system with
sludge fixation, and' sludge: pond.
i^r^, Spray: water for1 dust: suppression in ore yards, coal yardsv
handling is assinned to constitute no runoff problem, and
:nEfc^ate2c:.'colleetuxiik '-:QK treatment: costs- are considered.
Scrubber water consumption is calculated from the estimated
liquid to gas ratio (L/G) of the wet control device and cooler,
if" required, and the applicable exhaust flow rate. Liquid to gas-
ratios for venture scriibbers and wet ESP ' s range from 6 to 15
'.•". . - 3-iz
-------
Table 3-3. OPERATING COST RATE FACTORS
Item
Cost
Water
Electricity
Steam
No. 2 fuel oil
Dust surfactant
Polyelectrolyte
Operating and maintenance labor
Supervision
Monoethyleneamine (MEA)
Dacron bags
Glass bags
-200 mesh limestone
$0.145/1000 gal
0.0242/kWh
3.72/1000 Ib
0.38/gal
3.35/gal
2.25/lb
13.04/ha
15.54/h
0.45/lb
0.25/ft2
0.40/ft2
20.00/ton
3-13
-------
gal/min per 1000 acfm. Review of the literature and EPA Section
308 survey data indicates that values of 6.5 to 10 predominate.
Rather than estimate water required for cooling hot exhaust gas
separately from the gas scrubbing function, we have developed the
relationship described in Appendix E. A minimum L/G of 6.5 is
used. The initial cooling of exhaust gases from 3000° to 2000°F
is not considered for BOF open hood systems however. This initial
cooling (using a spark box, water-cooled hood, or other arrange-
ment) is considered part of the process. In estimating scrubber
water consumption, we assume that 95 percent of the water used
for scrubbing is recycled.
Among the modules used in this study, three are identified
as consuming nonscrubber water. The first is gas cooling water,
which is estimated as described previously. The second is water
used wetting down ore and coal yards and associated transfer
points. This value is difficult to estimate because there is
very little experience with this control technology in the steel
industry. Here, the basis for water usage is that the desired
wetting occurs when 2 percent of the material by weight is added
as water. We assume that water is applied at this rate when
material is delivered and also is applied to the material in
inventory 41 times per year (80% of 52 weeks). Natural rainfall
is deemed sufficient for wetting during the remaining 20 percent
of the time. The material in inventory is one-fourth of the
quantity delivered in a year.- This results in a total use of 55
gallons per ton of material delivered. Clearly there will be
great variation from plant to plant in the natural moisture con-
tent of raw materials, the climatic conditions and the subsequent
need for dust suppression. The third source of water consumption
not determined by L/G ratio is in an enclosed hot car where
7 8
the estimated usage is 45 gal water/ton of coke produced. '
Electrical Costs
Electricity is. required for elements of five of the
3-14
-------
equipment modules: pumps, electrostatic precipitators, fans,
baghouse shakers, and dust handling conveyors.
Energy to Operate a Fan
In calculating the annual energy requirements for a fan, we
assume that the fan is operated at "full power" for h.. hours per
year and at 40 percent of "full power" for h_ hours per year. By
using the Bernoulli equation, assuming that kinetic and potential
energy changes are negligible, and accounting for frictional
losses by using efficiencies of 0.9 and 0.6 for the motor and fan
respectively, we calculate the power or energy required per unit
time as follows:
P = QAP 0.4QAP
Du u Du,. u
Hfanpmotor Mfan motor
where D = density of air at standard conditions
u f = fan efficiency
u . = motor efficiency
motor
After substitutions, conversions, and multiplication by the
appropriate number of operating hours, the annual energy require-
ment is:
E = 0.. 000218 QAPh-j^ + 0.000087 QAPh2
where E is in kWh, Q is in acfm, AP is in in. H_O, h. is the
number of hours at "full load," and h_ is the number of operating
hours at 40 percent of "full load." The estimates used for h.
and h_ depend on the process and are shown in Table 3-4. Full-
load horsepower rating (0.000218 QAP) is used to size fan motors,
but the operating cost calculation corrects for elevated tempera-
ture by multiplying the above rating by the ratio of air density
at the fan temperature to standard air density.
Energy to Operate a Pump
Calculations of the annual energy required to operate a pump-
are similar to those for a fan. As above, the Bernoulli equation
is used, with the same assumptions regarding kinetic and potential
3-15
-------
Table 3-4, ANNUAL OPERATING HOURS AT FULL HORSEPOWER FOR CONTROL DEVICE
BY PROCESS
(Operatinq hours at lull lip ()»,) and rnclucocl hp (h~)l
Process
Coal handling
Sintering
Coke pushing
Coke combustion stack
Coke handling
Blast furnace cast-
house
Slag processing
Open hearth
Hot metal transfer
POP stack
BOF Chg and tap
Electric arc furnace
Scarfing
hi
7900 per plant
7900 per plant
27QO per battery
8600 per stack
7900 per plant
2400 per furnace
4400 per plant
8600 per shop
3000 per shop
3100 per furnace
1500 per furnace
7900 per shop
4400 per machine
h2
0
0
0
0
0
6200
0
0
5600
8600-^
8600-h.
700
3500
Remarks
Enclosed car
h. not to exceed 6200
h, not to exceed 3000
-------
energy and the same efficiency values to account for friction.
The pump is assumed to be operating at "full power" 90 percent of
the time. 'The power needed is:
QAP
p =
water yf an ymotor
With making the appropriate substitutions and conversions and an
assumed AP of 125 ft H_0, the annual energy requirement is:
E = 344Q
Where E is in kWh and Q is in gal/min.
Energy to Operate a Baghouse Shaker
In calculating the annual energy . requirements for a baghouse
shaker, we assume that a 1-hp motor can shake 2000 ft of bags
and that the motor operates 1 min during an hour, 8600 h/yr. The
annual energy requirements are :
E = 0.053 A
where E is in kWh and A is the total cloth area in ft .
Energy to Operate an ESP
The annual energy requirements for an ESP are based on a
power density of 3 w/ft plate area. If precipitator operation
is assumed to be &600 h/yr, the annual energy requirements are:
P = 25.8 A
where P is in kWfr and A is total plate area in f t .
Energy for Dust Handling Conveyors
Energy requirements for screw conveyors are based on con-
veyor size and motor horsepower required, expressed as
kW = 6.2(X)°*18
where X is tons of dust per day.
A given module that is an integral part of a control system
may contain any or all of these sources of electrical energy
consumption. The total energy requirements for that system are
merely a summation of the individual consumption values. To get
3-17
-------
the anmialized electrical costs, the number of kilowatthours is
multiplied by $0.0242, the cost per kilowatthour.
4
Steam Costs
The third subcategory of utilities is steam, which is used
for stage charging, dry electrostatic precipitators, and coke
oven gas desulfurization. The cost of $3.72 per 1000 Ib steam is
based on 70 percent boiler efficiency and $2.27 per 10 Btu for
fuel.1
In stage charging, steam consumption is estimated to be 24
pounds per ton of coal charged, based on 9/16-in. steam nozzles
activated for 6 min per charge. Steam consumption by dry elec-
trostatic precipitators is estimated from data in Reference 9.
Data for steam consumption in coke oven gas desulfurization were
obtained from Reference 10.
Cost of distillate fuel oil is estimated as $0.38 per
gallon. This oil is used in only one module, the enclosed hot
7 8
car, at a rate of 0.95 gal oil/ton coke produced. '
Operating Labor
The category of operating labor includes two subcategories,
direct and supervision. In each case, and for each module that
requires an operator, the number of hours is estimated through
engineering judgment. The number of working hours for super*
vision is estimated to be 20 percent of the direct labor hours.
The wages for direct labor and supervisory labor, including
fringe benefits, are estimated at $13.04 and $15.64 per hour,
respectively. The operating labor hours for the blast furnace
runner cover module are estimated from information given in
Section 2, Reference 18.
Maintenance and Supplies
Maintenance labor hours are based on engineering judgment.
The wage for the labor including; fringe benefits is $13.04 per
hour. The material portion of these costs is estimated as- a.
fraction of the labor cost and varies by module..
3-18
-------
Supplies includes the cost of fabric filter bags, dust
control surfactants, flocculants, and extraction chemicals. The
cost of bags is based on an average bag life of 2 years for the
sintering process and 4 years for other processes. The cost of
dust suppressant chemicals is $3.35 per gallon, the chemicals
being mixed at a ratio of 1 gal/1000 gal water. The cost of
flocculating chemicals is $2.25 per pound, these chemicals being
mixed at 1 ppm for makeup scrubber water. Monoethanolamine is
used in coke oven gas desulfurization at a rate of 15 lb/1,000,000
scf gas treated. The cost of monoethanolamine is $0.45 per
pound. A miscellaneous supplies category is included as 15
percent of maintenance cost.
Costs Not Considered
The cost of land, although not regarded as insignificant, is
not considered because a uniform method of costing cannot be
developed. The impact of land requirement may appear in the form
of a much higher cost of installation because of the need for
long duct or pipe runs to available space? the cost of extra
grading, excavation, or piling (i.e.,, land preparation); or the
cost of structural work for elevated or building-mounted equip-
ment. Land costs also may be reflected indirectly in the need to
demolish existing structures or the increased cost of other
facilities in the future as available space is used for environ-
mental control facilities. Any attempt to allocate land costs on
the basis of dollar per acre or dollar per square foot would not
be meaningful. Land costs are too site-specific, and the impacts
may range from insignificant to catastrophic.
The costs of lost production or increased cost of production
during construction and start-up are not considered. Here
•
again, the impact can vary considerably depending both upon the
specific installation and the company's supply-demand status at
the time.
The costs of research and development or pilot testing are
not included. These too can be significant. Some companies have
3-19
-------
spent millions of dollars on control systems in a developmental
mode and eventually abandoned them because of unanticipated poor
performance or high maintenance, costs.
Credit for by-product recovery is not considered except for
steam credits in coke oven gas desulfurization and coke dry
quenching. The theoretical value of iron-bearing dusts captured
in the various control systems could be calculated based on
present rates for iron units, lime units, and carbon units (the
three primary constituents of value), but some cost would have to
be added for processing to make the material suitable for use.
In many cases, the material is recovered by sintering, but a
12
significant amount is dumped or stockpiled. The value of the
dust depends ^f course on how it is recycled. It may be con-
verted to blast furnace feed, treated for recovery of some in-
dividual component such as zinc, or sold for some other use.
Simple economics suggests that where dust is being discarded, not
an uncommon practice, it must be valueless. The cost of disposal
of collected dusts or sludges is not considered. These costs may
be minor at facilities that can recycle the dusts and sludges.
Where materials must be transported to a dump area or storage
area, the costs can be significant.
3.4 CAPITAL CHARGES
Capital charges include overhead, insurance, taxes, depre-
ciation, and similar costs. "This study does not consider capital
charges. These are to be determined by Temple, Barker & Sloane
under another U.S. EPA contract.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
1. Analysis of Economic Effects of Environmental Regulations on
the Integrated Iron and Steel Industry. Volumes I and II.
EPA-230/3-77-015B. July 1977.
2. Automated Stockpile Sprinkling System. National Crushed
Stone Association. Washington, D.C. June 1971.
3. Matthews, W.C. Chemical Binders: One Solution to Dust
Suppression. Rock Products. January 1966.
4. Thompson, G.L. Dust Problem Solved the Johnson March
Corporation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1971.
5. Chem-Jet: The Effective Economical Dust Suppression System.
Johnson March Corporation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
1971.
6. Barnes, T.M., H.W. Lownie, Jr., and J. Varga Jr. Summary
Report on Control of Coke Oven Emissions to The American
Iron and Steel Institute. Battelle Columbus Laboratories.
December 31, 1973.
7. Rudolph, H., and S. Sawyer. Engineering Criteria for a
Hooded Quench Car System. Iron and Steel Engineer. March
1977. pp. 27-35.
8. Enclosed Coke Quench Cars Gain Ground as Method of Cleaning
Oven-Push Emissions. 33 Magazine. October 1976.
9. Henschen, B.C. Wet vs. Dry Gas Cleaning in the Steel
Industry.
10. Massey, M.J., and R.W. Dunlap. Economics and Alternatives
for Sulfur Removal from Coke Oven Gas. 67th Annual Meeting
of APCA. No. 74-184. Denver, Colorado. June 9-13, 1974.
11. Operation and Maintenance of Particulate Control Devices for
Selected Steel and Ferroalloy Processes. PEDCo Environmen-
tal, Inc., Cottrell Environmental Sciences, and Midwest
Research Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Industrial Environmental Research Labora-
tory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1978.
3-21
-------
12. Managing and Disposing of Residues from Environmental Con-
trol Facilities in the Steel Industry. Dravo Corp. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Contract
No. R803649 ROAP. October. 1976.
3^22
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS
4.1 CONTROL COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL EMISSION SOURCES
Using the procedures described earlier, we have designed
control systems (groups of specific modules) for each emission
source, each technology level, and in three sizes. For a spe-
cific emission source and technology level, the cost is regressed
against process size and a system cost function of the form:
P
cost = A (size) is determined. The values for the coefficients
A and B and the units of the size variable are tabulated for
capital cost and operating cost in Tables 4-1 to 4-3. The com-
puter cost model can calculate the cost for any size system, but
the sizes used here are those defined by Temple, Barker & Sloane.
Sizes for some process categories, such as soaking pits, reheat
furnaces, and boilers were not provided by Temple, Barker &
Sloane. Representative sizes were selected in such cases by
examining industry data. Where the control equipment is a
function of some physical size parameter rather than tons of
capacity, the appropriate physical sizes are used in the model,
but the final cost equation is expressed in tons.
In determining the control system required to meet SIP
requirements, the typical SIP control level is determined from
the SIP regulations (Appendix H) and compared with the RACT,
BACT, and LAER levels of Appendix D. The next highest level is
used to represent SIP. For example, if the efficiency required
under a typical SIP process weight rate formula is less than
RACT, then RACT is used; if it is greater than RACT but less than
BACT, then BACT is used. If a SIP does not address an emission
source or if it is in terms of some general restrictions on
4-1
-------
Table 4-1. CAPITAL COST COEFFICIENTS, NEW INSTALLATION
(Values of A and B for the equation y = AxB)
Emission source
Ore yard
Coal yard
Coal preparation
Sinter windbox
Sinter discharge
Sinter fugitive -
: building
Coke oven charging
Coke oven pushing
Cokp quenching
Coke oven doors
TechnolOQ
RACT
A
77,675.6
100.103.0
?, 679.0
12,484.6
7.278,7
0.0
282,721.1
385,888.2
6.8
0.0
B
0.086
0.067
0.335
0.431
0.387
0.0
0.020
0.194
0.737
0.0
BAG
A
234 ,030.0
219,765.5
3,284.3
17.172.7
23,262.5
17,460.9
8,620.6
385.8BR.2
17.5
376, 483. H
y level
T
B
0.054
0.047
0.326
0.413
0.321
0.199
0.396
0.104
0.6R4
0.0
LAF.R
A
34.7
46.5
3.2R4.3
19,187.4
23,262.5
17.460.9
8.620.6
305,888.2
702.1
376,483.0
B
0.762
0.767
0.326
0.453
0.321
0.199
0.396
0.194
0.706
0.0
Typical
SIP
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
i
Units of
X
Total plant,
annual tons of hot
metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coal capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual 'tons of
coke capacity
•u
I
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Emission source
Coke oven topside
Coke underfire
stack
Coke handling
Coke oven gas
Coal preheater
Cast house emis-
sion
Blast furnace
slag pouring
Blast furnace slag
processing
Open hearth .(OH) hot
metal transfer
Open hearth
refining
RACT
A
0.0
2,934.2
864.5
9,548.2
568.9
101,254.6
0.0
25,316.9
35,925.1
995.6
B
0.000
0.465
0.464
0.481
0.509
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.243
0.632
Technolog
fiAC
A
0.0
4,392.3
864.5
9,888.6
568.9
58,839.9
4,884.4
10,181.1
35,925.1
995.6
•y level
T
B
0.000
0.439
0.464
0.481
0.504
0.250
0.495
0.224
0.243
0.632
LAER
A
0.0
2,330.1
864.5
10,248.7
568.9
1,455.5
4,884.4
10,181.1
35,925.1
995.6
B
0.000
0.500
0.464
0.481
0.504
0.583
0.495
0.224
0.243
0.632
Typical
SIP
RACT
UNCa
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
Units of
X
One battery.
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant.
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery.
annual tons of
coal capacity
One blast furnace.
annual tons of hot
metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of hot
metal capacity
One blast furnace.
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One OH shop.
annual tons of
steel capacity
I
U)
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Emission source
Open hearth
fugitive
Open hearth
slag processing
BOF hot metal
transfer
B.OF refining
POP charging
tapping
BOF slag pouring
BOF sing proc-
essing
EAF Emissions -
carbon
EAF emissions -
alloy
EAF slag pouring
Technology level
RACT
A
0.0
25,338.9
33,307.1
3,337.2
164.1
25,238.5
25,238.5
94.2
1,023.8
25,293.4
B
0.000
0.000
0.246
0.544
0.597
0.000
0.000
0.774
0.658
0.000
DACT
A
0.0
25,330. 9
33,307.1
6,812.5
6,585.6
1,199.378.0
2,341.0
1,308.2
1,022.2
1,287.4
B
0.000
0.000
0.246
0.489
0.450
0.025
0. 320
0.642
0.663
0.516
LAFR
A
0.0
25.338.9
33.307.1
6,812.5
6,585.6
1,199,378.0
2.341.0
10,683.3
1,459.0
1.2H7.4
B
0.000
0.000
0.246
0.489
Q. 450
Q.025
0.320
0.514
0.640
0,516
Typical
SIP
N.A.
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
Units of
X
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant ,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
N.A. - Not applicable.
(continued)
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
i
en
Emission source
EAF slag process-
ing
Continuous
casting
Soaking pit stack
stack
Auto scarfing
Reheat furnace
stack
Boi'^r stack -
coal fired
Boiler stack -
oil fired
Technolog
RACT
A
25.293.4
0.0
0.0
529,826.1
0.0
173,759.8
84,056.8
B
0.000
OlOOO
0.000
0.128
0.000
0.635
0.568
BAC
A
86,711.7
1,261,960.0
574.7
529,826.1
1,541.0
173,759.8
84,056.8
^ l^evel
T
B
0.079
0.024
0.581
0.128
0.558
0.685
0.568
LAFR
A
86,711.7
1,261,960.0
574.7
529,826.1
1,541.0
173,759.8
84,056.8
B
0.079
0.024
0.581
0.128
0.558
0.685
0.568
Typical
SIP
RACT
BACT
UNCb
RACT
UNC°
RACT
UNC
Units of
X
Total plant.
annual tons of
steel capacity
One casting machine,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Group of pits.
annual tons of
steel capacity
One scarfing ma- •
chine, annual tons
of steel capacity
Group of furnaces,
annual tons of
steel capacity
d
Total plant,
MM Btu/hr capacity
d
Total plant,
MM Btu/hr
UNC - uncontrolled.
Typical SIP does not require control on a process weight or combustion source basis, but
does require an opacity limitation which might in turn require a control device depending' •
upon age and condition of battery.
Typical SIP does not require control, cost coefficients shown are for an ESP on soaking pits
firing 100% oil.
c Typical SIP does not require control, cost coefficients shown are for an ESP on reheat furnaces
firing 100% oil.
Cost function can be used for combined or individual boilers in the range of 100 MM Btu/hr to
750 MM Btu/hr.
-------
Table 4-2. CAPITAL COST COEFFICIENTS, RETROFIT INSTALLATION
•*»
I
Emission source
Ore yard
Coal yard
Coal preparation
Sinter windbox
Sinter discharge
Sinter 'uqitivr
Coke oven charging
Coke oven pushing
Coke quenching
Coke oven doors
Technolocj
RACT
A
88,580.0
113.734.5
2,722.2
12,815.1
7,706.1
0.0
310,236.2
423,541.2
8.8
0.0
B
0.085
0.065
0.340
0.437
0.390
0.000
0.020
0.194
0.738
0.000
BAC-
A
294,225.2
262. 700. r>
3,358.9
17,692.2
24,923.1
17.010.2
9,461.1
423.541.2
19.3
451,801.0
y level
T
B
0.050
0.045
0. 3)1
0.419
0.323
0.207
0.396
0.194
O.GH4
0.000
LAER
A
43.0
58.4
3.358.9
20.404.6
24,923.1
17,010.2
9.461.1
423,541.2
773.0
451 ,801.0
B
0.755
0.758
0.331
0.456
0.323
0.207
0.396
0.194
0.706
0.000
Typical
SIP
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
Units of
X
Total plant, '
annual tons of hot
metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coal capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant, . •
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
(continued)
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Emission source
Open hearth fugi-
tive
Open hearth slag
processing
BOF hot metal
transfer
BOF refining
BOF charging,
, tapping
BOF slag pouring
BOF slag proc-
essing
EAF emissions -
carbon
EAF emissions -
alloy
EAF. slag pouring
Technology level
RACT
A
0.0
25,338.9
35,835.6
3,728.6
163.8
25,238.5
25,238.5
95.5
1,172.6
25,293.4
B
0.000
0.000
0.247
0.543
0.606
0.000
0.000
0.783
0.660
0.000
PACT
A
0.0
25,338.9
35,835.6
15,887.1
8,578.4
,232,843.8
2,158.5
1,438.9
1,172.5
1,493.5
B
0.000
0.000
0.247
0.464
0.443
0.031
0.332
0.643
0.665
0.513
LArR
A
0.00
25, 33R.9
35,835.6
15,887.1
8,578.4
I,2.1?r843.8
2,158.5
11 ,932.0
1,689.0
1,493.5
B
0.000
0.000
0.247
0.464
0.443
0.031
0.332
0.514
0.641
0.513
Typical
SIP
NA
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
Units of
X
One Oil shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop.
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop.
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop.
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop.
annual tons of
steel capacity
(continued)
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Emission source
Coke oven topside
Coke under fire
stack
Coke handling
Coke oven gas
Coal preheater
Cast house emis-
sions
Blast furnace slag
pouring
Blast furnace slag
processing
Open hearth hot
metal transfer
Open hearth
refining
Technology level
RACT
A
0.0
3f 348.2
931.4
12,354.6
623.0
127,706.0
0.0
25,316.9
39,837.9
916.7
B
0.000
0.470
0.466
0.481
0.504
0.250
0.000
0.000
0.246
0.657
^ACT
A
0.0
4,833.1
931.4
12.802.9
623.0
156,588.9
5,287.8
10,829.9
39.837.9
916.7
B
0.000
0.446
0.466
0.481
0.504
0.269
0.496
0.226
6.246
0.657
LAER
A
0.0
2,608.2
931.4
13,264.6
623.0
1,646.4
5,287.8
10,829.9
)9,837.9
916.7
B
0.000
0.505
0.466
0.481
0.504
0.588
0.496
0.226
0.246
0.657
Typical
SIP
RACT
UNC"
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
Units of
X
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One blast furnace,
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
One blast furnace,
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
I
CD
PNC - uncontrolled.
(continued)
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
Emission source
EAF slag process-
ing
Continuous casting
Soaking pit stack
Auto scarfing
Reheat furnace
stack
Boiler stack -
coal fired
Boiler stack -
Technology level
RACT
A
25,293.4
0.0
0.0
573,959.3
0.0
190,750.2
96,459.0
B
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.129
0.000
0.686
0.572
ItACT
A
93,357. 3
1,457,337.0
632.5
573,959.3
1,740.9
190,750.2
96,459.0
B
0.080
0.025
0.586
0.129
0.561
0.686
0.572
LAER
A
93,357.3
1,457,337.0
632.5
573,959.3
1,740.9
190,750.2
96,459.0
B
0.080
0.025
0.586
0.129
0.561
0.686
0.572
Typical
SIP
RACT
BACT
UNCC
RACT
UNCd
RACT
UNC
Units of
X
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One casting machine,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Group of pits,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One scarfing ma-
chine, annual tona
of steel capacity
Group of furnaces.
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
MM Btu/hr capacity
Total plant, MMe
Btu/hr capacity
I
vo
N.A. - not applicable.
UNC - uncontrolled.
a Based on engineering judgement of retrofit difficulty in typical situation for existing
plants. Specific plants could require higher costs due to unique site-specific factors.
k Typical SIP does not require control on a process weight or combustion source basis, but
does require an opacity limitation which miqht in turn require' a control device depending
upon age and condition of battery.
c Typical SIP does not require control, cost coefficients shown are for an ESP on soaking pits
firing 100% oil.
Typical SIP does not require control, cost coefficients shown are for an ESP on reheat furnaces
firing 100% oil.
e Cost function can be used for combined as individual boilers in the range of 100 MM Btu/hr to
750 MM Btu/hr.
-------
Table 4-3. ANNUAL DIRECT OPERATING COSTS COEFFICIENTS FOR AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS ON BOTH NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES
D
(Values of A and B for the equation y = Ax )
Emission source
Ore yard
Coal yard
Coal preparation
Sinter tfindbox
Sinter discharge
Sinter fugitive -
building
Coke oyen charging
Coke oven pushing
Coke quenching
Coke oyen doors
Techno log
RACT
K
9,177.6
20, 234.1
6,986.3
2,886.8
3,441.0
0.0
62,910.5
3.69^.7
O.S
405,047.5
B
0.130
0.072
0.159
0.436
0.297
0.000
0.125
0.368
0.739
0.000
BAG
A
13,219.0
20,223.6
6,947.5
1,570.0
7,648.0
14,986.0
76,894.8
3,691.9
1.4
571.501.4
y level
T
B
0.131
0.087
0.160
0.491
0.253
0.107
0.116
0.368
0.991
0.000
LAER
A
2.6
4. 3
6.947.5
71,117.6
7,648.0
14,986.0
76,894.8
3,691.9
-0.7
571,501.4
B
0.831
0.821
0.160
0.217
0.253
0.107
0.116
0.368
1.071
0.000
Typical
SIP
RACT
RACT
i«ACT
PACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
Units Of
X
Total plant,
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coal capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
Sinter plant,
annual tons of
sinter capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
I
o
(continued)
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Emission source
Coke oven topside
Coke under fire
stack
Coke handling
Coke oven gas
Coal pr cheater
Cast house emis-
sions
Blast furnace
slag pouring
Blast furnace slag
processing
Open hearth hot
metal transfer
Open hearth refin-
ing
Technology level
RACT
A
195.916.1
49,09?,!
166.0
981.5
1,619.2
75,076.6
0.0
10,006.7
15,910.3
1,078.8
B
0.000
0.126
0.462
0.495
0. 304
0.135
0.000
0.000
0.162
0.480
DACT
A
195,916.1
55,252.3
166.2
406.5
1,619.2
291.321.4
12,259.9
26,494.3
15,910. 3
1,078.8
B
0.000
0.121
0.462
0.571
0.304
0.096
0.316
0.057
0.162
0.480
LAER
A
195,916.1
48,944.3
166.2
218.8
1,619.2
158.2
12,259.9
26,494. 3
15,910.3
1,078.8
B
0.000
0.131
0.462
0.625
0.304
0.599
0.316
0.057
0.162
0.480
Typical
SIP
RACT
UNC
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
Units of
X
One battery.
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
Total plant.
annual tons of
coke capacity
One battery.
annual tons of
coke capacity
One blast furnace.
annual tons of
hot metal capacity
One blast furnace,
annual tons of
lot metal capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
coke capacity
One OH shop,
annual tons ot
steel capacity
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
(continued)
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
r
B
Emission source
Open hearth fugi-
tive
Qpei> hearth slag
processing
BOF hot metal
transfer
BOF refining
BOF charging*
tapping
BOF slag pouring
BOF slag process-
ing
EAF emission a -
carbon
EAF emissions -
a*loy
EAF slag pouring
RACT
A
0.0
10,015.4
14,951.5
410.5
1,559.4
10,000.0
10,000.0
22.7
110.6
9,997.4
B
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.539
0.2B3
0.000
0.000
0.773
0.699
0.000
Technology levol
••••"" BACT
A
0.0
10,015.4
14,951.5
2,050.4'
536.9
265,868.9
15,972.1
106.3
110.1
293.1
B
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.4403
0.467
0.000
0.090
0.709
0.700
0.486
LAER
A
0.0
10,015.4
14,951.5
2, 050.4s
536.9
265,868.9
15,972.1
905.7
157.2
293.1
B
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.440*
0.467
0.000
0.090
0.581
0.676
0.486
Typical
SIP
NA
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
BACT
RACT
Units of
X
One OH shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One BOF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One EAF shop,
annual tons of
steel capacity
(continued)
-------
Table 4-3 (continued)
Emission source
EAF slag process-
ing
Continuous cast-
ing
Soaking pit stack
Auto scarfing
Reheat furnace
stack
Boiler stack -
coal fired
Boiler stack -
oil fired
Technology level
RACT
A
9,997.4
0.0
0.0
468,121.4
0.0
643,417.1
36,321.1
B
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.037
0.000
0.158
0.412
r BACT
A
41,185.2
226.8^.3
6,687.0
486,121.4
3,391.3
643,417.1
36,321.1
B
0.030
0.013
0. 289
0.037
0.372
0.158
0.142
~ LAr
A
41,185. 2
226,810. 3
6,687.0
486,121.4
3,391.3
643,417.1
36,321.1
R
B
0.030
0.013
0.289
0.037
0. 372
0.158
0.412
Typical
SIP
RACT
BACT
UNC
RACT
UNC
RACT
UNC
Units of
X
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One casting machine
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
One scarfing ma-
chine, annual tons
of steel capacity
Total plant,
annual tons of
steel capacity
Total plant,
MM Btu/hr capacity
Total plant,
MM Btu/hr capacity
it*
I
N.A. - not applicable.
UNC - uncontrolled.
* A - 11,386.4 and B = 0.3395 for retrofit case.
-------
emissions, then an assignment of RACT, BACT, LAER, or
uncontrolled is made based on engineering judgment.
All costs in Tables 4-1 to 4-3 are in terms of mid-1977
dollars. The costs are considered study estimates with an
accuracy of t 35 percent. In Table 4-3, a negative operating
cost is shown for dry quenching.
This value arises from the inclusion of a steam credit in
total operating cost. The steam credit is based on 800 pounds of
steam produced per- ton of coke- quenched at a value of $3.72 per
1000 pounds. The resultant credit is very significant and must
be used with the caveat that it* is only applicable to the extent
that the steam produced can-, in fact, be utilized and effectively
replace steam which would otherwise be generated by the plant in
a boiler.
The adjustment to the LAER operating cost function to delete
the credit is $2.98/ton coke. For example, the operating cost
for a 1,000,000 ton per year, plant without the steam credit would
be:
Cost = -0.7 (1,000,000) 1.071 - (-2.98 x 1,000,000)
= -1,866,800 + 2,980,000
= $1,113,200
The credit should be separated from the operating cost in this
manner and shown as a potential offset. The BACT technology for
blast furnace cast house emissions consists of a hooded trough
area and runner- covers and LAER consists of cast house evacuation.
The resultant cost functions in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 describe a
higher cost for BACT than for LAER except for very large fur nances.
The emission rate- is the same in both cases. This can give rise
to an anomalous interpretation of BACT vs. LAER. The proper
interpretation is that BACT and LAER systems are essentially al-
ternatives for reaching the lowest achievable emission rate and
one cannot make a generalized definition: as- to the appropriate
system for a given-, blast furnace. The flow, rate data available
are not sufficiently definitive to justify a- clear distinction.
-------
The retrofit costs in Table 4-2 are based on engineering
judgment as to the additional cost associated with longer duct
runs, clearance problems, etc. Certain retrofit situations, how-
ever, raise issues of feasibility. The retrofit of an ESP to
coke oven underfire stacks, for example, may not be feasible for
some batteries because of space limitations and the difficulty of
tie-in to existing flues. Whether the gas can be shut off to an
existing battery for a sufficient time to accomplish tie-in is
a site-specific problem that is not addressed in this study.
In general, it should be noted that the control schemes
estimated are relatively independent of the emission rates
achieved. The emission rates are nominal values only and con-
sequently the cost-effectiveness of a given BACT system may be
superior to the corresponding RACT system.
It should also be noted that each source is treated inde-
pendently. In actual practice, some sources may be controlled by
a common control device. Such comingling of sources would
result in a lower total cost. For example, control of sinter
feed transfer points (04-3) would most likely be accomplished by
venting to the control device on the discharge end.
COMPLIANCE STATUS OF EMISSION SOURCES
The compliance status of emission sources is rated according
to the following definitions:
0 No data available.
1 Suitable equipment installed, no additional expendi-
tures required.
2 On a compliance schedule, necessary funds committed and
considered spent.
3 Not on a compliance schedule, additional expenditures
- required_
These definitions are used to determine the capital expendi-
tures required by the industry to meet present SIP regulations as
4-15
-------
interpreted in a strict engineering sense. The definitions do
not, and are not intended to, address the question of compliance
in the legal sense.
Each emission source in the inventory was assigned a code
from 0 to 3 representing the above definitions based on discus-
sions with EPA regional office personnel in Regions III and V.
Other available sources of data on control equipment installed
were used to make the compliance status interpretation for the
plants not included in Regions III and V.
Table 4-4 summarizes the results on a numerical and tonnage
basis by emission source. -Table 4-5 is a statistical summary of
the capacity rating of the emission sources.
4-16
-------
Table 4-4. SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE STATUS BY SOURCE
I
M
^J
Emission source
Ore yard
Coal yard
Coal preparation
Sinter windbox
Sinter discharge
Sinter fugitive
Coke charging
Coke pushing
Coke quenching
Coke doors
Coke topside
Coke stack
Coke screening
Coke gas
Coal preheat
Cast house
B.F. alag pouring
B.F. slag process-
ing
OH metal transfer
OH refining
OH fugitive
OH slag process-
ing
BOF metal trans-
fer
Percent of capacity in category
Status
unknown
0
0
54
0
0
0
7
8
0
18
22
9
39
5
0
0
0
7
44
0
0
21
24
In com-
pliance
58
49
12
35
63
56
20
14
81
13
27
31
58
63
76
21
84
92
10
46
45
66
36
On a
schedule
0
0
0
16
11
2
15
23
7
13
13
16
0
2
24
0
0
0
13
16
13
13
27
Expenditures
required
42
51
4
49
26
42
58
55
12
56
39
44
3
30
0
79
16
1
33
38
42
0
13
Number of facilities
requiring expenditures
22. ore yards
18 coal yards
3 plants
13 sinter plants
7 sinter plants
12 sinter plants
87 batteries
86 batteries
6 coke plants
85 batteries
61 batteries
73 batteries
2 coke plants
16 coke plants
0 coke plants
133 blast furnaces
24 blast furnaces
1 plant
4 OH shops
4 OH shops
5 OH shops
0 plants
6 BOF shops
See Section .2.
(continued)
-------
Table 4-4 (continued)
M
00
Emission source
B,pf refining
BOP charging,
tapping
BOF »l«g pouring
Bor slag process-
ing
BAP refining
EAP fugitives
BAP slag pouring
BAP slag process-
ing
Conventional teem-
ing
Continuous casters
Soaking pits
Scarfing machines
Reheat furnaces
Boilers
Percent of capacity in category
Status
unknown
0
*
0
3
3
5
0
21
0
0
0
14
0
24
In com-
pliance
80
18
75
96
82
75
100
79
100
97
100
68
100
62
On a
schedule
5
42
0
0
6
12
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
Expenditures
required
15
36
25
1
9
8
0
0
0
3
0
8
0
9
Number of facilities
requiring expenditures
5 BOF shops
16 BOF shops
11 BOF shops
1 plant
1 EAF shop
2 EAF shops
0 EAF shops
0 plants
0 plants
2 casters
0 plants
3 machines
0 furnaces
9 boilers
-------
Table 4-5. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CAPACITY RATINGS OF EMISSION SOURCES
(Mission source
Ore yard
C^aliyart ;•• ,t a
CM! -preparation -
Sln't«r*w«ndbo»
Slnter'dlscharge <
Sinter1 fugitive'''"
Coki chargln, ,
Colkt'ptt$l»ing ' w|"
^I.WtPfMl1?
Cokjj.jloor*
Cofca topside ..i. -
Coke stack < •• . !»<•
Cojuj screening
Cok« gat i'.;...'
Co«l preheat
C^st house' "
•F'llag pouring '
BF'tlag'prpcess-
ing
ON'MtaT 'transfer
OH'f»f10{ng
OH fugitive ."..
OH ilag process*
Ing
Capacity values In millions of tons per year (boilers In millions Btu per hour)
Mean
I'Vi. •'•••
1.215
0.5*
2 24
1 51*
1 51-^
'l 51"'
OJ38 '
0>40'
'?»„
0 40
014.0,,
Of40,
11156,,,
1>56,j
0,95
o!.?4;'
0;.74>-
2.58
2.49
2.49
21.49.
(«..
1
*foil
' j I f VX I IT
4.48
,..,2,68,
10.74 ...
! 4J93"
4.93 "
4.9J'"
1 1.35"
' 1.35""
ti t
; 1.35
: 1-;35
; 1.35
'•52
i 7,5?,.
: 1.04
1 2.24
2:24'
8.96
Vi ; .'•
i 4; 34 '
4.34
, «!'34 '
' .Jl-W •
Minimum
fi; J- •'{
0.19
.• ,0.07.5i
- 0.30
I 0.18
I 0.18 •:
! 0.18
0.08
0.08
' ! " ,
0.08
0.08 ,
0.08 ,
0.21
0.21
0.91
0.2S
0.25
0.38
0.97
0.97
0.97
P.. 97 •:,
j
Standart) .
'deviation
0.91 ' '
"•«»,r,
1.96 ,
| MS
; 1.15 ;
! 1.15
0.20"
0.22 >
' ' V 1
j 0.22
' °- B2; .
i °'?2. •
' '-34
' 1-.Mj
0.05
0.34
0.34
1.87
1.01
1.01
1.01
1.01
Number"' 'S,
34
, -; •,?•?. /
. . 8
e-'j
8 -
8 '•'
24 •'
24 -
8
241'
24
24
8
8
0
28
28
6
1
1
1
1
Slumber < S,
13
'0
8
i 17
; 17 •
17
fi4
64 •
'! 8
! 64
': M
' 64
8
8
; 4 •
43
43
14
6
6
6
: 6
S- < Number < S-
3
2
19
i 2;
2
: 2
: 55
: 55
20
: 55
55
! 55
20
20
0
63
63
20
3
3
3
3
Number > S..
0
0
4
': 7. .
i 7 .
' 7 .
1 8 i
12 ,
' 4
; i2;'
12
12
4
i 4
0 '
26
: 26,.
; 5
' 3
1 3
.' 3 :_
3
s,
1.40
0.66
0.66
0.61
0,61
0.61 .
OJ23
0!23,
0.46
o! 23
O.Z3
0.23
0.46
0.46
0.88
0'.40
0.40
0.80
' ' '
I'.H
1.17
1.17
T.17
S2
3.17
1.54
1.54
1.68
1.68
1.68
0.36
0.36
1;.08
0.36
0.36,
0.36
1.08
l;.08
1.05
0.66
0.66
1.98
' - '
2.28
2.28
2.28
?.2B
S3
6.74
4.29
4.29
2.14.
2.14
2.14
.0.?5
0.75
i
}.00
1
'9.75
0.75
?'75.
3.00
3-00
1.23
1.01
l.pl
4.04
3.39
3.39
3.39
3.39
,
Units of tons
Ore In storage
Coal In storage
Coal
jSlnteti--M
. Sinter: .
-Sinter,
; Coke, i
'Coke
JCoke
'iCokeJ !
.'Coke
' Coke
: j ; J :
' Coke
: Coke
;Hqt metal
i Ho\ metal
,'Hot metal
i ''
. Steel .
i Steel
Steei;
Steel
(continued)
-------
Table 4-5 (continued)
Emission source
OOF meta^ trans-
fer
•OF refining
•OF charging,
tapping
•OF flag pouring
•OF slag process-
IAF refining
CAF fugitive
IAF flag pouring
IAF ileg process-
Ing
Conventional
teeming
Continuous testers
Soaking pltsk
Scarfing machines
Reheat furnaces*
•oilers
Capacity values In at 11 Ions of tons per year (boilers In
Mean
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.86
3.20
a 70
0.70
a 70
0.70
2.31
a 95
1.76
1.80
1.35
214
Haulm
0.10
•.10
8.10
•.10
10.0
2.05
2.05
2.05
2.05
8.1
2.10
5.44
4.00
7.50
4800
Hint MM
0,80
0,88
0.88
a SB
a 88
0-20
0.20
a 20
a 20
0.22
a 28
a 26
a 31
a 06
1
Standard
deviation
,.40
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.99
0.47
0.47
ft 47
0.47
1.48
0.67
0.93
0.90
1.53
334
Number < S,
9
9.
9
9
7
0
0
0
0
17
6
0
0
2
12R
S.
-------
APPENDIX A
INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
APPENDIX A
Table A-l. INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS IN THE UNITED STATES
PEDCo
Plant
I.D.
045-01
079-02
103-03
216-04
151-05
115-06
162-07
195-08
067-09
038-10
197-11
103-12
123-13
070-14
123-15
Company
Alan Wood Steel
Co.
Armco Steel
Corporation
Armco Steel
Corporation
Armco Steel
Corporation
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
Bethlehem Steel
Corporation
CF 6 I Steel
Corporation
Crucible Inc.
Empire-Detroit
Steel
Ford Motor Co. '
Granite City
Steel
Great Lakes
Steel
Plant
Ivy Rock t Swede-
land Plants*
Middletown Worksb
(Hamilton)
Ashland Works
Houston Works
Bethlehem Plant
Sparrows Point
Plant
Lackawanna Plant
Johnstown Plant
Burns Harbor
Plant
Pueblo Plant
Midland Plant
Portsmouth Plant
Rouge Works
Granite City
Works
River Rouge 6
Ecorse Works0
City
Ivy Rock &
Swedeland
Middletown
Ashland
Houston
Bethlehem
Sparrows
Point
Lackawanna
Johnstown
Burns Harbor
Pueblo
Midland
Portsmouth
Dearborn
Granite City
River Rouge
i Ecorse
County
Montgomery
Butler
Boyd
Harris
Northampton
Baltimore
Erie
Cambria
Porter
Pueblo
Beaver
Scioto
Wayne
Madison
Wayne
State
PA
OH
KY
TX
PA
MD
NY
PA
IN
CO
PA
OH
MI
IL
MI
(continued)
A-l
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
PEDCo
Plant
I.D.
067-16
067-17
197-18
197-19
174-20
024-21
222-22
123-23
178-24
174-25
162-26
174-27
067-28
Company
Inland Steel
Company
Interlace Inc.
Jones fc Laughlin
Steel Corp.
Jones t Laughlin
Steel Corp.
Jones 6 Laughlin
Steel Corp.
Kaiser Steel
Lone Star Steel
Company
McLouth Steel
Corporation
Republic Steel
Corporation
Republic Steel
Corporation
Republic Steel
Corporation
Republic Steel
Corporation
Republic Steel
Corporation
Plant
Indiana Harbor
Works
Chicago Plant fc
Riverdale Sta-
tion worksd
Pittsburgh Works
Aliquippa Works
Cleveland Works
Fontana Works
Lone Star Works
Trenton Works6
Mahoning Valley£
Dist.
Narren Works
Youngs town Work
Cleveland Works
Buffalo Works
„
Central Alloy9
Cist.
Canton Works
lussillon Work*
South Chicago
Work*
City
East Chicago
South Chicago
fc Chicago
Pittsburgh
Aliquippa
Cleveland
Fontana
Lonestar
Trenton
Warren fc
Niles 6
Youngstown
»
Cleveland
Buffalo
Canton
Massillon
South Chicago
County
Lake
Cook
Allegheny
Beaver
Cuyahoga
San Bernardino
Morris
Wayne
Trumbull &
Mahoning
Cuyahoga
Erie
Stark
Cook
State
IN
IL
PA
PA
O«
CA
TX
MI
OH
OH
NY
OH
IL
(continued)
A-2
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
PEDCO
Plant
J.D.
003-29
178-30
045-31
197-32
174-33
197-34
178-35
067-36
197-37
067-38
004-39
220-40
Company
Republic Steel
Sharon Steel
Corporation
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
United States
Steel Corpora-
tion
Plant
Gulfsteel Works
Sharon Works
Fairless Works
Homestead Works"
(includes Clair-
ton)
Lorain Cuyahoga1
Works (incl.
Cleveland Works)
National Duquesne
Works3 (Incl.
McKeesport
Plant)
Youngstown Works
Gary Works
Edgar Thomson
Irvin Works
South Works
Pairfield Dis-
trict Works
Geneva Works
City
Gadsden
Sharon
Fairless
Mills
Homestead
Lorain
Duquesne
Youngstown
Gary
Braddock
S. Chicago
Fairfield
Geneva
County
Etowah
Mercer
Bucks
Allegheny
Lorain &
Cuyahoga
Allegheny
Mahoning &
Trumbull
Lake
Allegheny
Cook
Jefferson
Utah
State
AL
PA
PA
PA
OH
PA
OH .
IN
PA
IL
AL
UT
(continued)
A-3
-------
Table A-l. (continued)
PEDCo
riant
Z.O.
181-41
181-42
197-43
067-44
178-45
067-46
178-47
Company
Weir ton Steel
Wheeling Pitts-
burgh Steel
Corporation
Wheeling Pitta-
burgh Steel
Corporation
Wisconsin Steel
Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Co.
Youngstown Sheet
6 Tube Co.
Young stown Sheet
t Tube Co.
Plant
Weirton Plant1
Steubenvillem
Plant
Monessen Works
South Chicago
Works
Campbell Works
Indiana Harbor
works
Brier Hill Works
City
Weirton
Steubenville
Monessen
South Chicago
Campbell
East Chicago
Young 3 town
County
Hancock
Jefferson
Westmoreland
Cook
Mahoning
Lake
Mahoning
State
WV
OH
PA
IL
OH
IN
OH
h
i
j
k
1
a
All facilities are shut down except the coke plant which is
now operated by Keystone Coke Co.
Armco Middletown includes the plant at Hamilton.
Great lakes Steel includes the plants at both River Rouge and Ecorse.
Interlake South Chicago also includes the works at Riverdale Station.
McLouth Steel includes the works at Trenton, Detroit, and Gibraltar.
Republic Steel Mahoning Valley District Works include both the Warren works and
the Youngstown Works.
Republic Steel Central Alloy District includes both the Canton Works and the
Hassillon Works.
O.S.S. Homestead includes Rankinr Saxonburg, McKeesport,end the Clairton Works.
O.S.S. Lorain - Cuyahoga Works includes the Lorain Works and the Cleveland Work;
which has two locations within Cleveland.
U.S.S. National Duquesne Works also includes the McKeesport Plant.
U.S.S. E.T. Xrvin Works includes the locations of Braddock, Dravosburg, and
Vandergrift.
Weirton Steel Includes the facilities at Steubenville.
Wheeling-Pittsburgh's Steubenville Plant: includes the Coke Plant at Follansbee,
West Virginia.
Only operating facilities axe. included in th* census, the majority
of the plant is shut down.
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B
LISTING OF IRON AND STEEL
FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-l. SINTER PLANTS IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
CO
I
State
County/City
Alabama
Etowah/Gadsden
Jefferson/Fairfield
California
San Bernardino/
Fontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Hadlion/Granite City
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/E. Chicago
Lake/Gary
Lake/E. Chicago
Porter/Burns Harbor
4
Company
Republic
USS
Kaiser
CFtI
Interlake
USS
Granite City
Wisconsin
Inland
USS
YS4T
Bethlehem
Plant
IDI
003-29
004-39
024-21
036-10
067-17
067-38
070-14
067-44
067-16
067-16
067-46
067-09
Strands
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
Ft2 G.A.
569
1760
1344
1224
1224'
1022
1344
1024
432
1344
3879
1224
1344
2020
Width
6'
3-6'
1-8'
61
6'
8'3"
8'
81
6'
8'
3-8'3"
2-61
8'
131
Capacity
• (106 TPY)
0.5«
2.90
1.4
0.9«
1.2
!.«•
1.08
.2
1.2*
4.9
1.1
1.46
2.20
(continued)
-------
Table B-l (continued)
10
State
County/City
Kentucky
Boyd/Achland
Maryland
Ba 1 t imore/Spar row»
Point
Michigan
Wayne/River Rouge
New York
Erie/Buffalo
Ohio
Cuyahoga/Cl e ve 1 and
Mahon I ng/ Young • town
Truabull/Harren
Butler/Mlddletown
Loraln/Utrain
Cuy.ihoga/C level and
Company
Armco
Bethlehem
Great
Lakes
Bethlehem
(Lackawanna)
JiL
USS
Republic
(ItVD)
Armco
USS
Republ ic
Plant
IDI
103-01
115-06
123-1S
162-0?
174-20
178-35
178-21
079-02
174-11
174-2',
Strands
1
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ft2 G.A.
807
3072
3800
2400
1224
HA
1344
432
768
459
419
Width
8- J-
6'
19'5"
12'
2-6'
a*
81
6«
HA
6'
6*
Capacity
(10* TPY»
0.8»
3.91
«-«5
2.0
1.46
0.9«
1.5«
0.4*
0.»6
0.41
.4(eatl
(continued)
-------
Table B-l (continued)
td
OJ
State
County/City
Pennsylvania
Bucks/Fairless Hills
Butler/saxonburg
Beaver/Aliquippa
Cambria/Johnstown
Allegheny/McKeesport
Northampton/
Bethlehem
Hestmoreland/Monessen
Texas
Harris/Houston
Morris/Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
Meat Virginia
Hancock/Pol lansbee
Hancock/Wei rton
Company
USS
USS
(Homestead)
JtL
Bethlehem
USS
(Nat-Duq)
Bethlehem
wheeling-
Pittsburgh
Armco
Lone Star
USS
Wheel ing-
Pittsburgh
Weirton
Plant
IDI
045-31
197-32
197-19
195-08
197-34
151-05
197-43
216-04
022-22
220-40
181-42
181-41
Strands
2
3
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Ft2 G.A. Width
2787 2-8'
3879 8'3"
NA 13'2"
1192 2-6'
NA 6*
1984 4-6*
612 6'
536 6*
550 5'
1224 2-61
1018 6'
832 1-8'
1764 1-12'
Capacity
(106 TPY)
2.61
4.5*
2.37
0.98
0.18
2.4«
0.55
0.50
.70
1.1
0.55
0.94
2.05
Capacity from EPA 600/2-76-002 (January
Remaining Capacity data from 308 survey
, 1976) Sintering Plant Emissions Using ESP, Vrrga, Battellc
data.
-------
Table B-2. COKE BATTERIES JN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
r
stat*
County/City
Alabaaa
1. Jefferson/
Falrfield
I. Etowah/Gadsden
Jerferaon/Biriping-
hai*
California
1. San Bernardino/
Font ana
Colorado
|. Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
5. Madison/Granite
City
i. Cook/S. Chicago
7. Cook/S. Chicago
I. Cook/S. Chicago
Company
USS
Republ ic
Kaiser
cru
Granite
City
Wisconsin
Interlake
Republic
Plant
IDI
004-39
001-29
024-21
018-10
070-14
067-44
067-17
067-28
IBatteries/
Ovena
2-71
1-61
2-77
2-65
1-6S
7-45
1-65
1-47
1-11
2-76
1-61
1-45
2-50
1-75
Oven
Height (mt
4.0
4.1
1.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
1.9
4.0
Capacity
110' TPYJ
2.8
0.87
0.19
i-5
0.96
0.96
0.17
0.64
O.SO
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
w
State
County/City
Indiana
9. Lake/E. Chicago
10. Porter/Burns
Harbor
11. Lake/Gary
12. Lake/E. Chicago
Maryland
13. Baltimore/
Sparrows Point
Michigan
14. Wayne/Dearborn
IS. Wayne/River Rouge
Company
Inland
Bethlehem
USS
ystr
Bethlehem
Ford
Motor
Great
Lakes
Plant
IDI
067-16
067-09
067-36
067-46
115-06
123-13
123-15
•Batteries/
Ovens
1-56 (pipeline)
1-65
3-07
1-51
2-82
1-85
2-57
5-77
1-81
1-75
1-60
5-63 .
2-61
4-65
1-45
2-61
1-25
1-13
1-70
1-78
1-85
Oven
Height (m)
6.2
3.7
3.7
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.1
3.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
Capacity
(106 TPY)
3.17
2.43
4.37
0.97
3.58
1.58
1.97
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
o\
State
County/City
He* York
16. Crie/Lackawanna
Ohio
17. Scloto/PortMouth
11. Butler/Hamilton
19. Butler/Hiddletown
20. Lorain/Lorain
21. Mahonlnq/Younqstown
22. Trumbull/Marren
t Nile*
23. Cuyahoga/Cleveland
24. Stark/Maitlllon
25. Mahonlng/Canpbell
Pennsylvania
26. Westmoreland/
Honessen
Company
Bethlehen
,
Empire-
Detroit
Armco
Arnco
USS
Republ lc
Republic
Republ ic
Republic
VStT
Wheelinq-
Pitts.
Plant
IDI
162-07
101-12
079-02
079-02
174-13
178-24
171-24
174-25
174-27
178-45
197-41
IBatteriea/
Ovens
1-76
1-76
1-70
I-4S
1-15
2-25
2-57
1-76
7-59
1-38
1-65
1-59
2-40
4-51
2-61
1-31
1-76
1-74
1-19
Oven
lleiqht (n>)
3.6
6.0
4.0
1.8
1.8
3.8
6.0
4.0
3.1
3.9
1.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
Capacity
(10» TPYI
1.3
0.42
0.59
1.15
0.54
1.63
1.10
0.68
2.3
0.21
1.19
0.67
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX B
LISTING OF IRON AND STEEL
FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
APPENDIX B
Table B-l. SINTER PLANTS IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
State
County/City
Alabama
Etowah/Gadsden
Jefferson/Fairfield
California
San Bernardino/
Fontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Madison/Granite City
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/B. Chicago
Lake/Gary
Lake/E. Chicago
Porter/Burns Harbor
Company
Republic
USS
Kaiser
CFlI
Interlake
USS
Granite City
Wisconsin
Inland
USS
YStT
Bethlehem
Plant
IDI
003-29
004-39
024-21
038-10
067-17
067-38
070-14
067-44
067-16
067-36
067-46
067-09
Strands
1
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
Ft2 G.A.
569
1760
1344
1224
1224
1022
1344
1024
432
1344
i879
1224
1344
2020
Width
6'
3-6'
1-8*
6'
6'
8'3-
8'
8'
6'
81
3-8'3"
2-6'
8'
13'
Capacity
(106 TPY)
0.5*
2.90
1.4
0.9*
1.2
1.4«
1.08
.2
1.2*
4.9
1.1
1.46
2.20
(continued)
-------
Table B-l (continued)
w
State
County/City
Kentucky
Boyd/A«hland
Maryland
Da 1 1 Inore/Sparrowi
Point
Michigan
Mayne/River Rouge
New York
Erie/Buffalo
Ohio
Cuyahoga/Claveland
Mahonlng/Youngatown
Trumbul I/War ren
But l«r/Hiddla town
Loraln/Loraln
Cuyahoga/Cieveland
Company
Arnco
Bethlehea
Great
Lakes
Bethlehem
(tackawanna)
J*L
USS
Republic
(KVDl
Armco
USS
Republ ic
Plant
IDI
101-03
115-06
123-15
162-07
174-20
178-35
178-24
079-02
174-33
174-2S
Strands
1
6
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pt2 G.A.
807
3072
3800
2400
1224
NA
1344
O2
768
459
419
Width
B'1"
61
19'S-
12'
2-6'
8*
81
6*
NA
6*
6*
Capacity
U0«> TPY)
0.8B
3.94
4. 45
2.0
1.46
0.9*
1.5*
0.4«
0.96
0.41
.4(eatl
(continued)
-------
Table B-l (continued)
to
t
to
State
County/City
Pennsylvania
Bucks/Fairlesa Hills
Butler/Saxonburg
Beaver/Allquippa
Cambr la/John s town
»1 legheny/McKeesport
Northampton/
Bethlehem
Hestmoreland/Monessen
Texas
Harris/Houston
Morris/Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
Meat Virginia
Hancock/Follansbee
Hancock/Weirton
Company
USS
USS
(Homestead)
JiL
Bethlehem
USS
(Nat-Duq)
Bethlehem
wheel ing-
Pittsburgh
Armco
Lone Star
USS
Wheel ing-
Pittsburgh
Weirton
Plant
IDI
045-11
197-32
197-19
195-08
197-34
151-05
197-43
216-04
022-22
220-40
1B1-42
181-41
Strands
2
3
1
2
1
4
I
1
1
2
1
1
1
— • • ' ' '
Ft2 G.A. Width
2787 2-8'
3879 8'3"
NA 13'2"
1192 2-6'
NA 6'
1984 4-6'
612 6'
536 6'
550 5'
1224 2-6*
1018 6'
832 1-8'
1764 1-12'
Capacity
(106 TPY)
2.63
4.5*
2.37
0.98
0.18
2.4*
0.55
0.50
.70
1.1
0.55
0.94
2.05
Capacity from EPA 600/2-
Remaining Capacity data
76-002 (January, 1976) Sintering Plant Emissions Using ESP, Vr.rga, Bnttelle
from 308 survey data.
-------
Table B-2. COKE BATTERIES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
I
State
county/city
Alabama
1. J«l(er«on/
Fairfteld
2. Etowah/Gadsden
JeCcerson/Biricing-
haai
California
J. San Bernardino/
Fontana
Colorado
4 . Pueblo/Pueblo
Illtnola
5. Madison/Granite
City
(. Cook/S. Chicago
1. Cook/S. Chicago
1. Cook/S. Chicago
Company
uss
Republ ic
Kaiser
CFU
Granite
City
Wisconsin
Interlake
Republic
Plant
IDI
004-39
001-29
024-21
038-10
070-14
067-44
067-17
067-2B
•Batteries/
Ovena
2-73
3-6J
2-77
2-65
1-65
7-45
1-65
1-47
1-11
2-76
1-61
1-45
2-50
1-75
Oven
Heiqht (ml
4.0
4.1
3.4
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0 .
4.0
4.0
5.0
1.9
4.0
Capacity
(10* TPV)
2.8
0.87
0.19
l.S
0.96
0.96
0.37
0.64
0.50
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
State
County/City
Indiana
9. Lake/E. Chicago
10. Porter/Burns
Harbor
11. Lake/Gary
td
01 12. Lake/E. Chicago
Karyland
13. Baltimore/
Sparrows Point
Michigan
14. Wayne/Dearborn
IS. Wayne/River Rouge
Company
Inland
Bethlehem
USS
YS4T
Bethlehem
Ford
Motor
Great
Lakes
.1
Plant
IDI
067-16
067-09
067-36
067-46
115-06
123-13
123-15
•Batteries/
Ovens
1-56 (pipeline)
1-65
3-07
1-51
2-82
1-85
2-57
5-77
1-81
1-75
1-60
5-63
2-61
4-65
1-45
-61
-25
-13
-70
-78
-85
Oven
Height (m)
6.2
3.7
3.7
6.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
3.1
4.0
4.0
3.1
3.1
3.7
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
6.0
Capacity
(106 TPY)
3.17
2.43
4.37
0.97
3.58
1.S8
1.97
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
Ot
state
County/City
Not York
}6. Erle/Lackawanna
Ohio
P. Sclo to/Port (mouth
19. Butler/Hamilton
19. Butler/Mlddletown
20. Lorain/Loraln
31. Hahonlng/Youngstown
22, Trumbul I/Mar ren
I Nile*
21. Cuyahoga/Cleveland
24. Stark/Haiti lion
15. Hahonlng/Campbell
Pennsylvania
26. Westmoreland/
Monessen
Company
Bethlehem
Empire-
Detroit
Arroco
Armco
USS
Republic
Republ ic
Republic
Republ Ic
YStT
Wheeling-
Pitts.
Plant
101
162-07
101-12
079-02
079-02
17«-J3
178-24
178-24
174-25
174-27
178-45
197-4J
1 Batteries/
Ovens
1-76
1-76
1-70
1-45
1-15
2-25
2-57
1-76
7-59
1-38
1-65
1-59
2-40
4-51
2-6)
1-31
3-76
1-74
1-19
Oven
Height (ml
3.6
6.0
4.0
3.8
3.8
3.8
6.0
4.0
3.1
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.0
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
Capacity
<106 TPYI
1.3
0.42
0.59
1.15
0.54
1.63
1.10
0.68
2.3
0.21
1.39
0.67
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
00
State
County/City
27. Beaver/Aliquippa
28. Allegheny/
Pittsburgh
29. Beaver/Midland
30. Montgomery/
Swede land
11. Northampton/
Bethlehem
32. Cambria/ Johnstown
33. Bucks/Pairless
34. Allegheny/Clairton
Company
J.iL.
J.iL.
Crucible
Alan Hood
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
USS
USS
Plant
IDI
197-19
197-18
197-11
045-01
151-05
195-08
045-31
197-32
I
•Batteries/
Ovens
2-106
1-59
1-56
1-79
4-59
1-21
1-63
1-29
2-55
2-51
i-eo
1-80
1-74
2-87
9-64
1-85
6-61
4-87
Oven
Height (m)
4.0
4.0
6.2 (pipe-
line charg-
ing)
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.8
6.4
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.1
3.6
4.2
Capacity
(106 TPV)
2.54
1.33
0.46*
0.45
2.1
0.42
1.1
7.6
(continued)
-------
Table B-2 (continued)
State
County/City
Texas
35. Horrls/Lon« Star
36. Harris/Houston
37. Utah/Geneva
Best Virginia
31. Brooks/rollanabeo
3». Hancock/Me Ir ton
Company
Lone Star
Arncp
USS
Wheel Ing-
Pittsburgh
Weir ton
Plant
IDI
022-22
216-04
220-40
181-42
181-41
•Batteries/
Ovens
2-39
1-15
4-63
2-47
1-51
1-63
1-79
1-87
2-53
1-61
2-41
Oven
Height (m)
3.7
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
6.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Capacity
(10* TPYJ
0.44
0.38
1.3
2.1
3.0
* Estimated by PEDCo, ren\alnlng capacity data from )08 survey data.
-------
Table B-3. BLAST FURNACES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
W
I
vo
State
County/City
Alabama
Jefferson/
Falrfield
Etowah/Gadsden
California
San Bernardino/
Fontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Company
USS
Republic
Kaiser
CFU
Wisconsin
USS
Plant
1OI
004-39
003-29
024-21
038-10
067-44
067-38
No. of
furnaces
6
2
4
4 (2)«
2
8
lloarth
Diameter
22' 0"
22' 6"
21' 6"
25' 0"
2V 0*
28' 9"
17' 0"
26' 0"
27' 0"
27' 0"
27' 0"
29' 6"
22' 9"
21' 0"
21' 6"
21' 9"
10' 9"
25' 0-
23' 0"
25' 9"
21' 6-
22' 3"
32' 0"
25' 3"
29' 0"
29' 0"
Working
Volume
30,393
33.235
31,865
40,829
40,995
52,070
19.700
45,600
40,433
40,433
40,433
51,212
32,000
30,600
24,656
31,310
23,117
35.700
31,702
37.05U
25,700
25.758
6(1,518
36,232
51,004
51,004
Capacity
(106 TPY)
2.94
0.99
2.63
l.lf
0.91
4.45 (for
7 active)
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
State
County/City
Illinois (Continued)
Cook/s. Chicago
Madison/Granite
City
Cook/8. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/Gary
Porter/Burn*
Harbor
lake/e. Chicago
Laka/E. Chicago
Company
Republic
Granite City
Interiake
USS
Bethlehem
VStT
Inland
riant
101
067-28
070-14
067-17
067-36
067-09
067-46
067-16
No. of
furnaces
1
2
2
13
2
4
B
Hearth
Diameter
28* 0"
27' J"
28' 0"
25' 3"
19- 8"
20' 6"
20' 6"
20' 6'
28' 3"
20' 6"
28' 0"
28" 0"
26' 6"
23' 10"
27' 10"
27' 10"
25' 0"
40' 0"
38' 3"
35' 0"
27' 6"
22' 0"
29' 6"
32' 0"
21' 6"
19' 10"
21' 6-
20' 10"
26' 6"
26' 6"
26' 6"
26' 6"
Working
Volume
54,400
50.428
51.172
41,448
27,027
24.194
24,194
24,»29.
47,563
27,326
47,550
42.106
41.017
28.827
42.680
39,256
39.256
100.100
89,204
86,477
48.191
28.532
55,900
69,775
32,179
24,265
31,946
29.585
4A.21R
46,290
46,294
46,595
Capacity
<10<> TPY)
0.91
1.90
1.24
B.96
4.00
1.90
8.1
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
State
County/City
Kentucky
Boyd/Ashland
Maryland
Baltimore/
Sparrows Point
Michigan
Wayne/Dearborn
Wayne/River Rouge
Hayne/Trenton
How York
Erle/Lackawanna
Company
Armco
Bethlehem
Ford Motor
Great Lake
Mclouth
Bethlehem
Plant
1DI
103-01
115-06
123-13
123-15
123-23
162-07
No. of
turnaccs
2
8
,
3
4
2
6
Hearth
Diameter
33' 5"
281 9"
25' 6"
25' 6"
28' 0-
28' 0"
19' 9"
28' 0"
30' 0"
30' 0"
30' 0"
20' 0"
20' 0"
29' 0"
30' 6"
29' 0"
28' 3"
28' 0"
30' 0"
30' 0"
21" 3"
29' 6"
26' 0"
2T 0"
29' 0'
29' 11"
Worklnq
Vo 1 umc
72.000
52,538
38,895
38,895
42,245
42,858
24..B92
47,101
54,515
54,830
54,799
28,000
27,400
54,907
62,04
55,468
50,605
53,252
57,238
57,238
28,423
51,037
39,614
39,991
51.897
55,112
C.ipacity
(106 TPY)
2.2
6.95
2.43
4.0
1.83
4.56
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
w
State
County/City
Hew York (Coptlnued)
Erie/Buffalo
Ohio
Mahoning f
Trurabull/
youngstbwn
U>rain/Ix>raln
Cuyahoqa/
Cleveland
Butler/Hanllton
ButUr/Mlddletown
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Scloto/Portsmouth
Hahonin9/
Youngs town
Trumbull/Harren t
Nile*
Company
Republic
USS
USS
USS
Arncp
Armco
J.4L.
Empire-
Detroit
Republic
Republic
Plant
IDI
162-26
178- J5
174-3)
174-13
079-02
079-02
174-20
103-12
178-24
17B-24
No. u(
( urnacos
2
4
5
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
HIM till
ru.imclor
21' 6-
22' 9"
25' 0"
23' 6"
23' 0-
25' 0-
'23' 0-
23' 3'
28' 6"
29' 0"
23' 5
26' 0-
IB' 6"
19' S"
29' 6"
2T 6"
30' 6"
29' 3"
26' 3"
26' 3"
2B1 0"
Working
Volume
° 27.700
3.1,500
37,055
31,724
13.986
37,356
28.628
28.973
48 f SOS
49,196
29,589
42,140
22.6S3
27,467
55,324
46.600
57.200
53.76i
42,700
46,500
53,200
Capacity
(106 TPYl
1.16
1.72 (for
3 active)
2.90
0.31
0.93
1
1.73 '
1.96
0.73
1.40
1.02
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
to
M
U)
State
County/City
Ohio (Continued)
Cuyahoga/
Cleveland
Stark/Canton
Ha honing/
Campbell
Jefferson/
Steubenville
Pennsylvania
Allegheny/
McKeesport
Allegheny/
Duquesne
Cambria/Johnstown
B.^B/Fairless
Company
Republic
Republic
YSiT
Wheel ing-
Pittsburgh
USS
USS
Bethlehem
USS
Plant
IDI
174-25
174-27
178-45
181-42
197-34
197-34
195-08
045-31
No. of
f urn.icos
4
1 (0)«
4
5
3
4
2 (U*
3
llc.irtli
IH.imctcr
27' 0"
27' 0"
29' 6"
28' 0"
18' 4"
22' 5"
22' 5"
24' 6"
23' 9"
25' 0"
23' 0"
24' 0"
21' 1/2"
24' 9"
24' 0"
25' 0"
22' 5"
20' 0"
21' 0"
24' 6"
28' 0"
26' 0"
28' 0"
29' 6"
30' 10"
30' 10"
Workimj
Volume
44,900
43,270
56,100
55,300
21,600
30,457
30,561
43,188
40,965
37,161
35,415
33,661
27,639
40,536
30,613
34,825
28,329
25,909
32,713
35,215
58,045
47,578
48,5Tfl
55,651
58,940
58,940
Capacity
(106 TPY)
3.36
1.97
2.66
1.4
2.53
1.9
(for 2)
3.0
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
OJ
4.
State
County/City
Pennsylvania (Continued)
Allegheny/
Clalrton
Allegheny/
Rank in
Northampton/
Bathlehen
Allegheny/
Pittsburgh
Beaver/Midland
Hercar/Sharon
Allegheny/
Draddock
Westnoreland/
Honessen
Company
USS
USS
Bethlehem
J.tL.
Crucible
Sharon
USS
Wheel ing-
Pittsburgh
ri.inl
10*
191-12
197-12
151-05
197-18
197-U
178-30
197-17
197-41
No. of
turn. ires
1 (0»*
4 (2»«
4
3 in*
2
2
5 (!)•
)
llr.irth
niaim-tor
21' 0"
29* 6"
29' 6"
21' 6"
23' 6"
10' 0-
27- 11"
30' 0"
24' 0"
22' 0"
29' 0"
26' 6"
26' 6"
19' 0'
21' 1"
21' I"
28' 10"
28' 10"
26' 0"
25' 0"
23' 6"
19' 0"
19- 0"
2B1 0"
Work in- j
Vo 1 unto
10.120
51.281
51.281
11,558
11*558
54.411
49.748
54.519
41.068
28.600
54,400
15.400
46.655
27,580
10.850
11,550
48,986
48,986
18,817
11.980
12,510
24,661
25,025
51.000
C.i|)0city
(|0<- TPVI
2.1
(Cor 41
1.87
1.91 (for
1>
1.1
1.02
1.25
1.6
(continued)
-------
Table B-3 (continued)
W
!-•
Ul.
Pt.ite
county/City
Pennsylvania (Continued)
Beaver/Aliquippa
Texas
Harris/Houston
Morris/Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
Nest Virginia
Hancock/Heir ton
Company
..
J.tL.
Armco
Lone Star
USS
Heir ton
riant
IDI
197-19
216-04
022-22
220-40
181-41
No. of
f urn.iccs
5
1
1
3
4
llc.irth
Diameter
28' 6"
29' 0"
2B1 6"
29' 0"
271 3"
27' 3"
27' 0"
26' 6"
26' 6"
26' 6"
27' 0"
27' 0"
25' 6"
251 6"
Workinq
Vo 1 umc
43,900
56,600
34,100
54,400
31,500
54,890
52,810
43,666
43,666
43,855
56,197
45,960
47,135
47,135
Copaci ty
(J0<> TI'Y)
4.0
0.8
0.57
2.1
2.89
• Number of furnaces listed in Air and Water Compliance Summary of the Steel Industry EPA Office of Enforcement
October 20. 1977 Capacities are from 300 survey data, where typical production was reported greater than capa<
capacity was set equal to typical production.
-------
Table B-4. OPEN HEARTH SHOPS IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
a\
State
County/City
California
» San Bernjr-
dino/Fontana
Illinois
Cook/S.
• Chicago
Indiana
Lake/C.
Chicago
Lake/E.
Chicago
Maryland
Baltimore/
Sparrows Point
Ohio
Butler/
Middle town
Scioto/
Portsmouth
Cuyahoga/
Cleveland
Mahoning *
Trunbull/
Youngstown
Company
Kaiser
Republic
Inland
YStT
Bethlehem
Arnco
Empire-
Detroit
Republic
USS
Plant
Illl
024-21
067-28
067-16
067-46
115-06
079-02
10J-12
174-25
178-35
No. ol
f urn. ic. T.
8 (S down!
2-operat-
tinq part-
time
7
8
7
6
5
4
14
llt-.ii
Si Zi:
8-225
2-250
7-150
C-315
7-420
6-310
5-320
4-400
14-163
Control
(U'V t Cl!
ESP
ESP
ESP
Venturi Scrubber
ESP and Scrubber
Venturi Scrubber
No control device
ESP
ESP
Annual
capacity
(IQ(- tons)
1.80
0.22
2.40
2.77
3.95
2.0
0.97
1.18
1.72
(continued)
-------
Table B-4 (continued)
w
i
State
County/City
Ohio (Continued)
Ma honing/
Youngs town
Pennsylvania
Cambria/
Johnstown
Allegheny/
Pittsburgh
Bucks/Fair less
Hills ;
Allegheny/
Homestead
Texas
Morris/
Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
Company
YS4T
Bethlehem
Jones i
Laughlin
USS
USS
Lone
Star
USS
Mont
101
178-47
195-08'
197-18
045-31
197-32
022-22
220-40
NO. or
f urn.ires
11
6
6
9
11
5
10
llc.it
size
11-175
6-180
6-340
9-395
11-320
5-250
10-340
Control
*!rv i ro
No control device
ESP
ESP
ESP
ESP
Steam-hydro
ESP
-------
Table B-5. BASIC OXYGEN FURNACES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
to
I-
M
State
County/City
Alabama
Etovah/Gadsden
Jefferson/
Falrfield
California
San Bernardino/
Fonta.na
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illionis
Cook/Chicago
Hadison/Cranite
City
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/E. Chicago
Porter/Burns
Harbor
Lake/Gary
Company
Republic
USS
Kaiser
cm
Interlake
Granite City
USS
Republic
Wisconsin
Inland
Bethlehem
USS
Pl.jnt
ini
Q03-29
001-39
024-21
038-10
067-17
070-14
067-38
067-28
067-44
067-16
067-09
067-36
No. of
furnaces
2
2
)
2
2
2
1
2
2
4
2
6
Hc.it size
2-150
2-200 (0-
1-120
2-120
2-75
2-235
1-200
rapacity
tlO' TPVI
1.61
>OP) 2.72
\.40
».»o
0.88
2. 52
4.1*
2-200{Q-BOF) 2.70(e»t)
2-140
2-255
2-210
2-300
1-^20 (Q-
3-220
1.27
4.0
3.65
4.4
>OP) 4.S
5.5
(continued)
-------
Table B-5 (continued)
oo
i
State
County/City
Indiana (Continued)
Lake/E. Chicago
Kentucky
Boyd/Ashland
Maryland
Baltimore/
Sparrows Point
Michigan
Wayne/Dearborn
Wayne/Trenton
Wayne/River Rouge
and Ecorsc
New York
Erie/tackawanna
Brie/Buffalo
Ohio
Butler/Middletown
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Trumbull I
Ma honing/Warren,
Niles and
Young a town
Company
YS*T
Armco
Bethlehem
Ford Motor
McLouth
Great Lakes
Bethlehem
Republic
Armco
J.4L.
Republic
Plant
IDl
067-46
103-03
115-06
123-13
123-23
123-15
162-07
162-26
079-02
174-20
178-24
No. of
furnaces
2
2
2
2
5
4
3
2
2
2
2
Heat size
2-285
2-180
2-220
2-250
5-110
2-300
2-200
3-300
2-125
2-200
2-205
2-150
C.ipaci ty
(10& TI'Y)
3.8
2.4
3.35
2.85
2.65
3.6
2.0
8.10
1.66
2.77
2.40
2.60
(continued)
-------
Table B-5 (continued)
State
County/City
Ohio (Continued)
Cuyahoga/
Cleveland
Loraln and
Cuyaho?a/U>raln
Jefferaon/
Steubenville
Pennaylvanla
Horthaaipton/
Bethlehem
Beaver/Kldland
Beavar/Aliqulpp.i
Mercer/Sharon
Allagheny/Duquetne
Allegheny/Braddock
Weatanreland/
Monessen
Meat Virginia
Hancock /Weirton
Company
Republic
USS
Wheel Ing-
Pitteburgh
Bethlehem
Crucible Inc.
J.*L.
Sharon
USS
USS
Wheeling-
Pittsburgh
Helrton
Plant
ID"
17<-25
174-31
181-42
151-05
|9T-11
197-19
178-30
197-J4
197-37
197-43
161-41
No. of
f urnacns
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
2
2
HiMt size
2-24S
2-225
2-285
2-270
2-100
3-200
3-150
2-215
2-230
2-200
2-390
Capacity
(10° TPr|
3.58
2.80
3.12
1.16
0.9*
3.5
1.28
2.74
2.83
1.75
4.27
• Capacity data narked • was taken from Iron and steel Engineer, Auguat, 1977, p. 54. Remaining
capacity data from 308 aurvey data.
-------
Table B-6. ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
0)
I
KI
State
County/City
Alabama
Etowah/Gadsden
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/E. Chicago
Michigan
Wayne/Ecorse
Wayne/Trenton
Wayne/Dearborn
Ohio
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Stark/Canton
Company
Republic
CFtI
USS
Republic
Inland
Great Lakes
McLouth
Ford Motor
J.tL.
Republic
Plant
101
003-29
036-10
067-38
067-28
067-16
123-15
123-23
123-13
174-20
174-27
No. of
furnaces
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
7
Heat sire
2-185
2-120
2-200
1-100
3-200
2-120
2-150
2-200
4-200
2-190
3-85
. 4-200
Typo steel
Carbon, alloy
Carbon, alloy
Carbon alloy
Stainless
Carbon, alloy
Carbon, alloy
Carbon, alloy
Carbon,
stainless
Carbon, alloy
Carbon, high
strength
Carbon, alloy,
stainless
Carbon, alloy,
stainless
Capacity
(106 TPY)
0.4 (eat)
0.33
0.72
0.17
0.90
0.5
0.73
0.42
0.91
1.1
1.54
(continued)
-------
Table B-6 (continued)
0
St.ito
County/City
1 Pennsylvania
Boaver/Hidland
Mercer/Sharon
Northampton/
BethleheM
Bucks/Fairleaa
HilU
M leqheny/
Duquesne
Texas
Harris/Houston
CtXnp-iny
Crucible
Sharon
Bethlehem
USS
yss
Armco
Plant
101
197-11
178-30
151-05
045-31
197-34
216-04
No. of
furnaces
5
2
6
2
5
6
Heat size
4-75
1-25
2-110
1-7
1-28
4-50
2-200
1-20
1-50
3-65
2-117
4-175
Type steel
Carbon, alloy,
•tainlegs
Carbon, alloy
•tainlesa
Mipy,
stainless
Alloy
Alloy
Alloy
Carbon, alloy
Alloy.
stainless
Alloy.
stainless
Alloy.
stainless
Carbon, alloy
Carbon, alloy
Capacity
(ID' TI'Y)
0.4 (eat)
0.33
0.33
O.S8
0.38
2.42
-------
Table B-7. CONTINUOUS CASTING MACHINES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
ro
U)
State
County /City
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Lake/Gary
Lake/E. Chicago
Porter/Burns Harbor
Michigan
Wayne/Trenton
Wayne/Ecorse
Ohio
~" Stark/Canton
Butler/Middletown
Pennsylvania
Bucks/Fairless Hills
Beaver/Aliquippa
Beaver/Midland
Texas
Morris/Lone Star
Hest Virginia
Hancock/Weir ton
Company
C F i I
U.S.S.
Wisconsin
U.S.S.
Inland
Bethlehem
McLouth
Great Lakes
Republic
Armco
U.S.S.
J & L
Crucible
Lone Star
Weir ton
Plant
IDI
038-10
067-38
067-44
067-36
067-16
067-09
123-23
123-15
174-27
079-02
045-31
197-19
197-11
022-22
181-41
•Machines
1-6 STRAND
1-4 STRAND
1-8 STRAND
1-1 STRAND
1-2 STRAND
1-4 STRAND
1-2 STRAND
1-4 STRAND
2-4 STRAND
1-4 STRAND
1-2 STRAND
2-2 STRAND
1-2 STRAND
1-6 STRAND
1-1 STRAND
1-2 STRAND
1-4 STRAND
Product Cast
Billets
Billets
Billets
Slabs
Slabs
Billets
Slabs
Slabs
Slabs
Billets
Slabs
Slabs
Blooms
Billets
Slabs
Billets
Billets
Annual
Capacity (TPY)
315,000
928,000
318,000
1,517,000
1,500,000
500,000
1,497,000
2,400,000
1,500,000*
275.000
384,000
1,387,000
548,000
548,000
330,000*
N/A
1,503,000
Capacities marked (») are taken from Steel Industry in Brief: Databook USA 1977,
R.L. Deily. Remaining capacities from 308 Survey Data,
-------
Table B-8. SOAKING PITS IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
State
County/City
Alabama
Etowah/Gadsden .
Jefferson/Fairfield
California
" San Bernardino/
Fontana
U
1 Colorado
J^ ' pueblo/Pueblo
•"
Illinois
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Madison/Granite City
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/Chicago
Indiana
Lake/B. Chicago
Company
Republic
U.S.S.
Kaiser
CFM
Republic
u.s.s.
Granite
City
Wisconsin
Interlake
Youngstown
Sheet t Tube
Plant
101
003-29
004-39
024-21
038-10
067-28
067-38
070-14
067-44
067-17
067-46
1 of pits
6
26
20
59
8
29
8
9
4
21
Bq. Ft. Heating Area
6-3978
11-1800
15-5896
20-8200
35-1350
24-3000
8-6533
6-2581
4-1960
7-1280
1-441
2-862
9-4523
8-4235
9-2885
4-640
1-484
11-3989
9-7695
(continued)
-------
Table B-8 (continued)
w
i
K)
Ul
State
County/City
Indiana (Continued)
* Porter/Burns Harbor
Lake/Gary
Lake/E. Chicago
Kentucky
Boyd/Ashland
Maryland
* Baltimore/Sparrows
Point
Michigan
Wayne/Ecorse
Wayne/Dearborn
Wayne/Trenton
Company
Bethlehem
U.S.S.
Inland
Armco
Bethlehem
Great Lakes
Ford Motor
McLouth
Plant
IDI
067-09
067-36
067-16
103-03
115-06
123-15
123-13
123-23
1 of Pits
32
58
49
50
79
22
13
5
Sq. Ft. Heating Area
32-9728
10-3776
15-5709
2-1071
2-1539
3-4928
12-12,300
14-14,350
8-5634
26-4682
15-8413
22-7040
22-4488
5-770
30-8076
8-4000
4-2300
10-8500
6-4800
7-8400
5-2200
(continued)
-------
Table B-8 (continued)
I
o\
State
County /City
New York
Erie/Buffalo
Erie/|
-------
Table B-8 (continued)
oa
ro
-j
State
County /City
Pennsylvania
Westmoreland/Monessen
Allegheny/Braddock
Cambr i a/ John s town
Pucks/Fairless Hills
Allegheny/Homestead
Allegheny /HcKeesport
Allegheny /Duquesne
Northampton/
Bethlehem
Beaver/Aliquippa
Allegheny/Pittsburgh
Beaver/Midland
Mercer/Sharon
Texas
Harris/Houston
Morris/Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
West Virginia
Hancock/Weirton
Company
W.P. Steel
U.S.S.
Bethlehem
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
Bethlehem
JlL Steel
J&L Steel
Crucible
Sharon
Armco
Lone Star
U.S.S.
Weir ton
Plant
ID«
197-43
197-37
195-08
045-31
197-32
197-34
197-34
151-05
197-19
197-18
197-11
178-30
216-04
022-22
220-40
181-41
1 of Pits
8
26
47
14
27
10
8
68
11
12
10
7
34
12
10
14
Sq. Ft. Heating Area
8-3818
26-5268
12-624
35-5390
10-2700
4-950
10-5670
17-7912
10-2400
8-6336
16-960
4-1024
16-3600
16-960
10-1084
6-1650
11-6540
12-8901
10-3600
3-1296
4-3470
10-3140
24-8064
12-2592
10-4020
14-24,1)00
(continued)
-------
Table B-9. SCARFING MACHINES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
DO
K>
CO
State/county/city
California
San Bernardino/Pontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
CooK/s. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicago
Indiana
Porter /Burns Harbor
Lake/E. Chicago
Lake/Gary
Lake/E. Chicago
Kentucky
Boyd/Ashland
Maryland
Baltimore/Sparrows Pt.
Michigan
Wayne/Dearborn
Wayne/Ecorse
Wayne/Trenton
Hew York
Erie/Lacka wanna
Erie/Buffalo
Company
Kaiser
CF4I
Wisconsin
Republic
USS
Bethlehem
Inland
U.S.S.
YSiT
Armco
Bethlehem
Ford Motor
Great Lakes
McLouth
Bethlehem
Republ ic
Plant
number
024-21
038-10
067-44
" 067-28
067-38
067-09
067-16
067-36
067-46
103-03
115-06
123-13
123-15
123-23
162-07
162-26
NO.
auto
scarfers
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
Product
scarfed
S°slabs
B=blooma
S
B
9
B
-
SIB
StB
SlB
StB
SfcB
SIB
SIB
StB
StB
StB
B
Control
device
ESP
Scrubber
Wet scrubber
Water plume
t sprays
ESP
Wet scrubber
ESP
Water plume
t sprays
ESP
(continued)
-------
Table B-9 (continued)
w
K)
vo
State/county/city
Ohio
Butler/Middletown
Sc io to/ For t smou th
Cuya hog a /Cleveland
Cuyahoga/Cl eve land
Trumbull t Mahoning/Youngstown
lorain/Lorain
Jef ferson/Steubenville
23. Mahoning/Youngstown
Pennsylvania
Northampton/Bethlehem
Cambria/Johnstown
Beaver/Midland
Beaver/Aliquippa
Allegheny/Pi ttsburgh
Mercer/Sharon
Allegheny/Braddock
Al legheny/Duquesne
Bucks/Pairless Hills
Allegheny/Homestead
Texas
Harris/Houston
West Virginia
Hancock/Weir ton
Company
Armco
Empire-Detroit
Jlf,
Republic
Republic
u.s.s.
Wheeling-Pitt.
YSiT
Bethlehem
Bethlehem
Crucible
JiL
JiL
Sharon
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
u.s.s.
U.S.S.
Armco
Weirton
Plant
number
079-02
103-12
174-20
174-25
178-24
174-33
181-42
178-47
151-05
195-08
197-11
197-19
197-18
178-30
197-37
197-34
045-31
197-32
216-04
181-41
No.
auto
scar f ers
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
Product
scarfed
S=3labs
B=bloom3
S
StB
S
StB
B
B
StB
StB
B
B
StB
S&B
StB
StB
S&B
StB
StB
StB
StB
StB
Control
device
Wet scrubber
ESP
ESP
Baghouse
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber
on one
Wet scrubber
ESP
Wet scrubber
on one
ESP
ESP
ESP
Wet scrubber
ESP
ESP
Cyclone
Wet scrubber
Reference: "Electrostatic Precipitation of Scarfer Fume" by Ronald L. Hill,
1977 Spring Convention of the Assoc. of Iron t Steel Engineers.
(continued)
-------
Table B-10. REHEAT FURNACES IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
0t«t«
County/City
Maba»a
Etowah/Gadaden
Jefferson/Pairfleld
California
San Bernardino/
Fontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Illinois
Madison/Granite
City
Cook/S. Chicago
Company
Republic
U.6.S.
Raiser
cru
Granite
City
U.S.S.
Plant
IDI
001-29
004-19
024-21
01R-10
070-14
067-38
t of
Furnacee
1
17
9
10
1
14
Sq. Ft.
Hratinq Area
1-1778
2-2669
5-2581
2-952
1-5571
4-6400
3-25i5
1-1828
3-5724
1-7200
1-1600
1-440
2-2400
1-750
1-1100
1-1860
1-3000
1-700
1-2226
1-
4-1246
2-1M4
2-6'24
1-775
2-1599
2-1600
1-4005
Mill
plate
hot atrip
atructural
plate
plate
hot atrip
finishing
structural
plate
hot atrip
finishing
finishing
atructural
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
walking bean
plate
plate
structural
structural
structural
finishing
finishing
(0
Ul
o
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
State
County/City
Illinois (Continued)
Cook/5. Chicago
Cook/S. Chicaqo
Cook/Chicago
Indiana
Lake/E. Chicaqo
Lake/Gary
Company
Republic
Wisconsin
Interlake
Youngstown
Sheet t Tube
U.S.S.
Plant
101
067-28
067-44
067-17
067-46
067-36
1 of
Furnaces
6
5
2
1-1
19
Sq. Ft.
Heating Area
2-2940
1-1680
1-2250
1-1620
1-1200
1-1120
2-1470
2-1700
2-4250
5-12,600
1-1024
1-1458
2-750
1-3750
1-730
3-
4-220
4-168G
2-1290
5-1600
4-4410
Mill
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
hot atrip
hot strip
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
tie plate
plate
plate
hot strip
hot strip
w
I
u>
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
State
County/City
Indiana (Continued)
" Take/nary (Continued)
>
porter/Burn* Harbor
Lake/E. Chicago
Kentucky
Boyd/ Ash land
Compaq v
U.S.S.
Bethlehem
Inland
Armco
P)ant
ID«
067-J6
067-09
067-16
101-03
1 of
Furnace*
17
ie
21
3
Gq. F£,
Moating Area
-1590
-1140
-1140
-820
-805
-1070
-1200
-not available
-1000
-470
-88
-212
-10S
-4180
-1100
-719
-1490
-1475
-2500
-16,710
-1456
-1770
-916
-4860
-5420
-14,280
-990
-1100
-2520
-1522
1-1020
Hill
flnlBhlng
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
plate
plat*
plate
plate
plate
plate
hot strip
structural
billet
plate
not strip
hot strip
hot strip
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
•trip I sheet
01
u»
N
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
State
County/City
Maryland
Baltimore/Sparrows
Point
Michigan
Wayne/Ecors*
Hayne/Dearborn
Wayne/Trenton
New York
Erie/Buffalo
Erie/Lackawanna
Company
Bethlehem
Great
Lake*
Ford Motor
HcLouth
Republic
Bethlehem
Plant
IDI
115-06
123-15
123-11
123-23
162-26
162-07
1 of
Purnacea
30
9
3
2
3
17
Sq. Ft.
Heating Area
8-2240
4-1600
2-3660
2-750
4-9360
3-8190
5-760
1-1350
1-3480
5-16.000
4-5928
2-8750
1-921
2-4320
1-2190
1-1203
1-945
2-1330
5-3610
2-2137
5-7806
2-1700
1-1843
Mill
plate
plate
plate
pipe
strip
strip
flange
rod
rod
hot strip
hot strip
hot strip
finishing
sheet
finishing
finishing
finishing
rail « billet
structural
structural
strip
finishing
finishing
w
I
u>
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
st«t«
County/City
Qhlg '•••-.•'
Mahoning/Youngstown
Cuyahogs/Cleveland
ftark/Hasslllon
Stark/Canton
Hahonlng/Caupball
Mahoning/Youngstown
J«fferson/St«ubenvill«
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Mahoning 4 Truabull/
Young stow
Company
Republic
Republic
Republic
Republic
Youngstown
Sheet 4 Tuba
Young a town
Sheet 4 Tube
H.P. Steel
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
PUnt
Ipl
178-24
174-25
174-27
174-27
178-45
178-47
181-42
174-r33
178-35
1 of
Furnace*
. 4
S
7
3
20
1
3
3
13
Sq. Ft.
Heating Area
1-2109
2-930
1-576
3-10.710
-am
-1440
-MM
-»84»
-519
-IC5P
-1080
-70QP
-282
-4078
-1650
-154
-2577
-4078
-
-185
-9690
-755
-2660
-750
-5350
-1020
-1240
-375
-1020
-1020
-1900
-1020
-1170
1-515
Hill
finishing
finishing
finishing
•trip
finishing
finishing
billet*
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
hot strip
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
blooMing
not strip
strip
finishing
finishing
•trip .
>strip
•trip
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
State
County /City
Trumbull/Harren t
Niles .
Cuyahoqa/Cleveland
Sclo to/Portsmouth
Butler/Hiddleton
Pennsylvania
35. Mlegheny/Braddock
Northampton/
Bethlehem
Conp.iny
Republic
JtL Steel
Empire-
Detroit
Armco
• O.S.S.
Bethlehem
Plant
ID*
178-24
174-20
101-12
079-12
197- J7
151-05
1 of
Furnaces
3
3
3
4
5
20
•
Sq. Ft.
Heating Area
3-6840
3-10,404
3-'200
5-6300
2-4134
2-1654
2-1873
2-1772
2-432
1-189
1-500
2-1700
2-4134
2-1654
2-1873
Mill
strip
slabbing
hot strip
I sheet
hot strip
sheet
•trip
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
finishing
finishing
finishing
bd
U)
ui
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
State
County /City
Pennsylvania (Continued)
T Cambria/Johnstown
•ucks/rfirless Hills
Alletjheny/Clalrton
M legheny/Homestead
Beaver /Al iqulppa
Company
Bethlehem
O.S.S.
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
JtL Steel
Plant
in*
195-08
045-91
197-32
197-32
197-19
1 of
Furnaces
9
11
.
8
11
24
7
Sq. Ft.
lleatlnq Are*
7-2872
-890
-458
-1315
-1728
-1728
-632
-2SOO
-493
-220
-1932
-200
-2537
-2125
-2380
-2580
-4095
-864
-802
-1404
-2164
-1250
-825
-675
-1680
-2708
-4320
-2208
-4472
-1600
-3083
-1913
1-2100
Mill
plat*
plate
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing .
finishing
finishing
hot strip
blooming
finishing
finishing
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
structural
plate
plate
plate
plat*
hot strip
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
0
(continued)
-------
Table B-10 (continued)
Stat«
County/City
Pennsylvania (Continued)
Allegheny/Pittsburgh
4
Beaver/Midland
Mercer/Sharon
, Allegheny /McKeesport
Allegheny/nuquesne
Texas
Morris/Lone Star
Harris/Houston
Utah
Utah/Geneva
Hest Virginia
Hancock/We 1 r ton
Company
.
JIL Steel
Crucible
Sharon
U.S.S.
U.S.S.
Lone Star
Armco
U.S.S.
Weir ton
Plant
*t>»
>97-18
197-11
178-30
197-34
197-H
032-7?
216-04
220-40
181-41
1 ot
Furnaces
7
13
15
4
8
6
2
7
7
5
54. ft.
Heating Area
3-4686
2-2812
1-2079
1-
9-5220
1-2436
3-1000
1-1140
5-3072
2-1270
7-1830
2-4800
2-2970
8-2492
8-11,650
6-372B
1-2100
1-1200
3-1100
2-1025
1-1900
1-2300
3-6180
4-11,113
4-10,350
1-980
Hill
strip
finishing
finishing
finishing
hot strip
hot strip
forging
press
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
hot atrip
strip 4 sheet
finishing
finishing
finishing
slabbing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
finishing
structural
plate t strip
atrip
structural
to
I
ui
(continued)
-------
Table B-ll. BOILERS IN INTEGRATED STEEL MILLS
M
State
County /City
Mabaaa
Btowah/Gadsden
Jefferson/rairfield
California.
Sail Bernardino/
fontana
Colorado
Pueblo/Pueblo
Indiana
Lake/E. Chicago
Porter/Burns Harbor
Lake/E. Chicago
CoMpany
Republic
U.S.S.
Kaiser
CF*I
ys»T
Bethlehem
Inland
Plant
ID
001-29
004-19
024-21
016-10
067-46
067-09
067-16
No. of
Boilers
12
28
7
2
' 8
5
9
Capacity
2-115
5-90
-165
-111
-111
-221
-105
-1$P
-iop
-457
5-105
1-45
7-157
1-220
1-110
2-190
2-210
1-190
1-910
1-781
2-718
1-711
1-624
4-455
4-262
1-100
Fuel
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
distillate oil
residual oil
natural gas
coal
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
creosote
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
oil
natural gas
blast furnace gas
coke oven gas
coal
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
residual oil
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
residual oil
bituminous coal
r }
-------
Table B-ll (continued)
co-
ca
VD
Stat*
County/City
Indiana (Continued)
Lake/Gary
Illinois
Madison/Granite City
Kentucky
Boyd/Ashland
Michigan
Hayne/Trenton
New York
Erie/Buffalo
Erie/Lackawanna
Company
U.S.S.
Granite City
Armco
McLouth
Republic
Bethlehem
Plant
ID
067-36
070-14
103-03
12J-21
162-26
162-07
No. of
Boilers
11
1
7
6
4
19
• Capacity
1-2250
1-870
1-850
1-150
3-400
1-76
1-105
1-140
1-4SS
1-4800
4-44
3-155
5-170
1-312
1-304
-174
-79
-87
-241
-40
-9
-112
-404
1-300
2-32
2-139
Fuel
natural gas
blast furnace gas
coke oven gas
oil
coal
oil
residual oil
blast furnace gas
natural gas
residual oil
natural gas
natural gas
(continued)
-------
Table B-ll (continued)
oi
*.
o
State
County/City
Mew York (Continued)
Er le/tf cKaw.anna
Ohio
MBWBIk
Cuyahoga/Cleveland
Mahoning/Canpbell
Mahon i ng/ Youngs town
Scloto/Portinouth
,
Mahoning/Youngstown
Nahoning i Trtwbull/
Voung a town
Company
pethlehem
Jones 4 Laughlin
YS4T
Republic
Empire-Detroit
YStT
U.S.S.
Plant
in
162-07
174-20
178-45
178-24
101-12
178-47
178-15
No. of
Boilers
19
11
10
7
7
10
6
Capacity
-525
-62
-ISO
-in
-i«
-377
-53
-241
-130
-131
-113
-282
-25
-585
2-225
3-90
2-408
2-100
2-7
1-3
1-34
l-l
10-22
4-310
2-457
Fuel
blast furnace gas
natural gaa
oil
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
coal
residual oil
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
bituminous coal
distillate oil
natural gaa
coke oven gas
coal
blast furnace gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
coal
oil
(continued)
-------
Table B-ll (continued)
to
stat«
County/City
Ohio (Continued)
Jef ferson/Steubenville
Loraln t Cuyahoga/
Lorain
Pennsylvania
A 1 1 •qheny /Duque sne
Hestmoreland/Monessen
Montgomery/Swede land
Bucks/Fairies* Hills
Company
W.P.
U.S.S.
O.S.S.
H.P.
Alan Wood
U.S.S.
Plant
ID
181-42
174-33
197-34
197-43
045-01
045-31
No. of
Boilers
12
6
2
6
2
5
Capacity
4-80
2-165
3-116
3-132
6-67
2-62
4-50
2-146
2-276
4-47
1-14
1-14
Fu«l
coal
coke oven qas
• blast furnace gas
oil
oil
blast furnace gas
natural gas
coal
coal
natural gas
coke
residual oil
blast furnace gas
coke oven gas
(continued)
-------
Table B-ll (continued)
w
i
4k
ro
State
County/City
Pennsylvania (Continued)
Ba«ver/Hidla.nd
Al 1 egheny/ P i 1 t »burgh
Northampton/Bethlehem
Mercer/Sharon
Allegheny /Braddock
Company
Crucible
Jonec i Lauqhlin
Bethlehem
Sharon
U.S.S.
Plant
10
197-11
197-18
151-05
178-10
197-17
No. of
Boilers
12
8
34
6
7
Capacity
2-50
5-100
3-41
2-94
5-210
3-170
19-60
3-100
3-36
2-120
1-150
»-19
1-190
1-300
2-18
1-100
4-40
2-14
3-143
4-52
Fuel
residual oil
bituminous coal
blast furnace gas
natural gas
bituminous coal
natural gas
blast furnace gas
anthracite coal
bituminous coal
coke oven gas
residual
coal
coal
blast furnace gas
(continued)
-------
Table B-ll (continued)
£»
U)
state
County/City
Texas
Harris/Houston
Morris/Lone Star
Utah
Utah/Geneva
West Virginia
Hancock/Weir ton
Company
Armco
Lone Star
U.S.S.
Weir ton
Plant
ID
216-04
022-22
220-40
181-41
No. of
Boilers
4
5
5
4
Capacity
2-275
1-91
1-64
2-200
1-90
3-412
2-206
4-47
Fu.l
blast furnace gag
natural gas
residual oil
coal
coke oven gas
blast furnace gas
natural gas
coal
(continued)
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF EXHAUST GAS
FLOW RATE EQUATIONS
-------
APPENDIX C
PPS-ES
FLOW RATE EQUATION
REMARKS
n
i
H
1-1 Ore yard
2-1 Coal yard
2-3 Coal crushing
4-1 Sinter windbox
4-2 Sinter discharge
4-3 Sinter plant
Not applicable
Not applicable
acfm = 192.7
8343
scfm => 12,897 + 205.6 x
, 1000 Prod 4 149
TTTT
t
'
scfm = 42,295 + 47.3 x
1000 Prod + 149 .
11.137'
acfm = 192.7W8342 x 5
W = belt width? 4 - No. of transfer
points. Belt width is determined from
the following table:
106 TPY
Belt width, in.
18
30
42
60
0 - 0.2
0.2 - 0.59
0.59 - 1.20
1.20 - 2.57
>2.57 integral multiple of 60-in. belt
e.g., 2.78 2 60-in. belts
5.15 3 60-in. belts
Production is in 106 tons/year (TPY)
Reduced by 40% for windbox
recirculation
Production is in 106 (TPY)
W <= belt width 5 = No. of transfer
points. Belt width is determined from
the following table:
10 TPY
0 - 0.46
0.46 - 1.3
1.3 - 2.66
2.66 - 5.69
Belt width, in.
18
30
42
60
>5.69 integral multiple of 60-in. belt
e.g., 5.94 2 60-in. belts
11.76 3 60-in. belts
(continued)
-------
Table C-l (continued)
PPS-ES
FLOW RATE EQUATION
REMARKS
n
5-1 Coke charging
5-2 Coke pushing
5-3 Quenching
5-4, Poor leaks
5-5 Topside leaks
5-6 Combustion stack
5-7 Coke handling
5-8 Coke oven gas
5-9 Coal preheater
Not applicable
For enclosed car: acfm = 75,000
For shed:
acfm « 1.67 (volume)
scfm •= 24,000 (ton coke/push)
acfm » 88 (TPD Coke)
Not applicable
Not applicable
scfm » 66,120 (106 TPY of coal)
scfm » acfm.= (1.4 PDV)
(192
» acfm = (1.4
.7 w.8343 x 5,
scfm = 11,000 x (tons coal per day)
divided by 1440
scfm •= 16,910 (106 TPY coal)
Volume » 35.6 (length) (tons/push)
Length = 4 (No. of ovens) + 20
Conventional quenching
Dry quenching
P = Perimeter of hood, V = 200 fpm
D = distance from source to hood
W •= belt width, S = No. of transfer
points. Belt width is shown in the
following table:
106 TPY
Belt width, in.
0 - 0.13 18
0.13 - 0.35 30
0.35 - 0.6S 42
0.65 - 1.54 60
>1.54 Integral multiples of 60-in. belt
e.g., 1.77 2 60-in. belts
3.24 3 60-in. belt*
(continued)
-------
Table C-l (continued)
PPS-ES
FLOW RATE EQUATION
REMARKS
O
U)
7-2
Cast house
evacuation
7-2 Tap hole hood
7-2 Runner covers
7-3 Slag pouring
7,8, Slag processing
(open hearth,
9,10 BOF, EAF. and
-5 blast furnace)
8,9-1 Hot metal transfer
8-2
8-3
9-2 BOF stack
Open hearth
stack
Open hearth
fugitive
9-3 BOF enclosure
9-4 BOF slag pouring
acfm = 1.2 (cast house volume)
acfm =1.4 (300) PD P 175°F
acfm = 200,000 e 175°P
acfm = 65 x TPD Hot metal
scfm = acfm = (1.4 PDV) +
(192.7W-8343 x 3)
scfm = 57,547 + 139.6H
scfm = 65,578 + 201.6H (No. of furnaces)
Not applicable
scfm = 2242H
scfm = 1634H
scfm •= 976H
scfm «= 1464H
acfm = 1000 H for enclosure
scfm
scfm
200,000
400,000
C.H. volume = 3.426 (working
volume)1.085
Annual cap (in 10 TPY)
= 0.023 (working volume) -0.25, where
working volume is in 103 ft^
P «= Perimeter of hood
D = Vertical distance
Slag granulator hooding
P = perimeter of hood, V = 200 fpm
A = area covered by hood,
D = vertical distance
W = belt width, 3 = No. of transfer
points. Belt width is determined in the
same way as coal crushing and transfer.
H = heat size
H = heat size
ESP = open hood
Scrub-open hood
Closed hood, 2 furnaces
Closed hood, 3 furnaces
H = heat size
H
heat size
For shop producing, 1,000,000 TPY
For shop producing, 2,000,000 and over
(continued)
-------
Table C-l (continued)
PPSKS
o
I
10-1 Electric furnace
10-2 cpntro|
12-1 Continuous casting
14-1 Soaking pits
14-3 Scarfing machine
)7-l Reheat furnace
2?-l
29-1 Boiler
FLOW RATE EQUATION
scfm • 5000 H (No, of furnaces let shop)
scfm =2500 II (No. of furnaces in shop)
scfm ° 4000 II (No. of furnaces in shop)
scfro ° 2000 H (No. of furnaces in shop)
scfm F 350 II (No. of furnaces in shop)
If « heat size
acfro f 175.000 « 150eF
scfm " 20,000 x (0.038 tons/hr/ft2)
ft2 heating area)/60
acfro •» 22,807 x (106 TPY) + 45276
scfm <• 41,000 (0.075 tons/hr/ft2)
(ft2 heating area)/60
scfm «= 17,000 X MM Btu/hr/60
REMARKS
Building evacuation
Alloy canopy hood
Carbon building evacuation + CH + DSE
Carbon canopy hood + DSE
Carbon direct shell evacuation
-------
APPENDIX D
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY AND EMISSION RATES FOR
RACT, BACT, AND LAER
-------
The technologies defining RACT, BACT, and LAER in this
report were selected, in part, to examine a wide range of alter-
natives. .As such, they should not be interpreted as representing
Agency policy because appropriate technology definitions are
continually evolving. Furthermore, it should be noted that
various steel plants have site-specific control requirements
which are not intended to be addressed by this study.
Table D-l presents a summary of control technology and emis-
sion rates for RACT, BACT, and LAER. These data are based on
information received from various EPA personnel. In some cases,
the uncontrolled RACT columns are based on information received
from Mr. Gary McCutchen of Office Air Quality Planning and
Standards (OAQPS). The BACT and LAER columns are based on infor-
mation received from Mr. Bernie Bloom of Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (DSSE). Mr. Bloom also had input to the
uncontrolled and RACT columns. Where estimates had to be made by
PEDCo to complete the table, the exception is noted.
The uncontrolled factors for ore yards and coal yards are
derived from application of formulas developed by Midwest Research
Institute (MRI) to a hypothetical ore yard and coal yard believed
to be representative in the Chicago-Gary AQCR. The RACT, BACT,
and LAER emission values for ore yards and coal yards are based
upon 40 percent, 75 percent, and 90 percent efficiency, respec-
tively, as assumed by PEDCo. The distinction between control
levels is the sophistication and extent of control equipment
used. These emission rates are very dependent on site-specific
conditions, and" the values in this table should only be used as a
guide to relative magnitude.
D-l
-------
APPENDIX D
Table D-l. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
(Ib/ton except noted)
pps-rs
l-l
2-1
2-1
o *•*
K)
4-2
4-1
i-l
*-?
Procraa or
operation
Raw •.iterlals:
Ore handling
and storage
Coal band l|ag
and storage
Coal crushing
and transfer
Sintering:
Sinter
Mlndbox
Sinter
diacharge
Sinter
building
fugitive*
Coking:
Wet coal*
charging
Coke pushing
Ba*U for
('•Isslon
me. inurement
l|ut e)«tal
produced
Coal used
Coal ustd
Sinter
produced
Sinter
produced
Sinter
produced •
Coke
produced
Coke
produced
Unconl rolled
enlaalon ralf,
TSP unleaa
otherwise noted
p-V
11. 1.'
0.40*
4.1£
so. i.a
HC 0.24
7.0
0.7
i.u'
so. o.o)
HC 1.6
4.7
RACT
Cunt rol
Water apray
duat sup-
pression
Water spray
dust aup-
preaaion
Baghouae
Scrubber
None
baghouae
None
Stage
clmrglng-
uodlf led
larry car
Kiic Inyed
lint car
•••laston
rate
0.19
II. (IS
0.04
O.b or
O.OJ5
gr/acl
1.1
0.7
0.16
0.043
BACT
Control
Water spri
dust oup-
preaalon
Water apri
dust sup-
preaalon
Baghouae
Scrubber
None
None
Baghouse
Baghouse
Stage
charglng-
new larry
car
Enclosed
hot car
Emlaalnn
rate
y 0.12
y 0.0)
0.004 or
0.005 gr/
•cfb
0.29 or
0.02
gr/acf
0.1 or
6.01 gr/
•cf
0.007 or
0.01 gr/
•cf
0.021
0.04)
LAER
Control
Water apr
duct aup-
preaalon
Water apr
duat sup-
pression
Baghouae
Wet ESP
Scrubber
None
Baghouae
Baghouse
Stage
charging-
new larry
car
Enclosed
hot car
Ealaslon
rate
y 0.0)
y 0.01
0.004 or
0.005 gr/
•cf
0.07d or.
0.01
gr/scf
SO, - O.IS
0.1 or
0.01 gr/
act
0.00? or
0.01 gr/
•cf
0.021
0.041
(continued)
-------
Table D-l (continued)
PPS-F.S
5-J
5-4
i-5
i-6
5-7
4-8
5-9
7-2
7-3
7-5
8-1 '
8-2
Process or
opera! Ion
Coke quenching
Door emissions
Topside leaks
Underflre stack
Coke handl Ing
Coke oven ga«R
Coal preheater
Ironmaklng:
Cast house
emissions
Slag pouring
Slag crushing
Steelmaklng:
Open hearth
hot metal
transfer
Open hearth
slack
Ha .sis fnr
rmtsslim
mrasurfim'nt
Coke
produced
Coke produced
Coke produced
Coke produced
Coke produced
Coal used
Coal used
Hot metal
produced
Hot metal
produced
Hoc metal
produced
Hot mecal
uftedl
Steel produced
llncont rol led
emission late,
TSP unless
otherwise noted
8.6
P. 71
0.49
1.0
0.03
SO 13.3
0.13
0.69
0.28h
0.24
0.35
17.4
RACT
Control
Baffles
Door
ton Intenance
Good malntei
ance
Dry ESP
Baghouae
Desulfu-
r Izat Ion
Scrubber
Taphole
and bag
house
Nune
Water
sprays
Bagliouse
ESP
Emlss Ion
rate
2.1
0.14
- 0.043
0.15
or 0.03
gr/acf
0.002
1.9
0.025
0.07
0.28
0.12
0.007
or 0.01
gr/scf
0.35
BACT
Cont rol
Emission
rate
Baffles and 1.0
clean water
Door main-
tenance an<
auto cleanl
Good main-
tenance
Dry ESP
Baghouse
Desulfu-
[ Izat Ion
Scrubber
RACT and
runner
covers
Hood and
scrubber
Baghouse
S.'ime as
RACT'
Same as
RACT
0.07
ng
0.043
0.15 or
0.03 gr/
scf
0.002
1.0
0.025
0.042
0.014
0.02S or
0.005 gr/
scf
Same as
RACT
Same as
RACT
LAER
Control
Dry
quenching
Door main-
tenance anc
auto cleanl
Good main-
tenance
Dry ESP
Baghouse
Desul fu-
rl zat Ion
Scrubber
Cast house
evacuation
Hood and
scrubber
Baghouse
Same as
RACT
Same as
RACT
Emission
rate
0.36
0.07
ng
0.043
0.08 or
0.015 gr/
scf
0.002
O.J
0.025
0.042
0.014
0.02S or
0.005 gr/
scf
Same as
RACT
Same as
RACT
(continued)
-------
Table D-l (continued)
rrs-Es
8-1
*>»
f-i
»-?
9-J
9-4
9-5
10- 1
10-2
Process or
opcrat Ion
Open hearth
building
fugitive*
Open hearth
slag crushing
and screening
BOF hot MI el
transfer
BOF stack
BOF charging.
tapping, and
sampling
BOF slag
pouring
BOF slag
cruahlng and
acreenlng
Electric furnace
emleslona In-
cluding fugi-
tives*
Carbon ateel
B.I sin for
Sienl produced
Steel produced
Hot metal ueed
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steal produced
llncont rol led
emission rate,
TSF unless
otherwise noted
0.29
0.21
0.35
51.0
1.0
0.121
0.17
30.0
RACT
Control
None
Water
apraya
...house
Open
hood-ESP
Hood to
enisling
furnace
control
Water
sprays
Water
sprays
Direct
evacuation
Emission
rale
0.29
0.11
O.OOf or
0.01 gr/
scf
0.34
0.40
0.06
0.08
3.05
BA
Control
Sane aa
KACT
Same aa
RACT
Baghouae
Closed
hood-
scrubber
Furnace
enclosure
Baghouae
Baghouse
Direct
evacuation
and canopy
hood
:T
Emission
rate
Same aa
RACT
Same aa
RACT
0.001 or
0.01 gr/
acf
0.04 or
0.015 gr/
acf
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.91
LAER
Control
Same aa
RACT
Same aa
RACT
Baghouae
Cloaed
hood-
acrubber
Furance
enclosure
Baghouae
Baghouae
BACT and
building
evacuation
Emlaslon
rale
Same aa
RACT
Same aa
RACT
0.007 or
0.01 gr/
acf
0.04 or
0.015 gr/
acf
0.08
0.01
0.01
0.16
(continued)
-------
Table D-l (continued)
o
I
PPS-ES
10-3
10-5
11-1
1J-1
14-1,16-1
14-3. 16-3
17-3, IB-3
17-1,18-1,
22-1.28-1
29-1
Process or
operation
Alloy steel
Electric fur-
nace slag
Electric fur-
nace slag
crushing and
screening
Conventional
casting
Continuous'
casting
Soaking pits'
using lOOt
nil at l.UZ
suit ur
Automatic
scarf ing
Reheat furnaces
using 101)2
oil at l.OX
aulfur
Boiler stack8
Coal fired
Oil fired
Basis for
eml.H&lon
measureaivnt
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel produced
Steel scarfed
106 Btu/hr
firing capacity
Uncontrolled
emission rate,
TSP unless
otherwise noted
>5.0
0.07"
0.10
0.06p
O.IJ
0.2
0.24
0.42
5.4
0.15
RACT
Canopy hood
Water sprays
Water sprays
None
None
None
Wet ESP
None
FfiD
KSH
Km! AS Ion
1 .'>;
0.035
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.2
0.03
0.42
0.1
0.05
BACT
o ro
Canopy hooc
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
ESP
Wet ESP
ESP
FCD
KSP
Emission
1.95
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.0]
0.0]
0.06'
0.1
0.05
LAER
Control
BACT and
building
evacuat Ion
Baghouse
Baghouse
None
Baghouse
ESP
Wet ESP
ESP
FCD
ESP
Emission
rate
0.90
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.0]
0.0]
0.06
0.1
0.05
-------
FOOTNOTES TO TABLE D-l
a. Emission factors shown as pounds per ton of coal can be
converted to pounds per ton of coke by dividing by 0.7 and
vice versa.
b. Where emission rates are given as gr/scf, this value was
used in conjunction with model plant flow rate. The value
Ib/ton is based on a typical flow rate.
c. The uncontrolled emission factors are from the SSEIS for
Sinter Plants, Preliminary Draft, May 1977. Cyclone control
is considered to be an inherent part of the process for
protecting exhaust fans and therefore the emission rate
after the cyclone is used as the base.
d. The LAER limitation is given by U.S. EPA's DSSE as 0.02
gr/scf, full train, thus including particulate and con-
densible hydrocarbon. It is assumed the particulate and
condensible hydrocarbon are equally divided.
e. SOx and HC factors are per U.S. EPA Publication No. AP-42.
The implied efficiency for particulate matter is used to
derive control values for these pollutants. HC as listed in
gaseous hydrocarbons. Condensible hydrocarbons are included
in particulate matter.
f . The uncontrolled rate assumes a rudimentary form of control
as the base, i.e., charging on the main as a typical "uncon-
trolled" state.
g. Based on 450 gr H2S/100 scf of coke oven gas, 11,000 ft^ of
gas per ton of coal. Emission rates are for all coke oven
gas produced, regardless of where used. Controlled rates
based on 65, 35 and 10 gr H2S/100 scf, respectively, where
represents all sulfur compounds in gas.
h. Estimate by PEDCo based on 40% of cast house emission
factor. Controlled rate based on 95%- efficiency. No data
are available for this source.
i. The factors used to relate hot metal to steel are:
Charge to steel yield = 86%
% hot metal in open hearth charge =50% *
% hot metal in BOF charge = 75%
D-6
-------
j. All open hearth BACT and LAER controls are equal to RACT on
assumption that no new open hearth shops will be built.
k. Charging =0.5 Ib/ton, tapping and slagging = 0.25, sampling
= 0.25 for total of 1 • Ib/ton. RACT = sampling + 80% capture
and 99% removal for charging and tapping. BACT = 90% capture
+ 99% removal and sampling in upright position or through
wicket hole in enclosure.
1. Estimated by PEDCo as 50% of value for BOF tapping and
slagging. This source includes dumping slag ladles and
cleanup using bulldozer.
m. The definition of primary emissions and fugitive emissions
in the electric furnace category changes as the control
technology changes. Figure D-l is a schematic illustration
of the definitions of RACT, BACT, and LAER.
n. Based on value for BOF factored for lower slag volume.
p. The emissions from conventional casting are estimated by
PEDCo as 2.0% of total open hearth fugitive building emis-
sions.
q. The emissions from continuous casting are estimated by DSSE.
r. Soaking pit and reheat furnace emission values are based on
the following:
Soaking pit Reheat furnace
Fuel consumption 1,350,000 Btu/ton 2,800,000 Btu/ton
Exhaust rate 20,000 scf/ton 41,000 scf/ton
Throughput 38 tons/h 225 tons/h
Coke oven gas is desulfurized to 65, 35 and 10 gr H2S/100 scf
for RACT. BACT and LAER, respectively, (including organic
sulfur). A maximum oil sulfur content of 1% is used. The
particulate emission factor used for oil is 23 lb/1000 gal
(AP-42). A control device is required for particulate only
if oil is used. When coke oven gas is used, all the emis-
sions have been accounted for under the "coke oven gas"
source.
s. Values shown for coal are based on coal of 2.5% S and 10%
ash using AP-42 formulas. Values shown for oil are based on
1.05% S and AP-42 factors for particulate. Coke oven gas is
accounted for under "coke oven gas" regardless of where
used. Natural gas and blast furnace gas are considered
clean fuels with no significant emissions.
D-7
-------
CARBON
ALLOY
RACT
3 Ib/ton
TOTAL » 3..05 Ib/ton
0.054 Ib/ton
DIRECT SHELL
EVACUATION
CONTROL
DEVICE
1.5 Ib/ton
TOTAL 1.95 Ib/ton
0.45 Ib/ton
BACT
0.6 Ib/ton
(80%
CAPTURE)
lb/ton
0.31 Ib/ton
^i
LJ
1.5 Ib/ton
i
TOTAL =1.95 Ib/ton
0.45 Ib/ton
/
X90S CAPTURE)
LAER
CLOSED ROOF
TOTAL * 0.36 Ib/ton
0.36 Ib/tori
CLOSED ROOF
TOTAL = 0.9 Ib/ton
0.9 Ib/ton
Figure 0-1. Schematic illustration of EAE control technologies.
o-a
-------
DERIVATION OF STORAGE PILE EMISSION
FACTORS AS A FUNCTION OF HOT METAL
PRODUCTION
The fugitive emission factors for storage piles are derived
as follows using equations from reference 1:
EF load-in stacker = 0.0018 x
or
load-out
EF load-out loader = 0.0018 x
or
load-in
5V VSV Ib/ton moved
(I)
lb/ton moved
EF traffic = 0.10 x
EF wind erosion = 0.05
s = silt content (%-75p)
M = skin moisture (%)
U = mean wind speed
D = duration of storage
(days)
S
T75
lb/ton moved
235
D S d f lb/ton put through
90 X 1.5 x 235 x 15 'storage cycle
y = loader capacity (yd )
d = dry days per year
f = % pf time wind speed
exceeds 12 mph
EF - emission factor
Representative values for the above factors are assumed because
information is not available on a plant-by-plant basis. On an
AQCR basis, from, weather bureau data, we have the following
D-9
-------
representative values:
AQCR Dry days Mean wind speed Max wind
067
045
197
178
216
239-
249
212
202
257
9.3
9.6
9.4.
10.0
7.6
58
73
58
58
46
13
16
13
13
10
In AQCR 067, wind speed exceeds 12 mph on 17.2% of the days.
Assume it exceeds 1.2 mph 75% of the time during, those days. The
composite period of time the wind speed exceeds 12 mph is there-
fore 0..75 x 17.2%., or 13%.
For values of S, we use the values given in Reference 1.
coal - 4% slag 2%
pellets - 11% ore fines (ore bedding) 9%
lump ore - 12%
coke - 1%
For sinter, assume a value of 12% (not given in Reference 1)
Assume an ore yard content of material as follows:
sinter = 10% moisture = 0%
pellets = 60% " =3%
ore fines = 20% " = 3%
lump ore =5% " = 2%
slag like materials - 5% " =5%
The weighted moisture is therefore 2.75%
The weighted S factor is 10.3
Assume Y = 10 yd3 representing an ore bridge bucket or large loader
We can now calculate a representative value for AQCR 067,
Chicago Gary. In the absence of plant-specific data, our interest
is to examine the sensitivity of the MRI equations.
A0.3 ^\ f i-3 N
EF load-in stacker = (0.0018) V 5 ) V~5 A 0.0036
Reclaim = 25% of stacker = 0.0009
D-10
-------
The parameters of interest here are S and M since mean wind speed
(9.3) is a relatively constant value. The most conservative
values we might choose are S = 15 and M = 1.5, whereby EF = 0.018.
For the lowest EF, we would choose S = 6, M = 3, whereby
EF = 0.002
fS\ (V\ ^10.3 ^ /9.3 \
EF for batch load-out = 0.0018 x\ 5V \5j = 0.0018V 5 / \ 5 / = 0.0022
and load-in / M \2 f Y \ /2.75N2
M \ ( Y \ /2.75N /ION
vs/ I— rv v~6/
Similarly, for the range of S and M used above, EF max = 0.012
and EF min = 0.0012.
For load-in with a railcar dumper, Y = 40 and EF = 0.0005
For traffic induced dust from loaders and trucks in storage area,
we have the following calculations:
f i "S ( ^.\ ^1Q.3V239^
EF =(0.1)11.5^ \235y =(0.1) V 1.5AJ35/ = 0.69
EF max =1.10 EF min = 0.44 for S = 15 and 6, respectively
For storage pile wind erosion, EF = (0.05) \ l.s) \2Js} \T5/
= (0.05)\ 1.5/ V235/ \15/ V90y = 0.20 Ib/ton put
through storage cycle
For EF max, S = 15, f = 20 EF max = 0.49
For EF min S = 6 f = 5 EF min = 0.05
For a typical ore yard operation, assume an average between load
in with a railcar dumper and load out with a 10 yd bucket (i.e.,
0.0022 + 0.0005; and stacker-reclaim (1.25 x 0.0036). This equals
0.004 Ib/ton transferred. For these operations, we assume no
mobile equipment in yard, i.e., no traffic component.
D-ll
-------
a. coal yard, we duplicate this entire procedure, using S = 4
and M = 5 with Y = 6. The typical values are:
/4V /9.3\
= (0.0018) \5V \T~~J» 0.
EF load in stacker -iq.J)pl8; \5/ V57 = 0.0005
~
f4\ /9.3\
EF load out loader = (0.0018) V5V V5 /= 0.
0004
EF traffic- =(0.1) (l73Al3T>' = 0.27
/ 4 \ /239W13W90N
»0.05Vl75/ \2T5/ ^
EF wind erosion »(0.05)Vl75/ \2T5/ ^TT/ Vgo/ = 0.12
TRANSFER (COAL) = 0.0005 Ib/ton transferred
STORAGE (COAL) = 0.12 Ib/ton put through storage cycle
Further assumptions are necessary to estimate material
quantities and obtain theoretical total emissions.
It will be convenient to derive raw material quantities from
hot metal production as follows:
Assume 3400 Ib (1.7 tons) of burden for 1 ton hot metal
Assume a burden, of 70% pellets and 30% sinter
Assume 70% of sinter feed is ore fines and 85% feed to sinter
yield (not counting recirculating feed)
Assume a 1200 Ib coke rate and 70% coke/coal yield
D-12
-------
These assumptions give the following material rates:
pellets 1.2 tons/ton hot metal
sinter 0.50 -tons/ton hot metal
sinter ore 0.40 tons/ton hot metal
other sinter feed 0.2 tons/ton hot metal
coke 0.60 tons/ton hot metal
coal 0.86 tons/ton hot metal
Assume the following inventory rates:
pellets 2 months = 0.17 annual usage
sinter 1 month = 0.08 annual usage
sinter ore 2 months = 0.17 annual usage
other feed 1 month = 0.08 annual usage
coke 1 month = 0.08 annual usage
coal 3 months = 0.25 annual usage
We can now "weight" the emission factors for transfer and storage
and convert to a hot metal basis.
For 1 ton hot metal, there are 2.3 tons of ore material and 0.86
tons of coal transferred in and out of storage.
EF transfer = 0.004 Ib/ton transferred x 2.3 tons transferred
ton hot metal
= 0.00.9 Ib/ton hot metal (for ore)
and = 0.0004 Ib/ton hot metal (for coal)
EF wind erosion = 0.20 Ib/ton put through storage cycle x 2.3
— 0.46 Ib/ton hot metal annually from ore
and =- 0.10 Ib/ton hot metal annually from coal
Finally, for storage and transfer, we have:
EF ore = 0.-009 + 0.46 = 0.47 Ib/ton hot metal
EF coal = 0.0004 + 0.10 = 0.10 Ib/ton hot metal
For a plant producing 1,000,000 tons hot metal per year,
Ore yard emissions = 0.47 x 1,000,000 = 235 tpy
Coal yard emissions = 0.1 x 1,000,000 = 50 tpy
D-13
-------
If actual values for each variable were available, then the
reliability of the final emission factor would become equal to
the reliability of the MRI equations which are the starting
point. It is beyond the scope of this project to examine the
variables involved in these calculations on a site-specific
basis.
DERIVATION OF EMISSIONS FACTORS
FOR STEELMAKING SLAG PROCESSING
The uncontrolled emissions from slag processing operations are
calculated based on removal of slag from the steelmaking shop or
blast furnace using trucks and front-end loaders and delivered to
an open crushing and screening operation. The calculations are
as follows:
Slag processing emissions emanate from five areas of activity:
1. Load-in (front-end loader)
2. Crushing and screening
3. Load-out (front-end loader)
4. Traffic
5. Windblown fugitive dust
Emission factors, based on 1.0 net ton slag, for each of these
activities are derived as follows:-
Area of
Activity Derivation
Load-in (front-end ^S^^U>1 s = 1-5 (assumed silt content)
loader) ' EF =(0.0018) \?/ \Ty U - 9.3 (mean wind speed
for AQCR 067)
(T) ( ]r) 1 = L. 0 (assumed moisture
V2'^6' content)
Y - 6 (bucket capacity,
CY)
= 0.004 lb.
D-14,
-------
Crushing and
screening
Load-out (front-
end loader)
Windblown
fugitive dust
Using factors for limestone crushing
"obtained from EPA Publication No. 450/
3-77-010 Tech. Guidance for Control of
Industrial Process Fugitive Particulate
Emissions.
Secondary crushing - 1.5 Ib/ton, 60% falls
out in plant leaving 40% of 1.5 or 0.6 Ib/ton
Same as load-in (front-end loader)
= 0.004 Ib.
EF
= (o..os) (ITS') (235)(
S = 1.5 (assumed silt content)
d = 239 (number of dry days per year for
AQCR 067)
f = 13 (Percentage of time wind speed is
more than 12 mph for AQCR 067)
D = 30 (days storage duration)
= 0.015 Ib/ton put through storage cycle
d
Traffic
EF
= (0.10) U.5/ \235) K Ib/ton carried
S = 1.5 (assumed silt content)
d = 239 (number of dry days per year for
AQCR 067)
K = 3.5 for vehicles in the 4-to-30 ton
range
=0.35 Ib/ton carried
Thus, the total, particulate emissions attributable to steelmaking
slag processing operations are:
Pounds per ton of slag transferred = 0.004 + 0.004 + 0.35 +
0.6 + 0.015 = 0.97
The following examples indicate how these emission factors are
applied to the various types of steelmaking processes.
For EOF Operation;
Total emissions=I
(0.97) = 0.17 Ib/ton steel
D-15
-------
For Open Hearth Operation:
Same as above except slag volume = 440 Ib/ton steel.
/440 \
Total emissions ss(,200'oj (0*97^ = °'21 Ib/ton steel
For Electric Furnace Operation:
Same as above except slag volume = 200 Ib/ton steel.
Total emissions ^fsfo) {0-97) = °-10 Ib/ton steel
For Blast Furnace Operation;
Same as above except slag volume = 500 Ib/ton hot metal.
Total emissions =(§§§o)(0-97) = °'24 lb/ton hot metal
D-16
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX D
1. Fugitive Emissions From Integrated Iron and Steel Plants.
Prepared for IERL, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
by Midwest Research Institute, 425 Volker Boulevard, Kansas
City, Missouri 64110, March 1978. EPA-600/2-78-050.
2. Technical Guidance for Control of Industrial Process Fugitive
Particulate Emissions. EPA-450/3-77-010.
D-17
-------
APPENDIX E
DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL
EQUIPMENT MODULES
-------
APPENDIX E
DESCRIPTION OF CONTROL EQUIPMENT MODULES
Electrostatic Precipitators
The efficiency of an ESP is a function of the collecting
surface and the electrical and physical properties of the par-
ticles being collected. Because many texts deal with the theo-
retical and practical aspects of ESP design, there is no need to
review these here. The basis of ESP cost in this project is
specific collecting area (SCA) expressed as square feet of
collecting area, per 1000 acfm of flow. Table E-l lists the SCA
values used for the various processes.
Other sources provide values for migration velocity, which
can be used in the Deutsch Anderson equation to calculate SCA
at a given efficiency.
SCA - -1000 Hn (1-eff.)
migration velocity x 60
These values are shown in Table E-2 only to illustrate how
site-specific factors can cause variation in migration velocity
and consequently in SCA required. Data that give SCA directly
are given preference herein because these values represent manu-
facturers' experience with the specific steel processes and avoid
the oversimplification inherent in the Deutsch Anderson equation.
Given an SCA value, total plate area is obtained by multiply-
ing by the flow rate in acfm. Maximum ESP inlet temperature is
600°F. An installed spare capacity of 20 percent is assumed to
permit efficient operation during periodic inspections and repair.
The ESP as installed is insulated and covered for rain protec-
tion.
E-l
-------
Table E-l. SPECIFIC COLLECTION AREA FOR ESP
( ft2/1000 acfm )
Efficiency,
1
99.9
99.8
99.0
98.0
95. 0
90.0
• S.O
Emission source
Open
hearth
furnace
412
M2
19.0
244
189
189
189
Basic
oxygen
furnace
S20
429
220
160
160
160
169
Electric
furnace
310
no
lip
190
190
190
190
Sinterin?*
450
450
«so,
325
198
198
198
Scarf imjd
540
S40
104
225
225
225
225
Coke
pustunt)
385
385
240
188
188
IBB
188
Coke oven
under fire
860
860
538
450
324
232
178
Oil-fired boiler,
soaking pits and
reheat furnace
200
200
200
170
150
150
ISO
Coal-fired
boiler*
410
410
230
170
170
170
170
w
* Copyright 1974. Research Cottrelt, Inc.. (Ref. 1).
Derived from Ref. 2.
c Derived Irom Ref. 3.
d Derived fro* Ref. 4.
-------
Table E-2.- MIGRATION VELOCITY (W) FOR VARIOUS
STEEL PROCESSES
Process
Open hearth
Blast furnace
Sinter..
BOF
Electric arc
Sinter
Open hearth
Electric arc
Blast furnace
W (fps)
0.16
0.2-0.46
0.07-0.38
0.15-0.25
0.12-0.16
0.2-0.35
0.19
0.28 (wet ESP)
0.31-0.38 (wet ESP)
E-3
-------
Wet ESP's are considered to be equal in cost to dry units
except for the addition of the water supply system. Water use is
a function of pollutant removal and gas cooling requirements.
The minimum liquid-to-gas ratio (L/G) for pollutant removal pur-
poses used in this study is 6.5. Where exhaust gas temperatures
exceed 215°F additional water is needed to cool the gases. The
amount of water required was determined empirically based on data
shown in Figure E-l. If for example, the exhaust temperature is
300°F (sinter windbox), the water requirement is 7.9 gpm/1000
acfm.
For corrosive gas streams such as sintering, corrosion
resistant materials are specified. '
The precipitator basic module cost includes the box and
internals, power supply, rapping equipment, transformer-recti-
fiers, insultation, electrical instrumentation transition duct,
hoppers and roof. See Figure E-2 and E-3.
Fabric Filter
Fabric filters are employed for particulate control in many
of the processes in this study. Baghouses of two types were
estimated: prefabricated' units, for less than 50,000 acfm flow
and custom units for over 50,000 acfm. The small baghouses in-
clude a mechanical shaker system, screw conveyor, dumpster box
with guard, access ladder, and walkway. The custom baghouse cost
is flange to flange and includes supports, inlet and outlet
headers, pressure and temperature instruments, an annunicator,
area lighting, piping for instrumentation, foundations, painting,
and a control building. Bags, either dacron or fiberglass, are
added as a separate module. Dacron is used for inlet temperatures
up to 250° and fiberglass used for over 250°F. Dust handling
conveyors and hoppers are added as a separate module. Cost is
determined as a function of total cloth area and 20 percent spare
capacity is assumed. See Figure E-4..
Venturi Scrubber
Venturi scrubbers are employed in this study for particulate
control for several different processes. The variations are
E-4
-------
M
Ol
35
e 30
L>
I/I
OC
Lkl
Q.
§. 25
en
CO
cr
UJ
Of.
oc.
UJ
20
15
10
200
VREF 12
EQUATION TO DERIVE OVERALL WATER REQUIREMENTS
FOR GAS CLEANING AND COOLING (CONTACT COOLING)
Q = 6.5 + ,0165 ( F-215)
• REF 12
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
*F
• REF 13
REF 14 -
1800
2000
Figure E-l. Water requirements for gas cooling and cleaning
a function of process outlet temperature.
as
-------
Module No. « A Sheet 10 o*
PEDCor ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Iwcu.»ta-*o iM' co*''*
u w '
CO KIT-* Ok.
c. a »-•-•
Figure E-2. Dry ESP module
E-6
-------
Module No. 2. Sheet
of IS
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
6.SP
DATE ^•
By T-R
DESIGN CRITERIA:
s-o
L; I l I I
T-O e
A VSIS.T1
/C S
Figure E-3. Wet ESP module
E-7
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Hodula No. 3* Sh*«t
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION F*eit>C furgRS
ot »5
DATE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
I.
.P. C-OTH
SAT
TOT*V.
1 =>
US
3000
To oo
<9
C»Mvr>voa , '
OU*T-
3o*
*. A.
Figure E-4. Fabric filter module.
E-8
-------
carbon steel or stainless steel. Both variations include piping
at the scrubber, an access platform, automatic pressure drop
control, an electrical system, instrumentation, and lighting.
Pumping and water clarification are handled as separate modules.
See Figure E-5. Water usage is determined from the equation shown
in Figure E-l. The rationale for water usage is discussed above
in the section relating to electrostatic precipitation.
Contact Gas Cooler
The contact gas cooler is utilized in pollution control
systems to cool gases prior to their entering control devices
such as ESP's, fabric filters, or scrubbers. Water is sprayed
through nozzles at the top of the tower with the hot gas flowing
up through the sprays. The water is drained by gravity through
the bottom of the tower. The temperatures assumed for the gas in
the design of this device are 2500°F in and 275°F out. The
design gas velocity through the tower is 600 feet per minute, and
the cooling water temperature is assumed to be 90°F. Construc-
tion is of 1/4 in. plate. See Figure E-6.
Radiation-convection Gas Cooler
The gas cooler is utilized to cool gases without wetting
them prior to their entering a control device. Estimates were
made for both carbon steel and stainless steel. Hairpin con-
struction is used to maximize total duct surface area in the
minimum space. Three-foot diameter duct is used. The gases
transfer their heat to the air by convection and radiation. See
Figure E-7.
Dust Suppression for Car Dumper
This device is utilized in the prevention of fugitive dust
where railroad cars are dumped mechanically. The system consists
of a wetting agent storage tank, a mixing tank, a filter for the
water supply, and pumps. The wetting solution is pumped into
four headers, one on the dumper, and three around the hopper.
See Figure E-8.
E-9
-------
Module No.
Sheet -4* of
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
TO
Figure E-5. Scrubber module.
£-10
-------
Module No. Co Sheet 5 <-.
DES1C. LV.TA
DESCRIPTION GAS Cooi-'-G DATE la-l
??.CJEC? NO. ''315
ES1-N CF.ITi.?.:..:
'=1 OUT
cooue* _
COOkg R
(rt-.
!—-O
-XI-
X
I
CH
Figure E-6. Spray type gas cooler module,
E-ll
-------
Module No. G>B Sheet
of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
(_
Coou.^C DATE I- &•"!&
^ BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
n
60,000
IV 4 00
&OO
3-0"
800'F
tooo
iSo.ooo
I5T.OOO
IOOOO
IO'-G"
3'
54. FT * .2 * SCTM
COST •
Figure E-7. Noncontact gas cooler module.
E-12
-------
PCDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No.
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION Tiusr
Sh«*t 2. of S
~ DATE n-xi- "
BY -rna.ua
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-8. Car dumper spray module,
E-13
-------
FEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Modul* No. 1 & Sh««t Z of 3>
DESIGN. DATA
DESCRIPTION PU&T Su»i»iEtssio»* DATE M-fZ IT
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
•n Mi
-o—oo
TRUCK. *«100MT«O
IX* I « I «4 ft T* M X
»*O
. ;A<>Se
Figure E-9. Spray truck module.
E-14
-------
Dust Suppression Spray Truck
This module is utilized in the prevention of fugitive dust
from storage areas and roadways that are situated such that
permanent sprays would not be feasible. These would also be
used for sealing dormant piles. See Figure E-9.
Dust Suppression Spray Tower
These are suitable for dust suppression from relatively
inactive storage piles of iron ore and coal or waste materials
in generally open areas. The module consists of a spray tower, a
filter for the water supply, and a pump. See Figure E-10.
Dust Suppression at Transfer Points
This module is utilized to control fugitive dust at transfer
points in the movement of raw materials by conveyor, and at
screens and crushers. It consists of a pump, 1000 ft of pipe,
and proportioning equipment for controlling the amount of chemi-
cal dust retardant mixed with the water. See Figure E-ll.
Dust Suppression at Perimeter of Storage Yards
This module is utilized in the prevention of fugitive dust
around the perimeter of well defined storage yards. It consists
of a pump, piping, and spray nozzles every 30 feet. Cost of one
system is based on a coverage of 240,000 ft . See Figure E-12.
All of the five preceding dust suppression schemes are
estimated based on similar concepts applied in other industries.
There are no known systems in the U.S. steel industry which can
be evaluated as to their effectiveness or operating problems.
Hooded Quench Car
The hooded quench car is utilized for the control of emis-
sions during quenching. An enclosed hooded coke guide directs
the fumes into the hood around the quench car. Further enclosure
is provided by side wing plates on the existing door machine and
coke guide. Allowance is included for bench modifications to
hold the additional weight via the retrofit factor. Before
E-15
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL.
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. TC Sto«*t "Z. of ^ _
DESIGN- DATA
DESCRIPTION TauST sui»*»«gssioM DATE ««-ZZ-"»t
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-10. Spray tower module.
E-ie
-------
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. 1 D Sh««t "2. of 4
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION "Pusr SUPPRESSION DATE U.Il.">1
DESIGN CRITERIA:
\
j cwuswe.ns.er?..
Figure E-ll. Transfer point spray module,
E-17
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Modul* No. Tg. Sh*«t 2. of S
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION "Do*r Sm»t»«6*aiao DATE IT-1C-T>
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
c-t
,' ro
J'-W.
Figure E-12, Storage yard perimeter sprays.
-------
CONNECTING
DUCT
SCRUBBER CAR AND AUXILIARIES
Figure E-13. Hooded quench car module.
-------
release to the atmosphere/ the fumes are cleaned by a hot water
scrubbing system, which is included in the package. See Figure
E-13.
Stage Charging
Stage charging is utilized in the control of charging emis-
sions in coking. Both a retrofit option and a new car option are
provided in the cost model. In the retrofit option, the existing
car is modified by equipping it with fume piping, new hopper gate
assemblies, stainless steel cones for the hoppers, a hydraulic.
system, an electrical control system, and a gooseneck cutter. A
steam supply and a pushing machine leveler bar smoke seal are
also provided in this option. The new car is designed with four
hoppers utilizing gravity feed and a butterfly flow control
plate. The fume pipe connects the No. Land No. 4 hoppers and
the No. 4 charging hole two ovens away. A hydraulic system
operates the slide gates, the drop sleeves and the flow control
valves. A gooseneck cleaner and an air conditioned cab with
filtered air are included. Lid lifters are not included. See
Figure E-14.
Sinter Plant Windbox Recirculation
Sinter plant windbox recirculation is utilized in the con-
trol of windbox emissions by filtration of the air through the
bed of hot sinter.- The module includes a recycle main with
supports, off takes-with dampers, a hood over the sintering
machine with supports, and refractory lining for the hood. See
Figure E-15.
Quench Tower Baffles
Quench tower baffles are utilized in the control of quench-
ing emissions in coking. This module includes a spraying system
for backflushing with supports, a pump* and a strainer as well as
the baffles themselves~ See Figure E-16.
E-20
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module NO. jI S Sh**t 7. of G
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION Co<.6. O»6M CHO^&HJS DATE IQ_^Q.-
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Scope.. oi=
Figure E-14. Stage charging larry car module.
(continued)
E-21
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module Ho. \ I c sh««t *r of
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION £»*• OV«M
OATE
uTT»o>\ BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
3oo FT A «->. »«x«» p
Q
&0
Figure E-14 (continued). Steam supply for stage charging*
E-22
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. 13 Sh»et 4 of (a
'DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION StXT«« PV.AWIT DATE 10. z>.-n
5? tC.raCw l-ATt OM gy
DESIGN CRITERIA:
TO«^S
Ptl?
BUCT
OlA.
4-00
71.
ooe>
. ..
10-1
Z- IO
S«.C,i
llo"
no
A-To.ooo
SSo.ooo
SCOPE of COST s.sTi»^iA-re
KtC^Ctt NtAiM AliT-M SOI^»O*TS
OFF-T»KeS v
HOOD OVC«
Figure E-15. Sinter plant windbox recirculation module.
-E-23
-------
Module No.
Sh*«t
at _4_
PEOCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN. DATA
DESCRIPTION
Qu6.no*
DATE
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-16. Quench tower baffles.
E-24
-------
Module No. |C" Sheet T~ of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
OVS..J
DATE I- &-18
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
N0111J.
Figure E~17. Coke oven door cleaning module.
E-25
-------
Coke Oven Door Cleaner
This module is utilized in the cleaning of coke oven doors.
It consists of a high pressure hydraulic system, and is installed
on the existing pushing machine and door machine. See Figure
E-17.
Dry Quenching
Dry quenching is utilized in the control of quenching emis-
sions in coking and eliminates the emission of particulate which
occurs in wet quenching. This module was estimated as a package
which includes all the equipment necessary for the process.
Basically, the coke is released into a water jacketed cooling
bunker where its temperature is decreased to less than 200°C by
recirculating inert gas. There is byproduct steam created in the
cooling bunker which can be used elsewhere in the plant. See
Figure E-18.
Bleeder Flares
i
Bleeder flares, are utilized in the control of emissions of
excess fuel gas. Modules are.provided for the. flaring of coke
oven gas, blast furnace gas and BOF off gas. For the blast
furnace and BOF gas bleeder flare, two burners are provided. One
burner is operating while the other is on standby. Natural gas
is used for the burner system. Ignition is started manually from
the base of the stack. A new platform and ladder for the exist-
ing bleeder stack are provided. The coke oven gas flare does not
require an enlarged stack because of the higher Btu content of
coke oven gas. Thermocouples are provided to monitor the pilots.
See Figures E-19 and E-20.
Mist Eliminator
The mist eliminator is utilized in controlling water mist
present in exhaust gases, that have been passed through wet con-
trol devices such as wet scrubbers. Two basic types have been
estimated: the wire mesh type and the blade type. Each can be
either carbon steel or stainless: steel. The stainless and
-------
Module No.
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO.
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
Sh»et IA of ?
DATE '* "#- ?7
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-18. Dry quenching module,
E-27
-------
Module No. IT A fthMt
of
FEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
Bueeoe* R.»«e
DATE
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
1. rv»» au«~a«> -t» • «.
XU jyf
f^_-IJ060
& oue BUI«
, A
\ ___ C
SCMe.t-»ATl
f
/
r
**S
PH.OT
MlMftV
»«!«
Figure E-19. Blast furnace gas flare.
£-28;
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. ^ B Sheet 3 of &
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION Bie.gQ6.R. FIARB. FOR DATE h-Vl
C.OW.E Ovesl GA^ By
DESIGN CRITERIA:
/n\
K
M
U
a
el
VI
2.. M»"~>UAw
B^St 0(=
e R>^
PIUOTS.
TO se r»tto\/ioao
CAS
KI t_IMe. TO
Figure E-20. Coke oven gas flare.
E-29
-------
Module No. l& 8 «>••« T of IS
DESIGN DATA
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAI. DESCRIPTION »*«*T- £u.»Ai>J*-nB* DATE lo->«-T)
PROJECT NO. 3315 (BU»OC.
BY TK
DESIGN CRITERIA: veuttciTf TMVQO&H S«.A.O«* » tooo
DUCT vftuet-.rt & Aooa
vCLu
So.aoo
a
ZSo, ooo
l-i io
Sao, ooo
TO >*^ **** *****•+ CS"> IKI
SP*«
f
-D
Figure E-21.. Mist eliminator module - blade type.
. E-30
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. .-»T
tvjifie. tw\e&t4 T-rt»t^ By
DESIGN CRITERIA:
^ (pox
Fuo
Aire*
So, ooo
(7.
S7Z.
5,5. & L.*OOC«.
IMCkUO&O
Lf— u ----- J~] AP n«co«oe»
_J 1 '-J v//^t.
-------
carbon steel varieties of both types are of similar construction.
All consist of a vessel containing the blades or stainless steel
wire mesh, along with a spraying system and drain at the bottom
for back washing. Also included in the estimate is a pressure
drop recorder with alarm, and an access platform and ladder to
the manways. See Figure E-21 and 22.
Fans
The fan module consists of the fan, motor and coupling
along with the electrical control system. Foundations, struc-
turals, and supports are included as required depending on fan
size. The control parameter for cost is horsepower which is a
function of acfm and fan static pressure. Fans are sized for
cold startup, i.e., acfm at the temperature of the exhaust
stream at the fan. In calculating operating cost, fan horsepower
is reduced at elevated temperature to account for lower air
density. Below 500 hp, 100 percent installed spares are used and
above 500 hp, 50 percent installed spares are used. Individual
fan size is limited to 1,000,000 acfm and motor size is limited
to 5000 hp. See Figure E-23.
Ductwork
Ductwork is- utilized, as a portion of many control systems.
It can be either carbon steel or stainless steel and can be
either refractory brick lined or unlined. The estimate has a
basis of 100 ft of duct. Flanges are placed at 40 ft intervals.
For the 100 ft of duct, there are four supports, two to the
ground with foundations and two to existing, structural steel.
There is one expansion joint per 100 ft of length. The basis for
sizing the diameter of a given duct is a velocity of 4000 ft per
minute. Insulation is calculated separately as required at a
cost of $6 per square foot. See Figure E-24.
Ductwork Dampers
Dampers are utilized along with ductwork for isolating con-
trol devices- There are two different materials of construction,
B-32
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
Module No. iq A Sheet >5 of 7.<-»
DATE
BY TRAoB
DESIGN CRITERIA:
A MO
Figure E-23. Fans.
E-33
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
. , Module No. to A
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION PCCTVJQ^< DATE
BY
Id Of tl
DESIGN CRITERIA:
art. 100 Pr t.a»JO
~S -TNMO TO
S SVSKX
3
4-
S
Figure E-24. Ductwork module.
E-14
-------
Hodul* No. 1O ft 5h««t C, of 8
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE 1-8 ~>8
BY Jix)T
DESIGN CRITERIA:
tuee.
Figure E-25. Ductwork damper module.
E-35
-------
carbon steel, and stainless steel. Included with the damper is
an electric operator which controls the opening and closing of
the damper. See Figure E-25.
Exhaust Stack
The cross sectional area for stacks is determined based on
a velocity of 3000 ft/min. The variables for stacks are the
material of construction which can be either carbon steel or
stainless steel and whether the stack is lined with 4-1/2 in. of
brick or unlined. The stack module cost is based on a stack 100
ft. high provided with an access ladder and platform, test ports,
foundations, and grounding. The stack is designed for a wind
load of 40 pounds per square foot. See Figure E-26.
Opacity Monitor
The opacity monitor is utilized on some stacks, when speci-
fied by NSPS or at the LAER control level. The module includes
an optical head assembly, a retroreflector assembly, connecting
flanges, two blower units with filters, mounting plates, weather
hoods, a remote control panel, and an access platform and ladder.
It is assumed that the stack is 100 ft high and that it is 100 ft
from the control room. See Figure E-27.
SOo Monitor
The SO- monitor is utilized on stacks where the SO- concen-
tration in the exhaust gas is controlled. The module consists of
a filter probe assembly, a temperature controller, a heated
sample line, an analyzer system, and a recorder. See Figure
E-28.
Combustion Control Monitor
The combustion control monitor is utilized on fuel burning
sources at the LAER control level to help control opacity ex-
cursions. This module may be divided into two parts, actual
sampling and control of the. fuel to air ratio of, the combustion
source. The sampling portion consists of a sample probe, an
E-36
-------
PEDCo
Modul* No. 2.1 Sh««t to of 3e
DESIGN DATA
ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION DATE »-»<;-"n
PROJECT NO. 3315 EKHoitrs
T
••
:
— i
—
\
\
r
.
n n
^^
3 t^6Ci&MC& ^ot VUIMO ^0*0 op ^o Pi f.
4 Co«(*.o*io^ /» twO»*j«ocC Pa«
S BRICK I.IMIKX: ESTiw\AT-6o ft-R. A'/ " & ^ "
A«..0 ia«.C,i*. »-0 HI«M XJuT^ f=.*6.B*>C<.
ACID I5H>C"C «?e e.o^«^^6^JB€o B<5-i-Ovsj 'iCo S°P
i
r^^ |rx/^w^>^x^'rf/>* ^
3 AOOO F»r\
S-reeu
UNLINK, c
C*
2'
5'
8
It.*-
.s'.c
c
•
•r^"
^a^&o
78-»60
ZO^ooe
S04.ooO
-.S4SOO
BRICK. Lined
4'V G," q" i^'/t1 i&"
1-0
2-5"
VS"
• T-V
ii'. 11"
,4--r
M * *k 4^ •
c^»^ ID CPI»\ 10. CP««\ X.D tP»^\ I'd CFM
• S^Zo
S&T&o 4.' soz&o 3-4' 3&4So -Z-^ ^*^4o
i&S.ioo 1' 1 511 GO t'-c." 132^20 S'-l" 10 3 ft io
44t Ooo l'-8 4'Z.*7.6oo li-Z' 3m.16O 10-6 34O.S&O
G83>00 ,4-.cT 6C.0.400 ,V-o G,,S>oo ,,--S SS.>~
Figure E-26. Exhaust stack module.
E-37
-------
Module Mo. 17 A sh««t "Z. of 4
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT MO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
1V\ OKI>•*•»<*
DATE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Co.
TWO
UKIl^t
HOODS
f»ROV(O6 ACCESS1
IOO Pf To OS.S.T- (tooc^
Figure E-27. Opacity monitor module.
E-38
-------
Modul* Ho.
Ch*«t "2- of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE
o *j > -r o * i s> a SO2.
DESIGN CRITERIA:
COMT00l.we.RS
ST*C<
Oue.1-
^-
I
. COWTRO L.
Figure E-28. SO, monitoring module.
E-39
-------
Modul* No.
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
MOJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE > o-t-i--n
DESIGN CRITERIA:
STAC,*. «» » *»
• »M
To
STACK
o«
OuCT
Figtire £-29. Combustion control module.
E-40
-------
insulated sample line, a clean air supply at 100 psig, a sample
conditioner, and an analyzer. The control portion of this module
begins in the analyzer where an output signal originates. This
signal is adapted to override the existing fuel to air ratio
control system. See Figure E-29.
Canopy Hoods
Canopy hoods are utilized to capture emissions from a
vessel or a process. They are placed above the emission source
and capture the gases escaping from it. The canopy hoods for
this study are square in cross section and made from carbon
steel. The estimate includes fabrication and carbon steel plate
in the range of 1/8-in. to 1/4-in. depending on the size of the
hood. There are two available options in the cost model: re-
fractory brick lining and skirting. See Figure E-30.
Canopy Hoods for Electric Arc Furances
Canopy hoods are utilized in the control of fugitive emissions
from electric arc furnace steelmaking. They are placed in the
roofing structure of the building which encloses the furnace and
are located directly above the furnace. This estimate is based
on construction of- 20 gauge galvanized carbon steel sheeting and
carbon steel supporting members. The estimate includes fabrica-
tion. See Figure E-31.
Wastewater Treatment
The wastewater treatment module is utilized for removal of
suspended solids from the discharge water of wet control devices
such as a scrubber. It consists of a degritter, a flash tank,
primary clarifier rated at 2.5 gpm/ft overflow rate, a pump
well, pH control, and vacuum filters for sludge dewatering. See
Figure E-32.
Water Pumping System Module
This module consists of pumps, valves, and piping to supply
clean water (river water) to wet control systems such as makeup
£-41
-------
Module'NO. 1A A sh««t «i ot 15
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE to
HOOD
DESIGN CRITERIA: PAC-«-O««S BOR
HOOOS
« MOODS
Q, «-I.
v- :
«ATC
IK)
Av««Aae
SOURCE
(v s Sa T» s HOOD
HOOD »AC«. (
*•«• 1*000
IOO TO
Y « AcrviAt- v*r
«oor («r^
BIM. •»• •oot
Figure E-30. Canopy hood modxile.
E-4Z
-------
nodule No. TA-fe Sheet 5 of &
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
MOOD
Foa. Ei.ecTK.ic.
DATE «i-'ft-TT
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA: Tv>»ic»>_
POIX O£vet.oPi>oa esr
Figure E-31. Electric furnace canopy hood module.
E-43
-------
Module Ho. 7.S Sh**t 4- ot l\_
DESIGN DATA
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO. 3315
DATE t-
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA: ftST
F(.o>wS
Soo
3ooo
Figure E-32. Wastewater treatment module.
E-44
-------
Module No.
Sheet Co of >5
DESIGN DATA
PEDCo •ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO. 3315
DATE
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA: Soo y »Soo > "iooo , feooo . \oooo <5Pv\
-H-
^ >_o D «= s -
C"
fcoo ~
Forv 0,000 & 10,000
Figure E-33. Water supply module,
E-45
-------
Module Ho.
Sheet 4- of to
PtDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
MWJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE
DESIGN CRITERIA:
TuwO
Figure E-34. Wastewater return module.
E-461
-------
water to a recirculating system or supply water to a dust sup-
pression system. See Figure E-33.
Waste Water Return System
This module consists of a sump, slurry pumps, and necessary
piping and valving to return wastewater from a wet control device
to the wastewater treatment system. See Figure E-34.
Building Louvres
Building evacuation is utilized where a building encloses
one or more fugitive emission sources. This module consists of
louvers for 100 ft of building length, and a louver operator
every 50 ft on either side of the building. This module is only
a small portion of a building evacuation system, the majority of
cost being in fans, ductwork and control device. See Figure
E-35.
Blast Furnace Runner Covers
Blast furnace runner covers are utilized in the control of
cast house emissions in the iron making process. They cover the
iron runners from the skimmer plate.to the pouring spouts, and
channel the air flow to a collection outlet, where telescoping
duct extensions are connected to capture the emissions. The
design length and width of the runner covers are 20 ft and 5 ft,
respectively, and. they are constructed of carbon steel, with
refractory lining. Eyebolts are included for lifting the covers
into position. See Figure E-36.
Basic Oxygen Furnace Enclosure
EOF enclosures are utilized in the control of fugitive emis-
sions which occur in the basic oxygen process during charging,
slagging, and tapping. The enclosure completely surrounds the
furnace and channels the emissions toward its top where a duct
connection is made. The enclosure is equipped with sliding doors
which are opened when the furnace is charged. The enclosure is
constructed of carbon steel. See Figure E-37.
E-47
-------
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
OESICN DATA
DESCRIPTION
Module NO. *21 «h««e T. ot 3-
BuiwOiMg E,v»cu*ri<»J DATE t-nOft
Qp«e«ro«K>
IPO Pr BY TK»US
DESIGN CRITERIA:
50 PT
Figure E-35. Building louver module.
E-48
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. ta Sh««t Z. of _i
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION BIAVT FuRM^c.6 DATE lO-i^-IT
Cov feres (ZO*) BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
OUTl_(S.T
COl_u«CTn
TO
I_IKM«-J<»
- Co^r»u6TS (tI «8'•-»<» wor SMOWI.J
Figure E-36. Blast furnace runner cover module,
E-49
-------
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 23'J
Module No. 2$ Sheet 2. of 2-
OESZCN DATA
DESCRIPTION 86f SMfj^Stffft DATE /*•**-7 7
8V
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-37* BOF enclosure module.
-------
Coke Oven Gas Desulfurization
Coke oven gas.desulfurization is utilized in the removal of
hydrogen sulfide and organic sulfur compounds from coke oven gas
so that it can be used as a fuel. There are three basic parts to
the representative system used in this study. The first is a
Sulfiban* plant where H_S as well as organic sulfur compounds and
HCN are removed from coke oven gas by' passing it countercurrent
to a monoethanolamine (MEA) solution. The second is HCN pretreat-
ment where after removal from the MEA solution, the acidic gas is
passed over a catalyst, and the HCN is decomposed. The third
part is the Claus plant where the partially oxidized acidic gas
is again passed over a catalyst and is converted into elemental
sulfur. There are a number of viable processes ~ for desulfur-
izing coke oven gas. The Sulfiban process is used herein as
representative of the class of processes available and in addi-
tion will remove organic sulfur. The efficiency of the process
is apparently adequate to achieve the limit of 10 grs H-S/100 scf
used as the LAER definition herein. The scope of this project
does not permit detailed examination of operating or capital cost
variations which result from fine tuning the efficiency of the
process to achieve 50, 35 or 10 grains total sulfur content. A
9
distinction is made based on Dunlap's work and is primarily a
matter of increased steam consumption at higher efficiencies.
The vacuum carbonate process requires additional reactor vessels
to achieve higher efficiencies, but the Sulfiban process is
78
reported ' to be capable of the 10 grain level with only an
increase in MEA recirculating rate, consumption and contact time.
See Figure E-38»
Conveyor Belt Hoods
Conveyor belt hoods are utilized in the prevention of
fugitive dust where materials are moved by conveyor belt. They
fit over the belt, and a suction is provided to capture the air-
*Mention of product or trade names does not constitute or imply
an endorsement of the product by PEOCo or EPA.
E-51
-------
smnua tmoi
K)
IIM
"on» |
CM
U
raincni
.-»
sj
-&
MS
4
,1
f,J
W
/•*
1
m
1
*\
r
rH
ITIU
1
.W
*r
-
l
I
*-«
1 -
1 1
.1
1 "
t
, I1!
nut* 1 ucuiwi 1
14
J
; - ' •
WTMn 1
:TMIM »«*•
lltACTM
cum mm
cuws nucms. cowmen KMUTCR}
^h
All
Figure E-38, Coke oven gas desulfurization.
-------
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Modui« No. I/O »h««t 1 _ of IQ
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION HOOP* Poi* DATE >a-a..-if
8e<--rs BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
cucuose. TO pxoN/ioe iso-7oo-*-p^
IKlORABr AT * U b. Ol»»Kjl»JCbS
Mi»J. Q. a 35o CP'-i /FT BKi-T voiOTH Po* 861.
~~"~^~~""" 5Pcao» < 1.00
• &oo CPr.
1
after wiOTV POR BB.~
ABOvt &C."
1000 OW
BELT
SHE
Q.,
>tOo
QA CCPM^
<2>OO
ISO
SIS
70O
&TS
TOO
Zooo
14-00
7.000
1 OOO
Figure E-39. Conveyor transfer point hooding module,
E-53
-------
borne particulate. The module includes both head end and tail
end hoods. They are only used in the conveyor belt system where
the material being moved must undergo transfer. See Figure
E-39.
FGD System
The FGD system utilized in this study is for boilers. It is
a package estimate and includes everything that is needed except
for a new stack. There are three options available. The first
is a limestone SO- absorber only. The second adds a venturi
scrubber for particulate control. The third includes a waste-
water treatment plant in addition to the absorber and the scrubber.
The type of system required depends on the fuel used by the
boiler. A modified version of the system without the venturi
scrubber is used for S0~ scrubbing of sinter plant windbox
exhaust gas. See Figure E-40.
BOF Hood Modules
Two types of hoods are included in the cost model; the con-
ventional open hood mounted in a fixed position above the furnace,
and the closed hood for suppressed combustion systems with a
telescoping lower section for mating to the furnace mouth. The
cost for a conventional hood was derived from Reference .19. The
closed hood was based on cost 30 percent higher than a conven-
tional hood. The cost of the conventional hood is considered
part of the process and is not; included in the control system
cost. In the BACT and LAER control systems, however, the cost of
the closed hood arrangement is included for the retrofit situa-
tion. See Figure E-41.
Water Cooled Duct.
Water cooled duct is used for the initial cooling of electric
furnace exhaust gas in direct, shell evacuation control systems.
As with many of the modules-, a broad range of design variations
are possible- depending upon site specific factors- and the designer's
preference.
B-54
-------
CUM MS
TO ATNOSPHEM
w
ui
ui
-M N IINUTWI
>»SlUOtt TO OISKMM. NMO
Figure E-40. B'GD module - limestone system.
-------
PEOCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. 5*? Sheet ___ of
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION BOF HOPS * DATE Z.-/7-
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
Figure E-41_ BOF closed hood nodule*
-------
Direct spray cooling is an alternative to noncontact cooling
in electric furnace systems, but it has not been used in this
study because of the potential of water carryover and bag fouling,
See Figure E-42.
Dust Handling Equipment
The dust handling module is included with dry ESP's and
fabric filters. It is sized on the basis of tons of dust col-
lected per day with a minimum capacity of one ton per day. The
module includes screw conveyors, bucket elevators, storage bin
and ancillary equipment. No wetting or pelletizing equipment is
included. See Figure E-43.
E-57
-------
Module No. GC Sheet
of
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
DATE
BY
DESIGN CRITERIA:
-r«!l
il:= -s ss.
' .1
i* "F
|l«--r=|l
i| i1:-— -»
•ii h -ii .
i'"" !'«*«— '!
— '.! n 'i
* L
DUCT
^ OC
LiS.wa.TH t ~
Figure £-42. Water, cooled, duct.
B-5®
-------
Module No. Sheet A of =|
DESIGN DATA
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION "Du&-r ^/X^QC..^& DATE V-13-lg
PROJECT NO. 3315 BY
DESIGN CRITERIA: R>«_
, ITS Te>a
TU t-kOUD
'TOIV. Of»S1ATS.O 'tout'^
C.I-WJT15.S
Figure E-43. Dust handling module.
E-59
-------
REFERENCES
1. Operation and Maintenance of Particulate Control Devices for
Selected Steel and Ferroalloy Processes. PEDCo Environmental,
Inc., Cottrell Environmental Sciences, and Midwest Research
Institute. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 1978.
2. Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement - An
Investigation of the Best Systems of Emission Reduction for
Pushing Operation on By-product Coke Ovens (Draft) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency OAQPS Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina.
3. Charged Droplet Scrubber-Prototype Installation, Kaiser
Steel Corp., Fontana, California, Unpublished.
4 . Operation and Maintenance of Particulate Control Devices on
Coal-Fired Utility Boilers. M. Szabo, PEDCo Environmental,
Inc.. July 1977. pp. 2-6 to 2-48.
5. McNaughtoir, D.W. et al. Problems with a Wet Precipitator -
Sinter Plant, The Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. Unpublished
paper.
6 . Varga, J. Control of Reclamation (Sinter) Plant Emissions
Using Electrostatic Precipitators. EPA 600/2-76-002.
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, January 1976.
7. Singleton,. A.H., and G. Batterton, Coke Oven Gas Desulfuri-
zation Using the Sulfiban Process. Ironmaking Proceedings
Vol. 34 AIME Toronto, 1975.
8. Sheldrake, C.W., and Otto A. Homberg. Coke Oven Gas Desul-
furization - State of the Art, 85th General Meeting, American
Iron and Steel Institute. 1977.
9. Homberg, O.A., and A.-H. Singleton. Claus Plant Performance
and Problems. 67-th Annual Meeting APCA, June 1974.
10. Ludberg, J.E. Removal, of Hydrogen Sulfide From Coke Oven
Gas by the Stratford Process. 6.7th Annual Meeting APCA.
June 1974.
E-6Q
-------
11. Massey, M.J., and R.W. Dunlap. Economics and Alternatives
for Sulfur Removal from Coke Oven Gas. 67th Annual Meeting
of APCA. No. 74-184. Denver, Colorado. June 9-13, 1974.
12. Steiner, B.A., and R.J. Thompson, Metallurgical Applications
of Wet Scrubbers. Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Assoc. November 1977.
13. Kashay, A.M. Armco's Middletown Works, Iron and Steel
Engineer. September 1974. pp. M47-M78.
14. Labee, C. From Sand to Steel. The Burns Harbor Story.
Iron & Steel Engineer. October 1971. pp. B18-B48.
E-61
-------
APPENDIX F
SAMPLE COST ESTIMATE WORKSHEETS
-------
Module No. G» Sheet I of IG
SUMMARY
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION GA« Cooi-»»-»CH^ By TTt A u S
DESCRIPTION
DIRECT COSTS
1. Equipment
2. Instrumentation
3. Piping
4. Electrical
5. Foundations
6. Structural
7 . SiteworX
8. Insulation
9. Fainting
10. Buildings
11.
12.
15. DIRECT SUB-TOTAL
INDIRECT COSTS
21. Field Overhead
22. Contractor's Fee C loV-^
23. Engineering
24. Freight
25. Off site
26. Taxes (5% x material)
27. Allowance For Shake -down
28. Spares
29.
30.
31. INDIRECT SUB-TOTAL
35. SUB-TOTAL
41. Contingency (20% line 35)
42. •* Interest During Construction
45. (Mid- 1977 Costs) TOTAL
DETAIL
SHEET
\A
\-L
7
• 1
13
13
IA
—
H
IS
—
»G
IG
-
—
IG
—
.MATERIAL
1 2600
ISoa
Gloo
t Soo
760
5lt>4-0
—
—
—
2^*7 1O
LABOR
1 I ZOO
64-0
3G4-0
1 i T.O
I5&0
11«f
Z^VO
—
IZoo
1 \ ll*
• -.-•
-
TOTAL
23 80°
Z,34o
10 34-0
-Z.C.10
2*40
6^34
*Z^Q
—
T.10O
5 1 S«4
I034a
6165
34 o o u
"?> ao o
—
146^
lloo
t&oo
560! 1 .
I015Z5 •-
10475
\3>0,000
P-l
-------
Hodufe Ne.. & Sheet 7. of
SUMftASY
PZDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION (
PROJECT NO. 33 IS ZSO.OOO A<
DESCRIPTION
DIRECT COSTS
1 . Equipment
2 . Instrumentation
3 . Piping
4. Electrical
5 . Foundations
6 . Structural
7. Sitework
8 . Insulation
9. Painting
10. Buildings
11.
. 12.
15. DIRECT SUB-TOTAL
INDIRECT COSTS
21. Field Overhead.
22. Contractor's Fee (la,*?,,^
23. Engineering
24. Freight
25. Off site
26. Taxes (5% * material)
27. Allowance tar Shake-down
28 . . Spares
29.
90.
11~ INDIRECT SUB-TOTAi.
15. SUB-TOTAL
41. Contingency (30% liner »t),
42. Interest During Construction
45. (Mid- 1977 Co*t») TOBHt
9 AST CoC
-P*A CX*J
DETAIL
. SHEET .
H
i-z.
8,
\ \
• 3
IV
»4
-
T
ts
—
«C
16
-
-•
t<*
-
>L_lf-*C
rt'^gK QIUCK
MATERIAL
54OOO
*^5o o
iTLo o
3\oo
7.1&0
\&<*Sa
-
—
—
™.
DA:
»C^ BY
LABOR
446oo
84o
^ \O 0
\ 0} i ®
^W^L ^ o
A^e»" C>
3<=,o
-
^ *\ Q O
1 4"ZT ^
rE \o - zc, TT
TR*^B
TOTAL
*?8 8°o
334 o
^L Co wO C^
^a *n ft -^
G48.0.
Zl^Swjr
3Go-
~ •
^^^0
34M?:.
zo^a3
3&ooo
So oo
— '
4 sac
1 Z.OQ.
i^ao
10-Z5
-------
Module No.
Sheet 3 of
SUMMARY
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION (£»A S CoounuG DATE \O-1<»-1~1
PROJECT NO. 33.1S 9.00,000 *CF-hA (.WATCR. (^OS **CH\ BY TRAuB
DESCRIPTION
DIRECT COSTS
1 . Equipment
2. Instrumentation
3. Piping
4. Electrical
5 . Foundations
6. Structural
7. Sitework
8. Insulation
9. Painting
10. Buildings
11.
12.
15. DIRECT SUB-TOTAL
INDIRECT COSTS
21. Field Overhead
22. Contractor's F«e (.\»^?u\
23. Engineering
24 . Freight
25. Off site
26. Taxes (5% x material)
27. Allowance For Shake-down
28. Spares
29. .
30.
31. INDIRECT SUB-TOTAL
35. SUB-TOTAL
41. Contingency (20% line 35)
42. Interest During Construction
45. (Mid-1977 Costs) TOTAL
DETAIL
SHEET
^
—
MATERIAL
^ISoo
T.S.QO
•2.0000
SGOO
3110
2.5-4^0
—
—
—
1 5 \ 76,0
LABOR
7S400
&^
-------
1* NO.
RMMKY
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION
PROJECT NO. 3315 I.OOO.OOO
DESCRIPTION
DIRECT COSTS
1 . Equipment
2. Instrumentation
3. Piping
4 . Electrical
5 . Foundations
6 . Structural
7 . Sitevorfc
8. Insulation
9. Painting
10. Buildings
11.
12.
15. DIRECT SUB-TOTAL
INDIRECT COSTS
21. Field Overhead
22. Contractor's Fee
23. Engineering
24. Freight
25. Off sit*
26. Taxes (5% x material)
27. Allowance For Shakedown
28. Spare*
29.
30.
31. INDIRECT SUB-TOTAL
35. SOB-TOTAL
41. Contingency (20% line? 35)
42. Interest During. Construction-
45. (Mia- 1*77 Coats) TOTJO.
<3^s Co<
fctPi*\ 0
DETAIL
• SHEET .
14
IZ
1O
\1
13
I*
\*r
—
n
it.
-
1C
!<•
—
16
—
DUIMG
^A-nea Qioeh
MATERIAL
222000
7.SOO
A7.OOO
tA^OO
GOC.O
Sovao
—
—
—
3372.00
DAI
JCU^ BY
LABOR
1C 6 000
8-40
I&7.OO
3"! 80
(Z'To
a,m&
12.00
-
AlSoo
Z541I8
-
E i 0 - ZCs -"It
T^UB
TOTAL
"5^ O & °O
3^4-a
40*2.00
»aT.ao
v& iSo
S8<^^^
I^Zoo
—
ao
264SiJS
056,3-1' 3
173^07
^03^C^tfO
P-4
-------
Module No. Co Sheet 5 of »Q>
PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESIGN DATA
DESCRIPTION
Cooi-««-r-\o»o
TX» t>e\/e
O«_»T
THRU coou.e.«. — 0,00 PPI-\
VAJATert
ARE WOT
GAS
COOUER
\
V
V
1
-H-
-Xh
•**-**
F-5
-------
£
"PEDCO ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
Module No. C» Sheet Co of »<*
DESIGN: DATA
DESCRIPTION £** COOwivao DATE 10-14.VT
Cw^-reR. QueMCi4iwc,\ By -n^uft
DESIGN CRITERIA:
1
2
3
4
ACF^
\>«4
C»O,OO 0
ISO, OOO
Soo% ooo
1 ,000,000
DIA
iM^e-p
4-'- 5"
"I'-o"
II1- S"
iS'-O"
<«AiS Vouut^e. ToT/kt. D»^
OIA e»«= ^c«M OP VAf»o« vouui-xe fM.-.eT
COOi-feR oo-r ou-r OUTU6T
ll'_ 4." \4^oo » 31.00 78/00 3-0*
t^-O* GZioo SSo>e»o m,vuo Q'- 1"
31- 8." IZ4-.100 Ito.oco Z34^oo &'-%"
4^,'-o" ^.4% 4.00 Z'iO.ooo 4.<2a,4«T> IT-5
I
Z
,3
.4
WATS, ft
VAPQt^.
I B /m i Kj
4-3G
I&I5
3G30
ttGo
RUMP size
AT tOoT.
\/APa(^
IO5
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No.
Sheet 7 of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESCRIPTION
COOI-.KJQ
»o-i.S--i7
( VS/ATC.IC
DATE
BY TgAvjB
DESCRIPTION
3 PipiMO — (.F-art. <*o,Ooo
P.^.UG Tweu. W«?*D€R.W
GAT-6. V//M-** t
Cuecu »
G i-ofet '•
Si*n«v« Kloxtcet
** / *«^
G~--« VAUVK G'
FuAWG«t C."
FiT"K»«is I"
I" I^T»f%i^»^ Q)
Pu-VM-t
SUPPORTS
STCi<^<»ji^r<,
FCO«J Qou''' VAUVC.
r^itq.
COWTC**. AKX. P'puft
"ToT/m.
<\ PAiMTlMd.
<»O. OUU AC-^rA U^iT-
Z So , oo o !• -
?> o>o , oo« i.
t ,000 , ooo «• ••
»
QUANTITY
At_P^^
Zoo
a
t.
\
10
1 00
I
3
15
4
T.
2.0
1
1
IVucotM
1 oo
looo
c» ooo
1 S o (» u
^fcooo
UNITS
FT
—
-
-
—
Fr
—
—
-
-
-
—
-
—
twee
FT
S.1=
S.F
S F
sr
I1ATIIRIAL
UNIT
PRICE
I.AO
31
4&
Co
ZO
5^3
ro.1
Zl
10
3o.
1 » 00
30
T.OO
1 i So
«0o/,a0
> « o (^
1. 1 0
i i a
1 to
AMOUNT
Z&o
zsc,
1°
C.o
T.OO
SI 3
ZC.»
So
tto
Ztoo
C.QO
Zoo
1 1 Co
3TT
I o o
C>T OO
-V.^ -
—
-
—
LABOR
MAN-
HOURS
3A
12.
3
t
10
3S
3
I
1C,
Z4
IG
So
z.
3
7.B
"V
'ZCio
—
-
-
—
RATE
•4
—
-
-
—
AMOUNT
3G-VO
7-Zoo
1 1 O 0
1 6. G '"'O
4(iou
TOTAL
1054.0
T.ZOO
^ ^ o o
1C. Soo
A I &00
-------
DETAIL HST1MATE
nodule No.
Sh««t fi of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION GAS COO«_,K,O DATE lo-is-ll
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESCRIPTION
V PI(»IM (l&o^oou IVC*1*
Plf.UO TV*".. ttCAOtft ft"
G">rf VAIMI » fc"
Gwayft ^<»L¥* «•'
Cult*. V*y" «. X*
FbAHC'f 6''
FirnMOt C."
SuPf*'*'^
tAAiM P>|tia« lo"
Vfti-yt «ov
Ft *»*«,» j lo"
Pi r TIM a i lo"
SMPp*n.r^
^ra Pipi»c
h"».s*.
Po»«p»
X
( VUATKV OuPMCJ-«ikJu^
QUANTITY
•v M»*'f>
30.0
8
1
t
AS
lOO
Z*
IS
lo
lOo
1
3
4
G>
1
—
IOO
A <->.«. M Z<
I.TOO
l"l I 0 0
LABOR
HAN-
HOURS
III
l&
3
3
45
TO
*»t
<*0
Go
»s
i
»^
3fe
I'*
ZO
S
«4
AT
So
GSo
RATE
14
AMOUNT
Rloo
TOTAL
2
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No.
-------
J
H
£>
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No.
Sheet |p of
PEDCp ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3115
DESCRIPTION
C-C.OU' »*G
»o"
to
10
lo"
14"
?4o
Ifto
I8o
G
loo
UNITS
Fr
FT-
FT-
Fr
IIATCIUAL
UNIT
PRICE
t^ as
». A-o
«O
7.0
G.3
1 fcoo
Sooo
4o
n
Co
• CS
II
AltOUNT
7. l 1 g
1 Roo
"^00
1 Boo
Cbooo
S oo o
ITo o
3ca
1 oo
1 1 o
IJVDOR
ttAN-
IIOURS
40
QO
1 60
l&
GG
24
'14
So
3o
14
IS
ISC.
RATE
AMOUNT
IR700
TOTAL
do 'ioo
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No. G»
Sheet II of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION G*» COOU.MC. DATE lo-tt-'l
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESCRIPTION
A £».tC.Tn.\c»v. C<*U,oou ACC
IV\.^.n. i.iettr
Sr^a^tn.
^IM.>X.U
CoM«*wr' (to* f- UL>inLi«-*Cr
' ou ppol*""^ &• W\ i j c
lt> Trtiw
4 Fw*tTn%c.*». (^TSo.ooo *cr
ttoro* t- 30-MP
Sr* a rc A
Su^t TX.M
COK*OV* ^" £ tO\rt-» »* f*
Su ppoft.1^ PO«vTt £, (V\lfc
7-»t-At
C>MAre« QOCMCM! BY TRftviH
QUANTITY
^^
7.
•z_
Z
too
/VucoyJ.
•\
1
T.
"L
•L-"*
A.-WOVM.
^
•^
-i.
•z.
Zoo
A^o~
UNITS
—
-
PV
-
-
—
rr
—
—
Pr
MATERIAL
UNIT
PRICE
too
0,0
Ao
».l 0
<=too
191
^0
i.qo
3ooo
4r4<=,
1 ZT
3 80
AMOUNT
goo
1 T.O
80
1 2.O
7. Ro
' 1 Soo
1 gOO
314-
I8o
3&o
34(.
3100
€> oo o
sno
TS4-
1&0
c^a
8&oo
LABOR
MAN-
HOURS
0
C.
•i.
31.
31
Bo
«;
K
•4
4<»
4o
ire,
3Z
Zo
10
^0
&8
Z^Vo
RATE
14
14-
14
AMOUNT
• IZo
«G,eo
33&0
TOTAL
1.G.10
4-Tfto
1 \°( Ceo
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module NO. t.
Sheet
of Ifr
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO.
DESCRIPTION
G*t COOL.MC.
DATE 10- Tfe
BY
DESCRIPTION
A £v «.»"«*.
Suj.TX.*
COMO^"- A- \*ji«..»Jtt
Su*»r**r-* £ lA.^v.
i
7. TMfTno^*MT-ATio»j
Ti«e«f»*cuu*«.t IWJTAU..
Ttwp. T««»M«»»».»-nn|
|t tcow-i*"- /C»MT-rtm.w»*
C««#'*<*''P C C<"*tt.
lip V S«pri.^
S<*rp»w.r A. f^»tc.
QUANTITY
Acr»V)
z
•2.
^L
T.OO
Ai_uuv*,
1
I
»
loo
Ifto
A,vuoct
ItATI.HIAL
UNIT
PRICE
So a a
Too
4^0,,
l&o/.o-o
AMOUNT
\QOOU
!•«» 0 o
Sou
1 3<
LABOR
MAN-
HOURS
48.
14
to
It
O^*
tT ^^
7.
1 1
• s
B
to
It
C.O
RATE
'
14
i^
AMOUNT
*n»o
a^o
.
TOTAL
.t^fco
33
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No.
Sheet 13 of
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESCRIPTION
Co o t.' »-j
DATE 10 .
BV TB
DESCRIPTION
& STa«J«.TOi»A>k. (.fc"»,o«io Ac«>
Pu*r**«*ii^ Si x loo ^
LAHO«K SO* K 18 */-
"Tor »\ k
6 Sr-«.ocTi*a«w (. xco.ooo 4
Pw«TPo«»«-\Ct) * >ft"y *• 88
L/sooi* 0>o K. lE4^
TOT AC.
C i TR.U CTX»n A t ^ So 0,000 AC
PtATo«.»-\ (j') KlOo*/- K ItO
LA oo en. 8ci «. IB V«
Tc.r/\».
^' ST«.«JtTXI«.«U (. |_<»0« .000 .
Pu»Toi«i^ (^tfioo'V! H ICo
(.AODitrt. 110 •» 'fcV«
TOY»«_
5 r» 0 fcj O Al-iov) I Fo oo
SAO
r^
n&oo
i oBo
r>«>)
-ZAooo
» A A.O
c^»«^
4Koou
•Z.» fco
?, PoMp»_ *
1^
30,
at
10 |
UNITS
LBJ
1 1
IRS
UBl
«-*s
L<5^
!_«<
I. "5*
TWAlNJ «
c.f.
C.Y.
c*t
^1
IIATRRIAL
UNIT
PRICE
l.oo
1.00
1. OO
1 . OO
1 00
1 . do
I era
1. ou
L
(io
Coo
C.u
C.»
AMOUNT
S V « o
SAO
SfcAo
n t,oo
»o 80
1 ft&Ro
7 A oao
I A
3c»o
«,ro
1 O 1 u
RATE
IA.
14
•4
14
11
• Z
>7
it
AMOUNT
•314
3ZTC.
-*4S1-
&~n*
I5uo
4-jro
TAAO
1 Z >Zo
TOTAL
4o
G4BO
1 1 1 C.O
• MRo
H
U>
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No.
Sheet M
«<•
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT HO. __3_m
DESCRIPTION
DATE |Q. xc-il
BY
DESCRIPTION
1 . E«iv»»f*^«H.OOW' *«.£»•* MM»T
— :•--.• -T • • i . - . •
ISO ouu i> • •
Sitto.tuo <• . ••
',o»«>. *»*«» '• *'
f ' Si^»yj««v*v
(•0,eOO #kC«=M\ OKHT-
iiof00ej •• „
S»ov«»0o » M
1,000,000 i( i,
QUANTITY
1)000
^O,OO*>
IS2,So<»
570000
A»-I_O»J<«
//
«»
•
UNITS
181
».»$
Lftt
LB)
>->ce
ItATFRIAL
UNIT
PRICE
.UO
.60
. C»0
• Oo
AMOUNT
/Zfcoo
54ooo
91 500
22Zooo
MVBOR
ItAN-
IIOURS
800
32oo
6fcOO
12.000
Zo
3«
5o
loo
RATE
14
•4
14
14
•Z
12.
17.
0
<^oo
IT.OU
;
TOTAL
.
zsaoo
It, 9 9o»
3 00,000
Z^o
2>to
&OU
»7.0o
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No. _<£ Sheet >S of Ifr
PEDCo ENVIRONMENTAL
PROJECT NO. 3315
DESCRIPTION
Q>og«-»c>4
DATE to-
BY
. ~n
DESCRIPTION
•U Oi/euOt>/\TIU»->S
S"Trt.o CT-U «. A v.
SlTltwl to«.X.
T*TAL
T.I OVCC.M«*0 C*50,ooo At^
'
r*u"
r
•f
u1'
TOT**-
t< OVtltM
-------
DETAIL ESTIMATE
Module No. ^» Sheet ><• of i<^
7
PEOCo ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION GA«
PROJECT NO. 3115
DATE »« »»• •»-»
BY T«Au6
DESCRIPTION
1\ Ove*Mr<*o (i,oo« o»« /
Jwsr. * P.P.M&
Ei.tt.crait.Au
FoOMb«TtWH«
Srn.wt.Tun.Aw
^ti-«~«.a«.
TOT*(U
H CMC«_OOW-^
QUANTITY
trw^
It
111
IS
•I
•x
• 5
«t
to
AckbtM A •
UNITS
&U.CI
ii
ii
*
raucx.i
ii
i.
H
»c 1.
llATi:l»IAL
UNIT
PRICE
Q llu
•• II
i> ii
i> ii
AMOUNT
-*• 84O Mi
4- l^oo u
4- 1 0 to ii
4- Id 00 »
LABOR
MAN-
HOURS
*
!3to
T.10
toio
>2.(iTl
loo
(too
|4*5»
iSoo
no-»
Sc.
&0,
RATE
i.ao
<* aa
5.15
^.so
4.oc
Zo
I*
z»
1.
To
AMOUNT
<0(,o&
•8S8
S1.AZ
^4-ffi
4-oc,
1 1 7-BS1
•f lo,oe«
f^«
e Meal
,
TOTAL
3.4 oo o
Jfcoto
^o uuo
A^. uuo
3»oo
Seoo
Booo
lloo*
I too
-------
APPENDIX G
EXAMPLE COMPUTER COST PRINTOUT
SINTER PLANT WINDBOX CONTROL
BACT TECHNOLOGY LEVEL
THREE PLANT SIZES
-------
01^ ITS
: «<'!. S I iv IH K AlKni-Ux S1KIF-K TtCHNULUGY LEVEL: HACF
Jit: .M'lMlLLlU^IlAb/YFAK
KAitTiCULATt
F: .4.5* Lnfc/lii'M .(le-d GW6/bCF EFFICIENCY: 92.3X
c"3.7l Li-.S/Hn
LuAc J'.:: l.Hod Lt»S/TL"J
i.(*ui». LMS/TU^ EFFICIENCY: .ox
LoAl/ J '!'•
A(.Li'".ArtLt : .Pan Lr>S/(L^. EFFICIENCY: .OX
IH.Ti L^S/n,»
(uLLI-LltP ^t»v 0;»Y: 'S.? TL.-''!b (i KY )
b-XnALKii I F ••• ^r K » i u«t : li-ii. t-
iif j..., F LI--.. : i bun u i». -» 1
ALt-^' HLI:.- i ss,i ji-. ti
L /1- K ' I 11 •: 7.o
(••M'Ct-ab ..A'I i-.i. .M.-1'A : llV'f--. (.»-i>
Ci'uLi"t.-» -A'• i K »\ TLUA: i.i. i,f[«
L'-L-t-i- hi'Llno- L.ij'l : Sib. ,-,(-/L XbOLlOS:
Cu'.M bHrf A I ] 1:1. :
V I. i •• I i '•' ' 1 >i. •* J"ir.
> J >? I t I. i ' J •:". T u
p Au fi i,l> I", n J V h
«V A S I I- .-, l\ I h r( K t- L, Y C L t J> Y i. 1 b 'v
IJAI ^t Kh
I Y MuK'l T(jk
K Hu-'r I..C- SrSIE;-:
FAN AKi.i Drrlvh E-LELlK
FEfcT OF ADuIlIbNAL f^uf I : I<»0. DlAN-tTt^: 7.
TfMAL HKtSbUKF !)Ki)F-:. Vu. Jl.Ci-.Eb
3 F AI\.S «' It?/. HH CALM SHAhh FA.\ CAPACITY: bO.x
li«b houses AT FULL HP: 7S'(»u.
Ifv'ia nOur^i) AT KtOuCtD Hh>: U.
HElfrhT: U. UlAMfcTtW: 0.
G-l
-------
(.API I Ai. COST :
S 1 IM T E K
TECHNOLOGY LEV&L: B-ACT
C AH AC. I if:
l.UU
.MO M-iicluN
i.b, VtmlUKl SC
*** mutt. i
E Ull I PN t:;!., 1 i"* I-A!F«1AL
li\S
t-LHLll-.Il.AL
(- Ull.al'H 1 1 Ur. S
S 1 rtl'C I H
Silt f
F
rii..-ll I; J1 I,.S
f- i, 1 1 i • r
(if H li I 1 h v. I-HT'K
7 A X L S
SnA~* h I i(i,\ r!
Sf Ant i
CIHM I I i tirj-t Y
l.:i»lKt-Ll Cu>l
**•
***
lu UUCLAHS
HluO.
1.1
G-2
-------
CAPITAL L i
UNlTb
SiMEr<
TtCHNULOGY LEVEL: BACT
: 1 .on
CATtM-f-'Y
. MU MILL!UN lUNb/YbAR
b.b. HLA'Lir' TYr'r MbT tL IMI i\rA 1 OK
t.Ubt Ilv uOLLAKb
* * * OJKtCl CbSI ***
i- I- K 1 iiK MA I tn 1 AL .5 / K K ? u 0 .
I.\.Sul A I J MI-. (i .
PM'IKIiVL L'iAli\'.., HU(.'.
hu 1 Ll; J '.'I-.S U .
f ..ji'l r • (; ,vl / '-ift 1 t- K ] A i. LAot'f b3'J().
i. I »(-L 1 CuS i aim T.; I AL
*** 'I. f-J I.' 1 * r L I L t' b ' *«*
F 1 h L '• i; v r K H t A i; b 3 U 0 .
ClM'' I "/,(" t iln S r'r H 3^30 ('.
I- 1,1, ii -t> >• i '-'- 0()UU .
f KP. J l-fi I 1 4uO .
OpFb J I K /.t -,-» 0.
I i X t- b
S f, A is f-1111,-. I-
S p1 A ht b 0 .
•I li.H.t wL * ItmiO.
1':^ J ht L I Cub I blioTi,! «l
r. bl
IfJbl A(. L A i IuN
AL
i 1
fe b 0 0 0 .
I nl
In HE 1 t
-------
" •
Ph"lH. TjVt LUATl.= li, iUOO.
Ml.l iLt' l.M,S II.
F.ji.l 1 P -t- .;! /••••& I I;** i At. L'-^t'w
l> I.vt- 1.1 t:...S i Jj.Jo I ,d AL
« * » I IN! !) I K F (J I L (i h 1 * * »
F 1 tt I' '..'vr H HC.A-II
T 11 •••; 1 K A l" l i.' r\ b H b t- o 1 y 0 .
f-.o, l' ct i- I.." t 7 1-0.
F ^ >• i u M I
|)^ F 5 I I «• *• JKI».
T *; X L M
Srl«K t DI...-.I.'
.I-LV 11
.•t'Tl'!«l
wl» lf-,S I ALL /•
liMA-i LUal 73uOi)().
••»• l"i.,Pl T MU-Fl?PH>-K 1.1
G-4
-------
HF'bF b: «4i'l.
L A H A C I 1 Y :
S 1 ;'H F x .,
. t> 1 y N. 1 L L I U N U.- N b / Y fc A K
UMTb
S1MItK
ThCHNOLUGY LEVEL: HACT
l.Oti
L.O. DuC.lrtl'KK
«** D
st-. -. I UK r-.A
i a I 1 i.i\
***
I t.h I
E L t- L 1 « I c A L
Ku^ivl'* 1 l:t.-.-S
.s } > J 'n.. 3
t.b"J 1 V:..l ,v T / ^1* I (• K j
' J ^ f- L ) COS 1 ijuo 1 !• 1 AL
*** l.wjl«tCT L (';
F IE L I" i.'uF h H
Cinv l^«,f. I I'f.S
t i'.' (•; ] fg t F " 1 i\ ''••
F K f 1 1 , r! T
"FFbl I (•- .'a.^i
1 A n 5
S n A is f- 1 > I ) A f':
Sh-A.vEb
i I 1 Hl-h r-L V
iM.'lKFC T C\iS I blirl ill AL
i^it'ufcsl ihi&ir:u ir,b i AL L A i
I DIAL LO-l-r
r*h I VI. F 1 1 r-n>! I iHl If K
1 "II *L CU.^r -•(] Tn «F I KilFl 1
'UEU - 100 M.
L U b T IN
0.
0.
0.
0.
I).
0.
0.
0.
c?7u().
IbuO.
a ^ u o .
18UO.
0.
o.
7 u 5 0 0 .
1 .0
1
G-5
-------
UMTS
SIN1F.K TtCHNuLuGY LfcVfL;
.bill MILL I UN
1...0U AAsT.tAAlhK 'W(-rvCj.b SYSTFi>.
LUS1 I hi UOuLAWS
*«* Hi KtC I CuS I *« •
Kf5
l 1 '«',rr> i H } *»te i
fr'LfClxKAL «dlUO.
FVIUU'IA T ju.vS aou.
S 1 <l ;•>!.':> 1.1TAI. 177o3uO
« « « I •'•. U 1 K (• C T C U -^ 1 * * *
P i tLn HvF*Ht A;J l
F •,.; I-vcr •*!..-.; • 1
h rt E i b r. I
or Fb 1 1 K l'.^!•<^ 3uu.
1 t x h i5 a u o .
L.'l» l^bT ALLA.I I'ljli I7o°u0,
i 1 "uL I lKLlt-'« 1.1
AC CHsl fejIn Kb
G-6
-------
C * H t I A L L •) S T :
HP.itfSS a01. s | M ] f- M A
L AH AC lit: . M<* MILLION
: b.OO L.3. OAVPfcrf liT. / M.
CATtGuK'Y
*** njwtci ci.:.si ***
EuH J Pt..(- ,» I IIK yA i F.h 1 A(.
1 1\ S I w 1 1 1- c iv l A l 1 1 ) i\'
HlHInd
K L I1 t 1 t» I C A L
Fi)lii>ji)« I | (ii. S
s i ^ I •'••!•.>)
r ;« 1 1 1 H .•! f N I / M A 1 c. * i ft L . L A i> I ' h
»** lN:).Iwti.T LUST ***
f7 J r L ' ' i J v F K ^ (-. A > »
f'ufj I -VMI: I MI- 5 (• cK
r I;IT i • Jl: i: IA 1 u'i
f- rr»-' 1 l?r. I
lit I- 5 1 I ^ -Mi> UOLLAkb
l).
0.
0.
0.
0.
u .
1 VJ « I.' 0 .
fa4l
1 u u o .
O.
0.
a 0 0 0 .
1 .U
1«?070U.
LEVFL: BACT
G-7
-------
Ai.
««•!.
MO MILLION
CATtGlMt
**» ni'ftci ci.'8i ***
FIJ.UI **»>.!* r i IK I..A if-ni AL
T i-.S I Kii'^t^. J A i JON
n-iM'rt T i OivS
•> i T t A 1 1 «v
I »3uL A ' l'
k C T J
ii iL'U.'ib
i ; i i 1 P .-' i- r
* * »
Ci.i'j 1 I- uf I viii S
t- (>,•'- j .^e 5 * i r,i;
f- « r 1 (- 1 . 1
uhl-M i >:
1 AXcS
SrlArvr OilY.".'
Cuf: I IljohKi
KL
1 I MI;
l 0-TAI.
I LOST * * «
tirul. I FrL J£
Uft 1T b
Slf'TEK
ItCMNULOGY LEVELS «*C I
LtioT Ir»
/ U t* 0 .
o.
0.
3700.
0.
0.
0.
7UO.
0.
1 0 0 0 .
t-buO.
iSuO.
uriuO .
? u * \j 0
17-juO
4UO
1 .1
42400.
Gr-8
-------
CAHI I AL CUbl :
CAPACITY:
.bio MILLION
l.Uv/
TA.S I
*** 0 1 H L C T C I, S I ***
l UK 1'iAienlAL
- fv 1 A I iLt'v
l j UuS
b I K'l'C 1 '.U *L
Silt » . ' i r\ K
I i'.SUL A I ] ii,-..
H.u 1 LI'1 1 • -!i.>.S
t wl« I t-r-h !x 1 / '•': «* I
I'lnKi. T C
I 1 '''I?
^ J AL L Ar Im
Sl .Si.'uTuT A I
«** 1 i-ju ] h'
(• i h LI' L'vt- KHt />!,
fiii, 1 k PI; i i '* S t- c t-
tr .'jhi'vt tt> !•<.'•
H r< h 1 U I . I
tl|-h o 1 I F «,''->
T A X t -S
SH A^ h 1,1 1 A r-
SH AK(: b
Lin.1 1 I •.<-* "WC Y
I l;u IhKC F- CuS I
i u 1 K K IE .*> P OuWI
I ill AL t. Ubl
^P I KUF i r MULf 1PL lEh
10 I AL LU61 ".'1 Jf» *t I f<
T L'lbl ***
luT AL
ifvbT At L A 1
UMTS
S 1 N 1 E K
S Y S 1 E f,
CObT IIM uOLLAWS
330UO.
0.
1 O 7 0 0 .
2/100.
1 h 0 0 .
0.
1?00.
0.
1100.
0.
1 h v 0 .
MOO.
3700 .
1 37UO.
LEVF.L: BACT
e! « y U .
67100.
1.1
IT
G-9
-------
aoi. SiMtK ft
: .MO MILLION
1.»'0 ftAlfch f-UfPlKt-
* « * o i K t r i c i s i * * *
I IMS! r»'(.l*"t
K L E U I »• 1 L * u
Ki.'iul-/. 1 10,- S
!j I wtjC I ilH A i.
Silt .vUKi*
I iMbt'l A I 1 1'..
HKiilftT ] Vi.
I J
I- .-» i 1 1 »•• ' ,• (• i . I / •'• A 1 c i< i A L L A L> I.M-.
«**
F i H LH U V I- K 'tt A
(; 1,1. i H tc 1 1 in :s F
f- •••Uii'T F t< l.vli
h n K i ••» r I
'"I- f- b 1 IF ". ti^fs
TrtXLb
t» ri A i\ 1 1 > 1 1 ;, '\j
S t- A K h b
CH"»1 Ii-C,t. "I. Y
i.-lhrȣl>l
*«*
I illbll'T AL
TALL AT
I I MuL I IH
UNITS
S1MF.K
(<
UULLAH5
uuo.
0.
0.
frl'O.
C.
i u u .
i 3 u 0 .
3 u « ' .
b U U .
7UO.
1UUO.
1000.
/uuu.
iOuO
1.1
LEVEL
G-10
-------
41' 1. S J IV 1 H K Ali\Jl>l>UA
: .*! i» • MILL lu'«i
*** I ) I •< C C I L' 1 1 S T ***
Euul **.- I ul '»i< HA I lit* I Al_
I IMS I KU"?r 'M I A I 1 UN
P i ' : 1 1 •• i ' >» T 1 1 1 , i -^
.S I K (;f I •.(»- ^L
Site >•..'- rt
] ...
H.I I LI) 1 ••:•,'•••
c vvU i-'.'-.r i. I / '<» I t K i AL L
L I A r i. I LuS I i>0ii 1
***
»** l;|.;u 1 «h L T Ll'/Sl
t- J h Li.1 1 1 V ^ .vit .^u
Cii'\ I i* AT I CM S P t-f:
1 1-. i- ) 1•JL^ K I -v'-J
Fit r !(>"!
•ir h o i I i- i'. u'Vn.
1 M XL S .
Sn A * I- i.i H., ••>
S*-' ft *»• b
r.ir-i 1 1,;-.!- CL Y
1 '<:.• 1 KtL I CHS I .-5! II-, I(, r«l..
UMTS
S 1 M 1i<
TtCHNULOGir
: BAC1
i F. A*
. l) S1 I N
dbloo.
0.
(>.
0.
U.
0.
1.1.
? 4 7 u 0 .
y 7 o o .
4 4 (.1 1; .
/ S u 0 .
1 7uU.
<4 0 U 0 .
o 7 H 0 .
o 7 u 0 .
'1 .5 1 u (i .
I'M AL L'-
Hr I HuFJ. I
1 'i I «L
i > U r< l KJ, ihAlMLl.AI.Jl.il-.!
-I
yul. I I HI It tt
vJi I H rtl- I WuH 1 1
I5u bHP)
1 1 4HIHI.
1.1
G-ll
-------
UM Tb
1 . 3 1 "! I F ix ;vl iNfj.bti A 5 IN T F k
..hill MILL HIM TuNb/YF. AK
IUIAL COST
I DM IN UOLLAWS
*«* 0|W-tCT CllSI ***
N I A I I u'v 1 <«0^5oO .
41.2UU.
AL an oo.
(. i I,M AL
S 1 1 h ;\ni.'«
F M.S,jLiJ I iii-M
M-M) I tL I 1 vt L";A-n>ii»
KV.I I L'M ^v>.*»
F .ji'l^'.tf. T/''.A 1 t.t* fA-L LAiH(ir> Ibrt7u0.
DJ-Ctl Co.Si S'Jo Ft..) Al. 312/100
**« lr;i>. r-iKu T HUM ***
F i EL'I) "iv t KMt ^i> 11 5(1 ot>.
r > <•" i H
-------
UPt K AT 1 '';i
CI I Y •
LAI EbUrcY
A A T F. w
tlKCTRIC1TY
o 11 A:-,
MihL
S i M E« A IuOb
.610 N'HLluN I U"Jb/ YKAK
UUAuT 1 f Y KATE-.
** * ul II
SJfMlEK
* * *
1 1
v b A L / t
TtCHNULUGY LfcvFL: HACI
GAL
ANNUAL COST
u.
GA-L/YK
* .3fluO/GAL
* * * UKt-.KA I Ii\iG I »MUK ***
I..JM-C I
Mii(- t- It V.' Ih J I'""
H /
1 /
H !t b / Y
nit S / Y
a> 1
*** HA 1 fv 1 t rjfli.ft. ^
o. h M S/Y M
^. hKS/Yr,
***
L1 1 r\l- U I L Mr i;.'!•;
fti^ I I- K I hi b
i I.I!- P L 1 L S
»,A I KK 1 KI- A 1 i'h!.
i> 1 nt L T I'f t- K A I I'nb Cl)b I
I '-.Mil Kt- L T i'rt*M I.M& CuSf
|II!AL Mt't.'K A 1 i M,- cub 1
uHt.K«T i,,,u L"sl l.M L/OLLAhb Pt.n
UKt^'Ali Ji, L.n.->r li-j uULI.AK'b Hl-n Iiir-j i.F HuS I CULLtCThl>
^i^r * A! J!-i-. I'KiT rb PFKCt' 1 uf- CAHiTAL CUSI
i";>1 ftl.l A Hi- J I i>'t IN 'Ahl-KS
^>»l I.-A Ihl- LIFE OF bYblt* IN Y
Krtrl HF.tr Id,g CMHAC 1 1 Y
37810U.
0.
0.
1 il
^ 9 i 0 (j
187700
« a u a « /
loa
G-13
-------
S I 'i \
LAHACI1Y:
tt.'Juu l.l-.b/ 1 U-'M
I.o/»u I r. I l»bot' luS/1
5 1 i . ? ** L'» b / r*i
L..A,. ]',:
A L L u ;* «i4 L H : . c •« u I. n ^ / K)
UN 1 T 6
S 1 M E K
403
TtCHNULUGY LEVELS B-AdLT
EFFICIENCY
EFFICIENCY
EFFICIENCY:
t K r-. A i' 5 I I L •• ^ t '->' fi I u K i. '
s(,r ••• I- L i-. : e rt«0»y i» .
A(. r '-' >• i i '.'. : il. jv'iMi ,
L/»- KA I U>:
«-f";l. Co5 .-, A I r *> r-Li1-'-!
A 1
A T
7 >) . I-
1 i>ii . h
! c> r S . b K
0. b*
.1
Ll>«.1*!it_ bYML" C.i.;F I'irOHA I Tut-;:
F A! A.'vii r»\ I v
UuC I •.•..)!«• r.
*A.SI^v. A H c.
1 VY i>*u J 1 TnW
Miif.VT.vl-, SYSTh
W A(«jn Uxlvt-.
OK" AOuJIIU'JAL i»UC I :
«•
lrib ruiuMh At FoLL
ii'Mu n«.ii!
STACK ntl(-nl:
UlAVtTfcK: 10.
FAN CAPACITY: bo.:
7V(»0.
u. OlAMtTfeW: 0.
G-14
-------
AL L'lbl :
: 401
IF* A I
MLLIuM
: i.Oo
CATfcGuHY
*** D
FtJiJlP»'> iv T MK N.A
livS I *iii-'t ''.' I A II uN
CUM * * *
AL
El F L I n 1 I. A L
h HUUl'fc I j ili.S
S I K I j C 1 LI •• A L
S i U .\ • ' f. *
J KJiuL « T i (i v
H«i) I KL I 1 vr. L,:I»* I 1 "ji.-
t'.: I Li' J "L.S
t. i . I ! 1 H ^ C .v 1 / ••"'• A I L W i A I . L A 11 1 ! n
U 1 i, (• i. 1 Li.;S I ii.ii TUT AL
* * * I *• I) 1 K t L T L i) i I * * *
i t L I- 'I
f .-,1. 1 i«t I" r.' I ••• I.--
f- K t 1 C- f I
1 1 h i- b I I K '."• • t • "V i\
T A X L S
»r-i AisF I; I!., i.
S r A K (- b
CUM JivSt'-L^
J .•',» 1 Kf C I CUS I i it n I I.I At
1 'i I a i. L'.'.-vl
Kl- I fijH I I M"iil. I I Kl I KK
IDiAL L 1)0.1 MlH Ktlk'uFJI
DM Ib
SIM EK
IN UOLLAKb
1800.
1 b 0 U 0 .
0.
j e* u o .
1 1 luO.
7 1 7 u 0 .
I -4 9 (.< 0 .
u V U i) 0 .
/ 1 uu .
IS/SIM).
1 1 u a cm 0 .
1.1
LEVEL: BACF
G-15
-------
DM 1 b
1N) 1 h" K
TtCMNOLUGY
CATtGuWY
S^b NILLluu
.b» HLAl'fc T
Iw UlJLLAkb
***
A I
H J.P 1
T ll*.\.S
I MH fti
h 1 [ L .Ml^f
li4.Si.il. .--.T JHI,
Hxli I t L I 1 Vt L"Al i
nulLl'J »L-'j
h u I ; 1 »' •«• •• . . : I / '•' - 1 f. K i M L L A ii I, h
L- 1 »«L L I t"M >>l'c>l t 1 fct
• **. H';l.i J Kh LT L'J
f- It Li- nvt»*-»t Air
C Of1 I f A I* I t)K3 P t E
h .'.-f; 1 -vi- h ix I .«:>
FKC mr-T
.ir V b-l I F .'.^;-
-------
LAHI1 AL
LUhl :
.'i: uf'l.
UM Ts
SIM tK
S 1 N 1 t K A 1
1.5/b N'ILL! UN 1 liN'b/tF AK
5.<>U FAix AUu L'WIVt I r» 0 ('1 - RnP)
K> LUbl IK
ItCrlNuLuGY
: HAC1
* * * n i ^ t f : i r u s i * * *
^-.f- i- T IH MA 1 r.n J A|
.S ) *uik-t iv I » I I UN
H c Li f H Ai.
(• (.'».;(> ^ f J |.,v S
.1 I •«' U I. 1 : ' n a L
Silt .' • • n f
] .-.Jiv.il. fc I 1 u •>
HK(: I (• L T J Vt
Hi I 1 L '• J •>'!.. S
h u H J P •• f .•. I / -' A 1 t K 1 A L U A b 1 1 x
u UI-L. I" Ui-S I vSlM Tul at
*** i f'U 1 K'F C T CUbl *«*
F It-Li 1'Vt.KMt Ai-
r 1 1 •-.' 1 « I- ('. I 1 1 « .^ F L h
t- mi J '.cl-.' 1 '••''
Fntil-r. T
iih h > I I h • .i'
S n A -\ h i i ' . '
Sf Ah r i
CU'- 1 It M 'vL*
1 ml rttL r LnSl bSittl i.T AL
1 :••: 1 1 wlr b r 1'iitv i Nil j Kbl ALL A I ]
KM knPl 1 MUL IIi-L IFk
l"l AL LUS.f /. 1 Tn Kf I KuF J 1
0.
0.
0.
1 u 7 00 .
i'.
I'.
1 o i) u f> .
er 7 u 0 .
c h v." u .
0.
i a u 0 .
n
/ So 4 0
1 1
; 7 o a u u .
7^000.
uO.
1 .1
1 b 9 U 0 .
G-17
-------
r «Ui. SJlN'lF-K >•.
CATfefrtirt-r
*** D
f.l-i.T DH NA
u^ti.l A I ItJf-;
J ill.-.S
s I Wi>C I
l'4htiLAl lllu
HrtOltl. llVL lUfl 1 | .i«(..
hii 1 L'1 1 "•-•'b
I1 ulilH-'-r i. I /'1A.I ew i A'L
l^lrrt-i.l TuSl ii
Ci)M w/«r I tli«
k- ivii 1 '-c t M I .<
l-KtlNM
*H >• b J IK 'A'u
T A> tS
Ci)»tl I uii^ iv l.
Eur iiu-si
**»
ALL A
1HL IfcK
"UNIT'S
S 1 M F. K
TtCHNOLUGLY
-.£u - 10U FT.
I flbT 1r» uOLLAki
1 **A» 0 »
0.
0.
«'.
0.
0.
0.
h 7 1 I) 0
00
0 »
O .
0.
l.b
-------
CAHIIAL
tllVllb
KHbkb: aoi. J»j.\ltK ,.li.'.)M>x SjMhK UCHMULU&r LfcVfl.: BACT
LAPACIIY: i. wb I-ULMUH ii.Nib/YEAK
t.tiy ,'. A'il t«A"ltW KLl tCLfc S Y S I F. M
hO LUST 1U UULLAKb
* • * p i K k C ! C u .S T **«
,1 ^n NiA I tK I AL
i-'t i" I A I J III-: 1 7 73MIO .
f' 1 H i iv (•• • 1 7 U t) .
E L F L 1 * 11 " t <; 7 I." 0 .
F»mr<.T J i,1. ^ hot).
S) k'lJl 1 Jr. rtL HoO.
S I I t •'•' IH ^ 10().
11. S u L /' I J "' > ? v> C .
?,<>j I »• L. T i v't L"- 1 i Ki*
'HJl L'1 J '"i'S
KuU 1 ^i-»-i'. 1 / -'K! I-•< i A|. LAd'iK 1HOO
|. T- t- I 1 TuS I bUnT ul AL
* * * i i;\t i . • 11 v t K H c A u t« u o.
Cur i *M; I t'tvs F tt- 11 uO .
f.jbi'-r » K] ,M, c1?*.'*).
F * f j (- -i I « 0 0 .
• !•-(• b i I e <-.u--.r- '-I Y a7oO.
li'1-lKE.L.I CuSI bimlulAl 131uO.
<\!l, ir.:bTMl.t A I ]uN 2.33400.
i U At UCM £bt>/ 100.
~.t. 1 KuFi J ^ul I IiM It it 1.1
G-19
-------
: «U1.
LAHACJIY:
SI nj If* A
1.375 MILLION
• •» d IK'tC. I fliS I ***
P" Hi-. T M- r-iA-i E x-1 AL
V SI WU"t !•: I A 1 lu.l^
Hl.Ju.
f LT.iU AL
' <.('A 1 IH'.S
SI WuC I iiti-Al.
S 1 1 t •«'•••«
I i:bnL u i j "•
HKM | tL I 1 ^'c ui-'^I 1 ;'i-,
rin I L" 1 'iC->
t u I • i H .- h m I / ••' i-T-'fc-k 1 A i. L 4 L- I ' r>
i • i • c r. u 1 C i > S I S « ' n T i • T A L
* * «• i >' •.' U 1
F i C L1' '• 'Vt- n"-' af: I I'1- . S
tr r, (•. i i T, r K i i i,
Frit'l'^'l
uh f- > I It ..i,-»
1 ».»h.S
S M A K F 1 . 1 1 , ''.'
-Sl-AKhb
GUI- I 1 i.(-.t M. Y
T L 0 b T * « *
LJ CuSI bl'nlolAL
UfMlTb
S i M f H
L U S 1 114
7 V .< U 0 .
0.
0.
0.
0.
I).
o.
0.
0 .
iut-
1 1 n A t
«< 1 o (> .
3 o 1 K 0 .
TtCHNULUG.*.
9 1 <* U 0 .
1.0
IbOtvOO.
6-20
-------
i AL LI• i»11
•U'l . SiWlfK .-.J.vi'mf'X S1M1FW TLCrlNULOGY LEVtt: BACT
: I.i7^ M I Li. 1 uf: ItiMb/ifcftw
1 . ;> v.' U P « C M TT h f) i\| I 1 11 h
>O H'bT It, UULLAKb
* * * oiwtr i r us i ** *
EulHlPivri, 1 I)K KAU. nlAL I (Hi I).
IK'S 1 HM">C ^ I A I I U'l 0.
HlHlu., 0.
hLtLl' I »' 11C I :) •• 61.
S i 1 L / 11« H
I Si.l M I i l'.\
H"'.l IH.T ) VL Ll'<« I l^lr
-s,j iLi'i '"I S
t- ,J'.l j P. > i. I / '\l. } L* i At.
i/J'-t-Ll CiiS) jUjJul/'l. f?U^UU.
K j hLi "V F n -'L AU
i\- H •<-i: i >ih s KLF"
t.-illivt f-r I ...U
I . I- I- b I I t :•<(•<<*
1 A. X L S
S H « i h b
I '»i: 1 N t L I C'U^ I ^
i u I H h E b 1 I) U * I ?" b 1 .'v S T A I I A 1 1 U i'%»
I P i AI L I'b I
M> I Mi,F 1 1 MUL 1 1KLJI-* 1.1
I -.1 I «L ti'bT ^ 1 I pi ht I iv(jr J
G-21
-------
Sl'-'lt* .-. JNinjOv bJf-. IFi< TtChNULUG* LE\*tL
1.57^ M i t L 1 u I.' T 111-: 5 / Y t A k
Ll'bl 1* t.iULLASb
*• * * L> 1 * r C I Cl-SI * * *
i A I lii.g 0.
Fl. fc.Ll* lutl.
)• l.'illM T i l'i»>l
S 1 Wi)C I UK AL ''.
S]lp ,.l!nf ' J 7(lO.
I iMCilll A 1 j i.t. II .
P-d! t(. f 1 VC LU«1l":i, )5«.M».
n.ilLi J'ii.S
L -Ji' 1 H •!(-.. 1 / ••'« T t. -i 1 4i_ L A'.-.ln.
Ti • I **' I i T I t i
ft f U ' L.ij.^> I ••>''n T i.' I A1
«*« -l(-i. I i»l- Ll LC.V>I *•*
F 1 fc L!» •-• vh f- h A H F 5 "
Ll»": 1 I i". dt 'VL T
i.:i.l*-fcCI .GuSI ilioll-lfcl 97800.
I'-IKw^nl t>urr,r*i, i-f.-bT ALL A 1 I i.i'. llluO.
.•c 1 I r*i,L I 1HI |>h 1.1
G-22
-------
11 AL
H^sLa: «4i»l. S i M I r K ATujind* S1 iv J F r< TtCHNULUGr LEVtL,: BACT
MlUULb'b: l.l'O AAlf-K HIiivrMN'u bYblt* l< JboObPf-1)
CATfcKuNY LObl ] i\ UOLLAKb
* *« i) i KI r i (. t/s i * * *
F. UIJIK-r.. ] . i,< MA I Fi\ 1 AL ?:>uuO.
liv.S I * i....,t i-. | a | ] U>V
I- L >• ('I r I >. A L
f 11'.'.-. I ' » 1 .! 11.. .S h \j 0 .
S I * i.M I !/f /'I 0 .
> j 1 L .' i - •< bin'.
I .-. ,> i. L " I j ,. •. l> .
Hit ii U u I i Vt. L'1" I I'H. HOO .
•M, It." I ' i^ 0.
I- i^si j ^ •• i. 1 / v i> Tr K j AL. L A r*l'f Sun .
i- 1 « t I I C'jS I M-n T 11 1 A I.
* * » L'^U Jitf-i-I LUol * » *
(• J L L. i < '' v f- h •< r A i' q b o 0 .
Cn;> 1 "'-(' I i-h S F r. t. c1 7 (M.) .
r .>.'(- 1 :*• p F n ].,. 'i vO U (' .
H tVh i N.I J
. I F i- h ,S 1 'Ht*'|i\lj J'•. Si T Al Uil 1 i.-l-1 aluO.
I.-H I ".'i -P I ! "-iuL i I i'l 11 i- J.l
I i. I A L L (' b r .vj 111 K fc I K i.'F J T 9 i 7 t1 0 .
G-23
-------
AL ui
UNJ is
S1NTI-K TLCplNULUGY LEVfrLt BACT
Y : i .
CATtGi-iO I fiai jj.. DULLAMb
**» 01Wcf 1 CuSi ** *
fc'uHIKi-»-., I UK (-.AlfnlAL llblUO.
1 '« S I Wu'-'t. l» I •'« I J l.l\ Ii .
P1M1 r. „ . ,. m
h L t L I« T i. *L . 0.
(• i H i '•. 11 u 1 J i • r > (, •
S I Hill. | u,. A i ,, f
S I i r \»r * (i t
] ,;.SuL« I Jl . - ('.
H»*il I h Ul 1 Vt oi--» 1 i I'.l. U.
HI' fl."i J.-S „.
P ,. 'I 1 K.. '• . I / - M 1 c K, I ML L.A., l-n. r>_h 1 /SOO.
r. ••(' J •' r >• f | i,., /bo().
H H r i i- M f ^ u in.'.
.'(•i-ri I i t .'.i^> a7ui'i.
1 •'•' t-:i o 1 y U .
hHA^tu•'•.-.!: /HuO.
S r- A « p ;, / 81) 0 .
f ij " I I u(,r i I Y
J •• L I n 11. j C.U i> I
M Ui«r5tl "u«lM» if- J> I At L A I ] t,.':
I I- I AL LO.vt
|-•^ i TrP j I r.uLI [KLH i. 1.1
Ml Tn r\h I Kuf 1 1
G-24
-------
LAHI 1 AL L'.ibl :
UtolTb
Kt-'bKs: «t>l. s|,\ltr< .M until, x SIMtrt TtCMlMOLUGt I_EVH_: HAC1
LAPACIIV: 1.5/5 Milling U'i«b/>FAk
luJAL L'Obl
CATtKlitM LUoT IU UOLLAKb
*** OlKtt'l CuSl **«
UUlKfh i.l il* ^.A^EKlAL ?l.
ni5TKUh;c I- I Al liiiv 1 / ^1 /UO.
i K 1 M, 5rt 5oO .
S 1 - 7nlSu(J.
I: :.!.; 1 ••»• H K I i,;j 1 0^(1 01) .
t-Kl-Jbrl aSlUU.
l . f H a H t- ••• > • x >\
1 A*L b ' , H]
Si". A r\ L "II,' ',' 7 r
CvJ-v I ) i;'-t M t
] -.i!]i
-------
b> 0 : UI'l. S 1 --. 1 £ rf /. 1 i^llod A S 1 M f- K T
CM-ALII*: 1.S/S Mii_LJ'J'\ 1 u^.1?/1 F A.K
Y rn.A.»Ti*Y • KAif ANUUA-l. COST tS>
***- u T J L J T J t b ** *
L>AL
* * L1 h r « t I I ., t. 1. £ ~11 i t< • « »
tlkClKirjlY ^*» -*'>Mr nc. ^,^ H/Yh i .
alt*-. u. *'L|"lb/1'pi' ' J> ^ • 7 2 u (•' / ''•ut1 b 0 •
t-1111. w . U A L / Y M 5 ,3Huu/f;fcL u.
u1 1 I* t L 1 »•• / H y . H l< S / T h
bdc i- •< V ] S 1 '. M l/^C. I"rb/Yn
««« AJ; it..A-»Lt f- .^Jh'HLlc-S ***
l'JKft.1 L««'*i-" I'O1*^. ^ll^S/Y^ i-li.Utt/Hr«
Sl'l^f .•' V 1 b J ' "' Ml^1. «n5/Yiv llD.n^/f™
^' 6 1 t- ^ I « I. .-> 1 0 3 4 I* U .
3 u r >-' t i r. ^ o^30u.
i, IMP I. I i.-rh .. .'i i i . :^- i'• • ^ I 1 5 B b 3 0 U .
1 'M '.• I * »: I 1 I' r r. -t A M «,'- (.: n S I U U tt U 1 1 .
iH't*al I M- I. "'3 I I-. !:t-i_l<»>
-------
b t iV! F h * L 1 -'M t- (i K N' «• t J I.' .M :
U "• 1 1 o
t'P.sHs: m< 1 . hj M l >-K A|..,I>L,(I> MMF* T L CniviULUli Y LF.VfrL: HACT
LA^ALIIY: a.iun MILLION luNa/YtAk
It
Li: A i. ]'• : u._ULFuw I) 1 U> I i.i-
L 1.1 A!/ l .: 1 . Hi; 11 Lhb/ T U?M
ALI.IM-M-'LI-: i .m.i) i.uS/TL-. EFF j c 11NC Y : .ox
<« "\ 7 . S V 1.1.- S / ^ h
li t I..-V' »C MK|1l Ir Jl
l.ii^ii j •': . r1 a V.- l • • i» / 1 i; •'-.
flLLi.. .'"i. f : . c^u L-.S/K..-. F.-FF iCltKCY : . IU
p1^ . i' I L t'S/ HK
l"!Sl Cut Li-L I t.'1 !'il- i'6>: 11^ ll'1' t- (L KY )
I r -1 ''i> 1 ill- >•'" i.i'.ic. :•>.»: iD ,r^. L-(•'.>'
Li'nLlvb v. A I F i> rLn'-I " • l-F-';-
.MIL I us 'HUT : bua . ,-u/ L
V.IL iYjjir.'•• i.L'! -F- l"u'.'<•: A I I '.'••':
!/(• i-. | I 11. I Sl. ^ • If nt- r»
1 I ."> I hi J '• i -J A 1 u^1--
*•«'.• 6 ( ' ' i) i« I v c
• >i.r i -...i^-.
.'. rt S I H .\ .-. I r c. K c L Y L.L L 3 Y 5 T t N
DA-'>'r»»S
i'K AL I I i "••» -I I I I.IK
».^SIt- .',»-I L-? KcTuK... SY^Tl.'-'
* * Tc w Hu'-i- 1 .•.'". S-Y..^ I h i-
FAI» A.V.I- UnlvF t-LFLlKlLAL
FKtT l)(- Al">ul I lu-JAL OuC.i : eM'O. l»lA"hTtK: 12.
TillAL PKtSiJiJHL !>«t)H: 9u. K-CnEa
3 FAi-.S "i bum), hr t ^Cri bHAKF. FAW CAPACIlt: 41 . X
^'t ! J :•>(•, ntnitVb t, 1 FULL HP: 7<*'»u.
k A T j \u Hi^o^ij AT KtUuCti' HHZ U.
hF.ll>nT: U. UlAV-tTLfr: 0.
G-27
-------
UC-'1 I *
S1MFK ttCHNULuGT LEvfcL! BAC1
: cp.l4ii MlLLluiJ 1ulvb/iF. AK
l.'.'U b.o. VtMHKl.Si.wiihr.i-rt
CATfc.£<.''t LObFIi, DlJLlAkb
*•* ') I KtC I Ci.'S I ***
FUI.I I P.-'t !•• I '»•» i».A I r i< J »l. t> 1 i> .5 v; (> .
luSI*Vijlw1rN|ftllo^ ]£<4Uli.
HJKlMi, IcVi/O.
r. L r C 1 -< I L * L
!•• »jl '! .11 •« 1 1 i "r.-S
S I M-C I "r, AL 1
*» J 1 f. •.".«>•
l.il-iiiL/ I i' •
H»itil I t L r 1 V r_ C'"- ' i :• I-
'!•! 1 I M J Ml-> . 1
'. u-111 * (•; r / •••• i. 11 ^1 A i i. A f, i: s . 1 y l h v (>.
i, I-r-i. I H'tS i o-.J:: I .i 1 ..I 01 7
« • * i I • i .• I *• t- L f v. i' .*? 1 ***
r !<• i ::!•.«' I •.'•• b 1 v!vy u .
F •-. h I i>i' I o^u " .
i'H !••;>! I h v. L ,,'A Pi 1 uO.
Sn4nti-'.'.-.\ P71UO.
S K A n p :i '? I I IH l .
(.0': I 11- '>L '»(. * 1 "-Ml yf».
1 '. 1 K K t ^ 1 ifuH-l IMI> 1 f-b 1 AL. L A I I {ji\
I " I * L (. ' t •>• ^ '
r'K I « Or l 1 .-.-ii| i TKI.U i. 1.1
I i M A L L i.i if .v [ J n N f i K u (• 1 T-
G-28
-------
LAPI UL uibi :
UM fb
Mi-1. S1ME* rtluI'LK-* S1I\'IEK 1LCHNULOGY LEVEL: HAC1
IY: £>. lun "11.1 in'. lufv^/U'.A*
Mii'ULEb: l.'.H, ^).0. ttLAnh TYPt N'Jbl ELlMli^AH'K
CATtGU"Y L'lbT JIM UOLLAHb
* * * I' 1 *t C I L'l-S I * * *
EuU]H;-iFul •)« .IAII-^IAI. 7y«liO.
11\ i> I >i LI '•-. t r • I A i I u '•• <•: '•* o 0 .
F- L P. C I * 1 L «i b u 0 .
F'iii.ii»l''v I 1 !'.-.•> dOOO .
S I i 1 3U'J .
"U I L i1 J 'it'i >' .
r u>; i r1 < ;t. i. I / -11* I t- * I A L L A.n(!i< o t*m>.
t'J^ti F C;>S1 suoliilAL ll**Mu(i
* * » L'ViJ 1 n t L T L I'b 1 * * *
F 11.LI> i'v F I.-ML Aii
C i.l'J 1 W MI? I i in S f r_t
t v1- 1 :.t f r I .,•; plM'O .
F«F J Gn I £?4l'(' .
i I r F b 1 I »• '» I •%' r\ I.1 .
1 A x t s M b u u .
i)« A rxKl'l ).-•-. tlUD .
.bPAM. b 0.
f.(.>••:} 1 ij'^r M Y 1 I t?\)U .
1 ' •>.. Ilrf;L I C.UO 1 5ll!) I ii I Al
1 - I t: « E.3 I i>uKli-.b 1 r.-o't ALL A I T ir !
I • I AL Li I.VI. 1 H / 1 uO .
r,'h IKUF I I r^UI T I Kl. ie f 1.1
I •) I «» L L !' J> t- .'i J I M r< fc
G-29
-------
SJUltK AjM>olM SINltK TtCHNULUGY LEVfL: B-AC I
<2.140 MHl.Iui" U'l^b/TfAK
5.UU FA.j Aigu i.-HlVfc l«MM»l- RrtPJ
*** i > i R t r i (jt'Si * * *
H J H J I' l- 0 .
F.LKL1 K luAL. 0.
FiMnvuj: t HT J»L lc:7uu.
>» 1 T t /.i 'i-1* it .
] uh'.il. *> 1 A '1:- '.'.
HK''!(•(.. I ivt L I'1» 1" !.'••! i> i4u('.
r Ull 1 t--ih i-:T /'•'• n I (• ^-i.Al L A l> I: K i?l4vJl>.
rlni-1.1 f"ii!>-| ai'nl ii 1 At. 4Su8i.)0..
*** I *• U 1 r» [ I, ' L '' I ^> I ***
Cli^: I *• i.f. I !'r. S FLfc 1 1 1 vj().
c •*(.-> i '<»_ t:: * ! -.;i c;7 o 0 .
f-itf li^nl 5?0(».
I ^ (• b J I t- '• I • "< »\ 0 .
1 A X L S "< S 5 o 0 .
S ri A i\ h t' i \f A a e; 7 u 0 .
hKAKtb 0.
C JiJ I I i'lUr'-U. f l^iMud.
A MflKft. T CUo I bi'uloT«L
jMe^fbl l>uKHMi, in-hTALLAl InD
in ML L'->-r Iia70ui»»
K+l*iiFjl !-»uL I IHI. Jl-r* 1.1
I" I AL LO.Vt .'. I In k^TnuMT . Ia8l7o0.
G-30
-------
LAHJ1AL
S I'M 1 t K ,vl i
i».i*u< MILLION
* * * t.i I * t C I C u S
EtJU] HMh uT I IK l-'.A \tt J fc «
bbv 0 .
bUuO.
0.
!n 3 u 0 .
0.
0.
1.6
G-31
-------
l*f-g r-3 r «*('!. M'xli-* .vlNntlt'X SlMtK TtCHNuLOGY L6v,-fL.: t*A-C I
.-. AM I t.-.M 1 1 -K K.tCrClb biMFi«;
ins! li*
* « • I > i K t (.' 1 C 1 1 '•) I * * *
Pi -'I. ,»1 ''^ i-.A
hlir r r- I 4 I ]i..r«
PLt-UThll. »L 31 It tl.
FuHul) A I 1 1'-.'i 7ul> .
s i K u r i 1 1 1. A L 1 o v/ o .
.S 1 1 c i- '• 1 1- H 1 u 0 .
1 .;StiL<- 1 I I... 3iK> .
i^Ki'in. MVL Li'A-riivt.
•Kill I' I':..'*
i- uli iH:-:h ;.l / •'/. I c * I Al. LAii'l.K .
* * * 1 it.- ]:-ti.T L^'bT *** .
*•' 1 t L ' > ' i v r r. • i r 'V i = ii7uO.
i.ii->! I V Ml I Uc ^ F t (• MU»I .
t- ••.:•. i n I "• 1 i -j db>'0 .
F h h 1 N n t ' SOU.
•ir-f- .^ I 1 F- / .cr> , 5lM' .
1 « XL a ; <•>!•(., .
Sn AivF ini,. •• . SoO.
St-'ftNtb
Cowl 1 ;':iit ' -L >'
JUujM^ol Pi i. SI M'iHU.TAl
]?:lffhal imVif-.^ i».h1 AL LA I lu.v
1 1 1 T « L I ( ' itl
Kh I i^uFl I f..ul I 1KL1 t rr 1.1
I (HAL LOiy-T .-ain np If or 11
G-32
-------
: A h-11 A L i." b 1:
CAPACITY:
I . S 1 :j I F K .% I uOriUA
?. 1*411 M1CLIUK TuMb/YtAk
S.OO C. vS. liAMpf M bl. / FT.
ii,'> CUbT
IKtCt C i.' S 1 ***
UM Ta
S11\. I fc' K
U.CHNUCOGY LfcVEc: BACT
l-\iS 1
* * * n
.)* .-.A
4 I 1 U"\
t L H C T u T 1 A i.
K"i.,ii.MliA I II tjJi
h i KuL' 1 Hh AL
S i I L f i ' >'. *.
I ijM.il 1 1 i •••.
^'-. ii I c L i i vr L'.i A I 1 '.-i.
.-!L. 1 l_i">l.'l.->
H ..* 1 1 i u '•• f- ' • T / ••' u 1 t «' 1 A t. L A M ( i K
!>Ir.t.L I CuS I Mini i, I AL
*** I »j u 1 K h c T CO
F-i&Ll'llvhrticft1)
C n'v I *•*(• I ON IS (• t*-
(r •v:l:- 1 '\ t fc n 1 A^
F n t" 1 'j in 1
1 1 h F i> I I f. ' i.i --1 N
T A X L -^
S '1 A K 1 1 ; i > ». '-.'
S f A * K s
C;J'M i 1 1 -lit. HU Y
.IMF. n-Pj>T
1 n I AL C Ob I'-
ii t I Ki.;F 1 T Mt>C. \ IKL It
I ;' I AL Lt)6l Mln KE
atinTi.il ML
i, JNbT ALL A I ]
10 0 I (Ki.
(I.
0.
0.
0.
<>.
0 .
0.
0.
0.
1 4 lu 0 .
/ 5 u 0 .
1 000.
a / 1/ 0 .
0.
O ^ U 0 .
I 1 «4 ? U 0 .
f> y 9 u 0 .
O '4 U 0 .
G-33
-------
S 1 >J I L ; ' I iv S
(• ' .' ' i 1 K ^ J i. T / •' (. 1 r ''' 1 A L L ^ !.' f ' "
ii I f hi. I f. i S I 5'i.j 1 nl M
h U
t- 1 t |_ I • l ! \, I- » H t. .i , /
C 1 1 ;•. ] h i. (; i 1 1 1. .-> f-ct
>• ;-i (.1 J \ •. '", h J , . i'-,
lit- KCJ i I >:
I «. » r S
SM Ar H i.ii.
i> i- A >< r. i>
rui1 I I. •••••i
J'«L.
. i f i\
H ' I A |. (. 1 1 u. t-
Kh lKl-1- 1 1 SO, t I I PL It n
* * *
UN lib
b 1 iv, 11 K
/ 0 y 0
0
0
i 7 u (;
0
u
7 u ti
u
u r u (:
-
-------
API14L CiibT:
uMITb
PPbl.b': 401. SlwlFn V'.1M>KI>X SlMt'K TtCHNULUGY LEVtt: HACT
L A p A c 11 Y : c'.iuo MHLJU'J luNb/YEAfi
M.)uUUtb: l.UO rtAbTt /.A I EH hMUhU SYSlFi"
L,*Y LObl IIM UI'LLAKb
**« Dl^LCI CuSl *»*
kivl OK i-iAIEKlAI. hSH<().
] ,\j.S1 WUT TV I ft I I u'^J 0.
HlPJ^b 3l)Suu.
bLHLTfU'L a s h o 0.
F iiii.'MiiA ! i H..S d^uC .
5 I *i)C I I'f A I ' U .
.*> l t r. .'.HP r . d 1 un.
1 II',. ().
ll-LTiv'r. Li'uli 'Jti 1^00.
rull.l'l '.'i.o ''.
C .jUl P'-.t-jl /VA1 t^i -\L LAti(-h C'^IMI.
!• I hM. I' L\.-b I Sl'ol til A I.
*** 1 f •: U 1 « C L 1 L U 3 T ***
FiK.Lf.' I'vtrtHtAi- layuo.
i:nf/1 w/>C i in- s F t F l u«uti.
F.'vM.'.te^ J ••.'•'- PbOuO.
liFFbllf/.u^r . 45 u 0 .
T AXk S i^nO.
Sl•1A^tl.)!l.•.!j /ai/0.
S P A K F b / 4 u 0 .
i 1 l^Jut^L Y 'OOUO.
]NulKfci_l CuSl
I--j|FKEbI JuKJIvii INbTALLA I Il;K 1 -4 1 U U .
i ii i AL ci'-s-r . cr^ibuo.
K(- I Ki;F I T N-ULl 1 PL ItK 1 . i
Ailh KtlkuFiT
G-35
-------
UM1 o
MOI. Si.Jit* ftliMlit-dx, SJN'IEK TtCMNuLUGY LEVEL! BACT
CAHACHY: c>. \ u d M 11 i l u>"
M)UULEa: 1.0^. »AIFK HIH- f-'lf-i,. bYblt v (<
iW> tlJaT ] i« uULL AKS
*** !>iwci:i cu.si ***
Py.b i.-l MK ^:A | tw 1 AL
I i.SI ItU'-'-t -M I A | III..;
PIPiMi layoO.
hLtL 1 f ILAL /rtl'd.
f- Ulii.l'f 1 1 H.vS 70(' .
Si I t t.l!l»i\ Sl»(. .
I I.SOL * i i "•. o.
HKllf-ullVi. L'tal li«l. I (K'O.
mlL-'J •'-> 0.
t i.i I' 1 t -• t- i. I / •',. 1 L r« I ^ L L A n (. n b U 0 .
L.- I i> I- L T C u S I :j 11 rt 1 o 1 d L. h (j 5 U 0 .
* * * 11« U 1 * K i. I t. (.1S 1 * * *
K iCLI' i'V I" KMt f.L- b'400 .
Cu 'I i « M(" I i>* ,T f c t i^uO .
f. ''- b i '•: t h h I , U 4 U U 0 .
OFF oil E *..«r 1 OUO .
TA*t>> 1100.
Shi Art in i A'- 17 (Hi.
IM;C\LY l«:loO.
i.,i-h..f-L r CuSi
11.- i A i L '..i S f • 1 0 1 0 ii U .
KF I i«iih i 1 f-UjL I 1 PL 1 h •< 1.1
|;IIAC Lf'CjT -*lTn KhlKuMl lllloO.
G-36
-------
: A K I 1 A L L U b T :
u iv J T b
: «('1 .. S1 '•• i t K I'v Ii-.[infi> Slultn TtCnlMULuGY LEVEL: tUCl
CAPACITY: P.l^c- i-ULl. U.N inub/tF**
S.ui/ t AH Aul> uK'l'vh tltCI'VlCAl (> IbO ti
"Vt CUbl Jlv; UOLLAKb
I'J^uCI t'Ubl **«
] i«S I t^u'-'c f< I A I I U• t- 1 !.'•'-. / bO(i . •
I- K t- i r, r I e: 1 f 0 .
i'c t a I i»- ^\--t* bOuo .
I A x r S
Sr A|\F l.-iirtf.
S K A K I- i>
t\Hv I I r.'.f-C ^
IMI]KF.L I Cu:SM -bkir.K.TAl
t-- i t'bi ALL A 11 UN
I :' I A L L 11 o .1 ' .
*f I KnF I F Mul. I IHL If-n 1.1.
I'MAL C'Jbl «lln KhlWuFJl 35/8UO.
G-37
-------
' I AL
UMlb
KPbfca: «4i'l. S i i\i l r K AlivliBOx S j f. I f-K TtCHNOLUli Y LEVEL? HACI
CAHACIIY: 0 .
t- uiii;p«»r 111,.;>
S I M1111. I ' i n a |_
b'ilr. /.•••*!••
1-v.iiuL * I J »i. 3uO .
M"n I (• L I J VL L'i**-Vi>u Iu7o0.
!• i> i M w'-; K . 1 / v <« I r ^ L AI L A n 11 •»
i • i « (• I. T C. U 6' I- .'5 U r T i: 1 A |
* * « 1 '»i.-' I u' K l. T C I! b T * * *
F i hi •'• :ivr ^^>-lt. Al- 1 Mb^0«).
r .-.ii1 j ' c " " 1 :• •'- J 2t>b vd .
f'Mt. I b"l S /«OU..
t'f- F b i I r •.: (.'-ir. iS^bL'O.
T A x t ri ^ o » u U .
S n A c. h 11' l.-.. j M l b 0 0 .
:*(3 i\ai ALL A i ii
I !.' I A |. |_l.'3L.r 7127 lUU
mi AL L:^r- ,, i Tn i«(-
G-38
-------
P t W A T 1 *: (, C (' b 1 :
H P a I- 6 : m.u
UAPAtI I Y :
LA I tbUKY
*\ A T £ K
tLtcmicn
i>U AM
Hid.
l.i K 1 1 5
S 1 M t K
1 :>) J c K /. I ig (!r> 11 A
£>.1«U Ml I L ll< N 1 U'.'b/Y E- AK1
Ui'flK'T 1 1 Y K A I F
*** U1 J L J T i t b «**
irMde-b. VL-AL/YK *
K i, H / Y h ^
u. MLHb'/Yk * i.
U . G A L / Y h i . .5 H U i.' / f; A L
TtCnMULuGY LEVEL: BAG]
ANNUAL CUSf IS)
UbbOu.
10
U.
0.
i ? 11- r L T
a I.! H I- W V i S J I':
*«« Orb K A 1 ] i-.T, I A'-!rt S / Y »\
4 r 9 <4 . H K ti / Y T
1 i . U 4 / H K
1 3 . t>4 / >in
bl'Kt- w y l b 1'..' .
^: A I F K ] AL ^>
b • i r- H L 1 t- S
/."IKK I K t. A 1 ^ t I'J
U I nl(. 1 ijKl- Kill ,;.(,- CuS I
i f'Li I Kfc'l. I 'HtKAlliMi; CvJ.SI
i 'i I AL Ut^t- K u T 1 KI,. (.",•) T
A 1 1 i.U, L'lbl I .j UlILl Akb Ht H I Hi. KKLC'UC I IUN
Atl'i^ L:IO^ T--
o p F. R 1'n. uF DuSI COLLtCIEU
As
nh f.
CuS
t S I 1 "! 0 I t (.' I 1 t- t 0> b Y b T t ^ 1 IM Y t A k
KWM PFK III:. C.APAT 1 T Y
2 4 0 ti (.' U .
b 7 B U U .
3 0 1 0 0 .
l.lfl
-383. 5«
31.7
104.
15.
20.7
G-39
-------
MJ AI-. AL*i> 1 Sa *
11 (•• i r i>
,: ui.'i. s i -V, i (- * .-.i.MiM'u Mult* TtCHNuuuGt LEVEL: HACI
.*•! i?
LAHI1AL C U & 1 = 1/1/3.^KAMtClIl)
R= l.UUUU
= i /15\ .eiCAPacn t)
K= 1.UOuO
.-** »• *<
'.< A T i :•• it I i > ^ I = « 1 3 b . 1 t C i. »•' »•. ( 1 M (
KS. .9973
1,-I^i-i.r I.I-F. I.AI] .•; tusi = i-.. /... I. (i.-ir-i. 1 M j
G-40
-------
APPENDIX H
STATE. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
-------
Introduction
There are twenty jurisdictions in this study as shown in
Table H-l.
Nine types of regulations were considered to be important
enough for graphing or tabulation. These fall into three cate-
gories, Particulate Emission Regulations, Sulfur Compound Emis-
sion Regulations, and Opacity Regulations. Table H-2 shows the
nine regulation types and the categories into which they fall.
Farticulate Emission Regulations
A particulate emission consists of finely divided solid or
liquid particles being introduced into the a-ir from a source such
as a stack. There are three types of particulate emission
regulations.
The first Ls the Process Weight Rate Regulation. This type
of regulation assigns an allowable particulate emission rate in
Ib/hr to each hourly rate of throughput. It is generally variable
with respect to the finished product rate and for that reason has
been graphed for. the purposes of this study. See Figures H-l
and H-2.
The next tyjpe of particulate emission regulation is Allow-
able Particulate. Emissions for Fuel Burning. As opposed to
process weight rate regulations this bases the allowable emission
rates on the firing rate (in 10 Btu per hour) of the boiler. It
assigns an allowable emission rate in pounds per million Btu
fired. The allowable emission rate is generally variable with
respect to firing rate and is shown in Figures'H-3, H-4, and
H-5. .
The last type of Particulate Emission Regulation to be
discussed is grain loading. .This "type of", regulation gives a
maximum weight of particulate matter^ generally in grains, to be
suspended in a given volume of gas, generally in dry standard
cubic feet. It is generally applicable to both process opera-
tions and fuel burning, but is usually constant with respect to
exhaust rate. For that reason it is tabulated and not graphed.
H-l
-------
Table ll-l. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL JURISDICTIONS
T
K)
State?
01 Pennsylvania
02 Ohio
03 Kentucky
04 Maryland
05 New York
06 Indiana
07 Colorado
08 Illinois
09 Texas
10 Alabama
11 Utah
12 West Virginia
Counties
13 Wayne Co., Michigan
14 Allegheny Co., Pennsylvania
15 San Bernardino Co., Calif.
Cities
16 Houston, Texas
17 E. Chicago, Indiana
18 Chicago, Illinois
19 Gary, Indiana
20 Cleveland, Ohio
-------
Table H-2. TYPES OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS
Particulatet Emission
Regulations
Sulfur Compound Emission
Regulations
Visible Emission
Regulations
tc
Process Weight Rate
Regulations
Particulate Emissions for
Fuel Burning
Grain Loading
SO- Emissions for Fuel Burning
SO_-Concentration
Fuel Sulfur Content
H-S-Concentration
Primary Visible Emissions
Fugitive Emissions
-------
re
100.0
10.0
§
1-P
P°ttN'T HAVE THIS
MAYNE COUNTY
|tENTUC|CY,
TfMS. HOUSTOB.
S^M QCmiARDINO COUNTY •
MARYLAND-
EAST CHICAGO. ALABAMA-CLASS | COUNTIES. COLORADO'
{NOIfiNA ALOB AHA -CLASS II COUNTIES CHic»Gp, CLEVELAND, GARY •
100
1.000 10.000
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE (lb/hr)
100.000
1.000.000
Figure H-l. Allowable particul^te emissions based on process weight rate
-------
100.0
£ lo.o
..*"
en
tn
fi
1.0
0.10
PENNSYLVANIA AND ALLEGHENY COUNTY
SINTERING-WINDBOX. SCARFING
STEEL PRODUCTION
IRON PRODUCTION
WEST VIRGINIA
10
100
1.000 10.000
PROCESS WEIGHT RATE (Ib/hr)
100.000
1.000.000
Figure H-2. Process weight regulations.
-------
10.00
3
S
1.00
10.10
CAST CHICAGO •
PENNSYLVANIA AND ALLEGHENY CO.
0.010
10
100 1000
MILLIONS OF Btu PER HOUR
10.000
100.000
Figure H-3. Fuel burning regulations.
-------
ac
i
10.00
3
<•>
S
1.00
0.10
0.010
INDIANA. 6ARY
COLORADO
CLEVELAND
CHICAGO
ALAMNA CLASS II COUNTIES
ALABAMA CLASS I COUNTIES
10
100 1000
MILLIONS Btu PER HOUR
10.000
100.000
Figure H-4. Fuel burning regulations.
-------
w
CO
2."
IAS MO HOUSTON
IEMM040 CO.
MAYNC CO.
00 NOT HAVE
THIS KIND OF
HEfiUUtlON
o.oioL
MARYLAND ______
NEW YORK •'•""
ILLINOIS --__-
10
100 1.000
MILLIONS OF Btu PER HOUR
10.000
100.000
Figure H-5. Fuel burning regulations.
-------
See Table H-3 for further details.
Sulfur Compound Regulations
The first type of sulfur compound regulation is for fuel
burning. This regulation generally gives allowable SO0 emissions
g f.
in lb/10 Btu as a function of firing rate in millions of Btu per
hour. The allowable emission generally varies with firing rate
and is graphed in Figures H-6, H-7, and H-8.
The next type of S02 regulation is SO- concentration. This
type of regulation gives a maximum allowable concentration of SO-
for a gas stream to be discharged into the atmosphere. It is
generaly expressed in parts per million (ppm) and is a constant.
Therefore it is presented in Table H-4 rather than graphed.
The third type of Sulfur Compound Emission Regulation is the
sulfur content of fuels. This merely gives a maximum allowable
elemental sulfur content of fuels. It sometimes varies with the
type of fuel, but is always constant for a given fuel. It is
presented in Table H-4.
The final type of Sulfur Compound Emission Regulation is for
EjS concentration. It can be expressed in ppm or in grains per
dry standard cubic foot, and is generally aimed at the prevention
of flaring gas streams containing H-S above a certain concentra-
tion. It is constant for a given jurisdiction and is presented
in Table H-4.
Visible Emission Regulations-Opacity
A visible emission is one that can be seen such as smoke.
The opacity of a visible emission is its degree of obscuration of
light and is expressed as a percentage. The two types of visible
emissions, primary and fugitive are each discussed below.
The first typ.e of visible emission regulation is for primary
visible emissions, which come out of a stack. These types of
regulations generally have a maximum allowable percentage of
opacity for the emission. Sometimes a higher percentage of
opacity is allowable for several minutes of an hour. For all
primary visible emissions the allowable opacity is constant and
is presented in Table H-5.
H-9
-------
Table H-3. GRAIN LOADING REGULATIONS
3J
I
Alabama
Chicago
Cleveland
Colorado
East Chicago
Gary
Illinois
Indiana
New York
Ohio
Utah
Kentucky
Maryland
Pennsylvania and
Allegheny County
San Bernardino
County
Texas and Houston
Wayne County
THESE JURISDICTIONS
DO NOT HAVE
GRAIN LOADING
REGULATIONS
0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot:
0.03 grains/dry standard cubic foot.; 0.05 grains/dry standard cubic
foot for processes of 60,000 Ib/hr and more
0.04 grains/dry standard cubic foot when discharge rate :150,000
dry standard cubic feet per minute
A = 6000 E"1 where 150,000 • discharge rate • 300,000
E is discharge rate
0.02 grains/dry standard cubic foot when discharge rate 300,000
dry standard cubic feet per minute
They have a table in their regulations
E = 0.048 q
.62
E is in Ib/hr; q is in ACFM
0.10 lb/1000 Ib exhaust qas for open hearth, basic oxygen, and
electric arc furnaces
0.15 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas for sintering and blast furnaces
0.30 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas for heating and reheating furnaces
West Virginia
0.05 grains/dry standard cubic foot for sintering
-------
100,000
a:
10,000
/
1.000
WEST VIRGINIA
100
10
100 1.000
MILLIONS OF Btu/hr
10.000
100.000
Figure H-6. Allowable SO2 emissions for fuel burning.
-------
10.0
a
i
H
K>
1...
s
g
»•«
M
o
to*
p
u.
PENNSYLVANIA GENERAL
KENTUCKY SOLID FUEL
KENTUCKY LIQUID FUEL
INDIANA
CLEVELAND
ALLEGHENY CO.
a. 010
10
100 1000
MILLIONS OF Btu/HR
10.000
100,000
Figure H-7. Allowable SO2 emissions for fuel burning,
-------
100.0
~ 10.0
CHICAGO
COLORADO
EAST CHICAGO
GARY
NEH YORK
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
TEXAS « HOUSTON
UTAH
MAYNE COUNTY
00 NOT HAVE
THIS KIND OF
REGULATION
re
i
(-•
OJ
\n
tn
1.0
0.10
OHIO. ILLINOIS-RESIDUAL FUEL OIL
ALABAMA CLASS II COUNTIES
ILLINOIS-COAL ALABAMA CLASS I COUNTIES — •
10
100 1.000
MILLIONS OF Btu PER HOUR
10.000
100.000
Figure H-8. Allowable SC»2 emissions for fuel burning.
-------
Table H-4. SULFUR EMISSION REGULATIONS
Jurisdiction
Alabama Class
I Counties
Alabama Class
II Counties
Chicago
Cleveland
Colorado
E. Chicago
Gary
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania aj
Allengheny Co.
San Bemad inor.
1
Texas and Housi
Utah
Wayne County
West Virginia
Allowable
SO-concentration
None
None
500 pptn
6 Ibs per ton of
process weight
500 ppm
850 ppm
None
2000 ppir.
None
200Q ppr,
2000 ppm
None
2000 ppm
td_. 500 ppm
3a_- None
ion Sintering
2500 ppm
None
.
Coal' 280 ppm,
Residual oil
280 ppm. Dis-
tillate 120 ppm
2000 ppm
Allowable
Sulfur in fuel
None
None
1%
None
None
0.9 Ibs of sulfur
per million Btu
heating value
None
Coal 1.8%, Resid-
ual fuel oil 1.0 •
Distillate 0.3'.
None
None
Residual fuel
oil 2%, Distil-
late 0.3%, Pro-
cess gas 0.31
Oil 0.75%
Coal 0.60%
None
None
0.5%
None
Oil 1%
Coal 1.5%
Coal 0.75%
Distillate 0.30%
Residual 0.30%,
Coal 2.0%
Oil 1.5 %
Allowable
H_S concentration
150 ppm
150 ppm
0 . 01 ppw
170 grains/100 DSCF
None
160 ppr.
None
None
None
10 grains/100 DSCF
None
50 grains/100 DSCF
100 grains/100 DSCF
50 grains/100 DSCF
800 ppm
Based on stack para-
meters
None
None
SO grains/100 DSCF
H-14
-------
Table H-5. VISIBLE EMISSION REGULATIONS
Jurisidiction
Primary
Visible Emissions
Regulations - Opacity
Fugitive Emissions
Regulations - Opacity-
Alabama Class
I Counties
Alabama Class
II Counties
Chicago
Cleveland
Colorado
E. Chicago
Gary
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Maryland
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania and
Allegheny Co.
San Bernardino
County
Up to 20* opacity
Up to 60% opacity 3 min
of an hour
Up to 20% opacity
Up to 601 opacity 3 min
of an hour
Up to 30* opacity
Up to 40* opacity
4 min out of 30 min
Up to 20* opacity
Up to 60* opacity
3 min of an hour.
Up to 20* opacity
Up to 40* opacity
Above 40* opacity
5 min of an hour
Up to 40' opacity
Above 40- opacity
5 mm of an hour
Up to 30% opacity
Up to 60% opacity
8 min of an hr
Up to 40% opacity
Above 40% opacity
15 min in 24 hr
Up, to 20% opacity, PRIORITY
If up to 40% opacity,
PRIORITY II & III
Up to 20% opacity
< 20% opacity except
for 3 min of an hr.
Up to 20% opacity
Up to 60% opacity
3 min of an hr
Up to 20% opacity
Up to 60% opacity
3 min of an hr
Up to 20% opacity
Must take reasonable precautions
Must take reasonable precautions
Not visible from beyond prop-
erty line
None
Up to 20* opacity but not vis-
ible beyond property line
Must take reasonable precautions
Must take reasonable precautions
Not visible from beyond pro-
perty line
67% in excess of upwind
concentrations
Must take reasonable pre-
cautions
Must take reasonable pre-
cautions
None
Must take reasonable pre-
cautions
Must take reasonable pre-
cautions
Must not be visible beyond
property line
(continued)
H-15
-------
Table H-5 (continued)
Jurisidiction
Primary
Visible Emissions i
Regulations - Opacity
Fugitive- Emssions
Regulations - Opacity
Texas and Houston
L'tah !
Wayne County
West Virainia
Up to 20* opacity
Above 20* opacity
5 min of an hr
Up to 40% opacity
Up to 30% opacity
Up to 20% opacity
Up to 40* opacity
5 min of an hr
Must take reasonable precautions
j None
| Must take reasonable pre-
i cautions
•
! Must have a control system
H-16
-------
The second type of visible emission regulation is for fugi-
•
tive emissions. Fugitive emissions do not come out of a stack,
but are rather generated in the open air as for example by leaks
or by disrupting a source of particulate matter. An example
might be the pushing of coke from the oven into the receiving
car. This type of regulation in many cases does not have a
maximum allowable opacity but can be summarized by such phrases
as "must not be visible beyond property line" or "reasonable
precautions must be taken for prevention." The regulations are
in general the same for all types of fugitive emissions and are
presented in Table H-5.
A number of Production Process Subcategory Emission Sources
(PPS-ES) which emit particulate matter do not have a defined
emission source or vent. The ore piles in an ore yard is a good
example. Heretofore, these sources have generally been treated
as a complying source even though no pollutant control system is
utilized. In general, none of these sources neatly fits into the
scheme of current air pollution regulations insofar as specific
emission limitations. The facilities are as follows:
PPS-ES No. Description
101 . Ore yard
201 Coal yard
203 Coal preparation
403 Sinter fugitive-transfer
points
503 Coke quenching
504 Coke doors
505 Coke topside
507 Coke handling
702 Cast house fugitive
703 Blast furnace slag pouring
705 Blast furnace slag crushing
and screening
H-17
-------
PPS-ES No. Description
805 Open hearth slag crushing and screening
905 EOF slag crushing and screening
1005 Electric furnace slag crushing and
screening
801 Open hearth hot metal transfer
901 BOF hot metal transfer
803 Open hearth charging, tapping,, and
slag, pouring
903 BOF charging,, tapping, slagging, and
sampling
1002 Electric furnace charging and tapping
emissions
1101 Conventional casting
1201 Continuous casting
1301 Continuous casting
The types of existing SIP regulations which may be applied to
these sources are general prohibitions against pollution, the
requirement that reasonable precautions be taken to prevent emis-
sions, process weight rate based emissions, and visible emissions
standards. The STP regulations of each state were studied and
the applicable regulation applied to each PPS-ES listed above.
Where more than, one regulation applied,, the more stringent was
used. The types of applicable SIP regulations and the resultant
control technology by PPS-ES and jurisdiction are shown in Table
H-6.
Selection of the required control technology is based on
engineering judgment. For exampler the prohibition of any
visible emissions from a blast furnace cast house is judged to
require the application of LAER to that PPS-ES. Where emissions
are limited by ec process weight rate standard, allowable emis-
sions from a medium size PPS-ES were determined and compared with
uncontrolled emissions. This defines the control technology.
H-18
-------
Table H-6.
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY REQUIRED TO MEET SIP FOR
FUGITIVE SOURCES
PPSES
\0\
201
203
403
S03
504/505
507
702
703
705/805/905/1005
801/901
803/901
904
1002
1101
1201/1301
OHIO
Specific
:ion
i a
u y
Ul D>
a 01
a K
'rohibition
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
s
2
«J
a
8
t<
a.
u
I
•
•
•
•
•
•
S
o
o o
iJ2
U
u f-
RACT
RACT
RACT
tlACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
HACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
UNC
PACT
INDIANA
U
H
"M
•H
u c
01 0
an
i a
u -3
in o»
a. ai
a. K
'rohibition
c
&
V
f
s
*J
Proces
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Opacit;
—
>,
o>
o
Contro
Techno
UllC
UNC
KAC7
F1ACT
KACT
HACT
UNC
HAl'T
UNC
UNC
RACT
KACT
UNC
UNC
UNC.'
(IMC
Specific
:ion
i a
W 3
01 tr-
u. t>
o. re
•
'•
ILLINOIS
'rohibition
c
o
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
01
f
s
u
a
in
u
0
u
0.
•
•
•
•
•
u
u
«
o.
o
>,
b>
O
0 O
»J £
c u
O 0)
U H
HACT
RACT
HACT
BACT
HACT
HACT
UHC
RAI:T
HACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
HACT
BACT
UNC
HACT
PENNSYLVANIA
U
•r4
IM
•H
u c
01 0
O. 1
1 V
U 3
ui tr>
Q. U
o. a:
•
'rohibition
B
5
•
•
•
•
o
tJ
S
AJ
3
u
u
o
1*
a,
u
u
1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
>,
0>
o
2 c
Si
c u
O 0
U H
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
HACT
LACR
RACT
LAER
BACT
BACT
RACT
BACT*
RACT
BACT
UNC
BACT
TEXAS
.pec if 1C
.ion
PPSES-J
Regulat
•
•
•
•
'rohibition
«-«
I
Max. Concentration
•
Opacity
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Control
Technology
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
HACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
BACT
• IUNC
• IIIACT
tt
M
VO
• RACT for PPSES 801
(continued)
-------
Table 11-6 (continued)
N*
O
PPSES
101
201
201
401
SO)
50«/S05
507
702
70)
70S/805/90V100S
801/901
801/901
904
1002
1101
UOl/DOt
UTAH
Specific
-ion
• PPSES-S
[ Regular
prohibition
1
•
•
*
_•_
f
9
«
•
•
•
'•
• •>
•
Ii
w
&
ti
Proeesi
Opacitj
•
•
i
i
L J
e
Contro
Technol
INC
JNC
>ACT
•ACT
LEAR
I.EAR
KACT
1ACT
lACT
»ACT
RACT
1ACT
»ACT
RACT
Uc
IBACT
WEST VIRGINIA
u
-4
ih
i n
Ul tr
0. II
a
n
_, .
~~
01
3
3
: Proeesi
*
•
•
•
9
u
.1
ii
n.
i \
0
0 0
M C
tl K
c u
n v
u f-
IINC
UNC
((ACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
UHC
IINC
RACT
RACT
UNC
IINC
JINC
IINC
MARYLAND
u
•H
U C
II O
a -4
i PPSES-.
> Regulat
.. .
c
o
.4
P
ft
a
•H
£
O
u
c
-•
f
•
;
»...
*
: „•
S
S
Procesi
....
I Opacity
.•.
*
•
; •"
L *
\~ J *
_J?
.-
-------
Table H-6 (continued)
i
N)
PPSF.S
101
201
20J
40]
503
504/505
507
702
701
705/805/905/1005
801/901
803/903
904
1002
1101
1201/1301
AI.ARAMA
-Specific
ation
U 3
in D>
a ti
a, B
•
•
•
Prohibition
c
01
u
•
•
•
•
1
*J
2
M
m
0
0
14
0.
•
•
•
•
•
4J
U
I
o
•
•
•
•
>,
tr
O
0 0
u c
c u
O (I
U 1-
RACT
RACT
»ACT
*ACT
1ACT_
1ACT
JACT
'ACT
JNC
JNC
RACT
RACT
INC
DACT
INC
1ACT
COI.ORArX'
>pecif ic
.ion
i «
U 3
in tr
o, v
O, K
'rohibition
c
01
o
01
«J
3.
ll
01
U
o
t4
0.
•
•
•
_
•..
•
•
•
•
•
._.
4J
u
1
•
•
.-•
•
•
•
•
>1
o>
o
o o
11 fZ
c u
O 0)
U H
JNC
JNC
RACT
X
111
V
u
O
u
0.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1>
u
1
a.
o
~
>,
o>
o
0 O
U £
c u
O 01
U H
UNC
UNC
RACT
DACT
RACT
RACT
RACT
UNC
UNC_
nsr
RftClJ
BACX.
UNC
UNC
UNC
UNC
>pecif ic
.ion
i .
tr
o
Control
Techno!
(contir.ucu)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read ImtntctioM ou.the reverse before completing]
i. ae?ORT NO.
EPA-450/1-80-001
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSKWNO.
4. TITUS A.\0 SL-
Development of Air Pollution
Control Cost Functions for the
Integrated Iron and Steel Industry
5. REPORT DATE
July 1979
Date of Issua
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTMORIS)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT MO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Pedco Environmental, Incorporated
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
tl. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-01-4600
PN 3315
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Capital and operating costs are determined for equipment to control air pollution
from all significant emission sources in an integrated steel mill. The
facilities of every integrated steel mill in the Unites States are- tabulated.
Control costs are examined as a function of increasing stringency of control.
State and local air pollution regulations applicable to steel mill processes are
presented for all jurisdictions in which facilities are located. The calculation
of control costs is described as a function of design parameters such as flow,
temperature, and efficiency.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Cost Functions •
Iron and Steel
State Regulations
Air Pollution Control
Costs
Stationary Sources
Iron and Steel Mills
13B
13. 3ISTRIBUTIGN STATEMENT
19. SECURITY- CLASS /ThuRtport)
Unlimited
2V. NO. OF PAGES
. -Jin
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page}
Onelasstfled
22. PRICE
SPA Form 2220-1 19*73)
------- |