EPA-450/3-76-013
March 1974
COST
OF RETROFITTING
COKE OVEN
PARTICULATE CONTROLS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
EPA-450/3-76-013
COST
OF RETROFITTING
COKE OVEN
PARTICIPATE CONTROLS
by
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.
1329 Arlington Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45225
Contract No. 68-02-0299
EPA Project Officer: Justice Manning
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Air Onality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
March 1974
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report
technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are
available free of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and
grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies permit - from the
Air Pollution Technical Information Center, Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee,
from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc. , Cincinnati, Ohio 45225, in fulfillment of
Contract No. 68-02-0299. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc. The opinions, findings,
and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or
product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-76-013
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
I INTRODUCTION
II ESTIMATE BASIS
III DESCRIPTION - CONTROL SYSTEMS
a) Pipeline Charging
b) Halcon - Pushing Control System
c) Great Lakes Steel - Pushing Control System
d) Double Main
IV ESTIMATES AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION
a) Pipeline Charging - Total Installed Cost
b) Pipeline Charging - Operating Costs and Revenues
c) Pipeline Charging - Economic Evaluation
d) Halcon System - Total Installed Cost
e) Halcon System - Operating Costs
f) Halcon System - Economic Evaluation
g) Great Lakes Pushing Control System - Total Installed
Cost
h) Great Lakes Pushing Control System - Operating Costs
i) Great Lakes Pushing Control System - Economic Eval-
uation
j) Double Main - Total Installed Cost
k) Double Main - Operating Costs
1) Double Main - Economic Evaluation
V EFFECTIVENESS OF RETROFITTING COKE OVENS
a) General
b) Pipeline Charging
c) Halcon System
d) Great Lakes Steel System
e) Double Collecting Main
VI COST UPDATING
VII STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS RESULTING IN COKE OVEN
CONTROLS
ill
-------
INTRODUCTION
The intent, of this study is three fold:
1. Estimate the total investment required to retrofit
pollution control devices to existing coke ovens.
2. Estimate the operating costs of these devices and
evaluate the effects of these costs on the return
on the investment.
3. Review the problems related to retrofitting pollution
control equipment and the relative effectiveness of
each control device.
- 1 -
-------
II ESTIMATE BASIS
In order to establish a basis for estimating the
cost of coke oven pollution control equipment it was
necessary to assume the capacity and number of ovens in
the battery considered.
The following was considered to be a typical
battery for purposes of this report.
1. 80 ovens - producing furnace coke.
2. Capacity of each oven is 16 tons blended coal.
3. Capacity of each oven is 12 tons coke.
4, Capacity of each oven is 10.1 tons furnace coke.
5. With larry car charging - 16 hours gross coking
time.
6. With pipeline charging - 11 hours.
Larry Car Pipeline
Charging Charging
Gross Coking Time - Hrs. 16 11
Daily Coal Req. -Tons 1,920 2,770
Annual Coal Req. - Tons
(.95 x 365 days) 665,000 960,000
I. 'Fuels and Combustion Handbook - A0J. Johnson, G.Ho Auth,
McGraw Hill - 1951, p. 144-145.
- 2 -
-------
Larry Car Pipeline
Charging Charging
Daily Coke Prod. - Tons 1,440 2,075
Annual Coke Prod. - Tons 500,000 720,000
Daily Furnace Coke - Tons 1,210 1,740
Annual Furnace Coke - Tons 420,000 605,000
Light Oil Prod. - M Gal./Yr. 2,128.0 3,072.0
Tar Prod. - M Gal./Yr. 5,685.7 8,208.0
Ammonium Sulphate - Tons/Yr. 6,996 10,099,,0
Coke Breeze and Pea Coke -
Tons/Yr. 80,000 115,000
In order to make a realistic economic evaluation
of the capital costs of retrofitting coke ovens with the
"Pipeline Charging System" it was necessary that the total
coke production be divided into furnace coke and coke breeze -
pea coke. The calculation of the annual return on invest-
ment is the total of the gross revenue (revenue from sale
of furnace coke + revenue from sale of pea coke + coke breeze
and other by-products) less the operating costs (operating
cost + interest charges) plus the annual depreciation. With-
out this differentiation the revenue from coke sales would
include the sales of coke breeze and pea coke at the same cost
per ton as furnace coke. Realistically the price of coke breeze
and pea coke should compete with other fuels. For purposes of
- 3 -
-------
this report its cost is $12oOO/ton<
-------
Ill DESCRIPTION - CONTROL SYSTEMS
A Pipeline Charging
Pipeline charging is a system of charging pre-
heated coal to by-product coke ovens licensed by Coaltek
Associates of Morristown, New Jersey. The system consists
of a preheating section and a pipeline system.
The preheating system drys, preheats, .stores and
removes particulate matter from the flue gas vented to the
air.
Wet crushed coal is fed to the preheater where it
is dried by hot flue gas and carried by the flue gas to a
cyclone system to remove particulates„ The flue gas stream
is then recycled to the preheater where its temperature
is increased prior to contacting the wet coal. A small
stream of flue gas is vented to the air continuously.
This vent to the air is water scrubbed and the water stream
filtered and reused. The coal fines recovered in the filter
are returned to the preheater.
The pipeline charge system conveys the coal from
the charge bins to the individual ovens as required. The
preheated coal is conveyed in the pipeline by a system of
- 5 -
-------
jets supplied with superheated steam.
It has been demonstrated that ovens utilizing
this process have reduced coking times and it is claimed
by the licensee ovens producing furnace coke could in-
crease production by as much as 50%.
It has also been demonstrated that lower quality
coals may be satisfactorily utilized to produce furnace
cokec A blend of 75% Illinois (Sesser) and 25% Bishop
coal was successfully tested by Inland Steel.
Pipeline charging preheated coal to coke ovens - Marting
and Auvil - Rome, Italy - United Nations sympostum on
"Developments in European and World Markets for Coking
and Coke."
(3)preneating and Pipeline Charging of High Illinois -
Coal Blends - Underwood and Knoerzer for By-Product Coking
AISI - Regional Technical Meeting Nov. 9, 1972,,
- 6 -
-------
B Halcon Pushing Pollution control System
This system is licensed by the Interlake Steel
Company and is supplied by the Aeronetics Corporation
of Houston, Texaso
This system utilizes an eductor to create a
vacuum under a hood mounted on the coke guide and the
hot car. The motive force for the eductor is hot water.
The water in turn is sprayed on to the coke as it is
pushed into the hot car. The vacuum from the eductor
collects the vapors and particulates from the quenched
coke, condenses the vapors and recirculates the water„
A separate unit fitted with rail trucks con-
tains the necessary pumps, eductor, valves, water heater
and scrubber units0 This unit is attached to the hot
car and is fully controlled by the hot car locomotive
operator. The hot car and coke guide are equipped with
hoods which are connected to the eductor in the pump
car. Sprays are installed under the hoods to quench the
coke. The entire system travels back, and forth with the
hot car locomotive.,
- 7 -
-------
Pushing Control System As Used On The Great Lakes Steel
Company Ovens
The basic principle of this system is to collect
the emissions from the pushing operations into a moveable
hood over the coke quench car and gather it into a stationary
duct system which draws the gas into a Venturi Scrubbing
System, where it is cleaned and passed to the atmosphere.
A stationary main collecting system is constructed
over the center line of the track for the full length of
the battery. This main system is connected in parallel to
two Venturi Water Scrubbers. Two large fans of about
75,000 cfm each draw the gases from the quench car into
the main and through the scrubbers before discharging it
to the air. The water used in the scrubbers is recir-
culated to the quench sump.
A moveable collecting hood, connected to the
coke guide on the battery side of the quench track, and
riding on a rail beam supported by bents on the other
side of the track, is located over the quench car and con-
nected to the stationary main with hydraulically operated
sleeves. The dampers for that position are opened to the main
before pushing,, The coke .guide is also covered with a hood
integral with that over the quench car. Two cooling fans
- 8 -
-------
force air into the area immediately around the coke guide
and up into the main hood which is under a negative draft
from the large fans.
. The collecting main is supported by the same struc-
ture upon which the moveable hood rides.
The hood cotfer plate is stainless steel and fabricated
in easily removeable panels. The collecting duct is made
from Cor-ten Steel.
- 9 -
-------
Double Main
The double main is considered as a possible system
of pollution control of charging emissions. A second main
collecting system is installed on the coke oven battery.
This permits the induction of charging emissions into two
collecting mains instead of one, therefore, in theory
doubling the gas handling capacity and reducing emissions.
In addition to the collecting main, new standpipes must be
installed as well as flushing liquor piping and pumps.
- 10 -
-------
IV ESTIMATES AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION
A Pipeline Charging System
This estimate includes the cost of all equipment
and materials and the installation of a system to feed
2,770 tons/day of coal to the battery. It also includes
the cost of installing the pipeline connection through
the wall of the oven, (80 ovens) the cost of installing
a separate charging main, as well as the engineering
construction coordination and the start-up costs of the
owner. The estimate does not include any allowance for
increasing the by-product plant capacity.
Equipment, Materials Direct Labor $ 8,427,500
Indirect Labor and Overhead 2,865,000
Fee and Profit 2,259,000
Sub Total Preheat and
Pipeline Charging $13,551,50.0
Modify Ovens to Install
Charging Connections 250,000
Fabricate and Install
Charging Main 374,000
Sub Total $14,175,500
Owners Coordination Cost 105,000
Start-Up Cost at 2.5% of
Pipeline Capital $13,551,500 338,785
TOTAL INSTALLED COST $14,619,285
Say $14,620,000
- 11 -
-------
B Operating Costs and Revenues Incremental
The operating costs and revenues for the "Pipeline
Charging System" are based on the following:
1. Incremental Annual Operating Costs:
a) Additional Utilities $0.38/Ton Coal $ 364,800
b) Additional Operators at 72 MHR/Day 262,000
c) Maintenance Costs at 4% of Total
Installed Cost 584,800
Sub; Total $ 1,211,600
d) Interest on T.I.C. at 10% .1,462,000
Sub Total . $ 2,673,600
e) Coal Delivered to Preheater
at $!2.00/Ton 3,540,000
f) Coal Delivered to Preheater
at $17,50/Ton 5,162,500
g) Annual Operating Cost at $12.00 6,213,600
h) Annual Operating Cost at $17.50 7,836,000
2. : Incremental Annual Revenues:
14}
a) Light Oils 944,000 gals, at $0.41 $ 387,040
b) Tar 2,522,300 gals, at $0.20 504,46oC4)
c) Ammonium Sulphate 3,103 tons at
$15.00/Ton 46,551(4)
d) Coke Breeze and Pea Coke 35,000
Tons/Yr. at $12.00/Ton 420,000
Sub Total $ 1,358,051
e) Furnace Coke Sales at $54.00/Ton* ' 9,990,000
f) Furnace Coke Sales at $40.00/Ton 7,400,000
g) Total Revenues at $54.00/Ton 11,348,051
h) Total Revenues at $40.00/Ton 8,758,051
'4'Unit Prices from "Chemical Marketing Reporter" Feb. 18, 1974,
Task Force Report.
- 12 -
-------
Economic Evaluation
When it is assumed that no additional investment is
required to process the additional by-products produced from
the pipeline charging system an evaluation of the return on
investment can be made.
For this evaluation several cases are studied. Two
cases vary the.selling price of the coke from $54.00/ton^5'
to $40.00/ton, and two cases vary the purchase price of the
coal from $l2.00/ton to $17.50/ton when the incremental pro-
duction is 185,000 tons/year (44% increase in production),
and 124,600 tons/year (30% increase in production).
For the calculation of the ROI, the preheating and
pipeline investment is depreciated over 15 years and the op-
portunity cost or interest on the investment is 10%. It is
further assumed that all costs, capital and operating are
chargeable to the incremental production.
Fig. I plots the percent return on investment for two
coal prices against the selling price of furnace coke, as well
as the effect of the incremental furnace coke production. In
the ranges studied the ROI is positive and therefore there
exists a payout for the investment. In fact at $54»00^ ' for
' 'Gasp Task Force Report.
- 13 -
-------
furnace coke and $17.50 for coal the payout, even at the
lower incremental production rate, is good.
It could be argued that the estimated capital costs
are too low. For the basis used here an increase in the
capital costs of 30% would reduce the percent return on in-
vestment by one percentage point.
The percentage increase in capital costs for retro-
fitting existing plants with the pipeline charging system is
in the range of 60-70%. However, this percentage does not re-
present a true picture. An 80 oven battery with an annual coke
capacity of 500,000 tons/year could be expected to cost between
$28,000,000 to $30,000,000. But in fact we are saying that a
55 oven battery plus the pipeline costs could produce the same
amount of coke. A 55 oven battery with pipeline charging would
cost in the range $28,000,000 to $32,000,000= The cost com-
parisons above are on the basis of retrofitting the pipeline
charging. Since'comparable work is less expensive when building
a new oven, the construction cost for a 55 oven battery with
pipeline charging could be somewhat lower,,
The cost of retrofitting ovens with coal preheating and
pipeline charging will vary with the capacity of the preheating
system.
- 14 -
-------
The ultimate size of any preheating system would be
dependent on it's location in relation to the ovens being served
and the distance of the coal feeding lines from the storage
hoppers to the ovens. The cost would also be significantly
lower if the ovens were built with pipeline charging con-
nections already installed in the oven. Therefore any mathe-
matical relationship of capacity to cost would not necessarily
be meaningful.
- 15 -
-------
FIG. I
COKE OVEN - PIPELINE CHARGING
I EFFECT OF COST OF COAL
. AKD SELLING PRICE OF FURNACE COKE
• . .. ON THE
I ... -
_L_ RETURN.. ON... INVE.S TMEN1L. „.' „__.
$l2.0C/Ton Coal
$ 17 . 50/Ton .Coal
?17.50/Ton Coal-
30
i
.—r_.
_r
35
40
•i
45
I
i
50
Selling Price •-' Furnace Coke $/Ton
55
- 16 -
-------
Halcon System - Total Installed Cost
This estimate includes two eductor - scrubber cars,
preassembLed and ready to set on track, two sets of hoods
and related hardware prefabricated to suit the operating and
spare hot car and coke guide. The estimate includes the cost
of installing these hoods and hardware on each hot car and
coke guide as well as a track drainage system. It also in-
cludes the cost of start-up and owners coordination costs.
a) Equipment and Material $1,850,000
b) Field Assembly Costs - Direct Labor 54^000
c) Sub Total $1,904,000
d) Contractors Overhead 18,900
e) Contractors Profit - - 10,800
f) Sub Total $1,933,700
g) Owners Coordination Cost 11,OOP
h) Sub Total $1,944,700
i) Start-Up Costs 4.5% 87,512
j) TOTAL INSTALLED COST $2,032,212
- 17 -
-------
Halcon System - Operating Costs
The operating cost of this system, is based on power
requirement of 80 kw and heat requirement of 12.6 x 106 BTU/hr.
No additional manpower is required.
a) Power Cost $/Year $ 8,400
b) Heat 99,800
c) Maintenance Cost at 6% 121,933
d) Sub Total $230,133
e) Interest on TIC at 10% 203.221
f) ANNUAL OPERATING COST $433,354
- 18 -
-------
Halcon System - Economic Evaluation
The return on investment with 15 year depreciation
is a negative $297,874„
This amounts to $0.,71 per annual ton of furnace coke
or $0«,60 per gross annual ton of coke0
Unless the effectiveness of controlling pushing
emissions with this method is proven, the negative return on
investment does not justify any expenditure of funds0
The cost of the Halcon System is a function of the
number of quench cars required for a given battery„ For example,
the case estimated in this report is near the number of ovens
which would be limiting for one quench car to handle. In this
report a push must be made approximately every 12 minutes„
Therefore, additional coke production would require an additional
Halcon System. But for less production one system is still
required.
- 19 -
-------
:V G Great Lakes Pushing Control System - Total Installed Cost
Installed Costs:
a) Collecting Duct, Stacks, Scrubber
Interconnecting Duct and Hardware $ 785,224
b) Civil - Structure and Concrete 143,190
c) Hood and Miscellaneous Steel 102,670
d) Venturi Scrubbers, Blowers,
Water Piping 809,116
e). Sub Total Installed Cost . $1,804,200
f) Engineering 184,000
g) Fees 30,000
h) Sub Total $2,054,200
i) Start=Up Costs at 9%* 186,000
j) TOTAL INSTALLED COST $2,240,200
* Because of the exposed hydraulic cylinder: linkages and
bearings for sleeves and dampers it is expected that
start-up costs will be higher than normal.
- 20 -
-------
H Operating Costs For Great Lakes Steel Pushing Control System
a) Power $111,900
b) Operating Labor (24 MH/Day) 87,337.
c) Maintenance and Operating Supplies 156,800
d) Annual Interest at 10% TIC 224,000
e) ANNUAL OPERATING COST $580,037
- 21 -
-------
Great Lakes Pushing Control System - Evaluation
The return on investment when the above investment
is depreciated over 15 years is a negative $430,691/Year„
This amounts to $1.025 per annual ton of furnace coke or
$0o86 per annual gross ton of coke„
Unless this method can demonstrate a positive effect
on the reduction of emissions from the coke oven pushing
operation, the negative return on investment does not warrant
the expenditure involved.
The many variables which affect the cost of this type
of system do not lend themselves to meaningful mathematical
relationships between capacities and cost. For example, if
two batteries of 80 ovens each were located end to end the
incremental cost of adding this system to the second battery
would be 75% of the cost of the first battery„ But those
same two batteries in any other position relative to one an-
other would be 100% of the cost of the first battery.
- 22 -
-------
Double Main - Estimate
a) Duct Cost $ 450,000
b) Flushing Liquid Piping, Pumping, etc. 150,000
c) Modify Ovens - New Structure 280,000
d) Tie In To Boosters 30,000
e) Flushing Piping and Pumps 100,000
f) Sub Total $1,010,000
g) Engineering Cost 98,000
h) TOTAL INSTALLED COST $1,108,000
- 23 -
-------
K Double Main - Operating Costs
a) Total Annual Operating Costs
10% of Total Installed Cost . $110,800
- 24 -
-------
Double Main - Economic Evaluation
The return on investment when the installed cost is
depreciated over 15 years is negative $36,933,, Since the
installation of a second main does not assure an effective
charging emission control the expense of this capital is not
justified.
- 25 -
-------
V EFFECTIVENESS OF RETROFITTING COKE OVENS FOR POLLUTION CONTROL
A General
Little information is available concerning the actual
particulate losses resulting from charging and pushing operations
of coke ovens„ Some opinion exists that.the pollutants from
an oven are split about 60% from the charging operation, 30%
from the pushing operation and the remainder from the quenching
operation.
This split however should not be considered as re-
presentative or typical. There is a wide variation from plant
to plant, depending on age of the ovens, quality and quantity
of maintenance, types of coal used and operating practices.
Considerable leakage can occur from doors whose seats
have been damaged by improper handling or maintenance. Leakage
can also occur from warped or improperly luted charging hole
covers, A common source of leakage, particularly in older ovens,
is from cracks from the coke side of the oven into the flues.
This is more common at the end flues near the doors which are
subject to rapid cooling after the pushing operation,, Smoke
leaks into the flues and leaves via the flue stack. This
leakage is difficult to control.,
- 26 -
-------
The temperatures throughout the coke oven battery
are constantly changing as one oven is pushed and filled
with coal. This temperature fluctuation is continuous.
However, if coal blends are changed or not kept uniform or
the moisture in the coal charged varies, these temperature
fluctuations can be more severe. The movement which con-
stantly goes on because of these factors can cause leakage
from many points other than from charging, pushing and
quenching.
Retrofitting operating coke ovens adds considerable
cost to any installation. All work which involves the in-
sertion of opening into the oven must be very carefully
planned and executed so as to minimize the hazards to those
performing the work as well as minimizing any lost production.
Other construction work in the vicinity of any coke oven bat-
tery is constantly exposed to the movement of the coal and
coke handling equipment and results in work interruptions.
- 27 -
-------
B Pipeline Charging
In principle it appears that the pipeline charging
system minimizes many of the possibilities for leakages which
can occur during the charging cycle. The charging hole covers
do not have to be removed normally and therefore can be more
permanently luted. The charging hole covers are also not
subject to damage by constant handling* The pipeline system
would also tend to eliminate the temperature fluctuations due
to varying moisture content of the coalo This system also
eliminates the constant vibration caused by larry car travel
over the battery.
It appears that the pipeline charging system should
be an effective means of reducing pollution from the charging
operation, when operated properly.
However, it is not free of all problems„ For example,
the standpipe performance can still be restricted by carbon
plugged steam jets, the charging connection to the oven can
also be partially blocked. Each of these could result in
malfunction and possibly smoky charges.
Pipeline charging also does not eliminate the problems
discussed under V-A.
As of the end of 1973 there were 192 ovens either
equipped or in the process of being retrofitted with coal pre-
- 28 -
-------
heating and pipeline charging systems. Twenty-four of these
ovens are on the Allied Chemical coke oven battery at Ironton,
Ohio. These hav^e been in operation since October of 1970.
Seventy ovens were scheduled to be in operation with this
system at the Allied Chemical Co. ovens in Detroit, Michigan
late 1973. Seventy-eight ovens at Tarrant (Birmingham) are
to be retrofitted by early 1974 and an additional 20 in
Carling, France by the second quarter 1974.
An objective evaluation of the emission control ef-
fectiveness of retrofitted pipeline charging systems should
be made when the ovens listed above are debugged and in oper-
ation. Until then the economic evaluations made in Section
IV-C can only be considered as a guide.
- 29 -
-------
Halcon Pollution Control System
In principle the Halcon System could be an effective
method of controlling emissions from the pushing operation.
It collects the gas vapors from the operation as well as the
emissions from the quenching operation. When coke is quenched
in a conventional system emission entrainment results in its
\
spread around the vicinity of the quench tower and is finally
washed off--by- rain into the water shed. The Halcon System
would partially control this by keeping the emissions in the
circulating water system. Excess water from the quench car is
drained to the quench sump and recirculated to the scrubber
car. It also has the advantage of requiring the least inter-
ference with operation during the construction period„
However, in practice the system must demonstrate that
the suction into the scrubber system is adequate to handle
all the gases and vapors from the push and quench operation
independently of wind direction and velocity. It also must
demonstrate that it can withstand the severe erosion and cor-
rosion from circulating the quench water,, If these can be
demonstrated it will be a relatively simple and effective con-
trol device. To date these requirements have not been demon-
strated.
- 30 -
-------
Great Lakes Steel Pusher Control Device
In principle this system should also be an effective
pusher emission control device. However, it seems to be
relatively complex since there are many hydraulic cylinders
and damper linkages in the immediate vicinity of the ovens.
The general atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of the ovens
can be relatively corrosive and would subject the linkage pins
and bearings to adverse conditions and make maintenance very
high.
As noted in the Halcon System, this system must also
demonstrate that the negative draft can contain emissions from
pushing independant of wind direction and force. To date this
system has not adequately demonstrated that it can effectively
reduce emissions resulting from the coke oven pushing operation.
- 31 -
-------
V E Double Collecting Mains
In order to increase the capability of the gas removing
facilities i.e. the risers and main, some operators are con-
sidering installation of a second gas main with its related
auxiliaries. This solution would most likely be considered
for the longer ovens. However, if space allows, it could be
considered for shorter ovens. In effect the capacity to remove
gas and smoke during the charging operation doubles when this
approach is used. The double gas main also minimizes the ef-
fects of momentary closing the gas passage in the oven top,
because of improper charging procedures. In the single uptake
oven a blockage in the middle of the oven top would pressurize
the passage opposite the uptake. With the double main, both
sides would still have free passage to an uptake.
The installation of a second main, requires that a
penetration be made through the roof of each oven. This re-
quires adequate sheilding of the heat from the immediate work
area. It also requires that once the roof has been penetrated
that the work continue until it can be closed properly to allow
continued operation.
Like any repair or modification to an operating coke
oven the work must be very carefully planned to minimize hazards
- 32 -
-------
to the men performing the work, the effects on production
and the mechanical effects on the oven itself.
The double main increases the capacity of the system
to handle the oven gases by lowering the pressure in the oven,
both during charging operations and normal coking. It there-
fore tends to minimize emissions during charging and allows less
back pressure build up in the oven during the coking period and
therefore reduce leakages to the air. However, the principle
advantage of this system is that it in effect provides an ad-
ditional outlet for the emissions generated during charging.
If one gooseneck is carbonized the opposite member would per-
form the function. Where only one gooseneck is provided this
condition would result in a greater emission of particulates„
- 33 -
-------
VI COST UPDATING
Updating the costs for the type estimate made for
installed costs in this report can best be done by utilizing
the Engineering News Record Cost Indexes for Skilled Labor and
Materials as follows using December 27, 1973 as the base index.
Divide the Engineering Index for Skilled Labor for the period
desired by the Engineering Skilled Labor Index for December 27,
1973, add to this Engineering Index for Materials for the per-
iod desired divided by the Materials Index for December 27,
1973. Multiply this sum by one half the total installed cost
of the item in question.
For Example: Pipeline Charging TIC = $14,620,000
updated to January 31, 1974.
14,620,000 ( 1781.8 770.9 \ = $i4/517j660
2 V 1774.2 785.1
- 34 -
-------
VII
STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS RESULTING IN COKE OVEN CONTROL
Alabama
Charging: Opacity greater than 40% or No.
2 Ringelman for 5 minuter per coking cycle.
Pushing: Opacity greater than 40% or No.
2 Ringelman for more than 1 minute.
Quenching: Quenching towers require baf-
fles.
Miscellaneous: (a) Each coke oven is con-
sidered as an individual oven, (b) Each
oven operator must maintain oven equipment
in good condition and exercise good oper-
ting practice, and (c) maintains inventory of
coke oven doors 1 for 12 coke ovens operated.
Illinois
No visible emission from charging port
except 15 seconds during any one charging
operation. During that period opacity no
greater than 30%.
Quench Tower: No greater than 30% opacity.
After December 31, 1974 all coke facilities
to be equipped with enclosed pushing and
quenching systems.
Work rules must be approved by A.P.C. Agency,
Emission from doors limited to 10 minutes
after start of coking cycle. During that
period opacity no greater than 30%.
Michigan
Opacity no greater than No. 2 Ringelman for
not more than 3 minutes in any 30 minute
period. No greater than No. 3 Ringelman for
not more than 3 minutes in any 60 period but
not more than 3 occassions during any 24 hour
period.
- 35 -
-------
Ohio - Opacity 20% or No. 1 Ringelman except 60%
or No. 3 Ringelman for not more than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period.
Pennsylvania - Opacity no greater than No. 2 Ringelman
(Allegheny County) not to exceed 8 minutes in any 60 minute
period.
Texas - Opacity of 30% averaged over 5 minute
period if built prior to January 31, 1972.
Virginia - Opacity no greater than No. 1 on Ringelman
except during charging and Ringelman No. 2
for periods- no more -than 2 minutes per
charge and 1 minute, per push.
- 36 -
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-76-013
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION>NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Cost of Retrofitting Coke Oven Particulate Controls
5. REPORT DATE
March 6. 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.
JN-687
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Vulcan-Cincinnati, Inc.
1329 Arlington Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45225
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-0299
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, OAQPS, SASD, CAB
N. C. Mutual Bldg.
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Support for the Preferred Standards Path Analysis for Polycyclic Organic Matter.
16. ABSTRACT •
This report provides estimates of the total investment required to retrofit
pollution control devices on existing coke ovens based on the state-of-the-art
in 1973. Projected operating costs of these devices are estimated along with
an evaluation of their effects on the return on investment. In addition some
of the problems related to retrofitting pollution control equipment are reviewed
in relation to the expected relative effectiveness of the control device.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS c. COSATI Field/Group
Coke ovens
Particulate controls
Costs
Pipeline Charging
Pushing Controls
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Kepiirt/
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
36
20. SECURITY CLASS (This pan
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |